The Top 20 Disney Animated Classics 2012 - RESULTS

[Goliath]

@ Lazario: Do you honestly not see how dumb it is to accuse a movie based on a universally known fairytale of being predictable and 'formulaic'? Fairytales (and most Disney movies) end with 'happily ever after'. To hold that against them is rather silly. We all already knew the ending to Sleeping Beauty as well. Yet I don't see you accusing the film of being predictable or 'formulaic'. In another thread, you described that movie as a tale about 'good versus evil'. Well, golly jeez, good versus evil in a Disney movie, how will THAT one end?

[Lazario]

What part of my argument are you referring to? Because I never said anything like that.

[Goliath]

^ You kept harping on the fact that Cinderella's happy end is (visually) visible at the beginning of the story and you said the movie was 'formulaic', did you not?

[Lazario]

Quote me.

[Goliath]

^ Just look at your last reply to Duster.

If you want to play games, I'm not gonna indulge you. Pick another kid,

[Lazario]

You're the one who brought it up.

[Disney Duster]

I don't have any major problems with the list. To wade in on the Bambi discussion, I think that despite it's stellar animation it's a very flawed film. Disney would later improve on aspects of it in The Lion King by actually giving the characters engaging personalities. In Bambi the characters and story were pretty unengaging and dull.

But what are the flaws? I will give you one thing, the film doesn't exactly have what I would call "engaging" story or characters, but I think you're thinking of the film in the way other films are with their characters and stories. Bambi is supposed to be kind of the general greatness of seeing the life of some animals in the forest and how amazing it all feels and makes ya think. Walt even said they were especially trying for the realism and beauty of nature? Basically, all this stuff can sound - let's hear it - boring! To those who don't feel it the way it's supposed to be an appreciate it. I know that sounds elitist and you know I bet it even sounds like Lazario, but I mean that Walt was trying for something different and I don't think anyone's dumb if they don't see what is intended I am just sad if you miss it and mad if you think it's bad because you miss it. I still don't know what the film's flaws are except maybe the twitterpatted thing which is hard to say it's a flaw it's just not done the best way. I want to hear what you have to say about that. I want to watch Bambi again to even know if I really think it's a flaw.

Meanwhile I think Sleeping Beauty has a great atmosphere and great good and evil characters and even perhaps a great battle like Lazario said - it's that the way that battle plays out sucks and there's still illogicies and holes and flaws in it and the characters are definitely meant to be great characters (and not doing that right/failing) instead of representing how great and endearing nature and life is ala Bambi where you can't say the characters are done bad or have too little screentime like you can say for Sleeping Beauty. Well actually maybe you can say when the animals are grown up maybe it was done bad, I have to watch it again, but it's not as bad as the heroine of Sleeping Beauty being someone you don't care about and doesn't have enough screentime but if she's just a symbol has way too much screentime and character traits. And at least we care about what happens to Bambi and his friends.

If the happy ending is indicated visually right at the start, how are you going to feel what she goes through in a balanced and fair way? You don't. You see formulaic indications that she's been through a lot. But you never feel it like it's happening to you. Or, if you do (and that's still debatable), it's a rare occurrence. Like the dress ripping scene. And, if you ask me, that scene was always a little more relevant for how it was used to flesh out the Stepsisters' pettiness and nastiness.

It's easy. Even if we know she will get to the palace, we still see she is worked too hard and abused by her stepfamily, we see she's good and deserves happiness, we see her try for happiness, and so it is all balanced and fair that she gets to go to and live in that palace. The dress ripping scene also shows her complicated relationship with her stepfamily where she's good to them and can find ways to get things from them and they aren't outright abusive but they find ways to make her unhappy that are actually kind of legitimate but makes it hard to see if they care or they hate her. The stepmother seems reasonable and nice sometimes, seemingly making her do chores as punishment or because she's choosing to let her live there. Cinderella's not exactly fleshed out there but the relationship is and seeing her obviously able to tell what her stepmother did that finally breaks her heart and faith is developing her character.

I didn't say the movie wasn't using it to represent excitement. I'm saying- can you trust that? To find out, I said look at how the movie puts Cinderella in the pumpkin-coach and how it just takes her through the motions. For everything that happens in the story during the ball sequence, she's nothing more than a passenger. She does nothing which drives the story. Somebody else made her dress, someone else gave her everything she brought with her to the castle, the Prince did all the work getting them together, and, when she leaves- several people are doing all the work to find her and give her happy ending.

Cinderella's faith, goodness, and hard work are what wins her this free, great ride for a night. But losing her slipper is a, action, or at least a trait of her own, and I wonder if she does it extremely secretly fakely on purpose, since the prince does say "How will I find you?", but it's doubtful, juts bringin' it up.

I already said the movie's fluff and so, sure, it's very grand and wonderful. As a visual and auditory experience. But it doesn't mean anything apart from that. Pretty much all fantasies are used for escapism but you're claiming it has greater significance and I certainly don't believe that's true. Besides, if you see Cinderella as the ultimate thematic expression of what Disney as a team of artists always believed in, I wouldn't argue against that. As a fantasy film, they brought that ideal to life as best they could. But, you can't say apart from being an example of escapism that the film has real life significance. That would be setting people to believe what they deserve in life will just be handed to them.

And what does "even Goliath" mean?

I mean "and even someone else said something similar". As for the other stuff, the film does have significance for real life. It has always been Walt's intention to make it as a film to tell people that their dreams can come true if they believe in them, just like he felt happened to him. He (and his artists) worked at it, too, but that's what I think the point of Cinderella has always been. That believing and having faith in your dreams is also having faith in yourself and encourages you to work to make your dreams happen. Cinderella stood up to her stepmother, did chores, and was going to make that dress to get her dream, and she made a team of friends with people that could help her. Walt worked and also had a team of artists to help him. It's not just fluff.

It doesn't really matter what you negatively call it, she was going to get an incredible night of happiness she would remember forever. And her goal was for it to be just the beginning of her life changing to be better.

Uh... that can't possibly be true. You see, I remember one thing about her dialogue in all these wishing scenes very well. After the Fairy Godmother gives her the accessories for her one incredible night of happiness, she says clearly: "It's more than I ever hoped for." How does that line suggest that she was planning all along to network and social climb when she got to the ball?

Cinderella was saying that because she only wished for her stepfamily or someone to love her and treat her well and get to go to the ball (with them). Cinderella gets a godmother who loves her a lot and treats her extremely well and has her go to the ball looking as upper class as a princess. That is the more than she ever hoped for. And I don't think Cinderella was thinking in particular of networking or social climbing but it can be safely assumed she knew it was there and at least thought "there's great opportunities there, whatever they may be". And it's inarguable that it's better than what she had currently in the château, it was much better than not going to that ball, it was chance for "something".

Fantasia has its' dopey moments for sure but it's not a dialogue-oriented film. Pinocchio and Sleeping Beauty are extraordinarily intelligent films with serious artistic intentions and very little fluff to them. There were jokes in Pinocchio but most of them were cleverly ironic. Also, I mentioned tone a lot when discussing Sleeping Beauty. It's a film where every scene of anything that could be considered a mood-lightener was delivered on a scale like a keyboard. Cinderella and Snow White, in comparison, are extremely one-note per scene films. Their achievements, other than in the animation and music departments, were in making the audiences like the characters. Depending on what behavior attributes you find likable. For example, I enjoyed the hell out of the Stepsisters' performances and the Duke was an easy character to feel sorry for. Compared to the asshole King, he was reasonable and rational.

I don't think you've explained very well in any of this how Fantasia, Pinocchio and Sleeping Beauty are more extraordinarily intelligent films.

How is love and a lifetime of security, kindness, and happiness for Cinderella and her friends of little value?

Because we get no evidence of that. We're meant to completely assume that's what she'll get. We don't know anything about the Prince (and remember, I still haven't abandoned that gay theory we've discussed before), we know the King's an asshole, we don't know that the mice or Cinderella's other animal friends will ever be safe and secure (just because they're smiling at the end doesn't mean they don't get crushed or killed by another cat, etc). The movie is actually quite cold about a lot of important details for us to completely embrace the happy ending as it's presented. You're only looking at "how great that she gets to retire" basically "from the crappy life she used to have." And assuming that the Prince will be nice, the King will stop being an asshole, and everybody will get what they deserve. You have to have doubts when a movie is as obtuse with story as Disney movies are.

