or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Why do people dislike Disney?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why do people dislike Disney? - Page 2

post #21 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by meemee View Post

and the twist they gave them is what i object to. being leaders in teh market they could have easily focused on something more like what hanna barbera did or looney toons.

they started the trend of including adult humor in children's cartoons which seems to be the norm now.
You don't see any "adult humor" in hanna barbera or looney toons?

IMO, we have gone the other way. There is a TON of adult humor in older cartoons. There's less and less of it now. (Though perhaps that is different on cable, which we don't have, but I doubt it.)

I mean seriously, have you watched an old episode of the Flinstones or Jetsons or watched Bugs Bunny as an adult? There's a ton of political and satirical stuff in there, that would freak people out if they saw it on, say, Dora or Arthur.
post #22 of 66
I LOVE Disney! I love Mickey, I love Tinkerbell I love Toon town. I love it all.

I have been on the Peter Pan ride a million times and I never get bored.

I am waiting anxiously for the new "Disney Epic Mickey" wii game to come out at Christmas. It's all I want for Christmas.

I absolutely adore my Dance Dance revolution Disney songs wii game.
post #23 of 66
I have a different reason to dislike I Disney. They have spent a lot of money and political energy to change copyright laws so that Steamboat Willie (the precursor to Mickey Mouse) remains protected by copyright. The end result has been horrible for independent artists.

I have mixed feelings about Pixar, too, having seen more than I wanted to of things I don't like behind the magic there, but at least their stories continue to move me.
post #24 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigerchild View Post
You don't see any "adult humor" in hanna barbera or looney toons?

IMO, we have gone the other way. There is a TON of adult humor in older cartoons. There's less and less of it now. (Though perhaps that is different on cable, which we don't have, but I doubt it.)

I mean seriously, have you watched an old episode of the Flinstones or Jetsons or watched Bugs Bunny as an adult? There's a ton of political and satirical stuff in there, that would freak people out if they saw it on, say, Dora or Arthur.
Flinstones and Jetsons were prime time TV shows, though. I'm sure lots of kids watched them, but they weren't "kids shows" the way that Dora and Arthur are. They certainly weren't for the same age kids that Dora and Arthur are for... those kids would have been in bed! That's like comparing The Simpsons or Family Guy to Dora and Arthur.

I do actually agree with her. These cartoon movies cost a lot to make, so they want a really wide audience. So there are adult references to make the adults happy, gross out humor to keep the older kids happy, and then it's all marketed as a family-friendly cartoon. But I don't think that Disney is a particularly bad offender. The Shrek franchise is probably the worst at being not particularly little-kid-friendly while still marketed towards little kids.
post #25 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by hergrace View Post
I have a different reason to dislike I Disney. They have spent a lot of money and political energy to change copyright laws so that Steamboat Willie (the precursor to Mickey Mouse) remains protected by copyright. The end result has been horrible for independent artists.

I have mixed feelings about Pixar, too, having seen more than I wanted to of things I don't like behind the magic there, but at least their stories continue to move me.
That is a really, really good point. They've screwed over a lot of industries and people with their successful lobbying for chances in copyright laws.
post #26 of 66
I don't like the teen marriages, but I don't mind the princess stories. I prefer the Barbie movies because they tend to have more without marriage or even love and the themes are better. The songs in the older Disney movies are awesome and we watch them for those. They aren't ones that my dd returns to even though she likes princess themes, though she does love to read the books. I don't mind the marketing because everyone markets things, Disney just happens to be one of the more successful companies. I haven't noticed the toys inhibiting creativity but anything is possible.
post #27 of 66
I hate Disney with a passion. We live in a Disney free household, and if I have anything to do with it my child will never go to Disneyland.

Disney movies whitewash other cultures. They exploit inappropriate gender stereotypes and beauty types. They make me mad...I seriously can't watch a Disney movie without getting .

To be fair I am not a fan of media in general, and we do not own a television, but I would put Disney at the bottom of types of media in which I find anything redeemable. Plus Disney princesses make me :Puke.
post #28 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by lach View Post
Flinstones and Jetsons were prime time TV shows, though. I'm sure lots of kids watched them, but they weren't "kids shows" the way that Dora and Arthur are. They certainly weren't for the same age kids that Dora and Arthur are for... those kids would have been in bed! That's like comparing The Simpsons or Family Guy to Dora and Arthur.
I dunno, I watched the Flinstones and Jetsons after school in the 70s and 80s. What about Bugs Bunny? You seriously don't see some very adult themes (albeit dressed up quite sarcastically) in those cartoons?

What about Scooby Doo? There are plenty of adult/teen themes in there too--although they'll go over the heads of most kids.

