Originally Posted By mawnck >>If Disney wants to be create an original story, they really should create an original title to go along with it. That way they won't be inviting unfavorable comparisons.<< But Witches, what IS the original Frog Princess story? And if you don't know it, then how are you going to make an unfavorable comparison?
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Here's the story of the Frog Princess. <a href="http://www.frogsonice.com/froggy/tales/frogprincess1.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.frogsonice.com/frog gy/tales/frogprincess1.shtml</a> I don't see New Orleans mentioned anywhere
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy Jim's right. If you do the Control+F "Find" feature and search for "New Orleans", nuttin' pops up. Nada. ;-)
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Here's the story of the Frog Princess.<< Not the point. Point is the PUBLIC doesn't know the story. And even if they do, why SHOULDN'T the movie be in New Orleans? They put the Hundred Acre Wood in the midwest US, Robin Hood in the Ozarks, The Jungle Book into . . . well, someplace where they play swing music and talk in Liverpool accents, and that's OK. But New Orleans? Ewwwwww! The worst thing about this pre-production bashfest is that I was contributing to it a few weeks ago. I need to get a life.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 I don't know, it's a different setting for Disney. If it was done traditionally, it would be very similar to Snow White, Cinderella, or Sleeping Beauty. I love those films, but something different is nice. I just hope they can manage to not get to stereotyped with the characters. It's going to be a sensitive subject...
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 Oh, and another benefit...something else to put in New Orleans Square at Disneyland besides Pirates, LOL!
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: Thank you for your conjuring spell, Jim in Merced, duckling. Obviously--if you don't already know the original Frog Princess Story--you can't make any sort of comparisons. Therefore the comments Orwen and I made were intended for the benefit of those who DO know it. ORWEN: Plus--if Disney makes a movie with such a misleading title--it may totally eclipse the original story or else ruin it for those who decide to check out the original fairy tale. We just don't get why Disney seems to enjoy taking an established title and then tacking on one of their own creations, as if they don't have enough confidence in their own stories by creating an original title. This whole thing comes across like 'Chicken Little' all over again!
Originally Posted By actingforanimators Dearest Witches, When it comes to "serious fairytales" versus "distorted versions" I humbly offer the following examples in support of your point: PINOCCHIO - The original book is set in Italy, not the Swiss Alps, and the cricket dies. And it should be noted that no 19th Century cricket would ever use such topical language as does Mssr. Jiminy and his all-too-free-wheeling American lingo of the 30's and 40's....tsk tsk tsk. CINDERELLA - The Wicked Step sisters in the original story get their eyes pecked out by birds. Enough with the soft-core stuff. Let's get serious with the retribution here, Walt! These are but a handful of examples. there are countelss additional grievances to be lodged against these and other Disney classic fairytale offenders. You're right, you know; Disney should take note and ammend these so-called classics to better represent the sacred texts from which they were derived. Yours in seriousness. afa
Originally Posted By Jim At this point, I think it is virtually impossible to judge the quality of the movie from what we have here, particularly since I'm sure the artists themselves are not firm on how it will end. I think this adaptation will be just as classic as any other. Face it, why can't a fairy tale story happen in New Orleans? New Orleans could be the new generic Europe. I do hope the voodoo stuff isn't taken too far, because it's not hard to turn that from fairy tale in into creepy, as I've heard people say who have visited New Orleans, but I'm sure the folks at Disney know what they're doing (at least THESE folks do). I'm excited that a character is named Eudora, which was my grandmother's very obscure name.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <You're right, you know; Disney should take note and ammend these so-called classics to better represent the sacred texts from which they were derived.> Wow. I feel so very, very informed. Sarcastically, JiM
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: Oh, my sisters and I understand the point you are trying to make, actingforanimators, duckling. But keep in mind that we NEVER advocated the idea that SOME changes were necessary. Sometimes things that work in the original stories don't work in film. ORWEN: But at least Uncle Walt knew what to keep and what to change--so that the original heart of the story didn't change. ORDDU: The thing we're trying to say is that Disney goes so far out of it's way to make current fairy tales so hip and edgy, along with going so far as to even give certain characters sex change in order to fit some new concept that has nothing to do with the original character--such as in CHICKEN LITTLE--that it becomes absurd after a while. Therefore we repeat the question: why not just come up with a totally different title for such a totally different story?
