Annie and Danny's FastPass Podcast, Episode 1 - Stud Lightbeam

Hey Everybody!

Annie from B Ticket Blog and I decided to do a podcast, and in a shockingly uncharacteristic move for (at least) me, we actually did it.

We will be on iTunes in the next few days, but until then, check out the pod! We talk a little about ourselves, what started us down the path of our Disney love, and we talked a little about some other Disney stuff, too.

There's even an assignment for the readers!!

Check us out here!

Please, please, PLEASE give us your feedback. We will talk about anything and everything Disney, AND we're hoping to do a Reader Mail segment, so send your Reader Mail Topics to AnnieDannyFPPC@gmail.com

What's Next?? 'TRAINS'???

As big a fan as I am, I rarely find the new Disney movies to be “Must See in the Theater” events. It's not that I don't enjoy them, but I guess... Well... I should just...

I have an addiction. I don't drink. I don't do drugs. I don't buy hookers....

I go to movies by myself... like... all the time.

Whenever I have an opportunity on an off day, I hit a matinee and I love it. It's my quiet time. I get to see allllll of the crappy movies that my wife doesn't care about or just doesn't want to see. It's fantastic. My friend, a guy with a degree in film, once said to me “Doesn't it get expensive going to all of those movies?” and I simply told him that I didn't think it was any more expensive than drinking at a bar once or twice a week. That seemed to make a lot of sense to him.

In any case, one of the only things I ever feel weird about is going to see kids movies alone. I'll pretty much see anything. I went to see 'Magic Mike' alone, and I was not ashamed. Still, the prospect of appearing to be a creepy dude watching what would ostensibly be a kid's movie all by himself while surrounded by many children and their parents... this is not a scenario I relish.

Of course, you and I know that Disney movies are definitely not JUST for kids, but that's not necessary a position I want to defend at the movie theater, so I usually just wait for them to come out on BluRay, or even better, I make my wife join me. We saw 'Up' on one of our first dates, and it was fantastic.

Anyway, I wanted to see a movie today, and the pickings are slim, so I decided to suck it up and see 'Planes'. I even selected the 3D screening. I can't say I was overly excited to see the movie. Cars is probably my least favorite of the Pixar films, and it's difficult to see how this movie would be all that much different. I was even sort of viewing it as a spin-off, if not directly a sequel.


But you know? 'Planes' wasn't all that bad. I would even venture to say that it was largely successful, if not particularly indelible. It definitely deserves a better MetaScore than its current 39. That's just ridiculous.

So here are some thoughts.

The Good.
- The Message.. Yes, the notion that any Disney movie needs to have a message is perhaps a bit outdated, and has always been something of a source of derision for the haters out there. Well, you know what? It's a damned movie that is meant to appeal to children, and I just don't see the downside to presenting the little tots some food for thought. The message of this movie is that you shouldn't allow society to tell that you're not good enough or strong enough to achieve your dreams just because of your station in life. The movie is about a Crop Duster plane named Dusty who dreams of being a racing plane, and is constantly told that he can't for no better reason than “You're a crop duster”.

- The Visuals... I wouldn't go so far as to claim the visuals in this movie are on the level as Wall-E or Finding Nemo, but comparing a movie to 2 of the 5 move visually stunning animated films of the past 20 years isn't particularly fair. 'Planes' presents a visual world that is very similar to Cars in that it brings the lines and silhouettes that are familiar in aviation to the natural environment. The flying animations are beautifully done, the different geographies you see as the movie takes you around the world are stunning. It's really a great looking movie. If 'Cars' hadn't already done it, I'd even say it was ground breaking. I don't see a “Planes Land”” in the near future, but I can definitely see some of the characters from Planes showing up in Cars Land. They belong together.

