DVDizzy Forum

lol oh geez, UD debates, they never end, and they never get anywhere

toonaspie wrote:I wish people would give The Princess and the Frog a break.

That's asking for too much on this forum. They've created the myth that it sucked. Glad most of the critics don't agree.

Edit: ...why am I getting a total sense of deja vu here?

skyler888 wrote:lol oh geez, UD debates, they never end, and they never get anywhere

When it involved Disney Duster, you bet your ass it never gets anywhere.


When DD give explanations what he's referring to, and we give example to counter it, he refute it despite disproving his point anyhow.


This is why Goliath face palm too much to the point that it flatten his face swift clean.

Goliath has a flat face now.

While we're on the subject of twists, I'd like to bring up the fact that changes and twists are necessary when it comes to adapting fairy tales into commercially viable 70+ minute films. Some examples: the original Frog Prince could probably not pad out more than ten or twenty minutes of film, Beauty and the Beast halts after the heroine gets taken hostage, and many stories don't have a true villain.

As for the changes to Rapunzel/Tangled, I think it's fair to say that a lot of them can be justified in adapting an old story for the screen while still retaining its original message. I don't like the title it's ended up with, but I'll take the word of many who've seen it in that the film is a sweet, un-cynical effort, and that dismissing it for the title and marketing campaign is silly. I haven't seen the film yet (it hasn't opened at this side of the Atlantic), and I DON'T WANT ANYONE TO DISCUSS THE FILM IN DETAIL OR REVEAL ANY SPOILERS, but from what I know already, the film addresses some issues concerning the original story. I'd have to see the film itself, but from what I know so far, here are a few examples:

• - In the original, Rapunzel's kidnapping as an infant has nothing to do with the rest of the story. Granted, this isn't necessarily a problem, but the issue of parents never seeing their daughter again isn't addressed, and the only other resolution would be to have Gothel kill the parents.
  
  - Gothel appears in Disney's version to be not an almighty witch but an otherwise normal woman who just uses a few enchantments. Again, I could be wrong (BUT NOBODY GIVE ANY SPOILERS! I HAVEN'T AND CAN'T SEE THE FILM!), but I'm under the impression that she simply dabbles in the fantastic from time to time and isn't a highly powered sorceress with innate magic powers à la Maleficent or Ursula. If she did have magical powers, why would she have to use Rapunzel's hair to climb the tower when we can assume that she'd be able to appear in the tower in a puff of smoke?
  
  - Rapunzel is a very passive character. She seemingly enters the tower as an adolescent, and though she defies Gothel ultimately by letting in the Prince and agreeing to elope with him, she seems to willingly obey and just let her mother run her life without saying a word, at a time when girls normally would at the very least object. By having her trapped in the tower since Day One, there is more of a reason for her reliance on Gothel.
  
  - Once Rapunzel enters the tower in the original, she stays there alone for pretty much the whole story. Just like with Beauty and the Beast, the story would technically come to a bit of a stand-still for a while, probably even more so since the tower is such a small location as opposed to a castle. Getting her out of the tower at an early point in the film is a good way to get the plot moving and to avoid the trap of having a slump in the middle. The basic message of the story is to be able to break away from the grasps of authority and to start a new life, and this changed plot point still facilitates this message.

As for changing locations and time periods, what really is so bad? Many versions of different fairy tales change the settings. Sleeping Beauty is most certainly medieval in Disney's version, but most sets of the Tchaikovsky ballet seem to imply a 17th or 18th century setting. And the costumes in Disney's Cinderella (oh sh*t, the C-word, brace yourselves for off-topic rants ) most certainly imply that it took place in the first half of the 19th century, whereas Charles Perrault's version was printed in 1699 (and most illustrated versions set it in the 18th century, around the time of notoriously high pompadours, Mozart and Marie Antoinette). And then we could get into the debate of when and where Pinocchio is exactly set. Timeless stories, fairy tales included, can be redressed in any time period and in any setting and still have a strong impact.

I'll admit that something like Oliver and Company that tries to be ultra-modern ultimately could end up looking rather dated, but trying to lump The Princess and the Frog in that category doesn't really make sense, especially as the film takes place nearly a century ago. And slamming Robin Hood simply for recasting all the roles with those of animals is ridiculous; you may as well condemn all the shorts that recast Mickey and friends in the roles of classic stories (The Sorcerer's Apprentice, Gulliver Mickey, Brave Little Tailor, Mickey and the Beanstalk etc), or a number of old live-action films as well. See, Walt did too twists.

Goliath wrote:Disney hasn't been very true to itself. It doesn't take itself and the audience seriously anymore. That's the main problem. They try too hard to imitate others, when they really should make something they would want to watch themselves --that's the secret to succes.

Exactly. If you recall the "Making of" documentary on the Little Mermaid DVD, Katzenberg said to practically everyone when he got to the studio that they shouldn't go into the whole "what would Walt do?" spiel as it just wasn't beneficial to try and assume what a dead person that nearly everybody had never personally known would do. And making a film to fuel merchandise never works; it'll become associated with the toys, and will be viewed as a fad of the time.

According to deadline.com, Tangled took in $11.6 million on Wednesday at the box office and its estimated 5-Day Holiday total is $69 million, much better than expected.

@ Disney Duster: this is exactly what somebody else in this thread has pointed out: you say Walt Disney never had major twists in his films, like Disney has done in the past 15-20 years. I come up with some examples, and then you say: "Well, those don't really count". Not because there aren't any twists (cause there are), but because *YOU* don't "feel" they are "major" enough.

And that's why everybody hates to discuss with you. Because when proven wrong, you will *ALWAYS* think of extra criteria afterward, thus justifying your initial mistaken statement. We can discuss for pages, and everytime you get disproven, you will add *NEW* requirements we have to meet in order to show you were wrong.

Walt Disney did make major twists in the stories he adapted. Why is that a bad thing and why can't you accept that? Walt Disney admitted it himself, so why do you have to be so hard about it?

toonaspie wrote:[The Princess and the Frog] It had all the good emotion and story that fits the tone of Walt's classics [...]

Uhm... not really. You wouldn't find such loud-mouthed, obnoxious characters in any of Walt Disney's films, nor was idea of 'funny' hitting some guys in the head a gazillion times --and then hope the audience eventually will start laughing.

To give Disney Duster credit, he is the only one of us who has a firm grasp of Walt Disney's "essence". If only John Lasseter could benefit from his wisdom...

Just to clear something up, what is the next 2D feature after Pooh? Is it King of the Elves or Reboot Ralph?

DisneyAnimation88 wrote: Just to clear something up, what is the next 2D feature after Pooh? Is it King of the Elves or Reboot Ralph?

King of the Elves is supposed to be 3D (or motion capture; not sure, either way it's not supposed to be 2D). And I thought Reboot Ralph was supposed to be 3D, too? Could be wrong though.

Disney's Divinity wrote:

DisneyAnimation88 wrote: Just to clear something up, what is the next 2D feature after Pooh? Is it King of the Elves or Reboot Ralph?

King of the Elves is supposed to be 3D (or motion capture; not sure, either way it's not supposed to be 2D). And I thought Reboot Ralph was supposed to be 3D, too? Could be wrong though.

What Disney's Divinity said. Except KOTE will be 3D, not motion capture.

As far as the next 2-D film goes, nothing has been announced for release after Pooh, but there have been rumors that John Musker and Ron Clements are beginning work on Mort, which would be 2-D. But nothing is set in stone.

I think King of the Elves was cancelled, then uncancelled, then shelved. Or something like that. But it was going to be a CGI feature.

Reboot Ralph is still scheduled for 2013, as feature number 52 (apparantly nothing for 2012). In CG animation, again, though.

After Reboot Ralph is supposedly a handdrawn feature based on a book that goes by the name of 'Mort' Here's a Blue Sky Disney post that might help.

EDIT: Ninja'd by a minute.

