Take your favorite aspects of walking into a book store and multiply them by 50. This is how ReedPOP, the world’s largest producer of pop culture events, is taking the acclaimed consumer book event out of New York City and into Chicago for the first time on May 14, 2016. The one-of-a-kind interactive experience where storytelling and pop culture collide will be held at McCormick Place as the bookend to the annual Book Expo America (BEA) trade event. Headlined by best-selling authors and the world’s hottest Hollywood talent, BookCon will bring books to life through a series of Panels, Autographing sessions, Author Q&As and more.
The initial guest list for BookCon 2016 includes a mix of Hollywood talent and traditional authors, highlighting the event’s scope and personality. It includes a discussion with multi-talented comedian Chris O’Dowd (Bridesmaids) where he will talk about his upcoming book, Moone Boy 2: The Fish Detective, with co-author Nick V. Murphy. Additional events will feature mega-sellers Leigh Bardugo (author of the #1 New York Times Bestseller Six of Crows and The Grisha Trilogy) and Danielle Paige (Stealing Snow). The latest entrant into the late night battles – Samantha Bee (Daily Show) – will also make an appearance to talk about her middle grade novel, Cracking Up. This is only the beginning of the power-packed line-up being curated for BookCon 2016. ReedPOP will continue to add and announce guests and content up until the show.
“I can’t wait to get back to BookCon. It’s like a huge party for book lovers and there’s no better place to connect with readers,” says Leigh Bardugo, #1 New York Times Bestselling Author of Six of Crows.
BookCon is designed to appeal to the modern-day book lover with an appreciation for broader pop culture and where these worlds intersect. BookCon will feature a vibrant Show Floor with the world’s most influential publishers including ABRAMS, Chronicle Books, Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins, Macmillan Publishers, Penguin Random House, Scholastic, Simon & Schuster and many more. In addition to over 250 Exhibitors, the Show Floor will house the Downtown Stage, home to innovative content like Q&As, trivia and illustrator events.
“BookCon 2015 proved that both Fans and the industry crave an event that connects authors to Fans in unique ways,” states BookCon’s Show Manager, Brien McDonald. “Now, we’re bringing that experience to Fans in a new city and fully expect Chicago to embrace us as our home for BookCon 2016.”
BookCon 2015 in NYC drew 18,000 fans (an 80-percent increase over 2014’s inaugural show) and showcased 300 Guests and 250 Exhibitors. The show included appearances by renowned actors and authors alike including: Julianne Moore, Mindy Kaling, B.J. Novak, Nick Offerman, Aziz Ansari, John Green, Jason Segel, Judy Blume, R.L. Stine and many others.
As an original consumer extension of BEA, BookCon will have unprecedented access to the world’s most accomplished authors and most influential publishing houses.
BEA, North America’s largest gathering of book industry professionals from around the globe, and BookCon, the consumer extension of the show, combine to make the ultimate event destination for the publishing industry and booklovers worldwide. BEA is widely known as the leading business event for publishers, booksellers, digital content creators, traditional and self-published authors, media, rights professionals, and movie and television executives who attend to discover new voices, learn about trends shaping the book industry, and network with those who have a passion for books and reading. BookCon is the ultimate Fan event where storytelling and pop culture collide – offering Fans unprecedented access to authors, publishers, celebrities and creators of content that influence everything we read, hear and see. Tickets for BookCon will go on sale on Thursday, November 12 at 12:00 PM CST.
If you haven’t been paying attention to pop media (by I guess actually living a life like a functioning person who doesn’t analyze these things), “nostalgia rules” right now. When it comes to pop culture right now, the 80’s and now 90’s (to early 00’s in a way) in particular are back, and along with it the strong smell of nacho and cool ranch flavored snacks, and boy is it strong.
Now, being nostalgic is nothing new; society and pop culture is always nostalgic over something that came before. As a creative writer myself, hardly any of my original pieces or adaptations are modern. My work is set all over creation with a slight aesthetic bias towards 1900’s-30’s. If it is modern, there’s a decidedly mid-century aesthetic. I’ve been told I dress and look like a grandpa and or a 50’s/60’s singer. Despite actually being 300 years old, I’ll accept the latter. I’m all about nostalgia. I understand. Oh do I understand. But we’re in the midst of an epidemic of nostalgia when it comes to movies, television, animation and kid’s media. Is it a good thing? I say yes…and no.
Younger creatives having grown up or born in the 80’s and 90’s are finally starting to land big creative gigs, particularly the director’s chair. Thus many current cartoon series like Gravity Falls, Adventure Time, Bee & Puppycat, Steven Universe, The Amazing Adventures of Gumball and Regular Show, etc, all have pronounced “retro” aesthetics or leanings one way or another and show signs of their creator’s relative young ages and influences. It’s affectionate. Dare I say cute. The influence of anime on creators who grew up with it without exactly imitating the Japanese style is also showing up in shows more and more and that cross-pollination of influence is exciting (see Steven Universe, Bee & Puppycat in particular). So called “90s kids” and post 00′ current teenagers and tweens pushing the trend are generally innocuous (if not obnoxious). This is all good (in moderation).
Now, don’t get me wrong; in general the 90s was a crazy interesting time when it came to TV so I’m not knocking peoples fascination with the era here. While often cheesy, diversity was at it’s highest with live action prime-time shows, as was creator-controlled cartoons after the 80’s “Dark Ages”. Fox, WB, Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network and to an extent Disney too killed it with their animated offerings. If looking at these eras and using inspiration from certain shows means we get good new media, so be it, bring it on.
However, this fascination for this 80s-00’s era has a side effect ; properties and icons of that era are now being resurrected, continued and or retooled en masse in a way I’ve never really seen before in terms of number. And it’s both awesome, but also sort of a problem.
2014 alone launched Girl Meets World, the sequel show to Boy Meets World. There is the highly anticipated but woefully deficient thus far (in my opinion, more on that later) Sailor Moon Crystal reboot and of course the new (and justly so) critically panned but successful Michael Bay‘s Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles live-action film reboot. Not to mention his continued mess that is the Transformers series (whose box office numbers while still astronomical are, after four films, starting to wane here in the States). Godzilla also stomped its way into a new American film (franchise) and another Jurassic Park film Jurassic World is forthcoming.
Toei (spearhead of Sailor Moon Crystal) has announced a new season of Digimon for the franchise’s 15th birthday, this time starring the original first (and possibly second) series cast after years of different casts and realities. The Powerpuff Girls (minus their original creator) returned in a TV special with a new look and a new series has been announced to return to Cartoon Network in 2015/2016. A live action Jem and the Holograms film has been announced, a Rainbow Brite and a Lion King sequel animated series are also in production. Disney also has a Snow White and the Seven Dwarves reboot of sorts with the new show The 7D. Former PBS darlings Magic School Bus and Reading Rainbow are set to return too. Netflix in addition to gaining Magic School Bus has also bought rights to Clifford The Big Red Dog among others so additional new series are also most likely forthcoming. Sonic the Hedgehog has additionally given a new look and a new upcoming show and game. Courage The Cowardly Dog’s creator John Dilworth has a short clip of presumably a new short in CGI which many believe will be a bid to a resurrected series (I’d say this is a good thing, since it wouldn’t content wise change much). The list goes on and on. (Know of any other resurrections going on? Comment and let me know any I missed.).
Now, all of this resurrection and revamping is not inherently a bad thing. Felix The Cat, Popeye, Betty Boop, Mickey Mouse, Superman, Batman & Robin, all have persisted more or less for over seventy years due to reinvention. Everyone needs Magic School Bus and Reading Rainbow in their lives. Unless it’s sexifying Queen Frostine and then demoting her to a princess instead in Candyland (I’m coming after you Hasbro) most of the time these retools for properties are harmless and gradual and have been occurring as long as a property is seen as viable. Scooby-Doo and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are two examples of franchises (not just characters) that continue to go on via periodical retooling and repackaging, (Zombie Island & Witch’s Ghost are superior when it comes to Scooby, however in my humble opinion). It would be great for more franchises to perpetuate in such a flexible manner.
However the sheer number of titles being retooled or revisited all at once right now raises an eyebrow. Why revisit Lion King 20 years later? Why Rainbow Brite? Why now? And like the answer is “Why not?” and…they’re right. And that is what is frustrating.
With each of these backwards revivals, unless super unique, it means we have one less totally “original” show or content being worked on. One that could have very well become a classic if given a chance. And that is where the heart of my concern is. These sequels and revivals are great, but when is enough, enough?
The revamps can indeed be quality well made productions with distinctive art, etc, but there is no assurance they will be successes either (see Thundercats reboot, which looked visually amazing from what I remember, Sym-Bionic Titan as another gorgeous show ended too soon and ugh, Loonatics Unleashed as an example of what not to do period).
I find the reluctance to try new things with no ties to an established property a bit boring. I fear that when revisiting these properties as quickly as we are, executives will jump onto the “nostalgia” bandwagon and instead of something happening more organically; we’ll be getting many cases of hastily resurrected and sub-par material (who wanted a Dumb & Dumber sequel exactly?). It becomes more about making things just to make them and get those “nostalgia dollars” than actually retooling something. This is creativity-wise pretty bankrupt.
