DVDizzy.com

Home | Reviews | Schedule | Cover Art | Search The Site
DVDizzy.com Top Stories:

It is currently Tue Jun 02, 2020 8:43 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 873 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 44  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Aug 11, 2013 6:22 am 
Offline
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:55 pm
Posts: 1432
Location: Los Angeles
Sotiris wrote:


Remember how I said months ago that Disney wasn't confident in Frozen? Disney must be VERY confident in Zootopia, showing images 3yrs out before release! They must really be looking forward to this film.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 11, 2013 6:39 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 4:44 pm
Posts: 2706
Location: Sarajevo, B&H Gender: Male
PatrickvD wrote:
I cannot believe that people don't see the difference between anthropomorphic animals and anthropomorphic vehicles or objects.

The cars are inhabiting a world that they cannot have built. Please explain to me who built their houses and infrastructure, their entire technology? I'm sorry, but this IS different and you conveniently ignore my explanation. The Cars do not have arms or legs, yet there are all kinds of supplies and conveniences that are left unexplained. Nothing about their esthetic explains how these objects provided to them came into being. It does not make any sense. Their universe explicitly makes it clear that it is only inhabited by vehicles, yet the esthetic references human architecture and history. We are literally seeing human built houses in the backgrounds. The Cars cannot have built it.

A humanized fox can do anything it damn well pleases because it's basically a human. It has arms, hands, legs and feet. Their anthropomorphic world is easier to accept because it is a reflection of our world.

The Cars universe does not make sense. And I've never heard a successful argument explaining how it does make sense, because it doesn't. And it's quite easy to see why.

What I can't believe is that I’m arguing in favor of two (now three) movies I don't even like. :headshake:

I ignore your explanation because you have yet to make a convincing argument how a fictional world is different from another fictional world. To be frank, all this sounds very much like a "it doesn't make sense to me, so it shouldn't make sense to anyone else" thing, and you're kind of putting the ball in my court by stating I'm the one who doesn't understand. What's there to understand? If you give the benefit of the doubt to a world populated by humanoid animals for which we have no idea how it came into being, then why can't you do the same for living cars?

You are talking as if absence of humans somehow invalidates the premise of of the movie itself. Humans or no humans, it has no bearing on the story whatsoever. For the purpose of the story or even as just a gimmick, these anthropomorphic cars exist. It doesn't have to be explained why. They might have had little baby cars being born through exhaust pipes and in the context of the film it would still work. I already offered three possible solutions for the existence of these two worlds, all three of which don't even have any significance to their plots -- they're there just so it can be seen that a plausible explanation for the existence of these two different universes can be made. They're still fictional worlds with their own sets of rules, it doesn't matter if they make sense or not in the context of our reality.

Even so, let's examine this:
Quote:
The Cars do not have arms or legs, yet there are all kinds of supplies and conveniences that are left unexplained. Nothing about their esthetic explains how these objects provided to them came into being. It does not make any sense. Their universe explicitly makes it clear that it is only inhabited by vehicles, yet the esthetic references human architecture and history. We are literally seeing human built houses in the backgrounds. The Cars cannot have built it.

What supplies and conveniences? Their world may seem like ours on the surface, but it's very much suited to them. Cars live in houses which are basically two-story garages with windows. They have buttons installed on walls and floors for easier access to their tires. Their bathrooms are essentially car wash facilities. I didn't see them try to sit in chairs or grow fruits and vegetables because they do not need them. Their world is full of sentient cars, trains, planes and boats; what makes you think there aren't any sentient supercomputers responsible for everything else? And all of these are pretty much just fun, imaginative gimmicks meant to create a sense of recognition and connection with the characters in human audiences, sort of like ‘Oh, tractors are their equivalent of cows, because of farms and all’. Like I said, there is a lot of things wrong with these movies, they're dull and feature unlikeable protagonists, but no one can or should deny them their cleverness and inventiveness.

Tell me, do you have the same issue with a bunch of pixels/binary codes looking like humans and living in houses built for humans in Wreck-It Ralph? Mind you, there are parts of the WIR infrastructure that couldn't have possibly been designed by humans themselves. Actual video game worlds, yes. The grid, the train station and trains, absolutely not. So why do they still look like they were built by humans for humans, when there's quite a lot of video game characters who are not even humanoid in appearance? Binary codes are even lower on the scale of inanimate objects than vehicles; in fact, they're so intangible they should not even count as having a presence.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 11, 2013 6:43 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 1:34 pm
Posts: 4813
Location: The Netherlands
You again ignore the majority of my arguments so I'm ending it here. I don't like either Cars movies either so I don't care nearly enough.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 11, 2013 6:45 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 4:44 pm
Posts: 2706
Location: Sarajevo, B&H Gender: Male
:wave:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2013 4:53 pm 
Offline
Collector's Edition
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 11:09 pm
Posts: 794


Animals living in modern day? Is this the long rumored sequel to Chicken Little? :lol:

I have faith in them, though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2013 11:49 pm 
Offline
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:55 pm
Posts: 1432
Location: Los Angeles
Warm Regards wrote:


Animals living in modern day? Is this the long rumored sequel to Chicken Little? :lol:

I have faith in them, though.