From the film we know she'll have love. We also know from what we know of royalty that she will have security, and we can infer from her animal friends being more accepted in public at the wedding that they will be more secure, and we know that the Prince, King, and everyone else there will treat her kinder than her stepfamily, and we can see that she and the animals are happy. Also from what we know about royalty in addition to the words on the proclomation (that you have to read fast or pause to see) we know she will not retire but actually be a ruler of the kingdom. Even though the King would want her to do stuff she may not want to, we've seen Cinderella stand up for what she wanted with her stepfamily, and we've seen that the King was going to let the prince choose a bride and when saw there were bad choices was willing to not make him, and then the prince saying he'd only marry who fit the slipper showed he could stand up for what he wanted from the King too.

And even though it is not spelled out for us exactly how kind or well she will have it, it is suggested greatly, and enough. It is a very safe suggestion with just enough evidence.

I will admit you brought up a concern for me though, and that is, even though we all know that Cinderella is obviously supposed to have a life where she's given all she wants that she should get and wouldn't have to do anything she didn't want to that she shouldn't have to anymore, it would be better to see that she personally would not take any crap or accept anything that she didn't want to do that she shouldn't have to. But to be honest, even though I'd like to see that in the film, it may not be necessary because in some ways it's the reality of what Cinderella would have had back then. She wouldn't have had much option other than to do some things she didn't want to no matter where she was, but especially if she was going to marry the man she fell in love with who happened to be the prince. But it was the best thing she probably could have had, which is enough for the film. You can't get everything. It's unfortunate but girls lived like that back then.

Of course none of this is near as bad as Aurora accepting to obey everyone to be forced to marry and have kids with someone she doesn't love. Especially while Phillip decides to disobey and not be forced to do the same.

By the way why would Disney ever intend to make their male prince lover for their heroine to be happy with a gay guy? Are you even thinking about what Disney actually truly would intend in their films?

I'm not saying that every detail of the movie is told to us literally. I'm saying all the extra details don't distract me from the fact that the movie's fantasy is thin. It throws in extra details to make it seem more complex.

Well I say it is complex and that the fantasy is not particularly thinner than of any other Disney movie if I can even be sure what you mean by that.

And Cinderella does have involvement in obtaining her dream herself. Her kindness towards her mice friends ensures their help while her faith in her dreams

Again, I'm just being realistic, Duster. I know what you're saying and I know it's there in the movie. But unless you're willing to follow where the movie leads and never question it - which, WHEN I'm being realistic, I'm not - what you're describing is not actually her obtaining her dream herself. Having faith in your dreams does not get you stuff in real life. That's all I'm saying. And for me to give this one movie a pass like that, considering I'm not a very naive or religious person, doesn't make sense. I need to hold all movies about making your life change through the power of faith to the same standards.

I never said you couldn't believe it. Just that I don't.

Like I said above it may be about how faith in her dreams is faith in herself that helps her to work towards her dreams and in turn makes audiences work towards their dreams, if they get that. Do I think it should have been made more explicit that Cinderella's believing in her dreams actually does this? Yes, I do. But at least it's there.

Also, Cinderella is living in a world of magic. She actually knew this because when she heard about the magic wand she said "Then you must be..." to her Fairy Godmother like she'd heard of such things before. This here is good evidence that Cinderella could have used her knowledge of magic existing or even that she had a fairy godmother to have faith which is required to call upon such magic. As it is, within the film, Cinderella believed her faith would bring her happiness, and The Fairy Godmother says "If you'd lost all your faith, I couldn't be here, and here I am." Cinderella was right, and she really purposely did something that brought her happiness.

If you said that the film should so more realistically how she could get her happy ending, sure, okay, that's what you and Goliath[/b] would probably agree on and maybe I do too, but at least it proves that yes, she did actually have a hand in obtaining her happily ever after for herself.

You know damn well that I said Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty take different artistic approaches…Sleeping Beauty isn't about a dream. It's about good versus evil. And Aurora did not have a magic wand. I said she was a representation of hope for the people of the kingdom. She's a model. A key. I said that myself. Her and Cinderella aren't meant to have the same functions in their stories.

I was just using her as a comparison to show what Cinderella does, not saying Aurora had to be the same…though I still think she should be around the same for reasons I’ve already said.

It doesn't count as debate if you ignore what I'm saying. You have to confront it, actually criticize my view instead of me for saying it…You have to actually talk about the points I've raised, not just dismiss them. That doesn't prove anything. At best, all that does is say that nobody else agrees and majority rules. Nobody else takes issue with my argument that the film is about good versus evil, not a standard Princess fantasy.

I agree that people should do this, but in your case I think what happens is a lot of people either don’t read your arguments because it takes too much time, or they don’t see anything in your argument as actually valid to argue about, or maybe they see it as kinda valid but still not really proving much or anything to debate, at least that they feel. But yea I sympathize and I see why they should write more directly to what you write, like I try to do. But they may just not wanna take the time, we get into longer debates than a lot of other people, you and I.

Then how could you know she actually thought "I WILL let her in and disobey those silly little dwarfs!" either?

That's not what my argument was. What I said was that she was made stupid for the purpose of plot convenience. And that's a problem because people are claiming this scene / set-up doesn't have a flaw in its' logic. I beg to differ.

It wasn’t your argument, but you still said she disregarded their advice and I proved there’s no proof of that.

Well it is possible that the animals attacked her just because she was scary and ugly.

For that to work, the audience would have to buy that the animals weren't trying to protect Snow White. No audience in the world would.

Oh, I should have worded that as “Snow White might have thought the animals were attacking her just because she looked frightening”.

grant her wishes and that she won't have to do any work to make her dreams come true.

You mean she won’t have the sadness of her dreams not come true since she might never find her prince if she never have the wishing a try.

She's established early in the movie as believing that making a wish in a well is all she'll have to do to have a man come rescue her. This movie is full of far-fetched concepts like that which end up dictating the plot. Her reactions to what the plot throws at her don't actually have any bearing on what happens.

Yes but ironically her wish for a prince worked, he came, so in a way that was her dictating the plot and it is also her trying to do something for her fate. Is it very intelligent? Actually, in this world where there’s rumors the Queen has magic powers, maybe, since magic in this world is real and wishes could come true. At least Snow White’s doing something, though no, it’s not very intelligent or the least bit hard-working. But her other “reactions to what the plot throws at her” do have bearing on the plot, the forest was thrown at her, she ran away, the animals were thrown at her, she used them to find a house, she cleaned it and tried to get to stay there, and it worked, and her biting the apple caused her prince to come while she was still at the cottage at least, lol.

But the decision for her to let the Hag into the cottage was idiotic. It was an idiot move on her part and nothing about the scene suggests that she remembered the Dwarfs' warning. ANYONE would have reacted to the Hag like she was creepy- you see, Disney designed it that way...You can't really say based on Snow White's behavior that she remembered the Dwarfs' advice and chose to ignore it- she just ignored it. Which, if you remember what they said, is idiotic. They said she is sly and full of magic or witchcraft. One of the two. If Snow White forgets this, she is also defying something we heard her say earlier. Which I mentioned before. She said, in terror, "The Queen will kill me!"

If by idiotic you mean she risked her safety to take care of someone who might be trying to her harm her like the Queen, that’s your negative view of it. She probably didn’t think of the dwarf’s advice. Or maybe she did, but threw it out in favor of helping someone who could be for real in trouble. And that’s the thing. We don’t know what she was thinking. But it doesn’t matter, because her forgetting their advice doesn’t make her an idiot and her deciding to go with her heart despite their advice in case the woman was really what she seemed is honorable. Neither is bad or a flaw. When she said “The Queen will kill me!” that was her expecting a guard or the Queen herself getting her if she didn’t have a place to hide. She didn’t expect a “harmless old peddler woman”.

When I called her an idiot, I was doing it in humor. But I do believe her decisions in the movie were not ruled by her kindness or having a big heart. Even in fiction, you'll find a great deal of kind characters actually think about what they're doing and what's going on around them.

She is innocent and she is naïve, but yes she is ruled by her heart, because her heart has her choosing the kinder thing if she could think more suspiciously or badly instead. But remember I agreed that her being less naïve would be better. Her being a little more real with a little more to her would be better. Oh well, she still has what she needs to be a good character we care about that enhances the film and the amazing ending.

to let her possibly die of a heart attack. She had no way to know if this old woman was faking it or not.

I'm sorry but I did already mention suspension of disbelief. That is without question too much to be expected to believe, on top of everything else.

Here you didn’t do anything to what I said at all.

