DVDizzy.com

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

It is currently Wed Nov 13, 2019 8:08 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2019 11:53 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:06 am
Posts: 14073
This is horrible news! :shock: :( Just when we got rid off the DTV sequels, now they're making more? Hasn't the legacy of Disney animation been tarnished enough?

Quote:
HN Entertainment has learned that Disney is possibly looking to create a wave of animated projects for its streaming service Disney+, which is set to launch on November 12th. Disney isn’t only taking old animated classics and turning them into live-action films, but they are developing new animated projects for Disney+ as well we’ve learned.

A handful of the projects said to be currently in development which includes one that will focus on Pinocchio’s Jimny Cricket (the conscience of young Pinocchio), Alice and Wonderland’s eccentric Cheshire Cat, and a project connected to musical classic Fantasia (may or may not feature Mickey Mouse). There might be one focusing on the Seven Dwarfs (Grumpy, Happy, Sleepy, Bashful, Sneezy, Dopey, Doc) from Snow White and The Seven Dwarfs as well.

It’ll be interesting to see if these are series, shorts, specials, or feature-length animated films.
Source: https://hnentertainment.co/exclusive-fa ... or-disney/

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2019 12:06 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:06 am
Posts: 14073
Suddenly, this makes sense. :(

Quote:
Q: What do you mean by "Lady and the Tramp 3" is in the works at DTVA? I thought they stopped making cheapquels. Did you mean a TV series?

Steve Hulett: No, the company had a small group working on something titled "Lady and the Tramp 3". Wasn't clear whether it was at DTVA or someplace else. DisneyToon Studio is, as the saying goes, kapoot. Beyond what's posted, your guess is as good as mine.
Source: http://tombcartoonmonkeyskeleton.blogsp ... own-4.html

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2019 12:22 pm 
Offline
Collector's Edition

Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:05 pm
Posts: 924
DTV has become DTS; direct to streaming. It remains to see what quality these will be, but they will feel like a modern product. Some time ago I was zapping on the TV and stopped in the middle of The Sylvester & Tweety Mysteries. I could tell right away this was not one of the original theatrical shorts.

What does sound interesting is the Fantasia stuff. If they decide to make individual shorts that could fit into a larger Fantasia Project, it means they are open for shorts that doesn't fit elsewhere. The other day I was actually thinking about concepts that could fit into a third Fantasia movie. I'm not a Disney employee, so they have no interest in my ideas, but there are people who does work at Disney, and maybe some of their suggestions could be turned into a short.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2019 1:43 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 6:09 pm
Posts: 3681
I can be swayed based on the form and content of these projects. It’s intriguing that most of these projects seem to be about side characters. Most of the direct to video sequels didn’t work because they were meant to be direct continuations of DACs. They were either too derivative or ignored previous characterization or plot points. Returning to these characters isn’t necessarily a bad thing if the right care is taken.

_________________
Image
Avatar and signature are Al Hirschfeld illustrations of Julie Andrews in Star! (1968).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:10 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:46 am
Posts: 4230
Location: Maryland, USA
Eh. I’d much rather want horrible animated sequels and other animation projects based on Disney stories and continue the stories than horrible live action movies that attempt to replace the movies.

Animation writers are getting extremely strong, telling from modern DTV and CN shows. As long as they’re 2D with the original voice actors/soundalikes, I’m not worried. The ideas are fascinating to me honestly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:28 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 12:26 pm
Posts: 11201
Tacked-on DTV films that are horrible quality are much more damaging to the original films than live-action re-makes that'll be forgotten 10 years from now. For one, the DTV films will be forever sold alongside the originals and in some ways be treated as "canon" with the original films. And let us not forget the DTV films' own role in killing off hand-drawn animation.

_________________
Image
Listening to most often lately:
Anne-Marie ~ "FRIENDS"
P!nk ~ "Stupid Girls"
Christina Aguilera ~ "Can't Hold Us Down"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:59 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 6:09 pm
Posts: 3681
You’re understating the significance of the live action remakes. Some of them appear to have more staying power than any of the sequels ever did, with Tim Burton’s Alice characters finding their ways into the theme parks through attractions and meet and greets. The 2017 Beauty and the Beast is also getting its own attraction at Epcot very soon and already provides the basis for a Disney Cruise Line show. And of course, the Grand Floridian just got an entire lounge based on the remake.

