Disney's 2017 BATB

Image

Guess what I finally saw...?

So now the live action Beauty and the Beast is on Netflix (any major Disney film is usually available on Netflix within a few months). I know this movie was reviewed a ton back in March and I'm not sure if I'll be adding anything new. And I can never be unbiased about an adaptation of the Disney classic...it was my favorite movie as a child, I could probably quote the whole movie mostly accurately (but I've never tried to go from start to finish). It was my comfort movie-the one I watched when I was sick and always made me feel better. So really nothing could surpass the classic for this nostalgic girl...

But in the words of a friend, "It made me want to watch the cartoon." (To be fair, most of my friends really liked the new film.) Not that it was all bad, in fact I liked several of the changes they made. Biggest improvement by far was LeFou, who went from being the stock dumb sidekick (who wasn't even that funny, truthfully) to what I found to be the most likable character, funny and with more depth. And honestly...I don't know that I would have picked up the fact that he was gay on the initial viewing if everyone didn't make such a huge deal about it, it was so subtle. We (my husband Tony and I) also liked Maurice better, more realistic than the comically short, bumbling old man.

But the rest of the characters just...weren't that likable to me. One of the great tragedies of the film was how even excellent actors seemed to make the classic characters fall flat. Normally I would say Emma Thompson can do no wrong...but was it just me or was her accent really weird? And Ian McKellen's Cogsworth grew on me a little towards the end but I still wasn't crazy about him. He was much darker...the former Cogsworth was delighted to take Belle on a tour of the castle her first night there, complete with cheesy puns. This one wanted her to stay in her cell the first night in the castle. And I won't even get started on Lumiere...

But in order to make a BATB story work, you need a great Belle, a great Beast, and good chemistry. Normally I don't mind Emma Watson as an actress, but from her artificial sounding singing voice to her acting coming across as very forced in general, this was her most distracting performance I've seen since the first Harry Potter movies.

Then there's the writing too...the scenes with the villagers just seemed so random. Why are they so bitter about women reading? I'm no expert in French history circa the 18th century, but wasn't that not really a time period in which reading women were persecuted? Why did their dumping of her laundry on the street have barely any reaction from Belle? And if they're so unreasonable about reading, why were they all of a sudden much more civil when Maurice claimed Gaston, their hero, tried to kill him?

And speaking of Gaston-he was initally not really that bad of a character. A little shallow maybe, but from what we saw, he hardly seemed to warrant Belle's rude rejections. The cartoon Belle's "I'm sorry Gaston, but...I just don't deserve you!" was so clever yet a polite turn down, because that Gaston would never in a million years imagine she meant she was too good for him. And no matter how arrogant someone is, it still hurts to be turned down. Their interactions just reflected poorly on Belle's character and not Gaston's. Later, his cruel murderous actions seemed random and not as believable.

I think Dan Stevens did fine as the Beast...it was so hard to tell underneath all the unnecessary CGI!

There were some subtle changes I enjoyed, like when Beast asks if Belle is happy and instead of "Yes...(moodily stares off into distance)" she replies, "Can anyone be happy if they're not free?". And then props to this Beast for then being the one to realize she might miss her father. And that scene, borrowed from the musical, where the objects are one by one turning into inanimate objects...so haunting! It was nice that the happy ending included a reuniting of villagers with the cast from the castle. Oh, and the rose request from the classic fairy tale! And the super subtle nod to McKinley (I think) with the Beast meeting Philippe. And...

There are so many little things I could mention but I feel like that was part of the problem. So many things here and there introduced but not fully developed. Plot holes from the original film were filled in but I feel like it left just as many questions. I think I'm beginning to realize that fairy tales, especially BATB, are really not well suited for film. They almost need the length and depth of a novel or tv show to fully get into backstories, side characters, and really develop such an unlikely romance realistically and steer away from Stockholm Syndrome. Or, it needs the beautiful simplicity of the bare bones classic fairy tale or children's picture book. (Aside from making me want to rewatch the cartoon, I also felt the urge to reread Robin McKinley's Beauty and my favorite picture book by Max Eilenberg and Angela Barrett).

Curious to see what you all thought!

Advice Wanted: Best Fairy Tale Books for Young Children

We were given a book of Disney nursery rhymes and fairy tales for Pearson. One story in there is that of "Little Red Riding Minnie." It tells of Minnie, who is going to take cookies and cough drops to her sick grandmother, and how the big bad wolf is out to steal the cookies (no hint of actually wanting to harm anyone). Rather than eating the grandmother, he just takes her clothes off the clothesline and waits for Minnie outside. Then, he accidentally eats all the cough drops instead of the cookies, and runs away with eyes watering.


