Walt Disney made one just movie, And has been tracing over it ever since

Run_to_da_hills

Look closely at this clip. Literally...frame by frame. Pretty incredible scene by scene video comparison. We have been done!!

We have been paying heaps to bring our kids to watch these movies and they have been using the same templets again and again.

http://thetruthhandler.blogspot.com/2009/04/disney-made-one-movie-and-has-been.html

Saibh

Do you think it's some sort of conspiracy theory

copacetic

I heard that run to da hills has been posting the same thread over and over and over and over again just changing the names and links.

Run_to_da_hills

Saibh wrote: »

Do you think it's some sort of conspiracy theory

Maybe it should have been posted there, Mods???

Peared

I dunno. I can see like maybe 3 movies in that clip?

Certainly not "all".

Saibh

Children are not going to pick up on whether a clip was used before in another film.

Overheal

that's fcuked up.

liah

Well sure if you had to hand-draw each and every one of your movies I'm sure you'd do a little copy paste too.

AlmightyCushion

So a few films he made share about thirty seconds of similar looking clips and they're mostly filler that don't matter a jot to the plot or the film at all. Whoop-de-fooking-doo.

gaz wac

its sooooo not the same !! one is a dwarft and the other is fox !!! watcha talk about willis?

anniehoo

Somebody has way too much time on their hands *aka the person who spent hours/weeks editing disney cartoons*!!

Who cares??!!:rolleyes:

CHD

Genius imo.

xOxSinéadxOx

don't think anybody cares tbh

Piste

I think it's really cool, I never noticed anything like that before!

lostexpectation

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

So a few films he made share about thirty seconds of similar looking clips and they're mostly filler that don't matter a jot to the plot or the film at all. Whoop-de-fooking-doo.

yeah but it look like the same plot aswell, song big, goofy friends bit, slapstick henchmen, etc etc.

RATM

Was has a better quality of conspiracy theoritics to it is Walt's 1957 film 'Our friend the atom'.
It's been regarded as a US Cold War propa flick to enhance the future generation's reliance on nuclear power and fossil fuels.
Came with the quote 'Coal and oil can now be used for better things'

de5p0i1er

I saw some of those movies in the cinema when I was a kid, I should sue them.

ZzubZzub

[obligatory] I for one welcome our new Walt Disney Overlords [/obligatory]

star-pants

Some are the same, but it's not all from the one film though, so title fail!

Plus - why mess with something that works? Those films are better than half the crap released today. +1 for oldskool disney

Ro: maaan!

Pretty amazing. Reminds me of those two Nickleback songs that were almost identical. I'd be pretty embarrased if it was me who was responsible. But that's all really. As yer man said, it's all just dancing around and filler. Storylines could be completely different, and more modern too. Pretty much every film/tv show/song/joke is a rehash of older stuff at this stage anyway. Why not save a few bob on this type of thing for the animators. These people have no such obligation to always do things the hard way and go the extra mile when an easier option exists. They also have no responsibility to your kids or your wallet. This we were tricked into seeing the same movie twice **** don't fly. You probably never noticed it until you saw this vid.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Yore Ma

Biggins

To be honest, it would make sense in terms of time, economic and graphic, that he do or his subordinates do this.

For example: a lot of programmers do similar to this with their applications.
As long as the underlying core architectural coding structure is well defined and secure, expanding on the basic components is just a tweaking of the current job as to suit and tailored to further customer/order specific requirements/wishes.

So applying the same basic principle to film animation; if the fluidity of the character moments is found to be possibly the best (at that time given the tools/tech they had) that they can get given the required scene, it should come as no surprise that they are just tweaked, added to or taken away from, to suit the desired out come for the big screen.

It is a cheat of sorts but there is good reasons for it I feel.

javaboy

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Yore Ma

Why did you do that? Did you see a bigger kid doing it and think it would be cool?

mike65

Interesting but ultimatly not world changing.

Wagon

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Yore Ma

Ihre Mutter.

It's widely believed that German is the funniest language in the world. If it's not funny in German, it's not funny in English.

So you fale!

