A Delayed D23 Expo 2015 - Films Post

Hello dear readers! It's been a while.

I had the privilege of going to the D23 Expo in Anaheim this year, and in terms of getting into presentations and panels, this was my most successful trip yet! I was able to make it into all of the major ones I wanted: Animation on Friday, Live Action and Parks and Resorts on Saturday, and Gaming on Sunday. I;m not going to go over everything here, but if you want a more detailed play-by-play, my boyfriend and I did 2 podcasts, one regarding Friday, and the other for Saturday.

I skipped on dressing up this year. As much as I love doing it, it's very time consuming and we were already getting up incredibly early to see things. I am hoping to procure a live action Cinderella ballgown at some point in the near future, though :)

Speaking of which, the Kenneth Branagh directed film exceeded my expectations. The marketing for the film seemed to play up the camp, but the film feels honest and true, and is a very worthwhile re-telling of the classic story that we all know and love. Audiences agreed, too - the film did exceptionally well at the Box Office. I am eager to add the film to my Blu-Ray collection soon.

Cinderella and Maleficent are some of the first few live-action re-tellings of classic Disney animated films, and while some reported titles have made Disney fans nervous (I, admittedly, being one of them), I am happy to report that what little I did see for The Jungle Book and Beauty and the Beast have me very excited to visit theaters when they are released. In the hands of the right writers, directors and producers, these films can be truly magical.

Beauty and the Beast has a strong celebrity cast, with notables such as Emma Watson and Josh Gad, and is appropriately a musical - it will be taking many cues from not just the animated film, but possibly even more so from the Broadway version. The film will most certainly be a beautiful spectacle, and if Cinderella's performance was any indication, I have faith that the film will do exceptionally well at the Box Office. But we have a while to wait - the film is not coming out until 2017.

Jungle Book is coming sooner, with a release date of April 15th, 2016, and folks, the film looks wonderful. I was especially nervous about this film before, but the footage that I've seen is truly magical. There's definitely a lot of TLC that has been put into this project, and it is obvious that Disney is really making sure that everything comes out just right. They have had to essentially double-shoot everything with their Mowgli (Neel Sethi) to get the look of him interacting with the animal characters and the environment of the jungle just right. But what struck me most is how they are truly keeping the spirit of the animated film with this new version (yes, you will hear a mention of "bear necessities"), and going so far as to re-creating some of those classic shots, but now with a truly living, breathing and wild jungle.

One of the fabulous freebies from D23

The last true standout that I want to talk about is, of course, Moana. Ever since the internet first heard word that Disney was making a Hawaiian "princess" film, fans flooded the internet with their imagined concept art, other making their awkward teen instagram posts lamenting that it took Disney this long to make this film and also noting that they were concerned about how they would treat the character.

Well, the good news is that this film looks to be shaping up to be Disney's next Little Mermaid, and I mean that literally - it's the same two men that shaped the 1989 favorite that are helming the Moana project as well. And it takes place heavily on the ocean. And you have a young girl who is eager to explore the world while her father, the chief, wants her to stay home where it's safe. And the mother is dead. Formulas.

Be excited for the Rock, who plays Maui, a burly demi-god that is trying to prove himself by helping Moana on her journey to be a navigator. Be excited for Moana's adorable piglet. Be excited that Moana looks to have more realistic body proportions! And definitely be excited for the animation. All accross the board, Disney has truly stepped up in the animation and CGI department. The realism is truly astounding. We're in for a treat.

There was a lot of new information and cool things at the Expo, and these are just some of the highlights. If you're looking for something more in-depth, I really encourage you to listen to the two podcasts I made (the details were more fresh in my mind when I recorded), and there's a lot of other details and films that I didn't mention here.

Stay tuned for one additional post regarding the Parks and Resorts news from D23 - lots of photos to come! 

Review of Disney's 'Frozen' Blu-Ray/DVD Set - Wishing for More Extras

I shouldn't have gotten my hopes up. I got the Tangled Blu-Ray/DVD set when it first came out, and the same thing happened. Why did I think this set was going to be any different?

If you've followed my blog at all, you know how curious I've been to dive into the making of Frozen. I've scoured every resource at my disposal to learn more about the various incarnations this project went through before Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee landed on making the film we now know and love.

The Art of Tangled gave me more of an inside-look to Disney's work on the story of Rapunzel, and while there was still a lot more that I would have liked to see, I felt that the book covered a lot of ground - while The Art of Frozen seemed to hold a lot back when it came to commentary on the amount of work the studio did on the Snow Queen project (don't let that deter you though, the book has stunning artwork and wonderful information on how and why the artists chose different shapes, what inspired them, etc).

The Blu-Ray/DVD set for Tangled could have included bits like these, with some commentary:

Bronze Wool uploaded those last two to their Youtube channel, and there are a few other Tangled storyboards as well. I tried locating a storyboard of one of the old Rapunzel concepts that had an ending very reminiscent of  Enchanted, where the two leads end up in a fountain in New York, but could not locate it - it is very possible that it was taken down or hidden.

