100 Disney Things [003]: Once Upon a Time - Conflating Fairy Tales and Disney
100 Disney Things [003]
Focusing on a show I currently follow and enjoy - Once Upon a Time - but approaching it from a Disney angle:
Once Upon a Time - Conflating Fairy Tales and Disney
Much as I like Once Upon a Time (OUAT), what I don't particularly like is that, at times (because it's made by ABC, which is owned by Disney, which lets them use Disney trademarks) it reinforces the view that the Disney version of the fairy tale is the monolithic "official" version of the fairy tale. For example, it's hard to imagine the "little mermaid" being named anything other than Ariel and having bright red hair. Or it's hard to think of "Snow White" without thinking of her red, yellow, and blue outfit from the Disney version.
Ironically enough, though, the Snow White in OUAT is the one who departs the most (at least visually) from her Disney counterpart, so that's not an issue here. There are some things, though, that conflate Disney-specific fairy tale additions with elements from the original fairy tale...
1) Jiminy Cricket: There is a cricket in Pinocchio but it is not named Jiminy Cricket. That's unique to the Disney movie. Design-wise, he differs a lot from the Disney version, but with things like his umbrella being a key part of his getup, he still very much feels like a direct continuation of Jiminy Cricket from the Disney version.
2) THE DWARVES. They are named Doc, Sleepy, Sneezy, Dopey, Happy, Bashful, and Grumpy, just like in the Disney version. :| There is also an extra dwarf fitting the Disney naming pattern called Stealthy but [Spoilers]he doesn't last long. This one I find particularly weird because those names don't even sound remotely fairy tale-ish.
3) Maleficent: Again, the Disney-specific name for the character.
4) Cinderella: She ends up wearing a blue ballgown reminiscent of Disney's Cinderella (which is actually white but I digress) plus the classic updo, which is what pushes OUAT's take on Cinderella into "updating the Disney movie" territory as opposed "new take on the fairy tale."
5) Allll the Beauty and the Beast stuff: Hoo boy, there's a lot here... First, that Belle is called Belle, which is something unique to the Disney version, since other versions tend to translate her name to Beauty. Second and third, that she has an unwanted suitor and that suitor is called Gaston. There's no such character in the original story. Although the Disney version isn't the only adaptation that adds one, it IS the only adaptation that names the love interest Gaston. Finally, in the episode Belle is given brown hair and an off-the-shoulder yellow ballgown and a blue and white dress obviously inspired by the Disney film.
There are other cute Disney references here and there that I didn't include in here because they seemed more like easter eggs rather than a recycling or reinforcing of Disney's take on fairy tales (the image at the top is one of them -- I thought it was pretty appropriate for this post, though, because just that red bow is enough to make you think of Disney's Snow White). But yeah, the ones listed above sort of bother me because there seems to be the assumption behind them that the Disney version is the real/original version, which is confusing and sort of misleading.
Of course the Disney versions ARE wonderful and incredibly well-known/ubiquitous. They also even popularized the fairy tales they adapted, so perhaps one could argue that any worthwhile adaptation WOULD take the Disney version as the starting place and work from there (as opposed to going back to the roots of the story). That does make some sense to me.
I do still find the whole situation sort of awkward, though. Having ABC (even if they don't have any agenda / didn't purposely set out to do this) contribute to the idea of the Disney version being the official version seems rather... self-serving. XD
You can suggest topics for future posts for this meme over here.