Which Disney film has the best or worst script?

[DisneyFan09]

Hm. Which one had the worst script? For my money it would be Brother Bear. I'm sorry. It's a beautiful looking movie, but here's the problem. It just doesn't know what movie it wants to be. At times it wants to be serious, at others it's trying to be a slapstick comedy and oh yeah! Those outtakes at the end make it even more pointless.

No need to apologize. Although I don't consider "Brother Bear" as the weakest Disney script, it does have some scripting problems. One of them is Koda forgiving Kenai quickly for killing his mother, which was, in one hand, very unrealistic.

With that problem aside, "Brother Bear" is a flawed film. I'm not gonna state that I dislike it, but the tone and the plot itself is problematic. The film deals with serious themes as hatred and prejudice and as you said, the film seems to be uncertain about being serious or comedic in a unfunny way (although the goats were funny).
And besides; How do you justify a story of a ignorant jerk killing a innocent bear, just to get transformed as a bear and befriend a cub which turns out to be the son of the killed bear? There isn't really any warmth or entertainment value in a story like that, even not for kids and it conveys the story as a heavily moral-leraning film.

The Tim Burton Alice in Wonderland also suffered from this problem.

I disagree. While it's not the best script ever written, I have problems to consider the script as flawed. As the matter of fact, I find it very solid.

The best script? Hm. This is a difficult one to choose from. But some runner-ups would have to be: The Hunchback of Notre Dame (sans the Gargoyle dialogue)

As much as I love "Hunchback" to death, it does suffer from some unstructed scripting. One problem, as already mentioned, are the Gargoyles and the humor overall, who are devastating the integrity of the film. I did enjoy the Gargoyles as a kid, which proves that they fulfilled their purpose; Entertaining the kids in the audience. Djali the goat is more likeable, although I thought it was extremly misplaced to see his kicking Phoebus right before Frollo grabbing Esmeralda. I know it was intended to be funny, but not right before such a serious and unexpected moment.

The soldiers were also a problem. They were much better when they were threatning and "serious". In fact, I found their comical moments more annoying than the Gargoyles and their "Goofy" yells were misplaced, especially in the final battle. I did enjoy Phoebus' humor, though.

With the humor issue aside, it seems as the screenwriters have been torn when it comes to the script itself; The film starts of as Quasimodo's story, fulfilling his need to get outside of the Cathedral, befriending Esmeralda and ect, while it suddenly becomes Frollo's story, trying to fulfill his mission of capturing Esmeralda. Not that it's anything wrong with that storyline, but it's makes the story a little uncertain.

But don't get me wrong, I still love "Hunchback" to death, despite it's flaws. I'm just trying to see things from an objective side.

[Goliath]

]...] But Lilo and Stitch doesn't have any chemistry at all. And yes, the film is about Stitch changing for the better, but he doesn't care about Lilo until the very end. I will take a comparison; Beauty and the Beast (yeah, it is a love story, but however). Although they start out at enemies at first and it takes a while before they warm up to each other, the Beast changes immediatly when Belle thanks him for saving her life and that's in the middle of the film. Lilo does several things for Stitch and even then, he's just selfish [...]

And that, right there, is the brilliance of the script: any other film would, indeed, have the protaganists 'warm up' to each other in the middle of the film. But Lilo & Stitch is a different kind of film, which dares to be original. Lilo is immediately smitten with Stitch, but the feelngs aren't mutual. And how could that be? Stitch isn't a human, like the Beast was deep down (and before the spell). Stitch is a fabrication, a 'thing', meant to destroy. The fact *that* he's able to change is remarkable enough. What I find good about the story, is how loyal Lilo stays to Stitch, even when he's being behaving awful. That's the unconditional love only a child can give, and I think they've written that very well.

What a jerk you are.

[Goliath]

I don't know if you disapprove of slapstick in other classic Disney animated films, but the alligator chasing Hook scenes in Peter Pan cracked me up. Edgar and the field dogs reminds me a bit of that.

