DVDizzy Forum

I am very happy for Pixar. What is so wrong with branching out and trying new things? Walt would have never gotten anywhere unless he believed in this. Is Disney only supposed to create princess films with cute, singing forest creatures for all eternity? And is Pixar only supposed to create non-musical films with CG fish, monsters, rats and toys? The answer is a big NO. What is so wrong with trying something new? Pixar is great at making films. They know how to produce such wonderful stories. I think this new film is going to be great.

What I don’t like is, holding Pixar and Disney as separate. I’m sorry but they are one. You don’t pay 7.5 billion dollars for something and have it separate itself from you. This is what is happening over at Disney though. Whenever I go into a store I see Pixar characters then Disney characters. I’m sorry, whether it is Buzz, Woody, Aurora, or Pinocchio- their all Disney characters. I don’t like how Pixar purposely distinguishes itself from Disney. They’re both one company.

Now I’m really starting to have a problem with the Disney Princess line. It seems that Disney, especially with The Princess and the Frog, is creating films just to be able to market them. Can you honestly tell me that The Princess and the Frog was not initially thought of as a way of expanding the princess line, and being politically correct? Please, that probably started the whole production. I am glad that Lassater has been so involved in the film though. I now actually see allot of potential for this film. Back to the Princesses, the Disney Princess line is great for Disney. They get megabucks and fans are happy. However, now Disney is pushing our favorite ladies deeper and deeper down our throats, and I’m ready to choke!!! You cannot walk into a store without seeing Disney Princess merchandise somewhere, it’s impossible…impossible! They are everywhere.

Now don’t get me wrong I love the princesses, but enough is enough. Now they’re making Princess baby clothes? Oh my, what’s next…Ariel and Aurora lingerie and sex toys? Don’t put it past Disney Consumer Products. If they see a potential market, it will happen. I also don’t like the fact that Disney is saying Buzz and Lightning McQueen are for boys and Belle and Jasmine are for girls. That bothers me. Your child should be able to like whatever they want. I’m an 18 year old male college student that is currently listening to the Disney Princess Christmas Album on his iPOD.

Disney has also lost all respect for the classic films. This is made evident in the recent release of Disney Princess Enchanted Tales: Follow Your Dreams. While I’m very happy that Disney actually put some effort into this DVD- creating all-new animation, writing (stealing) songs, and making it all pretty, I’m disgusted with their lack of respect for the classic films. By this I mean Aurora from Sleeping Beauty. Not only has she turned into everyone’s preppy 16 year old blonde cheerleader but she gotten dumber and lost her voice. The complete character change bothers me. It’s not like Disney doesn’t have other woman, on their payroll currently recording other Aurora merchandise, who can portray Aurora’s voice in a similar fashion to Mary Costa. That there was obviously a deliberate attempt to change Aurora disgusts me.

This is the perfect example of when a franchise goes bad. Originally the classic Disney characters were being portrayed in the Princess Franchise, now those classic ladies have been taken over by clipart with higher voices and improper coloring. The franchise now has total control, and that is where the damage is caused. Now don’t get me wrong, my family (lots of little girls) and I enjoyed Enchanted Tales and look forward to the future volumes. If the children enjoy seeing their favorite characters act like idiots then I’m happy as long as their happy. Plus Aurora, no matter how much they “fix” her holds a special place in my heart.

Oh, before I forget!!! Escapay, Disney did make a Cinderella broom and dust pan. My sister had it ages ago, and I would steal it and play with it. You just brought back a ton of memories, lol

Too many posts to quote but some issue brought up include:

Sexualising of Disney Princesses/Young Girls

I think this is nonsense really. There's only one Princess who could be classed as "sexualised" and that's Jasmine (and you can add the "non-Princess" Princess Kida, although despite being covered-up more than Kida, Helga was definitely much more sexualised in that film).

Jasmine wears for all-intents and purposes, a bikini. But you know, you see worse on other "role models" today just as appealing to six to eight year olds. And even in the 60's, 70's and 80's you had characters like Jeannie from I Dream of Jeannie or Josie and the Pussycats, She-Ra etc.

You can easily make an argument the Disney Princess line is aggressively over marketed, but it's hardly awakening dormant sexual emotions in young children, and frankly, never will.

Pixar's right to make a Princess Film

Well, fair play to them. Contrary to popular opinion, I don't "hate" Pixar – there's for more important corporations and individuals to actually hate – you know, ones that pollute the environment, trample over human rights or exploit child workers (or for maximum 2099net hatred, all three and more). Pixar just make movies; highly regarded movies by the bulk of the world's population and movie critics. I just wish Pixar would push themselves more. I know I'm going to get bashed for that previous sentence, but really if you ignore Brad Bird, the late-to-the-party Pixar employee, Pixar to date clearly is more about character than story.

Now comes my own point

I dread the idea of an "American" Scottish Princess

This is not a Pixar bash, I would feel the same if Disney, Blue-Sky, Dreamworks or Start-Up-American-Gee-Ain't-CGI-wonderful company announced that they were making a Scottish Princess movie. Because, I fear it will be full of stereotyping, made by people with only a fraction of the understanding of the culture and environment. I would only feel happy if Aardman were making it. Having to endure countless "hilarious" European accents in the Shrek movies, I just can't help but dread this.

Just like every Irish portrayal on film seems to include; green, leprechauns, clovers, drink, over-inflated accents etc. I fear this will involve red hair, tartan, heather, haggis, perhaps the Loch Ness Monster and, oh yes, over-inflated accents.

Then there's the issue of Scotland actually having a Princess. Yes, its not historically inaccurate as such – Scotland had its own monarchy until about 1700, but prior to that (as far as I'm aware) Scotland was greatly conflicted internally or under attack from external forces. Will the film acknowledge this? Will the filmmakers even care? I mean, you would assume that they have a reason for setting the story in Scotland – I hope it's not just so the filmmakers can fly over, take a few snaps of Scottish highlands and castles and then fly back.

