The Princess and the Frog Discussion - Part II

[ajmrowland]

It would appear this new trailer is aimed squarely at young-uns. My bet is that there will soon be another trailer that has all the romance. This movie is trying to appeal to 3 different groups, I'm certan: fans(first theatrical and teaser), kids(this one), and adults(next one probably).

[PatrickvD]

The animation looks fantastic.

Especially the alligator. That has Eric Goldberg written all over it. You can see traces of the genie in the comic timing there. Just wonderful.

The villain also looks amazing.

Loving the agressive promotion.

[Jules]

Michael Barrier article.

Déjà Vu All Over Again
I heard this from the visitor who calls himself Rubi-kun:

Is it just me, or does it seem that you spend a lot more time on your negative opinions than your positive ones? Coraline and Sita Sings the Blues, both quality films worthy of serious discussion, receive just a blog post or two yet you write whole essays on the movies you didn't like. When was the last time you wrote an essay on a film you enjoyed? Ratatouille? Think of future readers of your site: they're probably not going to search through a bunch of blog entries but they will be looking at your essays, and without seeing what you like, they're just going to look at you as a bitter old man who likes hardly anything.

Well, I am a bitter old man, as the calendar and the mirror insist on reminding me; I intend to write more about Sita; and I have Google at the top of my home page so that anyone who's curious can find out quickly what I've written about any subject. As on many previous occasions, I'm baffled by the suggestion that I have a duty of some kind to be "positive" rather than "negative." The obligation I feel to the people who visit this site is to figure out what I really think about a given film—or book, or museum exhibit, or whatever—and then to say what I think as clearly and succinctly as possible. It really doesn't matter to me if the result is "positive" or "negative" in tone. It does matter to some people, though, evidently because they think that being "positive," however mindlessly, is integral to being a fan.

In fact, I go out of my way not to see and review some films that I will probably not like, or may dislike for the wrong reasons. I disliked the first Ice Age, for example, and I've not seen or written about the two sequels. I very much want to see Miyazaki's Ponyo, but I much prefer seeing his films with Japanese soundtracks and English subtitles. I'm inclined to wait for the Blu-Ray rather than see Ponyo with an English soundtrack and possibly come away with a skewed impression of what Miyazaki has done.

Most of the Disney and DreamWorks features command so much attention from fans and the public at large that seeing them becomes all but irresistible, and having seen them, I usually want to say something about them. I'm close to drawing the line with The Princess and the Frog, though.

It's risky to draw conclusions based on just a trailer (which I saw on the big screen last weekend) and a short making-of clip on Cartoon Brew, but Princess so far looks to share in all the shortcomings of Treasure Planet, the previous John Musker-Ron Clements feature for Disney, with a few new ones thrown into the pot. I've just re-read my review of Treasure Planet, which I posted here more than six years ago, and I have to wonder: If, as seems increasingly likely, Princess offers much more of the same—the clumsy manipulation of formulas, the coy, self-conscious character animation, and all the rest—will there be any point in writing about it, or even wasting ten bucks on seeing it? How much substance can there be in a movie with a villain who is, as we know from the Cartoon Brew clip, a song-and-dance man straight out of an overcharged retro-Broadway production number? (Try to imagine Stromboli breaking into a tap dance, or the Queen in Snow White chortling away in song about what a mean bitch she is. Hard to do, isn't it?)

What's sad, and a little scary, about today's Disney people is that they apparently think they're doing really good work. That may account for the indignant hostility I've encountered on the few occasions in recent years when I've crossed paths with someone from Disney feature animation, since my skepticism about recent Disney features is hardly a secret. The people at studios like DreamWorks and Blue Sky seem to know they're making popcorn movies, but the Disney people must believe they're doing something much, much better. I'm afraid the poor souls think they're walking in the footsteps of Frank and Ollie and Milt and the other great ones, when actually they're living and working on the Planet of the Apes.

[PatrickvD]

what an idiot. I'd never even heard of him, but looking at the photo he posted of himself on his website, he seems to love his own opinion more than animation.

And that's very degrading towards the animators over at Dreamworks and Blue Sky. Just because their films are generally considered to be simple popcorn flicks, doesn't mean one can't stand out. Like Kung Fu Panda or Horton!

And what a rediculous comparison he makes. Of course Disney's villains of the early days never broke out into song and dance. Disney's traditional animation revival of the late 80s early 90s went hand in hand with the revival of the Broadway musical. Disney = Broadway musical and vice versa. It's like wondering why Steamboat Willie wasn't done in color. Different times, techniques, cultural environment etc etc etc.

And that comment about Disney's animators being smug and thinking they're doing something extraordinairy. Their movies haven't been making money for nearly 10 years now, why would they be smug about anything? They were all out of a job. And newsflash, they did make Little Mermaid - The Lion King.

And that notion that Princess and the Frog suffers from Treasure Planet problems... what? No one has seen this movie.

[Jules]

post deleted

[Jules]

post deleted

[BelleGirl]

And that comment about Disney's animators being smug and thinking they're doing something extraordinairy. Their movies haven't been making money for nearly 10 years now, why would they be smug about anything? They were all out of a job. And newsflash, they did make Little Mermaid - The Lion King.

He supports his claim of this 'smugness' through the report of "indignant hostility he encountered on the few occasions in recent years when he crossed paths with someone from Disney feature animation."

Why is he lambasting the attitudes of the workforce of an entire animation studio based on a few people he has met that exhibited these qualities?

