<<Based on what you've read today, are you now willing to give the "Disney Fairies" franchise a try? Or are you still bothered that Disney Consumer Products plucked a key character out of the world of "Peter Pan" so that they could then use Tinkerbell as the leaping-off point for a brand-new line of toys, books and apparel?>>

I'm bothered that the the value of entertainment and story still means squat in Disney culture.  This is nothing more than a marketing effort to shove more Tink plush into the arms of girls ages four to ten.   This is the same vaccuous marketing stragegy that gave the world a bunch of animated Bratz direct-to-video DVDs.  

But Jim, while I respect your level of criticism, I am confused that you seem to be coming down hard on John Lassiter (who has a rep of valuing story and quality animation), while at the same time you're pulling for more direct-to-video trash and saying give this faries nonsense a chance.  What gives?  

More retreads of material that should be left alone.  

Childrens stories began with "Once upon a time..." and ended with "...And they lived happily ever after".  This denotes the story is finished and the listener/viewer may imagine what happens next to the character.  Instead Disney has decided to ruin childrens imagination, and supplant a financial attachment.

This is wrong!

Three words:

GAY DAYS HEAVEN!

(No REALLY, what kind of Fairy are you?... the tee-shirt sells itslef)

On Disney's website, I read the first chapters of "Fairy Dust and the Quest for the Egg".  I liked it so much I got the book.  I'm shuddering to hear what Tink sounds like (apparently she sounds like Brittany Murphy).  I'm very upset that TTM is being outsourced to India.  Why does Disney even have their own animators?  They should just fire them, huh?  (kidding, duh).  But, I think it's so stupid for an ANIMATION company to outsource their ANIMATION. That makes me think that they just make their product for the money (Walt loved what he did and wouldn't make anything just to sell it).  Enough negativity, though.  Depending on which context I look at it in, the Fairy line seems good or bad.  I mean, I have the book, so I don't think it's that bad of an idea.  These fairies are independent women for the children's set.  If TTM does well, I'm wondering what other characters they'll take out of movies and give their own line.  Jiminy Cricket?  Timothy Mouse?  B.E.N.?  Who knows where it'll end.  Will Flora, Fauna, Merriweather, or even Maleficient make some appearances in the Fairy line?  Will Oswald have fun with the other Bunnies?  
The idea of a prestory for the Dwarfs sounds interesting.  If that is made, Disney doesn't know what's coming to them.  Of course, parents will still buy it for their kids, but I predict a backlash like Disney's never seen.  That Dopey storyline sounds really interesting.  I'm excited to see all these new lines to come.  And, hasn't the Mermaids line already been done..."The Little Mermaid" TV show?  And, I know that Disney Heroes merchandise is out there...why aren't they expanding that line?  The one Disney Princess DVD I rented was quite awful overall, so it'd be more of that type of content, but I'm surprised they have only made action figures and Halloween costumes out of this line.  

Some things just happen naturally in the course of creating engaging and interesting new films and characters. Others are contrived efforts by "Marketing Departments" and "Consumer Products Divisions."

Disney used to rely solely on the former, which is why the Princess brand took off (mostly on its own, I might add). This was a set of core characters that children were already in love with, because they had seen them in classic Disney animated features. Who the heck knows who Rani or Lily is? Who cares?

Disney should stop wasting time trying to invent brands and instead get their Marketing Department to figure out a way to get some damn Little Einsteins merchandise in the stores! This is one of their most successful Disney Channel franchises in history and I can't even get a stupid Annie plush doll!!

Four weeks before any of their other flops hit the theaters I had plush dolls falling out of the sky ... anyone wonder whatever happened to all the Treasure Planet plush they made?? I've got playsets for every conceiveable set of characters under the sun, but no Rocket, Leo, Quincy, Annie, and June one???

Please ... Iger is doing some things 100% on target, but they need to get the Consumer Products division back in line with the rest of his business plan.

The suits will destroy it all.

So what do I honestly think of all this?  One word, "GAK!"

((which is the sound you make when you start choking on your own vomit))

It just sounds all so "Masters of the Universe" to me. But with higher quality, which isn't hard. It seems like Consumer Products is taking over the company. Will they be dictating theme park attractions next, or have they already started?

My name is Andrew Hartman and I am a Peter Pan historian and owner of PeterPanFan.com.

Originally when I heard about the Disney Fairies storyline, I was extremely upset - and hearing this news has affirmed those feelings.

Peter Pan is one of the most treasured and famous stories in literature.  J.M. Barrie continuously revised the story and many versions of it exist by the author in form of stage play, screenplay, novel, and survived original notes.  He spent years on the story.