I disagree that Prime Time shows in the 50s and 60s were not for the entire family. There weren't dedicated kids networks. In fact, children's programming until the 80s was FAR FAR *more* commercial than anything out there today after legislation was passed.

True, companies did not have the marketing arm in the same way (lunchboxes and shirts, sure--but video games and books and all that? Maybe not). But I find it laughable when people say that kids' shows are MORE commerical now than they've ever been. Or that sarcasm and veiled cultural references to please adults is a recent invention. It's so not.

I had to sit through a semester of children's programming from early radio to the 1960s. It kind of obliterated a lot of my personal mythology about how "bad things are these days." And some of the horrific racism and sexism in some of the bugs bunny and Tom and Jerry cartoons (particularly from the WWII era) actually made me physically ill, because as a 20 year old (in the 1990s) I had NO CLUE that "kid cartoons" contained that. It makes sense (since it was okay culturally to drop the N-word and have people dress up in blackface and we all wanted to "kill the Japs", ect.) in the historical context but...

To be really honest with you, after seeing THAT, I find modern Disney in particular quite tame in comparison. (Though I still think most of it is crap). When Disney puts out their next song and dance crap animation where they have a song called, "The Only Good Raghead is a Dead Raghead" (there is an equivalent Bugs Bunny episode, believe it or not, except due to the era they say "Japs") then I will concede that children's programming today is as bad or worse than it ever has been in the past.

Sadly, these days, it would not surprise me to find something like that is already happening, somewhere.
post #29 of 66
Cheap cheap cheap junk in mass quantities all of which is produced in slave like conditions, often with child labor. The perfect example of consumerism and anti-green purchasing. The stuff is so junky it won't even last htriugh one child.

And I don't sell my kids. We are not adds for a company's products.

Their themes are too mature, too violent, and too sexist.

I grew up in Anaheim and went to Disneyland untold number of times. I think they've lost their soul.

As a nice librarian, I think they are the worst thing ever for creative expression and fair use because of their political theft of copyright law.

Finally, I am really unhappy that the won't let a Muslim employee wear a headscarf in public. Major stink at Disneyland right now. I am fine with short hair/ no pierced esrs whatever but a headscarf? Religious expression? Unaccepable.
post #30 of 66
BTW, I am in no way implying that Disney did not take part in racist and propagandist cartoons--they most certainly did along with just about everyone else in the 40s. An ugly and sad truth in American history (can't speak if it happened elsewhere. I suspect, human nature being human nature, that it did).

But children's entertainment and programming has *never* been particularly "innocent" nor has it been uncommercial. It doesn't justify that it happens now, but I don't think Disney can be blamed for inventing the idea. Gives him a little too much credit, IMO.
post #31 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigerchild View Post
I dunno, I watched the Flinstones and Jetsons after school in the 70s and 80s. What about Bugs Bunny? You seriously don't see some very adult themes (albeit dressed up quite sarcastically) in those cartoons?

What about Scooby Doo? There are plenty of adult/teen themes in there too--although they'll go over the heads of most kids.

I disagree that Prime Time shows in the 50s and 60s were not for the entire family. There weren't dedicated kids networks.
I don't think that prime time has ever been for 3 year olds, the way that your Dora and Arthur (your comparisons) are. Especially in the 50s and 60s when I think parents were much more strict about bedtimes than they are now. I definitely don't think that kids didn't watch. I just thought that your comparison was spurious, because I don't think that toddlers watched any of these shows in any real numbers. I think it's more appropriate to compare those shows to the prime time cartoons that are on now (which are also on in syndication earlier in the day, as the Jetsons and the Flinstones were in our childhood).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigerchild View Post
In fact, children's programming until the 80s was FAR FAR *more* commercial than anything out there today after legislation was passed.
I'm not sure what legislation you're talking about? The only legislation I know of was in the early 80s when they made it legal for 1/2 hour toy commercials to exist. That's when the kinds of shows you're talking about came into being, and that's what most kids shows still are: just now they're usually marketed as educational because that's what parents want. I don't know of any tightening of FCC regulations about advertising to children since then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigerchild View Post
True, companies did not have the marketing arm in the same way (lunchboxes and shirts, sure--but video games and books and all that? Maybe not). But I find it laughable when people say that kids' shows are MORE commerical now than they've ever been. Or that sarcasm and veiled cultural references to please adults is a recent invention. It's so not.
The marketing of these shows and the related products to very young children (under 3) is very new. I recommend both Buy Buy Baby and Consuming Kids for more information on this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigerchild View Post
I had to sit through a semester of children's programming from early radio to the 1960s. It kind of obliterated a lot of my personal mythology about how "bad things are these days." And some of the horrific racism and sexism in some of the bugs bunny and Tom and Jerry cartoons (particularly from the WWII era) actually made me physically ill, because as a 20 year old (in the 1990s) I had NO CLUE that "kid cartoons" contained that. It makes sense (since it was okay culturally to drop the N-word and have people dress up in blackface and we all wanted to "kill the Japs", ect.) in the historical context but...

