- This topic has 75 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I will add that throughout the movie it was pointed out repeatedly that I wasn’t in the target demographic.
And that’s a fine point. Going in I knew it was going to be cheesy and cliche because it’s on the Disney channel and they often go for the cheesy and cliche because their target audience is not cynical and snarky 20-40 year olds.
But there is something to be said about even the cheesy and the cliche having surprising hidden depth. Example, I love the movie Mean Girls. It’s a movie that couched in the cheesy and cliche–you have Queen Bees who rule their little universe because they are pretty, rich and thus popular and everyone falls at their feet because of it. Regina and her gang are basically the Audrey of Descendents times 3.
But what Mean Girls does is try to uncover the hidden complexity behind the popular Queen Bees. The second you met Regina’s mother you get it. You get why Regina is the way she is–her mother is just as shallow and spoiled and focused on the superficial and thus enforces that lifestyle on to her daughter.
The issue, for me, is that there is none of that hidden depth in the spoiled, selfish and vain “hero children” of Descendents. Chad Charming is just a…word I can’t say here. Audrey is just a mean girl but without anything behind that meanness. And it’s really bothersome because we know who their parents are–Cinderella (abused by family), Sleeping Beauty (lived a life of basic solitude and was lied to for the first 16 years of her life) and even Mulan’s daughter Lonnie was just as shallow as her classmates despite her mother’s very story focusing on being more than how you are viewed by society. So there is no reason that I can see why Chad, Audrey, and Lonnie turned out like they did except for PLOT (god, I can’t escape the evil word!)
[adrotate group="5"]"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"And that’s a fine point. Going in I knew it was going to be cheesy and cliche because it’s on the Disney channel and they often go for the cheesy and cliche because their target audience is not cynical and snarky 20-40 year olds.
But there is something to be said about even the cheesy and the cliche having surprising hidden depth. Example, I love the movie Mean Girls. It’s a movie that couched in the cheesy and cliche–you have Queen Bees who rule their little universe because they are pretty, rich and thus popular and everyone falls at their feet because of it. Regina and her gang are basically the Audrey of Descendents times 3.
But what Mean Girls does is try to uncover the hidden complexity behind the popular Queen Bees. The second you met Regina’s mother you get it. You get why Regina is the way she is–her mother is just as shallow and spoiled and focused on the superficial and thus enforces that lifestyle on to her daughter.
The issue, for me, is that there is none of that hidden depth in the spoiled, selfish and vain “hero children” of Descendents. Chad Charming is just a…word I can’t say here. Audrey is just a mean girl but without anything behind that meanness. And it’s really bothersome because we know who their parents are–Cinderella (abused by family), Sleeping Beauty (lived a life of basic solitude and was lied to for the first 16 years of her life) and even Mulan’s daughter Lonnie was just as shallow as her classmates despite her mother’s very story focusing on being more than how you are viewed by society. So there is no reason that I can see why Chad, Audrey, and Lonnie turned out like they did except for PLOT (god, I can’t escape the evil word!)
That’s exactly it. Just because something is being produced for a teeny bopper audience on Disney Channel does not mean it has to be dumbed down. Had they actually put real passion and dedication into producing this movie, they could have had the best of both worlds. Something a younger audience could enjoy, but on an intelligent level that other audiences could easily enjoy too. Heck, Sofia the First, which is developed for a PRESCHOOL audience, has much better writing than this. Instead this feels like this was produced by some corporate guys based on what “the chart” says. Going by what they think is hip and cool, but failing at the execution.
To answer last page question about whether or not the villains loved their kids….it kinda was answered in the movie when Mal told Evie that Maleficent loved her in her own way. So the villains did love their children, but their love was very much similar in a fashion of Cora’s love for Regina, they loved their kids, but wanted and pressured them to be so much like them that they made the descendants feel insecure and constantly like a failure.
Also it was shown that Maleficent had love in her heart, probably only for her daughter, it was just really really little…hence how the love in Mal’s heart won out over the love in Maleficent heart, causing Maleficent to shrink to the size of a lizard.
As for who the other side of parents are….it’s explained in the novel Isle of the Lost. Maleficent had a moment of weakness with a mortal man, meaning she sort of fell for him but it didn’t work out, so from that moment forward she always referred to Mal’s father as an idiot or weakling. Cruella doesn’t even like to talk about Carlos’s father, so he never really asks. Jafar never mentioned Jay’s mother. And Evil Queen is the same way with Evie’s dad. Since they’ve been on the Island for 20 Years, and their kids are only 16, nine times out of ten…the other parents are on the island as well, just have no communication with their child.
