#i think i just dislike most disney films in general

[theartisticcrow]

When I was younger, I used to think that I didn't like musicals. But now that I have grown and matured, it just turns out that I held in my heart an absolute burning hatred for Frozen. And I still do.

[not-wholly-unheroic]

I recently found a copy of the graphic novel version of Straight on Til Morning at my local used bookstore and got a great deal so I wanted to share a few of my likes, dislikes, and general observations. I’d been meaning to write up a proper review of the book for awhile now but have been SUPER behind. Anyway, the graphic novel follows the book pretty closely and I’ll be sharing some images from it, so this WILL CONTAIN SPOILERS for those of you who haven’t read it.

First off, the artwork for the graphic novel is beautiful and some scenes are illustrated in a really creative way. For example, I love the depiction of this particular scene where Wendy is writing her stories and Hook sort of…comes to life off the page.

I also really love that while (most of) the characters are still recognizably Disney’s version…they also look a tad more realistic and have some of the illustrator’s own personal interpretation mixed in.

George Darling is a great example. In the graphic novel he is slimmer than in the film and looks remarkably like J.M. Barrie…which I have to consider was probably intentional.

And then there’s the Lost Boys in their animal costumes…Tootles, Skipper (excuse me, this is Nibs erasure—you can add Skipper but don’t just eliminate Nibs!), Slightly, Cubby, and the Twins.

The pirates, however, are a totally different story. Who the heck are these guys???

Anyway… at least they get Hook’s personality right. I love this bit, in particular, where one of the pirates gets a little rough with Wendy and Hook is having none of it. Also, the idea of Hook capturing Wendy to be a mother to the crew is a nice nod to the book.

One big complaint I do have is that the characters are, on occasion, a little TOO self-aware. Like in this scene where one of the pirates makes a sort of on-the-nose observation about Hook’s feud with Pan.

But I will admit, I did cackle at Hook’s reaction.

He said would you please stop trying to psychoanalyze me and look for symbolism and just let the story be about a boy and a pirate? (Hook, how do you even know who Freud is??)

You may have noticed by now that I haven’t said anything about Peter… That’s because Peter barely features in the story at all and honestly when he does show up, he’s…kinda useless and clueless. Now, admittedly, Wendy is meant to be older in this (around 16) so of course, it’s reasonable to think she might not quite view him the same way she did at 12…but in having her team up with Tink to do all the heavy-lifting of the plot (because, ya know, girlpower and all that), Peter sort of ends up not really doing anything. I’d almost rather have an evil Pan, as annoying as that trope is because at least then he actually does something. In this story, it truly feels like Wendy has just…outgrown Peter altogether. And that hurts.

Speaking of which…ya know what hurts even more for me as a Hook fan? THIS.

This poor man is curled up on the deck in the fetal position, terrified of a crocodile who has been long-dead, crying out for a best friend who never even existed except inside his own mind because he was so alone that he made him up.

O W !! Why would you do this to me, Disney?!

It ends for Hook with the crew deciding to drop him off somewhere with enough gold to pay for his keep and hire a caretaker because he’s so mentally unstable they don’t trust him to live by himself.

I hate to say it, but honestly, watching him die would be less painful. At least that would be over with fairly quickly. This just hurts.

But everyone else lives happily ever after, so it’s okay, right? Right??? 😫😭 (Don’t mind me, I’ll just be over here in the corner, crying over my pirate boy.)

[alexanderwales]

The second chapter of Save the Cat! is about genre, titled "Give me the same thing ... only different!". The general principle is one that I strongly agree with, even if I don't always practice it in my writing: you must know how and why things work in fiction, you must be a student of the realms you're writing in, you must give your own twists on clichés if you think you might be writing them, and must be familiar with clichés so that you don't end up boring people. Study things that are like the thing you're trying to create. Analyze them, take them apart, understand how they work or don't work.

But then a lot of the chapter is taken up with Snyder's own system of ten genres, and when I was reading it I wanted to just stop him and say "hey, what the fuck, did you even watch that movie?"

Also I laughed for like five minutes at him putting Schindler's List in the "Dude with a Problem" genre, even though I agree that according to his typology it completely fits.

I'm a huge fan of making up arbitrary categories and then stuffing things into them. I don't think it's often very useful, no, but it's fun, and when you're done shoving things into boxes, you can pull them back out, find a new set of boxes, and repeat the process. I'm not going to repeat Snyder's categories here, but I think they kind of suck, and don't accurately reflect genre as we understand them, and the whole thing would have been better off is it was taking story archetypes and saying why they work and then what the usual deviations from them were.

Here are two examples that I take issue with, among others. First, by his accounting Planes, Trains, and Automobiles is a "Golden Fleece" movie, the kind of film centered around a hero's journey where what he ends up finding is, ultimately, himself, and every set piece along the way is important only in the way it relates to the hero's self-acceptance or whatever.

No. Wrong. Planes, Trains, and Automobiles is very very clearly a "Buddy Love" under this system. Look at this fucking image:

Could this DVD cover make this any more obvious? Literally all the promotional material is like this. It even says in the book that most "Buddy Love" movies start with the "buddies" disliking each other, and that their relationship is central to the movie. And if Snyder is getting this wrong, what else is he getting wrong about his own system?

Example two. I'm just going to quote it in full:

Now look at The Matrix and compare and contrast it with the Disney/Pixar hit Monsters, Inc. Yup. Same movie.

Fucking what do you mean.

Under this system of genres, Monsters, Inc. is very clearly another "Buddy Love" movie. There's a kid they have to deal with, but most of the movie is grounded in the relationship between Mike and Sulley. Like, what's the low point of the whole movie? They get banished to the Himalayas and then have a big fight! It's about their relationship to each other!

(I looked this up on the savethecat website and found an article claiming that it's an example of "Monster in the House", which is fucking stupid, because what's the monster and what's the house? Just does not apply. The child is takes the role of the "monster" for such a small amount of the movie, then they're looking after her and trying to return her home, and even before that it's not relatable as a monster to the audience. Blake Snyder didn't write the article, so maybe he had something different in mind.)

Meanwhile, The Matrix most closely falls into either "Dude with a Problem" (ordinary man thrust into extraordinary circumstances) or "Superhero" (extraordinary man in ordinary circumstances) and I would argue that it's actually neither of those because it's a goddamned hero's journey and those are their own thing and it makes no sense to try to split them into two parts because you don't get more explanatory power of what's working and what's not. His analysis of what he calls "Superhero" films also sucks for that reason and just totally misses the mark about what makes them tick.

So how are these the same movie? I don't know, it probably made sense to Blake Snyder. I have done my due diligence and searched for answers online, but haven't found much, just some weak ass defenses.

Also, I really hated that he says Chinatown and Who Framed Roger Rabbit? are basically the same movie because no shit. Who Framed Roger Rabbit? is a parody of noir, and was adapted from the script for a never-produced third film in what was supposed to be a Chinatown trilogy. But even then, I don't get how you can say they're the same movie without pointing out the strong "Buddy Love" through line in Roger Rabbit!

This whole chapter was a total miss for me. Decent advice at the start that I've been hearing and preaching for a long time, but this typology sucks and he doesn't even seem to understand it (or the movies he's putting in it) very well. And since the typology sucks, it's a bad lens for understanding the underlying rules of writing, of story structure, the components of story, etc.

