DVDizzy Forum

You know, I really thought this thread was mostly a joke to be honest (not to insult Neal or anything if he meant it seriously). To me, the best thing about most Disney films is that they don't go the long way around of telling you why certain characters are evil. "Oh, my mother used to beat me, and the man I loved left me for a prettier woman, and I grew up on the street and was never taught different," etc. crap. All that really matters for the Disney movies is the fact that they do commit evil acts, they do oppose the protagonists, and they have to be overcome. To me, most of Disney's classic villains are complex in the fact that they don't go out of their way to tell you why they are the way they are, thus allowing the viewer to use their brains and fill in the gap.

Just using my personal favorite as an example, I know several people I've talked to always thought there seemed to be something more to Ursula's character than is ever really stated--mostly in the way she's flirtatious with Triton in the climax. Or how Triton obviously has some backstory involving humans for him to be so xenophobic. To me, telling the audience every little detail of why the character does this or does that often comes off lazy. In books and anime, of course you're going to get a lot more details (depending on the creator) because they have a much longer space to fill. Films, particularly those done by Disney, have to get to the point quickly and move on. Why waste time on things that won't change the outcome anyway?

Super Aurora wrote:Yea I definitely agree. Thats another thing about disney villains that tends to dislike. They are too damn predictable. Which also support my dislike for the whole good vs evil and good always overcome evil. BORING.

Aside from everything else I replied to, Super Aurora, since I replied to what you said to talk about the things you said, if you didn't notice, that's another thing. People keep saying there should be movies that shows evil wins. Well, if all the movies showed people winning, we would be craving movies that show that good can win. They say in the real world, good doesn't always win.

But that's not true, at least for Disney. He believed that in the very end, good does win. Yes, it's a spiritual thing.

But other than that, it's better to say to people that good can win, so they can keep believing they can do good and win.

Disney's Divinity, you're absolutely right, though I have to say, when I was little I thought Ursula did that just to play with him. Didn't she play with Ariel? I thought it was part of her personality, and she was his sister originally so incest ew. But I suppose it could say there was a past to them, at least. "How are you" does imply she knew him before, though we knew she was thrown out of the palace. I think it's extra funny and extra cheeky (especially for Triton) if she acts like she's coming on to him in this serious moment. It's extra funny if she's doing it just to annoy him, but not really interested.

As for Triton's hate of humans...I'm sorry but that one never needed an explanation for me. He hates humans just like anyone hates any race. They often don't have a past with them or know them very well. They just see them do some bad things, along with the fact that they look different, and the negative opinion forms. He knows they kill sea creatures. I think that's all he, or we, ever needed to know. Barbaric fish eaters, as he says. I thought the point was for him to stop being a racist to say to everyone in the audience they shouldn't be racist, shouldn't hate anyone different.

I disagree with Super Aurora's notion that movies must have villains winning. However, I do believe that there should be a balance and there should be movies in which the hero is really the villain and vice versa. In other words, show that sometimes good intentions can be evil and that not everything that sounds evil IS evil. It would be more realistic that having the villain winning (which in itself is just as unrealistic as the good guy always winning).

Disney Duster wrote:
Disney's Divinity, you're absolutely right, though I have to say, when I was little I thought Ursula did that just to play with him. Didn't she play with Ariel? I thought it was part of her personality, and she was his sister originally so incest ew. But I suppose it could say there was a past to them, at least. "How are you" does imply she knew him before, though we knew she was thrown out of the palace. I think it's extra funny and extra cheeky (especially for Triton) if she acts like she's coming on to him in this serious moment. It's extra funny if she's doing it just to annoy him, but not really interested.

I know that is part of Ursula's character. I would have to be an idiot not to know that (though I'm sure some think I'm an idiot anyway, but moving on). All I'm saying is that it could be taken differently based on who's watching. Ursula was clearly flirtatious with everyone most of the time, but just the way she kind of curled all over Triton was kind of a bit more than just being cheeky for me personally.

Also, the sister bit is outside info that was cut and therefore irrelevant and non-canon. In fact, it only ever re-surfaced when the stage show was being made. It could add an interesting depth to it if you look at their relationship that way (as brother and sister who are feuding)

As for Triton, again, as I thought was obvious with film, literature, etc, interpretation is often more critical than intent. Sometimes the way people act leaves various suggestions between different people. The fact that other sources tended to say his wife was killed by humans (yes, another bit of outside, non-canon info.) simply shows that others clearly saw his hatred as more intense than it might have been if it was simply xenophobia.

To focus more on my point, whether you feel something is complex or not really has more to do with interpretation than anything.

Yea pap!

Divinity...well, I admit what Ursula did there was more flirtatious than usual, but it did still fit the rest of how she acted, naturally to me.

I brought up their sibling backstory because that's the only background I could see. It was part of the deleted scenes on the DVD, not just brought up with the stage show. I just thought, if they cut out that backstory, why would they put in one where they were once, or Ursula was once, romantically interested?

As for Triton, what sources for the original film said his wife was killed by humans? I would never count anything that came after the film like Ariel's Beginning, only things in the making of the original film.

And it seems you and me might not agree on that intent matters in film and art. Yes, I think intent matters. I don't want to make art about how beautiful gay love is but someone sees the red dripping from the glowing heart I painted and they think it's blood and represents how terrible and painful gay love is. No.

The only kind of time I could see it mattering is if, say, someone makes a movie trying to show how gay love is terrible, but someone who is gay sees the film and loves it because it actually inspires them to go after their love, somehow. Then I guess that person could love that film with what they got out of it.

Someone once wrote how Brokeback Mountain demonstrated how gayness destroys families. That was not the intent or point at all of the movie. Terrible.

Yes, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I personally think the audience should infer for themselves what a character's actions mean or how to feel about them. The movie shouldn't have to tell you "this is wrong" or "you should feel sad here."

Also, I didn't say the possible romantic attraction or the murder of Triton's wife were actually thought of as backstory (and, as I said before, I don't see the siblings thing as definite backstory considering something like that couldn't be inferred and the fact that it went unstated ultimately boils down to the characters not being related within the movie). I was using those as examples to show that not everyone feels the same way about the same actions in a movie.

I feel that good should win in the end, but the villain should attain the first victory in the middle of the movie. I think it's been done before, but not in actual battle. It's been incarnated in Aladdin, Hercules, Kingdom Hearts and and every other time the villain gains the actual upper hand, but never in actual combat, and always just before the final act. I'm talking first-middle act defeat for the hero, so they can spend a bit of time regaining confidence.

Disney Duster wrote:Most everyone's examples of "better", more "complex" villains are from comics or TV shows or two hour movies. You pretty much need to make the characters do lots and have lots of backstory for the long arcs those have.

I don't think that's true at all. Sleeping Beauty came out in 1959? Only a few years later, Star Trek had episodes with villains so much more complex than Maleficent who only appeared once in a 60 minute episode (probably more like 50 minutes allowing for advertising).

There's also lots of other hour long TV shows from the early 1960's which have more convincing and developed villains: The Saint, Alfred Hitchcock Presents..., Perry Mason was even in the late 1950's and managed to create three-dimensional villains.

You can't use the run-time as an excuse for Maleficent's shortcomings when the majority of Sleeping Beauty's runtime is wasted on "trivia". I would say over half of the film's runtime is spent on scenes which don't move the story forwards at all, and nor do they help define the characters. We know the latter is true because none of the characters in Walt's Sleeping Beauty actually have characters (apart from perhaps the three fairies). So you can't even argue time that should have been spent on Maleficent was spent developing the heroes. To this day, Aurora remains the least defined heroine in a Disney film.

The thing is, nobody will ever convince me that when Walt made Snow White or Sleeping Beauty he was making a film for adults to enjoy as well as children. I know what Walt's often quoted as saying regarding children's and adult audiences - but I simply don't believe it.

