Profile
Search
Register
Log in
Why do People say that Walt Disney is so Evil?
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
MF TOON



Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 3611
Location: la plančte sauvage
 Reply with quote  

Reggie wrote:
Really, Disney is evil because of his middle-of-the-road, boring approach to making beautifully rendered and animated cartoons. Also Disney, like Robert Moses and other contemporary urban planners, envisioned a bland society of how-do-you-dos and pleasant-weather-we're-havings. The Disney corporation went to far as to create a planned community in Florida...Celebration I think it is called? Yecch.


Sorry Reg but I totally disagree with this portrayal. Envisioned a bland sopciety... are yoiu kidding? Walt was a visionary who changed the face of mainstream animation. He took it beyond its capacities and did a lot with the cartoons he created. Sure Mickey wasnt the most personable character but you cant tell me that many of the Donald Duck and Goofy cartoons from the 40s and 50s etc didnt have just as much dynamic innovation and agressive humor as the Warner Bros cartoons of that time.. Aside from Felix The Cat and Popeye, name me one other cartoon character from the early 30's that really possessed suych characteristics... Oswald, Inkwell, Bosko...?? Walt was an entertainer first and his accomplishments and worldwide commercial success are a reflection of his ambition and creations. No other cartoon studios were able to do what he did, he not only created an empire with his cartoons but his feature films broke a medium that none other had touched before him. His theme park and original Disneyland television shows are proof of his brilliant artistry and regardless of whether or not you appreciate them, films like Saludos Amigos, Make Mine Music, etc were stylized masterpieces which no other studio ever had the dexterity, craftmanship or straight balls to even dabble in. His works with Salvadore Dali, etc are blatant proof of the mans innovation. Say you dont dig Disney shiorts, features whatever but dont try to discredit them as boring and middle-of-the road cause they were naything but that...
Post Wed Aug 20, 2003 7:47 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
MF TOON



Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 3611
Location: la plančte sauvage
 Reply with quote  

squirtisblow wrote:
hugh grants hooker wrote:
walt disney isnt frozen.

the same way walt disney only hired straight laced whitebreads... i hear the current big wheel (isner, i think) is only hiring homosexuals. ones is just as bad as the other. if they'd hire based on talent, maybe someone could make a cartoon thats as good as bugs bunny.


watch what u say mf toon might jump on u, cuz he took the advanced class.


chill bro, i didnt take "the advance class" - i speak on what i know and i dont make allegations and ridiculous off the wall comments about people from which i have no "substantial" backgroun knowledge on. if you really did take an intro to walt disney class, forget what you leanred cause evberything you typed up was bullshity and im just telling it the way it is. no need to get so defensive and cry about it, thats what this internet forum mediuym is for - discussion, debate, etc. your just wrong plain and simple though.

peace.
Post Wed Aug 20, 2003 7:53 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Reggie



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 5765
Location: Queens, NYC
 Reply with quote  

MF TOON wrote:
Sorry Reg but I totally disagree with this portrayal. Envisioned a bland sopciety... are yoiu kidding? Walt was a visionary who changed the face of mainstream animation. He took it beyond its capacities and did a lot with the cartoons he created. Sure Mickey wasnt the most personable character but you cant tell me that many of the Donald Duck and Goofy cartoons from the 40s and 50s etc didnt have just as much dynamic innovation and agressive humor as the Warner Bros cartoons of that time.. Aside from Felix The Cat and Popeye, name me one other cartoon character from the early 30's that really possessed suych characteristics... Oswald, Inkwell, Bosko...?? Walt was an entertainer first and his accomplishments and worldwide commercial success are a reflection of his ambition and creations. No other cartoon studios were able to do what he did, he not only created an empire with his cartoons but his feature films broke a medium that none other had touched before him. His theme park and original Disneyland television shows are proof of his brilliant artistry and regardless of whether or not you appreciate them, films like Saludos Amigos, Make Mine Music, etc were stylized masterpieces which no other studio ever had the dexterity, craftmanship or straight balls to even dabble in. His works with Salvadore Dali, etc are blatant proof of the mans innovation. Say you dont dig Disney shiorts, features whatever but dont try to discredit them as boring and middle-of-the road cause they were naything but that...


