I hear it’s going to be a chocolate city.
I like chocolate.
Where’d you hear that? Nothing has been shown of it besides concept art of the main character. And is that seriously a reason to skip the movie?
I’d say so. If a movie is animated, and you despise the animation style, sometimes it’s just not worth it. I mean, it’s one of the basics of the film!
Yeah, I remember back that far. I noticed in Pete’s Dragon that the dragon’s chin was really whopping huge, and since then it seems that most of the male characters have really exaggeratedly big chins. Some of the females do too. Another problem is the sidekick character who seems to get as much screen time and attention as the main character(s).
I used to go see Disney movies in theaters, but nowadays I’ll generally wait for them to be cable broadcast. Then I might buy the movie or not, depending on how I liked it.
Did you click the link in the OP? There’s a picture behind the orchestra scoring the film. It’s* Emperor’s New Groove *meets the opening credits of Bewitched, style-wise.
And yes, if the style of something annoys me so much that the whole time I’ll be sitting there thinking, “Damn it, I hate rotoscoping!” or “Christ on a cracker, Von Trier, try a Steadicam next time!” or “Damn, that’s just UGLY!” then it’s not really an enjoyable theatrical experience for me.
It’s a personal taste thing, sure. But I would personally rather spend $12 and ninety minutes looking at images like this or this or even these than this .
Except the bits they are ripping off are things that Pratchett came up with himself, not the bits that are part of the original stories. And you can take your sarkie tone to the Pit, too.
I was lighthearted in the OP, I don’t think there are actual grounds for a lawsuit. I just thought I’d spell that out for the humour-impared.
That’s why I said “maybe not quite” in the OP. For instance, I have no evidence that there are any witches in this version. I just threw that out there.
But if there’s a hut on ducklegs, I’ll know where that came from.
That’s a curious example, because the character animation in The Emperor’s New Groove is absolutely first-rate. Better, actually, than “classics” like The Little Mermaid or Beauty and the Beast.
Russian/Slavic/Polish mythology?
Yeah but IMHO it just sounded like a attention-whoring attempt to be contrarian (since, as I pointed out, nothing has even been shown of the film). Post Hunchback retro angular style doesn’t refer to anything at all, let alone anything consistent enough to be a despised style. Only half of the ten 2D animated features made post Hunchback approach something nearing an angular style (and I’m being generous) - two of them can be called flat out “angular”, and one of those two (Hercules) is based on the style of a contemporary illustrator (Gerald Scarfe, who designed all the characters), who, though his career started in the 60’s, I’m not sure if you could call his style “retro”.
Ok…I maybe I’m just a bit more media savvy - but it’s obvious that’s not a photo of an orchestra scoring the film. If the film’s not slated to be released until 2009, nobody’s scoring anything, and it’s definitely not looking like that yet. That’s just a still of the concept art of Maddy (here’s another). And besides that - that drawing’s not angular at all!
Based on your description, the ripoff seems to consist of ‘setting a Frog Princess-based story in New Orleans.’ Is there more? That’s vague enough that I could buy it as a coincidence, although I know Disney has ripped people off before.
Those are chicken legs. That’s the difference, right there, between what Pratchett does and what Disney has done in the past (Kimba, anyone?).
Frog Prince. That and the black princess. I’d be more than happy if anyone showed me other takes on fairy tales with those details. They’re a bit particular if you ask me.
Look, I’m not actually accusing Disney of ripping off WA. For one thing, we know next to nothing about the Disney movie. I was just amused that the very little we do know corresponds with details from WA. I’m easily amused.
Not directly. Baba Yaga’s hut had chicken legs, the better to run across all those Russian steppes. In relocating the story to swampy New Orleans, Pratchett changed the legs to duck legs, so that the house could swim through the swamps. If the movie featured a Baba Yaga hut with duck legs, one could reasonably question if the film had lifted the joke from Pratchett’s book.
I’m going to have to disagree with the second part of this. Well, sort of. The character designs in Groove lent themselves to an exaggerated animation style, and is some of the best animation around. It’s hard to compare to Beast or Mermaid. Glen Keane (surpervising animator for the characters of Ariel, Beast, Aladdin, Pocahontas, Tarzan and others) is beyond compare.
That’s gotta be the geek equivalent of the McDonald’s coffee lawsuit.
The lawsuit alleged that the film infringed on a specific story White Wolf published, not just the concept of vampires and werewolves fighting.
Sony settled. Which means that the suit had at least enough merit to not be immediately thrown out of court.
FWIW, MrDibble, I’m with you on this one.
Aren’t these two entirely different stories? It looks to me that Disney is doing a version of The Frog Princess , while Pratchett did a version of The Frog Prince. It’s not just a gender flip. They’re two distinct fairy tales.
Here we have a description of the plot of The Frog Princess and then there’s The Frog Prince. Aside from having magically transformed frogs, they’re quite different.
Ok. I knew you were kidding about the lawsuit, but I didn’t get that.
What I said was actually a typo: I’d never heard of The Frog Princess and just wrote it wrong. But CaerieD introduces a new wrinkle.
Something which has never been said about his father. At least positively.
Oh. Well that’s a different story and I’ve got no input there. Sorry for the misunderstanding,