Choosing a stylised art-style in Sleeping Beauty's case doesn't count I'm afraid. It's like putting good graphics on a video game when the gameplay is fundementally broken and boring.

But its different for Hunchback of Notre Dame, Treasure Planet, Lady and the Tramp (which has no villain as such, but it is also what we today would call a rom-com) even (and this will make you cheer) Cinderella... and others. Why are those films different? Because they spend equal or more time on exploring the characters as they do stepping through the plot.

BTW, Hunchback or Treasure Planet have no/limited "backstory" for Frollo or Silver. You don't need backstory. You don't need to explain/excuse why a villain is how he/she is. You just need to present a villain who is more than a simple stereotype. Too many early Disney villains fall into this category.

I'll get to everyone, including you Netty, don't worry.

Goliath wrote:A lot of you mention Malificent. That tale is based on the ancient Greek epic poem the Iliad, in which Eris, godess of discord, is not invited to the wedding of Peleus and Thethis. This leads to a series of events which will ultimately cause the Trojan War to begin.

You're using the term "based" extremely losely, and not really accurately. I know there's a Norse myth about a girl sleeping in a ring of fire, but that's not part of that Greek story at all, so unless there's a sleeping girl who needs to be awakened in that Greek tale...

I mean, the tales that Disney based their version on, La Bella au Bois Dormant and Briar Rose, are really based on that story where a fortune teller predicts a King's daughter will die from a foreign material, and when a woman spinning flax comes by the princess' window, the girl has never seen it before, so she takes it and a piece of it gets under her finger nail, somehow poisoning her, and then a prince comes by and does her in her sleep. The tale probably commented on "if you protect someone from something, they will be more curious about it."

But anyway, some people say there are only seven stories in the world, and so many stories are similar to each other. Stop looking at similarities and look at the unique differences, or you'll find it hard to believe we can make anything very new. Believe! We can make more stories!

Disney's Divinity, well, don't you hate it when people say The Little Mermaid is sexist? They see that Ariel's real happiness comes from Triton pointing his huge thing and making yellow shining stuff transform her and then she's passed on to another man? Don't you always try to say the real intent was not to make the film sexist? The real intent...? Like I said, the only time I could see intent not mattering is if someone growing up with the film is limited to feeling they are only liberated or happy when they're father approves of them getting married to a man. Then intent didn't do squat.

Netty, well, yes you gave a great example of how you can do more within the same amount of time. But do you agree that when things are longer, you almost have to make the characters do more or be more "complex", though? I read all you said, and I see how complexity can be done in short things, though.

But Maleficent is this, pretty much: an all evil demon from Hell, or (since I don't like believing characters, except perhaps imaginary ones like fairies, are ever born evil and can't change) a fairy who has become too evil to turn back and uses the powers of Hell, coupled with someone who has a huge ego of herself and demands fear and respect as a powerful creature and perhaps the queen of all evil, a very high figure.

tsom pointed out that she talks about all the people that were invited to the party, even "the rabble." I didn't notice it before, and not many did, but this actually shows in the dialogue that she views herself so much higher than them that it is a huge, huge insult that she didn't get invited.

Another Disney book noted she seems to need to be heard, seen, or felt to feel great and powerful. Yes, she believes she is very powerful already, but she has a weak spot if other people don't see that she is.

She doesn't really need to be complicated as an all-evil force, but yet I feel she is with this personality, or whatever you call that. And like I said, she still got a lot of what she wanted, to torture the king and queen as they watched their daughter grow up for many years knowing she would die young. When the princess is hidden, they are still miserable for so many years not knowing what will happen, and the whole kingdom is as well.

Yes, they didn't show it, the narrator told us. But ah, well.

I am definately cheering because you mentioned Cinderella, and I almost wish they didn't spend time exploring every character because that means every character gets time and that takes some time away from the main protagonists.

That's another thing, from the dawn of Snow White they tried to give every character attention and development, hence each of the seven dwarfs!

Now, please listen to me here most importantly. I know from "The Disney Villain" that Walt was reportedly very excited by the complexity of the evil queen. They said the word complexity. So, how's she not complex then? Was it just that Walt thought she was complex, and he was wrong, audiences today aren't seeing or getting her complexity, or was she just complex for those old times? Or maybe because they cut out the queen revealing she wanted the prince, people don't see the complexity still in her. But I remember reading an animator talk about when he did the queen mixing chemicals and transforming. He said there were so many emotions and feelings she was going through, and it was tough to animate. Most of us probably are not seeing the hard work, the complexities put into that one scene.

Also, Walt Disney definately intended, intended his films to be for children and adults. But it is possible that he thought adults didn't need certain things that today's adults demand. He did once say adults were just "children grown up". Maybe Walt was...well, so much of a child at heart, he just didn't see what other adults wanted to watch.

But I, we all, know he intended his films to be for children and adults. I mean, it was so great when people said the witch in Snow White was too scary for children, and he replied, "What made you think we made this movie for children?" So I feel safe watching these movies that they're good enough for adults. I really don't need to know a lot of crap about the queen or Snow White, I feel bad for Snow White because I know she is innocence and purity dying. Not that I wouldn't gladly welcome more complexity or depth or whatever, I'd probably enjoy it, but I don't need it. Maybe I need a little less dwarfs and it could use a little more main protagonist romance, as every Disney film pretty much needed more in the romance department. Hell, Ariel and Eric or Belle and the Beast could have had more in the way of "do they fit each other at all" or "do they have similar likes?" 'Course someone could always come in and explain why they do, and I could be like "Okay, then they do." It may not be necessary for them to have those details, it may not be necessary at all for the story, but it would help the characters and the film.

Sorry this was so long, but, if you could, I would love to know how the early villains are stereotypes and then the later ones aren't, but I know that would take a lot of time. If you can't really explain it, but feel they are stereotypes and can "just tell", I may accept that because I know some things are hard to explain, and feelings are all we have to tell sometimes, and maybe you just don't care anyway, lol.

You still never told me what your favorite films are after you said you don't like much Disney anymore in that other thread... Favorite films in general or favorite Disney films, though I think you like 101 Dalmatians.

BelleGirl wrote:

toonaspie wrote:I actually thought that Bowler Hat Guy's motives were very believable and very understandable. It was one of the rare cases where I believed that a villain had a right to go after the hero.

But his fate is also a bit different from other Disney villains: in the end he is redeemed, while most other Disney villains meet a bad end. When all is said and done, the Bowler hat man isn't really a villain after all.

I'm rather surprised that Disney films dont take this route with their villains more often. I guess the enjoy teh violence!

Disney Duster wrote: Aside from everything else I replied to, Super Aurora, since I replied to what you said to talk about the things you said, if you didn't notice, that's another thing.

I dunno If you read but I did say i'm not going to bother replying to every comment you made back to me. As arguing with you gets me no where.

pap64 wrote:I disagree with Super Aurora's notion that movies must have villains winning.

I never said that. But whatever. All I'm pointing out is that Disney shouldn't keep the same routine of stock-hold villains with usual stereotyped design (overarched eyelids and eyebrows, pointy and/or angular design, big caricature facial features, and typical evil motives)

Whether they lose or win doesn't matter but I will say that having a villain win does make it interesting and breaking the usual mold. But that won't happen in Disney and hence why I turn to anime/manga for that stuff.

One thing I like about One Piece is that although it's a long running series, It is made for kids and yet many adult love it too. And the villains even though some funky looking, have amazing traits and quality to themselves that I don't see in most disney stuff. Like Luffy the main character doesn't always need to defeat or kill the villain, he can help change their ways too. You don't need to be "PURE EVIL" to make a great villain. The villains in One Piece don't die cause the story doesn't need to. This is why the good vs evil thing is boring. The villains in One Piece are the Marine and the Pirates are the good guys. Quite the role reversal i'll say lol.