Sigh. I probably sound too negative – after all the Australian's seemed to like the Australia in Finding Nemo (but I still thought it was a tad too stereotypical), but the nonsense that is Worcestershire Academy in Shrek the Third is the sort of lame, can't be bothered but is sounds sort of "Britishy" mentality that makes me think the worst. I mean, Worcestershire? Did anybody involved in the movie even bother to look up where it is on a map?

I'd be interested to hear what Yamiiguy thinks of a Scottish Princess.

Escapay-(i"ll just wirte this shortley) you disagree with me? it's allright,but you said it really rudley ("I"m trying not to laught" and etc.),if you were saying it nicley i whouldn't wirte that to you.

Firstly, Netty I would have added Jessica Rabbit to that list of "sexualised" characters as well

Now, I'm going to sum everything up similar to the way 2099net did.

I think Pixar has every right to make whatever kind of film they want, however I think that making a princess movie just to add a new face to the franchise is wrong. The only reason they should do this is first and foremost for the story, what good is a princess if her movie is completley pointless? So as long as the story is good (or sounds good) they should make it, but like I said, not because they need new cannon fodder for the Princess franchise but because it could be a good movie. Of course, I dread to see what kind of villain they come up with, I can't remember the last good villain

I agree with 2099net about the stereotyping, if they actually do go through with this scottish princess movie perhaps they could actually have a scottish person do the voice acting? At least then it wouldn't be someone attempting to do an accent (and perhaps failing horribly). However I do wonder, what the plot would be about......

I also agree with DisneyDuster about the points brought up in the first post, mostly about the marketing/genderizing etc. Too bad they don't have like a bottle of "Disney Dust" for sale that would be neat of course there would be a huge label saying SPRINKLING THIS PRODUCT ON YOU DOES NOT MAKE YOU FLY

Ok while I'm rather off-topic, I would like to address one of PeterPanfans comments about Ariels_Prince. PeterPanFan, not sure if your aware or not (I apologize in advance) but ArielsPrince is from Israle, and may not have English as his 1st language, so you might want to give him some slack in the grammar/spelling department, although I have enough problems with it myself (Sorry ArielsPrince if I'm off base in assuming you aren't fluent with English grammar,spelling etc. )

A quick addition to previous point about stereotyping.

Disney has rarely stereotyped in its films. All of the Princess films (bar Aladdin) are set in Europe, and apart from Lumiere in Beauty and the Beast and the odd "enthusiastic" British voiceover, have done little to press this point. Aladdin set in the Middle East doesn't resort to any stereotypical accents, and neither does Hunchback of Notre Dame set in (obviously) a fully recognisable Paris.

I've not seen Ratatouille - and won't until its out on Home Video over here with an ETA of March 2008 - but I think this does have some French accents in it. Finding Nemo did have Australian accents (from genuine Australians it must be said in its favour) but I do feel Pixar will play up the accents for a Scottish film.

Chernabog_Rocks wrote:Ok while I'm rather off-topic, I would like to address one of PeterPanfans comments about Ariels_Prince. PeterPanFan, not sure if your aware or not (I apologize in advance) but ArielsPrince is from Israle, and may not have English as his 1st language, so you might want to give him some slack in the grammar/spelling department, although I have enough problems with it myself (Sorry ArielsPrince if I'm off base in assuming you aren't fluent with English grammar,spelling etc. )

I"m glad you worte that,thanks .
Anyway,altouhgt i know English well it's not my first launguage.

Oh,well,I assumed you were fluent in English because in some of you're first posts you had decent grammar. English isn't that hard to learn. You know the word meanings,it's just the spelling you could brush up on. Just sound it out and double check spelling. If you sound out "write" it doesn't sound like "Wirite" like you sometimes post. Not being rude at all,just trying to help. =]

C'mon now...I'm sure these movies also make Disney unique

Pinocchio
Fantasia
Dumbo
Bambi
Saludos Amigos
The Three Caballeros
Make Mine Music
Melody Time
Fun and Fancy Free
The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad
Alice in Wonderland
Peter Pan
Lady and the Tramp
101 Dalmations
The Sword in the Stone
The Jungle Book
The Aristocats
Robin Hood
The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh
The Rescuers
The Fox and the Hound
The Black Cauldron
The Great Mouse Detective
Oliver & Company
The Rescuers Down Under
Aladdin
The Lion King
Pocahontas
The Hunchback of Notre Dame
Hercules
Tarzan
Fantasia 2000
The Emperors New Groove
Atlantis The Lost Empire
Lilo and Stitch
Treasure Planet
Brother Bear
Home on the Range
Chicken Little
Meet the Robinsons...

I'm sure these movies help add to the uniqueness of Disney lol...it's not all just about pretty princesses running around (a.k.a the damsels in distress....JUST KIDDDING!!!)

Anyways, I wouldn't really want them to add more Princesses to the line...I dunno I kinda hoped they would stop at Jasmine, as I don't see Pocahontas or Mulan as Disney Princesses...Amazing Characters...maybe not Princesses...that kind of includes Belle too even though I love her aswell. So I don't see why Giselle should be included...mainly cause her movie isn't part of the Walt Disney Feature Animation line up...I can definitely see the new Tiana being added, maybe not Rapunzel...something about 2-D just looks weird next to 3-D.

