2011 Winnie the Pooh Movie

[Mupp]

I heard he completely turned those around. I really hope this will open him up to possibilities of DTV movies with classic Disney Characters... NOT cheapquels. I'm glad those are gone... but stuff like The Three Mousketeers or whatever that was. That was brilliant, and a perfect way to get Mickey and co in a project that isn't for Preschoolers.

Yup.
John Lasseter reportedly said to Bob Iger that the early version of the Tinker Bell film was "virtually unwatchable."
They even ended up changing the voice of Tinker Bell from Brittany Murphy to Mae Whitman.
...After a huge press event in New York City where they announced that Brittany Murphy would be the voice. So as you can imagine, they made that change very quietly.

On Wikipedia there are a few more details about the production of the film.

I haven't seen the most recent film yet, but I've seen the first two. Really, the stories are well done.

And yes, I really enjoyed the Three Musketeers movie. They really need to get Mickey and crew back on the big screen sometime.

 

[Nick22]

holy excitedforthisnewmovie! i love pooh! and i always have. and this looks like a good, classic pooh movie. but i didn't see rabbit in that trailer. or roo or kanga. they better be in the movie.

 

[Beauregard]

Kanga and roo are in the trailer, for sure! They are seen hopping over a bridge. I vaguely recall seeing Rabbit too, but couldn't say for sure. this thing really DOES look like the most classic adaption so far! I wonder what the storyline will be though! (So happy there are no annoying Gophers here...*shudder*)

 

[Mupp]

Kanga and roo are in the trailer, for sure! They are seen hopping over a bridge. I vaguely recall seeing Rabbit too, but couldn't say for sure. this thing really DOES look like the most classic adaption so far! I wonder what the storyline will be though! (So happy there are no annoying Gophers here...*shudder*)

Yes, Rabbit is in the trailer.

heh, I think part of the reason why Gopher isn't in this film is because he wasen't in the original A.A. Milne stories.
They even make an in-joke about that in Disney's original Pooh film.

 

[Mupp]

I wonder what the storyline will be though!

...As for the story;
It was recently revealed that the film is loosely based on 5 stories from A.A. Milne's original books.

So far its been revealed that the film involves the characters looking for a new tail for Eeyore, and they will also be hunting for a mysterious creature called a Backson.

I'm really wondering how Tom Kenny will sound as Rabbit.

 

[Drtooth]

(So happy there are no annoying Gophers here...*shudder*)

Sssssho you don't like a sssssshmall sssshmackeral of huh-ney?

 

[Beauregard]

Sssssho you don't like a sssssshmall sssshmackeral of huh-ney?

*grosses out*

Anyway, yes, the storyline seems to be based on the hunt for Eeyores tail, and maybe the balloon/bee story, but the trailer or something I read said that it was also a new story that tied them all together. I wonder if it will be something about Christopher Robin playing with toys...something I always LOVED about the books.

 

[Pork]

I am VERY excited about this movie! I'm a big fan of Winnie the Pooh, as written by A A Milne, so I'm glad to see they are getting some (hopefully most) of the story from the original books.

On the topic of CGI and traditional 2D animation. I'm just glad to see another 2D movie! I personally just like the look of it better. There is something magical in traditional 2D animation that I just haven't really seen in a CGI movie yet.

 

[Drtooth]

At the overall athestetic, even the best Pixar CGI's do lack something that 2-D films have in the look department, but it all comes down to quality of script and over all premise. A good CGI movie is better than a bad 2-D film, like I'd definitely see The Incredible over Tom and Jerry the movie. Really, what the heck was up with that Tom and Jerry movie? And people say Yogi's bad...

I've been saying this for years, the CGI films are in greater numbers because of the lack of originality in Hollywood, and they tend to think technology is a money maker, over the fact that these movies they try to copy are well made on every level. Pixar is still tops with me, Dreamworks is a distant second (they lose points for Shrek 3 and Shark Tale, but Kung Fu Panda was a delightful surprise, as was Megamind and Monsters Vs Aliens)... everything else is just a movie studio that wants to make CGI animated movies.

There have been some good third party films... I loved Robots, Igor is surprisingly good (though I don't like the tacky happy ending that seems tacked on), and Despicable Me was thoroughly enjoyable... but I refuse to see anything by Sony (saw a good 10 minutes of Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, and it was the worst 10 minutes of anything until I saw the TMNT Christmas music video special), and these little upstart studios just make DTV quality stuff at best.

Of course, I find it strange that CGI (at least the CGI we're referring too) has yet to make a huge impact on television cartoons. Other than Reboot, and I'll give you Beast Wars, there's no really big memorable CGI show over here that made a big splash... or a big enough one to create more of them. They use it a LOT of preschool shows, sure... but I've yet to see a long lasting CGI cartoon for any other demographic besides Reboot. That is to say there isn't any CGI as in computer animated via Flash and similar programs out there. I don't like how flat it looks. Only Fosters and Mr. Men Show got it right.

 

[dwmckim]

John Cleese as the Narrator? I thought it was going to be John Hurt.

Maybe John got hurt.