DVDizzy.com

Home | Reviews | Schedule | Cover Art | Search The Site
DVDizzy.com Top Stories:

It is currently Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:02 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 615 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:33 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 2:57 pm
Posts: 3535
Location: Puerto Rico
mooky_7_sa wrote:
Ariel'sprince, does it even matter if Giselle (or any other Disney heroine) is official Disney Princess or not? Would you suddenly stop liking her if she wasn't? It's just a product line. There are several Disney heroines who I think are more worthy to be called Disney Princesses than few of those who are already in that line.

This whole Disney Princess thing is kind of similar to Disney's Platinum line. It doesn't mean Platinum titles are better than "regular" titles, it just means they are more marketable (and thus more profitable) than them. I mean, there's no way "Jungle Book" is better than "Dumbo" or "Rescuers". It's the same with Disney Princesses. The current eight "Princesses" are more marketable to little girls just because they have fancy dresses and sing nice songs.


The ironic thing is that the Platinum Line has also created confusion in fans and has been changed to reflect current tastes and the HD revolution. For example, the Platinum Line was conceived as the top ten best selling Disney films, ending with 101 Dalmatians and starting all over again with Snow White in HD (if I am not mistaken), but with the format wars brewing up Disney was forced to ante up the releases from once a year to two releases a year and included titles that were already released as single discs of independent special editions.

So the fans are now scratching their heads over the inclusion of Pinocchio, Peter Pan and Fantasia at the last minute since they were never considered "popular" enough to be part of the line.

This what is happening with Giselle. I believe that at one point Disney DID want Giselle as part of the group but ended the deal when they realized that they needed to pay Amy Adams royalties for using her likeness outside of "Enchanted" promotions.

Yet, it seems that Disney doesn't want to fully let go of her as she is too much of a princess "tribute" to let go, and both the film and the characters are popular enough to be constantly referenced and mentioned in the official line. And this is where the problem begins. I recall Disney calling her "the new Disney Princess" when describing a Halloween costumes. Then there's the songs included as part of the official Princess line.

So in short: Yes, Giselle is a Disney Princess in the character sense because she manages to be a deep tribute to the Princesses that came before her. But she is not an OFFICIAL Disney Princess in the merchandise line, and won't be until DISNEY OFFICIALLY CONFIRMS IT.

_________________
ImageImageImageImage

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Enchanted
PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 4:50 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:07 am
Posts: 3244
Location: beyond the meadows of joy and the valley of contentment
Disney Duster wrote:
Yea, Giselle is a nice character but she is not enough like a Disney princess and the whole movie says bad, wrong things about Disney fairy tales.

You are right, though, sometimes Disney even gets themselves wrong, and they change their minds and are not clear.

Where did the consumer products site say Enchanted was part of Disney Princess? I remember it might have said that at one time, but that was before they decided Giselle wouldn't be a Disney Princess. The cast of 8 that the site lists is the official cast for now, until Tiana and the others come.

Yeah,Disney many times get themselfs wrong,like for example-Cinderella's coloring might be one of those mistakes.
I think that Disney should show how Princess films and Disney themselfs are good because I think that Giselle is a full character already when she's animated.
The said that Giselle and Enchanted itself are part of the line,they also calle her "The newest Disney Princess" in the Princess wedding dresses aritcle they had when the Giselle wedding dress was released for the Enchanted DVD and Blu-Ray.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Enchanted
PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 6:17 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:02 am
Posts: 8446
Location: America
Oh, Sprince, those articles probably came before the one that said she couldn't be a Disney Princess, or they were written before the news, or the information didn't spread to everyone (like whoever makes the wedding dresses) on time.

I don't see why Giselle can't be amazing on her own, without the line.

It's nice that you think Giselle is a full character from the beginning, and I wish they did not think Enchanted was about a flat character becoming more realistic. They could have said maybe girls shouldn't be so innocent and Giselle needs to be more aware of everything, but not need to get a deeper personality.

I wouldn't have some hate for Enchanted if they didn't make the film thinking this way. I can like the film if I watch it thinking the characters are not supposed to be representative of all the previous princes and princesses, but I have to ignore the original intent of the filmakers.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:26 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 2:57 pm
Posts: 3535
Location: Puerto Rico
I don't know, Disney Duster. I think she still retained some of her charm and innocence by the end of the film. She is still making dresses with the help of mice, rats and pigeons, called her fashion design studio "Andalasia" and is a very playful mother. She is still herself only she gained more wisdom from her New York experience.

The way I see it, there's a Quijote effect going on. For those unaware, at the end of the Quijote story Don Quijote is defeated by the White Moon Knight, causing him to gain his sanity, but losing hope and his sense of adventure. Sancho, on the other hand, became more adventurous and begged Quijote at his deathbed to reclaim his sense of adventure.

In "Enchanted's" case, Gisselle became a little more aware that love is deeper and that someone doesn't have to be a prince or princess to find it. Robert, on the other hand, learned to find joy in love, life, his daughter and in romance. So the two of them clearly influenced each other to the point where they gained something out of it. In other words, Gisselle became "more realistic" (without losing her animated charm) and Robert became more hopeful and romantic.

At least, that's how I see it...

_________________
ImageImageImageImage

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Enchanted
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 2:39 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:02 am
Posts: 8446
Location: America
But pap, the filmakers said in press and summaries and official things that Giselle was a character as flat and 2-dimensional as hand-drawn animation, who became a fully rounded, 3-dimensional, realistic person. People can have opinions that the early Disney characters were shallow and lacked depth, fine, but for Disney to actually make a movie saying that is downright insulting, horrible, and I can't believe they did it.

You said yourself Giselle "finds out love is deeper", etc. Yes, let's say that Cinderella and the Prince never really loved each other with the necessary deepness at all and wouldn't really live happily ever after! You know what, critics can say that but not Disney themselves, they can't make a movie that destroys my belief that the early Disney princesses really were realistic and their love was not shallow and that if you believe, it really could happen in real life that way! They can't make a movie destroying their early characters just because of an opinion.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Enchanted
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:28 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:07 am
Posts: 3244
Location: beyond the meadows of joy and the valley of contentment
Disney Duster wrote:
Oh, Sprince, those articles probably came before the one that said she couldn't be a Disney Princess, or they were written before the news, or the information didn't spread to everyone (like whoever makes the wedding dresses) on time.

I don't see why Giselle can't be amazing on her own, without the line.

It's nice that you think Giselle is a full character from the beginning, and I wish they did not think Enchanted was about a flat character becoming more realistic. They could have said maybe girls shouldn't be so innocent and Giselle needs to be more aware of everything, but not need to get a deeper personality.

I wouldn't have some hate for Enchanted if they didn't make the film thinking this way. I can like the film if I watch it thinking the characters are not supposed to be representative of all the previous princes and princesses, but I have to ignore the original intent of the filmakers.

Well,the aritcle about Giselle and the film being part of the line was before the film came but the article about the wedding dress was when the dress was released with the film's DVD and Blu-Ray,and they said she's the newest Disney Princess.
It's like making Ariel her own line insted of adding her to the Princess line because she's a mermaid and not a human,she just feels like a Disney Princess.
Yeah,they could say that Giselle should be more careful but they supposed to promoted it as the New Yorkers who learns to be happy and enchanted and finds a new world,like Ariel with the human world.
Yeah,I also think that you should also ignore what they said,there are many times when they"re wrong (Like when they think that only little girls can like Princesses and Fairies or that only little boys can like Pixar films and Pirates Of The Caribbean).

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:39 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:33 am
Posts: 4978
Location: UK
This is knida going off topic with the current discussion thats going on at the moment, but I really wanted to ask this question here ...

On another forum, a question was asked about how many cameos of the 'real life princesses' there are in Enchanted. He said there were 5. I can only count 3, being Jodi Benson, Judy Kuhn and Paige O'Hara. He said that the other two are Mary Costa and Illene Woods, appearing as two older ladies at the ball. When I pointed out that they are in no way credited with this cameo, or even mentioned anywhere, and the other obvious fact that they look nothing like the ladies themselves, he disptuted it. He says that on the Bluray, on the D Files, the director talks about how he got the old princesses back, like sleeping beauty, and the showed the old lady clip at the ball. I keep disputing this, and I'm basically being called a lier for it.

Am I wrong ? Is it really them ? I have NEVER heard this before, and we have often spoken in this thread of why did they not get Mary and Illene back to do cameos, like the old lady on the bus.

Please could you help me clear this up :?

_________________
… The Film That Gave Voice To A Whole Generation …


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:18 am 
Offline
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:31 am
Posts: 1268
Location: San Diego
I don't believe the old ladies were them..... though many people thought that.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:49 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 2:57 pm
Posts: 3535
Location: Puerto Rico
Disney Duster: I honestly think you are over-analyzing the film to the point where you are turning it into something it ain't.

First of all, what's wrong with a little parody? Just because Disney has a rich history in animated fairy tales it doesn't mean they can't look, point and laugh at it. To me, it shows that they are willing to laugh at themselves every once in a while. And let's be honest here, some of the movies ARE a little silly, Snow White being the biggest target (if you don't believe me, ask Escapay and he'll write an essay about it). So again, don't take it too personally as a Disney fan if "Enchanted" somehow talks "bad things" about the Disney Fairy Tales.

And even then, it greatly celebrates it. Thinking about it, while the film may say that "true love isn't always the first prince that comes your way" I think a romantic element is still involved, just subdued for the sake of storytelling.

I re-watched the movie recently and noticed something. When Giselle is making the statue of her dream prince I noticed that it looks more like Robert than Edward. True, the film may lead us into thinking its really Edward thanks to the nice change of scene, but if you look at the hair, the eyes and the face shape it looks a lot like Robert, meaning that she was dreaming of Robert all along. She fell in love with Edward because not only did he resemble Robert he was the first Prince she saw. And since the two of them were extremely romantic they thought they were meant to be.

People sometimes think that the person they fall in love with are THE ones when sometimes it isn't. In Giselle's case, all she had to base her feelings on was a dream, and since dreams are hard to interpret she thought her true dreams lied on a dream. In a way, she still gets her prince, but a different sort of prince.

While some may say that this is "realistic" I don't think it discredits or criticizes the love stories found in the Disney Fairy Tales. Why? Because the love stories were already written long before Disney turned them into films. Their stories work for THEM.

"Enchanted" is a different story. Yes, its inspired by the classic films, and yes in a way it "mocks" them, but I doubt its harshly saying "this is REAL love". Its basically a modern fairy tale.

So again, don't be too offended by it since even if its feet are firmly planted in modern beliefs and parody its heart still respects the legacy and has an idealistic belief of romance.

At least, that's how I see it...

_________________
ImageImageImageImage

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 6:23 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 5:00 am
Posts: 2191
Location: Campbell River, BC
Am I the only one who remembers this bit of dialogue?

"Are you really a princess?"

"No, not yet at least"

Giselle states it herself in that scene in the apartment that she is NOT a princess since she has not married Edward. Since she didn't marry him she loses out on the title.

:roll: Seriously though you can't go by the merchandise, it's not canon (although exceptions might be G.I Joe, Transformers and He-Man) the movie takes priority first, any t.v series has to be taken with a grain of salt and fudged a bit if it contradicts the movie (but even then I would think the movie takes first priority in most cases).

So Giselle is not an official princess by blood or marriage, and I don't think she should be included in the lineup anyways her film isn't animated (10 minutes or so hardly counts) and the lineup has only featured characters from fully animated movies thus far to my knowledge.

_________________
http://hornedking.deviantart.com/

My DA site :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 6:50 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:07 am
Posts: 3244
Location: beyond the meadows of joy and the valley of contentment
Pap64-First,the movie isn't saying that animated characters are flat and if you think that they are,then they aren't and you"re wrong.
And Robert-I already said here that Robert is the statue she's making and he's the Prince from her dreams (There's even a pin showing her dream and her dancing with Robert) so it's like Sleeping Beauty and how Aurora met Phillip but I already said that.
Chernabog_Rocks-Giselle said "Not yet,but I will be",and she still belongs,Mulan isn't a real princess but she belongs to the Princess line and she's a Disney Princess and Giselle is a Disney Princess too.
Atlantica-No,I don't think that they"re Mary and Illene,they should have been the ladies at the ball thought.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Enchanted
PostPosted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:00 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:02 am
Posts: 8446
Location: America
Pap...the film still believing in true love and happy endings, and referencing the classics is fine an all, but...

They aren't just gently mocking. They were saying things about the Disney films beyond "isn't this funny?" For one, as I said, they said the early Disney fairy tale characters are flat, undeveloped, and unrealistic. That was the point of the thing. Walt Disney and his artists tried and kept trying to make the characters depthful and realistic, with this quote from working on Sleeping Beauty, "make the characters as real as possible, near flesh and blood and sympathetic." Then they go making Giselle and Edward almost Aurora and Phillip clones, complete with Sampson, forest, and forest animals, and then make the point that they are not realistic, until they become so in the real world.

