Parenthood is hard, y'all.
Thursday, August 31, 2017
#disneymomlife
There's a Disney moment for everything -- including how I feel after two weeks with a newborn and a toddler. I love my kids...but I miss sleep.
Monday, August 28, 2017
Rumored Name Change for Hollywood Studios
Okay, so all of this is largely unconfirmed rumors at the moment, but with Disney, most rumors turn out to be at least somewhat true in the end so...I'm going to go ahead and vent about this.
With all the changes/renovations/closures going on at Hollywood Studios (Star Wars Land, Toy Story Land, the closing of the Great Movie Ride -- I'm still not ready to talk about that last one *sob*), Disney is apparently considering one more: a name change to the park.
[Sidebar: it's also, according to this article from Madison.com, the least visited park which...hurts my heart. Granted, the article doesn't include any actual numbers or cite any data, so it's not the most credible source, but it claims that Hollywood Studios has been "the place that has been dead-last in attendance among Disney World's four theme parks for the past few years" and that "it will no longer be ridiculed as a half-day park." I had no idea that it was either "ridiculed" or "considered a half-day park." Of the four, I definitely consider Animal Kingdom to be the half-day park, at least for adults, because until recently, there hadn't been a night-time show, so we always left around lunchtime. Of course, I'm the person who could ride Tower of Terror 20 times in a row and I also love all the shows at Hollywood Studios, so clearly I'm a bit biased. Plus, having Fantasmic there ensures we stay there most of the day. Ugh.]
ANYWAY. I digress.
The point is, now they want to change the name. Which...okay. I get. (Although, I still call it MGM because that was the name when I was little, and that's what it will forever be in my heart.) They're completely overhauling the park (*sob*) and changing it's "function." From what I understand, the park was opened in the early 1990s mainly to compete with Universal Studios, offering a "behind-the-scenes look" at movies/film/Hollywood. That's why you had attractions like The Great Movie Ride (*sob*) and the Stunt Show (my little brother's favorite because "cars") and The Backlot Tour. (I still remember thinking the Golden Girls house was a real house. Nope.) But even Universal has changed now (Hi, Wizarding World of Harry Potter) and the schtick doesn't work. They even used to do some animation at Hollywood Studios, and I remember taking the animator tour where you could watch the animators at work.
But these alleged names? Are HORRIBLE.
According to ThemePark Insider, the full list of potential names includes:
Just no, Disney. Just no.
With all the changes/renovations/closures going on at Hollywood Studios (Star Wars Land, Toy Story Land, the closing of the Great Movie Ride -- I'm still not ready to talk about that last one *sob*), Disney is apparently considering one more: a name change to the park.
[Sidebar: it's also, according to this article from Madison.com, the least visited park which...hurts my heart. Granted, the article doesn't include any actual numbers or cite any data, so it's not the most credible source, but it claims that Hollywood Studios has been "the place that has been dead-last in attendance among Disney World's four theme parks for the past few years" and that "it will no longer be ridiculed as a half-day park." I had no idea that it was either "ridiculed" or "considered a half-day park." Of the four, I definitely consider Animal Kingdom to be the half-day park, at least for adults, because until recently, there hadn't been a night-time show, so we always left around lunchtime. Of course, I'm the person who could ride Tower of Terror 20 times in a row and I also love all the shows at Hollywood Studios, so clearly I'm a bit biased. Plus, having Fantasmic there ensures we stay there most of the day. Ugh.]
ANYWAY. I digress.
The point is, now they want to change the name. Which...okay. I get. (Although, I still call it MGM because that was the name when I was little, and that's what it will forever be in my heart.) They're completely overhauling the park (*sob*) and changing it's "function." From what I understand, the park was opened in the early 1990s mainly to compete with Universal Studios, offering a "behind-the-scenes look" at movies/film/Hollywood. That's why you had attractions like The Great Movie Ride (*sob*) and the Stunt Show (my little brother's favorite because "cars") and The Backlot Tour. (I still remember thinking the Golden Girls house was a real house. Nope.) But even Universal has changed now (Hi, Wizarding World of Harry Potter) and the schtick doesn't work. They even used to do some animation at Hollywood Studios, and I remember taking the animator tour where you could watch the animators at work.
But these alleged names? Are HORRIBLE.
