DVDizzy.com

I like the second picture. Looks like something piercing a heart in it.

_________________

Well, I don’t know, the movie just becomes so dull after Snow White runs into the woods. Really the only thing else I care to see after that point is the scene at the end of the Hag-Queen watching Snow slowly “die.” I've always found the animation of her face to be disturbing (as was intended, I guess. ).

_________________

Listening to most often lately:
Conan Gray ~ "Overdrive"
Carly Rae Jepsen ~ "Gimmie Love"
Carly Rae Jepsen ~ "Your Type"

Wow. You find it dull. I don't think I've heard people say that about the film before! I thought you might at least like everything the evil Queen and hag do! Yea, from what I can remember the hag watching Snow White die is chilling in a disturbing way. But I actually really enjoy everything Snow White does. Even cleaning and making a pie. And I don't mind that or the dwarfs now as an adult.

_________________

For me, this is the Gone with the Wind of animation

When I was a kid and I watched the VHS, I loved watching the Dwarfs search through the house. In fact, it was my favorite sequence, and I almost knew it by heart. Now, I appreciate it more for its darker side, like the flight through the woods, the transformation and so on. Many people will probably say that The Lion King is the best Disney animated feature, but for me it will always be Snow White.

_________________

Oh, I love Gone With the Wind. One of my favorite live-action films.

_________________

Listening to most often lately:
Conan Gray ~ "Overdrive"
Carly Rae Jepsen ~ "Gimmie Love"
Carly Rae Jepsen ~ "Your Type"

The animation is always striking. I'm blown away that after all these years it still looks as beautiful and innovative as when it premiered (which we can't say for all animated films out there...poor 70s films). However I also find the film a little dull...Liike the pacing and story is uneven and once the dwarfs come up the movie turns into a collection of Silly Symphonies more than a movie (then again, I supposed Pinocchio also suffers from a more episodic problem). Up until the climax, anyway.

However i like a lot the atmosphere, especially the soft "horror" that is in certain scenes. It's kinda like Bambi, that there's an underlying sense of "danger" in each scene. This sense of danger and alarm is something I think that you only mostly find in the early Walt era. Not that there isn't in later films, but the first five have a stronger connection regarding music, scenes and themes than anything else.

Same. I mess the days that Disney made their films a bit bleaker and hold more horrific images. There's a reason these early films are considered the Golden Age of animation and still hold up today. While I love the 50s (and used to prefer those films), they lack that suspense and threat of danger, except Sleeping Beauty which is more in vein of the 40s movies. Which to be fair, isn't a bad thing because Cinderella and Lady and the Tramp are love stories so the more classic romantic themes make more sense for it, and even Alice isn't really a horror picture so it works. I think Peter Pan is hurt the most because the Disney version is basically a watered-down version of the original story and loses the main themes and tragedy behind the character and replaces all that with just a fun little entertainment. Which isn't a bad thing, but it isn't Peter Pan. Walt made a big deal out of sticking close to the source material for Alice, but I wish he had done the same thing for Peter Pan. I think a 1940s version of it would have been darker and possibly more tragic like the original.

_________________

We’re a dyad in the Force. Two that are one.
"I offered you my hand once. You wanted to take it." - Kylo Ren
"I did want to take your hand. Ben's hand." - Rey

Aw, you liked that part so much, huh? Yea and all the darker stuff is so great. For me, Beauty and the Beast is the best Disney Animated Classic, followed by Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.


What was Peter Pan's original play/book supposed to be like? I'm curious.

_________________

I thought you didn't like Beauty and the Beast and aren't your favorites Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty?


It's a bit difficult to condense, so I'll ask if you have seen the 2003 live-action film. Basically that is a very close adaptation to the book and it actually keeps a lot of the iconic Disney elements in it (like Michael's teddy bear, John's hat, Hook screaming for Smee, etc.) but it stays accurate to the book. I find it superior to the Disney one in every way. Even the music; it isn't a musical but it has a gorgeous score that apparently Disney liked enough that they used it in their Disney Parks commercials. I wish the live-action film had been the one Disney had released back in 1953 (animated of course).

