Looks atrocious.

Poor John, he looks miserable promoting this film.

One one hand, yikes.

But on the other hand, my nieces are going to be all over this when it comes out, and I’d much rather them watch these than those horrid Barbie fairie movies.

Blech.
I’m sure little girls will love it, though.

Oh, boy.

These comments are going to grow fast. Is it me, or did that intro look like John was doing a hostage video? The gun was just a little off screen.

Oh dear!
This isn’t going to go down well with fans of Peter Pan.

What happened to Britney Murphy?

So Tinkerbell was part of the Bratz all along….

Two comments. First, John Lasseter is the wrong spokesperson to be pitching to five year old girls. They couldn’t care less who the “chief creative officer of the Walt Disney animation studios” is. Better to have somebody that the audience is going to respond to based on appearance or familiarity. Second, when you take the shape-changing out of Disney animation, you lose the heart and soul of it. The timing and acting in this clip are adequate, but the lack of flexibility in the faces (the eyes and the cheeks especially), reduces the expressiveness of the acting and consequently, the warmth of the characters.

Wellllllll, she was ALWAYS sexy—-and since Day 1, duh! But why GIVE her a voice!? Strictly to make more merchandiseables, no doubt!

Good lord she sounds like every other girl character out there and it looks horrid.. Why cant they leave well enough alone and put their money into new and exciting projects instead of garbage like this..

Why no fat fairies? I want fat fairies!

Haha “tinkerbell…. actually…….. Talks. -_-; “

“for the first time ever,” Tinkerbell actually sucks.

“Theres got to be more to my life than pots and kettles.” Ugh.

Let me get this straight: A “tinker fairy” who wants to go to the mainland and work with nature. Sounds a lot like other Disney films I’ve seen.

Watch The Little Mermaid and get it over with!

And the incoming Pixar group discontinued Disney’s DTV “cheapquels” in favor of THIS?

Hawaiian print shirts are SO Toy Story 1 ;) As far as the Tinkerbell clip, it didn’t look so bad, to tell the truth, for what it is. There’s obviously a market for this stuff. Maybe if they’re successful with it, we’ll see a bigger and better follow up film?…hopeful thinking.

This looks horrible… plastic CG characters with generic voices… and one has a southern accent?

They should have let Ralph Bakshi do this one… his fairies in ‘Wizards’ were the best!

Where are they holding the wake, I should send flowers.

John Lasseter…We meet again, my arch-nemesis?
What evil little scheme are you cooking up today, a straight-to-video Tinkerbell movie? In which Tinkerbell speaks? Well let’s take a look at this travesty… let’s take a look at this insult to all things decent and holy!!

Hmmn..
Hmmmmnnn…

Well…okay. That does look like something little girls might enjoy.
But you’re still on probation, mate! I’m just waiting for you to slip up!

I thought the pauses in Lasseter’s little promo were very telling.

Her talking now makes it seem all the more strange that she didn’t in Peter Pan.

And worst of all, her being mute meant she couldn’t tell anyone “our special secret”.

yuck.

I’m with what Mayerson said.

Brett: The ’southern voice’ is Kristen Chenoweth as Rosetta. She’s also in Rapunzel. Rather like John Goodman, she has the one voice, and it’s pretty distinctive.

This WAS going to be 2D until Sharon Morrill changed her mind and took it away from Disneytoons Sydney. The story was a lot more interesting back then, too.
Still, little girls will eat it up and that’s all the movie is expected to do. You can’t fault it for being a deliberate merchandise vehicle, at least they’re honest about it.

Chop their blankety-blank hands off! I can’t stand that bombardment of cliché gestures when they talk.

My four year old was given a Tinkerbell comic recently and loved it. I’m going to do my very best to avoid her seeing this DVD.

Have you ever seen Sex and the City? I don’t think I get the comparison? Because there are women in it?

The color pallet looks amazing, but the models look boring, plasticy, uninspired? Except for Tinkerbells’, which still looks plasticy, but at least has some character about her.

