Daniel makes stuff, and, in his spare time, writes about things like movies, kid culture, and geek stuff.
J.K. Rowling's Being Sued for Plagiarism Again

Some great insights into how children’s book authors, like Rowling, create their literary worlds – and why it’s the execution, not the ideas, that matters.

One of my favourite bits, appreciable by creators of every ilk:

“People who aren’t accustomed to having a lot of ideas of their own have a very poor grasp of the odds that others might independently come up with the same ideas.”

(Via the Children’s Bookshelf.)

Feb 20, 2010 :: Tagged under: , , , :: #

The Fantastic Truth of Calvin and Hobbes

Nevin Martell (author of the recent book, “Looking for Calvin and Hobbes”):

We still love Calvin and Hobbes because it manages to make imagination real – and that is a rare thing indeed.

Feb 17, 2010 :: Tagged under: , , , :: #

A Continuing Conversation About New Media and Education

Part two of a series of posts from Henry Jenkins, about “Learning in a participatory culture.”

Feb 12, 2010 :: Tagged under: , , , :: #

LEGO Sets the Board for Board Games

A look at the eight new board games from LEGO.

While LEGO Chess has been around for quite a while, I’m thrilled to see the company venture into this arena. I imagine many kids will soon be using the open platform of LEGO to extend and reinvent these board games – and how cool is that to think about?

Feb 09, 2010 :: Tagged under: , , , :: #

'Percy Jackson: My Boy's Own Adventure'

A discussion with Rick Riordan, author of the “Percy Jackson” series, and his son Haley, who has dyslexia and ADHD and whom the character of Percy is based on.

Feb 09, 2010 :: Tagged under: , , :: #

A Conversation About New Media and Education

Part one in a series from Henry Jenkins entitled “Learning in a Participatory Culture.” A must-read for anybody interested in education, technology or how children learn and why they choose to spend so much of their time in front of a computer or playing video games.

Here’s one particular lesson we could all stand to remember:

At the end of the day, it isn’t about the technology. It certainly isn’t about the screen per se. It is about the informational affordances and cultural practices which have taken shape around the computer and other interactive technologies. It isn’t about the computer replacing the book. It is about a world where students learn with a book in one hand and a mouse in the other, rather than one where they are taught that book culture is so fragile it needs to be protected from the computer.

‘Informational affordances’ is an important frame to view technology through – it emphasizes what’s good about technology, and is a refreshing break from the ‘Doom and Gloom’ rhetoric we’re used to. It urges us to think about what technology allows children (and the rest of us) to do that they couldn’t have done before, rather than focusing solely on its own detriments. In short: There’s something that attracts kids to technology, and we would be wise to find out what it is instead of immediately writing it off. We need to consider the sheer, unending wealth of possibilities an Internet-equipped computer has to offer – the unending knowledge of Wikipedia, the direct, global visual communication that YouTube offers, the vast meta-narratives and stories that video games put forth to indulge in – and then compare that to the increasingly restricted mobility kids are given outside, the shocking dearth of compelling outdoor environments and stimulating activities, and the social sanctions we implicitly place against children when they do decide to “hang out” in public spaces. When we think of it like that, it’s no wonder they retreat indoors – they simply get ‘more’ by sitting in front of a computer.

If we truly want kids to play outside more, then we’ll have to consider the obstacles in the way of enjoying the outdoors – and not only work to minimize them, but find ways to turn the outdoors into a space that also offers similar affordances to what children get from technology. Even more preferable than this, we have to think about how technology and the outdoors can complement, and their affordances can be enjoyed in a balanced, holistic way of living.

Henry Jenkins is the first guy I go to to better understand how to do this.

UPDATE: For another perspective, Morgan Leichter-Saxby urges us to consider our own technological habits, in a piece called “Do As I Say, Not As I Do.”

Feb 08, 2010 :: Tagged under: , , :: #

The History of Rowdy Tweens

A bit of perspective is always a good thing – especially when you’re trying to figure out Justin Bieber’s popularity.

(Via Ypulse.)

Nov 23, 2009 :: Tagged under: , , :: #

Hoppy Legs and Twitchy Noses

Two things:

1. There is something absolutely wonderful about E.R. Bird’s review of Emily Gravett’s picture book “Wolves.” Take, for instance, Bird’s description of the book’s alternative ending – provided kindly by Gavett, since the original ending, she notes in the book, might be a bit gruesome for “sensitive readers” (caution: spoilers afoot!):

But rather than draw an additional scene for the last part of the book, Gravett does something pretty clever. We see the rabbit and the wolf chowing down on a hitherto unmentioned jam sandwich together. The thing is, Gravett has taken a great deal of care to show a spread that squeamish parents will buy as a legitimate ending, and intelligent children will not.

I suppose to put it into context, though, you have to read the book. Which leads me to…

2. There’s something even more wonderful about Emily Gravett’s picture book “Wolves” itself.

Sporting a terrifically clever and funny story, “Wolves” is also matched with simply pitch-perfect mixed-media illustrations: ones that reveal a story-within-a-story, as an intellectually curious rabbit borrows a book from the “burrowing” library that is all about wolves. As the rabbit reads all about wolves, though (sharing rather matter-of-factly his newfound information with the reader), the illustrations show something vastly different: the wolf in question that the rabbit reads about, we see, has seemingly stepped out of his paged confines and is now following the rabbit – prepared to lunge at any moment. Toward the book’s end, things go delightfully wrong for the poor fluffy old rabbit, and the reader is left with an empty spread – filled only with the rabbit’s borrowed book (now tattered and shredded) but with no sign of the rabbit himself. It’s a positively morbid way to end a story, and hence Gravitt provides the aforementioned “alternative ending” – but one, as clever young readers will quickly see, is a bit less than legitimate in its earnestness.

“Wolves” is the kind of subversive book that well-meaning adults love to hate, because of it’s “morbidness” and out of some seeming moral indignation that “kids deserve happy endings” – and the flip of that, it’s a book that clever children love to love, because of its brilliant cleverness and how it recognises their sense of humour and intelligence.

Nov 21, 2009 :: Tagged under: , :: #

Best Books for Manly Men

Alright, so the books aren’t really for men. They’re for boys. And young men. Still, it’s coming from a site called “The Art of Manliness,” so cut me some slack with the headline.

Ahem.

Without further ado, a list the “50 Best Books for Boys and Young Men,” by Brett and Kate McKay.

Ahem again. Alright, with a little ado first:

Unfortunately, not all boys have that kind of enthusiasm for reading. For several decades now, boys have scored lower on reading assessment tests than girls. Boys also take longer to learn to read than girls, are less likely to actually read and to value reading, and are more likely to label themselves as “non-readers” ….

