Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Disney Films

ulkis

By ulkis
in Movies

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

Trini

Trini

2 hours ago, Harvey said:

If you are so uninterested in the premise of a movie, you are not the target demo for it and you shouldn't watch it. Maleficent is an extremely captivating character and how she was interpreted in the movies is amazing. Exploring her roots and why she became the way she is was executed beautifully and it was a very good movie. Just because you didn't like it that doesn't mean that it's bad or that it shouldn't exist. Same goes for Cruella.

I didn't have a problem with exploring Maleficent's backstory. I did have a problem with them rewriting the entire Sleeping Beauty story just to make her the hero.

There's a topic for the Cruella film, for more spoilery comments, BTW.

 

  • Useful 1
  • Love 6
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

voiceover
voiceover

Dear Keira and Kristen: Far be it from me to suggest how you should raise your children.  But with your recent articles and interviews about how Classic Disney Sux, I thought to provide counterpo

VCRTracking
VCRTracking
Spartan Girl
Spartan Girl

Sigh. Farewell, Angela Lansbury, our beloved Mrs. Potts. Hard to believe she nailed “Beauty and the Beast” in one take. Then again, no it isn’t, she was THAT good. We could talk about Beauty

Posted Images

Spartan Girl

Spartan Girl

(edited)
17 hours ago, Trini said:

I didn't have a problem with exploring Maleficent's backstory. I did have a problem with them rewriting the entire Sleeping Beauty story just to make her the hero

THANK YOU!!! A villain origin story is one thing, but rewriting history is another. Plus, it was a waste of Angelina Jolie to water down Maleficent like that. Imagine how much more fun it would have been to let her be just 100 percent evil like Cate Blanchett’s Lady Tremaine— and yes, the live action Cinderella did a way better job IMO because even though it gave her a tragic backstory it wasn’t meant to excuse or explain her actions, it was just a reminder to Cinderella not to let this happen to her, no matter how crappy life gets. Because choosing kindness in adversity was the point of the whole story.

Edited by Spartan Girl
  • Love 12
ruby24

ruby24

On 5/28/2021 at 2:24 PM, AngieBee1 said:

The film provided Cruella with a sob story but it doesn't mean the character is a sad sack or that her background is the primary reason for why she is the way she is.  I think it was very even handed whereas Maleficient's victimhood in the first film didn't sit right with me.  I found "Cruella" downright fantastic. I  have never even seen any version of 101 Dalmatians but I still knew enough about the characterization of Cruella and her crew to feel connected to the story. 

After having watched Cruella, I'm guessing you and others like you probably are the target audience for it. People who have a passing knowledge of the name/character of Cruella DeVil but never actually seen any 101 Dalmatians movie.

Nothing else makes any sense. 

  • Love 4
Spartan Girl

Spartan Girl

(edited)

So that video from The Take made me realize that yeah, a lot of the Disney villains are demonized versions of single women seen as a threat to the “family unit”: the evil stepmothers, Cruella, Madame Medusa, Mother Gothel, Ursula…so that made me wonder if any Disney cartoons had single, career oriented, non-matronly female characters who weren’t villains. And to my surprise, I thought of one: Miss Bianca from The Rescuers.

No, think about it. She’s single, wealthy, very fashionable (rocking the fur coat and pillbox hat), very ambitious wanting to get a real mission in the Rescue Aid Society, and had no immediate plans to settle down. But that didn’t make her any less kind and compassionate, not only in wanting to help Penny, but also choosing Bernard to be her partner when he was just the lowly janitor. She’s the antithesis of the film’s villain Madame Medusa, a vain woman who uses and abuses a child just to steal a jewel. 

Yes, she and Bernard become an official couple in the sequel, but that doesn’t necessarily mean she’s going to give up her career whether or not they start a family.

Or am I just overthinking this?

Edited by Spartan Girl
  • Useful 3
  • Love 8
JustHereForFood

JustHereForFood

5 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

Another good one:

 

 

Let me take a stab. Gaston's mother always wanted education, so she began to work as an assistant to a scientist. Unfortunately, she was killed during an experiment when Gaston was a baby. He was only trying to protect Belle from the same fate! He wasn't even in love with her, he once had his heart broken when a woman he loved was forced to marry someone else and he never believed in love again, only mindless flirting. But he wanted to save Belle from the influence of her scientific father, so he thought of marrying her as a sort of sacrifice. When she was taken by the Beast, he remembered, how his father was years ago killed by a giant bear, only it was dark that day, so people who saw it believed it was some strange beast like nothing they saw before. That was why Gaston was so determined to kill the Beast! I think it is writing itself.

 

19 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

So that video from The Take made me realize that yeah, a lot of the Disney villains are demonized versions of single women seen as a threat to the “family unit”: the evil stepmothers, Cruella, Madame Medusa, Mother Gothel, Ursula…so that made me wonder if any Disney cartoons had single, career oriented, non-matronly female characters who weren’t villains. And to my surprise, I thought of one: Miss Bianca from The Rescuers.

No, think about it. She’s single, wealthy, very fashionable (rocking the fur coat and pillbox hat), very ambitious wanting to get a real mission in the Rescue Aid Society, and had no immediate plans to settle down. But that didn’t make her any less kind and compassionate, not only in wanting to help Penny, but also choosing Bernard to be her partner when he was just the lowly janitor. She’s the antithesis of the film’s villain Madame Medusa, a vain woman who uses and abuses a child just to steal a jewel. 

Yes, she and Bernard become an official couple in the sequel, but that doesn’t necessarily mean she’s going to give up her career whether or not they start a family.

Or am I just overthinking this?

You raise a very good point. I think there is still some subtle misogyny in filmmaking regarding independent women.

I think maybe Judy from Zootopia might be another non-villainous example. From human characters I could only think of the cat owner from The Aristocats, who is a retired opera singer. But she's a minor character.

  • Love 6
Trini

Trini

On 5/30/2021 at 8:38 PM, Spartan Girl said:

So that video from The Take made me realize that yeah, a lot of the Disney villains are demonized versions of single women seen as a threat to the “family unit”: the evil stepmothers, Cruella, Madame Medusa, Mother Gothel, Ursula…

Counterpoint :

All(?) Disney villains/antagonists are single regardless of sex; so it may be that they are like that to contrast the heroes and their family units.

  • Useful 3
  • Love 8
Camera One

Camera One

(edited)
On 5/30/2021 at 10:05 AM, Spartan Girl said:

Dude, at this point, I just hope the upcoming Little Mermaid just lets Ursula be Ursula. 

You mean the young octopus who was bullied for her purple skin and eight legs and overlooked as a potential ruler due to the oppressive patriarchy of merpeople society which stifled her spirit and inventiveness as she struggled with insomnia which was worsened by her habitation near the site of inconsiderately loud singing from Ariel and her sisters and their choral director Sebastian?

Edited by Camera One
  • LOL 10
JustHereForFood

JustHereForFood

Well, Gaston, Jafar and Frollo were all interested in the female lead, so they were a threat to the protagonists in their own way, as creepy stalkers. And even with Scar, Hades and I would add Dr. Facilier, there were some creepy vibes towards female characters.

On another note, I like that we are finally getting female protagonists who are single to contrast: Elsa, Moana, not sure about Raya as I have not seen it yet, but I got that feeling from the trailer. Elsa and Moana are definitely my favorite Disney characters if I don't count animals.

  • Love 2
Sarah 103

Sarah 103

 

13 hours ago, Trini said:

So now I want to see an evil married duo!

6 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

That would be fun to watch.

I love this idea. I'm okay if the couple is not necessarily married, but are in a long-term romantic relationship. They capture the hero, then have date night dinner. I'm picturing the hero escaping while the couple is bickering in front of him or her. The argument starts off being why gadget X isn't working, but turns into a fight over some aspect of thier overall relationship.  

  • Love 5
TigerLily20

TigerLily20

On 6/4/2021 at 11:37 PM, Sarah 103 said:

 

I love this idea. I'm okay if the couple is not necessarily married, but are in a long-term romantic relationship. They capture the hero, then have date night dinner. I'm picturing the hero escaping while the couple is bickering in front of him or her. The argument starts off being why gadget X isn't working, but turns into a fight over some aspect of thier overall relationship.  

I feel like this is the Minion movie....Scarlett something was the villain and she was married, I mean it's not Disney but still lol

Sarah 103

Sarah 103

Just now, TigerLily20 said:

I feel like this is the Minion movie....Scarlett something was the villain and she was married, I mean it's not Disney but still lol

Scarlett was more of a plot device than the fully realized characters the Disney villains tend to be. I love Minions (I'm looking forward to the next one in Summer 2022), but the Minion movie was a bunch of short fun humerous silent short like vignettes strung together with a loose plot that's more an excuse to get to the next funny bit than a fully realized coherent story.  

Sarah 103

Sarah 103

59 minutes ago, BetterButter said:

‘The Hunchback of Notre Dame’ at 25: An Oral History of Disney’s Darkest Animated Classic

I don't care what the article says. I stand by my theory that the movie exists because someone wanted to go to Paris, but didn't want to pay for it. They suggested making this money as a way to travel to Paris and have Disney pay for all of their travel expenses. 

  • Useful 1
  • LOL 3
Spartan Girl

Spartan Girl

Quasimodo had never fared well in most non-Disney versions. Most of the time, he winds up dying alone and unloved, with Esmeralda being unable to feel anything for him except pity. He lives in the Charles Laughton/Maureen O’Hara version, he lives, but everyone just kind of ignores him while celebrating the defeat of the bad guys at the end, leaving him to ask a gargoyle, “Why wasn’t I made of stone like thee?”

Here, at least, he gets a character arc and a happy ending that while wasn’t what completely wanted, it was exactly what he needed: to escape Frollo’s control, have a life out of the tower, and for people to see him as a human being. He even has real friends now, not just imaginary talking gargoyles. 

I kind of wish Disney hadn’t cut out the detail of him being deaf; that kind of representation would have meant a lot to the hearing impaired community. They did bring that back for the stage musical, so kudos.

4 hours ago, kathyk24 said:

Frollo tries to drown Quasimodo and manipulates him through the movie.

Well, he is the bad guy.

JustHereForFood

JustHereForFood

I liked it when I saw it in cinema as a kid, but was pretty horrified when we later had to read the book in high school and I found out it was so much more depressing. I never liked the book as a result, or any other movie adaptation. I do love the stage musical version though, it is a nice mix of the book and the Disney version. And I have high hopes for the upcoming live version. (I am apparently only able to consume Victor Hugo in musical form, because the musical version of Les Miserables is also the only version that I love, while I pretty much dislike all others.)

 

  • Love 1
MissAlmond

MissAlmond

(edited)
16 hours ago, starri said:

The only thing I really liked about Hunchback was some of the music. “Hellfire” 

Hellfire is stunning; an adult song with accompanying animation trapped in a kid's movie. Frollo sings through the thought process of every creepy, obsessive stalker who refuses to leave the object of their lust alone.  It's all Esmeralda fault, not his!  Shockingly, Hellfire wasn't nominated for the Academy's Best Song award.  It deserved much more than that.  It deserved a win.  

Edited by MissAlmond
  • Love 5
Guest

Guest

(edited)
On 7/8/2021 at 3:42 PM, Trini said:

There's Milo from the Atlantis movie; Carl from Pixar's Up; any other bespectacled lead characters in Disney animation?

She’s not really the lead but there’s Honey Lemon from Big Hero Six. 

 

On 7/8/2021 at 3:20 PM, JustHereForFood said:

Looks cute. And what I would have given for a female main character with glasses, when I was a teenager.

That’s one of the reasons I love Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs for inverting the “glasses got to go” trope. 

Edited by Guest
Browncoat

Browncoat

But why can't the girl with glasses in Encanto be special too?  Of course she's the misfit!  If she gets special after she no longer has to wear glasses (or if she gets special by removing her glasses, Superman), that will be even more problematic for me.  Or maybe, all the talented people could wear glasses and the one without could be the untalented misfit!

It isn't that characters don't wear glasses, it's that characters who wear glasses are usually the cranky or ugly or untalented ones.  Carl from Up?  Cranky as hell.  Sabrina from Sabrina?  Ugly and beneath notice until she got contacts.  And now, this girl -- in a world of special people, she has no talents.  

I'll give you that it's less bad than it once was, but it still bugs me.

  • Love 1
Guest

Guest

(edited)
On 7/9/2021 at 5:58 AM, Browncoat said:

But why can't the girl with glasses in Encanto be special too?  Of course she's the misfit!  If she gets special after she no longer has to wear glasses (or if she gets special by removing her glasses, Superman), that will be even more problematic for me.  Or maybe, all the talented people could wear glasses and the one without could be the untalented misfit!

It isn't that characters don't wear glasses, it's that characters who wear glasses are usually the cranky or ugly or untalented ones.  Carl from Up?  Cranky as hell.  Sabrina from Sabrina?  Ugly and beneath notice until she got contacts.  And now, this girl -- in a world of special people, she has no talents.  

I'll give you that it's less bad than it once was, but it still bugs me.

But why assume that she stays not special or perpetuates shitty tropes based on a minute and a half trailer with very little dialogue. The one thing I feel certain about after that trailer is that plot will revolve around finding out that she is special. Maybe they will handle it poorly or maybe they will nail it but I don’t understand assuming the worst now. 

Edited by Guest
Browncoat

Browncoat

1 hour ago, Dani said:

But why assume that she stays not special or perpetuates shitty tropes based on a minute and a half trailer with very little dialogue. The one thing I feel certain about after that trailer is that plot will reveal around finding out that she is special. Maybe they will handle it poorly or maybe they will nail it but I don’t understand assuming the worst now. 

I don't feel like I'm assuming the worst.  I am going by what they showed me -- the only person in the trailer with glasses is the misfit/ungifted person.  It might be nice if some of the others wore glasses, too.

Guest

Guest

5 minutes ago, Browncoat said:

I don't feel like I'm assuming the worst.  I am going by what they showed me -- the only person in the trailer with glasses is the misfit/ungifted person.  It might be nice if some of the others wore glasses, too.

Okay. I just feel that what you describe is the worst case scenario and extremely unlikely. 

When a kids movie trailer only reveals that the lead is ungifted it makes me absolutely certain she’s the most special of them all. I’m split if that means she has a hidden gift or if means learning that you don’t need an ability to be special. 

Also, she’s not the only ungifted person in the movie. She’s the only ungifted person in her family. 

Guest

Guest

(edited)
4 hours ago, Browncoat said:

But she's still the only one who wears glasses.

Yes, in a brief clip focusing on her family. That can be handled well or it can be handled poorly.
 

Personally, I am glad to see a female lead with glasses who isn’t styled as a shy nerd and appears to know her own value even if no one else does. I am glad to such a wide range of skin tones and hairstyles. I am glad to see a strong woman. For me this is a win. They may screw it up and it may not go far enough but it’s still huge. 

Edited by Guest
lampshades

lampshades

On 7/8/2021 at 6:42 PM, Trini said:

There's Milo from the Atlantis movie; Carl from Pixar's Up; any other bespectacled lead characters in Disney animation?

The forgotten mid-2000s movies had Chicken Little and Lewis in Meet the Robinsons. Watched both of them for the first time with my toddler kids and they are actually kind of charming movies.

Edna Mode also has glasses and she should be a lead!

  • Love 1
JustHereForFood

JustHereForFood

On 7/9/2021 at 12:42 AM, Trini said:

There's Milo from the Atlantis movie; Carl from Pixar's Up; any other bespectacled lead characters in Disney animation?

 

8 hours ago, lampshades said:

The forgotten mid-2000s movies had Chicken Little and Lewis in Meet the Robinsons. Watched both of them for the first time with my toddler kids and they are actually kind of charming movies.

Edna Mode also has glasses and she should be a lead!

I meant specifically female characters that can be role models to girls. There's plenty of boys with glasses in stories, including Harry Potter as probably the most famous example, but absolutely nothing for girls. Because you know, girls with glasses are ugly and can only serve as comic relief, or the annoying nerdy character that probably loses the glasses as she becomes more active in the story, or the "ugly duckling" type of character, which is a problematic trope on its own. I'm just glad that there seems to finally be some representation, even if it goes slower than a sloth.

  • Love 5

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...