Disney remaking classics in CGI; help stop them before it's too late! Find out how!

[JakeLipson]

Everyone's love affair with computer animation has gone too far - Disney is planning on remaking the classics in CGI. Reportedly, Pinocchio and Peter Pan are up first for shot-by-shot CGI redos "for a new generation to enjoy." This is not a rumor. I repeat, THIS IS NOT A RUMOR. In the recentNewsweek article says that "Eisner wants to extend the lives of Disney?s older characters by reanimating some classics for a new look. Imagine a 3-D Peter Pan soaring over a digitized London". Reportedly, this is referring to talks with top Disney talent in the past days.

It's time to stop this insanity, and I can only pray that if we show Disney what a huge mistake they are making we can end this before it gets any worse than it already is. Cheapquels I can live with. I can even take the occasional sub-par animated classic because nobody save Pixar is perfect. I've been trying to comprehend the recent shift to CGI in Disney's newest pipeline of projects. But this is too much for me to handle.

These are the names and addresses of the Walt Disney Company Board of Directors. I urge every single person on this board who cares at all about the future of Disney's animated properties to write to one or more of them. Ask friends, family, and coworkers to do the same. Those of us, myself included, who have delt with Disney in the past know that emails have seldom worked, so let['s use more traditional methods and pray that the snail isn't too terribly slow when we need him. If anyone can find company phone numbers, please call. It's going to take a huge effort to stop this - are you willing to give that effort? I am.

Here are the addresses courtesy the LaughingPlace.com forums.

Ms. Reveta F. Bowers
Head of School
Center for Early Education
563 North Alfred St.
Los Angeles, CA 90048

Mr. Robert F. Matschullat
Director
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista St.
Burbank, CA 91521-4873

Mr. John E. Bryson
CEO
Edison International
2244 Walnut Grove Ave.
Rosemead, CA 91770

The Hon. George J. Mitchell, Senator (Ret.)
Partner
Piper Rudnick, LLP
901 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005-2301

Mr. Roy E. Disney
Vice Chairman
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista St.
Burbank, CA 91521-4873

Mr. Thomas S. Murphy
Director
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista St.
Burbank, CA 91521-4873

Dr. Leo J. O?Donovan
Director
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista St.
Burbank, CA 91521-4873

Ms. Judith L. Estrin
President/CEO
Packet Design, LLC
3400 Hillview Ave., Building 3
Palo Alto, CA 94304

Mr. Sidney Poitier
CEO
Verdon-Cedric Productions, Ltd.
9350 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 303
Beverly Hills, CA 90212

Mr. Robert A.M. Stern
Senior Partner
Robert A.M. Stern Architects
460 West 34th St.
New York, NY 10001

Mr. Stanley P. Gold
President/CEO
Shamrock Holdings, Inc.
4444 Lakeside Dr.
Burbank, CA 91505

Mr. Raymond L. Watson
Vice President
The Irvine Company
550 Newport Center Dr.
Newport Beach, CA 92658

Ms. Monica C. Lozano
President/CEO
La Opinion
411 W. Fifth St.
Los Angeles, CA 90013

Ms. Andrea L. Van de Kamp
Chairman
Sotheby?s West Coast
9665 Wilshire Blvd.
Beverly Hills, CA 90212

Mr. Gary L. Wilson
Chairman
Northwest Airlines Corporation
2700 Lone Oak Parkway
Eagan, MN 55121

Mr. Michael D. Eisner
Chairman and CEO
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista St.
Burbank, CA 91521-4873

Mr. Robert A. Iger
President and COO
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista St.

Let me take this moment to thank each and every person who helps this cause. Together WE CAN make a difference and stop this nightmare before it's too late.

Thank You All.

-Jake

[starscream]

this is extremely disturbing:mad:
only certain things work on cgi.
they shouldnt do that no way
like snow white they would ruin and the other timeless pieces walt himself worked on.

[btg]

I going to go against the grain and make most of you unhappy. I would love to see some of these great stories remade using CG. I can't predict how they will turn out...maybe good...maybe bad...but I'd like to see one first. I mean geez, you still have the old ones to watch as much as you like. I don't see anything wrong with remaking, redoing, retelling, whatever you want to call it. I'm all for letting them try.

