DVDizzy Forum

Dr Frankenollie wrote:

Disney's Divinity wrote: The fairies are no more interesting than the mice in Cinderella, which makes it particularly damning that they were made the main characters, pushing a heroine that could have been interesting into the background to the point that we don't care if the fairies--the protagonists--defeat Maleficent or manage to rescue her.

Do you really believe that Aurora would have been more interesting than the fairies if she had more screentime? Back then, Disney princesses were the blandest of characters; the fact that the fairies are the focus rather than the princess is an improvement, not a flaw. And how can the audience not care about the main conflict? The conflict isn't about Aurora's life - the princess and Philip are just caught in a much greater crossfire, between the fairies and Maleficent. We care if the fairies defeat Maleficent because we like the fairies, and even though others may not agree, I think Philip (easily the best prince character from the Walt-era princess films) is also somewhat likable.
.

I'm in agreement with Divinity.

When I first saw SB, it was in 2005. at the time I never saw SB before hand nor knew much about it. So when got the VHS from some one, I look at the cover and I see the title : Sleeping Beauty and on the cover is big image of Aurora and Phillip with Mally in the BG.

Naturally my first thought was "wow' this looks to be good. I can't wait see this beautiful Aurora take focus etc etc"

After movie was over, I was asking myself why she hardly got screen time nor was speaking in later half of movie. Same deal with Phillip. All I saw was the 3 fairies and their little cat and mice game with Mally. They even contradict themselves when they told Phillip that he must face the threats ahead once they escape. But no the fairies did practically all the work. To me that's the biggest insult. rather than let Phillip take the spotlight, they still continue on. I didn't care about them, I wanted to see and know more of the princess and the prince. Since they're shown or advertise so be main stars to us.

I also hate the fairies' moral values shove down my throat(especially from Flora and Fauna.). It made me want to draw the fairies get their asses raped by the HULK.

DisneyDuster wrote:I mean that if Lady is afraid that the new baby will be cared for over her, her owners wouldn't treat the baby the same way they treat her by leaving both of them with a stranger.

Ok I understand what you meant now and that's a good point.

DisneyDuster wrote:Sleeping Beauty has probably the biggest ending but I don't think it's the better one.

Agreed, I'd actually say that I would pick Peter Pan as the 1950's film with the best ending, although that's just my opinion. To be honest, I like the endings of all the films in that decade; on reflection it might be my favourite decade in Disney animation.

tsom wrote:I'm sure if Mary Poppins came out in 1963 instead of 1964, it would have won Best Picture.

From a historical point of view, Snow White, The Lion King, and Toy Story should have been nominated.

I agree. It should of have. But My Fair Lady is not that bad. Besides Mary Poppins won five awards including Best Actress and Best Song. Of course, I just wish one of the songs from Enchanted to win for best song.

Eh...Sorry, but I don't think Mary Poppins deserved Best Picture over the much superior Dr. Strangelove which was released the same year. I mean come on! It's Kubrick's satiric masterpiece! (And the best film he did, in my opinion...)

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:

DisneyDuster wrote:Sleeping Beauty has probably the biggest ending but I don't think it's the better one.

Agreed, I'd actually say that I would pick Peter Pan as the 1950's film with the best ending, although that's just my opinion. To be honest, I like the endings of all the films in that decade; on reflection it might be my favourite decade in Disney animation.

That's nice to know. I guess the 50's is also my favorite decade due to how I personally like those movies. And maybe Peter Pan does have the best ending. I think it could also be Cinderella and of course for me it is, but I dunno. I'll have to watch Peter Pan again in full sometime. I think that Hook being so humorous ruins how great Peter Pan's ending could be which may make me think Cinderella's is better but if you mean the ending of Peter Pan right after Hook leaves, then I might see how it could be the best. It's great.

DisneyDuster wrote:I think that Hook being so humorous ruins how great Peter Pan's ending could be which may make me think Cinderella's is better but if you mean the ending of Peter Pan right after Hook leaves, then I might see how it could be the best. It's great.

To be honest I'm actually finding it quite difficult to sum why I think Peter Pan has the best ending of those films. It might be because I like the wistful quality of it with Mr. Darling remembering that he saw the pirate ship before when he was a young boy; I also like that the Lost Boys return to Neverland with Peter rather than stay in London as they do in the original play. I think all of the 1950's films have good ending that wrap up their respective stories really well so I guess you could make an argument for any of them to be the best.

Winnie the Pooh should have gotten a nomination. Especially over the ones that did, IMO. I wonder if our standards and expectations on what makes a good animated film has gone down so low that we consider the films that got nominated good now.

I think overall, 2011 was a dud year for all films.

The_Iceflash wrote:Winnie the Pooh should have gotten a nomination. Especially over the ones that did, IMO. I wonder if our standards and expectations on what makes a good animated film has gone down so low that we consider the films that got nominated good now.

The competition was really really tough this past year (and that's hard to believe considering when you're taking Cars 2 out of the equation). Even so, Winnie the Pooh, as good a film as it is, I don't think is majorly Oscar worthy. It's definitely underrated at best.

toonaspie wrote:

The_Iceflash wrote:Winnie the Pooh should have gotten a nomination. Especially over the ones that did, IMO. I wonder if our standards and expectations on what makes a good animated film has gone down so low that we consider the films that got nominated good now.

The competition was really really tough this past year (and that's hard to believe considering when you're taking Cars 2 out of the equation). Even so, Winnie the Pooh, as good a film as it is, I don't think is majorly Oscar worthy. It's definitely underrated at best.

It's not as if the ones that were nominated were. I mean Kung Fu Panda 2, Puss in Boots, and Rango? How did, IMO, our standards get so reduced to nominate those three over Pooh?

2011 was pretty underwhelming overall and that's why the competition is tighter than usual (though putting those three above Pooh is appalling, IMO).

I didn't see Winnie the Pooh yet and I bet it's better than ANY of those films that got nominated over it, those Disney-hating Academy bastards!

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:To be honest I'm actually finding it quite difficult to sum why I think Peter Pan has the best ending of those films. It might be because I like the wistful quality of it with Mr. Darling remembering that he saw the pirate ship before when he was a young boy; I also like that the Lost Boys return to Neverland with Peter rather than stay in London as they do in the original play. I think all of the 1950's films have good ending that wrap up their respective stories really well so I guess you could make an argument for any of them to be the best.

Yea I have to admit those things are really good, and wistful is the perfect adjective, it's like...chilling. Chillingly good. Damn you make a good case. Though I am not entirely certain how I feel about Peter and the boys never growing up now that I know the original play did have them do so. I wonder what the book did. I mean, I can see the good and the bad and I guess the wishful kid in me likes the never growing up but it is true that then you miss out on things that come with growing up. Kinda sad they would miss it. Hm. The ending being about how Peter stays in the perfect bliss of never growing up, he always stays what he wants to be? It's...strange. It's...moving... And also, I guess some kids never grow up because they die as kids, and then if they go to heaven they may stay as kids. Interesting, huh?