14-year-old tried for rape
'09-'10 Miami hockey season photos
COSI on Wheels
Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2009 > May > 12 > Entry
Princess and the Frog - offensive?/Up reviews out
Disney/Pixar’s latest movies, Up and The Princess and the Frog, are both making waves around the web, but of a very different sort.
The first reviews for Up are coming in, and not surprisingly, they’re raves. Todd McCarthy of Variety says “Depending on what you think of Cars, Pixar makes it either 9 and a half out of 10 or 10 for 10 with Up, a captivating odd-couple adventure that becomes funnier and more exciting as it flies along.
Later on in the review, he makes an interesting point about this being Pixar’s first 3-D picture. Though he likes the 3D effects, McCarthy thinks seeing it “flat” may be the better way to go.
“Although the cliffhanger effects are augmented by 3-D projection, never do (director Pete) Docter (Monsters, Inc.) and co-director Bob Peterson shove anything in the viewer’s face just because of its 3-D potential. In fact, the film’s overall loveliness presents a conceivable argument in favor of seeing it in 2-D: Even with the strongest possible projector bulbs, the 3-D glasses reduce the image’s brightness by 20%. At the very least, the incentive for seeing Up in 3-D would seem less powerful than it is for other films.”
Roger Ebert (also not a fan of 3D) offers his “unofficial observations” on his blog.
Even more interesting is the reaction to The Princess and the Frog, Disney’s first hand-drawn movie since 2004’s disappointing Home on the Range. Here’s the trailer.
And here’s the poster too (click to enlarge)
Now - I’m going to stay out of this for the moment because people may accuse me of a pro-Disney bent - a bent I hereby acknowledge. So let me ask - do YOU find anything offensive in that trailer?
Permalink | Comments (12) | Post your comment | Categories: Coming Attractions
Comments
By Anon
May 14, 2009 12:21 PM | Link to this
Allie - I’ve looked and Disney makes no distinction on how she is a princess. She is princess of what and how? She has an American accent and is living in New Orleans. Any REAL princess would have the vocal identification (and clothing) to their nation. They could make it more realistic by not calling it New Orleans (making a fictional place based on the locale). I couldn’t tell if the prince was from France either. Disney is not sharing a lot. Most likely for obvious reasons. They could have taken it to a different level. Making princess not literal (like a beauty pageant winner) which would be more realistic and made more sense.By Skipper Tim
May 13, 2009 6:12 PM | Link to this
I honestly have to wonder how much of this “controversy” and “outrage” is real and how much is being manufactured by the media.By Sir Critic
May 13, 2009 5:22 PM | Link to this
I think the fact that many of you don’t see what’s supposed to be offensive is telling. Basically the complaint has been that the film contains racist caricatures, as if Disney were making another “Song of the South.” I find the complaints highly suspect myself.By ME
May 13, 2009 4:16 PM | Link to this
I saw the trailer. Don’t see the offense - but I might be blind… I didn’t catch what some did about a princess in America. But I am glad to see Disney is finally making a movie with characters other than white. Is there a stereotype in New Orleans with it? I’m not sure tell us please Sircritic …By Kim
May 13, 2009 11:06 AM | Link to this
So I give - what exactly is that people are supposed to offended by?By SRCputt
May 13, 2009 8:08 AM | Link to this
Oh, great. Remember when these accusations were made of The Lion King? When some morons assumed Scar must be gay because he was aristocratic? Can we at least see the movie first before jumping to conclusions?By Allie D.
May 12, 2009 8:09 PM | Link to this
Anon — Was it made clear that the female lead was Princess of America? I think not. I think that is a distinction that would be filled in by actually watching the movie.By Kim
May 12, 2009 4:51 PM | Link to this
Um - no I don’t get it. I don’t see anything offensive. Um- the Louisiana crocodile is fat??? Grasping at straws here…By Anon
May 12, 2009 2:48 PM | Link to this
Allie D. I don’t think they are being racist as much as realistic. The USA is not a monarchy last I checked. Realistically there shouldn’t be any princesses in Louisiana. If they want to make a black princess, pull it out of the context of our traditional world and it would make more sense (especially given the clothing she’s wearing). If they aren’t actually calling her a princess that would be fine.By Rob
May 12, 2009 2:31 PM | Link to this
I personally don’t find anything offensive, but if I had to guess what somebody out there might find offensive then I’d guess that it’s the fact that the Frog has a French accent.By workinghard
May 12, 2009 2:08 PM | Link to this
I saw nothing offensive about this trailer. Actually I though it was pretty funny, and I, yes a grown woman, am actually looking forward to see this.By Allie D.
May 12, 2009 12:27 PM | Link to this
I watched that trailer with my biggest pair of “P.C. Weenie” glasses on, and the ONLY thing that could be construed as troublesome by anybody is that it features non-white leads. Something like this could only “offend” somebody who is so afraid of appearing racist by mentioning anything of color, who think any reference to early 20th century creole culture is a “caricature” and thereby wants to make everything “colorblind,” i.e. WHITE. It’s the blabbering of people who are so far around the “non-racist” bend that they’re coming around the other side and are therefore acting racist themselves. I for one am happy to see a black Disney Princess. We only had to wait 80 years for it to happen.