The Royal Wedding of Kate and William!

The media and the press have been obsessed, especially this week, about the nuptials of the now Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. After all, how often does a wedding this royal occur in our lifetime?

Well, we did have Victoria, the crowned Princess of Sweden, marry her personal trainer Daniel Westling last year. It was a beautiful event, but the wedding was actually boycotted by several big international news organizations. They were upset that they would not be able to stream the wedding live…and this is probably why we did not hear a lot about the wedding here when it happened.

Still, it was a lovely wedding. Victoria's gown was simple, with a slightly sexy edge by showing her shoulders. Of course, the gown could not upstage the gorgeous crown and veil she wore, rumored to be gifted by Napoleon to Josephine. She looked sublime as a true Swedish Princess.

Of course, the wedding that most of the media has been using as inspiration and comparison for Kate and William's wedding was the wedding of William's parents, Diana and Charles. That wedding was an explosion on national television and was a sight to behold for the rest of the world, curious as to how a royal wedding could look.

Diana's gown was huge…and I mean, quite literally, huge. It was the 1980s, and giant puff sleeves were in. That dress swallowed Diana up, and by today's bridal standards, probably would not have been recommended. Still, for its time, it was very fashionable and women all over coveted the gown's look. Still, one can't ignore the fact that when Diana stepped out of the carriage to enter the church, her gown was crumpled from being stuffed inside.

After both Victoria's and Diana's nuptials, Kate was obviously feeling plenty of pressure. Weddings are stressful enough…to know that the whole world's eyes will be on you, speculating what type of gown you will wear, and that the event will be documented and viewed for all time…well, that can all add up to an overwhelming situation.

Luckily, William worked hard to prepare Kate for the press, taking great pains to protect her as best as he could. The last thing he wanted for the woman he loved would be to meet the same fate as his late mother. Being a part of the royal family has many obligations and difficulties…William wanted to give Kate enough time to back out if she wanted to.

But Kate was a Cinderella that fell in love with her Prince. That is another reason why the media is in love with this story; yes, we want to see the style, the fashion, the elegance and opulence that we commoners can only dream of…but to know that Kate is from the middle class and just naturally fell in love with a Prince in college is very romantic and plays to the public's fantasies. Kate played more on the Cinderella story with her forms of transportation: breaking tradition, Kate arrived to the church by car with her father, but left the church with William in a horse-drawn carriage.

While ideas of Cinderella concoct images of big ball gowns, we are in a more modern age, and Kate is a sleek, fashionable and modern kind of girl – but sweet. I was hoping that Kate would wear some lace, and she did.

The gown was, in every way, the perfect choice for Kate. It fits her like a glove and she looks fantastic in it. The dress does not overwhelm, but simply complements her natural beauty. The lace a sweet, traditional and elegant touch…and in fact, the whole look very much reminds me of Grace Kelly's wedding gown from several decades ago, but with an updated "Kate" twist.

The gown was appropriate for a royal church event, but she was still able to stay true to herself with her gown choice. Her gown was gorgeous and I have no doubts in my mind that every wedding gown designer is going to create their own version of the gown for other princess brides (though perhaps some designers will just make the gowns they made sketches of for Kate before anyone knew who the designer was). I'm so happy that Kate chose Sarah Burton of Alexander McQueen. And, I should also add that I thought Kate's sister Pippa and their mother looked fabulous as well.

In the meantime, if you are vying for such a gown yourself, might I suggest either Monique Lhuilliher's Grace (an obvious nod to Princess Grace) or Marina K Couture's Chiara. Both are lacy, classic, and elegant gowns.

If you still want a Disney "Cinderella" dress, however, Alfred Angelo has two Cinderella gowns for the Disney Bridal Collection.

Congratulations to the new Duke and Duchess of Cambridge!

 

“Tangled” in Subtle Sexuality – Disney Stays True to the Original Fairy Tale (in a PC Way)

Whenever Disney tackles a fairy tale, the company takes on many challenges, and they often have to make significant alterations to the original stories to make them a hit for contemporary audiences. Many try to blame Disney for being inappropriate for children without knowing the original stories in which these popular films are based; if they did, they might bite their tongue next time they want to cast another stone at the company.


