Regardless, I guess it's a thing where if you enter the lottery and have to wait around in the cold to see if you get a ticket, Miranda will make sure you're entertained. And last night, those hopeful audience members got to hear Princess Jasmine sing "A Whole New World" and it was shining, shimmering, splendid:
They start singing "A Whole New World" about 2:37 in.
One of the big news stories this weekend -- judging from the amount of times it popped up in my social media feeds -- that wasn't about a major coffee chain and their alleged war on Christmas, was the news that Chloe Grace Moretz was cast as The Little Mermaid.
Notice I didn't say "Ariel."
Because she is most emphatically not Ariel--whatever the media would like you to believe in order to get you to click their links.
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
(Although, I honestly don't know what's going on with Ariel in this photo. Seriously.)
Even CNN seems to have missed the point of the story it's reporting, given this headline:
The initial article I read made it very clear that this is an adaptation of Hans Christian Andersen's original story by Working Title and Universal -- the latter of which is one of Disney's biggest rivals. Richard Curtis is allegedly working on the screenplay -- which, if he hadn't given me one of my favorite episodes of Doctor Who, I'd be a bit worried since he's more famous for his rom-com work; Notting Hill, Love Actually, Bridget Jones's Diary to name a few.
But the point remains, The Little Mermaid is somehow one of the only films that hasn't been rumored to have a live-action adaptation in the works. So it makes sense that Universal would be focusing on their adaptation -- fingers crossed it will be much more faithful to Andersen's original tale. Which would mean it would be a much darker, feminist story, but we'll see.
When Disney first announced, many moons ago, that they were doing a live-action adaptation of Alice in Wonderland directed by Tim Burton and featuring not only Johnny Depp but Alan Rickman and Stephen Fry, I was elated. Some of my favorite things all in one movie.
Then...they released the movie. And it was okay as far as movies go, but not what I had hoped for in an adaptation of one my favorite Victorian novels and directed by Tim Burton.
But, I suppose it did well -- or well enough; maybe this was the live-action adaptation that started Disney's whole live-action kick -- because they apparently did a sequel.
Of course I'll go see it. But maybe I'll think of it less as a version of Alice and more of it's own, weird, zany thing.
I mean, not only is Tink all over it -- how adorable is that packaging? -- it's almost like a free pass to listen to Disney music without judgment: "Um, yes, I am listening to Disney music, but it's NE-YO, so, you know, it's legit."
And I wanted to love the album--I really did. I just...some songs...I can't.
Take, for instance, Ariana Grande's cover of "Zero to Hero" from Hercules. I love that movie -- and I love the music even more. When Meg sings "I Won't Say I'm in Love" -- it's such a realistic song that's so applicable in real life. And the Muses? Basically rock every song they sing, no matter how anachronistic it is. (Yes, ancient Greece did not have soul singers. I know. Although--I did have a student once write a kick-ass paper on how incorporating the Muses, and specifically portraying them as African-American religious soul singers, was a way to impose a traditional Christian message on an otherwise "pagan" film. Great argument.)
But I digress. Point is -- all the songs The Muses sing are soulful and fun and full of attitude. And Ariana Grande's cover just...wasn't.
But this cover just pales in comparison to the original, IMHO. I haven't done extensive research on reviews of the album, but a quick Google search seems to indicate I'm in the minority here:
"We should mention that Hercules is our favorite Disney movie, so that fact might have pushed us to put this cover song so high on the list. However, this would have been ranked high regardless. Ariana Grande covering a Gospel-esque track? Forget about it. Those high notes give us life."
Even Entertainment Weekly calls it "soulful" and says Grande is "channeling her inner Greek goddess." Yes, she can sing. Yes, she can hit the notes. But that's not enough to make it a good cover.
I don't know--maybe my expectations are too high. Maybe the intent of the album wasn't to make "true" covers which capture the spirit and emotion of the original songs (e.g. internal conflict and realization in "Let It Go," yearning ad curiosity in "Part Of Your World," etc.). And maybe nothing will be as good as the originals in my mind....although, I say that, and I actually like Demi Lovato's version of "Let It Go" (from the original soundtrack) and Jason Derulo's "Can You Feel The Love Tonight" from this album.
Take a listen to the original and Ariana Grande's cover below and decide for yourself!
Leave it to Buzzed to have a completely random post about Disney princesses. Ah, the Internet.
This one is brought to you by the concept of "matching outfits with hair" -- which sounds really weird but, as the Buzzfeed headline points out, is oddly magical. (Mostly.)
In Western countries other than America, this makes sense. (And, from what I remember when I studied abroad, it's especially true in England.)
But we have Thanksgiving -- poor, lost, forgotten, skipped over Thanksgiving -- in America. Although you wouldn't really know it if you turned on the TV or walked into a store. Christmas things are already for sale in Harris Teeter, Target, Lowes, Hallmark -- it hurts my heart a little.
Actually, it hurts my heart a lot.
Although...I do have to admit: the one place I'm okay with a little early Christmas cheer is Starbucks. (Shocker.) Even though Red Cups come out a little early -- I am a big fan of both the Chestnut Praline and the Caramel Brûlée lattes. Ever since they got rid of my Vanilla Macchiato, I've been looking forward to my holiday drinks.
In order to stay "new" and "fresh" and "exciting," theme parks have to change: old rides have to be updated, outdated film references have to be re-imagined (RIP Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea ride....and Maelstrom), and new technology has to be utilized.
I get it.
The theme park industry, after all, is highly competitive. Launching a shiny new roller coaster is a big deal, and why would anyone want to keep going to a theme park if it's exactly the same as it was the last time? (...she said (somewhat) sarcastically; I think there's something comforting in the familiar.)
And Walt Disney himself would seem to agree:
And anyone who's ever been to a Disney Park and seen the "Pardon Our Pixie Dust" signs with the inspirational Walt Disney quotes knows that Disney parks are never completed: they're constantly changing.
(c) SRisonS @ Flickr
And, for the most part, the Disney pixie dust gives us magical, wonderful things. We may have gotten rid of the cable cars from Fantasyland to Tomorrowland (a staple of my childhood!), but we got the most beautiful Tangled-inspired bathrooms (eventually). We may have gotten rid of Snow White's Scary Adventures in the Magic Kingdom, but we got New Fantasyland. My favorite ride in all of Orlando -- Tower of Terror -- was not an original part of MGM/Hollywood Studios/whatever the new name is. (However, I'm still intensely skeptical of the new Frozen ride that's replacing Maelstrom.)
But I have to draw the line somewhere. And that line, for me, is changing the infrastructure of Walt's original park to make way for something un-Disney. (And, yes, I know we can debate the fact that Star Wars is "un-Disney. Because, yes, Disney bought LucasFilm and the new Star Wars films will be Disney films. But the original trilogy was George Lucas's creation and not Disney Studios'. Star Wars isn't Disney the same way Marvel isn't Disney -- someone else came up with those stories. And, yes, you can make the argument that all of Disney's stories are someone else's -- Pixar excepted, of course -- but that's a digression for another day. Disney retold those stories, and the parks celebrate the Disney version. It's complicated.)
So Disney bought Marvel and LucasFilm--fine. However controversial it may be, they wanted to appeal to boys and create an empire that rivaled (and maybe even surpasses) the girl-dominated Disney Princess market.
I get it.
But changing Disneyland -- Walt's original park -- to make room for Star Wars Land? I'm just not okay with that.
Maybe it's because I've been to Disneyland recently and, for someone who is as fascinated by the man and the company as I am, it's kind of amazing to walk through the park and know that 50 years ago, Walt did the same thing. I love walking into the park and and seeing the light in the apartment above the fire station. I love walking through New Orleans Square and knowing that it was his favorite spot. And, yes, I know that some things have changed over the years -- after all, Fantasmic wasn't a show you could watch in 1966 and there wasn't a Pixie Hollow where you could meet Tinker Bell and the fairies -- but those changes reflect Disney stories.
