The Frog Princess Press Release

[slave2moonlight]

Ha, I'm not trying to keep this aspect of the Frog Princess discussion going. Since I feel both sides have probably said all they need to say on the matter, I was hoping we would move on. But, rereading some things, I just found something remarkably interesting about the following comment from Papibear about following certain historical accuracy rules when making movies:

"you don't have King Arthur meeting up with Neil Armstrong"


Anyone remember a little Disney flick called "The Unidentified Flying Oddball?"

[Super Aurora]

The only thing I need to mention is for Super Aurora to watch his language a bit. Partially bleeped out swear words are just as bad as non bleeped out swear words. Please don't take this as me picking on you, Super Aurora, you just happen to be the one I saw doing that.

Fine I understand. I'll try to reframe myself from going any further. It's just the the discussion is too stupid to even debate over. that why i went little over top. sorry and won't happen again.

But, rereading some things, I just found something remarkably interesting about the following comment from Papibear about following certain historical accuracy rules when making movies:

"you don't have King Arthur meeting up with Neil Armstrong"


Anyone remember a little Disney flick called "The Unidentified Flying Oddball?"

or Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure

[Atlantica]

I got this from Animated News, I hope you guys like it!

Disney to introduce first black princess
By JOE BURRIS
The Baltimore Sun
The damsel cast an image of striking beauty: mocha-colored skin, captivating eyes, coiffured hair, posing in a feathery dress and see-through veil.

For a character who won't be in an animated movie for another two years, her arrival has been the subject of discussion for years -- long before she was ever drawn.

Maddy, a 19-year-old heroine to be featured in the coming film ''The Frog Princess,'' will be Disney animation's first black leading lady. That makes her the Sole Sister among a group of cartoon icons that bring out the inner princess in preteen girls worldwide -- characters such as Snow White, Cinderella, Ariel and Mulan.

Some say Maddy's debut is long overdue. Disney's characters have become firmly etched in American lore ever since the release of ''Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs,'' its first animated feature, in 1937.

In 1992, the animated version of ''Aladdin'' featured its first princess of color, Jasmine, of Arabian descent. Since then, Disney has had animated film hits featuring an American Indian princess, Pocahontas, in 1995 and an Asian heroine, Mulan, in 1998.

But even as real-life black actresses and actors have won major awards and helped dissolve barriers in the film industry in recent years, a divide remained for cartoon princesses on the big screen.

Black families have clamored for a Disney character crafted in their image, even circulating petitions. If that seems overly anxious about a cartoon, it also underscores the power of fictional princesses to become role models for girls.

''It's always good to have positive stories and positive images, where the main character is of your background,'' said John Powell of Salisbury, Md., shopping with his wife and daughter near The Disney Store. ''It lets you know that you have no limitations.''

Like other Disney features, ''The Frog Princess'' is bound to resonate not only with black Americans, but with children of all backgrounds. Eight other ''Disney Princess'' characters generated more than $3 billion in retail sales last year. Five Disney Princess films rank among the entertainment conglomerate's top six video releases of all time.

Disney unveiled Maddy at its annual shareholders' meeting in March, even summoning Randy Newman's Dirty Dozen Brass Band for a performance. The award-winning Newman will write the music for the movie, which will be set in 1920s New Orleans and be hand-drawn rather than computer-generated.

But the announcement of the princess Maddy hasn't settled the issue. Information about ''The Frog Princess,'' including a list of characters put forth in a voice-actor casting call, quickly spread across the Internet.

It appears that the prince in the story is not black, which has raised dissatisfaction. There are also people criticizing the creation of yet another cartoon princess whose story, they contend, undermines a modern message of individual empowerment.

Disney risks having well-intended attempts backfire if the story doesn't resonate with, or offends, certain viewers. It's a problem the company has run into with previous films featuring characters of color. Disney officials have declined to comment on aspects of the film beyond the news release they issued in March when they announced the film at their meeting in New Orleans.

''We're very proud and excited about this,'' John Lasseter, chief creative officer of Pixar and Disney Animation Studios and director of "Toy Story" and "Cars," said at the time. ''This is a fantastic story. This movie is going to be classic Disney, yet you've never seen one like it before.''

