Animated Disney movies w/ plotlines that you'd change

[Disney Duster]

I forgot, another reason is that the male love interest in the original story of Rapunzel didn't die, he was brought back with magic tears, so it's even more Disney for the film to be faithful to that.

Even when it was changed later in the game, probably urged by some of his collaborators, Walt had several characters he wanted to die. Jock was supposed to die in Lady and the Tramp, and wasn't Thumper supposed to be killed off in Bambi too?

But neither of those were main characters, the heroes, which was the other detail. Also, those weren't fairy tales, and were different in tone.

Yeah, that Dopey character in that Snow White movie is so un-Disney. I wonder who even came up with that... oh, wait .

Once again, I said main characters.

[Mooky]

For start, here are my suggestions for just two of the DACs. More are to come.

The Princess and the Frog:

- call the movie "The Frog Prince"

- remove all in-movie, meta-references to "Frog Prince" being just a fairytale in a storybook – have the movie be a loose adaptation of "The Frog Prince". Let Facilier state from the beginning that the kiss of a princess breaks the spell, leaving it up to Naveen to come up with a way to make it happen.

- keep the Louis-as-an-enchanted-human sub-plot, effectively creating a love interest for Charlotte in the end. I'm not saying every Disney character needs one, but I always felt Charlotte kind of got the raw end of the deal out of the whole romance in the movie, especially considering she more than Tiana represents Disney's "wishing" ideal. It would also fix the nonsense of having an alligator living among and communicating with humans like it's no big deal – I know this is a Disney movie we're talking about, but it's a huge stretch.

- give Tiana a more personal reason to go after Facilier by having him be responsible for her father's death/demise.

- develop Facilier more – either by explaining the whole nature of the deal with the shadow forces or by, preferably, having him be the one controlling them. Make him a trickster, using wordplay and metaphors to confuse his victims – he's sort of like that now, but make it more obvious. Make his motives clearer, more sinister and broader; instead of material gain and focusing on one person, have him interested in stealing souls of the entire New Orleans. The way he was written in the movie, he just didn't felt as much of a threat as Jafar, Ursula, Frollo or Shan Yu.

- cut Lawrence; with Facilier's motives being different, there is no point to the character.

- incorporate Mama Odie in the story more. The way it is now, she's one step away from being the most useless Disney character ever: she just appears once in the movie, mumbles some mumbo-jumbo and that's it. Someone once suggested her to be Facilier's mother and have ending battle start with them (kind of like Voldemort vs. Dumbledore) – when Mama Odie gets struck down, Tiana and/or Naveen join the battle and defeat him. I really like that idea.


Tangled

- call the movie "Rapunzel"

- have it be hand-drawn

- give the movie a definite setting / time period / culture. This amalgam of British, Ancient Roman, Gaelic and German influences just doesn't work for me and it's annoying and confusing, even for a "once upon a time" kind of story (it kind of reminded me of what happened to Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas which had its Arabian origin stripped off and replaced with a weird mash-up of Mediterranean cultures). Don't even get me started on some of the names in the movie.

- keep bear-Flynn and ditch the smug pretty-boy persona

- don't turn the Snuggly Duckling crowd into clichéd thugs with hearts of gold. It's been done to death. Make them an actual threat that would make Rapunzel question her decision to get out of the tower and wonder if some things Gothel warned her about outside world were actually true.

- downplay or cut Maximus the horse as a silly comedic relief. It too has been done to death (see Samson, Pegasus, Bullseye, and especially Altivo)

- change drop-of-sunlight part to a meteor/shooting star. Again, I know it's a Disney movie, but it's a huge stretch of imagination for me. Explain exactly how did Gothel manage to find the magic flower, discover its use and how everyone in the kingdom knew that it would help the queen. Or better yet, cut the whole sunlight/meteor part and have the magic flower be just some rare species that blooms every 200 hundred years and have Gothel be the only person in possession of it. Then have the king use force to get the flower, prompting Gothel's wrath and revenge - you know, like in the fairytale.

