Top Ten Disney Oddities

[Big Disney Fan]

This thread is about something interesting: the Top 10 Disney Oddities (which came from David Koenig's book "Mouse Under Glass"). Here is Oddity One:

#1: Prince Charming Disease
For some reason, the prince seems to always be the blandest character in Disney movies. Snow White's Prince Charming was so boring, his previously-planned action scenes were deleted, and after a brief hello, he disappears until the closing scene. Cinderella's, Aurora's and Ariel's respective princes are no more exciting. As a result, while you can be sure of seeing a mess of little girls dressed in various princess outfits (like Snow White's or Cinderella's), you won't see too many little boys sporting Prince Charming's tights. And nor will you see too many actors at the Disney parks in prince costumes.
Maybe it's just they're overshadowed by the marvelous Disney villains who typically steal the show. Or maybe it dates by the archetypal Disney nice guy, Mickey Mouse himself, who became so popular during the 1930s that the Disney staff became more and more restricted in what the public would allow them to do with their hero. So while Donald and Goofy were getting into all kinds of incredible adventures, Mickey was content to just sit on the porch and read the evening paper.
Makes you wonder if maybe Aladdin lost his edge after he married Jasmine.

Anyway, that's the first oddity; look for more at a later date. Until then, what do you think?

[Disney-Fan]

I have to respectfully disagree about Eric. We got to know his personality and about his dreams for the right girl. Sure, he was far from the 3 dimensional character Ariel was, but I felt Disney stepped in the right direction with Eric.

[Big Disney Fan]

I have to respectfully disagree about Eric. We got to know his personality and about his dreams for the right girl. Sure, he was far from the 3 dimensional character Ariel was, but I felt Disney stepped in the right direction with Eric.

Hey, don't take my word for it. Check it yourself.

Anyway, here are the next two oddities:

#2: The Pluto Syndrome
It all started with Pluto, Mickey's faithful pet and the first major Disney character who is unable to speak. While it's true that talking animals are common in the animated features, those same pictures also include animals who can't speak. Like Pluto before them, they invariably end up as pets, servants or beasts (i.e., Max the sheepdog from The Little Mermaid, Toby the dog from The Great Mouse Detective, Nero and Brutus the alligators from The Rescuers and the bear from The Fox and the Hound), whereas the talking animals assume more humanized-type roles and typically wear clothes.
You have to pity poor Pluto, who can't speak and thus is banished to a role of mere domesticated servitude, when even his annoying foes Chip 'n' Dale could talk. Then again, maybe Pluto could speak until he heard the ridiculous intonations of Donald and Goofy, after which he thought better of it.

#3: The Curse of Cats
Legend has it that Walt Disney despised cats. Or maybe it's because his most famous characters are mice (cute and harmless) and dogs (man's best friends), the mortal enemies of cats (mysterious with sharp teeth and claws). But whatever the reason, cats normally received a bad rap in Disney movies. Starting with Mickey's Steamboat Willie foe, Peg-Leg Pete, if they're not downright evil (i.e., Lucifer from Cinderella), then they're villainous (i.e., Gideon from Pinocchio), devilish (i.e., the Cheshire Cat from Alice In Wonderland, the Siamese cats from Lady and the Tramp), scrawny (i.e., Sgt. Tibs from 101 Dalmatians) or at the very least tormented (i.e., Figaro from Pinocchio). Meanwhile, entire movies were devoted to how wonderful dogs and mice are. It wasn't until after Walt passed away that felines started to receive more decent roles in the films (i.e., The Aristocats and Oliver and Company).

So what do you think?

[SpringHeelJack]

Do we get an oddity about how Donald does not wear pants but yet, upon leaving the bath, will promptly wrap his lower half with a towel?

[Big Disney Fan]

Do we get an oddity about how Donald does not wear pants but yet, upon leaving the bath, will promptly wrap his lower half with a towel?

No, I'm afraid this list of oddities doesn't mention anything like that.

