Originally Posted By basil fan The irony is that the Sambo story is supposed to be Indian, not African (no tigers in Africa, people). The word "black" in the title confused a lot of people and they illustrated it as African (I think I had one as a kid). Now, the actual story is pretty thin, nothing to hang a feature on, but it's not insulting to anyone. Kid is chased by tiger. Kid outsmarts tiger by turning it into butter. Weird, but not insulting. Star Wars Glitches <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/glitch/swglitch.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/ glitch/swglitch.html</a>
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "#35 Hans, is it Sambo as in Little Black Sambo/Tiger? I live in New England, and the one here pretty much got run out of town, even after changing their name." Here you go: <a href="http://www.sambosrestaurant.com/" target="_blank">http://www.sambosrestaurant.co m/</a>
Originally Posted By Autopia Deb ^^^The origional Santa Barbara location is the very last one standing. And on Sunday mornings it takes longer to get a seat than a Disney Princess breakfast, lol.
Originally Posted By bobbelee9 Definately the same Sambo. Guess people up here over-reacted. All that fuss.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: Well, Hans Reinhardt, duckling, we'll try to unconfuse you--if we can. You see there are changes and then there are CHANGES!. The kind of changes we object to are the kind that Disney's current FROG PRINCESS is going through. ORWEN: For instance, even though Walt Disney changed Snow White from the original Brother's Grimm, at least Snow White managed to keep her same name. And the story wasn't plucked out of its original medieval time period and plopped down into a more modern time period--like the 1920'--or given a setting in some well-known city like New Orleans. ORDDU: She also wasn't given a sex change--as in the case of Chicken Little, where Henny Penny seems to be totally forgotten in THAT travesty of a film. ORWEN: The kind of changes Walt Disney made were to take who was already there--like the 7 dwarves--and give them more distict personalities. In the original version, you couldn't tell them apart. They were like clones of each other. Uncle Walt saw that the audience would get more involved with the story by making each dwarf different--but not to the extent where they were given sex changes or distorted into being giants or altered in any other number of totally abstract ways. ORDDU: He also left out certain plot devices from the original--in order to quicken the pace of the movie. For instance, The Wicked Queen didn't bother with the poison comb or the tightened sash around Snow White's waiste. Walt went strictly for the poisoned apple. But those omissions didn't change the over all plot or tone of the fairy tale. ORWEN: Whereas with the FROG PRINCESS, it's going to be so different from the original you won't even recognize it from the original. ORDDU: Now is that so hard to understand, dear? Or are you still confused and in need of further clarification?
Originally Posted By alexbook >>The irony is that the Sambo story is supposed to be Indian, not African (no tigers in Africa, people). The word "black" in the title confused a lot of people and they illustrated it as African (I think I had one as a kid). Now, the actual story is pretty thin, nothing to hang a feature on, but it's not insulting to anyone. Kid is chased by tiger. Kid outsmarts tiger by turning it into butter. Weird, but not insulting.<< The problem isn't the story; it's the name. As recently as a generation ago, "Sambo" was an insult thrown at blacks by whites in some parts of the U.S. It's passed out of common usage, but the bitter memories lingers.
Originally Posted By Dznygrl <<Witches you do realize Disney is for children?>> NO. Disney is for everyone.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt “Now is that so hard to understand, dear? Or are you still confused and in need of further clarification?†Yes, sort of. I better understand your objections now, however you have to recognize that during his time Walt Disney was criticized for taking great liberties with the material he was using, and many consider the “Disneyfication†of these classic tales a travesty. For instance, Walt Disney’s film version of Peter Pan contains not one piece of dialogue from Barrie’s book. Yes, the changes made in some more recent films have been rather drastic. Still, there is no denying that Walt Disney was rarely faithful to the original material from which he based his animated films. Thus, I see no real reason to complain about this in regard to The Frog Princess.
Originally Posted By Liberty Belle The bottom line is, if it really bothers you you shouldn't see it, because you won't enjoy it. I think it sounds like a good story though!
Originally Posted By trekkeruss The second bottom line is, just because Chicken Little was a "travesty," doesn't mean The Frog Princess will be too.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: As we've said many times, it all comes down to a matter of taste and opinion. If you're familiar with the original stories and prefer SOME semblance of that original plot--along with the original characters, you'll be disappointed by movies such as Chicken Little or The Frog Princess as conceived by Disney. ORWEN: Matty--or is it Maddy--isn't even the same person the original Frog Princess was. The original princess was Russian. So, why not come up with an original title for Maddy/Matty's story? That way you're not tempting unfavorable comparisons between the two totally different Frog Princesses. (I think Disney really should have called THEIR movie THE MARDI GRAS PRINCESS.) ORDDU: As for the differences between Disney's Peter Pan versus the original play, the differences were not nearly so drastic as compared to the differences you'll find between the Russian Frog Princess versus the Disney version. The basic theme of growing up versus NOT growing up is still there. So is the original London setting for the home of the Darling Children. Plus most of the original characters from the story are still present in the Disney version.
Originally Posted By Autopia Deb Witches, don't you think these "Disneyfied" versions of stories will encourage people to seek out and experience the origional stories for themselves? For example, I never would have read the origional Mary Poppins were it not for the movie.
Originally Posted By jasmine7 As someone who loves and studies folklore, I have no problem with the changes Disney is making for The Frog Princess or with the changes they've made previously. If you look through the vast array of folklore out there, there are common stories that each culture tells, and the story changes with the telling. There are many different versions of Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, etc. I see the changes that Disney has made as being not so different to the cultural changes that happen when, say, Cinderella is told in France vs. Africa.
Originally Posted By xrayvision >>ORWEN: What I'd like to see--in terms of a Black Princess from Disney--is an African story to be adapted by Disney into an animated movie. <<< Well, Disney could animate Aida, Cleopatra, Once on this Island (not African, but Black Caribbean) and several other stories. Regarding an African prince, Kimba..er..Simba has already been animated on film and humanized on stage.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: Absolutely, Autopia Deb, duckling. And it's a GOOD thing that Disney films encourage the reading of original versions. I'd also like to say that--even though there are several different versions of Sleeping Beauty and other fairy tales--they still manage to retain the same basic plots so that they don't--usually--come across as being totally different stories.
Originally Posted By MadAboutMickey I think it is great that they are hand-drawing another movie. They just better do well!
Originally Posted By DVC_dad The sad thing about this film is, if the film stinks, the intro of the first Black Princess will probably fade away as well. I hope they get it right.
