If I had to write an 기사 which one of those 영화 is better, I know what the result would be. I consider 라푼젤 the better movie because it has a cohesive story, better characters, better score, 더 많이 impressive 애니메이션 – it just beats The Princess and the Frog in every aspect. But why is there this constant need to compare those two 영화 in the first place? I have never seen anyone comparing any of the 디즈니 Princess 영화 with the one which came directly beforehand 또는 after, unless it was for pointing out the development in animation.
I guess the reason is simple: Because all true 애니메이션 팬 knew that the success of those 영화 would determine in which direction the studios would go in the future. We all wanted The Princess and the Frog to succeed, because we knew that if it didn’t, it might 봉인, 인감 the fate of traditional animation. And a lot of people were against 라푼젤 from the get go, because it was CGI. I think that 라푼젤 gets a lot of flak not because the movie is truly flawed (it has its flaws, but not 더 많이 than any other successful and beloved 디즈니 Movie has), but because its success made further 디즈니 영화 in traditional 애니메이션 unlikely.
People like to blame a lot of factors for The Princess and the Frog not being as successful as they wanted it to be. The marketing campaign which was mostly geared towards girls and old 디즈니 Princess 영화 fans. That it hit the theatres during a bad time. A so called prejudice against traditional animation. Racism (but really wouldn’t the number of people who didn’t watch it because of the black princess be balanced out 의해 the people who watched it because they wanted to see one?). But if we are really honest to ourselves, than we have to admit that those are factors, but not really the reason. If The Princess and the Frog had been really good, it would have gotten 더 많이 people in the theatres, due to mouth to mouth advertisements and glowing reviews. But the truth is that it didn’t convince the majority of the audience, while 라푼젤 did. Yes, 라푼젤 got the 더 많이 successful marketing, and a lot of very misleading trailers which promised a swashbuckling adventure. What the audience got was 더 많이 a panswinging princess movie, but it worked out nevertheless. If the audience hadn’t like this movie, they would have protested 더 많이 about it being so different from what was shown in the advertising. It wouldn’t have been about “the advertising is misleading” but about “the advertising makes the movie better than it is”.
Those are two very ambitious movies. The Princess and the Frog was ambitious about telling a modern 디즈니 Princess story – and fell short. 라푼젤 was ambitious about reaching a new level of animation, about merging the traditional 디즈니 aesthetic with CGI – and succeeded. Even the worst critics of 라푼젤 admitted how good the story was – and that’s what everything comes down in the end, story and characters. 당신 can do a beautiful animated movie with a wonderful soundtrack and some really memorable scenes, if the story doesn’t work at least in some part, it won’t be considered a good movie 의해 the majority of the audience (see Pocahontas). But if the very foundation of the movie, the story, holds up, the audience might not praise the movie, but it will keep it in good memory (see how beloved Robin 후드 still is, despite its numerous flaws). Sadly executives tend to look at the numbers and overlook that it’s not a matter of CGI 또는 not, but a matter of making a good movie, no matter what kind of 애니메이션 is used.
But can we blame 라푼젤 for that? Trying to pull this movie verbally down while at the same time defending TPatF won’t change the numbers. It won’t make the executive understand. If anything, saying the audience just didn’t appreciate TPatF enough because they overlook the great 애니메이션 and were unable to appreciate jazz (two of the most common arguments for the movie) just confirms the idea that the kind of 애니메이션 is to blame for the lack of success. The 질문 shouldn’t be if the audience didn’t appreciate what was good about TPatF (though I have to say that the praise for the 애니메이션 is a little bit much – it’s really good animation, but ALL 디즈니 Princess 영화 succeed in this regard), it should be why the executives didn’t combine the good aspects with a similar good plot. With proper pacing, with proper motivations for the villains, with a better focus.
Don’t get me wrong: I am sure that there are a lot of people out there, who genuinely like PatF. It’s this need to compare it with 라푼젤 which makes me weary about the motivation behind a lot of reviewers, who have decided to tackle the 영화 in their 비디오 또는 blogs. There is a certain pattern in those reviews, the 더 많이 the reviewer does like traditional animation, the 더 많이 he will be inclined to concentrate on the good aspects of PatF and the bad aspects of Tangled.
And, 더 많이 generally speaking, it doesn’t really say much about the quality of a movie to compare one single aspect of it. Yes, we do it all the time, doing countdowns about which Princess looks better, is the better role-model, is braver and whatever else we can come up with. It is good fun, but one shouldn’t make the mistake to believe that those aspects have anything to do with the quality of a movie as a whole.
When I read “how can 당신 excuse Flynn’s womanizing but complaining about Naveen doing the same”, I just feel that the argument is missing the point. Because Eugene and Naveen are two entirely different characters. They have different backstories, different motivations, and there is a profound difference between stealing a crown to be alone and happy on an island, 또는 marrying a woman for her money, a difference between striking a deal and then trying to trick the other party into backing out of the deal and making a deal with the intention to never hold up your side of it. The same way one aspect doesn’t make a movie, one trait is not the beginning and the end of a character.
When PatF was announced, I was as glad as everyone else that 디즈니 was trying to go back to what 디즈니 does best. And like so many people out there, I wanted this to be the success, I wanted it to be the comeback for traditional animation. It wasn’t to be. But that it didn’t happen has everything to do with PatF and nothing with 라푼젤 또는 the audience. And we will all have to live with the knowledge that it might be a long time until 디즈니 will decide to visit its roots again. Until then, we should judge every movie on its own merits.