Anyway, here's the next one:

#4: The Clonus Factor
Maybe it's because there are only so many ways to draw a hound dog or because all big tigers appear much the same, but many Disney animated characters sure look alike. As proof, have you ever seen Prince John and King Leonidas (from Bedknobs and Broomsticks) in the same room at the same time? Or Tramp and Dodger (from Oliver and Company)? Or Baloo, Little John and the Fisherman Bear (from Bedknobs and Broomsticks)? In fact, Disney's big bears look so identical to each other that the same mold is actually used to produce their respective costumes for the Disney parks.
Perhaps it's the claim that some of the similar-looking characters were separated at birth which has lead recent movies to feature more exotic players, like a meerkat or a warthog or a frilled-neck lizard.

Okay, I'm going to bed now. There will be more tomorrow...

[blackcauldron85]

Just an observation I made with the first oddity: The only Prince Charming is from "Cinderella"; Snow White's prince is just called Prince, and, of course, Aurora's prince is Prince Phillip.

[Jasmine1022]

I think they just refer to all the Princes as Prince Charming because they are all charming Princes. Though it would have been smarter to call it just the 'Prince Syndrome'

[SpringHeelJack]

"Charming" is such a misnomer. I find nothing charming about Snow White's prince or the titular Prince Charming.

But Prince Phillip? Mrow! He could charm me any day!

I think I'd rather have Prince Faithful or Prince Witty, personally. Or even Prince Always-Picks-Up-His-Dirty-Clothes-Off-The-Bathroom-Floor sounds like a good choice.

[Big Disney Fan]

Here is the next set of oddities (now bear in mind that this set came in 1996):

#5: The Superwoman Complex
For years, critics have assailed Disney for its heroines, claiming that they were all just passive and helpless characters whose sole concern was finding a man to marry, and that the only dynamic females were villains. In direct response, starting with Belle from Beauty and the Beast, Disney deliberately set out to turn such a convention on its ear. From Belle to Jasmine to Pocahontas to Esmerelda to Meg to Mulan and so on and on, each heroine has become more and more aggressive, independent and heroic (and strangely enough, more endowed with a bigger chest). Could you picture any of these women doing housework? Now the hero merely stands back in awe and watches her perform daring-do feats. The age of the fair princess is long gone; get ready for misunderstood mud wrestlers and biker chicks.

#6: Problems of Perspective
A mouse as big as a duck as big as a dog? Mickey may be a mouse, but he is still nevertheless drawn of comparable size to Donald Duck and the other co-stars, regardless of what animal they really are. The animals are designed in more believable sizes in the feature films; it's their features that are altered. Early on, Disney discovered that to instill innocence and sympathy into his characters, he could make them look like babies, whose heads are bigger in proportion to their bodies than those of adults. Sympathetic characters were drawn with big heads and even bigger E.T.-sized eyes. The bigger the eyes, the cuter and more vulnerable the character. The smaller and beadier the eyes, the more evil the character. Critics noted that one reason why Pocahontas was more realistic is due to the fact that she was the first Disney heroine who eyes didn't take up half her head.
All perspective is thrown out the window where the costumed characters at the Disney parks are concerned, mainly due to the limited size of the available workforce. Chip 'n' Dale standing nose-to-beak with Donald Duck? Jiminy Cricket the same height as Pinocchio? Mushu as tall as Mulan? The mice rubbing shoulders with Cinderella? Redesigned costumes now team Snow White with the Seven Men of Average Height.

I think they just refer to all the Princes as Prince Charming because they are all charming Princes. Though it would have been smarter to call it just the 'Prince Syndrome'

Well, like I said, don't take my word for it, just read the book yourself.

[blackcauldron85]

The set came out in 1996, and yet they mention Megara and Mulan?!?!

[Big Disney Fan]

The set came out in 1996, and yet they mention Megara and Mulan?!?!

I'm just trying to make some guesstimates from after that year. I'm just trying to make some wild guesses here. Hope you understand. Anywho, here's Oddity Seven:

#7: Near Death Experiences
The Disney wizards also many other surefire methods to gain sympathy for their characters and few are more effective than pretending to kill them off. Although sometimes "knocked off" early on (i.e., the runt Dalmatian, Chief from The Fox and the Hound), for maximum dramatic impact, most almost die just before the end of the movie. If the victim can't be the star (i.e., Snow White, Pinocchio, Oliver from Oliver and Company), then the best buddy will do just as well (i.e., Tinker Bell, Baloo, Gurgi from The Black Cauldron).
Fear not. Nice Disney characters are immortal. No matter how hermetically sealed their fate may appear, they will be quickly revived by either natural (John Smith shakes it off; Esmerelda was only resting) or supernatural means (i.e., Ariel, the Beast, Meg). Or, if everyone has given up all hope, they merely show up at the finale unscathed (i.e., Trusty from Lady and the Tramp, Robin Hood, Basil).

Now like I said, I know when the book came out, but I'm just trying to make some educated guesses here. And you'll see some more educated guess in the last few oddities, too. With that in mind, what do you think of the oddities?

[blackcauldron85]

Oh, okay!

[SpringHeelJack]

What about Bambi's mom? She's certainly the exception to that.

[candydog]

Well in response to "talking animals" and "animal sizes" I always thought of characters such as Mickey and Donald as anthropomorphic characters. This means that they take on human characteristics such as the ability to speak. Take Goofy and Pluto for example. Goofy would be described as an anthropomorphic character as he is a dog who speaks, walks comfortably on his hind legs, wears clothes and generally leads a very "human" life. Pluto on the other hand is a much more realistic interpretation of a dog. He sleeps in a kennel, wears a collar, walks on all fours (albeit not in the disney parks) and generally leads the typical "dog's life", although this life is often exaggerated giving Pluto the ability to solve complex problems within his cartoons.

Disney was not the only animator to use anthropomorphic animal characters though, just think of Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck. Puppets also come in the form of animals with humanoid characteristics: Kermit and Miss Piggy for example, are among many frequently seen on TV.

But yes, when it comes to Princes and the Superwoman Complex I have to agree. Because of this trend within Disney movies, there are far more female disney icons out there than males. Earlier Disney Princesses may have seemed "sexist" in the way that they wait for their Princes to save the day, but with such bland personalities, their male counterparts really aren't better off. Princesses give girls something to aspire to, Princes are really just plot devices, an object used to serve their purpose and give the happy ending, depth and story was given to the so-called "damsel in distress". Now that the women in movies are stronger characters, men have been demoted to the "stupid, helpless neanderthals" so frequently seen on television today.

[Escapay]

The set came out in 1996, and yet they mention Megara and Mulan?!?!

Mouse Under Glass was published in 1997, then re-issued again 2001. For reasons unknown to me, the version in this thread (and actually, all the Oddities appearing so far) is worded differently from my copy of the book. The actual The Superwoman Complex is written like so:

• For years, critics assailed Disney for its heroines, that they were all passive, helpless characters whose only concern was finding a man to marry, and that the only dynamic females were the villains. In direct response, beginning with Beauty and the Beast's Belle, Disney purposely set out to turn that convention on its ear. From Belle to Jasmine to Pocahontas to Esmerelda, each heroine has become more aggressive, independent and heroic (and curiously, has been endowed with a larger chest). Could you picture any of these women doing housework? Now the hero just stands back in awe watching her perform derring-do feats. The age of the fair princess is over. Get ready for misunderstood mud wrestlers and biker chicks.*

While the one in the thread changes some words and adds a few extraneous ones:

• For years, critics have assailed Disney for its heroines, claiming that they were all just passive and helpless characters whose sole concern was finding a man to marry, and that the only dynamic females were villains. In direct response, starting with Belle from Beauty and the Beast, Disney deliberately set out to turn such a convention on its ear. From Belle to Jasmine to Pocahontas to Esmerelda to Meg to Mulan and so on and on, each heroine has become more and more aggressive, independent and heroic (and strangely enough, more endowed with a bigger chest). Could you picture any of these women doing housework? Now the hero merely stands back in awe and watches her perform daring-do feats. The age of the fair princess is long gone; get ready for misunderstood mud wrestlers and biker chicks.