It's kind of humorous if you think of it as a parody, only it's not meant as a parody-it's meant to be safe for young children. (For more on this, check out Gypsy's post and contribution to this article on why children's theater dumbs down fairy tales). I used to have my own opinions on not dumbing down fairy tales for children, but I have to admit, now that I have my own child, I kind of get it-I'm not sure I want to be reading him bedtime stories about people being eaten. Of course, he's still a baby, and as he goes through different phases of development, hopefully I'll adjust too. (And I have to remind myself of the dangers of shielding your children too much, as Sleeping Beauty and Rapunzel remind us-it's better to educate your children about spindles than to pretend they don't exist, and keeping a teenager in a tower can't really keep them from growing up!)

I have my own collection of versions of "Beauty and the Beast", including some picture book versions, but other than that we don't have other fairy tale books for Pearson yet. He's still in the stage where in order to sit still for a book, it needs to have very little text on each page, and he needs to have a toy on hand to chew on, but I would love to get more fairy tales in his library. So, what would you recommend? I'm happy to start getting recommendations of books for when he gets older but would also like to have some on hand for now as well. I'm certainly not as familiar with children's books as I'm sure I'll get over the next few years, but one book I heartily recommend for kids of all ages (and adults!) is Mirror Mirror: A Book of Reverso Poems by Marilyn Singer, illustrated by Josee Masse. Each fairy tale is told from two different perspectives, with the second poem a reverse of the first, line by line-with only clever changes in punctuation to change the meaning. Long time readers may be sick of hearing about this book by now...(there is also a follow up, Follow Follow, that I have seen but don't own)

Christophe Gans' Beauty and the Beast Film

I'm thrilled that Christophe Gans' Beauty and the Beast, starring Vincent Cassel and Lea Seydeux, is available on Netflix, since that's basically my only source of entertainment. I had really been looking forward to seeing this version of my favorite fairy tale.

To be fair, I wasn't able to sit down and enjoy the whole film in one go, or purely focus on it, but catch bits and pieces over a week and jot down notes in between. It's nice to see a retelling of the traditional French version, but with clear nods to Cocteau and Disney. But overall, I would say this film is worth watching for the visuals, but has an incredibly disappointing romance.

One thing I appreciated in this film, compared to other versions, was more realistic sibling relationships: I would love to read/see a version of BATB someday that really explores the relationship between Beauty and her sisters more. The traditional fairy tales has them painted extremely black and white; the sisters ugly and evil and Beauty beautiful and often annoyingly perfect. There's so much potential character depth that could be explored from their reactions to losing their wealth, and a lifetime of your younger sister being your father's favorite (not to mention obviously prettier than you). On the other extreme, there's the Robin McKinley novels, which I adore-but in those the sisters are all a little too perfect; neither they nor Beauty has any real flaws. The Gans version tended to be on the traditional fairy tale side, but you do get a sense of pity for the sisters as their neighbors laugh at their disgrace in their poverty, and when their father comes back from the Beast one of them says "this is all our fault," taking ownership rather than blaming Belle. Belle is more human-she admits she sulks when she finds out her father is going to recover his ship, and the request for a rose isn't made in the "I just want my father to be safe because I'm perfect but to make everyone feel better I'll make a super simple request" way, but as a kind of protest.

Then when Belle returns home, we feel sympathy for the sisters again, for how much worse their life has gotten because of their brother's debts. They aren't spiteful to Belle at all, in fact the brothers' storyline provides an interesting twist in why she didn't return to the castle as intended-and the sisters are honestly glad to see their father doing better.

The Romance (or lack thereof) (warning, spoilers ahead:) But then we come to the introduction of the Beast. I find it interesting that the filmmakers, while working primarily from the classic French Villeneuve/Beaumont tale, chose to keep the "angry selfish" Beast made so popular by Disney and not the gentlemanly Beast who wants Belle to be as happy as possible in the castle. Especially given that Disney's tale has been mostly criticized for its Stockholm Syndrome similarities, and that since then our culture has been obsessed with other troublingly abusive relationships (50 Shades of Gray comes to mind), I would expect a heightened sensitivity to the character of the Beast, and avoiding those pitfalls. Yet I find this Beast to be far worse than the Disney (and when I refer to the Disney Beast I mean the 1991 cartoon, still haven't seen the live remake, although I've read all the fairy tale bloggers' reviews and am somewhat familiar with the major changes). 

