They talk like Disney Afternoon was a mistake... [Archive]

BrendaBat

12-24-2004, 06:03 PM

From the article:
That has certainly been evident in the shift at WDTA over the past five years, in particular, the move toward more creator-driven projects including "Kim Possible," "Recess" and the new JETIX action-adventure block series "Super Robot Monkey Team Hyperforce Go!" They also are indicative of a move away from being strictly a producer of shows derived from features.I personally think that the Disney Afternoon shows were more creative than all those modern shows listed. C’mon, it takes a lot of creativity to look at a movie like Jungle Book and say “Hey, we should make them pilots!”. Or to look at an old Chip ‘n’ Dale cartoon and say “Lets team them up with a hot mouse girl and have them solve mysteries!”.
If that's not creativity, then I don't know what is! :p

From the article:
But as man (and boy) cannot live by ducks aloneIf he's forced to choose between 'Darkwing Duck' and 'Brandy and Mr. Whiskers' he can.

From the article:
"We're very conscious and aware of the Disney brand," Blumberg maintains.

"A lot of the success we have as a company and as a programr-producer is to stay close to who we are and not deviate from the past too greatly. But that doesn't mean we won't continue to expand outside the realm of traditional animation to embrace other techniques like CG."I wonder if he was able to say that with a straight face :rolleyes:

TimTwoFace

12-24-2004, 11:20 PM

MouseEars07

12-25-2004, 04:03 PM

Shows like "Kim Possible", "Recess", and "Lilo & Stich" garnered success.

tucsoncoyote

12-25-2004, 09:25 PM

From the few Disney shows I've seen recently, I must say that any of their pre-94 stuff was MUCH, MUCH better. I don't mind expanding into new territories at all, but the quality of the shows just aren't the same; automatically suggesting that shows starring ducks (and other humanoid animals) are old-hat and outdated is crazy and insulting.

Disney doesn't realize how good they had it pre-94. I don't know a single new show since GARGOYLES and ALADDIN both premiered in 1994 that was actually a success both in terms of quality and public reception.

-Tim

Shows like "Kim Possible", "Recess", and "Lilo & Stich" garnered success.Now i'm going to make a Comment here that might surprise and Shock everyone but then again this has been what a number of us have been wanting for a long time.. (A balance of Old and New shows..)

but the thing is this.. both Quotes are essentially Correct.. Neither is wrong.. and that's why some of us see this issue and accept it.. After all before we liked the New Stuff that was mentioned by MouseEars 07 (Recess, Lilo and Stitch, and yes Kim Possible), we were the ones that Like the Older stuff too..(After all I've seen and remember all of the series that were on the Disney Afternoon, and I enjoyed a Majority of them..(Everything that was Pre-1994 was still as good in Quality as stuff that is today..(and it's the Quality that we're trying to Maintain..not the Quantity..)

After all think about this.. between now and 2008, Disney Channel is planning to release 15 new shows.. Already American Dragon: Jake Long Could be a good series, but because it's been untested.. and untried.. well we don't know how the fans are going to like or Dislike it..

but just like any Idea, there are some of us who believe there should be a balance between the Older stuff and the Newer material.. after all we're the ones who before Kim Possible liked Gargoyles and other quality shows..

Also Disney Fails to realize this.. We're all Getting Older.. (I'm 42 right now yet when I was in my Late 20's and Early 30's I enjoyed all those Older shows..and in fact It would be fun if we could see if Disney Could "Revitalize an Older show (Heck the New Adventures of Darkwing Duck and Quiverwing Quack would be a good idea.. bring the show forward 10 years.. Make Gosalyn a Teen, Fighting Crime Along SIde her father.. an Aging Drake Mallard..(after all someone's got to carry on the Family Tradition..)

so I say in the Case of the Hollywood Reporter.. they think that old school Disney is passe, and New School Disney is made for Teens, yet i have to say that in fact it was a bit of an insult to us fans that they wrote that piece up and said that Disney is looking into "Creator Driven" Shows.." Yet take a look back to pre-1994, a lot of the quality shows that went the distance weren't Creator Driven, but rather "Creatively Driven..." They had ideas and thoughts back then that were more creative..

Today's shows (with those Exceptions that MouseEars07 says), would be the ones that are still "Creatively Driven.." The rest of the "Creator Driven' material is really just nothing more then toilet humor and Gross jokes.. (after all Bob Schooley and Mark McCorkle did their Research for Kim Possible, the Creators of Lilo and Stitch did the same.. same of the guys who created Recess (or Fillmore!) after all These guys are the real Creative Geniuses here..

But it's that last line in the Reporter's Article that is most insulting..
Commenting that the "Fans have a Say..." Hate to say this.. but if that were the Case, Shows Like Lilo and Stitch and Kim Possible would be Getting Extensions rather then getting replaced by some of the newer Less Tried Material.. after all that's the bottom Line here.. Disney should retain it's Creative Edge, while cutting back on the Grossness.. (also they should make shows a little more family Friendly then just cater to one age group.. (After all that one age group does get older, and those Teens and Tweens grow up to be next Decade's Adults.. Think about what they'll say in 2014.. when Disney Quality has been removed and replaced by toilet humor.. after all this isn't what Disney should be about.. it should be enjoyed by all Whether we are young.. or Young at heart..

and that's all I really Need to say..
Merry Chirstmas..

:coyote:

Wolfcruiser

12-26-2004, 12:18 AM

magicjac

12-26-2004, 03:09 PM

American Dragon, American Dragon! This show looks so awesome! If Disney churns out more originals like this I shall be pleased.

But I prefer if they went back to the old formula of using "humanized" animals like how they did back in the old days.:cool:
"American Dragon: Jake Long" may well be a good Disney show, but it surely will never beat any Disney material pre-1994. I mean, come on, what Disney show created actually can measure up to "Ducktales"? That was a HUGE hit. And even the material from 1996-97 is better than alot of today's newer shows. "Quack Pack", "Mighty Ducks", "Recess", "101 Dalmatians: The Series", "Pepper Ann", "Disney's Doug" and "Jungle Cubs" ALL beat "Brandy & Mr. Whiskers", "Lilo & Stitch: The Series" and "The Proud Family" by a long shot.

tucsoncoyote

12-26-2004, 05:55 PM

"American Dragon: Jake Long" may well be a good Disney show, but it surely will never beat any Disney material pre-1994. I mean, come on, what Disney show created actually can measure up to "Ducktales"? That was a HUGE hit. And even the material from 1996-97 is better than alot of today's newer shows. "Quack Pack", "Mighty Ducks", "Recess", "101 Dalmatians: The Series", "Pepper Ann", "Disney's Doug" and "Jungle Cubs" ALL beat "Brandy & Mr. Whiskers", "Lilo & Stitch: The Series" and "The Proud Family" by a long shot.That's true There Magic, but you forget one thing.. a Lot of the shows that are today, are aimed at not the General Family Audience but rather "Teens and Tweens" and in fact this is a major Problem Disney has to Hurdle over before it can get back to "Making the Magic" (Circa Pre-1994).

After all a Lot of the Creativity in shows is still there, the problem again deals with a number of Issues, The limiting of Shows, the "Creator Driven" Ideas, and what not.. but I have to say that there are some shows that are still better made then say Teamo Supremo or Brandy and Mr. Whiskers.

I think the Issue that Disney has to remember is this.. Those 7-15 year olds who are enjoying the shows right now will in 2014, be the ones who will be joining an Ever widening group of currently unhappy fans who want to go back to "The Old School Disney Style" and in fact that's the point why some of us think that the Disney Company should keep the Quality Material and restore it (or give new Plot ideas (after all Darkwing Duck was really Left Wide Open, so why not just age the Chraracters a few years and Have a Now Teen Gosalyn Fighting Crime Alongside Darkwing?) It's been done before with the Batman/Huntress Series in DC Comics, so why doesn't Disney Take a Stab at this idea?

Or for that matter why not Just re-introduce some new Chip and Dale's Characters.. or Pick up after The Goliath Chronicles or even rewrite the story.. after all I feel that the Walt Disney Company in today's business Culture isn't Written In stone.. Wet Cement Maybe, but not stone..

After all Disney will have to realize that by 2025, (20 years from now) those young folks who are 7-15 will be having Kids of their Own) and that's the point here).

Keep the Old School material but also interject some of the newer (quality) material with it.. After all Disney Should have a right to expand it's thinking on Characters..(just be sure not to forget the Older ones as well!)

After all Mickey Mouse Started this whole company off 75 years ago.. Donald Duck and Goofy were added in and Later a multitude of hundreds of Characters joined in. Each and Every one of them.. From the Three Caberellos to Kim Possible, to Bonkers, is all Disney, that's the thing that Disney needs to Look at .. They don't need to just hear the 7-15 year olds what they want, but rather the "adults who have hearts Like Kids" in this matter, After all I saw the Aristocats Today, and Tonight Mary Poppins, These were the Old School I am Talking about.. but yes I'll watch Lilo and Stitch, and Kim Possible as well, after all Disney shouldn't forget that a lot of Characters in the Disney Afternoon series did help motivate the drive towards today's shows..(and in fact without those older shows, the Newer Ideas that are of a Quality Nature wouldn't exist..

that's the real issue here.. and Frankly the HollyWood Reporter Article Got is partially wrong.. Disney Afternoon shows Helped make a lot of Today's shows (but the fans are getting Older... so why not have some of those Older shows enjoyed by a newer generation of Viewers? (After all Toon Disney now is wasting more airtime today with Jetix and Disney Channel with Playhouse Disney then say the channels of 10 years ago.. (after all if you put all the Disney Series that have Ever Aired on Disney Afternoon, on Disney Channel, you would have a Channel that would have 18 hours of Enterraining Disney Afternoon Shows (and 6 hours of Playhouse DIsney, not 10..) after all Disney could do that if the fans so wished and watned..

but to sum it all up.. Let there be balance.. Old School Disney and New School Disney all on the Same channel.. (see if the fans like that..if not then we'll figure something else out..(after all the Disney Company should be flexible in their Choices.. and fans should enjoy Quality Enterrtainment, not just what some 7-15 year old wants.. because before too long that 7-15 year old becomes the 17-25 year old who'll be like the rest of us.. Complaining of how "Disney Lacks Quality Material.." I say we need to tell Disney of this and do so soon, else the Magic will never rekindle..

that's really All I need to say..

:coyote:

magicjac

12-26-2004, 07:17 PM

That's true There Magic, but you forget one thing.. a Lot of the shows that are today, are aimed at not the General Family Audience but rather "Teens and Tweens" and in fact this is a major Problem Disney has to Hurdle over before it can get back to "Making the Magic" (Circa Pre-1994).

After all a Lot of the Creativity in shows is still there, the problem again deals with a number of Issues, The limiting of Shows, the "Creator Driven" Ideas, and what not.. but I have to say that there are some shows that are still better made then say Teamo Supremo or Brandy and Mr. Whiskers.

