Tuesday, October 31, 2017

Halloween Treat, Disney Style

Well this looks delightfully appropriate for Halloween. If only I had the free time to try to make it! 

Saturday, October 28, 2017

Subtext: Disney Is For Little Kids

I've been seeing this commercial a lot on TV lately...which must mean it's airing on TBS (we watch a lot of Big Bang Theory reruns), the SEC network (my husband is a South Carolina football fan) or HGTV (we're Basic white people; this one's self-explanatory):



Now, don't get me wrong: I like Universal Studios and I love the Wizarding World of Harry Potter (obviously). 

But this ad really grinds my gears. I mean, I get it. It can't be easy to be a theme park in Orlando. Busch Gardens is in Tampa; Sea World has the whole marine mammal/sea life thing going for it; and let's not forget the, ahem, unique schtick the Holy Land Experience has going for it. But Universal, until recently, had it pretty rough; it must be tough to be an entertainment-based-theme-park-in-Orlando-that's-not-Disney. The two are fairly similar -- theme parks + themed hotels + downtown shopping area + water park -- but the power of Disney is just...overpowering.

So I get the ad campaign. I do. You have to differentiate yourself from Disney somehow and, yes. Universal targets an older demographic: here are more thrill rides and coasters; Halloween Horror Nights is no Mickey's Not-So-Scary Halloween Party; the Dr. Seuss area of Universal is pretty much the only "kid" area; and kids probably graduate from Disney movies to Harry Potter books.

The implication of the commercial though is that Disney is only for little kids -- that you can "outgrow" Disney: "Kids grow up; so do vacations." Which...makes me bristle and make this face:


I won't lie and say that I didn't go through a "I'm-too-cool-for-Disney" phase; mine hit around late school and ended freshmen year when I took my First Year Seminar at UNC and realized that people could study things like Disney and Harry Potter for a job. But even then, I was never too old for a Disney vacation. When my younger brother had a soccer tournament in Orlando, I always tagged along. My mom and I would visit all of the parks -- we rode The Hulk when it first opened at Islands of Adventure; rode the Jaws and Back to the Future rides at Universal when they were still there; and we had to buy these awful pajama pants at Sea World because we got soaked on their water ride -- but we always saved the Magic Kingdom for last because...well, because it was so darn magical.

And that was before Disney upped their game. Now, some of the best restaurants in Florida -- some of the best in the country -- are at Disney World; no greasy theme park fast food here. The Food & Wine festival at EPCOT is one of the biggest crowd draws in the Fall -- especially for Florida residents. And Disney has made a conscious effort to appeal to couples/adults rather than just families and expanded their Fairy Tale Wedding packages.

At the end of the day, it's just a commercial and I know that. It's not going to change my mind about Disney and I certainly don't underestimate the power of Disney to instill a life-long love in the tiniest of humans. But that doesn't mean that "grown-up" vacations can't include days at both Universal and Disney. 

Thursday, October 26, 2017

Once Upon A Time -- Hyperion Heights

Confession: I've been a fan of ABC's Once Upon A Time before it even aired. A show about Disney-versions-of fairy-tale-characters who were living in a modern setting? SOLD.  I loved everything about it -- especially Lana Parilla's Evil Queen/Regina. Seriously. IMHO, she was the best part of the show. (Folks at The Nerdist agree too.)

I even stuck with the show when it got a bit ridiculous. I mean, I know shows "jump the shark" after a certain point, and when you're dealing with fairy-tales and fantasy, that's almost inevitable but...still. I could have done without the whole foray into the Land Of Untold Stories, and I'm pretty sure the addition of Jasmine, Aladdin and Jafar in season 6 was kinda pointless.

So when I read that the show was basically rebooting for this season -- with most of the major cast members leaving -- I was skeptical. Wouldn't that normally be the kiss of death for a show?

