Animated Disney movies w/ plotlines that you'd change

[Disney's Divinity]

If she actually had a more deeper, complex reason to yearn for the surface (like Quasimodo or Rapunzel, for example), then it would make her character more resonant.

I disagree with that. I personally think Triton is just as oppressive as both Frollo and Gothel. The only difference is that Triton is a more complex character, and they give him a redemptive arc. True, his motives were not entirely self-centered (like Gothel & Frollo), but that does not make his actions any less antagonistic. Ariel is the only character in the film other than Ursula who actually takes a stand against Triton rather than passively accepting his rules. I agree with you that this is a typical "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" situation, and that life under the sea doesn't actually seem that bad (at least, it doesn't look that bad whenever Ariel is away from her father), but when you're living with somebody like Triton--the grass will always look greener.

But, you know, I really feel this debate nearly always comes down to people who hate teenagers vs. people who empathize with teenagers.

[DisneyFan09]

If she actually had a more deeper, complex reason to yearn for the surface (like Quasimodo or Rapunzel, for example), then it would make her character more resonant.

I disagree with that. I personally think Triton is just as oppressive as both Frollo and Gothel. The only difference is that Triton is a more complex character, and they give him a redemptive arc. True, his motives were not entirely self-centered (like Gothel & Frollo), but that does not make his actions any less antagonistic. Ariel is the only character in the film other than Ursula who actually takes a stand against Triton rather than passively accepting his rules. I agree with you that this is a typical "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" situation, and that life under the sea doesn't actually seem that bad (at least, it doesn't look that bad whenever Ariel is away from her father), but when you're living with somebody like Triton--the grass will always look greener.

Okay, you make a valid point. However, despite his paranoid nature, he still loved Ariel and wanted her to be safe.

But, you know, I really feel this debate nearly always comes down to people who hate teenagers vs. people who empathize with teenagers.

Haha. I really hate teenagers. No, just kidding. But even teenagers have to realize that they were wrong and this movie doesn't represent that.

[Dr Frankenollie]

I tried to post a reply to DisneyFan09 earlier, but then the 500 Internal Server Error (or whatever the hell it is) came up at the same time I was pressing 'submit'. As Disney's Divinty is defending Ariel quite well, I'll only argue with you about The Jungle Book.

He realises that he is uncapable to handle Mowgli, so I don't see how that's a problem.

I never thought of it as directly a problem. I'm just suming up the characters and mentioning the flaws of Baloo. And I actually used to love Baloo as a kid. Seriously, you're overanalyzing what I'm saying.

But...this is the thread where you talk about films with plots you'd like to change, right? I didn't know this is the thread where you summed up the characters and mentioned their flaws! Wow! I must been on the wrong thread!

Baloo is shown to be clearly flawed and he recognises it, and he DOES accept Mowgli going into the man village. Yes, you may feel that his urgings for Mowgli to come back show him to be unaccepting of Mowgli's choice, but nonetheless, if you were a parent, wouldn't you forcefully try to stop your child from going away and possibly never seeing you again?

Okay, you've got a point.

Thank you.

Yes, Baloo only knew Mowgli fleetingly, but I inferred that he was rather lonely and wanted a companion. He also had a natural fatherly instinct, even if he was rather absent-minded, but it's not his fault the monkeys kidnapped Mowgli.

Actually, it was his fault. If he had paid more attention, he could have prevented it.

Maybe he didn't expect the monkeys to be hanging around in that part of the jungle, or maybe he felt that Mowgli had proven himself to be capable to protect himself, but he certainly wasn't abandoning Mowgli.

I feel that The Jungle Book is a hugely thought-provoking, deep, profound and philosophical movie. Mowgli is a catalyst for the audience, being lured into the practitioners of various lifestyles (all with pros and cons) by the likes of Baloo, King Louie, the Vultures (characters with designs comically based upon the Beatles) and eventually - but to a much lesser extent - an Indian village girl.

The film wisely never presents us with what the best lifestyle really is; it just presents a wide variety of different lifestyles, from the uncaring, sloth-like way of life that Baloo practises, to the seemingly nihilistic lifestyle of King Louie and the monkeys. It leaves the decision up to us, but tries to show the consequences of the different ways of life.

Okay. That's your thought. But I still have to disagree.

And your evidence why you believe that is...?

The fact that you think the sequel is better (at least 'story-wise') baffles me.

And why does it baffle you that people have different opinion than you?? Aren't you capable to see things from another perspective?

You're certainly getting rather hostile.

Look, wouldn't it baffle you if someone said that Home on the Range was the greatest DAC of all time?

[DisneyFan09]

But...this is the thread where you talk about films with plots you'd like to change, right? I didn't know this is the thread where you summed up the characters and mentioned their flaws! Wow! I must been on the wrong thread!

I summed up those issues, but I never thought at is a big problem. That's a difference.

Maybe he didn't expect the monkeys to be hanging around in that part of the jungle, or maybe he felt that Mowgli had proven himself to be capable to protect himself, but he certainly wasn't abandoning Mowgli.

No, that's a good point.

And your evidence why you believe that is...?

I've already explained it.

You're certainly getting rather hostile.

Sorry, that wasn't my intention. But when you're constantly stating that you can't understand why people are thinking this or that about a movie, then it just proves that you are not certainly aren't capable to look things from a different side. But I certainly don't want to fight with you.

Look, wouldn't it baffle you if someone said that Home on the Range was the greatest DAC of all time?

Actually no. I respect the fact that people have different opinions. And while HotR is not the greatest Disney flick of all time, but I actually don't hate it as many people do. I actually thought it was a fun and enjoyable flick. Not the greatest, but still enjoyable.

[Chernabog_Rocks]

I would change a few things from Hercules.

1) I would alter the Fates at the end so they aren't baffled about why they can't cut Hercules' life thread. So much for them knowing/seeing everything.

2) A different method (or better explanation) for turning Hercules nearly mortal. First of all, where did Hades get the liquid from? Why only one vial worth? Why not use it on Zeus?

3) When Hades finds out Hercules is alive it's sort of a "Well duh" moment. He's the God of the Underworld he should KNOW if Hercules died or not, or at least have been able to -check- for himself. Given how careful of a planner he is it's a large oversight on his part.

Annnd finally I'd change the Titan's prison. Given how easily Hades busted them out it looks like his only obstacle was all that water covering it up. Something in this little piece needs to be tweaked, perhaps an explanation that during the alignment the Titan's can be freed but -only- during the alignment. Also....if they're Gods why doesn't he just wait around for the next alignment to try again?

[Dr Frankenollie]

But...this is the thread where you talk about films with plots you'd like to change, right? I didn't know this is the thread where you summed up the characters and mentioned their flaws! Wow! I must been on the wrong thread!

I summed up those issues, but I never thought at is a big problem. That's a difference.

...Why did you sum them up? As I've said, this is the thread where we talk about films with plots we'd like to change!

Maybe he didn't expect the monkeys to be hanging around in that part of the jungle, or maybe he felt that Mowgli had proven himself to be capable to protect himself, but he certainly wasn't abandoning Mowgli.

No, that's a good point.

Er...do you mean 'Yes, that's a good point.' I have no idea what you mean (honestly, I haven't the foggiest).

And your evidence why you believe that is...?

I've already explained it.

Suuuuure...

You're certainly getting rather hostile.

Sorry, that wasn't my intention. But when you're constantly stating that you can't understand why people are thinking this or that about a movie, then it just proves that you are not certainly aren't capable to look things from a different side. But I certainly don't want to fight with you.

I don't think that's sufficient enough proof. Do you mean that I state that in other threads, too (if so, which ones)?

Look, wouldn't it baffle you if someone said that Home on the Range was the greatest DAC of all time?

Actually no. I respect the fact that people have different opinions. And while HotR is not the greatest Disney flick of all time, but I actually don't hate it as many people do. I actually thought it was a fun and enjoyable flick. Not the greatest, but still enjoyable.

Okay, fine. But wouldn't it baffle you if someone said that the film you think is the worst of all time is the best? Perhaps 'baffle' is too strong a word; wouldn't it at least surprise you?

[DisneyFan09]

I summed up those issues, but I never thought at is a big problem. That's a difference.

...Why did you sum them up? As I've said, this is the thread where we talk about films with plots we'd like to change!

Why shouldn't I sum them up? That was a rethorical question.

'Yes, that's a good point.' I have no idea what you mean (honestly, I haven't the foggiest).

That's exactly what I meant; That you had a good point.

Suuuuure...

I actually have explained it!

I don't think that's sufficient enough proof. Do you mean that I state that in other threads, too (if so, which ones)?

Alright, fair enough. I've only seen this thread that you're written, so I can't jugde you from anything else.

Okay, fine. But wouldn't it baffle you if someone said that the film you think is the worst of all time is the best? Perhaps 'baffle' is too strong a word; wouldn't it at least surprise you?

Sure. But I happen to have a open mind when it comes to films. I don't always believe in hype. Some films that are overhyped have turned out to be bad and the opposite.

Look, I don't want to fight with you. Shall we forget about our misunderstandings?

[DisneyFan09]

I would change a few things from Hercules.

1) I would alter the Fates at the end so they aren't baffled about why they can't cut Hercules' life thread. So much for them knowing/seeing everything.

