Literary Critic; Disney After Dark by Ridley Pearson

Original post: http://thereader101.blogspot.com/2014/11/literary-critic-disney-after-dark-by.html

Hello, I'm the Literary Critic. I read it so you don't have to. Can we talk about Young Adult fiction for a moment? I mean, the genre is basically a brand these days from John Green to The Hunger Games. And while lots of YA is very good, there is also a butt load more that suck. Now don't get me wrong, every genre includes sucky titles. But YA seems particularly prone to the suckiest of them all. Why is this you might ask? Well, I think there are an array of reasons beyond all of our comprehension but the main reason that I've noticed is an author's ability to write down to readers. They don't try to write a genuinely good novel but write a silly story because it is assumed that kids and teens will drink that crap up. And that is just not true. Sure there are kids who enjoy the bad books but if they take an interest, how can we fault them? But there are many kids who seek good literature and lean toward adult novels to do so because the books in their age group have no appeal and just aren't good. And that isn't how it should be. A book should be good on it's own and not have to stoop down the story.
Oh, you think I'm wrong? You think these books don't exist? Well, they do dammit! Have you ever read Bridge to Terabithia or The Secret Garden or Sarah, Plain and Tall or Holes or The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe or Harry Potter or Skellig or Matilda or...I think you see my point. So what do all of these books have in common? Well, they are good pieces of literature. They appeal to children's imaginations yet the writing holds up. The characters are developed and complex and the author is taking a simple story and painting it as a beautiful artwork. Yes, that is literature, and YA literature at that and it is so damn good! But lots of YA doesn't fall into this category. Why? Because lots of books seem to think that because they are in the children's or YA category, they don't need to write credible scenarios or unique characters. As long as there is an adventure, kids will eat it up. And that is a big issue in my opinion. I take issue when adults say, "well at least they're reading." Kids shouldn't be subjected to lazy writing. They should get a book that took the time to really write a good book and not just because it is for kids.
Now I know what you may be thinking. I'm a 24 year old woman. Why would I be reading books below my age group? Well here is the problem: books can be written toward an age group but should not be limited. This goes for all art. Sure there are shows like Barney that aren't necessarily good but that show is aimed to teach kids things like colors and rhymes and numbers and has no real merit beyond that...and even the characters on Barney are more unique than those in some YA books. But look at another series called American Girl. Those books could easily be looked at as marketing strategies to sell more dolls and make more money but if you actually sit down and read the books, they are actually very well done. Sure the writing isn't perfect but there are never any inconsistencies, the characters are well developed and you learn a lot about culture and history along the way. I read them last year and really enjoyed them. Sure they had their problems but all books have those. My point is, there is a difference between a children's book and a childish book. The first being a genre and you can expect fantasy and lots of hypothetical situations but altogether fun, the second being poorly written and the author being outright lazy because of the genre.

So with that in mind, let's talk about the first book of seven (there are seven books of this garbage??) in the Kingdom Keepers series titled Disney After Dark. Okay so what is this book about? Well we begin with a boy named Finn. He is the typical handsome white male who lives in Florida and is pretty famous because of his role at the Disney Parks. Finn along with four other kids, whose names I can't recall because they are all so boring and generic, are DHI's which stands for Disney Host Interactive. The kids are essentially actors and they have filmed scenes where they talk about rides and the park. These holographic images are then digitally projected in the parks for guests who need help. One night, something acts up in the Disney servers and Finn's dream becomes a reality when he finds himself at the park in his DHI form after he goes to bed and the park is closed. There he meets Wayne, the obligatory wise old man, who cryptically talks to Finn even though he has no reason to. We learn that the parks are in trouble and that the DHI's are the only ones who can save the parks, and apparently the world. That's right. The DHI's must defeat Disney villains come to life because they want...what else? World domination...because that isn't cliche. Anyway, Finn seeks help from a girl in his school named Amanda who is keeping a secret of her own. Oooooh, mysterious! With Amanda's help, the DHI's try to solve a mystery that will bring peace back to the parks and let them sleep without entering their DHI forms ever again.
The premise sounds a little rough but not too bad. I was interested when I read the back cover of the book. The book had some good parts...or, well a couple. Okay two or three. The concept of the DHI's is cool and questioning technology and our relationship with it is awesome. At one point Amanda sees a theme park goer walk through a DHI hologram and comments that it is rude and I thought it was awesome that this book may be asking the reader to question her logic. Like, is it actually rude when the DHI's aren't actual beings but just projected images? But the book never really got to that place again. And okay, parts of the ending I didn't see coming. But this book still sucks. Boy does it deserve to rot in a garbage dump. This book was so bad that I actually wanted to kill myself. And let me mention that I hate suicide notions and never make them...except this one time because it is necessary. I mean, I really wonder if the author had a hat full of plots and just reached in for an easy explanation or a random piece of generic dialogue or some kind of crap to end the chapter. The entire book was so ridiculous and contrived that this wouldn't surprise me.
Let's talk about the characters first because they were by far the worst part of this book. First off, what utter vanilla characters we were given. I like to think of all of them like balls of grape jelly...or, whatever jelly you want to imagine. It doesn't matter to me. There is no authenticity or character integrity to them. They just shape into the form the author desires. If the author wants a suave character, he's got it. If the author wants a fighter, he's got a fighter. But when you remove the jelly from it's fighter or suave jar, it will never stand on it's own. It will always fall flat. And that is essentially what these characters are, flat. Between the rotten dialogue and horribly forced interactions, one wonders how this book was even published in the first place. I mean, what sort of person would allow this junk to print?...Let's look at some direct quotes, shall we?
At the end of one of the chapter's, a woman isn't taking Finn seriously because of his age. She notes he is 13 and Finn corrects her, "14. I will be 14 next month." So wait, you are 13 then? Well isn't he a smart character. When someone states his age he feels a need to correct that person that they are right yet it is supposed to come across as smart. Yeah...cause that isn't stupid. I mean, why would this piece of dialogue be allowed in any text? I feel disgusted just featuring it in my review. Here is another example of the stiff dialogue. Finn is looking for clues with another DHI and says, "Hey guess what? We haven't got a clue." The other DHI then responds in annoyance, "That's a sick joke." Wait so, that was...a joke? Am I too old to get it? Or are these kids smoking something?
But my favorite quotes by far were from conversations between Finn and Amanda. I mean, these don't get any dumber. And it isn't just their dialogue, it is the narration and the ridiculous story that they are placed into. The story sets it up as if Finn and Amanda only know each other from passing in the school halls or having a class or two together. When Finn asks her for help...*POOF*...they are suddenly destined to be a romantic item. Finn will be confused by Amanda's girlish wit and Amanda will be jealous when Finn talks to any other girl. How adorable. I love teenage romance. My favorite TV station is ABC Family and the Lifetime Network. There is a part where the two are riding bikes and the narration goes, "Amanda stayed in the lead on her bike. Thankfully, she hadn't asked any questions, and he took this as a sign they were becoming really good friends." A silent woman! Men love these! Don't speak your mind girl, Finn likes it. It makes him feel much more comfortable than having to explain himself to you. A passage like this could be viewed as subtle and quite good but it just doesn't work with these characters. They are the most vanilla of the bunch yet we spend the most time with them! They also constantly contradict themselves. In this passage Amanda isn't upset with Finn for not telling her anything yet just a few chapters ago she was fuming at him for the same thing. And Finn contradicts himself within a page and a half when he states he respects the one DHI for being smart and then says how annoying his smarts are. WHY DO THESE CHARACTERS HAVE NO CONSISTENCY???!!!! WHERE IS THE DEPTH?? WE DON'T NEED MORE STEREOTYPES!!!
Even the adults are black and white cliches. Take Finn's mother for example. She is the mother that cries when her son goes anywhere with a girl. Oh Finn got paired with a girl in science. I bet they will get married! My boy is growing up! His mother also asks questions and grounds her son yet doesn't follow up when necessary. Like the entire book is her grounding Finn but when Finn starts breaking the most rules, she is out of the picture. She is only included when it is convenient for the plot. How nice. But Finn's mother isn't the only suspicious adult. All the adults are suspicious and not in a credible way but again just for the sake of the plot. Even when Finn asks an innocent question they are on to him like dogs sniffing for drugs. Finn could have asked for a strawberry ice-cream cone and they would reply, hey punk why don't you order vanilla to match your personality?
Oh, and I forgot to mention that Finn's lady friend is not only vanilla but angelic. Yep, she is literally an angel. The book goes out of it's way to establish that Amanda lives in an old church and tries to set up beautiful imagery but I think it is safe to say the author just flew too high without a parachute. I mean, what Ridley Pearson did to Amanda is identical to what Stephenie Meyer did to Bella in Twilight. It just isn't good writing and completely missed the mark. Speaking of missing the mark, let's talk about the author setting up situations and not tying them up at the end. I already talked about Finn's mom and her lack of parental control when it is beneficial to Finn's plot. Let's talk about a scene in one of the early chapters of the book. Finn and Amanda visit the parks one day without permission (Finn needs to carry a special pass with him when he visits the parks because he is a DHI) and are chased by a bunch of security guards. Amanda angelically saves them by finding a secret passage way and they narrowly escape the guards. Once the guards that were chasing them walk away, Finn and Amanda walk out into the open and suddenly everything is normal. I'm almost positive they go and get ice-cream or something along those lines (I can't check the source material because I threw that book away the moment I finished the last sentence so I apologize for that). So...wait, isn't Finn wanted still?...won't other security guards see him?...how can he magically be wanted one minute but off free the next?....oh screw continuity. Let's just let the kids have fun at Disney World even though it contradicts the entire chapter we just read. No big deal.
This is one of the many plot holes in this book. Other plot holes include the fact that Maleficent magically comes to life yet Finn and the other DHI's actually see people dressed up in Mickey and Cinderella garb. How does that work? Well...it doesn't quite frankly. The ending was atrocious. The story essentially breaks the law of physics when Finn can suddenly become a DHI anytime he wants and at the end of the book he simple spins around and *POOF* the spell is broken. The story never was set up to be a fantasy. It is set up as science fiction where a person can enter another realm. How easy of the author to switch genres for plot convenience. It is the sign of poor writing and poor plotting. And I bet you thought this book couldn't get any worse, right? Well you are dead wrong because it can! This author has no basic knowledge of Disney history and Disney World. At one point he refers to the Hollywood Studios nighttime spectacular as "Fantasmics" instead of "Fantasmic". Good job buddy. You have absolutely no concept of your source material. Always the sign of a good author.
This book is awful! And I know awful! I read Twilight. And this was worse! I feel like the author is trying to get us to purposefully dumb ourselves down. This Night at the Museum recreation is full of contradictions, bland characters, over dramatized situations, and stab you in the eye dialogue. The book should have a warning on the back that the side effects of reading it include self harm, please keep all readers away from sharp objects and prescription drugs. Between the forced relationship between Finn and Amanda and the awful one liners, I was lucky to not bring a gun to my head. This has to be one of the worst books I've read in a long while and to think it is a series is mind boggling. I wouldn't return to this series if my life depended on it!
The only part of this book I enjoyed was the first paragraph of a later chapter on page 244 and it says, "The transportation and ticket center hummed with conversations as a tangle of park visitors shuttled between buses and monorails. Some families were ending their days just as others were starting theirs. On a Monday afternoon, thick with humidity, the tired and impatient mingled with the exhilarated and anxious. For some, a day spent; for others, an evening full of promise. The humidity hung in the air so heavily you could practically wear it like a coat." Okay, why couldn't the entire book be like that one paragraph? It was a diamond in a whole lot of rough.
What do I think of this book? Well, it pretty much blows. It is the worst bunch of words splattered on paper. I've never wanted to barf so much in my life. This could be the book that would turn kids off to books...like when you visit a fast food chain and vomit and vow to never go there again. Well this is the vomit that scares a kid from reading and makes them think it is stupid. There are some good moments...well two to be exact, which is not enough to redeem this awful awful excuse for a book. A stupid movie I could see. But a book? This is just despicable. 1 out of 5 stars from me.

