Jump to content

Talk:The Princess and the Frog/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Sources

Are there any non-blog sources for the information presented in this article? WP has been rather strict on not using LaughingPlace or JHM as sources for WP articles. SpikeJones 13:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SELFPUB for reference, for those who were not familiar with the WP policy.SpikeJones 12:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Reading through the "history" section, it doesn't read as a history of the film, but a history of the release of news, almost like a list of released rumors. The sources and when and how the information was released are not important to the article. 208.203.4.140 17:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is a more reliable source Yahoo News - Disney's upcoming Princess film to have black heroine . 208.203.4.140 17:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone provide a non-blog reference to use in place of the BET ref? The provided link is to a rotating series of daily news stories, and the Disney article is nowhere to be found there anymore. In the meantime, I've removed the BET link and have replaced it with a Fact tag as the citation is still needed. SpikeJones 18:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"black" vs "african-american"

Might as well make a decision on this early as a group, then we can stick with it for sure. News articles have used the term "black" to describe Maddy, as well as the pc phrase "african american". The disney press release [1] and the transcript from the announcement during the shareholders meeting both use the term "african american". Certainly we could go either way with this on wp, but the question is whether the disney press release was purposely trying to be politically correct or if they purposely are specifying that the princess will be american. would this alienate non-americans who would view a new "american" princess differently than if the princess' description was "black" instead? i know wp doesn't censor quotes; is WP supposed to be pc in its terminology? not all blacks in america are african-american, and blacks in other countries aren't necessarily referred to as (for example) african-swedish or african-british. so, with all that being said, which term should we officially use to describe maddy here on wp? SpikeJones 03:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

if it helps, this is a start of WP's guidelines on usage that we can refer to: WP:STYLE#IDENTITY SpikeJones 04:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
It is simple; “Black” refers to people who are the decedents of the original inhabitants of Africa (regardless of what country they currently reside). “African-American” refers specifically to Americans who are the decedents of the original inhabitants of Africa. Thus, the terms are interchangeable when referring to Americans with African ancestry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.175.42.81 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 16 March 2007
Personally, I prefer African-American, as it's more specific than Black. Since Disney uses 'African-American' in their press releases, I think we can safely assume that Maddy is actually an American with African ancestry. Lunapuella 08:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I certainly agree with your reasoning, aside from one thing that keeps bothering me about the term in this instance: I think this is the first time that Disney is specifically stating that a princess is "American", as opposed to being from a generic country. I'll grant that Mulan is from China and Pocohantas is obviously an American Indian, but Disney didn't promote either of them as "their first Chinese princess" et al. Yes, Belle lives in France, but she's not advertised as Disney's "French Princess". (Technically, I suppose that Mulan and Pocohantas aren't officially princesses, but they do show up at the occasional "meet the princesses" events. Your guess is as good as mine.) The main point is whether Disney is using the term specifically because they are trying to be PC, or if it was an on-purpose use. If only we had a way to find out for sure other than reading items from a PR flak. Offical AP style guidelines say to use the term "black". When the term African American does appear, it is to be without hyphens, and occasionally within quotes. The reasoning behind this is that the publications using AP style have international readership, and the term "black" is more internationally accepted.SpikeJones 12:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
But why would you use African-American? There is only one other American princess, Pocahontas, just call her black because that is what she is. I know she is African-American too, but saying that gives the impression that all the other princesses are American. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.206.193 (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, Pocahontas is presently the only American princess (she IS an official Disney Princess by the way, as is Mulan). I think Maddy should be referred to as black seeing as she is just that, the first black princess. There's never been a black African Disney princess and again, all the other princesses aside of Pocahontas have been from outside America.

But Maddy is not the first black Disney princess. Aida from the Disney musical Aida is the first black Disney princess. Maddy is either the "first African-American Disney Princess" (since Aida was not American but Nubian) or "first black animated Disney Princess." I didn't want to change it without a consensus from other users.--K Lady112 18:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The term 'Disney Princess' generally applies to princesses from the animated Disney classics. In this light, Aida is not considered a Disney Princess, and Maddy is the first black Disney Princess. Lunapuella 20:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

'Disney Princess' is referring to the princesses from films within the Disney animated features canon whom Disney execs have decided fit into "The Princess Mythology" and are thus included in The Disney Princess Franchise. This is why Mulan is considered a Disney Princess even though she has no ties to royalty whatsoever (but fits into the mythology), but actual princesses such as Maid Marian, Princess Eilonwy and Princess Kida aren't included even though they are from films within the canon and are actual princesses (they don't fit into The Princess Mythology). nemeses9 8:25, 01 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems clear from the films setting (New Orleans) and the wording of the press release ('African American') that the film is set in a real place and time period, so the character is intended specifically to be African American and not just a generic dark-skinned woman from a made up country.81.109.221.53 (talk) 16:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

