Welcome to Disney's Latest Haunted Mansion Movie

 Didn't I already have a post about a Haunted Mansion adaptation? Yes, yes, I did. You can find it here.

In that post, I wrote about the Muppet's take on the Haunted Mansion. While it was cute and had some fun nods to the many rides, it fell short of anything truly magnificent. 

The 2023 (wow it's been 20 years since the first movie came out) version was a lot better than any other screen adaptation so far. Granted the bar was already set fairly low. 

The 2003 Eddy Murphy Haunted Mansion movie is something of a guilty pleasure - though I feel no guilt what so ever when I go back to enjoy the parts I do like. You can tell that it was made with love for the original ride with some scenes being fully lifted from the attraction - especially in the graveyard. I also really liked the practical effects in the crypt scenes. The opening to the 2003 movie shows that the movie had a lot of potential, but it fell way short of its overall story and message. 

For one thing, the 2003 version of the movie forgot one important fact about the ghosts: they're happy haunts.

The ghosts in the 2003 movie want to escape the mansion and are happy to no longer be trapped. Also there's no explanation as to why all the ghosts are there. In the Disneyland and Disney World attractions, Mr. Disney set up the story so that the mansions were a home for ghosts to enjoy their afterlives - a sort of retirement home for ghosts. The ghosts are described as "happy haunts" and that's why there are ghosts from all over the world.

The 2016 Marvel Haunted Mansion comics vol. #1-5 get this detail right. The story even opens with a reproduced image of the notice Disney placed outside the mansion in New Orleans Square in Disneyland. However, the playful ghosts are slowly being taken over by an evil spirit whose motivations are to make all of the ghosts "hurtful and mean" - look this is a very child oriented story that's all the motivation an evil ghost needs. Madame Leota tricks a young kid into coming into the mansion (he's looking for his grandfather's ghost) to help free her and the nice ghosts who want to spend eternity partying. This story is more of an adventure rather than anything too deep. There are some scary elements, but overall its a solid middle grade read. Though the ending is a little anti-climatic.

The 2023 Haunted Mansion movie also acknowledges that the ghosts in the mansion are supposed to be happy. The explanation for why the ghosts are in the mansion is a little different from the rides' version, but for the most part, the ghosts love the mansion and don't want to leave or be "set free" at the end. 

The theme picked for the 2023 story is universal - grief - and chose to show a healthy way to process it. Multiple characters go through some type of loss. The main character, Ben, lost his wife before the main events of the movie (we see her in flashbacks and in a brief scene early in the story) which mirrors the first owner of the mansion's, Gracey, who lost his wife and held séance after séance to try to contact her. It was all of those seances that invited the ghosts into the mansion.

Unfortunately, not all of the ghosts who arrived were friendly. 

Much like the 2016 comics, one of the ghosts has taken over the free will of the other ghosts and is trying to something horribly (and vaguely) evil. The evil ghost is different (and somewhat acknowledges the Haunted Mansion creepy pasta "Grad Night at the Haunted Mansion") than the comic, but it's clear that some inspiration was taken from it. In fact I'd argue that the creators of the movie referenced as much Haunted Mansion media and lore as they could find. The YouTube channel Offhand Disney recently posted a video looking at many of the Easter eggs - though one commenter noted that the host missed the evil looking trees being from the Disneyland Singalong VHS. 

Most importantly, the movie understands that the house itself is a character. 

And they show both the Disneyland New Orleans Square house (the main one) and the Disney World Liberty Square one (it's related to the evil ghost). 

I enjoyed the 2023 Haunted Mansion. It's not a squeal to the 2003 version. It's its own thing. The critics also panned it - they didn't like the movie at all. Which is a shame because it's good family fun and an introduction to fun horror (much like the haunted mansion rides).

However, I will admit that there are some weak points. The evil ghost is really good at chewing the scenery and the CGI is hard to look at in places. I felt that they could have done more with the Constance Hatchaway character (she has always terrified me in the ride with her ax and bleeding heart). I wasn't fond of the last minute character development for Father Kent (Owen Wilson's character), it felt very shoehorned in. I also thought that the twist wasn't developed enough, though it was hinted at. 

Despite it's minor flaws, the movie overall is worth seeing. Sadly it's no longer in theaters in my area (I caught one of the last showings), but there's a chance it'll gain a cult following (if streaming services and studios will allow that to happen).

The characters are wonderful and well acted. LaKeith Stanfield was excellent as the lead and had nice chemistry with Rosario Dawson. I already mentioned Owen Wilson's character, Father Kent, had flaws, but he did a good job with the material he was given. Danny DaVito is simply a treasure in this film and I hope nothing happens to him in the near future. Jamie Lee Curtis and Tiffany Haddish were a lot of fun in every scene they were in. I even liked the kid, Chase W. Dillon, as Travis.

Jared Leto needs a hobby - preferably one where he doesn't start a cult.

One cool element that this movie implemented was how the story kept all the characters at the mansion. Basically, there are multiple hitchhiking ghosts who will follow anyone who steps into the mansion home. The main character, Ben, has the old sea captain follow him home and ends up with a flooded house before he returns to the mansion. It seems appropriate since the rides tell you to "beware of hitchhiking ghosts" who might follow you home. I screamed my head off at this part of the ride the first time I went on it (I was also about 1 years old at the time).

I'd give the 2023 Haunted Mansion a solid 7 out of 10. Much better than the 2003 movie with plenty of Easter eggs for the fans and call outs for them to find.

Did you see the movie? Let me know your thoughts on all things Haunted Mansion related.

Until next week. 

If you enjoyed this post (or it pissed you off) please like, share, and/or leave a comment. I love hearing from my readers and I hope you guys like hearing from me.

Welcome to Another Haunted Mansion Adaptation

 Dear Disney,

I'd like to lodge a complaint - and no, this isn't about the love-hate relationship I already have with you. This is about your treatment of one of the best and most popular Disney attractions: The Haunted Mansion.

Look, as a kid, I was terrified of the place. My young self shrunk back from the ghouls trying to escape their coffins, covered my eyes when Constance showed up, and nearly jumped out of the doom buggy when the hitchhiking ghosts joined us on our way out. 

I also freaking loved it.

The Haunted Mansion is my favorite attraction at Disney World.

I am aware that this is the Disneyland one.

Sadly, I've only ever ridden the one in Disney World. When I tried to ride the one at Disneyland, Jack Skellington and the cast from Nightmare Before Christmas had taken it over - not that that was a bad thing. I just wish I had had the opportunity to see the original Haunted Mansion in her glory.

But that's not why I'm writing you today. 

I'm deeply disappointed in the number of attempts (and failures) you have made to create an adequate Haunted Mansion adaptation. The closest you have come so far might be the "Haunted Mansion" graphic novel by Joshua Williamson and illustrated by Jorge Coelho. I enjoy that graphic novel and love the little extra details (like a reference to the Matterhorn) that are sprinkled in. I think the ending is lame.

The 2003 film adaptation had a lot of promise. The opening 5 minutes was beautifully done and the scene in the mausoleum with the zombies totally scared pre-teen me. However, the humor is lukewarm, the acting is subpar, and the overall story doesn't gel very well with the ride's canon. What I mean is, the ghosts aren't trapped in the Haunted Mansion - they're perfectly happy to be there! 

Get this detail right Disney!

And now we come to the most disappointing Haunted Mansion adaptation to date. The Muppets have done a lot of great adaptations. My two favorites are Muppet Treasure Island and The Muppet's Christmas Carol. This mashup had the potential to be fantastic.

It wasn't. 

First of all 40 minutes felt both too long and too short for this special. Too long because I just wanted it to end by the half hour mark and too short because a well done story with a fleshed out plot would have been great. 

The next big misstep was having Gonzo go with Pepe. I'm not a huge fan of Pepe the Shrimp. I much prefer Rizzo the Rat (we have the same characteristic of being food obsessed). Rizzo also has a personality that plays off of Gonzo a lot better than Pepe.

Third, there needed to be more time spent with the whole Muppet cast. Not everyone needs a starring role. In fact, I like it when Gonzo is the focus of the story. But Kermit, Miss. Piggy, and the rest of the cast needed a bit more to their roles than passing cameos and a brief show number. I think it would have been way more interesting if the whole cast had either been happy haunts or thrown a party there.

Next, the songs weren't memorable at all. Maybe the first one in the graveyard, but it doesn't compare to "One More Sleep to Christmas" or "Cabin Fever". 

Fifth, too much focus on Constance. There are other ghosts that are way more interesting than her murderous specter. 

Finally, and most importantly, Disney keeps forgetting that the ghosts at the Haunted Mansion are "happy haunts". They are happy to be in the mansion - okay Constance is murderous, I don't know if that makes her happy. They're not trapped. They "retired" there. They enjoy and entertain themselves by giving tours and scaring the pants off of the living.

Why is this a difficult concept?

Disney, you had the potential for a great mashup between the Muppets and one of the most iconic attractions at your parks. Why didn't you get this right?

I guess I'll just keep going back to the awesome (though unofficial) creepypastas "Grad Night at the Haunted Mansion" and "The Man with the Cane". Their author(s) clearly understand and love the two Disney attractions. They're scary stories that are also super entertaining.

So, Disney, get your act together and make an adaptation worthy of the 999 happy haunts at the Haunted Mansion.

Your (reluctant) fan,

AJB

P.S. If you liked this blog post (or it really pissed you off) please like, share, and/or leave a comment. I love hearing from my readers and I hope y'all like hearing from me.

Until next week.

Welcome to the Love of Animation

This week, I was saddened to learn about an arson attack committed at the Japanese animation studio Kyoto Animation. 33 people were killed with another 30 injured. Most of the victims were young women in their 20s and 30s.

Though I'm not super familiar with the animation studio's work, I was heart broken to hear about the incident and hope that the perpetrator is brought to justice. From what I understand, he is currently in police custody.

Following the news, a lot of people who couldn't pay their respects in person took to social media to talk about their feelings on the attack and how the studio's animated series and movies touched their lives.

Animation is a beautiful art. One that I think doesn't always get the appreciation it deserves.

There's something magical in the seamless world building created in animation. I never question the reality that Sen finds herself exploring in Spirited Away nor the appearance of the monsters in Moana. Everything fits in without looking fake or unreal. Contrast this with some CGI (particularly early CGI) and I'd take the animated world versus an unrealistic live action one.

Unfortunately some animated series from the US, also known as cartoons, are often only associated with children's entertainment, which isn't a good idea. I wouldn't want a child watching South Park or Futurama.

Gravity Falls is definitely one of the best animated series I've seen in a while that is also family friendly.

I have distinct memories of watching anime (Japanese animation) as a teenager and having someone ask me why I was still watching cartoons at my age. At first I was insulted by the comment, and then horrified by the idea that a young child would watch Black Cat (a fairly violent anime that was in fact geared towards teenagers).

However, I can't fault people for thinking that animation is only for kids. A lot of animated movies are meant for general audiences, especially if they have the Disney logo (or are of the knock off Disney variety) and cartoons, especially if they were made by Hanna-Barbera, were well known to be made on a shoe-string budget for kids. Once the 80s rolled around and regulations loosened on advertising to kids, cartoons were used as a 20 to 30 minute ad for kids to nag their parents into buying the accompanying toys (see anything made by Hasbro).

That doesn't change the fact that people who have since grown up, still look back on the animated works of their youth with fondness. This is likely why we've seen a recent surge in reboots of older series and/or live action remakes. Disney is currently raking in the cash by creating life action remakes of all the 90s movies I grew up with. Personally, I prefer the original animated versions, but there are a few of the remakes I don't mind. I admit that I'm curious as to the changes they made to Mulan (will it be closer to the original story from China?) and Halle Bailey seems like a great fit for the role of Ariel.

I'm not even going to touch the number of sequels that have come out this year.

Animation is some of the first art we're experienced to. Some of my favorite memories are of waking up early to watch Rugrats, Scooby Doo, or Bugs Bunny before my parents woke up. One of the first movies I saw in theaters was The Lion King and it blew my young mind away.

I'm currently writing this blog post while watching Spirited Away. It's one of my all time favorite movies (though Castle in the Sky will always be my number one Studio Ghibli film). I don't think I'd enjoy it nearly as much if it weren't animated. The world building, backgrounds, and characters all seem so tangible animated.

Castle in the Sky is beautiful and I recommend it to everyone.

The tragedy at Kyoto Animation is heart breaking and I hope the people who were injured are able to recover. They touched a lot of people's lives through their work.

If you enjoyed this post (or it really pissed you off) please like, share, and/or leave a comment. I love hearing from my readers and I hope you like hearing from me.

Until next week.

Welcome to a Different Kind of Strength

Last night, I had the pleasure of having dinner with and seeing speak at one of my writer's groups, the fantasy novelist Sarah Beth Durst. Though I haven't read her novels (or seen the Hallmark TV movie based on one of them), they sound amazing and I'll probably pick a few up once my "to read" pile decreases a little bit. The majority of her writing centers around female protagonists, which naturally led to the question: how do you write a strong female character?

Sarah Beth Durst isn't the first author I've seen speak be asked this question and I doubt she'll be the last. A lot of authors who write lady protagonists seem to get this question all the time.

Which makes me wonder: is it really that hard to write a "strong female character"?

Interestingly enough, TV Tropes doesn't have a page dedicated to this topic, so it doesn't seem to have a defined set of characteristics. They do, however, have several links to other pages with titles like "awesome strong female protagonist", "funny strong female protagonists", and "Action Girl"  to name a few examples.

Guess I'll have to base this off of anecdotal observations on what characterizes a lady character as "strong".

If I were to name a few strong lady characters that I grew up with, I'd probably list out Buffy Summers, Princess Leia, Wonder Woman, Hermione Granger, and The Power Puff Girls. I'm sure there are others, but these were the ones who came first to my mind.

What do these ladies have in common?

They're smart, determined, and are able to kick major butt when they need to. In fact all, but maybe Hermione (I mean she does punch Draco in the third book) are able to handle themselves in an action sequence. They're also leaders of their respected social groups (in the Power Puff Girls case it would be their elementary school class). They certainly don't need a man to save them, but they find that guys are still nice to have around, even if they are very frustrating.

Newer versions of the strong female lead include Kitness Everdeen from The Hunger Games, Rey from the new Star Wars movies, and Black Widow from the Avengers team.

These women embody what I was taught was meant to be a strong woman. You had to be loud, unafraid, able to handle yourself in a fight, and not be the warmest cuddliest person on the team.

But does a strong female character have to be an a$$ kicking, outspoken, extrovert?

Short answer: No.

However, we as a society seem to gravitate towards the idea that a lady needs to be a black belt in karate or at least be a natural fighter to be the ideal lead in an epic story. Women who stay home and focus on love or loyalty typically aren't given the strong female character status. Strong women characters don't need to be saved, they do the saving. And they only cry on rare occasions.

There are a few story tellers who write lady strong lady characters who don't fall into this societal norm. Studio Ghibli has tons of strong female leads from Sofie in Howl's Moving CastleI to Kiki in Kiki's Delivery Service. Then the are pretty much ever lady character in Princess Mononoke, who all kick butt, have leadership positions, and authority in their own stories.

One strong young female character I constantly return to from my childhood is Sheeta from Castle in the Sky. When we first meet her, she's fairly passive and definitely seems like the typical damsel in distress. However, that spark of courage is shown early on when she climbs out of an airship window to get away from her kidnappers (and another set of would-be kidnappers who eventually turn into allies...and I'm off topic sorry). She takes great pains to keep her new friends safe, even at the detriment to her safety.

Sheeta seeing Laputa for the first time

It isn't until she's taken in by the Dola Gang that her strength really begins to shine. Her determination to work is balanced by her ability to be flexible. Her kindness endears her to all the other pirates, including their leader (and for some of the pirates their mother) Dola. She becomes defiant and confident while staying with them, which gives her the strength to give the movie the ending we deserve (sorry no spoilers).

However, Sheeta isn't an action star and her main character traits are her unending kindness and loyalty. On the surface she seems to be a "weaker" character, but most of her actions are based on the fact that she's about 12 and in multiple situations that could kill people she cares about. Dola is another unexpected strong lady character. She's an older woman with a ton of kids, doesn't have the most "ideal" body type (at least not as far as society is concerned), but she does kick butt and has a position of authority in the gang.

You might notice that I haven't meantioned Disney, yet. They, too, have a lot of stories with female leads. However, society seems to find these leads too passive or "weak" to be considered strong characters - at least if we're looking at female characters from movies before the 2000s.

I don't want to discount the Disney princesses, but they don't really match the expectations I grew up with for the strong female character archetype. Which doesn't entirely make sense to me because Belle, Cinderella, and Snow White all have an inner strength that should be admired. Yes, people harp on how a man still saves Cinderella and Snow White (who was 13 by the way) and it's become popular to claim that Beauty and the Beast is an example of Stockholm Syndrome (it's not, watch this explanation by Lindsay Ellis for details).