If the dwarfs had said "The Queen might be in disguise!"

Um... then what did you think they meant when they said "don't let no one or nothing in the house"???

I’d say you’re right about this one. But then I’m still right about her letting her in only because she was hurt and chose the kinder option, and I even now am thinking that also with her being hurt, at least Snow White could rightly think it was safer to let her in the house because she couldn’t harm her in that condition.

You can't use selective logic to say she is smart one second and stupid the next. You can only say the writing was smart one second and stupid the next (since we all know that's the way writing sometimes works).

While I do agree, sometimes smart people do dumb things. I’m not arguing for this case, I’m just saying that in general.

Look: if this behavior doesn't strike her as completely out of character for these characters in a movie where chipmunks can wink (remember: Chipmunks can wink in this movie!) and that doesn't raise a red flag with her, she is extremely ignorant - which is impossible to empathize with, Goliath - and made an idiotic decision.

This movie has the animals understand what Snow White is telling them and she knows they understand her too- she keeps talking to them!! She gives them orders and they clean the friggin' cottage together. The animals are shown to be her friends and they have an understanding. They communicate with one another. Now, SUDDENLY, they're just animals? Likely to do anything at any given moment without a reason like real animals???!!! That's not logical! That doesn't make sense!

The movie screwed up here, Duster. It screwed up bad.

You have a good argument here. But, my argument about Snow White choosing the kinder thing is still valid because even if she did understand that the animals were trying to protect her because they suspected she was the Queen, Snow White was not going to take the chance that she wasn’t the Queen and let her be hurt or die.

Plus, they always were kinda just animals and she didn’t necessarily understand everything about them and she didn’t have time to ask them “why did you do that?”

how could Snow White be sure she was the queen and not an honest old lady having a heart attack? She wasn't going to take that chance. And even if she was risking her life

WHAT?! You're telling me she routinely or mindfully risked her life to help people? You're thinking of a different movie. Seriously. This scene depends on her not being aware of what she's doing.

No I am not suggesting she routinely mindfully risked her life to help people. I am saying she always chose the kinder thing, even without much thought because she is the kind to just care a lot and always choose to take care of people. You’re probably right she probably isn’t aware of much else other than she sees a woman and wants to help her but we cannot know what she was thinking and it doesn’t matter since what she decided makes sense either way you slice it – she chose the kinder thing no matter what. And it wasn’t stupid. It just wasn’t particularly smart, either. Or maybe it was since even people in battle will walk up to their opponent to check on them if their hurt which was really essentially what she did. It is the apple biting that is not particularly smart but not particularly stupid either. Believing its magic…well maybe that’s kinda stupid but maybe not since once again this is a world where magic exists. Only if she fell for this act three times like in the original story would it be stupid.

[Dr Frankenollie]

Uh... are you for real right now? Because you've gotta be kidding me with ^that. Trying to invoke my analysis of Sleeping Beauty over this film? These things couldn't be from two more vastly different worlds. They don't know what the hell is in their bedroom and they act like clowns (in fact, the clowns from Dumbo were a lot smarter). The movie's tone and music score treat this entire scene like it's a comedy. That Donald Duck cartoon where the killer ape breaks into his and Huey/Duey/Luey's house is more serious than this scene. So, no- the movie is not suggesting shit about the Queen actually doing anything to these characters. It's suggesting that the Dwarfs have no idea what she might do. Sleeping Beauty suggested that the Fairies in fact knew what Maleficent was capable of, they weren't being paranoid. The bedroom scene in Snow White is about paranoia. Only we the audience are supposed to know that the Queen might actually "go" her"self to the Dwarfs' cottage." Which the movie doesn't foreshadow, it instead reveals it at its' own carefully planned time. In fact, the Dwarfs say the Queen will plot vengeance against them but her plan to kill Snow White was never for revenge- it was for reasons of spite.

I wasn’t suggesting that the Dwarfs thought the Queen was in their bedroom (:roll:) but that they had fear, and I was offering an explanation why they’d have that fear – the Queen may terrorise her citizens (similar to how Maleficent terrorizes Stefan’s kingdom) and the world the Dwarfs reside in isn’t the friendliest of places (look at the flight through the forest sequence!). Also, I know that the Queen’s wish to kill her stepdaughter wasn’t out of revenge, but out of spite. Why do you need to tell me? Anyway, my main point was that Grumpy may have been scared of Snow White, and when he loses that fear he also loses distrust of her; that’s why he’s nicer towards her the morning after she’d arrived.

At best what you have here is storytelling confusion. If you're telling me it's important to note that the Dwarfs are the slightest bit wise to what the Queen will do, it is not smart to lead into that dialogue with a sequence portraying the Dwarfs as having very overactive imaginations. This movie isn't clever enough to pull that kind of dichotomy off.

I’m not telling you to note that the Dwarfs are wise about what the Queen will do, I was just offering an explanation for their fear. Besides, even if they’re not ‘wise’, the Dwarfs know the Queen may try to do something. After Snow White tells them that she was nearly killed by the monarch, it’s no wonder the Dwarfs consider her hiding there. They’re not meant to be wise. An idiot could work out that the Queen would do something. Furthermore, the scene where the Dwarfs are talking about the Queen reinforces that they have overactive imaginations, so it’s not like the sequences are contradicting each other.

Dr F, you should know full well by now how I feel about the movie using her as a mother figure. Trying to implement that in your defense is not a good idea. She is supposed to be a child and they are DEFINITELY adults. So, now, screw the night before. Grumpy is talking to Snow White like she's a child. He seems to be the only one of the Dwarfs who is at first reluctant to have her treat him like a child. He did not magically at any point see her as a mother figure. That's horseshit. A friend, perhaps. You're only telling me she serves as a mother figure because that's what the movie requires the audience to believe in order for it to work. But what is actually placed onscreen doesn't blend into the story, it sticks out like a bruised purple thumb 9 times the size of the second largest finger on its' hand. And your theory that there is more flexibility to their relationship is way off the mark. The film itself does not back up that theory. It is shot very rigidly and brusquely. The characterizations have zero grace to them. Therefore, there is no development. To anyone's relationships. Least of all Grumpy's. You have 6 Dwarfs who like her right away and never shift positions, and 1 who has a really bad cliche tagged on him and everything that "would serve" as development between them is forced.

Okay, I made a mistake. He doesn’t start regarding her as a mother figure, but as an innocent child who needs protecting. I think I said something like that later in my post anyway. I take issue with your claim that the film is shot very rigidly; what about the transformation scene? Or the flight through the forest? Or the thrilling sequence when the Queen is chased up a cliff as the Dwarfs pursues her? Or the sequence when the Huntsman approaches the heroine? Snow White has some great animation, particularly remarkable when considering it was the very first attempt of the Disney Studios to make a feature-length animated feature, and there’s some great camera work to go with it. I’m sorry, but I have no idea what you mean about it being shot poorly. Yeah, Grumpy’s story arc is cliché, but it works because both him and Snow White (as well as the other Dwarfs) are charming. And are you really criticising Disney for clichés?

And anyway, my major point is that he only bothered to talk to her to warn her. What did she do? Completely ignored him and when the Hag came around, she let her right in. Either she's a condescending halfwit for "listening" to them and ignoring their advice or a complete idiot because she didn't listen to them or forgot everything they told her. Also... she doesn't spend 2 seconds thinking why the animals also were suspicious of the Hag. There is only so much suspension my disbelief will take before it snaps like a rubber band.

Like Duster suggested, perhaps her natural sympathy and motherliness (demonstrated frequently by her speaking with the birds when the Huntsman approaches her, giving the Dwarfs dinner, etc.) clouded her thoughts; when she felt sympathy for the Hag when the latter appeared to have a heart attack, she may have forgotten all about what the Dwarfs told her. Is that naïve and slightly idiotic? Yes. Snow White’s not meant to be the brightest bulb in the box. But her lack of intelligence is made up for by her kindness and wholesomeness, making her one of the likable characters in the Disney canon. As for her ignorance of the animals’ suspiciousness, Snow White’s judgment was impaired due to her worries for the Hag. Is that bizarre, because the animals helped her clean the house earlier? Yes. Let me reiterate, Snow White is naïve and idiotic, but her kindness and innocence makes her likable to me and others regardless. If you dislike Snow White because of her idiocy, then do you dislike Pinocchio? Or some of the Wonderland inhabitants? Or Baloo? Or many other well-loved yet unintelligent Disney characters? Regardless, if you can’t sympathise with Snow White, you should at least sympathise with the Dwarfs – they’re funny, somewhat heroic and instantly likable.

He didn't hear her. The movie merely cut to him after she mentions his name. Again, it was done for quirkiness (comedy) more than anything else.

Hmmm…I may have been mistaken. Nevertheless, I think this moment could be seen as ambiguous.

it's easy to infer that Grumpy stopped viewing her as this overbearing, bossy intruder, and more like a kind, innocent girl who required protection.

You're reading much more into this than is there.

Hey, even though their plots are usually cliché and simplistic, the Disney films do have occasional depth. Snow White, Fantasia, Dumbo, Pinocchio, and especially the recent Pixar films…they have multiple layers. Usually it’s just some kind of emotional complexity, however.

Even if the movie itself is HIGH enough to come to a conclusion like that (an excessively brainless one), the facts of the case speak for themselves. No matter how Grumpy acts during any scene, Snow White didn't give a moment's thought to any of the advice the Dwarfs gave her. Therefore, she earned her would-be fate with her own undeniable, inexplicably boundless stupidity. Why should we care about any of these characters in the first place? The Queen and the Huntsman are the only characters with any brains to them and we owe most of her value to camp. And, admittedly, the excellent music score for trying to make her scary.

Yeah, it’s Snow White’s fault for letting the Hag in. BUT GRUMPY DIDN’T KNOW THAT. For all he knew, the Hag could have used some kind of witchcraft to force herself into the cottage and make Snow White eat the Poison Apple against her will. Therefore, it would be logical for Grumpy to still feel guilty for not saving her in time. Also, how is the idea that Grumpy was guilty because of Snow White’s ‘death’ excessively brainless? I take your theories and ideas seriously, and even though I once considered Alice in Wonderland a mediocre film at best, months ago I decided to open my mind, read into your views on it, and changed my mind. I read, consider and agree with a lot of your views on Sleeping Beauty. But you don’t give me the same courtesy. You just dismiss the idea that Grumpy is guilty as ‘excessively brainless’, even though it makes sense. Let me be clear – I’m not saying you should agree with me just because I’ve agreed with you, but you should take the time to think about my interpretation instead of dismissing it rudely.

Not depth. Emotional manipulation. There's a difference. One actually has resonance. The other is cheap and plays on easy to access emotions with no skill about which it attempts to suss them out. Snow White is an example of the latter where drama is concerned. If it weren't for the music, the Queen, and the Huntsman, the film would be unsalvageable.

I’m sorry, but…even if I’m wrong, and there is no real character depth to Snow White whatsoever, I would still like the characters of Snow White and the Dwarfs. Not because of emotional manipulation, but for their appealing animation and designs, and how likable this makes them. And even if the story has holes in and the characterisation is two-dimensional (and I can admit that the characterisation is rather flat), the superb animation still brings the protagonists to endearing life vividly. It has a simple story, no doubt about that, but the great animation and the music/songs make it something special. Even you find the musical score great. It's not emotional manipulation. It's visual and musical art.

[Disney Duster]

If you dislike Snow White because of her idiocy, then do you dislike Pinocchio? Or some of the Wonderland inhabitants? Or Baloo?

Or Winnie the Pooh? Though I do wonder if Lazario means that Snow White is supposed to be a normally intelligent girl who other girls (or anyone) should aspire to be. The latter is almost never intended by Disney, though, Walt's films have always seemed to be about just entertainment where people care about characters, with messages that teach people, but necessarily with characters people are supposed to emulate. Or if they are supposed to emulate them, it doesn't have to be in everything they do. People make mistakes.

He didn't hear her. The movie merely cut to him after she mentions his name. Again, it was done for quirkiness (comedy) more than anything else.

Hmmm…I may have been mistaken. Nevertheless, I think this moment could be seen as ambiguous.[/quote]
He looks up at the ceiling which is where she is, praying. It is very very likely he did hear her. There is really good evidence for it. I think it's obvious he heard her.

And oh please, what Snow White and the dwarfs do and say, with their animation and voicework, does have a hand in making them liked characters. That may not meet some people's standards of depth and complexity, but who gives an f it doesn't matter, they make people care about them, it's a great and important feat no matter what. It does make the movie good. It makes you care about the movie.

[Dr Frankenollie]

He looks up at the ceiling which is where she is, praying.

That's what made me think he heard her. However, he may have simply been thinking about her and looked up to where she was...but that seems less likely than if he did hear her.

[Disney Duster]

He looks up at the ceiling which is where she is, praying.

That's what made me think he heard her. However, he may have simply been thinking about her and looked up to where she was...but that seems less likely than if he did hear her.

I re-watched the scene, and there is almost no reason one could think of for why at that moment he looks upstairs and says "Heh, women!" Snow White already left to go upstairs a few minutes ago. The only possible reason other than him hearing her is he's upset that she gets to sleep upstairs and he has to sleep in an uncomfortabel pot, but if the filmakers were trying to do this, why would they have him say that line right after she prays, and not look down at the pot and look very grumpy settling into it. He only looks as Grumpy as he always does.

I have to admit though, I think him saying "Women!" because he's forced to sleep in a pot while she's treated like, well, a woman who should be treated nicer and sleep in a bed, would make more sense, but I can see him saying that he thinks she's too nice, that it's weird women would pray for someone to be nice to them. It could make a comment on the logical cynical man who is against women who are more religious and more willing to believe than men. Or not.

[yamiiguy]

I don't have any major problems with the list. To wade in on the Bambi discussion, I think that despite it's stellar animation it's a very flawed film. Disney would later improve on aspects of it in The Lion King by actually giving the characters engaging personalities. In Bambi the characters and story were pretty unengaging and dull.

But what are the flaws? I will give you one thing, the film doesn't exactly have what I would call "engaging" story or characters, but I think you're thinking of the film in the way other films are with their characters and stories. Bambi is supposed to be kind of the general greatness of seeing the life of some animals in the forest and how amazing it all feels and makes ya think. Walt even said they were especially trying for the realism and beauty of nature? Basically, all this stuff can sound - let's hear it - boring! To those who don't feel it the way it's supposed to be an appreciate it. I know that sounds elitist and you know I bet it even sounds like Lazario, but I mean that Walt was trying for something different and I don't think anyone's dumb if they don't see what is intended I am just sad if you miss it and mad if you think it's bad because you miss it. I still don't know what the film's flaws are except maybe the twitterpatted thing which is hard to say it's a flaw it's just not done the best way. I want to hear what you have to say about that. I want to watch Bambi again to even know if I really think it's a flaw.

Yes, Bambi is beautiful. That doesn't make it a good film. Terrence Malick has made a career out of showing the beauty of nature but he manages to do it through engaging story and characters with a moral centre. Bambi on the other hand doesn't tell you anything you didn't already know and is essentially like watching a David Attenborough documentary where David Attenborough has been cut out. There's a reason that the only moment most people remember from Bambi comes within the first five or so minutes - because the rest isn't at all memorable.

Meanwhile I think Sleeping Beauty has a great atmosphere and great good and evil characters and even perhaps a great battle like Lazario said - it's that the way that battle plays out sucks and there's still illogicies and holes and flaws in it and the characters are definitely meant to be great characters (and not doing that right/failing) instead of representing how great and endearing nature and life is ala Bambi where you can't say the characters are done bad or have too little screentime like you can say for Sleeping Beauty. Well actually maybe you can say when the animals are grown up maybe it was done bad, I have to watch it again, but it's not as bad as the heroine of Sleeping Beauty being someone you don't care about and doesn't have enough screentime but if she's just a symbol has way too much screentime and character traits. And at least we care about what happens to Bambi and his friends.

Aurora isn't supposed to be an engaging character, she's a concept, a symbol that embodies the traits of innocence. Her passivity is deliberate so that the audience can retain an idealistic image of her and thus engage with the theme of the film.

[Disney Duster]

Yes, Bambi is beautiful. That doesn't make it a good film. Terrence Malick has made a career out of showing the beauty of nature but he manages to do it through engaging story and characters with a moral centre. Bambi on the other hand doesn't tell you anything you didn't already know and is essentially like watching a David Attenborough documentary where David Attenborough has been cut out. There's a reason that the only moment most people remember from Bambi comes within the first five or so minutes - because the rest isn't at all memorable.

