DVDizzy Forum

I can see why there'd be a problem with a voodoo villain. I mean, making too much of mysticism does annoy me (like how the natives are all "magical" in Pocahontas).

However, I think people are forgetting what political correctness (at least, to me) is supposed to be: it's discipline, sensitivity, and knowledge.

It's not a law against saying anything bad, and it's not a rule about being heavy handed.

I did roll my eyes at the initial setup for Frog Princess because it seemed a little... uncreative and that there was potential for being heavy handed. You know, like Disney was trying too hard to make her "black" enough.

However... You can't deny that it's part of the black experience (and that there's a lot you can do visually with the 20s. Oooh, I love that picture of her with the pearls!). So long as they don't get heavy handed with it (and whatever loving message they have for this movie) or try to turn all the bad into happy bubbles and pretend there was nothing wrong and that it wasn't that bad (oh, did I roll my eyes in Fantasia 2000 when the black person was, oh, hey! a musician and everyone went Harlem and enjoyed his music, because that's what black people are for or something), it could work out quite well.

And that's pretty much what I'm hoping for: a fun movie that addresses its issues without feeling tortured, or giving me the feeling I'm being lectured (as I often have with the "moral" of some movies that have come out these days).

In short... they should keep some issues in mind and just "go for it." One thing I've learned from art class is that planning is good, but don't do too much or you'll never really get started.

Poody wrote:

2099net wrote:How many of us here even entertained the idea of Maddy sounding like Mammy?

There was only one....

Yeah, and who cares what the Black people think anyway, as long as you're entertained, right?

SpringHeelJack wrote:Yeah, that's why I have to try distancing reality from Disney. Like, it seems odd to me that with the Beast being a French prince, no one was ever like "Hey, remember that annoying guy who used to rule us? Whatever happened to him?".

I've always thought he ruled over a small county or something, all villagers moved away, and then the beast was forgotten/made into a myth. Then again I know little about monarchy and its rule. What's sad is that I know more about older monarchy than new monarchy, as you can see, that's not much for either.

2099net wrote:OK, I know this is being discussed now, but here's a neat little summary from IMDB

Protests Come Early to Disney's 'Princess'


Almost two years before its hoped-for release of its first hand-drawn animated film produced under the supervision of Pixar's John Lasseter, Disney has already drawn fire for alleged racial and ethnic insensitivities that were detected in its original announcement of the film, according to Disney watcher Jim Hill. Since the original title, The Frog Princess, might be regarded as a slur on the French, the title has been changed to The Princess and the Frog. The main character, named Maddy -- who was to become Disney's first black princess -- has had her name changed to Tiana, since Maddy reportedly sounded too much like Mammy. She will no longer be seen as a chambermaid working for a rich, white spoiled Southern débutante. In a statement, Disney, which said that it ordinarily does not comment on its animated films in the early stages of production, observed: "The story takes place in the charming elegance and grandeur of New Orleans' fabled French Quarter during the Jazz Age. ... Princess Tiana will be a heroine in the great tradition of Disney's rich animated fairy tale legacy, and all other characters and aspects of the story will be treated with the greatest respect and sensitivity."

This is a relief to know. Although the name change was not a particularly huge deal to me (Tiana sounds a little bit too late 20th Century IMHO, but it certainly sounds more regal and respectable), the portrayal of the princess as a chambermaid of a White Southern plantation owner's debutante daughter was just too much. Rather than being about 1920s New Orleans it seemed that that aspect made it more like an antebellum story. So I'm glad to see that that angle has been jettisoned.

2099net wrote:Now I know we had a little forum spat about racial attitudes and political correctness earlier in this post, but I put it, this was just the sort of thing people were wary of. Not the fact the princess was to be black, but having a black princess would have baggage attached to it.

That's because in the U.S. (in the world at large but in the U.S. especially), Black/White racial relations continue to have a lot of baggage attached to them. Despite what far too many White people believe, genuine racial equality has not been achieved. (That's right, I said it!) Racial integration has not been the social salvation it has been perceived as being. Racial integration has been achieved in American society. Racial equality has not. Advancements have been made, to be sure, no question of that, and they continue to be made, and for the most part, that's good. But the finish line has not yet been crossed. We still have a long way to go.

