I have a friend who has gone so far as to boycott the movie because she's offended by the Cajun firefly. I'm Cajun too and I'm not all upset that he has a thick accent and a silly appearance.
Does she Boycott Gambit? He's pretty much Cajun Stereotype + Superpowers, but nobody boycotts him, because he's awesome.
I agree with what you're saying Emily, and Ratatouille is a perfect example. The same goes with the musical format - I'm a huge fan of that sort of thing, so I wouldn't mind if every Disney movie went for it - but movies like Lilo and Stitch didn't need it, and were strong on their own without it. But the problem with Disney is that it's all or nothing. 3D movies mean the death of 2D movies. One movie without the musical format means that all movies hereafter must replace character-sung songs with the marketed warbling of Miley Cyrus a forgotten celebrity. For years now there has been no balance and we can't have both. Both forms of art that I loved seemed shot dead and replaced with shallow attempts at looking cooler and trend-whoring.
Don't get me wrong, Pixar has done incredible things with 3D. Disney hasn't. Bolt was cute, but it was no Beauty and the Beast... and every 3D film of theirs before Bolt was simply abhorrent. Everyone involved in Chicken Little deserves to be throttled. [idealsim]I figure that if the Princess and the Frog does well, that maybe there will be a chance for Disney's 2D and 3D departments to actually coexist, and that other studios will follow the example.[/idealism] That's what I would really love to see.
Actually, Disney's next animated film after The Princess and the Frog, Rapunzel, is going to be done in CG, but only so much as to get a certain look for it. They aren't doing photo realistic shading in the movie, so it's not going to look like it's done in CG, it's going to look like an oil painting. I kind of hope that they're going to use Deep Canvas for the back grounds, becuase it's cool technology and it really hasn't been used too much.
I'm pretty excited about this film because they are putting a new twist on an old and pretty basic fairytale. They're actually being creative instead of simply snagging a story from another studio or making a copypasta + songs from an old fairytale. It's okay to do that old Disney thing with songs and such, but you have to do ti well, which is something I think Disney forgot over the past decade or so. They took it for granted that all they had to do was animate something to music and people would think it was amazing. Hell, The Emperor's new Groove was completely original, stylized, and hilarious, had no music, broke the 4th wall, and relied totally on entertaining writing. I think anyone offended by this movie should remember the stupid controversy in Aladdin where they changed a line of music because some Muslims found it offensive.
Sigh, Disney animation can die in a fire. They have made one good movie (Mulan, maybe Atlantis) in 15 years. 15 YEARS!. If it weren't for their deal with Pixar and the distribution rights to Miyazaki's works the name Disney would be synonymous with crap.
Lasseter being involved gives me some hope but still... meh.
Actually, Disney's next animated film after The Princess and the Frog, Rapunzel, is going to be done in CG, but only so much as to get a certain look for it. They aren't doing photo realistic shading in the movie, so it's not going to look like it's done in CG, it's going to look like an oil painting. I kind of hope that they're going to use Deep Canvas for the back grounds, becuase it's cool technology and it really hasn't been used too much.
I had known about the Rapunzel movie for awhile, and I check up on the progress of it every now and then. For quite a while Kristin Chenoweth was listed as Rapunzel's voice. This made me super excited because her voice is perfect for an animated character, and she is just awesome. When I checked just now, I saw that she was no longer listed, and instead, it is freaking Mandy Moore. For some reason this makes me extremely mad, and I felt that I had to make an angry post. Grrrr.
When I checked just now, I saw that she was no longer listed, and instead, it is freaking Mandy Moore.
Yeah, I really don't know why she keeps getting jobs in voice acting. The only reason she is even bearable in a live-action movie is because she's very attractive, she's a pretty poor actress otherwise.
When I checked just now, I saw that she was no longer listed, and instead, it is freaking Mandy Moore.
Yeah, I really don't know why she keeps getting jobs in voice acting. The only reason she is even bearable in a live-action movie is because she's very attractive, she's a pretty poor actress otherwise.
FTFY. Her being pretty doesn't have any bearing on her acting skills.
When I checked just now, I saw that she was no longer listed, and instead, it is freaking Mandy Moore.
Yeah, I really don't know why she keeps getting jobs in voice acting. The only reason she is even bearable in a live-action movie is because she's very attractive, she's a pretty poor actressotherwise.
FTFY. Her being pretty doesn't have any bearing on her acting skills.
That rule doesn't apply to hot-blooded, young men who may or may not still be in puberty. You ever try arguing that with someone (not all of them but most of them) during that time, it's impossible to get through.
It isn't a rule, it is a fact. You may enjoy looking at her enough to put up with her bad acting, but her ACTING isn't improved by her looks.
I totally agree with you %100 on this point, but there are some ignorant people out there who cannot or will not look at it that way. In which case I immediately shun them for that way of thinking.
The soundtrack is now available, and it's pretty good. I really like the villain song (as I am one to do), "Friends on the Other Side," and Randy Newman has done a really good job at blending the different genres of music found in New Orleans at that time.
I forgot to say: Judith and I went to see the limited premier on the 25th. It was a good movie, and worthy of the Disney cannon, I think. It's not perfect, but very good. I won't give anything away, but I will say this:
Pros:
Fantastic artistic direction, from character designs to animation
Strong lead character
Entertaining villain, who is likely to become a Draco In Leather Pants.
Most supporting characters are likable.
Jazzy 20's stuff is fun.
Defies a number of cliches in a refreshing manner.
Doesn't scream stereotypes like 'The Proud Family'
Cons:
Randy Newman's musical score is alright, but not particularly memorable. Lyrics can be lame. It's no Beauty and the Beast, as far as music goes.
Still runs with other cliches, but what else do you expect in a Disney movie?
Weak point mid-movie. Fortunately, it picks up again.
Good! It was one of the main problems I had with that show. I'm glad they didn't do that. Besides, if they did the backlash would be ultra mega huge.
I still have no idea how that show got away with that. A black grandmother named "Suga Mama?" A Mexican grandfather named "Papi" who spoke in hyperfast Spanish bookended with manic Latino cackling? Was Standards fucking asleep during that era or something?
Doesn't scream stereotypes like 'The Proud Family'
Good! It was one of the main problems I had with that show. I'm glad they didn't do that. Besides, if they did the backlash would be ultra mega huge.
OMG. I thought I was the only person who noticed how racist that show could seem sometimes. I could find almost no complaints about its depiction of black, white, hispanic, or asian people. I thought it was downright insulting at times!
Natalie pretty much sums up my opinion. I liked this movie a lot, but Disney's not yet back up to where they were in the 90's. Still, seeing a Disney flick open with a traditionally animated pan of a city street and a song - it just made my day. :P
And... so did getting to meet one of the animators who worked on the movie!!! !
A Mexican grandfather named "Papi" who spoke in hyperfast Spanish bookended with manic Latino cackling?
I dated a girl when I was in high school who was from El Salvador(Though her parents were Spanish) and her Father and Grandfather were EXACTLY like that.
Maybe one for the random grammar thread, but I'm almost completely sure this should be "as I am wont to do". I say it during my show, so once looked it up to make sure I was saying what I thought I was saying.
I say it during my show, so once looked it up to make sure I was saying what I thought I was saying.
There are a lot phrases like that (you might call them idioms, but I'm not sure), which often use words or grammatical structures that are otherwise completely archaic, yet are still in daily use in that very specific form. And people often don't realize what they're saying, and bork it up. "Should of" for "should have" is another example. I find that you tend to discover these when you're learning another language. "Shouldn't" is another one. People will say "shouldn't you be in school?", but no one, at least in the US in 2009, would ever say "should not you be in school?"
Here'san article that reads way too much into the movie and tries to insert racial issues into it. It makes me rage so much.
Do people just look for little intricacies and other similar things to bitch about? Why can't they just let these things slide and just take it for what it is.
Here'san article that reads way too much into the movie and tries to insert racial issues into it. It makes me rage so much.
Do people just look for little intricacies and other similar things to bitch about? Why can't they just let these things slide and just take it for what it is.
Proof that the article is clearly written by a lunatic is when they start praising High School Musical and the other Disney channel movies as being "good but underrated."
Proof that the article is clearly written by a lunatic is when they start praising High School Musical and the other Disney channel movies as being "good but underrated."
Those movies are only good if you MST3K them up. I have more fun laughing at them with my friends than without them, which is why I saw HSM3 twice.
Comments
Don't get me wrong, Pixar has done incredible things with 3D. Disney hasn't. Bolt was cute, but it was no Beauty and the Beast... and every 3D film of theirs before Bolt was simply abhorrent. Everyone involved in Chicken Little deserves to be throttled. [idealsim]I figure that if the Princess and the Frog does well, that maybe there will be a chance for Disney's 2D and 3D departments to actually coexist, and that other studios will follow the example.[/idealism] That's what I would really love to see.
Lasseter being involved gives me some hope but still... meh.
Judith and I went to see the limited premier on the 25th. It was a good movie, and worthy of the Disney cannon, I think. It's not perfect, but very good.
I won't give anything away, but I will say this:
Pros:
- Fantastic artistic direction, from character designs to animation
- Strong lead character
- Entertaining villain, who is likely to become a Draco In Leather Pants.
- Most supporting characters are likable.
- Jazzy 20's stuff is fun.
- Defies a number of cliches in a refreshing manner.
- Doesn't scream stereotypes like 'The Proud Family'
Cons:Natalie pretty much sums up my opinion. I liked this movie a lot, but Disney's not yet back up to where they were in the 90's. Still, seeing a Disney flick open with a traditionally animated pan of a city street and a song - it just made my day. :P
And... so did getting to meet one of the animators who worked on the movie!!!