DVDizzy Forum

Hey Jules, that was quite an informative article. The author seems to have done their research.

MOOKY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I got a little confused reading both the storybook pages (probably due to not all the pages being there) and the ending spoiler, but maybe that's a good thing. Oh, and it made me cry. Yeah, I'll need to bring me some hankies to the theater. Boy, am I even more excited than I already have been!!!! This could totally end up being in my top 5 DACs...I know I haven't seen it yet, but I have such a great feeling about it!!!

And, of course the back of the storybook has to say "Tiana, the first Afican-American Disney princess". Like, I get that it's big and I'm thriled that there is an African-American Princess, but, like, really, they need to say it on the back of the storybook? Oh, and how many people are going to complain that there's a little while girl on the back of the storybook.

the article Julian posted the link to wrote:“This princess story is set in New Orleans, the setting of one of the most devastating tragedies to beset a black community."

But it's set in the 1920s, for pete's sake!!!

Thanks for sharing, Mooky & Julian!

blackcauldron85 wrote:

the article Julian posted the link to wrote:“This princess story is set in New Orleans, the setting of one of the most devastating tragedies to beset a black community."

But it's set in the 1920s, for pete's sake!!!

I also thought it would be complimentary, like a homage, to the area for Disney to be focusing a film on it. Ah well.

Julian Carter wrote:An important article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/fashi ... ef=fashion

The part of the article that angered me the most was how Disney shouldn't have chosen New Orleans as the setting for the story due to how "tragic" it was.

Bull. Bull. BULL!

If my understanding is correct New Orleans is a city filled with rich cultures and traditions. Just because it was hit by a devastating disaster it doesn't mean we only have to view it as a tragic place. It would be dishonoring the city's history.

While we are at it, let's NEVER make a story set in New York city ever again because 9/11 happened there. California? ALL THOSE FIRES!!! Florida? The HURRICANES! Mexico? THE SWINE FLU EEEEEEHH!

Sorry if I sound harsh but its incredible how PC mentality has come to the point where we can't even set stories in certain cities because of tragedies and disasters. Life goes on and we must continue on celebrating the places that make our hearts flutter with joy, not forget about them simply because they were struck by tragedy.

pap64 wrote: The part of the article that angered me the most was how Disney shouldn't have chosen New Orleans as the setting for the story due to how "tragic" it was.

Bull. Bull. BULL!

If my understanding is correct New Orleans is a city filled with rich cultures and traditions. Just because it was hit by a devastating disaster it doesn't mean we only have to view it as a tragic place. It would be dishonoring the city's history.

I completely agree. I believe they'd have found something wrong with *any* setting they chose, even an imaginary one.

I'm seeing all of the merchandise, and I' m just guessing that they did this in the 90's in which the summer would be launching the film's merchandise and having characters at the parks, If that's what it was like, I can't wait for this one.

Wow! Thanks so much for the information, Mooky! Now it's got me even more hyped up to see it.

I agree some of the article is ridiculous as well in how overly a PC issue this movie is becoming as well. This reminded me of a previous article similiar to this, which stated that the movie is "to hope break the racism of the past within the company." I won't deny the existence of the crows and Sunflower, but the whole "racism in the company" with Walt just makes me shake my head. If anyone would even bother to do any research at all like these journalists should be doing, they would find a blending of different artists who worked for Walt in high positions of different race and cultural backgrounds: African-American Floyd Norman, Asian-Americans Tyrus Wong and Iwao Takamoto, and Jewish artists like Joe Grant, Art Babbitt, and the Sherman Bros.

pap64 wrote: Sorry if I sound harsh but its incredible how PC mentality has come to the point where we can't even set stories in certain cities because of tragedies and disasters. Life goes on

enigmawing wrote:I completely agree. I believe they'd have found something wrong with *any* setting they chose, even an imaginary one.

I agree with you both. There are ALWAYS going to be people complaining just to complain. There are always people who are going to have differing opinions on a movie. I mean, look at Song of the South. Some people just complain and complain about it (many of whom haven't even seen it), and then there are those who strongly want it to be released, who don't mind an introduction to play before the film.

New Orleans isn't definited by Hurricane Katrina. Yes, it was a horrible thing, but this film takes place in the 1920s, way before Katrina hit. There was a life to New Orleans before, and there will be life in New Orleans after.

People will complain about anything. Sometimes so much so that Disney actually listens (not releasing SOTS, changing "Maddy" to "Tiana", and changing "The Frog Princess" to "The Princess and the Frog" [I mean, there could've been other factors to that, too...], to changing the line in Aladdin, to erasing the priest's knee in TLM...and the list goes on). Disney is so uspet about upsetting the complainers more that they'll upset people who were alright with it. Happiness is quieter than complaining, so if we weren't complaining before, they figure that we'll eventually accept and be happy with their decisions. But of course we're not. Disney knows that their die-hard fans (and even families and their not-as-die-hard fans) won't boycott the company if they withhold SOTS from the public, but some people claim that they'll boycott the company of SOTS IS released. There's just no winning sometimes.

