DVDizzy Forum

Hey guys, I was looking at the shitstorm that's in "What Would You Change in Disney Movies" and the "Top 20 Animated Classic" threads and it seem got over handed. I'll admit and I do apologize on my behalf, for contributing to the derailment.

Most of it seems from debate about Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, and Snow White. So I decided to make a thread in having the discussion and debate to center here where we can debate our asses off over these three simple fairy tales.


So let's bring all discussion to this thread for now on. Sounds good?

I'll start off to get this thread going.


Sleeping Beauty:

Now many here probably know my stance on the movie, but i'll explain and elaborate on it any way. Sleeping Beauty to me is like a double bladed sword. And to not give any false impressions, I do love SB. Don't get me wrong on that. But despite that, I really can't ignore the flaws that are in SB.
Most of the flaws I observe seems from imbalance characterization. You have the side kicks being given more prominent and active roles, while the main Heroine and even the hero, are shafted aside.

Also the movie seems to suffer CIS or PIS meaning "Character induced Stupidity"(malificant) and "Plot induced Stupidity" (Fairies doing all work during the climax fight.)

I'll continue on later.

So here is now the debate on these three. Carry on!

No, I know your position on Sleeping Beauty but your rants on the Three Fairies could use some more fleshing out.

I mean, if you're trying to say they're overbearing- their personalities contrasted each other. Flora is the least likable because she was so bossy and absent minded. But Merryweather put her in her place in the audience's eye(s). And Fauna barely said a word definitively. She's technically my favorite of the 3. Because she seems the most afraid. She see more through her eyes, in a way. And she inspires Flora by trying to add to the conversation about Maleficent. She actually changed the course of the story by just being technical.

How could you possibly hate them? I mean, if you don't care about them- fine. But to me, it kind of sounded like you were beating up on old ladies. At least, that's because I didn't see any reason for your anger toward them.

Lazario wrote:No, I know your position on Sleeping Beauty but your rants on the Three Fairies could use some more fleshing out.

I mean, if you're trying to say they're overbearing- their personalities contrasted each other. Flora is the least likable because she was so bossy and absent minded. But Merryweather put her in her place in the audience's eye(s). And Fauna barely said a word definitively. She's technically my favorite of the 3. Because she seems the most afraid. She see more through her eyes, in a way. And she inspires Flora by trying to add to the conversation about Maleficent. She actually changed the course of the story by just being technical.

How could you possibly hate them? I mean, if you don't care about them- fine. But to me, it kind of sounded like you were beating up on old ladies. At least, that's because I didn't see any reason for your anger toward them.

Well the obsessive hating of them is an over exaggeration. But if I had say my real opinion on them it's this:

I find them, as I've said before, sort of a "in- your-face" deal. Maybe it really just Flora who's like that. I guess when you talk and think about any of the fairies you think of them three as a whole as well. I did watch it recently and I come to like Merriwether a bit more over these other as she a more "I don't take shits from you" personality. But I find Flora and Fauna a bit ....cliche? Fauna is too ....nice. She actually not much different from Snow White now that I think more about it but I she seems so cliche. Like in the ending when she goes " I just love happy endings!" When I heard that the first time watching this movie, My face was like this:


I mad sound like a morbid, negative, and depressing person by that, but it seems off putting to me.

As with Flora, she too much of emphasizing on the "Good vs.Evil" theme and symbolism through out the movie. I get that the movie as a whole is suppose to be like that, but then to greatly emphasize it with very very wholesome christian values into the film seems a little off putting to me.
Like these quotes by Flora:
"Thou sword of truth, fly swift and sure, that evil die and good endure!"
or
"The road to love may be barred by still many more dangers, which you alone will have to face. So arm yourself with this enchanted Shield of Virtue, and this mighty Sword of Truth, for these weapons of righteousness will triumph over evil."
(this quote even more off putting once you get climax scene and they did all the work for Phillip despite that line...)

This may have mostly to do with not liking the Christian religion all that much and that I never see the world "black and White". I guess I watch a lot of animated series that kinda kick that "good vs evil" and "Goodness always triumph evil" themes in the ass.
You have Fauna talking too much about "Joy, kindness, Happiness" Sugar coating words
And You have Flora who all about Goodness, virtue, justice and other moral indulging values at you

Merriweather is ok to me.

I haven't seen SB until 2004 or 2005, so by then my brain already have a developing and rational thinking compared to when I was little. I guess had I watched SB when I was a kid, they probably wouldn't bother me as much.

This is just on the fairies though.

Super Aurora wrote:Well the obsessive hating of them is an over exaggeration.

I completely understand you now. I do that too.

Super Aurora wrote:Fauna is too ....nice. She actually not much different from Snow White now that I think more about it

I saw her more as being a mother nature type figure. Completely without bias, completely fair. But she did do this thing with her voice that really comes out in the deleted "Riddle Diddle" song that does grate on my nerves too. But the music in the final film was always keeping an eye on her, balancing out the sound of her voice from becoming too cloying.

However, that her being like Snow White theory has some merit to it. The only thing I can offer to point back to my original theory is that she doesn't try to play cute. If anything, she just doesn't have much confidence in what she's saying.

Super Aurora wrote:I may sound like a morbid, negative, and depressing person

This is me you're talking to. Checked out my avatar lately?

Super Aurora wrote:Flora, she too much of emphasizing on the "Good vs.Evil" theme and symbolism through out the movie. I get that the movie as a whole is suppose to be like that, but then to greatly emphasize it with very very wholesome christian values into the film seems a little off putting to me.
Like these quotes by Flora:
"Thou sword of truth, fly swift and sure, that evil die and good endure!"
or
"The road to love may be barred by still many more dangers, which you alone will have to face. So arm yourself with this enchanted Shield of Virtue, and this mighty Sword of Truth, for these weapons of righteousness will triumph over evil."
(this quote even more off putting once you get climax scene and they did all the work for Phillip despite that line...)

This may have mostly to do with not liking the Christian religion all that much and that I never see the world "black and White". I guess I watch a lot of animated series that kinda kick that "good vs evil" and "Goodness always triumph evil" themes in the ass.

Well, I can completely understand what you're saying here. My brother is a huge anime guy and I would watch more of those series if I thought they were reaching America in their darker incarnations with no subtitles, etc. I just don't know how to go about getting them. Still all I have is Netflix.

I never saw this film as being very Christian. But as for good vs. evil, not only is that what Disney gives us every time (except for Fox and the Hound, I suppose), but the movie for me came to life more when they were detailing all the bad things that happened. To me, the scene where Aurora goes into a trance and goes into the tower to find the spinning wheel is the most lively scene in the movie. The movie to me feels like it wants to flirt with making evil something really attractive. I mean, consider how green that orb is and then compare it to something like Stephen King's The Tommyknockers where the whole town start turning on each other and the light they come into is green and changed their personalities. Good wins in the end but the evil force in the movie seems to really root itself into every setting in the film. To me, Maleficent did control the castle / royal family for 16 years and wanted to spread herself out everywhere. Even though the Fairies don't say it- her going into their house and everything was to undermine everyone's sense of security. Or, at least the force of evil when you divorce it from Maleficent's strict phyiscal form. The evil in this film to me visually branches out like radiation.

Super Aurora wrote:I haven't seen SB until 2004 or 2005, so by then my brain already have a developing and rational thinking compared to when I was little. I guess had I watched SB when I was a kid, they probably wouldn't bother me as much.

This is just on the fairies though.

I would love to go back and watch these movies again when I was a kid. Everything Disney did then was magical. Even watching the cartoon shorts, even watching old VIDEO ADVERTISEMENTS was like popcorn popping and ice cream melting in my brain. Yeah- my childhood was pretty trippy. I remember obsessively going over the special FX sequences from The Cat from Outer Space in slow motion over and over again back when they had those VHS players where you put the videos in a tray that popped out of the top of the player. That must have been like 1990 or something. A long time ago.

good points but i'll reply to them tomorrow. I gotta work on my comic for school atm.

Good, I have a MOUNTAIN of stuff I need to write for Last Movie Watched.

Ok I'm gonna make this quick as I have some serious fucking deadlines to meet for tomorrow and will be up all night working. So forgive if I made any slip ups.

Lazario wrote:

Super Aurora wrote:Well the obsessive hating of them is an over exaggeration.

I completely understand you now. I do that too.

We know, Lazario, we know.

Lazario wrote:

Super Aurora wrote:Fauna is too ....nice. She actually not much different from Snow White now that I think more about it

I saw her more as being a mother nature type figure. Completely without bias, completely fair. But she did do this thing with her voice that really comes out in the deleted "Riddle Diddle" song that does grate on my nerves too. But the music in the final film was always keeping an eye on her, balancing out the sound of her voice from becoming too cloying.

I can see how she's be the mothery type of the three. Although I think Merriwether the one who really knows wtf she doing when it comes to menial house chores and other assessments a mother would do. I haven't seen the delete song in a while so i would have to watch that again to know what you're talking about. And speaking of, this is something else I wanted bring up. In one of the other threads, you mention SB doesn't have fillers. I will have to say I don't agree with that. And one of them is this one we're talking about. Watching the fairies make a cake, dress and clean, to me IS filler. The only noticeable exception in that scene is when the magic fight hits up and the raven discover the location. Over all that scene, as well and the two kings acting like "bros before hos" segment, are indeed filler.

Lazario wrote:However, that her being like Snow White theory has some merit to it. The only thing I can offer to point back to my original theory is that she doesn't try to play cute. If anything, she just doesn't have much confidence in what she's saying.

I would have re watch snow white again to see this and then compare. I only took the face value of the face both display a sweet innocent and naive personality.

Lazario wrote:

Super Aurora wrote:I may sound like a morbid, negative, and depressing person

This is me you're talking to. Checked out my avatar lately?

You know I actually did check into that when I first saw your avatar. One, I love 80's. Not because everyone else is or just for nostalgia, but I love some of the pop art and themes, especially the colors, during that era. The first thing that caught my attention to your avatar was the pink neon light like title. I love that shit. I grew up in late 80's and early 90's(which carried over a lot of the 80's) as a child and over when to Florida a lot. I would see that stuff a lot and enjoy it. The aqua, pink, light blue colors of Miami, etc. One of my drawings I finish recently and will put up later, has that theme homage I just talk about.

Lazario wrote:Well, I can completely understand what you're saying here. My brother is a huge anime guy and I would watch more of those series if I thought they were reaching America in their darker incarnations with no subtitles, etc. I just don't know how to go about getting them. Still all I have is Netflix.

There are some really really great ones that have some intellectual stuff you might like and enjoy as well as some having very philosophical and symbolic topics. Not all are the cliche DBZ stuff most people think of when they think of anime. Some are even very realistic in art and tone. One I think you might enjoy is Texhnolyze. Really good anime series with some deep deep themes and is type that make you think about.

Lazario wrote:I never saw this film as being very Christian. But as for good vs. evil, not only is that what Disney gives us every time (except for Fox and the Hound, I suppose),

Well I am aware all Disney movies have this, but for some reason when I watch SB in compared to the others, it stick out the most to me.


but the movie for me came to life more when they were detailing all the bad things that happened. To me, the scene where Aurora goes into a trance and goes into the tower to find the spinning wheel is the most lively scene in the movie.
I actually like that scene too even though I find the fairies decisions to take Aurora back before sunset, and then left her alone in her room to be pretty big plot(and character) induced stupidity. But I guess the story have to have that scene anyway somehow so they went with that route, I just thing it could of been lead to a little bit better.

Lazario wrote:The movie to me feels like it wants to flirt with making evil something really attractive. Good wins in the end but the evil force in the movie seems to really root itself into every setting in the film.

Yeah evil always had that attractive feeling because evil is much more interesting than good. Just like in Dante's Divine Comedy, he made Hell to be far more interesting and adventurous compare to when the main character went to heaven, which was describe as "peaceful and boring utopia". It also goes back why some people love the villains of certain stories or movies, because they are far more interesting for audience to absorb.

Lazario wrote:To me, Maleficent did control the castle / royal family for 16 years and wanted to spread herself out everywhere. Even though the Fairies don't say it- her going into their house and everything was to undermine everyone's sense of security. Or, at least the force of evil when you divorce it from Maleficent's strict phyiscal form. The evil in this film to me visually branches out like radiation.

You know I never saw it like that mainly cause I was focusing on Mally's emotional state of the time which at that point she was piss and frustrated. If she did control the castle or royal family for 16 years, I would imagine her expression to be her sitting in her throne with a smug look on her face. Kinda like Aizen or Shishio Makoto did(one of my favorite villains). but what you said last sentence I can kinda see, sorta as a symbolic thematic expression.



ok done lol. probably won't reply until Thursday. Back to work.

Super Aurora wrote:I haven't seen the delete song in a while so i would have to watch that again to know what you're talking about.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/BPfk1_dVptk" frameborder="0"></iframe>

They cut out some of the beginning dialogue but this the bulk of it. She definitely plays cutesy here. Almost like the Fairies were meant to be a counterpart to the Dwarfs and obviously, they really fixed this sequence for the final film. Nothing cutesy there (forget concept, in concept- the audience can make it cutesy but compare it to other Disney films, it's not).

Super Aurora wrote:And speaking of, this is something else I wanted bring up. In one of the other threads, you mention SB doesn't have fillers. I will have to say I don't agree with that. And one of them is this one we're talking about. Watching the fairies make a cake, dress and clean, to me IS filler. The only noticeable exception in that scene is when the magic fight hits up and the raven discover the location. Over all that scene, as well and the two kings acting like "bros before hos" segment, are indeed filler.

How so? I remember the opening to the scene where they're in the book looking at dresses being extremely rich in animation, camerawork, tone, etc. If anything- this section defies what I said about the movie not being cutesy. But I always said this movie's focus was tone. It's a perfect wind-up mechanism that starts with something innocuous and unfolds elements of darkness and danger along the way. Basically, I say, if Aurora wasn't meant to serve as a symbolic element in the story- the ending wouldn't feel happy or complete. It did because of scenes like this. Also, I believe this scene suggests that if the Fairies were capable of outwitting Maleficent, there are areas of the extended kingdom that she can't really touch. I mean, this movie never pulled a Peter Pan and told the audience that the villian would ever invade the "hero's" home turf. And the idea that the Fairies are so elderly looking and genial and helpful to me always suggested they would never be overtaken by Maleficent in some overdramatic battle because it would feel like something akin to George Carlin attacking Doris Day (not verbally). I think Sleeping Beauty is a movie that challenges your perception to stay the same. Or to guess what could possibly happen next if you're not well-versed in fairy tale literature.

