DVDizzy Forum

Lady Cluck wrote:The dainty, dancery movements were part of the idealized feminine package. Of course normal human beings don't act like that, which is the point. I don't know why you think fairy tale princesses have to behave like bizarre, lobotomized supernatural beings because it's more "magical". Did the characters on the pages of fairy tales MOVE? Of course not. Disney just interpreted them the way they wanted, and it was similar to portrayals of the perfect woman/wife/mother in other media at the time. Live with it.

If you prefer that type of character, I disagree but that's your right. But I can't accept denying and making up history and disregarding the fact that art reflects contemporary culture, for better or worse. It's not like there's a shortage of other offensive moments in a Disney works...

But the women in the fairy tales did move. At least in Cinderella, it was described how she ran as nimbly as a deer and she "danced so very gracefully" in glass slippers. So I know that at least for Cinderella, the way she moved in the Disney film was taken from the original fairy tale. But in general, the way Walt's three princesses acted was out of the idea of a what a fairy tale princess would act like, not how all idealized women acted. Did you now they actually considered Snow White as a girl who was very aware of her growing body and was more, I guess "knowing" and "sexual" would be the words? But they chose innocent and holding out her arms. All the princesses daintily held out their arms. I don't think the most idealized females in the time those films were made acted like that. If you do, then I still disagree.

Little Red Henski wrote:Disney wanted to make Tiana very politically correct. Came off to me as being kinda of racist in a way. We never knew how hard the other Princess' fathers worked. Disney made sure the audience knew that Tiana and her father worked very hard.

I don't know, to me it came off as being as realistic as they could without inserting racial slurs and lynchmobs into the film. The only way they could've avoided the fact that Tiana and her father had to work hard is if they set it in a non-existent time/place like other films, or if they'd moved her story to at least the 1980's. Besides, most other fathers were white or royal (or both).

Tbh, I think setting the movie in a faraway place with a rich, black king and princess would be more politically correct than anything in the film. That would verge on turning the film into Pocahontas, as far as ignoring reality goes.

Sorry for bumping this old thread, but after searching of another thread, I came over this and wanted to give my replies. First of all; I see nothing wrong by Disney (or other studios) making strong female characters. On the contrary! The problem is how the studio makes these characters and the constant criticism of them. Of course no character is going to be perfect, but the naysayers are ready to attack no matter what. Through the nineties we got a bunch of progressive and independent female heroines, but Mulan was the one who actually defeated the villain and was a consous femenist depiction. But now that we have a bunch of strong women, it's time to look how Hollywood are portraying them. Merida was a huge failure of a strong, independent Princess! While she was marketed as one in the adds/trailers and has a arc of her own, she's still a bratty throwback. And not particularly progressive or innovative.

Prince Edward wrote:I agree with you. I hope this forced "female empowering" is not the new style of every (animated) Disney fairytale movie. When Tangled was released, Rapunzel was hailed by Disney's marketing as a "new kind of Disney princess". She was independent, did not need a man etc. And with "Brave", the same thing happened again with that oh so annoying, despicable and ugly Merida. Then Pixar went all "this is a new kind of princess totally unlike all the Disney princesses, blablabla" (typical Lasseter really, "Pixar" invented the wheel", as if Disney animation did not do anything right before Pixar came along). And with "Frozen", we was told the same yet again. "New kind of Disney princess: independent, feminist, don't need a man etc".

Give me five, min norske bror! .

It's understandable why Ariel and Belle were labeled as Disney's first independent heroines. However, this statement gets used over and over again and not only by Disney, but the media as well! And it's annoying! Lasseter said in the featurettes that Tiana was different from her peers because she was a strong character. Kelly MacDonald said that Merida was not a typical Princess (despite that she was a Pixar Princess and could actually be a departure from Disney's Princesses), the same thing said Mark Andrews in the Audio Commentary for "Brave" (and yes, Merida is indeed grating and unlikeable). In the "Making of Frozen", the sisters were labeled as the heroes. And so on.

And sure, it's annoying that Pixar/Lasseter gets credit for saving Disney, as if Disney weren't doing anything right before Lasseter came in charge. While most of the films from the prior decade have a dud-reputation, they weren't really that bad. They've got stuck with the bad reputation because of their underperfomance. Of course a good movie is a matter of taste, but personally, I thought "Chicken Little" was the huge dud, despite that it had it's moments (although "Atlantis", "Brother Bear" and "Home on the Range" were not critically well received). And although "Inside Out" could be a comeback for Pixar, remember that they've got stuck with a dud-reputation.

