Debates of all sorts discussion

This a topic that was suggested a while ago in the "Suggestions for Topics" folder, and I think I brought it up again in the "Movie Ratings" topic.

So, what do we think of Disney? I have a few questions we might address, and everyone can feel free to add more questions, bring up more issues, etc.

a) Do you like Disney movies?

b) Do you think Disney deserves all the money they've earned?

c) Do you think there is racism/sexism in Disney films?

d) Are there subliminal messages in Disney movies?

Debate away, my friends.

a) Yes. The older movies are better. The classics like Beauty and the Beast or Lion King. Those are better movies then the ones now to be honest.

b) For the classics that are older like I said earlier.

c) I don't think so......

d) Some. Like: Love who you want you.
There's beauty within everyone even if they look bad, they have a heart.
Etc.

By "subliminal messages" I meant more negative ones, but .... okay. :)

A) Yes, I love Disney movies. Loved them as a kid and still do.

B)Yes and no. When Walt was in charge absolutely. He worked from scratch up with help from no body but his brother. But I do think that the Disney company screwed pixar over. I don't think that they deserve the money from that.

C) Not really. When Disney was making their earlier cartoons then never made the African American, Hispanic, etc. characters look overly goofy or stupid like many of the other cartoons of the time. As for sexism, I have never seen something that was just screaming, "HEY, IM SEXIST!"

D) Ya, things like be happy with what you have, stay away from evil, magic can happen in everyday life, and avoid strangers in black capes with dental issues and poison apples.

But I do think that the Disney company screwed pixar over.

Amen to that. I adore Pixar, but Disney is forcing them into doing really dumb things. I didn't even see "Cars 2" because I was so pissed about the whole thing ... and of all the Pixar movies, I didn't like the first one very much anyway. But the reason they were forced to make a sequel was because Disney wanted to make more money off of merchandise. That's right, merchandise. That's pretty much Disney's biggest concern. It has nothing to do with the quality of the movie. In fact, I've heard that Disney was furious with Pixar for making "Up" because they were like, "Psh, no kid will want to buy an old man toy!" Just ... *headsmack*

When Disney was making their earlier cartoons then never made the African American, Hispanic, etc. characters look overly goofy or stupid like many of the other cartoons of the time.

I suggest you read this: http://www.cracked.com/article_15677_...

As for sexism, I have never seen something that was just screaming, "HEY, IM SEXIST!"

How about all those classic princess movies, where all the female protagonist wants is to find her prince charming and get married? I personally find that rather sexist.

Also, I could rant forever about how much they butchered all their fairy tale adaptations. And their adaptation of The Little Mermaid. And The Hunchback of Notre Dame. And ... everything.

If you can't tell, I kind of hate Disney. I like a handful of their movies, but ... not many.

Aleph wrote: "Brigid *Flying Kick-a-pow!* wrote: "But I do think that the Disney company screwed pixar over.

Amen to that. I adore Pixar, but Disney is forcing them into doing really dumb things. I didn't even ..."

You ... don't think those are racist? Poking fun at the Jim Crow laws? Having Mickey educate a silly black person? O_o Well, okay. You're entitled to your opinion. I mean, not all of them are that bad but I find a few of them pretty cringeworthy.

And the old ones come from pretty racist times, so it's hard to expect none of that to show through the films they made then.

True, but I was directly responding to Ace when he said, "Not really. When Disney was making their earlier cartoons then never made the African American, Hispanic, etc. characters look overly goofy or stupid like many of the other cartoons of the time." They were really just as racist as other cartoons.

And it's not just the old ones. I mean, "Aladdin" is only from 1992. That's barely 20 years ago, and they were portraying Arabs as crazy-looking people with giant noses. (Also, remind me to tell you the story of how Aladdin is totally ripped off from another animator's movie... It's quite a sad story.)

I even found "The Princess and the Frog" to be kind of racist. They made this big hype over how they finally had created a black princess. And then ... she spends the majority of the movie as a frog. Not to mention that they didn't dare make her prince charming white ...

Just 'cause they have one bad black character, doesn't mean they never have a bad white character. I think it may be a little unfair to call it racist because of the examples given in thos articles.

Well, if you have an example of Disney being racist towards white people, let me know. Also, even if they were equally racist toward both races, it wouldn't just cancel out racism.

Aleph wrote: "Some of them are racially stereotypical, but it's not really the same thing."

Even if they're not the same thing (and personally I think of it as being the same), that doesn't make it any less wrong. Also, I believe that technically racism is valuing one race over the other, which is also shown in several of those examples, if you want to be literal about it.

Aleph wrote: "Can I aslo point out that some disney/pixar movies are amazing!
Toy story, 1, 2 & 3
UP
Lion King
etc. etc."