You and I see it differently, I suppose. I have always thought Disney cartoons were like warm pablum, ever since I was a little kid and didn't even understand how cartoons were made. I appreciate the attention to detail, but Disney cartoons--meaning the Donald Duck and Goofy serials, not necessarily the movies--are among the unfunniest attempts at humor in the 20th Century. On the other hand, I love the gritty, jerky look of Fleischer cartoons and Out of the Inkwell will always be awesome to me. Different strokes for different folks.

Disneyland and Disneyworld suck though, dude. They're like expositions of the suburban nightmare. And Epcot Center? Talk about cultural imperialism at its worst. Yeah, I might be reading into a theme park more than some, but knowing that it was Disney's dreamworld merits such examination. Check out Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, a fictionalized account of Dinseyworld that is spot-on in my opinion.


Last edited by Reggie on Wed Aug 20, 2003 8:20 am; edited 2 times in total
Post Wed Aug 20, 2003 8:14 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
MF TOON



Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 3611
Location: la plančte sauvage
 Reply with quote  

Wordsmyth wrote:
anyone who can make about 1.5 billion dollars every year -
( $667.7 million in filmed entertainment, $330.00 million in consumer products, and $528.6 million from its theme parks and resorts) - has got to be evil.....
unless you're bill gates - then your beyond evil -

you ever noticed that?....
if Disney had a personal monopoly game, Bill Gates would be on the chance card.....while little game pieces depicting animated characters traveled through chinesse sweat shops, and holly wood boulevard....

Well in Lion King, if you pause it at the right time, The clouds form the word "sex"......PROVEN.....
in Rescuers Down Under, during their inter-city free-fall you can see a picture of a woman, without clothes, and covering her breasts in one of the windows....PROVEN......
Little Mermaid, preist has boner.....if you wanna twist animation that way.....haha....or if you're Machiavel, sod eos the dude in the title-cover.....HMMM....PROVEN?....

Disney WAS racist, but not blatently.....just because he (MF TOON) supported American Troops during the World War, doesn't mean he was not racist.....he was not a Nazi though, whoever brought that up - he supported Democracy, and befirended mroe than one U.S. President....

***Song of the south was basd on racism -
***African Americans in his cartons were depicted as pure black, with wide white eyes.....(had minimal roles, if any)
***Black Characters in Disney Movies :

Beagle Boys - Robbers, resembling african americans (dark complections, big lips, wide noses)

Lil' Devil - Also Black, seen eating watermelon and shining shoes...Raaacist....


well maybe only his artists were racist

uno



AAARGHHH IM PULLING MY HAIR OUT!!!! WALT DISNEY WAS NOT RACIST!! If any of your above statements are based on the same foundations from which you formulated thew following than Im not even gonna bother responding anymore:


"Well in Lion King, if you pause it at the right time, The clouds form the word "sex"......PROVEN.....
in Rescuers Down Under, during their inter-city free-fall you can see a picture of a woman, without clothes, and covering her breasts in one of the windows....PROVEN......
Little Mermaid, preist has boner.....if you wanna twist animation that way.....haha....or if you're Machiavel, sod eos the dude in the title-cover.....HMMM....PROVEN?...."



This is fucking beyond stupid... the Rescuers thing, thats real but it wasnt in the actual film, it was slipped in the negatives by one of the animators as a joke when it was initially released to dvd which is why the initial release was pulled from shelves so quickly and hard to trask down for a couplke of weeks.

The boner thing... thats been addressed, it was the way his fucking leg was drawn. Your just fishing for excuses to pull the evil disney card now.

the lion king... that did not say sex it was SFX... SPECIAL EFFECTS CORPORATION, subtle company promotion.

As for Song Of The SOuth being formulated by racism... HOW?!?!

If youre going to make such an argument back it up!

But you cant cause youve never seen the film...

you cats are so quick to call out political media war conspiracy bla vbla fuck george bush and cnn etc but than you read something about disney on the internet and your all quick to stick to your guns. Theres nothing racist about Song Of the South and your Beagle Boy analogy is one of the stupidest ever conceived...

their design was a spin-off of Peg Leg Pete and his many renditions, Disneys first "villain" and longest running characer.. How is a black colored animated drawing considered racist anyways?

As far as how african americans were depicted back than... you are making it seem like disney branded that style...

