Disney's "The Lion King"
Ken Sample
screening of Disney's "The Lion King", in NYC.
It Ain't NO Kimba the White Lion.
My god. I can't remember the last time Disney made an animated film
as visually stunning as this one. Their absolute BEST put their souls
into this one, and it shows. The rendering on the lions have no parallel
*anywhere*. Characterization was incredible. (Young Nala's animation team
deserve some kind of award! She was... beautiful.) Voices on ALL characters
were... I hate to say "perfect", as nothing really is and it's all subjective.
There were a few technical mistakes, but nothing so hideous as to distract
from my enjoyment of the film.
Whatever they paid Elton John to do the songs and music wasn't enough.
The first piece "Circle of Life" by itself was worth a full-price admission
to the movie and for a CD. Beautiful. Moving. The rest of the soundtrack
falls right in behind it. Granted, you won't be leaving the theatre singing
the songs, but it'll live in your head for quite a while, I'm sure.
Thank goodness for a return to tradition, they gave the "heavy" a drop-dead
song of his own.
It was called a "Work in Progress" screening, but the only thing that
looked incomplete to me were the titles and credits. If Disney edits this
film at all, I think they'll wind up hurting it. It's reasonably tight.
No slow spots. They mixed the emotional pacing so well that you're not
totally overwhelmed with anything except the magnificence of a few sequences
and the pain of some others, which I think is what they wanted. They
did "cute" without "saccharine". "Menance" without "contrivance".
This film is a KEEPER. Just this side short of being a classic in my mind.
The story is classic, if not gripping, but the pride and effort involved
in fleshing out everything they could out of the rather simple plot
shows and will grip you. No matter what you think about all the "Disney
swiping from Tezuka" and Kimba comparisons, once you get into this movie,
you'll see that the "contriversy" is unfounded. One has nothing at all to
do with the other.
Just to sidetrack on that, The Disney folk's only mistake was in not
acknowledging the fact that there is a "Kimba the White Lion" when people
tossed it in their faces. It made them look bad, as what people consider
to be *the* world's preemminent animation company doesn't know, or at least
doesn't admit they know what else has been done in their field, especially
something as fondly remembered as Kimba. Corporate Stupidity.
I hate to sound contrived, but "The Lion King" is about as good as
Disney ever gets. Not as strong story-telling as their last three films,
but visually unparalleled. You'd have to go back to "Fantasia" and
earlier to find fitting comparison.
coug'r
Amberle S Ferrian
Ken Sample <co...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Just to sidetrack on that, The Disney folk's only mistake was in not
>acknowledging the fact that there is a "Kimba the White Lion" when people
>tossed it in their faces. It made them look bad, as what people consider
>to be *the* world's preemminent animation company doesn't know, or at least
>doesn't admit they know what else has been done in their field, especially
>something as fondly remembered as Kimba. Corporate Stupidity.
Being Disney, it sounds more like Corporate Hubris (tm) to me. Which they
have in ample quantities.
>I hate to sound contrived, but "The Lion King" is about as good as
>Disney ever gets. Not as strong story-telling as their last three films,
>but visually unparalleled. You'd have to go back to "Fantasia" and
>earlier to find fitting comparison.
We'll see. But still, to quote my brother as we saw the trailer,
"sh*t animated well is still sh*t."
---
Amberle Ferrian <amb...@epx.cis.umn.edu> | They are one person
Writer/Not Ready For ToonTown Player | They are two alone
in future "Disney Improv Nite" show | They are three together
theme-park walkaround Belle | They are for each other...
and general Sherri Stoner fan/wannabe | --"Helplessly Hoping"
in The Future Disney Cabinet | Crosby, Stills, and Nash
FRANCES C LEM
> I saw the preview spot for this movie when I went out to see Three
>Muskatiers (so I can't spell) in November. The _preview_ made my eyes water
>in awe. I am GOING to see this movie when it comes out in my area. I am
>VERY glad to hear a positive review, thanks Ken!
Not only did I cry when I saw TLK preview before The Three Muskateers, but
the preview on the tape for The Return of Jafar makes my eyes water already.
Although Aladdin was well done, I never thought that they could top BatB but
from what I can see from the previews Disney has done it again with TLK.
I can't wait for June 24.
Fran
Timothy Fay
>Last night, my Wife, a friend and I attended a "Work In Progress"
>screening of Disney's "The Lion King", in NYC.
>
>
>...The Disney folk's only mistake was in not
>acknowledging the fact that there is a "Kimba the White Lion" when people
>tossed it in their faces. It made them look bad, as what people consider
>to be *the* world's preemminent animation company doesn't know, or at least
>doesn't admit they know what else has been done in their field, especially
>something as fondly remembered as Kimba. Corporate Stupidity.
I'm not as willing to forgive such gross plagiarism as "corporate stupidity"
from "*the* world's preemminent animation company." Disney can be as big
and as evil as any multi-national corporation, especially when _their_
product is used without permission. Disney's lawyers regularly sue every
day care center or pediatrician that dares to put up a Mickey Mouse or a
Donald Duck without getting a license. Granted, they are within their
rights to defend their properties. But they should not expect to be let
off the hook so easily when they are guilty of doing the same to someone
else's creation. Remember the Air Pirates Comics? Remember "The Uncensored
Mouse?" I do, and I believe that Disney deserves the heat they've gotten
on THE LION KING.
>I hate to sound contrived, but "The Lion King" is about as good as
>Disney ever gets. Not as strong story-telling as their last three films,
>but visually unparalleled.
Disney's last three films were a mixed bag, story-wise. I liked RESCUERS
DOWN UNDER a lot and enjoyed ALADDIN, but BEAUTY AND THE BEAST was about as
shallow and insipid (and pointedly sexist) as any cartoon Uncle Walt ever
made.
>You'd have to go back to "Fantasia" and
>earlier to find fitting comparison.
I don't know if that's a good comparison, since there wasn't a storyline
to FANTASIA (though some of the sequences told stories). A better film
to compare LION KING with would be BAMBI, though I think the film should
stand or fall on its own merits. We'll see.
--
Reply to: ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu
fayx...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
"My mental facilities are TWICE what yours are -- you pea brain!"
-Percival McLeach
Peter da Silva
FRANCES C LEM <cs92...@ariel.cs.yorku.ca> wrote:
>Although Aladdin was well done, I never thought that they could top BatB but
>from what I can see from the previews Disney has done it again with TLK.
I hope so... the only problem I have is that The Rescuers Down Under had a
totally killer opening, too, and while the rest of the animation was good
there wasn't a lot of plot underneath it.
Did anyone else think the child Simba sounded just like Kit Cloudkicker,
and not just in voice? His expression and posture, when he meets the
warthog and meerkat, are pretty close to Kit when he first meets Baloo.
chuck cilek
Timothy Fay <ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu> wrote:
>Ken Sample (co...@netcom.com) wrote:
[...]
>but BEAUTY AND THE BEAST was about as
>shallow and insipid (and pointedly sexist) as any cartoon Uncle Walt ever
>made.
Them's fighting words, mister. Would you like to back them up.
I personally believe that BatB was very non-sexist and should have
won Best Picture.
--
"Ah, Princess Jasmine, speechless I see;
A fine quality in a wife." -Jafar, _Aladdin_
Dave Bell
ASF> In article <Cpy9C...@walter.bellcore.com>,
ASF> Ken Sample <co...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Just to sidetrack on that, The Disney folk's only mistake was in not
>acknowledging the fact that there is a "Kimba the White Lion" when people
>tossed it in their faces. It made them look bad, as what people consider
>to be *the* world's preemminent animation company doesn't know, or at least
>doesn't admit they know what else has been done in their field, especially
>something as fondly remembered as Kimba. Corporate Stupidity.
ASF> Being Disney, it sounds more like Corporate Hubris (tm) to me. Which
ASF> they have in ample quantities.
Either that, or a surfeit of lawyers, which seems to be a problem in
your neck of the woods. If they had admitted they knew about "Kimba..."
how long do you think it would have been before a plagiarism suit?
Of course, that doesn't mean that Disney did a frame-by-frame analysis
to reverse engineer the characters. Or even copied the spacing of the
sprocket holes on the film. :)
Dave
... Is there a lawyer in the house? -=}BLAM{=- Any more?
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.11
----
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|EvaWare BBS, Home of Orator QWK reader for Windows, Sysop:Nick Dyer|
| Tel 44-507-608645. V32/V32Bis V42/V42Bis HST Fidonet (2:252/158) |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Sean Malloy
>from "*the* world's preemminent animation company." Disney can be as big
>and as evil as any multi-national corporation, especially when _their_
>product is used without permission. Disney's lawyers regularly sue every
>day care center or pediatrician that dares to put up a Mickey Mouse or a
>Donald Duck without getting a license. Granted, they are within their
>rights to defend their properties.
Go back and look at the _law_. If Disney wants to _keep_ their properties,
they are _obligated_ to pursue any unauthorized usage. If you don't pursue
trademark and copyright violations, the law will, once a pattern of failure
to pursue has been established, void the trademark or copyright and put the
property into the public domain. Look at what happened to the trademark
name 'Aspirin' for an example.
> But they should not expect to be let
>off the hook so easily when they are guilty of doing the same to someone
>else's creation. Remember the Air Pirates Comics? Remember "The Uncensored
>Mouse?" I do, and I believe that Disney deserves the heat they've gotten
>on THE LION KING.
Then it's up to the _copyright_ holders of the putatively plagiarized
property to take action; if they don't, you can assume that either they
don't care about their property, or that they don't see that an actionable
violation exists. It may _look_ like a copyright violation to you, but how
much legal weight does your opinion carry, particularly when it's based on
seeing only the trailers for the movie?
--
random sig #5:
Sean Malloy Navy Personnel R&D Center | A man will fight harder for his
San Diego, CA 92152-6800 | interests than for his rights.
mal...@nprdc.navy.mil < different | - Napoleon
mal...@crash.cts.com < systems |
Timothy Fay
>In article <Cq28z...@news.cis.umn.edu>,
>Timothy Fay <ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu> wrote:
>
>>but BEAUTY AND THE BEAST was about as
>>shallow and insipid (and pointedly sexist) as any cartoon Uncle Walt ever
>>made.
>
>Them's fighting words, mister. Would you like to back them up.
Just go watch the movie. Belle is constantly victimized by every male
in the film whether it's her father, Gaston or the Beast. She is never
in control of any situation and can only react to events created by the
male characters in the story. She is so utterly helpless that she is
forced rely on Chip, perhaps the weakest character in the film, to rescue
her near the end of the movie. Not exactly what I'd call a 'liberated'
film...
Tod Mughi Casasent
>chuck cilek (cci...@nyx10.cs.du.edu) wrote:
>>In article <Cq28z...@news.cis.umn.edu>,
>>Timothy Fay <ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>but BEAUTY AND THE BEAST was about as
>>>shallow and insipid (and pointedly sexist) as any cartoon Uncle Walt ever
>>>made.
