DVDizzy Forum

I think that in today's culture we're all ready to move on past this. I do believe that racism still exists, and I think at many times people discriminate against each other but I do feel that a lot has been improved and that the overall census of opinion in our generation is that we are all created equal and we want to move above and beyond the bigotry in our past.

As far as Tiana is concerned, I'm happy she is not a chambermaid. I think that tiana as a server/cook would make as much sense in this time period as a chambermaid, and this way you can completely omit a lot of discriminatory actions that were made in this time period and pay more attention to the actual story going on. It seems that this way it won’t be thrown into our face that she's underprivileged and will allow us to get to know her better as a character.

Everyone's a little bit racist, it's true
But everyone's just about as racist, as you!
If we all could just admit, that we are racist, a little bit...

Flanger-Hanger wrote:Everyone's a little bit racist, it's true
But everyone's just about as racist, as you!
If we all could just admit, that we are racist, a little bit...

Lol, nice Ave Q reference

...and everyone stopped being so PC?

Maybe we could live in... harmony!

SpringHeelJack wrote:...and everyone stopped being so PC?

Maybe we could live in... harmony!

"PC" is a term people hide behind to make insulting/discriminatory claims.

singerguy04 wrote:I think that in today's culture we're all ready to move on past this. I do believe that racism still exists, and I think at many times people discriminate against each other but I do feel that a lot has been improved and that the overall census of opinion in our generation is that we are all created equal and we want to move above and beyond the bigotry in our past.

I don't think we're ready to "move on past this". I wish we were, but reality tells me we aren't. I wish the consensus was that we are all created equal, but sadly, it's not. Just look at how many people oppose Obama simply because he's black, and he's US president! Yet a lot of people use the color of his skin to discredit him, coming up with false stories, like he wasn't born in the US, but in Kenia; or that he's a muslim etc. The fact that a black man became president doesn't mean racism is ancient history.

Goliath wrote:

SpringHeelJack wrote:...and everyone stopped being so PC?

Maybe we could live in... harmony!

Just look at how many people oppose Obama simply because he's black, and he's US president! Yet a lot of people use the color of his skin to discredit him, coming up with false stories, like he wasn't born in the US, but in Kenia; or that he's a muslim etc. The fact that a black man became president doesn't mean racism is ancient history.

Oh, don't go bringing *that* up.

Quite honestly, so long as fear still exists, we won't be ready to live in equality. Surely we hear about sex predators/child molesters, but which is more real? The fact that they exist, or that the media makes it look like there are more of them than ever before.

I shouldn't remind anyone of how many anti-muslim ppl there are in America, but how many do you know have taken in the little-known fact that Islam and christianity have similar roots in stories like that of Abraham? None? Well *that's* a shocker.

If we consider the skin/cultural/lifestyle differences, and we get a whole mess of fear from those who do not understand what people are all about.

Goliath wrote:

SpringHeelJack wrote:...and everyone stopped being so PC?

Maybe we could live in... harmony!

"PC" is a term people hide behind to make insulting/discriminatory claims.

...and it's the second part of the lyric from Avenue Q. *rim shot*

pap64 wrote:Jim Hill said it best: If you appreciate politics and sausage you don't see how they are made.

He said this when he was talking about Bolt's troubled production and how it affected the film's reception long before it even opened, and I think "Princess and the Frog" might suffer from the same problem.

Let's look back at the 80s and 90s, when many of us were still little kids. The internet was unheard of, so if we learned about a Disney film coming to theaters it was because we saw the trailers on Disney videos or on TV. Since we didn't know what was going on behind the scenes we had down to Earth expectations. In other words; all we expected was a great Disney film, and around 95% of the time that was met.

Nowadays, thanks to the internet news about any film happen 24/7 and thus we know more than we should, allowing us to form an opinion of the film without it premiering.

Not to mention its raises expectations so high that even if the film is fantastic there's no way it could meet them.

At least, that's what I am sensing in this thread. We now know too much about the film, possibly ruining any enjoyment we could have had if we were oblivious to it (or at the very least, we didn't spend our time hunting down the information).

Totally agree, and also, do you think this is why "The Frog Princess" was changed so much, or even at all, actually?