The villain as well as the good guys, also give great excitement and still make me feel like a child yet they have some amazing traits and quality that adults can enjoy as well. One Piece also have similar things disney uses often too like friendship etc but not over excessively.

pap64 wrote:However, I do believe that there should be a balance and there should be movies in which the hero is really the villain and vice versa. In other words, show that sometimes good intentions can be evil and that not everything that sounds evil IS evil. It would be more realistic that having the villain winning (which in itself is just as unrealistic as the good guy always winning).

To bolded. Ever heard of Death Note? Yea it's overrated and I'm not really fond of the series but it does fit that bolded sentence. But yeah, a balance is good.


Guys, don't get me wrong. I like Disney a lot. I also find Lady Tremain an interesting bitch as well as few others like the coachman, Frollo, hell even Gaston. But majority of a lot of the villain fall in the stock-hold category (Mally, Jafar, etc). I have love/hate relationship with Sleeping Beauty btw. LOL.
This is probably why I turned to turn to comics, anime, manga and such. I get more enjoyment of something different out of it.

Another thing I notice is the villain always have to be something people always think as a villain: Pirates, Cats(Shere Kahn, Siamese twin, lucifer, Prince John and Scar), tall dark dressed supernaturals(Mally,Ursula, queen, Jafar, and Hades.) Hell, Hades isn't even suppose to be evil begin with which support my claim even more. Why could Hera be the bad gal? Cause she's Zeus' wife? A woman? what what was the reason?

Super Aurora wrote:
Another thing I notice is the villain always have to be something people always think as a villain: Pirates, Cats(Shere Kahn, Siamese twin, lucifer, Prince John and Scar), tall dark dressed supernaturals(Mally,Ursula, queen, Jafar, and Hades.) Hell, Hades isn't even suppose to be evil begin with which support my claim even more. Why could Hera be the bad gal? Cause she's Zeus' wife? A woman? what what was the reason?

I know "All Dogs go to Heaven" is NOT a Disney film but that really iffed me when the made the villain a cat in the sequel! Such a copout. But yeah your point is correct.

Well Super Aurora I just thought if I'm going to talk about something you said, you would care and be courteous.

I'm just trying to explain why Walt's villains were great, or if not great, what he was intending with them. Among the rest of things his films. And explaining why the whole good vs. evil thing is pretty rad. It's an ideal. The forces of good going against all powerful all evil. The idea just feels powerful.

Netty sorry to post to you before you even say anything back to before, but...

For Sleeping Beauty's art, that is not just good graphics. That is art, and it is extremely grown up. Why? Because to appreciate art like that is a grown up thing. We're not talking photo-realistic rendering here. We're talking art and style. Sleeping Beauty has been compared to Fantasia. It uses classical music and some of the best art and animation seen since the Golden Age Fantasia was made in. Ballet, classical music, and really good art. It's all grown up stuff that more grown ups will appreciate. When I was younger I loved drawing but I didn't appreciate styles or how good the art really was in a Disney film until I was older. I always thought Disney's art was great but never saw how great till I grew up. Sleeping Beauty may seem like a failure of a movie in the story and characters, but someone once said Fantasia wasn't a movie, either. Sleeping Beauty kind of meshes a narrative with dialogue with Fantasia's sensibilities. Seen as art set to classical music, it's beautiful, brilliant, and grown up.

Disney Duster wrote:You're using the term "based" extremely losely, and not really accurately. I know there's a Norse myth about a girl sleeping in a ring of fire, but that's not part of that Greek story at all, so unless there's a sleeping girl who needs to be awakened in that Greek tale...

I meant to say that the beginning of the fairy tale about Sleeping Beauty can be traced back to the 'Iliad', with Eris, an evil godess, disturbing the wedding of Thetis and Peleus (parents of Achilles) because she wasn't invited.

Disney Duster wrote:Disney's Divinity, well, don't you hate it when people say The Little Mermaid is sexist? [...