To its credit, Disney has a reputation for being progressive in offering characters that appeal to people of all backgrounds, particularly on television.

However, on the big screen, Disney's depictions of people of color have occasionally raised objections. Even as Disney was introducing Maddy, it faced concerns over plans for the DVD release of its 1946 film ''Song of the South,'' which has been criticized for its depiction of Southern plantation blacks.

And while Princess Jasmine got a favorable response from moviegoers, the film ''Aladdin'' itself was criticized as anti-Arab.

Entertainment Weekly ranked ''Aladdin'' 25th among its ''25 Most Controversial Movies Ever,'' noting the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee's protest over the lyrics in the film's first song, ''Arabian Nights'': ''They cut off your ear if they don't like your face. It's barbaric, but, hey, it's home.''

Disney changed the lyrics for the video release.

Still, no one's doubting that Maddy will be a huge influence on girls. After all, she's a princess.

[Simba3]

I have come to the conclusion that "The Frog Princess" is going to cause some sort of controversy NO MATTER WHAT. I guess all I can do is hope for a great Disney film, which I am very much anticipating. No matter what the outcome, there will be many people who are not pleased. My hope is that Disney's The Frog Pringess" will be a movie which explores black culture and presents it in a wonderful animated story.

[cheshirecat]

I am thrilled about this film! about time a 2-D film came out. the whole movie looks promising.I love the idea of a voodoo magician for a villian!

[Dottie]

Yeah, just imagine what horrid things she can do to the prince? That's much better than Phillip going through the thorn hedge to get to Sleeping Beauty.

[cheshirecat]

Yeah, just imagine what horrid things she can do to the prince? That's much better than Phillip going through the thorn hedge to get to Sleeping Beauty.

[Disney Duster]

Yeah, just imagine what horrid things she can do to the prince? That's much better than Phillip going through the thorn hedge to get to Sleeping Beauty.

The casting call said that it is going to be a guy who is the villain:

[DR. DUVALIER] A 30-40 year old Voodoo magician/fortune teller. African American. Charming, charismatic, smooth and a sinister bad guy. Theatrical and grandiose. Dialect: Elegant, possibly New Orleans Creole.

But there is also a woman who uses voodoo magic, our princess' fairy godmother:

[MAMA ODIE] An elderly, 200 year old Voodoo priestess/fairy god-mother. African American. Broad, comic, eccentric. Benevolent, wise and all knowing. A mixture of Moms Mabley & Yoda. Dialect: Southern colloquial.

[PapiBear]

But there is also a woman who uses voodoo magic, our princess' fairy godmother:

[MAMA ODIE] An elderly, 200 year old Voodoo priestess/fairy god-mother. African American. Broad, comic, eccentric. Benevolent, wise and all knowing. A mixture of Moms Mabley & Yoda. Dialect: Southern colloquial.

Moms Mabley (actress & comedian who died in 1975)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moms_Mabley

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9FhsAPiKa0

plus

Elaborate puppet

[DR. DUVALIER] A 30-40 year old Voodoo magician/fortune teller. African American. Charming, charismatic, smooth and a sinister bad guy. Theatrical and grandiose. Dialect: Elegant, possibly New Orleans Creole.

Nobody ever explained to me why it was perfectly OK to have a Black man be the villain, but not the heroine's love interest. I'd still like to know the answer to that.

Anyone ever see the French animated film Kirikou and the Sorceress? Disney could've taken a cue from them - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhjFpFH-T7M

[Nandor]

Nobody ever explained to me why it was perfectly OK to have a Black man be the villain, but not the heroine's love interest. I'd still like to know the answer to that.

Because Disney wants people to think black men are evil. Strange you didn't get that, it's very obvious.

[Dottie]

Yeah, just imagine what horrid things she can do to the prince? That's much better than Phillip going through the thorn hedge to get to Sleeping Beauty.

The casting call said that it is going to be a guy who is the villain:

[DR. DUVALIER] A 30-40 year old Voodoo magician/fortune teller. African American. Charming, charismatic, smooth and a sinister bad guy. Theatrical and grandiose. Dialect: Elegant, possibly New Orleans Creole.

