DVDizzy.com

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

It is currently Fri Oct 31, 2014 4:03 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 119 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 8:39 pm 
Offline
Suspended
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 4:35 am
Posts: 8296
Location: Shock and Awe Gender: Freakazoid
Goliath wrote:
Disney Duster wrote:
I hope I don't offend these two but Goliath and Frankenollie are rather hard cynical guys kinda like Flynn but they love girls who are the opposite of that (at least in the movies!).

I like strong, independent women like Pocahontas, Mulan and Tiana. It's refreshing to see female main characters taking control and being instrumental in achieving the desired 'happy end'. They're likable characters as well and I think they're far better role models for girls than characters like Snow White and Rapunzel. And still...

... still, when it comes to emotional attachment and caring for a character, I greatly like Snow White and Rapunzel much more. Their innocence and sweetness and naivete greatly enhance their 'sympathy factor', to me. Maybe that's the old-fashioned part in me (and when it comes to womens' issues I'm not conservative at all) which likes to protect and defend a woman? Put a girl I care about who's crying in front of me and I'll melt instantaneously. It's the same with Snow White or Rapunzel... or Ariel when Triton has just destroyed her cavern. I think Ariel has the right mix of assertiveness and 'dependency' (for lack of a better word).

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/O_WvkhSaoL0" frameborder="0"></iframe>

As for Sleeping Beauty, well, when you come up with an opinion on the movie that actually has something resembling thought behind it, then you can criticize me.

_________________
Image
4 Disney Atmosphere Images


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 8:52 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:35 pm
Posts: 4749
Location: The Netherlands
Lazario wrote:
As for Sleeping Beauty, well, when you come up with an opinion on the movie that actually has something resembling thought behind it, then you can criticize me.

But... for you to accept any opinion on Sleeping Beauty as "thoughtful", that opinion would have to be 100% in agreement with yours. :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 9:07 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:59 am
Posts: 4795
Goliath wrote:
Lazario wrote:
As for Sleeping Beauty, well, when you come up with an opinion on the movie that actually has something resembling thought behind it, then you can criticize me.

But... for you to accept any opinion on Sleeping Beauty as "thoughtful", that opinion would have to be 100% in agreement with yours. :roll:


Pretty much. Especially when you start your post regarding SB in this thread with this:

Lazario wrote:
Here we go again:


[quote="Lazario]I think the rest of UD's anti-Sleeping Beauty brigade will tell you that he was.[/quote]


Pretty much how I had unfortunate run in with him.

InB4 he respond with a tl;dr essay and shitty youtube video responses again.

_________________
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 9:24 pm 
Offline
Suspended
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 4:35 am
Posts: 8296
Location: Shock and Awe Gender: Freakazoid
Goliath wrote:
But... for you to accept any opinion on Sleeping Beauty as "thoughtful", that opinion would have to be 100% in agreement with yours. :roll:

Well, hold up there "slick," I didn't say anything more insulting to Duster than the shit you and SuperA get away with in the Religion and Abortion threads. Now, you're pissing because I've told off Duster accordingly... because you agree with him here, now? The day I believe you honestly give a damn how people on this forum treat Duster is the day you and me become church buddies.

Dr F agrees with my basic take on the movie. But I don't high-five-reply people for agreeing with me. If you're not going to recognize how flimsy Duster's arguments were (PLEASE tell me how I was the slightest bit wrong in the section where I proved Aurora's singing in the forest scene wasn't filler)- you are full of shit. It has nothing to do with you agreeing with me or not. Duster's arguments were poor.

As for your "points" on Sleeping Beauty, they were kneejerk reactions. Nothing more. And your take on my analysis was bullshit as well. Because I was actually speaking for the people who find Maleficent a great villain. It IS a fact that the scene you picked such bones over was not intended to place urgency on her efforts to find Aurora. It was about establishing her ability to ferociously attack people with her powers and if you actually watched the movie- you would see them running in more terror than probably any character(s) in Disney's animated film history. Yeah... people who watch these movies remember details like those too.

_________________
Image
4 Disney Atmosphere Images


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 8:52 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:35 pm
Posts: 4749
Location: The Netherlands
Lazario wrote:
Well, hold up there "slick," I didn't say anything more insulting to Duster than the shit you and SuperA get away with in the Religion and Abortion threads. Now, you're pissing because I've told off Duster accordingly... because you agree with him here, now? The day I believe you honestly give a damn how people on this forum treat Duster is the day you and me become church buddies.

Where did I ever even mention Disney Duster? If I recall correctly, I was talking about Sleeping Beauty, not about Duster's feelings. So where do you get the strange idea that this is about the way you treated him? (Can't say you treated him badly, by the way.) And you're right: I don't care what you say to him; what makes you think I do? My opinion on Sleeping Beauty had got nothing to do with that at all. Like I told you so many times on this forum: what I write isn't all about you or what you wrote. So could we *please*, for once, stick to the topic and not go delve into one of your forum conspicary theories?

Lazario wrote:
If you're not going to recognize how flimsy Duster's arguments were (PLEASE tell me how I was the slightest bit wrong in the section where I proved Aurora's singing in the forest scene wasn't filler)- you are full of shit. It has nothing to do with you agreeing with me or not. Duster's arguments were poor.

As for your "points" on Sleeping Beauty, they were kneejerk reactions. Nothing more. And your take on my analysis was bullshit as well.

"I am right about Sleeping Beauty and anybody who disagrees with me is stupid and dumb and full of shit and doesn't know anything. Because my opinion is fact. Look at me, I'm so smart because I 'get' Sleeping Beauty and anybody who doesn't like the film just doesn't 'get' it. People who like movies I don't like, e.g. Snow White are stupid and need to be talked to in a lecturing and condescending tone. Because I'm smart and you all are stupid."

^ Summary of Lazario's position. :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:50 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:02 am
Posts: 7101
Location: America
LOL exactly enigmawing. Yea the resemblance is only sllliiiight but still.

SpringHeelJack wrote:
The whole "Disney look" thing always bugs me. Disney looks different from "Steamboat Willie" to "Snow White" to "Bambi" to "Sleeping Beauty" to "101 Dalmatians" to so many later movies. There's not a "Disney look." There ought not BE a Disney look. All I ask for is that it be animated well.

Well, there are things about Disney movies, in look and other elements, that people notice are similar. I mean, if people have said there is a Disney look, they must see something. So many people noted Tangled was the most Disney looking CGI Disney's ever had. I pointed out how Sleeping Beauty had a different visual style but the characters still looked more like past Disney ones than Lilo & Stitch with it's new muppet style. If I must try to describe it, Disney made characters that looked more realistic and human and, I dunno, not like ugly muppets.

Goliath wrote:
I think Ariel has the right mix of assertiveness and 'dependency' (for lack of a better word).

You mean her needing some people's help? Since you were talking about the sympathy factor maybe you mean innocence or helplessness or defenselessness. It's not like she chooses to be dependent. Interesting, she's the two kinds of things you like about girls. Except the deal she made and all she risked to go after this guy she just met...? Depending on how much I knew about the guy I mighta done the same thing, but for you, with what you say girl's role models should be...

Lazario wrote:
Can you translate that? I don't speak gibberish.

What I mean is that Aurora was given too much time, story, and attempts at character for her to be just a symbol. But she wasn't given enough as a character, either.

Lazario wrote:
If someone throws a ball of thunder / bolt of lightning at you, you need to run. That makes sense. She had great supernatural powers to make up for the fact that she didn't prepare well ahead of time. Which makes sense given that she obviously placed more importance on terrorizing the people with her curse and enjoying the moment of superiority than she was about making sure they didn't take action against her swiftly.

You know, if that had been what Maleficent was doing, just enjoying her time with the kingdom being in terror, then it would make a lot more sense why she didn't know her idiot goons were doing her orders wrong, because she wasn't worrying about it till much closer to Aurora’s birthday. But unfortunately, the film indicates she was worried and furious and her forbidden mountain was thundering for the whole time, and further yet she has the line "For the first time in 16 years, I shall sleep well." That means, or at least indicates to us, that this whole time she was like "Haven't found her yet? Keep looking!" "Why haven't they found her?", and it took her 16 years, 16 years, for her to finally realize the reason they failed was because they weren't looking for her at the right age. It makes her look extremely incompetent and almost like an idiot like you called Snow White. The scene showing her display of powers makes her just look like an idiot who has power. An idiot with power is not the most impressive villain.

And yes I can call her stupid or an idiot, or at least say she looks like she's stupid or an idiot, because the film made her both a pure force of evil and a character. In fact, let's go back and say that Aurora can be both a symbol of hope and a character. But if she and Maleficent are going to be both, because they most surely are not only symbols, when you try to give things like humor and a raven to talk to with Maleficent, they did not give them enough character, or at least, didn't do their characters well enough.

I did however like that you pointed out how her laughing and gloating at how much better she is than everyone else turned out to be her downfall by giving Phillip the chance to stab her. But Phillip had it all too easy up until that point, and then, him being able to stab her is not by his character but by a convenient window that is super obvious, and he's further helped by the fairies. If he had narrowed his eyes at her stomach while she was laughing then we could get a sense of his character actually making intelligent tries to defeat her, but instead, we just get easiness for him.

Lazario wrote:
That only serves to solidify the idea that all artists who work in film make the same movie over and over again and only experiment with different tellings.

This is off-topic but I want to say people that end up making things that are rather unoriginal are not always trying to. In real life a lot of the "same" things do happen over and over again, but to different people and in slightly different ways. Try to look for how things are original, not how they are the same. And I don't think people in Hollywood are purposely trying to make the same thing over again, I think human beings are just human beings and it's hard to think of much that fits other people's ideas of "original".

Lazario wrote:
Sleeping Beauty is easily the most...sophisticated example of storytelling in Disney's princess film can(n)on.

How so?

Lazario wrote:
If Maleficent didn't impress you, I don't care.

But I am very impressed by her. I love Maleficent. She's my favorite Disney villain followed by Ursula. But I would like her to not have a scene that makes her look bad just like I talked about scenes I think would make my favorite film, Cinderella, look better. Sleeping Beauty's my third favorite Disney film but this whole thread is about discussing what we would change to Disney movies. Of course in reality I would not want to change a single second of my favorite film, or of Sleeping Beauty. I mean when Maleficent finds out how dumb her goons are, it's delightful. But it also doesn't seem to make much sense and makes her look bad in some ways. This thread is just the fun of our minds ambitiously thinking of how the films could be even better even if we believe they are already perfect as the films we know and love. Except certain films. Like Tangled. Those NEED to be changed. ;)

Lazario wrote:
The fact is, everything people are bitching about the movie works when you view the film NOT as the emotional journey of any character - and this is what bothers people because it means they have to read the movie differently than the other Disney animated films - but instead as a cosmic game of good and evil where one side has the ball in their court and the other has to choose their next move carefully to best the other. Do you think it would have been a SUBTLE touch for the movie to just have the pack of goons be good at what they do and find her in 2 seconds? That would have been too easy. And you know what? It's not my fault people judge Maleficent by logical standards - which is absolutely ridiculous because they have not done the same with almost any other classic era animated villain - instead of actually sitting back and letting the actress's VERY intimidating physical performance do the work of making her a great villain. Which I told you is what the audience are meant to do because that's the movie anyway. You feel it, you don't think it.

But the film did try to give us characters. It's obvious, as I pointed out they tried to make Maleficent have humor and someone to talk to just like they gave Aurora some animals to talk to and...no humor at all, which goes back to the point of making her more of a character. Walt was going to make the three fairies all the same, but they chose to make them more individual characters. When looking at them not as characters but as just good and evil battling...well what Maleficent does doesn't really seem that evil to me. It never did. I was like...oh...the princess...sleeps for a long time. K. If they had made Aurora a super great beloved character, with a great life that gets taken away from her by the spell, I could see feeling really bad for her, but as it is I don't feel that bad. Viewing the movie as just good fighting evil and the steps it takes is also not that great because the steps taken aren't that great. Maleficent not telling her goons what exactly to look for is a dumb move. The fairies taking the princess back too early is a dumb move, even though it's kinda interesting to think "the curse is making them do it" but that's the only good excuse I have. The fairies magically doing everything for Phillip is too easy. It’s not good or interesting moves.

Finally, what we're saying is Disney should have done something else in Maleficent's scene with the goons. Why not something like, after a while of all their searching, the goons were just goofing off for themselves because they had given up on the search but still pretended to search, and she finds this out by a slip of the tongue or something and she fries them after that? Or perhaps instead she just electrocutes them for not finding Aurora by then anyway, of she's that evil and unreasonable, and then she thinks, cleverly, that her bird would be better since he could see above the skies, but she didn't want to use him because he was the only one she had she wanted to talk to and she didn't know how long he would take? Any of that would be better, I think. It would even give her more character. We’d miss the joy of her saying “Cradle!” and that great laughing but unfortunately that’s all in a scene that makes her look oblivious for a whole16 years. I’m sure she could laugh at how her goons were goofing off for a while, though. Even though what you say about her presence being so great and helping the movie be great is all true…it is slightly undone by things like this scene in the film.

Lazario wrote:
And Maleficent has just about the most presence in any Disney movie- as I've explained countless times, it's implied that she haunts a portion of the kingdom somehow and has a prying sixth sense... or seventh or eighth sense if it means that inanimate objects like walls can physically hear the Fairies plotting. That is seriously creative and terrifying for a Disney film. And it's also interesting that much of the film doesn't have an upbeat tone

"Even walls have ears" is actually an old idiom that just means someone could overhear them. If the film was trying to imply Maleficent had a sixth or seventh sense, unfortunately they failed because then she would know where Aurora was no matter where they went to discuss their plan. The scene of her using goons to search for Aurora shows she has no such extra sense. Unless that sense just isn't working because for some reason it can travel to walls but not silverware gift sets for babies. Or maybe the fairies voices are too tiny to hear/decipher, but that doesn’t work much either because their voices don't change when they become small. It's all just not very good reasoning. There is no doubt they are worried that either Maleficent could hear them or someone could hear them and get word spread and Maleficent could find out that way, but unfortunately we see that Maleficent's power is limited in the scene with the goons.

Also unfortunately I think the tone makes the moments that should be warm and happy feel down and cold or empty. Most especially the time in the cottage, the animals and Phillip cheering Aurora in the forest, or the happy ending.

Lazario wrote:
Disney Duster wrote:
Lazario wrote:
This movie still has a lot more going on within its' structure than any of the other Princess films.

I want to know how you think so. If you can't give me the whole explanation because it's hard to say, okay, but I'd like to know. Even if you must get into "metaphysical feeling" stuff.

Isn't that right up your alley, as a believer in a magical big man who lives in the sky?

I don't believe that, I believe that something made everything, including us people, and so that something is probably like people, too, and my evidence is the mere fact that everything and us exist. And if by magic you mean "has the ability to do things such as make everything that we see existing before us", then sure. Let's see your evidence for why the structure is better/has more going on...oh wait, you got none.