In any case, I wouldn't mind seeing a Pixar Princess...I think it would be nice to add to their line-up of movies...maybe not part of the Disney Princesses...but a Princess no less...say maybe like 50 years from they're going to have the Pixar Princesses! But I highley doubt that since Disney/Pixar are kinda mashed together now.

jeremy88 wrote:C'mon now...I'm sure these movies also make Disney unique

Pinocchio
Fantasia
Dumbo
Bambi
Saludos Amigos
The Three Caballeros
Make Mine Music
Melody Time
Fun and Fancy Free
The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad
Alice in Wonderland
Peter Pan
Lady and the Tramp
101 Dalmations
The Sword in the Stone
The Jungle Book
The Aristocats
Robin Hood
The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh
The Rescuers
The Fox and the Hound
The Black Cauldron
The Great Mouse Detective
Oliver & Company
The Rescuers Down Under
Aladdin
The Lion King
Pocahontas
The Hunchback of Notre Dame
Hercules
Tarzan
Fantasia 2000
The Emperors New Groove
Atlantis The Lost Empire
Lilo and Stitch
Treasure Planet
Brother Bear
Home on the Range
Chicken Little
Meet the Robinsons...

Not to mention:

The Reluctant Dragon
Victory Through Air Power
Song of the South
So Dear to My Heart
Treasure Island
The Story of Robin Hood and His Merrie Men
The Sword and the Rose
The Living Desert
Rob Roy, The Highland Rogue
The Vanishing Prairie
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
Davy Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier
The African Lion
The Littlest Outlaw
The Great Locomotive Chase
Davy Crockett and the River Pirates
Secrets of Life
Westward Ho the Wagons!
Johnny Tremain
Perri
Old Yeller
The Light in the Forest
Tonka
White Wilderness
The Shaggy Dog
Darby O’Gill and the Little People
Third Man on the Mountain
Toby Tyler, Or Ten Weeks With a Circus
Kidnapped
Pollyanna
The Sign of Zorro
Jungle Cat
Ten Who Dared
Swiss Family Robinson
The Absent Minded Professor
The Parent Trap
Nikki, Wild Dog of the North
Greyfriars Bobby
Babes in Toyland
Moon Pilot
Bon Voyage
Big Red
Almost Angels
The Legend of Lobo
In Search of the Castaways
Son of Flubber
Miracle of the White Stallions
Savage Sam
Summer Magic
The Incredible Journey
The Misadventures of Merlin Jones
A Tiger Walks
The Three Lives of Thomasina
The Moon Spinners
Mary Poppins
Emil and the Detectives
Those Calloways
The Monkey’s Uncle
That Darn Cat!
The Ugly Dachshund
Lt. Robin Crusoe U.S.N
The Fighting Prince of Donegal
Follow Me, Boys!
Monkeys, Go Home!
The Adventure of Bullwhip Griffin
The Gnome Mobile
The Happiest Millionaire
Charlie, The Lonesome Cougar
Blackbeard’s Ghost
The One and Only, Genuine, Original Family Band
Never a Dull Moment
The Horse in the Grey Flannel Suit
Smith!
The Love Bug
Rascal
The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes
King of the Grizzlies
The Boatniks
The Wild Country
The Barefoot Executive
Scandalous John
The $1,000,000 Duck
Bedknobs and Broomsticks
The Biscuit Eater
Now You See Him, Now You Don’t!
Napoleon and Samantha
Snowball Express
The World’s Greatest Athlete
Charley and the Angel
One Little Indian
Superdad
Herbie Rides Again
The Bears and I
The Castaway Cowboy
The Island at the Top of the World
Dr. Syn alias the Scarecrow
The Strongest Man in the World
Escape to Witch Mountain
The Apple Dumpling Gang
One of Our Dinosaurs is Missing
No Deposit, No Return
Ride a Wild Pony
Gus
The Treasure of Matecumbe
The Shaggy D.A
The Littlest Horse Thieves
Freaky Friday
Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo
Pete’s Dragon
Candleshoe
Return From With Mountain
The Cat From Outer Space
Hot Lead and Cold Feet
Take Down
The North Avenue Irregulars
The Apple Dumpling Gang Rides Again
Unidentified Flying Oddball
The Black Hole
Midnight Madness
The Last Flight of Noah’s Ark
Herbie Goes Bananas
Popeye
The Devil and Max Devlin
Amy
Dragonslayer
Condorman
The Watcher in The Woods
Night Crossing
Tron
Tex
Trenchcoat
Something Wicked This Way Comes
Never Cry Wolf
Running Brave
Return to Oz
The Journey of Natty Gann
One Magic Christmas
Flight of the Navigator
Return to Snowy River
Benji, the Hunted
Honey, I Shrunk the Kids
Cheetah
White Fang
Shipwrecked
Wild Hearts Can’t Be Broken
The Rocketeer
Newsies
Honey, I Blew up the Kid
The Mighty Ducks
The Muppet Christmas Carol
Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey
A Far Off Place
The Adventures of Huck Finn
Hocus Pocus
Cool Runnings
The Three Musketeers
Iron Will
Blank Check
D2: The Mighty Ducks
White Fang 2: Myth of the White Wolf
Angels in the Outfield
Squanto: A Warrior’s tale
The Santa Clause
Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book
Heavyweights
Man of the House
Tall Tale
Operation Dumbo Drop
A Kid in King Arthur’s Court
The Big Green
Tom and Huck
Frank and Ollie
Muppet Treasure Island
Homeward Bound II: Lost in San Francisco
First Kid
D3: The Mighty Ducks
101 Dalmatians
That Darn Cat
Jungle 2 Jungle
George of the Jungle
Air Bud
Rocketman
Flubber
Mr. Magoo
Meet the Deedles
The Parent Trap
Air Bud: Golden Receiver
I’ll Be Home For Christmas
Mighty Joe Young
My Favourite Martian
Inspector Gadget
The Straight Story
Disney’s The Kid
Whispers: An Elephants Tale
Remember the Titans
102 Dalmatians
The Princess Diaries
Max Keeble’s Big Move
Snow Dogs
The Rookie
The Country Bears
Tuck Everlasting
The Santa Clause 2
Holes
The Lizzie McGuire Movie
The Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of Black Pearl
Freaky Friday
The Haunted Mansion
Miracle
Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen
Around the World in 80 Days
The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement
National Treasure
The Pacifier
Ice Princess
Herbie: Fully Loaded
Sky High
The Greatest Game Ever Played
The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe
Glory Road
Eight Below
The Shaggy Dog
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest
Invincible
The Santa Clause 3
The Bridge to Terabithia
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End
Underdog
The Game Plan

oh well those too of course lol, i was just mentioning the whole disney animation princess blah part heh. in any case thanks ichabod! those also help making Disney very unique.

jeremy88 wrote:oh well those too of course lol, i was just mentioning the whole disney animation princess blah part heh. in any case thanks ichabod! those also help making Disney very unique.

