The Next Disney Animated Feature: The Princess and the Frog- What is Your Opinion?

[ToonGirl]

So, there is a new feature film.... that will be hand animated! (is that the term?)

The Princess and the Frog will be coming in 2009, if I am not mistaken. Not to mention, it will showcase the first African American Disney Princess, Princess Tiana.

However, the original name for Tiana was actually Maddy, and her original role was that of a chambermaid. People took this as a racist (but accurate; the film takes place before the Civil Rights Movement) message, and Disney acted fast.

IMO, I find this a bit silly. For one, several other stories began with the girl being poor and whatnot, and ending up becoming a Princess. How is this any different? Is it because she has darker skin?

Secondly, this IS the 21st century. Things HAVE changed. People are different from back then, in several ways. People just need go on with their own lives.

What do you think?

[Dr.Pepper]

I think that it is ridiculous that people got mad about her being a maid. It isn't like she was a slave or anything. Also I don't get why they thought Maddy was a bad name. Tiana sounds kind of trashy to me.

[creativerealms]

It's a new Disney 2-D animated Musical. That alone is reason enough for me to want to see it. The changes Disney made to "please people" are dumb though.

[Silverstar]

Well, I actually like the name Tiana myself (it sounds pretty and exotic, and apparently the name Maddy sounded too close to "Mammy" phonetically), but speaking as a multi-ethnic person (I'm a third African-American, a third native American and a third Gypsy), I have to say that while I am an advocate against offensive ethnic stereotypes, there are instances where the quest for Political Correctness goes too far.

My big fear upon first hearing about The Princess and the Frog was that the protestors' desire to keep things "acceptable" would dwarf and ultimately squash the movie itself, and that the struggle to make the film as inoffensive to African-Americans as possible would be seen as too much of a chore and dissuade other studios from showcasing people of color as the protagonists in future animated films.

I'm all for keeping things inoffensive, but I really didn't see the changes made to the movie as being all that necessary. For one, many complained about Maddy/Tiana working as a maid. I'm partly black and I see no problem with that...provided that one keeps in mind when the movie takes place. Many black women at that time did work as domestics for white people. (My own paternal great-grandmother was a maid, in fact.) It's not a part of American history that I'm especially proud of, nor is it anything I'd like to see repeated, but it happened. It's silly to try and pretend that such practices never occurred. Besides, as was previously mentioned, many Disney princesses start out in humble, undesirable situations before blossoming; why should Tiana's ordeal be any different?

There was also some consternation about the villain of the movie practicing voodoo. Again, what did we expect? The movie takes place in New Orleans. Cajun country. Voodoo is practiced there. What did these censor commandoes want the villain to be? A plumber?

I can understand people getting upset over something that's really offensive, but I didn't and still don't see anything offensive with The Princess and the Frog, aside from the ridiculous title change: the story is called The Frog Prince, darn it!

[Ed Liu]

Originally Posted by ToonGirl

IMO, I find this a bit silly. For one, several other stories began with the girl being poor and whatnot, and ending up becoming a Princess. How is this any different? Is it because she has darker skin?

No, it's because she's black in the American South and in what seems to be an era barely a generation removed from slavery. This is context that Cinderella and Snow White just don't have to deal with. It's also worth pointing out that Tiana is not a chambermaid, but nobody's said anything about how she starts out the movie, either.

Yeah, it's probably over-sensitive and Disney could have probably pulled that plot element off if they tried hard enough, but then this becomes the story all the way to release date. Now, of course, they have to deal with the accusations that they're "too sensitive" all the way to release date, but I think they'd rather have one over the other. Tiana's the first black Princess, so they don't win either way, but I think it's a worse move to cheese off potential black audience members with perceived insensitivity than to cheese off anyone else with perceived over-sensitivity. One of these will lead to a boycott, justified or not. It might make it more palatable if you think of this as a business decision.

My understanding is that Maddy was too close to "Mammy," which is another one of those words that looks innocuous but has accumulated enough baggage that it can get people hot and bothered. Again, probably too sensitive to change it after it was originally announced, and again, the business calculus makes this a pretty easy decision for exactly the same reasons. It's not like the Princess in the original story had a name anyway, so who cares if it was changed for whatever reason?

Originally Posted by Silverstar

There was also some consternation about the villain of the movie practicing voodoo. Again, what did we expect? The movie takes place in New Orleans. Cajun country. Voodoo is practiced there. What did these censor commandoes want the villain to be? A plumber?

My understanding is that he still is a voodoo practitioner, although that may have been adjusted a bit to make him come off as a bit more of a con-man or charlatan. Don't know for sure, though -- nobody's said much of anything confirmable or publicly about the villain that I've seen.

-- Ed

[Pomegranate]

Eh, this movie just isn't my cup of tea, because I think this may be strictly aimed towards very young girls, as it probably centers around a princess and her love interest, and is probably a feature-length ad for the Princesses merchandising line Disney is currently pimping out. I just want Disney's main animation studio to churn out something with more broader/all-demos appeal again, something along the lines of the pre-60s classic cartoons, Pixar and DreamWorks Animation movies.

[Neal]

Um, this film is being done by Disney's main animation studio. It's their next classic. In the same film line that includes Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin. It's not like that Disney Princess Enchanted Tales: Follow Your Dreams film which was outsourced and made to promote the updated princess line.

[I.R Joey]

Seeing it on principle.

Long live Disney traditional animation.

[Pomegranate]

Originally Posted by Neal

Um, this film is being done by Disney's main animation studio. It's their next classic. In the same film line that includes Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin. It's not like that Disney Princess Enchanted Tales: Follow Your Dreams film which was outsourced and made to promote the updated princess line.

