This is my lawn

If you told me Sunday morning that Lady Gaga would end up being the highlight of the whole awards show, I would have laughed in your face and said something like "if that happens, I'll eat my own shoe!"

 

Certainly glad I didn't make that bet.

 

Anyway, I think The Fox and the Hound doesn't get nearly as much love as it deserves. The moment where Todd gets abandoned is probably more heavy handed than it needs to be, but everything else about the movie is pitch perfect, especially the ending.

I had no idea she had that much talent. Learn something new every day.

 

And, yes, it is an underrated movie. The Princess and the Frog could also use more love too, though I admit it wasn't a perfect Princess movie (but that doesn't exist yet in my opinion. I think Brave is closest in terms of plot. Mulan comes close, though she technically wasn't a princess. Rapunzel and Eugine had the best chemistry of any couple imo).

 

... that was longer than I intended it to be.

There are videos of her on YouTube pre-'Lady Gaga' that prove she's always been able to sing well outside of the pop scene (not to mention her recent collaborations with Tony Bennett). I just wasn't expecting her to show that side.

 

I have many thoughts on your second sentence but I've derailed your blog entry enough.

This is what happens when I don't follow celebrities.

 

Also, no, please derail! Blogs are all about discussion and talking about whatever for me! Seriously, if anyone just went off on a tangent totally off topic in one of my entries, I would just be happy someone took the time to chat me up. XP

I don't actually follow celebrities, either. I just know her videos because my sister sent them to me to watch, like, five years ago. And I just read about the Tony Bennett collaboration this morning.

 
And since Tekulo has now given me permission to do so, ya'll better hold on to your butts 'cause I'm about make like Yona and derail this thing.*
 
 

And, yes, it is an underrated movie. The Princess and the Frog could also use more love too,

 
The Princess and the Frog is fantastic, and one of the reasons (the other being Tangled) why I fell in love with Disney again. Tiana is, in my opinion, one of the best written and most well rounded Disney heroines in their entire canon. Her well defined goals and development make it really easy to get invested in her character. My only real issue with the movie is Randy Newman's music, which is pretty underwhelming by Disney standards. "Almost There" is a pretty great song, though.
 
 

though I admit it wasn't a perfect Princess movie (but that doesn't exist yet in my opinion.

 
I'm not sure if such thing as a perfect movie exists. But if you're looking for a 'princess' movie that exhibits strong storytelling, I don't think you need to look much farther than Beauty and the Beast. Belle and The Beast go beyond the simple archetypes of several earlier 'princess' (and prince) characters and have personalities and traits which are unique and well established. And their relationship was mostly well developed, with my only criticism being that significant parts of that development occurr via montage. It's a darn good montage, though, with a great song so I give it a pass. Gaston was a little cartoony as a villain, but I think he works, and the story as a whole is solidly written. As a piece of storytelling I have no complaints about it.
 
 

I think Brave is closest in terms of plot.

 
I love Brave, and while I kind of understand why it gets a lot of criticism I also don't really agree with it. The storytelling is pretty solid. The I think the antics from King Fergus and co. should have been toned down at points... but talking about the movie should have been is a ginormous can of worms I have no desire to open.
 
 

Mulan comes close, though she technically wasn't a princess.

 
I don't have much love for Mulan, honestly. It's not that the movie is bad, I just think it's kind of dull. I know "it's dull" is not a legitimate criticism so I guess I should watch it again to figure out why I think that. Also, Mulan is part of the Disney Princess franchise, so the actual title of her character at the end of the movie is irrelevent. She's a princess because Disney says she is. Same with Pocahontas, and inevitably Elsa.
 
 

Rapunzel and Eugine had the best chemistry of any couple imo).

 
This is because the film took the proper time to give the characters room to "breath," as I like to say. Moments like 'Campfire' and 'Waiting for the Lights' allowed the characters time in the story to explain their hopes and fears to each other (and the audience, but that's irrelevent for this point), as well as add some personality spice. When these exchanges start happening, it gives some legitimacy to the relationship. It's a far cry from Ariel fawning over a statue.

