DVDizzy Forum

Goliath, no, I stand by what I said. I do admit that it now is very unlikely that I will like much the studio makes in the future because they seem to be getting farther and farther away from what Disney is. I liked some things about Tangled, and even The Princess and teh Frog, just not enough.

DisneyAnimation, it's an undisputable fact he made changes, but I was talking about what kind of changes, which are not the same ones as say the changes in Tangled. Goliath was wrong for that, and also wrong about ever being able to explain how the changes are the same, he and no one else ever was able to. He may think that he did, but I explained how he was wrong about that, many times. I'm not up for doing it again, I already proved it before, I just wish he finally understood that. Doesn't seem he wants to try and that bums me out.

Dr Frankenollie, I have already written a version of Tangled I feel has more Disney Essence in a thread called What Was Your Version of Rapunzel Like?. It's up to you if you think it sounds good or not, but unfortunately even then, you don't know if it would be good or bad until it actually occured in reality.

And I don't demand just princesses, animals, or certain changes. But those are all things the Disney essence is behind. It's hard to explain, remember. It's just...that kind of stuff. An essence of anything is hard to explain.

And remember I don't remember anyone in Hercules flat out saying Hera was Herc's mother, but if they did, they could have meant it the way I did, that in Disney's version they just call her that since in Disney's she functioned that way. The point is that Heradidn't change her background. She was still the same goddess. She didn't act the same way, but Walt kind of did that too with Sher Khan. However, if you don't agree, then I say Hercules should have been changed to have more Disney essence, too.

Walt was obviously joking about not reading The Jungle Book because, listen to the because first, it's because in truth they would have to read it in order to make any film from it at all. He meant it would be the film that follows the story less faithfully than the past, but Tangled is still way less faithful than that. That is the point. That The Jungle Book is closer to the past Walt films in that it's still not as farly unfaithful as Tangled, and I explained why, but you and so many are so frustrated with me you probably won't even try to see how or understand.

DisneyDude, as I said, I wrote a version of Tangled that could be closer to the original story and I still think would be as good, please read it and judge for yourself if you want. That Beatles reference isn't so bad, it doesn't go as far as to talk about contemporary things like cell phones or something, it's much more subtle and fitting than that like the past Walt films. It's not really a reference so much as modeling characters after current real people which they always did, they always drew influence from current people into their characters.

I think ENG and Hercules have some Disney magic but a little more Disney Essence would've been better. And yes, I am against a lot in The Princess and the Frog, too, for being un-Disney.

Sky Syndrome, I haven't seen Home on the Range, but I bet I would be against that one for being un-Disney, too.

DisneyDuster wrote:Walt was obviously joking about not reading The Jungle Book because, listen to the because first, it's because in truth they would have to read it in order to make any film from it at all. He meant it would be the film that follows the story less faithfully than the past, but Tangled is still way less faithful than that.

You're wrong and now it's obvious that you will do anything to ignore the facts to justify your own argument.

Bill Peet had read the original novel and written a screenplay closely resembling it; Walt felt it was too serious and discarded it, leading to a falling out between himself and Peet. Walt DID tell the animators and production staff not to read the novel and instead pitched them his version of the story, the one we see in the final film. I've read that the novel itself was actually banned from the building during the film's production.

To me now it's obvious that you have a huge agenda against Tangled and will twist history and the facts to justify it. It doesn't bother me in the slightest, you're perfectly entitled to your opinions but you can't continue to ignore the facts. Saying "Walt was obviously joking..." is plain and simply wrong and it's laughable that you would say that when so many sources, including video interviews with the people who made it, say that it is the case.

DisneyDuster wrote:That The Jungle Book is closer to the past Walt films in that it's still not as farly unfaithful as Tangled, and I explained why, but you and so many are so frustrated with me you probably won't even try to see how or understand.

It's not that anyone is not trying to understand, the fact is you are wrong. History is disproving you in every instance in this particular argument; the frustrating thing is that you can't see that and continue to try and convince us that you are right rather than those who actually work on these films.

DisneyDuster wrote:That Beatles reference isn't so bad, it doesn't go as far as to talk about contemporary things like cell phones or something, it's much more subtle and fitting than that like the past Walt films.

Given that The Jungle Book was made in the 1960's, I think the audience would have been very surprised to have seen them in a Disney film about talking animals.

