Disney Info

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

...hence my one could argue line.

But back to the Simpsons and Cleavers. Neither is the type of story or family we're discussing because there is no growth for any of the characters. Both are effectively morality plays and not full blown stories.

[Skar]

I find it hilarious when Republicans and other conservatives claim that the Democrats or liberals are the ones who say they know more about how to live your life than you do.

And I find it hilarious when liberals and or democrats say statements are hilarious without actually responding to a single point that was made.

[Skar]

But these are the stories that Disney is using... Stories where children cross that cusp. Sleeping Beauty isnt going back to being a girl, and neither is Snow White. The resolution of the story is them moving on into a new role in life, adulthood or Womanhood. The same is true of just about every Disney film ever made, except Pinnochio (though one could argue) Even Dumbo grows up.

I dont think you and I have read the same stories either, because I would say your scenario is the exception rather than the rule.

Perhaps we have read different stories.  In fact that's not only possible but likely.  

About the only Disney film I can remember wherein the parents are not one-dimensionally stupid, mean or absent, is Mulan.   And you could make a case for the mother being portrayed as flatly mean because of the whole arranged marriage thing.

[Fellfrosch]

What about 101 Dalmatians? Pongo and Perdy are active, developed, concerned, and heroic. Of course, they're also the main characters, so it's kind of different.

[Skar]

I think it is different, and if you put the humans in the parental role they're so stupid and ineffectual as to be inconsequential.

[Brenna]

While they're not the main focus of the story, Pancha and his wife (from Emperor's New Groove) are both very kind and good parents, and they have a very strong and happy family life...and they kind of take Kuzco in and show him how families and lives should be, I think.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

And I find it hilarious when liberals and or democrats say statements are hilarious without actually responding to a single point that was made.

a) I am neither liberal nor democrat. On the whole I am very conservative.
b) I felt the statement was so blanket misdirectional, condescending, and ridden with problems that a more specific answer wasn't called for
c) I'll give you a for instance why I think that's hilarious. The main reason is that I've only heard it from conservatives, and I've heard it frequently. And the truth is, they have no more a sense of everybody else is living the wrong way than the conservatives do.

Without announcing my specific point of view, let me mention some issues. I don't intend to debate these issues, and probably, in the majority of the cases, I suspect I agree with you, Skar, though from what I've read, for vastly different reasons.
1) Abortion
2) Homosexual rights
3) Current National security policy and practice
4) School board policy toward religion

In all these cases, there is a *very* strong argument that it is the Republican party and their conservative supporters that are being much more controlling. They want to establish laws to inhibit the exercise of free choice. Rightly so in many cases. But it is still them telling the public what to do.

My point is, that "they're trying to CONTROL YOU!" is a silly way to portray the other side. It really doesn't mean anything politically, it's simply a fear mongering tactic that many people who've given to me take so seriously they can't see what they're doing.

[Shrain]

But back to the Simpsons and Cleavers. Neither is the type of story or family we're discussing because there is no growth for any of the characters.

Yeah, I goofed. I blame the ninja monkeys that chased me across 10 states on my drive back to Boston. They're relentless. Relentless, I tell you! In fact, I think they had something to do with the parking ticket I got in D.C.

So . . . perhaps I can redeem myself by offering an example of a Disney (live action-cartoon) movie where the parents are (somewhat) present and don't die in the film:

Mary Poppins. She's a lively, supercalifragilistic nanny who arrives on the scene to rescue the kids from a pack of mean old nannies as well as a high-strung mum and a strict, emotionally distant, workaholic dad. What's cool is that Poppins helps them see the need for responsibility by making it fun and imaginative. (The whole spoonful of sugar tactic.)

She takes them on fantastic field trips that challenge them in positive ways. Although the kids aren't orphans, their parents are naturally and noticeably absent during these trips. That's essentially what a nanny is for, after all, to take over the parenting for however long they're paid to do so. That makes her job a very practical and realistic method of getting rid of the parents for many portions of the film.

Sure, like other Disney parents, the dad stands as a roadblock to all this "nonsense." BUT, by the end of the film, he's grown a backbone (by standing up to his boss about his kid's savings) and, more importantly, he's eager to spend real quality time with his kids. Even the mom seems more "balanced". All in all, I feel like this film kind of has the best of both worlds because both the kids and the parents change for the better. That's right--kites for everyone!!  

EDIT: P.S.  I know this doesn't qualify as one of Disney's "cartoons," but I brought it up because it does have a mixture of animation and live action.

[Skar]

b) I felt the statement was so blanket misdirectional, condescending, and ridden with problems that a more specific answer wasn't called for.

How condescending and misdirectional.  I'm sure you could, you just choose not to, respond to the actual points.

c) I'll give you a for instance why I think that's hilarious. The main reason is that I've only heard it from conservatives, and I've heard it frequently. And the truth is, they have no more a sense of everybody else is living the wrong way than the conservatives do.

My reason that it's hilarious is that the lack of response to any actual statement or point is so typical.  It's the equivalent of "nu'uh."  Conservatives are not attempting to dictate what can and cannot be said in public forums when it comes to personal religious beliefs.  Conservatives are not trying to dictate, over the vociferous objections of taxpaying parents, what children will be taught in school.  Conservatives are not trying to force taxpaying citizens to support a vast, illegal, peasant class through dole welfare.   Conservatives are not trying to delete the right to bear arms from the constitution.  All those initiatives belong to the other camp.  And all those initiatives are indicative of the belief that big brother knows best, just let the government handle it, as long as liberals control the government.  

Without announcing my specific point of view, let me mention some issues. I don't intend to debate these issues, and probably, in the majority of the cases, I suspect I agree with you, Skar, though from what I've read, for vastly different reasons.
1) Abortion
2) Homosexual rights
3) Current National security policy and practice
4) School board policy toward religion

In all these cases, there is a *very* strong argument that it is the Republican party and their conservative supporters that are being much more controlling. They want to establish laws to inhibit the exercise of free choice. Rightly so in many cases. But it is still them telling the public what to do.

Yet again, no actual response is offered, just a dogmatic mouthing of the PC party line.

My point is, that "they're trying to CONTROL YOU!" is a silly way to portray the other side. It really doesn't mean anything politically, it's simply a fear mongering tactic that many people who've given to me take so seriously they can't see what they're doing.

I'm afraid I disagree.  All those cases I've cited are perfect examples of Liberal politician's and activist's desire to tell me and you how to behave in the salient aspect of our lives.  You're not allowed to protect yourself with a gun.  You're not allowed to let on that you're a christian to your class but if you're a homosexual we expect you to be open about your lifestyle.  You shouldn't be allowed to involve yourself in the consequences of your children's bad sexual decisions.  You can't be trusted to teach your children about sex or religion so we'll do it, it's good whenever you want it and only for morons, respectively.  
It's the defining characteristic of liberal thought.  Where a Conservative says, "government stay out of it, it's not your business", a liberal says "we'll use government to force you to act the way we think you should."

This is far afield of the topic this thread was devoted to so I suggest from this point on we either drop it or move the discussion to email.  I respect your point of view and am usually edified by your thoughts so I was kind of surprised that you called my viewpoint hilarious with no explanation.  

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Im afraid I disagree with you completely. It would be nice to have a discussion about the topic and not listen to another political diatribe.  I think its time to move that part of the conversation out of this thread.

Thanks.


I would like to point out though that your accusing a conservative of being liberal and thats just plain stupid.

[Tage]

*sigh*

Just locking for a day... just cause. Thread will re-open.

[Skar]

Sigh.  I've gone over the line again.  

I injected politics into a perfectly reasonable discussion of storytelling and got called "hilarious."  I'll shutup now.

[Chimera]

Uh...we've already gone a bit past this...but to answer Tink's question, I'm adopted. Through LDS social services, when I was six weeks old. My birth mother was young and unmarried and wanted me to have a family and be sealed to my parents in the temple. My older brother is adopted as well, but not my little brother. He's our little miracle--I prayed for three years for a little brother or sister, and finally we got Todd.

When I was growing up, I didn't know anybody else who was adopted. Since I've left home and gone to college I've met more and more adopted people. And I had a Young Woman's leader who adopted a daughter through LDS social services--and she told me it was because she had known me that she felt so comfortable about adoption. That was neat.

[fuzzyoctopus]

On the other end, one of my coworkers while I was in Utah became a very dear friend of mine. Although she isn't LDS, she got pregnant at 15 and decided to adopt the baby through LDS social services because she wanted him to be raised in a loving eternal home.  That really made a huge, huge impression on me about the kind of person she was.