 

I would also address the initial point of this post (Up and The LEGO Movie), but I honestly don't have much I can say about them. I haven't watched either since their theatrical debuts (I know, I'm terrible) so my memory on both is foggy.

 

*obscure reference might be obscure.

I don't actually follow celebrities, either.

Ah, good, I'm not alone. XP

 

And since Tekulo has now given me permission to do so, ya'll better hold on to your butts 'cause I'm about make like Yona and derail this thing.*

Hah, right. That Yona. Totally with those derails and stuff. Just the other day I thought I heard a train (it was actually a truck), and I was all like "Oh, that Yona better not have derailed those tracks." I mean, that's just so like Yona...

 

The Princess and the Frog is fantastic, and one of the reasons (the other being Tangled) why I fell in love with Disney again. Tiana is, in my opinion, one of the best written and most well rounded Disney heroines in their entire canon. Her well defined goals and development make it really easy to get invested in her character. My only real issue with the movie is Randy Newman's music, which is pretty underwhelming by Disney standards. "Almost There" is a pretty great song, though.

I agree! Tiana is an excellent character and seeing her family throughout the movie aided her character greatly. My other gripe with the movie is that it really glorifies romance and marriage to the point where Tiana is willing to marry a complete stranger she'd only just met for a few days. Yikes, Disney.

 

 

I'm not sure if such thing as a perfect movie exists. But if you're looking for a 'princess' movie that exhibits strong storytelling, I don't think you need to look much farther than Beauty and the Beast.

I've actually been hesitant about this movie, and I honestly think it's overhyped. I mean, people I think tend to assume the moral is "True beauty is not skin deep and lies within" but that just doesn't jive with me when the prince turns out to be a super hot guy by the end of the film. Also, and my biggest gripe with this movie, is actually the fact that everyone and I mean everyone in the castle put pressure on their relationship becoming a romantic one in order to solve all of their problems instead of standing up to the beast themselves. It kinda perpetuates the idea that romantic love is the most important form of love and that it is capable of fixing literally any toxic situation. As someone with no dating experience, I know this might sound like I don't know what I'm talking about, but as someone who is trying to unlearn problematic behavior, I gotta say, It's not that simple. The beast has what? Years upon years of toxic behavior learned to the point where he is no better than/worse than Gaston. He's this guy in complete power and uses his anger to intimidate everyone around him. He's problematic and aggressive and has loads of baggage. And what, how long was his relationship with Belle? A year? Less than that?

 

I mean, their relationship started as a toxic one. He was over protective, treated her like one of his posessions, I mean, do you remember the way they met? He enslaved her. This is not a person whose issues are going to be cured just because of a relationship. The fact that so many people like this movie and the fact that so many people use it as a "go-to" perfect romance movie is kinda terrifying to me. And I mean, yeah, he does warm up to Belle and his character does change, but we see so little of that that I have a suspension of disbelief. It perpetuates an idea that if a girl dates a terrible guy, she could "change him" and I've met people who were in toxic relationships with people who had loads of baggage. And you know how my friends are dealing with it? They used to think the fact that their partner didn't improve was their fault. They are still recovering, even years after the relationship ended. Some people have loads of issues and the fact that a relationship wasn't enough was damaging to the person in Belle's position.

 

I mean, I get that we think dating a total jerk is somehow glorified for some reason, but come on!

 

(It's a reason why I'm glad Belle and Rumple are in their position in Once. He had hundreds of years of deceit under his belt and put "changing for the better" on his relationship with Belle. And she put that on him too).

 

Honestly, the movie that utilized the theme that "true beauty lies within" is Shrek. And its first sequel held true to that again. Shrek wasn't a monster when he met Fiona; he was just a dude that was looked down upon by society. The Beast? He was way problematic and it was unfair to think a mere relationship could fix all of his problems magically.

 

Sorry, that was a long rant, but that movie is far from perfect in my opinion.

 

I love Brave, and while I kind of understand why it gets a lot of criticism I also don't really agree with it. The storytelling is pretty solid. The I think the antics from King Fergus and co. should have been toned down at points... but talking about the movie should have been is a ginormous can of worms I have no desire to open.