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

Maybe it is not because of cgi movies but because how bad written the characters especially the villains. So far the only villain I can think fits is Mother Gothel because of how well-written her character is despite lacking of powers and a twisted version of her helps. Although they did take inspiration from CGI movies like Big Hero 6 for that chapter 6 plot and even took some TV shows like Lion Guard which it revealed to have lion guards in Leona's hometown.

[Referencing this post!]

As I mentioned in the original post, yes; TWST does take inspiration from and make reference to many Disney properties regardless of artistic medium. This extends to their animated and live action films and shows, as well as musical productions (the whole plot line with Rollo having a little brother that was led astray by sin comes from an obscure Hunchback of Notre Dame German musical) and more. It’s just that TWST has yet to introduce characters in their own universe explicitly twisted from characters in the 3D era, whether villains or not.

Seeing as the big “sell��� of Twisted Wonderland is its villain-based characters, I can see why one might think poor quality of the original (3D) Disney characters would be a factor in preventing them from being successfully adapted. However, I personally don’t think this is a huge consideration since that would imply Disney’s old villains are all written significantly well when some are simply generically evil or not that interesting (though this will vary depending on who you ask). Besides, it would also discount the fact that no matter how low quality or boring the original villain was, they can always be “dressed up” and given a more interesting story and character by the TWST team; they are not 100% beholden to the mold the original Disney character set.

I definitely agree that many of the more recent villains aren’t the… strongest… (if we had a villain at all, that is). Mother Gothel is the only one that immediately sticks out in my mind as a great villain from the 3D era. (She’s so uniquely wicked in how she gaslights and manipulates Rapunzel.) However, we don’t know if the people on the TWST team also hold this same opinion of disliking the 3D era and letting that actively influence their design direction for the game. It’s very hard to discern what the overall sentiment is since we don’t often hear from the TWST devs and just make assumptions of what the popular opinion is based on what we hear from our own social circles.

With the deliberate 3-4 years of staying with 2D animated characters (+ the G7 being some of the most iconic Disney villains) and now the Platinum Suit line now making references to the classics, I really think nostalgia is the main motivator rather than TWST (or Disney) questioning the quality of their 3D stories and characters. If anything, they (Disney, that is) seem pretty eager to stroke their own egos about mega box office and merchandising hits 😂 Frozen, anyone?

[solarwynd]

https://www.tumblr.com/solarwynd/765358565733072896/i-feel-a-bit-burnt-out-on-big-pop-songs-nowadays?source=share

Sorry this isn't really Jimin related but I was thinking about this today. Caveat I know there's a lot of great music and talented musicians who are doing cool stuff around but my gripe is that we're getting less and less mainstream exposure to it and all my points are specifically about how exposed the gp is to it, not people who are deep in a particular genre or the indie scene

For one thing the alt pop, rock, edm, britpop and punk genre has totally shrunk in on itself in the mainstream compared to about a decade or two ago. Hip hop and rap have generally expanded to sort of replace that void but this year has been disappointing I think? Is it just me? Apart from the KL - Drake beef in the summer ofc. I'm glad Latin music, afrobeats and kpop is getting bigger but it's also centered on a few big names imo, rather than being full fledged established genres. I'm no expert but that's my layman assessment. Countrys getting bigger but I dislike country so this is bad news for me 😭

But also do you remember when tv series used to try to promote artists? Sure they'd play some current radio hits or oldies and it still happens once in a while like running up that hill with stranger things but we used to get 22 episodes with at least a few indie songs playing in the past. Now that series are getting shorter and shorter, it's had this unexpected side effect of limiting that kind of exposure. Also does anyone feel mainstream movie soundtracks are getting worse too? I think it's cause most of them are marvel Disney movies and they're pretty barren from a soundscape pov. Using Justin Timberlake's bye bye bye during the Deadpool opening scene? Some of the most uninspired shit I've seen in a while.

Even the films that released as musicals this year - all of them are recycling songs from their original theatrical productions like wicked or mean girls or they don't have any new songs at all like joker folie a deux. I don't know if it's because I aged out of watching them, but it also feels like Disney channel used to have more music in general for their teen audience - high school musical movies, camp rock, victorious, Hannah Montana, descendants - need to ask some kids if they still have shows or movies like these still. Again I don't know if I aged out of this either but Disney also used to just release more animated movies with original music right? Not just releasing lion king and Mulan or whatever again with the same songs slightly tweaked with new singers. Also this is apropos of nothing but remember when glee was a thing 😭

But even as TV and movies were getting less musically diverse, I feel like in the late 2010s and around the pandemic, Tiktok, Snapchat, social media in general was taking its place and exposing people to new music. The problem is that music labels quickly caught on and nowadays tiktok is also the same roster of top 40 hits as radio with influencers being paid to dance to a song or tiktok being paid so-called heating deals to promote certain songs. Same thing with Spotify. Spotify has always had paid playlists but the way they push the same songs over and over again now is crazy.

Anyway I sound like old man yells at clouds so I'm going to stop griping and start actively seeking out new music outside what's trending. I was just curious if other people also feel this narrowing or if it's just me

This is such a good assessment and I agree with you.

[antianakin]

@theneutralmime

That's incredibly subjective at this point, since we've got at LEAST 3-4 different "canons" depending on how you look at it right now.

The first is Lucas's personal canon, which I imagine is what you're remembering having read somewhere as being just the films and TCW, although this would just be the first SIX films and the first SIX seasons of TCW and nothing else (this includes the sequel trilogy and season 7 of TCW, as well as films like Solo and Rogue One).

Anything beyond those things but that was created prior to the Disney buyout in 2014 is considered "Legends" canon (previously known as the Extended Universe before the buyout). This includes things like the original Thrawn trilogy, the Jedi Apprentice/Quest novels, the 2003 Clone Wars show, etc. Lucas did not consider them part of HIS Star Wars story and had no problem with ignoring anything introduced in Legends material if he didn't like it (nor did he have an issue with USING things he DID like from Legends material, but he often warped it to fit into his own story). Disney doesn't consider any of it as canon, but different creators have been slowly "re-canonizing" some of it in recent media (like Jango/Boba Fett being Mandalorians, or Siri Tachi's existence).

Anything created AFTER the 2014 buyout is considered "Disney canon." Unlike Lucas, Disney doesn't seem to be really separating their films/TV shows from their other content like books/comics/games in terms of continuity, but not everyone is actually consuming everything so sometimes shit doesn't match anyway. Generally the films and Disney+ TV shows (which for this purpose will include things like Rebels even though that show was created prior to Disney+ existing) are probably considered "higher" canon than things like the books, comics, and games, but it isn't as clear cut as it used to be under Lucas. While I think many of the things created under Disney canon, especially the films and Disney+ shows, are TRYING to be considered part of the same continuity as Lucas's canon, they're also definitely still doing their own thing and Lucas himself has no influence on them.

Rebels would be considered DISNEY canon since it was created after the buyout. Same goes for The Bad Batch as well as the Obi-Wan Kenobi show.

Tales of the Jedi is weird because it technically is within Disney canon, but I believe Filoni has claimed that audiences should see it less as actual canon events and more as like... "fables" or something like that. So basically the dude in charge said we can disregard anything in this show as canon if you want to, I guess. That being said, there's nothing in it that completely contradicts the more accepted canon (Lucas's stuff and the Disney films and TV shows), so I think that most people generally consider this show as "canon" no matter what Filoni said.

