Okay. So by now, you have probably heard that "for the first time ever, in high definition," Disney is taking Beauty and the Beast back out of the Disney Vault and releasing the film on Blu-Ray and DVD.
Perhaps even a few of you know that you can currently visit the El Capitan Theater in Hollywood to see this classic return to the big screen (now through October 7th).
But that's not in 3D, which we've all been waiting for many years now. Disney showed a clip of "Belle" in 3D 2 Comic Cons ago. The 3D version was supposed to debut February 2010 as per advertised on their website.
But February came and went, and Disney never openly addressed the situation.
So instead, we have speculation.
This is a typical Disney case of double-dipping. Beauty and the Beast is quite probably their strongest animated film property, and they want to milk it for all it's worth. So, they will re-release it as many times as they can get away with.
Copyright Disney
I don't take any issue with having the option to see a much-beloved film on the big screen again. Nor do I take issue with seeing that film turned 3D. But it looks like Disney may want to re-release this property up to 4 times within a very short period of time, and that just doesn't seem right to me.
But here's the real kicker – the 3D version has apparently already been released in New Zealand and Australia. From what I've been reading, the typical 3D haters aren't happy because the film wasn't originally designed in 3D or thought of in 3D, so it didn't need to be done…and everyone else is just happy to see this new look of the film, which is all cleaned and pumped up in color, sound and definition.
There is one controversial change to the opening prologue. As we originally know it: "If he could learn to love another, and earn their love in return by the time the last petal fell…" The change: "If he could learn to love a woman, and earn her love in return by the time the last petal fell…" Really, Disney? If we're talking about unnecessary choices here, let's take a look at this one! Obviously Beast ends up with Belle (a woman)…do we really need to walk on eggshells here to further "comfort" conservatives? I don't think so. The public was perfectly happy with the original prologue. You might as well be spitting on Howard Ashman's grave. Nice, really nice. Personally, I think the original wording sounds nicer, anyway…
This proves that Disney is really trying to get every penny out of America, folks.
And we still don't know when Disney plans on releasing the 3D version in America! There are merely rumors that the 3D version will come out in 2012 or later, so that when Disney releases the 3.0 version of the "home video," more people will have purchased 3D TV's for their homes by then.
Which now brings me to another troubling question – if Disney altered the prologue for the 3D release, then have they altered the prologue for this upcoming Blu-Ray/DVD release as well? It comes out October 5th, so we don't have to wait too long to find out.
Not all of the merchandise being released with this current set of offerings is bad, by the way. There are a few neat collector's items I found at Disney's official online store, along with an amazing new book called Tale As Old As Time: The Art and Making of Beauty and the Beast. And reportedly, this new Blu-Ray/DVD set will contain bonus materials that will go more in-depth and dirty with the behind-the-scenes drama (as this project was originally very different and in others' hands).
But here is my advice to my readers out there: prioritize how you will spend your money. Check things out. Decide what is realistically best for your budget and your home. If you hate 3D or you don't plan on having a 3D screen in your home anytime remotely soon, then perhaps you should get this upcoming release. If not, then perhaps you should wait.
Or you might be like me…totally on the fence.
I hate to be a plug here, but I regularly use MiceAge/MiceChat for my Disney information and partake in many Disney-centered discussions.
In one such discussion, the future of Gadget's Go Coaster in Toontown at Disneyland came up.
For those of you that don't know, the attraction's theme was inspired by the 90's Disney television show Rescue Rangers.
Well, the 90's are obviously long-gone. A lot of people are not familiar with the show anymore…
Which garnered this response from a user:
'None of the kids today know who Gadget Hackwrench is, one of the very few female Disney characters who isn't some stuck-up helpless Princess waiting for her Prince to rescue her.
I guess she doesn't "fit the brand" anymore.'
Now wait just a minute! That's quite the over-generalized stereotype ya got, there. (And this was coming from a fairly well-seasoned user, too.)
Lumping all of the Disney Princesses into one category like that is unfair and just plain incorrect.
I know there are plenty of people out there that think this way, though. They equate these characters as a group of snooty sorority girls or something.
Save for Snow White, none of the Disney Princesses are waiting for a Prince to come and save them. And most certainly none of them are stuck-up.
But, this person did hit upon something interesting, something that is both helping and hurting Disney tremendously.
Disney has marketed their Princesses as a group, what we know as the official Disney Princess brand…in fact, the group aspect is so emphasized that one can be hard-pressed to find merchandise that reflects each individual woman in her own story.
