DVDizzy.com

To be honest I have played my fair share of video games but most of them happen to be Pokemon video games.I know that they will not show pokemon because it has no arcade game orgins.Well,probably no arcade game orgins in America but in Japan I bet they do.In fact I have a feeling that this will be popular in Japan because of the fact that Japanese pop culture also have a love for arcades.I know it is probably is not as big as it was in the 90's but I still think that in Japan the arcade games are still more popular than they are here in America.

Neither do Bowser or the characters of Sonic and Megaman. I'm guessing the whole "Video Game worlds are connected through powercords" opens up a lot of opportunities for character cameos beyond just the arcade.

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.


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.



"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 .[/quote]
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?


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.


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.

_________________

Cinderella (2015) is a really great, worthwhile movie!

"Things" isn't the key word here, "New" is. If he meant it in the way you interpreted it, why wouldn't he have just said: "I'd like us to continue doing the things that have been successful for us, but find new ways and techniques to do so"? "Things" could mean anything; animated films, live-action films, theme parks, future cities but "New" only has one meaning. Given what we know about Wreck-It Ralph, the film will have the fantasy and the fight of good over evil that you spoke of and as every animated Disney film shares the same (on in the least very similar) themes and values, I don't think that that is an issue either.



I don't agree; when did magic come into Toy Story? There was absolutely no reason given for the toys being able to come to life, we were just supposed to believe that they did, not question it but instead concentrate on the story and the characters. There was absolutely no magic present in Toy Story, all that was required was the imagination of the audience.



This is a perfect example of why I think so many people on the forum find your arguments flawed. The first part of that sentence, where it's your opinion, is perfectly valid. But then you link yourself to Walt Disney again as if you share some kind of divine link to him or that you're the only person on the forum who understands Walt's thoughts or feelings, despite you having never met or spoken to him. The simple fact is that you have absolutely no idea what Walt Disney would have thought about a film that's in production forty-six years after his death, no one can possibly predict such a thing so saying that is completely pointless and just gives the impression that you're blinded by nostalgia or deluded in believing that you have some sort of mental link to the man.



I agree that he did make films that featured those things. My point was that while those are things he DID, none of us know what HE MIGHT HAVE DONE if he had lived longer. In this case we're talking specifically about video games; how many video games were around in the 1960's? Had he lived until the 1980's, might he have seen the growing popularity of video games and been interested in that format? No one can say for sure that he would have, but we don't know; I would say it's definitely possible given his interest in developing technology and his desire to want to know how exactly these new developments worked.

_________________
We're not going to Guam, are we?

I spoke to him last week and he said he was fine with it.







[/endlessdebate]

Noway you talk to Walt too? Walt and I went golfing last week and he told me the same thing.

_________________
http://theconnoisseurreviews.tumblr.com/

Oh yeah he mentioned you. He told me he kicked your ass. Though I suspect it was the other way around, Walt's a lousy golfer.

I was really ticked how he'd never invited me to play golf until I remembered that I hate playing golf.

_________________

Is that why I keep finding golf balls with the initials W.E.D. written on them in my back yard? I don't even live near a gold course!

I talk to Walt too! We had a tea party once, and he told me that he loved Chicken Little and sees it as an animated classic.

_________________

Walt Disney did make a short that featured their own version of "Chicken Little".Lets just say the ending is very unpleasant.

<object><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-gPg-YqiNko?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-gPg-YqiNko?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

I can say that this one was better than that unforgivable excuse for an animated movie.

I didn't meet Walt. I talked to him telepathically. I have psychic powers.

_________________
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif

You finally got that Ouija app for your phone?

_________________

WTF guys, Walt never returns my effing calls!

_________________
Visit Animation Activist to discover excellent foreign, older, cult, underrated, and obscure animated films you may never have heard of before! There is life beyond Disney!

Yeah, he isn't very good. However when it rains we play Wii Golf and he does kick my ass at that.

_________________
http://theconnoisseurreviews.tumblr.com/

I'm getting the strangest of feelings that some of you may not be serious about having spoken to Walt.

What reason have you to doubt them?

But you actually do not know what new means either. How new? So new it's not family friendly and it shows that evil conquers good? Because it's interpretable, you need to look at what he did rather than just said. What new things did he do? He set 101 Dalmatians in London, with a new art style. He had new technology that was supposed to simulate things that we believed were real. He made attractions about how technology can help living beings and give them new fantastic places and adventures. Those kinds of things are new, yet also fit with how he made fantastic things all about living beings in his past works.


I was using the word magic very loosely. I mean they came to life in an impossible way that showed they were somehow really alive, as opposed to being mechanical toys that just looked alive. Plus, Pixar isn't Disney of course, but since Disney in the past has made things like hats and houses come to life in a way that is obviously not just mechanical or virtual fake life, it applies.


