Frog Princess found & renamed!

singerguy04 · Post by **singerguy04** » Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:46 pm

after the civil war slavery was abolished... sure a lot of ex-slaves couldn't do a whole lot past serving the white people since they didn't have the money, but that doesn't account for everyone. There's nothing wrong with having Tiana being a waitress. I don't personally know any black server's in the 20's but i'm sure that if there was a sympathetic restaurant owner in New Orleans (not every white in the south loved slavery) that he might hire her. And I could also find it believable that in a era where slavery had been abolished that almost anything could seem possible. So is it really impossible to imagine that she could have a dream about owning her own restaurant. I don't, in fact it's more of a reasonable dream than Cinderella's even lol.

DisneyJedi · Post by **DisneyJedi** » Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:03 pm

singerguy04 wrote:after the civil war slavery was abolished... sure a lot of ex-slaves couldn't do a whole lot past serving the white people since they didn't have the money, but that doesn't account for everyone. There's nothing wrong with having Tiana being a waitress. I don't personally know any black server's in the 20's but i'm sure that if there was a sympathetic restaurant owner in New Orleans (not every white in the south loved slavery) that he might hire her. And I could also find it believable that in a era where slavery had been abolished that almost anything could seem possible. So is it really impossible to imagine that she could have a dream about owning her own restaurant. I don't, in fact it's more of a reasonable dream than Cinderella's even lol.

Well, Cinderella's dream was that she wanted her stepmother and sisters to see her as more than a chambermaid, or a scullery maid and as a part of the family. Though I'm pretty sure that b**** Lady Tremain only wanted one of her daughters to marry the prince just for the wealth.

But I am still puzzled! How can Tiana be a waitress AND a princess?! Great. Now I'm all mixed up. DX

The title of this is The Princess and The Frog. Obviously, the frog is Naveen, whereas the Princess is Tiana. But there aren't really any princesses in America, because our government isn't based on a monarchy, but rather a democracy.

But I'll just watch the movie. And besides, sometimes Disney is known for making little to no sense in some movies. XD

Flanger-Hanger · Post by **Flanger-Hanger** » Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:24 pm

DisneyJedi wrote:But I am still puzzled! How can Tiana be a waitress AND a princess?! Great. Now I'm all mixed up. DX

She's a waitress who marries a prince would be my guess. How hard is that to figure out?

Goliath · Post by **Goliath** » Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:43 pm

Disney Duster wrote:I know why they judge it differently. I'm saying to judge it differently is wrong.

With this statement you show that, indeed you *know* why they do it. But you also show you don't *understand* why they're doing it. Yes, those are two different things. Because if you would *understand* it, you wouldn't say it's wrong.

Goliath wrote: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.

No, that's not the point. The point is: there IS no racism against white people. White people are perpetrating the racism. There IS no injustice against white people. What you call 'injustice to white people' (like affirmative action) is instead righting as small bit of the wrongs perpetrated against people of color in the past.

I find it funny how you hammer on historical accuracy, when you won't acknowledge the historical accuracy of the roles black people played in Hollywood's history.

You don't get it. You will probably never get it. You want to be purposely, voluntarily ignorant of this issue so you can continuing to pretend your priviliged class of people is somehow treated unfair. Because probably you need some other group of people to blame for mishappenings in your own life.

And before you complain I'm out of line, or that I'm making this thread too political, remember it was not me who began discussing this issue in the first place.

Goliath · Post by **Goliath** » Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:52 pm

2099net wrote: [...] 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. [...]

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.

THANK YOU!

Disney's Divinity · Post by **Disney's Divinity** » Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:01 pm

2099net wrote: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"

This isn't directed against you exactly, but I'm frankly irritated by this stereotype that anyone who cares about a dress is vain and doesn't really care about anything else. I've discussed much more about this film than just the color/design of Tiana's dress. I apologize to all the egotistical members of this forum that believe caring about visuals and fashion make one inferior.

Anyway, I'm starting to agree with 2099net that it doesn't really change the story if she's a lowly waitress instead of a chambermaid--it's a fairly demeaning, dead-end job. I just don't see that there was any need for her to be changed from a chambermaid to a waitress at all. They both achieve the same ends, so I don't see why it would be so wrong for her to have stayed a chambermaid.

ajmrowland · Post by **ajmrowland** » Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:34 pm

Disney's Divinity wrote:
2099net wrote: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"
This isn't directed against you exactly, but I'm frankly irritated by this stereotype that anyone who cares about a dress is vain and doesn't really care about anything else. I've discussed much more about this film than just the color/design of Tiana's dress. I apologize to all the egotistical members of this forum that believe caring about visuals and fashion makes one inferior.

Anyway, I'm starting to agree with 2099net that it doesn't really change the story if she's a lowly waitress instead of a chambermaid--it's a fairly demeaning, dead-end job. I just don't see that there was any need for her to be changed from a chambermaid to a waitress at all. They both achieve the same ends, so I don't see why it would be so wrong for her to have stayed a chambermaid.