[Reviewer ZIM]

Yep, them rewarmed Disney leftovers ams mighty tasty. Especailly when served in this heavy sarcasm sauce. Geez, some people will estatically eat any rancid scraps that falls from their table as long as it has the mouse ears stamped to it. I bet some silly folks are already counting the days down until they remake Freaky Friday yet again. It's horrible and yet it's true.....

I am ZIM!!!

[Specter]

The only movie that I would like to see this done with is The Lion King.

I'd LOVE to see it done so that the animals looked like REAL animals.

That could be the most amazing film ever made.

Either the whole thing or just the opening sequence.

I thought this way back when I first saw The Lion King.

[droosan]

Disney already re-made THE LION KING in CGI; they called it DINOSAUR. ;)

Of course, the film did a healthy amount of borrowing from THE LAND BEFORE TIME, as well .. :D

[Specter]

Nah, I'm talking about seeing realistic looking animals, doing what they did at the beginning of the Lion King. With a Real looking Lion on Pride Rock. That would look almost majestic.

Yeah, Dinosaur did steal a lot from The Land Before Time. Wasn't a big fan of that.

[BubbleGumUK]

Originally posted by Reviewer ZIM
I bet some silly folks are already counting the days down until they remake Freaky Friday yet again. It's horrible and yet it's true...

The new version of Freaky Friday with Jamie Lee Curtis is the third version.

Apart from the original (and best) 1977 version with Jodie Foster, there was a risible early 90s TV version with Shelley Long.

[BubbleGumUK]

Originally posted by Specter
The only movie that I would like to see this done with is The Lion King. I'd LOVE to see it done so that the animals looked like REAL animals.

Seems like the upcoming "Pride" and the DreamWorks series "Father Of The Pride" might make up for this!:)

[Reviewer ZIM]

Originally posted by BubbleGumUK
The new version of Freaky Friday with Jamie Lee Curtis is the third version.

Apart from the original (and best) 1977 version with Jodie Foster, there was a risible early 90s TV version with Shelley Long.

Exactly, I really see no need to visit this dry well again. Walt Disney always stressed the value of the imagination and going forth with fresh ideas. I don't see any of that core ideology being utilized in retread projects like this.

I am ZIM!!!

[RandCanuck]

That's the sad thing. There is so much talent being wasted on movie recycling. Let creators create! Unfortunately, as long as "The Aristocats II" makes a profit and "Treasure Planet" doesn't, we will keep getting the retreads.

(Don't worry--- I was just kidding about there being an Aristocats sequel. Mind you, I shouldn't be giving anyone any ideas!)

Another problem is that today's features are being designed as franchises, making spin-offs almost inevitable. I just wish they could leave the classics alone, at least.

[Reviewer ZIM]

Originally posted by RandCanuck
That's the sad thing. There is so much talent being wasted on movie recycling. Let creators create! Unfortunately, as long as "The Aristocats II" makes a profit and "Treasure Planet" doesn't, we will keep getting the retreads.

(Don't worry--- I was just kidding about there being an Aristocats sequel. Mind you, I shouldn't be giving anyone any ideas!)

Another problem is that today's features are being designed as franchises, making spin-offs almost inevitable. I just wish they could leave the classics alone, at least.

*Applauds*

I am ZIM!!!

[rodneyf]

Ugh.

[Special_Ed]

Actually Aristocats 2 has been announced. When they do a sequel to "The Black Cauldron" you know they are scraping the bottom of the barrel!

I really don't think that Disney will listen to us on this. They maintain that we animation buffs are only a small fraction of their audience and therefore unimportant. They did not listen to us when we wanted them to stop making cheapquels, they did not listen to us when we begged them to not stop the production of 2 disc sets on recent titles (The Platinum collection is made up of old titles andDisney Treasures is in danger of being eliminated! "Vault Disney" has been dropped all together! We were given three titles this year but the Vault Disney logo was removed from the box and none of these titles were completed with the bonus material, save "20,000 Leagues". "Treasure Island" was to get a second disc, but that was canceled after Eisner's edict. Anyway...) There are a lot of brainless people out there who will take their children to see a Peter Pan remake and that's all the Mouse cares about now. Walt's legacy is dead and will remain so until a new person takes over the throne! They are making it easier for smaller studios to pop up and make quality efforts!

