The Fairy Tale Project | Sleeping Beauty (1959)

Who's in it?: I was pretty dismissive of the casts for Snow White and Cinderella, but I'm starting to recognize some recurring voices now. For instance, Eleanor Audley who plays Maleficent was also the voice of Cinderella's stepmother. And Barbara Luddy who plays the delightful fairy Merryweather was also the voice of Lady in Lady and the Tramp and would go on to be the voice of Kanga in Disney's Winnie-the-Pooh films. Verna Felton is another fairy and came to the role with experience as Cinderella's fairy godmother (among other Disney roles like the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland).

What's it about?: It credits Charles Perrault's version as its inspiration, but it's a very loose adaptation, restructuring the whole story around some familiar elements.

How is it?: I don't envy Erdman Penner and his fellow screenwriters for the job of adapting "Sleeping Beauty" for an all-ages audience. In both Perrault and Grimm, the themes are rather grown up. Perrault advises his audience to take romance seriously while the Grimms more or less celebrate puberty. But there's so much cool imagery in the fairy tale that it's begging for Disney to put it on the big screen. The result is a beautiful spectacle with a light story.

It's remarkable how great the characters are though. Maleficent of course is an A+ villain, but the fairies (Flora, Fauna, and Merryweather) are also super memorable and fun. Prince Phillip is the best developed and most Charming of all the Disney princes so far. And the film spends a surprising amount of time with the two kings Stefan and Hubert who pledged their children to each other as infants and are rethinking that decision now that their kids are older and able to think for themselves.

It's too bad that the title character doesn't have more to do. Aurora (named after the daughter of the title character from Perrault's version, while her alias - Briar Rose - is the title character of the Grimms') is beautiful and pleasant and has her own opinions about things, but she never gets to do anything about them. Penner and Company add a nice element by having Aurora meet Phillip before they're supposed to so that they fall in love without realizing who each other are. This calls into question the arranged marriage and leads to some nice teen rebellion, but of course it's all temporary and ultimately meaningless since the conflict isn't real. It's just an easily resolved misunderstanding.

Outside of just how gorgeous the film is (artist Eyvind Earle's concept designs and background paintings are breathtaking and it's amazing how successfully they're incorporated into the film), its hard to see the point of the story. No one learns anything. The stated message in the film is that Love Conquers All (primarily illustrated by Phillip's determination to defeat Maleficent and rescue Aurora, but also in the power of Love's First Kiss to awaken the princess, something that this film came up with as far as I can tell), but it's a hollow idea. Phillip and Aurora barely know each other, so while I believe that they're attracted to each other and have the beginnings of a fine relationship, it's too flimsy to hold the weight of the professed theme.

Rating: Four out of five crazy kids in love.

The Fairy Tale Project | Cinderella (1950)

Who's in it?: Some cartoon people; a bunch of mice.

What's it about?: An animated, musical adaptation of Charles Perrault's version of "Cinderella."

How is it?: I love the mice and the stepmother is deliciously wicked, but I've often had trouble connecting with Cinderella herself and the apparent message of the film (offered in the closing lines of its signature song): "If you keep on believing, the dream that you wish will come true." That's ludicrous.

Having recently re-read Charles Perrault's fairy tale though, I think the song "A Dream Is a Wish Your Heart Makes" undermines the actual message of the movie, which is borrowed from Perrault and legitimately profound. It's not mere faith or wishing that makes Cinderella's dreams come true; it's the kindness that she insists on putting into the world, whether it's to helpless animals or her foul, mean-spirited, persecuting step-family. She's lovely to them all.

But even though it takes that moral and other elements from Perrault, Disney's Cinderella does borrow from the Brothers Grimm in some interesting ways. Her kindness to animals leads to their helping her out in all sorts of ways, including pitching in with her chores, which is something that Cinderella's birds do in Grimm. The Disney animals also provide a dress for Cinderella to wear to the ball; another Grimm Brothers reference, though it ultimately doesn't last (in a truly harrowing, heartbreaking scene) and Perrault's fairy godmother has to step in.

It's the involvement of the fairy godmother and the prince in Cinderella's salvation that gives her a reputation for being helpless. But she deserves better than that. It's her kindness not only to animals, but especially to her enemies, that earns her the attention of the fairy realm and her adoption by a (god)mother who actually does care for her. It's a subtle kind of agency, but Cinderella is more active in her own salvation than she gets credit for. The prince doesn't rescue her either; he's just the prize that she gets rescued to.

Rating: Four out of five pumpkin carriages.

The Fairy Tale Project | Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)

Who's in it?: A bunch of cartoons

What's it about?: An animated, musical adaptation of the fairy tale, "Snow White."

How is it?: Reading the Grimm version before watching Disney's affected my enjoyment of the latter. Disney's is still a great, successful adaptation, but I wasn't as over the moon about it as I usually am. On any other day, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is a classic. It's amazing that it's 82-years-old. The animation is still top notch, Snow White is still utterly charming, the dwarfs are still hilarious, and the Queen is still completely terrifying.

As I wrote when talking about the Grimm version, the main character of the fairy tale is the Queen and I understand why she feels threatened. Her story isn't really appropriate as text for a children's film, though. Although it would have been possible to highlight as subtext. But Disney wasn't interested in that and I don't fault the filmmakers. It's just something I was thinking about as I watched this time and it dampened my enjoyment a little.

In other ways, it's a great adaptation. The prince comes out of nowhere in the Grimm version, so Disney makes a good call by introducing him earlier in the story and at least paying song-service to his love for Snow. The dwarfs of course are given names and personalities that are missing in Grimm. And the Queen's attacks on Snow are reduced to one, successful one instead of including the Grimm Queen's two, unsuccessful attempts that Snow stupidly refuses to learn from.

I don't know how I feel about sticking the Sleeping Beauty kiss in as the way to revive Snow White. She's revived by accident in Grimm, so I appreciate the attempt to make the prince more involved, but the Love's First Kiss antidote doesn't make a lot of sense. (Frankly, I'm not sure that it even makes sense in "Sleeping Beauty," but I'll wait until I've read the Grimm version of that before I decide.)

The Queen's death is far less horrifying in Disney than in Grimm, but it's still very powerful due to the sheer talent in the animation, score, and sound design. In all other ways, this is a faithful retelling of the Grimm Brothers' version with some extra singing and dancing thrown in.

Rating: Four out of five secret dungeons.

My Top 10 Movies of 2016

10. Rogue One



I've talked about this one at length on podcasts. Recorded my initial reactions on Starmaggedon, then got together with the Nerd Lunch crew to dig more deeply into it. But if podcasts aren't your thing, here's the short version.

I went into Rogue One just hoping for an entertaining movie that was different from the typical Star Wars experience, and that's exactly what I got. It's a great story and everything a prequel should be. My only disappointment was that I didn't connect with any of the characters as much as I wanted to. I feel empathy for many of them, appreciate the moral journey that Cassian goes on, enjoy what Saw Gerrera represents to the Rebel Alliance at large, and I really really like K-2SO. I just don't love any of these folks as much as I do Rey, Finn, and Poe.

9. Sing Street



I love the setting and the music. That's a lot of fun and the original songs are super catchy and sound right out of the '80s. I also really love the relationship between Conor and his older brother and the themes about firstborn children blazing trails for their younger siblings.

I'm not crazy about the assertion that success can only be found outside of Dublin, though. Especially since the movie has to ignore the existence of U2 in order to make that claim. It's a major omission for the sole purpose of forcing Conor down a particular path, when I'd much rather have seen him make a different choice anyway.

Very good movie, but as someone who adores director John Carney's Begin Again, I expected much more from his take on my favorite music genres.

8. Magnificent Seven



Another one that I went into more detail about on a podcast. Very nice update. I love the diversity in the cast and these actors are all compelling and great. I also love James Horner's score, especially how he suggests the original Elmer Bernstein music without simply dropping it in whole.

My issue with the movie is that it replaces the complex themes of the original with a straightforward revenge story. Peter Sarsgaard is great as the villain, but the character is so charmless and excessively evil (unlike Eli Wallach's Calvera in 1960) that he becomes less interesting.

Still, the way the heroes react to Sarsgaard's character is great and that's where the real story is anyway.

I liked it even more the second time I saw it. Everyone's motivations may be simplified from the original, but I don't like the characters any less for it. In fact, I like all of these Seven more than a couple of the originals.

