|
Post by darkpast on Feb 8, 2019 2:02:50 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2019 10:56:22 GMT
I heard the awesome news and the first villain I thought of when they announced they were making a 'Batwoman' TV show was Alice 'cause she is one of Batwoman's best villains and is completely crazy and psychotic and will be fun to watch with her Wonderland gang. Rachel Skarsten is an interesting choice too 'cause she played Dinah Laurel Lance in that awful adaption of 'Birds of Prey' but I have seen her in other shows like 'Lost Girl' and 'Wynonna Earp' and think she could be good.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Feb 8, 2019 12:16:42 GMT
I heard the awesome news and the first villain I thought of when they announced they were making a 'Batwoman' TV show was Alice 'cause she is one of Batwoman's best villains and is completely crazy and psychotic and will be fun to watch with her Wonderland gang. Rachel Skarsten is an interesting choice too 'cause she played Dinah Laurel Lance in that awful adaption of 'Birds of Prey' but I have seen her in other shows like 'Lost Girl' and 'Wynonna Earp' and think she could be good. I love your optimism...I do not share it however, if the character is meant to be crazy and psychotic how much you want to bet they'll Cupid her?
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Feb 8, 2019 17:07:49 GMT
She was great on "Bird's of Prey".
|
|
|
Post by General Kenobi on Feb 9, 2019 10:40:15 GMT
I think that's the first time I have heard anything positive about that show.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2019 12:40:51 GMT
I heard the awesome news and the first villain I thought of when they announced they were making a 'Batwoman' TV show was Alice 'cause she is one of Batwoman's best villains and is completely crazy and psychotic and will be fun to watch with her Wonderland gang. Rachel Skarsten is an interesting choice too 'cause she played Dinah Laurel Lance in that awful adaption of 'Birds of Prey' but I have seen her in other shows like 'Lost Girl' and 'Wynonna Earp' and think she could be good. I love your optimism...I do not share it however, if the character is meant to be crazy and psychotic how much you want to bet they'll Cupid her? Good point but they might surprise us. It is always best to be optimistic with shows like this especially since it isn't being written by the 'Arrowverse' writers and has a former 'Smallville' and 'Melrose Place' writer in charge and Caroline Dries might do great versions of all the characters unlike a lot of the versions we have had in the other shows.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2019 12:46:21 GMT
She was great on "Bird's of Prey". She wasn't horrible in terms of acting but I just didn't like the version of the character they did and I much would have preferred if they kept it the way it is in the comic books with Barbara Gordon and Dinah Laurel Lance being previously established superheroes who are best friends and partners (before The Huntress joined the group) but they made their version of Dinah so young and she wasn't the Black Canary and the Mother Daughter relationship between Barbara and her was just weird when the majority of stories have them around the exact same age with a history together.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Mar 5, 2019 12:54:56 GMT
I love your optimism...I do not share it however, if the character is meant to be crazy and psychotic how much you want to bet they'll Cupid her? Good point but they might surprise us. It is always best to be optimistic with shows like this especially since it isn't being written by the 'Arrowverse' writers and has a former 'Smallville' and 'Melrose Place' writer in charge and Caroline Dries might do great versions of all the characters unlike a lot of the versions we have had in the other shows. That is where we differ, you see they fuck you with your the optimism, okay? They fuck you with your the optimism! They know you're gonna be several episodes deep before you find out you got fucked! They know you're not gonna just turn of and let those hours be waste, they don't care. So who gets fucked? Ol' Dazz! Okay, sure! I don't give a fuck! I'm not being optimistic this time, okay?
hehehehe
Also really Melrose Place? that's a selling point these days? god I love you Deb you're a ray of light in this dreary world...me I am a thundercloud of profanity and sarcasm.
