After everything said, I don't know what exactly to say back. It was all a little much. So I'm just going to have to reply to what I feel I can, the most important stuff.
The most important things first are giant thank you's to
everyone who helped me out and defended me. That is especially to
SWillie and
DDivinity, but if I missed anyone, thank you.
SWillie, if you really feel like Rapunzel was the real fairy tale, do you mean the whole thing or just parts of it? Because I don't see how it's possible when Flynn was not in the original story and Rapunzel and Mother Gothel's backgrounds are so different...but some things did feel Disney to me as I have said before.
Also, when I said a “Disney change”, that is the same thing as anyone saying the word “Disney movie”. It simply means a change typical of the kind made at the Disney studios. The kind of change to a story that you would find in many Disney movies.
And I was wondering, did you really think I wa an a-hole? That was never my intention (though a few past times I came close and those times I apologized). But if you do, can you please explain to me why?
DDivinity, just cause, I forgot to say it is possible Walt Disney did intend for Cinderella’s real name to always have been Cinderella, as the song says it sounds lovely, and it’s true, it does. I like to think he named her for her ashy blonde hair, but that’s doubtful, lol.
Big One wrote:1. Stop repeating yourself.
Big One wrote:STOP REPEATING YOURSELF
Okay, first, STOP REPEATING
YOURSELF! LOL. For the reasons you repeated yourself, I can only guess that is why I did what you felt was me repeating myself. Also, you should have realized that I have my reasons for repeating things. I guess you didn’t realize it, ut in bolding certain people’s names, it is possible those people will only read those sections. So simply to save me some extra typing, I copy and pasted things I had written before to other, separate people, when it also answered their remarks.
Something you wrote before, I missed, and that was when you said, “Disney was founded upon the philosophy that change and twists to familiar stories was interesting and new, and to this day the only one that has remained even remotely accurate is probably Snow White at
best.”
Walt Disney didn’t do anything that was “twisted”. Yes, he did some changes, but they were more like expanding and adding to what was already in the film, not changing it. One example I already gave was having Maleficent be just like the original story’s fairy, but her role was expanded to be a constant villain. In Snow White, the original tale already said that the animals didn’t harm her, indicating she was special, so Walt had the animals do more than let her live as she went through the forest, he had them help her. None of this is what I or many people would call a “twist”. Today, people call twisted fairy tales things like “The Stinky Cheeseman” or “Shrek”.
But I already pointed out, very accurately, how most of Walt Disney films were all similar in a lot of ways. They always had fantasy, including talking or anthropomorphized animals, they often had magic, and they often had themes of goodness, innocence, believing, dreaming, wishing, family, and generally traditional, clean, safe. and romanticized values. Also, Snow White is not the closest to it’s source. The main character being dressed in rags, having animals clean, and getting awakened by a kiss, were taken by other stories. But they still aren’t “twists”. If they were twists, then Disney today wouldn’t say that The Princess and the Frog and Tangled were Disney stories with twists, because Disney would have been twisting them all along. But it’s a fact that in trailers, press releases, and other advertising, Disney has said these films have twists, something Walt Disney’s advertising never did, so there is an obvious difference from Disney’s essence for you.
You also talked about thinking Walt would want grittier, more mature stuff, and a change in technology and other styles, and that evidence of this was 101 Dalmatians. Well you must have forgotten that Walt actually vocally said he hated the style of 101 Dalmatians. The only reason he allowed it was because it came from a money-saving Xeroxing process that the studio badly needed. And it is very, very clear that Walt always wanted things to be rather innocent and clean, so it’s extremely unlikely he wouldn’t want things to be grittier or more mature. I can also tell that you yourself are someone who very much prefer the grittier, more mature, and more violent things, so there’s a bit of bias in you on this issue.
