Sleeping Beauty Discussion

[Chernabog_Rocks]

^ Actually Escapay they burned the spindles in the beginning remember So they probably assumed she'd be safe, especially since they left her in a room with only one entrance and didn't anticipate the fireplace disappearing. Plus they never saw a spinning wheel in the room they left her in so lapse of judgement on their part yes, but it's normal they're only human.

[Disneykid]

With all this talk of Sleeping Beauty's flaws, I'm surprised no one's mentioned my biggest peeve: Maleficent's actual curse. Why on earth would she put a curse on someone that wouldn't take effect for 16 years? If you're going to cast a spell that's going to kill someone, have it take effect immediately. Now, I realize this is more a logic flaw with the source material than the film, but the filmmakers still could've worked around this somehow. Even if you interpret the curse as, "you're prone to pricking your finger at any given time till you're 16", it still makes no sense since Maleficent could've made the age limit higher or have it last infinitely.

[MagicMirror]

I love reading whenever you post about a film! Well, about a film that I have interest in. I'm glad you even see artistic greatness in my favorite, "Cinderella". Anyway, I guess I need to see the other post about the "bayonet animation", care to give a link, if you remember where it is?

Thanks! Yes, I don't think I've said much about 'Cinderella', but it's definitely my second favourite Princess film (the first being 'Snow White') - and, I think, one of the very best. I always liked the idea of Cinderella having a good mother (the Fairy Godmother) and an evil mother (Lady Tremaine) - the mothers are polar opposites, in appearance, personality and methods. And that scene where Lady Tremaine locks Cinderella in the tower is absolutely brilliant - Maleficent can't come close to that! I definitely think Lady Tremaine deserves more fame in the Disney rogues' gallery.

I mentioned the 'sat on a bayonet' animation before here (second post on the page): http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... c&start=20
What I mean by 'bayonet animation' is really 'stilted animation'. It seems to me that the animators were afraid that their animation would interfere with the lines and shapes in the backgrounds; the animation sort of has to obey the planes set by the backgrounds and so the animators can't be quite so creative. This seems to me to be most apparent when Philip first meets Aurora in the forest, which possibly has some of the most detailled backgrounds in the film. It's generally less of a problem with Maleficent, partly because it suits her regal, stuffy personality and partly because she's often silhouetted against something less detailled, like the night sky.

As to the things you brought up, first off, as an adult now who's starting to appreciate and notice more about films, I don't personally love "Pinocchio" or "Snow White"'s water-color-like backgrounds. I admit they are beautiful, and see how they're more detailed and distinct than the later films', but I'm just not a fan, really, though it's undeniable they are beautiful and works of art, and sometimes they will jump out at me, like the part of the forest where Snow White lies in the glass coffin, I do find that very impressive.

I think I can see what you mean here, and it probably boils down to preference more than anything else. I think the reason the backgrounds in 'Pinocchio', 'Snow White' and so on don't stand out is that they are specifically designed for the animation to take centre stage, while the 'Sleeping Beauty' backgrounds seem partly intended to be great pieces of art on their own. In other words, if you framed and put a 'Sleeping Beauty' background on the wall, it would look like a complete piece on it's own; do the same with a 'Pinocchio' background and it would seem less complete in a compositional sense.

But when I watch "Sleeping Beauty", everything stands out to me, and while you say the backgrounds are "too" present, too bold, too detailed, and overshadow the characters, I like the whole picture, I appreciate the whole picture, the animation andthe backgrounds, one doesn't seem to grab my attention over the other, they both get it. But that's my opinion. So I guess it comes down to: you agree with a lot of the critics so you may be more "right" than I am, but non of what bothers you bothers me, and so I enjoy the film more! Admittedly, I haven't had any schooling on animation, and the books I own haven't taught me too much about it, so maybe I could see more what you mean and agree with you more if I knew what you knew. However, I still think it comes down to liking what I see or not liking what I see.

Remember that the critics are often wrong! Just because I agree with them on this instance doesn't necessarily mean I'm any more 'right' than you. The film's appeal is, at the end of the day, down to our individual tastes, as you said.

Despite my criticisms of the film as (generally) an artistic failure, I'm still really glad it was made. It's good that the studio was exploring new styles in the design and animation of the films. Without this sort of experimentation (and I think 'Sleeping Beauty' is really the first film in which they begin to go into completely new territory design-wise) the films would all look the same - for me, 'Sleeping Beauty' sort of anticipates '101 Dalmatians' in that sense.

