When disney decided to give traditional animación another shot, it was somewhat logical that they would try to start this “new era” with a disney Princess movie. After all, each glorious era started with one. “Snow White”, “Cinderella” and “The Little Mermaid” were small masterpieces. But the “Princess and the Frog” proved to be problematic from the very beginning.
I was not happy when I heard that the siguiente princess would be black. Not because I didn’t want a black princess, but because I feared that she was created for all the wrong reasons. If they had chosen an African legend as fuente I had rejoiced. If I had believed that the creators had thought along the lines of “Frogs – Swamp – New Orleans – Black Princess” I would have dicho “Go for it”. But I was early on under the impression that the black princess and not the fuente text were the start of their creative efforts. The creators deny it, so I might be wrong, nevertheless, it made me weary.
But that’s not what put me off the movie before it even hit the theaters. What really got to me was the complaining beforehand – o más the fact that disney actually caved in and made changes in the movie because of those complains. I could make a long lista of them, but I don’t bother because I don’t think that any of them are valid. They couldn’t be, because tu can’t judge a movie before tu have actually seen it. One element makes nothing racist (or sexist, for that matter), tu always have to see the whole picture (literally) before tu are equipped to judge.
The biggest problem I see with “The Princess and the Frog” is that they tried too hard to please all the complainers. tu want a black princess? tu get a black princess! tu think that the princesses are not feminist enough? We make the most feminist ever! tu think our message is bad for the children? We have a new, modern message.
But the thing is: the complainers are not the main audience. People who like disney cine are rarely all about working hard and living in reality like Tiana, they are más like Lottie. Not in the sense that they are dizzy and waiting for their prince, but they want to believe in a world in which wishing to a estrella makes a difference and in which true amor exists. o at least, dream of a world like that occasionally. And they certainly don’t want to get told por a disney heroine of all things that they should take a reality check. It also doesn’t help that after years of saying that every girl can be a princess, Tiana has to become a “real” princess to break the curse.
It’s easy to admire Tiana for her determination, but it’s difficult to like her. And Naveen at the beginning of the movie is just a nightmare. There is nothing charming about a lazy womanizer who intends to marry for money (and then cheat on his wife). They’re both changed at the end of the movie, but first impressions tend to stick. Naturally tu can also argue that imperfection is a good thing in characters (I don’t disagree there), and that they are más realistic and interesting than the other pairs (I’m not so sure about that). Personally I was never a big friend of the idea that personalities which initially clash which each other make good couples. I’m not totally opposed to it (opposites attract after all), but it has to be sold believable, and I don’t think that the movie manages it.
I mentioned before that one of the failings of “Snow White” is that there are so many filler scenes, which are funny, but serve no purpose at all. “The Princess and the Frog” has the same problem. Louis sending Tiana and Naveen in the wrong direction – filler. The frog hunters – filler. On parte superior, arriba of it there are so many storylines that all of them suffer and feel somewhat incomplete. The ending of the movie is symptomatic for that. Following the defeat of Facilier, they need roughly ten minutos to envolver, abrigo up all the loose ends. That’s just too long.
Which is too bad, because between all those wacky characters, who turn up for a brief stint, there is a lot of interesting symbolism in this movie. Facilier tends to give people what they want, but not what they need (Lawrence wants power and admiration, but what he really needs is a little bit respect), Mama Odie does exactly the opposite. Facilier is the shadow, Mama Odie is the light.
This movie gives the feel of a concept on which details got added and added and added, with nobody there who would do a proper editar and making sure that the story stays on track. There is at least one character too much in it (either Louis o Ray), too much time spend on Tiana and Naveen sniping at each other (roughly two thirds of the movie) compared to the time spend on the romance (one third, but only if one counts from the first words which aren’t part of an argument between them), too much comic relief – just too much of everything. Similar to Pocahontas, this is a movie which I like más for the animación and for what it could have been than for what is actually there.
Nevertheless, I’m glad that the movie was successful enough to lift the CGI-only restriction on the animación Studios. There are people who say they shouldn’t dabble into CGI at all, but I disagree there. I don’t think that they should give up traditional animations – that’s after all what made the studio big, and that’s what they do the best. But they should decide which kind of animación they use based on the kind of story they want to tell.
“Tangled” would have never worked with traditional animation. A believable movement for all this hair would be impossible. Even for CGI this wasn’t a small feat. I have read a couple of reviews in which people complained that the animación was nothing special. Well, they didn’t look hard enough. The flying lanterns? Kids stuff, other movie already had something similar.
But hair and water are the two things which are the most difficult to do in CGI, and the animators of “Tangled” not only did both (they really don’t get enough credit for the scene with the breaking dam), they did it perfectly. The hair of Rapunzel (and Flynn and Gothel for that matter) moves very believable. If it were done badly, everybody would notice, but it’s done so good, that it’s easily to overlook, and that’s the real mastership in animation. Not the things which look flashy, but those things which look natural.
