DVDizzy Forum

Disney's Divinity wrote:Sleeping Beauty: Make Phillip as bland as Aurora so Aurora's lack of character won't stand out as much.

I think the rest of UD's anti-Sleeping Beauty brigade will tell you that he was.

There isn't a lot I'd change in many Disney films apart from the only two I really dislike. In Dinosaur, I would overhaul the story entirely; it's bland and predictable and the majority of the characters lack any kind of personality. The opening scene where the Carnotaur attacks the herd of dinosaurs is good but after that, save for the meteor shower, the rest of the film is forgettable and boring.

In Chicken Little, I would have liked to have seen WDAS's original take on the story when the title character was a female and was to have been voiced by Holly Hunter. We'll never know if it would have been better but, personally, I can't see it being as bad or even worse than the finished film that we got, one that people involved with it say was hindered by the meddling of the executives in charge of the studio at the time. There isn't really anything positive I can say about my opinion of the film so I would just overhaul it and start from scratch.

Disney Duster wrote:Meet the Robinsons: I didn't see it yet but from as much as I know I feel like saying make it more Disney.

I'd definitely recommend it; it's not necessarily a classic but I thought it was a very good film.

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:There isn't a lot I'd change in many Disney films apart from the only two I really dislike. In Dinosaur, I would overhaul the story entirely; it's bland and predictable and the majority of the characters lack any kind of personality. The opening scene where the Carnotaur attacks the herd of dinosaurs is good but after that, save for the meteor shower, the rest of the film is forgettable and boring.

In Chicken Little, I would have liked to have seen WDAS's original take on the story when the title character was a female and was to have been voiced by Holly Hunter. We'll never know if it would have been better but, personally, I can't see it being as bad or even worse than the finished film that we got, one that people involved with it say was hindered by the meddling of the executives in charge of the studio at the time. There isn't really anything positive I can say about my opinion of the film so I would just overhaul it and start from scratch.

I agree about Dinosaur, from what I remember. As for Chicken Little, not only did I not like the actual film, but I personally don't think they should have made a Chicken Little feature. Disney did an excellent Chicken Little already in the form of a short, wartime cartoon. Considering the original story, that was all that was needed.

While I see a few solid ideas here, reading this topic generally makes me glad that the people here aren't the ones making the movies.

1)As much as I love The Emperor's New Groove I would like it to include the Yzma song ''Snuff out the light'' or any of Stings songs for that matter, I personally think they are rather catchy
Also the Kingdom of the Sun premise was great already if you ask me!

2) Retool / Re-envision the Anime style that was Atlantis, great background design, horrific characters

3)Make Chicken Little ''watchable'', at best!

4)Put more effort in sequels at general..Sometimes there is a story left to be told, most of the times (most recently Cars 2)its crap

SpringHeelJack wrote:While I see a few solid ideas here, reading this topic generally makes me glad that the people here aren't the ones making the movies.

I basically had the same thoughts but you put it much more politely than I would have.

SpringHeelJack wrote:While I see a few solid ideas here, reading this topic generally makes me glad that the people here aren't the ones making the movies.

Agree. Only one I agree of changes is the one Goliath and Duster said about Sleeping Beauty.

I don't know if this is my love foe Aladdin and Jasmine talking, but I would've loved for the sequel to be more like The Lion King 2. I think they would've looked good with a son. (Although it doesn't surprise me with what a strong character Jasmine is that we never got to see that.)
In The Lion King I'd fix the timeline. I'm sure you're all aware with how things in the sequel don't match up. In an attempt to fix this, we could make it something like the following: We never had confirmation Scar was killed. We saw the hyenas attack, but maybe he got away just in time. Scar lived a while in exile, but right before Kovu was born he had fears of Simba coming after him to finish him off. Zera had such a hate for Simba, and he thought that such a hate like that would leave something in her unborn cub. So he chose her son (whos father was a rogue male) to take back the throne and ran off. (This wouldd somewhat alter the plot in the second movie.)

I'd remove Beast's gulp during the ballroom scene. He looks perfectly nervous, we don't need a sound effect.

In the first "Part Of That/Your World", at the start, there's a very rough cut from the wide shot to the close up, she misses the word "has" because of it. Then in the close up her mouth is floaty.