I was honestly just glad nobody got married at the end of it within a week of meeting each other. XD

 

But yes, I also thought the Grimm style of storytelling worked and was really cool, especially for a princess film.

 

I don't have much love for Mulan, honestly. It's not that the movie is bad, I just think it's kind of dull. I know "it's dull" is not a legitimate criticism so I guess I should watch it again to figure out why I think that. Also, Mulan is part of the Disney Princess franchise, so the actual title of her character at the end of the movie is irrelevent. She's a princess because Disney says she is. Same with Pocahontas, and inevitably Elsa.

Shhh, you invite the color hot pink to where it doth not belong. XP

 

Honestly, I mainly like the movie because Mulan is actually a pretty interesting protagonist. She has skill as a tactician, she defies her place in the world around her to follow what she believes is right and even when she's offered a chance to leave the army and return home, she still doesn't give up. That's way more than Ariel ever was. I mean, using a fork to comb her hair was cute and all, but she never took out almost an entire army with one canon.

 

And yeah, Mushu can lay it on a bit thick, but he actually does come in handy and contributes to the movie. Though in the sequel he's like, the worst ever iirc.

 

 

This is because the film took the proper time to give the characters room to "breath," as I like to say. Moments like 'Campfire' and 'Waiting for the Lights' allowed the characters time in the story to explain their hopes and fears to each other (and the audience, but that's irrelevent for this point), as well as add some personality spice. When these exchanges start happening, it gives some legitimacy to the relationship. It's a far cry from Ariel fawning over a statue.

I agree with this. Seriously, they're the only Disney Princess pairing I actually ship. XD

 

I would also address the initial point of this post (Up and The LEGO Movie), but I honestly don't have much I can say about them. I haven't watched either since their theatrical debuts (I know, I'm terrible) so my memory on both is foggy.

 

*obscure reference might be obscure.

*le gasp*

 

Feelsy points of the LEGO Movie: Cloud Coocoo land being destroyed, Emmet's co-workers and "friends" literally saying he's nothing, Wyldstyle and Emmet talking about their hopes right before they put the piece back on the KRAGLE, the entire ending after the live action comes into play... I think that's most of them?

 

UP: The entire first fifteen minutes, especially that montage, Russell talking about his dad, The house going under the clouds at the end, The Adventure Book when Carl reads past the Stuff I'm Going to Do page.. That's most of those too.

I've actually been hesitant about this movie, and I honestly think it's overhyped. I mean, people I think tend to assume the moral is "True beauty is not skin deep and lies within" but that just doesn't jive with me when the prince turns out to be a super hot guy by the end of the film. Also, and my biggest gripe with this movie, is actually the fact that everyone and I mean everyone in the castle put pressure on their relationship becoming a romantic one in order to solve all of their problems instead of standing up to the beast themselves.

 

That's because the servants in the castle have one goal: become human again. And in order for that to happen The Beast needs to love someone and have that love reciprocated. He presumably has no family so that doesn't leave a whole lot of options. And they do stand up to The Beast. Not only do they repeatedly scold him about his temper, but they also disobey his orders and hospitably feed Belle when he orders that she's not to be fed.

 

 

It kinda perpetuates the idea that romantic love is the most important form of love and that it is capable of fixing literally any toxic situation.

 

I don't think it was love that got The Beast out his funk, I think it was kindness. The love came after that, when he had already started to become "good." I put more of my thoughts on that subject later so I won't repeat here.

 

 

As someone with no dating experience, I know this might sound like I don't know what I'm talking about, but as someone who is trying to unlearn problematic behavior, I gotta say, It's not that simple. The beast has what? Years upon years of toxic behavior learned to the point where he is no better than/worse than Gaston. He's this guy in complete power and uses his anger to intimidate everyone around him. He's problematic and aggressive and has loads of baggage.