>>
>>Them's fighting words, mister. Would you like to back them up.
>Just go watch the movie. Belle is constantly victimized by every male
>in the film whether it's her father, Gaston or the Beast. She is never
>in control of any situation and can only react to events created by the
>male characters in the story. She is so utterly helpless that she is
>forced rely on Chip, perhaps the weakest character in the film, to rescue
>her near the end of the movie. Not exactly what I'd call a 'liberated'
>film...
Huh? That's _almost_ as amusing as why Heinlein is a chauvanist. (I've been
told by more than one person that Heinlein is a chauvanist because "that's not
the way women act" and "his female characters are all the same". Hmmm. There
is a "correct" way for women to act? Sounds kinda chauvanistic to me. His male
characters are all the same too.)
(sexism)
How about all the transformed "female" characters who helped to defend the
castle? How about her courage in accepting her father's place in the castle?
How about her courage in standing up to the Beast?
Liberated... hmmm... A film about a woman who doesn't want to marry a
rednecked boor and raise a passle of kids, that wants something more from
life, isn't 'liberated'? Maybe you should watch _Aliens_ instead?
(shallow)
The moral of _Beauty and the Beast_ is that one should look beyond the
stereotyped exterior and for the inner beauty of a person. I don't happen to
think that that is shallow.
(insipid)
Probably a matter of taste?
-Mughi
|------------------------------||------------------------------|
| Thomas Jefferson, letter to W.S. Smith, 13 November 1797 |
| "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time |
| with the blood of patriots and tyrants." |
|------------------------------||------------------------------|
| "Henna, genki na onna..." -about Noa, KidouKeisatsu PatLabor |
|------------------------------||------------------------------|
| Tod Casasent "Not the opinion of KBSI." tcas...@kbsi.com |
|------------------------------||------------------------------|
Christian Wagner
> I saw the preview spot for this movie when I went out to see Three
>Muskatiers (so I can't spell) in November. The _preview_ made my eyes water
>in awe. I am GOING to see this movie when it comes out in my area. I am
>VERY glad to hear a positive review, thanks Ken!
I'm sitting here logged on while everyone else in the room is watching
"The Return of Jaffar", Disney's first OVA :), and there was a Lion King
preview at the beginning of the tape.
WOW.
James Earl Jones is playing the "father lion" character voice, and he's
-good-. However, he has a bit where he looks at his kid and says "I
am your father".....
All of us Star Wars fans completely broke up.....
--
Christian Wagner -aka- Samuel | You don't need to be a historian or a
-aka- The Traveller in Black | political scientist to see the Bigger Dick
cwa...@illuminati.io.com | Foreign Policy Theory at work.... -G.Carlin
Mike Stailey
* Whatever they paid Elton John to do the songs and music wasn't enough.
* The first piece "Circle of Life" by itself was worth a full-price admission
* to the movie and for a CD. Beautiful. Moving. The rest of the soundtrack
* falls right in behind it.
I guess it was a good idea for Jeffrey Katzenberg to scrap the original
proposal for this film, which would have not been a musical at all.
--
Michael
msta...@areaplg2.corp.mot.com
Timothy Fay
>In article <Cq48L...@news.cis.umn.edu> ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu (Timothy Fay) writes:
>
>>in the film whether it's her father, Gaston or the Beast. She is never
>>in control of any situation and can only react to events created by the
>>male characters in the story. She is so utterly helpless that she is
>>forced rely on Chip, perhaps the weakest character in the film, to rescue
>>her near the end of the movie. Not exactly what I'd call a 'liberated'
>>film...
>
Heinlein was a chauvinist. His female characters were mostly ridiculous
stereotypes (then again, so were most of his male characters). But that
was the least of his faults. His main fault was that he was a lousy writer.
But I digress...
>How about all the transformed "female" characters who helped to defend the
>castle? How about her courage in accepting her father's place in the castle?
The furniture defending the castle was mostly comic relief. As for Belle's
father, it was his bungling that got Belle into trouble in the first place.
As I said, Belle rarely was in control of any of the situations she was
thrust into; she was a reactive, rather than pro-active character.
>Liberated... hmmm... A film about a woman who doesn't want to marry a
>rednecked boor and raise a passle of kids, that wants something more from
>life, isn't 'liberated'? Maybe you should watch _Aliens_ instead?
Sigourney Weaver's character in those ALIEN filmes is a good example of a
strong female character. Ripley had depth, Belle did not.
>The moral of _Beauty and the Beast_ is that one should look beyond the
>stereotyped exterior and for the inner beauty of a person.
That wasn't the moral of the film. At the end of the film the Beast turned
into Arnold Schwartzenegger and Belle married him and "lived happily ever
after..." Golly, now that's an original twist, isn't it? It would have
been a more interesting ending if the Beast hadn't changed back. Then we
would have known if she _really_ saw beyond his exterior. The Jean Cocteau
film had a moral and is still the definitive version of this tale, not the
hackneyed Disney cartoon.
Roger Kim
(Timothy Fay) wrote:
> >The moral of _Beauty and the Beast_ is that one should look beyond the
> >stereotyped exterior and for the inner beauty of a person.
>
> That wasn't the moral of the film. At the end of the film the Beast turned
> into Arnold Schwartzenegger and Belle married him and "lived happily ever
> after..." Golly, now that's an original twist, isn't it? It would have
> been a more interesting ending if the Beast hadn't changed back. Then we
> would have known if she _really_ saw beyond his exterior. The Jean Cocteau
> film had a moral and is still the definitive version of this tale, not the
> hackneyed Disney cartoon.
I disagree...if I remember correctly, as he "died" she did say, "Please
don't die...I love you." This is while he was still a beast - not "Arnold"
=)
So this does show that she HAD seen beyond his exterior - why else would
she have rushed back to the castle to stop Gaston from killing the Beast?
Also remember that she didn't initially trust the
Beast-turned-into-a-prince until she looked into his eyes and saw what she
had seen in the Beast's eyes before...a kind, gentle person at heart. She
did not flip head over heels for his good looks - it was the fact that she
knew that it actually WAS him that made her trust him.
Roger Kim
FDC Walkaround Aladdin (Mon/Wed/Sat)
FDC Walkaround Prince Eric
__________________________________________________________________________
Address: 2400 Sheridan Rd. #321
Evanston, IL 60201
TEL: (708) 332-6939
E-Mail: roge...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
"But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength;
they shall soar up with wings as eagles;
they shall run, and not grow weary;
they shall walk, and not grow faint."
- Isaiah 40:31 -
__________________________________________________________________________
Michael Wolff
: I saw the preview spot for this movie when I went out to see Three
: Muskatiers (so I can't spell) in November. The _preview_ made my eyes water
: in awe. I am GOING to see this movie when it comes out in my area. I am
: VERY glad to hear a positive review, thanks Ken!
: --
: Greg Riedesel
: Windy University, Minnesota
: ried...@cda.mrs.umn.edu
I saw it too, also when I saw the Three Musketeers (around November if I
remember correctly), and the whole audience let out a collective groan when
they announced "commences next september". <sigh> Well that's not too far
off anyway...
--
Cut...@lsupoz.apana.org.au Comics, Sci-fi, just about anything
Is what I enjoy
Kay Shapero
>>but BEAUTY AND THE BEAST was about as
>>shallow and insipid (and pointedly sexist) as any cartoon Uncle Walt ever
>>made.
>
>Them's fighting words, mister. Would you like to back them up.
TF>Just go watch the movie. Belle is constantly victimized by every
TF>male
TF>in the film whether it's her father, Gaston or the Beast. She is
Oh I don't know - first off, she does NOT let Gaston get away with trying
to stampede her into marriage, when her father vanishes she goes out in
search of him all by herself, and rescues him. She then proceeds to drag
the Beast out of his shell singlehandedly. Yes, she makes the mistake of
showing the Beast to the mob which then locks her in the cellar (note; her
father was locked in there too - it's no great sign of weakness to be
shoved bodily into a room by a LARGE number of people.). Then she comes
riding to the rescue just in time to keep Gaston from killing the Beast.
I'm not sure I care for the usual copout of having the villain slip,
rather than be killed by either of the protagonists, but on the whole I
found the movie quite enjoyable. (I particularly liked the castle
furniture repelling the mob; that was FUN.)
Now if you want a movie where the heroine seems to have trouble breathing
for herself, much less doing anything more complicated, go see
Thumbelina. Feh...
========================================
= Kay.S...@f524.n102.z1.fidonet.org =
= Endeavor to Persevere! =
========================================
{Sent off via the local gate with fingers crossed - if anything weird
happens to this message please send me path statements and details.}
Greywolf
> product is used without permission. Disney's lawyers regularly sue every
> day care center or pediatrician that dares to put up a Mickey Mouse or a
> Donald Duck without getting a license. Granted, they are within their
> rights to defend their properties. But they should not expect to be let
They not only have it within their rights but, as I understand it, in order to
maintain a trademark, they are *required* to pursue any possible breach. It
would be unfair to solely portray these publicized events as only examples of
corporate evil being wielded against poor innocent daycare centers.
> Disney's last three films were a mixed bag, story-wise. I liked RESCUERS
> DOWN UNDER a lot and enjoyed ALADDIN, but BEAUTY AND THE BEAST was about as
> shallow and insipid (and pointedly sexist) as any cartoon Uncle Walt ever
> made.
I loved it, and a lot of other folks loved it too. Did pretty well at the box
offices, too, so I'll assume that I'm not alone. Of course, there's a lot of
stuff I would consider dreck that makes money. That's life.
-Jordan
Glenn M. Saunders
: Just go watch the movie. Belle is constantly victimized by every male
: in the film whether it's her father, Gaston or the Beast. She is never
: in control of any situation and can only react to events created by the
: male characters in the story. She is so utterly helpless that she is
: forced rely on Chip, perhaps the weakest character in the film, to rescue
: her near the end of the movie. Not exactly what I'd call a 'liberated'
: film...
No, but it is a man-hating film and that pleases the feminists. Belle
may not be rambolina, but she is supposed to be identified with and the
males are to be villified. So in order to create a feminist conflict,
the men become nothing but stereotypes. That's progress?
JOHN MARTIN KARAKASH
|>Tod Mughi Casasent (tcas...@kbsi.com) wrote:
|>>In article <Cq48L...@news.cis.umn.edu> ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu (Timothy Fay) writes:
|>>
|>>Huh? That's _almost_ as amusing as why Heinlein is a chauvanist...
|>
|>Heinlein was a chauvinist.
I must apologize for digressing, but I'm going to do it anyways... =)
You don't have the foggiest idea what you are talking about. Heinlein's
leading female characters are strong, comptent, intelligent women. Real
chauvinist, eh? If anything he's a FEMALE chauvinist.
|>That wasn't the moral of the film. At the end of the film the Beast turned
|>into Arnold Schwartzenegger and Belle married him and "lived happily ever
|>after..." Golly, now that's an original twist, isn't it? It would have
|>been a more interesting ending if the Beast hadn't changed back.