The future of physical media is more or less dead, but overseas you can purchase combo packs of Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, Sleeping Beauty, The Jungle Book, etc. with the animated classic and its modern remake. In the new world of streaming, it’s hard to imagine that a viewer on Disney+ who has just finished Walt’s “Alice” won’t immediately find a suggestion for the 2010 film or its sequel.

Because the remakes have such high production values, because they cast such popular stars or big name directors, because they have such enormous box office clout, because they are reviewed by important critics in important papers— these films have a lot more legitimacy than the DTVs ever did. I mean, at least the DTVs always felt... disposable. These remakes, as bad as most of them are, are built to last. Time will tell if they age like Ozymandias.

_________________
Image
Avatar and signature are Al Hirschfeld illustrations of Julie Andrews in Star! (1968).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2019 3:23 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 12:26 pm
Posts: 11201
I didn't understate their significance--you overstated it. Most people don't remember Glenn Close's Dalmatians, despite the big names and production values, and they aren't going to remember these films in 15 years. They may be packaged with the animated film while they're still relevant--to boost the animated films' sales, too, I'm sure; I mean, maximizing profit of Disney's old properties is as much a point of their existence as making a quick buck off a here-today-gone-tomorrow re-make--but even after their relevance is over, Bambi will still be packaged with Bambi II, Atlantis with Atlantis II, The Fox and the Hound with TF&tH 2, and so on forevermore.

_________________
Image
Listening to most often lately:
Anne-Marie ~ "FRIENDS"
P!nk ~ "Stupid Girls"
Christina Aguilera ~ "Can't Hold Us Down"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2019 3:43 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 6:09 pm
Posts: 3681
Eh, I mean we’ll see... I think in ten years time, a lot more people will be rewatching Emma Watson in Beauty and the Beast than will be digging up Belle’s Magical World on Disney+. I also think you underestimate the significance of Disney investing major money into giving the remakes a presence in the parks. That never happened with any of the sequels.

Another point I meant to add— while the remakes may not be thought of as “canon” in the same way as the sequels, to justify their existence they often perpetuate the idea that the original is fundamentally flawed. In Beauty and the Beast, this manifested mostly through additional dialogue which “fixed” minor plot holes— as if to say that now, the audience is getting the “whole” story. Other times they give a female character a new power ballad or a background as an inventor to band-aid any feminist critiques one might still make over the narrative. The DTV sequels failed to measure up to their predecessors, but at least they never pretended to be superior.

_________________
Image
Avatar and signature are Al Hirschfeld illustrations of Julie Andrews in Star! (1968).


Last edited by UmbrellaFish on Fri Oct 25, 2019 3:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2019 3:45 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:06 am
Posts: 14073
Disney's Divinity wrote:
Tacked-on DTV films that are horrible quality are much more damaging to the original films than live-action re-makes that'll be forgotten 10 years from now. For one, the DTV films will be forever sold alongside the originals and in some ways be treated as "canon" with the original films. And let us not forget the DTV films' own role in killing off hand-drawn animation.

Exactly. First off, live-action remakes are retellings; they are a form of adaptation. They are not continuations like sequels or spin-offs and hence can't be considered canon to the originals. Them being in a different medium adds to the distance and distinction between them. It's easy to ignore the remakes. They also have high production values and big budgets so they can't be labeled as "cheap". But animated DTV films are considered canon by the public. They don't know or care about the difference between the various Disney studios. And they are partially right. They are official Disney movies after all. You can yell how The Return of Jafar is not canon because it was made by DTVA and not WDAS until you're blue in the face but the fact remains they are official continuations and are perceived as such by the company, the industry, and even the fandom. Thus, their incredibly low quality inevitably tarnishes the reputation and legacy of the originals. What's even worse is that producing such movies NOW at a time where TV animation is in the toilet will only hurt the Disney Animation brand. The DTV sequels look like freaking masterpieces compared to the 2D animation of today produced for the TV and DTV market. It's bewildering to me how many self-proclaimed animation fans today don't care about actual animation. Why would you want an animated spin-off about Jiminy Cricket or the Cheshire Cat in piss-poor animation and with probably godawful redesigns? I don't get how they can care about plot or characters in animated projects but not mind the bad animation, unappealing designs and all around poor visual quality when they are ANIMATION fans.

