Erg, "The Frog and the Princess" is still politically incorrect. In fact, it now seems more politically incorrect than before. Tiana...a princess? When was there an African-American princess in American history? Is she going to be a rich character now? I don't think there were such a thing as very wealthy African-Americans at that time and place, other than in big cities or in other Southern towns where most of the population were black. (Then again, I don't know much about African-American history in New Orleans.)

The early concepts sounded very interesting and promising, but the controversy seemed to have killed off the imagination. Still, the new film should be politically correct.

No, not politically correct, but HISTORICALLY CORRECT!!!

I hope they just quit trying to be politically correct and make a great film.  They are NEVER going to satisfy people that are looking to be constantly offened.

Just make sure the movie has a great story with great animation, John...

Another thing I hate.  I hate, Hate, HATE is the new title.  I liked "The Frog Princess"... kinda like The Lion King... "The Princess and the Frog" sounds like some generic title released by Filmation straight to video in the late eighties or something.

I hope they develope some testicular fortitude and make what they believe is a great movie.  Stop trying to please everybody...  or they'll please nobody.

I am a white male, so I'm sure that my opinion does not hold that much weight. However, stories like this frustrate me to no end. There is unfair stereotyping in America today along with racism. But give me a freaking break here! People did not like the name Maddy because it sounds something like mammy??? I hate hate hate things like this!!! People with agendas playing the race card when it is completely unwarranted. For any P.C. type that reads this please understand that it completely takes validity away from much bigger race issues when things like this happen. I understand that Disney is making their first movie with an Afro-American hero-princess and that they need to treat this with kid gloves. The point should be, shame on them for not making one sooner. Not shame on Disney for naming a character Maddy. I think that it is laughable that Disney is going out of their way to do anything to please the P.C. people of the world. Now that they have made these changes, they open their selves up for this movie to be picked apart until there is nothing left. I hope that in the future Disney does not cower to the loud minority (no pun intended) and just go about their business.

I will be so irritated if these PC-types ruin this film for the rest of us. "Aida" was originally developed as an animated film: would there have been the same controversy surrounding that project? As it was on Broadway, it was a fabulous story and experience and I expect nothing less from "The Princess and The Frog" (I too prefer the original title).

I suspect there would be controversy surrounding any Disney project where a black person is or isn't involved. Hopefully they don't cancel the project, because they're never going to satisfy everyone either way. That doesn't mean they should shelve the idea of a black princess: they have to do it eventually and they're always going to have to deal with the nay-sayers. I can't wait for the return of 2D and I will be extremely upset if I have to wait any longer for it due to things like this.

That's too bad about the name change. There are so many Maddies out there right now with all of the Madisons and Madelines, I'm sure they would have loved having a princess with their name. Maybe this kind of controversy is the reason why there has never been an African-American princess before.

I'm black, and maybe I'm too liberal to make a good statement, but WHAT?! Dear god, people will write everything to screw a movie before it has reached a substantial production state!! Do those "journalists" know that in that time in history all the situations Disney had put in "The Frog Princess" were kind-off correct?! And can we please stop nagging about "Song of the South"!!! In sooooooooooooooo many movies of the past blacks are being portrayed as slaves, because.. uhm.. let me see, it is historically correct!!!

Damn, people are so ignorant. Even in the all-time highest grossing movie (adjusted) "Gone With the Wind" (beautiful movie) blacks are portrayed in a sometimes negative manner. So what, more white people are being portrayed in a negative way in movies nowadays, and I don't see everybody ranting about that!

And the title is too long now, I don't like it. "The Frog Princess" was a classic name, and who doesn't know the story. Now we have "The Princess and the Frog" :S Oh! And how come she is a Princess now?! Does that even tie in with the rest of the story?! And I guess she isn't a maid anymore, too bad.

God, I can see why Disney is trying to do all this, but it is too bad they HAVE to do it. Guess that maybe if they weren't a publicly trading company it didn't matter so much, and they wouldn't have changed all the good elements. Well.. My day is ruined!! :P

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan: "There they go again."

Who the heck CARES what bloggers say?  Disney's once-fabled PR team should know that when they pay attention to erroneous information, they just fuel the fire -- particularly since Disney has a very long history of issuing denials shortly before the rumor comes true!

American history has a period of slavery.  It's an ugly, unhappy period overall, but it should never be off-limits to storytellers.  In the 1920s, New Orleans was racially divided and tensions no doubt ran high.  But tension makes for drama, which makes for great stories.

"Why does she work for that mean lady, mama?" is the question a six-year-old is most likely to answer about a chambermaid of any color (think Cinderella).  It's how we answer and address that question that becomes the source of angst.  Few parents think to say, "Because she has to, but she doesn't want to and hopes she can do better."  Instead, they get flustered and say, "How dare you make me discuss slavery with my children."  What was poor Cindy?  Simply a disliked stepdaughter?  And why bring up step-families anyway?  Doesn't Disney know how SENSITIVE that topic is to modern parents?  How dare they show that!

The Little Mermaid -- what a demeaning title.  Why must a girl be "little"?  And a "maid"?  Why not a "mer-young-woman"?

Belle only wants to sit around and read books and pines for adventure while unhappily tending house for her father.  Why, she even does the GROCERY SHOPPING.  How insulting!

Don't even GO THERE about Snow White.  Her idea of happiness is cleaning and baking for angry white men?  How do I explain THAT to my children?

A few years back, I saw "Song of the South" with an audience of about 80 Disney employees.  A famous critic introduced it for us and moderated a discussion afterward.  There wasn't a dry eye in the house when the movie ended; everyone was genuinely moved by the story it told.  The audience was asked to close their eyes so no one could be judgmental and then raise their hands if they thought the movie was racist in any way, even mildly.  Then they were asked to open their eyes -- and we found that not a single person had raised their hand.  The discussion that followed centered around WHY people thought Song of the South might be racist, and it came down to this: No one wanted to watch the movie and judge for themselves.  Highbrow, elitist critics, meanwhile, say simply that Uncle Remus could never have been happy as a plantation sharecropper after being freed from slavery.  They fail to accept that a) this is a fictional story; and b) it's as likely Uncle Remus could be happy as it is that Anakin Skywalker could be swayed to the dark side because his mother was killed.  We accept the limitations of the story for the sake of enjoying the movie.

Disney's (possibly) well-meaning PR department wasn't particularly far-sighted on this one.  Instead of ignoring blathering Idiots With Blogs and waiting for the "controversy" to die down, they have jeopardized the future of what could be quite a lovely little movie.

(Oh, and as to the question of whether there were princesses in America, why does Disney continue to berate and demean little girls by insisting that all women with a dream must be "princesses."  Last I saw, Disney was even calling MULAN a "princess."  Now, THAT is insulting!)

There are so many things wrong here.

Would it be a good idea to release a film like "The Song Of The South" which is sure to stur up controversy anyway as a  "Disney Treasure" ? Won't this upset even more folks?

If that is indeed the case... why can't they release another little piece of historic Disney treasure known as "Captain EO". I'm serious.

If there are people out there who don't appreciate the creation of the first african american princess then I say scrap the idea in favor of the story of Randy, the white montana ranchers doughter story about a girl who discovers for the first time she is more a prince than a princess. She goes up against the evil logging company tycoon in order to save a collection of cute forrest critter's habitat from destruction, all the while falling in love with her girlfirend Jo-Leen.

I mean seriously, what a nice gesture for Disney to make all these changes to please these vultures.  They must care more about the young african american girls who will see this movie and see the girl as a champion regardless of her name, where she lives, or who she works for.  I think the princess is adorable and a fine addition just from the early photos. And the music intended for this New Orleans atmosphere is sure to be entertaining and etreamly easy on the ears. Who would want to complain about that.

I don't mean to be harsh. But perhaps disney should create a story in Mexico, with the first Mexican princess first?

And the complains about the villian? Whats next? Jafar was a muslim extreamist promoting terorism?

LOL, @ Epcot82 & Rluke1971..

I just don't get it...

I'm a mixed-race (Black Caribbean/White Welsh) middle-aged bloke.

When I was a kid my Black dad always took us to see Song Of The South when it came around.

I bought him the Disney video for Christmas when it came out about ten years ago.

My mixed-race nieces both love the film.

I haven't met anyone either in my large extended multi-racial family or anyone in the Black community who doesn't love the film.

Over here in the UK it plays regularly on television - the last time at 11 in the morning on a public holiday. No outcry, no fuss.

Sorry, guys, but Political Correctness is a lot of apologetic white people wringing their hands over any offence they may cause to us darlin' people of colour.

Hey, I'm not offended by this charming movie.

Thinking about it, growing up I got more racism from non-whites than I ever did from Whites.

It's a damn shame that such a fine movie has been hijacked by a bunch of political-agitators.

By the way, I'm a scriptwriter by trade; specializing in children's TV and animation.

The number of times I've been told to include an EM character 'for safety's sake... oh, and they can't be the villain.. or have any possibly offensive character traits...'

Get over it folks!

We're the same as you.

We're not demons or angels.

We don't need to be mollycoddled as if we're some precious little flower that'll break if you hold us too tight.

We're just regular people who get frustrated at these stupid pc directives that seem to be dropping like flies around our feet every day of the year.

The frightening thing now is, is that so much of our history is being propagandized into some myth of a pure black race being stolen by evil whites and forced into slavery.

It just wasn't like that. I know from my own research that my own ancestors, slaves in the West Indies taken from Africa, were originally sold on by other Blacks to Arab traders, and then on to Whites.

Slavery was a custom and tradition that ran for thousands of years in Africa before the Whites came calling and made it a truly international business.

And the worst thing is, slavery is still going on. In Africa, in the Middle East, and even in Europe and the Americas.

Slaves are being brought into our countries as domestic slaves all the time, but is there an international outcry about it? No.

What happens if one of these slaves are found over here? They tend to be deported right back where they came from - where the whole thing starts again.

That's why PC is so dangerous.

