DVDizzy Forum

Lazario wrote:

Mooky wrote:That's like saying Tangled is a rip-off of The Hunchback of Notre Dame.

How?

The only thing I can think of is the similarity of Rapunzel never leaving her tower and having the opportunity to do so and Quasimodo never being able to leave the bell tower and having the opportunity to do so. Mooky can tell us if it's that or something else, or that plus something else.

KACENAID wrote:Rapunzel never leaving her tower

How the frick did I miss that?

Original question rescinded.

101 Dalmatians, 101%

I find Artistocats to be extremely dull. It does have it's moments, but for the most part, I'd rather be sleeping. I prefer 101 Dalmatians in almost every way. Better music, better villians, better characters. I cannot STAND the geese in Aristocats, I fast forward through them every time.

KACENAID wrote:

Lazario wrote:How?

The only thing I can think of is the similarity of Rapunzel never leaving her tower and having the opportunity to do so and Quasimodo never being able to leave the bell tower and having the opportunity to do so. Mooky can tell us if it's that or something else, or that plus something else.

Yes, that's it, and also the fact that both protagonists are adopted and their foster parents have a secret agenda.

KACENAID wrote:Let's face it, 101 Dalmatians only has 2 songs in it (Cruella De Vil and the brief song Dalmatian Plantation, unless you count the Kanine Krunchies jingle, then you can make an argument for 3), so it's a given that The Aristocats can be seen as having better music, because frankly, there's more music in it.

Marce82 wrote:Just a note: 101 Dalmatians isnt a musical! So you can't compare the songs, really. Yes, there are a couple of songs in it, but the only real song is Cruella DeVil, and its just there cause ROger is a composer.

If anything you can compare scores, not songs.

The Aristocats is not a musical either. It has like one 'real' song more than Dalmatians, not much to warrant a significant difference in style. The comparison still stands. Also, by that logic, since Berlioz is a composer too, "Scales and Arpeggios" doesn't count either.

And while 101 Dalmatians may be a more significant film from a historical point of view, it certainly doesn't have more memorable characters other than Cruella, the Baduns, Roger, Anita, Mr. Tibbs and maybe Pongo. Perdita is kind of bland and so is every other supporting character. Puppies, aside from Rolly, are practically indistinguishable from one another. Compare that to Thomas O'Malley, kittens (which all have their own distinct personalities), alley cats, the geese, Lafayatte and Napoleon, Roquefort, and even Duchess if only for Eva Gabor's vocal performance.

I've seen this several times before, but it's bizarre that all of sudden people are complaining about the lack of distinct personalities for all 101 dalmatians. Besides the fact that it's ridiculous to expect that any way, they would've only been given the staple child personalities--the same given to the kittens in The Aristocats, who are not at all interesting. They're better left without screen time than waste it that way.

That's like saying Tangled is a rip-off of The Hunchback of Notre Dame.

How?

Both films begin with a prologue that tells the story of how a wicked person comes to be the ward of the protagonist, for selfish ends. (Frollo to redeem his soul, Gothel to stay perpetually youthful.)

Both films' protagonists are wide-eyed, naive and innocents who yearn to be free of their confinement. (Quasi's bell-tower, Rapunz's...tower.)

Both of the evil foster parents, Frollo and Gothel, INSIST on the ward NEVER leaving said tower.

Both wards do, directly defying the orders of their foster. Both fall in love with a daring, debonair social outcast. (Quasi a gypsy girl, Rapunzel a bandit)

Both evil fosters have similar lines and outlooks on life, drilled into the protagonist from an early age. See Frollo's: "The world is cruel/The world is wicked/It's I alone whom you can trust in this whole city!" See Frollo's: "Out there, they'll revile you as a monster./Out there, they will hate and scorn and jeer./Why invite their calumny and consternation? Stay in here!/Be faithful to me, grateful to me/Do as I say, Obey/And stay in here..." See Gothel's: "Mother knows best./Take it from your mumsy:/On your own you won't survive./Sloppy, underdressed,/Immature, clumsy,/Please!/They'll eat you up alive!" Also see Gothel in the prologue brushing young Rapunzel's hair. Can't remember the lines off the top of my head...but they're similar.

Both films' protagonists stand up to the foster during the penultimate scene before the climax. See Quasi's: "All of my life you've told me that the world is a dark, cruel place! Now, I see the only thing dark and cruel about it is PEOPLE LIKE YOU!" See Rapunz's: "I've spent my entire life hiding from people who would use me for my powers when I should have hiding from YOU!"