Ironic enough, for all it’s line’s previous saccharineness, My Little Pony Friendship Is Magic is a good example of a revamp avoiding such issues and stands alone in addition to being a new face to an old franchise.
An example of what I’m worried about will be the norm? Sailor Moon Crystal. Sailor Moon is a juggernaut of a franchise and an anime, but it’s new “closer to the manga” anime Sailor Moon Crystal is woefully deficient. I know it means a lot to people, it means a lot to me. Which is why I’m really frustrated. It’s not a particularly well animated production. It’s stiff and lacks fluidity and humor. The animation is wonky at best, hidden underneath CGI.
Now, it seems to be getting better, maybe as of episode 4, but up until now it’s been riddled with mistakes and an inability to really stay on model. I am hoping things get better; Sailor Moon Crystal was delayed for two years, the show is bi-weekly, and yet we still get a Doritos-skulled Usagi and company serving shades of middle school “How to Draw Manga” anatomy. The draftsmanship is just not there. Well maybe it will be. The recent episode looked much better and they just made a big departure from the manga this week plot-wise as well, so I hope this means good things.
The question is, considering the route they went with this show, the lack of being aired on TV, the supposed low budget, the really sloppy artwork (aside from backgrounds) is this really a new era f0r the franchise or are we just riding a nostalgia wave just to ride a nostalgia wave? Doesn’t Sailor Moon deserve better than this?
If we must revisit a property, why not take a chance to really mix things up and present a really fresh and entirely original new version of said franchise? I want things done well. I’m talking taking more creative risks. I also want to see new things, original things given a better chance. I see so many fresh new ideas and takes on things both for established properties and original stories and concepts from young people on tumblr, my friend’s own work, and elsewhere online. We’re hungry for cool concepts. There is so much we could be doing.
We’re being told to look back, and while I’m happy to, I think out of anyone we’re also more than ready to look forward too.
Max Eber
Staff Writer
Twitter: @maxlikescomics
I am going to utter the current “Deplorable Word Phrase”: I didn’t really care much for Frozen. Collective gasps. “But Max,” you say, “You don’t like anything, especially if it’s popular, what else is new here?!” And to that I say, “[I] can’t hold it back anymoOOOOore!”
I am well aware that my opinion here is rather late (though I’ve been consistently vocal) and a minority amongst the masses. The movie has already smashed box office records, is still lingering in actual movie theaters all whilst copies of it on DVD and Blu-Ray fly off store shelves. It’s headed to Broadway. It’s a behemoth of a film. Why it’s so big though sort of leaves me scratching my head. It’s cute, sure. Did it deliver what it wanted to do. I guess? Will it be better on stage? Yes, 100 % better. Does it deserve the extreme accolades? I don’t think so.
I am not trying to change anyone’s opinion on the film, or say you shouldn’t like it. These are simply my opinions from the perspective of an aspiring playwright, screenwriter (particularly for the animated medium) and children’s book author. This film falls into my preferred career niche and something I want to be a part of in the future, so I tend to want to consume and judge material like this as to know what to do for my own work.
Also, despite all evidence, I do not hate Disney. In fact Disney films have had such an impact on my own writing that in contrast to my recurring role as cynic and curmudgeon (as Jen can attest), my own creative work tends to be pretty light, frothy and frilly fare often in the fairy tale genre. Wannabe musicals; they happen under my pen.
I am critical only because I care and expect good work from people involved in projects such as this. Directors, fellow writers, editorial to ink and paint (software engineers and animators hah) who are, in contrast to me, being paid to do this work and are labeled as professionals should do the best they can do. In the case of Frozen I feel these people are being lauded for something that was only mid-tier. That’s not inherently the staff’s fault. Undoubtedly cutting a year off of development to push a 2013 release certainly did not help it and I think that act alone is the source of a lot of the film’s problems. I would have loved to see what it would have been like had it come out this December.
“SO MAX, THAT’S GREAT BUT WHAT’S ACTUALLY WRONG WITH THE MOVIE?! IT’S CUTE! SISTERS! SUBVERSION!”
Charming at times with spatters of wit and interesting, introspective elements to explore (abuse via bad parenting rooted in good but misguided intentions, repression of self, self-“ice”olation, on the flip-side being shut out despite an able freedom her sister doesn’t have, sister relationships, fearing hurting others, etc) with great potential at it’s best, half-baked magic origins and rules, vague kingdom politics, and underwritten plot at it’s worst, Frozen was overall hurt by it’s own animation direction/cinematography, writing, and above all ambition. It just tried to do too much.