People are afraid to speak out in case they are thought racist.

Why?

Because the slave owners are usually non-White you see.

Chew on that.

..

When my first child is born later this year, (and he/she is going to be a Black Caribbean / Welsh/ Greek/ Irish mix) I'm going to make sure they grow up on the Uncle Remus stories.

In books and on film.

If they let me.

So... it's ok to have a white servant girl menaced by a white villain, but once they're black characters it's politically incorrect? IT'S A FILM! For god's sake people, watch the Aristocrats and see if you can develop an open mind!

I had a long comment made, but my computer messed up.  I said nice posts, everyone, since you're all making great points.  I agree on the Cinderella thing- why is it alright for Cinderella to be a maid, but not an African American girl?  The 1920s was way past the Civil War, so, people- Maddy/Tiana is not a slave.  Get over yourselves.  I wondered if there was any outrage when John Henry & Dr. Sweet (from "Atlantis") first made their debuts, since I don't remember.  I also asked if any Chinese were offended about "Mulan", or any French about "The Aristocats".  I know that some Italians were offended about Pinocchio, just because he "doesn't look Italian enough".  Disney may be alienating their fans (and their stockholders).  I agree with empoor: " I can see why Disney is trying to do all this, but it is too bad they HAVE to do it. Guess that maybe if they weren't a publicly trading company it didn't matter so much, and they wouldn't have changed all the good elements"- how many of these complainers have any stock or care about the company at all?  They just want people to pity them or something...where, as empoor and welshjacky said, they're fine with SOTS.  It's a shame that certain people ruin things for everyone else.  And it's even sadder that Disney is catering to them.

Quite honestly, Disney should tell all these PC idiots to go straight to hell and make whatever movie they want to make.

The truth is, this is like 1% of the population making a bunch of noise. Like most annoying things, if you ignore them eventually they'll go away. Listen to them and you only encourage them to stick around.

There will ALWAYS be SOMEONE out there who can find SOMETHING to get offended about. Hell, I'm offended that Jim has those annoying pop-up ads on his site, but hey ... I figure I can choose to go somewhere else if I like, right?

That's what these people need to do. GET OVER IT, SHUT UP, and if you don't like it .... DON'T SEE THE MOVIE!!

That's what freedom is about ... the freedom to make your own choices, not the freedom to force your choices no other people. That's what PC does and that's one of many, many, many, MANY reasons why I hope that one day those two letters will revert back to meaning only "Personal Computer."

Song of the South is innocuous.  There is no controversy.  It's a little boring with the live action sequences, but the animation is fantastic.  When it gets released in the States finally, people will watch it and then be like, "That's it? Where is the frickin' controversy?"  

And "The Princess and the Frog?" Seriously? How ridiculously generic can you get?  I have a few other issues about the changes that thheyu are trying to implement because the PC losers won't let artists do what they do best. Back to the title though, Ron and John ran into a title problem already with "Basil of Baker Street" when they had to change it into "The Great Mouse Detective."  Like the last time, here are a few alternate titles...

Pinocchio - The little wooden boy who wanted to be human

The Little Mermaid - The girl who wanted to see the surface world

Atlantis - Deep Sea Exploration

Aladdin - A Boy and his Genie

See what I mean? They just don't work.  "The Frog Princess" has a much better ring to it because it is a play on "The Frog Prince."

Oh, something little I originally added before my computer messed up- Maddie is the name of the candy girl on "The Suite Life of Zack and Cody".  Is she supposed to be a reference to slavery (obviously not).  Geesh.

I thought that by 2007 we would be over political correctness, I mean if a huge company like disney feels the need to go back and bascially re-start a project do to political correctness what does that say about our society?  I mean I was under this impression, which I am now going to assume was false, that we had the ability to deal with our sometimes not so pleasurable history.  If people want a historically accurate film go watch something like Vanity Fair or Pride and Prejudice! This is a children's movie, history is more than likely not the aim here.  I mean this should be no different than any other movie that is made and will eventually end up at the box office if you don't like what the movie will have to say than for the love of everything good and plenty DON'T GO SEE IT!  I mean if they think Maddy is suppose to be a reference to slavery maybe they ought to go out and see how common this name is with white females....

What a strange world we live in. I now present Yesterdays movies, If they were released in the PC world of today.

Snow White - Press says: Dwarves are offended, scrap the idea of her living with dwarfs. People are gonna think Dwarf gangbang.

Cinderella - Press says: No No, she cant have a wicked stepmother. Children of divorce will be scarred by this.

The Little Mermaid - Press says: This teenage rebel is going to inspire children to run away from their parents.

Aladdin - Press says - Young Boys will be taught how to seduce women by lying to them. Wont work.

Beauty and the Beast - Press says "But who could ever love, a Beast?" Belle is a beastiality freak, people are gonna be scarred.

GOOD CHRIST these are fairy tales! Remember when you were kid, and you didnt think in lines of black/white/slavery/chambermaids etc?

This is what I dislike about some of the african americans in this country. ANY CHANCE THEY GET they play the race card. White people arent allowed to. Did the Chinese get offended when Mulan came out?

I hope Disney closes the doors and lets no one peek in on what theyre doing. Stop annoucing things and just make a quality movie with songs I can sing in my car on my way to Disney. kthanks

Greenskyp:

But Mulan was not offensive from what I remember.  Wait, it was.  Apparently, some Hun groups were offended by the depiction of the bad guys in the flick if I remember correctly. So not kidding here...  

But you forgot one of the most un PC things that Disney is owner of, the Muppets.  Yeah, I mean come on, a female pig with a man's hand up her dress?  The very idea! In this PC world, it certainly seems that nothing is sacred and that really is a shame because it really does not allow the artists to really let their imaginations stretch.

I am going to have some more fun with the un PC-ness of Disney movies here, I hope it's not too un-PC for anyone...:

Hunchback of Notre Dame: Mentally challenged and physically deformed people offended. As well as Victor Hugo purists.

Dinosaur: Dinosaurs offended because they didn't talk to monkeys.  In fact they never talked with those lame voices at all!

Atlantis: Atlanteans offended.  Partially because the Lava Worm was not in the flick and they HAVE a lava worm.

The Lion King: Lions offended because Scar was played effeminately.  

I agree with Greenskyp.  I truly do hope Disney closes the doors and lets no one peek in on what they're doing.  Announce an animated project right when it is ready to come out.  Don't announce every little step of the way.  In this day and age, some surprises are appreciated for sure.  

Everyone here has pretty much the same sentiment.  And I agree.

If only the theme parks got this kind of attention when people on the internet complained.

So..........

The first ever African american Princess cannot start her story as a servant, prey to the whims of an imperious white woman? I mean, what would our poor politically correct viewers have to be subjected to? The horrible, demeaning sight of a Disney Princess washing the floor on her hands and knees?

Somebody better tell Cinderella and Snow White to get up off their knees and get EMPANCIPATED!!!

By the way, am I alone here in thinking that the PRINCESS AND THE FROG sounds more like a fairy tale title than THE FROG PRINCESS? I was never comfortable with that title, it always sounded to me like the Princess herself was a frog. And since Im assuming that this is going to be a Jazz age adaptation of the FROG PRINCE story, the new title is much more accurate.

And furthermore, I guess I assumed that the Maddie name was short for Madeleine. You know, just the sort of name that someone in the French Quarter would have. Unlike Tiana, which sounds far too modern for me.

Your thoughts?

I'd comment on the ridiculousness of all of this, but based on previous comments, that would be beating a dead horse.

Oh wait, sorry... that's probably offensive to animals.

Is it any wonder that Disney did so many DTV sequels? At least they can say "Hey, you accepted this plot once, so you can't complain about it this time."

I agree with all you guys, in spades (oops, I'm sorry; was that racially insensitive?) :P What a crock of dung! Disney has to develop a backbone over this. I'll bet if Maddy was going to be another light-skinned Princess, Disney would've gotten grief for that too. This kind of PC junk just makes me fume. And the new title is HORRIBLE. Now the movie sounds like a namby-pamby fairy tale for toddlers. Boo! You guys are right - Disney should just concentrate on making the best movie possible. Heck, the "controversy" could actually add to the film's appeal! At any rate, there is a faction of the news media that is always out to get Disney because Walt was conservative and the company for the most part supports traditional values.  I think it's great Disney will soon have a black Princess, and the PC police should just back off!

Greeny> Apparently Mulan didn't do so hot in China because there was some disconnect with the traditional depiction of Mulan. I think her role in the army wasn't supposed to be anything more than an expression of familial duty.

Every Disney movie that has come out in the past 15 years or so gets some group whining about it to the media. Ok, some adoption group whined about Meet the Robinsons and its director was adopted. It's just the reality of being the most well known company catering to children and families. It's best to just ignore them.

The BET article completely misses the generational aspect, though. I've seen little white girls ask for black dolls. I do find it interesting that we've seen a number of non-white Disney heroines and all but one ended up with a white husband/boyfriend. The argument can be made that the Haunted Mansion film fits in this category as well. I think that's more of a demographics issue, though.

Oh, and PC stands for "Make the depiction you want to see on your Personal Computer."

When HASN'T Disney had problems with race lately?  Aladdin got slammed for one of the lines in the original version of "Arabian Nights."  Pocahontas was criticized for its portrayal of Native Americans.  I've seen people complain about Hunchback because they don't approve of the gypsy characters.  Hell, I even think I've seen people complain about how Scar is a "black" lion and he's the villain of The Lion King.

That said, I can't say I disagree with Disney's actions here.  Trying to diffuse any controversy early instead of letting it fester for two to three years is probably a good idea, although chances are people will find something else to complain about in the film during that time period.

It's sad, really...if people didn't make racism an issue, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be anymore.  Not to the magnitude it is now, at least.

Remember how Pixar used to be closed-lipped about its upcoming projects?  Do they want Disney's own movies to fail?  John Lasseter, you won't tell us anything about your upcoming films, but you leak stuff out about Disney's?  This just doesn't make sense.  Those same people who kept their mouths shut at Pixar now work for Disney.  They should keep their mouths shut, too.  I mean, there's always been some information leaked, to get people anticipating the next film, but this is a little much.