And the reason as to how the villains came about was sorta explained, well really only for Maleficent.
“I was once like you my child, slightly insecure. Argued with my mother too, thought I was mature. But I put my heart aside and I used my head…now I think it’s time you learned what dear old mama said.” – Maleficent
So basically, we see that Maleficent was once like Mal, confused as to whether she even wanted to be evil or not. The only reason Mal was able to convert to good was because she learned what love and friendship was like through Ben and her friends, that was something Maleficent didn’t have access to, so she had no one but her mother yapping in her ear about being evil, and no one to tell her otherwise, thus making Maleficent who she was. As for why Evil Queen, Jafar, and Cruella came about…I’ve no explanation there.
And as for how Chad and Audrey came out the way they did, despite who they parents were….simplest explanation. Spoiled rotten, and I mean spoiled rotten!!! Proof of that was shown when Chad said in a bragging manner”My dad’ll just buy me another one.”
One thing I liked about this was that it showed…just because you’re raised by your parents, doesn’t mean you’ll turn out exactly like them because everyone has their own path to take in life.
Regina and her gang are basically the Audrey of Descendents times 3.Audrey was a spoiled little rich girl…before she became evil, Regina was a really nice, humble, rich good girl…so I’m confused.
"If you go as far as you can see...you will then see enough to go even further." - Finn Balor
Audrey was a spoiled little rich girl…before she became evil, Regina was a really nice, humble, rich good girl…so I’m confused.
Darling read my entire post. Regina from Mean Girls. Not your Regina.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"As for who the other side of parents are….it’s explained in the novel Isle of the Lost.
Okay, but I shouldn’t have to read a novel in order to get a basic genealogy chart. I mean, cut a song and give some exposition if you have to. The job as a writer is to explain your characters; not knowing who their parents is bothersome, especially since the relationship with the parents is at the heart of the entire movie.
And as for how Chad and Audrey came out the way they did, despite who they parents were….simplest explanation. Spoiled rotten, and I mean spoiled rotten!!! Proof of that was shown when Chad said in a bragging manner”My dad’ll just buy me another one.”
Which makes ZERO sense since we know who their parents are–Aurora (lived in the woods), Cinderella (abused by family and forced to sleep by a fire) and Mulan (peasant girl in a patriarchal society that dictated that she was only good for one thing as a girl). So for the children to be so spoiled by parents who literally grew up the exact opposite makes no sense until the movie explain how the parents came to dote on (but NOT provide good moral examples) their children. I can see the heroes doting on their children. What I cannot see is the heroes allowing their children to become like they did. Example: Beast and Belle obviously loved Ben and doted on him but he didn’t turn into a Chad or a Audrey. He had Belle’s compassion and Beast’s passion with a mix of humility and grace. In short, exactly what you’d expect when you’re raised by Disney heroes.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"This is actually relevant to what we’ve been discussing in the HP thread, nature vs. nurture. How much does each affect a person’s outcome? I do think the “good guys” children acting the way they do is not rational. These characters were used traditionally through the ages for morality tales. They taught proper behavior, served as warnings, etc. So to have these iconic characters who embodied morals to be instilled in others raising brats is pretty jarring.
Keeper of Rumplestiltskin's and Neal's spears and war paint and crystal ball.
So to have these iconic characters who embodied morals to be instilled in others raising brats is pretty jarring.
Exactly! If I had seen Prince Charming/Cinderella, Aurora/Prince Philip, and Fa Mulan/Li Shang in the movie as haughty, irresponsible, privileged parents then it would make total sense. But as it stands, it’s a major disconnect because saw none of those pairing and thus did not see them act in such a manner, and the pairing we did see was Beast and Beauty who were still loving, kind, considerate (if slightly prejudiced against the villains) and raising a son who was the best of the good kids.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"About Jane: I disagree. I think Jane and what she was going through is pretty believable. In Auradon prep, the top dogs are the children of royals who look and dress really nice and will one day become kings and queens themselves. Jane on the other hand, doesn’t dress like they do. Her hair isn’t as well done as theirs, shes really shy, and she really has no social standing with them because Fairy Godmother is just the principal (right?) not a royal and she (and Jane) don’t even use magic. Jane is on the same level as Doug who also didn’t hang with the “cool kids”. I can believe the other kids don’t want to hang around her because….well, she doesn’t really fit in with them. She’s not apart of their “clique”. How does getting new hair fix that? New hair made her more like the others and made them more interested in her than they were before. It gave her a personality boost as well. I don’t agree with changing urself to fit in with others, but I get it and I’ve seen it happen.