I think the Issue that Disney has to remember is this.. Those 7-15 year olds who are enjoying the shows right now will in 2014, be the ones who will be joining an Ever widening group of currently unhappy fans who want to go back to "The Old School Disney Style" and in fact that's the point why some of us think that the Disney Company should keep the Quality Material and restore it (or give new Plot ideas (after all Darkwing Duck was really Left Wide Open, so why not just age the Chraracters a few years and Have a Now Teen Gosalyn Fighting Crime Alongside Darkwing?) It's been done before with the Batman/Huntress Series in DC Comics, so why doesn't Disney Take a Stab at this idea?

Or for that matter why not Just re-introduce some new Chip and Dale's Characters.. or Pick up after The Goliath Chronicles or even rewrite the story.. after all I feel that the Walt Disney Company in today's business Culture isn't Written In stone.. Wet Cement Maybe, but not stone..

After all Disney will have to realize that by 2025, (20 years from now) those young folks who are 7-15 will be having Kids of their Own) and that's the point here).

Keep the Old School material but also interject some of the newer (quality) material with it.. After all Disney Should have a right to expand it's thinking on Characters..(just be sure not to forget the Older ones as well!)

After all Mickey Mouse Started this whole company off 75 years ago.. Donald Duck and Goofy were added in and Later a multitude of hundreds of Characters joined in. Each and Every one of them.. From the Three Caberellos to Kim Possible, to Bonkers, is all Disney, that's the thing that Disney needs to Look at .. They don't need to just hear the 7-15 year olds what they want, but rather the "adults who have hearts Like Kids" in this matter, After all I saw the Aristocats Today, and Tonight Mary Poppins, These were the Old School I am Talking about.. but yes I'll watch Lilo and Stitch, and Kim Possible as well, after all Disney shouldn't forget that a lot of Characters in the Disney Afternoon series did help motivate the drive towards today's shows..(and in fact without those older shows, the Newer Ideas that are of a Quality Nature wouldn't exist..

that's the real issue here.. and Frankly the HollyWood Reporter Article Got is partially wrong.. Disney Afternoon shows Helped make a lot of Today's shows (but the fans are getting Older... so why not have some of those Older shows enjoyed by a newer generation of Viewers? (After all Toon Disney now is wasting more airtime today with Jetix and Disney Channel with Playhouse Disney then say the channels of 10 years ago.. (after all if you put all the Disney Series that have Ever Aired on Disney Afternoon, on Disney Channel, you would have a Channel that would have 18 hours of Enterraining Disney Afternoon Shows (and 6 hours of Playhouse DIsney, not 10..) after all Disney could do that if the fans so wished and watned..

but to sum it all up.. Let there be balance.. Old School Disney and New School Disney all on the Same channel.. (see if the fans like that..if not then we'll figure something else out..(after all the Disney Company should be flexible in their Choices.. and fans should enjoy Quality Enterrtainment, not just what some 7-15 year old wants.. because before too long that 7-15 year old becomes the 17-25 year old who'll be like the rest of us.. Complaining of how "Disney Lacks Quality Material.." I say we need to tell Disney of this and do so soon, else the Magic will never rekindle..

that's really All I need to say..

:coyote:LOL You wanna know something? I AM in the 7-15 age group! I'm 14 years old, and already am with you guys! LOL anyways there currently is a channel with a mixture of Old School/ New School Disney...Toon Disney. I mean, they air a alittle bit of old school Disney material, and I HATE the damn channel. 3 2-hour marathons daily, WTF were they overdosing? I mean seriously, the same damn show 2 hours straight 2-3 days out of 5 days a week? No show has enough episodes for that! LOL What in the world! To tell you the truth this whole ordeal is sort of Jetix's fault. I mean, the block is alright I guess, but with it expanding and taking over TD, they just didn't have enough airtime for their best material. So instead of cancelling a certain non-cartoon(*cough*PowerRangers*cough*), they get rid of their biggest success... DUCKTALES. Sorry but to me that's like Nickelodeon giving up "Rugrats" or Cartoon Network giving "Scooby Doo" the boot. And I feel you on expanding storylines of older shows. I could totally see a new school "Darkwing Duck", "Disney's Doug", "Chip & Dale Rescue Rangers" or even "Raw Toonage". And that idea about "The Goliath Chronicles" should totally be considered.

tucsoncoyote

12-26-2004, 07:36 PM

LOL You wanna know something? I AM in the 7-15 age group! I'm 14 years old, and already am with you guys! LOL anyways there currently is a channel with a mixture of Old School/ New School Disney...Toon Disney. I mean, they air a alittle bit of old school Disney material, and I HATE the damn channel. 3 2-hour marathons daily, WTF were they overdosing? I mean seriously, the same damn show 2 hours straight 2-3 days out of 5 days a week? No show has enough episodes for that! LOL What in the world! To tell you the truth this whole ordeal is sort of Jetix's fault. I mean, the block is alright I guess, but with it expanding and taking over TD, they just didn't have enough airtime for their best material. So instead of cancelling a certain non-cartoon(*cough*PowerRangers*cough*), they get rid of their biggest success... DUCKTALES. Sorry but to me that's like Nickelodeon giving up "Rugrats" or Cartoon Network giving "Scooby Doo" the boot. And I feel you on expanding storylines of older shows. I could totally see a new school "Darkwing Duck", "Disney's Doug", "Chip & Dale Rescue Rangers" or even "Raw Toonage". And that idea about "The Goliath Chronicles" should totally be considered.And that's exactly my point.. after all think about this even further.. Let's say you have kids in 10 to 20 years.. and they want to enjoy what you watched.. Don't you deserve to give them that chance to Explore the potential of what you enjoyed as a Kid (and yes even us "kids at heart" who don't have Kids know what we're talking about here.. After all The Disney Channel Should be reverted back to a mix of Old School and New School Material with instead of the 4 shows a year it now produces could get by with only 2.. (Also the reduction of Time for Playhouse Disney could be almost reduced by 60% to just 4 hours a Day (Rather then the 10 hours a Poor 2-6 year old Child has to Endure through..)

After all maybe what The Walt Disney Company needs on it's board of Directors and in it's management team aren't Three Piece Suited Businessmen, who know how to turn over a profit, but rather Devouted Disney Fans who know and enjoy the fact that Disney Means Quality to them..(hence why do you think there's a group (which was the old Save Kim Possible Crowd) who are now thinking "Outside the Box" here? After all We're thinking of the Fan's Best Interests and Not just Profit for the shareholders... after all Majic, your future Children and their Children enjoy as much the enjoyment of what you watched or are watching now, and that's the point.. Disney shouldn't use these tactics (and even though they do now, they shouldn't in the future.. after all I myself have dealt with "Customers" in a number of Businesses.. Leave them happy and they'll return to do business again and again.. Treat them badly and they'll leave you and do their business elsewhere.. After all if The Walt Disney Company wants to lose it's grip on it's fanbase, it's doing a great job at doing that..

why?

Because they aren't listening to the people who mean the most.. namely us.. (and yet they say the do, but I have yet to see the proof of this..) And that's another Incorrect Statement that the Hollywood Reporter Article Makes.. It makes it seem that Disney Is seriously Listening to us.. (Actually they're not..) and that's why more and more of us are thinking of Approaching the savedisney.com group and saying.. "Hey we're interested in upholding your Uncle's Tradition here , and we're willing to go to bat for you.."

Frankly if Roy Disney knew this.. He'd be thinking that maybe His Own Uncle is talking to him right now..(After all I'm not a Disney, but a Disney fan..who loves the quality material that has and is being produced.. and that process should continue.. for future generations to enjoy.. nuff said..

:coyote:

magicjac

12-26-2004, 10:27 PM

And that's exactly my point.. after all think about this even further.. Let's say you have kids in 10 to 20 years.. and they want to enjoy what you watched.. Don't you deserve to give them that chance to Explore the potential of what you enjoyed as a Kid (and yes even us "kids at heart" who don't have Kids know what we're talking about here.. After all The Disney Channel Should be reverted back to a mix of Old School and New School Material with instead of the 4 shows a year it now produces could get by with only 2.. (Also the reduction of Time for Playhouse Disney could be almost reduced by 60% to just 4 hours a Day (Rather then the 10 hours a Poor 2-6 year old Child has to Endure through..)

After all maybe what The Walt Disney Company needs on it's board of Directors and in it's management team aren't Three Piece Suited Businessmen, who know how to turn over a profit, but rather Devouted Disney Fans who know and enjoy the fact that Disney Means Quality to them..(hence why do you think there's a group (which was the old Save Kim Possible Crowd) who are now thinking "Outside the Box" here? After all We're thinking of the Fan's Best Interests and Not just Profit for the shareholders... after all Majic, your future Children and their Children enjoy as much the enjoyment of what you watched or are watching now, and that's the point.. Disney shouldn't use these tactics (and even though they do now, they shouldn't in the future.. after all I myself have dealt with "Customers" in a number of Businesses.. Leave them happy and they'll return to do business again and again.. Treat them badly and they'll leave you and do their business elsewhere.. After all if The Walt Disney Company wants to lose it's grip on it's fanbase, it's doing a great job at doing that..

why?

Because they aren't listening to the people who mean the most.. namely us.. (and yet they say the do, but I have yet to see the proof of this..) And that's another Incorrect Statement that the Hollywood Reporter Article Makes.. It makes it seem that Disney Is seriously Listening to us.. (Actually they're not..) and that's why more and more of us are thinking of Approaching the savedisney.com group and saying.. "Hey we're interested in upholding your Uncle's Tradition here , and we're willing to go to bat for you.."

Frankly if Roy Disney knew this.. He'd be thinking that maybe His Own Uncle is talking to him right now..(After all I'm not a Disney, but a Disney fan..who loves the quality material that has and is being produced.. and that process should continue.. for future generations to enjoy.. nuff said..

:coyote:
I know what you mean. it's a shame Disney are such liars huh? We know damn well that Disney isn't listening to us. If they were, we'd still have every DA classic on TD and DVD releases. That's proof enough for me that Disney are liars, and lying is sin. 'Nuff Said About That. And I agree that Playhouse Disney should be shortened. I myself think that most of the shows on there pretty much have no ratings lol. Who in their right mind actually wakes up at 5:00 a.m. just to watch "Madeline"? I myself do wake up at 6:00 a.m. on school days to take a bath and watch "The New Adventures Of Winnie The Pooh", but that's about it. I think that true devoted fans should run a company. I mean, who better than the general public would know what the general public wants? We need someone who loves the DA classics and doesn't onlt care about money. If I ran Disney, I'd listen to what the people want, and I'd keep EVERY SINGLE DA classic on air TD. TD would go back to the way it was in 2001, and The Disney Channel would be however you think it should be LOL (I never watch The Disney Channel back in the day). Also, ABC Kids would be bansihed, and 1 Saturday Morning and Disney's One Too would return.

tucsoncoyote

12-27-2004, 12:46 AM

I know what you mean. it's a shame Disney are such liars huh? We know damn well that Disney isn't listening to us. If they were, we'd still have every DA classic on TD and DVD releases. That's proof enough for me that Disney are liars, and lying is sin. 'Nuff Said About That. And I agree that Playhouse Disney should be shortened. I myself think that most of the shows on there pretty much have no ratings lol. Who in their right mind actually wakes up at 5:00 a.m. just to watch "Madeline"? I myself do wake up at 6:00 a.m. on school days to take a bath and watch "The New Adventures Of Winnie The Pooh", but that's about it. I think that true devoted fans should run a company. I mean, who better than the general public would know what the general public wants? We need someone who loves the DA classics and doesn't onlt care about money. If I ran Disney, I'd listen to what the people want, and I'd keep EVERY SINGLE DA classic on air TD. TD would go back to the way it was in 2001, and The Disney Channel would be however you think it should be LOL (I never watch The Disney Channel back in the day). Also, ABC Kids would be bansihed, and 1 Saturday Morning and Disney's One Too would return.Again I agree and that's why i made a suggestion in another thread if You look here and read what I am suggesting (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?p=1559796&highlight=General+Disney+Company#post1559796), then maybe this could be the thing that changes Disney for the better.. after all Disney needs Fans to support their cause with not only viewership but their money as well. (but I would do the job that I mention in a heartbeat..after all I can empathize with what fans want.. and what they want is quality right?