Anyway, the 2nd portion of the scene really gets down to the marrow of the bone. Everything in the dress / cake making and cleaning scene was relevant. The first section was about setting a rough time limit and suggesting there would be a crunch period. The 2nd portion is all about the wands and how magic proved an ironic undoing to their specific plans. Tonally, that moment with Flora becoming paranoid and ordering everyone to shut the cottage up airtight is one of the spookiest in the movie. It again reminds us that the Fairies haven't forgotten what Maleficent is capable of. It also served to alert the crow to where Aurora is and turned the entire film around, tonally. Nothing is happy again in the story from that moment up to basically the ending. Even the comedy in the kings' scene doesn't change the movie's tone. When we get in the castle, the sun is setting and we have a clue that Maleficent will strike later, and we see how much importance is stressed on Aurora and Phillip playing their parts when the kings get anxious and stressed, and Phillip dashes Hubert's happy mood (the only guy trying to liven the mood of the other characters). This section of the movie turns things hopelessly downbeat and there is nothing like that in either Snow White or Cinderella. In Cinderella, every "sad" or unfortunate event is turned around in less than 10 minutes with something hopeful or good to keep that formula chuggin' away. These scenes seriously impact the entire 2nd half of the film. What's filler about that?

And remember that nothing in the movie ever treated the minstrel scene with a winking "oh, you" feeling to it like this were a sitcom. He may seem out of place but I think he adds more context to how the people of the court / kingdom deal with these situations under any assumed duress. The guy is almost like Joanna in The Rescuers Down Under. Even though she affects a large portion of that movie, the minstrel here has very much the same intensely eager-eyed "must take this wine, MUST TAKE THIS WINE!" thing going on. It's a small straw to grasp onto, I know but I think it's an interesting theory.

Super Aurora wrote:

Lazario wrote: This is me you're talking to. Checked out my avatar lately?

You know I actually did check into that when I first saw your avatar. One, I love 80's. Not because everyone else is or just for nostalgia, but I love some of the pop art and themes, especially the colors, during that era. The first thing that caught my attention to your avatar was the pink neon light like title. I love that shit. I grew up in late 80's and early 90's(which carried over a lot of the 80's) as a child and over when to Florida a lot. I would see that stuff a lot and enjoy it. The aqua, pink, light blue colors of Miami, etc. One of my drawings I finish recently and will put up later, has that theme homage I just talk about.

I definitely grew up in the mid-90's but I was a junkie for the late 80's / early 90's. Completely out of touch with trends (except for music videos). My background was low budget, direct to cable cheesy action and horror flicks. In fact, I'm hipper now that I ever was as a teenager. As for the design of that movie poster, that's why it's my avatar. That and what it represents: a time when Linnea Quigley, Brinke Stevens, Elizabeth Kaitan, Traci Lords, and Cynthia Rothrock were stars. (B-movie stars. The B-movie changed completely and Paramount were underwriting Puppet Master sequels.)

Super Aurora wrote:You know I never saw it like that mainly cause I was focusing on Mally's emotional state of the time which at that point she was piss and frustrated. If she did control the castle or royal family for 16 years, I would imagine her expression to be her sitting in her throne with a smug look on her face. Kinda like Aizen or Shishio Makoto did(one of my favorite villains). but what you said last sentence I can kinda see, sorta as a symbolic thematic expression.

The way I always saw it was that she spent 16 years obsessing over how she felt she wouldn't be able to deliver on her promise that Aurora would die if she couldn't keep a close eye on her. She was smug on the night she delivered the curse: she's kind of lazy when she thinks she's won. This allowed the Fairies to outsmart her. I mean- she would have noticed the Fairies sneaking out with Aurora wrapped up if she had been watching the castle that night and likely followed them. But she let her arrogance get the best of her. And she knew it would be her fault if she let Aurora slip away, so got very angry. But instead of this putting the kingdom at peace- I say it worried them even more. Considering how vindictive she proved she was when Merriweather mentions her sending frosts just for flowers. I think the movie established a running theme of poor communication between characters. And this was a major element to Carrie (1976) (this is just to show that it has precedence in other films). That trouble would result from characters not knowing all the facts. But since it's Disney, they didn't let Stefan hear Hubert say that Phillip had fallen in love with a peasent girl.

I think theories like this still work if you don't see the film as a strict logical progression from scene to scene connected story.

Lazario wrote:How so? I remember the opening to the scene where they're in the book looking at dresses being extremely rich in animation, camerawork, tone, etc. If anything- this section defies what I said about the movie not being cutesy. But I always said this movie's focus was tone.

The tone is fine just the extended time was longer than it should of been.

Lazario wrote:It's a perfect wind-up mechanism that starts with something innocuous and unfolds elements of darkness and danger along the way. Basically, I say, if Aurora wasn't meant to serve as a symbolic element in the story- the ending wouldn't feel happy or complete.

That's something I don't get from your perspective. Why would if Aurora been bit more develop, would they won't feel happy or complete? The way I look at it, it actually would make it more complete or or happy. Everything during the movie was done for her sake and her protection. If she didn't get much more developed or lines, it only makes it seems like The fairies and prince went out their way to defend a cardboard rather than a person. I mean the whole second half she didn't even speak one line(the spinning wheel scene is an exception as that was done perfect without her saying anything.). Sure animation motions can also helps portray and fulfill character language and meanings, but this isn't Fantasia, this is SB. Had SB went Fantasia route, I'd probably not been much mind on that direction you see SB as.

Lazario wrote:Anyway, the 2nd portion of the scene really gets down to the marrow of the bone. Everything in the dress / cake making and cleaning scene was relevant.

To me I don't see that. Maybe if it was small scene only take small break from forest scene(which it did but came back for more). I find the scene no different from Cinderella's mouse finding beads sequence which is also another filler I get tire and annoyed by. You could argue that with cinderella the scene didn't add or contribute anything positive in the end, but I could say same with SB's sequence. after all that effort to make Aurora happy, she got butthurt quickly that she couldn't see phillip anymore. They didn't even eat that wonderful delicious looking cake. What a waste Only the dress provide relevant later on.

Lazario wrote:The first section was about setting a rough time limit and suggesting there would be a crunch period. The 2nd portion is all about the wands and how magic proved an ironic undoing to their specific plans.

the second part I can get.

Lazario wrote:Tonally, that moment with Flora becoming paranoid and ordering everyone to shut the cottage up airtight is one of the spookiest in the movie. It again reminds us that the Fairies haven't forgotten what Maleficent is capable of.

That scene me a go , "DUUUURRR! no shit!"

Lazario wrote:It also served to alert the crow to where Aurora is and turned the entire film around, tonally.

I already acknowledge that part.

Lazario wrote:Nothing is happy again in the story from that moment up to basically the ending.

I don't think so. Phiilp was happy and eager to deflower Aurora up until he made a wrong turn and met a dominatrix who into S&M.

Lazario wrote:Even the comedy in the kings' scene doesn't change the movie's tone. When we get in the castle, the sun is setting and we have a clue that Maleficent will strike later, and we see how much importance is stressed on Aurora and Phillip playing their parts when the kings get anxious and stressed, and Phillip dashes Hubert's happy mood (the only guy trying to liven the mood of the other characters). This section of the movie turns things hopelessly downbeat and there is nothing like that in either Snow White or Cinderella. In Cinderella, every "sad" or unfortunate event is turned around in less than 10 minutes with something hopeful or good to keep that formula chuggin' away. These scenes seriously impact the entire 2nd half of the film. What's filler about that?

Only thing about that scene that make it null is that the fairies put the whole kingdom to sleep so they didn't find out. When they woke up they seems to be as if they thought they succeed in bypassing the curse. Even though that scene to me is filler. I do like that scene. it make me think of Stephen and Hubert as old college buddies or something. They have that "Bros before hos" attitude. I like that.

Lazario wrote:I definitely grew up in the mid-90's but I was a junkie for the late 80's / early 90's. Completely out of touch with trends (except for music videos). My background was low budget, direct to cable cheesy action and horror flicks. In fact, I'm hipper now that I ever was as a teenager. As for the design of that movie poster, that's why it's my avatar. That and what it represents: a time when Linnea Quigley, Brinke Stevens, Elizabeth Kaitan, Traci Lords, and Cynthia Rothrock were stars. (B-movie stars. The B-movie changed completely and Paramount were underwriting Puppet Master sequels.)

Puppet masters had some kick ass toys of the those puppet characters like six shooter or pinhead.

Lazario wrote:The way I always saw it was that she spent 16 years obsessing over how she felt she wouldn't be able to deliver on her promise that Aurora would die if she couldn't keep a close eye on her.

Yeah that's why I always found it to be a stupid choice. She could of done something like give the royal party a vague annoucement of some thing horrible will happen to her in the future and nothing more. This would:

a.) give the kingdom even more and bigger panic to the situation as they have no clue or idea what wil or could happen to he or when it does.

b.) allow Malificant to easily to herself choose when and what she will do (which would eventually be the spinning wheel scene) thus giving an unpredictable or fate to Aurora. The characters in the movie. we know from fairytale that's what will happen to her.)

It's like:
beginning- yay new baby is born! It's AWWWWRRRRIIIGGHHHTTT!!!

Mally arrive at party- LOL i will give you bad fate to your baby when and what ever I choose! lol

aftermath of event- oh shit oh shit oh shit!!! WTF we do?!

years later- ah things going find and smoothly. It's a bluff. lol

cursed fated day happens: Wah! What are we gonna do on the bed? *POMF*
reaction: OH FUCK! OH FUCK! OH FUCK!

Battle scene: My body isn't READY! Fuck you evil. I'm about kickin' ass, and takin' names

Ending: happy ever after.


It even goes and follows your statement of how the good event and bad events changes interchangeably as symbolic good vs evil battle.

Lazario wrote:She was smug on the night she delivered the curse: she's kind of lazy when she thinks she's won.

That's why I face palmed. Especially one claim be evil of all evil.

Lazario wrote: allowed the Fairies to outsmart her. I mean- she would have noticed the Fairies sneaking out with Aurora wrapped up if she had been watching the castle that night and likely followed them. But she let her arrogance get the best of her. And she knew it would be her fault if she let Aurora slip away, so got very angry.

Anyone would be piss if they realize fucked up and see how retarded it made them out to be. That's why I never say Mally deserving of living up to her hype and claim.

Lazario wrote:But instead of this putting the kingdom at peace- I say it worried them even more.

I dunno, it did say at first they were lonely and sad but as time grew on the narrator address that the people became more lively and cheerful.

Lazario wrote:Considering how vindictive she proved she was when Merriweather mentions her sending frosts just for flowers.

Yeah but it also breaks the point of Mally's curse in question. If she that intent on making Aurora suffer she could of done it easier and quicker
rather than a 16 yrs period where obviously the good guys going try find something to do in turn.

Lazario wrote: I think the movie established a running theme of poor communication between characters. . That trouble would result from characters not knowing all the facts

Yeah I did actually see that running theme through out the movie.

Lazario wrote:I think theories like this still work if you don't see the film as a strict logical progression from scene to scene connected story.

That probably true. However, I still wish the story could of been contructively better written or made. I've seen movies and animated series that have handle both they way you argue for and one I argue for. A balance if I may say.

Super Aurora wrote:The tone is fine just the extended time was longer than it should of been.

I think it all evened out.

Super Aurora wrote:

Lazario wrote:It's a perfect wind-up mechanism that starts with something innocuous and unfolds elements of darkness and danger along the way. Basically, I say, if Aurora wasn't meant to serve as a symbolic element in the story- the ending wouldn't feel happy or complete.

That's something I don't get from your perspective. Why would if Aurora been bit more develop, would they won't feel happy or complete? The way I look at it, it actually would make it more complete or happy.

Actually, that statement I made removed from the sentences bookending it, I'm not sure exactly what that means. (I get a little lost sometimes, I won't lie to you.) But, remember, I'm fine with the movie not trying to develop Aurora as a character. I've even heard people criticize the original fairy tale for the same reason. And I don't believe Disney really developed Snow White or Cinderella much more than Aurora either. In fact, I've said I believe they ran into trouble doing this instead. Granted, most people seem to not care about that but I don't find any of these women compelling characters but I did think Maleficent and the Fairies were compelling characters. The same I can't say for just about any"one" in Snow White or Cinderella. This and the film's imagery have lead me to this whole theory in the first place. And I've read some interpretations on the film as a visual exploration of spiritual themes. None of which ever seemed forcefully Christian to me- so I never took issue with reading people who said Sleeping Beauty actually had a complex view of how spiritualism works. But, to answer your question right, I'll try to say the tone of the film would have had to've been altered just to make the film more conventional. Why should a film as vastly unique as Sleeping Beauty be more conventional? Just because some people don't like that they can't plug into it? Well, I did and I love the film for that.

Super Aurora wrote:Everything during the movie was done for her sake and her protection. If she didn't get much more developed or lines, it only makes it seems like The fairies and prince went out their way to defend a cardboard rather than a person.

Well, I still believe the whole kingdom viewed Aurora as a force of such good that she gave them hope the future would be better. When I look at the movie this way, it seems to work.

Super Aurora wrote:I mean the whole second half she didn't even speak one line(the spinning wheel scene is an exception as that was done perfect without her saying anything.). Sure animation motions can also helps portray and fulfill character language and meanings, but this isn't Fantasia, this is SB. Had SB went Fantasia route, I'd probably not been much mind on that direction you see SB as.

Duster suggested the same thing, in gibberish form. And I don't buy it. I admit I don't know shit about the music's history (which affects how much of SB's score was created solely for Disney's adaptation) but I know a lot of it was pre-composed and many people considered it well-known. So, to me, this is the closest one of their non-package films came to reprising Fantasia. And I don't think there's only one way to go a Fantasia route. Disney would have wanted to do something different than Fantasia anyway (since that film was a financial failure in its' day) but not give up on it entirely. I say the music, tone, and animation more than filled the story gaps- they did so in a way that let audiences' decide for themselves what it meant.

