> I don't mind...to a point...the re-telling of tales in a simplified or prettified way--it is, after all, just Disney's marketing decision meant to appeal to the youngest and/or widest audience. And, too, even excluding the commercialization, when you're talking about folk tales or fairy tales, isn't it each storyteller's perogative--again, to a point--to embellish or mold the story a bit, giving it the flavor of their own personality? The problem is, though, that that young audience then thinks the version they saw on the screen is *the* standard, and in essence *becomes* the standard because that's the way "everyone" has heard it. So the interesting (and often metaphorical) details like Snow and her ribbons get lost forever.

My sentiments exactly. The film I particularly saw this with was 101 Dalmatians. The Disney version changed the names of the characters enormously, bringing Perdita in as the heroine and dropping Missis entirely, along with Prince (I think...anyway, he was Perdita's husband). So, to get it back to 101 Dalmatians, do they put in some more, equally interesting characters? Nope. They bump up the number of puppies. The upshot of this is that the film version is taken as gospel, and when people eventually get round to reading the book, they'll think it's wrong. And don't even get me started on the live-action version. Giggling raccoons and what-have-you in what is SUPPOSED to be England? Give me a break.

Phil-"At least the cartoon version gave Pongo an English voice"-bee