Toon Zone Talkback - "Tinker Bell:" The Girls Will Love It, The Boys May Not Admit It

[Mandouga]

This is the talkback thread for "Tinker Bell:" The Girls Will Love It, The Boys May Not Admit It (http://news.toonzone.net/article.php?ID=26819).
http://news.toonzone.net/images/2008-10/TinkerBell/splash-tinkerbell2-lg.jpg

I really wanted to watch this movie. However, the DVD contains a music video by "Disney Channel's Selena Gomez". In other words, this DVD release is essentially another glorified advertisment for:

-Selena Gomez, an up and coming musical talent who stars in...

-Wizards of Waverly Place, another third-rate "original" series which airs on...

-The Disney Channel in its current configuration

Now, don't get me wrong. I really, really, REALLY wanted to watch this MOVIE, but if I were to buy this RELEASE of the DVD (which includes by extension, the Blu-Ray release), I would be saying--with my wallet--that I watch Wizards (which I don't because it's another shallow, superficial, style-over-substance sitcom), that I support (The) Disney Channel (and by extension Radio Disney) the way it is now (which I don't, though I do watch the preschool series Bunnytown) and/or that I'm a fan of Selena Gomez (which I can't be for various other reasons that I can't discuss here).

Now, I know what some of you are going to say:

-"Nobody's forcing you to watch the video"

-"It doesn't overshadow the rest of the DVD"

-"The video is part of Disney history"

Actually it does overshadow the entire DVD because it contains a spur-of-the-moment tie-in to a CURRENT third-rate TV production starring a CURRENT "up and coming" music talent (the aforementioned Selena Gomez) that is CURRENTLY airing on The Disney Channel in its CURRENT configuration, and thus will eventually become out of date; something that is unbecoming of the Disney name and legacy (which is in fact for another topic).

Suffice it to say, it's also not about being "forced", it's the principle of the matter. Additionally, this short-term advertising completely compromises the long-term value of this, the first DVD edition of the movie. A Disney movie (direct-to-video or not) on any home video format is something that you want to have in your library for generations to come; something you can share with your descendants who can share it with theirs, etc, etc, etc. However, this DVD release is not it, and they know it. When the short-term value is more than its long-term value, it's not really worth having. They didn't have to put any music video on it at all, and that would have been fine by me.

With that out of the way, I would now like to say that it is my hope that the WALL-E DVD doesn't have these same "hidden catches".

[Radical Raven]

sooo... has anyone without such high principles (and whos not Mr. Liu) actually seen the movie? I was certain it was going to be garbage' I was especially worried about them bastardizing Tinkerbell's character; but the review makes it seem as if the film is true to it's source.

[Ed Liu]

I really wanted to watch this movie. However, the DVD contains a music video by "Disney Channel's Selena Gomez". In other words, this DVD release is essentially another glorified advertisment for:

No, it really isn't. Selena Gomez sings the closing theme song, so if the music video is a glorified advertisement for anything, it's a glorified advertisement for the movie. Nobody anywhere on the disc ever mentions Wizards of Whatever, and until you mentioned it, I didn't even know who she was, though I guessed she was one of Disney's teen stars.

America Ferrera voices Fawn, and Raven-Symone voices Iridessa in the movie. They both do fine jobs at it. Their involvement on this movie is a lot more than Selena Gomez. Does that mean that Tinker Bell is really an ad for Ugly Betty on ABC or whatever show Raven is on these days? Disney didn't HAVE to cast stars from their other shows for these roles, after all. Mae Whitman voices Tinker Bell. Does that mean Tinker Bell is really an ad for Nickelodeon's Avatar the Last Airbender?

These are all rhetorical questions. The answer to all of the above is NO.

It also amazes me that you can dismiss the entire movie on the basis of one music video when THE ENTIRE THING from square one is a glorified advertisement for the Disney Fairies franchise. It's one that happens to be a very good movie, but make no mistake -- the purpose of this DVD is to sell toys, clothing, books, merchandise, and theme park visits. Slam Disney for being excessively commercial if you must -- such criticism is perfectly valid -- but you're zeroing in on a complete fabrication and totally ignoring the gigantic white elephant in the room.