Yes, but if only half of the posters here would even make an attempt to watch some of the stuff on that list.

But alas, a shiny Disneystore Sleeping Beauty replica tiara is usually seen as a more worthwhile investment.

Disneykid wrote:

Escapay wrote:I totally didn't even put 2 and 2 together when I wrote dust pan. I was just thinking, "Hmm...what household object can make for odd Princess merch?" It almost was "Cinderella toaster", but then I thought, "no, a toaster is just weird".

Don't be so sure...

DUN DUN DUUUUUUUUUUN

If thats not hilarious enough... read the description of the Cinderella Toaster.

Imprints Cinderella's Glass Slipper on Your Toast!!
Plays a waltz when the Toast is Ready!

I could be rich... instead of Mother Mary being on my toast and selling it on Ebay.. I could have Cinderella's Slipper on a piece of toast and then sell it on ebay for $200 a piece (hey I have seen it happen on Stuff we found on Ebay on The Tonight show with Jay Leno...Mother mary's image on a piece of toast... or a piece of cereal that Looked Like E.T.)

Escapay wrote: I've often ranted on how Disney should do a feature-length version of The Velveteen Rabbit

That's such a great idea! I used to like that story when I was little! From a marketing perspective, does Disney know how many bunnies they could sell?!?!?

Escapay wrote:It always makes me cry when I read that passage.

I'm misty-eyed myself! Awww, that was nice! I hope that my stuffed animals know about that...(I know I'm weird...!)!

Disney Villain wrote:Can you honestly tell me that The Princess and the Frog was not initially thought of as a way of expanding the princess line, and being politically correct? Please, that probably started the whole production. I am glad that Lassater has been so involved in the film though

As much as I've complained about Lasseter before, I agree with you on this, Mike. I think that Lasseter will make the story better...it'll hopefully feel like a Disney fairy tale and not a movie made just to be PC. I wish I had a cleverer way of saying that, but I'm sure you get what I mean.

Disney Villain wrote:However, now Disney is pushing our favorite ladies deeper and deeper down our throats, and I’m ready to choke!!!

Darn Bobby's joke...no!!! (That's all I thought of when I read that...arrgh) (inside joke to a few people here...)

Disney Villain wrote:Ariel and Aurora lingerie

I want that!!!! I mean, they do make Disney panties (:lol:) for women, but more of a Disney-underwear-for-women line would be awesome!!!! (Sorry if it's TMI...!)

2099net wrote:There's only one Princess who could be classed as "sexualised" and that's Jasmine

Just because she has minimal clothing? What about Ariel? Little kids don't know about sex (well, I didn't when I was really little), but even when I did learn about it, it wasn't like I would watch a film and think, "After the fireworks, Aladdin and Jasmine are so gonna do it!"...I mean, maybe other kids did, but not me. Out of the heroines, Esmeralda and Meg come to mind as more "sexual" than the other females. I mean, yes, one could argue that the princesses get married and (some) have had kids, so they had to have sex, but I mean, that's not addressed at all, and hopefully most kids aren't thinking about that when watching a Disney movie.

2099net wrote:Just like every Irish portrayal on film seems to include; green, leprechauns, clovers, drink, over-inflated accents etc. I fear this will involve red hair, tartan, heather, haggis, perhaps the Loch Ness Monster and, oh yes, over-inflated accents

Do you think that Pixar would incorporate these into their princess movie? "Beauty and the Beast" only has a few French-accented characters, and Aladdin doesn't wear a turban...I think that Pixar would be sensitive (and, dare I say, PC) enough to not make those kinds of references if they would bother the Scottish people. I mean, Pixar isn't DreamWorks!

2099net wrote:Yes, its not historically inaccurate as such – Scotland had its own monarchy until about 1700, but prior to that (as far as I'm aware) Scotland was greatly conflicted internally or under attack from external forces. Will the film acknowledge this? Will the filmmakers even care? I mean, you would assume that they have a reason for setting the story in Scotland

Did a Beast really rule over France? Was there really a Prince Eric of Denmark who fell in love with a red-haired mermaid? Fairy tales don't have to be historically accurate...

2099net wrote:after all the Australian's seemed to like the Australia in Finding Nemo (but I still thought it was a tad too stereotypical), but the nonsense that is Worcestershire Academy in Shrek the Third is the sort of lame

See, Disney and Pixar aren't DreamWorks, and they'll do a great job (I'm just a DreamWorks basher, I know!)...I'm sure Pixar isn't out to humiliate and/or anger all of the Scottish people who will see the film.

Chernabog_Rocks wrote:I think that making a princess movie just to add a new face to the franchise is wrong

This is why I'm actually happy to have Lasseter & Friends helping with the Princess films...I'm surprised by that statement, but it's true. I mean, "The Tinker Bell Movie" (or maybe just "Tinker Bell" now) is being made so people will buy Disney Fairies merchandise. But that won't be an animated classic. "Cars" wasn't made just to sell toy cars, so, in this respect Pixar knows that a movie shouldn't be made around a toy line (I mean, "Transformers" was, for example, but that's not my point, and hopefully you know what that point is....).

Chernabog_Rocks wrote:if they actually do go through with this scottish princess movie perhaps they could actually have a scottish person do the voice acting?

Does Belle sound French? Does Jasmine sound Arab? I don't think that the character necessarily needs a Scottish accent (I'm just going by past movies here). I mean, it'd be cool if she did, but that'd be lost in the international translations (unless they get people to do Scottish accents in their own languages, if that even makes any sense). [I'm typing as I'm reading the posts, and Netty beat me to this point...but I wrote it, so I figure I won't edit it...]

I don't mind a princess being in a Pixar film- I think that it would be great if they did have a princess. Adding her to the Princess Collection, however, is another issue. She'd have to be drawn in 2D on the merchandise, IMO.

What I think about this whole princess issue is that Disney features in the brand only the top-selling, most beloved animated leading ladies, and the truth is that , with their 2 latest additions, they tried to made it more ethnic and intercultural. This way we have 5 European princesses, 1 Arabian, 1 Native American, 1 Chinese and an Afroamerican princess is coming. Why not have Esmeralda or Megara in the line then, you'll ask. Well, their movies didn't do so well in the box office . Pocahontas and Mulan did, plus they seem to be more popular among girls than Esmeralda or Megara. As for Giselle, as I've said before,even if the film is going to be a success, her only-for-20-minutes 2-d animated presence in a live action film that is a parody/comedy of all the other Disney princess films, her again-so-European design (that also lacks in being imaginative and unique, in my HUMBLE opinion) and her naive-just-like-SnowWhite character do not make her a creative, clever and forward-moving addition to the princess line, that's why Disney decided not to include her. Again, in my humble opinion, that is.
As for Pixar's princess, well, why not? As long as the final product is satisfying! And it's not only Pixar, you know! Many others have done it before and quite successfully I might say. There are Don Bluth's Anstasia and Thumbelina and Richard Rich's Odette as the Swan Princess. Just don't stick with Disney too much and you'll discover a wonderful new world out there!
We have to care about the movies people, first and foremost. We want to watch good movies. Whether this or that princess is going to be added to the Disney Princess line isn't really a major matter of concern. All this stuff is for fun, after all.

blackcauldron85 wrote:

Chernabog_Rocks wrote:if they actually do go through with this scottish princess movie perhaps they could actually have a scottish person do the voice acting?

Does Belle sound French? Does Jasmine sound Arab? I don't think that the character necessarily needs a Scottish accent (I'm just going by past movies here). I mean, it'd be cool if she did, but that'd be lost in the international translations (unless they get people to do Scottish accents in their own languages, if that even makes any sense). [I'm typing as I'm reading the posts, and Netty beat me to this point...but I wrote it, so I figure I won't edit it...]

Well, I mean it would be better to have Scottish people doing the voices, compared to someone else trying to imitate a scottish accent. But that's only if they even bother with accents at all, they could just have the characters accent-less like they did with Belle and Jasmine.

Escapay wrote:I'm sure it's a fairly recent term that stemmed from the Disney Princess line. But like you, I hate the term (along with terms like "romcom", "chick flick", etc.) because it automatically puts a stigma on any movie that gets labeled with that term, and sometimes isn't even accurate.

Yes, because then Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin would get whatever stigma "princess movie" gives to any other princess movie, and you feel they are so different and so superior to the others...Haha! Escapay's top favorite DAC's are princess movies! Never thought of it that way, did you?

Escapay wrote:Blame Cindy 3. I've only seen it once (Feb07), but knowing that Cindy's got that kind of spunk and backbone made me re-evaluate the first film to see if those traits are portrayed. The last time I watched the movie before my re-evaluation was soon after I bought the Platinum, so there was a good two years between viewings. While I haven't seen either film since Feb07, I do hold Cindy in a higher regard (oddly enough, based on a sequel!). Plus, it allowed me to rediscover my Jaq and Gus-Gus fanaticism!

That's even better than I thought. I thought it was just like you saw how much Cinderella and the Prince loved each other or something. Well, I will someday write my long review of the film and talk about how the original Cinderella would have done everything the sequel's Cinderella would. And Jaq and Gus are cool, and I like them, though admittedly some scenes with them do bother slightly (when Gus goes down the spiderweb and talks about the "pretty surprise for Cinderelly", it's a little too fast and weird). They were also great in Cinderella III.

Escapay wrote:You know me too well, Mike! I included Wendy partly because she's in Peter Pan (#3 in my favorite DAC list), and also because even though she does have a crush on Peter Pan, she also presents herself as a mature young woman who won't be swayed from her convictions (even though she's upset at the thought of getting her OWN ROOM). And I'm so oldschool Disney I remember when Mulan was part of Disney Princess!

Well, I would say Aurora is mature and keeps to her convictions, as well as Cinderella, and perhaps even Snow White. How? Aurora and Cinderella are more mature than Snow White, but Snow White still took the mature motherly role over the dwarfs like Wendy did to the Lost Boys. Well, all three hold on to their beliefs in finding happiness, the ones that sleep keep wishing and dreaming and singing, and Cinderella stays kind and hardworking through the bad times.

But no romance for babies.

Escapay wrote:...like the CGI Ten Commandments.

This is off-topic but have you seen any of it? Admittefly I'm not interested enough to make sure, but I think I saw a picture or more of it and it was visually terrible.

Also, there's plenty of untapped fairy and children's tales that can be given an animated treatment. I've often ranted on how Disney should do a feature-length version of The Velveteen Rabbit because it's a simple story with a lot of potential, especially regarding the almost father-son relationship between the rabbit and the skin horse. Plus, it's got such rich and flowing dialogue, that's easy enough for children to understand, but still with a powerful subtext that adults pick up.

