Cinderella Official Trailer Sneak Peek #1 (2014)

I love that the screen capture for the trailer is this shot -- because honestly? He's the only character whose face you actually see in the Sneak Peek. (If the full trailer weren't being released tomorrow, I might think that was significant. As it is, I'm pretty sure they're just building suspense.)

Anyway. All I could think when I watched this -- and I will readily admit that Cinderella is not my favorite Disney movie by any means -- was, "Is that Robb Stark? That can't be Robb Stark. He looks so different! Maybe it's because he doesn't have a beard?"

Yep. First real look at a new, live-action Disney Princess movie and my first thought is more about Game of Thrones than Cinderella.

Happy 86th Birthday, Mickey Mouse!

"I only hope that we never lose sight of one thing -- that it was all started by a mouse."

It's kinda hard to believe that he's been around for 86 years--may he always remain in our hearts and our imaginations.

If Disney Princesses Had Realistic Waistlines

I think it's funny that, whenever something Disney-related appears on social media, all of my friends either share it with me or tag me. Like when Disney released their Elsa wedding dress -- everyone thought of me first. And by funny I mean I love it.

A couple of people have shared this link with me -- a woman at Buzzfeed imagined Disney Princesses with realistic waistlines. I'm a little unsure if this is her own original work, but I think it is. The most striking one is probably Ariel:

Well, I say that...but Jasmine and Aurora are also strikingly different:

It's an interesting concept to think about, I think...much like the whole if-Barbie-were-a-real-woman-she'd-collapse thing. Body image and its portrayal in the media fascinate me as a whole though -- largely because I wasn't conscious of it when I was a teenager. Which is...weird. That's normally when girls are hyper-conscious of it. But I was an athlete who burned 3000 calories a day and ate whatever she wanted, and I was preternaturally confident. 

When I googled the article to find the link to it, interestingly enough, a piece from Cosmopolitan was the first one to come up. Here's the text blurb that accompanies the piece: 

Disney Princesses have long been held up as the Feminine Ideal. Graceful, lovely, and impossibly thin with big breasts; they could give a girl a complex. However, when you readjust their proportions to make them more human-like, as Loryn Brantz did over at Buzzfeed, they are still incredibly graceful and lovely, without presenting unrealistic beauty ideals to the future girl leaders of tomorrow. Plus, they all look damn good. Better, even. I wouldn't mind seeing some of them with smaller chests and bigger butts too! Beautiful women come in all sizes, even princesses.

Which is actually a fairly positive take on the Buzzfeed article -- from an unlikely source. Cosmo, after all, is not exactly a bastion of feminist content. One blog even points out that, "as the best-selling magazine in college bookstores and the No. 1 magazine for women with children Cosmo shows and tells its increasingly younger readership...what it means to be attractive, desirable, and successful through its glossy pages each month."

Which, yay Cosmo. (Or, more specifically, yay Cosmo blog.) But, I think its important to note that Snow White isn't included -- most likely because she's a pretty realistic portrayal. And by "realistic" I mean she's rounder and chubbier than her successors, perhaps because beauty standards were wildly different in the 1930s. 

That being said...I'm perhaps most intrigued by the comments below the article itself on Buzzfeed--particularly the debate about whether we consciously or subconsciously internalize "as normal" the standards Disney presents. I actually thought that the Interwebz would agree with the first commenter -- in that they insist that these are just movies and don't affect us -- but it seems to be a bit more evenly divided. Can't wait to discuss this in class! 

Seven Dwarfs Mine Train ON FIRE

So....I know that new theme park rides break down. A lot.

Case in point: we stayed at a Universal hotel for one night just so we could get early park admission into Universal Studios. The park opened at 8 a.m. that day, which mean hotel guests could get in at 7:00. But, as all theme park vets know, you don't just show up at 7. You gotta get there early. Crazy early. And stand in another line (just to get in.) So we did get there early. Crazy early. Like, so crazy the downtown Universal part wasn't even open yet. Starbucks wasn't even open yet. But we were at the front of the line! And we booked it all the way to Diagon Alley, got in line for Gringotts and...waited. The ride wasn't working, you see. Then they did this thing where they let us in past the main queuing area, and we are almost the ride loading zone and...we were stopped. And turned away. Given fast passes to come back later, but still turned away.

But...I don't know that I've read of many (if any...?) theme park rides CATCHING FIRE. 

I would be concerned, if I were Disney.

Especially since anyone who was at the parks recently can vouch for the fact that the ride is having issues. Like, shut down for more than an hour and making people (1) freak out about their FastPasses and (2) pissed off that the new ride isn't working.

We did ride it in October, but (1) we had FastPasses (thank you, excellent Disney customer service!) and (2) it was shut down for about an hour and a half.

Better get on that, Disney Imagineers.

Disney Villains Parody/Cover One Republic

This really has nothing to do with nothing, but I love it:

It's a clever parody -- just in time for Halloween! -- but I think I like Captain Hook's part best. Witty.