I actually missed the element of romance in "Frozen", I think it would have been a better storyline if there was more romance in that movie. Also, the male characters got to little attention if you ask me: Disney could have cut the trolls and given more time to develop the characters of Kristoff and Hans (as well as Elsa).

Frozen could have benefitted from a touch of romance: Kristoff should actually have ended up with Elsa if you ask me - they both have grown up lonely and Kristoff loves ice. Or Hans could have been a good guy and ended up with Elsa. Or Kristoff and Anna could at least been a bit more romantic at the end of the movie. It seems to me that Disney was afraid to make romance a part of the tale. This movie was intended as a sister's tale and therefore there was no room for a man or romance there. It seems they could not have both the sisters element and make it a love story at the same time. It's like they was fishing for the approval of the media and the public: "Oh, Disney are so progressive, now they're princesses are feminist and don't have to be saved by a man. Oh, that's so much better then the previous hopeless damsels in distress."

"Frozen" could've defintively developed the romance! Or even better; having no romance at all, since the sisterly relationship was the main focus after all! Romance are usually associated with fairy tales, but I wonder if we'll ever get an animated film with a strong heroine without any sort of love interest. And although "Brave" was intended as a fairy tale where the heroine stays single, Merida still had to be betrothed and has to rebel against tradition to stay single.

Kristoff should've definitively been more developed. He's a quite underdeveloped, considering that he's an orphan and a loner who doesn't like people, but is never given a proper backstory or a logical reason for being so. And Elsa should've been more developed as well, but I've ranted about her priorly, so I won't repeat myself.

Beside, one thing about Frozen annoyed me especially: How Anna treats Hans at the ending of the movie. Had Anna been a male character and Hans a female character, it would have caused huge drama and public outcry. And if that is not discrimination based on genders, I don't know what is. But Anna treating Hans the way she did somewhat seemed to "crown" the movie as a movie about "strong, independent women". I think that Anna's behavoir towards Hans was very forced and totally uncalled for, it just made her character less likeable.

I disagree. I think it was deserved. Of course it would have cause much debate if the genders were switched.

Pocahontas... also deliberatly disobeyed her father, caused Kokoum's death (a man loved her and who was willing to do anything for her, but she rejected him to pursue her own selfish path), and nearly caused a major battle that could've destroyed her whole tribe!!!

How was she supposed to know that Kocoum was following her? It wasn't her fault that Kocoum got shot. She deliberately disobeyed her father, but not in a rebellious way that Kiara did (I'm leaving Ariel out of this, since I've discussed her to death priorly and by doing so, it seems like I'm hating her). Besides, both she and Smith were trying to stop the war, not being together just for their selfish sakes.

Also--father figures such as Triton and Powhatan are not "right." Triton hates humans for no reason; Powhatan hates white men because they're white. Ariel unites two "worlds"; Pocahontas stops a war (in the film) where her tribe most likely would've been killed by guns. Basically, your point that men always make the right decisions is debunked by those characters--who are men in charge who make all the wrong decisions, risking everyone's lives in the process.

True, but Powhatan's fears was legitimate and after all, he wanted to analyze the English before attacking them. Despite that he's far from perfect, he's still a noble character. His relationship with Pocahontas is more tender than Ariel and Triton's. While Triton is not given a legitimate backstory for his hatred to humans, he still has a legitimate reason for fearing them (although the human world is not a bad place in this film). I'm not ignoring that Triton is flawed and makes huge mistake. But he at least has a arc.

Through the course of the adventure Tiana learns to let go and find balance between work and play. Her new dream is about spending it with the people she loves, and the restaurant helps make that happen. Naveen was the complete opposite and had to learn responsibility, so the two of them make a great team and couple by learning from each other and balancing each other out.

True, but it's still a muddled message. Considering how the movie was hammering the message of needs being more important than wants. While she learns that love is a need (or more precisely a love interest), she still gets what she both wants and needs. It's not that it's underserved, but it's muddled.