For fairy tales, while initially created for children, were not generally nice or ending in "happily ever after." These stories were usually created to produce fear in children and often taught them a lesson. The Brothers Grimm loved putting a nasty spin on these stories. Cinderella's evil Stepsisters had their eyes plucked out by birds as payment for their cruelty and vanity. Little Red Riding Hood learned that talking to strange creepy men could result in seriously bad consequences (an allegory for kidnapping, rape and death). Rapunzel's story, however, was probably the toughest fairy tale that Disney decided to tackle to date.


The Brothers Grimm version of the story of Rapunzel is, at its heart, the greatest fairy tale family melodrama. This is a classical soap opera, folks. A young couple moved into a house next door to a witch with a very lush garden. The wife became pregnant and had strong cravings for greens – no doubt the neighbor's expansive vegetable patch made her hungry. The soon-to-be-father snuck over to the witch's garden and stole vegetables (historically in Germany's folklore, where a lot of Rapunzel's history comes from, it was dangerous to deny a pregnant woman a food she craved, so family members went to extreme lengths to obtain such foods). The husband was caught, however, and the witch was furious. In exchange for her vegetables, the soon-to-be-father was forced to promise his unborn baby as payment to the witch. Rapunzel was born, and the witch (or Mother Gothel) took Rapunzel away and locked her up in a tower (every teenager's worst nightmare come true). Mother Gothel wanted Rapunzel all for herself and, like an extremely over-protective parent, would not let her go out and experience the world. But, eventually, a handsome Prince heard Rapunzel's beautiful voice, saw Mother Gothel call out, "Rapunzel, Rapunzel, let down your hair!" and saw a way to visit this young maiden. So he did just as Mother Gothel did – he visited Rapunzel in her tower, and the two fell in love. The Prince planned to spirit her away and marry her, but Rapunzel became pregnant after one of their sexual encounters, and Mother Gothel found out. In the original Brothers Grimm edition, Rapunzel tells Mother Gothel that her dress is getting too tight around her belly. The witch becomes enraged, so she cuts off Rapunzel's hair and casts her out into the world, where she eventually delivers twins. When Rapunzel's Prince returns to the tower, he only finds the witch, then falls back out and lands on thorns that blind him. He wanders the wilderness until he hears Rapunzel's familiar voice; filled with emotion, the two find each other and Rapunzel cries with him in her arms. Her tears heal his eyes, and his vision is restored…and the two can live happily ever after.

It's no wonder that Disney's version had to go through so many script re-writes. The main issue was generally the same: no one knew how to solve the third act. And how would the public react to the new Disney Princess getting knocked up? In such an overly-conservative time, it would be a dangerous move.

Copyright Disney

After seeing Tangled and knowing the original story of Rapunzel, you might think that Disney did some serious straying…but, they were actually very clever about the way in which they handled the heroine and hero's relationship…and the idea of Rapunzel's virginity and beauty.

Copyright Disney

 In the movie Tangled, Rapunzel's tiara symbolizes her virginity. At the very beginning of the film, Flynn cleverly snatches away the tiara (which is heavily guarded as requested from her actual parents). Flynn fights other men for this tiara, and it is initially important to him because of the wealth, power and (dare I say it) bragging rights it could get him. But, he cannot truly have Rapunzel's tiara until she chooses to give it to him. There is a world out there she wants to experience…and that experience ends up becoming a very long and exciting date, I would say.

Copyright Disney

In the middle of this date, Mother Gothel finds her and tries to bring her back home. When Rapunzel refuses (as all young adults do when they discover love and are ready to leave the nest), mother uses her typical, manipulative scare-tactics to keep her daughter at home forever. In "Mother Knows Best (Reprise)":



Rapunzel knows best
Rapunzel's so mature now
Such a clever grown-up miss
Rapunzel knows best
Fine, if you're so sure now
Go ahead, then give him this (Mother Gothel reveals the tiara)

This is why he's here!
Don't let him deceive you!
Give it to him, watch, you'll see!

