Disney Princess: Enchanted Tales

Post by **Daniel** » January 3rd, 2007, 3:16 pm

Mitch wrote:Yeah, I guess I shouldn't be too hard on these direct-to-video releases, even if they are sequels/prequels. Well, like ya' said...I can't judge it 'til I've seen it. Too bad I'm not gonna see it -- heheh.

I was just messin with ya! It's ok, if you think it looks medicore

Mitch wrote:And yep, you certainly do love sequels. I'm trying to think of a good title for you. "Dan the Sequel Man", perhaps. (snigger) I'm just kidding -- I'm just kidding!

I certainly do!

Haha, that would've been a good nickname

Ben wrote:Dan...a lot of us here are versed well enough to pass some pre-judgment on the <I>quality</I> of such an outing, if not the story.

And this...looks like it will stink!

Um... I knew that

And, the Sleeping Beauty short looks cute, so I disagree.

Ben wrote:And dropping Belle from the cover doesn't have <I>anything</I> to do with Jerry Orbach dying - that was a year ago, and anyone can muster up an accent as a replacement! More likely that the Belle story isn't anything "new" so they don't want to push that too much.

How do you know for sure, Ben? For all we know, that could be the reason. Seeing as this was still 'new', he could've done half the short, and now they have to redo his lines, and find a suitable 'sound-alike'. That's what I'm going with, until I hear otherwise.

Also, what do you mean by the Belle story isn't anything "new"? Do you mean by story or animation? If its either of those, I think your wrong. It's been confirmed, that the volumes will have all new animation and stories. So I don't understand

Ben wrote:And this is an ad, not the final cover!

Good eye Ben!

Its an add from a Princess magazine!

I think the final cover art, will be more or less the same. They've done it before!

James wrote:To be fair, these Disney Princess stories are aimed more at children than other Disney animated projects.

That's true.

*****************************

I'm just saying, it looks cute. I have no intention of purchasing this, but my friend (who's a princess fanatic) will be getting this, and will be lending it to me.

Now, is it wrong to be exited?

Post by **Mitch** » January 3rd, 2007, 3:40 pm

Daniel Jake wrote:I was just messin with ya! It's ok, if you think it looks medicore

Ahh. Ok. Just checkin' -- heheh. And thanks. I do respect your like for sequels, by the way. Like I said before, we all love what we love.

Daniel Jake wrote: Haha, that would've been a good nickname

Well, don't look now, but it is now officially your new nick-name! Umm...if you don't mind.

Daniel Jake wrote:Now, is it wrong to be exited?

Oh no -- quite the contrary! We (or, at least, I) am not harassing you for loving a particular subject that does not interest us/me. Love what you love. People could say that Ratatouille sucks, but would that turn me away? You bet your buttons it wouldn't!

Post by **James** » January 3rd, 2007, 3:43 pm

I was actually on your side! My point about saying these we're being aimed at children was you can't hold them to the same standards as a feature film or even the dtv sequels.

Post by **Daniel** » January 3rd, 2007, 4:12 pm

Mitch wrote:Well, don't look now, but it is now officially your new nick-name! Umm...if you don't mind.

Its your choice

But, don't you think you'll get tired of writing it? Its pretty lengthy

Mitch wrote:Oh no -- quite the contrary! We (or, at least, I) am not harassing you for loving a particular subject that does not interest us/me. Love what you love. People could say that Ratatouille sucks, but would that turn me away? You bet your buttons it wouldn't!

I really need to watch, what I say

Its hard to explain, but sometimes I over exagerate or I dunno..... Moving on...

I believe you! Nor, would it do that to me.

James wrote:I was actually on your side! My point about saying these we're being aimed at children was you can't hold them to the same standards as a feature film or even the dtv sequels.

Aww, thanks! That's what I thought you meant, which is why, I seperated my "that's true" from the rest of my post, sorry to confuse you!

Post by **Mitch** » January 3rd, 2007, 4:21 pm

Daniel Jake - Ha -- yeah, I guess I would get tired of writing that out, wouldn't I?

Oh no -- I wasn't "bumping you off" or anything. I over-exaggerate, myself.

On-Topic - Yeah, these things are aimed at young girls, so it's quite understandable why they're making these things. Since the princesses pose as such a big franchise, they're easy to advertise and "sell", so to speak.

Post by **Meg** » January 3rd, 2007, 4:28 pm

Hmm...When you look at it that way I guess I'm slightly more okay with it...it's not as bad as if they made a DTV sequel, more like if they made a TV series.

Post by **Mitch** » January 3rd, 2007, 4:56 pm

Meg wrote:more like if they made a TV series.

Shh. Not too loud -- someone might hear you.

Heh -- yeah, I would also rather prefer a DTV release than a tv series. Truth be told, they wouldn't need a tv show, as the franchise is popular enough already...what with merchandise and the like.

Post by **Daniel** » January 3rd, 2007, 4:56 pm

Mitch - yeah, probably

Anyway, these are like Tv specials, if you think about it. At least they are new, unlike that other series, that has reused episodes and whatnot.

I can hardly wait

Post by **Ben** » January 3rd, 2007, 6:03 pm

James wrote:To be fair, these Disney Princess stories are aimed more at children than other Disney animated projects.

I remember a time when all Disney product was equal. Even the TV episodes of the 1950s and 60s, when there wasn't the projected additional revenue from syndication or DVD, were handled by main crew and crafted with as much care as a feature.

I totally see that this caters to young girls, but am just saying that even so, it should be more than three TV episodes slapped together and made to look like a "movie", as Cinderella II was. These titles have the abilty to be so much more and could appeal to collectors as well.

And I just can't see how Dan, Dan The Sequel Man can get this excited over something that is a money grabbing exercise with no artistic merit inherent in the product.

"Ahh, but it looks cute". Well, there's one born every minute!

Post by **Daniel** » January 3rd, 2007, 6:10 pm

No comment.

I need a break, bye everyone!

Post by **Josh** » January 3rd, 2007, 6:32 pm

Are you leaving, Daniel? I certainly hope that's not what you mean.

Post by **Mitch** » January 3rd, 2007, 6:56 pm

Ben wrote: I remember a time when all Disney product was equal. Even the TV episodes of the 1950s and 60s, when there wasn't the projected additional revenue from syndication or DVD, were handled by main crew and crafted with as much care as a feature.

Amen. I wish I could have experienced the days that you refer to -- although, come to think of it, I kind of did, as my mom and dad talked about them all of the time.

Today it's all about two things -- two things that sit on the executives' laps: money and power, power being the tops these days...as I hear it. Not only is this sad; it's pathetic. What happened to quality over quantity? Hopefully, Lasseter will be able to fix a few things within the Disney company....

Dan - I hope you're not leaving either. Please don't go on account of our...ranting. Believe me, I quite enjoy talking with you concerning matters such as this.

Post by **Meg** » January 3rd, 2007, 8:37 pm

*in Rex voice*

Don't do it Dan! We looooove you!

Post by **ShyViolet** » January 4th, 2007, 1:21 am

Dan, please don't go.

It wouldn't be the same without you.

I'm sure everyone else here agrees.

Post by **Daniel** » January 4th, 2007, 1:46 am

Aww, shucks

Josh - no, I'm not leaving. I was just gonna take a break, but forget that!

Mitch - I wasn't leaving because of that, I was kinda offended by what was said above. Unless I misunderstood

Meg - aww, that was sweet

don't worry, you guys are stuck with me!

Vi - well, there would be less sequel threads. But big thanks Vi!