Disney- What is the Real Reason?

[BlueTomfoolery]

Spoiler

Disney always has been, and always will be, a whore to the consumer. They don't care what the product is, so long as it is marketable to children. They will sell someone else's works, dressed up in their particular blend of animation, and then merchandise the sweet-silly-fuck out of it until the consumer can't even remember that Disney wasn't that product/story's creator. Now, instead of stories, they pimp other peoples bodies. Young boys and girls' bodies, such as Miley Cyrus and the Jonas Brothers. Same result, merchandise the fuck out of it, then dump it for something new when popularity fades.

Right from the get-go, much of Disney's greater works were of someone else's creation (as has been mentioned).

Snow White - Originally a story by Brothers Grimm.
Pinocchio - A story originally by Carlo Lorenzini, used by Disney after his death.
Fantasia - The third Disney film, and the first Disney Animations Studio product that was actually originated by Disney, and a financial bomb.
Dumbo - A children's story by Helen Aberson, illustrated by Harold Perl. Again, not actually Disney in origin.
Bambi - Felix Salten wrote Bambi, and it was a bestseller almost fifteen years before Disney came along.
Saludos Amigos - Sixth Disney film, second one of their actual making. Yet again, a bomb, and only 43 minutes long.
The Three Caballeros - Seventh Disney film, third one they did themselves, overall Meh. Awards for music, otherwise not very noteworthy.
Make Mine Music - Eighth and Fourth, a propaganda piece done to keep Disney afloat during WW2. Never seen it, don't want to.
Fun and Fancy Free - Ugh, this is getting repetitive. Disney did five back-to-back musical crapfests in a 6-film deal, this was the fourth.
Melody Time - Musical crapfest #5, having learned from Fantasia's flop, they didn't bother spending much on a destined-to-be-crap film.
The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad - Last of Disney's 6-pack deal, and back on to stolen works. Kenneth Grahame's "The Wind in the Willows" for Mr. Toad, and Ichabod's half being a Disney rip of Washington Irving's "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow". 2 thefts for the price of 1.
Cinderella - Who would have seen this coming? Cinderella is based on Charles Perrault's book which goes by the same name and he was 247 years too-dead to object.
Alice in Wonderland - To the older crowd, this is the Disney film based on the book by Lewis Carroll. To the younger crowd, it's the film adaptation of the slasher/horror video game from the year 2000 by American McGee, sent back in time in a Terminator-esque paradox so McGee could grow up watching the film of the game he made, so he'd know what to base his game on. If you believe in the Lewis Carroll origins, yeah, he was 54 years dead when Disney made the film. Copyright and royalties owed on literature expires 50 years post the creator's death. