The Top 20 Disney Animated Classics 2012 - RESULTS

[yamiiguy]

Lots of things are fun to watch that doesn't make them great characters/films.

[SWillie!]

Lots of things are fun to watch that doesn't make them great characters/films.

Well why not? Sure it isn't always the case, but I wouldn't say it can never make great characters or films. Bambi becomes relatable and memorable because of his actions. Sure, the character doesn't have the clearly defined arc that we see in other characters, but the film hasn't stood the test of time so well for no good reason.

[yamiiguy]

Lots of things are fun to watch that doesn't make them great characters/films.

Well why not? Sure it isn't always the case, but I wouldn't say it can never make great characters or films. Bambi becomes relatable and memorable because of his actions. Sure, the character doesn't have the clearly defined arc that we see in other characters, but the film hasn't stood the test of time so well for no good reason.

I certainly didn't relate to Bambi though that could differ from person to person and I wouldn't say he's particularly memorable. Bambi is a very shallow film with no depth to the characterization or theme.

[Lazario]

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.

No, Goliath, what brought these threads off-topic was you telling me I'm screwed up because I don't see Snow White as a realistic person and - WITHOUT ARGUING IT - dismissing my entire opinion on Sleeping Beauty by calling it pretentious. Even though no one forced you to say anything at all, the second Dr. F said I had a good point- you replied and said it was pretentious. THAT'S what I'm talking about. It had nothing to do with this topic or discussing the movies. You came out of nowhere and trashed me. When I replied to 2 weeks ago or whatever, I was completely respectful:

Alice in Wonderland: give Alice a personality.

I gather Alice is a character a lot of people flat-out don't care about. But the film is extremely unique for this reason. You have to look at what the film did with her character rather than what it didn't. It made a good case for how a person could wish for something absurd, get it, and simultaneously not realize they made a mistake while being annoyed at the circumstances. Given the movie's sights and sounds... what more personality does Alice need? We already know she's a bit on the dull side. There's a great deal of humor derived from that. You didn't think Alice's reactions to what was happening in Wonderland were interesting and/or amusing?? Given the studio's temptation to throw in cheap emotional manipulation at every turn with their movies, Alice in Wonderland's directness was much more than refreshing. Maybe you don't like Alice, but can you even imagine how the movie would be different if she were changed? Her single emotional character arc - which is very powerful given that it's so spare and reserved for just the right moment, as a means of reminding us that she's actually vulnerable - would be thrown right out the window. And for what? I'm guessing more scenes of her trying to "just go with" the craziness. Which stands in opposition to the kind of person she is at the start of the movie.

In short: Wonderland itself and its' residents have all the personality the movie needs.

Sleeping Beauty: give Aurora more screentime, so we actually begin to care about what happens to her. Remove all deus ex machinas of the good fairies when helping Philip; make the end fight actually exciting instead of one magic sword being swung into the dragon; give Aurora some lines after waking up; make Malificent more threatening by making her less incompetent (relying on bumbling buffoons to look for a kid and then only finding out they were looking for a baby after 16 years --is that woman dumb?)

Here we go again:

Aurora is to Sleeping Beauty what the Stepmother's key is to Cinderella. It was the filmmakers' choice to make her a piece of plot rather than a character. She is a symbol, a representation of hope and the future. Not a character.

The scene where she has to confront her minions exists mainly to show us that Maleficent has the power to put her "wrath and frustration" (quoting the narration) into an actual superphysical form. The sense of immediacy that comes from her handling of the situation - NOT the situation itself - is the key here. I think you'll find this is what drives the reputations of all of Disney's classic, pre-Little Mermaid era villains. In essence: taking them for granted. (And then, overall, I really feel Disney made a mistake in trying to always up the stakes with the villains after Ursula. Never felt genuine. Not like they did with Ursula; she was a fucking MONSTER! Like a demon, something from hell or some dark place no one could ever picture in their mind.)

It's bordering on ironic the way I'm hearing people complain that, for all its' ambitions, Sleeping Beauty isn't epic enough. That it has any kind of holes in it. This movie still has a lot more going on within its' structure than any of the other Princess films. There's nothing wrong with anyone saying the entire telling of the movie rests on its' aesthetic. Since those are the moments which gave all of Disney's other classic films their power. Hell, if anything, this makes Sleeping Beauty stronger because there's absolutely no filler. Everything in the film is a necessity, by virtue of the direction they chose to go in.

I may have used some of your previous posts to say I have another take on the movie but NEVER did I insult you, say I was better than you, or say you were even WRONG. If you would actually post a simple response saying you disagreed with me, THIS SORT OF THING WOULD NEVER HAPPEN!!

Yet, you have the fucking balls to say I belitted anyone while you don't even argue my points. And you have an excuse for why you don't. I DO. When I replied back to Dr F and Duster, I actually discuss their points. And everything I used to judge the movies fits into my arguments. Snow White and Cinderella are emotional fairy tales and Sleeping Beauty is not. Duster already agreed with me that the reason he couldn't enjoy the movie was that it was a movie about warmth and giving the characters "more character" wasn't the primary focus. And SWillie! also said I had a good point.

So just shut the fuck up already. You just want to talk shit, you don't want to talk about movies. You just want to see me get pissed. And there's nothing theoretical about that.

[Goliath]

No, Goliath, what brought these threads off-topic was you telling me I'm screwed up because I don't see Snow White as a realistic person and - WITHOUT ARGUING IT - dismissing my entire opinion on Sleeping Beauty by calling it pretentious.

I didn't have to argue it; Disney Duster already did that for me. All I had to do was to applaud him --which clearly irked and annoyed you. Why would I go through all the trouble of repeating what already had been said?