|
|
|
Post by General Kenobi on Mar 7, 2019 16:15:48 GMT
Yep. Deb is the light and you are the dark. And here I am stuck in the middle!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2019 13:09:56 GMT
Good point but they might surprise us. It is always best to be optimistic with shows like this especially since it isn't being written by the 'Arrowverse' writers and has a former 'Smallville' and 'Melrose Place' writer in charge and Caroline Dries might do great versions of all the characters unlike a lot of the versions we have had in the other shows. That is where we differ, you see they fuck you with your the optimism, okay? They fuck you with your the optimism! They know you're gonna be several episodes deep before you find out you got fucked! They know you're not gonna just turn of and let those hours be waste, they don't care. So who gets fucked? Ol' Dazz! Okay, sure! I don't give a fuck! I'm not being optimistic this time, okay?
hehehehe
Also really Melrose Place? that's a selling point these days? god I love you Deb you're a ray of light in this dreary world...me I am a thundercloud of profanity and sarcasm.
Hey!! 'Melrose Place' was insanely popular here in the 90s and one of the biggest shows of the decade and if this show can end up being half as successful as that was it will be going really good. I think it is best to be optimistic with these shows 'cause they might surprise us and turn out to be a lot better than people expected and that appears to have been the case with the recent 'Aquaman' movie and there were a lot of people saying that was going to be no good after 'Justice League' and it was a big hit. I am interested in how long before 'Arrow' this is going to take place 'cause they have confirmed it is before the crossover but if Season One is some type of origin story where we get to see Kate become Batwoman it could be based years ago during the first seasons of 'Arrow' or 'The Flash.'
|
|
|
Post by BexxyJ on Apr 11, 2019 14:09:18 GMT
I heard the awesome news and the first villain I thought of when they announced they were making a 'Batwoman' TV show was Alice 'cause she is one of Batwoman's best villains and is completely crazy and psychotic and will be fun to watch with her Wonderland gang. Rachel Skarsten is an interesting choice too 'cause she played Dinah Laurel Lance in that awful adaption of 'Birds of Prey' but I have seen her in other shows like 'Lost Girl' and 'Wynonna Earp' and think she could be good. Is this the same Alice from Alice In Wonderland and those other comics you have where her daughter becomes the hero. I don’t remember her in Batwoman and who owns the rights to use Alice In Wonderland? It ain’t Disney or she would be a Marvel villain or is Batwoman a joint venture with DC and Marvel?
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Apr 11, 2019 19:59:07 GMT
I heard the awesome news and the first villain I thought of when they announced they were making a 'Batwoman' TV show was Alice 'cause she is one of Batwoman's best villains and is completely crazy and psychotic and will be fun to watch with her Wonderland gang. Rachel Skarsten is an interesting choice too 'cause she played Dinah Laurel Lance in that awful adaption of 'Birds of Prey' but I have seen her in other shows like 'Lost Girl' and 'Wynonna Earp' and think she could be good. Is this the same Alice from Alice In Wonderland and those other comics you have where her daughter becomes the hero. I don’t remember her in Batwoman and who owns the rights to use Alice In Wonderland? It ain’t Disney or she would be a Marvel villain or is Batwoman a joint venture with DC and Marvel? Alice In Wonderland long ago become public domain, so the original premise & characters are free for anyone to use and reimagine, specific iteration and potrayals of the character are still mostly owned by their creators, so the widespread version from the animated film is owned by Disney, the characters specific look and or unique traits or trademarks from that version are still protected for the time being.
Disney owns the rights to their versions of the classic fairytale characters but they do not own the actual rights to the characters themselves which is why they are so often used in other stories and such because Disney cannot stop you making a version of the character or story, they can only stop you copying their version.
