15 details about Disney princes that are often overlooked

Although Disney princesses are the main focus of viewers’ attention, the princes also deserve recognition. Over the decades, there have been several changes in the way they have been portrayed, going from being the generic Prince Charming to heroes with their own names and personalities. This is how they show details that reflect part of the plot and make them as relevant as their companions.

Disney’s princes reveal parts of their stories that are often overlooked in the excitement of the movies.

© Aladdin / Walt Disney Pictures and co-producers, © Aladdin / Walt Disney Pictures and co-producers

1. Eric was the first prince to be rescued by his princess.

Disney princesses are almost always the ones rescued by their love. But in The Little Mermaid, Eric became the first prince in the franchise to be saved by the protagonist who, throughout the story, actually rescued him on 2 occasions: the first was when he fell into the sea and the second was when he confronted Ursula at the climax of the film.

2. John Smith really existed.

John Smith was a soldier and explorer who had been captured by the natives of America when he settled on their lands. It is believed that he was rescued by a girl of the tribe that held him hostage, but the accuracy of the event could never be proved.

The Disney version of John Smith, besides being physically different from the historical character, also had a different personality. While the real guy was authoritarian and had a hard character, the fictional Smith is kind and cordial. He was also way older than Pocahontas and they never had a romantic relationship in real life, according to certain documents.

3. The feather in Aladdin’s turban indicated when he was telling a lie.

Aladdin pretended to be Prince Ali, someone he wasn’t, when he first met Jasmine. He feared that she wouldn’t accept him for who he was, so he put on a fake façade, something that really annoyed Jasmine. Not only that, but every time he lied, the feather of his hat would flop over.

4. Li Shang was the first Disney prince to not kiss a princess.

In the first Mulan movie, Li Shang never kissed the protagonist of the story, even though they liked each other. Besides that, he was the first Disney prince to show gratitude and respect for the heroine’s attributes.

5. John Smith did not stay with the princess.

Because John Smith was injured in the first part of Pocahontas, he had to return to England for medical treatment. He invited her to travel with him, but she refused, as she felt she was needed in her tribe.

And in the sequel, Smith invited her to travel the world. Unfortunately, Pocahontas had already overcome her feelings for him, so she again refused. He then decided to let her go and leave on his journey.

6. Flynn was supposed to be an anti-hero.

The producers of Tangled wanted to move away from the classic Disney male hero, considering them “rather soft” at times. So they decided that Flynn, instead of being a prince, should be a charismatic and charming thief, adding a worldly touch to contrast with Rapunzel’s limited view of the outside world.

7. Hans is the only Disney prince to be a villain.

Of all the Disney princes, Hans is the only one who’s actually a villain. This makes him peculiar since he presents himself as a kind person who empathizes with the lonely princess, managing to make her fall in love after their meeting. Thus, he manages to manipulate her to finally reveal his true intentions.

While there were many villains pretending to be good at Disney, the case in Frozen is different, as Hans gave no hint of being evil. Usually, the viewer already knows when a character is evil and pretends to be on the protagonist’s side. But here, Hans managed to hide his true nature until almost the end of the movie.

8. Naveen kissed Tiana more than once.

Almost at the beginning of the movie The Princess and the Frog, Tiana kissed Naveen when he was an animal. However, there were also other occasions when they exchanged kisses, thus being the couple that has kissed the most in Disney movies.

9. Eric was the only Disney prince to become a father.

Although there are several Disney princess movies that had sequels, only in The Little Mermaid was it possible to see the main couple form a family. Prince Eric became the father of a little girl named Melody, whom he cared for with great affection. When she escaped to the bottom of the sea, he even moved an entire fleet to recover her.

10. Aladdin is the only Disney prince to be a leading man.

While there are many films with male protagonists, Aladdin is the only one in the “Disney princess” franchise to feature a prince as the main character. On top of that, he was the first to earn his royal title by marrying a princess.

11. Prince Phillip was the first one that had an actual name.

While in Snow White and Cinderella the princes’ names are never revealed, in Sleeping Beauty it is mentioned at some point in the story. He is also the first in the franchise to have more dialogue than his predecessors and to defeat a villain, thus fulfilling the role of prince and hero.

12. Snow White’s Prince Charming should have had a bigger role in the movie.

Snow White’s prince is perhaps the character with the fewest appearances on screen, as he is only seen at the beginning and end of the movie. It was planned for him to have greater relevance, but due to animation problems, the producers decided to cut his scenes.

13. Kristoff and Li Shang are tertiary characters.

What Li Shang and Kristoff (the Disney princes of Mulan and Frozen) have in common is that they are tertiary characters. Besides that, they also have other similarities such as being thoughtful, shy, and logical, compared to the princesses, who have a more adventurous spirit. And none of them got married until later, in the sequels.

14. Naveen and Beast did not show their human form in most of their films.

The films Beauty and the Beast and The Princess and the Frog have in common that the princes do not show their human appearance for much of the story. While Beast regains his humanity near the end, Prince Naveen is seen as human only at the beginning and during the denouement of the movie.

15. The Beast was inspired by buffalo.

When it came to bringing Beast to life, the creator of the character’s design said he was inspired by the head of a buffalo. But as he did sketches, he also integrated other animals such as a wild boar, a lion, a gorilla, a bear, and a wolf.

His goal was to create an animal-like figure, as he wanted to move away from the alien version of the original story. After taking parts of different creatures, he managed to create an anthropomorphic being that matched the environment in which the film was set.

What do you admire about the Disney princes? Which of them would you like to see in their own movie?

(Source: Bright Side)

2-year-old boy thought Encanto character was him: "It was the impact of feeling seen"

 If seeing is believing, count 2-year-old Kenzo as a true believer in the power of representation.

This week, during a family viewing of Disney's Encanto, Kah Brand noticed the moment her son realized that one of the characters, a young boy named Antonio, looked very much like him.

"He seemed to be in awe, just smiling and staring at the screen," she told POPSUGAR. "Then he stood up and looked back at his dad and me, still smiling. For him, I truly believe that he thought he was seeing himself because of the resemblance between him and Antonio."

"It is essential for Black children to feel seen and to be connected to positive and empowering images for their self-esteem."

Kenzo's not alone: when Kah posted the picture of him proudly standing next to the TV screen to Instagram, her friends and family couldn't contain their excitement over the similarities.

"As a mom, I'm always trying to capture 'these' moments," she said. "I was amazed at his reaction. It just truly made me smile and my heart happy."

But for her, it was not only the resemblance that mattered.

"It was the impact of feeling seen," Kah added. "It is essential for Black children to feel seen and to be connected to positive and empowering images for their self-esteem."

In fact, Encanto prompted a conversation in her home – one in which everyone tried to think of a character from their own childhoods with which they connected.

"But these characters weren't around," she said, referencing her own generation. "We didn't have this growing up. 

What's so special about Encanto was that it didn't stop at just showing us brown characters. It showed the diversity in hair textures and skin tone. I'm so grateful for moments like this because I'm aware of its impact, especially for brown boys and girls. It brings joy to our family. There's power in representation and magic in creativity. This generation and future generations will experience inclusivity because the film industry is moving in a direction that reflects the true diversity of our world."

(Source: PopSugar)

Racists are trying to use ‘science’ to prove mermaids can’t be black. Yes, really

When all else fails, a cheeky bit of eugenics will go a long way, said no one ever.

People are trying really, really hard to justify why Ariel from The Little Mermaid should be played by a white actress.

This comes after an announcement that singer and actress Halle Bailey, who is of African American descent, has won the role, with many arguing that the mythological fish-person should remain “authentic” to the original aesthetic – that is a white mermaid with red hair.

As those arguments have been exhausted and proven invalid for multiple reasons, outlined in a previous indy100 article, some people have turned to science.

Picture: Disney/Twitter grab

Mermaid science.

Yes, according to science, mermaids are white because they live under water and have less melanin, which means a lighter skin colour.
One Twitter user wrote:

My opinion on why mermaids are white is that they live so deep underwater that sunlight hardly reaches them, thus the lack of melanin. It doesn't matter what ocean they're from cos they could've been migrating seasonally like fishes. But maybe im thinking too much.

Other Very Science-y People™ hopped on the theory.

lol at people actually thinking that Ariel cannot be played by a black actress because of 'mermaid science' pic.twitter.com/5Djt0Wrfkn

— Hello Gillian (@mippy) 4 July 2019

people are bringing up science to justify their racism towards disney casting a black girl as ariel ..... i can't even. SCIENCE? SHE'S A FUCKIN MERMAID MATE! a literal girl with a fish tail. in what world does the science of what deep sea skin colour would be make sense? shut up!

— saint chloe (@korcariwilds) 3 July 2019

And developed it.

Another studious Twitter user chimed in with Proper Social Theory™.​

White washing = a white actor (for example) gets a role for a black character

Black washing = is the opposite

Disneys Ariel is white. So Black Washing. It's not rocket science.

— 🌹Laura🌹 (@LaulaGrimm) 4 July 2019

People are trying to come to grips with these new academic ideas.

“Mermaid science exists, we can prove why Ariel can’t be black.”
“This is an insult to an entire generation.”
“Well then let’s just make Tiana white.”

Uuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

My head. pic.twitter.com/VYKehCa2CQ

— 👑🦁🍷👑 (@MadamnSJ) 4 July 2019

Racists trying to explain why Ariel can’t be a black mermaid using maps and science. pic.twitter.com/9E88SzdqIS

— KiloWatt Ora✨ (@lookatmyora) 4 July 2019

You guys. Aside from the massive dumpster fire that is our country and government right now, people are actually trying to cling to SCIENCE to explain why a black girl shouldn’t be able to play a MERMAID. This shit would be so funny if it wasn’t so damn tragic.

— Tamar Q Barbash (@writerTQB) 4 July 2019

A student of medicine cleared up the details about melanin production.

Just for y’all trying to use science to say Ariel can’t be black (emphasis on try)...

Melanocyte production isn’t even dependent on sun exposure. It’s dependent on genetics (normality of the TYR gene, various enzymes, & the overall conversion of dopaquinone to melanin). 🤦🏽‍♀️

— CB.⚜️ (@__CBeezy) 4 July 2019

But mostly, people are done with the veiled racism.

Hey losers, mermaids aren’t real so a black woman can play Ariel it’s not fucking rocket science, y’all. Some of these people literally use the excuse of “hating an agenda” to mask their own colorism/racism.

— Raúl “Gordo” Alejandro Mendoza Diaz (@thenerdychicano) 3 July 2019

someone really said ariel can’t be black because of science...bitch there is literally a singing crab in the movie & u worried about scientific accuracy. stfu. pic.twitter.com/LAcKsHQyHg

— kacia🍍 (@kcizzlemyhizzle) 3 July 2019

FYI...
Also, mermaids aren’t exclusive to European mythological history. Here's just one example: Yemaya is a Yoruba deity, also known as the goddess of the Oceans and owner of the seas. According to Yoruba beliefs, she is the mother of all living things. Yemoja, an Orisha (another deity) is another water deity that can be referred to in English as "daughter of a great fish".

(Source: Independent)

Aladdin review: A rip-roaring, matinee-style spectacle that turns out far better than expected

What could have been a cynical exercise in repackaging an old hit turns out to be an invigorating ride with lively performances, flamboyant musical numbers and clever special effects

Dir: Guy Ritchie; Starring: Mena Massoud, Naomi Scott, Will Smith, Marwan Kenzari, Alan Tudyk (voice), Billy Magnussen, Nasim Pedrad. Cert PG, 128 mins

Disney’s live-action remake of its 1992 animated feature is a rip-roaring, old-fashioned matinee-style spectacle that turns out far better than we had any right to expect. After the dismal debacle of his previous feature King Arthur, Guy Ritchie directs with such humour and flair that you half suspect that he must have been rubbing the magic lantern himself and getting some help behind the camera from the Genie. The film boasts lively performances, flamboyant musical numbers and clever special effects. It even has a political dimension, making some telling points about the treatment of women in patriarchal Arab societies.

Will Smith is both the narrator and the blue-skinned Genie. He plays the role with a cocky, wisecracking bravado that rekindles memories of him early in his career in The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air. He is brought out of the lamp by street thief Aladdin (Mena Massoud), the “diamond in the rough”.

Ritchie and his team don’t take too many liberties with their source material. If you’ve seen the original Disney movie or any Christmas pantomime version of the folk tale from One Thousand and One Nights, you’ll know exactly how the story unfolds. One of the pleasures of this Aladdin, though, is the way it also invokes memories of classic old Hollywood and British fantasies like the Douglas Fairbanks and Alexander Korda versions of The Thief of Bagdad.

Massoud’s Aladdin is first encountered picking pockets on the streets of Agrabah. His accomplice is his pet monkey, Abu. He’s a likeable artful dodger type, always one step ahead of the Sultan’s soldiers. When a beautiful stranger (Naomi Scott) is accused of stealing bread to give to starving street kids, he intervenes to get her out of trouble. This prompts the film’s first big action sequence, a chase through the alleyways and across the rooftops of the city. He thinks she is the handmaiden to Princess Jasmine. In fact, of course, she is the princess herself, mingling incognito with her people to learn more about the dire circumstances in which they live.

Dutch actor Marwan Kenzari brings just the right measure of sneering, cunning malevolence to his role as the scheming Grand Vizier, Jafar. He has hoodwinked the Sultan into thinking that he is a loyal servant when his real intention is to depose him and seize the throne at the first available opportunity. Just as Aladdin has his monkey, Jafar has his pet parrot, Iago. Princess Jasmine, meanwhile, is accompanied wherever she goes by her “cat”, a huge, slobbering tiger with a knack for sniffing out evil.

A former “street rat” himself, Jafar plots to use Aladdin to help him procure the magic lantern. "You were born worthless, you will die worthless and only your fleas will mourn you,” Jafar, who has a nice line in insults, taunts Aladdin. “Steal an apple and you’re a thief. Steal a kingdom and you’re a statesman,” is another Machiavellian observation heard early on.

Once Will Smith’s Genie comes out of the lantern, the film quickly turns into a buddy movie. The Genie isn’t just Aladdin’s servant. He also quickly becomes his mentor, his friend and his dating companion. He takes an immediate shine to Jasmine’s handmaiden (Nasim Pedrad) and uses all his wiles to try to seduce her. The caveat is that his relationship with Aladdin will end as soon as his young master exhausts his three wishes.

This Aladdin has songs from the original Disney animated film and some new ones. The musical interludes occasionally risk interrupting the flow. Characters who’ve been racing around will suddenly stand still to burst into song and the momentum of the storytelling will be lost. We get to see Aladdin breakdancing. With a little help from the Genie, he even performs a backflip while his monkey at one stage performs a moonwalk. A magic carpet also features prominently – but attempts to make the carpet seem like a character in its own right soon founder. It’s very hard to believe that a piece of fabric has emotions.

Production and costume design are extraordinarily lavish. Whether in the Cave of Wonders or in the palace itself, every frame of the film is crammed with glittering visual detail. There are some impressively apocalyptical effects and locations range from the desert to the frozen limits of what appears to be Antarctica. The ending feels formulaic and a little anti-climactic. Disney’s storytellers aren’t able to add too many new twists to a story told countless times before. This, though, is an Aladdin made with tremendous verve. What could have been a cynical exercise in repackaging an old hit turns out to be an invigorating ride.

(Source: Independent)

Disney fans like their princesses like their coffee: Hot, skinny and white

Disney reaches a huge, young audience that is internalising ideals of white supremacy and sexualisation, writes Bidisha in The Guardian. Read on: 

Elsa from Frozen has been chilling in her ice closet for a long time: the hit Disney musical was released in the UK in 2013. Since then, like passive-aggressive Christmas carollers who won’t go away, fans have taunted her with the loaded words, “Do you want to build a snowman? … Come out the door,” while she stalks through her fortress of solitude like Norma Desmond in Sunset Boulevard, or US first lady Melania Trump.

Elsa may soon be building a snowman without shame or secrecy: the film’s director and writer, Jennifer Lee, is considering bringing the ice regent’s homosexuality out to thaw in a Disney dawn of acceptance and financial profit in the Frozen sequel.

‘The YouGov poll, while seeming to probe the wokeness of the Mouseketeers, is just another Miss World beauty pageant for assessing and ranking women.’ Elsa in Frozen. Photograph: Allstar/Disney/Sportsphoto Ltd/Allstar

This seems in step with its audience’s views. According to a YouGov poll of people happy enough to answer a YouGov poll on Disney princesses, 49% of British fans would be “comfortable” with a gay Disney princess, and even more would be comfortable with one who was overweight, a feminist, more than 40 years old, non-white and even a parent. Great! I’m nearly all those things. I say we play those excellent odds, bundle them together and introduce a full roster of non-white, middle-aged, body-positive separatist feminist single mother lesbian queens. You know: the way Wonder Woman’s Amazon island should have been. We can call it Disney: The Collective.

When it comes to desired characteristics of Disney princesses, the usual things come up in YouGov’s poll: independence, confidence, intelligence, ambition and bravery. Nobody wants a protagonist who is a needy, dim, mousy coward with no life goals. But the top quality? Kindness. You’re joking. Disney princes should be kinder – like that manipulative hostage-taker and groomer the Beast, or the prince in Sleeping Beauty who sexually assaults a drugged-by-magic princess. These are the Disney douchebags who need a kindness makeover, or a prison sentence.

This poll, while seeming to probe the wokeness of the Mouseketeers, is just another Miss World beauty pageant for assessing and ranking women. Who is the nicest, the fairest, the sweetest in the land? Which girl-woman, tiny-waisted fantasy figure, exotic or not, occupies the impossible sweet spot of nice face, true heart, great hair, good humour, fine mind, high spirits, brave soul and strong resolve?

Snow White … voted Britain’s most popular
princess in YouGov poll.

No woman, real or cartoon, can match up to that. What I want to know about Disney is this: how does it treat the women and people of colour in its own company? How much does it pay us? How does it treat its cleaners and support staff, its new mothers and the young women who want to work in the industry? What are its pitch meetings like: 10 rich, loud-talking men around a table, inventing poor “diverse” heroines? Is it time for Disney to hear a #MeToo song?

In the YouGov poll, Moana, Mulan and Merida from Brave (a lovely and strange matriarchal story based on Celtic myth) won in the best role model category. But of all the princesses, only Moana escapes being presented as lithe, nubile, big-eyed and sexually alluring to straight adult men (in a cartoon for little children!). And of the many producers, directors and writers of these three films with their great role models, 90% are white and male. So, in Disneyland head office, you and your team of bros feminist-wash or brown-wash a film, the global audience feels a lovely glow – and all the profits seem to flow to white men.

In life as in fairytales, the truth comes out in the end. The kicker is when YouGov asks people to rank their favourite Disney princesses. Out of 14, the top six chosen are white. Of the non-white women, Tiana from The Princess and the Frog is rock bottom and Pocahontas second from bottom. Jasmine, Moana and Mulan cluster behind Merida, Rapunzel (fun girl, great hair, hostage), Cinderella (domestic slave goes to party, meets a foot fetishist, marries up), Ariel (gets a boyfriend, loses her athletic ability and her literal voice) and Belle (trafficked by her father, sold to a dog). The winner? Snow White, the ultimate masochist. Finds her bliss cleaning seven men’s toilet.

Disney reaches a huge, young audience that is absorbing and internalising white supremacy, the tyranny of femininity, female isolation (few of the princesses have prominent female friends), ageism against women (so many Disney villains are older women), the class system (if in doubt, marry rich), bullshit romantic myths and US cultural dominance. Disney is the western patriarchal capitalist industrialist complex in cartoon form and its female characters are overwhelmingly beautiful, feminine, sexualised, nubile, Aryan, thin, young and adorable, like snack items modelled out of refined sugar. When its fans aren’t carefully answering poll questions to make themselves look open-minded and just list their favourites, they reveal that they like their princesses just like their Starbucks coffees: hot, skinny and white.

Elsa from Frozen could be a lesbian? Cue the outrage

Outrage is an infinitely renewable resource and everyone is mad about everything all the time. Here is a guide to the indignities of the week, writes Arwa Mahdawi in The Guardian. Read on: 

What I love about Disney films is the way they always celebrate good old-fashioned family values. Princes go around kissing random unconscious women, for example, and there are various inter-species relationships between beauties and beasts or men and mermaids. It’s all very wholesome.

So, when news recently came out that Frozen 2 may include a lesbian relationship, right-thinking people were immediately outraged. I mean, can you imagine the message that would send to children?!

Degenerate Frozen fans have long suspected that Elsa might harbor lesbian tendencies and have internet-campaigned to #GiveElsaAGirlfriend. In an interview with the Huffington Post, Frozen director Jennifer Lee responded to questions about whether Elsa might, indeed, get a female love interest with: “we’ll see where we go.”

The HuffPo immediately translated this non-answer into a headline announcing there was a “Glimmer of Hope” Elsa was going gay, and the media then turned this glimmer into a firestorm.

Now there are petitions asking Disney not to cave into the sinister lesbian agenda and various conservatives are clutching their pearls and screaming about the upcoming gaypocalypse.

You’d think, what with the state of the world today, a fictional character’s sexuality might be at the bottom of people’s “things I’m going to get mad about” list. You’d think they might be able to let it go. But, no, that’s not the way things work today.

Outrage appears to be an infinitely renewable resource and everyone is mad about everything all the time. It can be hard to keep up with it all, so I have helpfully put together a guide to other indignities the internet couldn’t let go of this week.

 ‘Now there are petitions asking Disney not to cave into the sinister lesbian agenda.’ Photograph: Everett/Rex/Shutterstock

Barbara Streisand is an evil dog-cloner
Perhaps the most White Person thing I have ever done is spend $60 getting my adopted mutt a DNA test, because I wanted him to know more about his family background. The DNA test was completely wrong, by the way, but that’s another story. This story is about Barbara Streisand who took “crazy dog lady” to a whole other level.

In a recent interview with Variety, Streisand casually mentioned that two of her three Coton de Tulear dogs had been cloned from cells taken from her late dog, Samantha. People immediately went berserk and this was one of the rare instances where outrage was bipartisan.

The right tweeted things like: “Trump hating Barbra Streisand spent $100,000 to clone 2 dogs while in her city women and children go hungry, homeless and no medical care.” The left tweeted things like: “not rescuing a dog out of the millions in need of it and instead paying absurd amounts of money to clone one is PEAK rich white people.”

Peta obviously got involved in the debate and urged people to adopt, not clone. Call me cynical, but I really don’t think Streisand is going to start a trend of people paying $100,000 to clone their dog. Perhaps we should just let the lady clone her pets in peace and worry about other things.

It’s actually really mean to call a white person ‘colonizer’
Speaking of white people – which we rarely do, I know – some of them are a little peeved at the moment because “colonizer” is taking off as an insult. This is thanks to Black Panther where there’s a hilarious scene in which Shuri says: “Don’t scare me like that colonizer!” to a white guy whose name I have forgotten.

Now it appears white people are getting called “colonizer” in real life when they do things that smack of privilege. Some white people are very upset and uncomfortable about this. So please don’t hurt any white people’s feelings by saying the nasty C-word. Not to mention, it’s just really unfair when People of Colour lump People of No Colour together into some sort of homogeneous group, OK?

It’s the perfect time of the month for a period drama
Women have been saying for centuries that period pain is excruciating. But, I mean, women are prone to being a little hysterical. It’s best to take everything they say with a pinch of salt and consult a man for a second opinion. So I’m happy to announce John Guillebaud, professor of reproductive health at University College London, recently told Quartz that his patients have described menstruation pain as “almost as bad as having a heart attack”.

Guillebaud didn’t finish this with “and we should believe them” or anything. It was literally just a male figure of authority reporting his patients’ comments – and yet it made international news.

Media outlets from India to Australia to Arizona covered the story. Excuse me, but next time I get cramps I am calling the papers and telling them to hold the front page. Anyway, as you can imagine these headlines immediately started a gender war on the internet, with lots of outraged men saying there is absolutely no scientific evidence to prove menstruation – or even childbirth, for that matter – is any more painful than their stubbed toe.

You know, I think that whatever your own feelings or experience on this matter, it’s important that we women pipe down for once and just listen to men. 

Walt Disney buys Murdoch's Fox for $52bn

Walt Disney has agreed to buy the bulk of 21st Century Fox's business for $52.4bn (£39bn), in a deal both companies said position them to compete in the rapidly changing media industry.

The purchase includes Fox's film and television studios, as well as its 39% stake in satellite broadcaster Sky.

Fox will form a news-focused company with its remaining assets.

The move is a sharp shift for 86-year-old Fox owner Rupert Murdoch after more than half a century of media expansion.

Mr Murdoch turned a single Australian newspaper he inherited from his father at the age of 21 into one of the world's largest news and film empires.

He said the break-up makes sense amid new threats from online advertising and competitors who are streaming entertainment into homes via the internet.

Fox shareholders, who include the Murdochs, will get a 25% stake in the larger Disney.

"With today's announcement, we launch the next great leg of our journey," Rupert Murdoch said on Thursday in a call for investors.

He added later: "Are we retreating? Absolutely not."

Disney's long-standing chief executive Bob Iger struck the deal with Rupert Murdoch

What is Disney buying?
Disney will scoop up Fox's movie and television studios, regional sports network and international holdings, among other investments.

The move adds to Disney's back catalogue high-grossing films such as the original Star Wars movies, the Marvel superhero pictures, Avatar and Deadpool, as well as TV hits such as Modern Family and The Simpsons.

It expands Disney's offerings with the FX and National Geographic cable channels, and Fox's regional sports network in the US.

The purchase also extends Disney's global reach, adding media company Star India and Fox's interests in Sky plc and Tata Sky to its portfolio.

Disney will also get majority control of the video streaming service Hulu, which is also partially owned by Comcast and Time Warner.

Disney will assume $13.7bn in Fox debt as part of the stock deal, taking the total value of the transaction to more than $66bn.

Why does Disney want them?
Disney already owns a vast array of news, film and leisure companies. But the media landscape is changing as technology companies like Amazon and Netflix attract customers to new ways of viewing.

Disney is investing heavily in online streaming platforms, as a way to counter a downturn in its pay-TV business and threats from these new rivals.

The firm believes this deal will give it the scale to compete, and expects to wring "at least" $2bn in cost-savings out of the new company to boot.

David Yelland, former editor of the Murdoch owned Sun newspaper in the UK, told the BBC the transaction puts Disney in pole position to compete with California's tech giants.

"In ten years time there'll be two Chinese giants and four US giants and [of the current entertainment companies] the only one that'll survive will be Disney."

What is Fox keeping?
Fox is creating a smaller firm focused on news and major live sports events in the US.

It will hold onto its flagship Fox News Channel, Fox Business Network, Fox Broadcasting Company, Fox Sports, Fox Television Stations Group, and sports cable networks FS1, FS2, Fox Deportes and Big Ten Network.

Lachlan Murdoch said: "While the merged business is about scale, the new Fox is about returning to our roots as a lean, aggressive, challenger brand."

There has been speculation the deal opens the opportunity to reunite Fox with the news businesses which were spun-off in 2013 following a scandal over phone tapping in the UK.

That prompted the creation of a separate news publishing group, News Corp., which owns the Times and the Sun newspapers and remains controlled by the Murdochs.

Rupert Murdoch said the firm hasn't looked at that possibility and any move along those lines is "way ahead" in the future.

As part of the deal Fox shareholders will receive Disney stock, representing about 25% of the enlarged company.

What does it mean for Sky?
In the UK, Fox is in the midst of a bid to buy the part of the broadcaster Sky that it doesn't already own. That bid is being investigated by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), which is due to publish provisional findings in January.

The BBC understands that the Disney deal will not alter that CMA investigation.

If the Sky purchase is approved, that deal would probably go through before the Disney purchase of Fox assets. So the whole of Sky would then be likely to transfer to Disney's ownership.

If not, then just the 39% of Sky currently in Fox's stable passes to Disney.

Rupert Murdoch said: "If things go wrong, the existing [Sky] shares go to Disney. It will be up to them to decide what to do."

Either way Sky's future will lie primarily in Disney's hands.

What about the Murdochs themselves?
Most observers expected Rupert Murdoch to hand over his vast media empire to his two sons James and Lachlan.

So the decision to break it up came as something of a surprise.

The management of the new Fox company is still being discussed. But Rupert Murdoch told Sky he hopes his elder son, Lachlan, will become chief executive.

James has been widely tipped to take on a senior role at Disney.

On Thursday, Disney boss Bob Iger, who is staying in his role running Disney until the end of 2021, said James will be involved in the integration of the two firms.

As for the future he said: "He and I will continue to discuss whether there's a role for him here or not, but I look forward to talking to him about it."

Rupert Murdoch with sons Lachlan (l) and James (r)

Will this make it past the regulators?
The companies said they expect to complete the transaction in 12 to 18 months.

But it is not clear how the deal - which increases consolidation in the movie and sports media industries - will be received by US competition regulators.

The US Department of Justice recently sued to block AT&T's $85.4bn deal to buy Time Warner, on the basis that it will raise prices for consumers and competitors.

It is possible officials would take a similarly dim view of a Disney-Fox tie up, in which case Disney would pay Fox a $2.5bn break-up fee.

The Writers Guild of America West, a union that represents writers for television and movies, said it opposes the deal on the grounds that it would increase Disney's already sizeable power.

It said: "The antitrust concerns raised by this deal are obvious and significant."

(Source: BBC)

15 times Disney cheated and used the same illustrations in different cartoons

Nowadays, Disney is one of the biggest companies in the sphere of cartoons and the global entertainment industry. But just like many other businesses, Disney started small: in the middle of the 20th century, the studio didn’t have an unimaginable budget or an army of illustrators to draw unique pictures every time. Just imagine: illustrators manually drew more than a million images for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937), which was 83 minutes long. 570 artists spent 3 years drawing all those images. It’s just crazy!

Bright Side found out a trick of Disney employees: they used pre-existing scenes from other cartoons. We bet you never noticed!

Robin Hood (1973) and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)

Robin Hood (1973) and The Jungle Book (1967)

101 Dalmatians (1961) and The Jungle Book (1967)

The Sword in the Stone (1963) and The Jungle Book (1967)

101 Dalmatians (1961) and The Sword in the Stone (1963)

The Sword in the Stone (1963) and The Truth About Mother Goose (1957)

Winnie the Pooh (1977) and The Jungle Book (1967)

The Princess and the Frog (2009) and The Sword in the Stone (1963)

Alice in Wonderland (1951) and Pinocchio (1940)

The Jungle Book (1967) and The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (1949)

Sleeping Beauty (1959) and Beauty and the Beast (1991)

After such discoveries, all events from cartoons seem to happen in one and the same magic universe! Disney’s drawings had a head start over modern computer cartoons. Do you agree?

How Disney's bullying tactics against the press failed

After the company barred Los Angeles Times journalists from its movie screenings, the film-critic community united to push back.

The Walt Disney Company is a juggernaut that delivers the kind of product people often (somewhat facetiously) call “critic-proof.” Star Wars, Marvel superhero movies, Pixar films, Frozen—these are projects that seem almost guaranteed to succeed whenever they hit theaters. But a recent clash between Disney and the Los Angeles Times, one that spilled over into a brief national critical boycott, proved that theory a little misguided. The bad publicity that came with Disney’s strong-arming of the press was something even one of the most powerful film companies in the world wanted to avoid.

Disney’s battle with the L.A. Times started over a series of investigative stories published in September about the company’s relationship with the city of Anaheim, which is home to Disneyland. The Times dug into Disney’s impact on local elections and the subsidies and tax rebates it had extracted from the city. Disney accused the paper of displaying a “complete disregard for basic journalistic standards” and decreed that L.A. Times journalists would be barred from seeing its movies at advance screenings—a fact that became public when the paper published an explanation last Friday. Within days, the company relented, announcing Tuesday in a statement to The New York Times that it would end the ban.

Private critics screenings are, of course, held at the pleasure of the company, but other journalists objected to Disney using that privilege as a cudgel against a newspaper simply for reporting a story. For days, though, the company held firm. “Despite our sharing numerous indisputable facts with the reporter, several editors, and the publisher over many months, the [L.A.] Times moved forward with a biased and inaccurate series,” Disney added in a follow-up to its original statement. The L.A. Times disputed this account, stating that Disney had never asked for a correction, and said its critics would continue to cover the studio’s films after viewing them at a public screening.

Disney’s approach to the issue seemed poorly planned from the beginning. By making such a pointed public statement, the company drew national attention to the L.A. Times’s Anaheim reporting—simply to keep a few critics from seeing its films early. There’s a general principle that critics should be able to see films with enough time to give them real consideration—and Disney was working to erode that principle. It’s no surprise that Disney immediately attracted the ire of film writers around the country, whose reviews often contribute to the buzz that has helped buoy the Marvel and Star Wars franchises in recent years.

On Monday, four of the country’s largest critics groups—the New York Film Critics Circle (of which, full disclosure, I am a member), the Los Angeles Film Critics Association, the National Society of Film Critics, and the Boston Society of Film Critics—issued a joint statement that they would exclude all Disney films from their end-of-year awards until the company lifted its screening ban on the L.A. Times. Though Disney films are not often lavished with such attention from critic groups, movies like Coco (coming out November 22) certainly would be in the running for their animated-feature honors.

Beyond that, the show of solidarity attracted support from major directors, including Ava DuVernay, who tweeted that she was “standing with” critics. DuVernay is helming of one of Disney’s biggest 2018 projects, the adaptation of A Wrinkle In Time, due out in March. Her tweet signaled the company would face a growing problem if it did not address the issue, which could bubble back into the news throughout awards season (as each of these critics groups announced their honorees) and all the way into next year.

Though Disney’s action against the L.A. Times was an obvious show of force, it was an unsustainable one. The newspaper is among the most widely circulated in the country, and its relationship with Disney is two-way—the studio wants coverage, and the Times wants access for its entertainment journalists. Plus, in what appeared to be another show of solidarity, The New York Times said in a statement Tuesday that it would also boycott Disney screenings: “A powerful company punishing a news organization for a story they do not like is meant to have a chilling effect. This is a dangerous precedent and not at all in the public interest.”

Less than a day after the united critical backlash began, Disney relented. “We’ve had productive discussions with the newly installed leadership at the Los Angeles Times regarding our specific concerns, and as a result, we’ve agreed to restore access to advance screenings for their film critics,” Disney said. With that, the critics groups’ ban will be lifted, and the issue should be considered settled. Beyond the lesson learned about such public bullying tactics, the message of the pushback should be clear—that even behemoths like Disney can be vulnerable to bad press.

(Source: The Atlantic)

The evolution of the Japanese animation industry

In recent years, Japanese animation has become popular around the world. Industry veteran Yamaguchi Yasuo, who has been involved in anime production for half a century, traces the history of Japanese animation, from its birth to today, on Nippon.com. Read on: 

The Dawn of Japanese Anime
Japan began producing animation in 1917—still the age of silent films—through trial-and-error drawing and cutout animation techniques, based on animated shorts from France and the United States. People started talking about the high quality of Japanese “manga films.” But Japanese anime were costlier to produce than Western animations and were overshadowed by the popularity of Disney cartoons. They faced an uphill battle from the start.

One of the things that helped them find their niche was anime production for public relations and publicity campaigns by public institutions. Domestic anime production was beginning to develop a small but solid foundation when Tokyo and the surrounding area suffered catastrophic damage in the Great Kantō Earthquake in 1923. The anime industry was forced to start over from scratch.
The industry continued to struggle, unable to respond adequately to successive innovations, including the appearance of the first talkies in 1929 and color film in 1932. During this period, Ōfuji Noburō won international acclaim for Bagudajō no tōzoku (The Thief of Baguda Castle), which he made by cutting and pasting chiyogami (Japanese colored paper). His film is remembered as the first to make its presence felt outside Japan.

Many other promising anime artists appeared one after another, but with war approaching, goods were in extremely short supply as the national mood turned militaristic. Even film was not easy to get hold of. It was in this context that the first full-length theatrical film in the history of Japanese anime was released. Momotarō: Umi no shinpei (Momotarō’s Divine Sea Warriors, B&W, 74 minutes), produced by the navy, came out just before the end of the war. This was a propagandistic film designed to lift morale and commitment to the war effort.

Soon after the war ended, the General Headquarters of the Allied occupation (GHQ) brought together 100 anime artists in the bombed-out ruins of Tokyo to form the Shin Nihon Dōgasha, or New Japan Animation Company. The aim was to make it easier to spread occupation policies by having the artists produce anime in praise of democracy. However, many of the artists were fiercely independent and territorial, and the company was riven by disagreements from the outset. The project strayed off course, and eventually disbanded. Even GHQ threw in the towel. It seemed the switch from militarism to democracy was not going to be so easy.

The Start of Tōei Dōga (Now Tōei Animation)
It was during these years, as Japan began to recover from the disastrous war, that Ōkawa Hiroshi, president of the Tōei film company, saw Disney’s Snow White (1937). He was overwhelmed by the gorgeous color of the film. In 1956, he built a modern studio—a white-walled palace with air conditioning, as people called it—and founded Tōei Dōga (now Tōei Animation). His ambition: to become “the Disney of the East.”

Tōei Dōga’s first full-length film, Hakujaden, was released in October 1958.
It was based on a Chinese tale. Miyazaki Hayao, who saw the f
ilm during a break from studying for his college entrance exams,
was astonished by its quality. © Tōei

Tōei Dōga chose Hakujaden (The Legend of the White Snake) as their first film. They sent a research team to the United States and invited several experts to travel to Japan as mentors. As a result, they were able to master the Disney system of “assembly-line production.” They hired a team of new employees who honed their skills while they produced the film under the supervision of veteran animators like Mori Yasuji and Daikuhara Akira.

With jobs hard to come by in the postwar Japan, the new company was able to attract an outstanding team of young talent happy to work for relatively low starting salaries. It was a typical labor-intensive company. However, as the government’s drive to double people’s incomes started to take effect, wages shot up and the company soon found itself in the red. Attendances at the World Masterpiece Fairy Tale Anime Series, a “manga festival” held every year during the springtime school holidays (and, in later years, during the summer vacation as well), were falling. The company’s financial future was uncertain. The labor movement was also gaining momentum, bringing frequent labor disputes and labor-management clashes. Takahata Isao and Miyazaki Hayao, now with Studio Ghibli, began their careers at Tōei Dōga (Takahata entered the company in 1959, Miyazaki in 1963). Both were active members of the labor union, Takahata serving as vice-chairman and Miyazaki as secretary-general.

Tetsuwan Atomu: The First Japanese Television Anime
On January 1, 1963, Fuji Television broadcast a 30-minute animated television series called Tetsuwan Atomu (better known in English as Astro Boy). The show became a surprise hit, starting an anime boom and a period of intense competition for TV audiences. The success marked the beginning of a new kind of anime industry.

The low franchise fees paid to the studio for Tetsuwan Atomu (created by Tezuka Osamu, the president of Mushi Production) meant that the company needed to come up with a way to drastically cut production costs. They ruthlessly cut the number of drawings, trimmed the number of lines in each image to the bare minimum, and took to using more still images. They worked to make the storylines quicker and devised clever ways of simulating movement, from sound effects to the dialogue.

The company offset its losses with copyright income—licensing the rights for the Atom character to their corporate sponsor, confectionary maker Meiji Seika, who used the character on a popular brand of chocolates. When the company still posted a loss, Tezuka decided to invest his own income from manga publishing. It was a generous gesture typical of the man they called the “god of manga.”

The Wilderness Years and the Appearance of a Blockbuster
Merchandising became entrenched as part of the basic business model for all the television anime that followed. The most popular genre dealt with science fiction and space, followed by shows about girls with magical powers. In 1968, the popular baseball-themed Kyojin no hoshi (Star of the Giants) began, followed in 1969 by the first episode of the family drama Sazae-san, which continues to this day as the longest-running series in anime history. But not every series could be a winner, and with a glut on the market competition intensified.

At Tōei Dōga, which continued to run a deficit due to high production costs, labor-management relations deteriorated, leading to a lockout and layoffs in the summer of 1972. Mushi Production went bankrupt in 1973 (although the labor union later took over from Tezuka, the founder, and has led the company until the present day). The anime industry went into recession. Behind this recession were larger economic issues, such as the Nixon Shock in 1971 and the 1973 oil crisis.

When an animated television series ended, the staff was disbanded. Tōei’s seniority-based employment system fell apart, and they switched to a system of performance-based pay. They were required to change to a corporate style that was more compatible with the shrewd programming policies of television stations.

Amidst the recessionary mood of these bleak years, a new work appeared that challenged the idea of anime as simply children’s entertainment. Uchū senkan Yamato (Space Battleship Yamato), released as a TV series in 1974 and a feature film in 1977, became a social phenomenon, tremendously popular with millions of young adults.

The Proliferation of “Japanimation” Fans
Meanwhile, Japanese television anime began to become popular among young people overseas. In some countries, adults rejected it, calling it “Japanimation” and criticizing it as cheap, violent, and sexually explicit. When Kyandi kyandi (Candy Candy) was broadcast in France, young girls were glued to the television screen. Some parents resented this, claiming their children were being corrupted by a strange culture from the Orient. Nevertheless, the anime fan base continues to grow around the world, mostly among young people. Some fans even wonder, “Why can’t our country create works that surpass Japanimation?” Today, “Japanimation” means something quite different from the negative connotations it used to have.

Although the number of television anime gradually recovered after the collapse of the bubble economy in 1992 and the economic slump of the 1990s, the industry as a whole has never recovered the pomp of its golden years. A slump in advertising revenue, dwindling birthrates, and the popularity of alternative forms of entertainment like video games and cell phones have led to sluggish prime time ratings and a decline in the number of anime since the peak in 2006. Although there are fewer anime on the main commercial stations today, other channels have remained anime-friendly: TV Tokyo chief among them, followed by local and regional stations, satellite channels, and other communication systems. Unfortunately, these smaller channels tend to have smaller budgets than the main stations, with predictable consequences for production costs.

The Japanese anime industry is at a turning point. The reality is that many anime production companies are struggling, and have become little more than subcontractors for television stations. The need to improve the status of these companies is foremost among the many issues that need to be addressed if the industry is to continue to develop new talent for the future.