And of course, there's always your personal canon, which is just whatever you decide to SEE as canon regardless of anything "official." I personally dislike Tales of the Jedi and the Ahsoka show and am fully willing to just... pretend they're not canon. Neither of them has any real bearing on the larger narrative Lucas wrote anyway and you can obviously understand and enjoy the original six films without them.

I mostly use these distinctions when I'm having a discussion with someone about something like, say, the intentions behind the story. Because that can obviously change WILDLY depending on who is writing the story. Lucas and Filoni are not the same person, much as Filoni might like to believe otherwise, and so they have radically different approaches to Star Wars, its messages, and its worldbuilding. Something Filoni writes in a Disney canon show does NOT have any relevance to a discussion about what Lucas was trying to say about the Prequels Jedi, for example. Same goes for anything written in a Legends novel or comic book.

Star Wars is relatively easy to cherry pick from depending on what you enjoy. Especially these days, with how much content is being cycled out all the time. So if you just don't care for Disney canon at all, you can just... ignore it and focus on Lucas's canon and Legends material if you want. If you happen to be one of the people who just doesn't vibe with Lucas's messages, you can focus more on Legends canon and Filoni's more recent work. Or you can exclusively enjoy Lucas's canon and absolutely nothing else. Or you can pick and choose from within each "canon" depending on what vibes with you. The galaxy far far away is your oyster!

[chaifootsteps]

hey chai, found some shit that aged like milk while digging around.

tl;dr evidently viv was aware of how animators were mistreated / uncredited during sausage party's production and spoke about how their hard work deserved support.

(all the below is circa 2016)

she made a bunch of sausage party fanart that she apparently "gave to a friend at Sony" who "knew some of the uncredited animators" and said they wanted people to "respect" and "admire" the hard work they put into the movie.

she wrote the following on the page of fanart...

additionally, viv made a video about her thoughts on sausage party, and she made some interesting remarks in the comments...

...i can't watch the video myself as i also don't want to hear viv's voice,

but here's some tid-bits from the transcript...

she's seen "all of family guy... all of south park... and all of drawn together..." and thinks drawn together is "the most offensive" thing she's seen to-date

the only r-rated content she dislikes is ren and stimpy's adult party cartoon. she thinks it is the "apex of shock value... has no reason to exist... is painfully unpleasant to witness... not funny... not well done... just complete and utter garbage."

sausage party's stereotypes "didn't bother" her bc "everybody in the entire world is equally made fun of," it's "so offensive it's no longer offensive it's just stupid," none of the stereotyping is "mean-spirited," and the stereotyping "serves a purpose in the setting"

she says that it's "not fair" for artists to be... "uncredited... expected to work overtime for no money..."

she talks about how sausage party was this company's first film and they were using a very small budget that they should've used more carefully, but it went to other areas that were not the animators, who were expected to work nearly for free and without proper credit (that all sound familiar?)

she laments how these animators put "such amazing work" into the movie and "really cared about it" and that she "can't imagine doing that and not being credited"

she talks about how the company probably wanted sausage party to be "as good as possible for as cheap as possible" but that "doesn't excuse" how they treated their animators.

"the animators sold this movie, without the animation this movie would not nearly be as good or charming"

she felt the sexual humor "wasn't as uncomfortable" as other sexual humor can be simply because the characters weren't humans

she generally *really* sucks sausage party's dick saying it's an "existential allegory" and "critique of religion" and "going to be part of history" (these are of course subjective opinions ppl may or may not agree on but since it's what she thinks i'm including it.)

God, I almost hate to admit this, but I actually really liked Sausage Party in a vacuum. It's nice looking, the character designs are worlds better and more distinct than what you'll find in most Disney movies, and it's a nice balance of South Park-esque raunchiness and some genuinely interesting existential stuff about life, religion, and the human condition.

But...no, it's not high art, and it's not going to be part of history. Any slim chance it had of being part of history was blown to bits by the disgusting, unforgivable way it treated its animators.

Watching it now, you can absolutely see how Vivzie attempted to follow its example in all things, from crudeness to commentary on religion/human nature. The difference is that Sausage Party doesn't pull its punches when it comes to the former and is at least sort of intelligent when it comes to the latter. The result is that even at its dumbest and worst, it has a better understanding of what it's doing and what it's trying to be than Vivzie's stuff.

In the end, the only thing Vivziepop succeeded in taking away from Sausage Party was how to treat the people working for you.

[beyonddarknessintolight]

Deep in my Star Wars feelings tonight...

I am admittedly a Lucasian purist at heart, due to how I find his vision to be ultimately more thematically consistent than what the old EU was, as well as modern canon. Which is down to how it all came from one dude, who had a specific story to tell.

That said.... I have been thinking a lot lately about the state of modern Star Wars. I am coming around to the idea that, however I may feel about the direction Star Wars has gone in, it's just a fact of life. This is the way (heh) that franchises inevitably evolve to suit the desires of the audience, and reflect the world around them.

This much is cold hard fact: Lucas built SW to be a very morally black-and-white idealistic fairy tale, which is what America needed during the 70's, in a time of suffocating cynicism and despair after Vietnam broke our collective spirit. But now, what the world asks for is stories that examine the nuances of good and evil, and take greater care to properly represent the world we live in, the people who inhabit it, the diversity that has gone undervalued for too long, etc. This isn't 'bad,' unless if you are a Fandom Menace weenie.

And George Lucas himself recently spoke about how, even though Star Wars has become something different than what he wanted and he dislikes a lot of what Disney has done to his baby, he has accepted it, and moved on. There is a lesson there for all of us, and it's the same lesson he attempted to teach us with the prequels: we need to learn to accept change. We cannot stop the change any more than we can stop the suns from setting. We must learn to let go of all that we fear to lose.

Star Wars has become something very different from what it was when I was young, just like it turned into something radically different for the OT generation, and one day it will become something very different for the sequel generation. This is part of the circle of life. If Lucas could make peace with it, so should I.

So as much as I grouse about how things are done now, whenever they make choices that I don't like... I must accept it's not all about me. 'My' Star Wars is not the 'only' Star Wars. And even the most loathed installments of this series, have their earnest and passionate fans.

I want to try harder to focus on the good in this franchise. It's why I decided to start this blog, and erase my old account that trafficked too much in my own negativity about the way things have changed.

I lived through the No Man's Land of the prequel years, where my enjoyment of those movies as a youngster was hijacked by overwhelming negativity whenever I tried to find a community to share in my love of them. I remember how much that hurt, and I see the same kind of nasty rhetoric used with a lot of the sequel-trilogy hate.

But one day, the kids who grew up with this as THEIR Star Wars, will have a voice... and the cycle will begin again. I want to be there for them when that day comes, and be able to say that I didn't repeat the sins of prequel haters, by fixating on the negatives about these films and contributing to a climate of hostility to their fanbase.

May the Force be with us all.

[casp1an-sea]

Thoughts on Rey Standalone film?

OK I’m trying to be more open minded than I previously was. Do I think it’s going to be a good movie? No. Am I mad they’re making the movie? Kind of. Is that just for petty reasons? Mostly. I’m not going to sugarcoat it.