So he starts out creepy and cruel, which most people have grown to expect from the Beast. Maybe they figure it's better cinema to get you scared at first, so the romance is more dramatic later on. To be fair, the Beast does apologize the next night, although he doesn't say what for (and there is so much...it implies he's only sorry for jumping on the table, not necessarily for, say, imprisoning her for life and cruelly telling her to forget her family because there's no chance she can ever escape). 

Then Beauty makes a deal with the Beast, she'll dance with him if he allows her to visit her family again. And all of a sudden she's resting her head on his chest (an homage to the Disney ballroom scene?) and it seems she has affection for him, based on...what?? It seems not only unwarranted but way too sudden. 

In the Disney, Belle shows no hint of affection for the Beast at all for a long time. The first turning point is when she tries to escape, and the Beast gets hurt protecting her from the wolves. This is the first time that he actually sacrifices something for her. She makes the decision to return and take care of him, fulfilling the promise she made to stay there in place of her father, but still no hint of romance-she thanks him for saving her life and that begins a montage indicating that a long span of time is spent getting to know each other, playing together (snowball fights), reading, and the Beast really trying to be better-relearning to eat with silverware, giving her the library, etc. Only after this, in the famous ballroom scene, does she lean her head on his chest and indicate the least bit of attraction to him.

The Gans sort of has a scene similar to the wolf scene, where Belle attempts to run away, only the Beast doesn't run after to protect her, but catches her. She falls down backwards on the ice, and after he attempts to kiss her, she falls into the ice. Then, after she's back safe and dry in the castle, he says she can go home, and all of a sudden she seems flirty and playful with him-as if he wasn't merely keeping the promise that she herself bargained for. It was hardly the act of selflessness that the Disney Beast shows when he lets her go, permanently, expecting to never see her again and therefore remain a Beast. 

Along with that, the Disney Beast's backstory, although it has holes, indicates that his selfishness, although inexcusable, stems from him being a young, spoiled Prince. This Beast's backstory, while interesting, is really more troubling than anything else. What was the purpose of revealing the backstory? Usually it's to make the Beast more sympathetic/human, but he just seems like he's always been a jerk. He had more interest in hunting than spending time with his wife, and broke his promise to stop hunting the Golden Deer. You might think he would have learned his lesson, and become more sensitive to his partner's needs, but the opposite happened. Plus, the fact that he's older and previously married, compared to Belle's situation-has only lived under her father's house, and to all appearances has never dated before, just makes their relationship seem more unbalanced and disturbing. Not that relationships like that can't work, but they require a lot of intentional communication as you work through what would be a lot of baggage. 

I kept expecting the relationship to continue and show the Beast growing and changing, like in the Disney, but Belle's return to her family is so abrupt (after only...2 days?) and somehow on her return, her one wish is to be with him again. It's so out of the blue. 

To be fair, the Beast has a few (minor) redeeming qualities. When he lets her go, even though he's just keeping his word, this shows growth because he broke his promise to his first wife. He sends Belle with the healing water, and later stops the giant statues from killing her and her brothers (which also means...that he and the stone statues were stomping on a bunch of people like bugs, for looting the castle. The thieves were jerks but that doesn't excuse murder. Or at least I'm assuming people died? It looked like it but was hard to tell and didn't seem like there were that many people to begin with). Still, that's hardly enough to warrant trust and a confession of love, which is what happens next. 

I don't agree with everything in this review from Indiewire (clearly I enjoyed the introduction), but this excerpt seems pretty accurate: "The love-crossed pair at the heart of the story share little screen time, and the precious few moments they do occupy even a frame together are marked by a decided lack of chemistry and mostly screamed threats from the Beast that often verge into territory that has the unnerving undertones of sexual assault. At the very least, the Beast is mostly intent on capturing Belle’s heart (or maybe just her body) by alternately threatening her with physical (and sexual) harm and greasing the wheels with some jewel-covered gifts and impressive gowns"

In fact the whole relationship was so baffling to me I was even wondering if somehow it was supposed to be exaggerating to make a point, sort of like how Cocteau meant for his ending to be disappointing, but it doesn't seem like this was the intent. Who else has seen this movie? What did you think?

Disney's Beauty and the Beast Marvel Comics

Here's another hidden gem I found out about on Meagan Kearney's Beauty and the Beast page!

