Bump. This has been quiet, do we have any idea on a date?
announcement at D23?
I'm still waiting for that Agent P overhaul...
Bump. This has been quiet, do we have any idea on a date?
I still love the slap in face in Looney Tunes Back in Action...His successors have failed to leave up to that legacy. Lillard and Seacrest are terrible in those respective roles.
Bump. This has been quiet, do we have any idea on a date?
Perhaps will get a better answer during the expo?That Other Site says it will debut for the Arts Festival. Nothing else from Disney or our insiders AFAIK.
This is a thing that I agree with. Very, very much. Disney's been doing this sort of thing with their movies and TV shows as well. I don't dislike the idea of celebrities doing voice acting in general (there are a lot of celebrities that are good at it), but there's such a thing as too much. Not everybody has a distinct voice that lends itself well to animation, and just because someone is a good live-action actor doesn't mean they're going to give a good voice performance. There was no point in casting Shakira as a character in Zootopia who barely has any screentime or lines, and does Disney really think somebody not in the target audience of Mickey and the Roadster Racers is going to watch it simply because it's got Jay Leno voicing a recurring character?
Of course, with theme park attractions there doesn't seem to be as much of a reliance on celebrities. I could be wrong, though.
And yet, a lot of movies that have celebrities doing the voices wind up flopping... Kubo and the Two Strings, UglyDolls, Turbo, Rise of the Guardians, the fifth Ice Age movie, Early Man, Norm of the North, and Penguins of Madagascar come to mind.
Although it should be noted that having celebrities do voiceover work started before Aladdin. I mean, even Pinocchio had celebrities in it.
I thought it was the case that due to Robin Williams contract, they were not allowed to use the Genie in the marketing for Aladdin back in '92.Oh, absolutely, and even in the early 90s we had things like George C. Scott as the villain in The Rescuers Down Under, albeit near the end of his career. It's more that Williams redefined using a celebrity voice, to the point of entire animated films being built around celebrity presence or otherwise trying to mimic the type of marketing juggernaut the Genie was in '92, which wasn't really a thing that happened much before then.
I thought it was the case that due to Robin Williams contract, they were not allowed to use the Genie in the marketing for Aladdin back in '92.
I've had the theory for a while now that Shrek was responsible for the "animated movies must have celebrity voices in order to be successful" mindset. After all, a lot of studios were trying to cash in on its success, including DreamWorks itself, with the whole "pop-culture references and toilet humor" thing.
Or how about just let "awesome" mean "awesome" and thus timeless? I get the overuse in the '90s, but it still means "awesome" -- unlike "lit" and "woke". So, I like the name OK. It's not trendy or IP. Just "awesome"!
Or how about just let "awesome" mean "awesome" and thus timeless? I get the overuse in the '90s, but it still means "awesome" -- unlike "lit" and "woke". So, I like the name OK. It's not trendy or IP. Just "awesome"!
"Lit" and "woke" are basically newer generations trying to come up with words that have the same staying power as the words earlier generations used...and failing miserably. The reason "awesome" has had the staying power its enjoyed is specifically because of it's actual meaning. "Lit" and "woke", while cute, will never see the same world-wide use and longevity because they don't resonate with as many age groups and their meaning isn't evident. They're the modern-day versions of "rad".Yes, the term makes sense if you think of it with the original meaning inspiring great admiration (i.e. awe)
That effect broke during testing and they're not bothering to fix it. Sorry.On the mist screen in the ceiling ?
That effect broke during testing and they're not bothering to fix it. Sorry.
They're actually having trouble getting the new digital projector to work. So Disney decided to just play the audio and call it "sounds of the planet." Kind of like Sounds Dangerous but without headphones.so its not going to have that effect at all its just going to be the movie??
Don't forget to throw Toy Story in there. Tom Hanks and Tim Allen (at the height of his popularity)...I've had the theory for a while now that Shrek was responsible for the "animated movies must have celebrity voices in order to be successful" mindset. After all, a lot of studios were trying to cash in on its success, including DreamWorks itself, with the whole "pop-culture references and toilet humor" thing.
So just Dangerous?They're actually having trouble getting the new digital projector to work. So Disney decided to just play the audio and call it "sounds of the planet." Kind of like Sounds Dangerous but without headphones.
Surround Sounds Dangerous.So just Dangerous?
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.