Top Ten Most Annoying Misinterpretations and Theories About Disney and Pixar Movies
Hello Disney fans- especially Disney fans who love to debate. Are you tired of people constantly saying false things about your favorite Disney movies? Are you ready to correct them?Well, you've come to the right place!
Belle offered herself up in exchange for her father, she was not kidnapped. She chose to stay in the castle, and did not (officially) fall in love with him until after he set her free and saved her life multiple times. They were friends who learned to bring out the best in each other before they ever acted romantically.
Belle stood her ground and did not let herself be talked down to. She did not treat him with compassion until he did the same for her. Watch the movie, and please stop talking about falling in love with kidnappers.
Ariel didn't just "throw it all away for a crush". She gave up her voice to Ursula because she had already been silenced by her father. Long before she even knew about Eric, Ariel was collecting trinkets from the human world. Ariel was not a "silly little girl with a crush", she was an anthropologist prohibited from exploring due to her father's species-ism.
Eric was just the turning point for her father, who literally destroyed all of her research, which was the turning point for Ariel. Ursula was the one that made it about Eric with her conditions. Ariel just wanted to be part of that world. Listen to the song and try to prove me wrong. I dare you.
This theory is incredibly flawed from a geographic standpoint. When you compare the pictures of Tarzan's parents to Anna and Elsa's parents, the differences are clear. If the king and queen of Arendelle were alive, why didn't they try to get back to their kingdom? Why would they set up a treehouse and become explorers? The only thing these two movies have in common is that they are both Disney productions and have epic soundtracks.
Do not compare the woman whose unaddressed trauma unintentionally impacted her family to the woman who kidnapped a baby for the sake of beauty. Do not. Abuela apologized and wanted the best for her family. Gothel just wanted Rapunzel for her hair.
Abuela wanted the people in her family to have gifts, but she did view her family members as more than their gifts, she did still see them as people. Meanwhile, even Gothel's "cute pet name" for Rapunzel (my flower) was based on her ability. Gothel knowingly lied to Rapunzel (and tied her up), while Abuela, despite her many faults, unintentionally put too much pressure on her family - a pressure that she also unintentionally put on herself.
Abuela is a victim of her environment whose trauma (losing her husband, barely escaping with her children) took a toll on her family. Gothel is a villain through and through.
I must admit, the shoe fit seems rather bizarre. Is Cinderella the only woman in the entire kingdom with the right-sized feet?
If this was true, he would have done the searching himself.
Belle, as the film reminds you countless times, is French. She lives in France, a France when there was still nobility, most likely well before Louis XVI (the one that got guillotined in 1793, just for historical reference). The fashion in the movie indicates that it takes place in the mid-1700s, which checks out.
Meanwhile, Jane, as the film reminds you countless times, is from England. The United Kingdom. Great Britain. Jolly Old England. Jane is British. And so is her father, so riddle me how her grandmother could be French, let alone French royalty. Jane also has access to technology such as photography, which was not invented until the mid-to-late 1800s. Based on a quick Google search, Tarzan takes place in the 1890s-1900s.
The timeline is nonsensical and the logic is flawed. Just let the Mrs. Potts Easter egg be an Easter egg!
Why do fans have to take every single kid's movie and turn it grimdark? If they actually watched the movies, especially Pixar, they would see that the stories and subtexts are dark enough on their own. There's no need for any unnecessary "they were dead the whole time" theories that don't even add to the story.
This theory is annoying because it focuses on the countries where the stories were written, not the clues that the films provide. It assumes that the timeline would actually work, based upon other clues given by the films, it would not. It is incredibly selective about what canon it accepts and rejects, all for the sake of a theory.
Princess Cinderella is a fictional character who appears in Walt Disney Pictures' 12th animated feature film Cinderella and its sequels Cinderella II: Dreams Come True and Cinderella III: A Twist in Time. Watch the movie from 1950. The dress was a translucent-ish silver and even appears pink in some scenes. It just looks blue in other scenes because of the lighting.
First of all, if you know Bruce well enough, you would know that he firmly believes the notion that fish are friends and not food (despite that one time he accidentally smelled Dory's blood and went into an involuntary feeding frenzy). So, him voluntarily hunting down Flounder like that would be grossly out of character for him. Also, Bruce is a great white shark whereas the shark you saw in The Little Mermaid was a bull shark.