- one thing I found terribly written, implausible and contrived, like many people here, was the whole ending sequence. So Rapunzel just happens to remember events from when she was 6 months old, and then have her parents recognize her without her signature feature, especially when the whole kingdom failed to do so while she still had her hair? Seriously? I know they were going for the whole "Parents’ love knows no boundaries" thing but it was executed awkwardly and ineptly. Come up with some other recognizable physical trait, like iris pattern or a birthmark in the shape of the magic flower. And scrap the ridiculous flashback sequence.

- work on Rapunzel's character traits and personality some more. The girl can map the star constellations but doesn't know you're supposed to put a tiara on your head? Make her less chipper and more anxious.

- don't make Pascal (in)directly responsible for Gothel's fall – have her be the one who trips over Rapunzel's dead locks. Pascal's involvement in the whole thing ruins the symbolism of this scene.

- after Flynn cuts Rapunzel's hair off, give her a hairdo that's time period appropriate and, you know, not ugly

THE JUNGLE BOOK: Make the script more coherent and less episodic and give some more depth to the characters. The reason for sending Mowgli to the main village was quite stupid (the volwes could actually have defeated Shere Khan). And besides; Wouldn't the Wolf clan at least try to say goodbye to Mowgli before he went away?

Totally agree with this, especially the bolded part. I recently re-watched "Jungle Book" and was reminded how utterly aimless the whole movie is. Completely devoid of any depth and emotion (only in the end there are some hints of both), no clear story path in sight, just a bunch of characters thrown around, moving from place to place (not to mention most of them being dense and unrelatable), with just a few giggles here and there.

[Super Aurora]

Once again, I said main characters.

Dumbo.

[Disney Duster]

Dumbo was mute, but he was in a Disney film where the singing was more done by groups and choruses rather than the main characters singing their emotions or the Broadway-type Disney films such as the Fab Four and Hunchback. Hunchback was also longer and it still stands that Quasimodo was not mute in the original story.

Come up with some other recognizable physical trait, like iris pattern or a birthmark in the shape of the magic flower.

Her green eyes. And sometimes you can tell people from how they looked as a baby.

[jpanimation]

And I already explained how if you think the magic tear was a cop-out, you have to think the entire idea of the magic going to Rapunzel's hair should be changed, too, because how both work is the same: illogical magic with the only rules being that there is a certain amount of magic and it can pass from one thing to another through natural human activity (eating, crying).

I thought I already stated that I didn't like the prologue or how it was presented. A magic drop from the sun is just too much, I'd much rather they'd gone the route of having a magic plant in the enchantress's garden being stolen by the king.

Walt still had a large degree fidelity to the source material, but anyway, large anthropomorphic animals fit Pinocchio's world where Monstro is also a larger than life animal, and where boys turn into donkeys just by being bad. It is a different world than something like Cinderella where everything is more realistic throughout.

A giant whale isn't really that fantastic but I'll give you the jack ass thing. Still, in Cinderella the mice wear clothing (like Jiminy Cricket does), their sole purpose is to help out the protagonist (as Jiminy's was) and there's a fairy god mother (Pinocchio has the good fairy) who casts all sorts of magic (like transforming animals into people, not unlike Pinocchio having people turn into animals), so it's not that grounded in reality when compared to Pinocchio. As I said before, it's all opinion but I don't see what makes my opinion ‘un-Disney.’

Well that's an understandable opinion but a mute main character in a Disney musical is also very un-Disney.

It seems others have already addressed this for me, thanks guys.

Although, I’d like to touch on this whole ‘un-Disney’ argument that keeps popping up in your posts, as I’m not sure you’re using it right. Disney stood for pushing the boundaries of storytelling in animation and being innovative. He only fell back upon formulaic fairy tales in times of desperation. I'm pretty sure he would be upset to see the company lazily resorting to safe-stale formulas as opposed to anything creative (the opposite of what he was going for with Fantasia). So what does it really mean to be ‘un-Disney’? Does it mean the film doesn’t meet a set criteria of clichés and stereotypes...or should the term be used when it does?