Which brings up the second point of making Andalasia some completely made up place in some meadows and valleys of happy nowhere, instead of real places like Germany, France, or the Middle East, only fancied up, in the original princess films. Giselle's extra unreal, and it says all the Disney heroines who she is based on are, too.

When I commented, with others, on another forum that Prince Edward was so shallow and empty he wasn't anything like the original princes, more like Gaston, and wouldn't make any woman happily ever after, I heard someone who had to keep hush hush but apparently worked on the film say that the crew was trying to find out "who these [original fairy tale] characters were." The original princes didn't get enough screentime. That doesn't equate shallow and empty. Of course it looks like there wasn't much there...they weren't much in the movie! To say the princes would be like that is an assualt on the characters, and crushes the dreams of happiness that the previous princesses had with the princes.

Like I said, if they just had Giselle go from the past (a real place in the past, perhaps where Art Nouveau originated...Brussels, or it could be just somewhere in Europe, Giselle could name surrounding countries instead of the Valley of Contentment), to the present, it would be better. The audience, more so the adults, could still laugh at how rediculous Giselle looks and acts in the modern world, and in the heads of the people who think a character like that could never exist in that pure form, let them think that instead of tell the whole audience they have to think that.

But they should also have done her "transformation" from stylized art to live-action in more of a "Wizard of Oz" way, with Dorothy going from color to black and white, showing the live-action world is merely it's own stylization, and both worlds are real.

Aaaand if the movie didn't destroy the way fairy tales were supposed to be, an example being the deleted line "I'm talking about the day after happily ever after", then maybe it woudn't be so unjust. Yup, it's a good thing to get little kids to learn relationships don't stay happy all the time, but why not say happily ever after includes a few arguments instead of say it can't happen at all, or it's just your wedding day, then it goes away? The movie tries to hold onto believing in dreams, but they can't let us dream the past Disney princesses are real and that you can fall in love anld live happily forever like they did. Sure, the world teaches you it's rare, and many say it's not healthy to dream such things, but maybe they should have thought about the fact that that's what the past Disney films did teach before they decided to make this film.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:44 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 5:00 am
Posts: 2191
Location: Campbell River, BC
Ariel'sprince wrote:
Chernabog_Rocks-Giselle said "Not yet,but I will be",and she still belongs,Mulan isn't a real princess but she belongs to the Princess line and she's a Disney Princess and Giselle is a Disney Princess too.


Yes but she said that when she was still in the "I'm going to marry Edward" mode, she changed her mind and went with the non-prince. It still boils down to the same thing, she didn't marry the prince so she doesn't get to be a Princess.

Personally I don't think Mulan should be in the line, like I said you can't go by merchandise since it's not canon.

_________________
http://hornedking.deviantart.com/

My DA site :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Enchanted
PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:36 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:02 am
Posts: 8446
Location: America
Okay, I finally think I can sum it up a little better.

First, don't you all think it's wrong, and not keeping the Disney tradition, not keeping the Disney sincerity and feel, if they think the princesses and many other fairy tale characters are flat, 2-dimensional and underdeveloped, and then they purposely make characters that are supposed to represent those Walt Disney fairy tale characters, to evolve into better, more dimensional characters like they've done in newer films since Walt's death?

I mean, I recently found out the evil queen was supposed to desire to marry the prince, perhaps she's lonely in the castle without Snow White's father, and she's extra jealous seeing Snow White steal that. It wasn't revealed in dialogue on film, just in the visuals, animation. Likewise, a previous script for Cinderella revealed this princess wanting her stepmother to like her and be proud of her, or it suggested it. So maybe they didn't see the depth, but Walt and the animators knew it all along and put it into their characters, whether people noticed it or not.

So who are they to say the Walt fairy tale characters had so little depth, and purposely make characters that are supposed to reflect that, make fun of that? I mean, in The Disney Villain they said Walt was so excited by the depth and complexity of the Evil Queen's character!

Saying Giselle evolves from a flat 2-dimensional character to a full 3-dimensional one is horrible, it means they thought that of Disney's cherished characters and that's what this film is about, making these old characters better.

And what I think is extra horrible is making a person who's not even a full person, a character that's not a full character, on purpose! I mean, the idea of Giselle only being half of a real person, a real entity, a real soul, is just mindboggilngly terrible!

