DVDizzy Forum

Lady Cluck wrote:Oh please Because blonde girls have it so hard.

. . . Right. Let me just go bleach my hair so I can watch all my problems magically disappear.

An African fairy tale would be amazing for example if done right, cause Disney would focus on the story rather than worrying about having a movie starting a black princess.

I think M&C focused on their story just fine, regardless of whether or not the movie was put into production by the Disney heads with "black princess" in mind. What the filmmakers were doing and what Disney was doing isn't the same thing. Which is why I think the PC argument over TP&TF is forced and would be better applied to Pocahontas. The fact that TP&TF is nothing like TLM/Aladdin/B&tB proves that it was not calculated to be a '90s film + black princess down to every detail the way Tangled was.

Lady Cluck wrote:How the HELL is TPATF any less of a normal story than other Disney movies? People are more critical of it because it's the first black princess. That's quite clear.

No one said The Princess and the Frog is any less of a normal story than other Disney movies. It's actually pretty standard and Disney-like.

Also source on people criticizing it primarily because it's a black princess. The only people who criticize it for that reason are the vocal minority racists.

Lady Cluck wrote:Someone had to be the first black princess but I'm sure if you had it your way, no one ever would have been And no it wasn't exclusively for tokenism and it's racist to be that dismissive of the entire story just because a black princess is attached and you roll your eyes at Disney doing that "just to have a black princess." I actually LOVE the New Orleans twist on the fairy tale, which would have been pretty boring as a straight up adaptation.

First of all, stop claiming people are racist with no logical reason to back it up or I'll report you. That's very offensive especially to me since I was never raised to feel that way against any race and never have in my entire life.

Secondly, if I had it my way, Princess and the Frog would've never been made and I would've made 10 great movies starring a variety of ethnic characters including black people. And if Princess and the Frog was made, I would've made it a lot better than it is.

Give me one sentence that shows I claimed to dislike, or critique the film because the princess is black. I made very logical and sound points on why the movie didn't work for me, and why it didn't work for the audiences. You can't have a film that is advertised as a princess film turn into a film like Robin Hood for 80% of the movie only with stupid sidekicks like Louis the Alligator. That simply isn't going to resonate with the primary audiences this film was targetting which was old school Disney fans. It was advertised as a return to form but instead what we got was a substandard talking animal movie which Disney has enough of especially fresh off the tails of Bolt right behind it.

Disney's Divinity wrote:I think M&C focused on their story just fine, regardless of whether or not the movie was put into production by the Disney heads with "black princess" in mind. What the filmmakers were doing and what Disney was doing isn't the same thing. Which is why I think the PC argument over TP&TF is forced and would be better applied to Pocahontas. The fact that TP&TF is nothing like TLM/Aladdin/B&tB proves that it was not calculated to be a '90s film + black princess down to every detail the way Tangled was.

I think the movie is fine too, just that it fell short in a lot of ways which I've already explained in the thread.

I really love most of the characters in the movie. The human element of the movie is some of the best in Disney animation history and I'm not even kidding. The problem is that the movie spent 80% of it's time as fucking frogs which basically alienated any of my interest, and the audiences interest in the film. Imagine how good the film would be if Tiana stayed a human the entire time and showed the multiple layers to New Orleans. Something like that could've really resonated with fans at mass and could lead to some realy beautiful imagery, but instead we got the swamp and fucking Louis the Alligator shitting up every scene he's in. It still makes me sick to my stomach the direction this film took cause it could've been one of the most beautiful movies ever with it's New Orleans setting but it just shit all over it with kid-friendly shit.

Tiana, Prince Naveen, Doctor Facilier, Charolette were all awesome characters and personalities that could've used that extra layer of exposure to really define their personality to a mass audience. Disney took the safer route and including animals and comedy for kids for some reason.

