So which Disney movie do you think will get a cheapquel next?
Arklier
Hood. Anyone else care to take a whirl?
If you can't figure out my address, you need help.
TheShredder
"Arklier" <ark...@hotnospammail.com> wrote in message
news:6qdg0vktv7poe1ret...@4ax.com...
> Now that they've already done Jungle Book II, my money is on Robin
> Hood. Anyone else care to take a whirl?
Nah, I' betting they'll wail on their Disney Afternoon Lineup for ideas.
Ducktails, the Movie? :)
Tor Onsen
>> Now that they've already done Jungle Book II, my money is on Robin
>> Hood. Anyone else care to take a whirl?
TheShredder wrote:
> Nah, I' betting they'll wail on their Disney Afternoon Lineup for ideas.
>
> Ducktails, the Movie? :)
That's not prophecy, it's history. "DuckTales: The Legend of the Lost Lamp"
was released in 1990. It was the first feature out of Disney's TV animation
unit (AFAIK) and had a wide, well publicized theatrical release.
The particulars can be found at the IMDb:
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0099472
-Tor
stéphane dumas
"TheShredder" <TheShr...@prodigy.net> a écrit dans le message news:
eUYN9.301$wR...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
like Ducktales meet Darkwing Duck or Tale Spin vs Chip'N'Dale Rescue Rangers
;-)
Stéphane Dumas
ELurio
Jungle Book II
Winnie the Pooh III [piglets's big movie}
Teacher's Pet
The Three Mouseketeers [quasi original, but it's TV animation]
Peter Pan II did just as well as Treasure Planet, so look for more of
these....[them's the facts, I don't like it either].
eric l.
Michael Hirtes
Arklier <ark...@hotnospammail.com> wrote:
> Now that they've already done Jungle Book II, my money is on Robin
> Hood. Anyone else care to take a whirl?
>
Beware of "Bambi II: Electric Boogaloo"!
TheShredder
Pet Cemetary 3: Bambis Return :).
Don Del Grande
> Now that they've already done Jungle Book II, my money is on Robin
> Hood. Anyone else care to take a whirl?
If they could make a Cinderella sequel, they could "get away with",
say, a Sleeping Beauty II, but if I had to guess, I'd say Rescuers III
(probably yet another "pass the torch" story).
-----------------------------------------------------
Don Del Grande, del_g...@netvista.net
Question: who made the "Snow White" sequel TV special (with the "seven
friendly giants")?
Brandi Weed
ark...@hotnospammail.com says...
> Now that they've already done Jungle Book II, my money is on Robin
> Hood. Anyone else care to take a whirl?
Well, it does have that furry wank-fodder market...
Brandi
Michael Hirtes
Brandi Weed <bra...@dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
Man, those skunfuckers blow their spoo whenever Tale Spin is on.
Gideon
> Hood. Anyone else care to take a whirl?
My money is on"The Aristocats." I also hear there they plan to make
sequels of "Atlantis", and "The Emperor's New Groove", where Kuzko
picks a wife. I know that they plan a sequel to "Lilo and Stitch."
Michael Hirtes
gideonb...@hotmail.com (Gideon) wrote:
> Arklier <ark...@hotnospammail.com> wrote in message
> news:<6qdg0vktv7poe1ret...@4ax.com>...
> > Now that they've already done Jungle Book II, my money is on Robin
> > Hood. Anyone else care to take a whirl?
>
> My money is on"The Aristocats." I also hear there they plan to make
> sequels of "Atlantis",
I don't think even Eisner is THAT out-of-touch with the masses.
Chris Sobieniak
mhi...@ALL.SPAMMERS.WILL.DIE.SCREAMING.com (Michael Hirtes) wrote:
>In article
><MPG.187286432...@news.dcn.dav
>>>Now that they've already done Jungle Book II,
>>>my money is on Robin Hood. Anyone else care
>>>to take a whirl?
>>Well, it does have that furry wank-fodder
>>market...
>>Brandi
Please, don't give them ideas! ^_^
>Man, those skunfuckers blow their spoo whenever
>Tale Spin is on.
God, amazing the things I never thought was possible beyond human
comprehension!
Probably feel lucky I don't get Toon Disney on my dial yet.
"I'm not interested in 27 movie channels of Japanese TV, but these days,
you need cable if you want to watch anything, it's ubiquitous."
- Thomas Wells, 41, Commerce TWP. Computer Salesman
(from The Detroit News, 6/28/2002)
Domo Arigatoo Gozaimasu!
From the Master of Car-too-nal Knowledge...
Christopher M. Sobieniak
--"Fightin' the Frizzies since 1978"--
Chris Sobieniak
mhi...@ALL.SPAMMERS.WILL.DIE.SCREAMING.com (Michael Hirtes) wrote:
>>My money is on"The Aristocats." I also hear there
>>they plan to make sequels of "Atlantis",
>I don't think even Eisner is THAT out-of-touch with
>the masses.
Heh, my demented cheapquel to The Aristocats involves Edgar coming back
from Tinbuktu and gunning down those felines! Too bad I probably won't
have time to do it before they'll pick it.
The Skeleton Man
"Michael Hirtes" <mhi...@ALL.SPAMMERS.WILL.DIE.SCREAMING.com> wrote in
message news:mhirtes-C0BCDF...@news.central.cox.net...
HE IS... saw the ad for Atlantis sequel just recently....
--
Skeleton Man
Is it time I remembered where?
DishRoom1
Brandi Weed wrote --
arklier wrote --
>> > Now that they've already done Jungle Book II, my money is on Robin
>> > Hood. Anyone else care to take a whirl?
>>
>> Well, it does have that furry wank-fodder market...
>>
>> Brandi
>
>Man, those skunfuckers blow their spoo whenever Tale Spin is on.
Brandi Weed, Mike, .... >_<
You know, somebody once said if you're not going to say anything nice about
anyone, don't say it at all.
John Shughart (who mostly doesn't find anything sexy about "Tale Spin" anyway.
Except for maybe that one bear archaeologist Baloo and Louie bumped into once.
She could fill an evening dress well.)
DishRoom1
Hirtes wrote --
Brandi Weed wrote --
>>>>Now that they've already done Jungle Book II,
>>>>my money is on Robin Hood. Anyone else care
>>>>to take a whirl?
>>>Well, it does have that furry wank-fodder
>>>market...
>>>Brandi
>
>Please, don't give them ideas! ^_^
>
>>Man, those skunfuckers blow their spoo whenever
>>Tale Spin is on.
>
>God, amazing the things I never thought was possible beyond human
>comprehension!
>
>Probably feel lucky I don't get Toon Disney on my dial yet.
Don't let those get to you, Chris. As a member of furry fandom, I assure
everyone that our fandom is not entirely "ohh let's fist ourselves over
pictures of Winnie the Pooh." Such people are of a tiny minority while the rest
of us are mature adults who are into the beauty and fantasy of half-human
animals.
Anyway, back to the matter of Disney sequels. I think the 1973 Robin Hood movie
would be fair if not great material for a new movie, if so to revisist the cute
anthropomorphic-animal world and maybe give the characters more of a story and
motivation than the first film.
My bigger wishes for sequels though would be a third "Rescuers" would be fine.
Also I would like to see a new story or whatever being done with characters
from "Oliver & Co.", one of my favorite animated films.
John Shughart
DishRoom1
Michael Hirtes wrote --
Gideon wrote --
Arklier wrote --
>> > > Now that they've already done Jungle Book II, my money is on Robin
>> > > Hood. Anyone else care to take a whirl?
>> >
>> > My money is on"The Aristocats." I also hear there they plan to make
>> > sequels of "Atlantis",
>>
>> I don't think even Eisner is THAT out-of-touch with the masses.
>
>HE IS... saw the ad for Atlantis sequel just recently....
I saw I, too, in my sister's DVD copy of "Lilo & Stich". It will be titled
"Atlantis II: Milo's Return". Rumor has it that it was to be a Saturday Morning
TV spinoff of the original Atlantis that got junk at the last minute due to
disagreements over crativity and the film's BO bomb.
The previews ad in the "Lilo and Stitch" DVD had mostly Disney cheapquel
commericals, such as the "Jungle Book 2" and "101 Dalmations 2". From what I
saw, I can agree with some people on the furry and animation NGs that the
Jungle Book sequel looks rather baneful.
John Shughart
Brandi Weed
dish...@aol.com says...
> Don't let those get to you, Chris. As a member of furry fandom, I assure
> everyone that our fandom is not entirely "ohh let's fist ourselves over
> pictures of Winnie the Pooh." Such people are of a tiny minority while the rest
> of us are mature adults who are into the beauty and fantasy of half-human
> animals.
Believe it or not, I actually *do* follow the fandom as well. And while
the perverts may be a tiny minority, just go over to someplace like Velar
and see who seems to dominate the style...
Brandi
Chris Sobieniak
wrote:
Chris Sobieniak wrote --
>>dial yet.
>Don't let those get to you, Chris. As a member of
>furry fandom, I assure everyone that our fandom is
>not entirely "ohh let's fist ourselves over pictures of
>Winnie the Pooh." Such people are of a tiny
>minority while the rest of us are mature adults who
>are into the beauty and fantasy of half-human
>animals.
I know how it can be. I try not to let it get to my head at times.
I personally enjoy half-human animals in a number of these more dramatic
and imaginative works. I'm more for the depth of storytelling and the
level of realism they tend to do with portraying conflict, power, as
well as relationships. Goes beyond the typical nature of how these
creatures might otherwise been used previously.
I personally find it intersting to diplict certain things with animals
such as violence, sickness or death that I rarely see before in the
medium. The concept has a lot going for it in terms of it's
sophistication and at times it's quite revolutionary.
It's hard for people to really understand it at times. To me, the
concept of having animals portraying human roles doesn't necessary have
to be played in that sort of squeaky-clean image most associated with
the cartoons and stories of old, rather, they could compete with the
best of human-oriented themes and don't pander to those particular
demographics, such as those that percieve "furry' for it's vulgality and
adult nature simular to other pornographic images. In recent years,
this sort of trend seems to have grown beyond in numbers to the sort of
generalization of the fanbase itself. There are times when I doubt the
credibility of the fandom because of these images and other stories
related to. I wouldn't care much about it anyway.
>Anyway, back to the matter of Disney sequels. I
>think the 1973 Robin Hood movie would be fair if
>not great material for a new movie, if so to revisist
>the cute anthropomorphic-animal world and maybe
>give the characters more of a story and motivation
>than the first film.
Would be a neat challenge to see where else they could go with the
characters this time around. Now that Rob and Marian are married, that
would make for an interesting story over what might happen in a sequel.
I'd rather see England succombing to the Black Plague if that might work
time-wise. Still that's my idea anyway, they'll probably find another
way to add in a typical villian into the cannon fodder.
>My bigger wishes for sequels though would be a
>third "Rescuers" would be fine. Also I would like to
>see a new story or whatever being done with
>characters from "Oliver & Co.", one of my favorite
>animated films.
>John Shughart
That would be neat to see. Just saw Oliver & Co. for the first time a
while back (never did see it in the theatres in the '80s or it's 90's
re-release).
DishRoom1
I wrote --
I am fully in the boat with you when it comes with stories and content with the
furries. I admit that when it comes to the sexual side, I like voluptously
drawn femmes from the fandom, but otherwise that's mostly where I draw the
like. I'm a far different person than the guys who "do it" in animal fursuits
and others who use it for a hotbed for their sexual fetishes, which gave us all
a shrill bad name in Vanity Fair and MTV.
Anyway, yes, I do like mature adult stories that focus on the human contition
and characters, which is rare for some comics and many seedy XXX stories. Some
comics and art produced in the fandom deal sophistcatedly with violence,
death, family, marriage, and friendship. And if sex is ever brough up, it can
handle well without the over-ham porn themes. Just like there's more to a movie
than special-effects, a furry story and its characters must function like real
people (even though they are fantasy creatures) and like good human characters
there must be far more to them than porn.
>
>>Anyway, back to the matter of Disney sequels. I
>>think the 1973 Robin Hood movie would be fair if
>>not great material for a new movie, if so to revisist
>>the cute anthropomorphic-animal world and maybe
>>give the characters more of a story and motivation
>>than the first film.
>
>Would be a neat challenge to see where else they could go with the
>characters this time around. Now that Rob and Marian are married, that
>would make for an interesting story over what might happen in a sequel.
>I'd rather see England succombing to the Black Plague if that might work
>time-wise. Still that's my idea anyway, they'll probably find another
>way to add in a typical villian into the cannon fodder.
It would be neat if we could see how Robin and Marion are like in their
marriage and their love for each other, and maybe having their cubs. The only
worst thing I can imagine if Disney focuses on the kid and lazily built a story
around him that is a clone to "Lady & the Tramp 2", "The Little Mermaid 2",
ect. Better to have the swatchbuckling fox and his vixen as the heroes.
>
>>My bigger wishes for sequels though would be a
>>third "Rescuers" would be fine. Also I would like to
>>see a new story or whatever being done with
>>characters from "Oliver & Co.", one of my favorite
>>animated films.
>>John Shughart
>
>That would be neat to see. Just saw Oliver & Co. for the first time a
>while back (never did see it in the theatres in the '80s or it's 90's
>re-release).
>
I was more fortunate than that. I first saw the film in its initial theatrical
release in 1988, when I was 16. I was enthalled and it helped a great deal to
change what I thought of animation since. :-) Afterwards, I have gotten a VHS
copy of it for my birthday. Of course, the video version was not widescreen and
it chopped off a bit of the screen, but OK.
John Shughart
DishRoom1
I wrote --
>> Don't let those get to you, Chris. As a member of furry fandom, I assure
>> everyone that our fandom is not entirely "ohh let's fist ourselves over
>> pictures of Winnie the Pooh." Such people are of a tiny minority while the
>rest
>> of us are mature adults who are into the beauty and fantasy of half-human
>> animals.
>
>Believe it or not, I actually *do* follow the fandom as well. And while
>the perverts may be a tiny minority, just go over to someplace like Velar
>and see who seems to dominate the style...
Well, yes, the VCL does contain highly pornographic images and stories. Some of
which is is very disturbing, often displying unprintable stuff that even
disturbs me. But there's still Yerf, though.
John Shughart
Derek Janssen
>
> >>Anyway, back to the matter of Disney sequels. I
> >>think the 1973 Robin Hood movie would be fair if
> >>not great material for a new movie, if so to revisist
> >>the cute anthropomorphic-animal world and maybe
> >>give the characters more of a story and motivation
> >>than the first film.
> >
> marriage and their love for each other, and maybe having their cubs. The only
> worst thing I can imagine if Disney focuses on the kid and lazily built a story
> around him that is a clone to "Lady & the Tramp 2", "The Little Mermaid 2",
> ect. Better to have the swatchbuckling fox and his vixen as the heroes.
It's scary, but this sounds pretty darn likely--
Leaving aside their existing cheap-quel fetish for married-with-children
hero/heroines, Robin seems to be semi-back in favor at the studio:
It got more exposure over the last twenty-five years as one of the Five
Video Orphans (in case you ever used to wonder why "Dumbo", "Alice" and
"Sword/Stone" were always so much easier to find on tape than "Snow
White" or "Sleeping Beauty") than it ever did at the theater, and now
have an entire 80's generation who claims it was one of their first
shelf favorites--
As such, we children of the 70's are, to put it mildly, flabbergasted to
see how much marketing this Ron Miller alibi is getting at the Disney
theme parks....We have the feeling it's just a matter of time. : /
Derek Janssen
dja...@rcn.com
Chris Sobieniak
wrote:
>Chris Sobieniak wrote --
I know how that can be. I personally think they've gone too far when it
comes to the whole fansuit issue personally. It's one thing to put it
on paper, it's another to look like it. It's taking the fantasy one
step close to reality in such an ugly way.
>Anyway, yes, I do like mature adult stories that
>focus on the human contition and characters,
>which is rare for some comics and many seedy
>XXX stories. Some comics and art produced in the
>fandom deal sophistcatedly with violence, death,
>family, marriage, and friendship. And if sex is ever
>brough up, it can handle well without the over-ham
>porn themes.
I've seen some examples where they might do that anyway. Always feel
amused what what they could do in such situations I see in some furry
comics. I always feel there are ways around working with it, such as
nudity, in a very honest and innocent way.
>Just like there's more to a movie than
>special-effects, a furry story and its characters
>must function like real people (even though they
>are fantasy creatures) and like good human
>characters there must be far more to them than
>porn.
Heh, kinda reminds me of anime at times. My fav for combining humans
and furries into the same universe is Akira Toriyama's Dragon Ball. At
times it could be humorus or full of suspence, to downright raunchy. At
least Son Goku's early years in not understanding the differences from
girls and boys, nudity and other things can be looked at for it's
innocence than for the typical vulgality most like to site it upon (it's
Kamesennin's perversion you have to watch out for!).
>>Now that Rob and Marian are married, that would
>>make for an interesting story over what might
>>happen in a sequel. I'd rather see England
>>succombing to the Black Plague if that might
>>work time-wise. Still that's my idea anyway,
>>they'll probably find another way to add in a
>>typical villian into the cannon fodder.
>
>It would be neat if we could see how Robin and
>Marion are like in their marriage and their love for
>each other, and maybe having their cubs. The only
>worst thing I can imagine if Disney focuses on the
>kid and lazily built a story around him that is a
>clone to "Lady & the Tramp 2", "The Little Mermaid
>2", ect. Better to have the swatchbuckling fox and
>his vixen as the heroes.
Those are the time of sequels I'm not into at all. I'd rather they'd
kept it the way you've pointed out, and perhaps have something to do
with perhaps that 7-year old bunny (can't remember his name) having to
tote the cubs around and give them a lessor or two about protecting
themselves just like their old man.
>>That would be neat to see. Just saw Oliver & Co.
>>for the first time a while back (never did see it in
>>the theatres in the '80s or it's 90's re-release).
>I was more fortunate than that. I first saw the film
>in its initial theatrical release in 1988, when I was
>16. I was enthalled and it helped a great deal to
>change what I thought of animation since. :-)
From watching my DVD, I couldn't help but find it interesting to see the
level of interactions that were between humans like Fagin and the dogs
in the film. Just haven't seen something like this before in previous
Disney films (except maybe The Rescuers). In some previous films, it
was more of animals doing things usually by themselves such as in Lady &
The Tramp and 101 Dalmations. In O&C, it was more like animals acting
human doing things such as pickpocketing for Fagin. Also the climatic
scene looked great for any Disney film up to that point with the effects
and plot as Fagin saves Jenny on the bridge. Also, what other film can
give you a New York complete with real world advertisments like USA
Today, Sony and Coca-Cola (though I was more amused to see a Tab
billboard in the opening credits). Makes this film more at home for me.
This film takes me back to the '80s again!
>Afterwards, I have gotten a VHS copy of it for my
>birthday. Of course, the video version was not
>widescreen and it chopped off a bit of the screen,
>but OK.
>John Shughart
That's probably OK. The DVD's quite good for some of the extras it does
have, but at least I can be safe once I do managed to get a new HDTV
someday in the next decade. If there's ever a sequel to this film,
kinda like to hear Cheech reprise Tito again. ^_^
DishRoom1
I wrote --
>>Chris Sobieniak wrote --
I agree. I won't go into graphic detail, but it must get messy and sweaty with
the suits. There's also these few people who have these "being human sucks; I'm
an animal trapped in a human body" sort of folks, which is kind of like the
Star Trek fandom's people who wear Starfleet Federation costumes throughout
their daily lives. Why can't these people be happy with being human? I am.
>
>>Anyway, yes, I do like mature adult stories that
>>focus on the human contition and characters,
>>which is rare for some comics and many seedy
>>XXX stories. Some comics and art produced in the
>>fandom deal sophistcatedly with violence, death,
>>family, marriage, and friendship. And if sex is ever
>>brough up, it can handle well without the over-ham
>>porn themes.
>
>I've seen some examples where they might do that anyway. Always feel
>amused what what they could do in such situations I see in some furry
>comics. I always feel there are ways around working with it, such as
>nudity, in a very honest and innocent way.
I often like to think so. What sort of furry comics to you likle to read?
>
>>Just like there's more to a movie than
>>special-effects, a furry story and its characters
>>must function like real people (even though they
>>are fantasy creatures) and like good human
>>characters there must be far more to them than
>>porn.
>
>Heh, kinda reminds me of anime at times. My fav for combining humans
>and furries into the same universe is Akira Toriyama's Dragon Ball. At
>times it could be humorus or full of suspence, to downright raunchy. At
>least Son Goku's early years in not understanding the differences from
>girls and boys, nudity and other things can be looked at for it's
>innocence than for the typical vulgality most like to site it upon (it's
>Kamesennin's perversion you have to watch out for!).