Lazario wrote:
Disney Duster wrote:
How is Aurora singing notes with no lyrics for a really long time not filler?

#1: Fauna gave her the gift of a remarkably beautiful voice. The scene is showing us a return on that investment.

#2: Aurora's singing must be heard by Phillip for the romantic plot to move forward. If she doesn't sing out, how is she going to be heard?

#3: She's not just singing, as you have noted. Maleficent said "the Princess will indeed grow in grace and beauty, beloved by all who know her." The scene is both about her voice and about watching her charm everyone she comes across by virtue of her grace and beauty.

#4: Time the scenes, Dusty. If what you come up with equals "really long time" in your estimation, I think you might just have a problem I can't help you with.

I specifically said Aurora's singing without notes. If Aurora just sang "I Wonder" or even "Once Upon a Dream", it would cover all four of the points you made. It would even be more dramatic in a way, because Aurora would be singing about love, and then the prince hears her, which is part of why she was singing in the first place, so her true love could hear her as she hoped. It would be better. But they gave her a bunch of time just singing notes to fill time, meaning it's filler. If they gave her song the first few of those wordless notes, with the animals coming toward her, leading into it, it would not seem like filler. Cinderella's opening song called the animals too her and showed how she had their love and that was more concise.

Disney Duster wrote:
How is the animals dancing with Aurora not filler?What does it do?

It is connected to the piece of plot involving how Aurora meets Phillip. If you watched the movie, you saw that she didn't realize Phillip was dancing beside her until he spoke out and touched her. But he was dancing with her behind her back and she believed the animals in his clothing were dancing with her. Also, by the time she began dancing with the animals, they had taken his clothing. If they don't dance with her in his clothing, the two characters don't meet and then the "Once Upon a Dream" plot goes nowhere. Which is also the answer to your asinine suggestion above that Aurora's dialogue about being treated like a child has no bearing on the plot.[/quote]
But the prince could have met her just by following her singing. He could have watched her just singing. This scene doesn't do much. This scene kinda sorta shows her playfulness, which would be good for her character if it really was something endearing, but it's not really and it's just not that much of anything. These actions don't make us care for her more when she's asleep. It's just not particularly great or something we care that much about. I think almost everyone cares about it just for how pretty the animation looks, not for the character. As for the thing about her saying she didn't want to be treated like a child not bearing on the plot, that is not what I said, I said it made her not just a symbol. Now who's not reading or thinking or paying attention?

I will say that the animals taking the prince's clothes makes him look less like a prince so she doesn't know he's the prince and it provides some (unecessary, unvalidated) drama about marrying someone else which leads to her crying which leads to the fairies leaving her alone so she touches the spindle, but shouldn't Aurora have wondered about where those princely clothes came from if they looked like a prince's? Which they didn't really, so he still could have come to her in them. I see the scene as filler because it doesn’t really bear much on the film in adding anything except to enable something to happen later. At least with the plot points that seem like filler in Snow White and Cinderella, they are also character building moments or just more entertaining.

Lazario wrote:
You are the intellectual equivalent of a dead end on this board, I hope you realize this.

And you're the intellectual equivalent of a bully. I hope you realize this.

Disney Duster wrote:
And those characters never come back in the film ever, they don’t do anything else.

Which makes it different than Cinderella and Snow White. Different, not inferior. And that's historically what Walt said he wanted from the film in the first place. And none of this contradicts my point. Whether characters are necessary for one scene or the entire film doesn't invalidate any of my arguments.[/quote]
But if these animal characters were there to show how beloved she is and how she has someone to talk to, but never come back again, it shows that all that belovedness and relationship doesn't matter at all, rendering them and some of her character that you said she had from that almost pointless. But Cinderella and Snow White's friends stuck around and fought very hard for them, after those heroines showed great love and kindness to them, which helped make the heroines and animals all much better characters.

Lazario wrote:
Regarding the paige / minstrel / whatever, I never said the film didn't have comedic touches. He was considered by the studio as necessary to add a comedic aspect to that section of the film. This is Disney, remember, and I never said at any point during any of my arguments that Disney didn't manipulate the film in certain ways. Walt wanted to lighten up the movie and this was one of the ways the team did that, in their estimation. I never found him hilarious but his quick turn into desperate drunk could very well lend credibility to my argument that the people of the kingdom were depressed and anxious as a result of Aurora -again in my argument a symbol of any hope they could have that good exists - being placed in a dangerous situation by Maleficent's spell. Making it feasible that any one of them given even incidental access to a really high quality sedative wouldn't be able to resist taking it. He could be seen as a symbol to the Kings of the subjects' need to see Aurora. Who said, though his character came and went, that the Kings never gave him a second thought? Same with Aurora and the animals- who says she forgot about them in the back of her mind?

The humor should come from the main established characters and not be injected in with a random new character. That's lazy. But that's not the real problem since they inserted the Beaver character in Winnie the Pooh for the same reason but he was actually funny and had a lot more character and tried to help with the story by trying to get Pooh out. In this film the minstrel is good for one joke, and that is when he wakes up from being drunk only to fall asleep again from the spell. The big amount of time spent on him is what is filler. As for representing all the things you said, he doesn't. If he was, they would need to really show it, probably by lots more people getting drunk, and showing that they were really sad for a while and are just now perking up in addition to having lots of wine. And why would they care so much anyway? In fact it all brings me back to what I wanted to ask before, which was why would a whole kingdom be that miserable for 16 years? If Aurora was going to stop the misery Maleficent was always causing them before she was born, sure, but I don’t know how she is, so she’s not, and we never see what Maleficent does that makes them miserable anyway, if it really is anything at all. And in her disappearance these people would normally just be a little sad when they think about her but then carry on with their own lives and their own personal problems. If the king and queen couldn't have children until a fairy gave them the once-only gift of Aurora and Aurora was going to save the kingdom from Maleficent, that would work, but that's not the case at all, at most she'd just be a very nice ruler and they already have two very nice rulers in her absence. If they became crappy rulers because they were sad, that would be something, but there is no indication this happens at all. If Aurora's marriage to Phillip was going to fortify the kingdoms so that together the people could protect themselves from Maleficent, or they're just a kingdom that is poor/not doing well and the unity would change that, then that would be fantastic. But that's not what's happening. Or they're not telling us. Either way, something has to change.

As it is, the scene with not just the minstrel but also the kings does nothing. It makes Hubert look like an ass who just cares about grandchildren and not Aurora or his friend Stephen's feelings. Stephen doesn't seem nearly sad enough and doesn't show us the toll of what Maleficent has done. And the two kings get into a really stupid argument that doesn't end very funny at all so it actually does show them as buffoons and we just don't really care.

And it does not matter if Aurora thinks about the animals later. How in the hell would that tiny bit of information matter or do anything for the film? To show she's kind? Well then the film needs to show us that if that's the case. But as it is, we can only determine it's not the case. The animals were supposed to be her friends and show she's beloved and be entertaining and they didn't do very much in any of those areas, pretty much failing.

Lazario wrote:
unless the film was about criticizing him for not believing in true love / pushing for an arranged marriage, or forcing her into giving birth to the children of a man she didn't know or care about.

This is the only thing their scene is good for, and it doesn't deliver. Stefan is concerned about it for one second, and it turns into a really dumb argument where by the end he just laughs it off. If he was seriously talking to Hubert about arranged marriage and true love, and then Phillip came in interrupting him, that would be great. But instead we get much too long filler that tries to be funny or interesting and fails.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:
But for Tiana, cooking = work.