There are too many differences to fully explain so I'll just talk about Peter's character and his love story with Wendy because that is the part I feel Disney got wrong the most (besides Captain Hook who is supposed to be very scary and threatening and not the comic relief he ends up being). Honestly, I'm surprised Disney didn't play up their love story the way the live-action film ended up doing, especially since the 50s was known for their classic romances like Cinderella and Lady and the Tramp. There are a lot of their romantic moments in the book which would have translated really well into Disney and it would have given Disney their first human developed romance light-years before.

Wendy and Peter have this sort of tragic romance/love story. It is obvious she likes him and it seems he likes her too but he's afraid of admitting he has feelings because that would suggest he is growing up. So he tells her he only views her as a mother, and she realizes then that there can't be a future between them. Like in Disney, every other girl desires him, but unlike Disney, he isn't aware of this and only seems interested in Wendy. They have a dance scene where they are both flying and slow dancing while fairies dance around them and it's a really magical moment which I wish Disney had kept. They also play around with the concept of a thimble and a kiss which Disney only touches on but never fully realizes. In the book, Wendy wants to give Peter a kiss but he is afraid of being touched, so she gives him a thimble and calls it a kiss. He gives her an acorn in return which she wears as a necklace and when Tinker Bell orders the Lost Boys to shoot her down, the arrow nearly kills her but it hits the acorn instead so Peter's kiss ends up saving her. (the vice-versa of that happens in the climax for the live-action movie)

They play "mother and father" to the Lost Boys which is clearly Peter's way of getting to play "grown-up" and live this pretend life with Wendy that he subconsciously wants without having to actually do it. The Lost Boys all end up leaving Neverland and are adopted by the Darlings, but Peter refuses to go although he tries to convince Wendy once more to stay with him at the end, something her mother realizes she might actually do so she is forced to step in.

Peter Pan's character is a lot darker. Basically he represents the quintessential child full of innocence but also heartlessness. Children are generally selfish and they must grow before they start caring for other people and their needs. Of course Peter refuses to grow so he is incredibly dark. He kills off Lost Boys if they start to grow, nearly lets the Darling brothers die because he lacks empathy, and even switches sides in fights with the pirates and Indians to shake things up a bit. He cannot read and has all his baby teeth so he resembles a child and wears leaves rather than the Robin Hood tights. His story is that he left his mother and when he finally returned years later, she had "replaced" him with another child, so this is why he hates mothers even though it is clear he secretly desires one but cannot admit it. He's supposed to be cocky and a big show-off to Wendy like in the film, and he has a lot of charming quirks like he steals other people's good ideas as his, refuses to apologize and admit he is wrong, and even though he didn't grow up with manners and etiquette, he is still very mannerly without knowing it. He's also supposed to be very forgetful like children, so he constantly forgets Michael and John, and even ends up forgetting Hook and Tinker Bell at the end.

While the Disney movie gets the cocky part right, they make him really unlikable, and even Walt felt he wasn't likable. The book version might be cocky, but he's also very charming and is supposed to be irresistible to women which is why every girl on Neverland wants him, but he cannot understand feelings or love, so he is oblivious to this and the only girl he has an eye for is Wendy. So he's incredibly flawed in the book, but he has a lot of charming tendencies that make up for that, even if he is basically a sociopathic killer. Keep in mind that the original book/play had him as the villain who hates mothers and steals children from their parents (like in OUAT). This changed to make Peter more of a tragic anti-hero and Hook was introduced as the evil villain.

Fans of Captain Hook usually don't like his Disney depiction and another thing they usually hate is the pre-climax scene when Hook tries to kill Peter. In Disney, it is with a bomb but that never made much sense since Peter and Tink escape unscathed, even though they are right next to the bomb and the explosion can be seen from the sea. It was supposed to be poison that Hook carries on him at all times in case he is captured, and Tink drinks it to save Peter. She dies but Peter asks the audience of the book/play to clap their hands and say they believe in fairies to revive her.

_________________

We’re a dyad in the Force. Two that are one.
"I offered you my hand once. You wanted to take it." - Kylo Ren
"I did want to take your hand. Ben's hand." - Rey

I’m someone that thinks Snow White often gets called the greatest of all undeservedly because it was the first. I consider Pinocchio, Bambi, One Hundred and One Dalmatians, Beauty and the Beast, and The Little Mermaid all superior to this film (and that’s trying to look at them objectively; it’d be a longer list if I was being purely subjective). Not that I don’t think others are allowed that opinion, but I definitely find the film the most overrated in the Disney canon.