This will be the retheming of Hollywood Studios and possibly new name, via Disney Parks survey. pic.twitter.com/4ENXr72tPs— DisCounselor Dan (@DisCounselor) August 26, 2017
- Disney Kaleidoscope Park
- Disney Storyverse Park
- Disney Hyperia Park
- Disney Beyond Park
- Disney Cinemagic Park
- Disney Legends Park
- Disney XL Park
- Disney Cinemagine Park
Just no, Disney. Just no.
Monday, August 14, 2017
Unique Vintage -- Disney Villain Connection
I know I've said this before, but people looove them some Disney Villains -- for probably the same/similar reason that there's so much Slytherin love.
So I'm surprised-not-surprised to see that Unique Vintage has a new, Disney-Villain inspired collection:
I'm more of a Tinkerbell/Elsa kind of girl, but that Cruella De Vil inspired outfit is amazing.
Friday, August 11, 2017
The Disney Connection -- Mulan, Transgenderism, and the Military
I'm always amazed at how many "things" Disney is/can be connected to. That is, how many people turn to Disney to understand things, or reference things. (I realize "things" is a very vague word, but forgive me: pregnancy brain.)
Case in point: this article from The Mary Sue:
The post itself is a great read, although the title isn't that great. When it initially popped up in my newsfeed, I rolled my eyes and internally screamed, "MULAN IS NOT TRANSGENDER!" This isn't the first time I've gone all Angry Capslock when it comes to this discussion -- there are a few, older scholarly articles about Mulan that seem to conflate "cross-dressing" and "transgender," almost equating the two. And while this makes for great class discussion, it still irritates me to hear Mulan described as transgender. After all, a transgender person is one who (not to oversimplify it) feels a disconnect between their biological sex and their gender identity. Mulan has no such disconnect: it's not like she was born a woman but wants to be a man; rather, she's criticizing the restrictions placed on her for simply being a woman in Chinese society. Big difference.
So I was glad to see that this Tweet was at the heart of the article:
And much like Jusino points out, I'd also agree that she's not even really a cross-dresser -- as in, she's not someone who, left alone, would don men's clothes/armor. When she goes back home at the end of the movie, it's significant that she's wearing female dress, not the male armor she wore while with the army. Even when she goes to the Imperial City, she's dressed like a woman -- a decision made, I think, to emphasize the female nature of her heroism.
The rest of the article is about educating yourself in our current climate, so that you're informed and knowledgeable when you say stuff online (I know, I know) but the Disney connection was intriguing to me -- especially since this is something we've often discussed in class when watching Mulan. And I always love it when things we discuss in class appears in a "popular" medium, since it shows that these topics, these discussions, these ideas aren't relegated just to the Ivory Tower of Academia.
Case in point: this article from The Mary Sue:
The post itself is a great read, although the title isn't that great. When it initially popped up in my newsfeed, I rolled my eyes and internally screamed, "MULAN IS NOT TRANSGENDER!" This isn't the first time I've gone all Angry Capslock when it comes to this discussion -- there are a few, older scholarly articles about Mulan that seem to conflate "cross-dressing" and "transgender," almost equating the two. And while this makes for great class discussion, it still irritates me to hear Mulan described as transgender. After all, a transgender person is one who (not to oversimplify it) feels a disconnect between their biological sex and their gender identity. Mulan has no such disconnect: it's not like she was born a woman but wants to be a man; rather, she's criticizing the restrictions placed on her for simply being a woman in Chinese society. Big difference.
So I was glad to see that this Tweet was at the heart of the article:
👏MULAN👏WAS👏NOT👏TRANS👏GENDER👏SHE👏WAS👏A👏CROSS👏DRESSER👏PLEASE👏STOP👏 pic.twitter.com/UZDsJs40IK— Vamp 🍬 (@vampkandy) August 6, 2017
And much like Jusino points out, I'd also agree that she's not even really a cross-dresser -- as in, she's not someone who, left alone, would don men's clothes/armor. When she goes back home at the end of the movie, it's significant that she's wearing female dress, not the male armor she wore while with the army. Even when she goes to the Imperial City, she's dressed like a woman -- a decision made, I think, to emphasize the female nature of her heroism.
The rest of the article is about educating yourself in our current climate, so that you're informed and knowledgeable when you say stuff online (I know, I know) but the Disney connection was intriguing to me -- especially since this is something we've often discussed in class when watching Mulan. And I always love it when things we discuss in class appears in a "popular" medium, since it shows that these topics, these discussions, these ideas aren't relegated just to the Ivory Tower of Academia.
