DVDizzy Forum

Hey guys, I've now made a second addition to my blog; http://mydisneyanalysis.blogspot.no/201 ... beast.html

Enjoy

Btw, I've would appreciated if you gave me constructive comments what do you like or dislike about my writings.

Hey guys. It's been a while (a week to be more precise), but now I've updated my blog. This time about "Pocahontas". Enjoy

http://mydisneyanalysis.blogspot.no/201 ... re-or.html

And yes, I'm sorry for double-posting, but when I was editing it, it never appeared above the other threads.

You know, I'm not sure historical inaccuracy is what did Pocahontas in (as far as being another huge hit for Disney) since, like you point out, Anastasia is pretty well-liked. I think it's more that it tries too hard to be so very, very serious and ends up being dull. Then there is the comic relief which throws it off, although it doesn't really hurt the movie like it does in Hunchback, imo. The real problem is Ratcliffe. I think David Ogden Stiers does a great job, but the character is too OTT for a movie that's trying to be serious about the subject of racial conflict and an interacial romance, etc. But worst of all is the design. I actually think they could have kept everything the same, but have given him a less ridiculous design and that alone would've worked better. The seriousness and preachiness combined with ridiculous things like a talking tree, listening to your heart in order to fix a language barrier, Ratcliffe, etc. are what hurts the movie the most, imo. (I've always liked Grandmother Willow, btw, just combined with a film that's trying so hard to be serious comes across as an odd choice.)

I have to admit, as a child, I really liked this movie and it's still one of my sister's favorites along with Sleeping Beauty. I remember playing the Sega game all the time. I still love Pocahontas (the character) and the music, and Judy Kuhn is phenomenal. I wish Disney would have continued doing things with this film, it's sad to see it so ignored.

Disney's Divinity wrote:You know, I'm not sure historical inaccuracy is what did Pocahontas in (as far as being another huge hit for Disney) since, like you point out, Anastasia is pretty well-liked.

Fair enough, but my impression is that "Pocahontas" did receive much flack for it's historical inaccuracy, more so than "Anastasia".

I think it's more that it tries too hard to be so very, very serious and ends up being dull. Then there is the comic relief which throws it off, although it doesn't really hurt the movie like it does in Hunchback, imo.

True.

The real problem is Ratcliffe. I think David Ogden Stiers does a great job, but the character is too OTT for a movie that's trying to be serious about the subject of racial conflict and an interacial romance, etc. But worst of all is the design. I actually think they could have kept everything the same, but have given him a less ridiculous design and that alone would've worked better. The seriousness and preachiness combined with ridiculous things like a talking tree, listening to your heart in order to fix a language barrier, Ratcliffe, etc. are what hurts the movie the most, imo. (I've always liked Grandmother Willow, btw, just combined with a film that's trying so hard to be serious comes across as an odd choice.)

Well said, that's right.

I have to admit, as a child, I really liked this movie and it's still one of my sister's favorites along with Sleeping Beauty. I remember playing the Sega game all the time. I still love Pocahontas (the character) and the music, and Judy Kuhn is phenomenal. I wish Disney would have continued doing things with this film, it's sad to see it so ignored.

Agreed.

You know in the sequel instead of making the original character of Madeline. They should have made their own version of Fleur-de-Lys who was Phoebus's fiancé in the book. I could actually see her as a noble woman who is spoiled and pampered but changes her ways as she begins to fall in love with Quasimodo. I think the scenario would go is that she is a noble woman who has to seek sanctuary at the Cathedral because of some political assassin attempts on her life. At first she is rude and unappreciative of Quasimodo and looks down upon him for his appearance and being from a lower class. However, as she continues her stay in Notre Dame she learns to love him for who he is and those who are less fortunate.

Why not?

Despite all the hate the sequel gets, I do think Madellaine is one of the best parts of it. She may be bland and boring, but is actually a quite realistic character, a girl who's struggling with her self-esteem, which is something that most girls can identify with.

Hey guys! Now I've made my fourth addition to my blog; The Princess franchise!

http://mydisneyanalysis.blogspot.no/201 ... ssing.html

Enjoy

DisneyFan09 wrote:Hey guys! Now I've made my fourth addition to my blog; The Princess franchise!

http://mydisneyanalysis.blogspot.no/201 ... ssing.html

Enjoy

Very good article!

I think the Disney Princess franchise is a very positive thing because it keeps relevant classic Disney characters like Snow White, Aurora or even Ariel, which might have been forgotten by today’s kids if it wasn't for this franchise.

bruno_wbt wrote:

DisneyFan09 wrote:Hey guys! Now I've made my fourth addition to my blog; The Princess franchise!

http://mydisneyanalysis.blogspot.no/201 ... ssing.html

Enjoy

Very good article!