[Marky_198]

I wonder how many Disney movies do that to kids nowadays.

Not much children, I think...With those action movies..
Well, I don't have a real HIstory with Sleeping beauty, but I am a little bit younger than you (I'm 16 ,almost 17).
I had almost ALL the disney classics ,my mother did buy it for me.
In Dutch offcourse. My old favourites were The Little Mermaid and Cinderella. (I have something with mermaids and lost shoes...)
I remember I did find SB a bit (sorry..) boring, wich is why i didn't watch it allot.Especially the Forest walk and Once upon a dream..
But I became older and I began to like the story and the animation and songs.
And now I adore the movie..


(Trouwens, Marky_198. Jouw verhaal was errug mooi en inspirerend..!)

Haha dank je

So the SB you know is probably with the new 1996 dubbing. The first official release. The one from 1986 has the old fashioned voices from the 50's. That one is much better and more mature.

[Marky_198]

OKAY! I've a lot of quoting to do, but isn't this a great discussion, everyone?:

Escapay, you don't get a quote because your whole post was wonderful, I never knew you acted out Disney movies, which is exactly what I did when I was young (flashback of waiting in my room for my mom to kiss me to wak me up, and crying because she never came: I never told her I was playing the game in the first place!). And it's even better because you didn't have anything against playing a female fairy or making a dress. Though, curiously I'd say male chefs are more accepted as manly than male fashion designers, so why the real girl sibling had to be the cook I'll never know, I'm betting you just wanted to torture Kram with the blankets! Ah, the wonder of children, who aren't or worried about what other people think, like adults.

L&E, sorry about that, that's horrible, and it seems to have happened (a bad, emotionless re-dubbing to a classic Disney film) in a lot of other countries... I hope it is fixed for the Blu-Ray, start a petition or write letters to them!

Ps. It seems like you had the 1991 video of Cinderella then. The first time it came out on video.

If it had Cinderella in her torn pink dress, the fairy godmother, and that magical pumpkin, yes! See it here: Old Disney VHS Covers

It's interesting that so many here are saying that, the older and more sophisticated you are, the more you will like this film; for me it's the complete opposite. I loved the film when I was young, but it has really gone down on my list in comparison to films I consider greater artistic successes, like 'Snow White' through to 'Bambi', '101 Dalmatians', and I think even 'Cinderella' (interestingly, none of these films were my top favourites when I was young).

I love reading whenever you post about a film! Well, about a film that I have interest in. I'm glad you even see artistic greatness in my favorite, "Cinderella". Anyway, I guess I need to see the other post about the "bayonet animation", care to give a link, if you remember where it is?

As to the things you brought up, first off, as an adult now who's starting to appreciate and notice more about films, I don't personally love "Pinocchio" or "Snow White"'s water-color-like backgrounds. I admit they are beautiful, and see how they're more detailed and distinct than the later films', but I'm just not a fan, really, though it's undeniable they are beautiful and works of art, and sometimes they will jump out at me, like the part of the forest where Snow White lies in the glass coffin, I do find that very impressive.

But when I watch "Sleeping Beauty", everything stands out to me, and while you say the backgrounds are "too" present, too bold, too detailed, and overshadow the characters, I like the whole picture, I appreciate the whole picture, the animation andthe backgrounds, one doesn't seem to grab my attention over the other, they both get it. But that's my opinion. So I guess it comes down to: you agree with a lot of the critics so you may be more "right" than I am, but non of what bothers you bothers me, and so I enjoy the film more! Admittedly, I haven't had any schooling on animation, and the books I own haven't taught me too much about it, so maybe I could see more what you mean and agree with you more if I knew what you knew. However, I still think it comes down to liking what I see or not liking what I see.

My main point is that, many here use the fact that the film was so expensive and took a lot of work as proof that it was an artistic success; I would argue that this is perhaps not necessarily the case, and, though there's a lot to appreciate, I tend to consider the film an artistic failure overall.

If "many here" is any of the people on this page 3 of the thread, no one mentioned how much work was put in or the expense. I just like what I see, and it may be evident they put so much time in making so many details in the backgrounds, but I don't care how or how long they did it, what I see is something beautiful that makes me want to watch the film.

