A Fun Little Disney Debate

     I was scrolling through my Facebook news feed the other day and came across a friend's post.  I saw that it had 28 comments, making it a rather popular post by most standards.  So I decided to weigh in.  The topic: "Would you consider Rapunzel from 'Tangled' as part of the main Disney Princesses?"  The discussion contained opinions varying from yes to no to well.... maybe.....  Now I know this is a break in the norm and probably a "girly" thing to blog about, but what kid who grew up on Disney movies in the late 80's and 90's when they were releasing classic after classic wouldn't be able to weigh in at length on this issue. So without further ado...
      Here's my direct quote from the conversation on Facebook regarding the issue.  The post began in response to Princess and the Frog not being a must-see Disney Movie like Pocahontas, Little Mermaid, and Beauty and the Beast.
     "Pocahontas is not a must see movie.  It was supposed to be the "A" movie and Lion King was supposed to be the "B" movie in that two year cycle, and well, Lion King is/was an instant timeless classic, Pocahontas is an entertaining film. Pocahontas IS a disney princess because while Native Americans might not have had the same notion of royalty as the English did, she was the daughter of the chief, so the princess of the tribe so to speak. Mulan also should be included because she did marry into royalty, Diana and Kate Middleton were not princesses but then after they got married, look who's got a title! Also, Mulan is included for EO purposes as is Tiana. In a main press release for the Princess and the Frog, Disney spokespeople pretty much said that Princess and the Frog was being made to finally give African American girls a Disney Princess to look up to. Here's the issue with Rapunzel, while from a story standpoint, she was awesome and the movie was everything a Disney movie should be, there's one problem, its computer animated. It's not a classicly animated movie like Snow White etc or even Aladdin and Little Mermaid. It's also not a Disney/Pixar movie. So, it's in Disney limbo with the likes of Chicken Little and Meet the Robinsons. Yes, Tangled probably is Disney's best solo computer animated movie to date, but including Rapunzel in the group of Disney princesses blurs the lines a little bit. Tough call!"
       It was pointed out to me that Mulan did in fact marry a general, not a prince, however, one can still make the argument that in that time period generals were practically royalty.  So there!  

Official Disney Princesses

     Here's the official rundown of Disney Princesses, according to Wikipedia. Enjoy!
     For those of you who don't want to take the time to read it.  Let's summarize.  There are six original Disney Princess: Snow White, Aurora (Sleeping Beauty), Cinderella, Jasmine, Ariel, and Belle.  They were eventually joined by Pocahontas, Mulan, Tiana, and Rapunzel.  So there you have it, Rapunzel is an Official Disney Princess.  However, it's interesting that Rapunzel is portrayed in the Official Photo in traditional animated fashion as opposed to the computer animated character we see in the movie.  Which is an interesting way to include her.  What happened to accepting people as they are!  Okay, perhaps that's taking things a bit far.  
     The list of princesses also has "unofficial princesses" which include Alice, Tinkerbell, Giselle, Kida, Megara, Sofia, and Kairi.  Let's break this down.  Alice is not a princess, she's a little girl who fell down a Rabbit hole.  Now if she had married the Queen of Hearts' son then yes, she would be, but she didn't, so she's not.  Tinkerbell could be included, she's sparkly and the little girls love her but there's no royal attachment so sorry Tink, we don't believe in fairies.  Even according to Disney Giselle can't be included because they would have to pay royalties to Amy Adams for her likeness to include her.  However, if they changed Rapunzel to a hand-drawn version why not use the hand-drawn Giselle which looks very little like Amy Adams?  Oh well, too bad, she was probably the closest to a sure thing.  Kida (Kida who? Exactly) is from Atlantis: The Lost Empire.  More like The Lost Disney Movie, moving on. Megara is in a tight spot, one could argue that she is a Princess by being "the princess of evil" by virtue of being Hades' little drone.  But doesn't that make her a bad guy even though she becomes good at the end.  So, we'll withhold judgment.  Sofia is apparently an upcoming Disney character that will appeal to Pre-Schoolers.  So no, not allowed. Finally, this brings us to Kairi, whom some of you may never have heard of.  She was the main heroine, or rather, damsel in distress in the Kingdom Hearts video game series which is Final Fantasy meets Disney (a thrilling series for anyone to play).  By virtue of not being in a Disney movie she cannot be realistically included.  