Then in the reprise, again, her mouth is floaty when she starts singing. And I wouldn't cut to the wide shot after the "someday I'll be part of your world" so quickly, if at all.

In Snow White and Sleeping Beauty I'd cut the princes
1. sneaking up on the girls
2. being pushy after

Brother Bear: Pretty much what Doug Walker said. (even though I did like at least one of the songs)

Tarzan: Make the elephant less annoying. (He was probably even more annoying than Rosie O'Donnell)

Atlantis: I'm probably one of the few defenders of this movie but if there is one thing I would change, it's the whoopie cushion joke which leads me into saying Moliere could have used a bit more consistency in character.

Princess and the Frog: Give more time with Facilier. I liked the movie as a whole, but really Facilier was the main reason I wanted to see the movie and he was barely in it. (Though to be fair there are a good number of Disney villains that don't appear all that often.)

SWillie! wrote:

The_Iceflash wrote:What's with the anti-comedic relief vibe here? Comedic relief is very necessary to this films. Making any of these films without the comedic relief hurts the film. There's no benefit to any of these films losing their comedic relief. When Mufasa dies in the middle of the film, you NEED comedic relief to follow it. Timon and Pumbaa, Meeko, Genie, Gargoyles, etc are all necessary to the films. Not only do they provide necessary comedic relief but they all are important in that we get to hear the main character's thoughts and feelings through them. For example, imagine watching the films and not hearing any of Simba's, Quasimodo's, or Aladdin's thoughts? What benefit would that have to the films? The quality of them would go down dramatically. and no I would not make anything in these films more "realistic". Realism is overrated, IMO.

Agreed that comic relief is necessary, but you have to admit that the gargoyle's song is absolutely horrendous and totally ruins the pacing of Hunchback.

Of course but my post was more directed toward the suggestion that they or other comic relief characters should be completely removed from the film altogether. A very large amount of characterization would be lost if the Gargoyles weren't in the film at all.

qindarka wrote:Comic relief is fine if done in a manner where the plot or characterization is still furthered. It is also important that it be actually funny.

Many examples of comic relief, such as in Pocahontas, not only unnecessarily distract us but are annoying instead of entertaining, hence the complaints.

Th point of comic relief is just just that, comic relief. There doesn't have to be a rhyme or reason to it. It just needs to be placed appropriately which the A Guy Like You could be argued wasn't. That doesn't mean the comic relief and characterization that the Gargoyles brought to the film weren't necessary. As one of Disney's darkest films, having the gargoyles and the comic relief they brought were more than necessary to the film.

One thing I would change in a film, in this case Tangled, would be Flynn's characterization.

1. Get rid of his beard. It's ugly. I hate that type of beard. Besides, it makes him look like a brown-haired Phoebus (Who also shouldn't have have had that ugly chin hair.)

2. He seemed too Dreamworks-eque in his cockiness. I would have toned him down and make him less cocky and arrogant.

The_Iceflash wrote:Th point of comic relief is just just that, comic relief. There doesn't have to be a rhyme or reason to it.

A good 'comic relief' also plays an integral role in the story and thus helps it move forward. Then, the comedy will spring naturally from the 'comic reliefs'. Look at Flounder, Scuttle and Sebastian or Lumiére, Cogsworth and Mrs. Potts, for example. Or, from Walt's time, Timothy Mouse or the Colonel, the Captain and Sergeant Tibbs. They all serve a role in the plot and from their characters and their role flows the humor naturally. Meeko, Flit and Percy, on the other hand, I'm sure were shoehorned in later, when the dramatic story was finished but they needed some animal characters to lighten things up. Wiggins, in the same movie, who acts as a natural counterpart to Radcliffe, comes off much more natural and is much funnier than the tacked-on animals.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:But if you removed Lilo's 'weirdness', then she wouldn't be lonely, wouldn't need Stitch and there would be no story. Lilo's bizarre mannerisms, hobbies, et cetera make her character endearing, funny and interesting, and make sense, because she's struggling to cope with her parents' deaths.

Disney Duster wrote:Make Lilo less disturbingly weird

Dr Frankenollie wrote:What's wrong with showing a young, independent woman who enjoys her work?