But I just watched the season premiere tonight and I gotta say: this might actually be a good thing for the show:


  1. Both Lana Parrilla (Regina) and Robert Carlyle (Rumple) are still around, which phew. (So is Hook, but IDK why he's there so the show's got some explaining to do on that front.)
  2. Henry Mills is all grown up -- and literally a different actor. Nothing against Jared Gilmore -- he was a great child actor -- but I felt like the show didn't really know what to do with him after a point. (See: The Author storyline.) Now that he's the focus, and portrayed by someone else, the character can grow.
  3. I'm intrigued by the shift in the central story from "Snow White" to "Cinderella" -- if not a little skeptical. Yes, Snow White was Disney's first film but Cinderella is by far the more popular story. I'm curious to see their take on it.
  4. I really like the new supporting characters -- including Reign's Adelaide Kane as Drizella. Although--where is Anastasia? Why is there only one wicked stepsister (who may or may not be actually wicked)? And her American accent game is on point. 
But the thing that I appreciated the most -- as a children's literature scholar and all-around fairy tale nerd -- came fairly early in the episode. Original Henry is talking to Regina about why he's not going to college and instead taking a gap year to go explore other fairy tale realms. I don't remember the exact line, but he basically acknowledges that there are so many other versions of the stories that he didn't know about -- like a French Snow White, an Italian Snow White, etc. Yeah, he makes it about him -- he's not in any of the other stories and wants to know why -- but I think this acknowledgement of other versions of the fairy tales is a big deal: critics love to lambast Disney for overshadowing those other versions and, in their minds, erasing them. 

There's also another moment, when New-Henry meets New-Cinderella, and he tells her he has to help get her story back on track. She asks if her story has a happy ending -- do these people know they're characters from stories? I'm not really clear where the show landed on that -- and he tells her that yes, it does: in most versions, the prince has to find her first, so she leaves him a sign, in this case the glass slipper. It's subtle, yes, but again, it's an acknowledgement that there are other versions of these stories than the one that comes to mind when you say "Cinderella" or "Snow White." 

Kudos, Disney. Or, well, Kudos, writers. 

Friday, October 20, 2017

The Little Mermaid -- Broadway Version

Last night, my husband and I had Date Night (rather a big deal when you have "two under two"). We're season ticket holders at DPAC, and last night was Disney's The Little Mermaid.

Now, y'all should know by now that The Little Mermaid is my favorite Disney Princess movie, so to say I was excited is probably a bit of an understatement:



But I was even more excited by the fact that, after seeing a regional production in Raleigh, I was pretty sure the Disney Powers-That-Be had their writers read academic criticism of The Little Mermaid and fix  most of the issues critics had with it.

And after seeing the National Tour, I'm convinced of it. (There's a paper/conference presentation in here somewhere...) Here are some of the things I noticed:

  1. The Broadway version (BV) establishes fairly early on that Eric feels more at home at sea than he does on land -- he specifically says that he'd rather be a sailor than a prince -- and he wants a girl who can swim/would feel at home on the ocean.
    Given that this is paralleled by Ariel's desire to be a part of the human world, I think it works to establish their similarities -- they both feel out of place in their world, and long to be a part of the other's world -- as well as emphasize how well-suited they are for each other. When they end up together, Ariel won't have to completely give up her family, because Eric feels so at home at sea.
  2. Triton has more depth as a father. Whereas in the film he comes off as a domineering ruler first and a father second, here he's humanized a lot more. His role as the single-father-of-7-teenageish-girls is heightened, and you get to see that he's struggling with how to raise them -- especially the rebellious Ariel. He wants to do right by them, and protect them, but they're at an age where he just doesn't know what to do.
  3. The whole play takes place over a year -- bookended by Eric's birthdays. IDK if that helps much, in the grand scheme of things, but it does make Ariel's decision to join Eric a little less impetuous. 
  4. The theme of tolerance-of-differences and prejudice is super-heightened: there's a lot more talk of "hating humans" and "all humans are evil" based on the actions of a few. 
  5. We do get an answer as to why Triton hates humans so much -- he believes they killed his wife -- so cross that off the list of criticisms.
  6. We also get an answer as to why Ursula was banished and why she hates Triton so much -- and this is probably my favorite improvement from the animated film. While I still don't get why Ursula is an octopus if she's related to Triton and the other merfolk -- maybe it's like a Wicked thing, where Elphaba is born green? -- their familial connection does explain the tension and animosity. And "Daddy's Little Angel" is the best musical addition to the BV -- it's a whole song about how Ursula killed her 6 older sisters in order to inherit the throne, but forgot about her baby brother (Triton) who grew up to take it from her because, you know, she was intent on evil misdeeds.
    Sidebar: in the original version of the BV, Poseidon had just two kids, Ursula and Triton. Upon his death, he gave Ursula the shell and Triton the trident and told them to split the oceans and each rule half. Ursula got greedy, wanted to be sole ruler, so Triton banished her. Apparently, this wasn't well-received -- or well-conceived? -- so they tweaked the backstory. I gotta say: I like the tweaked version better. After all, it heightens the parallels between Ursula and Ariel -- the 7th daughter, different from her sisters, misunderstood by her father...
  7. In the end, there is no melodramatic scene where Ursula steals the trident and Eric goes after her and they have the weird, dramatic sea battle while Ariel lies helpless at the bottom of the sea. It's a little clunky and rushed, but Ariel definitely has a more active role and saves herself: she steals Ursula's shell -- the source of her power -- and smashes it, breaking the spell and destroying her power. 
Lots of improvements, at least based on academic criticisms. In fact, the only thing that I wasn't a huge fan of was this whole "Cult of the Good Mother" thing -- the idea that the dead mother is this pure, powerful figure who would make everything better if she were there and whose absence drives a surprising amount of character actions. Triton invokes her -- only by her role: he refers to her as Wife and Mother, not by her name -- when he's turning to Sebastian for help: he says something like, "If only their mother were here, she'd know what to do, what to say to her, how to make everything right." And then again, at the end, when it's revealed -- Spoilers -- that Ursula was the one who actually killed Triton's wife (why or how remains unclear), this is what motivates Ariel into action. Not being tricked by Ursula, not her father giving up his power -- the invocation of the dead mother. 

Which...sure. On the surface not a bad thing...but I feel like I'm more aware of how mothers are portrayed in the media these days and anything that excessively glorifies motherhood as this natural, easy thing....makes me twitch a little. I appreciate movies like Bad Moms and TV shows like American Housewife because they de-romanticize motherhood and get at the idea that motherhood is hard. For some people, motherhood may come easily -- but the level of selflessness and self-sacrifice that parenting -- and especially motherhood -- requires is glossed over quite often. There is no magic moment that, once they put that baby into your arms, you suddenly know how to do everything and you have all the answers. So, sure. Ariel and her sisters probably would have benefitted from having their mom around, but that doesn't mean she would have had all the answers or known exactly what to say to Ariel or how to "handle" her rebellious nature. Maybe Ariel's mom would have been just as frustrated as Triton was. Maybe -- okay, probably -- she would have been constantly fighting over something with her SEVEN daughters: the only semi-perfect mother/daughter relationship I know is the one between the Gilmore Girls. 

But, hey. This is Disney, so maybe Ariel and her mom would have gotten along just fine. 


Monday, October 16, 2017

Disney-Bounding -- Tinkerbell

A few classes ago, a student asked me if I dressed like a Disney princess on purpose. (I hope this was a compliment.) I said I didn't, and it's true. I don't consciously dress like a Disney character to go to work, but I'm sure the Disney movies I grew up on and the characters I adored subconsciously influence some of my fashion choices.

Due in part, I think, to the popularity of Dapper Days as well as the Disney rule that anyone over the age of 14 (how arbitrary!) can't dress like a Disney character in the parks (lest it confuse the tiny humans) unless it's at the Halloween party, there's been a uptick in DisneyBounding. What is DisneyBounding? Basically, it's dressing like a character -- being inspired by them -- but not wearing an identical costume. Check out a few examples here, but Googling and/or Pinteresting will yield copious examples.

