Biblical and Literary drops in the popular series, "A Song of Ice and Fire"

**WARNING - SPOILERS FOR THE FIRST THREE BOOKS AND ALL SEASONS OF THE TV SHOW**

George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire book series is probably the last series you'd ever find sitting on the shelf in a Christian book store. Its graphic sexual content, vulgar language, and brutal violence are too bohemian for the strict and sacred values of the church. Where you stand on this, I don't know. But I do know that these books are among the best literature that is being dished out today.
I have learned on my Christian walk that literature of all kinds is important to my growth in faith. In fact, literature was necessary for me because it taught me the art of seeing from anothers perspective, to sympathize, and to understand that people are not simply black and white and easy to explain, nor is the universe. Literature taught me to think outside the box and to expect the unexpected. I have learned that fiction is sometimes more truthful than the "truth."
My faith has taught me a lot too. For example, Jesus didn't hang out with the people who claimed to be perfect or have it all together. He hung out with the messy people and the people who needed saving. And literature is the same way. We are readers, hanging out with fictional characters who are just screwed up and yet we relate to them, sympathize with them, and route for them. And A Song of Ice and Fire contains some of the most screwed up characters in the history of fiction (this statement is being made from my experience with fiction. Perhaps you know of characters who are even more screwed up?). The books are filled with so much immorality and imperfection and suffering but at the same time it is poetic and redemptive. There is beauty to be found within suffering. These are people Jesus would have been hanging out with. George R. R. Martin reveals their goodness and humanity just as Jesus revealed it in those he came in contact with. In many regards, an author is the savior of his/her own story. As the character Tyrion states, "I have a tender spot in my heart for cripples and bastards and broken things."
There are many biblical connections throughout A Song of Ice and Fire that I have recently been alluded to and now have enough thoughts on the matter to write an entire blog entry!
I first want to start with characters and what better person to start off with than the beloved Lord Eddard Stark of Winterfell - Ned. Ned is criticized many a time for not playing the game of thrones properly but that is why I love him. He values justice and what is right over power. His commitment to honor and doing what is right mixed with his calm, loving and collected demeanor outshine all of the other characters who seek their own happiness rather than that of the people around them and the realm.  Ned is an honest man who keeps his word. Right when we meet him we hear him ask his son Bran, after beheading a man for deserting his post at the Night's Watch, if Bran understands why he had to kill that man. Bran answers by stating the obvious - the man was a deserter. Ned restates the question and puts emphasis on the fact that he personally had to kill the man. He then explains that the man who passes the sentence must swing the sword. He continues, "If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die." What Ned is explaining to his son is accountability and authenticity. You must live your words, not just speak them.

Ned's death very much mirrors the death of Christ. Ned has been wrongly accused and plans to give his life if it means being condemned for a crime he did not commit. The only reason he ends up falsely confessing is for the sake of his daughters. He is accused of crimes he didn't commit, just as Jesus was by Pontius Pilate. He is then killed unjustly even though he was a pure man - not exactly pure on the level of Christ but as a prodigal son type since no one is without sin as Jesus was.
My second favorite character in the series is Daenerys Targaryen. Her plot seems to mirror the Crucifixion of Christ in an Easter Sunday sense. She steps into the flames of death which should have killed her but is reborn from the ashes. But what stands out the most for me is her name. In Matthew 22:15-21, the Pharisees try to trick Jesus by inquiring of him if it is lawful to pay census tax to Caesar or not in which Jesus sees right through them and is mad. He tells them to show him the coin of the census tax and "they offered him a denarius". Upon reading this, you may not have picked up on the similarity to Dany's name. I'm sure I would not have. However, I heard this verse spoken out loud. I first heard this verse in Jeff Bethke's video on YouTube titled Whose image is on you. It is a really great video so be sure to check it out. Moving forward, Jesus takes the denarius and says to the Pharisees, "Whose image is this, and whose inscription?" They reply, "Caesar's." Then Jesus says, "So give back to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." Perhaps this is a prediction that Daenerys will rule...but she may become dictatorial rather than the fair Queen she was expecting herself to be originally.

Now let's move to the Lannister's. I want to discuss them as a whole rather than individually. Throughout the books, the Lannister colors of gold and crimson are listed hundreds of times. I wish someone would keep count of how many times the word crimson is mentioned throughout the entire series. But there is another medium which heavily emphasizes on the word crimson. Rapper and spoken word artist Propaganda recently released his sophomore album titled Crimson Cord and discussed the meaning behind the title song with the Relevant Podcast. He said he used crimson to symbolize Christ's blood. The phrase was a play on words of scarlet thread or a person's timeline or history being stained crimson or red with the blood of Christ. We are all stained with crimson on our timelines because each and every one of us killed Christ - yet we are redeemed. The Lannister's could be referred to as the ultimate sinners yet they are the color of crimson, symbolizing blood, and the color of gold which could represent alchemical gold or perfection. This points to George R. R. Martin using literary alchemy in his series. The definition of alchemy is transforming basic metals into pure gold. Literature does a similar things with characters in that they begin as flawed and sinning individuals who grow and become perfect, not in a conventional way but a authentic way. Alchemy is a very spiritual idea used throughout literature (very prevalent in Victor Hugo's The Hunchback of Notre Dame). Perhaps this points to the Lannister's all being redeemed by the end? So far we have Tyrion and Jaime redeemed, Tyrion from the start and Jaime from book 3 and I'd say Tywin and Joffery were redeemed in death. So is Cersei next?
Cersei herself shows her true colors when she orders Robert's bastards to be killed. This can easily be compared to King Herod who was threatened by Jesus just as Cersei is threatened by Robert's airs and tells his men to kill Jesus.
The final character I want to comment on is Jojen Reed. He guides Bran in the books and seems to have no concern for himseld. The show did a good job at portraying this when Jojen's hand caught fire, symbolizing his death yet he said Bran must keep going and live out his destiny and that he will be there no matter what. He is another Christ figure and possibly the ultimate Christ figure, laying down his life for his friends.
I next want to focus on locations in the series. First, the Vale. The Vale is where Lysa Arryn lives, high above everyone else which makes her and everyone living there very safe. A veil in reality is, as most know, something a bride wears over her face before her wedding This veil symbolizes her