:coyote:

Killtacular

12-27-2004, 11:33 AM

magicjac

12-27-2004, 12:07 PM

Again I agree and that's why i made a suggestion in another thread if You look here and read what I am suggesting (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?p=1559796&highlight=General+Disney+Company#post1559796), then maybe this could be the thing that changes Disney for the better.. after all Disney needs Fans to support their cause with not only viewership but their money as well. (but I would do the job that I mention in a heartbeat..after all I can empathize with what fans want.. and what they want is quality right?

:coyote:
I read your link, and persoanlly I think any Disney animation fan could run Disney Ent. I mean come on, all you have to do is study economics, and the love for animation is already there. I agree with you completely. And I can tell you that I'd easily support Disney with money if they would jst release some damn DA classic DVDs!

magicjac

12-27-2004, 12:11 PM

WDTA suffers from delusion. They were never good. Disney in the Afternoon was terrible, a symbolic summary of the early 90's contentment for mediocrity. And what they've done since then hasn't exactly raised the already limbo-low bar either. Jake Long doesn't seem like the kind of show that would jump out in front of the status quo.... in reality, the Disney Channel has survived in the ratings race only because of their live-action pop stars. Even still I don't know how they skate above Cartoon Network. It's more than likely that most of Cartoon Network's CARTOONS outrank Disney Channel's CARTOONS, but not their LIVE-ACTION material. Creator-driven shows is a good start but I have not seen any "breakout" hits on the horizon. And pilots I've heard about... bleeecchh.What exactly does WDTA stand for? And anyways, this is just your opinion Matt. You don't seem to like anything at all. The Disney Afternoon(not Disney in the Afternoon) was great. It was not terrible in any way, shape or form. Tell me, if DA was so terrible, then why are there so many fans of it right here on this very board, and why did it last 8 successful years? Every cartoon on the DA was extradinary. "Ducktales" was a huge success, "Chip & Dale Rescue Rangers" was very memorable, "The Adventures Of The Gummi Bears: ran for 7 successful seasons, "Darkwing Duck" expanded over 65 episodes to a well-deserving 91 episodes, "Bonkers" was absolutely hilarious, etc. And Cartoon Netwrok's Cartoon Cartoons are exceptionally good, but by no means they beat out "Ducktales", "Chip & Dale Rescue Rangers", "Talespin" or "The Adventures Of The Gummi Bears".

GregX

12-27-2004, 12:45 PM

tucsoncoyote

12-27-2004, 02:02 PM

What exactly does WDTA stand for? And anyways, this is just your opinion Matt. You don't seem to like anything at all. The Disney Afternoon(not Disney in the Afternoon) was great. It was not terrible in any way, shape or form. Tell me, if DA was so terrible, then why are there so many fans of it right here on this very board, and why did it last 8 successful years? Every cartoon on the DA was extradinary. "Ducktales" was a huge success, "Chip & Dale Rescue Rangers" was very memorable, "The Adventures Of The Gummi Bears: ran for 7 successful seasons, "Darkwing Duck" expanded over 65 episodes to a well-deserving 91 episodes, "Bonkers" was absolutely hilarious, etc. And Cartoon Netwrok's Cartoon Cartoons are exceptionally good, but by no means they beat out "Ducktales", "Chip & Dale Rescue Rangers", "Talespin" or "The Adventures Of The Gummi Bears".
WDTA Stands for Walt Disney Television Animation (It's a Subsidiary of the Walt Disney Studios, and in fact a lot of the WDTA animation is usually "Outsourced" to other animation Studios that are around the globe..(after all Kim Possible was done by 3 different Animation studios (The Best Being Rough Draft of Korea). but Disney has a right to do so.. after all they do come up with the distributing rights for any and all characters that are created by Disney (So everything that has been Created since 1985, (and the Gummi Bears) has been Distributed by The Walt Disney Television Animation Section of the Walt Disney Studios..

But as for your observation, you're totally on target with your comment here.. after all I have been wondering if Disney is just "Trying to keep up with Cartoon Network (CN) and Nickelodeon) in terms of producing shows.. after all what is really troubling is the fact that Disney is planning in those next 4 years (Between 2005 and 2009) to release 15 new shows (and how many of these will be animated and how many Live action..(even if we said 50% of the shows were animated that's 8 new shows in the next 4 years.. or one every 6 months..(but Disney doesn't need to go back and re-invent the wheel everytime, they sometimes just need to go back and "expand on the original Concept." (and No I'm not talking sequels here, but I could be!) in terms of some of those Older shows..(I Mean the Darkwing Duck/Teen Quiverwing Quack Idea I suggested would be one idea.. another would be to add in new characters to Chip and Dale's Rescue Rangers.. (and the same goes for a lot of other shows..)

but the bottom line is this.. Disney has been consistently been "Trying to Keep up with the Competition, yet I feel that the Walt Disney Company has consistently been not listening to what the fans truly want..(It's written in that Hollywood Reporter article that Disney is, and that's what is really Grinding my beans here..(That The Hollywood Reporter, a Reputable Newspaper for Entertainment would say that Disney is listening to the fans.. (they're not) and that's really a Dis-service to Disney that they incorrectly stated this..

As for my idea, sure some people are going to try and blow it out of the water, but the thing is this.. maybe if we couldn't get a Disney Fan on the board, perhaps the Disney Company should start working better to generate better Public Relations with it's fans..(after all I know how you guys feel about not having those DVD's and Videos of your favorite Disney Afternoon animation. and in fact that's why someone needs to Approach Roy Disney and Stanley Gold with the information.. After all we've been Loyal to the Disney name now, and we've paid cash to make Disney Great.. so why not at least have some sort of PR Relations with the Fans Here Disney? After all (The Disney Company) you're doing a great Dis-service to your fans when it comes to not giving them what they want!

:coyote:

magicjac

12-27-2004, 06:40 PM

WDTA Stands for Walt Disney Television Animation (It's a Subsidiary of the Walt Disney Studios, and in fact a lot of the WDTA animation is usually "Outsourced" to other animation Studios that are around the globe..(after all Kim Possible was done by 3 different Animation studios (The Best Being Rough Draft of Korea). but Disney has a right to do so.. after all they do come up with the distributing rights for any and all characters that are created by Disney (So everything that has been Created since 1985, (and the Gummi Bears) has been Distributed by The Walt Disney Television Animation Section of the Walt Disney Studios..

But as for your observation, you're totally on target with your comment here.. after all I have been wondering if Disney is just "Trying to keep up with Cartoon Network (CN) and Nickelodeon) in terms of producing shows.. after all what is really troubling is the fact that Disney is planning in those next 4 years (Between 2005 and 2009) to release 15 new shows (and how many of these will be animated and how many Live action..(even if we said 50% of the shows were animated that's 8 new shows in the next 4 years.. or one every 6 months..(but Disney doesn't need to go back and re-invent the wheel everytime, they sometimes just need to go back and "expand on the original Concept." (and No I'm not talking sequels here, but I could be!) in terms of some of those Older shows..(I Mean the Darkwing Duck/Teen Quiverwing Quack Idea I suggested would be one idea.. another would be to add in new characters to Chip and Dale's Rescue Rangers.. (and the same goes for a lot of other shows..)

but the bottom line is this.. Disney has been consistently been "Trying to Keep up with the Competition, yet I feel that the Walt Disney Company has consistently been not listening to what the fans truly want..(It's written in that Hollywood Reporter article that Disney is, and that's what is really Grinding my beans here..(That The Hollywood Reporter, a Reputable Newspaper for Entertainment would say that Disney is listening to the fans.. (they're not) and that's really a Dis-service to Disney that they incorrectly stated this..

As for my idea, sure some people are going to try and blow it out of the water, but the thing is this.. maybe if we couldn't get a Disney Fan on the board, perhaps the Disney Company should start working better to generate better Public Relations with it's fans..(after all I know how you guys feel about not having those DVD's and Videos of your favorite Disney Afternoon animation. and in fact that's why someone needs to Approach Roy Disney and Stanley Gold with the information.. After all we've been Loyal to the Disney name now, and we've paid cash to make Disney Great.. so why not at least have some sort of PR Relations with the Fans Here Disney? After all (The Disney Company) you're doing a great Dis-service to your fans when it comes to not giving them what they want!

:coyote:Oh. Thanks for clearing up what WDTA meant Tuscon:) Anyways, I feel that Disney, Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon are all the same. None of the 3 actually listen to their fans. I mean, Nickelodeo also doesn't give a sh*t about their classic work, and it's obvious we will probally never see any of it again. I'd say the closest we'll ever get to classic Nick is Nicktoons TV. Cartoon Network has changed too much. Those 3 commercial breaks absolutely ruin "A Pup Named Scooby Doo" and "The New Scooby Doo Movies", shows which were not meant for that many damn commercial breaks. Plus "Freakazoid!" hasn't been on CN since 2002, and they got rid of their best block... "Bommerang On Cartoon Network". I'd say the only good thing about CN is "Captain Planet" on weekdays at 5:30 a.m. And as we all know Disney never ever listens to their fans. If they did Toon Disney would have never went through any programming changes and we'd have classic DA DVDs. And I think 15 new shows by 2008 is absolutely *****ing stupid. Seriously out of 15 shows how many of those shows will have any charm or quality whatsoever? Instead of 15 new shows, why not bring back 15 old DA classics to TD! Or better yet, ALL of the DA classics!

Fone Bone

12-27-2004, 08:14 PM

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if Disney Channel played Bear in the Big Blue House 24 hours a day, I'd watch it more than I do now.

tucsoncoyote

12-28-2004, 10:59 PM

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if Disney Channel played Bear in the Big Blue House 24 hours a day, I'd watch it more than I do now.
Why not just have Playhouse Disney run 24 hours a day then.. (and let the 2 to 6 year olds have their say.. after all 2 to 6 year olds also get tired of Playhouse Disney, besides, what Kid in their right mind would get up at 5 am to watch Bear in the Big Blue House? Or Madeline? See that's one area Disney needs to cut back on..(Say no more then 3 to four hours a day..(in fact Disney should do 3 to 4 hours for the 2-6 year olds, a bit of Family Programming in the Early Afternooon then bring on it's Tween Block in the late Afternoon then more Family Programming..

Also I'm not too thrilled that Disney is using Warner Brothers Films to get their Point across (Come on, Harry Potter isn't Disney, It's WB.. so maybe we'll see a Buyout of Disney by WB This year? And then maybe we can get back to business.. after all if Disney is Promoting Hilary Duff who is still at WB why is it that WB is giving up Harry Potter?

Thoughts?

:coyote:

Fone Bone

12-29-2004, 06:52 PM

Why not just have Playhouse Disney run 24 hours a day then.. (and let the 2 to 6 year olds have their say.. after all 2 to 6 year olds also get tired of Playhouse Disney, besides, what Kid in their right mind would get up at 5 am to watch Bear in the Big Blue House? Or Madeline? See that's one area Disney needs to cut back on..(Say no more then 3 to four hours a day..(in fact Disney should do 3 to 4 hours for the 2-6 year olds, a bit of Family Programming in the Early Afternooon then bring on it's Tween Block in the late Afternoon then more Family Programming..

Also I'm not too thrilled that Disney is using Warner Brothers Films to get their Point across (Come on, Harry Potter isn't Disney, It's WB.. so maybe we'll see a Buyout of Disney by WB This year? And then maybe we can get back to business.. after all if Disney is Promoting Hilary Duff who is still at WB why is it that WB is giving up Harry Potter?

Thoughts?

:coyote:Dude! Bear in the Big Blue House is the best show EVER! The Bear actually sniffs the camera! I have a plushie Tutter! He is SO cute!:anime:

And if Disney Channel isn't going to bother showing good cartoons they could AT LEAST put on some Muppet programs like The Muppet Show, Muppets Tonight, The Secret Life of Toys, The Wubbulous World of Dr. Suess, and Jim Henson's Mother Goose Stories.

Although I'm sure my VCR would break.

magicjac

12-29-2004, 10:17 PM

Why not just have Playhouse Disney run 24 hours a day then.. (and let the 2 to 6 year olds have their say.. after all 2 to 6 year olds also get tired of Playhouse Disney, besides, what Kid in their right mind would get up at 5 am to watch Bear in the Big Blue House? Or Madeline? See that's one area Disney needs to cut back on..(Say no more then 3 to four hours a day..(in fact Disney should do 3 to 4 hours for the 2-6 year olds, a bit of Family Programming in the Early Afternooon then bring on it's Tween Block in the late Afternoon then more Family Programming..

Also I'm not too thrilled that Disney is using Warner Brothers Films to get their Point across (Come on, Harry Potter isn't Disney, It's WB.. so maybe we'll see a Buyout of Disney by WB This year? And then maybe we can get back to business.. after all if Disney is Promoting Hilary Duff who is still at WB why is it that WB is giving up Harry Potter?

Thoughts?

:coyote:
Seriously. I've always wondered why channels air pre-schooler programming in the wee hours of the morning when no child in their right mind would wake up at 5:00 a.m. to watch "Madeline". Playhouse Disney totally needs to be cut down, but if that ever happened I'd hope that they'd keep "PB&J Otter" because that's the only good PD program I like. Anyways, I've been wondering why "Harry Potter" is goignt oair on the Disney channel/ I guess every damn channel on television has to air that movie huh? And why do Disney keep promoting Hilary Duff when she isn't even with Disney anymore? What exactly happened between Disney and Hilary Duff anyway? Holla back on that.

tucsoncoyote

01-02-2005, 03:40 AM

Seriously. I've always wondered why channels air pre-schooler programming in the wee hours of the morning when no child in their right mind would wake up at 5:00 a.m. to watch "Madeline". Playhouse Disney totally needs to be cut down, but if that ever happened I'd hope that they'd keep "PB&J Otter" because that's the only good PD program I like. Anyways, I've been wondering why "Harry Potter" is goignt oair on the Disney channel/ I guess every damn channel on television has to air that movie huh? And why do Disney keep promoting Hilary Duff when she isn't even with Disney anymore? What exactly happened between Disney and Hilary Duff anyway? Holla back on that.Good Questions Majic, and in fact I had to do a bit of research on all of them.. But Let's this time start with Hilary Duff, and work backwards here.. to the Playhouse Disney Questions..

First off About Hilary.. The Truth Be known.. She had potential and in fact Disney knew it.. yet they let her slip right through their fingers when a certain incident happened.. in Fact the Incriminating Article is located here (http://news.1918.com/print.php?article_id=1076)as to WHY Hilary Duff Left Disney and Who the Guilty Party was..(It wasn't Michael Eisner who Fired Miss Duff, it was rather a Major Pay Disagreement between Hilary's Mother (Her Agent) and Rober Iger (of ABC Broadcasting, and COO of The Walt Disney Company) That finally broght the show to an end. After the Dispute Hilary Left, and went to WB.. and it seems that in a way Disney has been stalking her, and still use her name in vain even though her career has taken a bit of cool down (in movie and Series areas) while her singing Career has improved a bit.. but that answers that..

And Speaking of Harry Potter, this ties back into Hilary.. after all when Hilary left for Warner Bros. and decided to Divorce The Walt Disney Company, apparently Disney started "Secret Talks to bring some shows from Warner Bros. over to their side. (And Harry Potter is of Course a Warners Brothers Flick, not a Disney Film.. Yet Disney feels that they have "Justifiable rights to run these shows on their Disney Channel, and on ABC, and you can figure again that it's not Eisner doing the work here.. It's Robert Iger..

Now as for the Playhouse Disney issues.. I agree PB&J is perhaps a good idea to keep on, but why should Disney Channel have 10 hours (out of a 24 hour Day) Dedicated to kids 2-6? After all think about this.. There are older kids watching while on vacation and they don't have to watch PHD, for that 10 hours a day, in fact a good healthy viewing period for The PHD Segments could be half as long (5 hours,4 hours preferably.. that way Disney Could free up 6 hours of time to put in more "Creative Programming" like the older shows, or even better to enhance the block with some of the More Nostalgic Stuff.. yet they refuse to do so.. (After all if Disney Channel wanted to do this, they could do so.. but they won't feeling they wouldn't be catering to "the Tweens and Teens" that exist today.. Right Now Disney should set up programming blocks in 6 hour chunks and in fact this is probably the best way to do it to get the best ideas going..

6 to 10 am in the morning: Should be Playhouse Disney....
10 am to 2PM Should be more aligned towards Classical Disney Shows (Disney Afternoon, and One Two Shows (This includes Darkwing Duck, TaleSpin, Chip and Dales Rescue Rangers, Bonkers, and other shows..
2pm to 6 PM should be more of a Teenage area.. and should have some of the newer shows..or some of the older shows.. (after all a good mix of Live action and Animated would fit here..

after 6 pm in the evening Family hour could be done.. and shows that could fit in the Teen Block could also fit here.. (Kim Possible and Fillmore! and Gargoyles would work perfect here.. Also every Friday night just put in the 8 PM Movie.. just 1 time.. (No Repeats for 2 weeks)

after 10 PM it's adults and most of the older "Vault Disney Material that would run (and maybe throw in a "Night Owl" Theater" with Classic Disney Films (Like Mary Poppins, Herbie, and the like.. all the way to 6 AM.. where the series would being again..

if they did that.. Viewer ship would increase (IMHO) a total of 20 %.. and that in itself would increse revenues..

but sadly until Disney gets out of this "Teen And Tween Rut and Prechooler Rut" and have these modifications done, well it's not going to ever become better, after all this is why we need more fans to speak up and tell Disney what they want.. (After all those 7-15 year olds may have a demographic Advantage.. but still who pays for the cable? Not the 7-15 year olds..

but i digress.. if Disney made just these changes... and fixed a lot of problems I think Disney Channel would be more enjoyable then it is today..

that';s really all I need to say, majic

:coyote:

Fone Bone

01-02-2005, 09:51 AM

Good Questions Majic, and in fact I had to do a bit of research on all of them.. But Let's this time start with Hilary Duff, and work backwards here.. to the Playhouse Disney Questions..

First off About Hilary.. The Truth Be known.. She had potential and in fact Disney knew it.. yet they let her slip right through their fingers when a certain incident happened.. in Fact the Incriminating Article is located here (http://news.1918.com/print.php?article_id=1076)as to WHY Hilary Duff Left Disney and Who the Guilty Party was..(It wasn't Michael Eisner who Fired Miss Duff, it was rather a Major Pay Disagreement between Hilary's Mother (Her Agent) and Rober Iger (of ABC Broadcasting, and COO of The Walt Disney Company) That finally broght the show to an end. After the Dispute Hilary Left, and went to WB.. and it seems that in a way Disney has been stalking her, and still use her name in vain even though her career has taken a bit of cool down (in movie and Series areas) while her singing Career has improved a bit.. but that answers that..

And Speaking of Harry Potter, this ties back into Hilary.. after all when Hilary left for Warner Bros. and decided to Divorce The Walt Disney Company, apparently Disney started "Secret Talks to bring some shows from Warner Bros. over to their side. (And Harry Potter is of Course a Warners Brothers Flick, not a Disney Film.. Yet Disney feels that they have "Justifiable rights to run these shows on their Disney Channel, and on ABC, and you can figure again that it's not Eisner doing the work here.. It's Robert Iger..

Now as for the Playhouse Disney issues.. I agree PB&J is perhaps a good idea to keep on, but why should Disney Channel have 10 hours (out of a 24 hour Day) Dedicated to kids 2-6? After all think about this.. There are older kids watching while on vacation and they don't have to watch PHD, for that 10 hours a day, in fact a good healthy viewing period for The PHD Segments could be half as long (5 hours,4 hours preferably.. that way Disney Could free up 6 hours of time to put in more "Creative Programming" like the older shows, or even better to enhance the block with some of the More Nostalgic Stuff.. yet they refuse to do so.. (After all if Disney Channel wanted to do this, they could do so.. but they won't feeling they wouldn't be catering to "the Tweens and Teens" that exist today.. Right Now Disney should set up programming blocks in 6 hour chunks and in fact this is probably the best way to do it to get the best ideas going..