Super Aurora wrote:

Lazario wrote:Anyway, the 2nd portion of the scene really gets down to the marrow of the bone. Everything in the dress / cake making and cleaning scene was relevant.

To me I don't see that. Maybe if it was small scene only take small break from forest scene(which it did but came back for more). I find the scene no different from Cinderella's mouse finding beads sequence which is also another filler I get tire and annoyed by. You could argue that with cinderella the scene didn't add or contribute anything positive in the end, but I could say same with SB's sequence. after all that effort to make Aurora happy, she got butthurt quickly that she couldn't see phillip anymore. They didn't even eat that wonderful delicious looking cake. What a waste Only the dress provide relevant later on.

(This is obviously a joke, but) You have to be like Duster and have faith, SuperA, have faith that... they can just come back to the cottage later and put that sucker on ice. They have magic- they can make it fresh again. That cake will get eaten, believe you me.

As for the rest of what you're suggesting, I'm confused. So, disregard this following paragraph if what you're saying is = the 2nd part was necessary but the 1st part was not:

I'm just going to say it- you're wrong. While technically, the music is driving the magic and the magic is driving the work the Fairies are doing, you can't ignore what else is happening in the scene. Which is not filler in the slightest. I don't know what you mean after the fact that you just called this scene filler that you say "well, duh, I know the crow has to find Aurora" but that and the Fairies' effort to cover up their magic to keep from raising suspicion, this scene keeps the movie going (rather than stopping or slowing it down) and informs the entire second half. Not to mention tonally, it makes perfect sense. They do all this work, as does the animation and music, to make Aurora happy and her unhappiness is what drives the entire rest of the movie, pre-ending, to nosedive into its' downbeat section.

Super Aurora wrote:

Lazario wrote:Nothing is happy again in the story from that moment up to basically the ending.

I don't think so. Phiilp was happy and eager to deflower Aurora up until he made a wrong turn and met a dominatrix who into S&M.

The scene's tone didn't change for Phillip's happiness. You have to look at it from the perspective of the character Disney chose to filter the scene through. It's Hubert's scene with Phillip in it. Not the other way around. And the music that played during Phillip's arrival was bittersweet. I hope my saying this doesn't bother you- but I don't think you're paying as close attention to the tone as I'm saying is crucial to understand my point.

Super Aurora wrote:Only thing about that scene that make it null is that the fairies put the whole kingdom to sleep so they didn't find out. When they woke up they seems to be as if they thought they succeed in bypassing the curse.

Huh?

Super Aurora wrote:

Lazario wrote:She was smug on the night she delivered the curse: she's kind of lazy when she thinks she's won.

That's why I face palmed. Especially one claim be evil of all evil.

Well, to me she is the scariest evil figure in Disney history. She's less cartoonish than Fantasia's Chernabog and requires no actual religion to believe in. She doesn't have the "on the street" accent that the Coachman does in Pinocchio nor operate out of a caravan like Stromboli. She has the power to affect more people's lives than Lady Tremaine. In a sense, she dons a disguise like Snow White's Evil Queen but she proves she's far more resourceful. Although, I'll give Snow White's Queen one leg up over Maleficent: the idea that she makes house calls the way she does would be terrifying if I as an audience member could put myself in Snow White's position. It's not the Queen's fault that Snow White is an idiot. But Maleficent's motive doesn't really come down to it just being an invite snub to Aurora's birth party whereas Snow White's Queen is a plainly petty witch who wants revenge just because Snow White's prettier. Maleficent has more history with the Fairies and the kingdom. Which only makes her scarier (in the discussion of this detail) because the film leaves details about her in the minds of the characters first rather than telling us everything up front. And she has a greater range of tricks than any other villain. She also invades your home, lies, casts spells, sets traps, and STILL is willing to come at you with sharp teeth, claws, and breath of fire. She's a force to be feared in every way. Depending on how far you can suspend disbelief. But I've always said the movie is really asking us to judge Maleficent as a villain by her presence. And by that token- her influence reaches everywhere and touches everything in the animated universe.

Super Aurora wrote:

Lazario wrote:But instead of this putting the kingdom at peace- I say it worried them even more.

I dunno, it did say at first they were lonely and sad but as time grew on the narrator address that the people became more lively and cheerful.

True. But it's a matter of perspective. Does the movie make us feel any rejoicing within the kingdom? The movie always distances us so far from any of the kingdom's people's reactions to the story goingson that we don't get that impression through anything other than that one narrative passage. I mean, how far would you be willing to let one piece of monologue shape your opinion of a movie?

Anyway, you've pointed out a flaw in my original argument and I admit it. But I am saying that the tone tells the story and the movie seems to leave everything up to the audience to interpret. Here's hoping that will not be forgotten.

Super Aurora wrote:

Lazario wrote:Considering how vindictive she proved she was when Merriweather mentions her sending frosts just for flowers.

Yeah but it also breaks the point of Mally's curse in question. If she that intent on making Aurora suffer she could of done it easier and quicker
rather than a 16 yrs period where obviously the good guys going try find something to do in turn.

Not if what she really cared about was making the kingdom suffer. (And, why not all things considered, since they were really pinheads anyway. Seriously- my view of the film is not only irreverant of religion, it also isn't dependent on caring about the people of the kingdom. Even though I still think the film brought good-vs-evil to life for me- these characters are sheep. Especially if you take my opinion of the minstrel as reflecting what I think of the people of the kingdom.)

Super Aurora wrote:

Lazario wrote:I think theories like this still work if you don't see the film as a strict logical progression from scene to scene connected story.

That probably true. However, I still wish the story could of been contructively better written or made. I've seen movies and animated series that have handle both they way you argue for and one I argue for. A balance if I may say.

But those films aren't Disney. I look at Sleeping Beauty as a Disney film first. I've never once made a point about the culture or the world as we know it and then referenced a Disney film. To me, you have to reference Disney and THEN the Disney film.

*gasping for breath* I finally finished it. I had to split it up, actually. Behold. Part 1:

Super Aurora wrote:There are some really really great ones that have...symbolic topics

What do you mean by symbolic topics?

Super Aurora wrote:I find the fairies decisions to take Aurora back before sunset, and then left her alone in her room to be pretty big plot(and character) induced stupidity. But I guess the story have to have that scene anyway somehow so they went with that route, I just thing it could of been lead to a little bit better.

I agree, except I think it is character induced stupidity because the fairies, even though they can be clever, are also emotional old ladies and thought they would be watching Aurora all the time and the King and Queen wanted her home immediately. But it could still be better like you said. And it would be funny if Maleficent's curse was making them have curse-induced stupidity lol.

Super Aurora wrote:Yeah evil always had that attractive feeling because evil is much more interesting than good.

Not always, and only in entertainment (including news or just stories told), and just to most people generally between the ages of 7 and 50.

Lazario wrote:These scenes seriously impact the entire 2nd half of the film. What's filler about that?

Well, even someone driving a car to some place can impact the whole rest of a film. What matters is if it actually feels like it's part of the rest of the dramatic story being told. What the fairies do for Aurora is not really part of the drama except the bit with the wands, the magic fight, and the raven. Gotta say it but for Cinderella the drama comes from the ball dress being a dramatic plot point and the mice getting it is integral for that as well as for the later part where it gets destroyed. In other words when the mice are getting the things, we care a lot because Cinderella's happiness and the drama depend on it. But Aurora doesn't care about a birthday surprise that much, it's not integral to her leaving for the palace. However, I personally like the dress and cake scenes, I just have to agree some of it should be cut in favor of Aurora getting development as should some of the things the mice do get cut for Cinderella to get more development.

Lazario wrote:And remember that nothing in the movie ever treated the minstrel scene with a winking "oh, you" feeling to it like this were a sitcom. He may seem out of place but I think he adds more context to how the people of the court / kingdom deal with these situations under any assumed duress. The guy is almost like Joanna in The Rescuers Down Under. Even though she affects a large portion of that movie, the minstrel here has very much the same intensely eager-eyed "must take this wine, MUST TAKE THIS WINE!" thing going on. It's a small straw to grasp onto, I know but I think it's an interesting theory.

But Joanna was just doing it because she was hungry and wanted to. If you say she's like the minstrel you show even further that he's just doing it because he wants to and not because he badly needed it from the misery he felt over the years, which as I pointed out makes little sense for him to be so miserable and there is no indication he's drinking because he felt so miserable because of the curse or that he wants Aurora back badly. In fact that scene actually shows him to not care very much about Aurora coming back at all, as he nods to the King's toasts only when they call to him, he doesn't genuinely care.

Super Aurora wrote:To me I don't see that. Maybe if it was small scene only take small break from forest scene(which it did but came back for more). I find the scene no different from Cinderella's mouse finding beads sequence which is also another filler I get tire and annoyed by. You could argue that with cinderella the scene didn't add or contribute anything positive in the end, but I could say same with SB's sequence. after all that effort to make Aurora happy, she got butthurt quickly that she couldn't see phillip anymore.

Please take a look at what I said to Lazario above.

Super Aurora wrote:They didn't even eat that wonderful delicious looking cake. What a waste.

I am so there with you man. But I totally believe the fairies sadly ate cake while Aurora cried. To cheer themselves up. And they probably offered Aurora some later. And I bet she took some. Girls eat sweet things to get over emotional stuff like boys. Hell I do that.

Super Aurora wrote: It's like:
beginning- yay new baby is born! It's AWWWWRRRRIIIGGHHHTTT!!!

Mally arrive at party- LOL i will give you bad fate to your baby when and what ever I choose! lol

Yea...but the point was not just to hurt her. If she said that, they would most likely think "Oh no the baby will be hurt when she's still a baby!" Maleficent's plan was actually rather clever because it was "Your baby will grow up so that you grow to love her very, very much...but while she's young, before you know when, she will die!" That means they will get more hurt because they know she will grow up for a while, and it was really about hurting all the people there.

And then I think that works better to make the movie still have all the other plot points than just Aurora being in the castle bored and over-protected, like that old script of the film on the DVD which wasn't as good as the new one I think. Or maybe the idea of her escaping the castle and meeting the prince out there would have been better, though Aladdin did that later with Jasmine.

Super Aurora wrote:

Lazario wrote:Considering how vindictive she proved she was when Merriweather mentions her sending frosts just for flowers.

Yeah but it also breaks the point of Mally's curse in question. If she that intent on making Aurora suffer she could of done it easier and quicker
rather than a 16 yrs period where obviously the good guys going try find something to do in turn.

I don't think so, Maleficent's plan was to make the people suffer, and they did, even though I think it only makes sense for the King and Queen to really be suffering (in fact, how the minstrel and King Hubert act compared to Stefan shows my point on that, Lazario), and she didn't think anyone could do anything about it. The fairies were clever. It doesn't mean Maleficent wasn't, too...except when it comes to figuring out why her goons can't find the princess. Haha.

Super Aurora wrote:

Lazario wrote:I think theories like this still work if you don't see the film as a strict logical progression from scene to scene connected story.

...I still wish the story could of been contructively better written or made. I've seen movies and animated series that have handle both they way you argue for and one I argue for. A balance if I may say.

Yes, it should be balanced like that.

Lazario wrote:I did think Maleficent and the Fairies were compelling characters. This and the film's imagery have lead me to this whole theory in the first place. And I've read some interpretations on the film as a visual exploration of spiritual themes. None of which ever seemed forcefully Christian to me- so I never took issue with reading people who said Sleeping Beauty actually had a complex view of how spiritualism works. But, to answer your question right, I'll try to say the tone of the film would have had to've been altered just to make the film more conventional. Why should a film as vastly unique as Sleeping Beauty be more conventional? Just because some people don't like that they can't plug into it? Well, I did and I love the film for that.

What you have pretty much been saying is that Sleeping Beauty has a beautiful tone and that, with the art, music, and fairy characters, spritual looking/feeling stuff and scariness are why you think the film is good and better than so many other Disney films. Okay, you can just say that. But if the only thing about the film that makes any sense or is that good is the tone, the art, the music and some cool things the characters do, that doesn't really technically make it a good film and most people won't agree. It would just be plain weird to think Disney made the film only for people that were interested in tone and visual or audial art, but also with a story. It's like why pay attention to the characters and story on screen at all? Pairing such good things with a badly told story is what doesn't really work or make sense. That's why Fantasia worked but Sleeping Beauty not so much.

Lazario wrote:

Super Aurora wrote:Everything during the movie was done for her sake and her protection. If she didn't get much more developed or lines, it only makes it seems like The fairies and prince went out their way to defend a cardboard rather than a person.

Well, I still believe the whole kingdom viewed Aurora as a force of such good that she gave them hope the future would be better. When I look at the movie this way, it seems to work.

The kingdom viewed a baby they don't know and was just given gifts of beauty and song as really good? The kingdom already had a good king and queen, and the kingdom was already joyful. I know you like to think the tone of the movie meant the kingdom wasn't very joyful or that they were in a sad state before Aurora was born but there's no proof of that at all, it's only your theories. I agree with what Super Aurora said about developing Aurora being better.

Lazario wrote:the music is driving the magic

No. What?

Lazario wrote:The scene's tone didn't change for Phillip's happiness. You have to look at it from the perspective of the character Disney chose to filter the scene through. It's Hubert's scene with Phillip in it. Not the other way around. And the music that played during Phillip's arrival was bittersweet.

I completely agree. Ever since Aurora can't be with Phillip, everything's pretty downbeaten, except there's still hope Aurora will make it to be with Phillip until you hear Maleficent call "Aurora" creepily as all hell.

Lazario wrote:

Super Aurora wrote:Only thing about that scene that make it null is that the fairies put the whole kingdom to sleep so they didn't find out. When they woke up they seems to be as if they thought they succeed in bypassing the curse.

Huh?

I'm sorry Super Aurora but I gotta second that huh? You typed that up too rushed lol.

Lazario wrote:Well, to me she is the scariest evil figure in Disney history. She's less cartoonish than Fantasia's Chernabog and requires no actual religion to believe in.

