One Little Spark - The History of Journey Into Imagination

“One little spark, of inspiration, is at the heart, of all creation. Right at the start, of everything’s that new, one little spark, lights up for you…”

Those are the pivotal lyrics to the song “One Little Spark”, the theme song of Epcot’s most beloved attraction: Journey Into Imagination. The once whimsical dark ride invoked the power, positivity, and potential of mankind’s imagination, linking it to the themes of science and futurism that dominated Epcot during its early years. But, nowadays, that one little spark is less invocative at Walt Disney World’s second gate, particularly in the ride that once embodied the wonders of imagination. How did Journey Into Imagination, and its role in Epcot, become so stale?

Well, join us for another history lesson, as we delve into the past, the golden age of Epcot, and explore the evolution (or de-evolution) of one of Disney’s most sorely missed attractions.

Before existing as a theme park, Epcot was Walt Disney’s last dream – an independent city of the future to be built as the centrepiece of Walt Disney World, known as EPCOT (Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow). Sadly, Walt passed away in 1966, and EPCOT was shelved and treated like an afterthought whilst the Magic Kingdom was built. The company believed they could not build a city without Walt’s guidance, abandoning the idea, going on to cover themselves in cobwebs and adopt a mantra of “what would Walt do?” as an excuse to not try new ideas.

Nevertheless, Epcot was a dream they could not let entirely go, and repurposed it as a permanent world’s fair. Epcot was split into two sections. Future World celebrated the various achievements of science and mankind’s ingenuity in their pavilions – Wonders of Life (human body), the World of Motion (transport), the iconic Spaceship Earth (communication), technology (Communicore and Innoventions), The Land (agriculture), The Living Seas (ocean life), the hugely popular Horizons (futurism and potential colonisation in space and underwater), and the aforementioned Journey Into Imagination, housed within the glass pyramids of the Imagination Pavilion.

Though the Imagination Pavilion may have looked a little out of place, despite its beautiful design, it was an essential part to the park’s themes. Without imagination, mankind’s advances would have been non-existent.

Anyway, the pavilion’s attractions did not open with the rest of the park in 1982, but followed shortly after. Journey Into Imagination took guests on a journey through the endless realm of creation and imagination. Guiding us on the journey was the Dreamfinder, a whimsical, jolly adventurer who was a mix of Willy Wonka and Santa Claus, and his charming sidekick Figment, a purple dragon made from his own mind.

The attraction was designed by Tony Baxter, the face of Disney’s second generation of Imagineers. Working as an ice cream vendor in 1965, Baxter joined Imagineering several years later, and would go on to create many of the theme parks’ most popular attractions like Big Thunder Mountain, Indiana Jones Adventures, Splash Mountain, reimagined Fantasyland in the 1980s, and was the leader of designing Disneyland Paris. One of his creations that sadly never saw the light of day was Discovery Bay, a steampunk-esque location which was to have been built where Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge will open next year in Disneyland. Elements from Discovery Bay would be incorporated around the international themes parks, including in Journey Into Imagination.

The ride’s sponsor was Kodak, who sponsored the many photography shops at the theme parks. They promised to sponsor whatever the ride would be, as long as it was “very imaginative”. This was brought to life in the Imagination Pavilion, with the Dreamfinder and Figment journeying through the imaginary realms of art, literature, the performing arts, and sciences. The ride was hugely popular, as were the ride’s characters, and the theme song “One Little Spark”, written by Richard and Robert Sherman.

For whatever reason, Disney decided to keep their vast catalogue of iconic characters OUT of Epcot. But, that is where the Dreamfinder and Figment’s popularity soared. While Chuck McCann voiced Dreamfinder in the ride, the character (with Figment) appeared as a meet and greet around Epcot, played by Ron Schneider. They were the unofficial mascots of Epcot, at least until company CEO Michael Eisner pushed Mickey and co. into the park.

The Imagination Pavilion also had the ImageWorks, used for Kodak to show off their products, and acting as a fun, interactive assortment of games to boost the imagination. The signature part of the ImageWorks was the “rainbow corridor”.

Still, Journey Into Imagination was not without technical problems, being a difficult ride to maintain and it often shut down. And, Epcot was started to look a little dated. Though pitched as a sign of the 21^st century, the actual 21^st century was approaching fast, and the technology and future promised in Horizons was not looking likely. And it still isn’t. I want my jetpack, damnit! And see man land on Mars in my lifetime!

Epcot was meant to get a major overhaul to incorporate some new thrill rides and freshen the place up a bit. This upgrade never saw the light of day, as Disneyland Paris was a financial disappointment, and Eisner decided to kneecap Imagineering in favour of cost-cutting and building pathetic, lifeless, soulless theme parks by committee. Epcot also needed sponsors to keep its pavilions up to date. It needed to redefine their theme park by whatever means necessary and to keep guests interested in visiting it.

Disney characters were brought in to draw the children and families, and thrill rides began to be introduced, at the sacrifice of beloved favourites, and Epcot’s core themes. World of Motion was replaced with Test Track, so at least the transportation theme remained. Horizons was removed in exchange for Mission Space with the removal of General Electric as a sponsor. The Universe of Energy saw the inclusion of Ellen DeGeneres and Bill Nye the Science Guy. The Living Seas gained a Finding Nemo refurbishment, and The Land gained a rather on the nose Lion King environmental movie. And the Wonders of Life slowly died, and now is a gutted empty husk occasionally opened to celebrate Epcot’s annual cultural festivals.

And Journey Into Imagination…

Journey Into Imagination became an attraction that was ironically unimaginative. Poor Kodak was in the can, financially struggling as, like many other companies, refused to get with the times and embrace digital photography. With a limited budget from both Kodak and the lackluster, unimaginative, pencil pushing nitwits in charge of Disney, Journey Into Imagination’s second incarnation didn’t have much to work with. In fact, they transformed it into a spin-off of a spin-off of the film Honey, I Shrunk the Kids. Long story short, Honey had a 4D theatre film where the audience was “shrunk”, with Eric Idle guest starring as Dr. Channing of the Imagination Institute. This institute became the new basis for Journey’s plot.

Journey Into Imagination was renamed as Journey Into YOUR Imagination, opening in 1998. Because it apparently needed the guests’ imagination to fill in the empty layout of the new ride. Gone was Dreamfinder, Figment was reduced to a cameo, and the once charming nature of the ride was lost, reimagined as a patronising, insulting ride where the imagination of the guests was fickle and empty. Eric Idle appeared as Dr. Channing, running the institute, and invited guests to explore how the five senses could act as an ignition for their imaginations. The attraction’s size was literally cut in half to save on money. Even the ImageWorks was gone, replaced with the “What If Labs”, a less impressive or pricey environment of interactive games.

Needless to say, this new version of the attraction was universally despised. Even Michael Eisner hated it. Fans hated what had been done to the attraction, removing its very heart, music, and well, imagination. What was left was a cheap, unimaginative six-minute ride that insulted the guests rather than inspire them. Journey Into YOUR Imagination has fallen into the dumpster bin alongside other hated Disney attractions like Superstar Limo and Stitch’s Great Escape.

Journey Into YOUR Imagination closed down barely a year and a half after it closed to undergo another regeneration, with the intent to make it closer to the original version. However, the events of 9/11 and another budget cut left the Imagineers with limited money to spend. Journey reopened again as Journey Into Your Imagination With Figment. Yes, everyone’s favourite purple dragon had returned, as had “One Little Spark”. The ride’s story was slightly repurposed, with Dr. Channing and the Imagination Institute still remaining. Much of YOUR Imagination’s layout remained, now just retrofitted to include Figment as he hijacked Channing’s orderly tour of the labs to invoke the spontaneity of imagination. The Dreamfinder got a nod, and even the finale was improved, using all the old Figment animatronics. Heck, even Eric Idle in a Monty Python-esque role is good.

Though it could be considered an improvement from the second version of the ride, the revised Journey still remained unpopular. Sure, Figment was back, but gone was his childhood innocence and he was more of a Scrappy Doo/Dennis the Menace caricature who caused trouble, came off as being rather obnoxious, and wouldn’t shut up about imagination, despite the ride’s lack of it. There’s one gag where Figment uses a skunk’s tail to effectively fart at the guests. How wondrous.

In 2010, Kodak’s sponsorship ended, and it was feared that Journey Into Imagination would go the way of the dinosaurs…or Ellen’s Energy Adventure in this case. And Horizons. And the Wonders of Life. Left to fall apart, decay, and then be replaced with less stellar thrill rides. Still, in 2018, it is still here. For better or for worse, Journey Into Imagination is still around, regardless of its current incarnation.

Figment is still hugely popular in Epcot, appearing on tons of merchandise, even had a cameo in Inside Out, and his animatronics have been put on display in many Disney exhibitions. A Destination D23, audiences were blown away when Ron Schneider reprised his role as Dreamfinder, and took to the stage with Figment and Richard Sherman, receiving a standing ovation from the crowd.

So, what does the future hold for Journey Into Imagination? Epcot will be undergoing some major upgrades. The Guardians of the Galaxy are moving into the Universe of Energy (hopefully with a similar theme), whilst Ratatouille is being brought over from Disneyland Paris to the French pavilion in Epcot’s World Showcase. For a long time now, Journey has been rumoured to be replaced by an Inside Out dark ride. While this doesn’t sound like a bad idea, I personally feel that such a ride would exist better within the disused Wonders of Life Pavilion. If I had my way, Journey would be restored/updated to a new ride similar to the original, with Dreamfinder and Figment back where they belong.

I can imagine that, can’t I?

 

A Look Back At LazyTown and Tribute to Stefán Karl Stefánsson

Tuesday 21^st saw the tragic news of the death of actor Stefán Karl Stefánsson, best known for his role as Robbie Rotten in the kid’s show LazyTown. Stefánsson was diagnosed with incurable bile duct cancer, passing away at the age of 43, leaving behind a lasting legacy of comedy and memetic charm. In his memory, I thought I would revisit and review LazyTown, examining the highs and lows of the show that made Stefánsson (or Robbie Rotten) a household name amongst children and YouTube creators.

LazyTown is an Icelandic TV show created by gymnast Magnus Scheving, who plays the show’s protagonist Sportacus. The series began as a series of plays, Scheving expressing concern that Iceland’s youth were unhealthy and did not participate in exercise. Stefánsson was invited to play Robbie, the show’s antagonist. The plays were so successful, that Nickelodeon noticed them and commissioned to have a television show be made, which lasted four seasons from 2004-2014.

The show focused on Stephanie, an upbeat, preppy, pink-haired 8-year old girl, played by dancer Julianna Rose Mauriello. Stephanie moves into the titular LazyTown, run by her uncle, who is the bungling mayor. Interestingly, Stephanie’s uncle is a puppet, which brings up all sorts of interesting questions – questions which probably are irrelevant since this show is aimed at kiddie winks. Stephanie can easily be dismissed as a very stereotypical character since her entire world is colour coded with shades of pink, but she is quite outgoing, optimistic, and never gives up on her ambitions. She is fleshed out enough too, capable of being argumentative, stubborn, and compassionate towards others.

The rest of the supporting cast are all puppets, Stephanie befriending the neighbourhood children who all have certain traits they need to overcome. There’s Ziggy, an overweight kid as dumb as a brick, obsessed with candy; Trixie, the lone girl in town who is a troublemaker; the appropriately named Pixels, who spends most of his time gaming, yet is also a prodigal inventor and tech whizz; and Stingy, a greedy, often selfish klepto, who is rich enough to drive his own miniature car around. I suspect one day Stingy will grow up to buy out the whole town, demolish everyone’s homes to build a mall, and maybe run for President. Rather impressively, these characters do actually grow as people, overcoming their initial flaws to become better people. That’s a rarity in a show aimed at five-year olds. The Mayor is quite the hoot, infatuated with Ms. Busybody, the town’s gossipy hen.

Anyway, when Stephanie arrives in town, everyone is lazy and stays indoor, thanks to the apparent sinister machinations of Robbie Rotten. Robbie is the show’s MVP, an absolute riot to behold, and definitely the most memorable part of the show. Lurking in an underground lair, Robbie is the town’s self-proclaimed laziest man, and often spies on the neighbours to see what they are up. If anyone is, well, not being lazy, Robbie will promptly confront them and essentially bribe them into becoming docile. Stefánsson does such an amazing job, being both a great physical performer, and goofy yet likeable enough to play the badguy. Robbie Rotten is the kind of wacky yet inept villain that joins the immortal ranks of villain buffoonery, alongside the likes of Team Rocket and Dick Dastardly.

Stephanie is rather bummed out by the town, but learns there is actually a superhero conveniently living in a zeppelin overhead. Summoning the hero by airmail, Stephanie meets Sportacus, an aerobics-mad charm machine played by Magnus Scheving, who brings some long-needed energy and community to LazyTown. Robbie doesn’t take to this, and dedicates himself to putting an end to Sportacus and Stephanie’s regime so he can get some peace and quiet. Well, removing that giant sound system in your lair might be a good start.

Each episode was formulaic as you can imagine. Stephanie and friends are up to some energetic shenanigans usually related to sports, exercise, outside activities, or food, with Sportacus dropping in to help out. Robbie doesn’t like this, disguises himself in a paper thin disguise, and causes trouble that usually backfires in his face, and needs rescuing by Sportacus. Robbie is then unmasked, everyone groans in mild amusement, before Stephanie breaks into the show’s secondary theme song “Bing Bang”. Yeah, the show is of the musical variety, often with catchy, pop songs that are often related to the themes within.

Still, it is mostly these songs that catapulted LazyTown into internet popularity. Don’t ask me how these things become internet memes, but LazyTown is amongst them. However, this also boosted the popularity of Stefánsson online, many finding his role as Robbie to be incredibly fun. Robbie could easily been seen as an anti-hero, desperate to get some peace in town, whilst Sportacus is backflipping around town promoting his rather heavy promotions for exercise and healthy eating.

The show can also be praised for its high budget and good production quality. Alongside the memorable soundtrack, the puppetry is good, the acting is great fun, and there is a sense of big fun with things. The show was hugely popular on CBBC, most of its own creations feeling perpetually smaller in size and budget, though there are a few golden nuggets from my childhood like Playdays, Come Outside, and Teletubbies. Still, the show isn’t without some problems.

LazyTown’s major issue was the message it was trying to convey, and that is mostly personified by Sportacus. Don’t get me wrong. Scheving is incredibly likeable as the character, personifying a charming, friendly, and supportive hero who is forever there for Stephanie and her puppet pals. He has a magic crystal that senses when they are in trouble, and he’ll race to their aid without a second thought. He even considers Robbie to be a bit of a weird friend, despite his eternal attempts to kick him out of town. Robbie is about as silly as you can get, and since there doesn’t appear to be a police force in town, he can get away with even attempted murder, and the children just laugh it off like he’s Ned Flanders.

The show’s mission, as Scheving envisioned, was to convince children to get fit and healthy in all departments. And to be honest, it is rather heavy handed. Sportacus comes off as a rather flawed character, and just about the only one who doesn’t go through any character development. From morning to night, Sportacus is doing nothing else but flipping around town or in his zeppelin, playing sports, and remaining constantly moving. He doesn’t ever take a moment to rest, and his idea of relaxing usually involves more exercise. By no means is Sportacus portrayed as an exaggeration. I suppose he’s a superhero powered by exercise, and simply being lazy once in a while is a foreign concept to him.

The characters actually try to force Sportacus to take a day off. Not to teach him about taking it easy, but just as a thank you for his hard work. Stephanie then takes on the mantle of resident superhero, only to find the whole thing understandably exhausting. She’s meant to be an eight-year old for goodness sake. Ironically, Robbie, despite being the most laziest guy in town, is even more outgoing that Sportacus at times in his quest for peace. And for goodness sake, would it kill Sportacus to just walk everyone in a while. There’s no need for him to constantly back flip around town like a bellend. Still, it does show off Scheving’s talents as a gymnast.

Another issue is Sportacus’ own sense of diet. He often promotes the consumption of “sports candy”, i.e., fruit. That’s the only thing he eats, and appears to have a fatal reaction to the consumption of sugary snacks of any kind like his own Kryptonite. Thankfully, Sportacus isn’t entirely ruthless with the children when he finds them snacking, and more suggests than demands they eat healthier food. Sportacus forever remains enthusiastic about the benefits of a healthy diet and lifestyle, but the problem is lacks a passive size, never once rests, relaxes, and seems to be unable to eat manufactured sugar.

I suppose Robbie Rotten can count as a counterpart, since his natural state is relaxing and eating cake, yet is pretty energetic in his own right. Stephanie serves as a middle ground of sorts, idolising Sportacus, and yet educates both him and Robbie about embracing each other’s preferred lifestyles (just not as extreme).

Eventually, Julianna grew too old for the role of Stephanie and departed after the second season, replaced by Chloe Lang. Scheving himself retired as Sportacus, though his replacement with Dyri Kristjansson was so subtle, most people didn’t notice. Stefánsson stuck around, once again thrown into internet popularity via the villain song “We Are Number One”. In the episode in question, Robbie hires three minions to help him capture Sportacus, leading to a catchy song and a lot of shenanigans.

In 2016, Stefánsson announced he had been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Show writer Mark Valenti set up a GoFundMe page to raise funding for Stefánsson’s treatment and to support his family. LazyTown songs were used to help promote the funding. In thanks to supporters, Stefánsson reunited with several members of the show’s cast to reprise their roles for a rendition of “We Are Number One”. In August 2017, Stefánsson was declared cancer free after a successful surgery.

Unfortunately, in March 2018, Stefánsson announced his cancer had returned, and this time, was incurable. He sadly passed away aged 43. His manager announced that the Stefán Karl Academy & Centre for the Performing Arts would be opened in Switzerland, in 2019, in his memory. Before his death, Stefánsson posted a final, moving message on his Instagram page.

"It's not until they tell you you're going to die soon that you realise how short life is. Time is the most valuable thing in life because it never comes back. And whether you spend it in the arms of a loved one or alone in a prison cell, life is what you make of it. Dream big."

Rest in peace, Stefán Karl Stefánsson. You’ll always be number one.

Beware the Slenderman - An Exploitative Documentary

Please note that this article contains sensitive topics which some viewers may be disturbed by.

I have never reviewed a documentary before, and this was quite the one to choose. Beware the Slenderman is a 2017 documentary, directed by Irene Taylor Brodsky. For those of you unaware, in 2014, two twelve-year old girls stabbed one of their friends in Waukesha, Wisconsin. When apprehended and interviewed, it became aware that the two girls plotted to murder the victim to “appease” the fictional character, the Slender Man, convinced he was real, and would murder their own loved ones if the victim did not die (which she didn’t).

Now, I am not really here to judge those involved in the crime, the victim, the culprits, or their families. I am instead here to discuss the nature of this documentary and its quality. Upon watching this documentary, it felt strangely like two separate films had been slapped into one form, and the end result is an often uncomfortable watch, with a confusing narrative and focus.

On one hand, it focuses on the psychology and lifestyles of the two culprits, discussing what drove them to commit the act, speaking to family, police officers, and experts in psychology, whilst covering the trials. But, on the other hand, the documentary feels rather exploitative, using the tragedy as an excuse to cry fowl over the internet, and pushing for legislation to its content, and the free reign children have to technology.

The character of the Slender Man is a fictional internet bogeyman created in 2009 by Eric Knudsen. The character first appeared as part of a Photoshop competition on the website “Something Awful”, depicted as a haunting, faceless spectre with a vague history of spiriting children away to an unknown fate. The popularity of the character took off like wildfire, leading to many YouTube “found footage” series where people encounter the Slender Man, exploring his lore. What makes the character so unique is that his very lore and presence is open to interpretation. YouTube video series like Marble Hornets made the character even more popular, pretending the character was a real life entity “recently discovered” by Knudsen.

Basic lore comes with the character. He appears as a tall, faceless creature in a suit, has tendrils, is often associated with the woods, stalks and abducts children, and has appeared throughout fictional history. Marble Hornets also established the ideas that being near the character can cause people to fall ill, he distorts electrical equipment, and he has “proxies”, minions of sorts that appear to be either influenced or controlled by the Slender Man to do his bidding.

The character gained further notability via the video game called Slender: The Eight Pages. The open fictional interpretation of the character allowed many creators to create a vast, often interconnected network of fanfics, fan art, and videos collectively called the “Slenderverse”. Some interpreted the character as an ancient creature of Lovecraftian origins, or as fairy-like, taking children away to another realm. One imaginative community conceptualised the Slender Man as being part of a larger group of eldritch creatures representing various phobias called the “Fear Mythos”.

But, the memetic nature of the Slender Man was bound to draw some attention, with younger internet users asking on YouTube videos or forums if the character was legitimately real or not. It appears that the two girls, both possessing signs of mental illness, were drawn to the character, coming to the belief he may be real, and sought to impress the Slender Man by attacking and murdering their friend in the woods. They comment in police interviews used in the documentary, that when they accomplished the act, they would be taken to a “Slender Mansion” – a part of the lore that I’ve never heard of before – and would be indoctrinated as his proxies. They both fear and revere him at the same time.

The subject matter is obviously a sensitive topic. My problem with Beware the Slenderman is that it was made to push an agenda that “the internet and technology are scary things”. There are plenty of red flags indicating that the two girls were mentally unwell – a lack of emotional response to normally upsetting films (i.e. Bambi), disturbing drawings, photos showing they have tortured their dolls in disturbing detail. The fact that they were drawn to the often grim and scary stories of the Slender Man further establishes this. The father of one of the girls is a diagnosed schizophrenic, and provides the most moving interview in the film. There were obvious signs of these issues. Issues that the parents either didn’t honestly notice, or perhaps dismissed them as childhood quirks. There is blame to go around.

The documentary does quite well to not depict the girls and their families in a vilifying light, but in a sympathetic, humane way. It is designed to explore what psychologically drove these two girls to attempted murder, and for the most part, when it focuses on that subject. But, about forty-five minutes in, the film goes from a sombre piece to an obnoxious montage showing rather disturbing footage from YouTube, like a video of a cat eating a live mouse, etc. It is clearly meant to shock the audience with the subtlety of a forest fire – “Hey, look how shocking the internet is!” It is implied these shock videos are potentially what the girls viewed prior to the stabbing. The documentary freely uses footage from various Slender Man-related YouTube series, and without even crediting the creators in the dismal credits.

The change in tone is shockingly crude. The first half an hour is professional shot, as are the interviews. Then, when it comes to going all Helen Lovejoy on the internet, interviews are now conducted via poorly rendered Skype chats. Richard Dawkins shows up to provide some intellectual discussion, the first clip depicting him trying to figure out how to use Skype with no sign of help from the interviewer. Was that kept in deliberately to show that adults don’t understand the internet, and that children are apparently brainwashed by it?

The internet can be a scary place, that cannot be denied. But there are ways that parents and adults can monitor and control what their children can see and do on it. This documentary pretends such options don’t exist, whilst taking extensive pleasure in using police interview footage of the two girls as they describe the events leading up to and during the attempted murder. It also uses this to further vilify the Slender Man, a certain type of memetic fanfiction called “creepypasta” and the community behind it, and the internet itself.

The documentary works better when focusing on the urban legend aspects of the Slender Man, rather than trying to build him up as this Charles Manson-esque figure that influences thousands of alienated children. The discussion of schizophrenia and mental illness towards the end of the film is better handled. I did notice that the victim and her family are absent from the documentary, which is understandable.

Frankly speaking, it comes across as incredibly distasteful to use the tragedy of these families, and two mentally ill girls (who have subsequently been sent to mental hospitals for treatment), to push a transparent and exploitative anti-internet, anti-technology agenda. Using this story for shock value, or to hook an audience, is extremely questionable. Brodsky herself has been interviewed and confirmed this documentary was in the works before the stabbing happened, and adapted it to involve the murders as a focus. The message this film is trying to enforce is a technophobic warning that the internet is untrustworthy and exploitive without any redeeming qualities. Strangely, it places the likes of the charitable Ice Bucket Challenge, the “planking” trend, and harmless reaction videos (as memes) in the same sinister category as the Slender Man is slotted into.

This age old social panic and point-the-finger-at-youth-culture rears its ugly head again. The documentary argues that the internet is solely to blame for the stabbing. Not that these girls had signs of mental illness, or their parents failed to notice or act, but it pulls the unsurprising Jack Thompson-esque bemoaning about how the internet is bad for children. The same way that rock ‘n’ roll, rap music, punk music, television, and video games have in the past been accused of “corrupting the youth”. It is a shameful, sleazy way to whip up moral panic, and using the tragedy of these girls and their families to push it was a terrible decision.

This brings me to the concern of the Slender Man movie released in cinemas this month. It appears to be taking inspiration more from the stabbing then the actual, internet-wide mythos crafted over many years. The opening shot of the trailer involves a girl covered in blood wandering out of a forest just as a police car pulls up – a near exact replica of the victim’s movements during the stabbing.

The film focuses on four teenage girls who are drawn to the Slender Man by friends and terrorised by him. Critics of the film even suggested that the Slender Man isn’t actually real in the movie, and the girls are instead having various degrees of psychosis and murdering each other. This is just speculation, but the similarities between the film’s plot to the events of the stabbing are uncanny.

The documentary exploits tragedy for a political agenda of social panic, whilst the film appears to just plain out exploit and adapt the actual events of the stabbing into a generic horror story. I am a fan of the Slenderverse, and it upsets me that both it and its creators are being made the fall guys for this tragedy. Eric Knudsen posted a message on the Creepypasta Wiki expressing condolences and support, while members of said wiki raised money for the victim’s family.

Not that the documentary acknowledges this, deciding to end its subject with the vulgar decision to present a slideshow of “fan art” depicting the stabbings and the girls worshipping Slender Man. That is disturbing, both that such pictures exist, and the director chose to include them. If the documentary had any decency it wouldn’t have done so, and it certainly wouldn’t have exposed and used the tragedy of the stabbing and the suffering of those involved to make a point.

The Oscars - Artistry or Popularity?

It has been ten years since the Academy Awards faced one hell of a backlash by snubbing The Dark Knight in 2008-2009, accused of being out of touch, elitist, and favouring only certain types of films. Now, it seems a decade on, they are trying to resolve these issues. Yesterday, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences informed its members that the annual Academy Awards would be undergoing some changes. The first is that the televised event will be shortened to two hours. The second is the introduction of a new category – “Outstanding Achievement in Popular Film”. Many people in the film industry have regarded this announcement with distain.

Why is the Academy doing this? Well, as the new category is described – to give popular films a chance – i.e. popcorn or mainstream films that rake in the money at the box office, critical acclaim or not. This conjures up the age old idea that the Academy is snobbish towards genres that aren’t dramas, biopics, or musicals. Only nine non-English language films have ever been nominated in the category, and even less so for those produced outside of the United States. The snubbing of The Dark Knight comes off as elitist on part of the Academy, disregarding a superhero film as a serious contender based on the fact that is a comic book film.

It took them nearly seventy years to nominate an animated film, Beauty and the Beast, in 1992. Snow White might be an exception, since it granted Walt Disney a special achievement award. Beauty did not win the Best Picture that year, but The Silence of the Lambs, a horror film, did succeed. And the Award for Best Animated Picture was made in 2002. The Academy may be getting better. The Return of the King won the nomination in 2004, and this year’s awards gave the award to The Shape of Water, a fantasy-romance film directed by Guillermo del Toro. They may be improving in their ways, but this new announcement kinda feels like a kick in the teeth.

See, guesswork and rumours abound hint that Black Panther may be a nomination for Best Picture next year, and with good reason. It isn’t just a superhero film, but one with a near-all-black cast, an afro-futuristic setting, and a heavy politically-charged villain, and a great story, whilst also being a massive, positive representation for black communities, culture, and history. Of course it deserves such a nomination. So did The Dark Knight. In the past couple of years, Suicide Squad wowed everyone by winning Best Makeup, and then Logan even managed to get nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay. I say it is time for Black Panther to show the Academy that superheroes can be and are artistic, and not just, well, popular claptrap.

But, does this new award for popularity shoot such a belief in the foot? If say Black Panther and other genre films are selected for the “popularity award” and not “Best Picture”, does that mean the Academy does not view such movies as artistic, or worthy of Best Picture? Will this be an excuse to shut out genre films that aren’t limited-released-based-on-a-true-story film from the headline awards. Filmmakers can work extremely hard to make a film that could be “worthy” of the nomination.

And, then, you have the Oscar bait. Which is basically what I just described above. Films made not for any artistic quality or recognition, but to simply earn whoever is producing it an Oscar for their shelf. These films are commonly released mere months or weeks before the ceremony, often in limited release, and are period dramas based often on tragic events or figures, and contend for both the headliner awards, and the non-technical awards (makeup, costuming, cinematography, etc.) Other, better films that are hugely popular, successful, and fit within the requirements of the nomination are ignored – i.e. Brokeback Mountain.

Still, a lot of these “bait” films are actually quite good. If only they weren’t released so close to the Oscar season, perhaps they wouldn’t look so dodgy. Anyway, if Black Panther and other “popular” films are placed within this new category, does this omit them from becoming Best Picture nominees. This could be seen as ostracizing a vast amount of films from being nominated. That the “popular award” is for the “rabble” and popcorn movies with no apparent prestige and artistic quality to them, while the Best Picture is strictly for the elite members of the Academy and their restrictive views on what counts as a good film of artistic value. Black Panther, The Dark Knight, and Brokeback Mountain are all great films that are both artistic and popular – mainly because they are good films that tell good stories.

The winner of Best Picture can change the world and get critical acclaim for being great and impactful. That’s what the Oscars are all about – celebrating greatness through artistry. Genre films like fantasy, horror, and science fiction are often treated as stigmas in the Oscars, often limited to technical awards like special effects. And why in the world hasn’t Andy Serkis ever received a nomination from the Academy yet? Is it because he uses motion capture in his performances? And instead of creating a very idiotic award for what is to please the populace, why not introduce an award for say best stuntwork, motion capture, or voice acting?

This new popularity award will become the “ghetto” for all genre films, regardless if they are excellent films. I wonder had this award been introduced years earlier, would The Return of the King and The Shape of Water been dumped in this new, unneeded category. This allows the Academy to grant popular films a place in the Oscars, whilst keeping their views on what clarifies as a Best Picture nominee continuously restricted. The Dark Knight, again, did not fall into this category, because it was a superhero film, despite being well-written, well-directed, well-acted, etc. Speaking of which, did anyone else get the inkling that Heath Ledger’s nomination was strictly because he was both deceased, and his role as the Joker was hugely praised – something which the Academy could not ignore and dismiss.

How exactly is the Academy going to nominate films that are considered popular? Solely based on the box office? Critical acclaim? What if a film becomes hugely popular based on an internet meme? Will all fantasy films, horror films, sci-fi films, superhero films, etc., be dumped into this category, and restricted from the Best Picture nomination? If Black Panther is nominated for Best Picture, it would be a landmark achievement. A sign that the film industry, and thus the Academy, supports and recognises the diversity in both cinema and humanity. But, if it is instead restricted to the popularity contest, than it shows the Academy still only regards it, and all others of its kind, as a vapid popcorn movie with no integrity to it. It makes the whole awards feel superficial and unfair.

But, there is another rather obvious reason why these changes are being implemented. Because the Oscars’ ratings have been dropping faster than an Elvis fangirl. The 2018 ceremony had the lowest viewership in the Oscars’ history, and it’s not a surprise. Two-time host Jimmy Kimmel isn’t funny and most of his jokes seemed to be trying to make light of the huge sexual scandal going on across Hollywood recently, and any attempts to sound serious were unbelievable. It was ridiculously long, and rather than celebrating the films and people who made them, it was mostly about being a soapbox for everyone to express their politicial views and hatred for the numpty in the White House.

That and along with the dragged out attempts to be humourous, the set-up gags at the start of every nomination, musical numbers, and endless, endless montages, plus the advert breaks, it is no wonder the Oscars are becoming so long. Just focus on what people actually come for: Seeing who won the damn awards!

The winners also barely have time to give acceptance speeches, usually only about a minute or two, before some obnoxiously loud music starts playing as the cue to get the winners off the stage. I wouldn’t surprised if they use a bulldozer or a police SWAT team to get them going. We are here to watch these people earn their awards and listen to what they have to say about their success. How their dreams and hard work have paid off. How they wish to thank those who helped them along the way. Unfortunately, they are given so little time to express themselves, cause there are a few more commercials and unfunny jokes Jimmy has to get around to.

Anyway, the Academy, their lords and masters, ABC, need to fix these plummeting ratings. This popularity award seems to be the answer. Perhaps instead of cutting the pointless meandering would’ve been the better idea, instead of this cheap move to try and attract those who watch superhero films and the like. In truth, very few people are really going to care. If this new award is simply being introduced as a stunt to get more ratings, but in turn could kill the spirit that the Oscars has slowly been losing over the years. This might just bolster the sense of elitism and biased views that the Academy has built over the awards. This does not solve a problem, it might just be making things worse.

Will Mary Poppins Returns Be Good?

Wind’s in the east… mist coming in. Like something is brewing, about to begin. Can’t put me finger on what lies in store, but I feel what’ll happen, all happened before…

Since the last time I added a post on this blog, Disney finally acknowledged they need to actually respect their cast members and pay them decent wages, the battle for 20^th Century Fox is nearly won, Bud Luckey passed away, The Incredibles 2 came out, and James Gunn has been fired from Marvel Studios. With all those mixed feelings, let’s talk about something a bit more positive yet questionably unnecessary.

Mary Poppins is perhaps the most beloved and popular of Disney’s pantheon. It universally loved (unless you are called P.L. Travers), highly regarded as Walt Disney’s magnum opus, bringing together the best creative minds in Disney to create something amazing. The careers of Julie Andrews, Dick Van Dyke, David Tomlinson, and well, everyone else, have been defined by Mary Poppins. Everything about this movie, from Mary Poppins’ entrance, to the dancing penguins are iconic and well remembered.

Now, fifty-four years later, a sequel, Mary Poppins Returns, is coming to cinemas in December. The longest gap between a live action film and its sequel ever. The film is set thirty years after the 1964 film, and will star Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins, with Lin-Manuel Miranda, Ben Winshaw, Emily Mortimer, Meryl Streep, Colin Firth, Julie Walters, David Warner, Angela Lansbury, and Dick Van Dyke in supporting roles. Dick Van Dyke is the only actor from the first film to return, though he is now playing Mr. Dawes Jr. (played by Arthur Malet) in the film. Winshaw, Mortimer, Walter, and Warner are inheriting the roles of Michael and Jane Banks, Ellen, and Admiral Boom.

Julie Andrews was initially invited to make a cameo, but she declined, wanting the film to be Emily Blunt’s movie. No doubt people will compare the two performances once this sequel comes out. Now, when the film was announced, my first reaction was “Why?” Does Mary Poppins really need a sequel? Mary Poppins stands alone. Its reputation, popularity, and timelessness allows it to stand on its own two feet. P.L. Travers did write a number of novels, so Disney did have at least some resources to use, which they claim they are for this new movie. But, the question stands – does Walt Disney’s magnum opus need a continuation?

It’s no secret that Mrs. Travers despised the film and cried at the premiere out of despair, demanding Walt re-edit it. When Cameron Mackintosh approached Mrs. Travers to adapt the books into a stage musical, she agreed, but on the condition no one from the film was involved. However, the songs from the film were allowed to be used. Mrs. Travers’ hatred didn’t cover the whole film. She approved of Julie Andrews as Mary Poppins, and even liked “Feed the Birds”. In 1977 interview, she remarked that she had seen the film again, and described it as “glamourous and it’s a good film on its own level”, though barely like her books.

Perhaps Mary Poppins Returns is a good opportunity to adapt the books a bit closer. The 1964 film did have a lot of magic and charm to it, but at its heart, it was about Mary Poppins coming to mend a broken family, headed by a troubled father committed to his job at the cost of caring for his children. It does look like the sequel will be following a similar story, with a grown up Michael Banks implied to be a widow, struggling to raise his children despite help from Jane, and is working in the same bank his father once worked in. I am only going to assume that Mr. and Mrs. Banks are both dead, though Ellen and Admiral Boom are still alive.

The lone teaser trailer is charming enough, slowly building up the return to Cherry Tree Lane, Michael’s fixed kite blowing around the neighbourhood until picked up by his children and Lin-Manuel Miranda’s character. They launch it into the sky, and cue the world’s greatest nanny descending from the clouds. This did boost my excitement for the film, and the cast looks pretty good, but that lingering concern remains. Is this film necessary?

If there is one thing that encapsulates the last few years of Disney, and particularly CEO Bob Iger’s time in charge of the company, it has been fuelling the nostalgia of consumers. Disney purchased The Muppets, Pixar, Marvel, and LucasFilm during the past ten years. Star Wars has made a comeback, and while the fatigue has started to set in, Disney still plot to milk this cow for all that its worth. The likes of DuckTales and Kim Possible have returned, all of Disney’s greatest classics are getting live action remakes, and even Oswald the Lucky Rabbit was brought home (and completely underused).

It is obvious Disney are cashing in their chips with all of these reboots, remakes, and revivals. Mary Poppins is Disney’s most renowned live action film, so it makes sense to revisit the property. Perhaps Saving Mr. Banks was meant to test the waters and renew interest in Mary Poppins?

My concern is that Mary Poppins Returns will simply be a repeat of its predecessors greatest hits, and not try telling a different story. Michael is now a troubled adult and parent, implied to be working at the same miserable bank his father worked at, now run by Colin Firth’s character. I wonder if Michael’s accidental run on the bank will hover over him like the sceptre at the feast. Dick Van Dyke is playing Mr. Dawes Jr., and his character will likely be a nod to Mr. Dawes Sr. from the first film. Admiral Boom is back too, so the classic “Posts, everyone!” gag will return. No complaints there. Lin-Manuel Miranda’s character is a lamp lighter who just so happens to have been Bert’s apprentice, operates on Cherry Tree Lane, and likely knows the Banks family as well.

And while I will reiterate that the teaser trailer was charming, it was obvious that it was using nostalgia as a major selling point. The phrases used in the trailer let us know we are visiting a world that is a big part of the imaginations of multiple generations. We are in the same location, with the same characters, a similar plot, and familiar elements. Mary Poppins is seen flying through the clouds, the characters are flying a kite in the park, Lin-Manuel is dressed exactly like Bert, we see a gentlemen reading a newspaper in clothes very similar to Mr. Banks’, and the trailer ends with the iconic mirror scene where Mary Poppins’ reflection stays behind.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I am fired up for this film, and plan on seeing it shortly after it comes out with my family. the movie will most likely be a huge success. Disney are playing their cards right. Still, I at least hope they are. Mary Poppins is one of Disney’s most sacred of cows like Mickey Mouse and Winnie the Pooh, but it is also a milestone in childhood family favourites, nostalgia and cinematic history. If the film bombs at the box office, this will likely have huge repercussions for Disney and their long line-up of live action remakes. The planned Mulan remake has already been pushed back to 2019.

Mrs. Travers did write many books, so there is plenty of material to choose from, but Disney’s version is the most well known version. The sequel will hopefully use new ideas, and the setting of the Depression will bring a new dynamic and atmosphere on Cherry Tree Lane. We probably will see many nods and homages to the original film, and hopefully a couple of cameos from the surviving cast, but the film should and must stand on its own and develop an identity of its own. To be a worthy successor to one of the greatest family film of all-time, and not just a nostalgic-based cash grab.