This is the definition of a cartoon:

a. "A drawing depicting a humorous situation, often accompanied by a caption."

b. "A drawing representing current public figures or issues symbolically and often satirically: a political cartoon."

c. "A ridiculously oversimplified or stereotypical representation: criticized the actor's portrayal of Jefferson as a historically inaccurate cartoon."

d. "To draw a humorous or satirical representation of; caricature."

Apparently black people are to be segregated from the application of said humor. I wonder if there's any controversial statements to be made regarding that?

Apparently people find the satirization and exageration of such black charicatures offensive because apparently there are idiots in this world who were under the impression that cartoons were supposed to pertain to the actual honest portrayal of real life reflections and situations.

Maybe we should gather all the excessively overweight fat people, big-shoed squeeky voiced citizens and talking animals of this great nation and have them all submit complaint forms to animation studios regarding the exagerated and satirical stereotypes of their images being portrayed in these so called "cartoons".

In fact, I think somebody should make a cartoon about these halfwits, foucssing on the satiration of their profound mental adjournment. Perhaps we can place them back in the middle ages and see whether they than have the capacity to identify the subtle differences in sociological context.

This is in no way shitting on you for what you posted, Im just trying to make a point... use common sense...

There were Irish, Japanese, German, Russian and even exagerrated Jewish stereotypes of characters featured in cartoons all the time back than, why are black people any different?

Bottom line... DISNEY WAS NOT RACIST AND THERE IS NO FACTUAL NOR INCICIVE ESTABLISHMENTS TO BACK UP THESE FALSE PRETENSES!
Post Wed Aug 20, 2003 8:16 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
miztash1ttalkah



Joined: 04 Jul 2002
Posts: 67
 Reply with quote  

they still get paid off when somebody buys an insane clown posse reords, even thoug they fired them
Post Wed Aug 20, 2003 8:39 am
 View user's profile Send private message
MF TOON



Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 3611
Location: la plančte sauvage
 Reply with quote  

Reggie wrote:
You and I see it differently, I suppose. I have always thought Disney cartoons were like warm pablum, ever since I was a little kid and didn't even understand how cartoons were made. I appreciate the attention to detail, but Disney cartoons--meaning the Donald Duck and Goofy serials, not necessarily the movies--are among the unfunniest attempts at humor in the 20th Century.

I respect your opinion but I dont see how you can blow off ALL Disney shorts like that. How can you possibly watch the 1947 Donald Duck short, "Clown Of the Jungle" or the 1945 Jack Kinney directed, "Hockey Homicide" and make such a staement, they're just as fast paced and humorous as anything Tex Avery's ever done... What about all those Jack Hanna directed shorts from the 40's on..? Not to mention the 1943 "Der Fuehrer's Face" which is possibly the greatest Disney cartoon ever made and by far the greatest WW2 themed animated short ever produced out of any cartoon studio Snafu and Hook included... simply pure masterpiece.

On the other hand, I love the gritty, jerky look of Fleischer cartoons and Out of the Inkwell will always be awesome to me. Different strokes for different folks.

Oh so do I. I love all animation in general and my defense for the Disney Corporation here is not intended to take away from anything else. As you could probably tell Im a huge cartoon/animation buff and I have an intrinsic respect for all works in that regard.

Disneyland and Disneyworld suck though, dude. They're like expositions of the suburban nightmare.

Again, I disagree. I love Disneyworld and don't see where you are coming from on this one, Ive been 3 times in the past 5 years as an adult and have had the most fun ever. I love everything about Disneyworld, the rides are amazing, the overwhelming enormity of the park and attractions, the general and universal feeling of good spirit and fun. Maybe Im stuck on the overall aesthetics but I dont see anything sucky about Disneyworld, just straight fun and as lame as it sounds, it really does feel like a magical fantasy type place. Its the first and only theme park in the entire world to create such an environment, I think it was a huge accomplishment and if Walt were alive to witness its development, I think hed be extremely satisfied as well (maybe not of recent years - but thats a different thread). The coolest thing about this though, is that it wasn't founded out of financial means but rather out of the genuine will to create a place which would invoke such an experience in people.

And Epcot Center? Talk about cultural imperialism at its worst.