To whom it may concern: This review was a parody of two things, 75% Nostalgia Critic and 25% Literary Disco podcast. This review most definitely reflects my views though I expressed them in the form I was parodying.

Disney's Small One Short Film Review

Small One is one of the first projects Don Bluth was in charge of. It is a short film made by Disney and centers around a donkey named Small One. You don't have to look far to see how Small One got his name, for he is very small compared to the other donkeys. Because of Small One's size, he cannot perform the quality of work that is required of him. Although he is loved by his master's unnamed son, he provides little reasons to be kept. His master decides that Small One must be sold which greatly troubles his son. When he explains his reasoning, the son volunteers to take Small One into town and sell him to make sure he goes to a good home. The father agrees and the rest of the short follows the son's day in town and finding Small One a home.
I really liked this short. I didn't love it because there were a lot of problems with it but for what it offered I found it to be very solid. One thing I appreciated was that the film revolved around a biblical story. Usually Disney shies away from out right recognizing any religion and goes with cultural/social norms of the day. It is no surprise to me that Bluth was involved in this project as it is widely known that Bluth like taking Disney in uncomfortable territory (not a bad thing) and ultimately left Disney because they played safe instead of making quality films. One of the films Bluth worked on was The Fox and the Hound which is a cute film and one I adore but not necessarily a good product. Bluth went on to start his own animation studio and dabbled in more controversial areas. He came back to a religious theme with his film All Dogs Go To Heaven.
Of course it isn't just the theme that makes it a good short but the quality story telling that goes on. Bluth sets up a very biblical and literary plot by taking common ideas like the number three and anonymity and using them to not only advance the plot but artistically depict the story. For example, the son goes through three trials to find Small One, a home - the first being the encounter with the man who kills animals for their fur, the second being the people in town (specifically the auctioneer), and the third being the shepherd. Then there is the anonymity theme which I love. Or may be

anonymity is the wrong word and perhaps the right phrasing would be that the film is allowing the audience to put the pieces together. They aren't spoon feeding the audience. It is obvious from the character design and the presence of the donkeys and the animation of the setting that this story is biblical. It probably was also obvious by the time of year it was released. I'm completely unaware how Disney marketed the short but I'm guessing it played on ABC at least once during the holidays. Anyway, keeping all of that in mind the short never once tells us who the shepherd is that ends up buying Small One. Everything is implied through visuals which I found to be very clever.
I guess my biggest problem with the short was the center part when the son is trying to sell Small One. There is a continuous song being sung through these scenes partially by the son and partially by three men who seem to represent the greed that exists in the world. Don't get me wrong, this idea appeals to me since Christmas has become very greed ridden but I'm not sure we were so aware of the greed when this short was made. However, whenever these three men sang I just wanted to fast forward. They were annoying and not very well set up...and borderline racist. I'm not sure what could have been done differently to fix this but it was just something that bothered me.
Overall, the short was really cute and well thought out. The characters were pretty generic and others outright annoying. The pacing in the middle became a bit of an issue and the music never stood out. While the animation was simple grade B/C quality, I have to give the studio and Don Bluth credit for the effort. It definitely captures the quality of old school Disney and you can tell they are still trying to find their place after Walt's death. I would definitely recommend this short to you.
Be sure to watch the short HERE and listen to our new Christmas themed episode of Talk Magic to Me where we discuss Mickey's Christmas Carol.

The Gospel According to Disney by Mark I. Pinsky

Original post: http://thereader101.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-gospel-according-to-disney-by-mark.html
 

When I was 15, I attended church camp for a second time. As much as I want to go into great detail about my experiences there, I will spare you the reader and get to the point that relates to this book review. My friends and I were at evening chapel, soaking in what the Pastor was saying. Suddenly, he stepped aside and the lights dimmed. The screen lit up in a blue glow and once our eyes adjusted it became apparent we were watching a clip from a Disney movie...and not just any Disney movie but The Lion King, one of my all time favorites! What does The Lion King have to do with church? I asked myself. Let me paint the scene for you. Simba has just reunited with his childhood friend who believed him to be dead and confronts him with his past that he thought he left behind him. Angry, confused, and lost Simba walks to the water and stares at his reflection in the water. Suddenly, the peace is disturbed by the wise old Rafiki who tells Simba he knows he is Mufasa's boy. When Simba tells him his father is dead, Rafiki disputes him and tells him his father is alive and he can see him if Simba follows Rafiki. Simba follows and they arrive at another body of water. Rafiki tells Simba to look and when Simba looks at the water, he only sees his reflection. Rafiki urges him to look harder and suddenly Simba is starring at the image of his father. Then Rafiki says the iconic words, "You see, he lives in you." There is a loud rumbling and in the sky stands Mufasa, urging Simba to stop running from his past and to take his place on Pride Rock as King. When Mufasa's ghost fades, Rafiki furthers his message by saying, "Oh yes the past can hurt, but the way I see it you can either run from it or learn from it." Hans Zimmer's score beautifully clashes with the African choir as Simba makes his decision to return to Pride Rock. Tears welled up in my eyes. A great deal of my emotion stemmed from the nostalgia I was feeling. But it was also more than that. I had never known that faith could be seen through "secular" entertainment. Yet here was a perfect example. The Christian symbolism was so clear to me at that moment and it is one of the defining moments of my adolescence for it is the moment that inspired me to study other entertainment and look for hidden meanings in other media I encountered. I began searching for books that discussed this topic of Christian symbolism in Disney films and soon came across this book, The Gospel According to Disney by Mark I. Pinsky. I couldn't wait to read it.
This book is not what I expected at all. While the title implies that the author will be picking out bits of the gospel that are ingrained in Disney films and discussing them, it is quite the opposite. The book begins with a long chapter discussing Walt Disney's relationship with Christianity and faith in general. It takes a deep look at Walt's childhood that greatly summarizes the man the public came to know and either adore or despise. The book then goes into separate chapters discussing a different movie each chapter. Part one of the book focused on the films that were made while and a little after Walt was alive. Part two focuses on the Michael Eisner years. Once again, Pinsky provided a good look at Eisner's relationship with faith. It then goes into a bit about the theme parks and the Baptist boycott. 
Critical reviews of this book are very positive while the reviews I saw online were extremely negative. This made me wonder a great deal, for I was on the latter side. I did not think this book was very good. But I think it is the title that either helped the book or made people cringe at the book. I already stated what I expected this book to be. However, I realize the title can be read another way. Rather than picking out the deeper Christian gospel messages of these films, this book gave a detailed look at Disney's relationship with culture and general religion. It didn't really look for the deeper messages but at surface level material - what Disney the company did, what it would look like if people clung to the films as a religious entity, etc. While this was also a good approach, it has already been done before. None of Pinsky's chapters looking at these wonderful films wowed me or moved me. The only chapters I took great interest in were looking at Walt's life and Eisner's life, the theme parks, and the Baptist boycott. Those chapters contained worth while substance. The rest of the book...not so much.
One huge fault of the book is Pinsky's constant lengthy summaries of each movie he talks about. Literally every chapter is a frame by frame look at the film in question. As an English major in college, I was taught that when you write an essay you should always avoid giving the summary of said subject. The person who is reading your essay or group of essays will most likely be reading it with knowledge of the content beforehand. They don't need to hear it again, they just need to hear your analysis. And if the chapter didn't contain a summary, it was Pinsky bitching about the movie's lack of political correctness. I gained nothing from these chapters which was extremely disappointing.
Another huge fallback of the book was it's lack of even addressing the gospel at all. The chapters talked more about Disney and culture and went on more about tropes and stereotypes. We get it! People talk about this all of the time. Why do we need to hear about it again? Chapters such as Alice and Wonderland and Aladdin never mentioned the gospel once. It made me question why I was continuing with the book when it wasn't even addressing the subject it claimed to tackle in the actual title! And there were a few mistakes made throughout the book as well. The one I can remember off the top of my head was in the Alice in Wonderland chapter when Pinsky kept calling Alice's older sister her governess.
And finally, the book's biggest mistake has to be the title. The word "gospel" should not be in it. It is misleading and insulting to the actual Christian gospel. Rather, the book should be titled Religion According to Disney. The book's focus on religious culture and culture in general combined with no focus on any specific faith tells me this book was not about any gospel. It is about organized religion.
This book disappointed me on multiple accounts. It is a real shame because I think there is a lot of potential in looking for the Christian gospel in Disney films but Pinsky went the cynical route. The fact that he didn't take advantage of what could have been some excellent analysis is just inadequate. 
In short, this book is a compilation of what has already been said and done before. It added little to no new or interesting commentary to these excellent films.
I can't help but compare this book to a similar book I read earlier this year titled The Wisdom of Pixar by Robert Velarde. That book not only looked at Christian wisdom but philosophical wisdom and it took that knowledge and applied it to the Pixar movies. It dissected Pixar and showed where the gospel was hidden and what we as Christians or general audience can gain from it. This does not happen in The Gospel According to Disney and this is what I wanted and expected and I don't think I am alone in feeling this way.
Overall, this book wasn't very good. There were some interesting chapters about Walt himself and the Disney company outside the movies but it really was poorly structure otherwise. For what the book was going for, it wasn't a terrible book. It did a fair job at illustrating how Disney became the almost religious icon that it is today and explained the morals Disney films present that fans live by. But the glaring problems like the misleading title, the semi-present gospel analysis, and the consistent dull summaries were what I would expect from an amateur. I will give this book 2.5 out of 5 stars.

The Nostalgia Critic's Disneycember

Nothing gets me quite as excited as hearing the words, "Hello I'm the Nostalgia Critic. I remember it so you don't have to." The Nostalgia Critic is arguably the best YouTuber I've ever watched and indeed one of the best critics. His real name is Doug Walker and his black comedic and satirical reviews began in 2007. He reviews movies and TV from the 80's and 90's and man is he popular. I've always been a fan of his work but until recently I wasn't up to speed on all of his videos. I have since caught up quite a bit and can't get enough.

This month I am recommending Walker's series called Disneycember. The series started in December of 2011 and has been consistent series every December since. I guess I should put up a warning now that Walker's videos definitely contain more mature content and is not meant to be viewed by kids but by nostalgia adults. The content can be a bit racy. You have been warned. That being said, I freaking love how "adult" Walker's videos are. He doesn't hold back. He is just flat out honest and I love it. And it isn't just the "adult" language he uses to be honest but just his honesty in general. He states his opinions even if they are controversial or breaking away from the status quo and I respect that. He also makes very well rounded arguments and is open to people questioning his opinions to start conversation.

Walker's Nostalgia Critic reviews are hilarious. Disneycember strays away from the usual comedy though and just features Walker talking about the films and why he likes them or doesn't. And he doesn't BS when it comes to this stuff. You can tell her cares about these movies and has really thought hard about what he is going to say. His reviews are excellent, short and sweet. I definitely disagreed with him on certain aspects of the films but I loved his commentary. His genuine approach to Disney makes the viewer much more comfortable and open to what he is going to say.

Disneycember is a must watch. Check it out in the links below! I wonder if he will be doing another Disneycember series this year!?

A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens

A Christmas Carol is one of my favorite books and since we are talking about Mickey's Christmas Carol on Talk Magic to Me I figured it was appropriate to post my short review here on Disney Danielle. The review isn't that detailed so I will add that reading Dickens is always a treat and no author really compares. His writing style is magnificent and poignant in a way that isn't accomplished by writers in modern day. Original post: http://thereader101.blogspot.com/2012/12/reading-christmas-carol-by-charles.html

A Christmas Carol has to be one of Charles Dickens most famous works ever.  It is a staple at Christmastime to hear the story; whether it be from watching the many film adaptions, seeing it presented live on stage, hearing it read out loud in schools or in the household, or from reading the book itself, A Christmas Carol is all around us.  I grew up watching Mickey's Christmas Carol on ABC every December.  I remember all kinds of fun Disney specials playing on TV after Disney Michael Eisner introduced them with Mickey Mouse himself (or sometimes Goofy).  It was a Christmas tradition for us to watch these Disney specials.  To this day I still love Mickey's Christmas Carol and it never fails to bring tears to my eyes.  In seventh grade, my class read the play out loud which was not very fun.  It was then that I thought that A Christmas Carol was written as a play and not a book as I had always thought.  Luckily, I found the actual book a few months ago in a thrift store and bought it so that I could finally read it myself this Christmas. 

I loved this book.  Charles Dickens is truly a masterful writer and storyteller...not that I ever doubted he was.  The classic story tells the tale of Mr. Scrooge who hates merriment and Christmas.  He is snapped out of his funk when his old business partner Jacob Marley who has long since been dead for seven years returns as a ghost and tells Scrooge that he will be visited by three spirits - the ghost of Christmas part, present, and future.  After Scrooge sees his life from these three spirits, he changes his ways and stops his obsession with money. I think my favorite line of the story was said by Tiny Tim and it is not "God Bless us everyone" though that is a close second.  The excerpt I love is this: “'And how did little Tim behave?' asked Mrs Cratchit, when she had rallied Bob on his credulity and Bob had hugged his daughter to his heart’s content.  'As good as gold,' said Bob, 'and better. Somehow he gets thoughtful, sitting by himself so much, and thinks the strangest things you ever heard. He told me, coming home, that he hoped the people saw him in the church, because he was a cripple, and it might be pleasant to them to remember upon Christmas Day, who made lame beggars walk, and blind men see.'"
I won't be able to say this enough, I love this book.  It has been added to my favorites!  I will most definitely give it a 5 out of 5 stars!

