-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Disney Lost Approximately %50 of Value
- Thread starter Amiga
- Start date
Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
The title of the video should be enough for most people to put 2 and 2 together.
Its a sesame street episode from the early 1990s centered around anti racism. You're wrong.
If this type of stuff was produced today, half the internet would pop an aneurysm.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I wonder why that is?
Batiman
Banned
This makes no sense
InfiniteCombo
Banned
Sucks for you.
InfiniteCombo
Banned
This is what I meant yesterday. There are reasonable people that get a lot of respect from me, like
DeafTourette
... There are people like
sol_bad
who I fiercely disagree with but still listen to and engage with, because he brings up actual counterpoints.
And then there are...
EDIT: I think talking with DeafTourette and with sol_bad I've taken this topic to its logical conclusion. Those guys brought up good points, and I went back and forth with them. If any of the rest of you want to know where I stand, go read those posts. If you have ACTUAL thought out counterpoints beyond low-IQ "LOL you're wrong because I said so," then I'll engage. Otherwise, I'll ignore your post. Ok thanks bye
DeafTourette
... There are people like
sol_bad
who I fiercely disagree with but still listen to and engage with, because he brings up actual counterpoints.And then there are...
... people like this, who are just clowns
EDIT: I think talking with DeafTourette and with sol_bad I've taken this topic to its logical conclusion. Those guys brought up good points, and I went back and forth with them. If any of the rest of you want to know where I stand, go read those posts. If you have ACTUAL thought out counterpoints beyond low-IQ "LOL you're wrong because I said so," then I'll engage. Otherwise, I'll ignore your post. Ok thanks bye
Last edited:
Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
I mean, you only quoted like 1/10th of my post. Even ignoring that, the video is the counter point. The entirety of your diatribe about the innocence of children was predicated on this type of content never being made for kids before, but clearly it was. Sorry to burst your bubble I guess.This is what I meant yesterday. There are reasonable people that get a lot of respect from me, like
And then there are...
... people like this, who are just clowns
Last edited:
InfiniteCombo
Banned
Yes, because your argument was so convincing, logical, and thoroughly airtight.
Maybe I didn't quote the rest of your post because there wasn't an actual argument?
Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
What argument? I'm just countering your point that this content wasn't made for kids before.
If my point isn't "convincing, logical, and thoroughly airtight" perhaps you can explain why using words instead of emojis.
Last edited:
InfiniteCombo
Banned
Where did I make that point?
I don't think I've said anywhere in this thread that this kind of content "was never made for kids ever before."
I don't speak in absolutes, and try to stay away from things like "always," "never," etc.
Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
Is that it then?
You're otherwise willing to concede that the media has always targeted children in their messaging and that things are no different this time around? If so, we have nothing else to disagree on.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
TIL, just because the media has always done something, they should always be allowed to.
Impeccable argument.
Impeccable argument.
Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
Who said that?
InfiniteCombo
Banned
I'm not conceding, no. Not because I'm unwilling to, but because I can't concede to anything based on a single anecdotal example.
If you read some of my exchanges with DeafTourette, I even agreed with him that some children's programming (like Captain Planet) have had sociopolitical messaging in the past. There was nothing to disagree about there because: (1) DeafTourette was correct; (2) most importantly, that's not even the main argument being made.
The argument is NOT "there have been sociopolitical messaging in children's programming in the past." We all agree that there have been greater than 0 instances of those in the past.
The argument is, "certain kinds of sociopolitical messaging, such as topics of sexuality, and divisive messaging based on fiction like 'anti-racism', do NOT belong in young children's programming, AT ALL. Such topics, if even necessary, should be discussed between the children and their parents/legal guardians." So that's what I was disagreeing with DeafTourette and sol_bad about. To me (and some others in this thread), there should be ZERO amount of such messaging in young children's programming.
EDIT:
DeepEnigma
said it way more concisely above. So if my post is too long, go read his for the TL;DR version.
Last edited:
Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
Zero is a pretty small number. You'd pretty much have to have a show about nothing to achieve that when simply the presence of an LGBTQ character (or a black character back in the day) is perceived a "sociopolitical messaging".
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
If your entire existence revolves around immutable and sometimes made up characteristics, then sure.
Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
I suppose you haven't read a thread on this forum about any form of popular culture in the last 10 years.
InfiniteCombo
Banned
Why do you need to know that the character is LGBT? Is it relevant to the plot? When a hero in a child's movie is performing some heroic task, why would you need to highlight some specific characteristic like race/ethnicity/sexual orientation? Why does it matter?
Again, I'm pro-LGBT. And at SOME age, it should be appropriate for parents to have that discussion with children.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Now hear me out, I know this will be a revelation, but you can create media that has nothing to do with ideological injection into pop culture. It exists.
Last edited:
Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Well written characters are not blank slates with no background.
Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
Feel free to point out examples then.
InfiniteCombo
Banned
One of the best ways to normalize something is to stop treating it like it's special. Treating it like it's special is, by definition, the opposite of normalizing.
I'll quote Morgan Freeman from that interview; I'm going by memory so paraphrasing here:
Interview: "So you don't want a Black History Month?"
Morgan Freeman: "Absolutely not. Why relegate my people's history to just one month? Black history is American history. Would you want a White History Month?"
Interviewer: "I'm Jewish."
Morgan Freeman: "Would you want a Jewish History Month?"
Interviewer: "No."
Morgan Freeman: "Ahhhh....."
Interviewer: "So what can we do about racism?"
Morgan Freeman: "Stop talking about it!"
I'll quote Morgan Freeman from that interview; I'm going by memory so paraphrasing here:
Interview: "So you don't want a Black History Month?"
Morgan Freeman: "Absolutely not. Why relegate my people's history to just one month? Black history is American history. Would you want a White History Month?"
Interviewer: "I'm Jewish."
Morgan Freeman: "Would you want a Jewish History Month?"
Interviewer: "No."
Morgan Freeman: "Ahhhh....."
Interviewer: "So what can we do about racism?"
Morgan Freeman: "Stop talking about it!"
Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
That's exactly what having a trans background character in that Pixar show (as per you!) is doing and you seem upset about it.
Last edited:
InfiniteCombo
Banned
It's not though. It's giving special treatment to the character.
Just like the lesbian kiss.
Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
That character is one of like 8 background characters in that shot with a line. It only seems special to you because it triggers you.
InfiniteCombo
Banned
Ripley from the Alien franchise and Sarah Connor from the Terminator franchise are two of the most iconic heroines in cinema.
They kick ass. They're awesome. But it's not like the movies take a megaphone at every turn and say "LOOK EVERYONE, THEY'RE WOMEN, and are specifically and especially kicking ass because they're women!"
But that's adult programming. Keeping it to children's programming, a super random example... But in Inspector Gadget, it wasn't the inspector himself, but rather his niece(?) and her dog who ultimately solved most of the problems. But again, things didn't revolve around her FEMALE IDENTITY™... She was just a super smart girl and the dog was awesome, and Inspector Gadget himself was a bumbling idiot, which was part of the charm and comedy of the cartoon.
Many of the other shows were animals so the concept of human identities didn't even apply. Bugs Bunny was just... A rabbit. Not a pansexual rabbit, a rabbit. Elmer Fudd was a bumbling, incompetent hunter. Not some sort of evil MAGA, second amendment-loving hunter. Just a hunter.
Etc etc etc etc etc etc....
InfiniteCombo
Banned
Grow up. I'm not triggered. I'm simply making a case for why such content has no place in children's programming.
But if you think that that show, or you, have any effect on me personally whatsoever, then...
Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
What is the distinction between Aliens and say Captain Marvel? I don't seem to recall too many megaphone scenes in the MCU.
Everything you posted could be construed to have some sort of social and political message, but you didn't notice or care because you were OKAY with it.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Plenty of kids shows try to model morality. Conflict resolution, don't steal, don't bully, respect authority, value the environment, don't do drugs.
What virtually ALL of these shows did NOT do is discuss sexuality. The construction of the show virtually precludes it in many cases. A character might get bashful or flirty and this is virtually always a heterosexual context, though not always (He-man is a good example) but its almost always a very innocent setting easy look past. Shows that are deliberately gonna tackle more sensitve issues like suicide, more realistic depictions of domestic abuse or drug use, sexuality, particularly anything beyond acknowledging that parents exist, really need to be called out ahead of time so parents can properly screen what THEY CHOOSE for their kids to see. Add in political issues, oh so contentious these days like a stance on immigration, abortion (sorry, womens health), or gun control (sorry, respect for the constitution) and it shouldn't be a surprise that the show get ssome controvery. I'd argue THAT IS THE INTENT. Controversy as advertizing is pretty common these days.
Anyway, some examples of shows I don't think had any ideological propaganda, just good classic morality mixed into the kids fantasy.
InfiniteCombo
Banned
One thing about progressives is that subtlety is not their forte, so finding these two examples was quick and easy. There are more but I don't have time right now to dig them up.
TaylorSwiftFan
Member
Encanto did 256M at the boxoffice. That’s not good for an animated movie from a big studio.
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
I've long disagreed with Morgan Freeman about BHM... So much of our historical accomplishments and contributions to this country are left out of K-12 history books. You don't actually get to know these things until college in something like African-American Studies or the like. Even now TX (where most school books in the country are published) is trying to change the word "slavery" into "involuntary relocation".
So we have BHM... Until more of our history (and by extension, Asian, Jewish, etc.) is included in regular American history books K-12, we'll continue to have these months...
As an aside, there IS a Jewish American Heritage Month, Asian American/Pacific Islander Heritage Month, Hispanic American History Month, etc. And they're celebrated every year. Yet black people are the only ones told that we shouldn't have a month.
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
It was released on D+ either day and date or VERY shortly after its theatrical release. No 45 or 90 day window.
Kssio_Aug
Member
Don't we have plenty of scenes like that, since forever, featuring men instead though? I still struggle to see this as a problem.
One thing about progressives is that subtlety is not their forte, so finding these two examples was quick and easy. There are more but I don't have time right now to dig them up.
I think it's the trans flag shirt that tipped their hand. Had the character had a normal shirt instead of the dog whistle then it might have worked better.
Also possible this is entirely a thing by a single animator that tweaked the character model and added the shirt without anyone else realizing it much like all the stuff snuck in disney cartoons by bored and mischevious, probably underpaid and overworked, employees.
Also possible this is all a marketing ploy for free PR that 'HEY, there is a BAYMAX show! Watch for yourself and be OUTRAGED!!!"
Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
One thing about progressives is that subtlety is not their forte, so finding these two examples was quick and easy. There are more but I don't have time right now to dig them up.
Exactly what am I seeing here that is so different from thousands of other movie scenes?
TaylorSwiftFan
Member
It was a full 30 days. Don’t act like the extra 2 weeks would have made a massive difference.
Konnor
Member
Please stop intentionally acting dense to avoid the point, that mega cringe scene in Endgame wasn't just some random heroic scene that just happened to only have female actresses. Who do you think you're convincing by arguing this way, it's just annoying.
TaylorSwiftFan
Member
Lol, you’re just arguing in bad faith.
InfiniteCombo
Banned
Get rid of them all. Every single special month.
Black Americans have made some important and key contributions to American society. Highlight the Achievements along with the rest of all Americans. That way they won't be seen "special" but will instead be seeing as NORMAL, which is what it should be. Black Americans don't have a greater (or more importantly, don't have a lesser) ability to contribute to society than any other American of any creed.
I'm a big music fan, and popular music has pretty much been a monopoly of black American contributions since the dawn of the 20th century. Think about the most popular forms of pop music -- acoustic blues, jazz (arguably THE quintessential American art form), electric blues, rhythm and blues, rock and roll, soul, gospel, disco, hip hop/rap. They have ALL been invented/trailblazed/innovated by black Americans.
Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
And so what if it was? The point is that there's nothing controversial or novel about this scene.
Last edited:
Those were battlefields of all men already, so a squad hero pose was just...the squad posing. That particular scene was kinda cringe if only for how ham-fisted it all was. But most of those characters earned their place so I'll forgive the spacial gymnastics required to give them that 2 minute scene of just the ladies even if they didn't really contribute anything (the failing of the Endgame final battle is that NO ONE really contributes aside from Iron man).
The Capt Marvel fist clench was, I thought, more about her particular brand of stubborn than anything. There were other scenes, like the motorcycle guy, that were far more cringe IMHO. But any of that was hardly the biggest failing of that film, there were core structural issues that were much more critical than a little "gurl power" pandering.
Kssio_Aug
Member
I'm not acting dense. I just think that, again, you're looking for problems where there's none. Some of you should realize that you're becoming straight up paranoid.
I think Disney / Marvel did mess up with their messaging in numerous occasions, but these scenes are, again, nonissues.
InfiniteCombo
Banned
Pretty much. I'm still engaging with him though, because I (stubbornly) still want to give people the benefit of the doubt.
EDIT: but it's also why I'm glad
DeafTourette
is back and why I'm engaging with him again. I like the dude and he immediately he brought up good points.
Last edited:
NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt
Biggest Trails Stan
I didn't see any issue with that scene
Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
Since you're such a stand up guy, please feel free to explain what it is about those scenes you find questionable.
EDIT: Its telling that your "mic drop" moment are two scenes that 99% of movie goers probably didn't even notice, just like you probably didn't notice the sexual anti-male subtext in Aliens when you first watched it.
Last edited:
Konnor
Member
You asked for the difference between Alien and Captain Marvel, he gave you obvious examples and now you're acting stupid by both ignoring the cringy "Girl Power!" stuff Disney was trying to push and now changing the goalposts and talking about it not being controversial, as if that has anything to do with the discussion or can be something objective only you can judge. You're arguing in bad faith and it's fucking annoying, learn to take the L and stop doubling down with Olympic level mental gymnastics.
Kssio_Aug
Member
Well, obviously Alien and a Marvel Superhero movie will be different in tone, doesn't matter if the main characters are men or women though. I don't think he meant this type of difference, but instead how one movie would depict women in a better form than the other. And since the scenes presented are nonissues (because are also made for men characters and teams since ever) these are not good examples of Marvel movies pushing an agenda down people's throat in contrast to Alien.
NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt
Biggest Trails Stan
Personally I have to argue with you on that aspect. The anti male agenda has been pushed heavily with the Black Widow movie. I felt that was totally out of place