Some thoughts I just had:
1) How qualified is John Lasseter to talk about the stories of films like Atlantis, Treasure Planet, Brother Bear, and Home on the Range, when talking about how it's not the hand-drawn medium that was the problem, but the stories and characters? He had no hand in making those films- He's just an outsider when it comes to those films.
2) a) Even if there were "boy-centric" commercials for The Princess and the Frog, there still would have been "girl-centric" commercials, which boys would have seen on TV anyway.
b) Would a title like The Waitress and the Frog have been better, since Tiana is a waitress for longer than she is a princess in the film? In the eyes of stereotypical boys, does waitress > princess?
The Princess and the Frog Discussion - Part III
-
blackcauldron85
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 16689
- Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:54 am
- Gender: Female
- Contact:
-
Sky Syndrome
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1187
- Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 3:07 am
- Location: Maine
Or would The Lady and the Frog have been better? I wish the makers had used this instead.blackcauldron85 wrote:Would a title like The Waitress and the Frog have been better, since Tiana is a waitress for longer than she is a princess in the film? In the eyes of stereotypical boys, does waitress > princess?
-
Elladorine
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4372
- Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:02 pm
- Location: SouthernCaliforniaLiscious SunnyWingadocious
- Contact:
-
ajmrowland
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 8177
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:19 pm
- Location: Appleton, WI
This post contains spoilers about The Pincess and the Frog
After initially having some doubts about the film in the first place (after seeing the early trailers), I was very excited to go see The Princess and the Frog anyway. Tonight, I finally saw it. It was an okay film. Nothing more, nothing less. It's definitly not the 'Renaissance movie' many had hoped for. Not only in box-office return, but also in style and substance. It has some serious story-issues.
Overall, the film was a pleasant experience. What I liked most about it, was Dr. Facilier, the villain. I loved the design, the acting, the voicework and his song. That's why I was dissappointed that there wasn't more of him in the film. For someone with that great powers (friends 'on the other side') his goal of taking control of New Orleans through the stand-in Naveen was somewhat... small. What did he want to do with the city once he had taken over it? I don't get what it is he wants.
I was also pleased with the characterization of Tiana. It was refreshing to finally see a Disney 'princess' whose goal was never to catch a prince, but to realise her own dream through hard work and be an independent woman. However, again, I have issues with the story. This is Louisiana in the 1920's. I know this is a Disney film in which 'anything can happen', but there's no way a black girl would have the prospect of opening her own restaurant. The way no racial conflict appeared to exist in 1920's New Orleans bothered me. Not because I want to see race riots, but because it insults my intelligence when the makers assume I know nothing about history by sugar-coating their tale. I particularly enjoyed Tiana's singing voice and the dream-song that was animated in a totally different style; I loved that.
The animation was great most of the time. The integration of handdrawn animation and CGI was seamless. There were no more disturbing miss-matches like in Tarzan or Treasure Planet. They've really come a long way since then. What did bother me to no end, was the way only the main characters (Tiana, Naveen, Ray, Louis, Mama Odie, Facilier) were animated fluidly and flawlessly. The other characters were animated much too stiff. Especially in the first part of the movie, all side-characters (and incidentally even Tiana) walk very mechanically, and the character animation looks like TV-standards art times! It gets better in the second half.
Like I said, what bothered me most, was the story. The second half is certainly the strongest part of the film, and leaves you with an overall positive feeling when walking out of the theatre. The second half (roughly from when they meet Mama Odie untill the end) was more serious, dark and had better character development. I felt that the film overall spend way too much time on horribly unfunny 'jokes' by loud, obnoxious second-rate characters. I've rolled my eyes quite a few times and hoped for a so-called 'funny' scene to end. Sorry Disney, but just having people get fysically hurt is not funny. What were the hillbillies doing there anyway? Cut out the scene and you don't miss a thing. God, that was awful. I also hate Louis. He is the definition of the obligatory 'sidekick' every animated film seems to have since the '90s. He was much too loud. All the supposedly 'funny' moments were too loud and relied only on screaming and running and hitting people on the head.
The real strenght of the film is not in the story-arc. It's much too meager: two frogs cross the swamps to find Mama Odie, only to have to go back again to New Orleans. What made the movie good, was the characterization of Tiana and Naveen and their growing relationship. People have said this is the first time there is a real building of a relationship in a Disney-film (instead of just two people falling instantly in love), but that's not entirely true. Bernard and Bianca were first in The Rescuers. Unlike them, Tiana and Naveen are too exaggerated opposites. She's a hard worker who needs to lighten up; he's a goof-off who needs to be more serious. It's the standard story of any romcom. Anyway, I liked the serious moments between the two of them. How Tiana was almost pursuaded by Facilier was also a strong point, as well as the fact that the makers had me convinced Tiana and Naveen wanted to stay frogs forever, a thought which I hated. They surprised me there. I also thought Ray's story was beautiful. If there's a shining light in the movie (literally), that's Ray. Didn't think he would actually die.
Leaves me with the music. Despite the complaints of several people here on UD, claiming it was the weakest point in the film, I liked it a lot. Randy Newman did a good job. The songs of Dr. Facilier, Mama Odie and Tiana's first were the greatest. Overall though, this film is merely 'okay'. It's not bad, but it can't hold a candle to *any* of the 1990's films, and it can't even match 2002's Lilo & Stitch. Disney has to do better next time.
After initially having some doubts about the film in the first place (after seeing the early trailers), I was very excited to go see The Princess and the Frog anyway. Tonight, I finally saw it. It was an okay film. Nothing more, nothing less. It's definitly not the 'Renaissance movie' many had hoped for. Not only in box-office return, but also in style and substance. It has some serious story-issues.
Overall, the film was a pleasant experience. What I liked most about it, was Dr. Facilier, the villain. I loved the design, the acting, the voicework and his song. That's why I was dissappointed that there wasn't more of him in the film. For someone with that great powers (friends 'on the other side') his goal of taking control of New Orleans through the stand-in Naveen was somewhat... small. What did he want to do with the city once he had taken over it? I don't get what it is he wants.
I was also pleased with the characterization of Tiana. It was refreshing to finally see a Disney 'princess' whose goal was never to catch a prince, but to realise her own dream through hard work and be an independent woman. However, again, I have issues with the story. This is Louisiana in the 1920's. I know this is a Disney film in which 'anything can happen', but there's no way a black girl would have the prospect of opening her own restaurant. The way no racial conflict appeared to exist in 1920's New Orleans bothered me. Not because I want to see race riots, but because it insults my intelligence when the makers assume I know nothing about history by sugar-coating their tale. I particularly enjoyed Tiana's singing voice and the dream-song that was animated in a totally different style; I loved that.
The animation was great most of the time. The integration of handdrawn animation and CGI was seamless. There were no more disturbing miss-matches like in Tarzan or Treasure Planet. They've really come a long way since then. What did bother me to no end, was the way only the main characters (Tiana, Naveen, Ray, Louis, Mama Odie, Facilier) were animated fluidly and flawlessly. The other characters were animated much too stiff. Especially in the first part of the movie, all side-characters (and incidentally even Tiana) walk very mechanically, and the character animation looks like TV-standards art times! It gets better in the second half.
Like I said, what bothered me most, was the story. The second half is certainly the strongest part of the film, and leaves you with an overall positive feeling when walking out of the theatre. The second half (roughly from when they meet Mama Odie untill the end) was more serious, dark and had better character development. I felt that the film overall spend way too much time on horribly unfunny 'jokes' by loud, obnoxious second-rate characters. I've rolled my eyes quite a few times and hoped for a so-called 'funny' scene to end. Sorry Disney, but just having people get fysically hurt is not funny. What were the hillbillies doing there anyway? Cut out the scene and you don't miss a thing. God, that was awful. I also hate Louis. He is the definition of the obligatory 'sidekick' every animated film seems to have since the '90s. He was much too loud. All the supposedly 'funny' moments were too loud and relied only on screaming and running and hitting people on the head.
The real strenght of the film is not in the story-arc. It's much too meager: two frogs cross the swamps to find Mama Odie, only to have to go back again to New Orleans. What made the movie good, was the characterization of Tiana and Naveen and their growing relationship. People have said this is the first time there is a real building of a relationship in a Disney-film (instead of just two people falling instantly in love), but that's not entirely true. Bernard and Bianca were first in The Rescuers. Unlike them, Tiana and Naveen are too exaggerated opposites. She's a hard worker who needs to lighten up; he's a goof-off who needs to be more serious. It's the standard story of any romcom. Anyway, I liked the serious moments between the two of them. How Tiana was almost pursuaded by Facilier was also a strong point, as well as the fact that the makers had me convinced Tiana and Naveen wanted to stay frogs forever, a thought which I hated. They surprised me there. I also thought Ray's story was beautiful. If there's a shining light in the movie (literally), that's Ray. Didn't think he would actually die.
Leaves me with the music. Despite the complaints of several people here on UD, claiming it was the weakest point in the film, I liked it a lot. Randy Newman did a good job. The songs of Dr. Facilier, Mama Odie and Tiana's first were the greatest. Overall though, this film is merely 'okay'. It's not bad, but it can't hold a candle to *any* of the 1990's films, and it can't even match 2002's Lilo & Stitch. Disney has to do better next time.
-
ajmrowland
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 8177
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:19 pm
- Location: Appleton, WI
Going in with high expectations can do things to you. TERRIBLE THINGS!!!!!!!!!
I liked the music, and I felt that the film succeeded at what it was meant to do: give you a good time. Hell, I liked Louis a lot, and the joke scene of him trying to play Jazz on the Riverboat was priceless!
Historical inaccuracies aside, this is a day 1 purchase for me!
I liked the music, and I felt that the film succeeded at what it was meant to do: give you a good time. Hell, I liked Louis a lot, and the joke scene of him trying to play Jazz on the Riverboat was priceless!
Historical inaccuracies aside, this is a day 1 purchase for me!
-
Babaloo
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:23 pm
- Location: Ottawa, ON, CANADA!
Your thoughts were almost exactly mine when I first saw it. Maybe that was because I was the only one in the theater with my friends or that I wasn't in the mood, or simply because I did have higher expectations. I watched it around 4 times...I didn't go multiple times because I'm a Disney fan (although that's alright) but because I had many groups of friends that wanted to go see it, so I went with all of them! But I have to say the more I saw it, the more I liked it. I'm not saying the same thing will happen to you, but you never know... You might end up liking it more later.Goliath wrote:This post contains spoilers about The Pincess and the Frog...
Btw, were there a lot of people watching it? Because you were saying that there hasn't been that much advertisements in the Netherlands and not that many people even knew it was coming out...
Also, according to boxofficeguru.com, PatF has made 95 million in foreign markets bringing the total to 196 million.
-
DisneyJedi
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3737
- Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 2:53 pm
- Gender: Male
STORY TIME!Goliath wrote:I was also pleased with the characterization of Tiana. It was refreshing to finally see a Disney 'princess' whose goal was never to catch a prince, but to realise her own dream through hard work and be an independent woman. However, again, I have issues with the story. This is Louisiana in the 1920's. I know this is a Disney film in which 'anything can happen', but there's no way a black girl would have the prospect of opening her own restaurant. The way no racial conflict appeared to exist in 1920's New Orleans bothered me. Not because I want to see race riots, but because it insults my intelligence when the makers assume I know nothing about history by sugar-coating their tale.
The original version of the movie (which was called The Frog Princess) had a much more realistic and accurate portrayal of blacks in the 1920. In that version, Tiana (back then named Maddy) was a scullery maid working for the Lebouff family, and Charlotte was a very mean and spoiled debutant who abused Tiana around.
Then the PC police came in... They thought that it was insulting to both blacks and whites, that the name Maddy was too degrading towards blacks etc. etc. etc. This forced Disney to retool the film so that Tiana would be an independent young black woman while still maintaining her underdog Disney appeal. So the filmmakers did wanted the movie to be accurate, but unfortunately society is so hung up over the events of the past that they feared they would protest the film.
As for Facilier's motives, here's his plan as I understood it...
All Dr. Facilier wants is money. Not power, money. He plans on doing so by capturing Naveen, turn him into a frog and then turn Lawrence into Naveen so that he can marry Charlotte and get closer to the Labouff fortune. Once Charlotte Marries Fake Naveen he kills Big Daddy Labouff, which then means that his fortune goes to Charlotte AND Fake Naveen.
But when his plans are messed by Froggy Naveen's escape, he asks the Voodoo gods for help. BUT, they demand a pay since they know that he has asked them for help many times without paying them back. So when he asks for their help this time, Facilier realizes that they demand pay.
He then promises the gods the souls of the citizens of New Orleans, because once he takes control of the Labouff fortune he will have influential power and thus can offer the souls to the good, repaying his debt and being both power AND rich.
Does this help?
Pap is right. Disney WANTED to do the more historical approach till the NAACP-thumpers breathed down their backs. You want to blame the sugarcoating on someone, blame it on them. This time, Disney is innocent of sugarcoating a story.
After their problems with Song of the South, the crows in Dumbo, Aladdin's comments "against" Arabs, people saying characters like Sebastian were racist, or that Lion King was sexist.....Disney has likely gotten tired of the PC BS. So rather than fight it, they just bend over backwards to make them happy by dumbing down the original story.
After their problems with Song of the South, the crows in Dumbo, Aladdin's comments "against" Arabs, people saying characters like Sebastian were racist, or that Lion King was sexist.....Disney has likely gotten tired of the PC BS. So rather than fight it, they just bend over backwards to make them happy by dumbing down the original story.
I actually prefer this storyline with the restaurant to be honest. I really liked her having a clearer goal and I liked that Charlotte wasn't your stereotypical Southern beau.
And in terms of race issues of the time, they were there in the final film, just subtle rather than in your face. For example:
- Tiana and Eudora sitting in the back of the street-car.
- Showing the contrast between the right white neighbourhood and the poorer, black one. Plus, the fact of both Tiana and her father having to work multiple jobs just to get by.
- "A woman of your own background would have had a lot of trouble trying to run a big business like that. You're better off where you're at." That's probably the most noticeable one as my theory is Tiana wasn't out-bid and the Fenners were purposely trying to have her not get her restaurant, due to her race. I think a little sexism on their part as well. Hence why it only takes the threat of an alligator to convince them to give her the sugar-mill.
And in terms of race issues of the time, they were there in the final film, just subtle rather than in your face. For example:
- Tiana and Eudora sitting in the back of the street-car.
- Showing the contrast between the right white neighbourhood and the poorer, black one. Plus, the fact of both Tiana and her father having to work multiple jobs just to get by.
- "A woman of your own background would have had a lot of trouble trying to run a big business like that. You're better off where you're at." That's probably the most noticeable one as my theory is Tiana wasn't out-bid and the Fenners were purposely trying to have her not get her restaurant, due to her race. I think a little sexism on their part as well. Hence why it only takes the threat of an alligator to convince them to give her the sugar-mill.
-
blackcauldron85
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 16689
- Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:54 am
- Gender: Female
- Contact:
The second part of the Slashfilm documentary:
http://blueskydisney.blogspot.com/2010/ ... frogs.html
***********
(erase what I wrote) What estefan said!
http://blueskydisney.blogspot.com/2010/ ... frogs.html
***********
I agree to an extent, but I think Disney's reasoning to not use that title was because Tiana is more of the star of the film vs. Naveen.PatrickvD wrote:how about.... wait for it.......... The Frog Prince
Same as above. I'm guessing that, since Tiana really is the star, they had to put something acknowledging her in the title...?ajmrowland wrote:The Frog and the Voodoo Man.
Or the Magician and the Frog. that's less Princess-y
I agree, and others here have said it before, too- we wish we had more backstory on Facilier. But, maybe the movie would've been longer had they shown that. And really, thinking about it, so many Disney villains don't have a backstory.Goliath wrote:What did he want to do with the city once he had taken over it? I don't get what it is he wants.
Well, especially with segregation, I'm definitely betting that there were restaurants and other establishments owned by African Americans. Yes, as a female, that would be less likely, but I think that since it was her father's dream, and he encouraged her to follow her dreams...I don't know...I'm too lazy/headachy to look up if any African American women owned restaurants or other establishments back then, but Google is there to use...Goliath wrote:but there's no way a black girl would have the prospect of opening her own restaurant.
Well, there was that one point when the two men mention something about Tiana's "position" or "status" or something, when talking about her buying the restaurant...Goliath wrote:The way no racial conflict appeared to exist in 1920's New Orleans bothered me.
(erase what I wrote) What estefan said!
Well, (and my memory is getting fuzzy...I need to see the film again) that scene showed Tiana a side of Naveen that she needed to see, so it did serve a plot purpose in that respect.Goliath wrote:Sorry Disney, but just having people get fysically hurt is not funny. What were the hillbillies doing there anyway? Cut out the scene and you don't miss a thing.
That's interesting, because some people have said that they felt that the romance thing was rushed, like one second they don't like each other much, and then the next second they love each other. I think that the relationship did build, but at the same time, the moment that they realize they love each other, I think I wasn't expecting it to be played out like it was.Goliath wrote:People have said this is the first time there is a real building of a relationship in a Disney-film (instead of just two people falling instantly in love)
I don't think the problem was that my expectations were too high. Like I said, they were already lowered after seeing the first trailers. I judged the film by what I saw and what I did and didn't like. Maybe I'll like it when I watch it more, but I doubt I will suddenly come to think Louis and the hillbillies are actually hilarious. Sometimes a film is just average. It happens, even if it's Disney.
Thanks for your explanation of Dr. Facilier's plan. I had gathered all that from the film as well, but just money or control over one city seemed so small a goal to me, for a guy who has 'friends on the other side'. By the way, I read in the comments-section of IMDb that quite a few people who were Christians were offended by the film, because it deals with voodoo. What do you all think about that?
I really don't see why that would be insulting. I mean, it would be much more realistic. Didn't 'the black community' (and I use this term very loosely) complain about Song of the South because Disney sugercoated the historic circumstances of black people in the south during the Reconstruction era? But now with PatF, Disney wanted to do justice to history, and now that's insulting as well? It seems like Disney can never win. In my opinion, it's much more insulting to ignore/deny the hardships the African-Americans had to endure in 1920's Louisiana.pap64 wrote:The original version of the movie (which was called The Frog Princess) had a much more realistic and accurate portrayal of blacks in the 1920. In that version, Tiana (back then named Maddy) was a scullery maid working for the Lebouff family, and Charlotte was a very mean and spoiled debutant who abused Tiana around.
Thanks for your explanation of Dr. Facilier's plan. I had gathered all that from the film as well, but just money or control over one city seemed so small a goal to me, for a guy who has 'friends on the other side'. By the way, I read in the comments-section of IMDb that quite a few people who were Christians were offended by the film, because it deals with voodoo. What do you all think about that?
Excellent point. Though, you wouldn't know from watching this film there ever existed anything like segregation, especially if you don't know about the subject (which I think is true for a lot of younger people outside the US). It's true that there are a few subtle remarks that could be taken as discrimination against African Americans, but on the whole...blackcauldron85 wrote:Well, especially with segregation, I'm definitely betting that there were restaurants and other establishments owned by African Americans. Yes, as a female, that would be less likely, but I think that since it was her father's dream, and he encouraged her to follow her dreams...
There has been more attention for the film in several magazines and papers since I wrote that, but sadly enough, nothing *at all* in the 'Donald Duck' weekly comic magazine (which is widely read). There were only about 10 other people when I went to see it, but it was monday night at 9 PM, and it was the original (English) version. I think the earlier showings in the Dutch dub will be better attended (parents with children). The room next door, where Avatar was shown, was packed, though.Babaloo wrote:Btw, were there a lot of people watching it? Because you were saying that there hasn't been that much advertisements in the Netherlands and not that many people even knew it was coming out...
-
ajmrowland
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 8177
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:19 pm
- Location: Appleton, WI
I was sorta joking, and trying to think of a male-oriented title at the same time.blackcauldron85 wrote:Same as above. I'm guessing that, since Tiana really is the star, they had to put something acknowledging her in the title...?ajmrowland wrote:The Frog and the Voodoo Man.
Or the Magician and the Frog. that's less Princess-y
Blame the PC mentality. If an adult filmmaker does this he or she is daring, real and brilliant. If Disney does it it's insulting and racist. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.Goliath wrote:I really don't see why that would be insulting. I mean, it would be much more realistic. Didn't 'the black community' (and I use this term very loosely) complain about Song of the South because Disney sugercoated the historic circumstances of black people in the south during the Reconstruction era? But now with PatF, Disney wanted to do justice to history, and now that's insulting as well? It seems like Disney can never win. In my opinion, it's much more insulting to ignore/deny the hardships the African-Americans had to endure in 1920's Louisiana.pap64 wrote:The original version of the movie (which was called The Frog Princess) had a much more realistic and accurate portrayal of blacks in the 1920. In that version, Tiana (back then named Maddy) was a scullery maid working for the Lebouff family, and Charlotte was a very mean and spoiled debutant who abused Tiana around.
Thanks for your explanation of Dr. Facilier's plan. I had gathered all that from the film as well, but just money or control over one city seemed so small a goal to me, for a guy who has 'friends on the other side'. By the way, I read in the comments-section of IMDb that quite a few people who were Christians were offended by the film, because it deals with voodoo. What do you all think about that?
You're welcome. I think that's what the filmmakers wanted, to show that Facilier was really just a loser who did a lot of tricks to get where he is, and still all of his power was granted by the voodoo gods. I agree that it lacks power, but I think he is still a great villain if only because his portrayal was amazing.
As for the voodoo stuff.. That's ridiculous. The only character who fully does voodoo is Facilier, and not only was he the BAD GUY, he gets defeated by his own magic. Mama Odie is a voodoo priestess too, but all she did in the film was tell Tiana and Naveen that they needed a princess, something Naveen figured out at the start of the film but was wrong in believing Tiana was the princess to kiss.
-
ajmrowland
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 8177
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:19 pm
- Location: Appleton, WI
-
DisneyJedi
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3737
- Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 2:53 pm
- Gender: Male
I think they can handle the animal bit. The real issue would be having Tiana and Naveen become frogs, and the Lawrence disguised as Naveen bit.ajmrowland wrote:Thinking about Dr. Facilier makes me itch for a stage Musical of the film.
I mean, all those Voodoo scenes-and some better songs-would make for an awesome production. Of course, there's the animal issue.
If they pulled off The Lion King and the Beast's transformation live on stage, they can do a great Princess and the Frog stage showDisneyJedi wrote:I think they can handle the animal bit. The real issue would be having Tiana and Naveen become frogs, and the Lawrence disguised as Naveen bit.ajmrowland wrote:Thinking about Dr. Facilier makes me itch for a stage Musical of the film.
I mean, all those Voodoo scenes-and some better songs-would make for an awesome production. Of course, there's the animal issue.
.Here's how I think they could do it:
- For the animal characters, they could either wear outfits designed to look like animals (a la Little Mermaid) or wear puppets as outfits (a la Lion King).
- For Fake Naveen, it could be played by the same actor that plays real Naveen, and then create special effects for the transformation scenes.