It's hard to believe anyone actually enjoys work, but even if there are some, Tiana enjoys cooking, not serving other people or building stuff.

Super Aurora wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:Put in that deleted scene of the prince chasing that fox or deer or whatever animal that you see he's friends with.

You got youtube video link of it? i want to see this.

I couldn't find one. I'll bring my DVD to your house. You can watch that and whatever else you want since you don't own it. Did you rent it last time you saw it?

Super Aurora wrote:

SpringHeelJack wrote:While I see a few solid ideas here, reading this topic generally makes me glad that the people here aren't the ones making the movies.

Agree. Only one I agree of changes is the one Goliath and Duster said about Sleeping Beauty.

That's all you agreed on?

Super Aurora wrote:In all seriousness though, If you look at Sanders, pin up work and other artwork of his, that basically his style and way he draws.

I know. I personally don't like it, but aside from that, the style just didn't look Disney enough to me. I guess I could say the same for Atlantis, except they looked a little more like real people in that one. I guess for an example of what I think went wrong if Sleeping Beauty. In that film one guy's style took over, but Marc Davis' designs still looked like Marc Davis' designs. Meanwhile in Lilo & Stitch, everyone looked like they were drawn by Sanders. I don't think that's Disney.

Or maybe not. I don't care. I just know the people shouldn't have all looked so much like bulbous-nosed South Park Canadians.

Super Aurora wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:Meet the Robinsons: I didn't see it yet but from as much as I know I feel like saying make it more Disney.

Ending is very Disney and emotional. even has a quote of Walt's at end of the film.

Well I will take a look some day.

Super Aurora wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:The Princess and the Frog: Make Tiana more princess-like and not so into working.

That would destroy her character very much.

I didn't like her character. At all. I liked her personality/demeanor/voice but not her character. I don't understand how someone so into working is even relatable, or how someone so anti-princess would want to become a princess.

Disney Duster wrote:(taking over New Orleans? How about just taking over Big Daddie's place or something?)

Technically taking either one will essentially mean taking over the other as well.[/quote]
How? Isn't he just rich? What is good about Facilier is the idea he takes advantage of people and turns them into animals, who are beneath him, and to run the town to be very high above people, because he was treated as below people for so long, but what doesn't add up is how Lawrence marrying Charlotte will help him run the town, or how it will get people to come give their souls to him as payment, and what he will even do when he's running the town which will soon not have any/many people living in it anyway since all their souls will go to the other side.

Super Aurora wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:Perfect. But then, what "A Guy Like You" could be replaced with, I dunno. I dunno what the stage show did.

The show had that song in too. A though I heard some of the lyric lines are squeaked to rid the pop culture references.

Hm. Well, maybe they made it work.

Goliath wrote:completely rewrote The Little Mermaid up to the point that it became so ridiculous that none of the story would make any sense anymore. And he would have completely ruined Lilo & Stitch by throwing out everythink about the movie that actually *works*!

Well, this is a discussion forum, why don't you explain.

Goliath wrote:You haven't seen it... yet you already know they have to "make it more Disney?"

Disney Duster wrote:Meet the Robinsons: I didn't see it yet but from as much as I know I feel like saying make it more Disney.

Lazario wrote:Aurora is to Sleeping Beauty what the Stepmother's key is to Cinderella. It was the filmmakers' choice to make her a piece of plot rather than a character. She is a symbol, a representation of hope and the future. Not a character.

I've never seen a symbol that got to sing for a really long time about being lonely and then say she doesn't want to be treated like a child and then dances with animals for a really long time and then falls in love for a bit and tries to get her guardians to accept that and then have a really long suspense scene of her following a light to her uncertain doom. In other words, if she's a symbol, that doesn't seem to work. If she's a character, that doesn't seem to work so much either. If they're going to make her one of those, she should probably be made (more of) a character.

Lazario wrote:The scene where she has to confront her minions exists mainly to show us that Maleficent has the power to put her "wrath and frustration" (quoting the narration) into an actual superphysical form. The sense of immediacy that comes from her handling of the situation - NOT the situation itself - is the key here.

So...because that scene is just to show how powerful she is, it's okay that the scene doesn't make sense and is bad when you think about it? And actually, if it's about showing her power, it failed, because it showed that she's actually really oblivious and incompetent to not know that her goons were searching for a baby for 16 freaking years.