2099net, I think the fault of most of your argements with the film lie in forgetting the symbolism and dogma and, dare I say, religion of "Sleeping Beauty". Maleficent represents pure evil, almost the Devil himself if she can call the powers of hell. Even the Devil arguably had reason for becoming bad, he wanted to overthrow God and become God, and we actually could argue a reason for Maleficent's evil is that she wants to be like a god (evidenced by her pride being hurt at not being invited when everyone else is) or ruler of the land (strongly evidenced by her living in a castle where the King and Queen should have the only castle). But aside from that, there's also a common personification of evil as something without reason, an unstoppable killing machine, and there's often the question asked, "Why does God allow bad things to happen?" or simpler, "Why do bad things happen?" Maleficent is evil incarnate, and the evil inside her governs her actions. She is like the monsoon that has no purpose but to destroy an entire village, or the ravage animal that kills on instinct.

As for Aurora living in ignorance, I find that sadder and more adult than the plights of the other princesses, in a way. While Snow White and Cinderella worry about an outside threat, Aurora's threat is her own lack of knowledge or human contact. She really should be happy, she's been raised by loving aunts, no evil stepmother, and no one's making her work or being mean to her. But she's so sad even as she gets to take a walk through the forest. She's bored. And she feels there is something missing in her life, and she thinks it may be a prince, but it's probably also that she never knew her parents, doesn't know any real humans, and has been overly-protected all her life. It's a more complicated sadness than that of the other princesses.

As for the fairies, while Marky provided the point of needing someone who wasn't inherently good, they also needed True Love. This is a kid's movie, so they have to embody the love in a man, not a lesbian princess, but the idea is that, while their magic could do a lot, they had to work in tandem with the power of True Love (or, if you want to be a cynical feminist, suspect they needed the power of a man, but I'm pretty sure Walt was intending True Love). Their shield and sword probably wouldn't work for them, but would work for the man Aurora fell in love with, and who loves her in return.

It really doesn't matter what someone has to do to get a curse fulfilled, all that matters is the curse is fulfilled, and because it was, I can always argue fate killed Aurora. Even if action did have to be taken for it to come true, Maleficent just needed to know where the girl was, and the fairies' own bumblings really did their princess in.

Maleficent's ineffectual goons, while obviously there for humour, could also be there to show that Maleficent is so evil only dumb creatures are brave enough to work for her, or she's so evil they're the best she can get, because the wicked doesn't deserve a better army. Or perhaps their stupidity makes them perfect for controlling. But she probably considers them so insignificant she just wants to tell them what to do and not have to explain everything, so they go do it and she keeps saying "don't talk to me until you find her!" until she finally breaks down after 16 years.

And being as it was the eve of Aurora's sixteenth birthday, when it looked likely that they would be found, why not just hide elsewhere rather than go to the castle? They only had to remain hidden for another few hours!

How did they it look to them it was likely the'd be found? They didn't see Maleficent's raven. I suppose they could have stayed in the cottage, but I'm sure King Stephen and the Queen wanted their daughter ASAP, so they delivered her pretty much JUST before sunset (you can see the sun set out the window after the fairies gather around the fallen Aurora), and her parents would expect to see Aurora appear right after.

As for Aurora and Phillip's love, it's much more romantic to say thee people love each other (or will love each other) so much, they just need to dance and sing together to know it. Of course it's far-fetched, but so is the entire movie. It was best to have them fall in love this way. Besides, of course Aurora would at least think she was in love with the first human, and the first man, she ever saw in person!

Well spoken!!

[Someday...]

With all this talk of Sleeping Beauty's flaws, I'm surprised no one's mentioned my biggest peeve: Maleficent's actual curse. Why on earth would she put a curse on someone that wouldn't take effect for 16 years? If you're going to cast a spell that's going to kill someone, have it take effect immediately. Now, I realize this is more a logic flaw with the source material than the film, but the filmmakers still could've worked around this somehow. Even if you interpret the curse as, "you're prone to pricking your finger at any given time till you're 16", it still makes no sense since Maleficent could've made the age limit higher or have it last infinitely.

Wouldn't it be more traumatic to lose something you have had time to love, and that has "indeed, grown in grace and beauty, beloved by all who know her"
than it would be a baby a few days old (which I admit would still be traumatic)

[MagicMirror]

Wouldn't it be more traumatic to lose something you have had time to love, and that has "indeed, grown in grace and beauty, beloved by all who know her"
than it would be a baby a few days old (which I admit would still be traumatic)

In that case, why limit it to 16 years? Better to be more vague about the curse and watch the royal family squirm for a lifetime.