BTW, did anyone else find it ironic that the WAlt and Mickey statue has it's back facing Eisner? lol.

[sonofjesusfreak]

Originally posted by Special_Ed
Actually Aristocats 2 has been announced. When they do a sequel to "The Black Cauldron" you know they are scraping the bottom of the barrel!


I would like to have the Black Cauldron redone personally.
I would like to have it redone in it's proper place of the second film in a five film series of the Prydain Chronicles.

But, yes, I agree in spirit.

[Special_Ed]

Yes that's the cruel irony of it isn't it? The only film they've done worth building on was one of their biggest failures ever.

[sa38]

Originally posted by RandCanuck

Another problem is that today's features are being designed as franchises, making spin-offs almost inevitable. I just wish they could leave the classics alone, at least.

I understand completely but as I see it it's very naive to think that any animation company can come up with something completely original from scratch. A lot of concepts are borrowed from other ideas.

We can go on and on about how it's all going down the chute but Disney is going to do what it's going to do no matter what anyone says. :(

[ohmahaaha]

It might be an interesting (but expensive I imagine) experiment to try it on one of the lesser "classics," such as "Robin Hood" (sorry, Robin Hood fans, just my opinion); BUT I would not want to look at a CG remake of "Pinocchio" or "Fantasia" any more than I'd like to look at a CG image of the "Mona Lisa."

[Special_Ed]

you know even the lesser Disney films of the 1970's blow the crap out of the cheapquels they do now...

[ohmahaaha]

They certainly do!!! Pathetic, isn't it?

[Special_Ed]

yep you said it...

[BubbleGumUK]

Interesting that while the "look" of Jungle Book 2 is "deeper" and supposedly more advanced technically, the clips that they show of the original Jungle Book in the added featurette have more atmosphere, emotion and feeling about them!

This plus seeing the Rescuers close together as well, and it's clear that the animation from the 70s just beats the heck out of the new sequel stuff.

Hands down.

[Special_Ed]

Hey was the Rescuers cropped or released in Widescreen? I read that Fox & the Hound is the only title to date not released in the theatrical version.

[BubbleGumUK]

I have the CAV cropped Rescuers LD and the remastered (and recalled!) widescreen CLV edition. The new DVD takes the same source print as the widecsreen edition, and is truly a wider ratio picture.

The Disney films of the 70s and 80s varied in ratios. In 1977 alone we had the 1.66:1 Rescuers, the 1.33:1 Many Adventures Of Winnie The Pooh and the 1.33:1 Pete's Dragon which was cropped to 1.85:1 in theaters (and is on DVD in its correct theatrical ratio). Same went for Bedknobs And Broomsticks.

The Fox And The Hound is the same deal, having been shot at 1.33:1 but projected in some theaters at 1.85:1 (though not all I remember seeing a re-issue in 1.33:1 which dis not fill the entire screen left and right).

Checking the packaging, the DVD states that "The Fox And The Hound is presented in it original theatrical aspect ratio of 1.33:1" which is both correct and incorrect. Some theaters did show it like this, but others masked top and bottom. On The Sword In The Stone the cover states that "This film has been modified from its original version to fit your TV". Again this is right and wrong, in that this film was also shot 1.33:1 and masked to 1.85:1 in theaters.

The correct negative ratios for Sword and Hound are 1.33:1, as they appear on disc. For those wanting to simulate the theatrical framing, simply zoom in on them like you would a non-anamorphic widecsreen disc (for instance Mulan) on a 16x9 widescreen display and you'll get the same result.

The only film on DVD at the moment which has it's ratio compromised is Beauty And The Beast, which is on disc at 1.85:1 when it should be a 1.66:1 ratio as on the LaserDiscs and whoch does not cramp the picture framing.

[Special_Ed]

I read on another website that Fox and the Hound was animated in a different ratio than is presented on the dvd. I'll see if I can find the page again.