I agree that Pixar is amazing, but I don't count Disney and Pixar as being the same thing, really. Pixar may be owned by Disney, but they create their own films.

Aleph wrote: "Mickey educating a dumb black guy?
I could name you plenty of disney films that have a white person as the dumb one or the baddy.
It's not racist just 'cause they have one black guy who's bad.
I di..."

It's in that article ... you know, the one you called "silly." It's the one at the very end.

Wait, when did I say anything about a black villain? I didn't ever say that making a villain black was necessarily racist. I'm fully aware that most Disney villains are white. My problem has nothing to do with villainy, but rather how Disney has portrayed and stereotyped certain races––and how even now, even though they're not nearly as racist as they used to be, they don't take many risks when it comes to race.

Well, next time you watch Aladdin, observe what all the characters in the background look like.

There are far more than "one or two." Like I said, it's not as bad as it used to be. But there used to be racist undertones in a lot of things they did. They might not be as racist now, but they were built on racist grounds. Walt Disney himself was a racist and an anti-semite. Just saying.

Yes, I know you intended for it to be rhetorical. But I find it a bit incredible that you don't find that racist. That book portrayed Africans as being idiots who don't know how to do anything, and thus have to be civilized and educated by white people. And I know Mickey is not technically "white" since he's a mouse, but that's the implication of the story.

Just because there are fewer of them, especially nowadays, doesn't make it any less wrong. That's all I'm saying.

Okay, I'm not being mean or slamming anyone. Just keep that in mind.

When I said "they never made their African American, Hispanic, etc. characters look overly goofy." what I meant was that they didnt make them look and dumber than any other cartoon company's at the time. Brigid, I read that article that you posted a link to, it was very interesting. Thanks. But here are a few thoughts on the racism issue.
In the article they mentioned Sunflower the centaur, who was a black centaur working for a white one. I looked and Fantasia was made in the 40's. Back then African American maids were still common.
They also mentioned the crows from Dumbo in the article. I think that was just a stereotype. Kind of like when you see a Siamese cat you expect it to have a corny Chinese accent. Same thing. When most kids see a crow, they probably would expect it to talk like an African American.
In The Little Mermaid Sebastian was Jamaican, and there was a black fish with an African American voice, etc. I think that it would have been more racist to make those characters European or something else, personally. But that's just me. I could go on forever but i won't. However, yes, there is a little racism in the Disney movies, cartoons, etc. Notice in my earlier post I said "not really" as opposed to "absolutely not."

And as to the sexism, the main characters in most of their movies are girls because they are adaptations of fairytales in which the main characters were female. I mean, you make Snow white a man and you will get a lot of looks that are saying "what the heck?" Plus, I don't think that prince charming could pull the dress thing off quite as well as Snowy could. :P
And the reason they keep making movies about princesses instead of boy characters, Is because the princess thing is already established and it sells really well.

Yes, the Disney company is all about money. I'll bet that Walt is just turning over in his grave.

Well not all Disney princesses were weak either, Mulan was strong... Mulan was my favorite Disney movie as a kid...

Well, I've been thinking about this whole Disney thing and I have come to realize something. I don't hate the Walt Disney Studios... I hate the Disnay Company! It just makes my blood boil to think about the Disney 'Company' has done to what Walt built and what he stood for! The Disney Co. has screwed too many other people and businesses over! That includes pixar! I support the Walt Disney Studios and what they stood for, but I have come to hate what has become of Walt's legacy. I'm so mad!!! I think I need to go eat some chocolate...

I love disney movies.

I guess they were racist but back then people were racist.

Ace wrote: "When most kids see a crow, they probably would expect it to talk like an African American.

Uh ... I wouldn't. Why would someone expect that? Plus, I think you kind of missed the point there. They made the crows sound like African Americans and they named one of the crows Jim Crow, as in the Jim Crow laws––which were the cause of segregation. In my opinion, that is inexcusably offensive.

And as to the sexism, the main characters in most of their movies are girls because they are adaptations of fairytales in which the main characters were female.

That's not the problem I have. I'm okay with the main characters being female. It's the message of most older Disney movies that I find rather sexist––that is, conveying that a girl's only desire is to marry a wealthy guy. Basically, what the older Disney movies are saying is that you just wish for something to happen, and it happens. You don't have to work for it. The only Disney movies I really enjoyed as a kid were "Mulan" and "Beauty and the Beast," because at least the protagonists in those movies had motivations other than wanting to just get married. The rest of the Disney princess movies, I just found rather dull. The protagonists were just so passive ... they didn't do anything; rather, they waited for things to happen to them, and they magically did.