Well, Mr. Barrier,just a question: if someone would constantly critisize and lambast your work in acid reviews, would you still be able to always work up a friendly and nice attitude toward that person when you cross his path? I have a feeling you wouldn't.

I think Mr. Barrier is a typical "old is better" snob. His review of Pixar's Wall-E was also quite sour by the way.

[Jules]

post deleted

[BelleGirl]

But whatever we may think, his opinions are important because he is a very important and highly respected animation historian.

I feel terrible for saying this, but he doesn't seem very nice.

Maybe that's why he chose 'critic' as a profession.

And to whom are Michael Barriers's opinions important? To the animators I guess, but to the general audience? I don't think so.

He may be a respected animation historian, but he doesn't have to be so snooty and smug. And he isn't the only animation historian out there: think of Charles Solomon for instance.

[Jules]

post deleted

[Mason_Ireton]

Today I did some Pin searchin on Disneypins.com (which I highly recommend) and they're gon'na have oppening day Pins for Princess/Frog

http://eventservices.disney.go.com/pint ... the%20Frog

[DisneyJedi]

I'm sorry, but this M. Barrier guy sounds like a real jerk.

[PrincePhillipFan]

Michael Barrier is a bit of a double-edged sword when it comes to animation for me. On one side, I think he is a very evenhanded historian when it comes to reporting facts, such as the numerous interviews he's done with Disney and Warner Bros animators and storymen over the years, and those interviews provide a valuable resource.

At the same time though, I find it very hard pressed to like him or respect his opinions and reviews on certain films. It seems outside of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, he criticizes every little aspect of even the most highly regarded Disney films such as Pinocchio, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, 101 Dalmatians, and the such. His reviews of Warner Bros cartoons are also very odd too. He adores some of Chuck Jones and Bob Clampett's works, but are very quickly to completely savage other of their cartoons that he doesn't like. For instance, his great and oddly harsh snob bashing on the classic What's Opera Doc, which I think is one of the finest and funniest original cartoons that Chuck Jones ever made. Who else would have the idea to trim down the entire 14 hours of Richard Wagner to 7 minutes and make it more enjoyable with Bugs and Elmer?

I think Barrier is just jumping the gun as he has had on a couple of his other reviews. While some of his criticisms are justified, many times I find them to be just constant overcritiquing or criticising before watching the full product. It seems odd to me that Barrier loves animaion so much when most of them he's simply lambasting many great works of it.

[singerguy04]

well he definitely seems to get a lot more attention for his bashing than his praising...

[Siren]

Michael Barrier seems like a man who likes to hear himself talk.

[pap64]

I say ignore it. Just because he's an animation historian it doesn't mean he is always right.

I personally believe the film will be good in the end. Whether its going to be the best Disney movie ever it depends on what the audience says.

[singerguy04]

Well on TPatF's behalf, there is no such thing as the perfect Disney film. Sure, we all have our opinion on what that would be but I think it's safe to assume the film wont make everyone happy. I'm just hoping that more people like it and see new potential in the studio than people who don't.

Critics are all opinion based. As far as what I saw most of them hated transformers 2 and G.I. Joe, but they were 2 of the hottest tickets this summer. I think it's safe to assume that due to the money made, more product like these films will continue to be made. I know that critics will have to like TPatF more than those films. As long as it makes money, we'll see more of that product!

[BelleGirl]

About villains singing (and dancing):

I really don't understand why Michael Barrier objects to this so much. Sure, we cannot imagine The evil queen or Stromboli singing, but they are not the same kind of characters as Gaston or Ursula. The villain's song are often good and make for great and even unforgetable scenes such as:

"Hellfire" sung by Frollo in Hunchback of Notre Dame

"Poor unfortunate souls" sung by Ursula in The Little Mermaid

And the song "Gaston"sung by -hem- Gaston and his gang in Beauty and the Beast helps to put down this character as the big narcistic person he is; besides, I personally think this song is great fun.

A singing villain isn't even that new to Disney: remember Kaa from Jungle Book singing "Trust in me"?

Villains don't merely sing about their evil plan, and besides that: not all 'modern' Disney villains have a song. It's not so that Disney today just automatically gives each villain a song to sing without any justification, as Barrier seems to suggest.

From what I've seen of Dr. F. thus far makes me think a song may suit his character.

[Disney's Divinity]

I don't think he was talking about villains singing in general, just about how they sing about how "evil" they are. Most people think that takes away from a villain, that they do evil just to be evil (not very realistic at all). I haven't listed to TP&TF's villain song, so I can't comment. Just that I don't think "Poor Unfortunate Souls," "Hellfire" or "Trust In Me" fall under that category. "Gaston" and Madame Mim's song seem more like something he would criticize, though I think both had their purposes.

Anyway, the trailer has me excited. True, the animation is a bit shoddy at many parts, but there were a lot of moments there I liked. Tiana's "There is no way I'm kissing a frog and eating a bug in the same day" was a favorite part of mine for some reason--I think it was the way her mouth was animated. As for the music, I liked the small bit you see of the villain and Mama Odie's songs (I guess they were songs), but that "When We're Human (And We're Gonna Be)" was...eh. Regardless, I'm excited again now. That first trailer was a let down, this one had a lot more to it.

Also, I liked how Dr. Whoever was called the "Shadow Man." I always like when villains have titles (The Evil Queen, the Sea Witch, etc.).

[blackcauldron85]

Walt Disney Studios Hosts Special Engagement of the Princess and the Frog; Ziegfeld in New York
http://www.stitchkingdom.com/2009/09/09 ... -new-york/
(via disneyreport.com)