Rudy Matt wrote:The Princess and the Frog is the best Disney animated feature film since Sleeping Beauty. It isn't ludicrous.
Just repeating it doesn't make it true. You know that, right?
[quote=""Rudy Matt"]
Goliath wrote:You will not find one single film historian blah blah blah who will agree with him blah blah blah...
[/quote]
Why don't you act mature and just quote somebody properly?
Rudy Matt wrote:You have no idea who I am. Or my gender. My race. My background.
Where, pray tell, did I claim I knew "who you are"? Why did you bring this up? And could you please tell me what this, in heaven's name, has that to do with
Princess and the Frog being "the best Disney animated feature film since Sleeping Beauty"? What does your gender or race have to do with that?
Rudy Matt wrote:As for a "single film historian" well -- I'll just say, yes, you have them here and no, I am not alone in my praise for PATF.
That's not the point and you know it. I never denied film critics/historians have praised the film. I said you wouldn't find one who would label it "the best animated Disney feature since Sleeping Beauty".
Rudy Matt wrote:Better than 101 Dalmatians? Yes, because PATF doesn't used recycled animation and the ending is satisfying, unlike 101 Dalmatians, which uses recycled animation and has a marvelous 1st and 2nd act, but then has an abrupt and unsatisfying ending.
Okay, you just repeated two arguments to make them look like four, but it's still only two. First: a film doesn't stand or fall by the use of recycled animation. That's an enormous narrow-minded way to look at animation. There's lots more, like story, characters, music etc. In which
101 Dalmatians outperfoms PatF. Second: you don't explain how the ending is "abrupt and unsatisfying". It's not abrupt, since it has a lenghty resolution: the dogs are in safety at Roger and Anita's, and they make plans to move into the countryside. Also, "unsatisfying" is a highly personal qualification that can't be measured.
Rudy Matt wrote:Better than The Jungle Book? Yes, because the film doesn't use recycled animation, characters don't go off model sequence to sequence, voice quality doesn't change sentence to sentence, and there aren't long passages of awkward stilted dialog.
I already explained why usage of recycled animation doesn't make an animated film any less good. Again, you provide no examples to back up your claims. Where do the characters go off-model? And where did the voice quality change? Nowhere in the whole movie, thar's where. I also don't know what you mean by "akward stilted dialog". It seems like you're making this up as you go along. It also seems animation to you is just a technique, not a medium to tell stories with a heart and soul, like
Jungle Book.
Rudy Matt wrote:Better than The Aristocats? Yes, because while The Aristocats has a killer soundtrack, it has a lazy screenplay and declining production values, leading to...
I didn't list this film. You're right about this one, but that doesn't erase the fact I have already proven you wrong on the previous two films, which makes your entire point invalid.
Rudy Matt wrote:Better than Robin Hood? Yes, because PATF doesn't use recycled animation again and again and again and PATF has a tight story - it isn't a collage of scenes that simply end with a coda "such and such returned and just straightened everything out" etc etc etc. Robin Hood is almost as loose as Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh. Some dig that, I think it was lazy.
I also didn't mention this film. You should read my posts before blindly answering to them. I'm sad to see you calling a legendary, timeless, universally beloved classic like
Winnie the Pooh "lazy". It totally encompasses everything walt Disney ever cared about: keeping your inner child alive.
Rudy Matt wrote:Better than The Rescuers? Yes, because PATF doesn't have struggling production values and doesn't have a screenplay that ends like an episode of Scooby Doo.
"A screenplay that ends like an episode of Scooby Doo"? Oh, come on, at least come up with arguments to build up your case. Now you're just making a clown out of yourself, with pathetic statements like these. Do you even realize you're not *saying* anything with this jibberish? I can't even discuss you, because you don't say anthing that *could* be discussed. But let me tell you something about this film: it has more heart, warmth, sincerity, atmosphere, feeling and emotion in its first five minutes than PatF has in its entire 90 minutes.