At 00:30, he looks as if he’s thinking, “why did I agree to do this?”

I want fat, crippled, elderly fairies with speckled blush and long, floppy wands that go “whoosh! whoosh!” …That’s all the talkin’ you need.

I feel sorry for Little Johnny, look like he’s had his lunch taken away from him and forced to say this…

But then again, if he’s Chief creative officer for Disney why didn’t he say this looks crap, both visually and ideas wise… What is Tinkerbell going to do with her new found voice and skills set? I could imagine Tinkerbell taking John Lasseter’s job, can’t see the harm in that…

Well, I can’t wait for the Wii version of this! LOL

“What harm can come from trying?”… indeed.

I’ve been wondering what happened to this (these?) films.
Merchandise started popping up about 2 years ago. Around the same time as Disney Bunnies featuring Thumper. Wouldn’t that be a better string of films? Cute widdle bunnies enjoying each other company and …ehhhh….never mind.

Serves him right. Haha, love the redneck fairy. Rockin’ the steamboat willie, John. Not really, just kiddin’.

As a start, her name is Tinker Bell, two words, and not Tinkerbell.

I don’t mind her speaking in her own world, really. It’s actually kind of logical But why does every character nowadays have to have “tude?” Oh! Of course! Market research! The average grown-up is getting used to this and wants their kids to grow up like themselves. That is the attitude that has the city of Los Angeles NOT remove graffiti all over - it is so “urban.” Puh-leeze! All you do is end up with an awful mess…

Let’s throw the market research out the window and have some healthy, uplifting, positive films, that teach kids to not answer back with attitude but be thoughtful, courteous and kind. Then some day we may find ourselves in a better world!

Man that looks awful. The colors look like a cheap whore house, and the fairies look, well, like little fairie hookers. Awful.

It looks like an intro to a crappy videogame.

“What harm can come from trying?”

Then hilarity ensues.

How many shots of Tequila do you think John had to have before having the nerve of standing at the camera? :-(

The majority of people outside our little world of animation and art do not give a crap what we think and will love this. I can see this doing well…and I know my 3 yr old is going to love it……LUUUUUUVVVV it!

Meh, should have been 2D

Somebody call Lady Cottington and tell her to have her Pressed Faerie book at the ready!

John Lasseter, would you please grow up. Stop wearing shirts that look like kids pajamas. And please start making movies that arent made for teen and tweens…

Wow, that’s a lot of twinning in those poses. How long has this ‘Lasseter’ guy been doing animation, anyway?

“Wow, that’s a lot of twinning in those poses. How long has this ‘Lasseter’ guy been doing animation, anyway?”

I couldn’t agree with Scott more, the lame twinning poses were what caught my eye too. Blech!

Wow, well, at least they got a great voice actor in Mae Whitman.

This certainly isn’t the best example of her work, though. She plays one of the main characters on Nickelodeon’s “Avatar”, and really has shown emotional breadth.

I hope that the “Tinker Bell” screenplay and voice directors give her the chance to shine the way she has playing Katara, because this clip (unfortunately) reminds me most of “Strawberry Shortcake”

I’m just gonna take Thumper’s advice for this one:

“If you can’t say somethin’ nice, don’t say nuttin’ at all.”

A string of these mannequin things! That’s really puttin’ the end to the Pop Tart Crap!

All I heard in the intro was, “This cutesy-poo bullcrap was long in production before I was in charge! Please don’t hurt me!”

Given the saturation of Disney Fairies stuff, they are betting very high that this clicks. But then, how come the clip doesn’t seem to correspond with anything in the Fairies line we’ve already seen? (Completely different supporting characters, story doesn’t follow that of the novel, ect.)

And finally, it doesn’t appear to have any more artistic merit than a reasonably good “Barbie: Everything’s Better With Princesses!” DTV movie.

