bunnymegz
Disney Newbie
I love WDW and Disneyland
Posts: 40
|
Post by bunnymegz on Sept 28, 2007 3:37:14 GMT -5
I love Sleeping Beauty:) I haven't seen it in a while. Will have to watch agian soon
|
|
|
Post by Donald Duck on Sept 28, 2007 4:33:32 GMT -5
I hope you do, because I hadn't watched it in awhile, and when I did, I loved it!
|
|
|
Post by Butterscotch on Oct 3, 2007 9:17:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by LauraHonest on Oct 3, 2007 10:10:30 GMT -5
that was great Butters! although i am glad they didn't go that direction!
|
|
|
Post by peterpanfan on Oct 7, 2007 12:50:24 GMT -5
I.love.Sleeping.Beauty! Even though it's a LITTLE slow at times,it's still FANTASTIC! I'm so sad I don't have the 2 Disc Special Edition. But luckily,they're releasing it as a Platinum Edition next fall! WOOT! Cover art is here:
|
|
|
Post by Briar Rose's Dark Knight on Oct 7, 2007 23:14:31 GMT -5
I would be satisifed if they went with that cover because they corrected a major mistakes from the 2003 release. They've changed the dress to it's proper blue for that scene. I don't care if someone randomly decided that they can sell more stuff with pink, Disney really should strive for accuracy in things like this. Now, I just hope they put some extra stuff on the DVD that they didn't for the 2003 release.
|
|
|
Post by Briar Rose's Dark Knight on Mar 18, 2008 20:47:56 GMT -5
Recently I've been doing a little bit of research into the story Sleeping Beauty, and I've come across something very interesting.
Walt Disney's version of the story takes clear reference from 3 sources. Charles Perrault's The Sleeping Beauty in the Wood, The Brothers Grimm Little Briar Rose, and Tchaikovksy's ballet The Sleeping Beauty. All versions have the curse, the spinning wheel and the fairy lessening the curse. The Brothers Grimm supplies the name Briar Rose, and ends with the happily ever after whereas Perrault's version of the story has the mother of the prince being an ogress who eats children until she falls off a ledge and dies.
The Tchaikovsky version is the first to name the title character Aurora, and supplied the music in the film. All versions have the dark fairy(The Lilac Fairy) in Tchaikovsky's ballet who casts the fearful curse. However, the curse is where it gets interesting. In all three versions, the curse will only last 100 years, at which point the prince will come to awaken the princess (and the sleeping castle). Disney's version marks a significant departure from this formula. In his version, the period of sleep is indefinite and can only be broken by true love's kiss, not some random stranger showing up on account of the legends of a beautiful girl sleeping in the castle.
In the other three versions, after 100 years, the prince shows up at the castle, finds the briars and thorns part to let him through, and heads into the bedroom to kiss the princess. What's missing? The dragon!!! As far as I can tell Walt Disney's version of Sleeping Beauty is the first (and perhaps only version) to keep the princess in danger even after she's fallen asleep. The Lilac Fairy does not show up after the princess pricks her finger in the other 3 versions.
|
|
|
Post by Butterscotch on Mar 19, 2008 5:08:30 GMT -5
That is one of the things I really do like about the Disney version. It always seemed to me that in the 100 years versions, it was just some random dude who came along and happened to find her.
|
|
|
Post by Briar Rose's Dark Knight on May 5, 2008 23:02:59 GMT -5
I think this is another case of where one change by Disney really altered the impact of the story. I think the story has more meaning when the prince who will awaken the girl actually has some meaning to the girl. When she awakens, she smiles because she knows who it that has awakened her.
Furthermore, the triumph of good over evil carries more meaning because there actually had to be a confrontation between good and evil. With Phillip having to fight for Aurora, that adds more drama and tension to the finale. We care because Phillip isn't doing this for some random beautiful sleeping girl that he's heard stories about, but is instead doing it for the girl of his dreams.
What's interesting to me is Orson Scott Card's Enchantment. It's a fantasy spin on the Sleeping Beauty story with elements from the 3 versions that inspired Disney, with a touch of Disney's version thrown in(Walt Disney even gets a mention in the story itself).
|
|
|
Post by Silver on May 16, 2008 22:10:00 GMT -5
The comments I'm about to make may seem a bit out of the ordinary, but they're still on topic. I noticed earlier on another thread someone had mentioned that the role of Aurora is meant to played and sung by an "opera" singer. I hope I don't come across as rude or snotty when I say this, because my intension to correct this misleading information. (And being a fan of opera I feel the urge to speak up)
Granted that yes Mary Costa was an opera singer in her later years after "Sleeping Beauty" was released. In fact she's considered one of the "Most beauitiful and enticing Light Lyric Sopranos to Ever Grace the Opera Stage". And she is one of my favs among several past and present opera sopraons! However in the vocal range that was required for Aurora, it is not operatic! During the recording of this film Mary gave the performance of a "classical soubrette mezzo-soprano". This is a singer who has soft but strong vocal without any vibratto or upper register timbre. (Which is what is used in opera)
I can understand though how this can become confusing for those who are not as familar with opera and can misread classical music as such. During Aurora's vocalizations in the forrest sequences, it can appear to come across as opera. But it is in fact not! Her belt is too soft & easy, there is no vibratto, and her timbre is too gentle. And during her performances of "I Wonder" and "Once Upon a Dream" it is even more evident this has no association of an operatic tone. She sings with conviction of a mezzo-soprano in musical theater combined with a soubrette of classical backround. Once again, there are no signs of an operatic pitch, range, or control. If you go to "Youtube" and type in the search bar "Mary Costa- The Jewel Song" and click on the video, you will hear the major difference in the song genres of what she can perform. From that in comparison to what she performed in "Sleeping Beauty". (I'm sorry I can't give a direct link, but my computer is being stubburn to put iy bluntly)
I apologize in advance if this came across as a "Snobby Know-It-All" remark. That truly wasn't my intension at all! But I did feel the need to correct this information, and hopefully maybe others will gain some knowledge from this.
|
|
|
Post by Briar Rose's Dark Knight on May 16, 2008 23:59:00 GMT -5
Well, I was the one who posted that and I don't think you were in the least bit snotty. I based my statement off what I knew of Mary Costa and a friend's comment that Sleeping Beauty's voice was more operatic than Broadway, which was what I was really trying to get at in that post. Therefore, I appreciate the information as my musical ability consists of knowing whether or not I like it. Now, I think I understand how you feel. As an amateur historian of the Disney's Sleeping Beauty, I tend to react in a similar way that you did when you saw inaccurate information, whether it be over the color of Aurora's eyes or her dress(they're both blue). As to what I was getting at in my inaccurate post regarding musical style. Since Sleeping Beauty's style is much more classical than Broadway, I believe very strongly that Disney should adhere to that style. In short, should they ever decide to adapt the story to Broadway, they had better retain the Bruns adaptation of Tchaikovsky's ballet. If they need more music, I feel they should get that music from the ballet to maintain the proper feel and tone of the music. In like fashion, I do not want to hear a Broadway Aurora sing in a similar style to Ariel or Belle. She must have the same style as Aurora, otherwise she's not Aurora. (And if you think I'm going off now, just ask me about some of the horrific stylized drawings they've done that they're attempting to pass off as Aurora, like the pin they made once that literally looked like Jane Jetson wearing a stylized version of Aurora's dress).
|
|
|
Post by Silver on May 17, 2008 1:04:04 GMT -5
I'm glad to see you can understand my position. And more so I applaud you for having the courage to admit you were mistaken. It's actually very common to misinterpret classical and certain pieces of musical theater as opera. And if it's any constalation, you're not the first and won't be the last to misread Mary Costa's performance in "Sleeping Beauty" as operatic! And indeed as you mentioned, because the entire production of "Sleeping Beauty" follows closer to classical musical theater, as opposed to most other Disney films (they're more show-tune and musical pop) people seem to assume it's opera. But this maybe due to lack of knowledge of opera really is. As for the Broadway interpretaion for the role of Aurora: (if it ever happened) she would need the range similar to what I mentioned earlier. (A soubrette mezzo-soprano who has a decent amount of training in classical and musical theater) Unlike the role of Ariel or Belle who fall closer to the catagory of second-soprano in musical theater pop/showtune. And I can understand your concern in this. But I feel more trustworthy of Disney Theatrical on choosing singers who not only have the appropriate diction, genre style and power, but the acting style and appearence for there characters. That is one aspect they have managed to achieve. P.S If you ever want to know any other information of the differences in musical styles, I'd be glad to help. And be more then willing to share any information. Music is a passion and joy to me, I have a fair amount of knowledge in it. I love it even more when I can help spread that joy and passion.
|
|
|
Post by Briar Rose's Dark Knight on May 17, 2008 2:15:50 GMT -5
I'm glad to see you can understand my position. And more so I applaud you for having the courage to admit you were mistaken. They could (and have filled) millions of libraries with the things I don't know. Now, as for a Broadway version of Sleeping Beauty, it's honestly an idea that I don't like, mostly because I think that turning it into a Broadway musical would require making too many changes to adapt it that would take away from the original story. There are only two songs that feature onscreen characters singing, and even then their songs are very brief, especially when compared to other Disney songs. They actually cut a song featuring the 3 Good Fairies during the dress making scene. While it's interesting to watch, cutting it worked much, much better for the film. Because of the nature of Sleeping Beauty, I just can't see any characters breaking forth into song. At least in my opinon, the thought of a song about or being sung by Maleficent is too comedic(yet it works just fine for Ursula in TLM or Scar in TLK). As I've said before, they would have to create a whole.lot of new songs to adapt Sleeping Beauty to Broadway, and I'm not sure it will work. Besides that, they have a lot of other stories that are better suited for Broadway.
|
|
|
Post by buzzlytmxrfan97386 on Jun 19, 2008 17:23:12 GMT -5
I remember when I was young, I used to Believe that these little fairies in Sleeping Beauty were watching over me, an if anything went wrong or I needed comfort from hard times they were there, although I never saw them there I still believed they were there, I still love this Move today as A young Adult (im A Big Kid at Heart,Spirit).
It was one of the Greatest in my eyes and im sure also many others, I was shock to find out it was not such A huge success for Walt Disney at the time in 1959, that's to bad for it, it really deserved more attention than it got in 1959, but it made up for it in Generations fans that would come Later in the 1980's-2000's to now.
Much Brotherly Love,understanding,peace Buzz Lightyear The Man And Xr Fan 97386
|
|
|
Post by Briar Rose's Dark Knight on Jun 19, 2008 19:23:47 GMT -5
The truth of the matter is that very few of Walt's releases were huge successes the first time out. Snow White, Cinderella, and 101 Dalmatians were the exception to the rule in that they were huge successes the first time out. What I find especially interesting is that Sleeping Beauty has since become one of the most successful films Disney ever made, going on to surpass some of the films that were more successful when first released. What it tells me is that Walt Disney was ahead of his time.
|
|