BaconZombie

I've seen a video years ago that show that the "jungle book" was just a almost direct copy of an older non disney film.
Can find the video now but it used also all the same clips from the "jungle book" IIRC

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Look closely at this clip. Literally...frame by frame. Pretty incredible scene by scene video comparison. We have been done!!

We have been paying heaps to bring our kids to watch these movies and they have been using the same templets again and again.

http://thetruthhandler.blogspot.com/2009/04/disney-made-one-movie-and-has-been.html

Mr.Lizard

Great clip. No problem with Disney doing this as their essentially just 'ripping off' themselves. Plus a lot of those copycats are 40ish years inbetween each other eg Snow White to Robin Hood so it's hardly as tho they're cutting corners in some attempt at mass production. If anything it just comes off looking as an attempt to reference an earlier movie.

ejmaztec

It's similar to Friends with the same script and canned laughter used for every single episode.

Mr.Lizard

ejmaztec wrote: »

It's similar to Friends with the same script and canned laughter used for every single episode.

"Could that reference BE any more whatever".

Ah how I don't miss that piece of shít show.

javaboy

Biggins wrote: »

For example: a lot of programmers do similar to this with their applications.
As long as the underlying core architectural coding structure is well defined and secure, expanding on the basic components is just a tweaking of the current job as to suit and tailored to further customer/order specific requirements/wishes.

So applying the same basic principle to film animation

That's not really a good comparison though. Code reuse in programming is like part reuse in cars. Nobody cares too much if you reuse the same wiper motor that worked fine in the last model. That's purely a functional thing. Art is different and that's what these films are.
Would it be acceptable for a band to release songs that sound the exact same year after year and expect people to pay for them? Huh? Do you think the likes of U2 or Coldplay would get away with that?

ejmaztec

Mr.Lizard wrote: »

"Could that reference BE any more whatever".

Ah how I don't miss that piece of shít show.

I can't possibly miss it since some retard bought my daughter the entire box-set.:(

Mr.Lizard

javaboy wrote: »

Would it be acceptable for a band to release songs that sound the exact same year after year and expect people to pay for them? Huh? Do you think the likes of U2 or Coldplay would get away with that?

.... or Red Hot Chili Peppers. I'd like to see them try get away with it! Luckily yer average joe is too smart to fall for something like that.

dr.bollocko

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Yore Ma

Somebody please find the painkillers.

Biggins

javaboy wrote: »

Would it be acceptable for a band to release songs that sound the exact same year after year and expect people to pay for them? Huh? Do you think the likes of U2 or Coldplay would get away with that?

Good question. Topic for another thread?

Quick reply: God knows this happens too.
It seems every second song out of No-Life ** cough ** sorry, Westlife, is a copy/rip of original Josh Groban songs as well as other artists.
So in some cases and not just them, people are actually paying more than once for the same thing again, perhaps only altered slightly in each case.

Nobody cares too much if you reuse the same wiper motor that worked fine in the last model.

You would have been better off saying that folk use the basic same engine as it all works along the same principle. Its just the additional functions that use the outcome of the engine that are subsequently different in design and features.

javaboy

I'm wondering now if Ikky was making a subtle nuanced socio-dadactic post apocalyptic social commentary about the lazy reuse of material (be it memes or cartoons) that we were all too thick to get. Is that what you were doing Ikky?

TheIrishGrover

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Look closely at this clip. Literally...frame by frame. Pretty incredible scene by scene video comparison. We have been done!!

We have been paying heaps to bring our kids to watch these movies and they have been using the same templets again and again.

http://thetruthhandler.blogspot.com/2009/04/disney-made-one-movie-and-has-been.html

YEAH!!!! And don't get me started: I mean, nothing new has been written since the dawn of writing: all people do is use the same words over and over again but in different order..... Damn you Shakespeare, you're a ripoff artist

javaboy

Biggins wrote: »

You would have been better off saying that folk use the basic same engine as it all works along the same principle. Its just the additional functions that use the outcome of the engine that are subsequently different in design and features.

