Originally Posted By Erjontem <But not all of Disney's animated movies did well in their initial release in theaters.> True, but those you mention were misunderstood for being too innovative, and their financial worth rose over the decades in tandem with their critical worth. Fantasia, Sleeping Beauty, and Alice in Wonderland ended up finding commercial AND critical success as people learned to appreciate their novel styles and unusual qualities. This differentiates them from movies such as, say, the Black Cauldron, or (I predict) Treasure Planet and Home on the Range, that will probably never be re-evaluated that favorably. I put Princess and the Frog in the latter category -- though it was definitely better than TP or HotR, and more successful. It's just that Disney seems to be running around axing projects, changing titles and repackaging movies because the world failed to fall in love with Princess and the Frog... Well it must be that people are sick of princesses, then! Wake up, House of Mouse: Princess and the Frog had forgettable songs, a deeply flawed story, and very formulaic characters. And none of those things was ever in vogue.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA ^^^Good points, all Erjontem. I sometimes feel that some of the animated fare that is being produced just doesn't need to be considered a 'classic' along the lines of 'Pinocchio' and 'Lady and the Tramp.' They're sort of a animated equivalent of "One of our Dinosaurs Is Missing" or "That Darn Cat"
Originally Posted By mawnck >> And by the way, from a quality/box office results standpoint, Princess and the Frog got just the kind of gross it deserved: fair, but no better than Hercules.<< >>True, but those you mention were misunderstood for being too innovative, and their financial worth rose over the decades in tandem with their critical worth. Fantasia, Sleeping Beauty, and Alice in Wonderland ended up finding commercial AND critical success as people learned to appreciate their novel styles and unusual qualities.<< Horse foofie, horse foofie, horse foofie! (And the horse it rode in in.) (1) People do not stay away from movies because they stink. They stay away from movies because they THINK they MIGHT not like them. If they're staying away, that means they haven't seen it. Given the last several Disney animated features, why would they expect P&tF to be any good? (2) Neither Sleeping Beauty nor Alice in Wonderland are critical successes NOW. The artwork is certainly appreciated, but they're still pretty lousy movies from a story perspective. (3) Alvin and the Chipmunks - The Squeakuel. Nuff said. (3) That crummy P&tF got an Oscar nomination for Best Animated Feature in the strongest year ever in the history of animation, beating out Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, Mary and Max, and A MIYAZAKI MOVIE. Deeply flawed story? Formulaic characters? What the heck movie did you see, man? (And if Sleeping Beauty isn't Formulaic Character Central, I'd sure like to know what is.)
Originally Posted By basil fan >Neither Sleeping Beauty nor Alice in Wonderland are critical successes NOW If 'critical successes' means that the professional critics say it's good, I'd have to question that statement. >very formulaic characters In PATF? Which ones? It's Tough to Be a Bird <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/disney/tough.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/...ugh.html</a>
Originally Posted By Erjontem To Mawnck: What exactly were Dr. Facilier's motivations? What happened to him in the end? Why exactly did he turn Naveen into a frog? (re: flawed story.) Why did the spell not work with Charlotte? Why did it work with Tiana to begin with? (re: flawed story.) Why did Tiana get the money in the end? (Oh, because Louis scared the business men; nice). (re: flawed story.) What purpose did Mama Odie serve -- except for being a "fairy godmother" figure? (re: formulaic characters.) Why was Louis there? Why was Ray there? Did they do anything beyond provide mediocre comic relief? Did they advance the plot in any way? (re: formulaic characters.) What was up with the hillbilly sequence? Was it anything but filler? (re: flawed story.) And finally: what was the movie's climax? That one-minute confrontation with Facilier in the graveyard? Before that, it was never clear that Facilier and Tiana even knew each other. What kind of conflict opposed them? (re: flawed story.) > Given the last several Disney animated features, why would they expect P&tF to be any good? < How about in 1989, when The Little Mermaid came out? What were people's expectations of Disney movies then? Higher than in 2009? People didn't go to see Princess and the Frog because anyone who saw it told them "it's OK, but not great." I know, because I YEARNED to love this movie, to watch it be a success, and yet that was honestly the only thing I could say about it.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: My sisters and I agree with you, basil fan, duckling. mawnck was just giving his personal opinion which doesn't make it factual. ORWEN: A lot of Disney films weren't successful in the beginning. Pinocchio is another one of them that seemed to be a failure at first. But over time it became very much loved. ORDDU: And when you talk to the more 'modern critics' about Pinocchio and Sleeping Beauty, they claim that these are two of the best films to come out of the studio. But it's all a matter of opinion. Everyone has their favorites. ORWEN: For me it will always be Sleeping Beauty. ORDDU: For me it will always be Tarzan--minus the plain Jane. ORGOCH: Fer me it's any movie with frogs in it!!
Originally Posted By mawnck >>And when you talk to the more 'modern critics' about Pinocchio and Sleeping Beauty, they claim that these are two of the best films to come out of the studio.<< Pinocchio, yes, of course. Sleeping Beauty, I'm afraid I'm gonna need to see a link.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: We can't exactly give you a link because we didn't keep track of the critiques you read. The best we can do is to refer you to the current reissue of the Sleeping Beauty DVD where a couple of critcs, there, talked about the success of the motion picture. Apparently it has done much better than first thought. Certainly when Sleeping Beauty first came out, it didn't appear to be a success. But over time things look much different concerning that film. Aurora is one of most requested to see characters at the theme parks, according to a friend of ours who works in Entertainment in Florida. She's among the top 10 most requested to see for a meet and greet. This wasn't always the case. But this is reflected it merchandise sales as well. There was a time when you couldn't find any merchandise on Sleeping Beauty at the parks. This has turned around dramatically because of the current demand.
Originally Posted By basil fan Erjontem, can you give an example of a Disney animated feature that, in your opinion, doesn't have a flawed story or formulaic characters? 'cause I think the things you mention are blown way out of proportion. What exactly were Dr. Facilier's motivations? He says it himself in front of Naveen and Lawrence--he can't stand seeing others have what he thinks he deserves, in a word, envy. What happened to him in the end? He got sucked into "the other side." Beyond that, you don't wanna know. Why did the spell not work with Charlotte? That's just a glitch. Every film has 'em, some story point the writers didn't think about. I could name you dozens of glitches from other movies. Why did it work with Tiana to begin with? If you're going to do a film about magic, you can't ask 'why' everything. Why can't the Blue Firy help Pinocchio again? Why does a living being have to jump into the Black Cauldron of his own will? Why do some animated objects in the Beast's castle talk and some don't? Why doesn't Ursula just turn Ariel into a polyp and have done with it? Why is Peter Pan's shadow alive? Why does Cinderella's dress only last until midnight? Why does a kiss negate a spell to begin with? Why was Ray there? Did they do anything beyond provide mediocre comic relief? Did they advance the plot in any way? Ray's entire Evangeline thread was the impetus to teach Tiana and Naveen about love, something neither character knows a blessed thing about. Besides which, comic relief is a very necessary element in film. And Ray's personality is very fresh and unusual. He's not a stock character. Look, I'm not trying to say you have to like the movie. If you don't, you don't, and that's your privilege. But I found the characters of Naveen, Ray, Tiana, Facilier, Charlotte, even Mama Odie fresh and appealing with distinct personalities that were very much unlike the expected types. It's Tough to Be a Bird <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/disney/tough.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/...ugh.html</a>
Originally Posted By basil fan Couldn't find a review of Sleeping Beauty, but did you know what review HOME ON THE RANGE got? It's a "total joy," raves Gene Shalit, The Today Show.
Originally Posted By Erjontem Hey basil fan, You raise good points (particularly the Ursula-Ariel-polyp issue), and I definitely did not dislike Princess and the Frog. It's just that I can understand why it's not a smash hit, and I don't think it will ever survive as anything more than a "minor classic." Disney movies can be formulaic and magnificent at the same time, if the formula feels natural and organic. Take Aladdin, for example. Jafar feels like a real person. He actually has a soul, however dark and twisted. You forget he's just a character, let alone a stock character. Same with Ursula. Something in her is so truthful, so compelling, that I'm half-convinced she's actually up to her tricks under water as we're speaking. The movie caught her on film for a few moments, but you forget that she doesn't have a real life beyond that. To go back to Aladdin: the genie is there to fulfill Aladdin's wishes, which forms the backbone of the story. When you watch his antics, you don't think "he's there to make the audience laugh." You just see his role in the plot and take his character for granted. Going even further in time, Cinderella's fairy godmother is not comic relief, she's the reason Cinderella makes it to the ball. But what does Ray do? OK, he provides some inspiration with Evangeline, but I couldn't help but see the transparency of the formula: he's there to play the part of the cute lovable sidekick. The entire cast of the movie had a very "paint by the numbers" quality to it. Facilier and Mama Odie in particular. It's like in "Usual Suspects:" the greatest trick the devil ever pulled is making people believe he doesn't exist. Formulas aren't a weakness, but the genius is in making you forget they're there. To me, The Princess and the Frog didn't achieve that.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>To go back to Aladdin: the genie is there to fulfill Aladdin's wishes, which forms the backbone of the story. When you watch his antics, you don't think "he's there to make the audience laugh." You just see his role in the plot and take his character for granted.<< I found the genie terribly entertaining, but "he's there to make the audience laugh" pretty much sums up my overall reaction to him. >>I couldn't help but see the transparency of the formula: he's there to play the part of the cute lovable sidekick.<< I'm curious - how old were you when you met Flounder in Little Mermaid, Abu in Aladdin, Meeko and Flit in Pocahontas, etc, etc, etc,? Cause Ray was a much more developed character than most of them, and more integral to the story than all of them (especially Flit, who was one of several Disney birds from the period whose only purpose was to be relentlessly pounded). P&tF lost me exactly once - the "hillbilly" guys (I don't think they have hillbillies in New Orleans). Their purpose in the story was to give the happy couple a challenge to fight as a team, but I was put off the rather un-PC presentation of physical and mental disabilities. Just didn't fit the movie. Your reaction to P&tF was a lot more similar to my reaction to Up. I REALLY didn't buy Up. It was due to a lack of Disney's trademarked "plausible implausibility" moreso than unconvincing characters, but I got into some good arguments on this board about it. I still stand by my opinion too, but it sure didn't hurt the box office any, and apparently isn't having much effect on awards season either. Again I ask you ... if all these things you're complaining about are the reason for P&tF's box office underperformance, then how do you explain Alvin and the Chipmunks The Squeakuel? Surely you're not saying that movie was better? Thanks, Basil Fan, for writing the rebuttal I couldn't find the time to compose, and doing it better than I would've done anyway.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros "(I don't think they have hillbillies in New Orleans)." I think they are supposed to be Creoles. They're basically the bayou equivalent of hillbillies, but they were portrayed in the movie as just regular old hillbillies located in the bayou. I also didn't really understand their point in the film (yah, I get the whole "fight a battle together" thing), especially since the trio is on screen for well under 5 minutes. Evangaline is on screen for less time, but she's recurring so her impact is greater. The hunter folks are just useless to the film.
Originally Posted By Erjontem >> Flounder, Abu, Meeko and Flit << Flouder's friendship with Ariel seemed legimitate and long-standing. I never questioned his appearance in the movie because we meet him at the same time as we meet Ariel. I didn't have to think: "Oh, there's a new character. What's he going to do in this story?" Same with Abu. He and Aladdin are almost a package deal. Moreover, both Abu and Flounder are adorable. Flounder is convincingly cowardly and Abu is a bit of a rascal. Ray is deluded, hard to understand, and unexpectedly tragic. When he appeared out of nowhere in the movie, I kept thinking "Why do we need him there? How's he gonna help this movie/story?" I still don't have the answer. And "providing inspiration with Evangeline" does not a purpose make, in my book. I "met" Flit and Meeko when I was 10, and even then I thought they were there only to pad happy meals at McDonald's. They're pointless and unfunny. I generally think that Pocahontas, in spite of some gorgeous visuals, was the beginning of the Disney downfall. I agree with you about Up: the framing device of the love story was beautiful, but the adventure in Latin America was just too crazy for me. And why did Alvin do much better, you ask? Franchises are by definition safe box office bets. That's why so many movies (animated or live action) and even musicals rely on them instead of original products. That's why Disney's direct-to-video sequels are actually pretty successful (and God knows that's not because of quality). Alvin is a tried and tested world that parents and kids will trust and seek out. Princess and the Frog is an unknown. Seeing it requires convincing, incredible word of mouth, a spectacular trailer, and a catchy song or two that you've fallen in love with at the mall. I don't think it had any of these. The few people I know who saw it said it was "cute." When The Lion King came out, no one described it as "cute." And going back to basil fan: there's a difference between suspension of disbelief and plot holes. Peter Pan's shadow is alive: suspension of disbelief. The spell doesn't work with Charlotte: plot hole. The latter is equivalent to Cinderella's shoe no longer fitting her foot at the end, even though, well, before it just did. Woops!
Originally Posted By mawnck >>The latter is equivalent to Cinderella's shoe no longer fitting her foot at the end, even though, well, before it just did. Woops!<< Or Cinderella being the only girl in the whole kingdom with that shoe size. Or Cinderella's shoes still staying around when the rest of her magical outfit disappears. Or Cinderella's shoe shattering when it's dropped from a few feet, after she'd been walking, dancing, and running with it. Stuff like that only matters if the movie isn't working for you. And a movie not working for you personally isn't the same thing as a movie not working at the box office. So Alvin II was because of the franchise? Then explain Alvin I. The Chipmunks weren't exactly setting the charts afire when that came out. And it sucked too. The indisputable fact is, quality is not the only determining factor when it comes to a movie's popularity. There are only five Tomatometer points separating Princess and the Frog from The Little Mermaid. ;-)
Originally Posted By mawnck (BTW ... there are also only 3 Tomatometer points separating P&tF from Avatar ... and that's in the other direction!)