As far as I’m concerned, Disney has been way too ‘un-Disney’ as of late. They need to start pushing boundaries again.

For me, Gothel's love for Rapunzel isn't very clear. That's why Gothel was an unsatisfying villain for me, personally.

I agree. You could never really tell if she liked Rapunzel or was just being manipulative. There we're moments that suggested one over the other but it was never clear.

I forgot, another reason is that the male love interest in the original story of Rapunzel didn't die, he was brought back with magic tears, so it's even more Disney for the film to be faithful to that.

No, he didn’t die in the original story because he was never stabbed in the original story. He went blind from the thorns and Rapuzel’s tears restored his sight. He never died.

I don't feel this version of the story was meant to go the route of a wistful, romantic tragedy in the vein of Titanic (for lack of a better example), which is what would have happened had they killed off Flynn in the end.

I'm impressed if you're tying this into an old comment I made about the Titanic connection (unless you bringing it up is purely coincidence). Honestly, it would make my day if you were.

Tangled

- call the movie "Rapunzel"

- give the movie a definite setting / time period / culture. This amalgam of British, Ancient Roman, Gaelic and German influences just doesn't work for me and it's annoying and confusing, even for a "once upon a time" kind of story (it kind of reminded me of what happened to Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas which had its Arabian origin stripped off and replaced with a weird mash-up of Mediterranean cultures). Don't even get me started on some of the names in the movie.

- don't turn the Snuggly Duckling crowd into clichéd thugs with hearts of gold. It's been done to death. Make them an actual threat that would make Rapunzel question her decision to get out of the tower and wonder if some things Gothel warned her about outside world were actually true.

- downplay or cut Maximus the horse as a silly comedic relief. It too has been done to death (see Samson, Pegasus, Bullseye, and especially Altivo)

- change drop-of-sunlight part to a meteor/shooting star. Again, I know it's a Disney movie, but it's a huge stretch of imagination for me. Explain exactly how did Gothel manage to find the magic flower, discover its use and how everyone in the kingdom knew that it would help the queen. Or better yet, cut the whole sunlight/meteor part and have the magic flower be just some rare species that blooms every 200 hundred years and have Gothel be the only person in possession of it. Then have the king use force to get the flower, prompting Gothel's wrath and revenge - you know, like in the fairytale.

- one thing I found terribly written, implausible and contrived, like many people here, was the whole ending sequence. So Rapunzel just happens to remember events from when she was 6 months old, and then have her parents recognize her without her signature feature, especially when the whole kingdom failed to do so while she still had her hair? Seriously? I know they were going for the whole "Parents’ love knows no boundaries" thing but it was executed awkwardly and ineptly. Come up with some other recognizable physical trait, like iris pattern or a birthmark in the shape of the magic flower. And scrap the ridiculous flashback sequence.

- don't make Pascal (in)directly responsible for Gothel's fall – have her be the one who trips over Rapunzel's dead locks. Pascal's involvement in the whole thing ruins the symbolism of this scene.

- after Flynn cuts Rapunzel's hair off, give her a hairdo that's time period appropriate and, you know, not ugly

High five.

Dumbo was mute, but he was in a Disney film where the singing was more done by groups and choruses rather than the main characters singing their emotions or the Broadway-type Disney films such as the Fab Four and Hunchback. Hunchback was also longer and it still stands that Quasimodo was not mute in the original story.

Dude, just admit it; you’re making up the rules as you go.

[Elladorine]

I don't feel this version of the story was meant to go the route of a wistful, romantic tragedy in the vein of Titanic (for lack of a better example), which is what would have happened had they killed off Flynn in the end.

I'm impressed if you're tying this into an old comment I made about the Titanic connection (unless you bringing it up is purely coincidence). Honestly, it would make my day if you were.

You know, I did remember seeing a post somewhere that connected them as I wrote this but couldn't place it. Can you link back to it? I had no luck with a search.

