My Concerns About WDFA...

[estefan]

I think the problem with the gargoyles is that they're not particularly funny and they're inserted into the most inappropriate times (e.g. the "Frollo wears a truss" gag sliced into a meaningful scene between Quasimodo and Esmeralda). And I like Louis as he does serve a nice purpose and yes, I think the concept of a trumpet-playing alligator is hilarious. "When We're Human" is also one of my favourite songs from the film. Plus, no Louis = no restaurant.

So, yeah, personally I don't think he's annoying. Frankly, after George Lucas created Jar-Jar Binks, every other supposedly annoying character just pales him in comparison. So, every time you see an annoying character, think "is he as bad as Jar-Jar?" The answer will likely be "no, not even close." Okay, I'm rambling, sorry.

[Rudy Matt]

Rudy Matt is the son of Josef Matt, the best mountan guide in the Alps and the man who found the route to the Citadel!

Technically, it was Rudi Matt (with an "I") who is the son of Josef Matt.

Based on the username and some of your opinions posted in the forums, for awhile I used to think you were Michael Barrier in disguise since his favorite live-action Disney film is Third Man on the Mountain.

albert

Mr. Barrier has good taste. Third Man on the Mountain is in my top three, only Mary Poppins and 20,000 Leagues take precedent. I also love Three Lives of Thomasina, Treasure Island, Those Calloways, Old Yeller, and The Journey of Natty Gann.

[Rudy Matt]

I already explained why usage of recycled animation doesn't make an animated film any less good.

It's a budget cutting measure that weakens the integrity of an animated film as a work of animated art.

Again, [re: The Jungle Book] you provide no examples to back up your claims.

The wolves who greet Mowgli are Kay's hunting dogs who jump on Wart in The Sword in the Stone, only superficially re-drawn to be wolves. It's essentially traced animation. The deer hunted by Shere Khan is recycled from Bambi. Several shots of the elephants are recycled from the short Goliath II. And so it goes.

Where do the characters go off-model?

In the original scene with Kaa, the snake character has a more sinuous and sleek head. Because the character was so appealing, they brought him back in the movie and devised a whole new scene and even a song ("Trust in Me"). You'll notice Kaa's head has been redesigned with larger eyes and a larger nose to give him more expressions for these later "return" scenes.

Off model. I prefer the second Kaa, personally, but it is a little distracting to see character designs changing scene to scene. Not as bad as Beauty and the Beast, where character designs change shot to shot, but still distracting.

And where did the voice quality change? Nowhere in the whole movie, thar's where.

Mowgli's voice changes almost line by line throughout the whole movie, because Reitherman's son voice changed throughout production. Distracting. Not a fatal distraction, but one hard to miss.

I also don't know what you mean by "akward stilted dialog". It seems like you're making this up as you go along.

The scene between Baloo and Bagheera arguing late in the film is forced and awkward. A few more passes with better writers may have produced better results. That's a matter of opinion, surely (unlike off model animation, voices changing line to line, and recycled animation - those aren't opinions, those are facts), but I feel the dialog is a bit tin-eared. Minor disappointment.

It also seems animation to you is just a technique, not a medium to tell stories with a heart and soul, like Jungle Book.

Animation is used for many purposes. Not all animation is used to tell stories, not all animation is concerned with sincerity. Sometimes animation is used to demonstrate welding techniques. Or to sell mouthwash or Nasonex. Disney character animation is a very specific mode within the medium of animation. As Disney created this mode, and the mode (fortunately or unfortunately) demands and requires very high standards, deviations from that standard or failures to meet it tend to be more apparent than, say, lack of follow through on Scrappy-Doo's dog collar in a HB cartoon. It's just the way it goes. Anime, for instance, doesn't live or die on smooth 24fps caricature of motion and behavior. Disney Character Animation, however, absolutely requires it. Anime is dependent on the illustrative graphic approach, while the focus of Disney Character Animation is on the animation of the characters, and so the backgrounds in Character Animation can't be too busy or the character becomes lost and the focus muddy. Imagine an anime version of Bambi, and the differences and strengths of both art forms becomes very clear.

Disney Character Animation is very demanding, hence it is also expensive and time consuming. I forget who it was, but Maltin quotes someone regarding the Rescuers who wondered why - with all the backbreaking labor of making an animated film - Disney animation was struggling so badly with story or something meaningful to really say. That's the dangerous trap Disney Feature Animation fell into...making animated features as primarily a commercial product, and so films were put into production without solid scripts, or were rushed to meet a target release date when greater time and care should have been taken. The films suffered for it. I think all of Disney animation is now suffering for it, as the rushed films and the cheapquel DTVs have damaged Disney's brand name. It is going to take a few more Princess and the Frogs to turn that around.

