DVDizzy Forum

I don’t consider this any more off-topic than the B&tB/TLM rants that took up 2-3 pages of this thread.

Besides, if you already know the circle goes round why do you keep riding? You could just take any Disney Essence debate to the Disney Essence thread. His original post was in response to the Disneycember reviews.

Dr Frankenollie wrote: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?

You want to ban one of your listed "UD's Big Three?"

Disney's Divinity wrote:Besides, if you already know the circle goes round why do you keep riding? You could just take any Disney Essence debate to the Disney Essence thread.

Pretty much. If you honestly get that frustrated by the debate, just walk away. There's nothing forcing you to continue aside from your desire to prove him wrong and get in the last word. I don't understand all of Duster's criticisms either but as long as he's not making personal attacks, he's welcome to expressing his opinions. I personally won't get overly-involved in certain types of conversations around here as it became obvious long ago that they just don't go anywhere.

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.

I.

have.

done.

that.

already.

so.

many.

times.

it's.

not.

even.

funny.

anymore.

Disney Duster wrote:You must prove that in those films magical beings were changed to ordinary and royal statuses were reversed.

No.

Because change = change, even if it doesn't involve any goddamn fucking royalty, okay?????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

For the same reason he was sooooo upset over "foul-mouthed" Sarah Silverman in Brave, but thought Robin Williams and Eddie Murphy were perfectly fine as Genie and Mushu:

because everything from the Walt-era and the 1990's has nostalgic value for Disney Duster... and everything that came *after* it -I mean, literally EVERYTHING, is deemed unworthy by him and he will make up PHONY reasons for it, rather than admitting this. I've pointed this out a few times already.

enigmawing wrote:If you honestly get that frustrated by the debate, just walk away. There's nothing forcing you to continue aside from your desire to prove him wrong and get in the last word. I don't understand all of Duster's criticisms either but as long as he's not making personal attacks, he's welcome to expressing his opinions. I personally won't get overly-involved in certain types of conversations around here as it became obvious long ago that they just don't go anywhere.

^This.

I really liked the Disneycember series (although I like Doug and his Nostalgia Critic work in general). There were plenty of things I disagreed with him on (Aristocats is one of my favourites, while Home on the Range hinted that he finds it one of the worst, though he never said it in the actual Aristocats review, for example), but he gave concise reasons as to exactly why he liked or disliked the film in question, so it was interesting to hear his thoughs on the Disney Animated Canon. I did think he tended to dwell more on the negative than the positive on the whole, but that's how I find all opinion pieces go anyway, even if you like something on the whole.

Thanks for the defense Divinity, Enigma, and sotiris. : ) Random question enigmawing did you always want to make your username with a captial E but you didn't for some reason?

I am not going to talk about the Disney Essence stuff here. The only thing I will say is you guys are being really negative toward me and are not sounding very understanding. I don't make up technicalities, I am trying to find the right way to say what I'm talking about and finally get you to understand, and correct any wrong way I previously said something. But this isn't the place to do it.

Oh, but about Hunchback, if a judge is very very different from a priest's position, then I do think they should have kept him a priest. But it seems to be a position of high power that causes judgement on others and all the things he was able to do in the book, right? Also, it's not a status you can be born into like prince or peasant. I'm sure you'll ask why that matters but, it has to do with how you're born...well, this is not the place for that, I'll get to the other thread someday soon.

And yea I like a lot of Tangled but I just can't fully enjoy the film with what glares out to me everytime as wrong and un-Disney. I just can't. Even when I want to. I like singing Rapunzel's song...that's about as far as I get. It makes me sad.

Dream Huntress, yea, those Disney movies you listed weren't saying their past ideas of love at first sight were stupid. But Enchanted was implying it was. As well as implying a lot of other things about Disney's old films were stupid. And unrealistic. When the artists in Walt's days always wanted his fairy tales to have people to seem like real people, just in fantasy worlds.

Disney Duster wrote:I thought you had a good point about the Beast not needing to keep prisoners, but he did have people trespass on his property.

...And your point was?