I dislike Rey. I have explained before why that is and I’m trying to be a bit more civil about it especially now that I have friends that are Rey fans. I personally think if they are making a standalone movie, they should explore the characters that have more potential for growth. Of course they could introduce a character flaw in this movie but I feel it’s a bit late and I don’t really see A very compelling story from Rey considering the canon that we have. Because you know, Palpatines granddaughter to me is not really something I want them to explore more, and we’ve already seen Jedi’s struggling to teach their powers to someone else before, so that isn’t really unique to me. That is all I can really think that they could do with her character. Aside from like romance and I am not a FinnRey shipper, even though I know that is a very popular ship. I’d probably only be interested in the relationship mildly if it was a lesbian one, and God knows Disney is not gonna do that. (they should confirm it and rebuild the galaxy though evil Rose x Darth Rey is cool.) and even then I would only be interested in it because I appreciate lesbian representation that doesn’t necessarily mean that I would be invested in the ship because I simply just do not care about Rey’s relationships and honestly, it would be equally cool if they revealed her as being Ace Aro which they also won’t do (she does give Ace vibes though). Anyway, I went on a tangent.

Now a stand alone movie about Finn I would understand, Poe even though I feel like Finn would make more sense. In fact, I think a flashback movie dedicated to Kylo Ren, and how he fell to the Darkside and his first days in the order would be great. Arguably the most interesting option. And I’m not just saying that because I like Kylo a lot. (I know logistically getting Adam driver to reprise The role is probably a lot harder than getting Daisy Ridley to. I’m just saying it would be cool.)

now that brings me to the petty reason, you know aside for me just not liking her character. It’s just gonna remind me that Kylo is dead. And I don’t think he should be dead, and that angers me. And then it’s just a pipeline because if I start thinking about Kylo, then I start thinking about Hux and how I’m angered about what happened to him. Which will also intern, make me feel angered about how they treated the entire first order in general, when in my opinion, they were far more interesting than the republic and resistance. So I’m just going to spiral for a bit. And I’m also going to be thinking about how the movie would be different if those people were alive and how I would probably like it better. And also how I’m just mad at Disney, and Disney, Star Wars in general, which will lead me down a rabbit hole of being depressed about acolyte cancellation again.

anyway all of this to stay if you are excited for the movie and you want to watch the movie then good for you. I’m glad you can be excited about something Star Wars even if I don’t share the same sentiment. And if they make the movie and I hate it, I’m not going to come attack you I’m not going to harass, you with hate comments and constantly talk directly to you about how I feel it’s bad just because I know you like it, and I’m not going to say how I think it should be removed from Disney. Because just because I don’t like some thing does not give me the right to ruin it for the fans. If it’s not for me, I just will not watch it Again. And I will share my criticism in constructive ways towards people that want to hear it and asked for it. (yes, this is me being passive aggressive to acolyte haters) And I will, by no means come for the Actors. Poor Daisy, Ridley has to deal with enough from all of the male fans getting pissed that she said she couldn’t change the way how SOME men saw a women. Like come on people we are adults.

[shadyb00ts]

The Little Mermaid (2023) - Review

As a longtime fan of Chloe x Halle, I knew from the moment that Halle Bailey was cast as Ariel that she was the perfect choice. Of course the racists were (and still are) whining and throwing tantrums about Ariel being black, because they never believe any person of color can truly earn a role with sheer talent, but for a long time I was sure that even if this movie ended up being an absolute dumpster fire, Halle would be the saving grace of that dumpster fire. She would be the best part, hands down.

Well, I wasn't surprised to see that I was right. About her being the best part, at least, but I don't think the movie itself is a dumpster fire at all. I actually really enjoyed it, and I've been very cynical of the Disney live action remakes for a long time like most people are. I had no confidence in this film but I had the utmost confidence in Halle to shine no matter what. However, there were things about this movie that pleasantly surprised me. Some disappointments though, I'll admit.

This is gonna be a long review, as my reviews always are. Spoilers ahead. I'd recommend you read this if you've seen the movie, but if you haven't and don't care about spoilers, read on.

So for starters, I was never really a Little Mermaid stan. Of course I loved the movie as a kid because I was obsessed with mermaids in general, and the songs were undisputed classics, but I wasn't exactly a fan of the movie as I grew older. I don't dislike it, it's just... fine. It's very of its time. So because of that, I knew they were going to update and expand certain things in the remake. For better or worse.

I've already stated how much I thought Halle nailed this film. Maybe you could say that I'm biased since I was already a fan of hers anyway, but hey, this is just my honest opinion. She captured Ariel's essence so beautifully; her innocence and naivete, her curiosity and inquisitiveness, her yearning and wonder. And while yes, the CGI during the underwater scenes could be a little janky some of the time, I was mostly mesmerized by the way she moved, the way her hair moved and the iridescence of her tail. She just looked so gorgeous and adorable and got Ariel down to a science.

As for when she gets legs and goes to the surface, that's where she shines even more, because she has to act without saying a word. It was all in her expressions and mannerisms and I thought she absolutely delivered. I haven't mentioned the new songs they added yet, but they did add a new Ariel song for when she goes to the surface called "For the First Time" and I have to say that it's my favorite new addition. It's soooo delightfully musical theater and I think it has the most Little Mermaid-esque vibe to it. It fit the movie perfectly.

Back to the actors, I also thought Melissa McCarthy was the biggest surprise. I had zero confidence that she would do the role justice, but I thought she actually did a great job. She was definitely channeling Pat Carroll and some of her lines elicited chuckles out of me. And I thought her rendition of Poor Unfortunate Souls was pretty good, even though it's unfortunately missing the iconic "body language" lyric. She's not a strong vocalist but I think she did the best she could, and she was one of the highlights. Also she did the Ursula Shoulder Shimmy which I appreciated.

Jonah Hauer King as Prince Eric also did a good job I think. The remake added much-needed depth and character to Eric that was missing in the original. Another thing I appreciated was how they tried to show more parallels between Eric and Ariel. There's a scene in the movie where Ariel finds Eric's library/study, and it's shot in a way that makes it reminiscent to Ariel's grotto. They tried to give the two more things in common, and I think they succeeded in that. Plus the chemistry between Jonah and Halle was just off the charts. I rarely find straight couples adorable, but I thought they were so adorable any time they were sharing a scene.

My one minor gripe with his casting is that he's not exactly the strongest vocalist. One of the new musical numbers is an Eric song called Wild Uncharted Waters, and.... I didn't really like it. His voice kind of sounded like the lead singer of an angsty rock band from the 2000s. As soon as it started it gave me war flashbacks to Emma Watson in Beauty and the Beast, where they had to use very noticeable autotune on her voice. Granted that was much, MUCH worse, but still. I don't wanna be reminded of that travesty. The song itself is okay I think, but it could be much better if they had a stronger vocalist or a Broadway darling to play the role, to really do the song justice. But like I said, this is just a minor gripe because Eric really only gets one song, and Jonah overall did a good job.

A change that I really appreciated was, instead of Ariel getting invited to dinner at the castle, she and Eric go to a market instead. The kingdom in the remake is inspired by the Caribbean and I loved the tropical, colorful vibe of the locale. The market visit allowed Ariel to wander around and marvel at everything she doesn't understand, and it's a much cuter, more laid back way for her and Eric to spend time together. Some people were upset about the crazy chef who tries to kill Sebastian being removed, but honestly, I never thought that sequence added anything to the original. I loved what they did here.

Daveed Diggs as Sebastian... Sigh. Look, I love Daveed but I feel like he was so miscast for this. Anytime he spoke or sang, you could tell the Jamaican accent was very put on. Sure, the original actor who voiced Sebastian--Samuel E. Wright, RIP--also was putting on a Jamaican accent, but somehow it just felt more natural when he did it. His voice work as Sebastian was so iconic, and Daveed just missed the mark on this role. It just wasn't the right role for him. His version of Under the Sea was also quite underwhelming, and he did a lot of talk-singing during it. I liked the Under the Sea sequence visually, but not quite sonically.

As for Kiss the Girl, people were making such an uproar about the lyric changes but the changes were so minor. They literally only changed like, a couple of lines, and the song is still the same thematically. It's still just the animal sidekicks trying to influence Eric to kiss the girl in kiiind of a date-r*pey-ish way. They wanted to make it seem more consensual, but nothing's really changed. But yeah, I do think the original version of the song is still better regardless. Similar issue I felt about Under the Sea, it just... doesn't quite hit the mark.

Awkwafina as Scuttle was... alright. She had some funny moments, but I mean, she's just doing her regular voice. It's literally just Awkwafina as a bird. But what I really hated was.. Scuttlebutt.

Oh god, Scuttlebutt. I honestly have no idea what Lin Manuel Miranda was thinking when he wrote this? I don't know if he was smoking something really strong, cause like... Mama, this is garbage. Like, I can't even explain to you how painful to hear this song was. It's absolutely the worst and most unnecessary addition to the soundtrack. Nobody wants to hear Awkwafina, the queen of putting on blaccents, rapping. That's the last thing any of us wanna hear. It was just. So. Horrible. I've seen the movie twice in theaters now and each time I was just begging for that song to be over.

Anyway, that's the most negative thing I can say about this movie, was that damn song. Lin deserved jailtime for that one.

For the more minor characters, Javier Bardem as Triton was okay. Some people think he was horrible but I don't think he was that bad, it was fine. I still would've preferred Idris Elba as Triton but that's just my personal fancast.

Flounder was... Flounder. Yeah, I don't like his hyper-realistic design, but he was still pretty cute and 12-year-old Jacob Tremblay was just trying his best to emulate the original actor and I think he did a fine job.

Ariel's sisters were barely in it, like in the original. They did give them each unique, cute designs, but we all know that it's just to sell dolls. They appear in the beginning of the movie in a pretty awkward scene that's supposed to replace the concert from the original film. Apparently Triton and his daughters meet every time there's something called the Coral Moon? It seems to just be a family meeting of some sort. They left it so vague, they didn't even bother to explain what the Coral Moon was. I wish they had just kept the concert.

But yeah, the sisters are all named and apparently I heard each of them are supposed to have special powers? Well those powers weren't showcased in the movie at all, so we know it was just a marketing tactic. I'm sure there'll be tons of fanfics of all the sisters having adventures and whatnot. They might even make an animated series. It'd be called Ariel and Her Sisters, or Daughters of Triton.

I do think the dolls are very slay though. I'd buy the whole 7 pack.

Oh my god, I forgot to talk about Vanessa. Girl... Jessica Alexander bodied this role. Even though she was only in it for a handful of minutes, she ate up every bit of those minutes. I also really liked Vanessa's Trick from the soundtrack and thought it sounded beautiful. Do I wish it still had lyrics instead of "la-di-da's"? Sure I guess, but I honestly don't mind all that much. It's very haunting and Halle's voice is ethereal on it.

I think that's all I have to say on the movie. It's a fun time and it's bolstered by some stellar performances (particularly from Halle) and welcome changes/additions. But it's also kinda bogged down by not-always-great CGI, some clunky musical choices, and certain things cut from the original film that I thought shouldn't have been cut.

Still, I very much enjoyed this movie more than any of the other Disney remakes so far. I do agree with people's sentiments of it being the best of the bunch, but well... the bar isn't exactly high in that regard. Maybe because the previous remakes were so bad, this one just is the best because it's the only one that doesn't suck.

Whatever the case, I had enough of a great time that I went and saw it twice. I recommend you see it too before it leaves theaters.

[twistedtummies2]

Fifteen Days of Disney Magic - Number 11

Welcome to Fifteen Days of Disney Magic! In honor of the company’s 100th Anniversary, I am counting down my Top 15 Favorite Movies from Walt Disney Animation Studios! Today’s entry is truly a Tale as Old as Time. Number 11 is…Beauty and the Beast.

Of all fifteen films on this list, the four-part stretch between 11th and 8th place was the hardest bunch of movies to sort out. I knew what films made up this particular section of the countdown, but ranking them was a lot tougher. To try and work things out, I first took time to revisit all the films basically back-to-back. Then I asked myself a few questions: how much would I like to play a part in the film (such as in a stage production)? Similarly, how often have I written about or would like to write about each movie’s world? How often do I reference this movie or talk about it in general? Which world and story would I like to write most for? And finally, which picture do I have the most general nostalgia for? Unfortunately, after asking myself these questions, and revisiting the films, “Beauty and the Beast” – perhaps shockingly, to many – lost out the contest. Do not misconstrue this, however, to mean that I dislike the movie, or think it has less merits than the other three to come above it. In some ways, I think it’s the technical best of the movies in question…but again, there’s a difference between “best” and “favorite,” and if certain earlier entries have not made it clear, the latter is really what I’m talking about with this countdown, not the former. But now, let’s focus on the positives, because – needless to say – there are MANY positives. The original fairy-tale of “Beauty and the Beast” has become just as much a trope, in and of itself, as it is a classic story. Disney’s version changed several elements of the original tale, and virtually all of them were for the better. Long before “Frozen,” this film essentially acted as a subversion and deconstruction of a lot of Disney staples from years before, while still being its own great story with incredible artistry and wonderful characters and music. In a way, you can see this as the direct precursor to a lot of modern Disney movies, with a heroine and a hero who learn from each other and have complex personalities, writing that has an ironic sense of humor, and a villain who does not at first SEEM to be the villain…although Gaston, admittedly, works very differently from characters like Hans or Bellwether, but that’s another story. The film is largely regarded as one of the single best Disney movies ever made, and it’s not hard to see why. Indeed, it’s fitting I bring up “Frozen” so much, because when that film came out, the common phrase I heard everyone use to describe it was, “It’s the next Beauty and the Beast!” While I do like “Frozen,” I think I’ll always prefer this film. I love it’s sense of artistry; its visual style and the feeling of size and splendor that comes with it. I love how it’s subtle and simple with its messages and themes, being both layered and yet totally easy to get a grasp of. I love how it takes so many fantastical concepts and characters, yet makes them feel so real and so easy to empathize with. SO…why isn’t it in my Top 10? Simply put, if you look back on the criteria I named, it actually ranks the lowest on all counts. I don’t watch Beauty and the Beast that often, compared to the other three movies, and I don’t quote Beauty and the Beast that often (except for the songs). I’ve never really written for it and do not currently plan to (nor expect to), and of the four films in question, it’s the one I’d least like to play a part in…although, to clarify, I’d still love to be in it. Cogsworth and LeFou both sound like tons of fun to play…just saying. 0:) The countdown moves into my Top 10 tomorrow, with my 10th Favorite Disney Movie! HINT: It Never Gets Old.

[marciabrady]

Hi, I really love your crits ❤ but I'm wondering why you dislike Frozen so much? I'm a huuuge fan of Aurora and Mulan myself, and I hate more and more every 3D/live action film and terribly miss 2D animation, but I must say I really loved Frozen (only the first one!!), I saw it together with my sister, who's also my bff, so maybe that's why it appealed to us, there were also some traits we felt like we had in common with these characters... and maybe it's also the thing we didn't see the film with English dub, which didn't the best (totally agreed with your take on K Bell! I'm not a fan of her personally). And I know this movie has a lot of flaws, but at the same time it was really easy for me to ignore them - until F2 I guess, it brought up all of my problems with this franchise lol Anyway, I just wanted to ask - bc I think it can be the problem with all of the new (3D) princesses - aren't they a bit bland? I was thinking about it the other day, what's characteristic for Anna and Elsa and... well, he's extrovert, and the other introvert I guess? And Anna is romantic? But there's no hobby, no distinct personal trait, nothing. On the other hand Rapunzel was briefly shown to can/like literally ALL! You make candles? Play guitar? Sew? Sing? No problem, she's just like you, you can identify with her. And the bland princesses? You can easily project yourself onto them if you will, it's not same they like to, it's say, paint - but it's not said they hate/can't do it either, right? Sorry for my rambling, it's quite late, and I've just finished my weekend Disney Princess movie marathon. Anyway, love your blog and take care xxx

So I wouldn't necessarily say I hate Frozen, I just strongly dislike certain tonal elements to it but I generally don't really think about it because it didn't resonate to me. Frozen to me doesn't really feel like a film but rather a commentary on other films? With all of the "you can't marry a man you just met" lines and how all of the plots that occur were clearly planted in order to combat criticisms of the Disney Princess line: ie them not being active, or physical, or being too naïve, or lovesick which is why I think Anna is treated as a joke pretty much. So I feel like I'm watching a commentary track where this film is retroactively beating up the previous films on which it was based on and whose success made that endeavor possible? And honestly...I think that's what a lot of people like about it. At the time it came out, I never really heard anyone talk about the value of the characters- rather the emphasis was on "Elsa's the first Princess who didn't need a man! She's independent! Unlike the other princesses, she's a BADASS" or them applauding how Hans killed the Prince Charming trope (which I think is largely reductive, and not even inventive as Gaston had accomplished that previously, but I digress). In general, most of the elements people find revolutionary about this film are anything but- this film essentially just takes elements from other films and infuses it with a lot of meta-textual criticism and added in some sparkly magic to divert toddlers. I even read a book about women in animation and the author said that a woman contributed the idea of Anna being gassy (which I hate btw, it's not charming it's uncouth and I don't think men or women should openly act like that lol) and how it was game changing for how women were depicted when Princess Fiona already did that over a decade earlier?

Apart from the elements I mentioned above, as I touched on in my previous response, Kristen Bell's voice gives nothing to me. I don't like how Anna is treated as a joke, I think it's visually very boring, I don't like the 3d design, and I have no object permanence for the plot because it feels like there's just a lot happening to keep people from being bored without any weight behind it. I'm also not a fan of the universe, with the trolls and just none of it makes sense? Like they go through hoops to try to hit us over the head with how strong Elsa and Anna are as female leads and how men are useless but then Elsa runs away from her own kingdom and Anna leaves it to the attention of Hans while she goes off in search of Elsa??? I don't know, it just all isn't for me lol I know a lot of people like it and they're certainly entitled to, I just think it isn't to my taste.

[knifebaby3000]

Your OC Tian looks like he could he my OCs brother and I'm so obsessed with him. The beauty marks and the oblivious glazed over look really fucking do it for me

can u share more about him :0c

Omg thank you so much!!!!! I designed Tian to be so extremely husband-coded To Me so I'm happy some of the boxes he checks 4 me ✅ are checked 4 u also ✅🙏🏼

Tian (and Zhu) is the protagonist of two of my projects, the original and its overgrown AU. The OG is........ A xianxia romcom bildungsroman like....... Swan-maiden myth meets FFIX meets Disney Hercules.......... And the AU is what I usually draw/upload, which is a neo noir like...... FFVIII meets........ Drive (2011)....... Meets........... Disco Elysium which is a connection I'm only making right here, right now, as I type?????? Anyway OG-style Baby T is "tiger", "spring", vs Big T who is "dragon", "winter". Both are True Neutral tho I think Baby T leans Chaotic...

Some quick blips: Cap sun, Aries moon, Taurus rising, bday is 31 Dec; 6'2 188cm, ~190lbs 86kg, benches above his bodyweight; vegetarian, doesn't drink, healthiest guy you know (chainsmoking is healthy); blue MCR-coded tobacco depression wifeguy to Zhu’s red LDR-coded cocaine mania guywife

Charm points: natural curls, beauty marks, underbite

Talents: carpentry, wushu, gymnastics, fixing whatever

Likes: Zhu, tofu, his motorcycle

Dislikes: texting, cardio, doing laundry

Songs: MCR – Drowning Lessons + Fashion Statement + Desert Song (it's bad!!!!!!), The National – Walk Off, Hyukoh – 似是故人來 Like An Old Friend Arrives

Motifs: chrysanthemums, smoke, temples, the moon

Not really a talker, he's all abt acts of service and can be hard to understand if you're looking specifically for words. I like to think of him as the lead in a Western film except the horse is a black motorbike – silhouetted against the horizon, never says more than he has to, does what needs doing. His catchphrase is basically "🆗", "Sure." Also he doesn't use guns but anything else goes 🔨

Some flavor:

More under the cut if this hateful app will let me add one 🤪

I think he's best understood thru the way other ppl talk abt him – so here are a couple names/epithets!

His maternal grandmother is a distinguished mobster known as The Old Empress, which is why most ppl call Tian "Crown Prince", "the Prince", etc. Their family is more/less popularly-elected local deities (see "city god" on Wikipedia) and he's the last of the bloodline But has been refusing to officially inherit for over a decade, though he performs all the duties anyway. Old, old agreements put them above virtually all modern law, generally thru loopholes that allow them to, for example, literally start a gang war at 23 bc you got a little too annoyed Or take an eye for an eye/publicly execute someone as ritual vengeance. Pls note that Zhu is a criminal defense attorney. Smile

They also sometimes call him "Bodhisattva" bc he, due to Circumstances, grew up in a Buddhist monastery from age 8, along with Jin, his baby brother. He became an ordained monk at 20 but disrobed at 22 so he could help Jin thru university. During that time, he worked three primary jobs: seasonal construction worker/contractor, auto mechanic, and plumber. "why not model" No Vanities Lifestyle. He Is Just Some Guy. He Wishes He Were Still Bald. Fuck Fast Fashion Btw.

With his name specifically, Tian Tian, family name 田 “field” + given name 天 “heaven/day/sky” is his entire character – simple, no frills, unassuming on paper, but also strong, steady, salt of the earth. It's a name that once you see him both does and doesn't do him justice, like surely there's something fancier and yet between those two characters you already have the world. The name is also 9 strokes altogether! Fav number and an auspicious one – 9 heavens + if you've ever seen an imperial dragon robe, it's 9 dragons with scales in multiples of 9, eg 81.

A few bonus reasons I chose 天:

I associate him with swans (symbol of beauty but also violent, aggressive birds), 大天鹅 Big Heaven Goose

Single-character names are so elegant/Tough to me

Canonically seen as a "Fifth Great Beauty", literally a man named Heaven, the H is for Husband TO ME

FACT I decided on the monk thing after I named him and I think it's funny. His Dharma name is 釋恒心 Shi Hengxin btw which means "monk", literally, and "resolution"

Final bonus, literally my man:

[a-couple-of-notes]

Too Many Words on Mean Girls the Musical

The discovery of Mean Girls (2024) has sent me into a genuine tailspin, y'all. The adaptation nerd in me is intrigued and screaming. The younger version of myself for whom Mean Girls on Broadway acted as a gateway to musical theater is just screaming. The film school graduate is confused???

I think I'd much rather gush over why the original stage show, despite its flaws, does work--it's generally more fun for me to dissect a thing that I love rather than something I dislike--but the fact is, I am STILL trying to figure out what the hell I actually think about the 2024 movie. I guess this is my flailing, word-vomit style attempt to do so.

Okay, some context: I have watched all three versions in their entirety. I think the 2004 movie is very well-done and absolutely deserves its status as a cultural icon, but I've always connected more with the original Mean Girls musical, which ran on Broadway from 2018-2020. It was one of the first musicals I ever got into, one of the first cast albums I ever bought with my own money, and though over time I came to recognize many of its flaws (the lyrics can be hokey, I wish they'd threaded in Cady's stars motifs better, there's an argument a bajillion people have already made about the girls not being mean enough, etc.), Broadway!MG was always going to hold the peak Mean Girls place in my heart.

But I'm also an adaptation nerd, and I was fully aware of my bias going into the 2024 musical movie. I tried to keep an open a mind as possible, even looking forward to changes and what they might do with new character interpretations or space from cut songs. Maybe I didn't do a good enough job keeping that open mind, because I'm seeing a lot of people who liked the musical saying that this was an okay adaptation. I just. I don't know what they watched. I don't know what I watched.

In roughly chronological (read: increasingly ????) order, a list of bullet points:

I understand the motive behind replacing "It Roars"--not because I think "It Roars" is a weak song, though. I think "It Roars" is actually quite good, despite some debatably rough lyrics; it neatly sets up Cady's excitable energy ("I've got new things to try / like high school, and skateboards, and rapping / and Starbucks venti chai"), her roots in Africa (the drumbeat musical sound, which will recur through Cady's songs), and her naiveté ("Hi teens!"). The transition from African drumbeats/Disney princess to pop/rock as the percussion and guitar kick in really effectively communicates the transition from Cady's world to the world of Western high school. Most importantly, though, "It Roars" introduces us to Cady's fundamental want and a big theme of the show: friendship and belonging. ("They all want to be included like me / so eventually, I'll win!")

But 2024!Cady is a different character, and the movie seems to want to explore different themes (maybe??). So it makes sense that they would need a different opening number, because they're establishing different things. 2024!Cady is quieter, but much more unhappy in Africa; her main want is to live life freely and without regret. Fair enough! That works well with how she'll be challenged in the story, wanting to try living like the Plastics but being forced to hold back in the process. I can get behind that.

HOWEVER. Cady's signature sound is gone, as are pretty much all the signature styles, leaving the musical language of the film much weaker. By replacing "It Roars" but leaving other songs the same ("Apex Predator" and "I See Stars," mostly), they muddy the themes and metaphors threaded throughout. And crucially, they frame "What Ifs" and "Stupid with Love" as dream sequences that get cut off by the Real World of high school.

This is...certainly a decision. It sets up expectations about how the music works in this world that they can't follow through on--there are scenes Cady doesn't see, and therefore cannot dream-musicalize. So when normal people start singing outside Cady's perspective, it's so jarring, because this high school has not been established as a Musical World. (Compounded by the ensemble and the instrumentation sounding thin, and Cady's performance being like it is.)

The establishing of the music as Cady's dream sequences also does a disservice to the real feeling of high school. High school is big and dramatic and the emotions you feel are larger than life. To delineate it so firmly, to have it only be so big and campy in Cady's head, like a sort of "oh, look at that weirdo, thinking that high school is like a musical" feels, to me, so much less genuine.

It sort of felt like if they could have gotten away with playing all the musical numbers as insert songs over the actual action, they would have. They tried so hard.

I think the orchestrations in general are bad and afraid to be a musical. And I don't get people who say that "they had to tone it down for the screen, because you don't have to go as big on screen." I mean, I do, but there is precedent for doing big, loud, ensemble-heavy numbers on screen and it working. Look at The Prom movie, or Hairspray. Look at freaking High School Musical. They could have done it, and it wouldn't have broken the cinema screen or anything.

I love Renee Rapp, I do. But Cady is the protagonist of the story for a reason (just like Emma was the protagonist of The Prom for a reason, and look, the same thing happened there.) Broadway!MG worked because, under all of Regina and Damian's show-stopping numbers, Cady was there as the emotional backbone of the show. You can have your "Stop"s and your "World Burn"s because you have "More is Better" or the reprise of "Fearless" that is tragically missing from the OBC. I always had the sense in the show that everything would eventually feed into Cady's arc; she would learn something from the number (or refuse to), and/or whatever happened through the song would affect her behavior going forward. The sense I get from 2024!Cady is that she exists to be swallowed up by Renee Rapp, which, good for her, but it can't support the narrative.

In general, they've just gutted a lot of Cady's internality by cutting her songs (and her musical asides! Justice for the musical asides!), leading to this lack of agency/accountability/character. Which I find dishearteningly funny, given that the Broadway cast have talked about how this was an issue the creative team was aware of in the original stage show, and how hard they worked to fix it.

I disagree with the notion that the dialogue scenes could replace the impact of these songs. I just don't see it. Once you add musical numbers, you're adding emphasis--here's the big emotional moments I want you to pay attention to. And the emotion dips back down, so we talk--and here's another big emotion, so music, pay attention. The 2024 movie has told us what it considers important: the fun numbers and the Plastics, mostly Regina. And that completely kneecaps the core narrative arc (as well as the pacing, because we're speeding through in weird places before stopping down for a full Regina song).

I just. I really don't know why (narratively--I understand the meta-reasons and they're bad) they cut "More is Better." I'm not joking when I say the movie would have been significantly better with it in. It would have improved the pacing, at least in a musical sense, because going straight from "Revenge Party" to "Someone Gets Hurt (Reprise)" left a surprisingly noticeable gap that made me wonder if they'd forgotten what they were adapting. It would have given Cady a little more voice, and it would have fit really well thematically with what should have been the arc of 2024!Cady--living without holding back, living sincerely. (Also, since Aaron is literally the only person this Cady cares about, that reality check would have packed an even greater wallop.)

I will give credit to the scene with Cady crying as her mom comforts her. That was a good scene.

I was glad they reprised "What Ifs" briefly in the Mathletes competition, although I do miss "Do This Thing," especially because I think it would have worked with 2024!Cady's character arc.

Also, I do sort of get putting "Stupid with Love" over the Mathletes/getting ready for prom, but why the "calcu-lust" portion of the song? And why is it the only song to depart from the musical style this movie is determined to stick to (I'm not counting Damian's iCarly rendition, great as it is--that's meant to be a joke.)

"I See Stars." Okay. Unironically, I love this song as the ending of the Broadway show. I do. You can fight me on it. In Broadway!MG, Cady's driving want is the need to belong, the need for friends; "I See Stars" is her reaching out to the other students (and the audience) and "including" everyone, finally achieving that sense of belonging and friendship by being kind to everyone. The ensemble all coming in and saying "We're all stars," when at the beginning they are so opposed to her ("Just ignore her!") or focused on Regina warms my heart every time. It so earnestly resolves the thematic through line (and also I love Erika's voice).