I don't hate it when people claim the film is sexist. I may actually agree with them, if they can argue their position well. Actually, I've read essays of film scholars who give compelling accounts of why they think the film is sexist. I don't think the filmmakers intended it to be sexist. At least not on a concious level. But maybe subconcious... who knows? And even if they didn't, that doesn't rule out any readings that may find sexist elements in the film. It's all about Stuart Hall's encoding/decoding.

Goliath wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:Disney's Divinity, well, don't you hate it when people say The Little Mermaid is sexist? [...

I don't hate it when people claim the film is sexist. I may actually agree with them, if they can argue their position well. Actually, I've read essays of film scholars who give compelling accounts of why they think the film is sexist. I don't think the filmmakers intended it to be sexist. At least not on a concious level. But maybe subconcious... who knows? And even if they didn't, that doesn't rule out any readings that may find sexist elements in the film. It's all about Stuart Hall's encoding/decoding.

But then that kinda ruin the enjoyability and entertainment value of the film doesn't it? If you nitpick about everything that goes through a film, especially a film aimed for families and kids like disney ones, kinda destroy the simplicity and straightforwardness of the film no matter how complex or not it is. I mean when I watch many of these films, I don't think about racism, sexism, or any of that stuff. Especially when film has no focus or connection to the issue. It feels more like something for people to complain even if there really isn't something to complain about to begin with.

Duster. Yes, probably my favourite Disney era film is 101 Dalmatians.

If you include non-Disney era films its a toss up between Treasure Planet and Brother Bear. Sadly, the logic in the climax of Brother Bear lets the film down quite a lot.

But going back to the subject of this thread, one of the reasons I like Brother Bear so much is because it has no villains. It has no good/evil or black/white. It only has shades of grey. Virtually everything in the film is grey. I find Brother Bear to be a bold movie, which doesn't get the respect it deserves.

I don't mind the gargoyles in Hunchback of Notre Dame, but I find "A Guy Like You" not only to be totally jarring with the rest of the film, but also, when placed in the context of the events of the story at that time, mildly offensive.

Also, while I generally think Pixar are overrated and constantly using the same story "beats" in most of their films, I also have a huge liking for Monsters, Inc. because it manages to hide those beats so well, even now, since some of them have been reused in later Pixar films.

The problem is, I'll be turning 40 soon(ish). I don't care what anyone says - the bulk of Disney films - especially from Walt's era - simply don't have the depth required to entertain an me any more. Neal's original post (despite the fact it may have been jokey) sums this up. Too many villains "are". Just "are".

I've always said in various Spider-Man movie and general comic threads that Venom is a 2-Dimensional character. He is, because Venom is basically the same as some Disney villains. He just "is".

You yourself pointed out Disney films have short run-times, but even in the subsequent comic appearances, even when they've tweaked his character and motivations a few times, Venom still just "is". And that's because they never had a proper character to begin with - he was designed just to be the "anti-Spider-Man".

It's not backstory that defines a character (but it can help). It's how a character is presented in the story that counts. How much back story did we get for Frollo? I'm pretty sure it was none. But due to his words and actions throughout the movie, if we had to write an essay on Frollo I'm sure we could run to 2 or 3 sides of paper. Could you do the same about the Witch in Snow White? Or Maleficent?

I don't agree with people who dismiss the lack of character as the consequence of the original being a fairy story. As I pointed out in another thread a few months ago - all the versions of Sleeping Beauty I am (reasonably) familiar with do give the Maleficent-like character more depth and logic. True, I will admit in this example its mostly through backstory - but there was nothing stopping Walt putting backstory into the film.

As I pointed out before, reviews at the time were somewhat lacking for Sleeping Beauty's release. Don't take my word for it - take the word of Floyd Norman who worked on the film:
http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/floyd_nor ... thing.aspx

Production 2082 -- Walt Disney's "Sleeping Beauty" -- opened in 1959 to lukewarm reviews. Those of us who worked on the animated masterpiece were taken aback by the public's rejection of our labor of love.

So it appears the problems with the film were visible even then.