2099net wrote:Personally, I think all of the changes made are silly.

Of course you do - you're not Black (and I don't say that with any disrespect or antipathy - the simple fact of the matter is that because you're not Black, you're not going to see things as we see them, because they don't affect you in the same way).

2099net wrote:The Frog Princess - well I knew this was set in Cajun country,

Actually it's set in Creole country. New Orleans is considered Creole, not Cajun. The Cajun areas (Acadiana) are a little further northwest of New Orleans, around Baton Rouge, Lafayette, St. Martin Parish, Lake Charles, and other parts of Western Louisiana. New Orleans' Creole culture is quite a bit different from Cajun culture. Check this out - Creole vs. Cajun - There is a Difference

Here's also a very rich site about Creole culture, which is the traditional culture of New Orleans (particularly the French Quarter) - http://www.frenchcreoles.com/CreoleCult ... ulture.htm

2099net wrote:but it never once crossed my mind it was likely to insult the French/French speakers. I also think the name change is stupidity beyond belief. How many of us here even entertained the idea of Maddy sounding like Mammy?

That's exactly the point - how many of you (i.e., non-African Americans) thought that the name "Maddy" sounded a little too much like "Mammy"? Perhaps not a lot. But most Whites don't have a shared history of being subjugated under slavery and under the Jim Crow laws which dominated American life for most of its history. It wasn't your mothers and grandmothers and great-grandmothers who were being called Mammy, forced (first by slavery and later by lack of economic freedom and opportunity) to be housemaid and nursemaid to White families, and yet denigrated in simplistic, degrading ways in the popular culture. So naturally you wouldn't be sensitive to something like a name sounding uncomfortably like that.

2099net wrote:Both of the above changes are - to use the common phrase "Political Correctness gone mad", but ultimately harmless.

If the change is harmless, why the labeling of it as "political correctness gone mad" and the protest of the change? What would you prefer? Black people to simply let non-Blacks characterize us in any way you choose, no matter how insulting or degrading those ways are to us? If so, do we get to reciprocate in kind? Or will you pull out your race card and label us as racists if we do that?

2099net wrote:But I'm not so sure about the latter change. So she can't be a chamber maid anymore? I would have thought the fact that she comes from a poorer working background would be integeral to the plot. After all, most established fairytales have a rags-to-riches storyline. Snow White was basically a house maid at the start of her film, royal blood or not. Cinderella too. Aroura went from royalty to simple country living etc. But nobody complained about this.

Nobody complained about it because all those characters were as Caucasian as you (and the majority of the animators). You can characterize yourselves in any way you choose in your stories. But when you characterize us, it's better to err on the side of caution and respect than not. Wouldn't you agree?

Don't kid yourselves into thinking that this is a film about African Americans made by African Americans. It isn't. Oh, sure, no doubt there'll be a few involved in the project, but the producers are not African American, the majority of animators are not African American, the directors are not African American, the writers are not African American (that I'm aware of, at least), not even the score is being written by an African American, and Disney is not considered an African American-owned-or-led corporation, yet it is (primarily) our culture and way of life that is being depicted in this film project. The fact that Disney is listening to us and making changes based on some of the feedback they've received from us is actually very pleasing to us, and makes some of us a little more willing to spend our money on their movie when it comes out. Not that they're going to go under even if absolutely none of us shows up at the theater or buys a single DVD. And for the most part, we know this. But they're listening to us, and making changes, not so much as a way of showing us respect for respect's sake, but showing us respect because they know that if they don't, it might negatively affect their bottom line.

Whatever the reason, I say good on them for making these changes. Now if only they reconsider the portrayal of the prince, then they might actually have something we'll turn out in droves to see.

2099net wrote:If Disney fears being seen as being prejudged against black Americans, they always have the option of adding more black characters to the story, who can be strong, kind, successful... whatever. I would expect the storyline does depend on Maddy/Tiana and perhaps her family too starting off struggling to survive.

You're arguing quantity over quality. If the quality isn't that great to begin with, it doesn't really matter how many Black faces you throw up onto the screen. You could even have a majority Black character cast, but if the portrayals of us are demeaning and degrading, chances are we're not going to like it very much. Ask the producers of Soul Plane what I mean by that.