Back in the mid-90s, Marvel published a series of short comic books that were a spinoff of the Disney movie. You can read them all on Disney Wikia! Although, at least on my computer, each time you go to a new page you have to wait for the popups to go away to allow you to read the words at the top and bottom of each page, which is kind of annoying. But since the issues aren't that easy to track down in real life it's a small price to pay for a true Disney BATB geek.

I read the first one, "A Chance for Romance." They're clearly aimed towards a young audience-the main problem in this one is that the Beast is in a bad mood and the objects are worried his bad mood will spoil the Wardrobe's surprise birthday party. In fact, reading the comic made certain relationships seem more strange to me. I'd read other people complaining about how the enchanted objects too happy to be the Beast's servants, or how Beast's relationship with Belle could promote abusive relationships-which I don't think is as much of an issue in the movie itself. But in the comics, you see the same scenarios repeat themselves over and over and everyone seems to tolerate the Beast's tantrums a little too well...

However, there are some endearing and funny moments too, and we get to see more of the fiesty Belle we all know and love who's not afraid to tell the Beast what she thinks. We also get to see some of the Beast's insecurities, although from skimming the plots of the first few, it seems that they all just repeat the same formula: the Bibettes/silly girls in the Village are trying to ensnare Gaston, while at the castle the Beast loses his temper and Belle calls him out and then they have a nice moment. I hope that as the issues progressed, the Beast shows more progress, and the whole romance isn't based on the fact that Belle simply isn't afraid of him. Here's the official blurb:

Beauty and the Beast was a series of comics published by Marvel Comics, spun off from the 1991 animated film of the same name. It ran for 13 issues from July 1994 to July 1995. 

 The comics took place during Belle's stay at Beast's castle, more specifically an unknown period after Beast, at Lumiere's suggestion, gave Belle his library. Until Issue 7 (or Issue 8 if one counts flashbacks), the comics (with the exception of issue #6) both focus on Belle's stay at the castle as well as events occurring at the village (the latter mostly regarding Gaston trying to find a way to impress Belle, with the Bimbettes trying to get him to focus on them instead of Belle), either at real time or, in the case of Issues 5 and 8, via flashback. Starting with Issue 7 until Issue 10, flashbacks to Belle's time with her father were showcased, and Issue 11 and 13 also showcased flashbacks to the Beast and the servants time as humans. It is not to be confused with a similarly-titled 4-issue story arc for the X-Men franchise, and is usually referred to in official Marvel materials as Volume 2 to distinguish it.

 Some elements in the comic series were later included in the Broadway musical (most notably Wardrobe's backstory as being a former Opera Diva).

Also from the comics-Jenny Prater was wondering over at Halfway to Fairyland why, in the musical version, the Beast never learned to read as a child, when he would have been raised as a Prince. It does seem like possibly an oversight on the side of the writers, but that's another plot element that actually came from these comics! So while it still might not be the best addition to the story, it's kind of cool that they used these stories for ideas when writing the musical...

Disney's Live Action Nutcracker

Not technically a fairy tale, but many of you may also find this of interest: Disney will be making a live action version of Nutcracker along with remakes of many of their classic cartoons already in the works.

 "Tchaikovsky’s timeless Nutcracker ballet provides the latest chapter from the Big Storybook of Public Domain Fairytales for Disney to revive. According to The Hollywood Reporter, Disney plans to craft a live-action treatment of the Christmastime fantasia, adhering faithfully to the mold from which the highly lucrative Alice in Wonderland was cast. This film will also place an ordinary girl into a dreamlike world plagued by warring armies, in this instance comprised of mice and gingerbread men. (Which hardly seems like a fair matchup — mice are nothing if not the natural predator of food.) In accordance with the ballet and E.T.A. Hoffmann’s story, Clara will assume her station as princess of this magical plane, and help to bring about peace between the opposing factions. Unlike the ballet, there will presumably be dialogue."

Even though I'm kind of obsessed with "Nutcracker", I'm not sure I'm even excited about the idea of Nutcracker being turned into some epic fantasy war movie. I may change my mind around Christmastime though? I never did see Burton's "Alice in Wonderland".

Article: Class Portrayal in Disney Movies (and Fairy Tales in General)

Just came across this interesting article by Allison Pond from Deseret News, 9 Ways to Teach Your Kids About Poverty Better Than Disney, that I found very interesting.