i think it show be Black as it gives the impression that only black Americans can be princesses which is its not, not all black people are american you wouldn't say you would say belle is the first french princess and the term "black" is more internationally accepted disney is an international compaine its not just based in american and saying afican-amercian would give of the wrong impression to some people. Theres is nothing wrong with the term black its no different than saying white or asian etc... so i don't think we should change it. Veggiegirl (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Veggiegirl", Tiana technically IS Disney's first African-American princess, as she lives in the American city of New Orleans. Thus she can correctly be referred to as either "black" or "African-American". Deadbeat 007 (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Aida IS NOT A DISNEY PRINCESS SHE A PRINCESS BUT DISNEY NEVER MADE HER OFFICIAL shes not on the offical princess list and tiana is also tenically black so STOP CHANGING if you don't like the term black bloodly tuff i don't like white but its what i am and will be called what if they made tiana not american you wouldn't morn SHES BLACK GET OVER IT you don't call white americans europian amercians but thats what they "technically" are all white amercian have eruopian descents she is also only the second amercian princess so like i said it would be silly to call her afican amercian when shes only the second one "SHE IS THE FIRST OFFICALLY BLACK DISNEY PRINCESS" second behind aida so stop changing it its really really rude making it sounds like americans rule the whole world MORE PEOPLE HEAR AGREES SO TIANA WILL BE CALL WHAT SHE IS A BLACK WOMAN AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT AND IT ALSO NOT A PROPER TERM USING AFICAN AMERICAN WHEN NOT ALL COUNTRIES IN AFICA ARE BLACK ONES THERE ARE ASIAN COUNTIRES THERE TWO LOOK AT BRAD AND ANGELINAS SONS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.207.236 (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

As I stated somewhere else on this page African American is actually an ethnicity for American slaves and free blacks who decended from the American colonial era. All people have heritages and as we all know "black" isnt heritage, its a race."Whites" arent necessarily "American", they are German-American, Irish American, etc. The equivalent of that for American slaves/free borns is African American, and she is clearly culturally African American (Southern, Jazz, etc.). So the acurate term for Maddy/Tiana IS African American. While I agree that the lead should probably say the first "black" princess, its also important to know the ethnicity of the character. Which is why I beleve Disney purpousely used the term interchangably.Djh42883 (talk) 08:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Reading this whole overblown argument, I am reminded of an embarrassing TV moment I was unfortunate enough to witness a few years ago. In it, an overly sensitive American reporter called a black, Australian individual "African American," before becoming confused, then correcting herself with the non-existent phrase "African Australian," only to realize this sounded even sillier than her original statement. This film isn't significant because the princess is Disney's first African American princess; it's significant because she's the first ethnically African (read: black) princess. The fact that she is American is, really, irrelevant. We wouldn't even be having this debate if the movie took place somewhere like Australia, where the equivalent "African Australian" is not used. The reporter I mentioned ultimately settled on the word "black," and I think we should too. Every black person I have ever met has referred to blacks as "black." -69.47.186.70 (talk) 05:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure what the consensus was, but when citing the official Production notes [2] from Disney, they used "African American". (Referenced in her cast section info). The sentence in the lead however is calling her black. Should we change it so that both these match? DrNegative (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

2D?

There seems to me to be a discrepancy in this article and the article for Rapunzel. Both films claim that they'll be the first 2D film since Home on the Range. Which is correct? Rapunzel comes out first so if they are both 2D then that film should get to use the title.

Frog Princess is the latest full-length 2D film from the Feature Animation division. Rapunzel is (a) not a full length animated film, and (b) the animation is not being done by Disney Feature Animation. The last 2D animated film to be released by Disney was the Heffalump movie, but since that didn't come from Feature Animation, that's why Home on the Range is listed as the last 2D Disney film. The Rapunzel article needs to be corrected if it states that it's a full-length film. SpikeJones 02:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Rapunzel Unbraided is a 3-D film, not 2-D.

Since the revamp of the production in 2001 by current Director Glen Keane, I do believe that the 'Unbraided' has been dropped from the title. --Mochafrappaholic (talk) 08:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Maddie vs Tiana

So the USAToday article this week [3] says that the movie is NOT called "The Frog Princess" but rather "The Princess and the Frog" and that the princess is Tiana. Aside from this article, have we seen anything from Disney that supports these changes yet? If so, we will need to move the article, along with updating the references to Maddie that may appear elsewhere on WP. SpikeJones 04:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Before the article gets too complicated, we may want to rewrite the opening paragraphs to properly reflect "Tiana" is the character going forward even though the referenced footnotes (at least the early ones) all refer to "Maddy" as the lead character. Maybe this would mean moving those footnotes elsewhere in the article? Obviously, the section talking specifically about the history of the original casting call sheet and the New Orleans announcement during the 2007 shareholders meeting would all refer to "Maddy" as that is what the character was called at the time. SpikeJones 04:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I have a possibility. Suppose they go for a mystical angle, and have the character's common name be "Maddie", but her true name be "Tiana"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.53.107 (talk) 01:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC) Not sure if I am in the right spot, but why is the name Tiana considered to be an african american name. My name is Tiana and I am 48 yrs old. I am not african american, actually am Irish and German. My understanding is that Tiana was originally an Indian Princess.

Question

A previous edit removed the link to the IMDb news page claiming that the website is not a valid source because it's user-edited. While this may very well be true for the IMDb's trivia pages, the news pages are NOT edited by IMDb users, and in fact, an older IMDb news page was still being used as a source (to back up the info that this film will feature traditional animation as opposed to CG), but THAT page was not removed. I can't see any reason why this source was removed other than to deny that any name/occupation change has occured. (63.215.27.132 19:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC))

The IMDB's news is used all over Wikipedia as a valid source. There is no reason to remove IMDB press release links. Rebochan 14:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Casting Call

I want to know why this warning is listed in the Casting Call section:

#################################################### NOTE: ALL EDITS TO THIS SECTION THAT DO NOT MATCH THE ORIGINAL CASTING CALL SHEET IN THE LISTED REFERENCE (OR THE ORIGINAL NEW ORLEANS ANNOUNCEMENT) WILL BE REVERTED. ####################################################