I know that not everyone cares about extras. I read somewhere that Disney surveyed some of their customers, and most parents said that they didn't really care about all of the bonus features Disney used to put on their releases.

The thing is, I know that I'm not the only person that cares about this stuff. It doesn't surprise me that parents that buy every Disney DVD for their kids don't really care about the movie extras, but it's no secret that there are a lot of adult die-hard Disney fans that appreciate making-of documentaries.

So while the "Making of Frozen" featurette was entertaining and took us through WDAS with some of the leads from the movie, and gave us a joking visual look at the process, the features do not shed a lot of light on what the "Snow Queen" project went through on the whole. I especially would have loved to have seen a full documentary, talking about thing like how the game changed when Jennifer Lee, the first woman to direct at the studio, came on board. And the short deleted scene of Elsa being more of a villain gave us an idea of what the film might have been like, but there's still that darn clip used in all of the promotional material going around of Elsa shooting her ice magic after Anna says, "That's no blizzard, that's my sister!" - which is proof that there's footage of Elsa doing more villainous-type things that are more fully-rendered. Some may consider me strange for wanting to see these things, but I'm a big fan of the movie, the project and the studio that produced it.

Take this promotional image that was released with that first set of (what the rest are) stills from the film, for example:

This never happens in the movie. Interestingly enough, when I received my lithograph set for pre-ordering Frozen from the Disney Store, this image came along with a few other stills, but re-cut awkwardly so we only get a bit of Anna's head and a slightly better view of Elsa, with the torch eliminated (or at least out of frame).

The point that I'm trying to make is that Elsa's character went through drastic changes up until a few months before the film was released.

Frozen has become a sensation. If you use the internet at all, you've seen the explosion that this film has created. "Let it Go" has done more than win an Academy Award this year - it has become the anthem for young and old alike. Frozen is, in a word, special. The creators went so far as to use that term when I visited panels talking about it at 2013's D23 Expo.

One may want to argue that Disney "held back" on extras because with all the re-releases they do, they want to make sure they have more interesting stuff to show us in the future. I understand all of that, but Tangled hasn't seen another release, and all we got on those extras were Mandy Moore and Zachary Levi throwing out a few facts about the film, like how many hairs were actually on Rapunzel's head - something that could have easily ended up on the Disney Channel for promotional material. Sleeping Beauty has seen multiple releases in the past several years and has yet another approaching shortly, but Tangled still sits quietly. So how long will we have to wait to get a real behind-the-scenes look at the work it took to make this film?

Probably a really long time. Decades, even. I anticipate that I will be a senior citizen by the time that happens.

In any case, I guess we should all be thankful that we can actually buy Frozen to watch and bring home with us. Not too long ago, the only way to re-watch your favorite movie was if you were lucky enough to catch it being aired somewhere on cable, or you went back to the movie theaters again in a re-release.

For now, I will "let it go" and enjoy the film in glorious HD.

The Snow Queen Reins Supreme! - Thoughts on Disney's 'Frozen'

I've been holding off on writing a review for Frozen, which may seem odd to my readers, as I've been writing about the film with an extreme emphasis for months now. I even had the lucky opportunity to see it before it was released to general theaters, as my wonderful boyfriend obtained tickets to an early showing at the El Capitan in Hollywood.

I knew I would love the film, but I wanted to give the public - and myself - some time to digest. I needed to see the film again, and see how it looked in a regular 2D viewing - which is what I just did today! My mother and I had a movie date - and yes, she enjoyed the film ;)

With all that said, let's talk about Frozen. If you haven't seen the film and don't want anything spoiled, then get out of here and go see it! It's easily a Disney classic, it's been nominated for several awards and is probably going to beat The Lion King domestically at the Box Office because it's just that good.

For some, Frozen is like any traditional and beloved classic Disney animated feature film. It is a compelling story inspired by a classic fairy tale, it features a heroine (or in this case, heroines) in trouble, is made up of a cast of interesting characters, has beautiful animation, and has a magnificent soundtrack.

These are all classic Disney elements that make the brand what it is. One may claim to not appreciate the Disney Princess franchise or enjoy musicals, but they are undeniably integral parts of the Disney legacy.

Where Frozen is different, however, is it's celebration of love. Traditionally, Disney fairy tales celebrate the idea of romantic love overcoming the greatest obstacles and saving the day, but here it is sisterly love that breaks the spell.

Frozen also boldly confronts the idea that some of us do not know what love is, or what can constitute as untrue love, and that the handsome prince isn't always so beautiful underneath his exterior.

I sincerely enjoyed the fact that every main character taught the audience something different about love. Love takes on many forms. Heck, even Olaf, who many were ready to hate coming into the theaters, was the physical embodiment of Elsa and Anna's love for each other and charmed his way through the film.