Yes. And her enjoying that work is fine. It’s the other stuff that’s not, her serving people and building, like I said. They need to show how working that much is really going to make a person feel. If Disney’s going to tell little girls to go and work, it’s the honest thing to show them that it’s not all fun and that it’s really not good to just sleep for 2 minutes before you work again.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:
Like SpringHeelJack perfectly said - Disney, even under Walt's guidance, went through many different styles and techniques for character animation. Besides - it's not the animation alone that's important, it's what you do with it. And Lilo & Stitch does something amazing with it.

They’ve done different styles all throughout and they still all looked more recognizably Disney than Lilo & Stitch. Except for Atlantis, and yet that was still more Disney realistic looking.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:
But isn't someone's 'character' the same as their personality?

Is it? What makes a person? I ask that rhetorically. Anyway, I was trying to specify that I liked her personality but not her whole character like her belief in working so much and her attitude about it. And if personality and character were quite the same thing we wouldn’t have two separate words for them.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:
Well I 'feel' like you need to watch a film before you can pass opinion on it.

I didn’t pass an opinion. I passed a comment about feeling I got from seeing as much as I did. It wasn’t meant to be final.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:
I don't think Maleficent's main objective is to kill Aurora; she just likes spreading horror and misery. Cursing Aurora was probably just one of many cruel things she did; it's obvious that Stefan's kingdom already knew of her and feared/hated her, so she may have tormented them previously. That's why she doesn't spend all her time trying to find Aurora.

I know you may be thinking - "Why does she react so angrily then when she learns her minions haven't found Aurora?" Maybe because she would somewhat embarrassed about how one of her curses didn't work.

I agree that her objective is to spread terror the best way she can, but not about the angry thing, she’s obviously too angry not to have been very concerned about the curse for a long time. Please read my responses above to Lazario regarding this issue.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:
I'm 'kinda' like Flynn? I don't want to be like that arrogant douche-bearded thing. Ever.

No, I mean you are kind of hard and cynical, and Flynn also just happens to have those kind of traits too.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:17 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 6:19 am
Posts: 2727
Disney Duster wrote:
If Aurora was going to stop the misery Maleficent was always causing them before she was born, sure, but I don’t know how she is, so she’s not, and we never see what Maleficent does that makes them miserable anyway, if it really is anything at all. And in her disappearance these people would normally just be a little sad when they think about her but then carry on with their own lives and their own personal problems. If the king and queen couldn't have children until a fairy gave them the once-only gift of Aurora and Aurora was going to save the kingdom from Maleficent, that would work, but that's not the case at all, at most she'd just be a very nice ruler and they already have two very nice rulers in her absence. If they became crappy rulers because they were sad, that would be something, but there is no indication this happens at all. If Aurora's marriage to Phillip was going to fortify the kingdoms so that together the people could protect themselves from Maleficent, or they're just a kingdom that is poor/not doing well and the unity would change that, then that would be fantastic. But that's not what's happening. Or they're not telling us. Either way, something has to change.


Although I love Sleeping Beauty, I like all of those ideas for why the kingdom would be saddened or depressed by Aurora's absence. The concepts you came up with could actually improve the film.

Disney Duster wrote:
Yes. And her enjoying that work is fine. It’s the other stuff that’s not, her serving people and building, like I said. They need to show how working that much is really going to make a person feel. If Disney’s going to tell little girls to go and work, it’s the honest thing to show them that it’s not all fun and that it’s really not good to just sleep for 2 minutes before you work again.


I haven't seen Princess and the Frog for a while, but based on what I can remember it did show that Tiana didn't like serving others and wanted to have her own restaurant. So it doesn't portray her as enjoying taking orders, etc.

Disney Duster wrote:
They’ve done different styles all throughout and they still all looked more recognizably Disney than Lilo & Stitch. Except for Atlantis, and yet that was still more Disney realistic looking.


But what is 'Disney'?! Yes, the animation in Lilo & Stitch is different to the animation in other, earlier Disney Animated Classics, but I still like it. And even if the animation was poor, I would still have liked it due to the substance - the great, realistic character relationships, the enthralling blending of sci-fi and Hawaiian culture, the compelling drama.

Disney Duster wrote:
And if personality and character were quite the same thing we wouldn’t have two separate words for them.


So are you saying that we can't more than one word having the same meaning? But the words undoubtedly, doubtlessly and unequivocally all mean the same thing.

_________________
http://onethousandandonemovienights.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:52 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:35 pm
Posts: 4749
Location: The Netherlands
Disney Duster wrote:
Interesting, she's the two kinds of things you like about girls. Except the deal she made and all she risked to go after this guy she just met...? Depending on how much I knew about the guy I mighta done the same thing, but for you, with what you say girl's role models should be...

I admit I'm a bit of a schizophrenic in that aspect. I would be put off by a girl who chooses to be totally dependent of a man and who doesn't want to have her own career and make her own choices. But I would be equally put off by a girl who doesn't let me defend or protect her or who feels it's antiquated to be treated like a 'lady'. I think Ariel has a bit of both in her: on the one hand, she takes an active role in trying to fulfill her dreams and on the other hand she needs Eric and her friends to help her out at times.

Disney Duster wrote:
[...] But unfortunately, the film indicates she was worried and furious and her forbidden mountain was thundering for the whole time, and further yet she has the line "For the first time in 16 years, I shall sleep well." That means, or at least indicates to us [...] it took her 16 years, 16 years, for her to finally realize the reason they failed was because they weren't looking for her at the right age. It makes her look extremely incompetent and almost like an idiot like you called Snow White. The scene showing her display of powers makes her just look like an idiot who has power. An idiot with power is not the most impressive villain. [...]

Viewing the movie as just good fighting evil and the steps it takes is also not that great because the steps taken aren't that great. Maleficent not telling her goons what exactly to look for is a dumb move. The fairies taking the princess back too early is a dumb move, even though it's kinda interesting to think "the curse is making them do it" but that's the only good excuse I have. The fairies magically doing everything for Phillip is too easy. It’s not good or interesting moves.

Oh snap!

Image

Disney Duster wrote:
If the film was trying to imply Maleficent had a sixth or seventh sense, unfortunately they failed because then she would know where Aurora was no matter where they went to discuss their plan. The scene of her using goons to search for Aurora shows she has no such extra sense. Unless that sense just isn't working because for some reason it can travel to walls but not silverware gift sets for babies. [and much, much more!]

I never thought I would say this, but Duster, you impress me with your arguments. Very well put! Very well reasoned; couldn't have said it better myself. All good -and true- points!

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:44 pm 
Offline
Collector's Edition
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 1:09 pm
Posts: 943
"'For the first time in 16 years, I shall sleep well.' That means, or at least indicates to us [...] it took her 16 years, 16 years, for her to finally realize the reason they failed was because they weren't looking for her at the right age. It makes her look extremely incompetent and almost like an idiot like you called Snow White."

THIS!!!!! I'm sorry, but if Maleficent was the mistress of all evil, it wouldn't have taken her 16 years to find Aurora! Also, if that's all she had done for 16 years, then she really needed to get a life. I know it hurts not being invited to a party or function, but goodness, get over it! At least Queen Grimhilde and Lady Tremaine had better motives.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:07 am 
Offline
Suspended
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 4:35 am
Posts: 8296
Location: Shock and Awe Gender: Freakazoid
Disney Duster wrote:
What I mean is that Aurora was given too much time, story, and attempts at character for her to be just a symbol. But she wasn't given enough as a character, either.

I don't think it's wise to say if an artist has a really ambitious idea, they must make it fit within the parameters of other Disney formulas. All your suggestions would serve would be to inject more warmth into an idea that requires more tonal darkness.


