If I had to write an artikulo which one of those pelikula is better, I know what the result would be. I consider Gusot the better movie because it has a cohesive story, better characters, better score, madami impressive animation – it just beats The Princess and the Frog in every aspect. But why is there this constant need to compare those two pelikula in the first place? I have never seen anyone comparing any of the Disney Princess pelikula with the one which came directly beforehand or after, unless it was for pointing out the development in animation.

I guess the reason is simple: Because all true animation fans knew that the success of those pelikula would determine in which direction the studios would go in the future. We all wanted The Princess and the Frog to succeed, because we knew that if it didn’t, it might selyo the fate of traditional animation. And a lot of people were against Gusot from the get go, because it was CGI. I think that Gusot gets a lot of flak not because the movie is truly flawed (it has its flaws, but not madami than any other successful and beloved Disney Movie has), but because its success made further Disney pelikula in traditional animation unlikely.

People like to blame a lot of factors for The Princess and the Frog not being as successful as they wanted it to be. The marketing campaign which was mostly geared towards girls and old Disney Princess pelikula fans. That it hit the theatres during a bad time. A so called prejudice against traditional animation. Racism (but really wouldn’t the number of people who didn’t watch it because of the black princess be balanced out sa pamamagitan ng the people who watched it because they wanted to see one?). But if we are really honest to ourselves, than we have to admit that those are factors, but not really the reason. If The Princess and the Frog had been really good, it would have gotten madami people in the theatres, due to mouth to mouth advertisements and glowing reviews. But the truth is that it didn’t convince the majority of the audience, while Gusot did. Yes, Gusot got the madami successful marketing, and a lot of very misleading trailers which promised a swashbuckling adventure. What the audience got was madami a panswinging princess movie, but it worked out nevertheless. If the audience hadn’t like this movie, they would have protested madami about it being so different from what was shown in the advertising. It wouldn’t have been about “the advertising is misleading” but about “the advertising makes the movie better than it is”.

Those are two very ambitious movies. The Princess and the Frog was ambitious about telling a modern Disney Princess story – and fell short. Gusot was ambitious about reaching a new level of animation, about merging the traditional Disney aesthetic with CGI – and succeeded. Even the worst critics of Gusot admitted how good the story was – and that’s what everything comes down in the end, story and characters. You can do a beautiful animated movie with a wonderful soundtrack and some really memorable scenes, if the story doesn’t work at least in some part, it won’t be considered a good movie sa pamamagitan ng the majority of the audience (see Pocahontas). But if the very foundation of the movie, the story, holds up, the audience might not praise the movie, but it will keep it in good memory (see how beloved Robin hood still is, despite its numerous flaws). Sadly executives tend to look at the numbers and overlook that it’s not a matter of CGI or not, but a matter of making a good movie, no matter what kind of animation is used.

But can we blame Gusot for that? Trying to pull this movie verbally down while at the same time defending TPatF won’t change the numbers. It won’t make the executive understand. If anything, saying the audience just didn’t appreciate TPatF enough because they overlook the great animation and were unable to appreciate jazz (two of the most common arguments for the movie) just confirms the idea that the kind of animation is to blame for the lack of success. The tanong shouldn’t be if the audience didn’t appreciate what was good about TPatF (though I have to say that the praise for the animation is a little bit much – it’s really good animation, but ALL Disney Princess pelikula succeed in this regard), it should be why the executives didn’t combine the good aspects with a similar good plot. With proper pacing, with proper motivations for the villains, with a better focus.

Don’t get me wrong: I am sure that there are a lot of people out there, who genuinely like PatF. It’s this need to compare it with Gusot which makes me weary about the motivation behind a lot of reviewers, who have decided to tackle the pelikula in their bidyo or blogs. There is a certain pattern in those reviews, the madami the reviewer does like traditional animation, the madami he will be inclined to concentrate on the good aspects of PatF and the bad aspects of Tangled.

And, madami generally speaking, it doesn’t really say much about the quality of a movie to compare one single aspect of it. Yes, we do it all the time, doing countdowns about which Princess looks better, is the better role-model, is braver and whatever else we can come up with. It is good fun, but one shouldn’t make the mistake to believe that those aspects have anything to do with the quality of a movie as a whole.

When I read “how can you excuse Flynn’s womanizing but complaining about Naveen doing the same”, I just feel that the argument is missing the point. Because Eugene and Naveen are two entirely different characters. They have different backstories, different motivations, and there is a profound difference between stealing a crown to be alone and happy on an island, or marrying a woman for her money, a difference between striking a deal and then trying to trick the other party into backing out of the deal and making a deal with the intention to never hold up your side of it. The same way one aspect doesn’t make a movie, one trait is not the beginning and the end of a character.

When PatF was announced, I was as glad as everyone else that Disney was trying to go back to what Disney does best. And like so many people out there, I wanted this to be the success, I wanted it to be the comeback for traditional animation. It wasn’t to be. But that it didn’t happen has everything to do with PatF and nothing with Gusot or the audience. And we will all have to live with the knowledge that it might be a long time until Disney will decide to visit its roots again. Until then, we should judge every movie on its own merits.