I guess the reason is simple: Because all true 애니메이션 팬 knew that the success of those 영화 would determine in which direction the studios would go in the future. We all wanted The Princess and the Frog to succeed, because we knew that if it didn’t, it might 봉인, 인감 the fate of traditional animation. And a lot of people were against 라푼젤 from the get go, because it was CGI. I think that 라푼젤 gets a lot of flak not because the movie is truly flawed (it has its flaws, but not 더 많이 than any other successful and beloved 디즈니 Movie has), but because its success made further 디즈니 영화 in traditional 애니메이션 unlikely.
People like to blame a lot of factors for The Princess and the Frog not being as successful as they wanted it to be. The marketing campaign which was mostly geared towards girls and old 디즈니 Princess 영화 fans. That it hit the theatres during a bad time. A so called prejudice against traditional animation. Racism (but really wouldn’t the number of people who didn’t watch it because of the black princess be balanced out 의해 the people who watched it because they wanted to see one?). But if we are really honest to ourselves, than we have to admit that those are factors, but not really the reason. If The Princess and the Frog had been really good, it would have gotten 더 많이 people in the theatres, due to mouth to mouth advertisements and glowing reviews. But the truth is that it didn’t convince the majority of the audience, while 라푼젤 did. Yes, 라푼젤 got the 더 많이 successful marketing, and a lot of very misleading trailers which promised a swashbuckling adventure. What the audience got was 더 많이 a panswinging princess movie, but it worked out nevertheless. If the audience hadn’t like this movie, they would have protested 더 많이 about it being so different from what was shown in the advertising. It wouldn’t have been about “the advertising is misleading” but about “the advertising makes the movie better than it is”.
Those are two very ambitious movies. The Princess and the Frog was ambitious about telling a modern 디즈니 Princess story – and fell short. 라푼젤 was ambitious about reaching a new level of animation, about merging the traditional 디즈니 aesthetic with CGI – and succeeded. Even the worst critics of 라푼젤 admitted how good the story was – and that’s what everything comes down in the end, story and characters. 당신 can do a beautiful animated movie with a wonderful soundtrack and some really memorable scenes, if the story doesn’t work at least in some part, it won’t be considered a good movie 의해 the majority of the audience (see Pocahontas). But if the very foundation of the movie, the story, holds up, the audience might not praise the movie, but it will keep it in good memory (see how beloved Robin 후드 still is, despite its numerous flaws). Sadly executives tend to look at the numbers and overlook that it’s not a matter of CGI 또는 not, but a matter of making a good movie, no matter what kind of 애니메이션 is used.
But can we blame 라푼젤 for that? Trying to pull this movie verbally down while at the same time defending TPatF won’t change the numbers. It won’t make the executive understand. If anything, saying the audience just didn’t appreciate TPatF enough because they overlook the great 애니메이션 and were unable to appreciate jazz (two of the most common arguments for the movie) just confirms the idea that the kind of 애니메이션 is to blame for the lack of success. The 질문 shouldn’t be if the audience didn’t appreciate what was good about TPatF (though I have to say that the praise for the 애니메이션 is a little bit much – it’s really good animation, but ALL 디즈니 Princess 영화 succeed in this regard), it should be why the executives didn’t combine the good aspects with a similar good plot. With proper pacing, with proper motivations for the villains, with a better focus.
Don’t get me wrong: I am sure that there are a lot of people out there, who genuinely like PatF. It’s this need to compare it with 라푼젤 which makes me weary about the motivation behind a lot of reviewers, who have decided to tackle the 영화 in their 비디오 또는 blogs. There is a certain pattern in those reviews, the 더 많이 the reviewer does like traditional animation, the 더 많이 he will be inclined to concentrate on the good aspects of PatF and the bad aspects of Tangled.
And, 더 많이 generally speaking, it doesn’t really say much about the quality of a movie to compare one single aspect of it. Yes, we do it all the time, doing countdowns about which Princess looks better, is the better role-model, is braver and whatever else we can come up with. It is good fun, but one shouldn’t make the mistake to believe that those aspects have anything to do with the quality of a movie as a whole.
When I read “how can 당신 excuse Flynn’s womanizing but complaining about Naveen doing the same”, I just feel that the argument is missing the point. Because Eugene and Naveen are two entirely different characters. They have different backstories, different motivations, and there is a profound difference between stealing a crown to be alone and happy on an island, 또는 marrying a woman for her money, a difference between striking a deal and then trying to trick the other party into backing out of the deal and making a deal with the intention to never hold up your side of it. The same way one aspect doesn’t make a movie, one trait is not the beginning and the end of a character.
When PatF was announced, I was as glad as everyone else that 디즈니 was trying to go back to what 디즈니 does best. And like so many people out there, I wanted this to be the success, I wanted it to be the comeback for traditional animation. It wasn’t to be. But that it didn’t happen has everything to do with PatF and nothing with 라푼젤 또는 the audience. And we will all have to live with the knowledge that it might be a long time until 디즈니 will decide to visit its roots again. Until then, we should judge every movie on its own merits.