When he died, he left the copyright to the Great Ormond Street Hospital in London.  Ever since his death (and even before), royalties from anyone wishing to do film, stage, or book incarnations of Peter Pan had to give money to the hospital for royalties.  Brilliant idea.  And the hospital has excelled to become a leader in children's care.

Other Peter Pan historians might be beefed that the hospital isn't being paid royalties for the Disney Fairies line, or more specifically, the Tinker Bell Movie and Return To Neverland (2002).

Although this does upset me dearly, I am also frightened as to how the Tinker Bell character is being treated.  I don't think Barrie ever intended for the pixie to become a sex symbol.  He described her as a "white ball of light" that darts around the room.  Disney was the one who gave her large hips, a short skirt, and breasts.  Because of Disney (and I know this wasn't their intention), the character has inspired an adult fantasy equivilant.

I actually am very open to artistic interpretation and revisioning.  However, if Disney is commissioning a Tinker Bell movie to specifically promote a Disney Fairies merchandise line, they are SICK.  A film should be created because there is a story to be told.  Disney doesn't care about the story - they just want to create a film that people will come to see.  A film that little girls will watch and when they see the fairies will make funny jokes and there will be some sort of pop song and all the girls in the audience will fall in love with it then when they go to the Disney store they'll get the costumes and dolls and books and other t(r)inkets.  Who is anyone to take Barrie's characters and change them?  Further develop them?  Write new adventures for them?

Disney is not alone.  Fox has done this (Peter Pan & the Pirates - 1991).  Jim Hart has done this (Hook - 1991).  And others have written novels and such.

Do I 100% disapprove?  No, I do not.  What I do feel strongly about is Disney's intentions on making the film and even the franchise.  They only want money (of course!).

Whatever happened to art?  Why not create something new?  It's a gamble, yes.  But at least you're getting authors who have a desire for a story to be told.  Not authors who are commissioned to take pre-existing characters written by someone else and then make a story that is compelling to girls between the ages of 6 and 12.

Disney's company is based off of an original character - a mouse - who has become internationally famous.  Now Walt was a visionary.  He adapted Snow White, Pinocchio, Peter Pan, Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, and many other fables into animated films.  Good for him.  He was a great storyteller.  A genius.  If he were alive today to witness how his company is being run... - well - I don't think the man would have let things get like this.  He had integrity.  He got permission from most authors (some stories didn't need rights approval) for film incarnations of their stories.  He got permission from GOSH to do Peter Pan.  And he worked with the author of MARY POPPINS on that film.  If Walt wanted to do a POPPINS sequel, he would work with the author again.  Now, if Walt were alive and P.L. Travers had died, do you think he would go ahead with a sequel if he bever got permission?  I certainly don't think so.  Again, I am one to believe he was a man of integrity and respect.

Yes yes yes, I've been rambling.  The point is Disney's reasoning to make the Tinker Bell Movie is wrong.  In the end, if the film is great and gets a theatrical release and goes on to win the Oscar, it doesn't matter.  The screenwriters are pulling this out of their asses.  The intentions are wrong.

At least Jim Hart had something to say.  He had the idea "What if Peter Pan grew up?"  And he was motivated to write a story about it.  The story became a book and a movie.  He's even writing a series of novels about the character Captain Hook before he encountered Peter Pan.  Do I approve?  Not entirely.  But at LEAST he is doing it because he has an artistic vision.  He has a story he wants to be told.  He isn't doing it because a billion dollar company is paying him thousands of dollars to create SOMETHING - ANYTHING - that little girls will fall in love with so it'll make them another $3 billion a year.

Be creative.  Be original.  Be a visionary.

I think it's going to be an incredibly popular and profitable franchise. And there is just no stopping the merchandising machine at Disney. It's gonna happen, folks. All we can hope for is that the product lines will contain quality ingredients. Myself, I have no problem with Disney developing a backstory for Tinkerbell and creating new fairy characters. At least it's not "Peter Pan III" - another lame sequel off a Disney classic. At least it's not Disney telling the same story only not as effectively (as per the cheapquels). And Disney tapped an accomplished author to pen the Fairies series, so there is some indication that quality will be included in the merchandising blitz to come. Remember that Disney is competing with some high-profile companies these days - Nickelodeon and its schlocky toons (Fairly Oddparents, yeuchh) among them - and why shouldn't it draw from its rich heritage in order to win that competition? Better that than acquiring a new property (Muppets, Power Rangers) that has nothing to do with the Disney legacy. So bring on the Fairies. At least they have a bit of the Disney magic.

