
Nothing more to say on this thread.
Name-calling is an easy way to avoid a discussion when you know your argument won't hold.darth_deetoo wrote:I'm not going to be drawn into anything with PapiBear. After seeing this person's other posts, and the debacle they caused the other week, I think this perfectly sums up this person.
Nothing more to say on this thread.
2099net wrote:Deetoo, if you really don't intend to be "drawn into anything" over a specific point on the thread, it's best you don't post anything rather than a thinly disguised personal attack which is against the guidelines we have created in order to give everyone who posts or visits the site an enjoyable experience.
And I don't appreciate being subjected to abuse and slander on the boards, but that didn't seem to stop you, did it?darth_deetoo wrote:I'll be contacting mods regarding this person, as I don't appreciate being subjected to abuse in my personal messages!
Yeah, famous last words. Ha!darth_deetoo wrote:Nothing more to say on this thread.

Very true! I'm sure we'll be hearing parents complaining about that sooner or later as well.toonaspie wrote:Has it occured to anyone over at Disney that their new pirate franchise (which is targeted at boys) will have a more dangerous impact than the princess franchise?
Dont pirates promote like stealing, money, violence, and raping?
Does anyone get me here?
Really? Well, if so, that's actually good. Though, it is another romance...hehe, it's still a very smart thing to read.darth_deetoo wrote:Isn't she reading Shakespeare (Romeo and Juliet) in the Special Edition.
So, do you feel that had to somehow figure out a way to let the audience know she is particularly smart, and they only saw books as a way to do it? They could have had her reference her books in situations, and perhaps have a conversation about psychology or something with the Beast, but I see how that may have been much. I still find a problem with the fact that the only books we saw her read were fairy tales (the Special Edition is not the original cut).darth_deetoo wrote:I think her love of books is supposed to be a way of showing her intelligence.
Well-rounded usually means you do or know a lot and you understand many views instead of just one view, like open-minded. But all the princesses are open to having a life different from the one they're living. I want to get what you mean. If you think about it, Belle and Cinderella kind of wanted the same thing. To live in a big castle...or at least, that's what they ended up being happy with. Belle had more adventure with a scary beast and talking objects, so if that makes her more rounded because she had that extra stuff...well, Cinderella still got to see some incredible stuff going on with pumpkins and mice! So...I dunno.darth_deetoo wrote:I think the newer Princesses, are probably more well rounded characters than the earlier ones.
Well, I must admit I took some offense to "more resourceful and capable", but if you were saying the movie showed she did bigger things for herself, going to the palace on foot by herself, breaking out of the pumpkin by herself, yes, that is bigger. But the situation and danger was also bigger. The nature of the story allowed that. She knew the Prince already met her and would accept her, and there was no ball so she didn't need a dress. There was also no pressing for time, as in the ball might have been winding down by the time she got there on foot. If she got to the palace late in Cinderella III, she figured the Prince would recognize her as the girl he met and it wouldn't matter if he already met Anastasia. She also needed a disguise so her stepfamily wouldn't recognize her.darth_deetoo wrote:The Cinderella of Cinderella III seems much more resourceful and capable than in the original film, where she actually resolves to do something about her situation, whereas in the original film, when her stepsisters tear her dress up, she just breaks down in tears. I know that's a limitation of the story, but, it's still a defining character moment.
That was written in 2003, Hunchback was in 1996. I don't know, the writers of that book probably thought "what heroine's stories would be interesting and we could expand well." I'll be honest, because that's one of the few inclusions of Esmeralda these days, I doubt it'll spread. And because she's not a "real princess", I have to admit I'm fine with that...sorry.kurtadisneyite wrote:Meanwhile in a Disney Publications "Once Upon a Princess" , Esmeralda got her own "princess story". Probably a matter of time before she gets into the general princess circulation.