Lazario wrote:This movie still has a lot more going on within its' structure than any of the other Princess films.

I want to know how you think so. If you can't give me the whole explanation because it's hard to say, okay, but I'd like to know. Even if you must get into "metaphysical feeling" stuff.

Lazario wrote:Hell, if anything, this makes Sleeping Beauty stronger because there's absolutely no filler. Everything in the film is a necessity, by virtue of the direction they chose to go in.

How is Aurora singing notes with no lyrics for a really long time not filler? How is the animals dancing with Aurora not filler? What does it do? And those characters never come back in the film ever, they don’t do anything else. How is all of the time with the kings and the paige not filler?

tsom wrote:Tangled: Add a Heavenly Chorus finale with a wedding!

That is a very good idea!

Disney's Divinity wrote:Have Snow White show her pure character in her actions and not in housework.

Well...she does have to do that part so the dwarfs will first have proof that she will do what she needs for them...and she also thought they were orphan children at first. Huh, orphans like her.

Disney's Divinity wrote:Sleeping Beauty: Make Phillip as bland as Aurora so Aurora's lack of character won't stand out as much.

LOL But really? You don't mean make her less bland lol

I fully agreed on everything you said about the Rescuers. And your Little Mermaid ideas sound good, I am just not sure about all of them. Apparently Ariel was going to defeat Ursula herself before Jeffry Katzenburg said it didn't make sense. How come that didn't make the DVD bonus features?

Disney's Divinity wrote:Beauty and the Beast: Possibly give the Beast a name that you hear once he's been returned to his original, human form at the end. In other words, he takes back his humanity when he stops being a beast.

That's great...but...then that means Belle still ends up calling him "Beast" when she goes to save him. That is how the original story went, though, because the Beast demanded he be called that as long as he was a Beast. The movie could've done that and it would be better too.

I don't see how Quasimodo having a more brutal voice could work. It might sound terrible when he sings that people couldn't even watch the movie. He actually was given a bad/not-very-good singing voice, but he sings so nicely with it, which I think fits. He has bad looks, but is so nice with his actions. You are so right abotu some of Frollo's ebil looks though. I mean, him hiding behind that pillar with a sly grin was so obviously supposed to be evil it was a rather embarassing moment for such an "adult" Disney movie.

Disney's Divinity wrote:Tangled: Cut Flynn's dialogue in the introduction and conclusion, and give the film a narrator a la Cinderella. Work on the lyrics for a lot of the songs--the basis is good for most of them, but they could be much better than they are. I'm not sure how, but I think Flynn's arc needs work for his relationship with Rapunzel to be believable. For one, Rapunzel is too immature and "nice" for a character like Flynn to be interested. Secondly, I can't believe that anything Flynn goes through in the film would make him monogamous or interested in a long-term relationship. I would excise Pascal's role in the climax. I would have Rapunzel mourn Gothel more.

Isn't there anything ELSE you would want? *cough* TITLE *cough* But there's lots of people in real life who are rather hard and tough but love people who are happy and able to make them happy. I hope I don't offend these two but Goliath and Frankenollie are rather hard cynical guys kinda like Flynn but they love girls who are the opposite of that (at least in the movies!). I fell for a guy who is a lot happier and cheerier than me. It just happens.

FlyingPiggy wrote:I'd remove Beast's gulp during the ballroom scene. He looks perfectly nervous, we don't need a sound effect.

The gulp could just sound more real and serious and small. It would add to the romance of what he's going through with her.

FlyingPiggy wrote:Then in the reprise, again, her mouth is floaty when she starts singing. And I wouldn't cut to the wide shot after the "someday I'll be part of your world" so quickly, if at all.

I don't think you get that the quick cut adds to the power, like the splash, and her pushing forth, forces the camera back. It's awesome. But maybe they could have done it better somehow, or maybe instead of a cut, just pull the camera back rather fast, but it might've been impossible to pull back that far and still look good when not having CAPS yet.

FlyingPiggy wrote:In Snow White and Sleeping Beauty I'd cut the princes
1. sneaking up on the girls
2. being pushy after

Haha. This is part of why I feel they come off like jerks. Though really more Phillip than Snow White's Prince.

The whole "Disney look" thing always bugs me. Disney looks different from "Steamboat Willie" to "Snow White" to "Bambi" to "Sleeping Beauty" to "101 Dalmatians" to so many later movies. There's not a "Disney look." There ought not BE a Disney look. All I ask for is that it be animated well.

Disney Duster wrote:

Lazario wrote:Aurora is to Sleeping Beauty what the Stepmother's key is to Cinderella. It was the filmmakers' choice to make her a piece of plot rather than a character. She is a symbol, a representation of hope and the future. Not a character.

I've never seen a symbol that got to sing for a really long time about being lobely and then say she doesn't want to be treated like a child and then dances with animals for a really long time and then falls in love for a bit and tries to get her guardians to accept that and then have a really long suspense seen of her following a light to her uncertain doom. In other words, if she's a symbol, that doesn't seem to work. If she's a character, that doesn't seem to work so much either. If they're going to make her one of those, she should probably be made (more of) a character.

Can you translate that? I don't speak gibberish.

Disney Duster wrote:

Lazario wrote:The scene where she has to confront her minions exists mainly to show us that Maleficent has the power to put her "wrath and frustration" (quoting the narration) into an actual superphysical form. The sense of immediacy that comes from her handling of the situation - NOT the situation itself - is the key here.

So...because that scene is just to show how powerful she is, it's okay that the scene doesn't make sense

If someone throws a ball of thunder / bolt of lightning at you, you need to run. That makes sense. She had great supernatural powers to make up for the fact that she didn't prepare well ahead of time. Which makes sense given that she obviously placed more importance on terrorizing the people with her curse and enjoying the moment of superiority than she was about making sure they didn't take action against her swiftly. She simply underestimated the Fairies. That's the yin. The yang is that she had the powers to prove that she could physically attack her victims which again makes her vastly different than most of the other classic era Disney villains who relied solely on schemes or henchmen to wipe out / kill their victims. Furthermore, this scene was used to show us this so we would know all along what she was capable of and then ponder why in the end she chose to scheme throughout the bulk of the movie. It still works. Both because she is a frightening presence when she isn't using her powers AND because she does eventually use them and came damn close to destroying Phillip. But, and Goliath screwed up right here in his summation on the ending of the movie: she stopped short of killing him right away to gloat, enjoy the moment, and terrorize him by laughing at his desperation. That is completely keeping within the character we know as Maleficent from earlier scenes. Was it too easy? No. It was fitting; it was taking advantage of her weakness. Which also makes perfect sense when you consider evil to be a force. How can you really destroy evil? You can't, you have to use its' own weakness against it to defeat it.

So, people likely wonder why Disney didn't use her powers more often to compensate for what they saw as her being stupid. 1: She is not a person. Got it? Labels like stupid don't work. Evil is a force and like the tide or the moon, it waxes and wanes. And, 2: this is Disney, they're not going to let one force overpower the other throughout the entire film. If they raise the stakes with Maleficent, how the hell are Phillip or the Fairies supposed to defeat her? Which you KNOW is going to happen anyway because this is Disney. So, even if the film were more traditional in terms of artistic intent and Maleficent's actions made flawless logical sense in any applied context, how does that change the fact that this area of the movie is still Disney formula?

Disney Duster wrote:and is bad when you think about it?

If you understand what the scene is about, you HAVE thought about it. You and other people merely insist on holding this film by the same standards as other Disney animated fairy tales because you know like I do that Walt and/or the animators were formula driven and placed many of the same figures in this film that they did with Snow White and Cinderella. So what? That only serves to solidify the idea that all artists who work in film make the same movie over and over again and only experiment with different tellings. Some people are of the opinion that you only make great art when you take chances and do something really different. That's not exactly where I'm sitting- I prefer to try and follow where something is leading before I make a judgment that it is or isn't great art. Sleeping Beauty is easily the most tonally interesting, artistically ambitious, and sophisticated example of storytelling in Disney's princess film can(n)on. It lends itself to elaborate interpretations as well as providing an amazing, one-of-a-kind visual and auditory experience. It also dates better; it's less dopey with characters and less cutesy with its' animated designs of them.