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: Oh, and what I meant to say back there was that we never meant to advocate that some changes WEREN'T necessary. We acknowledge that every single fairy tale done by the studio has made changes--changes that embellish and add to the character of the film. ORWEN: By having the cricket die in the original story of Pinocchio, it makes for a very unsympathetic hero. That's why Uncle Walt changed that scene so that the audience would care more about the puppet boy. But if Uncle Walt had tried to make Pinocchio a drug pusher in a more modern setting and changed the basic plot to fit some current trend of the day, do you really think the movie would be as timeless as it has become? We don't.
Originally Posted By TheRedhead "But if Uncle Walt had tried to make Pinocchio a drug pusher in a more modern setting and changed the basic plot to fit some current trend of the day," Good lord, they're taking a fairy tale that no one has heard of and setting it in this century. Your analogy makes sense only if the princess will be standing at the entrance of the Lincoln Tunnel.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORWEN: Maybe you've never heard of the Frog Princess, TheRedHead, duckling, but that doesn't mean others haven't. Anyway, if you happen to be a person who likes sex-changes in your classic tales--like they gave to Chicken Little--along with doing away with 'lands far-away' while bringing fairy tales into a modern city like New Orleans, then you'll be perfectly happy with what Disney is doing. The tale will become dated very quickly because of this sort of thing. We happen to prefer 'timeless' over 'contemporary' That's the main point we're trying to make. But if you like your fairy tales to be 'hip and edgy', then be our guest. In the meantime, us Cauldron girls long for a more traditional fairytale with old fashioned values and heart.
Originally Posted By u k fan I would hardly call 1920's New Orleans "contemporary". I've also said this several times before in threads like this - I have a storybook where Chicken Licken as he's known in the UK is a boy. I think 2 things on this, firstly it's FAR too early to be condemning this movie and second as has been acknowleded on both sides Walt era movies also had significant changes to fit with what would fly with a modern movie-going public. This is nothing new, but tastes have changed and will continue to do so. Do The Rescuers and 101 Dalmatians feel dated? Despite their modern day settings and use of well known voices they have survived. So can the Frog Princess if we give it a chance!!!
Originally Posted By actingforanimators ...leaping to feet as well, and whistling and whooping, to boot.
Originally Posted By TheRedhead "But if you like your fairy tales to be 'hip and edgy'," Who said the Frog Princess was hip and edgy? I was just thinking about something this weekend: how many traditional animated fairy tales did Walt make in his lifetime? Three? Out of all those animated films he produced, THREE? Since the 'Second Golden Age' we've had two. I know witches, you want a fairy tale to be treated "traditionally," and I figure that will happen at some point again. But audiences today seem to want modern, and Disney's responding in kind. But I wouldn't dismiss the Frog Princess as not having "old fashioned values and heart" before we've seen a frame.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <But audiences today seem to want modern, and Disney's responding in kind.> Says who? I'll bet if you did a survey in 1986 and asked movie goers 'Would you like to see a musical version of The Little Mermaid?' they're response would be 'Musicals? ugh!' I don't necessarily agree with giving audiences 'what they want.'
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror >>>Who said the Frog Princess was hip and edgy<<< Right. The time period only has to impact significantly from a design perspective. If you remember, THE ARISTOCATS is positioned roughly in Paris in the 20's or so...? And yet its setting in the 20th century doesn't really detract from the charm of the film. There are few places in the USA that have that old world strangeness, or a European "feel", like New Orleans. That this location was chosen is very telling. Add the cultural layering of African-Americans from that era, and the influence of a very "friendly" style of music, AND the fact that the male lead IS actually a "Prince" - and you've got the makings for a very fresh fairy tale, in a setting as quaint and charming as BEAUTY AND THE BEAST's old-world France, or MERMAID's mediterranean.