Dismiss the movie if you want to, but have a better reason to do it than a music video. And, if this offends you so much, the movie will air on the Disney Channel, minus music video, on November 30 (http://news.toonzone.net/article.php?ID=26677), if you can bring yourself to watch it.

-- Ed

[Darklordavaitor]

Mae Whitman voices Tinker Bell. Does that mean Tinker Bell is really an ad for Nickelodeon's Avatar the Last Airbender?

To be fair, you could say that Tinker Bell is an ad for American Dragon: Jake Long, since Mae also voices Rose.

But I digress; this movie actually sounds interesting and something I'd like to see, but not something I'd like to walk out of the store with. Once Disney airs it I'll give it a watch but I'm not getting caught with a Tinker Bell DVD in my hands, especially when I'm buying The Powerpuff Girls' set in a few months.

[RonDrakenfan17]

Is this a series or some thing? I thought it was going to be a bunch of Tinker Bell sequals :confused:

[judyindisguise]

I'd really prefer Tink animated in 2D; CGI loses too much of her spunk and fire. Plus...the storyline of this DVD has already turned me off. Do the little fairies HAVE to flit around putting dewdrops on daffodills? How boring is that? I'd be much more interested in an, um, more militant Tinker Bell, like maybe she and her fairy pals have to defend their turf from evil little gnomes, or something. Yeah, I know this series is for little girls, but that's the kind of thing I'd have liked when I was a little girl. And anyway, the storyline's hardly original. Dewdrops on daffodills have been done, man. :p

[Plo_Koon]

I dont want to see it. It seems realy stupid and changed the personality of tinker bell.

[Blackstar]

It's looks cute. I won't be buying the DVD, but as a 39-year-old cranky male, Disney doesn't care if I see it or not.

As long as girls aged 6-11 go to see Tinker Bell, and they want to buy the merchandise, that's all that matters.

[PC!]

Now, don't get me wrong. I really, really, REALLY wanted to watch this MOVIE, but if I were to buy this RELEASE of the DVD (which includes by extension, the Blu-Ray release), I would be saying--with my wallet--that I watch Wizards (which I don't because it's another shallow, superficial, style-over-substance sitcom), that I support (The) Disney Channel (and by extension Radio Disney) the way it is now (which I don't, though I do watch the preschool series Bunnytown) and/or that I'm a fan of Selena Gomez (which I can't be for various other reasons that I can't discuss here).

Buy it with cash. No paper trail. The only one that needs to know you purchased it is you and the cashier.

As unmanly as it makes me feel...I kind of want to see this movie for some reason. >_>

[Ed Liu]

But I digress; this movie actually sounds interesting and something I'd like to see, but not something I'd like to walk out of the store with. Once Disney airs it I'll give it a watch but I'm not getting caught with a Tinker Bell DVD in my hands, especially when I'm buying The Powerpuff Girls' set in a few months.


It's looks cute. I won't be buying the DVD, but as a 39-year-old cranky male, Disney doesn't care if I see it or not.


As unmanly as it makes me feel...I kind of want to see this movie for some reason. >_>

I'd like to thank you all for proving the title of my review is at least partially right :D.


I'd really prefer Tink animated in 2D; CGI loses too much of her spunk and fire. Plus...the storyline of this DVD has already turned me off. Do the little fairies HAVE to flit around putting dewdrops on daffodills? How boring is that? I'd be much more interested in an, um, more militant Tinker Bell, like maybe she and her fairy pals have to defend their turf from evil little gnomes, or something. Yeah, I know this series is for little girls, but that's the kind of thing I'd have liked when I was a little girl. And anyway, the storyline's hardly original. Dewdrops on daffodills have been done, man. :p

To be honest, I don't think Tinker Bell really IS for little girls. "Disney Fairies" is, but I think Tinker Bell is about as accessible to all ages and all genders as The Little Mermaid or the original Cinderella (and, had I thought of it at the time, that observation would have made it in somewhere near the top of the review). It's got a girl lead and the demographic they were aiming for is definitely the younger set, but that doesn't mean that boys or adults of either gender won't enjoy it.