I like PatF. I like the music it's fun and catchy imo. "Down in New Orleans" and "Dig A Little Deeper" are great. I also like "Almost There", Anika Noni Rose rocked it. And "Friends on the Other Side" is a fabulous villain song. I actually kinda like the songs in PatF better than Tangled. The only Tangled songs I really like are "Mother Knows Best' and the reprise. With Tangled Mandy Moore, while she does a great job voicing Punzie, her singing voice isn't up to par with Jodi Benson, Paige O'Hara, Lea Salonga, Judy Kuhn or Rose imo.

Tiana is a great heroine. She is strong, intelligent, hard working, assertive and can take care of herself. A great role model. Charlotte is HILARIOUS! And maybe I have no taste but I love Louis the Alligator. I remember when I first saw the movie in theaters and the scene where he jumped on the boat and played the trumpet all jolly and then the people jumped off screaming had me peeing my pants laughing for like 10 minutes. I like Facilier but I feel like they could have done more with him. He has an awesome voice actor, cool design and great song but I wish he had more to do. I agree I wish they made him related to Tiana somehow. I remember reading somewhere that he could be a direct result of Tia's father's death. Like her father made a deal with Dr. F. and couldn't pay it up in time and Dr. F. killed him. That would have been cool imo. I don't like Lawrence personally. They should have cut him out and focused more on Facilier's character. And I would have kept in the final duel between Odie and Facilier. But I do like that Tiana defeats him. But if he was involved in her fathers death it would have made his defeat more satisfying.

So yeah I like the film. The only complaints I have is they should have utilized Facilier to his full potential and cut Lawrence.

Jay wrote:So yeah I like the film. The only complaints I have is they should have utilized Facilier to his full potential and cut Lawrence.

I feel kind of bad for Lawrence. He didn't get much closure with Naveen, he just gets jailed.

Warm Regards wrote:

Jay wrote:So yeah I like the film. The only complaints I have is they should have utilized Facilier to his full potential and cut Lawrence.

I feel kind of bad for Lawrence. He didn't get much closure with Naveen, he just gets jailed.

Yeah I agree the ending to his story was rushed. I think they would have been better off cutting him and maybe having Facilier disguising himself as Naveen.

Lady Cluck wrote:Oh please Because blonde girls have it so hard.

Ha ha. Jealous of blondes, much?

GreatGreg wrote:

Lady Cluck wrote:Oh please Because blonde girls have it so hard.

Ha ha. Jealous of blondes, much?

Of course he/she is. Ayrans are the MASTER RACE. SUPERIOR.

You can roll your eyes to your hearts content, Cluck, but your recent tirade of nasty and senseless posts on this board are not doing you any favors. Just look at how people are reacting to you and get a clue that your hostility and lack of comprehension is getting to be a bit much.

Big One wrote:

Mooky wrote:Uh, no. CGI, Alan Menken, Barbie-ready merchandise and storyline cobbled from some of their previous hits: all crowd-pleasers as calculated as they come. This thread is the very proof of that. PatF at least took risks even if they didn't work in its favor.

I'd like to know what kind of risks Princess and the Frog actually took, and why your critique of Tangled doesn't apply to Princess and the Frog which has Tiana who was pretty much exclusively made so there could be a black princess in the toyline to appeal to that audience. That isn't saying I have a problem with that, mind you, but your context is completely grasping at straws and your criticisms apply to Princess and the Frog even more-so than Tangled.