I also never said that beautiful imagery in itself was only something Disney, I meant they had a kind of beautiful imagery that was their own Disney kind. And yes Disney invented new things, unless you want to get into a debate over that in which case I may just try to prove to you that nothing is actually new, but in reality it’s impossible to copy anything exactly as someone else does and new things are made all the time, even if it is in small ways that certain people, like perhaps you, gloss over. And yes, there is a Disney essence. You don’t even think Lady and the Tramp is one of their classics, so of course you don’t believe in the Disney essence. In any case, if Disney themselves markets themselves as having a Disney essence…shouldn’t they do all they can to try and keep the Disney essence real? Yes, they should. If you don’t want to believe in the Disney essence, if you don’t want to look deeply and believe in
more than the surface, and do more feeling than just seeing, that can be you, but for Disney themselves which gives an impression of a Disney essence, and certain fans of theirs, we will believe in, and have, more. You don’t even think Lady and the Tramp is one of their classics, so of course you don’t believe in the Disney essence.
And the Disney essence, since you wanted to know more, is really pretty simple. It’s what makes Disney, well, Disney, and not any other studio. If there is no Disney essence and the Disney name doesn’t mean anything beyond a name, then when we say we are fans of Disney we really aren’t saying we’re fans of anything, that we are fans of nothing, because you say there’s nothing it means. So we have to believe in a Disney essence. You may not care because you may not be a very big Disney fan, after all like I said you don’t even see Lady and the Tramp as a classic, but we big Disney fans will care because we want to believe in and be a fan of Disney, not nothing.
The Disney essence is a 'Je ne sais pas quoi', a hard to figure out quality and feeling. Ife everyone could figure it out easily, then every studio could make it. But we must believe it can only be done by people who actually want to make true Disney movies, at the Disney studio. And it isn't all that hard to try to use it, simply, when pitching an idea, you just ask, "Does that sound Disney? Does that feel Disney? Is it a little
toounlikely that Walt would approve?" There's nothing wrong with asking those questions sometimes. There's nothing wrong with
trying, with going an
extra step. Because it's what they
should be doing if they're going to continue
Walt Disney's company and not end it or call it something else.
And yes, the Disney studio during the Disney Renaissance did call them new Disney Classics, they used that term the day of release because they believed they were of the Disney kind of classic movie-making, the Disney essence, whatever you want to call it.
Tangled doesn’t have the same kind of humor of past Disney. It is much faster, cynical, and cutting today. You said you wanted examples, so one example is when Flynn says ‘Here’s your frog” and he gives Pascal to Rapunzel in a much faster, more cutting, cynical way than Disney did it in the past. Another instance is Maximus’ moving his head so fast as he looks in directions for Flynn. The animation of past Disney would have made these moments a little smoother, flowier, and gentler, and Flynn’s line would have probably been slightly gentler, if they were really thinking hard about the Disney essence, or, of you would prefer, “how to keep a movie very Disney”.
Finally, Flynn is not just “in it for the pussy”. He may have loved to do her and leave, but he did not want to stay with her for more than the minute it would take for that. Ever since she didn’t fall for his smolder, he didn’t want her around him at all, he was actually “in it for
the tiara”.
BigOne wrote:In any form or fashion, we never saw Quasi or Cinderella hug onto their parent, or express genuine happy moments with their parent.
I’m pretty sure we did see Quasimodo be happy sometimes with Frollo, and I also feel that Frollo did give Quasimodo a father-son feeling, just a very strict one where he also obeyed him all the time. Some evidence is that a master would not teach his slave as Frollo did to Quasimodo.
But I do know Cinderella had moments of happiness with her stepmother, like when she was told she could go to the ball and when her stepmother said they had made a bargain, all with a smile, indicating the possibility Cinderella wanted love from her and her stepmother pretended to give it sometimes, until it was dashed:
Oh, and The Princess and the Frog was revealed by it’s directors to have originally come from both the buying of the rights to the book “The Frog Princess” and their desire to do a twist on the fairy tale setting it in Chicago in the 1930s. If you ask me, 1920s New Orleans makes more sense with it’s frog-filled swamps and voodoo, and I believe Ron and Jon wanted to do the movie out of genuine non-PC desire because they twisted Treasure Planet as well, but they should have either done a traditional, non-twisted version of The Frog Prince or treated this as an original story, preferably keeping the name The Frog Princess. But it was not driven by the desire for a black heroine, though there is no doubt it was a conscious thing that
added to the project getting made.