[Marky_198]

Because it's just what the evil Maleficent came up with!
She might as well came up with something completely different.

Why does Ursula decide that Ariel gets 3 days on land to make Eric kiss her? If she had said 2 days, it'd be more beneficial for her too, so there would be less time to kiss her.

Some things you just have to let be....

[amazon980]

Actualy she said BEFOR the sunsets on her 16th birthday so any time befor the sun sets she could die thats why she was so mad she was looking for her for 16 years it could of happened any time thats why they took her to the forest heres the link to it http://youtube.com/watch?v=H3y9ahewwAw

[Marky_198]

I wonder what the new dvd release of this movie will bring.

Till now they've been true to it's original colours (I think it's the only classic left), for the past few releases.

The colours on the last dvd edition match the colours on my old vhs and the screenshots in the book I have.

But I suppose they're going to do the digital brightening cartoonish kid transformation again.
Of course there will be people saying that that was they way the movie was intended and that ALL the other releases, vhs, dvd and books were wrong. But I'm glad I have the old dvd.

[PeterPanfan]

Sleeping Beauty is amazing.

In more detail-

The animation-Disney at it's best! The way it's colored is so appetizing,and once you see it you're hooked.

The charectors-Aurora is beautiful,smart,and not whiny like other princesses. Phillip is also very handsome,and the love they share is so remarkable. Maleficent is by far one of the best villians produced by Walt Disney. She's scary,and forceful.

The story-The way Aurora decides she can't let her love for Phillip control her. She is strong,and must not think about him,yet she simply can't help herself.

Overall,it's a 9/10 for me!

[Disney Duster]

But my problem is, she doesn't actually do any of that. We're not even told that she's done anything at all even approaching that in the past.

Well, I'd say cursing the infant princess and insulting and then electrocuting her goons and seeing her curse fulfilled and planning on locking Phillip in the dungeon until he dies or is 100 years old and then all she did to stop him from reaching his castle until the power of good and true love killed her is enough to say she's evil, and is capable. The only reason she was defeated was because she was against magic and true love. If she as against anyone helpless, she could do more damage, as shown with the goons, and Aurora, because the fairies couldn't stop the curse's fulfillment. I guess it coems down to what's enough for you and what's enough for me, and I think the reactions and talk of the people, especially the fairies say what I need. And afterall, the King and Queen didn't invite her for a reason.

Seconds within encountering a problem, its magiced (is that a word?) away!

I've heard of magicked, but I don't know if that only works with that pagan spelling and meaning, magick.

And that story about you and your mother is priceless! (I know I use the word often, but I really do mean it!).

Thank you very much!

Yes, I don't think I've said much about 'Cinderella', but it's definitely my second favourite Princess film (the first being 'Snow White') - and, I think, one of the very best. I always liked the idea of Cinderella having a good mother (the Fairy Godmother) and an evil mother (Lady Tremaine) - the mothers are polar opposites, in appearance, personality and methods.

Oh, hooray! Well, first I want to say I'm guessing the reasons you're calling them "Princess films" (which does pretty acuratey describe the films I'm into and I use it myself but I dislike the term for it's generalizing and other reasons) instead of fairy tale films is because Pinocchio and even Peter Pan or even Alice in Wonderland could be considered fairy tales. Am I correct? But didn't Disney himself, or everyone during his time, consider only Snow White, Cinderella, and Sleeping Beauty fairy tales the studio was doing? I wonder if Pinocchio only became known as a fairy tale because of the Disney film. But anyway...can I have your input?

As for the mother thing, I too thought about that when trying to think of powerful women in Disney's films. Femininsts might try to point out the only powerful women are villains, but the fairies in every film are powerful (and Tinker Bell is a female who saves a male). I never thought about those two mothers in that way, so thank you for pointing that out! One makes Cinderella's life miserable and the other one fixes it or at least makes her happy (but her workings do essentially do the fixing since Cinderella's true salvation really was owed to the slipper that doesn't change back). It would be interesting to see the two together, but you actually would fear the stepmother would beat the fairy godmother in any fight. This brings up my realization that the good, kind, nice princesses will seem less poweerful than the villains because their goodness renders them unable to kill, harm, or fight. By the way, in Cinderella III the godmother's magic was transferred to the stepmother and she turned the fairy to stone, but that's just a Disney sequel of course.