Well shucks, I had thought the battle over Tinker Bell had been won well over a year ago with Lasseter and even Jobs putting their collective foot down. If *this* is what they were striving for all along I shudder to think what it was beforehand.

You know…

Maybe John kept this thing going because he didn’t want to lay off a bunch hard working people, people like you and I who need to pay their rent and feed their families?

Most people that work in animation feel lucky enough just to have a job I’m sure Lasseter is doing what he can with what he was given.

Try to give the guy the benefit of the doubt.

I love it! Great clip! It really does my heart good to see that Disney animators are having fun at work again. Oh wait… I’m still watching the volleyball clip from yesterday. Hang on a sec’…

Oh.

Well… it is what it is. I’ve got three young nieces that would just go crazy over this. And as pointed out, it’s not nearly as vomit-inducing as any of the Barbie videos. Is it something I’d watch? Nope. Is it great animation? Nope… although it’s not the worst, either. (They do press the “insert Disney cliché” button far too many times on the computer though.) But it’s not aimed at anyone except little girls. It’s a product of the Disney marketing machine, to provide yet another DVD-baby-sitter for countless parents out there who know their kids are going to spend endless hours watching TV, and want to have some control over what they see. Like it or not, there’s a huge market for this stuff. Yet it’s not intended for everyone so it doesn’t make sense for Disney to put their “A” team on it.

Gawd- I didn’t make it past ten seconds of that thing. How long until one of them starts skateboarding (or, at least, the fairy equivalent of it)?

The JM Barrie estate will make money, but at the same time should be rolling their eyes. I know I am (rolling my eyes, that is, not making money).

I’ve seen 3D sculpts of Tinker Bell that were completely believable as the character from PETER PAN. Unfortunately, this animated model doesn’t look as good; the eyes and structure of the face are just too different. It’s a pity—as I’d hardly claim this couldn’t be done in CGI.
Do we know for sure that this doesn’t follow the plotline of Disney’s existing children’s novels?

The JM Barrie Estate won’t make any money. All of the money goes to the Children’s Hospital of London. According to his will, they own the rights.

John Lasseter as coporate shill for Disney direct to video dreck. Sigh. Was this ineviatble after Pixar was absorbed by the Disney machine?
Admittedly this Tinkerbell stuff doesn’t look as deadeyed CGi as some but that’s just damning it with faint praise.

[“for the first time ever,” Tinkerbell actually sucks."]

HAHAHA,

perfect…

>oVi

I love how the fairy at sec 00:06 walks straight through the redheaded fairy… nice.

Shite! As if I needed ANOTHER reason to hate Disney. Ugh. This tinkerbell has none of the bobby sockser sassiness that was part of the original. Also, IT”S CRAPPY CG!

It looks far better than either polar express or beowulf.

[Nathan: I love it! Great clip! It really does my heart good to see that Disney animators are having fun at work again. ]

Hey Nathan, don’t let your heart know this, but TinkerBell was animated in India by a contract studio!

As someone who doesn’t work in animation, I can safely say this is pathetic. And though I know it doesn’t come from Feature Animation (or whatever they’re called these days), I don’t think the”brand”, and the perception of Disney at large, can ever recover from that and so many other catastrophes. Disney, as a company, and as a recognizable graphic style, is artistically bankrupt.

And I’m glad Marc Davis died in 2000 and did not live to see this.

Dr Zaius, Nathan was joking. Read his comment again.

please don’t compare this crap to sex and the city. Sex and the City is about relationship and sex and fashion. Not magic and being pretty and horrible script writing to promote more merchandising in the tinkerbell series. Barbie CG films should be a good comparison to Tinkerbell.

Hmm . . .