The Not as Good
- Dane Cook. Look, I know it's become popular to bash Dane Cook at any turn, and I don't hate the guy, but I really don't understand what Disney was doing here with this casting choice. He's not at the peak of his fame, which would have made at least some sense (though he's probably totally unknown to a large group of the viewers of this movie), he's not really an actor at all as much as a personality. Sadly, that personality is sort of unpleasant, and there's something about the way he articulates words that makes me want to punch him, so it was very difficult to get past that. Not so great since he's the lead character. Even with Larry the Cable Guy in Cars, you've got a much better argument for casting him. He was HUGE at the time, and more importantly, he was basically asked to play the character in the movie that he already plays on stage. Not the case here.

- The Romances... Okay, so here's where I'm gonna get weird. I don't understand how Cars or Airplanes can have romantic relationships. I don't want to think about how. I don't want to be forced to imagine the mechanics (pun intended) of their intimacy. Where do baby cars come from? Who's building them? Where to the propellers go? I realize this is juvenile, but this is what watching two airplanes romancing each other makes me think about. I will say that the scene where the Mexican plane is serenading the French Canadian (Why French Canadian and not just French?) plane is very entertaining and the slow, Spanish Guitar rendition of “Love Machine” is fantastic. Yes... it's a weird movie.

The Muddy
- The Message. “Wait, Muchacho! You already said the message was a good thing!”
That's true, but that's without any dissection, also. Once you start to think about it, and once the movie plays out, you start to see that they're also sort of saying that while that crop duster should totally go after his goal of being a racer, in order to succeed he's going to have to fully change himself to do it, including removing the one piece of mechanics that makes him a crop duster to begin with. So... yeah... maybe they could have figured out another way to get from A to Z.

Me Intellectualizing Things
So really, why is Planes being so negatively received? I think it has mostly to do with two things:

1) It's very similar to 'Cars', which isn't universally beloved by adults to start with. It's easily the most kid-targeted of all of the Pixar flicks, and I imagine that doesn't go over that well.

2) People love to build something up to iconic status and then tear it down. The world is full of examples. Tiger Woods, Britney Spears, Metallica, Pete Rose. Now... to some degree it could be argued that each of those examples had at least some hand in their own unmaking, but in each case there are examples of the same people writing odes to their greatness subsequently feasting on the bones of their downfall.

At some point, Pixar was bound to experience a backlash. Once the kids who grew up on Toy Story and Nemo and Monsters Inc were adults and the movies weren't hitting the same emotional spot for them, possibly just because they're at different places emotionally within their lives... you get the idea. At some point it's impossible to separate the historical greatness from the new product. The only thing that suffers is the new product.

My fellow blogger, DJPhob wrote about Horizons at Walt Disney World and the complete nostalgia a certain block of fans has for it, and I've heard many people bemoan the downfall of Disney (even right here on my own blog in the comments section), and I wonder if that's fair. Is it fair to judge something against their own lofty standard, when it's also mixed with nostalgia (a thing that is literally undefeated in this game.

I just wonder if that's what's happening with 'Planes'. If Planes had come out in 1996 instead of Toy Story, and there had been no history of these remarkable cinematic achievements every year for the next 12 years... Would it be the greatest thing ever? Maybe not, but certainly better than a 39 on MetaCritic. That's ridiculous.

Disney's Response to My Bitching

Two months ago I posted by complaint letter to Disneyland. I was upset, certainly, and I was disappointed.

I promised to post their response, and I've been sitting on it all this time, because...well... It made me sad. I don't want to say anything else before posting it.

First, as a refresher, here's my letter to them:

Hello Disney Customer Service

I’ve taken a while to decide if I wanted to write this e-mail. I’m not a complainer anyway, but it’s especially difficult for me to complain about anything “Disney”.

I am a very big Disney fan. A defender. A Walt Disney aficionado. I’m a Charter Member of D23. I’m a current Disneyland Annual Pass holder, and I’ve been a Walt Disney World Annual Pass holder in the past. I’ve visited Walt Disney World literally dozens of times. I have collected Disney Pins for 13 years, and have spent thousands and thousands of dollars.  I have been a loyal lover of The Mouse for many, many years and I am certain I will continue to be for many years to come.

All of that said, after a lot of thought, I’ve decided to bring some issues I had on my last trip to Disneyland, May 9^th to 11^th of 2013, specifically regarding my stay at Paradise Pier.

The short version is that I failed to read the details of my hotel reservation, and didn’t realize that the “free parking” extended to annual pass holders does not apply to hotel parking. When I asked about it, I was told that the “free parking” associated with the annual pass only applies to theme park parking. I asked if I would be able to park overnight at the theme parks to take advantage of the “Free Parking” and was informed that I could not, and that my car would likely be towed.

In essence one of the great benefits of having an annual pass is nullified by my choice to stay on site at Paradise Pier.

This policy will almost certainly prevent me from staying on-site at Disneyland ever again.

I specifically chose to stay at Paradise Pier so that I could walk to and from the park and create a more immersive experience (similar to the kind created by staying on site at Walt Disney World). I realize I’m not being deprived of that experience by being charged for parking, but there’s also a “feeling” I look for while visiting Disney. When I go to Disneyland I want to get the “feeling” that my visit is valued; that my loyalty is valued. I am certain that part of valuing a customer is making them feel that they’re getting something of value in return. I believe we all implicitly agree to spend 30 dollars a person on a mediocre breakfast buffet in exchange for the amazing feelings our kids have when they see Mickey. I believe it’s perfectly reasonable to be asked to wait for an hour to ride ‘Soarin’ Over California’, because what you get in return is nothing short of an amazing experience. Value.

I’m certain you are aware of this, but staying on site at Disneyland is a significantly more expensive proposition than staying at most of the other hotels anywhere nearby. I assumed the additional cost willingly, believing I’d have a more valuable experience in exchange for the higher cost. Instead, in exchange for the extra cost of staying in a “Disneyland resort” I was confronted with even more additional fees. I’m not even suggesting that you don’t charge for parking, but I do know there are more seamless methods of carrying out these fees without making the customer feel like they’re being shaken down. Far be it from me to begrudge Disney from making your money, but the more transparently capitalistic you become, the less enchanted I become.

I called the hotel where I stayed last time (Sheraton Anaheim). They also charge for parking (*though their rate is $14 dollars per night as opposed to your $15).  They also charge significantly less per night to stay (about half). So my question is…If I’m not getting ridiculously great, seamlessly executed service at your Disney hotel, why wouldn’t I save the money, stay at Sheraton Anaheim, and simply drive the .5 miles to park for free much closer to the entrance?

It’s so disappointing to say this, but I sincerely doubt I’ll ever stay at a Disneyland Resort Hotel again unless I can be sure I won’t have this kind of cold experience the next time.

Listen… I know this is ultimately a small thing. 30 dollars for parking in the grand scheme of a Disneyland visit is nothing. It’s 3 pins. It’s not even a full dinner for one at The Blue Bayou. It’s nothing.

And yet, truly it’s everything, because for so many years I’ve defended my visits as a grown man to Disneyland and Walt Disney World. Sure… it costs more, but Disney does it right. Disney makes you feel special. Disney makes you glad to give them your money, because even though they’re a business they make you feel like they’d be there for free.

It’s such a little thing, this silly parking policy, but it’s taken away my feeling that I’m valued.

I’ll always go to Disneyland and Disney World, because they’re as much a part of who I am, and what I love, as where I went to high school or where I grew up. I just don’t know that I’ll ever wear quite the same shade of rose colored glasses again.

Just thought you should know.

Sincerely,
Daniel P. Cohen, Phone -***-***-*075
Annual Pass #********431

Here's Disney's response:

Dear Mr. Cohen:

Thank you for your e-mail to the DISNEYLAND® Resort. We appreciate you 
taking the time to share your experience with us. 

We are concerned with the disappointments you mentioned in your e-mail. 
As you are aware, our goal is to provide the finest service and 
accommodations. Please be assured we do take our Guest comments very 
seriously, and take them into consideration when evaluating our 
operation. Your remarks have been shared with the appropriate leaders so
they are aware of your experiences. 

As stated in the "Annual Passholder Terms and Conditions" The parking 
benefit, as applicable, is subject to availability and valid only at 
pay-on entry lots at the Disneyland Resort. Regrettably, Annual 
Passholders who have parking on their Annual Passes do not qualify for 
free parking at any of our Resort Hotels or at the Downtown Disney 
Parking Lot. We do apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused 
you or your family. Please accept our sincerest apologies. To view the 
"Annual Passholder Terms and Conditions" you may see them at the 
following website address: http://disneyland.disney.go.com/faq/apterms/

Again, thank you for contacting us. Comments such as yours are welcomed 
in that they assist us in evaluating our operation and our success in 
generating happiness for our Guests. We hope you will have the 
opportunity to visit the DISNEYLAND® Resort soon and that our 
attractions and entertainment will delight you in every way.

Sincerely, 

Terry Sampson 

DISNEYLAND® Resort
Guest Experience Services

I can't decide if maybe my expectations were too high, but this seems like a blow-off, doesn't it? 

I'd like to hear your thoughts.

I'm almost ready to return to blogging about Disney and the good stuff. I just haven't totally gotten over this yet.

A Rare Complaint

Below is the exact e-mail I sent to Disney Customer Service regarding my recent stay. I have not yet received a reply. I'd be curious to know what other fans think of what I had to say.

______________

Hello Disney Customer Service

I’ve taken a while to decide if I wanted to write this e-mail. I’m not a complainer anyway, but it’s especially difficult for me to complain about anything “Disney”.

I am a very big Disney fan. A defender. A Walt Disney aficionado. I’m a Charter Member of D23. I’m a current Disneyland Annual Pass holder, and I’ve been a Walt Disney World Annual Pass holder in the past. I’ve visited Walt Disney World literally dozens of times. I have collected Disney Pins for 13 years, and have spent thousands and thousands of dollars.  I have been a loyal lover of The Mouse for many, many years and I am certain I will continue to be for many years to come.

All of that said, after a lot of thought, I’ve decided to bring some issues I had on my last trip to Disneyland, May 9^th to 11^th of 2013, specifically regarding my stay at Paradise Pier.

The short version is that I failed to read the details of my hotel reservation, and didn’t realize that the “free parking” extended to annual pass holders does not apply to hotel parking. When I asked about it, I was told that the “free parking” associated with the annual pass only applies to theme park parking. I asked if I would be able to park overnight at the theme parks to take advantage of the “Free Parking” and was informed that I could not, and that my car would likely be towed.

In essence one of the great benefits of having an annual pass is nullified by my choice to stay on site at Paradise Pier.

This policy will almost certainly prevent me from staying on-site at Disneyland ever again.

I specifically chose to stay at Paradise Pier so that I could walk to and from the park and create a more immersive experience (similar to the kind created by staying on site at Walt Disney World). I realize I’m not being deprived of that experience by being charged for parking, but there’s also a “feeling” I look for while visiting Disney. When I go to Disneyland I want to get the “feeling” that my visit is valued; that my loyalty is valued. I am certain that part of valuing a customer is making them feel that they’re getting something of value in return. I believe we all implicitly agree to spend 30 dollars a person on a mediocre breakfast buffet in exchange for the amazing feelings our kids have when they see Mickey. I believe it’s perfectly reasonable to be asked to wait for an hour to ride ‘Soarin’ Over California’, because what you get in return is nothing short of an amazing experience. Value.

I’m certain you are aware of this, but staying on site at Disneyland is a significantly more expensive proposition than staying at most of the other hotels anywhere nearby. I assumed the additional cost willingly, believing I’d have a more valuable experience in exchange for the higher cost. Instead, in exchange for the extra cost of staying in a “Disneyland resort” I was confronted with even more additional fees. I’m not even suggesting that you don’t charge for parking, but I do know there are more seamless methods of carrying out these fees without making the customer feel like they’re being shaken down. Far be it from me to begrudge Disney from making your money, but the more transparently capitalistic you become, the less enchanted I become.

I called the hotel where I stayed last time (Sheraton Anaheim). They also charge for parking (*though their rate is $14 dollars per night as opposed to your $15).  They also charge significantly less per night to stay (about half). So my question is…If I’m not getting ridiculously great, seamlessly executed service at your Disney hotel, why wouldn’t I save the money, stay at Sheraton Anaheim, and simply drive the .5 miles to park for free much closer to the entrance?

It’s so disappointing to say this, but I sincerely doubt I’ll ever stay at a Disneyland Resort Hotel again unless I can be sure I won’t have this kind of cold experience the next time.

Listen… I know this is ultimately a small thing. 30 dollars for parking in the grand scheme of a Disneyland visit is nothing. It’s 3 pins. It’s not even a full dinner for one at The Blue Bayou. It’s nothing.

And yet, truly it’s everything, because for so many years I’ve defended my visits as a grown man to Disneyland and Walt Disney World. Sure… it costs more, but Disney does it right. Disney makes you feel special. Disney makes you glad to give them your money, because even though they’re a business they make you feel like they’d be there for free.

It’s such a little thing, this silly parking policy, but it’s taken away my feeling that I’m valued.

I’ll always go to Disneyland and Disney World, because they’re as much a part of who I am, and what I love, as where I went to high school or where I grew up. I just don’t know that I’ll ever wear quite the same shade of rose colored glasses again.

Just thought you should know.

Sincerely,
Daniel P. Cohen, Phone -***-***-*075
Annual Pass #********431

Escape from Tomorrow

A movie called ‘Escape from Tomorrow’ has recently come to my attention. That’s not unusual in and of itself, as I probably see more new movies than just about anyone. The unusual thing about this particular movie is that I hadn’t heard of it, and the majority of it was filmed at Disney World.

“What!?!” – That was my reaction when I first heard about it.

The movie premiered this year at the Sundance Film Festival to little pre-showing fanfare, and by all accounts isn’t that great of a movie as a whole.  Though it’s being lauded for having an interesting visual style, the “horror” and script are being written off as average. There’s a lot of speculation that it wouldn’t have been accepted to such a major festival without the Ninja-Disney cache.

It was shot, in secret, on small hand-held cameras and other subtle or “touristy” video cameras. They did this, because Disney has never authorized any outside productions to film in their parks. They’ve always been extremely protective over their branding and their images. Because of this, the movie is very unlikely to ever see wide release, since the movie not only takes place there, but depends on the location as part of the story, and Disney is pretty unlikely to allow this movie they had no hand in creating using their images. As of now, the only known showing planned for it is next week in Ebertfest. And then that’s it. Maybe it’s gone forever. Maybe you’ll be able to scrounge up a bootleg somewhere.

Thinking about this movie, and my desire to see it, and my overall love of Disney and Disney Parks has raised several questions for me. I’m going to take some time to toss them around.

First… What’s the issue?

Well, I guess it depends on who you ask, but the main issue would seem to be that Disney doesn’t want people using their images (characters, park rides, names, etc..) without their permission. Now, when last I heard, Disney hadn’t released any official “Cease and desist” statement. They simply said they were aware of the movie, and that was it. The idealist in me would like to think that Disney would let it go, and not stop it, but I can’t see that happening. So basically there’s this movie that won’t be purchased by a distributor because there’s a good chance Disney will just sue the daylights out of them if they ever try to release it. If the movie was undeniably good, maybe someone would take the risk, but not for this.

Second… If it’s not that good, who cares?

That’s a good point. I think there’s an obvious niche audience that just loves to see Disney images, and is sort of titillated by this sort of illicit depiction of “It’s a Small World” and “Space Mountain” in this unsanctioned way. There’s something kinda fun in the notion that you’re breaking the rules. Even the most staunch of Disney fans will likely admit to having had fantasies of hiding on The People Mover until after close and wandering the park all night. None of us wants to do damage, but all of us wants an unforgettable, unique Disney experience. This movie represents that unique experience, and there’s value in that to a Disney Fan. Someone got past the security. Someone figured out ways to perform whole scenes of dialogue amidst the unknowing crowd and on rides. It’s fascinating just to think about it.  Basically, there’s a small audience of big Disney fans who just wanna see it out of curiosity. That’s who cares, and I don’t think that’s enough.

Let’s say it was great? Shouldn’t it be released?

The thing that I’m reminded of most of all in regards to this situation is the Metallica vs. Napster case. For anyone who’s forgotten, Metallica sued Napster (at the time the world’s largest file sharing program) because their songs were being shared from user to user without Metallica’s consent. They insisted over and over it wasn’t about the millions of dollars they weren’t making through legitimate sales of their songs (that’s probably not true totally, since I’d definitely care about the money for sure), but rather that they believed that Metallica alone should have control over how their music (their “intellectual property”) should be made available.

Essentially, if Disney puts up a fight, or refuses to give consent to the filmmakers to use their images, Disney will be arguing the same thing. If Space Mountain appears in some movie, Disney wants to have the ONLY say in how. If Mickey Mouse is a major plot point in a story, you can bet Disney’s name is the only one on it.

The argument made by the other side is emotional and complicated and certainly worth considering.

“Disney is the most powerful entertainment company on Earth. It’s not going to hurt them”
“Disney has enough money. They should just let it go.”
“Shouldn’t they be encouraging young film makers?”
“What about all the fans who want to see the Disney stuff?”
“What happens to all the money the people spent making the movie?”

These are basically all valid, emotion-based questions, with boring, unemotional answers that all make sense to me, but the answer that resonates the most with me is this:

Maybe the money doesn’t matter to them, because them crazy rich, and maybe they’d like to encourage young filmmakers, and maybe this film wouldn’t hurt their image, and obviously they love the fans, but ultimately it’s not about THIS movie or THESE filmmakers. It’s about setting the precedent. There’s no way Disney is going to open the door to film makers not under their umbrella. Maybe this one movie doesn’t harm them, but what about all of the subsequent movies made in the same way? Does Disney have to give them all a pass? Even if it’s a case-by-case thing, I can’t see them wanting to encourage the practice at all.

And lemme talk about this “Doesn’t Disney have enough money?” argument for just a second, because it’s the same one leveled by Napster against Metallica, and it’s just as stupid now.

Disney doesn’t have enough money. Maybe to you they do, but they don’t. Their entire purpose is to make money… (Some would argue that their purpose is to entertain, to which I’d say… “that’s cute”…)  and the only way they make money is off of their own intellectual property (or the legal purchase of George Lucas’ intellectual property, as it were). If someone else is making money off of it, then it’s more difficult for them to. Even if the actual amount of money is small, I have a very difficult time saying they shouldn’t be able to make that money.

I guess, after talking through this with you, my position is pretty clear. The scenario is much less muddy to me than it was before I started writing.

Yes, it’s kinda cool that this dude made this movie and got creative to use a place nobody’s ever used before.

Yes, I wanna see it.

Yes, in a perfect world where nobody has any monetary or creative stake in such things, it’d be available for all the world to see…

But in the end, I was on Metallica’s side against Napster, even though I used Napster. I’m on Disney’s (presumptive) side in this. I care more about the Disney brand than I do about this movie. I am protective of their brand. I like that Disney is also. There was a time in the late 20s and 30s where Disney didn’t license their merchandise and it was bootlegged and replicated all over the place. Disney lost countless millions during that time when all of these other companies put out junk with Mickey and Donald on the side and passed it off as Disney. They have the right to protect their creative property. In fact, I’d go so far as to argue they have the responsibility to do so.

If they let THIS go, couldn’t there be an argument made that if I scrounged up enough money, I could buy a chunk of land in Iowa, and build my own Disney World? How is it different?

I applaud the director for his moxie. I hope to see the movie some day, but I won’t pay to see it.

A friend will be going to Ebertfest next week and will be seeing the movie. If they blog about it, I’ll be sure to point you all in that direction. I’m certain fascinated by the whole thing. But to me, the fascination is where it stops.

March Magic! Heroine's Bracket Round 2

Hi Everybody!

Last round I selected the winners, and while I might have made some errors, I feel good about the results. I'm certain I could go through and select winners, but then how do I know if I'm being fair, or just picking the characters from my favorite movies, so...

This round? You guys vote.

Snow White vs. Mulan
	Snow White
	Mulan
pollcode.com free polls

Ariel vs. Belle
	Ariel
	Belle
pollcode.com free polls

Princess Atta vs. Tiana
	Princess Atta
	Tiana
pollcode.com free polls

Merida Vs. Lady
	Merida
	Lady the Dog
pollcode.com free polls

I can't wait to see what you guys come up with!

March Magic! Heroine's Bracket Round 1

Can you smell the excitement in the room, ladies and gentlemen? Why are the bumps on your arms all goosey? Why are the neckhairs on your... ehm … neck standing on end?

The First March Magic Tournament starts today!

I'm here, you're here, and the heroines are here to rumble, so let's get started.

Our first match:Ariel vs. Wendy Lady
It's just a match of legends here in the first round.

On the one side, we have Ariel. A mermaid. A princess. A ginger. The lady who started a whole new generation of Princess fans down the path toward wishing for thingamabobs of their very own. What a beautiful voice. What an incredible team of talking fish.

On the other, we have Wendy Lady... The sweet, generous voice of reason in the youthful, immature world of Peter Pan, the terminal boy. Wendy was often the only person to call Peter on his BS, and make him stop being such a jerkface. She even went nose to nose with the vicious and terrifying Captain Hook.

Honestly, though, what it all comes down to is this... Who's the more enduring character? It's hard to argue against Ariel the trailblazer princess of the new golden age of Disney. I literally don't know a single girl around my age who doesn't know every word of Part of Your World. I love Wendy, but let's face it... Even within the confines of Peter Pan, she's not the first female character folks think of.. So the winner here is Ariel.
Belle vs. Lilo
If I really plan on contending that Lilo could win this, I should probably take a scientific approach, rather than going with my gut, and just simply announcing Belle as the winner. I'd love it if this were a tighter battle, and I do think that Lilo would have a better chance in other match-ups, but Belle is the perfect woman. Super smart, beautiful, brave, honorable, open minded, sweet... I mean... she's incredible. And she sings like a damned dream.

What if she's too perfect? Who can possibly live up to her standard? Maybe it's better to be a little damaged. And sassy. And in love with a very bizarre, blue dog... Like Lilo!

No. ..It's Belle.
Lady vs. Jasmine
Lady has a lot going for her. She was based on a real dog. (many think it was Walt's dog, but in fact it was the dog of animator/writer Joe Grant.) She saves the baby from that crazy rat. She also is half of one of the most romantic moments between two dogs ever put on film. Not to mention... Who doesn't love a cocker spaniel?

Jasmine is another beauty of the new guard. Headstrong, idealistic, adventurous. Plus, she has a really cool pet tiger. I love that tiger. Here's the thing, though... Jasmine is the reason for a lot of the action (the kerfuffle in the market, the prince parade, the whole hour-glass thing..), but she's not really a decider in the action. She's a damsel in distress without the glowing personality of say a... Snow White or Cinderella.

I'm actually kind of shocked at even myself, but the winner is Lady. Because she's a cute puppy and rats are gross.
Cinderella vs. Princess Atta
One of my Twitter followers was pleased I included Princess Atta. I actually find her inclusion a no-brainer. She's very heroic and, I think more importantly, she's the only princess who really has ruling to do. Hopper is a real threat to her people (ants). She makes real choices that affect her people. She even makes mistakes that truly matter.

Cinderella is basically the quintessential Disney Princess. Beautiful, beloved, heartbreaking backstory. Aside from that, I'm not sure I have much to say about her. I feel like it's blasphemy, but I mostly find her boring. Her movie is basically a straight romance, where the true star is the story, and less the stars themselves. I know there's the whole business with the animals all loving her, and the insanely abusive family, but it's not all that interesting.

The winner? Perhaps shockingly... Princess Atta.
Rapunzel vs. Snow White
I really love Tangled, and I think Rapunzel is a funny, unique character. She's also one of the only characters in this bracket with actual super powers. I just think that at this point, she's not the juggernaut of animated film that Snow White is. Snow White is the Grande Dame of this bracket, and while I don't think her historical importance is going to carry her through every round, but it's gonna get her past Rapunzel. Snow White with her totally obnoxious voice... Wait..

I know that Snow White is like super charming or whatever, and all of the creatures in the forest instantly love her, and the dwarves are entranced and the huntsman sees her beauty, but what does she DO? She runs away and she's kind and treats the special dwarf like he's just a sweet regular guy and got Grumpy to love, and made all of the dwarves cry their dwarfy eyes out, but... I mean... It's kinda boring, too, right?

And there's Rapunzel! She has Flynn Ryder, and a frying pan, and that beautiful lantern festival, and that adorable chameleon, and all of the crazy villains who just fall madly in love with her...

See? This is my personal preference in film making (Tangled is more entertaining to me than Snow White) interfering with my judgment here. Snow White is the winner. I just can't bring myself to knock out the most important heroine in all of Disneydom in the first round. I just can't.
Merida vs. Vanellope Von Shweetz
I like this match-up, because there's no advantage of history. These ladies starred in movies that came out in the same year and are both part of thee same era of film making styles.

Merida is a fantastic character. She's... ehem.... brave. She's capable. She's got a sharp intellect. She's clever. Vanellope is a dreamer. She's plucky. She's the underdog.

This is such an even match on its face. Both of these ladies are fantastic heroines, so I've gotta base it on how these characters fit into their respective films.

Unfortunately for our Vanilla friend Vanellope, she can't match-up to Merida. Brave is Merida's movie. It's about her. It's about her discovering her own path while also learning to appreciate her place within a certain society. Vanellope is in a movie called “Wreck-it Ralph”, which happens to be about a guy named... Wreck-it Ralph. She's a great supporting character, and she's soooo endearing, but when the match is as close as this one, I have to use something to choose. And I choose Merida.
Tiana vs. Alice

I like Alice and all, but she's really not long for this tournament. She's probably only the 50^th most memorable or interesting thing about that movie. She makes all kinds of dumb decisions (who stumbles across a bottle found in a hole and thinks “I should totes drink that?”).

On the other side, we have Tiana. She's got a historical value all her own, being the first African American princess. She's the first American princess at all (that I can think of), actually, unless you count Pocahontas. Also, it should absolutely be mentioned that she's a great role model and a great character. She doesn't dream of riches and castles. She simply dreams of opening up a great restaurant. She's a hard worker even.

Lastly... I have this fondness for The Princess and the Frog, because it's just a fantastically drawn, beautifully realized movie that never really gets the attention it deserves..
Tiana is the easy winner.
Aurora vs. Mulan
Maybe I'm biased for the characters from my own childhood and teen years over the ones from the “old days”, but even by the standards of those movies, I'd venture to say that Aurora, or “Sleeping Beauty”, is a pretty poor excuse for a “great character”. She mostly just avoids danger. She meets Phillip, obviously, but let's face it... Sleeping Beauty is a classic because of Maleficent. She's one of the most memorable villains in all of film history. It's difficult to grade a character very high when her most lasting attribute is that she sleeps.

Mulan, on the other hand, is a total badass. She's a feudal princess AND a warrior. She's incredibly beautiful, and yet also capable of credibly passing as a man for most of the movie. She sings great songs, she becomes a Samurai.. She FREAKING SAVES CHINA. Also? She has a dragon. I think we all know at this point after 2 seasons of Game of Thrones that having a dragon or two around gives you some serious cred.
Mulan in a landslide.

So there you have it folks! Round one of the Heroines Bracket is in the books with some surprises emerging.

Our random match-ups for Round 2 are:
Snow White vs Mulan

Ariel vs. Belle

Princess Atta vs. Tiana

Merida vs. Lady

The difference for this round and for every round from here on is that while I'm still going to randomly pair the winners, you get to vote!

The polls open Monday for Round 2.