Because some of the information in that section is incredibly dated and needs to be updated. But if someone's just going to replace correct information with bad information, why bother? Rebochan 14:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Because this film has had some changes from the original New Orleans press announcement to the character names/film title. The original casting call sheet is a historical reference to this old material (especially in light of those subsequent changes). IF this article is going to contain news references regarding the changing of "maddy" to "tiana", then the casting call sheet serves to show what was originally used. The information in the casting call sheet is dated because it is for an event that occured in the past. It's historical information. Changing it would be like removing all references to "Mortimer Mouse" entirely from the Mickey Mouse article. Mickey was referred to as Mortimer along the way. Similarly, Tiana was referred to as Maddy... so we refer to a document that shows this. SpikeJones 15:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
It needs to be better integrated into the document then. Perhaps there should be a character list, with the casting call name and information also referenced but with more preference to the current information. It seems superfluous to have the casting call sitting there in a void on the page with blatantly incorrect information. Rebochan 19:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
As long as there is a distinct mention of the name and character description changes that refer to the historical casting call document (including original cast descriptions, as necessary), then I would find that an acceptable compromise. It would certainly keep the history of the film announcements, along with a way to track the changes made to the film along the way (as such refered to in the ref'ed USAToday article). SpikeJones 21:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps using a table format would help (character / description / as originally proposed) SpikeJones 21:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
A table format would be better - I was just more concerned with the text first and the format later. I can whip up a table and place that in there.Rebochan 13:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Character Section

This section would replace the "Casting Call" but still retain the information the sheet listed as historical information on the film's production. Below is how it could look:

Cast of Characters

This is a list of the film's currently revealed major characters. Most of the information comes from the original casting call sheet[1]. Some information has changed since then and as the film is still in development, will likely continue to change.

  • Tiana† - The 19-year-old heroine.
  • Charlotte La Bouff - An 18-year-old spoiled, southern debutante and diva.
  • Dr. Duvalier - An African American Voodoo magician/fortune teller. The villain of the movie.
  • Mama Odie - A 200-year-old Voodoo priestess/fairy Godmother.
  • Ray - A lovesick Cajun firefly.
  • Louis - A 20-40 year old Jazz singer alligator. Comic, manic, high-strung.
  • Prince Harry - A gregarious, fun-loving European Prince, in his early twenties. A young Cary Grant type.
  • Lawrence - Prince Harry's pompous valet.
  • Big Daddy La Bouff - Wealthy, Southern plantation landowner and father of Charlotte La Bouff.
  • Eudora - Tiana's mother. In her fifties. Used to be Charlotte's nurse maid.
  • George - The La Bouff family's cook.
  • Little Arila - Tiana's little sister. She's little, but very smart.

†Originally named "Maddy" on the casting call sheet and listed as a chambermaid. Both details have been confirmed as having changed in development.

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference casting was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Question About Including New Production Information

I was at a Disney event earlier tonight where I had the chance to talk to John Musker, one of the directors of the film, and he gave me some fairly up-to-date information about how production on the film is progressing, along with a new inclusion to the crew list. I would add the information to the article, as it is unquestionably authentic, but I am afraid it would be considered original research since it was not published somewhere but told to me directly. Can anyone help me out with this? LainEverliving LainEverloving 04:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. Information in WP must be citable by unbiased verifiable 3rd parties. See WP:CITE for details. Otherwise, information posted could be considered WP:OR. Remember that WP is not a fan site and everything that's listed has to be cross-referenced in some manner or other. This is why information on future, unannounced movies is continually reverted or speedy deleted until the citable references are located. Just because YOU and I know that something is going to happen doesn't mean we can talk about it here. SpikeJones 12:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
That's what I figured. Oh well, I guess we'll just have to wait for the official crew announcements (which shouldn't be too far off now). Thanks anyway for the response, though. LainEverliving LainEverloving 08:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

individual character pages

Are we already at the point in this production that we feel the need to separate out individual pages for each character? While it is certainly something that should be done once the movie is released, is it really necessary to do so at this time? Anyone have any comments before a *merge* tag is added to these articles? SpikeJones (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Paper or paperless

For the moment, it is probably best to wait until it is clear if the movie will be produced as using paper or tablets, or both; http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/animation-on-paper.html 84.48.35.203 (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Wording under picture from trailer

Under the screen cap from the teaser trailer, it says, "Tiana and the infamous frog from the teaser trailer". Er, what? Why is he infamous? I think it should be changed. Steve1138 (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Editing reopening?

I think this would allow us to input some new information from the DC Secret Tour about the film, such as Tiana's desire to turn an old building into a fancy restaurant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.19.206 (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to verify? Cactusjump (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Release Dates

The information about the release date is misleading. The inference is that most countries will be showing the film in December. Additionally, the film is set for release in Germany a day earlier than in the USA. I appreciate it's not practical to post all the different release dates but can we amend what is currently there to be closer to the truth?