Although...not sure I agree that Scar is the Evilest Villain Evar. Maleficent takes that title, IMHO. I will admit that class discussion on The Lion King helped a bit, since some students pointed out that Scar does succeed for a while. I mean, it's Disney, so you know he's ultimately going to fail, but where most Disney villains fail due to their ineptitude, Scar's plan works. After all, Hades' plan is foiled, Ursula doesn't get to wield her power for more than a hot minute (same with Jafar), and Gaston's plan to marry the girl does not...end well for him. I suppose Mother Gothel "succeeds" for a while, as she stays young for about 18 years, but compared to Scar's fratricide, Mother Gothel doesn't seem all that sinister.

Hmmm. I forgot about Frollo. He's pretty sinister -- but conspicuously absent from the video. He subjugates Quasimodo for about twenty years and persecutes the gypsies, so, you know, not a good guy. But Hunchback doesn't get much popular attention -- maybe that will change with the musical.

Why Disney Princesses Make Crappy Friends

It's funny because it's true.

Post by BuzzFeed Video.

Snow White -- Blank Slate or Fairy Tale Flatness?

One of my friends posted a link to this article today -- Snow White: The Blankest Slate of Them All.

It's an interesting read, especially given that I've always had a weird love-hate relationship with Snow White. On the one hand, the story really resonates with me. On the other hand, Disney's Snow White is so incredibly annoying. (And fairy-tale Snow White isn't much better: she's so dumb. But also 8, so there's that.)

 

Anyway, the article seems to be inspired by the fact that Neil Gaiman has a new book, The Sleeper and the Spindle, which is described as "weaving together a sort-of Snow White and an almost Sleeping Beauty with a thread of dark magic." And apparently Snow White is the one who kisses Sleeping Beauty awake. 

Which, okay. But the point of this article -- written by someone who "always hated Disney's Snow White, and is happy to see so many new incarnations pop up to change her mind" -- seems to be that Snow White is a "blank slate"  -- that "you can project anything you want onto her." (Which is also the same criticism many people launch at Bella Swan, but that's irrelevant.) 

And...no. Just no. I mean, if you're taking Disney's Snow White as your prime example, then maybe. BUT. First, Disney didn't invent Snow White--the Grimm Brothers didn't even invent Snow White. She existed before 1937, she existed before the 1830s, and she'll continue to exist. But that doesn't mean she has no personality -- it just means that she is, in true fairy-tale fashion, a timeless flat character that can be adapted to the times. 

And even Disney's Snow White has some personality -- especially when you compare her to her literary predecessor. She may be super saccharine, she may have an annoying voice, and she may talk to forest animals a lot but you can describe her in other ways: she's a dreamer, she's optimistic, she works hard and earns her keep and she's maternal and nurturing. All qualities Disney added -- qualities which reflect the 1930s and the Depression-era, sure -- but also qualities which are unique to her personality. 

Reductive, simplistic readings annoy me.

Also, I would really contest the fact that Snow White is "the most reimagined of them all." She's enjoyed some recent popularity -- with Mirror Mirror and Snow White and the Huntsman in 2012 and  Snow White on Once Upon a Time -- but I'd argue that "Cinderella" is probably retold more often. Not only is there the new Disney version directed by Kenneth Branagh coming out in 2015, but it's been continuously retold in popular culture for decades. Not even taking into account all the literary versions, there have been the various versions of Rodgers & Hammerstein's Cinderella, Ever After in the late 1990s, and those Cinderella Story movies that started with Hilary Duff and spun-off to include the Selena Gomez and Lucy Hale ones. (I'm not saying they're good adaptations -- one of them has the girl lose an iPod instead of a shoe -- but still. The story seems to persist.)

Inside Out US Teaser Trailer

There are no words to describe how excited I am about this movie.

One--it's the first non-princess Pixar movie to have a female protagonist (with both Reilly the little girl and Joy voiced by Amy Poehler).

Two--when I was little, I had this weird belief that inanimate objects weren't really inanimate. I believed -- a lot like Toy Story -- that my stuffed animals/toys moved when I wasn't looking. And I also believed that the characters in my VHS tapes were real people with jobs -- as in, they were "off the clock" when I wasn't watching them, but once I popped a tape into the VCR I thought they started work and acted out whatever it was I was watching. Silly, I know, but there's something about this concept -- that emotions are real animate objects -- that taps into that.

Distory at Its Finest...but I don't care.

I'm not sure if Stephen Fjellman is the person who coined the term "Distory," but he's the man who wrote the book Vinyl Leaves in which there are two chapters devoted to the concept. He initially describes it as "Disney's Norman Rockwell view of history." But it's a passage on the next page that truly defines "Distory":

"The phrase "Disney realism" was meant to be ironic, although it is not so in a simple way. Disney people clearly knew they were not telling the truth.[...]But the Disney designers ("imagineers") were also Pollyannas. Many of them actually believed, in a relatively uncynical and optimistic fashion, that the world would be a better place if history could be rewritten, leaving in only the parts that "should have happened." 