2099net wrote: But going back to the subject of this thread, one of the reasons I like Brother Bear so much is because it has no villains. It has no good/evil or black/white. It only has shades of grey. Virtually everything in the film is grey. I find Brother Bear to be a bold movie, which doesn't get the respect it deserves.

I need to see that movie. Seems like type of movie i'll like.

2099net wrote:I don't mind the gargoyles in Hunchback of Notre Dame, but I find "A Guy Like You" not only to be totally jarring with the rest of the film, but also, when placed in the context of the events of the story at that time, mildly offensive.

Not only that but it was highly unneeded. Duster said background aren't necessary but I'll say some musical like that one especially are totally unnecessary to a movie plot point.

2099net wrote: I don't care what anyone says - the bulk of Disney films - especially from Walt's era - simply don't have the depth required to entertain an me any more. Neal's original post (despite the fact it may have been jokey) sums this up. Too many villains "are". Just "are".

I totally agree with you on that.

2099net wrote:It's not backstory that defines a character (but it can help). It's how a character is presented in the story that counts. How much back story did we get for Frollo? I'm pretty sure it was none. But due to his words and actions throughout the movie, if we had to write an essay on Frollo I'm sure we could run to 2 or 3 sides of paper. Could you do the same about the Witch in Snow White? Or Maleficent?

Exactly to the bolded.

2099net wrote:I don't agree with people who dismiss the lack of character as the consequence of the original being a fairy story.

Same here especially since Disney take creative liberties to begin with.

2099net wrote:As I pointed out before, reviews at the time were somewhat lacking for Sleeping Beauty's release. Don't take my word for it - take the word of Floyd Norman who worked on the film:
http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/floyd_nor ... thing.aspx

Production 2082 -- Walt Disney's "Sleeping Beauty" -- opened in 1959 to lukewarm reviews. Those of us who worked on the animated masterpiece were taken aback by the public's rejection of our labor of love.

So it appears the problems with the film were visible even then.

Not only that but in the platinum dvd they talk about how much time and focus they put into one measly scene which is the Once Upon a Time scene aka scene 8 I believe. Why waste all that time and effort for just one scene when they could of done much much more with the budget and time? Sure the art was fantastic, but what use is it if the story and characters fell flat? As Netty point out above seems like animators were taken back by public's rejection of their labor of love- which happen to be the art and animation.

As netty also point out, time is no excuse. Heart of Ice is one 30 min episode and it is an amazing story alone by itself where Bruce Timm, Paul Dini and staff improved Mr. Freeze's character and depth. Which is now retcon into the comic and other medium.

Well Netty I'm glad to know more about you and the films you like. I really am glad to know, and it's kind of sad how you feel (the feeling of losing enjoyment for things you once did, I feel, and if you do, I'm sorry, but I keep trying to enjoy no matter what). I have to see Treasure Planet, and Brother Bear too.

But I will say this: who wants lots of gray? Black and white is more contrasting, and striking. As I have been saying, it is much scarier and challenging to go up against pure evil, all black, than someone who is, well, gray. Going up against pure evil. That's thrilling.

Also, I probably could write a butt load about Maleficent or the Queen, yup, two pages of paper, but I got what you meant, I see your point.

But for the comparison of the original Sleeping Beauty's old fairy and Maleficent?

The old fairy who they thought was dead or enchanted, thinking they insulted her, maybe because she was old, and then curses the baby to die, is not more depthful than Maleficent the evil fairy who wishes to be the most powerful mistress of all evil, and has a big ego, and must be seen to feel better, and feels insulted because she's so much higher than everyone and she notices even peasants are there, and she puts the whole kingdom to misery for 16 years, and she enjoys breaking up two hot young lovers and keeping a prince chained in her basement because all she has are short stupid goons to live with.

Yea.

And of course it is interesting they were taken aback at audiences not liking what they labored so much on.

Super Aurora does have a good point of their labor being spent more on the art, but it is still possible it could have been because they thought their story and characters were good too.

Also, in animation, you can put subtleties (as the Platinum commentary said) and things in every frame that tell something about a character and most audiences, especially not being artists, wouldn't notice. Yes, little movements or details. I'm just saying that here because within the art can be more depth than you think.

