DisneyAnimation88 wrote:The Jungle Book is a perfect example to use. As has been said before, the original Disney adaptation, written by Bill Peet, had a very close resemblence to Kipling's book. When Walt Disney rejected Peet's work for being "too dark", the two fell out and Peet left the studio. Walt then instructed his team not to read the novel they were adapting as they were now going to do it their own way. This has been verified by people who worked on the film and were involved in those meetings so I think The Jungle Book is a very good example of Disney's way of thinking when it came to adapting classic stories.
That's all very well, but it is generalizing saying that I have a problem with Disney just not being faithful to the books. What I am talking about is "what ways were they faithful?" The answer was in character backgrounds, spefically what kind of status they had and any magical powers.
DisneyAnimation88 wrote: I was planning on finally giving a really good in-depth comparison of the stories and thinsg you said were changed the same as Tangled in the old Disney Essence thread so maybe it could be put to rest there.
To save you doing that, didn't you write a very detailed argument in the "What would your version of Rapunzel been like" thread?
No, in there I just wrote a version of Rapunzel closer to both the way Walt did them and the way the Renaissance did them
Super Aurora wrote:Disney Duster wrote:
Super Aurora, then the real mistake I made was saying that Maurice was a peasant. The movie doesn't really say what class he and Belle are. But anyway, he is still of the kind of class that is beneath nobility enough to be close to the original.
So apparently this is an exception to the so call character background change, but changing a prince to an adventurous thief isn't?
No. I am saying that changing a man who was not of noble birth and sold goods is in "the same ballpark" as a man not of noble birth who sold his inventions. I am also saying that we don't know if Maurice was about as rich as the original father was. And I'm further yet saying that either of these things is closer to the original than the giant leap of going from a prince to an orphan peasant thief.
Super Aurora wrote:Disney Duster wrote:What you said about Kaa being changed from good to bad...I already explained this! In the original story, Kaa didn't care about Mowgli and would have tried to eat him had they met before, he only became a good guy mentor after saving Mowgli from the monkeys! The film ends right after that part!
That's where you're fucking wrong. Kaa never in the book tried to eat Mowgli nor did he "not care" about Mowgli. he was always on side of good. This not only shows you never read the book, but also shows you now making shit up in order to justify you own fake argument.
No he was not always on the side of good. Baloo and Bagheer had to pester him into helping Mowgli. And I said if he met Mowgli before this, he
probably or
might have eaten him. And by you cursing and yelling at me, I think I need to ask you to please calm down and be more understanding. You get fed up thinking I'm saying wrong things but you are getting way too angry to see maybe you are not reading so carefully or understanding or thinking about what I'm saying and only think I'm saying something wrong. And even if you're right I don't yell at you even though I think you are wrong sometimes too. But we're not talking about life or death here or 2+2 where things are more clearly right or wrong, so no need to get like this.
Super Aurora wrote:Disney Duster wrote:And also, being "good or bad" is not the same as a background. A background is like a birth status and what you do. If that's not a background, then that's what I'm talking about, anyway.
OH REALLY? The status of alliances(good/evil) in a fictional character is very much resides in the character's background. It's what makes and define the fictional character.
You totally missed the part where I said if it's not character backgrounds than I don't know what to call it but whatever I mean it doesn't include whether characters are on the side of bad or good. This is what I mean by you really do not understand me all the time. Read what you just quoted me saying that you replied to just above what I'm typing now.
Super Aurora wrote:Disney Duster wrote:And how do you not see being a rich prince in a castle is much more different than a roaming betraying orphan thief than any of the things changed in Jungle Book?
They aren't much different since both are essentially a change to original. But apparently you seems so head over heel about one change yet is fine with another one.
Like I said before, you and others are generalizing that I'm having a problem with changing the source material period. I am talking about the
ways Disney changed from the source material in the past.
Super Aurora wrote:Disney Duster wrote:You know, The Jungle Book is not a good example to use. Because the cast is mostly animals and they don't have statuses of royalty, except King Louie who was added in and as you know I'm fine with Disney adding in characters as they have always done. But Kaa got to keep his hypnosis while Mother Gothel lost her witch powers.
Oh so now Jungle Book doesn't count now because it's mostly a cast of animals? This is another example of what I was saying earlier how you easily flip away any counter-argument in order to suit your need belief.
If there is anyone who not being understanding, it's you.
No. I am saying that The Jungle Book is a very hard example because the original doesn't have animals with statuses like peasant, merchant, prince, princess, or bandit.
tsom wrote:Disney Duster, in The Frog Prince, the heroine is a princess, but in Disney's adaptation, she's a waitress. What makes it different than Tangled?
I've explained it before but I don't think you saw it. I originally did have a problem with Disney making the Princess and the Frog not be the original fairy tale. But at least it fits that they made a whole new original story, with an original waitress character, original voodoo magical help, other characters, and original title (even though there had been some versions of the Frog Prince with that title, but it's not the original title).[/quote]
tsom wrote:It has been over a year since Tangled came out, and I know you are very passionate about your stance, but isn't it time to let it go? I mean that in the nicest possible way. When you adapt something, you barely do it word for word. No Disney fairy tale is 100 percent faithful to its original source. Making Rapunzel a princess was not a bad thing. I'm glad she was a princess. Think about it: if she was a peasant, then we wouldn't have had that gorgeous "I See the Light" scene.
I'm a little sad that you, too, do not understand that I am not asking Disney to be just more fiathful. I mean for them to be faithful in the ways that they
were in the past. Princesses stayed princesses if they were, magical beings stayed magical if they were. And I'm also sad you didn't read my "more Disney" version of the story
here where I explain if Flynn was a prince who wanted to be a thief, and Rapunzel made him take her to
his palace, there would still be the "I See the Light" scene and all the rest!
The bonus features on the initial release were really nothing special. A second release that included the short would be great.
