7 ms·

Did we watch different films? The end of the movie was about realizing that emotional experiences are complex and that it's ok to be sad about things and that y

Did we watch different films? The end of the movie was about realizing that emotional experiences are complex and that it's ok to be sad about things and that you shouldn't run from negative emotions. Every person had an anger too. Not sure how you got the notion that the film makers thought anger is bad.

olewhalehunter 11y ago
My main gripe is that of symbolic brainwashing; allowing millions of children to view media from a global corporation that asserts that the inner world of your mind acts in a specific way using constant mini-deities, asserting that "abstract thought" is risky, and enforcing psychological cliches is dangerous.
- JabavuAdams 11y ago
  You realize that Pixar movies are made by a brain-trust of intelligent, empathetic, and cultured people, right? None of that means that they are immune to their cultural and corporate biases and zeitgeist, but you seem to be implying something much more intentional and predatory. Why?
  - olewhalehunter 11y ago
    We don't have clear, culturally relative definitions (nor would we want any) of "intelligence", "empathy", or what is "cultured" other than those that the most psychopathically inclined conquerors of civilizations past brought us, however the display of those characteristics seems to be the most valuable social signifier today, and the people behind Pixar (one them was Steve Jobs, a known psychopath) have been the most ruthless accumulators of this level of trust regardless of their individual intentions.
    - JabavuAdams 11y ago
      I'm not referring to Steve Jobs, I'm referring to the Pixar "Brain Trust": http://www.fastcompany.com/3027135/lessons-learned/inside-the-pixar-braintrust http://www.fastcompany.com/3027135/lessons-learned/inside-th... Fundamentally, these people are artists.
      - olewhalehunter 11y ago
        Fundamentally their films are there to make money in a global economy and to ensure the artists stay hired there. And their art is shit, repetitive, and horrifically ethnocentric, they draw all their eyes the same, big, colorful, inviting, with nice clear whites; their bodies are soft, squeezable, like big babies, with fuzzy or gleaming hair, to exploit humanistic reactions.
        JabavuAdams 11y ago
        Is there anything you're trying to accomplish? I love myself a good rant, and most of us love to be righteous ... but ... What's the state of the world that you want? Does being this angry help you get it there?
        olewhalehunter 11y ago
        I'm automating distributed dialectics software and it appears to be working.
        PhasmaFelis 11y ago
        > they draw all their eyes the same, big, colorful, inviting, with nice clear whites; their bodies are soft, squeezable, like big babies, with fuzzy or gleaming hair, to exploit humanistic reactions. Do you also hate the Muppets? Or are you just trolling now?
        olewhalehunter 11y ago
        Yes, children have better things to do than watching television shows owned by Disney and OP's article details why.
        PhasmaFelis 11y ago
        Why are you still limiting yourself to Disney? Your complaints apply to basically 100% of all cartoons, and quite a lot of live-action children's programming, e.g. Sesame Street.
- soylentcola 11y ago
  I guess I see where you're coming from and I agree that we're all entitled to our peeves and things that just rub us the wrong way. That said, I look at these sorts of films like the old fables and many newer children's stories: they personify various aspects of life (in this case, emotions) in order to simplify them at first glance for easy recognition and then as a vehicle to show where those seemingly simple things can also be complex and unpredictable. It's not even just kids' stories that do this. Plenty of movies and other stories use archetypes and "avatars" as characters. It's shorthand that makes it easier to jump into the narrative. Often they're combinations of different stock characters but the kids' stuff is often simpler. Either way, I grew up with plenty of kids' stories where you knew who the good guy was, who the bad guy was, who the rogue/trickster was, etc. It hasn't stopped me from appreciating more subtle or complex characters and stories as an adult. It's almost as if you learn the basic "language" of characterization and storytelling first, and then can appreciate more varied combinations that as possible with experience. At some point, the fact that certain traits and behaviors are unexpected becomes a big part of a more "grown up" story's appeal.
  - olewhalehunter 11y ago
    The danger in this is programming children, and especially the largest global children's media conglomerate, one whose track record is defined by hegemonic ethnocentrism... programming children, to believe that they can tell who the "good guys" or "bad guys" are, what the "positive" or "negative" emotional reactions to events are, targets or images that the giant media machine behind each movie gets to decide. I also refuse to accept that there is or should be a universal "language for storytelling" and it should be a little creepy that most if not all of the participants in this comment tree grew up watching Disney's media, and that if for some reason one doesn't want to see another image associated with Disney again or have their children influenced by them, one literally has to run into the wilderness or leave the planet (but good luck finding an areospace organization without Star Wars fanboys).
hyperpallium 11y ago
\philosophical: Showing growth requires showing "before" and "after". Yet, if the bulk of a movie is the "before", it can be a way of celebrating that behaviour, and the brief "after" at the end is a way to slip past the censors. [In general - not saying Inside Out would be censored!] The greater screen time and scenes means "before" leaves the greater impression on viewers. Inside Out's is a dissatisfying explantion for emotion, because each emotion-character themselves exhibited a variety of emotion (e.g. Joy was sad), implying by the conceit of the movie that they each had a set of emotions within their own head... ad infinitum. That's the problem with the homunculi theory of mind: it doesn't explain anything. Did anger ever make a useful contribution in the movie? IIRC only a source of humour, or a problem to be worked around. BTW The outtake-like scenes at the end included a bus driver who was all anger.

olewhalehunter 11y ago

My main gripe is that of symbolic brainwashing; allowing millions of children to view media from a global corporation that asserts that the inner world of your mind acts in a specific way using constant mini-deities, asserting that "abstract thought" is risky, and enforcing psychological cliches is dangerous.