Ought to look for those titles on video, if they had gotten there already. ^_^
>
>>>Now that Rob and Marian are married, that would
>>>make for an interesting story over what might
>>>happen in a sequel. I'd rather see England
>>>succombing to the Black Plague if that might
>>>work time-wise. Still that's my idea anyway,
>>>they'll probably find another way to add in a
>>>typical villian into the cannon fodder.
>>
>>It would be neat if we could see how Robin and
>>Marion are like in their marriage and their love for
>>each other, and maybe having their cubs. The only
>>worst thing I can imagine if Disney focuses on the
>>kid and lazily built a story around him that is a
>>clone to "Lady & the Tramp 2", "The Little Mermaid
>>2", ect. Better to have the swatchbuckling fox and
>>his vixen as the heroes.
>
>Those are the time of sequels I'm not into at all. I'd rather they'd
>kept it the way you've pointed out, and perhaps have something to do
>with perhaps that 7-year old bunny (can't remember his name) having to
>tote the cubs around and give them a lessor or two about protecting
>themselves just like their old man.
That's another good story idea too. In the movie those kids looked up to Robin
highly. so he could teach them how to fend for themselves against adversaries.
Might make a fine fanfic, too. ^_^
>
>>>That would be neat to see. Just saw Oliver & Co.
>>>for the first time a while back (never did see it in
>>>the theatres in the '80s or it's 90's re-release).
>>I was more fortunate than that. I first saw the film
>>in its initial theatrical release in 1988, when I was
>>16. I was enthalled and it helped a great deal to
>>change what I thought of animation since. :-)
>
>From watching my DVD, I couldn't help but find it interesting to see the
>level of interactions that were between humans like Fagin and the dogs
>in the film. Just haven't seen something like this before in previous
>Disney films (except maybe The Rescuers). In some previous films, it
>was more of animals doing things usually by themselves such as in Lady &
>The Tramp and 101 Dalmations. In O&C, it was more like animals acting
>human doing things such as pickpocketing for Fagin. Also the climatic
>scene looked great for any Disney film up to that point with the effects
>and plot as Fagin saves Jenny on the bridge. Also, what other film can
>give you a New York complete with real world advertisments like USA
>Today, Sony and Coca-Cola (though I was more amused to see a Tab
>billboard in the opening credits). Makes this film more at home for me.
>This film takes me back to the '80s again!
Such as a scene where Fagin and the animals ride past a bus with the USA Today
ad, with well-done reproduction of the USA Today logo. Or Georgette on the
cover of Time magazine. I cannot remember any animation in movies or TV I've
seen prior that could have a few commerical logos like that. It kind of gives
the film some bit of realism. I never did before took notice of how the dogs
respond to Fagin compared to how animals interact with humans in previous
movies, but it was rather different and interesting, now that I think of it.
I enjoyed the film's special effects; my favorite being having the animated
characters and the camera's POV moving through a 3-D background, like at the
end of Georgette's singing number when she desends down a flight of stairs.
>
>>Afterwards, I have gotten a VHS copy of it for my
>>birthday. Of course, the video version was not
>>widescreen and it chopped off a bit of the screen,
>>but OK.
>>John Shughart
>
>That's probably OK. The DVD's quite good for some of the extras it does
>have, but at least I can be safe once I do managed to get a new HDTV
>someday in the next decade. If there's ever a sequel to this film,
>kinda like to hear Cheech reprise Tito again. ^_^
Ditto. and maybe bring back Billy Joel and Bette Milder if possible. Georgette,
the vain, self-centered poodle which was voiced by Milder, was one of my
favorite characters from the movie. There should be a good role for her in a
possible sequel.
John Shughart
Chris Sobieniak
wrote:
>I agree. I won't go into graphic detail, but it must
>get messy and sweaty with the suits. There's also
>these few people who have these "being human
>sucks; I'm an animal trapped in a human body" sort
>of folks, which is kind of like the Star Trek
>fandom's people who wear Starfleet Federation
>costumes throughout their daily lives. Why can't
>these people be happy with being human? I am.
Most people just don't seem to have a great sense of life at all. Of
course I wish I could channel energy in my soul to defeat my opponents,
but at least I don't look the part!
>>I've seen some examples where they might do
>>that anyway. Always feel amused what what they
>>could do in such situations I see in some furry
>>comics. I always feel there are ways around
>>working with it, such as nudity, in a very honest
>>and innocent way.
>I often like to think so. What sort of furry comics to
>you likle to read?
Haven't found a whole lot at a nearby shop, but i enjoy seeing the
individual works in "Furlough".
>>Heh, kinda reminds me of anime at times. My fav
>>for combining humans and furries into the same
>>universe is Akira Toriyama's Dragon Ball. At
>>times it could be humorus or full of suspence, to
>>downright raunchy. At least Son Goku's early
>>years in not understanding the differences from
>>girls and boys, nudity and other things can be
>>looked at for it's innocence than for the typical
>>vulgality most like to site it upon (it's
>>Kamesennin's perversion you have to watch out
>>for!).
>Ought to look for those titles on video, if they had
>gotten there already. ^_^
Well, they should be on the uncut versions, though so far, only episodes
#14 to the present episodes involving the Budokai tournament are
currently available. My best suggestion is to read the original manga
tankobans (graphic novels) available from Viz. So far, they've put out
volumes #1-10 and another 10 volumes for the later portion of what would
be "Dragon Ball Z", these books sell for about $12.95 (earlier volumes
are apparently priced at $15.95)..
>>Those are the time of sequels I'm not into at all.
>>I'd rather they'd kept it the way you've pointed
>>out, and perhaps have something to do with
>>perhaps that 7-year old bunny (can't remember
>>his name) having to tote the cubs around and
>>give them a lessor or two about protecting
>>themselves just like their old man.
>That's another good story idea too. In the movie
>those kids looked up to Robin highly. so he could
>teach them how to fend for themselves against
>adversaries. Might make a fine fanfic, too. ^_^
Would like to do one, but don't have much time to do so anyway.
>>In O&C, it was more like animals
>>acting human doing things such as pickpocketing
>>for Fagin. Also the climatic scene looked great for
>>any Disney film up to that point with the effects
>>and plot as Fagin saves Jenny on the bridge.
>>Also, what other film can give you a New York
>>complete with real world advertisments like USA
>>Today, Sony and Coca-Cola (though I was more
>>amused to see a Tab billboard in the opening
>>credits). Makes this film more at home for me.
>>This film takes me back to the '80s again!
>
>Such as a scene where Fagin and the animals ride
>past a bus with the USA Today ad, with well-done
>reproduction of the USA Today logo. Or Georgette
>on the cover of Time magazine.
I thought it was quite dead-on in the way they presented those. Unlike
the rest of the film where the backgrounds were of a typical sketchy
watercolor look, they took a little more time working on getting those
logos right without painting them too quick.
>I cannot remember any animation in movies or TV
>I've seen prior that could have a few commerical
>logos like that. It kind of gives the film some bit of
>realism.
It might've been the first film (at least in the US) to do so. I've
seen some Japanese anime works that had done so in the past, though I
don't know if they ever got clearance to do so or not.
>I never did before took notice of how the dogs
>respond to Fagin compared to how animals
>interact with humans in previous movies, but it was
>rather different and interesting, now that I think of
>it.
Well you do notice these things now and then. Just seemed like this
worked better for me than the previous Disney films had at the sort of
pairing of animals with humans. Seeing the dogs rescure Jenny from
Sykes's pad seemed like such a great moment IMO.
>I enjoyed the film's special effects; my favorite
>being having the animated characters and the
>camera's POV moving through a 3-D background,
>like at the end of Georgette's singing number when
>she desends down a flight of stairs.
It was pretty decent CGI for it's time. Many of these effects were
produced through a process of mapping images like cars and some
backgrounds on a computer as vector graphics. These individual lined
images are then printed on paper, then xeroxed on cels, which then gets
painted and shot the old fashion way on film.
>>That's probably OK. The DVD's quite good for
>>some of the extras it does have, but at least I can
>>be safe once I do managed to get a new HDTV
>>someday in the next decade. If there's ever a
>>sequel to this film, kinda like to hear Cheech
>>reprise Tito again. ^_^
>Ditto. and maybe bring back Billy Joel and Bette
>Milder if possible. Georgette, the vain,
>self-centered poodle which was voiced by Milder,
>was one of my favorite characters from the movie.
>There should be a good role for her in a possible
>sequel.
>John Shughart
Oliver and Jenny wouldn't pose a big problem to recast in this case.
Perhaps if I had a few access brain cells left, maybe I'll scribble
something down for a sequel concept, send it to Disney, and see if they
even bother to use it. I'd probably ask them not to pay me, as I know
the kind of legal BS that would develop from this (trust me, I don't
bother much with selling out yet).
Chris Sobieniak
>DishRoom1 wrote:
>>It would be neat if we could see how Robin and
>>Marion are like in their marriage and their love for
>>each other, and maybe having their cubs. The
>>only worst thing I can imagine if Disney focuses
>>on the kid and lazily built a story around him that
>>is a clone to "Lady & the Tramp 2", "The Little
>>Mermaid 2", ect. Better to have the
>>swatchbuckling fox and his vixen as the heroes.
>
>It's scary, but this sounds pretty darn likely--
>Leaving aside their existing cheap-quel fetish for
>married-with-children hero/heroines, Robin seems
>to be semi-back in favor at the studio:
Would've been a good tie-in to the film's 30th anniversary next year if
Disney felt good about it. They don't seem to really be that interested
in RH as much anymore beyond some other well-known features produced
before and after that particular film.
If they ever did, would be neat if they would get Brian Bedford to
reprise the title character he voiced 30 years earlier if possible. I
once read on IMDB.com they were going to get him to voice RH for the
upcoming "Search for MIckey Mouse" feature, but they seem to have
deleted that bit of info a while back. Kind of a shame if RH won't be
making a cameo in that one.
>It got more exposure over the last twenty-five
>years as one of the Five Video Orphans (in case
>you ever used to wonder why "Dumbo", "Alice" and
>"Sword/Stone" were always so much easier to find
>on tape than "Snow White" or "Sleeping Beauty")
I kinda noticed that too early on. Vids like Robin Hood and Dumbo would
be readily available at any store than a tape like the first VHS edition
of "Sleeping Beauty" or such.
>than it ever did at the theater, and now have an
>entire 80's generation who claims it was one of
>their first shelf favorites--
Like me!
