I saw this article linked to some advertisement on Facebook during the week. It seemed quite applicable to our discussion of Disney's success and gives some insight towards just how successful the company has been and a few reasons why it's been on top for so long. Also, as someone interested in the business side of things, I enjoyed how this provides a cool economic perspective.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/03/28/3-reasons-why-the-walt-disney-company-is-brilliant.aspx
Sunday, March 29, 2015
The Rock Meets Disney
Not only did the Rock kill it on SNL this past weekend but he also starred in a funny trailer for a new Disney movie. Enjoy!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJz2IMUeDE&feature=youtu.be
Dennis Tyler Response
Dennis Tyler's "Home Is Where The Heart Is" touches on a number of subjects about Pixar's critically acclaimed Up, such the film's success, the animation of the characters, and important themes of gender, race, and body image. Given this wide range of topics that spanned just over 10 pages, there were obviously some hits but more generally there were areas that didn't work in the essay.
I found that the most effective part of the essay was generally the discussion on the workings of the animation. From on outside perspective, this is something that very rarely gets as discussed as other things, such as the themes and messages associated with a movie, but something that can be just as important. Plus it's just really cool. Tyler did a good of touching on the cuteness aspect that Pixar created through soft, round characters.
However, at the end of the day, Tyler promised to discuss the idea of home in Up and this was ultimately a failure. For one, very little of the piece had to do with this idea. The majority dealt with how Tyler believed Carl's marginalization of Ellie and her desires advocated for a patriarchy or how he felt that the inclusion of black characters in meaningless roles advocated for Disney's conservative, white views. Not only did these things not follow the thesis of the paper, but they were just flat out wrong. Additionally, the conclusion was about as ineffective as a conclusion can be.
By alienating the audience through making these bold, evidence-less claims and by not delivering on what he promised, Tyler's article did not prove very successful.
I found that the most effective part of the essay was generally the discussion on the workings of the animation. From on outside perspective, this is something that very rarely gets as discussed as other things, such as the themes and messages associated with a movie, but something that can be just as important. Plus it's just really cool. Tyler did a good of touching on the cuteness aspect that Pixar created through soft, round characters.
However, at the end of the day, Tyler promised to discuss the idea of home in Up and this was ultimately a failure. For one, very little of the piece had to do with this idea. The majority dealt with how Tyler believed Carl's marginalization of Ellie and her desires advocated for a patriarchy or how he felt that the inclusion of black characters in meaningless roles advocated for Disney's conservative, white views. Not only did these things not follow the thesis of the paper, but they were just flat out wrong. Additionally, the conclusion was about as ineffective as a conclusion can be.
By alienating the audience through making these bold, evidence-less claims and by not delivering on what he promised, Tyler's article did not prove very successful.
Kate Flynn Response
At first glance, I wouldn't think there would be much of a relationship between the land and the perceptions about weight that are present in a movie. After reading Kate Flynn's piece "Fat and the Land: Size Stereotyping in Pixar's Up," this sentiment is unfortunately still true. Due to a lack of logical reasoning and connecting points with good evidence by Flynn, her argument of linking the two simply did not make sense. For lack of a better word, it was, well, weird.
This isn't to say that Flynn's article didn't have some redeeming qualities. The references to Wall-E, for example, were apropos, as Wall-E quite obviously provides a commentary on over-consumption and weight. However, just because one Disney movie has this theme doesn't mean that another must, and I found myself not fully seeing Flynn's connection between the two. This was one flaw in her argument.
Additionally, I found myself disagreeing with Flynn on a number of points. For one, she often draws attention to Russell's ironic lack of competence in the wilderness (after all, he is a Wilderness Explorer) and blames it on his portly body type. By doing this, Flynn affirms that Disney suggests being overweight is a hindrance to important activities, and, therefore uses the movie to discourage obesity. However, with this point, Flynn doesn't take into account that Russell's lack of "outdoorsiness" is almost certainly because he is nine years old, which would completely contradict her argument.
In addition to this, the whole idea of the rugid South American landscape contrasting with the soft, round nature of the characters, while technically true, wasn't that convincing. When quoting Immanuel Kant in a work about Up, there better be an obvious point to be made. Unfortunately, there was no such point here.