6 to 10 am in the morning: Should be Playhouse Disney....
10 am to 2PM Should be more aligned towards Classical Disney Shows (Disney Afternoon, and One Two Shows (This includes Darkwing Duck, TaleSpin, Chip and Dales Rescue Rangers, Bonkers, and other shows..
2pm to 6 PM should be more of a Teenage area.. and should have some of the newer shows..or some of the older shows.. (after all a good mix of Live action and Animated would fit here..

after 6 pm in the evening Family hour could be done.. and shows that could fit in the Teen Block could also fit here.. (Kim Possible and Fillmore! and Gargoyles would work perfect here.. Also every Friday night just put in the 8 PM Movie.. just 1 time.. (No Repeats for 2 weeks)

after 10 PM it's adults and most of the older "Vault Disney Material that would run (and maybe throw in a "Night Owl" Theater" with Classic Disney Films (Like Mary Poppins, Herbie, and the like.. all the way to 6 AM.. where the series would being again..

if they did that.. Viewer ship would increase (IMHO) a total of 20 %.. and that in itself would increse revenues..

but sadly until Disney gets out of this "Teen And Tween Rut and Prechooler Rut" and have these modifications done, well it's not going to ever become better, after all this is why we need more fans to speak up and tell Disney what they want.. (After all those 7-15 year olds may have a demographic Advantage.. but still who pays for the cable? Not the 7-15 year olds..

but i digress.. if Disney made just these changes... and fixed a lot of problems I think Disney Channel would be more enjoyable then it is today..

that';s really all I need to say, majic

:coyote:Why should they cut down Playhouse Disney when Bear in the Big Blue House is the only Disney Channel show I watch? I wish they moved it to a more reasonable time than 6:30 in the morning. It's all a matter of taste anyways. If no-one watched the current Disney Channel schedule they would change it, simple as that. The kids who watch Disney Channel the most obviously like the schedule the way it is.

The one thing I will say is that perhaps the shows you mentioned should be aired on Toon Disney more regularly. It IS a cartoon channel after all, and I find the idea that they air Power Rangers rather strange when they have so many different cartoons in the Disney library. I think ratings would improve on TOON DISNEY if they had a more varied schedule.

tucsoncoyote

01-02-2005, 03:59 PM

Why should they cut down Playhouse Disney when Bear in the Big Blue House is the only Disney Channel show I watch? I wish they moved it to a more reasonable time than 6:30 in the morning. It's all a matter of taste anyways. If no-one watched the current Disney Channel schedule they would change it, simple as that. The kids who watch Disney Channel the most obviously like the schedule the way it is.

The one thing I will say is that perhaps the shows you mentioned should be aired on Toon Disney more regularly. It IS a cartoon channel after all, and I find the idea that they air Power Rangers rather strange when they have so many different cartoons in the Disney library. I think ratings would improve on TOON DISNEY if they had a more varied schedule.Now I agree Fone, and for good reason. After all Disney between 1985 and 2005 has released a total of some 30+ shows that are animated.. if you just put one half hour (or more Accurately 22 minute) show on each half out of these series..you would consume less then 12 hours of Air time a day.. and even if you throw in shows like Power Rangers, you would be still taking up just enough air time to run 2 different episodes a day and in just under a month be able to repeat all the shows in a series..(plus or minus a few of them which have run longer then 65 episodes (Recess and Ducktales and anything over 78 shows would take an additional 10 days of Broadcasts before they could repeat..)

but the bottom line is The Walt Disney Company is doing what They think what is best for the fan, not what the fan thinks.. In short Fone, We don't have a say in this matter according to Disney.. Yet I think we should.. After all Toon Disney should be a repostiory of Older shows (that are "unedited") and should be maintained.. after all Folks who liked Gummi Bears 20 years ago still like the show.. and in fact Disney could use Toon Disney to actually come up with New ideas for Older shows..(After all I've been bringing up Darkwing Duck here as an Example.. but what if Disney did a new Darkwing Duck with a Teenage Gosalyn as Quiverwing Quack? Honker of course would age too, and in fact he could be Gosalyn's Sidekick as well (Much Like DW has Launchpad as a Sidekick..)

See that's the possibilities that The Disney Company is missing.. Lost potential of New ideas.. Lost Potentials of Expanding on them.. they could easily do this, given the chance..

So my question is.. why aren't they?

Your Thoughts?

:coyote:

tucsoncoyote

01-02-2005, 04:06 PM

WDTA suffers from delusion. They were never good. Disney in the Afternoon was terrible, a symbolic summary of the early 90's contentment for mediocrity. And what they've done since then hasn't exactly raised the already limbo-low bar either. Jake Long doesn't seem like the kind of show that would jump out in front of the status quo.... in reality, the Disney Channel has survived in the ratings race only because of their live-action pop stars. Even still I don't know how they skate above Cartoon Network. It's more than likely that most of Cartoon Network's CARTOONS outrank Disney Channel's CARTOONS, but not their LIVE-ACTION material. Creator-driven shows is a good start but I have not seen any "breakout" hits on the horizon. And pilots I've heard about... bleeecchh.Well I do have to agree with you hear Matt, I've not really Seen any truly good "Breakout" hits when it comes to this.. but then again why try to "reinvent the wheel" when the "Wheel wasn't broken in the first place?

See Disney does have quality programming here, after all inf you read my last post to Fone, they could expand on ideas that were left "half done" and by doing so, they could in essence enhance a show rather then leave it in it's half unfinished state.. After all, it's like the Current Situation at WDTA is that they tend to only go so far then just stop cold tukey leaving the fans unhappy and dissappointed.. yet they could do so much more with TV Now a days then say 20 years ago.. but yes, this is part of that Disillusionment Matt, and in fact when The Disney Television Animation People finally realize what has happened, it'll be probably be too late to alter the trend that they are heading down.. and that's a disasterous road to manage.

:coyote:

magicjac

01-02-2005, 05:47 PM

Good Questions Majic, and in fact I had to do a bit of research on all of them.. But Let's this time start with Hilary Duff, and work backwards here.. to the Playhouse Disney Questions..

First off About Hilary.. The Truth Be known.. She had potential and in fact Disney knew it.. yet they let her slip right through their fingers when a certain incident happened.. in Fact the Incriminating Article is located here (http://news.1918.com/print.php?article_id=1076)as to WHY Hilary Duff Left Disney and Who the Guilty Party was..(It wasn't Michael Eisner who Fired Miss Duff, it was rather a Major Pay Disagreement between Hilary's Mother (Her Agent) and Rober Iger (of ABC Broadcasting, and COO of The Walt Disney Company) That finally broght the show to an end. After the Dispute Hilary Left, and went to WB.. and it seems that in a way Disney has been stalking her, and still use her name in vain even though her career has taken a bit of cool down (in movie and Series areas) while her singing Career has improved a bit.. but that answers that..

And Speaking of Harry Potter, this ties back into Hilary.. after all when Hilary left for Warner Bros. and decided to Divorce The Walt Disney Company, apparently Disney started "Secret Talks to bring some shows from Warner Bros. over to their side. (And Harry Potter is of Course a Warners Brothers Flick, not a Disney Film.. Yet Disney feels that they have "Justifiable rights to run these shows on their Disney Channel, and on ABC, and you can figure again that it's not Eisner doing the work here.. It's Robert Iger..

Now as for the Playhouse Disney issues.. I agree PB&J is perhaps a good idea to keep on, but why should Disney Channel have 10 hours (out of a 24 hour Day) Dedicated to kids 2-6? After all think about this.. There are older kids watching while on vacation and they don't have to watch PHD, for that 10 hours a day, in fact a good healthy viewing period for The PHD Segments could be half as long (5 hours,4 hours preferably.. that way Disney Could free up 6 hours of time to put in more "Creative Programming" like the older shows, or even better to enhance the block with some of the More Nostalgic Stuff.. yet they refuse to do so.. (After all if Disney Channel wanted to do this, they could do so.. but they won't feeling they wouldn't be catering to "the Tweens and Teens" that exist today.. Right Now Disney should set up programming blocks in 6 hour chunks and in fact this is probably the best way to do it to get the best ideas going..

6 to 10 am in the morning: Should be Playhouse Disney....
10 am to 2PM Should be more aligned towards Classical Disney Shows (Disney Afternoon, and One Two Shows (This includes Darkwing Duck, TaleSpin, Chip and Dales Rescue Rangers, Bonkers, and other shows..
2pm to 6 PM should be more of a Teenage area.. and should have some of the newer shows..or some of the older shows.. (after all a good mix of Live action and Animated would fit here..

after 6 pm in the evening Family hour could be done.. and shows that could fit in the Teen Block could also fit here.. (Kim Possible and Fillmore! and Gargoyles would work perfect here.. Also every Friday night just put in the 8 PM Movie.. just 1 time.. (No Repeats for 2 weeks)

after 10 PM it's adults and most of the older "Vault Disney Material that would run (and maybe throw in a "Night Owl" Theater" with Classic Disney Films (Like Mary Poppins, Herbie, and the like.. all the way to 6 AM.. where the series would being again..

if they did that.. Viewer ship would increase (IMHO) a total of 20 %.. and that in itself would increse revenues..

but sadly until Disney gets out of this "Teen And Tween Rut and Prechooler Rut" and have these modifications done, well it's not going to ever become better, after all this is why we need more fans to speak up and tell Disney what they want.. (After all those 7-15 year olds may have a demographic Advantage.. but still who pays for the cable? Not the 7-15 year olds..

but i digress.. if Disney made just these changes... and fixed a lot of problems I think Disney Channel would be more enjoyable then it is today..

that';s really all I need to say, majic

:coyote:
Thanks for clearing that up about Hialry Duff and Harry Potter. I completely agree about Playhouse Disney. They should cut that down because 10 hours of 2-6 year old programming is unneccessary. Also, I'm not sure if any DA classics should air on The Disney Channel if they would air on Toon Disney.

magicjac

01-02-2005, 05:49 PM

Fone Bone

01-02-2005, 07:20 PM

I think Playhouse Disney should be cut down, and if you like BITBBH so much then it could be moved to a more reasonable time. And I agree with you on TD. PR on TD is absolutely idiotic. I mean, PR is dead anyways. They need to stop with the unneccessary re-makes of it every damn year. TD would improve greatly for me if they would bring back all of the DA classics and get rid of the damn daily marathons.I'd like Bear in the Big Blue House on for an hour a day at a good time. Heck, I'd like it if they put on a load of Muppet shows. However as long as the the kids and tweens keep watching the Disney Channel schedule the way it is there really is no reason for Disney to cater to our wishes. WE are not the target demographic that DC is going for. They are looking for people who will buy their DTV cheapquels and listen to Hillary Duff music. Nothing we can say will change that. I personally don't care what Disney Channel puts on as long as we eventually get our favorites in DVD season sets (a la Gargoyles).

Although since BitBBH probably WON'T get season sets I'd be happy if it aired for an hour a day at a reasonable time. And if they made more plushies.:anime: :D

SilverKnight

01-02-2005, 08:05 PM

If Disney is so afraid of making inferior adaptations of pre-existing characters maybe they should stop making DTV cheapquels.Ooo snap. You're getting quoted, now. :D

tucsoncoyote

01-02-2005, 08:15 PM

Ooo snap. You're getting quoted, now. :DWell to quote the quoter, why not have boxed Season sets? After all Silverknight, Star Trek and the Simpsons get boxed sets why not some of he Disney Afternoon Classics being put into boxed sets.. I think thought we'll hear about this as being more of an "Economic Issue" That deals within the company itself rather then an issue that is fan based..(After all the Fans want it, why not give the fans what they deserve.. After all they've been loyal to the Disney Folks, so why isn't Disney meeting the fans at least halfway..?