Hey, Goliath, and ajmrowland, lay off Disney's Divinity. My one friend has not been able to get the same funding for college that minorities have simply because she is white. And no, that's not the only thing that I know that leads me to believe whites are defintaley discriminated against, but when black comics can make racist jokes about white people and white people can't make racist jokes about anyone non-white...something's up. Carlos Mencia has made many racist jokes and has become popular for it...but he is a minority, not white. Anyway, I'm not saying one of you is right and the other wrong, in fact what I'm saying is yes there's still plenty of racism against minorities, but their's racism against whites too, from people who aren't white, of course. There's racism, sexism, agesim, every kind of 'ism for everyone.

AND NOW...my ranting about this film! Disclaimer: I'm only ranting about what I've heard, not how I think the movie will turn out. First, I was mad that this movie would be called "The Frog Princess" and be an untraditional 'female spin' on The Frog Prince, just to make the movie more princessy, and if it was, I was mad that it wouldn't be set in the place the tale came from, Germany, as all other Disney fairy tales have been set where their sources came from, hence Snow White in Germany. And if it was actually based on the original Russian The Frog Princess, I would have hated that it wasn't set in Russia.

But after hearing it was set specifically in the "fabled French Quarters" of New Orleans and that a whole original story with a fresh, but still classic, take was written based on the familiar Frog Prince, or Princess and the Frog, I let it go. When I heard that Maddy was changed to Tiana and the title changed to "The Princess and the Frog", I liked it even better because Tiana sounded more regal and "The Princess and the Frog" was more correct, one of the actual names for the story it's based on.

But when I heard she would not be a chambermaid because so many people heard about it when they weren't supposed to and shouldn't have and complained about it to get it changed...and that Maddy was actually a more historically correct name...and now the Prince is not even historically correct being from a made-up place and being much less likely going to New Orleans...and now the actual tale takes place in some kind of fake fairy-tale fantasy within Tiana's dreams?

Look, the original movie was actually trying to be historical, being set in a real place and a real time that was actually well-known to everyone, not just possibly a real European country like Disney alluded to in past films. But now they're doing all these historically incorrect things because of people who don't know or care about the history.

Anyway, if this was really sticking to the original tale, the heroine would already be a princess. I don't care if it would just be Princess of Jazz or she's some African princess descendent now living in New Orleans. But chambermaid recalled the classical Snow White and Cinderella, and sounded beautiful. Now this films sounds odd and wromg and frankly messed up because it actually has been messed around with so much by so many outside people affecting the inside people.

Disney Duster wrote:
Hey, Goliath, and ajmrowland, lay off Disney's Divinity

What makes you think I was ever on him? I was just stating how both of them made sense to me.

Disney Duster wrote:

pap64 wrote:Jim Hill said it best: If you appreciate politics and sausage you don't see how they are made.

He said this when he was talking about Bolt's troubled production and how it affected the film's reception long before it even opened, and I think "Princess and the Frog" might suffer from the same problem.

Let's look back at the 80s and 90s, when many of us were still little kids. The internet was unheard of, so if we learned about a Disney film coming to theaters it was because we saw the trailers on Disney videos or on TV. Since we didn't know what was going on behind the scenes we had down to Earth expectations. In other words; all we expected was a great Disney film, and around 95% of the time that was met.

Nowadays, thanks to the internet news about any film happen 24/7 and thus we know more than we should, allowing us to form an opinion of the film without it premiering.

Not to mention its raises expectations so high that even if the film is fantastic there's no way it could meet them.

At least, that's what I am sensing in this thread. We now know too much about the film, possibly ruining any enjoyment we could have had if we were oblivious to it (or at the very least, we didn't spend our time hunting down the information).

Totally agree, and also, do you think this was why "Princess and the Frog" was changed?

Hey, Goliath, and ajmrowland, lay off Disney's Divinity. My one friend has not been able to get the same funding for college that minorities have simply because she is white. And no, that's not the only thing that I know that leads me to believe whites are defintaley discriminated against, but when black comics can make racist jokes about white people and white people can't make racist jokes about anyone non-white...something's up. Carlos Mencia has made many racist jokes and has become popular for it...but he is a minority, not white. Anyway, I'm not saying one of you is right and the other wrong, in fact what I'm saying is yes there's still plenty of racism against minorities, but their's racism against whites too, from people who aren't white, of course. There's racism, sexism, agesim, every kind of 'ism for everyone.

