Individuals who reject widely accepted scientific facts, such as flat Earth believers, are often viewed as outliers but have gained a visible presence online in recent years.

Organizations like the Flat Earth Society in the United States and the United Kingdom, as well as “Globe Lie” groups in Germany and other European countries, actively promote flat Earth beliefs through websites, conferences, and social media.

A small number of public figures, including former NBA player Kyrie Irving and social media influencer B.o.B, have publicly supported or promoted flat Earth theories, drawing further attention to the movement.

Common arguments from flat Earthers include claims that photos of Earth from space are fabricated, that water’s surface always finds its level (allegedly disproving curves), and that airline flight patterns are easier to explain on a flat map.

Some assert that governments and scientists are conspiring to conceal the “truth” of a flat Earth for financial or political gain, which feeds into broader distrust of institutions.

The resurgence of flat Earth beliefs in the Internet era is linked to social media algorithms, which can create echo chambers; viral videos and forums foster communities where these views go unchallenged and feel validated.

People attracted to flat Earth beliefs often share traits such as distrust of authority, a desire for certainty in a complex world, feeling marginalized by mainstream society, or seeking a sense of belonging.

Online, the movement uses memes, YouTube videos, podcasts, and discussion forums to spread ideas and recruit new adherents, often linking flat Earth to other conspiracy theories.

Psychologists note that subscribing to such beliefs can give people a sense of personal empowerment, but can also make them more isolated from mainstream thinking.

Individuals who reject widely accepted scientific facts, such as flat Earth believers, are often viewed as outliers but have gained a visible presence online in recent years.

Title:

Content: Health News & Commentary

They Spent Years Telling Us Peer Pressure Is Wrong, Now It’s Their Weapon of Choice

"Instead of accepting that there is a perfectly rational explanation for refusing a rushed vaccine with the worst safety record in modern history for a virus that presents next-to-no risk for most people – prime ministers, presidents and premiers have insisted that defiance is a selfish act that demands constant social pressure."
  • 55
    Shares

Shops in various European countries have erected physical wire fences to separate vaccinated and unvaccinated customers.

Footage from a Kaufland supermarket in Romania has surfaced depicting a sign at the entrance dividing customers into aisles separated by two-metre high wire barricades, draped with plastic, open at the top and the bottom.

Despite these literal walls placed between people, many continue to deny that segregation is taking place.

After months of independent reports contradicting the global narrative, the World Health Authority has admitted that both vaccinated and unvaccinated people spread Covid at roughly the same rate, and that being vaccinated (in this particular case) does not stop transmission.

If governments remained true to their word about ‘following the science’, this revelation should have signalled the end for vaccine passports.

Instead, nearly every government has come out in recent days to double-down on their booster-shot programs to combat a new Covid variant. Omicron is noted for being vaccine-resistant and mild, mimicking a weak flu and yet politicians have successfully used its existence to guarantee the continuation of authoritarian health orders.

Our governments have forgotten that ‘unvaccinated’ does not mean infected. For the first time in history, completely healthy people have found themselves permanently restricted by biosecurity regulations designed to temporarily isolate infected patients until their recovery.

Romania’s shopping centre fences provide a visual representation of what Western nations have done by stealth. Australia has built its fences out of fear, segregating people via a noxious combination of threats, fines, and social pressure.

By far the most damaging aspect of Covid propaganda has been the psychological war waged on the population.

Humans are social creatures. Our behaviour is mostly shaped by the social norms we observe around us. The localised imitation of each other provides the foundation of ‘culture’ and has created an incalculable tapestry of variations across the world. We are so malleable to suggestion that we form behavioural bonds at a family, peer, work, sport, community, city, state, and national level. These expected social norms exist in constant competition with each other and the wider world.

The addition of homogeneous Covid propaganda to this system has attempted to create a single pattern of behaviour – a blueprint if you will – for humanity. It is an exercise in social engineering instead of a natural progression of advantageous behaviour discovered through trial and error. This kind of mono-thought is particularly dangerous because it is inflicted upon society regardless of merit. All socialist societies suffer from this structural error and in short order, it leads to the collapse of nations and the decimation of their civil unity.

Click here to support Alexandra Marshall’s work.

Covid mania has evolved into a new type of socialism that blends total state control with woke-political theory and the ambition of global corporate entities. Like all authoritarian regimes, it propagates itself via the control of information (in partnership with Silicon Valley) reinforced through the bombardment of fear (courtesy of weak politicians).

Considering how much time our current generation has spent congratulating itself for being morally superior by ‘erasing the past in revenge for historical harms’ – it is interesting to note how frequently the majority have fallen for textbook propaganda.

Over the last decade, several dangerous ideological movements have managed to motivate significant sections of society into acts of self-harm.

The Climate Change eco-fascist cult has convinced everyone from children to CEOs to punish society for being successful. It has imposed a parallel currency of Carbon Credits to micromanage citizens while pouring profit into the pockets of Green companies trading on the promise of a fictional apocalypse. Meanwhile, Black Lives Matter – the Marxist race-baiting organisation encouraging teenagers to destroy private property and assault strangers – has turned harmonious societies across the world into racist crucibles.

These two political movements utilised social media to create an intense environment of peer pressure that stalked impressionable minds. It is easy to understand how young people found themselves lured into a virtue-signalling hierarchy where reblogging propaganda invigorated their online popularity. Soon after, the corporate world went from a predatory marketing campaign designed to soak up these brainwashed customers, into a cannibalistic cycle of shame where CEOs bullied each other into compliance and those who refused found themselves viciously attacked.

The market of ideas is often coercive – frequently ruthless – and sometimes profitable. ‘Crazes’ come and go inside society as humans develop an intense interest for one activity or ideological movement before growing bored and moving on. However, when the government passes policy to institutionalise the behaviour, mandate it, or generously reward it (which has happened with both Net Zero policy and demands for office quotas) these transient fixations become artificially extended.

Unlike a harmless obsession for Furbies or Zumba, all three of the current ideological movements (Climate Change, Black Lives Matter, and Covid) include extremely harmful and abusive social qualities which are rewarded by authoritative bodies.

Covid is easily the most destructive of the three.

The message coming out of the world’s governments is that people who refuse to get vaccinated are dangerous. These dissidents pose an immediate and serious threat to the personal safety of others through a deliberate and malicious action, which in turn justifies ordinarily illegal civil retribution.

Instead of accepting that there is a perfectly rational explanation for refusing a rushed vaccine with the worst safety record in modern history for a virus that presents next-to-no risk for most people – prime ministers, presidents and premiers have insisted that defiance is a selfish act that demands constant social pressure.

This does not come solely in the form of online bullying. Governments have inflicted laws which lock citizens out of the economy and actively mark them as a segregated sub-class who are easily identified by the peer group.

It is called ‘painting a target’.

Politicians have done this for many reasons, the most obvious being that the constant abuse and victimisation levelled at the unvaccinated by their family, friends, and strangers creates a mental hell that breaks most people. In general, humans want to be an accepted member of the group and inciting constant torment means that politicians can conscript the public to do what they cannot legally get away with – harassment.

Segregating part of the community for vilification also scares people into compliance. Those who withstand this assault serve a purpose too. It is helpful to have a small group of people who resist because they provide the perfect ‘stick’ with which to threaten everyone else. ‘If you don’t do what we say, you’ll end up like these people…’

The last reason is to create a scapegoat for both government failure, and for the whole of society to shift their frustration, anger, hatred, and blame onto.

We have seen this numerous times throughout the pandemic, where politicians like Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews has described Covid as a ‘pandemic of the unvaccinated’ – a statement left uncorrected. Even New South Wales Premier Dominic Perrottet punished the unvaccinated by moving the ‘freedom’ date from December 1 to December 15 due to several Covid outbreaks in fully vaccinated gyms controlled by a vaccine passport system. Logic would suggest that restrictions should have been placed on the vaccinated, but instead it was the unvaccinated who, already essentially locked in their homes, were issued with an extension to their arbitrary detention.

