Oh yeah? She wasn't in "Hook" if I remember correctly.

Julia Roberts was Tinkerbell in "Hook". Don't remember if she spoke.

She spoke in "Hook".

Yesdog

She did, and she admitted to having the hots for Peter.

/I would have hit it

This is all setup work for Disney's "Fairies" franchise. They're introducing Tinkerbelle's fairy friends in the form of merchandise and videos and assorted other crap. Some of the artwork looks neat, but it's just the latest plot from the merchandising division.

They are already pushing it hard at disneyworld. When we went back in september, Tinkerbell stuff was much more prevalent than when we went in July.

Yeah... About the only way this could piss on my childhood worse is if it showed Pan anally violating Tink with his pinky.

/AND NO I DON'T WANT A GODDAMN 4CHAN LINK

Tink swears like a sailor in the book, but only Peter Pan can understand her.

Tink is a royal biatch in the book.

I'd hit it... with a flyswatter.

They've run out of Brothers Grimm stories to mutilate, and are now turning on their own stories?

Palmer Eldritch: I'd hit it... with a flyswatter.

I'd give it the clap to revive it.

Quick1
I'd give it the clap to revive it.

Yes, let's clap because we believe in fairies, because that above picture makes it quite clear that any man who would tap that could hardly become anything else.

Yesdog: Julia Roberts was Tinkerbell in "Hook". Don't remember if she spoke.

she did.

/would hit them both

Why, O why Disney?

High School Musical 2 and now this???

Does not approve.

Good, got Greenlit.
I know she spoke in Hook but that doesn't count, since it's Amblin and Tristar who did that one (Spielberg).

This is Disney yet again taking something that was established and is a classic, and raping it decades later for their own profit and for you to have to pick up as a new babysitter... simply because they have no ideas or talent anymore and Pixar is the only thing making the animated film division money.

Seeing commercials for Cinderella III two weeks ago set off the "pissing on childhood" views by myself, so upon reading the paper yesterday morning and seeing this I think a blood vessel popped in my head.

Lady and the Tramp II, Fox and the Hound II, Cinderella II and III... reminds me of a Photoshop I made for the "If all films were made by the SoaP guys"

Sony and Spielburg did Hook. And the last full length animated movie that featured a Brothers Grimm fairy tale was Sleeping Beauty in 1959.

Sorry Smiths...didn't refresh.

I find I can deal with any number of cynical cash-in sequels to the movies I loved growing up by simply pretending that they don't exist. The Fox and the Hound was probably my favourite, and it still brings a tear to my eye even now. A single, manly tear, such as might be shed by a burly lumberjack over the felling of a proud and mighty redwood, of course.

It is a shame that Disney have fallen so far from their greatest achievements, though. Their animated movies have been all downhill since Beauty and the Beast.

Smiths, I feel pretty much the same way. However, I can at least see Cinderella III doing some good for today's little girls. The Disney Princess lable is a big one (my boyfriend's neice is just wild about it) and it'll be a nice change for these kids to see one of their favourite characters actually working hard for something, instead of getting what she wants at the wave of a wand.

Brittany Murphy has an excellent voice, it's right that Tinkerbell should be altered accordingly!

/and body
//hit it I would

Wow. I can't spell at all today.

According to Amazon.com page for Cinderella III

Plot Synopsis: The evil stepmother conjures up a spell that reverses all of which the fairy godmother did. Everything that she had made (the dress, the horses and the carriage) which were the reasons why and how Cinderella went to "The Ball". So when all the magic is gone will there be a happily ever after all? What will Cinderella do? Find out in Cinderella III.

Seriously... wtf?

I'm holding out for the Disnification of Les Miserables. I mean, they not only did Hunchback of Notre Dame, they shat out a farking sequel too. Let's see Javert and Jean valjean as singing pigeons or some horrible shiat like that.

Tinkerbell was my first crush growing up. I'll watch this movie.

/then I'll watch it again, alone with myself.

When I worked at WDW, Tinkerbell was a 4'3" horny guy named Kevin. Nothing the studio makes will be any worse than the reality.

"They've run out of Brothers Grimm stories to mutilate, and are now turning on their own stories?"


Peter Pan isn't thier own story.

disney is all crap anyway. the only good movie they ever did was fantasia.

Brittany Murphy? Can't wait for this one.

Tinkerbell is hot.

I'll buy "pissing on your childhood" for the Transformers movie, because that is intended for adults who grew up watching the cartoon. I don't buy that argument for Disney, because the re-tread sequels are intended for little kids. Little kids don't care that the sequel is the exact same story as the original, they just like to see the characters and the jokes they loved in the first movie. That's why the cartoon show spin-offs work, and that's why the cheesy sequels work (see twelve different Land Before Time movies).

Yeah, I'm happier when Disney tries a new idea for a movie, but I don't mind that they grab the low hanging fruit while they develop that new idea, be it a Pixar film or a new character like Stitch. This Tinkerbell thing is somewhere in the middle - an old concept that they're trying to do something new with. But if you don't approve of the new franchise, and you don't approve of re-tread sequels, then don't buy them for your kids, and don't buy them for yourself.

Quick1 [TotalFark]

They've run out of Brothers Grimm stories to mutilate, and are now turning on their own stories?


Nope, it was a JM Barry story, written to benefit an orphanage at the turn fo the century.

My childhood didn't involve Disney movies. I saw Jaws at 3.

Disney started to whore themselves out when Eisner took over and it hasnt stopped yet. I know companies need to make money, but seriously why cant they at least come up with some original stuff and let the classics stay as they are ... classics.

Random Guy: Disney started to whore themselves out when Eisner took over and it hasnt stopped yet.


Hummm..He brought the animation back in the 80's. Remember the "black cauldron", after that disaster he got better talent (the guys that did "little shop of horrors") and made Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Lion King. Then one of the writers died and Eisner become drunk with power and it all crapped..much like he treated his animation department and talent.

Spaztictacular
According to Amazon.com page for Cinderella III

Plot Synopsis: The evil stepmother conjures up a spell that reverses all of which the fairy godmother did. Everything that she had made (the dress, the horses and the carriage) which were the reasons why and how Cinderella went to "The Ball". So when all the magic is gone will there be a happily ever after all? What will Cinderella do? Find out in Cinderella III.

Let me guess...Cinderella must somehow win the heart of the Prince without all the magical help, teaching children that self-confidence and persistence can pay off? Or, perhaps, some other B.S. morality play?

I hope I'm wrong, but if I'm not, fark Disney. There's nothing wrong with letting children believe in magic, or at the very least, that fate can sometimes steer things in your favor.

Conan the Librarian: you win the thread.

Can't the government step in and stop this before it's unleashed on the people, or are we still too busy bringing freedom to Iraq?

2007-02-11 12:28:50 PM daimao


Hahahaha..... I love it!!! That's the first thing I thought of!!!

/Now I bet she's glad Buckley got his wings!!!

50 years without speaking? Where can I find a girl like that?