Disney has shown familial love before. Finding Nemo is a prime example, but Marlin's fatherly love doesn't break a curse. I applaud Disney for breaking from the traditional route here and celebrating something that is all too-often ignored in entertainment representation. Family is tremendously important, and in times like these, it is very important that we are reminded that at the end of the day, we have family (whether blood-related or the families we create with friends, pets etc.) that we can always count on, even when the odds seem insurmountable.

Everything that Elsa does is out of love for others, and her prime motivator is her love for her sister. After nearly killing Anna in an accident, Elsa is mortified and fearful her powers - beautiful, but if not controlled, dangerous. To protect everyone that she loves (her kingdom included), she is forced to lead a life of seclusion, even at times cutting interaction with her parents that know her secret. And even after her parents are gone and she becomes Anna's estranged guardian, she is fully willing to make herself out to be the "bad guy" in order to protect Anna when her younger sister absurdly proclaims that she is going to marry someone that she just met. Anna is selfless in her act of protecting Elsa from Hans even after believing that her own sister meant to hurt her, but it is Elsa's tremendous love for Anna that saves her sister's life and the future of the kingdom - and, in turn, she saves herself.

Some are frustrated with the fact that Elsa did not get a love interest in the film, but Anna got two. The reasons as to why stem from a very, very long development process.

If you have kept up with this blog, you will know that Disney has attempted to bring some incarnation of the story of the Snow Queen to life for several decades, going as far back as to when Walt Disney was still alive and running the show. Obviously, things kept seemingly not working out. Try as they might, Disney's creative teams constantly ran into trouble when trying to get a handle on the Snow Queen's character. Here's one excerpt from James B. Stewart's Disney War:

... June 11, 2003, (Then-Disney CEO Michael) Eisner has invited me to a creative meeting of the feature animation team, led by (Thomas) Schumacher's replacement, David Stainton. Eisner usually attends these meetings once or twice a month.

"That's why this has to be a Legally Blonde-type comedy," replies Mary Jane Ruggels, another creative vice president.  

"Sleeping Beauty was 1938," Eisner says. "The ending was forced. Like Treasure Planet-- it just ended. It wasn't funny or clever. Are you sure you can save this? Is Ice Queen better?" 

"You mean Snow Queen," Ruggels says.

"I love The Taming of the Shrew idea," Eisner says. "Take Martha Stewart. She's tough, smart -- a worthy adversary. If she were a doormat of a woman, no one would go after her. Marlo Thomas used to call me about marketing 'That Girl.' She said, 'If I were a man, I'd be president of the network."

Eisner expresses some reservation about the team assigned to Snow Queen, then adds, "John Lasseter. If we make a new deal with Pixar ... " 

Stainton jumps in: "You mean when we make a new deal with Pixar."

"I said to John, you can have Snow Queen. He loved it. John said, 'I want to do a princess movie.' "

Eisner asks for the Snow Queen synopsis. 

"The Snow Queen is a terrible bitch," Ruggels says. "When her suitors try to melt her heart, the Snow Queen freezes them."

"Each one should be a phony, but different," Eisner says of the suitors.

"Then along comes a regular guy," Ruggels continues. 

"This is perfect!" Eisner exclaims. "I'm afraid to hear more."

"The regular guy goes up there, he's not that great, but he's a good person. He starts to unfreeze her ... she melts."

"It's great," Eisner says. "Finally. We've had twenty meetings on this." 

Some of the language used to describe this shelved concept of the Snow Queen makes me cringe.

Clearly the creatives were toying with the idea of the Snow Queen having a love interest. Perhaps having the title character simply be a "bitch" that has all her problems solved by one man sounded good to some people (this meeting certainly reflects the film industry of the time), but as John Lasseter said to the Chris Buck's team (this was before Jennifer Lee joined the project), "You haven't dug deep enough." Everyone has a motivation. Audiences need to be able to identify with the characters that they see on screen.

Soon Jennifer joined the project (and thankfully breathed some realistic female essence into the leading ladies and story and broke the glass ceiling at Disney) and somewhere along the way someone asked, "What if Anna and Elsa were sisters?"

That question changed everything. Finally there was an emotional core that the creatives could work from, and the story took off.

Could Disney have come up with a version of the story that would have given Elsa a love interest? In Frozen's incarnation that we now know, I do not think so. If Elsa had to cut herself off from her own sister, often her own parents and completely from anyone else in her kingdom at such an early age because she felt she was too dangerous to be around anyone, how could she allow herself to emotionally connect with someone romantically? When Elsa says at her coronation ball that she doesn't dance, it's not because she feels that she has two left feet - it's that she doesn't dare touch anyone for fear of hurting them. It's why she quickly turns away from Anna when her sister reaches to touch her. Elsa is almost completely covered up, but she is still afraid that any contact with her sister could result in harming her.

This is, however, not to say that Elsa doesn't deserve a love interest. Elsa absolutely deserves love, in all forms of the word! And yes, even though it crosses fandoms, Elsa and Jack Frost would make quite the lovely couple (and hey, it's not like Dreamworks owns the entire concept of Jack Frost - Disney could potentially do something with that idea...I wonder what the copyrights are regarding that name...)

Anyhow, the problem was that if Elsa couldn't even let her own sister into her life, how could she even fathom allowing a complete stranger in? Elsa had to reconnect with the person she loved most before she could allow herself to connect deeply with anyone else - and love herself.

Personally, I don't think that Elsa needs a man, because she's so amazing on her own. When we go to the movies and see a male character not have a love interest, are people always getting upset over it? I've never seen that kind of complaint. Leading female characters do not need to be paired off to be interesting to service a story. BUT, I think that the reason why some fans are so upset for Elsa is that they connected with her so deeply - they felt that she deserved to repair all of that awful loneliness and pain in her heart. And I very much feel the same way. Some are calling for a sequel - I truly, truly hope that if a sequel is made, it will be of at least the same caliber as Frozen. Lasseter put his foot down several years ago demanding that Disney films that came out in theaters only get sequels if they are good enough to also be released into theaters. But Cars 2 wasn't that long ago (sorry John)...on the flip side, the Toy Story sequels were all amazing. Cross your fingers.

In the meantime, I have to say that while Anna is a charming character that gives the Disney Princess lineage a nice shakeup and I understand why the film was set essentially from her perspective, I really wish Frozen spent more time with Elsa. The film could have easily used at least an extra 20 minutes with her. We got a fantastic amount of backstory leading up through "Let It Go," which is an amazing song that I cannot stop singing in my car. But after that, we saw a lot less of Elsa and her awesome ice palace didn't really get much use (though at least Marshmallow was able to use it after - please tell me you all stayed after the credits?!) Anna and Elsa's confrontation sped by like a bullet train, and before I knew what was happening, I realized that Disney had cut the whole sequence of Elsa shooting a blizzard at Anna, Kristoff, Olaf and Sven.

And that little piece of footage was what had me hooked to see this film, folks. Do I regret seeing the film because this footage was seemingly cut? No, of course not. But my curiosity is driving me crazy.

Of course we all wanted Elsa to be a hero in this story, but were curious about her also being an antagonist to a certain extent. Disney kept her character shrouded in mystery for a very long time. Of course, originally they planned to have her be even more of an antagonist then she ended up being in the final film, and the script and story went through so many changes...

Still, I have to ask about this bit, because it was (and still is) in a lot of the more recent marketing! I'm sure you all remember the, "That's no blizzard, that's my sister!" clip. Originally, the full clip which is now entitled "That happened" had our characters land into the soft pillowy snow after their encounter with Marshmallow to then be suddenly attacked with a flurry of snow and wind. Kristoff then shouted, "Now we just have to survive this blizzard!" and Anna finished with, "That's no blizzard, that's my sister!" as the camera panned up to Elsa in all of her icy glory. Now, however, if you went on to the official Disney Animation Youtube page, you would see a slightly different video with no Elsa in it at all, which fully matches what you see in the final film version. I wanted to find the original clip for you, but I have a feeling that Disney sought to remove every trace of it that was ever around. Even when I type to search for this particular clip on Youtube, the webpage crashes. Coincidence? I think not!

And neither is this! I am now officially convinced that Rapunzel is cousins with Anna and Elsa.

Anyway, I can't help but think back to when Tangled was coming to theaters. Disney had made some fairly entertaining promos - one of them even got their own poster. And I wondered if maybe this little bit of Elsa's awesome ice magic was merely developed to be used for promotional material.

We got to see Rapunzel dangle Flynn/Eugene out of her tower, and apparently she was enjoying it. But if you think about it now, do you really think Rapunzel would have done something so cruel?

I certainly don't.

And that is possibly what came into play for Frozen, but on a grander scale, and not spawning from trying to generate interest for the film. It wouldn't make much sense for Elsa to shoot ice magic at her own sister after she accidentally struck her and was mortified by the whole thing. Yes, she created Marshmallow, but only so that she could be assured that her sister would be escorted off of the premises.

So perhaps kind of late in the game, the creators decided to cut that footage. But Anna's line kind of stuck with potential moviegoers, and those moments have still found themselves as tidbits in current Frozen trailers. And every time I get a glimpse of Elsa in this footage, I get that darned pang of curiosity.

I still don't have The Art of Frozen in my possession. It may answer all sorts of questions for me. At the same time, I feel that it will leave just as many unanswered. If the Blu-Ray does not have a serious making-of documentary on this project, I will be very, very disappointed. Disney already dropped the ball with Tangled on that front. Are they embarrassed about the amount of times they tackled this project and it didn't go anywhere? They shouldn't. They should also know that there will be fans out there that will want to know more. I just sincerely hope that we will not have to wait 20 years before we get an honest behind-the-scenes-look at the making of this film.

There's still so much more to write about Frozen...it's yet another reason why I've held off. I just had to focus this post on my new favorite character! But don't worry, I haven't forgotten about Anna and the rest of the characters. I'm actually really excited to talk about Hans with all of you - some people do not give the filmmakers enough credit for the creative genius that they put into this character!

In the meantime, I hope you all have had happy holidays and will have a happy new year!

The CG Princesses and Disney Animation

Look, there's been a lot of talk lately about how supposedly similar Anna and Elsa from Disney's upcoming animated feature Frozen look in comparison to Rapunzel in Tangled. And then that statement that a Frozen animator said that has mostly been taken out-of-context. Before pressing on, I highly recommend taking a look at this article real quick - just so you can fully follow along :)

I'll admit that I felt this way when I first saw those supposed "leaked posters" - but I pulled those images from my blog once I found out that Disney was requesting various site to remove said posters as they were fakes. Unfortunately, not all of the images were taken down, and mislead movie-goers are pulling up the pictures and crying foul.

Admittedly, both images were close to the final character designs, but still, they were unfinished. The public groaned over the similarity between princesses, but really, was that fair of us?

Before we tackle this question, we need to look at the official character designs and how they are translating to the screen.

Elsa Final Sketch

Anna Final Sketch

Anna, Elsa, and for your bonus enjoyment, Kristoff ;)

CG Film

I really love the original sketches. There's obviously a strong similarity between the initial concept art and the final CG designs, but as you can tell, the transition was not seamless. Both Anna and Elsa have rounder faces, and even their eyes are slightly different.

Now let's take a look at how Rapunzel translated from concept art to film.

Concept art

CG Advertising

Final film version

Now, I could pull tons of pictures and stick them side-by-side, but have any of you noticed the huge discrepancy between all of Rapunzel's supposed "looks?" I mean, just look at the CG advertising image and compare it to the final version. Rapunzel's eyes used to be set far wider apart. The advertising image was supposed to be the final "official" version of her, and still, it wasn't.

But now take a look at the concept art again. That was how Glen Keane designed her to look. Her features were sharper. She looked a little more mature. Her chin was smaller, etc.

Do you get the point that I'm trying to make here? The animators sketch up these beautiful designs, but when it comes time to entering it into the computer, those designs have to be altered. How something looks in 2D might not necessarily work once it is switched over to the 3D format. And once you start comparing those character designs, you notice differences between the princesses.

Yes, there is certainly a similar "look" going on. Disney is known for their traditional Disney Princess looks. Merida was a huge departure from that design element, but she was created by the Pixar team, not Walt Disney Animation. Her face is also very round, so CG naturally helped that along. Should Disney try to do something different? It's arguable that they should, but whenever they have, Disney has assessed that the films do not do as well at the box office.

So here's that infamous quote that everyone is fuming about right now:

Historically speaking, animating female characters are really, really difficult, ’cause they have to go through these range of emotions, but they’re very, very — you have to keep them pretty and they’re very sensitive to — you can get them off a model very quickly. So, having a film with two hero female characters was really tough, and having them both in the scene and look very different if they’re echoing the same expression; that Elsa looking angry looks different from Anna (Kristen Bell) being angry.”

Yes, that animator wasn't as careful with his words as they should have been (at least, not enough for the internet to quote him later.) Yes, both women and men alike are supposedly difficult to animate, as the classic Disney animators will say in many interviews that no one ever wanted to animate a prince, yet they were comfortable animating characters like the seven dwarfs because they didn't feel like they had to make them look handsome or pretty.

But the quote was taken out of context because the very reason this animator even said any of that was that he was explaining the difficulty of translating the original character designs into the CG format - which is why I've been showing you all the vast difference between sketch to final film designs.

But no, I do not think that these princesses and princes and whatever other supposed ingenue leads Disney comes up with need to look beautiful all the time. If they are to represent normal human beings that we can relate to, they need to express a full range of emotions.

I blame marketing, I truly do. It's why all of the princesses (Merida included, as the internet remembers) got sparkly sexy mess makeovers. It is reportedly what Disney makes more money off of, because little girls want all of their princesses to fit into the same world where they all have a similar look and could possibly be friends, even if it disconnects the characters from their own worlds.

They're afraid to have a single frame of Anna or Elsa look not-so-pretty, because they do not want these characters to end up being "tarnished" in any way. And while I would whole-heartedly prefer that they animate their heroes and heroines in a fully realistic manner, I understand their wariness. Because anyone could take a single frame from their film, upload it online and turn it into a meme that Disney may not be comfortable with.

That's probably not their primary fear, though. Their ultimate goal of marketing is to make little girls continue to love Disney Princesses, and because of that, marketing will always be obsessive with their appearance. They want these female characters to be so beautiful that these little girls will always want to purchase the dolls, dress up like them, etc. And since marketing likes to make them a set, their looks have to be "streamlined."