Yeah, a waitress is a dead-end job. Look at my sister. She's only a waitress to pay the bills. She's an aspiring actress with a recently-hired agent. But once again, I'm off topic. The fact is she's white, and Tiana's black. Tiana could not be a chambermaid, because that's the only she WOULD get, if this film were historically accurate. Just gottat tailor the film to the crazy parental control people out there.

Chernabog_Rocks · Post by **Chernabog_Rocks** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:13 am

Goliath wrote: No, that's not the point. The point is: there IS no racism against white people. White people are perpetrating the racism. There IS no injustice against white people.

You don't get it. You will probably never get it. You want to be purposely, voluntarily ignorant of this issue so you can continuing to pretend your priviliged class of people is somehow treated unfair. Because probably you need some other group of people to blame for mishappenings in your own life.

Starting with the Bolded part

There is and can be racism towards white people

Last time I checked the definition of it was:

Racism: the practise of racial discrimination, segregation etc --

Also, the definition of Discrimination:

Discrimination: to distinguish, to make distinctions in treatment, show partiality or prejudice.

Racism can happen towards white people. For example, and probably the most common one that I'm aware of would be when a black person makes remarks about a white persons skin color such as "cracker" or "cracker boy" are example(s) of one I've heard used.

Racism can happen to anyone, whether it's a white person being racist towards an asian, an asian towards a black person or a black person to a white person.

As Flanger Hanger put it "everybodys a little bit racist"

Sotiris · Post by **Sotiris** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:34 am

You make a good point but i think the distinction must be made between the racist mentality that may inhabit any individual to discriminate against anyone who is different and the institutionalization of racism. The latter cannot be addressed towards the white male since it is from him and the networks of power he occupies in society that imposes the institutionalization of racism in the first place.

singerguy04 · Post by **singerguy04** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:04 am

ajmrowland wrote:Tiana could not be a chambermaid, because that's the only she WOULD get, if this film were historically accurate. Just gottat tailor the film to the crazy parental control people out there.

Not to pick on ajmrowland particularly or anything, but I'm getting really tired of this arguement that it's not "historically accurate" for Tiana to be anything more than a chambermaid. Do a tiny bit a research and you'll find that there were blacks doing a lot greater things that being a waitress/waiter in the 20's.

For example take into account George Washington Carver. Here's some info from History.com on him...

(1864–1943), American educator and an outstanding innovator in the agricultural sciences. Carver was born of slave parents near Diamond, Mo. He left the farm where he was born when he was about ten years old and eventually settled in Minneapolis, Kans., where he worked his way through high school.

Following his graduation in 1894 from Iowa State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts (now Iowa State University), Carver joined the college faculty and continued his studies, specializing in bacteriological laboratory work in systematic botany. In 1896 he became director of the Department of Agricultural Research at Tuskegee Normal and Industrial Institute (now Tuskegee University), where he began an exhaustive series of experiments with peanuts. Carver developed several hundred industrial uses for peanuts, sweet potatoes, and soybeans and developed a new type of cotton known as Carver's hybrid. His discoveries induced southern farmers to raise other crops in addition to cotton. He also taught methods of soil improvement.

In recognition of his accomplishments, Carver was awarded the Spingarn Medal in 1923 by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. In 1935 he was appointed collaborator in the Division of Plant Mycology and Disease Survey of the Bureau of Plant Industry of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In 1940 he donated all his savings to the establishment of the George Washington Carver Foundation at Tuskegee for research in natural science. Carver died at Tuskegee, on Jan. 5, 1943. His birthplace was established as the George Washington Carver National Monument in 1951.

The fact that he could accomplish all of that around the time period this film is being set, surely means that it's historically accurate for a black woman to be a waitress in the 1920's.

If that's not good enough, check out this webpage. It outlines great African American Women achievements from 1920-1929.

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/afram ... 0_time.htm

Beyond all of that, dipping into what's racist against whites and what is not. The difference is that a comic or a random guy on the street calling me (a white male) a cracker does little to nothing to me. My ancestors weren't whipped and forced gruelling tasks upon them while a master was calling them cracker not even wanting to know their names. my ancestors weren't uprooted from their homes and transported thousands of miles away and abused on a daily basis while people took cheap shot jokes at the color of their skin or their inability to even fully understand what exactly was going on because they didn't have the luxury of the same kinds of education that their oppressors recieved. The simplicity in it that seems to be very hard for us white people to understand or even concieve is that we have the luxury of not having the history of being unwillingly oppressed. If I were to call a black guy the "n-word" what exactly could he say back that would have the same connotation? It's like if a straight guy calls me a fag, what can I say back? You horribly obnoxious straight guy!? (well actually i call them a breeder, but that aside from the point).

Chernabog_Rocks · Post by **Chernabog_Rocks** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:11 am

sotiris2006 wrote: The latter cannot be addressed towards the white male since it is from him and the networks of power he occupies in society that imposes the institutionalization of racism in the first place.