These characters are all strong, but there stories leave something to be desired for some modern audiences. Though I still think the original animated Beauty and the Beast is a masterpiece and no one will change my mind.

What I think is holding back the "strong female character" type is that we've placed too much emphasis on shedding them of their female traits. Compassion, loyalty, love, and emotional intelligence are thrown to the wayside in favor of more traditional masculine traits. On the surface, there isn't anything necessarily wrong with that. Some women are more masculine than traditionally feminine.

However, traditional feminine traits aren't passive. It's just that the stories they are written in, make them seem passive.

A great example of strong female lead who embodies everything that it means to be feminine is Sarah from Labyrinth. She's compassionate, friendly, kind, resourceful, and almost completely non-violent. I think the one time she resorts to violence is when she throws a chair to shatter an alternate reality she gets trapped in. There is a battle of sorts in the movie, but you never see her actually hurt any of her opponents (at least I think she doesn't the goblins are a pretty incompetent bunch).

Sarah in the labyrinth

It's through her ability to embrace her strengths as a woman that allow her to navigate the labyrinth. She's kind to the monster Ludo and Ludo basically becomes her body guard. She slowly but surely befriends the goblin Hoggle. Though their relationship is rocky at first, she cements their friendship by forgiving him for helping trap her in that earlier mentioned alternate reality.

So the next time someone asks me what qualities you think a strong female character should have, I'm going to respond that they just need a good story to show off their best qualities. Strong female characters, like any good character, needs to be put in a situation where their strengths best shine. Molly Weasley might have been the smothering mother archetype throughout the Harry Potter series, but when push came to shove, she still killed Bellatrix when her daughter was threatened.

To be a strong character simply means that that they need to be determined to get their objective done. Don't tell stories that put a character in a passive situation, put them in a plot that requires them to be an agent in their own destiny.

And ladies don't need a black-belt to do that.

If you enjoyed this post (or it really pissed you off) please like, share, and/or leave a comment. I love hearing from my readers and I hope ya'l like hearing from me.

Until next week.

Welcome to the Emotional End Game

It's been about a month, is it safe for me to write about "Endgame", yet?

Don't worry if you haven't seen the last Avengers movie just yet. I don't plan on going through it point by point or relieving any major spoilers.

I do what to praise the movie for being an excellent book end to the three phase of the MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe for the few of you who aren't familiar with the acronym). 12 years ago, the MCU launched with "Iron Man" (2007). In 2012 the "Avengers" movie hit the big screen, tying together at least 4 other movies (the 2008 "Incredible Hulk", the 2010 "Iron Man 2", the 2011 "Thor" and the 2011 "Captain America: The First Avenger").

I'm sure historians will look back on the 2010s and find that a lot of our pop culture history will be tied to these movies. Disney has done an excellent job keeping people interested all the way through "Endgame" and making a ton of money to boot.

Though the movies were always hit and miss (I'm specifically thinking of "Thor the Dark World"), even the worst of the MCU movies was decent. There isn't a "rotten" one among them, just mediocre. They've set the standard for super hero movies and intertwining a cinematic universe which others have failed to copy (sorry Universal, no "Dark Universe" for us please).

"Endgame" managed to do what many other great series have failed: giving us a good ending. It's not perfect and I have my nit picks (but I won't go into those here).

How many times have you followed a book, or TV series, or movie series only for the ending to fall flat?

Way too many for me.

There are times where the series takes a left turn half way through and goes in a strange direction, there are times where the story just drags on way too long, and there are times where the writers decide to "jump the shark" and really mess with their fans.

I think "Game of Thrones" fans are currently going through this, but I've seen it happen to a number of stories I've loved. I'm still not over how "The Immortal Diaries of Nickolas Flamel" ended and I haven't gotten myself to watch the latest "Fantastic Beasts" movie. Heck, I didn't even realize that "NCIS" was still making new episodes.

However, every once in a while a writer is able to wrap up a story and give it the best send off possible to the fans. Books like "Harry Potter" (minus the 19 years later scene) and the "Hunger Games" have great endings that totally fit with the story. "Gravity Falls" has a nice little bow topping it's last few episodes, tying everything together in a wonderfully weird way.

Best TV show ending ever!

And "Endgame" was the movie we needed to end the 2010s MCU.

Yes, I'm aware that Disney is going to be making more movies and TV shows. This is a cash cow, so they're going to milk it until the profits run dry. But I don't feel the need to keep up with it any more. My emotional needs for this story has been met.

That's what's important. The audience's emotional needs.

Writing these long epic stories is tough. There are a lot of plots to keep track of and characters who need to have their arcs finished. When a writer or group of writers can pull it off, it's wonderfully satisfying. It's like saying goodbye to a close friend, one you hope to visit again soon.

If you haven't seen "Endgame", yet and you are familiar with the MCU, I recommend it. You'll probably want to binge the other movies before going because there's a lot of background stuff you'll need to know, but the movies are good.

Do you have any series (movies, TV, or books) that you've felt have ended well? Do you have any that you feel dropped the shoe at the worst moment (other than the ones I've already mentioned)? Drop me a comment if you do.

Until next time!

If you enjoyed this post (or it really pissed you off) please like, share, and/or leave a comment. I love hearing from my readers and I hope you guys like hearing from me.

Welcome to the Misunderstood Villain

This week's topic came about for a couple of reasons:

1) I saw the play "Wicked" - which was awesome

2) I started watching the latest incarnation of "Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego" - rebooted by Netflix

3) A conversation I had at dinner last week with a group of amazing writers regarding our treatment of some of history's greatest heroes...or were they really villains?

It's that conversation that's been getting the wheels in my head turning. We were mainly discussing how Alexander the Great (or the Bastard depending on where you're from) has been turned into a bit of a hero in our modern retelling of his conquests. In reality, he killed a lot of people and there are some places today who still hate his memory. Heck, Alexander built a land bridge to reach a well fortified island which refused to surrender to him and, when he finally reached the island, he proceeded to murder everyone there.

But the way Hollywood puts it, he was an amazing guy who was trying to unite the world, flawed, but still repetitively cool. The same treatment happens to a lot of conquerors. We definitely have a fondness for the Roman Empire, despite the fact that they pretty much enslaved everyone they conquered.

However, since history is written by the winners, we get to hear all about the greatness of some of history's worst people in the best light. They weren't ruthless invaders out to murder and enslave, they were trying to unite their people and gather more resources.

One of the writers in the group even brought up the idea that some of our greatest monsters in modern history could one day get this type of treatment. I really hope not, but that doesn't mean it's not possible.

Anything is possible.

Especially since Hollywood and other medias really like the misunderstood villain trope right now.

This trope has popped up a lot recently (along with the bait and switch villains, but that's another blog post/rant). We see it in the play and book "Wicked", there was the recent re-imagining of Sleeping Beauty by Disney where Maleficent was really the good guy all along, and you have the countless retelling of fairy tales told from the villain's perspective.

This isn't a bad trope and it occasionally goes hand in hand with the equally interesting villain redeemed trope.

I'm just starting to see it over and over again.

When this trope is done well, it's really good and interesting. I love Zuko's character arc in "Avatar the Last Airbender" and "Wicked" is great (so long as you don't think too hard about some of the inconsistencies between the original book and movie). I freaking loved "Wicked".

But I'm starting to feel it's becoming overdone.

In recent years we've had loads of examples of the misunderstood villain, my personal favorite being Loki in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. There's also the characters in the Disney remakes (I've already mentioned Maleficent, but also the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland), Lucifer in Supernatural, and multiple Batman villains (minus the Joker) like Mr. Freeze and the Penguin.

Again, it's not a bad trope. It just needs to be done well.

"Wicked" is an amazing book and play. I can totally believe that the Wicked Witch of the West got her reputation by defying the wizard and wanting to be a freedom fighter instead, just not in the context of the original book. For one thing she wasn't green and another she isn't even that much of a protagonist. The original Wizard of Oz book is more or less a road trip with obstacles story with the Wicked Witch of the West briefly appearing around the midpoint of the story before Dorothy kills her.

The wicked witch I remember

Her character in "Wicked" is so far removed from her character in the book, I wouldn't believe they were related at all if I didn't have a story synopsis tell me they are.

Now I'm watching the re-imagining of "Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego". As a kid, Carmen Sandiego was a bad guy. There was no questioning this and the members of ACME were the good guys putting a stop to Carmen's horrible plans. In this version, she's a spunky teenage white hat thief trying to get back at the real bad guys who raised her. I think it's a really entertaining show and fun character, but I'm having a hard time equating her with the villainous character I grew up with.

I understand what's going on with these stories. People like retelling stories with characters they're familiar with (which is probably why we've seen so many versions of Sherlock Holmes) and hearing a story I'm familiar with told from a different point of view is a lot of fun when done well.

Batman is remade all the time. Sometimes he's campy and fun, other times gritty and serious. My personal favorite version of Batman is from the "Animated" universe which lead into the "Justice League" cartoon series. There he was a good balance of serious and humorous. However, that version could never be mistaken for the "Dark Knight" Batman or the live action TV show version.

It's fun to see characters and stories in new ways. Real life isn't always as straight forward as we want it and people can recall the same events very differently. Sometimes villains aren't villains, they're scapegoats or people in the wrong place at the wrong time.

There's a song in "Wicked" that goes into this a bit called "Wonderful" sung by the Wizard. It really drives the theme home that Elphaba is being scapegoated by the real villains of the story. They're rewriting history so that she's not a freedom fighter but a terrible wicked witch.

I love "Wicked", Tom Hiddleston as Loki, and even the Supernatural version of Lucifer.

But there are some villains that I don't think deserve this makeover.

A certain serial killer is getting the Hollywood treatment. I highly doubt the movie is going to make him out to be some misunderstood individual, this guy was pure evil. It's just that there are some people who might idolize him and the movie might show him in a more sympathetic light than he deserves. I don't know for certain that it will, but the

It's one thing if it's a fictional character getting these makeovers, but I don't like the idea of a real life villain getting one. The families the above mentioned serial killer's victims are still alive and still have to live with the horrible things that happened.

These villains don't deserve the "misunderstood" treatment.

If you enjoyed this post (or it really pissed you off) please like, share, and/or leave a comment. I love hearing from my readers and I hope you guys like hearing from me.

Until next week.

Welcome to the Lessons of Cinderella

This week, while lurking around the Internet, I came across a news article about how Kristen Bell and Keira Knightly don't like certain fairy tales. More specifically, they don't like the message and, in Knightly's case, out right ban the Disney movies Snow White, Cinderella, and the Little Mermaid. They feel that these stories teach problematic lessons and can have a negative impact on their children. You can read one of the many news articles here.

I can understand some of their arguments.

There's no question in my mind that these stories have problematic tropes and themes. I'm not big on true love's first kiss breaking a spell, especially when it's to wake up a sleeping princess. That's just a little creepy. I'm also not big on how Ariel decides to give up everything for a guy and, in the Disney version, basically learns nothing from her misadventures. Giving up everything for some random guy that you've just met isn't a concept I understand.

Even some of Disney's more solid fairy tale classics, such as Beauty and the Beast and Lion King, aren't free from criticism. Beauty and the Beast has been accused of romanticizing Stockholm Syndrome (it doesn't) and highlights the problems of romance under duress (Belle is literally the captive of the Beast even though she runs off during the first night of her capture). It has been noted that The Lion King has a few issues with how the segregation between the hyenas and the lions is portrayed and then there's the whole "Divine Right of Kings" message that ends the movie.

Then there's Cinderella. This story in particular set Keira Knightly's teeth on edge. To quote Ms. Knightly during her interview with Ellen: "Cinderella, banned because she waits around for a rich guy to rescue her." She isn't alone in her feelings on Cinderella.

Cinderella has basically become the punching bag for everyone who wants to point out the flaws in Disney Princess movies. I often think of the line from the Cheetah Girl's song: "I don't want to be a Cinderella waiting in a dark cold dusty cellar, waiting for somebody to set me free." It basically sums up how a lot of critics perceive the story and character of Cinderella.

Despite the fact that I'm not this movie's biggest fan, I couldn't disagree with this assessment more.

At it's heart, Cinderella is the story about a young woman who is put in a terrible situation, where she is constantly emotionally and verbally abused, and despite all that is still a good person. The YouTube channel ScreenPrism put out an excellent video call "Cinderella: Stop Blaming the Victim" and it's a great explanation on why the criticism surrounding Cinderella is equally problematic. A lot of the points that I'll be covering in my blog post are coming from this video's analysis.

Cinderella is a hard working individual, she is kind to those who need it most (as shown by her relationship with many of the house's animal inhabitants), and very loyal to those she calls friends. In the Harry Potter universe she's a quintessential Hufflepuff.

Furthermore, her living situation is awful. She's basically been reduced to a servant in her own home and is abused by her only family. All Cinderella wants to do is go to a ball. She doesn't want to meet the prince. She certainly doesn't want to marry him. She wants a night off to party like any other teenage girl.

And what does her "family" do?

They mock her. They keep her so busy she can't work on her fixing dress, so the mice help Cinderella out because she's protected them from the nasty cat. Then, when Cinderella appears before her step mother and step sisters, ready for a fun night for the first time in her life, they rip her dress to shreds.

I take that back, they don't just rip her dress to shreds - they rip her dreams to shreds.

That's Cinderella's breaking point. It's the final crack that shatters Cinderella. Her family leaves her in a ruined dress and her fairy godmother arrives to save the day.

I'm not entirely sure why people expect Cinderella to be able to "save herself" in this type of situation. People who are in abusive situations often can't or won't leave for many reasons, the biggest one being that they don't know where to go if they leave.

Cinderella's fairy godmother could have been her kind next door neighbor who saw the whole incident and wanted to help the poor girl out, maybe let her know that there was someone there who would be there for her if she wanted to leave. Abusive people often isolate their victims, like what Cinderella's family does to her. The fairy godmother in the story is literally the person whom decided enough is enough, "I'm letting this poor girl know she has someone around who will get her to that ball".

We the audience don't know what really goes on between the prince and Cinderella during the ball. For the record, they probably were talking the whole time they were dancing. Back in that era that was how people go to know each other and it was perfectly appropriate to talk to your dance partner. You can see examples of this in most Jane Austin novels.

But let's skip the ball. Let's also skip the part where it's the archduke and not the prince who goes looking for Cinderella (I think Disney was just looking for more comic relief there). These aren't really all that important in the grand scheme of the story.

Instead I want to focus on the last part of the original Disney animated movie, the part where Cinderella is locked in her attic room. Cinderella doesn't take her imprisonment lying down. In fact, I would guess that since she's finally tasted freedom and realizes that someone out there cares about her, she's ready to fight tooth and nail to live that kind of life every day. Cinderella claws at the locked door. When that doesn't work, she asks her mice friends for help and again they gladly help her. Finally, when the evil cat has the mice cornered, Cinderella calls on the dog, whom she's told repeatedly not to chase the cat as he might be kicked out of the house, to chase that stupid evil cat.

Cinderella does save herself, but it's not in the way our society wants her to.

Our society and culture wants people who are strong and unafraid of calling other people out. There's a heavy focus on the hero solving their problems for themselves instead of asking for help or using team work. We want action, harsh words, and a strong demeanor, not kindness and friendliness.

Cinderella is resourceful in how she relies on her friends, isn't afraid to ask for help, and takes an opportunity when she sees it. She knows that the archduke, and by extension the prince, is going to get her out of an abusive household that she otherwise hasn't figured out how to escape. She knows that by helping other people out of the goodness of her heart that they are just as likely to help her back.

So stop telling little girls that the story of Cinderella is bad or anti-feminist. It isn't. She doesn't wait around for a prince to come rescue her.

If you really want a feminist retelling of Cinderella that also stays true to heart of the story watch Ever After starring Drew Barrymore, read Ella Enchanted (not the movie version, though its a good update too), or pick up a copy of Nikita Gill's latest book Fierce Fairy Tales: Poems & Stories to Stir Your Soul. Gill has a collection of poems within this book that focus on Cinderella, her evil step mother, her misguided step sisters, and her fairy godmother. They are fantastic and an excellent retelling of the Cinderella story.

By disregarding the story of Cinderella, we are teaching their children that people who suffer from abusive relationships are weak and don't need help to save themselves. That's BS! Everyone needs help sometimes, especially the people who don't know how to escape their situation.

Cinderella teaches us how to empathize and recognize someone who is going through this type of abuse.

I think that's a pretty good lesson to teach someone, don't you?

If you enjoyed this post (or it really pissed you off) please like, share, and/or leave a comment. I love hearing from my readers and I hope y'all like hearing from me.

Until next week...which will actually be two weeks as I am taking next week off. So see y'all in two weeks.