2) A different method (or better explanation) for turning Hercules nearly mortal. First of all, where did Hades get the liquid from? Why only one vial worth? Why not use it on Zeus?

3) When Hades finds out Hercules is alive it's sort of a "Well duh" moment. He's the God of the Underworld he should KNOW if Hercules died or not, or at least have been able to -check- for himself. Given how careful of a planner he is it's a large oversight on his part.

Annnd finally I'd change the Titan's prison. Given how easily Hades busted them out it looks like his only obstacle was all that water covering it up. Something in this little piece needs to be tweaked, perhaps an explanation that during the alignment the Titan's can be freed but -only- during the alignment. Also....if they're Gods why doesn't he just wait around for the next alignment to try again?

I just wonder; Are you the Nostalgia Chick? You are pointing out the same plot holes that she did on her video review of the movie

[Chernabog_Rocks]

Haha, no I'm not I am a fan of hers though and recently watched the Hercules one, and since I agree with what she said I figured I'd post those plot holes here since it was fitting for the thread.

[jpanimation]

IF FLYNN DIED IT WOULDN'T BE A DISNEY MOVIE,

If it has the Walt Disney Animation Studios logo in front of it, then it's a Disney movie.

it would be untrue to Walt's way of happy endings! Disney is about bad things happening but good and happy winning out over it all in the end!

I think Rapunzel venturing on a life changing journey with Flynn, where she experiences love and loss that results in her growing as a person, and an ending that has her reunited with her family free from the tower and oppression is a happy ending, just minus the cop out.

! YES! Okay, the thing is she is beautifully drawn, but she does need to be more beautiful somehow. Have you seen the re-design of her where she looks more pretty? You can see this re-design I mean here, where I like the hair, but here's a prettier face, and here's the original Gustaf Tenggren design which I think they just should have stuck more to, at least I like how the hair curls out better.

Exactly, you know where I'm coming from. My man.

That's so un-Disney I don't even know where to begin. Those characters were a cat and fox in the original tale, and giant anthropomorphic animals with non-anthropmorphic characters may not make sense to you but that's you, it's still very Disney and there's lots of illogical things in any fantasy! It's not that bad! Neve get too, too logical with any Disney film, lol.

Walt didn't always chain himself to the source material, especially since many of them were a little too dark for an audience that primarily was looking for uplifting escapism from harsh reality, and I feel this is one of those times where he should've veered from the source material (we should also keep in mind that many of Disney’s most memorable characters were original and not from the source material). To put it in perspective, imagine a single giant anthropomorphic animal in Cinderella and how awkward that would be. I guess it's all difference in opinion but I'm not sure how one can determine mine to be un-Disney?

Quasimodo could always talk in the original story...he just was deaf, so he sounded weird.

I know he could but I don't trust Disney to venture the Charles Laughton rout with any kind of tact, so I'd rather them just make him a mute. My main point is that having him sing (and well) with so much joy is pretty much the polar opposite of how his character really was.

I’d make Gothel a two dimensional villain.

Huh? Whadya mean?

You got me. I either meant "I wouldn't make Gothel a two dimensional villain" or "I'd make Gothel a three-dimensional villain." Can't remember which one I was going for but I obviously fumbled it.

Either way, Rapunzel and Gothel have a relationship that is never explored as much as it should’ve been and is completely forgotten by the final act to which Disney simply reverts back to it’s black and white good and evil.

They come off a little soft to me.

Soft, that's the word I was looking for. To me they look like shapeless stuffed animals without any hint of anatomy.



Just look at his profile, he looks like Buto from Popeye or any other shapeless 30s cartoon character. They might as well have given him noodle legs. I honestly feel some pectoral outlines and nipple would've gone a long way in solidifying his body.

Back onto the subject of Rapunzel. To further solidify my stance on Rapunzel’s short hair being too modern, here is Glene Keane’s concept art - that Patrick posted in the Rapunzel thread - for what her short hair would've looked like:

http://artmouseph.files.wordpress.com/2 ... n-tear.jpg

I love how wild and natural is. Compare it to what we got:

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_llopmrPbF21qegw8k.png

I maintain, too modern.

[ajmrowland]

i've considered killing flynn, myself, and it can be a happy ending both for the reason jp explained and continuing to show him in spirit with heavy implications or literal scenes that he and Rapunzel end up together in a nonreligious version of the afterlife.

edit: oh, and walt planned to kill ariel and have the prince run off with another girl. sad endings and main character deaths are not undisney.

[Tristy]

Make Mine Music, Adventures of Ichabod and Mr Toad, Chicken Little (first cartoon), Old Yeller, Tuck Everlasting, The Little Match Girl the list goes on.

[Disney Duster]

All the things Walt made or planned where main characters died were both either shorts or in completely different tones from how his fairy tales were, as in they were either in hilarious ways or sombre, serious ways (and in live-action), not fitting of the tones he went for in his full-length animated fairy tales.

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).

Walt didn't always chain himself to the source material, especially since many of them were a little too dark for an audience that primarily was looking for uplifting escapism from harsh reality, and I feel this is one of those times where he should've veered from the source material (we should also keep in mind that many of Disney’s most memorable characters were original and not from the source material). To put it in perspective, imagine a single giant anthropomorphic animal in Cinderella and how awkward that would be. I guess it's all difference in opinion but I'm not sure how one can determine mine to be un-Disney?

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.

I know he could but I don't trust Disney to venture the Charles Laughton rout with any kind of tact, so I'd rather them just make him a mute. My main point is that having him sing (and well) with so much joy is pretty much the polar opposite of how his character really was.

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

Rapunzel and Gothel have a relationship that is never explored as much as it should’ve been and is completely forgotten by the final act to which Disney simply reverts back to it’s black and white good and evil.

I think the relationship was established as complex all the way until Mother Gothel died. The only things I would have thought of is having is Rapunzel freaking out more, and being more upset, when she discovers the truth about Mother Gothel and herself, or Rapunzel showing remorse for Mother Gothel after she dies, but her boyfriend was about to die, too... It comes to the questions of what you would do in Rapunzel's situation, while it seems clear to me Mother Gothel had some love or care for Rapunzel, but we discover her love for herself is stronger, and that's complex enough for me.

Rapunzel's hair looks a little too modern but it really is one of the tiniest nitpicks...

[KubrickFan]

All the things Walt made or planned where main characters died were both either shorts or in completely different tones from how his fairy tales were, as in they were either in hilarious ways or sombre, serious ways (and in live-action), not fitting of the tones he went for in his full-length animated fairy tales.

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?

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

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

[DisneyFan09]

Haha, no I'm not I am a fan of hers though and recently watched the Hercules one, and since I agree with what she said I figured I'd post those plot holes here since it was fitting for the thread.

Okay Sorry if thought so. I actually happen to like her myself, although she does give sometimes the impression that she doesn't like Disney movies particularly. But her video reviews are indeed creative and funny.

[Disney's Divinity]

It comes to the questions of what you would do in Rapunzel's situation, while it seems clear to me Mother Gothel had some love or care for Rapunzel, but we discover her love for herself is stronger, and that's complex enough for me.

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

[DisneyFan09]

It comes to the questions of what you would do in Rapunzel's situation, while it seems clear to me Mother Gothel had some love or care for Rapunzel, but we discover her love for herself is stronger, and that's complex enough for me.

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

For me too, actually! Haha, funny how much he have in common

I'm not saying that Gothel was a bad villain, but I never became engaged in her as a character for some way. She did have her moments of evilness, but as a whole, she wasn't as compelling as the best Disney villains. Even the Stabbington Brothers (for being more onedimentional) were more appealing than her (in my opinion, though).

[Elladorine]

I really don't understand the whole "Flynn should die" bit.

Same here. And don't get me wrong, I'm all about allowing death in these films (i.e. Chief should have died in The Fox and the Hound) but I don't see any real benefit to this particular story to lose Flynn at the end.

[Disney's Divinity]

I really don't understand the whole "Flynn should die" bit.

Same here. And don't get me wrong, I'm all about allowing death in these films (i.e. Chief should have died in The Fox and the Hound) but I don't see any real benefit to this particular story to lose Flynn at the end.

I don't really see it either. I think it might have something to do with Disney fans growing up and expecting "more serious stuff" out of it. I honestly don't understand how Flynn's death would contribute to the story or the development of any of the characters. I think Disney generally makes good decisions when it comes to that, though there have been exceptions (Trusty, Baloo, and Esmeralda probably all should've died, for example). I just don't think Flynn's one of them.

Besides, Rapunzel had such a horrible life that there was no way the filmmakers were going to cripple her any more by killing her first love. That would just be cruel.

[Elladorine]

I think Disney generally makes good decisions when it comes to that, though there have been exceptions (Trusty, Baloo, and Esmeralda probably all should've died, for example). I just don't think Flynn's one of them.

Trusty immediately came to my mind along with Chief but I was being lazy in my reply. But I probably agree about Baloo and definitely about Esmeralda. Gurgi comes to mind as well, simply because the way he was brought back seemed inconsistent with the given rules of the cauldron.

Besides, Rapunzel had such a horrible life that there was no way the filmmakers were going to cripple her any more by killing her first love. That would just be cruel.

And it would have ticked off their core audience if they did that to poor Rapunzel.

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. It really wouldn't have worked with the tone of the rest of the film.