If Maleficent didn't impress you, I don't care. I'm not foolish enough to think I can turn anyone around. That's not what I'm doing here. But I do know that it is foolish, dorky, and childish to point at Sleeping Beauty like this is a witch hunt, argue set-in-stone logical details like this is Star Wars, and attempt to tear down the movie and rob it of its' honest substance while holding up Cinderella and Snow White of all movies as though they are as deep and complex as Citizen Kane. Which I'm not saying Sleeping Beauty is in the first place. I'm the only one being realistic here. I know this is Disney. I know what Disney does with most of their films, I love watching them though I firmly believe if you take them apart and attempt to analyze them(,) they will fall apart like cookie crumbs because they have something many of the original stories and their alternate adaptations didn't have, and DAMN am I glad Sleeping Beauty tried something different.

The fact is, everything people are bitching about the movie works when you view the film NOT as the emotional journey of any character - and this is what bothers people because it means they have to read the movie differently than the other Disney animated films - but instead as a cosmic game of good and evil where one side has the ball in their court and the other has to choose their next move carefully to best the other. Do you think it would have been a SUBTLE touch for the movie to just have the pack of goons be good at what they do and find her in 2 seconds? That would have been too easy. And you know what? It's not my fault people judge Maleficent by logical standards - which is absolutely ridiculous because they have not done the same with almost any other classic era animated villain - instead of actually sitting back and letting the actress's VERY intimidating physical performance do the work of making her a great villain. Which I told you is what the audience are meant to do because that's the movie anyway. You feel it, you don't think it.

Do you think Pinocchio's Coachman would be anywhere without that FACE he made in that one second he decided to go Satanic on us? Take that one second out and you literally have a villain people would think less about, historically. But for all the argument that he is a better villain, remember that Pinocchio takes a vastly different artistic and stylistic approach than Sleeping Beauty did. Disney villains are NOTHING without the animators and actors ability to give them a menacing presence. And Maleficent has just about the most presence in any Disney movie- as I've explained countless times, it's implied that she haunts a portion of the kingdom somehow and has a prying sixth sense... or seventh or eighth sense if it means that inanimate objects like walls can physically hear the Fairies plotting. That is seriously creative and terrifying for a Disney film. And it's also interesting that much of the film doesn't have an upbeat tone and the background characters (specifically- the King's subjects / the people in the crowds) have no emotions and move like zombies.

That scene is not bad. You merely haven't thought of it in more than one context.

Disney Duster wrote:

Lazario wrote:This movie still has a lot more going on within its' structure than any of the other Princess films.

I want to know how you think so. If you can't give me the whole explanation because it's hard to say, okay, but I'd like to know. Even if you must get into "metaphysical feeling" stuff.

Isn't that right up your alley, as a believer in a magical big man who lives in the sky?

Disney Duster wrote:

Lazario wrote:Hell, if anything, this makes Sleeping Beauty stronger because there's absolutely no filler. Everything in the film is a necessity, by virtue of the direction they chose to go in.

How is Aurora singing notes with no lyrics for a really long time not filler?

Oh my God... you're asking that question SERIOUSLY; aren't you?

#1: Fauna gave her the gift of a remarkably beautiful voice. The scene is showing us a return on that investment.

#2: Aurora's singing must be heard by Phillip for the romantic plot to move forward. If she doesn't sing out, how is she going to be heard?

#3: She's not just singing, as you have noted. Maleficent said "the Princess will indeed grow in grace and beauty, beloved by all who know her." The scene is both about her voice and about watching her charm everyone she comes across by virtue of her grace and beauty.

#4: Time the scenes, Dusty. If what you come up with equals "really long time" in your estimation, I think you might just have a problem I can't help you with.

Disney Duster wrote:How is the animals dancing with Aurora not filler?What does it do?

It is connected to the piece of plot involving how Aurora meets Phillip. If you watched the movie, you saw that she didn't realize Phillip was dancing beside her until he spoke out and touched her. But he was dancing with her behind her back and she believed the animals in his clothing were dancing with her. Also, by the time she began dancing with the animals, they had taken his clothing. If they don't dance with her in his clothing, the two characters don't meet and then the "Once Upon a Dream" plot goes nowhere. Which is also the answer to your asinine suggestion above that Aurora's dialogue about being treated like a child has no bearing on the plot.