"A recent study from Duke University looked at the highest-grossing children’s movies and determined that they sanitize poverty and inequality by making them seem like no big deal.
“Parents think about how gender is portrayed, particularly in Disney movies,” Streib said. “But I don’t think they pay as much attention to how class is portrayed, and that could be another conversation starter for parents.”

How class is represented in children’s movies matters, said Jessi Streib, lead author of the Duke study, because if kids believe that simply working hard ensures success, they could blame themselves or others who don’t achieve certain things in life and assume they are lazy.

“It can end up being a viewpoint that doesn’t allow for a lot of empathy or for understanding how social class actually works,” she said."

First of all, I find it kind of refreshing to be looking at Disney/popular kids' movies for something other than gender portrayals. And it's true, class portrayal is much more overlooked.
However, I'm not sure how I feel about all the points in the article. It's pretty difficult to lump all Disney movies together; we have almost a century's worth of Disney classics to choose from by now, and the article mentioned Snow White (1937) through Aladdin (1992).


“We damage children by only exposing them to happy endings. That’s not how life works, whether you’re financially stable as an adult or not. Failure is part of everybody’s life experience,” she said.

She noted that many stories for children don’t end well.

“If you look at fairy tales from Hans Christian Anderson and the Brothers Grimm, they have terribly sad endings. That’s just part of childhood (and) growing up.”



"Little Match Girl" by Aya Tsai

Yet, it's an issue to look at because it's not just present in Disney movies, but tends to be an integral part of fairy tales. As the study points out, not all fairy tales end happily, but honestly, many of them have a protagonist who goes from poverty to wealth, and yes, it's unrealistic. In a way I think, we all know on some level that fairy tales-especially cartoon musical versions of them-are not meant to be realistic guides for life, and part of me thinks, "what's the big deal?" (I also tend to be defensive because I'm one of those kids that grew up on a heavy diet of Disney entertainment). Yet at the same time, there can be power in those movies we watch (and rewatch) as children that inspire us and can subconsciously influence us.

"Cinderella" by V. P. Mohn

When most fairy tales were being told, the prospect of actually rising through the social ladder of society was basically impossible. The idea of upward mobility was complete wish fulfillment. Yet now we have the idea of the American dream, and some examples of people who really did work their way up to success, which lends to the societal ideal that anyone who works hard can succeed and that anyone in poverty must just not have worked hard enough, which is a gross oversimplification.

The article states that showing the dwarfs happily mining is an example of over romanticizing the poor. But...the dwarfs fill barrows full of valuable gems every day, they're hardly living in poverty...even though they live in a tiny cottage in the woods and all share one bedroom. But that's one of those things that doesn't necessarily translate into logical examples. For a child, the idea of mining gems is more exciting for the idea of discovery and pretty shiny gems, not necessarily the money that would result (we don't see evidence that the dwarfs go and sell their gems either, but they somehow afford food).

The article also points to the scene in "Aladdin" where Aladdin and Jasmine are both talking about the difficulties of their lives and realize that they have more in common than they think-they both feel "trapped." Pond says it's quite a stretch to suppose their difficulties can be compared, with Aladdin going hungry and Jasmine seeking teenage independence. Yet there's so much more going on there-first of all, even as a royal, as a woman, Jasmine really would have had far less autonomy than a male in a royal position-I don't really blame her for freaking out about the prospect of being "given away" in marriage ("I am not a prize to be won!"). The characters are finding ways of relating to each other, especially as they realize that one thing they both lack is a loving relationship.


And while we should never use the idea that people in poverty just "get used to it" as an excuse to ignore the fact that so many people around the world lack basic human rights such as food, shelter, education, or fair wages, we also shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking that having enough wealth equals happiness. People in poverty can also be the most generous, and people with great wealth can often be discontent and unhappy. I think it's important to be challenged to be content with what we have, and to value relationships more than material possessions. I think, honestly, another danger middle class people can fall into is looking down on the wealthy-we think we have the right to judge celebrities much more harshly than other people, and tend to diminish any struggles they have, while we remain ignorant of the unique pressures people face in their roles of power and influence. We can even feel a sense of pride in the fact that we don't "squander our money" on "luxuries" when comparing ourselves to the most wealthy, while failing to realize that our daily lifestyles would be considered totally luxurious by so many around the world.

One thing I appreciated about the article was how it not only critiqued, but gave some helpful suggestions for dealing with tough topics with children (the tips could also apply to other child appropriate issues we come across in the fairy tale world, such as violence, scary villains, etc.)

It's an issue I haven't thought about much myself, I'd love to hear all of your thoughts!