People complain about the way Disney portrays the past at the theme parks -- claiming that it's a rose-colored glasses view of history. Which seems a bit of a silly complaint to me. After all, theme parks are vacation spots, where people go to smile and laugh and spend time with their families. They're not focused on historical veracity, and if Main Street in the Magic Kingdom is an idealized version of the past that smells like vanilla and apple pie, I don't see anything wrong with that. Disney World is not Colonial Williamsburg, and people don't go there to learn history.

Now, I'll admit that Distory can be problematic at times in the films. See Pocahontas, which clearly does not tell the true story. And here's where the discussion takes an interesting turn. Yes, Disney butchered the historical narrative of Pocahontas. But it's a children's film--would we want to expose them to the truths of that story? The response might be, "Then don't adapt that story. Pick another fairy tale."

And that's the thing that really bugs me: people picking on Disney (both the man and the company) for not only which stories they tell, but the way in which they tell them. Walt Disney was a storyteller and, like many before him, he was drawn to specific stories for specific reasons and he told them the way he wanted to them. (There is SO much more that can be said on that topic, but I'll leave it be.) And he had his reasons for rewriting them, and for focusing so heavily on that "happily-ever-after."

There's a line in Saving Mr. Banks where Tom Hanks-as-Disney says essentially just that: he's talking to Emma Thompson's P. L. Travers and trying to explain just why he wanted to adapt Mary Poppins and why the promise to his daughter meant so much to him. He explains to her that he's a storyteller, and he asks her, "Aren't you tired of remembering it that way?"

And in that moment -- in the context of the story they told -- I didn't care that I knew P. L. Travers hated the film. I didn't care that I knew the story ended another way. And it's not out of any disrespect for P. L. Travers or her story; as a children' lit scholar, I certainly value and recognize the importance of her story and her version of the story.

But if there was any truth to it -- any truth to the psychological sadness she suffered as a result of her childhood -- then I have to applaud the message. Because remembering the bad -- focusing on the negative -- blaming yourself for things out of your control: they can all be exhausting and damaging things. And if you have the power to retell your story and change the ending to one you want, then why not? Perhaps I should clarify: both Travers and Disney retold their stories in an external medium. Mary Poppins left when the Banks family no longer needed her, when they were whole and happy. Every story that Walt retold ended happily because he could end it that way. There's a difference, I think, between telling a happy story and pretending that your own life happened in a way it didn't.

And that's the beauty of fiction, isn't it? You can't change biography. Things happened the way they did: Elias Disney wasn't the most supportive, encouraging father; Travers Goff died when P. L. Travers was a little girl; and the working relationship between Disney and Travers was tenuous at best. We can't change that. But Disney can give other children happily-ever-afters and Travers can give other children the happy family she never had.

2014's "It" Christmas Toys List is 'Frozen' Over

Every year, it seems as if there's some "It" Christmas Toy that every child just has to have. I don't really remember what they were when I was young enough to write lists to Santa, but I can remember some of the biggest fads when I got older. Beanie Babies might be the exception. The hysteria that set in when everyone wanted a Tickle-Me-Elmo? The inexplicable furor that surrounded a Furby? (I still think those are exceptionally creepy.)

I'd never really understood who decided this -- who sat down and said, "Let's make X the Hot Ticket item that will make people show their dark sides on Black Friday as they attempt to get it" -- actually, I'd never really given much thought to the fact that this was a calculated decision.

But something popped up in the Disney RSS feed today -- something about the hottest toys for Christmas 2014. (I think it's connected to Toys R Us, but I can't be sure.)

Apparently, two Frozen toys made the Top 15 list. As far as I can tell, the Must Have Item is a Sing-Along Boombox ($29.99) that's basically a Frozen-themed karaoke machine. It plays three songs -- "Let It Go," "For the First Time in Forever" & "Summer"-- and I can only imagine that parents are super thrilled that their kids might be begging for this.

The second is another signing Elsa doll that sings "32 seconds" of "Let It Go" -- but if it's anything like the other singing Elsa doll, it won't be the good parts of the song. 

She's kinda cute! But the article I was reading said that, "Depending on where you purchase the doll, Elsa can sing in one of 25 languages -- everything from French and Spanish to Cantonese and Korean." I'm not sure whether or not this means that she can sing in all 25 languages and you pick one? Or if they're just manufacturing dolls that will sing in the language of the country they're sold in (as opposed to selling an English-singing doll everywhere). I kinda hope it's the former because it reminds me of the video:

But the coolest ones - to me - are the Olaf ones:

It's like an Olaf-Mr. Potato Head and an Olaf-Sno-Cone Maker. Okay, the Sno-Cone Maker is a little weird because the stuff comes out his stomach (better than his mouth, I suppose). But the Mr. Potato Head one is kinda fun! 

More Changes to Walt Disney World

Came across this news tonight--MGM (or, as it's now known, Hollywood Studios) will be getting rid of the Backlot Tour.

(c) 123disney.com

While I was heartbroken (only a slight exaggeration) to learn of the news of Maelstrom's closing, if we're being completely honest, I gotta admit -- not so heartbroken about this news. 

I have fond memories of the Backlot Tour -- MGM was always my little brother's favorite park because of (1) the cars stunt show (which I CANNOT STAND) and (2) the Catastrophe Canyon segment of the Backlot Tour.