You have as much religion to believe in with her as you do Chernabog. Chernabog is not clearly a devil, a god, or just some monster, the only outright spirituality is the ghosts which still isn't any one religion. Maleficent mentions she is sided with the powers of Hell which is specifically Judeo-Christian, though it could be viewed as hyberbole as Super Aurora did/does, though I think she still has actual association with Hell.

Lazario wrote:But Maleficent's motive doesn't really come down to it just being an invite snub to Aurora's birth party whereas Snow White's Queen is a plainly petty witch who wants revenge just because Snow White's prettier.

While Maleficent clearly has more motive than a party snub because of her ego and that she wants to do any evil and as much as she can or pleases, the Evil Queen has more motive, too, in that beauty to her is probably the only thing she feels she has and that it's powerful, but she is getting older, with no husband, and if she had been hotter than Snow White, felt she could have gotten the prince. Both villainesses seem to have motives connected to ego. Even a part of Lady Tremaine, too.

But I agree, Maleficent is a great villain and one of the best because of just how plain awesome she is with her presence and such, even though some things about her aren't good like what Super Aurora pointed out and the stupidity with the goons.

Lazario wrote:But those films aren't Disney. I look at Sleeping Beauty as a Disney film first. I've never once made a point about the culture or the world as we know it and then referenced a Disney film. To me, you have to reference Disney and THEN the Disney film.

If you must view the films as Disney to lower them so much in order to see them doing something a little different from their past ones to be seen as something really great...dude, that just makes this film look bad now, and neither me nor Super Aurora think it's bad.

Lazario wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:What I mean is that Aurora was given too much time, story, and attempts at character for her to be just a symbol. But she wasn't given enough as a character, either.

I don't think it's wise to say if an artist has a really ambitious idea, they must make it fit within the parameters of other Disney formulas. All your suggestions would serve would be to inject more warmth into an idea that requires more tonal darkness.

No, I'm saying if they had the idea you say, it didn't work, and even though this film is supposed to have tonal darkness, Aurora is supposed to be a symbol of warm things, and she's not a warm character or symbol, that should be better.

Lazario wrote:I didn't mean that she sat back and didn't search for Aurora for the 16 years. I'm saying that she didn't bother to pay attention to what Stefan, the Queen, and the Fairies might have been doing the night she issued the curse. That night, she was gloating and basking in superiority. Then, she quickly realized after it was too late what she should have been doing. That's likely why she was so pissed. That she would have to spend 16 years having her mistake shoved in her face. Having to wake up every day and realize that her arrogance is the reason Aurora got away.

And yet, part of this theory still rings as brilliant because the Kingdom has every reason to continue being afraid. Of retaliation. Her potentially taking out her anger upon innocent people since both Aurora and the Fairies are gone. Well... this might have happened if we weren't watching a Disney movie.

They still could have implied that she was retaliating somehow, or that she would retaliate, but they didn't do either of that. And nothing you're saying goes against how bad it was that she didn't know her goons were looking for Aurora wrong for 16 years.

Lazario wrote:You can't judge Maleficent the same way I judge Snow White. My criticism of Snow White relies on what she's learned and what we've learned about her in the movie. She has a relationship with the Dwarfs, the animals, and the Queen. This is why it's important for that movie to make logical sense when she's putting herself in harm's way the way she does. It ruins the rest of the movie on a story level. But Maleficent doesn't have a relationship with her henchmen. We see them in one scene, they don't have any real characters, and... hell, neither does the bird. That's why I'm right that they are just figures, like Aurora. I've said this in posts dating back years before now. The only characters whose specific actions are important to consider are in 3 camps. 1, Good: the Fairies. 2, Evil: Maleficent. And 3, the Messengers: pretty much just Phillip and King Hubert. Anyway, I'll likely get back to that later. In the meantime, I already told you that Maleficent can't be judged as a person and that labels used for people don't work with her. She is a force of evil. Don't ignore what I said if you want to argue against a point I've made. You of all people being both a highly spiritual and a very imaginative person should be able to look beyond the surface of something.

Speaking of things I said years ago, I also took care of why it doesn't matter that the movie doesn't make logical sense. The music has an ominous or heady tone running through the entire thing (although, this is an important note: the 2008 Platinum Edition 5.1 track doesn't sound quite right- but the mono tracks and any track on the 2003 Special Edition DVD will show you what I'm talking about), save for perhaps the ending as soon as the Kings wake up and begin talking. This drives a great deal of the actual story. Not that the animation doesn't also have its' own mind-fucking effects. The only thing I've been able to liken these outrageous and visually darker sequences to is astrology. A more haunting version of Disney showing the birth/evolution of the planets in Fantasia. There's a lot of star and ball(s) of light imagery in the film. People have tragically lost a basic understanding of how much the imagery in Disney's animation itself tells the story and influences what the "logical" parts of the story really mean.

At first it sounds like you mean to say, the bad things about the movie doesn't matter, it's still good. And I would agree with you, this thread was just about how to improve the bad parts, really. But then with what you said about Maleficent, okay, let's address her as a force of evil. Okay one, how in the hell is she just a force of evil? She's got feelings, as revealed by her anger and later love/softness with her bird, plus Marc Davis suggested she had Phillip tied up to be her f*ck slave, like the very human Evil Queen did after all, and she's got an ego, she was hurt at not being invited to the party. She's got personality, a name, characteristics, she's a character. Of course, I believe she could also be a pure force of evil/demon from hell, that is in the form of an actual character, though really I think she's a fairy that sided with the Devil. But let's say she's just a pure evil force. Okay, so that would make the goons her evil force, too wouldn't it? They look like in-human demon creatures just like her. But they are quite obviously stupid. And she does have a relationship with them, because we do not only see them in one scene, we see them in one scene toward the beginning and many scenes toward the end, and it is implied she's been using them to fight for her for 16 years. They are her guards and bitches, she is their master, that is their relationship. And what doesn't matter is if you can say that they can't be stupid. What matters is if they look stupid to the audience and like less of a serious threat. And that's what they look like. And that's what we're saying should change. Except the goons don't need to change because we can believe and evil fairy got sh*tty henchmen stupider than her to be beneath her and do her bidding. It's her looking almost as stupid we can't believe.

And let's say for example, there was something like an evil demon force that entered, I dunno, a Maleficent costume. And the costume keeps walking into doors. Sure we're still scared of some other stuff it could do, but it looking so stupid their takes a lot away from it and makes us less scared. It makes us think we could defeat it really easily. It's not good filmmaking. It is obvious that Maleficent is not supposed to be or look stupid. She was given a regal and sophisticated appearance. But this is ruined slightly by the scene we are discussing. It wasn't ruined for me when I was a kid, and I don't think it really ruins it now, but since this thread is about what we would change, I have to admit it should be better.

Aaaand Cinderella had loads of glowing stars and light everywhere, implying a heavenly thing. No, it's not planets or the universe being made. It's stuff on a higher plane (that admittedly Sleeping Beauty you could say also has).

Lazario wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:I did however like that you pointed out how her laughing and gloating at how much better she is than everyone else turned out to be her downfall by giving Phillip the chance to stab her. But Phillip had it all too easy up until that point, and then, him being able to stab her is not by his character but by a convenient window that is super obvious, and he's further helped by the fairies. If he had narrowed his eyes at her stomach while she was laughing then we could get a sense of his character actually making intelligent tries to defeat her, but instead, we just get easiness for him.

Well, the reason for that is pretty obvious. Remember that Flora had monologuing left to do? Her point about evil dying was kind of essential for the movie to make. And, here's another thing: this fight wasn't really Phillip's, was it? Seriously? Who has more history- Maleficent and Phillip or Maleficent and the Fairies? Remember, I said this was a movie about good versus evil. Not the heroic love story of a boy and a girl. That's your take on it. You keep trying to steer this back to: it's the same as every Disney movie and the point is the boy and the girl. That's a smaller part of the movie, not the main focus. It's introduced in the 20-30 minute section of the movie and wrapped up at the end. It has its' place. But the main focus is still good versus evil.

But Flora already monologued about how "The road to true love (not good defeating evil) is barred by many dangers, which you alone will have to face." And then they help him every way, until finally, as you say, it's really just the fairies against Maleficent, not Phillip alone against her. I have tried and tried to see how this is possible, and I thought that maybe it's because the fairies shrink down and Phillip has to take the front of it all, but nevertheless, her speech not only looks like an error with what we see later, but it's existence disproves that this film is mainly about the fairies and Maleficent, good and evil. It really is about how true love conquers all, like it also mentioned in the beginning of the film with Merryweather's gift. Remember, Walt Disney wanted the prince to have more personality...that alone hints that this was supposed to have Phillip be more of a character than a figure, but for some reason they messed up because he has personality for a section of the film and then doesn't talk again. The fairies can help Phillip, even in the end, but they needed to make it look like Phillip was fighting, and well, with his character and his power of true love, too, doing things that the fairies could not, so he followed the "alone" part. I would like to think that the "alone" part is him getting caught in the briars, and him throwing the sword, while the fairies don't get attacked...but it's just not very good Lazario, it's just not very sense-making.

Lazario wrote:

Disney Duster wrote: How so?

First of all, look at what comprises comedic filler in Sleeping Beauty versus either Snow White or Cinderella. Look at the incredible gracefulness of the characterizations here. Because the movie's tone is so powerful, the characters are made to play smoother. It's a perfect mixture. Yet, conflict still exists. In ample amount. Because there's so much more to the animation and the music than either Cinderella and Snow White, both of which are a lot cruder in every way in comparison. Much more is (this is THE dorkiest and easiest "film school" thing for me to invoke here but I have heard a lot about this and it certainly applies here) shown to us than is told. And because it requires less naivety in its' audience. It's a more challenging movie. As I think has been proven recently considering the crass and sad criticisms it's gotten from *ahem* certain people on the forum. People who are now claiming Snow White is a symbol herself: of something sacred and precious that must never be criticized or made fun of. Sleeping Beauty has less baggage.

The only thing I agree with is that the animation of Sleeping Beauty is more sophisticated. I actually think the scores of both Snow White and Cinderella are better because they were written for the film instead of forcibly adapted to scenes that were never part of the ballet. Conflict exists in some of Snow White's filler, such as the general idea that the dwarfs are learning to accept and be changed by Snow White, and it definately is in Cinderella's filler, since the mice are constantly battling for their lives and even more often battling for Cinderella's main goal.

Lazario wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:But the film did try to give us characters. It's obvious, as I pointed out they tried to make Maleficent have humor

Well, if you think Evil itself can have a personality, fine. It's not a stretch to say it's capable of making jokes. But, honestly, the humor you're detecting must be amazingly subtle because I didn't even pick up on it. Are you actually saying because she laughs that she has a sense of humor? She didn't truly find the situation that amusing.

It's not about the humor she tries to make, it's that they played her for humor, like with the "disgrace to the forces of evil" line. It makes her a funny character, when she's supposed to be pure feared evil according to you. But she does try to make humor herself. Many times. With her line about the fairies being "rabble" or much of the dialogue she says to Phillip.

Lazario wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:and someone to talk to just like they gave Aurora some animals to talk to

That's not true. She just gave it an order. Her dialogue during the fire celebration scene was really directed at the audience. You can't assume that she spoke to the bird frequently based on these short moments.

"My pet", "you are my last hope", "let us go to the dungeon" is all talking to her ravenm who has a name as well like Lucifer the cat, the name is Diablo, and her reaction to it being turned to stone shows her sentimental feelings and relationship with him, too.

Lazario wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:If they had made Aurora a super great beloved character, with a great life that gets taken away from her by the spell, I could see feeling really bad for her, but as it is I don't feel that bad.

Disney has almost never tapped into that kind of depth, Duster. Pollyanna is the closest thing I can think of. The only times they've ever come close in animation is when they've invoked an extreme approximation of something tragic. Pocahontas comes to mind, for obvious reason (the fact we know genocide is involved in the cultural history of native Americans). However, Disney certainly gave the Fairies very realistic reactions to the moment when it looks like Aurora will never awaken.

Yea, they did tap into that depth. With Snow White. If you don’t think so, countless moviegoers did and do. And when do the fairies have a moment where it looks like Aurora will never awaken?

Lazario wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:Viewing the movie as just good fighting evil and the steps it takes is also not that great because the steps taken aren't that great. Maleficent not telling her goons what exactly to look for is a dumb move. The fairies taking the princess back too early is a dumb move, even though it's kinda interesting to think "the curse is making them do it" but that's the only good excuse I have. The fairies magically doing everything for Phillip is too easy. It’s not good or interesting moves.

I've dealt with the "Fairies taking the Princess back too early" in past threads. But I think I also covered that well here. I've mentioned practically since I arrived on the board that the music's tone tells the characters what they're supposed to do. The music suggested it was safe, and therefore the Fairies proceeded to move forward. I never said the music wasn't going to lie to them. (Which of course makes the movie all the more fascinating.) And I know Disney already animated the Fairies choosing to arrive too early but Walt himself said a lot of the creative ideas were influenced by the score of the movie which he says was written (I think he said on the television special about the making of the movie) "more than 50 years ago." I also said in this very thread that the movie is not bound by typical Disney storytelling logic. Which makes sense since I've said that's why I love it so much and consider it one of Disney's most unique and best films.

I saw the ballet of Sleeping Beauty. Not only did it move me and make me cry like Sleeping Beauty never did, but it had no music suggesting fairies taking the princess back early because it felt right (especially since the princess is always in her home castle) or any thing like that. As Goliath said you cannot hear the music to your own film, the characters are not meant to do that, but if you mean the music is a metaphor for the good and evil atmosphere, magic, the curse, and the feelings the characters get, I can understand the idea…but I don’t think that’s what’s happening at all. When the fairies say they are taking Aurora back…the music there is extremely sinister and foreboding, suggesting it’s not safe (remember, they say this just as the raven is surprised he found Aurora). There is absolutely no evidence that your idea of the magic or good or evil in the atmosphere making them do anything is really in the film at all. Even freaking Cinderella has a better shot at such an idea as there are holy choral voices telling her to keep believing when she cries in the garden and once again when she thanks her fairy godmother after the ball. Of course Sleeping Beauty has magic in the atmosphere with choral voices but not making anyone play the game moves you claim they are. And even if you idea was true, it wouldn’t necessarily make the film better. I don’t think it would. Because there still are characters on the screen with minds of their own that are supposed to be taking the focus but their stupid or boring or done wrong. If you enjoy the movie more and think it’s better when only listening to the music and watching the animation, that’s a big uh-oh for what that says about the quality of the film as a whole. But you can certainly think the film is better because of it’s animation, music, and atmosphere. I think that’s been how you feel all along. You can just say that, you know. It’s just that it’ll be your opinion, not fact.