My concern is: what does this outroar say about soicety as a whole if everyone is up in arms about the "political correctness"?  In adding "race" to the picture, I feel that we are further perpetuating racism.  Disney generally does a fine job of representing Black Americans in their live-action, animation [ex: the loveable Joshua Sweet, one of my favorite characters in "Atlantis"] and television works, and I congradulate them for trying to handle "The Princess and the Frog" in a respectful mannor.  I think "Mulan" was done tastefully; if you listen to the commentary, you can hear that reseach was done in the proper areas to portray Chinese society in a positive, non-condecending manner [ex: the worshipping of ancestors].

While racism is not an issue to belittle, "politcal correctness" SEARCHES for controversy.  I come from a background in literary criticism, and I know there are INFINATE posibilities for critiqing and breaking apart a work; most any theory can be disproved by another.  Even then, the historical context says as much about a work as a reader/viewer's response does.  Someone will always get offended by something, and while that is nothing to put off lightly, it is inevitable.  Everyone comes from a different background and realm of experience, and will take offense to any range of things.  I, for example, find attrocious those novelty Sumo-wrestling suits, where two people are placed in inflatable fatsuits and hurtle themselves at each other; I think this mocks the Shinto traditions on which Sumo wrestling is based.  But hey, that's just me.

Along that line, I think that the delay in releasing "Song of the South" has further increased the suspicions of racism.... by not releasing it, and fearing that many would be offended, they are making was for the "political correct" commentary.  Most people have not seen the film, but automatically assume that it is, indeed, taboo: if Disney is afraid to release it, it simply MUST be shameful!  I think that the soomer SotS is released - with notice of the historical place the piece holds - that the critics would calm down more.

One issue that was not brought up, however, was someting I read in a review of "The Frog Princess" online.  In several versions of the tale, the princess sheds her skin, which many likened to an insult to the blank community - in short, using that particular myth to portray a Black princess is offensive.

On a side note, I laugh at Disney when they argue that an "unpopular [read: not a MEGA-BLOCKBUSTER OF DOOM] is unfit for a theme park ride, as when Disney shut  down all plans for an Atlantis-themed ride [see "When Good Attractions Happen to Bad Movies": http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archive/2002/09/09/260.aspx].  "Splash Mountain" is one of the most popular attaction, and it is based off a movie that most of its riders have never seen - or even heard of!

Maybe Tiana's Father is the king of the river boat captains, thus making her a princess.  I'm just saying, she doesn't have to literally be a royal princess.

My beef is with the quality of the character sketches of Tiana.  

They look like they were drawn by a teenager, or for an episode of "The Proud Family".  

This is a Disney Animated Motion Picture....Where are the beautiful artistic inspirational sketches that exist for the beautiful films of Disney's past?  So full of character, and artistic mastery, that is sorely missing from these two sketches. Just thumb through

Frank and Ollie's "The Illusion of Life, Disney Animation" and you'll see my point.

What they put out as an introuduction to Tiana looks like it was sketched up in 2 minuets prior to the big unvailing.  It looks like the kind of art that you see on the cover of a goodtimes video.  Lets bring back some of the quality, as well as traditional animation.  At least consult some of the masters (Floyd Norman) who worked with Walt.  

Walt wouldn't have settled for this art to unveil to the world.  Why does the full body sketch resemble the style of the characters in the "Emperor's New Groove"?

Aren't they going to try and tackle a new style, break new ground?

Hello, Jim;

I'm the Animated Film Feature writer for Suite 101.  I've been covering Disney's The Frog Princess and the Frog (heh-heh-heh) pretty much since the first rumours went out about this flick (BTW, thanks for being such a valuable information source on all things Disney).

I would like to say on record that I have never yet written a negative article about this movie.  In fact, in one of the discussions, I even said, "I'm pretty buzzed about this flick."  The only seriously negative comments on my site (as far as I know) was a rant by one of my readers, and you can check out my response to that over here: http://animatedfilms.suite101.com/.

Just wanted to clear that up.  Thanks for the article.

Cheers,

Dominic

They should have named her LaFonda, and had her appear as a mother to 4 children, all fathered by different dads. She could work at Kentucky Fried Chicken, drive an Escalade, and Live on MLK BLVD in a 1 bedroom duplex, that got damaged due to hurricane katrina. They could showcase her struggle, and then she would meet an African prince, and fall in love.

Thats a more modern rags to riches story. And maybe more relatable?

Make Eddie Murphey voice 9 characters. Throw Oprah in there to voice the evil character. The Wayans brothers can write the comedy, while Dave Chappell writes the songs. How could black people be mad with that cast!?

Hi Im an african american, and I have a sense of humor.

Ah, life was so much simpler when we worked on "The Jungle Book" with Walt. By the way, did you know that Bageerah was a member of the Black Panther Party?

(sigh)

Tell you what, all you naysayers out there:  Let's all wait a couple of years until the freakin' movie actually comes out, and then all we'll go see it. If you're undies are still in a bunch after seeing it, then let's talk.

A far as SOTS:  I've seen it, and I'm with Nub. When this movie's finally released (and eventually the chance to make a few bucks by releasing this movie will overcome any misgivings),  both the people who freak out about the movie's allegedly shocking depictions of Afican-Americans and the Disney fans who've been up in arms about wanting to see this film released will BOTH be scratching their heads and wondering what the fuss was all about.  

In the meantime, can we argue about something that's CURRENTLY happening at the Company? Sheesh.

me...i'm just confused about her gown..it should be erte-esk

20's cut..but only the head shot relays that...the full body say...tinkerbel's closet!

Just make a good movie...flush the nay sayers!

what a bunch of poo

I'm a practicing Witch and know Voodoo priests and such...we're not quacking so much about the depiction of Witches in Disney History!

It's a fairie tale...right?!...

; )

wish I could turn into a Dragon though!

Malicifent Rocks!

teehee

<<imagineerwarrior said: I hope they develope some testicular fortitude and make what they believe is a great movie.  Stop trying to please everybody...  or they'll please nobody.

Epcot82 said: (Oh, and as to the question of whether there were princesses in America, why does Disney continue to berate and demean little girls by insisting that all women with a dream must be "princesses."  Last I saw, Disney was even calling MULAN a "princess."  Now, THAT is insulting!)

welshjacky said: Sorry, guys, but Political Correctness is a lot of apologetic white people wringing their hands over any offence they may cause to us darlin' people of colour.

NubtheSquirrel said: Atlantis: Atlanteans offended.  Partially because the Lava Worm was not in the flick and they HAVE a lava worm.

Floyd Norman said:

Ah, life was so much simpler when we worked on "The Jungle Book" with Walt. By the way, did you know that Bageerah was a member of the Black Panther Party?>>

I agree with everyone's comments here, but these were some of my favorites that I thought deserved to be pointed out again.  It's so wonderful to see such creativity and great senses of humor here.  Thanks everyone!

///Would it be a good idea to release a film like "The Song Of The South" which is sure to stur up controversy anyway as a  "Disney Treasure" ? Won't this upset even more folks?//

If it upsets folks, it would be the same folks who would be upset to see it released in the first place, regardless of what label it has slapped on it.

Besides, the Walt Disney Treasures line is more adult/collector-oriented than anything; as a result, it has been quite the gift for Disney fans, especially since they have released materials that many folks figured they'd never see--- particularly with the "On the Front Lines" DVD, which contained many of the studio's WWII productions, including propaganda cartoons.

I'm actually surprised there didn't seem to be a backlash for that release, but maybe people were willing to accept it for its historical place.

Now, why they can't just do the same for SotS, I don't know.  Accept it as a document of a different time with different values.  Contextualize it.

You folks crack me up! Political Correctness is way out of hand, even at Disneyland. When I went to Disneyland with my daughter over a year ago I took my daughter on the Mark Twain Riverboat. I told Becca that as we round the bend there will be a burning cabin. When we went around the bend I was surprised to find a not burning cabin. Later I read an interview with Tony Baxter who stated that part of the reason why the fire was turned off was because Disneyland thought that some people would be offended.

Well what can one do...though I do understand why POTC was changed in the 1980's in that scene where Johnny Depp is now. I wonder how many women rode that and were reminded of past sexual assault?

But as far as people complaining about a movie that's several years away from release??? That's just plain stupid!

I do hope that Disney releases "Song of the South." But if they decide not to it's not to big of a deal because it is available on DVD. Good quality too.

As for those who want to slam that film, I'll just repeat what I wrote in an earlier posting: those people that were in that film were just happy to have work. I mean doggone it! It was made in 1946 people! Give me a break.

Sheesh. Disney FINALLY makes a black princess and all people can do is complain about her? All they're doing is causing problems. So that the next time Disney thinks about doing anything controversial everyone there will go "Hey, remember what happened the LAST time we did that? NEXT!"

My family is white and my daughter is from Ethiopia.  Boy are we excited about having an black princess.  

Make a good movie (or release the old ones) that have strong stories independant of the character's "type".  Let us as parents deal with the stereotypes and politically correct issues.  I would love to use song of the south as a starting point for alot of converstations.  We watch the old Bing Crosby "Holiday Inn" move every christmas and it has the same stereotypical images.  We've been able to start discussions with our kids about how it used to be and how times have changed.  We've never been willing to say it never happened.  

Whatever you do don't water this stuff down and try to rewrite history in a way that is pleasing to the masses.

Until the first step is made, no more will follow.  Disney has been great with showing that gender, race and nationality does not matter through all the Disney channel programs which I consider to be the most diverse mixture on TV.  Is Cory in the House a black show?  How about That's so Raven?  I don't think my white bread kids see it that way.  They enjoy the shows because the characters are interesting and the stories are good.  Maybe when our sons and daughters grow up they can educate us on how stupid this pc stuff really is and just get back to the need to tell a good story.

Floyd Norman said:

Ah, life was so much simpler when we worked on "The Jungle Book" with Walt. By the way, did you know that Bageerah was a member of the Black Panther Party?

Thank you Floyd for bringing some much needed humor to this discussion.

I really hope Song of the South gets released. I remember seeing it in the theater when I was younger. It is a great story. I think it is ridiculous that this movie hasn't been released but Gone With The Wind is shown on tv all the time and has way more stereotypes in it than SOTS. SOTS is far less offensive than alot of other movies from that time.

Here's a good title for the film: how about "The Token Princess"?

You cannot build a good story around a marketing initiative that "Disney Princesses" needs to be a unified brand, with upcoming feature-films socially engineered in such a way as to "fill in the ethnic gaps".  

Everything interesting about her character will be deemed potentially "offensive" or "stereotypical", rendering her extremely boring as a character, (but useful as a junior corporate symbol).

Call me crazy, but don't we refer to Cinderella as a "Princess" not because of the shade of her lip gloss, but because she was wed to the son of the supreme executive monarch within a sovereign nation?  What would it mean to tell a story about an African-American "Princess" in New Orleans during the Jazz Age, where there never was such a setup?

This is in response to a previous comment, but I believe this film is based on the Russian fairytale, "The Frog Princess". It is different from "The Frog Prince". Therefore changing the title to "The Princess and the Frog" makes it seem like they are two different people when its in actuality the princess that is turned into the frog (ie the same person).

One question: you don't think Disney is making any drastic changes due to this controversy, do you? I really would hate to see a compromised film due to these issues.

BWSmith> The voice actor casting bulletin suggests that Tiana becomes a princess the same way as Belle and Cinderella- at the end of the movie. Is the Princess line a bit of a misnomer? Yes. You have girls who are born or marry into European monarchies, cultural equivalents in Jasmine and Pocahontas, and then Mulan- who is really the only one who earns her elevated rank. Plus, the Princess brand initially included Tinker Belle. It really ought to be called "Disney Heroines" but Princesses is more marketable.

And I think Ron and John have had an African American lead in mind for a while. I'm not sure why Treasure Planet's Jim Hawkins was redesigned to look like Thall Joben from Droids but development art doesn't lie.

The difference may that the execs and Consumer Products are willing to back it now.

Tomoyo,

At the same time, are the characters featured in the "Princess" lines really "Heroines", or are [most] or them simply protagonists? [/irrelevant]

Well, there's a male equivalent that shows up as Disney Store action figures. I think it's called Disney Heroes and includes the likes of Tarzan, Peter Pan, Prince Phillip and their enemies. So you're getting a wider range right off the bat. You can't put in Jane or Wendy under the Princesses banner.

But hey- this wouldn't be half bad- Princesses goofing off: http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/42854459/

Tomoyo:

Why couldn't they put Jane or Wendy under that banner?  Alice was considered a princess in Kingdom Hearts.  Jane and Wendy could fall under that I am sure.  As could Simba's daughter but you don't see that character being touted as a Disney Princess.  Just saying...

I'm just a little bit confused here.  *I* was under the impression that Disney issued a statement trying to clear up the misinformation surrounding the movie's cast, etc.

Nowhere in the statement did I read that Disney had to rewrite the story to appease African Americans.  So to all the folks here who are babbling about how African Americans are "ruining it" for everyone else...your 'cism is showing.  The only thing Disney admitted to changing was the title of the movie.  If political correctness was the goal...all they did was rearrange some words and threw in a couple filler words, lol.

As a Black male(half African, the other half...African), who grew up in the American South, I find SOTS to be offensive.  I remember reading stories like brer rabbit and the Tar baby ( a slur, by the way) when I was little.  What next, rerelease of Birth of a Nation??

Are you guys kidding me?  Chinua I agree...people are showing their true colors with these posts.....

Disney has every right to be concerned about being PC about this.  Why..because it means everything to African Americans.

The get over it...yadda yadda.....sure some people are sensitive - i agree....BUT - they are allowed to be.

We are just over 45 years of whites being able to treat African Americans harshly in open air with no ramifications and even though the world is a different place in many ways....you still have people who were living back then as teens/kids who are now pushing the buttons to American industry (who gets the big big promotion...who wins a conctract....and even which movies are greenlighted at major studios....so things need to be red-flagged sometimes.  And sometimes...people dont even know its offensive.

Blacks are still going through so many 'firsts' because of this subjugation that its important that things are done right.....agree?

Believe it or not there were plenty of well-to-do African Americans during slavery periods who were not enslaved who made great livings for themselves (there were even some all black towns and sections within New Orleans that flourished...especially amongst Creole people).  If this is supposed to be a 'save the slave from captivity and make her a princess' kind of story....why even pick that era

Blacks in New Orleans were very progresssive....with roots in french, hatian, and african....they were a unique mix of beauty, culture, and style.  

Just think about the messages you send to children of all ethnic backgrounds when color comes into play to tell a childrens story.

Id say make it a mostly or all black cast of characters and this issue goes away.  I guarantee you that the bulk of whites arent going to see this movie even if she was the only black character in the movie....so why try to cater to both audiences.  I know they got around this in the past with making a 'jive' animals that appeals to all (ala a Donkey from Shreck....or having a Happy Feet singing the Jungle Brothers "Dont Push Me"....etc etc.) -- but this particular film...with human characters....just make a well done movie .... target 70% black families...30% white families.  Support black targeted media for a black film and dont just expect blacks are going to see it 'just because'.

But I ask....

Couldnt she work for a black women (if you're biting a Cinderella tone)....'one' of the richest women in New Orleans (ala a Madame CJ Walker).  According to some of the other posters....thats not real.  Do your homework on that one.

Lion King is the only movie that 'feels black inclusive' to me from the Disney line and i love it so much -- the music....the Africa backdrop.  It was very very well done.

Im looking forward to this movie

@ MrMecca:

I take offense to the fact that you think this movie should be targeted more towards a black audience. Doesn't that contradict the whole discrimination issue? Why is it that a "white" movie can be targeted at a certain group of people, regardless of race, but that a movie with more black characters should be targeted more at a black demography? I assume (and hope) that Disney is targeting FAMILIES, regardless of race, background, etc., since they're making a FAMILY MOVIE, not a black or white movie.

"Disney has every right to be concerned about being PC about this.  Why..because it means everything to African Americans.

The get over it...yadda yadda.....sure some people are sensitive - i agree....BUT - they are allowed to be."

If anyone doesn't like the content of the movie, than that person has a choice (and the freedom) to not go an see it in theaters. As much as Disney had the freedom to name the movie "The Frog Princess" (fyi, not targeted at you, but what kind of argument is it that the French could have been offended? Who made that up?) and to name her "Maddy".

I remember, while researching a paper on Disney representation of Native Americans,  reading criticisms that Disney has a generally poor track record of representing African American men as human beings... Most tend to be proxied by animals, as in THE LION KING and the animated sequences of SONG OF THE SOUTH. But then while some are complaining about that, others are complaining when African Americans are being portrayed as human beings.

Unfortunately it is just one of those things you can't account for... Some may get offended by the negative portrayal of an African American girl working for a cruel  white mistress, while others might get offended at replacing the cruel white mistress for a cruel African American mistress, just as they are with a Voodoo practicing villain who happens to be a black man (as opposed to the usual portrayals of women villains as wicked witches and male villains as physical brutes, with few exceptions).  I'm kind of surprised that no one has criticized the 1920's New Orleans setting as grossly stereotypical in-itself (I'm not... I love the romantic image of the Jazz Age... I know at least I and my Satchmo-loving coworker can't wait to see this).    

What can you do about it? Indeed one can go about changing small things that may be considered problematic - like character names - but ultimately you just have to make the best movie you can make and hope it flies on its own strengths. A good story with strong characters and portrayals that aren't just reverent to racial issues but reverent to the audience's intelligence and taste for good storytelling should... maybe, hopefully... win out in the end.

On SONG OF THE SOUTH, "that's it?!" is just about the same reaction I had when I finally saw it again recently. I thought that the portrayal of African Americans - while still contextually 1940's - was relatively positive. It certainly wasn't anywhere nearly as outright offensive as the representation of Native Americans in PETER PAN (which I would, honestly, be seriously vexed about showing a child). But if African Americans are offended by it, that is something we have to respect. White people have no business whatsoever telling black people to "get over it". None. Any race should have a say over how they wish to be portrayed and regarded.

Which is partially why I am for releasing SONG OF THE SOUTH as a Walt Disney Treasures disk. Again, there are certainly unflattering portrayals of Native Americans in DAVY CROCKETT (though it's more ambiguous because of the politics of the films than being outright negative), and they didn't even try to address any of that. The Treasures series is the perfect venue to release the movie as well as bonus materials regarding it (it seems like they couldn't do a DISNEYLAND TV special before and during the first season without showing an Uncle Remus cartoon), along with scholarly discussion about race repesentation both pro and con. I'd love to see a civil, provocative, informative panel discussion as a bonus.  

Oh yes, I much prefer "The Frog Princess" myself.

There was a great bit on "Family Guy" last night about Disney and black people.  

This film already stinks.  It's really lame they have to invent an "American Fairytale."  There are thousands of African tales that would suffice and not play to this pathetic notion Disney has that it should or could hit all demographs.  The very idea that it was possible for Black royalty in the south during that time is simply ludicrous and even for older kids (who know their history) might be stretch.  I imagine at her age, Maddy had been well on her way to Mammyhood.  Talking down to the audience is probably the biggest disservice and insult.

What it breaks down to me is the following:  1.  Disney needs a splashy return to 2D.  2.  Disney needs a black princess for it's lineup.  3.  The New Orleans bit kills me.....are there words for that kind of pandering?  

If you live in a minority, it’s these kinds of “hand-outs” that are the most racist.  The very fact Disney has to second-guess their motives, stories, character names, even titles should really be a sign the project is a bad idea.    I understand with Mermaid and Beauty there may have been some PC concerns, but really…isn’t trial by committee what killed 2D in the first place?  White people never complain Disney's princesses are "European."  I don't get why they would choose NoLo.

I wasn't going to jump into this one, but I couldn't stop reading... and then I read the following statement and my head exploded:

CoreyTheRaven

"But if African Americans are offended by it, that is something we have to respect. White people have no business whatsoever telling black people to "get over it". None. Any race should have a say over how they wish to be portrayed and regarded."

If this isn't such complete and utter stupidity then I fail to understand what is! I will tell you who can't be told to 'get over it' and that's someone who was actually a slave. PERIOD. Everyone else needs to Get Over It BIG TIME!!!!! I'm tired of people of ALL races playing the victim card... and all races do it, don't blame any one over any other. I never owned a slave so I don't owe anyone anything and unless you yourself were a slave nobody owes you anything.

History is history. Facts are facts. And fiction is fiction.

And if every  race gets a say-so about every depiction of them in movies A) I'd like to know when/where we voted 'cuz I missed out on all of them so far, B) All villans would have to be aliens (which race wants to be the bad guy?), C) Every hero/heroine would have to be an alien too because we all want to be the good guy and so to pick one only would not only be unfair to the others but would be racist.

PS - Does it ever seem odd to anyone that 99% of the time the PC folks deem themselves the elite/intellectuals? And if you don't agree, or don't get it, then you are just too stupid or racist to understand them. Personally I think that if all the PC folks just disappeared we'd be done with 75% of racism in the world.

PPS - Please don't bring up the PotC changes and openly admit to agreeing with them too.... just don't. For your own sake. It's too easy to shoot you down and make you look silly.

Let's see now....

"Mulan" upset some of the Chinese who thought their legend had been misrepresented. "Aladdin" upset the Arab world for its portrayal of scimitar-wielding cuttroats along with the decidedly semitic features on some of the characters. "The Lion King" upset minorities who complained about black and latinos as villainous, lowlife hyenas, as well as the gay lobby who thought Scar to be a vicious stereotype of their people. "Tarzan" also upset blacks, who couldn't understand why a film set in Africa lacked "people of colour" (though they would have had be either spear-toting natives or baggage-toting guides accompanying Jane and her pop, thus causing further outrage.) Blacks have never liked "Song of the South" and condemned it as racist though most have never seen it. And feminists attack every sweet, kind maiden who marries a prince to live happily ever after.

Well, that settles it then. Disney should henceforth only make animated movies featuring characters that are middle-aged, straight, white guys. Since I and most of my friends that fit that particular demographic have never gotten the least bit offended over any such portrayals. In fact, we just sit back and relax, enjoy and laugh along at such characters. Whether it's Ichabod, Captain Hook, Horace and Jasper, or such lunkheaded galoots of the animal world like Baloo and Scuttle, we just enjoy them for what they are, be it villain or comic relief. Seems like the rest of you folks should learn to do the same...

I agree with empoor: to think that this movie should only be targeted towards the black community is ridiculous. And why should a film featuring a black heroine *HAVE* be set in Africa? Had that been the case, people would've complained that there are black people outside of Africa, too: which is true.

You just can't win. I don't understand why Disney is given such a hard time over this. Lets hope they continue with the production as the directors want it, and shut up until 2009 is just a little closer.

As a further thought to my post above, why should any one character be thought of as a role model to follow or relate to? In fact, I think it's more reasonable to think of various characters as reflecting different aspects of our own multi-faceted personalities.

For example:

At my best, I am sometimes like Johnny Appleseed, showing goodwill toward others and being in awe of the natural world that surrounds me. But on other occasions I'm self-centered and a bit inconsiderate of others, rather like Basil of Baker Street. When I'm up on my soapbox, spouting my political views, condemning smokers, or raging against the inanities of rap music, I'm like the pompous, holier-than-thou Rabbit from the Pooh films. When I'm out enjoying my favourite pastime of ballroom dancing, I'm Ichabod Crane - a suave, if odd-looking chap who knows that dancing is the great equalizer that can gain me more female attention out on the floor than some handsome but lead-footed Brom Bones is likely to get. Sometimes I'm like Ferdinand the Bull, eschewing a hockey game on TV in favour of something more sensitive like a "chick flick" or foreign film. Other times, I'm like Baloo the bear - a typical slob of a guy with my feet up on my cluttered coffee table watching old episodes of "The Rockford Files". When I'm out lunching at my favourite nearby diner, flirting with the cute young waitresses that are half my age, I'm the lecherous Donald Duck!

In short, I find I can identify and see some aspect of my quirky self in a variety of Disney animated characters. That's why they are all so funny and interesting to me as a viewer. Frankly I feel sorry for some of the maroons on this board who have such a big chip on their shoulders that they can't enjoy the rich variety of personalities that the clever Disney animation staff have created for us over these many decades for all to enjoy. Too bad for you, I say....

See, this is why it took THIS long for Disney to try bringing us a Black princess, and why, whenever they DO bother to portray Blacks, we get crap like Disney Channel's The Proud Family.

Disney shouldn't try so hard to listen to these morons. Based from the constant complaints that has come from their films since the 1990's, they'll NEVER be happy.

I don't think this film has to be set in Africa.  It could be anywhere really, it's not like black people never left the continent.  The problem is with New Orleans the entire premise is just absurd.  Why does it have to be a Western fairytale?  A black aristocracy in the south is just unrealistic.  Yes there were some wealthy blacks, but these people were ALWAYS subject to the white man.  All the way up to the 60s and even today.  

The problem here is Disney announced it like it was a big-to-do.  I for one would have preferred secrecy around the project and a sneak like when Beauty premiered.  They also had to use the more horrid conceptual artwork they could find.

I really hope Lasseter get's a grip here.  They sure better put Rapunzel back in 2D.  

I don't think this film has to be set in Africa.  It could be anywhere really, it's not like black people never left the continent.  The problem is with New Orleans the entire premise is just absurd.  Why does it have to be a Western fairytale?  A black aristocracy in the south is just unrealistic.  Yes there were some wealthy blacks, but these people were ALWAYS subject to the white man.  All the way up to the 60s and even today.  

The problem here is Disney announced it like it was a big-to-do.  I for one would have preferred secrecy around the project and a sneak like when Beauty premiered.  They also had to use the more horrid conceptual artwork they could find.

I really hope Lasseter get's a grip here.  They sure better put Rapunzel back in 2D.  

finebydesign said:

"They sure better put Rapunzel back in 2D. "

Why that?

Addy as a slave name?

The most famous Addy I know was Tatum O'Neal in "Paper Moon."

And it's funny that people aren't incensed about the one thing I can find fault with: the name of the villain Dr. Duvalier.

It's clear the name is a play on the nickname of Francois Duvalier, who was nicknamed "Doc" (later "Papa Doc"). This man was a terrible dictator who killed thousands of Haitians while raping his country of whatever wealth it had, leaving the country desperately poor and broken. Just look at his title: "President for Life, Maximum Chief of the Revolution, Apostle of National Unity, Benefactor of the Poor, Patron of Commerce and Industry and Electrifier of Souls." Haitians later stormed his palace to ritually execute his body in 1986, even though he died in 1971.

The pun is clever, but naming a cartoon villain after a man like Duvalier is very irresponsible.

Captainhook91 states "I will tell you who can't be told to 'get over it' and that's someone who was actually a slave."

Or whose ancestors were slaves, or whose culture was destroyed by the encroach of another culture, or for whom negative stereotypes have been used to reinforce class oppression. Those are just the main examples, but ultimately, it comes down to a matter of respect more than victimization. If a large number of people from a particular racial, cultural, religious, gender or sexual orientation group say that a particular representation of them is a denigrating misrepresentation, then we should take heed of that simply out of respect for other human beings.

For example, a Native American has every right to be offended by PETER PAN, and no one has any right to tell them to "get over it",  because the representation of Native Americans in PETER PAN is flat out ignorant and insulting. Even if Native Americans weren't class oppressed (which they are) that legitimate criticism would stand.

That applies to everyone. African Americans have a right to be offended by representations that stereotype them as devolved plantation slaves or thug gangsters. Native Americans have a right to be offended by representations that stereotype them as hooting scalpers or "drunken indians". White Americans in the South have the right to be offended by representations that stereotype them as slack-jawed rednecks. Germans have a right to be offended by representations that stereotype them all as Nazis and the French have a right to be offended by representations that stereotype them as beret-wearing homosexual mimes.

What we don't have the right to be offended by, though, is when being fair and repsectful to people cuts into our fun. Speaking of the victim card, I never see politically correct howls of outrage like those from white people who feel their privilege is being diminished by having it pointed out to them that they're producing a negative stereotype of another group. If there is anyone who I would tell to get over it, it's you guys.

So what if people are offended by THE FROG PRINCESS? Get over it. It's just a Disney movie... A cartoon. If they have to change it, so what. Who cares? Stop getting your panties in a bunch, captainhook91. It's not the end of the world. Get over it.  

He also pleaded with me: "Please don't bring up the PotC changes and openly admit to agreeing with them too.... just don't. For your own sake. It's too easy to shoot you down and make you look silly."

Of course, in the process of saying that it is more of a respect issue, I'm assuming you're capable of respect. Between this and your comment about my complete and utter stupidity, you seem to have a pretty ridiculous vicious streak when it comes to cartoons and children's rides. Maybe you should get that looked at. Or at least get over it.

"African Americans have a right to be offended by representations that stereotype them as devolved plantation slaves or thug gangsters."

Yeah? And just who is responsible for that latter depiction, Cory? African Americans themselves for crissake! I despise the image of the rap thug myself but it is an image deliberately perpetuated by blacks themselves because they think it's cool to dress and act in an intimidating manner. If blacks are somehow suffering because of that image, society is not to blame - they themselves are! Sheesh!

