The Grind

The Wonka era is over~ Approximately a year before Gene Wilder died, the Wonka brand was removed from its remaining products, including Nerds and the iconic Gobstoppers. While I understand the choice may have been made because the branding was believed to be obsolete (2005's "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" doing little to endear the story to new generations), I feel Nestle's marketing frequently failed to capture the magic, awe, and endearingly pragmatic cynicism the original Dahl character and his bittersweet candies encompassed.

It was never meant to BE just another candy, Nestle. Each candy was an experience unwrapped, a memory made, a Charlie and his golden ticket, fizzy lifting room, glass elevator! I remember being disappointed when I unwrapped my first Wonka bar and found nothing but plain, subpar milk chocolate inside. No nuts, no toffee, no bells, whistles, tickets, or reason to buy another. Years later, I gave Wonka another chance with Wonka's Fruit Marvels (chewy fruit truffles--whatever that meant), and I was deliiiiighted! Little, fruity bites of sweetness with a cheekily similar appearance to Turkish Delights--a more fashionable New World cousin. Discontinued 2 years later :|

Looking back on the commercials for these products, the focus is on packaging and aesthetics rather than creating a sense of awe or rich flavor. What kid is proactively thinking, "Gee, I want to eat this goji berry flavored sweet covered in fine crystalline sugar?" I don't even think that. Mixing the candies in with a mound of goji berries would've been equally aesthetic and more convincing with my brain saying, "Real fruit flavors! It's like a daily serving, but cheating!" Because that's what we do, and Mr. Candy is Dandy But Liquor is Quicker (from another favorite craftsmen Ogden Nash) Wonka is quite familiar with that reasoning! Having the White Witch roll up in her sleigh with a tin of Fruit Marvels would've been terrifying, but at the same time lend the candy a sense of magic, boldness, daring, and luxury!

I think, for a number of adblock users, the issue has never been a matter of getting something for free. The issue was negating content with inane material. I use adblock because, when I navigate to a site, I've gone there with a specific objective, and there's something I'm looking for-- But, a rampant disease on the internet is obscuring or completely diverting site content for the sake of irrelevant ads!

These are not the adorable user-created ads, such as those created by TB and Game Grumps, which enhance content I'm already enjoying and that aspire to introducing something relevant and new. When I go to a video game fan site, I don't want to be bombarded by ads for health pills! I kinda get the energy drink ads, but by no means should those be so obnoxious as to override the content--Ad video and audio should NOT cause a page to load slowly or hinder plugin performance on that page! That's crazy!

I'm fine if your ad is a video, so long as it's automatically set to 'mute'. I'm fine if your ad is brightly colored, so long as it doesn't blink; ugly is ugly, but I don't want to find out I have epilepsy for someone's pennies on the dollar. And, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES, should an ad EVER redirect to a different website. No ifs, ands, or buts, that's just downright suspicious and malicious cyber behavior that leaves me with nothing but bad impressions of the original site I navigated to~ When I type in a URL, unless there's a login restriction, I expect to be taken to that URL and only navigate away when I've VOLUNTARILY clicked something else.

I use adblocker because someone on the wrong end of things (advertisers, not content creators) got greedy, NOT because I want something for free.

It’s a hurricane, Max. Or is it a tornado? The argument boils down to a few important features and a big dose of speculation:

1) Hurricanes form over water; tornadoes over land-- Every time the player sees Max’s “vision,” the storm appears to be making landfall along the coastline. And, while we can speculate that the tornado has already hit the town on some level (hence all the crazy debris flying around in it) and is moving OUT to sea FROM land, the sun appears to be setting in the west over the water--meaning the storm is actually moving east toward the shore (as most weather patterns do across the continental U.S.). If the tornado theory is viable, the storm can be seen as moving south along the coastline, but geographically that would place the lighthouse either south of an already destroyed town or north of the college community. Per KISS (not the band, the acronym), a hurricane is more likely.

2) Hurricanes are big, but tornadoes can be big people, too-- Yes aaaaand no. The most common argument for why Max still refers to the storm as a “tornado” despite it’s enormous size is that the tornado is the product of a supercell. The formation of a supercell along the Oregon coastline? Totally possible! Yep, that’s a thing that happens anywhere in the world, gets to any sort of size, and would possibly baffle a teenage girl who’s never seen one before, si! BUT, a supercell is not the same as a tornado. As mentioned, supercells can form anywhere, but the definition of tornado still tends to limit it to land (what with it having aquatic counterparts).

3) Waterspouts can be big water tornadoes-- They’re typically less than a mile and a half in size, but this is true! If the storm is a tornadic waterspout, it would lend itself to the supernatural elements of the story: They don’t occur that often in the continental U.S. and definitely not at that size. Okay, so we’ve got our plausible plot point, right? Now what, Mr. BigStuf?

4) Now, how brilliant does Max happen to be-- Another theory tossed around the internet about why Max persists in calling what most of us would think to be a hurricane a “tornado” is just a matter of teenage ignorance. Max is presented as having never seen a hurricane before and dozing during science class, so she ends up calling it a tornado. Sure, Oregon’s more prone to tornadoes, and, as a fan of ‘B’ movies, Max would have undoubtedly seen the classic “Sharknado.” Plausible; but, Oregon sees maybe one to two tornadoes a year, most of them F0s or F1s (which are more inclined to push things over than pick things up) with the most recent one in 2013 lasting about five minutes. Also, apparently western Oregon is used to winter tornadoes with many occurring in November or December. So, if we’re assuming Max is calling the storm a “tornado” based on things she’s familiar with and a bit of ignorance, then wouldn’t the “unseasonable snow” be a normal association with cold-weather tornadoes?

Recently, a co-worker had the opportunity to see “Up” and, although he thoroughly enjoyed it, he felt that some of the film's themes were rather mature for kids. I may or may not have laughed my rear off at his discomfort, and there may have been some mocking pointing at his dismay. As I’m sure most know by now, Disney is infamous for incorporating adult-friendly fare into the kiddie fodder. However, I'll grant it to my coworker that some rather mature subjects were not played for laughs and might have been a bit much for a younger mind. That said, I decided to peruse a number of their animated films and name a few of these unquestionably heftier elements. Please, bear in mind these are typically themes not openly discussed with children until puberty, if not (sadly) later.

Pinocchio (1940)

-Alcoholism: “Candy is dandy/ but liquor is quicker” and turns you into a donkey so it seems. Disney warps a magical island of fun into a strangely unsettling lesson regarding hedonism and decadence. Most of Pinocchio's target audience were unlikely to understand the connection between brown bottles and little boys becoming literal jackasses.

-Conscience: This one may seem a little tame and random for the list; however, I’d like to put forth this general

question: How old were you when you recognized you had a conscience and could make decisions for yourself? Um hm, um hm, now, would you really be watching Pinocchio at that age if not with a younger child? Riiiiiiight.

-Child exploitation: ‘S rampant. Just watch it again. ‘S everywhere! Pinocchio essentially spends an entire film running away from shady sorts looking to exploit a naïve wooden child puppet thing for their own shady gains.

Fantasia (1940)

-Nudity: “Night on Bald Mountain” may be terrifying to the small child, what with its imps, monsters, demons, and fairy lights; thus, the small naked ladies the Big Demon's holding are easy to miss on a first watch-through. The first naked ladies a kid might see may be nipple-less, on fire, and associated with the devil. Yes, yes, I know it’s an allegorical and artistic depiction; but, this piece is about mature themes and not merit.

-Bacchanal: Speaking of which-- Who can forget drunken little Bacchus and his half nude horse ladies? No one, that’s who! One can only be grateful the MALE centaurs aren't anatomically correct; although, Disney did maintain a bit of their lustful nature as seen in the courtship sequence (and resurrected in one very nasty demise in Universal's “Harry Potter”).

-That fish… lady… it… thing: Fish… should NEVER… be sexy. End o’ story.

Dumbo (1941)

-Exploitation: Yet again. Dumbo is owned by a circus, so this particular theme is rather part-n-parcel with the setting.

-Drunken elephantitis: And so Heffalumphs are born from the alcohol-induced dreams of an underage pachyderm!

-Jim Crow (literally): The crows of “Dumbo” are an archetype heralding to the infamous “Song of the South” and quietly reiterating Disney's presence in a racially precarious time. While the debate still rages as to the positive or negative connotations of these characters, most of us were unlikely to understand this reference until we were well into high school.

Bambi (1942)

-Sexual overtones: Inevitably, every kid asks that question, “Mommy, where do babies come from?” And, for some reason, this seems to be a horrible plateau of communication for most parents; however, Bambi to the rescue! “You see, honey, the boy bunny and the girl bunny just go into the log and out pop baby bunnies!” Basically, by the end of the movie, all our favorite young male animals (dare we say “studs”) have paired up... which might have been to alleviate any questions of sexuality or how close is too close in terms of “male bonding” —Thank you, Flower.

-Death of a parent: Self-explanatory and certainly not the last time we’ll see it on this list.

Cinderella (1950)

-Violent defrocking: While I’m sure there are a number of reasons my parents never bought me this movie, I know that I’ve always hesitated to buy it myself for this particular scene. Everything’s all happy go-lucky until Cinderella walks in in a dress lovingly handcrafted by her friends… only to have it torn from her frail, yet supple, body. Sounds like a nasty case of sorority hazing, and, if there are any doubts as to the validity of this claim, think of the last time you saw a garment torn off a body. Okay, now, was the material marketed for children? Right then.

Peter Pan (1953)

-Sensuality: Thimble kisses aside, the maturity of a NUMBER of the female characters in “Pan” was a bit alarming. Disney made Peter the pimp of his own paradise where almost every gal wanted to be with him: If the mermaids weren’t fighting over him, the Chieftain’s daughter was seducing him with her “drum dance.” For a place where kids were never supposed to grow up, there was an awful lot of adult behavior from the girls.

Sleeping Beauty (1959)

-Arranged marriage: Finally! A rather tame mature theme that's more high-brow than gossip-inducing. The concept of betrothal and arranged marriage can be boiled down to a promise and is likely the easiest concept to convey on this list. Yet another reason “Sleeping Beauty” stands as a Disney classic, although formerly a slightly more obscure one.

The Jungle Book (1967)

-Sensuality: Included at the behest of a friend, it is claimed that the look the girl at the end of the film gives Mowgli is far too mature for her age. Hey, I found the “Fantasia” fish too sexy; at least this one’s human.

-Honorable mention: Man-eaters: Shere Khan and his cast of wily henchmen provide a comical and sometimes frightening introduction to the food-chain and the idea that man isn't always at the top.

The Rescuers (1977)

-Rodent U. N.: Our beloved hero and heroine meet in what is, essentially, a United Nations of mice (a similar idea appears in Amblin’s “American Tale”-- also a favorite). As a child watching this, I understood Bernard was the handyman and Miss Bianca a lady, but I had NO clue why the other mice were dressed in funny costumes. Maybe I just wasn’t as politically savvy a kid as I should’ve been.

-Child exploitation: Obvious, sad, and Medusa is one of the creepiest villains from Disney simply for being so realistic.

Oliver & Company (1988)

-Loan Sharks: If your local mobster is unavailable, why not introduce your kid to their first shakedown the family-friendly way? Fagin, a loveable hobo (not bum, vagrant, and/or homeless beggar), finds himself in a little bit of money trouble with the wrong people; and, yes, we get to enjoy watching his property destroyed and dignity crushed. Ooh, the fun!

The Little Mermaid (1989)

-Infidelity: Although it’s not blatant, it is the first time that Disney suggests (in an animated film) the hero be attracted to anyone but the heroine. Notably, this is only possible at the behest of magic—Ursula just makes herself gorgeous for the perks. “What about Peter?” (just said pe-EE-ter… like Wendy in the film-- it gets to be habit after awhile) you may ask; however, while it's true he flirted around, the whole upset of Wendy being on the island in the first place was that he intended to keep her and only her (and Tink, but Tink was totally friend-zoned and knew it).

-Impalement: Self-explanatory and made all the worse for the slightly explicit nature of it. This is not Prince Philip leaping at a dragon with a sword. This is a man realizing he has a very pointy stick and pointedly pointing it at a very large woman with the intent of causing extreme harm.

Beauty and the Beast (1991)

-Hello, High School: The amusing antics of Lumiere and the duster aside, the girls of the inn are curvaceous blond triplets that swoon over the backstabbing (literally) bad guy. Might just be me, but I'm sensing some unresolved issues here.

-Asylum: The matter of sanity and there being a special place for people lacking it is a rather lofty concept for a seven-year-old. It also doesn't help that the definition of sanity and the merits that would land a person in such institutions are still evolving and has long rendered the term “insane asylum” obsolete. This plot point was definitely meant for a savvier audience.

Aladdin (1992)

-Seduction: Jasmine purposely cozies up to Jafar and gives him a look that still makes some guys slightly uncomfortable around the collar. And with that, every little girl in America learns that if you’re confronted by a bad guy, you should cuddle up to him until the hero comes swinging in…. Any minute now…. Yep, any minute… uh, er… wait, stop, don’t take that off! Wait! ‘NO’ MEANS NO!

-Honorable mention: Slavery: The concept of a sentient person owning another sentient person typically isn't broached outside of schooling; however, Disney introduces the fundamentals of both sides of the 19th century American slavery argument rather well through the genie. By no means am I suggesting this as a prelude to “Roots,” but I think it might make interesting teaching tool for the younger set.

It had been such a long trip. The plane landed at the tiny airport in Kona that probably hadn't changed since Elvis last played Honolulu. Well, maybe the signs had changed. Next to all the warnings regarding native species, non-native species, plants, animals, and organic foodstuffs, shiny new notices demanded only so much liquid in one's carry-on luggage and threatened intimate frisking between baggage checkpoints. In the dark, beneath orange lights that lit the tarmac and white ones that flared up from the terminal, no one was inclined to be frisky or frisked, and the passengers scattered quickly.

Too young to rent a vehicle without all the extra bribery and bureaucracy that goes along with “good business”—because twelve months and a drop in insurance premiums makes all the difference—I’d scheduled a shuttle from the airport to my hotel when I'd originally booked my flight. Vouchers in hand, I'd paced the edge of the open-air market that made up the airport in the hopes of spotting a bus with the name of my shuttle service on it. Eventually, I approached a middle-aged, uniformed local who appeared to be directing passengers to various vehicles and car parks.

Radioing the shuttle service, the older woman told me they had no appointment listed for me that night. Shuffling through my vouchers, pointing out prices and dates and barcodes, I pleaded with her to simply somehow make this right. Through the frequencies of professional courtesy, sympathy, and confusion, all I could hear the woman saying was, “You're minutes from paradise, kid, and you got screwed.”

To be abroad or afield or a block from home and caught with one's pants down was a shame and disgrace in our family; it just didn't happen. My mother had soldiered us through one roadside hazard after another, and the family had traveled often enough to prepare me for situations like this. Primed for the inevitable, I had the travel agency's hotline number already programmed into my auto-dial for just such an emergency. I called and tried not to cry at yet another woman just trying to do her job. Thanks to a stupid loophole in the agency's corporate setup, they weren't responsible for the “third party attractions” they booked.

While I was desperately trying to reign in my “little Orphan Annie” persona on the phone, the local I'd approached earlier had wrangled me a shuttle. It pains me to say that I cannot remember her name to this day; but, I remember her face and its roundness and the laugh lines that clustered thickly about her mouth and eyes. To me, in all my ignorance, she embodied “Hawaiian.”

The bus driver who decided to put in a few extra hours for a small tip was named Dennis and reminded me of a cousin with the same name. Both tall, spindly black men with thin mustaches, big eyes, and roots in the big city—This Dennis was from New York, ours from Chicago. Dennis chuckled easily about abandoning the chilly winters of the Big Apple for Kona's sandy shores; my cousin had been in the Wisconsin State Penitentiary all my life.

After weeks of cajoling and a recent media release kind to my pocket, I finally saw “Phantom of the Opera” (the movie, not the musical... sadly, not the musical). The Verdict? Visuals: great; acting: good; music: fundamentally correct and iconic, buuuuuut....

And that's one major “but,” namely thanks to Gerard Butler. I'll concede he's handsome, melodramatic, dashing, and not afraid of a bit of action; but, he makes for a poor phantom. Man can't sing, and this normally wouldn't be a problem... except this is “Phantom of the Opera”! If you strip the role of its emotional baggage, the nifty cloak, and the awesome mask, you essentially get a man that has turned a novice into an operatic soprano who trumps a veteran diva with ease; you get someone with the musical grasp and prowess to do so. This being the case, can you fault me for asking whycomehowfor the Phantom sings worse than Christine, his protege?

Initially raising the point among friends, I received a multitude of responses ranging from noncanonical injury to immersion-jarring casting difficulties. While it's true the Phantom is consistently described as “disfigured” and depressingly ugly, this physical disparity doesn't appear to compromise his vocals as he's also described as having a “sublime” or “unearthly” voice. Mr. Butler's off-key singing and the occasional cracked tone suggests he's unfamiliar with his own range, much less a vocal virtuoso of any kind.

On the other hand, production of the movie “Phantom of the Opera” took well over a decade and suffered a number of casting rotations and changes. Previous potential Phantoms included Hugh Jackman, John Travolta, and Antonio Banderas, all gentlemen with rather established musical histories and significantly higher payrolls by the time filming finally began. The backing and budgetary issues plaguing the film and a frantic push to produce the movie seemed to contribute to a final decision. Butler came about with Director Joel Schumacher's recommendation—In light of that fact and the movie's overall aesthetic appeal, I truly wonder what “Phantom” would have been as strictly an updated drama adaptation of the novel. Viewing the film on mute provides an indicator yet robs acknowledgment of a vocally superior supporting cast.