Merida is sick of being constantly nagged, of having her life being planned out for her without her consent. And yes, she is selfish throughout much of the film, but she learns a very hard lesson because of it. And in the end, she and her mother find a balance that allows her more freedom, while taking on the responsibilities required of her.

Despite my previous rant about Merida, she does have a legitimate reason to rebell against her mother. However, she's so grating and unlikeable that it's hard to root for her (Kelly MacDonald was a miscast, since she made Merida more grating than she needed to be). Merida doesn't wants to kill her mom, but she's first and foremost concerned with herself. Merida and her mother learns to balance it at the end, but unfortunately not in a innovative way. "Brave" could've benefited from being more inventive and innovative.

Disney wanted to make Tiana very politically correct.

Oh yes, indeed. It's not to say that Tiana's moral's or wants were bad. It's nice to see a Princess who actually wanted to work to achieve her goals. However, Tiana still is given the role as a no-nonsense workaholic and doesn't want a Prince initially, which is seen as a need (and definitively something that feminist will rant about).

Btw, I'm glad non-Disney heroines like Odette, Anastasia, Kayley and even the heroines from DreamWorks' films are not on this debate. They've would have been ripped to shreds!

Actually, a few non-Disney princesses are equal to better in some cases. Odette, while in a romance-heavy movie, is a fairly feminist character, imo. "But what else?" Unlike some of Disney's characters, she thinks, plans, and makes attempts to save others and escape her curse; and still no one could deny she is "feminine." On the other hand, you have characters like, say, Thumbelina who are throwbacks to Snow White; she's a naive damsel, too. Tbh, I wonder why Disney hasn't been slowly absorbing all these animated films by other companies (if that's possible).

Disney's Divinity wrote:Tbh, I wonder why Disney hasn't been slowly absorbing all these animated films by other companies (if that's possible).

You mean like making their own version of Thumbelina?

Enough time has passed where such a notion could be explored.

Disney's Divinity wrote:Actually, a few non-Disney princesses are equal to better in some cases. Odette, while in a romance-heavy movie, is a fairly feminist character, imo. "But what else?" Unlike some of Disney's characters, she thinks, plans, and makes attempts to save others and escape her curse; and still no one could deny she is "feminine." On the other hand, you have characters like, say, Thumbelina who are throwbacks to Snow White; she's a naive damsel, too. Tbh, I wonder why Disney hasn't been slowly absorbing all these animated films by other companies (if that's possible).

I haven't seen "Thumberlina", so I can't really comment on that one.

Although I've always liked "Swan Princess", Odette is really a damsel in distress. While she's definitively active in some scenes, she still has to get rescued by Derek at the end. While I do like the notion that Derek should love her besides her beauty, she forgets all about it when she gets captured (and certainly doesn't grieve over her dead father). And what does she like about Derek? They spend all their childhood loathing each other (although we could also assume they cared for each other deep down, but never really admitted it) and while she gets dissapointed in him, she yearns for him when she's spelled.

Anastasia however, does at least defeat the villain. She's not only spunky, but sassy and snarky as well. A heroine with an actual personality. However, despite that she finds her family, she still gives her throne up for a man who initially was using her (although he learns to love her).

Kayley from "Quest for Camelot" is indeed active and progressive most of her time. But she still has to depend on a man.

DisneyFan09 wrote:
Although I've always liked "Swan Princess", Odette is really a damsel in distress. While she's definitively active in some scenes, she still has to get rescued by Derek at the end. While I do like the notion that Derek should love her besides her beauty, she forgets all about it when she gets captured (and certainly doesn't grieve over her dead father). And what does she like about Derek? They spend all their childhood loathing each other (although we could also assume they cared for each other deep down, but never really admitted it) and while she gets dissapointed in him, she yearns for him when she's spelled.

Anastasia however, does at least defeat the villain. She's not only spunky, but sassy and snarky as well. A heroine with an actual personality. However, despite that she finds her family, she still gives her throne up for a man who initially was using her (although he learns to love her).

You've totally summed up my own problems with Swan Princess and the love story. I never understood the immediate falling in love upon looking at eachother after years of dislike and yeah, she never mentions her dad ever again. So, surely means Odette is guilty of loving Derek for his looks as they both fell in love upon being locked in a ballroom together without any conversation between them.