I don't disapprove of slapstick at all. There's a lot of it in Robin Hood, which is the funniest Disney film. But I felt it was too dragged-out in The Aristocats, it took up far too much time, and it was very repetitive (Edgar and the dogs... *again*!) and, most of all, it didn't come logical, like the chase scenes in Robin Hood or Peter Pan. Those slapstick scenes sprung from the action at that moment in the film. Whereas The Aristocats has Edgar going back to the countryside to pick up his hat and umbrella, *just* to create slapstick --and unfunny slapstick, that is.

b) if Gaston was a bad guy and Belle loved him, that would make us think that Belle has horrible judgment in men...

Well, most women have, so that would be very realistic.

I mean, the poor girl surely went through some mental gymnastics: I'm held prisoner by a large furry animal, and I'm making conversation with kitchenware. […]

Not all villains have murder on the brain...so, to me, that makes him at least the fully-caffeinated Orange Crush or something.

You crack me up!

[Margos]

And besides; How do you justify a story of a ignorant jerk killing a innocent bear, just to get transformed as a bear and befriend a cub which turns out to be the son of the killed bear? There isn't really any warmth or entertainment value in a story like that, even not for kids and it conveys the story as a heavily moral-leraning film.

I must say, I really don't understand the criticism all the time for Brother Bear. I mean, even though it was a more-or-less original story, remember the inspiration behind it. It feels to me like a very typical Native American tale, with some added comedy. Sure, the jokes are hit-and-miss, but they aren't so terrible that they distract from the plot. The plot is what children were raised on in this country for thousands of years before anyone had ever heard of Disney, so as far as "warmth and entertainment value...." Stories of this type have been around for far longer than most of the tales Disney has adapted. So there must be something special in it. That's why it's in my top ten favorite DACs. It is truly a beautiful film with an unusual tone for Disney, and definitely a suitable tribute to Native American storytelling.

[Rudy Matt]

The film is an embarassment - a half-assed attempt to clone elements from multiple prior films, with all of them clashing and none of them working. When the commentary track on the DVD is more entertaining than the movie, you've got serious problems. Brother Bear is at once too violent and too cloying. Like Pocahontas and Hunchback, it has no sense of itself, and suffers a tonal identity crisis, swinging wildly from serious drama to pre-school amusement (although it is by far the worst of the lot in this regard). It is the culmination of the fractured audience approach to Disney animation first seen in Oliver and Co. and The Little Mermaid, which germinated and grew and festered and infected almost all of Disney animation post 1988...the diseased spore came to full flower in Brother Bear, and proved to be a fatal decisive blow to the reputation of Disney theatrical animation.

The plot is what children were raised on in this country for thousands of years before anyone had ever heard of Disney.

I think you mean "this continent", as "this country" has only existed since the ratification of the U.S. Constitution on 9/17/1787, although some give the U.S. date of birth as the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Regardless, the movie still sucks.

EDIT

And apologies to BlackCauldron -- I asked if the title was a cut from the CD - apparently, that wasn't clear. Obviously it isn't a CD I intend to own any time in the near or distant future.

[2099net]

Regarding Gaston and points raised by BlackCauldron and Disney Duster. (Sorry no time to quote).

I can see we're not going to agree on this, but I still don't see Gaston as "villainous". The thing about Gaston, which we're introduced to at the start of the film is that everything in his mind is about HIM.

When he's talking to Belle, and she says she loves The Beast, his response isn't in anger, or regret. It's simple disbelief. HE doesn't think anyone could love The Beast (especially when HE's one of the alternatives) so he simply dismisses the information. The fact he says she's been brainwashed shows that HE still thinks the Beast is evil. I'm sure in Gaston's mind, killing the Beast is still the right thing to do - after all, the whole castle is Enchanted. Is it that far fetched to assume Belle has been brainwashed or similarly affected by her enforced stay there?

I don't think Gaston thinks that Belle is genuinely in love with the Beast and by killing him, she will fall in love with him. If he genuinely thought that, I'm sure even a self-obsessed jerk would realise this would make her hate him more. I think he genuinely does think he is "rescuing" her, breaking a curse or whatever. I think is prime motivation is to kill the Beast, attain an even greater standing with the villagers and "save" Belle, who will fall as his feet in gratitude once she is free from the Beast's influence. Again, I don't think this view makes him "evil".

[2099net]

But why does she need to have company?

A story point that they had trouble with was that the second half of the story was just Beast and Belle having dinner, and every night, Beast would ask Belle to marry him (in the original fairy tale), and every night she would say no, and that went on and on and on. I mean, Disney struggled with what to do in the second act. If nothing else, her having company means more entertainment on screen...?