What’s the problem? Some of it may be biological (boys’ language skills develop slower that girls). But a lot of it is sociological. Boys may see reading as a passive and thus sissy activity. Boys also lack male reading mentors – their librarians and teachers are often female, and it’s mom that reads to them. And in the name of gender-neutrality, teachers are foisting books on boys that they simply do not like.

But parents are to blame too, often trying to make their sons read “important books” to build their character. Dad loved some long tome as a boy and wants junior to come to an equal appreciation of it.

But reading experts all agree that boys need to be allowed to pick the books that really interest them.

Still, as they conclude, suggestions don’t hurt a bit. And so finally, without further ado… Well, you’ll just have to click over to see the list itself. With titles like “The Graveyard Book,” “James and the Giant Peach,” and “The Phantom Tollbooth,” though, it’s well worth it.

Just a side note, though: While all the books here are really exceptionally good books – no denying it – there’s a fat chance you’re going to get an average boy today to read “Where the Red Fern Grows.” And, well, a lot of these other titles too. (Heck, it’d take threat of Hungarian toenail-prying torture to get me to read some of these books again.)

That said, it’s always worth it to have a diverse mix of books at hand – a collection of different subjects and genres, books in different styles, a mixture of contemporary fiction alongside classics. Sure, some books will still never get read, but the kid is bound to have a lot more enjoyable an experience with the ones he does pick up to read.

Nov 18, 2009 :: Tagged under: , , , :: #

What the Meep?

ABC News:

“Something happened and one of them said ‘Meep,’” Bob Thompson, a pop culture professor at Syracuse University, said. “And then they all started doing it.” The meeps, he said, came from all of the students in the class in rapid-fire succession. When he asked them what that meant, they said it didn’t really mean anything.

“It’s almost like they look at you like it’s a silly question,” he said.

But meeping doesn’t seem to be funny to Danvers High School Principal Thomas Murray, who threatened to suspend students caught meeping in school.

What the meep? Threatening to suspend kids for having… you know… a pulse?

Nov 11, 2009 :: Tagged under: , , :: #

Dog Days for the Wimpy Kid

The New York Times looks at just what, perhaps, has made Jeff Kinney’s wildly popular “Diary of a Wimpy Kid” book series such a hit among kids. They also look at some of the controversy behind the books:

The Internet is filled with testimonials about children who were frustrated readers until they got their hands on a Wimpy Kid book. But some parents have been less enthusiastic.

“The words ‘moron,’ ‘jerk,’ ‘dork’ and ‘hot girls’ are used in the first five pages,” complains a reviewer on Amazon of the first book. “This is a poor choice for good character building in your children.”

Well, just speaking as someone who was a kid once, I’d say that’s partly what’s made them so popular. Perhaps Grumpy Amazon Reviewer was born at the age of 60?

But before I correct her personally, I’ll let the experts do it:

… The Wimpy Kid books give us a rare glimpse into a child’s ethical mind. “It really captures the struggle of a child that age trying to figure out what it means to be a person,” said Dr. Joshua Sparrow, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School. Dr. Sparrow read the first Wimpy Kid book after a young patient told him about it.

“I think it can help parents tune into what kids know and how they think,” he went on. “It captures what a child is able to get and what’s beyond their reach, and how you have to adjust your expectations because they are still a work in progress.”

Oct 18, 2009 :: Tagged under: , :: #

Re-imagining Children's Play Spaces

The Cool Hunter considers what a splash of colour and innovation might do to the places we provide children to play in:

Kids have boundless imaginations. No matter how poor, colorless and toyless their environment, they’ll find a way to play. They will play with stones, twigs, grass and water, and they will play with each other … In this light, what our urban kids have available to them, is excessively abundant. They have daycare and play spaces, parks, playgrounds, even yards. Yet, when we look at the basic play environments in our communities, there’s no denying that they are sadly short of what they could be. With some color, imagination, labor and resources, they could all be so much better.

A good many of the photographed places aren’t exactly new, but The Cool Hunter’s photo essay is worth a look if you’re interested.

Unfortunately these places are almost universally adult-designed and constructed, and that’s the downfall. No matter how tantalizingly engaging they look for play, they don’t hold a candle to the play spaces children can construct on their own. That doesn’t mean there can’t be a place for playful architecture and design woven into the broader culture, but we must remember to let kids’ play still ultimately remain their own.

Jul 29, 2009 :: Tagged under: , , , :: #

Children's Risk and Play in Gambia

Morgan Leichter-Saxby has conducted extensive anthropological research with children in London’s Adventure Playgrounds, and she writes eloquently about their experiences in the playgrounds and the play culture that emerges. She also shares of her own experiences in the playwork profession – supporting and providing for children’s play, as an adult, in a managed setting. (It’s a tricky business, you can be sure of that.)

Recently, though, she visited Gambia and it’s her recollections of this different global perspective of children’s play that really fascinated me. The boys in Gambia were fully accustomed to “dangerous” play – play with knives and in locales that would easily scare most parents in Western countries – and also interestingly, their play was often indistinguishable from more practical-minded “work”: involving going on hunts into the bush, tracking wild game, and climbing high into trees to collect mangoes. It’s this blurring between work and play, and this open incorporation of “risky” play behavior, that is interesting.

It reinforced for me how particular our ideas of risk are, and how paranoid.  These children take their freedom to roam for granted, as well as their ownership of a knife and ability to use both in whatever way they see fit.  Our fears over paving stones that get slippery or climbing walls with too high a drop demonstrate how we still take carry the false belief that we can control all elements of our children’s environments.  Even when we argue for more risk in play provision, we think of it as something we can “manage”, when we know that the real dangers are always unexpected.

Clearly, conceptions of risk will always be culturally bound: despite a European or American’s unease with the “riskiness” of, say, a child with a knife, it is an established and expected – and clearly not as risky as we surmise – part of Gambia’s play culture. I think we certainly should be asking ourselves what the perceived risk versus actual risk is in much of children’s activities, especially in terms of the rewards afforded. (I suspect we’d be surprised at how little actual risk is involved, and how much stands to be gained, in children’s “dangerous” play.)

But I think what I’m struck by most is how purposeful these Gambian children’s play was, as Leichter-Saxby describes it. Despite the absence of adult direction and provision for play, despite the fact that you might never find a formalized “playground” (as we know it) or a material subculture of “playthings” in their midst, these children’s play certainly is incredibly alive and well – but more to the point, it seems engaged and connected to their broader culture. Play seems a given, indispensable part of their Gambian community; the children’s bow-and-arrow play early on prepares them for the day they role later of hunting and providing for their wider community.