I agree that the most detailed and epic show-off of the backgrounds occur when Aurora and Phillip are in the forest, which is a huge reason why I like watching those scenes now verses when I was younger and bored by them. I get what you mean about how the animation has to be in the confines of the background, but I also wonder if the concentration of realistic versus cartoony ( and thus more free, creative) movement makes it looked limited (real humans can only do so much). I know "Sleeping Beauty" had lots of live-action reference because Walt wanted the movement to be as realistic as possible. But the next time I watch the film I will try to see how it looks like they were sitting on bayonets. Is the idea that if they were sitting on bayonets they wouldn't want to movie much because it would hurt?

Your explanation of "Sleeping Beauty" backgrounds as frameable art by itself versus the backgrounds that need characters was very good and perfectly describes what I meant! In fact, it makes sense I would find that scene with the glass coffin so great because the characters are small in that shot and the background gets more attention, so the artists made it look particularly impressive. It'd be great if one day we have backgrounds that are fantastic on their own but look also work in composition with the characters, unless that's 101 Dalmatians, but I personally don't like that style or the Xerox animation.

And yes, I also agree that since Walt realized "Sleeping Beauty"'s story was a lot like the stories of "Snow White" and "Cinderella", he wanted it to look distinctively different from them, and that started making the rest of the features look so different afterward.

I wonder what the new dvd release of this movie will bring.

Till now they've been true to it's original colours (I think it's the only classic left), for the past few releases.

The colours on the last dvd edition match the colours on my old vhs and the screenshots in the book I have.

But I suppose they're going to do the digital brightening cartoonish kid transformation again.
Of course there will be people saying that that was they way the movie was intended and that ALL the other releases, vhs, dvd and books were wrong. But I'm glad I have the old dvd.

Agreed! I also have a problem with the color-changing restorations and then saying that's how it should have looked, they even say they make it look better than it did when it premiered (how do they know that, and how do they know what the makers of the film wanted?). And thanks for saying what I said was well said!

[MagicMirror]

Oh, hooray! Well, first I want to say I'm guessing the reasons you're calling them "Princess films" (which does pretty acuratey describe the films I'm into and I use it myself but I dislike the term for it's generalizing and other reasons) instead of fairy tale films is because Pinocchio and even Peter Pan or even Alice in Wonderland could be considered fairy tales. Am I correct? But didn't Disney himself, or everyone during his time, consider only Snow White, Cinderella, and Sleeping Beauty fairy tales the studio was doing? I wonder if Pinocchio only became known as a fairy tale because of the Disney film. But anyway...can I have your input?

You're right - I referred to them as 'Princess films' (though not in any sort of derogatory sense) just to differentiate them from the other films that could be considered fairy tales. I agree with you that whether several Disney films are fairy tales or not is hazy. 'Cinderella' and 'Snow White' are tales that evolved over a long period of time (before being collected by the Brothers Grimm or Perrault), while 'Pinocchio' and 'Peter Pan' were each the work of a single author. Personally I try to skirt around the 'Fairy Tale' definition and call any film with magic in it a 'Fantasy movie'.
I think you're right that Disney considered only 'Snow White', 'Cinderella', and 'Sleeping Beauty' fairy tales - I think 'Sleeping Beauty' was referred to in publicity as 'Disney's third fairy tale', though I could be imagining it. I wonder if it had anything to do with the intended audience?

As for the mother thing, I too thought about that when trying to think of powerful women in Disney's films. Femininsts might try to point out the only powerful women are villains, but the fairies in every film are powerful (and Tinker Bell is a female who saves a male). I never thought about those two mothers in that way, so thank you for pointing that out! One makes Cinderella's life miserable and the other one fixes it or at least makes her happy (but her workings do essentially do the fixing since Cinderella's true salvation really was owed to the slipper that doesn't change back). It would be interesting to see the two together, but you actually would fear the stepmother would beat the fairy godmother in any fight. This brings up my realization that the good, kind, nice princesses will seem less poweerful than the villains because their goodness renders them unable to kill, harm, or fight. By the way, in Cinderella III the godmother's magic was transferred to the stepmother and she turned the fairy to stone, but that's just a Disney sequel of course.

Though I've yet to see 'Twist in Time' completely (though I've seen clips, and it does look pretty good), it was what first made me think of the good mother/bad mother theme. It seems to be in a couple of other Disney films too - Aurora in 'Sleeping Beauty' has good and evil godmothers, and in '101 Dalmatians' Cruella and Nanny are opposites in appearance, personality and intentions (towards the puppies).

Another villainess thought: I remember reading somewhere that 'femmes fatales' in art were often shown with a snake - something to with the phallic shape giving them masculine power. Disney possibly have done an equivalent with their evil women. I can's find one for the Queen (unless you count that enormous bone she uses to stir the cauldron in the deleted scene), but Lady Tremaine has a staff in her final scenes in her film (using it to trip up the lackey); Maleficent obviously has a long staff; Cruella has both the long cigarette holder and the bullet-like car; Medusa has a staff similar to Lady Tremaine's; and Ursula has tentacles. I'm probably reading too much into it - it's probably just so that the characters have something to wave about - but you never know...

I agree that the most detailed and epic show-off of the backgrounds occur when Aurora and Phillip are in the forest, which is a huge reason why I like watching those scenes now verses when I was younger and bored by them. I get what you mean about how the animation has to be in the confines of the background, but I also wonder if the concentration of realistic versus cartoony ( and thus more free, creative) movement makes it looked limited (real humans can only do so much). I know "Sleeping Beauty" had lots of live-action reference because Walt wanted the movement to be as realistic as possible. But the next time I watch the film I will try to see how it looks like they were sitting on bayonets. Is the idea that if they were sitting on bayonets they wouldn't want to movie much because it would hurt?

Yes, I meant that the movement of the characters was so careful and calculated that the characters sometimes seemed to me to have sore nether-regions, basically! Like people who have an inconvenient boil down there, or just had an unpleasant injection. I'm exaggerating, really - it's not obvious, but it is noticeable when compared to the generally more freely-moving animation in other Disney films.

Your explanation of "Sleeping Beauty" backgrounds as frameable art by itself versus the backgrounds that need characters was very good and perfectly describes what I meant! In fact, it makes sense I would find that scene with the glass coffin so great because the characters are small in that shot and the background gets more attention, so the artists made it look particularly impressive.

This reminds me of some of the earlier art Eyvind Earle did for the film - still beautiful, but really simple and streamlined. The more detailled art came along after the decision was made to take inspiration from Medieval tapestries. I actually prefer the earlier concepts and think this style may possibly have worked better for animation - I can't say for sure, though.
These were taken from the DVD's gallery:

It'd be great if one day we have backgrounds that are fantastic on their own but look also work in composition with the characters, unless that's 101 Dalmatians, but I personally don't like that style or the Xerox animation.

The '101 Dalmatians' backgrounds probably fall into the other camp, where they look like somethings missing if they're on their own. Not that I wouldn't love to have them (or indeed any Disney background) on my wall!

[Disney Duster]

Thanks for replying, Magic Mirror! In this post I'll be talking a lot about the fairy tale films so, sorry, I know this isn't what you like as much as 101 Dalmations (is that your favorite?).

I'm glad you also remember it being said that Disney only made three fairy tales. "Fantasy films" is a good way of including all the films with fairies and magic. As for Disney trying to get a certain audience with the fairy tale hype, perhaps it's a precursor to what is now thought of as the princess genre now, or Walt was trying to make people think of this like his other fairy tales because they were hits. However, "Sleeping Beauty" wasn't made to revitalize the studio or be a huge money-maker, it was made because, as I remember, Walt wanted it to be his masterpiece, or perhaps just his most ambitious fairy tale. Do you recall anything like that?

I'm glad you liked what you saw of "Cinderella III". In my love for anything related to the original and it's characters, I favor it over many theatrical Disney films. But I also feel it is the best sequel. The backgrounds almost perfectly match the original's, and while that isn't the case with the animation, it's the best work of the direct-to-videos (when it comes to humans, "Bambi II" was only better because animals are easier to animate than humans). And because the film alters time and thus alters the original "Cinderella", it can be thought of as an alternate reality instead of a real continuation.

In pointing out that Aurora has both benevolent and malevolent godmothers, that reminds me that I read that the godmothers in fairy tales before they became what they are today would do good and bad things. This had to do with them being like fates, I think, and the godmothers in "Sleeping Beauty" are definately like fates in their control over nature, people's lives, and destiny.

I never knew that they actually did have phalluses to represent powerful woman having a man's power, but I'm sure I heard something like that to get me thinking about how all the fairies, who are powerful, have magic wands. However, in Perrault's Cinderella, which the film was based on, the fairy does have a magic wand. Since the phalluses could suggest that women need a penis to be powerful and it's very sexist, I am glad to say that my in my favorite film, if a magic wand and a key are penises that help Cinderella out, she is ultimately saved by a vagina. Yes, you read that right.

In the Grimm's version, which Disney's version does seem to acknowledge with the stepmother letting Cinderella go to the ball if she gets chores done and two doves helping her, among other references, but anyway, the stepsisters cut parts of their feet off to fit into this version's golden slipper. When the prince sees the blood and pours it out of the shoe, it represents a girl's period. Also, shoes are meant to have feet inserted into them, and they could be said to be shaped like vaginas, exlcuding the heel. So, the stepmother breaks the glass slipper with her phallic cane, and all seems lost until Cinderella brings out her vaginal shoe to save the day! So that has power in this case.

Never thought about Ursula's tentacles. That's sick, man. Just kidding. We could be reading more into it, and if you think about it, anything phallic is going to be more "attack you" than something cavernous or something that recieves (hmmm, Ursula's gold nautilus shell sucked Ariel's voice in!), so I actually do think it was just about what can be used to wave around or do things to people. But I read somewhere someone talked to Marc Davis and brought up how Maleficent enjoyed talking to Phillip in chains and Marc said they weren't innocent or naive back then...

I always thought those early designs for "Sleeping Beauty''s backgrounds were just detailess because they were in the design stage, and they didn't need to detail them until they decided on what overall concepts they were going to use. But if you know they considered making them that flat and limited, okay. Maybe they would work more with the animation, I don't know, but I definately wouldn't think "Sleeping Beauty" was as amazing without the depth and details I'm used to. However, I wish I had seen more of the concept presented in that picture with Phillip's shadow against the wall in what looks like Maleficent's domain envisioned as a barren wasteland. It's striking and cool-feeling!

Okay, well, of course you and I would like to think of all the Disney artwork as frameable!

[Ariel'sprince]

My second favorite Disney movie with The Nightmare Before Christmas and Cinderella.
Aurora (and Cinderella and maybe Belle,too) is my second favorite Disney Princess,but i think that she should get more attention.

[Jack Skellington]

I had no idea you like The Nightmare Before christmas Areil's Prince !
I admire Belle the most out of all the princesses because she didn't dream of a handsome prince in shining armour like Aurora or Snow White, she didn't care about how Beast looked like because she loved him for his heart unlike the other shallow little princesses.

And of all the Disney characters, I'd have to say that I can relate to Belle and Aladdin the most. I can relate to Aladdin because he's an Arab like me and he had a dream and he didn't stop until he acheived it, as for Belle I can relate to her because of never judging people depending on where they're from or what colour their skin is, and longing for adventures in faraway places,as well as being a bookworm and a person who people consider to be an oddity.

[Beast_enchantment]

I admire Belle the most out of all the princesses because she didn't dream of a handsome prince in shining armour like Aurora or Snow White, she didn't care about how Beast looked like because she loved him for his heart unlike the other shallow little princesses.

wonderfully said! i think Belle's growing love for the Beast despite his appearance is BATB's strongest aspect for me. its not cliche like Sleeping Beauty. it is the only Disney movie, in my opinion that expresses true love and teaches a message that true beauty comes from within. !!!

[Ariel'sprince]

I had no idea you like The Nightmare Before christmas Areil's Prince !.

Really? it's one of my favorites .
And about Belle-i also like it but i don't think that Aurora or Snow White wanted a prince,maybe Snow White is more want a prince rather then find love but Aurora (and also Giselle) does,Aurora wanted love (you can see this espically in I Wonder).

[Super Aurora]

And about Belle-i also like it but i don't think that Aurora or Snow White wanted a prince,maybe Snow White is more want a prince rather then find love but Aurora (and also Giselle) does,Aurora wanted love (you can see this espically in I Wonder).

She did want a prince as her one song indicated.

[Ariel'sprince]

And about Belle-i also like it but i don't think that Aurora or Snow White wanted a prince,maybe Snow White is more want a prince rather then find love but Aurora (and also Giselle) does,Aurora wanted love (you can see this espically in I Wonder).

She did want a prince as her one song indicated.

Yeah,i know,by Someday My Prince Will Come,maybe just Aurora and Giselle want love.