DVDizzy Forum

sotiris2006 wrote:

Escapay wrote:European doesn't always equal white, you know.

That is why i said i'm guessing white, not that he will be white. Got you there, didn't i?

True, true.

Damn technicalities...



Albert

I have this song on a tape (It's a tape with a few episodes).

Aladdin from Agrabah wrote:The crocodile rocks! Thank God there is this cool crocodile in the movie, because I couldn't stand a movie with only 2 frogs as the main characters! I really don't know if I'm happy for this movie, now that I think about it. It's like Brother Bear. In the beginning you think you're going to watch a film about a human, but no, it's actually a film about a bear. And now it's the same: you think you'll have a beautiful girl as the main character but Disney decides to make a fool of everyone who likes Tiana's design and turns her into a *^#@ing frog for about, I guess, a percentage of 80% of the whole movie. How about "The Frog and the Frog"? Doesn't it sound much more accurate?
Ok I can picture it now. After the movie is out and everyone realises that Tiana is Tiana only for the first 20 minutes of the film (well that's just a thought not a statement), fellow members will create threads like "Who would like to see a film with Tiana as a human?" or "Is Tiana a Disney Princess or a Disney Frog?".

I don't think this will be like Brother Bear at all,The whole point in Brother Bear is that he's a bear not like Tiana is a frog (By the way-Shouldn't we mark this as a spoiler? it does spoil) and it's not imporetent like in Brother Bear,I think that the screen time she"ll be a frog will be like the screen time Ariel was a human,even less screen time then the screen time with human Ariel.

Since the movie is called "The Frog Princess", I think it's safe to assume that there will be a princess who is a frog. That just makes sense.

Do people complain that Ariel isn't a mermaid in 100% of "The Little Mermaid"? "Oh no- false advertising! It should be called The Sometimes-Little Mermaid Who is A Part-Time Average-Sized Human..."

Amy,the film is now called The Princess and the Frog,it's not Frog Princess anymore.
Wait,shouldn't we change the name of the thread?.

Ariel'sprince wrote:Amy,the film is now called The Princess and the Frog,it's not Frog Princess anymore.
Wait,shouldn't we change the name of the thread?.

I feel stupid now. I knew that...I was just caught up in the moment, lol. My bad. Thanks for setting me straight (again), Ariel'sprince!

I know that the majority of people who will see "The Princess and the Frog" aren't Disney geeks (no offense, everyone here, but we are!), so they may not know that the film used to be called "The Frog Prince"...but for those who know about the development of the film, didn't we assume that, when the film was called "The Frog Princess", that there would be a princess who is a frog?

I think I'm babbling now, but I guess I don't understand why people would complain about Tiana becoming a frog...why did Disney change the title, anyway? Did people complain that an African American turninig into a frog was derogatory? Because people didn't complain that the Beast was a prince turned into a beast. Or that a fish girl turned into a human...

I'm hurting my own brain now. Hopefully I'm contributing something worthwhile here...

You're wellcome .

blackcauldron85 wrote: I know that the majority of people who will see "The Princess and the Frog" aren't Disney geeks (no offense, everyone here, but we are!)

I think that there's much prettier word to this-Disney fans,besides-I don't believe that there's "geeks".
On topic-Well,I think it's spoiling,I had no idea they whould do that to her! I think they wanted to make a female version of the story and they now changed it,not this,so this spoling and it's a surprising twist,if they called it Frog Princess they whould have spoiled the whole thing,this didn't happened in the original fairy tale so it is a spoiler.
Anyway I think it's defintly a spoiler and maybe we should even change the name of the thread.
By the way-A merperson isn't a fish .

steve wrote:I'm sorry, but anyone went into Brother Bear expecting to see a movie that was not about a bear is, well, confused to say the least... Maybe they should have stuck with the more straight-forward working title Bears...

Well If I didn't know the title of the movie or anything about the plot -which is impossible cause I'm a Disney fan- and I was just you know watching it on TV without knowing that Kenai was going to be a bear, I would really be pissed off with the whole bear situation that follows. But I was pissed off anyway, because I didn't know in what percentage of the whole film Kenai was going to be a bear, and, to my great dissapointment, he was a bear for the most part of the movie. And you know, "Brother Bear" means nothing actually. It could mean "The Native American and his Brother Bear", or"My Brother and his Bear", or even "My Brother who is as chubby as a bear"!
Anyways, back to the topic, I think I'm cursed to get terribly bored of films whose main characters are animals. I was expecting to watch Tiana and her frog prince and now I'm gonna watch two frogs in love. Oh, well. I think I have to stop hoping for a new "Aladdin". It's just too good to happen again.
As for Ariel becoming a human or the Prince becoming a Beast, those transformations guys, in my humble opinion and from my very own point of view, were nice, were beauiful, were more... glamorous, let's say. And, let's get serious now, Ariel's change was not so dramatic, her face and everything remained the same as before! But a frog! Just pathetic.

