I can totally understand that, it's definitely not for everyone. I find it incredibly charming, and even if the humor is... well, potty humor, I like potty humor. v: But again, not for everyone. Some of the episodes are just remarkably real and have ridiculously great character development that it's hard to believe it airs on cartoon network. I am also ridiculously in love with PB oops I actually watched the first two seasons a couple of months ago, but I got distracted? Or something, and stopped. I picked back up again a couple days ago. I'm just downloading the episodes, I know they're available to stream online but none of them loaded fast enough or were high enough quality for me. The first season is on Netflix.
GENDER IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT! FIGHT THE PATRIARCHY!
I'm in early season 5 rn
yes
you forgot the maple syrup and disney dvds
I realized around midday today that I start school tomorrow and not Wednesday as I expected. This is not optimal. also I started watching Adventure Time again and it is amazing?? i don't know what to do with myself omg. What Was Missing is some quality facking television
I could shoot her a text for ya but I dunno why she'd reply to me and not to you haha. wasgud
Add her on Facebook, that's usually how I get in touch with her (or text but I'm not really comfortable giving out her number loool).
Awesome post! Yeah, as I said I'm white so I am really not any kind of authority on this stuff. I don't have links right now but I've seen studies that show children will enjoy/relate to television shows, movies, and characters in general when they look like them--so it's entirely natural for you to relate to whichever Princess you connect most with, and appearance is an undeniable part of that. I just worry that now that Disney has, say, Mulan they'll say to themselves "welp we did our duty! We have an Asian princess!", making her the "token" Asian, amongst countless other white princesses. yo okay since this came up, is there any term that is generally preferred? I've used poc personally but I've heard rumblings that not everyone likes that term & I want to see what people's thoughts here are. Most definitely. For one thing, a lot of the people I've seen supporting the white washed cast of Frozen are going on about it being set in 19th century Norway. Completely ignoring that there was ethnic diversity in Europe during that time period, this is also a movie about ice powers, there is a talking snowman and rock trolls. I don't think that having a non-white character would be at all unrealistic, nor that it is the goal of Disney movies to be 100% historically accurate (I mean, hell, look at the ending of Pocahontas). It's obviously important for Frozen to take place in a winter/snowy setting, and it's totally okay to feature Princess of European descent--but not only Princesses of European descent. Spoiler The thing is, her parents were wrong. Teaching Elsa to hide her powers and bottle up her emotions is a parallel to mistreating mental illness (as Elsa's powers/struggle is meant to mirror anxiety & depression). Unfortunately some people just don't know how to handle special children, and so they tell them to hide away. And you can't entirely blame them if they have no experience with whatever it is the child has, they're just trying to do what they think is best. They panic, basically, and by the time they're out of the picture, Elsa has been taught that there's something shameful about her power, that she must continue hiding it. Elsa breaks free about halfway with Let It Go, because on her own, she doesn't have to hide her powers (constructing her ice castle/palace), but she's still hiding from people & emotion. By the end she gets all the way out, and breaks free from what her parents have inflicted upon her (albeit unintentionally). We really don't know what kind of control Elsa had as a child, but it stands to reason that learning to use her powers would be better than trying to shut them away entirely (just like, say, it's better to deal with your anxiety and confront it rather than trying to hide it from yourself and your loved ones). I wasn't referring to race with the America comment. I don't think I can really comment on where racism is 'worst' because I haven't ever been a victim of racism, nor am I, unfortunately, too informed on it. I was referring to sex & sexuality, about which America is ridiculously Puritanical, especially in regards to women. I meant more so that Tiana being a black princess was, to me, slightly cheapened by her spending the movie as a frog. Princess & the Frog did definitely look at socioeconomic struggles and I don't mind the rags to riches story there, I'm happy that Disney chose to confront it. I'm more bothered by a story like Cinderella, where she goes from being very power to fabulously rich just because she married a prince.
I agree. Sadly it's taken Disney decades to move forward (and they take huge steps back sometimes too), and the progresses they've made have been pretty meager. Slow progress is still progress, though, and companies like Dreamworks, which have always kind of been the "not Disney" (TO ME AT LEAST but i am also a disney dork) have the opportunity to address those issues and one-up Disney (which will then force Disney to innovate). Classism has been hinted at but it often develops into a "rags to riches" story, which ignores the issue of classism altogether, you're right. Princess & the Frog, while absolutely important and wonderful, is not only (imo) cheapened by them spending like 90% of the movie as frogs, but I also have a problem because like... Tiana is "the black princess," Mulan is "the Chinese princess," Pocahontas is "the Native American princess." They're exceptions to the rule of all otherwise all-white cast of princesses. Gender and sexuality are difficult for Disney to handle because society (esp. American society) are so damn squicky about kids learning about these issues (and that applies to racism too). I just think that Disney has a pattern of being daring then backtracking. Like with, say, Mulan--the movie was incredibly empowering for females, but then the sequel turned into the usual safe bullshit. This is obviously just to milk easy income out of an established character, but the question stands--would it be popular in the first place if it wasn't daring? Disney won't add a transgender, gay, lesbian, asexual, mixed-race, or other kind of minority character because they're afraid of the negative backlash. And they're a huge corporation so I suppose I should reconcile that they're going to make choices based upon money. I just wish that, given their influence and huge amounts of money, they'd use their powers for good. Not to mention that the potential pay off from such a daring move is substantial. People are tired of the same old white princess hetero relationship stuff. note: i am white and straight so I am not really qualified to comment on these things so feel free to call me on my **** if you disagree
One of the writers confirmed that it was definitely a conscious effort to portray anxiety and depression. That, imo, extends to what you're talking about. Just nice to have confirmation that Disney is at least trying to handle heavy issues. Now if they could only look at race, gender, sexuality, classism...
I was actually expecting to dislike Olaf for exactly this reason, but I really enjoyed him. He definitely exists for nearly 100% comic relief, but I didn't mind his addition. I can't see him working much at all within a Kingdom Hearts Frozen world, though.
THIS WHOLE THING READS LIKE ME SHITTING ON THE FUN I DIDN'T MEAN THAT I JUST HAVE A LOT OF THOUGHTS ABOUT DISNEY MOVIES!! I'M SORRY Spoiler The cases you're making about Disney princesses aren't really applicable to Frozen's situation, though. They may just not be coming to mind, but I can't think of any Disney movies where, firstly, there are multiple men competing for the affections of one woman, aside from maybe Pocahontas, though Kocoum wasn't ever really a serious love interest, imo. There's no real direct competition between Hans and Kristoff, but it stands that Anna has two love interests within the film. This is exceptional in a Disney movie, where the end pairing is typically the woman's first--and only--romance (because the woman must be completely virginal before meeting the male hero). Further, the examples you pull are not exactly accurate. You paint the personal journey and development of your example Princesses as holding no purpose other than "earning them" male attention and affection, rather than understand the idea "they went through a journey of personal development / self-discovery, and found love along the way." Cinderella making her dress and attending the ball isn't to impress Prince Charming, it is her personal journey to break free from the oppression of her stepfamily, even just for one night. Mulan did not fight in a war for Shang, she fought in it for her family and for China. Snow White's poisoning had very little to do with Prince Charming. Sleeping Beauty is, in my mind, more about Prince Phillip overcoming evil than Aurora, so I'll stay away from that one. I haven't seen Tangled at all, and Aladdin since I was young, so I won't comment on those either. The only Princess here that is a sound example is Ariel. I think there's a decent balance between people who suspected Hans from the start vs. those who were honestly shocked by the plot twist. The former group has to keep in mind, however, that this is a children's movie--there's certainly appeal for older audiences, I love Disney movies--but what an older viewer picks up on may not be as obvious to the children watching the movie. For a adult, even a young adult, to watch a Disney movie, you need a little suspension of disbelief--not to say that kids watching Disney movies honestly believe ONCE UPON A TIME THERE WERE ICE POWERS AND NORWAY WAS FROZEN IN ETERNAL WINTER, but you have to let the child in you awaken and be taken for a ride. It's a universe in which you have to believe certain things, like that love is pure and great and that people can be trusted. That said, you may know that Anna is a fool for trusting Hans. Elsa notes that there is definitely something fishy, and Kristoff echoes it; basically, it's not exactly hidden, even for children. Even if the twist with Hans was predictable for you, it's still an incredibly important feature of Frozen. Firstly, the love interests you have listed are all "good" people--that is, the Princess (or otherwise female lead) does not fall for the wrong guy ever (until Frozen). Secondly, it brings up the point that an ostensibly "good" person (wealthy, handsome, polite, good-looking, powerful) is not always to be trusted. The male love interests of Disney movies can be kind of flat characters (not all of them!), a byproduct of overused "damsel in distress" storylines. They're just good dudes in royal positions lookin' for a lady. Despite the quick courtship of