No. No I wouldn't. I was talking about using the exact same part. And I deliberately picked one that would not influence a buyer's decision or make them feel cheated in some way. Although engines are reused quite a lot, people tend to feel slightly miffed when they hear that they're brand new engine is the same one they fitted to a model that came out in the 80's. Not so with wiper engines.

Wagon

javaboy wrote: »

I'm wondering now if Ikky was making a subtle nuanced socio-dadactic post apocalyptic social commentary about the lazy reuse of material (be it memes or cartoons) that we were all too thick to get. Is that what you were doing Ikky?

Oh! i get it now! Ikky doesn't fale!

RandolphEsq

javaboy wrote: »

Why did you do that? Did you see a bigger kid doing it and think it would be cool?

I thought it was funny

*hammers fist down on Javaboy's head*

Biggins

javaboy wrote: »

No. No I wouldn't. I was talking about using the exact same part. And I deliberately picked one that would not influence a buyer's decision or make them feel cheated in some way. Although engines are reused quite a lot, people tend to feel slightly miffed when they hear that they're brand new engine is the same one they fitted to a model that came out in the 80's. Not so with wiper engines.

Fair enough, I understand what your trying to say but I feel you slightly missed my point with my analogy.
My primary point was that in a lot of cases, copying (not using a particular exact same item) items/sections makes a lot of sense in some cases.
Where people might start to feel ripped off is debatable and particular to each case.
A lot of the time, their feeling for being ripped off might be justified - in others perhaps not so much.
Its all about perspectives and priorities I suppose both to the creator and the end user/purchaser.

javaboy

Biggins wrote: »

Fair enough, I understand what your trying to say but I feel you slightly missed my point with my analogy.

No I got your point. I just think you chose a bad example in computer programming.

Biggins

javaboy wrote: »

No I got your point. I just think you chose a bad example in computer programming.

ok lol
We won't split hairs - just drugs! :pac:

Blue-Eyed

Who cares if they use the scenes again? Disney's still awesome! :pac:

dr.bollocko

Blue-Eyed wrote: »

Who cares if they use the scenes again? Disney's still awesome! :pac:

They used those same clips again in the Jonas Brothers 3d concert.

live2thewire

your a nutcase

dr.bollocko

live2thewire wrote: »

your a nutcase

And that is an efficiently quickly posted final straw. I salute you mr. Wire.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59785083&postcount=2
Banned.

useful_contacts

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Look closely at this clip. Literally...frame by frame. Pretty incredible scene by scene video comparison. We have been done!!

We have been paying heaps to bring our kids to watch these movies and they have been using the same templets again and again.

http://thetruthhandler.blogspot.com/2009/04/disney-made-one-movie-and-has-been.html

Im much too busy and important to view the clip

but i want you believe you:D

corbo87

Hats off to disney. They are obviously a bunch of very clever people, i mean who got hurt? the children enjoyed the movies. I certainly did, so whats the problem? Who was ripped off? We payed to see a good movie and we got it no matter how it was made. We payed to see the blare witch project and that was made with lies and a handheld camera, yet people still enjoyed it. Everybody takes shortcuts and sometimes its worth it to do so if your still getting the same quality. It took people over 20/30 years to notice that and its very good. Why make a big deal of it? If your going to give out and post threads about being ripped off, i could suggest 10,000 other subjects to protest your angre about.. such as the things that are going on under your nose in your own country!! Never mind disney!!

AlmightyCushion

corbo87 wrote: »

We payed to see the blare witch project and that was made with lies and a handheld camera, yet people still enjoyed it.

People enjoyed the blair witch project? This is more shocking than run_to_da_hills revelation!!!!

copacetic

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

People enjoyed the blair witch project? This is more shocking than run_to_da_hills revelation!!!!

It must have been a conspiracy of one.

copacetic

dr.bollocko wrote: »

And that is an efficiently quickly posted final straw. I salute you mr. Wire.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59785083&postcount=2
Banned.

See, even using incorrect grammar cannot protect you from the good Doctor. I see a helpdesk thread around whether the use of 'Your' rather than 'You're' means the abuse wasn't actually directed at the poster.