Even though no one forced you to say anything at all, the second Dr. F said I had a good point- you replied and said it was pretentious. THAT'S what I'm talking about. It had nothing to do with this topic or discussing the movies. You came out of nowhere and trashed me.

Nope. I explained why your defense of Sleeping Beauty makes no sense. THAT'S key here and you don't want to talk about that. You want to circumvent that issue by framing it as an attack on your person. Like you always do when you're called on weak arguments. Everytime somebody points out weaknesses in your argumentation, you accuse them of personal attacks. It's a familiar pattern and I, for one, am not impressed by it anymore.

Why don't you adress those criticisms of your argumentation? If you had just done THAT, you shouldn't have to derail two threads at once with your crying.

I may have used some of your previous posts to say I have another take on the movie but NEVER did I insult you, say I was better than you, or say you were even WRONG. If you would actually post a simple response saying you disagreed with me, THIS SORT OF THING WOULD NEVER HAPPEN!!

Just because you didn't it to me, doesn't forbid me from speaking out when you do it to others. You have been nothing but condescending to both Disney Duster and SWillie! You continually insult their intelligence by saying they're "not thinking well/hard enough" about your points; that they "will never get" your points every single time they disagree with you; and even that they would realize you're right if only they thought about it a little longer. Yes, you didn't belittle me. Just everybody else. And now that you're called on it, you use this drama as a distraction for not answering all the points I and others made about Sleeping Beauty, Snow White and Cinderella. Pretty obvious.

Yet, you have the fucking balls to say I belitted anyone while you don't even argue my points. And you have an excuse for why you don't. I DO. When I replied back to Dr F and Duster, I actually discuss their points. And everything I used to judge the movies fits into my arguments. Snow White and Cinderella are emotional fairy tales and Sleeping Beauty is not.

It is, you just don't want to admit it because you fancy yourself to smart or "philosophical" (still have to LOL at this) to like a simple fairy tale and therefore you feel an absurd and unexplained need to dress up the movie as something higher and better which it isn't. I keep pointing that out and you keep saying that me pointing that out is a 'personal attack'. But that's just how you always play and I'm not surprised you create distractions like this.

So just shut the fuck up already. You just want to talk shit, you don't want to talk about movies. You just want to see me get pissed. And there's nothing theoretical about that.

Is that before or after I have finished my secret plans for world domination?

[Lazario]

You're the one distracting and diverting. Just look at what you're actually saying:

You're saying Duster is making all the arguments you WOULD make about Sleeping Beauty. And yet... you've submitted more than twice the amount of replies than he has and none of them have contained any opinions about the movie. Just opinions of me.

If you are saying you don't need to reply, then stop replying. This is a game to you and you don't get that no one really wants to play.

Oh yeah, and remember the last time this happened a few weeks ago? When I called you a cocksucker? Singerguy came in and called us both immature and told us to stop? What happened? I said nothing except "okay, I'll stop" and YOU freaked out and told him "it's his fault, not mine." Don't tell me you don't care who agrees with you- you do. This IS a game to you and you're playing me. I'm just setting the record straight.

[Goliath]

You're saying Duster is making all the arguments you WOULD make about Sleeping Beauty. And yet... you've submitted more than twice the amount of replies than he has and none of them have contained any opinions about the movie. Just opinions of me.

Like I said: I was pointing out flaws in your argumentation and you never replied to it, but choose to derail the thread with your usual conspiracy theories. Do we really have to go over this again or are you just pretending not to understand me?

If you are saying you don't need to reply, then stop replying. This is a game to you and you don't get that no one really wants to play.

Game? I thought it was a "trap"?

Oh... no, wait... that was the LAST time I disagreed with you, wasn't it?

Still, you're inconsistent. I believe I was "baiting" you, wasn't I? And now it's a game? Make up your mind please. Or do you mean the bait is part of the game? I'm confused now. Please tell me more about my evil schemes.

Oh yeah, and remember the last time this happened a few weeks ago? When I called you a cocksucker?

You really want to bring that up again? Seriously? How am I going to bait and trap you when you're doing all the work for me?

This IS a game to you and you're playing me. I'm just setting the record straight.

[Lazario]

Oh yeah, and remember the last time this happened a few weeks ago? When I called you a cocksucker?

You really want to bring that up again? Seriously? How am I going to bait and trap you when you're doing all the work for me?

You left out this part, dear:

Singerguy came in and called us both immature and told us to stop? What happened? I said nothing except "okay, I'll stop" and YOU freaked out and told him "it's his fault, not mine." Don't tell me you don't care who agrees with you- you do. This IS a game to you and you're playing me. I'm just setting the record straight.

[Goliath]

^ I would make the font even bigger, if I were you. And in red. And add some exclamation points to it. Maybe put it in huge neonletters in front of your house or on your rooftop, film it, put it on YouTube and post it here.

[Lazario]

Nah- that would be too showy.

And watch it, hypocrite: you honestly think your pathetic memes (like Mr. "Go You" above) are less trollish???

[Disney Duster]

I will answer the Sleeping Beauty Cinderella Snow White stuff later in the appropriate thread.

And please don't make pretentious remarks

It wasn't. You took it that way as some other people might, too.

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.

No, it's not. Your reasoning is that it's not engaging enough. That it doesn't interact with the audience enough. That is a requirement for a certain way to enjoy the movie, not a requirement for being technically or cinematically great.

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!

But when I examined the way Lazario says the film is different, I pointed out how it still doesn't work. But the way that Bambi is differently does work on that level. Seeing Bambi in a far off way in a story about life more than the particular adventures of an engaging character is how the film was meant to be seen and it does work in that way. For example, Bambi hardly ever talks, when he's a kid or older. But in Sleeping beauty, even though the heroine and hero don't talk in the later half, they did talk a lot in the first half. You see how Sleeping Beauty messed up on being "a different thing" but Bambi didn't?