Disney Duster wrote:
You know, if that had been what Maleficent was doing, just enjoying her time with the kingdom being in terror, then it would make a lot more sense why she didn't know her idiot goons were doing her orders wrong, because she wasn't worrying about it till much closer to Aurora’s birthday. But unfortunately, the film indicates she was worried and furious and her forbidden mountain was thundering for the whole time, and further yet she has the line "For the first time in 16 years, I shall sleep well."

You got me a little wrong there. I didn't mean that she sat back and didn't search for Aurora for the 16 years. I'm saying that she didn't bother to pay attention to what Stefan, the Queen, and the Fairies might have been doing the night she issued the curse. That night, she was gloating and basking in superiority. Then, she quickly realized after it was too late what she should have been doing. That's likely why she was so pissed. That she would have to spend 16 years having her mistake shoved in her face. Having to wake up every day and realize that her arrogance is the reason Aurora got away.

And yet, part of this theory still rings as brilliant because the Kingdom has every reason to continue being afraid. Of retaliation. Her potentially taking out her anger upon innocent people since both Aurora and the Fairies are gone. Well... this might have happened if we weren't watching a Disney movie. It would have been too expensive to animate anything more in the story. But, for what wound up on the screen, I will always be more impressed by it than Cinderella or Snow White. And I'm hard to impress, all things considered. Even with my intense Disney nostalgia, you can tell how many of their movies have not held up as they should have. Sleeping Beauty never fails to impress.


Disney Duster wrote:
That means, or at least indicates to us, that this whole time she was like "Haven't found her yet? Keep looking!" "Why haven't they found her?", and it took her 16 years, 16 years, for her to finally realize the reason they failed was because they weren't looking for her at the right age. It makes her look extremely incompetent and almost like an idiot like you called Snow White. The scene showing her display of powers makes her just look like an idiot who has power. An idiot with power is not the most impressive villain.

Well, I believe I actually voted for Ursula in the Hurt or Heal game for best villainess. But I digress.

You can't judge Maleficent the same way I judge Snow White. My criticism of Snow White relies on what she's learned and what we've learned about her in the movie. She has a relationship with the Dwarfs, the animals, and the Queen. This is why it's important for that movie to make logical sense when she's putting herself in harm's way the way she does. It ruins the rest of the movie on a story level. But Maleficent doesn't have a relationship with her henchmen. We see them in one scene, they don't have any real characters, and... hell, neither does the bird. That's why I'm right that they are just figures, like Aurora. I've said this in posts dating back years before now. The only characters whose specific actions are important to consider are in 3 camps. 1, Good: the Fairies. 2, Evil: Maleficent. And 3, the Messengers: pretty much just Phillip and King Hubert. Anyway, I'll likely get back to that later. In the meantime, I already told you that Maleficent can't be judged as a person and that labels used for people don't work with her. She is a force of evil. Don't ignore what I said if you want to argue against a point I've made. You of all people being both a highly spiritual and a very imaginative person should be able to look beyond the surface of something.

Speaking of things I said years ago, I also took care of why it doesn't matter that the movie doesn't make logical sense. The music has an ominous or heady tone running through the entire thing (although, this is an important note: the 2008 Platinum Edition 5.1 track doesn't sound quite right- but the mono tracks and any track on the 2003 Special Edition DVD will show you what I'm talking about), save for perhaps the ending as soon as the Kings wake up and begin talking. This drives a great deal of the actual story. Not that the animation doesn't also have its' own mind-fucking effects. The only thing I've been able to liken these outrageous and visually darker sequences to is astrology. A more haunting version of Disney showing the birth/evolution of the planets in Fantasia. There's a lot of star and ball(s) of light imagery in the film. People have tragically lost a basic understanding of how much the imagery in Disney's animation itself tells the story and influences what the "logical" parts of the story really mean.


Disney Duster wrote:
And yes I can call her stupid or an idiot, or at least say she looks like she's stupid or an idiot, because the film made her both a pure force of evil and a character. In fact, let's go back and say that Aurora can be both a symbol of hope and a character. But if she and Maleficent are going to be both, because they most surely are not only symbols, when you try to give things like humor and a raven to talk to with Maleficent, they did not give them enough character, or at least, didn't do their characters well enough.

Okay, right here you're trying to worm out of viewing the film under my microscope. You are literally saying "let's think about it my way." We already did that. How are you going to actually challenge my opinion if you don't even try?


Disney Duster wrote:
I did however like that you pointed out how her laughing and gloating at how much better she is than everyone else turned out to be her downfall by giving Phillip the chance to stab her. But Phillip had it all too easy up until that point, and then, him being able to stab her is not by his character but by a convenient window that is super obvious, and he's further helped by the fairies. If he had narrowed his eyes at her stomach while she was laughing then we could get a sense of his character actually making intelligent tries to defeat her, but instead, we just get easiness for him.

Well, the reason for that is pretty obvious. Remember that Flora had monologuing left to do? Her point about evil dying was kind of essential for the movie to make. And, here's another thing: this fight wasn't really Phillip's, was it? Seriously? Who has more history- Maleficent and Phillip or Maleficent and the Fairies? Remember, I said this was a movie about good versus evil. Not the heroic love story of a boy and a girl. That's your take on it. You keep trying to steer this back to: it's the same as every Disney movie and the point is the boy and the girl. That's a smaller part of the movie, not the main focus. It's introduced in the 20-30 minute section of the movie and wrapped up at the end. It has its' place. But the main focus is still good versus evil.


Disney Duster wrote:
Lazario wrote:
Sleeping Beauty is easily the most...sophisticated example of storytelling in Disney's princess film can(n)on.

How so?

First of all, look at what comprises comedic filler in Sleeping Beauty versus either Snow White or Cinderella. Look at the incredible gracefulness of the characterizations here. Because the movie's tone is so powerful, the characters are made to play smoother. It's a perfect mixture. Yet, conflict still exists. In ample amount. Because there's so much more to the animation and the music than either Cinderella and Snow White, both of which are a lot cruder in every way in comparison. Much more is (this is THE dorkiest and easiest "film school" thing for me to invoke here but I have heard a lot about this and it certainly applies here) shown to us than is told. And because it requires less naivety in its' audience. It's a more challenging movie. As I think has been proven recently considering the crass and sad criticisms it's gotten from *ahem* certain people on the forum. People who are now claiming Snow White is a symbol herself: of something sacred and precious that must never be criticized or made fun of. Sleeping Beauty has less baggage.


Disney Duster wrote:
But the film did try to give us characters. It's obvious, as I pointed out they tried to make Maleficent have humor

Well, if you think Evil itself can have a personality, fine. It's not a stretch to say it's capable of making jokes. But, honestly, the humor you're detecting must be amazingly subtle because I didn't even pick up on it. Are you actually saying because she laughs that she has a sense of humor? She didn't truly find the situation that amusing.


Disney Duster wrote:
and someone to talk to just like they gave Aurora some animals to talk to

That's not true. She just gave it an order. Her dialogue during the fire celebration scene was really directed at the audience. You can't assume that she spoke to the bird frequently based on these short moments.


Disney Duster wrote:
Walt was going to make the three fairies all the same, but they chose to make them more individual characters.

Well, I never said Walt was the mastermind behind this movie's more interesting ambitions. It makes sense that if there's any tampering with the format I'm describiing here that it would come from Walt thinking the film is too cold and needed more humor or warmth. And really... where does that really conflict with the points I've been making? I didn't say this movie was dead because I enjoy how dire it is. Or that it's frozen solid because I like that it sends a cold shiver up my spine. Or that it's stiff because of the analogy I made where the moves made between Maleficent and the Fairies are like a game.


Disney Duster wrote:
If they had made Aurora a super great beloved character, with a great life that gets taken away from her by the spell, I could see feeling really bad for her, but as it is I don't feel that bad.

Disney has almost never tapped into that kind of depth, Duster. Pollyanna is the closest thing I can think of. The only times they've ever come close in animation is when they've invoked an extreme approximation of something tragic. Pocahontas comes to mind, for obvious reason (the fact we know genocide is involved in the cultural history of native Americans). However, Disney certainly gave the Fairies very realistic reactions to the moment when it looks like Aurora will never awaken.


Disney Duster wrote:
Viewing the movie as just good fighting evil and the steps it takes is also not that great because the steps taken aren't that great. Maleficent not telling her goons what exactly to look for is a dumb move. The fairies taking the princess back too early is a dumb move, even though it's kinda interesting to think "the curse is making them do it" but that's the only good excuse I have. The fairies magically doing everything for Phillip is too easy. It’s not good or interesting moves.

I've dealt with the "Fairies taking the Princess back too early" in past threads. But I think I also covered that well here. I've mentioned practically since I arrived on the board that the music's tone tells the characters what they're supposed to do. The music suggested it was safe, and therefore the Fairies proceeded to move forward. I never said the music wasn't going to lie to them. (Which of course makes the movie all the more fascinating.) And I know Disney already animated the Fairies choosing to arrive too early but Walt himself said a lot of the creative ideas were influenced by the score of the movie which he says was written (I think he said on the television special about the making of the movie) "more than 50 years ago." I also said in this very thread that the movie is not bound by typical Disney storytelling logic. Which makes sense since I've said that's why I love it so much and consider it one of Disney's most unique and best films.

You're still trying to place this movie in a box, Duster. But it will never fit in a box.


Disney Duster wrote:
Finally, what we're saying is Disney should have done something else in Maleficent's scene with the goons. Why not something like, after a while of all their searching, the goons were just goofing off for themselves because they had given up on the search but still pretended to search, and she finds this out by a slip of the tongue or something and she fries them after that?

Because it's still ruled by logic rather than how evil really works. You're not being fair with the movie. Each force is given its' due time to control the board. It's very much like Pong. The ball is on one side and one side only at a time. That's why the music suggesting it's safe when it's really not or dangerous when it really isn't is such a progressive storytelling element. The movie is BEAUTIFULLY unobvious on that first viewing about whether it's safe or dangerous. Whether Good or Evil is in control. Everything tonally is suggested but NEVER mapped out. Just look at how many different forms Maleficent takes throughout the film and where she pops up.


Disney Duster wrote:
"Even walls have ears" is actually an old idiom that just means someone could overhear them.

Ahh... NOT when the movie shows us Maleficent has the ability to pass through stone and brick walls. As a version of herself does during the scene of her placing Aurora in the trance. See? The movie brilliantly pays off something you're suggesting had little importance in the movie or that most people never paid attention to in the dialogue.

And again, it ups the playing field. When you see this, it's scary AS HELL. And the first time I saw this movie, I could tell the music was suggesting when Flora said "even walls have ears" that Maleficent could very well have had some extension of her power acting as a microphone.


Disney Duster wrote:
If the film was trying to imply Maleficent had a sixth or seventh sense, unfortunately they failed because then she would know where Aurora was no matter where they went to discuss their plan.

Not if you accept what I've said about Maleficent not expecting the Fairies to take Aurora away that night AND the music suggesting danger at times when it's really safe AND Disney ensuring that there was an actual push and pull between good and evil. I kinda already covered this.


Disney Duster wrote:
The scene of her using goons to search for Aurora shows she has no such extra sense. Unless that sense just isn't working because for some reason it can travel to walls but not silverware gift sets for babies. Or maybe the fairies voices are too tiny to hear/decipher, but that doesn’t work much either because their voices don't change when they become small.

Yes, I was implying that Maleficent's power has limitations. And no, I wasn't implying that Maleficent was listening to the Fairies that night. But remember that Flora is established as a character who doesn't take chances. Unless, as I've also mentioned, the music might suggest otherwise. The music was definitely suggesting danger in the scene where she says "even walls have ears" and safety during the scene when they take Aurora back to the castle.

As for why their voices didn't change, I don't think that's relevant to the plot. Not unless we were given more details about Maleficent having the power to spy on characters. It's very much implied that she does, however.


Disney Duster wrote:
I specifically said Aurora's singing without notes. If Aurora just sang "I Wonder" or even "Once Upon a Dream", it would cover all four of the points you made.

No, all 4 of the points I made WERE covered. 1: the second she starts singing, we know she has a beautiful voice. 2: she uses her voice to charm the animals ("beloved by all who know her"). 3: her voice travels to Phillip and he is enchanted by it. 4: every moment of this sequence was using her singing to fill something the story already set up or will use to pay off later.

You were wrong. And... well, more wrong than I've seen you be in a LONG time.


Disney Duster wrote:
But the prince could have met her just by following her singing.

She stopped singing, Duster. And when she was singing these lyrics which are so important to you- she was singing quietly and to the animals. When she started singing, she sang out to the forest. That's how he heard her. When we see him again, he's too far away to hear her.

And stop this bullshit "could have" business. Well, I know this is meant to be the thread for that. But you decided to be bitchy and told me I had no evidence. So, we're debating the validity of my view on the movie with this back and forth. You can't say my view on the movie is poor because the movie could have been more standard. It could have been DIFFERENT, but so could any movie when viewed by anyone under any circumstances. All of this goes without saying, so let's stick to my view of the movie for now. Dr F is better equipped to talk about your new theories.


Disney Duster wrote:
This scene doesn't do much. This scene kinda sorta shows her playfulness, which would be good for her character if it really was something endearing, but it's not really and it's just not that much of anything. These actions don't make us care for her more when she's asleep. It's just not particularly great or something we care that much about.

All your arguing with this is that the movie isn't as sappy as the other Princess films. Which is fantastic because not only does it make the movie different (again, HI!) but it makes it date better. In fact, I know several (other) cynical people who think this is easily one of Disney's best films. Period. It managed to cross lines with audiences no one ever thought a Disney film would.


Disney Duster wrote:
But Cinderella and Snow White's friends stuck around and fought very hard for them, after those heroines showed great love and kindness to them, which helped make the heroines and animals all much better characters.

Here we go again: I already told you Aurora AND the animals serve a different function in Sleeping Beauty. Different NOT inferior. Regardless of how much you think the film lacks warmth, this is not a problem.


Lazario wrote:
The humor should come from the main established characters and not be injected in with a random new character. That's lazy.

Don't tell me all Disney films have to follow the same set of rules. Be smarter than that. How would that make the film better when you consider it my way- which is what this (increasingly) insipid discussion has come down to.


Disney Duster wrote:
But that's not the real problem since they inserted the Beaver character in Winnie the Pooh for the same reason but he was actually funny and had a lot more character and tried to help with the story by trying to get Pooh out. In this film the minstrel is good for one joke

This is obviously very off-topic, but you'll see what I do with this directly following. You know that VERY famous joke from When Harry Met Sally; "I'll have what she's having"? It was delivered by a woman in a cameo who wasn't even an actress let alone an established character in the movie and it went on to become one of cinema's greatest one-liners.

Audiences decide the worth of a character, regardless of who that character seems unfunny to. And you'll find A LOT of people love the minstrel. So, take this up with them. I think he's a thief and should be fired.