innocence and that she is protected and safe. When her husband lifts the veil she is now entering into the unknown word of marriage and transforming into a woman. The Vale in this series is sort of the same way. It sits up high, safe and protected where no one can touch it. No one will be removing the Vale for quite some time which will keep it safe no matter what.
When Ned Stark is sent to the bottom of the dungeons in Kings Landing before he is executed, he sits in total darkness at the bottom and his experience can only be described like hell. I was listening to a Harry Potter book discussion and Dante's Inferno was mentioned and suddenly I realized that the dungeons of Kings Landing are a representation of descending deeper and deeper into hell. Ned is in the deepest circle where betrayers reside. Although Ned is innocent, he is accused of betraying the crown so it makes sense that George R. R. Martin placed him down there.
Finally, I would like to discuss the major religions of Westeros. The first, and most feared among readers, is the Lord of Lights. This religion seems to be mirroring modern day American Christianity and George R. R. Martin is poking fun at it. The religion fools people with miracles but is controlled by a malevolent god. It requires good works to be in the Lord of Light's favor and Melisandre seems to be their messiah, carrying out the Lord's work.
The Old Gods are a much more sacred form of religion and much older. Men and women who practice this form of folk religion by praying to the sacred heart tree. There are no holy texts or scriptures to follow. The only rituals they practice is prayer in front of the heart tree in the Godswood. Most Godswoods have been turned into secular gardens in the south, giving the old gods no power there. The heart trees, or Weirwood trees, have faces carved into them by the children of the forest and are considered sacred. The sap inside is red and runs out of the trees carved eyes, as if the tree is shedding tears of blood. The religion is very connected to nature and many say that the wind is a way the Old Gods speak to them.

The Drowned God is worshiped on the Iron Islands. While the iron borns are very harsh in what they believe, their practices are very similar to that of baptism. As babies, the iron born are drowned in water and brought back up cleansed and resurrected.
The faith, or the New Gods, is the most prominent religion in Westeros. There are 7 gods - 3 men, 3 women, and one ambiguous. They are as follows - the fathers, the mother, the warrior, the maiden, the smith, the crone, and the stranger. The number 7 is a very important number in the Bible. God created the world in 7 days. The Bible was originally split into 7 major divisions - the law, the prophets, the writings/psalms, the Gospels and Acts, the General Epistles, the Epistles of Paul, and the book of Revelation. In Matthew 13, Jesus is quoted as giving 7 parables. 7 psalms are ascribed to David in the New Testament. In scripture, 7 symbolizes completeness or perfection. There is also supposed to be 7 books in the A Song of Ice and Fire series, similar to other great fantasies like the Chronicles of Narnia and Harry Potter. Both of these series use literary alchemy and as I stated above, it seems this series is doing the same. It will be more obvious once all 7 books are published.
While A Song of Ice and Fire is a dark series, it shows its many biblical references just as other fantasies do. It is a mark of smart fiction and I can't wait to finish the series!
Do you see any biblical hints in the series? If so, comment with your thoughts! I would love to have a conversation with you!

A Reflection on Podcasting

Today I have just released Episode 11 of the podcast I am a part of called Talk Magic to Me. It feels surreal that my friends and I made it this far! 11 episodes seems miniscule next to other podcasts who have dished out hundreds to almost 500 episodes. I can only hope we make it that far. Although 11 is a small number in that regard, it is a big number from where I'm standing. We started this project in February and now it is almost June! I hardly can recall why the months have slipped right through my fingers. While life tends to speed by anyway, this podcast seems to have put my life in overdrive.
Many good things have come from this podcast. The best part about it though, by far, is getting to have conversation with friends. Every week I get to watch a new movie and write my thoughts down for future discussions and it is awesome! I especially love when we discuss heavier topics (which may occur more with our new grubs section). Being able to put my opinions out there in a more approachable way is great. Another great aspect of podcasting is listener feedback. While we haven't received a lot, we already seem to have a few devoted listeners which is amazing. I can only hope that our podcast will be an inspiration for them as much as other podcasts have been for me.
While podcasting has highs, it also has lows. I know my fellow host Jen will agree with me when I say that podcasting is STRESSFUL! It is especially stressful when it isn't your job and it sucks up all your free time. I find that I am more often than not extremely tired and so all my waking hours are either at my job or working with the podcast. This has forced me to neglect many things that I don't want to neglect like reading, writing, and of course blogging. I've gotten better at managing my time but it is still tiring. I have become sick of editing to the point where I put it off until the very last minute. No wonder I am stressed. Once I sit down and commit to editing though I enjoy the job.
But at the end of the day, this is something I enjoy doing. I want to continue to have healthy conversation and talk about why Disney is so awesome with my friends and listeners. Who knows, maybe something great will come out of this one day (preferably a full time job or a trip to Disney World).
Between all of the highs and lows, podcasting has given me room to grow as a person and an artist.

The experience has given me many teachable moments that I want to share. The first is that I can't judge myself too harshly. After recording our first few episodes, especially the Frozen episodes, I would wake up the next morning feeling crappy and as if what I said during recording wasn't good enough. It's a sucky feeling and I still feel it every now and then and am still learning that I can't be too hard on myself. I have also learned that I can't judge other podcasts too harshly either. Before Talk Magic to Me, I would often be nitpicky and annoyed when a podcaster forgot to mention something or say a fact correctly and now when I listen back I notice my fellow hosts and I making mistakes or forgetting important info.
The next thing I have learned is that it is okay to be stressed. I mean...it is okay in context. I am stressed because I am trying to make the podcast great so there can't be anything wrong with that...right? It also teaches me to loosen up and learn from the stress. I now have to ask myself, what do I NEED to do and what can wait? Jen said to me a few weeks ago that podcasting is a labor of love. I would have to agree entirely.
Finally, podcasting has pushed me to be more creative. Coming up with fun games and grubs and writing the basic script is working a lot of your creative juices. I'm being pushed in a new way and I can see a big difference in myself already.
Ultimately, the experience has been good and I look forward to our future episodes and can't wait to see where the podcast takes all four of us!

Mini Book Review: Politically Correct Bedtime Stories by James Finn Garner

Politically Correct Bedtime Stories by James Finn Garner
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

This book is just as funny as the title implies it to be. I'm so glad someone had the guts to confront the issue of political correctness in fairytales by writing their own group of fairytales! I mean, these were spot on. They served the purpose of tackling an issue that we are faced with in the modern day and did it in a hilarious fashion. I don't think I've ever laughed out loud so much when reading a book.
It's a quick read which was nice.
It helps when you are familiar with the fairytales. For example - I've never read the emperors new clothes so even though some parts were funny, I didn't really get the point of the story.
We live in a time when people are way way way too sensitive, especially when it comes to portraying people in stories, movies and tv.
Here is one of my favorite quotes from the book, which I noticed someone else used in their review as well so kudos!
"The wolf said, 'You know, my dear, it isn't safe for a little girl to walk through these woods alone.' Red Riding Hood said, 'I find your sexist remark offensive in the extreme, but I will ignore it because of your traditional status as an outcast from society, the stress of which has caused you to develop your own, entirely valid, worldview. Now, if you'll excuse me, I must be on my way.'" Pure comedy gold. Much better than those stand up comedians they've got on Netflix haha.
Overall, nicely done. I look forward the reading the second installment which I have already ordered!

View all my reviews

World Vision's Decision to Revoke Hiring Gay Employees

When I was 15 years old, I went to a concert in Philadelphia called the Revolve Tour where several Christian artists and speakers came to empower young women. While there, the performers constantly brought up World Vision and even showed a video talking about what the organization was and how we could help.  As a 15 year old who was eager to do her part and do good to follow Jesus, I suggested to my friend that we sponsor a child together.  It would be $40 a month which we would split to pay $20 a month. She agreed and so her mom helped us fill out the paperwork and we even received white wrist bands for our charity. I had no job and no source of income but felt that it wasn't an issue. I felt that I had the money to give and starving children needed it. After a few months though, I was out of money and had to pull out of the entire thing. I'm not sure if my friend and her mom kept the sponsorship or not.
Recently there was an issue involving World Vision and the law stating that companies and corporations couldn't deny an applicant for discriminatory reasons such as race, ethnicity, sexual preference, etc. World Vision complied to this law and made a statement that they would be hiring gay employees from now on. The statement was not taken lightly and before long, tons and tons of World Vision advocates pulled the plug on their monthly donations.  It wasn't long after when World Vision revoked their statement and gave a formal apology.  This is my understanding of the story.
I think my biggest issue with this situation is the fact that people are willing to ignore starving children because of this decision. Suddenly, because of a political decision, starving children can no longer be supported by certain people?  It's okay to support them when your money is traveling through an organization that believes everything you believe but not when you believe different things? I mean, I know it was a big decision for World Vision to make and I know gay marriage is a huge issue that people take strong sides on...but shouldn't we be more concerned about where the money is going instead of what the company believes? Isn't it enough that you both agree that you want to feed starving children and obliterate poverty?
Let me break this down. I'm not ignorant to the fact that people want to support an organization that stands up for what they personally believe is right. Often times a Republican won't donate or support a Democrat's organization, and vice versa. Or think of businesses and organizations like Chick-fil-a and Susan G. Komen. Some people will defend Chick-fil-a because their beliefs are their beliefs and nothing more when it comes to business practices (or they support them because they agree with their beliefs). Others will no longer eat there because the profits are said to go toward organizations that are blatant gay hate groups. The same can be said for Susan G. Komen. Many support this organization because it is doing good to forward the research to cure breast cancer and how can we not support curing cancer in any form? But some don't support this organization because it is said the money doesn't always go toward breast cancer research but abortion clinics. There is one key component here that both sides are missing - a common variable. One side believes the company has a right to believe what they believe while the other takes it step further by saying these businesses/organizations are using their power to fund hate groups, controversial medicine and are choosing political sides. In both of these cases, people stand up against the big guys because their money isn't going toward what they believe it should be going toward and it is only fair that the consumer has a right to know where there money is actually going.
Then there is World Vision. Can I ask, would this decision affect where the monthly donations go? No! We already know that not 100% of World Vision's donations go toward starving kids and most likely goes to funding other things in the organization but that isn't what this whole thing is about...and as for employee pay, it's unfair to say that a sinner of any nature doesn't deserve the right to a job, whether you believe being gay is a sin or not. But in the end, World Vision's decision to hire gay people doesn't change where there money is going. Other factors may change this but hiring gay employees doesn't.
That being said, what I gather from all of these monthly donators pulling their money out of the pot is that they seem to care more about this false moral objective of the company rather than what the company is really about. They support World Vision and since most Christians object to gay marriage, they don't want to show support any longer because if they are hiring gay people, then World Vision isn't on there side.
Okay...but I have two questions.  One - who does the money of a non-profit go towards, their company or what they do? The right answer would hopefully be what they do which is supporting starving children (though as I said, I'm not sure 100% of World Vision's profits from monthly donations goes towards preventing starvation and everything else World Vision says they are doing). Two - who's side are we on? You see, I thought that all World Vision supporters were on the same side - the side to end world poverty. I thought poverty and the belief of standing up to it meant more than a political stance. And more importantly, I thought we as Christians were taught, "let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone" from John 8:7 in the Bible. Is it just me or has this organization created to fund love and end poverty become a source for outsiders to learn about hate in the Christian community? Because when I take a step back and look at the whole picture from a non-Christian perspective, I see a group of people betraying their said goal of love in order to cast hate on another group - as if we are all not worthy of love and attention but only a select few. Hosts on the podcast Christ and Pop Culture comment saying, "[These] poor children [World Vision sponsors] are a political football."  And it is quite true.
What is super ironic is that last night I watched Dumbo and it wasn't until I was halfway done writing