“Tangled” is one of those rare cases in which countless problems during development didn’t end with a movie mess. And I really appreciate the spirit behind this particular project. It takes guts to plan a project, knowing that necessary software isn’t even invented yet. That’s the kind of adelante, hacia adelante thinking the animación Studios need to prevail. And that’s what brings the audience into the theater, not a misleading marketing campaign.
Although nobody would deny the technical quality of “Tangled”, there has been a lot of critic that the movie is too much like its predecessors. On the one hand that’s true. It’s impossible to see Rapunzel and Eugene in the barco and not being reminded o Ariel and Eric o to see Eugene die and survive without comparing the scene to the Beast’s death and transformation. But the movie I think “Tangled” is the most similar to is “Mulan”.
This seems to be an odd choice, if tu only pay attention to the visuals. But if tu pay attention to the dialogue, not so much. Both cine have scenes which are más deep and thoughtful than what tu normally expect from this kind of disney movie. Not that there isn’t any deepness in the other ones, but they convey their message más over the visuals and the música than over the dialogue. If I had to choose my favorito! disney Princess quotes, most of them would be from those two movies.
I mentioned before that “Mulan” is más about asking preguntas than giving an ultimate truth. The same is true for “Tangled”. Is Rapunzel’s power a curse o a gift? At which point does amor turn into abuse? How important are dreams in live? It’s also a movie about segundo chances, and I don’t just talk about Flynn and the thugs, o Rapunzel’s parents who get a segundo chance with her daughter. The world got a gift in form of the flower, but because Mother Gothel didn’t share it, it got destroyed. The world got a segundo chance in Rapunzel, but due to Mother Gothel’s greed it got destroyed again.
To me, “Tangled” is the culmination of everything which is good about disney Princess movies. It’s like the old concept of a disney Fairy Tale Movie has been brought to perfection in this one, and one of the few I watched a segundo time in the theaters, just because it was so good. And I’m wondering how I’ll see this movie in ten years, but I think, it will hold up just fine. Who knows, perhaps it (or “Princess and the Frog”) will be hailed as the movie which started another Golden Age for Disney.
And that concludes my travel through the ages and my memories. There is a lot left to say about the movies, the princesses and the princes, but I’ll do so in other articulo series. siguiente up will be the “Sound check”, and series o artículos in which I’ll take a good look on the musical aspect. If tu haven’t answered the picks I created in the last weeks yes, please do so, I’m very interested in your opinion and your comments. Voting for all of them will end at the 18.11, and I hope I will have the first articulo up the very same weekend.
I was not happy when I heard that the siguiente princess would be black. Not because I didn’t want a black princess, but because I feared that she was created for all the wrong reasons. If they had chosen an African legend as fuente I had rejoiced. If I had believed that the creators had thought along the lines of “Frogs – Swamp – New Orleans – Black Princess” I would have dicho “Go for it”. But I was early on under the impression that the black princess and not the fuente text were the start of their creative efforts. The creators deny it, so I might be wrong, nevertheless, it made me weary.
But that’s not what put me off the movie before it even hit the theaters. What really got to me was the complaining beforehand – o más the fact that disney actually caved in and made changes in the movie because of those complains. I could make a long lista of them, but I don’t bother because I don’t think that any of them are valid. They couldn’t be, because tu can’t judge a movie before tu have actually seen it. One element makes nothing racist (or sexist, for that matter), tu always have to see the whole picture (literally) before tu are equipped to judge.
The biggest problem I see with “The Princess and the Frog” is that they tried too hard to please all the complainers. tu want a black princess? tu get a black princess! tu think that the princesses are not feminist enough? We make the most feminist ever! tu think our message is bad for the children? We have a new, modern message.
But the thing is: the complainers are not the main audience. People who like disney cine are rarely all about working hard and living in reality like Tiana, they are más like Lottie. Not in the sense that they are dizzy and waiting for their prince, but they want to believe in a world in which wishing to a estrella makes a difference and in which true amor exists. o at least, dream of a world like that occasionally. And they certainly don’t want to get told por a disney heroine of all things that they should take a reality check. It also doesn’t help that after years of saying that every girl can be a princess, Tiana has to become a “real” princess to break the curse.
It’s easy to admire Tiana for her determination, but it’s difficult to like her. And Naveen at the beginning of the movie is just a nightmare. There is nothing charming about a lazy womanizer who intends to marry for money (and then cheat on his wife). They’re both changed at the end of the movie, but first impressions tend to stick. Naturally tu can also argue that imperfection is a good thing in characters (I don’t disagree there), and that they are más realistic and interesting than the other pairs (I’m not so sure about that). Personally I was never a big friend of the idea that personalities which initially clash which each other make good couples. I’m not totally opposed to it (opposites attract after all), but it has to be sold believable, and I don’t think that the movie manages it.
