Disney/Pixar In General

Just a few random things that came to my mind;

1. In a way, aren't Timon and Pumbaa the real reason why Scar's plan failed, even if you don't take TLK 1 1/2 into consideration? I mean, think about it; if those two hadn't intervened, Simba would have died in the desert and if they hadn't tried to help him and brought him out of his low point, he would have went back to wandering and probably would been at death's door again soon. But, Timon and Pumbaa saved him from the desert, they renewed his will to go on with their Hakuna Matata, and they fed, sheltered and cared for him so that he could reach adulthood. This allowed Rafiki to learn that he was still alive and thus coax him into going back, and it allowed Nala the chance to find him so that they could go back to Pride Rock together (in fact, it was because of Timon and Pumbaa that Simba even ran into Nala again in the first place).

2. In "Tarzan", did anyone else notice that when Tarzan was an adult, he was constantly breathing like he was having trouble doing so. While everyone else was breathing rather normally, he always looked like he was out of breath, at least to me.

3. How many wolves in Disney were portrayed as good?

4. Did anyone else notice that Rafiki only used magic of the clearest sense in the Timon and Pumbaa show, whereas in the movies and in The Lion Guard, it was left somewhat ambiguous whether or not he really was using magic.

5. When it comes right down to it, it was a clever move to make Hyenas the antagonists of the Lion King Franchise. Hyenas and Lions are natural enemies after all, what better animal could have fit the role of villain in a movie with lions as the heroes?

1. Yup. And in a broader sense, Mufasa and Sarabi are responsible for Scar's downfall, in that they're Simba's parents, and if Simba hadn't been born, Scar's plan would've failed. It's all a long line of cause and effect.

2.Did he? Didn't notice, but then he does move around a lot, and it helps him to look active and intense.

3.The wolves in The Jungle Book who raised Mowgli were pretty good.

4. Didn't notice.

5. Yeah. That was the point.

edited 22nd Aug '16 1:29:16 PM by Robbery

In answer to question number 3, Li'l Bad Wolf.

And he's the exception that proves the rule.

edited 22nd Aug '16 12:54:58 PM by Aldo930

3. How many wolves in Disney were portrayed as good?

Every wolf in The Jungle Book, for starters. Counting comics, there's also the Big Bad Wolf's son.

Edit: Half-ninjaed. However, I posted The Jungle Book before , for accuracy's sake.

edited 22nd Aug '16 12:55:29 PM by NapoleonDeCheese

I think we were typing at the same time, but I kept getting confused about which point was which . Damned bullet points!

I want to mention that in the comics, wolves are all supposed to be bad, and the fact that Li'l Bad Wolf isn't is what drives his relationship with Zeke Wolf.

We now have a promo for Milo Murphy's Law! Facebook is the only place I can find the video at the moment, sorry about that.

I don't really know what to say about that promo. It was definitely unique, that's for sure.

I'm getting the feeling that the clip may be the show's title sequence.

"MOOOOOM! PHINEAS AND FERB ARE MAKING A TITLE SEQUENCE FOR MILO MURPHY!"

If that's the theme, it sounds very catchy.

So, I wonder if the next movie will have a villain that dies. A villain hasn't died since Wreck-It Ralph.

edited 22nd Aug '16 9:24:39 PM by Smasher

It's nice to know that Dan Povenmire and Swampy Marsh are back with something new.

There was a time when Phineas And Ferb singlehandedly kept the Disney Channel from being totally unwatchable, and we should all thank them for it.

Assuming Milo Murphy's Law DOESN'T. :D But we'll just have to wait and see.

I didnt know you liked Phineas and Ferb, that's nice.

In a time when practically everything on the Disney Channel was stupid, moronic and appealed only to prepubescent girls, Phineas And Ferb was clever, funny and appealed to everyone.

It was the life raft that kept the channel from sinking into the abyss of stupidity.

edited 23rd Aug '16 12:30:23 PM by Aldo930

Candace really felt like a CHARACTER. She wasn't some perpetually-happy teenager in a kidcom with dreams of singing! She had a full range of emotions, and was in fact written to MAKE FUN of those teenagers in the kidcoms!

Jessie!'s characters did too!

Of course the blatant racism and national stereotyping did murder on it, but still.

And Vanessa too!

Eh, that show started out okay, but it really went to shit later on.

Oh yes... Phineas And Ferb got better mileage out of Disney's teen stars than the live-action crap ever did, as well.

But that's what happens with a show that isn't made to be disposable crap.

Animation is more expensive and takes longer to produce. It can't feel like an after-thought or look like a cheap cash grab, so more thought needs to be put into it. .... well, more thought in SOME areas than others...

Another remake has entered into development.

That, and live action shows produce tween idols you can take on tours and award ceremonies and promote as singers/actors/rumor-mill machines, and sometimes you can keep exploiting them well into young adulthood, even after they become drug addled burnouts. You just can't do that with Star Butterfly or Dipper Pines.

Not with that attitude!

"Let's keep using Lin-Manuel Miranda!"

What gets me here is that they announced they were going to remake Splash. So they'll have two mermaid-related films out eventually, if this ever goes through.

And there's also the Universal Little Mermaid coming out as well. Our culture will be mermaid-inundated...