Did anyone see the rating it got on the Comedy Channel? The
host had a line like, "A girl falls in love with an animal. It's by
Disney. I give it 20 stars." =)
-john-
David A. Cuthbert
>That wasn't the moral of the film. At the end of the film the Beast turned
>into Arnold Schwartzenegger and Belle married him and "lived happily ever
>after..." Golly, now that's an original twist, isn't it?
original ! necessarily = good. It would also have been an original twist if
Gaston decided to hire a private investigator or Al Capone. Or if Belle and
the Beast never got to like one another and kept quarreling throughout the
movie. Or...
>It would have
>been a more interesting ending if the Beast hadn't changed back.
interesting ! necessarily = good. It may have been interesting, but quite
boring. It would be interesting in the sense that I find studying
transmission lines and VLSI design interesting -- but I sure wouldn't pay
$6.50 to sit through 80 mins. of a film on them!
>Then we would have known if she _really_ saw beyond his exterior.
Not really. The only way we would have known is if she was willing to stay
with him until one or the other died.
>The Jean Cocteau
>film had a moral and is still the definitive version of this tale, not the
>hackneyed Disney cartoon.
The Disney version didn't have a moral? Maybe if you nit-picked and
destroyed the moral on technicalities. I sure found a moral in there, and
I'm about as far away from being a lit major as one can be.
As for the "definitive" version of this tale: I don't think such a thing
exists for BatB. I've seen one other film (I don't know if it was the Jean
Cocteau version or what), read a children's tale on it, etc. As far as I
can tell, one must take each tale on its own merits.
My point: you're looking too much into the story and pointing out missing
details that could only be present in a Dickens-sized novel or five-hour
documentary film. There's no underlying attempt to remove morals, etc.;
take the film at face-value.
If you didn't like it, then say so. Don't destroy it.
Since my article takes the discussion away from the Beast and more towards
the film itself, followups have been set to rec.arts.disney. Feel free to
crosspost replies to alt.fan.furry, should the discussion warrant it.
--
David A. Cuthbert "You will join me for dinner; that's NOT a request!"
da...@caltech.edu Address FDC Inquiries to f...@caltech.edu
Geoff Thomas
[BatB being sexist b/c Belle has to react to actions of male roles in the
film, and rely on male character for escape]
> Not exactly what I'd call a 'liberated' film...
Aaahhh, you obviously didn't see the sequel, "AMBO", where our own dear
friend Amberle "Ambo" Ferrian soaks away all comers w/ nothing more than
a soaker 2000 and a Tera-bucket. :)
No questions asked. Plenty of water thrown. **Everybody** drenched.
--
Geoff Thomas geof...@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz
FDC: Magic Carpet, Simba, Pixieguard for Miss Bell, HoloDisney Exec.
David A. Cuthbert
Previously, Timothy Fay <ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu> wrote:
>Just go watch the movie. Belle is constantly victimized by every male
>in the film whether it's her father, Gaston or the Beast. She is never
>in control of any situation and can only react to events created by the
>male characters in the story. She is so utterly helpless that she is
>forced rely on Chip, perhaps the weakest character in the film, to rescue
>her near the end of the movie. Not exactly what I'd call a 'liberated'
>film...
Wow... you are nit-picking here. But allow me to nit-pick further...
Belle was never "victimized" by her father any more than you or I were
"victimized" by our respective parents. Yes, she is dependent upon her
father in some ways (e.g. shelter, food, emotional support, etc.). The
latter, by the way, is the sign of a healthy family. I don't know about
you, but I am still dependent on my family for the three that I mentioned
above (plus a few bazillion other items). If you define that as being
"victimized," well, hey... I'm "victimized," and proud of it.
As for being "victimized" by Gaston: Yes, Gaston does try to exert quite a
bit of control over her. Quite unsuccessfully, I'll add. She doesn't over-
power him physically -- if you think that is the only way of being in
control, then you are correct but shallow. (I wouldn't try to overpower a
real-life Gaston physically, and I'm of medium-build). There are so many
times throughout the movie when she outwits him and gains the upper-hand.
1: "Gaston, you are positively primeval." 2: "Gaston, I just don't deserve
you," as she opens the door and has him fall face-first into the mud.
3: Prevents her father from being taken into the asylum. And so forth...
Victimized by the Beast? Bah! Cogsworth, Lumiere, Mrs. Potts, Chip, et. al.,
all cower before him. And who finally tells him off, gets his attitude
straight? I'm not sure whether I'd be more terrified of the angry Beast or
the angry Belle... :-)
Now, the Chip thing-- I'm sorry, but you have just gone too far here. I
burst out laughing when I read this. You managed to pick out a single
character trait of Chip, when it could be equally arguable that:
1. Belle is victimized by porcelain objects.
2. Belle is victimized by drinking utensils.
3. Belle is victimized by six-year-olds.
4. Belle is victimized by "enchanted," animated objects that are
*obviously* a product of her hyperactive imagination.
And so forth. And could I point out that Maurice was also dependent on the
weakest character as well?
Now, your next argument that Belle only reacts to events created by others:
Your point? In case you haven't noticed, EVERYbody does this. About 90% of
our actions are reactions to events caused by others. Nothing happens
spontaneously in this world. I don't answer my door unless someone knocks
on it. I don't answer questions that haven't been asked. I don't take
someone out on a date if she hasn't agreed to it (and she doesn't agree to
it if I don't ask, and I don't ask if I haven't met her, and ...).
Now, please define "liberated" in case my assumption doesn't suffice. I
assume that you mean that liberated = good, and that liberated is short for
being liberated from stereotypes. I think that I have shown that BatB does
not depict Belle in any sort of stereotype. In case you still disagree, I
ask: What do you think of Snow White, then? :-)
Again, followups set to rec.arts.disney... unless you really think that
Belle is alt.fan.furry material. :-)
Peter da Silva
or a racist, but that he didn't have much understanding of people who thought
significantly differently from him. Just about every character in a Heinlein
novel is either a thoroughly competant self-reliant heroic type, or is in the
process of becoming one, or is a cardboard cutout. Even the bad guys don't
get beyond cardboard cutout state until they somehow redeem themselves.
Basically, Heinlein wrote stories about Heinlein. He had one character who
was Robert Heinlein mutated into male, female, young, old (sometimes even
in the same character!). That's why his juveniles were so good... that's just
the sort of character you *need* in that sort of novel... and why his adult
novels were so... well... juvenile.
Peter da Silva
David A. Cuthbert <da...@eponine.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>It would have
>>been a more interesting ending if the Beast hadn't changed back.
>interesting ! necessarily = good. It may have been interesting, but quite
>boring.
Oh, I don't know about that. I have to agree with Timothy Fay on this one...
it would have been a very nice twist. It's a bit much to expect from Disney,
though. That's not the story they want to tell. They don't *do* nice twists.
Or any twists... the average Disney plot has about as many twists as the
Washington Monument. If you want something more like the Guggenheim, there's
other companies that'll give you that.
I'm sort of surprised by the depth of Timothy's aversion to the film. It's a
lot better than he makes out. And it's odd that one of his criticisms implies
he didn't think it was furry enough.
Peter da Silva
Glenn M. Saunders <Kri...@max.tiac.net> wrote:
>No, but it is a man-hating film and that pleases the feminists. Belle
>may not be rambolina, but she is supposed to be identified with and the
>males are to be villified. So in order to create a feminist conflict,
>the men become nothing but stereotypes.
And the women don't? It's *Disney*. Disney doesn't *do* deep characters
for their supporting cast. It's rare enough that their heroes and heroines
are anything more than cardboard cutouts. Both Belle and the Beast seem
to have a bit of depth to them. They both grow through the movie. Take
what you can get.
Tod Mughi Casasent
[extraneous Heinlein stuff clawed out. my fault for bringing it up. sorry]
>>How about all the transformed "female" characters who helped to defend the
>>castle? How about her courage in accepting her father's place in the castle?
>The furniture defending the castle was mostly comic relief. As for Belle's
So what? They're still female. They still kicked *ss.
>father, it was his bungling that got Belle into trouble in the first place.
Again. You are not answering the question. What about the courage Belle
displayed in these circumstances?
>As I said, Belle rarely was in control of any of the situations she was
>thrust into; she was a reactive, rather than pro-active character.
In some form or another all characters in everything are reactive. Riply, for
example, never does anything pro-actively except to kill herself. A character
being pro-active or reactive is not grounds for a charge of chauvanism.
>>Liberated... hmmm... A film about a woman who doesn't want to marry a
>>rednecked boor and raise a passle of kids, that wants something more from
>>life, isn't 'liberated'? Maybe you should watch _Aliens_ instead?
>Sigourney Weaver's character in those ALIEN filmes is a good example of a
>strong female character. Ripley had depth, Belle did not.
Huh? You haven't answered the question. I'll ask it again. Is a film about a
woman who doesn't want to marry a redneck boor and raise a passle of kids,
that wants something more from life, not 'liberated'?
>>The moral of _Beauty and the Beast_ is that one should look beyond the
>>stereotyped exterior and for the inner beauty of a person.
>That wasn't the moral of the film. At the end of the film the Beast turned
>into Arnold Schwartzenegger and Belle married him and "lived happily ever
>after..." Golly, now that's an original twist, isn't it? It would have
>been a more interesting ending if the Beast hadn't changed back. Then we
>would have known if she _really_ saw beyond his exterior. The Jean Cocteau
>film had a moral and is still the definitive version of this tale, not the
>hackneyed Disney cartoon.
She loved him before he returned to human. That's the whole point of the
movie. If she hadn't loved him despite his exterior, really and truly, he
would _never_ have become human again.
Actually, I thought that he was a better catch as the Beast than as the
Prince. :-)
Tod Mughi Casasent
>|>Tod Mughi Casasent (tcas...@kbsi.com) wrote:
>|>>In article <Cq48L...@news.cis.umn.edu> ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu (Timothy
>Fay) writes:
>|>>
>|>>Huh? That's _almost_ as amusing as why Heinlein is a chauvanist...
>|>
>|>Heinlein was a chauvinist.
> I must apologize for digressing, but I'm going to do it anyways... =)
>You don't have the foggiest idea what you are talking about. Heinlein's
>leading female characters are strong, comptent, intelligent women. Real
>chauvinist, eh? If anything he's a FEMALE chauvinist.
[Mughi, having seen that this is an acceptable thread, pads gladly into the
frey.]
My point exactly. Somebody at work said he's a chauvinist because his female
characters are supposed to be atypical. Well, so are his male characters. The
same "complaints" apply to both.
I've actually been told that RAH is a chauvinist because "that's not the way
women are" or "are supposed to be". My response was, "that's a chauvinistic
statement if I ever heard one." She changed the topic after that.
>|>That wasn't the moral of the film. At the end of the film the Beast turned
>|>into Arnold Schwartzenegger and Belle married him and "lived happily ever
>|>after..." Golly, now that's an original twist, isn't it? It would have
>|>been a more interesting ending if the Beast hadn't changed back.