|
|
|
Post by Chalice_Of_Evil on Apr 23, 2019 6:44:01 GMT
Skarsten is an interesting choice too 'cause she played Dinah Laurel Lance in that awful adaption of 'Birds of Prey' but I have seen her in other shows like 'Lost Girl' and 'Wynonna Earp' and think she could be good. I think I only caught a few episodes of that Birds of Prey show. Deb. Honestly, for the longest time I'd thought a different actress had played Dinah Lance in that show (my memory had confused her with someone else). It was only after seeing Rachel Skarsten in Lost Girl and looking up her list of credits on IMDB that I discovered it was in fact her in the show and not the actress I'd thought. I wasn't too sure about her character when she was introduced on Lost Girl, but it wasn't long before I grew to really like her character and by the end she was on of the best characters in the show, I thought. LOVED her dance with Kenzi. After Lost Girl ended, I was pleased to see her cast as Elizabeth in a TV series I watched called Reign. After that, the next thing I saw her in was Wynonna Earp (disappointingly, they didn't keep her around for long on that show). It'll be nice to see her appear in another show. And I just discovered today that she and I share the same birthday, with only one year difference (hers is 1985). Up til now I didn't think there were any actors/actresses/celebs I actually liked who had the same birthday as me, so this makes me happy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2019 8:15:20 GMT
I heard the awesome news and the first villain I thought of when they announced they were making a 'Batwoman' TV show was Alice 'cause she is one of Batwoman's best villains and is completely crazy and psychotic and will be fun to watch with her Wonderland gang. Rachel Skarsten is an interesting choice too 'cause she played Dinah Laurel Lance in that awful adaption of 'Birds of Prey' but I have seen her in other shows like 'Lost Girl' and 'Wynonna Earp' and think she could be good. Is this the same Alice from Alice In Wonderland and those other comics you have where her daughter becomes the hero. I don’t remember her in Batwoman and who owns the rights to use Alice In Wonderland? It ain’t Disney or she would be a Marvel villain or is Batwoman a joint venture with DC and Marvel? Is this the same Alice from Alice In Wonderland and those other comics you have where her daughter becomes the hero. I don’t remember her in Batwoman and who owns the rights to use Alice In Wonderland? It ain’t Disney or she would be a Marvel villain or is Batwoman a joint venture with DC and Marvel? Alice In Wonderland long ago become public domain, so the original premise & characters are free for anyone to use and reimagine, specific iteration and potrayals of the character are still mostly owned by their creators, so the widespread version from the animated film is owned by Disney, the characters specific look and or unique traits or trademarks from that version are still protected for the time being.
Disney owns the rights to their versions of the classic fairytale characters but they do not own the actual rights to the characters themselves which is why they are so often used in other stories and such because Disney cannot stop you making a version of the character or story, they can only stop you copying their version.
No. It is a different character than the one that is in the 'Wonderland' series by Zenescope Entertainment and in those Alice Liddle and her daughter, Calie Liddle are meant to be the real characters from the fairy tales except they lived in the real world for some time before going to Wonderland and the Alice in 'Batwoman' is more like Mad Hatter in Batman with Jervis Tetch being a madman who is obsessed with the tale of 'Alice In Wonderland' and thinking he is the Mad Hatter which is more like how Alice is but she is really the twin sister of Kate who was believed to be dead. dazz is right about Alice In Wonderland being in the public domain and I thought Disney owned it years ago too until I discovered the Zenescope series and apparently Disney were able to take some of their titles to court to prevent them from going into the public domain and got copyright over them. Not just for their versions but I read they ownthe rights of Snow White now 'cause of that but there were some they were unsuccessful with and this was one of them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2019 8:26:26 GMT