To be really honest with you, after seeing THAT, I find modern Disney in particular quite tame in comparison. (Though I still think most of it is crap). When Disney puts out their next song and dance crap animation where they have a song called, "The Only Good Raghead is a Dead Raghead" (there is an equivalent Bugs Bunny episode, believe it or not, except due to the era they say "Japs") then I will concede that children's programming today is as bad or worse than it ever has been in the past.

Sadly, these days, it would not surprise me to find something like that is already happening, somewhere.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with anything I'm talking about.

My issue is largely with marketing products to very young children who don't have the developmental ability to process information at a sophisticated enough level to understand what is happening. Heck, a lot of adults have a lot of trouble with this. The 0-3 market didn't exist 10 years ago, and now it's the most profitable demographic, earning over $2 billion a year. The Flinstones was certainly not aimed at an under 3 audience.
post #32 of 66
Howdy Doody and Bozo the Clown and Captain Kangaroo were decidedly commercial, as were many of the "local" kids shows specifically directed towards kids at home during the day (before the market started shrinking, thanks to the FCC amongst other agencies).

CTW was orginially formed to not be that way, but they have sold out along the way.

I don't think that children's programing (with the dubious exception of the early days of CTW) was ever "educational"--but marketers and producers will say whatever parents want to hear. This is not a new phenomenon. There may be more of a market for it these days because people will believe anything (OMG this video can make my baby into Einstein!) and they have more money to spend and less kids to spend it on (so they can spend more on each kid).

My main beef is about people implying that there were the Good Old Days in children's media where everyone was not out to make a buck on them. I think that people have always been out to make a buck. Or if they don't start out that way (like the company that first produced Sesame Street) they don't stay that way for long. It took CTW less than 25 years to sell out. I see just as much Elmo garbage on the shelves at Target as I do Disney stuff, and it's about the same quality.

I don't get people objecting to Disney "disnifying" fairy tales; you'd have to change a lot of it to get past the censors--then and now. I don't think anyone here at mothering would like to have their 3 year old (or probably even 5 year old) see a visual presentation of almost any "real" fairy tale anyway.

One of my pet peeves is romanticizing the past. Again, I am no Disneyphile who has a houseful of their stuff (frankly, it's too expensive and I am cheap). But on the other hand, I do find it annoying that people single Disney out as the main perpetrator of this stuff. They're not, and never have been. At least Disney started out as an entertainer and never claimed to be anything but--I'm always a little shocked that people get up in arms about Disney, but not the soulless sellout that PBS kids programming has become. To me, that's far more "offensive."

Or do they blame Disneycorp for that, like the devil made them do it?

I also get a little frustrated about the passing of the buck. As a parent, I decide what is bought by me and what I allow into my home. Not my 2 month old. I get that some people choose to be too nice to trash the Princess Vomitrocious sparkle wand and costume that Auntie Consumer bought for their kid's 3rd birthday, or put their foot down and be called ungrateful and inhospitable--but that *is* a choice. I also think that we give our kids far too little credit in thinking that just because they have an elmo figure in their hand that their brain will rot and they will be incapable of any play other than robotic mimicking of what is on TV.

Would I like to live in a non-consumerist society, sure. But it's not like you can't teach yourself and your kids to think critically despite it. (Or at least, you had better HOPE that you can, because unless you remove them from our current society, they're going to need those skills probably at some point in their lifetime.)
post #33 of 66
I don't mind Disney. I just try to stay away from the princess stuff b/c to me it screams "You need a man to be happy". But I never realized that until I was already married so i doubt my 2 year old will pick it up either. I love the music from almost all the movies though. I don't care if it makes me a horrible mother, "Under the Sea" is the best song ever.

