Goliath wrote:Disney's Divinity wrote:There was more than Winnie the Pooh between Jungle Book and Mermaid.
Indeed, there also was
The Rescuers, like I said. And many others, you're right, but we were talking about PatF being on par with them, and that doesn't go for all of them --in my humble opinion!
I left out
The Rescuers because I've always felt it was of a similar standard to most of the other films I named (and, no, I don't say that because I know you enjoy that film, I've always felt that way). In fact, as far as mood goes,
TP&TF probably is most similar to
The Rescuers, at least superficially, with the bayou setting and frog-hunting hicks.
Winnie the Pooh is the only real stand-out for me. And even that is not so much a film as several shorts, and its appeal relies very much on charm.
I can agree with most of that, although I think
The Black Cauldron still is a better film than PatF, because it's more its own film, more sincere; whereas PatF was more of a copy from the 1990's films. I state it as a fact --just like you did.
It's hard for me to agree on that.
The Black Cauldron, as a concept, attempted to be its own film. The problem--and the most likely reason it ultimately failed--is that it never went the distance in doing that. A sci-fi/action film needs a huge sci-fi/action sequence at the end. The fact that the "outrageous" scene was edited out shows why this film/genre could never have made it under Disney.
But I would agree that it more of its "own thing" than TP&TF. The point from my previous post was that, I don't find vague similarities to be a huge, or not at all a, flaw with a film, and not with TP&TF.
There's a lot in PatF that follows the 1990's formula: the leading heroine who has a big dream she wants to realize; a theatrical bad guy who interferes with her plans; loud-mouthed and unneccesary sidekicks; the obligatory love story; the Broadway-style songs; the design of the characters; the gross-out humor etc. It was fresh in the first half of the 1990's, and elements were added and changed in the latter half. But PatF is a setback to the early 90's.
This is the crux of my disagreement. Tiana is not at all like Ariel (or her variations in Aladdin, Belle, Quasimodo, Pocahontas, Hercules, Tarzan, and Mulan). She does have a dream in the film, but it's emphatically understated. Throughout the movie, what you would usually see in a 90s film is mostly undercut. "Almost There" is not an "I wish/I want" song, but a "this is the way it'll be" song. The use of an art style that impersonalizes the character emphasizes that, whereas "Part of That World" or "Go The Distance" would have you centered on their eyes, with wide-open arms. That the song is almost more of a showstopper emphasizes that. There's one part in the film, when she's at the party and falls to the floor after the property owners refuse her bid on the restaurant--at that point sitting in the theater (from a 90s bias), I actually expected Charlotte to come and berate her for ruining her party and embarrassing her (a la Hunchback pummeled with vegetables, Hercules called a "freak" by the town, Pocahontas blamed for Powhatan's death, Tarzan for endangering the herd, or Mulan humiliated when found out to be a woman). And even in the following scene where she's on the balcony, you never get that sense of melodrama that most of the 90s would spoon-feed you. The goal is also entwined with her memories of her father, whereas the 90s "dream" was completely personal/self-centered (Mulan is the only exception to this; and I don't mean "self-centered" as in "selfish"). By the end of the movie, the dream is not even the focus anymore. Yes, she gets her restaurant, but the movie goes out of its way to say that focusing on one dream, that you never allow to change, as your be-all, end-all of existence is somewhat selfish and not at all fulfilling or realistic.
As for Facilier, he actually has very little to do with Tiana the whole film, and he was
never a roadblock to Tiana's dream. The dream was blocked before he even came into play here, and he had nothing to do with it. There's no indication that he even knew or, rather, cared who she was prior to the finale scene. Her involvement was entirely random and Facilier's plan had no connection to her dream. Also, Facilier is easily their best,
serious villain (which would exclude the brilliant Hades and Yzma) since Frollo.
With the sidekicks, you're forgetting Ray, easily the most well-integrated sidekick since Sebastian, in my personal opinion. He's not
critical to plot details, yes, but he plays a huge role in the film's message/idea (more than Mama Odie, really--who at least, to me, was a likable character if a fairly unimportant one; her presence only re-affirms, at the time, Tiana's and Naveen's flawed focus on external dreams/desires, because they expect going to Odie will fix the problem, just like they expected that getting money again will make Naveen feel better, or that having a restaurant will give Tiana fulfillment--fulfillment she only got from her father previously). Ray's a character who you actually care about and, shocker!, actually dies at the end--something they have not been done since...? Well, I know they were going to in
Lady and the Tramp, and there was that brief moment with Baloo, but... In fact, he becomes more than a "sidekick" and an actual character who was relevant. Louis
is a loud-mouthed, unnecessary sidekick, but he actually is fairly endearing to me, at the very least (and well-voiced, which is more than you could say for O'Donnell's Terk, the barely-there Pegasus, the burping goat in
Hunchback, or the nail-scratching animals from
Pocahontas). And there are very few Charlotte characters I can think of from the 90s or before (Charlotte also goes along with that message of getting beyond the external, by being a constant joke because she's focused on the star, the dream, the title, etc.). In fact, I find it much like the 2000s in terms of these characters, because you wouldn't find John Silver from
Treasure Planet, Nani from
Lilo & Stitch, or The Bowler Hat Guy from
Meet The Robinsons in a 90s film, anymore than you would Charlotte or Ray.
As for the obligatory love story, it's a bit unreasonable to pin that onto TP&TF. For one, nearly all Disney films are like this, not just the 90s. Second, you can't expect a "princess" film to be the one that branches out in this aspect. The one consolation is that the relationship is more developed and egalitarian than they've ever had before, with both characters being developed simultaneously. And the Broadway music--you
can blame the 90s for that, but I don't think of it as Disney just re-treading ground. Animated films, Disney especially, have almost become synonymous with "musical" these days, and people expect some form of music, at any rate (if not theatrical, it needs to be written by a famous musician with animated montages, like with Elton John, Phil Collins 2x, Elvis, and Jon Rzeznik). The most that can be said is that TP&TF only has 4 songs done in a musical style, and even those aren't as theatrical as most of Menken's work. There is more of a mood to the music of TP&TF, regardless of how weak the lyrics are.
True, if you found flaw in the moralizing of the movie, I could halfway understand (although I would say all Disney films have their fair share of moralizing). But I just don't agree that this movie is a 90s retread, and the other complaints are something that will always be attached to "princess" films, especially as they've become known as today. And those superficial similarities I was talking about, I've felt since I first watched the film that those were intentionally included to turn the film into almost a "tribute" to the 'princess' genre.
To Disney, though I'm sure they most care about profits, they at least can find consolation that most critics liked TP&TF. So I doubt they're blaming the film's lack of blockbuster success on a lack of quality.
