Off Topic Messages

Wed Apr 26, 2006 5:06 am

:roll:

excuse me, mr. darling. :lol:

Image

Wed Apr 26, 2006 10:32 am

Good thing you rejected that third interview Tom.........that's the one where you drink Walt Disney's blood and kiss the lips of his frozen head.

Wed Apr 26, 2006 10:40 am

Scatter wrote:Good thing you rejected that third interview Tom.........that's the one where you drink Walt Disney's blood and kiss the lips of his frozen head.


A lot of posters reading that will think you're joking !

Wed Apr 26, 2006 10:44 am

ColinB wrote:
Scatter wrote:Good thing you rejected that third interview Tom.........that's the one where you drink Walt Disney's blood and kiss the lips of his frozen head.


A lot of posters reading that will think you're joking !


Only those who've never seen the seedy side of the Mouse.......

Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:15 pm

walt and roy disney were/are good people.

it's michael eisner that was the massive turd.

in fact, roy's been fighting against what eisner did to disney.

Thu Apr 27, 2006 7:36 am

Tom in North Carolina wrote:
ColinB wrote:And the Disney employees! They don't just work for the company.
They have to sell their souls to them !

You're just about right. Several years ago I interviewed for the Director of Marketing position for DisneyWorld. Their corporate philosophy is down right scary. You are asked to pretty much devote your life to the company and they have the final say so over everything. For instance, while I was down there for my second interview I looked at some houses and visited a friend over at Universal Studios, which was just about to open. I casually mentioned that I was looking at houses during the interview and the guy said that 2 of the neighborhoods I looked in "were not up to the expected standards of Disney executives." These were $350,000-450,000 homes, so what does that even mean??? Then, when I mentioned that I had visited Universal, I was told that I "can't do that again" if I expected to keep my job. Keep in mind, I wasn't even offered a job there yet and they were already telling me where I could live and where I could go. Needless to say that when I was offered a third inteview, I heartily declined.

You left out the part about having to wear those damned "mouse ears" 24/7.

Sat Apr 29, 2006 8:08 am

here's a fly in the ointment:

SONG OF THE SOUTH

"The first books I ever read were the Uncle Remus stories. Ever since then, these stories have been my special favorites. I've just been waiting until I could develop the proper medium to bring them to the screen."
– Walt Disney, 1946

this 1946 film is pretty much good as banned as far as the non-disney-ran disney (eisner & iger) goes.

roy disney has been part of the fight to get it an official release. it is apparently one of the most asked about films for dvd release at the company and stockholder meetings.

this film won an oscar for best song (zip-a-dee-doo-dah) and the black man who played uncle remus (james baskett) was given an honorary oscar--he was the first black man to get an oscar and second black actor to do so (first was hattie mcdaniel for gone with the wind (she's also in song of the south), and third was sydney portier).

http://www.songofthesouth.net/movie/overview/index.html

here's the synopsis in case you missed out on ever seeing the film (like me until recently, due to my age--until i went on an illegal search for it).

it is not as racist as people make it out to be, nor is it any more racist as other films of the same era.

in fact, uncle remus is the wisest and most likeable character in the film. the film is about a little boy who befriends remus and applies the fables found in the brer rabbit stories to his dealings with the two bullies, etc... yes, there is a lot of southern black speech--including brer rabbit, brer fox & brer bear themselves (just like the crows in dumbo).

yes, it shows post-civil war plantation life with a shiny disney gleam... but it's still true that it shows black and white people being friends with each other (which is way more important and less beaten to death than the zillionth evil white southerner story).

then there's the tar baby controversy. brer rabbit doesn't punch the tar baby because it's black, but because when he says "how do you do?" (part of the lyrics of a song of the same name) the tar baby doesn't answer back and brer rabbit gets frustrated--and falls into yet another of brer fox's traps.

and as far as whether this film deserves release...
i leaked a few tears when johnny (bobby driscoll--the future voice of peter pan and also of so dear to my heart & treasure island for disney) gets knocked by the bull (he was running to stop uncle remus from leaving and took the bad shortcut) and he's hurt in bed calling to see uncle remus.

unfortunately the only real reason this film is known about now at all is the splash mountain ride at disneyland. if you ask a child today about the characters in that ride or which movie they are from, it's doubtful they will know.

