Frog Princess found & renamed!

[Ariel'sprince]

Guys, it's not based on "The Frog Prince", it's more of an original fairytale, that combines some elements from "The Frog Princess" with one element from "The Frog Prince" (a prince turned into a frog needs a true love's kiss to return to its original state). That's where all similarities to both fairytales end.

Are you blind? this is obviously based on the Frog Prince,Disney said that themselfs! why do you think it's based on the Frog Princess? because the name? give me a break! It was the Frog Princess because she turns into a frog as well.
Wikipedia said she was spoiled,I don't think that not wanting to kiss a frog makes her spoiled either,who wants to kiss one? Tiana obviously won't be spoiled (PC,she's a black princess).

[steve]

In reply to what's been said in previous replies, over the years I have seen the EXACT SAME story in different children's books but with variations on the title: 'The Princess and the Frog', 'The Frog Prince', 'The Frog Princess' (meaning not that she is a frog, but that she is a princess associated with a frog - perhaps the makers of the film were exploiting that title in order to have a new twist on the tale - when they were still using that title). It appears that they are adapting the story, but it will be the loosest adaptation Disney have done so far of a fairy tale. Keep in mind the differences between the original fairytales and Disney's version of events: there was no Gaston or an insane asylum in 'Beauty and the Beast'; there was no dragon in 'Sleeping Beauty'; there was no 100-foot tall sea witch at the end of 'The Little Mermaid'; the list goes on. But like the others, in the future Disney's version will probably become the definitive version of the story.

[Mooky]

Are you blind?

Well, I do wear glasses

this is obviously based on the Frog Prince,Disney said that themselfs! why do you think it's based on the Frog Princess? because the name? give me a break! It was the Frog Princess because she turns into a frog as well

Ariel'sprince, the fact that they both become frogs is sign enough that it's not based on "The Frog Prince".

[UmbrellaFish]

Are you blind? this is obviously based on the Frog Prince,Disney said that themselfs! why do you think it's based on the Frog Princess? because the name? give me a break!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Frog_Princess



That being said this story will be Disney loosest fairytale. One could say it's their first original story to feature a Princess which makes it even more exciting.

[steve]

Ariel'sprince, the fact that they both become frogs should be enough of a sign that it's not based on "The Frog Prince".

Em, mooky_7_sa, if you read my last post, there are all the reasons I disagree with you.

Do you not think that the movie and the fairy tale are connected in the least? It would be a HUGE coincidence if Disney's movie and the old fairytale were not related, given that so much of the story and TITLE(!) are the same.

[Mooky]

Yeah, I read your post I just think the film will start out as something similar to "The Frog Prince" (prince transformed into a frog), but then take a completely different turn (princess turns into a frog as well). The film takes elements from both fairytales and combines them together to form a completely original fairytale. So to say it's based exclusively or completely on "The Frog Prince" is wrong. That's what I meant.

[steve]

So to say it's based exclusively or completely on "The Frog Prince" is wrong.

But the movie's not based on any other story - it all comes from the fairy tale - so it's actually correct to say it's completely based on that story. There can be original ideas thrown in, but just because it is not exactly like the original story does not mean that it's not completely based on it. It's the same with all Disney adaptations of fairy tales. There's no dragon or cake-baking scene in the Sleeping Beauty fairy tale, but whether or not the Disney movie is based completely on that story is never in question. It just suggests that this new movie is going to be a looser adaptation than any before.

[Mooky]

Then why isn't the film called "The Frog Prince"?

All other fairytale films had some original elements in them but they were still called like the fairytales they were based on. And TPatF has more original elements than "Aladdin", "Beauty and the Beast" and "The Little Mermaid" combined.

Obviously, we won't agree on this. We should just wait for the movie to come out and then we'll see who's right .

[steve]

I don't want to be going on and on, cause it's really getting silly, but...

Then why isn't the film called "The Frog Prince"

As I said in my other post:

In reply to what's been said in previous replies, over the years I have seen the EXACT SAME story in different children's books but with variations on the title: 'The Princess and the Frog', 'The Frog Prince', 'The Frog Princess' ...

So we have three titles, and TWO have already been used by Disney. I would say the reason it's not called The Frog Prince is because Tiana is the focus of the story, not the prince, so it wouldn't make sense to name the movie after him, which is why Disney opted for the other names, first The Frog Princess, then The Princess and the Frog.

[Disney Duster]

Steve's side of this debate is outstandingly right and I fully agree with him.

On America's Next Top Model, the models dressed up as different fairy tale characters, such as Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty. One model dressed up as the princess from "The Princess and the Frog". Her costume wasn't green or suggested she was a frog at all. It was mostly red and blue and white and looked more water or flower inspired like she might wear it when looking for her ball around the pond and finding the frog.

Umbrellafish and mooky, Disney's "The Princess and the Frog" sounds much closer to just "The Frog Prince". It starts out just like that more well-known tale, and the twist is not reminiscent of "The Frog Princess". In that tale, the princess was already a frog, and a human prince changes her back, after she does some tasks proving she's good or the right bride or variants. The twist really just makes the princess copy "The Frog Prince"'s predicament. There were never two people turned frogs in "The Frog Princess" or any story (except the very excellent children's book "The Frog Prince Continued"). This is why Disney's twist is original and makes it an "original story". Disney themselves even said repeatedly it was "an original story" but also have said, according to Ultimate Disney, it was "a female spin" on the classic fairy tale "The Frog Prince".

Now, if in this film the frogs must perform tasks proving themselves worthy brides...or grooms...or something like that, then maybe I'll accept it's like "The Frog Princess" as Wikipedia and you are thinking of.

[blackcauldron85]

Wow...I don't come on UD for one day, and I have 4 pages to catch up on!

So, some of you are saying that Angelina will probably still allow her daughters to play with the Princess merchandise, but she won't allow them to watch the Disney movies?!?! That's so rediculous! Watching one Disney movie could lead to watching more Disney movies, and soon Angelina will realize that Disney is a multicultural smorgasbord! (Or, at least, as Sam Eagle would say, A multicultural smorgasbord, but mostly of European decent.)

If she wanted a black princess she could have talked to the makers of "Shrek the Third" to put a black princess in the mix, she probably has some influence over there, after all she made two films for them.

And to UmrellaFish for saying something similar.

the fact some people say Disney is only making the Princess and the Frog in order to create a black princess shows that the princess line is seen as overwhelmingly white. Did anyone ever claim Disney made Mulan just to have an Asian character or Lilo and Stitch just to create an Hawiian character?

That's a really good point. I don't mean this the wrong way, but maybe certain African American groups (such as the NAACP) are more "sensitive" and/or not as in touch with the real world. Certain people of every group can take offense to things (I think this has been brought up already); some, but not all, people of a group will take offense to a Disney movie set in a certain country or a certain geographical area; for example, some Hawaiians were offended by the representation of Hawaiians as being surfers, since not all Hawaiians surf. But, many Hawaiians were surely pleased that their state was the setting for a Disney movie. Some were probably indifferent.

A black princess is coming. If she felt that strongly about this, why doesn't she look it up? I don't care if she has better things to do. It's as simple as typing in "Black Disney Princess" on Google.com before she says anything.

No,there's hugh difference,Pocahontas and Mulan are Princesses and their characters are perfact for this line,Tiana is black and her movie was created to make more money on a black Princess.
And besides-Pocahontas and Mulan were Asian and Native American in their original stories,the original Frog Prince's Prncess was white just like Snow White,Cinderella,Belle and Aurora.

As people have been saying in this thread, "The Princess and the Frog" would probably have been made even if there was no princess line. The first Disney Animated Classic was about a princess. Many other DACs have been about princesses. It was just a matter of time before another princess film would have been made. It just so happens that, yes, there is a Disney Princess line, and sure, Tiana will no doubt be added to it. But the merchandise of films usually doesn't control what movies will be made. And, as someone mentioned a while ago, the original "Aladdin" story was set in China...it's called "creative license". Look it up!

[quote="mooky_7_sa]You could make that same argument for "Rapunzel" and every other upcoming princess film. If that's the case (Princess films being made just to sell Princess merchandise) then why isn't every single Disney princess/heroine in the franchise? You know, many people prefer Megara to Aurora or Snow White.[/quote]
Those are great points. If Disney was so money-hungry, then they'd "introduce" Eilonwy ("Look, little girls, a forgotten Disney princess. Now you can bring her home! Only $19.99 + tax. Pay $8.99 extra if you want her bauble.")

[Ariel'sprince]

No,there's hugh difference,Pocahontas and Mulan are Princesses and their characters are perfact for this line,Tiana is black and her movie was created to make more money on a black Princess.
And besides-Pocahontas and Mulan were Asian and Native American in their original stories,the original Frog Prince's Prncess was white just like Snow White,Cinderella,Belle and Aurora.