Health professionals – who represent authority figures garnishing these sinister overtures with credibility – have done everything from trying to raise healthcare taxes on the unvaccinated, to locking them out of essential healthcare and suggesting they be left to die as punishment.

2GB radio host Ray Hadley said on November 30 that ‘anti-vaxxers’ were like Hitler or paedophiles – two of the most reviled groups in human history. He did not offer to justify that nonsense comparison, nor could he, as Hadley was describing law-abiding citizens who simply wished to opt-out of a dangerous drug trial and be left alone to get on with their lives.

If he had vilified any other group of people – such as a religion or race – Hadley not only would have found himself sacked, but there would likely be legal proceedings taken against him.

The Hitler comparison is ironic, in that there are plenty of parallels between the behaviour of Covid’s propaganda to the early stages of the Nazi regime. Australia’s system of medical tyranny is used to justify segregation, discrimination, dehumanization, and exclusion from society to the point where premiers are gleeful at the prospect of the unvaccinated starving on the street. All of the worst regimes in history believed they were ‘saving people’, and this one is no different.

It is a very strange place for Australia to find itself in after the decades successive governments spent a fortune educating children on the dangers of bullying and peer pressure.

Public money was invested (and clearly wasted) in educating children and parents about peer pressure in order to stop people from being bullied into dangerous activities for the sake of social status.

The government and its teams of experts know exactly how this psychology works. We have a morally lacklustre generation of politicians prepared to exploit the social dependency of humanity to expand their power, protect their investments, and hide their failures.

This ends when people stop policing each other, and shift their attention to the depravity of those in charge.

Click here to support Alexandra Marshall’s work.

  • 55
    Shares

Organizations like the Flat Earth Society in the United States and the United Kingdom, as well as “Globe Lie” groups in Germany and other European countries, actively promote flat Earth beliefs through websites, conferences, and social media.

Title:

Content: What is a Grassroots Movement?

Grassroots movements have played a pivotal role in shaping societies and driving change throughout history. They are often associated with passionate individuals coming together to advocate for social, political, or environmental transformation. In this article, we’ll delve into the concept of grassroots movements, exploring what they are, their characteristics, and their impact on society.

Understanding Grassroots Movements

grassroots movement is a type of social or political movement that originates from the ground level of society, driven by ordinary citizens rather than established institutions or organizations. These movements are decentralized and often lack hierarchical leadership structures. Instead, they are characterized by the collective action and shared goals of individuals who are deeply committed to a cause. Here are key aspects of grassroots movements:

1. Bottom-Up Approach

At the heart of a grassroots movement is its bottom-up approach. Unlike top-down initiatives that are often led by governments, corporations, or established organizations, grassroots movements are driven by the people themselves. They emerge organically from the concerns and aspirations of individuals within a community.

2. Inclusivity and Diversity

Grassroots movements are inherently inclusive and diverse. They bring together people from various backgrounds, including different ages, races, genders, socioeconomic statuses, and political affiliations. This diversity enhances the movement’s strength and credibility, as it reflects a broad cross-section of society.

3. Lack of Formal Hierarchy

Grassroots movements typically lack formal leadership hierarchies. Instead, decision-making is often achieved through consensus or democratic processes. Leaders may emerge based on their dedication, experience, and ability to inspire others, but they do not hold the same centralized power as leaders in traditional organizations.

4. Passion-Driven Activism

Grassroots activists are motivated by a deep passion for their cause. They are willing to invest their time, energy, and resources because they believe in the urgency and importance of the issue they are addressing. This passion is a driving force behind the movement’s momentum and resilience.

Characteristics of Grassroots Movements

1. Grassroots Mobilization

Grassroots movements are known for their ability to mobilize people on a local and sometimes national or even international scale. They use a variety of strategies, such as community organizing, social media, and grassroots marketing, to reach and engage supporters.

2. Grassroots Funding

Funding for grassroots movements often comes from small, individual donations and volunteers rather than large financial institutions or corporations. Crowdfunding platforms and direct appeals to supporters play a significant role in financing these movements.

3. Grassroots Campaigning

Grassroots campaigns focus on public awareness and advocacy. They use strategies like community meetings, protests, letter-writing campaigns, and social media activism to influence public opinion and pressure decision-makers.

4. Grassroots Impact

Despite their decentralized nature, grassroots movements can have a substantial impact on policy and public discourse. They bring critical issues to the forefront, hold institutions accountable, and often drive tangible change through their persistence and determination.

The Historical Significance of Grassroots Movements

Throughout history, grassroots movements have played a pivotal role in promoting positive social and political change. Here are a few notable examples:

1. Civil Rights Movement

The Civil Rights Movement in the United States is one of the most iconic grassroots movements. It aimed to end racial segregation and discrimination. Led by figures like Martin Luther King Jr., it utilized nonviolent protests, boycotts, and grassroots organizing to challenge systemic racism.

2. Women’s Suffrage Movement

The fight for women’s suffrage, which granted women the right to vote, was another grassroots effort. Women’s suffrage activists organized rallies, marches, and letter-writing campaigns to advocate for their rights.

3. Environmental Movements

Grassroots environmental movements have had a global impact. Examples include Greenpeace’s efforts to protect the environment, the anti-nuclear movement, and more recently, climate change activism led by figures like Greta Thunberg.

4. LGBTQ+ Rights Movement

The LGBTQ+ rights movement has made significant progress through grassroots activism. It has focused on raising awareness, advocating for legal rights, and changing societal attitudes towards LGBTQ+ individuals.

The Modern Role of Grassroots Movements

In the modern era, grassroots movements continue to be powerful forces for change. They have adapted to new technologies and communication tools, allowing them to reach a wider audience and mobilize support more effectively. Here are a few contemporary examples:

1. Black Lives Matter

The Black Lives Matter movement, which emerged in the 21st century, is a powerful example of grassroots activism. It advocates for the rights and equity of Black individuals, challenging systemic racism and police violence.

2. #MeToo Movement

The #MeToo movement, driven by social media, has empowered survivors of sexual harassment and assault to share their stories and demand change. It has led to important discussions about consent, gender equality, and accountability.

3. Youth-Led Movements

Youth-led grassroots movements, such as the March for Our Lives, have brought attention to issues like gun control. They demonstrate that young people can be powerful advocates for change.

4. Environmental Activism

Environmental grassroots movements continue to be crucial in addressing climate change and environmental issues. Movements like Extinction Rebellion and Sunrise Movement advocate for urgent action on climate-related challenges.

The Impact and Future of Grassroots Movements

Grassroots movements continue to shape society, and their impact is undeniable. They serve as a counterbalance to entrenched power structures and provide a voice for marginalized or underrepresented groups. The future of grassroots movements will likely see continued adaptation to new technologies, as well as an ongoing commitment to social, political, and environmental justice.

In conclusion, a grassroots movement is a powerful force for social and political change, driven by individuals who are passionate about their cause. These movements are marked by inclusivity, decentralized structures, and a bottom-up approach. Throughout history and into the modern era, they have played a crucial role in addressing critical issues and shaping societies around the world. The future of grassroots movements promises to be just as impactful, driven by the dedication and determination of individuals who seek to make a difference.

Clare Louise

A small number of public figures, including former NBA player Kyrie Irving and social media influencer B.o.B, have publicly supported or promoted flat Earth theories, drawing further attention to the movement.

What NBA star claimed that the earth is flat?

Common arguments from flat Earthers include claims that photos of Earth from space are fabricated, that water’s surface always finds its level (allegedly disproving curves), and that airline flight patterns are easier to explain on a flat map.

Title:

Content: Skip to content
The Well

Why we are the only humans in the Universe and why it matters for our collective future

The acceptance of our cosmic loneliness and the rarity of our planet is a wakeup call.
Key Takeaways
  • For millennia, tribal divisions governed humanity. But what was good for our ancestors and their survival now seeds deeply destructive and predatory behavior. Humanity needs to unite.
  • One way for humanity to unite is to realize that we are the only humans in the cosmos. Even if life exists elsewhere, it won't be like us.
  • Therefore, the human voice is unique in the cosmos. If we ruin our project of civilization, the Universe will once again become silent.

We need to change the way we see each other and our relation to our home planet. For thousands of years, tribal divisions have ruled the way we humans have organized ourselves in groups. Unfortunately, what was good for our ancestors and their survival now seeds deeply destructive and predatory behavior.

We don’t care about the other living creatures with whom we share this planet. We don’t care about the planet. We don’t understand what is needed for our survival as a species. As the news tells us daily, we remain profoundly divided, prone to isolate ourselves in groups that define the way we think and behave. Widespread political strife, cultural intolerance, and tribal entrenchment are symptoms of a deeper problem: Our focus on material greed and unstoppable growth is choking civilization and the planet along with it. Civilization is at a crossroads. To move beyond, we need to reframe our connection to other living creatures and to the planet we all share.

A new unifying narrative

We need a new unifying narrative that has the power to awaken humankind to a very urgent truth: that despite our political and religious differences, we are a single species living on a fragile and rare planet. This narrative must break down the tribal walls that separate us; it must make a convincing case that we need to work together if we are to protect our way of life and the planet that harbors it. Scaring people about the dangers of global warming, social unrest, and mass extinctions is not working. We need something new, something that we can all share, that we can all relate to, that can awe and inspire us into action — a positive, constructive, inclusive message that resonates with young and old alike, from Baby Boomers to Generation Z. We need a new narrative of mythic proportions that unites us as a species and brings our planetary fragility to the forefront. We need to restructure our project of civilization.

The essence of this new narrative, which I present in a forthcoming book, is that the Universe has a history only because we are here to tell it. But this story is not just about the Big Bang and the expanding Universe, of myriad galaxies and stars, of electrons and quarks, of planets and moons. It is a story of the interconnectedness of the nonliving with the living, of the uniqueness of our planet and its biosphere, of our cosmic loneliness and its deep moral implications. The way we tell a story makes a difference. And the story of who we are and of our planetary role needs to be retold.

Consider the nascent Earth 4.5 billion years ago, a hot ball of molten matter, bubbling and boiling as it slowly took shape. Debris from leftover protoplanetary matter in the form of comets and meteors collided mercilessly with young Earth, causing major havoc but also delivering life’s essential building blocks: water and a variety of chemicals, including some simple organics (that is, chemical compounds with carbon). We could call this the cosmic angry-gifting era. The onslaught would only quiet down some 600 million years after Earth’s origin, around 3.9 billion years ago. If elements had gathered to make some kind of living creature before then, the poor thing was probably destroyed without a trace. Life may have had many false starts, lost in the dust of time.

We are the only humans in the Universe

To understand the history of life on Earth, we must understand Earth’s life history. This is true for any planet that may harbor life, whether in the past, the present, or the future: The history of life on a planet is contingent on the planet’s life history. And here is the amazing consequence of this fact: given that no two planets have the same history, life is not a repeatable experiment. Even if different life forms share the same biochemical principles across the Universe, being carbon-based and gene-driven by Darwinian natural selection, each world will harbor its own kind of living entities, which will mutate and evolve according to chance and the world’s unique changing environment. The living creatures on a world carry the indelible imprint of the world’s properties and history.

The preceding argument speaks to us directly. Life on Earth is unique: If there is life elsewhere, it will be different. We can state with confidence that we are the only humans in the cosmos. And given that we are, for better and for worse, the dominant intelligent life form on this planet — I do love and respect whales, dolphins, monkeys, dogs, cats, etc., but they don’t write poetry and build radio-telescopes or nuclear bombs — we are unique in our kind of intelligence. If there are intelligent life forms in other stellar systems, “they” will not be like us, even if they may share some of our traits, such as an approximate left-right symmetry. Furthermore, any existing alien life form is so far away that, for all practical purposes, we are alone. This means that the spectacular transformation that has unfolded on our planet from a barren ball of molten rock to a thriving abode for life matters in a very central way, what I like to call biocentrism.

The next time someone repeats the tenets of Copernicanism, that we are nothing in the vastness of the cosmos, that science teaches us how worthless we are, please beg to differ. We matter. We matter for our uniqueness as thinking molecular machines capable of transforming raw materials into revolutionary technologies, products of four billion years of evolution on a planet that matters for its uniqueness as a stable abode for the prolonged existence of life. These two inter-related conditions — the existence of intelligent life and a planet that offers long-lasting shelter for its creatures — are not likely to be encountered with high probability in the cosmos. If there is intelligent life elsewhere, it will be rare.

Biocentrism

We have learned much about where we are and what we are made of. Our amazing tools have greatly extended our vision of the world and of the Universe beyond. We also have learned that there is much that we don’t know, and much that we will never know. Our reach is wide but limited. Nature need not comply with our flights of fancy. Science tells us how nature works and not how it should work. As we began to send probes across the Solar System, we were struck by how different these other worlds were, how magnificent and barren — and how indifferent to life.

Subscribe for a weekly email with ideas that inspire a life well-lived.

We have longed for the harmonies for too long; we have longed for cosmic companionship — divine or alien — for too long. We must accept that we are alone in the cosmos, if not in absolute terms — as we can never be certain of what lies beyond the reach of our instruments — at least in practice. This makes us very special indeed. And it creates a new purpose for humankind.

Note that this is very far away from a return to an anthropocentric worldview, to pre-Copernican times when the Earth was the center of Creation. (I call it biocentric to make the distinction clear.) Biocentrism is necessarily post-Copernican. I am saying that we are unique and important — but not for having been created by a god, or for being the result of a purposeful cosmic directive.

We are unique and important for being self-aware living entities capable of asking questions about their origin and future. We may not be the measure of all things as Protagoras of Abdera proclaimed long ago, but we are the things that can measure. We experience the world, we measure it, and we tell stories about what we see and what we feel. And what we are finding out is that we may very well be the only ones asking such questions — or, at the very least, the only ones we know of, which effectively amounts to the same thing. Even if “they” exist and tell stories, their stories will not be ours. There is only one human voice in the cosmos. And if we ruin our project of civilization, the Universe will once again become silent.

A planetary wakeup call

The acceptance of our cosmic loneliness and the rarity of our planet is a wakeup call, ringing to awaken a new collective consciousness. I believe it to be the new unifying myth of our generation, with the power to go beyond tribal divides and bigotry, to lead us into a new era of human flourishing. But for this to happen, we need to change how we relate to life and to the planet that allows us to exist. We are not above nature, and we don’t own it. We are a part of it and depend on it for our existence.

Life is rare. We are rare. This planet is rare. Treasure life and planet, worship it, learn from Indigenous cultures and their sacred connection to the land. This is the moral imperative of our time, what we owe future generations and the life we share this planet with.

Related

Up Next

What scientific evidence do "flat earthers" reject?

Some assert that governments and scientists are conspiring to conceal the “truth” of a flat Earth for financial or political gain, which feeds into broader distrust of institutions.

The resurgence of flat Earth beliefs in the Internet era is linked to social media algorithms, which can create echo chambers; viral videos and forums foster communities where these views go unchallenged and feel validated.

People attracted to flat Earth beliefs often share traits such as distrust of authority, a desire for certainty in a complex world, feeling marginalized by mainstream society, or seeking a sense of belonging.

Online, the movement uses memes, YouTube videos, podcasts, and discussion forums to spread ideas and recruit new adherents, often linking flat Earth to other conspiracy theories.

Title:

Content: Our Burning Planet

YOUTH RISING 2023

Meet the bold Gen Z learner who uses his break time at school for his climate activism

Otsile Nkadimeng speaking at the Daily Maverick The Gathering 2023 Earth Edition in Cape Town, South Africa. (Photo: Felix Dlangamandla)

To be a teenager at this moment is, to put it as a Gen Z would say, ‘not it’. But young climate activists like Otsile Nkadimeng are fighting for change while also juggling school and planning a future.

“Gen Z just happens to be the generation that appears when that countdown clock is no longer in hours or minutes, but it’s down to seconds… We don’t have time to say climate change will be someone else’s issue. We cannot shrug off the responsibility.”

These were the words of Otsile Nkadimeng, an 18-year-old climate activist and lead organiser of Fridays for Future South Africa and co-founder of the Sundial Movement, from Edenvale, Johannesburg.

Nkadimeng is in matric at Jeppe High School for Boys, in Kensington. When Daily Maverick spoke to him on Zoom on a Monday afternoon, he was wearing his school uniform. He was in the midst of mid-year exams; having written one that day, he was preparing for another on Thursday. He uses his “break” time for activism work.

Read in Daily Maverick: Change will come not from power but youth, so step aside, say climate activists

The young activist appears eager, expressive and confident. He speaks genuinely about his passions and finding his way in the SA climate activism space.

Speaking about his activism, he says: “When I first started learning about the climate crisis, it seemed to me, if there’s a problem, it can be solved. But the fact that no one seemed to be doing anything is sort of what activated me. I had to do something… It’s sort of like that John Lewis quote: ‘If not us, then who? If not now, then when?’”

‘Climate shock’

He started in climate activism in late 2019, after hearing Greta Thunberg’s “How Dare You” speech at the 2019 UN Climate action summit in New York. Googling her, he found out about Fridays for Future, the youth-led movement that Thunberg started to pressure policymakers to act on climate change. Fridays for Future South Africa didn’t have open applications at the time, so he signed up with Extinction Rebellion and became an activist.

“I had joined to learn, but that’s where my activism really got started,” he told Daily Maverick.

But Nkadimeng described soon feeling completely overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude and scale of the climate crisis. It would hit him in the early-morning hours — what he calls “climate shock”.

“The process of me learning about the magnitude and scale of the climate crisis, led me to completely fall apart in the climate space for what was pretty much a year. I shut down… I was just captured by this crisis and not knowing what to do about it,” he says.

There are different terms for what Nkadimeng experienced, of course. It’s also not unusual. Often termed climate anxiety or eco-anxiety, this feeling can manifest as what the American Psychological Association describes as “a chronic fear of environmental doom.”

Otsile Nkadimeng at the June 16 Youth Parade for Justice and Peace to the Union Buildings in 2022. This was his first protest with the Fridays For Future group. (Photo: Supplied)

Read in Daily Maverick: Climate anxiety is real. Why talking about it matters

When asked how he learned to cope with climate anxiety, Nkadimeng responded: “The honest answer is I don’t think I do.”

But he gets by with a little help from his friends.

Comfort in community

In August 2022, Nkadimeng co-founded the Sundial Movement, which acts as a network for high schools, allowing students to communicate on the climate crisis and take collective action on key issues. Just months after starting Sundial, the organisation boasts a network of about 31 schools — with 17 located in Gauteng, and 14 in the Western Cape.

An avid debater, Nkadimeng describes how he would network with students from other schools at debating tournaments, and encourage them to join the Movement.

Schools participate by holding school-sanctioned sit-ins, walkouts or informative assemblies about climate change, says Nkadimeng. Parktown High School for Girls, in Johannesburg, and Springfield Convent, in Cape Town, both held walkouts in collaboration with Sundial, late last year.

Nkadimeng said it took creating the Sundial Movement to realise that he wasn’t alone in feeling the way he does about what’s happening to the planet.

“There’s not really a lot of other people my age that operate in this space – at least in the way I do – that I can talk to about how I feel as a teenager,” he said.

“Being in this space and doing what we’re doing, literally is on-the-job training. There is no amount of preparation as a young person you can get for the type of fight we’re up against.”

As he met more young people through the Movement, he began to see that many in his generation shared the will to act, but were battling with the thought that it couldn’t be done in the window we have. The importance of community cannot be overstated; we all felt the effects of isolation during the pandemic. He sees the Sundial community as a space to talk honestly, take collective action and to learn from each other.

Read in Daily Maverick: Eco-anxiety: The mental health effects associated with the climate crisis

“The biggest challenge is battling climate anxiety; battling the notion that we can’t do it… With Sundial, it’s all about how do we [respond to climate change] in the very short time that we have to do so, with as many people as we need to do it, without driving people into the ground.”

After matriculating, Nkadimeng envisions playing more of an advisory role in Sundial, and intends to turn his attention to Fridays for Future and the youth advocacy group, So We Vote, of which he is the executive director. He also plans to study locally (but not something climate-related — he doesn’t want it to take over his life).

Otsile Nkadimeng pictured at his first protest as a Climate Activist outside Standard Bank on 12 March 2021 against Standard Bank’s financing of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline. (Photo: Supplied)

Similar to the organisations, 18by Vote and Gen Z for Change in the US, Nkadimeng says So We Vote is trying to use social media and Gen Z networks to register young South Africans to vote ahead of the 2024 general election.

“The name is in response to everything that’s happening in the country,” Nkadimeng says, describing South Africa’s many crises including climate change, gender-based violence, energy and education.

“What can young people do? The crises are getting worse. What do we do? What we can do is vote. So we vote.”

The Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) reported that, of a total eligible voting population of just over 40 million, only 26.2 million South Africans registered to vote in the 2021 municipal elections.

The mid-year population estimate by Statistics South Africa, published in July 2022, shows South Africa has a population of 60.6 million, with 20.6 million people aged between 15 and 34 years.

“[So We Vote] is informed by the idea that once a generation becomes a significant voting demographic — registered and with the potential to vote — it scares the hell out of politicians.

“If the majority of young people registered to vote and actually voted, and [politicians] saw that young people were making up the majority of the voting demographic in the country, there is so much that can change. It would mean politicians would need to hear us, and actually answer us,” he continued.

Nkadimeng has solidified his place as a leading voice among young South Africans who are bravely calling for action against climate change, and systematic and institutional changes. He hopes that So We Vote, coupled with the work Sundial is doing at a ground level, will help to galvanise young people around climate change and “spark them to be more politically active.”

“We need to make climate change a massive political issue,” he said.

“We haven’t not dealt with climate change because there are no solutions. The solutions exist, the people who can implement them exist, it’s just that there are some people who don’t want the solutions to be implemented. And those are the people who are in power, and that’s what we’re fighting.”

But first, he says, he “needs to fight his exam on Thursday.” That’s just the youth-activism life. DM

To read all about Daily Maverick’s recent The Gathering: Earth Edition, click here.

Please peer review 3 community comments before your comment can be posted

X

This article is free to read.

Sign up for free or sign in to continue reading.

Unlike our competitors, we don't force you to pay to read the news, but we do need your email address to make your experience better.

Nearly there! Create a password to finish signing up with us:

Please enter your password or get a sign in link if you’ve forgotten

Open Sesame! Thanks for signing up.

This could have been a paywall

On another site this would have been a paywall. Maverick Insider keeps our content free for all.

Become an Insider

Make sense of the climate crisis

Hear weekly from the biggest climate reporting division in Africa, reporting stories that concern you, your future and your environment.

Direct to your inbox, free of charge.

We would like our readers to start paying for Daily Maverick...

…but we are not going to force you to. Over 10 million users come to us each month for the news. We have not put it behind a paywall because the truth should not be a luxury.

Instead we ask our readers who can afford to contribute, even a small amount each month, to do so.

If you appreciate it and want to see us keep going then please consider contributing whatever you can.

Support Daily Maverick→

A daily round up of the world of business, without any of the bull.

Let Tim Cohen put the markets into perspective, direct to your inbox every weekday at 19:00.

Psychologists note that subscribing to such beliefs can give people a sense of personal empowerment, but can also make them more isolated from mainstream thinking.