_________________

Listening to most often lately:
Conan Gray ~ "Overdrive"
Carly Rae Jepsen ~ "Gimmie Love"
Carly Rae Jepsen ~ "Your Type"

When I was young, I didn't have much feelings for Beauty and the Beast except that I thought it was a cool movie but for me boring because literal magic wasn't going on through most of it. I used to bash it here when I learned Beauty and the Beast was considered Disney's best movie. Now as an adult I agree it is the best movie, but only objectively. Cinderella is my favorite, followed by Sleeping Beauty and basically all the magical or princess films are in my top faves including Aladdin, except for the odd one case of Bambi, because I find Bambi to be a stunning film. So, I just have realized my favorite movie isn't Disney's best. To me, though, personally, I guess I think for me it is hell yea the best!

Thank you so much for your explanations of Peter Pan and the whole original story. Truly, it's more of a deep masterpiece than what Disney ended up making. It's interesting Peter was the villain. Was he the villain in the original play, but then Barrie changed that original play to make him an anti-hero? Because I never knew he was a villain by Barrie. It's interesting because Maurice Rapf, a story man for Disney back in the, I suppose late 40's early 50's, was going to make Peter Pan the villain in the movie. Obviously they never did that. He was the same guy who was going to have Cinderella refuse to do her stepfamily's chores after the ball and that's how she gets locked up. I wish they had kept that, to make Cinderella more feminist and basically do what I or anyone would do in her situation (barring she might get kicked out and find no better situation for herself if she refused the chores). I should go see the 2003 version of Peter Pan. Sounds great. I should read the original book, too. Thanks again for telling me all that stuff. It's so tragic and complex. Oh, but when you said "There are a lot of their romantic moments in the book which would have translated really well into Disney and it would have given Disney their first human developed romance light-years before", did you mean it would have been Disney's first well-developed not-love-at-first-sight romance? I think the original Peter sounds worse to me as a character, though. I couldn't like a character who kills, even in childlike innocence. I like Disney's Peter Pan character myself, and don't have a problem with him.

_________________

When I was young, I didn't have much feelings for Beauty and the Beast except that I thought it was a cool movie but for me boring because literal magic wasn't going on through most of it. I used to bash it here when I learned Beauty and the Beast was considered Disney's best movie. Now as an adult I agree it is the best movie, but only objectively. Cinderella is my favorite, followed by Sleeping Beauty and basically all the magical or princess films are in my top faves including Aladdin, except for the odd one case of Bambi, because I find Bambi to be a stunning film. So, I just have realized my favorite movie isn't Disney's best. To me, though, personally, I guess I think for me it is hell yea the best!

Thank you so much for your explanations of Peter Pan and the whole original story. Truly, it's more of a deep masterpiece than what Disney ended up making. It's interesting Peter was the villain. Was he the villain in the original play, but then Barrie changed that original play to make him an anti-hero? Because I never knew he was a villain by Barrie. It's interesting because Maurice Rapf, a story man for Disney back in the, I suppose late 40's early 50's, was going to make Peter Pan the villain in the movie. Obviously they never did that. He was the same guy who was going to have Cinderella refuse to do her stepfamily's chores after the ball and that's how she gets locked up. I wish they had kept that, to make Cinderella more feminist and basically do what I or anyone would do in her situation (barring she might get kicked out and find no better situation for herself if she refused the chores). I should go see the 2003 version of Peter Pan. Sounds great. I should read the original book, too. Thanks again for telling me all that stuff. It's so tragic and complex. Oh, but when you said "There are a lot of their romantic moments in the book which would have translated really well into Disney and it would have given Disney their first human developed romance light-years before", did you mean it would have been Disney's first well-developed not-love-at-first-sight romance? I think the original Peter sounds worse to me as a character, though. I couldn't like a character who kills, even in childlike innocence. I like Disney's Peter Pan character myself, and don't have a problem with him.[/quote]

Ah ok I understand now. The princess/fairy tale films are in my top favorite films as well. Snow White all the way to Aladdin that is. I also love Pinocchio, Alice, and sorta Peter Pan (even with the flaws I pointed out to you) although I think it was a wasted effort. Pocahontas and Hunchback are also up there even though they lack magic, but I really like the mature themes and the gorgeous soundtrack and character designs. Bambi is a great one too. I actually prefer it to The Lion King, even though I think Bambi is sadder.