:coyote:

Jave

01-02-2005, 09:08 PM

Well to quote the quoter, why not have boxed Season sets? After all Silverknight, Star Trek and the Simpsons get boxed sets why not some of he Disney Afternoon Classics being put into boxed sets.. I think thought we'll hear about this as being more of an "Economic Issue" That deals within the company itself rather then an issue that is fan based..Probably because they don't feel like shows like Kim Possible will do well in Boxed Season DVDs. Simpsons and Star Trek have HUGE fanbases and, with the episodes airing with syndication edits on TV, they will get sales for sure. A "complete season" DVD is only something a hardcore fan buys, and KP doesn't have as much as The Simpsons does.

(After all the Fans want it, why not give the fans what they deserve.. After all they've been loyal to the Disney Folks, so why isn't Disney meeting the fans at least halfway..?I'm so tempted to quote Bart Simpson from "The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show" right now...

tucsoncoyote

01-02-2005, 10:15 PM

Probably because they don't feel like shows like Kim Possible will do well in Boxed Season DVDs. Simpsons and Star Trek have HUGE fanbases and, with the episodes airing with syndication edits on TV, they will get sales for sure. A "complete season" DVD is only something a hardcore fan buys, and KP doesn't have as much as The Simpsons does.Now when you say "They" you're refering to the Walt Disney Company. and in general the Disney Television Animation Section of Disney.. yet do they do that for any of their older shows.. Other then Gargoyles and Kim Possible, and Tarzan (in that Disney's Tarzan and Jane DTV Release) has disney relased any of their older materials (Such as Duck Tales, or even Darkwing Duck or Aladdin in even as much as a Single DTV Release? No they haven't because they don't want to put the effort into making more money which in fact runs counter to them wanting to make money..(After all this and the 65 episode thread tie together and in fact if Disney's doing it for the Love, they're not winning over most of the "modern Era Fans" but they're sure Keeping the Classical Fans happy!

as for your other comment.

I'm so tempted to quote Bart Simpson from "The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show" right now...You may be tempted yet to say it.. after all I've been tempted to say that famous Line out of "Dirty Harry" here.. but I won't.. after all this is nothing more then Disney way at generating Cash and not winning over the fans affections..

As for the issue at hand though with WDTA, they need to really consider.. there are fans out there who want to see their older shows again.. even if they would have to pay through the nose to see them..(meanwhile they WDTA folks Incessently believe in the "Repeatability of a show..(How many times do I have to see the episode of Lizzie McGuire where... (Well you can figure that out..)

:coyote:

Antiyonder

01-02-2005, 10:36 PM

Fone Bone

01-03-2005, 08:43 AM

Killtacular

01-03-2005, 10:49 AM

Well I do have to agree with you hear Matt, I've not really Seen any truly good "Breakout" hits when it comes to this.. but then again why try to "reinvent the wheel" when the "Wheel wasn't broken in the first place?
Because the Disney Channel does not have better cartoons than other networks, and their ratings for animation have slumped for a long time. Kim Possible has done little to change the tide. The only shows that keep Disney Channel ahead of the pack in the ratings are their acquisitioned live-action shows and original movies. The wheel was never built for the Disney Channel, so yes they need to invent right away.

The Disney Afternoon(not Disney in the Afternoon) was great. It was not terrible in any way, shape or form. Tell me, if DA was so terrible, then why are there so many fans of it right here on this very board, and why did it last 8 successful years?
I don't know! Why are there fans of GI Joe? Why are there fans of the Mario Brothers Super Show cartoon? Why are there fans of any of the horrible shows from that era and the eras before it? Cartoons that are vastly inferior to what is produced today.

The only answer is that... you grow up loving the shows you watched as a kid. That doesn't make them good. I don't care what defense a GI Joe fan has; GI Joe was a BAD cartoon. And I probably would've been an unquestioning Disney loyalist for the rest of my life if I didn't happen to watch Kids WB's opening year in 1995 (with Freakazoid, Batman, and Earthworm Jim) and realize that cartoons COULD be better. MUCH better. Then I watched Ren and Stimpy and realized that cartoons could look GOOD and FUNNY too.

And now I just can't look at those DA cartoons. They have stupid cheesy cliche humor that all cartoons from the 90s had because they underestimated their audience and didn't try throwing a joke a little high for kids to jump up and catch. They have bad, lumpy animation (the only exceptions are Hercules episode 1 and some of Kim Possible). Lame story concepts birthed in the 1980s "adventure" era. But then all cartoons from the early 90s except what I mentioned in the previous paragraph had these problems. They played to the least common denominator. The ONLY reason people could like the shows on DA is the same reason why someone could grow up in the 70s watching crap like Hong Kong Phooey and The Snorks and still think that stuff was brilliant.

Gargoyles, I admit, was ahead of the curve. Perhaps the only WDTA show that didn't treat its viewers like total idiots. But yet still it had the lame 90s humor (theoretically Disney has never escaped this, even to this day with BEN from Treasure Planet... the sidekick comedy crap that's never cut it EVER in their films). But it birthed good writers, I GUESS. Even though their work on The Batman is terrifyingly bad.

Every cartoon on the DA was extradinary. "Ducktales" was a huge success, "Chip & Dale Rescue Rangers" was very memorable, "The Adventures Of The Gummi Bears: ran for 7 successful seasons, "Darkwing Duck" expanded over 65 episodes to a well-deserving 91 episodes, "Bonkers" was absolutely hilarious, etc.
They weren't successful seasons, it was SYNDICATION. Disney had full control over how many episodes they could package and sell. It didn't matter if the ratings were good or not because once the episodes are out of their hands that's all the involvement Disney has. And they took this pathology with them when they built their own network. Whether a show does good or not nowadays, it will still get a healthy run of episodes.

And Bonkers is on my list of worst cartoons of all-time, sitting somewhere next to Wish Kid, Camp Candy, and that stupid show about mexican bugs from Klasky-Csupo.

And Cartoon Netwrok's Cartoon Cartoons are exceptionally good, but by no means they beat out "Ducktales", "Chip & Dale Rescue Rangers", "Talespin" or "The Adventures Of The Gummi Bears".
They're different genres. Cartoon Cartoons are situation comedies whereas those shows are adventure shows. If you're going to compare anything compare them to WBA's superhero shows since that's the only thing that comes close. And all things considered... yes they are better than those shows.

GregX

01-03-2005, 01:24 PM

Gargoyles, I admit, was ahead of the curve. Perhaps the only WDTA show that didn't treat its viewers like total idiots. But yet still it had the lame 90s humor (theoretically Disney has never escaped this, even to this day with BEN from Treasure Planet... the sidekick comedy crap that's never cut it EVER in their films). But it birthed good writers, I GUESS. Even though their work on The Batman is terrifyingly bad.
Um, what lame 90s humor? Please enlighten me. Also, Gargoyles writers are not in charge of "The Batman". Greg was hired freelance, so his scripts would probably be edited by story-board artists and producers. We don't know.

I actually own an original Greg Weisman script for an unmade series that would have featured guest appearance from two "Gargoyles" characters. One old, one new. It's a great script.

Fone Bone

01-03-2005, 02:44 PM

Um, what lame 90s humor? Please enlighten me. Also, Gargoyles writers are not in charge of "The Batman". Greg was hired freelance, so his scripts would probably be edited by story-board artists and producers. We don't know.

I actually own an original Greg Weisman script for an unmade series that would have featured guest appearance from two "Gargoyles" characters. One old, one new. It's a great script.The "lame nineties humor" I think Matt is referring to is symptomatic of the first season but not really the second. It was mostly a fish out of water deal. For instance in Awakening Part 5 Brooklyn said "Dude" and Goliath repeated it uncertainly. Or the Trio's "cool" in a previous episode. Or Hudson falling out of the recliner when he saw the rock video on TV. Or Broadway always eating. It was kinda funny but it was also pretty stupid at the same time.

Luckily the exclamations were replaced with "Jalapena!" in later episodes.:D

Edit: I will also concede to Matt than none of the early Disney Afternoon shows, save Tale Spin and Gummi Bears have aged well. BUT, as Matt pointed out I will always love them for the nostalgia factor and would love to own them on DVD. Contrary to what he implied there is nothing wrong with that, even if the shows weren't extremely high quality.

Edit 2: And Bonkers and Goof Troop WERE truly awful.

Tommy Lawson

01-03-2005, 03:19 PM

Because the Disney Channel does not have better cartoons than other networks, and their ratings for animation have slumped for a long time. Kim Possible has done little to change the tide. The only shows that keep Disney Channel ahead of the pack in the ratings are their acquisitioned live-action shows and original movies. The wheel was never built for the Disney Channel, so yes they need to invent right away. While it is true that the highest-rated programming on the Disney Channel are the original movies, the premieres of their animated shows do also draw in viewers. And another thing to remember is that ratings for specific shows on Disney Channel are not nearly as critical as they would be for Cartoon Network or Nickelodeon, since Disney Channel isn't ad-supported. Disney themselves makes the decision as to what they show during the commercial breaks, and also how many episodes get ordered of their shows. Ratings for ABC Kids, ABC Family, and Toon Disney are more meaningful than Disney Channel numbers, which are largely just for bragging rights.

GregX

01-03-2005, 03:20 PM

The "lame nineties humor" I think Matt is referring to is symptomatic of the first season but not really the second. It was mostly a fish out of water deal. For instance in Awakening Part 5 Brooklyn said "Dude" and Goliath repeated it uncertainly. Or the Trio's "cool" in a previous episode. Or Hudson falling out of the recliner when he saw the rock video on TV. Or Broadway always eating. It was kinda funny but it was also pretty stupid at the same time.
Well, they were learning more about the modern world. The Trio was assimilating a bit faster, I kinda thought Goliath's reactions were natural. These were medieval gargoyles adapting to 1994 Manhattan.

And Hudson, old, medieval gargoyle. Turns on a television for the first time to this extremely loud music video. Of course he'll freak. It was humorous, yes. But at the same time, I thought his reaction was perfectly natural.

Classic Speedy

01-03-2005, 04:01 PM

and that stupid show about mexican bugs from Klasky-Csupo. "Santo Bugito".

magicjac

01-03-2005, 06:35 PM

I don't know! Why are there fans of GI Joe? Why are there fans of the Mario Brothers Super Show cartoon? Why are there fans of any of the horrible shows from that era and the eras before it? Cartoons that are vastly inferior to what is produced today.

The only answer is that... you grow up loving the shows you watched as a kid. That doesn't make them good. I don't care what defense a GI Joe fan has; GI Joe was a BAD cartoon. And I probably would've been an unquestioning Disney loyalist for the rest of my life if I didn't happen to watch Kids WB's opening year in 1995 (with Freakazoid, Batman, and Earthworm Jim) and realize that cartoons COULD be better. MUCH better. Then I watched Ren and Stimpy and realized that cartoons could look GOOD and FUNNY too.