Originally Posted By Erjontem I really like our back and forth. It's not every day I get to discuss something I'm so passionate about with kindred spirits. And I honestly did not dislike Princess and the Frog. But I will say this: everything you say about Cinderella is consistent with the fantasy universe she lives in. It's a fairy tale, so shoe sizes and magical materials behave in unusual ways. The Charlotte spell issue is not a magical element of the fairy tale world of the movie. It actually breaks the laws of that world. It's breaches a technicality established by the rest of the movie. It's incoherent, even within the realm of fantasy. I have no problems with Louis playing jazz music, or with Tiana understanding what the frog says (does he have vocal chords as a frog? I'm not asking that question). But if kissing a magical frog turns a woman into a female frog, then that should work for Charlotte as it worked for Tiana. That's all I'm saying. Again, suspension of disbelief vs. plot hole. I have watched, worshiped, and dissected every major Disney movie in the pantheon, and I can't think of too many inconsistencies like this. Also, Alvin 1 was a franchise too. Alvin is a classic, successful, beloved, universally known children's property. And finally, yes, Princess and the Frog got overwhelmingly positive reviews. But on Rotten Tomatoes, a good review and an amazing review both count as "fresh." I saw many reviews saying the movie was pretty good. I did not see one that said it was dazzling. I feel like every critic out there pretty much echoed my views: yeah, that was pretty good. No superlatives.
Originally Posted By basil fan Lot's of good points here, too many to find and quote. I'll only say that I agree that if a film 'doesn't work' for you, it's flaws are magnified. If it works for you, they are diminished in your eyes. I don't like Flounder; I think he's dull and unattractive to look at, with neither purpose nor personality. But he doesn't spoil the film for me. I didn't care for the frog-hunting scene, either, but it was only 5 minutes out of the whole movie. The 'Big 4' films are not my favorites by any means. Aladdin is my #5 animated feature, Mermaid's in the top 10, and the other 2 fall somewhere in the middle. So I don't hold them up as any sort of standard, except in box-office receipts. Never really cared much for Jafar, villain-wise. Ursula's okay, but I'd pick Facilier above 'em both. Maybe the girl-into-frog thing only works once, I don't know. Or really even care. I didn't even pick up on it the until someone mentioned it here. The age of Beast's portrait bothers me a lot more. That's him at age 11? Ummm...or how about Chip? Are we supposed to buy that little kid as more than 10 years old? Or why don't Jasmine and the Sultan get a few wishes out of Genie before wishing him free? That would solve Al's dilemma about wishing himself into a prince again. Or just because genie-Jafar is trapped inside a lamp, all his spells are negated. Genie's magic doesn't disappear when he's trapped inside his lamp. If they did, the wishes would be useless--once you made your third and the genie was trapped again, bye-bye riches, or whatever you wished for. Why doesn't Ariel write Eric a note telling him the whole story? Everybody's got plot holes. Again, if you love the movie enough, you don't care a whole lot. Of course, it's all really just opinion. I liked PATF. Better than Lion King, if that puts it into perspective, but not enough to crack my top 10. I don't think it's un-criticizeable, just that some of your particular criticisms needed rebuttal. But again, just because the songs were memorable for me (went out singing a couple), doesn't mean they weren't anathema to other viewers. You can't say a certain movie is definitely, objectively great or awful without someone, somewhere voicing a different, and valid opinion. Will PATF be hailed or panned in the future? I dunno. I'd rather wait and see than predict it. (The only predicition I'll venture is that someday Treasure Planet will be recognized for the genius it is). Just my opinion. Disney Glitches <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/disney/dglitch.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/...tch.html</a>
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<Jafar feels like a real person. He actually has a soul, however dark and twisted. You forget he's just a character, let alone a stock character. Same with Ursula. Something in her is so truthful, so compelling, that I'm half-convinced she's actually up to her tricks under water as we're speaking.>> FWIW, they're cartoons to me. The only villain that is convincingly human to me is Frollo...no magical powers or anything, just an evil man.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I don't like Flounder; I think he's dull and unattractive to look at, with neither purpose nor personality. But he doesn't spoil the film for me. > He's the "Potsie" of LM.