[Super Aurora]

Animation is used for many purposes. Not all animation is used to tell stories, not all animation is concerned with sincerity. Sometimes animation is used to demonstrate welding techniques. Or to sell mouthwash or Nasonex. Disney character animation is a very specific mode within the medium of animation. As Disney created this mode, and the mode (fortunately or unfortunately) demands and requires very high standards, deviations from that standard or failures to meet it tend to be more apparent than, say, lack of follow through on Scrappy-Doo's dog collar in a HB cartoon. It's just the way it goes. Anime, for instance, doesn't live or die on smooth 24fps caricature of motion and behavior. Disney Character Animation, however, absolutely requires it. Anime is dependent on the illustrative graphic approach, while the focus of Disney Character Animation is on the animation of the characters, and so the backgrounds in Character Animation can't be too busy or the character becomes lost and the focus muddy. [/b]Imagine an anime version of Bambi, and the differences and strengths of both art forms becomes very clear. [/b]

Disney Character Animation is very demanding, hence it is also expensive and time consuming. I forget who it was, but Maltin quotes someone regarding the Rescuers who wondered why - with all the backbreaking labor of making an animated film - Disney animation was struggling so badly with story or something meaningful to really say. That's the dangerous trap Disney Feature Animation fell into...making animated features as primarily a commercial product, and so films were put into production without solid scripts, or were rushed to meet a target release date when greater time and care should have been taken. The films suffered for it. I think all of Disney animation is now suffering for it, as the rushed films and the cheapquel DTVs have damaged Disney's brand name. It is going to take a few more Princess and the Frogs to turn that around.

After reading this, I now can see where you're coming from. And a lot of this is true. though I'd like point out few things in bold. It might be from matter of perspective of how one sees it, but I found Bambi to have very well detailed background. Same goes Pinocchio(which I found to be the really amazing aspect of the movie). I know what you're saying as in Disney movie most often the background is simplified. Though I don't think when you have an animation movie, you can't sacrifice illustrative graphic detail for superior animation fluidity. I find Miyazaki's movies to carry both aspect well together.


As for your recycle animation examples you were giving Goliath, Wouldn't you might as well say many of Walt's movies(Snow White or Alice in Wonderland) "recycle" in the way that they have to retroscope or "copy" live action movement?

[Goliath]

Rudy, even after you called me and some other people 'communists' for 'stealing' media content online (= downloading), I have done my best to take you seriously. Even after the outrageous and not very well argued claim that Princess and the Frog is the best Disney animated feature since Sleeping Beauty, took you serious enough to make a point-by-point response. But am I really supposed to make another such lenghty response to you after I found this garbage of you in the Pixar-thread?!

CARS was great. The 20% of the country who are self-identified liberals hate CARS because they hate Nascar, Larry the Cable Guy, small towns, small town values...the whole thing screams Red State Republican America, and like showing the cross to Dracula, left-leaners bare their fangs and hiss and spit whenever CARS shows up. Liberals have problems with The Incredibles and Ratatouille as well, but PIXAR has Wall*E to balance them out.

Will I really waste my time arguing with somebody who clearly is SO full of it? Who makes such far-fetched, bizarre, outlandish, dreamed up, paranoid claims about Disney films?!

[Goliath]

Oh, of course I will waste my time like that! It's fun talking to a brick wall, after all!

It's [recycled animation] a budget cutting measure that weakens the integrity of an animated film as a work of animated art.

No, it isn't. An animated film is about a lot more than pretty pictures. already told you that. Animation is just the medium through which stories are told; characters are created and brought to life; audiences are entertained and touched. Most people don't even know about Disney's recycled animation. They're too wrapped up in the fantastic tales Disney tells to notice.

Again, you provide no examples to back up your claims.

The wolves who greet Mowgli are Kay's hunting dogs who jump on Wart in The Sword in the Stone, only superficially re-drawn to be wolves. It's essentially traced animation. The deer hunted by Shere Khan is recycled from Bambi. Several shots of the elephants are recycled from the short Goliath II. And so it goes.

That's not what I asked for. I could have told you that. I know all that. You claimed characters in Jungle Book go off-model and the voice quality changes line by line. I wanted you to back up this claim.

In the original scene with Kaa, the snake character has a more sinuous and sleek head. Because the character was so appealing, they brought him back in the movie and devised a whole new scene and even a song ("Trust in Me"). You'll notice Kaa's head has been redesigned with larger eyes and a larger nose to give him more expressions for these later "return" scenes.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. What you may see are some slight, minor differences, but they're always there in animated films. It comes with the medium. Like in Cinderella, when you watch real, real closely, you'll notice some very minor differences in the way Cinderella is drawn. It supposedly had to do with the idea how different supervising animators saw the character. You may see this with Kaa, too. But again: would you write off an entire film because of something as minescule like that? Obviously, you do, but that's your loss, and I'm sure no-one else minds it one bit.

Off model. I prefer the second Kaa, personally, but it is a little distracting to see character designs changing scene to scene. Not as bad as Beauty and the Beast, where character designs change shot to shot, but still distracting.

The changes which you speak off (I never saw them, because I was watching a film, instead of freezing ever single image of the film to check of every hair on every characters' head was still in the right place) are hardly noticable, so by definition it can't be distracting. And it certainly doesn't make Princess and the Frog a better film.

Mowgli's voice changes almost line by line throughout the whole movie, because Reitherman's son voice changed throughout production. Distracting. Not a fatal distraction, but one hard to miss.

I didn't hear a thing. But I'll give you that this actually would be noticeable and therefore distracting. It wouldn't ruïn the film for me, but if it did ruïn it for you: that's your opinion, of course. Still doesn't make PatF the best movie since Sleeping Beauty, though.

The scene between Baloo and Bagheera arguing late in the film is forced and awkward. A few more passes with better writers may have produced better results. That's a matter of opinion, surely (unlike off model animation, voices changing line to line, and recycled animation - those aren't opinions, those are facts), but I feel the dialog is a bit tin-eared. Minor disappointment.

The things you list in brackets may be facts (I didn't notice them), but it certainly isn't a fact that those things make a movie bad, or 'worse than others'. As for the scene between Baloo and Bagheera: that's indeed a matter of taste, so it can hardly be used to measure wheter or not PatF is a better film than Jungle Book.

Animation is used for many purposes. Not all animation is used to tell stories, not all animation is concerned with sincerity. Sometimes animation is used to demonstrate welding techniques. Or to sell mouthwash or Nasonex.

That's irrelevant, since that's not what we're discussing here. Disney animation isn't used to do all that. Please stick to the subject at hand.

Disney character animation is a very specific mode within the medium of animation. As Disney created this mode, and the mode (fortunately or unfortunately) demands and requires very high standards, deviations from that standard or failures to meet it tend to be more apparent than, say, lack of follow through on Scrappy-Doo's dog collar in a HB cartoon. [...] Disney Character Animation, however, absolutely requires it. [...]

While that's all true, you're still narrow-minded in focussing only on animation. Once you are immersed in the stories Disney tells, and you have found symphaty for the characters, you're not obsessed with the question whether or not every character looks 100% the same in each frame. Of course it's great if it does (like in Lilo & Stitch), but it's not a requirement for making a film great. Only when I read about the off-modelness of characters in Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast on UD, did I start looking for it --and noticing it. Previously, the films had captured me in a way that I was focussing on story and characters and music --and still enjoying and marvelling at the animation, mind you!

[...] I forget who it was, but Maltin quotes someone regarding the Rescuers who wondered why - with all the backbreaking labor of making an animated film - Disney animation was struggling so badly with story or something meaningful to really say. That's the dangerous trap Disney Feature Animation fell into...making animated features as primarily a commercial product, and so films were put into production without solid scripts, or were rushed to meet a target release date when greater time and care should have been taken.

But how could you name The Rescuers as an example of this? It's absolutely the post-Walt film with the most solid script, which uses its lack of grand animation to focus on the story and character development. It's anything but 'just a commercial product' (although all Disney films are produced to make money; it's not a charity). From the very first minute it calls out to the audience to invest their hearts into the character of Penny and her plight. The opening sequence with the painted (water color?) title cards is just the opposite of 'just a commercial product'. With Shelby Flint's beautiful song 'The journey', it's the exact opposite of the cold, heartless, CGI show-off that is the opening to the sequel.

