DVDizzy Forum

D82 wrote:I hadn't heard of that movie.

I'm surprised by that considering it used to be a Disney movie. It was produced by Miramax during its Disney era. It was even animated at Hyperion Animation which worked on other Disney productions such as The Brave Little Toaster and The Proud Family. It's a shame we lost it and many other films when Miramax was sold. For me, the biggest loses were the live-action Ella Enchanted, A Wrinkle in Time, Finding Neverland and the animated Arabian Knight, Light Years, Freddie as F.R.O.7, How the Toys Saved Christmas, Go Hugo Go/Hugo the Movie Star.

D82 wrote:Combining both fairy tales is an interesting idea. Maybe Disney could've done something like that to expand the story.

They sort of did it with Aladdin and the King of Thieves where they fused the stories of Aladdin and Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves. Also, it may not be Disney, but The Princess and the Pea (2002) did it as well by combining The Princess and the Pea with The Goose Girl. There are a lot of fairytales that feature the same tropes and formulas, so in theory something like that could work. Before Tangled came along, the tales of Rapunzel and Rumpelstiltskin were often conflated in people's minds. I'm OK with that practice as long as it's not something gimmicky and irreverent where you mash together various fairytales like Happily N'Ever After and Charming did.

farerb wrote:They did it with Lady and the Tramp.

Did they? I thought Lady and the Tramp was based on a short story called "Happy Dan, the Whistling Dog". Unless, you're referring to the novelization Walt commissioned titled "Lady and the Tramp: The Story of Two Dogs" to promote the film. Regardless, neither of them were fairy tales, so they don't count.

Hold on, wait a minute!!

Sotiris wrote:The Princess and the Pea (2002) did it as well by combining The Princess and the Pea with The Goose Girl.

I've known about this film for a while, but have never seen it-- I had no idea that it also had The Goose Girl elements!!!! I've wanted someone Disney to make The Goose Girl forever!! I definitely need to check out the movie.

Sotiris wrote:It's interesting revisiting these old threads and seeing what people were saying back then. The third trilogy came and went, but what about a fourth trilogy? What do you think the next fairy tale one will be? It seems Disney has left fairy tale adaptations behind and they're now more interested in telling original stories based on mythology (Moana, Raya, Encanto). Too bad Gigantic was cancelled. It could could have been the start of a new one.

I wonder if Disney will find themselves in another "dark age" at some point? If so, they may be saving any further fairytales for the future, to lift themselves out of another downturn like they've always done. I know Moana is vaguely based on Polynesian mythology, but what are Raya and Encanto connected to? If they aren't going to do fairy tales, I really wish they'd go back to adaptations of literature, tales, legends, myths, etc. Something like Mulan, Hercules, Dalmatians, TJB, Tarzan, etc. Just another sign of them being PIXAR 2.0 and not having much identity of their own anymore.

Sotiris wrote: Did they? I thought Lady and the Tramp was based on a short story called "Happy Dan, the Whistling Dog". Unless, you're referring to the novelization Walt commissioned titled "Lady and the Tramp: The Story of Two Dogs" to promote the film. Regardless, neither of them were fairy tales, so they don't count.

It was a combination of "Happy Dan, the Whistling Dog" and a story idea by Joe Grant, who came up with it because of his dog.

Aladdin and the King of Thieves was a cheapquel, and yes, one of the best ones, but still rather un-Disney because it was never done for a theatrical feature.

The Lady and the Tramp thing is taking one story and adding a story they came up with that was never literature to expand it, not an already pre-existing piece of literature to expand it. Coming up with a story idea to use specifically for a feature is expanding the story organically. It's how all features get made, expanding the story with more story ideas that are not whole other pre-existing stories from pre-existing literature!

Sotiris wrote:

D82 wrote:I hadn't heard of that movie.

I'm surprised by that considering it used to be a Disney movie. It was produced by Miramax during its Disney era. It was even animated at Hyperion Animation which worked on other Disney productions such as The Brave Little Toaster and The Proud Family. It's a shame we lost it and many other films when Miramax was sold. For me, the biggest loses were the live-action Ella Enchanted, A Wrinkle in Time, Finding Neverland and the animated Arabian Knight, Freddie as F.R.O.7, How the Toys Saved Christmas, Go Hugo Go/Hugo the Movie Star.

I hadn't heard of Freddie as F.R.O.7 either. It's strange because by the time that movie was released I used to rent every animated film I saw at my local video store. I didn't know there was a previous adaptation of A Wrinkle in Time either. Maybe that one's better than the most recent one. Also, I hadn't realized some of these movies were no longer owned by Disney. Yeah, it's a shame they lost them.

Sotiris wrote:

D82 wrote:Combining both fairy tales is an interesting idea. Maybe Disney could've done something like that to expand the story.

They sort of did it with Aladdin and the King of Thieves where they fused the stories of Aladdin and Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves. Also, it may not be Disney, but The Princess and the Pea (2002) did it as well by combining The Princess and the Pea with The Goose Girl. There are a lot of fairytales that feature the same tropes and formulas, so in theory something like that could work. Before Tangled came along, the tales of Rapunzel and Rumpelstiltskin were often conflated in people's minds. As long as it's not something gimmicky and irreverent where you mash together various fairytales like Happily N'Ever After and Charming did.

I knew Aladdin and the King of Thieves did that, but not The Princess and the Pea. I've wanted to see that movie since The Princess and the Pea was another of my favorite fairy tales growing up, but the poor quality of the animation has prevented me from doing it so far. On paper, combining that tale with The Goose Girl seems like a good idea. I'm more curious about the movie now; I'll have to watch it one of these days.

I agree that combining more than one story could work in some cases, though I understand Disney Duster too; if Disney used a fairy tale you really liked to extend the story of another one, that would mean you would never get a proper adaptation of it by the company. I felt a bit that way regarding Aladdin and the King of Thieves when it was released, but probably the story of Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves wasn't good enough to have its own separate movie. I would like to see another adaptation from One Thousand and One Nights by Disney, though.

I've been think about it today and I was wondering, do you think that perhaps the reason Disney doesn't explore new fairytales is because people are less receptive about them than they used to be? Or maybe after trying to figure out The Snow Queen for so long only to come up with something that is divorced from the original tale, and then Gigantic getting cancelled, they just figured out that it wasn't worth it and just moved on to original stories for their movies?

I guess they could have done adaptations to books but I think they might not want to bother themselves with purchasing the rights?

I wonder if what happened with Mort (an all-or-nothing approach, needing to buy the rights to the whole series vs. just one book) is common...maybe that's why they aren't adapting more books?

There are tons of popular books and classic literature that's in the public domain. No rights purchasing required. As for them not doing any more fairy tales, I think it's a combination of reasons.

• The most well-known fairy tales have already been adapted either by Disney or by other studios.
• Fairy tales are seen as old-fashioned and regressive. Even when they get a modern, feminist spin, they are still perceived as inherently harmful.
• The studio is struggling with who their target audience is. Have they accepted that their output is seen as something for girls? Are they still chasing after boys? It's easier to appeal to a broader audience by avoiding fairy tales and what is usually associated with them (princesses, palaces, puffy dresses etc.).
• The new batch of filmmakers at Disney are more interested in doing original stories based on their experiences.
• Disney is focused on telling stories that are racially and ethnically diverse. Most of the popular fairy tales are Western ones. Sure, they could race-switch them or adapt non-Western variations of them, but they might feel that isn't authentic enough for the nations/regions they wish to represent.

But then again, what is a fairy tales nowadays or for the Disney brand for that matter. For a lot of people Moana and Raya are fairy tales (which I don't think they are) for the fact that they feature magic and princesses. I guess that's what Disney tried to do with Raya. They seemed to want to try to reinvent the genre by using a princess without songs or the traditional formula.

I think all you guys are right with your answers to farerb's question. I agree the most with Sotiris, though I didn't know the current regime at Disney wanted to tell original stories more than old ones.

When you look at both The Princess And The Frog and Frozen, they are very different from the fairy tales that they're based on and seem more like original stories that borrow elements from fairy tales than real adaptations of the source material. The last fairy tale that seems to be very faithful to the book would be Beauty And The Beast.

Beauty and the Beast is much more different than the original tale. Walt had a lot of difficulties with it because the story itself is basically Beauty going to dinner every night, which doesn't really make a compelling narrative. Another major change was that the character who changed was Beauty, learning to see the humanity of the Beast and look beneath the surface, while Disney changed it so that the Beast was the one who needed to change and learn (a lot of people view Belle as the main character and I can kind of see that because she gets the "I want" song or rather a reprise, but the Beast is the one who actually go through an arc, or at least one that is more significant).

I don't see how it's any different than what they did with something like Rapunzel or Mulan or Aladdin.