The Princess And The Frog (2009) - Release Dates

David T Tokyo (talk) 08:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

White Prince Controversy

I think the controversy about Tiana's white prince warrants a mention in the article. I personally think it is a trifling of a complaint, but many critics and bloggers have complained. However, I can't find many notable sources for this, since most of the complaining is done through blogs. Is this Yahoo UK article acceptable? http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/19032009/5/disney-s-black-princess-quot-white-quot-prince-0.html -Liquidluck (talk)

No, not as a primary source. That page is a gossip blog and only comments on forum posts. No citable news here. SpikeJones (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I remember reading this in a paper a while ago. Found an online version, but not sure if this is any better. Mainly just commenting on the blog responses so maybe not. (http://www.metro.co.uk/metrolife/films/article.html?Disney_in_a_fix_for_mixing_it_up_in_black_princess_tale&in_article_id=586707&in_page_id=27) SWatsi (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

no as racist comments bout tiana and her husband isn't complaints just insenstive comments about mixed raced people and interracial couples so unless thats added aswell no need for it black people discrimate agianst mixedrace and interacial couples just as much why many say obama is black not mixed, its mean and racist as not all couples in NEW ORLEANS have that right to marriage like tiana Prince Naven did. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jy_z-Zo4fvJEf2TK1LCiiPIe9NDwD9BCDNA00

this also mean agianist mixed race girls who have simpler features to tiana and will feel happy knowing that having different raced parent is normal and ok —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.199.25 (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

first black princess?

wasn't jasmine from aladdin black?Black6989 (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Black6989

No, she was Arabian, like nearly the entire cast of Aladdin. Lunapuella (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
i know she was arabian but what ethnic orgin are they? indian people are still black are they not? so arabian people are also black. just because shes not from africa or has descendants from africa doesnt mean shes not black. arabic a langue and nationality is it not. while black is an skin colour. jasmines skin colur was what is classed as a black person.Black6989 (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Black6989
I don't think Indian and Arabian people are classified as black. At least I have never seen or heard them classified as such. Black is not so much a skin colour as it is a race or ethnicity. Note that the Wikipedia article on Black people says that the term is used to define a "racial group". In that sense, Princess Jasmine is Arabian. Lunapuella (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Indians and those of middle eastern decent are caucasian. UncannyGarlic (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

asian!!!(india in asia)those of middle eastern decent are europeane but not always caucasian (gypies roma, 'medtarrianian'(latin), arabics) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.199.25 (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

New Orleans

The movie will be in New Orleans or will be in a kingdom seems New Orleans? It's because United States is not a kingdom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.152.223.88 (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

not just normally new orleans tiana is not a princess buy brith she only comes one when marrying a prince from a kingdom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.199.25 (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The characters

Maybe the artists behind the characters should be mentioned as well. For instance, Andreas Deja is responsible for Mama Odie. Other information about the movie; "Deja added, however, that they will not be going paperless on The Princess and the Frog, which was a partial experiment on the Goofy short. And although the studio is coming up with a new pipeline (not CAPS), Deja said his job remains the same. "I still work at my desk with pencil and paper and animate, and we have assistants who do the rough in-betweens and we scan our drawings but the end result is still the same."

"Deja added that the former notion of competing with CG by making hand-drawn characters look a little more like CG has been abandoned. "I always thought that maybe we should distinguish ourselves to go back to what 2D is good at, which is focusing on what the line can do rather than volume, which is a CG kind of thing. So we are doing less extravagant Treasure Planet kind of treatments. You have to create a world but [we're doing it more simply]. What we're trying to do with Princess and the Frog is hook up with things that the old guys did earlier. It's not going to be graphic…" As for John Lasseter's influence, Deja said he wanted to aim for the Disney sculptural and dimensional look of the '50s. "He quoted all those things that were non graphic, which means go easy on the straight lines and have one volume flow into the other -- an organic feel to the drawing."

link: Insights From ADAPT 200880.202.40.85 (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The Supervising Animators are mentioned in the article in the table that also contains director\producer information towards the bottom of the article. That information to me sounds very relevant, and I am very interested in it, so I would definately add that. SWatsi (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

in other disney article none of the animtors are noted why favour this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.199.25 (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

How exactly are any of the mentioned "controversies" controversial in any way? -- Suspchaos (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

They're not - unless there's any strong objection, I suggest we get rid of them. David T Tokyo (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed "Magical Beauty Collection" section as spam

I just removed the entire section headed "Magical Beauty Collection" as spam. Wikipedia:Spam It might be useful to replace this section with one on Disney's licensing efforts for the film, which I am unfortunately in no position to research and write. But this was just a rehashed press release from one of presumably hundreds of product licensees. Miketsu (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

We'll see what we can do, although it'll be tough to determine how this particular product is notable compared to all the other Princess merchandise available already. The IP that added the information has already attempted it once before and has been warned per WP:ADVERT. You did the right thing, and thanks for removing it. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Just to clarify, I didn't mean that this information should be added in a more appropriate form...it's not encyclopedic and has no place here. But if someone with knowledge wanted to write something about the scope of Disney's licensing efforts for this film, that might be a good addition. I don't think it should be a laundry list of licensees and their products, though. Miketsu (talk) 04:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Reviews and such

With the movie's release coming up soon, it'll also be time for reviews of the film to start pouring in. We should follow the standards seen in other film articles, to use the Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes average scores, with some notable reviewers' opinions included. Before adding a review, make sure that the notability and credibility of the reviewer are easily verifiable. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

controversy

Why is the controversy not listed? There's many controversies Typically a black princess seems Obamaniac opportunism (money making).

This movie has been in production for several years before Obama was even known about on the national scene. Animation takes time, so you can't expect Disney to write, script, cast, draw, and animate an entire film in only one year. Jackal Killer (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Release date for other regions

I don't want bias about movie releases only being in the US. I want to see other regions please. Here I hope is citable for the Australian release, at least the earliest I have found. http://villagecinemas.com.au/Movies/Princess-and-the-Frog-The.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.66.234 (talk) 10:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You may want to read this guideline. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 13:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Jazz Age?