2099net wrote:Finally, I understand some form of Voodoo will be seen in the film (but I'm not sure). Will Disney shy away from presenting a black voodoo user in its quest to be politically correct?

Well, it really all depends on what's being portrayed. Unless what's portrayed is the usual Hollywood version of voodoo, most likely what will be portrayed is New Orleans Voodoo, not the traditional African & Haitian Vodou pagan religion.

PapiBear, I'm interested to hear how you would have portrayed Tiana and the prince if it was you writing for the movie.

You always mention the things about the movie that you don't like or find offensive, so I'm interested to hear how you would have portrayed the character if you had a chance.

Oh, and please, I'm not being sarcastic here or anything. I'm in my early 20's and grew up in Canada, so although we were taught US history, I'm afraid most of these issues don't exactly hit very close to home for me. Just interested on a different perspective.

Princess Stitch wrote:PapiBear, I'm interested to hear how you would have portrayed Tiana and the prince if it was you writing for the movie.

You always mention the things about the movie that you don't like or find offensive, so I'm interested to hear how you would have portrayed the character if you had a chance.

Oh, and please, I'm not being sarcastic here or anything. I'm in my early 20's and grew up in Canada, so although we were taught US history, I'm afraid most of these issues don't exactly hit very close to home for me. Just interested on a different perspective.

I'm not really a writer of fiction or of children's stories or fairy tales, but there are African American authors and illustrators who would do such a story justice.

I'm not really sure that the concept of an African American princess is one that's been approached before. An African princess, sure, that shouldn't be a problem, but a story about an African princess isn't quite the same as that of an African American princess. Despite the fact that most of the Disney princesses speak with American accents, most of them are culturally European (Pocahontas, Jasmine, and Mulan being the exceptions), and as we know, European royalty has been and remains a popular phenomenon. There are also African princesses found among the various peoples of Africa.

There are no American princesses, as there is no American royalty or aristocracy as such. The closest one can consider "royalty" in the US are certain wealthy upper class elites, the majority of whom are of European descent. There is a Black upper class, or an Afristocracy, as Dr. Michael Eric Dyson calls it, and while some stories set in the world of the Afristocracy might be interesting, I'm not sure they'd necessarily lend themselves to fairy-tale-like stories, which are essentially tales for the masses, not the elites.

So, the ideal here is to find a uniquely American story that is fairy-tale-like and appealing to the masses. In this case, obviously, the target audience is an African American mass audience, since that is what is being portrayed.

I would probably suggest something based in reality, actually, but which could lend itself nicely to animation. Something like the true story of Bessie Coleman, whose real life story actually does take place in the 1920s. Numerous books have been written about Ms. Coleman, including children's books which encourage children to believe in themselves and their dreams. I think her story would make an awesome Disney animated film, and it would allow Disney the opportunity to develop a new line of Disney princesses - ones based on real life.

PapiBear wrote:

2099net wrote:Both of the above changes are - to use the common phrase "Political Correctness gone mad", but ultimately harmless.

If the change is harmless, why the labeling of it as "political correctness gone mad" and the protest of the change? What would you prefer? Black people to simply let non-Blacks characterize us in any way you choose, no matter how insulting or degrading those ways are to us? If so, do we get to reciprocate in kind? Or will you pull out your race card and label us as racists if we do that?

Well, I probably shouldn't have wrote that, although I am still of half-a-mind it was justified. As I've said in the past Political Correctness should just be treating others with respect. Like I say, the changes are harmless – meaning that they will make little difference to the story, not that the changes won't please people – but I have to question if perhaps people are being too sensitive. After all, for example, the Frog Prince is still – as far as I know – published in Europe, home of the French, with no need to alter the title. I'm just think perhaps things have gone to far in both examples (especially, as I'm sure we will both agree, there are potentially bigger issues to be concerned about)

PapiBear wrote:

2099net wrote:But I'm not so sure about the latter change. So she can't be a chamber maid anymore? I would have thought the fact that she comes from a poorer working background would be integeral to the plot. After all, most established fairytales have a rags-to-riches storyline. Snow White was basically a house maid at the start of her film, royal blood or not. Cinderella too. Aroura went from royalty to simple country living etc. But nobody complained about this.

