DVDizzy Forum

Posted: **Mon Feb 09, 2009 6:29 am**

Disney's Divinity wrote:Maybe the character just evolved into a different personality (similar to how Sebastian went from a British butler type to a Caribbean reggae-singing type). We already know the film went under a major evolution.

That's probably when it happened. Jafar was supposed to be short-tempered, neurotic vizier and Iago was supposed to be calm, cool British-type mastermind. So they changed his name to Iago, maybe his personality reminded them of Iago from "Othello". And even though Sinbad would be more appropriate given the setting of the movie, now I just can't imagine our favorite parrot being called anything else but Iago

.

Posted: **Mon Feb 09, 2009 7:02 pm**

Kyle wrote:
So you're telling me there's a chance!

LMFAO!! Awesome post.

Posted: **Mon Feb 09, 2009 8:33 pm**

schoollover wrote:Aladdin is one of my favorite disney films. I loved the 2004 dvd , but I really wish they would have given jasmine her own solo song though. i also don't know why so many people find this better than the lion king. I love them both but aladdin is simply my Favorite.

Posted: **Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:41 pm**

mooky_7_sa wrote:
Disney's Divinity wrote:Maybe the character just evolved into a different personality (similar to how Sebastian went from a British butler type to a Caribbean reggae-singing type). We already know the film went under a major evolution.
That's probably when it happened. Jafar was supposed to be short-tempered, neurotic vizier and Iago was supposed to be calm, cool British-type mastermind. So they changed his name to Iago, maybe his personality reminded them of Iago from "Othello". And even though Sinbad would be more appropriate given the setting of the movie, now I just can't imagine our favorite parrot being called anything else but Iago .

that would be my bet. then the term "Honest Iago" would make sense with his character too.

Posted: **Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:28 pm**

I caught the "plot hole" with Jasmine not asking how Aladdin escaped too but I always considered that as Jasmine just assumed Jafar was mistaken. Or she asked about it "off camera." It's not really a plot hole, just something that wasn't shown.

Now, one thing that totally confused me about the film, was when Jafar had the lamp and turned Prince Ali back into Aladdin. Jasmine acted shocked and Aladdin said... "Jasmine... I'm sorry.... I tried to tell you...." Huh?!?! He DID tell her, after their magic carpet ride. She knew all along Prince Ali was the "boy from the marketplace." Am I missing something?!

Posted: **Tue Feb 10, 2009 12:58 am**

about the first plot hole we mentioned: its not like asking to go to the bathroom, its a potentially major plot point that should have been addressed right there. isn't that the first thing you would ask if you suddenly saw someone you were sure had been killed?

as for your second, yeah I think your missing an important detail: he only told her a half truth. he Was the boy from the market place, but he told her that he was a prince dressed as a commoner. which of course wasn't true.

her reaction later was in response to him never really being a prince.

Posted: **Tue Feb 10, 2009 4:16 pm**

nomad2010 wrote:although this is my favorite animated disney film i always have trouble getting past the fact the whole time aladdin could have just given the lamp to jasmine and had her with for the law to be changed and then given it back to him to free the genie. jasmine could have done anything with those three wishes.. so to me that is the biggest plot hole. i can look past the prince ali/aladdin/death sentence thing

Where's the emotional impact in that? Sure, you can do *anything*, but you go by what's best for the overall film.

drfsupercenter wrote:As far as that "plot hole" goes... that's not nearly as bad as Beauty and the Beast! Right at the beginning of the movie, the narrator says he has to be loved before his 21st birthday, but in Be Our Guest they say it's been "10 years since [they've] had anybody [there]". No way the thing happened when he was 11. I'm sure you all know about it by now, but Aladdin's little story hole seems minor compared to that!

"10 years we've been rusting, needing so much more than dusting" could be just a figure of speech. Lumière just means they've been under a spell for a very long time. Also, I don't seen why it couldn't have happened when he was 11 years old.

mooky_7_sa wrote:Here's how I tried to explain that goof. I wrote this on BatB's IMDb board:

21 years before the film's beginning
- the prince is, let's say, 18 years old or even older
- the Enchantress casts the spell on the prince to last for 21 years ("The rose she had offered was truly an enchanted rose, which would bloom until his 21st year")

With all due respect, but your explanation doesn't make any sense. The rose would bloom until the 21st birthday of the Prince. So there can't pass that many years between the casting of the spell and Belle's arrival.

You want a plot hole? Why could Pinocchio stay under water for a very long period of time without ever getting affected, yet he almost drowns at the end of the film?

drfsupercenter wrote:Makes sense, but I don't think Disney put that much thought into it. From what I hear, the songwriters didn't really check with the script writers... they just went about writing all the music. And then the editor must have pieced the film together going "Oh crap, listen to this" and figured most people wouldn't notice.

I'm sorry, but that's absolutely not true. Especially not in Beauty and the Beast and the other Ashman-Menken musicals. Have you actually seen the movie? It's the songs that *tell* the story. You cut them out, you have no story left. Listening only to 'Bonjour' proves this point. Ashman and Menken were very involved in the story. Another example of that is the story behind Aladdin, where several songs had to be cut because they were based on storylines and characters that were removed from the film.

