The Swan Princess Franchise

Recently, i've started to become re-interested in the Swan Princess movies, and while i find that there are a lot of good things to like about these movies, one factor keeps dogging me; the falling out scene in the first movie. I refer to the scenes where Derek and Odette have a falling out over something Derek said (I know what he said by the way, so don't bother mentioning it), and while i can understand Odette's reaction (it would be sexist not to), it still bothers me (and i didn't even watch the whole scene).

Such is the way of things for me; when something in a movie didn't sit well with me as a child, it was somewhat easily overshadowed by something else. Yet now, when something doesn't sit well with me in a show and/or movie, it really doesn't sit well with me, and it won't leave my thoughts either.

Inb4 Nostalgia Critic link... aw, never mind, I'll just post it myself. Came out today.

I know, i'm currently watching that review. What's ironic is that, knowing that the "falling out" scene was going to get some comments, i was actually trying to skim over it and skip right to Rothbart's attack. But in the end, i still saw scenes, which will no doubt continue to haunt me.

Not sure if that really was a good pick for a NC review...not that it is a really good movie, but it's not a particularly bad one either. It's just utterly mediocre (though the first song sequence is really well done). I really can't hate it (the sequels are another matter, though).

Given how many tidbits this movie swiped from Disney's Sleeping Beauty, it's a shame they didn't also copy the technique of taking the music from the Tchaikovsky ballet the story was based on.

edited 23rd Apr '14 11:52:35 AM by Karalora

Sheer mediocrity and artlessness like in The Swan Princess can be its own brand of awful. It's competently made in a technical sense, I suppose, but the lack of anything distinctive, passionate or really good about almost makes the film more dispiriting than it would be if it were just flat-out bad.

There's three kinds of bad with this stuff.

1) Obviously bad from the word "go" should have never been done... These are the easiest ones to avoid (unless you like watching the world burn!) and the easiest for critics to deservedly beat up on.

2) Disappointingly bad - had potential to be good, ultimately wasted it. This is worse than #1 because in better hands, it could have been GOOD, even groundbreaking!

3) Forgettably / Insultingly mediocre - The hardest kind of thing to beat up on... for reasons.

I go with option three...while it has it's moments, even if they had made the movie good, I doubt that it would have been ground-breaking.

It seems like a case of They Just Didn't Care. The makers were trying to emulate Disney, but it wasn't because of artistic admiration. They just wanted to make the same kind of money. And boy, does it ever show. They obviously saw the big Disney successes of the time as a checklist of individual factors—beautiful princess, handsome prince, animal sidekicks, nasty sorcerous villain, musical numbers—and completely missed the part about sewing them up into a cohesive whole.

And the worst part is that now we won't ever get a Disney adaptation of Swan Lake and get it done right. (Although if it were Disney doing it, in this day and age, they probably would still change the title to "The Swan Princess.")

... And unless Disney delivers, the damage is already done by the title alone to most moviegoers...

Really? Isn't the word "Princess" a big no-no in animated film titles these days?

edited 24th Apr '14 6:47:25 AM by DrDougsh

Right, adjectives make the big bucks.

If Disney ever makes a Swan Lake adaptation it'll be titled Feathered.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a Disney Swan Lake, just because dibs. This film half-parodied The Frog Princess and Disney did their own take on it anyway.

... though, their marketing department will require them to change its title to something like Lake, or Moistened.

This is a real thing. After Princess drove away male demographics because of word "Princess" in the title (because apparently Americans are paranoid ignorants), their marketing department demanded that the title of any princess musical they'll do from now on should be one word, and vague, for only American audiences. Because that's how it works now. And I will now go choke myself with an ironing board cable.

edited 24th Apr '14 8:49:45 AM by kyun

What about The Princess Bride?

If the actual content of the films to the level of maturity you seem to think these titles suggest, then you can go do that.

edited 24th Apr '14 8:50:37 AM by Mort08

Touche.

There is an older animated version of the Snow Queen which is not totally unknown, so it's not out, but I think that Disney will wait a long time before they go even it. And if they do, they have kind of the problem that their take will be constantly compared with Sleeping Beauty, unless they come up with another angle...which is most likely the reason they did shelve it in the first place instead of doing it themselves.

That being the case...they should go for broke and do it deliberately. Make it an overt companion piece to Sleeping Beauty, however many years after the fact. Use a similar design aesthetic (translated into CGI or not), use ballet music for the songs and score, maybe even hint that it takes place in a neighboring kingdom to the one in SB.

It says something when I can remember the first two direct to video sequels better than the original film and we are not exactly talking "Wrath of Khan" quality here.

To be fair, I remember some good snarky lines from the first movie. ^_^;;

"You should write a book: How to Offend Women in 5 Syllables or Less."

You know, that business with Derek and Odette not being able to explain what they see in one another beyond beauty is simultaneously the smartest thing in the movie and the most distinctively bad thing in it. The movie's smart enough to notice and point out that there's basically nothing to the romance between the two leads, lampooning a lot of classical/fairy tale romances, but then it fails to actually give the romance any substance beyond physical attraction. The film basically points outs its own flaws as a story, and then does nothing to account for them.

edited 24th Apr '14 12:38:57 PM by DrDougsh

As i've said in my OP, that one part of the movie is the only part i seem to take issue with, yet it's so strong, the slightest thought about it makes the rest of the movie hard to watch (and i haven't even watched the entire scene out of timidness), which is sad because i love that... well, Love song between Derek and Odette.

First time I saw that scene, I just figured it was Derek being nervous and running himself into a corner and screwing up the party. There is a scene were he talks with Rogers after that where he explains his reasons, but I cannot remember what he said.

If I recall correctly, he's actually unable to come up with an explanation while talking to Rogers. He just fumbles his words, and then later says something to Bromley among the lines that he's "actually always loved Odette", which is... not very well supported by what we see in the film. But even before the "what else is there?" part, Derek sings that "she was always such an ugly duckling, but now has suddenly become a swan", which makes it sound even more that the only thing that's changed between them since childhood is, well... the fact that they've both puberty and can notice each other's hotness.

To be clear, I wouldn't have a problem with this if the rest of the film actually built on it, but after Odette gets kidnapped the rest of the film proceeds to make both of them (even Odette, who's the one who brought up the issue with the shallowness of their relationship in the first place) act like they have a perfect fairy tale romance going on and are just "meant to be together". This change in attitude, by the way, occurs despite them barely interacting between their falling out and Derek declaring his eternal love.