5 ms·

Not to denigrate the fine work of many great animators and storytellers, but the missing element from this Disney filmmaking story is also the worst part of Dis

Not to denigrate the fine work of many great animators and storytellers, but the missing element from this Disney filmmaking story is also the worst part of Disney: its commercial and political choices over why films get made and stories bent and subjects avoided and to what end and whose benefit. Tell that story.

RandomLensman 5y ago
I get the point but most art needs funding. If we go down that route, maybe we should start with Mozart or Beethoven? Or some prominent classical writers? I guess what I am saying is that this is not a particular unique situation.
- AlecSchueler 5y ago
  Why Beethoven? Wasn't he the first to fund the composition of a significant works with the return of bank shares, which was relatively progressive in that it freed the composer from the whims of the arisotcracy/church dichotomy which existed before?
  - RandomLensman 5y ago
    AFAIK he used shares as collateral to get loans, but he generally had a fair amount of royal/aristocratic patronage from quite early on (with compositions dedicated to some of them, e.g., the Archduke Rudolf).
    - AlecSchueler 5y ago
      In the early days yes, as that was the only way at the time, but as his career progressed he actively pioneered new ways of financing his work, so I think it's a bit unreasonable to single him out.
jb1991 5y ago
Many of us, or most of us, are probably not sure what you’re referring to, so it might be more useful to offer some focus to your argument rather than the vague suggestions you’re making.
- guiriduro 5y ago
  Disney make films - as part of a filmmaking process we might want to know why they make film X and not Y, why they depict characters a certain way and not others. Are filmmakers limited or directed in any way? Enquiring minds would like to know. Presumably if you were to view Soviet or Nazi propaganda films, you wouldn't consider it off-topic to ask about their provenance, or if the political orientation of their sponsors was evident, and if that is morally acceptable. Do you think Disney is immune?
  - RandomLensman 5y ago
    "We" make propaganda for "our way of life/moral convictions" - so? EDIT: I don't think people presume Disney to be immune, more like the presumption is probably "they are on our side"
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      So? Those stories are interesting. Disney is like any other BigCo. They have a million stakeholders pulling things a million different ways and they need to chart a course. Finding Nemo could have been a hilarious comedy or it could have been a drama that criticizes modern society (depending on which way you want to spin it). Replace the clownfish with disabled vets. Replace the turtles with some hippies in a bus. Replace Dory with a stripper. Replace the sharks with a biker gang. Replace the whale with a rent-seeking small town police department. Replace the dentist's boat with a greyhound bus across the country. Etc, etc. But they didn't, they chose to stick a kid's movie with what is a fairly heavy adult plot line at its core (and they distanced it even further by using animals). Why? That decision making process is its own story.
  - saiya-jin 5y ago
j7ake 5y ago
Disney has no other motive but to tell stories that resonate with as many people as possible, because this alone will drive profits. In the case of movies, motives are purely to maximise the appreciation by the broadest audience.
- eddieroger 5y ago
  They are also a public company, so they have the motive of being profitable in their endeavors. But the goal of that is the same - resonate with viewers, because viewers equal movie tickets or subscribers to Disney+, which is how profit is made. It's not good or evil, it's just also a factor as they're responsible to shareholders.
  - j7ake 5y ago
    Yes, and crucially, there are competing companies that are trying to make even better films to make people watch their movies rather than Disney movies. It's not good or evil, it's just whatever the people want to watch.
- jayceedenton 5y ago
  I really don't agree. Just look at the history of Disney, and Walt himself. Disney has a history of promoting socially conscious narratives and trying to promote peace and harmony. It's kitsch, but look at the message of 'It's a small world'. This is what Disney has always been about, from promoting animal welfare and an appreciation of the natural world, to telling stories of people from a variety of races and cultures and focusing on what should unite us. The other thing that Disney is (and has always been) about, is pushing the boundaries of the visual arts. You might not see Disney films as art, but one goal of Disney from the very earliest days has been to change your mind.

RandomLensman 5y ago

I get the point but most art needs funding. If we go down that route, maybe we should start with Mozart or Beethoven? Or some prominent classical writers? I guess what I am saying is that this is not a particular unique situation.

AlecSchueler 5y ago
Why Beethoven? Wasn't he the first to fund the composition of a significant works with the return of bank shares, which was relatively progressive in that it freed the composer from the whims of the arisotcracy/church dichotomy which existed before?
- RandomLensman 5y ago
  AFAIK he used shares as collateral to get loans, but he generally had a fair amount of royal/aristocratic patronage from quite early on (with compositions dedicated to some of them, e.g., the Archduke Rudolf).
  - AlecSchueler 5y ago
    In the early days yes, as that was the only way at the time, but as his career progressed he actively pioneered new ways of financing his work, so I think it's a bit unreasonable to single him out.

jb1991 5y ago

Many of us, or most of us, are probably not sure what you’re referring to, so it might be more useful to offer some focus to your argument rather than the vague suggestions you’re making.

guiriduro 5y ago
Disney make films - as part of a filmmaking process we might want to know why they make film X and not Y, why they depict characters a certain way and not others. Are filmmakers limited or directed in any way? Enquiring minds would like to know. Presumably if you were to view Soviet or Nazi propaganda films, you wouldn't consider it off-topic to ask about their provenance, or if the political orientation of their sponsors was evident, and if that is morally acceptable. Do you think Disney is immune?
- RandomLensman 5y ago
  "We" make propaganda for "our way of life/moral convictions" - so? EDIT: I don't think people presume Disney to be immune, more like the presumption is probably "they are on our side"
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    So? Those stories are interesting. Disney is like any other BigCo. They have a million stakeholders pulling things a million different ways and they need to chart a course. Finding Nemo could have been a hilarious comedy or it could have been a drama that criticizes modern society (depending on which way you want to spin it). Replace the clownfish with disabled vets. Replace the turtles with some hippies in a bus. Replace Dory with a stripper. Replace the sharks with a biker gang. Replace the whale with a rent-seeking small town police department. Replace the dentist's boat with a greyhound bus across the country. Etc, etc. But they didn't, they chose to stick a kid's movie with what is a fairly heavy adult plot line at its core (and they distanced it even further by using animals). Why? That decision making process is its own story.
- saiya-jin 5y ago

j7ake 5y ago

Disney has no other motive but to tell stories that resonate with as many people as possible, because this alone will drive profits. In the case of movies, motives are purely to maximise the appreciation by the broadest audience.

eddieroger 5y ago
They are also a public company, so they have the motive of being profitable in their endeavors. But the goal of that is the same - resonate with viewers, because viewers equal movie tickets or subscribers to Disney+, which is how profit is made. It's not good or evil, it's just also a factor as they're responsible to shareholders.
- j7ake 5y ago
  Yes, and crucially, there are competing companies that are trying to make even better films to make people watch their movies rather than Disney movies. It's not good or evil, it's just whatever the people want to watch.
jayceedenton 5y ago
I really don't agree. Just look at the history of Disney, and Walt himself. Disney has a history of promoting socially conscious narratives and trying to promote peace and harmony. It's kitsch, but look at the message of 'It's a small world'. This is what Disney has always been about, from promoting animal welfare and an appreciation of the natural world, to telling stories of people from a variety of races and cultures and focusing on what should unite us. The other thing that Disney is (and has always been) about, is pushing the boundaries of the visual arts. You might not see Disney films as art, but one goal of Disney from the very earliest days has been to change your mind.