Disney’s strategy of producing live-action remakes of its classic animated films is deeply tied to the company’s legacy and the emotion of nostalgia.

Projects like Once Upon a Studio and the Wonderful World of Disney’s 100th Anniversary Special reunite beloved characters, drawing on multi-generational affection for Disney icons.

Significant effort goes into updating familiar stories and characters, as seen in the process of including Robin Williams’ Genie in Aladdin by working closely with his estate.

Modern remakes carefully merge technological artistry with storytelling, facing creative challenges such as making characters from different visual worlds, like Moana and Flounder, appear cohesive on screen.

Disney adapts its classics through mindful casting—prioritizing actor spirit and talent over physical resemblance, as in the casting of Ariel in The Little Mermaid.

Remakes are sometimes extended with new characters, such as Queen Salina, and launched in conjunction with related products like animated series, broadening a film’s reach.

Some viewers and industry voices express concern about the authenticity of remade characters and updates to classic tales, especially regarding diversity and representation, as seen in public reactions to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.

Technological advances mean the blending of reality and animation is more seamless, but creators emphasize that animation’s heart lies in personal artistic inspiration rather than realism alone.

Every remake is a complex endeavor that pays homage to Walt Disney’s original vision and the painstaking effort involved in creating foundational works like Snow White.

The creative process at Disney increasingly centers on giving new, diverse voices opportunities for leadership, ensuring stories reflect contemporary values while acknowledging the company’s storied past.

Disney’s strategy of producing live-action remakes of its classic animated films is deeply tied to the company’s legacy and the emotion of nostalgia.

Title:

Content: Walt Disney Animation Head Jennifer Lee On Setting Up The Next Generation Of Artists [Exclusive Interview]

We're technically in the middle of Disney's centennial celebration, but for the iconic animation studio, the party is just getting started. After news came out earlier this month that nearly 30 restored animated shorts from the Walt Disney Animation Studios vault will be released on Disney+, the studio had a triumphant presentation at the Annecy International Animation Film Festival to reminisce on the past while also looking at the future.

First, the studio presented their latest animated short, "Once Upon a Studio," directed by Dan Abraham and Trent Correy, possibly the most magical thing they've done in years and a short that pays homage to the studio's 100-year-old history, the characters, and the animators that made the studio what it is. Then, audiences were treated to about 20 minutes of "Wish," the upcoming Disney animated musical feature which brings back the Disney villain, and does some cool things with its visuals. That film is directed by Chris Buck and Fawn Veerasunthorn (in her feature directorial debut), and written by Allison Moore and Jennifer Lee, the latter of whom also wrote and co-directed "Frozen" and serves as chief creative officer of Walt Disney Animation Studios.

/Film caught up with Lee shortly after the footage presentation of "Wish," where she talked about the future of Walt Disney Animation Studios, bringing back an actual villain for "Wish," and why animation is so special.

Note: This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and brevity.

'Technology and the artistry are merging'

The short film "Once Upon a Studio" includes a lot of different animation styles, while "Wish" looks different than many Disney films. What sort of experimentation is in store for the studio going into its second century?

Well, what I think particularly with the short and "Wish" is, and I think it's happening across animation, we're finally arriving at that place where technology and the artistry are merging in a way that I think is everyone's dream. I think of the incredible production designer, Lisa Keen, and the painting she did for "Frozen," but then they'd be translated into CG and they'd sort of be degrees away. But now, those paintings, that look, can make it onto the screen. And we've all been working on this for a long time. It's mattered. And with us, we were able to build it on a short scale, but to build it for a feature, we started, I think, when we met with the design team, the dream they said would be to be able to honor those watercolors from "Sleeping Beauty." "Sleeping Beauty" was such an inspiration for "Frozen" in terms of framing, but to get to do it, and we said, "Well, it's our hundredth, we have to have that goal, and they've been working on the technology for years."

I was saying just a couple months ago, we bumped into an issue where we didn't have it lined up to do water. So we had to brainstorm and work together and they figured it out because the scene was too important and they wanted to earn it, and there's nothing like a challenge for a technologist. That's what they want. "What's the next challenge?" So now we're hitting this place, we're going, "Okay, the look can go in many directions. That is so exciting," and it's really going to come down to the identity of the artists themselves coming through more. I think that is the best case scenario.

Building foundations

You talked during the studio presentation about the pairing of fresh talent with veterans, and you yourself were mentored by a veteran of the studio. Why is that important not just at an animator level, but on a key role like a director?

Well, I mean, all of these films are hard. Every one of them is hard to make. One of the things that our veteran filmmakers have is, they've been through it. They've been through a lot. They've had to redo things a lot. They felt the pain of failure, they felt the joy of success, and they have the layers of life. The new generation has talent. I mean, more and more talent out there. And they come in, and to go through your first film, I always say it's going to break your heart a little bit, over and over again, because it's not enough to dream. We all have dreams that we think, "Oh, if we could only make that." You look back at Walt and what it took for him to make "Snow White," and how it almost failed and it was a fight for every frame. There's never a shortcut in every movie.

So with our veteran filmmakers — and obviously you have someone like Eric [Goldberg, veteran Disney animator] who is everything, he is the talent and the years and the fight in him, and we've got an apprentice program that we've formed for the new generation of hand-drawn. And he's not just bringing skill this way, he's bringing those layers of life. To me, none of this is for the faint of heart. I think being creative, you are always vulnerable. So what we can do is build a good foundation and it's just important. For me, that's the big focus of where I want to go from here, is getting those voices that I'm finding so fresh and exciting, but how do you help them succeed? Because that takes more than just talent. [laughs] We all know, it's a fight. So I think that's what I'm most excited about.

'We've wanted to really celebrate a delicious villain for a while'

One thing that was really exciting about the footage was the villain. Why was that important to have in the film, and from your perspective, what makes a great Disney villain?

Yeah. We've wanted to really celebrate a delicious villain for a while. And we've had fun really straying where, I think in life, for a period of time we were exploring how the villain is not always so clear. Sometimes it's ourselves or thematic. But that idea of those villains, and the song, and we love that deliciousness of their evil. [laughs] So the daunting task of creating one, I think what really worked for us with this is we listened to our story artists, we listened to our audience, and people are saying, "I want him not just to be arch, though, I want to know" what we didn't always do, which was tell you why or how did they make those choices? You sort of meet them fully formed and they could be wonderful, but what makes Magnifico different? So we said, "Okay, from the first frame of the film, you're going to feel the journey of this person from the relatable part of ourselves." You get to see, as you saw in a scene when the villain and the protagonists are completely aligned and then you see as their philosophies diverge, you get to watch ... because we never want to say, "Anyone like this will make this choice." It's that this man makes this choice, this woman makes that choice, and it's so fun to watch. And Chris Pine was big on that and it's part of why we wanted to work with him. He's so smart, he holds the character accountable. So it was just so fun to build Magnifico with him, because you couldn't just take anything for granted. So for me, what's been great is getting ... you only saw the first couple of scenes, but getting to that place with him that we think is delicious, but watching him get there has been such a thrill ride for us.

'That did a lot for us in terms of trust'

From a production standpoint, we're three years into the pandemic. How has that impacted the way the studio looks at new projects? Has anything changed in your approach to either the stories you want to tell or the animation pipeline?

I think, in a good way, what we learned about ourselves during Covid was, we built "Raya" and "Encanto" completely [separately]. No one was together and the whole productions were done from home. So I felt like we showed that we understood each other enough and we could carry the same vision from multiple homes. And that did a lot for us in terms of trust. So what we have now is this place where, as people are coming back and this collaboration that it's kind of like we've been through a lot together, so there's no formality, and that makes, for me, I think that makes for a much more wonderful creative space. But I think the big thing is, it's not even about Covid, it's about, as I say, that new generation. I'm more aware than ever of their power and what they can do, but I'm also more aware of that responsibility.

So where I look at is what excites people about storytelling evolves and it's hard when you're getting old to look to yourself. I have certain things I can bring, but it's my job to make sure that I'm spotting that talent and giving them that platform and support and then letting them take it. And I think that's how Eric is helping new generations. That's what we've done that keeps us Disney, is continuing to let that new generation help us evolve, but setting them up for success. So I feel like that has less to do with Covid and just more to do with, here we are. I mean, I've been in this role five years. I've been in the studio 12 years. I came in under 40 and now I'm over 50. So it's time. I think of that. And you hear them banging on the door and they challenge the storytelling, and it's great.

'They're artists. They're not Disney artists. They do work for Disney, but they bring their soul and their tastes come with them'

Serving as both a writer and a producer on "Wish," what was the key element that made this right for the hundredth year celebration?

Well, what I love though is we all started talking as a group, all the directors would get together and we'd meet with story artists and just leave it open and talk about all these fantastical fun ideas. But what kept coming back were certain things — yes, the villain, but this idea of the wishing on stars. That little clip we showed [a montage of Disney characters throughout the years looking at the stars], that was put together before we had the film. Someone just put it together who was inspired to say, "This is something that's a part of us." And you felt it come. Then Chris, he didn't set out to direct it originally, but it spoke to him so clearly. And Fawn, she was such a powerhouse right away.

Then what happened with us is as we were developing the character, Star changed quite a bit. Star originally could talk and took different forms, sometimes human form. And it was really saying, "But that's not what Star is. Star is hope, possibility, wonder — those things don't have the power, they have the power to inspire you." And then I started watching panda bears and how ridiculously funny they were and felt that curious innocence and we said, "What if Star is just that?" And then they said, "You can see this. I think you need to write a draft." And luckily Allison Moore was there in the room every day, but I could come in. But it didn't happen where it was no moment of an order. It was more of, as people were drawn to it and they got it, they just formed the team. And I felt very lucky that, when they asked me to write it and I had no time, but how could I not? It was such an honor.

Disney has always been a studio strong in its traditions, and its recognizability. I'm curious, with something like "Wish," where do you look for pushing boundaries while also keeping those traditions?

All our artists are looking all the time. They're artists. They're not Disney artists. They do work for Disney, but they bring their soul and their tastes come with them, and what they see in the world inspires them. That's great about this industry. Every day there's always buzzes of what's going on. But I think if I look at "Tangled" as a good example of understanding the fairytale, our first sort of CG princess and this nod to the past, but this embracing of this technology, which was a little scary, I'm sure. I wasn't there, so I can only guess. But to say, the approach they took, it kind of showed us where we could go and be more playful. If there hadn't been "Tangled," there would not have been "Frozen." So I'm very grateful that we took some bold steps.

'It's the greatest form of flattery, I guess'

There's been a lot of live-action remakes of Disney movies, both classics and newer ones. From an animation standpoint, does that push you to make visuals more distinct or even just "easier" to adapt? Does it at all affect the mentality going into a new project?

No, I mean, very, very politely, we completely build these independently. We don't think ahead of the live-action. We're honored if it happens. It's the greatest form of flattery, I guess. But I do think, one of the things I love — to me, what defines animation is it is truly transportive in a way that it speaks to your imagination, not to your reality. And so I think in terms of, personally, the looks that I'm inspired by, of where I do feel I'm in a believable world and it feels alive, but it is wholly nothing of our world. It's a place that I can truly escape to. I think that means a lot to a lot of us. So to me, the easy part of it is, if the goal is reality, the technology can go that way. But animation is not about that. What I love about animation is, it starts with a dream and everything is built and the more we can be transported to something we've never seen, the more excited I get.

Lastly, when it comes to "Wish" or any future projects as you are working through development, especially just that first brainstorming phase, what is the balance or even just your personal feelings in terms of wanting to look back at the history of Disney versus looking at what is possible now with new technology and new ideas?

Yeah, yeah. For me, there's not an overall philosophy about it. I do think it's director and artist by artist. And so what we'll do on one film, we won't do on another, and we'll try a whole different ... "Zootopia" and "Wreck-It-Ralph" are nothing like "Frozen." And I think that we'll do that for everything where we take it one film at a time. I think what I always have to trust is what inspires those artists. But I do think when we think about the legacy, to me, there are certain things that I think are wholly Disney, which are films that give hope. Films where you can escape, where you feel like you belong, that you feel that it can become yours. And there's always an element, hopefully, of joy. But we're not afraid to go into deep, dark places. All fairytales do.

But I think that's what we do say is a part of who we are. And I think for so many of us there, it's this thing we share, which is for so much of our lives, starting from our first memories to now, Disney was a place for us to go no matter what was happening in the world, and we could feel this escape. And it was an escape that left you feeling things are possible. I do think that's part of who we are, foundationally, that we all think about. How we get there should be very different each time. And obviously the musicals, the musicals, the musicals, because we love them.

"Wish" arrives in theaters on November 22, 2023.

How has Disney leveraged nostalgia in recent years?

By turning classic animations into live-action films with major stars

Projects like Once Upon a Studio and the Wonderful World of Disney’s 100th Anniversary Special reunite beloved characters, drawing on multi-generational affection for Disney icons.

Title:

Content: The Wonderful World of Disney’s 100th Anniversary Special: A Joyful Reunion of Beloved Characters

News

The highly anticipated Disney’s 100th Anniversary Special is set to air on ABC at 8 p.m. on Sunday, October 15, 2023. Hosted Kelly Ripa, the special will kick off with an episode of “America’s Funniest Videos” before bringing together an all-star ensemble of beloved characters from Walt Disney Animation Studios.

Titled “Once Upon a Studio,” the special aims to create a joyful, entertaining, and emotional reunion as more than 500 characters from over 85 Disney feature-length and short films come together for a spectacular group photo. This gathering serves as a momentous milestone to celebrate not only Disney’s rich history but also its cultural impact.

“Once Upon a Studio” promises to showcase new hand-drawn and computer-generated animation, highlighting 10 decades of storytelling, artistry, and technological achievements. In addition to the reunion, the special will include sneak peeks of upcoming Disney projects, as well as world broadcast premieres of the new animated short film, “Once Upon a Studio,” and the beloved Oscar-winning feature, “Encanto.”

To catch the special, viewers have the option to live stream ABC on fuboTV or DirecTV Stream. FuboTV offers over 100 live and on-demand channels, including popular networks like AMC, ESPN, HGTV, and NBC Sports. Their plans range from $69.99 to $99.99 a month, with a seven-day free trial available. On the other hand, DirecTV Stream provides access to more than 100 channels, unlimited Cloud DVR storage, and the ability to stream on up to three devices simultaneously. Their packages start from $64.99 to $154.99 a month, with a five-day free trial.

Join the festivities and witness this once-in-a-lifetime gathering of Disney’s most iconic characters as they commemorate the magic, wonder, and legacy of Disney’s 100th anniversary.

Sources:
– ABC
– FuboTV
– DirecTV Stream

Significant effort goes into updating familiar stories and characters, as seen in the process of including Robin Williams’ Genie in Aladdin by working closely with his estate.

Title:

Content: How Disney Brought Back Robin Williams' Genie for 2023's Once Upon a Studio (Exclusive)

By Russ Milheim Posted:

Two key producers from Disney Animation revealed how they brought the late Robin Williams’ Genie back for the company’s newest short, Once Upon a Studio.

In 2023, Disney is celebrating its 100th anniversary. To do that, the studio is dipping into its extensive history to create a new short that pulls from over 85 of the company’s previous feature-length films and shorts.

This new project is called Once Upon a Studio, and it will see 543 Disney Animation characters come to life in a whole new way. Not only that, but it will even feature crossovers that fans have only ever dreamed of.

Have you ever wanted to see Moana and Flounder share a moment together, or Tinker Bell with Mickey Mouse?