Super Aurora, because you are my friend, I'm kind of shocked and hurt you said that. More about why below...

Goliath, did Walt use the word twists? No, because he didn't make twists in his animated features, or make the kinds of twists that the current Disney is taling about.

So for Goliath, Super Aurora, and Wonderlicious, the point is that one word can mean many things. We have seen what current Disney has done with twists, which is different from the kinds of changes the studio made before...Treasure Planet, maybe even before that, when they started twisting from Disney's traditions and wnet downhill.

YOU KNOW THE RECENT DISNEY FILMS ARE MORE TWSITED AND VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT DISNEY WAS BEFORE, ESPECIALLY UNDER WALT.

Wonderlicious, here's the thing. We had over 11 examples of what Walt would have done with the title of his films. Even going as far as to call the Jungle Book by it's original title when it was a movie, not a book. Mainly for these reasons, that is why I am so upset.

Next, I am perfectly fine with changes that are necessary to make the film better and fill the time. However, most of the changes were unnecessary.

First, the original Grimm's witch was not "all-powerful", just a witch. Mother Gothel in Disney version could have been a witch who was not that powerful, and actually needed the magic of the plant and later Rapunzel's hair to be much more powerful.

Next, Rapunzel doesn't have to be a princess. She could simply find out somehow that Mother Gothel wasn't her real mother (perhaps with a slip of the tongue just how Mother Gothel found out Rapunzel was with the prince in the original) and go off in search of her real parents. Or even just go on an adventure out there with her new love, the prince. Which brings me to...

Flynn Rider doesn't have to be a bandit. He could have been a prince who wanted to explore the world and be adventurous instead of settle down or rule. And the king and queen could send their guards after him to get him back. He goes to Rapunzel's tower because he is intrigued and wants to explore it, and he wnats Rapunzel because she's the mysterious prize. But later he truly falls in love with her for her, and she with him.

They didn't have to change it as much as they did and still had a full-length good movie.

Now, about the changing of settings. Cinderella is definately set in at least a place like the one Perrault would have had in mind with his Frenchness and descriptions. The costumes actually look like a cross between costumes from the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. However, the time and place are still, unclear, far off, and invented, just as Perrault probably intended and never specified how they needed to be.

However, The Princess and the Frog not only acknowledges that the original story already took place by having "The Frog Prince" book, but it is highly obvious it is not the place or time of the original tale, and that it is extremely, extremely different from the traditional Disney way of doing fairy tales from before.

As for the shorts you mentioned, those were shorts, not full-length animated features. Fun & Fancy Free is not the same as a full-length version of the story. Now, there were plans to do a full-length version using Mickey and the gang instead of the traditional fairy tale characters, but Disney changed it for whatever reason, and we can't say that just because something was planned one way before that that's what Walt wanted as he still changed it. Basically, you just can't use anything from what was planned but not done. For maybe Walt changed it because he saw the very same thing I'm talking about now.

Dear Disney Enthusiasts,

I love the poster, enimawing, but you forgot to remember that Walt's original heroines were dressed more modestly. I like the cute animals, though, and I think that the perfume bottle is pretty. I seriously like the poster; I know that it's a lampoon, but I still think that it looks cool.

As for Walt, I personally think that he's legendary in a sort of sexy way; I sometimes like to imagine what it would have been like to have been his lover, or his muse, or someone like that. Cryogenics CANNOT evaporate the sexiness from Walt!

As for "The Disney Essence", and "what Walt would have done", we need look no further than Walt himself! Walt Disney seemed to want a blend of financial success and enduring Disney magic. He knew how to craft stories that worked as business projects, childhood fantasies, social commentaries, TIMELESS social commentaries, etc. He never stopped trying new ideas, methods, etc., and he decided that he never wanted his animation team to become stuck in a rut. I believe that he would've fully approved of an all-CGI movie or two, if they'd been perfected, well, to perfection, BEFORE they were released. I believe that, in Walt's opinion, "The Disney Essence" was that overall quality that made a Disney movie different from every other movie that someone could take their entire family to see; in other words, "The Disney Essence" was the entire sum of the marketability, magic, social commentary, superb storytelling, legendary likeablility, etc., that was delivered with every Disney movie that bore Walt's stamp.

