Finding Nemo

I confess that I still love the various Disney "heroine" animations -- I suppose that's the perennial little girl in me -- though admittedly on close inspection they all seem to be the same heroine in different guises: Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Ariel, Belle, Esmeralda, Jasmine, Pocahontas, Mulan, etc. Even Lady (of LADY AND THE TRAMP) was a classical Disney heroine in the body of a cocker spaniel! And of course FANTASIA is a true masterpiece (though from what I've heard Walt Disney hated it, probably too original for the old reactionary). Even FANTASIA 2000 had its moments: that charming "art deco" take on Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue", and the breathtaking, almost spiritual "flying whales" of Respighi's "Pines of Rome".

I also give Disney credit for bringing the magnificent SPIRITED AWAY to the awareness of western audiences. While TOTORO and MONONOKE did receive some attention in "art theaters" here, I suspect it was Disney Studio's involvement in SPIRITED AWAY that brought Miyazaki's brilliance to the attention of the general public in the English-speaking world.

That being said, I've always felt there was a sort of dark underbelly to the whole Disney thing. The standard Disney characters (Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy) leave me absolutely cold, with the possible exception of Mickey as Dukas' "Sorcerer's Apprentice" which worked pretty well. They seem positively bland beside the frenetic wit of the Warner Bros. "repertory players" -- Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, et al. Additionally, the "Disneyfication" of Milne's delightful WINNIE THE POOH destroyed much of its charm, turning each one of those lovely "toy philosophers" into just another Disney character.

I also wonder whether the premise of the clever ANTZ was plagiarized by Disney for its far less edgy A BUG'S LIFE. The common explanation given is that both filmmakers happened to have the same idea at the same time, but whenever Disney is involved there is always the suspicion of their "cannibalizing" the ideas of more creative filmmakers.

Finally, the history of the entire Disney concern is fraught with instances of suppression. In the middle and late '60s, men and boys with long hair (read: "hippies") were explicitly barred from entrance to Disneyland. Fast-forward several years to an incident of two young (gay) men who were thrown out of Disneyworld for simply dancing together at one of the clubs there. I imagine that all this has changed in recent years, but it still makes one wonder. (I find it ironic that nowadays, fundamentalists of various religions are opposed to Disney Studios for being "too liberal" -- I suspect these people would have felt perfectly at home in the "old Disney" era.)

Please forgive the rant (and a non-ceph-related one at that)! The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of the moderators or anyone else on TONMO, and I don't want to turn this thread into a sociopolitical controversy -- I just tend to get emotional over certain subjects, and I guess Disney is one of them :talker:

Getting serious for a change,
Tani
 
Additionally, the "Disneyfication" of Milne's delightful WINNIE THE POOH destroyed much of its charm, turning each one of those lovely "toy philosophers" into just another Disney character.
I don't disagree, but I should say that I agree with my wife's assessment that the Disney intepretation of the Pooh characters represent the best group of friends out of any children's characters anywhere, period. I can't think of any other children's program where friendships between the characters are so strong.

Speaking of Pooh and Disney lawsuits, there was one not to long ago where Milne's family sued claiming Disney didn't have rights for merchandizing, etc., etc. Their victory in court would theoretically translate to the tearing down of any Pooh likenesses at Disney World, etc. etc. etc. Not sure where that one left off... Clem? :smile:

And, BTW, don't you feel that this is pertinent discussion? This particular forum is one of my personal favorites, because I've always been fascinated by the entertainment industry's interpretations of octopuses, for children and adults alike. Therefore, any analysis of Disney (either its characters or the corporation itself) is quite welcome and enlightening in my book, especially in the context of this Finding Nemo release. 8)
 
Tani--check out Clem's earlier link, and also this one:

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/mc/20030527/105402660000.html

Clem can clear me up if I'm wrong about some of this...I don't know all the details, but it seems clear that Pixar has been HIGHLY independent from the beginning. Not for lack of trying on Disney's part, but these stories strongly suggest Pixar has kept itself effectively clean of Disney influence. They are NOT owned by Disney, but rather have a contract with them requiring them to make movies which Disney then owns...the benefit to Pixar being that they have a great resource for distributing/marketing their movies, something Pixar can't do themselves. Their respective CEOs (Eisner and Jobs) hate one another, and there have been constant struggles over how much influence Disney can exert. I get the distinct impression that such influence is basically nil, and that Disney is not pleased about that--hence, their own efforts at building a CGI animation house, as seen in Dinosaur.

Currently Disney and Pixar are negotiating a new contract, as Finding Nemo was the last Pixar had to deliver under contract. I would assume that the terms of this contract would be crucial to how independent Pixar can remain. Frankly, I don't trust Disney to not mess Pixar up if they somehow gained control, so I wouldn't mind seeing them sign with someone else, or perhaps even finding a way to do everything Disney used to do for them themselves.