You sound like you mean Bambi is only beautiful visually. I think it has beautiful feelings and even beautiful characters if not "engaging" characters in the fleshed out interactive way. They are heartwarming, too. You do care about them. If you want to talk about what most people think, most people do care about Bambi's characters even if they don't find them "engaging" whatever that means. And yes it is memorable. The birth of Bambi. The ice skating. The Great Prince. Twitterpatted. The fire. The ending. I think you just find it too boring because you're not the kind of person for it. Just a different kind of person with different desires, like a lot of people, especially younger and especially in this generation, and it's just a real shame you don't see the greatness in Bambi because at least I and it's makers know it's there, they (basically, pretty much) put in exactly what they wanted and intended, they didn't want it to be the kind of thing like The Lion King. That's the kind of thing you want. Should the characters be more engaging? I don't know, I feel like it would ruin it. I think everything in the film is perfect until the twitterpatted scene.

[yamiiguy]

Yes, Bambi is beautiful. That doesn't make it a good film. Terrence Malick has made a career out of showing the beauty of nature but he manages to do it through engaging story and characters with a moral centre. Bambi on the other hand doesn't tell you anything you didn't already know and is essentially like watching a David Attenborough documentary where David Attenborough has been cut out. There's a reason that the only moment most people remember from Bambi comes within the first five or so minutes - because the rest isn't at all memorable.

You sound like you mean Bambi is only beautiful visually. I think it has beautiful feelings and even beautiful characters if not "engaging" characters in the fleshed out interactive way. They are heartwarming, too. You do care about them. If you want to talk about what most people think, most people do care about Bambi's characters even if they don't find them "engaging" whatever that means. And yes it is memorable. The birth of Bambi. The ice skating. The Great Prince. Twitterpatted. The fire. The ending. I think you just find it too boring because you're not the kind of person for it. Just a different kind of person with different desires, like a lot of people, especially younger and especially in this generation, and it's just a real shame you don't see the greatness in Bambi because at least I and it's makers know it's there, they (basically, pretty much) put in exactly what they wanted and intended, they didn't want it to be the kind of thing like The Lion King. That's the kind of thing you want. Should the characters be more engaging? I don't know, I feel like it would ruin it. I think everything in the film is perfect until the twitterpatted scene.

I have seen a lot of films but Bambi is a film that is filled with emotion but that emotion isn't a result of the audience connecting with the characters, it's already built in and the film exists detached from it's audience who simply watch the events unfold. This makes it a totally unengaging experience. And please don't make pretentious remarks like "Just a different kind of person with different desires, like a lot of people, especially younger and especially in this generation" unless you know a bit about the person you're addressing because I'm willing to bet I'm a lot more film literate than you.

Whether you like a film or not is entirely subjective but on a technical, cinematic level Bambi is one of the weakest of the "major" Disney films.

[Goliath]

But what are the flaws? I will give you one thing, the film doesn't exactly have what I would call "engaging" story or characters, but I think you're thinking of the film in the way other films are with their characters and stories. Bambi is supposed to be kind of the general greatness of seeing the life of some animals in the forest and how amazing it all feels and makes ya think. [...] To those who don't feel it the way it's supposed to be an appreciate it. I know that sounds elitist and you know I bet it even sounds like Lazario [...]

That's exactly what you're sounding like! You use the same defense for Bambi as Lazario does for Sleeping Beauty: that all its flaws and faults should be disregarded because it's "different" than other Disney movies; the laziest copt-out I've ever seen on UD!

I already said the movie's fluff and so, sure, it's very grand and wonderful. As a visual and auditory experience. But it doesn't mean anything apart from that. Pretty much all fantasies are used for escapism but you're claiming it has greater significance and I certainly don't believe that's true.

That's rich, coming from you! You do the exact same when it comes to Sleeping Beauty! Actually, it's funny to see how Duster and you both change your positions 180 degrees when it comes to your favorite movies. You both basically swap positions whenever it suits you and blatantly contradict yourselves depending on which movie you're talking about.

Because we get no evidence of that. We're meant to completely assume that's what she'll get. [...] The movie is actually quite cold about a lot of important details for us to completely embrace the happy ending as it's presented.

It's a fairy tale! "Happily Ever After", remember?

[Lazario]

I don't have any major problems with the list. To wade in on the Bambi discussion, I think that despite it's stellar animation it's a very flawed film. Disney would later improve on aspects of it in The Lion King by actually giving the characters engaging personalities. In Bambi the characters and story were pretty unengaging and dull.

But what are the flaws? I will give you one thing, the film doesn't exactly have what I would call "engaging" story or characters

You seem to already know the answer to the question you asked.

And at least we care about what happens to Bambi and his friends.

We do?

Even if we know she will get to the palace, we still see she is worked too hard and abused by her stepfamily

Only in the form of cliches that focused more on her fantasties (the "Oh Sing, Sweet Nightingale" scene being a perfect example) and pounding home that dream theme. Every scene where she works focuses less on her actually working than it does establishing her animal friends or her dreams.

Look, I already gave Cinderella its' due credit- Cinderella as a character knows how to handle Lucifer. She has a brassy quality to her character, when dealing with someone who can't push her around. But when that "You Are Here" element comes back into the movie to remind us how obvious every scene is for playing into the "Hold on, Cinderella- it's almost over" rather than a balanced and natural progression of someone who feels like they've gone through a legitimate struggle - like I said, it makes it impossible to take it seriously. To get into it and make me care like you say the movie makes us.

we see she's good and deserves happiness, we see her try for happiness, and so it is all balanced and fair that she gets to go to and live in that palace.

There's no such thing as standing around "being good and deserving happiness" giving you what you want in life. If we keep taking what you're saying about Cinderella at face value, we're saying the power of faith will give you exactly what you deserve. No, Duster. What the power of faith does for you is (in theory) give you the strength to keep working for your goal and get it yourself. Cinderella has everything handed to her. And THAT DOESN'T BOTHER ME, Duster, Goliath, and everyone else. I already handled that when I talked about escapism. The same goes for Snow White, I accept everything the movie gives us for the purpose of escapism. But when you turn the movies off, you have to face reality. And, hey, what am I saying anyway? That you can't believe the movie actually proves the power of faith gets you what you deserve? No. That if you're going to argue this with me, I can't accept it.

The dress ripping scene also shows her complicated relationship with her stepfamily

She doesn't have a complicated relationship with the step-women: they're all bitches. In fact, that wouldn't make the movie better anyway. We love the fact that they're all evil and not complex. For Disney, evil characters are better loved when there's no true backstory or depth to why the villains do what they do. Oh, and none of this is me arguing that she doesn't try to trick Cinderella. But, think about it. Does this change the kind of person she is? No, she's still a bitch. And you realize the second Cinderella left the room, she went: "Of course... I said 'If.'" Another Hitchcock type thing: we the audience know what the characters don't. Same with Snow White. Sleeping Beauty, on the other hand, doesn't tell us where Malefient is and what she's doing every step of the way.

As for the other stuff, the film does have significance for real life.

See what you were really clapping for, Goliath. Duster actually does believe this movie is realistic.

After the Fairy Godmother gives her the accessories for her one incredible night of happiness, she says clearly: "It's more than I ever hoped for." How does that line suggest that she was planning all along to network and social climb when she got to the ball?

Cinderella was saying that because she only wished for her stepfamily or someone to love her and treat her well

And I don't think Cinderella was thinking in particular of networking or social climbing but it can be safely assumed she knew it was there and at least thought "there's great opportunities there, whatever they may be".

I don't remember that part of the movie. And I've seen it. Several times.

I don't think you've explained very well in any of this how Fantasia, Pinocchio and Sleeping Beauty are more extraordinarily intelligent films.

It's not my job to say you're in denial. But you have made it your job on UD to tell everyone you think Cinderella is the definitive Disney film. Whereas my argument has always been that Disney has done it all but it took several different films to do it.

Meanwhile I think Sleeping Beauty has a great atmosphere and great good and evil characters and even perhaps a great battle like Lazario said - it's that the way that battle plays out sucks

That depends on what you expect from it. The fact that it's a film featuring a Princess does mean that it's not going to be the ultimate sword-&-sorcery fantasy epic. I'll admit that the movie kinda looks like a dress up version of something legitimately religious. But their idea was to fill the frame of a fairy tale full of intricate tonal playfulness and deliver visual clues that it wasn't playing. Maleficent certainly does that. All that has to happen in the story is for her to find Aurora and then look what she does. She literally invades the Fairies own home, again passes through fucking walls, and turned into a fire breathing dragon. Yeah, she cashed in her chips!