AND NOW...my ranting about this film! Disclaimer: I'm only ranting about what I've heard, not how I think the movie will turn out. First, I was mad that this movie would be called "The Frog Princess" and be an untraditional 'female spin' on The Frog Prince, just to make the movie more princessy, and if it was, I was mad that it wouldn't be set in the place the tale came from, Germany, as all other Disney fairy tales have been set where their sources came from, hence Snow White in Germany. And if it was actually based on the original Russian The Frog Princess, I would have hated that it wasn't set in Russia.

But after hearing it was set specifically in the "fabled French Quarters" of New Orleans and that a whole original story with a fresh, but still classic, take was written based on the familiar Frog Prince, or Princess and the Frog, I let it go. When I heard that Maddy was changed to Tiana and the title changed to "The Princess and the Frog", I liked it even better because Tiana sounded more regal and "The Princess and the Frog" was more correct, one of the actual names for the story it's based on.

But when I heard she would not be a chambermaid because so many people heard about it when they weren't supposed to and shouldn't have and complained about it to get it changed...and that Maddy was actually a more historically correct name...and now the Prince is not even historically correct being from a made-up place and being much less likely going to New Orleans...and the actual tale takes place in now some kind of fake fairy-tale fantasy within Tiana's dreams?

Look, the original movie was actually trying to be historical, being set in a real place and a real time that was actually well-known to everyone, not just possibly a real European country like Disney alluded to in past films. But now they're doing all these historically incorrect things because of people who don't know or care about the history.

Anyway, if this was really sticking to the original tale, the heroine would already be a princess. I don't care if it would just be Princess of Jazz or she's some African princess descendent now living in New Orleans. But chambermaid recalled the classical Snow White and Cinderella, and sounded beautiful. Now this films sounds odd and wromg and frankly messed up because it actually has been messed around with so much by so many outside people affecting the inside people.

Uh, Wizard of Oz, much? I mean C'mon, originality is something so rare these days, it should be applauded whenever some filmmakers decide to make a few changes to actually make what THEY think is a better film. We ARE talking about the directors who helmed TLM, Aladdin, Hercules, and Treasure Planet after all.

And before you assume anything, Yesm I did just post you saying the same thing twice. I'm not dumb, and I'd like to be taken seriously on this board.

Disney Duster, you do know that there is an actual fairytale called The Frog Princess?

ajmrowland wrote:What makes you think I was ever on him? I was just stating how both of them made sense to me.

If that's true, then I apologize.

yukitora wrote:Disney Duster, you do know that there is an actual fairytale called The Frog Princess?

Disney Duster wrote:And if it was actually based on the original Russian The Frog Princess, I would have hated that it wasn't set in Russia.

Yes, I reckon I do!

Disney Duster wrote:Hey, Goliath, and ajmrowland, lay off Disney's Divinity. My one friend has not been able to get the same funding for college that minorities have simply because she is white.

I think your story is not so much about 'discriminating' white people for being white, but is about repairing the wrongs that have been committed in the last couple of centuries. I'm sorry, but I no longer have any patience with people, who are part of a group that has always been priviliged, who start complaining the minute some other group gets to benefit too. (Talking in a general sense here.)

Disney Duster wrote:And no, that's not the only thing that I know that leads me to believe whites are defintaley discriminated against, but when black comics can make racist jokes about white people and white people can't make racist jokes about anyone non-white...something's up.

In my opinion, with this statement, you, like Disney's Divinity, have shown to have not a deep enough understanding of the history of race relations and the way black people have been portrayed by film, tv, comedians etc. in the past. If you would, you would understand the difference, and why people judge it differently.

Disney Duster wrote:Anyway, I'm not saying one of you is right and the other wrong, in fact what I'm saying is yes there's still plenty of racism against minorities, but their's racism against whites too, from people who aren't white, of course. There's racism, sexism, agesim, every kind of 'ism for everyone.

I'm not disagreeing with you that hate/bigotry is not tied to one race. I'm just opposing the current trend (on this forum, but also far outside of it) which falsely equates the "I know one instance of injustice against a white person"-argument with the structural, institutional, still ongoing plain and hidden discrimination and racism against people of color. Cause that equasion doesn't ring true, and it falsely victimizes the priviliged group that is white people.

