Honor, what does it mean (and I know it means something!) when the nomenclature reads "Disney" instead of "Disney's"? This and Tarzan are the only animated features I've noticed it on.
Honor, this is slightly off topic (but nontheless animation related) but is Disney planning on doing anything with Oswald the Lucky Rabbit? I would love it if Eric Goldberg made an Oswald short. He's the perfect man for the job.
I don't think the possesive or non possessive use of Disney is as simple as explained here. Princess and the Frog IS Disney's take on it, just the way Beauty and the Beast was Disney's take on that story- With Borroughs having an estate that still controls the rights to Tarzan I can see why Disney would agree to a less possessive title, but nobody owns the concept of the Princess and the Frog, or the Frog Princess- this is Disney's take. Honor, any thoughts?
It has now been recently changed permanently to just "Disney" for ALL current and future Disney films. Walt + Pictures Presents has been dropped as well as 'apostrophe S'. So every film title will always just have 'Disney' above it. That's why.
That's lame. So I guess "Walt Disney Proudly Presents" will no longer accompany a release since they are reluctant to brand a film as property of Disney. I remember a time when a film that was annointed with the "Walt Disney Presents" or "Disney's" was a badge of honor and pride for the studio. Oh well, their loss. Then again, with the way things have been going lately, I'm not surprised.
13 comments:
not a fan.
liked the very first one best.
Terrible. Looks like this could have been designed in the 1980's for the All Dogs Go to Heaven sequel.
Looks like Drew Struzan did the poster.
Honor, what does it mean (and I know it means something!) when the nomenclature reads "Disney" instead of "Disney's"? This and Tarzan are the only animated features I've noticed it on.
Because Edgar Ryce Burrough's created Tarzan, not Diney and the Princess and the Frog is based upon variations of the fable The Frog Princess.
I think the poster is beautiful. I love how everything about this movie, from the film itself to its marketing, seems both familiar and fresh.
Honor, this is slightly off topic (but nontheless animation related) but is Disney planning on doing anything with Oswald the Lucky Rabbit? I would love it if Eric Goldberg made an Oswald short. He's the perfect man for the job.
I don't think the possesive or non possessive use of Disney is as simple as explained here. Princess and the Frog IS Disney's take on it, just the way Beauty and the Beast was Disney's take on that story- With Borroughs having an estate that still controls the rights to Tarzan I can see why Disney would agree to a less possessive title, but nobody owns the concept of the Princess and the Frog, or the Frog Princess- this is Disney's take. Honor, any thoughts?
I hate it when they choose "Disney" over "Walt Disney Pictures" to put on the posters/DVDs.
I'd also like to know why/when they do this?
It has now been recently changed permanently to just "Disney" for ALL current and future Disney films. Walt + Pictures Presents has been dropped as well as 'apostrophe S'. So every film title will always just have 'Disney' above it. That's why.
That's lame. So I guess "Walt Disney Proudly Presents" will no longer accompany a release since they are reluctant to brand a film as property of Disney. I remember a time when a film that was annointed with the "Walt Disney Presents" or "Disney's" was a badge of honor and pride for the studio. Oh well, their loss. Then again, with the way things have been going lately, I'm not surprised.
I don't think that's it
All 3 PatF trailers and the 1st poster used "Walt Disney Pictures" on them
And they have used "Disney" on all Brother Bear posters and other movies that I can't think of right now
I think it's beautiful. Don't understand where all the hatred is coming from.
Post a Comment