Good, Evil, Beautiful, Ugly -- Plotting Game of Thrones Characters
I'm absolutely fascinated by this article from The New York Times that popped up in my Facebook feed the other day: "Good, Evil, Ugly, Beautiful: Help Us Make a ‘Game of Thrones’ Chart."
Basically, it's an interactive chart that allows you to assess each character based on their "goodness" and their "attractiveness" -- e.g., Cersei is, arguably, beautiful but batshit crazy and super-evil.
Yes, this is purely for Game of Thrones, but I'm fascinated by the overall project. After all, both attractiveness and goodness, especially with regards to fictional characters in a complex fantasy world, are highly subjective.
For example: my Best Friend and I take completely different stances on Danerys Targaryen. I would place her in the "Beautiful and Mostly Good" category, since I'm #TeamTargaryen and am rooting for her. But the Best Friend would probably place her in the "Beautiful but Kinda Evil" category, since she's #TeamStark.
But what do you do with characters like the White Walkers? I mean, sure. From our perspective, they should be Evil, because they're killing the characters we've grown attached to. But what if they feel like they're justified?
And what do we do with someone like, say, Jamie Lannister? Or Arya Stark? Both characters started out firmly in one camp -- Jamie was bad (he pushed a kid out of a tower!) and Arya was good (she was an innocent little girl). But the morality lines have definitely blurred...Jamie's redeemed himself in a lot of ways (mainly through his friendship with Brienne) and Arya is literally an assassin. Not so clear-cut.
I mean, characters like Ramsay and Joffrey -- that's pretty obvious. But not for everyone. (Which is part of what makes good fantasy so...well, good. And important for younger readers.)
The article does point out that this isn't a static exercise: that it was inspired by a Instagram post of a scatter plot that has already changed over the seasons as characters act and react to plot events. But the key point was this:
To me, there's the connection to Disney -- and the Villain-centric course I've been teaching these past few semesters. After all, according to the idea I kinda ascribed to above -- i.e., that good fantasy gets at complex portrayals of characters, blurring the lines between morality and between morality and appearance -- Disney movies (most of them) are not "good fantasy." (See also: something like Harry Potter, where Snape is perhaps the ultimate example of an unattractive-but-ultimately-good-but-still-does-super-questionable-things character.) Definitely something Disney doesn't do -- at least in it's earlier films, where evil is pretty much always "unattractive" (according to the standard of the day -- there's a big difference in the unattractiveness of Cruella de Vil vs. Ursula) and good is always beautiful/handsome. Newer Disney movies are starting to challenge this -- e.g. Hans in Frozen didn't look like a "typical Disney villain" -- so I'd be fascinated to see what a Disney version of this would look like.
[But fairy tales are also not traditional fantasy -- the functions of the stories are completely different. What gets really interesting, to me, is when we look at the Disney adaptations of traditional literary fairy tales -- do we view a film like Beauty and the Beast as a fairy tale or as a children's fantasy movie?]
Basically, it's an interactive chart that allows you to assess each character based on their "goodness" and their "attractiveness" -- e.g., Cersei is, arguably, beautiful but batshit crazy and super-evil.
Yes, this is purely for Game of Thrones, but I'm fascinated by the overall project. After all, both attractiveness and goodness, especially with regards to fictional characters in a complex fantasy world, are highly subjective.
For example: my Best Friend and I take completely different stances on Danerys Targaryen. I would place her in the "Beautiful and Mostly Good" category, since I'm #TeamTargaryen and am rooting for her. But the Best Friend would probably place her in the "Beautiful but Kinda Evil" category, since she's #TeamStark.
But what do you do with characters like the White Walkers? I mean, sure. From our perspective, they should be Evil, because they're killing the characters we've grown attached to. But what if they feel like they're justified?
And what do we do with someone like, say, Jamie Lannister? Or Arya Stark? Both characters started out firmly in one camp -- Jamie was bad (he pushed a kid out of a tower!) and Arya was good (she was an innocent little girl). But the morality lines have definitely blurred...Jamie's redeemed himself in a lot of ways (mainly through his friendship with Brienne) and Arya is literally an assassin. Not so clear-cut.