Let's see:
- It was a hand-drawn film in an era when most studios (and audiences) wouldn't touch one with a ten-foot pole. We could fool ourselves but CG is quite obviously the GA's preferred medium. It also didn't have a luxury of 3D gimmick.
- It was a princess/fairytale film, fully advertised as such. "Girly" films don’t make box-office money.
- It had black leads and predominantly black supporting cast. Again, films with black cast don't make box-office money, unless they're headlined by a star named Denzel, Will, or Halle, and feature white supporting cast.
- It featured music by Randy Newman, who even by that point was pretty much detested by every Disney fan. It didn't help that his friendship with John Lasseter was supposedly the reason Alan Menken was booted off the project.
- From the very moment it was announced, the film was plagued by controversies: Maddy/Mammy/Tiana, New Orleans/hurricane Katrina, racial slurs, voodoo/witchcraft, and as you put it, people complained the film was "pretty much exclusively made so there could be a black princess in the toyline to appeal to that audience". Filmmakers had to be extra apprehensive about it to make sure not to offend anyone as they had a bad prior experience with Song of the South. They could have easily scrapped it then and there, but they continued with the production.
- Tales of transformation can be really hard for audiences to relate. Beauty and the Beast did it because it focused on the personal tragedy of the Beast and Belle was still pretty much the main lead. Brother Bear didn't, even with some personal drama involved. PatF was doomed from the start as the film was mostly a(n animal) comedy-drama for 3/4ths of its length.
- Take a look at who are the most popular Disney princesses: Belle, Ariel, Cinderella, and Rapunzel. What do they have in common: they're nerdy/goofy pure-hearted social outcasts who don’t fit in, but they never stop believing in/dreaming of better future/true love, which are pretty abstract ideals making them easily to relate to for a large number of fans ("She's an intellectual in a society full of philistines. That is totally like me."). Tiana as a character is very demure (see also Mulan and Pocahontas), with a fairly distinct goal, and loses some of the empathy points because of that (how many people dream of opening a restaurant?).

Tangled played it safe to the extreme and didn't face any of these issues. The only issue largely debated was hand-drawn vs. CGI but most people got over it quickly.

Big One wrote:CGI isn't a con, either. It's called a new way to animate things and Tangled revolutionized how CG animation can be.

It worked for the supporting cast. Most of the time Rapunzel still looked like a Muppet.

People saying Tangled took more risks and was more original than TPATF must be brain damaged. A lot of the things people don't like about TPATF are because they don't fit the usual Disney mold - nontraditional setting, nontraditional princess/heroine, nontraditional Jazz-infused soundtrack, etc.

Tangled is about a pretty blonde princess in a purpley pink dress in a generic culture-less "European" kingdom. What the hell is so daring about that?

I actually really like Tangled, but people acting like it's a completely original masterpiece are kidding themselves. They played it completely safe. There's nothing wrong with that if it works, and it mostly worked in Tangled with a few minor issues, but it was as generic Disney as you can get, with a few more "modern" flavors and anachronisms to appeal to Dreamworks fans.

DancingCrab wrote:You can roll your eyes to your hearts content, Cluck, but your recent tirade of nasty and senseless posts on this board are not doing you any favors.

He's only imitating DisneyJedi, which is a little cruel, imo.

I really doubt he's jealous of blondes either.

Tangled went in new directions with the leads. Rapunzel was trapped in a tower for all of her life and just wanted to get out. That's not very relatable to anyone! And instead of having the usual prince they had a thieving, smug, debonair, orphaned man who grew to be a better person with Rapunzel. And Mother Gothel was a complex villain who took care of Rapunzel and we couldn't tell if she loved Rapunzel or not (it is heavily debated). And Rapunzel looked beuatiful, not at all like a Muppet. Maybe her and other characters' eyes were too big, but that was it. And the kingdom did have a culture, they made their own up.

But even if Rapunzel isn't much newer than The Princess and the Frog - it's still better, maybe even because it followed tradition.

Thank you Big One, for everything.

Lady Cluck what you said to me and Big One is terrible of you. And look what you're doing you're using the whole accusing people of being racist as a scapegoat for people who think the film could've been better.

thedisneyspirit wrote:I guess the lack of blackness works for Duster's favor?

Did you really mean that?

I am not racist. I liked The Princess and the Frog when I saw it, I own The Princess and the Frog, I really like Naveen, and I don't like Tiana based on her character alone. I hate how she works too much to have fun and her attitude. Anyway I just think Tangled is better and was addressing someone who compared the two in here.