[Disney Duster]

I thought I already stated that I didn't like the prologue or how it was presented. A magic drop from the sun is just too much, I'd much rather they'd gone the route of having a magic plant in the enchantress's garden being stolen by the king.

Yes, and besides the fact that I completely agree this should have been the prologue, it still stands that the rules of the plant's magic are that it can be transferred into anyone, from merely entering their body. How did it get into Rapunzel's hair? How did it get into her tears? It is the same logic and you can't call one instance of it wrong or bad or a cop-out and say the other instance is fine.

A giant whale isn't really that fantastic but I'll give you the jack ass thing. Still, in Cinderella the mice wear clothing (like Jiminy Cricket does), their sole purpose is to help out the protagonist (as Jiminy's was) and there's a fairy god mother (Pinocchio has the good fairy) who casts all sorts of magic (like transforming animals into people, not unlike Pinocchio having people turn into animals), so it's not that grounded in reality when compared to Pinocchio. As I said before, it's all opinion but I don't see what makes my opinion ‘un-Disney.’

What I mean is that in Pinocchio there is a giant sea monster whale compared to normal whales and boys turn into Donkeys just for being bad, with no magic doing it. It is in that kind of world that I can see larger, upstanding talking animals with smaller, non-talking animals.

So what does it really mean to be ‘un-Disney’? Does it mean the film doesn’t meet a set criteria of clichés and stereotypes...or should the term be used when it does?

No, it means to follow what Walt Disney set as examples of how to make a Disney film with his numerous past films used as examples. In all of them there were certain degrees of faithfulness to the source material, elements of nature, elements of fantasy, etc. And I was saying in Pinocchio's case the Cat and Fox were following the faithfulness.

No, he didn’t die in the original story because he was never stabbed in the original story. He went blind from the thorns and Rapuzel’s tears restored his sight. He never died.

Well yes, but that's what I meant, that he didn't die in the original story, even though nothing caused him to die, either, he didn't die, and her magic tears healed him. That Disney faithfulness again, which the film still needed more of, of course.

[Super Aurora]

What I mean is that in Pinocchio there is a giant sea monster whale compared to normal whales .

Such a whale did exist.




http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... -dick.html


Except that they existed long long time ago. But still existed.

[DisneyFan09]

First of all, I will give you some praise for an excellent idea for a thread

Thanks!

No offence, but why are you saying thankyou? You weren't the one who started this thread.

[Dr Frankenollie]

First of all, I will give you some praise for an excellent idea for a thread

Thanks!

No offence, but why are you saying thankyou? You weren't the one who started this thread.

I made a mistake. I often make a lot of threads and I believe I made a similar thread to this around the same time Jackoleen created this one, and thus got mixed up.

[DisneyFan09]

No offence, but why are you saying thankyou? You weren't the one who started this thread.

I made a mistake. I often make a lot of threads and I believe I made a similar thread to this around the same time Jackoleen created this one, and thus got mixed up.

Oh, that's okay.

[DisneyFan09]

Btw, sorry if I seemed hostile, that wasn't my intention.

[Dr Frankenollie]

Btw, sorry if I seemed hostile, that wasn't my intention.

Don't worry, you didn't.

[jpanimation]

You know, I did remember seeing a post somewhere that connected them as I wrote this but couldn't place it. Can you link back to it? I had no luck with a search.

Oh pooh, I thought you were making a call back, which would’ve been awesome. Anyways, here it is:

http://www.dvdizzy.com/forum/viewtopic. ... 786#560786

Yes, and besides the fact that I completely agree this should have been the prologue, it still stands that the rules of the plant's magic are that it can be transferred into anyone, from merely entering their body. How did it get into Rapunzel's hair? How did it get into her tears? It is the same logic and you can't call one instance of it wrong or bad or a cop-out and say the other instance is fine.