First, if you’re expecting (perhaps cringing in anticipation) a big essay on race, appropriation, representation, and the skinny white Disney princess problem that people usually start with when criticizing this film, I am not going to go there here. Others have written way, way better insights about these elements than I could possibly do here right now without doing another entire post. I did write a post last year regarding the eyebrow raising parts of Frozen‘s development and Disney’s white princess problem here. I also had some additional words regarding the euro-centric settings (it needn’t have been) and the back and forth decisions regarding the film to ensure families with boys come see it and Disney’s discarding of the original fairy tale The Snow Queen in a conversation held here. There are problems, and they need to be addressed. Luckily the Pacific Islander Moana or it’s new (groan worthy) title Spirited (can we not with the adjective titles please?) is the next slated Disney “Princess” film, but the fact Disney churned out (including Merida) 4 white princesses after introducing their first African American one (who was a frog for 2/3 of the film) in rather quick succession is rather…questionable. American marketing pandering be damned. Disney needs to rethink their storytelling that way.
Having finally seen the actual film on a large HD television, after skipping out on it in theaters and only seeing it on laptops since, I actually can say it’s not nearly as bad as I was expecting it to be ever since they announced the big plot overhaul. Olaf, surprisingly, despite his awful design is a highlight of the film. As was Kristoff’s personality. Otherwise aside from the above racial and just…boring sameness problems, I have three main complaints why as a film as released, was just “meh”;
Problem #1
Inconsistent cinematography, sometimes strange camera angle choices which correlate to some poor visual thematic choreography with songs (‘Let It Go’) and or framing (I have a hard time describing this, bear with me).
The cinematography and or direction can be pretty in the film. It’s probably more the color theory at work. I loved the icy ships cracking at the end with Kristoff and Sven having to run through them. These scenes yeah, would look great with the 3D glasses. The scene of Anna pursuing Elsa in the ice castle whilst singing a reprise of ‘For The First Time In Forever’ up the stairs was one of the definite highlights and already had me thinking about a Broadway set. But for a great part of the film, there are shots and the way they were “filmed”, that for me, just felt…off. It is hard to say exactly why, I am a writer with very visual inclinations but technical knowledge and terminology does allude, so the actual details about what is wrong I can’t say for sure so bear with me as I describe them.
Watching the film I had a strange sense of something not feeling quite right and I felt compelled to re-direct and or rewrite certain actions and making other directing choices in my head as I watched. That’s not a good sign for me. I want to be awed by a film and not have to think about that.
For instance watching Anna hoist and pull herself up on the pulley system during ‘For The First Time in Forever’ to get a good look at the harbor and the arriving ships, while a somewhat memorable image, is not terribly striking for some reason; but it should have been. I am not a traditional medium purist vs. digital per se, but I felt the pulley scene, had it been animated in a flat, 2D style animation and had utilized the techniques we’ve seen with some of Disney’s best 2D work that Frozen pulled from visually (The Little Mermaid, Beauty & The Beast, Aladdin, Tarzan, Hunchback of Notre Dame, Treasure Planet) or had they done a more Paperman approach, Anna, with her green dress and hair ribbon whipping in the wind while looking at the sails, could have had a really iconic moment. Perhaps even in the 3D style if the angles were different. Something was off.
” BUT MAX ‘LET IT GO’ WAS SO PRETTY THOUGH WASN’T IT?!”
Elsa’s ‘Let It Go’ number for me actually suffers from some poor direction ranging from her choreography and then the “camera-work”. It did not feel big enough. Her actions did not match the lyrics of her song, the emotions involved did not fully translate. It was”shot” too far away from her most of the time, nor took full advantage of her power-set. The foot stomp was great, the rest was strange, too strolling and sparse. Where is her really unleashing her powers and letting loose? Why isn’t she tired? Where’s the storm? The angle choices and distance to Elsa during her dress’s transformation was a strange one. Too stoic. How could you do a dress transformation, let alone an icy silver-blue dress in a Disney film and not via angle do a nod to Cinderella, Walt’s personally favorite animated sequence?! Why not do a nod to Beauty & The Beast ballroom segment as you created the castle?
This scene also had the infamous braid phasing through her shoulder animation cheat which when spotted made a lot of animation students unhappy. Why? Because they’d have been chewed to death if that segment was submitted in a class. Disney is considered a creme de la creme pillar of animation; such poor editing or flat out cheating a bit and hoping people wouldn’t notice is just lazy. The awful zoom out and then cut back at the end of the song with Elsa on the balcony felt jarring and cheap to me.