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.

Not being engaging is not necessarily a flaw. It's not a flaw when even great mastperpieces are not considered engaging by certain audiences, like when teenagers find a Hithcock film too boring. A flaw is when something goes wrong that they really didn't intend. I don't think they intended the film to be engaging in the way that yamiiguy means, in "The Lion King" way. I think Bambi is engaging, in an emotional sense, not an interactive character sense. Just not the way The Lion King is, basically.

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.

The colors do include a lot of black, pink and purple, with that "white and blue", I'm not saying it's all that varied. Not being as good as they are in other films is an opinion. I say it's wrong. And of course, I also say the designs are very special. They're part of why I like the film. It seems the only thing we can do now is agree to disagree.

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.

I think that's the first time you've ever referred to me as smart, when I've called you and Lazario that a bunch of times. Tears of joy, tears of joy!

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.[/quote]
I actually get what Lazario means when he says "I write so people just think about it" and "I think about all ways for words, not just hard, tangible, ways of talking" and "you're not thinking of all ways I mean for words". Of course I'm paraphrasing what he said because I won't quote everything, but I agree with that, that people see words differently and some may see multiple and deeper meanings for words sometimes, thinking beyond their basic defintions. I think he is philosophical and intellectual...BUT the issue here is that we are talking about why the films don't make sense on a certain level and so he goes to another, different level, and we're saying that other level still doesn't make up for the mistakes in the first level, so to speak. Lazario, I know you want this film to be great, and it is great, perhaps in the ways you are talking about, in the atmosphere and the feelings the film gives you, but that doesn't excuse some of the basic things we've been talking about.

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. Bambi 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.

So by properly defined character you mean Simba talks more and sings his own song and gets to express more ideas that way. But Bambi is not supposed to talk a lot. This is why the film is different and it's supposed to be that way, it is not a flaw. And he does have an arc. He's born and his father is mysteriously aloof and he's wondering why and wondering about everything. Then he has to get through the hurdles of tragedy, love, rivals, and man. Finally he grows to be like his father and finally understand and be at peace. That's all that there needs to be, it's exactly what the filmakers intended. It's not a flaw. I think the "flaw" lies with people not taking this because of how they think movies should be.

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.

YES. THANK YOU.

Well why not? Sure it isn't always the case, but I wouldn't say it can never make great characters or films. Bambi becomes relatable and memorable because of his actions. Sure, the character doesn't have the clearly defined arc that we see in other characters, but the film hasn't stood the test of time so well for no good reason.

I certainly didn't relate to Bambi though that could differ from person to person and I wouldn't say he's particularly memorable. Bambi is a very shallow film with no depth to the characterization or theme.

Exactly. Also, he is memorable, at least when he's a kid, because so many people remember and like him and he's everywhere on stuff. But the film is not shallow, except in that it doesn't have as much characterization as you want, and once again the characterization is deep in that the characters feel deep enough though how they are characterized is, once again, just not as much as you want or in the way you want, and the theme is deep, it's the circle of life theme the Lion King has and Bambi did it first and did it better. It's is more deep feeling when you see Bambi's circle of life completed. Bambi has actually become like his father while Simba still seems like his whiny JTT self or his boring Broderick self, just roaring. He never become majestic like his father, but Bambi does.

I know I said I would wait till the other thread to discuss Snow White, Cinderella, or Sleeping Beauty, but I gotta answer these in this thread:

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.

Oh, so she's not supposed to be engaging, but Bambi and his friends, they are supposed to be? Yea no, now you see how I'm right about Bambi.

Anyway, if she really was only supposed to be a symbol or concept, she would be more like Bambi, who doesn't talk much and is almost pure innocence and youth, or his father, who is like pure majesty and adultness. She would be purely what she's supposed to be, not something ruined by all the talking and such she does that just prove her boring instead of endearing or representing something hopeful or innocent. And if she was a character or a heroine, she would be more like Snow White, with more screentime or more ways of showing her character, more things she does. And if she was supposed to be both, she would once again be more like Snow White, who embodies hope and light and innocence while also feeling like the heroine. If Snow White replaced Aurora, we would care more. We care about Snow White, we care about Bambi, but Aurora...eh.

Snow White and Cinderella are emotional fairy tales and Sleeping Beauty is not. Duster already agreed with me that the reason he couldn't enjoy the movie was that it was a movie about warmth and giving the characters "more character" wasn't the primary focus.

Um, no I didn't agree that Sleeping Beauty was not emotional...or rather, I didn't agree that they intended it not to be emotional, because I will not believe for a second that Walt Disney would ever make a movie that wasn't supposed to be emotional. Because the film isn't very emotional, when it quite obviously wants to be with the way it shows Aurora dead, among other things. Why do you think the film shouldn't be emotional? What kind of film is that, that is actually good? A documentary? Even those tend to elicit emotion. But I definately did not say the film was about warmth, it has an extreme lack of warmth, the main problem all those official Disney books said the film had and the problem they said filmgoers had with it. If it wasn't about character maybe it would be more like Bambi. Aurora and Maleficent would be as mysterious as The Great Prince and the fairies might be more like Bambi's mother. Or maybe the other way around. Or something.

[SWillie!]

Well why not? Sure it isn't always the case, but I wouldn't say it can never make great characters or films. Bambi becomes relatable and memorable because of his actions. Sure, the character doesn't have the clearly defined arc that we see in other characters, but the film hasn't stood the test of time so well for no good reason.

I certainly didn't relate to Bambi though that could differ from person to person and I wouldn't say he's particularly memorable. Bambi is a very shallow film with no depth to the characterization or theme.