If I created all of The Disney Company's future movies, I'd want to make "The Disney Essence" slightly stronger, with regards to strengthening certain aspects of "The Disney Essence". I'd like to add some more historical accuracy to some of the movies, so that they'd become slightly more educational and authentic. I'd like the movies to feature more daring topics, less typical heroes and heroines, etc. I'd also like to promote certain social messages, both literally and symbolically. Of course, my desires might make "The Disney Essence" much less typically Disney-esque; along those lines, I really DON'T know "what Walt would do."

Thank you in advance for your replies.

enigmawing wrote:

Not that I want to fuel this "What Walt would have done" discussion further, but I saw Tangled last night and title change aside, the film reminded me a lot more of the Walt-era films than the 90s Renaissance films. It's a fairly faithful adaptation of "Rapunzel", which as per the usual Disney tradition is simply expanded upon and characters are further developed to fit the ninety minute running time.

Sigh. I'm getting tired of the relentlessness from a certain member now. But I'll go on anyway...

Disney Duster wrote:YOU KNOW THE RECENT DISNEY FILMS ARE MORE TWSITED AND VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT DISNEY WAS BEFORE, ESPECIALLY UNDER WALT.

So, you're telling us how we think again. And to think you agreed with pap64's post in Off Topic, which said "don't try and psychoanalyse forum members".



Basically, stop putting words into our mouths, it's annoying, and you're not doing service to yourself.

Disney Duster wrote:First, the original Grimm's witch was not "all-powerful", just a witch. Mother Gothel in Disney version could have been a witch who was not that powerful, and actually needed the magic of the plant and later Rapunzel's hair to be much more powerful.

Well, I think that the fact that Gothel is constantly using magic to keep herself alive implies that she is a sort of witch either way. Having her as an all powerful sorceress could open a lot of plot holes, but the Grimm version does imply that Gothel had great power:

• "The garden was surrounded by a high wall, and no one dared enter, because it belonged to a sorceress who possessed great power and was feared by everyone.
  Translation by D.L. Ashliman
  http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/grimm012.html

As for the other changes, the film could have gone in so many different directions, that we could talk about it until how the cows come home. I'm just not going to bother right now.

Disney Duster wrote:Now, about the changing of settings. Cinderella is definately set in at least a place like the one Perrault would have had in mind with his Frenchness and descriptions. The costumes actually look like a cross between costumes from the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. However, the time and place are still, unclear, far off, and invented, just as Perrault probably intended and never specified how they needed to be.

Note to self: WHY THE F*CK DID I MENTION THE C-WORD? Next to nobody can ever seem to say anything right about that film, that I almost sometimes wish it never existed.

Disney Duster wrote:However, The Princess and the Frog not only acknowledges that the original story already took place by having "The Frog Prince" book, but it is highly obvious it is not the place or time of the original tale, and that it is extremely, extremely different from the traditional Disney way of doing fairy tales from before.

Well, part of the inspiration for the film came from a picture book called The Frog Princess (hence the working title), which is listed in the credits. I'm not going to start on that film as well...

Disney Duster wrote:As for the shorts you mentioned, those were shorts, not full-length animated features. Fun & Fancy Free is not the same as a full-length version of the story. Now, there were plans to do a full-length version using Mickey and the gang instead of the traditional fairy tale characters, but Disney changed it for whatever reason, and we can't say that just because something was planned one way before that that's what Walt wanted as he still changed it. Basically, you just can't use anything from what was planned but not done. For maybe Walt changed it because he saw the very same thing I'm talking about now.

Oh. For. God's. Sake.