The entire scene required a much more sweeping and organic pans, more intimate close-ups, and just more fluidity, exuberance, anger, and above all; magic. I keep thinking of Disney’s own Spring Sprite from Fantasia 2000, perhaps one of the most beautiful characters and animation Disney has ever done. Elsa as a magic user should have been given a similar fluidity once she embraced her powers. She sadly was not.
Tumblr user blueandorange wasn’t impressed with that scene’s choreography either and has actually thumbnailed out an, in my opinion, superior rough fan storyboard for the latter half of ‘Let It Go’ (part 1, part 2). While not so different than what we got, it is different enough that for me it’s more traditionally “Disneyish” than the actual film. She also busts through a wall, makes her dress out of the wall powder or shards with an angle closer and in motion to Cinderella, and then henshins her train/cape all whilst in the glowing sun of the balcony. She is seen reveling in her powers, floating up into the sky swept up by her magic and forming her signature snowflake all the while continuing her storm. It’s non objectifying with less jarring more sweeping camera shots and while very rough, this storyboard struck quite a chord with me. Watch it and tell me that wouldn’t be better had it been animated like that.
Problem #2
Half-finished or sparse appearing non-snow environments/interiors along with stiff animation at times for background crowds and lots of cheat-shots to hide singing and speaking faces (as to not have to animate). Surprisingly low usage of Elsa’s powers.
Over all I thought a lot of the non-snow environments looked too sterile, sparse and stiff, what I’d assume was an attempt at a Mary Blair style meets Scandinavian and or Nordic minimalism. This was most visible in the town outside the castle. An interesting experiment and in certain shots looks great, but overall in that 3D style CGI it fails due to the contrast of the characters and the beautiful lighting on them to said environments. They looked soft and more organic than the world around them. Background characters did not have as much detail (which they technically shouldn’t) but they appeared to be more rubbery and that was also a turn-off. I felt the disparity between character animation and the environments were noticeable in the first scene with Kristoff and Sven upon the ice. They looked out of place. Had they experimented with a more graphic look for all, unifying character design and environment animation underneath a more overt Scandinavian or Nordic folk-art influence in the rendering of the characters, such minimalism or picturesque feel would have been excused but for me it kept unintentionally looking like an unfinished or much older (barring the characters) film according to the environments.
I’m not sure if it’s true or not but I felt there were a lot of cheats made during singing to make it so they did not have to show too show the animated mouths from the characters. ‘Let it Go’ is especially guilty of this; spending way too much time on the building of the castle rather than showing Elsa relishing in the power of being able to build it. Again, bluandorange’s alternate fan storyboard solves this issue by making her more active, creating a staircase and then showing her as she sings whilst creating the chandelier and then leaning over the railing, emotional and showing she’s been exerting energy. It’s this kind of naturalism or organic feel that is missing from Frozen. Likewise the movie did not nearly utilize Elsa’s powers and the opportunity to really show them off; the should have done much more to really show off.
Problem # 3
Rushed writing with redundant tropes (All animals are dogs, for instance, though considering Rapunzel and Gene are in the crowd I guess all horses in that world are like Maximus) extreme colloquial touches in songs that attempt to justify the character instead of actual roundness. Weak writing and a firm lack of Elsa.
I felt the story, while ambitious, and again, pretty cute in a lot of ways, was a bit redundant from what Disney has already done. I feel a lot of their problems would have been avoided had they just adapted the original tale rather straight with a few modernizing nips and tucks instead of razing it and going from the ground up. It seemed a rather tedious task. The film feels like a blend of Tangled and Enchanted but those films accomplished what they wanted to do much more efficiently narrative wise. Lilo & Stich is likewise a superior sister film.
Anna, particularly suffers from underwriting; her dangerously quirky naivety and traits such as being gassy, messy haired in the morning and extremely clumsy are things being mistaken for actual character. Anna, caring as she is, is pretty bland. She has potential, but as far as the movie goes it’s not quite there. We know little about what she wants or does and likes to do (Liking chocolate! Omg she’s such a modern girl!) aside for wanting to be noticed and accepted. There’s promise there, those are valid traits, but they didn’t quite focus enough on it. In earlier drafts there was a pronounced “heir and the spare” element to her relationship with Elsa and the amount of attention their parents invested in them, something I wish stayed. Anna had an able freedom her sister does not have (which is why keeping her stuck in the castle too all alone while growing up was a plot hole, she would have had been dealing with the busy running of the castle and could have been, more than not, an ideal Arendelle representative at parties and functions during her teens since her sister’s shut-in status no doubt kept her from said public functions). I think having Anna, still quirky, but less of a shut-in and more involved outside the palace but ultimately still alone would have greatly helped her character. Hobbies besides art….miming, would have helped too.
