|
|
Post by Silver on Aug 25, 2007 22:55:24 GMT -5
While not my choice of words, I agree with your statement! But now adays it seems almost nothing can get by without causing controversy: not even Disney! But I don't think we should focas too much on the negativity from other people. Why don't we continue supporting the Disney company and encourage them to put their hearts into this project. That's what Disney lovers are here for. It's the best way to avoid the naysayers!
|
|
|
|
Post by Briar Rose's Dark Knight on Jan 13, 2008 21:31:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by SpellWovenNight on Jan 17, 2008 23:08:55 GMT -5
Okay I'm going to sound like a complete and total girly girl but for Disney Princesses I think the dresses they wear are very important and I HATE her dress. . .it looks almost like a winter wedding dress. Its no fun either  |
|
|
|
Post by Silver on Jan 19, 2008 2:49:47 GMT -5
Well it is a bit early to make official judgements. (In my opinion) Afterall, we don't know which scene is taking place here. And considering the story is set in the "Jazz era" of New Orleans, I expect an entire new wardrobe set up for the characters. Most of the other princesses came from a period piece time in Europe. So style of clothing was drastically changed.
This may seem like an strange observation (especially being so soon) but the animation reminds me of something Don Bluth would make. Something about this still reminds me of his older films I saw when I a little girl. Maybe it's because his film "All Dogs Go to Heaven" had the same setting. But another part of it screams back old memories of the late 80's animation Don Bluth and his creator worked on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Briar Rose's Dark Knight on Jan 19, 2008 13:53:54 GMT -5
For what it's worth, Don Bluth used to be a Disney animator back before he went on his own.
Personally, my only real concern with this film is the story. I readily admit we know nothing about it at this point, so when I say I'm concerned with the story, I mean that the storyline they use must be strong. In some ways, I fear that the future of 2-D animation rides on this film. If the story is weak, the box office will follow. And if the box office is bad, it might be all too easy to believe that the public only wants CGI. Personally, I think the public really wants good stories.
Now having said all that I am hopeful that Disney has brought in the right people to make this film, so it should be fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shenzi on Jan 19, 2008 13:54:21 GMT -5
Wow you are right Silver I think it looks like a Don Bluth film as well. I am glad, we need the old style animation in Disney again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Silver on Jan 23, 2008 1:32:28 GMT -5
For what it's worth, Don Bluth used to be a Disney animator back before he went on his own. Personally, my only real concern with this film is the story. I readily admit we know nothing about it at this point, so when I say I'm concerned with the story, I mean that the storyline they use must be strong. In some ways, I fear that the future of 2-D animation rides on this film. If the story is weak, the box office will follow. And if the box office is bad, it might be all too easy to believe that the public only wants CGI. Personally, I think the public really wants good stories. Now having said all that I am hopeful that Disney has brought in the right people to make this film, so it should be fine. I slightly disagree with you. I don't think Disney or Pixtar make very "strong" stories. (This may partially be due to it's "Family Entertainment label) Their screen-plays seem to lack a poinant but realistic setting. (There's a reason none of their films have recieved an Oscar nomination in this catagory) But I do think their stories are honest and clever. Which is what gives the studio a trust for audiences that they can create films (whether based off a legendary story or new contemorary idea) that entertain an audience for a variety of ages. That being said, I don't believe audiences go for films with that element. From what I've seen in recent years regarding a box office smash, a few factors that apply may have nothing to do with the story at all. Many box office hits have excellent advertising stratagies. Comercially marketing your film gives a studio an edge. Actors from a popular caliber also give a film a better chance of being recognized. And showing off all your bells and whistles in advertisments (such as action sequences, best one liners, or any musical numbers) give the audience an even greater reason to have enthusasim. If it truly were about the story of a film, then I think a great deal of underrated films would be outshining today's biggest blockbusters. Plus, having a low-box office responce doesn't mean the film won't be as acclaimed or beloved. Many indie flicks which perform very poorly at the box office have some the most astounding screen-plays and performances. And I know of plenty blockbusters who failed miserably at pleasing audiences due to their lack of undevelopment and too much hype surrounding it. I really think the key for this film to perform successfully with audiences for both gross and opinion is to make the most honest film they can then promote it wisely. No one knows yet what competition it will go up against or what key componets the film will have to grab our attention. All i know is the studio has said they're "determined" to give audiences a change as well as a chance to re-embrace the fairy-tale/musical genre. I hope it will work out for the best, but we won't have any clue until winter next year. (That's the supposed release date) |
|
|
|
Post by Briar Rose's Dark Knight on Jan 23, 2008 21:44:42 GMT -5
I do not think a story needs a realistic setting to be strong as evidenced by Star Wars(Best Picture Nominee) and Lord of the Rings(Return of the King won Best Picture). On the simplest level, Disney and Pixar films are about fairy tale characters, talking toys, talking animals, regular superheroes, and so forth. When you look deeper though, there's an entirely different level of depth.