On the one hand, this Tinkerbell seems to have less of that spitfire quality that made her so delightful in Peter Pan, and the animation itself obviously could be “better.” Some of the backgrounds are even kind of (dare I say it) pretty, in comparison to other direct-to-DVD films, but the main issue for me is that the acting is too good for the animation; I’m not saying anyone is taking home an academy award here, but if you listen to the performances, there’s a lot of life and expression there that isn’t by the not-quite-fluid animation, and it makes the whole thing feel a bit off . . . especially the faces. You can HEAR the characters’ facial expressions in the vocal performances and you instinctively know what they should look like, but the actual animated expressions and gestures fall short.

That being said, however, this looks like halfway decent fare for its intended audience, especially when consider the competition. The character design is far more wholesome (and attractive) than the Bratz and the overall quality is much better than those terrible Barbie atrocities. While the story and the every-ethnicity-represented-so-we-can-market-the-dolls-OMGgirlpower formula feels decidedly tired to those of us who’ve been around longer than the 6-year-old-girls this film is meant for, it does seem like someone cared at least a little bit. To be fair, it IS a direct-to-DVD film. Realistically the time and money it would take for something like this to be up to the gold-standard of a Pixar feature aren’t in line with this type of project.

Hopefully it’s halfway decent–I’m sure it will make a lot of little girls happy.

Gee. I wonder if Tinkerbell is going to come out of this with a newfound appreciation for whatever the heck it was she did when the movie started and which she thought was so boring and useless.
I also wonder if the moment in the clip might just be followed by a hilarious montage of fairy activity gone awry.
(Look, all I really want is for Tinkerbell to be established as a Victorian-era tinkering-inventor and thus the master of her own little copper-and-steam gear-and-cog world. Is that so wrong?)

“The JM Barrie Estate won’t make any money. All of the money goes to the Children’s Hospital of London. According to his will, they own the rights.”

Oops, forgot about that. I stand corrected (and still without renumeration).

Ugh. That looks like absolute trash. But it will make money thanks to the soccer moms of the world who want a quick and harmless babysitter for their children. And sadly, that’s exactly what Disney wants.

You think this company cares anymore about putting out quality product? Hell no. As long as the clueless parents with disposable income buy these atrocious DVDs and visit Walt Disney Walmart…I mean Walt Disney World, this is going to keep happening.

I’d rather see more DTV sequels than this crap.

Wait, I was told that Lasseter unplugged the projector when they started playing this in front of him-that he fired Sharon Morrill and everyone involved in Disney’s DTDVD projects! Did Disney get the a major crime orginization to blackmail him into accepting and even promoting all this? Remember the Chicken Little studio did this, not Pixar, so Lasseter can’t be bashed for the “making of” this movie….

Unfortunately America’s saying farewell to all its traditional values, this includes traditional animation. Making an animated film for parents who want want their kids to be raised on a more serious, focused, and disciplined level? That’s now an oxymoron! No one calling a cartoon “adult” or even “mature” would be referring to an animated “No Country for Old Men” type masterpiece, no one would ever automatically infer that meaning of the phrase either..

“I heartily endorse this event or product.”

Hrmm… my only consolation is the “it could be worse” defense. At least Disney is consistently mediocre with these “cheapquels” (as Harold Jones put it).
I’m going to definitely pitch that “Hummingbird and Raccoon from Pocahontas Pointlessly Forgettable Animal Shenanigans” show now! :/

This was hilarious. I kept replaying that video, studying all the nuances-but only of the first part (the second part only required one viewing). I have to agree with Ron up there: I think John was making a hostage video. I hope he’s alright. You KNOW he did multiple takes, and yet his true feelings couldn’t be masked-it was hilarious!-good thing this wasn’t in HD. I’m not looking forward to introducing this to my little girl when she gets older. I think I’ll keep pumping her with the classics, so she can make her own informed opinions.

Isn’t a trailer supposed to entice you into want to seeing it?

My impression is that whatever was in the works pre-Lasseter was largely tossed and reworked after he came aboard. Whatever this ends up looking like, he was along for the ride, I believe.