 

The movie, maybe to it's detriment, doesn't give us a whole lot of background to The Beast. All we know is that he's about 20 years old at the time of the story, and that when he was enchanted there was no love in his heart. We have no idea how much time has passed between then and now. He's probably had years to sit in his castle by himself and reflect on the behavior that got him there, as well as wallow in misery which brings me to your Gaston comparison. On the surface they are similar, but the characters are great foils because of where their attitudes come from. Gaston is vain and egotistical, and his attitude comes from the fact that the thinks he's better than everyone. The Beast, on the other hand, is ashamed of his appearance, and his attitude comes from feelings of inferiority (note that he imprisons Muarice not for trespassing, but because he thought he had come to gawk). I'd argue that his anger is mostly a defensive mechanism to cover those feelings. That certainly does not excuse his behavior earlier in the movie, but it makes him more redeemable than Gaston. The Beast starts to be redeemed when Belle starts showing him kindness. That kindness would only stroke Gaston's ego, and he has such a high opinion of himself that he can take no criticism.

 

And what, how long was his relationship with Belle? A year? Less than that?

 

 

The movie's timeline is iffy. It starts in what appears to be Spring or Summer, but then turns pretty rapidly to winter (there's heavy snowfall after, like, a day). When Maurice first sets off to The Beast's castle, it seems like he's only been journeying for a day. But when he sets for his castle for the second time, we get the entire "Something There" montage and "Beauty and the Beast" song before we see him journeying again. If we assume his journey only took one day, then Belle was with The Beast for a few days. But the presence and lack of snowfall during those songs makes it seem like much longer. The fact that there was a sequel (er, "midquel") suggests the two were together for a longer period of time (which is what I think we're supposed to assume), but the movie itself is ambiguous on this matter. None of that which helps my points.

 

 

I mean, their relationship started as a toxic one. He was over protective, treated her like one of his posessions, I mean, do you remember the way they met? He enslaved her. 

 

There wasn't really a relationship when they met, though, she was just his prisoner who was granted a little extra freedom. I'd argue that the relationship didn't start to develop until "Something There", which is the first time we hear their inner thoughts about each other. It's worth noting that at this point the Beast seems to have thrown his attitude out the window. I don't think Belle would have gotten so close to him otherwise. This girl wasn't a pushover.

 

The rebuttal you can use is that Belle still considered herself a prisoner even after "Beauty and the Beast," which is evident when she thanks The Beast for allowing her to leave and visit her father. While I have no good response to that, it seems to me that her freedom was an unspoken given in the story (starting with "Something There"), and that particular dialogue exchange was for the benefit of the audience. Also because we needed a moment where The Beast acted selflessly, or at least with some dignity.

 

 

This is not a person whose issues are going to be cured just because of a relationship.

 

I don't know if I would use the word 'cured', more like 'redeemed.' This is a character who had been (deservedly) bitten, and was bitter as a result. The film makes a point of showing us how moved The Beast is when Belle agrees to trade her freedom for her father's. I think from that we can take away that he understands compassion, he just needs to learn how to give it. Maurice and Belle were probably the very first people to visit is castle in years, maybe since the enchantress. His people skills understandably suck. He probably treated his servants nicely (they seem pretty comfortable around him at least), but it takes more than that to break the spell.

 

 

The fact that so many people like this movie and the fact that so many people use it as a "go-to" perfect romance movie is kinda terrifying to me.

 

Not just a romance story, but one of redemption as well. The Beast is a broken person who's bitter toward himself and the world. It's not until Belle shows him kindness that he's able to be comfortable with his appearance, and once that happens his attitude and bitterness goes away. I think it's a beautiful story.

 

 

And I mean, yeah, he does warm up to Belle and his character does change, but we see so little of that that I have a suspension of disbelief.

 

I think you mean you can't suspend your disbelief. Suspension of disbelief is something you pretty much have to do when you watch every movie- especially for those in the fairy tale genre.

 

 

It perpetuates an idea that if a girl dates a terrible guy, she could "change him" and I've met people who were in toxic relationships with people who had loads of baggage. And you know how my friends are dealing with it? They used to think the fact that their partner didn't improve was their fault. They are still recovering, even years after the relationship ended. Some people have loads of issues and the fact that a relationship wasn't enough was damaging to the person in Belle's position.

