Disney Artwork -- Isaiah Stevens, Part II

The next installment of "Disney Princesses As..." is brought to you once more by Isaiah Stevens (who brought us "Disney Princesses as Mothers"). This time, Stevens has imagined the disney royals as characters from the film, The Notebook. (I went through a Nicholas Sparks phase in college; most of his books were set in North Carolina and I liked that familiarity. But then they got a little...predictable and I stopped reading.) While I prefer A Walk To Remember (I do adore Mandy Moore), I know The Notebook has a cult following.

You can heck out the full set of works on Cosmopolitan's site or follow him on Instagram, but here are a few of my favorites!

Ariel and Eric in the iconic scene -- this might be my favorite.

Kristoff, Hans, and Anna -- although Anna looks really...mean here.

Jasmine and Aladdin:

R. I. P. Tower of Terror -- You Can't Compete With The Power of Cross-Promotion

One of my favorite memories of our honeymoon at Disneyland was when my husband and I rode the Tower of Terror. It's my favorite ride in all of Orlando (I think it's my husband's second favorite? "Escape From Gringotts" at Diagon Alley in Universal might be his new top pick...) and there was no way we weren't going to ride it.

Like many rides in Disneyland, Tower of Terror is just different enough to keep you on your toes. The first time we rode it, we didn't know that of course -- we assumed the ride itself would be just the same. NOPE.

We were sitting in the front row, just hanging out, when the doors open.
In Orlando, you move forward -- to the front of the ride and it's all dark with sparkly stars. THEN the drops start.
In Anaheim...everyone behind and around us was fidgeting and giggling and we were all, "Um, guys? Chill. We've still got a few seconds here."
And then we dropped.
And we screamed.
And then we laughed because OF COURSE they knew better than we did, but it was almost better that way because it was a new ride experience for us and that was awesome.

Great anecdote, Lisa -- but what does this trip down memory lane have to do with anything? 

ComicCon was this weekend -- a BFD in the world of pop-culture for all the trailers that drop, panels that are convened, and exclusive information that's released. Much of the Disney related news (a new Doctor Strange trailer, Brie Larson as Captain Marvel, Once Upon A Time's foray in Agrabah) isn't really relevant to my thoughts here (maybe the OUaT news). What is of interest, though, is this news about Disneyland Park:

via D23

The iconic Hollywood Tower Hotel -- a.k.a. the Tower of Terror ride -- isn't going to be the Hollywood Tower Hotel anymore.

Nope. Instead, it's going to be "Guardians of the Glaxy Mission: Breakout!" or some such nonsense.

Look. I get it. Guardians of the Galaxy was a huge success for Disney -- given the fact that it starred a talking raccoon and a tree -- proving that films outside of The Avengers franchise were worth the investment. I also get that they're looking at this as part of a new expansion to California Adventure, like Marvel-land or whatever. Which...cool. Awesome. You want to expand, Disney Imagineers? I believe you're up to the challenge. (My map-obsessed-husband says you have the space to expand, so I'll believe him.)

But, to me, that is simply not enough to warrant taking a successful attraction and imposing a new narrative on an existing ride track (I assume) just to benefit from some cross-promotion (Guardians 2 will hit theaters in May of 2017, after all) and merchandizing (but will you be able to buy any Gamora merchandise?)
Maybe if the ride/attraction was struggling, it'd be a different story.
Maybe if it was a temporary overlay, like the Star Wars' themed HyperSpace Mountain at Disneyland, it'd be a different story.

As one of my friends pointed out on Facebook:

"What bothers me is that they are stripping away what makes going to the parks a unique and different experience than the movies. As a kid I wanted to go to Disney because it was something I couldn't get from the movies or tv network. They had rides and attractions that you could only get there. Tower of Terror was one of those rides I remember opening and being excited because I had to go there to experience it. I find some of the new rides like The Little Mermaid, Nemo, and probably Frozen annoying because it's just the movie. I've seen your films, give me something different."