I noticed another blog “Blue Sky Disney” links to this - It is the anti-cartoon brew in that everything Disney does rocks their world. This is a comment from there –

“Also, the comments on the John Lassetter clip at Cartoon Brew were mostly very mean-spirited and rather hateful and disrespectful of Mr. L.”

Wait until they read Amid’s cartoon network material!

Oh please ..NO !!! Why ruining a classic traditionally animated character again. Just leave it alone. She was perfect as she was…damn it ! I say BIG mistake…

Tink’s personality (as written by Barrie and shown in the Disney classic) is entirely lost. Oh, well.

Disney can always cut these up and redub them as Empire Carpet commercials. All they gotta do is switch out the heads. The outsourced production value is right on the money.

well on the bright side its better than Barbie :) the only thing that is remotely tinkerbell is the swating of the bug. Wasnt tinkerbell quite rude and obnoxious in Peter Pan? go figure

“I love how the fairy at sec 00:06 walks straight through the redheaded fairy… nice.”
Oh my god, she does! That’s horrible!

I’m going to go on a limb and presume this was Bob Iger’s decision or one of the other corporate superiors that can boss John around. But if you’re going to be stuck working on an animated movie you don’t want to with apparently bad animation, the least you can do is give it a good story.

Also, don’t have Lasseter do an intro again. Just…..don’t.

This is probably going to be the resurrection of the shitty DTV sequels.

What’s up with that stereotype? I’ve yet to see a posse of multicultural women hanging with each other in real life. Not even the Spice Girls look like that!

It looks like a commercial to sell “Tinker” toys. Pardon the pun.

This is not very creative for a chief creative officer to promote.

If I remember right, John tried to put put this in its grave but it was out of his hands by the time he came on board. He canceled a ton of direct to dvd sequels, so I think we should be grateful that we arent getting Dumbo 2, Arisocats 2, etc.

The only thing he wasnt allowed to cancel were the Disney Princess line, the Little Mermaid III (it was too close to completion) and these Tinkerbell movies. Im sure he didnt go down without a fight though. lets not blame him for this, but instead the money grubbing guys on the Disney board.

This series is being outsourced so that could explain how poorly done the character animation is.

Tinkerbell is NOT supposed to talk.

This goes against one of the greatest and most celebrated animation ideals - the ability of a cartoon character to have personality when they cannot talk, and still be very expressive.

This video, and Lasseter’s introduction and endorsement, just cements in my mind that Lasseter is not the remedy to the ills of Disney’s direction, as many hoped.

I know why Tinkerbell wants to leave fairy land… she’s bored with the poses they put her and her pixi-mates in.

I guess I should apologize for complaining that the Click and Clack trailer posted here a few days ago had all of TWO “W” poses. I lost count on this trailer.

Well theres the proof that they chained up John Lasseter and replaced him with a clone. And every night the scoop open his head and fill it with pretentious crap. And yes Girls will devour this like sharks in a frenzy.

Gad zooks! I don’t care if this is DTV, I just can’t excuse the poor craftsmanship, especially with a classic character. Blech! X-P

Remember “Beverly Hills Teens?” Haha I don’t know why I just thought of that. That show was awesomely horrid. I’d totally buy the DVD set.

Uh, for those who think John was just “along for the ride”, you are dead wrong. He threw out the previous regimes “take” and developed this with an entirely new team, (for better or worse, this is His film…the reason he’s pimpin’ it so convincingly is because of that fact). This IS the new Walt Disney Company. Nobody said it would be easy…but those who thought the Pixar “brain Trust” walked on water, may wanna keep a life raft or two handy. That said, I know my little girls will LOVE this film…frankly much more that “Cars”.

I already posted a comment but just want to add that while this obviously won’t go down as a shining moment in animation history, I think many of the comments here are overly negative based on the purpose and target market of this movie.