Could it be pointed out that while Disney intended this movie to be set in the 1920s, they did absolutely no research on 1920's fashion, or at least put no effort into making it look like part of the Roaring 20s? At least the Maddy design was dressed like a Flapper.

Please read Wikipedia:Original research. DrNegative (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Black princess needs mentioning

How can i take seriouly an encyclopedia that talks about a movie where the most crucial info is not present? I am talking about the fact that the princess is black, this is definitely important to know! It seems to be a premiere (there was a black actor0 in tinkerbell but was not the main actor) Many poeople (usually liberals) will like it, many will be offended and ask princesses to be the White golden standard, So can sb please modify this article and put essential info? Of course if we cant even say such a simple thing then we have a serious problem with racism in this nation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.139.57.100 (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"How can i take seriouly an encyclopedia that talks about a movie where the most crucial info is not present? I am talking about the fact that the princess is black...."
Are you implying the most "crucial" info about this article would be the race of the main character? She was also green half of the movie. Jokes aside, she is mentioned several times throughout the article for being notable as Disney's first African-American princess. DrNegative (talk) 09:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

References to earlier Disney films section

This section in the article is starting to get out of hand with the original research. I suggest we either cite these statments with verifiable sources or remove the section altogether. DrNegative (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest marking it as citation needed for at least a week as reviews roll in and editors have the best opportunity to see the section and find good references if they are available. Wording does need some cleanup to make it a little less speculative and get it to stick to the facts only but requesting citations and giving more than a few days seems the best way to go forward. -- Horkana (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I question the need for this section ... it almost smacks of a trivia section. The presentation in prose is a good-faith attempt at keeping this from being a mere list, I'll grant it that; however, it's just a collection of unrelated sentences (going back to your grade-school grammar, this paragraph doesn't have a main idea). Perhaps if we limit it to some very specific examples, instead of every possible appearance. Maybe we should start the section with something like:
"The Princess and the Frog" includes a number of references to previous Disney films, mostly in the form of objects related to those films. For example, in the opening scenes ...
I'm not entirely convinced this section is necessary, but if consensus determines it to be necessary, I'd like to help make it the best it can be. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
In my view, what was written in this section was subjective and unsubstantiated. The film currently has a massive profile around the world and we shouldn't be putting anything on the page unless it's been verified. Why? Because people will read this and if they fail to spot or agree with the connections to previous Disney films, Wikipedia's reputation suffers. I've nothing against such a section, but it needs to be demonstrably accurate. Get the citations first, then publish - not the other way round. David T Tokyo (talk) 05:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
When I looked up WP:TRIVIA, it provided another link to an essay dealing with how to handle trivia in Wikipedia articles. It did say that such sections aren't necessarily discouraged, as long as they are important to the article and they are cited. The problem here is that unless a notable publication, such as Variety, prints an article discussing all this, editors will, in good faith, add fan-published blogs as sources. Frankly, I don't see anyone writing an article on this for a major newspaper, but I guess it's possible, too. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
We can't really speculate though. Unless its cited with a reliable source, we must assume its false until such a source verifies it. This doesn't mean allowing the section to rest within the article until and "if" that ever occurs. DrNegative (talk) 05:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversial film,

The film is controversial for various, but mainly similar reasons, and evidence of this controversy can be reliably sourced to so far, 3 sources. When I first added in the note, all I could find was a single source, but it has since then increased to 3. I'm sure it will continue to increase over time. Can we use the information from the 3 listed sources in this version, or specifically, the Times Online piece, the CNN Entertainment piece, and the Courier-Journal piece, or more as they emerge, to construct a neutral section on the controversy the film has received?— Dædαlus Contribs 03:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The three sources that you have quoted all appear to be articles intended to imply, or provoke, controversy. Where is the overwhelming public reaction? Where are the news and television reports? Where is the actual controversy? The Life of Brian was a controversial movie - people picketed cinemas, movie houses refused to show it, it was debated on TV and in political and religious circles. None of that is happening with this film. Why? Because in most peoples eyes it really isn't controversial. If it had been, would it have got the certifications (G - US, U - UK) that it did? —Preceding unsigned comment added by David T Tokyo (talk • contribs) 07:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
To say that this film was not controversial would be a lie. Just because there wasn't a major controversy like the example you give does not mean that the movie is without controversy. Do you really think professional newspapers would be writing in order to create controversy? I don't think so.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Do you really think professional newspapers would be writing in order to create controversy? You're kidding me, right? I've no idea what country you're in - but I'm in the UK and stirring things up is standard practice for journalism over here. As for the controversy, show me where and how a large section of the public have voiced their concern and I'll accept that this isn't just something cooked up by the media. David T Tokyo (talk) 08:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Tokyo on this. The sources in question simply imply at best that such a controversy even exist. Stronger evidence from the mainstream would be needed to even remotely allow the opening sentence of the lead from that previous edit. DrNegative (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Note, this isn't a comment about whether there is any controversy or not but on the style of writing. Describing anything as "controversial" in the lead sentence (as it was previously done in this article) is POV. 1) The lead sentence is for the most important and basic information 2) Distilling such a complicated issue into a single word, without providing any context, is unacceptable. The proper way to do it, if there was any controversy, is to discuss it in some detail in the body of the article, then since the lead section is a summary of the article, summarize the controversy in the latter paragraphs of the lead section (not the lead sentence). The summary wouldn't be as in depth as in the body of the article, but would at least provide some context, such as what the controversy is about, the level of controversy, who thought it was controversial, etc. - kollision (talk) 06:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Major Musical Numbers

