A rebuttal to Duster. Video games have just as much raw emotion as movies and you can't tell me Ezio from Assassin's Creed is a inorganic character. He lost his family at a young age and had to leave his whole life behind for revenge only to learn that there is a greater cause. And after that he begins to question his decisions. You can't say that isn't relateable or that we can't feel his emotion or feel for his lose just because he is a video game character. That's the great thing about art, it isn't real, but it has a power to move us.
But whatever, let's just hope this movie is good and can move us.
You didn't understand what I was saying at all. I was saying instead of a movie or video game made about characters that are supposed to be real, Disney is making a movie about characters that are virtual. And I don't think Walt would want that.
Disney Duster wrote:
I said people thought of him that way even when he had only made two fairy tales at the time. I was using that to illustrate how Walt's films are of a similar kind of ilk.
How do you know that's what people thought of Walt Disney in the 1950's? If you were around in the 1950's and went to watch Treasure Island would you think of Walt Disney as simply a "fairy tale teller"? What about if you went to watch 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea? Lady and the Tramp? Davy Crockett? Old Yeller? If you went to watch Alice in Wonderland and Peter Pan, two films based on famous and well known works of British literature, would you think that Walt Disney was simply a "fairy tale teller"? I don't disagree that the animated fairy tales are amongst Disney's most popular films but I fail to see how anyone would think of Walt Disney as simply a "fairy tale teller" when the filmography of the studio in the 1950's was so diverse and much more heavily influenced by famous literature that it was by classic fairy tales.
I read that he was known as a fairy tale teller back then in at least two books about Disney. But I personally am not saying he was a fairy tale teller, see, that's why I said I don't think everyone understands me. What I am saying is his films are of a kind, and essence, and people back then called that kind the fairy tale kind. I agree with you that it is really classic stories/myths/legends/literature (which includes fairy tales) that Walt was all about, mistakenly all referred to as fairy tales by people back then. Old Yeller's the odd one in the bunch you listed, but it's still based on a book and that living, non-virtual dog is still anthropomorphized as being a human companion like Walt did with so many animals.
Disney Duster wrote:
to tell the same kind of things he wants his company to be about
"Opening up new doors and doing NEW things". Did you miss that or just choose to completely ignore it? How on earth is "DOING NEW THINGS" anything like "the same kind of things"? Seriously, I'm stumped here
And what does new "things" mean? You can't say for certain, can you? What I meant by "things" was subjects and themes and values. What if by "things" Walt meant new places or new art techniques but all still real, fantasy over sci-fi, and good over evil?
In Toy Story, was it explained how the toys came to life? No, it wasn't, the filmmakers trusted in the audience to have enough imagination to not worry about the logistics and instead invest in the story and characters. If you have an imagination, I see no reason why someone couldn't watch Wreck-It Ralph and believe that these characters exist in an imaginary world that is completely separate and distinct from our own.
Yes because Toys don't act as real as that. There's no possible mistaking everything they do as being their batteries or wind-up mechanisms. It was clear they were magically coming to life.
And I already said I will choose to believe the characters in Wreck It Ralph are real. Doesn't mean I don't think they need to show us that or that Walt would approve of such characters can question if they're really alive or not.
Had he lived ten, maybe twenty years longer and had seen the growing popularity of video games, how do you know he wouldn't have made a film that is similar to Wreck-It Ralph? You don't, none of us do, so it is completely and utterly pointless trying to predict what Walt Disney would have thought or done; personally, given that we know how creative and forward-thinking he was, I think there's a good chance that he would have embraced stories that were original and different from what he had made before. I don't know that for a fact but given what I've read about Walt and what others who knew him personally have said, I do believe that.
Then why didn't he make his Disney classics about the technology that was already in his life? Why did he keep making it about talking animals, magic, and said in the future if he ever went back to animation he'd want to do fairy tales? If he wanted his animated films to really be on all different stuff, why were all of his animated features about magic or talking animals?
And yes, even though we debate like this I like you too.