I like that film but Anastasia was superior. I never had too much a problem with her choosing Dimitri as she hadn't really been a royal all that long and being a feminist/strong women doesn't mean you have to be asexual or never ask a man or any help. I'd also have to assume that even in the film as the royals were overthrown, the communists were still in power so she couldn't have reclaimed the throne or set foot in Russia even if she has wanted too.

I guess opinions will vary. I know Odette is ultimately a damsel, but she's not naive, passive, and content while being so like, say, Snow White and Cinderella. The way she loves Derek to me has always been similar to Belle in B&tB, where it comes on all at once that she was slowly falling for him over time. She seemed to get along with them while playing cards in the earlier scene and wanted to play with them before that (although they didn't want to play with her because she was a girl). To me, she liked his personality, but he always rejected her until he suddenly found her hot ("I can do much better, I am sure," he says to himself; while she says, "I see him smiling, and my doubts are gone").

I believe the next scene we see of Odette is a while later, which is probably why we don't see her mention her father.

Cinderella defeated the villain in her film. The villain is not defeated until she reveals the other shoe. It wasn't a genius idea she had, but an idea and action nontheless.

I heard Ariel was going to defeat Ursula but Jeffery Katzenburg didn't go with it because it was too implausible. I will always wonder how she was originally going to defeat the villain.

Disney's Divinity wrote:I guess opinions will vary. I know Odette is ultimately a damsel, but she's not naive, passive, and content while being so like, say, Snow White and Cinderella.

Alright, fair enough. Odette is not that naive.

Either way, my previous rant about Anastasia giving up her throne to Dimitri; I don't consider it to be a huge problem. But considering how the naysayers are always finding something to rant about, it is something to point out.

And to elaborate on DreamWorks' movies; Tzipporah in "Prince of Egypt" have been criticized for being fierce and Marina from "Sinbad" for falling in love with a bad boy (who turns good).

MeerkatKombat wrote:

DisneyFan09 wrote:
Although I've always liked "Swan Princess", Odette is really a damsel in distress. While she's definitively active in some scenes, she still has to get rescued by Derek at the end. While I do like the notion that Derek should love her besides her beauty, she forgets all about it when she gets captured (and certainly doesn't grieve over her dead father). And what does she like about Derek? They spend all their childhood loathing each other (although we could also assume they cared for each other deep down, but never really admitted it) and while she gets dissapointed in him, she yearns for him when she's spelled.

Anastasia however, does at least defeat the villain. She's not only spunky, but sassy and snarky as well. A heroine with an actual personality. However, despite that she finds her family, she still gives her throne up for a man who initially was using her (although he learns to love her).

You've totally summed up my own problems with Swan Princess and the love story. I never understood the immediate falling in love upon looking at eachother after years of dislike and yeah, she never mentions her dad ever again. So, surely means Odette is guilty of loving Derek for his looks as they both fell in love upon being locked in a ballroom together without any conversation between them.

I like that film but Anastasia was superior. I never had too much a problem with her choosing Dimitri as she hadn't really been a royal all that long and being a feminist/strong women doesn't mean you have to be asexual or never ask a man or any help. I'd also have to assume that even in the film as the royals were overthrown, the communists were still in power so she couldn't have reclaimed the throne or set foot in Russia even if she has wanted too.

She should have gone into the party rather then run away. The ending of Anastasia is stupid.

bradhig wrote:She should have gone into the party rather then run away. The ending of Anastasia is stupid.

Really? Why?

DisneyFan09 wrote:

bradhig wrote:She should have gone into the party rather then run away. The ending of Anastasia is stupid.

Really? Why?

She could have gone back to being a Duchess and she turned coward. She could had have everything she wanted by going into the party rather then running off.

bradhig wrote: She could had have everything she wanted by going into the party rather then running off.

Except Dimitri. That was the point. She chose her path. I honestly argue that that alone is pretty feminist but whatever.

That ending actually frustrated me too initially, but I just shrugged it off as Russian royalty being really strict about who a duchess marries. The lost princess falling in love with a known scam artist wouldn't be accepted. Besides, Dimitri was already gone when the party started, and Anya had to run after him.

Plus, she couldn't have stayed for historical reasons anyways. It's an animated film based on a real girl's murder. The writers probably purposely picked a bittersweet ending to be politcally correct. That would be an insensitive paradox if the fictional Anastasia got to become a duchess again.

