Tinker Bell

[Neal]

I love consistency. So it's a good cover, IMO.

[Josh]

USA Today speaks about the new costume Tinker Bell wears in Lost Treasure. I was surprised to read that she is John Lasseter's favorite Disney character.

[Dacey]

A lot of people are getting really fired up over that costume. Not sure why. I mean, it's not like she's going to wear it forever or anything.

[Aaron_03]

You can ge the two latest movies on Blu-Ray...

[droosan]

TinkerBell and the Lost Treasure debuts on DVD and Blu-ray on October 27th .. so, there's a couple weeks left yet before 'the two latest' movies will be available. :idea:

(though, there's always gonna be a random retailer who 'breaks' the street date .. but I imagine Disney is stricter than most studios in clamping-down on that)

[Dusterian]

I finally saw the first one.

It wasn't...very good. OR it was good for something aimed at little kids that had created something wholey different from how the original Peter Pan was. Take your pick.

Seriously, I cannot believe the thing was aimed at families at all, or even tweens, which is who they claimed the Fairies line was made for! In all honesty, nothing about felt meant for anyone beyond 7 or feature-movie like at all. Exccept possibly the beginning which of course was helped by the fact the original Peter Pan said how fairies were born.

But otherwise, the film says Pixie Hollow is this place in Neverland that has almost an exact copy of the real world and all it's seasons simultaneously?! And Tinker Bell started out as a very good, even kind, helpful fairy who actually liked tinkering instead of making herself look sexy, getting jealous and mad, and doing mischevious things?

No, this was not Tinker Bell or Never Land. This was a lie. And we'll just see it get bigger and longer like Pinocchio's nose, I guess!

Daniel, could you please tell me what characteristics of the original Walt Disney Tinker Bell you found in this film? How this seems like the original on-character Tinker Bell to you?

[EricJ]

FMM, the early "test" shorts--back before they had a voice for the character, or even one agreed-on plot for the movie--was more in classic "old-school" character:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn2nc-x1rZs

[Ben]

Tink is much more playful there, and is it me or is the animation really good? The animation in the features is pretty good considering the DTV nature, but this is far more fluid.

However, if they'd stuck to this version of the character, they wouldn't have had a film! Tink wouldn't have sustained a feature and all the emotions it would need if they went this way.

Unfortunately, they went <I>too</I> far in the other direction!

[Randall]

It wasn't...very good. OR it was good for something aimed at little kids that had created something wholey different from how the original Peter Pan was. Take your pick.

It's the latter. I agree that it aimed a little young, considering the brand they're trying to create, but for little kids it's okay. Just forget that it supposedly has anything to do with the Peter Pan film. The Tinker Bell movies simply aren't aimed at adult collectors, though it's nice if some of them enjoy them too.

[EricJ]

It's the latter. I agree that it aimed a little young, considering the brand they're trying to create, but for little kids it's okay. Just forget that it supposedly has anything to do with the Peter Pan film.

Technically that was the non-agression treaty that was derived out of the long and bloody John Lasseter wars, that Tinkerbell could be classified as "marketing", and continue direct-videos, so long as there was no overt attempt to otherwise set foot on JM Barrie territory or derive a direct story-sequel out of P*t*r P*n.

(We'll still get the occasional teasing tie-in or tribute mannerism from the first movie, to sell us on the "classic" pedigree of the character, but they're well aware management is looking over their shoulder making sure no more Returns to Neverland happen again.)

[estefan]

Just finished watching it and I thought it was pretty bad, even by children's film standards (because, let's be honest, unlike anything from the Disney canon, this is definitely only aimed at children).

To start with the positive, I thought the animation was quite impressive, especially for a direct-to-video feature. The opening sequence was quite spectacular and it remained consistant as the film went on. I also liked the ending where

Tinker Bell goes to Wendy's window-sill and the music box played "Second Star to the Right". Nice, little ode to the 1953 film.

Otherwise, I just found the film to be bland and life-less. Tinker Bell was one of the more interesting characters in Disney's adaptation, but in this, she's stripped down to quite a boring fairy. I didn't expect her to be the jealous, angry figure from Peter Pan, but I didn't expect her to still keep some of her spark. The closest to the original Tinker Bell was a brief scene where her face turned red when angry. Her friends also didn't leave much of an impression and the voice-cast didn't really look like they were trying (Rob Paulsen and Jeff Bennett being the notable exceptions). The story was also much too predictable and I knew every turn the film would make. They really should have been more effort into creating a compelling story rather than simply concentrating on the visuals. Oh, well. At least, it was short.

And on the featurette on the DVD (which, for some reason, is hidden as an easter egg), John Lasseter states that Tinker Bell is one the best characters Walt Disney has ever created. Even though, J.M. Barrie created the character! Really annoyed me there, especially coming from Lasseter.

[Randall]

Well, the <i>Disney</i> Tinker Bell is arguably a Disney character, inasmuch that her personality in Disney's film is unique to that movie.

I'm looking forward to reviewing this title, and will be employing my little girl to help! It's aimed at her, after all, not me.

[American_dog_2008]

Let's see if Tinker Bell wins her first Oscar!

[Randall]

I don't think Tink will earn a nomination in a year full of great animated films, but I did think highly of it:

http://animatedviews.com/2009/tinker-be ... -treasure/

[EricJ]

Otherwise, I just found the film to be bland and life-less. Tinker Bell was one of the more interesting characters in Disney's adaptation, but in this, she's stripped down to quite a boring fairy. I didn't expect her to be the jealous, angry figure from Peter Pan, but I didn't expect her to still keep some of her spark.

Watching the pre-production test "Pixie Preview" shorts (see above), back when they were still playing around with the "old-school" Tink, one of the things that made the '53 character was that contrary so-there "Jingle-jingle-nyeh " shake of the head from a character who didn't care how bad she was being.
(As Barrie puts it in the book, fairies, being small, have room for only one emotion in their heads at a time....Which pretty well sums up the original character.)

Here, new-Disney's attempt to give us the default Misunderstood Character Who Wants to Do Something Right<tm> has not one ounce of deliberate sass in her bloodstream, and the "Red glow" is now here reduced to a marketable running-gag shtick to teach a Moral Lesson.
It's all pleasant enough, and yes, I know the point of the series is hitting back at Barbie Fairytopia, but there is such a thing as being too nice.

I don't think Tink will earn a nomination in a year full of great animated films, but I did think highly of it:

http://animatedviews.com/2009/tinker-be ... -treasure/

Like the first movie, seems like it'd gone through some last-minute story juggling, with no one quite sure what the final plot was going to be:
All the pre-release marketing seemed to focus on "A peril-filled race against time, to find the second moonstone before the Hollow is destroyed!"...While the final story gives us "Well, she wants to find a mirror that will help her find a second one, because she broke the first one for being hot-tempered, and things might be bad if she doesn't, but she'd certainly be in trouble."

I can appreciate that Lasseter and ToonStudio were literally at war over the first movie's storyline, but now that they're allowed to do stories, they don't...quite know what to do with them.
(They originally thought they were going to stretch out the book-canon into features, but the books branched out so far into their own universe, the animateds are back on their own direct-video feet again.)