This is what the movie gives us. Stop bitching about what is missing. I'm also judging Cinderella and Snow White for what they are, not what they aren't. And you can mention Goliath until the cows come home, but he didn't face this fact either: judge the movie for what's in it, not for what's missing.

Well actually maybe you can say when the animals are grown up maybe it was done bad, I have to watch it again, but it's not as bad as the heroine of Sleeping Beauty being someone you don't care about

Who keeps telling you that Sleeping Beauty can't work if it doesn't focus on the Princess? Stop. Telling. Me. Disney. Movies. Must. All. Follow. The. Same. Rules. Every. Time.

From the film we know she'll have love.

She's not a believable character, even in fiction, anyway. Seriously, you don't hear me arguing that Mafeficent stalking the characters in Sleeping Beauty proves that there are demonic, shapeshifting witches watching over us or that because the music dictates what the characters will do that some supernatural force is in control of our every move.

We also know from what we know of royalty that she will have security, and we can infer from her animal friends being more accepted in public at the wedding that they will be more secure, and we know that the Prince, King, and everyone else there will treat her kinder than her stepfamily

Good point. Unlike certain people on this board (I know that doesn't include you), I can admit when I think the other person has a good point. In fact, that I can't argue with it. That I'll give you.

Though at one point you argued Sleeping Beauty had a problem with suggesting Aurora was unfairly sold into an arranged marriage. Cinderella does this too, in fact: this is how Cinderella becomes a Princess. And without becoming a Princess, there's no happy ending. Therefore: happiness in this movie is the equivalent of an arranged marriage and Cinderella doesn't have anymore a magical meeting with the Prince than Aurora does with Philliip- it's just built up with more fluff whereas Sleeping Beauty gets down to business.

And I don't deny for a second that it's an absurd notion to suggest Aurora exists in Sleeping Beauty to be what is that movie's equivalent of a Dashboard Jesus. But, here's the thing: nobody takes any message they assume Sleeping Beauty has seriously. They just think it did a better job of delivering a fantasy that is just that. Just escapism. It hardly says real girls should model themselves after Aurora. And it sure as hell doesn't offer any excuses or claim that what Aurora got was a dream for anyone. The movie, that is. Disney Princess Franchise Marketing Monster, which only became a factor much later, aside.

Also from what we know about royalty in addition to the words on the proclomation (that you have to read fast or pause to see) we know she will not retire but actually be a ruler of the kingdom.

That would be an interesting point were it not for the fact that something you have to read that quickly to contemplate doesn't have dramatic resonance over the story. At best, what it is is a mind-fucking tool meant to shake up whatever opinion of the movie you already have. And that's way after the fact. Why would Disney expect high praise for inserting a clue into a movie that nobody gets until VHS and DVD technology becomes available to the public- more than 30 years after the film has already established a reputation and made a cinematic history for itself?

and we've seen that the King was going to let the prince choose a bride and when saw there were bad choices was willing to not make him, and then the prince saying he'd only marry who fit the slipper showed he could stand up for what he wanted from the King too.

The King wanted him to marry, the MOVIE gives him its' little perfect woman in the very first scene we see him in. What you're saying here holds no water whatsoever. The Prince is only shown taking the deal the King offers, therefore the King doesn't need to try and force him to pick a woman. This is not a good example of great filmmaking. This section of your argument is a write-off.

Besides, the closer you really look at the scene- it's sickening. The Duke is a good, reasonable man who says early on that this is a matter of love. The King says everything can be arranged. That's almost the same as saying the King is God, really. AND he's portrayed as a cutesy element in the movie too. Instead of castigating him for his arrogance and for trying to control a life that wasn't his (and, no, I don't view that one tiny bit where the baby beats him over the head with a rattle as any kind of self-criticism or admission that he's an asshole), it REWARDS him and gives him "adorable" baby dreams and a moment to gloat over the Duke. The DUKE, who is the only person showing anything resembling sincere concern for how the Prince is treated. The movie abuses the hell out of the Duke and plays it for comedy. This is ABUSE. Of him as a character, of his as a person considering how many times he was physically at the mercy of the King's wrath (another thing standing in the way of viewing this film as being fair), and in the story, the movie takes the King's side.

Again, this is all applicable only because you're telling me this movie can be taken seriously. If you try, most of your arguments crumble like cookies. I have no doubt you've seen the movie more times than I have but you should have been the first to point out the huge problems with the Duke and the King. As well as the Stepmother's acts of generocity being something the audience knew was a front, so therefore we can't put ourselves in her position because we're already ahead. And visually, again, the movie points to everything that's coming up. I mean, I didn't even mention all the stuff the friggin' dialogue told us that Cinderella the character didn't catch. You've just about lost that last leg you're trying to stand on here in defending the film realistically.

By the way why would Disney ever intend to make their male prince lover for their heroine to be happy with a gay guy? Are you even thinking about what Disney actually truly would intend in their films?

Subtext is an interesting thing, Duster. Many filmmakers have realized years after their movies have come out that they were subconsciously suggesting things they didn't know they were with their films. Anyway, I said it's a theory, so I can't prove it. But we've talked about this and you remember. So, consider it from my angle: given what we're actually told about the Prince and the fact that he won't settle down, is it more likely that he's been whoring around with too many women OR that he hasn't shown any interest in women at all? Really. Remember that yawn as he meets the women and think about it again. Disney as a studio has been world renowned for forcing morals into their stories that are conservative in nature. Who's to say that Cinderella's Prince doesn't function as an example of Disney's disapproval at a man being gay and insisting that he just hadn't met The Perfect Woman yet, and that once he did- she could turn him?

Like I said above it may be about how faith in her dreams is faith in herself that helps her to work towards her dreams

Well, she has her dreams handed to her anyway. So, the message you're giving kudos to does not apply. Not the way you're claiming it is. And, remember Duster, I know the movie uses magic to help her and that's great. It's charming. It makes the movie a great fantasy. But it must be judged separately as a piece of art if you're going to insist on taking it seriously. That's all I'm saying.

when she heard about the magic wand she said "Then you must be..." to her Fairy Godmother like she'd heard of such things before. This here is good evidence that Cinderella could have used her knowledge of magic existing or even that she had a fairy godmother to have faith which is required to call upon such magic.

Actually, that's a very good point to help back up... MY argument. That the movie continues to map out everything Cinderella's going to get too far in advance. Things like this do undermine being able to take the drama of something like Cinderella being locked in the tower seriously. Because of both the fact that Cinderella isn't surprised that the Godmother has arrived and the Godmother saying Cinderella is going to get a miracle. When placed in a realistic context, the miracle is Cinderella beating the odds and getting to go to the ball for a night. But what the Godmother is alluding to is the fact that Cinderella doesn't need to make any decisions or great actions to obtain her dream. And she doesn't. She literally gets in the pumpkin, walks up some stairs, dances with the Prince who already took care of their meeting and everything else, goes home (though I give her props for having to hoof it barefoot for an unknown dozen amount of miles), and waits for the Duke to arrive so she can come down the stairs and sit down. That's all she actively is responsible for. Everything else is decided and done for her.

As it is, within the film, Cinderella believed her faith would bring her happiness, and The Fairy Godmother says "If you'd lost all your faith, I couldn't be here, and here I am." Cinderella was right, and she really purposely did something that brought her happiness. If you said that the film should so more realistically how she could get her happy ending

I know how the magic part of the film works. And I'm fine with it, I have no qualms with that at all. When people understand that the magic is the only thing doing any work. I think the believable human element in this film is limited to the King and Duke. Which is also the only section of the film that truly pisses me off.

I agree that people should do this, but in your case I think what happens is a lot of people either don’t read your arguments because it takes too much time, or they don’t see anything in your argument as actually valid to argue about

But you're the one who wanted to discuss these movies with me and I gave you the courtesy of listening to what you're saying. You haven't done the same with me. The problem is that you have flat out ignored the points I've made about Sleeping Beauty. You can't break that traditional Disney mold from your mind and really see it another way. You keep bringing it back to the same argument: that the movie isn't warm enough and Aurora isn't active enough in the story. In fact, every argument you've made about the movie is exactly that only worded differently. That's why it's frustrating. I look at Cinderella through your view but you don't actually look at Sleeping Beauty through mine. I've admitted numerous times that I can watch Cinderella as a fantasy and accept everything magical and everything I think is lacking about Cinderella's involvement as a character in the story for the interest of enjoying the aesthetic.

But yea I sympathize and I see why they should write more directly to what you write, like I try to do. But they may just not wanna take the time, we get into longer debates than a lot of other people, you and I.