Super Aurora wrote:But then that kinda ruin the enjoyability and entertainment value of the film doesn't it? If you nitpick about everything that goes through a film, especially a film aimed for families and kids like disney ones, kinda destroy the simplicity and straightforwardness of the film no matter how complex or not it is. I mean when I watch many of these films, I don't think about racism, sexism, or any of that stuff. Especially when film has no focus or connection to the issue. It feels more like something for people to complain even if there really isn't something to complain about to begin with.

As a student of film, I take issue with that description.

First of all, it's hard to tell what the intention of the filmmakers was. Was it really to make a 'straightforward' film? Or did they mean to put in subtle subtexts, that certain film scholars have 'decoded' later? We could interview them and they would tell us they didn't, but who guarantees that a.) they're speaking the truth? and b.) that they didn't put in a certain subtext at a subconcious level?

Second, I believe we all 'read' film differently. Hence, why we are even on this forum arguing about Disney movies. So you may read The Little Mermaid as a film without sexist undertones, and that's fine. But who's to say that your interpretation (and yours alone) is the only 'right' one? Who knows what you may have missed when 'reading' the film? Who knows what I may have missed?

That's the beauty about my field of study: we will never reach a point where we have found a 'final answer' on film 'interpretation'. We can go on forever, as long as a position is thoroughly reasoned. One example of such a position was given in this thread, about Ariel only being happy once she got her man --and, in addition, the girl is the only one who has to give up everything to be with this man; the man doesn't have to give up anything. You can say: "well, it's just a fairytale" and you'd be right. But one could also read that as a very one-sided, sexist message to little girls watching a presumably 'innocent' film.

I hope I didn't bore you, though.

Goliath wrote: As a student of film, I take issue with that description.

lol heh. I'm also majoring in art.

Goliath wrote:First of all, it's hard to tell what the intention of the filmmakers was. Was it really to make a 'straightforward' film? Or did they mean to put in subtle subtexts, that certain film scholars have 'decoded' later? We could interview them and they would tell us they didn't, but who guarantees that a.) they're speaking the truth? and b.) that they didn't put in a certain subtext at a subconcious level?

This is true and I'm not denying this at all. In a way I agree with you on this, But how do I put it... well when I first watched Little Mermaid first couple times, I didn't think about anything other than what I saw in the film. But once people pointed out that "priest boner", even if it wasn't his dick, It now chemically in your brain starts to see the scene totally differently than how you saw the film ages before. And if something in there whether intentional or not, even at sub concuss level, when people complain or gets picky over some little scene as if it affect their own lives and shit. That ruin the fun of the film. This is one of reason why I hate soccer moms trying get things censor or supporting censorship.

Anaylzing the film itself is no prob in my book, just that when you complain so much about the film of what's in it or not as if it will affect you
that's when I think they going bit overboard.

Goliath wrote:Second, I believe we all 'read' film differently. Hence, why we are even on this forum arguing about Disney movies.

LOL true.

Goliath wrote: So you may read The Little Mermaid as a film without sexist undertones, and that's fine. But who's to say that your interpretation (and yours alone) is the only 'right' one?

I never said my interpretation is the only 'right' way. lol

Goliath wrote:That's the beauty about my field of study: we will never reach a point where we have found a 'final answer' on film 'interpretation'. We can go on forever, as long as a position is thoroughly reasoned.

Again this I have no problem with. film can be great and fun. Just nitpicking it and complaining analyzing about it in obsessive length is overdoing it, I think.

Goliath wrote:One example of such a position was given in this thread, about Ariel only being happy once she got her man --and, in addition, the girl is the only one who has to give up everything to be with this man; the man doesn't have to give up anything.

Correct if I'm wrong but didn't Eric might be jeopardizing his kingdom royal linage if he went to marry some girl with mysterious voice rather than one of the chosen girls for him?

Goliath wrote:I hope I didn't bore you, though.

LOL nah.