> Did anyone see the rating it got on the Comedy Channel? The
>host had a line like, "A girl falls in love with an animal. It's by
>Disney. I give it 20 stars." =)
["What's wrong with a girl falling in love with a bear-cat creature?" growls
Mughi curiously.]
(If you don't know, Mughi is hairer than the Beast, darker coloring (dark
brown), large white faceted eyes, large claws, makes bear noises but is much
less anthropomorphic looking, but has better partners and a better spaceship.
:-)
Timothy Fay
>Timothy Fay (ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu) wrote:
>
>: Not exactly what I'd call a 'liberated' film...
>No, but it is a man-hating film and that pleases the feminists. Belle
>may not be rambolina, but she is supposed to be identified with and the
>males are to be villified. So in order to create a feminist conflict,
>the men become nothing but stereotypes. That's progress?
I agree. The male characters are every bit as shallow, Gaston being the
worst (he's not even a very capable villain, unlike Jafar or even McLeach).
But I don't think it is a "man-hating" film, just a very 'conservative' one.
Tod Mughi Casasent
thread!]
In article <2rq5uh$e...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> pe...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (Peter
da Silva) writes:
>The problem with Heinlein isn't so much that he was a chauvanist or a sexist
>or a racist, but that he didn't have much understanding of people who thought
>significantly differently from him. Just about every character in a Heinlein
I have that same problem. :-) (Anybody know how to make a smiley with fangs or
teeth?)
>novel is either a thoroughly competant self-reliant heroic type, or is in the
>process of becoming one, or is a cardboard cutout. Even the bad guys don't
>get beyond cardboard cutout state until they somehow redeem themselves.
I can understand this comment and even agree with it.
>Basically, Heinlein wrote stories about Heinlein. He had one character who
>was Robert Heinlein mutated into male, female, young, old (sometimes even
>in the same character!). That's why his juveniles were so good... that's just
>the sort of character you *need* in that sort of novel... and why his adult
>novels were so... well... juvenile.
My favorite juvenile is "The Star Beast". Would Lummie be considered a furry?
[Mughi rolls satisfied onto his back to take a nap. Content.]
Robert Cook
>in the film whether it's her father,
No Daddy! Not the CHAINS again! No, no! Not the whips, anything
but the whips! AHHHH! SKEWER! AHHHH!
Hrummpf! I didn't think that anyone would ever discover those cut
scenes! :-) But seriously, how was she victimized by her father?
Sure, she's always having to go rescue him, but he's the victim
there.
>Gaston or the Beast. She is never
>in control of any situation and can only react to events created by the
>male characters in the story.
Would a female villain have made the story any less distasteful? I
know that having a really active """"liberated"""" (wow, quote-n-side-
a-quote-n-side-a-quote-n-side-a-quote!) female might have really
been revolting, at least as far as this film is concerned. Anyone
could have been victimized--the villain Gaston was by Belle (not even
beer could help him), although he was the one looking for trouble.
>She is so utterly helpless that she is
>forced rely on Chip, perhaps the weakest character in the film, to rescue
>her near the end of the movie.
Wait, how could even Chip be weaker than Belle, by your definition?
I mean, he did take it upon himself to try to get Belle back.
Incidentally, Belle did almost the same sort of thing a couple of times
in the film. Can you give me a good example of an "active" character?
That is, one who is not a *VICTIM* and one who does not *REACT* (at
least all the time) to things happening around him/her.
- Robert Cook
Robert Cook
>Timothy Fay (ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu) wrote:
>
>: in control of any situation and can only react to events created by the
>: male characters in the story. She is so utterly helpless that she is
>: forced rely on Chip, perhaps the weakest character in the film, to rescue
>: her near the end of the movie. Not exactly what I'd call a 'liberated'
>: film...
>No, but it is a man-hating film and that pleases the feminists. Belle
>may not be rambolina, but she is supposed to be identified with and the
>males are to be villified. So in order to create a feminist conflict,
>the men become nothing but stereotypes. That's progress?
Well, a trio of...prominently displayed...females are stereotypes of
womyn. That means, of course, that the film was meant to please
feminists. Right?
Think about it--almost everyone and everything in Beauty and the
Beast has been exaggerated from real life (real life often surprises
me, though). However, when you use a phrase like "the men become
nothing but stereotypes" there's always this implication that
they're of the same type. Maurice's father is not a "womonizer"
like Gaston, nor is Beast. Disney might have been singling out and
emphasizing certain traits that people may possess, but I think that
it's ridiculous to call this film "man-hating." That would be
stereotyping the film itself. Geez.
- Robert Cook
Tod Mughi Casasent
>In article <tcasasent.1...@kbsi.com>,
>Tod "Mughi" Casasent <tcas...@kbsi.com> wrote:
>>(If you don't know, Mughi is hairer than the Beast, darker coloring (dark
>>brown), large white faceted eyes, large claws, makes bear noises but is much
>>less anthropomorphic looking, but has better partners and a better spaceship.
>>:-)
>Wot, other than the fact that Kei and Yuri make Belle look like Thomas
>Jefferson in terms of common sense, practicality, ability to foresee the
>consequences of their acts, empathy, and just general stability?
(What does "wot" mean?)
I like the novelized Kei and Yuri best. They have more brains but still retain
the come-hitherness and chaos that we've all come to know and love. They also
have more common sense and planning ability.
Plus, the idea that the horrible things that happen aren't really their fault
is carried out better in the books.
>"It's OK that these poor aliens committed mass suicide and killed about
> a hundred thousand innocent civilians while doing it, they're in a happier
> place now."
>Nice artwork. Typical comic story. I'd give Affair on Nolandia a B+ if the
>ending wasn't a total wimpout.
Affair of Nolandia is considered the weakest of the DP movies. The best part
of it is when they construct a stuffed Mughi to tempt the girl with.
The Eden Project is _much_ better.
[Mughi stretches and contemplates his place in stardom]
BTW, I have no idea where we might set followups for this, so if the DP
discussion continues without more people, I'll go to e-mail. Sorry. :-(
Peter da Silva
>brown), large white faceted eyes, large claws, makes bear noises but is much
>less anthropomorphic looking, but has better partners and a better spaceship.
>:-)
Wot, other than the fact that Kei and Yuri make Belle look like Thomas
Jefferson in terms of common sense, practicality, ability to foresee the
consequences of their acts, empathy, and just general stability?
"It's OK that these poor aliens committed mass suicide and killed about
Timothy Fay
>
>I'm sort of surprised by the depth of Timothy's aversion to the film. It's a
>lot better than he makes out. And it's odd that one of his criticisms implies
>he didn't think it was furry enough.
I don't know why you would think that odd. Just because I don't like, say,
drooling Maid Marian fanboys doesn't mean I hate Disney's ROBIN HOOD
(though my enjoyment of the film may be slightly diminished). It depends
on how you define 'furry.' I definitely thought the Beast was a much more
interesting character than the Prince (though I wish he was better ani-
mated). But I don't regard the Beast as a 'furry' character.
And I usually prefer what I call Disney's 'critter' films over their 'human'
films, e.g., BAMBI, 101 DALMATIANS, GREAT MOUSE DETECTIVE, OLIVER AND CO.,
and both RESCUERS films. In fact I liked RESCUERS DOWN UNDER much more
than recent Disney animated "blockbusters" like TLM, BatB, and ALADDIN.
And, despite any similarities with certain other Jungle Emperor cartoons,
I'm pretty sure that I will enjoy THE LION KING, too.
Robert Cook
>
>>How about all the transformed "female" characters who helped to defend the
>>castle? How about her courage in accepting her father's place in the castle?
>
>The furniture defending the castle was mostly comic relief.
Wow! That's a really slick way to dismiss another point that was
meant to dismiss another! :-)
>As for Belle's
>father, it was his bungling that got Belle into trouble in the first place.
>As I said, Belle rarely was in control of any of the situations she was
>thrust into; she was a reactive, rather than pro-active character.
Yeah, but Belle at least came to his side despite the danger. She
might not have taken complete control of the situation, but she did
take charge to some degree, disobeying her father by not allowing him
to rot in the tower instead of her (I'm sure she didn't expect to
trade her life for her father, but feared that he might lose his
because he's elderly).
She also managed to gain some degree of control over Cogsworth and
Lumiere when she wanted to explore the castle. And she had Gaston
going for a while, turning his arrogance into foolishness. These
scenes might have been funny, but do not dismiss them as comic
relief. In the "wedding" scene, Gaston fully believed that he could
get Belle to marry him.
>>Liberated... hmmm... A film about a woman who doesn't want to marry a
>>rednecked boor and raise a passle of kids, that wants something more from
>>life, isn't 'liberated'? Maybe you should watch _Aliens_ instead?
>
>Sigourney Weaver's character in those ALIEN filmes is a good example of a
>strong female character. Ripley had depth, Belle did not.
Depth in what way? I don't see a whole lot of it in the Alien
films. The thing about her is that she can physically fight when
she has the appropriate weapons. Ooh, even though she's buff, she
still has motherly instincts--how deep. :-) Hey, wasn't she a
victim, too, reacting to things (specifically, one or more voracious
aliens) around her--that is, ALL around her? 8-O :-)
>>The moral of _Beauty and the Beast_ is that one should look beyond the
>>stereotyped exterior and for the inner beauty of a person.
>
>That wasn't the moral of the film. At the end of the film the Beast turned
>into Arnold Schwartzenegger and Belle married him and "lived happily ever
>after..." Golly, now that's an original twist, isn't it? It would have
>been a more interesting ending if the Beast hadn't changed back. Then we
>would have known if she _really_ saw beyond his exterior.
I agree with you to some degree. I guess that Disney couldn't bring
themselves to change the type of ending they've been using lately.
But you know, Belle did admit her love for him in any case. She
seemed rather shocked when he transformed back into a human, so I
doubt that she was expected anything like that. The ending the film
happens to have does not strengthen its moral, but I do *not* think
that the moral was obliterated. Besides, what would people be
talking about if she was married to a beast? You have to be
*somewhat* conscious of audience perceptions.
Anyway, what if I said that the transformation meant that she would
love Beast no matter what his exterior was, bad or good? In fact,
when she first saw him, she didn't seem to be sure that Princey was
really Beast, and she didn't exactly take to him right away just
because he was handsome.
And what if I said that we already have proof that she doesn't go
for guys because of good looks. It's painfully obvious, but Belle
didn't swoon over Gaston. Maybe we need to see that she isn't
biased against handsome fellows because of her experience with
Gaston.
Maybe some people are really trying very hard to find something
wrong with the film.
>The Jean Cocteau
>film had a moral and is still the definitive version of this tale, not the
>hackneyed Disney cartoon.
Well, maybe some aspects of Disney's film can be called hackneyed,
but as a whole, I haven't seen this story told this way before.
