Disney- What is the Real Reason?

Recommended Videos

scotth266

Wait when did I get a sub
Jan 10, 2009
5,202
0
0
The_root_of_all_evil said:
Darth Mobius said:
I REALLY want to see Up, but Transformers 2 comes out this week, before payday, so I saved up to see that instead of going to it this week.
Oooh, you're not going to enjoy that decision.
Forgive me for going off-topic here, but have the mods already seen the movie? First a tweet that Nil put out, and now you... I have to wonder, did you guys see an advance screening at some point?

I'm really curious as to whether or not my theory about the Transformers films is correct: that the percentage of flesh shown by the female lead is an inverse of the male lead's intelligence, and the overall quality of the film.

To be honest, I hated the Bouf in the last flick: the military dude was by far a more interesting character and actor. He should be the hero.
 

Shapsters

New member
Dec 16, 2008
6,079
0
0
Khell_Sennet said:
Shapsters said:
That is what I am saying, how is retelling a story sealing the idea? If I read the Cat in the Hat to my future kids, am I stealing the story, or telling the story?
In reading the story, you are not making money off Dr Seuss's works. Nor are you selling merchandise, putting your brand name all over the book, or suing anyone else who reads the book to their children.
How are they supposed to make money to continue making movies?! Is it so very wrong of a company to want to make money?! Go ahead and name me a company that isn't trying to make money, it'll be pretty difficult seeing as how thats what companies are trying to do! I don't understand your problem with merchandising and making money.
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
Khell_Sennet said:
No f'ing clue who Smith Kline Beecham is.
Oh I think you may do, possibly under GlaxoSmithKline: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GlaxoSmithKline] makers of Macleans, Horlicks, Beechams, Ribena, Lucozade, Aquafresh etc.

2 of your (NZ) girls even ousted GSK/SKB for Ribena having no vitamin C.
 

Christemo

New member
Jan 13, 2009
3,665
0
0
they have said that they wont do anymore cartoon movies, but instead of making more of the worst music ever made, couldnt they make a new cartoon movie? plix.
 

asinann

New member
Apr 28, 2008
1,602
0
0
Fumbles said:
asinann said:
Because most of their movies rip off old books gutting them and dumbing them down and in some cases they just find a 20 year old foreign film, add some Elton John music and a couple of funny animals and try to pass it off as original (Aladdin was a rip off of the Tales of the Arabian Nights and Lion King ripped off a Japanese animated film from 20 years before it, Disney is still paying court ordered royalties for that one.)

Yeah ah no they aren't. That is a urban legend. The Lion King is an allegory of Hamlet, as was Kimba the White Lion. The makers of Kimba have gone on the record to say that Disney did not rip them off. However that does not mean that Disney paid them an ass ton of money to be quiet. The story of Aladdin was in The Book of One Thousand and One Nights, moreover The film Aladdin was the least changed from the source material.
The film Aladdin was changed massively from the book, and I do mean massively. Where's the Genie of the ring? How about Aladdin's mother and Aladdin kidnapping the princess every night?
How about the move of the palace from Arabia to Africa? It was missing almost everything that was motivation for the story of Aladdin from the book and was them taking the name and the concept of the genie of the lamp and doing a whole rewite.
 

The_Deleted

New member
Aug 28, 2008
2,188
0
0
Moaning about Disney using Grimms Brothers and Hans Christian Anderson as ideas is absurd. These stories have been around for years. And Disney films are usually, or at least used to be, the definitive version in film.

How many crappy Poundland / Dollarstore DVD's do we see of classics for kids that have ripped of the design of Disney?
 

Fumbles

New member
Apr 15, 2009
256
0
0
asinann said:
Fumbles said:
asinann said:
Because most of their movies rip off old books gutting them and dumbing them down and in some cases they just find a 20 year old foreign film, add some Elton John music and a couple of funny animals and try to pass it off as original (Aladdin was a rip off of the Tales of the Arabian Nights and Lion King ripped off a Japanese animated film from 20 years before it, Disney is still paying court ordered royalties for that one.)

Yeah ah no they aren't. That is a urban legend. The Lion King is an allegory of Hamlet, as was Kimba the White Lion. The makers of Kimba have gone on the record to say that Disney did not rip them off. However that does not mean that Disney paid them an ass ton of money to be quiet. The story of Aladdin was in The Book of One Thousand and One Nights, moreover The film Aladdin was the least changed from the source material.
The film Aladdin was changed massively from the book, and I do mean massively. Where's the Genie of the ring? How about Aladdin's mother and Aladdin kidnapping the princess every night?
How about the move of the palace from Arabia to Africa? It was missing almost everything that was motivation for the story of Aladdin from the book and was them taking the name and the concept of the genie of the lamp and doing a whole rewite.
I didn't say that it was perfect, I said out of all of the Disney movies it was the Least Changed. In Sleeping Beauty she was raped while she was asleep, didn't see that in the movie. Or in the little mermaid she was reincarnated as an air spirit, once again not in the Disney movie.
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
Khell_Sennet said:
The_root_of_all_evil said:
Khell_Sennet said:
No f'ing clue who Smith Kline Beecham is.
Oh I think you may do, possibly under GlaxoSmithKline: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GlaxoSmithKline] makers of Macleans, Horlicks, Beechams, Ribena, Lucozade, Aquafresh etc.