Lazario wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:Finally, what we're saying is Disney should have done something else in Maleficent's scene with the goons. Why not something like, after a while of all their searching, the goons were just goofing off for themselves because they had given up on the search but still pretended to search, and she finds this out by a slip of the tongue or something and she fries them after that?

Because it's still ruled by logic rather than how evil really works. You're not being fair with the movie. Each force is given its' due time to control the board. It's very much like Pong. The ball is on one side and one side only at a time. That's why the music suggesting it's safe when it's really not or dangerous when it really isn't is such a progressive storytelling element. The movie is BEAUTIFULLY unobvious on that first viewing about whether it's safe or dangerous. Whether Good or Evil is in control. Everything tonally is suggested but NEVER mapped out. Just look at how many different forms Maleficent takes throughout the film and where she pops up.

If evil doesn’t work by logic, then how on Earth could Maleficent laugh at her goons doing the stupid, illogical thing of looking for a girl of the same age for 16 years in the first place, and then electrocute them? This shows that Maleficent does understand, and laugh at, an illogicy. She was just SLOW to discover that illogicy, making her look stupid. And if evil in this film can recognize illogicies, it can understand logic, and work logically. There. Now that argument’s finally dead. We can think maybe there are reasons for why she didn’t find it out till that moment and that she’s still smart, but we’re trying to make the film better by suggesting how or just saying the scene should be changed. As for the other stuff you say, eh, maybe it’s in the film, I’m not even sure about that, and you can enjoy it if you really do see it in the film, I admit some of it’s possible, but it doesn’t make up at all for what I find lacking to be in the film. And the film is still mapped out the same way other Disney films are. You know that Maleficent is going to make the curse happen somehow. You know Phillip’s going to wake her up somehow. You just don’t know exactly how. Just like in Cinderella, you know she’ll get to the palace somehow, but how? The music is happy but turns when sinister thing is about to happen, like when Aurora’s safe until Maleficent appears in the room, how Cinderella might join her stepfamily until Lady Tremaine starts to walk closer.

Lazario wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:"Even walls have ears" is actually an old idiom that just means someone could overhear them.

Ahh... NOT when the movie shows us Maleficent has the ability to pass through stone and brick walls. As a version of herself does during the scene of her placing Aurora in the trance. See? The movie brilliantly pays off something you're suggesting had little importance in the movie or that most people never paid attention to in the dialogue.

And again, it ups the playing field. When you see this, it's scary AS HELL. And the first time I saw this movie, I could tell the music was suggesting when Flora said "even walls have ears" that Maleficent could very well have had some extension of her power acting as a microphone.

Maleficent does not have microphone-like powers. Only her bird, goons, or herself being there can hear anything. In order for her to pass through walls and be somewhere invisible, she must know where something is that she wants to be invisible for. Maleficent could’ve been around there hearing what the fairies were saying…it’s just that she wasn’t. If the goon and raven at the cottage scene weren’t present, we could have thought she was there and knew everything all the time. Anyway, what you’re saying about this mysterious scariness is pretty cool and does add to the film…it’s just that…I never thought what you thought before about the film, and since I know that Maleficent isn’t around when Flora fears she is, and actually has dumb goons doing her work…it is not something that really improves the film for me. And I doubt it does for others but who knows, ask them. Maleficent being able to be invisible when she knows where to be, however, is still a cool thing that does up the film for me.

Lazario wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:I specifically said Aurora's singing without notes. If Aurora just sang "I Wonder" or even "Once Upon a Dream", it would cover all four of the points you made.

No, all 4 of the points I made WERE covered. 1: the second she starts singing, we know she has a beautiful voice. 2: she uses her voice to charm the animals ("beloved by all who know her"). 3: her voice travels to Phillip and he is enchanted by it. 4: every moment of this sequence was using her singing to fill something the story already set up or will use to pay off later.

You were wrong. And... well, more wrong than I've seen you be in a LONG time.

Yes, they were covered. Which means that when those parts are covered again by her second song, it’s stretching to make filler. The second song reveals Aurora is lonely and wants a prince, but she could have done it the first song. The fact that they waited till her second song shows they were trying to stretch her songs out and fill time as in filler. And if they had her second song be the first song (which isn’t really a song but just notes), it would have made more sense and made the film better by having her lines about “if my heart keeps singing will my song go winging to someone…” perfectly match up with Phillip hearing her song as in he is the someone her singing heart “winged” to. It doesn’t work that well with her singing those lyrics after he already heard her and is now dripping in a river.

Lazario wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:But the prince could have met her just by following her singing.

She stopped singing, Duster. And when she was singing these lyrics which are so important to you- she was singing quietly and to the animals. When she started singing, she sang out to the forest. That's how he heard her. When we see him again, he's too far away to hear her.

And stop this bullshit "could have" business. Well, I know this is meant to be the thread for that. But you decided to be bitchy and told me I had no evidence.

What I’m getting at is that what is in the film isn’t so could so I’m suggesting how it “could have” been better so you get why I’m saying it’s not so good. And I’m saying the scene with the animals being in his clothes seems like filler because it isn’t necessary, the prince was able to get to her very easily another way to tell the story more concisely and better. In Cinderella, the reason the mice have to get the things is because Cinderella can’t do it and it also leads to her stepsisters taking back their stolen things. There is not other way to do it. This is why it’s not filler, because it’s necessary. Only Lucifer going after them is slightly filler but it’s during a scene that is necessary of them still getting the things, while Aurora dancing the animals in the clothes is a detour from the necessary.

Lazario wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:This scene doesn't do much. This scene kinda sorta shows her playfulness, which would be good for her character if it really was something endearing, but it's not really and it's just not that much of anything. These actions don't make us care for her more when she's asleep. It's just not particularly great or something we care that much about.

All your arguing with this is that the movie isn't as sappy as the other Princess films. Which is fantastic because not only does it make the movie different (again, HI!) but it makes it date better. In fact, I know several (other) cynical people who think this is easily one of Disney's best films. Period. It managed to cross lines with audiences no one ever thought a Disney film would.

No, it’s not about being sappy. It’s about making us care that she’s onscreen alive and well and later care when she “dies”.

Lazario wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:But Cinderella and Snow White's friends stuck around and fought very hard for them, after those heroines showed great love and kindness to them, which helped make the heroines and animals all much better characters.

Here we go again: I already told you Aurora AND the animals serve a different function in Sleeping Beauty. Different NOT inferior. Regardless of how much you think the film lacks warmth, this is not a problem.

I don’t think you did say what different function Aurora and the animals serve. What is that different function?

Lazario wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:But that's not the real problem since they inserted the Beaver character in Winnie the Pooh for the same reason but he was actually funny and had a lot more character and tried to help with the story by trying to get Pooh out. In this film the minstrel is good for one joke

This is obviously very off-topic, but you'll see what I do with this directly following. You know that VERY famous joke from When Harry Met Sally; "I'll have what she's having"? It was delivered by a woman in a cameo who wasn't even an actress let alone an established character in the movie and it went on to become one of cinema's greatest one-liners.

Audiences decide the worth of a character, regardless of who that character seems unfunny to. And you'll find A LOT of people love the minstrel. So, take this up with them. I think he's a thief and should be fired.

If the minstrel was limited to an appropriate amount of time such as that women, Beaver, or the one joke I find him funny and that I’m guessing is the only reason anyone says they love him, only then would he be good in the film.

Lazario wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:As for representing all the things you said, he doesn't. If he was, they would need to really show it, probably by lots more people getting drunk, and showing that they were really sad for a while

Not to intelligent people who don't need everything in a movie to be spoonfed to them. This movie kind of does what I admired at the very beginning of Cinderella: it spends the whole movie telling us A LOT with very little. So it packs so much more into its' framework than the other Princess movies.

Your idea of what the minstrel does was made up by you, with an extremely doubtful degree of certainty and no evidence to back it up. If you want to compare it to Cinderella, we hear from the narrator what’s happening. We see from Cinderella, her father, and her stepfamily’s stances and expressions what was happening. No such evidence is in the minstrel scene. He doesn’t even look sad before he drinks, and he doesn’t look overjoyed about the princess, or anything.

Lazario wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:which was why would a whole kingdom be that miserable for 16 years? If Aurora was going to stop the misery Maleficent was always causing them before she was born, sure, but I don’t know how she is, so she’s not, and we never see what Maleficent does that makes them miserable anyway, if it really is anything at all. And in her disappearance these people would normally just be a little sad when they think about her but then carry on with their own lives and their own personal problems.

Again: if you need everything spoonfed to you, you might as well go back to Cinderella.

In other words, these theories that I made up and know I didn’t get at all from the film are how you think better movies work. But those theories, which are made up because I know I made them up, are not what actually is in the film, they’re not real. The real reason is the one they “spoonfed” us, that the town was sad because the princess was gone – that was it. The narrator told us. That was the reason. And it’s not a very good one. It makes little sense for how real people would act in that situation.

Lazario wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:As it is, the scene with not just the minstrel but also the kings does nothing. It makes Hubert look like an ass who just cares about grandchildren and not his friend Stephen's feelings. Stephen doesn't seem nearly sad enough and doesn't show us the toll of what Maleficent has done. And the two kings get into a really stupid argument that doesn't end very funny at all so it actually does show them as buffoons and we just don't really care.

I can't yell at you here but I explained above as you'll read when you get to this post that character actions are dictated a lot by the music or tone of the movie. Beside the fact that the music is trying to suggest this scene isn't very sad / depressing (which is a set-up for the moment where Phillip destroys Hubert's hopes, and unlike Cinderella's King, this actually makes him FEEL bad- so you've been highly neglectful with this "buffoon" theory of yours), it also arrives on the heel of the scene where Aurora's happiness is destroyed (far as she knows). This isn't Grease: there's not going to be a splitscreen putting them both in the same moment of sadness. Stefan is viewed as anxious. Which makes sense since he is talking to someone he doesn't want to show weakness to.

Stefan and Hubert are friends. They can show weakness to each other. There is no evidence he’s afraid of showing weakness to someone he can fight so easily with. And weakness, wtf his daughter’s been gone for 16 years, everyone knows it and how the king would/should feel. The tone of the music makes them sound funny, light, and, yup, bafoonish, because it doesn’t matter how you act later, you can still look like a buffoon at another time, which they do. The tone of the music does not make up for any of what I brought up. And we still should see the pain and suffering this whole drama the story’s based on has caused the king and queen at some point, and we never do, even when given ample opportunities with scenes with them.

Part 2 is next.

And here it is. Part 2:

Lazario wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:Even if we know she will get to the palace, we still see she is worked too hard and abused by her stepfamily

Only in the form of cliches that focused more on her fantasties (the "Oh Sing, Sweet Nightingale" scene being a perfect example) and pounding home that dream theme.

What cliches? Especially when you can call almost anything in any Disney movie a cliche. And no, your forgetting also the scenes showing how early she must get up, how she must get up the troublesome Lucifer, feed him and all the animals, bring breakfast up to her stepsisters, do all their laundry, all very quickly, and the extra chores she gets for being accused of something she didn't do.

Lazario wrote:Every scene where she works focuses less on her actually working than it does establishing her animal friends or her dreams.

Yea, like a good movie that builds more than one aspect at a time.

Lazario wrote:But when that "You Are Here" element comes back into the movie to remind us how obvious every scene is for playing into the "Hold on, Cinderella- it's almost over" rather than a balanced and natural progression of someone who feels like they've gone through a legitimate struggle - like I said, it makes it impossible to take it seriously. To get into it and make me care like you say the movie makes us.

That's just what you see. It's hard to take you seriously when you're saying it needs a balanced and natural progression after a struggle when the way she gets out of her struggle is through a chance ball, magic and animal friends as in the original versions of Cinderella. It's as balanced and natural as can be for the Disney version of such stories. Cinderella struggles enough in having faith and trying to get her stepfamily to let her be happy as well as helping out in the climax of the film. And the mice certainly struggle as well.

Lazario wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:we see she's good and deserves happiness, we see her try for happiness, and so it is all balanced and fair that she gets to go to and live in that palace.

There's no such thing as standing around "being good and deserving happiness" giving you what you want in life. If we keep taking what you're saying about Cinderella at face value, we're saying the power of faith will give you exactly what you deserve. No, Duster. What the power of faith does for you is (in theory) give you the strength to keep working for your goal and get it yourself. Cinderella has everything handed to her.

Yea Cinderella didn't stand around. She kept trying to please her stepfamily to let her be happy, she then made them accept that she should get to go to the ball, and then she worked doing all they required to try and go. Then she thought to know what to do to get out of her room and get a slipper to fit. And yes "faith does get you what you deserve" in either the practical way of it giving you more ability to do what you need to get it yourself or in having faith that the people and events you need will come through to get you what you need.

The only problem you can say is that the film should have made it more apparent that you need you use faith to get your happy ending yourself by what you do, and maybe you're right since a lot of people don't seem to get the film showing that. It's there, just maybe it should be made more apparent. Okay, maybe that's one thing that could make the film better. Sure.

Lazario wrote:She doesn't have a complicated relationship with the step-women: they're all bitches. In fact, that wouldn't make the movie better anyway. We love the fact that they're all evil and not complex. For Disney, evil characters are better loved when there's no true backstory or depth to why the villains do what they do. Oh, and none of this is me arguing that she doesn't try to trick Cinderella. But, think about it. Does this change the kind of person she is? No, she's still a bitch. And you realize the second Cinderella left the room, she went: "Of course... I said 'If.'" Another Hitchcock type thing: we the audience know what the characters don't. Same with Snow White.

Yes, we know they're evil. What's complicated is how they legitimize or disguise it so they can get away with it around Cinderella. What's complicated is that they need to seem reasonable and normal sometimes. What's complicated is Cinderella was able to get her stepmother to let her go for an instance before she thought of how to stop it, and how in later times Cinderella seems to best her and we wonder how the stepmother will stop that one, until finally she can't.