Skarsten is an interesting choice too 'cause she played Dinah Laurel Lance in that awful adaption of 'Birds of Prey' but I have seen her in other shows like 'Lost Girl' and 'Wynonna Earp' and think she could be good. I think I only caught a few episodes of that Birds of Prey show. Deb. Honestly, for the longest time I'd thought a different actress had played Dinah Lance in that show (my memory had confused her with someone else). It was only after seeing Rachel Skarsten in Lost Girl and looking up her list of credits on IMDB that I discovered it was in fact her in the show and not the actress I'd thought. I wasn't too sure about her character when she was introduced on Lost Girl, but it wasn't long before I grew to really like her character and by the end she was on of the best characters in the show, I thought. LOVED her dance with Kenzi. After Lost Girl ended, I was pleased to see her cast as Elizabeth in a TV series I watched called Reign. After that, the next thing I saw her in was Wynonna Earp (disappointingly, they didn't keep her around for long on that show). It'll be nice to see her appear in another show. And I just discovered today that she and I share the same birthday, with only one year difference (hers is 1985). Up til now I didn't think there were any actors/actresses/celebs I actually liked who had the same birthday as me, so this makes me happy. Thanks for sharing all of that Chalice. No. I actually didn't originally know it was the same actress when I saw her in 'Lost Girl' either 'cause she looked different to me and I hadn't seen the 'Birds of Prey' TV Show for years and I discovered she was when I was looking at the IMDB site one day too so we both found out the same way. I have liked her more in the other roles I have seen and with 'Birds of Prey' it wasn't the actresses' fault but the writers who later admitted to never reading any of the comic books until after the show was cancelled that came up with the silly idea to make Dinah a 16 year old girl with weird psychic powers with a Mother/ Daughter relationship with Barbara Gordon instead of a grown woman who is around the exact same age as Barbara when they form the team and is the Black Canary. The other actress you might be confusing her with is Lori Loughlin who played her Mother (the first Black Canary) and she has been very naughty lately and has been on the news a lot.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on May 10, 2019 9:41:45 GMT
Is this the same Alice from Alice In Wonderland and those other comics you have where her daughter becomes the hero. I don’t remember her in Batwoman and who owns the rights to use Alice In Wonderland? It ain’t Disney or she would be a Marvel villain or is Batwoman a joint venture with DC and Marvel? Alice In Wonderland long ago become public domain, so the original premise & characters are free for anyone to use and reimagine, specific iteration and potrayals of the character are still mostly owned by their creators, so the widespread version from the animated film is owned by Disney, the characters specific look and or unique traits or trademarks from that version are still protected for the time being.
Disney owns the rights to their versions of the classic fairytale characters but they do not own the actual rights to the characters themselves which is why they are so often used in other stories and such because Disney cannot stop you making a version of the character or story, they can only stop you copying their version.
No. It is a different character than the one that is in the 'Wonderland' series by Zenescope Entertainment and in those Alice Liddle and her daughter, Calie Liddle are meant to be the real characters from the fairy tales except they lived in the real world for some time before going to Wonderland and the Alice in 'Batwoman' is more like Mad Hatter in Batman with Jervis Tetch being a madman who is obsessed with the tale of 'Alice In Wonderland' and thinking he is the Mad Hatter which is more like how Alice is but she is really the twin sister of Kate who was believed to be dead. dazz is right about Alice In Wonderland being in the public domain and I thought Disney owned it years ago too until I discovered the Zenescope series and apparently Disney were able to take some of their titles to court to prevent them from going into the public domain and got copyright over them. Not just for their versions but I read they ownthe rights of Snow White now 'cause of that but there were some they were unsuccessful with and this was one of them. I wouldn't think the own the rights to Snow White seeing as Universal did a Snow White film 6-7 years back, it again would probably be specific details of their version they own the rights to, I am not well versed in Snow White stuff but I think Disney renamed the dwarfs in their version so it maybe they own those names and such, hard for them to own anything more than their versions specifics though as im pretty sure Snow White was adapted before Disney got their hands on it, so I wouldn't guess how they could claim the rights to characters they weren't even the first to adapt, then again it is Disney god knows what voodoo they practiced to ensure their rights.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2019 8:17:25 GMT
