I was thinking more, she preferred her cooler middle name, the same way Max prefers not to be "Maxxie".
So, now explain how Kovu wasn't Scar's son, despite the obvious appearance, mother, symbolism, song numbers, Simba's reaction, and the related media and merchandising all calling him Scar's son.
Oh right. Him and Kiara would be cousins if he was Scar's son. Someone realized this at the very last second and dubbed in a muttered a single under the breath line.
roxanne was too 90s to exist in the 2000s
she was swallowed up by a time paradox
@RobbyBevard:
I was thinking more, she preferred her cooler middle name, the same way Max prefers not to be "Maxxie".
So, now explain how Kovu wasn't Scar's son, despite the obvious appearance, mother, symbolism, song numbers, Simba's reaction, and the related media and merchandising all calling him Scar's son.
Oh right. Him and Kiara would be cousins if he was Scar's son. Someone realized this at the very last second and dubbed in a muttered a single under the breath line.
Let's see…Zira, distressed that she cannot produce children of her own AND that Scar was homosexual, decided to kidnap a random lion cub, paint him a dark color, and name him Scar in a different language (because she is so original).
She decides not to mention this until a random moment because she's batshit crazy.
It writes itself!
roxanne was too 90s to exist in the 2000s
she was swallowed up by a time paradox
So by that logic, a man with Tevin Campbell's voice is the most popular musician ever in the 90s?
…...The 90s were so much better.
The funniest thing about Tevin Campbell was him stating that he had no other ambitions in life, because he played a pop star in a Disney film and thus was completely at peace, ready to die.
@Gigglepuffy:
The funniest thing about Tevin Campbell was him stating that he had no other ambitions in life, because he played a pop star in a Disney film and thus was completely at peace, ready to die.
I have even more reason to love Tevin.
I know what I'm listening to on my drive home.
A film that doesn't get enough credit here…
! msJ_ZJZluvw
A film that doesn't get enough credit here…
! msJ_ZJZluvw
I'll be honest.
I was never a big fan of that movie, or story.
Pinocchio is great, my favourite of the early Disney movies.
I'll be honest.
I was never a big fan of that movie, or story.
You suck.
How could anyone dislike a film with characters like lampwich, honest john, stromboli & of course jiminy cricket?@Kaiolino:
Pinocchio is great, my favourite of the early Disney movies.
You sir have good taste.
The Sword and the Stone wasn't the worst Disney movie ever. That's about the best thing that can be said about it.
Complicating things since 2009.
The water during the Monstro sequence is just… insane. I do not know how they animated that.
The Sword and the Stone wasn't the worst Disney movie ever. That's about the best thing that can be said about it.
What most people don't consider is just how unique it was. Especially when the majority of films then revolved around the princess & prince theme.
Besides you can't help but laugh at the oddity that is Merlin. admittedly it did have a few random (even boring) scenes, but it also had some gems.
Merlin: blow me to bermuda
lol
The fight between Madame Mim and Merlin was pretty good, too. At least, I found it pretty funny.
When you take the entirety of the King Arthur mythos and end up with THAT… its a grievous waste of source material.
Not that I'd ever expect a Disney film to have the sleeping around of Lancelot and Gewnevere, or the death of Arthur, (well, maybe modern day Disney when they were in the mood to do Hunchback, not so much when they were in the mood to do Hercules) but... more than just him pulling the sword out combined with 70 minutes of filler. I mean, that's the very START of the story. And the material around it is just...bleh.
I haven't seen all the animated Disney films, since there's that handful of live action mixes that haven't been released in my lifetime, but S&tS is just... bleh. Its at the bottom of the barrell for me, not one I'd get on dvd.
I still haven't seen that thing with the cows, nor do I ever intend to, so, that's out there.
Black Cauldron was a mess too, for very different reasons.
Just the premise of the cow movie made me a Disney hater for about 3 years. Because of that I haven't seen any major Disney flicks till PatF.
I also never finished Black Cauldron and never watched the 6 packaged films (aside from Three Caballeros). Saludos Amigos was released this year, but I couldn't be arsed to buy it.
WixiEgr2ENk .
 
The green in your new avatar matches your mod colors taboo. Very nice.
No comment on the other part of your post, I'm already trying to repress it.
@RobbyBevard:
The green in your new avatar matches your mod colors taboo. Very nice.
No comment on the other part of your post, I'm already trying to repress it.