Mooky wrote:Let's see:
- It was a hand-drawn film in an era when most studios (and audiences) wouldn't touch one with a ten-foot pole. We could fool ourselves but CG is quite obviously the GA's preferred medium. It also didn't have a luxury of 3D gimmick. Okay, sure, I'll agree with this one. But at the same time, Princess and the Frog didn't do anything new with 2D animation ala the Paperman short. There was nothing new with how Princess and the Frog was animated which makes the entire endevour to bring back 2D animation as a viable and popular medium a failed experiment. And keep in mind 2D animation is still the most popular medium, because that's most of the animation that is featured on TV nowadays so it's still doing fairly well for itself, just not to a movie going audience.
- It was a princess/fairytale film, fully advertised as such. "Girly" films don’t make box-office money. That explains the multitude of box office successes Disney had in the past.
- It had black leads and predominantly black supporting cast. Again, films with black cast don't make box-office money, unless they're headlined by a star named Denzel, Will, or Halle, and feature white supporting cast. I agree with this, but I don't think the target audience Disney has going for it really cares about race which is kids. Kids opinions on race is primarily supported by their parents which in terms of actual racism is a very minor audience right there. Movies starring those actors appeal to a different audience, as do other films like the more gritty films with a majorly black cast. I do agree that the black lead factor has a part in it's box office letdown, but there's more to it than that and most of what I'm even talking about is critique with the film itself.
- It featured music by Randy Newman, who even by that point was pretty much detested by every Disney fan. It didn't help that his friendship with John Lasseter was supposedly the reason Alan Menken was booted off the project. This is just dumb. Only the hardcore fans even know who Alan Menken is. The majority of fans don't know who composes these films whatsoever and it'd be stupid to suggest otherwise. Also, Randy Newman is a much larger box office name than Alan Menken (though not as critically acclaimed, obviously) due to his success outside of movies. I will say that Randy Newman is a piece of shit in my opinion and I've never been a fan of his work, but that's for another topic.
- From the very moment it was announced, the film was plagued by controversies: Maddy/Mammy/Tiana, New Orleans/hurricane Katrina, racial slurs, voodoo/witchcraft, and as you put it, people complained the film was "pretty much exclusively made so there could be a black princess in the toyline to appeal to that audience". Filmmakers had to be extra apprehensive about it to make sure not to offend anyone as they had a bad prior experience with Song of the South. They could have easily scrapped it then and there, but they continued with the production. Source for any of this? The only thing I recall about Princess and the Frog is websites talking about their being a black princess for the first time ever and how much of a great thing it is. I also remember that websites critiqued how Tiana's design was changed to look less (or more?) black, but that's about it.
- Tales of transformation can be really hard for audiences to relate. Beauty and the Beast did it because it focused on the personal tragedy of the Beast and Belle was still pretty much the main lead. Brother Bear didn't, even with some personal drama involved. PatF was doomed from the start as the film was mostly a(n animal) comedy-drama for 3/4ths of its length. This isn't a risk, it's bad writing. No one, including myself, came to see Princess and the Frog in theaters for there to be an animal comedy on the screen.
- Take a look at who are the most popular Disney princesses: Belle, Ariel, Cinderella, and Rapunzel. What do they have in common: they're nerdy/goofy pure-hearted social outcasts who don’t fit in, but they never stop believing in/dreaming of better future/true love, which are pretty abstract ideals making them easily to relate to for a large number of fans ("She's an intellectual in a society full of philistines. That is totally like me."). Tiana as a character is very demure (see also Mulan and Pocahontas), with a fairly distinct goal, and loses some of the empathy points because of that (how many people dream of opening a restaurant?). This I also feel is pretty stupid. If anything the audience likes Tiana, they just don't wan to see her transformed into a frog for the entire movie. Imagine watching Beauty and the Beast, and Belle transforms into a Rabbit for 80% of the film and all the potential character development between her and Beast just goes down the drain. That's what happened to Princess and the Frog which in premise didn't even need to be a frog prince type story. It should of been called New Orleans or something along those lines and feature Tiana and Naveen meeting and creating a restaurant together. But instead, Disney had to shill it out for a Princess line to appeal to black audiences which isn't a bad thing by any means, but makes the movie itself less organic than it needs to be.