Okay, you lost me... what do you mean? Are you referring to Walt's vision of the "ideal community" or something? I think you're delving to deep into all this... Walt Disney, though a conventionalist in many ways, was always intrigued and captivated by technology, advanced space exploration and future developments; Epcot was founded out of such appeal. Sure it might not carry much lasting significance today as it has been long outdated in realistic terms of suggested relevance and value as it was initially intended to portray a futuristic perspective of standard life in the 1980's but it still serves as an entertaining park and remains significant in its historical context as well since many of its attractions were borrowed from the 1964 Worlds Fair. The WDW Epcot is fucking dope imo, where else can you dip in and grab some fresh cuisine from countries all over the world than jet back to your hotel room in 15 minutes... I love Epcot and some of the pavillions are prety sick too.


Yeah, I might be reading into a theme park more than some, but knowing that it was Disney's dreamworld merits such examination. Check out Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, a fictionalized account of Dinseyworld that is spot-on in my opinion.
Post Wed Aug 20, 2003 10:10 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Reggie



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 5765
Location: Queens, NYC
 Reply with quote  

We just disagree about how much we like Disney cartoons, but we both agree about Disney's contribution to animation and that studio's high levels of quality. I admit "Der Furher's Face" is a good one, but "Hockey Homicide" is a total bust for me. The SNAFU cartoons are very interesting from an anthropological standpoint but, let's be real, they aren't really "good" in terms of storytelling or humor (though I can't front on the nipples-turning-to-radio from "Loose Lips Sink Ships")

So about the cartoons, I am happy to agree to disagree, since how funny or well-told they are is a matter of opinion. It's not like I think they are "bad" like a Filmation cartoon or something.

But as far as the parks...yecch. Too sterile, too controlled. For one thing, most amusement park rides do nothing for me. For another thing, the policies about hair and dress are annoying. I'm not going to go so far as to say they are fascist, since it's Disney's park and they can operate it how they want, but I want no part of it. Epcot Center (which is loosely based on the 1939 World's Fair, not the 1964 one incidentally) is like a candy-coated view of other cultures, making them quaint and minaturized as if they are ready to be packaged like candy. The subtext of that, to me, is that these other countries are like children or puppies, cute to look at but not to really deal with in a realistic way. I don't think Disney had any evil intentions when he made these parks, I just don't think he understood--or at least didn't want to deal with--the complexity of the cultures of these countries. To his credit, however, he did make overseas countries more palatable to a post-WWII American society that was about ready to throw up the concrete wall and never deal with another culture again.

But you like it, I don't. That's okay with me.
Post Wed Aug 20, 2003 10:46 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
MF TOON



Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 3611
Location: la plančte sauvage
 Reply with quote  

fair enough...

just to address a couple trivial points though.. you mention "storytelling and humor" in referance to the Snafu shorts but I think it's a misconception that plot and story are the most important things in animation filmmaking.

I think the use of characters and the way in which the story is told are far more important aspects of the overall production than the actual plotline and gags themselves. People will overlook holes and dead ends if the characters can pull it off.

Many of the popular 1960's onward Hanna Barbera cartoons might otherwise never be credited if these were the foundations for which we all judged cartoons; Let alone all those campy 80's series which, lets be honest, relied a lot less on the development of dialogue and compelling storylines so much as character profiles and plot direction. Another big part of it for me, is the nostalgia factor which might be where our opinions skew as you mentioned you were nevewr fond of these cartoons growing up but film in general---and animation in particular--relies on a type of storytelling that is different from.... in fact has nothing to do with the written word.

A lot of univerally acknowleged classic cartoons would make no sense if they were short stories or novels, and that's just fine. I think a cartoon just has to be entertaining to be good, afterall animation is essentially the art of moving drawings, which is why I might take a different perspective towards this whole Disney thing. They dont necessarily have to be funny for me to appreciate them.

I do however, find Geisel's scriptwriting very entertaining and complementary to Tashlin, Jones, Clampett and Avery's direction in the Snafu shorts though and I found the writing above all to be a strong point along with the humor in Seuss' overly eccentric style. Again, difference of opinion though...