As people have been saying in this thread, "The Princess and the Frog" would probably have been made even if there was no princess line. The first Disney Animated Classic was about a princess. Many other DACs have been about princesses. It was just a matter of time before another princess film would have been made. It just so happens that, yes, there is a Disney Princess line, and sure, Tiana will no doubt be added to it. But the merchandise of films usually doesn't control what movies will be made. And, as someone mentioned a while ago, the original "Aladdin" story was set in China...it's called "creative license". Look it up!

You"re so naive,this movie was created to make more money of the line,did anyone promoted Mulan as "Disney's first Asian Princesss! come see it! we"ll tell you all about the new Tiana merchandise of the Princess 2 years before this will be out!!!" they don't promote it as a new (Like Enchanted and Rapunzel) it's all about a new black Princess and I think you"re very naive if you didn't noticed it,believe it or not but all Disney cares today is money and this line is importent,why Hercules won't be released on new DVD but Sleeping Beauty? money! Princess line! you"re very naive.
I very agree with Steve and Disney Duster and I really don't understend why UmberllaFish and mooky_7_sa think it's based on the Frog Princess.
This isn't the Frog Princess and they call it the Frog Princess because it's about a princess,who turns into a frog and it's the Frog Prince story,why this isn't called the Frog Prince? because if you haven't noticed yet it's a movie a PRINCESS,NOT about a prince.
And yeah,the Frog Prince's Princess is the Frog Princess because her true love is a FROG,many other version of the story calls it the Frog Princess.
Exept Steve and Disney Duster nobody on this thread make any sense.

[2099net]

This isn't the Frog Princess and they call it the Frog Princess because it's about a princess,who turns into a frog and it's the Frog Prince story,why this isn't called the Frog Prince? because if you haven't noticed yet it's a movie a PRINCESS,NOT about a prince.

She's not a princess until the end of the movie, so really the film is not a movie about a PRINCESS. It's more about a Prince than a Princess, even if he is a frog. Titles don't mean everything.

Being crowned Princess of Mardi Gras or whatever is not being a Princess. You may as well say Quasimodo is a king in Hunchback of Notre Dame.

[Ariel'sprince]

This movie is promoted as "The first black Disney Princess" not "A guy who merried the first black Disney Princess".
Titles doesn't mean anything? then some people here doesn't make any sense and think it's about a whole different fairy tale just because a deleted title? .
Maiden,fine? what does it matter? it's a movie about a GIRL,not a prince!.

[2099net]

I would imagine being royalty and being turned into a frog is

a] Quite a notable event in the story (even if it happens 'offstage')
b] worthy of some exploration, explaination and conclusion

so I expect the Prince's story will also be told.

That plus the fact the film is called "The Princess AND The Frog" make me thing that... Good Lord, its about the GIRL AND the boy (or frog if you prefer as I guess that will be how we see him for most of the runtime, just as the Beast was the Beast rather than Adam).

Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella and The Little Mermaid were primarily about the girl. Beauty AND the Beast was about the girl and the boy. And Aladdin was primarily about the boy. (Which perhaps explains Jasmine's regular side-lining in the franchise too).

So apart from them both becoming frogs (which may only be a short sequence in the film?), the the story appears to be more like The Frog Prince than anything else (Girl meets frog, frog becomes Prince, girl presumably marries said prince). OK, Disney are changing it from the original, but they've changed every other fairytale - The Little Mermaid has scant relation to the original, and stuff like sequels and prequels - especially the prequel by the looks of it - takes it further and further away from the original source.

Nobody can say anything with any authority until they have seen the film.

[tsom]

YOU KNOW WHAT EVERYONE:

Listen, this movie is NOT coming out till DECEMBER 25, 2009!!!!! That is still a looooonnnnngggggg time from now. We don't even know what the story is about. We just keep making assumptions about it. Let's just wait and see what Disney annouces or whatever. Just stop this arguing back and forth. It's NOT solving anything.

That's all.

[steve]

I can't help but laugh at the above conversation about the princess in The Princess and the Frog. Regardless if Tiana spends most of the movie as a princess or a frog or a - God forbid! - chambermaid, Disney are still gonna call her a princess. Disney are princess whores! Mulan is a princess! Even Tinkerbell was a princess for a while!!

[Mooky]

Disney are princess whores!

Sad but true.

[steve]

Hey, why is this thread still called "Frog Princess found & renamed!"? Since it has been renamed, should the thread also be renamed? "The Princess and the Frog Discussion Thread" or something?

[Ariel'sprince]

Hey, why is this thread still called "Frog Princess found & renamed!"? Since it has been renamed, should the thread also be renamed? "The Princess and the Frog Discussion Thread" or something?

Good question,someone really should this already.
You know what? tsom is right,this movie isn't even out and those topics are just unnecessary.