20 Questions - Game #7

[Jamiet99uk]

13: Is it a Disney film?

You really know which questions to ask......
No and Yes

I don't understand this answer.

Either it's a Disney film or it is not a Disney film, surely?

How can it be "No and Yes" ??

[MSmart]

For example, Star Wars and Marvel movies are now considered Disney movies due the acquisitions, but people don't necessarily think of them as such.

[Hamish]

For example, Star Wars and Marvel movies are now considered Disney movies due the acquisitions, but people don't necessarily think of them as such.

Yes, like that.

[Jamiet99uk]

So it's a cartoon movie produced by a studio that Disney owns. Okay.

[Hamish]

I'll clear this one up as a hint.

The original movie was made by a studio that has later been acquired by Disney. Since the acquisition at least one sequel has been created. So, by my definition the original was not a Disney film, but the sequel is.

[Doug7878]

Is the acquired studio Pixar ?

[Hamish]

Is the acquired studio Pixar ?

Yes

[Hamish]

Recap:

1. Fictional
2. Not female
3. In a world similar to ours
4. Some type of warrior
5. Movie character
6. In a movie filmed in the past 10 years
7. American
8. Good guy
9. Cartoon character
10. Movie has at least 1 sequel
11. No book or comic adaptation that I am aware of
12. Name does not feature in title of movie
13. Human(-ish)
14. Both No and Yes Disney film
15. Pixar film

Not:
Genghis Khan (Jamiet99uk)
Batman (damo666)
Conan (Octavious)
Captain America (Johnny Big Horse)
Superman (Yoyoyozo)
Bob Parr (Kak)
Bob Belcher (Gwyn)
Buzz Lightyear (Villageidiot)

[cdngooner]

We've narrowed it down substantially.
a) we know the first movie was Pixar pre-Disney. Disney acquired Pixar in 2006;
b) we know the most recent movie in the franchise was 2012 or later;
c) the only Pixar franchises that fit this timeline are Toy Story, Monsters Inc., Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, and Cars;
d) a human protagonist narrows it down to only the Incredibles;
e) Bob Parr has already been eliminated;
f) male removes Elastigirl and Violet;
g) we are left with Dash, Jack-Jack and Frozone.

I'm going to guess Frozone.

[Hamish]

I'm going to guess Frozone.

No, and I'll save others the trouble of guessing Dash and Jack-Jack, I think you're logic is flawed.

[Ginge86]

Guess - Woody

[Hamish]

Guess - Woody

Correct! Your turn!

[Ginge86]

Yay me! lol
I will start in a new thread in a moment

[cdngooner]

You kind of threw us off with the "human" answer there. In no way is Woody human. He's a toy that comes to life; he always maintains his separation from the real humans.

[Octavious]

You kind of threw us off with the "human" answer there. In no way is Woody human. He's a toy that comes to life; he always maintains his separation from the real humans.

In many ways Woody, much like Winnie the Pooh, is more human than any of us. I think you can fully justify his humanity artistically. My bigger issue would be his warrior credentials. Unlike Winnie the Pooh, who is known to be a blood drenched demon of teeth and claw when deprived of honey, Woody has a fundamentally gentle nature. Still, I guess there is an inner warrior in us all...

[Hamish]

You kind of threw us off with the "human" answer there. In no way is Woody human. He's a toy that comes to life; he always maintains his separation from the real humans.

In my defense, I did day he was Human-ish. He is supposed to depict a human.

[Hamish]

You kind of threw us off with the "human" answer there. In no way is Woody human. He's a toy that comes to life; he always maintains his separation from the real humans.

In many ways Woody, much like Winnie the Pooh, is more human than any of us. I think you can fully justify his humanity artistically. My bigger issue would be his warrior credentials. Unlike Winnie the Pooh, who is known to be a blood drenched demon of teeth and claw when deprived of honey, Woody has a fundamentally gentle nature. Still, I guess there is an inner warrior in us all...

Well, he is a gun-slinging cowboy. I thought that would qualify as "some kind of warrior" and I did give the hint that his battle was not the main story of the film.

[Hamish]

Maybe we better stick to actual "human" humans to avoid any further confusion. Lots of difficult questions in this one.

[Octavious]

Maybe we better stick to actual "human" humans to avoid any further confusion. Lots of difficult questions in this one.

Oh, good Lord, no. It's the arguing over grey areas that's half the fun

[Kakarroto]

I disagree here, your argument "is more human than any of us" is (despite the aspect you most likely don't know enough of all of us to make that judgement) flawed in the perspective of a guessing game. Questions in here are to rule out possibilities to narrow the target area.

If we now say that you can justify humanity artistically for game purposes, then the question "Is XYZ human?" loses any real value, since most characters are made to be a person and relate to humans since that is the target audience in art (at least currently) (at least as far as I know). The Klingon that serves on a federation bridge? Human. The Monster that rescues a little child? Human. The robot that saves a plant on a devastated future earth? Human.

I give them full points for being a person in their own right and I can see where you come from with artistically human, but for the purposes of this game, we can't say they are human.