Lazario wrote:Sleeping Beauty, on the other hand, doesn't tell us where Maleficent is and what she's doing every step of the way.

We don't know what the stepmother will do all the time either. When Cinderella comes down in her dress, we don't know how the stepmother will ruin it till it starts to happen. Same with locking her in her room. Same with tripping the footmen.

Lazario wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:And I don't think Cinderella was thinking in particular of networking or social climbing but it can be safely assumed she knew it was there and at least thought "there's great opportunities there, whatever they may be".

I don't remember that part of the movie. And I've seen it. Several times.

Disney Duster wrote:it can be safely assumed

Lazario wrote:It's not my job to say you're in denial. But you have made it your job on UD to tell everyone you think Cinderella is the definitive Disney film.

No I haven't...but I certainly would love to think it is. : )

Lazario wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:Meanwhile I think Sleeping Beauty has a great atmosphere and great good and evil characters and even perhaps a great battle like Lazario said - it's that the way that battle plays out sucks

That depends on what you expect from it. The fact that it's a film featuring a Princess does mean that it's not going to be the ultimate sword-&-sorcery fantasy epic. I'll admit that the movie kinda looks like a dress up version of something legitimately religious. But their idea was to fill the frame of a fairy tale full of intricate tonal playfulness and deliver visual clues that it wasn't playing. Maleficent certainly does that. All that has to happen in the story is for her to find Aurora and then look what she does. She literally invades the Fairies own home, again passes through fucking walls, and turned into a fire breathing dragon. Yeah, she cashed in her chips!

This still isn't saying the battle is played out well.

Lazario wrote:This is what the movie gives us. Stop bitching about what is missing. I'm also judging Cinderella and Snow White for what they are, not what they aren't. And you can mention Goliath until the cows come home, but he didn't face this fact either: judge the movie for what's in it, not for what's missing.

I was never intending to judge the movie at all. I've simply pointed out things in the movie I think are wrong or should change or could be better. It's not just about what's missing - it's more about what they looked like they wanted to put in but didn't put in, such as a character we care about in Aurora, or something that is indeed in the film and is problematic, like Maleficent finding out the goons were looking for a baby only when her time's almost up even though she's been trying to find her for all of that time.

Lazario wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:Well actually maybe you can say when the animals are grown up maybe it was done bad, I have to watch it again, but it's not as bad as the heroine of Sleeping Beauty being someone you don't care about

Who keeps telling you that Sleeping Beauty can't work if it doesn't focus on the Princess? Stop. Telling. Me. Disney. Movies. Must. All. Follow. The. Same. Rules. Every. Time.

No, but it should follow what it sets up, which is a movie called Sleeping Beauty that opens with a celebration about her and characters that really care about and focus on her and a big, long, boring scene in the middle that is all on her and then it's also on her in the cottage and finding out she's a princess and then it's on her when she returns to the castle - if we're going to have this much focus on and watching of her then we need to care about her but we don't.

Lazario wrote:

about Cinderella, Disney Duster wrote:From the film we know she'll have love.

She's not a believable character, even in fiction, anyway. Seriously, you don't hear me arguing that Maleficent stalking the characters in Sleeping Beauty proves that there are demonic, shapeshifting witches watching over us or that because the music dictates what the characters will do that some supernatural force is in control of our every move.

Yea Cinderella is believable. I believe her, so many people have said she's one of Disney's most believable characters. She's at least as believable as Disney movies go and we were arguing that her happy ending is believable and not cheap, and it is as believable as Sleeping Beauty's or any other, if not more so.

Lazario wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:everyone else there will treat her kinder than her stepfamily

Good point. Unlike certain people on this board (I know that doesn't include you), I can admit when I think the other person has a good point. In fact, that I can't argue with it. That I'll give you.

Ok, well, thank you.

Lazario wrote:Though at one point you argued Sleeping Beauty had a problem with suggesting Aurora was unfairly sold into an arranged marriage. Cinderella does this too, in fact: this is how Cinderella becomes a Princess. And without becoming a Princess, there's no happy ending. Therefore: happiness in this movie is the equivalent of an arranged marriage and Cinderella doesn't have anymore a magical meeting with the Prince than Aurora does with Philliip- it's just built up with more fluff whereas Sleeping Beauty gets down to business.

As Goliath said, it is no arranged marriage, and definitely not comparable to Sleeping Beauty. Cinderella wanted to attend the ball, possibly wanted the prince, definitely wanted the man she met, and definitely tried all she could afterward to be with him because she wanted to. Also, Cinderella’s romance is way more magical. For one, she and the prince spend way more time together than Aurora and Phillip. Two, they have a very magical sequence of them falling in love with effects, scenery, and song lyrics that express their feelings toward each other that they share and is all more magical than Phillip spying on Aurora, being pushy and “catching” her, and then twirling once or twice till they come to a tree. I believe both romances and I find them both romantic – but Cinderella’s is better.

Lazario wrote:And I don't deny for a second that it's an absurd notion to suggest Aurora exists in Sleeping Beauty to be what is that movie's equivalent of a Dashboard Jesus. But, here's the thing: nobody takes any message they assume Sleeping Beauty has seriously. They just think it did a better job of delivering a fantasy that is just that. Just escapism. It hardly says real girls should model themselves after Aurora. And it sure as hell doesn't offer any excuses or claim that what Aurora got was a dream for anyone.

Sleeping Beauty does say that what Aurora gets is a good dream for people to get. She’s been dreaming of a romantic prince to be with, and she says if you dream it more than once it’s sure to come true. Disney most likely did hope that people, especially girls, in the audience, would relate to this hope of a dream like that coming true. But I will admit Sleeping Beauty’s only real message is “true love conquers all” while Cinderella tells people in real life to believe in their dreams. Sleeping Beauty wasn’t trying for that kind of thing. But what did you mean by Dashboard Jesus?

Lazario wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:Also from what we know about royalty in addition to the words on the proclamation (that you have to read fast or pause to see) we know she will not retire but actually be a ruler of the kingdom.

That would be an interesting point were it not for the fact that something you have to read that quickly to contemplate doesn't have dramatic resonance over the story. At best, what it is is a mind-fucking tool meant to shake up whatever opinion of the movie you already have. And that's way after the fact. Why would Disney expect high praise for inserting a clue into a movie that nobody gets until VHS and DVD technology becomes available to the public- more than 30 years after the film has already established a reputation and made a cinematic history for itself?

No, everyone’s supposed to realize she will become the ruler of the kingdom. I’m just saying that you negatively said all she would do is retire, and showed you that there’s evidence that’s not all she will get, other than general knowledge and suggestion.

Lazario wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:and we've seen that the King was going to let the prince choose a bride and when saw there were bad choices was willing to not make him, and then the prince saying he'd only marry who fit the slipper showed he could stand up for what he wanted from the King too.

The King wanted him to marry, the MOVIE gives him its' little perfect woman in the very first scene we see him in. What you're saying here holds no water whatsoever. The Prince is only shown taking the deal the King offers, therefore the King doesn't need to try and force him to pick a woman. This is not a good example of great filmmaking. This section of your argument is a write-off.

No, you really haven’t proven how I’m wrong or holding no water. I explained all I needed to. You are the one who is writing it off.

Lazario wrote:Besides, the closer you really look at the scene- it's sickening. The Duke is a good, reasonable man who says early on that this is a matter of love. The King says everything can be arranged. That's almost the same as saying the King is God, really. AND he's portrayed as a cutesy element in the movie too. Instead of castigating him for his arrogance and for trying to control a life that wasn't his (and, no, I don't view that one tiny bit where the baby beats him over the head with a rattle as any kind of self-criticism or admission that he's an asshole), it REWARDS him and gives him "adorable" baby dreams and a moment to gloat over the Duke. The DUKE, who is the only person showing anything resembling sincere concern for how the Prince is treated. The movie abuses the hell out of the Duke and plays it for comedy. This is ABUSE. Of him as a character, of his as a person considering how many times he was physically at the mercy of the King's wrath (another thing standing in the way of viewing this film as being fair), and in the story, the movie takes the King's side.

The King is despicable about love. But then so is the Duke. He says that a fairy tale like meeting someone at first sight can’t happen. The King treated him badly, but he acts like an ass to the King, too. The film kind of takes both sides and neither side, as Cinderella and the Prince do meet like the King wanted but also fall in love on their own and with time like the Duke wanted and it does not all go how the King wanted, it is partly up to the Prince and Cinderella. The main point of the King is that his unreasonable arranging and hurrying of the Prince’s marriage, which the Prince was against, turned out, remarkably and luckily, to be fortunate in getting Cinderella what she needed. And yes, as Goliath said, the abuse of the Duke is not supposed to be taken seriously. Not because the movie can’t be taken seriously. But because the King is not a character who is a serious threat, he just has anger issues and is really good deep down. He doesn’t seem to be that serious about offing the Duke. He’s silly, not serious. In real life during this time, there were kings who, even though they were considered good by the standards of their time, still executed people and it wasn’t seen as a problem. Audiences of today see a problem with it. Of course it really is a problem. But it’s not necessarily a problem with the film, as the film is just showing what kind of thing happened back then.

Lazario wrote:As well as the Stepmother's acts of generocity being something the audience knew was a front, so therefore we can't put ourselves in her position because we're already ahead.

We’re not supposed to put ourselves in her position, we’re supposed to be against her. We can see how she loves her daughters and beats down Cinderella to raise them up, and that that’s a good motive for her, but that’s all we need.

Lazario wrote:I mean, I didn't even mention all the stuff the friggin' dialogue told us that Cinderella the character didn't catch.

I’m curious as to what this is.

Lazario wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:By the way why would Disney ever intend to make their male prince lover for their heroine to be happy with a gay guy? Are you even thinking about what Disney actually truly would intend in their films?

Subtext is an interesting thing, Duster. Many filmmakers have realized years after their movies have come out that they were subconsciously suggesting things they didn't know they were with their films. Anyway, I said it's a theory, so I can't prove it. But we've talked about this and you remember. So, consider it from my angle: given what we're actually told about the Prince and the fact that he won't settle down, is it more likely that he's been whoring around with too many women OR that he hasn't shown any interest in women at all? Really. Remember that yawn as he meets the women and think about it again. Disney as a studio has been world renowned for forcing morals into their stories that are conservative in nature. Who's to say that Cinderella's Prince doesn't function as an example of Disney's disapproval at a man being gay and insisting that he just hadn't met The Perfect Woman yet, and that once he did- she could turn him?

The Prince is probably not whoring around or uninterested in women. In the pictures talking about where he’s been all this time, we see him horseback riding, and with a sword. He’s out exploring, adventuring, doing royal duty or fighting stuff. This is why he hasn’t settled down and this is what the film has truly been suggesting all along. And sure he yawned at the women, but Goliath was right about why because even the King, who is straight, said “even I can’t expect the boy to…” showing the King understand the Prince is yawning because the girls are bad for the Prince. And then of course, the fact that the Prince hurries over to the very sexually attractive Cinderella, grabs her, spends the whole night with her, grabs her again and tries to stop her from leaving, and declares he will marry only her, is extremely huge proof he is not gay.

Plus, Disney has had Ferdinand the Bull and The Reluctant Dragon, two gay characters who, I don’t know for certain, but I suspect were allowed to be their gay selves by the end of their short films. And to top it off, in Cinderella, Jaq and Gus seem to be possibly suggested to be gay in that film, and they are not made to turn straight or be broken up.

Lazario wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:Like I said above it may be about how faith in her dreams is faith in herself that helps her to work towards her dreams

Well, she has her dreams handed to her anyway. So, the message you're giving kudos to does not apply. Not the way you're claiming it is. And, remember Duster, I know the movie uses magic to help her and that's great. It's charming. It makes the movie a great fantasy. But it must be judged separately as a piece of art if you're going to insist on taking it seriously. That's all I'm saying.

Her dreams are not handed to her if she did things to get them, such as have faith, try, work toward them, and think of things, that all make them happen. I pointed out what they all were before, including that even if this part isn’t realistic, at least in the film, her faith is what got her her dreams, they weren’t handed to her.

Lazario wrote:MY argument. That the movie continues to map out everything Cinderella's going to get too far in advance. Things like this do undermine being able to take the drama of something like Cinderella being locked in the tower seriously. Because of both the fact that Cinderella isn't surprised that the Godmother has arrived and the Godmother saying Cinderella is going to get a miracle. When placed in a realistic context, the miracle is Cinderella beating the odds and getting to go to the ball for a night. But what the Godmother is alluding to is the fact that Cinderella doesn't need to make any decisions or great actions to obtain her dream. And she doesn't. She literally gets in the pumpkin, walks up some stairs, dances with the Prince who already took care of their meeting and everything else, goes home (though I give her props for having to hoof it barefoot for an unknown dozen amount of miles), and waits for the Duke to arrive so she can come down the stairs and sit down. That's all she actively is responsible for. Everything else is decided and done for her.

She was surprised the fairy godmother appeared. And she was surprised at the “miracle” line. It was only when she figured out it was her fairy godmother that she was less surprised because then it made sense. Indeed, the miracle is that Cinderella will now have magic make most of her dream come true, but this miracle was obtained by her faith, trying, and hard work beforehand, and she does still need to leave that slipper, get Bruno to let her out of the tower, and use the other slipper to obtain the rest of her miracle.

Anyway, the movie still does not map out what will happen too far in advance. We still don’t know how what the fairy godmother will do will get Cinderella to the ball or get her eternal happiness. The film does not map out things more than other Disney movies, let alone Sleeping Beauty. And even if it did, this does not matter, it is not bad. Because once you’ve seen the film, you know what will happen in advance anyway, what matters is that you enjoy what happens, not that you are surprised by it happening.

Lazario wrote:I know how the magic part of the film works. And I'm fine with it, I have no qualms with that at all. When people understand that the magic is the only thing doing any work. I think the believable human element in this film is limited to the King and Duke.

Cinderella believing through all the pain and doubt she goes through is work, if not fitting your definition. And of course her work in being kind and good all the time and doing things for the mice and her stepfamily and trying to get to the ball by pushing her stepmother to let her and trying to meet her requirements and trying to think of ways to get out of her tower and use the other slipper – it’s all work, done by the human element in Cinderella.