Then of course, there's Giselle's true love. The filmakers said, and clearly tried in the film, that they wanted to do a send up to the old cliches and traditions of Disney's fairy tales. Well, how can that be true when Giselle believes she's in true love with Edward, but then it dies, she was wrong, and she "really falls in love" with Robert? Disney's fairy tale films depicted true love at first sight that lasts ever after. This film said it doesn't. Unless Giselle really loved the man she dreamed of, Robert, all along, and she didn't say she loved Edward yet but she would, or something, or she said she felt the beginnings of it. I suppose the way she words things and she just sings a song about true love could suggest this, but I think some lyrics in the song does imply she and Edward are in love, the idea for her true love always being Robert only works if she and Edward are singing they will be in love, but she says "It's you" to Edward and then "I knew it was you" to Robert so...?!

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:28 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:59 pm
Posts: 3744
Location: S.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters
Dusty, I think Enchanted is very much in the Disney tradition. In my mind Giselle is the next Uncle Remus, Mary Poppins, Pollyanna, Peter Pan or Thomasina. Giselle is a character who has the ability to touch and change lives for the better through her ability to help adults who have lost their childhood to rediscover them and become better adults for it.

Giselle's 2-D nature is not insulting but very clever, because that's how cynical 2-D adults view the fairy tale world and it's wonderful to see that kind of character help someone like Robert (who views himself as a fully rounded, realistic individual) change his views and become a better person. Also understand that in the context of Andalasia, Giselle (and for that matter, Edward, Narissa and Nathanial too) is not a 2-D character because that's how all people in that world live, so from her and other charactres perspective she is not "flat" or 2-D. Nobody is saying that these charactres have no depth, it's merely a matter of perspective and that's what this film is out to teach is that sometimes you need to change your perspective on live and believe in happy endings and such to fully appreciate life, and it also helps to better contrast Robert and Giselle in the end.

Now stop being so upset with Enchanted Dusty and just enjoy it for what it is.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Enchanted
PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:55 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:02 am
Posts: 8446
Location: America
But Disney did say themselves, in press material and other sources, that Giselle was 2-D, and flat, etc. who became fully rounded in the real world.

I just don't understand how they can purposely make half a character walking around, someone with missing dimensions and depth. And say that's how all the Disney fairy tale characters are.

If Giselle doesn't really have a 2-D nature, it's just perspective, then why you you say
Flanger-Hanger wrote:
Giselle's 2-D nature is not insulting but very clever,
?

And you completely ignored how the film says fairy tale true love really doesn't exist. Giselle thought she was really in true love with Edward but was proven wrong. She had to date Robert and know him for more than one day to really be in true love with him, says the film. According to this film, Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora weren't really in love. How's that keeping Disney tradition again?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Enchanted
PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:16 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:59 pm
Posts: 3744
Location: S.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters
Disney Duster wrote:
And you completely ignored how the film says fairy tale true love really doesn't exist. Giselle thought she was really in true love with Edward but was proven wrong. She had to date Robert and know him for more than one day to really be in true love with him, says the film. According to this film, Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora weren't really in love. How's that keeping Disney tradition again?


For Robert at first, but then he discovers that it does exist. Giselle merely found out a different kind of love and Robert was always in reality her one true love like Aurora or Snow White, and Cinderella (see the statue or her dream prince in the opening). Just because it's a little different than the other Disney fair tales doesn't make it any less meaningful nor is it being disrespectful to the older films (Disney can't afford to market their older films in a negative way anyway).

How is it keeping with the Disney tradition again? By showing a story in which a cynical adult character is reminded by a "magical" individual who is capable of showing that person a different outlook on life. Enchanted may have used fairy tale archetypes but it's goal is not to show a basic fairy tale plot, but to do that other model of Disney story telling using elements more commonly associated with the Disney name. may I remind you that Robert isn't the only cynical character in the movie theatre at the time this movie is likely screened.

Giselle is like other Disney princesses in her optimistic, happy, personality and her talents in singing and begin friendly with animals etc. Disney is not saying that belle, Ariel, Cinderella, Snow White, Aurora are not real characters but share similarities inn terms of talents and abilities, not depth of character. Giselle is not "flat" by any stretch of the imagination (or only to adults who have none) just different from everyone she meets in the real world.

If you could actually site Disney issued press released that described Giselle's character in a less than complimentary way I might better understand your view.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Enchanted
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:04 am 
Offline
Collector's Edition
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:11 am
Posts: 861
Location: The Netherlands
Disney Duster wrote:
And you completely ignored how the film says fairy tale true love really doesn't exist. Giselle thought she was really in true love with Edward but was proven wrong. She had to date Robert and know him for more than one day to really be in true love with him, says the film. According to this film, Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora weren't really in love. How's that keeping Disney tradition again?