If he's not memorable, then Bambi would not be included in the premium Disney lines (platinum, diamond), because people wouldn't care. But it is still one of the more popular Disney films 70 years later. "Not memorable" is not something that can be said about Bambi. You may not enjoy it as much as others, but it's not because it's bad. It's because, for whatever reason, YOU didn't relate to it.

[yamiiguy]

You're right in saying that I didn't relate to it but there's no escaping that the movie has some flaws with characterisation and a total lack of depth. Bambi may have some memorable moments but those are probably the death of Bambi's mother, Bambi on the ice and Thumper in the flowers. Those scenes are not memorable because of character; they're memorable because of the animation.

[Lazario]

But when I examined the way Lazario says the film is different, I pointed out how it still doesn't work. But the way that Bambi is differently does work on that level. Seeing Bambi in a far off way in a story about life more than the particular adventures of an engaging character is how the film was meant to be seen and it does work in that way. For example, Bambi hardly ever talks, when he's a kid or older. But in Sleeping beauty, even though the heroine and hero don't talk in the later half, they did talk a lot in the first half. You see how Sleeping Beauty messed up on being "a different thing" but Bambi didn't?

No, you didn't, Duster. You didn't stop arguing strict logic when my point was that the film doesn't intend to be followed that way. You argued character when I said the film's focus was on tone. And almost every time you pointed out what you believed to be a flaw, I countered. All you're saying is that you don't agree with me. Nothing more.

As for Bambi, the film's gorgeous and the music is sometimes very nice. But the idea that it's a compelling film about breeding is I think essentially flawed depending on how you feel about nature. You're a faith guy, I don't recall seeing a nature side to you. (Not that I'm saying "I'm a nature guy and you're not.") I love Disney films focused on nature; from the True Life Adventures to the live action films to various shorts to Robin Hood and The Jungle Book. The film attempts to show how nature affects the characters given that they're animals who can talk. Characters who need to fuck for the story to come full circle. And it's an overbearing, substanceless, irritatingly precious and cutesy film from beginning to end. When the male characters grow up, their female mates become the cute ones. And when they procreate, namby pamby Bambi ascends to the high ground and aren't we so proud that animals know how to fuck? What the movie is really trying to do is dramatize the story of life's inception but the truly compelling story material is in the fact that they created a villain that you can't see onscreen.

I actually get what Lazario means when he says "I write so people just think about it" and "I think about all ways for words, not just hard, tangible, ways of talking" and "you're not thinking of all ways I mean for words". Of course I'm paraphrasing what he said because I won't quote everything, but I agree with that, that people see words differently and some may see multiple and deeper meanings for words sometimes, thinking beyond their basic defintions. I think he is philosophical and intellectual...BUT the issue here is that we are talking about why the films don't make sense on a certain level and so he goes to another, different level, and we're saying that other level still doesn't make up for the mistakes in the first level, so to speak.

Duster, this first level doesn't exist for Sleeping Beauty. That's all there is to it. Especially given the film's production history and artistic ambitions. And the fact that Disney was just complex enough to have produced a good 4 or 5 films that cannot be judged by the Snow White standard goes a long way in backing me up. I'm not saying Sleeping Beauty is alone- like Goliath is implying. I'm saying just as Pinocchio, Fantasia, Alice in Wonderland, and Dumbo were made to challenge Disney being known for telling all their stories the same way, Sleeping Beauty is unfairly lumped in the same category as Snow White and Cinderella when anyone can see how many ways it differs. And just like Fantasia's amazing animation isn't just "hey, look, I'm amazing animation!" and Pinocchio's story isn't just "boy is bad but learns to be good" - so does Sleeping Beauty defy being judged by conventional standards. Even for Disney.

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.

Even as a kid, I kept watching because I thought there was a point to it. That it wasn't just cute. That it meant something. And I might come to understand what that something was in time. I mean: most kids gets pets. And cats are cute. Dogs. Rabbits, whatever. And if you love them, they stay cute until they die. That's where I think the "keep watching because it's adorable" theory applies. Unless you live in Alaska or on a sheep farm or a house infested with rats, you don't expect them to do anything but look cute. I don't think the same applies to Disney films.

Lots of things are fun to watch that doesn't make them great characters/films.

Well why not? Sure it isn't always the case, but I wouldn't say it can never make great characters or films. Bambi becomes relatable and memorable because of his actions. Sure, the character doesn't have the clearly defined arc that we see in other characters, but the film hasn't stood the test of time so well for no good reason.

Well, let me put this to you: what do you think about the film has stood the test of time? The songs haven't held up in the public consciousness. The transition from Bambi's mother's death into "Let's Sing a Gay Little Spring Song" is now pretty much uniformly criticized and viewed as a mistake. Corporate Disney decided to test its' cashcow-ability by not only making a direct-to-video sequel, but making that sequel (nobody asked for)'s promotion a large feature on the 2005 2-disc Platinum Edition DVD. And, in all honesty, the fact that only women and the wimpy J.D. character on Scrubs have ever been named/nicknamed after the movie's boy character does make it clear to me that people think this movie and popular culture clash.

You just can't ignore the fact that it's Disney. And Disney counts it as one of their crown jewels now not so much because it's a flawless masterpiece but more because it's always showcased their tendancies to lean more toward the simplistic and lowest-common-denominator.

the film is not shallow, except in that it doesn't have as much characterization as you want, and once again the characterization is deep in that the characters feel deep enough though how they are characterized is, once again, just not as much as you want or in the way you want, and the theme is deep, it's the circle of life theme the Lion King has and Bambi did it first and did it better.

Even I think The Lion King is superior to Bambi.

