Redadoodles wrote:Personally, I find Tiana bland and forgettable. They made her boring because they were afraid of offending people. If you take a look at some deleted scenes, she comes across as being way more interesting and lively.
Sorry, but I have to disagree. While I didn`t consider Tiana as a particularly memorable character, I didn`t found her to be bland and boring. I thought she had some sass and spunk to her, which made her appealing.
Redadoodles wrote:After changing those details, the creative team hired Oprah as a consultant on the film which is funny because she didn't promote it at all. You think she would when you know how much of a following she has thanks to her talk show.
It`s contradictory to cast someone as huge as Oprah and not having her promote the movie at all. Which was indeed suprising, given her status.
farerb wrote:As for The Prince of Egypt, while I have a lot of appreciation for the film and I even watched it this week for Passover, I can't deny that the characters feel unmemorable and they lack a certain charisma. Compare Moses to Disney's other heroes like Aladdin, Simba, Quasimodo,etc... Or Tzipporah to Jasmine, Esmeralda or Meg (purposefully talking about deuteragonists). I also think that critics felt that it was inappropriate to depict children being murdered so graphically in this kind of film and that might have affected their judgement.
Sorry, but I have to disagree on that,. I thought that Tzipporah was a great character and frankly one of the highlights of the film. Some people have even called her an Esmeralda knockoff, which is understandable. Since both characters are assertive and strong-willed. But Tzipporah is still great, nonetheless. The same goes to Miriam. And frankly, some people have praised the characters from
The Prince of Egypt as well.
Mooky wrote:The Prince of Egypt Still, it's probably the most ambitious of the three and it shows.
Word. And it shall have kudos for it.
I agree with Redadoodles that POC characters seem to be intentionally stripped of flaws in an effort to not offend anyone, which effectively also strips them of personality and humor and makes them boring to most people, and Tiana is a good example (I love her, but the constant work mantra can get tedious after a while). See also Pocahontas. Mulan somehow got away with her clumsiness and awkwardness.
I don`t want to sound condescending, but I happen to disagree with that. And especially about Tiana. When she meets Naveen as a frog, she throws stuffed animals at him and smashes him with a book. And when she agrees to kiss him, it`s only to make her dream come true. And she constantly snaps and bitches at him afterwards. Moana does have a similar moment where she smacks Maui with her oar, despite having done nothing to her. As for Pocahontas, while her flaws may not be as huge, she doesn`t thanks her animal friends when they help her (which is especially proven by the scenes where Meeko gives her the compass and her necklace at the end). Mulan may be the least flawed in my opinion, even though her biggest flaw is how the avalance is not particularly foolproof. But to talk about another POC character who`s seriously flawed, it`s Jasmine. Who is occassionally off-putting with her snappy tantrums (even though she has her reasons for being so).
Disney's Divinity wrote:Since it was brought up, yes, I do prefer The Swan Princess to Anastasia, overall, too,
So do I
You have a great taste. While I like
Anastasia, but I do find the
The Swan Princess to be superior: It has better characters, music, humor and is more enchanting as a whole.
Redadoodles wrote:I remember the Nostalgia Critic panning Pocahontas for its preachy message and saying that kind of story have been done to death (which is not false) but look at what's going on in America right now, it just shows that clearly that message is still needed
Well, Nostalgia Critic haven`t been the only one who`s panned it for that reason.
Sotiris wrote:The only change I hated was the title. I think it's terrible and it doesn't make any sense. They should have left it The Frog Princess or changed it back to the original fairytale's title The Frog Prince. Calling it Tiana would have been much preferable too.
Agreed. The title was hokey and didn`t make any sense at all. Mostly because it`s irrelevant to what actually happens. Tiana and Naveen never spends time together as a Princess and a frog. When he first meets her as a frog, she`s dressed up as a Princess, but never actually becomes one when they`re both human again. But we all know how the title was perceived as offensive, even to France. And how it made Disney believe that
The Princess and the Frog flopped because it had the word "Princess" on it.
I think the main character spending most of the running time as an animal would have hurt the film regardless of her race. It seems it's something audiences have a distaste for. Come to think of it, no movie where the lead was transformed into an animal was very successful at the box office.
And to add some fuel to the fire, all of those movie featured a non-White protagonist who was transformed.
Did racists not exist when Aladdin, Pocahontas or Mulan were released?
It certainly did. Remember all the fuzz about
Aladdin and
Pocahontas for their representations of their cultures? While
Mulan received some havoc, it still seemed to be less hampering than it was to those predecessors. Which made it bold that Disney dared to remake
Aladdin in live action for that lone reason. While it`s been implied that
Pocahontas won`t be getting the live action treatment due to racial scrutiny,
Aladdin`s live action update was mandatory for being one of the cornerstones of the Renaissance, despite the racial issue.
I would too. Even though I quite like TatF, both The Prince of Egypt and Anastasia are superior to it in pretty much every way.
How come?
Disney also sabotaged The Swan Princess by re-releasing The Lion King. Disney claimed they did so for the kiddies because there were no animated movies in theaters at the time.
Which is one reason for all the claims of how
The Lion King became so successful. For being the only animated movie in theaters that summer.
I would also add Bartok to the film's weaknesses. They didn't know what to do with that character. Was he a villain sidekick? Was he a good guy? It got confusing. His attempts at humor didn't mesh well with the rest of the film either. His entire presence was gratuitous, I'd say.
Agreed. I remember looking forward to Bartok when I saw
Anastasia theatrically. For his potential. But he ended up being just meh. He was underwhelming and forgettable and was a missed opportunity to create a great villain sidekick.
The only "bad marriage" of drama and comedy in The Prince of Egypt was "Playing with the Big Boys". Even by the title you can tell it's silly and ill-fitted. No wonder it got cut from the stage adaptation.
You know what? Many reviewers and people have complained about
Playing with the Big Boys being the sole flaw of the film. But for me personally, I don`t think it clashes with the tone of the movie. It may be superfluous, but it`s still a dark and brooding song. There were other comical moments that clashed with the tone of the film, but they were in minority and didn`t hampered the serious tone the film was striving for.