>As such, we children of the 70's are, to put it
>mildly, flabbergasted to see how much marketing
>this Ron Miller alibi is getting at the Disney theme
>parks....We have the feeling it's just a matter of
>time. : /
>Derek Janssen
>dja...@rcn.com
Nowadays most of these features are just so readily available at our
fingertips, it's just too easy not to think about how it used to be like
when these films were never on video at all.
DishRoom1
I wrote --
>>I agree. I won't go into graphic detail, but it must
>>get messy and sweaty with the suits. There's also
>>these few people who have these "being human
>>sucks; I'm an animal trapped in a human body" sort
>>of folks, which is kind of like the Star Trek
>>fandom's people who wear Starfleet Federation
>>costumes throughout their daily lives. Why can't
>>these people be happy with being human? I am.
>
>Most people just don't seem to have a great sense of life at all. Of
>course I wish I could channel energy in my soul to defeat my opponents,
>but at least I don't look the part!
I sometimes like to wonder what it would be like to be an anthro animal, but
I'm happy with being human enough.
>
>>>I've seen some examples where they might do
>>>that anyway. Always feel amused what what they
>>>could do in such situations I see in some furry
>>>comics. I always feel there are ways around
>>>working with it, such as nudity, in a very honest
>>>and innocent way.
>>I often like to think so. What sort of furry comics to
>>you likle to read?
>
>Haven't found a whole lot at a nearby shop, but i enjoy seeing the
>individual works in "Furlough".
I read "Furrlough" myself, too. The "Zelda Fox" story was entertaining. I've
also into "Extinctioners", "Katmandu", "Ernor" and "Xanadu", among may others.
>
>>>Heh, kinda reminds me of anime at times. My fav
>>>for combining humans and furries into the same
>>>universe is Akira Toriyama's Dragon Ball. At
>>>times it could be humorus or full of suspence, to
>>>downright raunchy. At least Son Goku's early
>>>years in not understanding the differences from
>>>girls and boys, nudity and other things can be
>>>looked at for it's innocence than for the typical
>>>vulgality most like to site it upon (it's
>>>Kamesennin's perversion you have to watch out
>>>for!).
>>Ought to look for those titles on video, if they had
>>gotten there already. ^_^
>
>Well, they should be on the uncut versions, though so far, only episodes
>#14 to the present episodes involving the Budokai tournament are
>currently available. My best suggestion is to read the original manga
>tankobans (graphic novels) available from Viz. So far, they've put out
>volumes #1-10 and another 10 volumes for the later portion of what would
>be "Dragon Ball Z", these books sell for about $12.95 (earlier volumes
>are apparently priced at $15.95)..
*Nods*. Okay. thanks. :-)
I noticed that a few backgrouds, like the movie's opening shots to New York,
were sketchy but it did not bother me. Seemed to have some charm to them.
>
>>I cannot remember any animation in movies or TV
>>I've seen prior that could have a few commerical
>>logos like that. It kind of gives the film some bit of
>>realism.
>
>It might've been the first film (at least in the US) to do so. I've
>seen some Japanese anime works that had done so in the past, though I
>don't know if they ever got clearance to do so or not.
>
>>I never did before took notice of how the dogs
>>respond to Fagin compared to how animals
>>interact with humans in previous movies, but it was
>>rather different and interesting, now that I think of
>>it.
>
>Well you do notice these things now and then. Just seemed like this
>worked better for me than the previous Disney films had at the sort of
>pairing of animals with humans. Seeing the dogs rescure Jenny from
>Sykes's pad seemed like such a great moment IMO.
I agree. And the climatic chase really floored me. :-D
>
>>I enjoyed the film's special effects; my favorite
>>being having the animated characters and the
>>camera's POV moving through a 3-D background,
>>like at the end of Georgette's singing number when
>>she desends down a flight of stairs.
>
>It was pretty decent CGI for it's time. Many of these effects were
>produced through a process of mapping images like cars and some
>backgrounds on a computer as vector graphics. These individual lined
>images are then printed on paper, then xeroxed on cels, which then gets
>painted and shot the old fashion way on film.
I see. I always wondered how it was done. Agian that sort of thing rarely
happens in previous animated films, even when "Snow White", "Fantasia" and the
like were produced. But it had been done before in Silent-Era cartoons and the
Fleisher brothers' work (the Fleishers achieved the effect by rotoscoping
models of sets.)
>
>>>That's probably OK. The DVD's quite good for
>>>some of the extras it does have, but at least I can
>>>be safe once I do managed to get a new HDTV
>>>someday in the next decade. If there's ever a
>>>sequel to this film, kinda like to hear Cheech
>>>reprise Tito again. ^_^
>>Ditto. and maybe bring back Billy Joel and Bette
>>Milder if possible. Georgette, the vain,
>>self-centered poodle which was voiced by Milder,
>>was one of my favorite characters from the movie.
>>There should be a good role for her in a possible
>>sequel.
>>John Shughart
>
>Oliver and Jenny wouldn't pose a big problem to recast in this case.
>Perhaps if I had a few access brain cells left, maybe I'll scribble
>something down for a sequel concept, send it to Disney, and see if they
>even bother to use it. I'd probably ask them not to pay me, as I know
>the kind of legal BS that would develop from this (trust me, I don't
>bother much with selling out yet).
>
I was thinking of send Disney the suggestion myself. :-)
John Shughart
DishRoom1
Derek Jansen wrote --
I wrote --
>>>It would be neat if we could see how Robin and
>Nowadays most of these features are just so readily available at our
>fingertips, it's just too easy not to think about how it used to be like
>when these films were never on video at all.
Being born in the early 1970s, I do remember when Disney would release their
movies so that people could watch them again, as well as a new generation of
children seeing them for the first time. I was a joy seeing the animated
characters and the beautiful color schemes on the screen. Nowadays we have
plenty of access tothe Disney films via home video, and it seems because of
that less. theatrical re-releasese (except on IMAX.)
John Shughart
Steve Carras
>From: elu...@aol.com (ELurio)
>Date: 12/24/02 8:03 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <20021224110354...@mb-fb.aol.com>
>
>The list of theatrical cheap'quels that we know for sure are going to come
>out:
>
>Jungle Book II
>Winnie the Pooh III [piglets's big movie}
>Teacher's Pet
>The Three Mouseketeers [quasi original, but it's TV animation]
>
>Peter Pan II did just as well as Treasure Planet, so look for more of
>these....[them's the facts, I don't like it either].
>
>eric l.
>
>
Don't forget:
Dumbo II
Snow WHite II
Already out this year, of course, we can't forgert Lady and the Tramp and
Cinderella's sequels, already on the market, and Dumbo and Snow white will have
some.UIGH!
Teacher's Pet, of course is a current TV Disney show not a feature.:)
"Come Sail Away, Sail Away, Sail Away"-<a href="http://www.enya.com">Enya</a>,
from ORINOCO FLOW
"Not everybody's as narrow minded as you"-Gidget
"Toodles."-Gidget.
"Oh don't mind ME"(sarcastically)-Larue (from GIDGET)
PeterCat
> Would've been a good tie-in to ["Robin Hood"]'s 30th anniversary next
> interested in RH as much anymore beyond some other well-known
> features produced before and after that particular film.
Just a guess, but they may be having problems clearing the music rights
for the Roger Miller performances. After Peggy Lee sued over the video
release of "Lady and the Tramp," maybe Disney is reluctant to rerelease
something that may be legally problematical. (They've got their hands
full with the Pooh case.)
--
The Furry InfoPage! http://www.tigerden.com/infopage/furry/
pete...@Furry.fan.org (PeterCat) Rhal on FurryMUCK (come cuddle!)
--
"I can't believe what he's doing with those shiitake mushrooms!"
Watch "Iron Chef," Fridays and Saturdays at 10pm (ET) on Food Network!
Chris Sobieniak
wrote:
>I sometimes like to wonder what it would be like to
>be an anthro animal, but I'm happy with being
>human enough.
I know. There's a lot of things to take into consideration, such as the
following....
- You'd have to loop your tail through the hold on the back of your
pants everytime you dress. Just having a tail might also prove some
difficulties in certain places.
- If you had four fingers, that would make buying gloves much harder to
find if knowone on earth makes a special pair for the smaller digits.
Well I can't think of anything else. Still, it does pose a lot of
questions to me personally about the subject. If furries are as close
to humans in terms of intelligence and anatomy, would they have the same
DNA as humans, or a compository of animal/human strands cloned together.
How about sweat glands? Would they be able to have interspecies
relationships with humans, and to bear children? These are just a few
of those I'll someday try to answer (as long as some religious cult
doesn't try to do it ahead of me!)
>I read "Furrlough" myself, too. The "Zelda Fox"
>story was entertaining. I've also into
>"Extinctioners", "Katmandu", "Ernor" and
>"Xanadu", among may others.
I've also spotted an issue of Extinctioners too, though I didn't buy it
as it was a bit steep in price. Did noticed a bit of inovlvemen with
Ken Singshow on it. I've been familiar with his work from a few years
back when I found out about a sequel fanfic he wrote for Secret of NIMH.
Never thought someone from Japan could draw that well with these
characters. KInda had that odd thought he could've worked at a studio
like TMS on one of their subcontracted works from America.
>>Well, they should be on the uncut versions,
>>though so far, only episodes #14 to the present
>>episodes involving the Budokai tournament are
>>currently available. My best suggestion is to read
>>the original manga tankobans (graphic novels)
>>available from Viz. So far, they've put out
>>volumes #1-10 and another 10 volumes for the
>>later portion of what would be "Dragon Ball Z",
>>these books sell for about $12.95 (earlier volumes
>>are apparently priced at $15.95)..
>*Nods*. Okay. thanks. :-)
I know you'll love it once you get into them!
>I noticed that a few backgrouds, like the movie's
>opening shots to New York, were sketchy but it did
>not bother me. Seemed to have some charm to
>them.
I thought so too. Everyone always have an opinion over how well the
backgrounds define a particular film. During the '60s and '70s, when
Disney films were being produed with the cels being xeroxed than hank
inked, many tend to reject these films because of the obvious etchiness
or the extra lines leftover from the cleanups that were used in the
process. The backgrounds during this period also reflected a sort of
outlined look that probably was done to offset the look a little better.
>I agree. And the climatic chase really floored me.
>:-D
Still, it was the best Disney could do for the time being.
