I know this is a bit old and I probably could have mentioned it earlier (err, alot earlier) and, in fact, I may have, but this is Skippy, a loveable tomboy with a pet animated computer. (And here's a picture of same, created by a fan.) And I just like to say, Disney! What the fuck?!
For those who don't follow links, well... your loss. Love you all!
Addendum: It seems that use of the word "bitchcakes" actually became more common on the 'net after this date. Coincidence? I don't think so. My theory goes that Skippy has come alive as an intelligent virtual lifeform inhabiting the 'net. Prove me wrong!
For those who don't follow links, well... your loss. Love you all!
Addendum: It seems that use of the word "bitchcakes" actually became more common on the 'net after this date. Coincidence? I don't think so. My theory goes that Skippy has come alive as an intelligent virtual lifeform inhabiting the 'net. Prove me wrong!
4 comments:
He he he, Bitchcakes...
(Not particularly directed at you, Karen, but more at Neil Gaiman's original post.)
Am I the only person who's ever read a book who thinks this is a damn fine idea?*
So somebody at Disney said Christopher Robin is outdated and doesn't appeal to children. Well... good. It's about time they realised that. Kids don't care about that character, adults do.
The damn show is for kids, so why shouldn't it change to suit them? Just because that would mean changing the stories "we" used to like?
(*Aside of Talen... love you babe.)
I suppose my problem with this isn't the concept of updating the character of Christopher Robin (or indeed any element of 'Winnie-the-Pooh') but the fact of Disney doing it. Personally I think that Disney has already destroyed anything that 'Winnie-the-Pooh' had.
Don't get me wrong. Disney has done dome wonderful work. The animated dsiney film of 'The Hunchback of Notre Dame' is the most accurate film of the book I have ever seen (so consider how inaccurate the others must have been since they lacked the character of Achilles, and ll of them make Phoebus out to be a nice guy, damnit), not to mention a enjoyable film (if a little overdone in places). They certainly could have done worse with 'Alice in Wonderland' than they did (as Psi just pointed out). The ones made while Walt was alive are... well, just plain sweet. Despite the fact that the Muses in 'Hercules' were all African American (what the fuck was that?), it was still entertaining enough to watch (mainly because of Meg. She was so cool.) You get my point.
But what Disney has done to 'Winnie-the-Pooh' is... is... *struggles to find word bad enough to express her disgust*... as bad as what they've done to the Studio Ghibli films that have passed into their hands. 'Pooh' was sweet - had innocence and charm - and in Disney's hands that became saccharine. It became something that could only be enjoyed by children, and even then only by children under the age of three. Kids who were still at the "look at the pretty lights" stage of television watching. If they're going to degrade the depth of the concept for the sake of merchandising and more merchandising, then small wonders kids don't get anything out of it.
My feeling is that for the most part all of 'Winnie-the-Pooh' is probably outdated, or at least it wouldn't surprise me that children would find it difficult to relate to. It was first published in 1926 and the world has changed alot in the time since then. I suppose the real appeal of the A. A. Milne books is nostalgia and escapism and a sense of hope that things can be... simpler and more about enjoying life than rushing through it. And so it appeals to adults who have to live a life of rush and bustle and, therefore, are ina position to feel nostalgic about that sort of thing. Like 'Clancy of the Overflow.'
As a result I also think that updating Christopher Robin isn't the way to go. Because it isn't Christopher Robin that's the problem. It's the whole concept. It's from a different world and, while Christopher Robin is a sort of child much more common a hundred years ago, the same sort of child still exists today. Hell, my nephew is turning into one. Disney need to reconsider their whole approach to the books: take from Milne what is applicable instead of simply lifting the characters and missing the point. I suppose, in the end, I feel that trying to update it is something of a lost cause: it just seems like one would be constantly changing each character, so why not just make a new show entirely based on the concept? After all, the copyright runs out this year. (Well, in Australia. Not in America.)
An aside: by the way, did you know that there is a world championship of Poohsticks? The game that Pooh and his friends play by dropping sticks into a river and seeing which one makes it to the bridge (I think) first is now a globally accepted 'sport'.
Oh and update: Darby (the tomboy who was supposed to replace Christopher Robin last year) has, apparently, yet to show up on the show 'My Friends Tigger and Pooh'. What else is the internet for? ;p
I'm surprised at anyone commenting that these stories are outdated. (No, I'm not surprised that an adult American Disney executive might make this comment, but he's not in the real world, is he? There's this little thing about making a shedload of money so he can draw an obscene salary...) In my experience as a public librarian, the original stories and poetry are loved by nearly every kid that has them read to them. They have that inconsequential logic that just works for kids. Of course halfway up the stairs is not anywhere, anyone can see that! Of course Winnie the Pooh would go in search of a heffalump when he sees curious tracks in the forest, wouldn't anyone? The fact he is a bear of little brain gives kids the edge in working out what's happening and, when you are the littlest and so by definition the dumbest, person in your world, that has ineffable value. It's just not that marketable into a full length movie with merchandise. But does everything have to be a franchise?
Post a Comment