I was thinking about that again this morning when, because of the rainy forecast, I threw my hair up in a top-bun. I've never been a girl who spends a ton of time on her hair or makeup, probably because I never really "learned" until I got to college. That was never something my mom taught me -- if I needed make-up done, we went to the Clinique counter at Belk -- and my high school friends were similarly disinterested. And my swimming friends -- well, I think we all realized the futility of spending 20-30 minutes after morning practice blow-drying and straightening our hair and applying make-up when it would all be undone 6-7 hours later during afternoon practice. The number of times I went to school with sopping wet hair...

But I digress. My point is that, yes: the top-bun is easy and fast (although it probably takes me much longer than it should) but it has the added bonus of making me feel like Tinkerbell. I know that Disney critics and scholars probably have their opinions about the Disney version, but I don't care. She's my favorite. She's blonde and sassy and petulant and a little bit vengeful. So if I ever stumble on a green dress suitable for teaching, you bet your bottom dollar I'll buy and proudly wear it to teach:


I'd probably substitute the wings for a sensible cardigan though. 😉

Confession: I have never DisneyBounded at a Disney Park, mainly because I have too many geeky Disney shirts and I prefer comfort over style when I'm spending 12+ hours on my feet in the Orlando heat & humidity. But maybe now that The Dress Shop is open at the Disney Parks it'll be easier to coordinate? 

Disney Weddings: Beauty and the Beast

I'm a sucker for a Disney-inspired wedding -- especially in October, when my own anniversary rolls around.

Fun Fact: in addition to dreaming about a Disney proposal in front of Cinderella Castle, I always adamantly told jokingly teased my dad that I wanted a Disney wedding. And I did...until I got engaged and started planning my own wedding. I mean, a "normal" wedding gets expensive real quick -- especially if you come from a family of New Yorkers who firmly believe that wedding guests should be taken care of if they attend your wedding (i.e., more than enough food and an open bar) -- but a Disney wedding? Is on another level.*

If you want the true fairy tale -- i.e., in front of the castle, rolling up in Cinderella's coach -- it's something to the tune of $75,000. Minimum. For the ceremony alone. The other dream locale is the Grand Floridian Wedding Pavilion, which I'm sure has a similarly exorbitant price tag. (There are ways to bring the cost down -- limit the number of people, have it on a weekday, have a brunch, etc. -- but, to me, none of those really said "fairy tale.")

*faints*

Yeah. I don't have that kind of money.

But some people do, so until we win the lottery and renew our vows, I'll be jealous of live vicariously through other people's weddings.

Like this Beauty and the Beast inspired one on the Disney Style blog: DECADENT.




*For a more scholarly approach see: Levine's "Fractured Fairy Tales and Fragmented Markets: Disney's Weddings of a Lifetime and the Cultural Politics of Media Conglomeration."

Friday, October 6, 2017

New Disney YAH Starbucks Mugs

DAMMIT DISNEY. JUST TAKE ALL MY MONEY ALREADY.

Okay. If you know me at all, you know that two of my favoritest things in the world are Starbucks & Disney. (Coincidence that both Magic Kingdom and Starbucks opened in 1971?! Yeah, probably. But still. These are two companies that would basically become the pinnacle of customer service and I like to think that that's kismet.)

Anyway. We all know my heart exploded the day Disney & Starbucks announced their partnership -- for the obvious reason ("these are a few of my favorite things") but also because there would finally be good coffee in the Disney parks.

And, like the good little Disney consumer that I am, the Disney YAH Starbucks mugs are the perfect souvenir, and we proudly own all of them. (Except the discontinued EPCOT mug. That was, perhaps, a bit of an overreaction -- it was just a mug -- but it's become a hot collector's item, so yay consumerism.)


I mean, yes. I freely admit that I'm a sucker for Disney merchandise -- and, now that I'm #adulting, I lost most of my self-consciousness about it. If I want to wear a Magic Kingdom 40th Anniversary track jacket out to Target, I'll do it thankyouverymuch.