I understand that, at the time these movies were made, it was a more sexist time. (Except they didn't really have an excuse for how sexist The Little Mermaid was since that was made in like, the early 90's...) But still, it just bothers me to watch such things. And I don't find it compelling.

Now, Disney movies have gotten better over the past couple years. For example, I thought "Tangled" was a great movie and I hope they continue to make more similar films. My problem is mostly with the older ones.

(And with the way Disney is so money-obsessed, is sometimes more concerned with merchandise than film quality, and how they abuse poor Pixar.)

Aleph wrote: "And also- I just haven't noticed any issues in their more recent movies. nver found them offensive. Never been upset by them.
I think, like nina said, People are just trying to find racist and imm..."

Yes, there is less offensive material in their recent movies. I was talking about the older ones. My issue with them now is more their money-obsession issue, although I just won't even get started on that.

Anyway, I disagree with your second statement. It's not just because of racism/immorality that I don't usually care for Disney movies. There are some exceptions. For example, I love "Tangled" as I already said; I also love "Lilo & Stitch," "The Emperor's New Groove," and "Enchanted" to name a few more. Yes, Disney is capable of making good movies. However, I just find a lot of their movies rather shallow and predictable; that is why I tend to dislike them. The older movies in particular I just find plain boring, and the racism is just ... well ... the icing on the cake? I don't think that's the right idiom, but you probably get what I mean. :P

The older movies from Disney are better than the ones now. For instance, Tangled is horrible compared to Lion King . There's better life lessons anyway.

I have to disagree with you on that one. For some reason I'm just not as crazy about The Lion King as everyone else is. I love the music in it ... and it's cool that it's all Hamlet-esque. But, I don't know. I just always hated Simba ... O_o

Okay, let's face it, Disney was a druggie and that's where he got most of his inspiration from. I doubt that when he was high the first thing that popped into his mind was, "Hmmm. I wonder what kind of message this movie will be sending to the general public..." Also the quality of the films has changed over the years because our STANDARDS have changed, just like with the racism issue. I mean, back when the older films first came out if it was in color and had sound the movie was fabulous! To heck with the plot and the flipping message!
Also, Disney is just like any other company in the sense that they make good movies and bad ones. Tangled, Mulan, and The Lion King were great movies! The Little Mermaid and Sleeping Beauty, not so great. It's like that with every other film company out there. For example Quest For Camolot by Warner Bros. Vs. The Swan Princess by... Hmm... Well I can't remember who that one was by, but you get the point. :)

Ace wrote: "Okay, let's face it, Disney was a druggie and that's where he got most of his inspiration from."

That's an urban myth, it's been disproven. He didn't care about the message because he wasn't an artist, he was a businessman at heart :P

That too, but the larger business part of Disney co. was run by his brother.

His brother was chief executive; Walt Disney was the president of the company. He was the head of it all :P

Ya, he owned the company, but his brother ran most of the business part, like merchandise. I went to Disney world last summer and they had an exhibit on it called one man's dream or something like that, and it was really cool!

Yeah, that's what a chief executive does. The president gets to be more lazy (I assume) :P
Coolio ^-^

There is an episode of Mickey Mouse Club House that I can't stand. It begins with Donald swapping his pet chicken for a bag of beans with the giant. He gets upset decides he's been ripped off (not his actual words ;-p) and wants the chicken back, throws the beans down and a beanstalk grows so he, mickey and pluto go up to the giant's home sneak around so they don't wake the giant up, steal the chicken back and get caught and then give the giant a teddy bear.
I find the message disgusting

Woops! I misunderstood. Sorry!

The older versions of Disney is better than the newer. I personally think that the new version of Disney (animated or not) is really bad. The quality of the animated versions are not as good, but they are. They're in a good picture, but the storyline and characters etc. are pretty bad and doesn't make sense.

Ehh, I kind of agre with you. They've made a LOT of movies lately that are just crap. But some of them were pretty good. Like Tangled and Pirates of the Caribean (though that's not too new of a movie it's newER). I guess in the end it kind of evens out.

Yeah.

Aleph wrote: "Brigid *Flying Kick-a-pow!* wrote: "Aleph wrote: "And also- I just haven't noticed any issues in their more recent movies. nver found them offensive. Never been upset by them.
I think, like nina ..."

I kind of feel that way, too. Disney seems to own pretty much everything. XD

Brigid *Flying Kick-a-pow!* wrote: "This a topic that was suggested a while ago in the "Suggestions for Topics" folder, and I think I brought it up again in the "Movie Ratings" topic.

So, what do we think of Disney? I have a few que..."

1) Who doesn't love Disney?