PingBack from http://www.disneyvacation4less.com/?p=59

PingBack from http://nh.belamesa.com/bellboy/blog/?p=155

Come to find out all the dwarfs are in a minimum security halfway house. They all wear enchanted ankle braclets to make sure they only march between the cottage and the diamond mine - the mines they work to repay their debts to society.

Doc - his constant stuttering and malaprops caused the death of one of his patients. Rather than face a drawn out malpractise trial, he pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter.

Happy - sold marijuana at schools where his height worked to his advantage. Always happy from the weed, but also constant munchies.

Sleepy - his narcolepsy indirectly caused the death of a cocktail watress.

Sneezy - a victim of volunteering for medical research, threatened a nurse at pick ax point when side effects ruined his life.

Bashful - a misunderstood victim of rosacea, Bashful threatens to kill classmates after contiinuous taunting.

Grumpy - he's a curmudgeon - what more do you need?

Dopey - to work in a cameo for the possible sequal "Disney's Puppets" we learn Dopey was Gepetto's first "real boy."

I, too, am confused about your interests.  Pixar constantly gets the back of your hand here, and this crap is important enough to waste hours writing and laying out on the page?  Is this just a Disney owned site or what?  I'm confused.  Even Disney seems excited about Lassetter.  I don't get it.

And, no.  I don't think that this creepy new Fairies thing is worth talking about.  I don't have a daughter, but if I did I'd try to limit her access to this kind of crap.

My $0.02, adjusted for inflation (oh, and Pan Fan?--Notice what makes your post different from everyone else's?...):
- Disney wants a piece of Barbie Fairytopia.  (Just like "Barbie in Swan Lake" wanted a piece of Disney's Princesses.)
- Gail Carson Levine wants "fantasy respectability" on her resume', to beef up the Newbery Honor she won for writing "Ella Enchanted", one of the snottiest and asinine Shrek-esque fairytale-snubs ever written.  (And yes, I'm talking about the book, not that hideous name-only movie mutation.)

My opinion:  Harmless and well-meaning maybe--and it's not like Disney hasn't pumped out paperback book/marketing/magazine franchises before (anyone remember "Disney Girls"?...No?) but leave Tink out of this.  If Disney wants to do generic fairies, there's nothing that stops them, except for the brandname identification that Disney wants to use to make it look like it was *their* idea and not Mattel's.
And yes, Gail writes in a few passing obligatory "Tink had had her heart broken once before..." Barrie nods in FD&QfE, but "our" Tink shouldn't quite so nice as to be a Neo-Barbie Smart Empowered Girl's Role Model--That just ain't fairy, and it sure as heck ain't Tink....Gail, you silly ass.  ^_^

Does Disney really want 2 fairy group franchises? Ok, so WITCH is part of the magical/totally spy girl genre coming out of Japan and Europe... but I think it's better to keep Tink as a solo character.

Gotta say, as much as I like Gargoyles, this CP approach makes me quite relieved that they haven't touched it.

Well, Disney doesn't *have* 2 fairy franchises--They don't own WITCH, they just show it.  (Ditto with Baby Einstein, WDWacky.)

As for getting all bent out of shape about the movie, guys, it's JUST the ritual February school-vacation Marketing-Ploy slot, an annual tradition we're all used to by now--It'll probably make more money than "Teacher's Pet" and not as much as "Piglet's Big Movie", and probably fool a few suckers into thinking it's "Return to Neverland" because, ooh, look, it's an iconic character...
As for Disney trying to market Bunnies and Dwarves, take that as Thursday-morning pre-release Hubris ("We've got our sequel ready!") which tends to fade with the second-week grosses, and as for Jim pinning this one on Lasseter...uh, Jim, didn't *you* just tell us John's hands were corporately tied off of this one, because they thought he WOULD shut it down?  Seem to remember.
(There--That should take care of everybody.)

Um, Disney does own W.I.T.C.H.  It was created by Disney Italia, the branch formed to handle Disney's publishing interests (mainly comic books) in Italy.  (Disney doesn't own all of their comic book providers/publishers.  They don't own  the giant Egmont in Denmark, for instance.  But they do own Disney Italia)

And Disney does own Baby Einstein (and Young Einsteins),  They didn't just partner with Baby Einstein to market videos and make TV shows -- they bought Baby Einstein lock, stock and barrel.