It would be cool if they had "Ace" from Chicken Little in Zootopia! The space hero voiced by Adam West. Maybe as an easter egg. I don'tt think anyone but hard-core Disney fans would even notice though.

Still it's funny how they don't even mention CL. They mention Robin Hood & Mr. Toad though with fond memories. Disney must really regret even the existence of CL.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 4:42 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 1:34 pm
Posts: 4813
Location: The Netherlands
Mooky wrote:
:wave:


:wave:

(sorry, late response)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 4:08 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 4:44 pm
Posts: 2706
Location: Sarajevo, B&H Gender: Male
No hard feelings? :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:03 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 1:34 pm
Posts: 4813
Location: The Netherlands
Mooky wrote:
No hard feelings? :)


Image

Nope. It sounds like a horribly lame excuse but I don't have time for long, albeit interesting debates at the moment (moving, renovating, tired, blergh). But I will definitely pick this back up when Planes 2 hits theaters. (can't wait).

:up:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 1:35 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:06 am
Posts: 15198
So, this film is about an unlikely duo who go out on an adventure together and end up falling in love. Hmm. Where have I heard that before?

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 1:36 am 
Offline
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:07 pm
Posts: 1045
Sotiris wrote:
So, this film is about an unlikely duo who go out on an adventure together and end up falling in love. Hmm. Where have I heard that before?


It could be a platonic relationship. :wave:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 2:27 am 
Offline
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:55 pm
Posts: 1432
Location: Los Angeles
Sotiris wrote:
So, this film is about an unlikely duo who go out on an adventure together and end up falling in love. Hmm. Where have I heard that before?


Well, there's always Dreamworks Mumbai Musical.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 5:49 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 4:44 pm
Posts: 2706
Location: Sarajevo, B&H Gender: Male
PatrickvD wrote:
Nope. It sounds like a horribly lame excuse but I don't have time for long, albeit interesting debates at the moment (moving, renovating, tired, blergh). But I will definitely pick this back up when Planes 2 hits theaters. (can't wait).

:up:

No problem. I, on the other hand, have way too much time to spare with off-season at work and my vacation coming up, so -- as you may have already seen -- I like go at great lengths about any subject matter I find interesting 8).

Looking forward to continuing this debate once you're in the mood for it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 17, 2013 1:51 pm 
Offline
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:42 pm
Posts: 1316
The plot sounds like a mix between Tangled and Bolt.

I do welcome this film though. At least it's a break from another princess film.

Otoh, how come people forget Mickey and Friends when it comes to anthro animals? They are basically the staple of it. :D

_________________
Awaiting for the Beatles of DVDIzzy: Disneyjedi , disneyphilip, TsWade2, and 2DDisney4Ever

And Goliath and Duster were Sonny and Cher.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 12:16 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:19 am
Posts: 8177
Location: Appleton, WI
Because they really do somewhat look like humans at times.


Ver, very, very, very, very vaguely look like humans more than lots of anthropomorphic animal movies.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 7:10 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:46 am
Posts: 4277
Location: Maryland, USA
ZOOTOPIA HAS BEEN BUMPED UP TO NEXT YEAR

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 7:21 pm 
Offline
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:07 pm
Posts: 1045
disneyprincess11 wrote:
ZOOTOPIA HAS BEEN BUMPED UP TO NEXT YEAR

Image


And there was much rejoicing from the fandom. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 7:40 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:06 am
Posts: 15198
disneyprincess11 wrote:
ZOOTOPIA HAS BEEN BUMPED UP TO NEXT YEAR.

That must be an error. This is not the first time the ARL's Facebook page posted inaccurate or outdated information. With Pixar releasing two films in 2015, in June and November, there's simply no available release window that would make financial sense to the studio.

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 8:28 pm 
Offline
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:55 pm
Posts: 1432
Location: Los Angeles
Sotiris wrote:
disneyprincess11 wrote:
ZOOTOPIA HAS BEEN BUMPED UP TO NEXT YEAR.

That must be an error. This is not the first time the ARL's Facebook page posted inaccurate or outdated information. With Pixar releasing two films in 2015, in June and November, there's simply no available release window that would make financial sense to the studio.


And isn't The Hat building getting remodeled for heating/cooling purposes next year? The animators will be in a new building til remodeling is done. At least that's what Steve Hulett said a few months ago.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 10:22 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:46 am
Posts: 4277
Location: Maryland, USA
Sotiris wrote:
That must be an error. This is not the first time the ARL's Facebook page posted inaccurate or outdated information. With Pixar releasing two films in 2015, in June and November, there's simply no available release window that would make financial sense to the studio.


While I'm honestly suspicious about the reliability because this was announced, last year (right? This wouldn't be that good on time), keep in mind that Wreck-It Ralph was moved up a year earlier suddenly, due to it being really good on time. Plus, this officially hasn't been announced yet, so this could be right or wrong. There's supposed to be a press release this summer, right? So, we will find out this summer. I wonder if they will finally announce Giants as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 873 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 44  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DisneyVillains and 35 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group