I find it odd that you hammer so much on a solid script and story, when at the same time you declare Princess and the Frog to be the best since Sleeping Beauty. That's ironic, since PatF suffers tremendously from not having a tight script or story. What it is, is one long journey from one place to another. It's nothing but getting from A to B to C to D, not unlike The Aristocats. In the meantime, Tiana and Naveen should fall in love and realize there's more to life than what they thought. But like many others said in other threads: this is rammed down the audience's throats in a less than subtle way. I already pointed it out to you an earlier post: a preachy song, close-ups of big frog-eyes, and the message being repeated explicitly by hundreds of characters. At least the relationship between Bernard and Bianca develops in a very subtle way; implicitly; through the things they do through together. No wedding rings or proposals or more obvious clichés. (Of course the sequel ruïned it.)

The films suffered for it. I think all of Disney animation is now suffering for it, as the rushed films and the cheapquel DTVs have damaged Disney's brand name. It is going to take a few more Princess and the Frogs to turn that around.

Princess and the Frog is exactly everything you complain about. It has everything you have always criticized on UD. It contains everything you blasted. You bash the 1990's films, but PatF is one big rehashing/imitation of the 1990's films --and a bad one, at that. The unfunny, needless sidekicks that make juvenile/childish jokes you hate so much? Enter Louis, the hillbilly hunters and Charlotte (and ocasionally Ray). Big Broadway style musical numbers that dominated the 1990's? That's what PatF is all about, from the opening song till its reprise at the end. One-dimensional characters who hit you over the head with their motivations? That's Tiana and Naveen.

It's a shame you didn't adress nearly half what I've written in response to you, since I had a *lot* of work with it. But I guess it has dawned on you that it's a ridiculous claim to say that, objectively speaking, PatF "is" the best Disney animated feature since SB. There have been too many great Disney films since then, for that claim to be anywhere near true.

[ajmrowland]

I agree with Goliath. On the one hand, I dont even think of the minute flaws in animation even now after I learned they're there. Beauty and the beast is a perfect example that I'm aware of the flaws and the repeats, but dont let them distract me. I never even knew of any changes in Khaa, or anything like that. Robin Hood is much more noticeable in animation repeats than anything the Elephants did.

And though Goliath's bashing of PatF is maybe a little too harsh, none of his views on that movie are unfounded. maybe I'm just more forgiving of them, because I still *like* the movie, but that's just me.

[jpanimation]

And I like Louis as he does serve a nice purpose and yes, I think the concept of a trumpet-playing alligator is hilarious. "When We're Human" is also one of my favourite songs from the film. Plus, no Louis = no restaurant.

What purpose does he serve? I'm not going to argue the appeal of the character, as that's subjective, but I will argue his purpose (as in, how does he serve the story?). I've mentioned this before but the only job Louise has is to get the frogs to Mama Oldie (which he never does). Ray ends up taking them to Mama Oldie, and helping them to fall in love with serenades and advice, while Louise just bounces around in an overly cartoony way (not in the style of this film) and does his slapstick thing. I feel with Louise left out, and all the inconsequential scenes in which he was involved (along with the Frog Catchers), we could've had a lot more of the needed "alone time" to further develop the relationship between Tiana and Naveen (without all the distractions).

I've already stated my dislike for "When We're Human". I feel it's just another one of those pointless moments that robs us of real character development between Tiana and Naveen. After precious time is wasted on introducing us to Louise and more time is wasted on tricking him into wasting their (and the audiences) time on a false trip to Mam Oldie's, we are then given a song to seal the phony friendship. Instead of using actual character development to weave a friendship between Louise and the frogs, they just use the cop out of having them sing like old chums together (after just meeting minutes before), giving the audience the illusion that they're undoubtably friends. The worst part is the lyrics, which consist of the characters singing about everything we already know (by then, the audience was well aware of their desires). So the song introduces NO new information about the characters or plot, nor does it advance the story in any way.

That said, while I find Louise obnoxious in the movie, I do like the character and idea. I just feel he should've been saved for a short or something else, as he just doesn't serve the story in any way, (I reiterate) and robs us of precious screen time that could've been otherwise devoted towards strengthening Tiana and Naveen's relationship (or towards further developing Facilier).

Oh, of course I will waste my time like that! It's fun talking to a brick wall, after all!