 

I won't comment on real life relationships, because I have no experience in that area. But I will say that to look at a film and say "in real life..." is unfair because movies aren't real life, especially in the fairytale genre. You have to watch a movie (or read a book) and decide if the relationship makes since and is legitimate in the context of the story. Sometimes they aren't (The Spectacular Now grinds my gears very hard for that reason), but I think the one in 'Beast' is.

 

I know that a lot of people would say that's a cop out response.... and maybe it is.

 

 

I mean, I get that we think dating a total jerk is somehow glorified for some reason, but come on!

 

Do we glorify stories where people date total jerks? I'm asking honestly. Aside from The Spectacular Now (which somehow got rave reviews) I can't think of any.

 

 

(It's a reason why I'm glad Belle and Rumple are in their position in Once. He had hundreds of years of deceit under his belt and put "changing for the better" on his relationship with Belle. And she put that on him too).

 

Rumple's situation is pretty different from The Beast's, though. Rumple has had chance after chance to redeem himself and he never follows through (unlike The Beast who does) I am also glad for their current position.

 

Honestly, the movie that utilized the theme that "true beauty lies within" is Shrek. And its first sequel held true to that again. Shrek wasn't a monster when he met Fiona; he was just a dude that was looked down upon by society.

 

Shrek is a beautiful, wonderful movie.

 

The Beast? He was way problematic and it was unfair to think a mere relationship could fix all of his problems magically.

 

 

Again, I don't think his problems where fixed with a relationship (at least not a romantic one). There was no real relationship prior to the "Beauty and the Beast" dance. It started off as a prisoner/master relationship. Then (up until "Something There") it was pretty much just friendly cohabitation. Only after that did feelings start to develop, presumably long afterward. What started to redeem The Beast was Belle showing him kindness when he deserved none, and that is what started him the path to being a good person. And it helped when she put him in his place in the same scene ("Well maybe you shouldn't have frightened me!" at which point The Beast has no valid rebuttal). There is no magic fix. The redemption and relationship occur in steps.

 

Now, allllll that said I totally understand where you're coming from with your opinion. The main relationship is a slippery slope for sure. I think it works, but I also don't hold a grudge against people who don't like it. We may just have to agree to disagree.

 

 

Sorry, that was a long rant, but that movie is far from perfect in my opinion.

 

Never apologize for stating your opinion... in your blog, no less.

You do raise some good points. I do admit the movie itself and the characters themselves do fit within the movie. However, overall it kinda seems to me to be... incomplete, I guess?

 

Also, like I said before, the servants themselves had put their hopes onto both of them. And, while the beast had maybe years in the castle to throw a tantrum, the servants themselves had years to try to get him to get a grip. Before Belle arrives, they appear to be stepping on eggshells around him. Cogsworth especially. They fed Belle in secret, iirc.

 

Also, you say his people skills lack because no one had visited in years? What does that make his servants, then? They were objects for a reason: because that's all he viewed them as.

 

Also, I meant relationship not in a romantic sense specifically, but even a relationship as friends or even the relationship as captor and prisoner. Also, when the Beast agreed to take in Belle, his interests, I have no doubt, were to merely use her to break the spell.

 

And while those thoughts may not have shown by the end of the film, it is still what he based his expectations off of. They define what he'd become. I can't imagine how he could completely get over all of that within a year.

 

And you're right; Belle wasn't afraid to talk back to him and did have an impact on him. And yes, that is indeed what he needed. They did have a chemistry and it did work, but I never really saw it as a romance. Heck, I really have a hard time seeing it as a healthy one after that short of a time span.

 

Meh, maybe I'm looking too much into it.

 

As for your other question, I'll send you a PM.

Also, you say his people skills lack because no one had visited in years? What does that make his servants, then? They were objects for a reason: because that's all he viewed them as.