Disney Duster wrote:Walt was obviously joking about not reading The Jungle Book because, listen to the because first, it's because in truth they would have to read it in order to make any film from it at all. He meant it would be the film that follows the story less faithfully than the past, but Tangled is still way less faithful than that. That is the point. That The Jungle Book is closer to the past Walt films in that it's still not as farly unfaithful as Tangled, and I explained why, but you and so many are so frustrated with me you probably won't even try to see how or understand.

Oh, go home already! They changed Kaa into a villain. You'd be going crazy if Disney did something like that today.

The reason this entire argument is stupid is because you make the rules here on which changes are 'disney' and which aren't. You're living in your own world.

Disney Duster wrote:Dr Frankenollie, I have already written a version of Tangled I feel has more Disney Essence in a thread called What Was Your Version of Rapunzel Like?. It's up to you if you think it sounds good or not, but unfortunately even then, you don't know if it would be good or bad until it actually occured in reality.

Exactly...so why are you giving me a link if I wouldn't know if it would be good or bad anyway?

Disney Duster wrote:And I don't demand just princesses, animals, or certain changes. But those are all things the Disney essence is behind. It's hard to explain, remember. It's just...that kind of stuff. An essence of anything is hard to explain.

That's because it's not there. What's that 'kind' of stuff Duster? I think I know what it is: NOSTALGIA.

Disney Duster wrote:And remember I don't remember anyone in Hercules flat out saying Hera was Herc's mother, but if they did, they could have meant it the way I did, that in Disney's version they just call her that since in Disney's she functioned that way. The point is that Heradidn't change her background. She was still the same goddess. She didn't act the same way, but Walt kind of did that too with Sher Khan. However, if you don't agree, then I say Hercules should have been changed to have more Disney essence, too.

Are you trying to irritate us with this nonsense or are you serious? You appear to like Hercules, but you wouldn't if you found out it made a lot more changes than you initially believed? You can't decide whether or not you like something! You can't choose to say "I like Hercules" and "I like Tangled".

Disney Duster wrote:Walt was obviously joking about not reading The Jungle Book because, listen to the because first, it's because in truth they would have to read it in order to make any film from it at all. He meant it would be the film that follows the story less faithfully than the past, but Tangled is still way less faithful than that. That is the point. That The Jungle Book is closer to the past Walt films in that it's still not as farly unfaithful as Tangled, and I explained why, but you and so many are so frustrated with me you probably won't even try to see how or understand.

Duster, DisneyAnimation88 has already said everything important. To keep it simple...that's a load of nonsensical bullshit, Duster.

Disney Duster wrote:Sky Syndrome, I haven't seen Home on the Range, but I bet I would be against that one for being un-Disney, too.

You HAVEN'T SEEN IT yet you CRITICISE IT? (You implied that and SuperAurora said so).

You...cannot...be...serious. This is insanity. You are mad. (x 1,000)

DD, i am seriously beginning to worry about you. You show all the signs of an unhealthy obsession.

im calling the hospital.......is what i would say if i knew where you lived.

Disney Duster wrote:Goliath, no, I stand by what I said. I do admit that it now is very unlikely that I will like much the studio makes in the future because they seem to be getting farther and farther away from what Disney is. I liked some things about Tangled, and even The Princess and teh Frog, just not enough.

You mean, just as far as walt Disney got away from 'Disney' with the Jungle Book?

Disney Duster wrote:Goliath was wrong for that, and also wrong about ever being able to explain how the changes are the same, he and no one else ever was able to.

That's a bold-faced lie.

No bigger lie has ever been told on UD.

My God, how big of a big liar are you.

Disney Duster wrote:Walt was obviously joking about not reading The Jungle Book

WHAT THE FUCK?!

Please try to understand. If you really can't take it anymore, than fine, but there's been lots of misunderstandings and I'm trying to get to an agreement here.

There is actually no proof if Walt was joking or not, because a statement like not to read the book sounds like a joke to me. However, if he simply pitched his version of the story and really meant for no one to read it as some serious strict rule, then fine, he still read the book, so his version that he gave was still based on it.

Kaa actually was always a snake that wanted to eat Mowgli, he only becomes a non-villain after the part with King Louie, unless I am mistaken about this.

And The Princess and the Frog and Tangled are still factually less faithful than The Jungle Book, as The Princess and the Frog was completely changed in time, setting, character backgrounds, and most of the story, while Tangled changed character backgrounds and, well, it could be argued most of the story was changed too much, too. The only thing The Jungle Book did, as far as I know, was change how characters are percieved, i.e. personality, traits, or how others view them, but not their backgrounds.