All this seriousness before watching such a fun flick! :shock: :heee:

rusty
 
TaningiaDanae said:
I also wonder whether the premise of the clever ANTZ was plagiarized by Disney for its far less edgy A BUG'S LIFE. The common explanation given is that both filmmakers happened to have the same idea at the same time, but whenever Disney is involved there is always the suspicion of their "cannibalizing" the ideas of more creative filmmakers.

Taningia,

(My/space-bar/is/broken.)

"A/Bug's/Life"/was/a/PIXAR/ creation./Dreamworks/ripped/ the/premise /off/for/"Antz."/ Katzenberg/was/still/at/Disney/ while/"Bug's/Life"/ was/gestating/at/ PIXAR,/and/ rushed/"Antz"/into/production/ at/Dreamworks/so/they/could/ beat/"Bug's/Life"/to/ the/theaters/ (and/screw/Eisner,/Katzenberg's/ nemesis)."Antz"/was/much /less/visually/ accomplished/than/"Bugs"/in/part/because /speed/was/of/ the/essence.

These/guys/make/Mesonychoteuthis/look/amiable.

Tony/I/don't/know/if/the/Pooh/has/fled/the/Kingdom/yet.

Worst/space-bar/ever.

Clem
 
tonmo said:
I don't disagree, but I should say that I agree with my wife's assessment that the Disney intepretation of the Pooh characters represent the best group of friends out of any children's characters anywhere, period. I can't think of any other children's program where friendships between the characters are so strong.

Hi Tony --

I can understand that, especially if one sees the cartoons before reading the books. In that context, the Disney version is certainly a positive and pleasant one.

However, I read WINNIE-THE-POOH and HOUSE AT POOH CORNER for the first time as an adult, before seeing the Disney cartoons. In fact, my first experience with the books was reading them aloud to my (then) toddler squidling at bedtime, one chapter per night. So in effect, he and I were reading them, and looking at the charming pictures, together. We were enchanted by them, and I suppose seeing the cartoon interpretation was a bit of a comedown, by contrast, for both of us.

Later on, BTW, I read two marvelous books about Pooh written for adults: THE TAO OF POOH and THE TE OF PIGLET, both by Benjamin Hoff. Hoff relates the Milne books and their characters to Taoist thought (similar to Zen), demonstrating Milne's philosophical depth while at the same time retaining his playful, whimsical style -- rather like STAR WARS' "Yoda". :yinyang: The Hoff books are absolutely wonderful for grown-ups who are also big kids at heart (like Yours Truly), but to derive the full benefit of them, it's best to read the original Milne books first.
tonmo said:
Speaking of Pooh and Disney lawsuits, there was one not to long ago where Milne's family sued claiming Disney didn't have rights for merchandizing, etc., etc. Their victory in court would theoretically translate to the tearing down of any Pooh likenesses at Disney World, etc. etc. etc. Not sure where that one left off... Clem? :smile:

Hmmm, that's a tough call. I'd like to hear the status of that one too. While I still contend that the Milne version is the best, I'd hate to see kids deprived of Pooh in any form. I know that there are still kids' products and clothes called "Classic Pooh", which use images from the books' original artwork rather than from the Disney version. I'd like to think there is enough room in the world for two Poohs.

(Notice how I carefully avoided the temptation to say "Chacun à son Pooh"? :P )

tonmo said:
And, BTW, don't you feel that this is pertinent discussion? This particular forum is one of my personal favorites, because I've always been fascinated by the entertainment industry's interpretations of octopuses, for children and adults alike. Therefore, any analysis of Disney (either its characters or the corporation itself) is quite welcome and enlightening in my book, especially in the context of this Finding Nemo release. 8)

Thanks for the imprimatur (or would that be nihil obstat?), Tony :wink: I figure as long as Disney makes the occasional aquatic film, they're OK in this were-squid's book.

Looking forward to FINDING NEMO,
The Tanster
 
I love animation but this will be hard for me to keep on topic. Tani, I agree that Disney heroines are historically unspectacular, but they go along a progression from really passive - Sleeping Beauty is ASLEEP! So is Snow White. - to less and less passive, with The Little Mermaid's Ariel even becoming disobedient. The villains, not the heroines, intrigue me more. Wouldn't you rather wear Maleficent's horns and cape in Sleeping Beauty? Ursula the Octopus in The Little Mermaid brings us back to cephalopods.

Someone at Disney, possibly Eisner himself, made a non-discrimination policy including gays and lesbians, so Disney is not in good graces with the religious right. I'd make the same choice, I'd rather go to a disco than a church picnic myself.