QGDiwvTh7a0
sjkcf5sH01c
iv1cT5tJTmE
i have been hypnotized and have to tell the world of the Meister's greatness
god why does Brave and the Bold have to end already
 
Back to Pinocchio, I think my main gripe with that movie (aside from it being mentally traumatizing) is that the whole Jiminy Cricket being Pinocchio's conscience thing never really went anywhere.
There was the first time Pinocchio met up with Honest John and Jiminy told him not to listen to him and go to school. And he ignored him.
Then after being bailed out the blue fairy and escaping from Stromboli, Jiminy told him to run straight home, but then he was conned by Honest John again (but I guess John sort of forced him, I don't know).
Then after going to Pleasure Island, Jiminy told him to leave. And he ignored him.
Then we got the whole Monstro segment, which Jiminy didn't play much of a role in.
Yeah, early Disney movies were kinda weird.
And the lamb lies down on Broadway
WixiEgr2ENk .
Sounds like a bastardized Jimmie Rodgers number and still manages to be the only remotely enjoyable thing about that film.
Back to Pinocchio, I think my main gripe with that movie (aside from it being mentally traumatizing) is that the whole Jiminy Cricket being Pinocchio's conscience thing never really went anywhere
Apparently in the first version of the movie, Pinnochio had no conscience at all, and just went along with everything, and Walt said "Wait… that's not working." So a huge ammount of production was scrapped and Jiminy was created and added in. Though the fact that he accomplished nothing and never once steered Pinnochio away, well... I dunno.
But I guess it really didn't work without someone questioning it.
I started to list Home on the Range and The Black Cauldron as the two films worse than The Sword and The Stone (there was some rumor of a Disney-made Chicken Little film, but that's just crazy talk), but realized that it was unnecessary.
In Home on the Range's defense, you could probably edit the film down to a seven-to-ten minute short about a musical cattle rustler that would easily be of the most enjoyable Silly Symphonies that Disney ever made. It's just everything else about the film that is terrible.
god why does Brave and the Bold have to end already
[qimg]http://www.newporkcity.net/npcforum/images/smilies/luigicry.png[/qimg]
Because they want to do a tie-in with an event in the comics that's going to be over well before the series airs?
Back to Pinocchio, I think my main gripe with that movie (aside from it being mentally traumatizing) is that the whole Jiminy Cricket being Pinocchio's conscience thing never really went anywhere
In Collodi's version, Pinocchio gets annoyed enough at the cricket's sermonizing about honesty that he throws a mallet at it and kills it. So the cricket sequence didn't really go anywhere in the book either outside of showing what a bastard Pinocchio was. "You've killed me, Pinocchio. Killllllleeeedd meeee."
Because they want to do a tie-in with an event in the comics that's going to be over well before the series airs?
Of course, silly me :I
why do i even bother
Back to Pinocchio, I think my main gripe with that movie (aside from it being mentally traumatizing) is that the whole Jiminy Cricket being Pinocchio's conscience thing never really went anywhere.
There was the first time Pinocchio met up with Honest John and Jiminy told him not to listen to him and go to school. And he ignored him.
Then after being bailed out the blue fairy and escaping from Stromboli, Jiminy told him to run straight home, but then he was conned by Honest John again (but I guess John sort of forced him, I don't know).
Then after going to Pleasure Island, Jiminy told him to leave. And he ignored him.
Then we got the whole Monstro segment, which Jiminy didn't play much of a role in.
Yeah, early Disney movies were kinda weird.
I would agree with all that if I didn't freaking love Jiminy Cricket so much. Easily the best sidekick character in the Disney canon.
I always saw Pinocchio ignoring Jiminy (except for going to Pleasure Island. He was manipulated by Honest John on that one) as a classic morality tale. Your conscience says one thing, you do another, you pay for it. And Jiminy was always there for him in a pinch, if for nothing else than emotional support. He succeeds as a sidekick, if not always as a conscience.
@RobbyBevard:
Apparently in the first version of the movie, Pinnochio had no conscience at all, and just went along with everything, and Walt said "Wait… that's not working." So a huge ammount of production was scrapped and Jiminy was created and added in. Though the fact that he accomplished nothing and never once steered Pinnochio away, well... I dunno.
But I guess it really didn't work without someone questioning it.
Probably because in the original story, that's pretty much what Pinocchio does. If Jimini actually persuaded him not to do a lot of the things he does, it would change the outcome of the story, of course. But it is true that even if Pinocchio continuously made the wrong decision, just showing the struggle gives it a whole different feeling, otherwise it would be like watching a train wreck.
