I Whedon Your Grave

I’ve been pondering deconstructing a Britney song for a while now, but which one to choose? They are all about as bad as each other. As I listened to her latest album, trying to sort out the bad from awful, I started having all these random thoughts about Spears and I realised that I have more to say about the woman herself than her crappy songs. Britney is an interesting character, worthy of a slightly more in-depth look than would normally be possible within a song deconstruction. Fortunately I have enough time on my hands to look at a number of her songs. Helpfully, this album is unashamedly an autobiographical work; many of its “masterpieces” actually say a fair bit about Britney and various aspects of her life. So over the course of several blog entries I’m going to look at multiple songs, and not only tell you why they are bad songs but what they say about the singer. Oh and incidentally, I don’t promise that much of this will be complimentary, so if you are a fan or Britney’s mum or something you might want to skip this. So to start with something simple: Womanizer.

Superstar
Where you from, how’s it going?

This song appears to be one side of a conversation, between Miss Spears (or the narrator if you prefer) and some guy who thinks he is pretty hot stuff. We join them right at the start as they identify each other and make small talk, presumably.

I know you
Gotta clue, what you’re doing?
You can play brand new to all the other chicks out here
But I know what you are, what you are, baby

This male character seems to be chatting Miss Spears up. She has seen him trying the same routine on the other girls, but she will not fall for it. She knows he is presenting himself falsely.

Look at you
Gettin’ more than just re-up

Yeah I don’t know what this means. Young people today and their crazy expressions. Hang on while I google ‘re-up’. See? Even I’m doing it now with my ‘google’. English aye. What happened to it? … Ok ‘re-up’: to get some more of, to stock up on, to expand. Ah ok. So this fellow is getting more than just some more of … whatever it is he’s getting more of. What a pig aye? He’s not satisfied with more, he wants MORE than more. Of… stuff.

Baby, you

Because this is a Britney song, she will refer to people as ‘Baby’. It’s a term of affection that she engages with some frequency. Even with people she dislikes!

Got all the puppets with their strings up

I hate this line, for the same reason I hate so many lines in Britney songs. Near enough is good enough. In this case, she is attempting to convey the idea that he is using his false charms to provoke the desired behaviour of these women he speaks to; the “puppets” and “strings” convey the idea of manipulation, but only because the cliche is so familiar to us and definitely NOT because the phrase itself is remotely coherent. The writing assignment seems to have been: With reference to the male character, construct a nine syllable sentence containing the words “puppets” and “strings” so that we can drop it into the song here. The line is meaningless and it’s lazy. But who cares, it’s not like anyone is ever going to decontruct it and… aha! Got you Britney! You weren’t expecting me, were you.

Fakin’ like a good one, but I call ‘em like I see ‘em
I know what you are, what you are, baby

Again, he is false and she sees through his falseness. Unlike him, whoever he is, Britney can spot fakery a mile away because she is the real deal. Completely authentic. Except for her augmented body parts and synthesized voice and bleached hair and delicately constructed persona. She’s true blue. Which is what allows her to see that this man is a … wait for it…

Womanizer
Woman-Womanizer
You’re a womanizer
Oh Womanizer
Oh You’re a Womanizer Baby
You, You You Are
You, You You Are
Womanizer, Womanizer, Womanizer

Oh that chorus. Perfection. She knows just the word for him and she will prove it by saying that word over and over. And over. This has got to be the dumbest chorus to ever hang a song on. In the best tradition of Panic! At The Disco, figure out what few words you want to use and then just cram them haphazardly into the song by syncing them up with the music: one syllable for each note. The subject of this song is so specific that only one verse in, shes already run out of things to say. “You’re a womanizer. I know you are. You won’t fool me. Did I mention you’re a womanizer?”

Boy don’t try to front I (I) know just (just) what you are (are are)
Boy don’t try to front I (I) know just (just) what you are (are are)

You Got Me Goin’
You’re Oh-So Charmin’
But I can’t do it
U Womanizer

Don’t be false with me, I see through you. Even though I can see your appeal I will not allow myself to fall prey to you. Because you are a … well you know the rest.

You Say I’m Crazy
I got Your Crazy

Um. This would really take too long to explain. I know it makes no literal sense, but suffice to say he’s called her crazy (Britney crazy ? Surely you jest!) and “I got your crazy” is a confrontational-type response, akin to threatening to hit someone. This is the sort of phrase that people use in real life and always sound like a moron doing it.

You’re nothing but
A Womanizer

You don’t say!

Daddy-O
You got the swagger of champion
Too bad for you
Just can’t find the right companion
I guess when you have one too many, makes it hard
It could be easy
Who you are, that’s who you are, baby

I think this line is saying that his womanizing ways have made it hard for him to make a real connection with a woman that would be good for him. I, ah, don’t think he cares though.

Lollipop
Must mistake me you’re a sucker
To think that I
Would be a victim not another
Say it, play it how you wanna
But no way I’m ever gonna fall for you, never you, baby

Same old, same old. I like how she calls him something different all the time: Superstar, Baby, Daddy-o, Lollipop… I find it amusing that they get increasingly random. Too bad she leaves it there, before she has a chance to call him… I don’t know. “Tonka-truck” or “The Fonz” or something.

Womanizer
Woman-Woman…

Yeah yeah, moving on.

Maybe if we both lived in different worlds
(Womanizer Womanizer Womanizer Womanizer)

Wait whats the name of the song again?

It would be all good, and maybe I could be ya girl

If Britney wasn’t a pop-superstar and this guy wasn’t a douchebag, maybe they could have been happy together. Either that or the ‘different worlds’ thing is literal. “If only you lived on Pluto and I was on Krypton… we just might make this work.” Of course, long distance relationships present their own challenges as well. She didn’t think of that.

But I can’t ’cause we don’t

Her logic is flawless.

You…

Womanizer
Woman-Womanizer
You’re a womanizer
Oh Womanizer
Oh You’re a Womanizer Baby
You, You You Are
You, You You Are
Womanizer, Womanizer, Womanizer

I suspect her opinion of this dude is basically that he is a womanizer. What do you think?

The moral of the story is that if you want a shot with Britney Spears, don’t be a womanizer. Because she doesn’t appreciate men taking such a cynical view of women. Miss Spears is not a sex object! She is a thinking, feeling person that demands to be taken seriously and treated with respect. As evidence she submits:

Why is it Britney’s curse to attract only these womanizing fiends! Why won’t these men respect her and treat her as more than just a piece of meat. What is it about her that gives them cause to disrespect and demean her? Is it the writhing sweaty and naked? The cooking in lingerie? Sitting on a photocopier? What?

This video is, in short, completely fucked. Britney Spears has no time for a womanizer, however the music video presents her as a sex object and/or in a variety of roles where she is subservient to men: domestic caregiver, waitress, secretary, driver. She is the stereotypical sex object / mother, that not only has to satisfy the man’s sexual desires, but at the same time look after him. What else does this achieve apart from INVITING a womanizer to start paying her attention?

We are supposed to be blown away by the clever twist: Britney is just PLAYING at being the sex object. In fact this little game of cat-and-mouse is about to take a turn, and SHE will be the one pursuing him, not the other way around.

This seems to be fairly typical of the way modern women are portrayed today. Check out Britney’s contemporaries or an episode of Sex And The City for more on the 21st Century liberated female. Feminism in the modern sense is a sad perversion of the original ideas behind the movement. At some point women escaped from their cages, and instead of building a better world they set about torturing their captors. Equality between the sexes should be about mutual respect and striving for high standards. The “equality” of it being socially acceptable for women to behave every bit as vulgar and predatory as the men who were oppressing them, was not meant to be the plan, girls and ultimately it just demeans you further. The behaviour of men was supposed to improve but since it didn’t the next best option was to sink to their level? To empower yourselves only by disempowering others? How sad.

Britney would probably call herself a feminist but judging by the video, if not the song, her idea of equality is for EVERYBODY to be treated as badly as each other, so that no one has any value other than as a sex object. Throw the video out and stick with the music. It’s badly written and dumb and lacking anything other than a single brief point: don’t be a womanizer. But maybe that’s enough. Let’s take that and go with it, however ridiculously hypocritical it sounds.

Stay tuned.

I’m a Doctor Who fan from waaaay back. From childhood; long before I understood what it meant to be a ‘fan’. And long before it was fashionable again. I was a fan back in the 80s and 90s when the show was forgotten by many and idolised by only a small group (made up almost exclusively of dyed-in-the-wool nerds and gays for some reason). To now be able to admit my love for the program without feeling deeply embarrassed is something that even after several years I am still getting used to. Given how much of an obsession the show has been for me over the years, it occurs to me that I haven’t spent a great deal of time talking about it on this blog. So if you’ll endulge me, that’s about to change for a little while. I want to put a hold on my Disney reviews (to return at a later date) and look back over the recent years of Who. With a new Doctor, new assistant and new executive producer all due next year, we’re coming to something of the end of an era and I’d like to mark it by rewatching the last four seasons of the show and sharing my thoughts. Many of these episodes I wrote on at length when they first aired but I daresay hindsight has given me a few new opinions and in any case my original reviews are long since lost. If anything you read here seems overly negative, it’s probably just because it’s much easier to talk about what is wrong with something than what is right with it. And if you have no interest in Doctor Who, then I offer my apologies and a promise that if you come back later I will no doubt be talking about something completely different at some point.

Season One – Episode One

Rose (by Russell T Davies)

While a mysterious doctor takes on the threat of an army of shop window dummies come to life, shopgirl Rose Tyler takes on the mystery of the Doctor.

2005! It seems like only yesterday. I remember when the return of Doctor Who was first announced and we waited an agonising 18 months from that first announcement to the airing of the program. When “Rose” leaked onto the internet a full three weeks ahead of its intended airdate, it was like a miracle orchestrated solely to stop me from exploding. And then I saw it… Maybe 18 months is too long to be hyping up anything in your mind. I liked it. But I was also mildly disappointed.

In one way, it is absolutely the perfect opening episode. A direct continuation of the classic series, yet a perfect jumping on point for new fans, “Rose” wisely plays out without making the assumption that anybody watching actually remembers who or what Doctor Who is. By setting the show in present-day London and keeping the focus firmly on an everyman character, the audience is given a jumping on point and a protagonist they can relate to. Making the identity of the Doctor the mystery that drives the narrative, and having the audience share Rose’s journey of discovery is a very clever way of easing the audience from the everyday slowly into the more fantastical elements of the program. In this respect you can’t fault the approach (though you could possibly fault the repetition Davies displays when he launches both the Torchwood and Sarah Jane spin-offs in identical fashion). And yet it’s not without it’s faults.

For one thing, “Rose” is not one of the most rewatchable episodes. Once you’re familiar with the show and you know who the Doctor is, watching Rose’s investigation is pretty redundant. It’s still fun to watch her be drawn into this world, but to take up an entire forty minute episode at the expense of an actual adventure is a pity; especially as quite an interesting adventure seems to be going on just outside the boundary of our tv screens. We only see glimpses of the Doctor’s battle against the Autons, culminating in a climax designed to showcase Rose’s suitability as an assistant, rather than the Doctor’s impressiveness as the hero of the show (a recurring problem this season, actually). The Autons are such iconic monsters whose potential is largely wasted here. The Doctor asks us to imagine the terror of all the plastic in the world coming to life, and the possibility of being attacked by everyday items such as telephones. And imagine we must because all we get here is some mannequins doing “the robot” in a London street. On the one hand I can see the logic of it. As the Autons are already recurring villains of the classic series, anybody who is really that bothered about seeing more of them can just go back and rewatch the old episodes. Better to shortchange a monster whose day has come and gone than to invent a new villain just to instantly dispatch it. All the same I feel there is wasted potential here. The Autons only made two appearances in the classic series so they are hardly played out, and the idea of them has more mileage than we’ve seen thus far. That the new series brought them back as the very first monster and then didn’t exploit them to their full potential is a letdown. That the show has now had four full seasons to revisit them again and hasn’t is a bit of salt in the wound. Ah well.

The other problem with the episode is the uneven tone. Parts of it are brilliant and come off like a very competent fantasy drama. And some of it seems to have been inspired by an episode of Power Rangers. Disembodied hands doing comedy strangling routines, burping wheelie bins eating people, and a headless plastic assassin crashing its way through a restaurant like a drunken, headless Frankenstein. I’m inclined to excuse it because it is so very early in the run and the trend does not really continue. It can never be easy to find your way with a brand new show, and tone was no doubt one of the many things that got tweaked as it went along. Here, it screams “kids show!” in the worst way several times and I remember the old embarrassment creeping back when it first debuted. Here I was expecting a twenty first century take on the old program and instead it seemed to have devolved from something that was a bit rubbish by accident to something that was a bit rubbish on purpose. That may seem harsh, but after twenty years of being ridiculed for my taste in tv I was ready to move onward and upward. Luckily I was overreacting. Watching it back now, there are definitely moments of awkwardness, but its not all that bad. I can watch it now and just enjoy it for what it is.

As for the performances, they are mostly very good. The exception amongst the guest cast is Noel Clarke as Mickey, whose pantomimesque approach to his (admittedly written-for-laughs) character seems out of place with what everyone else is doing. Billie Piper is shockingly good as Rose, instantly silencing the critics who kept insisting she had been cast only to create headlines and that she could not act. No one, on the other hand, doubted that Christopher Eccelston could act and yet he’s a very odd choice for the part of the Doctor. Best known for his dark, brooding characters, we wondered exactly what he would do with the part. His short cropped hair and low-key – decidedly UNdoctorish – attire suggested a very serious take on the character, and yet he’s quite light and fun in this with quite a few comedy moments. When he has to ‘go serious’ his talent really shines, but there was no need to worry about a lack of range. This is not going to be the dark, gritty take on the show that some supposed it might be.

Overall the episode is good, but a couple of moments really shine; none more so than the sequence in which Rose enters the TARDIS for the first time. It’s executed perfectly, the way we stay outside as she hops in then immediately hops back out and walks all the way around it. We follow her in the second time and as she crosses the threshhold into the huge interior we really feel her disjointed sense of disbelief and astonishment. It’s one of those rare moments in tv when the audience momentarily becomes one with the character, and no matter how many times I see it, it continues to impress.

By contrast there are some really odd things going on in the ‘lair’ sequence at the end of the episode, and it has to be a perfect storm of inept direction and dumb writing. The Doctor is grabbed by Autons and then seems to struggle limply for about ten minutes as we repeatedly cut away to other things and then back again. It’s almost comical that we just get shot after shot of him standing there being held while nothing really happens. The Nestene’s underground hideout is liberally peppered with devices that spout large flames. For some reason. What’s the fire all about? It doesn’t seem to serve any purpose. I can’t even tell where it’s coming from. In several shots it looks exactly like it’s shooting out of those devices that they use to shoot flames out of in tv and film; only normally you position the camera so that you only see the flames and not the rig they are coming from. Some of this literally looks like the location was dressed with flame machines and then they put the cameras in the wrong place and filmed them instead of keeping them out of shot. That is more than likely NOT what happened, but it’s the first thing that springs to my mind when I see it. Another weird moment has the stairs leading out of the lair collapse for no apparent reason right at the moment when Rose should be using them to escape. She even yells “The stairs have gone” because you can’t work out that’s what’s supposed to have happened. It’s got to be a post-production insert, after they realised that there’s no good reason for Rose not to have escaped at that point, but the execution just draws attention to how poorly done it is, rather than cover up a narrative oversight. After the Nestene is poisoned, explosions break out all over the lair, for some reason, setting fire to the… pipes and concrete? I really have no idea what is going on in this scene. Clearly they just wanted a big finish and the sheer breathless momentum more or less carries you through it without giving you enough time to think about it, but in hindsight it really is pretty silly and caps off a scene riddled with problems.

On the whole though “Rose” is a good start to the season, if a little low key and with some odd beats to it. At times it threatens to break down into something very silly but it holds together okay in the end. If it fails to completely hold my attention now, it is simply that the show got much better pretty quickly, and this opener now has to compete with those later, more competent episodes. A lot of my issues with it can be put down to teething problems, and I suspect that the director – Keith Boak – is part of the problem. There are noticable (if small) hiccups in too many aspects of the production. It surely can’t be a coincidence that the other episodes that he directed as part of this same production block have similar issues going on, and that following this initial block, he was not invited back to direct again. In “Rose” the new series shows promise, along with a few stumbles. All par for the course with a new show. It’s all up from here.

NEXT TIME… The End of the World!

My heart is breaking but at least it’s in great shape.

I finally had my appointment with my cardiologist today (regular readers will remember the gloomy blog I typed as I thought I was dying, now some months ago). Apparently I’m in great shape. The “incident” was caused by one of two things (neither serious) and should the problem recur (it might not) it isn’t life threatening. Basically I went in a little bit worried and came out feeling very positive. I can now stop worrying about my heart and get back to killing my liver.

Speaking of matters of the heart, I did something very difficult and upsetting today. I broke up with a friend. We have been best buds for years but things change and things happen, and I decided I could not be friends with my friend anymore. I sent her an email giving her the ol’ heave ho, and while I didn’t agonise over it too much as I sent it (I have legitimate reasons to feel that the friendship is over) I’ve thought about little else for the rest of the day. My email was not mean or abusive, but it was not classy. I like to think I can take the high road and be mature, but in hindsight my email was less about making me feel better and more about making her feel worse. That’ll show her right? Right?

Now all I want to do is take it back, but you can’t take these things back. You can’t even say sorry and assume that all will be forgiven. She tried that and it didn’t work for her, so why should it work for me. Anyway, ending the relationship is the right thing for me to do right now. I’m sorry it had to happen, but I’m not sorry I did it. I’m just sorry I did it like a jackass. I kind of hope that she reads this and she knows that if I hurt her, I’m sorry. But I’m not going to get in touch and say it. We’ve messed with each others’ heads too much already. I’ve got to just let it go.

At least a quiet night at home will relax me…. except I’m pretty sure my dog is dying. Not Steve French (the horse-sized pup) but rather his surrogate father Snoop. I found him laying in the dark, in the wet grass and he wouldnt get up. I’ve put him to bed but he won’t eat or move at all. He just lays there looking at me. I don’t think he’s in pain but I can’t tell.

It started well but this has not turned out to be the best day ever.

If I just didn’t mention it, people totally wouldn’t notice that there isn’t a joke here. Damn!

FANTASIA

Fantasia is … weird. Just a flat out odd idea for a movie. Not like any other Disney film (uh… well except Fantasia 2000 I guess) and not really like any other film I’ve seen ever, it eschews a film premise all together in favour of giving the audience a multimedia concert-going experience. The execution is vaguely awkward at times but it’s also kind of charming, and while it took a while to win me over, I ended up enjoying it. I came very close to excluding this from my marathon on the basis that it wasn’t a “proper” movie, but I’m glad I didn’t. Whether I would personally enjoy it or not, its an important piece of Disney output; wildly experimental, as well as the first (and one of few) Disney features to include that most disneyesque of elements, Mickey Mouse. Oh and as it turned out I enjoyed it just fine. So, bonus.

Synopsis:

In live action, an orchestra assembles. Then the host takes the stage and addresses the film audience directly. “Welcome to this weird-ass idea we had the other night when we got high. We’ve picked some popular pieces of classical music to which we have animated some cute animals dancing. We tricked you in here with some clips of Mickey Mouse and now we have locked the doors and we’re going to learn your dumb asses some cultural appreciation whether you like it or not!”

The orchestra looms large in silhouette. Dozens of shadowy figures play their various instruments. Is Alfred Hitchcock hidden among them, perhaps tingling a very suspenseful triangle?Random colours and shapes dance and throb in time to the music. Flowers come to life and wheel about. Fairies do whatever the hell fairies do. Mickey Mouse takes up witchcraft and drowns himself. Life evolves on Earth, then dies; better luck next time. Some half-horse half-lady ladies get it on with some half-horse half-dude dudes and then everybody gets drunk and the Gods try to electrocute them or something (is it bestiality if instead of one whole person getting it on with one whole horse, you have two half/halfs getting it on? I demand answers Disney!). A menagerie has a dance-fight. Satan holds a late night dance party but then wusses out and is scared off by daylight or faith or something, who cares. THE END

Huh.

Source Material:

Not applicable? This isn’t really adapted from anything but then on the other hand it’s kind of adapted from everything. Segments draw inspiration from nature, life sciences, ballet, mythology, religion and the music itself.

In spite of knowing absolutely nothing about classical music, I found to my surprise that I recognised many of the features pieces – they’ve been used over and over for various movies, ads, etc.

For content this thing really runs the gamut, jumping from random fantasy settings, to the dinosaurs, to traditional funny Disneylike animals, to ancient greek myth. It really was a bit of a potpourri but totally in a good way.

In Conclusion:

I had Fantasia on VHS when I was a kid but I didn’t have the patience for it. I don’t think it’s dated or anything, it’s just the sort of project that isn’t going to have universal appeal. The animation itself is bound to enchant toddlers and the music is very pleasant and soothing. It’s probably the perfect thing to sit your kids down with when you want them to start winding down for bed. I can see littlies happily nodding off to it. As for adult appeal? Yes some. I think if you have an appreciation of animation as a form, or classical music (or both) this is probably something you could pass the time with. On the other hand a lot of people just aren’t going to get it, and wander off from boredom.

Personally I was surprised by how much I liked it. I saw it under less than ideal conditions (the copy I managed to obtain was fussy and the sound was very soft), and of all the Disney films not currently available on DVD, this is the one I want to get a hold of and crank it on a home theatre system.

While I mostly liked it, a couple of bits jarred and they were all during the live action parts of the movie. Before each segment, the Host introduces the piece of music and talks a little bit about it and the accompanying animation. While these intros are insightful and conducive to maximum appreciation of the piece they also come across as condescending in places; as though the movie feels the viewer will be completely confused by the alien sights and sounds they are about to behold unless every little thing is spelled out for them in advance. Probably this is in consideration of any kids watching, but it spoils any suspense that you might have regarding what is coming up next. While each segment narrates a story of sorts, we already know what every element of the story will be before we see it. The couple of times they were vague about what was coming up turned out to be the segments I enjoyed the most, because there was an element of anticipation and surprise.

During one segment-introduction, the Host is interrupted by a musician who has an accident with his instrument and needs help putting the bits back together. This was an attempt to give the audience a genuine music hall experience? It just comes off as random and staged.

I wonder what general reaction to Fantasia was at the time? Wikipedia tells me that it wasn’t commercially successful but I wonder if it was also the Harry Potter of its day; if the religious right came out in force against the film for promoting things not suitable for children? Magic, devilry, sex, alcohol use, the science of evolution, interracial relationships for horses, nipples, culture, learning things… the list goes on. I’m genuinely curious as to whether the film caused a stir for its content – which is occasionally racy by Disney standards. Maybe they felt they could get away with it because it wasn’t a traditional film, that you could justify the content as “art”. Then again, maybe these sorts of complaints didn’t get a look in compared to the people crying out that it wasn’t as entertaining as Snow White, that it was too experimental, that Disney had jumped the shark (can you do that pre-Fonzie?).

The best known segment is Mickey Mouse as the sorcerer’s apprentice, but aside from the first couple which were unfocused and eschewed narrative in favour of random artsiness, I liked them all. The dinosaur thing was very cool and probably a first for its time – dinosaurs had been seen in movies before but the sheer number of species, their interaction and their ultimate fate is (I imagine) ambitious by the standards of the day. My favourite segment was Mt Olympus; mainly because I found it surprisingly provocative for a Disney film. The female centaurs are first seen topless, frolicking in a stream. They are nipple-free but very clearly endowed with breasts. I assumed the lack of areola was the animators attempt to say “We consider these creatures to be animals and therefore it is not nudity” but when male creatures show up, they put bikinis on as if to hide their shame, which blows that idea out of the water. The male and female centaurs then engage in some very obvious coupling; at one point cherubs draw a curtain over a pair, so that they can fool around without being observed by the audience. One randy cherub then pokes his head through the curtain and watches the fornication denied to the rest of us. As he leans forward his asscheeks form the shape of a loveheart, as though he is literally daring the audience to draw the connection between what we are being allowed to see, and the much more provocative undertones being not so subtley suggested. Ooh la la. I noticed several instances of subliminal sexual imagery during this same segment – for example, Bacchus (God of wine) on his way to host a party of beautiful female creatures, rides a tiny unicorn whose head pokes out from between his legs, its horn standing in symbolically for the God’s erection. At least that’s MY interpretation (and I have an Arts degree, people. I know about these things!)

In a much grislier final segment, when Satan’s minions dance about, the animators go for broke and put some honest to god real nipples on some devil ladies, and damn the consequences! Bless those brave animators; they were lined up and shot the next day, but their brave stand was the first step towards me having the legal right to stream dirty dirty porno on my computer at work, and their sacrifice will not soon be forgotten! Or something.

All sexiness aside (what else did you assume I’d focus on!) Fantasia is a weirdly wonderful experiment in bringing culture to the masses. I’m not remotely surprised that it didn’t really work but it was this same kind of outside-of-the-box thinking that made and makes Disney great and important in so many respects; Fantasia is one expression of that. They were brave enough to try it again so many years later with Fantasia 2000 and while I don’t think that was commercially successful either, I hope they have the guts to keep on trying new things. I think some Fantasia-like elements in future Disney projects would be very welcome.

Nipples on Kim Possible anyone? No?