Lazario wrote:But you're the one who wanted to discuss these movies with me and I gave you the courtesy of listening to what you're saying. You haven't done the same with me. The problem is that you have flat out ignored the points I've made about Sleeping Beauty. You can't break that traditional Disney mold from your mind and really see it another way. You keep bringing it back to the same argument: that the movie isn't warm enough and Aurora isn't active enough in the story. In fact, every argument you've made about the movie is exactly that only worded differently. That's why it's frustrating. I look at Cinderella through your view but you don't actually look at Sleeping Beauty through mine. I've admitted numerous times that I can watch Cinderella as a fantasy and accept everything magical and everything I think is lacking about Cinderella's involvement as a character in the story for the interest of enjoying the aesthetic.

No you haven’t been listening to me because I never said Cinderella is just a fantasy. I have been trying to listen to and think about what you say and your view. For instance when I said even if it is about good and evil, or a battle of moves, and I pointed out how it still doesn’t work very well that way. Or when I say even if some characters are symbols more than characters, how they don’t work that way, and how Bambi does it better. I am trying to see your way, and when I do, I still don’t see it working very well. Or, I try to see your way, and I think or see that that’s not the way that the movie is intended at all.

Lazario wrote:And I proved that Snow White was responsible for putting herself in harm's way by BOTH ignoring / forgetting the Dwarfs' advice AND forgetting that she acted as though nothing scared her more than the Queen. The plot suddenly having her not take notice of the animals' sudden and INCREDIBLE change in character, that she was more scared of the Queen than anything, AND the Dwarfs telling her clearly not to let anyone or anything in the house ALL AT THE SAME TIME is too much to believe unless you're not paying attention. No, I don't believe emotional investment in Snow White's character - considering that she doesn't have a character or any real personality to begin with - doesn't change that.

Snow White is a little hard to believe if you think as harshly as you do, yes, but with her smiling at the apple, not letting the woman in, then quickly reacting with her heart to help the woman instead of taking a long pause to think about the birds, the queen, or the dwarf’s warnings because she feels she needs to help the woman right away is believable. I think it could be better by making Snow White a little more believable and less naïve, but how, I dunno, perhaps by looking at the animals, wondering why they did that and thinking she’ll talk to them later, but even if she was less naïve, her character being one that always goes with heart and caring about others before herself is her having a character and personality and being more realistic as most 14 year olds would not change that part or much of this scene.

Lazario wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:Oh, I should have worded that as “Snow White might have thought the animals were attacking her just because she looked frightening”.

That's not how she reacted. She reacted to this as though the birds were attacking an innocent, harmless old woman. Even though she was seriously creeped out by her. And again, no I don't buy when you add everything up, that the power of goodness is what drove this plot forward.

No, she told the animals angrily to stop it. This reaction works for Snow White who clearly thought the woman merely looked frightening at first but then thought she was innocent and kind by the time she offered the apple. If you don’t buy it, of course you don’t, your Lazario, who’s rather harsh like that. Snow White is definitely doing what she does out of her goodness, it just is also combined with her innocence and naivete. If Disney made her less innocent and naïve, she just might be a little more cautious about what she does, checking for weapons or something, who knows. But it would play out about the same.

Lazario wrote:

Disney Duster wrote: Yes but ironically her wish for a prince worked, he came, so in a way that was her dictating the plot

Nice try, Duster, but this isn't Sleeping Beauty. His showing up at this point wasn't a form of irony, it was so the audience wouldn't go "what the fuck?!" when he showed up for the first time in the story at the very end to kiss her. Now, take him out of the equation and put the puzzle pieces back the way I arranged them and take another look at what I said.

There you go again, saying Sleeping Beauty has to be different, but Snow White can’t be like that because you don’t like it. What I said works. If you don’t buy it, tough. Don’t talk to me about puzzle pieces I have to arrange so I can make your argument work for you. Say something that actually forwardly explains what you mean. And don’t give me any distraction about it being “too easy” to do that, be up front and well-explained instead of acting mysterious or too pretentious to do so. I know you like to be like that, but it doesn’t work for people to get what you mean. If you think we’re too dumb, tough, you still have to explain yourself for people too understand if you want to get anywhere.

Lazario wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:her other “reactions to what the plot throws at her” do have bearing on the plot, the forest was thrown at her, she ran away

Uh... she ran away because someone told her to. She ran into the forest and that scene has no bearing on the plot either.

She was told to, but she still made it out on her own, when she could have ended up getting lost or hurt or dying in there. This does have bearing on the plot because it is her making sure she survives and makes the plot continue.

Lazario wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:If by idiotic you mean she risked her safety to take care of someone who might be trying to her harm her like the Queen, that’s your negative view of it.

No, you're labeling it negative because you are claiming the movie doesn't have this flaw and refusing to consider what's actually happening in this scene.

Once again, that’s your view.

Lazario wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:She probably didn’t think of the dwarf’s advice. Or maybe she did, but threw it out in favor of helping someone who could be for real in trouble.

Again, here's what you're doing: you are only choosing to take notice of selective aspects of the scene. You're only noticing the Hag's ruse and Snow White's gesture of kindness. And ignoring everything else the scene is suggesting. You're ignoring the birds and their relationship to Snow White. You're ignoring the fact that the Dwarfs gave her advice they were CLEAR they wanted her to remember and this also makes the fact that she decided to bake pies and leave the window WIDE OPEN right after they tell her the Queen is full of witchcraft show she wasn't taking the situation seriously. Which you have to admit adds a whole new dimension to my argument. She already made several foolish mistakes as the scene's begun and this should make her MORE AWARE of exactly how much danger she's in when the Hag just SHOWS UP A FEW INCHES IN FRONT OF HER FACE the way she does. Yet, she isn't aware of anything. You're arguing that everything she does in the movie comes from her heart. So, how can you now tell me she thinks with her head? There's no evidence of that anywhere in the movie.

I have talked about the previous things you mentioned already. The new thing about the window being open makes sense as she must have the window open to cool off the pies, which she is making for the dwarfs, another act from her heart. But no, she does not think with her head very much, over her heart. Doesn’t mean she’s an idiot. She just doesn’t think with her head as much as characters who do.

Lazario wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:When she said “The Queen will kill me!” that was her expecting a guard or the Queen herself getting her if she didn’t have a place to hide. She didn’t expect a “harmless old peddler woman”.

You don't believe that- you just told me that we don't know what she was thinking. And you know what? When I watched that scene, I didn't assume I knew what she was thinking either. I assumed she was terrified of the Queen. And this is a fact that the scene sets up when she says that.

I do believe exactly what I said, that she was thinking of something like that.

Lazario wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:I’m still right about her letting her in only because she was hurt and chose the kinder option, and I even now am thinking that also with her being hurt, at least Snow White could rightly think it was safer to let her in the house because she couldn’t harm her in that condition.

That doesn't make any sense. Though I see where you're going with it, if she lets the old woman in to rest and then STAYS WITH HER, she is not considering that the old woman could have ever hurt her. And the Dwarfs said the Queen was sly anyway. They covered this in their advice. They said "don't let NO ONE or nothing in the house." And I also said this movie isn't about reactions that actual 14 year olds have to these situations, no matter what period in time the story takes place in. The plot is completely throwing everything out the window to have Snow White put herself in harm's way and the camera is just focusing on the Hag. The focus of this moment has nothing to do with Snow White's big heart. Watch it closely. I did. When they show something like the Hag looking so clever, they're suggesting that she outwitted Snow White. Even Disney were suggesting she was stupid.

Someone being outwitted doesn’t automatically mean their stupid. The dwarfs said let no one in the house but Snow White knew they meant someone who seemed bad like the Queen and wasn’t going to let anyone in anyway until she saw a helpless woman she thought needed to be in the house. And this woman, who was very frail no matter what magic she had, and was just attacked and not fighting the birds off with any magic, was actually very safe to assume she would not be able to harm Snow White. It is not the hag that could do harm, but the apple, and who would expect the apple, the dwarfs didn’t even say anything about something like that.

Lazario wrote:But if you're talking about Snow White the character- this is not a credit to her. It's insulting. Or, more accurately, it would be if she had a brain or a consistent personality.

Actually it endears most people with hearts to her, because we see how she uses her heart even for someone who could have been bad. How is her personality not consistent? And yes she has a brain, she just doesn’t use it as harshly as someone like, I dunno, you.

Lazario wrote:No, your argument is not valid. The reason why is that you're arguing Snow White helping anyone who seemed to be in need would be the right thing to do, whether that person is faking it or not. That if she doesn't help this woman, regardless of whether she meant to harm Snow White or not, that she can't be trusted to help a really innocent person. That you wouldn't view her as the same perfect beacon of all that is good without her helping the Queen. And, still, there's no such thing as doing something without thinking about it. The same goes for helping people.

My argument is still valid because I am not saying that scene is needed to show us she’ll always care for someone. The scene shows even more of her character of just how kind she is. And if you say there’s no such thing as someone doing something without thinking about it, even though it happens all the time to anyone, as people say “I did it without thinking” all the time, if that isn’t true, then that still proves my point that she does have a brain and thought “She could be the Queen…but I must help her in case she’s not, I care too much” or something like that.

Lazario wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:Plus, they always were kinda just animals and she didn’t necessarily understand everything about them and she didn’t have time to ask them “why did you do that?”

She had time to think about it though. She did. Watch the scene again. The camera cut to a shot of just the Queen being pestered by the birds before Snow White even rushes out of the cottage.

Yea, those few seconds would most definitely be of Snow White being shocked taking in what was happening, as we did see she does not act all that fast. In her head, what most likely went on was “What’s going o- what are they- oh no, they’re attacking! Why are they – it doesn’t matter! She’s really getting hurt! Whoever she is I’ve gotta help!” while her heart is probably feeling horror, anguish, and then strong feelings of care and wanting to help. Or something like that. And I just realized another reason she could probably think they’re attacking. Just because she’s a stranger, she’s new, like a dog would react to any new person. The animals even ran away from her at first, scared, until they learned she was kind.

Lazario wrote:No, she didn't think a little. She never thought at all.

Overly harsh and exaggerating as always. She just needs to think a little more to be more realistic. You could just say that.

Lazario wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:it wasn’t stupid. It just wasn’t particularly smart, either. Or maybe it was since even people in battle will walk up to their opponent to check on them if their hurt which was really essentially what she did.

They don't also take their armor off and take their opponent to their fortress, leaving themselves COMPLETELY VULNERABLE to an attack.

Once again, this frail woman who was almost defeated by birds until Snow White shooed them off was also vulnerable, their was no chance she could do much of anything to Snow White. Once again, the Queen had a clever disguise.

Lazario wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:Anyway, if she really was only supposed to be a symbol or concept, she would be more like Bambi, who doesn't talk much and is almost pure innocence and youth, or his father, who is like pure majesty and adultness.

All you're doing here is harping on the fact that she got dialogue.

I wasn't supposed to talk about Sleeping Beauty with you here but I can't resist this one. No, it's also that she got screentime and that this and her dialogue ruins her symbolism by making her look like she's supposed to be a character, not a symbol. Dumbo having no dialogue but being a character does not shoot my argument dead that Aurora as just a symbol doesn't work well, and it's because what is given to Aurora is too much for her just to be a symbol. Symbols don't seem like they're taking over the film from their point of view for a little bit

Lazario wrote:and have a little character. A little. But still, physically, the movie showed her to be grace and beauty in nature (which extends beyond the wilderness) personified.

She does seem to represent grace and beauty. I'd say that's the only thing she works as a symbol as. But she's not even just that. They tried to instill some personality into her, and kinda failed, but even what she is just not as beautiful or endearing, it's not something we care that much about when it "dies". And if she is beauty and grace personified, and the point is how sad it is when that is lost, that doesn't make much sense when the rest of the film is beautiful and graceful all the time, even when she is dead, and then if she's just a symbol of that, it doesn't matter if she's in eternal slumber because she's still beautiful and graceful to look at. So she's still serving her "purpose" so there's no drama in her sleeping.

Lazario wrote:As I've explained countless times now, that doesn't matter. She is not the center of the story in terms of character perspective. The story is viewed through the progression of certain characters. The focus of Sleeping Beauty were The Fairies and Maleficent.

Who are focused on Aurora. Which makes the focus on Aurora. In addition to everyone else in the film who is focused on Aurora. And the whole scene where the focus is all on her in the forest.

Lazario wrote:You can't keep saying it matters that we care about what happens to Aurora when every scene with her in it is focusing on another aspect of the story.

What other aspect of the story is happening when we're with her in the forest other than the aspects of herself? And yes we do need to care about Aurora because the story does concern her, symbol or not, and if we are supposed to care more about what the fairies or Maleficent think, they care about her too so we must care about what they care about at least to think that their point of view and story is something we care about, that is worth our time. And Aurora doesn't make any of that so. If she was endearing like Snow White or Bambi, then maybe.

Done.

Both Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella are now getting a live action Disney movie. Maleficent is confirmed and Cinderella is likely to happen. But what about Snow White, do you think that the classic fairytale will ever get a Disney remake in live action? I am not counting that live action movie set in China based on Snow White that Disney is producing as a liveaction version of the classic fairytale...

Prince Edward wrote:Both Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella are now getting a live action Disney movie. Maleficent is confirmed and Cinderella is likely to happen. But what about Snow White, do you think that the classic fairytale will ever get a Disney remake in live action? I am not counting that live action movie set in China based on Snow White that Disney is producing as a liveaction version of the classic fairytale...

There probably won't be one any time soon, what with Snow White and the Huntsman and Mirror Mirror being released several months from now. I don't think Disney itself should do one at all...it would inevitably draw comparisons with the other modern live-action versions.

Prince Edward wrote:I am not counting that live action movie set in China based on Snow White that Disney is producing as a liveaction version of the classic fairytale...

Me neither. It's not.

Whooo. Man sorry for long delay Lazario. My drawing schedule is stressful.
So here I go. I might not respond to you again right away.

Lazario wrote: I've even heard people criticize the original fairy tale for the same reason.