2 of your (NZ) girls even ousted GSK/SKB for Ribena having no vitamin C.
GlaxoSmithKline isn't familiar either, but I have seen (but never use) Aquafresh before, and know of Macleans magazine (but never read). If you wanted to use an example of a megasized multinational company, should use ones everyone and their dog would recognize on sight, like Kraft Foods Intl or Pepsico, more than 80% of the brands listed on that Wiki link aren't even available in Canada.
Doh, sorry man for some reason I thought you were an Aussie?
 

asinann

New member
Apr 28, 2008
1,602
0
0
Fumbles said:
asinann said:
Fumbles said:
asinann said:
Because most of their movies rip off old books gutting them and dumbing them down and in some cases they just find a 20 year old foreign film, add some Elton John music and a couple of funny animals and try to pass it off as original (Aladdin was a rip off of the Tales of the Arabian Nights and Lion King ripped off a Japanese animated film from 20 years before it, Disney is still paying court ordered royalties for that one.)

Yeah ah no they aren't. That is a urban legend. The Lion King is an allegory of Hamlet, as was Kimba the White Lion. The makers of Kimba have gone on the record to say that Disney did not rip them off. However that does not mean that Disney paid them an ass ton of money to be quiet. The story of Aladdin was in The Book of One Thousand and One Nights, moreover The film Aladdin was the least changed from the source material.
The film Aladdin was changed massively from the book, and I do mean massively. Where's the Genie of the ring? How about Aladdin's mother and Aladdin kidnapping the princess every night?
How about the move of the palace from Arabia to Africa? It was missing almost everything that was motivation for the story of Aladdin from the book and was them taking the name and the concept of the genie of the lamp and doing a whole rewite.
I didn't say that it was perfect, I said out of all of the Disney movies it was the Least Changed. In Sleeping Beauty she was raped while she was asleep, didn't see that in the movie. Or in the little mermaid she was reincarnated as an air spirit, once again not in the Disney movie.
Take out a small part to make a cartoon movie kid friendly (Sleeping Beauty/Little Mermaid)or change several major plot points (Aladdin) and which one is changed more. In the first two the major motivations for the characters wasn't altered in the slightest, in Aladdin his motivation was changed from revenge to money and love, sounds to me like Aladdin got changed quite a bit more. It was the early movies that were closest to the original stories and the later ones that were changed to be almost unrecognizable to anyone that had read the stories.
 

Sixties Spidey

Elite Member
Jan 24, 2008
3,299
0
41
Khell_Sennet said:
Disney always has been, and always will be, a whore to the consumer. They don't care what the product is, so long as it is marketable to children. They will sell someone else's works, dressed up in their particular blend of animation, and then merchandise the sweet-silly-fuck out of it until the consumer can't even remember that Disney wasn't that product/story's creator. Now, instead of stories, they pimp other peoples bodies. Young boys and girls' bodies, such as Miley Cyrus and the Jonas Brothers. Same result, merchandise the fuck out of it, then dump it for something new when popularity fades.

Right from the get-go, much of Disney's greater works were of someone else's creation (as has been mentioned).