I think the cold fact is that not everything is meant to be great art, and while I don’t think things should be dumbed-down for children, perhaps the time and energy required to achieve the level of artistry that we cartoonbrew addicts would like to see in this film would be somewhat wasted on its intended audience. When I go back and watch some of the cartoons that I thought were great as a kid, I’m horrified (I AM an 80’s kid after all), and yet I still miraculously grew up to appreciate Persepolis despite my exposure to sub-par dreck every Saturday morning. My little cousins loved Ratatouille, but not for the animation–they liked all the slapstick moments. Does that mean all the gorgeous details of the Parisian kitchen and the nuances of expression were wasted? Of course not–but Ratatouille also set out to reach a wider audience than 3-10 year old girls.

I just don’t think time or resources allow everything a studio produces to be up to the level of a Pixar feature, or a Disney classic like The Lion King. While we can and should expect Disney to live up to its legacy and produce wonderfully executed pieces of animation, it IS also a money-making venture, and perhaps they couldn’t carry on producing things like Wall-E or Finding Nemo or Toy Story in the same way if not for the considerably quicker & (I’m assuming) easier money that comes in through these DTDVDs and all of their merchandising tie-ins. I mean, Pixar obviously partnered with Disney for a reason. I probably need to do some more research on the subject, but it would seem to me that if a studio like Pixar–with their peerless string of gorgeously done and incredibly successful films–sees fit to partner with them, then perhaps it takes not just the stuff we all love to watch but also the quick & dirty to keep a studio consistently profitable on a grand scale.

Anyway, my point is that some of this ire seems a bit like wasted energy–if this were a theatrical release intended for a wide audience, then yes–gripe away. But in an area where the standard is already so low, it seems pointless to express such shock and horror over what is (yes, sadly) one of the better examples of its genre.

Who’s the old guy in “casual Friday” getup introducing this? Bring back Michael Eisner; he was more fun as a host.

The voice work is pathetic in this spot, and the direction is poor. Personally, I prefer the animation in that Nasonex bee commercial.

I showed this to an adult lady friend of mine who is not an animation freak but loves Tinker Bell.

I gave no opinion of my own before showing it to her.

Her response: “It looks like those creepy Barbie videos”.

zzzzzzzzzzzzz… Uh … is it over? guess I need more Brew.

Geez Mike Eisner sure looks different doing his intros these daze.

What?

Oh…

When I saw John Lasseter in the introduction I actually thought it was going to be a little better, since it seems that he fixed Meet The Robinsons (he also changed the whole American Dog thing but I’ll forget about that for a minute).

If this was in 2D maybe it would be the same exact thing in content but probably the character would at least LOOK like Tinkerbell, if only cause they’d probably copy the character poses from the Peter Pan movie. She is a lot less sexy here and she has lost all her charm.

Anyway, like others have said, it’s not completely terrible for little girls, but animators (and the guys who write the stories) should always make their best work, no matter what kind of audience they are looking for.

This is all about marketing. My trip to WDW last January confirmed to me that Disney was more interested in merchandise related to just a few key characters. Mickey and Minnie (of course), Pooh and Tigger, Tinkerbell and sometimes, Grumpy. Every shop and kiosk was loaded with these characters and relatively little else. This film seems nothing more than advertisement for a new line of “Tink and her Special Friends” toys, clothes, books etc…… Just think about Bratz, Strawberry Shortcake, and Smurfs redone with pixie dust.

Hahaha, I love how she “removes” the annoying bug in this clip, considering she’s an annoying talking bug herself. I also think that the voice is a little to much, and her gestures are to mature.
The background in the opening shot looked pretty cool though…

Wow that audio-animatronic Lassetter looks almost real.

This is exactly what porn for the male lead in “Lars and the Real Girl” would look like.

Why John Lasseter why. I thought you were brought into the company to stop things like this?

After all the years and all the millions that have been spent on that video, THAT’S how the models look? That’s how the voice acting sounds? That’s how the animation plays? That’s the level of directing? And John is standing there shilling for it?? This ain’t just a shark-jump, folks, it’s a launch into the stratosphere.