"but please, don't throw me into that briar patch!"

iger just turned down the idea of releasing the film for it's 60th anniversary.

Image

DISNEY, RELEASE ME!

Sat Apr 29, 2006 5:08 pm

On this point, we agree. I too feel that the film should be released on DVD. Sure, it was made in a different time for a different audience, but if Birth of a Nation can be released, then Song of The South should certainly be.

Tom

Sun Apr 30, 2006 2:35 am

Tom in North Carolina wrote:On this point, we agree. I too feel that the film should be released on DVD. Sure, it was made in a different time for a different audience, but if Birth of a Nation can be released, then Song of The South should certainly be.

Tom


Excellent point Tom.........I believe most people are intelligent enough to discern the different eras in which these films were made , and glean the good from them.

Sun Apr 30, 2006 10:58 am

Elvis' Babe wrote:walt and roy disney were/are good people.

it's michael eisner that was the massive turd.


I completely agree.

Eisner is the guy that nixed Disney's 2D department (or proposed doing so, anyway) and believed its future lay entirely in "computer generated" features. He also comes across in an unflattering light based on Nimoy's recollections in the supplementary material for Star Trek III.

Poor Michael. As Iago (the Shakespeare character -- not the Disney version) said: "We cannot all be masters, nor all masters/Cannot be truly follow'd."

Tom in North Carolina wrote:On this point, we agree. I too feel that the film should be released on DVD. Sure, it was made in a different time for a different audience, but if Birth of a Nation can be released, then Song of The South should certainly be.


Agreed.

I also wish that Disney would remove the historical revisionism from "Fantasia". It's insulting and dangerous. History shouldn't be buried nor should art be defaced to cover it. The past, as captured in art, should be studied, examined, critiqued, and ultimately, learnt from.

Sun Apr 30, 2006 12:58 pm

the censored fantasia sequence is the black minotaurs (centaurs?) shining shoes or something...yeah, i briefly read about that.

the part of that movie that always scared me as a kid was the dinosaurs (in fact, i used to fast-forward that part). i wasn't too fond of the big black winged hell creature or whatever, either...though he's definitely interesting, and that scene is quite dark (in a beautiful way) for a family flick.

=======================

apparently, disney is so desperate for somebody to make a hopeful classic disney film (in 3d)...they sent the guy who animated ariel in the little mermaid back to school to learn how to draw on the computer to help them out.

he's working on a rendition of rapunzel...though as like the current pc-ization of disney is going, this heroine is not a traditional non-feminist disney princess, but a comic character in the vein of shrek (yes, i know that shrek isn't disney...but i believe that it was the final death blow towards traditional animation).

it sounds hideous. especially since the film is supposed to be titled "rapunzel unbraided"...which makes it sound like a parody rather than a classic (and frankly, i have serious trouble taking anything in the vein of the incredibles and shark tale seriously...they aren't and will never be classics).

looking at the proposed look of rapunzel, i can't help but think how much prettier she'd look in 2d.

so yeah, even disney's attempt to go back to the old princesses formula has been irrevocably damaged by their latest cgi parody obsession. notice how none of the cgi films have been serious fairytales? notice how they have lost their balls and darkness.

song of the south, dumbo (the crows), peter pan (the red-skinned injuns) all have big racial stereotypes.

snow white, bambi, fantasia, and pinocchio are actually quite disturbing.

in fact i just revisited pinocchio tonight and once again saw the boys turning into donkeys to be sold for money (the word ass is actually used in the film!), stromboli, the boss of the fox and cat who orchestrates turning the boys into donkeys, and massimo the whale... though actually, all my sympathy went to poor little figaro who got tossed around by the whale all on his lonesome off the raft. :lol:

bambi of course has the infamous mother being shot bit.