But, some context: before I ever met my husband, I collected Starbucks mugs. They made a nice souvenir, and a practical one at that. Then, after my husband and I had our first date in a Starbucks, bonding over our mutual love of hand-crafted espresso beverages, expanding that collection became a nice way to remember our adventures. (Most of our mugs come from places we've been; but one of my best friends, who travels far more extensively than I will ever get the chance to do, has brought us back some amazing ones.)

I freely admit I'm not the biggest fan of the You Are Here mugs; I much prefer the older style. But I don't mind them for Disney mugs. Their bright colors and cartoonish look "fit" the Disney aesthetic much more than they do the mugs of big, urban metropolises.

Of course, now that Disney has released a new set of YAH mugs for each of the parks, I have to find a way to somehow get my hands on them. *sigh* Why are they so pretty?!

📷: Starbucks-Mugs

#fbf

I was all set to do a #tbt post yesterday, until Facebook reminded me that October 6 is the day we had our Disney engagement photos done. So it seemed more appropriate to do a #flashbackfriday post instead.

So--five years ago today, I road-tripped down to Orlando with my husband and our moms. We did the Food & Wine Festival, Mickey's Not-So-Scary Halloween party *and* my fairy-tale moment: Disney engagement photos:

c. October 2012

In front of Cinderella Castle. Forever one of my favorite memories. 

Also this:
















Please to note the cast member with the balloons leaning in so the balloons would be in our photo -- and then the end result with the balloon backdrop. We didn't ask her, she just offered up a little bit of extra Disney magic. ✨

Will Bob Iger Step Down?

This is Bob Iger, the current CEO of the Walt Disney Company:


Hi, Bob!

Iger has been the CEO of Disney since 2005, when Roy E. Disney (Walt's nephew) successfully ousted Michael Eisner. Now, I have many thoughts on Eisner, and very few of them are positive. I do acknowledge that Eisner becoming CEO in 1984 was a movie that absolutely saved the company from bankruptcy: he helped revitalize the animation department and brokered some shrew financial deals. BUT -- and this is a huge but -- all magic comes with a price, and some of the changes Eisner implemented are just distasteful to me. For some reason, the FastPass system is one of them. I know it seems ubiquitous now, but if Disney hadn't led the way, would some version of it be in every theme park? And, yes. I take full advantage of it now, and book my FastPasses and have few qualms about skipping the line -- especially on Thunder Mountain, because that line is SO BORING to wait in. But one of the things that separates Disney from, well, everyone, is that their rides are so intricately tied into the stories they tell. Some would call this opportunistic, some would praise the synergy of Disney's marketing, and that's fine. But the point is that when you ride a Disney ride, you're not just riding a coaster -- you're riding a coaster with a story that you can immerse yourself in. And part of the joy of visiting a Disney park is experiencing that story with your family -- and that story is often told while you're waiting in line, with your family. Skip the line and you skip the story and the bonding time with your loved ones. And that is a very un-Disney thing. 😢

But I digress. Like, a lot.

The point is that there are reports that Iger has said he's stepping down from the CEO role -- and means it. Now, he's said 2019 is his end date, so who knows? A lot can change by then.

But. If he does step down...well, I think we have a right to be hesitant and concerned about what this means for Disney. While you could say that Iger has done similar things as Eisner -- after all, like Eisner, he's taken the company to a new financial level by acquiring both Marvel and LucasFilm and, also like Eisner, he's overseen the opening of an international park (Eisner had Disneyland Paris, Iger had Shanghai Disney)  -- he's done so in a manner that somehow seems true to Walt's vision and "feel" for the company. And the fact that he was approved by Walt's nephew carries a great deal of weight for me. (The whole drama is fascinating to me -- I highly recommend reading up on it, or reading Roy E. Disney's resignation letter to Eisner.)

Regardless...I'll be curious to see who's tapped for his replacement...