Oopps, I'm really sorry for that fault. But still, the evil opportunities of Voodoo.

[slave2moonlight]

Nobody ever explained to me why it was perfectly OK to have a Black man be the villain, but not the heroine's love interest. I'd still like to know the answer to that.

Considering Disney's history of white villains, it shouldn't be a problem to have a black villain, and it's more believable considering the character's voodoo usage. It shouldn't be a problem to have a black prince either, or a white one, but neither one should cause a stir, as both come in all shapes, colors, sizes, etc... in real life.

[PapiBear]

Nobody ever explained to me why it was perfectly OK to have a Black man be the villain, but not the heroine's love interest. I'd still like to know the answer to that.

Considering Disney's history of white villains, it shouldn't be a problem to have a black villain, and it's more believable considering the character's voodoo usage. It shouldn't be a problem to have a black prince either, or a white one, but neither one should cause a stir, as both come in all shapes, colors, sizes, etc... in real life.

Real life, eh? Let me ask you something about real life. What was the likelihood of an English prince sweeping an African American maid off her feet and making her his bride in real life 1920s New Orleans? Would it have caused a stir then, in real life?

I'll let you take a guess.

It doesn't matter that this story has fantasy elements. It's not taking place in the Land of La-La in some nebulous unnamed time, or on another planet, 300 centuries in the future. It's taking place on Earth, in New Orleans, in the 1920s, when Klan membership was at an all-time nationwide high (even marching in Washington, DC), lynchings were common, and when the Black business district of Tulsa, Oklahoma (aka the Black Wall Street) was bombed from the air during a race riot that decimated the entire Black-owned part of that city. The South in the 1920s was not a time nor a place, even in New Orleans, for an interracial romance to blossom, let alone a transatlantic one involving British royalty.

No, what this is is a European folk tale retold partially in blackface, to give the illusion of being egalitarian and hip and socially progressive. It's a farce, and it's based on lies.

Now a lot of ignorant people, white, Black, and otherwise, are going to see this film and swallow it whole and some, being ignorant of their history, are going to assume that such a situation could have happened in the South in the 1920s. And it just wasn't that way.

My question wasn't why it was OK to have a Black villain. My question was why it was OK to have a Black MALE be the villain, but not let a Black male be the heroine's love interest? My point is that the only Black male presence in this story is a villainous one. Why? And why the anachronistic attempt to be "diverse"? If the story's set in the 21st Century, it'd be fine, but it's not, and it's not set against the backdrop of the Civil Rights Movement, or the 60s, or anytime in the latter half of the 20th Century at all. It's set in the South, in the 1920s. So it's problematic.

[slave2moonlight]

Real life, eh? What was the likelihood of an English prince sweeping an African American maid off her feet and making her his bride in 1920s New Orleans? Would it have caused a stir then?

I'll let you take a guess.

Perhaps it will cause a stir in the film. We haven't seen the film yet. However, you're taking my words out of context. I wasn't saying that this film was ultra-realistic, nor have I said it should be, since it's a fairytale.

It doesn't matter that this is story has fantasy elements. It's not taking place in the Land of La-La in some nebulous unnamed time, or on another planet, 300 centuries in the future. It's taking place on Earth, in New Orleans, in the 1920s, when Klan membership was at an all-time nationwide high (even marching in Washington, DC), lynchings were common, and when the Black business district of Tulsa, Oklahoma (aka the Black Wall Street) was bombed from the air during a race riot that decimated the entire Black-owned part of that city. The South in the 1920s was not a time nor a place, even in New Orleans, for an interracial romance to blossom, let alone a transatlantic one involving British royalty.

No, what this is is a European folk tale retold partially in blackface, to give the illusion of being egalitarian and hip and socially progressive. It's a farce, and it's based on lies.

It's a Fairy Tale, not a history lesson.

Now a lot of ignorant people, white, Black, and otherwise, are going to see this film and swallow it whole and some, being ignorant of their history, are going to assume that such a situation could have happened in the South in the 1920s. And it just wasn't that way.

