Frog Princess found & renamed!

[magicalwands]

I wanted there to be a single mother for once. I hope the article is mistaken and the father either never existed or has been/will be cut.

I don't get why this is a big deal. Is it because in past movies there have only been single fathers? What made you expect this one to be different?

Anyway, supposing that this info. is true, I think it's a strange idea for Tiana to be a waitress who wants her own restaurant. Somehow, that doesn't really scream "classic fairytale" or even "classic Disney."

You know, when I read that, I really liked the 'wanting to own her own restaurant' storyline.
Art has evolved through different eras. It only makes sense Disney films do as well and we can't expect this era to COPY films of a passed one. So calm down, relax, and don't quickly judge a movie from a second hand source (first hand=film itself.)

[Simba3]

Everyone just has to remember that we are living in different, more modern times now. Movies like Snow White and Sleeping Beauty are masterpieces and succeeded well in their era. However, a film like that today might not hold up as well in theaters. It's not surprising that Disney is being forced to give their films a modern twist. Sure, many of the members here at UD, including myself, might be happy with a classic fairy tale. However, that might not hold true with audiences in general.

Have a little faith in Disney, guys! They've been making great films for over 70 years now. Ok, not all of them are great, but they know that they are doing. And did we forget its Clements and Musker doing this film. The same guys who brought us The Little Mermaid, Aladdin and Hercules. These guys know what they are doing too - and how to tell a story. Looking back on The Little Mermaid and Aladdin - those movies were completely different from Disney films of the past, much more modern, but they WORKED!! And now, they are in the same canon as some of the older classics.

Don't be afraid of change, some change is needed, and though it can be hard to deal with - it can be good to. Remember, this is Disney's first black princess, it's first film returning to the 2D style and it's got Clements and Musker behind it. It's sure to be pretty good if you give it a chance. Don't pick the film apart just based on little snippets of information 10 months before it even hits theaters. We've got a long time until December and there is no need to get overly critical of this film before seeing it.

[cms382]

Don't forget Treasure Planet.

Those guys know what they're doing.

[DisneyJedi]

Don't forget Treasure Planet.

Those guys know what they're doing.

Yeah, but Treasure Planet was a box office failure, but only b/c the movie was so damn expensive!

[cms382]

Don't forget Treasure Planet.

Those guys know what they're doing.

Yeah, but Treasure Planet was a box office failure, but only b/c the movie was so damn expensive!

It was worth every penny for my #5, and I think TPatF could sneak in and replace OHaOD as my #10

List Here (Large Image)

[Flanger-Hanger]

Yes, let's all make up our minds about it firmly one way or the other before we actually see it.

Just for that I'm sending you copies of Disaster Movie, The Lizzie McGuire Movie and Bela Lugosi Meets a Brooklyn Gorilla so you can watch and then judge them.

[Disney's Divinity]

I'm still confused as to what you people actually want. On one hand, you're all praising Wall-E to the sky for its "originality" and claiming it's been snubbed for best picture at the Oscars (I actually saw the film this weekend and I still think its got a little of Pixar's house-style to be truely classed as "original") but you seem to want "a classic fairytale" for Princess and the Frog, which is far from original.

Art has evolved through different eras. It only makes sense Disney films do as well and we can't expect this era to COPY films of a passed one.

I haven't seen Wall E, but I don't think a "classic fairytale" automatically equals generic storylines or means a rehash into old stereotypes and copying as either of you do.

Also, I think it's silly to criticize anyone for looking for a classic fairytale from this film when Disney obviously intends it to be one (by relying on it to hopefully jumpstart another "renaissance" and insisting on Tiana's inclusion into the Princess line as soon as possible).

Anyway, it's true that the setting very much indicates a modern story (the 20s was a period of change, so this could motivate Tiana to believe it's a time in which anything's possible)--though I think it's weird to try and strangely mesh the modern with the traditional with the introduction of a Prince and a fairy godmother. I honestly have no idea how to feel about this movie--it could be really good or really bad.

Have a little faith in Disney, guys! They've been making great films for over 70 years now. Ok, not all of them are great, but they know that they are doing. And did we forget its Clements and Musker doing this film. The same guys who brought us The Little Mermaid, Aladdin and Hercules. These guys know what they are doing too - and how to tell a story. Looking back on The Little Mermaid and Aladdin - those movies were completely different from Disney films of the past, much more modern, but they WORKED!! And now, they are in the same canon as some of the older classics.

Don't be afraid of change, some change is needed, and though it can be hard to deal with - it can be good to. Remember, this is Disney's first black princess, it's first film returning to the 2D style and it's got Clements and Musker behind it. It's sure to be pretty good if you give it a chance. Don't pick the film apart just based on little snippets of information 10 months before it even hits theaters. We've got a long time until December and there is no need to get overly critical of this film before seeing it.

TLM and Aladdin were modern in storytelling and characterization, but not so in character types or setting. Ariel is very much the stereotyped American teenager, but she still lived under the sea and was a daughter of the Sea King. I don't know if TP&TF will find that same balance, considering it is supposed to be a "Princess" fairy tale in the same vein as the old classics.

So calm down, relax, and don't quickly judge a movie from a second hand source (first hand=film itself.)

Yes, let's all make up our minds about it firmly one way or the other before we actually see it.

Yeah, just dump the thing already.

I don't believe I ever said the film would be bad or that I wouldn't see it (I still plan to), just that I think the storyline on paper can't lead anywhere but to crap. I guess I'll just have to see if it'll be better onscreen than on paper. I think you're all reading more into my statements than was actually there.

I also said that there was no guarantee that the info. was 100% reliable, so I don't think I am judging a film at all and even less so from a second-hand source.

I don't get why this is a big deal. Is it because in past movies there have only been single fathers? What made you expect this one to be different?

..Um...because the only parent that's ever been mentioned for Tiana was Eudora. As I thought was clear from my post, there's never been any mention of a father (mostly through descriptions for Voice Auditions). It's not a big deal if you want to see the generic father-daughter relationship yet again, without there ever being one between a mother and daughter. I just thought it would be a nice change for there to be a good, honest maternal relationship with a daughter in a Disney film. Not that the parental relationship is a big aspect of this film, I just would prefer to see more mother-daughters instead of father-daughters, father-sons and mother-sons

[Poody]

Didn't see this posted yet..... dolls, dolls, dolls Her "prince" looks interesting....

[ajmrowland]

Didn't see this posted yet..... dolls, dolls, dolls Her "prince" looks interesting....

Hmmm, so no chance of the Prince and Tianna having an interracial marriage. I guess that's okay, as it means less questions from the tots (Though who would expect them to have any?).

Anyway, let's not go judging the entire film from a teaser trailer/still pic/ article that only covers the first twenty minutes. I think the unusual setting for the film actually seems pretty good, as it relates to our world in a way that Harry Potter, Wizard of OZ, and Narnia does. Makes it more believable for some people.

[SpringHeelJack]

Yes, let's all make up our minds about it firmly one way or the other before we actually see it.

Just for that I'm sending you copies of Disaster Movie, The Lizzie McGuire Movie and Bela Lugosi Meets a Brooklyn Gorilla so you can watch and then judge them.

You can send them if you want, stud, but I'm going to consider it your attempt to woo me, which will just culminate in a series of ever so delightful comic misunderstandings in which I mail you DVDs of increasingly good quality until you're watching "Star Wars".

Anyhow, there's a difference between, say, a Disney animated film and one of Zucker's "__________ Movies", the difference being I really like or at least am pleasantly entertained by about 70% of the films in the animated canon, but I've seen enough Zucker parodies to know what to expect. You can totally prejudge certain movies (i.e., I don't care for "Lizzie McGuire" terribly much, so it's a safe assumption I won't really care for the film), but seeing as I assume most people here like a few of the Disney movies, there's no reason to sell this short before we see it.