pinkrenata, even if Rapunzel didn't have lanterns on her birthday in a more faithful version of the story, I think that Rapunzel would still think the lanterns were something special and they would represent something better than her living conditions. They would actually be something she wanted even as a peasant. She would look at them like the past princesses looked at castles or far off places in past Disney films. They would float in the sky and represent how she would like to float away. They would also signify her prince in a way, if Prince Bastian (yea, the much more classic and German-sounding name I'd prefer!) got them every birthday and maybe he stopped caring about them which is why he ran off to have adventures and found Rapunzel, but Rapunzel could rekindle his awe of them and he realizes the lights and his home and a settled down life shared with someone are all wonderful. In fact, I thought it was weird that Rapunzel didn’t remember the lights and thought they were so amazing as a little girl when she was just taken from the place where they came from. But in my version, with the narration suitably changed, we wouldn’t know where the lights came from either, and we would be amazed by and curious of and wanting to see them as badly as Rapunzel!
And Rapunzel’s love interest in that old line-up is not
fat! He is big and muscular. Yes, he is not thin, but he is also not fat. I have often wished to see fatter/bigger woman/smaller, thinner man couples balance out the often fat man/thin women couples, but this is not one of those cases. And I’m sorry but fat on men kind of looks like muscle and look more and we expect men to be bigger because of biology. I know it sucks, but hey, biology and nature suck! But we all know what’s important is not how we are physically anyway!
Oh, and don’t hate Disney because of me! Hate the way Disney is being changed today, or if you must, hate some of my posts, but not Disney!
SuperAurora, hey, why didn’t you defend me from BigOne, my friend? Well anyway, I agree that what you wrote about Cinderella is possible, and especially that it’s possible Cinderella was so excited about the ball she just asked to go without thinking, but please consider this: I think Cinderella occasionally
tries to get her stepmother to love her and be nice to her, and I will give some evidence. Cinderella speaks kindly to her stepfamily in the morning, then they are nasty to her and she says, “Yes” with a “of course they’re still nasty” attitude. I feel like she tries to be nice and hopes they will be nice each day, and when they aren’t, she just does what she needs to do. Also I think she tries to talk her stepmother (the one really in charge) into letting her do things, or at least into making her life easier. In the beginning of the scene after the Gus/teacup incident, Cinderella tries to reason with her stepmother, but her stepmother won’t hear it, and barks her down. But when the ball comes, Cinderella finally does talk her stepmother into letting her go (unaware it is all a ploy until later, and you can also tell that she realizes soon enough it is a ploy). Well, that’s what I think.
Enigmawing, you have finally done a Rapunzel picture that I think looks exactly like her! And you improved the colors on her dress considerably! Not only do a prefer the colors used, but I much prefer that you had the same darker purple color of her skirt on the purple stripes on her sleeves. It really brings the costume in unity and even makes it look more Disney. It really bugged me that the film uses the lighter purple color of her bodice for those stripes! A princess with such a bad color scheme is a first for a Disney princess, lol! Well, Snow White’s wasn’t too hot either…
Everyone, I try to back up myself. I try to explain myself. That is why my posts usually gets so long in the first place! Some of you said I didn’t give an “actual response”, well that’s your opinion because I always felt I was giving one, and to be honest, like you accused me of not explaining myself well, I don’t think you explained what an “actual response” is very well, either! So can’t we all just get along…
And finally, it may be some people’s opinions that this is just entertainment, but try telling that to today’s animators, or the past animators, or Disney himself (well, if he was alive today!). Disney means much more to them, and it means much more to me. Disney makes me happy and that’s what life is worth living for. Too many aspects of it are important to me to let it get messed up, so I’ll keep talking about how it can get back on track.
I don't have that many, yet. (I don't really think that many have been made either, honestly.)
</center>