The problem here, as well you should know / remember if you saw the film, is that this act by the Beast doesn't make him any more sympathetic. The movie can't have it both ways just because that's Disney's formula to give audiences the idea that they're sitting through something heavy when in reality, it's light as a feather. Either the fact that he made a huge mistake when he insulted the Enchantress must make him genuinely mindful of the fact that he's been a douchebag (the kind of thing he needs to keep in mind when, I dunno, he thinks to TAKE prisoners in the first place) and that now he must change his ways, or he's an extreme asshole beyond all reproach and when he actually takes someone prisoner, he won't soften up 30 seconds later. After the Family Cinematic Dramatic Arc formula has kicked in. I know it sounds like I'm the one being inflexible but we are talking about some semblance of believability here. Since people claim this is a well-told story, it should be believable. At the very least, we're talking about the biggest problem of the whole movie: Why Should We Care About the Beast At All? Whether you accept that he's internally conflicted with this situation to even the smallest degree, the movie never provides us with a single thing to make us care about him. At any point during this KEY event in the story. We can't just go "oh, he's mean" and then soon as his face shows a sign of vulnerability go, "oh, he's not so bad after all. We mustn't misjudge him." That's the kind of pattern an abuse victim who isn't "ready" to break the cycle exhibits. I know, I've seen it.

Disney Duster wrote: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.

You think character actions and motivations make sense in a Disney film?

Disney Duster wrote: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.

The father was bait to lure the girl in. By Disney, it had nothing to do with the characters. Maybe this dates back to the original story, but I've got my eye on Disney and they had the idea to make this screwed up story in the first place. So since it's their project now, I'm pointing the finger at them.

Disney Duster wrote: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.

Newsflash: the whole movie was boring. What the audience took away from the absurd, shallow story and the dramatic stakes they felt were present were self-made inventions. The movie didn't have any of that weight. The people saw that / created it themselves.

Disney Duster wrote: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.

You're scaring me now.

Disney Duster wrote:I will admit Lazario at first I thought you had a good point

Well, actually, since nobody here is going to read what I said as being anything other than my opinion- I not only had a good point, my whole argument was flawless.

Disney Duster wrote:The only thing that is perhaps a problem

In your opinion.

Look: it's impossible for me to watch this situation unfolding as it was written and accept the roles these characters fit into after the story's introduction to them. You tell me then why the story set Belle up as an independent, free-thinking woman only to enslave her to then become the key a man would then turn to get his looks back? Oh, but wait, you're going to tell me she got something out of the deal as well- right? "Sorry about the whole nearly dooming your father to death and making you my slave without the possibility of granting you freedom again. Here's a library. Better?" The only way anyone can rationalize this is to say that she wanted ALL the conditions this scenario came with because she was so mixed up in her stories that she couldn't tell reality from fiction anymore. Which betrays every conflict she has with Gaston in which suddenly, in certain situations (an unfortunate pattern with this movie), she has an opinion about the way she's being treated as a woman. With Gaston- she's outright offended by the sexist terms of their would-be relationship. With Beast- she's enchanted. WHAT THE...

Surely, even you can't deny this whole thing is fishy when you consider it wouldn't even be happening if this weren't a freaking period piece set in an era where women seemingly couldn't make their own living. The whole idea that women are sold into marriage in the first place makes Disney's decision to give Belle a modern attitude pointless. No matter what she did, she would have ended up living in some guy's servitude at some point. That's what the dang movie's about anyway- that her ambition and drive meant nothing. She wanted adventure but even then, she just waited until someone else threw a life or death situation in her lap. Unlike Ariel- thank you very much (if that's basically what Goliath has been arguing, he was right); at least girl got out on her own to find what she wanted. That freaking horse came and escourted Belle to her little destiny, all she had to do was a little walking and be scared by wolves. Big fat, hairy deal (in the immortal words of Garfield). The horse did all the hard stuff.

Disney Duster wrote:Random question enigmawing did you always want to make your username with a captial E but you didn't for some reason?

I'm not sure why I went with the lowercase "e," it's been several years now but I guess it just felt right at the time. Which is rather odd considering that I often shorten my user name to just a capital "E" and that I also sign the name as two separate words, both capitalized. I guess I still stick with the lowercase "e" out of habit whenever I type it out.

Lazario wrote:Newsflash: the whole movie was boring. What the audience took away from the absurd, shallow story and the dramatic stakes they felt were present were self-made inventions. The movie didn't have any of that weight. The people saw that / created it themselves.

Newsflash: That's your opinion, other people think differently.

The reason I don't simply stop reading and replying to Duster's stupid responses is because simply 'walking away' from the argument wouldn't satisfy me. I would still know that Duster would continue being nonsensical and continue disliking parts of Tangled for ridiculous reasons, and that is irritating; I can respect different opinions, but when the reasons for a particular opinion make little to no sense, I can't help but point it out.