7. Doctor Strange



Visually stunning with great performances. I loved the sense of humor. Strange has a similar character arc to Tony Stark, but it's different enough to stay interesting. Stark's ego and selfishness makes him charmingly careless while Strange is arrogant and often mean. The similarities seem intentional though and I love the movie's description of the mystical masters as essentially the Avengers of the spiritual world.

6. Legend of Tarzan



I was extremely skeptical after seeing the trailers, but I love this movie.

I love that it doesn't spend much time on Tarzan's very familiar origin, but relates only what it needs to in quick flashbacks sprinkled throughout the main story. It's made some minor changes to that - mostly around Jane's background - but for great reasons that improved her as a character.

And it's the characters that I love the most. This feels like Tarzan and Jane, but a mature, contemporary (even though it's set in the nineteenth century) Tarzan and Jane. They're clearly equals and Jane has a lot to do. She's technically the damsel in distress for quite a while, but the movie comments on that and subverts it. Margot Robbie can pretty much do no wrong at this point.

Alexander Skarsgård is a perfect Tarzan. He's big, he's physical, but most of all he's completely convincing as both English lord and wild man. It's awesome, because we meet him in London, then get to watch the civilization slowly fall off of him once he returns home to the jungle. It's simultaneously thrilling and also kind of heart-breaking to watch.

The various tribal people are also fantastic. Sidney Ralitsoele in particular plays an unbelievably handsome and charming ally. I expect to see a lot more of that guy.

I don't always know what I'm going to get from a Samuel L Jackson or Christoph Waltz performance. A lot of times, they're just doing their Samuel L Jackson and Christoph Waltz things, but every once in a while they'll really go all out for a character. I didn't expect Legend of Tarzan to be one of those times, frankly. I was expecting it to be just a big, dumb, heartless cash-grab with half-hearted performances. But everyone's put a lot of effort into it. It helps that they have strong characters to work with. Waltz' motivations are believable and go way beyond just being evil and destructive. And Jackson has a touching backstory that also gives him purpose in the film and explains his actions.

The writers not only get these characters; they also clearly love Burroughs' novels. This feels like a Burroughs adventure. From an alternate timeline perhaps, but the heart is there. And there are lots of references to Burroughs' stuff that I won't spoil.

I do have one minor issue and that's with the quality of the CG. It's not horrible, but it's not especially good either. I was able to overlook it though, because I was so pleased with everything else.

5. Captain America: Civil War



When Warner Bros announced their plans to fast-track the building of a DC cinematic universe, I was worried for two reasons. First, it would be headed up by the folks responsible for the problem-filled Man of Steel. But also, it sounded like WB was hoping to reap the benefits of a shared universe without putting in the years of character development that Marvel had. That's very clearly seen when I compare Batman v Superman with Civil War.

The movies have almost identical plots, with their villainous masterminds who manipulate heroes into fighting each other. But BvS feels forced and unnatural while Civil War is fun and organic. Everything that happens in Civil War flows out of motives and decisions that are believable because Marvel has spent several years exploring and growing these characters. I like all of these people and I understand why they do what they do, even when I don't agree with them.

But Civil War's success isn't all due to work done by previous movies. It's just more smartly written than BvS. The source of the conflict between the heroes is complicated and fascinating, unlike the self-absorption and bigotry that drives BvS. The characters in Civil War are way smarter, too.

So Civil War really shines next to BvS, but even without that comparison, it's a great time at the movies. It's thought-provoking, but it's also funny and the fights are amazingly choreographed. This is superheroics at their best.

4. Jane Got a Gun



I was totally sucked into this story of a woman who's had to make some hard decisions and now faces the violent consequences. There's some High Noon going on in that it's as much about the build-up to the final confrontation as it is about the confrontation itself.

I love that almost as much as I love the way it gradually reveals the characters' pasts and why they currently feel about each other the way that they do. It's all complicated and human; none of it more so than Jane herself. Portman does a great job, as do all of her co-stars.

3. Hunt for the Wilderpeople



Delightful and beautiful. I'm such a sucker for stories about broken people who learn to connect with each other. Especially when they're as charming and funny as this one. I don't want to say too much and oversell it, but I highly recommend this one.

2. Star Trek Beyond



My favorite of the rebooted Star Trek movies. That's not saying anything in comparison to Into Darkness, but I quite enjoyed the 2009 movie and this is better. 2009 did a great job of introducing the alternate timeline and these new versions of the characters, but it's still an origin story. It has to spend most of its time getting everyone into place so that we can have movies like Star Trek Beyond, which is what I really want to see.