In short, everything in this text was off, from the strange points to the stating that fat is a connotation-less word, and Flynn wasn't convincing as a result.
This isn't to say that Flynn's article didn't have some redeeming qualities. The references to Wall-E, for example, were apropos, as Wall-E quite obviously provides a commentary on over-consumption and weight. However, just because one Disney movie has this theme doesn't mean that another must, and I found myself not fully seeing Flynn's connection between the two. This was one flaw in her argument.
Additionally, I found myself disagreeing with Flynn on a number of points. For one, she often draws attention to Russell's ironic lack of competence in the wilderness (after all, he is a Wilderness Explorer) and blames it on his portly body type. By doing this, Flynn affirms that Disney suggests being overweight is a hindrance to important activities, and, therefore uses the movie to discourage obesity. However, with this point, Flynn doesn't take into account that Russell's lack of "outdoorsiness" is almost certainly because he is nine years old, which would completely contradict her argument.
In addition to this, the whole idea of the rugid South American landscape contrasting with the soft, round nature of the characters, while technically true, wasn't that convincing. When quoting Immanuel Kant in a work about Up, there better be an obvious point to be made. Unfortunately, there was no such point here.
In short, everything in this text was off, from the strange points to the stating that fat is a connotation-less word, and Flynn wasn't convincing as a result.
Up
Yup. Watching Up again confirmed what I expected. I do still have a heart and Up has quite the affinity for tugging at said heart. Obviously everyone will draw attention to the deeply saddening opening five minutes or so but the entire movie continues to prove heart-warming in a uniquely somber way. Carl Fredricksen's (the protagonist) commitment to upheld his promise of moving to Paradise Falls that he made with his deceased wife is what makes the movie so relatable and, therefore, so good. Whether we're old or not, everyone can appreciate the true love that these two share. And that's just the tip of the iceberg of why Up is such a fan favorite.
Really everything is on point. Visually, stunning seems to be the only word that can accurately describe the film. With a floating house, multicolored balloons that reflect light like prisms, and great, rugid landscape, I couldn't look away for fear of missing another moment of Pixar's awesome animation. This much was apparent to me upon my first viewing of Up some 5+ years ago, but upon watching it again, I also gained way more respect for the symbolism in the movie. As Carl speaks to the house, it comes to symbolize his always-present connection to his wife just as the adventure book represents his commitment to her. Additionally, Charles Muntz (Carl's eventual counterpart) offers great insight into how a failure to move on from the past can lead to an unfulfilling life.
This combination of imagery, symbolism, and message is undoubtably the reason for Up's success. Boasting a box office of $300 million, a well-deserved Oscar, and fantastic ratings, Up truly has become the epitome of what animated film should be.
Friday, March 20, 2015
Sunday, March 8, 2015
The Incredibles 2
The hype is real:
http://www.christiantimes.com/article/the.incredibles.2.release.date.plot.spoilers.news.helen.and.bob.quitting.superhero.business.find.out.summer.2016/51370.htm
http://www.christiantimes.com/article/the.incredibles.2.release.date.plot.spoilers.news.helen.and.bob.quitting.superhero.business.find.out.summer.2016/51370.htm
Disney Satire
According to Clickhole, Disney has created its first ever Indian princess and her name is Ananya. Following the article, the movie in which Ananya is set to star in has actually already been created and the Disney execs are simply waiting for the right time to release the movie. Apparently America is too white currently and would not appreciate an Indian Disney princess. “It’s really too bad, because when Ananya sings the incredible ‘My Own Woman’ at the film’s climax, it’s an amazing moment that transcends racial background,” said Disney PR vice president George Wexler. “But until our audience is ready for her, just be prepared for tons of white princesses.” Apparently Disney also has movies made with Vietnamese, Ethiopian, Chinese, Iranian, and Eskimo princess but is afraid that they will not resonate with white America. For now, all movies are currently waiting out the racial demographics of the U.S.
Of course everything you have just read is satirical, found in a satire article written quite well by Clickhole, a parody site launched by The Onion. The article (I'll put the link below) scrolled across my newsfeed about a week ago and I was immediately interested until I took a read. It took me a couple paragraphs in to realize the satirical nature of it and then my interest became entertainment. It was pretty funny.