(c) wdwnt.com

Mainly because stuff explodes. Boys seem to love exploding things. 

But still. I think, in its earlier incarnation, you got to see animators at work -- back when animated movies were hand-drawn and not computer animated. I remember seeing the front for the Golden Girls house (still not sure if that's the real one or not...) and realizing that TV shows weren't filmed in real houses. And you get to see the plane that Walt used to fly down and scope out the swamp-land that would eventually become Disney World. (Again, still not sure if it's the real one or not....)

That was always the cohesive plan for MGM -- the goal was to give you a "behind the scenes" look at how movies were made -- and the park channeled that old Hollywood vibe. There's a part of California Adventures that does that as well -- which makes sense, given that Hollywood is, you know, in California. 

But MGM has kinda moved away from that behind-the-scenes feel, as outdated attractions get replaced. And so, overall, the park has an odd disjointed vibe -- like lots of things kinda mashed up together in one park because Disney wants the attraction, but doesn't know how to combine them effectively. You've got Pixar Place and Animation Courtyard -- then there's the "thrill rides" with Tower of Terror and Rock n' Roller Coaster -- and Star Wars and Indiana Jones and the Muppet Show....it's all over the place. Whenever we go, my husband and I always say that MGM needs a major makeover -- much like the one California Adventures got. 

The solution he keeps coming back to -- he likes to read the theme park rumor blogs -- is to add an East Coast Cars Land. Which, if they're getting rid of the Backlot Tour -- and I can't imagine the Cars Stunt Show is far behind -- seems likely, as that's a big chunk of the park. Particularly since those attractions currently sit next to Pixar Place -- Cars Land would be a nice, logical addition to that. 

I'm not wild about this. I'm of the mind that Disneyland and WDW are separate parks with their own identities, and they don't need to have identical attractions. Cars Land is one of the defining features of California Adventure, and you don't need to replicate that on the East Coast, no matter how popular it is. 

That leaves, however, the other viable option (according to the rumor mill) -- the long-rumored and much hyped (given Disney's recent purchase of Lucas Films) Star Wars expansion. Not exactly up my Geek Girl alley, but I imagine the Imagineers could come up with some pretty kick-ass ideas....

So Long, Maelstrom; Hello Frozen

On Friday, Disney released some relatively big news -- namely, that they're starting construction on a new Frozen ride at the Norway pavilion in EPCOT. And, perhaps above all else, I'm amazed at Disney's ability to spin news -- from a rhetorical standpoint, they are, quite simply, absolutely ingenious. Here's the first few paragraphs from the Disney Parks Blog announcement:

When Walt Disney promised that Disneyland would never be completed, so long as there is imagination left in the world, he made a promise to our guests that we take seriously at all our locations around the world. This year, one particular product of imagination — Disney Animation’s blockbuster hit “Frozen” — captured the hearts and minds of people around the world and gave us a new opportunity to make good on Walt’s pledge.

We’ve made “Frozen” a part of the guest experience in a number of ways already and our guests have both loved them and asked for more. So I’m pleased to say that we’re starting construction at Walt Disney World Resort on a brand new “Frozen” attraction at the Norway Pavilion in Epcot. The new attraction, which replaces Maelstrom, will take our guests to Arendelle and immerse them in many of their favorite moments and music from the film. The pavilion will also include a royal greeting location where Anna and Elsa can meet our guests. We think these “Frozen” elements are great complements to the Norway Pavilion, which showcases the country and region that inspired the film.

You really gotta love how they invoke the spirit of Walt himself -- how they invoke the promise Walt made that "Disneyland would never be completed so long as there is imagination left in the world." Which, truly, is one of Walt's greatest legacies and has given us the Disney Parks MGM and Animal Kingdom and attractions like Splash Mountain and the new Seven Dwarfs Mine Train.

But then they shift the agency to us, the visitors to Disney Parks, the people who have so eagerly and greedily consumed Frozen: "...our guests have both loved them and asked for more." Just in case you're unhappy with the news that Maelstrom will be no more, you really have no one to blame but yourself: you asked for it.

Now, here's the thing. I love Frozen -- I really, really do -- and haven't been shy about expressing my love for it. I've embraced the film, bought the merchandise, even took a trip in August for the sole purpose of seeing that "guest experience" firsthand.

But....Arendelle doesn't exist -- it's not real -- it's not a real place in Norway. It was inspired by Norway -- absolutely. There's a long tradition of Disney animators doing what they can to capture the authenticity of their subject -- whether it's visiting Norway to see the fjords or bringing a reindeer into the studio to watch its movements. Terri Wright, writing of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, noted that Disney "indicated a preference for the traditional folk/fairy tale genre that consists of a realistic setting into which some magic is introduced" (100).

So while Arendelle may look a lot like a town in Norway, it's nevertheless not a real place.

And this distinction is only really important when you consider the goal of the World Showcase at EPCOT. The park, in its current incarnation, is vastly different from what Walt originally envisioned it to be. As Mike Wallace points out, "the ExperimentalPrototype Community of Tomorrow was to be a laboratory city in which twenty thousand people would live. Disney dreamed of ”a planned, controlled community, a showcase for American industry and research,” a permanent testing ground for new ideas in urban planning" (41). Obviously, EPCOT is nothing like that today: you've got Future World with all its corporate sponsorship and you've got the World Showcase with its international sponsorship.