Rudy Matt wrote:Better than Fox and the Hound? Yes, because PATF doesn't look like it was shot through a haze of fog, and doesn't have terrible songs, and terribly unfunny supporting characters. Characters don't jump completely off model whenever Glen Keane shows up to anmate some violence.
Again: I didn't mention this film. But as much as I hate
Fox and the Hound, there's no scene in PatF that's so touching, emotional and heart-breaking as the one where Widow Tweed has to leave Tod alone in the woods.
Rudy Matt wrote:Better than the Black Cauldron? Yes, because PATF has actual character development and characters you care about and empathize with.
Again: I didn't list this film. But at least
Black Cauldron's Gurgi isn't half as annoying as Louis the alligator and it doesn't include lots of filler slapstick with hillbillies.
Black Cauldron has a very tight story, while PatF is just about traveling from one place to another, to another, to another...
Rudy Matt wrote:Better than Basil of Baker Street/Great Mouse Detective? Yes, because PATF actually has a production budget, wonderful songs, and doesn't look like an episode of DuckTales.
I ask you again: where are the arguments? I see a supposed-to-be-funny snark remark, but no real argument. I must, once again, conclude, that pretty pictures is all you care about when it comes to animated features; a very narrow-minded, one-sided way to look at them. While
Great Mouse Detective didn't have a budget as big as PatF, it did manage to make a far better film. Pretty pictures themselves don't do anything, Rudy, unless they have a clever story and original characters to show. Animation is just the medium.
Rudy Matt wrote:Better than Oliver and Co? Yes, because Oliver and Co. is an incredibly ugly film, with trite sitcom writing...time will be kind to PATF. Time has gorged on Oliver and Co.
Rudy, I beg you to at least give some examples to back up your non-substantial snark attacks. Give me *something* to work with! For example: explain to me how the scene where Fagin, after a visit from Sykes, gets taken care of by his pack of dogs and reads a stiry to them before they go to sleep, is not a subtle and touching little piece that implicitly tells us how deeply these characters care about each other. In PatF, the audience had to be told, time after time, how much Naveen cared for Tiana. Large close-ups of big frog-eyes who looked sadly and wanting to Tiana. A preach song. A ring; a proposal. PatF beat us over the head with it.
Rudy Matt wrote:Better than The Little Mermaid? Tough one - PATF has better animation and production values, PATF has a wonderful script (the writing never seems to approach Saturday morning status, while Flounder's dialog seems to be directly lifted from Saturday morning dreck), [...]
I won't argue with you on the animation, but the characters are what makes this film one of Disney's best. So real and life-like, even though they are animated mermaids. You believe them. That's important. And if you are annoyed by Flounder, then how can you like Louis, the most annoying Disney sidekick *ever*? (Yes, even moreso than the gargoyles from
Hunchback.)
Rudy Matt wrote:[...] both films are heartbreaking in their sincerity, both films have exceptional music, with the edge in songwriting going to Mermaid...it is a close battle, but PATF takes the day with the "Bayou" montage, one of the most unexpected and magical things ever seen in Disney animation outside of the Fantasia films.
You mean that trite, cheesy, corny sequence where Ray's family shows Tiana and Naveen how to find Mama Odie?
Rudy Matt wrote:Better than Rescuers Down Under? Rescuers DU has amazing f/x and character animation of Marahute, Jake, Wilbur, Johanna, and MacLeach. It has tremendous ambition and scope, and a dark humour that I think is unappreciated. I think Bernard and Bianca somehow get lost in the shuffle, and the animation for the two leads isn't up to the standards of the original. Incredible muscial score. An unappreciated film, and a very good one - but it's no PATF.
I also didn't mention this film. It has excellent animation, but that's all. It's easily the worst of the 1990's films, and it can't hold a candle to the original.
Rudy Matt wrote:Better than Beauty and the Beast? PATF has it all over Beauty and the Beast in terms of production values, and the cheap sitcom writing returns [...]
I've said it before, but this is just cheap rethoric. Provide some examples instead of making broad claims. I can't argue with this rubbish.