Well, she lived in a forest, her godmothers didn't know that much about cooking...but it's probably more due to her stylization. I read she was the most visually developed, stylized female character done up to that point and the artists purposely made her prettier than Cinderella...they actually said that. By the way I'm be Ariel Foruming soon so...tomarrow perhaps I'll have time to answer some messages...Prudence wrote:I agree completely. Snow White, Cinderella, and Belle have healthy body shapes. Aurora's mid-section I cannot critic, because it's too much like my own natural frame.
Hmmm...yea, I care so much about relationships. Perhaps too much. That sounds like a good theory you've got, we all have this potential to make the world so much more, but relationships get in the way and the media makes us think we can only be what they project.Prudence wrote:In all honesty, one of my secrets is this: I know I'm worth something. I know I'm worth more than anyone realizes. That may sound self-centered, but if people knew they were worth so much more than what the media and trends project, they would find many other ways besides relationships that would lead to success in this world.
I'm thinking this occured more in Cinderella II, when Cindy was like, yea, I don't like this way of being a princess, I gotta do this myself. Interesting, I guess Cinderella II gave some character development after all. In the original she didn't ask the mice to help her, and tried to get to the ball herself...she just ended up failing.Prudence wrote:Heck, that's one of the reasons I like both Cinderella and Prudence. In different ways, they have both thought something along the lines of what you just said.
IT IRKS ME!!!! It IRKS MEEEEE!!!!!!Prudence wrote:It IRKS you!
I agree. Lessons are confusing. You should appreciate what you have (Cindy) but also not be content with crap and try to get better if you know you deserve better (Cindy, Ariel, Belle, Jasmine).Prudence wrote:Sometimes I think the "modern" princesses stand on the edge of the bratty side, especially Ariel and Jasmine.
Well, I tried to think, who is smart and read something smart, and subconciously that came to mind. I guess that came from you, then! Yay!Prudence wrote:Out of mere curiosity, was your mention of Aristotle in my honor by any chance? I remember I brought up said Greek philosopher in our first conversation.
Oh yea, but I forgot to say that some parents are horrible role models. I meant to say, because parents influence their kids so much, they should be the ones teaching, and teach what is good for kids. Also, I realize I may have been molded by a Disney film myself. Cinderella may make me like blondes so much and wish I had blonder hair, I go to parties hoping someone I like will be there and I can get with them, I wait for my love interest to ask me out. I have asked people out and once pursued a relationship when they showed interest but wouldn't come around, though. I also wonder if my quieter, subdued personality is Cindy influenced.Disney's Divinity wrote:Possibly, though I doubt every parent is great enough to imitate. Though I can honestly say I was molded by The Little Mermaid nearly as much as my mother (and grandmother), and I don't feel that I've become a "bad" child.
Ooohhh...yea, Peter had Wendy but it wasn't about getting her, Mowgli had that village girl but it wasn't about getting her.Disney's Divinity wrote:I think one of the other major problems with Disney movies and, truly, with all movies in general is that movies with a leading lady usually have a greater chance of being romance-driven than those with male protagonists. Seriously, I don't see anything like "Kiss the Girl" or "Someday My Prince Will Come" in classics like Peter Pan or The Jungle Book.
Yay! Thank you for making Cindy # 1! They kind of all have good points and bad points. I'm a little surprised Belle isn't first, but her and Cinderella are actually similar, I find, at least in their stories. They even both get locked up at one point and released by a small friend!Disney's Divinity wrote:If I had to rate the characters myself, it would probably end up something like: 1. Cinderella, 2. Belle, 3. Ariel, 4. Snow White, 5. Jasmine and 6. Aurora.
Hmmm...well, I watch Disney movies and wish I could go to Arabia or a big castle. But if I read the stories wothout pictures, would that do better than that for me?Escapay wrote:Either way, Belle has a great interest in books because of the knowledge that they bring, and the possibilities of her imagination (what with reading books that have no pictures.)