You are the intellectual equivalent of a dead end on this board, I hope you realize this.

Disney Duster wrote:And those characters never come back in the film ever, they don’t do anything else.

Which makes it different than Cinderella and Snow White. Different, not inferior. And that's historically what Walt said he wanted from the film in the first place. And none of this contradicts my point. Whether characters are necessary for one scene or the entire film doesn't invalidate any of my arguments.

Disney Duster wrote:How is all of the time with the kings and the paige not filler?

Regarding the paige / minstrel / whatever, I never said the film didn't have comedic touches. He was considered by the studio as necessary to add a comedic aspect to that section of the film. This is Disney, remember, and I never said at any point during any of my arguments that Disney didn't manipulate the film in certain ways. Walt wanted to lighten up the movie and this was one of the ways the team did that, in their estimation. I never found him hilarious but his quick turn into desperate drunk could very well lend credibility to my argument that the people of the kingdom were depressed and anxious as a result of Aurora -again in my argument a symbol of any hope they could have that good exists - being placed in a dangerous situation by Maleficent's spell. Making it feasible that any one of them given even incidental access to a really high quality sedative wouldn't be able to resist taking it. He could be seen as a symbol to the Kings of the subjects' need to see Aurora. Who said, though his character came and went, that the Kings never gave him a second thought? Same with Aurora and the animals- who says she forgot about them in the back of her mind?

You know, you're not really paying attention to a word I'm saying. You can choose to disregard my insight here when you watch the movie, I'm not saying you need to change your opinion. But if you're going to challenge me with my own arguments, you need to actually pay attention.

As for the Kings, "all the time spent with them" shows Stefan's anxiousness and how much he is feeling the weight of potentially disappointing his kingdom. I typically wouldn't find that very dramatically weighty, rather I'd think it's lame and sappy or something. But we all know how good this movie is visually, how good the music is, the animation, backgrounds, etc. And a character like Stefan is easy to care about since Disney doesn't make him nor Hubert (really) into a baffoon unless the film was about criticizing him for not believing in true love / pushing for an arranged marriage, or forcing her into giving birth to the children of a man she didn't know or care about. But, more credit to Disney's handling of this movie: everything feels romantic or attractive. The benefit of it being such a highly aesthetic movie. And a fantasy. Where reality is scewed somewhat. Anyway, both Kings and their plot relevance have bearing on the film any way you slice it. Whether even part of you believes my defense of the film holds water or not.

Disney Duster wrote:Meanwhile in Lilo & Stitch, everyone looked like they were drawn by Sanders. I don't think that's Disney.

Or maybe not. I don't care. I just know the people shouldn't have all looked so much like bulbous-nosed South Park Canadians.

Disney Duster wrote:It's hard to believe anyone actually enjoys work, but even if there are some, Tiana enjoys cooking, not serving other people or building stuff.

But for Tiana, cooking = work.

Disney Duster wrote:Or maybe not. I don't care. I just know the people shouldn't have all looked so much like bulbous-nosed South Park Canadians.

Like SpringHeelJack perfectly said - Disney, even under Walt's guidance, went through many different styles and techniques for character animation. Besides - it's not the animation alone that's important, it's what you do with it. And Lilo & Stitch does something amazing with it.

Disney Duster wrote:I didn't like her character. At all. I liked her personality/demeanor/voice but not her character. I don't understand how someone so into working is even relatable, or how someone so anti-princess would want to become a princess.

But isn't someone's 'character' the same as their personality?

Disney Duster wrote:Meet the Robinsons: I didn't see it yet but from as much as I know I feel like saying make it more Disney.

Well I 'feel' like you need to watch a film before you can pass opinion on it.

Disney Duster wrote:So...because that scene is just to show how powerful she is, it's okay that the scene doesn't make sense and is bad when you think about it? And actually, if it's about showing her power, it failed, because it showed that she's actually really oblivious and incompetent to not know that her goons were searching for a baby for 16 freaking years.

I don't think Maleficent's main objective is to kill Aurora; she just likes spreading horror and misery. Cursing Aurora was probably just one of many cruel things she did; it's obvious that Stefan's kingdom already knew of her and feared/hated her, so she may have tormented them previously. That's why she doesn't spend all her time trying to find Aurora.