I love the Velveteen Rabbit, I have a stuffed rabbit I love from my own childhood, too. I've seen it in a collection of other fairy tales, so I wonder if it's in the public domain? Meaning, can it be adapated and changed and "made Disney" like the other tales? The fact it says love takes such a long time bothers me. Unconditional love should happen to children from birth. But anyway, something really bothered me:

That's why it doesn't happen often to people who break easily, or have sharp edges, or who have to be carefully kept.

Is that trying to say if you're too sensitive, or nasty, or hard to take care of, you can't be loved that way? That's HORRIBLE. Love should come to even the "worst" of people.

Escapay wrote:I've come across a few die-hard Walt idolizers who absolutely believe that post-Walt material shouldn't bear the "Disney" name, which is where the argument came from. I don't agree with it as it's a laughable concept, and the staunchiest supporters of the "Walt-Era Only" practically make him some kind of entertainment Messiah.

Oh yes, and I also read the sopa opera thing (of course I read your whole post) and I actually did think of that myself, and there was always the question of if people would consider any of the renaissance movies classics. That's another thing that bothers me, the whole DAC thing. That list should only be for movies that have stood the test of time and gained popularity and critical acclaim. Sorry, but that would been Chicken Little, as of now, would not count (but it could later, Sleeping Beauty got recognized!).

But anyway, because of of the (paraphrased) quote you gave, and the fact that no one's heard Walt say, "Any movies made by the Disney studio after I die aren't Disney movies!", and all of his actions, I think it's safe to say the post-Walt argument doesn't hold much water and all films made by the Disney studio are Disney.

Escapay wrote:I can't say, "Aw Mike, don't stew, here's a pink elephant" because then you'll think it's a pity one.

And pity ones would not put their heart and soul into their dancing, anway! Thank you for the elephant!

I've often ranted on how Disney should do a feature-length version of The Velveteen Rabbit[/i because it's a simple story with a lot of potential, especially regarding the almost father-son relationship between the rabbit and the skin horse.

Isn’t that the book that JKRowling has spoken about reading as a child? Maybe I should find a copy sometime, because I’d never heard of it.

On the topic of parent-child relationships in Disney films, I’ve always wished they would create a movie with a serious mother-daughter relationship. We’ve had plenty of mother-son movies and father-son/daughter films. The only films I can think of with a mother-daughter is Return to Neverland and Return to the Sea (both of which nobody would want to remember anyhow). Then again, there’d have to be a mother first.

Firstly, I would like to ask: when did the term "princess movie" come about? I think the first time was in some commercial, probably for Netflix, when some girl was excited her mom got her "a princess movie". I used to hate the term because categorizing leads to stereotypes leads to finding ways to make things less unique and different and fewer categories.

Well, I find the term slightly misleading. Mainly because, really, the fact that any of these characters were royalty had very little to do with their personality traits or how their storylines play out--Snow White‘s stepmother would still be vain, Cinderella would still be mistreated, Aurora would still be boring, Ariel would still want to be human and Belle would still fall in love with the Beast. Which is why I don’t necessarily mind that Mulan and Pocahontas are occasionally included (if only Megara and Kida could get more light).

Back to the original topic, never thought I’d say this, but I’m kind of getting scared at this glut of Princess films. What’s the schedule now? 2007 - Enchanted, 2009 - The Princess and the Frog, 2010 - Rapunzel and 2011 - Misc. Scottish Princess Film. TP&TF and Rapunzel coming close together didn’t seem a big deal to me before, but this other film added is just going a bit overboard.

Disney Villain wrote:Is Disney only supposed to create princess films with cute, singing forest creatures for all eternity?

God, I hope not. Let her sing to some creatures of the seedy underworld! And give her a sword! And an eye patch! The Pirate Princess!

Disney Villain wrote:I’m an 18 year old male college student that is currently listening to the Disney Princess Christmas Album on his iPOD

Change 18 to 20 and voila, you're now my brother Kram!

Disney Villain wrote:Oh, before I forget!!! Escapay, Disney did make a Cinderella broom and dust pan. My sister had it ages ago, and I would steal it and play with it. You just brought back a ton of memories, lol

I don't know whether to or to ...there really is a Cindy dust pan! Then again, I had a Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs toolbox (yeah, that actually is real!) as a kid. Unfortunately, all that's left is the hammer, saw, and a wrench. The toolbox itself, along with pliers and some flat plastic pieces of "wood" are gone.

netty wrote:Jasmine wears for all-intents and purposes, a bikini.

Ariel, for all-intents and purposes, is naked except for strategically-placed seashells. And people get mad at Aladdin for allegedly telling teenagers to take off their clothes...

Sprince wrote:Escapay-(i"ll just wirte this shortley) you disagree with me? it's allright,but you said it really rudley ("I"m trying not to laught" and etc.),if you were saying it nicley i whouldn't wirte that to you.

As far as I know, you might as well the nicest guy in Israel and we could easily be friends. I don't make it a habit of personally insulting anyone online, if anything, the idea (Disney limiting themselves to Princess movies) is the most absurd I ever heard, and I would have beaten on it regardless who came up with it. But if you thought my post was rude and insulting towards you personally, then I'm sorry.

Besides, I rag on anyone who likes slipcovers, and usually they just rag back.

Plus, laughing at a computer screen would be pathetic. I'd have to point and laugh if I wanted it to mean anything, and I didn't mention pointing.

disneyboy20022 wrote:

Disneykid wrote: Don't be so sure...

If thats not hilarious enough... read the description of the Cinderella Toaster.

Imprints Cinderella's Glass Slipper on Your Toast!!
Plays a waltz when the Toast is Ready!

Oh. My. God.

A part of me wants it, just to destroy it. And another part of me wants to hear the waltz!

blackcauldron85 wrote:That's such a great idea! I used to like that story when I was little! From a marketing perspective, does Disney know how many bunnies they could sell?!?!?

I'm fairly certain Disney could go forth and multiply more bunnies than any real ones ever could!

blackcauldron85 wrote:

Escapay wrote:It always makes me cry when I read that passage.

I'm misty-eyed myself! Awww, that was nice! I hope that my stuffed animals know about that...(I know I'm weird...!)!

Don't worry, I still consider some of my animals as real (more below in my Duster reply)

blackcauldron85 wrote:Darn Bobby's joke...no!!! (That's all I thought of when I read that...arrgh) (inside joke to a few people here...)

I've never been able to think of Cindy the same way since that joke. I tried telling it to some friends at school, they didn't get it until I literally had to draw them a diagram. And that was both creepy and uncomfortable!

blackcauldron85 wrote:(I'm just a DreamWorks basher, I know!)

Watch The Prince of Egypt. That might change your mind...at least for one film.

Disney Duster wrote:

Escapay wrote:I'm sure it's a fairly recent term that stemmed from the Disney Princess line. But like you, I hate the term (along with terms like "romcom", "chick flick", etc.) because it automatically puts a stigma on any movie that gets labeled with that term, and sometimes isn't even accurate.

Yes, because then Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin would get whatever stigma "princess movie" gives to any other princess movie, and you feel they are so different and so superior to the others...Haha! Escapay's top favorite DAC's are princess movies! Never thought of it that way, did you?

You got me there, Mike. But think about it like this: only if I actually use the term to describe the movie, do I acknowledge that it actually is a "princess movie". But since I don't use the term "princess movie" when describing Beauty and the Beast or Aladdin, and I don't consider it to be one (despite sharing similar qualities), then in my mind and logic, it isn't.

With any film, attaching general genre names like "action" or "comedy", it gives a prospective viewer certain expectations which may or may not be met. For example, a movie like Miss Congeniality can be a chick flick (female empowerment), a romance (Gracie & Eric), a comedy (Gracie being Gracie), an action film (exploding crowns! Russian mobsters!), and a detective story (who's The Citizen? Who's sabotaging the pageant?). It does any movie a great disservice to cluster it into a "quaint little category" (Captain Jack Harkness).

Disney Duster wrote:I thought it was just like you saw how much Cinderella and the Prince loved each other or something.

Nah, that's still a hard sell for me. I mean, I do believe that love at first sight is possible, but it's still a bit difficult for me to believe it with Cindy and Char. I can't put my figure on it as to why, but one of these days, I'll figure it out.

Disney Duster wrote:And Jaq and Gus are cool, and I like them, though admittedly some scenes with them do bother slightly (when Gus goes down the spiderweb and talks about the "pretty surprise for Cinderelly", it's a little too fast and weird).

That was always one of my favorite J&G bits. It's like when you tell a little kid you're taking them to the toy store, and they're so excited and jumpy and refuse to sit still.

Disney Duster wrote:Well, I would say Aurora is mature and keeps to her convictions, as well as Cinderella, and perhaps even Snow White.

I'd say that too, but I meant in the "asexual character franchise" line that Wendy has a lot of qualities that make her a great role model for younger consumers.

Disney Duster wrote:But no romance for babies.

Unless it's a soap opera that they're watching from the womb. The Young and the Restless, Days of our Lives, and Another World were how I spent my afternoons swimming in the uterus.

(And re-reading that...it sounds a bit...well...too far gone from anything sane...)

Disney Duster wrote:

Escapay wrote:...like the CGI Ten Commandments.

This is off-topic but have you seen any of it? Admittedly I'm not interested enough to make sure, but I think I saw a picture or more of it and it was visually terrible.

I've seen the trailer and a few behind-the-scenes clips, and the animation is definitely something of the video-game level (hehe..."The Ten Commandments: The Video Game!" Collect enough frogs to release a plague! Walk through the desert maze to the promised land!). But sometimes bad animation sometimes can be saved by a good story. Hoodwinked is a good example, that is if you think it was a good story (I feel it's got some unique story elements, but overall is only about a C or a C-). Either way, I'm a sucker for anything Ten Commandments related, as it's always interesting to watch a different interpretation of the story. I'm actually still kicking myself for taping over an old VHS tape I had acquired of the Burt Lancaster miniseries, Moses the Lawgiver (1974). I taped over it with (go figure) soap operas, because I thought the miniseries was on DVD. Alas...it isn't. The DVD available is only the 141-minute international movie version, and not the full 360-minute miniseries.

Disney Duster wrote:

Escapay wrote:Also, there's plenty of untapped fairy and children's tales that can be given an animated treatment. I've often ranted on how Disney should do a feature-length version of The Velveteen Rabbit because it's a simple story with a lot of potential, especially regarding the almost father-son relationship between the rabbit and the skin horse. Plus, it's got such rich and flowing dialogue, that's easy enough for children to understand, but still with a powerful subtext that adults pick up.

I love the Velveteen Rabbit, I have a stuffed rabbit I love from my own childhood, too. I've seen it in a collection of other fairy tales, so I wonder if it's in the public domain? Meaning, can it be adapted and changed and "made Disney" like the other tales?

I don't think it's in public domain, though it's fairly easy to find the complete text online. I once adapted The Velveteen Rabbit into a play for a class assignment, and didn't have the book at hand to consult (as well as cite original passages which I felt were too good to replace and I would never do them justice if I tried to make my own words for them), and easily found it online.

Disney Duster wrote:The fact it says love takes such a long time bothers me. Unconditional love should happen to children from birth. But anyway, something really bothered me:

The Book wrote:That's why it doesn't happen often to people who break easily, or have sharp edges, or who have to be carefully kept.

Is that trying to say if you're too sensitive, or nasty, or hard to take care of, you can't be loved that way? That's HORRIBLE. Love should come to even the "worst" of people.