Responses in bold.

Mooky wrote:Tangled played it safe to the extreme and didn't face any of these issues. The only issue largely debated was hand-drawn vs. CGI but most people got over it quickly.

I don't disagree that Tangled played it very safe. and doing so, it was made in mind of being a good movie. The character arc of Rapunzel and Flynn was one of the best in Disney history in my opinion due to how organic and natural is was throughout the movie. The humor was also top notch and felt organic in the movie too. The soundtrack was pretty standard though, but aside from that it just hits all the right points being a cliche princess film. Playing it safe or not doesn't matter when the quality of the film is in mind here.

This movie could have been a lot better. I don't really like it because it's kind of pure filler. The hunt scene, "we're gonna take you there", "When I'm human" (It wouldn't be as filler as it is if Louis would actually turn human at the end of the movie maybe), the villain, is not THAT good. I love his song, but his story, yet it is a little appealing (not only the voodoo part, but also the "I have to pay you with souls") but I think he is never a real threat (not even in the ending). Lottie is an original comic relief for a Disney classic, she is not an animal or a little sidekick, but still, we don't see she does that much for Tiana.
The songs, I already said those too are kind of filler. I only like Friends on The other side and Almost There. The ending, anyway, looks so classic, and the moral of the story, yet you have to watch it thousand of times to get it, is classic and original at the same time. To get what you want, first get what you need. Yet it has a lot of stuff I don't like, regarding the things I like, the more I watch it, the more I like it.

I am not racist. I liked The Princess and the Frog when I saw it, I own The Princess and the Frog, I really like Naveen, and I don't like Tiana based on her character alone. I hate how she works too much to have fun and her attitude. Anyway I just think Tangled is better and was addressing someone who compared the two in here.

...except she learns to embrace having fun while also pursuing her dream. Naveen watching her let loose and dance is one of the most touching moments. And Naveen learns to take life a little more seriously while still maintaining his carefree spirit. They complement each other...that's kind of the point.

Unlike Rapunzel and Flynn who couple up mainly because they were in close proximity and young and hot. Very old school Disney I guess

The Princess and the Frog has HUGE pacing issues, plotholes, inconsistent writing and other issues on a story telling level.

The jarring transition from Almost There to Friends on the Other Side just makes my brain hurt and let alone the fact that the other songs did nothing to further the plot with maybe the exception of Dig a little Deeper (and even that's stretching it). It has nothing in comparison to Disney's best fairytales when you look at the pacing of the film. It's off.

The thing is, when Disney's inevitable happy ending comes, we want to care about the characters. When Flynn saves and Rapunzel and vice versa, I cared. When Tiana and Naveen turned back into humans, half of their journey had been so contrived that I barely cared.

TPatF is not a bad film, but Tangled to me just works SO much better. And I am NOT talking about black vs blonde, hand drawn vs CGI or how Tangled rehashes elements from classic Disney films. Just the simple storytelling that's in place.

Disney Duster wrote:Tangled went in new directions with the leads.

Okay...

Disney Duster wrote:Rapunzel was trapped in a tower for all of her life and just wanted to get out. That's not very relatable to anyone!

Disney Duster wrote:And instead of having the usual prince they had a thieving, smug, debonair, orphaned man who grew to be a better person with Rapunzel.

Disney Duster wrote:And Mother Gothel was a complex villain who took care of Rapunzel and we couldn't tell if she loved Rapunzel or not (it is heavily debated).

It is not heavily debated, there isn't one shot/scene in the movie where it's implied or hinted either by Gothel's facial expressions or in conversation with other characters that she loved Rapunzel. Faked expressions of love ("I love you most") don't apply. Gothel only used her for her hair.