No. It is a different character than the one that is in the 'Wonderland' series by Zenescope Entertainment and in those Alice Liddle and her daughter, Calie Liddle are meant to be the real characters from the fairy tales except they lived in the real world for some time before going to Wonderland and the Alice in 'Batwoman' is more like Mad Hatter in Batman with Jervis Tetch being a madman who is obsessed with the tale of 'Alice In Wonderland' and thinking he is the Mad Hatter which is more like how Alice is but she is really the twin sister of Kate who was believed to be dead. dazz is right about Alice In Wonderland being in the public domain and I thought Disney owned it years ago too until I discovered the Zenescope series and apparently Disney were able to take some of their titles to court to prevent them from going into the public domain and got copyright over them. Not just for their versions but I read they ownthe rights of Snow White now 'cause of that but there were some they were unsuccessful with and this was one of them. I wouldn't think the own the rights to Snow White seeing as Universal did a Snow White film 6-7 years back, it again would probably be specific details of their version they own the rights to, I am not well versed in Snow White stuff but I think Disney renamed the dwarfs in their version so it maybe they own those names and such, hard for them to own anything more than their versions specifics though as im pretty sure Snow White was adapted before Disney got their hands on it, so I wouldn't guess how they could claim the rights to characters they weren't even the first to adapt, then again it is Disney god knows what voodoo they practiced to ensure their rights. I am not entirely sure dazz but I know Disney own some additional characters they created for their adaptions like for example Disney own Sebastian and Flounder in 'The Little Mermaid' which is why they weren't in the latest live action adaption of 'The Little Mermaid' but have been confirmed to be in the upcoming Disney live action adaption and I also think Disney own the 'Under the Sea' song Sebastian sings and they might own the 'Heigh Ho' song the Seven Dwarfs sing in 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs' which is why we didn't see them sing the song in 'Once Upon A Time.' Although the dwarfs in that show weren't really dwarfs and there was controversy over that and Rumpelstiltskin not being played by dwarf actors 'cause they were said to be taking roles away from dwarf actors and dwarf actors have been struggling in Hollywood lately. I could be wrong but I think with 'Aladdin' Disney might also own Iago and a lot of the other side characters that were missing in the original tales. They might even own Tinker Bell since they have made multiple animated movies of her and the live action movie is still said to be happening but sadly without Reese Witherspoon.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on May 15, 2019 9:15:52 GMT
I wouldn't think the own the rights to Snow White seeing as Universal did a Snow White film 6-7 years back, it again would probably be specific details of their version they own the rights to, I am not well versed in Snow White stuff but I think Disney renamed the dwarfs in their version so it maybe they own those names and such, hard for them to own anything more than their versions specifics though as im pretty sure Snow White was adapted before Disney got their hands on it, so I wouldn't guess how they could claim the rights to characters they weren't even the first to adapt, then again it is Disney god knows what voodoo they practiced to ensure their rights. I am not entirely sure dazz but I know Disney own some additional characters they created for their adaptions like for example Disney own Sebastian and Flounder in 'The Little Mermaid' which is why they weren't in the latest live action adaption of 'The Little Mermaid' but have been confirmed to be in the upcoming Disney live action adaption and I also think Disney own the 'Under the Sea' song Sebastian sings and they might own the 'Heigh Ho' song the Seven Dwarfs sing in 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs' which is why we didn't see them sing the song in 'Once Upon A Time.' Although the dwarfs in that show weren't really dwarfs and there was controversy over that and Rumpelstiltskin not being played by dwarf actors 'cause they were said to be taking roles away from dwarf actors and dwarf actors have been struggling in Hollywood lately. I could be wrong but I think with 'Aladdin' Disney might also own Iago and a lot of the other side characters that were missing in the original tales. They might even own Tinker Bell since they have made multiple animated movies of her and the live action movie is still said to be happening but sadly without Reese Witherspoon. I think with OUAT that's more to do with them needing to portray Storybrook as normal as possible and it not meant to be just like the films, so having the dwarfs be actual drawfs would