I mean, characters like Ramsay and Joffrey -- that's pretty obvious. But not for everyone. (Which is part of what makes good fantasy so...well, good. And important for younger readers.)
The article does point out that this isn't a static exercise: that it was inspired by a Instagram post of a scatter plot that has already changed over the seasons as characters act and react to plot events. But the key point was this:
"In a way, how the characters are distributed in the plot speaks to how we (or the show’s creators) view the nature of goodness. If the characters lie along a diagonal line from the bottom left to the top right, it means that — whether in how they are depicted or just our perception — we may be conflating moral and physical goodness. If, on the other hand, there's no real trend, it suggests that readers can easily disentangle their perceptions of morality and physical attractiveness." [my emphasis]
To me, there's the connection to Disney -- and the Villain-centric course I've been teaching these past few semesters. After all, according to the idea I kinda ascribed to above -- i.e., that good fantasy gets at complex portrayals of characters, blurring the lines between morality and between morality and appearance -- Disney movies (most of them) are not "good fantasy." (See also: something like Harry Potter, where Snape is perhaps the ultimate example of an unattractive-but-ultimately-good-but-still-does-super-questionable-things character.) Definitely something Disney doesn't do -- at least in it's earlier films, where evil is pretty much always "unattractive" (according to the standard of the day -- there's a big difference in the unattractiveness of Cruella de Vil vs. Ursula) and good is always beautiful/handsome. Newer Disney movies are starting to challenge this -- e.g. Hans in Frozen didn't look like a "typical Disney villain" -- so I'd be fascinated to see what a Disney version of this would look like.
[But fairy tales are also not traditional fantasy -- the functions of the stories are completely different. What gets really interesting, to me, is when we look at the Disney adaptations of traditional literary fairy tales -- do we view a film like Beauty and the Beast as a fairy tale or as a children's fantasy movie?]
Thursday, August 10, 2017
Disney FanArt Drop
Still one of my favorite things from the D23 Expo this year.
And I love that the artist captured/translated their facial expressions. 💖
 |
| 📷: Nin (@rirrr1731) via Disney Memes |
#TBT
I'm not ashamed to admit that I obsessively enthusiastically play Disney's Emoji Blitz game on my phone. TBH, it's probably the app that drains my battery life the most. Yes, I'm obsessed with collecting all the emojis so that I can text my husband and friends with a Mickey Mouse angry face instead of the yellow emoji faces that Apple provides, but since the games are timed at 60 seconds, playing a few rounds makes for a good work break.
But now I just sound like I'm justifying and rationalizing. Whoops.
ANYWAY. Point being--when the game does "events," it makes it more entertaining -- sometimes they're for holidays, sometimes they're "Beat the Villain" events, and sometimes they tie into upcoming Disney media releases (this summer alone there was a Cars and a Pirates of the Caribbean event, both coinciding with the release dates of the films).
But--the 90s Kid in me was SUPER excited to open up the app this morning and see the tie-in for the new Ducktales show:
Because the Disney afternoon line-up -- Ducktales, Darkwing Duck, Rescue Rangers and Tailspin -- was my jam when I was younger.
Thanks, Disney, for tapping into my childhood nostalgia!
But now I just sound like I'm justifying and rationalizing. Whoops.
ANYWAY. Point being--when the game does "events," it makes it more entertaining -- sometimes they're for holidays, sometimes they're "Beat the Villain" events, and sometimes they tie into upcoming Disney media releases (this summer alone there was a Cars and a Pirates of the Caribbean event, both coinciding with the release dates of the films).
But--the 90s Kid in me was SUPER excited to open up the app this morning and see the tie-in for the new Ducktales show:
Because the Disney afternoon line-up -- Ducktales, Darkwing Duck, Rescue Rangers and Tailspin -- was my jam when I was younger.
Thanks, Disney, for tapping into my childhood nostalgia!
Tuesday, August 8, 2017
Lion King Casting News!
New casting news for The Lion King "live-action" film: Alfre Woodard will voice Sarabi, Simba's mom, and John Kani will voice Rafiki. I'm a fan of Alfre Woodard -- she was fantastic in Luke Cage -- but I'm less familiar with John Kani. Although IMDB tells me they were both in Captain America: Civil War and it seems like Kani is involved with Black Panther, so Yay! Marvel?
Still no word on the voice of Scar, though!
 |
| 📷: Entertainment Weekly |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)