>>It was pretty decent CGI for it's time. Many of
>>these effects were produced through a process of
>>mapping images like cars and some backgrounds
>>on a computer as vector graphics. These
>>individual lined images are then printed on paper,
>>then xeroxed on cels, which then gets painted
>>and shot the old fashion way on film.
>I see. I always wondered how it was done. Agian
>that sort of thing rarely happens in previous
>animated films, even when "Snow White",
>"Fantasia" and the like were produced.
Disney used to do do those behind-the-scenes type featurettes and other
promotional things when these films were out, though they probably
showed them on the Disney Channel at the time. As early as the late
1930's, the Disney studio had done a number of films and TV shows where
they attempted to show the folks the animation process as it happens.
The recent DVD release of "Walt Disney Treasures: Behind the Scenes at
the Walt Disney Studio" would be the perfect set to get to watch some of
these films, including the 1941 feature, "The Reluctant Dragon", and the
three episodes of the Disneyland TV series from 1957.
>But it had been done before in Silent-Era cartoons
>and the Fleisher brothers' work (the Fleishers
>achieved the effect by rotoscoping models of sets.)
In the case of bringing 3D into an animated film, Disney and the
Fleischers had worked on many different experiments to do such an
effect. For the Fleischers, it was the use of a rotating tabletop they
used to produce sets and models that were used for a number of their
cartoons within the mid '30s (especially the Color Classics). While
giving the depth of the panning backgrounds, the characters were stil
somewhat flat in this enviroment. Disney 1-up the chance at a much
different technique called the "Multiplane" camera, where several panes
of glass (with elements of the background painted on) are placed on many
different layers just underneath the camera. With the aid of lenses,
lighting and other effects, they were able to great more real depth in
the foreground and background of the feature films they've produced.
The look of it might be reminiscent of modern day side-scrolling video
games of the late '80s and into the '90s..
>>Perhaps if I had a few access brain cells left,
>>maybe I'll scribble something down for a sequel
>>concept, send it to Disney, and see if they even
>>bother to use it. I'd probably ask them not to pay
>>me, as I know the kind of legal BS that would
>>develop from this (trust me, I don't bother much
>>with selling out yet).
>I was thinking of send Disney the suggestion
>myself. :-)
>John Shughart
Thanks, saves me the trouble!
Chris Sobieniak
wrote:
>Chris Sobieniak wrote --
>>readily available at our fingertips, it's just too
>>easy not to think about how it used to be like
>>when these films were never on video at all.
>Being born in the early 1970s, I do remember
>when Disney would release their movies so that
>people could watch them again, as well as a new
>generation of children seeing them for the first
>time.
Only glad to be born near the end of that decade, but I do remember that
too. Had to be content with either reading about these films in a
kiddie book or watching clips on TV before I got to see them in the
theatre. By the time home video came out, it sort of killed that
tradition of re-releasing films into theatres and the annual showings of
films like "Wizard of Oz" and "Gone with the Wind" on network TV
(surprised I think they're still doing it for "Sound of Music" these
days).
>I was a joy seeing the animated characters and the
>beautiful color schemes on the screen. Nowadays
>we have plenty of access tothe Disney films via
>home video, and it seems because of that less.
>theatrical re-releasese (except on IMAX.)
>John Shughart
Only wish I had an IMAX theatre close to go to. Perhaps we'll get one
someday when the hoverboard is invented (just watching "Back To The
Future II" right now!).
DishRoom1
I wrote --
>>I sometimes like to wonder what it would be like to
>>be an anthro animal, but I'm happy with being
>>human enough.
>I know. There's a lot of things to take into consideration, such as the
>following....
>- You'd have to loop your tail through the hold on the back of your
>pants everytime you dress. Just having a tail might also prove some
>difficulties in certain places.
>- If you had four fingers, that would make buying gloves much harder to
>find if knowone on earth makes a special pair for the smaller digits.
In some others' artwork and my own attempt at creating furry stuff, there ia a
slit and a button on top to help with getting the tail through the pants. As
for the four-finger hands, I never considered the glove problem. I'm more
concerned over how a furry could count to 10 with only 8 fingers in total.
>Well I can't think of anything else. Still, it does pose a lot of
>questions to me personally about the subject. If furries are as close
>to humans in terms of intelligence and anatomy, would they have the same
>DNA as humans, or a compository of animal/human strands cloned together.
I imagine it of being a combination of human and animal strains myself.
>How about sweat glands? Would they be able to have interspecies
>relationships with humans, and to bear children? These are just a few
>of those I'll someday try to answer (as long as some religious cult
>doesn't try to do it ahead of me!)
>>I read "Furrlough" myself, too. The "Zelda Fox"
>>story was entertaining. I've also into
>>"Extinctioners", "Katmandu", "Ernor" and
>>"Xanadu", among may others.
>I've also spotted an issue of Extinctioners too, though I didn't buy it
>as it was a bit steep in price. Did noticed a bit of inovlvemen with
>Ken Singshow on it. I've been familiar with his work from a few years
>back when I found out about a sequel fanfic he wrote for Secret of NIMH.
>Never thought someone from Japan could draw that well with these
>characters. KInda had that odd thought he could've worked at a studio
>like TMS on one of their subcontracted works from America.
He does that well. He being inspired by Disney and Don Bluth while most other
Japanese cartoonists follow the anime style.
>>I noticed that a few backgrouds, like the movie's
>>opening shots to New York, were sketchy but it did
>>not bother me. Seemed to have some charm to
>>them.
>I thought so too. Everyone always have an opinion over how well the
>backgrounds define a particular film. During the '60s and '70s, when
>Disney films were being produed with the cels being xeroxed than hank
>inked, many tend to reject these films because of the obvious etchiness
>or the extra lines leftover from the cleanups that were used in the
>process. The backgrounds during this period also reflected a sort of
>outlined look that probably was done to offset the look a little better.
I don't really ever notice much of the scetchiness except for if you look at a
still from the film. What I would notice is when, for example, if a character
raised a hand and swing it quickly with the palm coming down, there would be a
few lines or so around the hand that would appear for a second or too.
I've heard of the multiplane process and how it changed animation. Supposingly
they don't use it much because of the rising cost of producting animation.
>
>>>Perhaps if I had a few access brain cells left,
>>>maybe I'll scribble something down for a sequel
>>>concept, send it to Disney, and see if they even
>>>bother to use it. I'd probably ask them not to pay
>>>me, as I know the kind of legal BS that would
>>>develop from this (trust me, I don't bother much
>>>with selling out yet).
>>I was thinking of send Disney the suggestion
>>myself. :-)
>>John Shughart
>Thanks, saves me the trouble!
You're welcome. :-)
John Shughart
DishRoom1
I wrote --
>>Chris Sobieniak wrote --
>>>Nowadays most of these features are just so
>>>readily available at our fingertips, it's just too
>>>easy not to think about how it used to be like
>>>when these films were never on video at all.
>>Being born in the early 1970s, I do remember
>>when Disney would release their movies so that
>>people could watch them again, as well as a new
>>generation of children seeing them for the first
>>time.
Reminded me of the time I bought a comic book based on "The Fox and the Hound"
and read it before the actual movie was released. :-)
>
>Only glad to be born near the end of that decade, but I do remember that
>too. Had to be content with either reading about these films in a
>kiddie book or watching clips on TV before I got to see them in the
>theatre. By the time home video came out, it sort of killed that
>tradition of re-releasing films into theatres and the annual showings of
>films like "Wizard of Oz" and "Gone with the Wind" on network TV
>(surprised I think they're still doing it for "Sound of Music" these
>days).
I know. Future generations of kids may not quite get the magic of seeing old
films on the silver screen we used to have before the proliferation of video.
One the other hand they have the luxury of seeing a movie in their privatcy
whenever they want.
>
>>I was a joy seeing the animated characters and the
>>beautiful color schemes on the screen. Nowadays
>>we have plenty of access tothe Disney films via
>>home video, and it seems because of that less.
>>theatrical re-releasese (except on IMAX.)
>>John Shughart
>
>Only wish I had an IMAX theatre close to go to. Perhaps we'll get one
>someday when the hoverboard is invented (just watching "Back To The
>Future II" right now!).
There's no IMAX near me, but I'm happy enough with the regualr theatrical
showing of movies in a town that is a thirty-minute drive from my home. One
being a modern mutiplex and another is an older theater that was renovated and
reopened in 1993. I also got a DVD player this Christmas but I still use my VCR
despite it. I still have to yet play a DVDs into it. ;-)
John Shughart
Chris Sobieniak
wrote:
>>I know. There's a lot of things to take into
>>consideration, such as the following....
>- You'd have to loop your tail through the hold on
>the back of your pants everytime you dress. Just
>having a tail might also prove some difficulties in
>certain places.
>>- If you had four fingers, that would make buying
>>gloves much harder to find if knowone on earth
>>makes a special pair for the smaller digits.
>
>In some others' artwork and my own attempt at
>creating furry stuff, there ia a slit and a button on
>top to help with getting the tail through the pants.
Usually that would be the case. I assume this slit would have to be
somewhere just underneath the belt if your dealing with someone wearing
jeans or somthing.
>As for the four-finger hands, I never considered the
>glove problem. I'm more concerned over how a
>furry could count to 10 with only 8 fingers in total.
That's a biggie! I guess that would have to recount their previous
fingers while doing so (sounds too much like a trick question for me).
>I imagine it of being a combination of human and
>animal strains myself.
I would say the same thing too.
>>Did noticed a bit of inovlvemen with Ken
>>Singshow on it. I've been familiar with his work
>>from a few years back when I found out about a
>>sequel fanfic he wrote for Secret of NIMH. Never
>>thought someone from Japan could draw that well
>>with these characters. KInda had that odd
>>thought he could've worked at a studio like TMS
>>on one of their subcontracted works from
>>America.
>He does that well. He being inspired by Disney
>and Don Bluth while most other Japanese
>cartoonists follow the anime style.
Probably one of the fewer individuals that does embrase the western
style so well over the domestic contemporaries available over there.
>I don't really ever notice much of the scetchiness
>except for if you look at a still from the film. What I
>would notice is when, for example, if a character
>raised a hand and swing it quickly with the palm
>coming down, there would be a few lines or so
>around the hand that would appear for a second or
>too.
I've seen a bit of that as well, especially when it comes to a few
occasions when a shape like a circle might appear for a drawing of a
character's head that doesn't get erased entirely for the final
clean-up.
>I've heard of the multiplane process and how it
>changed animation. Supposingly they don't use it
>much because of the rising cost of producting
>animation.
