I don't understand why this Disney movie is considered a classic. Though it was probably the first "full length" animated feature.

It basically sugar coated the originally Grimm story from the 1800's into a cheesy musical with dull characters.


1. Snow White... her voice was annoying & what's with the forest animals & singing, which is basically a "Disney Tradition".

2. Prince Charmin has no personality. Much like Snow White. The Wicked Queen is the only interesting character & is better drawn than Snow White.

3. The Seven Dwarfes...shouldn't be  spelled "Dwarves"?... Any ways, they're annoying. IMO. Plus they helped Snow White.


Have anybody seen the Warner Bros. parody of "Snow White"  that most animation historians like Jerry Beck listed as one of the greatest cartoons of all time? I know it was a "product of it's time" and is considered too offensive today.

Though it's praised for having African Americans providing the voices & having a 'good' soundtrack. Good in 'quotes' since I've never saw the cartoon & read many mixed reactions on the Internet Movie Database. Though I liked the fact Dopey kissed Snow White instead of the prince. Which they deserved more credit since they helped her more than the prince.


And how different was the original "Snow White" from the Disney & Warner Bros. version?


BTW, I don't care for fairy tales, but know about the darker versions of popular fabels that were "supposedly" meant for kids.


http://todmar.net/quality4u/ebay/books/disney-snow-white-hb.jpghttp://www.toontracker.com/coalblack/sowhite.gif

Pictures: Disney's & Warner Bros. version.

I've never seen the Warner Bros. version you're talking about, but I have seen the movie Snow White: A Tale of Terror and that version is supposedly closer to the original tale. It's just as the title says, but it's actually not that scary; it was really good actually, IMHO, despite other reviews of it.

I have to agree with you that Disney's version of Snow White was a butchering of the original tale. I actually really liked their version of it until I read the original story after seeing the aforementioned Snow White: A Tale of Terror. It is VERY different from Disney's version. For example, if I remember correctly, in the Grimm's version of Snow White, it wasn't dwarves who saved her, but a group of mountain miners and they all didn't have names like Dopey, Sneezy, etc. In fact, I don't think they were very nice to her at first. (Hope I'm remembering it correctly; sorry if I'm a bit off.)

And though it wasn't based on a fairy tale, take Disney's version of Pocahontas for instance. She was, what, 12 years old when she met Captain John Smith in real life? But they made her much older than that in the Disney version.

Disney has sugarcoated a lot of stuff over the years. Maybe they do it to be more marketable to the kids and so that the parents won't object, but at the same time, it's not being very faithful to the original tale. Probably the Grimm brothers are rolling in their grave because of what Disney has done to their story. After all, from what it seems to me, stories like Snow White were meant to scare kids and show them life lessons, not be all cutesy-wootsy.

Disney has sugarcoated a lot of stuff over the years. Maybe they do it to be more marketable to the kids and so that the parents won't object, but at the same time, it's not being very faithful to the original tale.

Very true. Many of the movies are ripped and "enhanced" versions of existing works. Walt Disney would use the idea and sometimes change it entirely, re-writing the stories. Another couple that come to mind are "The Lion King" and Rudyard Kipling's "The Jungle Book".

Interesting link in reference to "The Lion King":

http://www.kimbawlion.com/rant2.htm

In reference to "The Jungle Book":

The American animator Walt Disney had no patience with Kipling. He thought The Jungle Book was a cerebral and depressing work and told the artists and musicians who were working on the Disney adaptation not to read it. It was enough that they knew it was about a boy in the jungle and that they knew about the characters — the wolves, the panther, the bear, the tiger, the monkeys and the snake. "Make it funny," he told them, "and identify scenes that we can slip songs in."

Interesting link on the plagiarism by Disney, Hairspray. The evidence is overwhelming.

Here is an interesting link about Snow White. Not too sure how much of it is based on fact though:

http://www.mouseplanet.com/fairytales/ft010622.htm

Thanks for the info. And the truth behind other Disney films like "The Jungle Book" & "The Lion King".

I'll also check "Snow White: A Tale of Terror".  :)



IMO, the early design of Mickey Mouse reminds me of Felix the Cat...  ::)

In reference to "The Jungle Book":

The American animator Walt Disney had no patience with Kipling. He thought The Jungle Book was a cerebral and depressing work and told the artists and musicians who were working on the Disney adaptation not to read it. It was enough that they knew it was about a boy in the jungle and that they knew about the characters — the wolves, the panther, the bear, the tiger, the monkeys and the snake. "Make it funny," he told them, "and identify scenes that we can slip songs in."


I've got a copy of The Jungle Book at home and the original story bears little resemblance to the animated film we all know and love.  In the original Mowgli and some of the wolves kill the tiger using a stampede of cows.  This happens after Mowgli has been living in the village for sometime.