I definitely agree that unconditional love should happen to children from birth, but I always felt that the concept of love/real (as defined by the skin horse) and the whole sharp edges, break easily, shows that love is a reciprocal thing. After all, I can say that I love pizza, but does pizza love me back? I think when skin horse said things that break easily/have sharp edges, he means it in a figurative sense, of people who can't find it in themselves to love back. Cause if a person can't love him/herself, could they really love others? Would they truly understand what love is? They'd have to want to be loved in order to love others. What's that line from Moulin Rouge? "The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return." Then again, the whole concept of love is old and antiquated as well, especially since it can have multiple meanings and connotations.

The way I interpreted "becoming real" (aka unconditional love) is that when a toy became real, it's when it realizes how much the child loves it, regardless how it looked, and how much it loved the child, regardless if it was still played with or not. When the skin horse refers to broken toys (break easily, etc.), he's acknowledging that sometimes people don't realize how much others do love them, and thus, feel they don't deserve love, or to be real. But even broken toys are loved and real (even if the Skin Horse doesn't think so). I mean, there's this teddy bear I've owned ever since my Christening. I slept with it when I was a kid, and even now just have it on my bed as a comfort object, because I don't have the heart to put him in a bag with the rest of my old stuffed animals and stick him in the closet. He's old and worn out, and his nose actually does have the polish rubbed off. And...he doesn't have a left arm. Kram, the lovable little brat, pulled it off once when we were fighting one of our standard sibling fights (I must've been 6 and he was 4). But, I still love the little bear, and in a sense, he is real to me.

Disney Duster wrote:

Escapay wrote:I've come across a few die-hard Walt idolizers who absolutely believe that post-Walt material shouldn't bear the "Disney" name, which is where the argument came from. I don't agree with it as it's a laughable concept, and the staunchiest supporters of the "Walt-Era Only" practically make him some kind of entertainment Messiah.

Oh yes, and I also read the soap opera thing (of course I read your whole post) and I actually did think of that myself, and there was always the question of if people would consider any of the renaissance movies classics. That's another thing that bothers me, the whole DAC thing. That list should only be for movies that have stood the test of time and gained popularity and critical acclaim. Sorry, but that would been Chicken Little, as of now, would not count (but it could later, Sleeping Beauty got recognized!).

I've taken to simply classifying DACs as features from WDAS (formerly WDFA). But when considering what's a "classic" in more traditional defintions, even I would probably exclude Chicken Little for now.

Scaps

On Disney/Pixar making a respectable Scottish princess. They have already, in the tv series Gargoyles. Princess Katharine. In the beginning, she was hateful of the gargoyles, but in flashbacks we see that because her father was ignorant and told her "get to sleep of the gargoyles will get you", even though he was "friends" with the clan. She has a redemption later in the series though. Her accent was good, and I didn't find her disrespectful at all. But all props go to the writing team of the show. Its not so much "Will Pixar make a respectable Scottish Princess?", its "Will Pixar choose the right writing team to do it?"

blackcauldron85 wrote:Did a Beast really rule over France? Was there really a Prince Eric of Denmark who fell in love with a red-haired mermaid? Fairy tales don't have to be historically accurate...

But in that case, why draw attention to the fact it is set in Scotland at all? The Little Mermaid is set in "nowhere". Beauty and the Beast only makes passing references to France (even the characters, expecially the enchanted ones, are just as much British as French). I wouldn't be surprised if a general viewer just thinks BatB is set in "Europe".

Hunchback is obviously set in France and Paris, but only because it has to be, the same with Pocahontas being in America and Mulan in China. I can only assume Pixar's film HAS to be set in Scotland for the story to work, in which case, I hope that they have done some research beyond "What is Haggis?"

2099net wrote:after all the Australian's seemed to like the Australia in Finding Nemo (but I still thought it was a tad too stereotypical), but the nonsense that is Worcestershire Academy in Shrek the Third is the sort of lame

See, Disney and Pixar aren't DreamWorks, and they'll do a great job (I'm just a DreamWorks basher, I know!)...I'm sure Pixar isn't out to humiliate and/or anger all of the Scottish people who will see the film.

But we're not talking about Disney. I acknowledged Disney was generally pretty good with accents. We're talking about Pixar. And Pixar are not Disney. Pixar have a history of using accents:

Finding Nemo had Australian accents (and while I admit Australians seemed to like it, they still sounded and acted a little too stereotypical to me). Ratatouille (admitedly only from trailers) seems to have some characters with a French sounding lilt. The Incredibles had Bomb Voyage, the French bomber (and he was way, way stereotyped). Heimlich in A Bug's Life had an accent.

And just like the characters in Shrek, the only reason Heimlich and Bomb Voyage had exaggerated accents was for "humour". Now, there's nothing wrong with that as such - stuff over here like Little Britain does it (but has been critisised for doing so by lots of people) - but its not exactly clever or adult.

I don't think anyone goes out of their way to humiliate any one or any nation. That would be a silly suggestion. But... well, let me put it this way. If Disney made The Princess and the Frog and didn't bother to do more than minimal research into the New Orleans culture, geography or traditions and came up with a careless mix of stereotypes and inaccuracies don't you think people would complain about it? Why should having a film set in France, Britain or anywhere else be any different? All we ask for is a decent amount of research.

The whole its "a fairytale" excuse doesn't wash with me. Firstly, its unlikely to be a fairytale but an original story created by Pixar and secondly, why should a fantastical fairytale be allowed to have logical flaws and plot holes, but something like Treasure Planet which is just as fantastical not be allowed the same leeway?

And for all the others, as for Arial wearing nothing but a Bikini, I totally forgot about that. Shows how much of an impression it made on me. But I always tend to think of Human Arial more than Fish Arial. And its not as if kids will be going out trick of treating wearing sea-shells and a fishes tail (how will they walk?)