Pete's Dragon Reboot

When we think about classic Disney live action films, titles like Mary Poppins and Old Yeller pop into our heads. Pete's Dragon isn't usually included in this list. Although it has some kind of a cult following and has a lot of heart, the film is widely regarded as...bad. The music is catchy but dated. The acting is done well by some and awful by others. The story is cute. But the film was never a favorite among critics and audiences alike. I grew up with the film and while I enjoy some of the music and appreciate what the story is going for, I can't argue in the movie's defense. It is not good.
It was a surprise to all when Disney announced back in 2013 that a reboot was in the works. Why would Disney reboot this of all films? I'm actually excited for the film. I think Disney would only want to reboot a project that needed lots of work so that the classics can remains classics and the one that needs work could get a fresh take and redeem the story, hopefully. I think this reboot can certainly redeem the story of Pete's Dragon.
Let's first address the changes that have been announced. The first change, and the most obvious and minimal, is Elliot the dragon who will go from a hand drawn animation to a CG dragon. This change was pretty much a no brainer. Since CG is the popular animation form these days. Hopefully this change will make Elliot more realistic but hopefully not too realistic like a dragon from Game of Thrones or Harry Potter. The second change regards a friend for Pete. Pete was on his own in the original film. Now he will be accompanied by a friend named Natalie. I'm not sure how big a role Natalie will play though she will certainly change the script and the character of Pete quite a bit. While I like Pete on his own and his bond with Nora, I think him having a friend will be nice. I hope this reboot can balance Pete's relationship with both Natalie and Nora so that he can have a mother figure and a friend instead of one acting as both. The final change, and the biggest one, is that the new film will not be a musical.
These changes are big and different but in my opinion fresh and exciting. I am actually looking forward to seeing this movie in theaters. By the looks of things, I feel like this project is similar to the recent film Where the Wild Things Are. While I'm not a huge fan of that film, it is good. I'm kind of hoping that these changes hint toward a similar style of storytelling in that Pete's Dragon could be a movie about childhood but not necessarily for children. It could be a more organic film and make fantasy much more of the reality it truly is. Or it could take an entirely different route though I hope it doesn't. I did read rumors that they are changing the original plot where Nora will be a park ranger instead of a lighthouse keeper. Of course I will keep an open mind but I do wish they would stick to the original story because there was a romanticism to the lighthouse and Nora's longing for Paul to return. 
What do you guys think of the reboot? Are you excited or does it make you cringe? Let me know in the comments!

Big Hero 6 and the Call to Create

There are some movies that hit the big screen that you watch and make you want to create. Take for example, Ratatouille. It isn't the best Pixar movie but it sure makes you want to eat delectable food or make something delectable yourself be it food, writing a book, or designing an advertisement. I think Disney has taken this aspect of creative inspiration and paid it forward with their newest hit, Big Hero 6.
When you think about it, many super hero movies are about creativity. Spiderman has to design his own machine to shoot out web and Batman has to creatively stump his opponents like the Joker. And in Big Hero 6, main character Hiro, loveable robot Baymax, and Hiro's buddies have to creatively harness their talents and figure their way out of sticky situations. But it isn't even particularly the super hero aspect of the film that inspires the audience but the technological advances these characters could make (and now that I think about it, super heroes usually have access to crazy technology so I guess this still exists in the super hero realm). Watching Hiro present his microbots idea made me feel as if I was at an attraction at Walt Disney World. It makes you wonder, would Walt approve of this film?

Like him or hate him, no one can deny that Walt Disney was some sort of genius. His desire for innovation and creativity is what has given us some beloved movies and amazing theme parks, and being at the parks often inspires creativity too. It inspires us to tell stories and make things. Hiro's use of materials in Big Hero 6, like Walt's, inspires kids and adults alike. The film has already been linked to creating via things such as the World Maker Faire in New York City and the X Prize Challenge.
Creativity isn't always looked at as a virtue per say yet I would argue that it is essential to living in a better world. Big Hero 6, like Ratatouille and Walt Disney, calls us to create and think deeply about things. This brings us closer to human understanding. This element of Big Hero 6 is what makes it a really great film. While it isn't perfect and has many faults, the main characters all call us to make something and make something bigger than ourselves.
What sort of things would you love to create that would make our world a little better? Let me know in the comments or speak your mind on the Talk Magic to Me Forums. And be sure to listen to the newest episode of Talk Magic to Me where we talk about Big Hero 6!

Disney's Apples to Apples

As far as I'm concerned, mid October is the start of Christmas and the holidays and the holidays mean family time. A great way to take advantage of time together is by playing board games and what could be better when you combine board games with Disney?!
This month, I am recommending the game Apple to Apples, Disney edition. If you're not sure how this game works, allow me to explain. Apples to Apples is a card game. There are red cards and green cards. On the red cards are nouns (person, place, thing, or idea) and the green cards are adjectives. Simple grammar, right? The game must be played with at least three people though four or more is recommended. The object of the game is to gather the green cards. Whoever has the most adjective/green cards by the end of the game, wins.
Each player gets a certain amount of red cards. They are not supposed to let each other view their selections. To start the game, one person becomes the judge and picks up a green card from the pile and lays it down for the other players to see. It is the job of the rest of the players to put down a noun from their hand that they feel best fits the adjective. All red cards should be face down. Once everyone besides the judge puts down a red card, the judge gathers the cards and decides which red card fits the adjective best. Whoever put down that card wins the round and gets to keep the green adjective card.
Here is an example game: the adjective I put down is romantic. Players put down Hercules, Lumiere, Baymax, and Belle. You may be wondering why Baymax is on this list. Well, the game leaves room for silliness and you can always put a card down that purposefully doesn't fit the adjective but is funny to think about in that way, or you can put a card down that is the opposite or to be ironic. In the end, the judge decides and may like you sense of humor or may like that you chose to be straightforward.
Be sure to pick up Disney's Apples to Apples today and spend lots of hours playing with your family!

What Spieling Peter Can Teach Writers

Original post: http://thereader101.blogspot.com/2013/01/wasted-wednesday-what-spieling-peter.html

::spieling -- to speak extravagantly; a lengthy speech or argument usually intended to persuade::

Spieling is the nickname a certain Peter Pan acquired while working at Disneyland and being in contact with many video cameras.  Because this particular Peter Pan "spiels", or talks, a lot, he was given the nickname Spieling Peter.  His real name is Andrew Ducote, an actor who just happens to be a huge Peter Pan fan.  Ducote's fresh and energetic take on the character of Peter Pan made Disney fans from all over the United States want to fly to Disney Land in California just to meet him in person.  He is perhaps the most popular "face character" (characters at the Disney theme parks who do not where any type of suit that covers their entire face/body and can speak to the visitors of the park) Disney Land has ever seen.  Fan videos with him earn thousands of hits on YouTube and there are even blogs dedicated to this guy.  Before  you continue reading, maybe you want to watch him in action?  Check out his videos below.


Saying Hello to Giselle | Dream Catcher | Little Boy | Disneyland | Losing Voice | Crow | At Disneyland | Story-time featuring Alice & The Mad Hatter

So why is Spieling Peter so popular to audiences?  Well, there are many reasons why.  For one thing, he is fun and energetic.  His talkative nature makes people laugh.  But more importantly, it is Ducote's interpretation of the character he is playing - a boy who never wants to grow up.  Indeed his nature is funny but also quite annoying at times, much like the actual Peter Pan from the movies.

Surprisingly, watching him in character can teach us writers quite a bit about character painting including flaws, hobbies, habits, and environment.  Throughout the videos I posted above, the audience gets a very good sense from Ducote's portrayal of who Peter Pan would be if he actually existed in the flesh.  He enjoys to play games where he is the winner and loves laughing at another's expense (of course friendly expense).  He knows what Dream Catchers mean to someone who lives in Neverland and loves to play his flute if he hasn't forgotten to bring it with him.  And he knows the stories of the other characters around him, referring a little girl who is too shy to speak to visit Ariel because she "lost her voice".  Essentially, Spieling Peter can teach writers how to stay in character.  This is not only important for writers who wish to create their own spin on a story previously told by someone else but also for writers originating characters.  Spieling Peters helps us to remember the big details and the little ones when it comes to bring a character to life!  It is important to learn from other arts other than the novel.  While I'd of course say the novel is essential to the writer, I would also say that other arts are just as important when it comes to writing and we can learn from anywhere; whether it be from a book, a film, a painting, or a Disney Land face character!
While Spieling Peter seems to be the best at his role, there are plenty of other characters who do a pretty good job at their roles as well.  Here are a few more videos for your viewing pleasure!

Megara | Belle & Gaston

MCMagic Minecraft Server

Minecraft. It is the game title that can be split into two parts that collectively and simply describe the game. When you play Minecraft you mine and you craft. The premise is very creative yet also a bit confusing at the start. Many people don't get it and ask, what's the point? The game seems so simple that it would be borderline boring and pointless. I wondered these exact same things about two years ago when I watched YouTuber Luke Conard post a video of him playing the game on his YouTube gaming channel. Through a snowball of events that are too jumbled to go into, I bought the game and have been a fan ever since. Minecraft has a very rare quality about it that I find very appealing. At times it is an addicting computer game taking over my life as alcohol would an alcoholic. Of course at these times I have to pull myself away as this is a very unhealthy habit. The game also has an ambient quality to it. You the player are an explorer venturing around the various spawned worlds, listening to the simple score that becomes so familiar to your brain that it relaxes you outside the game as well. Okay, so perhaps all of these things sound a little weird and you may be questioning my sanity. But if you have ever played Minecraft, this may sound familiar.

Forgetting all of that, Minecraft offers a lot of room for fun adventures and gaming which is why I believe it to be so successful. It gives complete control to the gamer in charge. What's not to love?

Now combine this game with one of entertainment's largest global names...That's right, someone created a Minecraft map replica of Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida! From strolling down Main Street USA to riding the Tower of Terror, there really is no limit to this awesome recreation. The map offers as much as Minecraft is limited to do. Users can download special resource packs to see cool visuals and hear actual audio that would be playing in the parks. The audio also allows users to watch fireworks shows like Wishes and Illuminations as if they were watching the real thing! These resource packs allow an even more immersive experience for Minecraft players.

The map is called MCMagic. Hours upon hours upon hours have gone into this project and it is offered to Minecraft players 100% free! This takes more than just dedication. It takes passion. The project is clearly created by people who love Disney and who want to keep the spirit alive. Many may scoff at people who spend so much time perfecting a Minecraft server but the truth is that a lot can be learned from creating something like this. There is a real discipline that is required to build on Minecraft. The same can be said of other professions and projects. When I come onto the Walt Disney World server, I feel an intense longing to create something too. Not only does a project like this excite but also inspires and that is what creating is about.

This server will only further Walt's dream of what Disney Land and Disney World could become! I can't wait to see what comes of this server and encourage any Disney fan to check it out. You will be utterly amazed just as I continue to be every time I explore on there! If you want to see me explore the Magic Kingdom along with my Talk Magic to Me co-host Rachel in our new gaming series, check out the video below and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more videos to come.

The Dissection of Mr. Toad's Staring Role and Ichabod's Film Encounter

Film is a very intense way of story-telling. Being the visual medium that it is, it depends less on interpretation and more on wowing the audience and presenting certain images to foreshadow or represent something/someone as a metaphor. Of course there are a good amount of films that challenge the viewers in unique ways but the majority of films aren't very intellectual endeavors. The audience sits in front of the screen and watches images set before them. That doesn't take much thought. The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad stems from two great works of literature and presents Disney with a unique challenge, especially when it comes to Ichabod's story. Adapting book to screen is always hard. In this blog I want to talk about both sides of this film...Ichabod's and Toad's. I will first start out with Ichabod and discuss the visualization of the headless horseman. I will then move on to Mr. Toad and discuss why Walt Disney might have chosen this character out of all the other main protagonists in The Wind in the Willows to represent half of this package film.

* * *

There are plenty of examples of literary works where the author literally invites the reader to write their own version of the story, and no I don't mean fan fiction. I mean the author leaves the reader with questions that allow them to imagine what might have happened. This challenges the reader to understand character psych and writing style and create their own ideas. For example, why did Alaska really drive into another vehicle (Looking for Alaska by John Green)? How will Nick handle his relationship with Amy after all that has happened (Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn)? Did Pi truly survive on a lifeboat for most of the year with a Bengal tiger or was it all just a metaphor he created in his subconscious (Life of Pi by Yann Martel)? And in the case of Ichabod, we the reader have to ask - did he really see the headless horseman or was it all just an illusion (The Legend of Sleepy Hollow by Washington Irving)? As readers, we are invited to take guesses and work out reasons why our guess is valid. But film takes on such a different tone because the story is no longer just words and images we created in our head. A film is a literal picture and leaves no room for interpretation in this way. Of course many great films know there are ways to distort an image to make the audience think but it is still visual and never quite like a book. In Ichabod's case, we are entirely dependent on the animation we see before us to tell us the story.

Disney does not try to be like the source material and leave the audience guessing in such a way (and it could be argued that they couldn't do such a thing in the same way the book does) but they do create their own interpretation and therefore drop hints to the audience as to what they were intending. A great movie knows that they have to show the audience and not tell. A great example is the film Clueless. In the film, main character Cher has a crush on new kid Christian. Through subtle hints during their interaction, the filmmakers drop hints that let us come to our own conclusion that Christian is gay. It is only when Cher needs to be let out of the dark when another character actually voices this fact. In Disney's adaption of The Legend of Sleepy Hollow we are never actually told who the headless horseman is. We are given many clues that it is Brom Bones but at the end of the day still wonder if it could have been a demon. While the book offers a much wider gap for interpretation, the film does a good job tapping into a similar spirit and should be applauded for doing so. 

* * *

The choice of who is going to be the main character to represent a film is a hard one. As discussed earlier, a film depends on visuals and requires more wow factor because audiences can often be shallow. The main characters in The Wind in the Willows are Rat and Mole. Toad is more of a plot point and side character - the trickster character which was discussed on the most recent episode of Talk Magic to Me (listen at the end of this blog post). So why did Disney choose Toad to be one of the faces to represent this film?

The obvious answer is that Toad is very interesting. All of Rat and Mole's adventures are slow and would be quite boring to a child audience. But when Toad comes along, things become fast paced and suspenseful. The reader is constantly wondering - how will Toad get out of this situation? Naturally, this makes Toad an interesting character and a good face for a film. But I believe there were other motivations for Toad's casting as well.

When I read The Wind in the Willows for the first time (actually I listened to the audiobook), I found that Toad reminded me of Walt Disney himself! That may sound weird because Walt Disney didn't steal cars or go on train chases...but he was very obsessed with the newest pieces of technology. The similarities between man and character are most apparent when Toad sees the motor car driving up the road and becomes mesmerized. Even when his friends restrain him, Toad can think of nothing else but that motor car. He goes through many lengths to get that car. Walt Disney was the same way. He was straight forward and knew what he wanted and didn't try to hide it. When he saw his daughters reading Mary Poppins, he knew he would go to all lengths to make that story into one of his motion pictures. Mary Poppins was his motor car. Both cross boundaries yet at the end of the day we love them and route for them. I'm sure Walt saw some of himself in Toad.

* * *

There is so much more that can be said about this film but I will end it there. Be sure to listen to our newest episode of Talk Magic to Me where we discuss this very film, The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad!

Aladdin and Original Sin and the Message of Forgiveness

The films of the Disney Renaissance all share many of the same qualities. One of the qualities is the spiritual and religious metaphors and symbolism ingrained into each story. What sets the Renaissance apart from other eras in Disney film history is that the content not only looks and sounds good like normal but each film reaches it's audience on a deeper level. The characters are no longer boring two dimensional cartoons, nor are their story arcs. Each film has something profound to say and can be taken seriously unlike most animated films in years previous. Animation has never been an exactly respected medium but it gained more respect during the 90's and that is largely credited to Disney.
Aladdin carries a lot of weight in the spiritual realm of the story, particularly in our main two characters - Aladdin and Jasmine. I believe Aladdin is a metaphor for original sin while Jasmine is a metaphor for forgiveness. I don't believe Disney went into this project with this intent however I do believe that if an art form is good, it will be open to interpretation because it will automatically leave the audience with those questions that bring about discussion and overall spiritual or narrative or scientific reassurance.

Allow me to go into more detail as to why I see Aladdin and Jasmine being symbols of these two religious symbols. Spark Notes published a blog a few years ago discussing why the Disney Princesses are bad role models. I disagreed with the article 100% and it inspired me to write my own article in defense of the princesses. One thing the author wrote on Spark Notes was that Jasmine was teaching young girls to allow their boyfriend to lie to them. While I can see why this may be true, I see Jasmine's choice to continue loving Aladdin as a decision to forgive him. She knows he is not perfect (nor is she) but a good man who she loves and understands and he obviously feels the same way. He pursues her but unlike the other men who have done the same thing, he values her. He knows she isn't a prize to be won (or at least comes to learn this) and that is why he makes the decision to not be a prince at the end and free the Genie. He acknowledges his unworthiness which is ultimately what makes him worthy. Jasmine, the symbol of forgiveness because of her unfaltering decision to love Aladdin and see him for more than his mistakes, forgives Aladdin because she puts herself in his shoes. When Aladdin apologizes for lying, Jasmine leans close and says, "I know why you did." That is all that needs to be exchanged between them. She isn't excusing him from his mistakes but saying, "I love you and our love is more important than either of our mistakes." This isn't to say this is a method every woman should use in a relationship but in this case it works. Forgiveness is a really hard place to get to. Disney realizes that love is complex and messy but it is rewarding and ultimately their films strive to display this reward. Whether their depiction of how it is achieved is accurate or not, it has taken the culture by storm. Jasmine is ready to let go of the hurt she felt because not only does it weigh her down but by letting go she has more room for love in all areas of her life.

Aladdin is on the other side of the spectrum, representing the allure of original sin. The symbolism of the Adam and Eve parable is beautiful. They take a bite of the sweet apple and it feels good but leaves them feeling naked and vulnerable and unworthy. Aladdin, who is frequently seem with apples in the film, also bites off more than he can chew when he lies. In the beginning lying is sweet. The moment the Sultan announces to Aladdin that one day he will take over and become Sultan, Aladdin has the realization that he has never been worthy for this and is suddenly ashamed and afraid of being found out. He has dug his own grave. This leads him to take the easy road by not freeing the Genie like he promised. It is only when he admits to his fallen nature that he realizes he never had to be perfect, he just had to be himself and that is when he becomes worthy. It takes Jasmine's forgiveness to also make this possible.

What do you think of this analysis? Do you agree or disagree? Do you want to expand on my points? Leave it all in the comments or enter discussion on the Talk Magic to Me forums!


We talked about Aladdin on last month's episode of Talk Magic to Me! You can listen to it in the video below!

The Redemption of the Evil Queen

Original post: http://talkmagic2mepodcast.blogspot.com/2014/03/danielles-corner-redemption-of-evil.html

I watch the show Once Upon a Time on ABC.  I won't lie to you, the show appeals to me.  I love fairy stories with their fun lighthearted and moral elements.  But I also like raw stories that are dark and don't sugar coat things.  Once Upon a Time tries to be the show that bridges that gap between those two elements...though in my opinion the show fails to truly bring these two genres together.  Season four has started and continues to let me down. Between the constant Disney-fying and shoving Frozen on the audience, I'm seriously questioning why I continue to watch the show. The show has a ton of flaws and is cliche.  The actors are okay.  Some are awesome and some I can't stand.  But I still watch the show because there is something about it that brings me back.  That something, or someone I should say,  is the Evil Queen.
First of all, the Evil Queen (Regina) is arguably the best character in the entire show.  There are many attributes to this statement.  The first attribute is that her character is complex but not in a cliche sort of way.  Tons of characters from Once Upon a Time are made to seem complex when really it is just easy writing.  I'm in no way saying I could do better but that is just my opinion.  Regina is by far the most well thought out character.  Her back-story is beautiful and heartbreaking.  She is flawed in the best way possible and is the balance in the show.  She balances the show by being the bridge between good and evil, the see-saw that constantly is falling back and forth and living out the eternal struggle of living for one's own self interests or living for something greater and beyond themselves.  Besides her actual character, the actress who plays her, Lana Parrilla, is incredible!  She plays Regina with such grace and charisma.  The best part of her performance is watching her facial expressions.  The performance is all in her face.  No other actor in the show seems to capture the complexities of their character as she does...though Mr. Gold/Rumpelstiltskin comes close.
As I said above, I watch the show and enjoy it but don't think it is a good show per say.  However, I do have a hope for the show that would redeem it.  I hope beyond hope that my wish will come true (pun intended)!  My hope is that the show will end with Regina becoming good.  Not a temporary good like we have seen in previous episodes.  I mean she will truly become a good human being.  It won't mean she is perfect. I want her to still question her goodness but I also want to see her cling to something bigger than herself and long for something good and not something evil. The show seems to revolve around the struggle she encounters every day about choosing which side she wants to be on and it is so good, it makes me feel like she is the show and it should end with a focus on her.  That would make me so incredibly happy!

Disney Film Project Podcast

I'm on a Disney podcast. The reason I even thought I had a chance at making a one of a kind show is because for the longest time I could not find a single Disney podcast that analyzed the Disney films. I figured that since there was no Disney podcast out there that I knew of (or didn't bash Disney the entire podcast), I'd start my own. How I was ignorant to so many Disney podcasts I can't comprehend. Suddenly after I began a Disney podcast of my own, Disney podcasts flooded my twitter feed and iTunes recommendations. In a way, I'm glad I didn't see or listen to any before Talk Magic to Me. If I had, I may not have gone through with my idea and I'm so happy to have a podcast of my own.
End rant.
My recommend this month is The Disney Film Project and it is one of the podcasts that I came across on iTunes in the early weeks of summer. I listened to the first episode about Beauty and the Beast and immediately fell in love! Since then I have been catching up on all of their shows and always look forward to letting them help me get through the work week! The show is hosted by Ryan along with Brie, Rachel, and Todd. I've only listened to early episodes thus far (I just got to episode 90 although I haven't listened to all 90 episodes since some films the hosts discuss I have not yet seen. The reason I say this is because I listened to their most recent episode, Holes, and there is a host I am not familiar with named Rachel so I am assuming she came onto the podcast and Brie left. I guess I will find out!). The show is produced by Cheryl who also puts in her two cents during recordings! The group is a lot of fun to listen to!
The show is a five star spectacular! Each host and guest host has their own unique take on the films and facts that will always hold your interest. The conversation can get into some really deep and critical territory which I love. I have a great deal of respect for the hosts because many people treat Disney films as below them or containing zero intellectual value which is completely not true and these hosts seem to feel the same way. They look at these movies and their history and compare them to other stories and the company's history and point out all the little nuggets the creators place in their films and I enjoy this very much. It's great to hear people breaking down these movies and seeing them for what they are because a film made by Disney doesn't make it necessarily bad or necessarily good. It is a film that is just as valid as any other film. There are times when the audio isn't the greatest but the way I see it, if the content is good than I will listen through thick and thin.
I would highly encourage every Disney fan (or any film buff really) to go and listen to this show. It is a lot of fun and a great way to get a weekly fix of Disney awesomeness. Check them out at the links below.

Website: http://www.disneyfilmproject.com/
Touring Plans: http://touringplans.com/
Disney Driven Life: http://thedisneydrivenlife.com/
Adventures of Brie: http://adventuresofbrie.blogspot.com/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DisneyFilmProject
Twitter: https://twitter.com/disfilmproject
Podbean: https://twitter.com/disfilmproject
iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/disney-film-project-podcast/id413620708
Stitcher: http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/disney-film-project-podcast

What's all the Hullabaloo about?

In 2009, Disney dared to return to traditional 2D animation with the film Princess and the Frog. While the film is excellent and, in my opinion, one of Disney's best it didn't make enough money at the box office. Back in 2004, Disney had released another box office failure called Home on the Range, also a 2D hand-drawn animated film, that doesn't stand up to the quality of Princess and the Frog what-so-ever yet was the film that motivated Disney to ditch 2D hand-drawn animation and stick where the money is at with computer animation. They didn't take into account that Home on the Range was just a bad movie in general which could be why it wasn't treated well at the box office...although Princess and the Frog was a grade A movie and that didn't do hot either. At this point, it looked like Disney was going to give up on the traditional style many fans loved. It was pretty clear every other animation company had given up.
Computer animation is great. Hell, it has treated Pixar well. But none seemed to be able to reach the same quality as Pixar. Not only that but people missed the style of 2D hand-drawn animation. The style holds an authenticity to it and feels much more artistic next to computer animation. The debate between 2D and computer animation has become a big part of Disney culture. The popular opinion, which I hold, is that while computer animation is fantastic, 2D shouldn't go away. But Disney didn't seem to care about fan nostalgia or even artistic yearning. Like most businesses, their goal was money. I can't fault them for that.
But then, something fantastic was posted on Indiegogo, a site similar to the likes of Kickstarter. It was a project called Hullabaloo. The project was all over twitter and Disney news sites. Naturally, my attention was caught by the sight of 2D animation. I headed over to the Indiegogo page to learn more. I learned that Hullabaloo is a project that veteran Disney animators are working on to show that 2D hand-drawn animation is not a dying art. The project asked for donations and stated that "by supporting this project, you get to help save 2D animation from an untimely demise." All I can say is, FINALLY! So, what is the Hullabaloo all about? Well, I want to give you three reasons why I am all about Hullabaloo and maybe that will answer this question.
NUMBER 1: (Do I even need to say it?) The revival of the dying art that is 2D animation.
If you asked Walt Disney today if he wanted to go back to 2D animation, I believe his answer would be no. Walt Disney was all about the newest technology and moving forward. That being said, a lot of art is dying thanks to technology. Of course this isn't a bad thing but it isn't necessarily a good thing either. For example, you don't need to carry a notebook and pencil around anymore or hand write anything because you can simply type on a "tablet" or a smart phone. Why buy CD's when you can simply download the music digitally right away?