While that may be somewhat disheartening, here's the good news - marketing can't go back and change how a film is animated. Cinderella's ball gown in her classic film will always be white/silver - marketing cannot touch the film and make her dress blue.

This whole situation is pretty ironic. As I've noted here before, just a few weeks before Tangled was to be released, another Disney employee made a statement that was taken out-of-context. That Disney was supposedly never going to make another fairy tale again. That's not what he actually meant - what he was trying to say was that Disney had no interest in pursuing the little girl demographic with princess films, because apparently princesses didn't do well at the box office because Princess and the Frog was released at the same time as Avatar and the economy was in the middle of its nasty downturn. And then Tangled did well and the "boys club" (as Brenda Chapman aptly puts it) ate their words and pulled the Snow Queen project off of the shelf, which had been an on-again off-again production for a long time at Disney.

As hard as the boys club works, they still seem to not understand why Disney has become the powerhouse that it has. The two films that saved the Disney animation studio from closing were Cinderella and The Little Mermaid - and let's not forget the very first Disney animated feature film that starred Snow White, which was a huge success for the Disney company. They need to understand that it's so much more than just having pretty princesses make a nice doll set.

It's about having any female character to have a story center around her. Because most forms of entertainment star a male character, the male-to-female character ratio is generally 3-to-1, and at best, the female is just in a supporting romantic role, only there to romantically engage the male hero.

Traditionally, boys have had their superheroes. Yes, Marvel and DC have female superheroes as well, but do they get big-budget movies starring just them? Marvel's Avengers set, which has done tremendously well at the box office, only has one female heroine that has not even had her own movie. And let's face it...while Black Widow is awesome, her story is still greatly shrouded in mystery and her costume is a basic black leather catsuit which more than likely doesn't really help her all that much in combat. Over on DC's side, they've been working on a Wonder Woman film for years, and at this rate, it's just never going to happen because all of these big male executives are too chicken to finish the job.

So where does that leave female movie-goers, especially ones of the younger variety who wants toys and costumes to pretend that they are those characters because there is something inside of them that they aspire to be? Disney heroines often enter the picture, and these women generally emulate great compassion, dedication, dreams and fulfilling them. The female underdog that somehow, despite all of these obstacles thrown in her way, achieves her happy ending because she chooses to be brave and takes a risk to get there. Yes, they're beautiful and have wonderful dresses that many of us want to wear, but it's their story and their heart that connect with people all over the world.

But these marketing folks that are aiming to sell as much product as they can - and to a certain extent, many of the higher-ups at Disney - well, I don't think they realize that. Maybe the little boys want the toy cars because it gives the boys a sense of action and the cars are shiny, but personally, I connected with Cinderella because the world was often cruel to her and she continually responded with kindness and her goodness granted her a happily ever after - not because she had a big ballgown and danced with a prince.

In any case, if marketing has this much control over the creative process - and believe me, they do certainly have some clout - then we as fans need to speak up. We can't just say that a statement is misogynistic (even when it is), because that's not going to change the creative process in animating these characters. We need to say that we want to see real human expressions, even if that means that a character is suddenly unattractive. That we want to see more realistic portrayals of humanity, even along with the nitty-gritty.

And maybe, just maybe, we need to stop untagging ourselves or deleting pictures where we ourselves do not feel that we look "perfect." Maybe we all need to recognize that perfection is truly in the eye of the beholder, and that perhaps it is time to practice what we preach when we tell little girls that they do not have to look a certain way to feel good about themselves. Because until that happens, quite honestly, none of this is going to change.

The Oft Frozen Journey of the Snow Queen

EDIT: Due to the fact that those supposed Frozen posters of Anna and Elsa were fake, and that Disney has requested their removal in many places online, I have chosen to remove the images that I originally used of them in this article. From what I have heard, the actual models were rather close to what the final character designs were, but I guess we'll have to see - Disney has to release some sort of teaser trailer soon, right?

Not too long ago, Disney gave us a first look at a piece of concept art for Frozen.

Ominously (at least that's how I felt at the time), Elsa, the Snow Queen, was left out of the image while we got a look at Anna (her sister) and Kristoff.

I suppose I've had high hopes for the Snow Queen's design. This animated film has been a long time coming, so there's quite a bit of old concept art out there.

My favorite.

The majority of the old concept art for the Snow Queen shows a very beautiful yet cruel-looking character, or at least someone that you might not feel too comfortable having dinner with. Which is probably part of the reason why this project has been so plagued with problems story-wise.

This film has had several stops and goes...going all the way back to the 1930s, believe it or not (though back then it was supposed to be part live-action and part animation). The project was once called "The Ice Queen" as well as, of course, "The Snow Queen." I'm fairly confident that the project is now called "Frozen" because of how well Tangled did. Those guys in marketing must be convinced that due to the name change for Rapunzel's story and somehow "hiding" the fact that the film was a princess story, instead of making it obvious with The Princess and the Frog, Tangled did better than they thought it would.

In fact, when Princess and the Frog didn't do quite as well as they wanted, that's when Disney chose to rename the Rapunzel film. Disney has wanted to make as much as it did when The Lion King came out ($312 million). Never mind that the film was competing with Avatar at the time and that that's when the economy truly went down the tanker...

That was also one of the instances when the Snow Queen project was shelved. A princess and traditionally hand-drawn film? Oh no, that simply wouldn't do! In fact, mere days before Tangled was released, Ed Catmull stated that Disney was done with fairy tales for a while (though I will emphasize here that after nearly everyone freaked out from what he said, he went on record saying that he didn't mean that Disney would never churn out a fairy tale film ever again). But he and John Lasseter, who oversaw Disney animation, canned not just the Snow Queen film, but also a version they were planning of Jack and the Beanstalk. It's kind of ironic, considering that, once upon a time, John was very eager to actually direct the Snow Queen project, actually wanting to direct a princess film.

Then Tangled was released and earned over $200 million domestically, and the big boys that scoffed at fairy tales and princess stories were reminded why Disney became a powerhouse in the first place. Yes, it helped that Flynn/Eugene was an actually interesting character and the film had some action and adventure - but that never changed the fact that the film was still a fairy tale centered around the story of a princess. The Princess and the Frog had an interesting male character (and was just all-around solid with great word of mouth) as well, but perhaps featuring Flynn more prominently for Tangled's promos helped.

There is something to be said for setting the bar too high for your own good, though. Disney/Pixar cannot expect to get the same set of numbers at the box office every time. Instead of focusing so much on how much of a box office blockbuster they create, they should be more focused on the creative quality of their films (not that quality has gone awry yet per say). And as we all know, Disney makes the majority of its money from their films in the long-run, not simply the time that their films are out in theaters. Merchandise is a huge money-maker, especially where the princesses are concerned. 

Anyhow, Tangled proved that the world still wanted to see Disney princesses and fairy tales, which is why the Snow Queen project made a comeback. But perhaps Disney is trying a little too hard to replicate Tangled's success. Besides the name change, the new Disney Princess Anna looks an awful lot like Rapunzel.

So what if they gave Anna blue eyes and strawberry blonde hair instead of green eyes and regular blonde hair...they still look like they could be sisters.

Is this the price of doing this film in CG? Are all of the girls are going to have the same head shape, eyes and nose? People have noted how similar Ariel and Rapunzel are in design, but honestly, after seeing Anna I feel it a bit less. If Disney took the film in a more unique art direction, it would not be so obvious. But at least all of the snow will look luminous...

The original Hans Christian Andersen story actually features children (Kai and Gerda) as main characters. I'm not sure why Disney decided to drop this idea...perhaps they were hung up on creating a romance. But they did toy with the idea. As for the name changes, while I have heard some criticism regarding the matter, I do not see a big problem with it. As someone who has family from that part of the world, I can safely say that all of their names are very Danish.

I am happy to see that Kristoff is a slightly burlier man. While not quite a Bastion (a shelved concept for Rapunzel's beau), he's not as thin as he was in his original concept art.

They have strayed quite far from the original fairy tale, and that is their right as creators of entertainment. But they do seem to be pushing further and further away from the original fairy tale and original concept. The Snow Queen, or Elsa, looks like she came straight out of one of the CG Tinkerbell films or even from Dreamworks. Here's the brand new poster of her (sorry about the awkward logo).

It's true that once Disney decided to toy with more serious animated features, their box office revenues began to dip. Somehow The Lion King, which took the plot of Shakespeare's "Halmet," was able to find a strong balance between comedy and tragedy, and without feeling like it was some sort of formula. But once Pocahontas and The Hunchback of Notre Dame were released, audiences dropped from the numbers they had built from earlier in the Disney Renaissance.

It's a shame, really. I actually love Pocahontas and Hunchback. They both have sweeping scores, beautiful animation and I felt that Disney made some bold choices with those films. Perhaps part of the problem was that they weren't dedicated to being serious enough...the moment where they would try to implement comedy or cut certain songs were possibly where things went wrong. But in any case, trying to make a film for everyone is shooting yourself in the foot. 99% of the time you just can't please everyone.

Disney is definitely leaning towards a comedic feel, however. Besides a one-antlered reindeer, there will also be a talking snowman named Olaf. He's a snowman, and this film will be released for the holidays, which means a bunch of Christmas merchandise tie-ins. Not quite sure how I feel about him yet.

I still have high hopes for this film, regardless of all the changes it's gone through. Part of what can help ensure that this film isn't just about some cold-hearted [insert derogatory female term here] and coming across as woman-hating, Jennifer Lee, who co-wrote the script for Wreck-It Ralph, will be co-directing this film alongside Chris Buck, as well as contributing to the film's script.