And now I just can't look at those DA cartoons. They have stupid cheesy cliche humor that all cartoons from the 90s had because they underestimated their audience and didn't try throwing a joke a little high for kids to jump up and catch. They have bad, lumpy animation (the only exceptions are Hercules episode 1 and some of Kim Possible). Lame story concepts birthed in the 1980s "adventure" era. But then all cartoons from the early 90s except what I mentioned in the previous paragraph had these problems. They played to the least common denominator. The ONLY reason people could like the shows on DA is the same reason why someone could grow up in the 70s watching crap like Hong Kong Phooey and The Snorks and still think that stuff was brilliant.

Gargoyles, I admit, was ahead of the curve. Perhaps the only WDTA show that didn't treat its viewers like total idiots. But yet still it had the lame 90s humor (theoretically Disney has never escaped this, even to this day with BEN from Treasure Planet... the sidekick comedy crap that's never cut it EVER in their films). But it birthed good writers, I GUESS. Even though their work on The Batman is terrifyingly bad.

They weren't successful seasons, it was SYNDICATION. Disney had full control over how many episodes they could package and sell. It didn't matter if the ratings were good or not because once the episodes are out of their hands that's all the involvement Disney has. And they took this pathology with them when they built their own network. Whether a show does good or not nowadays, it will still get a healthy run of episodes.

And Bonkers is on my list of worst cartoons of all-time, sitting somewhere next to Wish Kid, Camp Candy, and that stupid show about mexican bugs from Klasky-Csupo.

They're different genres. Cartoon Cartoons are situation comedies whereas those shows are adventure shows. If you're going to compare anything compare them to WBA's superhero shows since that's the only thing that comes close. And all things considered... yes they are better than those shows.
Okay, first of all YOU were the one who compared DA classics to CN's Cartoon Cartoons. And second of all, I notice that YOU are the only one putting DA shows down. You don't like anything Matt. "Bonkers" is definitely not one of the worst cartoons of all time. Damn you need a sense of humor. That show was hilarious and if you don't like it so damn much, then don't bother it. Simple as that. And of course DA shows had cliche 90's storylines... they were made in the 90's. WTF?!? Also, I don't give a damn if "The Adventures Of The Gummi Bears" was syndicated, it still ran seven seasons, and to me that is very good. And I happen to enjoy "Hong Kong Phooey" and "The Snorks", so what is your point. Obviously what is good to someone else is horrible in your opinion. Why are you even here on the Toon Zone forum if you hate evrything so damn much?

Fone Bone

01-03-2005, 07:35 PM

Well, they were learning more about the modern world. The Trio was assimilating a bit faster, I kinda thought Goliath's reactions were natural. These were medieval gargoyles adapting to 1994 Manhattan.

And Hudson, old, medieval gargoyle. Turns on a television for the first time to this extremely loud music video. Of course he'll freak. It was humorous, yes. But at the same time, I thought his reaction was perfectly natural.Oh, I agree it was perfectly natural. I'm just saying that that is probably the kind of thing Matt's referring to. It wasn't exactly groundbreaking humor.;)

GregX

01-03-2005, 08:35 PM

Oh, I agree it was perfectly natural. I'm just saying that that is probably the kind of thing Matt's referring to. It wasn't exactly groundbreaking humor.;)
True. But nor did it need to be. The show wasn't really a comedy. It had comedic moments but was an Action/Drama.

Fone Bone

01-03-2005, 08:47 PM

True. But nor did it need to be. The show wasn't really a comedy. It had comedic moments but was an Action/Drama.Isn't it weird how Greg Weisman originally pitched the show as an action comedy?

Fone Bone loves his Gargoyles season one DVD set.:anime:

GregX

01-03-2005, 08:55 PM

Isn't it weird how Greg Weisman originally pitched the show as an action comedy?

Fone Bone loves his Gargoyles season one DVD set.:anime:
Yeah, but the pitch you saw wasn't the action comedy. I actually saw the character designs for the comedic version of the show. Looked nothing like our Gargs. They were originally then about two/three feet tall and cute and cuddly. Quite sickening actually.

He brought the designs to the 2003 Gathering in New York, the one I was on staff for and helped organize.

Mad Monkey 7

01-03-2005, 09:01 PM

Personaliy from my point of view, Disney Television animation has always had the best animation on TV.

P.S.

I will add more later and Fone Bone, Disney has big plans for Bear in 2005 and beyond.

Killtacular

01-03-2005, 09:54 PM

Okay, first of all YOU were the one who compared DA classics to CN's Cartoon Cartoons.
I compared their ratings, not their qualities. And just today CN reported that they are the #2 network for Total Day Kids 2-11 and 6-11, so my point is even further illustrated.

And second of all, I notice that YOU are the only one putting DA shows down.
Naturally, I am the only one to speak out. It's probably not wise to do it on THIS forum but this is a forum for more than just Disney's television output so I feel I can attack this portion of them and feel justified. Everyone has something about Disney that claws at them inside, mine just happens to be different.

You don't like anything Matt.
That never gets old. When I don't like the show you like, obviously I must not like anything. I love it when people say that, again and again and again and again and again and again. But then why would I even sign up at Toon Zone? Why would I have reported the news for Toon Zone? Why would I be a moderator of a board of cartoons if I didn't like some cartoons? Again, the logic against my case does not seem to be there. I'll make a page and force everyone to read it to know what I like and then that will solve this dilemma.

"Bonkers" is definitely not one of the worst cartoons of all time.
Oh, it is. Short of Charlie Adler there will never be a more annoying voice actor than Jim Cummings. Bonkers is revolutionary in that EVERY SINGLE JOKE is a misfire. Not one joke hits the mark EVER. Which is extraordinary because the plot, which mutilates Roger Rabbit's screenplay into shlock, seemed like a fine concept for funny stories and characters, but there's nothing there! I mean I saw one brief flash of wit when a character had five fingers instead of four and that's how they found out he was human... that's one out of what, 65 episodes? And not the entire episode but 30 seconds? And I was a KID and hated the show! I wanted to like it, and its multi-part pilot with that special premiere and all the hype they gave it. But the hype was undeserved.

Damn you need a sense of humor.
You don't need a sense of humor to enjoy Bonkers. Really, the requirements for laughing at Bonkers is to be a kid and not know when a funny joke has been told to you. I would think you stand a better chance of enjoying Bonkers by not having any standards for humor, so that at least you would be amused without knowing why you're amused. But Nickelodeon's cartoons in that time period (at the cusp of 1993), which themselves weren't GREAT (I go back and forth on Ren and Stimpy all the time, my opinion of it is never strong in either direction) were much sharper and leaned away from the executive teat that spawned such comedy gems as "ME AND MY BIG MOUTH!" and "YOU -HAD- TO SAY THAT!" and "WHAT'S THE WORST THAT COULD HAPPEN?" and "I HATE SPUNK!" God what a different path I would have travelled if I didn't watch those shows. I'm sorry but I'm trained not to enjoy hack writing, hack direction, and hack acting. Call me crazy, but this is one of my traits that I am proud of.

Classic Speedy

01-03-2005, 11:04 PM

You don't like anything Matt. To be fair, he DOES like Family Guy, Futurama, classic Simpsons, Teen Titans, Ed, Edd, & Eddy, and Billy & Mandy (recent seasons). I'm sure there are some more, but these are the ones I've most noticed.

Oh, it is. Short of Charlie Adler there will never be a more annoying voice actor than Jim Cummings Talk about having the exact opposite opinion. I find him to be one of the BEST voice actors in the biz. He gives energy and difference in timing/delivery to both Piquel's and Bonkers's performances. Nothing about his delivery in those roles is half-assed or "off". You want annoying? Try Billy from Billy & Mandy, who screeches most every line.
Bonkers is revolutionary in that EVERY SINGLE JOKE is a misfire. Not one joke hits the mark EVER. Not to me. Bonkers had a lot of wordplay humor. Come on, Fall Apart's screwed up logic is hilarious. And the best part is, the pace is so fast on much of this dialog that kids wouldn't have time to register the jokes. I find as a 21-year old that I appreciate the show more than I did as a kid, because I get many of the puns and back-and-forth snappy dialog.

And many of the physical sight gags and facial expressions were spot on, particularly if they were done by Walt Disney Australia. It's always a riot to see Lucky's reactions to the wacky antics around him. Yes it may be formulatic, but if the formula works, what's the problem?

Andrew T. Hingson

01-03-2005, 11:22 PM

I for one could live on ducks alone. But I love Chip 'n Dale, Goof Troop, and the like as well. This new stuff.. bleh.

American Dragon? Disney must have caught on to Xiaolin Showdowns success.

Fone Bone

01-04-2005, 07:59 AM

Personaliy from my point of view, Disney Television animation has always had the best animation on TV.

P.S.

I will add more later and Fone Bone, Disney has big plans for Bear in 2005 and beyond.Whoa! Awesome! Will they involve new plushes and new episodes? And new Plushes? And new plushes?

Please respond as quickly as possible. My Bear and Tutter are very lonely.

Wolfcruiser

01-04-2005, 11:22 AM

Jim Cummings, a bad voice actor?! No I disagree here Matt, he isn't. He's probably the best in the business. As said by Speedy Boris, he delivers timing and excellence to all his characters.

magicjac

01-04-2005, 05:44 PM

I compared their ratings, not their qualities. And just today CN reported that they are the #2 network for Total Day Kids 2-11 and 6-11, so my point is even further illustrated.

Naturally, I am the only one to speak out. It's probably not wise to do it on THIS forum but this is a forum for more than just Disney's television output so I feel I can attack this portion of them and feel justified. Everyone has something about Disney that claws at them inside, mine just happens to be different.

That never gets old. When I don't like the show you like, obviously I must not like anything. I love it when people say that, again and again and again and again and again and again. But then why would I even sign up at Toon Zone? Why would I have reported the news for Toon Zone? Why would I be a moderator of a board of cartoons if I didn't like some cartoons? Again, the logic against my case does not seem to be there. I'll make a page and force everyone to read it to know what I like and then that will solve this dilemma.

Oh, it is. Short of Charlie Adler there will never be a more annoying voice actor than Jim Cummings. Bonkers is revolutionary in that EVERY SINGLE JOKE is a misfire. Not one joke hits the mark EVER. Which is extraordinary because the plot, which mutilates Roger Rabbit's screenplay into shlock, seemed like a fine concept for funny stories and characters, but there's nothing there! I mean I saw one brief flash of wit when a character had five fingers instead of four and that's how they found out he was human... that's one out of what, 65 episodes? And not the entire episode but 30 seconds? And I was a KID and hated the show! I wanted to like it, and its multi-part pilot with that special premiere and all the hype they gave it. But the hype was undeserved.

