DVDizzy.com

Pinocchio.(a not animatronics but a puppet which is close enough of a category)

Also animatronics are inanimate objects. Since they're.....aren't real organic being.

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

That would be an interesting movie.

I think if they can make a movie about a robot entertaining then they can make a movie about video game characters intriguing and memorable.

Why are you so close-minded and so reluctant to embrace any new innovations in the way that Disney tell stories in their animated features? That quote I posted from Walt Disney himself says it all for me; the "Disney way" as you put it is to keep moving forward and trying out new things, exactly what they are doing in this film. Walt Disney spent so much of his career being an innovator and bringing forth new developments and if WDAS want to continue that tradition, I'm all for it, especially when other parts the company seem to be creatively stagnant at the moment. You never knew Walt Disney, you have no possible way of knowing what he would have liked or wanted so using that as a reason to back yourself up is pointless and derivative.



Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty; three out of at least nineteen animated films he was personally involved in so you're argument here is really flawed. This is the man who also created Fantasia, still one of the most distinctive and innovative animated films over seven decades after it's release, a man who enjoyed taking risks and pushing the creative capabilities of himself and his animators.

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

You have to look at what Walt Disney did to be able to figure out if you should work at Disney and make a Disney movie, isn't that right?

So since all the past movies had things in common (in fact even though he had made only two officially defined fairy tales by the 1950s he was known as a fairy tale teller because all his other films were LIKE fairy tales) with fantasy, nature, and organic real living non fake or virtual things, all feeling very classic, IN FACT if he had Tomorrowland how come he didn't make any animated features around that that were modern technological stuff how come it was nature and animals and magic or fantasy like Sword in the Stone, Winnie the Pooh and The Jungle Book?


Yea and Pinocchio was given the gift of life i.e. real emotions. He just wasn't a real boy i.e. had a real body.

And I know animatronics aren't organic or real. Yea, he was interested in them looking live just like animated paper makes things look alive. The point is his subjects were always supposed to be about things that were real, and not say that animatronics or virtual life should be taken as having real emotions to identify and laugh and cry with. Audiences feeling something because an animatronic or cartoon represents something really alive is different from saying an animatronic or video game character is really alive.

_________________

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

What's your point? I would think that anyone who goes to work for Disney would be well aware of the things Walt Disney did anyway.



No, I would say he was known as general, all-round great storyteller; in what way is Bambi like a fairytale? In what way is Lady and the Tramp like a fairytale? He didn't only make animated films; Treasure Island, Swiss Family Robinson and 20,000 Leagues Under the Seas aren't fairytales. You're categorising him as simply a "fairy tale teller" when his films were a very diverse collection of different genres.



So because Walt didn't do it, the WDAS of today shouldn't do it? Yet again, I will use this quote from the man himself:

"Around here, however, we don't look backwards for very long. We keep moving forward, opening up new doors and doing new things, because we're curious.....And curiosity keeps leading us down new paths."

That is a far more compelling argument to me than anything you have come up with here, especially "we don't look backwards for very long".

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

no cause last time they tried that mentality, they went into the dark era years.


So since all the past movies had things in common (in fact even though he had made only two officially defined fairy tales by the 950s he was known as a fairy tale teller because all his other films were LIKE fairy tales) with fantasy, nature, and organic real living non fake or virtual things, all feeling very classic,



Because by that time, when Tomorrowland was made or nearly completed, Walt hardly focus or as interested in his animated features like he was in past. He left all that to his trusted men, while he put his full on attention to Disneyland, and later on his plans for Epcot which holds futuristic and technological aspects even more (the countries idea wasn't his and never thought of it so.)

Also the movies are planed ahead of time meaning had Walt lived longer, he might been able to decide an technology base feature film. But that's only if he became interested in working in that department again. Just because he didn't do so before, doesn't mean he wouldn't in the future. Walt was all about experimentation and innovations.




Yeah and according to description of this film, the characters of the video games comes to life. Y'know, something Toy Story also did. Or Steadfast Tin Soldier from Fantasia 2000.


I would certainly hope so.




By that logic, you're implying that video game characters like Mario or Sonic, etc aren't alive but characters like mickey mouse, or Pinocchio are despite both being created through a certain medium?

That's a shitty statement.

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

Duster, I truly admire the fact that you will never back down in an argument, but seriously?

Some of this just doesn't make sense, and your arguments are just flawed and baseless.

It's really OK just to say, "I don't like the concept of this film" and leave it at that. You don't do that though, you try to convince yourself and everyone else here that how you feel is how Walt would've felt too. Given all the evidence though, it's hard to believe that Walt would've had ANY of the feelings/ideals you seem to demand he would have. So that leaves you, and your feelings that you're talking about.

I honestly think that if you would stop speaking for Walt, people would probably enjoy having these conversations with you more.

Now I know I'm kinda digging up old arguments we've had over the years with this post, but I hope you know I'm not trying to me mean.

The point is future Disney movies must have the same Disneyness from past Disney movies. You must watch past Disney movies to know what "a Disney movie" even is and to make one.


Actually I was referring to how people in the 1950's actually did refer to Walt as a fairy tale teller. It's a telling sign. If you want my personal opinion, all those films you mentioned are fantastic or fantastical as well as kind of idealized in a fairy tale way.


Yes, but don't actions speak louder than words? He repeated similarities in his films. He never made a film about technology. The actions, the evidence. His quote is also INTERPRETABLE and I could interpret it to mean he wanted the mediums he worked in to advance, but still be about classic subjects.