<img src="http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/ima ... lleyes.gif" width="150" height="150" border="0">

First of all, explain why exactly you're excluding shorts from a discussion on Disney animation. They received theatrical release, and were vital to the growth of the studio. I think we can all agree that "The Sorcerer's Apprentice", which I did initially mention, is more important than the majority of the feature films, for it is the thing that caused Fantasia to exist. Your reasoning for slamming The Princess and the Frog in particular falls apart when one considers Thru the Mirror, where Mickey ends up dreaming about the mirror realm after reading Through the Looking Glass in bed. And the reason why Mickey and the Beanstalk was not made into a full-length film was quite simply due to the fact that the studio was in a bad state after the war and material for package features was needed. Mickey and the Beanstalk would on its own probably make less money than some other things in development that could eventually be made into feature films (such as Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan etc), and work had already started on it (voice work and maybe even animation), resulting in it becoming part of Fun and Fancy Free. It can be stated that Mickey and the Beanstalk could have benefited from some expansion in places, which the feature would have provided. The original feature version was to expand on points glanced over in the final version - where the beans came from, in particular - and the finished version relies heavily on narration and a reasonably rushed nature.

And please, for the umpteenth time this year, stop trying to claim to be able to read Walt's mind to bolster your own opinions.

Jackoleen wrote:I love the poster, enimawing, but you forgot to remember that Walt's original heroines were dressed more modestly. I like the cute animals, though, and I think that the perfume bottle is pretty. I seriously like the poster; I know that it's a lampoon, but I still think that it looks cool.

All I did was grab a publicity photo of a Disney wedding gown (cute critters and all!) based on Giselle and added the text and bottle.

Although I find it kind of odd that in one paragraph you talk about how modestly the Disney heroines are dressed, and how sexy you find Walt himself to be in the next.

Jackoleen wrote:Dear Disney Enthusiasts,

I love the poster, enimawing, but you forgot to remember that Walt's original heroines were dressed more modestly.

Slue-Foot Sue says hi:

>>There's a flaw in your logic. Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid are exactly what you seem to oppose. They differ greatly from their original source material (well, at least, Mermaid does a lot), while some slight contemporary material is also added in its place.<<

I don't feel that way at all. I think "The Little Mermaid" and "Beauty and the Beast" are very much in the Walt Disney tradition and are (relatively speaking) fairly close adaptations of the original stories (though "Mermaid" has lost Anderson's theme of ultimate sacrifice) - - and both are chips off the old "Snow White" block, while adapting slightly to modern sensibilities. These are first and foremost sincere cartoons and fairy tales and Walt Disney movies -- for all audiences with an optimistic message and archetypal themes - - and the necessary schmaltz, corn, fun and wonder without a cynical wink in sight.

Before these were made Disney execs fretted that they could no longer make fairy tales resonate with the public --- but there was no problem so long as they were sincere and embraced the stories and traditions honestly. The company was caught by surprise as is often the case.


>>No different than what's been done with The Princess and the Frog and most likely Tangled too. So, those are not good examples. Who's to say that Tangled isn't just as good as any of those films, the reviews certainly point to that direction.<<

Sadly, "Princess and the Frog" has absolutely nothing to do with the Grimm fairy tale "The Frog Prince" which has a timeless and resonant theme about keeping promises, even to the most lowly creature. The movie is about a woman who wants to open her own restaurant and talks about it and works hard until she gets it. It's is not spiritually/emotionally universal common resonant theme or ephemeral moral, merely a politically correct feminist empowerment scenario masquerading as a fairy tale. (That they attached the dreaded "Princess" word to the title in hopes of driving more consumer product sales is Disney's marketing mistake on this film, as "The Frog Prince" sounds far more like a real story than a product line.).

I haven't seen "Tangled" but the postmodernist sassy DreamWorks tone and visual style evident in trailers doesn't appeal to me (nor does the critical title change). It does seem from reviews that they have retained the "Rapunzel" critical thematic hook of the obsessive witch mother needing to cut the apron strings and let her little birdie go, so good for that, anyway.