I've read a big bunch of fairy tale and novel versions of Beauty
and the Beast (and I watched the weird TV show), and none are quite
like it.
What makes Cocteau's version so great anyway? His beast does turn
into a princely guy at the end, does he not? And Beauty was no more
of a "strong" character than Belle, from what I can remember.
- Robert Cook
Bruce Grant
(Christian Wagner) said:
CW> James Earl Jones is playing the "father lion" character voice, and
CW> he's -good-. However, he has a bit where he looks at his kid and
CW> says "I am your father".....
CW>
CW> All of us Star Wars fans completely broke up.....
Look out -- it's the casting thread! It's escaped!
(Cue for all alt.fan.pratchett readers to run for it or kiss their
cute furry tails goodbye.)
Bruce.
---
~ MMST 1.25 UnRegistered : Nature abhors a vaccuum. She uses a rug shampooer.
----
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|EvaWare BBS, Home of Orator QWK reader for Windows, Sysop:Nick Dyer|
| Tel 44-507-608645. V32/V32Bis V42/V42Bis HST Fidonet (2:252/158) |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Ray Rooney
mal...@crash.cts.com (Sean Malloy) has said:
M>In article <Cq28z...@news.cis.umn.edu>,
>Timothy Fay <ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu> wrote:
>>I'm not as willing to forgive such gross plagiarism as "corporate stupidity"
>>from "*the* world's preemminent animation company." Disney can be as big
>>and as evil as any multi-national corporation, especially when _their_
>>product is used without permission. Disney's lawyers regularly sue every
>>day care center or pediatrician that dares to put up a Mickey Mouse or a
>>Donald Duck without getting a license. Granted, they are within their
>>rights to defend their properties.
M>Go back and look at the _law_. If Disney wants to _keep_ their properties,
>they are _obligated_ to pursue any unauthorized usage. If you don't pursue
>trademark and copyright violations, the law will, once a pattern of failure
>to pursue has been established, void the trademark or copyright and put the
>property into the public domain. Look at what happened to the trademark
>name 'Aspirin' for an example.
M>> But they should not expect to be let
>>off the hook so easily when they are guilty of doing the same to someone
>>else's creation. Remember the Air Pirates Comics? Remember "The Uncensored
>>Mouse?" I do, and I believe that Disney deserves the heat they've gotten
>>on THE LION KING.
M>Then it's up to the _copyright_ holders of the putatively plagiarized
>property to take action; if they don't, you can assume that either they
>don't care about their property, or that they don't see that an actionable
>violation exists. It may _look_ like a copyright violation to you, but how
>much legal weight does your opinion carry, particularly when it's based on
>seeing only the trailers for the movie?
Tezuka Productions HAS protested. They are waiting to see the finished
and released product before pursuing the matter further. You can't make
a case until you can prove infringement. The mere fact that both stories
are "reputed" to have similarities will not stand up in court. They have
to have something to point to.
The complaint was made quite a while back and is rumored to have
resulted in many changes in the film.
On an ironic note, the stores are filled with lion toys and books that
bear close but not actionable resemblance to the LK stuff. In making
their characters generic enough to avoid legal and p.r. problems from
another studio Disney may well find themselves victims of the same
actions they have taken.
---
ş OLX 3.01 00-0000 ş Le Roi Leo means... Naw! It couldn't!
Glenn M. Saunders
: Depth in what way? I don't see a whole lot of it in the Alien
: films. The thing about her is that she can physically fight when
: she has the appropriate weapons. Ooh, even though she's buff, she
: still has motherly instincts--how deep. :-) Hey, wasn't she a
: victim, too, reacting to things (specifically, one or more voracious
: aliens) around her--that is, ALL around her? 8-O :-)
Aliens I can comment on, I've never seen alien^3. In Aliens, one of the
themes is that the men are all TALK and no ACTION. Ripley has seen what
the aliens can do, and has resolved herself to destroy them. She has
been toughened up enough to risk her life for this knightly task. The
soldiers are hot-dogging jackoffs who, once they get in the thick of
battle, disintegrate into blabbering idiots. In an action flick, you
rarely have the protagonists panic like that, but if you think about it,
that is the natural reaction to such a threat.
The culmination of this is when the marine commander freezes up in shock
and doesn't know what to do. Ripley is like "well, DOOO something".
Then Ripley is like FUCK THIS and she grabs the controls of the rover and
crashes through the structure to rescue what's left of the marines. I'd
call that PRO-active as far as I'm concerned. I'd call that courageous
and heroic as well.
Upon second thought, since it IS a period piece, it makes sense that the
men would feel as they do, but due to their socialization, one can't
necessarily damn them because they don't realize that they aren't being
politically correct. To them they are acting in accordance with the
rules of their society, yet the way they are animated is clearly done to
show them in an unsympathetic light, as caricatures even. Belle does
not, for instance, try to relate to any of the men to break through their
socialization. They are irredeemable. Belle is special because she is a
'90s woman in an ancient world. She has a '90s mind and doesn't have the
same priorities of her peers. So this is unrealistic. Yet it is rather
hypocritical since although she accepts the beast as is, she never has to
live with him as is and he becomes a perfect boy-toy for her. In the
real world, women who love ugly men aren't rewarded likewise. The
historical moral is probably a way to get women to grin and bear it when
their hairy husbands jump their bones. Grafting '90s themes onto old
storylines is always going to lead to contradictions.
Peter da Silva
Tod "Mughi" Casasent <tcas...@kbsi.com> wrote:
>Affair of Nolandia is considered the weakest of the DP movies.
Wonderful. Why on earth did they decide to release that one first then?
>BTW, I have no idea where we might set followups for this, so if the DP
>discussion continues without more people, I'll go to e-mail. Sorry. :-(
No, don't do that. Otherwise we'll be arguing over what operating system
the Lovely Angel uses in no time.
Katarn
>>>In article <Cq28z...@news.cis.umn.edu>,
>>>Timothy Fay <ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>>shallow and insipid (and pointedly sexist) as any cartoon Uncle Walt ever
>>>>made.
>>>
>
>>in control of any situation and can only react to events created by the
>>male characters in the story. She is so utterly helpless that she is
>>forced rely on Chip, perhaps the weakest character in the film, to rescue
>>her near the end of the movie. Not exactly what I'd call a 'liberated'
>>film...
>
>told by more than one person that Heinlein is a chauvanist because "that's not
>the way women act" and "his female characters are all the same". Hmmm. There
>is a "correct" way for women to act? Sounds kinda chauvanistic to me. His male
>characters are all the same too.)
>
>(sexism)
>
>How about all the transformed "female" characters who helped to defend the
>castle? How about her courage in accepting her father's place in the castle?
>
>Liberated... hmmm... A film about a woman who doesn't want to marry a
>rednecked boor and raise a passle of kids, that wants something more from
>life, isn't 'liberated'? Maybe you should watch _Aliens_ instead?
>
>
>The moral of _Beauty and the Beast_ is that one should look beyond the
>think that that is shallow.
>
>(insipid)
>
>Probably a matter of taste?
>
>-Mughi
>
I think what we are seeing here is a difference in eras. If your view
the movie in the light that when it fist came out women were not given
many of the options they are now, it could be viewed to show conciderable
strenght. Belle does not take the easy way out, and takes the best options
open to her. But nowdays things are a little different, and to be pro-
active a woman must do more than chose the best man to protect her. Yes
Belle does end up playing the victom a lot, but in those days thats the
way things were.
In other words, If we were looking at the mental attitudes of the time
when we judge the movie I would agree with Mughi. But as the movie
applies to modern life, I would agree with Tim - except that I did not
find it insipid. Nor did I find it particularly shallow -except that
the plot has been beated into us time and time again by this and other
movies. Dispite this the moral of the movie still holds true, and
could readily be applied to many modern situations. Actualy, I really
liked the movie.
-Katarn
--
* - John Turner (jtu...@bast.mfg.sgi.com) | Monster Grendel was rather *
* =>Standard disclaimer<= My opinions | plainish, for breakfast he *
* are mine, SGI can't have them. | simply had a couple *
* I doubt that SGI would want them. | of Danish... *
Peter da Silva
Timothy Fay <ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu> wrote:
>I don't know why you would think that odd. Just because I don't like, say,
>drooling Maid Marian fanboys doesn't mean I hate Disney's ROBIN HOOD
It's not that you "don't like drooling Maid Marion fanboys", but that you
have this tendency to paint everything furry with that brush. At least that's
the message you often transmit, whether you intend to or not.
>(though my enjoyment of the film may be slightly diminished). It depends
>on how you define 'furry.'
I define 'furry' to include any intelligent being that is obviously not human
and could be mistaken for a terran vertebrate. The more obvious that it's not
a human in a funny suit the better (that goes for the mind, as well as the
body... I'll take Watership Down over Redwall any day).
Tod Mughi Casasent
>In article <tcasasent.1...@kbsi.com>,
>Tod "Mughi" Casasent <tcas...@kbsi.com> wrote:
>>Affair of Nolandia is considered the weakest of the DP movies.
>Wonderful. Why on earth did they decide to release that one first then?
Because it was written and animated first. *nirg*
>>BTW, I have no idea where we might set followups for this, so if the DP
>>discussion continues without more people, I'll go to e-mail. Sorry. :-(
>No, don't do that. Otherwise we'll be arguing over what operating system
>the Lovely Angel uses in no time.
[Mughi chuckles]
It's gotta be better than anything we have.
Tod Mughi Casasent
[lots of text clawed out]
>>>>Timothy Fay <ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>but BEAUTY AND THE BEAST was about as
>>>>>shallow and insipid (and pointedly sexist) as any cartoon Uncle Walt ever
>>>>>made.
[lots more text clawed out]
>I think what we are seeing here is a difference in eras. If your view
>the movie in the light that when it fist came out women were not given
>many of the options they are now, it could be viewed to show conciderable
>strenght. Belle does not take the easy way out, and takes the best options
>open to her. But nowdays things are a little different, and to be pro-
>active a woman must do more than chose the best man to protect her. Yes
>Belle does end up playing the victom a lot, but in those days thats the
>way things were.
She does more than chose the best man to protect her. She protects her father,
stands up to the Beast and Gaston and generally acts with exceptional courage.
This is true in any age.
>In other words, If we were looking at the mental attitudes of the time
>when we judge the movie I would agree with Mughi. But as the movie
>applies to modern life, I would agree with Tim - except that I did not
>find it insipid. Nor did I find it particularly shallow -except that
Look at the above post. Tim claimed he thought the film "shallow and insipid
(and pointedly sexist)". You disagree with him on the first two, but still do
not back up the latter.
The protaganist is supposed to be "victimized" by the antagonist, up until the
end of the show.
>the plot has been beated into us time and time again by this and other
>movies. Dispite this the moral of the movie still holds true, and
>could readily be applied to many modern situations. Actualy, I really
>liked the movie.
I liked it too. Especially since they didn't take a 2X4 and pound the moral
into your skull.
Tod Mughi Casasent
>In article <Cq9so...@news.cis.umn.edu>,
>Timothy Fay <ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu> wrote:
>>I don't know why you would think that odd. Just because I don't like, say,
>>drooling Maid Marian fanboys doesn't mean I hate Disney's ROBIN HOOD
>It's not that you "don't like drooling Maid Marion fanboys", but that you
>have this tendency to paint everything furry with that brush. At least that's
>the message you often transmit, whether you intend to or not.
The same thing happens in anime.
>>(though my enjoyment of the film may be slightly diminished). It depends
>>on how you define 'furry.'
>I define 'furry' to include any intelligent being that is obviously not human
>and could be mistaken for a terran vertebrate. The more obvious that it's not
>a human in a funny suit the better (that goes for the mind, as well as the
>body... I'll take Watership Down over Redwall any day).
I like Watership Down too. But do you think Yayoi is furry or not? (See the
post Furry Manga.)
Tod Mughi Casasent
>In article <2rs0o7$s...@sundog.tiac.net> Kri...@max.tiac.net (Glenn M.
Saunders)>writes:
[text clawed out]
>So Vasquez was indeed a man, I guess. :-)
Don't tell her that. (Abunai yo -- Talk about dangerous.)
>>The culmination of this is when the marine commander freezes up in shock
>>and doesn't know what to do. Ripley is like "well, DOOO something".
>
>Who knows where a subject can lead us. :-)
>
>We knew that the guy wouldn't hold up from the start--he practically
>cracked before anything at all happened. Seemed kind of set up to
>me.
In the book, it is mentioned that the company man chose the Lt for his
inexperience as an attempt to try to retain control over a nominally military
mission.
[text clawed]
>>Yet it is rather
>>hypocritical since although she accepts the beast as is, she never has to
>>live with him as is and he becomes a perfect boy-toy for her. In the
>>real world, women who love ugly men aren't rewarded likewise.
Belle didn't expect any sort of reward for loving the Beast. She was
incredibly surprised when he transformed. (I thought his human form was fairly
lame.) See the excellent post describing how she didn't accept him until she
saw in his eyes that he was the same _person_. Like most furries, form didn't
matter to her as much as the person inside it.
[text clawed]
Eric Shafto
Okay, so Ripley is tough, and she knows how to take action, and she
kills the damned thing. So how come we gotta see her in her
underwear?
There's more than one way for a film to be sexist.
--
*Eric Shafto * I hope...to see the day when...in...our country*
*Institute for the * we won't have any public schools. The churches*
* Learning Sciences * will have taken them over and Christians will *
*Northwestern University * be running them. What a happy day that will *
* * be! -Rev. Jerry Fallwell, on vouchers. *
Christopher H Keroack
Um, just a question about Tezuka Enterprises possible legal action
against Disney....I wouldn't think it was actionable if only because
Japan hasn't signed the Berne Convention, so they're not protected under
international copyright law. Of course, I could be completely wrong...and
I wouldn't mind if I was. Disney needs to be shown that they can't do
whatever they want--they're not above things like copyright law
themselves. :-)
(Of course, if Tezuka incorporated [or whatever] in the US or Europe, all
of that would be moot. I guess.)
ObFurry: Speaking of "moot," my friend once created a little fuzzy pink
cartoon character called a "moot" for his girlfriend. It was very furry,
and very cute...he wrote her a whole story (and illustrated it) about
moot...but refused to send it in to a publisher. I'm still working on him
to do a kid's book...he has the knack. Anyway.
jonathan, digressing wildly.
all replies to jlmi...@hamp.hampshire.edu please. Thanks!
Glenn M. Saunders
: I only saw Aliens, not the sequels.
: Okay, so Ripley is tough, and she knows how to take action, and she
: kills the damned thing. So how come we gotta see her in her
: underwear?
: There's more than one way for a film to be sexist.
Blame Ridley Scott, who did that in the original. Ironically also
responsible for Thelma and Louise.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I don't think the undie stuff was
designed to be risque.
Alien was not a movie about sex. I don't think any of the actors wore
any makeup, it was a very brutal gritty film.
puma
Eric Shafto <sha...@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu> wrote:
>I only saw Aliens, not the sequels.
>
>Okay, so Ripley is tough, and she knows how to take action, and she
>kills the damned thing. So how come we gotta see her in her
>underwear?
You saw the guys in their underwear too, didn't you?
That's not sexism, it's realism.
Narav
Robert Cook
>
>: Depth in what way? I don't see a whole lot of it in the Alien
>: films. The thing about her is that she can physically fight when
>: she has the appropriate weapons. Ooh, even though she's buff, she
>: still has motherly instincts--how deep. :-) Hey, wasn't she a
>: victim, too, reacting to things (specifically, one or more voracious
>: aliens) around her--that is, ALL around her? 8-O :-)
>
>Aliens I can comment on, I've never seen alien^3. In Aliens, one of the
>themes is that the men are all TALK and no ACTION.
So Vasquez was indeed a man, I guess. :-)
>Ripley has seen what
>the aliens can do, and has resolved herself to destroy them. She has
>been toughened up enough to risk her life for this knightly task.
[text deleted]
>The culmination of this is when the marine commander freezes up in shock
>and doesn't know what to do. Ripley is like "well, DOOO something".
Who knows where a subject can lead us. :-)
We knew that the guy wouldn't hold up from the start--he practically
cracked before anything at all happened. Seemed kind of set up to
me.
>Then Ripley is like FUCK THIS and she grabs the controls of the rover and
>crashes through the structure to rescue what's left of the marines. I'd
>call that PRO-active as far as I'm concerned. I'd call that courageous
>and heroic as well.
She took charge when she had to save the others and get the heck out
of there. But this proactive and reactive thing is obviously beyond
my comprehension. Proactive things can be done at any number of
points in the film, but the overall mode is reactive. They went
into there proactive and had the tables turned all the way around,
which is about as reactive as you can get. That's fine with me--
sometimes there's no choice in the matter.
>Upon second thought, since it IS a period piece, it makes sense that the
>men would feel as they do, but due to their socialization, one can't
>necessarily damn them because they don't realize that they aren't being
>politically correct.
Gaston is a character of the modern age, just as Belle is. His
attitude still exists and the way he plays it is modern. The other
villagers are probably a bit more like characters of the era, at
least in comparison.
>To them they are acting in accordance with the
>rules of their society, yet the way they are animated is clearly done to
>show them in an unsympathetic light, as caricatures even. Belle does
>not, for instance, try to relate to any of the men to break through their
>socialization. They are irredeemable.
Frankly, I wouldn't have wasted my time with any of those guys,
either, were I Belle. It's not so unrealistic that such a small
town would not have anyone who is compatible with Belle. It's
fantasy anyway, which is why Belle can be portrayed as being so
far ahead of her time.
>Yet it is rather
>hypocritical since although she accepts the beast as is, she never has to
>live with him as is and he becomes a perfect boy-toy for her. In the
>real world, women who love ugly men aren't rewarded likewise.
Beast started out as a prince, but he didn't act like one and was
transformed. Being changed back as a reward (or rather like being
released from prison) is not the same thing as being granted physical
beauty you never had. I do not believe that you can abstract your
point so far from the film. In real life, mystical enchantresses
don't go around punishing bad boys that way. You can say that
fantasy films cannot be taken seriously in any way, but you can't
ignore the fantasy in the film you're talking about.
>The
>historical moral is probably a way to get women to grin and bear it when
>their hairy husbands jump their bones. Grafting '90s themes onto old
>storylines is always going to lead to contradictions.
As a fairy tale Beauty and the Beast has the beginnings of "90's
themes" (look around us--my, aren't WE enlightened--sure), which, I
suspect, was one reason Disney treated it the way they did. I don't
see substantial contradictions. Nitpicking, however, is almost
always fruitful.
- Robert Cook
chuck cilek
>>Timothy Fay <ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>but BEAUTY AND THE BEAST was about as
>>>shallow and insipid (and pointedly sexist) as any cartoon Uncle Walt ever
>>>made.
>>
>
>Just go watch the movie. Belle is constantly victimized by every male
>in the film whether it's her father, Gaston or the Beast. She is never
>in control of any situation and can only react to events created by the
>male characters in the story. She is so utterly helpless that she is
>forced rely on Chip, perhaps the weakest character in the film, to rescue
>her near the end of the movie. Not exactly what I'd call a 'liberated'
>film...
Great. I challange someone to a duel and my newsfeed goes down for
five days. Now, where was I? Ah, yes...
Shallow. Insipid. Pointedly sexist. Belle is victimized by every
male character. Reactive. Utterly helpless. Rescued by Chip.
Not a "liberated" film.
Shallow. By this I assume you mean in terms of characters and character
development? Well, let's see. Beast learns how to love another and earn
her love in return. He sheds the three character flaws the Enchantress
held against him, ie "spoiled, selfish, and unkind." He first sees the
idea of self-sacrifice when Belle offers to take her father's place, and
he sacrifices his chance at becoming human again when he lets Belle go,
thus showing he has learned about self-sacrifice and love.
Belle starts out self-reliant and intelligent. She understands the
virtue of self-sacrifice. She is able to see past the Beast's
exterior appearances to his central character. She holds the wolves
off longer than I could have. She handles Gaston with wonderful
verbal wit which goes right over his head. Her only losses were
in impossible situations, against the wolves and against the
townspeople taking her father away. She loses in these two
situations because these are no-win situations, not because she is
a female character. We don't say that Gaston lost to gravity because
he was male, do we?
Gaston starts out as a boor and progresses neatly to attempted murderer.
He never allows that anyone could say no to him, thus his trek along
the dark side of the force. (Hey if someone can bring up Aliens...)
Insipid (not challenging) is disproved by the fact that we are
discussing the film.
"Pointedly sexist" gives me problems because I can't see your
point. "Sexist" means demeaning because of gender, and I can't
see examples of this in the film. Belle is not victimized because
she never allows herself to become a victim. Gaston tries, but he
fails.
"Utterly helpless." Where? She takes out as many wolves as she can.
If you mean the bit in the cellar, well given a couple of minutes
to regroup, she would have crawled out the window that Maurice
broke in the beginning with his wood-chopping machine. As for
being rescued by Chip, have you ever heard of the concepts of
comic relief, and also the fact that the children in the audience
might want the character they identify with to have a role in the
outcome?
"Not a 'liberated' film" Gee, I didn't know that every movie
was supposed to have a political moral. Perhaps you should stick
to art films.
"Reactive, not active" is perhaps the silliest of your points.
When the protagonist is in control of every situation, you have
a very short, boring movie. Besides, if you notice, Belle makes a
number of choices in the film, which means she is partially responsible
for what happens. She isn't just some chess piece being moved aroud the
board.
--
"Ah, Princess Jasmine, speechless I see;
A fine quality in a wife." -Jafar, _Aladdin_
jeolo...@miavx3.mid.muohio.edu
What a rip! The "Lion King" comic is ALREADY out by Gladstone. No need to see
the movie to see that happens- just flip through the comic! Disney is jumping
the gun by releasing this and a lot of other mercahndise waaaaay too soon. I've
had a "Lion King" T-Shirt for over 3 months now.