Eloquently, and succinctly put. It's exactly what bothered me about replacing Maelstrom with the Frozen ride -- especially since the ride itself doesn't wow me. It's not the movie, but it's nothing overwhelmingly unique and special either. Like my friend, I'm disappointed with Nemo whenever I ride it (that's it? really? the line to the ride is more engaging) and I think I only enjoy the Little Mermaid ride so much because I love the music and the movie. While it's true that some of the "classic," older rides at the Disney Parks are basically "just the movie," there's still something unique about them -- or maybe that's the nostalgia talking. Take "Peter Pan's Flight" for instance: that basically just recaps the highlights of the film...but you're on board a "flying" boat. 

But when a ride outlives its attraction-potential, it simply gets rebooted. (Why are we all about the reboots these days?!) "Mr. Toad's Wild Ride" became "Winnie The Pooh." "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under The Sea" became "Finding Nemo" at Disneyland and New Fantasyland in the Magic Kindgom. Maelstrom became the Frozen ride. I can't attest to the first two--but Maelstrom was still popular (or, at least, popular enough for EPCOT; not nearly as popular as Frozen is, that's for sure). And so was Tower of Terror. 

We're already planning our next (tentative) trip to Disneyland -- it might be before, but we definitely want to go for the 75th Anniversary: our daughter will be 14 then and it hurts my heart to think that we'll ride this Guardians ride and explain that, once upon a time, it was the Tower of Terror ride which she knows and (hopefully!) loves in Orlando. 

Please don't take away my Tower of Terror in MGM, Disney. I'm not sure even my loyalty will stretch that far. 

New Moana Trailer!

You guys. I've said it before -- I'll say it again. Moana is going to be a beautiful film.

It's more of a clip than a trailer -- showing baby Moana (merchandise gold, amirite?) discovering she can control the ocean -- but it's beautiful and gorgeous and I can't wait for this movie. 

Please, please, please give us a strong heroine, Disney. 

Theme Park Travels: Nickel and Dimed, Part II

Last week, I composed a fairly long post about the differences (that I saw) between Busch Gardens Williamsburg and Disney parks. It was inspired, as I mentioned last week, by a comment my husband made about feeling "nickel and dimed" at Busch Gardens -- a feeling we don't usually get at Disney parks.

Disney, and I'm not sure if it's completely fair or not, gets a bad rap for how much it costs to visit the parks. All you have to do is a quick Google search:

This is in response, I think, to some new changes being made at the parks -- changes that I haven't experienced firsthand, since our last trip was in the fall of 2015. An article from WDW Info (the first link on the Google results page) seems to have sparked a lot of the discussion, and it's an interesting take....again, I haven't experienced them firsthand, so my "data" might be a little outdated.

But, let's break down my most recent trip to Busch Gardens. (If I had thought ahead, I would have taken more photos as "evidence" -- live and learn. Next time.)

Theme Park Travels: Nickel and Dimed, Part I

Last week, in lieu of a 20-year high school reunion, my husband's friends got together for a week-long vacation/reunion in Williamsburg, Virginia. Cricket Bug is still a little young for a week-long vacation (plus, the amount of "stuff" we'd have to travel with!), so my husband and I just went up for a night. We ate a fantastic meal at The Hound's Tale (if you're ever in Williamsburg, I highly recommend it) and walked around Colonial Williamsburg at night. (Which, apparently, you can do: I suppose since nothing is open, why not?)

Okay, that's great. But this is a blog about Disney, and last time I checked, Disney isn't in Williamsburg, Virginia.

True. They're not. (Although, a Disney theme park in Virginia almost happened. With fun places like "Slavery-Land"! Can you imagine?)

Anyway. Back to how all of this relates to Disney. Sunday morning, before the reunion dinner, we went to Busch Gardens.