Well, if I remember it well, Snow White knew the prince long before the movie started. She ''knew him for more than one day'' and fell in love with him. That wasn't the same with Cindy and Aurora, but you could say the both went on a ''date'' with their prince and talked about themselves (the ball and the forest dance/meeting).

_________________
"The hardest thing in this world, is to live in it. Be brave. Live." - Buffy Summers


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 11:02 am 
Offline
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 12:40 pm
Posts: 1550
Wait, wait, wait, Disney Duster! Let me get this straight. You're upset because Disney finally made a film reflective of how the real world works? Finally made a film that doesn't dillude the dating process? Doesn't convince little girls that finding their life-long partner will be an overnight or love-at-first-sight thing? That "happily ever afters" exist only if you work hard and make sacrifices?

Well, excuse me, Disney is stupid for finally portraying how the world really is! Little girls need to continue believing an overly-simplified, idyllic, dare I say one in a million way of finding a partner!

Let's shoot down Disney because they finally dared tell the truth over some sugar-coated fairy tale version of facts.

_________________
Visit Animation Activist to discover excellent foreign, older, cult, underrated, and obscure animated films you may never have heard of before! There is life beyond Disney!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Enchanted
PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:10 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:02 am
Posts: 8446
Location: America
First Flam-Ham. Unfortunately I can't find the places I saw Disney touting their newest film about a 2-dimensional princess who grows into a full 3-dimensional woman (inside, not physically), but I did find an article written about them with Disney interviews saying "the city transforms her into a real, fully-rounded human being". Anyway, Edward and Giselle fell in love at first sight, and all movies they and their story are based on say that you can fall in love at first sight and have it last forever after. Enchanted says that is not true. Its says either Giselle, and by association, all those princesses, either just thought they were in love but weren't really in love, destroying the truth in the past Disney fairy tales that they knew in their hearts who was for them, forever, from the first moment they saw them, or Enchanted says that Giselle and Edward were in love but it didn't last forever, their love died.

The film says you must get to know someone for a while to love them. Kevin Lima said he wanted to teach girls that instead of letting them think they're in love after a dance or just seeing someone. And Neal, and Flam-Ham, that's not a bad thing to teach, but isn't that destroying a Disney tradition, a Disney ideal of fairy tale true love, not keeping it? If he wanted to teach that, he should have done it differently, perhaps have Giselle not be in love yet, but dream of love, and in Robert she finds love. But she shouldn't fall in fairy tale true love with Edward only to have it be die. The Disney films say magic and dreams can come true in true life. This films says it's just in fairy tale land. And I already explained why the fairy tale land Andalasia is also bad. All the other princesses lived in real places, or at least fantasy kingdoms in real countries.

Flam-Ham, there are good things in Enchanted, you keep talking about the good things in it, but there are bad things in it, things wrong with it, bad things it does to other Disney films and characters, and like most things, it's hard to enjoy the good when it's tainted by the bad. Basically it could be summed up as the good is how Robert is changed, and the bad is how Giselle is changed. Saying fairy tales can happen in real life is good. Saying fairy tales are different from real life, in a movie, where fairy tales are supposed to be depicted as actually happening, real within the movie world, is bad. All movies aren't real! Well, except documentaries, you know.

supertalies, Snow White knew the prince for one day, at the wishing well. She never saw him again until he kissed her. That kiss happened on the second day she saw him, but she was already in love with him after the first day, and ready to marry him. And yes, by all means I believe Cinderella and her prince talked to each other at the ball, as we know the ball went on for a lot longer than we saw, and we saw them going different places. They could've been just silent, thinking, or singing, for that long, but we don't know.

Back to Neal again, like I said, by all means teach girls that love rarely happens like that, and I can see how a princess movie would attract them and be a good vehicle to teach them, but let's not say that it doesn't exist for even the fairy tale characters, okay? Because you know, Giselle and Edward really loved each other and got married and she became a princess and lived happily ever after with Edward oh wait no none of that happened.

All this talk has reminded me of the scene in Cinderella where the Duke talks about the prince knowing in his heart that Cinderella will be his bride, after he sees her. The Duke was making fun of the King for believing that love can happen that way "in real life" because it was only a "pretty plot for fairy tales". So Cinderella said two things, that we are supposed to take these characters as living in real life, and they're true love at first sight is possible in real life.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 615 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 24 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group