Except the original tales had very straight to the point story telling. they were made to tell a moral or point. It wasn't a film or novel that incorporate other substances like character development or story development. they were simple telling stories. Disney, when adapting these stories has to make something more of it as it's a movie they're doing which needs things I argue SB needs.

Lazario wrote:And I don't believe Disney really developed Snow White or Cinderella much more than Aurora either.
In fact, I've said I believe they ran into trouble doing this instead.

I don't care much for SW(story or the character) so i won't comment on that. But with Cinderella, I use to think she was bland as well but as I watch it more I started to she she was fairly well balance character compared to Aurora.

Lazario wrote: Granted, most people seem to not care about that but I don't find any of these women compelling characters but I did think Maleficent and the Fairies were compelling characters.

That's one thing why, as i said many times before, why SB is unbalance. You have a movie where you put more effort and attention creating these two characters more so than the others, especially the main hero and heroine of the story. I find that bizarrely weird.

Lazario wrote:And I've read some interpretations on the film as a visual exploration of spiritual themes. None of which ever seemed forcefully Christian to me- so I never took issue with reading people who said Sleeping Beauty actually had a complex view of how spiritualism works.

That's interesting. I usually think Shinto or Native American tribe's beliefs when I think of Spiritualism. I think SB's "spiritualism", if you go by that, is rather easy to grasp and simplistic.

Lazario wrote:But, to answer your question right, I'll try to say the tone of the film would have had to've been altered just to make the film more conventional. Why should a film as vastly unique as Sleeping Beauty be more conventional? Just because some people don't like that they can't plug into it? Well, I did and I love the film for that.

I don't think that would make it just conventional. To me it would make me love film better than what I have gotten.

Lazario wrote:Well, I still believe the whole kingdom viewed Aurora as a force of such good that she gave them hope the future would be better. When I look at the movie this way, it seems to work.

I find that interesting yet odd. Considering, like duster mention later on, the Kingdom was all ready was peaceful and under good ruling. How does she give them hope of better future when they already have a good one. And what would her symbolic status do or enable for the commoners' future? Only bad thing they had deal with was Maleficent and I don't see what her being born would allow aurora to do against her. Only thing I can think of, if seeing it from your POV, is that her being born was a prophecy fate that would lead events to Maleficent's demise.

Lazario wrote:Duster suggested the same thing, in gibberish form. And I don't buy it. I admit I don't know shit about the music's history (which affects how much of SB's score was created solely for Disney's adaptation) but I know a lot of it was pre-composed and many people considered it well-known. So, to me, this is the closest one of their non-package films came to reprising Fantasia. And I don't think there's only one way to go a Fantasia route. Disney would have wanted to do something different than Fantasia anyway (since that film was a financial failure in its' day) but not give up on it entirely. I say the music, tone, and animation more than filled the story gaps- they did so in a way that let audiences' decide for themselves what it meant.

Unlike Fantasia, I never got any dictation that the music contribute to filling in story gap. I would assume they used already pre-composed music for the film because the film was already was going be a big budget( it was largest they had in it's time). Why spend more money on making music for the film, when you easily can have already existing music already made (for ballet).

Lazario wrote:

Super Aurora wrote: To me I don't see that. Maybe if it was small scene only take small break from forest scene(which it did but came back for more). I find the scene no different from Cinderella's mouse finding beads sequence which is also another filler I get tire and annoyed by. You could argue that with cinderella the scene didn't add or contribute anything positive in the end, but I could say same with SB's sequence. after all that effort to make Aurora happy, she got butthurt quickly that she couldn't see phillip anymore. They didn't even eat that wonderful delicious looking cake. What a waste Only the dress provide relevant later on.

As for the rest of what you're suggesting, I'm confused. So, disregard this following paragraph if what you're saying is = the 2nd part was necessary but the 1st part was not:

I'm just going to say it- you're wrong. While technically, the music is driving the magic and the magic is driving the work the Fairies are doing, you can't ignore what else is happening in the scene. Which is not filler in the slightest. I don't know what you mean after the fact that you just called this scene filler that you say "well, duh, I know the crow has to find Aurora" but that and the Fairies' effort to cover up their magic to keep from raising suspicion, this scene keeps the movie going (rather than stopping or slowing it down) and informs the entire second half. Not to mention tonally, it makes perfect sense. They do all this work, as does the animation and music, to make Aurora happy and her unhappiness is what drives the entire rest of the movie, pre-ending, to nosedive into its' downbeat section.

Yes that's what i'm referring to.

Lazario wrote:

Super Aurora wrote: I don't think so. Phiilp was happy and eager to deflower Aurora up until he made a wrong turn and met a dominatrix who into S&M.

The scene's tone didn't change for Phillip's happiness. You have to look at it from the perspective of the character Disney chose to filter the scene through. It's Hubert's scene with Phillip in it. Not the other way around. And the music that played during Phillip's arrival was bittersweet. I hope my saying this doesn't bother you- but I don't think you're paying as close attention to the tone as I'm saying is crucial to understand my point.

I guess not LOL.
But in all seriousness. If you're saying that Phillip felt unhappy of Herbert's orders. I don't think that was the case. He kinda brush it off and not give a fuck. It's the Prince's and Princess' happiness that should be important for us audience and the side characters. Not the other way around.
Correct me if i'm misinterpreting what you're trying to say there.

Lazario wrote:Well, to me she is the scariest evil figure in Disney history. She's less cartoonish than Fantasia's Chernabog and requires no actual religion to believe in.

Since I'm an artist and study anatomy and draw human figure numerous times, I'm going to say your wrong and that Chernabog's muscle mass and anatomy and movement is WAY more realistic than Mally's.

Lazario wrote:She doesn't have the "on the street" accent that the Coachman does in Pinocchio.

The coachman is scarier mutha-fucker because you least expect he would be evil and he's the type that actually succeed in making people suffer way more than what you claim Mally does. The coachman, for as short of appearance he had, became way more superior in effectiveness and characterization than most Disney villain characters I've seen. He starts out as jolly buddy friend of the two thief, but once he made that rape-face, you know shit is gonna get fucking real. And from then til donkey reveal, you can't help but constantly keep wondering wtf he going to do with the boys.

Lazario wrote:It's not the Queen's fault that Snow White is an idiot.

Oh shit. InB4 shit-storm comes in.

Lazario wrote:Maleficent has more history with the Fairies and the kingdom. Which only makes her scarier (in the discussion of this detail) because the film leaves details about her in the minds of the characters first rather than telling us everything up front.

while it can work when a villains past or past relationship with other characters to be successfully scary, in SB's case i never got that impression. Her appearance alone means she's bad news.

Lazario wrote: And she has a greater range of tricks than any other villain.
She also invades your home, lies, casts spells, sets traps, and STILL is willing to come at you with sharp teeth, claws, and breath of fire.
She's a force to be feared in every way.

You know, I realize this not to long ago, but all of Malificent's powers and "tricks" are through powers of the staff(just like the with the fairies, it's the small wands). take away of break that staff, and she's nothing.

Lazario wrote: Depending on how far you can suspend disbelief. But I've always said the movie is really asking us to judge Maleficent as a villain by her presence. And by that token- her influence reaches everywhere and touches everything in the animated universe.

That's pretty much only reason has going and what makes a great villain isn't just presence alone. When we first see her, we know she's evil and it tell the audience that she evil just by her colors and appearance along. To me, real evil bastards are the ones that actually look like normal folks which make their deceptions and disguise even more terrifying. Like the Coachman for example.

Lazario wrote:

Super Aurora wrote: I dunno, it did say at first they were lonely and sad but as time grew on the narrator address that the people became more lively and cheerful.

True. But it's a matter of perspective. Does the movie make us feel any rejoicing within the kingdom? The movie always distances us so far from any of the kingdom's people's reactions to the story goingson that we don't get that impression through anything other than that one narrative passage. I mean, how far would you be willing to let one piece of monologue shape your opinion of a movie?

Well this prove my point that the development of characters and experiencing them too is important. This is why I argue that the character roles and development feels unbalance. I know you hate Lion King but I want to bring up that it pulls off this notion you're talking about.
When Scar told sad news to other lionesses(not just Sarabi and Nala), you see their sad faces and when Scar then says he will take over and have partner ship with the hyenas, you then see more shock and surprise at such announcement. Not to mention that entire scene visually was dark, grey, depressing looking scene. You also get to see visually even if not directly, the fates of other animals and the "kingdom" has become when Simba returns.

As you said, with SB, the narrator just told us what happen without seeing anything of it. It makes us, as the audience, not feel anywhere connected anything that happens in the story or the characters.

Lazario wrote:Anyway, you've pointed out a flaw in my original argument and I admit it. But I am saying that the tone tells the story and the movie seems to leave everything up to the audience to interpret. Here's hoping that will not be forgotten.

I do agree to some degree it does have that and it works great. I'm saying that alone isn't enough for the movie nor it alone is what makes it good, and for any of us to enjoy the movie to it's best.

Lazario wrote:

Super Aurora wrote: Yeah but it also breaks the point of Mally's curse in question. If she that intent on making Aurora suffer she could of done it easier and quicker
rather than a 16 yrs period where obviously the good guys going try find something to do in turn.

Not if what she really cared about was making the kingdom suffer.

I'm pretty sure the kingdom would suffer regardless of what time period (and it's duration it lasted) Aurora is killed. I'd say it's worse as a baby or child as the kingdom now know they will never be able to share a possibly good future with Aurora or a happy future Aurora could of had.

Lazario wrote:(And, why not all things considered, since they were really pinheads anyway. Seriously- my view of the film is not only irreverant of religion, it also isn't dependent on caring about the people of the kingdom. Even though I still think the film brought good-vs-evil to life for me- these characters are sheep. Especially if you take my opinion of the minstrel as reflecting what I think of the people of the kingdom.)

I don't get what you are trying to say or argue about here.



But those films aren't Disney. I look at Sleeping Beauty as a Disney film first. I've never once made a point about the culture or the world as we know it and then referenced a Disney film. To me, you have to reference Disney and THEN the Disney film.[/quote]
Even if we're just use it as a Disney film alone, I still find it not as well put together in comparison to others like Hunchback or Pinocchio.

--------------

Disney Duster wrote:

Super Aurora wrote:There are some really really great ones that have...symbolic topics

What do you mean by symbolic topics?

Symbolic themes i meant.

Disney Duster wrote:

Super Aurora wrote:Yeah evil always had that attractive feeling because evil is much more interesting than good.

Not always, and only in entertainment (including news or just stories told), and just to most people generally between the ages of 7 and 50.

That's what I'm saying. You should read Dante's Inferno. It pretty much address this point I made. The second part about age I don't get wtf you're trying say there.

Disney Duster wrote:

Super Aurora wrote:They didn't even eat that wonderful delicious looking cake. What a waste.

I am so there with you man. But I totally believe the fairies sadly ate cake while Aurora cried. To cheer themselves up. And they probably offered Aurora some later. And I bet she took some. Girls eat sweet things to get over emotional stuff like boys. Hell I do that.

nah, you just love sweet stuff period. Amazing you didn't end up like Tim.

Disney Duster wrote:

Super Aurora wrote: It's like:
beginning- yay new baby is born! It's AWWWWRRRRIIIGGHHHTTT!!!

Mally arrive at party- LOL i will give you bad fate to your baby when and what ever I choose! lol

Yea...but the point was not just to hurt her. If she said that, they would most likely think "Oh no the baby will be hurt when she's still a baby!" Maleficent's plan was actually rather clever because it was "Your baby will grow up so that you grow to love her very, very much...but while she's young, before you know when, she will die!" That means they will get more hurt because they know she will grow up for a while, and it was really about hurting all the people there.

Just one clear up clarification: "LOL i will give you bad fate to your baby when and what ever I choose! lol"
By that I meant that she could give bad fate or harm to Aurora at any given time she wish or choose and any method she wish or choose. I could be when Aurora was 5yr. It could be she's 10. Or it could be when she's 25. The point i'm making here to Lazario is that this is a much more effective and consistent approach to Lazaro's statement of Kingdom will suffer. The kingdom will will be in constant suffering or paranoia as they won't know when or what she will do to Aurora nor will they have any methods or setbacks to go back to challenge the curse.
As your second part, that point is effective if not for fact that she didn't take in account that she reveal what she brought upon for Aurora in front of everyone where they now know of it and have time to counter it. If she made an announcement like I suggested, it would effectively drive the statement you made as well as being consistent and not make Maleficent look like a fool later on.







I'm also glad you didn't catch my subliminal in-joke in the paragraph you quote me from. Pap64 or lyss might though....

Disney Duster wrote:Maleficent mentions she is sided with the powers of Hell which is specifically Judeo-Christian, though it could be viewed as hyberbole as Super Aurora did/does, though I think she still has actual association with Hell.

Don't want get this into religious debate, but Hell was not a Judaism concept (Concept of Hell existed before them even). It was mostly christian who put much emphasis on it. Or rather, the concept of Hell is hardly something of focus in Judaism, compared to Christianity. Even Buddhism have concept of Hell as well as Greeks (Taurus).

Disney Duster wrote: it's just not very sense-making.

That is one of the weirdest sentences i've read. You need re-word that better.

Lazario wrote: And stop this bullshit "could have" business. Well, I know this is meant to be the thread for that. But you decided to be bitchy and told me I had no evidence.

Just want to clear up as I know Duster personally, he's not the bitchy type at all. I just don't want people get false impression on him. Even when debating(and irl) he often talk politely and well mannered. Just want throw that out there.

Super Aurora wrote:

Disney Duster wrote: I am so there with you man. But I totally believe the fairies sadly ate cake while Aurora cried. To cheer themselves up. And they probably offered Aurora some later. And I bet she took some. Girls eat sweet things to get over emotional stuff like boys. Hell I do that.

nah, you just love sweet stuff period. Amazing you didn't end up like Tim.

Remind me when we get to hang out next week for me to sit my fat ass on your face XD

PrincePhillipFan wrote: Remind me when we get to hang out next week for me to sit my fat ass on your face XD

I don't have asses-to-face sitting fetish

thank you very much.

This thread has taken a turn for the weird.

I mean, more than it was already.

SpringHeelJack wrote:This thread has taken a turn for the weird.

I mean, more than it was already.

We're just joking around.