We're both...let's say "theme park enthusiasts" (rather than "theme park junkies") and can't really pass up an opportunity to visit one.

Four years ago, for the Fourth of July, we went to Carowinds for the day. (Our original plans fell-through; it was a spur-of-the-moment trip.) The coasters were great, but the overall park experience was...not. The entire time, we were basically complaining comparing it to Disney.

Unfair? Maybe. But when you go to order lunch and (1) the "restaurant" is out of everything except hamburgers (no hot dogs, no chicken sandwiches, no salad--just hamburgers) and (2) the clearly bored teenage cashier ringing you up tells you to "hold on" while she finishes her text/tweet/who knows, well...it's kind of hard not to compare.

And we found ourselves doing the same thing at Busch Gardens. On the way to the park, we were actually trying to figure out where, in The Theme Park Hierarchy, Busch Gardens ranked. Clearly above Carowinds; yet also clearly  below Disney.

But Disney is the one who is scrutinized for everything -- it's the Disney park prices that are reported on every time they increase; the Disney films and merchandise that are critiqued for being "too much" and for being "a shameless marketing ploy." That's not to say to that other parks aren't criticized -- for some reason, it's just not as heavily.

Maybe it's because Disney is the one that sets the bar: every one else is just "copying."

This was quite evident at Busch Gardens:

• Disney: has MagicBands, their super convenient, all-access pass: it's your ticket, your FastPass, your room key, your credit card--it's the only thing you need on property.
  Busch Gardens: has Cashless Wristbands (not nearly as catchy a name), which is basically just a credit card (not as convenient as a MagicBand), perhaps so you don't have to worry about carrying (and losing) a wallet. 
• Disney: has Photopass Photographers, strategically stationed around each of their four parks in "Kodak picture spots" (at least, that's what they used to be called, back when they were sponsored by Kodak). They're in front of Cinderella Castle, Spaceship Earth, and the Tree of Life -- but also in less iconic spots, all to capture your vacation memories. And the thing is? They're NEVER intrusive -- they never ask you if you want your picture taken.
  Busch Gardens: also has photographers, a.k.a. PhotoKey, and it works the same way. It's cheaper than Disney ($60 for a "day" pass, but then $200 at Disney gets you all the photos from the entire duration of your stay, so...) but the thing I noticed? These photographers don't just walk around quietly, waiting for you to approach them; while they're not exactly pushy, they definitely approach you and ask, forcing you to politely decline. They also didn't seem to be in the best locations -- there was one at the front of the park who asked us to pose for a photo, but after we declined, I looked around and said to my husband, "There's nothing special around here!" Not even a sign that said "Busch Gardens." Take the selfie above -- there were specific "photo spots" on the bridge, but not a photographer. (Hence the selfie.)
• Disney has FastPass+ (the tickets that allow you to essentially "cut" the line); Busch Gardens has Quick Queue (more on this later). 

I can't say for sure that all of these features at Busch Gardens came after Disney...but I think they probably did. And yet Disney is the one criticized, and the one that gets accused of trying to "nickel and dime" you. More on that specific subject here, since this ended up being a little bit longer than I had originally intended. 

Update Your Christmas List: Lego is Releasing a Cinderella Castle Set

...and no, I don't mean the one that already exists:

 PC: Target

That is Cinderella's "Romantic Castle," and is only 646 pieces -- plus, it's meant for ages 6-12. Key word: meant. 

(Okay. I don't actually own this one. But I do own the Frozen ones. Don't judge. Much like Disney, Lego is for kids of all ages.)

The thing about the Disney Legos is that they're unequivocally for girls: they're in the pink boxes (much like the Lego fairies in the purple boxes) and are often found in the "girl toy" aisle. Even at Target, which notoriously took a stand against gender labeling, the Disney Legos aren't with the other (re: boy) Legos, they're with the girl toys. Only one aisle over, to be sure--and you could probably make the argument that there's just no room, but why aren't the Star Wars Legos in their own aisle?