Here's for a good laugh:
http://www.clickhole.com/article/awesome-disney-has-created-its-first-ever-indian-p-1910
Of course everything you have just read is satirical, found in a satire article written quite well by Clickhole, a parody site launched by The Onion. The article (I'll put the link below) scrolled across my newsfeed about a week ago and I was immediately interested until I took a read. It took me a couple paragraphs in to realize the satirical nature of it and then my interest became entertainment. It was pretty funny.
Here's for a good laugh:
http://www.clickhole.com/article/awesome-disney-has-created-its-first-ever-indian-p-1910
The Dress
With all the news about The Dress last week, who would've thought The Lion King did it first?
Gael Sweeney Response
It's no secret that The Lion King is very much a movie based on stereotypically defined gender roles. The males are seen as the macho breadwinners while the females are the tender mothers and caregivers. However, this otherwise unpresuming aspect of the movie becomes rather noteworthy with the inclusion of two key characters: Timon and Pumbaa. Many have concluded these two as being Disney's way of introducing gay characters into their movies, including Gael Sweeney, who in his essay "Timon and Pumbaa's Alternative Lifestyle Dilemma," argues that the two characters indeed represent a homosexual partnership.
The main reason cited for Timon and Pumbaa being gay is due to their flamboyancy, which Sweeney believes is highly accentuated through contrast with other characters. These two seem to walk with more character, are overly dramatic when compared to others, and express an especially high affinity for song. However, Sweeney is also keen to note a few specific scenes. For one, he mentions and re-mentions the scene where Timon wears a hula skirt to distract Scar which is one most pivotal scenes in the movie. For Sweeney, this emphasis on display by Disney on Timon represents one of the reasons he is homosexual. Additionally, when Nala returns to Simba, Sweeney cites Timon's expression of the "three becoming two" as a way of heterosexual love breaking up the homosexual domestic life.
In my own opinion, I don't consider Timon and Pumbaa to be gay. Rather I think of them as two pre-pubescent friends with no thoughts of sexuality, something which Sweeney actually alludes to in his argument. Although I don't agree with him, I do consider his argument convincing. His examples are spot on, his organization is solid, and, as mentioned above, he did provide some counterarguments. However, after reading the piece, I was left scratching my head in some sections. Most prominently was the section about Judaism and Timon. In it, Sweeney argues, quite stereotypically and bigoted even, that Timon is actually a New York Jew. Although his points have validity, the argument was weirdly out of place in an argument about homosexuality. This definitely detracted from his overall purpose.
Overall, I could see why people might consider Timon and Pumbaa as homosexual partners but judging just from The Lion King itself, it's hard to tell. I feel like if I had just seen The Lion King 1.5 and The Lion King 2, along with the TV spin-offs (all of which are mentioned in Sweeney's essay), I would have had more reference in regards to the topic.
The Lion King
The Lion King has a special place in my heart of nostalgia. In a nutshell, that was my childhood. I had the stuffed animals, always remembered singing Hakuna Matata and all the other perfect songs from the movie, and saw all the spin-off movies and tv shows. I even went to the Lion King play when it came to town. Anyways, watching the movie again being older this time didn't change anything. It still was and always will be awesome.
The emotions that the movie develop amongst the viewers are particularly noteworthy. We truly grow with the characters. From the onset, we hate Scar, enjoy the mischievousness of Simba, and most importantly fall in love with the noble Mufasa. Forget Jack in Titanic or Dumbledore in Harry Potter, Mufasa's death will forever be the most tragic in movie deaths. With Simba sitting there in his arms as he fades, I thought I was going to start balling with my roommate right next to me (which would have lead to an interesting conversation, but I digress.) Terriblly sad? Yes, but it marks only the first half of the movie.
After, Simba becomes the main character who must follow in his father's footsteps - a classic story line. However, he isn't alone. Here we are introduced to perhaps the best personas in the whole movie. Yes, Timon and Pumbaa. This loud, in-your-face, arguably gay couple definitely lighten up the film while generating real humor. Eventually Simba, however, runs into Nala and the whole crew makes its way back to Pride Rock, where Simba clashes with and climatically defeats Scar, bringing happiness back to the kingdom.