Furthermore, Duster's arguments are so silly that they're hilarious, and part of me wants Duster to like Tangled, because I think his mindset is stopping him from enjoying things he might like otherwise. I'm not often extremely frustrated with him, and sometimes replying to him is fun. Therefore, I don't see why I should leave the debate.

Disney Duster wrote:Also, it's not a status you can be born into like prince or peasant. I'm sure you'll ask why that matters but, it has to do with how you're born...well, this is not the place for that, I'll get to the other thread someday soon.

You thought this was the right thread to reply about Frollo's status, but not explain why his change in status makes any difference to Rapunzel's or Flynn's?

Dream Huntress wrote:Newsflash: That's your opinion, other people think differently.

Don't come knocking on my door looking for attention. Go back to bickering with Goliath if you want to play.

(I know that sounds rude but who exactly do you think you are? If you had eyes, you could see that I was talking to Duster and everything I said to him was in context. You can't just come in, take me out of context, and lecture me because you want to look like competition for UD's big gun, Goliath. Sorry to burst your bubble but you're never going to be him. Now- on your bike.)

Lazario wrote:

Dream Huntress wrote:Newsflash: That's your opinion, other people think differently.

Don't come knocking on my door looking for attention. Go back to bickering with Goliath if you want to play.

(I know that sounds rude but who exactly do you think you are? If you had eyes, you could see that I was talking to Duster and everything I said to him was in context. You can't just come in, take me out of context, and lecture me because you want to look like competition for UD's big gun, Goliath. Sorry to burst your bubble but you're never going to be him. Now- on your bike.)

Wait, what? When did this became a competition? Is there a prize? Why I wasn't told about it? Do you get a golden star? Or a banner that says "Disney's Most Hardcore Fan on the Internet" and two tickets for the next D23 convention?

But hey, if you do feel like I butted in a private argument in a public forum, I apologize, it won't happen again.

Disney Duster wrote: Oh, but about Hunchback, if a judge is very very different from a priest's position, then I do think they should have kept him a priest. But it seems to be a position of high power that causes judgement on others and all the things he was able to do in the book, right? Also, it's not a status you can be born into like prince or peasant. I'm sure you'll ask why that matters but, it has to do with how you're born...well, this is not the place for that, I'll get to the other thread someday soon.

A judge is VERY different from an archdeacon(which is what he was in the book) Back in that time period Late medieval/early renaissance era, a religious figure in Catholic hierarchy had A LOT of power some ways even more than a king(like cardinals or Pope).

Frollo's position in this movie was that akin to local ruler or such. Even though politically, Frollo(judge) rules that city state, a high member of the church can override his rulings if they wanted to and use "excommunication" on them if they want.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:The reason I don't simply stop reading and replying to Duster's stupid responses is because simply 'walking away' from the argument wouldn't satisfy me. I would still know that Duster would continue being nonsensical and continue disliking parts of Tangled for ridiculous reasons, and that is irritating; I can respect different opinions, but when the reasons for a particular opinion make little to no sense, I can't help but point it out.

You will never make Duster 'understand' no matter what you say or do. It's utterly pointless.

Dream Huntress wrote:Is there a prize?

Of course there is. Give your house a vaccuum and tell me you didn't find something that made you smile. Just think: "that's for me and no one else." And hug it. Like it's the last (penny, balled up pair of socks, moldy, crystalized, green festering dead battery) on the planet's surface.

Dream Huntress wrote:But hey, if you do feel like I butted in a private argument in a public forum, I apologize, it won't happen again.

Okay... you clearly have a problem and I'm not being paid to take any of your shit.

The point was (and let's see if you can follow): I was talking to someone else, about something. You had nothing to add. But you thought you could just interrupt, give attitude because you're desperate to start something or whine (in the form of an admittedly assertive-looking front) because you don't like anyone saying anything negative about Beauty and the Beast, and piss me off (which you certainly did mindfully, not by accident as you seem to be playing this)... even though I've stayed competely out of your business.

Either way, again: on your bike, troll.

If you want to talk about the movie, we'll talk. If not, get lost.

Oh, lord...! There are so many things wrong with this thread right now.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:The reason I don't simply stop reading and replying to Duster's stupid responses is because simply 'walking away' from the argument wouldn't satisfy me. I would still know that Duster would continue being nonsensical and continue disliking parts of Tangled for ridiculous reasons, and that is irritating; I can respect different opinions, but when the reasons for a particular opinion make little to no sense, I can't help but point it out.