Trust me, my dear
That's how fast he'll leave you
I won't say I told you so - no
Rapunzel knows best!



Is this not what most adults tell young people to keep them from having sexual relationships? The literal contexts are different, but the words and the expressions are the same.


Eventually, Rapunzel gets to finally experience the "floating lights", the one thing she has dreamed about for years and years. In arguably one of the most romantic and beautiful sequences ever made for a film, Rapunzel finally gives Eugene (I will call him Eugene here since he has experienced a character arc at this point) her tiara, telling him that she's "not scared anymore." He takes it from her, but puts it to the side, and says, "I'm starting, too." It is no longer her virginity that he is symbolically just taking: he is making love to her, because he loves her. His intentions are now pure.

Copyright Disney

But, Eugene has some Flynn problems to take care of, and has to leave Rapunzel. Flynn offers the two scary thugs the tiara, but they no longer want it. Mother Gothel has told them what the most valuable prize regarding Rapunzel is: her healing hair. Symbolically, one could argue that, as these men perceive that Rapunzel's virginity is no longer intact, they do not want to fight for it anymore. I am more inclined to focus on something else. Rapunzel's hair, representing her beauty, is something that they can market and sell…just as the world markets and sells female beauty, even prostitutes their bodies, these men would like to make money off of Rapunzel's beauty…be her pimps, as it were.


Mother Gothel tricks the thugs and sends Eugene to his death, but he manages to escape and goes to rescue Rapunzel. Mother Gothel stabs him, and Rapunzel begs to heal him…and in the moment where Eugene can have a guarantee of his life continuing, he nobly cuts off Rapunzel's hair…no longer can she be marketed and controlled by those that seek personal gain from her beauty. She is beautiful just as she is. She is free.
In this version, Rapunzel's tears still save her beloved…while he may not be a Prince or blinded by thorns, he has suffered because of his love for her. Her tears revive him, and they live happily ever after…just the way a classic Disney fairy tale should end.

Disney Bridal Gowns – No Kirstie Kelly?

In 2007, Disney teamed up with wedding gown designer Kirstie Kelly to debut Disney Bridal by Kirstie Kelly.

The initial collection was released to, judging by internet comments, mixed reviews. Some were highly disgusted or disappointed because they either hated Disney in the first place (citing that the company feeds the female sex unrealistic expectations regarding love and life – to which I say, what piece of media doesn't?) or because none of the dresses seemed to look like any of the actual dresses of the princesses from their respective films. Others, however, were thrilled at the prospect of finally being able to purchase a "Disney" wedding gown. And while plus-size ladies were initially left out in the cold, eventually Kirstie Kelly added a line for them, too.

Fast-forward to 2010. At the beginning of the year, David Tutera teamed up with Kirstie Kelly and Disney to create a Disney Weddings book (comments are found earlier in this blog).

Imagine my surprise when I tried to check up on the collections at disneybridal.com – to find Kirstie Kelly's line eliminated and promoting a new line by Alfred Angelo.

Don't get me wrong – I'm happy to see that Disney is trying to include budget-conscious brides here. These gowns are significantly more affordable than Kirstie's. However, the former line was not in the most expensive category for bridal gowns. High-end designer bridal gowns can end up being $20,000 or more, and Ms. Kelly's line was around $1,000-$3,000.

I'm not terribly impressed by these dresses. They are pretty, but most of them look like dresses that the designer had already created and put on the market before Disney approached them. What especially disappoints me is that Rapunzel is not included in the collection. I know that the collection was released before Tangled came to theaters, but the time gap is not that big (then again, that film went through so many changes that perhaps when the designer was creating mock-ups for his new dresses the animators did not have anything to give him for reference). In any case, these gowns still suffer from the same issue with the first line – none of them look much like the outfits we actually saw our favorite Disney Princesses in (though I will say that Alfred Angelo came closer that Kirstie Kelly did).