You sir, made my day. I just think it's irrational that some minor hiccups in the animation can affect one's enjoyment of the film in it's entirety. I've been saving this quote for just such an occasion:

“Great animation can’t save a bad story, and bad animation can’t hurt a great story.”
- Illusion of Life

And though Goliath's bashing of PatF is maybe a little too harsh, none of his views on that movie are unfounded. maybe I'm just more forgiving of them, because I still *like* the movie, but that's just me.

Well I bash The Princess and the Frog too, but that doesn't mean I don't *like* it. I criticize it soo much because of the wasted potential I'm seeing. I love Tiana (finally a strong female protagonist who's going to work towards her goals), I love Doctor Facilier (he has to be one of my all-time favorite villains as he's just voiced, designed, and animated soo well), I love the art direction (the New Orleans setting is beautiful), and I think the the idea had merit. It's just the execution of the whole thing that leaves me unimpressed and ultimately disappointed. The story and pacing was just messy, bogged down with unnecessary characters/sequences and unclear character motivations. I won't talk about the music as, while important (to me), that shouldn't make or break a movie.

[ajmrowland]

yeah, but I wasnt talking about you.

[jpanimation]

^I never said you were

I was just trying to make a point (that's what all my rambling was about); that one can be critical of a film and still enjoy it (to a certain extent). I'm speaking for myself, of course.

[Rudy Matt]

Animation is used for many purposes. Not all animation is used to tell stories, not all animation is concerned with sincerity. Sometimes animation is used to demonstrate welding techniques. Or to sell mouthwash or Nasonex. Disney character animation is a very specific mode within the medium of animation. As Disney created this mode, and the mode (fortunately or unfortunately) demands and requires very high standards, deviations from that standard or failures to meet it tend to be more apparent than, say, lack of follow through on Scrappy-Doo's dog collar in a HB cartoon. It's just the way it goes. Anime, for instance, doesn't live or die on smooth 24fps caricature of motion and behavior. Disney Character Animation, however, absolutely requires it. Anime is dependent on the illustrative graphic approach, while the focus of Disney Character Animation is on the animation of the characters, and so the backgrounds in Character Animation can't be too busy or the character becomes lost and the focus muddy. [/b]Imagine an anime version of Bambi, and the differences and strengths of both art forms becomes very clear. [/b]

Disney Character Animation is very demanding, hence it is also expensive and time consuming. I forget who it was, but Maltin quotes someone regarding the Rescuers who wondered why - with all the backbreaking labor of making an animated film - Disney animation was struggling so badly with story or something meaningful to really say. That's the dangerous trap Disney Feature Animation fell into...making animated features as primarily a commercial product, and so films were put into production without solid scripts, or were rushed to meet a target release date when greater time and care should have been taken. The films suffered for it. I think all of Disney animation is now suffering for it, as the rushed films and the cheapquel DTVs have damaged Disney's brand name. It is going to take a few more Princess and the Frogs to turn that around.

After reading this, I now can see where you're coming from. And a lot of this is true. though I'd like point out few things in bold. It might be from matter of perspective of how one sees it, but I found Bambi to have very well detailed background.

The backgrounds in Bambi are glorious, to be sure, but they are like poetry, giving you an idea of a forest with details in the foreground and then atmosphere and washes in the background. Chinese American Ty Wong receives the credit for this, bringing in a bold Eastern watercolor sensibility that solved a lot of problems (deer in real life blend into the forest, how do you create a detailed forest and still have believable deer...answer, you don't. You create an idea of the forest, full of yellows and blues and greens and reds against which the brown deer will stand out...the deer even change colors in the meadow panic scene to bring them out against grass that turns stark yellow).

Same goes Pinocchio(which I found to be the really amazing aspect of the movie).

Pinocchio and Hunchback are probably the zenith in terms of layout and fantasy realism in disney Feature Animation backgrounds. I have many reproductions of early layout plans for Hunchback, and they absolutely take your breath away. Sleeping Beauty is more in the mold of modernist artists like Mary Blair and, inspiring later films like Pocahontas, Aladdin, and Hercules.

I know what you're saying as in Disney movie most often the background is simplified. Though I don't think when you have an animation movie, you can't sacrifice illustrative graphic detail for superior animation fluidity.

Absolutely right, I only mention that in general, because Disney Character Animation is focused on believable acting (it has been rebranded as Personality Animation in the last 30 years, but I still call it what Chuck Jones called it - Disney Character Animation), backgrounds are created to support the character animation. Because anime is focused on eye-popping graphic detail, character animation takes a back seat to the graphic detail. Anime is more like illustrated comic book panels in this regard, while Disney Character Animation, born during the rise of realism and naturalism in American literature, theater and cinema, is an art form focused on acting and believable caricature of motion.