That's not what I'm saying at all. My posts are designed to be read and thought about- not replied to right away. People who feel the need to reply to it right away are not going to understand what I'm saying. SWillie! mentioned this. He said my posts have to be read very carefully to be understood. This is the way I really write. I don't have back-and-forth debates even though I usually have to reply right back because in cases like Goliath, he's unfairly characterizing me - and YES he started it years ago and it's always been this way; he doesn't try to understand what I'm saying, he just wants something quick and tangible rather than philosophical he can grab onto - which lead to insults and taking threads off-topic. The whole schmear. He doesn't seem to get that words are mostly philosophical. Because to him, it's a form of communication. To him, they're meant to have a direct purpose for understanding the other person right here, right now. But I don't always talk about what's going on right here, right now. I think about everything. I'm not saying I know everything, I'm just saying that I think about everything. And I resent how he always tries to force me to fit into his definition of how words must be used. If you're following me now, you're seeing a pattern: I don't accept everything that is told to me to be truth. Or, much of anything, to be honest. I challenge everything and everyone. Even my friends, family, EVERYONE. And I use opportunities like these to try and tackle everything that could be thought of. The reason people like you keep replying back to me is that you're telling me I haven't thought of everything. But I admit that. In fact, I don't play elitist. I never said I was better. I just criticize other people for why they choose to take certain things for granted.

What I said was that Snow White was made stupid for the purpose of plot convenience. And that's a problem because people are claiming this scene / set-up doesn't have a flaw in its' logic. I beg to differ.

It wasn’t your argument, but you still said she disregarded their advice

And I proved that Snow White was responsible for putting herself in harm's way by BOTH ignoring / forgetting the Dwarfs' advice AND forgetting that she acted as though nothing scared her more than the Queen. The plot suddenly having her not take notice of the animals' sudden and INCREDIBLE change in character, that she was more scared of the Queen than anything, AND the Dwarfs telling her clearly not to let anyone or anything in the house ALL AT THE SAME TIME is too much to believe unless you're not paying attention. No, I don't believe emotional investment in Snow White's character - considering that she doesn't have a character or any real personality to begin with - doesn't change that.

Oh, I should have worded that as “Snow White might have thought the animals were attacking her just because she looked frightening”.

That's not how she reacted. She reacted to this as though the birds were attacking an innocent, harmless old woman. Even though she was seriously creeped out by her. And again, no I don't buy when you add everything up, that the power of goodness is what drove this plot forward.

She's established early in the movie as believing that making a wish in a well is all she'll have to do to have a man come rescue her. This movie is full of far-fetched concepts like that which end up dictating the plot. Her reactions to what the plot throws at her don't actually have any bearing on what happens.

Yes but ironically her wish for a prince worked, he came, so in a way that was her dictating the plot

Nice try, Duster, but this isn't Sleeping Beauty. His showing up at this point wasn't a form of irony, it was so the audience wouldn't go "what the fuck?!" when he showed up for the first time in the story at the very end to kiss her. Now, take him out of the equation and put the puzzle pieces back the way I arranged them and take another look at what I said.

her other “reactions to what the plot throws at her” do have bearing on the plot, the forest was thrown at her, she ran away

Uh... she ran away because someone told her to. She ran into the forest and that scene has no bearing on the plot either. It's one of Disney's best sequences of ALL TIME but only when you realize it's just a very cool and visually BREATH-TAKING Silly Symphony.

If by idiotic you mean she risked her safety to take care of someone who might be trying to her harm her like the Queen, that’s your negative view of it.

No, you're labeling it negative because you are claiming the movie doesn't have this flaw and refusing to consider what's actually happening in this scene.

She probably didn’t think of the dwarf’s advice. Or maybe she did, but threw it out in favor of helping someone who could be for real in trouble.

Again, here's what you're doing: you are only choosing to take notice of selective aspects of the scene. You're only noticing the Hag's ruse and Snow White's gesture of kindness. And ignoring everything else the scene is suggesting. You're ignoring the birds and their relationship to Snow White. You're ignoring the fact that the Dwarfs gave her advice they were CLEAR they wanted her to remember and this also makes the fact that she decided to bake pies and leave the window WIDE OPEN right after they tell her the Queen is full of witchcraft show she wasn't taking the situation seriously. Which you have to admit adds a whole new dimension to my argument. She already made several foolish mistakes as the scene's begun and this should make her MORE AWARE of exactly how much danger she's in when the Hag just SHOWS UP A FEW INCHES IN FRONT OF HER FACE the way she does. Yet, she isn't aware of anything. You're arguing that everything she does in the movie comes from her heart. So, how can you now tell me she thinks with her head? There's no evidence of that anywhere in the movie.

When she said “The Queen will kill me!” that was her expecting a guard or the Queen herself getting her if she didn’t have a place to hide. She didn’t expect a “harmless old peddler woman”.

You don't believe that- you just told me that we don't know what she was thinking. And you know what? When I watched that scene, I didn't assume I knew what she was thinking either. I assumed she was terrified of the Queen. And this is a fact that the scene sets up when she says that.

I’m still right about her letting her in only because she was hurt and chose the kinder option, and I even now am thinking that also with her being hurt, at least Snow White could rightly think it was safer to let her in the house because she couldn’t harm her in that condition.

That doesn't make any sense. Though I see where you're going with it, if she lets the old woman in to rest and then STAYS WITH HER, she is not considering that the old woman could have ever hurt her. And the Dwarfs said the Queen was sly anyway. They covered this in their advice. They said "don't let NO ONE or nothing in the house." And I also said this movie isn't about reactions that actual 14 year olds have to these situations, no matter what period in time the story takes place in. The plot is completely throwing everything out the window to have Snow White put herself in harm's way and the camera is just focusing on the Hag. The focus of this moment has nothing to do with Snow White's big heart. Watch it closely. I did. When they show something like the Hag looking so clever, they're suggesting that she outwitted Snow White. Even Disney were suggesting she was stupid.

I'm not trying to insult you or SWillie! or Frankenollie with this but... don't you guys pay attention to the way scenes are framed? Didn't it seem the slightest bit suspicious that the entire scene was from the audience's point of view watching the Hag and not Snow White? And I was also right when I said this was a form of manipulation. The audience fills in the blanks on their own. But if you're talking about Snow White the character- this is not a credit to her. It's insulting. Or, more accurately, it would be if she had a brain or a consistent personality.

my argument about Snow White choosing the kinder thing is still valid because even if she did understand that the animals were trying to protect her because they suspected she was the Queen, Snow White was not going to take the chance that she wasn’t the Queen and let her be hurt or die.

Well, before I say this, remember this is still in the context of taking the movie seriously.

No, your argument is not valid. The reason why is that you're arguing Snow White helping anyone who seemed to be in need would be the right thing to do, whether that person is faking it or not. That if she doesn't help this woman, regardless of whether she meant to harm Snow White or not, that she can't be trusted to help a really innocent person. That you wouldn't view her as the same perfect beacon of all that is good without her helping the Queen. And, still, there's no such thing as doing something without thinking about it. The same goes for helping people.

Plus, they always were kinda just animals and she didn’t necessarily understand everything about them and she didn’t have time to ask them “why did you do that?”

She had time to think about it though. She did. Watch the scene again. The camera cut to a shot of just the Queen being pestered by the birds before Snow White even rushes out of the cottage.

No I am not suggesting she routinely mindfully risked her life to help people. I am saying she always chose the kinder thing, even without much thought because she is the kind to just care a lot and always choose to take care of people.

No, she didn't think a little. She never thought at all.

it wasn’t stupid. It just wasn’t particularly smart, either. Or maybe it was since even people in battle will walk up to their opponent to check on them if their hurt which was really essentially what she did.

They don't also take their armor off and take their opponent to their fortress, leaving themselves COMPLETELY VULNERABLE to an attack.



DR F., I'll get to your post later if I have time.

[Dr Frankenollie]

I was too busy to reply to Lazario before to reply to Duster, so...

By the way, the film is definately also remembered for black, pink, and purple. Anyway, obviously I say no, it's not bland. I guess a bunch of people do think so, but I like how there is often a fog of color over everything with a few differently colored details scene through, and then some very beautifully colored scenes in good spots. Plus the designs are gorgeous. Anyway, I would point out the shots of buildings, the Fairy Godmother scene, most parts of the ball scene, the chase after it, and some scenes in the climax to be added to your list of stuff that is particularly great. Plus the animation of the stepmother.