Beyond plays like an episode of the show, but a really badass episode of the show. It's got everything I want in a Star Trek story: strange new worlds, new life and new civilizations, reflections about humanity, and plenty of action. As much as I hear fans talk about action as if its some kind of necessary evil for Star Trek these days, it's always been a vital ingredient of the series and I love having it in the mix.

And speaking of "new life," I have a new favorite Star Trek character in Jaylah. Holy Neck Pinch, she's awesome.

1. Moana



I was hoping to love this. I'm a big fan of Disney animated movies when they're done well and the Pacific islands setting is so my bag. Plus, The Rock. But it's even better than I imagined.

The movie subverts expectations while still feeling very much like what it is. And those coconut pirates are totally rad. I laughed a lot, I was deeply moved, and the songs are as good as any Disney musical since The Little Mermaid (or maybe Aladdin; in a really long time, is my point). You know how little girls everywhere drove everyone crazy with their personal renditions of "Let It Go?" That was me with "How Far I'll Go." And David and I can't stop singing "You're Welcome," either.

British History in Film | The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) and Robin Hood (1973)

The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)



A wonderful spectacle that includes most of my favorite Robin Hood stories in a single film. And what Errol Flynn lacks in Douglas Fairbanks' sheer acrobatic ability, he makes up in swordsmanship and charm. It's tough for me to pick a favorite between the two of them.

Meanwhile, Claude Rains is a memorable Prince John and Basil Rathbone is always a delicious foil for Flynn. I'm not a huge fan of Olivia de Havilland as Marian - not when I have Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio to compare her to - but she's fine and I have no complaints either.

Robin Hood (1973)



Made during a time when Disney was creating animated features on the cheap, but it's no less charming for that. It's not the best Robin Hood, but it will always be my Robin Hood.

31 Witches | Grimhilde

"Dip the apple in the brew. Let the Sleeping Death seep through. Look! On the skin! The symbol of what lies within. Now, turn red, to tempt Snow White, to make her hunger for a bite." -- The Evil Queen, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)

31 Witches | Witch Hazel (Disney)

"Oh, joy, thou dost believe in witches! Just for that, I'll help thee get thy candy." - Witch Hazel, "Trick or Treat" (1952)

GIF created by Gameraboy.

On the Trail of Lonesome Ghosts [Guest Post]

By GW Thomas

I've been watching Disney's "Lonesome Ghosts" from 1937 and wondering... where did Dick Friel get the story idea and how much it relates to the ghostbreaker tradition dating back seventy years. Now, if you've lived under a rock and never seen the cartoon I'm talking about, it appeared originally on December 24, 1937. (Like Mr. Dickens, Mr. Disney enjoys a ghost at Christmas.) But most of us saw it later: on Disneyland (1954), with The Sword in the Stone (1963), The Wonderful World of Color (1958), The Mouse Factory (1972), with The Legend of Sleepy Hollow in 1982, or in 1983, 1989, 1997, 1998, and on. Fisher-Price even had a silent, hand-cranked version as a toy. If you were like me, you saw it on The Wonderful World of Disney on the CBC back into the '70s. It doesn't matter. Most people have seen Mickey, Donald and Goofy go into the haunted house and try to deal with its mischievous inhabitants, laughed, and forgotten about it.

This cartoon has been haunting me though. I have to think "Lonesome Ghosts" was probably the very first piece of media to suggest the idea of "ghost busters" to me. I never saw The Ghost Busters with Forrest Tucker and Larry Storch in 1975. By then I had moved onto Kolchak the Nightstalker. (I was twelve after all!) 1975 was a good time to be a horror kid. My parents would never have let me see The Exorcist or anything like that, but television had Dan Curtis and other TV movie producers creating shows like Gargoyles, Moon of the Wolf, and The Night Strangler. And as long as you weren't allergic to Bradford Dillman, you got some kid-sized scares that worked you up to William Friedkin's The Exorcist and Steven Spielberg's Jaws.