HOWEVER, it does not work in the 2024 movie. 2024!Cady's desire has never been about friends or belonging. Again, she wants to be herself and live without regrets. I could buy that she would sing an inspirational finale a la "I'd Rather Be Me" or a rousing reprise of "What Ifs" to say something like "we can all do what we want AND be kind to each other." But the thematic throughline to "I See Stars" is much thinner--and the ensemble doesn't even sing together! It defeats the original power of the songs and makes it one more insert song.

I guess what confuses me about this movie the most is that the two takes I've seen are "they changed everything about the arrangements, now it sucks" and "must a movie be good? I enjoy the 2024 movie for what is is." I generally dislike the arrangements, yes, but I think changes to a source material can be interesting and worthwhile, and honestly, the musical arrangements/production is only one of many problems I had with the movie.

And on the other hand, I think I'm frustrated because I wish I could enjoy the 2024 movie for what it is. After all, I enjoy Broadway!MG for what it is, calcu-lust and all.

But maybe that's why--Broadway!MG knows what it is, and genuinely, goofily revels in it. Mean Girls (2024) is a wild mishmash of pop music and TikToks playing over Renee Rapp and the amalgamation of three different scripts of Mean Girls, filmed by a camera that won't stop spinning. That is to say, I don't think Mean Girls (2024) has any more of an idea what it is than I do.

[ask-artsy-oncie]

It’s really easy to write-off the Disney Renaissance nowadays, since A) it’s been so long since it happened, and B) formulated nostalgia for these films is being forced down our throats so constantly now that we really are encouraged to associate these films purely with childhood (and therefore something either only children can love, or otherwise one can only love through the lens of being nostalgic for their childhood)

But I think that’s a pretty reductive way at looking at these films. So a lot of times I like to go back and watch them from the perspective of the context they premiered in, especially since animation wasn’t seen as a medium specifically for children when the Renaissance started. And even though I don’t always like these films, retrospectively, I can respect them a hell of a lot more than I ever could as a kid.

Specifically, I think about the context through which The Little Mermaid came out a lot. My mother was born in the 60′s and therefore basically grew up during Disney’s dark ages. She would describe to me how impactful this movie was, how it brought the magic back to Disney. That’s a big deal for a company basically known for imparting magic onto the public, like this movie is one credited with starting the Renaissance.

And I’m able to look at it like. Sure, it’s not much, now. It’s undoubtedly beautiful for the most part, but rather basic, and even kind of visually flat at times. The writing isn’t the most inventive thing, and the songs have been so played to death that I don’t find myself listening to the soundtrack outside of when Mama’s playing it in her car. It’s not a bad movie, it’s just a basic one, given the entire rest of the Renaissance to compare it to.

But looking at it from the point of view of someone who had barely a pinch of movies that could be described as true “Disney Classics” between the death of Walt and the release of The Little Mermaid... Yeah. This shit would have blown my tits clean off if I still had them. With the amount of thought and effort that went into the presentation of this movie, despite the fact that it was as much of a gamble as it was, I genuinely think this movie can be called brave despite how basic it is. Because you can see how much care was put into it, how it compares to the Dark Ages - which weren’t bad, and which I don’t actually dislike (and neither does Mama), but don’t carry quite the same level of ambitious presentation. It’s awe-inspiring with that context in mind.

I don’t really know where, exactly, I’m going with this. Just, I dunno, go pirate a Disney Renaissance movie, or preferably try to get an early DVD release second-hand, because as far as I can tell, most piracy sites use the Blu-Ray rips that may have changes from the original theatrical/early home video releases. Buy a VHS or a laserdisc if you have the means to play one, just for the love of god, don’t subscribe to Disney+ just to watch these movies, since it’s not even the best way to watch them (they’re also Blu-Ray rips).

But anyways, do watch these movies, and try to consider them through the context of which they were released. I even think looking up the theatrical posters is a good idea if you haven’t actually seen them, yet. They were genuinely trying to hook general audiences, not just children, with these movies. They’re worth revisiting, and hopefully gaining a round of newfound respect.

[fandom-fae]

okayy so i just finished watching that new disney peter pan remake (“peter pan and wendy”) (also spoiler warning btw-) and honestly. i liked it actually- like the pacing was a bit weird/kinda too fast imo and i’m not a fan of the ending (but to be fair that’s just bc i generally don’t like the ending where the lost boys leave neverland but peter doesn’t so that one isn’t the films fault), but other than that i think it was really good and fairly well made tbh. i would’ve liked some more musical numbers- like the two pirate sea shanties are okay and i don’t wanna complain but damn there’s so much music potential for a story like this tbh. like you could’ve had a song where peter pan actually sings or wendy (im ignoring the lullaby bc i want a song actually about her yk?) or maybe even a duet with them!!!!! i had hope for new music but well meh.

anyway!!! i loved almost all the visuals in the movie and the instrumental background music was really good too! i liked that it was very obviously inspired by the background music of the original tbh!! and i liked the casting tbh, i actually think all the actors did pretty good jobs !!

and the special effects were really good imo! like- not to compare this to the 2003 peter pan movie, but in that older one i always kinda cringed when characters flew around bc i just idk didn’t like how fake it looked- like obviously that’s bc of technical or budget (or both) limitations but still idk- but this time i actually rly liked the way they did the flying for the most part, especially in the scene where they flew to neverland. i also think the set design was really good!!

AND!!!!! i like how literally every aspect (except for the ending lmao) that i disliked in the animated movie was changed- like tinkerbell isn’t blinded by jealousy anymore, the native characters (or well in this case character, since tiger lilly was kinda the only plot relevant one) aren’t such flat caricatures anymore and hook didn’t act so unbelievably ridiculous yk? also i generally just like how well tinkerbell and wendy and tiger lilly got along tbh, because in the older film as we all know they were written in a almost misogynistic way tbh with the way they were reduced to jealousy so much yk? except for wendy kinda but eh. this modern version is SO MUCH BETTER at that, like i don’t think there was any scene where any of the three were really jealous at all unless i missed something lol.

like idk i just like it. it’s definitely different from the original story and from the older movie but not in a necessarily worse way. its similar enough to be familiar and nostalgic but different enough to have its own charme yk? like its no carbon copy and that’s a good thing because it doesn’t try to be and it doesn’t need to be. it humanised almost every character more (even though the pacing again was kinda not ideal lol but it was still enjoyable)!!

i just think it would’ve been good for the movie to have some more transitional scenes or to drag some moments out longer tbh. like there was no moment in my opinion that was really too long, which is good, but there were a few that i think should’ve been longer tbh. it felt not like the movie was rushed but like the viewer was rushed through the plot yk? like there weren’t really any moments to dwell on a situation or to let it sit, except for when wendy was swept onto that beach and when she walked the plank. those two moments were imo well timed. but like especially that scene in james’ peter’s room could’ve handled a few more moments, or the scene before peter left london again when he was talking to wendy yk?

anyway uwu the cinematography was rly well done too imo, and i definitely liked the fight scenes and that scene when they all arrive in neverland :3 and the set design was very good too !!! i also think i liked all the costumes except maybe wendy’s and hook’s jackets cuz like idk, they’re fine but i’m not vibing with them lol. anyway yeah sjdkdjkdjdk- peter pan’s and tinkerbell’s outfits were really good tho imo. and tinkerbell in general was rly good!! idk the actress’ name but she did a great job and whoever did the casting for this whole movie also did great !!!