Disney Duster wrote: Kaa actually was always a snake that wanted to eat Mowgli, he only becomes a non-villain after the part with King Louie, unless I am mistaken about this.

There is no King Louie in the original novel. Not to mention the movie is inaccurate of where the animal in real life originate(orangutans don't live in India). King Louie was a pure Disney made up character.

That and in the book Kipling said the Bandar-log monkeys have(or no needed for) no king either.

Disney Duster wrote:Please try to understand. If you really can't take it anymore, than fine, but there's been lots of misunderstandings and I'm trying to get to an agreement here.

I'm not going to stop replying until you admit that you're wrong, even if it leads to my transformation into a dribbling, trembling and mentally ill shell of a human being.

Disney Duster wrote:There is actually no proof if Walt was joking or not, because a statement like not to read the book sounds like a joke to me. However, if he simply pitched his version of the story and really meant for no one to read it as some serious strict rule, then fine, he still read the book, so his version that he gave was still based on it.

There was proof! In a bonus feature on the Jungle Book Platinum Edition DVD, Richard Sherman stated that Walt was serious when he said that. Admit it Duster! You're wrong! Walt wasn't joking!

Disney Duster wrote:Kaa actually was always a snake that wanted to eat Mowgli, he only becomes a non-villain after the part with King Louie, unless I am mistaken about this.

^ What SuperAurora said.

Disney Duster wrote:And The Princess and the Frog and Tangled are still factually less faithful than The Jungle Book, as The Princess and the Frog was completely changed in time, setting, character backgrounds, and most of the story, while Tangled changed character backgrounds and, well, it could be argued most of the story was changed too much, too. The only thing The Jungle Book did, as far as I know, was change how characters are percieved, i.e. personality, traits, or how others view them, but not their backgrounds.

Since when are backgrounds more important than personalities and traits?

Besides, if I'm not mistaken, I don't think you really answered my question the last time: WHAT ARE WRONG WITH CHANGES? DON'T YOU DARE SAY THAT WALT DIDN'T CHANGE MUCH OR ONLY DID 'DISNEY CHANGES' AND DON'T COME UP WITH YET ANOTHER RIDICULOUS PHRASE. DON'T SAY THAT DISNEY MOVIES BECOME GOOD (OR CAN BE IMPROVED) BY FOLLOWING GUIDELINES; TRADITIONALISM ALSO, WALT REPEATEDLY SAID TO "KEEP MOVING FORWARD", AND BESIDES, THERE WERE NO 'CHANGES' GUIDELINES IN THE FIRST PLACE!

WALT DID CHANGE A LOT. AND BESIDES, IT DOESN'T BLOODY MATTER IF SOMETHING IS CHANGED OR NOT. CHANGES DO NOT MATTER. CHANGES DO NOT MATTER. CHANGES DO NOT MATTER.

Dusty, I think you need to read "The Jungle Book" someday. I like the book(s) and I like the movie, but there's no denying that there's some pretty intense changes. Just adding to list off the top of my head, while it's been a while since I've read the books, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there's no elephant named "Winnifred" in there.

And as long as we're on this topic, what about "101 Dalmatians," where Pongo's wife is named Missis Pongo, their owner is a brilliant financier who wiped out national debt in England, Perdita is a wet nurse dog brough into the household and looking for her lost partner, etc.

and The Little Mermaid having a happily ever after is differ from the actual story, but that's a free pass for Disney, so that one doesn't count really.

The Disney Live Action Jungle Book made in the 90s is probably more real and true to the book than the cartoon tenfold

disneyboy20022 wrote:The Disney Live Action Jungle Book made in the 90s is probably more real and true to the book than the cartoon tenfold

Eh, not really.

Super Aurora, yes, but that's adding characters, which has always been done in Disney films, and none of that is changing individual character's backgrounds.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:There was proof! In a bonus feature on the Jungle Book Platinum Edition DVD, Richard Sherman stated that Walt was serious when he said that. Admit it Duster! You're wrong! Walt wasn't joking!

I didn't see the that feature, I don't own it, but what exactly, quotedly did he say? I don't know how serious Walt was. I don't know if Walt actually would grab the book out of their hands or fire them or something if he saw any of them reading it!