be too much of a give away, but it was an ABC show which is a Disney owned network and so they obviously allowed them to use certain rights as Disney though they don't own the rights to the dwarfs they do own the names iirc as the names we know tham as aren't the original names for them, but OUAT used those names, as for Iago I have no idea I would imagine Disney own the rights to him as he was an homage to Iago from Othello, which seems unlikely to be the case with the tales that inspired the movie, as for Tinkerbell I dunno, depends if she's named in the original stories, if not then Disney own it as they created this specific version of the character, but even if she was they own the rights to that version regardless, which is how they can spin it off however they like, others could do the same but they wouldn't be able to use that look for Tinkerbell as Disney own the rights to that design still.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2019 11:52:37 GMT
I am not entirely sure dazz but I know Disney own some additional characters they created for their adaptions like for example Disney own Sebastian and Flounder in 'The Little Mermaid' which is why they weren't in the latest live action adaption of 'The Little Mermaid' but have been confirmed to be in the upcoming Disney live action adaption and I also think Disney own the 'Under the Sea' song Sebastian sings and they might own the 'Heigh Ho' song the Seven Dwarfs sing in 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs' which is why we didn't see them sing the song in 'Once Upon A Time.' Although the dwarfs in that show weren't really dwarfs and there was controversy over that and Rumpelstiltskin not being played by dwarf actors 'cause they were said to be taking roles away from dwarf actors and dwarf actors have been struggling in Hollywood lately. I could be wrong but I think with 'Aladdin' Disney might also own Iago and a lot of the other side characters that were missing in the original tales. They might even own Tinker Bell since they have made multiple animated movies of her and the live action movie is still said to be happening but sadly without Reese Witherspoon. I think with OUAT that's more to do with them needing to portray Storybrook as normal as possible and it not meant to be just like the films, so having the dwarfs be actual drawfs would be too much of a give away, but it was an ABC show which is a Disney owned network and so they obviously allowed them to use certain rights as Disney though they don't own the rights to the dwarfs they do own the names iirc as the names we know tham as aren't the original names for them, but OUAT used those names, as for Iago I have no idea I would imagine Disney own the rights to him as he was an homage to Iago from Othello, which seems unlikely to be the case with the tales that inspired the movie, as for Tinkerbell I dunno, depends if she's named in the original stories, if not then Disney own it as they created this specific version of the character, but even if she was they own the rights to that version regardless, which is how they can spin it off however they like, others could do the same but they wouldn't be able to use that look for Tinkerbell as Disney own the rights to that design still. Yeah. I think you are right there Dazz but I can see why the Little People Association of America were not impressed over it ‘cause many of them do struggle to get roles in movies and TV Shows now and roles like Rumpelstiltskin and the Dwarfs would have been some roles they would have thought they had a chance of getting only for the show to hire normal sized actors. Perhaps I am just watching the wrong movies and TV Shows but it feels like there were more dwarf actors in the past than there are now and there were some fairly famous ones like Warwick Davis, John Franklin, Phil Fondacaro and Verne Troyer who got a lot of roles at one point but not so much now. They changed Rumple a lot in ‘Once Upon A Time’ though and from what I remember the original character was far more sinister and he kidnapped kids and forced them to work as slaves for him and I think he also ate them.
I didn’t know Disney owned ABC at the time of ‘Once Upon A Time’ but it makes sense why they got to use some of the Disney characters like Elsa and Anna from ‘Frozen’ which was still somewhat new at the time ‘Once Upon A Time’ had them but I am still surprised they did not have some others and it was a shame we never got a ‘Zootopa’ type of cameo since Ginnifer Goodwin played Judy and she wanted to do something ‘Zootopia’ related for the show too. Have you seen ‘Zootopia’ Dazz and did you know there are plans for ‘Zootopia 2 and 3?’ I think they will go through ‘cause I read ‘Zootopia’ is the most successful original Disney movie of the past 50 years and a lot of ‘Zootopia’ fans including my nieces want a sequel so they can see what the characters do next.