But to go back to 1937 and the three intrepid members of the Ajax Ghost Exterminators. I look for clues like our brilliant detectives. The first is the date: 1937. What films or books might have been so popular that Friel would think to do a cartoon from them? The answer was pretty easy to locate. Topper was the box office winner for 1937, coming out on July 16. Based on the 1926 novel by Thorne Smith, the film features two fun-loving ghosts played by Cary Grant and Constance Bennett. The couple torment conservative banker Cosmo Topper, played by Roland Young (who received an Oscar nomination for the part.) Topper is a Walter Mitty type, regimented by his wife who's played by Billie Burke. The scene that most likely affected Friel was the finale of the film, when the ghosts pull Topper out of a fancy hotel, playing gags on the house detective and bellboy.

So far, so good. But it doesn't explain everything. The Disney story man could have just had Mickey and friends arrive at the old house late one night, a ploy used in some later Sylvester and Porky Pig cartoons at Warner Brothers. But Friel doesn't do this. He specifically makes them ghostbreakers, the three members of the Ajax Ghost Exterminators. Armed with silly tools like a shotgun, a butterfly net, an axe, and a mouse trap, the three characters enter a house worthy of a Weird Tales cover. Now, Friel may have done all this for the joke of comparing vermin exterminators with ghost exterminators, a trope that would last until the 1980s when Harold Ramis and Dan Ackroyd wrote Ghostbusters, but I wonder if Friel was inspired by something more?

The date 1937 makes this hard. Many of the great ghostbreaker pieces don't exist until after that date. I Love a Mystery, the radio show that would inspire Scooby Doo, was 1939. Ghostbuster films like Bob Hope's The Ghostbreakers (1940, but based on the Paul Dickey and Charles W. Goddard's 1909 play) and the Bowery Boys' Spook Busters, as well as the Abbott and Costello films are all in the mid-'40s or later. Even Basil Rathbone as Sherlock in The Hound of the Baskervilles came on the verge of the war, in 1939. No actual ghost breaker films appear in and around 1937.

That leaves print stories. Was Dick Friel a horror connoisseur? There is very little information on the man. He worked for the Jefferson Film Corporation in the 1920s, a company that made the Mutt and Jeff cartoons. His only Disney credit is "Lonesome Ghosts." So who knows? The most popular occult detective in 1937 was Jules de Grandin in Weird Tales, but there appears to be no influence on Mickey, Donald, and Goofy. Another was Gees by EC Vivian (under his Jack Mann pseudonym). One of Vivian's influences was the jungle writer Arthur Friel. Friel's stories set in South America - like "The Barragudo" - have a ghostbreaker element. A strange coincidence, but hardly proof of anything. Were Dick and Arthur Friel related? Like ghosts, the threads are tantalizing, but disappear like smoke.

In the end I can't find anything that links the cartoon to a specific horror icon. Mickey and Goofy wear Sherlockian deerstalkers but this was cartoon short-hand for any detective. One of the ghosts is sitting in a chair with a book called Ghost Stories on the floor, but not any particular ghost stories. As with all cartoons at this time, it was about the gags. The short soft shoe routine the ghosts do into a closet reminded me a little of Disney's "The Skeleton Dance" from 1929 (which won Disney an Oscar), but mostly it's pokes in the eye with Goofy getting stuck in a bureau, a scene that may have inspired a similar bit in "Prest-O, Change-O," an early Bugs Bunny cartoon from 1939.

Ultimately, my biggest take away is Goofy's declaring, "I ain't a-scared of no ghosts," which will become Ray Parker Jr's singing "I ain't afraid of no ghosts!" in 1984. In between 1937 and '84 we had Casper the Friendly Ghost in cartoons and comics, who I am sure was inspired in part by "Lonesome Ghosts." The derby-wearing quartet became the Ghostly Trio in time, and Spooky sports some similar head gear. Strangely, the Casper copyright holders tried to sue Columbia for fifty million because of the ghost used in the ghostbusters logo. They lost. Disney never said boo.

GW Thomas has appeared in over 400 different books, magazines and ezines including The Writer, Writer's Digest, Black October Magazine and Contact. His website is gwthomas.org. He is editor of Dark Worlds magazine.

11 movies I really dug in 2013

Counting down the 2013 movies I saw, from worst to best.

20. Machete Kills



What separates Machete Kills from the action flicks on Monday's list is love. It's not demonstrably better crafted than say 2 Guns or Homeland, but what it lacks in finesse it makes up in passion. I don't love everything about Machete Kills, but I love a lot about it, and I especially love that Robert Rodriguez is able to make exactly the kinds of movies he wants and that his enthusiasm is all over the screen.

32 movies I wanted to see in 2013 (but didn't)

Happy New Year! As I've done the last couple of years, I'm going to spend the early days of 2014 running down the movies I saw in 2013 and ranking them from worst to best. I made it to 38 movies in the theater last year, which leaves 32 that I wanted to see, but will have to catch up on at home. I mention them here partly by way of explaining why some potentially great movies aren't among my favorites, but also so you can tell me which of these need to be at the top of my queue and which I shouldn't bother with.

Here they are in the order in which they were released. Some of the posters are high res, so I put most of the list behind a break for the sake of browsers everywhere.

1. Spring Breakers



Mostly just curious about Disney Princesses Behaving Badly. And I tend to like James Franco.

Tarzan 101 | Tarzan of the Television

Celebrating Tarzan's 101st anniversary by walking through Scott Tracy Griffin's Tarzan: The Centennial Celebration.

We already discussed Sol Lesser's unsuccessful attempt to create a Tarzan TV show with Gordon Scott, and briefly mentioned that Sy Weintraub was the one to finally make that happen. Here then is a rundown of the four live-action series and two cartoons about everyone's favorite jungle hero.

Tarzan (1966-68; 57 episodes)

When Weintraub's film Tarzan, Mike Henry turned down the opportunity to carry the role to TV, Weintraub went back to someone who'd tested earlier for the film role, Ron Ely. Unlike Lesser's proposed series (which featured Tarzan, Jane, and Boy in their jungle treehouse), Weintraub's made Tarzan a solo act, but more fully embraced Burroughs' literate, articulate version of the character. There was no Boy, per se, but child actor Manuel Padilla Jr - who'd been in the first two Mike Henry movies as two different characters - returned for the TV show as a third, an orphan named Jai.

Like the Batman TV series from the same time, Tarzan attracted a lot of celebrity guest stars. Famous people who appeared on the show include Helen Hayes, James Earl Jones, Ethel Merman, George Kennedy, and Diana Ross. Former Tarzan Jock Mahoney even showed up to play a bad guy.

Apparently the show was expensive to produce, so it only lasted two seasons, but that was enough to give Ely the longest running time playing Tarzan.

Tarzan, Lord of the Jungle (1976-84; 36 episodes)

Filmation produced this Saturday morning cartoon version that was extremely faithful to Burroughs' novels in, as Griffin puts it, both "spirit and details." I caught a few episodes of Ron Ely's Tarzan in syndication as a kid, but my Tarzan was Filmation's version. Really wish it was available on home video.

Tarzán (1991-94; 75 episodes)

Producers Max and Micheline Keller bought the rights to a Tarzan show in the late '80s and created a pilot called Tarzan in Manhattan. It has Tarzan (Joe Lara) visiting New York City to rescue Cheeta from Jan-Michael Vincent, who wants to use the chimpanzee for medical research. While there, Tarzan meets computer-wiz/taxi-driver Jane (Kim Crosby) and her dad Archie (Tony Curtis), a grizzled private eye. Naturally, Tarzan saves Cheeta and decides to stay in the city to fight crime with Jane and her dad. Perhaps fortunately, it didn't get picked up.

The Kellers didn't give up though and came up with another take: a half-hour syndicated series starring Wolf Larson. This one was set in the jungle and Larson played a grunty version of the ape man complete with treehouse. Jane (Lydie Denier) was a French environmentalist who helped him defend the jungle from invaders looking to exploit its environment. The show made Larson the guy with the second longest running time after Ely (who, like Jock Mahoney in his show, showed up to play a bad guy in Larson's).

Tarzan: The Epic Adventures (1996-97; 20 episodes)

The Kellers got one more syndicated series out of the ape man with Tarzan in Manhattan's Joe Lara returning to the role. Also set in the jungle, Epic Adventures went for the fantasy feel of Burroughs' books and featured elements like Pellucidar, Opar, the Forbidden City, and the Lost Empire. A lot of Burroughs characters also showed up, like D'Arnot, Nicholai Rokoff, Countess Olga de Coude, Paulvitch, Achmet Zek, Mugambi, the Leopard Men, and of course La of Opar.

