© Copyright 2010 Tink *~*~*
Click the photos to see if a larger version is available in Flickr
👿 I am pretty much a Tinkerbell purist. With the exception of my “Mornings aren’t magical” coffee mug, I am generally a devotee of the original shot-glass sized Tink from the original 1953 classic film Peter Pan. Whenever I’ve purchased Tinkabilia, which has been frequent as you can imagine, I’ve stuck with classic Tink, whose magical mystique is unbesmirched by corporate greed and the march of time.
Well, I guess Disney has decided that they haven’t heaped enough indignities upon my beloved favorite Disney character. Thus far, their list of crimes against her is as follows:
- They re-drew her. CGI – ’nuff said.
- They’ve converted her into a maintenance woman. Disney has insisted that the “Tinker” in Tinkerbell means “one who fixes things”. Please. Everyone knows that “tinker” REALLY means, “the sound a bell makes”. Duh.
- They’ve fabricated a contradictory back-story for her. Disney needs to fire whomever came up with this absurd “Pixie Hollow” back-story, populated with little fairy friends. Oh but wait – it’s making money :roll:. This back-story would never happen. In fact, it never DID happen. Tinkerbell hangs with the Lost Boys. Always has, always will.
- They’ve made her speak. English, even. See “the sound a bell makes”, above. That’s as close to describing her voice as we mere mortals have ever been able to come. It’s like trying to describe the sound of a dog whistle – everyone knows you are lying because humans cannot hear the sound of a dog whistle.
- And the latest, most heinous of all crimes against faith, trust and pixie dust – Disney hath made Tinkerbell a person-sized face character in the parks. Now I ask you, how are all the children, both young and old, supposed to believe that this face character is the real Tinkbell, when everyone knows that the REAL Tinkerbell is so small, she fits in the palm of Peter’s hand? Are we therefore to believe that Peter must be a giant? Preposterous!
And yet, it’s this very most heinous of all crimes which Disney intends to perpetuate with the making of this “live action romantic comedy” film. Just read this article, and then read all the comments that follow. This is what Disney hath wrought upon poor Tink. Oh, the indignity of it all. O, the humanity!
I think they are now painting themselves into a corner. I’ve read that the reason we have no Princess Giselleface character in the parks is because they’d have to find X many clones of Amy Adams. For animated characters, you can easily explain differences in the way they appear in person versus on film – “Oh, everyone looks different when they are drawn.” But you cannot explain why the face character in the park is obviously not the same person as the live action character on screen. Can you imagine the dismay, the anguish, the tears, when little children who’ve seen the “live action romantic comedy” are presented with an obviously FAKE face character Tinkerbell in the parks? Kids are not stupid, you know. They have the ability to suspend disbelief, but eventually they will see that Tink in the parks is bogus. And once they see that, they will start looking at the other characters with the same critical eye.
I predict the downfall of the character meet! 😀
This has been another scintillating episode of TINK’S *~*~* LINKS – hope you’ve enjoyed 🙂
Subscribe to My Mobile Adventures *~*~*
That way, you’ll never miss a post. 🙂