For the record, here are some points of reference:

 Characters and their likenesses copyrighted by Disney.

But here's the real question: are we going to start seeing Alfred Angelo Disney Bridal Rings, too? Because at least that gives one room for interpretation without significant basis…

Tangled – An Unbraided Rapunzel?

Yesterday was a very, very exciting day for me.

For the first time in my lifetime, a Disney Princess film premiered with a blonde for a heroine.

And Alan Menken was doing the music.

And this was a film that had gone through so much reworking…I mean, 3 different titles! 2 totally different casts! (I'm a little bummed that Kristin Chenoweth did not end up in Tangled, but considering that she, as Rapunzel, was supposed to be trapped in squirrel form while some random teenager ends up in hers…I think we're lucky this project got an overhaul).

I'm not going to lie…after having some knowledge as to what this film has gone through, and to then see some really downright awful commercials…I was afraid that this film was going to be Disney attempting to do Shrek, which is definitely not something the company should ever do. Enchanted was okay because the majority of the film was live-action…but in general, it's not brilliant to make fun of yourself in front of everyone. It only makes you look even more like a fool. Of course, that's just my opinion.

In all honesty, the only advertising I really liked for this film was the teaser trailer.

It annoyed me that a lot of the advertising didn't involve the film's main villainess, Mother Gothel. Before I saw the film, it was because I was very familiar with the original version of Rapunzel – after seeing the film, it's because of that and the fact that the character is just really well done by Donna Murphy and the animators for this film.

The original tale of Rapunzel is really more of a heavy family drama than a light-hearted Disney musical (of course, Disney has tweaked every fairy tale that they've touched, as they have every right to, and that's fine by me). I mean, I don't think it would have gone over well for the audience to see Flynn's eyes bleeding and stumbling around blind while screaming in agony.

I am a little sad, however, that so much of the familial basis was altered. In the original fairy tale, Rapunzel is not born a princess, but is the daughter of a Baker and his Wife, who tragically must give up their child to a Witch because the Baker raided her garden after the pregnant Wife got hungry for some greens.

However, I can let this go because Flynn is allowed to have a "Cinderella" moment, if you will. Because he came from nothing, and as an underdog was able to rise up and accidentally fell in love with a princess.
Of course, this doesn't change the fact that Mother Gothel isn't even a witch…maybe Disney was trying to just change things up a little, I guess.

While I was thrilled to finally see a central mother-daughter relationship in a Disney film (because, let's face it…there just really hasn't been in any previous Disney films), I do wish the relationship between Rapunzel and Mother Gothel had felt a bit more significant. It was too easy for Rapunzel to turn her back on her mother towards the end, and it was too easy for Mother Gothel to be so easily detached. After all that time together, the two of them should still deeply love one another, even if it Gothel kidnapped her for selfish reasons…she still raised her as her own. She clearly loves her daughter enough that she's willing to travel very far to get her daughter some special shells for her paint…

I am not completely discounting what we did see between them by any means. Mothers are great at putting superficial ideas into their daughters heads, manipulating them and belittling them…and the classic teenager to parent dilemma of, "I need to do things on my own and experience the world" versus "I have protected you all of your life and I can't let you go because I love you" was done in a fairly moderate way to not overdramatize the film…but I will say, coming from a girl who's been there, it hurts a lot more than Disney showed. At least we've broken ground. I'm hoping the in the future Disney will "dig a little deeper" on this issue.

And speaking of music…while I don't feel the music for this film is on the same level as Beauty and the Beast or Aladdin, it was definitely enjoyable, and it was a treat to see Menken's work on an animated Disney film again...Glenn Slater provided some clever lyrics in there, too.

The only really awkward moment was during the song "I See the Light"…while the music is rather beautiful (and the imagery just as gorgeous to match), I was rather taken aback when, after hearing Rapunzel and Flynn singing in their heads, saw them suddenly singing to each other in harmony ¾'s of the way through the song. That was potentially the weirdest thing in the film…you get past it, but it was a poor choice in my honest opinion.

