DisneyAnimation88 wrote:
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.
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.
DisneyAnimation88 wrote:
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.
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.
DisneyAnimation88 wrote:
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".
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.
Super Aurora wrote:
Disney Duster wrote:
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?
no cause last time they tried that mentality, they went into the dark era years.
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!
Super Aurora wrote:
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.
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.
Super Aurora wrote:
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.
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?
Super Aurora wrote:
Disney Duster wrote:
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.
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.
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. :/