My 6 year old daughter have not seen any of the Tinkerbell movies since I cancelled NetFlix a little over a year ago, and I didn't want to buy them blind. Do you recommend them?

These were made during WWII. The budgets were cut and time was scares due to the Government turning the Walt Disney Studios into a propaganda plant. At the time almost of their time was spent on making films for the war. Instructional film, film for the G.I.'s enjoyment, war bond shorts etc... So the best movies ever? No. But I would have to say pretty damn good for what they had to work with. Personally the films that I do not enjoy as much are a lot of (but certainly not all of) the 70's & early/mid 80's movies (The Rescuers, Oliver & Company, The Great Mouse Detective, Etc). I still think they are wonderful movies and I have seen them all a dozen times but my least favorites out of the Masterpiece Collection. Then in the late 80's and into the present they tend to become my favorites. Now is this because I was born in 1982 and those movies are the ones I grew up with? Yes probably. Aladdin, The Lion King, The Little Mermaid, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Pocahontas, Atlantis: The Lost Empire, Treasure Planet. Lili And Stitch, Home On The Rance, Meet The Robinsons, Beauty and the Beast, Brother Bear, and so on and so on... These will always be some of my favorite animated films. I personally cannot say that Disney has ever made a bad theatrical animated film. I love them all. And there are plenty of sequels & prequels that I like too. Though there are plenty that were pretty bad as well. I feel Disney is now as has always done a great job with their theatrical animated films. Though I miss the days of 2D animation and musicals. Now-a-days is all CGI and the music is gone. They can and have in the past done great jobs with prequels/sequels. So the talent is there its just not always applied.

Well the first four you mentioned are masterpieces one and all, and Dumbo is in the pantheon of their greatest work. The Rescuers, Hunchback, and Atlantis are slightly flawed but must-see films, particularly The Rescuers. Your assessment of Disney is flawed and shallow.

I have never seen those pieces from the 40's so I cannot comment on their validity as so called masterpieces. I just know I haven't seen them brought up for re-release like several of the better known works. My point wasn't to pick on them but to make the point that when people compare what Disney is putting out now vs. the distant past, you have to include everything and not just hand pick a select few. Some make it seem like everything Disney touched in the past was like "Cinderella" and that all the sequels of today are junk.

I also wonder if some have watched some of these more recently. I have fond memories of seeing many of Disney's earlier releases as a child, but seeing them again more recently with my daughter has made me realize that many are dated and contain some less then socially acceptable content. As an adult rewatching them is not a problem, but for an impressionable child I've had some concerns and actually edited out some content.

My assessment is just that my assessment, just as yours is yours. Neither one more credible or important then the other. After all it is all personal opinion in the end. Personally, Dumbo is okay other then one or two scenes, in my opinion, but far from being their greatest work. Lets not even get started on "Alice In Wonderland".

The point of the discussion was whether Disney should halt making DTV sequels. Personally, I think some of their sequels have been better then some of their original work. My daughter enjoys many of them regardless of whether I enjoy them all. And in some cases I prefer the more recent titles then some of the older classics due to social changes.

So beside me picking on Dumbo and the 40's work, what is your opinion on the sequels produced during the last 2 decades? And should they continue or halt their production?

On a side note: What I actually find most interesting about early Disney (or animation in general) is the morphing style used in specific scenes. Hard to explain, but most noticeably in Alice in Wonderland, Winnie the Pooh heffalump dream, and Dumbo's scene after drinking the Champagne. Shape continuing to change from one thing to another. If they were done in the 60's I think we we would know why they were done this way. It would be interesting to get some history on this.

Wow, really? Great Mouse Detective and Oliver and Company are some of my favorites. And I know most people don't like Atlantis, I think it's pretty good. I know it's all opinion, but these are not ones I see mentioned very often.

However, I do agree with you on The Rescuers, not a favorite, though I really liked Rescuers Down Under.

I don't have a problem with any of those movies being produced. I just wasn't into kids oriented animated movies when I was in high school, college, or their after, until the Pixar movies came out. Then I began to go back and revisit them again when I had children.

Again, I'm not trying to condemn any of these movies Disney has made. I'm just saying that some who are judging the current fair harshly need to look back to what was produced before. Not all would be considered classic or are loved by all. Not all that Disney produces has to be for all age groups. It is okay if they make some titles just for kids.

I've only seen the first one. The second comes out the end of next month. I would say that that they are primarily marketed to young girls, but still pretty entertaining for all. My daughter likes "Peter Pan" and "Return To Neverland," but her favorite characters are the girls. The character of Tinkerbell in the new movies, though, is considerably different from the one in the "Peter Pan" movies. She even talks. I don't know if they plan to eventually make her mute and pouty by the end of the 5th TB movie or if these are all just "re-imagining" of the TB character.