Anyway, I've read the book more than a dozen times, and I like the amount of information the Koenig provides. It's nowhere near a *definitive* guide to Disney films/theme parks, but it offers that unofficial look, thus providing a more critical point of view while still containing a sort of "fan" perspective. But the whole "Oddities" section to me always felt like the standard criticisms that people have towards Disney, only rehashed in a way to make it sound like legitimate concerns about Disney's animated world. Don't get me wrong, they're still legitimate concerns (especially the as-yet-unposted #10: Synergytis), but Koenig discusses them in, IMO, a rather smug and matter-of-factly tone. It's almost as if he were saying, "Yeah, I really like Disney, but I still can't let go of these things that bother me and are kindling for the bonfire of Disney naysayers." Still, give me a Disney fan that can find faults in their product than a Disney fan who'll blindly buy spoilt milk from their cash cows and call it cream of the crop.

Scaps


*Koenig, David. Mouse Under Glass: Secrets of Disney Animation and Theme Parks. New York: Bonaventure Press, 1997, 2001. pp. 107-112

[Maerj]

This thread is about something interesting: the Top 10 Disney Oddities (which came from David Koenig's book "Mouse Under Glass"). Here is Oddity One:

#1: Prince Charming Disease
For some reason, the prince seems to always be the blandest character in Disney movies. Snow White's Prince Charming was so boring, his previously-planned action scenes were deleted, and after a brief hello, he disappears until the closing scene.

Wasn't the real reason for the lack of Prince action in the movie due to that Walt thought they couldn't animate him with enough realism? They were having a hard enough time animating Snow White and avoiding the rubber hose animation that was always used in animation up to that time.

[Flanger-Hanger]

This thread is about something interesting: the Top 10 Disney Oddities (which came from David Koenig's book "Mouse Under Glass"). Here is Oddity One:

#1: Prince Charming Disease
For some reason, the prince seems to always be the blandest character in Disney movies. Snow White's Prince Charming was so boring, his previously-planned action scenes were deleted, and after a brief hello, he disappears until the closing scene.

Wasn't the real reason for the lack of Prince action in the movie due to that Walt thought they couldn't animate him with enough realism? They were having a hard enough time animating Snow White and avoiding the rubber hose animation that was always used in animation up to that time.

This is true, for Disney's first two fairy tales, but for Sleeping Beauty, Walt wanted a much bigger role and Milt Khal really wanted to give him a sense of humor to add to his personality. Prince Phillip, is in my opinion, the only Disney prince with a likable personality. Plus he has more sceen time than Aurora and does more heroic things than Cinderella's or Snow White's princes. Eric has a personality, but it's about not caring about anyone but himself, and even when he saves Ariel, I still don't like him.

[Big Disney Fan]

Here are the next two oddities:

#8: The Parent Trap
It's the toughest gig in show biz: the Disney mom. From Snow White to Lewis (from Meet the Robinsons), most of the animated heroes were brought to life on the big screen without a natural mother. And even the few cartoon stars who do have mothers usually lose them, either being instantly orphaned or just separated from them for the duration of the picture.
Disney fathers normally don't get much meatier roles. Despite often being powerful figures who should have more important things to worry about (like ruling a kingdom), they spend much of their screen time doting on their restless offspring. Yet the overprotective Disney dads are futilely out of touch with younger generations... and sometimes out of touch with reality.
Even worse are the stepparents and guardians. Whereas in reality, the goal of Child Services is to place the parentless with the best possible parents, Disney orphans invariably wind up adopted by the most overbearing , degenerate, psychopathic waste of space in town. However, Mowgli and Tarzan fared better than most; they were taken in by animals; Mowgli by wolves and Tarzan by gorillas.
Maybe it's because orphans instantly have our sympathy, or maybe it's due to the fact that if animated youngsters actually had parents that were intelligent, practical and breathing, the youths could be quickly rescued or at least assisted through their challenges - which would cause the movie and the adventure to be severely shortened. According to feature animation executive Tom Schumacher, in the idealized concept of the single unit nuclear family, if you have a mom and/or a dad, all the security questions should be answered for you. That being damaged causes you to become more independent. An orphan has to mature more quickly. If Belle had a mother who could sit her down and explain to her that even though Gaston looks good, he's bad, and that although the Beast isn't really interesting to look at, he's a nice guy inside, she wouldn't have to find out for herself.

And while we're on the subject of kids and parents...