I think a lot of you are judging some of these films too harshly by setting them against the modern standards. These oldskool films should be about what it did for you as a kid.
Because in truth, a large amount of the originals have boring main characters, camp villains, wacky plots & usually rather grim sections to them….
....but is doesn't matter because it's what it did for you as a whole back then when you were a kid.
Nope. I hated Sword in the Stone when I was five. Watched it again years later, still hated it. Its an after school special masquerading as a Disney movie.
I like the "making everything small" bit merlin does at the beginning of the film, and the magical battle he has with mad madam mimm.
But yeah, the rest of it's not that great.
One of my favourite memories from when i was a child was the scene where Merlin made the dishes do themselves. I have very nostalgic feeling for the entire movie, but that scene is the one i remember the strongest.
So yes, i consider Sword in the Stone to be a great movie, not only because of that.
IBKGvRGYVhU
pixar no stop it
 
YesterdaY I watched The Fox and the Hound on TV after a looooooong long time.
I remembered that it was a really sad movie, so I prepared myself for the biggest tears.
I watched, and watched.. couldn't concentrate anymore cause it was lame and played pokemon, watched then again and.. Bam. The End. Nothing too sad. Yeah, it was a little bit sad. But I really thought some of them would die and that didn't happen so it was really bearable.. of course the whole relations between fox and dog is sad, but… meh.
I FUCKIN DESTROYED MY CHILDHOOD MEMORIES.
so now I'll go watch Lion King, cause nobody will die, right?:ninja:...
"Unicorns can't see into your heart. All our dumb horns can do is glow, point towards the nearest rainbow and play rave music!"
Visit my Etsy Shop: Heart'n'Skull or Tumblr
Slytherin all the way, baby~
[[deviantART]](http://sry005.deviantart.com/)[[art tumblr]](http://artsycrapfromsai.tumblr.com/)[[Sai's Art Thread 2.0!]](http://apforums.net/showthread.php?t=40075&p=3045242#post3045242)
pixar no stop it
Cars isn't about the movie. Its about the merchandising.
And the first movie actually has a lot of inherant quality and characterization and good visuals to it… even if the designs are horrible and the plot is scene for scene from Doc Hollywood. I ended up half seeing it a lot when the Disney channel kept rerunning it nonstop for a like a year and theres a lot thats goof about it. its still at the very bottom of my Pixar list, but...
I'm not sure how the Man Called Flintstone is going to do. But its Pixar, so they're allowed a dud at this point. And even if its godawful, its still going to be better than 99% of whatever else comes out next year and I'm sure there'll be stuff in it to make it worthwhile... but I have no plans on seeing it in theatres. It'll be the first Pixar I don't bother with in theatres since I missed out on Monsters Inc. and Toy Story 2. (At the time Disney was releasing their endless shit sequals and I'd lost all faith in the company, not realizing Pixar was seperate.)
I watched, and watched.. couldn't concentrate anymore cause it was lame and played pokemon, watched then again and.. Bam. The End. Nothing too sad. Yeah, it was a little bit sad. But I really thought some of them would die and that didn't happen so it was really bearable.. of course the whole relations between fox and dog is sad, but… meh.
So you multitasked and played video games while watching it? Well, of course thats going to take away from the overall effect.
And if you want it to be full of death and depression, read the original book. That'll easily surpass your expectations of a downer.
IBKGvRGYVhU
pixar no stop it
So they're really doing it?:cwy:
Maybe they can pull it off, if it was bad I'm sure somebody would say something… maybe. It's just such an awful concept that not even Pixar can give me faith.
Even Pixar needs money I suppose.
Cars works well enough if you've been out on Route 66, have a love of Americana, and are familiar with the short films that inspired the concept. If not, it's easily Pixar's least accessible film for anybody over eight; even under the best of circumstances, it's still one of their lesser works. If you're under eight, then it's super awesome because it has talking cars.
Cars 2: The Matering is a blatant merchandising cash grab and is a bit disheartening on those grounds. It's like Ghibli said "Screw it" and started cranking out films about Kiki going to a Wizarding School in Scotland.
i cant see pixar making a bad movie, or a movie solely to make money
cars has always been Lassiter's pet project, and combined with the fact that the original made a lot of money probably justified him pushing to have a sequel made
still, it probably wont be bad. they have a way to polish and remake even the smelliest of turds
speaking of turds, in other pixar news, Brenda Chapman who was directing the new movie THE BRAVE has been pushed aside for new director Mark Andrews (One Man Band)
im kind of depressed about it but maybe it's for the best
pbbt
 
I too can't imagine Pixar making anything solely for money. Especially not when their current standards are raking in that much dough.
