and as far as ” who took photos everyone could have taken.” is concerned – not everyone would have the vision that Annie has, not “everyone” could have taken these photos at all. You’re completely wrong. =)

My comment was somewhat tongue in
cheek, but you seem to have missed this and decided to be incredibly
rude. And perhaps a tad ignorant.

Captain Hook is a character from the
Peter Pan play(s) and series of stories written by British author JM
Barrie, the first of which dates from around 1902. Disney himself was
born in 1901, so he was only 1 year old at the time. Captain Hook
first appeared in the stage play, I believe, in 1904.

So, as I said, Captain Hook is not an
“original” character by Disney. In fact, his and the whole Peter
Pan “look” in the 1953 animated Disney film is based on
descriptions that already existed (as you’d expect anyway from
book/play adaptations) and that of a stereotypical pirate, so not
even that is “original”. Want proof? Just search for the 1924
“Peter Pan” film version on IMDB and take a look at the poster
art. That is just one example, Google further and you will find
illustrations going back even further.

Here in the UK, the Peter Pan and the
relevant characters are famous without Disney. It is still
part of our popular culture and many of us still go and see Peter Pan
in theatres every year, whether it’s a proper play, or a pantomime
(in fact, I went and saw Peter Pan in a theatre just a few months
ago.)

I am by no means trying to belittle
what Disney has done over the years, and the enjoyment his films have
brought us, especially as he brought Peter Pan and other stories to
wider audience, but you can’t claim Hook and Peter Pan as being
wholly Disney’s, not when it was an adaptation from existing work
that had already been around for 50 or so years.

FYI, Peter Pan is the *only* (I
believe) existing artwork (written or otherwise) that has a special
on-going and extended copyright in certain countries. The copyright
royalties go to the Great Ormond Street Hospital for children, in
London, to which the copyrights were gifted by JM Barrie in the
1920s.

you can see equal stuff on deviantart or other sides.. done by noname artists with a fraction of the budget.
what could prove better that with so much photoshop work you don´t need a photographer like annie leibowitz to take the images?

disney hired annie so some people make a fuss about it and money does not matter for disney.
if you had seen these images without a headline you would think the same….

outside america people read the original storys.
I know it may be a suprise for americans. :)

maybe americans tend to think everything in a disney movie is a disney character… but that´s their fault.
i have painted some donald duck storys myself… but i would not be so bolt to say it´s a “tanja schulte” character.

imho they only took Annie L. for this shot because it creates some more media attention. some people will scream “wow” at any picture that has a prominent name under it.

the seconds image with the three figures is not even very well done.

still 60-70 % of the image “artistry” is done by the retoucher.
but what name do we read? the name of the famous photographer who took photos everyone could have taken. given that he as access to costumes and make-up artists.