Welcome to the Iconic Part 2: The Cartoon Icons of my Childhood

When I asked on Twitter what people found to be "iconic", the one response I got was about classic cartoons. I then did a Google search for "iconic cartoons" and every image that popped up I recognized. From Homer Simpson and SpongeBob SquarePants to Mickey Mouse, Bugs Bunny, and Scooby Doo, there was a wide variety of cartoon characters that seemed to fit Google's definition of iconic.

My childhood afternoons in a nut shell...

But I guess that's what it means for something to be "iconic". It's an image that represents something and I can easily picture an image of Scooby or Bugs representing some of my favorite cartoons as a kid. In fact, I bet if you showed any child in the United States a picture of Scooby, Mickey, or Bugs, they'd be able to identify them. These characters seem timeless and appeal to a wide variety of people.

Heck, every few years there seems to be a new incarnation of these iconic characters. I think I've seen at least 6 different versions of Scooby Doo (including A Pup Named Scooby Doo and The 13 Ghosts of Scooby Doo) and Disney has been making new shorts with Mickey for a few years now.

Which leads me to a new question. How do we know when a character from our childhood becomes iconic?

Is it when we start seeing reboots being made (such as the new Ducktales or Powerpuff Girls)? Is it when they jump from the small screen and get their own movie made (like the three Rugrats or Transformer movies)? Is it just because they still have a huge fan base that won't go away even after nearly a decade being off the air (the original Teen Titans show - I don't know what this "Go!" nonsense is). Or is it when the children who grew up with these characters have become adults with children themselves and want to share their happy memories with their kids?

It's probably a combination of all these things. I know I wouldn't have any idea who Rocky and Bullwinkle are if my mom hadn't loved the show so much. I wouldn't have found a love of mysteries without my dad introducing me to Scooby Doo.

We're starting to see a resurgence of cartoons from the 1980s and 1990s being remade or having a reboot. A lot of people my age are really excited to see these characters come back and some of the new shows are really good, maybe even better than the original (My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is so much better than the 80s version and it doesn't feel like they are just trying to sell toys). Though not all of the reboots have been successful, it's still so much fun to see fans react to hearing that their favorite shows might get a modern update.

I wonder what cartoons will be considered iconic in the future. Will we see a Phineas and Ferb or Gravity Falls reboot in 20 years? Will we ever get a live action Steven Universe movie?

Iconic cartoons often fill us with nostalgia. They bring back fond memories of happy, carefree times. And we want to share those happy feelings with those we are closest to.

What are some of your iconic childhood cartoon characters? Let me know in the comments or on my Facebook.

Until next week.

If you enjoyed this post (or it really pissed you off) please like, share, and/or leave a comment. I love hearing from my readers and I hope you guys like hearing from me.

Welcome to Monsters Part 5: The Monsters Next Door

Some monsters are terrifying because they seem perfectly normal when you first meet them. They may be charming and extremely kind to draw people in, but it's all an act. They're manipulative and play mind games with their victims.

They are a lot like Gaston from Beauty and the Beast.

I keep using this picture.

Right after the live action Beauty and the Beast movie came out, there were the usual million and ten posts about how the movie is romanticizing Stockholm Syndrome and how Belle wants adventure, but then settles for a man. Seeing all these posts over-analyzing a Disney movie gets annoying. But then I spotted an article about how scary Gaston is as a villain.

I wish I had saved the article or (more likely) tumblr post that I had seen explaining why Gaston was so terrifying as a villain. But since I didn't (and I'm too lazy to track it down), I'll just have to summarize the conclusion the best I can.

Basically, the author of the post concluded that Gaston is that bully you know in school whom everyone loves, but terrorizes anyone that crosses them for even the slightest reason. This type of bully is even able to turn an entire community (school or village) against their victim. Remember the Mob Song? In the live action version of the movie, they updated the lyrics to include Gaston bragging about how he is able to manipulate the villagers into doing whatever he wants.

"You can bet they all will follow

For in times like this, they'll do just as I say"

I know I'm not the first person to notice this, but one of the biggest reasons Gaston is such a good villain is because how easily he could have been the good guy in the movie. He's described as handsome, heroic, and beloved by the entire village. Beloved by everyone except for Belle and since Belle refuses to worship the ground Gaston walks on (and she reads) people thinks she's weird. 

In Beauty and the Beast, it's easy to identify Gaston as the villain since we're seeing the story from Belle's perspective. Her disdain for his arrogance and ego make it easy to identify him as an antagonist early in the story. From the begining of the movie, we aren't supposed to like Gaston.

Recently, Disney has been shaking up their villain narratives by having more and more "surprise villains". These villains are much harder to identify early in the story. They usually start out as a supporting character, helpful even, but are really just using the protagonist to achieve their goals. Both Frozen and Zootopia have villains that show up in the third act that are supposed to be a "twist". 

Hans may be a pretty weak villain and almost comes out of no where as a bad guy (I still love the movie, so no real hate here), but his betrayal is very real and catches Anna completely off guard. Anna's hurt is real and she nearly dies because of Hans's cruel actions. And while Zootopia is about overcoming prejudice in society, Bellwether is the "surprise" villain exploiting the problem while trying to take over the city's government and subjugating the predators in the city. 

Hans and Bellwether may not appear scary of monstrous, but their actions certainly are. They have malicious goals and are willing to do anything to achieve them, even kill. 

Then there are the characters who are beloved by those around them while at the same time, just seem to destroy the lives of everyone they come across. The Picture of Dorian Gray centers around a man who sold his soul so that he could maintain his beauty. What makes this story really interesting his how he affects the people around him. Nearly everyone who comes across Dorian Gray suffers a horrible fate. The actress Sibyl Vane commits suicide once she realizes that Dorian no longer loves her. Dorian gets his young friend Adrian Singleton addicted to opium. Alan Campbell is blackmailed by Dorian. Basil Hallward, who painted the portrait (and may have been in love with Dorian) is murdered by Dorian in a fit of rage.