! I agree I must give that anEscapay wrote:Also, when the Beast showed her the library, I'm sure she was thinking more beyond, "WOW, think of all the fairy tales in here!!!"
Maybe, but I'll repeat myself:atlanticaunderthesea wrote:I totally agree with you there. There is no denying that C-III is a wonderful film and faithful to its original, but there are differences in her character. I cannot help but feel that the cinderella of Cinderella III would have had a different reaction when her sisters tore up her dress in the original. She would have had more control over the situation like the pumpkin scene in the third film.
Good point! But I just would have liked to see one complicated novel or work of some famous philosopher in there to show us she's intellectual, if that's what they were going for.atlanticaunderthesea wrote:And yup, she is reading Shakespeare! There is no denying that she is clever or has 'book smarts'. I guess they related her smarts to children by having her read fairy tales; which would be what most children would be reading at the time of watching the movie. That is the kinda target age range. It could be that children who read fairy stories like Belle can feel that thye can grow up to be just as kind, loyal, honest, and inside beauty seeking as Belle is. Which is a great thing for children to learn.
I decided not to quote the whole thing. Basically I found the whole story sweet and eye-opening. She doesn't care if Ariel has a poofy dress or a tail, she just loved what she did and how she acted! That definately goes against what some mothers feared about girls only seeing the prettiness and not what the characters do.atlanticaunderthesea wrote:I spoke to my five year old neighbour about which Princesses she prefers, and she said 'Ariel'.
Actually, even though the films are PG-13, lots of kids know who Captain Jack Sparrow is because he is advertised everywhere. One kid I met pointed to Johnny Depp in his pirate garb and asked me if I knew who he was. I said "Captain Jack Sparrow" and he said he knew the Captian Jack part but not the Sparrow part. Point is, kids know about him and the movies, and Disney is making toys and costumes for the very young kids! Peter Pan even has kids going for pirates, and they tried to kill Wendy!singerguy04 wrote:The only defense I can throw up for pirates is that it's more intended for an older audience. The rating on both films are PG-13. Therefore you can assume older than 13 yr. olds are watching the film and buying the merchandise. Obivously, this isn't the case but then Disney can't really be blamed for younger than 13 yr olds getting in trouble because of it. That doesn't explain much for all the toys for pirates, because I doubt they are intended just for teenagers and higher.

Why apologize for that?Disney Duster wrote:I'm sorry I'm writing so much!
My boyfriend and I must be freaking geniuses. -annoyed huff- Actually, I agree with your friend. It makes sense, but I don't like it.I myself don't cry much anymore. My friend, who reads a lot of philosophy and psychology and, yes is smart, told me that a trait of smarter people is hyper-sensitivity, so you cry when music or art is so beautiful. She cries when she thinks about her sad situations. Basically I'm trying to say crying ain't all that bad. I DON'T cry and that doesn't mean I'm stronger or better, I don't think. I wish I could cry.
Actually, I was referring to Prudence's reactions (and her failure) in the "Royal Mouse Catcher" scene from Cinderella III!Disney Duster wrote:I'm thinking this occured more in Cinderella II, when Cindy was like, yea, I don't like this way of being a princess, I gotta do this myself. Interesting, I guess Cinderella II gave some character development after all. In the original she didn't ask the mice to help her, and tried to get to the ball herself...she just ended up failing.Prudence wrote:Heck, that's one of the reasons I like both Cinderella and Prudence. In different ways, they have both thought something along the lines of what you just said.
YOU IRK THE WOOOOOORLD! Just kidding.Disney Duster wrote:IT IRKS ME!!!! It IRKS MEEEEE!!!!!!Prudence wrote:It IRKS you!
Agreed. Sort of like our "kismat" conversation. (Kismat, for those who may not know, is an Arabic phrase meaning, "It is my lot.")Disney Duster wrote:I agree. Lessons are confusing. You should appreciate what you have (Cindy) but also not be content with crap and try to get better if you know you deserve better (Cindy, Arie, Belle, Jasmine).Prudence wrote:Sometimes I think the "modern" princesses stand on the edge of the bratty side, especially Ariel and Jasmine.