Cars 2 probably won't be on Wall*E level, and Cars certainly wasn't, but I thought Cars was really charming and enjoyable. Pixar knows all the little details that matter, even in a paint-by-numbers movie.
Sucks about Brenda Chapman, but I love One Man Band, so here's hoping.
Of Pixar's entire library, only Toy Story and A Bug's Life made less money at the box office than Cars. The Incredibles and Ratatouille each made almost two hundred million more dollars than it did and Finding Nemo made almost twice as much at the box office.
The primary things that the Cars franchise had going for it are that it's Lasseter's pet project and that it is a merchandising juggernaut that has generated something like a billion dollars worth of toy sales. For the sake of comparison, it outsold Finding Nemo merchandise by about a 10-to-1 margin.
Pet project for Lasseter or not, it almost certainly wouldn't be getting a sequel without that stream of merchandising revenue since it only generated about half as much profit as the films that preceded and followed it.
@RobbyBevard:
So you multitasked and played video games while watching it? Well, of course thats going to take away from the overall effect.
And if you want it to be full of death and depression, read the original book. That'll easily surpass your expectations of a downer.
It's in my nature. I can't sit still when I watch something. Always need to do something else.
Like in school in the past. I couldn't just sit there and listen. I started drawing AND listened.
Well. I just meant, that i just had the memory that the movie was sadder but in the end it wasn't THAT sad that i had to cry like when I was a child.
When you're a child everything seems bigger like the way to your school. And when you walk this way as a grown-up it's not that far.
I don't want it to be full of death and depression I just THOUGHT it was. I better not read the book, I'm way too emotional for that.
"Unicorns can't see into your heart. All our dumb horns can do is glow, point towards the nearest rainbow and play rave music!"
Visit my Etsy Shop: Heart'n'Skull or Tumblr
Secret agents?
Eh, why not? Cars is silly enough as it is, so they may as well do something totally off the wall to spice it up. And I'm totally willing to forgive Pixar if it's a dud anyway.
speaking of turds, in other pixar news, Brenda Chapman who was directing the new movie THE BRAVE has been pushed aside for new director Mark Andrews (One Man Band)
im kind of depressed about it but maybe it's for the best
pbbt
Thats the retitle for The Bear and the Bow, right?
I don't know anything about it but its the Pixar I'm most curious about… but the change of directors? Hrm. Slightly worrisome since I thought it was the pet project of Chapman.
Oh well, brad Bird came in late on Ratatouille and that turned out great...
Hmmm, so the Tangled wiki has the song tracks listed already (why to they release soundtracks before the movie even opens? That's just ruining the movie if you buy it), and one of them sung by Rapunzel is called "The Tear Heals."
Does this mean that they're going to stick to their guns and keep to the original story where the hero has his eyes gouged out by thorns and then healed by Rapunzel's tears? Because they'd get a lot more kudos from me if they do.
They might change the gouged out part to something more kid friendly or something, but it looks like the original 'hero loses his eyesight' part will be there. o3o
Slytherin all the way, baby~
[[deviantART]](http://sry005.deviantart.com/)[[art tumblr]](http://artsycrapfromsai.tumblr.com/)[[Sai's Art Thread 2.0!]](http://apforums.net/showthread.php?t=40075&p=3045242#post3045242)
I'm still hoping for "gouged out." Disney can be damn dark when they want to be, they can do a little thing like eye-gouging.
If they do, I'm looking forward to seeing how they pull it off in a way that satisfies the adults while still being rated as a children's movie.
Slytherin all the way, baby~
[[deviantART]](http://sry005.deviantart.com/)[[art tumblr]](http://artsycrapfromsai.tumblr.com/)[[Sai's Art Thread 2.0!]](http://apforums.net/showthread.php?t=40075&p=3045242#post3045242)
If anything, I think it'll happen off screen. Rapunzel will find him, stare at his face in shock, and then he'll wake up asking why he can't see. From then until he gets his eyes back, he'll have his eyes closed and Rapunzel basically telling him that his eyes are gone.
They trampled Mufassa. He was just a very clean non-bloody non-mess at the end.
They'll probably do it the same way they killed Clayton. Shadows and implications and basically off camera.
Yeah, as long as they don't actually show the thorns going into the eyeballs, they can get away with it.