this post that I made a connection between this situation and the early Disney film. In the beginning, Dumbo is delivered to his mother and love ensues the train car the elephants inhabit. But when Dumbo sneezes and reveals his big ears, panic is released. He is different and different is bad. You may be thinking, you can't compare an animated movie about an elephant with big ears to humans rejecting gay marriage.  Well, I would argue that I can compare the two. Disney characterizes the elephants as a proud race and this is a big deal to them who take pride in their appearance. It is just as important an issue as gay marriage is to Christians. Moving forward, there is a scene in particular where Dumbo is sitting alone in a corner crying after his mother is taken away from him and chained, all because she tried to protect him (another incident in which John 8:7 takes precedent since the boy making fun of Dumbo's big ears has big ears himself). All of the other elephants are huddled in a circle, gossiping. They want to disown Dumbo as an elephant because he is different. When Dumbo walks over to be with his kind, they not only block him from joining their circle but ignore him and pretend they don't see him there and this strips Dumbo of his humanity...or his elephant-ness is you want to be specific. Aren't Christians doing the same thing with this World Vision incident? Oh, so you're gay? You can't have my God or be a part of my good works. I mean...really? Are we that big headed? Author Richard Snickel says of the scene in his book The Disney Version, "The hugeness of the beasts contrasted gorgeously with the smallness of their souls."  And indeed, the hugeness of Christian pride and self-righteousness contrasts wonderfully with the smallness of our souls.
At the end of the day, we can't let our feelings direct our actions and I know that is a challenging idea and one I struggle with a lot. But it is important for us to see every side of the rubik's cube because if you don't, you won't ever solve the puzzle but be ignorant to other solutions. It is important to ask, how does this affect me, if it doesn't affect me than who does it affect, and why does it matter in the context of the situation?
In the case of World Vision, the situation does not affect me since I don't donate money or need someone to support my well-being because I don't have the means to. The decision to hire gay employees doesn't affect my well-being and certainly doesn't affect my theology but it certain tests my theology and makes me stop and think. The decision of the World Vision donators pulling out their money doesn't affect me but it affects the kids that the money goes toward. That donation may have given a child a net to protect them from mosquitoes. Now, because World Vision gives anyone the right to be an employee, other children will not have the opportunity to have nets to protect them and the whole thing is absurd. What does a person's belief in gay marriage matter to an organization feeding, clothing, and supporting poor children?  Well...it doesn't.

Coffee with Jesus by David Wilkie

I'm not a huge comic book person.  I tried to get into them as a kid but they never sparked my interest.  I have always been a novel person, specifically fiction, and comics were always too quick and seemed too open ended.  I wanted descriptions instead of pictures doing to work for me.  Fast forward to present day.  I don't know what pushed me to buy this comic book, Coffee with Jesus.  I must have heard about it through Relevant Magazine or something because when I rack my brains and wonder what prompted me to buy this book, I draw a blank.    But I bought it and read it in a matter of hours.  Yep, it was that good. 
I still can't say I am a comic book fan but the comic strip medium was perfect to execute what the author, David Wilkie, had in mind to give people quick snippets of Jesus while they drank their coffee in the morning.  Coffee with Jesus was what I expected it to be.  It sarcastically made fun of what Christianity has become to most Americans and painted Jesus as this relaxed, hipster-esque fellow who you can have an everyday conversation with yet he isn't afraid to pick out your BS.  There are tons of people attacking the same idea but in different styles - mostly videos, sometimes music, and tons of books in the Christianity section of your local bookstore.  Some people have made the idea cliche while others have captured it beautifully.  But what made Coffee with Jesus so unique besides it's comic book form was the intelligence behind it.  It wasn't a silly comic book as some people might expect.  This is due partly to the fact that many people don't take comic books seriously and the fact that Jesus in a comic strip is almost as ridiculous as Christian Rap used to sound.  But just like Lecrae has changed the way people view Christian Rap, I think Coffee with Jesus will turn a lot of heads as well.  I've never read Calvin and Hobbs (though one day hope to change that) but from what I have read of theirs, I can imagine Coffee with Jesus being on their level.  Yep, I said it.  It's that good.
Each comic strip was raw, intelligent, and humorous and they all had one thing in common; each one contained solid theological teachings.  The blunt and sarcastic nature of Jesus worked well with the American/religious Christian characters he drank coffee with.  Each character was given a brief back story and I truly felt like I had gotten to know them all by the end.  Plus, the character of Satan seemed like an over the top parody of cartoon and old superhero movie villains.  I had a hard time not cracking up when I was reading each strip. 
My fear is that people will pass by this comic strip because it is a comic book and people may think it won't have much to say.  However, I believe this book has as much to say about faith as C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity.  It is a book that has come to abolish our inner Pharisee.  Too often we dive into "Christian" media and find cheesy and overdone creations that don't really tell us who Jesus is or what it means to be a Christian.  But this comic book lays it all out on the table and doesn't try to sugar coat anything.  Plus, I liked the artwork.  It was simple black and white drawings and each character always kept their original look apart from Carl who would sometimes have a beard or wear a hat.  One thing to be aware of is that this isn't a story, just snippets of a character's coffee conversation with Jesus.  There isn't any character development like you would expect in something like Spiderman.
I think this is a book that would be great to read more than once.  The first time, read through it all in one shot or over a period of a few days.  Then, return to it and maybe read one comic strip a day while you drink your coffee or eat your breakfast so you can soak in the theology!  Reading the book just in one shot like I did is fine and I don't plan to read it over breakfast for a second time but I do find it a tiny bit forgettable because of the large amount of comic strips.  They are each unique but reading them back to back sort of blends them together in my mind.  One strip a day may soak through more and have more of an impact on the reader.
I would love to see a volume two on the shelves one day!  Fingers crossed!

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

Wasted Wednesday: Thoughts on Shameless Season 4

When Shameless first premiered on Showtime, I hated it.  The show was unnecessarily crude and featured scenarios that I was not comfortable watching.  I'm not sure what made me continue watching but I eventually made it to episode three and by the end, I was hooked.  The third episode of season one brought humanity to these characters and this story that I had not noticed before.  Finally I began to see how well crafted this show was and how ground breaking it was at the same time.  It is among the many shows on premium TV today that are breaking the mold in what television is and will be in the future. 
Watching Shameless on Sunday nights during the winter has become an insanely awesome ritual for me.  I gather some snacks and a drink and venture down into the basement where the big HD family TV is and I am allowed one hour by myself with my favorite TV show.  Every season always captivates me and leaves me begging for more.  Each season has it's own vibe to it yet they always remain completely and utterly the same.  But season four was a lot different than any of the previous seasons.  Shameless the TV show broke the mold and season four seemed to break Shameless's mold.  No longer was I watching the show where a dysfunctional family sticks together through shameless acts and questionable ethics.  Season four depicted a family still acting shameless but drawing apart and it really had me feeling crappy on Sunday nights.  Every time I finished an episode I felt like I had hit a new low.  This isn't a criticism of the season but just a general thing I noticed on a consistent basis. 
This week for Wasted Wednesday I want to talk about my thoughts about season four and how I felt about character development and the overall story.  WARNING, this post WILL contain spoilers from all four seasons.
Let's start out with Frank, our main man.  Frank is the character we all love to...love, even though we hate him.  Because Frank has his moments of redemption that glimmer on the horizon for a few seconds but always burn out and are short lived and if he does do something good, it is usually for his own benefit and not to help others or grow as a person.  But this season was totally different.  At the end of season three, Frank and his oldest son Lip get drunk and afterwards go ice-skating until Frank throws up an enormous amount of blood on the rink.  He is taken to the hospital and told he must change his habits or he will die.  This was a huge twist on the writer's part and also a huge risk.  Putting Frank's life in jeopardy also jeopardizes the show.  This isn't Game of Thrones where a main character can be killed off and still go on.  Frank is the entire basis for this show and provides motivation for the other characters he impacts.  I would be very shocked if they killed him off which is why I found his storyline to be very weak.  As I watched Frank's life deteriorate before my eyes, I knew that somehow a last minute miracle would come and save him and sure enough, it did.  Frank hit a new low this season, manipulating his son for drugs, manipulating his long lost and forgiving daughter to help him (and by the way, Sammi was an awesome addition to the show), and just his physical appearance each episode was enough to make me turn my head from the screen.  Add to the fact that the story line was completely pointless for two reasons.  One is that we know that the show is not going to kill off Frank.  It's too obvious.  They didn't leave me guessing if he was going to live or die.  I knew he would live because while the other characters make the show and all are engaging, Frank drives the show.  Everything these characters do stems from Frank and what he has done, does, and will do.  Secondly, in the finale we see Frank receive a new liver and start up drinking straight away.  He even makes a speech to God saying that he won the battle against the almighty creator as he holds his beer bottle toward the sky as if he is going to throw it into the river but then takes a big gulp and then passes it to his underage son.  I get why the writer's wouldn't want to change Frank as a character but you can't give him such a life evolving storyline and then act like he wouldn't be changed in some way.  It was very weak writing which is usually not the case with this show. 
Next up is oldest daughter Fiona.  Fiona's story was hard to watch this season.  Everything starts out

really well and I was so happy for Fiona.  She had a great job and the Gallagher's were moving up on the poverty level.  But then she went and cheated on her boyfriend with his brother, left drugs out that her baby brother got into and almost died, went to jail but then went to house arrest and then went back to jail after not returning home one night when she felt she couldn't take what the world was throwing at her anymore. But unlike Frank, Fiona's growth was awesome!  She came to the realization that she does have her father gene's and she can't blame him anymore or anyone else.  In the end she has to look to herself.  I was very pleased with how her story ended for the season.
Lip's storyline was awesome as well as his character development.  His story was in my opinion the strongest of the season.  Watching him struggle with college and juggling family crisis and learning to forgive Fiona for what she did and moving on from Mandy...it's a lot of pressure.  And you see a different man sitting on the porch steps of the Gallagher household on the last episode.  The only story that I feel measures up to Lip's is the relationship between Ian and Mickey.  These two have been called the most realistic gay couple on television and I agree 100%.  Shameless bravely took on these two as early as season one!  Their relationship has bloomed since then and both have grown as people and so their relationship grew as well.  Mickey's coming out scene made me cry.  The two actors have a way of casting certain expressions on their faces that doesn't require any dialogue because you can read what they are thinking.  And it isn't just these two.  All of the actors are so incredibly gifted and clearly understand their craft.  I have yet to see a bad actor on the show.
Ian's storyline itself felt a bit forced, especially in the beginning and at the very end.  I guess him

being bipolar like his mother Monica makes sense since Frank isn't his father so we won't be seeing any of those genes.  I like that the show doesn't forget Monica even though she has been gone since season two.  I'm a little nervous to see where Ian goes from here because Monica's storyline really rubs me the wrong way and I find it difficult to watch.  I've grown to love Ian as a character and watching him go through this won't be easy.
Debbie and Carl's both had hard to watch scenes as well.  Debbie drove me up the wall.  I don't think the writer's are at fault because they are perfectly depicting what middle school can be like but watching Debbie having a count down to when she will lose her virginity was frightening.  I miss the old Debs!  I really hope the next season we will see her getting rid of her dumb sex obsessed friends and see her make new friends and meet a boy her age...though I do like Mattie even though he is way too old for her to date.  As for Carl, I found his scenes to be more agreeable which is weird to say.  Carl's storyline has gotten better and better with each season.  In season one he was definitely just a background, trouble maker character that only existed to cause trouble.  But he is now growing up and we see him yearning for a relationship with his father and constantly being let down.  I think the hardest thing to accept with these two is their defiance towards Fiona most of the season.  They completely turn on her which doesn't help her story at all. 
Kev and V had a strong storyline.  I wish there would have been more from them in the finale though.  It seems like the writer's were like, Oh the babies are born and that is all you really care about so now we can forget about them.  They should have been included way more toward the end.  And I guess I should also comment on Sheila's storyline.  Sheila is Sheila.  Joan Cusack was wonderful as always.  She always makes me laugh.  Both of these were different than usual which fit with the direction the writer's took this season. 
The finale episode was by far my favorite of the season.  One thing that made me super happy was seeing Jimmy/Steve...Jack at the very end.  When season three ended, I was convinced he was dead and was happy about it.  I was sick of him and ready for Fiona to move on with her new boyfriend, Mike.  But this season went so far away from what I know to be Shameless that I found I wanted Jimmy/Steve back!  I couldn't believe my own thoughts!  I can't wait to see where his story goes in season five.  The episode was also pretty great.  It was titled "Lazarus" which is referring to a character in the Bible.  The allegory behind this title is incredible.  In Frederick Buechner's book titled Telling the Truth, he talks about this passage in the Bible.  In John 11, Jesus arrives to find that Lazarus is dead and has been dead for four days.  Jesus weeps for Lazarus, his friend.  He weeps not only for losing his friend but for his inability to save him.  The son of God himself who can do all things was unable to save his own friend and so he weeps.  Afterwards, Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead.  In the Shameless season four finale, each of the character's finally gets their happy ending...and I say that very loosely.  This is why this show is so incredible.  Right from the beginning the show starts out great and we are happy for the Gallagher's but then suddenly their family begins to metaphorically die right before our eyes, just as Lazarus died and Jesus could not save him.  But then, they are brought back to life in this final and triumphant episode just as Jesus brings Lazarus back to life.  It is a very moving depiction and a very daring place for the writer's to take the show.  The only complaint I have about the finale is something I already stated which is Frank's terrible speech to God when he drinks beer.  It just seemed to be poor writing and confirmed my superstition that this entire season his story was utterly pointless.  It was just there for the drama of it and Frank became a plot driving device rather than being a character driving force on the show like he usually is.  Overall, different season but strong season.  I hope they go back to their usual format though because I don't know if I can take another gut wrenching season like this one.
I can't wait for season five.  I hate these long premium channel hiatuses!  Waiting until January is going to be terrible! 
Do you watch Shameless?  What did you think of this season?  Did anything stand out to you that I didn't mention?  Let me know in the comments!

Why Disney Princesses Are Good Role Models, Part 2

In September of 2012, I wrote a blog defending the Disney Princess name.  I was defending them for a number of reasons.  In the blog I talked about society's definition of feminism and why it isn't necessarily a healthy definition and how it applies to the Princesses and their impact on girls.  I then went on to address a blog condemning the Princesses by selecting specific points and proving why these points were essentially invalid arguments to say that these characters are bad role models.  And finally, I stated why each of the Princesses are good role models and their virtues.  If you have not yet read that post, click here.
Well, it is National Princess week and this is as good a time as ever to post a follow up to my first
blog.  Note - although I posted this during National Princess week, the week after I wrote it I had a sudden inspiration so I rewrote much of this piece so it isn't entirely in it's original form.  But it's a whole lot better now so I'm content.  A lot has happened since I wrote Part 1.  Two new Princess movies came out and both attacked the issue of feminism in their own way.  There was also a Princess redesign that sparked a lot of controversy.  This blog post will do accomplish three things.  It will discuss the millennial generation and why the study of this general gives a good look at why people view Disney and their Princesses the way they do.  Next, I will discuss the Princess redesign in comparison to the release of Average Barbie.  And finally I will talk about the new films, how the new Princesses are good role models, and why these two new films aren't focused enough on making a genuinely good film.
I was reading an article in Relevant Magazine by Jesse Carey titled Generation Rising.  The article discussed the growing controversy of how the world defines the millennial generation.  Either we're lazing and entitled or authentic and creative.  There is no middle ground apparently.  After presenting a lot of research and perspectives from all sides of the spectrum, it is implied that our generation feels like we were lied to.  We were told to believe in ourselves and anything is possible.  But that isn't true and I think Disney played a big part in sending this message out.  One of Disney's biggest criticisms today is their message of dreams coming true with little to no work (magic) or, for a girl, finding a man to do the hard work for her.  I think there is a bit of misconception to this idea which I discuss in my first defense of the Disney Princesses post but I digress.  
Reading Carey's article was a real wake up call for me because even though it had nothing to do with Disney, it screamed the answer as to why this debate exists between Disney and the public.  The millennial generation is defined as being born between the years of 1980 and 2002.  Disney peaked in 1989, right in the middle of the millennial generation, and they continued to capture children from this generation with their spectacular films.  Essentially, critics believe that Disney held a stick with a hundred dollar bill tied to it and millennials kept chasing it, believing that one day they would catch up and get that hundred dollar bill.  But it isn't that easy and neither is achieving your dreams.  When the harsh reality set in, people became angry and the the public began to look for someone to blame for their misconception.  Disney was the scapegoat.  What bothers me about all of this is that there is something that people have failed to see about the movies Disney released during the years millennials were growing up.  Yes, Disney promoted easy ways to reach dreams.  It is Disney's market and signature and has been since 1940 when Gepetto wished upon a star for a real boy.  To say that Disney has lied to our generation is an overstatement.  You might as well say they lied to every generation (which I disagree with).  But people fail to see what Disney did right during their Renaissance and through most of the corporations career in film and other aspects of entertainment.  Disney has a keen sense of depicting the inner reality of it's viewers and making films that are just plain good.  In other words, they are good at what they do.  If we can learn anything from Disney, we can learn from their artistic depictions of the inner reality of the child within all of us.  We can learn from the detail and research they put into their movies.  We can learn from the hard work they put into their animation.  We can learn from the well crafted musical scores and numbers.  No, Ariel's choices are not going to necessarily push young girls on the right path.  What Ariel's choices do is depict a human being - a 16 year old girl who yearns for adventure in the unknown and finds out the hard way that things are so easy.  No, young children aren't going to have good advice from films that use magic to solve their problems.  But whoever said we are to take fairy tales literally?  When we read Harry Potter books, do we believe brooms will magically carry us away when a bully comes near?  Of course not.  And when we watch the Wizard of Oz, do we believe tapping our red shoes three times together while take us home?  No.  So why would we expect Disney to be any different?  I fail to see why critics are being more harsh on Disney than any other fairy story.  They have just as much right to stretch fantasy as the next story-teller.  I think it okay for me to speak up as a millennial myself because I too fell for this lie that your dreams will come true no matter what.  However, if I ever had to blame an institution for planting this idea in my head, I would blame the school system that told me one day I could be a writer and follow my dreams.  Even in high school I was lied to when my teachers said when I went to college I would be able to focus on what I wanted to do for the rest of my life.  Well, that is a clear lie for the simple reason that gen-eds exist.  My point is that Disney should not be blamed for the so called ideas they plant in our heads.  They are a company that makes fantasy films.  It is time we stopped viewing these movies as kid movies and stick to Walt philosophy of making films for the child in all of us.  Disney is not to blame for making kids a certain way.
I think the millennial generation is a generation searching for authenticity and sometimes Disney movies don't come off as very authentic.  Fair enough.  A statistic in Carey's article says that 60% of millennials have abandoned religion and it is fairly clear as to why.  Religion, like the idea of dreams in Disney movies, has proved to be a let down.  Not only that but religion is represented by hypocritical people who constantly aren't who they say they are.  My generation is searching for truth in places other generations have not looked.  As a millennial who is still involved in religion, I can say that religious leaders are not what Christianity is and secondly, Disney actually dips into religious topics with their characters.  I would love to talk about all the ways Disney brings Christianity into their films but I will stick to the Princesses in this post.  A question many people are asking is if we should be telling girls they are Princesses or not.  Are we all royal in God's eyes or is there a problem with this terminology?  In my opinion, there are two sides to calling a little girl a Princess.  Of course God views little girls as Princesses and little boys as Princes.  He values them and loves them and wants the best for them.  However, we shouldn't expect God to treat us as Princes and Princesses.  We should expect God to be God, to be fair in the ways he sees fit which won't necessarily seem fair in our earthly ways.  Another issue that I sort of skimmed over in my last blog was the issue of following your heart.  Disney promotes this idea but points more toward doing the right thing and saying that your heart will guide you toward doing the right thing.  But the Bible says otherwise.  Jeremiah 17:9 states, "The heart is

deceitful above all things and beyond cure.  Who can understand it?"  I don't think Disney wants to promote getting your way all of the time.  Their films point to doing the right thing when the easier choice is to do what you want.  But their films also promote this idea that if you want something and work toward it and pray when it feels necessary, you will earn your heart's desire.  I don't want to get into all of the reasons why Disney distorts Christianity though, I want to talk about how the films promote it.  Christian symbolism is littered throughout Disney movies, even in the newer ones.  Many of the Princesses present Biblical imagery whether we are aware of it or not and I want to share this with you all.  I will not include some of the Princesses because I do not want to force symbolism.  If I saw it, I will include it.  Let's start with Elsa.  Elsa is the prodigal son figure.  She runs away and then returns accepted and forgiven completely and earns redemption.  Anna is a Christ figure.  As I said above, her love for Elsa never dwindles even when Elsa mistreats her and in the end, she gives her life up for Elsa as Christ did for his people on the cross.  Rapunzel's tear could symbolize baptism.  When she cries onto Eugene, she renews his soul and gives him new life and he is a new man.  Pocahontas is a very spiritual Christian figure.  She teaches us to love and accept the nature around us and use it to speak to God by listening to the wind or the flowing rivers or the animals speech throughout the forest.  Belle is another Christ figure next to Anna.  She gives up her life for her father when she becomes prisoner in the Beast's castle.  And finally, Snow White shows grace.  Her character is seemingly perfect and when others are not so perfect, she still accepts them just the same as we all should love and accept one another for our similarities and our differences.

Back in April/May last year, Disney gave their Princesses major designs.  The results were shocking.  Disney has always milked the Princesses for marketing.  They release videos with the Princesses, dolls, McDonald's toys, clothing and shoes, posters, notebooks and pencils, backpacks, etc.  The Princesses are always dolled up in their signature dresses and many have complained that this takes away from their character.  I would have to agree with that.  I would love to see Belle in her village outfit with a book or Cinderella in her maid outfit but at the same time, I'm okay with the glamor because a lot of girls like to dress up their dolls and it seems fitting.  I'm not okay with the Princess redesigns though. The Livejournal blog titled "Oh No They Didn't" spoke out straight away about the new Princesses, saying things like, "This is the Kardashian-ization of the Disney Princesses" and "It can be subtle (Rapunzel) or it can look like cosmetic surgery.  Cinderella now looks strangely like Taylor Swift, while poor Belle - I can't decide if she looks more like Kim, Kourtney or Khloe."  And I have to agree.  Most of the changes are horrifying and it isn't just for the reason that they look like culture clones and that their redesigns take away who they are as characters.  Not only that but they all look like they were designed to be sexually objectified.  This redesign begs us to ask the question, what is beauty?  Because the definition of beauty has changed over the years. Another big issue is with the popular doll, Barbie.  I grew up playing with Barbie dolls and I never had any issues as an adult.  But apparently some people feel differently and so not long ago Barbie was redesigned and sent out to toy stores with the name "Average Barbie."  You know, there is Dentist Barbie and Scuba Barbie and now there is an Average Barbie.  But apart from her figure, people say she doesn't look much different than any other Barbie.  Her face is still our ideal model of beauty, which begs the question - is Average Barbie really average?  She is still thin, still has a typical beautiful face, and wears nice clothing.  What about the girls who don't dress "nice" and like to wear all black or prefer not to wear bright blue or plain old blouses?  What about the girls who are heavy?  What about the girls who aren't white?  In my opinion, there is a screaming problem with this whole thing.  Constantly we think that telling girls that everyone is beautiful will solve things, yet that isn't true.  Too many girls are learning that they define themselves by what they look like.  They are still learning to identify with their outward appearance rather than being taught to find beauty in other places.  Hannah Anderson, author of the book Made For More, said in an episode of the Christ in Pop Culture podcast when discussing Average Barbie that "we are so focused on womanhood, we forget to focus on personhood."  This is the argument I was making in my first blog.  We need to stop looking at ourselves by what makes us different but rather what unites us.  Yes our skin may be different colors and gender differs but it is who we are on the inside that matters.  We are all people when it comes down to it.  The reason these Princess redesigns bother me is that they take away from these characters their personhood.  They have become culture clones rather than their individual selves that people can relate to.  They are a tool used to make money off of kids. 
Disney has been criticized for years about their female characters, specifically the Princesses.  We have now entered a modern age where Disney faces public scrutiny from every direction.  People are so focused on films being politically correct, especially Disney movies.  I think people are more critical of Disney because they are seen as a company that makes kids movies.  I think the real issue with all of this is, 1. a film shouldn't be judged by how it represents people/places/or things and 2. animated movies should not be judged as kids movie because many kids movies are animated.  Number 2 I touched on in my first point and is not an issue I plan to discuss any further in this blog but it is something to be aware of.  Number 1, however, is a real issue with animation today, especially when it comes to Disney movies.  Instead of critics and moviegoers paying attention to the film's artistic integrity, they are only focusing on it being politically correct.  In this case, people are expecting a female character to not be rescued by a man and be her own hero.  I am all for doing something different.  It is known that Disney typically has male and female characters interact very intimately and that men are usually there to either save the day or help save the day.  I am okay with Disney changing it up instead of doing the same thing over and over again (though while Disney does this style over and over again, they change up the way they come to the conclusion and in my opinion, they do a really good job with each story) but what I am not okay with is them creating a story that conforms to a certain expectation from outspoken moviegoers.   In my opinion, it takes away from the artistic integrity of the piece.  It shows that Disney is working around this limitation rather than just making a good movie.  This is particularly apparent in Disney's newest Princess movie, Frozen, when they adapted the story The Snow Queen, which had a strong female character already in it and Disney changed it.  The film would have had a strong female character if Disney had stuck to the story yet they went in and changed it completely and in my opinion ruined their chances of making a strong female movie.  It was still a strong female movie...but a particularly silly one.  It will be hard to take seriously in years to come.  Disney's newest Princesses are very much in the expected feminist Princess mold and the public seems to be eating it up.  Just look at the bucks Frozen brought in.  Money doesn't lie.  I'm happy that Disney has been successful and I am happy they are changing things up...but I'm not happy with the reasons for doing it.  Disney has taken a new approach to advertising their new Princess films as well.  They are trying to veer away from their typical Princess movie and instead make a general family movie for both genders and all ages to enjoy.  This theory in itself is silly to me since Beauty and the Beast didn't try hard to do this yet was a genuinely good film and was enjoyable by all ages and both genders.  Today, Disney creates silly movie trailers that give little to no detail about the actual film that will be released in order to give their new film a particular look.  They want to portray a family cartoon.  I see their reasoning behind this tactic but like many choices Disney has made in the past ten years (like switching to making movies in CGI permanently because Home on the Range was a poor movie made in 2-D animation), it is a poor one and won't work in the long run.  Soon they will be searching for new ideas.
The newest Disney Princess movies have not fallen victim to the redesign.  Although Merida was given a new look, people became infuriated and Disney cowered under pressure and switched her back to her original design.  Why just Merida though?  Why didn't all of the Princesses get some defense?  Well, maybe we will find out by looking at the newest Disney/Pixar Princess movie Brave and Disney's newest animated feature, Frozen.  I saw both of these movies in theaters and want to comment on both.  First, let me talk about the story in each one.  Brave's story was all over the place which made it very weak.  Some of Disney/Pixar's best films are simple ones and Brave was trying too hard to be all kinds of stories rather than telling a good story in itself.  The movie borrowed too much from different places and didn't have time to return back to the things they borrowed from which made the film feel incomplete.  Frozen fell victim to the same issue where it tried too hard to accomplish many things and ultimately left us feeling unsatisfied.  Both films only fixed one of the issues they created and everything else was left unexplained.  Of course, many people didn't notice this because the things these two films accomplished had to do with feminism and as far as today's moviegoers and critics are concerned, that is all that matter.  Never mind telling a good story, right?  The characters in Brave were typical and forgettable.  Merida was...unique.  I definitely think she is an awesome Princess but once again her character was simply created to fit a gender ideal for our modern day.  I cared more about Merida's mother than Merida herself though.  It seemed to be a story about a woman struggling with the job of motherhood and how she could learn not only to accept her children for who they are but also learn to teach them without making an enemy of them.  The characters in Frozen weren't as strong as the characters in Brave.  Again, very generic apart from Elsa.  Elsa was the only character worth caring about.  Anna has depth to her character but her silliness ultimately ruins it for me.  I did like however that Anna wasn't an obvious feminist character.  Besides her annoying silliness, she surprised me at the end when she found that true love didn't always have to be romantic love.  At least Frozen did something right.  The music in Brave isn't really worth commenting on as it didn't drive the movie.  It had the cultural Scottish instruments and fit the movie well.  Frozen's music started out epically and then all too quickly became a generic pop phenomenon, lacking any culture that it had previously established.  The lyrics were very ditsy and American.  The instrumentals could have easily had a culture feel but there was none.  I won't say I don't enjoy the music but it doesn't hold up next to most Disney films and will be forgotten in 50 years.  And finally, I want to comment on the animation.  Both films were beautiful but my biggest issue is character animation.  Brave is a Pixar film and so I knew what I was getting into and they didn't disappoint.  Merida's character design bothered me though.  Why is her face so circular?  Frozen had terrible character animation in my opinion, specifically for the girls.  Why are their eyes so huge?  And why all the makeup on Elsa?  I mean, I get that the animators were experimenting but couldn't they have experimented with a short film?  She looked like Shakira with her sexy hips during "Let it Go" and almost like...well, like a redesigned Disney Princess.  Overall, as you can probably tell, I don't hold either of these films in high regard.  They are both okay at best. 

But let's talk about why the newest Princesses are good role models.  I had a hard time with these three ladies but I think I have come up with unique attributes for each of them.  I will start off with Merida.  Merida is a good role model because of her belief.  Right away we see her believe in herself and she has confidence.  She believes when she goes out to get a potion to change her mother's attitude, she believes when she takes her mother to the woods to change her back from a bear to a human, she believes when she lets the wisps guide her, and she believes at the end that she and her mother will mend their relationship.  Anna is a good role model because of her unfailing love.  All throughout her life she is seeking love from her sister who does not show love in return but gives Anna the cold shoulder.  In a desperate attempt to accept love whenever it comes her way, she clings to Hans who immediately shows her love and wants to be with her for the rest of his life (seemingly).  Then, when she becomes aware that Elsa has been lying to her for her entire life, Anna still goes after her sister and believes she is not a monster despite what everyone else is saying.  Then, she jumps in front of her sister to give the ultimate sacrifice of love by giving her life.  And finally, Elsa is a good role model because of her humble nature.  While teaching her to fear her own powers was never the right away to go about things, her experience was almost a mirror to Harry Potter's.  Harry was shut in a cupboard under the stairs while the Dursley's hoped to stomp the magic out of him.  When he discovered he was a wizard, he came from a mindset that he wasn't good enough and therefore went into the world always thinking himself to be average because he had been led to believe that he was never special.  Elsa as well was taught that she wasn't special in her powers and that they needed to be contained, just like Harry's magic.  When she becomes free in the mountains, she tests what she can do and does this without hesitation because she is alone.  Once it is recognized that she is not to be feared, she gives her magic to the people but not to gain anything for herself or take any credit and therefore shows her humble nature just as Harry shows he is humble when he doesn't take full credit for the things he has done when recognized.
After looking at these three Princesses by discussing their movies and now their attributes, I want to bring up the question off goodness.  Do we want a Disney Princess to be relatable or to be a good role model for young girls?  In my opinion, these three new Princess are more relatable than good role models while the Princesses previous are genuinely good role models while also still relatable.  I believe that Disney doesn't reflect our outer reality in terms of their stories because we know no one can create ice with their hands and people don't turn into bears but Disney reflects our inner reality and that should be what matters because it is good fiction.
That concludes my Part 2 post of Why Disney Princesses are Good Role Models.  Do you have anything to add?  Do you feel the newer Princesses are better or worse role models than their predecessors?  Why or why not?  Do you see the Christian symbolism that I mentioned?  Was there some I left out?  What do you think of the newest Princesses movies?  Did they exceed your expectations or do you think Disney is losing it's touch?  I would love to hear your feedback and what you have to say!