Likewise, Elsa seeing Anna being able to leave the castle often and living a seemingly carefree life through her window could have put the idea in Elsa’s head that Anna now hated her and was perfectly happy without her after her not speaking to her through the door, maybe even having a touch of jealousy at her perceived freedom, thus further contributing to the awkwardness at the coronation and the conflict that was needed to be clarified by the end; that neither hated the other as they assumed . We simply had a case of Hedgehog’s Dilema particularly on Elsa’s side.
If it had been made more explicit that their parent’s negligence of Anna whilst focusing their attention on Elsa, and Elsa’s own withdrawl made Anna feel even more useless and shut out I would be firmly behind Anna’s thirst for attention and acceptance. It would have also justified perhaps her flair for the theatrical to get attention as seen in her interactions with the paintings. Her being the “thespian” princess would have been a nice addition after Rapunzel’s “artistic, painting” one. (Not that Disney remembers the latter much.)
I say this because as-is Anna in the Princess line-up is nothing Rapunzel doesn’t already offer which is not of course the character’s fault but a lack of creativity on account of writers (though had Rapunzel kept the more unkempt feral country bumpkin with a cross-bow personality or was South-East Asian as many people have suggested where the movie should have been set anyway, I’d have excused Anna more as is). Anna is also, it is worth noting, the first “looking for love” heroine (barring Giselle) for well, “For the first time in forever.”
Ariel, Belle, Cinderella, Jasmine, Pocahontas, Mulan, Tiana and Rapunzel don’t really have love as their initial goals, and certainly none for Merida. Sure for Ariel Eric becomes an additional infatuation and gives her a more direct need or rather reason for a ticket above, but she had long before pined to live freely up on land. These princesses’ romance relationships, while inevitably written for the characters and put upon them, are technically additional icing on the cake for their narratives. Them getting their guys is sorta…a bonus. Hell, Cinderella one of the most maligned (unwarranted) “classic” old fashioned Disney heroines herself never explicitly sings about love or men prior to the ball to my knowledge. Rather she sings about dreams, and having faith in them, and that’s more an implied desire for a change in her situation and a vague perhaps aspiration (rather, a return) to the upper class. She likewise doesn’t even realize the man she danced with at the ball was even the Prince and seemed satisfied to have just gone when it was all said and done with despite her liking him. Only until learning he was the Prince and he was looking for her specifically did she bring out the bedroom eyes and then gave one of the best “No bothers” responses on film animated or otherwise.
Only Snow White and Aurora and now Anna to my knowledge openly sing about looking for a true love or the possibility of a guy or sing about “someone else”. Now, there’s nothing inherently wrong about wanting that romance, being the girl pining for that chance, or being naive and sweet. I’d be that girl if I identified as a girl. Many boys and girls feel the same way. The problem lies in three things; One, that most if not all the Disney Princesses are sorta kinda that type of dreamy so it’s nothing new. Two; Rapunzel fulfilled the energetic ditzy naive role well. Three; the company, fans, and reviewers are positioning Anna as a feminist subversion of the princesses that came before when she’s really…not.
That fallacy is what is frustrating. Despite her colloquial-ness she doesn’t break the established mould. Snow White (surprisingly enough), Aurora, Belle, Jasmine, Mulan and Rapunzel, and now Anna all end their film in the beginnings of a “Happily Ever After” engagement or hints of a relationship without a visible on-screen marriage (at that time). Anna and Kristoff’s ending is not much different than Snow White’s (sans consent to kiss) in terms of ending with a possible continued coupling. Their is more informal and realistic, but it still lands in the same category right above Mulan where no kiss is exchanged but there is some pretty heavy set-up at the end. Anna’s nothing new, because actual on screen marriage amongst the Disney princesses, the issue most poked fun at and criticized in the film, is actually the minority (Cinderella, Ariel, Tiana).
” BIG COLLECTIVE GROANS”
I know, I know. Please go get some tea. While I’m here and you’re boiling water, on the topic of Kristoff, I would like to add I think the Anna and Kristoff pairing was forced and much too riding the coattails of the Rapunzel and Gene dynamic. Kristoff as Anna’s ultimate love interest was underwritten and subject to quite a few plot holes too. I thought his anti-social nature needed more explicit on screen reasoning; him being an outcast for a more specific reason seen in film and seeing people reject him in film possibly as a child could have given him and Anna a great scene where they admit common ground in that regard. The image of doors slamming in their faces as children could have been a unifying thing).