Hans and Anna, their romance is not too out of the ordinary in a Disney setting, where the prince is always a good dude. Not only that, but the truly good guy is the (seemingly) poor, rough, hard-working, jaded male. Frozen raises the issue of first impressions, ulterior motives, and patience in love, all of which have been missing from Disney. Many princesses will get with the prince when they barely know them--which is obvious in Frozen, but present in a lot of the movies. Do Snow White and Prince Charming know anything about each other? Still, there is a part of us that wants to believe--like Anna--that love at first sight is real and that all people are good. It relates to Anna's role as "fearless optimist." And that's okay. It shows that we're not so jaded by the real world, that we do still have improbable dreams, that we want to live in the Disney fantasy. In this respect, we go on a part of Anna's personal journey with her. The final movie I feel didn't go into this enough, but it really shines through in some of the cut/abandoned content: Anna is meant to realize that she has made some very selfish and foolish decisions, and Hans is vital to that. One of Frozen's narrative strengths (and it does have weaknesses) is that it completely subverts the viewer's expectations on several occasions. We're led early-on to think that this will be a story about Anna in love (For the First Time in Forever), the sisterly plotline the action in the background. However--and this is something you can really recognize on a rewatch--it's all about the sister relationship. The twist with Hans, obviously. The "true love" being not a kiss from Hans (or Kristoff), but a hug from Elsa. And so on. If that illusion is broken--that is, you do not have the expectation of a typical Disney viewer--that narrative strength is lost on you. But you also have to understand that you're not the target audience for a Disney movie. Imagine the young boys and girls who have been raised on stories of princes and princess getting together and having sexy makeouts, the royalty is always good, and the evil villains are always obvious--they see Hans and they accept him without question, because of all the other Disney movies they've been raised on. Frozen's twists help to dispel that illusion, and add another level to Disney movies. tl;dr version (aka I've been trying to make this point but it's late and I don't think I've been entirely successful): it doesn't really matter. While the illusion of Anna's first impression of Hans does add extra shock value when we see his true colors, you don't need to believe in him to a) enjoy the movie b) feel the importance of him, ultimately, being a dirtbag. Secondly, the movie supports you not believing in Hans (through Elsa and Kristoff).
Adding to this, many school districts are still using Windows XP for similar reasons. From a web development standpoint I'm not happy that Microsoft has extended support because that means older versions of IE will take longer to phase out, but I understand the decision from an economic standpoint; too many business & schools just can't afford to update. Home users really don't serve to lose anything from MS dropping support as long as they keep updated anti-virus software.
The way around this: wait until butter goes on sale then stock up. You can freeze the extra boxes until you need them.
I am aware, yes. It's a third-party add-on that we paid to have developed. I've contacted the developer about the bugs and the issue we have with the hall of game posts, we're just waiting on his availability. We use several add-ons by him and he's very reliable so it will get done soon I'm sure. I asked around the holiday season so I expect that was part of the delay. The modifications we've requested should enable us to count the posts made during this time that are over the character limit, and fix people's post counts from when we had the post deletion bug.
Poor people tips: pasta, rice, and ramen are all very cheap options that are still quite filling & can last you a long time. Pasta is the most expensive of the bunch because plain pasta is boring, whereas instant rice and ramen has flavoring. You can get things like pasta sides or just cheap pasta toppings. Pizza is fantastic and can also be remarkably cheap to make. Dough is only a dollar or two, cheese is expensive but a supermarket brand bag of mozzarella will run you around $2 and you can use that for at least two pizzas. Sauce can be pricey as well but you can reuse that for your cheap pasta. Then all you need is flour and a bit of vegetable oil. It's not dirt cheap like instant rice but it tastes good and it's something to look forward to. One pie can be two or three meals depending on how hungry you are. Think about cutting down your meals. I'm not advocating not eating enough, of course, you should stay healthy. I usually eat two meals a day (breakfast and dinner) with some cheap snacks in between. Cereal can be quite cheap though milk is often expensive. Always look for sales and deals, and don't be afraid to buy off-brand. You can also save money on basic items, like razors, shampoo, etc. living like this just means you gotta learn to cook and be kind of clever along the way. Also try to limit your supermarket trips. It's easy to go in there and buy all kinds of food. Those handheld scanners are a godsend because you can keep track of how much you're spending along the way. Go in and say "I'm not spending more than $30. I need enough food for at least x amount of time." You could also try tricks like "I'll fill this basket and that's it." Living cheaply is just something you learn.
Notable Members is far less resource intensive. I greatly prefer it to the standard member list, which has a lot of information that no one needs. If a number of people prefer the standard one over notable members I don't mind switching it, but for a large board like ours, it's a lot smarter to use notable members.
fyi, it's a lot cheaper to buy food at the supermarket than to eat out?? $20 for a meal is NUTS, I've been living off $28 of groceries for a few days now, with plenty more to come.