And Star Wars just isn't a Disney story to me. I know that's a minority opinion, but there it is. I wonder if I'd be as bothered by the renovations if they were putting Star Wars Land across the street in California Adventure? Probably not. In fact, it makes more thematic sense there. After all, Skywalker Ranch is in California and George Lucas was born in California--so why not put it there, Disney?!
But then, I tend to be a Disney purist about some things.
So, if you know me at all, you know I love Fall. It is, hands down, my favorite season and brings with so many of my favorite things.
Like "13 Nights Of Halloween" on ABC Family -- and Hocus Pocus. I know this movie totally dates me -- it was a staple of my childhood -- and my husband does not understand my love for this movie, but maybe you had to be a 90s kid to love it. Either way--here's when you can watch it on ABC Family this October:
BUT. That's not the big news of today.
No, today Disney Parks Blog announced that they would be releasing some LE Hocus Pocus merchandise. And, good little Disney consumerist that I am, I want to buy all the things. (I'll probably refrain. Probably.)
For example, you can buy shirts based on the Sanderson sisters' dresses:
I mean, how could you not love a movie with the incomparable Bette Midler (it was allegedly one of her favorite roles to play, so there's that), the hilarious Kathy Najimy, and a young pre-Sex and the City Sarah Jessica Parker.
And, if some reason, you don't love the Sanderson sisters, or don't want to nerdily show off your love for them, you can always buy the Sanderson museum shirt.
Damn you, Disney, for knowing what makes my 90s-kid heart sing.
Although, honestly: this isn't a "live-action" film. It's a CGI film with a human co-star. (Not even Disney Realism could have a small child running around with real-life bears and tigers and panthers.)
Still, it looks like an interesting adaptation -- of the original animated film, of course. At the very end you hear a few strains of "The Bare Necessities" (I'm not sure if the music will carry over) and just before there you see what looks like a monkey (orangutan?) arm swiping out of a deserted temple which very strongly evokes "I Wanna Be Like You" of the original movie.
After all -- it's Disney. I don't expect a faithful retelling of Kipling's original story, although I will go re-read the story to see if Jon Favreau leans at all on the source material.
Final note: I think it's *very* interesting that the trailer features Scarlett Johansson's Kaa. It seems as if Kaa is still an antagonist here -- as compared to the snake's role as mentor much like Baloo and Bagheera in the original Kipling story -- but the change isn't that surprising given (1) the snake's symbolic history and (2) Disney's need for villainous henchmen. However, I still maintain that it's *very* interesting that in both the Disney adaptation and the forthcoming Warner Bros. one (The Jungle Book: Origins, boasting an equally impressive cast) Kaa is voiced by a woman. Don't know what to make of that yet.
So TeeTurtle finally released the other two designs in their Disney/Harry Potter mash-up series -- Rapunzel as Hufflepuff and Maleficent as Slytherin.
I love them all -- but since I was officially sorted into Ravenclaw (as if there was every any doubt, Pottermore!), I bought the Belle one.
I gotta say though -- two of these are absolutely spot-on. Maleficent as Slytherin (even though she's not a princess -- is there a princess who would be a Slytherin? Maybe Jasmine...) and Belle as Ravenclaw are perfect.
And I see/totally get Mulan as a Gryffindor and Rapunzel as a Hufflepuff -- but I would have gone with different choices....as my husband pointed out, I feel like they really missed an opportunity to have Merida as a Gryffindor. I mean, her movie was literally called Brave. And while Rapunzel is 100% a Hufflepuff, I would have gone with either Snow White or Tiana; after all, "those patient Hufflepuffs are true and unafraid of toil."
I'm sure it's been a very popular series--I'm just sayin' they could do a second series. :P There's tons of inspiration by DeviantArtist Eira1893 -- one of my favorite Buzzfeed Geeky posts.
Sometimes, it's easy to get bogged down and lost in the day-to-day details of teaching. And, if you're a bit of an anxious person (like me), you can spend way too much time scrutinizing and reliving the things you said, the way you said them, and wondering if there was a better way to say them.
And sometimes, especially in those early morning classes, it's easy to forget that you are making a difference, that you are reaching students, that you are, well, teaching.