Do you think that the Beauty and the Beast framing problem comes from the Imax version? We do not get the 1991 version on that disc, we only get the Imax edition before Human Again was added. It really is false advertising. Same with the "work in progess" edition. It is not the true version that was released in 1992 on home video/laserdisc. All they did was insert some of the earlier work over the imax print. There are shots missing that are on the 1992 edition as well as flubs with the inserting. I was really disappointed in that title after how great "Snow White" was. (Even though I wish "Snow White" had included some of the interviews with the 9 old men etc. that have been done over the years. There was a film out in 1994 when it was rereleased that had interviews with everyone. I also would have liked to have seen the 50th anniversary special Dick Van Dyke hoested on NBC in 1987. A thurough disc would have been even more fantastic. Oh and there is also a live action piece of Snow White and the Prince on a horse that wasn't shown either. It does exist though, I have it on tape somplace....)

[Sunset Girl]

Originally posted by BubbleGumUK
Interesting that while the "look" of Jungle Book 2 is "deeper" and supposedly more advanced technically, the clips that they show of the original Jungle Book in the added featurette have more atmosphere, emotion and feeling about them!


As I keep saying, I think a lot of the Disney sequels have a strange Lisa Frank Quality about them.

Gag me.

[BubbleGumUK]

Totally agree with you Ed.

The Van Dyke special was very cool, and I have a tape somewhere, and would have been a good addition.

I've checked against the LDs of both the original 1991 theatrical B&TB and the WIP disc against the DVD and can confirm that it is indeed the original framing and would have been Imax that was slightly cropped on the sides. A 1.66:1 image does not lose too much from the sides in Imax, but cropping a 1.66:1 to 1.85:1 can take quite a bit off, especially if the framing is already tight.

The B&TB DVD simply plays the new cut in various ways, as you mention, and as I said at the time, I'm just glad I have the true theatrical cut and the work in progress on LD.

[Special_Ed]

I actually dug my tape of the van Dyke special out when the DVD was released because I remembered animation being shown in the cut scenes on that show where they only used storyboards for those shots on the DVD. I was somewhat correct on that.

Is it possible that the work in progress portions of that version of B & B are just inserted over the film on the disc? This could explain how 3 versions of the film fit on 1 disc, there is really 1 film on there with alternate shots and a different ending.

I wish I were old enough at the time to have got a LD player and the LDs. I've thought about trying to track all that stuff down now but I bet it's too expensive now.

[catoncrack]

Hm. Yes, well, see below for my opinion on what Disney is doing.

[catoncrack]

AAAARGH! STOP THE MADNESS OF THE SPAWN OF THE DEVIL! ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH! CURSE YOU, DISNEY, WITH YOUR SATANIC LITTLE MOUSE! RGH!

[John Pannozzi]

Originally posted by BubbleGumUK
I have the CAV cropped Rescuers LD and the remastered (and recalled!) widescreen CLV edition. The new DVD takes the same source print as the widecsreen edition, and is truly a wider ratio picture.

The Disney films of the 70s and 80s varied in ratios. In 1977 alone we had the 1.66:1 Rescuers, the 1.33:1 Many Adventures Of Winnie The Pooh and the 1.33:1 Pete's Dragon which was cropped to 1.85:1 in theaters (and is on DVD in its correct theatrical ratio). Same went for Bedknobs And Broomsticks.

The Fox And The Hound is the same deal, having been shot at 1.33:1 but projected in some theaters at 1.85:1 (though not all I remember seeing a re-issue in 1.33:1 which dis not fill the entire screen left and right).

Checking the packaging, the DVD states that "The Fox And The Hound is presented in it original theatrical aspect ratio of 1.33:1" which is both correct and incorrect. Some theaters did show it like this, but others masked top and bottom. On The Sword In The Stone the cover states that "This film has been modified from its original version to fit your TV". Again this is right and wrong, in that this film was also shot 1.33:1 and masked to 1.85:1 in theaters.

The correct negative ratios for Sword and Hound are 1.33:1, as they appear on disc. For those wanting to simulate the theatrical framing, simply zoom in on them like you would a non-anamorphic widecsreen disc (for instance Mulan) on a 16x9 widescreen display and you'll get the same result.

The only film on DVD at the moment which has it's ratio compromised is Beauty And The Beast, which is on disc at 1.85:1 when it should be a 1.66:1 ratio as on the LaserDiscs and whoch does not cramp the picture framing.
*head explodes from confusion*

[Martinwarrior]

That would be great with a sequel to The Black Cauldron, but I don't like the idea of the CGI remakes.

[uraydo]

no one beleived me when i said disney was an evil corperation bent on world domination. walt is rolling in his grave.