 

Fair point, and one I figured you would bring up. There's a big difference between interractions with people close to you, and strangers. He may have treated his servants as objects pre-curse (an idea that I never thought of, but really like), but afterwards he must have treated his servants with enough respect that they can openly chastise him without fear of reproach. They're also in the same boat he's in. His fear is that strangers will come from the outside to mock him (hence why he imprisoned Maurice). That's not really a fear you can train out of someone unless an outside force comes in to prove those fears baseless, which is exactly what Belle does. Yes he initially agreed to the prisoner exchange because he thinks she can break the spell. He even says as much. But when he agrees to let Belle go after "Beauty and the Beast", he does so knowing that he just jeaopardized any chance he has at breaking the curse (and right at a moment when breaking it was almost inevitable). He may have started off selfish, but he doesn't end that way. But if you don't buy that, then you don't buy it. Like I said I don't grudge anyone who doesn't.

 

Also I wouldn't say the servants were really stepping on eggshells. Cogsworth is just a stickler for the rules. The others were hospitable as can be and happily let Maurice walk all over The Beast's stuff. And Belle's dinner was hardly secret. On the contrary it came attached to an extravagent song and dance number that you just know Lumiere has been practicing for years. Congsworth was only against it because he's Cogsworth.

Hey, I said they were going for secrecy. I didn't say they were ninjas. XP

 

And yeah, he does grow and all, but I feel like there was something big that happened that we're missing here. But that's probably just the sequel. Midquel. Thing.

 

Anyway, I'm off to dinner shortly so the next few replies might take a while. XP

And yeah, he does grow and all, but I feel like there was something big that happened that we're missing here.

 

A fair viewpoint, for which I have no response. Like I said, you're either with it or you aren't, and either one is okay.

 

Anyway, I'm off to dinner shortly so the next few replies might take a while.

 

I have nothing more to say except that I enjoyed this little conversation. Enjoy your dinner!

Haha, yes, this was a good chat. Thanks for taking the time to talk! ^^

*pokes head in door*

 

 

 

Do we glorify stories where people date total jerks? I'm asking honestly. Aside from The Spectacular Now (which somehow got rave reviews) I can't think of any.

*insert Fifty Shades of Grey here*

 

Friendly rule of thumb - any book labeled "romance" in any bookstore's genre section is full of "love redeems" stories which I will let you know is #####. If someone has internal issues, they are not a romance prospect. Period. Dot. End of story. 

 

I'm terribly pessimistic on most of this, though. I understand Beauty and the Beast's appeal, but that story =/= real life. BTW, I've also had the luxury of reading the original, which paints the beast as more sorrowful than the watered-down Disney version does. For an adaptation, it kinda sucks.  

By most standards, Disney adaptations tend to butcher the original stories. It's really nothing new.

 

Except Princess and the Frog (or at least the Grimm version), and Tangled. Those were actually fairly solid. I liked them more than the original stories, anyway. They were still twisted, though.

 

But, yeah, as stated previously, I agree, more or less about that.

*pokes head in door*

 

*Sees head*

 

*Bites it off*

 

I kid, I kid.

 

On a serious note: Is it really accurate to say that 'Fifty Shades' is glorified? (I asked this question to you, Tekulo, over PM so feel free to chime in as well). It seems to me that the books get the spotlight not because they're actaully well written, but because of the exact opposite. They aren't glorified, they're panned. Or at least this is the impression I get from the internet.

The thing is,not everyone is on the internet. And I think the fact that such a story got to the point where it was turned into a movie that everyone's talking about says something about human nature itself. Make of that what you will, though.

^What he said. People went to go see that movie, and it's been top box office for a few weeks. 

 

When BZP was down back in 2011, I was on another website where wannabe authors posted stories and competed with each other. The genre with the most works? Romance. (The second-highest category was Fantasy/Sci-Fi, and the two groups were in an eternal feud lol.) But there is demand for that sort of thing and plenty of people lining up to produce it. 

 

I can't stand it much, of course. You couldn't pay me to watch Fifty Shades. But yes, our culture does glorify it, up to the point that people would watch that movie and hundreds of others would want to write it.