One of the animators on Hullabaloo

And who needs 2D animation when computer animation can make an image so much more realistic? As I said, these things are not bad but they seem to fill our need of instant gratification rather than filling our need for good art. I am so happy to see that someone is finally taking action to keep this beautiful art form alive. Plus, veteran Disney animators are involved who have worked on such films as The Lion King, Princess and the Frog, Pocahontas, Tarzan, Beauty and the Beast and more! With this kind of talent, this will be epic!
Number 2: Feminist message.
Let me state right off the bat that I love the Disney Princess and believe them to be fantastic role models (read my defense of the Princesses HERE). But I won't lie that there is a certain archetype that Disney sticks to with their Princesses. In other words, adventure stories are for the male characters. Hullabaloo is different. They've got a female character who is interested in science and heavily invested in learning about the world and being involved in an adventure. This is awesome! I hope this project will reach a broad audience and inspire little girls just as much as the other Disney Princesses and heroines have.
Number 3: Indiegogo.
What is even more awesome than seeing a revival of 2D animation? Actually being involved in funding that animation! I can't imagine this being any more perfect. This is what fans wanted and now they actually have a say (because unfortunately, money typically buys you this right)! I'm so glad to be able to say that I helped fund the revival of 2D animation! This is a community effort and the whole process gives the project more heart and makes it feel less corporate.

Now I haven't actually summarized the story and taken the time to talk about the animators involved. So here is the link to their Indiegogo page! They've made lots of money to fund their project and have reached a few stretch goals! Help them to reach some more!
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/hullabaloo-steampunk-animated-film

Frozen to Replace Maelstrom in EPCOT World Showcase

It was announced a short while ago that a Frozen attraction will be replacing the Maelstrom ride at EPCOT in Walt Disney World, Florida....but for up to date Disney news geeks, this decision has been on the radar since Frozen's rise to viral attention. My opinions on all of this have been rather hushed because for a while I just didn't know what to think about it all. After listening to many different viewpoints, I finally feel like I have a good grasp on my own thoughts. 
I first want to give a full overview of what is going to happen over the next year and a half. Disney is planning on closing the over 20 year old Norway attraction called Maelstrom and replacing it with a Frozen themed attraction, set to open in early 2016. The main consensus for this decision is that Frozen takes place in Norway and will add a fresh vibe to Norway's under-touched section of the World Showcase.
My thoughts on Frozen are never consistent. I am constantly torn between enjoying Frozen and despising Frozen. To try and summarize my feelings, I would say the movie is good but wayyyyy overrated. The original source material was not used nearly enough, the animation and sets are gorgeous, the music starts out epically but turns into a modern candy coated ritual, and compared to other Disney films it simply carries no weight. That only scratches the surface of my opinions about the movie. As for the Maelstrom attraction, I recently road it when I was last at Disney World in November 2013. It wasn't a stand out ride to me. I've been to Disney three other times and I had never heard of this attraction until the fourth. While the experience of riding it was kind of cool, the overall ride was rather dull and underwhelming. Although the ride carries a lot of history, it felt out of place to me. As I said, I didn't even remember it after visiting Disney three times.
But how do I feel about it being replaced by a Frozen themed ride? Well, my feelings are mixed. There are tons of different angles you can take when discussing this debate. For this blog, I am going to refer to two different articles along with the comments from those articles. All links to the source material can be found at the end of this blog. I want to build off the points I read in the comments and the articles because I feel my voice isn't the only voice that should be heard. I want to incorporate a variety of opinions. So without further ado, let us begin.
Point number one: Frozen takes place in Norway and will fit perfectly in World Showcase, right?
Frozen takes place in the fictional land of Arendelle which is said to be located in Norway. The filmmakers drew a lot of inspiration and material from Norway and much of the culture is incorporated in the sets and minimally used throughout the soundtrack. But "what does [Arendelle] have to do with Norway?", commenter Bill asks on Inside the Magic. I would have to ask the same question. Frozen, while taking place in Norway, does not pay homage to Norway or Norwegian culture. It is simply a backdrop. The movie infrequently uses ethereal music to strengthen the cultural influence but it is not used nearly enough. If the Norwegian culture were at the heart of this movie I'd say this is a great change. But let's be honest here; when people think of Frozen they think of Let It Go. When people think of something like Ratatouille, they think France and food.
Which brings me to the next side of this issue. Point number two: Other countries have incorporated Disney movies. Why do people take such a big issue with Frozen?
This is a really good point. Disney incorporates characters in their designated countries and has already incorporated one of their films, the Three Caballeros, into Mexico. I actually think this is something very important to World Showcase, specifically for the kids. It shows them where their favorite characters are from and gives them an incentive to go to an area of Disney that may be considered boring otherwise. Giving Norway a little dose of Frozen is not a bad thing. As John Frost on the Disney Blog points out in his article, "The world didn't end when Donald and pals appeared in Mexico and having Belle & Aurora walk-arounds hasn't destroyed France. In fact, I'm pretty sure that if this announcement was for a Ratatouille attraction...the fans would be 90% in favor of it." Frost presents excellent points but they don't hold up entirely. As I said in my first point, Frozen has virtually nothing to do with Norwegian culture. The influence is only apparent in the sets and some places of the soundtrack. The Three Caballeros is all about Mexican culture (I assume, I have truthfully never seen the movie but only small clips) so it makes sense to be present in Mexico. It also helps people recall a forgotten film. As for characters like Belle and Aurora walking around France, that does not carry the same weight as a film attraction. If Anna, Elsa, and Kristoff walked around Norway, I think that would be great! But these are just characters, not a full blown ride. Finally, Ratatouille (like Caballeros) centers around France and food. It totally makes sense to have a ride or attraction there for the film. My point is, Frozen in Norway is not bad at all. "That being said, the addition of characters in small doses could be a good thing for EPCOT, since it seems to be struggling to maintain or renew it's identity," says Dan Cruz on the Disney Blog comments. Overall, why is Disney moving forward with this when other movies should be taken advantage of because they just make more sense?
Which brings me to my next two points. Point number three: Why EPCOT? And point number four: Is this because Frozen went viral?
Let's start with number three. As I said in the beginning of this blog, no Disney fan was particularly surprised by this news. It has been rumored for quite some time. I have thought about this point a lot and have always felt EPCOT was not the way to go. Why? Well, as I already stated, Frozen in concept has a lot to do with Norway but the film itself hardly has anything to do with it. However, Frozen does blatantly emphasize two things - the element of fantasy and the oxymoron of a snowman wanting it to be summer. There are two parts in Disney World that these themes can play off of - Fantasyland in Magic Kingdom and Blizzard Beach. To me, Blizzard Beach always made perfect sense. Olaf would be a perfect face and the whole concept of the park is already established. Frozen could just move in. A snowman who loves summer only makes sense, right? Jeff Lynch on the Inside the Magic comments shares my opinion saying, "I really wanted them to re-theme Blizzard Beach as a Frozen-themed water park. It would have been perfect." Another commenter, Robert, responded, "You just described re-themeing an entire park versus one attraction." He goes on but I think his point is clear enough. He is right. While the idea works, it would take a lot of reconstructing and a lot of time and money and be way more of a Frozen takeover (though they could have just put a Frozen area but I digress). What is left is Fantasyland. I quote Frost again who says of the attraction, "I think it would fit better in Magic Kingdom with the other animated princesses." I couldn't agree more here as well. Frozen has heavy emphasis on their royal characters and it would only make sense to add them to Magic Kingdom. To play devils advocate, I can see why the Maelstrom works. It is space that is old and forgotten and won't require nearly the amount of money to refurbish than establish an entirely new Frozen section of the park. Or here is an idea, why don't we just "let it go" and not Frozen-ize at all?
Now to attack my fourth point. It is obvious that Frozen has become a viral sensation.

Everyone knows the famous track sung by Idina Menzel. YouTubers cover the songs, websites blog about Frozen news and controversy, news stations talk about it, the radio plays the music, it is all over the TV, and in your head when you are trying to sleep. Frozen has reached a level of intensity that we can't escape. The hype has died down a bit but Disney won't let us "let it go" so easily. PJ on the Inside the Magic comments states, "Maelstrom wasn't my favorite ride, but it's an important part of the Norwegian Pavilion [in my humble opinion]. It's a real shame to me that they'd replace it for the flavor on the month movie...". I agree with PJ 100%. I tried to search for comments that validly disprove him but the comments turned into petty arguments that included stats about highest grossing films and insults to each others mothers. A few pages later, I found a comment that unconsciously built on what PJ said. RJ Piner writes, "Why can't Disney just add new attractions to it's parks instead of tearing down classics. Here is an idea, why not add a new ride based on a popular movie to Hollywood Studios the park themed around movies? Call me crazy, but Hollywood Studios is in desperate need of help. To be honest, I feel thing (along with the upcoming Avatar land) is just 'knee jerk' reactions to Universal' success with it's two Harry Potter lands and Transformers." I couldn't agree with this comment more (besides the Hollywood Studios part. I don't know why everyone keeps saying Frozen should go there). This definitely is a knee jerk reaction to viral success and the success of Disney's competitor Universal Studios. Disney had had many opportunities to expand with their films but haven't. As I mentioned earlier, where is a Ratatouille attraction? Where is a ride where you fly in a house by balloons like Up or ride the doors like Mike and Sully in Monsters, Inc.? Where is a ride where you are traveling through gaming worlds like in Wreck It Ralph?
My fifth points exists in three parts - Part one: Cartoons vs. reality; Part two: EPCOT/Norway's falling reputation; Part three: the authenticity of EPCOT.
I love fairy-tales and fiction. My whole lift practically revolves around these two things. It is what Disney does, "they use fantasy to shine a light on reality," as John Frost beautifully puts it. But does this work with EPCOT? Well...no. The answer is no. EPCOT is a mix of many themes but fantasy is not one of them. Tom Staggs writes on the Disney Parks Blog, "I'm pleased to say that we're starting construction at Walt Disney World Resort on a brand new 'Frozen' attraction at the Norway Pavilion in EPCOT. The new attraction, which replaces Maelstrom, will take our guests to Arendelle and immerse them in many of their favorite moments and music from the film." Here is my problem. Staggs says, take our guests to Arendelle and that isn't Norway. It is a fantasy world! It may be based on Norway but it's heart is fantasy. The ride will not be embracing Norwegian culture if we are trusting Staggs who goes on to say how we will be immersed in film moments that virtually having nothing to do with Norway or the culture. 
What sets EPCOT apart from the other parks is its lack of fantasy. As I said before, I love fantasy and fiction! But EPCOT has a worldly quality to it that brings a sense of sophistication to Walt Disney World. This, I feel, will be diverging from EPCOT's purpose.
That being said, it is no secret that EPCOT has a low reputation among theme park goers. It is my family's least favorite park (not mine, I have no least favorite). Norway has little to offer these days. As I said in the beginning, Maelstrom was forgettable. John Frost writes, "the country of Norway has not been paying for pavilion maintenance or upgrades for some time...'Frozen' will bring life back to the pavilion.' This is a really great point. Norway needs something to bring life back into it and Frozen can sure bring that. One commenter named Brandi Boyd writes, "I love Maelstrom and am sorry to see it go. However, everything changes and I completely understand Disney wanting to capitalize on Frozen's phenomenal success." This is a wonderful point. Everything changes. Frost finishes his post with, "EPCOT hasn't been living up to it's potential," and I would have to agree. 
But at what cost shall we diverge from what EPCOT was, is, and will be? Will a Frozen take over damage EPCOT's authenticity. Well, Staggs version sure makes it look that way. A Disney Blog commentor named Brian Greer writes, "Disney established what the park was supposed to be. They sold us those ideals. Then they largely abandoned them. I know Disney is only interested in cash. I get that I was a chump who believed it was about more than that." The latter I will get to in my next point, but sticking to his first sentence, Greer is right. Disney established EPCOT and is not breaking that establishment. Monu writes on the Inside the Magic comments, "The reason this park was built was for worldly experiences. For lovers of travel and culture. Learning. Almost a museum if you will but with a ton more flare." My point exactly. Fantasy was never meant to be a strong force in EPCOT. Yes it will bring life to the park but there are many other routes to doing something similar. Commenter Jeff writes, "I disagree that Disney is for kids. Disney is for families. Disney is for everyone. EPCOT appeals to adults and knowledge seekers, those of us who relish museums, and traveling to non-English speaking countries...The challenge of continually finding ways to keep that spirit fresh is a one that nobody at [Walt Disney World] has had the ability or desire to take on since the late 80's. So it has become a repository for popular clownfish, and California based attractions that kind of work, and Ellen. It's really just a shame that arguably the most unique park ever built is slowly losing its identity, being homogenized into a generic theme park." I had to include Jeff's comment because of how well written it is but how true it is can be debated. Another commenter, Woolf on Inside the Magic writes in response to Monu's comment, "Maybe the original idea behind this EPCOT park was to be educational and 'almost a museum,' but the REASON the park was built was to make money."
Which brings me to my final point. Point number six: Disney is a business. 
Yep. I hate to say it but despite all of these issues I have laid out in great detail, they don't matter when it comes to money and business. One commenter on Inside the Magic named David writes, "I would rather see Disney suffer a hostile takeover and be broken up and sold off in pieces like they almost were in 1984, than see a Frozen attraction replace Maelstrom." I strongly disagree with this comment on so many levels. First of all, I don't want Disney to go bankrupt and be sold off in pieces. If Disney had had this fate in 1984 we would have never had the Disney Renaissance and everything offered at the parks today! I believe Disney had a lot more to offer and if this ride helps their business, so be it. Frozen is a cash cow and Disney knows that bringing Frozen to a dying area will manipulate kids to beg their tired parents to go to EPCOT and ride the Frozen ride and buy Frozen merchandise which is sure to come at the rides end. 
As a creator myself, I have come to realize that planning and mapping ideas for certain reasons doesn't always come across to audiences. Disney had a hit and whether it was good or not, they most likely began to brainstorm realistic ways to bring Frozen to the theme parks. Bringing a Frozen makeover to Maelstrom allows them to save money because they aren't building new construction on new land but just reconstructing an attraction. They will bring more people to Norway and to do that people must walk through the other countries. 
Commenter Reed writes on Inside the Magic, "After reading some of these comments, I am truly conflicted. Both sides have excellent points." Indeed he is right. There are lots of pros and cons to this news. Another commenter named DisneySon1 summarizes my feelings perfectly. He writes, "I'm cautiously optimistic that the marriage of Norway and Frozen will be tasteful, respectful, and ten times more dazzling than the current attraction at the pavilion, while preserving what is truly important about Norwegian culture in the pavilion. But until we can actually ride this thing in a few years (or even see concept art), I'll withhold final judgement and wait until we can actually judge this 'transformation' ourselves."
From a fan perspective, I feel like a better choice could have been made. Disney could take advantage of putting more fitting movies in other attractions and put Frozen in a more fitting environment. This also threatens the purpose of EPCOT. From a business perspective, this is a move that will save money and draw in the masses. It is a good move.
While this blog must come off as I don't like this decision, I actually think that overall it will be a good one. I think we are all threatened by change and it is a bit nerve wrecking to know that Frozen is taking over Disney in such a large way but once we see concept art and actually ride the attraction, I think we will all be pleasantly surprised. While Disney isn't as "great" as it could be, I still think they have great ideas and that they are dedicated to quality. Whether or not we like the idea, Disney will sure as hell make it amazing!
What are your thoughts on the new Frozen attraction? Do you love it or hate it? Or are you somewhere in between? Let me know in the comments! Thanks for reading!

Inside the Magic: http://www.insidethemagic.net/2014/09/frozen-ride-officially-announced-for-walt-disney-world-to-replace-maelstrom-in-norway-at-epcot/
The Disney Blog: http://thedisneyblog.com/2014/09/12/frozen-attraction-officially-coming-to-epcots-norway-pavilion/