Hopefully we get the live action ‘Tinker Bell’ movie. It was a shame Reese Witherspoon didn’t get to do it ‘cause I think she could have been good as Tinker Bell but and I read the ‘Tinker Bell’ movies were the most successful direct to video franchise by Disney and over here in Australia they were in cinemas and we took my eldest niece to see all of them and I didn’t know they were direct to video in America.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Jun 14, 2019 12:32:17 GMT
I think with OUAT that's more to do with them needing to portray Storybrook as normal as possible and it not meant to be just like the films, so having the dwarfs be actual drawfs would be too much of a give away, but it was an ABC show which is a Disney owned network and so they obviously allowed them to use certain rights as Disney though they don't own the rights to the dwarfs they do own the names iirc as the names we know tham as aren't the original names for them, but OUAT used those names, as for Iago I have no idea I would imagine Disney own the rights to him as he was an homage to Iago from Othello, which seems unlikely to be the case with the tales that inspired the movie, as for Tinkerbell I dunno, depends if she's named in the original stories, if not then Disney own it as they created this specific version of the character, but even if she was they own the rights to that version regardless, which is how they can spin it off however they like, others could do the same but they wouldn't be able to use that look for Tinkerbell as Disney own the rights to that design still. Yeah. I think you are right there Dazz but I can see why the Little People Association of America were not impressed over it ‘cause many of them do struggle to get roles in movies and TV Shows now and roles like Rumpelstiltskin and the Dwarfs would have been some roles they would have thought they had a chance of getting only for the show to hire normal sized actors. Perhaps I am just watching the wrong movies and TV Shows but it feels like there were more dwarf actors in the past than there are now and there were some fairly famous ones like Warwick Davis, John Franklin, Phil Fondacaro and Verne Troyer who got a lot of roles at one point but not so much now. They changed Rumple a lot in ‘Once Upon A Time’ though and from what I remember the original character was far more sinister and he kidnapped kids and forced them to work as slaves for him and I think he also ate them.
I didn’t know Disney owned ABC at the time of ‘Once Upon A Time’ but it makes sense why they got to use some of the Disney characters like Elsa and Anna from ‘Frozen’ which was still somewhat new at the time ‘Once Upon A Time’ had them but I am still surprised they did not have some others and it was a shame we never got a ‘Zootopa’ type of cameo since Ginnifer Goodwin played Judy and she wanted to do something ‘Zootopia’ related for the show too. Have you seen ‘Zootopia’ Dazz and did you know there are plans for ‘Zootopia 2 and 3?’ I think they will go through ‘cause I read ‘Zootopia’ is the most successful original Disney movie of the past 50 years and a lot of ‘Zootopia’ fans including my nieces want a sequel so they can see what the characters do next.
Hopefully we get the live action ‘Tinker Bell’ movie. It was a shame Reese Witherspoon didn’t get to do it ‘cause I think she could have been good as Tinker Bell but and I read the ‘Tinker Bell’ movies were the most successful direct to video franchise by Disney and over here in Australia they were in cinemas and we took my eldest niece to see all of them and I didn’t know they were direct to video in America. Thing is back in the day you needed dwarf actors for certain roles, now you don't, CGI and forced perspective techniques remove the need for that, and also with society as it is now the other part of what played into dwarf roles is gone, used to be dwarf's were an easy gag or a way to show something as odd or not normal, now you do that and you get your arse chewed out for it.
In some ways I get it, like honestly for a lot of the smaller CGI characters I don't get why you don't have two performers play the role, or if you do why not let one be a dwarf actor who you maybe able to also give a role to in another part of the movie, like in GOTG why not let a dwarf actor motion capture Rocket's body and movements whilst you have Bradley Cooper voice and performance capture him facially, why is Sean Gunn performance capturing him other than because he's James's brother? Same for like the Apes movies, with the exception of Serkis who is a master at performance capture why not get dwarf actors performing for the smaller apes and stuff?
One thing maybe an issue though is how dumb Hollywood is, they probably just think to hire just Davis or Dinkleage as they are well known and that's that, but also it's just what is famous is now different, back in the day you had a TV show and most people knew your name, now we have actors working regularly on TV for shows for 10-20 years steady and most people wont know who they are, you know the fame the GOT cast got for being on that show is what was normal for actors 30 years ago, but now that level of fame is like wow that's huge, the work is still out there for dwarf actors, sadly the fame isn't though.
Never saw Zootopia so I have no idea, not surprised it's Disney after all, and with it being the age of franchises anything that hits is going to be sequallised and monetised to the bitter end.
|
|