Well, I'm sure some other activities could be thought up for the pair. And in the meantime, we cut back to scenes in the village with Belle's father trying to raise a rescue, but the villagers dismissing his story. Only, Gaston, the brave, caring, handsome carpenter (or whatever) who's heart has been stolen by Belle has the courage and motivation to rescue her, leading to a dramatic love triangle at the film's climax.

You can pad out a story with more than comic side-kicks, who's actual existence is somewhat illogical (why curse the staff for the prince's actions?) and (IMO) harmful to the story. Again, I say, is it not somewhat unethical for them to manipulate Belle and The Beast to fall in love, when they themselves are scared of The Beast's temper. You wouldn't fix your best friend up with a wife-beater as a blind date would you? While not quite the same, that's sort of what the enchanted objects are doing.

[blackcauldron85]

One of them is Koda forgiving Kenai quickly for killing his mother, which was, in one hand, very unrealistic.

This again goes with the fact that we don't know exactly what Kenai told Koda. Koda had grown to love Kenai, and maybe he explained things really well...

You crack me up!

Glad to be of service.

And apologies to BlackCauldron -- I asked if the title was a cut from the CD - apparently, that wasn't clear. Obviously it isn't a CD I intend to own any time in the near or distant future.

No worries. But, yes, there are 2 versions of the song on the soundtrack- the film version, and the Phil Collins pop version.

I think he genuinely does think he is "rescuing" her, breaking a curse or whatever. I think is prime motivation is to kill the Beast, attain an even greater standing with the villagers and "save" Belle, who will fall as his feet in gratitude once she is free from the Beast's influence. Again, I don't think this view makes him "evil".

That does make sense...

Again, I say, is it not somewhat unethical for them to manipulate Belle and The Beast to fall in love, when they themselves are scared of The Beast's temper. You wouldn't fix your best friend up with a wife-beater as a blind date would you? While not quite the same, that's sort of what the enchanted objects are doing.

Good point, and you're right, it isn't quite the same. Beast has a temper, but he's not violent towards others...if he were, maybe if the objects were desperate enough they'd try and pair them up still...but they knew that he wouldn't physically harm Belle.

It is hard to argue with your points, though... Makes it more challenging, which isn't a bad thing.

[2099net]

Again, I say, is it not somewhat unethical for them to manipulate Belle and The Beast to fall in love, when they themselves are scared of The Beast's temper. You wouldn't fix your best friend up with a wife-beater as a blind date would you? While not quite the same, that's sort of what the enchanted objects are doing.

Good point, and you're right, it isn't quite the same. Beast has a temper, but he's not violent towards others...if he were, maybe if the objects were desperate enough they'd try and pair them up still...but they knew that he wouldn't physically harm Belle.

It is hard to argue with your points, though... Makes it more challenging, which isn't a bad thing.

But we do see the objects visibly shake and tremble with fear when The Beast is having one of his tempers. If it were live action, with real people acting the way the objects do, I think it could be more or less assumed violence in the past was implied.

I don't know if you think I'm nit-picking or not, but don't forget, this was nominated for a Best Picture award. It should be able to stand up to such analysis!

[DisneyFan09]

One of them is Koda forgiving Kenai quickly for killing his mother, which was, in one hand, very unrealistic.

This again goes with the fact that we don't know exactly what Kenai told Koda. Koda had grown to love Kenai, and maybe he explained things really well...

Remember that Kenai said; "Koda, I did something wrong. Your mother isn't coming back." That does make a hint. And when Koda went up the tree, Kenai said: "If I only knew... I didn't mean to. I'm sorry, Koda". That does say it all.

And yes, Koda had learned to love Kenai, but it's still very unrealistic to befriend a person who's killed your mother immediatly.

[DisneyFan09]

And that, right there, is the brilliance of the script: any other film would, indeed, have the protaganists 'warm up' to each other in the middle of the film. But Lilo & Stitch is a different kind of film, which dares to be original. Lilo is immediately smitten with Stitch, but the feelngs aren't mutual. And how could that be? Stitch isn't a human, like the Beast was deep down (and before the spell). Stitch is a fabrication, a 'thing', meant to destroy. The fact *that* he's able to change is remarkable enough. What I find good about the story, is how loyal Lilo stays to Stitch, even when he's being behaving awful. That's the unconditional love only a child can give, and I think they've written that very well.

