Talk:Walt Disney

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Hmmm[edit]

Could someone explain what "coy but exaggerated sexuality" means? It sounds vague to me, and unless it has a clear meaning, it probably ought to be deleted. --ShorinBJ (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The intended meaning is that, while not overtly so, they are sexualized to an unreasonable degree. You can rephrase that any way you want to be more clear. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
But what I don't really get how they can be sexualized if their sexuality is kept under wraps. --ShorinBJ (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, the sentence just tries to rephrase the criticism from the source: "The female characters in Disney movies tend to present a distorted version of femininity — highly sexualized bodies, coy seductiveness, always needing to be rescued by a male." - Smerdis of Tlön, If you burn with an inner fire, you are already damned. 19:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Mulan? Frozen?[edit]

I think they would be worth talking about the third side of the triangle. Zero (talk - contributions) 06:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Extension[edit]

I deleted the above section from the article. Why? Having thought it over, I realized that what's described isn't really hypocrisy. The copyright extension goes both ways -- Disney could not, today, use works with copyrights from 1921-1946 for their stories without paying royalties. And, come on. So they wouldn't have been able to make their version of The Jungle Book under the old law. That doesn't mean they have to be locked into a stance based on a business decision they'd made thirty years previously. Michael Eisner wasn't even with Disney at the time; should he have been bound by something his predecessors did? There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Disney to be made, but this isn't one of them. If you think I'm wrong, go ahead and revert it after making a cogent argument. --ShorinBJ (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's the cogent argument - yes, future executives of a corporation are bound by the decisions of previous executives. They can change that, but it does not exonerate. It's the hypocrisy of the corporation-as-an-entity, not any individual leader. It's valid criticism. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
The man Disney didn't make any decision in this area that was binding on Eisner. Obviously. Unless you're saying Eisner should have been morally constrained by what his predecessors did? Even if I accept your corporation-as-an-entity standard, because they once made a movie that they couldn't make under the copyright laws they later lobbied for, they could never ever change their minds without being hypocrites? I call bullshit on that. And you didn't address what was perhaps a more important point: that the change works in both directions. Hypocrisy would have been if Disney lobbied for a law that extended copyright protections 25 years for their own properties, but no one else's. That is not the case. Your argument is weak, and mine is strong. I'm changing it back. --ShorinBJ (talk) 08:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The article isn't only about Walt Disney the person, but about the business he founded. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 12:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that. But even if we accept that a corporation should be considered as an entity unto itself, its stance on extending copyright duration is not hypocrisy, for the reasons I clearly explained above and you did not bother to address. --ShorinBJ (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Unless you're saying Eisner should have been morally constrained by what his predecessors did?- ShorinBJ
There is no moral question. Only a legal one.
they could never ever change their minds without being hypocrites- ShorinBJ
Hypocrisy is determined on a case-by-case basis based on a corporation's interests in the matter. Did the Disney corporation change it's mind on the matter once it became lucrative for them to do so? Yes. Therefore, hypocrisy. It certainly wasn't altruistic or kind motives.
Hypocrisy would have been if Disney lobbied for a law that extended copyright protections 25 years for their own properties, but no one else's.- ShorinBJ
That's a false specificity. If Disney had done so and gotten that law passed, it would have been immediately thrown out as exceptions in law for specific entities on copyright is considered to be null and void by the courts, for issues of government-enforced bias. Any extension of copyright has to be general in order to pass legal muster, so your argument fails due to being objectively wrong.
I recommend you study up on copyright caselaw before opining on what Disney should and should not do. --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Copyright case law is irrelevant. Whether someone is a hypocrite isn't a legal matter. It's a value judgment. Unless you think someone can be legally declared a hypocrite, and be subject to certain penalties for it? Please. And Disney didn't even take a stance on copyright in the '60s -- they just used a source material that happened to be available to them. It's ludicrous to then call an entirely different set of people hypocrites because they wanted to extend the copyright period. False specificity? Read the definition of hypocrisy.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrisy
Or read this wiki's own article on the subject. You're reaching. Badly. Your argument fails due to being objectively wrong. --ShorinBJ (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Copyright case law is irrelevant.- ShorinBJ
Factually wrong. Your argument that Disney's hypocrisy relies on having legislation passed specifically for a Disney exception to copyright to is flatly impossible and so relies on an impossible premise. If you knew your copyright, you would know this and not make that argument.
Whether someone is a hypocrite isn't a legal matter.- ShorinBJ
Again, factually wrong. Hypocrisy can and has been measured objectively - and can always be measured objectively in cases involving profit motive, which this does. And since profit motive is the only motive a corporation has, you can objectively determine the hypocrisy of any corporation. It's simply a question of cui bono.
I will also requote Smerdis at you - "Whether it's 'hypocrisy' or not, Disney is one of the chief lobbyists for copyright extension, and that is a fact about the business that falls within our writ of covering authoritarianism." Are you denying that quote is valid?
So, are you shilling for Disney, or aren't you? You never did answer that question of Smerdis' --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
You both should consider that it's a really bad sign for your side of the argument when I've made only TWO points and you seem to have to ignore one while responding to the other unconvincingly. I get it, Disney is an evil empire, and increasing the copyright period was self-serving, but that doesn't make it hypocrisy, and neither does the fact that they once used a source material that would have been copyrighted under current law. To call it hypocrisy is to stretch the definition of hypocrisy to include even once changing your mind in your entire life. I suspect you're not being rational here, just looking to score points against Disney. --ShorinBJ (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Do you work for Disney? Whether it's 'hypocrisy' or not, Disney is one of the chief lobbyists for copyright extension, and that is a fact about the business that falls within our writ of covering authoritarianism. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 14:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, this isn't some kind of chess game, with moves and countermoves. The section about Disney, copyright, and hypocrisy follows a section about Disney ransacking the world's folklore and public domain literatures, often bowdlerizing them into unrecognizability, and overwriting the previous versions by power of market penetration. The hypocrisy comes in as a result of Disney's deep mining of the public domain, while lobbying to make sure its own creations never become a part of it. And all of the facts set forth in the text seem reasonably verified by our standards. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Page protected[edit]