Nobody complained about it because all those characters were as Caucasian as you (and the majority of the animators). You can characterize yourselves in any way you choose in your stories. But when you characterize us, it's better to err on the side of caution and respect than not.

But you still have to have a satisfying story. All I know is the heroine and the Prince (of England) fall in love, and (presumably) marry. So for that story to work, it can only take two paths (and it's likely to touch on both).

The first is a traditional rags to riches story, which means no matter what job the heroine has at the start of the film, it has to a certain extent, to be low-paid and 'demeaning'. I use the quotes, because that doesn't mean humiliating, just beneath her talents and skills. The story needs it in order to work.

The second is a comment on inter-race relationships, which given one of the subjects of the relationship is the prince of an actual, named, country (and naming countries is something Disney has never done in the past), could also be seen as Disney being deliberately more controversial than they need to be.

Not that I think it would (apart from perhaps a few old crusty establishment has-beens). After all, we all loved – and still love – Diana and she dated a non-Caucasian.

The inter-race relationship will no doubt be seen as a good thing by the majority, but not necessarily by the totality of the audience. So by even making the film in the first place, Disney could be argued to be alienating a segment of their audience anyway (regardless of the fact that segment is closed-minded and bigoted).

Also, I'm also sure if Disney sticks to the Prince being British, there will be considerable stereotyping and – yes – prejudices shown in his portrayal (but admittedly, for laughs and unlikely to be offensive).

PapiBear wrote:Wouldn't you agree?

Well, to be honest, I don't really know. I'm not being flippent when I say, that. I don't know.

Personally - and this is only personally - I would have thought that a film set in the early 20th Century, in such a place, would be better off confronting some of the unpleasantness that existed in that era.

You mention race relations in the US, both historical and current context. Wouldn't it help if people, including those outside the US, saw a little - even just a little - of the prejudice and social attitudes of the time?

We all know, thanks to Katrina, how New Orleans was a city of haves and have nots, with the majority seeming to be have nots and black. At the time of the coverage we were told over here that the fragile state of New Orleans' economy was supposedly known, but that even American's were shocked at how bad it was. To me, and I suspect many others outside the United States, what we saw was totally at odds with the happy, party atmosphere New Orleans liked to portray to the public. You can't really blame us for that, because New Orleans wanted tourists' money, and this was the image that they carefully promoted. In other words, they made sure anything that could make their city look unpleasant was ignored.

Now, I don't know how long this film has been in development, but it's possible it was started before Katrina struck, or it's possible it was developed as a response to Katrina. But, if this film, even just in one little way, one little scene, event hints at the social make-up of the time, and through that comments upon it (and, obviously, states it was wrong) then perhaps it's worth being in the film.

Regardless of her name, job or social position at the start of the film, I'm pretty sure the heroine will be strong, brave, clever and charismatic. In short, I'm pretty sure she will be an ideal role model for girls everywhere - regardless of race or nationality. I would have thought that would be more important

In some respects, it's like Song of the South, in that, from a clinical academic point of view, its can, and often its, argued its not exactly doing anything wrong. But it is likely to offend some people. If you read through the various Song of the South threads, you'll see I've always acknowledged some people could be offended. I've always said it should be released with some form of contextual introduction or bonus materials. The same could be done with The Princess and the Frog - for example - an omnipresent narrator could introduce the film and the setting, remarking on the unjustness of the time. (That's just a suggestion by the way)

That's exactly the point - how many of you (i.e., non-African Americans) thought that the name "Maddy" sounded a little too much like "Mammy"? Perhaps not a lot. But most Whites don't have a shared history of being subjugated under slavery and under the Jim Crow laws which dominated American life for most of its history. It wasn't your mothers and grandmothers and great-grandmothers who were being called Mammy, forced (first by slavery and later by lack of economic freedom and opportunity) to be housemaid and nursemaid to White families, and yet denigrated in simplistic, degrading ways in the popular culture. So naturally you wouldn't be sensitive to something like a name sounding uncomfortably like that.

Unless you're around 60 yrs. old, I don't think you've experienced anywhere near the same discrimination and torment as your ancestors. And I think it's insulting to say that just because someone may be "white," they can't understand how horrible it must've been for black people at the time. I'm not Jewish, but I can cry for the depraved horror they were subjected to. I'm not indian, but I can sympathize with their conflict with British colonialization. I'm not Native American, but I can understand the pain they must've felt as they were slaughtered and assimilated by Europeans. Just because I wasn't "one of them" doesn't mean that I can't identify with them as human beings.