I know you may be thinking - "Why does she react so angrily then when she learns her minions haven't found Aurora?" Maybe because she would somewhat embarrassed about how one of her curses didn't work.

@Lazario: I think you excellently summed up what makes Sleeping Beauty so fantastic - it has a powerful atmosphere, thanks to all its individual components (animation, music, voice talent, dialogue like "Even walls have ears"), unlike any other Disney film.

Disney Duster wrote:I hope I don't offend these two but Goliath and Frankenollie are rather hard cynical guys kinda like Flynn but they love girls who are the opposite of that (at least in the movies!).

I'm 'kinda' like Flynn?

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/umDr0mPuyQc" frameborder="0"></iframe>

I don't want to be like that arrogant douche-bearded thing. Ever.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Like SpringHeelJack perfectly said - Disney, even under Walt's guidance, went through many different styles and techniques for character animation. Besides - it's not the animation alone that's important, it's what you do with it. And Lilo & Stitch does something amazing with it.

Agreed, both with you and SpringHeelJack. Personally, I thought the style of animation in Lilo & Stitch was a refreshing change from what you might normally expect from a Disney film. The watercolour backgrounds were really nice and perfectly in keeping with the film's setting of Hawaii and I thought the quality of the character animation was just as good.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:I don't think Maleficent's main objective is to kill Aurora; she just likes spreading horror and misery.

I agree; given her title as the "Mistress of all Evil", you would think that it wouldn't be too difficult for Maleficent to kill Aurora herself if she so wished. Given how offended she appears to be at not being invited to the celebration of Aurora's birth, causing the kingdom to live in sixteen years of fear is her own retribution for being ignored by King Stefan and is perhaps the most vindictive act committed by any Disney villain.

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Like SpringHeelJack perfectly said - Disney, even under Walt's guidance, went through many different styles and techniques for character animation. Besides - it's not the animation alone that's important, it's what you do with it. And Lilo & Stitch does something amazing with it.

Agreed, both with you and SpringHeelJack. Personally, I thought the style of animation in Lilo & Stitch was a refreshing change from what you might normally expect from a Disney film. The watercolour backgrounds were really nice and perfectly in keeping with the film's setting of Hawaii and I thought the quality of the character animation was just as good.

I totally agree, even as a guy who finds cute girls one of the big appeals of animation yet didn't really go for anyone in THIS film, ha. I think Lilo and Stitch is amazing and would be one of the most interesting films to get Walt's opinion on.

Disney Duster wrote:I hope I don't offend these two but Goliath and Frankenollie are rather hard cynical guys kinda like Flynn but they love girls who are the opposite of that (at least in the movies!).

I like strong, independent women like Pocahontas, Mulan and Tiana. It's refreshing to see female main characters taking control and being instrumental in achieving the desired 'happy end'. They're likable characters as well and I think they're far better role models for girls than characters like Snow White and Rapunzel. And still...

... still, when it comes to emotional attachment and caring for a character, I greatly like Snow White and Rapunzel much more. Their innocence and sweetness and naivete greatly enhance their 'sympathy factor', to me. Maybe that's the old-fashioned part in me (and when it comes to womens' issues I'm not conservative at all) which likes to protect and defend a woman? Put a girl I care about who's crying in front of me and I'll melt instantaneously. It's the same with Snow White or Rapunzel... or Ariel when Triton has just destroyed her cavern. I think Ariel has the right mix of assertiveness and 'dependency' (for lack of a better word).

Dr. Frankenollie wrote:@Lazario: I think you excellently summed up what makes Sleeping Beauty so fantastic - it has a powerful atmosphere, thanks to all its individual components (animation, music, voice talent, dialogue like "Even walls have ears"), unlike any other Disney film.

Lazario's essay-lenght post was nothing more than a lot of hot air packed with pretentious nonsensical language, belitteling comments and misplaced delusion of grandeur ("if you don't agree with me, you haven't thought about it well enough/you're too stupid to understand") --like always. He tries to impress people with his wordiness, but if you take the time to read what he's actually saying, you'll see there's very little substance to it. The wordiness has to mask the fact that he's huffing and puffing, yet nothing ever comes from it.

Duster is right on the money when it comes to Sleeping Beauty.