Page 57 of 60
Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:33 pm
by Jules
From Michael Barrier. I am perfectly accepting of his opinion but in this case I disagree. I'm putting a quote here, but recommend you guys read the whole article and a few of the in depth comments too. There's stuff to ponder about.
The article is called "Lost Illusions". You might need to scroll quite a bit down the page:
http://www.michaelbarrier.com/Home%20Pa ... tillusions
Mike Barrier wrote:I thought about Schwabsky's review while I was watching the opening six minutes of Disney's The Princess and the Frog on the new Blu-Ray set of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. The bits and pieces of the film I'd already seen were discouraging, to say the least, but the extended excerpt was awful beyond my worst fears. The tone was aggressively smarmy, and the animated "acting" was not just coy and self-conscious in the odious Don Bluth manner, it was also as crude as anything I've seen in those low-grade TV sitcoms whose actors do nothing more than assume attitudes and avoid looking at the camera.
And yet the awfulness on the screen had been executed with a high level of skill and even dedication. There's every reason to think that many of the people who worked on The Princess and the Frog believed in what they were doing as much as Jack Tworkov did. And I don't doubt that when the film opens later this year, it will be greeted with a flood of mostly adoring comments on Cartoon Brew and other such bulletin-board blogs, especially those that cater to Disney geeks. The mainstream media reviews will be mixed but basically favorable, and curiosity, if nothing else, will drive the film to a respectable showing at the box office.
So, the people who made the film—a good many of them, anyway—will have "remained true to their intuition of the artistic absolute" and won considerably more than "scant public acclaim." But The Princess and the Frog, unless it's much, much better than we have any reason to expect, will stand as a monument to the unyielding uncertainties of the artist's life. In years to come, I'm sure that at least a few of the people who worked on it will say to themselves, when they measure what they actually accomplished against the hopes and ambitions that brought them into animation in the first place: "This is really not what I had in mind...not what I had in mind at all."
Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:38 pm
by Poody
Tiana looks really cute. Naveen though....
the other ones you've shown us were better.
Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:02 pm
by Margos
Mike Barrier wrote:I thought about Schwabsky's review while I was watching the opening six minutes of Disney's The Princess and the Frog on the new Blu-Ray set of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. The bits and pieces of the film I'd already seen were discouraging, to say the least, but the extended excerpt was awful beyond my worst fears. The tone was aggressively smarmy, and the animated "acting" was not just coy and self-conscious in the odious Don Bluth manner, it was also as crude as anything I've seen in those low-grade TV sitcoms whose actors do nothing more than assume attitudes and avoid looking at the camera.
And yet the awfulness on the screen had been executed with a high level of skill and even dedication. There's every reason to think that many of the people who worked on The Princess and the Frog believed in what they were doing as much as Jack Tworkov did. And I don't doubt that when the film opens later this year, it will be greeted with a flood of mostly adoring comments on Cartoon Brew and other such bulletin-board blogs, especially those that cater to Disney geeks. The mainstream media reviews will be mixed but basically favorable, and curiosity, if nothing else, will drive the film to a respectable showing at the box office.
So, the people who made the film—a good many of them, anyway—will have "remained true to their intuition of the artistic absolute" and won considerably more than "scant public acclaim." But The Princess and the Frog, unless it's much, much better than we have any reason to expect, will stand as a monument to the unyielding uncertainties of the artist's life. In years to come, I'm sure that at least a few of the people who worked on it will say to themselves, when they measure what they actually accomplished against the hopes and ambitions that brought them into animation in the first place: "This is really not what I had in mind...not what I had in mind at all."
Jeez... who spit in
his bean curd?
Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:16 pm
by Cordy_Biddle
I believe someone gets paid to spit in Mike's bean-curd on a regular basis.
Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 4:09 pm
by nomad2010
Margos wrote:
Jeez... who spit in
his bean curd?
apparently mickey mouse
I have to disagree too. I feel like it is a really quaint, very warm beginning. I like it a lot to be honest. The more I watch it the more I like it.
Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 4:31 pm
by BelleGirl
How come I don't receive "Topic reply notifications" on this discussion anymore?
Maybe I wll read the full comment of Michael Barrier later, but I don't feel like it right now. His commentary summed up in brief: " Many people will love this film, but I know it's dreck".
Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 4:32 pm
by Margos
Definitely. Aside from the whole classic-y feel, I also like that we actually get to see her as a kid, and know where she comes from and why she turned out the way she did more-or-less. I think it's pretty cool to know that about a character beforehand.
Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 6:10 pm
by Siren
The gator costume is horrible. Maybe I am just biased, but after the work I've seen from the creator of my unicorn costume, I think Disney could do so much better when it comes to the costumes. They look so damn fake. If a 23 year old girl can make a $2800 costume where people ask, "Is that real? Is it animatronic? How is a person in there?"
Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 7:15 pm
by IagoZazu
Margos wrote:Definitely. Aside from the whole classic-y feel, I also like that we actually get to see her as a kid, and know where she comes from and why she turned out the way she did more-or-less. I think it's pretty cool to know that about a character beforehand.
I know what you mean. The thing about Disney movies is that the pasts of the main characters (such as the hero, princess, or villain) are hardly ever revealed.
Another thing about Disney movies is that sometimes the hero or princess only has one parent or none at all. When a main character does have two parents, one of them dies. That's why I'm glad that it looks like both Tiana and Naveen have a mother and father.
Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 7:45 pm
by Margos
SPOILER:
Yes, we see James alive. However, in the scenes with older Tiana, he is already dead. So really, she does only have one parent for most of the film. 
However, he is an important factor in her development, which is more than I can say for most deceased Disney parents. I suppose that's why he has to be shown.
/SPOILER
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 6:59 pm
by Siren
Margos wrote:SPOILER:
Yes, we see James alive. However, in the scenes with older Tiana, he is already dead. So really, she does only have one parent for most of the film. However, he is an important factor in her development, which is more than I can say for most deceased Disney parents. I suppose that's why he has to be shown.
/SPOILER
Spoiler...
It also breaks the long standing cycle of main character who lose their mother. A majority of fairy tales and Disney movies (simply due to the fact they are based on the fairy tales), they don't have mothers. Part of that was because many of the stories were written to prepare children for hardships. Mothers often died in labor or infections after wards. Also, mothers solve everything. Its more acceptable by our culture for us to see a bumbling dad like Sultan or a dad in need of anger management like Triton, but if a mom acted that way, it wouldn't be so easily accepted. Unfortunatly there is sexisim when it comes to parents in these kinds of stories. Their own mother would never turn them into a slave, so they have even step mothers. If Ariel's mom was around, she would likely have been more in tune with what was going on with Ariel. If Jasmine's mom was around, she would have understood her fear of marrying a man she did not love. And even movies where the mother lives and the father died, like Lion King, Sarabi was barely a part of his life. Mufasa seemed to do most the raising of Simba.
So this is very different movie when it comes to parental role. Its a nice change
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:03 pm
by Margos
Spoiler:
In a way, this kind of isn't too much of a departure then. In a way, Tiana is oppressing herself, with her work-aholism. Her mother is the one trying to convince her that what she needs in her life is love and happiness, not financial success.... So her mother almost understands her needs better than she does herself, unlike the fathers in the past.
mb article comment
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:56 pm
by kurtadisneyite
Mike Barrier's article was very interesting, one aspect of it restating in a different form the comment one Animator who worked with Disney himself (yes, they are still out there) said about PATF: that there was no "magic" and in a sense he had seen what was in PTAF before.
My earlier comment tried to say that in PATF I'm already seeing many things Disney has used before (maybe supervisors should forbid animators from revisiting "classic" archives?
), and a contemporary edginess new to Disney animation features (their TV shows already overflow with it).
But like my animator friend, I'm Gen X, growing up with the original Disney product. PATF doesn't have to please me....I'm not in Disney's target market any more.
What of Gen Z and Y?
IMHO they are the audience Disney has to please. What are they watching? A mixed bag of classic animation reissues on DVD .vs. the Internet/Sat.Night.Live/FAMILY GUY topical and ultra-fast paced humor and animation the Networks (trad. and new media) are aiming at them.
Also, so far, current audiences don't seem to be pegging any recent movie release as a "classic". Perhaps the media/customer attention span is simply too short these days for classics to evolve?
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:43 am
by pap64
Kurt: If you don't mind me asking, since you and your Disney animator friend keep saying that the Princess and the Frog lacks the Disney magic, what did you think of the fab four of the 80s and 90s?
I ask because the Princess and the Frog is aiming to be like those movies, not the classic Disney films.
At the very least, you realize that these films are made to appeal to the current generation. The fab four are the ones that impacted MY generation. If you want an example of this, when Disney unveiled the plans for the expanded Fantasy Land people barely applauded Cinderella and Aurora. But when they announced Belle and Ariel they ROARED with applause and cheers.