The Legend of Tarzan (2001-03; 39 episodes)

Based on Disney's Tarzan movie, this cartoon also went to Burroughs' novels for its inspiration and offered Disney versions of La, Samuel Philander, One-Punch Mulligan, and even Edgar Rice Burroughs himself.

Tarzan (2003; 8 episodes)

Really don't know why people keep wanting to stick Tarzan in New York City (well, I do; I just wish they'd realize it's a dumb idea for a series), but that's what Warner Brothers did for this version with Travis Fimmel as Tarzan and Sarah Wayne Callies as Jane. It was best known though for being where Lucy Lawless and Mitch Pileggi landed after Xena and The X-Files, respectively. They played Tarzan's aunt and uncle who battled over custody of him and his inheritance. Sounds thrilling.

Tarzan 101 | Walt Disney's Tarzan

Celebrating Tarzan's 101st anniversary by walking through Scott Tracy Griffin's Tarzan: The Centennial Celebration.

I'm not sure why Disney's Tarzan gets a whole chapter to itself, but Griffin does pack in a lot of information about it, starting with its place in the general Disney animation renaissance of the '90s and ending with the direct-to-DVD sequels, Tarzan & Jane (2002) and Tarzan II (2005).

He does include some interesting facts that I didn't know though, like how the lead animator on the Tarzan character was Glen Keane, son of Family Circus' Bil Keane. It wasn't Glen's first work for Disney (he'd also been lead animator for Ariel, the Beast, Aladdin, and Pocahontas), but he was on sabbatical at the time in France and only worked on Tarzan under the condition that he could do it from Disney's campus in Paris.

Griffin also points out some cool features in the background design. The gorillas' environment, for example, was designed to be comforting, with "soft curves, muted color, and diffused sunlight." The humans' camp, on the other hand, had bright, direct sunlight and was surrounded by "tall, straight bamboo, suggesting the skyscrapers of a cityscape."

I also didn't realize that Phil Collins' songs were originally intended to be sung by the cast. I always figured that the intention was to recreate Elton John's success with The Lion King, but apparently Disney didn't sign Collins on as the singer until after they heard his demo tracks.

Griffin also confirms something I'd already noticed about Disney's Tarzan: that its great strength is its ability to show Tarzan interacting with his ape family in a believable, powerful way. That's something that had only been tried twice before - in Tarzan of the Apes (1918) and Greystoke (1983) - and never completely successfully. Tarzan's adoptive mother Kala is a vital character in his origin story and the Disney version is the only one to show how important she was to the ape man. My initial impulse when Disney's Tarzan comes up is to dismiss it (Terk and Tantor are annoying characters and the story grows trite once the humans show up), but it's a worthwhile adaptation if only for the scenes of Tarzan as a young boy.

Merry Christmas!

Whether or not you celebrate the holiday, I hope today's a wonderful day for you.

Back from Disney World (with pictures)

We had a great time in Disney World and I've got pictures loaded on Flickr if you're interested in seeing them. There's some commentary there too, so it'll be just like coming over to my house and being forced to sit through a slide show.

Otherwise, we're knee deep in Thanksgiving preparations, so content here is going to continue to be light this week. Sigh. If you're in the U.S., hope you have a great Thanksgiving with friends and/or family.

Here are a few Disney photos, but there's tons more in the link.

Gone plunderin'

Taking the week off because I'm in Disney World hanging out with pirates and eating Dole Whips.

No loud parties while I'm gone!

Uncle $crooge Hates Cephalopods

Friday Night Art Show: Greetings from Dinosaur Island

Pirate Girl



By Sarah Mensinga.

Heretic in a Balloon



By Frank Kelly Freas. [Golden Age Comic Book Stories]

Love, Atomic Robo



By Scott Wegener.

Poison in Her Well



By Annie Wu. [Warren Ellis]

Black Canary and Huntress



By Steve Bryant.

Misney



The last Marvel/Disney mash-up we'll ever need. By T Campbell and John Waltrip. [Robot 6]

Zatanna



By Michael Dooney.

Thundarr



By Otis Frampton.

Science Fiction Adventures



By HR Van Dongen. [Golden Age Comic Book Stories]

Wonder Stories



By Frank R Paul [Golden Age Comic Book Stories]

Walt Disney World (or, "I'm too EXCITED to blog!")

I apologize for the lack of a post yesterday. I got caught up in planning a trip to Disney World. If you don't mind a self-indulgent post about those plans, read on. Otherwise, skip this and I'll post some more links to jungle comics in a few minutes. I don't blame you.

We've been talking about going back to Disney World for a few years now and David's at just the right age to really enjoy it. He was just about to hit his first birthday last time we were there and while it was an incredibly fun and memorable trip, there are challenges to seeing Disney World with a baby. As easy as the parks make it on parents, there's still a need to make time for naps and diaper changes and they still won't let infants ride Space Mountain, so you've got to figure all that out. This time should be a lot easier.



What made it awesome last time was The Unofficial Guide to Walt Disney World with Kids. I practically memorized that thing and we certainly made our plans based on its recommendations. What could have been an extremely stressful, chaotic visit was simple and organized. We were able to concentrate on having fun and being in the moment instead of being anxious about the length of lines or being in certain places at certain times.

We haven't figured out exactly when we're going yet (need to work out vacation-time and some other details), but to get started last night I picked up the current editions of both the UGtWDWwK and the larger, basic Unofficial Guide to WDW (aka, "the Big Book"). I spent all evening catching up on the new stuff.



One of the things we're doing differently this time is staying on a WDW resort. I've always stayed with friends or at nearby hotels in the past (though last time we used a timeshare owned by Diane's parents, which was awesome), but I've always wanted to try the on-property hotels. The deluxe ones are out of our budget for this trip, but Disney has some nice, moderately-priced hotels, so we'll pick one of those. A lot of my reading last night was comparing those and I've got it narrowed down to two or three.

The Caribbean Beach Resort is tempting because of its theme. Apparently they even have pirate-themed rooms, which is a huge draw for me. Unfortunately, the layout of the resort is very spread out and the pirate rooms seem to be furthest away from resort's central facilities including its restaurants (no room service) and the bus stop to the parks. I'd happily walk ten minutes to that stuff in order to stay in a pirate room, but this isn't just my vacation. Need to talk that over with the other two first.



The other resort I'm considering is the Port Orleans Resort, which is actually divided into two smaller resorts, the French Quarter (pretty self-explanatory, the theme of that one) and the Riverside (which is inspired by the bayous and antebellum mansions of rural Louisiana). The layouts of these make the facilities much more centrally located and the amenities are apparently nicer, but it's tough to pick between the two. The pool at the French Quarter looks amazing, for instance, and its rooms are supposed to be almost as nice as those in the deluxe resorts. But the only sit-down restaurant between the two is over at the Riverside and the bayou-themed rooms for that location are surrounded by trees and gardens, which is very tempting. Right now, I'm leaning towards the French Quarter, but this also needs to be discussed.

Other details to figure out are whether we want to use Disney's Dining Plan and whether or not to rent a car while we're there. A friend of ours raved about the Dining Plan, but The Unofficial Guide has made me cautious about it. Others who've used it report that you have to use all of it in order to justify the expense, and doing that tends to make the trip all about the food. We're much more used to eating as we go between rides when it's convenient, not scheduling rides around dinner reservations. Also, kids are apparently limited to ordering off the children's menus, which some guests report are restricted to mac-and-cheese and chicken fingers at many restaurants. As much as David loves chicken fingers, I'm thinking he may get tired of that after a week. Apparently there are ways around that restriction, but again, I don't know that I want to make meal times a long, stressful time of negotiation. In order to keep things flexible, I'm leaning away from the Dining Plan, but want to talk to my friend first and get his input on my concerns.



As for the car, The Disney Blog has been reporting some recession-motivated cutbacks at WDW that have begun to affect guest experiences, particularly in the area of transportation. The Unofficial Guide backs this up by sharing complaints from guests about long wait times for buses that make multiple stops before arriving at their destinations. However, the Guide has also done some research and actually measured door-to-door travel times (which includes waiting for the bus) from each hotel to each park. The hotels we're considering all have travel times around 30-45 minutes. Which, yeah, is a lot of time to travel from one part of the World to another, but it's easily planned for. I'm hesititant to give up the freedom a rental car would allow, but I'm not seeing how I can justify the expense. We're not planning on seeing other Orlando attractions or eat in offsite restaurants (a big part of this trip for me is experiencing WDW completely onsite), so I think we can get up early enough to plan around the bus system.

Next step though is to figure out when we're going.