The dewdrops on daffodils thing is also the setting. They don't spend much time actually DOING it in the movie, any more than the ants spend much time gathering food in A Bug's Life. The bits when they do bring spring to London are also pretty awesome eye candy.

However, judging by the trailer, the second movie may also be more your speed. There's a bit in the trailer when she stumbles on the weathered skeleton of what I'm going to guess is a pirate ship (http://news.toonzone.net/images/2008-10/TinkerBell/LostTreasure.jpg) (hey, it's Neverland -- who else could it be?), and the whole "find the magic stone" thing is a perfect setup for a lot more action and adventure than what we get here.

In any event, you can all see for yourselves when the movie airs in about a month on the Disney Channel, assuming you have cable.

-- Ed

[Mandouga]

To be honest, I was wondering if there would be a TV airing in the near future. I did say that I wanted to watch the movie; one part that intrigues me is the part that talks about "staying true to yourself", especially in relation to where the company is in its existance now (long story). Also, I pretty much figured that the TV airing wouldn't include the music video. :)

Anyhow, my views have nothing to do with Ugly Betty, Jake Long, or anything else, just the star of one of Disney's third-rate sitcoms (and by extension, the sitcom itself, and the channel it airs on), and the bonus feature in question, nothing else. Those are the only variables here.

[Ed Liu]

Anyhow, my views have nothing to do with Ugly Betty, Jake Long, or anything else, just the star of one of Disney's third-rate sitcoms (and by extension, the sitcom itself, and the channel it airs on), and the bonus feature in question, nothing else. Those are the only variables here.

I'm sorry, but I still don't grasp your objection to this specific thing. If your objection is to Selena Gomez specifically, she is a permanent part of this movie because she sings the closing theme song over the end credits. If your objection is to the Disney Channel, I don't see how you're going to watch the movie on the Disney Channel without sending an even stronger signal that you support them and their programming than you would by buying the DVD. I can almost understand an objection to a video of the teen-dream of the hour covering a classic Disney song, but I don't see how that applies here when she's the one who sings the original. It seems like you've constructed this elaborate rationale for why you can't watch the movie, but it completely falls apart under any kind of logical scrutiny.

For what it's worth, I think you can watch this movie even with most of your objections by buying it from iTunes. That way, you just get the movie with no trailers (more advertising for current-era products that will make a DVD dated in a matter of months) and no music video, and it will be a digital file in a format that I think will be playable for at least as long as the DVD will. Selena Gomez will be singing the end credit song, though, so you're still supporting her career with whatever tiny bit she gets of the $10 you pay for the movie.

-- Ed

[rattis1]

You know, the review of this film coupled with some of the comments in this thread gets me thinking; is the Disney company, from a creative point of view, in good or bad shape at the moment? I mean, if you look at the company as whole, taking in account the Disney Channel shows, the feature films, the direct-to-DVD films, the Pixar films (although you probably should'nt count stuff that's owned by Disney but dont carrey the Disney label, like Touchstone films). On one hand, people seem to pretty much agree that Disney channel is spending way to much time and money on superficial tween-sitcoms. But on the other hand, Pixars films consistantly get amzing reviews, and John Lasseters personal interest in Disneys direct-to-DVD films seem to make sure that they tend to have atleast some degree quality. As for Disneys own theatrical films... well there seem to be some mixed opinions about them, particularly the animated "canonical" ones. What do you guys think?

[tb4000]

I honestly think this could have made some decent money being released in Novemeber to theatres as opposed to Bolt.

[Luna]

I just watched the film....

I liked it alot,actually,despite not being part of the "target audience" (seeing that I'm a 29 year old female,not 6-11)....The animation is amazing (I ended up with the DVD,though I may end up getting the Blu-Ray at some point,since I enjoyed it so much),and the storyline was interesting (about how the newly "born" Tinker Bell finds her place in Pixie Hollow),and I liked the reference to the original Peter Pan at the end of the film...
Though when I first heard about it,I was against Tinker Bell talking,I actually ended up liking her voice (Mae Whitman,who also voiced Yuffie in Kingdom Hearts 2)....I also recognized some of the other VAs (King of the Hill's Pamela Aldon and Kathy Najimy are in this,as well as Jesse McCartney,who also voiced Kingdom Hearts 2's Roxas)....