This is one of those stories I can't really understand why Disney decided to do it. But I'm sure all the children stories they decided to make probably had some stuff toned down.

This thread reminded of me of the Family Guy episode where Stewie takes over the country and bans Disney video sequels.

Aristocats, Robin Hood, and Dumbo have all been re-released within the last two years. Dumbo has been released three times on DVD, Aristocats and Robin Hood twice.

I strongly disagree with you. The DTV sequels are awful. I'd go so far as to say that every animated feature they've ever made is better than the best direct to video sequel.

Keep in mind that these were films made for "general audiences", meaning ALL ages not just 3 year olds.

What do you mean by this? Are you one of those people who think Alice in Wonderland is about drugs?

I think they are dreadful. Poor quality animation, cheap background art, recycled stories, often the DTV sequal is the result of an aborted TV pilot.

Psychidelic imagery existed before the 1960's. You have a limited view on art, animation, and Disney. Put simply, you are wrong about a great many things. I'm glad your daughter likes the DTV sequels, my 2 year old likes that god awful computer animated Mickey Mouse Clubhouse, but I recognize that just because a 2 year old likes it, that doesn't make it art, or even good entertainment. The great Disney work was accessable and entertaining to all ages.

Once again proving that most of that show is just dated internet forum posts/fads.

I checked it out and it was actually decent. It would probably be pretty awesome to your daughter though and it does have a good message to it. The only thing is that the CG looks VERY bland, as it almost always does. The hand-drawn images in the ending credits look FAR better than the actual movie.

I was referring to the releases in the 40's (Aristocats and Robin Hood were from the 70's based on the source I at least was quoting from) that I had not seen (later I referenced Dombo myself). So that means, I was referring to:

- Saludos Amigos, 1942
- The Three Caballeros, 1944
- Make Mine Music, 1946
- Fun and Fancy Free, 1947
- Melody Time, 1948

Sorry if that was not clear. As far as I know these have not been re-released on DVD.

That's fine, I can just as easily strongly disagree back at you. I find Lion King II, Beauty and the Beast Christmas, Bambi II, Fox and the Hound II, and Brother Bear 2 to be excellent Disney titles and better then some of their original titles. I would even venture to say that the number of people as yourself that think these titles are awful is in the minority. But that is just my opinion, as yours is just yours. Of course sales and ratings might favor my side on this debate.

"G" rating means there are no restrictions, it does not state age of intent. At the same point, it does not mean a release has no value if it does not hold the interest of older children and adults. We have plenty of genre's represented in adult movies where the intent is not to have to satisfy all. Which is why some complain that too many movies today are dumbed down to get a PG-13 rating. As a result, I have no problem with some Disney releases catering specifically to hold the attention of young children, while being boring to older children and adults.

No I am not. The comment on the 60's was no more then a jab at the 60's. The truth is that I am actually curious to know more about the "Psychidelic imagery" as you put it that was more prevelent in Disney animated movies then, then now. I was hoping to get some history on it. Nothing more.

I will just have to disagree with you on all these points, with respect to the sequels I recommended above.

Naive maybe a few things such as "Psychidelic imagery" (but then that's why I asked for more information on the subject), but hardly wrong. The items that were factual oriented I clarified above. The remainder are opinion only.

Personally, I think art is better suited at times to not try and be entertaining and accessible to all ages, because to often it fails miserable. Sometimes it is best to be focused to an intent and do it well. As I stated above, I see to often where people complain about pictures trying to cater to all and failing to live up to potential.

So it is clear now you think all the DTV sequels are dreadful, while I do not. In the end, it really doesn't matter what we think, it all depends on what Disney decides to do. I would prefer they continue to make DTV sequels as long as they are of the caliber of one's I referenced, and you do not. End of story.

These two were re-released in 2008., packaged together.

These three films are still in print from their original release, which would at least partially explain the lack of a re-release. They may not be at the level of the "classics" that Disney pulls in and out of the vault to exploit consumers, but at least they seem to be making enough sales for Disney to keep them in print.

And really, what is your argument? That Disney has released some sub-par theatrical films in the past? How does that support your argument for DTV sequels? "Oh, it's OK for Disney to make crap DTV sequels now, because in the past they've released a few films not as fondly remembered as others."


Please specify which of these sequels you feel are better than the original. You brought up this point before, but you never specify the sequels you actually feel are better than the originals.