And then there are days where the world reminds you of the latter. Today, for instance, I ran into and stopped to chat with two former students and that just made my day. And then, I opened The Chronicle (Duke's student newspaper) to see this article:
You can read the full article online -- and one of the courses highlighted, "Stranger Than Fiction," is taught by my fellow adjunct and all-around rock-star Kevin Casey -- but the basic gist is that Duke offers unique and engaging first-year writing courses, including the one taught by yours truly:
"Duke prides itself on offering a wide variety of Writing 101 courses, with topics ranging from new fad diets to rock documentaries. First-year students are able to improve their writing skills not only through essay writing, but also through making blog posts, creating websites and examining archives—and this year is no exception to the trend of highly specialized subjects. Sections of "Music in Science Fiction Films," "Islam is Not ISIS" and the perennial favorite "Decoding Disney," were all options to freshmen this Fall, as well as other topics inspired by professors' pursuits."
It's nice to know that your course is a "perennial favorite," and even better to see it in print.
And, for any internet trolls out there -- No, the course is not for athletes only; No, popcorn doesn't come with registration; and, No, it's not a sham course where all we do is watch movies.
This popped up in my newsfeed this morning and had to share. Poor Fantastic Four film adaptations.
I also wonder if this sentiment will hold true after the sequel is released...although, as a general rule, I have much more faith in Pixar sequels than I do in Disney sequels.
One of the things that struck me when I watched Inside Out was the similarities to the characters in Winnie The Pooh. I've actually had some students write papers on how the characters represent different mental health issues. It's an interesting theory...I don't know if was a conscious decision on A. A. Milne's part, or if it just works that way because children go through so many different complex emotions.
Either way, when I saw Inside Out, Sadness immediately reminded me of Eeyore. Again, I don't know if that was a conscious decision on the Pixar writers' part or if it was, again, coincidence. I'd almost be inclined to say that Inside Out and Winnie The Pooh have similar understandings and depictions of childhood emotions, so the similarities make sense.
So when my TeeFury email this morning announced a new collection called "All The Feels" which mashes up Inside Out and Winnie The Pooh, I was in love. My favorite is, of course, the Sadness/Eeyore one and I may or may not have clicked "Add To Cart." :) See the designs by artist Kat Haynes below and get yours before August 4th!
When we tell people we have a "Disney Art Wall," we tend to get our fair share of skeptical looks and raised eyebrows. I can only imagine what they're picturing -- I would bet it involves lots of cutesy cartoons.
But we'd like to think that it's a bit classier than that...we hope. Lots of artists have licenses that allow them to create Disney-inspired works without violating Disney's strict copyright policy and they're sold at places like the Art of Disney and the Wonderground Gallery. They're some of our favorite places to visit when we go to the parks and we try and buy one, nice piece each trip we take. The last time we went to Disneyland, we got a series of prints by J. Scott Campbell who does this really cool work where he mashes up a Disney Princess and her villain -- they only had 3, so I'm looking for a fourth one so I can make a set and frame them.
A few days ago, when she came back from ComicCon, she listed some original artwork in her Etsy shop, and I was lucky enough to purchase a print of Elsa. And today it arrived in the mail! It's so pretty and I love it and I can't wait to display it!!
One of my favorite things is watching summer thunderstorms. (Well, technically, they can occur during any season, but they're just so much more prominent during the summer.) I love sitting on the front porch, listening to the wind gust and set the wind chimes tinkling, watching the dark clouds roll in...and watching the lightning dance across the sky. A good summer thunderstorm is both an awe-inspiring and humbling experience -- you realize just how powerful and magnificent Mother Nature is.
Now combine a summer thunderstorm + Disney World firework in front of Cinderella Castle + Starbucks, and you'd have three of my most favorite things in the whole world.
Sadly, I rarely go to Orlando in the summer (the heat! the humidity!) so I've never actually seen a Disney storm, but if you were in the Magic Kingdom for the Fourth of July, then you could have seen what was apparently amazing sight:
(c) Alexandra Gaffney
(c) Cassie Moore
(c) Stephanie Schultz
And of course Disneyphiles have a great sense of humor about it:
Last night, the DH and I went to go see Inside Out. I'll post a full review soon -- I don't think I expected it to resonate with me as deeply as it did, and I'm still processing it.
But. From the beginning of the movie, the one thing that struck me was how similar the concept was to Figment ride at EPCOT, Journey Into Imagination With Figment. The video below is from the "reboot" of the ride--when they added Eric Idle and played up the whole Imagination Institute aspect, but I remember the original version of the ride with Dreamfinder (which is actually now a Marvel comic).
This was one of my favorite rides when I was little: (1) it was (and kinda still is) one of the only rides at EPCOT and (2) there's this interactive "play land" at the end of the ride where kids can just go crazy.
According to Wikipedia, the original version of the ride featured Dreamfinder who
"uses his vehicle (called the Dream Mobile or Dream Catcher by some fans) to collect dreams and ideas to create all sorts of new things. Soon he creates a figment of his imagination...Both Dreamfinder and the dragon Figment imagine things to fill the "idea bag". When the idea bag is full, Dreamfinder declares that the ideas need to be emptied in the "Dreamport" which, as he says, is "never far away when you use your imagination." [...] At the end, Dreamfinder tells Figment and the audience that Imagination is the key to unlocking the hidden wonders of the world."
Then you've got the plot of Inside Out:
"A girl named Riley is born in Minnesota, and in her mind, five manifestations of her emotions—Joy, Sadness, Fear,Disgust, and Anger—come to life. The emotions live in Headquarters, Riley's conscious mind, where they influence Riley's actions and memories via a control console. Her new memories are housed in colored spheres, which are sent into storage at the end of every waking period. The most important memories, known as "core memories", are housed in a hub in Headquarters and power five "islands" that each reflect a different aspect of Riley's personality."
(c) Disney/Pixar
The similarities are, to me, quite striking. First--there's the anthropomorphism of abstract concepts -- Figment of Imagination in the ride, and the emotions Joy, Sadness, etc. in the film.
Then there's also the idea of -- literally -- traveling into Imagination. It's the premise of the ride, of course, but in the film, Joy and Sadness literally go into Riley's Imagination:
(c) Disney/Pixar
Then there's this Easter Egg:
(c) http://heckyeahfiggy.tumblr.com
A picture of Figment is in the trash heap of Imagination land. :(
I'm a bit worried for one of my childhood favorites. Perhaps an Easter Egg is just an Easter Egg -- a cute tongue-in-cheek reference to Imagination and its decline as you grow older. Just as Bing Bong isn't as important to Riley, so Figment isn't as important to EPCOT and its visitors.
But, given Disney's recent remodeling Enterprises in other parks -- New Fantasyland in the Magic Kingdom, Avatar-land in Animal Kingdom, the expansion of Pixar Place in Hollywood Studios, and the Frozen ride in the Norway pavilion at EPCOT -- I don't think it's far-fetched to believe that Journey Into Imagination might be getting a makeover soon.
What I would love to see is a merging of the two ideas -- an expansion of the ride-concept -- rather than just a complete take-over, even though I would imagine that that's the plan. I don't know how it would work logistically, in terms of the building space (they could get rid of Captain EO and take that over, I wouldn't mind), but it'd be a great way to honor the original ride and still tie in the movie. Amy Poehler would probably replace Eric Idle's Dr. Nigel Channing (one comedy genius to another) and I could imagine Joy taking guests on a tour of the mind rather than of the Imagination Institute. But, when it came time to visit the Imagination, Bing Bong and Figment could take over together.
*sigh* A girl can dream, right?
After all, even the control console that the Emotions use to "guide" Riley seem tailor-made to replace the consoles in the play-land after the ride:
(c) Disney/Pixar
If Figment is replaced with the Inside Out characters so soon after Frozen has infiltrated the World Showcase...well, EPCOT may soon look quite different. And I don't know if that's a good thing or not...