Although I think the art direction can be bland and the colours aren't as varied as you believe, I have to admit that it does look fabulous in a few scenes, like the grandiose castle, with its sweeping stairs and huge hallways. Nonetheless, the visuals of Cinderella just aren't as good as they are in some of the DACs released around the same time, and maybe it's only due to comparisons to other Disney films, but I don't think the designs are anything special.

[Goliath]

See what you were really clapping for, Goliath. Duster actually does believe this movie is realistic.

I wasn't clapping for that. I was applauding his perfect and irrefutable dissection of your made-up bullshit arguments about Sleeping Beauty. He perfectly countered your points in a way I wouldn't have even thought about. He was smarter than the both of us when dissecting the movie.

This is what the movie gives us. Stop bitching about what is missing. I'm also judging Cinderella and Snow White for what they are, not what they aren't. And you can mention Goliath until the cows come home, but he didn't face this fact either: judge the movie for what's in it, not for what's missing.

But that's one big copt-out. Criticizing and reviewing movies *does* involve looking at things the movie failed at. So when a movie fails at giving characters proper motivations and when the story has some plotholes in it (like, why is Mally supposed to be so scary when she's so stupid that she doesn't know her goons are searching for a baby for 16 years?), that should be pointed out. You can't just say: "well, that's the movie and you should be fine with it". We ARE judging the movie for what it is, Lazario, and it is a mess.

Though at one point you argued Sleeping Beauty had a problem with suggesting Aurora was unfairly sold into an arranged marriage. Cinderella does this too, in fact: this is how Cinderella becomes a Princess. And without becoming a Princess, there's no happy ending.

How is Cinderella "sold into an arranged marriage"? SHE sought contact with the prince; SHE went to the ball; SHE came up with the remaining glass slipper. All of it was her own choice.

The DUKE, who is the only person showing anything resembling sincere concern for how the Prince is treated. The movie abuses the hell out of the Duke and plays it for comedy. This is ABUSE. Of him as a character, of his as a person considering how many times he was physically at the mercy of the King's wrath (another thing standing in the way of viewing this film as being fair), and in the story, the movie takes the King's side.

It's comedy! In a cartoon! Jezus, drama much? For someone who says you can't take this movie seriously, you're sure giving it a lot of weight.

So, consider it from my angle: given what we're actually told about the Prince and the fact that he won't settle down, is it more likely that he's been whoring around with too many women OR that he hasn't shown any interest in women at all?

Okay, I haven't settled down either, though I have the age for it. Does this now mean I'm gay?

Really. Remember that yawn as he meets the women and think about it again.

He yawned because the ball was dull and the women who came were uninteresting. In the end, he fell for a simple country girl, didn't he? He obviously didn't care for the royalty that attended his ball. Anyone could see that.

But you're the one who wanted to discuss these movies with me and I gave you the courtesy of listening to what you're saying. You haven't done the same with me. The problem is that you have flat out ignored the points I've made about Sleeping Beauty.

No, he effectively COUNTERED them. And YOU were the one who blatantly dismissed his arguments by saying Sleeping Beauty "works on another level". YOU are the one who constantly isn't listening to the other one. Don't project it on someone else.

That's not what I'm saying at all. My posts are designed to be read and thought about- not replied to right away. People who feel the need to reply to it right away are not going to understand what I'm saying. [...] I don't have back-and-forth debates even though I usually have to reply right back because in cases like Goliath, he's unfairly characterizing me - and YES he started it years ago and it's always been this way; he doesn't try to understand what I'm saying, he just wants something quick and tangible rather than philosophical he can grab onto - which lead to insults and taking threads off-topic.

I think what leads to insults and off-topicness, is things like THIS: constantly continue to bring things up that happened years and years ago (which I certainly don't remember), turn it into a conspiracy theory or 'hidden agenda' ("he doesn't agree with me, so he MUST have ulterior motives") and accuse other members of things that are simply not true. It's not that I don't want to think about your posts; it's just that there is very, very little to think about. The mere fact that you used the word "philosophical" is laughable. If you would actually WRITE something philosophical, I would be glad to discuss it with you, but you don't. You just wrote ten times the amount of words others do, add a condescending tone to it and some "think about it"-s and try to pass it off as something intellectual, which it isn't.

The whole schmear. He doesn't seem to get that words are mostly philosophical. Because to him, it's a form of communication. To him, they're meant to have a direct purpose for understanding the other person right here, right now. But I don't always talk about what's going on right here, right now. I think about everything.

Oh, I get it. You know how I think and what's going on in my brain, I see. Hmmm hmm. And you're too smart and too intellectual to 'get' for mere mortals like me, yeah, I see. Seriously, you never once thought you were a victim of a delusion of grandeur?

I'm not saying I know everything, I'm just saying that I think about everything. And I resent how he always tries to force me to fit into his definition of how words must be used.

Oh quit the drama. This is just your excuse for not being able to properly defend your positions --the lamest I ever saw, by the way. If you take all this gibberish seriously, I would have to seriously question your mental health. No offense.

No, you're labeling it negative because you are claiming the movie doesn't have this flaw and refusing to consider what's actually happening in this scene.

I don't understand why you persist in labeling a character with flaws and who makes mistakes an "idiot". Why being so hard on her? Like I said: didn't you ever made faults or made bad judgements?

You're ignoring the fact that the Dwarfs gave her advice they were CLEAR they wanted her to remember and this also makes the fact that she decided to bake pies and leave the window WIDE OPEN right after they tell her the Queen is full of witchcraft show she wasn't taking the situation seriously.

Why does that matter?! She's a kid; she's 14 years old! Is she allowed to make a mistake? Geez, you sound like the kind of a guy who would fault a girl for getting sexually assaulted because she didn't listen to her dad when he gave her warnings about boys. The only thing that matters is that we have a CHILD here, who's poisoned by an evil older woman with magic powers. How is it so hard for you to understand where the sympathy has to go to? And before you say that is 'manipulation': NO, it's not, it's a movie that has succeeded in making us care about the characters, which any good movie does.

I'm not trying to insult you or SWillie! or Frankenollie with this but... don't you guys pay attention to the way scenes are framed? Didn't it seem the slightest bit suspicious that the entire scene was from the audience's point of view watching the Hag and not Snow White? And I was also right when I said this was a form of manipulation. The audience fills in the blanks on their own.

Like I said before: that's not manipulation, that THE WAY MOVIES WORK. The audience ALWAYS fills in the blanks, in every movie! When a movie shows a gun going off and in the next shot, we see a man falling down, WE fill in that the gun was aimed at him and that he caught the bullet from that gun. Doesn't have to be that way at all, after all, we didn't see that. We made it up. Read some of Eisenstein's theories about editing about this before you make some stupid claims.

No, your argument is not valid. The reason why is that you're arguing Snow White helping anyone who seemed to be in need would be the right thing to do, whether that person is faking it or not. That if she doesn't help this woman, regardless of whether she meant to harm Snow White or not, that she can't be trusted to help a really innocent person. That you wouldn't view her as the same perfect beacon of all that is good without her helping the Queen. And, still, there's no such thing as doing something without thinking about it. The same goes for helping people.

One of the best moments in Carl Barks' long and universally celebrated career in Disney comics involved Uncle Scrooge risking his entire fortune to help a villain in need of drowning. He could have let him drown and secure his fortune, yet ultimately he doesn't. He contemplates it for a moment, being cynical about it, but ultimately saves him --to his regret. That works great with Scrooge's character. But Snow White is just not the kind of person to even contemplate letting an old woman die, so why would you expect it?

For the great Barks scene I was talking about, read here: http://disneycomics.free.fr/Ducks/Barks ... -02&s=date and http://disneycomics.free.fr/Ducks/Barks ... -02&s=date

(edited for typo's)

[yamiiguy]

But what are the flaws? I will give you one thing, the film doesn't exactly have what I would call "engaging" story or characters

You seem to already know the answer to the question you asked.

Precisely, as much as you'd like to deny it, the lack of engagement IS a flaw. If you look at The Lion King, Simba has a properly defined character arc that makes the audience connect and engage with the story through him. Bambj doesn't have that. What emotion is there exists within the microcosm of the film, never escaping the boundaries of the screen to engage with te audience because you don't care for the characters. The characterisation in Bambi is almost unexistent and it's a poor film because of it.

[SWillie!]

I think Bambi has all the character he needs based on the adorable animation alone. I want to keep watching not because of his "character arc" or anything along those lines, but because he's just so much fun to watch.