JabavuAdams 11y ago
You realize that Pixar movies are made by a brain-trust of intelligent, empathetic, and cultured people, right? None of that means that they are immune to their cultural and corporate biases and zeitgeist, but you seem to be implying something much more intentional and predatory. Why?
- olewhalehunter 11y ago
  We don't have clear, culturally relative definitions (nor would we want any) of "intelligence", "empathy", or what is "cultured" other than those that the most psychopathically inclined conquerors of civilizations past brought us, however the display of those characteristics seems to be the most valuable social signifier today, and the people behind Pixar (one them was Steve Jobs, a known psychopath) have been the most ruthless accumulators of this level of trust regardless of their individual intentions.
  - JabavuAdams 11y ago
    I'm not referring to Steve Jobs, I'm referring to the Pixar "Brain Trust": http://www.fastcompany.com/3027135/lessons-learned/inside-the-pixar-braintrust http://www.fastcompany.com/3027135/lessons-learned/inside-th... Fundamentally, these people are artists.
    - olewhalehunter 11y ago
      Fundamentally their films are there to make money in a global economy and to ensure the artists stay hired there. And their art is shit, repetitive, and horrifically ethnocentric, they draw all their eyes the same, big, colorful, inviting, with nice clear whites; their bodies are soft, squeezable, like big babies, with fuzzy or gleaming hair, to exploit humanistic reactions.
      - JabavuAdams 11y ago
        Is there anything you're trying to accomplish? I love myself a good rant, and most of us love to be righteous ... but ... What's the state of the world that you want? Does being this angry help you get it there?
        olewhalehunter 11y ago
        I'm automating distributed dialectics software and it appears to be working.
      - PhasmaFelis 11y ago
        > they draw all their eyes the same, big, colorful, inviting, with nice clear whites; their bodies are soft, squeezable, like big babies, with fuzzy or gleaming hair, to exploit humanistic reactions. Do you also hate the Muppets? Or are you just trolling now?
        olewhalehunter 11y ago
        Yes, children have better things to do than watching television shows owned by Disney and OP's article details why.
        PhasmaFelis 11y ago
        Why are you still limiting yourself to Disney? Your complaints apply to basically 100% of all cartoons, and quite a lot of live-action children's programming, e.g. Sesame Street.
soylentcola 11y ago
I guess I see where you're coming from and I agree that we're all entitled to our peeves and things that just rub us the wrong way. That said, I look at these sorts of films like the old fables and many newer children's stories: they personify various aspects of life (in this case, emotions) in order to simplify them at first glance for easy recognition and then as a vehicle to show where those seemingly simple things can also be complex and unpredictable. It's not even just kids' stories that do this. Plenty of movies and other stories use archetypes and "avatars" as characters. It's shorthand that makes it easier to jump into the narrative. Often they're combinations of different stock characters but the kids' stuff is often simpler. Either way, I grew up with plenty of kids' stories where you knew who the good guy was, who the bad guy was, who the rogue/trickster was, etc. It hasn't stopped me from appreciating more subtle or complex characters and stories as an adult. It's almost as if you learn the basic "language" of characterization and storytelling first, and then can appreciate more varied combinations that as possible with experience. At some point, the fact that certain traits and behaviors are unexpected becomes a big part of a more "grown up" story's appeal.
- olewhalehunter 11y ago
  The danger in this is programming children, and especially the largest global children's media conglomerate, one whose track record is defined by hegemonic ethnocentrism... programming children, to believe that they can tell who the "good guys" or "bad guys" are, what the "positive" or "negative" emotional reactions to events are, targets or images that the giant media machine behind each movie gets to decide. I also refuse to accept that there is or should be a universal "language for storytelling" and it should be a little creepy that most if not all of the participants in this comment tree grew up watching Disney's media, and that if for some reason one doesn't want to see another image associated with Disney again or have their children influenced by them, one literally has to run into the wilderness or leave the planet (but good luck finding an areospace organization without Star Wars fanboys).

hyperpallium 11y ago

\philosophical: Showing growth requires showing "before" and "after". Yet, if the bulk of a movie is the "before", it can be a way of celebrating that behaviour, and the brief "after" at the end is a way to slip past the censors. [In general - not saying Inside Out would be censored!] The greater screen time and scenes means "before" leaves the greater impression on viewers. Inside Out's is a dissatisfying explantion for emotion, because each emotion-character themselves exhibited a variety of emotion (e.g. Joy was sad), implying by the conceit of the movie that they each had a set of emotions within their own head... ad infinitum. That's the problem with the homunculi theory of mind: it doesn't explain anything. Did anger ever make a useful contribution in the movie? IIRC only a source of humour, or a problem to be worked around. BTW The outtake-like scenes at the end included a bus driver who was all anger.