Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<The point is, I think, that the Morvites want a traditional fairy tale film>. I did actually understand the point they were trying to make. Still, I would reserve judgment until the film is in the can.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: I think if you truly understood out point, trekkruss duckling, you wouldn't be going out of your way to showcase examples--such as Cinderella's mice--to support an opposing point of view. You see, the idea of making alterations to old fairy tales is nothing new to us and certainly not something we object to. But alterations that involve messing around with period pieces--trying to make them too contemporary--is what bothers us. ORWEN: The mice in Cinderella enhanced the story very nicely. But if they'd tried to bring in Space Aliens into the story--like they did with CHICKEN LITTLE--that's where we draw the line. ORDDU: Also, if Uncle Walt had give Cinderella a sex change--the way Michael Eisner did with poor Chicken Little--I don't think too many of you would have appreciated that, either. ORWEN: And THOSE are the kind of drastic changes we object to.
Originally Posted By Bystander I would not have objected to a sex change for Cinderella, provided the resulting story was interesting and made sense. Disney is under no moral obligation to preserve any specific part of the stories it adapts, including the setting. And if they'd rather write their own story and put bits of Rapunzel in it, they're free to do that as well. You may like the resulting film or not, as you see fit. But the objection to making a "period piece ... too contemporary" is based on your own personal tastes. It's a change, like any other, and the rest of us do not necessarily share your feelings about that particular one. Incidentally, you seem a little confused about the meaning of "period piece." Rapunzel is a fairy tale, not a period piece. A period piece is set in a real time and place, whereas a fairy tale is set in a time and place which does not and has never existed.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <ORDDU: Also, if Uncle Walt had give Cinderella a sex change--the way Michael Eisner did with poor Chicken Little--I don't think too many of you would have appreciated that, either. < LOL Witches -- I would not have been nuts about Cinderfella !
Originally Posted By belle42 >>Disney is under no moral obligation to preserve any specific part of the stories it adapts See Also: Hunchback of Notre Dame
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORRDU: Of course, Bystander duckling, my sisters and I are merely expressing opinions and personal preferences--as do so many others within the confines of the Laughing Place Pond. However, with stories that already have a following--such as Cinderella--do you really think a sex change for the central character would have been a wise move for the Disney studio to make? Especially when it had already established a time honored tradition for itself which taught its fans to expect a certain amount of adherence to a fairytale's original setting or basic plot line? This latest version of CHICKEN LITTLE is so different from the original that it's a disappointment to fans of the original and that's all we're saying. If you're someone who happens to like abstract versions of fairytales, you have every right to embrace that sort of thing. We would never tell you otherwise. In the meantime, a witch likes to continue promoting the more tradtional re-telling of a fairy story--for the benefit of those who can appreciate the same tastes that my sisters and I happen to have.
Originally Posted By Bystander Would it have been wise? Well, if a different sex for the main character were the only change, it certainly would have caused problems at the box office. I don't think America in 1950 was ready for an animated gay fairytale. Also, "Cinderella" is a funny name for a dude. But there are, in fact, a number of "male Cinderella" stories in which a commoner manages to win the hand of a princess. "The Golden Goose*" is one, as is another called "The Flying Boat." And you may recall a certain assistant pig-keeper who eventually managed a royal wedding. It certainly would have been a *different* story, just as Chicken Little is different from "The Sky is Falling." But it would not automatically be worse. As for adherence to the original plotline, I must point you toward "The Little Mermaid," which has an ending more like the first two lines of "Eddystone Light" than like Andersen's tale. Changes aren't, of course, necessarily for the better, and enough random mucking about will ruin anything. But I don't think Disney should feel bound by the form and content of their source material, especially with stuff as old and constantly reworked as "Rapunzel" and "The Sky is Falling." *Not to be confused with "The Goose that Laid Golden Eggs."
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORGOCH: Only that they's workin' on a some rap number fer the gal ta sing--so's they can modernize her ev'n more 'n they already has--callin' her 'Rappin' Rapunzel'... ORWEN: Stop spreading rumors, old biddy!