Backgrounds are not more important than personalities or other traits. What you do not understand is I am not talking about how to make the Disney films better, even though the changes could make them better, too. I am only talking about making the films more true to Disney, following how Walt made his films.

I know that he never provided a list of guidelines, but the guidelines on how to make a Disney film come from the Walt Disney films themselves. In order to make a Disney film, you must at least have seen a Disney film before, and learn from that how to make one! That is what I mean! And his films just don't change as much as Tangled or The Princess and the Frog. Yes, he made some big changes, but not the same changes in those films. I have already explained how, so don't get angry, look where I have explained it in past posts, I don't have time to do it again.

SpringHeelJack, actually, with what you said about 101 Dalmatians that I didn't know, you were the first person to be very, very close to making me reconsider what I said about character backgrounds. However, Walt Disney never made as big a change as making someone of a very, very high status (like royalty) be born in a very, very low status (like peasantry, or thief), or make a magical being become non-magical (Mother Gothel changed to an ordinary human being instead of a witch, though her case isn't the worst because she was sorta magical...just, not really). In 101 Dalmatians, the people you mentioned still seem the same kind of class or status.

The reason I think this may be important to the Disney stories Walt wanted to make is because, perhaps, they have to do with the journey the characters will take. Going from a low life to a high life, or living in a world that is either rich and fantastic or more ordinary and pathetic, it has to do with how the story feels. But this is only a guess, it doesn't matter what the reason, what Walt did is still what Walt did.

Hopefully instead of everyone getting made, you will please, please take a little time to breath and think and try to see what I mean. Please. Because I try to see what you mean, too. See, I listened to SpringHeelJack very much, for instance.

Actually, in the book, because of how he wiped out national debt, the Roger character was given a big house by the government and doesn't pay taxes and is very well off, which is a fairly big contrast from Roger in the movie. So there was changing of social class there.

Disney Duster wrote:Super Aurora, yes, but that's adding characters, which has always been done in Disney films, and none of that is changing individual character's backgrounds.

It's still a big change Walt made. That's the fucking point we're making. No and, if or buts.

And for the record, the background did change individual characters as in the book, the monkey took Mowgli in for completely different reason not to mention they really had no "leader" or anything.

Even other characters like Shere Khan and Colonal Hathi were completely change in character and who they are. In the book, Hathi was this old badass elephant that hated human's guts and once destroyed a human village in revenge for being captured. Hell even Mowgli was changed as he ask Hathi to go kill Buledo's village as punishment for threatening Messua.

All in all our point is Jungle Book was drastically change from original source by Walt. This was an example we made to counterpoint your "Walt never made big changes" argument due to your viewpoint on Tangled's suppose "un-disney" change.

Disney Duster wrote:I didn't see the that feature, I don't own it, but what exactly, quotedly did he say? I don't know how serious Walt was. I don't know if Walt actually would grab the book out of their hands or fire them or something if he saw any of them reading it!

He obviously wouldn't fire them, but he quotedly said: "Has anyone read the original Jungle Book by Rudyard Kipling?" There was a silence. Walt then said: "That's okay, because this is how we're gonna do it..." and then he outlined his basic story ideas derived from Bill Peet's concepts, the original book but most of all his imagination.

Disney Duster wrote:Backgrounds are not more important than personalities or other traits. What you do not understand is I am not talking about how to make the Disney films better, even though the changes could make them better, too. I am only talking about making the films more true to Disney, following how Walt made his films.

Before the Disney Renaissance, a lot of the time the Disney Board of Directors sat around in the boardroom and just repeatedly asked themselves: "What would Walt do?" Fortunately for them, people like Roy E Disney, Eisner, Katzenberg, Frank Wells and Howard Ashman realised that Walt would've kept "moving forward." Walt was all about changing from the original source and moving on to different things. He went from animated shorts to animated feature-length movies to live-action to television to theme parks to home and technological development (e.g. the original concepts for EPCOT). He was always changing, and he hardly ever looked back.

Disney Duster wrote:I know that he never provided a list of guidelines, but the guidelines on how to make a Disney film come from the Walt Disney films themselves. In order to make a Disney film, you must at least have seen a Disney film before, and learn from that how to make one! That is what I mean! And his films just don't change as much as Tangled or The Princess and the Frog. Yes, he made some big changes, but not the same changes in those films. I have already explained how, so don't get angry, look where I have explained it in past posts, I don't have time to do it again.