Furthermore, Cory, if all purveyors of entertainment were to adhere strictly to your guidelines of what not to portray onscreen, they'd be painted into such a tiny corner that they couldn't move. What makes characters interesting is their personality quirks and flaws. Even stereotypes may be celebrated and lampooned in good humour. Just take a look at Mel Brooks' classic comedy, "The Producers". In that film (and subsequent musical play) Brooks lampoons ex-nazis, gays, Swedish blonde bombshells, and yes, even New York Jews, of which Mel Brooks is a member in good standing. The thing is, he does everything so over the top, yet with such goodnatured humour that the result is a cast of characters that you can't help but like! I would argue the same thing in regard to the Indians in "Peter Pan" - the Chief is great!

Of course people like you would nitpick something like "The Producers" to death, seeking to expose everything that is offensive in your narrow little mind. Well, I feel sorry for you, Cory. And if you keep on following this route you're going to end up as Cory The Raven Mad....

Corythe Raven - A few points if I may.

1. Every person on earth has some, if not many, people in their family that were treated poorly, killed, maimed, cheated, lied to, abused, stole from, etc, etc,... so what? It's sad, but it's life. If your life is so perfect that you have time to moan about other's problems, then you are a lucky person. But if you think that you are 'owed' something that was taken from someone else... you are not only mistaken, but will never be happy or satisfied. You will be choosing to be the victim.

2. Respect is earned, not given.

3. An indian has every right to be offended by Peter Pan if they choose to be. They are an indian. You are not a slave, nor have you ever been one. You have no right to complain. You can say it is bad (and it is), you can fight to make sure it doesn't ever happen again (and we all should) but that's it. The indian person has a right to their opinion, but I don't agree with the opinion and fail to see why the movie should be changed or not shown.

4. Any person who, or allows their child to be, taught history from a Disney movie is a complete and utter fool. Until Peter Pan is shown in a history class in order to show what 'indians' are, there is nothing wrong with it... you need to look at it for what it is and not what you want it to be. Movies are ENTERTAINMENT. Entertainment usually includes humor. Humor usually pokes fun at people and things. Get over it.

5. Until you can show me a movie where every white person is perfect and shown in a totally positive light, then I will listen to your theory on the unfair treatment of non-whites.

6. Stereotypes come from somewhere. Yes, they are oversimplifications of generic truths... yes, they can be negative just as well as positive... and yes, some are outdated... but they don't just appear from thin air. And it never ceases to amaze me when someone complains about a 'percieved' negative stereotype (that may have a basis in truth) but in the same breath will brag about a 'positive' stereotype (that may have very little if any basis in truth).

7. Seeing as how I never uttered a word for or against what's going on with this movie... why tell me to get over it? You did actually read my post before commenting, didn't you? The only reason I commented in the first place was because I found your comment outrageous. This movie is so early on in production that I could care less about it right now.

8. My PotC comment was directed at wec's comment, not you. May I ask why you choose to take that as a personal 'pleading' to you? Surprisingly enough, it ain't about you. Just like this whole topic. So again I ask, did you not read my post before commenting or are you just into emotionally based knee-jerk reactions? That makes you look silly.

And lastly,

9. Can you really not tell the difference between the statements 'YOU are completely and utterly stupid' vs. 'YOUR COMMENT is completely and utterly stupid'? Big difference my friend. Other than quoting your comment, nothing was directed at you personally... unlike your reply to me. Once again I say... It's not always about you. And again... that makes you look very silly to say such a thing.

Please read people's comments before responding.

Until then, get over it.

This debate seems to be sheding a great deal of light on why a couple of you are so bloody hypersensitive about this whole thing. So far, any and all disagreements with what I wrote have resorted to crude stereotypes and childish namecalling. "Cory The Raven Mad"? Good one Britt... What's next, throwing yourself on the floor in a temper tantrum? God forbid we offend the delicate sensibilities of Disney fans!

I actually happened to like THE PRODUCERS a great deal. But the comparisson is apples and oranges. The very nature of comedy and satire is that it is allowed leeway in playing with stereotypes because the stereotypes are themselves absurd. As a person of German descent (whose family helped people esacape the Holocaust no less), I didn't find the over-the-top stereotypes of Germans offensive through an intelligent understanding of the context. Also, as a partial German, it's my right to find it offensive or inoffensive as I so choose.

Which also factors into the issue over representations of African Americans. The image of the gangsta' thug is one that is being examined within the context of black culture itself. African American thinkers, ministers, activists, commedians, rappers and feminists are challenging the image. Some of them are outright making fun of the stereotype too. And they are entitled to do so because it is a critique within the context of the culture, just as blacks are allowed to call eachother "n****r" and homosexuals are allowed to call eachother "f*g", but no one outside those groups are. Within the context of the culture itself, it is recognized that these critiques, comedies and terms are not being used as an instrument of class oppression. The same applies to white people making movies about themselves.

It's an entirely different kettle of fish when it's a straight-up movie rather than a comedy and its by people outside the group. Then, simply out of respect and common decency, people should look to make as culturally sensitive a portrayal as they can. Not only that, but it also makes better ART because it makes for more nuanced characters. Seeing walking, talking, one-note stereotypes is BORING as well as offensive.

This is simply to recognize that art does not exist in a cultural vacuum where anything goes. Art should be culturally and morally responsible. Of course it will sometimes make mistakes, sometimes even be deliberately in the service of an evil cause. That is why I believe in understanding and dialogue rather than censorship. I don't believe in banning films like BIRTH OF A NATION or TRIUMPH OF THE WILL, no matter how odious they are. Movies as bad as this, or even as relatively innocuous as SONG OF THE SOUTH or PETER PAN should be opportunities for conscientious, cross-cultural discourse.

And if a producer decides that the possible commercial impact of a film could be injured by questions about race representation, then they have the right to watch their pocketbooks and adjust their art as they deem necessary. If you don't like it, stop throwing a juvenile hissy fit and get over it.

As for respect, sorry, but it is given, not earned. It may be lost, but treating other people with respect is a devout virtue that you guys should try working on.

It really sheds light on your responses Cory, when you have to resort to extremes to prove a point or disprove another... and then completely disregard other points alltogether. Very telling.

Anyway, this article states three main complaints that certain people had in regards to this movie.

"The name "Maddy" sounded too much like "Mammy" and/or "Addy" (Which supposedly was a slave name)"

- So I guess we can't use DAVE (or David), SAMMY (Sam, Samuel, or Samantha), or DADDY. Heck, Rambo sounds alot like Sambo, better fix that too!

"Maddy starts off this film working as a chamber maid for Charlotte, a rich, white, spoiled Southern débutante. Which -- to some particularly sensitive types -- also smacked of slavery."

- I guess being culturally sensitive means that we can't refer to historical events. And appearantly it means that we either ignore history or change it. And southern white people should be up in arms about the negative imagery associated with Charlotte. Spoiled debutante slave owner indeed! Any objections to that anyone? cough (Cory) cough  Maybe it's just that we have to be culturally sensitive to cultures OTHER than white folk?

"The film's original title -- "The Frog Princess" -- was interpreted (by some) to be insulting toward France. Or -- at the very least -- a slur on French royalty."

- Just goes to show that anything, taken out of context, by people with an agenda, can be made to look bad. Maybe we should consider changing the name "Magic Kingdom" to something else. Why? Because people who believe in or practice magic could feel that this is a stab at them. Why is this a stab? Because obviously nothing in the "Magic" Kingdom is actual magic... so people could believe that magic doesn't really exist, therefore defaming them and their beliefs. Horrible, just plain horrible and Disney should be ashamed!

PS - Don't ask for respect when you give none.

You seem to be confused, captainhook91... I gave what I felt to be a fair and measured response to the issue that seemed, to me, to reconcile artistic freedom and historicity with the genuine feeling of offense that some people take. YOU were the one who were just so provoked by what I said that you had to slam it and me, repeatedly and insultingly. Not to mention that you guys are the ones using polemic arguments from the most extreme stereotypes of political correctness that you can muster. Being called on that, you're playing the victim card. Get your facts straight, captain.

Now if you insist upon a point-by-point rebuttal to your list of charges (I guess you can't infer from what I actually wrote primarily to Britt), then heregoes...

1. The cruelties of life are no excuse for perpetrating continued cruelty, either deliberately or ignorantly, simply for the sake of entertainment.

2. Respect is given, not earned.

3. "You can say it is bad (and it is), you can fight to make sure it doesn't ever happen again (and we all should) but that's it." And then you can call it stupid, politically correct and silly to do so. It's not only your facts you should get straight, captain, but your opinions.  

4. I already addressed the issue of humour, racial representation and the moral responsibility of art in my previous post. You fancy yourself to be smarter than me, you look it up.

5. White people are entitled to make negative movies about their own culture just as African or Spanish Americans, homosexuals, etc. are entitled to make negatives movies about themselves. When you're looking at things within the context of your own culture, you have the luxury of thinking as characters merely as characters rather than symbolic representations of the races, cultures, religions, sexual orinetations or genders they happen to be. When we step outside of our circle (and especially when we step into the territory of representing class oppressed minorities), then we have to be extremely careful of how we portray them. They don't have to be glowingly positive, where every character is a hero, but they should be honest and conscientious.

6. I never said anything about positive stereotypes being any better than negative ones. As for whether or not the stereotypes have a basis in reality (maybe black people really do all love fried chicken?), that is something that can certainly be dissected within the context of those cultures themselves. As for us, respect and common decency dictates otherwise.

7. I told you to get over it because of your outrageous accusations against what I wrote, based on nothing but your own childish angst about political correctness.

8. Your post was primarily directed at me, and since you didn't make it clear that you were refering to anyone else but me - and I'm accustomed to seeing PotC brought up when Disney fans complain about political correctness - I responded to it. So sue me.

And lastly,

9. Actually, what you said was "If this isn't such complete and utter stupidity then I fail to understand what is!" which leaves it ambiguous as to whether or not you were refering to the opinion or the person holding it. The rest of your seething contempt was intelligibly plain.