The Swan Princess, or rather "Swan Lake" is the only one I'd like to see Disney adapt. How great would an adaptation of Swan Lake be in the style of Sleeping Beauty? Where they'd re-work Tchaikovsky's original music the same way this was done for Beauty.

Plus, The Swan Princess is so awful it would erase some of its memory maybe. How could one possibly look at Swan Lake and think "you know what, this needs a talking turtle, a talking frog and a talking Puffin". To top it off, they named the Puffin... you guessed it: Puffin.

God I hate that film.

Tangled wrote:Plus, she couldn't have stayed for historical reasons anyways. It's an animated film based on a real girl's murder. The writers probably purposely picked a bittersweet ending to be politcally correct. That would be an insensitive paradox if the fictional Anastasia got to become a duchess again.

That's true.

PatrickvD wrote:The Swan Princess, or rather "Swan Lake" is the only one I'd like to see Disney adapt. How great would an adaptation of Swan Lake be in the style of Sleeping Beauty? Where they'd re-work Tchaikovsky's original music the same way this was done for Beauty.

Plus, The Swan Princess is so awful it would erase some of its memory maybe. How could one possibly look at Swan Lake and think "you know what, this needs a talking turtle, a talking frog and a talking Puffin". To top it off, they named the Puffin... you guessed it: Puffin.

God I hate that film.

Yeah, I would love that as well, to see a Disney adaptation of Swan Lake, in the style of Sleeping Beauty, if possible with the same artistic style and design, although I'm almost certain it would feature so much CGI.

I'm not a big fan of that movie, either. The sequels are even worse.

Sicoe Vlad wrote:

PatrickvD wrote:The Swan Princess, or rather "Swan Lake" is the only one I'd like to see Disney adapt. How great would an adaptation of Swan Lake be in the style of Sleeping Beauty? Where they'd re-work Tchaikovsky's original music the same way this was done for Beauty.

Plus, The Swan Princess is so awful it would erase some of its memory maybe. How could one possibly look at Swan Lake and think "you know what, this needs a talking turtle, a talking frog and a talking Puffin". To top it off, they named the Puffin... you guessed it: Puffin.

God I hate that film.

Yeah, I would love that as well, to see a Disney adaptation of Swan Lake, in the style of Sleeping Beauty, if possible with the same artistic style and design, although I'm almost certain it would feature so much CGI.

I'm not a big fan of that movie, either. The sequels are even worse.

Makes me glad that I never saw that movie at all, outside the Nostalgia Critic review.

What I would propose is, should Disney ever make their own version, they look to utilizing an original style for the film instead of (once again) replicating the past. They attempted to do this with Tangled, up until Glen Keane stepped down from the director's seat, but my point still stands: There was Bill Peet, Mary Blair, Tom Oreb, and Evelynd Earle among others of yesterday. Who today can make names for themselves?

PatrickvD wrote:The Swan Princess, or rather "Swan Lake" is the only one I'd like to see Disney adapt. How great would an adaptation of Swan Lake be in the style of Sleeping Beauty? Where they'd re-work Tchaikovsky's original music the same way this was done for Beauty.

Plus, The Swan Princess is so awful it would erase some of its memory maybe. How could one possibly look at Swan Lake and think "you know what, this needs a talking turtle, a talking frog and a talking Puffin". To top it off, they named the Puffin... you guessed it: Puffin.

God I hate that film.

Haha! The turtle, frog and puffin do take away from it, much like the HOND Gargoyles.
It upsets me greatly that John Cleese took on that horrible role. Apart from the sidekicks and that 'Princesses on Parade', I do enjoy swan princess.
I think its part of growing up - hating the animal/inanimate objects that talk/just act as filler.
Beauty and the Beast gets a pass because of the whole Enchanted Castle story line.

Disney could do a wonderful Swan Lake in the same style as Sleeping Beauty. It would be glorious.

I don't see the animal sidekicks in TSP as any more superfluous than those in...well, any Disney movie. I've always liked the film, personally, although I wish the animation was better.

There will never be another Sleeping Beauty. I don't think there's anyone at Disney who could make something that beautiful. Or, rather, Disney wouldn't allow it anyway.