snow white has the hag/evil queen stuff...though the ride is actually more disturbing than the film. as my friend put it... "it didn't seem like happily ever after". that ride is scariest thing in disneyland by a large margin. i believe the website actually has a warning about it scaring small children. same with the pinocchio ride.

dumbo's pink elephant sequence and alice in wonderland have their hilarious hallucinagenic reputations. :lol:

the little mermaid features the song "les poissons" by chef louis... "first i chop off their heads, then i pull out their bones..." :lol: not to mention it being the only disney film (besides that snuck-in window shot in the rescuers) to have a fair amount of nudity (take a look at that transformation/swim to the surface bit...you'll be surprised what's there for a g-rated cartoon--and it ain't all outlines. and of course the whole different species relationship thing. oh, and of course the most disturbing moment of all goes to ursula shaking her bottom saying "body language!" :shock:

and tinkerbell is certainly too complex for today's chidlren audience. she really isn't a nice character. her jealousy issues actually lead her to a betrayal of peter. not to mention her measuring her hips in the mirror--vanity. i must admit i split a gut everytime i see tinkerbell's yellow panties bouncing around when she's trying to get through the keyhole. also that peter bops her on the butt when he's sprinkling pixie dust. not important, but just rather amusing.

and of course, today's audiences love to point out that snow white was living with 7 men.

now, let's cut to today's disney. the villains have stopped being dark--mostly just humorous.

(one of my favorite villain moments is milificent telling prince phillip that he'll be an old man when he finally goes on his way to be heroic/love's first kiss, etc...)

now disney villains have always been humorous. but a lot of the older disney films definitely had darker sides to them that i just don't get in some of their recent ventures.

my dad in particular gets rather annoyed with the lion king because simba basically becomes a vegetarian lion.

the vegetarian undertone makes sense with ariel because her best friends are a crab and a fish (she's half fish herself)--and chef louis' song is so downright sadistic that it's quite dark. but not particularly with simba befriending a merikat and a wart hog--whom aren't necessarily food in the same way that prince eric & the humans fish and eat fish, and continue to do so.

a mermaid not eating seafood makes more sense than a vegetarian/slug-eating lion.

the lion king isn't really popular in my house. though my reason for disliking it is more that i generally hate the animal movies (dumbo & bambi included).

ok...this is mostly a lot of random thoughts i have about disney.

frankly, i hate pixar, and i dislike that eisner/iger have shut down the hand-drawn animation department.

not to mention those hideous badly-drawn (computer-drawn/computer-painted) sequels. i've only seen return to neverland, and the cgi jolly roger (captain hook's ship) is downright bad. and peter's face contorts very strangely (though indeed, that they didn't have bobby driscoll as their live action model or voice...and it's very true that peter pan is the spitting image of the teenage driscoll). not to mention the less-than-classic cheap soundtrack. and i won't even get into my gripe about how un-wendy the grown-up wendy was. also, tinkerbell's wings weren't the same.

then again, i've heard (not seen) that they didn't even bother to grow up ariel and eric for the tlm sequel. :lol: yeah, it's still 16 year old ariel.

that's another thing...for some funny reason most of the disney princesses seem to have this magical age of 16. that's a random observation.

and peter pan is aged up to the actor's age (driscoll was 15, i think) quite clearly--especially apparent in the heighth and voice, when he's much younger in the actual j.m. barrie story. ...but still the first male to play peter pan--an improvement for sure. beats mary martin! and don't even get me started on the latest live action film with it's rather bad casting.

as you can tell, i've been revisiting the catalogue lately.

favorite disney films:

1 ) peter pan
2 ) the little mermaid
3 ) sleeping beauty
4 ) aladdin
5 ) alice in wonderland
6 ) beauty and the beast
7 ) song of the south
8 ) pinocchio
9 ) pete's dragon
10) swiss family robinson

*special acknowledgement to pirates of the caribbean...but aside from the ride source material, i consider it more of a not-so-disney johnny depp vehicle than a disney film. i suppose i'd plunk it in right after aladdin if one would include it. it's not really a family film though. though i suppose by today's standards song of the south isn't either (which is rediculous for a different reason).