I digress.

Starting September 1st, you can buy a legit, grown-up, beautiful Cinderella castle set from Lego:

PC: GeekDad

 Look at this thing--it's absolutely beautiful.

And Definitely not for kids -- the ages on the box say "16+" and at 4,080 pieces, it's got over 6x the number of pieces of the "Princess castle." (Of course, it's Disney, so the price tag has gone up as well: at $350.00, it's about 6x the cost as well. At least they're consistent?)

But look at the detail!

PC: GeekDad

It's not just a hollow facade--there's an open back with fun details like a glass slipper, a magic mirror, Sleeping Beauty's spinning wheel, and Aladdin's lamp!

PC: GeekDad

I know what my husband and I will be getting each other for Christmas this year...

...to see more of the high-res pics, visit this post by the GeekDad website.

Finding Dory (Review)

**Disclaimer: Less of a review; more of a meditation on certain characters.

This past weekend was the Fourth of July, and we were lucky enough to go down to my parents' condo at the beach. We were even luckier to have my mom go with us -- and babysit Cricket Bug while we had "Date Night." And, like the mature, adult couple that we are, we went to go see Finding Dory.

Photo via TeaserTrailer.com

Truth Talk: I know a lot of people were super excited for this movie but we...weren't. I'm not sure why. Maybe because I prefer Disney Animation Studios movies to Pixar ones -- even though I acknowledge that Pixar films have traditionally been superior in terms of originality, message, and stye. (I really do believe that recent films like Wreck-It Ralph and Zootopia are challenging that. Especially since I didn't think that The Good Dinosaur was very good. At all.)

Maybe it was because Finding Nemo was released during my "Disney meh" phase and while I enjoy it, it's not a film I have a deep emotional connection with. 

Maybe it's because I thought Dory was a great supporting character, but I didn't feel a strong need for a stand-alone movie devoted to her.

Maybe it was because the trailer seemed like it was basically Finding Nemo all over again. (It wasn't--I think maybe that was a deliberate choice to capitalize on the nostalgia for Finding Nemo.)

But, we see every Disney movie that comes out, so this was a no brainer. 

I'm not sure if I've mentioned this before, but when I see a Disney movie, it's very hard for me to turn my "academic" brain off. Even when we went to go see Frozen, there was the part of me that was excited to see a Disney Princess movie, and then there was the part of me that was evaluating the film as part of the Disney Princess franchise. 

Same goes with Finding Dory. Finding Nemo is popular with my students, and I've had several students write about the characters and their various differences? Handicaps? I don't want to call them "disabilities," because the great thing about the film is that the characters aren't limited. So I was curious to see if and how Finding Dory would approach the same issue.

Going in, I didn't know much about the plot. I really only knew what I had read from two posts/articles. One, was a Facebook post that a friend of mine shared about the film being a trigger for  adopted children. I'm not an adopted child, so I can't pretend to understand or predict what reaction a child would have--so I won't comment on that. The other, though, was an article from The Huffington Post, titled "The One Glaring Problem With Finding Dory." (I later read a similar piece, "Finding Dory Is Perfect, Except When It Isn't.")

Happy Fourth of July From Our Disney Baby!

 Blogosphere, meet Clara "Cricket Bug" Cole!

She's finally starting to smile on a regular basis and starting to show some personality--but it's hard to capture it on camera. I think when I hold the phone up to take a picture, it breaks her view of me and I lose the smile. While I was lucky to get this smile, it's made me think about how much she sees me on my phone/holding it up. My 10-month old nephew already reaches for an iPhone and recognizes that it's something to hold/interact with. And while I know that digital literacy is a skill that she'll have to learn at some point...I don't know. I don't want her to think that it's a life essential.

Either way, Happy Fourth from our patriotic Disney baby -- the first of many Disney outfits she'll wear in her life!