I mentioned before that one of the failings of “Snow White” is that there are so many filler scenes, which are funny, but serve no purpose at all. “The Princess and the Frog” has the same problem. Louis sending Tiana and Naveen in the wrong direction – filler. The frog hunters – filler. On parte superior, arriba of it there are so many storylines that all of them suffer and feel somewhat incomplete. The ending of the movie is symptomatic for that. Following the defeat of Facilier, they need roughly ten minutos to envolver, abrigo up all the loose ends. That’s just too long.
Which is too bad, because between all those wacky characters, who turn up for a brief stint, there is a lot of interesting symbolism in this movie. Facilier tends to give people what they want, but not what they need (Lawrence wants power and admiration, but what he really needs is a little bit respect), Mama Odie does exactly the opposite. Facilier is the shadow, Mama Odie is the light.
This movie gives the feel of a concept on which details got added and added and added, with nobody there who would do a proper editar and making sure that the story stays on track. There is at least one character too much in it (either Louis o Ray), too much time spend on Tiana and Naveen sniping at each other (roughly two thirds of the movie) compared to the time spend on the romance (one third, but only if one counts from the first words which aren’t part of an argument between them), too much comic relief – just too much of everything. Similar to Pocahontas, this is a movie which I like más for the animación and for what it could have been than for what is actually there.
Nevertheless, I’m glad that the movie was successful enough to lift the CGI-only restriction on the animación Studios. There are people who say they shouldn’t dabble into CGI at all, but I disagree there. I don’t think that they should give up traditional animations – that’s after all what made the studio big, and that’s what they do the best. But they should decide which kind of animación they use based on the kind of story they want to tell.
“Tangled” would have never worked with traditional animation. A believable movement for all this hair would be impossible. Even for CGI this wasn’t a small feat. I have read a couple of reviews in which people complained that the animación was nothing special. Well, they didn’t look hard enough. The flying lanterns? Kids stuff, other movie already had something similar.
But hair and water are the two things which are the most difficult to do in CGI, and the animators of “Tangled” not only did both (they really don’t get enough credit for the scene with the breaking dam), they did it perfectly. The hair of Rapunzel (and Flynn and Gothel for that matter) moves very believable. If it were done badly, everybody would notice, but it’s done so good, that it’s easily to overlook, and that’s the real mastership in animation. Not the things which look flashy, but those things which look natural.
“Tangled” is one of those rare cases in which countless problems during development didn’t end with a movie mess. And I really appreciate the spirit behind this particular project. It takes guts to plan a project, knowing that necessary software isn’t even invented yet. That’s the kind of adelante, hacia adelante thinking the animación Studios need to prevail. And that’s what brings the audience into the theater, not a misleading marketing campaign.
Although nobody would deny the technical quality of “Tangled”, there has been a lot of critic that the movie is too much like its predecessors. On the one hand that’s true. It’s impossible to see Rapunzel and Eugene in the barco and not being reminded o Ariel and Eric o to see Eugene die and survive without comparing the scene to the Beast’s death and transformation. But the movie I think “Tangled” is the most similar to is “Mulan”.
This seems to be an odd choice, if tu only pay attention to the visuals. But if tu pay attention to the dialogue, not so much. Both cine have scenes which are más deep and thoughtful than what tu normally expect from this kind of disney movie. Not that there isn’t any deepness in the other ones, but they convey their message más over the visuals and the música than over the dialogue. If I had to choose my favorito! disney Princess quotes, most of them would be from those two movies.
I mentioned before that “Mulan” is más about asking preguntas than giving an ultimate truth. The same is true for “Tangled”. Is Rapunzel’s power a curse o a gift? At which point does amor turn into abuse? How important are dreams in live? It’s also a movie about segundo chances, and I don’t just talk about Flynn and the thugs, o Rapunzel’s parents who get a segundo chance with her daughter. The world got a gift in form of the flower, but because Mother Gothel didn’t share it, it got destroyed. The world got a segundo chance in Rapunzel, but due to Mother Gothel’s greed it got destroyed again.
To me, “Tangled” is the culmination of everything which is good about disney Princess movies. It’s like the old concept of a disney Fairy Tale Movie has been brought to perfection in this one, and one of the few I watched a segundo time in the theaters, just because it was so good. And I’m wondering how I’ll see this movie in ten years, but I think, it will hold up just fine. Who knows, perhaps it (or “Princess and the Frog”) will be hailed as the movie which started another Golden Age for Disney.
And that concludes my travel through the ages and my memories. There is a lot left to say about the movies, the princesses and the princes, but I’ll do so in other articulo series. siguiente up will be the “Sound check”, and series o artículos in which I’ll take a good look on the musical aspect. If tu haven’t answered the picks I created in the last weeks yes, please do so, I’m very interested in your opinion and your comments. Voting for all of them will end at the 18.11, and I hope I will have the first articulo up the very same weekend.