OK, lets take this from another angle. If you look back at this thread - go on, read my posts with Papibear. GO ON - you'll see I thought the change was much of muchness (but I don't think I ever said it was PC as I hate that term).

But you know, since then I've changed my mind. I seen how the films basically going to be marketed, and to who, and I no longer consider the film to have any notion of presenting historical or social issues for discussion or debate. So I really think it would be meaningless for Tiana to be a chambermaid, or a street sweeper, or a cook, or a cleaner.

So to all those protesting the change, why? What possible reason do you think having the title character as a Chambermaid will improve the film over her being a waitress?

Disney cannot - not even remotely - address the issue of a black chambermaid in 1920's New Orleans with any historical accuracy. It would simply be deemed unacceptable for a family/young children's film. So historical accuracy can't be used as an argument.

I really think the change will have had no negative effect on the film at all, and who knows, probably even a positive one.

Disney Duster wrote:

pap64 wrote:Jim Hill said it best: If you appreciate politics and sausage you don't see how they are made.

He said this when he was talking about Bolt's troubled production and how it affected the film's reception long before it even opened, and I think "Princess and the Frog" might suffer from the same problem.

Let's look back at the 80s and 90s, when many of us were still little kids. The internet was unheard of, so if we learned about a Disney film coming to theaters it was because we saw the trailers on Disney videos or on TV. Since we didn't know what was going on behind the scenes we had down to Earth expectations. In other words; all we expected was a great Disney film, and around 95% of the time that was met.

Nowadays, thanks to the internet news about any film happen 24/7 and thus we know more than we should, allowing us to form an opinion of the film without it premiering.

Not to mention its raises expectations so high that even if the film is fantastic there's no way it could meet them.

At least, that's what I am sensing in this thread. We now know too much about the film, possibly ruining any enjoyment we could have had if we were oblivious to it (or at the very least, we didn't spend our time hunting down the information).

Totally agree, and also, do you think this is why "The Frog Princess" was changed so much, or even at all, actually?

Definitely yes. The reason I am sure is because the internet allows the consumer to voice his or her opinion. Look at places like Amazon, Google, Gamestop, IMDB and many more. They ALL offer the opportunity for people to voice their thoughts about a certain product, movie, book etc., helping others judge that product according to what the general consensus says.

I am pretty sure the makers of these products are well aware of this and pay attention to what we have to say.

Back in the day, it was extremely difficult to voice an opinion directly to the creators, so whatever needed changing, improved or even completely deleted was left unnoticed because there was no way to know how people felt about it. But now, you can get contact the creators directly let them know what you think, possibly affecting production.

This isn't always certain, but to dismiss it would be underestimating the power of the internet and the power of the public voice.

pap64 wrote:

Disney Duster wrote: Totally agree, and also, do you think this is why "The Frog Princess" was changed so much, or even at all, actually?

Definitely yes. The reason I am sure is because the internet allows the consumer to voice his or her opinion. Look at places like Amazon, Google, Gamestop, IMDB and many more. They ALL offer the opportunity for people to voice their thoughts about a certain product, movie, book etc., helping others judge that product according to what the general consensus says.

I am pretty sure the makers of these products are well aware of this and pay attention to what we have to say.

Back in the day, it was extremely difficult to voice an opinion directly to the creators, so whatever needed changing, improved or even completely deleted was left unnoticed because there was no way to know how people felt about it. But now, you can get contact the creators directly let them know what you think, possibly affecting production.

This isn't always certain, but to dismiss it would be underestimating the power of the internet and the power of the public voice.

And yet, there are still those filmmakers that are a little more secretive. I haven't seen much regarding UP.

And then there are the studios that embrace this aspect. Example, if you got to mugglenet.com and click on the link for "Movie 6", you'd see that WB has released an awful lot of info. regarding that HP film, specifically, and not in response to the fans, I assure you.
I think Disney would benefit from using this approach just a bit more(without any spoilers).

ajmrowland wrote:

pap64 wrote: Definitely yes. The reason I am sure is because the internet allows the consumer to voice his or her opinion. Look at places like Amazon, Google, Gamestop, IMDB and many more. They ALL offer the opportunity for people to voice their thoughts about a certain product, movie, book etc., helping others judge that product according to what the general consensus says.

