disneyprincess11 wrote:Don't ask me for details because I have my source's trust. But to those who are worried about sequels being announced for WDAS at the Expo, all I can say is that all of you will be pleasantly surprised.
Those are just cultural and regional inaccuracies which Disney failed to properly research, and that's not even getting into timeline issues. They basically took anything even remotely Chinese and compacted it all together in one movie, never thinking about how elements like the Forbidden City don't necessarily gel with the Huns (another very problematic and inaccurate portrayal) or fireworks and gunpowder. I read another Chinese person mentioning that it would be like creating a movie that throws together elements from Greco-Roman times, the Medieval Era, while being set in Victorian England.
to be fair Disney does this with European cultures as well. Frozen is mashing together a bunch of Scandinavian folklore and customs, not just specifically Norway's, and the fashions are becoming increasingly less early Victorian. And then there's all the other past fairy tales where they do this like Little Mermaid, Cinderella etc...
Disney just does whatever it likes and feels looks best for the film, accuracy be dammed. I suppose they should just stick to the west for their film making and leave the non white cultures alone, but then imagine all the films we would have missed out on if that's the case.
unprincess wrote:
to be fair Disney does this with European cultures as well. Frozen is mashing together a bunch of Scandinavian folklore and customs, not just specifically Norway's, and the fashions are becoming increasingly less early Victorian. And then there's all the other past fairy tales where they do this like Little Mermaid, Cinderella etc...
Disney just does whatever it likes and feels looks best for the film, accuracy be dammed. I suppose they should just stick to the west for their film making and leave the non white cultures alone, but then imagine all the films we would have missed out on if that's the case.
I didn't even bother with Frozen because it's barely accurate to anything, whether it's source material or historical costumes. I agree with you on The Little Mermaid, but I don't really think that's true for Cinderella. Most of its elements are derived from France and the Victorian era. The palace is based off Versailles and other architecture from the 1700s but that's realistic enough to believe in a world where the French monarchy never died out. Sleeping Beauty is the Walt-era film that blatantly takes symbols and heraldry from various European countries and especially draws from both French and German influences. There's a reason it seems that everyone has their own idea of when the film is set, including Italy or England. Tangled is the modern example since it's another mishmash of various European cultures to the point that it's one of the most difficult to identify setting-wise.
We’re a dyad in the Force. Two that are one. "I offered you my hand once. You wanted to take it." - Kylo Ren "I did want to take your hand. Ben's hand." - Rey
yeah, to be honest I don't know much about Cinderella in regard to its cultural and historical influence, it always seemed like a mix-match to me, with some added 1950s sheen, but b/c it isn't my favorite of the Disney fairy tales I haven't really bothered to study it as closely as some of the others. I should have mentioned Tangled instead, yeah that ones such a mixed mess it ends up looking like a Barbie movie.
I mean, it's movies, it's magic. Disney movies are here to make me go think of magic and dreams and escapism. If I want a documentary, I'd just watch that. If your suspension of disbelief can work with talking dragons and genies, then I don't see why the places changing a bit is such an issue.
thedisneyspirit wrote:I mean, it's movies, it's magic. Disney movies are here to make me go think of magic and dreams and escapism. If I want a documentary, I'd just watch that. If your suspension of disbelief can work with talking dragons and genies, then I don't see why the places changing a bit is such an issue.
I agree with this. I honestly don’t care, although it can be a nice addition.
I also agree with unprincess on Tangled. That film has always felt like Disney trying to re-create the Barbie films to me.
Listening to most often lately:
Taylor Swift ~ ~ "The Fate of Ophelia"
Taylor Swift ~ "Eldest Daughter"
Taylor Swift ~ "CANCELLED!"
thedisneyspirit wrote:I mean, it's movies, it's magic. Disney movies are here to make me go think of magic and dreams and escapism. If I want a documentary, I'd just watch that. If your suspension of disbelief can work with talking dragons and genies, then I don't see why the places changing a bit is such an issue.
It's not about making a film that could serve as a time capsule of an earlier era though. It's about making a film that is grounded enough in reality that even its more fantastic elements are believable. This was the doctrine used for the Harry Potter films because anything too outlandish or bizarre wouldn't be easily accepted by audiences. If you want to be immersed in another period or time, the place should be culturally accurate and not feature anachronistic elements like Mushu whipping out a toothbrush and toothpaste.
Tangled features conflicting elements to a fault between the Roman look of the guards, the Russian onion domes used for the palace, the French inspiration of Mont-Saint-Michel for the palace's location, the Irish themes used in the village dance and the rest of the townspeople, the Renaissance wardrobe for the King in contrast to the 1780s gowns of the Queen, etc. That's not even including the foliage which hails from various locations across the continent and even deleted elements like the Romani fortuneteller and monkey.
We’re a dyad in the Force. Two that are one. "I offered you my hand once. You wanted to take it." - Kylo Ren "I did want to take your hand. Ben's hand." - Rey
Hm. I get what thedisneyspirit and Disney's Divinity are saying, but also JeanGreyForever. I'm going to have to go with JeanGrey, because if you can't believe enough that a place is real along with the fantasy parts, you just don't care as much or it's not as serious and dramatic and you aren't as invested.
If they d ,Disney animation should consider hiring more musical theater stars !
Some suggestions Chad Kimball,Sahr Ngaujah ,Norbert Leo Butz , Kate Baldwin, Montego Glover , Christiane Noll, Sherie Rene Scott, Tammy Blanchard( already worked for Disney),Victoria Clark, ,Elizabeth A. Davis and Jayne Houdyshell,
Can we please leave this space unless it's Gigantic news? I just come here hoping for new concept art, who was going to be cast, more of why it got canceled etc.
DisneyFan97 wrote:I really want Disney to make more animated musicals and also less sequels.
Frozen 2 is both an animated musical AND a sequel.
I think the presumption is more original animated musicals.
We’re a dyad in the Force. Two that are one. "I offered you my hand once. You wanted to take it." - Kylo Ren "I did want to take your hand. Ben's hand." - Rey
JeanGreyForever wrote:
I think the presumption is more original animated musicals.
It's an original story set in a familiar universe. What's wrong with that?
A lot of users here are sick of sequels, particularly Pixar ones. Personally, I've always been a fan of them since I tend to love the originals. The only sequel I felt was an absolute failure was Ralph Breaks the Internet. And I guess the Cars sequels but I never cared for the first one either and I haven't even bothered to watch them.
We’re a dyad in the Force. Two that are one. "I offered you my hand once. You wanted to take it." - Kylo Ren "I did want to take your hand. Ben's hand." - Rey
I don't mind sequels as long as they're done well. The Disneytoons sequels are crap that shouldn't even be considered. I don't mind to give WDAS and Pixar a chance, though the only sequel I liked from Pixar is Incredibles 2 and even that isn't nearly as good as the original. I didn't like RBTI, though I'm not a fan of the first one as well.
Disney Duster wrote:I don't think Cinderella III or Bambi II are crap. Give them a chance. And you guys don't like Finding Dory?!?!!!!!
I don't hate Finding Dory. The film was okay, and there was nothing bad about it. We just didn't NEED a follow-up to Finding Nemo. The journey of fish travelling the Pacific Ocean lost its impact on the second try.
For Cinderella III and Bambi II, both like the rest of the DTV sequels were unnecessary. No amount of extra money pumped into the animation can disguise the fact that they're particularly insulting to the legacy of the originals. Movies that shaped American culture for decades now have unwanted follow-ups dragging down their value.