In the first few drafts of the play, Peter Pan was the villain, but eventually this changed especially when Captain Hook was introduced. So when the play ended up first performing, Peter Pan was playing the anti-hero role. I remember hearing too that Peter Pan was at one point going to be the villain in the early Disney draft; I wonder if Walt would have preferred that considering how he didn't like the final treatment.

To be fair to Cinderella, she does sort of end up refusing to do the stepfamily's chores but in a more subtle way. The second she realizes that the prince is looking for her, she knows that her life is going to change for the better and there's no point in keeping up this role of a servant any longer. That's why she ignores her stepsisters when they pass her their pile of clothes and just plain walks out to focus on herself rather then them, for the first time in the whole movie. So I think we do end up getting that scene, just in a different format.

Yeah I meant, it would have been Disney's first developed romance...between humans because I think they have plenty of developed romances between animals like Lady and the Tramp for example. However the only human romances in that era would have been Snow White, Cinderella, and later Aurora with their princes, and beyond a love song and a chance meeting, we never get to see the couples actually interact which is a shame.

_________________

We’re a dyad in the Force. Two that are one.
"I offered you my hand once. You wanted to take it." - Kylo Ren
"I did want to take your hand. Ben's hand." - Rey

I count Pinocchio, Alice, Peter Pan, and Hunchback among my favorites as well! I like so many things about Pinocchio, you must think it odd with what I said in the thread about it. Basically, I have found problems with it but still love it, or at least like it very much. I really like Alice. I like Peter Pan a good amount, I mean it has a fairy and pixie dust after all. I really like Hunchback. I love Quasimodo, the animation, and the score!

Very interesting about Peter Pan's first incarnations. And I didn't know Walt had problems with the film. I feel he would have rather had Peter be an even more "good" character than the villain, though.

As for Cinderella, YES! I thought that Maurice Rapf's idea was in there, just that it was done in a different way which took most of the feminism out. Cinderella only ignores her stepfamily's orders becuase a) she knows the prince can save her and b) she's in a love trance!

As for the romances, well, the Walt ones were love at first sight and they did interact in loving ways, they just did not get to know each other very well. Except of course that Cinderella was done in a montage and it can be assumed she and the prince knew a whole lot about each other before midnight came around. Of course, things like knowing who was a prince and who was a scullery maid were not found out about each other so perhaps they didn't get to know each other after all. I like to think they did, but that's me. I'll still accept love at first sight and just enjoying dancing and walking with each other.

_________________

Pinocchio is a very dark film so I can see why your views toward it would be polarizing. You're right that none of the villains ever end up getting their comeuppance, and that's a very strange inversion, especially for Disney films. I think even in the book, the fox and cat characters end up getting punished unlike the film.

Walt seemed to care very much about sympathetic characters. There's a reason he completely changed up Pinocchio and added the scene of Alice crying and singing in the Tulgey Woods, because he feared the audience wouldn't sympathize with her. He's also the reason that Cinderella ended up being more toned down because as you pointed out, she would have been snarkier and more defiant in the film if Walt hadn't felt that audiences wouldn't feel for her as much if she came across too strong. Even the reason that the film Chanticleer wasn't made was because he didn't think audiences would root for a chicken, which is why this film was scrapped and replaced with The Sword in the Stone (which I wish hadn't occurred but can't change the past).

I like love at first sight, so I've never had a problem with the classic three couples, but I do like seeing the main couple get screentime which is harder in those older films. That's why I would have liked a more central Peter and Wendy relationship so we could have gotten that way earlier for a human couple. Since Peter was a boy anyway, he wouldn't have been as difficult to animate as an adult male, hence why the princes had such small roles in the films. I feel like in Cinderella, her and the prince just danced around the entire palace for hours, or however long she was there. Dancing and singing, which is a form of conversation in itself, but doesn't allow for them to properly introduce themselves by name.

_________________

We’re a dyad in the Force. Two that are one.
"I offered you my hand once. You wanted to take it." - Kylo Ren
"I did want to take your hand. Ben's hand." - Rey

I actually have no problems with Pinocchio being dark or the villains not getting comeuppence. I just feel it is odd Pinocchio gets duped by the same people twice, I feel it's episodic, and I have a problem with the Blue Fairy only saying she'll only help him once. But perhaps she is only able to give him a forgiving second chance for a first offense, because that's the rules of what he needs to be human, and she can't become too much of a deus ex machina. It's just an odd rule.