PapiBear wrote:

2099net wrote:But I'm not so sure about the latter change. So she can't be a chamber maid anymore? I would have thought the fact that she comes from a poorer working background would be integeral to the plot. After all, most established fairytales have a rags-to-riches storyline. Snow White was basically a house maid at the start of her film, royal blood or not. Cinderella too. Aroura went from royalty to simple country living etc. But nobody complained about this.

Nobody complained about it because all those characters were as Caucasian as you (and the majority of the animators). You can characterize yourselves in any way you choose in your stories. But when you characterize us, it's better to err on the side of caution and respect than not.

So what you're saying is that if the story was unchanged from the beginning and Maddy was still a chambermaid, but all of the writers were black, there wouldn't have been a problem with the story?

2099net wrote:Personally - and this is only personally - I would have thought that a film set in the early 20th Century, in such a place, would be better off confronting some of the unpleasantness that existed in that era.

You mention race relations in the US, both historical and current context. Wouldn't it help if people, including those outside the US, saw a little - even just a little - of the prejudice and social attitudes of the time?

I have to say that I agree with this comment. Wouldn't it be ok if it was historically accurate for the times and was portrayed in a sensitive manner? I mean, wouldn't it speak more to kind of erase history and pretend none of it ever happened? Maybe Tiana can show some of the struggle that black people had to go through to gain equality and can be shown as someone who fought for inclusion and equality (and yes, I read your comment earlier where you said that there still was not total equality, just an example).

**DISCLAIMER: The comment written below is not meant to be offensive to anyone. I'm simply using this refrence as an example to the whole historical accuracy thing. I realize it's not the same comparison, but I think it gets my point across. If you are easily offended or tend to take things out of context, please stop reading now.....**

Isn't this like making a movie set in WWII era and pretending that Nazi's didn't exist? So if German people complain, we should take all bad refrences to them out of a movie? I know that most Germans were and are good people, and that the Nazis only represented a very small portion of them, however, whenever you see a war based movie, that's mostly what you see. It's an unfair representation of German people, but it IS part of history.

Slavery and segregation were very unplesant parts of history as well, but they did happen. Wouldn't a movie that didn't address that at all be offensive as well? Like them saying "well lets just pretend none of that happened"?

Disney's Divinity wrote:

That's exactly the point - how many of you (i.e., non-African Americans) thought that the name "Maddy" sounded a little too much like "Mammy"? Perhaps not a lot. But most Whites don't have a shared history of being subjugated under slavery and under the Jim Crow laws which dominated American life for most of its history. It wasn't your mothers and grandmothers and great-grandmothers who were being called Mammy, forced (first by slavery and later by lack of economic freedom and opportunity) to be housemaid and nursemaid to White families, and yet denigrated in simplistic, degrading ways in the popular culture. So naturally you wouldn't be sensitive to something like a name sounding uncomfortably like that.

Unless you're around 60 yrs. old, I don't think you've experienced anywhere near the same discrimination and torment as your ancestors. And I think it's insulting to say that just because someone may be "white," they can't understand how horrible it must've been for black people at the time. I'm not Jewish, but I can cry for the depraved horror they were subjected to. I'm not indian, but I can sympathize with their conflict with British colonialization. I'm not Native American, but I can understand the pain they must've felt as they were slaughtered and assimilated by Europeans. Just because I wasn't "one of them" doesn't mean that I can't identify with them as human beings.

I'm glad to hear you say that, but recognizing the humanity of your fellow human beings and identifying with them as human beings isn't quite the same thing has having a shared history with a people. I wasn't saying that non-Blacks can't relate or feel anything, just that it's not by and large a part of the collective memory of non-Blacks. That's all.

And I don't have to have experienced the exact same things as my ancestors in order to have their experiences be a part of my life, and for me to keep their legacy alive.

PapiBear wrote: Yeah, and who cares what the Black people think anyway, as long as you're entertained, right?

Right honey....

Princess Stitch wrote:So what you're saying is that if the story was unchanged from the beginning and Maddy was still a chambermaid, but all of the writers were black, there wouldn't have been a problem with the story?