I'm sure there are other examples of the original or traditional story bearing no relation to the DIsney epic that is released.

http://www.kimbawlion.com/bugsLKc.jpg


I think this photo is funny.Maybe someone can make a caption for this. ;D



Howard

For those who want to know about the banned Warner Bros. version, here's a link of a site that has the review & details about it:

http://www.toontracker.com




The site also has facts about other little known & some popular cartoons.

http://www.kimbawlion.com/bugsLKc.jpg

If it tastes too sweet, it must be from Disney.

http://www.toontracker.com/tiggrkey.gif


I like this picture right here. ;D



Howard

For those who want to know about the banned Warner Bros. version, here's a link of a site that has the review & details about it:

http://www.toontracker.com

The site also has facts about other little known & some popular cartoons.


So,why did they have a banned Warner Brothers version? ???



Howard

So,why did they have a banned Warner Brothers version? ???



Howard


It was banned from television in 1968 with other offensive cartoons ("The Censored 11") like "All This & Rabbit Stew" and the mentioned Snow White parody for racial stereotypes of African Americans & Asians.

It's on the site for historical purposes to show another side of the entertainment industry . In it's proper context.


Though it's been praised by animation historians & critics  for having a great jazz soundtrack & having African American entertainers of the era like Dorothy Dandride providing the voices. Despite of the offensive content.




BTW, I don't discrimate (or condone discrimation) against any race, religion, creed, etc.  8)

It was banned from television in 1968 with other offensive cartoons ("The Censored 11") like "All This & Rabbit Stew" and the mentioned Snow White parody for racial stereotypes of African Americans & Asians.

It's on the site for historical purposes to show another side of the entertainment industry . In it's proper context.


Though it's been praised by animation historians & critics  for having a great jazz soundtrack & having African American entertainers of the era like Dorothy Dandride providing the voices. Despite of the offensive content.




BTW, I don't discrimate (or condone discrimation) against any race, religion, creed, etc.  8)



I feel it wasn't right for them to do that.It was wrong. >:(



Howard

I haven't read the original fairy tale Pinnochio, but I do know that the 1940 Disney movie has a lot of darkness in it, and doesn't seem sugarcoated. Many people find that one disturbing.

Atleast they didn't butchered "Chicken Little".  :) Which Foxy Loxy ate all the birds. Atleast it's not that creepy since duck & chicken are consider poultry.





And I know that on "Three Little Pigs", the Wolf ate the first & second pig.

Though I also like Disney's version and the MGM WWII cartoon "Blitz Wolf" (?) thatI saw on "Toonheads" a few years ago.



And the fact Pocahontas didn't marry John Smith, but married John Ralph.

I just don't understand how you can be critical of Snow White.  I think it's one of Walt Disney's two or three greatest master pieces.  He made the story much more charming than the original version, which was Walt's greatest talent.  In fact, Walt was so good at this that it's now referred to as Disney magic!  I think Snow White is incredible !!!

I don't like all the extra charm they put in to Snow White and some of their movies.  I never liked Alice In Wonderland as a kid.  Then I saw another version and later read the book which I found much better.  It's a lot closer to a dream someone might have. 

I was in a minor car accident some time ago, my fault, the guy I hit was a little person and he was storming mad at me yelling " I'M NOT HAPPY!!" stunned by his anger the first thing I though to say was "then which one are you?"

I dunno about Disney, but Larry Flynt sure did!
:P

Here is the article referenced above:

http://www.toontracker.com/coalblack/coalblack.htm

Or to actually see it, check here:

http://www.guba.com/watch/2000911329

And yes, while screamingly offensive now, the time it was made was a different era.  Even a lot of things made in the 1970's look offensive in more modern times.  This has kept a lot of classics out of the hands of viewers, such as "Song Of The South".

As for the "Disnification" of movies, this is fairly typical of anything modified for children.  Even the 1939 version of Gulliver's Travels by Paramount was a dumbed down version of the novel, and only covered the Liliputian adventure.  And the same can be said about almost any movie that has been made primarily for children from another source.  No matter who made it, or the original source.  Even Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang was significantly altered and "dumbed down" from the original Ian Flemming source.

After all, most of us would not want our children to really see the originals.  Would you want your 5 year old to see the original Cinderella, where the sisters mutilated themselves, then were executed at the end?  Or Sleeping Beauty, where Beauty is raped by the prince?

I did not think so.

I've seen "Coal Black" a few times on YouTube, which is a decent cartoon and I've seen far worse.  Though my favorite is "The Great Piggy Bank Robbery" (Daffy as Duck Twacy).

I actually like Disney's version of "Alice of Wonderland" for it's animation and characters (ie Mad Hatter & March Hare), though I still find Disney princesses overrated.