And as for Bambi the character, why would I complain that he didn't have enough character? I'm saying, flat out, that he isn't likable. Period. It's not necessarily because I don't know more about him. He's boring. Period. And there's no question that the movie is about his character, his character is being portrayed as the center of everything, his view of the world around him and his knowledge of it are key. And except for the beautiful animation and the event made of his mother's shooting giving him the tiniest bit of pathos, he's boring. The path laid out for him is boring too. The whole "he will become the new King of the forest and his fawn will be the new Prince(s)." It carries zero dramatic weight to it. Unlike the whole Man element. Which (just like Lady and the Tramp's siamese cats) is the only time the movie has any life to it.

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.

Oh, so she's not supposed to be engaging, but Bambi and his friends, they are supposed to be? Yea no, now you see how I'm right about Bambi.

Sleeping Beauty is about good and evil.
Bambi is about Bambi.

See the distinction?

Even if everything Bambi is a part of serves its' circle of life narrative, the film clearly plays on the audience's emotion. It doesn't pay to make Bambi and his life so stiff. If it weren't for Thumper, who if you ask me is the character this movie should have been based on (I think I'm stealing that from someone- do you know who you are?), everything in Bambi's life would have been like the church scene in Pollyanna.

Anyway, if she really was only supposed to be a symbol or concept, she would be more like Bambi, who doesn't talk much and is almost pure innocence and youth, or his father, who is like pure majesty and adultness.

All you're doing here is harping on the fact that she got dialogue. And that's not proving that you really see the point (me and yamiiguy are) making with Sleeping Beauty. Bambi is the center - dramatically and otherwise - of the entire film. So was Dumbo. But there's a character where it was important to feel a lot sympathy for, and we did, and how much dialogue did he get again? I'm NOT trying to be Goliath here, but there's your argument shot deader than Bambi's mother. Not everything about a character is expressed through the character itself. But Bambi's playing by a whole different set of rules. A much simpler set of rules. And its' circle of life only served itself. Like the Trees sequence in Melody Time. Or, if you ask me, the "Circle of Life" scene in The Lion King. As for Aurora, Sleeping Beauty appears to have decided that for her to be worthy of being the movie's symbol of hope and prosperity (and perhaps, by some measure, the tool by which eventually Maleficent would have been rendered powerless whether she put the curse on her or not), she needed to be different from someone like Bambi (similarly born to be royalty but unsimiliarly- living to do nothing but procreate) and have a little character. A little. But still, physically, the movie showed her to be grace and beauty in nature (which extends beyond the wilderness) personified.

She would be purely what she's supposed to be, not something ruined by all the talking and such she does that just prove her boring instead of endearing or representing something hopeful or innocent.

As I've explained countless times now, that doesn't matter. She is not the center of the story in terms of character perspective. The story is viewed through the progression of certain characters. The focus of Sleeping Beauty were The Fairies and Maleficent.

Just accept it already. What you're basically arguing is: how could Disney make a movie called "Sleeping Beauty" and not be about the character doing the sleeping. Like Snow White was about Snow White's wish and Cinderella about Cinderella's dream being fulfilled.

And if she was a character or a heroine, she would be more like Snow White, with more screentime or more ways of showing her character, more things she does. And if she was supposed to be both, she would once again be more like Snow White, who embodies hope and light and innocence while also feeling like the heroine. If Snow White replaced Aurora, we would care more. We care about Snow White, we care about Bambi, but Aurora...eh.

If you're actually reading these replies, I shouldn't have to say this but: Different Functions in Stories. You can't keep saying it matters that we care about what happens to Aurora when every scene with her in it is focusing on another aspect of the story. At least not so long as your argument is: this is the way the movie is. Not just the way I see it.

Snow White and Cinderella are emotional fairy tales and Sleeping Beauty is not. Duster already agreed with me that the reason he couldn't enjoy the movie was that it was a movie about warmth and giving the characters "more character" wasn't the primary focus.

Um, no I didn't agree that Sleeping Beauty was not emotional...or rather, I didn't agree that they intended it not to be emotional

I would hope not seeing as how that's not what I said. I said the film's primary focus in dealing with the characters was not about how much they warmed the audience's heart. Their stories are presented mostly without interference from emotion. We see the characters have emotion but the scene continues without watching characters do something for the sole purpose of it being cute.

I will not believe for a second that Walt Disney would ever make a movie that wasn't supposed to be emotional.

Ironic considering how famous Walt was for not being emotional himself. Kind, maybe. Jovial, yes. Compassionate... (well, let's forget the details of his life involving the labor strike, racist claims against his movies, and anti-semitic charges again his character) debatable but fanciful, no doubt.

Because the film isn't very emotional, when it quite obviously wants to be with the way it shows Aurora dead, among other things.

Well, consider that I have been arguing that the film doesn't tell us how we need to feel and what we need to think at all times. We can be made to understand the dramatic impact of something without actually responding to it the same way as the characters onscreen.

Why do you think the film shouldn't be emotional?

The film should be whatever it wants to be. But, if I appreciate that this film isn't emotional, it's because it allows us to have our own reactions to what we see rather than forced reactions. In Bambi, every audience member must react the same way or it's a boring movie. You see where I'm going with this, I trust.

I definately did not say the film was about warmth, it has an extreme lack of warmth, the main problem all those official Disney books said the film had and the problem they said filmgoers had with it. If it wasn't about character maybe it would be more like Bambi. Aurora and Maleficent would be as mysterious as The Great Prince and the fairies might be more like Bambi's mother. Or maybe the other way around. Or something.

People don't love Bambi because they find it mysterious. They love it because they think they understand everything that's going on in it. And... they kinda do.

You flat out have been arguing that you don't understand how characters can serve one function in one Disney movie and another in another. Though you argue to the contrary with Bambi as an example, you're wrong about Bambi. Not about it being good- because that's a matter of opinion. You're wrong about why. So, you haven't provided a good example of how another Disney movie did what Sleeping Beauty did better. And you still haven't proven that you quite understand what I'm getting at. Don't you think maybe this is the point where we should just agree to disagree?