In both films the villain nearly kills the love-interest of the protagonist, resulting in a fake-out death scene.

In both films the evil foster falls from the top of the tower they confined their ward to.

At the end of the both films, the protagonists are welcomed with open arms (Literally!) to society. (Rapunzel is hugged by her parents. Quasimodo is hugged by the little girl on the steps of Notre Dame)

That's all I can think of off the top of my head. Anybody else notice any similarities?

Obviously, I'm of the opinion that Hunchback is MUCH better than Tangled. I don't dislike Tangled, but to say that it didn't ripoff elements from Hunchback is just being dishonest. The same can be said of Aristocats ripping off elements from Dalmatians, The Lion King ripping off elements from Bambi... each film seems to pale in comparison to the film it is ripping off from, in my opinion.

Disney's Divinity wrote:I've seen this several times before, but it's bizarre that all of sudden people are complaining about the lack of distinct personalities for all 101 dalmatians. Besides the fact that it's ridiculous to expect that any way, they would've only been given the staple child personalities--the same given to the kittens in The Aristocats, who are not at all interesting. They're better left without screen time than waste it that way.

You said it yourself, they weren't even given the staple child personalities. I'm not advocating they all should have been given their own distinct features, but some of the puppies could have been used more actively by having them lead the group scenes. It would have been nicer than having them be known as 'the one with the black eye patch' and 'the fat one'.

ProfessorRatigan wrote: I don't dislike Tangled, but to say that it didn't ripoff elements from Hunchback is just being dishonest.

In all fairness, all the similarities between the two can be traced back to the source material. I just don't see why Disney would rip-off themselves. If Tangled's guilty of anything, it's unoriginality in dealing with the same themes (it also 'homages' Beauty and the Beast's climax and The Little Mermaid's boat ride), but ripping them off? Nah.

Mooky wrote:You said it yourself, they weren't even given the staple child personalities.

And like I also said--it’s all for the better, considering how bland the kittens are in The Aristocats.

And I didn't mean to talk about you directly, but I have noticed it the past few months. I remember Dr. Frankenollie complaining about it recently in another thread, I think.

I consider The Aristocats underrated on the whole, but I definitely prefer 101 Dalmatians. Equally, the attack scene in the latter is far more exciting and effective than the one in the former.

Marce82 wrote:Gee, Goliath, thanks for the passive-aggressive comment toward me. [...]

Personal enough?

There was nothing, I repeat, NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING "passive-aggressive" in my answer to you. I did not intend, nor did I write anything that can be deemed "passive-aggressive" by far, not even by the most gentlest and most sensitive of all persons. That you chose to take it like that is not my fault. It was your choice to do so, and yours alone. The line "personal enough?", as a snap at me, tells me that YOU are in fact the one who's being passive-aggressive. If a man can't add an opinion, with the word "peace" added to it, because he knows how goddamn fragile 99% of UD members are and how they get upset over every little not-ill-intended-but-still-taken-like-that word, without someone STILL feeling attacked by it, there's nothing I can do to help that. But if you indeed thought that that mild-mannered, non-agressive, casual, neutral, non-personal comment I made was "passive-aggressive", then I could just as well stop posting altogether, because who knows how many people are now gonna file a complaint against me for supposed "hostility" based on that one neutral post?!

Scarred4life wrote:101 Dalmatians, 101%

I find Artistocats to be extremely dull. It does have it's moments, but for the most part, I'd rather be sleeping. I prefer 101 Dalmatians in almost every way. Better music, better villians, better characters. I cannot STAND the geese in Aristocats, I fast forward through them every time.

You have just LITERALLY described how I feel about The Aristocats vs. 101 Dalmatians. Word for word. Especially the geese. I once said I wished Louis the alligator was shot in his movie, but first I wish he would eat those obnoxious geese.

Goliath wrote:

Marce82 wrote:Gee, Goliath, thanks for the passive-aggressive comment toward me. [...]

Personal enough?

There was nothing, I repeat, NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING "passive-aggressive" in my answer to you. I did not intend, nor did I write anything that can be deemed "passive-aggressive" by far, not even by the most gentlest and most sensitive of all persons. That you chose to take it like that is not my fault. It was your choice to do so, and yours alone. The line "personal enough?", as a snap at me, tells me that YOU are in fact the one who's being passive-aggressive. If a man can't add an opinion, with the word "peace" added to it, because he knows how goddamn fragile 99% of UD members are and how they get upset over every little not-ill-intended-but-still-taken-like-that word, without someone STILL feeling attacked by it, there's nothing I can do to help that. But if you indeed thought that that mild-mannered, non-agressive, casual, neutral, non-personal comment I made was "passive-aggressive", then I could just as well stop posting altogether, because who knows how many people are now gonna file a complaint against me for supposed "hostility" based on that one neutral post?!

Yeah, Marce! And your father's face makes baby kittens cry.

Lol...thanks Lazario. I chose to read yr comment as supportive :-)
Apparently I project anything that is on my mind to anything anyone comments on here.

Btw... Goliath... telling someone they "blindly parrot" what other's say implies they are not thinking for themselves, and they stupidly follow what others say without thought.
Hardly a compliment. And you also called it "silly". Hardly an insult... but def in the negative column

Relax, there was nothing wrong with what he said.

101 dalmatians every time. i can still remember the day i finally connected the bill peet in the credits with the bill peet in my favourite picture books. thankfully, the usually useless local library had a copy of his autobiography. that fact alone is enough to put 101 on my top 5 list, but i also love the story itself, the animation and the characters. specially roger when hes doing the musical parody of cruella de vil near the start.

i dont mind aristocats, but marie gets up my nose quite a bit.

Marce82 wrote:Lol...thanks Lazario. I chose to read yr comment as supportive

There was nothing, I repeat, NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING "supportive" in my answer to you. I did not intend, nor did I write anything that can be deemed "supportive" by far, not even by the most callous and insensitive of all persons. That you chose to take it like that is not my fault. It was your choice to do so, and yours alone. The line "Lol...thanks Lazario", as a snap at me, tells me that YOU are in fact the one who's being supportive. If a man can't add an opinion, with the word "kittens" added to it, because he knows how goddamn fragile 99% of UD members are yet how they don't get upset over every little ill-intended-but-not-taken-like-that word, without someone STILL feeling supported by it, there's nothing I can do to help that. But if you indeed thought that that ill-mannered, agressive, non-casual, non-neutral, ultra-personal comment I made was "supportive", then I could just as well stop posting altogether, because who knows how many people are now gonna file a complaint against me for supposed "kittens" based on that one agressive post?!

Of course, if you're hell-bent on taking it that way, there's nothing I can do but throw a temper tantrum.

sunhuntin wrote:i dont mind aristocats, but marie gets up my nose quite a bit.

The boys are worse but all the cats are lame and obnoxious. The movie has no conviction. If Marie keeps falling into harm's way, she should be run over and mourned offscreen. And if Toulouse wants to run into a "tough alleycat" so bad, he should be duly torn apart and left for dead.

Lazario: HAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!! :)

Marce82 wrote:Btw... Goliath... telling someone they "blindly parrot" what other's say implies they are not thinking for themselves, and they stupidly follow what others say without thought.
Hardly a compliment. And you also called it "silly". Hardly an insult... but def in the negative column

I did not say YOU did that. I said PEOPLE did that. People, as in: people out there.... you know... in the wide world outside of UD...?

But if you want to turn it into a fight, be my guest, but don't blame ME for it.

And Lazario, just shut the fuck up already, would you, please? Kay, tnx, buh-bye.

Well, I think we can ALL agree that Cruella De Vil is amazing. Love that bitch. Edgar not only pales in comparison, he straight-up like...bones in comparison. His skin just, like, flies off and his muscle peels away and his skeleton shines so bright and white in comparison to her. Yeah. Edgar sucks.

It's been YEARS since I've seen Aristocrats and aside from that one ear-wormy musical number, I can't recall anything except how utterly bland and dull the film is. Dalmatians, while slow in places, the puppies in the snow-storm sequence, for instance, is a way more dynamic film. Not only thanks to the iconic and fully-realized diva of a villain. But also thanks to the supporting characters like the henchmen, the cat, (Tibbs? That's his name, right?), the horse and the Sheep-dog... A few of the puppies. But the dogs really are the weak-link. They're just so...uninteresting. Anita is kinda boring. Roger has charm and the Nanny is great. The ending isn't that satisfactory (why didn't Cruella die? Or go to jail? ANYTHING! Maybe they thought her too likeable a la Captain Hook and that's why they didn't finish her, but BITCH WANTED TO SKIN PUPPIES!) but the art work and especially backgrounds are AMAZING. The opening title-sequence is probably the best title-sequence in the Disney animated canon. So, while flawed, Dalmatians is a film that definitely deserves it status as a classic.

Aristocats is one of the few DACS I actually don't care a bit for.