As for the Epcot thing... I think much of Walts direction in handling the majority of his company was simply aimed at the general essence of simple, wholesome family entertainment. I believe his vision of Disney World was an exagerrated conception of such fantasies and I dont think he was looking to recreate a complex ecclectic portrayal of social and cultural context around the globe, as much as he was trying to recreate a reflective environment with Epcot, which would appeal to the general public from a basic "wow, look at the crazy pavillions, check out the amazing detail - look at all these cool rides..." type of vibe. In that respect, I think he pulled it off and that is why I enjoy it, but than again, Disney never did have a chance to finnish the Orlando park since he died in 1966, 5 years before WDW opened so who's to really say if his visions of Epcot did manifest themselves the way he imagined?

Peace.
Post Wed Aug 20, 2003 12:00 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
MF TOON



Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 3611
Location: la plančte sauvage
 Reply with quote  

Btw, whats this about...


Reggie wrote:
For another thing, the policies about hair and dress are annoying.



?
Post Wed Aug 20, 2003 12:01 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Reggie



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 5765
Location: Queens, NYC
 Reply with quote  

MF TOON wrote:
Btw, whats this about...


Reggie wrote:
For another thing, the policies about hair and dress are annoying.



?


Until the early 90's, guys with long hair were not admitted into DisneyWorld or DisneyLand. This was a rule heavily enforced in the 1960's (for obvious reasons) and enforced when convenient throughout the 80's...in fact, I remember a news story about a guy with a ponytail who went to DisneyLand with his kids and was thrown out of the park against protests--because they had left his kids behind, unattended. Similarly, there is a dress code still on the books at both parks, the main tenets being that you have to (of course) be clothed, but it also includes addendums dealing with the lengths of skirts, types of shirts allowed, etc. I did a quick check online for these rules and couldn't find them, but they were offered at the information booth of Epcot Center when I visited it for the first time back in 1997 or 1998.
Post Wed Aug 20, 2003 12:20 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
dri



Joined: 16 Mar 2003
Posts: 1177
Location: minneapolis
song of the south  Reply with quote  

my mom is a disney movie collecting fanatic ....


the only way she could get song of the south was her friend went to australia and bought it for her there ....


cuz it says the dirty N word in it.


THATS HOW.
Post Wed Aug 20, 2003 12:31 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
MF TOON



Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 3611
Location: la plančte sauvage
Re: song of the south  Reply with quote  

my green guitar wrote:
my mom is a disney movie collecting fanatic ....


the only way she could get song of the south was her friend went to australia and bought it for her there ....


cuz it says the dirty N word in it.


THATS HOW.




I own this movie, along with every other domestic release and first issue cartoon classic, gold series etc from disneys original vhs collection and I can assure you, it does NOT use that word in the movie, anywhere.
Post Wed Aug 20, 2003 12:36 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Wordsmyth
Guest




 Reply with quote  

MF TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON PLEEEEEEEEEASE....

how do you come across saying that i've never seen the film?....
Uncle Remus was a black man; a slave, who depicted slvaery in a 'not that bad' manner.
The movie had scenes of slaves dancing from the feilds, singing about how much they loved their home, In Georgia, i think.....
aaaaw, ain't slavry the mos' wonduful thang?....well at leasts wez happy....


the NAACP hs been quoted on the film, upset with "the impression it gives of an idyllic master-slave relationship"

in the film, blacks are shown as hard working people, living in slave quarters, with no reward for their time and hard work.


in respect to MFTOON, maybe it was not completely racist, BUT it wass ignorant....
see this is where i am stuck.....i dont know if this film was written to anger balcks, hide the fact that slavery occured - OR it was just written by ignorant southern white flok who did think a plantation was a dandy place for blacks to live.


and why is that during 'the little white boy's' birthday party, his good friend Toby (little black boy, son of uncle R.?) is absent?....maybe a little black boy isn't fit to be in the same household of a richer white boy, and his new friend, Ginny who he knows nothing about.....
Post Wed Aug 20, 2003 12:40 pm
 
jjay



Joined: 11 May 2003
Posts: 259
 Reply with quote  

"what makes the red man red"
peter pan
Post Wed Aug 20, 2003 12:50 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Wordsmyth
Guest




 Reply with quote  

hahaha yeeeah....and how come the black characters in lion king, are all ill fated?...

Mufasa gets trampelled by the buffalo....metaphor for white cops n rodney king.....

Rafiki - was a black-magic voodoo african american who was ousted from society, forced to live in the booneys of Mississippi
Post Wed Aug 20, 2003 12:53 pm
 

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Sat Oct 25, 2014 1:18 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon