Disney Villains Parody/Cover One Republic

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

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

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

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

Why Disney Princesses Make Crappy Friends

It's funny because it's true.

Post by BuzzFeed Video.

Snow White -- Blank Slate or Fairy Tale Flatness?

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

Reductive, simplistic readings annoy me.

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

Inside Out US Teaser Trailer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Changes to Walt Disney World

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

(c) 123disney.com

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

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

(c) wdwnt.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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