Page locked for two days to prevent edit warring. Castaigne's version happens to be the pre-war one. Come to a consensus here first, please.

I've not desysopped/banned/binned anyone, since this is a first for this page. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 01:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Shia LaBeouf[edit]

ABC News, which is owned by Disney, reports Disney's employee, Shia LaBeouf was arrested for assaulting a Trump supporter. Now the issue isn't so much violence against Trump supporters, it's more a question of how ABC News peddles Disney's crap as "news" and as if it's "popular culture". It's an inherent COI, bias, and fake news, done for self promotion and profit. It only becomes a problem when their employees, peddled as alleged "Hollywood icons", engage in or advocate violence. nobs 13:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Copyright extension myth[edit]

That section had to be heavily rewritten - it was ladden with myths and myth debunking is our thing. Faunas (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, @Faunas. Debunking the Steamboat Willie stuff is good and necessary, but I wonder if this isn’t, at the same time, a bit beside the point? The idea that the US had to “keep up” with the EU strikes me as rather baseless (by contrast, the need to harmonise copyright within the EU is simply one aspect of creating and strengthening the Single Market, just like it would be problematic if individual US states had differing copyright terms)). It also seems to me that this “We cannot have shorter copyright terms than those guys across the Atlantic!”-logic is used as part of the lobbying for constantly extending copyright terms in both the EU and the US.
The current tone sounds almost apologetic, as if there was no reason not to raise copyright terms or that Disney had nothing to do with it. What Disney probably had and has a significant interest in protecting is not so much Steamboat Willie, but its big earners, i.e. its classic, full-length movies from the 1930s (Snow White), ‘40s (Pinocchio, Dumbo, Bambi etc,) and ‘50s (Cinderella, Peter Pan, Lady and the Tramp, Sleeping Beauty etc.). Pointing out that Disney had no reason to defend Steamboat Willie is not the same as Disney not lobbying for/influencing the copyright extension decision at all. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry having taken so long, but here it goes.
  1. The USA are the world's largest exporters of cultural products.
  2. There is an optional rule in the Berne ConventionWikipedia's W.svg called the rule of the shorter termWikipedia's W.svg, which states that a country can (although they're not obliged to) apply either that country's term or the country of origin's term to foreign works (otherwise it's the second term in both countries.
  3. When all its countries are put together, the EU is the largest market in the world.
  4. The EU directive applied that rule to the works from countries which did not apply this term (taken from this).
Faunas (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Disney and Social Justice section maybe?[edit]

@Spud There is quite a lot of talk on youtube complaining about "wokeness" in Disney movies. It might, as such, be mentioned as conspiracy theory. On the other hand, Social Justice agenda in Disney productions is being discussed by academic sources such as Boston U School of Theology, and the troll phenomena is widely discussed in mainstream media. This is not my cup of tea, but gentleman that I am, I thought of some work that you could do.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)