In the Hamlet-esque plot, Simba comes full circle and is able to mature into the lion he was destined to be. There will only be one Mufasa but Simba is about as close as one can be. And that, my friend's is the Circle of Life - one of the many beautiful aspects of the Lion King.
Monday, March 2, 2015
Funny Memes
Memes are always reliable to brighten up your day and I found two great ones on the amazing website iwastesomuchtime.com today (I know I have a problem.) The first one includes Bruce from Finding Nemo so it technically fits the Disney criteria and the second needs no explanation. Enjoy.
Sunday, March 1, 2015
Amanda Putnam Response
There has been much attention shown towards the way gender has been portrayed in most Disney movie since the creation of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. Many people, both writers and regular movie viewers, have noted how the villains in these movies possess more gender-bending qualities while the heroines and heroes remain the epitome of the classic girly-girl or tough guy, respectively, that has become ingrained in many of us. Amanda Putnam is one of these people who has noted this trend. In her essay "Mean Ladies: Transgendered Villains in Disney Films," she argues that through this juxtaposition of flamboyant villains with stereotypically proper protagonists, Disney films are encouraging us to look at transgendered people in a negative light.
Her overall structure and the way she accomplishes this represents one of the strengths of the piece. First she gives a thorough description of the gender-pushing characteristics amongst the female villains, then she explains the significance behind this, and finally she repeats a similar process for the feminine male villains in the films (even if the paper's title only mentions female characters.) This isn't to say there weren't flaws in the article.
To begin, I should note she focuses on a number of certain characters, such as Cinderella's stepsisters and Ursula on the girl's side and Scar and Jafar on the guy's side, to name a few. As a whole, I actually thought she did a better job detailing the transgendered aspects of the guys, such as when she describes Scar as having " a lack of physical prowess, his language choice, and the lack of female mate." These characteristics strongly speak the flamboyant nature of many of the male villains which I thought lacked in Putnam's description of the female villains. When discussing this, it seemed Putnam mentioned areas of ugliness, such as the stepsisters having big feet, rather than actually having transgender qualities. In this area, I thought the paper was lacking.
Additionally, the overall purpose of the paper, to describe how "when transgendered qualities are marked as only being apparent in evil characters, then a stigmatized standard of normative behavior is being created and promoted," was not entirely met. In this quote, it is easy to see that Putnam really means to draw attention to how this representation of flamboyant qualities affects the public. However, the majority of the paper is devoted to detailing the characteristics in Disney villains. I will state that Putnam is commendable for noting this point in her paper. She states that, while the juxtaposition of good vs evil isn't the strongest argument for proving this point, it's the best she can do. Although this was noble of her, by failing to fully connect everything to the original thesis, the whole paper missed the mark on what it promised, a cardinal sin for academic writing.
Her overall structure and the way she accomplishes this represents one of the strengths of the piece. First she gives a thorough description of the gender-pushing characteristics amongst the female villains, then she explains the significance behind this, and finally she repeats a similar process for the feminine male villains in the films (even if the paper's title only mentions female characters.) This isn't to say there weren't flaws in the article.
To begin, I should note she focuses on a number of certain characters, such as Cinderella's stepsisters and Ursula on the girl's side and Scar and Jafar on the guy's side, to name a few. As a whole, I actually thought she did a better job detailing the transgendered aspects of the guys, such as when she describes Scar as having " a lack of physical prowess, his language choice, and the lack of female mate." These characteristics strongly speak the flamboyant nature of many of the male villains which I thought lacked in Putnam's description of the female villains. When discussing this, it seemed Putnam mentioned areas of ugliness, such as the stepsisters having big feet, rather than actually having transgender qualities. In this area, I thought the paper was lacking.
Additionally, the overall purpose of the paper, to describe how "when transgendered qualities are marked as only being apparent in evil characters, then a stigmatized standard of normative behavior is being created and promoted," was not entirely met. In this quote, it is easy to see that Putnam really means to draw attention to how this representation of flamboyant qualities affects the public. However, the majority of the paper is devoted to detailing the characteristics in Disney villains. I will state that Putnam is commendable for noting this point in her paper. She states that, while the juxtaposition of good vs evil isn't the strongest argument for proving this point, it's the best she can do. Although this was noble of her, by failing to fully connect everything to the original thesis, the whole paper missed the mark on what it promised, a cardinal sin for academic writing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)