I added references to the movie's major musical numbers in the plot section. JMWhiteIV (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's been reverted, the plot section is not the right place. There's already a soundtrack section. —Mike Allen 02:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
the idea has precedence. read the Plot entry for The Little Mermaid and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. also, not all of the songs on the soundtrack are actually in the movie. Might be nice for the reader to know which ones are, in which order, and at which parts of the movie. JMWhiteIV (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Which songs aren't in the movie? Jashack (talk) 07:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
you know what, you're correct. dunno what I was thinking. most of the songs on the soundtrack are either movie score, or in-movie musical numbers. my bad. I didn't count the score tracks as being "in the movie" and I should have. I was just thinking about the musical numbers. there are only 2 songs that are not part of the movie. the ne=yo song, and the jordin sparks song.JMWhiteIV (talk) 09:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"Tiana's Showboat Jubilee!"

Okay... I added a whole bunch of information pertaining to the promotional shows at Disneyland Park and Walt Disney World's Magic Kingdom Park: "Tiana's Showboat Jubilee!" and "Princess Tiana's Mardi Gras Celebration" under the 'Promotions/Release' section of the main article. I believe it's important to include this information, though I may have been a bit too wordy. Please edit it for size if need be, but please don't delete it... Unless, of course, it violates some unforeseen Wikipedia policy; by all means, correct it!-- Disneyadventurernicholas (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've given it a very slight tweak. (For example WDW doesn't have a New Orleans Square, and I have also mentioned Disneyland Paris--TimothyJacobson (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Cultural references

Is it worth making a list of the "cultural references" in the film, such as the "hidden" magic carper from Aladdin, the reference to Streetcar Named Desire, etc?--TimothyJacobson (talk) 11:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

First person

A lot of this article is written in the First Person, which I suggest is changed.--TimothyJacobson (talk) 11:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

What for example? Most of the 'I's I've come across are in the title of a song. Alandeus (talk) 12:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
My mistake. I saw this bit "I worked as vfx supervisor" and didn't originally realise it was part of a quote.--TimothyJacobson (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

See Also: "Frog Princess"

That was the original name of the movie, yes. But it there is no indication that this movie is based on the little-known fairy tale "The Frog Princess" and it seems that it will be instead based on the more widely-known fairy tale "The Frog Prince". So is it ok to take that link off the bottom of the page and instead maybe link the article to "The Frog Prince"? (or to no fairy tale article at all)? Hollerama (talk) 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed . . .

I removed the following from the Controversy section because it is inaccurate information:

" ...although [being a maid is] historically correct for a black woman during the era of the film's setting, the 1920s."

It seems to suggest that all African American ladies in 1920s New Orleans were maids, which would be inaccurate. Lydia Larkin (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

it is historically correct that black people would get shitty jobs like that not maids always but low job you delting that is like saying racial discrimtion didnt happen the only thing you should've delted was [being a maid is] think before you delete or add next time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.199.25 (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Since the last attempt to change from semiprotection to pending changes did not work I wish for someone to remove the following nonsence sentence: "He is the duteragonist of the film , for the jazz scene". Seriously? What jazz scene? This makes no sence and is also unsourced. At the very least the "for the jazz scene" part. 64.134.31.78 (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Cast section

...needs updating, particularly Dr. Facilier's. I haven't seen the movie, so will someone who has give him a current bio? I deleted excess plot, but it originally (and still might) said something like "He was originally named "Doctor Duvalier" and was a voodoo magician and fortune teller.[citation needed] In an updated script, he is both a palm reader and a voodoo practitioner" The section also needs shortening. Liqudluck✽talk 17:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, we should try to shorten it down without adding too much info as it is. Per WP:FILMCAST, "Try to avoid using the section as a repository for further "in-universe" that really belongs in the plot summary." DrNegative (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
What plot summary? From what I understand, the good Dr.'s possessed shadow kills him, and Tiana likely ends up with the prince, but there's no mention of how the movie progresses or ends in the article. 75.157.110.77 (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:FILMS, plot summaries should be between 400-700 words and describe the basic plot of the film, not each little detail. The plot summary here does that: girl wants restaurant, boy wants easy life, boy becomes frog, frog meets girl, girl becomes frog, frogs fall in love, frogs become boy and girl, boy gets girl and girl gets restaurant. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

NOT based on E. D. Baker's novel 'The Frog Princess'

The introduction of the article states that the film is loosely based on E. D. Baker's novel 'The Frog Princess', however this is incorrect and, based upon the information provided in the reference, is original research too. The reference only states that Disney has bought the rights to the novel. Looking at the plot summery of the novel it would seem that the only point that matches this film is that the two main characters are turned into frogs. It could be argued that Disney bought the rights to head off any potentially costly law suits and stop itself being accused of stealing ideas again as it was with the lion king. (I accept that too is OR but only one possible reason why Disney bought the rights to a book, storyline and setting that they did not use). Anyway I suggest that the sentence be amended in the introduction to reflect the fact that the film is not based even loosely on E. D. Baker's novel but Disney has bought the rights to it, or remove all reference to the novel from the introduction, as it is does not have a significant enough bearing on the film, and just mention that Disney bought the rights to the novel later in the article.--Shearluck (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

According to this reference (http://comicsworthreading.com/2010/03/15/princess-and-the-frog-animation-roundtable/), Disney bought the rights to E. D. Baker's novel 'The Frog Princess' in 2006, when they were still trying to get a handle on the idea of a "Frog Prince" movie, and in the end the only thing they used from the novel was the idea that when the princess kissed the frog, she turned into a frog as well. But they did get that bit from the novel -- the Disney writers did not come up with that idea independently. Hope that helps -- Shadzane (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
In the credits for The Princess and the Frog, it is specifically stated that the film is "loosely based on E.D. Baker's novel, 'The Frog Princess'". Disneyadventurernicholas (talk) 06:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Plot too long?

