Disney Retrospective

A number of days ago, Walt Disney Pictures released their 50^th animated feature film, "Tangled". The term Disney has been something of a household name since Snow White and the Seven Dwarves was released an astonishing 73 years ago. At an average of once every 18 months, Walt Disney Pictures has presented us with a new animated classic just about every year. In honor of their 50th title, I want to take a step back, and see where they are as a company, where they came from, and where their future lies.

Snow White wasn’t Disney’s first project. Mickey Mouse was created long before the Evil Queen tricked our fair-skinned princess into eating her way into a coma. Even Mickey wasn’t Disney’s first attempt at a loveable cartoon character. However, what made Snow White and the Seven Dwarves so impressive was the fact that it was, in fact, the first full-length, animated feature film in history. People gathered for miles around to witness Walt Disney’s epic masterpiece. It was unlike anything anyone had ever seen before from the compelling animation, the musicality, the lushly painted landscapes and the rotoscope of real, human-like movement. This paved the way for Disney to make more incredible visual masterpieces. The lead heroine sparked the lineup of a Disney Princess franchise. And the wretched evil queen set the standard for a string of some of the best villains out there.

The magic didn’t stop with Snow White. Although it certainly wasn’t an original story line by any means, Disney continued to use classic fairy tales as its base when creating feature films. Before anyone knew it, classic tales such as Pinnochio, Cinderella, and Alice in Wonderland had been re-imagined onto the silver screen. All the while Disney became more involved in music. While Snow White only bore two musical interludes, entire movies started being set around the very concept of music. These include the Three Caballeros, Make Mine Music, and the original Fantasia, which contained visual representations of multiple classic songs such as “The Nutcracker Suite”, and the now personified “Night on Bald Mountain”.

Disney didn’t rely entirely on humanoid characters however. On the contrary, many of their classic tales featured anthropomorphic creatures to play the lead. This became first apparent with “Dumbo”, which featured a young elephant in a travelling circus. Later classics featured Pongo and Perdy from “101 Dalmations”, Tod and Copper from the aptly titled “Fox and the Hound”, and Bernard and Miss Bianca from “The Rescuers”. There was a lengthy period of time where it seemed just about every Disney movie featured an anthropomorphic hero, from deer to rats to various breeds of dog, Disney certainly wasn't shy about making animals the stars of many of their classics.

Whether animal, vegetable or mineral however, strong character development was never entirely on the lead. On the contrary, some may say that Disney villains are more charismatic than the heroes themselves. Just like the Disney Princesses have spawned their own franchise, so have the villains. In particular, Cruella DeVil is considered one of the strongest incarnations of ‘pure evil’. And Maleficent is sometimes considered to be the ‘queen’ of the villains. Future villains like the warlock Jafar, sea-witch Ursula, and god of the Underworld Hades, succeed in matching Disney’s earlier antagonists with their own unique characters, quick wits, and smooth tongues.

Disney really hit its stride in the 80s and 90s. While nearly every Disney masterpiece is worthy of a space on the shelf, the Little Mermaid sparked what many people refer to as Disney’s Golden Age. From “The Little Mermaid” to Mulan, literally every single films in that lineup make for some of the best movies around. The soundtracks are well orchestrated, the music is funny, the humor is witty, and the stories are just fantastic. Disney’s creative genius overflowed from “The Little Mermaid”, to “Beauty and the Beast”, to "The Lion King", to “Aladdin”, to “Pocahontas”, to “The Hunchback of Notre Dam”, to Hercules, to “Mulan”. Some would argue that in comparison, the rest of the Disney classics almost seem minute (though of course they’re all great). On top of that, Snow White, Cinderella and Aurora gained three new princess in the Disney Princess lineup with less traditional princesses in Ariel, Belle and Jasmine. Pocahontas and Mulan were also technically added to the lineup, but aren’t widely as accepted since neither is really a princess.

Leading up and into the 90s, Disney began incorporating more and more CG into the 2D masterpieces. From the Cave of Wonders in “Aladdin” to the avalanche in “Mulan”, Disney began to rely on 3D animation for some of the bigger events. This became very apparent in the movie “Tarzan”. Tarzan marked a change in the Disney lineup, not only relying so much on CG, but moreso by eliminating all muisical elements entirely. Gone were the days of ‘Hellfire’, ‘Reflection’ and ‘Colors of the Wind’. Instead the entire soundtrack for “Tarzan” was created by Phil Collins. No one in the movie had a solo, no one in the movie sang a song (with the exception of a quick, unofficial spurt via the younger gorillas) This decision was not well received by many, and Tarzan’s popularity suffered as a result. But that was only the first step.

While few would say any of the movies Disney has produced in the past ten years were “bad”, they just weren’t the same. Musical became straight shows and all flamboyancy was essentially erased. The character development wasn’t strong and the movies were rendered as ‘cute’ instead of ‘magical’. Worst of all, Disney created “Lilo & Stitch”, “Brother Bear”, and “Home on the Range”, and called it quits in terms of traditional 2D animation. They still pumped out around one title each year, but each title was now in full CG instead of the widely beloved 2D. Fact is, CG was on the rise, and Disney had to keep up with the times. It was a sad, sad, time for Disney.

Then, around March of 2009, be it from wishing on a star or true love’s kiss, what seemed like a miracle occurred, and Disney was working on another 2D masterpiece. Their newest film, titled “Princess and the Frog”, promised to bring back the old Disney essentials, and they certainly delivered. We got a charistmatic villain in Dr. Facilier, a new princess in Tiana, a charming new tale of a re-imagined classic, and a fully voiced score of musical numbers. Disney sent out ads that they were opening back up the 2D studios and hiring artists to fill them. And that’s where we left off until this year.

What seemed like a bright future, I’m not entirely certain of now. Tangled was released only a few days ago and I went to see it. While it was charming in its own right, it wasn’t without its problems. First, it was in CG, which disappointed me. It was a visual masterpiece and honestly one of the best CG films I’ve seen, but I still just seem to prefer 2D because there just seems to be something more personable about it. What I didn’t like about the film however was its music. While Disney usually provides a fantastic sing-a-long score, this movie just fell short. I found myself enjoying it until the next time they opened their mouths. One last thing is that Disney tends to take one of two routes in their miracle endings. Either they outline a guideline for a miracle early on so it can be realized later on, or they come through with a loophole in order to make the miracle work. Tangled did neither. It was one of those miracle tears endings if you know what I mean.

While Tangled was a disappointment, I’m more nervous for Disney’s future. “The Princess and the Frog” gave me so much hope for a return to 90s Disney, but after Tangled, Disney already has their next three projects lined up. In 2011, Winnie the Pooh will be released. While it looks cute, and is in fact 3D, this is nothing new. Winnie the Pooh has been around for years at this point so I’m afraid Disney won’t be offering much to the table. In 2012, a project titled “Reboot Ralph” is scheduled for release. I believe I read that this film will be 2D, but the premise doesn’t sound very promising in that it’s about a boy who gets sucked into a video game. After that, in 2013, Anima the Jungle Cell is slated for release. This one will be 2D, and feature a new Disney Princess in Anima, but all that’s been released about it is that its about blood cells. While we’ve no idea what they may be able to do with this, it sounds like it may just be an Osmosis Jones knock-off, which wasn’t a very good film to be knocked off in the first place.

I don’t know what the future of Disney is going to hold, but frankly I’m a little nervous for it. Disney has always had its hand in creating epic masterpieces for people of all ages to enjoy, but lately they just haven’t been on their game. Maybe “Reboot Ralph” and “Anima the Jungle Cell” will end up surprising me, but it makes me sad to think that 90s Disney may just be a thing of the past. I guess we should all start wishin’ on stars if we want the good old days to ever come back. 

The Book Was Better

How many times have we both heard and employed the phrase, “The book was better”? Well, of course it was. No one is disputing that fact. I mean, let’s be honest, it’s a pretty accurate statement at least 99.9% of the time. However, although I do agree that reading is important, and more people should actively read (I’ve only just recently started forcing myself to), I do believe that many people overuse this phrase and treat movie adaptations a little unfairly.

Yes, adaptation accuracy is important. It’s important to get the look of the characters and the sequence of events as close to what was originally written as possible. I mean, Superman wasn’t blonde, Frodo doesn’t die and Hermione Granger never had a quickie with Cedric Diggory in the broom closet; so it only makes sense that these details never surface in the movie adaptations of these stories. But an audience should understand when to treat a movie and a book differently.

Now, again, it’s incredibly unlikely that a film will be able to match the amount of detail that a book offers. This is because unlike books and video games, films have a time limit. There’s only so long that they can make it before the audience gets bored. Generally a two-hour film is a good length. Out of sheer popularity, two-and-a-half hours will work as well, but three hours is pushing it. Even at three hours, however, there will have to be things that are cut in film. You simply cannot fit a 600-page book (or a 40-hour game for that matter) into a 2-3 hour timeslot. You’re better off converting it into a TV show, but then of course the production value isn’t as high.

The audience has to understand that there will be cuts. As long as the most important events and characters are in there, then that is ultimately what’ matters most. But sometimes there are scenes cut for other reasons too. There may be aspects that go unexplained because there just wasn’t enough time to show them coming to said conclusion. There probably could have been enough time throw in a quick explanation but it may also have ended up coming off as random. There will also be times when, let’s face it, it’s Hollywood, and they’re going to exploit Hollywood ideals, like romance. That’s a problem, yes, but most people are comforted by the concept of love, so it’s only an issue if it takes time away from what could have otherwise been used to further the plot.

Other cuts may include moments lacking relevance to the plot. There are plenty of wonderful situations that occur in books, but not all are directly relevant to the overall conflict, and would thus take up time that could have been spent on more important moments. Or perhaps there are situations that only the true fans that had read the book would appreciate anyway. The filmmakers are tasked with the job of making a film not only for the fans who already read the book, but also for Mary Jane and Jimmy John who haven’t yet read the book and are seeing this movie because they thought the trailer looked cool. And then there’s the issue of censorship, in which some scenes may be omitted because they were to graphic, macabre, adult, or unnecessary in some other fashion for the marketed audience. Although I’m a personal advocate against extreme censorship, some censorship can be understandable considering the target audience.

All I’m saying is that most of the time the book is in fact better. But no one should enter the theatre hoping that the film will in any way mirror the book. Instead, one should merely hope that they grasp the feel of the book, as well as the overall look of the characters and environments, and that it at least resembles the events as closely as it can. Altogether the film experience and the book experience are going to be two separate things, and they should be enjoyed as such. This is in no way to imply that all movie adaptations are equal. Some don’t even deserve the grace of holding whatever title they bare. Making a couple of necessary changes and bastardizing the book altogether are two very different things. In the end, as long as we don’t change the ending of Percy Jackson or give the Green Lantern the same dorky persona as Peter Parker, the overall movie experience shouldn’t be encumbered by fan outcry simply because a few details were overlooked.

Don't Recycle Garbage

Sometimes people hit it big. Sometimes they do this through hard work. Sometimes they do this because they follow a controversial viewpoint. Sometimes they're just trashy and don't in any way deserve to be popular, yet they are. Why does this happen? Why do we love to hate? Is it because these trashy celebs keep things interesting? Or because we secretly love the way they act? I've gathered just a few celebrities who are famous for more than just a few of all the wrong reasons.

Paris Hilton

I know, real creative choice right? We all know that Paris Hilton might show to have more talent if she wasn't constantly flaunting the fact that she doesn't have any. She sings, she acts, she's a diva on the red carpet, and she's fabulously wealthy. So what does she have that Beyonce doesn't? Well, absolutely nothing except a miniature chihuahua packed in a tiny pink purse. Ok, so she can't help it that she's the daughter of a billionaire. Who's blaming her? I sympathize with her plight. But if she took her star career seriously, instead of patenting a two word phrase so she can technically sue anyone that says "That's hot", and staring in offensively ignorant films like "The Hottie and the Nottie", then people might want to see House of Wax for reasons other than to watch her get what's coming. Also, be sure to check out her book, "Confessions of an Heiress", to find out just how spoiled her childhood was. Poor thing.

Kanye West

Kanye West has talent. At least I think he does. I don't care for his music, but a lot of people do. I'm not disputing that. And I stand higher than everyone else in wanting us all to move on past the Taylor Swift fiasco from VMAs 2009. However, VMAs 2010 is a different story. Firstly, recapping '09, what he did on that stage was extremely unprofessional. Putting myself in Swift's shoes, I don't think I could have ever been more humiliated in my entire life. She beats out some of the toughest competition around in Beyonce and Lady Gaga, only to have her trophy snatched away, and loudly exclaimed that she didn't deserve by an animal like Kanye West. In my line of work, an act like that would have you blacklisted forever. Kanye's extremely lucky that his line of work allows bad press to be just as good as good press. Regardless, Taylor rocked out on stage regardless, Beyonce was very classy in giving up her speech for Taylor, and the VMAs ended. And I for one was getting annoyed that people wouldn't stop talking about it, and were expecting a sequel at VMAs 2010.

Well they got just that. And I shed a little blame on Taylor Swift for this too. Taylor Swift gave another performance, but started it with a video recap of Kanye's ignorance during the previous show. Then she just went on singing. I listened close to the lyrics to see if they had anything to do with him, be it an acceptance or rejection of apology, but nay. Nothing in that song had to do with the whole event. The video recap was just for show, likely a plea of continued sympathy. But this article is about Kanye. Everyone was expecting him to come out and perform an apology song, written specifically for her, especially considering he was going to be closing the show. But what we got was the opposite of an apology. He came out with his own recap, only to follow with singing "Let's give it up for the douchebags. Let's give it up for the assholes". I'm sorry, you publicly humiliated this girl in the most exciting moment of her life, and you want me to toast to your douchebaggery? What kills me most is that people loved the performance, like he was a saint. I'm sorry, I don't care how great his music is. Kanye West is garbage. He's a despicable human being, and should be left in a dumpster where he belongs.

Omarosa

Omarosa is the Queen B of celebrities. That is, if the "B" stands for Bitch. For a little recap on Omarosa, she originally starred on the first season of Donald Trump's "The Apprentice". She was known as a tyrant, with venom stronger than a viper. She was a good player because she never lost her confidence, she knew when and where to point the blame, and she was a survivor. Ultimately she ended up getting fired, but she left a lasting impression on the viewers. Six seasons later, Omarosa returned for the Celebrity Apprentice. She wasn't really a celebrity at the time, but she was the most memorable contestant thus far. This was the biggest mistake Donald Trump ever made, because he kept her on that show as long as he could. And because she knew she was famous for being a bitch, she flaunted that fact, and was a complete hazard to everyone else playing. Now, she's more famous than ever.

Omarosa picks fights everywhere she goes. She doesn't care who she's talking to, she's not afraid to let the fangs show. She is classless. She is insecure. She is a complete and utter tyrant. She makes egregious statements with no base or evidence, for no reason other than to belittle her competitor. She gets invited onto other people's talk shows, and badmouths them in front of their audience. And she might be mildly entertaining if she was at least good at insulting people. But watching her arguments, I've noticed that someone else will attack her with a good insult, and she just takes the insult, crosses out their name, writes her own, and sends it back. Piers Morgan says "I know you're famous, I've just never heard of you". She retorts with "Oh, and I know you're on that British show, whatever it's called". Wendy Williams says "I think you'd do well with a facelift. I think that would really get rid of those lines and you'd look great". Omarosa responds with "and I think you'd look great if you wore a wig that actually fits". She's not clever. She's not witty. She's pathetic. And now, more than ever, she's more concerned with being a bitchy celebrity and showing off her ever-growing tits than being the "strong, black, female businesswoman" she oh so often claims to be.

On Par With Aerosmith

With the recent release of Rock Band 3, I felt it appropriate to write my music games post. I would have posted it sooner, but then my four-part Halloween list crept up on me. Either way, up to the release of Rock Band 3, I’d heard the same negative criticisms everywhere I went. From hardcore fans of the original Guitar Hero, to casual fans who hardly even play the series and thus can’t afford their own opinion so instead borrow others’.

This particular criticism is that Music Games are getting too “realistic”, and you can only upgrade them “so many times”, and that you “might as well learn real guitar”. I’m here to defend Rock Band as a series, as well as music games in general. Firstly, music games are not getting too “realistic”. You’re still playing plastic instruments for a virtual audience with some of your closest friends in your parents’ basement because none of you actually have any musical prowess or stage presence. Even with Rock Band 3’s ‘professional’ instruments, you may be acquiring the talent; but playing a video game and performing the real thing are still quite different. Or do you think you’re ready to take on travel the world on tour, perform next to Aerosmith and take on Carnegie Hall?

Now it’s true that some games can only be upgraded so many times. This is why series end, but genres don’t. Shooters, RPGs and World War II simulations are a dime a dozen but they’re still around because the genre is enjoyable. Sometimes, you just can’t take a game any further without it being too much, and the series must unfortunately meet its end. This will likely be true for games like Rock Band and Guitar Hero (GH is struggling enough as is). However, was anyone else expecting a 107-button guitar in the next Rock Band? As well as an entirely new instrument? Because I sure as hell wasn’t, which goes to show that you never know what kind of tricks may show up next. How do we know Kinect won’t be incorporated in the next one somehow? They may have real people green-screened onto the stage, there may be ‘live concerts’ for others to watch and enjoy and rate. This is what makes the game industry so special. There’s really no limit to possibilities.

Now, it’s well known that many of these games are getting very realistic, and you ‘may as well learn a guitar’, but that’s exactly Harmonix’ point. Part of their marketing campaign is that with Rock Band 3, you can finally learn real guitar. Remember how before, people were criticizing that the Rock Band guitar is nothing like a real guitar? Well they’ve added that option now for the haters. However, not everyone has the finger coordination to learn an instrument with six strings and however many frets like a guitar. Rock Band 3 provides tutorials to help you learn the frets, so you can play the closest adaptation of an actual guitar to date. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea. It’s difficult, it requires a lot of dedication, and it’s more of a personal project than an option to try at a party. It’s not like every Sally Sue can pick it up at bachelorette party and rock out to Livin’ on a Prayer. For those who want to learn the instrument with a flashy, visual aid, this makes for a great, fun, alternative aid to a traditional class or teacher. For everyone else, there’s still the five-button alternative.

Ultimately, games like Rock Band 3 and the recently released Dance Central offer a more realistic experience because a) it’s the next step forward, b) it helps actual artists learn the craft in a fun, positive, lax environment, and c) too many people complain about the already unrealistic experience. But in reality, it’s all optional. This is why there are multiple difficulty levels to perform at whatever’s comfortable for the player. And really, even if Rock Band 3 does teach you how to be a professional guitar player, unless you want to dedicate years of private down time and practicing, these music games are the only realistic option where you and your friends can perform hundreds of number one hits together, one after the other, without having to stop and start over every couple of measures because Timmy’s third string needs tightened.