[Disney Duster]

Amen Disney's Divinity I wanted to speak on it, too

I'm still confused as to what you people actually want. On one hand, you're all praising Wall-E to the sky for its "originality" and claiming it's been snubbed for best picture at the Oscars (I actually saw the film this weekend and I still think its got a little of Pixar's house-style to be truely classed as "original") but you seem to want "a classic fairytale" for Princess and the Frog, which is far from original.

Um, humans can want two different things. Anyway, we wanted an original film, then we wanted a classic fairy tale. Because, you know, it's called "The Princess and the Frog", based on a classic fairy tale, and said to be intended to be one by Disney. Also, you know, some people wanted something out there from Pixar, while other people wanted a classic fairy tale from Disney. Because, you know, the same people that wanted and liked Wall-E aren't the same people who want The Princess and the Frog. Well, you should have known.

And you also said 20's New Orleans wans't "classic fairy tale"? I swear Disney said they were setting it in the very royal and magical, classic fairy-tale like French quarters specifically for the fairy-taleness.

Still luv ya Netty.

I didn't read the story, didn't want to spoil it, but egads I'm worried with what people have been saying. I hope it's not true. I'm going to actually do what HeelJack wanted and wait to see the actual movie.

[ajmrowland]

Amen Disney's Divinity I wanted to speak on it, too

I'm still confused as to what you people actually want. On one hand, you're all praising Wall-E to the sky for its "originality" and claiming it's been snubbed for best picture at the Oscars (I actually saw the film this weekend and I still think its got a little of Pixar's house-style to be truely classed as "original") but you seem to want "a classic fairytale" for Princess and the Frog, which is far from original.

Um, humans can want two different things. Anyway, we wanted an original film, then we wanted a classic fairy tale. Because, you know, it's called "The Princess and the Frog", based on a classic fairy tale, and said to be intended to be one by Disney. Also, you know, some people wanted something out there from Pixar, while other people wanted a classic fairy tale from Disney. Because, you know, the same people that wanted and liked Wall-E aren't the same people who want The Princess and the Frog. Well, you should have known.

I'd have to say that I disagree. I'm a person who'd want both. The nostalgia that comes with Disney's 2D animation, and the originality of a PIXAR film. Also, most of Disney's animated screenplays are very loosely adapted, so that still leaves a little room for originality.

And you also said 20's New Orleans wans't "classic fairy tale"? I swear Disney said they were setting it in the very royal and magical, classic fairy-tale like French quarters specifically for the fairy-taleness.

20's New Orleans, I think, helps to make this film a very fresh(Rotten) Tomato, indeed.

I didn't read the story, didn't want to spoil it, but egads I'm worried with what people have been saying. I hope it's not true. I'm going to actually do what HeelJack wanted and wait to see the actual movie.

And since when has Disney NOT taken liberties with classic literature? It goes all the way back to Snow White, for cryin' out loud!

[yukitora]

As I said before, this looks more like an '80's rescuers type film than a 90's princess film.

Rapunzel is coming sooner or later, let that be your classic fairytale!

[Mooky]

I found this at DCP! It's a perfect fit!

[Disney Duster]

Thanks mooky! She does fit, and looks lovely! But as I said...NOT likin' that she's in blue like most of them!!! Make her green or something!

I'd have to say that I disagree. I'm a person who'd want both. The nostalgia that comes with Disney's 2D animation, and the originality of a PIXAR film. Also, most of Disney's animated screenplays are very loosely adapted, so that still leaves a little room for originality.

HUH...?

Um, humans can want two different things. Anyway, we wanted an original film, then we wanted a classic fairy tale. Because, you know, it's called "The Princess and the Frog", based on a classic fairy tale, and said to be intended to be one by Disney. Also, you know, some people wanted something out there from Pixar, while other people wanted a classic fairy tale from Disney. Because, you know, the same people that wanted and liked Wall-E aren't the same people who want The Princess and the Frog. Well, you should have known.

Yea, I agree with what you said right after me. I mean, it takes some originality just to make something visual from the written word!

20's New Orleans, I think, helps to make this film a very fresh(Rotten) Tomato, indeed.

I don't know what you meant there, but...

And since when has Disney NOT taken liberties with classic literature? It goes all the way back to Snow White, for cryin' out loud!