Disney Duster wrote:
As for representing all the things you said, he doesn't. If he was, they would need to really show it, probably by lots more people getting drunk, and showing that they were really sad for a while

Not to intelligent people who don't need everything in a movie to be spoonfed to them. This movie kind of does what I admired at the very beginning of Cinderella: it spends the whole movie telling us A LOT with very little. So it packs so much more into its' framework than the other Princess movies.


Disney Duster wrote:
which was why would a whole kingdom be that miserable for 16 years? If Aurora was going to stop the misery Maleficent was always causing them before she was born, sure, but I don’t know how she is, so she’s not, and we never see what Maleficent does that makes them miserable anyway, if it really is anything at all. And in her disappearance these people would normally just be a little sad when they think about her but then carry on with their own lives and their own personal problems.

Again: if you need everything spoonfed to you, you might as well go back to Cinderella.


Disney Duster wrote:
As it is, the scene with not just the minstrel but also the kings does nothing. It makes Hubert look like an ass who just cares about grandchildren and not his friend Stephen's feelings. Stephen doesn't seem nearly sad enough and doesn't show us the toll of what Maleficent has done. And the two kings get into a really stupid argument that doesn't end very funny at all so it actually does show them as buffoons and we just don't really care.

I can't yell at you here but I explained above as you'll read when you get to this post that character actions are dictated a lot by the music or tone of the movie. Beside the fact that the music is trying to suggest this scene isn't very sad / depressing (which is a set-up for the moment where Phillip destroys Hubert's hopes, and unlike Cinderella's King, this actually makes him FEEL bad- so you've been highly neglectful with this "buffoon" theory of yours), it also arrives on the heel of the scene where Aurora's happiness is destroyed (far as she knows). This isn't Grease: there's not going to be a splitscreen putting them both in the same moment of sadness. Stefan is viewed as anxious. Which makes sense since he is talking to someone he doesn't want to show weakness to.


Disney Duster wrote:
This is the only thing their scene is good for, and it doesn't deliver. Stefan is concerned about it for one second, and it turns into a really dumb argument where by the end he just laughs it off. If he was seriously talking to Hubert about arranged marriage and true love, and then Phillip came in interrupting him, that would be great. But instead we get much too long filler that tries to be funny or interesting and fails.

This ain't Aladdin. Which, truth be told, is only progressive in having a woman symbolically snap her fingers and give "talk to the hand" gestures. Another debate for another time, I know, but Jasmine wasn't that progressive for her time.

_________________
Image
4 Disney Atmosphere Images


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:38 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:35 pm
Posts: 4749
Location: The Netherlands
@ Lazario: So what you're saying is that, basically, all Disney Duster's points against Sleeping Beauty are true and valid (because you never were able to counter them), but we shouldn't pay attention to them because it's "a different kind of movie"? It doesn't matter that the story and character motivations are illogical, because we should pay attention to the music and animation? That we can and should ferociously criticize Snow White for supposedly not making sense, but disregard this when it comes to Sleeping Beauty because it "works on another level"?

Literally: WTF?!

You know, I often disagreed with you, but this time, you just make no sense at all. You're deperately grasping at straws here. You talk and you talk, yet you can't disguise the fact that Disney Duster has proven your defense of the movie doesn't hold up. Just own up to the fact that you like a severely flawed movie. There's no shame in that. I have my guilty pleasures when it comes to movies, too. So just come out and admit it, but don't insult our intelligence by suggesting the movie is anything 'higher' than the other Disney movies.

I mean:

Lazario wrote:
I've mentioned practically since I arrived on the board that the music's tone tells the characters what they're supposed to do. The music suggested it was safe

REALLY??!! The characters could hear the soundtrack to their own film?!

I don't know if I should :lol: or :roll: ...

Lazario wrote:
Again: if you need everything spoonfed to you, you might as well go back to Cinderella.

No, Duster is, very correctly, pointing out that you're making up your own reasons for something that is not shown NOR EVEN IMPLIED in the actual movie. The minstrel is simply getting drunk for comic relief, not because he was depressed by Malificent's terror, or because the whole kingdom was depressed. He was just there and saw an opportunity and grabbed it, getting drunk. It's just a joke, Lazario, a moment of comic relief. YOU make it into far, far more than it actually is, because you somehow believe you have to make the movie into something far bigger and important than it actually is. Then you use reverse psychology and accuse those of us who see right through this very obvious trick of "needing to have everything spponfed to them". No, we don't, but we're not going to make a simple joke into something far greater just because you made that up out of thin air.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:43 pm 
Offline
Suspended
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 4:35 am
Posts: 8296
Location: Shock and Awe Gender: Freakazoid
Today's proverb:

<img src="http://c.gigcount.com/wildfire/IMP/CXNID=2000002.0NXC/bT*xJmx*PTEzMzAxNDE1MjU1ODYmcHQ9MTMzMDE*MTU*MTUzNCZwPTIwMzIxJmQ9Jmc9MSZvPTU2ZDhhMGVjNzg2YzQ*YjJiMTg3/ZThiNDM1OTBlMmVl.gif"><embed src="http://widget.bigoo.ws/cookie/cookie.swf?txt=Time spent reading Goliath''s posts is time wasted." quality="high" wmode="transparent" width="340" height="205" align="middle" allowScriptAccess="sameDomain" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer">
<br><a>

_________________
Image
4 Disney Atmosphere Images


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:04 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:59 am
Posts: 4795
Lazario wrote:
Today's proverb:

<img src="http://c.gigcount.com/wildfire/IMP/CXNID=2000002.0NXC/bT*xJmx*PTEzMzAxNDE1MjU1ODYmcHQ9MTMzMDE*MTU*MTUzNCZwPTIwMzIxJmQ9Jmc9MSZvPTU2ZDhhMGVjNzg2YzQ*YjJiMTg3/ZThiNDM1OTBlMmVl.gif"><embed src="http://widget.bigoo.ws/cookie/cookie.swf?txt=Time spent reading Lazario's posts is time wasted." quality="high" wmode="transparent" width="340" height="205" align="middle" allowScriptAccess="sameDomain" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer">
<br><a>



I agree!

_________________
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:13 am 
Offline
Suspended
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 4:35 am
Posts: 8296
Location: Shock and Awe Gender: Freakazoid
You're trolling, Super.

Goliath asked for what he's gotten by always going after people rather than discussing movies.

_________________
Image
4 Disney Atmosphere Images


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:20 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:06 am
Posts: 8062
<img src="http://c.gigcount.com/wildfire/IMP/CXNID=2000002.0NXC/bT*xJmx*PTEzMzAxNDE1MjU1ODYmcHQ9MTMzMDE*MTU*MTUzNCZwPTIwMzIxJmQ9Jmc9MSZvPTU2ZDhhMGVjNzg2YzQ*YjJiMTg3/ZThiNDM1OTBlMmVl.gif"><embed src="http://widget.bigoo.ws/cookie/cookie.swf?txt=Time spent reading this thread is time wasted." quality="high" wmode="transparent" width="340" height="205" align="middle" allowScriptAccess="sameDomain" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer">
<br><a>


:P

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:28 am 
Offline
Suspended
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 4:35 am
Posts: 8296
Location: Shock and Awe Gender: Freakazoid
Sotiris wrote:
<img src="http://c.gigcount.com/wildfire/IMP/CXNID=2000002.0NXC/bT*xJmx*PTEzMzAxNDE1MjU1ODYmcHQ9MTMzMDE*MTU*MTUzNCZwPTIwMzIxJmQ9Jmc9MSZvPTU2ZDhhMGVjNzg2YzQ*YjJiMTg3/ZThiNDM1OTBlMmVl.gif"><embed src="http://widget.bigoo.ws/cookie/cookie.swf?txt=Time spent reading this thread is time wasted." quality="high" wmode="transparent" width="340" height="205" align="middle" allowScriptAccess="sameDomain" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer">
<br><a>

Finally, a real example of a post worthy of saying ^THIS to.