Wow. In all seriousness, I'm honored!Disney Duster wrote:Well, I tried to think, who is smart and read something smart, and subconciously that came to mind. I guess that came from you, then! Yay!Prudence wrote:Out of mere curiosity, was your mention of Aristotle in my honor by any chance? I remember I brought up said Greek philosopher in our first conversation.

I don't know if this counts, but in the broadway musical. Belle is reading Hamletdarth_deetoo wrote:Isn't she reading Shakespeare (Romeo and Juliet) in the Special Edition.
Actually, in the Broadway show, she reads a story about King Arthur. In "Human Again" in the movie, she reads "Romeo and Juliet".The Little Merboy wrote:I don't know if this counts, but in the broadway musical. Belle is reading Hamletdarth_deetoo wrote:Isn't she reading Shakespeare (Romeo and Juliet) in the Special Edition.
Thats it! I always get those confusedSpringHeelJack wrote:Actually, in the Broadway show, she reads a story about King Arthur. In "Human Again" in the movie, she reads "Romeo and Juliet".The Little Merboy wrote: I don't know if this counts, but in the broadway musical. Belle is reading Hamlet
You don't have to go to all that trouble Disney Duster (though it's much appreciatedDisney Duster wrote:
Just so you know, I do have an agenda. I'm trying to prove to people that Cinderella is just as good as the other princesses, or at least not as inferior as many seem to think. And Snow White and Aurora are harder to work on but I'm trying to show they can compete. I just want you to know where I'm at.


I actually do think Aurora is the most beautiful. I guess it depends on how you view the film. There's no doubting she is stylised, but she is also pretty undefined in certain key areas. And I think this allows viewers to place their own interperation into the artwork.Prudence wrote:Disney Duster, I forgot to comment on this bit last night:
I read she [Aurora] was the most visually developed, stylized female character done up to that point and the artists purposely made her prettier than Cinderella...they actually said that.
Where did you read this? She's certainly NOT prettier than Cinderella! I consider Cinderella's features to be practically flawless. Aurora is the single most angular Disney Princess there is. A friend once told me that the only reason this is the case is because the movie Sleeping Beauty was based on angles.
I agree. She's more "modern" in Cinderella III, but she did stay in character. Why did she not give up on her dreams like she did the night before, when her dress was ripped? Well, here's another reason. It wasn't "the night before." The time frame had been turned, but there must have been unconscious memories of the reversed year in Cinderella's heart. Her confidence had grown.Disney Duster wrote:....So I think that Cinderella in the sequel could still fit with the same original Cinderella. I think C-III did such a good job keeping her the same character!
That is so adorable. Anyway, I have four little neighbors. One prefers Cinderella, one prefers Belle, one prefers Ariel, and still another loves Jasmine. (However, Cinderella has gained a lot of popularity in my neighborhood, thanks to the new movie.) Their reasons change all the time, because they are so young. Most kids are always changing their minds and thinking, "Oooh! Sparkly!"Disney Duster wrote:I decided not to quote the whole thing. Basically I found the whole story sweet and eye-opening. She doesn't care if Ariel has a poofy dress or a tail, she just loved what she did and how she acted! That definately goes against one some mothers feared about girls only seeing the prettiness and not what the characters do.atlanticaunderthesea wrote: I spoke to my five year old neighbour about which Princesses she prefers, and she said 'Ariel'.
That's not all little girls, I know some girls who loved Ariel because she was a mermaid, but you gave a real example that princesses were not bad but possibly good for a little girl. I like how she liked Alice! Encouraging girls to question, explore, and find out things!
Which is also what Ariel does, about the human world. In one episode of the show, her father took away a human boot, and she said, "I wanna learn!"
