Friday, September 14, 2012

penny-penny:

brosevelt:

tontontonberry:

stuffmeekolikes:

The many faces of Charlotte La Bouff.


#I think one of my favortie things about charlotte la bouff is the fact she has this fantastically broad array of facial expressions
  #so often you see females being portrayed with such a limited range  #basic happy basic sad basic laughing basic surprise  #in order to maintain this natural cool prettiness that women are supposed to have  #and charlottes gorgeous but shes also whacky and incredibly animated  #shes jam packed with personality and a great supporting character  #i typoed favorite in the first tag and dont care  

yes, this, good

Lottie is the best

Plus she’s one of the few rich characters I’ve seen who isn’t the villain. She’s spoiled but isn’t spoiled rotten. She’s demanding, superficial, and a bit of the dramatic side, but she’s genuinely a good person who doesn’t give a single fuck that her best friend is a black waitress. Oh, and when she realizes said best friend is in love with the prince she’s been chasing after the entire movie? She doesn’t get angry or petty or jealous. Lottie is genuinely happy for Tiana and does her damnedest to help her and Naveen get their happily ever after, the celebrates the fuck out of Tiana finally reaching her dreams. How often do we get to see a spoiled yet utterly caring girl portrayed on screen? A 1920s Southern debutante with more depth to her character than her appearance? A woman who can be feminine and rich but still bold, brave, hilariously quirky, and ACTUALLY GIVES MORE OF A SHIT ABOUT HER BEST FRIEND THAN THE DAMN PRINCE? A PRINCE SHE THINKS SHE’S BEEN DATING and then it turns out it was all fake scam to get her dad’s money. Does Lottie sit down and weep about it? Plot a scheme to steal him away from her best friend? Nope, just gonna kiss that gross frog and risk warty lips/frog herpes/dude she’s kissing an amphibian all because she loves and cares about Tiana.

ALL IN A CHILDREN’S FILM.

Lottie is one of my favorite Disney girls for always and forever.

UGH CHARLOTTE

Thursday, September 13, 2012

suiseiusagi:

worksofwalt:

When talking about this movie, people frequently bring up the fact that the message boils down to the fact that, in the end, it really does matter what you look like, and that the ugly guy won’t ever get the girl no matter how nice he is.

Well. Those people are wrong.

Think harder. There are three contenders for Esmeralda’s affections - Frollo, Quasimodo, and Phoebus. Frollo has zero affection for Esmeralda. No affection, no respect, no good feelings at all. All he feels is lust. And when he looks at her, all he sees are her faults (or what he believes are faults). He sees her a sexy gypsy who has spent her whole life in sin. And that causes him to feel lust. Because of this, he is incapable of seeing her good heart and truly decent soul. He sees a problem in need of fixing.

The audience wants Quasimodo to get the girl because he’s nice and she treats him well, and he deserves to catch a break for once in his life. And those things are all true. However. That line of thought essentially equates Esmeralda to his prize, to an object rather than a person. The problem with a Quasimodo-Esmeralda pairing is the exact opposite of Frollo. Frollo sees no good qualities in her, Quasimodo sees no bad qualities. He puts her on a pedestal and blinds himself to any mistakes she may make or flaws in her personality. He idolizes her in a way that is not healthy.

But Phoebus… Phoebus sits between the two: he sees her good, he sees her bad, and he can see the whole picture. He sees Esmeralda as she actually is - a person. She is not a sinful creature in need of reform and she is not a perfect specimen of humanity. Phoebus is the only one who can see that, and the only one who respects her as a person instead of a prize.

And that’s why the pretty guy gets the girl.

THANK YOU.

I adore this movie and I get so tired of that argument.

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

widdlez:

modmad:

Oh I’m sorry did I say I was done?

most adorable humanoid WALL-E ever! Get on my blog!

Monday, August 6, 2012 Friday, July 27, 2012

discorderlyconduct:

FORESHADOWINGLOL
((Big thanks to Cupidite for penciling Dr. Facilier!))

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

vintage-aerith:

friendleaderp:

A++ Shang.

SIGN ME UP FOR THE NEXT WAR

(Source: daily-disney)

Wednesday, July 18, 2012
magpizza:

laurengedraws:

I got some new pencils and I LOVE THEEEEEEEEEEEM!!! Been drawin’ Brave characters all day.

Family feels.

magpizza:

laurengedraws:

I got some new pencils and I LOVE THEEEEEEEEEEEM!!! Been drawin’ Brave characters all day.

Family feels.

