%@@#&!!
Argleblargle!
So Disney is making a new princess movie. While Disney has a history of somewhat revising the fairy tales they use for these stories (arguably to make the princesses more interesting characters rather than sitting around waiting to be rescued for the perfect man, who for some reason decides he wants to rescue this useless chick--and is also a prince), they seem to have done a bit more with this one.
The story is based on "The Frog Prince," which admittedly doesn't have much detail anyway. Still, the princess in this story seems to have heard of the fairy tale herself and therefore her being convinced to kiss the frog in the first place makes more sense than it does for the idiot in the original story. However, it doesn't work quite right, and instead of returning the prince to his human form the girl is also transformed into a frog and the two of them must work together to break the curse. A more active and interesting princess and a more active and interesting princess than they've done before! Sounds lovely.
And since the story isn't being quite true to the original anyway, there's no problem with setting it in America, or having Disney's first black princess, the latter of which is apparently a really big deal (although the black American voice actress says she believes the the former is more ground-breaking).
Of course, the amazing nature of this falls apart under a bit of scrutiny. Almost all of the Disney princess movies are based on old European fairy tales and therefore are set in old Europe, so the princesses being white isn't that significant. Secondly, there aren't that many Disney princesses in the first place: Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Ariel, Belle, Pocahontas, and Jasmine. While it's true that none of these characters are black, they're not all white either. Cinderella, Belle, and Pocahontas aren't actually princesses, and Jasmine isn't actually from a princess movie.
People talk about her being a good black role-model, but other than the fact that I'm not sure people should really be looking for their kids' role-models to be the right color (that makes you a bad role-model, parents), most of these girls are kinda... useless, and terrible role-models in the first place. The only one who manages to be her own hero is Pocahontas, Belle manages to be somewhat useful, and Jasmine (who, again, isn't the main character) manages to pull off being a close ally to the hero. Note that two of these are non-white princesses. Note that all three accomplish what they do in defiance of their parents (well, just fathers as none of them seems to have a mother) and that most of the other princesses also defy their parents (either they defy their fathers, or they actually fight their "wicked step-mother"--in defiance of their fathers [Suggestion to women: Don't give birth to a Disney princess, as this pretty much guarantees your death before the story even starts]), which isn't bad but probably not what these parents searching for role-models are looking for.
Of course, most of that rant isn't even what I'm here to rant about. That would be the stupidity, evil, and intense racism in the claims of stupidity, evil, and racism on Disney's part. I won't claim that Disney is doing an amazing and wonderful job with this movie until I actually see it (which I probably won't), but the criticisms being leveled are nonsensical (and stupid, evil, and racist) and obviously premature.
People have complained that the main character is a black maid to a nasty rich white girl, claiming it's racist. If anything, that's a portrayal of racism as bad since we're meant to sympathize with the maid, but I believe they actually bowed to criticism and changed it (not sure on that one). It's worth noting that Cinderella (a white "princess") also started out in pretty much the same position, only with more abuse and not getting paid for it.
They also complained about her name, "Maddy". Apparently calling a black character Maddy is racist. It's supposedly self-evident, and the fact that it sounds like "Mammy" is even worse! The Hell does that mean? Disney actually listened to this one and renamed her "Tiana" (I am sure on that one). I'd like to point out that some of the other princesses have just completely ridiculous names (Snow White and Cinderella, and if I'm not mistaken several of the princes have been named "Charming").
The real interesting thing--Maddy Tiana's "Prince Charming" isn't black! This is apparently a Big Dealtm. Black princesses can't marry non-black princes!! And if they have to marry non-black princes, they should at least marry non-white princes! How dare they portray a black girl who isn't a racist--that's racist! How are the little black boys gonna look up to him as a role model ('cuz all little boys look to the oft-nameless love interests of the Disney princesses for their role models)?
And regarding that second point, I'd like to take a look at said prince. His skin tone is medium. His facial features are that vague stylized concoction of features that make cartoon princesses go "Oh..." and would make real people go "Oh God! What the Hell is that? Its chin is attacking! Killitkillitkillitkillit!" From these features alone, he could be white (but he's be awfully tan), he might even be black (although he'd be pretty fair), but he is likely neither. Judging from his Indian name (Naveen), the name of his country (Maldonia), and the fact that his voice actor isn't white (he's a Brazilian Latino), I don't think he's supposed to be (Although the guy who wrote that article says Maldonia sounds European--seriously?). The princess's voice actress has apparently had to tell these people that the prince is, in fact, not white. I didn't hear when she said that, so I can't tell you if it was surrounded by much swearing that people cared in the first place.
Oh, and here's the bestest part. Take a look at this picture:
Notice how the colors all seem faded? They white-washed the picture so that their complaining seemed less unreasonable.
Here's what he really looks like:
It's only a slight difference--but hey, I'm not the one who altered the pic so that it didn't disprove my point.
Admittedly, most of the people commenting on the article on its site are saying bull, and there's a poll there where 73% of people have, as of this time, said there's nothing offensive about it (and 10% unsure--how can you... y'know what? Forget it).