Redadoodles wrote:But then again, what is a fairy tales nowadays or for the Disney brand for that matter. For a lot of people Moana and Raya are fairy tales (which I don't think they are) for the fact that they feature magic and princesses.

I don't think they are fairy tales either, but they are based on mythology and folklore which are seen as fairy tale-adjacent. Personally, I prefer it when a specific, concrete myth or folktale is being adapted like with Hercules and Mulan than a hodgepodge of them like with Moana or Raya.

Redadoodles wrote:They seemed to want to try to reinvent the genre by using a princess without songs or the traditional formula.

I think the new princess movie formula has or will have the following ingredients.

• Her status as royalty is either non-existent, underplayed or rejected.
• She's a girl or woman of color
• She's physically strong and knows how to fight, even if she isn't a warrior
• She has a female friend or a close relationship to a female family member
• No love interest
• No villain
• If there's a female antagonist, she is redeemed
• Her dreams and goals are centered around her family or community

Sotiris wrote: I don't think they are fairy tales either, but they are based on mythology and folklore which is seen as fairy tale adjacent. Personally, I prefer it when a specific, concrete myth or folktale is adapted like with Hercules and Mulan than a hodgepodge of them like with Moana or Raya.

Amen.. !!

Sotiris wrote:• Her status as royalty is either non-existent, underplayed or rejected.
• She's a girl or woman of color
• She's physically strong and knows how to fight, even if she isn't a warrior
• She has a female friend or a close relationship to a female family member
• No love interest
• No villain
• If there's a female antagonist, she is redeemed
• Her dreams or goals are centered around her family or community

I hope you're wrong. You make it sound like a Tofu meal without dressing when people like me want a real burger.

I don't think Raya and Moana (and Encanto, which sounds similar to them) will repeat endlessly. Eventually there will be variations, another White protagonist, a love interest, a musical (Encanto is going to be a musical unlike Raya), etc. After all, those two films themselves are variations on Tangled and Frozen. Tangled and Frozen both had a princess with magical powers imitated by Moana, Frozen had the existential threat of a magical disaster (Elsa's powers / beware the "Frozen Heart") which is similar to the darkness from Te Ka in Moana and the Druun in Raya that threaten the lives of everyone in those films. I think it may be a conscious choice by the company to imitate real life to a degree of an uprising of female leaders as well as the increasing urgency of needing to address climate change, something that affects everyone and requires cooperation. I can't really blame them because both are important issues. YMMV.

I feel like Belle needed to grow to love the Beast. In "Something There" we see her learn to start seeing the Beast as a potential love interest. I feel she did have an arc almost as strong as the Beast's.

Disney Duster wrote:I feel like Belle needed to grow to love the Beast. In "Something There" we see her learn to start seeing the Beast as a potential love interest. I feel she did have an arc almost as strong as the Beast's.

I don't, and I say this when Beauty and the Beast is my favorite film. But what you're saying that basically Belle needed to learn to love a man, an that's not an arc. Also she never disliked the Beast because of his appearance, but because of the way he treated her. Once he changed, her response changed, because Belle treats people fairly and that's who she's always been, see the way she treats Gaston compared to the rest of the town. So can you really say that Belle in the end of the film is not the same as she was at the start?

Say what you will about the Revival, at least those film let the female protagonist have their own arcs, unlike the Renaissance films where it's shifted to the male characters (Triton, Beast, Aladdin and John Smith), there's a reason why many people view Mulan as an achievement for Disney because it was the first time the story remained focused on the female heroine, and once again I say this as someone who loves The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin, i'm making it clear because some people are really bothered when anyone say something negative about the Renaissance films.

Well Belle gasps when she sees how the Beast looks. She is scared of how he looks at first. I think Belle learned to love a Beast, not just a man.

However, you explained your view so very well, I almost agreed. I just think she learned to love a Beast, so she is a little different. It's not like the Belle in the original fairy tale was shallow and only loved people for their looks at the start, either.

Redadoodles wrote:But then again, what is a fairy tales nowadays or for the Disney brand for that matter. For a lot of people Moana and Raya are fairy tales (which I don't think they are) for the fact that they feature magic and princesses. I guess that's what Disney tried to do with Raya. They seemed to want to try to reinvent the genre by using a princess without songs or the traditional formula.

They are not fairy tales for the principal reason that in a fairy tale the heroine must always be the most beautiful princess in the land. And no one would ever call Moana beautiful by a longshot. I think Raya is closer to that standard but she dresses terribly. As my French teacher said, no man will ever want a woman who dresses like a man.

Stan the real beauties of Disney.