I find Miyazaki's movies to carry both aspect well together.

Miyazaki's move have incredible charm, and I say this knowing certain people are going misunderstand, but the animation is in keeping with the general feature anime ethos, and the detail and caricature of movement is far different than that of Western character animation. Note I said different, not better, not worse.

As for your recycle animation examples you were giving Goliath, Wouldn't you might as well say many of Walt's movies(Snow White or Alice in Wonderland) "recycle" in the way that they have to retroscope or "copy" live action movement?

Well, after Snow White, live-action was used as reference footage, nobody "traced" the live-action, like you see in Don Bluth's films or the Ralph Bakshi fantasy films (Disney animators typically take great pains to explain this, as they are sensitive to the allegation). Art Babbit was particularly skillful in hiding live-action studies - his Gepetto is years ahead of Snow White in this regard, and set the standard for the use of live-action reference footage. Animators since have studied what he achieved.

Character animation depends on sincere, believable caricature of motion and behavior, it is no surprise animators would study and tweak real motion and use it as a subject for their animation. But caricature of live action using live action footage for reference is a far cry from tracing live action, or tracking previous animation. Some have even argued that the use of live action reference footage - even as a reference - harms animation as it is too literal and animation is a caricature of life. Why make an animated feature and shoot all the scenes in live action? Might as well just make a live action film, or so the theory goes. Lady and the Tramp - on original release - was taken to task for the highly literal movement by those who felt the fantasy or the realm of animation was being lost by an ever-increasing focus on realistic motion and behavior caricature.

[Margos]

And I like Louis as he does serve a nice purpose and yes, I think the concept of a trumpet-playing alligator is hilarious. "When We're Human" is also one of my favourite songs from the film. Plus, no Louis = no restaurant.

What purpose does he serve?

Well.... Remember, the Fenner brothers were not going to give Tiana the resturaunt, no matter how much money she had. They probably weren't going to give it to Naveen either, despite the fact that he is a prince. But are they going to give it to the young couple with the giant alligator BFF that could probably swallow them both in one gulp? You bet!

[Rudy Matt]

Oh, of course I will waste my time like that! It's fun talking to a brick wall, after all!

Not really.

[jpanimation]

Well.... Remember, the Fenner brothers were not going to give Tiana the resturaunt, no matter how much money she had. They probably weren't going to give it to Naveen either, despite the fact that he is a prince. But are they going to give it to the young couple with the giant alligator BFF that could probably swallow them both in one gulp? You bet!

That's not really a purpose as much as it's a gag. Naveen's parents could've just upped the bid to a price they'd be stupid to refuse. Actually, they could've just cut that scene and I'd wager the majority of the audience would just assume that happened.

[ajmrowland]

^I never said you were

I was just trying to make a point (that's what all my rambling was about); that one can be critical of a film and still enjoy it (to a certain extent). I'm speaking for myself, of course.

mmmmm........yep. I getcha. I am too.

EDIT: Rudy Matt, you think you can scan those layouts and post them? All I have for info on the movie is the DVD.

[Rudy Matt]

EDIT: Rudy Matt, you think you can scan those layouts and post them? All I have for info on the movie is the DVD.

They're fairly large, and I'd suspect posting them would violate copyright laws. But I'll see what I can do. Not going to do anything to get UD or myself (or you) in trouble.

But yeah, they're glorious. Wish I could share freely, but I don't think I can.

[Mooky]

Well.... Remember, the Fenner brothers were not going to give Tiana the resturaunt, no matter how much money she had. They probably weren't going to give it to Naveen either, despite the fact that he is a prince. But are they going to give it to the young couple with the giant alligator BFF that could probably swallow them both in one gulp? You bet!

That's not really a purpose as much as it's a gag. Naveen's parents could've just upped the bid to a price they'd be stupid to refuse. Actually, they could've just cut that scene and I'd wager the majority of the audience would just assume that happened.

But wouldn't that defeat the whole point of Tiana wanting to get that place on her own? If the directors wanted to take that route, I'm sure Charlotte would have been more than willing to help her out. Then again, one could argue that using Louis as a device to "persuade" the Fenners to hand out the restaurant wasn't exactly an example of "getting something through hard work" (for the record, this is coming from someone who didn't particularly care for Louis and thought the movie wouldn't lose any of its charm by cutting him out).