I've heard about that too. Pretty much the camera didn't get used after
the '50s I think, and it wasn't untill '85 when it was used again for
Black Cauldron I believe.
>>>I was thinking of send Disney the suggestion
>>>myself. :-)
>>John Shughart
>>Thanks, saves me the trouble!
> You're welcome. :-)
>John Shughart
Pleasure's mine.
Chris Sobieniak
wrote:
>Reminded me of the time I bought a comic book
>based on "The Fox and the Hound" and read it
>before the actual movie was released. :-)
For me, it was those story/music LPs for films like Cinderella, Song of
the South, and anything else I can't think of to be contented with.
>>Only glad to be born near the end of that decade,
>>but I do remember that too. Had to be content
>>with either reading about these films in a kiddie
>>book or watching clips on TV before I got to see
>>them in the theatre. By the time home video
>>came out, it sort of killed that tradition of
>>re-releasing films into theatres and the annual
>>showings of films like "Wizard of Oz" and "Gone
>>with the Wind" on network TV (surprised I think
>>they're still doing it for "Sound of Music" these
>>days).
>
>I know. Future generations of kids may not quite
>get the magic of seeing old films on the silver
>screen we used to have before the proliferation of
>video. One the other hand they have the luxury of
>seeing a movie in their privatcy whenever they
>want.
Hopefully it won't result in a generation of those who do appreciate
animation, yet be a closet-case because of the isolation they have to
endure to enjoy their cartoon fix (too much like my life).
>>Only wish I had an IMAX theatre close to go to.
>>Perhaps we'll get one someday when the
>>hoverboard is invented (just watching "Back To
>>The Future II" right now!).
>
>There's no IMAX near me, but I'm happy enough
>with the regualr theatrical showing of movies in a
>town that is a thirty-minute drive from my home.
>One being a modern mutiplex and another is an
>older theater that was renovated and reopened in
>1993.
I wish there was a singular movie house left in my city's downtown. The
last one closed in the '70s I believe. These days we have to contend to
about a half dozen multiplexes that dot several sections of town, mostly
smaller ones that have about 5-6 screens each, with one that was built a
few years back having about 18 screens total, with a plan to open a
20-screen theatre (demolishing a previous mulitplex theatre) in the
works.
>I also got a DVD player this Christmas but I
>still use my VCR despite it. I still have to yet play
>a DVDs into it. ;-)
>John Shughart
You should give it a try. I wish I could give you some suggestions for
DVDs to watch, but maybe I'll think of some later.
DishRoom1
I wrote --
>>>I know. There's a lot of things to take into
>>>consideration, such as the following....
>>- You'd have to loop your tail through the hold on
>>the back of your pants everytime you dress. Just
>>having a tail might also prove some difficulties in
>>certain places.
>>>- If you had four fingers, that would make buying
>>>gloves much harder to find if knowone on earth
>>>makes a special pair for the smaller digits.
>>
>>In some others' artwork and my own attempt at
>>creating furry stuff, there ia a slit and a button on
>>top to help with getting the tail through the pants.
>
>Usually that would be the case. I assume this slit would have to be
>somewhere just underneath the belt if your dealing with someone wearing
>jeans or somthing.
Right. And the button and button hole would on top, so that the tailed furry in
question could just open that slit up. Once the tail is in place with its base
at the slit, he/she can close up the top with the button, and voila.
>
>
>>>Did noticed a bit of inovlvemen with Ken
>>>Singshow on it. I've been familiar with his work
>>>from a few years back when I found out about a
>>>sequel fanfic he wrote for Secret of NIMH. Never
>>>thought someone from Japan could draw that well
>>>with these characters. KInda had that odd
>>>thought he could've worked at a studio like TMS
>>>on one of their subcontracted works from
>>>America.
>>He does that well. He being inspired by Disney
>>and Don Bluth while most other Japanese
>>cartoonists follow the anime style.
>
>Probably one of the fewer individuals that does embrase the western
>style so well over the domestic contemporaries available over there.
Meanwhile you have some some few American artist like Fred Perry adopting the
anime style for their comic books. A lady who created and draws the online
were-beast saga "Shifters", Marie Tary, does a pleasing job of using anime for
her drawing style. :-)
>
>>I don't really ever notice much of the scetchiness
>>except for if you look at a still from the film. What I
>>would notice is when, for example, if a character
>>raised a hand and swing it quickly with the palm
>>coming down, there would be a few lines or so
>>around the hand that would appear for a second or
>>too.
>
>I've seen a bit of that as well, especially when it comes to a few
>occasions when a shape like a circle might appear for a drawing of a
>character's head that doesn't get erased entirely for the final
>clean-up.
I think I often see a bit of that too, but I may have to look closer to see it
for myself the next time I watch those old cartoons. Did you see a lot of them
on DVD?
>
>>I've heard of the multiplane process and how it
>>changed animation. Supposingly they don't use it
>>much because of the rising cost of producting
>>animation.
>
>I've heard about that too. Pretty much the camera didn't get used after
>the '50s I think, and it wasn't untill '85 when it was used again for
>Black Cauldron I believe.
I think it was used in extra-Disney animated movies before that. Don Bluth used
it for his 1982 film "The Secret of NIMH", I believe. I know that Martin Rosen
used it for "The Plague Dogs", which came out at the same time as "NIMH", and
he may have used it for 1978's "Watership Down" too. There may have been some
small non-Disney feature that may have too revived the multiplane camera, but I
don't know for sure. Like I said, it got too expensive for animators to use.
I don't think that Disney, Bluth or any animation company since uses the
multiplane cameras anymore since computers can animate the backgrounds and
foregrounds these days.
John Shughart
PeterCat
dish...@aol.com (DishRoom1) wrote:
> In some others' artwork and my own attempt at creating furry stuff, there ia a
> slit and a button on top to help with getting the tail through the pants. As
> for the four-finger hands, I never considered the glove problem. I'm more
> concerned over how a furry could count to 10 with only 8 fingers in total.
Most likely they'd have a base-8 number system (and some furry stories
go into this). If it's a mixed society, with 5-fingered humans, the
4-fingered creatures could count the hands (paws?) themselves to make 10.
Chris Sobieniak
wrote:
>Chris Sobieniak wrote --
>>would have to be somewhere just underneath the
>>belt if your dealing with someone wearing jeans
>>or somthing.
>Right. And the button and button hole would on
>top, so that the tailed furry in question could just
>open that slit up. Once the tail is in place with its
>base at the slit, he/she can close up the top with
>the button, and voila.
You make it sound too simple. Kinda remember being a kid and never
noticed boxer shorts having flys in the front (they never really draw
them as much back then).
>Meanwhile you have some some few American
>artist like Fred Perry adopting the anime style for
>their comic books. A lady who created and draws
>the online were-beast saga "Shifters", Marie Tary,
>does a pleasing job of using anime for her drawing
>style. :-)
Hard getting used to those styles myself.
>I think I often see a bit of that too, but I may have
>to look closer to see it for myself the next time I
>watch those old cartoons. Did you see a lot of
>them on DVD?
Well here or there. Usually with DVDs, it gives you the extra advantage
of freezing a frame of the film, and study it closely than it was on VHS
when you had a limited amount of time to do so. You can also zoom in on
the frame to see anything up close that might've been obscured or
unoticable otherwise. You can also go forward or backwards on the
frames if your player can do the "step" function simular to what used to
be a standard on LD players when a CAV disc was played.
>I think it was used in extra-Disney animated
>movies before that. Don Bluth used it for his 1982
>film "The Secret of NIMH", I believe. I know that
>Martin Rosen used it for "The Plague Dogs", which
>came out at the same time as "NIMH", and he may
>have used it for 1978's "Watership Down" too.
>There may have been some small non-Disney
>feature that may have too revived the multiplane
>camera, but I don't know for sure. Like I said, it got
>too expensive for animators to use.
Pretty much, there's been a few non-Disney studios and animators who
used the process too now and then. There's been simple processes like
using 2 or 3 panes of glass that had been used in a number of TV
cartoons in the '80s and '90s such as in anime.
On a side note, Gene Deitch used the technique in several Tom & Jerry
cartoons he had worked on while in Prague. I assume they probably were
able to use the equipment if the studios in the Soviet Bloc were able to
get funding through the goverment to do so.
>I don't think that Disney, Bluth or any animation
>company since uses the multiplane cameras
>anymore since computers can animate the
>backgrounds and foregrounds these days.
>John Shughart
Pretty much. If you've seen Hayao Miyazaki's "Spririted Away", I rather
found myself shedding tears at the way they handled the backgrounds in
the film. Even though many of the 3D backgrounds were rendered on a
computer, they were still painted by hand, and the way they've executed
the action, it was like being in that world where you can move in an
enviroment that was a like a living painting. I used to have dreams
about that as a young boy.
Chris Sobieniak
wrote:
>In article
><20021229235724...@mb-fs.aol.c
>m>, dish...@aol.com (DishRoom1) wrote:
>>In some others' artwork and my own attempt at
>>creating furry stuff, there ia a slit and a button on
>>top to help with getting the tail through the pants.
>>As for the four-finger hands, I never considered
>>the glove problem. I'm more concerned over how
>>a furry could count to 10 with only 8 fingers in
>>total.
>Most likely they'd have a base-8 number system
>(and some furry stories go into this).
I thought about that too
>If it's a mixed society, with 5-fingered humans, the
>4-fingered creatures could count the hands
>(paws?) themselves to make 10.
As long as they don't find it rather bad they ever never given 5 to
begin with. I'm always turned by that kind of logic. I might try to do
something like that in some of my own creations, like perhaps give one
human 4 fingers for no reason other than just a personal joke (Akira
Toriyama has done simular things to characters like Dragon Ball's
Kuririn).
PeterCat
> >If it's a mixed society, with 5-fingered humans, the
> >4-fingered creatures could count the hands
> >(paws?) themselves to make 10.
chrism...@webtv.net (Chris Sobieniak) wrote:
> As long as they don't find it rather bad they ever never given 5 to
> begin with. I'm always turned by that kind of logic.
Well, they could stubbornly use base-8 among themselves and convert to
base 10 when dealing with 5-fingered folks. (Kind of like the US refuses
to convert to the metric system.)
DishRoom1
I wrote --
>>Chris Sobieniak wrote --
>>>Usually that would be the case. I assume this slit
>>>would have to be somewhere just underneath the
>>>belt if your dealing with someone wearing jeans
>>>or somthing.