As to the “time and money” comment, I think this represents at least 4 years and 50 million dollars. So we are not talking Barbie video level investment here.

atrocious!

How could JL even think of letting this go ahead…if he couldn’t stop it, he certainly shouldn’t promote it. How sad.

Bill: I hadn’t watched the full clip, but then I saw your comment. I thought that there was no way this clip would be seen if such a simple mistake was really in there. That’s really bush league stuff which can easily be fixed. Even if it’s a staging issue (which it looks like this was), you can render the characters in separate passes and make it work in post. It was hard to believe that stuff like this is in a Disney production, and even harder to believe that John “Pixar” Lasseter is introducing it.

somebody stop me - I’m spinning in my box!

I despise feature animation voice acting. I bet little girls will be all over this, though.

“The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I’ve just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.”

Why hasn’t Amid or anyone made a “Disney’s eyeing young girls” snippet yet?

So when does this post get added to the “Brew Essentials” list? :)

It’s a terrible shame. That’s all I can say about it.

They look less like fairies and more like pre-pubescent outtakes from America’s Next Top Model

lasseter got the line out “chief creative director for the walt disney studios” without wincing…

kind of like Hillary saying: I’m the Vice President of the United States”

Leave it to Disney to blow a potentially great female role: voice is way too adult, outfit retarded, eyebrows tweezed to be painful looking, i.e. no appeal for girls WHICH IS YOUR AUDIENCE FOR THIS, DISNEY!!

Wow… How………………………. Generic………

112th comment… Almost everyone hates the clip. And I’m having upset stomach…

Wow, well yeah it is kinda like Barbie or Bratz….but isn’t her being silent pretty much her thing? why change it? its worked for all this time(even in books) and we all love her without her voice…heck i think it would be better if the others talked and she’s the only one that didn’t! not so sure about the 3d thing either…i still prefer Disney’s 2d animation over 3d (leave it to Pixar people)…like in enchanted the opening was my favorite part simply cause of how well animated and drawn it was. the whole thing doesn’t seem like a classic but more like those dadada2 movies where its ok but nothing like the original(like mulan 2, and both Cinderellas 2 & 3)…its just a stretch…and i don’t see the point other than to make money for other projects(like they don’t have enough?). what ever they’er doing, they can’t be fully serious about this project…right? and one more thing…wheres her feisty-ness!!! that did NOT seem like her character to me!

WHY?….WW–WHAT!?

:|
well, alright, I guess young girls will like this. The whole thing with the girl confidence has been done so many times over though! Although I guess confidence is never a bad thing for young kids. Reminds me of a Barbie film, too, not that that’s really a bad thing. Barbie is for young girls (I’ve seen almost all of them, :P), it’s not really a Family Film. Tinkerbell doesn’t look like it’s a family film either, just for young girls.

The main “problem” for me, I guess, is that Tinkerbell is such an iconic character. Adults, teens, and little kids all know her. This is giving her a bigger identity, giving her a whole movie all about her + a voice, and though I am not really a Peter Pan fan (and haven’t watched it for YEARS, not since I was little), I’m pretty sure she was a spitfire. Anyways, it’s a lot of weight, doing something like this with Tinkerbell, and it’d be a big shame to see her become another one of your everyday unimpressive ol’ female cartoon characters. She won’t have the magic she had before.

Why oh why do they insist on dumbing cartoons down for a child audience? It irritated me when I was a young child and it irks me still. It doesn’t help that I forced myself to sit through an episode of ‘Bratz’ before I watched this trailer (just to see what the hype was all about). Ugh.

shame on them this is to be added to the long list of disney faux-pars, but i think this one takes the biscuit taking a classic legacy of theatre and literature and shamelessly re-writing a character which they didn’t even create themselves, to add to that making it looks to atrociously ugly. Damn, disney created it’s empire on characters who couldn’t talk why do they have to give such inappropriate voices to ‘their’ characters these days.

I love the movie! I can’t wait to see more.