Pooh Bear gets a new friend!
 

http://www.usatoday.com/life/televis...the-pooh_x.htm

Maybe it's just the impossibly cozy nature of the 'hood, but for 80 years there has been no change in the resident line-up of the Hundred Acre Wood.
A "tomboyish" 6-year-old girl will join Tigger, Piglet and Pooh in the Hundred Acre Wood in 2007. A "tomboyish" 6-year-old girl will join Tigger, Piglet and Pooh in the Hundred Acre Wood in 2007.
Disney

Guess who's coming for honey? As part of a barrel-full of Winnie the Pooh anniversary events, Disney is working on a new animated series that will replace Christopher Robin with a 6-year-old girl.

To quote one loquacious Rabbit: "Oh my, oh my, oh my goodness!"

Although the bear's party fare includes much Disney hoopla — anniversary-themed goods, Disney Channel marathons and a stage show that kicks off today in New York — the real bother is sure to be over tinkering with a classic.

Details are sketchy on the as-yet-nameless new arrival, who will make her debut in the 2007 computer-generated series My Friends Tigger and Pooh. Disney execs say the idea is to bring an older audience to an iconic franchise born when British author A.A. Milne began musing about the imaginary world of his son, Christopher Robin.

"We got raised eyebrows even in-house at first, but the feeling was these timeless characters really needed a breath of fresh air that only the introduction of someone new could provide," says Nancy Kanter of the Disney Channel.

The gamble could sweeten the pot of a company that already brings in $1 billion annually from Pooh merchandise, "more than all their core characters combined," says Thomas Ranese of marketing consultants Interbrand. "Pooh appears to be a robust brand that can handle expansion."

There could be a side benefit to luring new kids to this idyllic forest. Because today's tykes often get introduced to literary characters through their cartoon counterparts, "the hope is this will bring more kids to (Pooh) books," says Rory Halperin, who covers entertainment for Child magazine.

But some fans no doubt will feel that Winnie's world was fine just the way it was. "This strikes me as a step too far away from the vision of the original books," says Kathleen Horning, who trains children's book librarians at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "Besides, growing up, I had no problem relating to Christopher Robin. He almost had a non-specific gender."

Disney's Kanter says the new cartoon represents not an abandonment of an old, familiar world, but rather an alternate universe for Pooh and his crew.

"Christopher Robin is still out there in the woods, playing," she says. "We hope people will fall for this new tomboyish girl. The last thing we want to be is the ones who brought the franchise down."

Here is what she looks like:
http://images.usatoday.com/life/_pho...nside-pooh.jpg

OMFG. Is that CGI? :o

O... M... F... G.... :roll:

http://www.esgieha.pl/forum/images/smiles/gg_killer.gif

As the article states, yes it is CGI.

Im wondering who this little girl is tho? Im thinking she's Christopher Robin's daughter. Ya know...the one who's been suing Disney. :lol:

No Christopher Robin, no animation, BAD renders...I wish Walt Disney's ghost would come back and mentally terrorize the bastards who run his company.

Burn in hell Disney.

BURN IN HEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, that's rather horrible. I hate how nowadays everything has to be so 'PC'. It ruins everything.

I'm a girl, and I have no problem with a boy main character. I loved Winnie the Pooh and the HUndred Acre Wood.

I'm so disappointed.

I don't recall Christopher Robin being a popular character anyway; i thought it was all about Eeyoh and Tigger (and then the others).

Although disney's trying to prove they don't need Pixar to do CGI features, it's a shame they abandoned traditional animation as their main practise, hell taken a look at that still they're a long way away from Pixar's feats. And with all the sequels to the classics, probably to be done in cgi, Walt Disney must be turning in his grave right now (he even stated at some point that he was against sequels).

Blech... not like I'd be against new characters and stuff, but this is just disgusting. I mean, a trendy six year old CGI-monstrosity? When I want to see a animated movie, I want to see something that looks handdrawn (it doesn't need to be, it just has to look like it). Sure, there are a couple of exceptions, but those are TV-series (Beast Wars and Max Steel). But I can't stand all those CGI-movies. I just can't force myself to look at those pixel-creatures for too long.

As for the concept of the girl... No. Just no.

And I thought Hephalump was awful...

We may as well just put Pooh Bear in the coffin right now. *sighs as she looks at the grave of Walt Disney* Please Walt, forgive these people. They only have half a brain to share between them, so choas can only follow...

The last great untopuched pasture of Disney innocense has just been defiled.

At least Heffalump tied into the series mythology, this is just....f*cking...stupid.

Yeah, whoever thought of a girl main character? Women can't carry any franchise ever.

:| Disney needs help-BAD BAD help! THey must be out of ideas....you know wiuth all the storyies out there ....there are a few Disney has yet to do. Like the migit who was obessed with his name and tries to steal that chick's baby.

Jorden and Jorgigle. Where a witch turns the girl into a bird and sends the guy away.....

There are alot of there yet to be made into cartoons.

I don't think I could put it that polite. The asshats need to be bombed. I could understand the move to CGI if they had talent, but they don't , so they relied on Pixar. Now Pixar is gone, and Disney is a hollow shell filled with cash. Watch the behind the scenes featres on the Finding Nemo DVD. Pixar actually had to dumb down the visuals. Dumb them Down. The water looked too realistic. So realistic in fact that it would have ruined the animated feel of the movie. I've never seen CGI that looked so beautiful. Add to that the fact that Pixar actually understands that the secret to CGI animation is to make the characters move as though they are alive. That's the problem with CGI. Things look photorealistic, but they move unrealistically. Pixar understands that and knows how to animate characters so that they feel alive. Not even ILM can atest to that. Those people have more talent than just about any CGI company in the world.

Disney's stuff looks pre-Toy Story in comparison, and that's just sickening. Artificial, waxy, cheap, budget, Veggie Tales stuff. Excuse me...

*runs to bathroom and pukes up three meals*

Disney has no talent, and no excuse for it. Hell, they could buy talent and fool us, but they won't even do that. Eisner took them down too far before he left, and now they can't save themselves. They need to die before they rape any more of our childhood memories. It's disgusting.

This is retarded. Just another reason to continue hating Disney. I miss the Disney I used to love.

She looks a caucasian rival to Dora the Explorer, if you ask me...

Hell, most of the CGI on Nick looks better then that crap.

um.. wow. it looks exactly the same to me. and that image is really small. i mean how can you guys even tell if its going to suck. man..
as far as pooh and the other two, they look exactly the same.

yeah bartallen... No offense... I hate the idea of having a new human character in Pooh, but I don't understand the complaints about the CGI....

Honestly... I think it looks pretty. I like the backgrounds, and Pooh and Tigger (sp?) look good.

I'd like it if somebody could better explain the whole CGI issue to me.. I don't really understand why this is bad CGI? I've read the posts above, and I still dont' really see any difference in ANY of the CGIs flicks that I've seen so far...

Who is Trigger?

you know what was implied.