EPCOT, I feel, is probably the park you appreciate the least when you're a kid -- or at least, EPCOT the way it was when I was a kid (pre Test Track). It's the educational park, after all, where the only rides are (were) Figment's Journey Into Imagination and Maelstrom in Norway. That's changing, of course. Obviously there are new thrill rides like Test Track and Spaceship Earth, but they've slightly altered some of the older attractions to appeal to kids. The Living Seas used to be just an aquarium; now it's a Finding Nemo ride. The Mexico Pavillion used to have a boat-ride that relates (a Disneyfied version of) Mexican history and culture; now, Donald and The Three Caballeros journey with you providing a source of comic relief.

But that doesn't seem to be the plan for Maelstrom. What they're proposing, I think, is not to add Anna, Elsa, and Olaf to the current ride a la Mexico, but to completely erase the old ride and replace it with a new Frozen one. I'm not lamenting the creation of a Frozen ride -- I think that it could be great, provided it's not simply a "little kid" ride that just regurgitates the film -- I'm lamenting the loss of the cultural experience. One of the coolest and most unique aspects of the World Showcase as been it's (relative) commitment to cultural authenticity: the countries that sponsor a pavilion there were involved in the construction and design of the pavilion; the employees are all citizens of their respective countries (e.g. those who work at EPCOT-Germany are German citizens), and most of the pavilions have some sort of ride or movie that gives you a glimpse -- albeit a rosy, optimistic one -- into the country's history and culture.

And this new Frozen ride will erase all of that--all because Norway wouldn't (couldn't?) pay. When we went down in August, I read a few online articles about the Frozen phenomenon. I was trying to figure out if there were plans to extend the Frozen Summer Fun events, but what I learned is that Disney was asking for exorbitant amounts of money from Norway to keep Maelstrom and the cultural aspects there -- perhaps to offset the loss of the profit Disney would make from a Frozen ride (and inevitable gift shop). Given the fact that the new pavilion will include a new meet-and-greet location for Anna & Elsa (the old one simply couldn't handle the demand/long lines), I can't imagine that the new Norway will look much like the current one.

And that kinda breaks my heart a little.

 

Ellen and Kristen Wiig Sing ‘Let It Go’

Just when you thought all the "Let It Go" versions were done...Ellen brings you this one.

Alternate Way of Reading Disney's _Beauty and the Beast_

A couple of days ago I came across this alternate way of reading Beauty and the Beast  -- and I thought it was really cool. It's a quasi-Queer Reading of the film -- influenced by that fact that the composer Howard Ashman was a gay man -- and proposes that the film rejects bullying and lauds the bullied and celebrates difference.

Personally, I loved the movie as a kid -- namely because Belle was a brunette bookworm -- but revisiting it as I've gotten older, I've found it increasingly problematic. A lot of the critical arguments  which read the relationship between Belle and Beast as an abusive one are really convincing -- particularly the idea that if you simply love a man enough, he'll change for you. It was nice to read a positive interpretation of the film.

Guy Proposes to Disney Princesses (+ Gaston...?)

I saw this article on Buzzfeed yesterday -- about this guy who proposed to the Disney princesses at Magic Kingdom. Gotta love it. :) I can't decide whether it's utterly adorable or really creepy.

 

I do love that Jasmine seems to have this look that says, "Really? Aladdin's right there" look on her face:

Although I am slightly confused by the Gaston one...maybe he just thought, "why not?"

My favorite might be the selfie with Tinkerbell though: 

She would be the one to put the ring on.

Frozen Summer Fun

A few weeks ago, when my husband and I were talking about our trip to Seattle, I jokingly mentioned that we should tack on a mini-trip to Disney World in order to see the Frozen Summer Fun events at Hollywood Studios. Well, half-jokingly mentioned it. After all, there isn't a direct flight to Seattle from RDU, so we'd have to have a lay-over somewhere. Why not Orlando?

Long story short, I have an amazing husband who agreed.

And it was awesome. Well, the Frozen stuff was awesome. The weather was about as un-Frozen as you could get. Ugh. I'm reminded of why we much prefer going in October or May -- August in central Florida is miserable.

Every time we go, my husband and I talk about how much potential Hollywood Studios has to be truly great -- and that Disney should make it their next renovation project. I don't know how much of this will stay once the event ends, but it'd be a great start.

Now, rumor has it that the entire Frozen Summer Fun was put up in two weeks -- which may explain why I was a little bit disappointed that there wasn't more. They've been really pushing it, and promoting it heavily, but it just seemed like they could have done more. Or maybe I've just been conditioned to expect excess from Disney. 

Yay for Frozen themed treats -- but while it was cool in the air conditioning, hot chocolate did not sound appealing in the Florida heat.