[Blackstar]

(Mae Whitman,who also voiced Yuffie in Kingdom Hearts 2)

...And also Little Suzy from Johnny Bravo and Katara from Avatar: the Last Airbender.

[Luna]

...And also Little Suzy from Johnny Bravo and Katara from Avatar: the Last Airbender.I haven't watched much of either (No offense,I've just never been a big Johnny Bravo fan,and I don't really watch Nickelodeon)....The only animated works I've heard her in prior to this are Kingdom Hearts 2 and The Jungle Book 2 (where she voices the little girl Mowgli left the jungle for)...

[Eric Brown]

Hey;

Does anyone have an early review on the new "TinkerBell" DVD movie????

[Darklordavaitor]

Ed Liu does. (http://news.toonzone.net/article.php?ID=26819)

[chdr]

You know, from what I've seen, it doesn't look half bad.

[O-chan]

I just finished watching it this morning (I rented it) and I loved it. I agree that hearing Tink talk is a little off-putting at first but as the movie went along it seemed an appropriate choice. To be honest this movie has all the markings of something that DESERVED a theatrical release. It just seemed a little too well-done for something that is direct to DVD. The animation is beautiful and there are some very funny moments (Tink trying to learn the other fairies abilities,especially trying to teach a bird how to fly LOL). Overall I'm going to probably purchase this and Sleeping Beauty when I get the chance.

O-chan

[Silverstar]

I don't get why there's some consternation about Tink talking; first, she's spoken before in other adaptations (Fox's Peter Pan & the Pirates, where Tink was voiced by Debi Derryberry, to name one example) and second, Tinker Bell has always been able to "speak"; it's just before her speech was inaudible to the audience, to us it just sounded like tinkling bells. Did anyone expect her to be mute in Fairyland?

Anyways, as a guy, I'll make one of the title statements half-true and say that what I've seen of this doesn't look too bad. If I'm somewhere in the company of a young girl who happens to be watching this, I'll probably give it a look-see.

[Gokou Ruri]

I don't get why there's some consternation about Tink talking; first, she's spoken before in other adaptations (Fox's Peter Pan & the Pirates, where Tink was voiced by Debi Derryberry, to name one example) and second, Tinker Bell has always been able to "speak"; it's just before her speech was inaudible to the audience, to us it just sounded like tinkling bells. Did anyone expect her to be mute in Fairyland? Agreed. I have no problem believing she can talk to other fairies and magic creatures; it's only humans that don't understand her.

[Polychrome]

The reviewer was right on target with the "IT Department" comparison. It's kinda funny, but it's almost like Tinker Bell is a movie that exists to tell little girls that its okay to be techie geeks.

That beats out princesses in pink anyday.

[Alph]

I just don't get why they have to ditch traditional animation. First Winnie the Pooh and now this. It just hurts me on the inside for some reason.

[Tay the Cat]

I just don't get why they have to ditch traditional animation.
Except that they didn't.

[Alph]

Except that they didn't.


I mean for this movie.


Besides, all that's on the horizan for the indefinite future is "The Frog Princess". May be good, but it's only one movie.

[Eric Brown]

Just finished watching the movie. You know, I had really anticipated the arrival of this movie. It had been promoted for over 2 years, the fairey merchandising preceded the movie by a year (late release - bad timing) and I really enjoy the Tinkerbell character owing to the likeable and simple character design.

However, the movie..........over all, I was disappionted. I really liked the first 10 minutes, as an unrecognizable Tinkerbell was born and introduced to the fairey world. I thought, maybe this was going to be a decent entry. After that, it seemed to turn into a "Barbie" movie. The characters started looking like plastic dolls with the supporting characters designed as though they came from the "Winx Club". As previous threads indicated, the target audience was obviously 6-11 yr old girls.

The movie may have been better if it had been designed to appeal to a broader audience. Maybe the next 2 entries in the series will do just that. PLEASE !!

Also it is interesting to note that this is the first time Disney has used the PRANA ANIMATION Studios in Mumbai (Bombay) India.

THANX

[Mandouga]

Okay, I just finished watching it on The Disney Channel just now, and it's like this:

Briefly, the movie is indeed a reflection of the post-Eisner "damage control" that I've been hearing about. What this means is, this is the kind of movie Walt would have made, but just barely. The writing had its "issues" for lack of a better word, but the important thing here is that the writers tried to make this the best movie it could possibly be. That said, I applaud John Lasetter (sp?) for his major involvement in this production.

A problem I have with some more recent material is that the story just seems to be a medium for illustrating a glorified metaphor for "real life". If this movie (Tinker Bell) is a metaphor for anything, it's a metaphor for the company, and it's more recent history, and where the company is in its existence right now. Although I say "right now", this movie is hardly a spur of the moment. The movie (in my opinion) reflects a major part of the company's history, and that is something that will endure for generations to come...an important characteristic of a Disney movie.

Another problem I have is that some shows and movies focus too much on illustrating a moral; to the point where the story takes a backseat to that. The DVD box mentions "staying true to yourself", which while technically being a moral never intrudes upon telling a story. Rather it is just one part of the story overall...as it's meant to be. Essentially, this is Disney's way of telling the viewers "You know, we have tried to be something different that who we are, and take it from us, it just doesn't work". However, that's just how I see it.

Regarding the "damage control" I mentioned, I understand that this movie had "close to a dozen rewrites", including one version that told a "convoluted" story involving Peter Pan and the Lost Boys, had toilet humor, and portrayed Tinker Bell as a "brat". Watching the final version, there were some parts I felt might have been holdovers from some of those previous versions. While there are a fair few, one that stands out for me is "Tinker" Bell being referred to as a "Tinker" fairy. I'm thinking that might have originally been created in one of those previous scripts as a joke; a pun involving her name (which is sometimes spelled as "Tinkerbell"), and "tinkering" which involves fixing things. Again, I'm really happy that they at least tried to make this movie truly deserving (I think) of the Disney name.

I was just disappointed to discover that:

...this "spinoff" is in fact a prequel; Peter Pan (meaning Disney's interpretation) hasn't happened yet. This was made clear to me by the appearance of a younger version of Wendy.

That being said, despite every thing I've said above, none of it changes the fact that the company is technically "dodging" the issue with the creation of spinoffs (after discontinuing the creation of sequels). As well written and well produced as Tinker Bell is, Peter Pan is still a classic Disney movie; a movie that doesn't need a continuation (or a pre-story) of any kind. It defeats the whole purpose of "happily ever after" (as well as the purpose of the established character backgrounds, which are typically minimal and not really the point), but I digress. I still can't buy the DVD of this movie (for the reasons I gave in previous posts on this topic). By watching this on TV however, I was able to watch it on my terms. It's coming on again tomorrow, so I may record this one. For what it's worth, I do plan on somehow watching the upcoming sequel to this movie assuming that the writing will be at least as good as the writing on this movie.

I guess you could say, I liked it.

[Ed Liu]

While there are a fair few, one that stands out for me is "Tinker" Bell being referred to as a "Tinker" fairy. I'm thinking that might have originally been created in one of those previous scripts as a joke; a pun involving her name (which is sometimes spelled as "Tinkerbell"), and "tinkering" which involves fixing things.

That is definitely not a holdover from earlier drafts of the script, unless J.M. Barrie was borrowing from those same drafts when he wrote the original book (http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=785840&pageno=21):


"She is quite a common fairy," Peter explained apologetically, "she is called Tinker Bell because she mends the pots and kettles [tinker = tin worker]."

They actually lifted quite a bit in Tinker Bell from the original Barrie Peter Pan stories.

-- Ed

[Mandouga]

Okay, my mistake. However, there were still other parts of the movie that I still feel were holdovers from those "dozen rewrites" I heard about. For instance, while she isn't really a "brat' per se, there was one part where she did have kind of an attitude, which stemmed from:

...her dissatisfaction from being a "tinker" fairy, and her wanting to do those other things and to go to "the mainland".

In any case, I nonetheless don't think that J.M. Barrie's original Tinker Bell ever tried making wild inventions, and while she "mends the pots and kettles", I've no doubt that she never repaired things like music boxes...or am I mistaken?