I'll give you that, the magic tears were always a cop-out and I probably wouldn't have been happy with an ending that included them. Still, in the movie, the tear drop is supposed to represent the sun drop leaving her body to resurrect Flynn. As someone who never liked the magic sun drop prologue, who never really liked the idea of Rapunzel's hair being magic and who never likes dead characters coming back to life (see rant during my Batman Under the Red Hood review); this ending just seemed composed of too many layers of things I dislike for me to actually enjoy (especially since I thought Flynn's death was a very emotional and welcome addition to the story, the impact of which was all lost upon the ending, which left me wondering why they even added that scene in the first place). If they really wanted to be faithful and just had to have a magic tear drop ending, then they should've stuck with the original. Somehow having the tears falling out of Rapunzel's eyes into the prince's eyes to simply restore his sight (as opposed to bringing him back from the dead), while still being a cop-out, just doesn't bother me as much. Not that it matters, as there are too many other things wrong with the movie's ending outside the cop-out.

[Super Aurora]

and who never likes dead characters coming back to life (see rant during my Batman Under the Red Hood review);

If you can complain about dead being back in Under red hood, You might as well complain and hate just about every single superhero genre out there.

At least the Lazarus pit was was a more plausible explanation compared to other crap out there.

[jpanimation]

If you can complain about dead being back in Under red hood, You might as well complain and hate just about every single superhero genre out there.

Well, it depends on what characters we're talking about here. I'm more liable to accept pure fantasy characters like Superman or Green Lantern being resurrected by magical alien technology then the more grounded Batman being resurrected by a magical pool (with some exceptions). This is where the whole DC Universe thing can get a little annoying (not that it stops me from loving Justice League Unlimited or Young Justice). Besides, complaining about everything is kinda my thing.

At least the Lazarus pit was was a more plausible explanation compared to other crap out there.

I understand that the Lazarus pit is a better explanation then the alternate universe crap in the original graphic novel but the introduction of something with life giving abilities makes any kind of heroic sacrifices or life threatening situation less meaningful without the threat of death. This is what makes Game of Thrones so awesome. When characters die - and this includes MAIN characters - they stay dead. This makes the action scenes WAY more intense and emotional.

[Super Aurora]

If you can complain about dead being back in Under red hood, You might as well complain and hate just about every single superhero genre out there.

Well, it depends on what characters we're talking about here. I'm more liable to accept pure fantasy characters like Superman or Green Lantern being resurrected by magical alien technology then the more grounded Batman being resurrected by a magical pool (with some exceptions). This is where the whole DC Universe thing can get a little annoying (not that it stops me from loving Justice League Unlimited or Young Justice). Besides, complaining about everything is kinda my thing.

Fair enough. I don't mind you opinion on it, it's just I just was curious why you address that considering that's not a surprising thing in DC universe or any superhero genre

At least the Lazarus pit was was a more plausible explanation compared to other crap out there.

I understand that the Lazarus pit is a better explanation then the alternate universe crap in the original graphic novel but the introduction of something with life giving abilities makes any kind of heroic sacrifices or life threatening situation less meaningful without the threat of death. This is what makes Game of Thrones so awesome. When characters die - and this includes MAIN characters - they stay dead. This makes the action scenes WAY more intense and emotional.

Games of Thrones is THE FUCKING SHIT! I love that show.

But yeah I see what you mean.

[Mooky]

Not a plotline this time, but a single line in The Little Mermaid, when Ariel and Eric are on the boat ride, and he starts guessing her name. Then Sebastian whispers it to him, and Eric is all "Ariel!? Ariel? That's kinda pretty."

Kinda pretty? Does anyone else find this line kinda insulting to say to a person? Ariel takes it surprisingly well, but seriously, imagine someone saying this to you in real life.

[Disney's Divinity]

I dunno, the line sounds like he's only processing the name (which maybe is odd, I don't really know the time period--does anybody?), and being nice in a shy way.

Cue Duster saying how much of a douche he always found Eric to be.

[Mooky]

Yeah, I guess he should be given the benefit of the doubt, being shy and all, but that line is so... unromantic.