The classic Disney fairy tales are about being good and kind even when things go wrong. They are stories about perseverance and being good in a world wrought with and sometimes overcome by evil. They are ultimately about the triumph of good over evil. Beauty and the Beast is not an unrealistic story about a pretty girl falling in love. It's a story about a selfish monster learning to be a man through becoming selfless. It's about a girl who always wanted to be loved for who she was inside having to see inside of a monstrous exterior and find some good there.
Toy Story is not about talking toys having an adventure, but a story about friendship and learning to trust someone else. Finding Nemo is not about fish in the ocean, but about a father looking for his lost son. The Incredibles is not about superheroes, but rather a father having a midlife crisis and learning that the most important thing he has in the world is not his superpowers, but his family.
The brilliance of Enchanted lies not in it's catchy music and brilliant performances(although those elements help). The strength of the film lies in it's message about seeing that love really is the strongest force in the universe. The key to the entire film is how Giselle changes so many lives simply by being who she is. She doesn't care that some people don't believe in love anymore. She still does, and she will never give up in that belief.
For this Frog film to be a success, it must, like Enchanted, remind people of Disney's strength. To that end it doesn't matter who they cast or who does the music as long as it is done right and done well. Indeed Amy Adams was a relative unknown when she was cast in Enchanted, but she was clearly brilliant for the part.
Disney cannot make this movie succeed because they've made some great films in the past. It won't happen. If they think that people will love it because it's 2-D and that's all it needs, we're in trouble. But if they look at the common strengths their beloved classics share and look to make them a part of this film, it will be fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Silver on Jan 28, 2008 20:44:13 GMT -5
First I should point out, I respect your opinion. (I think I came across as a bit disresectful in the last post, which was not my intension.) And I apologize if I did. We just have different visions and ideas on what "good" films are. Which is perfectly fine. But I do feel I should clarify my position a little more clearly.
In the case of my point on film needing a "realistic setting" I meant to say a story having a realistic perspective. A fantasy genre can have this! In reality "Good Doesn't Always Triumph Over Evil". Sadly for many audiences in general this has become a cliche all too familar in the Disney franchise. (I should point out I am not one of those audience members) I have a passion for Disney because of their honest & clever stories. They're entertaining and meaningful in their own small way. But this is from my critical standpoint. (Probably due to my college class) Disney films use this concept as well as "Happily Ever After" on a regular basis. It becomes very tiring and corny to a certain extent. A good film is one that shows heros are not always sucessful in their quest and a villian has come through in their mission. (May I suggest seeing Atonement or No Country For Old Men) Those films had a powerful story because they show the dark sides in the human depth. It maybe depressing and frightning but it happens in life. (Disney might not be able to show this theme, but there's no question they're stories become sugar-coated in a sense) But like I said, I don't care from my fan perspective. That's why I enjoy them. However, in the case of a good screen-play, you need to take risks away from "Happy Endings" and "Evil Not Making It Through". Also another circumstance is having grey areas. Where it's not even about hero vs. villian. It could be about a variety of characters having done several sins as well as performing good deeds. (The TV show the Shield is a perfect example)
Good stories also leave the audience to the imagination in the character's motives. (The Phantom of the Opera is a classic because of this reason) You never quite figure out who was at fault and who Christine really loved. But it keeps you guessing long after you've finished the story. Disney is very direct in their approach on who a character is. And some have said it even seems preachy. (But that's arguable on all levels) But Disney is doesn't offer nearly as much substance or layers in their filmmaking. While it is true on what you said in describing the deeper meaning on each Disney film you've mentioned above. BatB & Toy Story are by no means shallow or mere fluff. However the stroies still fall under the typical cliche of the Disney Company. It still ends the same way like most of their other films do and the middle ground of these films have been done all too often.