Duster, if you had been running the company after Walt's death, then would be no Rescuers, just a series of heavily flopping 'Disney Essence' DACs; and as a result, there'd be no Disney Renaissance, so no Little Mermaid or Aladdin, and thus no Pixar. Walt would never have wanted his successors to just copy what he did with his films. He wouldn't care if the material was changed considerably or if it was kept quite faithful. There are no guidelines, because most of the classic Disney films are only similar in terms of similar kinds of animation (but that's still only for the pre-60's DACs), great animation, great music and in terms of quality. Three princess films, two doggie films, one film set in the jungle, six package films, a nature film, three fantasty films lacking in romance and three wholly unique films (Fantasia, Dumboand the Sword in the Stone).

It doesn't matter if you think something like Sword in the Stone doesn't have the Disney Essence (which of course would mean that Walt himself would be going against Walt's guidelines and not following the Disney way ), I'm making the point that Walt's classic films are hardly ever truly similar besides the fact that most are high quality.

Disney Duster wrote:SpringHeelJack, actually, with what you said about 101 Dalmatians that I didn't know, you were the first person to be very, very close to making me reconsider what I said about character backgrounds.

YES! SpringHeelJack, keep posting!

Disney Duster wrote:However, Walt Disney never made as big a change as making someone of a very, very high status (like royalty) be born in a very, very low status (like peasantry, or thief), or make a magical being become non-magical (Mother Gothel changed to an ordinary human being instead of a witch, though her case isn't the worst because she was sorta magical...just, not really). In 101 Dalmatians, the people you mentioned still seem the same kind of class or status.

The reason I think this may be important to the Disney stories Walt wanted to make is because, perhaps, they have to do with the journey the characters will take. Going from a low life to a high life, or living in a world that is either rich and fantastic or more ordinary and pathetic, it has to do with how the story feels. But this is only a guess, it doesn't matter what the reason, what Walt did is still what Walt did.

But that kind of journey can still appear, but perhaps with different characters, or in a different way! Character-building arcs still happen even if there are a lot of changes from the source material.

Disney Duster wrote:Hopefully instead of everyone getting made, you will please, please take a little time to breath and think and try to see what I mean. Please. Because I try to see what you mean, too. See, I listened to SpringHeelJack very much, for instance.

I'm gladdened by the fact that you're willing to listen to others, Duster, but you can't deny that Walt's films sometimes lack in what you see as the 'Disney Essence', which is a pretty big hole in your argument. Duster, some of the Disney films you dislike I happen to either also dislike or just find average, but it's not because of changes and it's not because of the Disney Essence. It's perfectly fine if you dislike Princess and the Frog and Tangled, but to make up all these terms like Disney Essence and Disney Change is plain silly.

Nonetheless, I'm impressed by your resilience, as many weaker than you would have given in beforehand, and well done for continuing to state your opinion even when everyone else around you is saying it's wrong. That's a great thing to do.

I'm only going to attempt to touch base on the King Louie bit here.

While adding King Louie, a fully original character, to the Jungle Book is a big change I believe what Duster is trying to get at is that Walt did it before in previous films and since it was already an established thing for Walt to do, it makes it ok to do.

The Doorknob (I believe) wasn't in the original Wonderland books and of course the mice in Cinderella. Gopher is also original, but I'm not too sure if he came out before or after Jungle Book.

SpringHeelJack, hm, that is close. However, Roger was still a born commoner, not changed to being noble or anything. Walt never changed nobility or royalty, that kind of thing. If you find when he did, then I may reconsider, it depends what you find. Also, take an example like in Sleeping Beauty, Aurora was a peasant for a while, but she was really a born princess, so Walt kept her true born status.

Super Aurora, I never said that Walt never made big changes. I said he made different kind of changes. However, if you do think I said before, sometime, that Walt never made as big changes, maybe I did say that, but in my opinion, the changes to the Jungle Book are not as big as the ones in Tangled. But this is my opinion. Which is why I am now trying to get down to the specific types of changes. I'm sorry if I'm maddening, but this is maddening me too. I want to reach an agreement.

Dr Frankenollie, Walt did move forward, but that is a very general statement. We could apply that to anything. We good say relaxing the morals of Disney films would be moving forward. So we have to think what he really meant. Because Disney was also very traditional. He did old, old stories in many of his films, and he did the fairy tale three times, only moving forward in animation style or ways of telling the story, for instance. But in all three fairy tales, the royalty never changed, and beings that were magical weren't changed to being un-magical.