A photo posted by Styles 2 Blaze (@styles2blaze) on
I try to avoid being political here and focus only on the academic side of things, but I can't let this moment go unacknowledged. And I'm so glad to see that Disney recognized and supported this decision -- because if anyone should support the expansion of the legal definition of "love"it's the company that defined "love" and "happy ever after" for America in the twentieth century.
I cannot begin to explain how much I love the fact that these photos are going viral. They're a girls softball team in Oklahoma and the name of the team is Freeze. (According to Buzzfeed, they wanted to be the Sparkling Elsas, but then thought "Freeze" sounded tougher. It's not clear who decided that it sounded tougher...perhaps they had some help...but still.)
One of the things that bugs me most about Disney Princess discussions is the idea that girls who watch Disney Princess movies and buy Disney Princess products will somehow be inundated with outdated values and will grow up thinking that the role of a domesticated 1950s housewife is the only route open to them.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to be a housewife and mother -- I take issue with the logic that watching Disney Princess movies will teach girls that that is the only option available to them. That "princesses" and "being active/assertive/independent" are somehow incompatible -- that a princess only means being dainty and fragile and passive. Even the First Wave Princesses (Snow White, Cinderella and Aurora) aren't entirely fragile and passive. (Although the case for Aurora is admittedly tough to make.)
So I love that these photos demonstrate that a girl can wear a sparkly princess dress and still be tough. Because the two are not, believe it or not, mutually exclusive.
This one flew under my radar -- while I knew about The Good Dinosaur, I hadn't heard about this one. Teaser trailer doesn't give much away story-wise, but it looks cute! And Disney has a long tradition of cute, anthropomorized-animal movies -- particularly with foxes. (Plus, Ginnifer Goodwin is the voice of the female lead, though you wouldn't know it from the trailer!)
Circa 1988. I must have been about...3 1/2 here? And my brother must have been tiny. (Most likely why he is not pictured.) Also, my dad has never been the best photographer -- where's the top of the castle? -- but I'm front and center so that counts for something. I'm also amused (and fascinated) by the fact that this picture was taken before digital cameras existed -- you had to use that mythical device called film, and its not like you could check the picture and take another one if you weren't satisfied.
Guests will be transported to the Winter in Summer Celebration where Queen Elsa embraces her magical powers and creates a winter-in-summer day for the entire kingdom. They will also visit Elsa’s Ice Palace and the ice-blue world of the North Mountain along with other locations before returning to the Bay of Arendelle. Of course, favorite “Frozen” characters, including the Snowgies from the animated short “Frozen Fever,” will be part of this new attraction, along with the spectacular sights inspired by the film.
Now. As a long-time Disney fan -- and especially as one who remembers a time when the Maelstrom (the ride whose place Frozen Ever After notoriously usurped) was one of the only "fun" things to do at EPCOT -- this is a bit confusing for me.
On the one hand, I loved Maelstrom. While I was never under the impression (and thus never disappointed by the fact) that it was a "Viking Mickey Adventure," it was still a crucial piece of my childhood.
There's also the fact that the very intrusion (and I don't use that word lightly) of the movie and the characters into the Norway Pavilion in such a blatant way is problematic. After all, the Pavilions are supposed to be "culturally authentic," given the existence of the Cultural Representative Program, which allows for (mostly young and attractive) citizens of each country to work at their respective pavilion.
When you allow the Disney-fied, animated cultural representation to overtake the actual culture...it's a bit problematic for me. Yes, the World Showcase countries have always been connected with relevant animated films (e.g. Snow White hangs out in Germany, Belle and Aurora in France, Mulan in China, etc.), but it's never been to the extent that Frozen is currently reaching. There are no other animated movie rides (those are in the Magic Kingdom, appropriately enough) and most of the characters don't have designated internal meeting spots. (Most of the princesses/characters hang out outside, and only come out once every 1-2 hours.) Anna and Elsa, however, will have their own, presumably air-conditioned, meeting spot indoors -- most likely at the expense of one of the cultural shops.
BUT. (Because there's always a But.)