I should also point out I go to films in general for the story first and formost. And I do look for the deeper meaning in any film. I love reading between the lines. That's one of the reasons I adored "Enchanted"! But many other audience members didn't go to see the film because of what story was saying in regards of love. (Not all audience members of course) They went to see it because it was a wholesome family-film that looked to have up-tempo but clean musical numbers, witty humor, and a unique setting for fairy-tale characters. (But you also are correct that a film doesn't need big names to make a film work) Sometimes it just garners more attention.
Basically what this all comes down to is that Disney doesn't need a "Strong" story for "The Princess and Frog" to to be successful. Because Disney doesn't make those screen-plays, some people such as myself are forgiving and can enjoy it for what it is. But it also means the Disney Company has to have restrictions from creating truly intimate and ingenius stories. (Hence the very few Oscar screen-play nominations) But it can get by because it's main priority is "Family Entertainment". And you're right that Disney can't rely on past success in order to move forward. This film has to stand on it's own. But I still believe the only way it can do so is be sincere with the plot as well as find a balence in entertaing quirks. (TLK was sublime in this area) Then it's promotion will hopefully give the attention it needs for auidences to have a reason for enthusiasm.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shenzi on Jan 28, 2008 22:14:48 GMT -5
Is there a release date for this film yet?
|
|
|
|
Post by Briar Rose's Dark Knight on Jan 28, 2008 23:56:17 GMT -5
The rumored release date is sometime in 2009.
And Silver, I did not find your points disprespectful. In fact you make very strong arguments. In the end I think we define "strong story" differently. For me at least, there are enough reminders of everything that's wrong in the world that I want to see a film where most everybody has a happy ending, which doesn't mean there's no place for the more realistic films. I believe that Saving Private Ryan is one of the best films ever made. So for me, the realism has a place, and the Disney entertaining escapism has a place.
Too many times in recent years I feel that the Disney company has followed the philosophy of "if we put the Disney name on a poor film, people will see it anyways because it bears the Disney name." Just look at all the cheapquels and even some of the recent animated features. So, when I say that Frog must have a strong story, I mean that it must have a classic "Disney" story.
In order for this movie to be a box office hit, it must be a good movie. It must be something that audiences want to see and then go tell their friends to see. Simply put, for Frog to do well, it must be more like The Little Mermaid than Atlantis(a movie that at least in my mind had so much promise, but just fell flat).
|
|
|
|
Post by Shenzi on Jan 29, 2008 0:00:47 GMT -5
2009! You have got to be kidding! Why do they always make us wait for the good looking ones  |
|
|
|
Post by Briar Rose's Dark Knight on Jan 29, 2008 0:22:56 GMT -5
Let's just hope that good things come to those who wait. Assuming it's a 2009 release, that's not too bad. Sleeping Beauty took 6 years to make. Beauty and the Beast took 4 years to make, so 3 (announced in 06) isn't too bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shenzi on Jan 29, 2008 0:35:47 GMT -5
Yeah thats true and for this wait it had better be good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Silver on Jan 29, 2008 1:02:46 GMT -5
I'm with you Shenzi. ^^ I really hope our patience for a well made film will not be left out in the rain.
Briar Rose's Prince- While we may have different takes on what films have us raving, I can still understand your point of view. Sometimes we need an escape from the cruel, corrupt and savage world we live in. But I don't believe we should leave out those issues as you said earlier. Which is why I balence my taste in a variety of film genres. But you make an excellent point on how some Disney films have better writing all around then others. To me it's no contest to see that The Lion King has far better editing and much more thought-provoking questions then say The Emperor's New Groove. (Although I will still give some of those films in the dark period credit for thier effort) But according to the creator's of The Princess and the Frog, they are striving to stay away from that hole which could bury themselves deeper. I just hope everything works out in the end. I have high hopes for this film and where it could go.
By the way Briar Rose's Prince. You make incredible disscussions which really have me think right into my core. I always enjoy disscussing my nions with yours.
|
|