Yes, Walt wanted sympathetic characters. That probably is why Cinderella ended up the way she did, but Maurice Rapf said "I don't think anyone took me seriously" about her literally throwing the things her stepfamily gave her back at them (from what I remember reading) and demanding help, so it wasn't just Walt. It's a shame they didn't do that. I didn't know about the reason Chanticleer didn't happen. What a wtf reason.

I don't think Cinderella and the Prince literally sang their song, I think they talked together or even were possibly silent but the film did a fantasy sequence where we get a song.

Yea, Peter and Wendy could have been that first couple...and yet they couldn't because, of course, Peter never would grow up to love in that way.

_________________

Pinocchio is episodic. I know the word's often thrown around as a criticism, but what it is is a type of story structure. There are many great films that are episodic, including Pinocchio and TJB.

Interesting to know about Peter possibly being a villain, JeanGreyForever. I wish that had happened. PP is one of the worst films for me largely because of the portrayal of Peter. I don't really blame Walt for thinking that about Chanticleer. I remember a lot of distinterest in HOTR off-the-back because the characters were cows; I imagine chickens would have got the same reaction.

_________________

Listening to most often lately:
Conan Gray ~ "Overdrive"
Carly Rae Jepsen ~ "Gimmie Love"
Carly Rae Jepsen ~ "Your Type"

The same thing happens in the book actually. He is duped continuously by the fox and the cat even though there is plenty of proof that they tried to kill him (and actually do at one point). It's funny how he isn't a very good kid in the book but the Blue Fairy is constantly intervening to save him there unlike in this film. But fairies function in mysterious ways. Think of how Cinderella's Fairy Godmother could have saved her years before, but let her suffer until the night of the ball. Even the Enchantress from Beauty and the Beast casts an inhumane (literally) spell on an 11 year-old child and his entire castle of servants, including animals and children.


Definitely agree about Peter Pan. It could have been so much more so it's a shame that the story ends up getting sugar-coated and loses all the emotional depth from the original. My only issue with the chicken thing is that I never would have thought I could be sympathetic to an elephant or a deer. Yet Dumbo and Bambi are both considered two of Disney's most acclaimed films. So if Disney could make audiences receptive to those films, I think he could have pulled off Chanticleer too.

_________________

We’re a dyad in the Force. Two that are one.
"I offered you my hand once. You wanted to take it." - Kylo Ren
"I did want to take your hand. Ben's hand." - Rey

Hm...well Divinity, I suppose you could be right about episodic films being great. Maybe it's just the getting duped by the same characters and almost same trap I can't get over.

JeanGrey, I suppose fairies dow ork in mysterious ways and have rules of magic they must abide by. I assume the Fairy Godmother could only choose the right time to use her magic to help Cinderella meet her true love, or had limited magic that only the slippers could last forever and thus she needed a certain situation for her to intervene. I just find the Blue Fairy to be willingly choosing not to let Pinocchio...live next time! He was basically gonna die without her! The only thing I can think of is there are rules even she has to follow. It's just that I assume she was only willing to help him once. For the film's sake, I guess I have to believe there was a rule she had to follow.

_________________

Well technically the Blue Fairy does help Pinocchio more even after she says she can't help him anymore. When Pinocchio is looking for his father, he doesn't know where he is, and suddenly a magical dove materializes and tells Pinocchio that Geppetto is trapped by Monstro.

_________________

We’re a dyad in the Force. Two that are one.
"I offered you my hand once. You wanted to take it." - Kylo Ren
"I did want to take your hand. Ben's hand." - Rey

You are right about the dove with the note (I forget, was it a dove that dropped the note, or was there just a note?) that is the Blue Fairy helping Pinocchio. But there, she is helping him not escape a punishment for a wrong doing of his own, but rather helping him because he’s trying to be good again, or just that he is doing a good deed trying to find his father.

I forgot to address that Pinocchio gets duped by the same characters even when they will kill him in the book. I think that might be bad writing or showing a stupid character, but I guess it shows Pinocchio is a young child? And yes, it’s weird the Blue Fairy will help him many times there but not in Disney’s version. Disney’s dark morality tale I guess.

Divinity, I must say I disagree about TBJ being great. But hey, you and so many think it is, so that says something good for it.

_________________