Of course, it was significantly worse just a few years ago. It used to be that you could only find Snow White in a cluster with Cinderella and maybe Sleeping Beauty (and I, for one, have to say that I am thrilled with the tops that have come out of The Art of the Disney Princess). Truthfully, Disney has been diversifying the Princesses a little but more than its recent past. But if your little girl wants a t-shirt with Belle on it, you will probably have 1 option, and 4 other princesses will have the exact same t-shirt, just in a different color (and your daughter gets yellow, even though she's really not a fan of yellow and likes Belle's gold dress…). Do we really have to be mono-chromatic and cookie-cutter here? The costumes give one more room to be an individual…but that's if the parent can stomach the bill for one of those things.
Why can't we see Belle in the color scheme that makes us nostalgic for the classic film Beauty and the Beast? The film really played up gold and purple. Personally, I think that film had one of the most amazingly vibrant color palettes.
But instead, Belle's merchandise tends to end up with a caution-tape yellow. A color that, I think, gentlemen prefer to wear, regardless of how that shade looks on them.
And let's not forget poor Ariel. Sometimes it's hard to even find her in merchandise (which is strange, considering how popular she is)…and she's mostly merchandised in clothing that she never even wore in the film. Luckily, she at least ends up with a pretty shade of aqua. One day, you will hear my rant about the Disney Princess costume and merchandising ripple effect…
And let's not forget poor Pocahontas and Mulan. The former is a Princess by her tribe's standards, while the latter is at most a General's wife. But we'll try to ignore that, as Mulan is apparently a part of the Disney Princess line (…in fact, why don't we just throw Esmerelda in there! She's a gypsy but she's kind of a princess-like gypsy. And maybe Kida too – you know, that Princess from Atlantis, the original Black Disney Princess?). Past children's costumes for Pocahontas and Mulan, you probably won't find these women on any merchandise. That naturally makes some minorities angry (but the films already did that from the beginning). I've been told it's about what sells…and admittedly, when I walk around Disneyland, I see lots of little girls picking the outfits of Cinderella and the like. And they should get to wear what they want, regardless of how much they look like that character! As a Caucasian child, I proudly walked around in my Jasmine costume and am totally in love with Tiana's swamp wedding dress. When Beauty and the Beast came out, I threw everyone for a loop and chose to be Lumiere…one of the best decisions I ever made, and perhaps the only time you could say I "cross-dressed" for Halloween.
But I digress.
As a result of Disney's group branding of the Princesses, they are now perceived (by those that have not actually sat down and watched the films they came from, or maybe they did but it was a long time ago and they have forgotten) as these unrelatable, cookie-cutter snooty characters that all sound and act the same.
And if you go to a Disney Park, you will actually see this stereotype presented in person! The girls chosen to play these Princesses are generally not actresses, or they simply do not do their homework or try all that hard, because they all generally sound the same (save for Snow White). Most of these girls do not even try to sound like the Princess they are portraying, and believe me, there are significant differences in their vocal qualities! Speaking as an actress, it's really not that hard to recognize and imitate these different voices. If anyone should sound similar, it should be Ariel and Belle…in fact, when looking to cast Belle, it was decided that she should sound similar to Ariel, but with a slightly more European tone, as Ariel sounds a little more like an American tomboy.
Oh, yeah. And the OC tan and French manicures only reinforce the stereotype.
Look, I think it's great that Disney found a decent source of income through Disney Princesses. It's part of what has kept the company going. One thing Michael Eisner did right was that he found ways to get the Disney company money. But in terms of quality…well, you all know the story. I don't need to go there.
What does all of this mean for Rapunzel? I'm sorry, Tangled…ugh.
Disneyland is in the process of building a new meet and greet for Rapunzel outside of the Pinocchio attraction. Her face will be plastered on brand new merchandise.
Will the male market that Disney is desperately trying to lure come to see this film? All of these commercials heavily featuring the character Flynn (wait a minute…isn't Tron coming out soon? Hmm…) might not solve the problem of trying to get male audiences out to see this film. And I'm still not convinced that changing the title of the movie was the best idea, either.
There's plenty of drama going on with the film. Apparently the directors felt that Alan Menken (you know, that multi-award-winning composer that gave us the music to The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin to name a few?) was not good enough to do the music for a very special sequence in the film (which is apparently a sore spot for the composer).
I don't know, Disney…I wouldn't snub Alan Menken if I were you. It could have devastating consequences.
I guess we'll see come November, won't we?