All the while Dorian Gray looks like a respectable member of high society.

If it weren't for ugliness of his portrait to show his true nature, Dorian Gray would have been seen as that dashing bachelor that anyone would have been lucky to associate themselves with. He is the insidious monster that doesn't want to take over the world, but destroys those around him slowly, methodically.

Nearly everyone knows someone who is like Gaston, Hans, Bellwether, or Gray. The people who seem perfectly normal or are even hailed as pillars of their community, but are really egocentric maniacs who will destroy anyone who gets in their way. They are the monsters who are so difficult to realize they are monsters that we don't realize we've been tricked until we are facing our own destruction.

Personally, I think these are the  most dangerous monsters. They will draw you in with a smile and make you think you deserve the knife they stab you in the back with. What's even more terrifying is these types of monsters really exist and can be really hard to identify.

They are the monsters you don't know are monsters until it's too late.

If you enjoyed this post (or it really pissed you off) please like, share, and/or leave a message. I love hearing from my readers and I hope you guys like hearing from me.

Until next week.

Welcome to the Evolution of the Princess Factor

Princesses, I can't seem to escape them in popular culture. In almost any high fantasy book or fairy tale I've picked up features at least one princess. Fantasy anime and RPGs love having a secret princess show up somewhere in the plot. YouTubers have analyzed why princesses are hated and Tumblers have argued which one is the best. Not to mention the Disney company has created an empire off of the princess narrative.

There's a lot of princesses out there. Lord of the Rings has Eowyn. The Princess Bride has Buttercup. Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind has, well, Nausicaä. Nintendo still capitalizes on Princess Peach and Princess Zelda, despite them possibly not being princesses. For Zelda it's at least implied that she's the daughter of someone else ruling the kingdom, so I'll give her a pass. As I have never seen a King or Queen of the Mushroom Kingdom, I'm going to have to assume that it's a vanity thing with Peach. The same thing applies to the My Little Pony Princesses in Friendship is Magic.

I grew up in the United States, so I didn't really understand the fascination with princesses (or royalty in general). That's not to say I didn't enjoy stories that featured royalty, I just didn't really understand what all the fuss was about. Then I took a few courses on popular culture and European history and I started to understand why they featured so heavily in American culture. 

Most American children, I assume, are introduced to princesses through Disney movies. I know I was. Snow White, Cinderella, and Princess Aurora make up the "Classic" Disney Princess line up. It has since expanded, mostly thanks to the Disney Renascence, to include Ariel, Belle, Jasmine, Pocahontas, Mulan, Tiana, Rapunzel, Merida, Anna, Queen Elsa (despite having a completely different title), and hopefully Moana. That's a lot of princesses in a short period of time and it's not even including the princesses who get ignored by the Disney company (sorry Eilonwy and Kida, but your movies didn't do well enough to include you).

I was at the right age for the Disney movies that came out in the 90s and I still watch a lot of them today. However, I can see where some people might not like the princess movies as much. Or at least think they are the best role models for little girls. After re-watching The Little Mermaid for the millionth time in college, my roommate and I came to the agreement that Ariel and Eric are the dumbest Disney protagonists out there. I've also found myself agreeing more and more with King Triton over the years. Seriously Ariel, you are sixteen, listen to your dad. He just wants what's best for you.

Heck I've started agreeing Zazu in the Lion King. He's really not the buzz kill I remember from when I was a kid. He is just trying to teach Simba and Nala that being an adult requires a level of maturity and responsibility they don't have as kids. It isn't all fun and games. I must be getting old if I'm agreeing with Zazu. 

Since the passing of Carrie Fisher, there's been a growing movement to get Princess Leia canonized as a Disney Princess. As I'm still not sure how monarchies work in the Star Wars universe (for example Queen Padmé Amidala is technically democratically elected, but still has the title queen), I'm not sure if she would actually count as a princess. However, she was the first princess that I was introduced to in popular culture who didn't act like a stereotypical princess. In the first movie she ends up saving Han and Luke while they are trying to save her. In the later movies she's one of the top rebel leaders. Damsel in distress, Leia is not.

Moana is the latest female heroine to be called a Disney Princess (though she hasn't been canonized yet) and I personally think she is the best one to date. Though Moana denies her status in the film, Maui points out that she "wears a dress and has an animal side kick" which, in his opinion, automatically makes her a princess. What makes Moana's story different from her predecessors is that she isn't interested in finding love or seeking adventure which leads to a boyfriend. Her movie is about balancing her responsibilities to her people and accepting who she is.

I could find dozens of other examples of princesses who challenge and defy the stereotypes that I've been exposed to. I can also name dozens of examples of characters who exemplify the princess stereotypes, but that fact doesn't stop me from loving the stories or characters. What's important is that the story is engaging and the characters are interesting. And if those two criteria aren't met, then they're probably not the best written stories to begin with.

The princess narrative has changed a lot since Snow White and it's not just Disney who are making these changes. People want new stories and characters that reflect the modern way of thinking. Women's roles in society have changed. Snow White was the scared young girl lost in the woods (yeah she was 14 in that movie, I'm still a little weirded out by that fact) and the victim of her jealous step mother. Moana is a responsible leader who saved her people. Both are interesting characters who have an engaging story to tell. I doubt the princess character is going to go away anytime soon, especially not in fantasy stories, but we're going to continue to see changes to them. 

You know, the live action Beauty and the Beast is coming out soon and I've heard they're making some small changes to Belle's character. It'll be interesting to see how she will be portrayed after 25 years.

If you enjoyed this post (or it really pissed you off) please like, share, and/or leave a comment. I love hearing from my readers and I hope you guys like hearing from me. Until next week.