Tuesday, July 17, 2012
itskittysworld:

CRYING BECAUSE PERFECT 
Disney Avengers by ~zeixx

itskittysworld:

CRYING BECAUSE PERFECT 

Disney Avengers by ~zeixx

toodlefluff:

OMG I WAS WONDERING WHO THE MAN IN THE FLANNEL IS IT’S THE GUY THAT KILLED BAMBIES MOM AKSFJDSKJGLSDJGK

toodlefluff:

OMG I WAS WONDERING WHO THE MAN IN THE FLANNEL IS IT’S THE GUY THAT KILLED BAMBIES MOM AKSFJDSKJGLSDJGK

(Source: skylie-wilde)

Saturday, July 7, 2012

On Race in the Golden Era of Disney

zerostop:

wordstomeawhisper:

angwe:

simpledisneythings:

**Heavy sigh**

OK, here we go.

Read More

BackstageMagic did a terrific job of summing up all of my thoughts into one big post. If any of you have the time, please read this because I find that it’s important to get your facts straight. I am honestly sick of getting messages about these accusations and I hope that this puts it to rest. 

Look, please do click through and read this, because it’s got some good information. And I do have to say, that given how much Walt relied on the Sherman brothers should be a pretty good sign that he wasn’t much for anti-semitism. (If you don’t know who the Shermans are, go rewatch Bedknobs and Broomsticks and Mary Poppins again. Find a DVD version with extra features.)

I do, however, have to take issue with the apologia for the crows in Dumbo and the entirety of Song of South. Let’s also add to the list: the Indians in Peter Pan, the monkies/apes, especially King Louie from Jungle Book, the siamese cats from Lady and the Tramp, and I’m leaving out the new golden-age stuff (Aladdin, Little Mermaid, etc.)

In fact, here, go read Cracked.com (generally not the best source, but this article is quite worth it) on The 9 Most Racist Disney Characters.

Look, Walt was a really nice guy. I know that. And I’m sure he tried with Song of the South. But it was racist. It really, really was. Even the fact that he made it was racist. The whole patois of Brer Rabbit and Brer Bear/Brer Fox is a white person’s imitation of slaves/former slaves.

We need to get over the fact that admitting something was racist somehow kills it. We need to stop trying to apologize for racism in an earlier era by saying things like, “well it was just a different time.”

No.

Stop.

Admit that it was racist.

Just do it.

Because once you do that, we can then move on to talk about what it says about racism in our history and what we can do to avoid repeating those kinds of mistakes.

The crows in Dumbo are racist. They really are. They present a “jive-talking” stereotype of Blacks that reinforces the racist ideas of the “lazy Black man” and the “entertaining Black man”.

And you see, once we’ve unpacked that racism and identified it, it allows us to do two very important things:

1) Appreciate the message of Dumbo as a story about believing in yourself, while identifying the problematic nature of the depiction of race.

2) Note that racism generally functions in “invisible” ways because that particular portrayal of African American stereotypes was, as the apologists put it, “just how things were”. Exactly. Now that we have identified both the racism and its historical invisibility, we can being to understand how institutional racism functions.

This is probably about as far as I can manage to go with this for right now, but it basically boils down to two things:

1) Walt Disney can still be an inspiring person, even when we acknowledge his shortcomings.

2) Disney movies can still be appreciated and beloved, even when we acknowledge their shortcomings.

So, for the love of all that is holy, please stop trying to write apologias for Disney and his movies. They are flawed, and that is OK. We just need to admit these things.

^^^^^^ YES THANK YOU. Bolded that paragraph for emphasis.

It’s really sad how many notes I had to go through to find at least one person who said this before I went off myself. You DO NOT get to dismiss it with “oh but times were different back then!!” and “but everyone was like that back then!” That doesn’t make it any less racist and offensive.

I love Disney as much as the next person, and these movies continue to be a huge part of my life. But what I can’t understand is why all of these people reblogging this post seem to believe that something has to be completely without flaws to be enjoyable. It’s ok to like things that are problematic, so long as you acknowledge that they ARE in fact problematic. No one’s pretending to be offended, OP. And to many people, they ARE still hurtful - whether because they are reminders of a painful history we can’t shake, or because the effects of “that era” as OP put it never actually went away.

And again - if you’re white and you’re explaining why you think something can’t be racist or offensive to people of color, STOP.

reblogging because while the op had some good things to say it’s important to understand the points that angwe makes.

it is actually possible to enjoy things, but also realize that those things may be flawed. and it’s ok, because nothing is perfect, do yo thang, but try not to defend those flaws, and learn from them instead so you don’t repeat or continue them!