As for the kids having major attitude issues despite being raised by the classics, We all know those types. Just cause the parents were one way does not mean the child will be the same which is kind of the point of the movie. Aurora, for example, grew up as a peasant before she became a princess. Audrey grew up with a golden spoon in her mouth. And she will one day be queen. And shes the most popular girl dating the most popular guy who will be the next king of the entire united states of auradon so chances are she will be the QUEEN OF AURADON. I can see why she would be less than “nice” to those she doesn’t see on her level especially to villains. And isn’t Audrey kind of justified? Maleficent did try to kill her mom. And Mal was raised by Maleficent. And Mal did use magic to steal her bf. I’d be pretty miffed too.And then there’s Ben who was drugged by Mal and ended up falling in love with her anyway, even though he knew about–what amounts to–a date rape drug (dude, you went on ONE DATE and you tell Mal you love her and want to give her a ring?? Clingy much?)
Oh I agree about the love potion thing. He should have been furious not confessing his love. And that makes me even wonder, did he even care about Audrey? Like dude? REALLY?????
But I think we can all agree Kristin Chenoweth hands down owned this movie! And Evil Like Me was just awesome! Right? RIGHT?!!! *prepares to throws kittens at all who say otherwise*
"I could have the giant duck as my steed!" --Daniel Radcliffe
Keeper Of Tamara's Taser , Jafar's Staff, Kitsis’s Glasses , Ariel’s Tail, Dopey's Hat , Peter Pan’s Shadow, Outfit, & Pied Cloak,Red Queen's Castle, White Rabbit's Power To World Hop, Zelena's BroomStick, & ALL MAGICAudrey was a spoiled little rich girl…before she became evil, Regina was a really nice, humble, rich good girl…so I’m confused.
Darling read my entire post. Regina from Mean Girls. Not your Regina.
Sorry dear…Regina, Regina…same name different show.
As for who the other side of parents are….it’s explained in the novel Isle of the Lost.
Okay, but I shouldn’t have to read a novel in order to get a basic genealogy chart. I mean, cut a song and give some exposition if you have to. The job as a writer is to explain your characters; not knowing who their parents is bothersome, especially since the relationship with the parents is at the heart of the entire movie.
Okay, from that perspective I see….probably cut that awful rendition of Be Our Guest and let someone ask the Descendants about Carlos, Evie, and Mal’s father and Jay’s mother, and give the answer that way. Unless they’re saving the side of parents for the sequel….is Mal’s father the key to fixing Maleficent’s love issues….I think I’d much prefer if they took the Regina/Henry route with Maleficent/Mal and let the love for her daughter fix Maleficent.
So to have these iconic characters who embodied morals to be instilled in others raising brats is pretty jarring.
Exactly! If I had seen Prince Charming/Cinderella, Aurora/Prince Philip, and Fa Mulan/Li Shang in the movie as haughty, irresponsible, privileged parents then it would make total sense. But as it stands, it’s a major disconnect because saw none of those pairing and thus did not see them act in such a manner, and the pairing we did see was Beast and Beauty who were still loving, kind, considerate (if slightly prejudiced against the villains) and raising a son who was the best of the good kids.
These are Royal Kids attending Boarding School….away from their goodness teaching parents and home nine months, and surrounded by nothing but peer pressure and teenage hormones…I can see where the lessons in goodness sort of just flew out the window, and they became their own person, be it nice or bad. Maybe growing up too fast may have something to do with it….
Doug was truly one of the only nice from start to finish kids in the movie….though I do always wonder, who in Auradon married or slept with Dopey????????!!!!!! That’s currently the biggest mystery to me.
"If you go as far as you can see...you will then see enough to go even further." - Finn Balor
I recommend reading the book, the prequel. It is well written and way better than the movie. Apparently the author is writing more and it will be a series.
The villains don’t really love their children. They are working through that in the first book. The villains see them as a means to an end. Don’t want to give away a spoilers but Ben/Mal is better explained and so is Bens relationship with Audrey and why he is becoming king at 16.
Great book, movie okay. Now the book was written after the script was complete. They gave the script to the author and said we need a prequel. Interesting twist.
The topic ‘New Disney TV Movie: "Descendants", about the kids of Disney characters’ is closed to new replies.