#9: Family Breakups
Disney's genius was in crafting high quality family entertainment, appealing to "kids of all ages". Specifically, when Walt was dreaming up Disneyland, he said his desire was to create an amusement where adults and children could have fun together. Consequently, every attraction on opening day did accommodate every age in the whole family. But now, increasingly, new attractions are being introduced with age and height requirements. The Indiana Jones Adventure, the Twilight Zone Tower of Terror and California Screamin' are just a handful of examples of the attractions that disallow small children, while many Toontown offerings ban adults. Wasn't the whole idea to create attractions that wouldn't separate parents from their children and vice-versa?
The movie division apparently is headed in a similar direction, with each successive kid movie seemingly becoming more and still more juvenile and each adult movie becoming more adult. Lines of separation are even drawn within the movies themselves. The central character grows older and the theme more mature, but there are still a handful of precocious sidekicks to keep the children entertained and keep them connected to the storyline. In the past, from the Seven Dwarfs, Jiminy Cricket, Timothy Mouse, Thumper and Flower to Abu, the Magic Carpet, Timon and Pumbaa, although they probably played comparatively minor roles, they were active participants in the story. Kids still love Pocahontas' Meeko, Flit and Percy and The Hunchback of Notre Dame's gargoyles, but these characters cavort on the sidelines, operating separately from the plot, making it easier for children to lose interest in what's really going on.

So now what do you think? Look for the final oddity very soon. BTW, don't flame me for displaying people's opinions. It's just that I own that book and I thought that I would use it as something to just have a little fun with you guys with.

[MK Sharp]

#3: The Curse of Cats
Legend has it that Walt Disney despised cats. Or maybe it's because his most famous characters are mice (cute and harmless) and dogs (man's best friends), the mortal enemies of cats (mysterious with sharp teeth and claws). But whatever the reason, cats normally received a bad rap in Disney movies. Starting with Mickey's Steamboat Willie foe, Peg-Leg Pete...

Interesting. Of course, the thing about Pete is he started life as a bear during the Alice Comedies days. Then, around the start of the Oswald series he appears to have had species re-alignment surgery to become a fox; and it's only with the advent of Mickey Mouse that he becomes a cat. So clearly his species is reflexive based on the species of the hero at any given time.

What this guy's theory overlooks is that Disney's first regular cartoon character, Julius, was a cat (and indeed a similar cat was used even before that in the Laugh-O-grams). Yep, Uncle Walt hated cats so much that he used one as the star of his first cartoon series.

Anyway, cats are evil. It's a well-known fact.

[Big Disney Fan]

And now, here's the last oddity:

#10: Synergytis
Cross-promotion makes business sens, with different divisions each promoting the other's products. However, it doesn't always make for the best in entertainment. It started inconspicuously enough, with notations to visit Disneyland at the bottom of newspaper ads and even posters for Disney movies playing at theaters, but now it has gone berserk. During a Disney Afternoon Live promo, Disneyland was dressed up quite gaudily with cut-outs of characters from the company's syndicated afternoon TV lineup.
"Synergy is very important for Disney," explained Imagineer Tony Baxter. "Divisions have to promote each other. So Disney Afternoon Live and Gadget's Go Coaster were to please that division. Unfortunately, as soon as the shows are off the air, no one may recognize them. In fact, Chip 'n' Dale (Nut House) aren't for the cartoons you and I know them for; they're only for Chip 'n' Dale Rescue Rangers."
Now it has come to overkill. While the initial video release of The Little Mermaid in 1990 had only the movie, the initial video release of Pocahontas in 1996 has a full eight minutes of commercials for Walt Disney World and upcoming movies, videos and an interactive CD-ROM storybook. For movie theaters, Disney put so many key scenes in its previews of coming attraction that you may feel as though you've already seen the entire movie before its release. Even the fuzzy little animal characters seem increasingly designed with "plush toy" in mind and the major caravan sequences with an eye toward "theme park parade".
And as Disney continues to grow and acquire other business types, who knows what scary combinations may await us, further diluting the Disney name: A rap album by Winnie the Pooh? Or a dark ride themed to ABC's Roseanne at Disneyland? How about the video-only release of Bambi Joins the Mighty Ducks?

So what do you think?