Animation Source Forums

Really quite amazing what you've done here. Unfirtunate I appeared late, I would have loved to have taken part in the writing. Unfortunatly, I lack the skillset to animate. Alas I am a programmer, no animator.

How do I join and can you tell me whay's this about

Yep, and written by a very professional and good writer. I think you guys are going to like what he did with this. it destroys the old script. looks amazing and is about 95% done pending a few edits and additions here and there. the cast listed here are reference points by our author, not the actual cast, either way, I hope you guys like this newly refurbished script.

http://www.animationsource.org/sites_co ... t_beta.txt

I would like to say, for the record, that a Balto sequel (fan-created or otherwise) which can't stay within the G boundaries its predecessors honored in terms of violence and/or which contains language unsuitable for young ears is a bad idea.

If we make it too kid-friendly, it'll be less enjoyable for the adults. Shrek's a U (or a 'G' to you Americans) and that has risque language and jokes aimed towards adults. Same with many - usually older - family films. In Balto 1 there's even risque language (Nikki: "That son of a-"), which makes older audiences feel more appreciated. And it's the same with violence. The Lion King was violent, and families of all ages stil love it. Same with Balto - there was blood erupting from his neck when Steele threw him against the rock. In Don Bluth's Secret of NIMH, there was a lot of violence - stabbing and blood intact. Kids mostly won't get the jokes or pay much attention to the language anyway - and the violence can be disturbing, but it makes the film more interesting for them and more enoyable for thr adults. so don't get your knickers in a twist, and let these guys write the film how they want to write it ;D

All of that was G-rated. And for the record, most mature people I know enjoy Balto as it was. I'm not saying no violence at all, but making it PG is a dumb idea.

I never said make it PG. I said don't make it too kid-friendly, so teens and adults can enjoy it a little more.

You may not have, but the script did. That's what I was talking about. Sorry for any confusion.

By 1995 standards, your script seems G to me, though mabye pushing the envolope. Admittedly, I have only skimmed it, and intend to go back and acctually read it. However, the standards have increased over the years, and a very small ammount of movies are rated G anymore.

Well, all I'm saying is that Balto was a family movie. How can we call this a sequel, regardless of origin or canon status, if we discard that legacy?

Even Harry Potter's rating changed from G to PG-13 over time. I'm just sayin'.