Or maybe Disney should sue Nintendo?Do you think Disney would sue over character infringement if Illumination did a Super Mario Galaxy movie?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Wish (Walt Disney Animation - November 2023)
- Thread starter DCBaker
- Start date
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
As did I!
I should also add that the art style, which I had misgivings about based on what I saw online, worked much better on the big screen.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
And goodness knows there's enough to discuss there for the next 72 hours as the holiday box office is tallied.
This article is only a few days old, but has already not aged well. I imagine things are rather gloomy in several studio executive households this weekend once the actual numbers started rolling in...
Disney used to own the Thanksgiving box office. 'Wish' is trying to win it back
"Wish," which arrives in theaters Wednesday, has two goals: Pull Disney out of its animation rut and kickstart the Thanksgiving weekend.
Nah, we should totally make Wisholeon happen!!
roro494
Active Member
Ok so I just finished Wish, it felt so underwhelming! For a film meant to mark the 100th it kinda feels embarrassing. Every song felt like it was written to try and replicate the radio success of “Let It Go” and “We Don’t Talk About Bruno” instead of serving the film, the only song that really stuck with me was "I'm A Star". I also hate to say it but the goat was annoying. 
It might be time for Alan Tudyk to move on from being featured in every film. Magnifico felt like he had a lot of potential to be a cool villain but fell pretty flat, especially with his song. All the callbacks to other Disney animated movies felt really forced like they wanted to say "Hey remember these movies we made that we're actually good?" On the good side I thought the water color 3D animation was interesting and the star was very cute! It seems (to me) we're in another dark age of Disney animated features and with the multiple sequels that have been announced for the future it's looking like it's not ending soon. I had really high hopes after the heartwarming "Once Upon A Studio" but it seems that was a rare gem.
It might be time for Alan Tudyk to move on from being featured in every film. Magnifico felt like he had a lot of potential to be a cool villain but fell pretty flat, especially with his song. All the callbacks to other Disney animated movies felt really forced like they wanted to say "Hey remember these movies we made that we're actually good?" On the good side I thought the water color 3D animation was interesting and the star was very cute! It seems (to me) we're in another dark age of Disney animated features and with the multiple sequels that have been announced for the future it's looking like it's not ending soon. I had really high hopes after the heartwarming "Once Upon A Studio" but it seems that was a rare gem.
Jedijax719
Well-Known Member
What is happening to Wish and likewise the Disney princess franchise and Disney animated altogether is extremely sad. Not a whole lot else to say about that other than that it is very sad indeed.
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
How Chicken Little made the cut when these didn’t is beyond me.
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
You’re not the only person to say this, but I actually found the references much subtler than I thought they’d be. I’m not even sure if some of the ones I identified were true callbacks.
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
Perhaps you’ll get around to watching it one day and decide for yourself.Sounds like a winner to me.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
Except for the Peter Pan one
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
Yes, that was glaring, but sort of funny (it helped that they saved it till the end as a joke).
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
From a technical standpoint, it was Disney Animation's first attempt at a fully 3D animated feature film back when they were set to prove to Pixar that they didn't need 'em. It was the product of traditional hand-drawing animators getting about a year and a half of training in CG animation (and the final product reflected that lack of experience).
Disney had previously done the visually impressive Dinosaur but that relied on a combination of live action nature shots and visual effects artists doing the animation, striving for more for what Disney would today call "live action" the way they claim movies like the Jungle Book and The Lion King remakes are, than what they'd ever classify as animation.
Anyway, from a technical perspective, it does have an important place as a stepping stone and learning process which paved the way for much better stuff that came after.
Although I'm sure getting insight from Pixar after the acquisition and having Lasseter over them helped a lot, Disney's worked hard to keep their animation style in CG closer to the squash-stretch methods that were a hallmark of their 2D style and which were not to that point, something Pixar was known for due to the technical difficulties in making that work in 3D animation where it's a lot easier to get that uncanny valley effect with things due to the entire processes setup designed to mimic the real world when it comes to 3D form and articulation.
This is part of why Pixar avoided featuring human characters for so long and why their appearances in things like the early Toy Stories always looked weak compared to everything else as well as a big reason the early Dreamworks stuff looks funky when revisited. Shrek and Donkey were okay but every human character in that movie felt off because they lacked that squash and stretch that really comes in handy, especially during faster movement.
Anyway, long-story-short, Chicken little, while forgettable for audiences is probably seen as important in a transformational sense for the folks at Disney Animation and that's probably why it was included - more for them than for us.
Last edited:
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
I know the mirror thing has been discussed but I saw the poisoned apple in his lab, too, which I'm sure has been mentioned somwhere but not where I've seen it.
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
The apple stood out to me also. Other than Peter, it was the most obvious reference I spotted.I know the mirror thing has been discussed but I saw the poisoned apple in his lab, too, which I'm sure has been mentioned somwhere but not where I've seen it.
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
This is all very fair. Still, it’s a shame the omitted films weren’t included. It doesn’t make much sense to me that they weren’t.
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
There was another really direct visual one like that but for the life of me, I can't remember what it was, now. :/
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
Agreed - it's not like they couldn't have squeezed them in there.
There was room for something from every single movie and if they were going to abandon story for easter eggs and references, they should have at least had something from every movie in those credits.
Last edited:
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
The outfit that was clearly evoking the Fairy Godmother? (I’m keeping my description vague so as not to spoil anything.)
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
No but that too... oh, it was the rabbit foot which seemed way more obvious than things like the Alice and Wonderland and Fantasia references but isn't something I've seen people mention, for some reason.
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
Oh, I totally forgot about that till you brought it up.
I think what I was getting at earlier is that the references didn’t feel intrusive to me. They’re there for those who recognise them and pretty much irrelevant to those who don’t. Apart from Peter at the end, none of the callbacks would cause someone not in the know to scratch their heads and wonder what they’re missing.