Now, let's go back to Ultimate Disney. Many people here hate... no, DESPISE Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, a film made by Walt Disney HIMSELF. Many love it and respect it, sure, but a lot of people don't like it. Same deal with some of the older films. Not saying that the younger generation of Disney fans don't appreciate the classics. They do. The thing is that its very likely that those fans grew up with the modern classics and see them as the definitive Disney films.
I think Disney realizes this, and its why Princess and the Frog is modeled after the modern Disney films; to appeal to the fans who grew up with the modern classics, especially those that have children that love Disney as well. And there's a very good chance that those kids that like the movie will see IT as the definitive classics while Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast and the like will be seen as inferior and outdated.
As for classics nowadays, I think the Pixar films have been labeled as classics, especially Toy Story, Finding Nemo, Wall-E and such. Shrek is, despite what some fans may say, a classic as well.
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:49 am
by BelleGirl
What a narrow-minded way of thinking, that you cannot appriciate a Disney-film just because it wasn't released in the time that you belonged to the target audience! Something like: Oh "Aladdin"that's sooooo 90's!"
I love and adore the older Disney films, but mabe that's also because I watched them in cinema as kid, and I never asked myself the silly question if they were "old fashioned" and "outdated".
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 5:22 am
by blackcauldron85
The video for "Never Knew I Needed" is out!!!
http://neonlimelight.com/2009/10/29/new ... -i-needed/
(via LaughingPlace.com)
There are no movie clips in it (so those of you who are avoiding movie clips can watch the video), but there are some nice homages to the film (you'll see!), and the story is sweet!
***
And info on Disneyland's Showboat Jubilee, character meet & greets, and Tiana's makeover at Bibbidi Bobbidi Boutique:
New show, characters coming to Disneyland
http://ocresort.freedomblogging.com/200 ... and/23463/
(via LaughingPlace.com)
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:24 am
by CherryLipTherapy
When I first heard this song, I didn't like it all too much. I didn't even listen to it all the way through. I'm not a big fan of Neyo, but I do like some of his songs. But now that I listened to it again, in full, I think it is a very appropriate song for "The Princess and the Frog." I like the melody, lyrics, and the video. He did a good job with it. I hope they put the video on the DVD and Blu ray releases. A billion times better than the songs they include on the platinum DVDs.
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:03 am
by BelleGirl
blackcauldron85 wrote:The video for "Never Knew I Needed" is out!!!
http://neonlimelight.com/2009/10/29/new ... -i-needed/
(via LaughingPlace.com)
There are no movie clips in it (so those of you who are avoiding movie clips can watch the video), but there are some nice homages to the film (you'll see!), and the story is sweet!
***
And info on Disneyland's Showboat Jubilee, character meet & greets, and Tiana's makeover at Bibbidi Bobbidi Boutique:
New show, characters coming to Disneyland
http://ocresort.freedomblogging.com/200 ... and/23463/
(via LaughingPlace.com)
Relaxed song, nice voice!
Hey Margos, may I comment on you remarkable signature: it so happens that I do come "from the mythical kindom of Holland" but I'm also an aspie! For real
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:07 am
by Margos
I think it's best to think of a movie as a product of an era or way of thinking, not so much tied to it. For example, "Cinderella" was made for audiences of 1950. "Aladdin" was made for audiences of 1992. I enjoy them both, appreciate their different sensibilites, and look back with nostalgia (albeit inherited nostalgia from older generations) on the eras that they came from. "The Princess and the Frog" will be no difference. I will watch it in December and probably enjoy it. I will watch it on whatever home video device will be implemented in 50 years and say "Ah. I remember those days. This is how they made movies then."
Best to just enjoy the film for what it is, and understand when it was made. You don't enjoy a film because of its age, but in spite of it!
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:10 am
by BelleGirl
Margos wrote:I think it's best to think of a movie as a product of an era or way of thinking, not so much tied to it. For example, "Cinderella" was made for audiences of 1950. "Aladdin" was made for audiences of 1992. I enjoy them both, appreciate their different sensibilites, and look back with nostalgia (albeit inherited nostalgia from older generations) on the eras that they came from. "The Princess and the Frog" will be no difference. I will watch it in December and probably enjoy it. I will watch it on whatever home video device will be implemented in 50 years and say "Ah. I remember those days. This is how they made movies then."
Best to just enjoy the film for what it is, and understand when it was made. You don't enjoy a film because of its age, but in spite of it!
Good movies are timeless, just like good books!