It seems fine to me (now at least); I think the tag should be removed. 76.164.119.72 (talk) 01:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Word count is currently at 1304 1261 words and guidelines suggest a range between 400 and 700, and incredibly long or complicated films (Titanic, Pulp Fiction) can be longer, but really shouldn't be more than 1000 words. So, I'm gonna say no. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 01:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I got it pared down to about 800 words, which is still kinda long, but an improvement over its last bloated length of over 1300 words. Perhaps, instead of endlessly reverting edits, we should discuss what plot points should (and should not) be in the plot summary for The Princess and the Frog. For example, the early scenes with young Tiana and Charlotte deserve some mention as it focuses on The Frog Prince story, while details about what's left behind when the voodoo spirits claim Facilier near the end are excessive. Any other suggestions/opinions? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd say the plot's too short, 'cause it completely leaves out Faciler's death at the end of the film. Couldn't we put that the when Faciler's reliquary (the mask-charm) is smashed by Tiana the loa kill him? 142.26.194.190 (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The plot basics are there, which is what is necessary. Of what benefit is adding this particular detail? How is the article improved by adding it? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Facilier dies. That plot detail isn't there: the article makes it sound like he got away with his scheme. Besides, compared to the other Disney film articles, this page is empty. There are 360 words in the plot summary, and to quote Bovineboy, "guidelines suggest a range between 400 and 700". We could at least mention that Facilier dies, nothing specific, at the end of the film. That's at least two words, making it a total of 362 words, or is that too much? 142.26.194.190 (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree; the article, in my opinion, at least, does not venture far enough into the storyline. It simply mentions the key points, which may draw readers to the wrong conclusion(s) in terms of events within the film. Key facts, such as the mention of Mama Odie and her significance, as well as the death of Dr. Faciler, (as pointed out earlier,) would do much to improve the article. However, again, this is only my opinion, but strongly encourage the article's revision for the best. Disneyadventurernicholas (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

List Of The Princess and the Frog Characters

To tidy up the page I suggested adding this page and to have an information box for the Characters and photos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.4.71 (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

'non-Christian factions'

Using the term "faction" to describe someone's religion or faith tradition seems inherently and unnecessarily pejorative. 72.47.38.205 (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Lioness9, 29 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Subliminal messages it has been revealed that pentagrams and the demonic number 666 is in this movie Lioness9 (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

 Not done That's an extraordinary claim, and you have provided no detail or sources for it. I looked on google, just in case, and I could find no sources addressing any such thing. Please provide reliable sources for controversial information you want added to articles. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead plot paragraph

Why is it necessary to have a full paragaraph summarizing the plot in the lead? One sentence maybe worked into the rest of the lead, but a paragraph? Particularly, given that Plot is the first section after the lead.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, no one has responded, so I'm going to remove the summary of the plot summary from the lead. Maybe that will get someone's attention. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Cast Section?

This section is in need of major clean-up. How about not putting summarized biographies next to the names? 66.19.119.150 (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete Christian criticism?

The paragraph at the end seems to give undue weight to Christian perspectives of the film. Should it be deleted? 67.169.88.251 (talk) 09:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

While I think the criticism is legitimate, I did have a concern about just how much was there and the notability of some of these sites. I removed a couple of the reviews, leaving the first one and then ending the paragraph with the criticism of the "voodoo is magic, not a religion" angle of the film. Not necessarily the best solution, but certainly open to other ideas and thoughts. --McDoobAU93 16:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Martha and Mary Magdelene?

Just a few interesting tidbits that I noticed. I have a bit of a hobby of looking up names and their meanings. Evangeline meaning "gospel" or "good news" struck me as being strangely Christian. So looking up other character names brought me to "Maddy" the name originally intended for the female protagonist. "Maddy" means "Woman Of Magdala." Wondering WTF Magdala was lead me to some articles on cities in the Bible and "duh" Mary Magdalene. Wondering which Mary that was (there are so damn many) lead me to the story of Martha and Mary.

When I read the four verse long story, I was kind of stunned. The story and the movie were so very similar. How Martha worked hard and missed out on the important things. Mary chose to be with Jesus. And how Jesus replies sounded a lot like how Mama Odie would always encourage the characters to focus on what they need and not what they want. (Luke 10:42), "But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her." Was this intentional? I find it hard to believe this was a coincidence. After all, all the other character names relate to their role in the movie. 72.213.182.207 (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Notable awards

We need to have a discussion about what awards need to be listed here. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information, so we should focus on truly notable awards. But, which awards are notable and which aren't? Please discuss here before making other major changes to the table. --McDoobAU93 22:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, MOS:FILM#Accolades does not suggest how to limit the awards. The general tendency is to replicate IMDb (sometimes with references, sometimes not) and to split the section into a list sub-article once it gets too long. If you want to avoid that, one possible rule of thumb is to use reliable and independent sources that note a nomination or a win, for example a newspaper reporting that the Houston Film Critics' Circle had The Princess and the Frog as one of the nominees for Best Animated Film. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Disney Junior template?