Now you say that all Disney's films were all so different and only similar in being great and being animated. However, there are lots more similarities, they all have to do with nature and organic subjects, all have animals, all have elements of fantasty like talking animals, all can somehow be said to feel magical. Even Sword in the Stone has similar elements of magic like in the fairy tales, Pinocchio, or Peter Pan, for instance.

You may not agree with those similarities, you may not count them. But that is only what you choose to count or not, while the fact those similarities are there is still a fact.

I know that journeys and arcs can be done differently, I was just trying to guess why Walt may have intended he nobility of characters to stay the same. I think another reason Walt keeps it is for the idea of characters being truly high or low as written originally. There's a special feeling to being born royal, or a special feeling to love and marriage with a royal making you royal. Two different things, two different feelings. It just has a classic feel.

And I'm not saying to copy things from Walt's films, just look for similarities and guidelines for how Disney films are made. I don't mean guidelines that were put in specifically to be guidelines, I mean guidelines you can figure out by merely watching enough of the films. As in watch the films and use the films as a guide like Roy Disney said about looking over their shoulder to Disney's past films.

And I didn't make up the term Disney Essence, someone else said the phrase, for what some of us believe is a real thing: what makes Disney films be Disney films. Same goes for a Disney Change, which is simply a phrase for a change that is usually done in Disney films. I'm not making it up, just making the phrase, as people have used words like Disneyfication to talk about the kind of things I am, and people usually understand that.

Chernabog_Rocks, thanks so much. That is also something I've been saying. I will point out the mice always were in the original French version of Cinderella, it's just that Disney made them talk, and have a bigger role.

Disney Duster wrote: Super Aurora, I never said that Walt never made big changes. I said he made different kind of changes. However, if you do think I said before, sometime, that Walt never made as big changes, maybe I did say that, but in my opinion, the changes to the Jungle Book are not as big as the ones in Tangled. But this is my opinion. Which is why I am now trying to get down to the specific types of changes. I'm sorry if I'm maddening, but this is maddening me too. I want to reach an agreement.

I'm not mad for the record. You should know me by now lol.

All I'm saying ( or most of us) Is that the change in Tangled isn't bad and that it does feel like a Disney movie and we can't understand how it is "un-Disney" or whatever.

We only brought Jungle Book up because:

A. You praise Walt high & find his work almost flawless that hardly make changes

B. That Tangled's changes is so radically different and unfaithful to source.


You see, fairytales are mostly short stories and adapting them into full length animated movie takes more to put in and changes to make it work.
I recommend watching the anime series called Grimm's fairytale stories. Each episode tells a different fairytale story. They're really good but also are much more faithful follow-up on actual fairytale sources. You can find em on youtube. But Disney has to make changes to make it a movie.

In Sleeping Beauty's case, the original story was not enough for a movie so they had to trim down amount of fairies, have the 3 full filled more active and involved role, have a bad guy more involved and cause that set movie in motion, added epic fight etc.

In Tangled's case, they added or made changes too but differently from than Sleeping Beauty's case to have the movie be more engaging and appealing for this generation's audience to absorb into. But even though they did that, they still retain many elements of original story into it, and still retain elements in the movie that make it a worthy Disney essence type movie( I mean they practically got the village inspiration straight out of Disneyland's fantasyland).


Only major change that was stupid is the title change. but I think many of us agree about that, but finally gotten over it.

Well, thank you for writing all that to help me feel better about this, and I understand that Disney has to change a lot.

But like I have said, in Sleeping Beauty magical fairies stayed magical fairies, and born princesses stayed born princesses, and born princes stayed born princes.

In Tangled, a magical witch was changed to a born human, a born peasant was changed to a born princess, and a born prince was changed to a born peasant and thief.

It's just that I wrote in another thread a version of Rapunzel that would have all the length and excitement for the new generation that you talked about, but not having the kind of changes above, so it is more like Walt's past fairy tales yet still as entertaining for today's audiences.

I have actually seen the Grimm's fairy tales and even they aren't perfect, changing the fairies in Sleeping Beauty into witches or wise women and in Cinderella they made the magic tree just a random magic talking tree, no connection to her dead mother. But this is off-topic, and I don't care that much, we're talking about Disney Movies, and how Disney movies used to be more faithful before.