True. But the story would have more heart and emotion if the feelings was mutual. But that's my point of view, though. Just because people have a different point of view than you, doesn't mean that you should call their opinion as "nonsense".

[blackcauldron85]

But we do see the objects visibly shake and tremble with fear when The Beast is having one of his tempers. If it were live action, with real people acting the way the objects do, I think it could be more or less assumed violence in the past was implied.

I don't know if you think I'm nit-picking or not, but don't forget, this was nominated for a Best Picture award. It should be able to stand up to such analysis!

Well, we don't know if the Beast was violent towards his servants or not. I like to think not. His temper was enough to frighten them. I mean, he didn't take out his frustrations by physically hurting his staff, but by yelling and by taking things out on other things, such as tearing up his castle.

And I don't think you're nit-piking at all. You've made some really good points.

Remember that Kenai said; "Koda, I did something wrong. Your mother isn't coming back." That does make a hint. And when Koda went up the tree, Kenai said: "If I only knew... I didn't mean to. I'm sorry, Koda". That does say it all.

And yes, Koda had learned to love Kenai, but it's still very unrealistic to befriend a person who's killed your mother immediatly.

But we don't know what else he said. I mean, we know that he went on for what we can assume to be a while talking with Koda. He probably explained that he was a human and that he didn't know better, and now he learned better. And, sure, maybe it is unrealistic to immediately befriend a person who killed your mom, but Koda is young and he does look up to Kenai. Kenai is all he has now, and if he believes that his friend made a mistake and knows that, then maybe it's okay...it boils down to Koda's age and the fact that he has no one else.

[Margos]

The plot is what children were raised on in this country for thousands of years before anyone had ever heard of Disney.

I think you mean "this continent", as "this country" has only existed since the ratification of the U.S. Constitution on 9/17/1787, although some give the U.S. date of birth as the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Fine. This continent. Whatever.

But still, bearing in mind where the story came from, the movie doesn't suck. In fact, I think it touches something that maybe a lot of the "better" DACs don't.

[Rudy Matt]

The plot is what children were raised on in this country for thousands of years before anyone had ever heard of Disney.

I think you mean "this continent", as "this country" has only existed since the ratification of the U.S. Constitution on 9/17/1787, although some give the U.S. date of birth as the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Fine. This continent. Whatever.

But still, bearing in mind where the story came from, the movie doesn't suck. In fact, I think it touches something that maybe a lot of the "better" DACs don't.

You know, I'll give you this... I've tried many times to like the movie, and I can be quite gifted jumping through intellectual hoops trying to convince myself to like various films...but as beautiful as the backgrounds are in Brother Bear, the writing made me want to cry with frustration. I've even tried on separate occasions to show Brother Bear to others (namely my wife, and my best friend and his wife) in vain hope that they would like it and toss some rationale to me as to why it was a good movie.

In both intstances, the request to turn the movie off was made right around the 20-30 minute mark. My best friend and his wife stuck through it. My wife, though, can be fairly persuasive and she hated the thing so much, I finally switched it off. I recently took her to Disneyland for the first time, and when she saw the Grizzly Mountain looming over California Adventure, she asked, "That's not from that awful Brother Bear movie, is it?"

[Goliath]

True. But the story would have more heart and emotion if the feelings was mutual.

The feeling became to be mutual. Why else would Stitch risk his life rescuing Lilo?

But that's my point of view, though. Just because people have a different point of view than you, doesn't mean that you should call their opinion as "nonsense".

After a while, you'll learn to take my posts with a truckload of salt.

@ 2099net: I cannot believe you don't think Gaston is evil. He was seen plotting and scheming to have Belle's father committed in a mental hospital, and he blackmailed Belle with that, so she would marry him. In my book, that's evil.

And no, he didn't "genuinely" love Belle. How do we know this? Because he never showed any interest in her interests. The first song already points out that Gaston is only interested in a throphy wife: "[She's] the most beautiful girl in town. *That* makes her the best." Does it sound like real love to you? That's why he wants to kill the Beast: not for any noble reasons, not because he really thinks he's a dangerous creature, but to kill off his competition.