I wouldn't have posted my cookie myself if I didn't agree. But of course, look at how many great threads Goliath has derailed by going after various members with no actual argument about the topic of the thread while Super Aurora cheered him on. So, this isn't the only one we can all officially toss in the trash.

_________________
Image
4 Disney Atmosphere Images


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:32 am 
Offline
Collector's Edition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:14 am
Posts: 861
Location: Malaysia
Edit : Never mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:36 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:59 am
Posts: 4795
Lazario wrote:
You're trolling, Super.

Goliath asked for what he's gotten by always going after people rather than discussing movies.


Lazario wrote:
I wouldn't have posted my cookie myself if I didn't agree. But of course, look at how many great threads Goliath has derailed by going after various members with no actual argument about the topic of the thread while Super Aurora cheered him on. So, this isn't the only one we can all officially toss in the trash.


Goliath didn't go after anyone but except maybe you. He basically start his post with agreeing with Duster on Sleeping Beauty. When you once again went:

Lazario wrote:
Here we go again:

Aurora is to Sleeping Beauty what the Stepmother's key is to Cinderella. It was the filmmakers' choice to make her a piece of plot rather than a character. She is a symbol, a representation of hope and the future. Not a character.

The scene where she has to confront her minions exists mainly to show us that Maleficent has the power to put her "wrath and frustration" (quoting the narration) into an actual superphysical form. The sense of immediacy that comes from her handling of the situation - NOT the situation itself - is the key here. I think you'll find this is what drives the reputations of all of Disney's classic, pre-Little Mermaid era villains. In essence: taking them for granted. (And then, overall, I really feel Disney made a mistake in trying to always up the stakes with the villains after Ursula. Never felt genuine. Not like they did with Ursula; she was a fucking MONSTER! Like a demon, something from hell or some dark place no one could ever picture in their mind.)

It's bordering on ironic the way I'm hearing people complain that, for all its' ambitions, Sleeping Beauty isn't epic enough. That it has any kind of holes in it. This movie still has a lot more going on within its' structure than any of the other Princess films. There's nothing wrong with anyone saying the entire telling of the movie rests on its' aesthetic. Since those are the moments which gave all of Disney's other classic films their power. Hell, if anything, this makes Sleeping Beauty stronger because there's absolutely no filler. Everything in the film is a necessity, by virtue of the direction they chose to go in.
.


For the bolded, It's almost as if you knew and expect drama to start or that you want to debate on SB even further. The topic is "What would you change in a Disney Film?". Duster and Goliath basically said and answer theirs with their opinion on what they believe they'd love do with SB. You couldn't ignore it and had to respond as if what we pick was "wrong". You knew our stance and opinion on the matter. Why did you want start it again. In addition to the fact that even if what you said about Goliath is true, you're the fool to keep responding back to him and continue the game of cat and mouse with him.
-----------------
I didn't need to respond to any of your posts cause

1. Not worth my time(with exception of few small harmless trolling posts I made).

2.Duster and Goliath were doing pretty good job kicking your ass in the debate anyway and their points would of been basically what I would of said.

_________________
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:57 am 
Offline
Suspended
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 4:35 am
Posts: 8296
Location: Shock and Awe Gender: Freakazoid
Super Aurora wrote:
It's almost as if you knew and expect drama to start or that you want to debate on SB even further. The topic is "What would you change in a Disney Film?". Duster and Goliath basically said and answer theirs with their opinion on what they believe they'd love do with SB. You couldn't ignore it and had to respond as if what we pick was "wrong". You knew our stance and opinion on the matter. Why did you want start it again. In addition to the fact that even if what you said about Goliath is true, you're the fool to keep responding back to him and continue the game of cat and mouse with him.

I won't lie, that's very well-stated. But, again, consider the source. It's coming from Goliath's little cheerleader- a two-faced troll like you who encourages trouble between members for his own entertainment. AGAIN none of that having to do with the topic at hand which I always stick to when not being baited by trolls.

And Goliath stated his "opinions" on Sleeping Beauty like they were indisputable facts. ANYONE could have come along and disagreed with them, that's allowed- Look at Duster disagreeing with me. We actually prove that it's possible to TALK about the movie in a series of replies. Goliath does not. He directs every "point" he thinks he's making back to criticizing the person he's "debating." And like I've said time and again on this board, there is SO much evidence of it and so many cases of him doing it to other members- it makes you the fool for constantly defending him. Though you've got your own rap sheet of deceitful behavior on UD. And gleefully admit to stroking his ego regularly.

As for drama... there's no question who started that:

Goliath wrote:
Anybody who would call an innocent, sweet and caring child like Snow White an "idiot" clearly has no empathy in them.

He fucking acts like I just insulted his mother.

_________________
Image
4 Disney Atmosphere Images


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:43 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:59 am
Posts: 4795
Lazario wrote:
I won't lie, that's very well-stated. But, again, consider the source. It's coming from Goliath's little cheerleader- a two-faced troll like you who encourages trouble between members for his own entertainment. AGAIN none of that having to do with the topic at hand which I always stick to when not being baited by trolls.


In other words, because of your false perception of me, despite admitting what I said was well said, you're going to disregard it anyway? I think you just proven to many of us why we shouldn't take you seriously anymore.

I been trolling you now cause at this point, you're hopeless. If you notice I never troll anyone except you and sometimes DisneyJedi. Everyone else I treat respectfully.



Lazario wrote:
And Goliath stated his "opinions" on Sleeping Beauty like they were indisputable facts.

LOL no. That IS you who does that. All he did was agree with Duster's points. It's not just Goliath or me. Couple people here have that perception of you.


Lazario wrote:
ANYONE could have come along and disagreed with them, that's allowed- Look at Duster disagreeing with me.

That is true. But unlike Duster, you tends to give snide remarks back in a belittling and condensing tone. Such like calling Duster one argument "gibberish" because you didn't understand what he meant. Duster didn't get piss to that because Duster not that type of person. Some of us, namely Goliath and I- since we're the ones mostly going heads to heads with, don't buy into your shit the crap you say about us.


Lazario wrote:
it makes you the fool for constantly defending him. Though you've got your own rap sheet of deceitful behavior on UD. And gleefully admit to stroking his ego regularly.

Agreeing with him doesn't make one a fool. Again, you're the one complaining about "thread going off topic now thanks to Goliath or whoever." You're the one complaining about Goliath "bullying you" etc. If what you say is true, why are you giving in to him, and even with me, You say I'm a two-faced troll just trying make you mad (at this point between us, pissing you off is fun considering your attitude at me to begin with), why are you giving in so easily and respond back and lashing back.

I got a rap sheet? I'm not one who got banned for one. And the only "deceitful" behavior is one with you at this point(it wasn't in the past). Also I wouldn't be one to talk about stroking someone else ego, Lazario.

Lazario wrote:

As for drama... there's no question who started that:

Goliath wrote:
Anybody who would call an innocent, sweet and caring child like Snow White an "idiot" clearly has no empathy in them.

He fucking acts like I just insulted his mother.


Isn't that in the other thread? Anyway, I do agree with you that that statement was a bit over the top. Though Snow White isn't my favorite nor I have much to say or comment on the movie or her character, I don't think Snow White is an "idiot" but instead is more or less....."Naive" as a better defining term.

I stayed out of that debate as Snow White topics doesn't mean much for me.

_________________
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 119 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bradk, Disney Analysis and 10 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