Disney/Pixar In General

Aren't both those days the same thing?

April 30th is, in most European folklore, the witches' sabbath, where they gather on Bald Mountain or the Brocken or wherever to worship the Devil.

Yes, they are; that was my point. I was linking Satan to Walpurgis Night, which is a Christian name for the day (named after St. Walpurga) and Tzernabog to Witch's Night, as Tzernabog is a pagan deity and Witch's Night is one of the (many) pagan names for the day. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

edited 8th Aug '16 2:40:06 PM by Robbery

Next you're going to tell me that tomtes are just gnomes, aren't ya?

In any case, I do believe that "Night on Bald Mountain" depicts Satan; by the time the Ave Maria comes in it's hard to believe otherwise.

Fair enough. "Ave Maria" being significant to his...I guess defeat, does seem to be pretty good evidence.

Anyone here a fan of the Disney studio's once resident jazz band, the Firehouse Five Plus Two?

edited 15th Aug '16 1:56:27 PM by Aldo930

Their name was given a shout-out at the end of The Princess And The Frog!

Ha! That's great! I didn't know that.

edited 15th Aug '16 4:43:32 PM by Robbery

They were also, earlier, caricatured in the great Walt Kelly's Pogo. A caricature of Ward Kimball was prominently featured there. (Kelly later wrote the liner notes for one of their albums.)

Or, alternately, the Beany And Cecil episode with "The Fireplug Five Minus Two" - it's the one with "Rag Mop."

Which reminds me of another memorable story... The first episode of Beany And Cecil dealt with Beany opening an amusement park on the moon. The episode was full of Disneyland parody, but the element that drew complaints was that they had "a caricature of Walt Disney" as the villain.

Which it wasn't. It was Beany and Cecil's regular villain, Dishonest John.

Batman the Animated Series would much later have a Walt Disney-inspired villain and I think no one complained then.

Which was strange, since, well, Disney.

Which villain was that? I don't remember. ^_^;;

The entertainment mongul in Deep Freeze, the Mr. Freeze episode about the Disneyworld-like utopic underwater city.

It even slipped a gag about the 'cryogenized Walt Disney' urban legend.

(Ignore this part. Ninja'd)

Around the same time as the Beany short, actually, Jay Ward debuted the "Sleeping Beauty" episode of Fractured Fairy Tales, which had a prince that was a very clear caricature of Walt Disney - though Daws Butler gave him his Phil Silvers/Hokey Wolf voice - who, instead of waking up Sleeping Beauty, decides to build a theme park around her.

The park was a pretty clear parody of Disneyland, with areas like "Entrance Hall Land" and "Stair Land" that require X and Y coupons to get into. And there are several other jabs at Disney throughout the short - the prince remarks that he isn't a real prince because "I never joined the union"; a pretty clear reference to Disney's anti-union sentiments.

Somebody at Disney - probably Walt himself - was considering suing Ward over it, but they backed down when it was pointed out that Ward was the kind of guy who would have welcomed a lawsuit as publicity.

30 years later, of course, Disney would put out Rocky And Bullwinkle on VHS (to great financial returns) and 10 years after that make a film of George Of The Jungle. They seem to have let bygones be bygones.

edited 15th Aug '16 6:41:46 PM by Aldo930

To date I still think George of the Jungle is the best live action adaptation of a cartoon put to film. Admittedly that's not any kind of competition as live action adaptions of cartoons are almost universally terrible.

If anyone is big enough to have a sense of humor about themselves, it's Disney.

Venture Bros. did an obvious Disney parody too, in one of their first season episodes, though in their case they were kind of parodying all the weird conspiracy-esque crap that some people have accused Disney of over the years.

If they didn't sue Robert Smigel over "Journey to the Disney Vault"...

I think Jungle Book's and Pete's Dragon's remakes did better than the originals, at least in my opinion.

I don't think so. The idea behind the remake craze Disney is in now is pretty shameless - they're doing it pretty much because "Hey, remember that Disney movie you grew up with? Here it is, in live action, with actors you recognize!" gets butts into seats.

No matter what, that's going to be the main problem with the remakes, and why I'd prefer watching the originals any day. They may have their flaws, to be sure, but at least the motive behind them was slightly less mercenary. Emphasis on the slightly there.

(Some of the remakes are shaping up to be interesting, though. Last time I heard of the Pinocchio remake, it was set to be something inspired by the story. That's a good thing. Trying to remake the Disney Pinocchio would be like trying to repaint the Mona Lisa.)

I'll be honest, I think the only thing the original Jungle Book has on the remake is Phil Harris. While it is a cash grab, it's a cash grab with a lot of effort and care put into it.

...And Louis Prima. Are we to forget his terrific performance as King Louie?

edited 17th Aug '16 7:13:28 PM by Aldo930

That was also very good, but I have a weakness for Christopher Walken

Nearly every movie since Star Wars and Jaws kicked off the blockbuster era has been a cash grab, so I'd rather judge movies on their own internal merits than on whatever their motive I, a viewer without firsthand experience of the production, assume them to have. Some of my most favorite films, like The LEGO Movie and The Yellow Submarine are great works pitched on the basis on making money rain.

Also, while it's not a movie one of the greatest animated series of all time was conceived as a Recycled: The Series attempt to cash in on the success of a popular movie.

edited 18th Aug '16 10:39:05 AM by KnownUnknown

I think there's a huge difference between giving the world a new take on a popular character, or doing a sequel to a movie that made a lot of money, and remaking a film you already did years before.

I could see it working if you wanted to go about it from a different perspective. Problem is, they're still in the old films' shadow. You can't make them too different or people would be wondering "What the hell is this?" I'd heard stories that Disney's remake of Pinocchio was going to be more akin to Carlo Collodi's book, and I didn't believe them. If it had been made that way people would have been complaining about the differences from the earlier Disney film. Disney knows the expectations it has to adhere to in the public mind; ergo, they can't diverge too closely from the earlier films or people would complain.

Apparently the creators of Phineas and Ferb have a new show coming out that's going to star Weird Al.

Ah yes, Milo Murphy's Law. Has there been any news related to it lately? I thought it was supposed to premiere this year or something.