Long overdue for no good reason. Well, Prince Phillip Fan, Lady and the Tramp was made after World War II, in the 50's. I read it's possible the colors switched genders by that time since, in concentration camps, Nazis gave gay people a pink upside-down triangle, similar to how Jewish people wore the Star of David. Yes, that's how gays came up with the upside down triangle. But I read it might be evidence that by that time pink was for girls, because it meant the gay men were just like girls. Of course, this made no sense for lesbians, then, but maybe I can find out more.PrincePhillipFan wrote:Anyway, about the pink/red and blue discussion, I noticed something interesting not too long ago. In Lady And The Tramp, they mention that Jim Dear and Darling have a baby boy, yet the entire nursery in the movie is completely in pink. Makes me wonder if the Disney animators put a lot of research when they were animating the film, since the colors of pink/red for boys and blue for girls was still existant at the turn of the century.
I'm so sorry to hear that your parents haven't been accepting of it and it had gotten to that point. At least though you managed to make it on your own, and you've remained proud and true to yourself about it and haven't changed. I just hope that eventually your parents will be more accepting of it and realize that it's just a part of who you are.Disney Guru wrote:Coming out to your family can be very hard. I came out in 2005 was so bad that i literally ditched my family and moved out on my own in 2006. They still won't accept the fact that I am gay but it comes to the point sometimes, where you have to make that old decision. Do I want to be myself, or change just to please others....
I never really thought of that before, but it is an interesting color analysis. I wonder if maybe the animators intentionally thought of that, or it was just a coincidence. Up until Sleeping Beauty, the animators would always themselves pick the color for the clothing for the chracters they animated. For Sleeping Beauty however, the entire color design was entrusted to Eyvind Earle and he personally selected each color scheme of the character's design.Disney Duster wrote:Cinderella's pink dress is destroyed, until her blue fairy godmother gives her a blue dress and when she dances with the prince, he becomes blue, too. In Sleeping Beauty, Aurora was going to have a pink dress, but she sleeps in blue, only to live happily ever after in the two colors alternating.
*dies*Wire Hanger wrote:Also, what is that thing in your avatar Brendon?
The original untouched non-CGI-happy 1977 Star Wars is an amazing visual achievement. If only the script was just as impressive...May the Force be with Jules wrote:Star Wars, not one of 'em.
It's about the mafia, or more specifically, Michael Corleone and his mafia family circa 1945. The Godfather, Part II continues where the first left off, but also splits its time with flashbacks to 1901 and 1917-1925 (when Vito, Michael's father, was younger). The Godfather, Part III is set in 1979 and is generally regarded as a three-hour waste of time that should've been handled better. But it is an interesting sequel (that suffers from relying too much on the assumption that the audience has seen Part I and Part II, otherwise they'd be confused as hell).I'm gonna make Jules an offer he can't refuse wrote:The Godfather, neither (I barely know what it's about).
1940, drama/quasi-biography (Kane is a fictional version of William Randolph Hearst), RKO Radio Pictures.Citizen Jules wrote:And there's apparently this masterpiece called Citizen Kane which, ahem ... you guessed it - I have not seen either. Suffice to say I don't even know when it was released, what genre of film it is, and what studio produced it.
The best teacher you know is yourself! Who else will prompt you to learn about something you're curious about? Who else will read and study things that you'll remember? Who else will...well...who else will say, "Okay, today I want to learn about [insert subject], so I will go and learn about [insert subject]".Animating Jules wrote:I want to know so much about animation, and it seems there is nobody to teach me. Sigh...
You are perfectly right, and I can prove that by bringing up a post I may have written at UD two years ago, and another written recently. The result - I have learned tons about animation from this forum alone. However, the internet simply doesn't all satisfy. I think I need to buy books on the subject. The only reason I haven't done so yet is probably to keep my DVD collection growing steadily. In the end, I want to learn. I sooooo want to learn. I come to this site not to talk of slipcovers and cover art. I registered here because I'm genuinely interested in what makes animation an art, and I want to understand it. I'm interested in upcoming Disney animated films - not for the dolls and toys that will result from their releases, but for the enjoyment and appreciation of the said films. Sadly these topics crop up very rarely on the forum. The animation-appreciation-and-understanding thing was addressed recently in the "Old Disney Classics" thread I believe, when Ariel'sprince expressed his dislike for Pinocchio's animation. I really enjoyed MagicMirror's posts, because he discussed precisely what I feel should be one of the most important topics of discussion here, namely, animation! Most people here call themselves fans of the Disney animated films ... but are they really interested in animation? You find people who go nuts over the princesses and can't tell the difference between art direction and animation (e.g. Princesslove91: Eeew! i heted atlantis it sucked. the people have square finger an toes, what crrapy animation!)Scaps wrote:The best teacher you know is yourself! Who else will prompt you to learn about something you're curious about? Who else will read and study things that you'll remember? Who else will...well...who else will say, "Okay, today I want to learn about [insert subject], so I will go and learn about [insert subject]".
Sorry for the confession/I want!/rantish element of the post.Let me be one of the first then! [picks up tomato]The Fires of Escapay wrote:1940, drama/quasi-biography (Kane is a fictional version of William Randolph Hearst), RKO Radio Pictures.
Like Star Wars, it's a cinematic innovation for its time (for its then-unique use of camera angles, deep focus, make-up, sound, etc.), but the story is about as vapid and melodramatic as poorly-written high school poetry. Seriously, it bores me to death if ever I watch it (and film snobs everywhere are now lining up to throw tomatoes at me...).