It's a Fairy Tale, not a history lesson. There were people who thought Gilligan's Island was real. I'm not kidding. People wrote letters to try and get a rescue party out to the island. Because of people like that, we can't have any fantasy in film?

My question wasn't why it was OK to have a Black villain. My question was why it was OK to have a Black MALE be the villain, but not let a Black male be the heroine's love interest?

The very problem with that question is the same as it has always been every time you've posted it in this thread. It's a question that assumes there is a malicious intent behind the decision, which is purely a racist assumption. And it's a BIG assumption when you haven't even seen the film yet or how the plot plays out. It's also an assumption that makes little sense when you consider how careful Disney has been in recent years to avoid racial controversy in ways like keeping "Song of the South" in the vault and changing certain lines in their classic films.

My point is that the only Black male presence in this story is a villainous one. Why? And why the anachronistic attempt to be "diverse"? If the story's set in the 21st Century, it'd be fine, but it's not, and it's not set against the backdrop of the Civil Rights Movement, or the 60s, or anytime in the latter half of the 20th Century at all. It's set in the South, in the 1920s. So it's problematic.

It is another big assumption to make that the villain will be the ONLY black male in the film. Why the attempt to be diverse? Because a majority of the Target audience is children, and children in the U.S. today are very diverse. It's not set in this Century, but it is being made to appeal to children of this Century, and it's a fairytale, not a history lesson, despite the setting, which was probably chosen for its unique style, especially in regards to music. They are choosing to use the best aspects of New Orleans for this FAIRY TALE, such as its style and diversity. The important thing is to distinguish an animated film from a history lesson. If kids can't do that, then what about the whole turning into a frog part of the story?

You seem to want this film to be a history lesson specifically aimed at pleasing African-Americans, but it's a Fairy Tale largely aimed at pleasing diverse 21st century children.

[PapiBear]

Real life, eh? What was the likelihood of an English prince sweeping an African American maid off her feet and making her his bride in 1920s New Orleans? Would it have caused a stir then?

I'll let you take a guess.

Perhaps it will cause a stir in the film. We haven't seen the film yet. However, you're taking my words out of context. I wasn't saying that this film was ultra-realistic, nor have I said it should be, since it's a fairytale.

I'm not "taking your words out of context," I'm asking you questions based on the statement you made. And all you can respond with is a tossed-off "it might cause a stir in the film." Really, well, that would be amazing if it did. I kinda doubt it'll even be brought up, though.

It doesn't matter that this is story has fantasy elements. It's not taking place in the Land of La-La in some nebulous unnamed time, or on another planet, 300 centuries in the future. It's taking place on Earth, in New Orleans, in the 1920s, when Klan membership was at an all-time nationwide high (even marching in Washington, DC), lynchings were common, and when the Black business district of Tulsa, Oklahoma (aka the Black Wall Street) was bombed from the air during a race riot that decimated the entire Black-owned part of that city. The South in the 1920s was not a time nor a place, even in New Orleans, for an interracial romance to blossom, let alone a transatlantic one involving British royalty.

No, what this is is a European folk tale retold partially in blackface, to give the illusion of being egalitarian and hip and socially progressive. It's a farce, and it's based on lies.

It's a Fairy Tale, not a history lesson.

Then set it in a fairy time, in a fairy place. Not in a historical time and place.

Let me tell you something, if Disney ever made a film that took place in El Paso in 1848 and portrayed General Santa Anna flat-out giving California, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico to the United States out of the kindness of his heart, you know damn well that Mexicans and other Hispanics would be hopping mad about that. You couldn't just brush that off and say "well, it's a fairy tale!" Nobody would buy that cop-out. And I'm not buying this one that you're peddling.

Now a lot of ignorant people, white, Black, and otherwise, are going to see this film and swallow it whole and some, being ignorant of their history, are going to assume that such a situation could have happened in the South in the 1920s. And it just wasn't that way.

It's a Fairy Tale, not a history lesson. There were people who thought Gilligan's Island was real. I'm not kidding. People wrote letters to try and get a rescue party out to the island. Because of people like that, we can't have any fantasy in film?

See above.

This isn't about you, it isn't about whether anyone has "the right" to have fantasy in film, or any other hogwash. I know that you "don't see color," but that doesn't mean that color isn't there. What else are you blind and deaf to, I wonder?

My question wasn't why it was OK to have a Black villain. My question was why it was OK to have a Black MALE be the villain, but not let a Black male be the heroine's love interest?

The very problem with that question is the same as it has always been every time you've posted it in this thread. It's a question that assumes there is a malicious intent behind the decision, which is purely a racist assumption.

Actually you're assuming that I'm assuming malicious intent. I never said I was. In fact I'm pretty sure there isn't a malicious intent, but intent isn't the issue. If you intend to help me out by parking my car, but in the process you run over my kid, sorry, but I'm not going to be upset because I assumed you had malicious intent. I'm going to be upset because my kid is hurt or dead. The intent behind the damage is, quite honestly, beside the point.

But just for the sake of argument, let's say I did think there was malicious intent behind it. Why would the assumption of malicious intent be a racist assumption? Explain that to me. If I thought that the intent behind the decision to make the villain but not the love interest a Black male was malicious, why would stating that I thought so be racist in itself?

And it's a BIG assumption when you haven't even seen the film yet or how the plot plays out. It's also an assumption that makes little sense when you consider how careful Disney has been in recent years to avoid racial controversy in ways like keeping "Song of the South" in the vault and changing certain lines in their classic films.

You know, if this is their way of "avoiding racial controversy," they sure have a funny way of doing it, pairing up the first Black princess with a white prince and making the princess and her mother the servants of white Southern plantation owners.

I don't need to be knee-deep in manure to know what it is. I can smell it from a distance.

My point is that the only Black male presence in this story is a villainous one. Why? And why the anachronistic attempt to be "diverse"? If the story's set in the 21st Century, it'd be fine, but it's not, and it's not set against the backdrop of the Civil Rights Movement, or the 60s, or anytime in the latter half of the 20th Century at all. It's set in the South, in the 1920s. So it's problematic.

It is another big assumption to make that the villain will be the ONLY black male in the film.

Hey, I'm just going by what Disney has stated the main and supporting characters will be. I'm not really interested in minor characters, because they're just that - minor.

Why the attempt to be diverse? Because a majority of the Target audience is children, and children in the U.S. today are very diverse.

Excuse me, excuse me. What the HELL does this mean?

It's not set in this Century, but it is being made to appeal to children of this Century, and it's a fairytale, not a history lesson, despite the setting, which was probably chosen for its unique style, especially in regards to music.

Well wait, you're assuming that, and you haven't even SEEN the film yet!

They are choosing to use the best aspects of New Orleans for this FAIRY TALE, such as its style and diversity. The important thing is to distinguish an animated film from a history lesson. If kids can't do that, then what about the whole turning into a frog part of the story?

I never said the movie needed to be a "history lesson." But is there something so fundamentally wrong with wanting a film that's set in a historical time and place to reflect the historical reality of that time, even with fantasy elements in the story?

Disney's shown that kind of sensitivity to historical reality with their adaptation of The Adventures of Huck Finn. Why can't they do it with this one? Because it's animated? That's a weak reason.

If your primary argument for supporting this poorly developed project is that its target audience is 5 year olds, then you haven't got much to stand on. If that's the justification, then it makes the charge that Disney is just pandering even stronger.

[PapiBear]

You seem to want this film to be a history lesson specifically aimed at pleasing African-Americans, but it's a Fairy Tale largely aimed at pleasing diverse 21st century children.

Yeah, how dare I want Black children to finally be the target audience, instead of the vast multicultural mainstream, even after whites, Arabs, Native Americans, and Asians have been targeted. How dare I.

You just can't stand to let us have something all to ourselves, can you? Not even a movie. If we don't buy into your idea of a colorless, ethnicity-free, history-free world, we're relegated to outcasts. Well, thanks, but no thanks. I'm not interested in living in a society that denies me my history, ignores my feelings, and continues to denigrate me and disrespect me, all while it tells me it wants to "include" me.

You know what? Keep your damn fairy tale movie. It's not made by us, nor is it made for our benefit or edification, anyway. All the claims of "diversity" and "social progress" are meaningless, and all the attempts to hoodwink us with the idea that it's a Black princess for little Black girls to look up to are empty gestures. It's a wonderful story for YOU, not us. But hey, that's the way of Black people in New Orleans, you know, to always be the props and the set dressing to make the white people feel powerful.

[Nandor]

You sure know a lot of ways to say the same thing. Too bad it got boring after your second post in this topic.

[slave2moonlight]

Perhaps it will cause a stir in the film. We haven't seen the film yet. However, you're taking my words out of context. I wasn't saying that this film was ultra-realistic, nor have I said it should be, since it's a fairytale.

I'm not "taking your words out of context," I'm asking you questions based on the statement you made. And all you can respond with is a tossed-off "it might cause a stir in the film." Really, well, that would be amazing if it did. I kinda doubt it'll even be brought up, though.

No, that wasn't my only response. My point was that whether it is brought up or not is not important unless it is important to the story. However, it's not impossible that it will be brought up. We may not have seen such a thing in Disney animation before, but we've seen it in Disney live-action. Even done rather subtly, as in "Haunted Mansion."

Then set it in a fairy time, in a fairy place. Not in a historical time and place.

That's up to the creators to decide, but audiences connect more with a story if it has a recognizable location. Just because the location is real doesn't mean it has to be a realistic representation of the location. They usually aren't perfectly realistic. But, when you're calling for perfect realism in a fairytale, well, that's a contradiction.

Let me tell you something, if Disney ever made a film that took place in El Paso in 1848 and portrayed General Santa Anna flat-out giving California, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico to the United States out of the kindness of his heart, you know damn well that Mexicans and other Hispanics would be hopping mad about that.
You couldn't just brush that off and say "well, it's a fairy tale!" Nobody would buy that cop-out. And I'm not buying this one that you're peddling.

Hello?! That would NOT be a fairytale. You seriously don't seem to know the difference between a history lesson and a fairytale. HOWEVER, even in historical films, liberties are almost always taken. ESPECIALLY in family films. It's not in an effort to LIE about history, it's in an effort to make the film enjoyable for all ages (including SMALL children). This is not a live-action, historical epic, it's an animated film that people will be taking their 4 and 5 year-olds to. I doubt that most people of any race will want to take their toddlers to see a Disney animated film about the KKK and other such hate themes they probably would prefer to explain to their kids when they are a little older. Yes, it's important history, but you have to consider the age of your audience, the mood you're trying to set, and its importance to the plot of the film.

This isn't about you, it isn't about whether anyone has "the right" to have fantasy in film, or any other hogwash. I know that you "don't see color," but that doesn't mean that color isn't there. What else are you blind and deaf to, I wonder?

To judging people based on their race/color? I hope so. And I have never made this about ME. I don't know where you get that. And it's interesting that you consider freedom of artistic expression "hogwash." That's just fantastic.

Actually you're assuming that I'm assuming malicious intent. I never said I was. In fact I'm pretty sure there isn't a malicious intent, but intent isn't the issue. If you intend to help me out by parking my car, but in the process you run over my kid, sorry, but I'm not going to be upset because I assumed you had malicious intent. I'm going to be upset because my kid is hurt or dead. The intent behind the damage is, quite honestly, beside the point.

Okay, so you are assuming the Disney company is trying to "help you out" with this film. I don't see why you get that impression. Because the lead character is African American? As I've said before, I certainly hope this character wasn't made black just to make the film a gift to African American people. I'm sure the idea of selling more products to African Americans and black people the world over came into play when making that decision, but I certainly hope the story had something to do with it too. Nevertheless, the idea that viewing a Fairy Tale where a black princess marries a white prince, set in New Orleans, yet without the inclusion of examples/themes of racial hatred of the time is damaging to a child is a little absurd. If we lived in a country where racism in the history of the American South was being kept a big secret in the media, you might have something there. But examples of racism, real racism, are all over the television today, in films, movies, the news, etc... Look at the big Imus scandal. Making a family film that will have a large audience of small children alongside people of other ages that sidesteps historical/racial issues to tell a more fairy-tale type story shouldn't be a big problem. It doesn't take much effort for a parent to tell their child how it really was in New Orleans at the same time as telling them people don't really change into frogs. And even if they don't have parents to tell them, more adult films and the other aspects of the media will, along with actual history lessons in school. Believe it or not, if this was a live-action film with more serious and realistic themes and plot, I would be on your side on the issue of historical accuracy, but family fantasy films rarely have a strong basis in reality, and especially fairytales, and this is acceptable because the plots are usually largely fantasy anyway.

But just for the sake of argument, let's say I did think there was malicious intent behind it. Why would the assumption of malicious intent be a racist assumption? Explain that to me. If I thought that the intent behind the decision to make the villain but not the love interest a Black male was malicious, why would stating that I thought so be racist in itself?

I'm sorry that it has to be explained to anyone that assuming malicious, racist intent from another race is racist in itself, and it's the assumption that makes it so. Your arguments throughout have made it clear that the Disney company represents a white entity, or at least a non-black entity, producing a film that will have a negative effect on black children. Imagining for a moment that you assumed malicious intent was involved, that assumption that this entity is malicious towards black people because it represents non-blacks is an assumption that non-blacks are malicious towards black people.

You know, if this is their way of "avoiding racial controversy," they sure have a funny way of doing it, pairing up the first Black princess with a white prince and making the princess and her mother the servants of white Southern plantation owners.

To be more specific, I perhaps should have said "negative racial controversy." Pairing up a black princess with a white prince shouldn't be a problem for anyone who isn't racist themselves. Making the princess and her mother the servants of white Southern plantation owners is clearly a bit of that historical realism you were calling for.

Hey, I'm just going by what Disney has stated the main and supporting characters will be. I'm not really interested in minor characters, because they're just that - minor.

So you completely disregard any characters other than the leads? Minor characters can leave a big impact and can still play important roles in a film. There are fans of Disney films who adore certain minor characters.

Excuse me, excuse me. What the HELL does this mean?

It's plain English. This movie takes place in the U.S., where movie-going children are very diverse. Residents of New Orleans are diverse. It's a fantasy film. Why focus on one race of people when your film is set in such a diverse location? It may not handle history accurately (though it seems strange to judge that before seeing the film, but as a fantasy, family film, it has the right not to), but why miss an opportunity to have a diverse cast, especially when that can be more appealing to a wider audience?

Well wait, you're assuming that, and you haven't even SEEN the film yet!

In a fictional film, New Orleans is almost always chosen because of its unique style, atmosphere, music, etc... In fact, in an animated film, the look of a place is very important to choosing the setting if it's not pre-determined by a book or other source, and the music sometimes plays a big role too. This isn't the kind of assumption that deals guessing about the plot details and so on. It's standard.

I never said the movie needed to be a "history lesson." But is there something so fundamentally wrong with wanting a film that's set in a historical time and place to reflect the historical reality of that time, even with fantasy elements in the story?

No, of course not. But you are basically demanding it; calling foul if historical accuracy is not achieved. I could understand it if this were a live-action, non-fantasy film, but it simply is not. It's an animated fairytale that plays partly to a VERY young audience. I wouldn't mind if this film came out and had more historical accuracy to it, but I don't have a 4 or 5 your old I'll have to explain it to. And, if I did, of course I'd want them to know accurate history, but not at an age when their only concern should be if the princess lives happily ever after. As for adult audiences, we should go into any fantasy film, any FILM for that matter, knowing what we see is not likely going to be 100 percent historically accurate. Should we call "foul" sometimes? Sure, when it makes sense to, especially during live-action films that are supposed to be true stories, but I think fairytales are one of those subjects when we adults should understand that hardly anything in the film is real.

Disney's shown that kind of sensitivity to historical reality with their adaptation of The Adventures of Huck Finn. Why can't they do it with this one? Because it's animated? That's a weak reason.

Well, again, without seeing the film, we can't say for sure how it will treat issues of race. But, to answer your question if they do avoid the issue all together (as they likely will), then no, not because it is animated alone, but because it plays to a family audience that goes quite a bit younger than the audience of Huck Finn. Yes, Disney's "The Adventures of Huck Finn" is one of my favorite films of all time, one of Disney's best, but that film was aimed at a slightly older family audience than Disney princess films are. Huck Finn plays more to adults and older children (primarily boys). Not to mention how important the racial issues of the time are to the plot of Huck Finn. Animated films can cover any age group and level of realism/accuracy. Though, sadly, American-made ones seldom do. However, Disney princess films usually focus on the fantasy. And it's one thing to have a fantasy villain in a Disney animated film that may or may not give kids nightmares, but to include a more realistic form of villainy, such as racial hatred or depictions of the Klan, well, that sort of thing likely won't be appreciated very well by parents. Anyway, times they've attempted to depict racism/discrimination in the past have not flown that well. Few people even GOT the idea that the villain in Pocahontas was racism rather than Ratcliffe, as the filmmakers explain in the commentary, and Hunchback of Notre Dame's more "realistic" aspects weren't well received by most of the public either. Hence, if it's not heavily important to the largely fantasy plot and the audience is going to include very little ones, better to just avoid such issues.

If your primary argument for supporting this poorly developed project is that its target audience is 5 year olds, then you haven't got much to stand on. If that's the justification, then it makes the charge that Disney is just pandering even stronger.

I think that's plenty to stand on, however, I don't think it's a poorly developed project either. I won't go into details I've already covered over and over about how I don't think the complaints are justified (wouldn't be Disney's first character named Maddy, as they have a white female by that name on a Disney Channel show right now), but the quality of the complaints is the main reason I continue to defend the film. I think it sounds like it COULD be a great film. And if they made the changes you want, my feelings on it still wouldn't change if it didn't prevent the filmmakers from telling the story they want to tell. However, I also defend it because we haven't even seen it yet, and I am against judging a film when the trailers aren't even out yet. Maybe we can judge a film based on trailers. Though they are not always a good representation, that's still what they're for, in a sense (well, more to lure us in, actually). But, to judge a film before even seeing trailers... well... that's kinda ridiculous. I can appreciate your desire to want Disney to rewrite this film before it comes out to avoid a big failure, however, I disagree that it needs a rewrite, and so feel that to do so would only be pandering to a specific group (which is not TRUE equality and really only counters it). However, being sensitive to CHILDREN is something completely different. Surely, you would agree with that (though I'm not trying to put words in your mouth), since much of your argument was also about protecting children's viewpoints. So it shouldn't be a weak argument when I use it, or Disney. Being age-sensitive about the audience when making a film is not simply pandering. That's like calling it pandering when you refuse to show sex in a film for 5 year olds. It's reality, but it's NOT age appropriate. If the story badly needs an adult issue, then they shouldn't change it, but they will have to raise the rating, limiting the audience. Wouldn't be a good idea for a princess film.

[slave2moonlight]

Yeah, how dare I want Black children to finally be the target audience, instead of the vast multicultural mainstream, even after whites, Arabs, Native Americans, and Asians have been targeted. How dare I.

These were not target audiences. Hence the complaints those films received. The audience was, thankfully, much broader than one race.

You just can't stand to let us have something all to ourselves, can you? Not even a movie. If we don't buy into your idea of a colorless, ethnicity-free, history-free world, we're relegated to outcasts. Well, thanks, but no thanks. I'm not interested in living in a society that denies me my history, ignores my feelings, and continues to denigrate me and disrespect me, all while it tells me it wants to "include" me.

I've said a million times that I don't promote forgetting history. However, there is a time and a place for everything. I just don't care for "pandering." I don't see that as the road to equality. It seems the problem is that you don't want to be included.

You know what? Keep your damn fairy tale movie. It's not made by us, nor is it made for our benefit or edification, anyway. All the claims of "diversity" and "social progress" are meaningless, and all the attempts to hoodwink us with the idea that it's a Black princess for little Black girls to look up to are empty gestures. It's a wonderful story for YOU, not us. But hey, that's the way of Black people in New Orleans, you know, to always be the props and the set dressing to make the white people feel powerful.

I think your real problem with this movie is what I bolded in the above response.

[PapiBear]

OK, I'm just going to try and refrain from discussing these matters with you from now on, slave2midnight, because it's crystal clear to me that you simply do not GET IT. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.