I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little bit excited about the ride. (I'm a sucker for a new attraction at Disney Parks.) Right now, we can only speculate about the ride, but the artist rendering (I'm assuming) looks interesting:
First--it seems as if the old Maelstrom Viking-Inspired Boats will still be in use. (Or, if they're new, they at least pay homage to the old ships.)
Second--it's kind of hard to tell from the picture, but it's unclear whether the Frozen ride will keep the log-flume track from Maelstrom or go more the way of the trackless ride that SeaWorld's Antarctica: Empire of the Penguin utilizes. The picture above would almost seem to imply the latter (or maybe that's just my wishful thinking) as it looks more like a floor than water.
The blog does report that, in addition to "fantastic Disney storytelling" and "favorite moments and music from the film" (re: "Let It Go"), the ride will also use "new technology" -- a nice, vague term if ever there was one. Do they mean ride technology (like the trackless ride)? Do they mean animatronic technology? I suppose it could be like the technology they used over at the Wizarding World of Harry Potter in both Escape from Gringotts and the Hogwarts ride where the actors are holograms and "interact" with you, although Disney's characters are animated.
A bittersweet time, to be sure. While I am definitely excited for the new ride (and will almost surely use it as an excuse to return in 2016), there will be a rather large part of me that misses the Maelstrom. And I sincerely hope that this isn't a new trend for Disney -- and that most of the Pavilions in the World Showcase stay devoted to cultural authenticity (or, at least as much authenticity as the miniature Disney version has ever managed to package in a few gift shops and restaurants).
The guy above is Chernabog. Also known as "The Super Creepy Evil Guy from that Fantasia segment."
This is one of the floats from Walt Disney World's (now retired--RIP) SpectroMagic parade. In all honesty, it is one of the creepiest electric parade floats Disney has ever made. (And this is a parade which contains the creepiest, glowing, grinning, spinning clowns in existence. *shudder*) It always frightened me.
“The segment in question is “Night On Bald Mountain,” named after the music of 19th-century Russian composer Modest Mussorgsky, which the entire segment is set to.Night On Bald Mountain” centered on a dark winged demonic creature who was literally the size of a mountain, who raised spirits from the dead. The spirits then dance, fly around through the air and enjoy a night of mayhem until they are forced to retreat as the night ends and the sun begins to rise. Although the winged creature seems to be a representation of Satan, he’s actually a demon with the awesome name Chernabog."
The Nerdist speculates that this adaptation might "follow in the vein of Maleficent so expect a script where we find out that Chernabog isn’t really evil, just misunderstood." It's an interesting theory...and one which I hope doesn't pan out, if only because I like my villains to be, well, villainous.
Plus, unless you're going in a Paradise Lost direction, I'm not entirely sure how you humanize a demon since they're...you know...demonic. Apparently, though, the scriptwriters are the ones who wrote Dracula Untold which, while I haven't seen purports to do exactly that: humanize the demonic. *sigh*
The full clip from Fantasia can be seen below--so judge for yourselves!
Unlike Maleficent and Cinderella before it, the film will follow in the footsteps of its animated counterpart by being a musical.
And while I remain a little skeptical about the singing ability of the main characters -- Emma Watson, Dan Stevens and Luke Evans, if only because I haven't heard them sing -- I'm super excited about the supporting cast. And this news seems promising.
First, there are going to be three new songs in the movie -- and they're not going to be songs from the musical. (Not that that's a bad thing; the songs in the musical are fine...but not as memorable as the songs from the film. Maybe that's just because I love the film-music so much.)
Second, one of the songs, "Days in the Sun," is going to be a lullaby "about all of the castle’s enchanted objects remembering what their lives were like as humans before they were transformed by the curse." In a way, I hope that this replaces "Human Again" (from the musical and a deleted scene on the DVD) because it just...didn't do it for me. Plus, if you cast Audra McDonald as Mme de la Grande Bouche, you should give her every opportunity to sing.