Lazario, I know you want this film to be great, and it is great, perhaps in the ways you are talking about, in the atmosphere and the feelings the film gives you, but that doesn't excuse some of the basic things we've been talking about.

You're really going around in circles, Duster. And what you've failed to understand is that you don't have to. I'm not saying you can't see the film the way you want to. If anything, I'm finally arguing that Disney didn't homogenize every film they made. It's that people choose to reduce films to basic "things" the way you said because they just can't see how they could have missed the other person's points. I never said I can see everything and I don't believe anyone can. But, also remember, I never put any pressure on anyone to agree with me. Goliath is doing the opposite by telling me I'm pretentious, stupid, and crazy. Don't even attempt to join yourselves. I may think you are not very bright just like most people who argue with you on UD, but I've always given you credit for being a good person. I admire you for never picking convenient moments to be nice- you always care. (Well, except for that Marilyn Manson thing- I will never forget that you said that.)

[yamiiguy]

Oh, sorry Duster I missed your post. I can't be bother with the quoting so I'll address the points here.

- The primary goal for a film is to engage the audience. This can be emotionally or intellectually and predominantly with non-documentary films it's the latter.

- The songs in The Lion King are irrelevant in discussing characteriation.

- In The Lion King, Simba undergoes character development. To put it simply: Immature > Guilt-Ridden > Nihilistic > Mature & Responsible Leader

- Bambi = His mother is killed. He grows up. He falls in love. He assumes a role. You can probably see that his journey is similar to Simba's.

- However the key difference is that the film doesn't seem to interact with Bambi, it seems to merely observe him and the woodland in their own kind of microcosm.

- He's not. Flat out. His personality (or lack of it) is not engaging or relatable whatsoever. This means that the film is unable to make up for its lack of plot with theme because there is no effective vehicle with which the audience can connect with the theme.

- Of course, some people will like the film. For every film, there's a person that likes it. But Bambi fails on certain levels that you need to succeed in, in order to be great. Like I said, the people who remember Bambi almost always single out his mother's death.

- Sleeping Beauty on the other hand doesn't need Aurora to be engaging. Why? Because she's not really the protagonist. She's fodder - a plot device more than a character. Philip is really a plot device too. Alone, Aurora symbolises innocence and etherealness but together with Philip they are the embodiment/representation of love.

- They aren't required to be engaging because they aren't the main character focus which is on the fairies and Maleficent - good and evil respectively.

[Disney Duster]

You may not enjoy it as much as others, but it's not because it's bad. It's because, for whatever reason, YOU didn't relate to it.

Again, THANK YOU.

You're right in saying that I didn't relate to it but there's no escaping that the movie has some flaws with characterisation and a total lack of depth. Bambi may have some memorable moments but those are probably the death of Bambi's mother, Bambi on the ice and Thumper in the flowers. Those scenes are not memorable because of character; they're memorable because of the animation.

But the animation shows the character as well. And people do remember Bambi, Thumper, and Flower as being cute and endearing characters and also the reason that they feel so bad when Bambi's mother dies is because they felt for both him and his mother. And no it does not have a total lack of depth, just a lack of some kind of definition of depth you mean. And there are no flaws with any of the characterization except perhaps in the Twitterpatted scene. A flaw is when you do something wrong, when something doesn't work. Not having as much characterization as you think there should be is not a flaw, that's you wanting something they aren't trying to make.

The primary goal for a film is to engage the audience. This can be emotionally or intellectually and predominantly with non-documentary films it's the latter.

Don't you mean with non-documentary films it's the former?

The songs in The Lion King are irrelevant in discussing characteriation.

Unless they show characterization within them which is what I meant. For instance Simba's first song shows his bratty spoiled shallow "I want fun all the time and I want to be a king" side, even though it's kinda showed already, this just shows us how much so. And it's fun.

- In The Lion King, Simba undergoes character development. To put it simply: Immature > Guilt-Ridden > Nihilistic > Mature & Responsible Leader

- Bambi = His mother is killed. He grows up. He falls in love. He assumes a role. You can probably see that his journey is similar to Simba's.

What you did here is give Simba the emotions he shows while you only gave Bambi the events/actions he goes through. If you were being fair you would list Bambi as being innocent, curious, surprised, enjoying life, then scared, saddened by life, confused, understanding, then bewildered, in love, then angry and fighting/defending, then being the hero/leader (when fighting man's dogs off) which is also being mature and responsible, to finally feeling and understanding the same majesty his father had when he was born. Or at least something like those.

- However the key difference is that the film doesn't seem to interact with Bambi, it seems to merely observe him and the woodland in their own kind of microcosm.

I kind of get what you mean, but how does the film interact with Simba? It seems more like he's talking to the audience than just to those around him?

- He's not. Flat out. His personality (or lack of it) is not engaging or relatable whatsoever. This means that the film is unable to make up for its lack of plot with theme because there is no effective vehicle with which the audience can connect with the theme.

He's not what? Anyway, he is engaging and relatable at least in that what he does makes us feel endearing feelings for him or sad feelings for him. Is he as engaging as Simba? Perhaps not. But that doesn't mean he isn't at all, and some people could like Bambi more just because they like the cute way he is more than...the possibly viewable as annoying or boring way Simba is. But the audience does not need a vehicle to connect to the theme. They can just connect to the theme. Which is what I'd say I did. I felt for the characters and I felt for the theme and that's all I need to think this thing's a masterpiece.

- Of course, some people will like the film. For every film, there's a person that likes it. But Bambi fails on certain levels that you need to succeed in, in order to be great. Like I said, the people who remember Bambi almost always single out his mother's death.