Yes, it seems that is people exaggerated view of me whenever I say I think Walt wouldn't want something. But you actually do have to think about what Walt would wnat or at least what fits/is right for Disney. Are you saying that people working at Disney wouldn't think "Walt wouldn't want that!" if someone suggested the next animated film be an X-rated film where a sex-having serial killer was the hero of the story and said "Never believe in anything. Childhood is stupid. Nothing is possible unless it's scientifically proven. There is no magic. And good always loses." and the film ends when he kills a good guy who is his enemy? That is an extreme and exaggerated issue to show my point.

For anyone to work at Disney and know how to make a film that will fit them, they have to watch past Disney films and look at other works made by Walt Disney. And that's what I'm doing. I've looked at past Disney works and noticed that Wreck It Ralph could possibly be breaking the things that were intergral to all Walt's past works. I even think the likes of Robin Hood messed with it because I don't remember Walt ever making a classic that used completely different creatures than the original source had as the main characters, but at least that's animals who are really alive and magically can talk as fits at least one subject we know Walt approves of.


But liking technology is not the same as making a film where the technology is actual characters and you say the technology is alive and we question if it means the technology came to real life with real emotions or he's saying virtual life is the same as real life.

_________________

Cinderella (2015) is a really great, worthwhile movie!

This will be my last contribution to this particular debate because I think if it continues much longer I will have to give myself a lobotomy.



This is one reason why I feel I need said lobotomy. Please, any other member of this forum, tell me if I'm misunderstanding what the word "new" means here:

"Opening up new doors and doing new things"

By "new" does he mean "the same"? Is my interpretation of the word "new" completely wrong? Am I missing the part in that quote where Walt Disney says "we must continue doing the same things and never do anything new ever again"? Having studied English language and literature in university, have I spent all these years misinterpreting what the word "new" means? Is it any wonder I feel like I'm losing my mind?



How many times have I said that I am not disputing the things that Walt Disney DID, but rather simply making the point that we don't know what HE MIGHT HAVE DONE had he lived longer?



I'm sorry but I think that this is just complete and utter nonsense. If you can believe that hats and house can come to life but not video game characters (IN THEIR OWN SEPARATE, DISTINCT UNIVERSE) they you are either completely and stubbornly close-minded or simply just lack imagination. And don't reply with "it counts because Walt did it" or "it's because they use magic" because that is just going to make it sound even more ridiculous.



WHAT RULES???? On second thoughts, please don't answer that.

I will say this; while I like you Disney Duster I can't help but get the feeling that you genuinely believe that you're the only person on this forum who knows anything about Disney films and that you come across as if you're trying to educate the rest of us. When you speak as if you are the divine emmisary of Walt Disney and that you are somehow know what he would think and feel if he were alive today, it does sometime come across as a combination of arrogance and delusion. The simple fact is that you have no idea whatsoever what the man would think and feel just like the rest of us don't so I really don't understand why you keep saying things like that when it just detracts from the validity of your arguments. Like this for example:



Let's be honest Duster, every film WDAS have had in production recently you've had an issue with; with Mort it was the idea of Death featuring as a character like in the source novel, with the proposed Mickey Mouse film it was the idea of Mickey being in a full-length film when he wasn't in one during Walt's lifetime, with Tangled it's the changes made to the original storyline so I get the impression that you have some sort of issue with the way the studio is today. But if you keep looking for problems in these films and criticising them months before they're even released, how can you go into a cinema and enjoy them when you have a pre-conceived idea of what they are and you've already made up your mind that they're "un-Disney" or "not what Walt would have wanted"?





With that being said, I'm very much looking forward to this film and am excited to see more artwork and trailers in the lead-up to it's release. Given the voice cast and what we know the storyline already, I think that it should be a funny film and, in my opinion, it will be nice to see WDAS try their hand at a type of film that they haven't tackled before. I've liked everything I've head about it so far, particularly the concept art of the different worlds in the games that feature in the film, so roll on November when hopefully this film will continue to build on Tangled's success.

_________________
We're not going to Guam, are we?

You absolutely ignored what I said about how Walt did new things but that were also still like the old things, too. And how I pointed out anyone would feel certain things Walt wouldn't approve of, it doesn't mean I think I know him personally or are trying to educate you. Am I trying to point things out in genuine fear that Walt's sentiments for what his company is about could be changed or destroyed? Yes. If you want to call that educating in some negative way because no matter how hard I try everyone views my arguments like I'm saying them in some mean way, then I want a lobotomy too.

_________________

Cinderella (2015) is a really great, worthwhile movie!