He manipulates the townspeople into a frenzy. He manipulates them into thinking the Beast is a threat, when there's no threat at all. And the people, manipulated into fear, follow him. He says: "if you're with us, you're against us." Did Disney see the Bush-years coming?

[DisneyFan09]

True. But the story would have more heart and emotion if the feelings was mutual.

The feeling became to be mutual. Why else would Stitch risk his life rescuing Lilo?

It appeared that he wanted to rescue Lilo only because he felt pity for Nani crying.

[Goliath]

It appeared that he wanted to rescue Lilo only because he felt pity for Nani crying.

Why would he, a alien 'creation', programmed to destroy, feel pity for Nani crying? Remember that Stitch got attached to the storybook of 'the ugly duckling'. He came to realize that, just as the little duckling, he had no family; he was alone. And he had a hard time coping with that. That's why he started to look to Lilo as family.

[2099net]

@ 2099net: I cannot believe you don't think Gaston is evil. He was seen plotting and scheming to have Belle's father committed in a mental hospital, and he blackmailed Belle with that, so she would marry him. In my book, that's evil.

And I acknowledged that that is the only scene where he seems "evil". I've also said I wish we saw more of this side to him rather than his preening and show boating and constant self validation.

And no, he didn't "genuinely" love Belle. How do we know this? Because he never showed any interest in her interests. The first song already points out that Gaston is only interested in a throphy wife: "[She's] the most beautiful girl in town. *That* makes her the best." Does it sound like real love to you? That's why he wants to kill the Beast: not for any noble reasons, not because he really thinks he's a dangerous creature, but to kill off his competition.

He manipulates the townspeople into a frenzy. He manipulates them into thinking the Beast is a threat, when there's no threat at all. And the people, manipulated into fear, follow him. He says: "if you're with us, you're against us." Did Disney see the Bush-years coming?

Did I ever say he genuinely loves Belle? I don't think I did. Nor even hint at it. I've said repeatedly the character is all about himself, not consideration for others. The film paints him as such a jerk that I don't think he understands love. I've repeatedly said he's all about him. But you know what, self-obsession isn't a major sign of evil. I could be argued (although I admit we know nothing of their marriage arrangements) that people like Bernie Ecclestone or J. Howard Marshall (who married Anna Nicole Smith) were only interested in Trophy wives. Did that make them "evil".

Where I said "genuniely" is that he genuinely dismisses the concept of love between Belle and the Beast. As I said, I don't think he understands love, so its easy for him to dismiss it.

The film may present him as ignorant, but he's not a simpleton. As you say he manipulates the villages, he plots with the Doctor. He displays cunning. Do you really think he's stupid enough to think that if Belle did love the Beast, killing the beast would bring the two of them together? Surely that idea alone is doing both him and the film a disservice?

It could be argued that by getting the citizens support, he is building a powerbase and will have the authority to force him and Belle together, but given what we know about the character already, I rather think any powerbase he is building is just to validate is own narcissistic views about himself.

Does all that make him a villain? Probably if you're of the mind the film needs a villain simply because its tradition. But ironically, if you don't make certain assumptions, even though he's a stereotype, it makes him arguably a more complex character and the film itself more complex. Perhaps I'm trying to read more into the film than is intended. [shrugs] But I'd like to think a film nominated for an Oscar has more to read into it. (Although good luck finding any hidden depths in Titanic!)

[DisneyFan09]

It appeared that he wanted to rescue Lilo only because he felt pity for Nani crying.

Why would he, a alien 'creation', programmed to destroy, feel pity for Nani crying? Remember that Stitch got attached to the storybook of 'the ugly duckling'. He came to realize that, just as the little duckling, he had no family; he was alone. And he had a hard time coping with that. That's why he started to look to Lilo as family.

If you look at Stitch's face when he's just about to leave Nani crying, it's obvious that he feels pity for her.

[Goliath]

If you look at Stitch's face when he's just about to leave Nani crying, it's obvious that he feels pity for her.

If if it's only out of pity for Nani (which I don't believe), that means he has developed feelings of affection for her. If he didn't, he wouldn't have felt any pity at all. So either way, he became to see Nani and Lilo as people he cared about; as family.