No, not necessarily. I might still have a problem with it, depending on what was written and how it was written and directed. My point is that a Black writer, for the most part, is more likely to be aware of how certain things play to a Black audience, and whether those things might work or might not. But it's no guarantee of anything.

Princess Stitch wrote:

2099net wrote:Personally - and this is only personally - I would have thought that a film set in the early 20th Century, in such a place, would be better off confronting some of the unpleasantness that existed in that era.

You mention race relations in the US, both historical and current context. Wouldn't it help if people, including those outside the US, saw a little - even just a little - of the prejudice and social attitudes of the time?

I have to say that I agree with this comment. Wouldn't it be ok if it was historically accurate for the times and was portrayed in a sensitive manner?

Sure, I don't really have a big issue with the story taking place in that particular time period (except for the thing with the English prince, which just seems sort of out of left field, overall). Such a story could be told in a historically accurate manner and with sensitivity and care.

But I'm not sure what you mean by this:

Princess Stitch wrote:I mean, wouldn't it speak more to kind of erase history and pretend none of it ever happened?

Huh? Why would I want to do that?

Princess Stitch wrote:Maybe Tiana can show some of the struggle that black people had to go through to gain equality and can be shown as someone who fought for inclusion and equality (and yes, I read your comment earlier where you said that there still was not total equality, just an example).

Sure, that's certainly possible. Such a message tends to get a little muddled if she runs off with an English prince, though. Even if it's done intelligently and with respect, such a story turn would, at best, play to mixed results with us. I'm just telling you how we are - we don't think like a hive mind, but some of us, maybe even most of us, wouldn't find that twist particularly endearing.

Princess Stitch wrote:**DISCLAIMER: The comment written below is not meant to be offensive to anyone. I'm simply using this refrence as an example to the whole historical accuracy thing. I realize it's not the same comparison, but I think it gets my point across. If you are easily offended or tend to take things out of context, please stop reading now.....**

Isn't this like making a movie set in WWII era and pretending that Nazi's didn't exist? So if German people complain, we should take all bad refrences to them out of a movie? I know that most Germans were and are good people, and that the Nazis only represented a very small portion of them, however, whenever you see a war based movie, that's mostly what you see. It's an unfair representation of German people, but it IS part of history.

Slavery and segregation were very unplesant parts of history as well, but they did happen. Wouldn't a movie that didn't address that at all be offensive as well? Like them saying "well lets just pretend none of that happened"?

Yes, that would be offensive, because that wasn't the reality. And that's been my point in regards to this movie - despite the fantasy element of the tale, to set this story in that place and in that time but to more or less pretend that slavery and segregation were not part of the reality in the South is just as offensive as portraying the Black characters in overtly denigrating ways.

But I'm not advocating that the film do that, nor do I believe that the film as originally announced had any intention of portraying the characters and the various relationships in any sort of intentionally racially demeaning way (i.e., you wouldn't hear the white characters spouting racial epithets, or the Black characters acting like coons, etc.). It didn't seem to be particularly clear (and it still really doesn't) just how this story is going to progress, or just how the characters are going to be portrayed. Obviously we'll know more in the coming months and years as the production develops. But some of the things announced originally about the film sent up some red flags among us. So far, 3 of those things have been changed, and that's good news. The 4th remains, but there may be some other elements we don't know about that will give us pause; that remains to be seen.

Poody wrote:

PapiBear wrote: Yeah, and who cares what the Black people think anyway, as long as you're entertained, right?

Right honey....

Glad to see you at least admit it.

PapiBear wrote:

Princess Stitch wrote:So what you're saying is that if the story was unchanged from the beginning and Maddy was still a chambermaid, but all of the writers were black, there wouldn't have been a problem with the story?

No, not necessarily. I might still have a problem with it, depending on what was written and how it was written and directed. My point is that a Black writer, for the most part, is more likely to be aware of how certain things play to a Black audience, and whether those things might work or might not. But it's no guarantee of anything.

Princess Stitch wrote: I have to say that I agree with this comment. Wouldn't it be ok if it was historically accurate for the times and was portrayed in a sensitive manner?