Furthermore, Duster's arguments are so silly that they're hilarious, and part of me wants Duster to like Tangled, because I think his mindset is stopping him from enjoying things he might like otherwise. I'm not often extremely frustrated with him, and sometimes replying to him is fun. Therefore, I don't see why I should leave the debate.

Sure, you're free to argue, debate, disagree, point out whatever you feel is a flaw . . . but being "irritated" by another member is no reason to suggest banning them. What I was saying earlier is that if you seriously get irritated enough to claim that someone needs to be banned over expressing an opinion (that's not hate-speech or a personal attack), you simply need to walk away.

I believe the mods have also made it clear in the past that it's inappropriate to discuss why other members should supposedly get banned. If there is an issue happening that you feel is deserving of disciplinary action, discuss it privately with the admins rather than dragging it out here.

Dr. Frankenollie and Super Aurora, then what it is is this: a judge is kind of close to and at least not the opposite of an archdeacon like a peasant or thief is the opposite of royalty; you can not be born into being either of those things as a status like you can a peasant or royalty; an archdeacon and a priest are jobs whereas being a peasant or royalty are statuses of being either high and low wherin in something like Tangled that transformation of the main character's journey of going from high or low as the original story dicated is lost (and I mean high or low born as considered an intrinsic quality in who the character is not just what they are led to falsely believe they are for 18 years); and Disney always makes things happier or more family friendly so being mindful of the religious implications of Frollo being an archdeacon makes a lot of sense when looking at what Walt did regarding that in his past films.

Lazario, the Beast doesn't become good 30 seconds later. He is urged to be nice, and he still can't do it until one thing happens which is at least many minutes later, and that thing is having to save Belle from the wolves. It makes sense that that act is the once that forces whatever he has in his heart to act. The rest of the time, the Beast is painted as a character who has a temper and does not think when he is angry, he just acts on how he feels in the moment. He didn't think about his actions. An enchantress cursed him. That could possibly just make him even more mad. It took a person to actually talk to him (with some yelling, as Belle did) for him to change. None of the servants could do it. No one talked to him like a person before. As for capturing Maurice, I think the reason he felt he could do it was because he was really a prince who felt entitled all his life, and royalty was known to and accepted to punish people who offended them. It was almost a standard rule.

But one thing I will admit is that maybe there was a way to correct the awkwardness of Belle asking to take her father's place. The Beast could have asked her. In the original story, the Beast asked the father for one of his daughters to take his place. However, I can now understand how Belle could ask to take his place as a not very sense-making last resort, something desperate the Beast might like.

As for you not caring about the Beast...well I cared about him. It wasn't so much for the kind things he did than the nice way he was that was revealed later, but still I did. If you didn't care for him, that is either just you or you have to name some things that would make you care for him or things other Disney characters had that made you care.

And by the way the original fairy tale was written by a woman to talk about what makes a woman truly happy in a marriage. And it was about choosing. Belle refuses to marry the Beast when he asks her, until she remembers how better a time she had with him than other times in her life. The version the Disney one is based was based on an even earlier one where the heroine says something like "Those men those other girls are forced to marry are worse monsters than the Beast".

Lazario wrote:With Gaston- she's outright offended by the sexist terms of their would-be relationship. With Beast- she's enchanted. WHAT THE...

What sexist terms did the Beast say were going to happen if they had a relationship? If Belle got to spend her time reading in a castle while she had a prince and her father around it's like the life she had before but better. He asked if she was happy with him which indicated he probably wouldn't ask her to do something that made her unhappy. And she was only enchanted when he started being respectful.

I used to be really hard on Beauty and the Beast too but now I've just let it go because I realized I could be hurting fans of the film. It has a lot of good things about it that I can't deny. My main problem with it is really just that it's fans think it has better stuff than other Disney films. But I can always argue that that is where they're wrong and that it's not as great as other Disney films in the canon, and I suggest that be the kind of thing you do, unless you genuinely still have some problems. If you do have some problems, how might you make it better if you did this famous fairy tale for Disney?

Disney's Divinity wrote:Oh, lord...! There are so many things wrong with this thread right now.

No kidding.

enigmawing wrote:

Disney's Divinity wrote:Oh, lord...! There are so many things wrong with this thread right now.

No kidding.

I wish I could kiss both you guys right now.

(Now it's turned creepy. What else can we throw in this pot?)