Children’s play can seem “dangerous” and “risky” at times, but Leichter-Saxby’s experience in Gambia reminded me that we must always recognize that risk is a relative thing. If we act in a way that is not fearful of children’s “risky” play, but instead open to its context and acknowledging of its potential benefits – and if we realize ways to provide purpose to that play for the broader society – I think we’d be much better off.

Jul 29, 2009 :: Tagged under: , , , , :: #

How Brands Connect with Kids

BrandChannel.com, considering how companies such as Earth’s Best are using familiar characters and other branding elements to market to young children:

Kim Bremer, Earth’s Best’s Director of Infant Feeding, says parents and families should recognize the influence of characters like Elmo and the affect of Sesame Street’s brand on youngsters. “Kids know Elmo because they watch Sesame Street from the time they are one, and brand recognition is something they see, watch and recognize,” says Bremer. “We take the toddler audience very seriously.”

Jul 28, 2009 :: Tagged under: , , :: #

"G-Force": Born From A Child's Imagination

The director of “that guinea pig movie” out in theaters in a few weeks – Walt Disney’s “G-Force” – recently had an interview with What They Play. While the conversation was mainly in promotion of the movie’s video game, it was this bit that caught my eye:

Where did the original idea for G-Force come from?

Hoyt Yeatman: Believe it or not, my son was in preschool and the classroom got a pet guinea pig. The kids drew straws, and my son, for whatever reason, won, and he got to name the guinea pig “Cute Guy.” Then each weekend, a student was able to take home the guinea pig. So it was Mike’s turn; my son’s name is Mike. He brought it home, and on the kitchen table we had Cute Guy, and he was telling me this little story of how he would wear a G.I. Joe army helmet and a backpack and was this little agent running around, and a light bulb just went on.

If you’ve gotten a chance to see one of the movie’s trailers, then I think you can instantly recognize how its premise just had to have originated from a kid. It’s hard to have a hamster or guinea pig when you’re a kid and not imagine them in this kind of high-flying adventure. (And it gets even worse once your teacher reads the class Beverly Cleary’s “The Mouse and the Motorycle” in the 2nd grade.)

Jul 22, 2009 :: Tagged under: , :: #

Spongebob SquarePant's Massive $8 Billion Franchise

Hard to believe that Spongebob’s already ten years old. Ad Age takes a look at the aquatic wonder’s amazing rise to stardom over the years.

Robert Thompson, director of the Bleier Center for Television and Popular Culture at Syracuse University, summed up the ascent of SpongeBob even more succinctly: “For kids, I would put SpongeBob in that rarefied category that includes the Sesame Street universe and the Disney universe,” he said. “If you add up the total number of episodes in only 10 years, that’s a relatively small body of work, and SpongeBob has managed to infiltrate the culture of childhood and American life at large that few other things have done.”

Jul 15, 2009 :: Tagged under: , , :: #

Should Adults Help Kids Play?

By Daniel Bigler :: Tuesday July 14, 2009

Mike Lanza, of Playborhood.com, recently raised a particularly good question: Should adults help children play?

It’s only been relatively recently in history that adults have become infatuated with children’s play – recognizing its inherent values and, well, the inevitability of it. Of course toy companies have known this for the better part of a century, and the early childhood education field has also recognized it for many decades. The mainstream culture has been a bit behind the curve – only really becoming fully comfortable with the idea of play as not only natural but useful in the past 10 or 15 years, I’d say – but now you could say it has become a de facto standard in America: Children deserve to play, and crucially, it’s adults’ responsibility to support and guide them in their play.

While history somewhat obviously bears out that children have always played, it was still only until the late 1800s and early 1900s – marked most distinctly by a 1930 White House conference, where it was declared that “Play is a Child’s Work” – that adults began attempting to capitalize and control children’s play. As Howard Chudacoff writes in his stellar book, “Children at Play: An American History” (you can read a condensed version of Chudacoff’s central premise in Greater Good Magazine), “The intention was clear: Play was integral to childhood, but because play, like work, needed to be productive, its content was an adult responsibility.”

Thus, we’ve noticed a paradox emerge in this past century: while adults now recognize that children’s unstructured, free play is a valuable pursuit, we’re also now more keen than ever to control it – to extract every ounce of worth from it. As with so many good things before, we’ve made play into an economic good – a commodity that should be utilized well to extract its greatest value.

Lanza points out how this has manifested itself now into an actual adult profession: The Playworker. (I will note that, at least generally, within their European Adventure Playground roots, playworkers have always been rather respectful of this paradox.) We also see this capitalizing streak being spread through the efforts of nonprofits like Playworks and KaBOOM!, into our schools’ play yards and recesses and into our communities’ playgrounds – efforts that, intentionally or not, place the power to play in the hands of adults, not kids.

So what can we do, to truly honor play by letting it be – but also making sure there’s room for it? By putting respectively it in the control of kids themselves, but unconditionally encouraged by adults?

This, I think, is the greater question.

Thankfully, I am rather pleased that children might have already kind of answered that question. As Chudacoff attests – and this was my favorite part of his book – children have an incredibly powerful ability to subvert the most well-conceived ideas and efforts by adults, at anything that ultimately belongs in their domain. We tell children to play on this nice, wonderful playground that we’ve provided; they naturally play in the streets – or (rather brilliantly) come up with new uses for said playground. We give them the utopian, docile world of Barney to sing along to; children naturally come up with the “I Hate You, You Hate Me” version of it. (That, and Soulja Boy. ‘Nuf said.) And so on – never underestimate children’s power to creatively undermine adult’s best efforts.

But, as Lanza recognizes – and I agree – America is not a typically play-friendly place for children. Despite all our best efforts at controlling and guiding play, we’ve engendered a culture that simply doesn’t allow for the real stuff.

I like how Lanza describes the cultural situation, and what role adults may have in changing it:

Most neighborhoods today have no culture of children’s play. They are wastelands. There are virtually no kids playing at all. When kids do play in neighborhoods, they play in small numbers, usually two (i.e. one-on-one play). While play in America’s neighborhoods is scarce, large group play is scarcer. Thus, there is no built-in mechanism for passing down play culture from older kids to younger kids.

We adults who are actively guiding young kids’ play activities are taking on that older kid role. Like older kids, we decide what to play, where to play, and with whom, and we adjudicate disputes.