Sure, I don't really have a big issue with the story taking place in that particular time period (except for the thing with the English prince, which just seems sort of out of left field, overall). Such a story could be told in a historically accurate manner and with sensitivity and care.

But I'm not sure what you mean by this:

Princess Stitch wrote:I mean, wouldn't it speak more to kind of erase history and pretend none of it ever happened?

Huh? Why would I want to do that?

Princess Stitch wrote:Maybe Tiana can show some of the struggle that black people had to go through to gain equality and can be shown as someone who fought for inclusion and equality (and yes, I read your comment earlier where you said that there still was not total equality, just an example).

Sure, that's certainly possible. Such a message tends to get a little muddled if she runs off with an English prince, though. Even if it's done intelligently and with respect, such a story turn would, at best, play to mixed results with us. I'm just telling you how we are - we don't think like a hive mind, but some of us, maybe even most of us, wouldn't find that twist particularly endearing.

Princess Stitch wrote:**DISCLAIMER: The comment written below is not meant to be offensive to anyone. I'm simply using this refrence as an example to the whole historical accuracy thing. I realize it's not the same comparison, but I think it gets my point across. If you are easily offended or tend to take things out of context, please stop reading now.....**

Isn't this like making a movie set in WWII era and pretending that Nazi's didn't exist? So if German people complain, we should take all bad refrences to them out of a movie? I know that most Germans were and are good people, and that the Nazis only represented a very small portion of them, however, whenever you see a war based movie, that's mostly what you see. It's an unfair representation of German people, but it IS part of history.

Slavery and segregation were very unplesant parts of history as well, but they did happen. Wouldn't a movie that didn't address that at all be offensive as well? Like them saying "well lets just pretend none of that happened"?

Yes, that would be offensive, because that wasn't the reality. And that's been my point in regards to this movie - despite the fantasy element of the tale, to set this story in that place and in that time but to more or less pretend that slavery and segregation were not part of the reality in the South is just as offensive as portraying the Black characters in overtly denigrating ways.

But I'm not advocating that the film do that, nor do I believe that the film as originally announced had any intention of portraying the characters and the various relationships in any sort of intentionally racially demeaning way (i.e., you wouldn't hear the white characters spouting racial epithets, or the Black characters acting like coons, etc.). It didn't seem to be particularly clear (and it still really doesn't) just how this story is going to progress, or just how the characters are going to be portrayed. Obviously we'll know more in the coming months and years as the production develops. But some of the things announced originally about the film sent up some red flags among us. So far, 3 of those things have been changed, and that's good news. The 4th remains, but there may be some other elements we don't know about that will give us pause; that remains to be seen.

OK got ya! I was just trying to understand where you stood with all this and coudln't quite get it from reading all your posts. This clears things up much more for me.

Oh and that one sentence you questioned me on, I'm not quite sure what I was trying to say either something to do with my point about it being worse pretending that things didn't happen, but I think it came out wrong.

Thanks for explaining and not getting angry at me I was a little worried after seeing how heated things can get around here!

PapiBear wrote:
Glad to see you at least admit it.

Your posts are getting more and more ridiculous, so I won't even bother.

I don't know if you two are...joking or not...but there have been numerous amounts of fights occuring at UD lately,so please just stop. Thanks!

Poody wrote:

PapiBear wrote:
Glad to see you at least admit it.

Your posts are getting more and more ridiculous, so I won't even bother.

You won't even bother to do what, respond? Too late.

You know damn well the minute Disney portrays an openly gay character in a demeaning manner, you're calling them on it. Don't front.

BUMP

Anika Noni Rose appeared as a guest on The View today along with Debra Messing to promote their new television mini-series "The Starter Wife". Rose briefly discussed "The Frog Princess" (or "The Princess and the Frog" if you rather) and confirmed (yet again) that the film in anticipated to be released in 2009.

Simba3, how was the movie referred to: "The Frog Princess" or "The Princess and the Frog"?

blackcauldron85 wrote:Simba3, how was the movie referred to: "The Frog Princess" or "The Princess and the Frog"?

To be honest, I don't think the title was really mentioned, but I could be wrong. I believe they just talked about the fact that Rose would be voicing the first black princess in a Disney animated film, due to be released in 2009. I'm not sure if the title was even mentioned, though all signs seem to point more toward "The Princess and the Frog"