Many things became possible when Disney set its eyes on making this impressive new short a reality, which also served as the opportunity to bring together scores of classic characters.

Bringing Back the Genie

Brad Simonsen and Yvett Merino, the producers for Disney Animation’s newest short, Once Upon a Studio, spoke exclusively to The Direct about the new project and revealed how they worked to bring Robin Williams’ Genie back for a brief moment.

Robin Williams debuted as the voice of the legendary Genie in 1992's Aladdin but refused to return for 1994's Aladdin 2 due to a merchandising-related fallout. The disagreement was later settled and the comedy icon returned as the Genie for the 1996 direct-to-video threequel, Aladdin and the King of Thieves.

Simonsen shared that “[they] knew from the beginning” that Williams’ iconic Genie needed to partake in the fun, so the team “reached out almost immediately to [the late actor’s] estate:”

“... We knew from the beginning that the Genie needed to be in this movie, right? So we reached out almost immediately to [Robin William's] estate. And we started sharing with them what we were up to. And then what we did is we actually looked at outtakes. Dan Abraham, our director, looked at outtakes from the recorded sessions and then chose those lines.”

He continued, noting that they quickly “went back to the family” to “[make] sure that [they] were on the journey together:”

“And then we went back to the family and the estate and shared, 'Hey, this is the specificity. [Disney animator] Eric Goldberg is going to be part of this.' So it was really a collaboration with them. And us making sure that we were on the journey together.”

As for the short itself, Merino added how the “first cut was about 12 minutes long” and figuring the final version out quickly became “a balancing act:”

“I think [the] first cut [with Directors Dan Abraham and Trent Correy] was about 12 minutes long. It was like, we can't make a 12-minute short in this amount of time. So we had to really make sure, be careful, that every interaction that we have was timed specifically to that interaction. It became as like, 'Oh, we're spending a little bit more time on this, and it takes away from this.' So, it became like a balancing act of doing that.”

But with such an ambitious short, Merino confirmed that Once Upon a Studio unsurprisingly posed “a lot of unique challenges,” namely in marrying multiple styles of animation while also taking place in a live-action setting:

“There were a lot of unique challenges in this one. I think bringing in the various styles of hand-drawn and CG into our studio and making it feel like they actually are walking in our studio and walking the halls and making them blend seamlessly.”

The producer continued, pointing out the shot with “Moana and Flounder,” an interaction that was “difficult to make them look like they’re living in the same world:”

“There's the shot… the Moana shot because that's in the trailer; like the Moana and Flounder shot, right. And when you're interacting, you're not only having them in the same scene, which is difficult to make them look like they're living in the same world, but they're actually interacting, holding, and touching. And so it's really a credit to the incredible talent of artists and technicians and production people that we have here in the studio to make sure it all works together.”

Simonsen jumped in to explain how they worked closely with production designer Ryan Long, the directors, and animator Eric Goldberg “to make sure that everything was working:”

“I was just gonna say, Ryan Lang, our production designer, we worked really, you know, closely, Dan and Trent worked really closely with him and Eric Goldberg to really do these tests. So we'd take, like, a single frame, and he'd paint over, and we'd really work with the artists to make sure that everything was working together. So each shot had kind of that love.”

One key element of many Disney animated projects is the musical elements. While there is a moment towards the end of the short, fans shouldn’t expect these many characters to be consistently singing tunes as they glide through the halls of the Roy E. Disney Animation Building.

But were more songs ever considered? Simonsen shared that maintaining the balance between all these character moments and musical numbers “would be very hard to do:”

“What we realized was with every second you're with a character, you're taking away time from another character when you're trying to get as many in as possible. So it would be very hard to do musical numbers and still keep that pace that we have.”

Merino expressed how Once Upon a Studio “was a fun one to screen [internally]” because many of the notes would center around adding new characters or moments into the story:

“This one… was a fun one to screen [internally] because the notes were more about like, 'Oh, well, remember this character? Oh, try to get this character.' And there were some good story notes about making sure that we keep a drive alive within the short. It was really fun because we have so many great directors and writers in our studio who have such a history here. They were like, 'Oh, you can put this character in there. Oh, what about this?' So it was a lot of fun. Yeah.”

Brad Simonsen added how they “did a survey to the entire studio” that encouraged people to pitch their ideas to the team:

“Yeah... And we even did a survey actually, after the original pitch, we did a survey to the entire studio and said, 'Hey, if you have ideas, please, please pitch them.' And one of those ideas that came out of that was the moment near the end of the short as they're all gathering. Where Oswald actually tips his hat to Mickey, and Mickey says, 'After you.' That was literally--someone suggested that as one of our team members, yeah.”

The conversation then pivoted to two of Disney Animation’s biggest franchises and their future.

The first topic at hand was Encanto, a film that quickly became a fan favorite after it debuted in 2021. The Direct asked the producers what audiences should expect from the franchise going forward, to which Yvett Merino confirmed that the team is “[continuing] to kind of look at different ways that [they] can keep the world alive:”

“I think we will continue to work on what that actually means. But we are so blown away by the reaction and how 'Encanto' kind of connected with so many people. We continue to kind of look at different ways that we can keep the world alive. I know they teased a little bit of Destination D23 about something 'Encanto' coming, possibly to one of the parks. And we love that…”

The producer continued, admitting she “[doesn’t] have anything official to say” but she’s excited to see the franchise “expand across the company:”

“… There's different—we're working closely with our friends in publishing and consumer products to make sure—there's always different ideas and needs and wants for, for it to stay alive out there. But I don't have anything official to say, but I love the 'Encanto' world and can't wait to see it expand across the company.”

The Direct then asked about the studio's upcoming animated sequel Zootopia 2 to see if the producers could share any fun teases.

Brad Simonsen was able to say he “know[s] that this next one’s going to take it to another level” compared to the original:

“We're all super excited about it. And it's a world that, you know, I was part of the first movie, and it was one of the most amazing experiences in my life, to be honest. And I know that this next one's going to take it to another level and be, as you know, as good or better than the first. So we're super excited about that project.”

More Disney Crossovers to Come?

Once Upon a Studio is definitely different than Disney Animation’s usual shorts, but fans are undoubtedly going to fall in love with it. Seeing all of these classic characters interact in previously inconceivable ways scratches an itch many never realized they had.

Maybe if the short really catches on, Disney Animation could commission a larger project that would allow Disney’s large library of characters to interact in similarly unique ways. Hopefully, fans won’t have to wait another hundred years before some more crossovers like this happen again.

The next step in celebrating Disney’s 100th anniversary will be the release of Wish, the company’s next animated movie, which will be released on November 22. The film follows Asha, a young girl who wishes for a star, only to get a much more direct and magical response than she ever would have thought.

Once Upon a Studio will make its Disney+ debut on Monday, October 16.

How has Disney leveraged nostalgia in recent years?

By turning classic animations into live-action films with major stars

Modern remakes carefully merge technological artistry with storytelling, facing creative challenges such as making characters from different visual worlds, like Moana and Flounder, appear cohesive on screen.

Disney adapts its classics through mindful casting—prioritizing actor spirit and talent over physical resemblance, as in the casting of Ariel in The Little Mermaid.

Remakes are sometimes extended with new characters, such as Queen Salina, and launched in conjunction with related products like animated series, broadening a film’s reach.

Title:

Content: It’s possible that being an only child was one reason I was not exposed to the phenomenon of Disney princess worship during my youth. On the other hand, the lack of a coordinated merchandising effort during the 1970s probably had much more to do with the fact that the company’s princess lineup wasn’t yet emerging as a cultural trend.

In that decade, Disney focused most of its marketing on the so-called “Sensational Six” core characters, including Mickey Mouse, Minnie Mouse, Pluto, Goofy, Donald Duck, and Daisy Duck; along with product tie-ins to the 1977’s “The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh.”

Of course, Disney had only made three princess movies up to that time. Those included 1937’s “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs,” 1950’s “Cinderella,” and 1959’s “Sleeping Beauty.” Following the introduction of Aurora in 1959, Disney would make moviegoers wait 30 years for the next princess to arrive in a film that would herald the start of the Disney Renaissance.

And that film was 1989’s “The Little Mermaid.”

Written and directed by John Musker and Ron Clements, the 28th Disney animated feature film was very loosely based on the 1837 Danish fairy tale of the same name by Hans Christian Andersen. It boasted a string of memorable songs that brought imbued the production with Broadway panache. Alan Menken wrote the score, and collaborated with Howard Ashman on the songs. The film scored three Academy Award nominations, winning two for Best Original Score and Best Original Song for “Under the Sea.”

The animated film featured the voices of Jodi Benson, Christopher Daniel Barnes, Pat Carroll, Samuel E. Wright, Jason Marin, Kenneth Mars, and Buddy Hackett.

Buoyed by the success of “The Little Mermaid,” the Disney Renaissance ran from the late 1980s to the late 1990s and unleashed a series of critically and commercially successful animated films. Of the 10 films considered part of this period, five were Disney princess films. By 2000, the list of Disney princess included Snow White, Cinderella, Aurora, Ariel, Belle, Jasmine, Pocahontas, and Mulan. Andy Mooney, a former Nike executive who had been named president of Walt Disney Company's Disney Consumer Products division, saw an opportunity. He pitched the Disney Princess franchise line — and a generation of children became entranced consumers.

More than 20 years have gone by since the end of the Disney Renaissance and the official launch of Disney’s Princess Line. These days, Walt Disney Pictures is focused on making live-action adaptations of its animated films. The latest of these is “The Little Mermaid,” directed by Rob Marshall from a screenplay written by David Magee. The film was released theatrically on May 26.

When evaluating a remake, adaptation, or reinterpretation of a classic film, one must consider not only the quality of the new film, but also how it compares to the original. It’s not enough to ask if the film entertaining and well executed. One must also determine what makes the remake valuable in its own right.

“The Little Mermaid” is set in the 1830s in the Caribbean. Ariel (Halle Bailey), youngest child of King Triton (Javier Bardem), lives in an underwater kingdom. Disney wisely mentions in its synopsis of the film that Ariel is 18 years old — not 16, as she was in the animated version.

Unlike her older sisters, Ariel is defiant and rebellious. She is captivated by a world beyond her reach, defying her father’s orders to study humans and collect their possessions from shipwrecks. She is often joined in this endeavor by her aquatic companions Flounder and Sebastian (voiced by Jacob Tremblay and Daveed Diggs, respectively); as well as by the birdbrained Scuttle (voiced by Awkwafina), a seabird whose understanding of human culture is amusingly erroneous.

When a sailing ship she has been watching is destroyed in a storm, she rescues Prince Eric (Jonah Hauer-King). When Triton learns Ariel interacted with the surface world, he goes on an overprotective father rampage, destroying her collection of bric-a-bracs, baubles, and curios while reiterating his mandate that she should not indulge her inclination to learn, explore, or meet new people. Ironically, Prince Eric’s adoptive mother, Queen Salina (Noma Dumezweni) places similar constraints upon him because she is fearful of the outside world and of losing her son.

Desperate to be reunited with Prince Eric — who she is in love with despite the fact that the two haven’t even actually met at this point — Ariel turns to Triton’s evil sister Ursula (Melissa McCarthy), a scheming sea witch who sees this as an opportunity to oust Triton and take power over all the world’s oceans. Ursula strikes a deal with Ariel, giving her legs in exchange for her voice. There’s a catch: If Ariel fails to receive true love’s kiss from Eric before the end of three days, she will become Ursula’s property. To make sure Ariel fails, Ursula also causes her to forget about needing to score that kiss.

That’s just the setup. If it seems a bit drawn out, imagine how it feels watching it on the screen. With a runtime of 2 hours and 15 minutes — 53 minutes longer than the 1989 animated version — it sometimes feels like we’re treading water. One wonders if, in a post-pandemic world filled with ADHD brains, kids can manage to maintain focus on this narrative that meanders its way from scene to scene without a sense of urgency. Sebastian and Flounder know that there is a looming deadline, but in this version of the story, Ariel has been robbed of that knowledge. In the animated version, she at least had a specific objective. She actively worked toward that goal. In this version, she is a starry-eyed young woman crushing on someone she barely knows, drifting dreamily between infatuation and limerence.

Because it is both a retelling of a classic fairy tale and a redesign of a beloved Disney property, the film suffers from a pronounced scarcity of creativity and originality. There are updates to the story, changes in individual characters, and a few additional songs. Some of these facelifts work, such as the addition of Queen Salina. Some of these addendum fall flat, such as Eric’s song “Wild Uncharted Waters,” written by Lin-Manuel Miranda. Miranda’s song “The Scuttlebutt,” performed by Awkwafina and Diggs, is a more palatable add-on, despite that fact that it is jarringly different tonally from other music in the film.

All the film’s flaws and miscalculations can be forgiven by its most impressive saving grace: Bailey’s performance is as remarkable as it is enchanting. Bailey stands out again and again in the murky, sketchy CGI undersea sequences, glowing with charisma and agency. She brings the magic that is noticeably lacking in elsewhere in the film, balancing the nostalgia of childhood memories with a contemporary attitude. She carries this film on her shoulders, filling it with a sense of wonder and awe that will inspire children to seek out unexplored horizons and work toward achieving their dreams.

Mind you: I’d prefer Ariel did not have to literally transform — for a man — to be deemed successful. This version somewhat mitigates that theme. Personal transformation is fine when prompted by a desire to become a better person, while self-change enacted strictly to please an individual or a group is unwise and unhealthy.

The film also features recurring examples — both subtle and palpable — that show gender equity, diversity, and inclusivity are beneficial to society. These are the very same principled concepts extremist legislators and ultraconservative judicial officials currently vilify as “woke,” as if being socially aware, compassionate, and empathetic has somehow become objectionable. If you ascribe to that mindset, you should probably skip this movie.

The bottom line is “The Little Mermaid” may not be as artistically inspired as the animated version, but a standout performance by Bailey keeps the film afloat. It frequently captures the kinetic energy of a Broadway stage production, delighting audiences both with signature songs and newly added sequences that enhance the story and the characters. It is consistently entertaining, with sporadic moments of dazzling brilliance.

If you don’t trust an old curmudgeon to properly evaluate a Disney Princess film, I’ll share a few points my 16-year-old daughter made.

According to B.C. Zumpe, the film’s CGI could have been better. She particularly enjoyed a scene in which Ariel and Eric are dancing in a village near his castle, while a Caribbean band plays.

“Some people want all the characters to look exactly like the originals,” she said. “It wouldn’t be fair if Disney excluded Halle just because of her skin color. They chose her for her voice and her spirit. Even if you’re only upset because she looks different from the Ariel you grew up with, you can’t expect them to keep everything the way you want it.”

My daughter also felt that Awkwafina did a good job in voicing Scuttle. She appreciated how the film promoted the idea that it is good to interact with other cultures and be open to new ideas.

She’s a good kid.

Photo courtesy of DISNEY

Halle Bailey stars as Ariel and Jonah Hauer-King as Prince Eric in “The Little Mermaid.”

Photo courtesy of DISNEY

Melissa McCarthy stars as Ursula in “The Little Mermaid.”

Some viewers and industry voices express concern about the authenticity of remade characters and updates to classic tales, especially regarding diversity and representation, as seen in public reactions to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.

Technological advances mean the blending of reality and animation is more seamless, but creators emphasize that animation’s heart lies in personal artistic inspiration rather than realism alone.

Every remake is a complex endeavor that pays homage to Walt Disney’s original vision and the painstaking effort involved in creating foundational works like Snow White.

The creative process at Disney increasingly centers on giving new, diverse voices opportunities for leadership, ensuring stories reflect contemporary values while acknowledging the company’s storied past.