Why do I now have this sneaking suspicion that Disney will eventually wrestle control away from Lasseter and turn DFA into a factory that churns out sequels based on market projections and focus groups? Yet again, Disney is drifting away from Walt's simple idea of providing family entertainment for all families into a multi-national billion-dollar conglomerate? Oh yeah, someday it'll be that Dow Chemical, DuPont, Pfizer, and countless other conglomerates will look up to Disney's mastery of the art of "do everything, but nothing well." Krusty the Klown was right: Tiajuana is the Happiest Place on Earth. Disneyland is just the most expensive.

So I just have to wonder how long it'll take until  CP's scraped the bottom of the barrel and ends up pitching "Disney Executives"? :P

That logo holds an eerie resemblance to something Aaron and I designed on our computer a few of years back… only our property didn't have any of the "issues" people are adressing in the comments here.

I was really glad to hear about Disney Fairies originally because I love Tink and the other Disney fairies. I was disappointed when I found out that Flora, Fauna, Merryweather, the Blue Fairy, and others weren't going to be a part of the series, and that they were making up new fairies to hang out with Tink. But the fairy series has to be better than all this princess garbage. I originally thought that was cute until it took over the world. Fairies are obnoxious, outspoken, independent, and in charge. I like that. It's a better role model for little girls than the princesses, most of whom are princesses only because they married a prince. Maybe the fairies will teach girls how to be independent and think for themselves and not define themselves by a man. Or maybe I am hoping for too much.

Hey Tomoyo,

I currently have some lovely "Monkey Exec" merchandise on the market. I think the thong is a particularly fashionable choice as we head into summer.

http://www.cafepress.com/pencilpete

Ponsony Britt–
You forgot the banana hammock.

I find it tough to come down on Disney Fairies, considering my six year-old is MADLY in love with the franchise. She knows the characters and their personalities, her 6th birthday was themed to them and was a beautiful event and smash success with all her friends, and she's just really cute as a fairy. And by the way, she's reading real books at 6. That's a good thing.

I will say I'm a little disappointed that they've felt the need to reinvent Tink to use her as the lead in to this new franchise. Of course I'd rather it were entirely original, but it's unfair to say it's nothing more than a cheap spinoff. Disney is guilty of a number of cheap spinoffs, but this one has thought and character to it. Frasier was certainly more than a cheap spin off of Cheers. There was a new tone, a new setting, a new set of characters, and a whole new sort of story. The same can be said for the Disney Fairies, at least so far.

In many cases, I think Disney Merchandising can be a source of ideas like any other resource in the company, as long as they don't keep hold of the reins. The trick will be to make it quality, and it's possible. The idea of releasing The Tinkerbell Movie straight to video is a BAD idea. It sends the message to the animation staff (let alone the audience) that it only has to be so good, because it's only about the money.

Well of course it's about the money, but so was every classic film to an extent. That's no reason not to make yourself stretch to great artistic achievement. Again, Disney Fairies has the potential to become something compelling and deserving of the money it will make, if only Disney Animation would take the challenge on to write and produce the film themselves, and do it to blockbuster theatrical standards instead of an extended-length Saturday morning cartoon.

I still hold hope that the new management has that potential and intent. Even if it isn't realized in the Tinkerbell Movie, it may yet occur. Considering how the faces have changed, I think the regulars on this discussion board are a little too quick to believe it's nothing more than Eisner's style of business as usual, or I might say, flash-back to it, like a shell-shocked veteran, and who can blame you. But you're Disney fans - it's not worth worrying whether it seems naive to wish upon a star and have a little faith.

Oh, almost forget to mention: blackcauldron85, there's an episode of Family Guy where, I believe, Tink is voiced by Jennifer Tilly. Even better, Tink is drunk. After watching that, I cannot imagine Tink as being voiced by anyone else than Tilly after a few cocktails. My God, it's just like Britney Spears became a mythical creature!

(...Wow, Saturday Night Live's never done THAT before!)  ^_^

It seems to me that Disney didn't really need this new "Fairies brand," as they've already got five very marketable fairies. Anyone remember the W.I.T.C.H. girls? DCP really should have handled the marketing of that franchise better. Look at the way it's blossomed over in Europe and the Philipines. What I find most interesting is that the illustrator used for the Fairies books is the same one they hired for the W.I.T.C.H. comics (David Chistiana).

It seems to me that Disney didn't really need this new "Fairies brand," as they've already got five very marketable fairies. Anyone remember the W.I.T.C.H. girls? DCP really should have handled the marketing of that franchise better. Look at the way it's blossomed over in Europe and the Philipines. What I find most interesting is that the illustrator used for the Fairies books is the same one they hired for the W.I.T.C.H. comics (David Chistiana).

