DVDizzy Forum

Disney Duster wrote:

Ariel'sprince wrote:You're wellcome,blackcauldron85and Disney Duster (the avater is beter?) (also Disney Duster-i"m suprised you didn't noticed that her dress looks like Cinderella's wedding dress).
It does reminds me of Aladdin and Peter Pan (the balcaney and her pose).

Yea, I like the avatar better now, but it would have been nice to see something not in the signature, like her crown, if it could still look good. I'm picky, LOL. I guess she looks like she's in Cinderella's wedding dress more than the others, but we've really only seen her and Ariel's (and Giselle's but hers is based on Ariel's after all, and I don't count her).

Anyway, yea, I was going to say Cinderella had her hair in a bun for her princess and wedding outfits, but I'm not even quite sure what kind of hair-style that is, but I once read a retelling of Disney's version that called it a french twist. It's not the same as a bun. But I would look at Disney World's version, too.

But if i whould have add her crown it will cut her hair.
She looks like very similar the Cinderella (i think she is a black Cinderella).
Why you don't count Giselle? (and we also saw Jasmine's ugly wedding dress).

Ariel'sprince wrote:But if i whould have add her crown it will cut her hair.
She looks like very similar the Cinderella (i think she is a black Cinderella).
Why you don't count Giselle? (and we also saw Jasmine's ugly wedding dress).

Right, well I said only try to get the crown in if it still looks good to you, but we already see her hair in the signature.

I already said I don't count Giselle because she is based on all the other Disney princesses, so a lot of things that are hers, inclduing her wedding dress, came from other princesses. Even her Snow White personality. Anyway, I don't count Jasmne's wedding dress either because it's in a sequel and I already thought she should have married at the end of the first Aladdin, those outfits were much better and on the commentary they said they were trying to make people think it could have been a marriage.

I shouldn't count Cinderella's second wedding dress in Twsit in Time, but it's like Cinderella's new one in an alternate reality. The whole sequel is alternate reality.

Disney Duster wrote:

Ariel'sprince wrote:But if i whould have add her crown it will cut her hair.
She looks like very similar the Cinderella (i think she is a black Cinderella).
Why you don't count Giselle? (and we also saw Jasmine's ugly wedding dress).

Right, well I said only try to get the crown in if it still looks good to you, but we already see her hair in the signature.

I already said I don't count Giselle because she is based on all the other Disney princesses, so a lot of things that are hers, inclduing her wedding dress, came from other princesses. Even her Snow White personality. Anyway, I don't count Jasmne's wedding dress either because it's in a sequel and I already thought she should have married at the end of the first Aladdin, those outfits were much better and on the commentary they said they were trying to make people think it could have been a marriage.

I shouldn't count Cinderella's second wedding dress in Twsit in Time, but it's like Cinderella's new one in an alternate reality. The whole sequel is alternate reality.

Oh,but no,i don't think that it will fit.
I don't think it's fair that you don't count Giselle just becouse she's based on the Princess but i count her and she is a Disney Princess.
Agreed again about Jasmine,they should have merried in the first Aladdin (in fact-i think i count her purple outfit from the end as her wedding outfit).
Do you count the broadway shows?.

Ariel'sprince wrote:I don't think it's fair that you don't count Giselle just becouse she's based on the Princess but i count her and she is a Disney Princess.

There is no fair or unfair here. Disney Duster has his opinion, you have yours. There is no correct or wrong, everyone can see things the way he/she wants.
Anyway, I agree with Disney Duster, Giselle was a heroine created for a comedy, she was created just to remind the viewers of Cinderella, SnowWhite, Ariel etc.
Just think about that: could you ever stand a whole movie set in Andalasia? Probably you will answer yes, but judging from the 20 minutes we saw in "Enchanted", a movie like that would be so FULL of other movies ridiculous cliches: SO pink, SO pretty, SO beautiful, SO happy, SO blonde, SO naive, SO lovable, SO easy, SO UNBEARABLE!!!! It's like having all of Disney's princesses's annoying charcteristics in one body.

And yes, typically Giselle is a princess and her movie is produced by Disney but that doesn't make her a new addition in the "Princess line". Eilonwy and Kida could be considered Disney princesses that way. Even Mia from "The Princess Diaries" was included in the princesses' website when her movie was out, but then they removed her because she actually was never a part of the Princess line.

Thank you for defending me, Al from Ag, (hey, Pal from Ag!). To be honest I wanted to think of Giselle as something unique, and she's different enough from the other princesses to stand on her own, but she still is to heavily based on the other princesses and that was what she was made for. The other Disney princesses borrow from each other either in similar stories about falling asleep or similar actions like singing to the birds and being friends with them.

I can change my mind, Ariel'sprince, especially when I see how Disney officially treats her later, but as she is now, she's supposed to be almost any Disney princess in New York. She is a unique character, and she has her own story and her own look and her own world, but almost all of it is based of the other ones intentionally. It would feel weird including her next to Snow White, Cinderella, Aurora, and Ariel, because she's a copy and combination of those four! Also, her fairy tale is seperate from real life, and her film isn't her story told in full animation. She goes over to the real world to act like "a real person" and that completely changes the fact that the Disney princesses were supposed to be like real people in the first place.

I see your way of thinking, Ariel'sprince, and I know you like her a lot, but I see her differently than you. Anyway, she's not an official Disney princess until she's added to the web site with her own page and there's more merchandise for her with the Disney Princess logo on it (the old dolls don't count because that was before they took her out of the line).

Tiana is intended to be a Disney Princess, in a her fully animated story in her fully animated world, as a real person who's living a real crises, just with magic and exaggerations, and with possible similarities to other princesses but not heavily based on so many of them.

Aladdin from Agrabah wrote:

Ariel'sprince wrote:I don't think it's fair that you don't count Giselle just becouse she's based on the Princess but i count her and she is a Disney Princess.

There is no fair or unfair here. Disney Duster has his opinion, you have yours. There is no correct or wrong, everyone can see things the way he/she wants.

I mean that in my opinion it's not fair but i didn't told Disney Duster to change his mind.
I remember Mia in the website but still,we didn't saw her with other Princesses (like Giselle in the shopping website).
I see your point Disney Duster but in my opinion she is a Disney Princess (maybe an unoffical one like Esmeralda and Melody) but still also in the Enchanted Exprience they called her a new Disney Princess (by the way-do you think that the Broadway shows are also altrenate world?).

http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... paper.html

Animation desks. Pegboards. Hole-punched paper.

I saw all those things with my very own eyes inside the Disney hat building. Also actual animators, holding pencils and flipping paper. There's a bunch of test animation getting done on Princess and the Frog, and it was a rush to see pencil drawings moving, as if by magic.

The character designs are appealing but still evolving. One animator said: "Nothing is locked down, we're still tweaking characters. And nothing gets locked until John Lasseter signs off on final designs."

Very cool! I am getting so anxious just to hear more about this film. Every time I see or hear something new about this film, I get so excited! Thanks for the post Amy.

That sounds peaceful. I'm so weird. Oh, but that's just happy.

I've found a couple websites online that are saying that Angela Bassett will be among the voice talents featured in this film. However, I can't find any sites that I can be sure are credible, like IMDB. Has anyone else heard anything about this?

Simba3 wrote:I've found a couple websites online that are saying that Angela Bassett will be among the voice talents featured in this film. However, I can't find any sites that I can be sure are credible, like IMDB. Has anyone else heard anything about this?

I wouldn't consider IMDb credible. It's user-based, meaning anyone can pop on and add people to the cast. Would you mind sharing your source(s)?

Vermin Friends wrote: Would you mind sharing your source(s)?

One of the sources is the Wikipedia webpage, which I realize isn't necessarily a credible source. This site also reports that Angela Bassett is in the cast. Like I said, I have found it in a few different places, but nothing that I can consider concrete evidence.

Simba3 wrote:

Vermin Friends wrote: Would you mind sharing your source(s)?

One of the sources is the Wikipedia webpage, which I realize isn't necessarily a credible source. This site also reports that Angela Bassett is in the cast. Like I said, I have found it in a few different places, but nothing that I can consider concrete evidence.

Ah, I see- and that's a fansite too, so it's not completely official. I understand your predicament. My guess would be that there is some kind of solid evidence out there, it's just no available to the public yet, which is probably why you never saw it out there.

Vermin Friends wrote: Ah, I see- and that's a fansite too, so it's not completely official. I understand your predicament. My guess would be that there is some kind of solid evidence out there, it's just no available to the public yet, which is probably why you never saw it out there.

Well, I figure if a couple of sites are reporting it, whether they are fan sites or not, they are obviously getting this information from somewhere. I wouldn't imagine two different sites would boast the same lie.

Unless, say, one site got it from another and so forth.

Would like to hear her in the movie, though.

SpringHeelJack wrote:Unless, say, one site got it from another and so forth.

Would like to hear her in the movie, though.

True. But, I love Angie Bassett, so I'm hoping all this talk didn't come from nowhere.

I really wish this movie would spark another Disney Renaissance! Does anyone think we will be fortunate enough to experience another Golden Age of Disney Animation ? It definitely is possible but if people don't go to the theatres then I guess all future animation (excluding Direct-To-Video movies) from Disney would be CGI? I don't even watch the CGI films.

It fits the bill for what's needed to start a golden age (a princess movie) so I can see it happening. I'm just worried that people won't be willing to embrace 2D by fall '09. 2D > 3D and always will be as far as I'm concerned, but I already have friends who scoff at me for watching 2D movies. They say they suck just because they aren't 3D... Morons.

I totally agree that 2D is better then 3D but maybe that's just because I grew up watching the 2D films. I can't believe your friends think 3D is better! Anyone who grew up watching The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King, Pocahontas, etc.... must be dying for another Golden Age of 2D animation from Disney, I know I am.