I think it might be a bit unfair to lump all white males together and say that it can't be addressed to all of us. I myself am a white male and yet I occupy no network of power in society. The only thing I have power over is myself and nobody or anything else except perhaps my house when I'm the only person home. Or perhaps I'm misreading what you mean? Essentially what I'm trying to say is not all white males may occupy these networks of power and shouldn't be lumped with those who do.

Sotiris · Post by **Sotiris** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:35 am

Chernabog_Rocks wrote:
sotiris2006 wrote: The latter cannot be addressed towards the white male since it is from him and the networks of power he occupies in society that imposes the institutionalization of racism in the first place.
I think it might be a bit unfair to lump all white males together and say that it can't be addressed to all of us. I myself am a white male and yet I occupy no network of power in society. The only thing I have power over is myself and nobody or anything else except perhaps my house when I'm the only person home. Or perhaps I'm misreading what you mean? Essentially what I'm trying to say is not all white males may occupy these networks of power and shouldn't be lumped with those who do.

It's because it's also a matter of social class. The patriachy of society is always the most priviledged social class and it is the one who imposes a set of dominant values and ideas thus contoling the function of society. You don't occupy these networks of power because you don't belong to the upper class (i imagine

) So, the workings of society can only be discriminatory against you on the basis of social class and background and not on race or gender whereas institutionalized discrimination does still exist for ethnic communities, female population or homosexuals. When i say "white male" i do not mean of course individuals but an organized social mechanism that consists of white males that occupy positions of power.

blackcauldron85 · Post by **blackcauldron85** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:49 pm

ANIKA NONI ROSE EMOTIONAL OVER TIANA DOLL: Actress voicing Disney's first black princess tears up during unveiling in NY.

http://www.eurweb.com/story/eur51229.cfm
(via LaughingPlace.com)

ajmrowland · Post by **ajmrowland** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:03 pm

blackcauldron85 wrote:ANIKA NONI ROSE EMOTIONAL OVER TIANA DOLL: Actress voicing Disney's first black princess tears up during unveiling in NY.

http://www.eurweb.com/story/eur51229.cfm
(via LaughingPlace.com)

The link to a video of the exact unveiling has already been posted.

Disney Duster · Post by **Disney Duster** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:33 pm

Netty, I read all you said, it was good, and I don't want to write a whole lot in reply, so...

I'll just say, if there is absolutely no evidence of any women being waitresses in 1920's New Orleans, then I think they should have picked something else that a black woman would have been, even if not a chambermaid. And if there were some wblack waitresses but it was very rare, that rareness should be represented or touched upon in the film. Hey, it makes Tiana special! Also, her name is still apparently still not very accurate...so...

Also, I talked about her dress and much more, too. Even you talked about her dress being accurate for the places and time, too!!!! It's an important part of the film, too! Yes, less, but still important!

Divinity, hell yea!

Also, I still don't get why this is not overcoming the roles black people have had in Hollywood, because in this film the black servant rises up and becomes very high and powerful and loved and respected and treated like, well, a princess, who would have her own servants!

Goliath · Post by **Goliath** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:36 pm

singerguy04 wrote:Beyond all of that, dipping into what's racist against whites and what is not. The difference is that a comic or a random guy on the street calling me (a white male) a cracker does little to nothing to me. [...] The simplicity in it that seems to be very hard for us white people to understand or even concieve is that we have the luxury of not having the history of being unwillingly oppressed. If I were to call a black guy the "n-word" what exactly could he say back that would have the same connotation? [...]

THANK YOU!

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make here, and it doesn't get picked up.

Brer Brandon · Post by **Brer Brandon** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:17 pm

Not a whole lot here, but Ain't It Cool News has a report from WonderCon. This could be mildly spoilerish if it makes sense to you. Didn't make enough sense to me to spoil much but just in case, I warned you:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40272

yukitora · Post by **yukitora** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:31 pm

^thanks for posting that.

Sounds like The Princess and the Frog will definitely not be the last 2D animated feature.

CampbellzSoup · Post by **CampbellzSoup** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:58 pm

No Alan Menken....

Hopefully we do get some classic catchy songs from the movie...

wow I can't believe he was on the project he made some of my favorite Disney songs...yet I can't think of ONE Pixar song off the top of my head, although I don't think Pixar films aimed to be musicals...

But Gosh...I'd love to see Alan's take on the soundtrack...

ajmrowland · Post by **ajmrowland** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:03 pm

CampbellzSoup wrote:No Alan Menken....

Hopefully we do get some classic catchy songs from the movie...

wow I can't believe he was on the project he made some of my favorite Disney songs...yet I can't think of ONE Pixar song off the top of my head, although I don't think Pixar films aimed to be musicals...

But Gosh...I'd love to see Alan's take on the soundtrack...

Well, Randy Newman can't be a bad choice. He did write the songs for Toy Story.

DVDizzy Forum

Latest Movie Reviews

🎬 DVDizzy Top Stories️️

Frog Princess found & renamed!

Re: The Princess and the Frog

Re: The Princess and the Frog

Re: The Princess and the Frog

The Princess and the Frog