2) Um, I guess so. It's not like they're out with mafias killing and robbing people. They make good movies. Nothing wrong with that.

3) Heck yes, there is racism and sexism. There was one movie so racist it was never released on home video in America. And don't get me started on Disney girls. All they care about is being with their prince and being a princess. Leave it to Pixar to redeem women's statuses with "Brave"!

4) I've never been one to be all on the subliminal messages. People freak out about them, but after watching some videos I found it very ridiculous. They're so minute and hard to see, I doubt even your subconscious could pick it up. And besides, like a three-year-old knows what the heck sex is. I really don't think it influences you much, anyways, if there really are subliminal messages. I don't feel like singing every second and looking for a guy to marry and a dress to wear. I'm like totally opposite of that.

One movie I expected to see brought up in this debate, but never was, is Alice in Wonderland. I know just about everybody thinks this movie is one big acid trip, but I can tell you why it's not.

Alice in Wonderland is based off of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll (Charles Dodgson). Carroll was born in 1832, and the book was first published in 1965. Disney's interest in Alice stretches back to 1923. He made several attempts to try to adapt Alice, but most of those fell through, until the movie we know today was released in 1951.

LSD, or acid, was synthesized by Albert Hofmann, a chemist in Switzerland, in 1938. In 1949, Dr. Max Rinkle brought LSD to America for study. In 1963, LSD first appears on the streets. During the time between 1949 and 1963, LSD used for things like medicine and therapy. 1963 is about the time that LSD abuse becomes popular, and people start taking acid trips.

So, just by looking at the dates of the book/movie compared to important dates in the history of LSD, there is no way that Alice in Wonderland can be an acid trip. Yes, LSD was around while Disney was trying to make Alice all those years, but it was mostly used to treat things like depression and alchoholism. The abuse of the substance didn't start until the early 1960's.

I just needed to get that off my chest because I'm tired of people thinking that Alice is a drug trip. You can be highly imaginative without being on drugs. -_-

Sources: http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/l...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_in...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice...

Wednesday wrote: "I just needed to get that off my chest because I'm tired of people thinking that Alice is a drug trip. You can be highly imaginative without being on drugs. -_-"

that is a good point, and certainly true. however, hallucinogens were around long before the discovery of LSD, so that doesn't really prove that it wasn't a drug-induced idea...

But it does prove that acid/LSD is not the culprit. I still believe it's only an urban myth that Lewis Carroll was drug addict. The only thing I can think of is whatever they used to treat epilepsy back then (he was epileptic) might have caused hallucinations. And even if the book might have been influenced by drugs, that doesn't mean the movie was.

I never heard that Lewis Carroll was a drug addict.

I believe that I had heard something about him taking drugs- not necessarily being addicted- but I thought that the major urban myth about him ("the carroll myth") was that he was a pedophile...

I was about to say the same thing as Kirby ... I don't think people are as concerned with any kind of "drug messages"––although it could be possible that Lewis Carroll took some kind of drugs. But anyway, the bigger controversy about Lewis Carroll is that people think he may have been a pedophile. He based Alice (the character) off of a real-life little girl he was acquainted with. And I believe I've heard he took provocative pictures of her and other children, or something?

yeah, I read that he had quite a few photographs of nude children, but most articles said that that was NOT unusual during that time period- that most major photographers did nude studies of children. also, it's believed that his family tried to bury all of his "scandalous" relationships with adults women, making it appear that he had no romantic interest in adults.

I also read (and found very interesting) that he is believed to have suffered from a condition that causes hallucinations in that it makes the sufferer feel as if they've become very large or very small (my boyfriend has actually had this happen to him- it's very strange). it's called "micropsia" and "macropsia." I think that sounds a more likely explanation than drugs as far as inspiration, although perhaps he did use drugs to help with his migraines.

As Kirby said, that was the fashion of the time, photographing nude children. Remember, that was 19th century England. Yes, he based Alice off of a little girl he was good friends with, but that doesn't mean he was a pedophile. A lot of adults are friends with children, but in a non-sexual way. I'm 19, but I'm friends with the cutest little girl in the world. I like her because she's adorable and awesome.

Kirby, I'm going to have to look that up. That is interesting.

Well, I'm not saying I personally believe he was a pedophile, because I don't necessarily ... Just that, I think that's what tends to be people's issue with him more than the drugs thing.

When you're weird, people judge you.

Brigid *Flying Kick-a-pow!* wrote: "I was about to say the same thing as Kirby ... I don't think people are as concerned with any kind of "drug messages"––although it could be possible that Lewis Carroll took some kind of drugs. But ..."

I've heard that it was an Illuminati thing. *shurgs*

What was an Illuminati thing?