Happy now?

As for the specific criticisms of THE FROG PRINCESS, I happen to think they're stupid too. But if that's what people are getting upset about, then I'll heed it out of common decency and respect. As for the white slavemaster, as a white person I don't have a problem with that.

Wow. Your true colors are shining through. You complain of viscious attacks (when there are none) and then visciously attack back many times over. Very nice.

A few things and then I will refrain from responding as I don't want to be provoked into stooping to your level of response.

1. I disagreed with your comment. I did not slam you. How you choose to take it is entirely up to you and out of my hands.

2. I choose to be a victim to nothing.

3. Perpetuating cruelty? Don't you mean percieved cruelty? Or do you really think that Disney is out to degrade and demean non-white races?

4. Nobody called slavery stupid. Don't assume you are intelligent enough to put words into my mouth. You are woefully ill-equipped to do so.

5. To say that only people of a certain race can make movies about, or joke about, their own race is not only niave in it's assumptions but foolish to the core. Do you think that we should have an asian writer be the only person to write words for an asian character... and only an asian artist draw the asian character... and only an asian director directing the scenes in which that character appears? To follow that train of (lack of) thought would mean one of two things: 1. Either movies will be made up entirely of one race or 2. Movies will be so hugely staffed (with multiple staff people for each character) that movies will no longer be feasable to produce.

6. My post was NOT 'primarily' directed at you. It wasn't directed to you at all. I responded to your comment in general. I did not address my comments to you nor did I ask for your response ( I wish now I'd specifically stated that I didn't want your response). I did not mention your name other than to quote your comment. And I even made a comment directly to another poster (wec). Funny how you ignore all of that and take offense where none existed. No wonder you view racism and PC'ness as you do. Sad really.

7. If you choose to view yourself as a "this" and not a "he/she" then so be it. But my comment about being "complete and utter stupidity" was directed to your comment and your comment only. Unlike some on here, I try very hard to differentiate the opinion from the person. Some people, like yourself, do make that hard however at times. You may be very smart and extremely likable in everyway outside of this discussion. Until you prove otherwise I will assume so. But you really need to calm down and not make EVERYTHING a personal attack. It is possible to debate ideas and opinions, AND disagree, without it becoming only 'attacks' in your mind. If you are as intelligent as you claim to be you should see that.

8. How do you equalize the fact that not all black people are opposed to this movie in it's original state? Or that not all indian people are offended by Peter Pan? What ratio do you use to determine if something is offensive or not and should be changed? Maybe I'm offended by the portrayal of the white slavemaster, should it be changed too? Or does your pro-opinion count more than mine?

Personally I think common sense should rule the day... but sadly common sense doesn't come out in everyones favor all the time. But people's own opinion usually does fall their way so they'd rather stick with that. Kinda sad when you think about it.

Hey Cory, I wonder how many poor little Palestinian kiddies Disney must have traumatized when they so insensitively named their Little Mermaid after the former leader/military general of Israel. Heavens, what were they thinking?

See the ridiculous lengths one could go to find something to be offended about? Sorry, Cory, but I don't have much respect for uptight characters like you. I ain't gonna walk on eggshells, watching my every word out of fear of offending. The heck with that PC nonsense.

Captainhook91, whichever way one cuts it, you chose to respond to my comments incredibly rudely. Instead of voicing a respectful disagreement, you started in with insults. I didn't roll over for you and that's really all there is to it. If you wanted a respectful dialogue, then you shouldn't have started in with your namecalling and seething contempt for people who disagree with you. Now you're just a petulant Disney fan throwing a temper tantrum.

Methinks the Cap'n scored the winning blow. Everybody knows he has a mean left hook...

Weirdly enough, Britt, I wasn't trying to win anything when I posted my comment. It was the two of you who decided to respond to it like babies. Once you've grown up a bit, maybe you'll figure out that internet isn't just a big pissing contest for losers.

You see, Cory, this is where you keep making your mistake. You're just as guilty of what you accusing us of. Yes, no doubt the internet is infamous for leading to "pissing contests", as you put it. But you've made equally inflammatory statements by accusing those who disagree with you of being "babies" and being a "petulant Disney fan throwing a temper tantrum." Not exactly a good way to influence people in my opinion.

The reason those of us on the other side of this debate get so impassioned about "political correctness" is because we've seen how it has changed the face of entertainment over the last couple of decades or so, and that change has been to the detriment of all entertainment. In the case of the Disney features, it seemed to reach its apex with "Pocahontas"; a film so miserably adherent to PC values that the result is a bland and boring mess with characters so devoid of personality and visual interest in their design that they cease to be entertaining. Yes, Cory, this is exactly what we'd keep getting if filmmakers were to adhere slavishly (can I use that word?) to your narrowminded, restrictive guidelines. That is why there are those of us who fight against such mindset as yours.

Having said all this, however, I think we can agree on one thing: we are not going to change our opinion on this matter and it is doubtful you will change yours. We'll just have to leave it at that. But keep one thing in mind, Cory. My low regard for you is not because you disagree with me. I've argued online with others whom I respect a lot. No, my low regard for you comes from this elitist, holier-than-thou attitude you adopt, considering those who disagree with you to be somehow immature and in need of "growing up". That doesn't cut it, mister.

Britt said: "But you've made equally inflammatory statements by accusing those who disagree with you of being "babies" and being a "petulant Disney fan throwing a temper tantrum." Not exactly a good way to influence people in my opinion."

I recommend you go back and reread my posts. My inflamitory criticisms have been in regards to your and captain's rude remarks about me and my opinions. For the actual debate points you raised, I debated them. But if you want to just blanket my views as stupid or make fun of my user name, then I'm going to call you a big baby, because that's exactly how you are acting.

Also: "The reason those of us on the other side of this debate get so impassioned about "political correctness" is because we've seen how it has changed the face of entertainment over the last couple of decades or so,"

Media has ALWAYS been "politically correct". The only difference is what we consider to be "politically correct". For the larger part of this century, demeaning racial stereotypes was politically correct. Davy Crockett standing heroically atop the Alamo was politically correct imagery. Disney releasing a tribute to the American spirit in opposition to FAHRENHEIT 9/11 is also political correctness. The parameters of what constitutes political correctness changes depending on the audience. The same people who complain about liberal political correctness are the same people who will throw a hissy fit over not refering to soldiers or the American government the "right" way. It's all relative and flexible, which is what I tried to convey with my views on the subject of representation.

You're sitting there accusing me of slavish adherence to narrow and restrictive guidelines, but I fail to see where you're getting that assessment from, except from your own slavish, narrow, politically correct stereotypes about political correctness (oh yes, being contemptuous of political correctness is politically correct, especially amongst Disney fans). Like, really, what set you off? My statement that we should be careful in making nuanced and racially/ethnically/gender/sexual orientation-accurate representations of characters whether they're heroes or villains? That we should look to understand and dialogue rather than censor? That it's just common decency not to deliberately slander whole groups of people in films? Come now, what was it? Where are you getting this impression of me from? How do you figure you even know what my mindset is?

Also: "My low regard for you is not because you disagree with me. I've argued online with others whom I respect a lot. No, my low regard for you comes from this elitist, holier-than-thou attitude you adopt, considering those who disagree with you to be somehow immature and in need of "growing up". That doesn't cut it, mister."

That's okay, because my low regard for you comes from how, completely unprovoked,  you started in with namecalling against me. I don't even know who you are, but you saw fit to introduce yourself to me by calling me "Cory The Raven Mad".

THAT, Britt, is why you need to grow up. Not because you disagree with me, but because you're a big namecalling baby.

Well said Britt! I couldn't (and most others too) agree with you more.

Best to let this one go. It is impossible to talk to someone who imagines attacks when there are none and is completely closed minded and short sighted. It is a complete waste of intelligent debate on our part. Save your breath my friend.

Now excuse me while I go put on my baby sized, petulant Disney hat, and go throw a temper tantrum while trying to perpetuate cruelty simply for my own entertainment. I might even watch Peter Pan while I'm at it. I'm evil that way.

;o)

It was a cheap shot perhaps, but simply a humourous if obvious pun. (Actually swiped from the March Hare in Disney's "Alice in Wonderland", to be honest.) So that makes me a "big namecalling baby" huh? Think what you want, but you're the one with a chip on your shoulder.

Now, let's take a look at what you've said here:

"Like, really, what set you off? My statement that we should be careful in making nuanced and racially/ethnically/gender/sexual orientation-accurate representations of characters whether they're heroes or villains? That we should look to understand and dialogue rather than censor? That it's just common decency not to deliberately slander whole groups of people in films? "

If there is ever to be any genuine equality among people of different races, creeds, religions, genders, or what-have-you, then creating characterizations in films should take the same approach across the board. If filmmakers want to show a psychotic killer or a clueless buffoon, why is that only okay if it's being portrayed by a white guy? In creating an individual character, nobody is making a blanket statement that covers every member of that particular demographic. Therefore, nobody should be taking a "hissy fit" (in your own vernacular) over such a portrayal.

In their animated features, Disney should not  be obligated to be an apologist for any perceived wrongs done to any group throughout history. This is what captainhook91 was clearly getting at, but you somehow seem to disagree.  All the Disney animation department owes its audience are interesting and entertaining characters and stories that we'd enjoy watching and buying tickets for. Whatever their combination of race, gender, creed, and personality types and quirks may be. Does that sum things up for you clearly enough? If you'd have actually read my earliest posts in this thread you'd have already known where I stood in regards to characters and the way audiences relate to a rich variety of different personality types.

Yes Britt, I do have a chip on my shoulder when people chose to respond to to a respectful post in a rude manner, and then accuse me of being the rude one when I don't stand for it. Somehow, even though what you just described is pretty close to what I think anyways, you saw fit to make a lame duck joke on my name without ANY provocation whatsoever - after captain decided to call what I said "complete and utter stupidity" instead of just resepctfully disagreeing - and then complain about how I'm not "impressing" you because I held you to account for it.

There's your political correctness right there. You're allowed to insult me without any provocation whatsoever, I'm not allowed to insult back, and then you make me out to be the bad guy for not being a bigger man than you. Again, and I don't know how many times I have to explain this, my problem is not that you disagree with me. My problem is that you took it upon yourselves to insult me, and then treat me like the bully for calling you on it.

I have a problem with the "Fighting Irish," but who cares what the Irish think?

"The Princess and the Frog"?  Everyone will still make French jokes.  Everyone.  Because we're just that insensitive.  In fact, even if they changed it to "The Princess and the Prince," we'd still make jokes about how the French surrendered to the punctual Germans.  I mean, that's what we do, right?  We make fun of people.  That's all we do.  We wait for movies to come out so we can make fun of the characters' race or nationalities.

So I'm glad the P.C. Police are patrolling the Disney backlot.  They should force Disney to make all the characters Irish.  Fightin' Irish!  

Not Germans, not French, and certainly nor Black!  Make 'em Irish - because then no one will complain.

Except me.

[This was written tongue-in-cheek.  Please don't add any serious "we can't make them Irish because the English hate the Irish!" comments]

I really have a problem with political correctness applied to art.  Song of the South has been available in Europe and this is due to the fact that politics does not typically interfere with art in Europe.  Artist in this country should learn that to express oneself should not be censured by the politically correct factions of this country.  I find it very sad that an animated movie made by a big corporation has to bow to the pressure.  The name of the movie should be "The Frog Princess" and the name of the main character should be "Maddy."  The story is the story and nothing else.  An animated film from Disney does not make a political statement and was not written to put anyones culture in a bad light.  The Politically Correct Police should climb back into the hole they crawled out of and deal with the bigger isssues of crime, poverty, and education in this country.

I was once told that the car manufactures did a study on what color the interior of a car should be…  if you make something to bright or to dark, no one would like it, so they then came up with something like beige and although no one hates it, no one really loves it either.   I, too, was excited to see this (The Princess and the Frog) movie.  I, too, have seen "Song of the South" (with a mixed audience) and everyone loved it.  But, now that Disney (by changing what they are changing) has agreed that they are not in the business of making films any longer, I’m just not as interested.  Oh, sure, they make something close to a film, but it lacks the art of true story telling.  That is why they have yet to make something, anything in last few years that has been well received.  Maybe this is why they needed to buy Pixar (which they will eventually ruin, as well).  I have both African and Native American ancestry, and I loved "The Lion King," "Pocahontas" and The "Emperor’s New Grove."  My family and I would love to see more movies that explore what it means to be "A Disney Character" and live in a non-white world (makes for great discussion and self exploration).  At the same time, I would tell my daughters that you do not need to have the physical attributes that the "White" Princess’ have.  But, then comes Pocahontas, so what is a Dad to do.  I think that the unreal expectations on girl’s/young woman’s physical form are the real issue that these films should be criticized for.  I suppose that we will have to see this movie, but, I am not as excited as I once was to see it.  And, I most defiantly will not be pushing it to my girls, if they want to see, then we might see it.  I am very disappointed (a common thing with Disney, lately).  I was just hopping that we would not be going to see a movie made by Disney’s PR department; I'd rather see a film made by the Disney Artists.    

PS. The “Indians” in “Peter Pan” (because they certainly are not Native Americans) are a great satire of what some white people thought of Native Americans and still my family loves every second the Indians are on the screen.  It’s about perspective, I guess.  

I say, let the PCers have their space.  Freedom of speech, and all that.  It's their own opinions, let them talk.  What's the problem is the fact that anyone cares.  Disney doesn't need to bow to their wishes like that.  Besides, we all know that, even if Disney eliminates all PInC parts of the film, next people will complain "You can't base something in New Orleans, they're still reconstructing!"

mjs1902 said:

" I find it very sad that an animated movie made by a big corporation has to bow to the pressure.  The name of the movie should be "The Frog Princess" and the name of the main character should be "Maddy."  The story is the story and nothing else.  An animated film from Disney does not make a political statement and was not written to put anyones culture in a bad light."

Yes, I completely agree with what you're saying here. The crazy irony of it all is that, looking back at Disney's body of work from the "The Little Mermaid" onward through the 1990's, one of the main themes that purcolated through most of those films  in varying degrees was "Always Be True To Yourself". It's there most prominently in "Aladdin" but also somewhat present in many of the other films too. Yet, in reality, the Disney Company itself has not followed that sage advice in the production of their later films. It seems to me that Disney is so concerned with being liked (and appealing to as large a moviegoing/paying public demographic as it can) that it often waters down what could have been a winning film idea into some new concept that tries to cover all the bases in avoiding potential controversy and offends nobody. The resulting films end up so bland and devoid of genuine characterization that they have ended up appealing to a pitiful few. Yes, Disney should go with their original story premise for "The Frog Princess", critics be damned.

Lassetter makes his first big misstep. If you're bringing back Disney animation, you don't go for something different. First, you create something that's going to please the fans and bring them back. Continuing the "Disney ethnic character line" (tm) is not pursuing that ideal. As someone who remembers when Disneyland didn't allow African Americans to enter, I believe that Disney owes that demographic big time. A black Disney princess is long overdue, but the first new 2d out of the slip isn't the time or place. Assuming that Lassetter does want to bring 2d back, I have to say that I am less than impressed with his judgement and that this doesn't bode well for future 2d success.

I guess you all are correct when you say that it is about perspective.  

Just because one takes issue with any particular element of this new Disney movie does not mean that they subscribe to a victims mentality or that they will be rallying the forces to march on Washington.  

I find many of the critiques to be valid.  For example, if the princess’s name was introduced as Madeline and called Maddy for short in dialogue, I’m quite sure that it probably wouldn’t have been too big of a deal.

The problem is that she would have been the ONLY Disney Princess to be inherently enslaved.  Let's be honest...is that the EXTENT of the creativity in story lines for black people?  Especially when all but three of the Disney princesses are royalty. Even though Pocahantas and Mulan weren’t princesses in the traditional sense, they weren’t maids/servants either. Cinderella was made to be servant by her step mother but even still they illustrated her noble beginnings. ‘Maddy’ was a chamber maid and her mother was a nurse maiden.  Maybe if this wasn’t the first (in 2007 mind you) feature it would be different, but it is and I agree that they should have considered those objections.  Remember Days of Our Lives… how all of the black characters were introduced either from the streets or from ‘MAIMMY’ the wealthy families maid.  Apparently there were no wealthy black families in the entire city.

So as someone stated earlier, No, white people probably aren’t as sensitive about media depiction. But that is only because you have historical perspective on lock. You get a balanced portrayal of your culture.  Well, sometimes Black people feel that we get the same old imagery: lowly criminal, comedian or musical talent; but not serious dramatic or intellectual. Besides this years King of Scotland and Pursuit of Happyness…how many primarily black-casted films or television dramas have you watched? (BTW, trick question because you shouldn’t have kept count)

I teach my daughter to appreciate herself foremost, but also other cultures as well. And just because I want her to love herself doesn't mean that I want her love anyone else less.  She has dolls that are a range of ethnicities to help reinforce that.  I've seen plenty of black and other races with White dolls but in my entire lifetime, I've only seen one white child with a black doll..

I don't think anyone is asking that they totally revamp the storyline, we just want something along the standard of tradition of Walt Disney...nothing more and certainly nothing less.  I am excited about getting to see this Disney film and getting to see herself as a Disney Princess….

Just as there are those who find racism in the most minutest detail; there are also their counterparts who believe racism only exists as overt lynching and slavery and whose knee jerk response is almost always..."Get OVER it"

I think corey tried to explain this though...

I don't think that Disney should have changed anything about the film.  I have been following the production of this film very closely, and I can say that I already see where the culture and history is being stripped from the film.   I was raised up watching the Disney princess movies, and I still have every original copy of each princess movie (among several others) as I have had since childhood.

I am a native of New Orleans, and the production notes that I saw were already hitting close to home. I don’t see anything wrong with the Jazz, the Voodoo, the Gator, the frog, the natural hair, or her name. Those things are small representations of home.  I wear my hair naturally curly, and sometimes I wear it straight. I know some voodoo, and I was raised on jazz music.  I live below sea-level, so it is not uncommon for me to see snakes, gators, or frogs. I know people nick-named “Maddy”.  

This film is taking place in one of the more respectable times for African Americans (especially New Orleanais – lest we forget Katrina).  I for one believe that all of the decisions originally made have so far been tasteful and historically accurate. Need I remind people that this film takes place in a crucial time in history for African Americans, and a time when we were coming into the forefront during the birth of Jazz as well as the Harlem Renaissance. This is a time when African Americans were on the rise as people, and approaching a time that would change not only the course of history, but also influence the rich history of our entire country. So why shouldn’t the first AMERICAN Disney princess be African-American and from New Orleans?  I think it’s perfect the way it is.

Perhaps we should give them a chance to finish the whole movie before we criticize. And since us black people are sooo good at criticizing; why don’t we bitch and moan about the way we portray ourselves in the media and stop worrying about a Disney cartoon. All these offended African Americans need to learn how to deal with their own history, and learn from it.

Who will we have to blame years from now when our grandchildren look at movies like “The Princess and the Frog” and compare it against all the rest of the crap that came out around the same time??

I agree with everyone.  I think this mess is just people who have nothing better to do than to stir up controversy.  The movie began historically correct: are you telling me that there were no black slaves back then in the time period in which the movie is set?  It's not racism, it's fact.  This whole thing is ridiculous in my opinion, and I've been wanting to see a new Disney film in traditional animation for a while now.  I hope that Disney goes on with most of the original plans and does once heck of a movie.

In January of 2004, Disney shut down their Florida animation studio, part of their decision to move away

Disney has released the trailer for its 2009 animated feature "The Princess and the Frog" featuring its first black princess in over 70 years of film making. Check it out: It's been reported that the title character, Princess Tiana, was...