I am pretty sure the makers of these products are well aware of this and pay attention to what we have to say.

Back in the day, it was extremely difficult to voice an opinion directly to the creators, so whatever needed changing, improved or even completely deleted was left unnoticed because there was no way to know how people felt about it. But now, you can get contact the creators directly let them know what you think, possibly affecting production.

This isn't always certain, but to dismiss it would be underestimating the power of the internet and the power of the public voice.

And yet, there are still those filmmakers that are a little more secretive. I haven't seen much regarding UP.

And then there are the studios that embrace this aspect. Example, if you got to mugglenet.com and click on the link for "Movie 6", you'd see that WB has released an awful lot of info. regarding that HP film, specifically, and not in response to the fans, I assure you.
I think Disney would benefit from using this approach just a bit more(without any spoilers).

I think both being secretive and being informative have its pros and cons.

If you are secretive you can keep fans in suspense and their expectations might be lower and their interests higher. But you might lose some fans if you don't tell them enough to get then excited.

If you are informative fans will pay attention to any development and gain interest. If you tell them too much you might ruin the movie and fans might have enough information to form an opinion and miss the movie.

pap64 wrote:

ajmrowland wrote: And yet, there are still those filmmakers that are a little more secretive. I haven't seen much regarding UP.

And then there are the studios that embrace this aspect. Example, if you got to mugglenet.com and click on the link for "Movie 6", you'd see that WB has released an awful lot of info. regarding that HP film, specifically, and not in response to the fans, I assure you.
I think Disney would benefit from using this approach just a bit more(without any spoilers).

I think both being secretive and being informative have its pros and cons.

If you are secretive you can keep fans in suspense and their expectations might be lower and their interests higher. But you might lose some fans if you don't tell them enough to get then excited.

If you are informative fans will pay attention to any development and gain interest. If you tell them too much you might ruin the movie and fans might have enough information to form an opinion and miss the movie.

Exactly. There's a balance that must be struck(isn't there always?). The HP movie is looking to be the best yet. Will it be perfect? No, but the studio seems confident enough to actually let some insiders post most(if not all) of the changes on the web, unlike Disney.

Goliath wrote:In my opinion, with this statement, you, like Disney's Divinity, have shown to have not a deep enough understanding of the history of race relations and the way black people have been portrayed by film, tv, comedians etc. in the past. If you would, you would understand the difference, and why people judge it differently.

I know why they judge it differently. I'm saying to judge it differently is wrong.

Goliath wrote:I'm not disagreeing with you that hate/bigotry is not tied to one race. I'm just opposing the current trend (on this forum, but also far outside of it) which falsely equates the "I know one instance of injustice against a white person"-argument with the structural, institutional, still ongoing plain and hidden discrimination and racism against people of color. Cause that equasion doesn't ring true, and it falsely victimizes the priviliged group that is white people.

As long as there is some racism against whites...plainly, there is some racism against whites. Maybe there is more, or at least, there has been more racism against blacks, but as minorities become less minority and more majority...the hate that some of them have for whites will grow as well. You know, that doesn't even matter. The point is there's racism and injustice and unfair treatment to whites as well as minorities. There.

Netty, since the previous Disney fairy tales (arguably, I know arguably, but for the sake of my argument) set the films in (fantastical versions of) real countries, and contained some historical things (don't know if this counts but a book in Cinderella is actually by a French author who lived in the 1500's), this attempt to set the newest Disney fairy tale in a real place and be like how things really were during a set time isn't just what we would like, but feels right, keeping the traditon.

Setting the film in New Orleans, with the black heroine being in a position that she would have been in, and people treating her like they would have, is enough. It wouldn't need any racist terms or even the race issue brought up. It would just need Madeleine to be a servant, ridiculed and put down upon by people that happen to be white, that adults will see a lot in and children will see more in later. After all, I could bring up how Snow White and Cinderella's "sexist" "subservient" "dependent" portrayals fit the way women would have been in their times. For Beauty and the Beast, I read that women actually tried to publish stories (many of them fairy tales!) around that time, so I suppose a woman like Belle could have existed back then...it's just not how most women would have been.