As I said. Argleblargle.
So Disney is making a new princess movie. While Disney has a history of somewhat revising the fairy tales they use for these stories (arguably to make the princesses more interesting characters rather than sitting around waiting to be rescued for the perfect man, who for some reason decides he wants to rescue this useless chick--and is also a prince), they seem to have done a bit more with this one.
The story is based on "The Frog Prince," which admittedly doesn't have much detail anyway. Still, the princess in this story seems to have heard of the fairy tale herself and therefore her being convinced to kiss the frog in the first place makes more sense than it does for the idiot in the original story. However, it doesn't work quite right, and instead of returning the prince to his human form the girl is also transformed into a frog and the two of them must work together to break the curse. A more active and interesting princess and a more active and interesting princess than they've done before! Sounds lovely.
And since the story isn't being quite true to the original anyway, there's no problem with setting it in America, or having Disney's first black princess, the latter of which is apparently a really big deal (although the black American voice actress says she believes the the former is more ground-breaking).
Of course, the amazing nature of this falls apart under a bit of scrutiny. Almost all of the Disney princess movies are based on old European fairy tales and therefore are set in old Europe, so the princesses being white isn't that significant. Secondly, there aren't that many Disney princesses in the first place: Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Ariel, Belle, Pocahontas, and Jasmine. While it's true that none of these characters are black, they're not all white either. Cinderella, Belle, and Pocahontas aren't actually princesses, and Jasmine isn't actually from a princess movie.
People talk about her being a good black role-model, but other than the fact that I'm not sure people should really be looking for their kids' role-models to be the right color (that makes you a bad role-model, parents), most of these girls are kinda... useless, and terrible role-models in the first place. The only one who manages to be her own hero is Pocahontas, Belle manages to be somewhat useful, and Jasmine (who, again, isn't the main character) manages to pull off being a close ally to the hero. Note that two of these are non-white princesses. Note that all three accomplish what they do in defiance of their parents (well, just fathers as none of them seems to have a mother) and that most of the other princesses also defy their parents (either they defy their fathers, or they actually fight their "wicked step-mother"--in defiance of their fathers [Suggestion to women: Don't give birth to a Disney princess, as this pretty much guarantees your death before the story even starts]), which isn't bad but probably not what these parents searching for role-models are looking for.
Of course, most of that rant isn't even what I'm here to rant about. That would be the stupidity, evil, and intense racism in the claims of stupidity, evil, and racism on Disney's part. I won't claim that Disney is doing an amazing and wonderful job with this movie until I actually see it (which I probably won't), but the criticisms being leveled are nonsensical (and stupid, evil, and racist) and obviously premature.
People have complained that the main character is a black maid to a nasty rich white girl, claiming it's racist. If anything, that's a portrayal of racism as bad since we're meant to sympathize with the maid, but I believe they actually bowed to criticism and changed it (not sure on that one). It's worth noting that Cinderella (a white "princess") also started out in pretty much the same position, only with more abuse and not getting paid for it.
They also complained about her name, "Maddy". Apparently calling a black character Maddy is racist. It's supposedly self-evident, and the fact that it sounds like "Mammy" is even worse! The Hell does that mean? Disney actually listened to this one and renamed her "Tiana" (I am sure on that one). I'd like to point out that some of the other princesses have just completely ridiculous names (Snow White and Cinderella, and if I'm not mistaken several of the princes have been named "Charming").
The real interesting thing--Maddy Tiana's "Prince Charming" isn't black! This is apparently a Big Dealtm. Black princesses can't marry non-black princes!! And if they have to marry non-black princes, they should at least marry non-white princes! How dare they portray a black girl who isn't a racist--that's racist! How are the little black boys gonna look up to him as a role model ('cuz all little boys look to the oft-nameless love interests of the Disney princesses for their role models)?
And regarding that second point, I'd like to take a look at said prince. His skin tone is medium. His facial features are that vague stylized concoction of features that make cartoon princesses go "Oh..." and would make real people go "Oh God! What the Hell is that? Its chin is attacking! Killitkillitkillitkillit!" From these features alone, he could be white (but he's be awfully tan), he might even be black (although he'd be pretty fair), but he is likely neither. Judging from his Indian name (Naveen), the name of his country (Maldonia), and the fact that his voice actor isn't white (he's a Brazilian Latino), I don't think he's supposed to be (Although the guy who wrote that article says Maldonia sounds European--seriously?). The princess's voice actress has apparently had to tell these people that the prince is, in fact, not white. I didn't hear when she said that, so I can't tell you if it was surrounded by much swearing that people cared in the first place.
Oh, and here's the bestest part. Take a look at this picture:
Notice how the colors all seem faded? They white-washed the picture so that their complaining seemed less unreasonable.
Here's what he really looks like:
It's only a slight difference--but hey, I'm not the one who altered the pic so that it didn't disprove my point.
Admittedly, most of the people commenting on the article on its site are saying bull, and there's a poll there where 73% of people have, as of this time, said there's nothing offensive about it (and 10% unsure--how can you... y'know what? Forget it).
As I said. Argleblargle.