I'd say that however much people over the years have felt about Bambi and it's theme, or the way I felt about just watching events unfold in a microcasm, is great. And that's what makes the film great, not some rules you think it needs to go buy. The people who remember The Lion King pretty much single out Mufassa's death and the "Circle of Life" song with Simba being held up. And if you say "no there's usually more, like Timon and Pumbaa", I will say "yea there's usually more with Bambi too, like Thumper and Flower", and we could go on. And Bambi's own birth scene is definately also remembered because it's advertised all the time when things come out for the film.

- Sleeping Beauty on the other hand doesn't need Aurora to be engaging. Why? Because she's not really the protagonist. She's fodder - a plot device more than a character. Philip is really a plot device too. Alone, Aurora symbolises innocence and etherealness but together with Philip they are the embodiment/representation of love.

- They aren't required to be engaging because they aren't the main character focus which is on the fairies and Maleficent - good and evil respectively.

But if they are only supposed to be symbols, and not be engaging, then a flaw of Sleeping Beauty is that we spend so much time on them in the woods. For what you're saying to work, Aurora and Phillip would have to be mysterious, have less screentime and talk less, so they could be seen as symbols and representations intsead of looking like characters they messed up on making be good. And you seem to imply that Maleficent and the fairies are also representations of good and evil, and for that to work, they once again need to seem like less silly not very engaging characters and more like cool, perhaps mysterious representations. Once again if Sleeping Beauty was more like Bambi I could see what your talk about, that in Bambi the theme of "life" is what rules and in Sleeping Beauty the them of "good verses evil" is what you say is supposed to rule but it really looks like a bunch of characters that are supposed to be fleshed out in all the time they take but for some reason aren't. In Bambi, every scene is about life, life, life, even the changing of the seasons, the song, "Little April Showers", but in Sleeping Beauty it seems like the scenes are there just to develop characters we don't care that much about and aren't very good, fill time, or get from point A to B, just in a beautiful way, with the exception of things like Aurora getting her magic gifts, Aurora getting hypnotized, or the very very end of the film, in the clouds.

Lazario, my talk with you about Sleeping Beauty is going to have to wait, but the rest I can answer.

As for Bambi, the film's gorgeous and the music is sometimes very nice. But the idea that it's a compelling film about breeding is I think essentially flawed depending on how you feel about nature. You're a faith guy, I don't recall seeing a nature side to you. (Not that I'm saying "I'm a nature guy and you're not.")

I don't care all that much about nature, which is exactly why Bambi is good, it made me care. Bambi is not about breeding, it's about nature in life, and the evidence for that of course is the fact that there are many other things in the film aside from what has to do with breeding. And it has lots of substance.

Even as a kid, I kept watching because I thought there was a point to it. That it wasn't just cute. That it meant something. And I might come to understand what that something was in time.

Good. I felt this way about many Disney films as a kid, too.

Lots of things are fun to watch that doesn't make them great characters/films.

Well why not? Sure it isn't always the case, but I wouldn't say it can never make great characters or films. Bambi becomes relatable and memorable because of his actions. Sure, the character doesn't have the clearly defined arc that we see in other characters, but the film hasn't stood the test of time so well for no good reason.

Well, let me put this to you: what do you think about the film has stood the test of time?[/quote]
The songs, and pretty much everything in it except for The Gay Little Spring song and Twitterpatted scenes. Not everything in this film must be in the public's consciousness. The fact that some people appreciate Bambi, but not everyone, is something I like. It means Bambi has some things in it that, yes, are perhaps too great for people who like crap or easiness to like.

And Disney counts it as one of their crown jewels now not so much because it's a flawless masterpiece but more because it's always showcased their tendancies to lean more toward the simplistic and lowest-common-denominator.

Nope. It's because it's a masterpiece that actually the simple and common demoninators don't like.

And as for Bambi the character, why would I complain that he didn't have enough character? I'm saying, flat out, that he isn't likable. Period. It's not necessarily because I don't know more about him. He's boring. Period. And there's no question that the movie is about his character, his character is being portrayed as the center of everything, his view of the world around him and his knowledge of it are key. And except for the beautiful animation and the event made of his mother's shooting giving him the tiniest bit of pathos, he's boring. The path laid out for him is boring too. The whole "he will become the new King of the forest and his fawn will be the new Prince(s)." It carries zero dramatic weight to it. Unlike the whole Man element. Which (just like Lady and the Tramp's siamese cats) is the only time the movie has any life to it.

That's just your opinion. I can see some would think he's boring but I do not find him boring. That he becomes the king of the forest does have dramatic weight and emotional weight to it because I felt it when watching the film. However, he's definately not unlikeable, unless you're someone who doesn't like anything innocent or cute or friendly or nice or happy.

Sleeping Beauty is about good and evil.
Bambi is about Bambi.

See the distinction?

Even if everything Bambi is a part of serves its' circle of life narrative, the film clearly plays on the audience's emotion. It doesn't pay to make Bambi and his life so stiff.

No, Bambi is about Bambi and The Circle of Life, with more focus on The Circle of Life. Sleeping Beauty is about Sleeping Beauty and good and evil but the focus is uneven and neither of those things is done very well. As for Bambi and his life being stiff, he's not stiff at all in the beginning, and though I can what you mean about being "stiff" when he grows up, this is also viewed as being grown up, mature, and majestic, and in any case it does serve the theme of the film of what happen when you grow up. He can't be "less stiff" in order to seem as authoritative and far off as he does by the end.