But now the heroine has a not historically inaccurate name (as far as I know), the prince is from some made up country, and the aspects of the story that are real, deal with realistic human characters and places and history, are very unreal.

You must admit: Setting the film in a certain place and time, making it realistic, and then doing all that unrealistic stuff, inlcuding Tiana being a waitress who may open her own restaraunt some day (or was that actually possible back then?), is a mis-match, it doesn't fit, it's inaccurate.

pap64, hell yea you're right, but to you and ajmrowland: The thing that got everyone started complaining about things in the film and getting them changed was that casting call that was leaked! It was not meant to be let out!

So...Disney could have kept the infor very bare except the trailer and images. The actual story and character info could have been saved until now when it is too late to change the story and people would have to take it for what it was, what these filmakers really wanted to make.

IT IS possible Disney kind of purposely-accidentally leaked that info to see if it would go over well with people, especially the black community, planning on changing it if it didn't. I wouldn't be surprised.

Disney Duster wrote:Netty, since the previous Disney fairy tales (arguably, I know arguably, but for the sake of my argument) set the films in (fantastical versions of) real countries, and contained some historical things (don't know if this counts but a book in Cinderella is actually by a French author who lived in the 1500's), this attempt to set the newest Disney fairy tale in a real place and be like how things really were during a set time isn't just what we would like, but feels right, keeping the traditon.

Setting the film in New Orleans, with the black heroine being in a position that she would have been in, and people treating her like they would have, is enough. It wouldn't need any racist terms or even the race issue brought up. It would just need Madeleine to be a servant, ridiculed and put down upon by people that happen to be white, that adults will see a lot in and children will see more in later. After all, I could bring up how Snow White and Cinderella's "sexist" "subservient" "dependent" portrayals fit the way women would have been in their times. For Beauty and the Beast, I read that women actually tried to publish stories (many of them fairy tales!) around that time, so I suppose a woman like Belle could have existed back then...it's just not how most women would have been.

But, had Beauty and the Beast had been made in Walt's time, I'm sure it would have been a very different film. The Disney films reflect the society of the time the film was made, rather than the film's setting.

That's why I say it wouldn't be acceptable for a black "princess" to be a chambermaid in a film made today aimed at children. A chambermaid has stronger connotations of subservience than other service jobs.

Today's society is far removed from 1920's. Look how removed it is from the 1960's, and the 1960's wasn't that long ago. There may only be a few black people alive today who can remember the 1920's, but there's a lot more who lived in the American South in the 1960's and can still remember.

It would just be - not offensive, but incredibly inappropriate to make an animated film where, aggressively or not, the main character who happens to be black is "demeaned" by people who all just happen to be white. You can't do that and ignore the race issue. Were it an adult drama, then fine fair enough - but this isn't and judging by how even here on this forum some people are more interested in the colour of her dress than any social issues the story may bring up, I don't think I'm wrong. After all, the bulk of the marketing will be aimed at children younger than posters on this forum. And we all know the monster the Princess line has turned into since even the last "Princess" film (Mulan for arguments sake, but MULAN IS NOT A PRINCESS ).

Look you yourself say "It would just need Madeleine to be a servant, ridiculed and put down upon by people that happen to be white, that adults will see a lot in and children will see more in later." - well you can still do that with her as a waitress, a street sweeper, a cleaner, a nanny... really, if you're going to "water down" the "reality" of the situation (which like I said before is really the only option available to Disney) then what does it matter? I see this whole thing being a fuss about nothing.

Now, if the film wasn't to be labelled as a "Princess" film, my opinion may be different.

But now the heroine has a not historically inaccurate name (as far as I know), the prince is from some made up country, and the aspects of the story that are real, deal with realistic human characters and places and history, are very unreal.

You must admit: Setting the film in a certain place and time, making it realistic, and then doing all that unrealistic stuff, inlcuding Tiana being a waitress who may open her own restaraunt some day (or was that actually possible back then?), is a mis-match, it doesn't fit, it's inaccurate.

Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree on the accuracy issue. I don't see any "Princess" movie (including Pocahontas) as being "accurate" in all but a loose definition of the word. However, other movies, specifically live-action can and have been accurate.