I don't know how anyone couldn't think “I See the Light” was much better than Newman’s song, in fact I just left the room after only listening to his song for a while. However, that song about "Coming Home” Gwenyth sang did sound pretty good, and that other one "If I Rise" did, too, so if either of those one, I would have been okay with them. But Newman one, and I was reminded how Lasseter and Pixar have a giant hold on the academy, and is, afterall, on the committee.
Mandy Moore should have worn a purple dress that evoked Rapunzel a little more. Her blue one didn’t really make sense.
Disney’s Divinity, just to let you know, this is where I stand: though very hard to tell, Cinderella may have wanted love from her stepmother and Lady Tremaine may have lead her to think she could have it.
Frollo may have lead Quasimodo to think he was as loving a father as their could be and Quasimodo may have felt some happiness in love in thinking that a monster like him was at least cared for by a fatherly figure.
But in Rapunzel, I think Rapunzel does love Mother Gothel (Disney even officially says this), but she still is totally up for disobeying her and getting mad at her. A person can sometimes feel they hate and love their parents at the same time, can’t they? And I think Mother Gothel does also love Rapunzel, one reason being because she went on a three day trip to get special paint for her, but she just loves the magic hair above her, and that is most important to her. Basically I don’t think either has full-on love for the other, but some.
DisneyAnimation, there is getting back on track successfully, as in money, and getting back on track to who you are, your identity, your art. I think Disney is fully back on with the money, and half back on with their identity.
I didn’t think that Frollo was supposed to raise Quasimodo to make up for killing the mother, I thought he was supposed to do it because the baby was innocent and shouldn’t be killed, and needed protection, but I haven’t seen it in a while. I just don’t think Frollo could treat Quasimodo so much near a son, laying his arms on him, without some kind of feeling, and I don’t think Quasimodo could be raised by him without some kind of fond feeling. However, it’s nowhere near Rapunzel and Mother Gothel’s mother-daughter relationship, I know that.
DisneyAnimation wrote:But, given that Rapunzel is quite a short story, isn't that what Disney have done with Tangled, expanding and adding? The essential components of the fairy tale are there (the romance, the witch, the tower, the hair) but the roles have been changed and expanded while the music and supporting characters have been added.
Almost! But they did more than expand and add, they also changed their backgrounds extremely (also the background of the “magic flower” which was originally Rapunzel lettuce). That is the one thing Disney’s never done with the “real version of the story” (different from Princess and the Frog which was seen as a new story), but they broke it, for no good reason. I already provided a way of them keeping the movie as it is with the original backgrounds. If they just tried really hard they could have done a great movie like the past ones keeping the backgrounds the same but expanding the adventures, like so many past Disney films did.
Swillie, actually, even Kevin Lima, who directed Enchanted, said things like "not just any transformation, but a Disney transformation", and used terms like Disney transformation and Disney...other things, can't remember. But see, you and
Escapay now know even a good, professional director for Disney has used terms like that, so me using words like Disney change and Disney essence are perfectly game!
Super Aurora, sensitivity and empathy are not your strongest points. I haven't pmed you like I was going to because I was busy, but also because I didn't feel so good about doing that when you just let Big One call me all he did, it was more than about opinions, you know. But now I'm less busy, which is why I'm here now and will pm you soon.
Big One, I still believe in the Disney Essence. The reason to believe in it is to believe that there is a reason fro the company to continue to make movies with the Disney name. To believe that something, an essence or…style, as you may prefer, that is not just in visuals, but subject, story, and feeling as well, that can be in all their films, carried from the first films to the new ones. That’s the reason. Otherwise their really is no point in making films with the Disney name.
I think Lady Tremaine tried to make it look like she might be a mother to Cinderella. That’s why I screencapped her “nice” smile to her, and then her “evil” smile later.
You also talked about Cinderella hating her stepmother all the time and showed a video. From that video I screencapped what I was talking about. Cinderella smiles and seems to try and reason with her stepmother, in a friendly, "maybe I can get her to like me" way. She gets shot down. When she gets barked at too much, she actually gives her stepmother a glare back, which was really interesting to me, like she wouldn’t do it or would fight back, so I screencapped that and it’s the second image. But Cinderella then lowers her head, feeling unable to fight back, or not wanting to.
The thing about Sleeping Beauty’s changes is they follow the kind of expanding or cutting down that Disney did in all previous fairy tale films or other films. They cut the Queen’s tries to kill Snow White from3 to 1, they cut Cinderella’s trips to the ball from 2 to 1, and they expanded the mice from, like, 6, to a lot, and so with Sleeping Beauty they cut the number of fairies from 13 to 3 and the number of years of sleep from 100 to 1 day. And yet they also mentioned that Maleficent plans to keep her asleep for 100 years and let Phillip out when he’s too old, so it’s still kind of in there. And of course, the main thing: none of that is changing the characters’ backgrounds! The main character is still a princess with her name, she was raised a peasant but her background wasn’t changed a peasant (and by the way her being raised as a peasant could be taken from the part of the story where her children are hid from the Prince’s ogress mother-in-law in the cook’s cottage in the woods). As for the “second half” of the story, that, too, is cutting down like they did in the past! And if I must, I will point out that Disney said they based Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty on the French versions but they also borrowed from the German versions, taking the thorns, the kiss, and the story ending after the wake-up, from the Grimm’s. Rapunzel only has a German version that is well-known, no other versions are well-known and considered the “real versions” like the German and French versions were in Walt’s time, and still are today.
You also wanted the evidence of when Disney called The Princess and the Frog and Tangled "twists", which had never been done before by Disney or Walt himself before.
Click here for the Tangled press release which says it has a "modern twist" and then the Princess and the Frog trailer said "everyone thinks they know the story of the Princess and the Frog" meaning they were changing the story, but their were also commercials, other trailers, and other advertising that said it had a twist (if you don't believe me about those, it was hard for me to find them on Youtube, but you could try yourself, but at least I know I was right while you can think whatever you want). I am less concerned about The Princess and the Frog though, because it is like a brand new story, not set in the same time as the original story.
The thing about Pinocchio and Fantasia…if you mean Walt would want mature movies like
that, then I would agree with you, but if you mean he would one way more mature stuff, like guns and violent aliens…like Lilo & Stitch, then I do not agree. However, maybe Lilo & Stitch could have simply been toned down to be more Disney friendly.