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2019 4:41 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 6:09 pm
Posts: 3681
Nobody wants it to look like the Super Friends but so much more encompasses being a Disney fan than a strict devotion to a specific style of character design (which, let’s be honest many of these purists actually care more about than the animation itself). Many fans love these characters and if Disney can deliver interesting new stories and maintain a kind of character integrity they will happily enjoy whatever is offered— even if it’s been run through the Rudish Mickey filter.

_________________
Image
Avatar and signature are Al Hirschfeld illustrations of Julie Andrews in Star! (1968).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2019 5:22 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:06 am
Posts: 14073
UmbrellaFish wrote:
Nobody wants it to look like the Super Friends but so much more encompasses being a Disney fan.

Well, that's the thing. A lot of Disney fans aren't animation fans. I used to think that everyone who loves Disney must love animation too but I've recently realized that's not always the case.

UmbrellaFish wrote:
Many fans love these characters and if Disney can deliver interesting new stories and maintain a kind of character integrity they will happily enjoy whatever is offered— even if it’s been run through the Rudish Mickey filter.

That's a big "if". With Disney's track record, I don't see how anyone could be confident they can pull it off even in that department. You talk about character integrity but I don't think that's an issue for many, if not most, Disney fans when they flock to such out-of-character projects like Ralph Breaks the Internet, 101 Dalmatian Street, or the new Mickey Mouse shorts.

Anyway, I just think it's hypocritical when the same people who act as if the live-action remakes are anathema are A-OK with DTV sequels and TV series that are much more insidious and damaging to the originals.

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2019 5:55 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 6:09 pm
Posts: 3681
Sotiris wrote:
UmbrellaFish wrote:
Nobody wants it to look like the Super Friends but so much more encompasses being a Disney fan.

Well, that's the thing. A lot of Disney fans aren't animation fans. I used to think that everyone who loves Disney must love animation too but I've recently realized that's not always the case.

This is true. There are many hardcore Disney fans who don’t give a tosh about the film studio and for whom Disney’s legacy is much more tied up in animatronics and roller coasters. I like to think the commonality amongst all the different kinds of Disney fans is the love of a good story, but perhaps that’s my own bias coming through.

Sotiris wrote:
UmbrellaFish wrote:
Many fans love these characters and if Disney can deliver interesting new stories and maintain a kind of character integrity they will happily enjoy whatever is offered— even if it’s been run through the Rudish Mickey filter.

That a big "if". With Disney's track record, I don't see how anyone could be confident they can pull it off even in that department. You talk about character integrity but I don't think that an issue for many, if not most, Disney fans when they flock to such out-of-character projects like Ralph Breaks the Internet, 101 Dalmatian Street, or the new Mickey Mouse shorts.


It’s a big “if,” true. But we have no stills, no footage, no names attached. Disney+ is actually new and exciting uncharted territory. We’re going to have Disney throwing out more new content over the next few years than ever before. Some of it will stick, some will become forgotten footnotes in history. Nothing about this report strikes me as inherently offensive for reasons I’ve already stated. If news comes out that’s displeasing in some way, I’m sure I’ll make my thoughts known. Otherwise, I hope I’ll keep an open mind until I see a finished project.

Sotiris wrote:
Anyway, I just think it's incongruous and hypocritical when the same people who act as if the live-action remakes are anathema are A-OK with low quality DTV sequels and TV series.


I don’t know who has said they are “A-OK” with “low quality” projects. It’s entirely possible to think two things are bad, but one is worse. I hope these Disney+ projects, if ever they do see the light of day, if they even really exist, do a better job honoring their DAC legacies than either the old DTVs or the new remakes.