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2009 6:54 am**

Goliath wrote:
mooky_7_sa wrote:Here's how I tried to explain that goof. I wrote this on BatB's IMDb board:

21 years before the film's beginning
- the prince is, let's say, 18 years old or even older
- the Enchantress casts the spell on the prince to last for 21 years ("The rose she had offered was truly an enchanted rose, which would bloom until his 21st year")
With all due respect, but your explanation doesn't make any sense. The rose would bloom until the 21st birthday of the Prince. So there can't pass that many years between the casting of the spell and Belle's arrival.

Nowhere it’s said it's his 21st birthday. I don’t know how it’s translated in other languages, but in the English-language version they say “Which would bloom until his 21st year” and, as far as I know, “year” is not the same as “birthday”. It could well mean just a number of years he's supposed to spend as a beast, like some sort of imprisonment. Had they said “birthday” in the prologue, I would never even try to explain it. Just for the record, I know this is a plot hole, I just wanted to show it can be explained if you take into account everything that's been said and shown in the movie.

Goliath wrote:I don't seen why it couldn't have happened when he was 11 years old.

Have you seen the Prince’s portrait as the beginning? Does that look like an eleven-year-old to you?

OK, I just thought of something else. What if Lumiere's line actually is true? The servants could have been "rusting" long before the Enchantress' spell.

So here's a new timeline:
10 years before the movie:
- the prince is 11 and a huge brat
- there's no guests, servants are beginning to feel unneeded

6 years before the movie:
- the prince is 15 (judging by the portrait and the way he was portrayed in "The Enchanted Christmas"), his bratness-level has reached its peak
- the Enchantress casts the spell

The movie begins:
- The prince/beast is nearing his 21st birthday

Does this sound more plausible? The only problem I can think of with this theory is that there's not enough time for the castle to be forgotten. Or maybe that can be attributed to Enchantress' spell as well.

And if it's OK with the moderators, I think all parts of this thread dealing with "Beauty and the Beast" should be taken to BatB's official thread. Thanks in advance!

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:19 pm**

You want a plot hole? Why could Pinocchio stay under water for a very long period of time without ever getting affected, yet he almost drowns at the end of the film?

Because Pinocchio doesn't drown -- he's killed by Monstro when the whale hurls its bulk into him. Gepetto survives the impact, but Pinocchio is killed.

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:10 pm**

Goliath wrote:You want a plot hole? Why could Pinocchio stay under water for a very long period of time without ever getting affected, yet he almost drowns at the end of the film?

I wish I could remember what you're talking about, but it's been forever since I've seen the film. It's a good thing the Platinum's coming up!

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:59 pm**

Uh, Pinoccio's wooden. He could get splinters and not feel a thing.

As for the Beast's age, this is how it could go.

10 years before the movie: the Prince is 18-21, the enchantress casts her spell, haulting the aging process on all it's inhabitants. Though, it would be weird, imagining Chip technically being at least as old as Belle, or even older.

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:09 pm**

"10 years we've been rusting, needing so much more than dusting" could be just a figure of speech. Lumière just means they've been under a spell for a very long time. Also, I don't seen why it couldn't have happened when he was 11 years old.

It's more than just that line... there's also "it's been 10 years since we've had anybody here and we're obsessed!"... and there are possibly other references to that.

I'm sorry, but that's absolutely not true. Especially not in Beauty and the Beast and the other Ashman-Menken musicals. Have you actually seen the movie? It's the songs that *tell* the story. You cut them out, you have no story left. Listening only to 'Bonjour' proves this point. Ashman and Menken were very involved in the story. Another example of that is the story behind Aladdin, where several songs had to be cut because they were based on storylines and characters that were removed from the film.

Of course I've actually seen the movie... what I'm saying is they probably composed the songs at the same time the screenwriters were making up the script... and there was an issue when it was all said and done.
Whatever the case, there's definitely some left-hand/right-hand issues in it... maybe they just weren't editing it carefully enough when it was all pieced together?

I mean, I think it's still a possibility that time froze in the castle... but it's still a gaping plot hole.

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:09 pm**

drfsupercenter wrote:It's more than just that line... there's also "it's been 10 years since we've had anybody here and we're obsessed!"... and there are possibly other references to that.

That's true, but again "10 years" could e a figure of speech. People do it all the time when they have to figure out how long it has been since this-and-that took place; they always make up a nice even number, because they can't remember the actual precise time that has passed by.

drfsupercenter wrote:Of course I've actually seen the movie... what I'm saying is they probably composed the songs at the same time the screenwriters were making up the script... and there was an issue when it was all said and done. Whatever the case, there's definitely some left-hand/right-hand issues in it... maybe they just weren't editing it carefully enough when it was all pieced together?