I will say, him expressing his desire to and asking for consent to kiss Anna at the end and them running off to skate with her was admittedly, very, very cute.
Elsa, the more popular sister in merchandise (between her dress and powers) is likewise not given enough attention from the writing. Which overall is the biggest tragedy of the film, as she’s the best part. She’s a wildly interesting character, certainly is or has the potential to be one of Disney’s most complex heroines according to her situation from a psychological standpoint. The lack of attention in the movie, her sort of incomplete growth and a very vague explanation of her natural born powers makes her, the more interesting party in the film, take a second seat to Anna and Kristoff. I would have loved to have seen that changed, and Elsa being made the main narrative protagonist. It would have given Disney their Wicked feel they so obviously wanted for this film. It would have been nice to her grow more and have ‘Let It Go’ carry more weight and resonance for her in the rest of the film.
If you’d made it this far, and bless you if you did, please know I do believe the Broadway show will ultimately provide a better story and iterations of both Anna and Elsa. Anything from forty-five minutes to an hour or more of extra content will certainly help fill in gaps of character and back story as well as pacing that hurts the narrative in its film form. The music is 100% modern Broadway anyway, and while that’s not entirely my cup of tea (there was a lot of tone dissonance) but it will adapt well. A lot of elements will likewise both be a challenge and a treat to see on stage (I’m imagining a carousel type stage for the sleigh scenes myself).
Other people have made great arguments and reviews that are much more concise and better than I could ever cough up. My two favorite reviews who are less than enthusiastic about the film but constructively so are CriticalHit’s review (here) and their additional talkback response to their review (here). I also enjoyed the more negative but very smart analysis from Cheshire Cat Studios (here) who gives a great breakdown about tropes, art direction, and even has a great segment about musicals and the film’s misteps regarding music. The latter is especially effective in describing the music of Frozen and the problem with modern Broadway in general.
I promise I’m not cold-hearted ( well, maybe there’s a shard or two of goblin mirror in there). I’m just very picky. I think Frozen’s cute. But I want better. There was a lot of lost opportunity. I think it could have been better. Hopefully on stage, it will be better.
What do you think? Now that Spring has finally come, has your opinion of Frozen thawed or has it stayed consistently chilly? Do you think it could have been better? Was it perfection to you? Let me know!
See you all real soon!
Max Eber
Staff Writer/The Doctor
max@sub-cultured.com
Twitter: @maxlikescomics
Hey guys, Tushar and I are going to be at PAX East again this year, grabbin’ all the indie game devs coops and checking out advance screenings/demos of things. If you see us, stop and say hi! Here are some of the things you can look forward to in our report (videos after the jump).
I live…again!
After a longstanding battle with technical issues (one’s not quite solved, knock on wood) I’ve finally returned with another, this time just singular, but nevertheless amazing book to review from my perpetual favorite publisher, North South . This time it is for the illustrated adaptation of the Brothers Grimm fairy tale The Six Swans this time with freelance illustrator Gerda Raidt.
It is a beautiful tale, with a reading level from Kindergarten to 3rd grade, and deserves to be more well known amongst the Grimm’s broader repertoire. The premise resembles a lot of other tales; a king is father to six sons and one daughter all of whom he loves very much. He remarries and the jealous and spiteful stepmother, the daughter of a witch, enchants the six princes with a spell that turns them into swans. They fly off into the woods; now only able to turn human for a brief fifteen minutes each night. The princess finds them and vows to save her brothers from the spell, but to do so she is told she must sew six shirts from starflowers and not utter a word, or a laugh, anything for six long years. And so the princess begins her self imposed muteness and begins sewing them the starflower shirts. We then follow the girl as she’s found by a young king of another country in the midst of her hermitage.
North South always works with amazing illustrators on their books, Gerda’s work on this book is no exception. Sketchy and gently cartoonish, Gerda contributes a fresh and accessible look, very in vogue with current illustration trends that I particularly love. The characters are charming and jaunty with a mixed late 18th, 19th century and Edwardian era fashion and hair influences, and environments have a wonderfully pastoral aesthetic. Overall a treat for the eyes and easy for children to understand what’s going on. Even the endpapers are wonderfully designed and drawn on with starflower petals blowing in the wind.
A beautiful book to purchase as a gift for spring birthdays, finishing school or graduation gifts, or even for their Easter basket. For those who enjoy illustration and fairy tales at any age, it is a must read!
See you real soon!
