FigmentJedi wrote:
Because the kids and their vidya are just a fad and games are not a viable medium that's been well established for almost 40 years now.
No it's not that. It's that Disney always did movies about things and worlds that were real, not virtual.
jennytablina wrote:
Disney Duster wrote:
It doesn't have to be storybooks or kingdoms. It could just be books and lands/worlds.
y'know Disney never just did fairy tales. There's Babes in Toyland, Cookie Canival, Flowers and Trees, The Abandoned Toys and many MANY other shorts that had inanimate objects come to life. Mickey Thru the Looking Mirror experiments with this idea too. Most of the reason they never ran with inanimate characters is because there wasn't the right story for them to animate at the time. Fantasia also had a lot of inanimate objects become animated, the mushrooms, flowers - even the soundtrack!
That said video game characters are not inanimate objects - the games console might be. But any video game character moves to a certain degree, and have lives of their own, like comic book heroes and the like have more to them than the comic they appear in. The media may be different, but these characters "live" regardless to those that follow their adventures. Much like Mickey and his friends live beyond each short/film/attraction they appear in.
The Lion King wasn't based on a fairy tale (arguably was cribbed or a respectful but still uncredited adaptation of Osamu Tezuka's "Jungle Emperor Leo) but was still a cracking film in it's own right and one of Disney's finest. Bolt was a pretty good film too, and wasn't based on any previous media far as I know. Yes venturing out of Fairy Tales is a little risky for Disney. But sometimes you gotta take them, Walt was ALWAYS about taking risks and moving onto the next big thing. We've had 2 "Fairy Tale" films in the last so many years, it's time for something a bit different
You completely missed how I was saying that unlike past inanimate characters, the problem was Disney obviously gave those objects real lives. But with video games, they already look like they are alive because they have virtual fake life. What I mean is how will Disney tell us that these are characters that have real, not virtual, but real life and emotions, like a real spirit in them?
Also, I said books and lands, which does not mean going into past fairy tales, or fairy tales at all! It just means WORLDS from books. And it doesn't even have to be from books! Just something that is not fake virtual life. An original story that's not a fairy tale at all. Just not fake virtual life.
DisneyAnimation88 wrote:
Disney Duster wrote:
It wouldn't have to be video games. It would seem more Disney...
You've explained yourself more than enough on the forum so I'm not going to challenge you on this. What I will say is I hope that your pre-determined idea of what is "Disney" doesn't make you make a judgement of the film before you've seen it. You might hate it, which is perfectly fine, but it might also surprise you.
I also explained that I would deal with it. I was just hoping people would get what I mean about what Disney has always been about before. About things that are not fake and virtual.
By the way, were you born in '88? I was too. Best year to be born ever!