The welcome parade was really cute too -- in true Disney fashion, in "snowed" when the Arendelle royals arrived. And I always love when Disney makes it "snow." It reminded me a lot of the parades that Disney used to have at MGM back in the 90s -- whenever a movie did well or when they wanted to hype up a movie, they had film-centric parades. I still remember the Aladdin parade, mainly because they had a spitting camel float -- and I got "spit" on by the camel. I think the camels are now in MK, by the Flying Carpets ride in Adventureland. 

The Sing Along was probably my favorite part. It's a "ticketed" event -- kind of like Fast Passes -- and I was a little disappointed by the seating. (Disney is usually so good about "every seat has a great unobstructed view!" and that was not the case in this theater -- maybe because it was older? -- you can see the post in the right-hand picture.) But there's something magical about everyone singing along together -- and the little kids are especially cute singing at the top of their lungs. 

Definitely glad we made the trip down to experience it!

Flipping Your Fins On Broadway

Recently, my husband and I went to see The Little Mermaid on Broadway. (I love, love, love having DPAC (the Durham Performing Arts Center) in our backyard--before it was built, our area didn't get any of the big Broadway shows, but now? Well, Wicked is coming for the third time in seven years in May of 2015.)

First things first, a confession: I LOVE The Little Mermaid.

It's the first Disney movie I can remember being obsessed with, and I still love it to this day. So much so that when we discuss it in class, and I reread Roberta Trites' article, "Disney's Sub/Version of Andersen's The Little Mermaid," I get so spittin' mad. 

So I was really interested to see what the Broadway version would be like. Even though my husband explained it to my mother by saying, "I forgot that it was *Disney's* Little Mermaid and it was basically just the movie on stage," there were definite differences that I noticed. In a way, it was almost as if the stage adapters read Trites' article and made a list of things to fix: we find out what happens to Ariel's mother, we know why Triton hates humans so much, we emphasize how out of place Ariel feels under the sea as well as out of place Eric feels on land and -- perhaps most importantly -- neither Eric nor Triton "defeats" Ursula; it's Ariel who ultimately kills the Sea Witch in a very active and rather empowering move. (She doesn't directly kill her, of course, as Disney never condones murder, not even for the evilest of villains, but it's a significant improvement over Ariel lying helplessly at the bottom of a whirlpool while Eric harpoons an "engorged" (to use Roberta Trites' word) Ursula.) 

But the most interesting change -- to me, at least -- was the addition of Ursula's backstory. Maybe we learn it in one of the LM sequels -- but I make it a habit to never watch Disney sequels. We learn that Ursula and Triton are sister and brother, and that they had 6 other sisters, all of whom Ursula killed. It sounds gruesome, but the song is actually quite fun. So imagine when my surprise when I pulled up the soundtrack on iTunes and couldn't find it. A little bit of digging online -- okay, I found the answer on Wikipedia -- told me that the song, "Daddy's Little Angel," is actually not in the original Broadway version, but was added to European/international versions of the play. I was able to find a bare-bones version of it online:

It actually kind of reminds me of "Mother Knows Best" from Tangled...maybe because of the rhythm/beat? Regardless, I think it changes the character of Ursula. As my friend pointed out, "Ursula was less 'take over the world' and more 'look at me' -- she was Barbie-ish." And I agree -- she was a little campier, a little funnier than certainly the character is in the animated film. But I liked it -- it balanced out Triton's domineering "I'm-the-king-and-you-will-listen-to-me!" and the arguably much sappier romance between Ariel and Eric. 

And I'll admit it: I was not a fan of Eric singing. That was one of the reasons I loved Eric in the animated film -- that, and he had a dog. And they also cut Max from the Broadway play, which I was not a fan of. Sad face.

Jungle Book Casting News

Two of my favorite movies to teach are The Jungle Book (1967) and The Lion King (1994), simply because of how they insert race into children's movies about animals. (Oliver and Company is also notorious for this.)

After all, animals don't have races--at least, not in the same sense which humans ascribe them. They have biological categorizations, and they are capable of grouping themselves together and ostracizing others, but not for the same reasons which humans do.

So why is it that Tito the Chihuahua (from Oliver) has a plethora of stereotypical, racist Latino traits? (While all the dogs steal to survive, he alone is the one who can hotwire the car.) Why are the hyenas -- the very bottom of the food chain -- voiced by an African-American woman (Whoopi Goldberg) and a Latino man (Cheech Marin)? (And the third is...."slow," at best.) Why are the monkeys in Jungle Book jazz singers/dancers?

After all, everything in animation is consciously done--surely these can't be coincidences?

Now, yes, The Jungle Book is from 1967 -- and to say things were "different back then" is an understatement. And I'm always a big advocate of acknowledging the context of a text -- acknowledging when it was made and the views that were held during that time. What seems incredibly racist/uncomfortable now, would simply not have been that wrong to the Disney execs in the 1960s. (And even less so in the 1940s when Dumbo was released.)

But that's why I was so intrigued when Disney announced that they were doing a live-action remake of The Jungle Book. What would that film look like? How would they approach some of the more controversial scenes? And, most importantly, how would they handle the casting choices? (I'm still not entirely sure how live-action it will be, given that most of the characters in the film are animals, but that's another matter.)

And the casting choices are certainly interesting:

• King Louie -- king of the apes and perhaps the most racist portrayal in the animated film -- will be played by Christopher Walken (thus avoiding any associations with black actors and monkeys)
• Bagheera -- Mowgli's mentor and guide -- will be played by Ben Kingsley (a good choice, IMHO, if only because Kingsley has that regal attitude innately -- but it does seem as if all mentors/guides/teachers should be British...)
• Shere Khan -- our villainous tiger -- will be played by Idris Elba (another choice I love, because the world needs more Idris Elba, and he makes a great villain -- but could this lead to discussions of black-actors-as-villains?)
• Kaa -- Khan's hench-snake -- will be played by Scarlett Johansson (the inclusion of a female actor is interesting...particularly in this role, given the whole Eve-Eden-snake-apple thing)
• Baloo -- our lovable hippy bear -- will be voiced by Bill Murray, mainly for the comedic effect, I think. 

Perhaps I'm overthinking the casting choices, but I think -- given Disney's tendency to ascribe race to animals in the past -- it's an interesting conversation to have.

#disneyside

I've just returned home from 2014 Disney Trip #2 -- and I can't tell you how much better it was than Disney Trip #1. Part of that was the time (May really is a better time to go than March); part of it was the weather (whatever "cold front" came through made Florida weather absolutely beautiful -- extremely low humidity); and part of it was the continued improvements to the FastPass+ System.

This trip was purely for fun, too. Last time, I was in Orlando for a conference (albeit a super fun one) and only had about a day and a half there. This time, one of my friends was celebrating her birthday and impending graduation from a Library Science master's program. She asked for advice a couple of months ago, and I, excited over any excuse to go to Disney, offered my services as a traveling companion. Fast forward a couple of months, and it was the perfect end to a somewhat busy and stressful semester. And it was nice to get away and just have a girl's weekend.

I'll break down my trip in more detail in later posts, but I wanted to blog first about yesterday's most exciting moment -- one which was probably the highlight of the trip.

We met Elsa and Anna at Princess Fairytale Hall:

And it was absolutely magical. The most magical part, though, was probably the wait. There have been horror stories about the wait time/line to meet Elsa and Anna -- both here in Orlando as well as at Disneyland in Anaheim.

And, to be fair, there was some truth in the rumors:

I took this at about 9:45 in the morning -- the park had been open since 9:00 a.m., and the line was already 3.5+ hours. 

So we talked to a cast member, and she said to check the app periodically and if it was ever about 2 hours, that's the best you could hope for. The only problem is that the app doesn't show wait times for characters who are there throughout the day. But the cast member did mention that if you were in line before 5:00 p.m. (when the line closes), you would get in to see them, however long it took.

So we came up with a plan: our last FastPass was for Jungle Cruise at 3:45-4:45. We would ride Jungle Cruise then head back here, grab some food, and wait in line. We had no dinner plans, and nothing that we really wanted to do before the Main Street Electrical Parade at 9. 

We got in line about 4:30 -- the first 15 minutes were a little uncomfortable since we were outside in the full Florida sun -- but we soon passed into the shady part of the line and by 5:05, we were in the air-conditioned part of the hall. 

And by 5:45, we were in the room. And it was so great. Anna comes forward to meet you first, introducing herself and asking to know your names. She's so bubbly and outgoing -- and Elsa just kinda hangs back a little bit. (VERY in touch with their characters in the film.) Like most Disney princesses, they're super nice and friendly; and the great thing about meeting characters in Disney is that you never feel "rushed." It's not, walk up, smile, snap a photo and then get pushed out the door; they let you chat a bit and snap lots of candids. Like this one:

...in which you can clearly see not only how excited I am to meet Anna and Elsa, but also how alike Elsa and I are. Same stance, same posture, same personalities.

Lesson? I would make a great Elsa. :)

To cap it all off, when we walk out of the Princess Hall, we headed to Cinderella's Castle to look at the mosaic mural. There's a Cast Member outside the castle and he's kind of exclaiming, to no one in particular, "Why does no one want this reservation?!" So we walk up and ask if everything is okay. He says, "Well, no. I have this reservation for dinner tonight and no one will take it!" I look, puzzled, at my friend and ask, "Here? At Cinderella's Royal Table?" Because those reservations are notoriously difficult to get. And he says "yes" -- that's exactly where the reservation is for -- and its ours, if we want it.

Sadly, we passed on it -- it's $75/person and, even though you get a free photo with Cinderella and get to eat upstairs with a view overlooking Fantasyland, we had just eaten with the princesses Friday night.

It was still a magical afternoon though!

"Grown Woman Flips Out On Couch, Scares Dog, During Once Upon A Time Finale"

That's what the title of my viral video would be if my husband had filmed my reaction to last night's Once Upon A Time finale. I haven't yelled at the TV like that since Austin Rivers sunk the three pointer at the buzzer to beat UNC back in 2012. (Which...isn't that long ago, but it should help you understand the level of my reaction: it was on par with Duke beating UNC.)

After watching, I wanted to freak out with other people, but few of my friends stuck with OUaT, and those who have, hadn't seen it yet. And then I remembered: I teach Disney-themed writing classes for a living and have this blog; why don't I blog about the finale? (And start to blog more regularly after a very busy semester.)

So...Spoilers Ahead!

So This Is Happening.

A Frozen Theatrical Sing-Along. 

The details are still a little fuzzy -- for example, the length apparently varies by cinema; not sure what that means -- but the concept is awesome.

Apparently there will be a little bouncing snowflake to help you with the lyrics. And, should you live in California, it will actually "snow" inside one theater. (A little bit jealous about that part, especially given our current sub-freezing temperatures. The magic of snow without the cold!)

I've already made plans with friends to see the sing-along version -- but, until then, I'll just keep watching "Let It Go" on repeat -- both the full English version and this seamless multi-language version.

Frozen Headed To Broadway

I suppose it was inevitable---especially given Disney's ability to capitalize on anything remotely profitable: Disney plans to stage Frozen on Broadway.

Read more here.

Can't say I'm disappointed though. Disney has done a wonderful job with the shows they decide to adapt to the stage -- their capacity for innovation is astounding. Think of everything they did with The Lion King -- I can only imagine what they could do with the "Let It Go" scene and the ice palace that Elsa creates.

I know it will be awhile before it hits the stage, but I'm already looking forward to it. The benefit of having family in New York -- random trips up there seem much more "do-able" when your only major cost is travel!

Down the Rabbit Hole

Now that the Christmas rush is over, I've had a little bit of down time before the spring semester starts. So I'm using that time to, as any sane and rational person would, clear up the space on my DVR. I never fully understand how the DVR gets so backed up (at its most perilous, I think we were 96% full) since I feel like we watch a fair amount of TV during the week.

I will freely admit that we spend a good deal of time watching House Hunters and Big Bang Theory reruns. But still. I suppose its because, as a pop culture nerd, I set up so many series records at the beginning of the TV season -- shows which my Prince Charming  doesn't always want to watch. So, stuff just tends to back up--not necessarily because its not any good, but just because we're usually watching TV together.

Long story short: I caught up on Once Upon a Time in Wonderland over break. And loved it.

I love the original series of course; I'm presenting a paper at conference in March on the shift from purely romantic love to more family-centered love in Disney, and the original OUaT is great evidence for this. But more than that, I love new takes on fairy tales and I particularly appreciate the complexity of Regina's backstory.

Wonderland is not quite as family-centered -- the plot is driven by Alice and Cyrus's love and efforts to get back together -- but I don't mind as much given the power of the narrative. I'll admit--I was very skeptical at first. When they announced the casting of Lost favorite Naveen Andrews as Jafar, there was much eye-rolling on my part. "Ugh," I thought. "Merging Alice and Aladdin has a very high probability of EPICFAIL."

Well, never let it be said that I'm too proud to eat my words.

Because it worked. (In my opinion.) It actually worked and made for a compelling, engaging storyline -- the kind that made me stay up late in order to watch the next episode and find out what happened.

And, much like Regina and Rumple are the most interesting characters on Once Upon A Time (although Hook is a close second, but for much the same reason), I found Jafar and The Red Queen to be the most interesting characters in Wonderland. That, I think, is what the writers do so well: they give a complexity and a backstory to the villains that are so often portrayed as one-dimensional in traditional fairy tales. Why is Wicked Queen in "Snow White" evil? Well, she's jealous of Snow White, and jealousy is bad, so she's bad. There's no greater reason than that -- and, in the fairy tale, we don't need one.

But the writers of OUaT give us that reason -- let us see the motivation behind the actions -- and that, to me, is where the power of the show truly lies. Yes, Sophie Lowe is excellent as Alice and I appreciate that she can wield a sword in Victorian dress and isn't always a damsel in distress. I like the nods to the original story. But, perhaps because I have a child's optimistic faith in happy endings, I just assume that, yes, she and Cyrus will get back together and that's enough of them, thank you very much, can we get back to the villains?

We already knew Naveen Andrews was great at playing conflicted characters -- Sayid was one of the greats on Lost. And here, he truly gets to tap into his inner baddie because Jafar is not one of those villains who started out good and then, after a series of crappy things happened to him, he just gave up and turned to the Dark Side. Nope. He was a pretty good kid, and yes, some crappy things happened to him, but he went dark, and he went dark fast. Of his own accord: there was very little tempting him to the Dark Side; he actively sought it out. A villain through and through, and I kind of like that. (Although, the Sultan did still threaten to cut his hand off for stealing, so there's that.)

But the character/actress I was really impressed with was Emma Rigby's Red Queen/Anastasia.

She is, in a way, very similar to Regina -- and, like Lana Parilla, has the hardest job on set. When you first meet her, she is, unequivocally, the villain and your sympathy lies with Alice and Cyrus. But then there's the plot twist, and you see her as Anastasia, and it's increasingly harder to keep disliking her. I mean, you may not agree with and like her decisions, but you kinda get it.

Plus, she has the most kick-ass wardrobe on the set. And look at those cheekbones!