Snow White - Originally a story by Brothers Grimm.
Pinocchio - A story originally by Carlo Lorenzini, used by Disney after his death.
Fantasia - The third Disney film, and the first Disney Animations Studio product that was actually originated by Disney, and a financial bomb.
Dumbo - A children's story by Helen Aberson, illustrated by Harold Perl. Again, not actually Disney in origin.
Bambi - Felix Salten wrote Bambi, and it was a bestseller almost fifteen years before Disney came along.
Saludos Amigos - Sixth Disney film, second one of their actual making. Yet again, a bomb, and only 43 minutes long.
The Three Caballeros - Seventh Disney film, third one they did themselves, overall Meh. Awards for music, otherwise not very noteworthy.
Make Mine Music - Eighth and Fourth, a propaganda piece done to keep Disney afloat during WW2. Never seen it, don't want to.
Fun and Fancy Free - Ugh, this is getting repetitive. Disney did five back-to-back musical crapfests in a 6-film deal, this was the fourth.
Melody Time - Musical crapfest #5, having learned from Fantasia's flop, they didn't bother spending much on a destined-to-be-crap film.
The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad - Last of Disney's 6-pack deal, and back on to stolen works. Kenneth Grahame's "The Wind in the Willows" for Mr. Toad, and Ichabod's half being a Disney rip of Washington Irving's "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow". 2 thefts for the price of 1.
Cinderella - Who would have seen this coming? Cinderella is based on Charles Perrault's book which goes by the same name and he was 247 years too-dead to object.
Alice in Wonderland - To the older crowd, this is the Disney film based on the book by Lewis Carroll. To the younger crowd, it's the film adaptation of the slasher/horror video game from the year 2000 by American McGee, sent back in time in a Terminator-esque paradox so McGee could grow up watching the film of the game he made, so he'd know what to base his game on. If you believe in the Lewis Carroll origins, yeah, he was 54 years dead when Disney made the film. Copyright and royalties owed on literature expires 50 years post the creator's death. Coincidence?
Peter Pan - J. M. Barrie wrote this story, and then he died. Well, OK, he lived a long and full life first, it's not like Disney offed him so they could steal his work. But strange how so far, every originator of works which Disney used are DEAD! *Dun dun daaaaah*
Lady and the Tramp - Fuck, has it been fifteen films already? Fifteen films before Disney had a major hit with something THEY originated?...
Sleeping Beauty - ... Only to go back to stealing works for film 16. Oh Walt, how could you? Charles Perrault's work again, that 247-years-dead guy. Walt Disney's last film before he became Walt Zombie (last one he worked on, not last released before dying).

To cut the rest of the list short, 101 Dalmatians was originally by Dodie Smith. The Sword in the Stone was by T. H. White. Rudyard Kipling wrote The Jungle Book. The Arisocats was adapted from the works of Tom McGowan and Tom Rowe. Just try telling me you think Robin Hood was Disney origin, considering English folk tales of him pre-date Walt Disney's birth. Alan Alexander Milne's widow sold the rights of Winnie the Pooh to Disney, which gave them rights to make The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh. Multiple novels by Margery Sharp were the origin behind The Rescuers. Daniel P. Mannix wrote The Fox and the Hound. The Black Cauldron is from Lloyd Alexander's "Chronicles of Prydain" stories. Gotta love this one, The Great Mouse Detective was taken from "Basil of Baker Street" by Eve Titus, which in turn, took heavily from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's stories of "Sherlock Holmes", which makes it twice-stolen. Oliver & Company even admits its theft in the character's name, being a ripoff of "Oliver Twist" by Charles Dickens. Perhaps one of their most successful films, The Little Mermaid is taken from the fairy tale by Hans Christian Andersen, who in turn, wrote his story based on Danish folk lore. As with "The Rescuers" (above), The Rescuers Down Under is the work of Margery Sharp. Film #30, Beauty and the Beast is again plagiarized work under the guise of "the author has been dead for centuries"; Madame Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve is credited with the first written version, "La Belle et la Bete", back in the mid 1700's. As mentioned before, Aladdin is directly copied from Arabian Nights, a collection of ancient Arabic folklore. But perhaps the absolute WORST case of copying someone else's works comes from The Lion King which is a scene-for-scene plagiarism of Osamu Tezuka's "Kimba the White Lion", and the first time where Disney actually denies using the works of others, saying The Lion King was entirely their creation... Yeah fucking right! Anyhoo, Pocahontas was based on real Native folklore (and a real woman of the same name), The Hunchback of Notre Dame was originally by Victor Hugo, and you are a fucking RETARD if I have to point out to you the true origin of Hercules. Mulan was from the Chinese legend of "Hua Mulan", Sui Dynasty (581-618AD). Tarzan of the Apes was by Edgar Rice Burroughs, and became Disney's Tarzan in 1999, 38th film of Disney Animation Studios, and the last one actually worth mention. 10 films since the turn of the millennium, with Bolt being the most recent, but that was in its own way just another product of the Miley Cyrus craze (voice of Penny in the film).

Thirty Eight Films from their opening day till the year 2000, and in that time, "Lady and the Tramp" is the only success that is actually Disney's own creation.

If you managed to read all that above, you probably have worse insomnia than I do right now, but the bottom line is, Disney is soulless and devoid of ethics, and people buy their shit by the truckload, raking in millions for a company that truly makes NOTHING.
Holy Wall of Text.

In all seriousness though, you do bring up a lot of good points and justify them rather well, but aren't you forgetting the reason they've been made famous? Mickey Mouse . And guess what? They're still using him. He hasn't been tossed aside, although the fame of Miley Cyrus and Jonas Bros. seems to leave Mickey Mouse in the shadow, and thus makes it look like he's been tossed aside.

P.S. I actually did read everything, so hurrah! I officially have worse insomnia than you do! :p