PapiBear wrote:slave2moonlight wrote:
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.
PapiBear wrote: 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."
PapiBear wrote: 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.
PapiBear wrote: 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.
PapiBear wrote: 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.
PapiBear wrote: 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.
PapiBear wrote: 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.
PapiBear wrote: 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.
PapiBear wrote:
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.
PapiBear wrote: 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?
PapiBear wrote: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.
PapiBear wrote: 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.
PapiBear wrote: 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.
PapiBear wrote: 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.