Sorry, but I'd like to see more original animated concepts with more broader/all-ages appeal from Disney's main animation studio. That's why I'm preferring the animated offerings from Pixar, DreamWorks, Blue Sky and other animation studios to whatever Disney's main animation studio seem to be churning out nowadays.

[AdamYJ]

I'll give it a shot. What's to lose, right?

Though, if Disney's going to start in on fairy tales again, I wish they wouldn't always do things so "Princess-y". I mean, there are fairy tales with male leads. How about a new adaptation of "The Brave Little Tailor", or something more obscure like "The Six Who Went Far in the World" or "The Boy who Went to Find What Fear is". Disney could make it work. Last I checked, they're usually the ones who bring fairy tales into the mainstream, rather than mainstream tales coming to them.

Oh, well.

[creativerealms]

This is the first animated movie of it's kind (The princess thing) Disney has done in a while, maybe ten years or so. You seem to be jumping to conclusions. Their last few hand drawn animated movies were risks to try to move away from that whole deal and most of them failed badly. Of course they want to play it safe this time around. It has been five years (Home on the range was 2004 right?) since a Disney 2D animated movie and this time Disney wants to show that they can go back to their roots and be as good as they ever were.

[DarthGonzo]

The movie won't be out for quite a while. I wont form an opinion until I actually see it.

[Silverstar]

Originally Posted by AdamYJ

I'll give it a shot. What's to lose, right?

Though, if Disney's going to start in on fairy tales again, I wish they wouldn't always do things so "Princess-y". I mean, there are fairy tales with male leads. How about a new adaptation of "The Brave Little Tailor", or something more obscure like "The Six Who Went Far in the World" or "The Boy who Went to Find What Fear is". Disney could make it work. Last I checked, they're usually the ones who bring fairy tales into the mainstream, rather than mainstream tales coming to them.

Oh, well.

Those are good suggestions, but there actually have been some Disney animated storybook features with male protagonists: The Sword in the Stone, Aladdin, Hercules, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Treasure Planet. Heck, Sleeping Beauty was really more about the Prince than it was about Princess Aurora/Briar Rose, who spent a third of the movie asleep.

[Neal]

Yeah, Disney's last "broadway-style music, fairy tale film" was 1991's Beauty and the Beast. Then we had Aladdin the following year. Its last 'princess film' could technically be Mulan, but that was 11 years ago! Disney's been trying out many different styles and genres since the early 2000s. First with its hip comedy The Emperor's New Groove. Then it tried to do something more masculine after years of princess films with Atlantis: The Lost Empire and Treasure Planet. It gave us two films for the whole family to enjoy with Lilo and Stitch and Brother Bear. Then, with Home on the Range it delivered truly old-fashioned cartoon fun ala the early days of Saturday morning cartoons. Meet the Robinsons was quirky and random while BOLT was endearing and funny for whole families- not unlike Pixar's earlier films (Finding Nemo or Toy Story).

Disney has remained one of the most diverse companies out there for animation.

I won't disagree with you that Pixar is trying to be different lately. WALL-E with its reliance on physical comedy over dialogue, or the fact their next film stars a 78-year-old man.

But DreamWorks? Their films are as formulaic as the day is long. They just keep repeating the same by-the-numbers system with each subsequent film they release. And let's not forget how they started - first by blatantly copying Disney/Pixar (Antz following A Bug's Life, Shark Tale following Finding Nemo) then piggybacking on a more creative company's success (Chicken Run).

I will never come to respect DreamWorks.

Anyways, I think after 18 years since Disney had a true fairy tale musical and possibly at least 11 years since they featured a princess-y character, it's not too soon to make another princess film. Pixar themselves are making a princess film, currently.

And in 2012, Disney's going back to the masculine vein with King of the Elves a film about a man who saves and elf clan and becomes their king.

Pixar = Experimental
Disney = Diverse
DreamWorks =

[Baltofan]

I can't wait!

[AdamYJ]

Originally Posted by Silverstar

Those are good suggestions, but there actually have been some Disney animated storybook features with male protagonists: The Sword in the Stone, Aladdin, Hercules, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Treasure Planet. Heck, Sleeping Beauty was really more about the Prince than it was about Princess Aurora/Briar Rose, who spent a third of the movie asleep.

I never said there weren't Disney animated features with male protagonists. I was specifically talking about the ones based on fairy tales, or more specifically, folk tales. I know that to some people there isn't a big difference, but there is to me. Most of the ones with male protagonists are based on children's literature, or in some cases, adult literature (The Hunchback of Notre Dame, for example). Occasionally, that isn't the case, but it usually is. The most notable European folk tales with male protagonists that Disney adapted were Mickey Mouse vehicles. "Mickey and the Bean-Stalk" and "The Brave Little Tailor". As a folklore buff and amateur storyteller, one of the things I'd like to see is for more people to be exposed to the breadth of traditional folklore that both Europe and the world have to offer.

You know, there are more than 200 stories collected in The Complete Grimm's Fairy Tales and only about a dozen of them are known by name to the average person. And those are just the tales from Germany, mind you. Think about it.

[TheVileOne]

People should be celebrating the movie is using an African American female to be the next Disney princess.

I can't wait for this. It'll be nice to see a disney musicle again. Also about the censores...wow, just wow.

[AlgeaX]

Originally Posted by TheVileOne

People should be celebrating the movie is using an African American female to be the next Disney princess.

It's actually kind of weird that it's taken this long, seeing as how they've already had Arabs, Asians and gypsies.

[Master-Dee]

Well I think it's just ridiculous. Having a African American woman after all of this time, Disney should be ashamed of themselves. And besides this is the 21st Century. We already know the ways of our morals.

But it is about time that we have an African American woman in the picture of Disney.

I just don't get it, after all of this time. Why they choose now to have an African American women?