I am glad to see something new and original for a change. Having two girls and visiting WDW several times a year I'm kind of sick of the cheap crap princess merchandise that has been everywhere for years. Don't get me wrong I love Snow White, but what is she doing on a pink t-shirt with four other princesses? That whole concept seemed like a cheap sell out right from the start. I love the whole fairy idea. It's fresh, original, and finally something different for a change. This company was built on creativity and innovation - let's see where it goes.

I too am not crazy about the whole "franchise" idea - what next "Disney Villans" - do I really want to know why Malificent became so evil? Do I really want to know why the evil step-mother was so mean? Well you get the drift... Unfortunately, DCP isn't working directly with WDFA and plans their own direction, which is a shame, since these are the bean-counters that want to milk every character for what it is worth. Apparently "fresh" ideas don't work for these guys. But then again, it is called show "business" for a reason.

[QUOTE]What next "Disney Villans" - do I really want to know why Malificent became so evil? Do I really want to know why the evil step-mother was so mean?[/QUOTE]

I hate to tell you this, but Disney has already gone down this path. They have a series of books out called "My Side of the Story" that tells the classic fairytales from the protagonist point of view and then you flip the book over and it tells it from the antagonists point of view. For example, my DD has the Sleeping Beauty one (I didn't buy it for her, just FYI and I do NOT like it) and the first half tells the story from a somewhat altered (and fairly bratty) Aurora's point of view. The other half tells the story from Maleficent's point of view.

It's really a disgrace ...

Gotta say, I love the "My Side of the Story" books - I think they're funny. And I don't mind getting backstory on The Villians, as long as the backstory is good, is true to the original tale, and enriches rather than alters the original tale. Again, it's more about quality than the source of the idea, to me.

Some here are wondering why Disney isn't pushing "W.I.T.C.H." instead of Tink and the gang. My answer: Because "W.I.T.C.H" is one of the least interesting shows ever. It's like an occult version of "Sailor Moon" for crying out loud. The characters lack charm. The premise is uninvolving. The show can't hold a candle to Tinkerbell and her enchanted corner of Neverland IMO. That's where the real Disney magic is. JMHO.

I would love to see what John Lassiter could do with the backstory to the Dwarves in Snow White. I have a lot of confidence in Lassiter. I think he is going to turn things around at Disney Animation top to bottom. It will take time, but in the end quality will again be the watchword for Disney. If he and Steve Jobs (another quality fanatic) trust Iger, than I do too.

The Disney Fairies character designs are as close to a child's verion of Elfquest dolls as we're likely to see this decade. I don't have a problem with my daughter liking them when she's old enough.

Justification of LIGHT MAGIC?  Too little too late?  Gack.  Another spinoff...thank goodness John Lassester has already stated that (wtih Pixar, at least) there are to be no sequels.  

Ya can't top pigs with pigs, as the saying goes.

After reading a few negatives about the new Tink line, I have to give my own opinion - sometimes the ending of a story, is the ending - but lets face it, in today's world of not so cute cartoons, I think bringing back something as delightful as Disney Fairies is a must!!! I couldn't be happier watching my four year old run around the house on her 4th birthday, a few weeks back with her new Tinkerbell Lantern and her new fairy dolls... They are cute, inspiring and have morals on the DVDs stories... Frankly I don't care if it is breaking some tradition if it gives our children something from our lost world of cute cartoons that meant something - it's about time that they create something as fabulous as Disney Fairies - the world today is sparked by magical movies, why shouldn't Disney cash in on it and make (hopefully) more then one movie for my children to grow up with... I love the idea, the concept and all the toys - Santa will be sure to be bringing more as the toys filter from birthday party to birthday party from this past summer till my daughters own party... The magic still hasn't warn off and with any luck it won't wear off anytime soon! Best Wishes Disney and Thank You!

PingBack from http://hipspoem.toocoolnet.com/index.php/9/wwwmyspacecomcityhippie/

Iwould just like to say that i know the guy who supervised the animation on W.I.T.C.H.

That is all.

+ I'm 19 and I like the disney fairies, though i think some of the artwork seems a little...UGH.  They're pretty and cute and i'd rather have them on a shirt than a badly drawn disney princess (have you noticed how OFF MODEL some of the shirts are? wow.)

i find the idea of disney dwarves, um, just odd. While dopey is a popular character, who would this be marketed for? anyone over the age of three is not going to be fascinated about a story about grumpy. or dopey. or doc.  

its BEcUsE i don't know the story of fira and rani and the like that make them more interesting than the other franchises.

...except for snow white.  She rules all.