Are there any cephs in the old Warner Bros. cartoons? I don't recall any, much as I adore Michigan J. Frog, he's no squid.

Melissa
 
Melissa said:
Are there any cephs in the old Warner Bros. cartoons? I don't recall any, much as I adore Michigan J. Frog, he's no squid.
Good question! Have a look at the TONMO.com email Newsletter issue 99, item number two. Tiny print, but it answers your question... not sure of any others...

Actually, item number one there is pertinent to this discussion as well.
 
Melissa said:
I love animation but this will be hard for me to keep on topic. Tani, I agree that Disney heroines are historically unspectacular, but they go along a progression from really passive - Sleeping Beauty is ASLEEP! So is Snow White. - to less and less passive, with The Little Mermaid's Ariel even becoming disobedient. The villains, not the heroines, intrigue me more. Wouldn't you rather wear Maleficent's horns and cape in Sleeping Beauty? Ursula the Octopus in The Little Mermaid brings us back to cephalopods.

That is true, about the increasing "liberation" of the Disney heroines. Personally, I identify the most with Belle -- I saw the film with a friend when our sons were little, and when the Beast brought Belle into his incredibly huge personal library, my friend leaned over to me and whispered, "Hey, that's your fantasy, isn't it?"

Of course, Esmeralda (THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME) and Mulan were also fighters who could kick butt with the best of them.

Maleficent had a great wardrobe but was otherwise a standard Disney villain. Ursula, on the other hand, was great! Her song, "Poor Unfortunate Souls", was one of the best I've heard in a Disney 'toon. And of course she was the only "mer-ceph" in the history of filmdom until DAGON's Priestess Uxia came along.

Melissa said:
Someone at Disney, possibly Eisner himself, made a non-discrimination policy including gays and lesbians....

About time they moved into the 21st Century!

Melissa said:
Are there any cephs in the old Warner Bros. cartoons? I don't recall any, much as I adore Michigan J. Frog, he's no squid.

But I've yet to see a Messie do a better rendition of "Hello My Baby" :wink:
 
Tani,

"Spirited Away", or as I saw it "Sen to Chihiro no Kamikakushi" (yeah, "Spirited Away" is a heck of a lot easier on a marquee!) is a masterpiece. Disney has an active contract with Studio Ghibli to bring a few films to the U.S., and I hope that they take full advantage of it. As a big anime fan (note my avatar), I have seen cephs in a lot of Japanese pop culture. I hope to get photos and things to post, but all in due time. If ayone wants a good anime list, its probably my collection...

"Finding Nemo" is technologically brilliant. They have actually captured the look of water with CGI. That's brilliant work, up there with Squaresoft's "The Animatrix: Final Flight of the Osiris"

Sushi and sake, but hold the Tako-yaki

John
 
Off of the animation a bit, but in the same area: Nemo seems to be causing a bit of an odd turn in the aquarium stores here...(there was a thread last week in the same vein) all of the stores are stocking up on clownfish and pufferfish, and running specials on 30 long salt setups...so, here is a film about the evils of fishcollection, and all of these people are going to rush out and buy fishtanks. Hmmm. Do you want to bet how many of the kids name their little perculas "nemo" ???? It's going to be as bad as when captive bred burmese pythons hit it big out here...every single one was named "monty", followed by a chuckle and the comment "isn't that cool?" Yikes. Oh well. I am sure that in two months, I will be able to buy a lot of "used" setups for a song, after the dads get tired of doing water changes! Hopefully, some of the kids will actually get into keeping and learning about sealife...hey, maybe some future TONMO members!
My, I do run on....
Greg
 
Greg,

That's both a good and bad thing... Salt water aquarium keeping is hard work, and most parents will flip out rather than buy a kid clown fish. I just hope it doesn't lead to the "dalmation rush" (people started buying dalmations by the boatload when Disney released "101 Dalmations") style of pet buying and neglect you tend to see here in the States when a new animal movie comes out.

Then again, some kids may have the knack... We'll see, won't we?

John
 
Dalmations! Hah! A friend of mine owns a reptile store here in town, and actually started selling a speckled variety of kingsnake as "dalmation" kings 'cause so many people wanted anything with the name dalmation for their kids as pets...trust me, we are going to see quite a few perculas or ocellaris clowns at the stores for a while now...hopefully, some good will come of it...I guess my fascination with fish started at an early age at a pet store too!
We should all pray. To Cthulhu, of course. :notworth:
Greg
 

Shop Amazon

Shop Amazon
Shop Amazon; support TONMO!
Shop Amazon
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Back
Top