What I disgree with is any assertion that there is a lack of contemporary relevance to original fairy tale themes and archetypes or corny Walt Disney animated musical filmmaking, all of which remains powerful and resonant and needn't be avoided by the filmmakers.

IE: I think "Tangled" might have been even more successful without the postmodernist tone and withpout the title change, but asserting a place in the Disney classic pantheon as Disney's "Rapunzel".

The additional sass is in my opinion an unecessary marketing overreaction and desire to appeal to the ugly tween demographic of current Disney Channel programming and attendant consumer product lines (which have nothing to do with the beloved Walt Disney animated traditions at all).

That the company overmarketed its "Disney Princess" franchise to oblivion and the poison-label domain of under five-year-olds is their own (easily predicted) problem, not one of the underlying fairy tale materials or older films which stood on their own as stories rather than as part of a pampered consumer entitlement ethic collective.

Goliath wrote:

toonaspie wrote:[The Princess and the Frog] It had all the good emotion and story that fits the tone of Walt's classics [...]

Uhm... not really. You wouldn't find such loud-mouthed, obnoxious characters in any of Walt Disney's films, nor was idea of 'funny' hitting some guys in the head a gazillion times --and then hope the audience eventually will start laughing.

Well I think that is just your opinion. Just because Walt's film are now considered classics or masterpieces doesnt mean they are not flawed. You know many of Walt's films were able to get away to devoting about 1/4 of their movie length time to gag-filled scenes that werent really moving the story foward but behaved more like a Mickey Mouse cartoon within a Disney film...

...and who's to say that everyone was laughing at every joke Walt ever made back then?

Jackoleen wrote:As for Walt, I personally think that he's legendary in a sort of sexy way; I sometimes like to imagine what it would have been like to have been his lover, or his muse, or someone like that. Cryogenics CANNOT evaporate the sexiness from Walt!

Nobody wants to adress this?! Really?!

Wonderlicious wrote:First of all, explain why exactly you're excluding shorts from a discussion on Disney animation.

Because you have debunked his original wrong-headed statements. He has to add new, additional arguments to justify his former position. That's why you can talk to Duster for pages and pages, with no end in sight: he'll always think of new requirements you must meet.

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:To give Disney Duster credit, he is the only one of us who has a firm grasp of Walt Disney's "essence". If only John Lasseter could benefit from his wisdom...

You have to work a bit more on your sarcasm...

Disney Duster wrote:Goliath, did Walt use the word twists? No, because he didn't make twists in his animated features, or make the kinds of twists that the current Disney is taling about.

Oh, for the fucking love of God...! The WORD 'twist' is not the point at all! I couldn't give a flying f--- what Walt would call it; it's a FACT he used them. There, happy now?

toonaspie wrote:Well I think that is just your opinion.

toonaspie wrote:Just because Walt's film are now considered classics or masterpieces doesnt mean they are not flawed.

I never said that.

toonaspie wrote:You know many of Walt's films were able to get away to devoting about 1/4 of their movie length time to gag-filled scenes that werent really moving the story foward but behaved more like a Mickey Mouse cartoon within a Disney film...

Yes, gags and humor are a very important part of a Walt Disney classic. But that doesn't mean they had "the same tone" as PatF, which you argued. Because you won't find that tone anywhere in any Walt Disney classic.

toonaspie wrote:...and who's to say that everyone was laughing at every joke Walt ever made back then?

Sigh. That's obviously not the point. The point is that the humor in PatF was lazy, cheap, lazy, obnoxious, lazy, loud and lazy. That (and a complete lack of an engaging story or interesting charactes, besides Facilier) is what has sunken the film.

Disney Duster wrote:Super Aurora, because you are my friend, I'm kind of shocked and hurt you said that. More about why below...

What did I say that hurt you?? All I said was that when arguing or debating with you, it really doesn't end and goes in a loop-hole cycle.


As for rest of you arguments, I'm going to leave that for Goliath to do since I'm a lazy bum. Goliath is like my debating robot when I'm lazy.



Anyway, after seeing tangled, it really does shoot your theory down anyway.