_________________
Image
Avatar and signature are Al Hirschfeld illustrations of Julie Andrews in Star! (1968).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2019 6:05 pm 
Offline
Gold Collection
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:36 pm
Posts: 170
Location: Paris, France
I’m scared...

Though the ‘Mickey Mouse’ series initialized in 2013 turned to be a rather interesting entertainment to watch despite breaking Disney’s style with some of its most iconic characters. But still...

I’m scared..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2019 6:07 pm 
Offline
Collector's Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 19, 2018 4:09 pm
Posts: 830
I don't like the remakes and I don't like the sequels. I think the difference for me is that the remakes are pretentious while the sequels are not.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2019 6:31 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:06 am
Posts: 14073
UmbrellaFish wrote:
In Beauty and the Beast, this manifested mostly through additional dialogue which “fixed” minor plot holes— as if to say that now, the audience is getting the “whole” story. Other times they give a female character a new power ballad or a background as an inventor to band-aid any feminist critiques one might still make over the narrative.

That's just lip-service the filmmakers spew to justify the existence of the remakes. Do people honestly expect them to admit they are just cash-grabs? These remakes aren't getting made because of a disdain for animation, it's because the originals are popular. That's true of every Hollywood remake. It just happens that Disney's most popular movies are animated.

UmbrellaFish wrote:
Otherwise, I hope I’ll keep an open mind until I see a finished project.

I understand your perspective but I've been burned too many times in the past and animation means too much to me to be optimistic or even neutral about this. I'm just really worried right now.

Sotiris wrote:
It’s entirely possible to think two things are bad, but one is worse.

It's the lesser of two evils for some and I get that. I was talking about incidents I witnessed online where the same person who showered with praise awful-looking, barely-animated TV shows was bashing on the remakes. In any case, for me the lesser evil are the live-action remakes.

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2019 11:04 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 7:29 pm
Posts: 3461
I'm getting tired of the remakes so I'll admit that more sequels, or cheapquels, is strangely looking like something I might just look forward to, maybe because of the dearth of 2D animation Disney stories. As terrible as some of the sequels were, several others still had their shining moments, whether it was new songs or characters, and there's a bit of nostalgia for even the worst of those elements.

And I agree with UmbrellaFish that the remakes seem like they'll have more staying power, at least for the foreseeable future. The theme park expansions, for example, will certainly add to their longevity and suddenly there are more live-action Alice and Maleficent films than animated Alice and Sleeping Beauty films, which means the public has more of a reason to think of the remakes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2019 5:54 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 12:26 pm
Posts: 11201
Sotiris wrote:
I understand your perspective but I've been burned too many times in the past and animation means too much to me to be optimistic or even neutral about this. I'm just really worried right now.
The mentality that we should keep an open mind over and over again only to end up with the same result is mind-boggling. It reminds me of DisneyEra's talk of originality in the Frozen 2 thread. How many times would somebody have to hit you in the face for you to realize that, no, maybe you shouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt that they may not do it again the 50th time around?

Sotiris wrote:
Anyway, I just think it's hypocritical when the same people who act as if the live-action remakes are anathema are A-OK with DTV sequels and TV series that are much more insidious and damaging to the originals.
It is funny. I never thought I'd see a defense of DTV sequels here. :lol: And if the re-makes really are this damaging, I hope more people will criticize the Mulan re-make for dumping nearly everything from the animated film it's remaking now.

_________________
Image
Listening to most often lately:
Anne-Marie ~ "FRIENDS"
P!nk ~ "Stupid Girls"
Christina Aguilera ~ "Can't Hold Us Down"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2019 1:33 pm 
Offline
Special Edition

Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 10:38 am
Posts: 293
Location: Sweden
I find the idea of making Disney projects based on side characters from classic animated movies very intriguing. :?

This makes me really happy and excited ! :)

Definitely looking forward to this ! :lol: :up:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:47 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:06 am
Posts: 14073
Quote:
Q: Any word on a potential Winnie the Pooh animated series, if it'll be 2D and on Disney Plus?

Skyler Shuler: Series is likely. They will do something with Pooh and the gang and will be 2D animated.
Source: https://i.imgur.com/jUnQSqa.jpg

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: blackcauldron85, MSN [Bot] and 34 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