I think the Disney Princess franchise is a very positive thing because it keeps relevant classic Disney characters like Snow White, Aurora or even Ariel, which might have been forgotten by today’s kids if it wasn't for this franchise.

The minus I have is I wish they would be more creative with the franchise.

bruno_wbt wrote:Very good article!

Thanks!

The minus I have is I wish they would be more creative with the franchise.

How so?

Like many things, the Disney Princess line is good in theory, but terrible in execution. It has done NOTHING to put an end to a stereotype that Disney films are for little girls only (in fact, it perpetuates it) all the while stripping the ladies featured of any shred of distinctive personality traits they were granted in their individual films (Belle's stubbornness, Mulan's clumsiness, Cinderella's occasional sarcastic remark). They are basically interchangeable now and the only thing differentiating them are their hair and dress color (yes, not even skin color/ethnicity). It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't so pervasive in nature and just contained to a series of DTVs or storybooks. Unfortunately, it is leaking into every other Disney endeavor, with Disney Parks being the worst offender: you'd think at least they'd try being movie-authentic, but no, all princesses have adopted the same baby-talk speech patterns and bizarre hand mannerisms (except Merida and Pocahontas -- they act hilariously 'tough'). And it's all freakin' pink. And it's everywhere. There's this notion that has somehow crept into the fandom that they have always been like that, but people seem to be forgetting they were fully- or semi-fleshed out characters before they became prisoners of the Pink Hell. Thanks to this stereotype being kept in existence by Disney themselves (for example, in Enchanted), '(Disney) Princess' and 'Princess movie' have now become derogatory terms.

And before anyone says, "But the kids are the main target audience and they love it", well, the kids loved the original films as well and if I were a parent I'd be concerned about exposing my children to something so dumbed-down and insulting to my kids' intelligence. So if you're a Disney fan and still support all this pink glitter-shyte you really need to reevaluate what made you fall in love with Disney in the first place. And I bet it wasn't "Sparkling Princesses" or "Princess Palace Pets".

So, no, I don't support it one bit.

Yeah, as Mysterious Mr. Enter said just because something is aimed at kids doesn't mean it has to be dumbed down. I mean look at Sofia the First it might be aimed at preschoolers but it has intelligent writing that attracts both its target and older audiences. I especially like how Sofia the First has progressed since it began because I feel the second season is stronger than its first.

I think the Disney Princess franchise can be a good thing if they gave the princesses their original personalities and focused on the interests that the Princesses had in the movies. I mean with Belle we could focus on reading, Tiana cooking, Merida archery and horse riding, Ariel treasure hunting, Rapunzel painting and all the other stuff she did in the tower, Mulan sword fighting and martial arts, Jasmine adventuring like she did in Aladdin the animated series, etc.

bruno_wbt wrote:I think the Disney Princess franchise is a very positive thing because it keeps relevant classic Disney characters like Snow White, Aurora or even Ariel, which might have been forgotten by today’s kids if it wasn't for this franchise.

I see your argument, but I'm not sure if they would be forgotten. Walt's princesses has been around for a while and I think today's kids would've been exposed to them in a way or another. But it's a debatable discussion.

Hey guys! I've now made a new addition to my blog; http://mydisneyanalysis.blogspot.no/201 ... which.html

Yes, I know it's a discussion that has been discussed to death priorly, but I thought I could give it some new light. Take a look and enjoy

I only wish that TP&TF had Alan Menken do the music. If we never had another hand-drawn film from Disney again, at least it would've went out with the best available at the time--M&C and Alan Menken.

Some of the "controversies" for TP&TF were so inane. How does Maddie have anything to do with Mammy except in the biggest stretch imaginable?? I don't mind the name Tiana, but they shouldn't have been affected at all by that nonsense when making the movie. I also love the restaurant plot for Tiana, but I wouldn't have minded seeing what a movie with her as a chamber maid with her mother would've been like. How does that have anything to do with race? SW and Cinderella, the most well-known fairy tale characters, were house-slaves. And even after those changes, people still found a way to call the movie by racist because the characters are frogs for most of the plot. For heaven's sake. Things like this are why some people roll their eyes when words like "racism" and "sexism" are used, making it easier for real racism/sexism to be ignored.

I do wish they'd given TP&TF a different title. The Frog Prince would've been applicable to me (even if they were drawing from that The Frog Princess book). But I feel the same way about Tangled and Frozen--would've much rather we could call them Rapunzel and The Snow Queen.

Hey guys! Now I've made a new addition to my blog; The Lion King.

http://mydisneyanalysis.blogspot.no/201 ... -king.html

Enjoy