You don't need a sense of humor to enjoy Bonkers. Really, the requirements for laughing at Bonkers is to be a kid and not know when a funny joke has been told to you. I would think you stand a better chance of enjoying Bonkers by not having any standards for humor, so that at least you would be amused without knowing why you're amused. But Nickelodeon's cartoons in that time period (at the cusp of 1993), which themselves weren't GREAT (I go back and forth on Ren and Stimpy all the time, my opinion of it is never strong in either direction) were much sharper and leaned away from the executive teat that spawned such comedy gems as "ME AND MY BIG MOUTH!" and "YOU -HAD- TO SAY THAT!" and "WHAT'S THE WORST THAT COULD HAPPEN?" and "I HATE SPUNK!" God what a different path I would have travelled if I didn't watch those shows. I'm sorry but I'm trained not to enjoy hack writing, hack direction, and hack acting. Call me crazy, but this is one of my traits that I am proud of.
I'm glad you're proud of being crazy Matt. I'm not going to argue with you anymore. But let me just tell you that you're very wrong about "Bonkers". I enojyed "Bonkers" very much and still do. I'm not a damn kid, and I know good humor. So just heep hating on "Bonkers". I don't care anymore. And also, you don't seem to like ANYTHING AT ALL. All I ever see you do is put down a show, never give it any praise whatsoever. You came onto this message and freely bashed all of the shows that we enjoy. That's very kind of you Matt. Also, I don't give a damn if CN is the #2 kid snetwork today. ***** CN, and ***** all of the ratings. I was talking about the glory and splendor of The Disney Afternoon, not damn CN unrelative to this message at all's ratings.

magicjac

01-04-2005, 05:47 PM

To be fair, he DOES like Family Guy, Futurama, classic Simpsons, Teen Titans, Ed, Edd, & Eddy, and Billy & Mandy (recent seasons). I'm sure there are some more, but these are the ones I've most noticed.
Talk about having the exact opposite opinion. I find him to be one of the BEST voice actors in the biz. He gives energy and difference in timing/delivery to both Piquel's and Bonkers's performances. Nothing about his delivery in those roles is half-assed or "off". You want annoying? Try Billy from Billy & Mandy, who screeches most every line. Not to me. Bonkers had a lot of wordplay humor. Come on, Fall Apart's screwed up logic is hilarious. And the best part is, the pace is so fast on much of this dialog that kids wouldn't have time to register the jokes. I find as a 21-year old that I appreciate the show more than I did as a kid, because I get many of the puns and back-and-forth snappy dialog.

And many of the physical sight gags and facial expressions were spot on, particularly if they were done by Walt Disney Australia. It's always a riot to see Lucky's reactions to the wacky antics around him. Yes it may be formulatic, but if the formula works, what's the problem?
Thank you for taking up for "Bonkers":) I'm glad somebody besides myself is standing up for it. I for one love everything about "Bonkers". The humor was very slapstick, but witty and off-the-wall. I don't give a damn who hates "Bonkers". There are definitely worse shows out there.

Fone Bone

01-04-2005, 07:18 PM

Thank you for taking up for "Bonkers":) I'm glad somebody besides myself is standing up for it. I for one love everything about "Bonkers". The humor was very slapstick, but witty and off-the-wall. I don't give a damn who hates "Bonkers". There are definitely worse shows out there.I hated Bonkers but I don't begrudge anyone who likes it. If someone finds merit in it that I don't then they should enjoy the show and not worry about what I or others think.

Sometimes I think we all get a little too worked up about cartoons.

magicjac

01-04-2005, 08:12 PM

I hated Bonkers but I don't begrudge anyone who likes it. If someone finds merit in it that I don't then they should enjoy the show and not worry about what I or others think.

Sometimes I think we all get a little too worked up about cartoons.
Boy do I feel stupid:o Why were you giving the show positive feedback if you hated it? That makes a whole lot of sense:rolleyes:

Fone Bone

01-04-2005, 08:15 PM

Boy do I feel stupid:o Why were you giving the show positive feedback if you hated it? That makes a whole lot of sense:rolleyes:I think you confused me with Speedy Boris. He was the one you quoted.

Again I have no problem with other people liking the show. I just don't.

Classic Speedy

01-04-2005, 08:24 PM

(points to myself) Speedy Boris. (points to Fone Bone) Fone Bone. :p

01-04-2005, 11:37 PM

tucsoncoyote

01-05-2005, 03:59 AM

The only "mistake" I think Disney is claiming is that they didn't make the shows exclusive to their own networks (this banking on the ad revenues). Disney Afternoon was a big experiment that started well and ended terribly. By the time it was done, all of those lucrative syndication money was drying up and Disney had little to show for it. That's what I think they mean by the mistake.CookieS, I have to agree with you here on this point.. after all indeed Disney Afternoon was an idea that was originally created to produce what is called "Syndciation Money" and in fact at first back in the first 10 years (1985-1994) the Moneys were there thanks to the fact that People wanted Disney related shows..(and this included the shows that were "Spinoffs" of the Feature Films (Namely Aladdin, Hercules, and in fact The Little Mermaid)

But it seems that in the Second Decade of this so called "Grand Experiment (From 1995 to Present) Disney realized that the best way to approach this issue was in fact to put everything on Cable and hope that the fans would snatch up the cable channels and at least pay through the nose by watching it on the Disney Channel or at least Toon Disney.. But now in the last 2-3 years while other channels have diversified and expanded their Stories and ideas (Much like Cartoon Network, and Nickelodeon), Disney has taken quite the opposite approach here.. and has believed that the best way to approach this problem is to "Incessently run and not expand" current Shows" that are popular to the fans..(Plus the fact that they are no longer catering to the Children and the Adults, but rather just to a select group of people, hoping that the smaller Teenage and "Tween" Groups will in due time elect to view more and More shows..

The Problem with this thinking which is Financially Sound in one aspect, is that that Teen and Tween Age Group is slowly fading away.. After all we're talking about Generation Y here..(the Second Generation of Kids since "The End of the Baby Boom" and in fact this small proportion of fans is what is keeping the series on The Disney Channel Alive.. (though there are more Adults Watching the Newer Shows and Enjoying them, they also would like to see some more of a Balanced Semblence of both "Old and New" Ideas.. and it's this balance that some of us are trying to point out here.. (After all the Fans some of the Older shows, do like the Newer shows in general provided they keep you interested.. The moment they aren't interesting anymore, is when most of those "Adult Fans" of the Newer shows leave, and thus you're back to the "Smaller" Teen and Tween groups again..

In short, Disney's Experiment wasn't really a Failure here, but rather it was an experiment that didn't take into account of the facts that those younger viewers do grow up and still will enjoy Disney, yet Disney's Management on the DA has been such that they are only "Peddling" To those Small Interest Groups, rather then the larger Adult Fanbase who enjoys the balance of Old and New Material.

:coyote:

Antiyonder

01-05-2005, 05:20 AM

Probably because they don't feel like shows like Kim Possible will do well in Boxed Season DVDs. Simpsons and Star Trek have HUGE fanbases and, with the episodes airing with syndication edits on TV, they will get sales for sure. A "complete season" DVD is only something a hardcore fan buys, and KP doesn't have as much as The Simpsons does.
That's the problem with Disney right now. They have too much of a play it safe attitude. What they don't realize is that to succeed in business you sometimes have to get your hands dirty, take chances and hope for the best.

Take Stan Lee for instance. He came up with the idea of Spider-Man, who differed quite a bit from your conventional superhero:
1. Having problems in his personal life (Whereas most heroes only had to worry about catching the bad guy).

2. He was teenage superhero (As opposed to being a sidekick).

3. He wasn't admired by the public (Unlike The Justice League or The Fantastic Four).

Granted the first Spider-Man story was published in the final issue of a canceled mag (Amazing Fantasy #15), they took a chance in putting the Spider-Man story out.

The higher ups assumed it wouldn't be successful. Turns out they were wrong. Not only were there a lot of positive repsonses, Marvel gained an iconic character in the process, and all because someone thought outside the box.

magicjac

01-05-2005, 05:37 PM

I think you confused me with Speedy Boris. He was the one you quoted.

Again I have no problem with other people liking the show. I just don't.
I Am SO SORRY For Being So Slow!:o

magicjac

01-05-2005, 05:37 PM

(points to myself) Speedy Boris. (points to Fone Bone) Fone Bone. :p
LOFL!

magicjac

01-05-2005, 05:41 PM

That's the problem with Disney right now. They have too much of a play it safe attitude. What they don't realize is that to succeed in business you sometimes have to get your hands dirty, take chances and hope for the best.

Take Stan Lee for instance. He came up with the idea of Spider-Man, who differed quite a bit from your conventional superhero:
1. Having problems in his personal life (Whereas most heroes only had to worry about catching the bad guy).

2. He was teenage superhero (As opposed to being a sidekick).

3. He wasn't admired by the public (Unlike The Justice League or The Fantastic Four).

Granted the first Spider-Man story was published in the final issue of a canceled mag (Amazing Fantasy #15), they took a chance in putting the Spider-Man story out.

The higher ups assumed it wouldn't be successful. Turns out they were wrong. Not only were there a lot of positive repsonses, Marvel gained an iconic character in the process, and all because someone thought outside the box.You're Right. Disney hasn't taken a chance since they hit it big with "Ducktales" and The Disney Afternoon. "Ducktales" was a major risk for Disney because they invested alot of money into the show when generally not much money was put into an animation project. Disney took a huge risk with "Ducktales" and luckilly had major success with it. I wish Disney would hurry up with the classic DA and Disney TV Animation DVDs already.

Antiyonder

01-05-2005, 07:09 PM

You're Right. Disney hasn't taken a chance since they hit it big with "Ducktales" and The Disney Afternoon. "Ducktales" was a major risk for Disney because they invested alot of money into the show when generally not much money was put into an animation project. Disney take a huge risk with "Ducktales" and luckilly had major success with it. I wish Disney would hurry up with the classic DA and Disney TV Animation DVDs already.
They did take a chance with Gargoyles, but come third season they messed up. Now while Gargoyles wasn't in the same level of popularity as Power Ranger, it was good enought to where it was a hit.

They wanted it to compete with Power Rangers, and draw in more kids. What they should have done was put it in prime time on the Disney Channel, and make it into a family show (thus giving Greg a little more freedom).

tucsoncoyote

01-06-2005, 10:34 PM

They did take a chance with Gargoyles, but come third season they messed up. Now while Gargoyles wasn't in the same level of popularity as Power Ranger, it was good enought to where it was a hit.

They wanted it to compete with Power Rangers, and draw in more kids. What they should have done was put it in prime time on the Disney Channel, and make it into a family show (thus giving Greg a little more freedom).I have to agree with you here Anityonder, after all Gargoyles could have been such a major Impact, and in fact right now it's funny that Disney hasn't even reconsidered such a move as "Bringing back Gargoyles" and restoring the show (and removing the mess up in Season 3..) The same idea could be held true of Kim Possible right now, and in fact It would be interesting to see a show Like Kim Possible, or Even American Dragon, Jake Long, Ending up on prime time (or as part of a block..

but yes, Disney's played it safe, way too long.. it's time to "take a chance' and "Dive In" at putting out a "Primetime Animation that will appeal to the family in general.. Both Kim Possible and American Dragon Jake Long, could be viable Candidates, as well as W.i.t.c.h. but until Disney gets away from it's "Tennybopper" image, it's not going to happen.

:coyote: