DVDizzy Forum

PatrickvD wrote:To me the eyes on Christopher Robin make sense seeing as he is human and not a stuffed animal lie Pooh and the gang. I'm not sure if Doug was aware of that.

I was thinking the same thing. He should look a little different since he is not a toy. And, it was interesting how he always expressed a dislike for the sketchy xerography look, yet in the new Pooh he says it needs more of that.

Yay! Yet another person who noticed Disney adapted Tangled’s story differently than it’s past fairy tales! He says “it’s not exactly like the original” when he never said that about the others before! Of course I would notice him doing that.

Super Aurora wrote:(Aurora not pretty?? wtf?)

He only said he didn't find her that pretty. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and he probably prefers other kinds of women.

About the reviewing:, him glossing over parts of the films is another showing of how he felt about those parts of the movie…understand?

About the Maurice plot hole: Maurice leaves his house when it’s snowing. And it’s still snowing in the mirror when she sees him. So, doesn’t that mean he could have only been lost for days? That would also mean Belle and the Beast were only together for days, too, but some people in real life really do fall in love quickly. I mean, when someone’s meant for you…after only a few dates you think they could possibly be the someone for you.

Goliath the animation can be considered poor in some parts in some technical ways, but when people talk about how great the animation is they are usually referring to the design and the movement that make such grand, beautiful images and feelings, which the film does. For instance, if Belle was off-model during the ballroom dance or the castle wasn’t drawn as well as it was in a previous scene, that’s not the point, the point is how wonderful the idea and movement of the ballroom scene is and what it represents as well as how cool that castle is, etc. Because that's the point, that what things they animate in the film are some of the best most breathtaking things, in such flowing movement or with nice touches like the rosey blush in Belle's cheeks or the shading. It is this that makes it good animation and that is most important.

Belle and the Beast do have a convincing relationship, but it is natural you might choose not to be convinced since people can purposely choose not to buy into something that is popular as you, I'd say, like to do. You may not remember everything in the film so well, but what happened is when Belle was caught in the West Wing, the Beast set “GET OUT!” This could have just meant for her to get out of his room, or it could have meant for her to get out of his castle forever. When I was younger, I thought it was the latter, and to this day I do, which makes Belle’s line “Promise or no promise, I’m leaving”, rather redundant, but I thought she just didn’t understand that the Beast was telling her to get the F out of his life. He doesn’t try to stop her from leaving. At all. But he knew wolves were out there. It is very likely he’s not trying to save his possession, but is saving this girl who he told to leave him but who he also he knows would be in trouble out there. He then looks sadly at her and falls to the ground. This look, with his saving action, makes her see he both has some care in him and also can be weak.

So she heals him. In this scene, the two actually have a discussion. They discuss their actions that led to this scene and even blame each other in a fight (you know, like "real couples" do!), but Belle turns out to be right and the Best acknowledges it, or at least shuts up. He actually lets someone shut him up. After her care for him from his care for her, and her being the first person to speak to him like an adult in a real discussion, yea, there really is something there building. Then of course she sees he’s even kinder than she thought, and they even have fun together, and even like doing the same activities, and knowing each other’s interests (well, at least Belle's. It would be nice to know the Beast’s, but it seems he had books in his room he used to read?), you see Belle finds comfort in the Beast, so yes, it’s all pretty believable that they are falling in real love. Disney animated movies are always telling things quicker than most live-action movies, and you believe them, but you say you have a problem with this one, when your only complaint left is that it’s too quick when every Disney movie has to do things rather quickly.

I’d have to see The Rescuers again but I recall finding Bianca to…seem like she didn’t care about Bernard. Like she was so fast and fabulous and he was trying to keep up. It didn’t feel very romantic or loving to me…BUT like I said I will see it again some day.

As for Belle’s character, she establishes herself and personality before the Best comes on scene. It really is clear what she wants: She wants the kinds of adventures and grand lives she reads in her books. And then in the end, she gets exactly that. If you compare her to Ariel, they are actually extremely alike. Ariel wants to be part of the human world, but she doesn’t know how and the only thing she can do for it is see it from afar and collect things related to it. Belle wants an adventure but doesn’t know how to get it and collects books which are related to it. But she also has a father who she has to take care of, which Ariel does not have the burden of. Unlike Ariel she was more thoughtful of others in addition to her own desires. And Belle only stayed in the castle as part of her promise and because the castle was actually partly what she desired, hence her exploring. And she only went back because the Beast was weak and hurt and she had a heart, if the Beast ever got very bad, she would have left as she showed previously.

Goliath wrote:The ending, with Triton turning Ariel human and Ariel hugging her father, really shows how they both have grown and have gotten to understand each other. You don't find such character development in BatB.

Yea you do. In Belle and the Beast growing to understand each other!

Goliath wrote:It's the goody-goody, perfect characters like Cinderella and Aurora who are boring (that's why they need so many supporting characters to keep their movies interesting).

No the reason there are so many supporting characters is because the human leads are always hardest to draw than any of the supporting characters.

Goliath wrote:Like you said, Belle and Mulan do the things they do for their fathers; Tiana does her things to open up a restaurant; Snow White, Cinderella and Aurora do nothing at all. But Ariel does everything she does to make her own wishes come true.

Actually Snow White did things like worked for the Queen, ran away from danger, took care of the dwarfs’ cottage in order to stay there, and wished in a well to try and get her wish, Cinderella worked for her stepfamily, saved mice to be her allies, tried to get her chores and dress done for the ball, helped the mice let her out of her room, and believed in her dreams to try and make them to come true, and Aurora…well she was a good girl for her aunts and apparently tried was going to try and get them to let her be with the man she met in the woods, but that’s what Mary Costa supposed?

I will admit Lazario at first I thought you had a good point about the Beast not needing to keep prisoners, but he did have people trespass on his property. The only thing that is perhaps a problem is I never understood how Belle taking her father’s place would make sense to the Beast. He was mad at her father, not her. I never got that. Unless it’s about him finding someone just to take his anger out on, to feel like there was justice. I get that, it’s just still weird.

As for Belle’s emotional state being ignored…you say her life was over but what life? She was looking for something adventurous and she chose, willingly, her own fate. In a way she accepted living with a Beast in a castle over the boring provincial life she had back home. The Beast also was not going to kill anyone, otherwise Maurice would have been dead, so this, and the way he talked to her in the beginning, at least gave her an inkling that things might be okay, not ideal, but alright. And there is even this third idea – if I was her, I’d probably be thinking of how I would escape as soon as I figured out enough of the place. But the film doesn’t indicate that she was doing that, so, that one probably doesn’t count. I just mean…maybe she wasn’t thinking her life would be over forever, either she’d have an okay life there that could get better, or she may escape some day.

Personally, I believe Beast exchanged Belle for Maurice for the simple fact that she was a woman and he thought he could use her as a way of getting his human form back. That’s why he says, “You!” but then stops as if he’s thinking that maybe he could use her to break the spell. Also, in part, I think he was surprised someone would do that for another person, considering at that moment in the film he’s supposed to be entirely isolated and self-centered. I think, in large part, that’s why Belle and Beast can’t have a real romance until he lets her go at the end of the film, to show he’s no longer using her just as a means to his own satisfaction--that he actually loves her for her, and wants her to be happy.

Also, I'm sure Beast wouldn't have killed Maurice with his own hands, but I don't think he would've cared if he died in the dungeon. He was a villain at the beginning.

Disney Duster wrote:Yay! Yet another person who noticed Disney adapted Tangled’s story differently than it’s past fairy tales! He says “it’s not exactly like the original” when he never said that about the others before! Of course I would notice him doing that.

But he said the changes were improvements...when he said that it's not like the original story, he wasn't using that as a criticism...

Anyway, I mostly agree with Doug on the last films reviewed in Disneycember, especially with Tarzan. I haven't seen Princess and the Frog in a while so I can't accurately compare my view with his (it's probably changed anyway), but with Tangled, I agree whole-heartedly that the story is excellent, but Maximus isn't as good as Doug thinks and the voice talents aren't as distracting as he thinks. Personally, I think the biggest flaw with Tangled is some of the somewhat 'modern' touches and the hit-and-miss jokes (some of Flynn's dialogue is particularly cringe-worthy).

The original story of Rapunzel is stupid.

There. I said it.

Tangled however is an instant Disney classic.


THE END

We all know it's not over, just thought I'd give it a try.

DisneyDuster wrote:Yay! Yet another person who noticed Disney adapted Tangled’s story differently than it’s past fairy tales! He says “it’s not exactly like the original” when he never said that about the others before! Of course I would notice him doing that.

For one thing he says that the story for Tangled is brilliant. Secondly he says "this is the classic retelling of a fairy tale that Disney used to do best". Finally he says that "not only are the changes creative but that half of the time, they're brilliant". So I wouldn't say he agrees with your criticisms of this particular film.