Btw, things in bold...

What purpose does he serve? I'm not going to argue the appeal of the character, as that's subjective, but I will argue his purpose (as in, how does he serve the story?). I've mentioned this before but the only job Louise has is to get the frogs to Mama Oldie (which he never does). Ray ends up taking them to Mama Oldie, and helping them to fall in love with serenades and advice, while Louise just bounces around in an overly cartoony way (not in the style of this film) and does his slapstick thing. I feel with Louise left out, and all the inconsequential scenes in which he was involved (along with the Frog Catchers), we could've had a lot more of the needed "alone time" to further develop the relationship between Tiana and Naveen (without all the distractions).

... Are those typos or deliberate misspellings?

*imagines Louis in drag*

[Margos]

Well.... Remember, the Fenner brothers were not going to give Tiana the resturaunt, no matter how much money she had. They probably weren't going to give it to Naveen either, despite the fact that he is a prince. But are they going to give it to the young couple with the giant alligator BFF that could probably swallow them both in one gulp? You bet!

That's not really a purpose as much as it's a gag. Naveen's parents could've just upped the bid to a price they'd be stupid to refuse. Actually, they could've just cut that scene and I'd wager the majority of the audience would just assume that happened.

You mean to tell me that you never got the feeling that Tiana (or Naveen, for that matter) could have offered them all the money in the world, and they still would have denied them? Look, the Fenners were obviously motivated by race, and Naveen isn't all the white, either. I don't think they could have gotten it from them without Louis, or some other vicious animal, or particularly nasty threat. Sure, they could have been thrown into a Maldonian prison or something..... But made more sense to have a resolution that could be done in less then 10 seconds to keep the ending flowing smoothly.

[jpanimation]

You mean to tell me that you never got the feeling that Tiana (or Naveen, for that matter) could have offered them all the money in the world, and they still would have denied them? Look, the Fenners were obviously motivated by race, and Naveen isn't all the white, either.

NO, I really didn't get that impression. It seemed at first that they were ready to give it up to her, they wanted her money, but then they backed out for another bidder at the last minute. Did they suddenly become racist? No, they were always a little racist. I think they meant what they said when she was outbid, I'm guessing that it was a white person that outbid her, and they would rather accept a white person's money (but as long as they had no white takers, they were unwilling to discriminate and perfectly fine accepting Tiana's money). I felt that money was always their end game.

Anyways, Tiana still had help from Naveen. While she saved up years to buy the place, it was most likely Naveen who paid for all of the renovations, so would it really matter if he also assisted her in acquiring the building (since she already earned it)?

[Goliath]

And though Goliath's bashing of PatF is maybe a little too harsh, none of his views on that movie are unfounded. maybe I'm just more forgiving of them, because I still *like* the movie, but that's just me.

Funny thing: I actually like the film, and purchased it on dvd. But there's too many faults with it, in order to call it "the best since Sleeping Beauty." In order to make that clear, I may have to be a bit harsh every now and then.

Well I bash The Princess and the Frog too, but that doesn't mean I don't *like* it. I criticize it soo much because of the wasted potential I'm seeing. I love Tiana (finally a strong female protagonist who's going to work towards her goals), I love Doctor Facilier (he has to be one of my all-time favorite villains as he's just voiced, designed, and animated soo well), I love the art direction (the New Orleans setting is beautiful), and I think the the idea had merit. It's just the execution of the whole thing that leaves me unimpressed and ultimately disappointed.

Well, what can I add to this? This, and your excellent analysis of the 'When we're human' song, is exactly how I feel about the film. Word for word, you described what I love and dislike about the movie. I wanted it to be Disney's return to 2D animation, but it's clearly anything but. The film has some great moments ('Almost there', 'Friends on the other side', the sequence at the LaBoeuf's dance, the scene at the cemetary, Ray's funeral) but all in all there's too little of them to make it a truly memorable film.

Well.... Remember, the Fenner brothers were not going to give Tiana the resturaunt, no matter how much money she had. They probably weren't going to give it to Naveen either, despite the fact that he is a prince. But are they going to give it to the young couple with the giant alligator BFF that could probably swallow them both in one gulp? You bet!

That's not really fair. That's just a gag that got thrown in after Louis was created. Louis wasn't created for this reason. He was created to be the obligatory 'funny, loud sidekick' and that was his role. If the writers had been more creative, they would have found a much better way to give Tiana her restaurant.