PrincePhillipFan wrote:Wow! Thanks so much for the information, Mooky! Now it's got me even more hyped up to see it.

I agree some of the article is ridiculous as well in how overly a PC issue this movie is becoming as well. This reminded me of a previous article similiar to this, which stated that the movie is "to hope break the racism of the past within the company." I won't deny the existence of the crows and Sunflower, but the whole "racism in the company" with Walt just makes me shake my head. If anyone would even bother to do any research at all like these journalists should be doing, they would find a blending of different artists who worked for Walt in high positions of different race and cultural backgrounds: African-American Floyd Norman, Asian-Americans Tyrus Wong and Iwao Takamoto, and Jewish artists like Joe Grant, Art Babbitt, and the Sherman Bros.

People seem to forget that these movies were made at a different time, when no one thought, not even black people, that jokes about the African American community were bad, It was common and even normal. They are a product of the time and it shouldn't be forgotten simply because we don't agree with it.

This is basically putting fingers in our ears and humming as loud as possible and hope history fades away.

blackcauldron85 wrote:

pap64 wrote: Sorry if I sound harsh but its incredible how PC mentality has come to the point where we can't even set stories in certain cities because of tragedies and disasters. Life goes on

enigmawing wrote:I completely agree. I believe they'd have found something wrong with *any* setting they chose, even an imaginary one.

I agree with you both. There are ALWAYS going to be people complaining just to complain.

New Orleans isn't definited by Hurricane Katrina. Yes, it was a horrible thing, but this film takes place in the 1920s, way before Katrina hit. There was a life to New Orleans before, and there will be life in New Orleans after.

I agree with all of you. I'm African American and I haven't been offended by any of the choices Disney has made about this movie. I'm offended by the complainers. It's a MOVIE and a Disney movie for that matter. It's meant to entertain. I think that setting this in New Orleans was a great idea and it seams like (from everything we've seen) New Orleans is a character in this movie too. (I believe someone connected to the movie said that.)

And I know this has been on going, but the complaint about Naveen not being black is just stupid. When I first heard about the movie I expected him not to be and I think it works. Knowing what we know about Naveen and his personality, if he was black people would have been complaining about that.

I need to stop before I start rambling and write an essay long response.

You're welcome, guys! I'm glad you enjoyed them!

sotiris2006 wrote:I won't be reading it thought since i already know too much about the movie.

I know what you mean - I didn't read it either, I just looked at the illustrations . After reading those AICN reviews I don't want to know anything else about the movie until it hits theaters.

Read the NY Times article and all the responses. Oh my gosh, all that whining! If it isn't about the race issue, it's about Dinsey's so-called 'anti-feminist' message and how Disney is corrupting whole generations of children. Well, I can imagine a lot of things that have a bad influence on the development of children, but waching Disney cartoon features isn't one of them. (speaking from my own experience )

lol, the climax of the story reminds me of what happens to the write rabbit (I think) in American McGee's Alice in Wonderland.

Great game, disney should make a film adaption.

BelleGirl wrote:Read the NY Times article and all the responses. Oh my gosh, all that whining! If it isn't about the race issue, it's about Dinsey's so-called 'anti-feminist' message and how Disney is corrupting whole generations of children. Well, I can imagine a lot of things that have a bad influence on the development of children, but waching Disney cartoon features isn't one of them. (speaking from my own experience )

I know! The worst part is that those people don't know a thing about the Disney company, which is obvious with the "But why aren't Pocahontas and Mulan princesses? Blah, blah, blah." comments. Ugh.

But there's no way this publicity can hurt the film.

Mooky wrote:You're welcome, guys! I'm glad you enjoyed them!

sotiris2006 wrote:I won't be reading it thought since i already know too much about the movie.

I know what you mean - I didn't read it either, I just looked at the illustrations . After reading those AICN reviews I don't want to know anything else about the movie until it hits theaters.

Yes, I just looked at the pictures. I don't want to know the whole story before I can see the movie.

Correct me if im wrong here but...

Tiana may be 1st Black Princess and the return of 2D Animation

She is also the return of the female lead as in the story is around her not a guy right? cuz the last Animated movie focused of the girl was Home on the Range to my knowing

Home on the Range was a cow. I think you would have to go back to Mulan to have a female human be the lead character!!!

kbehm29 wrote:Home on the Range was a cow. I think you would have to go back to Mulan to have a female human be the lead character!!!

What about Lilo&Stitch?

Will Barks wrote:

kbehm29 wrote:Home on the Range was a cow. I think you would have to go back to Mulan to have a female human be the lead character!!!

What about Lilo&Stitch?

Yes that was a female lead, but also a little girl. I think they mean the more adolescent/grown-up female lead.But yes, Lilo is the last female human lead character before Tiana. (if you don't count in Enchanted)

Princess Tiana has been added to the official Disney Princess website! She is placed in the center and while her games aren't active yet, you can see her world and hear some score from the film. Click here to go to the site.