Betty Boop
: What a rip! The "Lion King" comic is ALREADY out by Gladstone. No need to see
: the movie to see that happens- just flip through the comic! Disney is jumping
: the gun by releasing this and a lot of other mercahndise waaaaay too soon. I've
: had a "Lion King" T-Shirt for over 3 months now.
True. My daughter has a Lion King "early reader/chaper" book
which I --(ahem)--read so now, other than to see the animation
, I don't have to see the film.
--
============================================================================
The Boopster! (cl...@nevada.edu) | You know you've landed gear up
FDC Sing-About Marie! | when it takes full throttle
Oh god! It's *HER* (bre...@mirage.ccsn.| to taxi!
nevada.edu | ...UNKNOWN
===========================================================================
Timothy Fay
chuck cilek (cci...@nyx10.cs.du.edu) wrote:
>
>Shallow. Insipid. Pointedly sexist. Belle is victimized by every
>male character. Reactive. Utterly helpless. Rescued by Chip.
>Not a "liberated" film.
You got it. :)
> [stuff about the film deleted...]
I think you're reading too much into the film. Perhaps the best comment
made so far was by (I think) Peter da Silva, who said to the effect that
Belle is a '90's character grafted onto a medieval storyline, and that
contradictions are bound to arise as a result. I'll add that Belle is also
not as "strong" or "intelligent" a character as die-hard fans of the film
would have us believe.
>Insipid (not challenging) is disproved by the fact that we are
>discussing the film.
That's an interesting claim. Let's start talking about CHARLIE'S ANGELS
or THREE'S COMPANY and see if they suddenly also become less insipid as a
result... :)
>"Pointedly sexist" gives me problems because I can't see your
>point. "Sexist" means demeaning because of gender, and I can't
>see examples of this in the film. Belle is not victimized because
>she never allows herself to become a victim.
Belle is _constantly_ the victim in the film. She has to sacrifice her
freedom to save her father. She's imprisoned by the Beast. She escapes,
and must be recued by the Beast when she's -- *GASP* -- ATTACKED BY WOLVES!!!
(I mean, _really_! Not only a ludicrous plot device, but very ecologically
incorrect...). And after the Beast sets her free, she is imprisoned by
Gaston and the townspeople. Belle might as well walk around with a big
"Victimize Me" sign on her back.
>"Utterly helpless." Where?
When she gives up her freedom. When she's attacked by wolves. When she's
imprisoned by the townsfolk. Furthermore, in every threatening situation
she gets into it is someone else--a _male_ someone else--who must rescue
the poor damsel.
>"Not a 'liberated' film" Gee, I didn't know that every movie
>was supposed to have a political moral. Perhaps you should stick
>to art films.
My comment was an answer to those who claimed that Belle was a "strong"
character. I countered that by saing BEAUTY AND THE BEAST wasn't exactly
a 'liberated' film. Believe me, if I was interested in 'art' films, I
would not spend my time watching Disney cartoons. :)
>"Reactive, not active" is perhaps the silliest of your points.
>When the protagonist is in control of every situation, you have
>a very short, boring movie.
But Belle doesn't control _any_ of the situations she is in. How does that
prove that she is a 'strong' character? It doesn't, because she isn't. And
speaking of silly...
>Besides, if you notice, Belle makes a
>number of choices in the film, which means she is partially responsible
>for what happens. She isn't just some chess piece being moved aroud the
>board.
But that is exactly the kind of character she turned out to be.
John Van Stry
Peter da Silva <pe...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> wrote:
>The problem with Heinlein isn't so much that he was a chauvanist or a sexist
>or a racist, but that he didn't have much understanding of people who thought
>significantly differently from him. Just about every character in a Heinlein
>novel is either a thoroughly competant self-reliant heroic type, or is in the
>process of becoming one, or is a cardboard cutout. Even the bad guys don't
>get beyond cardboard cutout state until they somehow redeem themselves.
>
>Basically, Heinlein wrote stories about Heinlein. He had one character who
>was Robert Heinlein mutated into male, female, young, old (sometimes even
>in the same character!). That's why his juveniles were so good... that's just
>the sort of character you *need* in that sort of novel... and why his adult
>novels were so... well... juvenile.
I have to disagree with some of this. First off, I don't think you've read
too many of his adult stuff. Try reading the original version of Stranger,
the one they wouldn't let him publish back in the sixties but you can get
now. Also what about'Job a comedy of Justice' or 'Glory Road'?
Yes Heinlein's Heros are all competant people. That's because INcompetant
people DO NOT become hero's, just spear carriers and dead bodies.
As an Engineer and a retired naval officer it's true that a lot of
his characters are strong in their technical backgrounds or military
ones. I see nothing wrong with that, we ALL write about what we know.
Show me an author writing about something on which they have no experience
and I'll show you a lousy story.
True a lot of his last books were kind of strange, but I would not say
his female characters were like his male ones exactly. More like the
women who you tended to met in a mostly male dominated business world
back in the fifties and the sixties.
I would not say that his stories were about him either. He did try
to write stuff that was different, and he did experiment. He also
tried to make commentary on those things he saw around him. After all,
if his books were about him, then the main characters would have been
sickly and bed ridden, like he was most of the time.
--
John Van Stry When the government no longer trusts it's
van...@agora.rdrop.com people with the means to overthrow it, doesn't
jvan...@nyx.cs.du.edu it say alot about their future plans?
Dave Bell
GMS> Eric Shafto (sha...@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu) wrote:
GMS> : I only saw Aliens, not the sequels.
GMS> : Okay, so Ripley is tough, and she knows how to take action, and she
GMS> : kills the damned thing. So how come we gotta see her in her
GMS> : underwear?
GMS> : There's more than one way for a film to be sexist.
GMS> Blame Ridley Scott, who did that in the original. Ironically also
GMS> responsible for Thelma and Louise.
GMS> Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I don't think the undie stuff was
GMS> designed to be risque.
GMS> Alien was not a movie about sex. I don't think any of the actors wore
GMS> any makeup, it was a very brutal gritty film.
I'd say that they were very aware of how some people would see that
scene, but titillation wasn't the primary purpose. It's making it very
plain that Ripley thinks she is safe and, more to the point, it puts the
audience in a different mood.
It is, allowing for changes in standards over the years, a typical
horror film routine. "We've dealt with Dracula, so I'll get risd of the
garlic before I go to bed..."
Dave
... We now return to our regularly scheduled flame-throwing.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.11
Peter da Silva
John Van Stry <van...@agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
>I have to disagree with some of this. First off, I don't think you've read
>too many of his adult stuff. Try reading the original version of Stranger,
>the one they wouldn't let him publish back in the sixties but you can get
>now. Also what about'Job a comedy of Justice' or 'Glory Road'?
I've read "Stranger", "Job", "Number of the Beast", "Time enough for Love",
"Moon is a harsh Mistress", "Glory Road", and a number of others. It's damn
hard to find a character in any of those stories who isn't either a spear
carrier, implausably evil, or a clone of Heinlein.
I wasn't able to finish "The Cat who Walked Through Walls". I didn't want to
ruin "The Rolling Stones" for myself.
>Yes Heinlein's Heros are all competant people.
No, they're not just "competant people". The're polymath geniuses who always
have exactly the right skills and abilities for any situation.
>That's because INcompetant
>people DO NOT become hero's, just spear carriers and dead bodies.
In Heinein's novels, yes, they do. That's part of the problem. In real life
the law of chaos rules, and often the most unlikely people come through in
the end. Polymath geniuses die in firefights, crashes, blowouts, and so on...
except in Heinlein's novels.
Compare "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", one of Heinlein's classics, to John
Varley's "Steel Beach". Ignore the differences in technology, and focus on
the characters. "Steel Beach" is somewhat of a homage to "Moon", and has all
sorts of Heinleinian supermen in the background... but the main character
isn't one of them. Somehow she becomes a hero despite her flaws.
>Show me an author writing about something on which they have no experience
>and I'll show you a lousy story.
Well, I guess that rules out 99% of Science Fiction. Show me an author who
claims to have direct experience with alien minds and I'll show him a rubber
room...
>I would not say that his stories were about him either. He did try
>to write stuff that was different, and he did experiment.
About the strangest thing he did, back when he was competant at it, was "All
you Zombies"... and even then the protagonist has the Heinlein Superman
viewpoint.
>tried to make commentary on those things he saw around him. After all,
>if his books were about him, then the main characters would have been
>sickly and bed ridden, like he was most of the time.
You're talking about his body. I'm talking about his mind and personality.
Peter da Silva
Timothy Fay <ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu> wrote:
>I think you're reading too much into the film. Perhaps the best comment
>made so far was by (I think) Peter da Silva, who said to the effect that
>Belle is a '90's character grafted onto a medieval storyline, and that
>contradictions are bound to arise as a result.
I don't *think* I said it, but I might have. It's the sort of thing I'd
say, though Belle is really more like an 1890's character than a 1990's one,
and a better rendition of one than Disney's awful suffragettes in Mary
Poppins (now if you want to pick on a bad depiction of women...)
>My comment was an answer to those who claimed that Belle was a "strong"
>character. I countered that by saing BEAUTY AND THE BEAST wasn't exactly
>a 'liberated' film.
Are these two statements in any way contradictory?
(Belle a chess peice? She rejected Gaston, rescued her father, and saved
the beast. She didn't need any male help for any of that. Just because
she's not Rambelle doesn't mean she's a wimp...
Not that I thought BatB was *that* good a movie, it's better than average
Disney fare.)
Ray Rooney
jeolo...@miavx3.mid.muohio.edu sez:
J>What a rip! The "Lion King" comic is ALREADY out by Gladstone. No need to see
>the movie to see that happens- just flip through the comic! Disney is jumping
>the gun by releasing this and a lot of other mercahndise waaaaay too soon. I'
>had a "Lion King" T-Shirt for over 3 months now.
Gladstone has one, too? How'd that happen? I have the Marvel edition.
How do they compare/differ?
---
ş OLX 3.01 00-0000 ş Alas, poor Leo.
Tod Mughi Casasent
>In article <CqHKy...@agora.rdrop.com>,
>>Show me an author writing about something on which they have no experience
>>and I'll show you a lousy story.
>Well, I guess that rules out 99% of Science Fiction. Show me an author who
>claims to have direct experience with alien minds and I'll show him a rubber
>room...
[Blank stare]
Some writers have met Mughi. Does this qualify?
[toothy grin]
Richard Chandler
> Okay, so Ripley is tough, and she knows how to take action, and she
> kills the damned thing. So how come we gotta see her in her
> underwear?
Um, because it makes her seem more vulnerable?
As opposed to doing the scene just after she finished buckling on full body
armor.
--
What part of "...shall not be infringed." don't you understand?