I still don't think that's true. The way I've understand it, Ashman and Menken would check with the story department as the stories were in progression. That way, they could make sure the songs fitted the story and helped the story move forward.

drfsupercenter wrote:I mean, I think it's still a possibility that time froze in the castle... but it's still a gaping plot hole.

I don't see the plot hole, actually.

Rudy Matt wrote:Because Pinocchio doesn't drown -- he's killed by Monstro when the whale hurls its bulk into him. Gepetto survives the impact, but Pinocchio is killed.

That's not my interpretation of the film. I've read this question from Disney fans over and over again, so I'm not alone in thinking Pinocchio (nearly) drowns.

Anyway, we're now discussing Beauty and the Beast and Pinocchio in an Aladdin-thread. Something doesn't seem right.

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:33 pm**

That's true, but again "10 years" could e a figure of speech. People do it all the time when they have to figure out how long it has been since this-and-that took place; they always make up a nice even number, because they can't remember the actual precise time that has passed by.

I know people use it as a figure of speech... just like how people say "just a minute" even if they're gonna be a long time. It's just that the way they sing it doesn't seem like it's being sarcastic or generic at all... it sounds like they're actually talking about 10 years.

I still don't think that's true. The way I've understand it, Ashman and Menken would check with the story department as the stories were in progression. That way, they could make sure the songs fitted the story and helped the story move forward.

They probably DID check with the story department, but evidently that small info went over their heads. Checking with the story department is different than reading the script several times to make sure it matches exactly.

I don't see the plot hole, actually.

The plot hole is that they've apparently been under the spell for 10 years (putting all speculations aside as to whether it was serious or not), and the prince supposedly had until his 21st birthday (or "year", however else you interpret it)... which would have made him about 10 years old when the incident happened.

Also, something else just came to mind.

I can appreciate the "time stopping" theory... BUT. You know how in the movie, the last petal is about to fall so the Beast is frantically trying to gain Belle's affection? That would assume that his "21st year" is just about there, whether they mean birthday or just a measurement of time. So there's still about 10-11 years un-accounted for... if time DID stop, he'd still have 11 years left!

And I know I kinda hijacked the thread... if one of the mods wants to move it to a separate thread or a BatB discussion that's fine. I was just pointing out that whatever "plot hole" in Alaaddin didn't strike me as being as big as this one.

Posted: **Fri Feb 13, 2009 5:21 am**

How is it a plot hole exactly? I mean what's so hard to believe about Beast being 10 at the start of the movie? For example, King Tut was only 8 or 9 when he became Pharaoh as well as many Emperors from China and Japan were just as young if I recall correctly. So a 10 year old prince isn't that much of a plot hole.

Posted: **Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:05 am**

I thought drfsupercenter had said this, but I couldn't find it anywhere. Anyway, the portrait of the Prince that we see in the Beast's chambers is almost identical to what he looks like when returned to human form. There's no way he could have been 11 (or younger) when that was taking place.

Overall, I don't really see it as a plot hole myself, because I've always assumed the "time-stopping" theory. The 10 years could be referring to the world slowly forgetting about the castle's existence, since the first 11 years people might've still visited now and then because it was still in their memories (only to be scared away by the Beast and never speak of it).

Anyway, to try and keep my post a little bit about Aladdin, I think this movie easily got the best sequels and TV series. I'm not too entirely ashamed to watch them, and I feel they keep the spirit of the original while also expanding on its universe pretty well. They also have the best songs of Disney's sequels with "Forget About Love," "Your Only Second Rate," "Out of Thin Air" and "The Wedding Song."

Posted: **Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:44 pm**

Aladdin deserves another PE. There. I said it.

Naw I'm kidding, but that's somewhat what this topic's about.

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2009 7:16 pm**

I know there have been a few good cofee-table sized books dedicated to other DACs, such as Hercules and Mulan, but is there a really good, comprehensive "Making of" or "Art of" book available for Aladdin?

Thanks, Ryan

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2009 7:19 pm**

I think there was one in 1992. Have no idea if any used copies are on Amazon or ebay.

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2009 7:20 pm**

Disney's Divinity wrote:Anyway, to try and keep my post a little bit about Aladdin, I think this movie easily got the best sequels and TV series. I'm not too entirely ashamed to watch them, and I feel they keep the spirit of the original while also expanding on its universe pretty well. They also have the best songs of Disney's sequels with "Forget About Love," "Your Only Second Rate," "Out of Thin Air" and "The Wedding Song."

I partly agree. I think The King of Thieves succeeds in retrieving some of the feel of the original film. But this is only thanks to Robin Williams returning to voice the Genie. With him, what returns is also the funny pop-culture references that made the original so funny (and which had been sadly missing from the second movie and tv series). Also, the animation was a lot better in the third movie than in Return of Jafar. That movie was very poorly animated, and the story was very thin, with too much attention on Iago.

The cheapquels were never designed to further develop any characters or plot points; the idea was to grab a lot of easy bucks. But I agree that, compared to all the others, Aladdin's are the better ones.

DVDizzy Forum

Aladdin Discussion

The Making/Art of Aladdin?