Scat Cat may have been Louis's predecessor!
Both are trumpet playing, Jazz loving animals



Actually Louis is reptile and Scat Cat is an animal...pap64 wrote:I was watching The Aristocats when I noticed something...
Scat Cat may have been Louis's predecessor!
Both are trumpet playing, Jazz loving animals.
Not to nitpick as well and maybe I misunderstood you....but....disneyboy20022 wrote:
Actually Louis is reptile and Scat Cat is an animal...![]()
But I get your point...I just tend to nitpick every now and then
I think the reason for that was Tiana had just broken Facilier's voodo device and so, the magic had disappeared all together. However, it could still be possible for a princess to kiss Naveen and they could turn back human. Which I have a feeling Mama Odie already knew.Sky Syndrome wrote: Spoiler:
I find it interesting Charlotte didn't become a frog. She kissed Naveen at midnight when she lost her status as princess of the Mardi Gras parade so the kiss didn't make Naveen and Tiana human but the kiss didn't backfire and turn Char into a frog.
I forgot to take the voo doo device being broken into account. Sometimes I overlook things when I tune into a big picture.estefan wrote:I think the reason for that was Tiana had just broken Facilier's voodo device and so, the magic had disappeared all together. However, it could still be possible for a princess to kiss Naveen and they could turn back human. Which I have a feeling Mama Odie already knew.Sky Syndrome wrote: Spoiler:
I find it interesting Charlotte didn't become a frog. She kissed Naveen at midnight when she lost her status as princess of the Mardi Gras parade so the kiss didn't make Naveen and Tiana human but the kiss didn't backfire and turn Char into a frog.
I bet part of the reason the storywriters placed Naveen and Tiana there was to convey the idea that love can even blossom in unattractive places.flora wrote:the swamp was not attractive scenery.
Thank you for the welcome. I saw the movie with my boyfriend who loves animation and loves to draw (he wanted to work as an animator for Disney when he was a child) but he's not a huge Disney fan like me. He was mainly disappointed in the quality of the animation and wasn't too impressed with the story (although it's not his kind of story anyways--he was there because he likes animation.)Babaloo wrote:First of all (but I don't think I'm the person to do this since I'm pretty new too), but welcome to UD!
And I hope no one attacks you for this, sicne it is your personal opinion. A lot of the things you said are things people DID dislike from the movie, but I guess for most of us these flaws were minor enough for us not to dislike the movie (but that might be because we are Disney fans). I personally really liked the movie, but its your personal opinion and I for one wont get mad at you.
Just a quick question though... If you did go with a group of people, did they also dislike the movie (I like to hear what many people thought about the movie)?
What?? I thought it was staying a little longer?!blackcauldron85 wrote:Farewell to ‘Tiana’s Showboat Jubilee’ – but is it Paris-bound?
http://thedailydisney.com/blog/2010/01/ ... ris-bound/
(via laughingplace.com)
I think Disney animation will never reach the same heights as the Disney era films. Back in Walt's era they truly put a lot of thought into the animation process, so much so that they demanded the animators to study life and constantly make their work better.Disney Duster wrote:jpanimation, no one thought that the Renaissance films had under developed villains! And no one ever complained the sidekicks were unfunny!
Also, Disney Toon Studios never got all that near to the level Disney's past theatrical films were. They got better but not really as close as you think that no one can tell a big difference. The Princess and the Frog isn't even quite up to that level, but is still better than the DTV animation and is distinctly good Disney theatrical animation...except for number of frames issues and objects that aren't animated so much as moved across the screen...
Well, I just did. What I typed was misleading and was not really what I meant. I wasn't talking about other people but myself and I wasn't referring to all the films having the same problems but as a collective whole. To say not one of those films during the Renaissance had any of those problems would be ignorant (not saying you are). I was just making a point that the fantastic music helped people overlook many flaws of those films and that if The Princess and the Frog had that kind of music, maybe people would've been more forgiving. I can see now what I said misrepresented what I was thinking.Disney Duster wrote:jpanimation, no one thought that the Renaissance films had under developed villains! And no one ever complained the sidekicks were unfunny!
Well, I haven't seen them all but I saw Lilo & Stitch 2 and the animation looked really good (I could definitely see this being in theaters). Considering your a Disney fan, like myself, its easy for you to distinct the two but as for casual Disney viewing moms and kids, they won't know the difference. They were the subject of my remark as I know Disney fans know the difference.Disney Duster wrote:Also, Disney Toon Studios never got all that near to the level Disney's past theatrical films were. They got better but not really as close as you think that no one can tell a big difference. The Princess and the Frog isn't even quite up to that level, but is still better than the DTV animation and is distinctly good Disney theatrical animation...except for number of frames issues and objects that aren't animated so much as moved across the screen...
Maybe I'm the only one but I thought it looked good. None of the off-model problems of the early Renaissance films and bad CG blending of the later films.Disney Duster wrote:I bet The Princess and the Frog would have looked smashingly beautiful and good had they not stopped doing theatrical animation for so long.