Big One wrote:Okay, sure, I'll agree with this one. But at the same time, Princess and the Frog didn't do anything new with 2D animation ala the Paperman short. There was nothing new with how Princess and the Frog was animated which makes the entire endevour to bring back 2D animation as a viable and popular medium a failed experiment. And keep in mind 2D animation is still the most popular medium, because that's most of the animation that is featured on TV nowadays so it's still doing fairly well for itself, just not to a movie going audience.

Why did it have to do anything new with hand-drawn animation to be considered a good film (and for the record, it did do something new -- it was animated on tablets, not on paper)? I'm baffled by the idea that technical advances in film-making should somehow make or break a film ("effects-driven cinema"), when there are much more important factors at play. It just says that audiences will eat up anything as long as it's "pretty".

Big One wrote:That explains the multitude of box office successes Disney had in the past.

When was the last time Disney had a success with a romance story prior to PatF? 1995? Movie-going audiences in 2009 were VERY much different from those in the 1990s. In general, box-office is dominated by 'male' films. Films with women featuring any topic perceived as exclusively female (romance, pregnancy, etc.) usually flop, unless the cast featured defies gender norms and starts behaving like stereotypical men (Bridesmaids comes to mind).

Big One wrote:This is just dumb. Only the hardcore fans even know who Alan Menken is. The majority of fans don't know who composes these films whatsoever and it'd be stupid to suggest otherwise. Also, Randy Newman is a much larger box office name than Alan Menken (though not as critically acclaimed, obviously) due to his success outside of movies. I will say that Randy Newman is a piece of shit in my opinion and I've never been a fan of his work, but that's for another topic.

Disney fans are very well-aware of who both of these people are and it's -- as you said -- stupid to suggest or downright insist otherwise. It may not have played a large factor in the film's success but it sure did make a dent.

Big One wrote:Source for any of this? The only thing I recall about Princess and the Frog is websites talking about their being a black princess for the first time ever and how much of a great thing it is. I also remember that websites critiqued how Tiana's design was changed to look less (or more?) black, but that's about it.

Then you shouldn't assume so much about the film. Try these:
http://jezebel.com/5026242/why-is-disne ... -challenge

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-enter ... 69725.html

http://www.blackandmarriedwithkids.com/ ... ean-tiana/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1832742/posts

http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/t ... ocence.php

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/culture/2132/

http://www.racialicious.com/2009/05/13/ ... aze-essay/

http://www.essence.com/2009/11/30/criti ... -the-frog/

Big One wrote:This isn't a risk, it's bad writing. No one, including myself, came to see Princess and the Frog in theaters for there to be an animal comedy on the screen.

You may not have liked it, but please stop talking for others. I mean, seriously, "no one came to see came to see Princess and the Frog in theaters for there to be an animal comedy on the screen"? Talking frogs, alligator and firefly in the trailers weren't signs enough? And it wasn't exclusively comedy, it had powerful dramatic moments as well, like most Disney films.

Big One wrote:This I also feel is pretty stupid. If anything the audience likes Tiana, they just don't wan to see her transformed into a frog for the entire movie. Imagine watching Beauty and the Beast, and Belle transforms into a Rabbit for 80% of the film and all the potential character development between her and Beast just goes down the drain. That's what happened to Princess and the Frog which in premise didn't even need to be a frog prince type story. It should of been called New Orleans or something along those lines and feature Tiana and Naveen meeting and creating a restaurant together. But instead, Disney had to shill it out for a Princess line to appeal to black audiences which isn't a bad thing by any means, but makes the movie itself less organic than it needs to be.

It's not stupid, Duster's comment above proves exactly what I wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:I don't like Tiana based on her character alone. I hate how she works too much to have fun and her attitude.

It says it all right there. Now imagine thousands of kids and adults with opinion like Duster's. There's a reason (besides the most obvious one) why Tiana never wins first place in Disney Princess polls, her values and ethics are just far removed from the Disney's general concept of "wishing and hoping" (and I'm saying this as someone whose favorite Disney princesses are Belle, Jasmine and Ariel).