I never said they didn't! WTF? Yea, like I said, I agree, it takes originality to take a story that doesn't describe every single detail of how things look and how things happened, and I love Disney for their originality in those departments as well as their originality in departures from the source material.

The Princess and the Frog will be a very original interpretation of a classic fairy tale, and I like that, but it still should be a classic fairy tale. Perhaps you think I mean something I don't when I say "classic fairy tale". No, I don't mean "copy of all previous Disney fairy tales"... There's a classic fairy tale feel. Well, maybe not so much with Aladdin, but I'll still call it a classic, and a fairy tale, at least.

[Neal]

Mooky - did you find just the image of the other princesses and added in Tiana yourself, or is that picture with Tiana on the DCP site?

[Mooky]

No, somebody else added her in. I'm just a messenger .

Thanks mooky! She does fit, and looks lovely! But as I said...NOT likin' that she's in blue like most of them!!! Make her green or something!

You're welcome! And I agree: make it green !

EDIT: About this real world/classic fairytale thing: If you think about it, it's not really different than what happened to Belle in "Beauty and the Beast": she loved reading fairytales and ended up in one. It's same with Tiana: she heard the "Frog Prince" story as a child and ended up living it. I don't see why real world and magic world can't co-exist. It's nothing new for a Disney movie.

[Flanger-Hanger]

You can send them if you want, stud, but I'm going to consider it your attempt to woo me, which will just culminate in a series of ever so delightful comic misunderstandings in which I mail you DVDs of increasingly good quality until you're watching "Star Wars".

Where I go right back to watching poor quality films.

Anyhow, there's a difference between, say, a Disney animated film and one of Zucker's "__________ Movies", the difference being I really like or at least am pleasantly entertained by about 70% of the films in the animated canon, but I've seen enough Zucker parodies to know what to expect. You can totally prejudge certain movies (i.e., I don't care for "Lizzie McGuire" terribly much, so it's a safe assumption I won't really care for the film), but seeing as I assume most people here like a few of the Disney movies, there's no reason to sell this short before we see it.

This is true, however since it's begin beaten into my head repeatedly that this film is going to be "just like the 90s [DAC]!" and the fact those are the DAC I like the least combined with knowledge of all the changes in production (Randy instead of Alan, more PC changes, hell even the title was changed!), you can see how my enthusiasm is lacking for this. I will go see it I guess, but for me it's more of a duty than a pleasure.

[singerguy04]

For as little as we know about this film and it's production, using slight changes that have been made during it's production as evidence to form any kind of opinion seems kinda weak to me. I guess I just remain very optomistic, but considering how much attention the film is getting and it's basic formula I can't really imagine it being a flop. Everyone that I've ever heard talk about this film is basically releaved it'll be in 2D and plans on going to see it.

POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT
The story elements that I've seen so far seem wonderful. I love the fact that Tiana wants something as credible as her own restaurant. In fact back then this was probably a close to impossible dream. It's says something about her character that she doesn't want the world, or only want love. It's like TLM in that respect because she's going to basically stumble into the prince. I also think it's obvious that at some point they are both going to be frogs, and if their love is going surpass all of that then that'll be nice. As far as story goes I'm also sensing a similarity between Wicked and TPatF; Tiana as Elphaba, Charlette as Glinda, and Naveen as Fiero.
NO MORE SPOILER ALERT

Overall though, I just don't see why anyone can judge it yet. To me what we've seen from concept art, possible stills, and the teaser trailer looks wonderful. Tiana's character design is beautiful. The story seems classic enough to please all the people expecting a fairy tale and yet it's also modern enough to serve a newer generation of audiences. I kinda feel like all people are talking about in this thread are the slight and overall kind of minor down sides about this film. Maybe i'll just chime in to talk about positives now and again so that people aren't stuck with overly negative points of view

[pap64]

I found this at DCP! It's a perfect fit!

Is that fan made or is that official artwork? If its fan made Tiana looks VERY well made.

As for the slight changes and references, I rather wait till the final film is released, for all we know they could make or break the film, or be so small that it doesn't even matter.