Would it be weird to watch a pretty human girl fall in love with a frog? Maybe having Tiana turn into a frog is the best way to tell the story...? I'm just asking based on the comments of those who want Tiana to stay a human. Was it weird that Belle & Beast were falling in love? Maybe not as much, since Beast was still human-like (his eyes, walking on 2 legs)...

I don't have a problem whatsoever with Tiana turning into a frog. We don't know how much of the film will have her as a frog...I don't think that we know enough about the plot to know that yet.

For those of you who are saying that you want to see Tiana be a human for all of the film or at least the vast majority, why? Do you just prefer watching human princess movies? If the movie were "The Frog Prince", would we even be discussing this? Is it just because Tiana is a female, a princess? If the main character were a prince, would it be as big of an issue that he'd be a human turned into a frog for part or most of the film?

blackcauldron85 wrote:Would it be weird to watch a pretty human girl fall in love with a frog?

Didn't you knew of a princess called Diana, from Wales,...or you forget Eva Longorian's wedding?

blackcauldron85 wrote:If the main character were a prince, would it be as big of an issue that he'd be a human turned into a frog for part or most of the film?

As for me, yes. I prefer to watch animated films with at least one human as one of the main characters.

Aladdin from Agrabah-You're making the film sounds like Tiana will be a frog in the entire film,I don't think that she"ll be a frog too much.

Would it be weird to watch a pretty human girl fall in love with a frog? Maybe having Tiana turn into a frog is the best way to tell the story...? I'm just asking based on the comments of those who want Tiana to stay a human. Was it weird that Belle & Beast were falling in love? Maybe not as much, since Beast was still human-like (his eyes, walking on 2 legs)...

Maybe it is a way to make her love him more (Thought they does convince her to kiss him),so while they"ll frog they"ll fell in love.

I agree, AfA. Although I can certainly enjoy movies with animals, it's hard for me to stay entertained if there aren't at least a few important human characters. I don't mind if Tiana turns into a frog, but I hope she isn't like that for the majority of the movie--I can already imagine the way this'll turn out if she does.

Hey, there's always a chance to see more of her as a human in the sequel

^Ugh, I was about to say there won't be anymore but I forgot about Enchanted Tales ><

Anyhow.... you must remember, "The Frog Princess" and "The Frog Prince" are two different stories.

SPOILER!

Disney's adaption's twist is that instead of either the prince, or the princess turning into a frog, they both do. Which is most likely why they changed the title, as "the frog princess" would give it away, and "the frog prince" focuses more on the prince, and this is clearly Tiana's movie.

What is there to give away with "The Frog Princess?" That Tiana, who won't even be a real princess until the end of the film, will be turned into a frog? So? Are we assuming that the advertisements won't reveal this? I mean, honestly, we're talking as if everyone didn't already assume that a princess and a frog would somehow be involved in this film. It would be like being surprised that Arthur got Excalibur from "The Sword in the Stone," or that mermaids appear in "The Little Mermaid." Overall, The Frog Princess is a much better title than The Princess and the Frog.

^Isn't Tiana set to be a princess from the start of the movie? Well that's what I gathered from the plot so far, as well as the promo pic.

Anyhow what you've got to realize is, if there's a movie called "the frog princess" and it starts off with a frog prince, the audience will still be expecting a frog princess as the title implies. You're examples are clearly flawed, because those aren't twists at all. Is the little mermaid becoming human a twist? That IS the plot! In fact, after the disney version, the HCA original ending is more of a twist. But the princess becoming a frog, after kissing a frog, is, because it doesn't resolve the conflict of the original, it makes it worse, and allows a lot more plot.

Think back to 2001's hit Shrek. How many of you were expecting Fiona to be an ogre too? Even with the huge publicity of the film, it was still a major surprise to me. Of course, after the initial publicity, and for the releases of the next few films, the ogre appearance of Fiona was standard, but during the promotion of the first film, the surprise element was purposely maintained. There haven't been many stories containing both a frog prince and a frog princess, the general audience shouldn't expect both of them becoming frogs coming into the theater. Yes, word of mouth will probably obliterate the "twist", but the same goes with most movies. At least Disney is trying to keep the movie away from predictability, as their princess tales are well known for.

They should have named it "The Frogs".

Or better yet, "FROGS!"

Fiona isn't the main character in "Shrek", though. And "Shrek" isn't a well-known fairy tale. I mean, even if "The Princess and the Frog" differs from the well-known fairy tale, "The Frog Prince", we know that the story deals with humans turning into frogs. People can just guess, based on the title, that the princess involved may eventually turn into a frog. That's just assumption, of course, but based on the classic fairy tale and the title alone, people may wonder if the princess also turns into a frog.

We don't know what kind of advertising the movie will have. People may assume that the princess has a frog for a sidekick- they may not know if the frog is a romantic interest.

I don't know why I'm so passionate about this...it's totally hurting my brain.

^great points.

I don't know why I care either but I'm just trying to justify Disney's reasons for renaming the movie.

Personally, I prefer the title, "The Frog Princess", but the current title is much better suited for this movie imo.