I hate this movie's moral.

I think the moral is kind of a combination of these two. I always interpreted it as the movie saying "hard work is necessary to achieve your dreams, but don't pursue your dreams to the exclusion of all else, there are multiple things in life that can bring you happiness."

i always thought this was the main point of patf. naveen is lazy and spoiled but tiana being a workaholic killjoy isn't an admirable way to live either. what makes them better people in the end is realizing there's value in how the other person lives and then using it to balance out their own lives.

also, getting what you need rather than getting what you want.

I agree with MaidofOrleans. Although I'm not fond with moral message in this movie.

Haven't seen it in ages, but this is the main message I remember from it.

the moral is "make sure you remember that heteronormative relationships are equally as important as your dreams".... I hate it. like, saying basically that dreams aren't worth living if you don't find love/a man. ugh I could go on and on about how much I HATE it

^ Fair enough, but don't all the DP films promote heteronormative relationships?

^yes, but this is the only one who actually says , out loud, that a woman's dreams aren't as important if there isn't a man in their life. it actually knocks her dreams down that she had WITHOUT a man and were important without him and makes it seem like they're lesser without him. makes me furious it's one of the worst things I've ever seen Disney output.

^ Hmm, I respectfully disagree. I interpret it as saying that multiple things can bring you happiness, not just a man in a woman's life.

that's...quite a stretch.

the point is made early on, when tiana blows off her friends at the diner, that work is holding her back from all kinds of relationships, not just romantic ones. her dream isn't a problem because she doesn't have a man at her side, that's so fake lmao; it's because she obsesses over it to the exclusion of everything else. which is sad and unhealthy. honestly, props to disney for walking back some of the "pursue your dream at all costs" stuff from their older movies.

^ Agreed.

"wew" not a stretch at all. she doesn't blow them off, she literally has a JOB.
again, the movie doesn't really do a good job of showing that she obsesses over it to the point of excluding anything else. she turns down someone asking her to hang out THAT NIGHT when she already has work. That I can completely understand. The only scene I Really notice it in is "dig a little deeper", but even that scene is confusing because what is tiana supposed to be digging a little deeper to see?

still a massive stretch, sorry.

when she turns down her friends, they argue that she's always working and they never see her - they're not bitching just because tiana has a job and can't go out that particular night. it's canon that her friendships/social life suffer because she's so goal-obsessed that she doesn't make time for anyone or anything else. this really isn't that hard.

does she necessarily need naveen in order to see that there are other things worth living for besides her job and getting the restaurant? no. but at the same time, ariel doesn't need eric in order to live out her dreams, belle doesn't need the beast to have adventure in great wide somewhere - you could say the same thing about nearly all the princesses. heteronormative storylines are unfortunately just part of disney ethos; patf doesn't push this into some special territory other dp stories haven't been to. the selective anger is so weird to me.

sorry, not a massive stretch, don't dismiss my feelings and views

again, it's stressed throughout the movie time and time again that Tiana could LOSE her restaurant if she takes even one day off so it's a conflict to then blame her for not making time to hang out.

i'm not being selective, I've explained repeatedly why it bothers me about PATF and not the other movies, if you don't know how to read that's not my issue

^ haha, chill. you can have whatever feelings and views you want, but if they're based on things that didn't actually happen in the movie then other people get to tell you it didn't happen. you sound like you haven't figured out how a comments section works. or how to form basic arguments.

this is like those older versions of cinderella where the stepsisters cut off their toes to make the slipper fit - you're working backwards from the idea patf promotes something it patently doesn't so you have to warp stuff to make it work. tiana doesn't need the restaurant, she only needs to work enough hours to cover living costs. the conflict is with what she prioritizes in her free time - nearly all of it is spent obsessing over her restaurant (iirc, the reason she says she can't go out is because she'd rather work an extra shift for more restaurant money) and apparently something like 0 of it goes into cultivating relationships, romantic or otherwise. even her best bud charlotte only ever sees her during job related stuff.

the point the movie makes is that that's a sad way to live, not having a man is only part of that. (it doesn't need to be any part of the story but that's a tangent - and a weird one to pick on, especially if you're going to turn around and stan stuff like the little mermaid, which essentially pushes the same thing but to a greater degree. patf isn't trailblazing heteronormativity in disney movies, sorry it makes you mad tho.)

Yeah, it is a stretch. Like I said on your other poll I’ve got to agree with UnholyNoise here. And again even speaking as an asexual aromatic person, I never got that message from it or felt like they were telling me that I was “less without a guy”. But to each their own.

@unholynoise at no point did I base it on things that didn't happen in the movie. again, the points you made about her prioritizing free time, I've already explained how I disagree with your pov, and I've already explained how I am okay with the little mermaid doing it but not patf. I'm not going to re-explain myself. I only skimmed what you wrote but I can see that once again you're bringing up the same arguments that I've already dispelled.