However, our power over young kids is naturally more absolute than that of older kids, so we need to consciously “back off” when we’re guiding their play. Our goal should be to grow our little kids into big kids, the leaders of play in their neighborhoods. We should let them go beyond their comfort zone at times to prepare them for leadership, and we should be prepared to get totally out of the picture when the older kids are ready to be leaders.

I think he’s right: this is a cultural battle – and like it or not, no program or initiative is going to effectively change culture. We can’t buy our way out of this play deficit.

Rather simply, we just have to hand the keys over to kids themselves – helping provide spaces and places, materials and other things when we can, but ultimately simply recognizing that we can’t and won’t ever be in control of children’s play. When we tell ourselves that, it frees the culture up to be led and forged by the children themselves.

I heard a story once where a man who grew up in the 1960s asked his mother what they did that was so successful in parenting him and his siblings; she simply replied, “We did everything we could to put ourselves out of a job in 18 years.”

I think that’s what our task is now.

Tagged under: , , , , , :: #




Wes Anderson's "Fantastic Mr. Fox"

There are two things that I will always, undoubtedly, without condition love-beyond-fathomable-reason: and they are Roald Dahl and Wes Anderson.

Dahl – the uniquely wonderful British author known for “James and the Giant Peach” and other literary classics – brought an unrelenting humor and dark whimsy to my childhood. Literally, I felt my brain being tickled whenever I read his books; there were little men, Gremlin-like, who sprouted from the book pages, hopping from chapter to chapter to then enter my left ear and wander deeper inside my head, where they poked and prodded my cerebrum relentlessly.

Anderson – the auteur film director with his idiosyncratic stories and offbeat visual sensibilities – has these past few years taken up an uncannily close place to Dahl in my brain. Like Dahl, he is unsentimental in his storytelling and fiercely funny in recognizing the absurdities of life. His imagination just naturally seeps into my everyday thoughts and experiences, and his darned visual style pervades my life (and clothing choices). He’s too irresistible not to love.

Naturally then, the thought of Roald Dahl and Wes Anderson put together makes my head explode. But that’s exactly the case with the upcoming Wes Anderson film, “Tim Burton’s Corpse Bride” bringing the movie to life, it shall be very good. I declare that as absolute truth, even before seeing it.

But all of this is to say that the very first photograph of the movie has now hit the web you’ll have to round it out a bit in your head with past knowledge of Wes Anderson’s trademark style, but it is exciting. Here it is:

Complementing it, and perhaps slightly more fitting with the image I have in my head of the movie, is the only other glimpse we’ve gotten, of the film’s logo:

If that doesn’t tickle your brain, then you’re not wired right.

Jul 10, 2009 :: Tagged under: , , , , :: #

Kristof Picks the Best Kids Books Ever

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof picks what he considers the best books for kids to read this summer (lest they – heaven forbid – drop those precious I.Q. points that he worries about):

2. The Hardy Boys series. Yes, I hear the snickers. But I devoured them myself and have known so many kids for whom these were the books that got them excited about reading. The first in the series is weak, but “House on the Cliff” is a good opener. (As for Nancy Drew, I yawned over her, but she seems to turn girls into Supreme Court justices. Among her fans as kids were Sandra Day O’Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.)

Disregarding his compulsion to “make summer productive”, Kristof does know how to put together a good list. He has Twain (“The Prince and the Pauper,” not “Tom Sawyer” – though he considers both good reading) and Harry Potter, Alex Rider and “The Wind in the Willows.” And while he grossly omitted Roald Dahl, he does later make amends on his blog – and includes mention of the wonderful “A Wrinkle in Time” series as well as other classics, like “The Phantom Tollbooth,” “Harriet the Spy,” and “Holes.” His kids chimed in with their own suggestions as well, and he’s inviting readers to continue commenting – in fact, they already broke his previous record of 1,000 comments for a single column, coming in it at more than 2,350.

So, I guess, grab your library cards. That’s a lot of reading to do.

Jul 08, 2009 :: Tagged under: , , :: #

View-Master: The Movie

The Hollywood Reporter:

Remember View-Master, the Fisher-Price toy with those little 3D picture discs of mountains, rivers and caverns that you could rotate through a viewfinder? Well, DreamWorks is in negotiations to acquire movie rights to the toy from Mattel (which owns Fisher-Price) and has asked Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci to do some “Transformers”-style magic on it.

Heck yes!

Jul 07, 2009 :: Tagged under: , , :: #

Business Week: 'Inside Disney's Toy Factory'

Damian Joseph takes a look at two of the House’s of Mouse’s top toy designers, and the duo’s process for creating some of the company’s most successful toys:

The pair attribute their success to a process they’ve refined since joining forces: a systematic brainstorming and prototyping process that supports the continuous innovation necessary to overhaul toy lineups every six months. It matches Mazzocco’s years of toy designing experience—a specialty that requires knowledge of child psychology and play patterns—with Heatherly’s experience in designing software, electronics, and other core technologies.

I love the first part of their approach:

Mazzocco and Heatherly point to three elements of the brainstorm sessions they say are crucial to success. The first is “icebreaker” activities—basically, fun contests that last anywhere from 10 minutes to a half-hour. When working on Club Penguin products, the teams held an igloo-building competition; for Disney Princess, they put on a fashion show. It sounds fluffy, but Heatherly and Mazzocco say the icebreakers break employees out of the workplace mind-set, help team members gain comfort working with one another, and ease the concerns of non-creative workers who might be intimidated by having to come up with designs alongside Disney specialists. “Some people want to cut to the chase. We tried it, and it just doesn’t work,” Heatherly says. “You really have to commit to the process. You have to have some decompression time to be creative.”

(Via KidScreen.)

Jul 06, 2009 :: Tagged under: , , :: #

Princess Culture Marches On

Doctoral candidate and blogger Sara Grimes considers the connections between the consumption-based “princess” culture prevalent among young girls and issues of later narcissism when they get older.

Grimes does a great job at summarizing the current research (and criticisms) about the culture trend, and even links to the excellent Fallen Princesses photography exhibit that presents an interesting spin on the “happily ever after” fairy tale endings.

Princess play and the culture of princesses is definitely a worthy topic for discussion, but it’s one I’ve never really felt sure how to respond to. It’s easy to offer knee-herk responses: to criticise, to say that Disney’s ruining all of our little girls and turning them into spoiled brats. That hasn’t been my experience, though. The little girls at my preschool may dress up as princesses and be thoroughly enraptured by the culture, but they’ve always tended to be the ones in control of it, rather than it them. They rambunctiously add their own superhero capes and striped socks to the mix, with magic crowns and neighborhood firefighter duties for good measure. Being princesses for them is as much about rescuing stray dogs and wearing paper bags (see: Robert Munsch) as it is about fulfilling the “princess” role as defined by the commodified Disney princess culture.