One thing I disagree with him on is the voice acting in Tangled; I though it was excellent, particularly Zachary Levi, but he says that the performances felt too forced. That being said, Mandy Moore isn't that well known here in the UK so I didn't really associate her with Rapunzel's voice. I do agree with him about the music in Tangled; I didn't think the songs were as good as some others seemed to think and preferred those in Princess and the Frog.

Dr Frankenollie wrote: Personally, I think the biggest flaw with Tangled is some of the somewhat 'modern' touches and the hit-and-miss jokes (some of Flynn's dialogue is particularly cringe-worthy).

I agree. Flynn's voice-over at the beginning and the ending hurts those segments, imo.

I forgot to add, I think in The Lion King the message of owning up to what you did still is there because none of the happy ending would have happened if Simba didn't go back to own up! However, I do admit they should have shown forgiveness of what he did and backed him up before they found out he didn't do it, so the film has the message, it just doesn't tell it well!

I am also so glad he pointed out Lady and the Tramp, 101 Dalmatians, and The Jungle Book just aren't as good as the other Disney films and are kind of boring. And I'm also glad he pointed out Enchanted drew way too much attention to the stereotypes they were flipping and that maybe Disney shouldn't have satirized its classic movies in the manner the film did. He didn't exactly say that but that's along his lines.

Disney's Divinity, I know the Beast kept her because she could break the spell. What I meant was it didn't make sense to an outside person, like Belle, who wouldn't know about the spell. Also, I think when he asks "Belle, are you happy here?" it's enough, but I will admit now I finally see why letting her go really helps their relationship instead of hurts it. Thanks for that illumination.

About Doug's comments on Tangled's story: Yes, I know Doug said all those other things and I know that he didn't mean it that it wasn't like the original as a criticism. What I meant is that it still stands that he said "it isn't exactly like the original" in only this review, meaning he noticed Disney did something different this time around, unlike Disney stories of the past.

Furthermore, all of the changes he mentioned being brillaint - I AGREE THEY ARE BRILLIANT! The changes he DIDN'T mention as being good are the ones I have a problem with, that of Rapunzel being a born princess and Flynn being a theif, as those don't have anything to do with "a reason to grow her hair long, a reason to keep her in the tower, a reason for music". Though it also shows he didn't see that in the original story there was a reason to lock her in the tower and that was because she hit puberty and the witch wanted to keep her to herself and perhaps even protect her from men.

Disney's Divinity wrote:I agree. Flynn's voice-over at the beginning and the ending hurts those segments, imo.

Definitely; I initially liked the moment when Mother Gothel become younger in the prologue, with the eerie song being great. However, Flynn has to ruin it by saying "Creepy, right?" Really Flynn? Thanks for telling us! We wouldn't have realised or acknowledged that ourselves!

Disney Duster wrote:The changes he DIDN'T mention as being good are the ones I have a problem with, that of Rapunzel being a born princess and Flynn being a theif,

But...but WHY?! I'm sure I've asked you this over three dozen fucking times, but for Christ's sake, as you agree that some of the other changes are brilliant, you can't dislike these changes for simply being changes, so why don't you like them? Is it because Walt wouldn't have liked a heroine being born a princess and a hero being a thief (or in Duster-speak, a "theif") if they weren't like that in the original story?

I may post some comments on the other film reviews but there are some thoughts on 3 of the last movies he reviewed:

I really LOVE Lilo & Stitch, I watched it, some songs are awesome, like Hawaiian Roller Coaster Ride, and Doug made me see that the characters, specially the human ones, are that interesting because they where really well done! I didn't think that much about that until now but that is so true.

Enchanted is not just a parody but also a good homage, Jodi Benson (Ariel) appears as robert's secretary, Paige O'hara (Belle) appears as a soap opera actress when they turn on the TV (while the theme of Beauty And The Beast can be heard) and even the voice actress of mulan makes an appearance as a pregnant woman, also a lot of scenes (the vals scene is almost the same from the famous BATB dance) and so on.

There is a song in Tangled that I liked a lot, its called Healing Incantation, its hinted twice at the beginning of the movie, but it lacks the power of the hand healing scene, on witch I said, "Ok, they finally got the trademarked Disney intensity on the songs!" to this day it gives me chills, so...magical and dramatic, its a really good brief moment in the movie when you say, as Doug pointed out, that they have all the ingredients to make an instant classic again, they are just not there yet. On my personal point of view, right now they are like when they made Basil of Baker Street or Oliver & Co, if they try hard, the next movie they do will be a classic, lets hope it is a 2D flick then!

In a general note, I like a lot how Doug thinks and how he explains his opinions about what he likes or he doesn't like, thats why I like Disneycember in particular and TGWTG, also because we are about the same age, and despite of being from different countries, on certain aspects we have the same childhood memories.

Disney Duster wrote:And I'm also glad he pointed out Enchanted drew way too much attention to the stereotypes they were flipping and that maybe Disney shouldn't have satirized its classic movies in the manner the film did. He didn't exactly say that but that's along his lines.

The problem with Enchanted is that, in the end, it did everything it so cleverly satirized earlier in the movie. The film mocked the idea of giving up everything for someone who you've just met a couple of days; it mocked 'love at first sight'; it satirized the happily-ever-after formula... but ultimately , it does all that in its own film! Giselle falls for Robert after only a few days; Robert breaks up with his girlfriend of five years and breaks off his planned marriage to be with a girl he has known for two or three days; and Robert is the 'prince' who can awaken Giselle with his kiss. Which completely renders everything that went before it meaningless! The film doesn't know what it wants to be, a fairytale or a satire of one.

Disney Duster wrote:[...] meaning he noticed Disney did something different this time around, unlike Disney stories of the past.

Except for The Jungle Book, Pinocchio, Sleeping Beauty, Bambi, The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Pocahontas and 101 Dalmatians, you mean.

I wanted to slam you for all the other things you said on this page in the thread, but I just don't have the energy. Just thought I'd let you know.

Goliath wrote: The problem with Enchanted is that, in the end, it did everything it so cleverly satirized earlier in the movie. The film mocked the idea of giving up everything for someone who you've just met a couple of days; it mocked 'love at first sight'; it satirized the happily-ever-after formula... but ultimately , it does all that in its own film! Giselle falls for Robert after only a few days; Robert breaks up with his girlfriend of five years and breaks off his planned marriage to be with a girl he has known for two or three days; and Robert is the 'prince' who can awaken Giselle with his kiss. Which completely renders everything that went before it meaningless! The film doesn't know what it wants to be, a fairytale or a satire of one.

I don't know if it is exactly clever, since the whole thing just bases its jokes on lampshade hanging, they are aware that we are aware that they are aware that those tropes are silly nowadays. But in a way is much more of a reconstruction of said tropes, that many movies like Shrek deconstructed, in a much clever manner, in the past. In a way I don't blame Disney for not going in a completely different route, but at the same time is a real shame they didn't take a good chance to at least try.

As for the whole thing of the actors not really blending with their characters, I can see why he would think that about Zachary Levy and Mandy Moore, I personally didn't feel it since while I know who they are, I'm not very familiar with their work, I'm a really surprised Doug didn't talk much about Mother Gothel, considering she's a fun villain, if not as complex as everybody likes to think she is.

I know I was surprised he didn't mention Gothel. I wish he talked alittle bit about her and Rapunzel's relationship. The only problem with Tangled is as others have said the "modern touches" that aren't in other classics like The Little Mermaid or Beauty and the Beast and the songs aren't as memorable except for Mother Knows Best and the Incanitation.

Goliath wrote:The problem with Enchanted is that, in the end, it did everything it so cleverly satirized earlier in the movie. The film mocked the idea of giving up everything for someone who you've just met a couple of days; it mocked 'love at first sight'; it satirized the happily-ever-after formula... but ultimately , it does all that in its own film! Giselle falls for Robert after only a few days; Robert breaks up with his girlfriend of five years and breaks off his planned marriage to be with a girl he has known for two or three days; and Robert is the 'prince' who can awaken Giselle with his kiss. Which completely renders everything that went before it meaningless! The film doesn't know what it wants to be, a fairytale or a satire of one.

That can sort of be considered another problem...but that's sort of the opposite of what I think they should have done. In fact, them falling in love so quickly is one thing I odn't have a problem with. If you're a company that has made itself on the foundation of love at first sight that lasts forever...stick by it, don't say "we were stupid back then! Our old movies were stupid and wrong!"

Goliath wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:[...] meaning he noticed Disney did something different this time around, unlike Disney stories of the past.

Except for The Jungle Book, Pinocchio, Sleeping Beauty, Bambi, The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Pocahontas and 101 Dalmatians, you mean.

I wanted to slam you for all the other things you said on this page in the thread, but I just don't have the energy. Just thought I'd let you know.

No. Generalizing is not debating, Goliath. If you really think those movies are changed the same way Tangled was, you must prove it. You must prove that in those films magical beings were changed to ordinary and royal statuses were reversed. Because then that would be the like Tangled.

And I don't know why you'd want to "slam me" for anything, but if I got you really angry or something I'm sorry. : (

Disney Duster wrote: No. Generalizing is not debating, Goliath. If you really think those movies are changed the same way Tangled was, you must prove it.

We have proved it before. MULTIPLE TIMES! You just don't listen.

Disney Duster wrote:You must prove that in those films magical beings were changed to ordinary and royal statuses were reversed. Because then that would be the like Tangled.
(

Again changes like that is no special and radically different than the ones we explained in those movies Goliath listed.

Bottom line, you just don't like the changes in Rapunzel as oppose the others that Goliath listed.

What we keep wondering and don't understand is why that particular change you keep coming back to always bother you so so much.

As I said before, in the end, they both end up as legitimate prince and princess just like in the original. Only different is the social status of the two in the beginning of the film is switch (royal/rich and poor). To us we don't bother about it as the 1:
The movie as a whole was entertaining and felt to us as a real Disney film.
and 2:
changes like that doesn't seems to bother or affect the story all that much and the core essence of it [Long hair girl gets isolated in a tower but "rescued" by adventurous man(whether prince or thief) and in the end live happy ever after]


It's same deal with Hunchback. Not a fairytale nor was made during Walt's time, but still classic turned to Disney film. There are so many changes including changing one's character status background(Frollo's) that you complain much about in Rapunzel-- and yet despite those radical changes, unless you are book purist nut, many of us love the story in the movie anyway and still enjoy it as it gave us a new perspective and teaching through the story.

DisneyDuster wrote:You must prove that in those films magical beings were changed to ordinary and royal statuses were reversed. Because then that would be the like Tangled.

This is a perfect example for me of why people get so frustrated with you and disagree with you so strongly. So the technicality you've added now is Tangled counts more than other films because royal and magical characters were changed? I don't know if I've even seen someone have such a strong agenda against a particular film.

SuperAurora wrote:We have proved it before. MULTIPLE TIMES! You just don't listen.

Exactly. To be honest, I think it is you Disney Duster who has failed to really prove anything, otherwise would so many people still be disagreeing with you after all this time? I accept you have issues with Tangled, what I don't accept is your baseless accusations that the film committed some horrible act in changing certain elements of the original story when so many other classic Disney films have done the same.

Disney Duster wrote: That can sort of be considered another problem...but that's sort of the opposite of what I think they should have done. In fact, them falling in love so quickly is one thing I odn't have a problem with. If you're a company that has made itself on the foundation of love at first sight that lasts forever...stick by it, don't say "we were stupid back then! Our old movies were stupid and wrong!"

Then what about the characters that didn't fall in love at first sight, like Belle and Beast, Mulan and Shang, Tarzan and Jane, Milo and Kida, Rapunzel and Flynn/Eugene? Deconstructing a trope is not a bad thing, I think they should have tried go with the route of seeing what makes true love work, Gisselle's song is called after all "True Love's Kiss", not "Love at First Sight" (Kylie Minogue beat her to it).

Disney Duster wrote:No. Generalizing is not debating, Goliath. If you really think those movies are changed the same way Tangled was, you must prove it. You must prove that in those films magical beings were changed to ordinary and royal statuses were reversed. Because then that would be the like Tangled.

People has proved it, repeteadly, you're the one who's chosing to ignore the arguments, kinda like how your tried to use a single quote in the review of Tangled to support you're argument, discarding everything that was said, and somehow forgetting that said video was available to, well, EVERYBODY, to correct you on it.

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:I don't know if I've even seen someone have such a strong agenda against a particular film.

I don't really think he has an agenda against the film. He actually likes it, from what I can tell. Though I consider that more strange.

Perhaps I shouldn't have said against the film itself but I just don't understand the relentless critisicm of the changes and Disney Duster's decision to excuse the changes made in other films or his coming up with some sort of technicality to justify them. If you don't like the changes, fine, but saying that the reason for that is because they're not like the changes Disney has made before is ridiculous in my opinion, especially when you consider the way stories like The Jungle Book, The Little Mermaid and The Hunchback of Notre Dame were adapted by Disney. Anyway, I'm taking myself out of this particular debate after my little rant because I don't want to derail this thread any further into another "Disney Essence" argument.

Disney Duster derails threads by bringing them off-topic, acts like he has not heard the arguments against his points frequently put forward by others, and continues to bring up ridiculous points even though they have been proven to be invalid and nonsensical. Why can't he just be banned?