See what I first wrote in this post. In order to know how to make a Disney movie you NEED to SEE a past Disney movie!


Actually, there is a quote that when asked to come back to animation by an animator, Walt said something like "If I ever go back, I want to do Beauty and the Beast" and one person said they forgot what the other story he wanted to do was but another person said it was The Little Mermaid. Two fairy tales and nothing based on futuristic technology.


That's one thing that makes me feel better and is very Disney. BUT I am wondering how they will actually show this to the audience so we know?


No it's not what I'm saying. This time Disney is making a movie about video games saying they are real, not a video game that says the characters in it represent something real. Your above statement is the only thing that truly would make them real and that Disney should do.

singerguy04 I'm honestly just worried about this. If no one else is going to say it I'll bring it up, and I'm not saying it's definately bad or I definately know, I just wonder, and most of my repeating of it has been in reply to people not understanding what I mean and just hating. :/

_________________

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

I don't agree. There's an element of fantasy and make-believe in every Disney film, that doesn't make them all fairy tales, or even like a fairy tale. How is Treasure Island in anyway a fairy tale? There is nothing in that film that makes it a fairy tale, it is a classic story, the basis for many Disney films. To refer to Walt Disney as simply a "fairy tale teller" is ignoring the huge number of his films that aren't fairy tales.



Wreck-It Ralph ISN'T a film ABOUT technology, it's about characters that exist in a digital world derived from fantasy and make-believe. Interpret it however you want, the meaning is pretty clear to me especially:



Keep moving forward...opening up new doors...doing new things...going down new paths...seems pretty clear to me what Walt was saying here.



Find the quote where Walt Disney says:

"In the future, I never want my company to try anything new or different or take advantage of any advancements in society or technology that come along after I am gone that will help them to create new and original stories. Instead, they must only make films based on fairy tales and talking animals or copy things that I have done in my career."

Find anything similar to that and I might join you in being eternally stuck in the past.



What does it matter how the characters come to life? For God's sake, it's a Disney film, what does logic matter? In Disney films, you leave reality at the door and if the story is good enough it allows you to escape into whatever world is presented to you on screen. Did you sit through Cinderella wondering "how do the mice talk?"



They're making a film about a world that exists in video games, separate from our own. Where are they saying that the worlds that exist in video games are "real"? In what way is any animated Disney film "real"? These films and characters each have their own distinct worlds in which they exist.



You say this in every debate and, yet again, it's not the case, no one is misunderstanding you or "just hating"; I think it's fair to say that those of us involved in this particular discussion see some obvious flaws in your argument and simply don't agree with what you're saying. Are you honestly saying that you can sit through Cinderella and get lost in the narrative and enjoy the film for what it is, pure fantasy and escapism, but you won't do the same for Wreck-It Ralph?

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

Duster It's a film.
calm down!

_________________

All our dreams can come true, if we have the courage to pursue them. - Walt Disney

DisneyAnimation88... I have agreed with you throughout this entire debate since we have exactly the same stance on the matter. I've given up after Duster continually talks in circles and repetitions (I should know better).. but just know I agree with you completely.

_________________

"Good and bad are labels created by people. Nature doesn't have such concepts."

No, it's a matter of life or death.
This is some serious fucking business, man.

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

I haven't read any of the "offending" Disney Duster essays of the last three years, but even if I did and found Duster completely diabolical ... I would still like him.

I think Mike is cute.

You sound like a domestic abused wife.

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

Ah, come on! Duster's arguments and mental gymnastics can't be as bad as domestic abuse.











Can they?

I never said Walt was a fairy tale teller, 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.


Actions speak louder than words, as I already said.


But that's not what I want either. In fact, it goes along with what I think Walt meant with his quote you keep bringing up. That opening doors was about using new technology and new paths...to tell the same kind of things he wants his company to be about, classic fantastic, morally good things where things are real and not virtual or fake.


It's not about logic it's about what Walt personally may have believed and wanted. I can't pretend that hearing about Reboot Ralph didn't honestly make something in me feel it was amiss with what Walt had always made his films about. I just wonder if since Walt had technology all around him but it was always for the illusion that something was really alive or magical, that he always wanted us to believe things came to actual life, not that virtual life is the same as real life. Wreck It Ralph isn't supposed to be saying it but I'm worried about how they will tell us the video game characters actually have the gift of real, actual life, like Pinocchio. And I also wonder if he always wanted his films to be about everything real, natural, organic, to feel classic and timeless.


Thanks your cute too but in that list you made of the cutest boys on UD I was left off and was pretty miffed.

_________________

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

What list!? I don't remember ever ranking UD's guys' sexiness!

It was in one of the many Post Photo of Yourself threads, around the time Brendan and DisneyVillain did, I think. I remember you saying you weren't even sure of what Brendan looked like because all his photos looked so different. I had to agree with that too, though he's also clearly cute.

_________________

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

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.



"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 .



True it's not about logic; logic dictates that it would be impossible to predict the thoughts and feelings of a man who's been dead for nearly half a century and yet you continue to defy that.




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.



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.



I like Disney Duster too. Despite the various disagreements we might have, I have no personal issues with him and do enjoy debating with him (on the most part ). If we all agreed on everything the forum would be no fun so it is good to have someone to have these debates with, regardless of whether I agree with him or not.

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

Well I for one am extremely excited for this film. Being a gamer and a person that wants to get into the field, I don't see a major gap between film and gaming. Story lines and character development are just as important to the core of a game as much as controls and visuals. I like the idea of a movie trying to blend the two worlds together.

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.

_________________
http://theconnoisseurreviews.tumblr.com/