I just don’t think we can define kids that easily. They’ll continually prove to us, without regard, that it can’t be done. This is certainly one of the dangers of the Sociology of Childhood: Kids are hardly ever willing to go along with being put in a box.

Unless it’s a cardboard box. Then, I find, they typically like that.

Jul 03, 2009 :: Tagged under: , , :: #

Why Boys Will Pick Bob the Builder Over Barbie

Scientists propose a genetic explanation to that age-old nurture-nature question of why young boys typically – regardless of social pressures or sanctions either way – play with trucks and “boy toys” instead of “girl toys”:

The U.S. study looked at babies aged three to eight months – before they can identify even the gender of other people. Researchers placed a doll and truck inside a puppet-theatre style box and showed them to 30 children – 17 boys and 13 girls – for two ten-second intervals.

The findings, from researchers at Texas A&M University, overturn conventional wisdom that children’s toy preferences are down to social conditioning. The academics believe that society’s expectations do play a major part in influencing how children play. But subtle cues from parents and peers merely reinforce a pre-disposition for masculine toys among boys and feminine for girls.

One theory is that these innate preferences are linked to traditional male and female functions dating back to the dawn of the species.

Boys are thought to prefer playing with cars and balls because they involve moving objects and rough and tumble play. These activities may be linked to their ancestors’ skills in hunting for food and finding a mate. Girls, on the other hand, are thought to like red or pink toys because a preference for those colours enhanced their abilities to nurture infants, thus aiding their family’s survival.

I’ve heard from so many parents who’ve said they have, from the very beginning, tried to raise their children to be “gender-neutral”… but they claim it almost never works, at least as they expect. Their boys almost always pick the truck toys over others, and their girls almost always pick the pink stuff over everything else.

Maybe this is why.

Jul 02, 2009 :: Tagged under: , , :: #

"Take Two Video Games and Call Me in the Morning"

Somehow I missed Scientific American’s take on video games earlier this week:

Certainly, the mind is the product of its environment and devoting a lot of time to any one activity will induce changes in the brain. The question is: what changes does video gaming induce, are these changes beneficial or deleterious, and how do they affect behavior?

Growing scientific evidence demonstrates that the human brain dynamically changes in response to experience and to changes in the environment, a phenomenon that is known as “plasticity.” It is also believed that timing is crucial – our brains appear to be more susceptible to change early in our developmental lives. Thus, a world with vastly different technology driven demands, opportunities and challenges, is surely going to lead to brain changes: the brain of our children will be different from those of the generations who rode their bikes, jumped rope, and played sports in the backyard, rather than throwing a football with Madden NFL 09.

There has been increasing interest on the possibility that video games may actually induce brain changes that lead to behavioral benefits. A number of applications of computer games have been developed for education and rehabilitation. At least anecdotally, individuals who have played a lot of video games using joy stick controllers in their youth are supposed to make better airline pilots when they grow-up. However, finding that familiarity with the motor skills required to operate a computer or a gaming console conveys advantages for the control of similar technology is not that surprising or exciting. We have long known that practice can make perfect.

A recent study by Daphne Bavelier and colleagues at the University of Rochester offers the intriguing suggestion that playing video games may not only be beneficial because of practicing specific skills, but may also enhance core functions of vision – something that has been classically viewed as immutable as an adult. These investigators have reported that playing certain action video games results in a significant improvement in “visual contrast sensitivity,” a measure of how well an individual is able to discern low-contrast targets.

(Via BoingBoing.)

Jul 02, 2009 :: Tagged under: , :: #

Risks, Rights, and Responsibilities of Children in the Digital Age

Henry Jenkins recently interviewed Dr. Sonia Livingstone – a very bright and very wonderful person, if I may say – who has been at the forefront of research about children’s uses of and interaction with media, culture, and the Internet. Her latest book, Children and the Internet: Great Expectations and Challenging Realities, has just released abroad and will (apparently) be made available in the U.S. in September.

From Jenkins’ description of the book:

It combines quantitative and qualitative perspectives to give us a compelling picture of how the internet is impacting childhood and family life in the United Kingdom. It will be of immediate relevence for all of us doing work on new media literacies and digital learning and beyond, for all of you who are trying to make sense of the challenges and contradictions of parenting in the digital age. As always, what I admire most about Livingstone is her deft balance: she does find a way to speak to both half-full and half-empty types and help them to more fully appreciate the other’s perspective.

Jenkins has posted the first of a multi-part interview he conducted with Livingstone, and there’s some truly wonderful bits from her in it. She considers benefits and risks of children’s use of the Internet, the changing dynamics of ‘risk’ over history, and how we may avoid fueling a ‘moral panic’ around children and new media.

I’ve sought to show how young people’s enthusiasm, energies and interests are a great starting point for them to maximize the potential the internet could afford them, but they can’t do it on their own, for the internet is a resource largely of our – adult – making. And it’s full of false promises: it invites learning but is still more skill-and-drill than self-paced or alternative in its approach; it invites civic participation, but political groups still communicate one-way more than two-way, treating the internet more as a broadcast than an interactive medium; and adults celebrate young people’s engagement with online information and communication at the same time as seeking to restrict them, worrying about addiction, distraction, and loss of concentration, not to mention the many fears about pornography, race hate and inappropriate sexual contact.

She argues for a balanced approach to children and the Internet and new media, one which carefully weighs its “affordances” versus “impacts”:

Many of us have argued for some time now that the concept of ‘impacts’ seems to treat the internet (or any technology) as if it came from outer space, uninfluenced by human (or social and political) understandings. Of course it doesn’t. So, the concept of affordances usefully recognises that the online environment has been conceived, designed and marketed with certain uses and users in mind … Affordances also recognises that interfaces or technologies don’t determine consequences 100% … That’s not to say that I’d rule out all questions of consequences, more that we need to find more subtle ways of asking the questions here. Problematically too, there is still very little research that looks long-term at changes associated with the widespread use of the internet, making it surprisingly hard to say whether, for example, my children’s childhood is really so different from mine was, and why.

It’s one of those interviews that you can’t pull yourself away from, so rich it is with insights and possibilities. Dr. Livingstone’s work frames the issues of children, mediated culture, and the Internet on such a broader, infinitely better level than we’re used to; really, in essence, she’s providing the framework that we’ve always needed to first properly understand both the macro- and the micro-level pictures of children & media and then digest it in the bigger perspective of children’s lives and development.

Jul 01, 2009 :: Tagged under: , , , :: #

13-Year-Old Swaps iPod for Walkman for One Week

How would the youth of today respond to the technology of yesteryear? BBC Magazine has a 13-year-old swap his iPod for a Walkman to find out.

Hilarious.

(Via Daring Fireball.)

Jun 29, 2009 :: Tagged under: , :: #

Sympathizing with Vampires

With Stephanie Meyer’s “Twilight” series at the forefront, Liz Rosenberg considers why so much of young adult literature today is rooted in the supernatural:

Like all speculative fiction, that of the supernatural allows teenagers to grapple with ideas. In this it’s kin to science fiction, though that genre tends to be social and political – “Stranger in a Strange Land’’ by Robert Heinlein or “A Clockwork Orange’’ by Anthony Burgess – while the supernatural inclines toward the psychological and personal.

Jun 28, 2009 :: Tagged under: , , , :: #

Kids Talk to Kaleidoscope about Brands and Advertising

Kids ages eight to 17 talk with Kaleidoscope (Nickoldeon’s brand and consumer insights department) about how they view brands and advertising. The short version: brands are important, and serve as a reflection to your friends and peers of your personality and social identity.

According to kids and teens, there are several attributes that make a brand important, with quality and “the way it looks” rated as the most important. Having an experience with a brand is typically a prerequisite, especially with boys. If kids or teens have a less-than-great experience with a brand, they tend to reject it and are reluctant to give it a second chance. From a social perspective, brands are a direct reflection of personality, therefore brand acceptance relies heavily on peer approval. This makes brand choices especially significant to tween and teen girls. As one girl in grade seven said, “You get more respect if your clothes are more expensive. I get lots of compliments on my Hollister jeans because everybody wants them.”

Here’s the PDF information sheet and video of interviews from the first of Kaleidoscope’s two-part series.

Jun 28, 2009 :: Tagged under: , , , :: #

Hiyao Miyazaki's Tenth Animated Masterpiece, "Ponyo"

Speaking of rich, imaginative universes and mythologies that beckon children to step inside and become a part of them: you can’t get any better than Studio Ghibli and Hayao Miyazaki’s animated films.

Here’s the trailer for the upcoming U.S. version of Miyazaki’s latest film, “Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea.” It’s apparently been an astounding critical and commercial success in Miyazaki’s home country of Japan (where it was released in 2008), even if it hasn’t quite matched the box office numbers of its predecessor, the Academy Award-winning “Spirited Away”.

Set in an underwater world, “Ponyo” is about a young fish girl (Ponyo) who escapes from her family in the hopes of becoming human. She befriends Sōsuke, a five-year-old human boy who vows to protect her no matter what, and helps her in her quest to become human.

Many of Miyazaki’s past films, like “Ponyo,” feature children as main characters – protagonists who are often endowed with keen insight and understanding beyond even the adults around them. Miyazaki himself has said he spends a lot of time thinking about children and childhood, and I came across this interesting quote from him about it:

“… Children’s souls are the inheritors of historical memory from previous generations.” – Hayao Miyazaki

You can certainly see this sentiment throughout many of his films, like “Nausicaä” or “Spirited Away”, where the young girl protagonists rise to fulfill a society’s legend and complete its history. Talk about empowerment.

Jun 23, 2009 :: Tagged under: , , , :: #

Children, Culture, and "The Last Airbender"

By Daniel Bigler :: Tuesday June 23, 2009

The first trailer for M. Night Shyamalan’s live-action adaptation of Nickelodeon hit cartoon series,“Avatar: The Last Airbender” just found its way out into the world – despite the film just having begun shooting, in March.

I’m not sure if I’m really keen on this being a live-action flick, or one branded with Night’s name all over it for that matter. The original show’s animation is, in a word, stunning – even on a small screen – and a live-action version is going to have to do a heckuva lot to convince me that it was worth the switch.

Still, expect this to be a pretty big thing if you’re at all around kids next summer. “Avatar” has been a huge hit for Nickelodeon these past few years, and I can only see it’s popularity exploding with a full-length blockbuster film treatment.

I’ve been watching the series off and on for a bit now, and I keep coming back to it. I think what I love about the show is how complete and expansive of an alternate universe it presents – a world where human civilization is divided into four nations: Water, Earth, Air and Fire – and just how steeped the show also is in eastern religion, mythology and culture. It’s a bit of a “Samurai Jack”/“Dragonball” hybrid, but it’s a beautifully told story with lush animation – and a sort of organic “wholeness” to it. These kinds of alternative constructed mythologies and worlds just seem to draw me, and I really think we can see kids being drawn to this type of culture too.

Children’s cultures – their material and media cultures – are really thought to have always been, even in ancient times, an integral part of socialization: transmitting social rules and norms through the mythology, songs, games, stories of a society. What I think is easy to forget, though, is how much of an incredibly dynamic, engaged role children have in culture – it’s not a passive transmission and reception, not by any means. Children interact with and interpret culture, and they actively influence and shape it to meet their own needs. As much as older generations might hate it, a society changes as children creatively interpret and shape that society’s culture.

Reflecting now, I think this might be a reason why “Avatar: The Last Airbender” is so popular among kids; the show openly beckons children to immerse themselves in its steeped mythological world – and its creators somewhat expect, I imagine, that children are going to dynamically engage the show in their inner mind: imagining new stories within the show’s ecological universe, filling in characters’ back histories, mapping its different worlds and locales. The show’s creators treat the mythology and universe of “Avatar” as real – or at least they treat it seriously, without limit, as something that you can step in and become an active part of – and therefore kids treat it that way as well.

I’d wager that’s probably what makes the difference with most cultural artifacts – movies, games, stories – that kids end up really liking… it all comes down to whether that bit of culture allows, or even encourages children to become a part of culture and actively engage with it.

Tagged under: , , , , :: #




A Father's Perspective on the Future of Video Games

Patrick Klepek, of G4 TV, offers his own commentary along with an e-mail exchange he recently had with a young father, who wonders if the Nintendo Wii’s motion controller may have completely changed the concept of video games for his own kids:

These are kids growing up in a Wii world and it’s going to change things. Their nostalgia isn’t Mario Bros., it’s Wii Sports.

“I am sure I am not the first grown person to go buy a Wii to save their real game system from the little ones or just get the kids a video game system that will not bankrupt the family budget,” he told me. “I would be willing to bet that accounts for a large portion of the Wii install base right there. All of our kids are learning to play video games standing up and twisting and waving around like crazed (well) kids. Which is a lot better than being a couch potato like their parents.

“In the near future my sons are going to get tired of Mario and be ready for Call of Duty and SOCOM,” he said. “They are very smart and will know the difference between that little box with its poor graphics and the PS3/360. But they will have no idea how to play a video game sitting on the couch and mashing buttons. They are going to want a gun that recoils and moves with them. They are going to want to dodge and duck and strafe with their bodies, because that’s the way [they] are learning to play today.”

… In ten years I’m going to be telling my kids about the old days when all video games were played by sitting on the couch and pressing buttons,” he joked. “They are going to make fun of me and call me an old man.”

It’s a great piece. I had pretty much the exact same thought when the Wii was first announced a few years ago.

(Via What They Play.)

Jun 18, 2009 :: Tagged under: , , , :: #

Walt Disney Gets His Own Museum

Reuters reports on the newly established museum chronicling Walt Disney’s life and art.

“Walt Disney reached people because he was a magical story teller,” Richard Benefield, executive director of the museum, said. “Now it’s our turn to tell his story, to narrate the life of someone whose name is often confused with a brand and to present him simply as a human being with an extraordinary vision.”

(Via Kidscreen.)

Jun 18, 2009 :: Tagged under: , , , , :: #

Habbo Releases Study on Youth Brand Interests

Emily Claire Afan, writing for Kidscreen, on the importance of brands to teenagers:

Teen virtual world and community Habbo has unveiled the results of its Global Habbo Youth Survey Brand Update for 2009, which takes a look at the connection kids 11 to 19 have with brands and their media consumption habits … In the US, 62% of survey respondents most agreed with the statement “I nearly always buy my favorite brands,” compared to 63% from all countries. A full 51% of US teens most agreed that “I prefer brands that are targeted to teenagers,” compared to 61% of respondents from all countries, while 43% of US respondents said they preferred the most popular brands versus 52% of global respondents.

As for the social function of brands, half of the US teens surveyed agreed with the statement “I want to stand out from the crowd with my brands,” while only 38% of respondents in all countries agreed.

Well, we Americans do like to stand out from the crowd. (And I’m not an advertising executive, but I’d say these figures from America’s teens are likely on par with the rest of the American adult population.)

Jun 09, 2009 :: Tagged under: , , :: #

Toys 'R' Us Becomes One with the Schwarz

Two of the biggest names in the toy store biz are now becoming one: Toys ‘R’ Us announced they are now acquiring FAO Schwarz, America’s boutique toy store. (Apologies for the lame Space Balls/Star Wars joke. I really couldn’t help it.)

KidScreen reports that Toys ‘R’ Us will transition the merchandise, management, distribution and marketing operations to their company, but continue operating the two brick-and-mortar “flagship” FAO Schwarz stores in New York and Los Vegas under the FAQ Schwarz names.

I must be getting old: I’ve begun to have a love-hate relationship with most toy stores. When I was a kid, toy stores were actually fun. You could roam the aisles and try out different toys, racing remote control cars down the aisles and playing with the toy train sets. It was paradise.

Those were the good old days.

Now – okay, I admit I am old guy ranting here, but it is fun – toy stores are mostly about cramming as many packed-up-tight boxes on the shelves as possible. If you’re nine, the most you get to do is look at the photos on the box. Rarely (based on my experience) do you get to test out the toys in the store, and there’s also almost zip chance you’ll get to play with them in the car – it’s more likely you’ll have to wait until you get home and dad surgically extracts your new toy from it’s plastic packaging tomb.

That’s why I think FAO Schwarz is so cool. They’re strongly anti-packaging culture. They tend to stock toys that aren’t designed to make a quick buck – but are more open-ended and creative, meant for actually serious play. The sales people in their stores encourage you to hang around and play – the layout and design of their stores make it so you can stick around and spend a couple of fun hours there.

And, let’s face it, they also have those cool giant floor pianos videos. (I finally mastered chopsticks, at age 22, on the one in the Los Vegas store.)

We need more toy stores like FAO Schwarz. And we need Toys ‘R’ Us to realize what made FAO cool and keep them that way. (Maybe minus the steep prices… but that’s a different story.)

May 28, 2009 :: Tagged under: , , , :: #

Darn Kids and Their Monster Movies

What sounds like a magnificent homage to three decades of creative, ingenuous filmmaking from 12-year-olds: a DVD of 30 kid-made monster movies created between the 1950s-1980s.

From Cory Doctorow’s review:

I sent away for a review copy of the disc and it’s been my captivating evening viewing for two nights now. Monster Kid Home Movies is an utterly exuberant celebration of monster-obsessed amateur creativity, and the films are filled with raw enthusiasm for the genre. These are Forry Ackerman’s spiritual progeny at their most ingenious, contriving incredible costumes, ill-advised stunts, clever camera work, and often hilarious hamming to recreate the famous monsters of filmland.

Sometimes I feel like I totally would’ve fit in growing up in the 1950s.

May 27, 2009 :: Tagged under: , , , , :: #

Princess Fever

Princess fever – It sounds like something out of a bad pirate movie (but then again, maybe I’ve just been listening to the “Cabin Fever” song from Muppet Treasure Island too much):

These days, that message begins practically at birth with everything from princess baby shirts and “her royal highness” bibs to princess-themed photo albums and picture frames for baby girls. By the time those girls are toddlers, many are drawn to the princess dresses, glittery crowns and even makeup.

And it goes on and on. Barbie has many princess-oriented items, including a top-selling “Princess and the Pauper” DVD. Even seemingly tougher girls like Dora the Explorer occasionally don crowns, too. And then, of course, there’s the undisputed leader in all things princess: The Walt Disney Co.

The “princess culture” has been around forever, but many parents are now asking if it has reached a tipping point: Has the “princess syndrome” – so commonly seen among young girls who, at a crucial age of early development, also typically have a penchant for fantasy play and a strong attraction to sparkly objects and the color pink – gone too far?

Child psychologists and sociologists are questioning whether the princess play culture (of Disney princesses, Barbie, and her sheer evil cousins, the Bratz dolls) has a direct impact beyond just the material culture of childhood – but an impact leading to an entitlement mentality and unhealthy narcissism among kids when they reach adolescence and early adulthood. Is this all just innocent fantasy, or do the underlying messages of “being a princess” have a significant, perhaps damaging, impact on children’s self-identity?

Whether to encourage this princess culture is unsurprisingly a big issue many parents are having to face, and the lines between innocent play and commodified play are murky. It’s hard to believe this material Princess culture is not impacting today’s sociology of childhood in some way – yet at the same time, it’s hard to separate out what tends to be children’s natural interests. Can a balance be struck?

For a sociologist, this is much more than just pretend play. It really starts to get at the core of how society views the “American girlhood.” Read, form thoughts. Bonus points for going on to read any of Dr. Daniel Cook’s research or books on the topic.

May 26, 2009 :: Tagged under: , , , :: #

Tintin is ready for Hollywood

The Los Angeles Times:

He turns 80 this year but still looks 18, with the same fair-haired quiff. Like Madonna and Sting, two other famous blonds, he goes by one name. Mention him and a European is likely to cheer, while an American is more apt to go, “Huh?” But that’s destined to change now that Steven Spielberg is making a movie based on his life.

He is Tintin, intrepid cub reporter and nemesis of evildoers, whose long career in numerous cartoon strips and comic books, with faithful dog Snowy at his side, has made him one of Belgium’s most celebrated exports (up there with chocolate and waffles).

… Just in case you hadn’t yet heard about the $130 million dollar project, which just wrapped.

Spielberg’s had the long-running Tintin comic series optioned and under development for decades, and it was announced in 2007 that he would partner with Peter Jackson to produce a trilogy of films featuring the young reporter – with the two trading off as directors, Steven directing the first, Peter the second, and then them co-directing the third. They’re using an innovative motion-capture method – similar to what was used to create Gollum in “Lord of the Rings,” as well as to make Robert Zemeckis’ “The Polar Express” and “Monster House,” and even to age Brad Pitt in David Fincher’s “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” – which will allow them to hopefully replicate the original style of Georges ‘Hergé’ Remi’s comic books.

From the sounds of it, though, Tintin will mark a fairly revolutionary advance in this kind of movie-making. I’m picturing something of a stylized, film noir-like mix between the 2004 “Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow” and maybe a more two-dimensional and alive-looking (i.e. sans creepy, glass-eyed Santa Claus) “The Polar Express”, though I could be completely off. Here’s what Jackson said to Variety about the film’s look in 2007:

Jackson said WETA will stay true to Remi’s original designs in bringing the cast of Tintin to life, but that the characters won’t look cartoonish. “Instead,” Jackson said, “we’re making them look photorealistic; the fibers of their clothing, the pores of their skin and each individual hair. They look exactly like real people — but real Herge people!”

Daniel Craig, Andy Serkis, Simon Pegg, and Nick Frost are among the cast, and Jamie Bell stars in the title role. (Though I much preferred the first casting choice: Thomas Sangster. That kid has just got it.)

“The Adventures of Tintin: Secret of the Unicorn” is set to release in 2011.

May 25, 2009 :: Tagged under: , , , , , , , , , :: #

Turning Books into Blockbusters

What movies have you seen with kids in the past few years? There’s a growing chance that the stories were based on pre-existing material, writes Rachel Abramowitz for the Los Angeles Times:

“Audiences today are looking for family experiences,” said Elizabeth Gabler, president of production at Fox 2000 Pictures, which is producing the live-action “Percy Jackson.” One result of the recession is the rise in ticket sales, as movies remain one of the relatively cheaper forms of entertainment.

“With market and world conditions, it’s a much easier form of entertainment for a whole family to do together. It’s almost like a sporting event,” Gabler said. All the movie studios are hunting for existing properties with tested concepts — at least as books — that can be turned into films, though none exist on the scale of J.K. Rowling’s “Harry Potter,” with its more than 400 million copies in print and vast cultural footprint.

With movie adaptations of works like “Avatar: The Last Airbender,” “Yogi Bear,” “The Smurfs,” The Lone Ranger,” and more in the works, Hollywood is pillaging television for stories – and also reaching for the bookshelf to find classic children’s stories to draw upon. The advantage, as executives see it, is a built-in audience and the ability to reach out to parents as well as kids. Of course studios must strike a careful balance – a “balance of intensity,” one Hollywood executive says, where parents know exactly what thrills to expect.

If you’re interested in the state of children’s movies and what kids watch, I’d heartily recommend the article.

Also don’t miss the fantastic conversation at the end with the screenwriters responsible for the upcoming “Goosebumps” film:

To prepare to adapt the series into a movie (slated for release next year), screenwriters Larry Karaszewski and Scott Alexander watched 1980s flicks like “Gremlins,” “The Goonies” and “Poltergeist.”

“They’re more realistic than a lot of the family films today,” Alexander said. “The kids feel like real kids. They mess with each other. They swear. They’re uninhibited. There’s an appealing level of chaos.”

This just tickles me to no end, and my gut instinct is that Karaszewski and Alexander might really have nailed it with “Goosebumps” – unlike many of the other productions mentioned. “An appealing level of chaos…” How fantastic is that?

May 25, 2009 :: Tagged under: , , , , , , :: #

Pixar, John Lasseter, and The Brave Little Toaster?

John Lasseter, recounting in a 2006 interview about his first introduction to Thomas M. Disch’s story of The Brave Little Toaster: A Bedtime Story for Small Appliances:

“A friend of mine had told me about a 40-page novella called The Brave Little Toaster, by Thomas Disch. I’ve always loved animating inanimate objects, and this story had a lot of that. Tom Willhite liked the idea, too, and got us the rights to the story so we could pitch it to the animation studio along with our test clip.”

John Lasseter, as you may know, began his career as an animator at Walt Disney Feature Animation in the 1980s. The above quote recounts Lasseter’s efforts setting up The Brave Little Toaster as an adaptation at Disney, proposing a 2D/3D hybrid blend of animation for it – a technique which they first decided to try out in 1983 on Where the Wild Things Are (another project Disney was working on).

The “Brave Little Toaster in hybrid 2d/3d” idea was not a hit, and Lasseter got booted from Disney specifically for suggesting it – at which time he headed to a then-fledgling company called Pixar. The Brave Little Toaster was produced – as a traditionally animated film – by Hyperion Pictures and then distributed on home video by Disney in 1987.

Of course the game has changed since then, with Lasseter now effectively in charge (as Chief Creative Officer) of all of Pixar’s as well as Disney’s animated films. And one interesting idea floating around out there – based upon an interview with Pete Docter, the director of Pixar’s “Up”, where he mentions a new Pixar project called “Brave” – is that Lasseter might just be digging “The Brave Little Toaster” back out of the archives for a revamp.

At this point it’s rumor-mongering, put out there for consideration by the folks at the the film blog /Film, but this much I can say: for a rumor, I like it much. It probably will never happen, but if it did I’d be happy.

“The Brave Little Toaster” was a favorite of mine as a kid, and while the original film will always remain a favorite, I’m all for talented companies like Pixar exploring the story in different ways.

May 25, 2009 :: Tagged under: , , , , , , , , :: #