     There is one problem with the list of "unofficial princesses," it practically includes every leading lady in every Disney movie except for Esmeralda from The Hunchback of Notre Dame and Jane Porter from Tarzan.  Now, if you do a Google search for Disney Princesses there are a few pictures that will include these two.  And why not? If the unofficial list includes everyone else it should certainly include these two.  Esmeralda could be called the "Gypsy Princess" and Jane marries Tarzan who is the "King of the Jungle" making Jane the Queen, which makes her possibly better than the rest!(?)  Also, what about Lilo?  She's popular, she's Hawaiian so she furthers the diversity, but she's too young (so is Alice), she's also not at all attached to royalty, so she's out, sorry.
     One of the arguments made on the original Facebook debate was "can we include Nala, she married royalty?"  NO!  Don't get me wrong, The Lion King is my favorite Disney movie, if not my favorite movie of all time.  But the thing is, you can't start including animals in the list, then you have to open it up to Lady from Lady and the Tramp, Maid Marian from Robin Hood, any of the girl cats from the Aristocats, Bianca from the Rescuers, and Neera from Dinosaur.  See, it gets a little ridiculous to include the animal characters.  Yes, they're cute and cuddly, but come on.  Try and imagine a picture of the six original princesses standing next to a dinosaur, a lion, a few cats and dogs, and a fox in a dress?  Again, I'm not saying these movies are bad, I loved Robin Hood growing up, but Disney's adaptation of Maid Marian should not be included in the official list.
     But, what are the rules regarding what qualifies a Disney Princess as a Disney Princess?  Well, first of all, they have to be a Disney character, obviously.  They have to have a starring role as the heroine or the love interest of the hero.  They have to have a connection to royalty, although as we've outlined above this isn't so much a necessity as a preference.  They have to be human, sorry Nala, that's the Circle of Life. Finally, they can't be from a straight to video sequel, sorry Melody (Ariel's daughter). So there you go, Disney Princesses: Snow White, Cinderella, Aurora, Belle, Ariel, Jasmine, Mulan, Pocahontas, Tiana, and finally and most recently, Rapunzel.  
    Granted, these are my assumed rules for what qualifies as a Disney Princess as opposed to the official rules.  The Disney Princess line was established 1999 as a way to increase revenue for the Walt Disney Corporation.  It was started after a Disney exec attended a Disney on Ice event and realized that a bunch of little girls wearing generic princess costumes.  But now, they can where officially licensed Disney Princess apparel that they purchased for twice as much.  But it's the memory that counts.
     And for those of you who can't get enough Disney Princess, here is a link to their OFFICIAL page!

Mets Off-Season Recap (So Far)

I was taught from a young age, if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all....

SAY IT AIN'T SO!!!!!

Well... Jose Reyes is a Marlin...

Why?
 
This is why:

Well, best of luck in Miami Jose.  I hope you enjoy playing in front of the Marlins fan.

The Future of Jose Reyes

     Sunday, August 7th, 2011, it's early in the game when Jose Reyes leaves the game with pain in his left hamstring. An MRI later would reveal that it is a strain in the hamstring, which is the same injury that kept Reyes out of the lineup for several weeks back around the All-Star Game. Later in the game second basemen Daniel Murphy was taken out with a leg injury and will miss the rest of the season. Monday, both players were put on the 15-day Disabled List leaving Mets fans worried about the rest of their season, not to mention Jose Reyes's MVP caliber season. At the time of this post the Mets are 58-57, 17 games back in the division and 8.5 back for the Wild Card. In a season that has been plagued my injuries (ace Johan Santana out for the year, Ike Davis out since May, David Wright missed significant time in May, Angel Pagan missed time, Reyes in July, and now Reyes and Murphy) I think it's safe to say that the Mets aren't catching the Phillies for the NL East. Though, as 2007 and 2008 told us, anything can happen. But, if the Braves, Cardinals, and Diamondbacks start losing and the Mets keep finding ways to win, it's not impossible to think that the Mets have an shot at the Wild Card (although an outside chance). So, unless by some miracle the Mets make the postseason, the absence of Reyes and Murphy doesn't matter a whole lot as far as this year is concerned. But what about next year?

     There has been a lot of talk regarding Reyes's upcoming free agency. Earlier this season Mets' owner Fred Wilpon bashed Reyes claiming that "he thinks he'll get Carl Crawford money, he won't," referring to the 7-year $142 million contract the outfielder signed with Boston this past offseason. Reyes, by many accounts, is arguably the best leadoff hitter and best defensive shortstop in the game. He is the catalyst to the Mets offense, from 2005-2008 when Jose Reyes scored the Mets had a record of 237-98. He's currently leading the majors in triples (16), 6th in hits (144), tied for 4th in steals (34 with 7 Caught Stealing), and 3rd in Batting Average (.336). Who wouldn't want those numbers out of their leadoff spot? A lot of teams... Reyes has been hampered by injuries since his call up back in 2003. Despite playing 161 games in 2005, 160 in 2007, and 159 in 2008, Reyes played only 36 games in 2009, and was out of the lineup in 29 games last season, with the aforementioned two DL stints this year. So the issue remains, will teams take a risk on a player of Reyes's caliber despite the injury issues? Mets fans hope not.

     Jose Reyes is arguably the most exciting player in the majors, and one of the few things Mets fans have had to cheer about since... well... this.  Despite cries from fans that the Mets should "dump everyone and just start over," I daresay that the majority of Mets fans would like to see #7 finish his career in blue and orange.  But there are many factors that may or may not make this a reality.  The first, and most important is $MONEY$.  With the MVP caliber season Reyes is having its realistic that he will become the next $100 million dollar player.  It's also no secret that the Mets have had their fair share of financial issues over the past year, perhaps only to be outdone by the Dodgers.  So the question is, can the Mets afford Reyes?  Thanks to about $50 million or more coming off the books this year with the expiration of the Oliver Perez, Luis Castillo, Carlos Beltran, and Frankie Rodriguez contracts in addition to the recent acquisition of minority owner David Einhorn's $200 million investment (not to mention his deep, deep pockets), it seems possible that the Mets could afford to pay their shortstop.  The second factor (more an addendum to the first) is that of loyalty.  Reyes said earlier this season that he will not give the Mets a "hometown discount."  Well... that sucks.  But perhaps he'll change his mind.  He already spurned super agent Scott Boras's offer to represent him out of loyalty to his current agent Peter E. Greenberg and Associates.  Which is good for many reasons 1) Reyes decided to stick with the agency that gave him a chance at 16 when he first signed with the Mets (perhaps he will stick with the team who gave him a chance at 16), 2) Reyes is the godfather of one of Greenberg's children and Greenberg is the godfather of one of Reyes's children, imagine the awkward conversations that would present.  The third factor is timing.  In June Reyes said he would not talk about a new contract with the Mets until the end of the season.  This can be seen as good and bad.  The bad is, maybe he doesn't want to re-sign with the Mets, maybe he wants to leave the only organization he's ever played for.  The good is, he said this to prevent any mental strain throughout the season (out of loyalty to his team), many players have done this (see Pujols, Albert). Also, the timing of the injuries may have scared a lot of teams (Giants, Red Sox, Angels) away from trying to sign Reyes meaning a return to the Mets looks better and better every day.

     Thankfully, with 47 regular season games left in addition to the postseason, it will be at least another two months before Mets fans have to seriously worry about the future of their superstar shortstop.  But let's hope the Mets front office does the right thing (for once) and prevents this from becoming this.   

Welcome Back!

So... it's been a while since I last posted anything... my bad! But we're back in action and making another attempt at keeping this thing moving!!! So keep an eye out for my latest rants and raves!!!

Why the little things shouldn't bother you

     One of my favorite television shows is The Big Bang Theory.  The theme song is written by Barenaked Ladies which is one of my favorite bands.  For the longest time I could not find the song on iTunes which was very frustrating because it's a catchy little jingle and I wanted it.  Well somehow I managed to find it a week or so ago and have been listening to it a lot, to the point where I've memorized every word.



     And the part in the song that goes "it's expanding ever outward but one day, it will cause the stars to go the other way..." is just mind boggling.  First of all, if space is expanding, what's it expanding into?  If the universe didn't exist before the big bang what was there before?  Assuming that whatever was there before is what the universe is expanding into then that sort of answers one of our questions.  But still, what is it?!  The other question that arises is, if it will suddenly stop expanding and stop contracting, why?  Will it hit a wall?  A wall in space where it can't go any further?  Whats the wall attached to?  Is it really a big gigantic building another bigger universe (sort of end of Men In Black style)?  Baffling.

     All this thinking reminded me of reading the first chapter of my Intro to Astronomy textbook my freshman year of college.  In this chapter it explored the creation and expansion of the universe and how planets formed and how starts formed and died.  Also, that looking into space is really like looking back in time because of the speed of light.  That what you see in space is not whats currently out there.  A star you see now could have died years ago but the light of it not being there hasn't reached us yet.  One really mind blowing piece of trivia is that even with a strong enough telescope (that doesn't currently exist) that because of the speed of light, it is impossible to see past the center of the universe.  This is because the light from the other side of the center of the universe has not yet reached us and because of the rate of expansion of the universe based on the speed of light it never will.  So theoretically, you could witness the big bang occurring with a strong enough telescope but nothing on the other side of the center of the universe because it... hasn't... happened.... yet. WHAT?!?!  I know, ridiculous.

     Really makes you think about the possibility of life on other planets.  Because let's be honest, why would there be billions of stars which each have dozens or more planets revolving around it, and our little blue sphere be the only one that can support life?  And if it is... then why are we so special?  But even if we are the only living planet in the universe what purpose do we have?  What purpose do I as an individual have?  Why does one little argument I have with a friend or family member upset me for so long when really in the grand scheme of things it really doesn't matter!  Now I'm not saying this to make you go "WHOA! Life is unimportant I'm going to drop out of school or quit my job and just do whatever because nothing matters!"

     No that's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that the next time you break a plate on the floor, or have an argument with someone close to you, or fail a test, or whatever minuscule problem that isn't life threatening to not sweat it.  Don't worry about it!  You can get over it quickly enough and move on with the rest of your life and it won't mean a thing.  By the time you're 35 you won't remember that math test you failed all the way back in 4th grade.  And how many times did you have an argument with a friend and you were mad at them for weeks and then when you finally talk to them again neither of you can remember why you're fighting.  DUH!  Don't let little things like that wear on you.  It's not worth the aggravation and stress!  Just walk around and take everything in stride with your head held high and a smile on your face.  That's my lecture for the day.  Take it or leave it.  It's just something to think about, and quite mind boggling if you take the time to really do it.

      Before I leave you, let me show you one of my favorite clips from The Big Bang Theory (it's the least I could do after embedding the theme song):

Finally Found a Problem

     After three years my beloved PlayStation 3 kicked the bucket (much to the pleasure of my XBox 360 owning friends).  My system happened to be in the less than half of one percent of the systems out there to receive the YLOD, or Yellow Light of Death.  The YLOD is considered the PS3 equivalent of the 360's Red Ring of Death (RROD).  For those of you unfamiliar with what the YLOD looks like, there's a standby/power light on the front of the system.  Standby is red, power on is green.  Mine would go from red, to green for a second then beep three times, turn yellow, and blink red until you turned off the system.  Uh-oh.  After much Googling I determined it was mostly hopeless.  Apparently this is caused by long term overheating and it melts away the solder on the GPU and/or the CPU chip on the motherboard.  I tried a few "safe" tricks to try and revive my system but nothing worked and I'm nowhere near competent enough to try and solder the chips back into place.  Worst of all, I had a game stuck in there (NBA 2K11, in case you were wondering).  So now what?

     Sony's policy is that their systems are perfect and never break and they will vehemently deny that the YLOD or the problem it's caused by exist.  Interesting, considering that they are the ones that would have had to program the system to show the yellow light in the first place.  But here's where it really sucks.  Unlike Microsoft who decided that since so many systems were dropping like flies all the time and therefore have a more or less free replacement service (plus you keep your hard drive) Sony... doesn't.  Sony apparently makes you pay upwards of $150 to ship your system back in its entirety (wires and all) and then they send you a refurbished system instead of fixing yours.  And if you have a game stuck inside it?  You can get it back... after months of phone calls and emails and begging.  This is all according to the online forums and previous PS3 owner's experiences.  I decided that I would just avoid the headache and put my 80gb system to sleep and go buy a new one. 

     I went out and purchased a brand new 250 gb PS3 Slim (I wanted the 320gb but Target was all out and everywhere else was closed and I didn't want to wait).  It was the Toy Story bundle which was kind of cool.  I got the first two movies on Blu Ray which went to the family and then I kept the Toy Story 3 game.  Now that I officially had a new PS3 I didn't have to worry about what I did to or with the old one.  I needed to get my game out of the console which meant surgery.  I peeled back the "do not peel" sticker that violates your one year warranty (of a three year old system - I think I'm safe) and took the system apart.  It was kind of cool and I meant to take pictures to show you but I couldn't find my camera (sorry).  The disk drive was staring me in the face and after I unplugged it from the motherboard I could see that further unscrewing would be needed.  I removed the necessary screws and opened the first case.  Now I could see part of my disc, but it was still under another inner shell.  Once again I grabbed my screwdriver and four screw later I could retrieve my game!  There was only one more obstacle left.

     I then set off on the quest of trying to retrieve my saved game data from my old system and put it on my new system.  Should be easy enough right?  WRONG!  My guess was that Sony would have designed their hard drives much like XBox, where you can unplug yours from your system and put it in your friends system and play your files on his system.  Makes sense right, basically makes your hard drive a really big memory card like we had for the PS2.  So I took the hard drive out of my old system, took the hard drive out of the new system and immediately noticed something wrong.  The two hard drives were oriented in the opposite direction, one length wise and one width wise.  Not having and engineering skills at all I didn't even bother trying to see how to remedy this and set off on Plan B.  Plan B was to find a working older version PS3 that I could use to put my old hard drive in and do the easy data transfer outlined on the PS3 Slim's box.  But where to find one of those?  It helps to have a neighbor who has one.  So I gave him a call and he let me borrow his system and I took it home and was all excited and switched the hard drives and plugged it in to get the thing going and.... uh-oh.  In order to allow my hard drive to work in his system I had to format it to his system because apparently Sony didn't go the Microsoft method.  So now I have all of my information on a perfectly good hard drive forever stuck in cyber space. 

     While I still would buy a PS3 99 times out of 100 over an XBox 360 (that one other time I'm assuming that every store is out of PS3's and I don't have another choice) I am rather disappointed in Sony for taking their time to release their system in order to make it "perfect" and then still have that problem malfunction irreparably.  I'm confused as to why, when the 360 had been on the shelves for a full year before the PS3 that they didn't look at the 360 and say "wow interchangeable hard drives, there's an idea!" and do it!  So while my brand loyalty to Sony still exists, it's a little shaken.  Here's to hoping the PS4 will be even "perfecter."   

Hollywood time vs. Real World time

     Picture this... you go to bed at night and know that you need to wake up at a specific time the next morning so you set your alarm.  But you don't like the sound of the alarm so you set it to go off on your favorite radio station.  You go to sleep with no other concerns.  After a (hopefully) restful sleep your alarm clock goes off.  Now, tell me what you hear.  More than likely it's the middle of a song or the middle of the morning drive banter.  You wake up, hit snooze, and get up and go about your day.

     Now picture this.  You're watching your favorite TV show or movie, and the main character is lying in bed.  The camera focuses on the alarm clock next to their bed.  It usually says 6:29 or 7:59 or something just at the bottom or top of the hour.  And then it always flips over to the half hour or the hour and the radio goes off.  The main character wakes up to the morning DJ saying "Good Morning! It's 8 am and its a brisk Tuesday morning out there so bundle up."  When was the last time you heard a morning DJ say Good Morning in the middle of his/her show?  They certainly don't do it EVERY hour or half hour.

     People often wish their lives could be like movies: the action, the romance, the general awesomeness.  But I wish my life was like a movie so that when I set my alarm for 7:27, the morning DJ is sitting around waiting for me to wake up so he can greet me with a "Good Morning! It's 7:27..."

Quick Little Rant

     Hello again!  I realize I have more or less neglected this blog for the last (ahem) months, but I'm back!  You're just going to have to deal!  Anyway, I've been working in the seafood department at my grocery store lately and haven't been enjoying it to say the least, mood affected means no blogging (sorry about that).  But anyway, I only bring this up because there's not too many people to talk to in seafood seeing as I'm the only one that works behind the counter on my shift, so there's a lot of time to think.  And one random thought that came to mind is "why is doing a bad job considered 'sub par' and a good job 'above par?'" 
   
     Think about it!  It doesn't make sense!  I realize many words have multiple definitions and par is one of them.  But let's be honest when I say the word "par" the majority of you would more than likely think of the sport of golf.  In which case wouldn't doing a "sub par job" be the best thing you can do?  In golf if the hole is a par 4 and your goal is to shoot par (4) or under(sub) par (3 or less).  So why, when working in the real world would you want to do an "above par(?)" job, that, technically, speaking is bad. 
    
     So next time someone tells you your performance is "sub par," look at them with a smile on your face and say "thank you!"