"Ride a motorcycle. Save Gas, Oil, Rubber, Steel, Aluminum, Parking Spaces,
The Environment, and Money. Plus, you get to wear all the leather you want!"
Rich Chandler, DoD #296
Tygger
: In article <2rsuk5$2...@anaxagoras.ils.nwu.edu>, sha...@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
: > Okay, so Ripley is tough, and she knows how to take action, and she
: > kills the damned thing. So how come we gotta see her in her
: > underwear?
: Um, because it makes her seem more vulnerable?
: As opposed to doing the scene just after she finished buckling on full body
: armor.
[nodnod]
One of the elements of the horror genre, which Aliens fits into quite
well. Having a vulnerable hero/heroine is one way to scare the audience.
[clink clink]
TTFN!
Tygger!
--
******************************************************************************
"The body was covered with dozens of tiny, disturbing, luminous-green
scuttling things. Some had claws, some were bristling with eyestalks or
cover in quivering tentacles, but no two were alike. They had burned,
cut, abraded, and dissolved various parts of his body. The awful things
slithered, hopped, and waddled off into the far recesses of the cave as
we shone our lights on them."
Death Report #1
Cthulhu Casebook
c Chaosium 1990
Peter da Silva
John Van Stry <van...@agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
>>I've read "Stranger", "Job", "Number of the Beast", "Time enough for Love",
The original release. After I gave up on "Cat" I'm hardly going to pick up
another Heinlein.
>Then I guess I must be a 'polymath genius' because I have many of the
>skills that a lot of his characters have.
It's not a matter of skills, it's a matter of how they always have exactly
the oddball skill to advance the plot at any point. Even when they're tired
or supposedly despairing they're always ready to ...
Oh, forget it.
I'm not going to bother explaining again only to have you miss the point again.
It's not that they're there, it's that they're omnipresent.
John Van Stry
>I've read "Stranger", "Job", "Number of the Beast", "Time enough for Love",
^ The re-release or the old one?
>>Yes Heinlein's Heros are all competant people.
>
>No, they're not just "competant people". The're polymath geniuses who always
>have exactly the right skills and abilities for any situation.
Then I guess I must be a 'polymath genius' because I have many of the
skills that a lot of his characters have. Gee, and I always thought
I was just an average guy with a good education and a lot of practical
experience! :-)
>>That's because INcompetant
>>people DO NOT become hero's, just spear carriers and dead bodies.
>
>In Heinein's novels, yes, they do. That's part of the problem. In real life
>the law of chaos rules, and often the most unlikely people come through in
>the end. Polymath geniuses die in firefights, crashes, blowouts, and so on...
>except in Heinlein's novels.
Not in my experiences in Real Life! The people who survive are those
that don't quit. Also those who don't go through life 'zoning' and
always have a backup plan. You may consider this paranoid, but
after many years of working in occupations where inattention and
incompatence can lead to a quick (and sometimes painful) Death, I
am always ready for the 'world to go to shit' at the drop of a hat.
It has saved my butt (and quite a few of my friends) many times, also
inpresses the hell out of people. ;-)
>Compare "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", one of Heinlein's classics, to John
>Varley's "Steel Beach". Ignore the differences in technology, and focus on
>the characters. "Steel Beach" is somewhat of a homage to "Moon", and has all
>sorts of Heinleinian supermen in the background... but the main character
>isn't one of them. Somehow she becomes a hero despite her flaws.
Haven't read Steel Beach yet.
>>Show me an author writing about something on which they have no experience
>>and I'll show you a lousy story.
>
>Well, I guess that rules out 99% of Science Fiction. Show me an author who
>claims to have direct experience with alien minds and I'll show him a rubber
>room...
You missed my point. I meant on those aspects dealing with what is presently
known. Sci-Fi is supposed to be based on hard facts, and then theorised
(or imagined - whatever) from there. When creating characters and such
one must draw from one's experience, or you will end up with characters
who behave totally unrealistically (With aliens you'd expect that, but
not with human characters).
>You're talking about his body. I'm talking about his mind and personality.
Which is shaped by the body, like it or not. Yes much of Heinlein's stuff
does have a strong central character. But remember the question, does
the man make the times, or the times make the man? (or woman for that
matter). I will stand by my statement (and experience) that strong
people are usually the ones who make things happen. Weak ones usually
just stay at home and watch. And 'unlikely' hero's, in reality, aren't
so unlikely once you get to know them.
Timothy Fay
>I truly don't understand the problem.
>
>I was a total fan of Kimba... I watched it before some of you were born. And
>I don't see any similarity at all. The only points of comparison are: 1. it's
>about a lion who's king of the beasts, and 2. the lion's name rhymes with
>Kimba...
>
>If Simba rescues his father's pelt from a poacher, I'll eat the Post Brothers
>comic of your choice.
Yeah, I can't imagine why anyone thinks there are any similarities between
Disney's LION KING and Tezuka's KIMBA/JUNGLE EMPEROR. For example:
o Tezuka's character was named (by NBC) 'Kimba.' Disney's character is
named 'Simba.'
o Kimba's enemy was a lion with a scar over one eye. Simba's enemy is a
lion with a scar over one eye.
o Kimba's mentor is a wise old baboon. Simba's mentor is a wise old baboon.
o In KIMBA, the bad lion had two hyena henchmen. In THE LION KING, the bad
lion has THREE hyena henchmen (important distinction, here!).
o Kimba's dead mother appears in the sky to guide him. Simba's _father_
appears in the sky to guide him (another important distinction!).
Like I said, I just can't imagine what all the fuss is about...
Timothy Fay
>
>...Yes much of Heinlein's stuff
>does have a strong central character. But remember the question, does
>the man make the times, or the times make the man? (or woman for that
>matter). I will stand by my statement (and experience) that strong
>people are usually the ones who make things happen. Weak ones usually
>just stay at home and watch. And 'unlikely' hero's, in reality, aren't
>so unlikely once you get to know them.
That's utter nonsense. Take someone like Albert Einstein. Hardly the
Superman you'd find in a typical Heinlein novel, yet he probably did more
to change our view of the Universe than any other person who ever lived
apart from, perhaps, Isaac Newton (another non-hero type). Hitler made
a lot of things happen, too, but he was deformed little sign-painter and
also an unlikely candidate for Heinlein hero.
So I guess it depends on how you define 'strong' people. 'Strong'
characters may have populated Heinlein's novels, but they weren't very
believable or sympathetic. If you want to learn more about the kinds of
people who _really_ made things happen, then you should read less Heinlein
and more James Burke.
Timothy D Fay
>In article <CqysF...@news.cis.umn.edu>, ava...@wings.micro.umn.edu
>(Timothy Fay) writes:
>>That's utter nonsense.
>Perhaps you, sir, are unaware the contributions Robert Heinlein and Arthur
>C. Clarke, as well as Issac Asimov have made to science. Clarke, the
>originator of the telecommunications sattelite allowing you to access this
>network, Heinlein, the originator of many of the navigation devices used
>by ships and aircraft, and Asimov, a scientist above reporach. Because
>people dare to dream, many thins are accomplished.
>Perhaps you need to spend more time in your history, rather than Jmaes
>Burke
Wow, this thread is so old I forgot what the heck it was that I said...
However, I am well aware of the contributions of Heinlein, Clarke, and
Asimov. Enough to know that, of the three gentlemen, Asimov had the
strongest background in science (he wrote many technical books as well as
science fiction). Clarke came up with the idea for telecommunications
sattellites. Clarke also believes in ESP and UFO's. That was the basis
for Asimov and Clarke's famous on-going feud; Asimov often chided Clarke
as "that famous science fiction personage" who believed in pseudo-
scientific silliness like the above.
As for Heinlein, he wrote some entertaining juvenile fiction in the 1950's,
wrote one honest-to-goodness sci-fi "classic" in the 1960's ("Stranger in a
Strange Land"), got a brain tumor and began cranking out junk like "Number
of the Beast" and "Friday." As far as I know, he had no hand in actually
developing any of the devices you mentioned. I do know that he advocated
nuclear war as an acceptible means of population control (in his speech at
the World Science Fiction Convention in Kansas City in 1977).
And James Burke specializes in history; specifically, the history of
technological development ("Connections," "The Day the Universe Changed,"
"Connections ^2"). So your last comment is a bit mystifying...
--
Reply to: fayx...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
Clearsong of FurryMUCK
>>C. Clarke, as well as Issac Asimov have made to science. Clarke, the
>>originator of the telecommunications sattelite allowing you to access this
>>network, Heinlein, the originator of many of the navigation devices used
>>by ships and aircraft, and Asimov, a scientist above reporach. Because
>>people dare to dream, many thins are accomplished.
Depends on what you mean by 'invnted' or 'accomplished'. If you'll accept
describing an item so that any competent engineer can look at the book
and say "Ya know, this would work' and build it then Heinlein invented
quite a few things... among them the modern waterbed and the waldo.
>
>As for Heinlein, he wrote some entertaining juvenile fiction in the 1950's,
>wrote one honest-to-goodness sci-fi "classic" in the 1960's ("Stranger in a
>Strange Land"), got a brain tumor and began cranking out junk like "Number
>of the Beast" and "Friday." As far as I know, he had no hand in actually
>developing any of the devices you mentioned. I do know that he advocated
>nuclear war as an acceptible means of population control (in his speech at
>the World Science Fiction Convention in Kansas City in 1977).
'Stranger in a Strange Land' was so hacked up in the 1961 edition that a
large chunk of the meaning was lost. Read the 1988 version.
As to 'Friday' and "The Number of the Beast-" being junk.. might I remind
you that "TNOTB" was the first time ever that a writer was able to use
the SFWA 'model contract' - a theoretical ideal contract between an SF
writer and a publisher - and that it was immediatly renegotiated upward.
However, Heinlein's later books were a lot more 'preachy' than his early
stuff. Does this make them less enjoyable? That's a matter of opinion. I,
myself, thoroughly enjoyed TNOTB. And I think Friday would make a *great*
action-adventure film. But those are my opinions.
-Clearsong
Panthera Pardus
Timothy D Fay <fayx...@maroon.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>
>As for Heinlein, he wrote some entertaining juvenile fiction in the 1950's,
>wrote one honest-to-goodness sci-fi "classic" in the 1960's ("Stranger in a
>Strange Land"), got a brain tumor and began cranking out junk like "Number
>of the Beast" and "Friday." As far as I know, he had no hand in actually
>developing any of the devices you mentioned. I do know that he advocated
>nuclear war as an acceptible means of population control (in his speech at
>the World Science Fiction Convention in Kansas City in 1977).
>
Yes Heinlein did write stranger in a strange land, (and those other two books
as well). But the rest of what you have written up there is pure crap
and untrue. Heinlein was a lunger, he did not have a brain tumour. He did
not advocate nuclear war as you suggest, he was an engineer with alot
of expertise, was a former naval officer, and did invent quite a few things.
(Remember Waldo's? Those mechanical arms? His idea, among other things).
Pp