If anyone out there remains skeptical about this film because of the vocal talent, let me put their mind at ease. Mandy Moore, Zachary Levi, Donna Murphy (a Broadway veteran) and the rest of the cast do a fantastic job! I wish I had been able to see Zachary sing more (he originally had more, a solo and a reprise that was first a love song from Mother Gothel to Rapunzel and after with him a love song to Rapunzel)…hopefully Disney will include whatever files they have saved from these cut songs and include them on the Blu-Ray/DVD release!

Chock it up to a simple story, a good script, great animation and vocal talent…but the characters in this film are rather well-developed. A fellow colleague of mine remarked that he felt Rapunzel was the first really likeable Disney Princess…I don't know if I can fully agree with him on that, as every Disney Princess is simply a product of her time, but Rapunzel is definitely the sweet girl next door, with a little bit of fun and spunk. She's not afraid of being goofy, of being herself, and that's definitely an attractive quality to see in anyone. In the line of Disney Princesses, therefore, her characterization seems like a breath of fresh air. As for Flynn, I was not sure coming in to see the film that I would like him…I originally saw him mostly as a Disney marketing ploy that was going in the wrong direction. But through the course of the film, he stops being completely self-absorbed and detached from the cares and worries of life and has a quite nice and full character transformation.

Here is a quick little comment I need to make – while the King and Queen in this film do not speak, their animation is so perfect, so realistic and so powerful that in the span of a few seconds you will be holding back tears. Whoever animated them needs some serious recognition at Disney…that footage is absolutely powerful.

Speaking of the animation…just in general, it is quite beautiful. The background story of this film reminds me a lot of what happened to Sleeping Beauty, but perhaps ending on a more positive note. What bothered me, however, was that at times the consistency of Rapunzel and Flynn's faces seemed a little spotty. I won't pretend that Disney has always been perfect in this category, but it seemed only aggravated with this style of animation. Rapunzel looked like three different women to me! And there was one shot where Flynn's hairline was way too forward on his forehead (which made him suddenly a lot less attractive by my taste).

Still, overall the animation was rather gorgeous. Trying to mimic the look of oil paintings was a brilliant idea.
I will actually have to go back to the theaters to see this film again…besides the fact that I really enjoyed the film, my 3D glasses darkened the picture significantly, so I'm going to have to see it in 2D to be able to really appreciate the hard work the animators and designers did on this film. Please note that I'm not discouraging anyone from seeing this in 3D! There are no tacky, gimmicky stunts pulled because you're wearing special glasses. The vast landscaping, buildings and just overall texture really benefit from the 3D (and speaking of texture…the way Rapunzel's hair is animated is just fantastic!). But if you want to see the true coloring of the film, you're going to have to nitpick.

Overall, I give this film two thumbs-up. And it looks like everyone else is, too…it was recently announced that Tangled has had the biggest Thanksgiving Weekend Opening ever with $11.5 million garnered on its first day of release! That's more than Toy Story 2 did, who had the title before Tangled.

I leave you with a quote by Glen Keane regarding the whole Rapunzel project (after the concept for Rapunzel: Unbraided got the boot), who has worked for several long, hard years on this film:
"I think that's what Disney needs to do right now. No one else can do it. We should not be embarrassed or make excuses for doing a fairytale."


I am thankful for people at Disney being proud of their legacy and continuing on with it with attitudes like this. Have a happy Thanksgiving!

Have a Glittery Halloween!

Seeing as Halloween is today, I felt I should mention MAC's Venomous Villains Collection for Disney.

From the Disney films Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, Sleeping Beauty, 101 Dalmations and The Princess and the Frog, the collections are inspired by the Evil Queen, Maleficent, Cruella de Vil and Dr. Facilier!

I am just itching to get my hands on some of these items. I especially love what I've seen of the nail polish and eyeshadow…

I might be able to get a review up for some of these products later (hopefully). For now…

Happy Halloween!

The “Deal” With Beauty and the Beast Right Now

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 7^th).


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 5^th, 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.

Branding the Disney Princess Stereotype

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?