Besides the script and direction, the music and casting sounds promising. Kristen Bell will voice Anna, and Idina Menzel will voice Elsa. Both have great musical theatre chops, though obviously the latter is more well-known for it than the other. While we saw Idina in Enchanted (and was even animated as a fairy tale version of herself), playing a leading role in a Disney animated feature must be a dream come true.

As for the score and lyrics, Broadway vets Robert Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez (a married team, aww) are taking care of it. You can bet that the lyrics will be very clever and probably quite funny.

So while Frozen may not be the film we all expected it to be from the beginning, it will probably be successful in that it will entertain audiences. And that's really the most important aspect in all of this, right?

And in the meantime, I'll be anxiously awaiting that secret 2D animated film that Ron and John are working on for (I believe) 2014.

TRON: UPRISING May Be DEREZZED

ATTENTION PROGRAMS.

Disney is currently sabotaging one of it's best current pieces of entertainment - Tron: Uprising.

I realize that not everyone is a fan of TRON, but whether you are or not, I highly suggest giving this television show a chance, not just now, but for the chance to even continue.

Right now, the show is on Disney XD, and the current new episodes play on Sunday nights at midnight (11 p.m. c).

You think that's a terrible time slot? So do I. The time slot, the channel and the advertising are what's killing this show, not the show itself.

Tron: Uprising doesn't belong on Disney XD. It is far too mature and intelligent to play next to shows like Randy Cunningham: 9th Grade Ninja. It belongs on a more adult-geared channel...I don't see why this show couldn't play on, say, ABC. Maybe Disney chose Disney XD because it is an action-packed cartoon, but in tone, maturity and content, the show just doesn't fit comfortably next to all of their other shows.

This reflects one of the inherent issues that the Disney corporation seems to continually struggle with. They can't seem to get over the idea that cartoons are for everyone, not just for kids. Walt understood that, but as with many other aspects of the company, once he died, much of his intentions and direction for the company died as well.

Look at Cartoon Network, for example. They section off their genres of cartoons, knowing what demographics their programming is aimed at and when - and they are proof that mature cartoons can be successful.

This show has so much going for it. The plot is compelling and never talks down to the audience (perhaps too complex for a 7 year old at times, but not for someone a few years older). I would suggest watching Legacy before watching the show, but truthfully it is not completely necessary. 

The characters are engaging and actually have interesting arcs, and the vocal cast is equally impressive. Elijah Wood stars as Beck, the program that is tired of Clu's evil reign on the Grid and feels that someone needs to take a stand to stop him. Bruce Boxleitner reprises his role as Tron, who is now too wounded to take back the Grid, but trains Beck to take his place as the new Tron. Mandy Moore, our very own Rapunzel, voices Mara, who along with Zed (Nate Corddry) are close friends of Beck who work with him at Able's (Reginald VelJohnson) Garage. Emmanuelle Chriqui voices Paige, one of Tesler's (Lance Henriksen) field commanders. She is my personal favorite. She is dedicated to working for Clu, but it is sadly all based on a lie, and we as an audience see that she is not actually evil, but misled by the corruption of Clu's cronies. Paul Reubens voices Pavel, Tesler's second-in-command, is however as evil as they come, and it is very interesting to hear Mr. Reubens voice such a different character. And finally, The Grid (yes, The Grid starts off each episode) is voiced by Tricia Helfer.

The animation is awesome, so unique and so appropriate to the world. I didn't like it at first, admittedly, but I soon grew to love it. The style can be desribed as something reminiscent of Star Wars: The Clone Wars, ThunderCats, and Aeon Flux.

The musical score is worth the purchase of the soundtrack, too; it fits into the rest of the Tron universe nicely, as it is orchestrated by Joseph Trapanese, the same guy that arranged Daft Punk's score for Tron: Legacy.

Edward Kitsis and Adam Horowitz (the same guys that created Once Upon a Time) along with Justin Springer act as consulting producers while Charlie Bean acts as executive producer.

So the show is pretty solid. There are no gaping holes in the actual content or by the way it is created. But there are rumors spreading that the show could possibly be cancelled due to "lack of an audience."

Well, obviously. If you change the day and time slots for new episodes all of the time, don't let viewers know when the next episodes are even coming, completely stop advertising the show for when it will actually be on, and make the show completely unaccessible online (which is ridiculous, considering that the show premiered on youtube and gave us all hope that it would have a larger internet presence), you're going to kill it. Go here to see Disney's website for the show and see what I mean. 

Programs, I'm appealing to you. This is a fantastic show that doesn't deserve this kind of treatment.

This is why I'm encouraging you to check out this show ASAP and watch the new episode that is premiering at midnight this coming Sunday. It's a poor time slot, but the show needs more love or it will probably be cancelled.

It's time to begin the "uprising" in ratings and fight for this show! If you want to do more, you can go here and tell Disney how you feel, or you can tweet at them directly.