Disney's BATB Concept Art

Disney's Beauty and the Beast Concept Art
Source: Mickey and Company
Part 1 and Part 2

Those creepy huge gargoyle statues! And the red rose in the gloomy West Wing! So atmospheric...

Disney's BATB on Bullying

I think I'm more nervous than excited for the live action Disney Beauty and the Beast to come out, but I'm glad it's getting people talking about the fairy tale more! DibThing has some thoughts on Disney's BATB: 

Disney Castles and their Inspirations

Thought this was cool:

Mickey and Company

Princess and the Frog

Continuing on in my trend this week of reviewing Disney movies everyone has already seen...now we go even FURTHER back in time. Last weekend I saw one of the classic fairy tale cartoons that I somehow managed to never see around the time it came out, 2009, Princess and the Frog. At the time, as I remember, there wasn't that much buzz around it after it came out, and I assumed it wasn't that great.

Given my lower expectations, I was really impressed by the film! It wasn't the funniest Disney film ever but it had my group of friends and I laughing on several occasions. And even more impressive were the characters.

At first I was worried about Prince Naveen's character. I knew he would eventually end up with Tiana and I didn't see it. I thought it would be like Tangled-my main problem with Tangled was that I didn't believe Flynn Rider had really changed and that Rapunzel had any reason to trust him. So often in romances-and not just fairy tale romances-the audience isn't really supposed to think too much about the characters, and whether or not they could actually work together. We're just shown a guy and a girl and it's assumed we want them to be together. Yet, although Naveen's and Tiana's romance was short compared to reality, given the time constraints of a family friendly Disney musical, I thought they did a nice job. I believed the change in Naveen and found myself really rooting for them as a couple.

I really liked the fact that all the main characters came to a point where they had to make a choice and ultimately sacrifice their biggest dream for the sake of the other characters-Naveen was going to give up Tiana to give her her restaurant, she gave up her restaurant and later her humanity to be with Naveen, even Louis had to stop playing in a jazz band to help save them, and Ray! Don't judge me but I may have teared up a little when there were two stars in the sky...

This scene was gorgeous...

In fact it was kind of like the reverse of my thoughts on Into the Woods. In that film, the question is, how far will each character go to get what they want? "Princess and the Frog" shows the characters all giving up what they want for others. And that's pretty rare for Disney films (and most movies...) the only other Disney fairy tale I can think of where the characters make tough choices like that, instead of just responding to the situation around them, is "Beauty and the Beast" (Belle gives up her freedom for her father, Beast sacrifices his chance of being with Belle and becoming human to let her go home).

And speaking of BATB-the fact that Tiana became a frog was advertised in all the trailers at the time, and no secret. But it did provide a nice twist on the Animal Bride/Bridegroom tale to have both of them transformed-there's no wondering, like in BATB, if the Beast would have even fallen for Belle if she weren't the most beautiful girl in the village. Both of the characters fall for each other while they're frogs so the physical aspect of the romance isn't an issue at all.

Concept Art

Tiana is a strong, feminist character (if not a little extremely preachy about the value of hard work and judgmental at first, but that was part of her character's growth). I couldn't decide if showing a woman who is career focused and whose big lesson to be learned is that she needs love too is ironically unfeminist though...but I decided I didn't mind it. The reverse, a woman who only wants love, would be too much like her Princess predecessors. (We also had that character in Charlotte). Plus there are plenty of family movies out there in which the father has to learn to spend time with his family and not focus just on work. Tiana is clearly more mature and likeable than Naveen at first, but I'm really glad they both had something to learn and it wasn't all about spoiled rich people being selfish. To even show a female so career focused and uninterested in men was pretty unusual for Disney, and it does reflect the challenges women are facing now that we have more career opportunities to have to juggle work and family and try to find that tricky balance.

What did you guys think? According to Wikipedia, part of the reason the movie didn't do as well as the studio hoped is the fact that the word "Princess" was in the title of the movie, therefore it appealed mostly to little girls and not as wide of an audience (and hence the titles for more recent Princess movies being "Tangled," "Brave," and "Frozen"). And while critics liked it overall, the overwhelming response was to compare it to "Beauty and the Beast," "Lion King," and the other major animated films of the second Disney Golden Age in the 90s. That's part of the problem for any Disney movie, is people's expectations can be SO high they'll be disappointed with anything that won't be nominated for Best Picture ("Princess and the Frog" was nominated for Best Animated Picture, but lost to "Up.")