>>Right. And the button and button hole would on
>>top, so that the tailed furry in question could just
>>open that slit up. Once the tail is in place with its
>>base at the slit, he/she can close up the top with
>>the button, and voila.
>
>You make it sound too simple. Kinda remember being a kid and never
>noticed boxer shorts having flys in the front (they never really draw
>them as much back then).
It may be simble as that, athough the tail hole must fit the tail right. Foxes,
wolves, and some other canines have thick bushy tails. Felines have slender
tails. Rabbits' tails are short and stubby. Tails of many avains (birds) often
are like a file of feathers at their butts. Some lizards like alligators have
thick scaley tails. Some animals like gorillas have nothing at their rears.
>
>>Meanwhile you have some some few American
>>artist like Fred Perry adopting the anime style for
>>their comic books. A lady who created and draws
>>the online were-beast saga "Shifters", Marie Tary,
>>does a pleasing job of using anime for her drawing
>>style. :-)
>
>Hard getting used to those styles myself.
I was a little kick-around-the-tires about it myself years ago, once thinking
that I would never watch an anime. But over time I have grown rather warm over
the style of huge eyes and stuff like that, while enjoying some anime at last.
^_^
>
>>I think I often see a bit of that too, but I may have
>>to look closer to see it for myself the next time I
>>watch those old cartoons. Did you see a lot of
>>them on DVD?
>
>Well here or there. Usually with DVDs, it gives you the extra advantage
>of freezing a frame of the film, and study it closely than it was on VHS
>when you had a limited amount of time to do so. You can also zoom in on
>the frame to see anything up close that might've been obscured or
>unoticable otherwise. You can also go forward or backwards on the
>frames if your player can do the "step" function simular to what used to
>be a standard on LD players when a CAV disc was played.
My DVD has those features, plus slow-motion. I would like to try this one out,
since that as good as my VCR is, it has a lousy slo-mo feature. The best the
videocassette are played in slow-mo is with a stiff frame-by-frame play; every
frame apearring still for 3 seconds.
Ahhhh... "Spirited Away" U.U I just saw it in the old renovated theater I
meantioned once on Sunday. This film .... this gentle work cinematic gold is
unlike anything I ever saw in Western animation, live action or anything
involving movies at all. How can I describe it, being that even if it is rooted
in a different culture than my American own, and yet it touches my heart all so
easily than the Disney fairtales or other Western animated fairytales? It was
such a specail film for me.
John Shughart
(Happy New Year, BTW)
G&L
PeterCat wrote:
> I wrote:
> > >If it's a mixed society, with 5-fingered humans, the
> > >4-fingered creatures could count the hands
> > >(paws?) themselves to make 10.
>
> chrism...@webtv.net (Chris Sobieniak) wrote:
> > As long as they don't find it rather bad they ever never given 5 to
> > begin with. I'm always turned by that kind of logic.
>
> Well, they could stubbornly use base-8 among themselves and convert to
> base 10 when dealing with 5-fingered folks. (Kind of like the US refuses
> to convert to the metric system.)
For what it's worth, canines and felines sort of do have a "thumb"....in fact
I think that is the correct term for it ,as well as "first toe", "digit" and
"pollex" although it is higher up and non-opposable. It's the one they used for
hunting and climbing when they were prehistoric and non-domesticated. Any one
with a dog knows it as the claw that they really have to make sure is clipped
otherwise it curls back and ingrows.
Anyhoo, that's what I rationalise the anthropomorphisized/ personified
animal's thumb to be.....as if walking and talking and wearing clothes makes
sense....;-)
Gerard
Arklier
>For what it's worth, canines and felines sort of do have a "thumb"....in fact
>I think that is the correct term for it ,as well as "first toe", "digit" and
>"pollex" although it is higher up and non-opposable. It's the one they used for
>hunting and climbing when they were prehistoric and non-domesticated. Any one
>with a dog knows it as the claw that they really have to make sure is clipped
>otherwise it curls back and ingrows.
>Anyhoo, that's what I rationalise the anthropomorphisized/ personified
>animal's thumb to be.....as if walking and talking and wearing clothes makes
>sense....;-)
>
>Gerard
Yes, they do have 'thumbs', but only on their front feet. They're
usually referred to as dewclaws.
If you can't figure out my address, you need help.
Chris Sobieniak
wrote:
>Chris Sobieniak wrote --
>>I wrote --
>>>top, so that the tailed furry in question could just
>>>open that slit up. Once the tail is in place with
>>>its base at the slit, he/she can close up the top
>>>with the button, and voila.
>
>>You make it sound too simple. Kinda remember
>>being a kid and never noticed boxer shorts having
>>flys in the front (they never really draw them as
>>much back then).
>
>It may be simble as that, athough the tail hole
>must fit the tail right. Foxes, wolves, and some
>other canines have thick bushy tails. Felines have
>slender tails. Rabbits' tails are short and stubby.
>Tails of many avains (birds) often are like a file of
>feathers at their butts. Some lizards like alligators
>have thick scaley tails. Some animals like gorillas
>have nothing at their rears.
Which is probably the reason why I rather go for most land mammals as
furries over those in the air and sea personally (easier to adapt).
Thinking back about tails, it always amuses me the things they never
explained before in the past. Kinda remember back in the days when just
watching cartoons with clothed furries always got me at times. The kind
of stuff I hardly told anyone about, and thought it was rather a stupid
question to say out anyway (these days, it's more freely to ask these
things such as in newsgroups postings).
One of those scenes I used to get a kick out of watching was Disney's
"Ben & Me" where Amos got dressed to go out looking for work. I always
enjoyed how he would put his pants on, tucks his nightshirt in, and
threads the tail out the back. They kinda made it seem rather so easy
the way it was rendered. They probably didn't have to draw it, but at
least it gave me some interesting ideas over the subject.
>>Hard getting used to those styles myself.
>I was a little kick-around-the-tires about it myself
>years ago, once thinking that I would never watch
>an anime. But over time I have grown rather warm
>over the style of huge eyes and stuff like that,
>while enjoying some anime at last.
>^_^
In the case of anime, I was probably well into enjoying it as a younger
kid in the '80s, when some of those shows did mamke it over here at one
point or another. It was furries adapting to the anime/manga style that
got me! Most times they tend to be rather too cute and not nearly as
diverse as the Western identicles. These days I see a lot of ones that
look like they're just ripping off Sonic the Hedgehog or another current
video game hit.
>My DVD has those features, plus slow-motion. I
>would like to try this one out, since that as good as
>my VCR is, it has a lousy slo-mo feature. The best
>the videocassette are played in slow-mo is with a
>stiff frame-by-frame play; every frame apearring
>still for 3 seconds.
Usually it's a bit different for DVD players, especially when you get to
go frame by frame of a 24fps film that would be played back at 24
progressive frames, rather than in the past on VHS when you would deal
with the 2/3 pulldown method that plays into playing an 30fps tape.
>Ahhhh... "Spirited Away" U.U I just saw it in the
>old renovated theater I meantioned once on
>Sunday.
Thank kami-sama you've watched it!
>This film .... this gentle work cinematic
>gold is unlike anything I ever saw in Western
>animation, live action or anything involving movies
>at all. How can I describe it, being that even if it is
>rooted in a different culture than my American
>own, and yet it touches my heart all so easily than
>the Disney fairtales or other Western animated
>fairytales? It was such a specail film for me.
To me, I felt touched by the film too, especially the scene where
Chihiro was told by Yubaba's sister to call her "grandma", and I could
hold back the feelings of my late grandmother who once took me to see
Disney's "Beauty & The Beast just about 11 years ago. Just kinda hit
home somehow.
>John Shughart
>(Happy New Year, BTW)
Thanks, I really wasn't paying attention much last night about it.
Didn't much celebrated because of a cold I had caught yesterday.
Chris Sobieniak
>For what it's worth, canines and felines sort of do
>have a "thumb"....in fact I think that is the correct
>term for it ,as well as "first toe", "digit" and "pollex"
>although it is higher up and non-opposable. It's the
>one they used for hunting and climbing when they
>were prehistoric and non-domesticated. Any one
>with a dog knows it as the claw that they really
>have to make sure is clipped otherwise it curls
>back and ingrows.
I believe you there. I believe most people would call it a dewclaw
anyway. Kinda reminds me of how some might refer to a dog or cat's heel
as a "backwards knee' when that's obviously false.
Ironically, I always had that impression over how it might've been if we
left dogs alone and let them evolve over the next million years or so,
perhaps they would've been more agile and flexible than they are now.
Not that having a dog that could climb a tree somewhat makes a good
merit over chasing after a cat.
>Anyhoo, that's what I rationalise the
>anthropomorphisized/ personified animal's thumb
>to be.....as if walking and talking and wearing
>clothes makes sense....;-)
>Gerard
I know. We can really stretch things to their limits these days.
Whenever I do see some examples like in some Disney films and in Bluth's
own works (All Dogs Go To Heaven comes to mind), I can't help but find
it interesting to see how might a quadropedic animal could adapt itself
into upright human postions so easily. It's those little things I tend
to enjoy in animation.
DishRoom1
I wrote --
>>Chris Sobieniak wrote --
>>>I wrote --
>>>>Right. And the button and button hole would on
>>>>top, so that the tailed furry in question could just
>>>>open that slit up. Once the tail is in place with
>>>>its base at the slit, he/she can close up the top
>>>>with the button, and voila.
>>
>>>You make it sound too simple. Kinda remember
>>>being a kid and never noticed boxer shorts having
>>>flys in the front (they never really draw them as
>>>much back then).
>>
>
>Thinking back about tails, it always amuses me the things they never
>explained before in the past. Kinda remember back in the days when just
>watching cartoons with clothed furries always got me at times. The kind
>of stuff I hardly told anyone about, and thought it was rather a stupid
>question to say out anyway (these days, it's more freely to ask these
>things such as in newsgroups postings).
>
>One of those scenes I used to get a kick out of watching was Disney's
>"Ben & Me" where Amos got dressed to go out looking for work. I always
>enjoyed how he would put his pants on, tucks his nightshirt in, and
>threads the tail out the back. They kinda made it seem rather so easy
>the way it was rendered. They probably didn't have to draw it, but at
>least it gave me some interesting ideas over the subject.
Man, I remember seeing "Ben and Me" a few times or so as a kid. It was the one
about that mouse with Benjamin Frankln, wasn't it?