I don't like Disneyland/world b/c I hate rides and hot weather (I hate 6 flags too). So if DD ever wants to go she's going with DH or gramma and grandpa.
post #34 of 66
Quote:
what i want to say is disney didnt make movies to entertain the kids. their motive was never that (no matter what they 'say'). it was always about profit and how to take over the market for them. of course walt disney loved children but business was about something quite different.
I recently read a very long, detailed biography of Walt Disney, and I simply don't think that's true. Well, I don't think it was entirely about the kids either - but I'd say Walt's driving aim, at least in the early part of his career, was to make art. And he did. Say what you will about Mickey cartoons, they took animation to a whole new level in terms of humour, playing with timing and gags and sound effects and image manipulation... everything. Looney Tunes was developed essentially in a scrambling effort to copy The Mouse - it was the gold standard of animation at that time. And Snow White? It was considered unthinkable that an audience - a largely adult audience - would sit through a full-length animated feature, much less engage with it. But they did. People cried. Nobody had ever cried at animation before - plus, the art was pretty stunning. It was groundbreaking. Fantasia? Pretty avant-garde stuff, really, and a genuine effort to bring culture to the masses. Disney planned to make heaps more of them, but it wasn't as commercially successful as Snow White.

Then they had to scale down the art style for financial reasons, and Disney got bored/disillusioned with the films and largely left them to his staff. So at that point, yes, it was about the money. But why did he want the money? To build Disneyland. And again, that wasn't about money or even just entertaining the kids. It was about creating the most perfect, complete, immersive environment possible. It was a control freak thing really, just as animation is - but that doesn't make it less artistic as a goal. And during the rest of his life Disney was never satisfied to give Disneyland's customers their bare money's worth. He was always fixing things that didn't really need fixing, making sure the carrousel horses were freshly repainted each day and other such details. It may have been a fixation on perfection for its own sake, not done for the love of Tiny Tim, but it wasn't just money-grubbing.

Lest I come across as a total Disney shill now, I think their stance on copyright is pretty horrific (although let's not forget to blame the government for agreeing to it!), and their made-in-China sweatshop products despicable. We're planning a trip to Disneyland next year, and I'll be in the rather odd position of refusing to buy any Mickey ears, corn dogs or Princess dresses while we're there for various ethical reasons. Also, some of their movies are rubbish, some are sexist, some are racist and some play havoc with history or literature in a way that irks me. Still, some of their films number in my top 10. I sing Disney songs all the time. The Broadway version of The Lion King is, apparently, excellent. Give Kids the World is a highly cool charity. So... six of one, half a dozen of the other?
post #35 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chamomile Girl View Post
I hate Disney with a passion. We live in a Disney free household, and if I have anything to do with it my child will never go to Disneyland.

Disney movies whitewash other cultures. They exploit inappropriate gender stereotypes and beauty types. They make me mad...I seriously can't watch a Disney movie without getting .

To be fair I am not a fan of media in general, and we do not own a television, but I would put Disney at the bottom of types of media in which I find anything redeemable. Plus Disney princesses make me :Puke.


I wish I could say we're a Disney Free house, but my IL's send my kids Disney books often. At least they're the books and not the movies.
post #36 of 66
We like their movies, especially the ones by Pixar and some of the older ones (Peter Pan, Lion King, Robin Hood, Jungle Book, Mary Poppins etc), though I really do like Princess & the Frog too!

I went to Disneyworld once and loved it - I'd love to take the boys someday when we have a bit more money.

But, we don't buy many of their toys, though ds1 does have cars sheets/comforter & a handful of cars toys. Mostly I avoid licensed stuff in general, whether its disney, pbs, nickolodeon or whatever.
post #37 of 66
I don't have a problem with Disney movies as a whole, but there are individual ones I have issues with.
post #38 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chamomile Girl View Post
I hate Disney with a passion. We live in a Disney free household, and if I have anything to do with it my child will never go to Disneyland.

Disney movies whitewash other cultures. They exploit inappropriate gender stereotypes and beauty types. They make me mad...I seriously can't watch a Disney movie without getting .

To be fair I am not a fan of media in general, and we do not own a television, but I would put Disney at the bottom of types of media in which I find anything redeemable. Plus Disney princesses make me :Puke.
i totally agree. that plus the labor practices that many other folks spoke of, the absolute permeation of plastic crap that emerges with each new film, and the reduction of human creativity and complexity into the 'us vs. them' black and white viewpoint of pretty much everything.

even the plastic crap they sell is sexist. everything that comes out of disney also is severely lacking in class analysis. wealth is equated with happiness.

word cannot express how much i loathe disney, mainly for the pervasiveness of their skewed culture, and i feel that they have brainwashed countless children and furthered sexism in our society more than any other party.
post #39 of 66
Because this thread is, "Why do people dislike Disney" and not "What do people think of Disney" I won't go into detail. But not everyone here hates Disney.
post #40 of 66
There are things I don't like about Disney, particularly the commercialization, but I really love Disneyland and Disneyworld, and I do like a lot of the movies. So I have mixed feelings.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Why do people dislike Disney?