Disney 51: Winnie the Pooh

Betty Elms · 10-16-2011, 01:02 AM

So there's a new Winnie the Pooh movie which apparently not many people saw because WINNIE THE POOH IS FOR BABIES and also because it's less than an hour long. I just got around to seeing it and I'm curious if anyone else here has. You seem like the sort of folk who dig cartoons. Or at least I hope so, since animation is, like, My Thing.

This is a delightful little movie. Also it's postmodern out the ass, even more so than Many Adventures. Not in a snarky intertextual Dreamworks way, but in that classic Pooh way, what with how they play around with the storybook framing device. It's the sort of unconventionality that's great both for being unconventional and for working perfectly with the piece as a whole. It's all in all a rather charming movie, although beyond the metafictional elements it only rarely tops Many Adventures. Which is fine. Many Adventures is one of the all time best Disney films, but it points toward my problem with John Lasseter.

I know the common narrative amongst animation fans is that John Lasseter has come in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end, but I say bullshit. Thus far all he seems to be is a pretty talented man with a knack for quality control, and not much creative ambition. So far he's overseen the production of four films in the Disney animated canon. The first, Bolt, he removed director Chris Sanders (Lilo and Stitch, How to Train Your Dragon) from for making the project "too quirky for its own good." The second, Princess and the Frog, was a throwback to 1990s Disney. The third, Tangled, was a throwback to 1990s Disney. The fourth, Winnie the Pooh, is a throwback to more Winnie the Pooh.

I've liked almost all of those movies, but I don't look at that and see "creative genius forging a new way for animation." I see somebody who will bring about many good movies, but will make very little artistic progress. He would never have made Fantasia.

(Side note: They butchered Rabbit. I have no idea what zealous, broadly comic, chipper creature skinned Rabbit sometime after 1974 and is now hopping about wearing his pelt, but it's seriously fucked up.)

Seil · 10-16-2011, 01:32 AM

Quote:

So there's a new Winnie the Pooh movie which apparently not many people saw because WINNIE THE POOH IS FOR BABIES and also because it's less than an hour long. I just got around to seeing it and I'm curious if anyone else here has. You seem like the sort of folk who dig cartoons. Or at least I hope so, since animation is, like, My Thing.

*ahem*

While I will admit I hate you forever for your wording - "pelt?" - Winnie the Pooh is kind of totally fucking rad. The new movie doesn't measure up to the old one, for sure - maybe that's pure nostalgia talking, but dammit, Sterling Holloway was grand as Pooh.

Here's the thing: I love Pooh bear. I love all the aminals of the Hundred Acre Wood - the thing is that The Many Adventures Of Winnie The Pooh was a flick for a different age. I love it, but almost all the voice actors have since passed away, the company's under a different head... I can't say that New Pooh hasn't fallen into a Hollywood trap here and there, but we're not looking at it with rose-tinted glasses here. The new actors are suitable replacements, the bits are as clever as ever while still accessible, the music is fantastic.... It's a welcome addition to any library, especailly as a successor, what, thirty (?) years down the road?

Betty Elms · 10-16-2011, 01:38 AM

I agree that Jim Cummings is fantastic. Or at least that he's fantastic as Pooh. His Tigger leaves me a tad uncomfortable.

EDIT: Rabbit has a pelt! Only Pooh, Tigger, Eeyore, Piglet, Kanga and Roo are stuffed toys. Rabbit's a fleshy and furry creature, with a pelt ripe for skinning. And yeah, watching this movie was very strange from a critical perspective. For the life of me I could not figure out how much of it not living up to the original shorts was the result of the fact that those shorts have been a part of my life for as long as I can remember and I love the shit out of them.

Seil · 10-16-2011, 01:41 AM

Edit.

Nique · 10-16-2011, 02:10 AM

This was the most gorgeously animated movie I have seen in years.

As far as John Lasseter - I don't think he's trying to do something new, I just think he's trying to do something right and he's apparently really really good at it.

EDIT: Also this movie raised questions for me about the continuity of the Pooh-verse. Where does 'New Adventures' fit in to all of this?

Seil · 10-16-2011, 03:42 AM

I've accepted that this movie occurs after he learns something called "A," "B," "Cs." (And twice times.)

10-16-2011, 01:02 AM	#1
Betty Elms a little adventure goes a lawn way Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 207	Disney 51: Winnie the Pooh So there's a new Winnie the Pooh movie which apparently not many people saw because WINNIE THE POOH IS FOR BABIES and also because it's less than an hour long. I just got around to seeing it and I'm curious if anyone else here has. You seem like the sort of folk who dig cartoons. Or at least I hope so, since animation is, like, My Thing. This is a delightful little movie. Also it's postmodern out the ass, even more so than Many Adventures. Not in a snarky intertextual Dreamworks way, but in that classic Pooh way, what with how they play around with the storybook framing device. It's the sort of unconventionality that's great both for being unconventional and for working perfectly with the piece as a whole. It's all in all a rather charming movie, although beyond the metafictional elements it only rarely tops Many Adventures. Which is fine. Many Adventures is one of the all time best Disney films, but it points toward my problem with John Lasseter. I know the common narrative amongst animation fans is that John Lasseter has come in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end, but I say bullshit. Thus far all he seems to be is a pretty talented man with a knack for quality control, and not much creative ambition. So far he's overseen the production of four films in the Disney animated canon. The first, Bolt, he removed director Chris Sanders (Lilo and Stitch, How to Train Your Dragon) from for making the project "too quirky for its own good." The second, Princess and the Frog, was a throwback to 1990s Disney. The third, Tangled, was a throwback to 1990s Disney. The fourth, Winnie the Pooh, is a throwback to more Winnie the Pooh. I've liked almost all of those movies, but I don't look at that and see "creative genius forging a new way for animation." I see somebody who will bring about many good movies, but will make very little artistic progress. He would never have made Fantasia. (Side note: They butchered Rabbit. I have no idea what zealous, broadly comic, chipper creature skinned Rabbit sometime after 1974 and is now hopping about wearing his pelt, but it's seriously fucked up.) Last edited by Betty Elms; 10-16-2011 at 01:10 AM.

10-16-2011, 01:38 AM	#3
Betty Elms a little adventure goes a lawn way Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 207	I agree that Jim Cummings is fantastic. Or at least that he's fantastic as Pooh. His Tigger leaves me a tad uncomfortable. EDIT: Rabbit has a pelt! Only Pooh, Tigger, Eeyore, Piglet, Kanga and Roo are stuffed toys. Rabbit's a fleshy and furry creature, with a pelt ripe for skinning. And yeah, watching this movie was very strange from a critical perspective. For the life of me I could not figure out how much of it not living up to the original shorts was the result of the fact that those shorts have been a part of my life for as long as I can remember and I love the shit out of them. Last edited by Betty Elms; 10-16-2011 at 01:53 AM.

10-16-2011, 01:41 AM	#4
Seil Super stressed! Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: British Columbia Posts: 8,081	Edit.

10-16-2011, 03:42 AM	#6
Seil Super stressed! Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: British Columbia Posts: 8,081	I've accepted that this movie occurs after he learns something called "A," "B," "Cs." (And twice times.)