Max Eber
Staff Writer/The Doctor
max@sub-cultured.com
Twitter: @maxlikescomics
After going to the 2013 Book Expo earlier this month, I noticed something peculiar about kids and YA media. While I was there looking around at booths and each publishing house’s lines, there seemed to be two different approaches towards entertaining and educating our children and young adults and essentially how they treat them as audiences.
One was very commercial and very simplistic, with overtly candy-colored extremely simple children’s picture books, cute but with no ground breaking content. I also saw a lot of series enforcing the fluffy “princess” and gender binary enforcing stereotypes for girls (not to mention lines dedicated to the princessification of existing non-Princessy properties like Dora The Explorer) and other gimmicky series that are obviously adult writers and round-table editorial trying much too hard to appeal to youth e.g. modern slang and lingo “Lol, text speek”. This bleeds into often just by observation, novels for teens overtly riding the coat-tails of Hunger Games and Twilight brand teen sci-fi or supernatural romance with overt covers that scream”Yeah this is exactly what we’re going for”.
The other half are more serious and whimsical; reprints of older children’s books from the first half the of the twentieth-century which put more emphasis on the illustrations, or new books with interesting spins on their presentation with equally unique art, basic almost universal story premises and generally unisex appeal,wackiness and relatability. These booths if they had fairytale books those books often (not always) had illustrations that were not pink and purplefied and dipped in sugar to the extent it is seems like its “meant” for girls in the commercial sense, and instead take on a darker more earth and jewel-toned color palettes. They were simply telling stories and presenting them in an overtly artistic manner.
It was like this from publisher to publisher and it was just interesting to note the differences to see who they were aiming for in terms of market and demographics.
Now this is not to say overtly candy colored, simple works are bad per se, they are quite allowed, and the fluffy pink world of Disney and Barbie and Rainbow Brite aren’t inherently bad either, they’re just not. Girls and boys can like hyperfeminine products and stories that’s fine. Sailor Moon and the new My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic television series and their corresponding merchandise proves that something can be sugary or candy colored and teach really good things and be exemplary role models. Femininity isn’t bad. When the pink-sugar world is the only one you offer girls and you are dipping properties that shouldn’t necessarily need to be “girlified” is when it’s problematic.What do you readers thinks?
This is not actually a big criticism of sexist binary enforcement though, despite my attention to it. It’s just important to note. Stepping back and at least noticing the divide made me think about how people see and approach or perceive children and general, and how the products they are producing reflect that perception. I thought about all the different books I saw, and then thought about cartoon series I saw growing up (many like Courage The Cowardly Dog, The Powerpuff Girls, Rugrats, among others were smart and taught really good lessons without being overtly preachy or heavy-handed) and then animated films that are designated for family or for children.
I decided overall that a great deal of adults today underestimate overall the intelligence, sophistication and overall perceptive nature of kids and opt for simpler almost “junk food” equivalent media for them when children can understand and accept much more sophisticated fare then they are often given. People are also not creating fare that is challenging or fresh that allow kids that participation, at least not enough. This is destroying tons of creative opportunity and undermining our kids’ experiences and dictating tastes. We need good family, children and YA entertainment.
I thought about this in regards to others venues in particular the booting of children from comic book demographics and in particular DC Comics. DC Comics’ insistence to keep a particular (adult) demographic for their comic line despite all their merchandise; toys and bedsheets, clothes and even more toys are being mostly advertised for children. Something is fundamentally wrong if a child cannot read Superman. The only book currently at DC Comics if your child, teen or adult really anyone who is a Batman fan or just likes good things that I personally could recommend is the digital Lil’ Gotham comedy series. That’s it. Pretty much anything else in the now nearing two year old line is not particularly good for anyone. Their recent choice to cancel Superman Family Adventures or their general prudence when it comes to making more animated television series or branch out into different mediums is also a cause for concern. Especially when you can easily turn on the TV, go to youtube, Netflix and Hulu from a laptop, tablet and TV and find a cartoon show or film to watch or game to play instead of reading their material. Granted, both of Warner Bros recent animated ventures with Young Justice and Green Lantern The Animated Series were for an older demographic and while sophisticated did not find their needed footing and audience. I have long bemoaned that Ben Caldwell’s Wonder Woman from Wednesday Comics feature from a few years ago would be excellent Wonder Woman television series and that the Shazam family franchise would lend itself well to animated fare.
Again, wat do you think? Are we underestimating kids? Is what we’re providing them the right media?
I’ll continue my thoughts next week, where I’ll talk about cartoons and other children’s media that are doing it right (For example, Adventure Time and Gravity Falls.)
Until next time,
Max Eber
Staff Writer/The Doctor
max@ihogeek.com
Twitter: @maxlikescomics