Anyway, threading the tail through sounds cool with those 'toon animals (maybe
Mickey Mouse does that with his tail and pants too). But with the more mature
form of furries that exsited over 20 years, they are a lot less toony than
those in the mainstream entertainment. They're more of the flesh-and-blood
realm than the "walk away alive after being flatten by a piano" toon physics.
So if furries were real, how might they get their tails through their lower
garments? Maybe by theading them like you suggest, or with the buttoned
tailhole idea. Who knows?
>
>>>Hard getting used to those styles myself.
>>I was a little kick-around-the-tires about it myself
>>years ago, once thinking that I would never watch
>>an anime. But over time I have grown rather warm
>>over the style of huge eyes and stuff like that,
>>while enjoying some anime at last.
>>^_^
>
>In the case of anime, I was probably well into enjoying it as a younger
>kid in the '80s, when some of those shows did mamke it over here at one
>point or another. It was furries adapting to the anime/manga style that
>got me! Most times they tend to be rather too cute and not nearly as
>diverse as the Western identicles. These days I see a lot of ones that
>look like they're just ripping off Sonic the Hedgehog or another current
>video game hit.
>
>>My DVD has those features, plus slow-motion. I
>>would like to try this one out, since that as good as
>>my VCR is, it has a lousy slo-mo feature. The best
>>the videocassette are played in slow-mo is with a
>>stiff frame-by-frame play; every frame apearring
>>still for 3 seconds.
>
>Usually it's a bit different for DVD players, especially when you get to
>go frame by frame of a 24fps film that would be played back at 24
>progressive frames, rather than in the past on VHS when you would deal
>with the 2/3 pulldown method that plays into playing an 30fps tape.
OK :-)
>
>>Ahhhh... "Spirited Away" U.U I just saw it in the
>>old renovated theater I meantioned once on
>>Sunday.
>
>Thank kami-sama you've watched it!
I've heard a lot about "Spirited Away" almost all of 2002 and it was hard to
catch due to Disney's releasing it little by little across the country over the
months. It finally arrived in Pennsylvania in Carlisle, a 30-mintue from my
home, where it was playing for a limited time over the week of Christmas.
>
>>This film .... this gentle work cinematic
>>gold is unlike anything I ever saw in Western
>>animation, live action or anything involving movies
>>at all. How can I describe it, being that even if it is
>>rooted in a different culture than my American
>>own, and yet it touches my heart all so easily than
>>the Disney fairtales or other Western animated
>>fairytales? It was such a specail film for me.
>
>To me, I felt touched by the film too, especially the scene where
>Chihiro was told by Yubaba's sister to call her "grandma", and I could
>hold back the feelings of my late grandmother who once took me to see
>Disney's "Beauty & The Beast just about 11 years ago. Just kinda hit
>home somehow.
I too was struck by Yubaba's "Grandma" suggestion. It was very sweet indeed.
There were other parts of the film that were my favorites. For instance,
Chihiro befriends this boy who helps her through her ordeal in the spirit
world. I was in awe in the scene where he was in his dragon form, in attack by
those paper birds, and Chihiro tries to help save him as he was bleeding and
near dead. That, and their "remembering" scene over the lake near the movie's
end produced a soft beautiful wave of emotion about the human contition. It
felt so sad and kind of romantic somehow.
>
>>John Shughart
>>(Happy New Year, BTW)
>
>Thanks, I really wasn't paying attention much last night about it.
>Didn't much celebrated because of a cold I had caught yesterday.
Bummer. I'm sorry that you didn't. I have a good time with my family with
snacks and music.
John Shughart
Chris Sobieniak
wrote:
>>Chris Sobieniak wrote --
>or so as a kid. It was the one about that mouse
>with Benjamin Frankln, wasn't it?
Yes. It was one of those films I had memories of watching a lot as a
kid.
>Anyway, threading the tail through sounds cool
>with those 'toon animals (maybe Mickey Mouse
>does that with his tail and pants too). But with the
>more mature form of furries that exsited over 20
>years, they are a lot less toony than those in the
>mainstream entertainment. They're more of the
>flesh-and-blood realm than the "walk away alive
>after being flatten by a piano" toon physics. So if
>furries were real, how might they get their tails
>through their lower garments? Maybe by theading
>them like you suggest, or with the buttoned
>tailhole idea. Who knows?
I know. There's many things that are always explained but we're
supposed to not question it as much.
>>Thank kami-sama you've watched it!
>I've heard a lot about "Spirited Away" almost all of
>2002 and it was hard to catch due to Disney's
>releasing it little by little across the country over
>the months. It finally arrived in Pennsylvania in
>Carlisle, a 30-mintue from my home, where it was
>playing for a limited time over the week of
>Christmas.
For me, it was a quick 3-5 miles from my house. I've heard from my
younger brother though that the theatre I went to near a shopping mall
was going to be demolished for more parking spaces. I only hope that's
not true, that makes another theatre closed in Toledo due to stupid
parking lots.
>This film .... this gentle work cinematic gold is
>unlike anything I ever saw in Western animation,
>live action or anything involving movies at all. How
>can I describe it, being that even if it is rooted in a
>different culture than my American own, and yet it
>touches my heart all so easily than the Disney
>fairtales or other Western animated fairytales? It
>was such a specail film for me.
Pretty much, the kind of movie Disney would never dream to do
themselves.
>I too was struck by Yubaba's "Grandma"
>suggestion. It was very sweet indeed. There were
>other parts of the film that were my favorites. For
>instance, Chihiro befriends this boy who helps her
>through her ordeal in the spirit world. I was in awe
>in the scene where he was in his dragon form, in
>attack by those paper birds, and Chihiro tries to
>help save him as he was bleeding and near dead.
I though that scene was truely well done and quite effective. Hardly
ever see too many animated films that could do it justice.
>That, and their "remembering" scene over the lake
>near the movie's end produced a soft beautiful
>wave of emotion about the human contition. It felt
>so sad and kind of romantic somehow.
Another tear-jerking moment for me as well.
>>>John Shughart
>>>(Happy New Year, BTW)
>>Thanks, I really wasn't paying attention much last
>>night about it. Didn't much celebrated because of
>>a cold I had caught yesterday.
>Bummer. I'm sorry that you didn't. I have a good
>time with my family with snacks and music.
>John Shughart
Well, I make up for it through other things. Today, my folks actually
took me and my younger brother out to some hobby store, and I almost
bought a Gundam:0079 1/144 model kit to try out. And Char's
Counterattack's on tonight, another plus. Probably have a few others,
but there's just too many to list.
chance wolf
"Chris Sobieniak" <chrism...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:23938-3E1...@storefull-2174.public.lawson.webtv.net...
(that someone else wrote which I never saw in its original incarnation:)
> >I too was struck by Yubaba's "Grandma"
> >suggestion. It was very sweet indeed. There were
> >other parts of the film that were my favorites. For
> >instance, Chihiro befriends this boy who helps her
> >through her ordeal in the spirit world. I was in awe
> >in the scene where he was in his dragon form, in
> >attack by those paper birds, and Chihiro tries to
> >help save him as he was bleeding and near dead.
Haku. That scene was incredible for a thousand reasons from the sheer
imagination that spawned it all right on through the execution. If I'm in
any danger of slowly forgetting the scenes from "Spirited", that one will be
the last to go. HakuDragon looked really cool too; sort of like what you'd
picture if someone suggested the notion of a wolf crossed with the
traditional representation of a Dragon, and for some reason, the scenes with
Chihiro and Haku-as-Dragon played more emotionally than the ones with
Haku-as-human. The one that springs immediately to mind by way of
illustration is the scene where the dragon Haku is bleeding to death in
Yubaba's penthouse, and Chihiro either hugs him or attempts to shield him
from harm. Still remember Zeniba's line there: "The Dragon is kind, yet
stupid..." Works for me.
> I though that scene was truely well done and quite effective. Hardly
> ever see too many animated films that could do it justice.
I'm trying to think of a North American film that has any sequence remotely
like that one, and I'm coming up snake-eyes.
> >That, and their "remembering" scene over the lake
> >near the movie's end produced a soft beautiful
> >wave of emotion about the human contition. It felt
> >so sad and kind of romantic somehow.
>
> Another tear-jerking moment for me as well.
Likewise, that was great. I was fairly ignorant concerning the old-school
Japanese mythology of "a million gods", so I came home after seeing the
movie and treated myself to a crash course via the 'net. Coolstuff. I
suppose Chihiro through the entire film served as a proxy for what we'd feel
in a world populated by countless gods; a mixture of fear, wonder,
curiousity and finally - courage.
I sure hope Disney doesn't sit on this one for six months before releasing
it to DVD, and it would be wonderful if Miramax went with the Japanese audio
track (and alternate title-card) for the DVD as with Mononoke prior.
> Well, I make up for it through other things. Today, my folks actually
> took me and my younger brother out to some hobby store, and I almost
> bought a Gundam:0079 1/144 model kit to try out. And Char's
> Counterattack's on tonight, another plus. Probably have a few others,
> but there's just too many to list.
chance (I wanted the Gundam 0080 vol I-III DVDs for Christmas, but everyone
and their dog had empty shelves in the run up to Santa time. Maybe I won't
pay rent for a month or two so I can score them off Ebay (seeing as the
Canadian dollar is performing so wonderfully </sarcasm>)
David Pochron
>That's a biggie! I guess that would have to recount their previous
>fingers while doing so (sounds too much like a trick question for me).
Count in octal instead of decimal? :-) Actually with 4 fingers it would make
someone a shoe-in as a computer programmer, since power-of-two numbers are
what computers like to deal with.
--
David Pochron dp...@ticon.net
James Fabiano
I'm from the future. We got a RR movie, only it's not what you think. And actually DuckTales met all of the above when they got a brand new show!
On Tuesday, December 24, 2002 at 9:23:24 AM UTC-5, stéphane dumas wrote:
> "TheShredder" <TheShr...@prodigy.net> a écrit dans le message news:
> eUYN9.301$wR...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Arklier" <ark...@hotnospammail.com> wrote in message
> > news:6qdg0vktv7poe1ret...@4ax.com...
> > > Now that they've already done Jungle Book II, my money is on Robin
> > > Hood. Anyone else care to take a whirl?
> >
> > Nah, I' betting they'll wail on their Disney Afternoon Lineup for ideas.
> >
> > Ducktails, the Movie? :)
> >
> I taught it was already done, but I won't be surprised to see crossovers
> like Ducktales meet Darkwing Duck or Tale Spin vs Chip'N'Dale Rescue Rangers
> ;-)
> Stéphane Dumas