Is one Bambi II, because the mother doesn't die in that one (because she's already dead)?

Sales, maybe, although their popularity likely stems from the fact that they're sequels to very popular original films.

However, in terms of ratings, not at all. The sequels scores are always lower than that of the original. Try checking out rottentomatoes or imdb for yourself.

Actually, Disney originally released films before the G rating existed (or any ratings existed). For a long time, all films were designed to be seen by everyone.

[quote]At the same point, it does not mean a release has no value if it does not hold the interest of older children and adults. [/quote
They have value, but they have less value than films that do appeal to all ages. If Disney has been capable of doing so in the past, and Pixar is capable of doing so of every single one of their films, why should we settle for less?

Certainly films can try to appeal to all ages and fail at appealing to any. However, when it's Disney, which has successfully appealed to many ages with many of its films for a period of decades, seeing them aiming so low is discouraging and disappointing.

If you feel your opinion is so unimportant, why do you continue to post?

You seemed to be throwing money at the elephant. Well done.

Ok Jay, I'll respond to your questions.

No, that was in response to the notion that Disney is doing something different now then what they did in the past. Some have selective memory about what Disney produced in the past. My point was that not everything turned out to be a classic then so why would you expect everything to be classic worthy now. But as Mabuse points out "classic" is in the eye of the beholder. So while some seem to have cult status as classics to most, others may only be deemed classics by a few. In either case, there was merit in there release regardless. So as long as some enjoy those DTV releases why shouldn't they continue. You can just ignore them if you don't like them. And I've seen no evidence where the production of DTV releases prevents Disney from new original releases. If they didn't make money they wouldn't be produced. More money means more resources. In any case, we are both just speculating on this unless you have factual evidence to the contrary.

Thanks for the update on the other relases.

You are taking this out of the context I intended. What I stated was "some" of their original titles, meaning any Disney original title would apply. That does not mean it has to be THE original title of a sequel. For example: Emperor's Groove is an original title. In my opinion, all the titles I listed are better then Emperor's Groove. In other words, I would take a quality sequel over a subpar original title of a different theme.

And when I talk ratings, I am referring to each movie on its own merits not specifically a sequel to the original for which it is based. However, of the one's I mentioned we happen to like the sequels as much as the originals that they were based.

Just because films were released before a rating system does not mean they were appropriate for all ages. If that was the case there would have been no need for a rating system.

Why would they have less value? What is you criteria for ranking value? Value to me is based on how much those that enjoy it, enjoy it. Not on how many people enjoy it of different age groups. And yes you can strive for both cases, but in reality we know you can't please everyone all the time.

I'm not sure Disney did do it in the past. It is also interesting you bring up Pixar as a model of what Disney should stride for. As an adult, I prefer much of what Pixar has done. However, interestingly my daughters do not share your enthusiasm. They would much prefer the Disney sequels. So while you feel they are aiming low my daughters do not. So one size does not fit all as a success model.

I did not say unimportant. My comment was in the context that I don't think Disney is going to be making any decisions based on this thread (who knows maybe I'm wrong). So while our positions may be worth debating, ultimately Disney will decide whether to continue with DTV sequels. I just don't think our opinions here are going to make a difference.

Jay, we already know we disagree. We went back and forth several times in the past with no common ground between us. So there really is no point in us rehashing past comments. And if I recall correctly, you at least did not have children at the time. I have two daughters 2 1/2 and 6 1/2, so it is hard to have a discussion with you when we are approaching this from different viewpoints. Just to add, before I had children my position was closer to yours but things have changed for me since they were born and I started watching with them.

As it happens, someone brought the thread alive and I responded to their comments. Mabuse responded to mine and I tried to clarify what was stated because I believed he misconstrued some of my intent. In any respect, I've expressed my views and I'll let them stand on their own. There is really nothing more I can say on the subject.

They are doing something different than in the past: they're releasing cheap DTV sequels of classic films. Even in the previous so-called creative slumps, Disney focused on theatrical releases of films, and largely non-sequel material.

Because I don't like them and don't think they should continue. It's like asking "as long as some people like colorization, why shouldn't that continue?" Or the same about P&S. People have negative reactions to them, and don't like the practice, and would like it to stop.


It's simple economics. Disney only has a finite amount of money to spend on productions each year. if it costs, say, $100 million to produce a theatrical animated film, and it costs $50 million to create a DTV sequel, if Disney produces 2 DTV sequels, that's one less theatrical film they can produce.


OK, I misunderstood what you were stating.

