SirLink
Well-Known Member
So Disney gave up on creativity and tried to buy its way out of the situation. Not the way Walt did things...
Exactly like Walt did things...
So Disney gave up on creativity and tried to buy its way out of the situation. Not the way Walt did things...
if it was biggest, is that just basing off of the more and more inflated ticket costs? i've watched about 5 minutes of the movie, and could not stand to watch more. Yet, i love star wars.
i just don't see the lasting value of avatar, and until we actually see follow ups made (i've constantly heard rumors of delays and scripts not even close to done) i can't get too excited, or put too much stock into it.
if only disney could have secured the rights to the lord of the rings. thats one that is both one of the biggest franchises in recent memory, and one that could fit nicely into AK as a mythical side of things goes.
for every one avatar fan you might find, i would bet there are a lot more people who have virtually no clue or interest.
Exactly like Walt did things...
I really don't know how to reply to such a blind, defiant, untrue comment.
Yeah don't forget all those original Disney stories like Pet Pan, Mary Poppins, Snow White, Cinderella.... I rest my case
Back to back sequels would of been perfect but back to back to back sequels is overboard. Nonetheless I'll still see themJesus, now we're getting three Avatar sequels, all in a row?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23546537
Jesus, now we're getting three Avatar sequels, all in a row?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23546537
I really don't know how to reply to such a blind, defiant, untrue comment. Help me out here, Minnie:
The Lion King was the first Disney animated feature film to not be based at all on a previous story (and, of course, there's the controversy about Kimba the White Lion; also, it obviously shares a theme with Hamlet).
That may very well be the case - I'm not well versed in the Pixar deals. But they weren't technically "Disney" movies, which is what the person I was replying to meant - as in, created at Disney. That's kind of the point - even when DIsney technically owns something (Marvel, Star Wars) many people still will never consider those things Disney and therefore not "legitimately" Disney and worthy of the parks.
Yeah don't forget all those original Disney stories like Peter Pan, Mary Poppins, Snow White, Cinderella.... I rest my case
Ya I know what you mean. Pixar movies are seperare from Disney movies just like with Marvel. In fact, Pixar should be more closely associated with Lucasfilm since they originated as the animation branch of that company before being spun out and sold to Steve Jobs.
No, you have no case at all. Walt and company adapted those stories into Disney versions and Disney classics. Iger just bought up characters that have already been developed and made into movies and TV shows. No creativity involved there. Tsk...you're yet another person who doesn't know the difference between acquisition and artistry...
Pixar became a successful animation studio largely because of Disney's investment and involvement. John Lasseter once worked at Disney. The ties between Pixar and Disney are much tighter than anything else that Disney has purchased, and the aesthetics of the two studios are essentially the same. No such connection exists with Disney and Muppets/Marvel/Lucasfilm. And it shows. Badly.
No, you have no case at all. Walt and company adapted those stories into Disney versions and Disney classics. Iger just bought up characters that have already been developed and made into movies and TV shows. No creativity involved there. Tsk...you're yet another person who doesn't know the difference between acquisition and artistry...
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.