Your Beauty and the Beast comparison on the other hand is silly, because the film is based on a fairytale titled Beauty and the Beast that doesn't feature anyone turning into a rabbit. PatF is based both on The Frog Prince and a revisionist-fairytale novel called The Frog Princess, that -- what a coincidence -- feature royal people turning into frogs. Having the princess be black is an afterthought, I'll give you that, but it only came after they decided to have the film be set in New Orleans. Like Lady Cluck said, someone had to be the first black princess and the opportunity just presented itself.

Big One wrote:I don't disagree that Tangled played it very safe. and doing so, it was made in mind of being a good movie. The character arc of Rapunzel and Flynn was one of the best in Disney history in my opinion due to how organic and natural is was throughout the movie. The humor was also top notch and felt organic in the movie too. The soundtrack was pretty standard though, but aside from that it just hits all the right points being a cliche princess film. Playing it safe or not doesn't matter when the quality of the film is in mind here.

Playing it safe does matter and is inherently weaved into the very fabric of any film. We wouldn't be having this discussion if circumstances surrounding the making of Tangled and PatF were the same or at least similar. There are genuine story and characterization problems in PatF, true, but didn't it occur to you they might have had something to do with all the obstacles the film faced going from its planning stage to the big screen? And at each of those issues, the film wasn't suddenly shelved only to never return from the Disney Archives' vault, or re-imagined as something different (like how the hand-drawn Snow Queen was scrapped due to "story problems" only to re-emerge mere months later as the CG Frozen), but it was released to a near-universal acclaim. It's a true underdog story and even if it's for that reason only, PatF will always triumph over Tangled for me.

Okay Lady Cluck and Mooky, your points against me win, except I still don't like Tiana for being into work (it was still part of her character and she made Naveen build with her at the end of the movie), Flynn and Rapunzel were not in love just because they were young and hot, watch their relationship grow in the film, I wouldn't call Aladdin or Naveen smug and debonair, and it has been heavily debated that Mother Gothel loved Rapunzel, like when she went on a three day journey to get her white paint, and I still think Tangled is better. And I also think making the film for there to be a black Disney princess alone makes it more calculated than Tangled. But I don't want to argue about this anymore.

Everyone sure has some really good arguements about both these films don' they? To me, I like Tangled a little bit more than TPATF because of better songs, characters and story, even IF it is indeed a rehash of past Disney films. Even with that I still admire both films because it showed that Disney is atleast trying to get back on track to get a general audience again.

Mooky, Naveen is definetly smug and debonair but he is neither a theif or orphaned. But you argued your points well and I don't disagree with you.

PatrickvD wrote:The Princess and the Frog has HUGE pacing issues, plotholes, inconsistent writing and other issues on a story telling level.

The jarring transition from Almost There to Friends on the Other Side just makes my brain hurt and let alone the fact that the other songs did nothing to further the plot with maybe the exception of Dig a little Deeper (and even that's stretching it). It has nothing in comparison to Disney's best fairytales when you look at the pacing of the film. It's off.

The thing is, when Disney's inevitable happy ending comes, we want to care about the characters. When Flynn saves and Rapunzel and vice versa, I cared. When Tiana and Naveen turned back into humans, half of their journey had been so contrived that I barely cared.

TPatF is not a bad film, but Tangled to me just works SO much better. And I am NOT talking about black vs blonde, hand drawn vs CGI or how Tangled rehashes elements from classic Disney films. Just the simple storytelling that's in place.

Patrick you sure hit the nail on the head on why some of the songs (after FOTOS) failed to advance the story further and the problems in it's pacing, story and characters are way to open for me (or others) to ignore. But with that said, I still think that TPATF and Tanged were atleast the movies that Disney needed to make to get back on track with their fairytale genre and I have said countless times that I really like both films, flaws and all even if I prefer one film over another. If others want to agrue for one film over another I won't agrue their points because atleast they are well thought out.