Bambi (similarly born to be royalty but unsimiliarly- living to do nothing but procreate)

Once again, Bambi is obviously born to experience and feel about life, as well as with with friends, enemies, lovers, and perform actions such as ones of heroism. And this is right because he doesn't only procreate. You are just focusing on that because it annoys you and your view is that that's all it's about, but all the evidence of the film having many things other than procreating, as well as what they said they said in the making of the film, goes against that.

Um, no I didn't agree that Sleeping Beauty was not emotional...or rather, I didn't agree that they intended it not to be emotional

I would hope not seeing as how that's not what I said. I said the film's primary focus in dealing with the characters was not about how much they warmed the audience's heart. Their stories are presented mostly without interference from emotion. We see the characters have emotion but the scene continues without watching characters do something for the sole purpose of it being cute.

No. You said:

Snow White and Cinderella are emotional fairy tales and Sleeping Beauty is not. Duster already agreed with me that the reason he couldn't enjoy the movie was that it was a movie about warmth and giving the characters "more character" wasn't the primary focus.

So even if giving the characters more character was the focus, okay, but you said that I agreed with you the movie was about warmth. Their is no warmth in the movie from Aurora or really even from the fairies. This is the main problem moviegoers seemed to have when it first came out and one of the reasons it was cited as failing.

I will not believe for a second that Walt Disney would ever make a movie that wasn't supposed to be emotional.

Ironic considering how famous Walt was for not being emotional himself. Kind, maybe. Jovial, yes. Compassionate... (well, let's forget the details of his life involving the labor strike, racist claims against his movies, and anti-semitic charges again his character) debatable but fanciful, no doubt.[/quote]
But you are ignoring all the times in the behind the scenes material that he said he wanted the films to be emotional.

Well, consider that I have been arguing that the film doesn't tell us how we need to feel and what we need to think at all times. We can be made to understand the dramatic impact of something without actually responding to it the same way as the characters onscreen.

We don't have to react the same way the characters onscreen do to feel emotion but if they intended emotion we must feel emotion.

Why do you think the film shouldn't be emotional?

The film should be whatever it wants to be. But, if I appreciate that this film isn't emotional, it's because it allows us to have our own reactions to what we see rather than forced reactions. In Bambi, every audience member must react the same way or it's a boring movie.

No we don't have to react the same way for either film, but we do have to react emotionally to either film, and people reportedly have for Bambi but not so much for Sleeping Beauty.

People don't love Bambi because they find it mysterious. They love it because they think they understand everything that's going on in it. And... they kinda do.

One reason I love Bambi is because I find it mysterious.

I may think you are not very bright just like most people who argue with you on UD

You've called me smart before. In the religion thread. I won't dig through to find it, I just know you did.

but I've always given you credit for being a good person. I admire you for never picking convenient moments to be nice- you always care. (Well, except for that Marilyn Manson thing- I will never forget that you said that.)

Thanks for saying the former, but what did I say about Marilyn Manson?

[Goliath]

Goliath is doing the opposite by telling me I'm pretentious, stupid, and crazy.

Actually, I said your arguments (and writing) were pretentious, stupid and crazy. And then I explained why. I gave some examples and explained why they didn't add up at all. Not only when it comes to your opinion of Sleeping Beauty, but also about Snow White and Cinderella. But you wouldn't reply to any of those explanations. You just kept harping on and on about a supposed "game" I was playing...

[Lazario]

to Duster:
Well, that was certainly pointless.

If you have anything more to say about anything, Duster, I don't care to hear it. I've witnessed enough "nuh-uhhhh!" discussions to last me a lifetime. I'll just end it by saying no I don't believe Bambi is the awesomest or that he can beat up Chuck Norris with one paw behind his back or that Walt had super powers. Because, even though that might seem out of left field to you, that's pretty much the level of maturity this "discussion" has been reduced to.


to Goliath:
What's the matter- you've run out of things to say about transwomen and now you're bored?

[SWillie!]

Those scenes are not memorable because of character; they're memorable because of the animation.

That's what I've been saying since we started discussing this. Bambi is memorable because of what it looks like. How the characters act, how they move. I'm not saying the story or characters are great. As I've said, there are far better out there. But just because they aren't doesn't mean the whole film is a massive failure as you're saying it is.

Well, let me put this to you: what do you think about the film has stood the test of time?

The iconic image of young Bambi. I could possibly list more examples or scenes here to make my point (like the mother's death or the scene with the butterfly), but in my opinion, it doesn't need anything more than the simply image of young Bambi to be relevant to society and to stand the test of time. Everyone, everywhere, knows who Bambi is and what he looks like. The same cannot be said for lesser Disney films, many of which are "better" films with more developed characters or stories. But the fact is that, regardless of how "good" the film is, it doesn't matter - it is still relevant in today's society, which means it has stood the test of time.

I'll use the Rescuers as an example. Many hardcore fans claim it is highly underrated and is one of the better films in the Disney canon (I'm not arguing this, as I do enjoy the film, although not quite that much). But your average person (non Disney geek) don't know who or what the Rescuers are. It has not stood the test of time, and is no longer relevant to society.

What I'm getting at is this: When measuring how "good" a film is, I think it matters less how engaging the characters or story are while you are actually watching the film, and it matters more how well it is remembered after the fact. Society knows Bambi. They remember Bambi, and they love Bambi. Regardless of the fact that most of them have not seen the film in god knows how many years and probably couldn't tell you the first thing about the story.

They still know and love the character 70 years later, and that is what makes Bambi such a great film.

[Disney Duster]

Well Swillie I obviously think there's even more to Bambi, but I like what you said about the film, and about the Rescuers. Even though I now think The Rescuers does have a lot of good to it, and I do remember some parts well, I still don't think any argument showing how good may sound when talking about it really says it's that good a film. Sorry Goliath : ( Though I still have yet to see it again like I want to.

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.

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.

I wanted to say, I thought these were very good defenses.