Why is {{Disney Junior}} on this article? Surely it belongs on articles for TV shows created for that channel, not movies that may have aired on it. I was tempted simply to remove the template, but then decided that perhaps there was some reason for its presence I was missing, So, is there? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is any valid reason for this template, someone probably added it cause it aired on the channel. I'll remove it. Koala15 (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Disney Renaissance note

According to the note in the lead-in; "various film critics and associations heavily regard The Princess and Frog as the turning point of Walt Disney Animation Studios, and the film to have ignited the new Disney Renaissance, additionally playing a crucial role in the development of acclaimed animated features to follow, such as Tangled and Frozen". However, the "new Disney Renaissance" section of the DR article has the quote "Some journalists have attributed Bolt and Disney's new direction to the first glimmer of a new, oncoming Disney renaissance." Not to mention, on the Bolt article, the lead-in states "Bolt received a strong positive critical reception and is renowned for playing an important role in instigating what is widely referred to as the New Disney Renaissance, as well as setting the studio in a new creative direction that would lead to other critically acclaimed features such as Tangled and Frozen." So, is The Princess and Frog the turning point that lead to other acclaimed films "such as Tangled and Frozen." or is it the previous film Bolt? This really needs to be settled, since both the Disney Renaissance and Bolt articles credit Bolt as instigating the "new Disney Renaissance" Please respond. Thanks! Wikicontributor12 (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

This article appears to no longer be linked to the other-language versions of the same article. If you go to the Japanese version at ja:プリンセスと魔法のキス you can see that there really are quite a few versions of this article on other wikipedias. I'm not sure how to fix this or I would do it myself, so thank you to anyone who can. Pika pika pink (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Princess and the Frog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on The Princess and the Frog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Portuguese accent

Bruno Campos is Brazilian, how can he mix French with "his own Portuguese accent"? Shouldn't it be changed to Brazilian? 89.153.232.43 (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Reasonable point.  Fixed - Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The Princess and the Frog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Controversy loophole

So it has often come up in the article whether or not there should be a controversy section. It was decided against, but this has just led to controversy being moved elsewhere. Currently it's all under the section "Early development". For reference:

Also protested were Maddy's original career as a chambermaid, the choice to have the black heroine's love interest be a non-black prince, which upset opponents of on-screen interracial romance, and the use of a black male voodoo witchdoctor as the film's villain. The Frog Princess title was also thought by critics to be a slur on French people. Also questioned was the film's setting of New Orleans, which had been heavily damaged by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, resulting in the expulsion of a large number of mostly black residents. Critics claimed the choice of New Orleans as the setting for a Disney film with a black heroine was an affront to the Katrina victims' plight.

This was initially placed to explain why certain changes were made, but some of the criticism/controversy there now has nothing to do with early production. The interracial thing did not affect anything in early production, nor did the voodoo witchdocter change anything. This was added later so I'm not even sure if it was prominent back then (one source is dead, the other inaccessible). Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Princess and the Frog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Fenner Brothers racist

I removed the additions about their supposed racism mostly as it is excessive descriptions for this level of character description. Also the additions were supported by a wiki and an opinion piece in what looks to be a self-published book. The short description gets across what happens and it is unnecessary to further villainize their action here with induced motives not directly supported by what is in the movie. Saying they refused to sell because of her background is supported by the film, not refused to sell because of her race which isn't. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC) I added back the displayed text as that is supported by what is in the film. Left out the wiki source as wikis are never reliable sources and added back the book source which I still think is a marginal opinion piece without the extensive quote. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Crocadiles

Under the charactor list is says that Emeril Lagasse did the voice of one of the crocodiles. We do not have crocodiles in Louisiana, we have alligators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannalene (talk • contribs) 06:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

In fact is the difference between an Alligator from The Princess and the Frog and an American crocodile from The Rescuers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.112.148.227 (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

"Mediums" is not a word

The plural form of "medium" is "media". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.13.107 (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

"Mediums" is a word in a number of contexts. See this definition as it pertains to finance. Or if you're talking about ordering T-shirts for a group, you might order a few mediums and a few larges. That said, in the context of an art medium, you are correct.  Fixed Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The Swan Princess similarities

  • FilmandTVFan28 believed that Naveen and Jean-bob are not similar, However this is not true. According to Screenrant that the way Naveen (in frog form) looks and behaves similarly to Jean-Bob, Odette’s French frog friend, and the sphere of water when Facilier's spell is broken looks just like Odette’s transformation, and its the reason why. https://screenrant.com/animated-movies-ripped-off-better-copied/
  • Ravensfire and I already explained that Screenrant is not a reliable source and we're not repeating ourselves again. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
    Concur - IP, specific objects have been raised, several times, and ignored by you. That's not helpful and doesn't work well. Please use the existing discussion on Talk:The Swan Princess to continue this discussion in the same place. Ravensfire (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you listen to me? I'm not lying, honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.128.199.170 (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Jean-Bob and Naveen aren't similar is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.112.148.227 (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Look, similarity or not, it is not really notable or encyclopedic enough to be included in the article, and I don't see why this is a topic up for discussion. End of story. Have a nice day. - Jasonbres (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

You mean they're not similar at all?

"Disney’s most successful traditionally animated film since Lilo & Stitch in 2002, and the animation studio’s most successful film overall since Tarzan in 1999, ten years earlier."

This is from the last paragraph of the article's intro. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it makes no sense to me. If Lilo & Stitch was a more successful traditionally animated film, then surely its also a more successful film overall — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.31.124.234 (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Decendants

What is the principles name in decendants 47.213.230.38 (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Princess_and_the_Frog/Archive_1&oldid=1145626490"