Oh, you did not just dis The Emperor's New Groove (and get the title wrong). That film is brilliantly funny, one of my modern favorites. I enjoyed it so much I actually bought the dtv sequel, Kronk's New Groove, which was disappointing.

I would as well. The problem is that the majority of the DTV sequels are subpar.

And wouldn't you prefer a quality original film over a merely ok dtv sequel?

Yes, that's exactly what it meant. Haven't you ever heard of the Hays Code? Films had to stick to certain rules for appropriateness in order to get approved for general release. The rating system was created because filmmakers rankled at these restrictions, and the audience became more approving of the idea of films not appropriate for all ages.

Because less people enjoy them, and more importantly, I don't enjoy them.

By that criteria, the Jonas Brothers are the best band ever, since the limited demographic that enjoys their music really enjoys it.

And yet Disney managed to produce films that all ages enjoyed for over half a century.

As I 've mentioned before, Beauty and the Beast was nominated for a Best Picture Oscar, meaning that the adults in the Academy felt that it was better than most of the live-action films released that year. Snow White was listed as one of the 100 greatest American films by the AFI. For a short time, Snow White was the highest-grossing film in American cinema history. Noted filmmakers such as Sergei Eisenstein and Charlie Chaplin praised Snow White as a notable achievement in cinema.


Again, children aren't great arbiters of quality. But how do you know they prefer them? Is it some A-B double-blind comparison. Do they grade them?

Also, your kids are anecdotal evidence. I could just as easily counter with the anecdote of the child who was dying of cancer who's last wish was to see the Pixar film UP!

However, I'm not against the DTV sequels because they don't appeal to really young kids, I'm against them because they don't appeal to me. I'm selfish, and would prefer more films that appeal both to kids and to adults. And why not? It's not like the kids still don't get a film they can watch.

It doesn't have to be "one size fits all," but it's nice when an animated film is sophisticated enough that adults can enjoy it as well. Not all films have to be "family films," where the whole family can sit down and enjoy a movie together, but it's nice that there are such films. Likewise, it's disappointing when a studio known for making quality family films instead aims lower and makes quick, unsophisticated films that only young children can enjoy.

[quote]I did not say unimportant. My comment was in the context that I don't think Disney is going to be making any decisions based on this thread.[quote]
That goes without saying though.

I think that having two different viewpoints is a great way to have a discussion. If our opinions were exactly the same, there'd be nothing to discuss.

So, your tolerance for crap increased?

Again, I can understand the reasoning, "eh, the kids enjoy it," when deciding to purchase a movie for their viewing. However, you've actually stated that you personally enjoyed some of the films. Are you suggesting that by having kids, I would find a film like Krunks New Groove to be personally more enjoyable?

You guys are still fighting?

I stopped reading after this. This is the most flawed logic I have ever read. Stick to what you know. And in this case movies and Disney are NOT what you know.

Jay,

I can just as easily write a counter reply to every thing you have written, as you find that you can do to mine. So I'll end it without replying to a single one because really what would be the point. On this subject we agree about nothing. However, while I don't agree with a single aspect of your position, I do respect your right to it, as I would hope you would do the same.

Enjoy your movies.

While differing viewpoints, at least Jay and I could hold onto a conversation without attacking each other directly, which I can't say about your approach. So be it your not even worth the effort. So get in your last dig and we will close the book.

What's the point of any discussion on the internet except to voice opinions and argue for them? I've enjoyed this discussion because I've gained a better understanding of a differing opinion, and I hope I enlightened some to the merits of mine.

If you are tired of arguing for your opinion, that's fine. However, I wouldn't find continued discussion on this thread to be pointless.

You argued your points very well, and you have more patience than me with bsmith. But I think it's a lost cause. The guy edits the evil queen's desire for the heart of Snow White, and the whipping out of Dumbo when he shows it to his kids.

As I wrote a year ago in this thread, I never thought I'd change bsmith's mind. typically, the only opinions you can change are those of the uninformed (such as with P&S supporters learning the facts behind OAR and the changes made for "full-screen"), or the undecided.

Mostly, I just like the arguing because it causes me to focus on my own opinions and articulate the reasoning for them. Before this thread I still disliked the DTV sequels, but I had probably never fully reasoned out why, not even to myself.

It's an interesting paradox where bsmith dislikes, say, the death of Bambi's mom, but enjoys the sequel which bases itself on that exact aspect of the original film. You'd think he'd be in favor of more inoffensive original films instead of sequels based on "offensive" originals.

I thought Disney was stopping with the shitty sequels, yet they are releasing more Tinker Bell films.

http://www.amazon.com/Tinker-Bell-Gr.../dp/B003DT19F0