The Town Hall Archives

Paul B · Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2004 6:33 pm Post subject:

Havnt watch it yet.

Disco Dan

shanbob · Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2004 9:00 pm Post subject:

Clarification, the reference to ethnicity/racism was merely an example of how the philosophical slant of the Dominant ideology of the elite and upper middle class white people is promoted and supported in all media....just trying to dig out the bias's and political, economic, and racial slants of media and why it would be 'wrong' or not beneficial.

Clarification again: "of the devil" phrase is merely sarcasm! Very Happy

Emily Witt · Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2004 9:13 pm Post subject:

I really mean that Disney is "Of the Devil" when I say it. They back many agendas which are certainly not "of God"... such as "Gay Week" at Disney world/land/resorts/cruises/etc, and funding which has gone to, *ahem* well, let's say, less squeaky clean movies (or so I've heard... that could be wrong, but very easy to believe).

Disney is definately evil, in my opinion.

Disco Dan · Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2004 9:31 pm Post subject:

Alright, sorry for the misunderstanding.

However, I don't think the racial reason is a good one. If we attatch it to this, why not everything? We could get on Bush for being a "White" President, or just about anything with White people in it. I'm am not a Rascist at all, I think Rascisim is despicable and stupid, but there are so many movies out there with people besides "Whites" in them, it just seems silly to me that you are nailing this movie for that reason! What about the Cinderella with that African-Amercian Girl in it!? That was good. (My sisters love that one) Smile

Personally, I think the media is trying "too" hard to be Racially diverse. I'm all for equal rights, but does anyone know what I mean when I say the media is pushing it just to make a point, which ends up looking fake. Take AIO, putting the "Washingtons" subtly on every recent cover. It just looks corny, it's says "We are going out of the way to make sure things are diverse". Stuff like that is corny, so is Cartoons with all whites and just one or two blacks, or even half white and half black. They should just put a given number, or whatever the show calls for of each type of race or religion or group, but instead most shows go for the cliche'. Does anyone understand what I'm saying? It's a hard concept to describe. I hope It dosen't come out like I'm a rascist, because I'm far far from it. I treat everyone as equals. There we go! Exactly! Equals. If the shows would just put the actors in as "people" and not catagory race groups, I think shows and movies would be a lot better.

There's another aspect to this though. As I said, the media is going out of it's way to make a point that segregates more than it does unite. Batman's Butler, Alfred Pennysworth was, is, and always will be a Tall, White, British man. That's what his character calls for. I looked up the new Batman movie to discover he's being played by a Black man. Now,while I know because I've heard the voice clips that this man no doubt will do a bang up job, but I am still dissapointed because Alfred will not be the Alfred Iknow and love. It's like having a Young, Beardless, Skinny Santa in your Classic Holiday Christmas Special. It just dosen't fit.

What if we had Martin Luther King Jr. Played by a White Man? That would also disturb me, and even if the White man was a good actor it just wouldn't fit. On the same token, in the Muppets Wizard of Oz, Dorothy is played by Black musical pop star Ashanti. Not exactly the way Dorothy is depicted (although, since it is the Muppets and a spoof I am pretty excited about her doing the part, it should modernize things up a bit from "Dear old Aunty Em", if you know what I mean.)

My point being, the media latley has been pushing this things too hard. Anyone agree? Surprised

Or... Understand? Confused

shanbob · Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:21 pm Post subject: We're Moving!

This conversation is moving to a new thread for respect of the Princess Diaries discussion.

I apologize for crashing this thread with discussion about Disney and other media's philosophy ect for it has completely changed the topic and diverged from the purpose of the original postings.

shan

Smile

Paul B · Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 9:58 pm Post subject:

wonder if there will be a 3.

Mandy Straussberg · Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 11:25 pm Post subject:

*SPOILER WARNING: If you haven't seen the movie, don't read this.*

I hated it. It had promise, until the end. I hated it. I think she should've married the guy she was engaged to (Andrew, was it?).

I saw it in theatres and liked it up until the point where she decided not to marry him.

Mandy

AIOfan11 · Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2004 9:30 am Post subject:

Yes, it was Andrew!

Catspaw · Posted: Sat Dec 25, 2004 12:30 am Post subject:

Well, for a change of pace, I'm not going to be anti-Disney, in celebration of the fact that I just got PD2 for Christmas! And the Mary Poppins 40th anniversary DVD! Hooray! Very Happy

While I know that PD2 is far from perfect, it gets a lot closer than many other movies out there. It's fun, and I think that by 19 years of age I can watch a movie like PD2 with discernment. I'll enjoy watching the movie while being aware of the flawed worldview and presence of a few slightly low-cut tops. For me, the good qualities outweigh the bad. I realize that not everyone agrees with that, but I'm not going to let that ruin my enjoyment of the movie!