Finally--and perhaps the most interesting bit of news to come out of the interview with Menken -- is the song "Forever More," which replaces a song from the musical, "If I Can't Love Her":
According to Menken, the reason for this is:
The idea that "the Beast's moment in the film is a much later moment" is particularly interesting, and I'm curious as to how it will play out. What is the Beast's moment? Is it later than it is in the musical, or in the animated film? I'm really hoping there'll be some subtle, but important, changes to the animated film script -- at least with The Beast's characterization.
What's a couple of groups of Broadway performers to do when they're stranded at LaGuardia?
Start a sing-off, naturally:
I just gotta say -- nothing like this ever happens when I'm stranded at airports. (I would probably fangirl all over the place if it did, so maybe that's a good thing.)
It's been a while since I honored Throwback Thursday, but here's to renewed intentions:
circa 1990 -- me, my little brother, and my dad at Chef Mickey's Restaurant. This was back when Chef Mickey's was a stand-alone restaurant in the Disney Shopping Village (back when Downtown Disney was called that) and before it was shoved moved to the Contemporary Resort.
It may be a bit hard to tell in the photo, but I'm holding a stuffed Lady and my brother is holding Tramp. We each got one stuffed animal per visit. :)
Now, Tangled is one of my favorite Disney movies. Rapunzel is pretty high up on my list of favorite Disney characters -- #3, behind Elsa (#1) and Tink (#2). It was always one of my favorite fairy tales, but I love the Disney version -- due in no small part to Mandy Moore and Zachary Levi. (Seriously. How ADORABLE are they??) I love the music, I love Rapunzel's spunkiness, and I love, love, love the lantern scene. After all, "I See The Light" was the song my husband and I danced to for our first dance at our wedding.
So when I read that the Disney Channel was making a TV series, I'll admit I rolled my eyes and sighed a little.
BUT. Then I read that not only have "Mandy Moore and Zachary Levi have signed on to reprise their roles" but also that "The duo responsible for the movie’s original score, composer Alan Menken and lyricist Glenn Slater, also will serve as songwriters on the series." That in and of itself is a pretty big deal.
But it gets better. Not only are we introducing a new character, "Cassandra" who is a "strong-willed handmaiden who also serves as Rapunzel’s confidant" but here's a brief summary of the plot:
“Her irrepressible spirit and natural curiosity about the world drives her to the realization that there is so much more she needs to learn before she can truly accept her royal destiny. She boldly puts her crown and impending marriage on hold to seek out epic adventures, much to the dismay of the King who, after missing out on Rapunzel’s youth, must accept that his daughter is now an independent young woman.”
For the Disney Princess franchise, this is kind of a big deal. The TV series will take place after the movie but before Flynn & Rapunzel's wedding (from the short "Tangled Ever After"). The implication is that, as the plot summary states, she "puts her crown and impending marriage on hold to seek out epic adventures." That is, we'll get a Disney princess who, despite some progressive moves (she wielded a frying pan!), was still firmly relegated to the traditional Disney princess sphere of love and marriage. When I put on my Critical Cap, one of the things that strikes me the most about Tangled is that Flynn Rider controls the story -- and at the end, he reassures the reader that despite the fact that Rapunzel is going to be a great queen, don't worry -- they got married and live happily ever after. An innocent, romantic ending perhaps, but there's also the potential to read that as the patriarchal voice shifting focus away from the female-as-ruler and placing her back in the safe, domestic role of wife. And then, the focus of the short is, of course, their wedding.
But this TV show proposal changes all that. Or, at least, expands the story and Rapunzel's character to be more consistent with the progressive character we initially see in the film. The fact that she's deferring her marriage to explore the world and discover herself is an amazingly progressive role for a Disney princess. (I know the summary blurb also mentions that she defers her crown but that really doesn't make much sense. After all, her parents are still alive, and thus the rightful rulers of the kingdom. She should, in theory, only be able to take the crown once they've passed -- and, as the plot summary mentions the King's disapproval, it seems to indicate that we'll keep our nuclear family intact -- again, another "different" move for the parent-killing Disney storytellers.)
I have such high hopes for this show -- which, maybe I'm setting myself up for disappointment, but I think Rapunzel could have the potential to be another Elsa in terms of independent princesses.