Rudy Matt wrote:[...] as does recycled animation and blatant cribs from previous Disney films (Gaston is a riff on Braum Bones from "Legend of Sleepy Hollow" as is the opening song, which shows Belle aping Ichabod, walking through town with her nose stuck in a book while everyone sings about how odd she is. Same exact thing as "LoSH"). [...]
I can't judge that, since I haven't seen that film. But somehow I *think*, I *guess* Belle is somehow a different character. And if you're going to bash films because they imitate other films, then why do you even bother watching Disney films at all? They almost all imitate each other, and PatF is no exception to that rule: PatF is itself an imitation of the 1990's films: a princess heroine, a Broadway musical style, annoying and unneeded sidekicks etc.
Rudy Matt wrote:[...] Beast was rushed through production, the film suffers for it. Beauty and the Beast has wonderful songs, but the movie is not the equal of PATF in any other aspect.
How is the Beast "rushed through production"?
Rudy Matt wrote:Better than Aladdin? The loosey goosey animation style that first reared its head in the 80's grows to full blossom here. All attempts at caricature of movement disappear in a goo of rubberhose animation curves. Great songs, solid story, very very dated in its 1992 improv humour.
That's all a matter of taste. The directors have said the films is like one long cartoon. That's just the style of the film.
Rudy Matt wrote:Better than The Lion King? PATF doesn't have painfully trite sitcom writing, trademark Katzenberg pop culture references all over the place, and bombast trying to obscure a lack of real character depth.
This is certainly not my favorite Disney film and I don't like it very much for all the things you just mentioned (altough, again, you provide no real evidence), but it has some serious, adult undertones (mostly to do with Scar and his evil plot) that can't be found in PatF.
Rudy Matt wrote:Better than Pocahontas? PATF underperformed, but not because it was trite, shallow, one-dimensional in characterizations, and kind of insulting in its banality. Pocahontas made $40 million more, but was stopped dead in its tracks and is now a sort of also-ran in DFA history precisely because it was trite, shallow, one-dimensional in characterizations, and kind of insulting in its banality.
Okay, you just said everything twice, hoping that it would make up for your total lack of any substantial criticism. Well, it doesn't. So exactly what was so bad about
Pocahontas? Because you really didn't say anything yet.
Rudy Matt wrote:Better than Hunchback? Hunchback is glorious in production values and music. One word - gargoyles. Demographic formula trite sitcom b.s. writing almost fatally cripple the film...like Jar Jar in Episode I, so are the Gargoyles to Hunchback. Advantage PATF.
I agree with you on the gargoyles, but again I ask you how you could think PatF was a better film than
Hunchback, solely based on this? Louis is as annoying and formulaic as the gargoyles. So they balance out each other. But nowhere does PatF display the maturity that
Hunchback holds. It's really more a film for adults than for children, and it's amazing that this is even a 'Disney' film. It deals with heavy themes, like guilt, sin, lust, religion, corruption. Compared to this, PatF is a childish, silly little fairytale.
Rudy Matt wrote:I will continue, if need be, or do you really need me to explain how stupid the cross-dressing ending of MULAN is, or how unsatisfying the 3rd act is of LILO AND STITCH, how HOME ON THE RANGE and DINOSAUR actually make ROBIN HOOD look good...
I dare you to make a fool out of yourself by bashing
Mulan and
Lilo & Stitch in favor of PatF. PatF can't hold a candle to the originality, the sincerity, the character development, the tight story, the meaningfullness, the life-like story and the gorgeous waterpainted animation of
Lilo & Stitch.
I didn't mention those other films, and I would be happy to join you to bash them.
Rudy Matt wrote:Yes, PRINCESS AND THE FROG is the best animated film since SLEEPING BEAUTY. Not ludicrous. Its just how things turned out.
No, it's not and you haven't backed it up. You have picked a very weak, very disappointing rehashing/imitation of a 1990's film to be the best film since
Sleeping Beauty. I'm sure even the writers-directors Clements & Musker would shake their head in disbelief at so much ignorance, of even suggesting it's better than Walt Disney's own classic films.
