I just wanted to say thank you for all of that!Chernabog_Rocks wrote:I also agree with DisneyDuster about the points brought up in the first post, mostly about the marketing/genderizing etc. Too bad they don't have like a bottle of "Disney Dust" for sale that would be neat of course there would be a huge label saying SPRINKLING THIS PRODUCT ON YOU DOES NOT MAKE YOU FLY
Wait, so, I'm really trying to understand. Are you saying that we should forget a whole seperate company from Disney made Toy Story and Finding Nemo, but now that company is gone, and it's just Disney? So it's like history changed (like Cinderella's stepmother altered history!) and now Disney, not Pixar, made all those movies and shorts? If that's not how things are, is that what you are saying you want?!Disney Villain wrote: What I don’t like is, holding Pixar and Disney as separate. I’m sorry but they are one. You don’t pay 7.5 billion dollars for something and have it separate itself from you. This is what is happening over at Disney though. Whenever I go into a store I see Pixar characters then Disney characters. I’m sorry, whether it is Buzz, Woody, Aurora, or Pinocchio- their all Disney characters. I don’t like how Pixar purposely distinguishes itself from Disney. They’re both one company.
I think Pixar and Disney should always be viewed as seperate. I will never consider Pixar movies Disney movies. They just weren't really made by Disney. And neither were the characters in those films.
I know that Disney bought them, but how I view Pixar and Disney seems to be how Disney itself still views them, as seperate. The trailer for Enchanted does puzzle as it included Toy Story with "all the miraculous adventures", but it isn't in with "of all the classic Disney stories." It's just the public that doesn't aways view them that way, and I really don't like that.
I was wondering: what if the girl who sang for Aurora didn't want to change her voice because she wanted people to hear her voice as she wanted it to sound (which might be, in her opinion, her best sound), and hopefully get recognition for it and perhaps get signed up for record deals or what have you?Disney Villain wrote:I’m disgusted with their lack of respect for the classic films. By this I mean Aurora from Sleeping Beauty. Not only has she turned into everyone’s preppy 16 year old blonde cheerleader but she gotten dumber and lost her voice. The complete character change bothers me. It’s not like Disney doesn’t have other woman, on their payroll currently recording other Aurora merchandise, who can portray Aurora’s voice in a similar fashion to Mary Costa. That there was obviously a deliberate attempt to change Aurora disgusts me.
What I meant was that babies should not be decorated with or made to play with or constantly exposed to characters associated with romance, which automatically leads to sex. Even without the sexual part, the romantic ties the princesses have are too strong. Whether the princesses are dependent on men is debatable, but what can't be denied is that their stories are romance-focused and their goals and rewards often include men, or getting into a relationship. Infancy is way too young to even think about that, I think it would be sick to instill into their developing minds ideas about princes kissing them when they need a more pure love from their parents.2099net wrote:Sexualising of Disney Princesses/Young Girls
I think this is nonsense really. There's only one Princess who could be classed as "sexualised" and that's Jasmine (and you can add the "non-Princess" Princess Kida, although despite being covered-up more than Kida, Helga was definitely much more sexualised in that film).
I just wrote about that because you said before because I know that's how you felt and others have change that after the movie. But if it'll help lead your finger in the right direction, Cinderella runs away from the man she just fell in love with, tried to get her slipper back which would prevent him from finding her (though she probably wasn't thinking pf that), and goes back to her miserable life until she finds out he's a prince and will take her out of her miserable life. The questions remaining are: does Cinderella suddenly want to try getting the prince because she didn't think he loved her, but he does ("They say he's madly in love with her"), or she'll get away from her stepfamily, or she'll get to live in a big castle? The expression on her face indicates she's probably thinking about the man himself, indicating she does love him, but...Escapay wrote:Nah, that's still a hard sell for me. I mean, I do believe that love at first sight is possible, but it's still a bit difficult for me to believe it with Cindy and Char. I can't put my figure on it as to why, but one of these days, I'll figure it out.
Soap operas are even worse for kids, of course. And that is why you are like you are today!Escapay wrote:Unless it's a soap opera that they're watching from the womb. The Young and the Restless, Days of our Lives, and Another World were how I spent my afternoons swimming in the uterus.
JK, of course.No one knows if that classical music in the womb method works, but I'm thinking your mom watching soap operas with you after you were born helped develop your love of them. I don't know how old you were when you remembered watching them, and I don't know if you were exposed to them before you could even process them.
Sorry about The Ten CGIommandments not being so hot. And about your full miniseries' unavailability.
I don't know if I love myself. I certainly beat up on myself, but everyone does. I don't know if I've ever been in love, but I would LOVE to think so. And I read all you wrote about unconditional love and I think your translation of the text makes sense and that love is different for everyone and hard to talk about.
I bet you love your teddy bear. I don't know where my rabbit is. But, you know, I've always thought that when I was younger evrything was "real" to me. I endowed all my animals with emotions and loved them (and some I care about more than others, probably mostly my rabbit). Or so I think I remember.
So how now does Disney Duster feel about the main topic? I originally imagined Pixar was going to make a princess film in the Disney sense, in the Disney style, and perhaps even using the Disney formula. But if they don't strive for it to be a princess film in that way, and just want to make a story or adapt a fairy tale with a princess in it, I'm all for it.
From Animated News Forum:
That doesn't bold well to me because it makes it sound like Lasster wants to make princess movie in the Disny tradition! But I also must admit if he wants to do it that badly, he really should live out his dream.Interesting. I actually do remember reading in DisneyWar a quote from Eisner saying that Lassetter really wanted to do a princess movie, and how he (Eisner) was also psyched for Pixar doing it.
I still don't want this Pixar princess being considered a Disney princess (barring Disney Princess sing-along DVDs, that has Alice and Ella Enchanted!). Disney and Pixar are seperate, and so are their characters.
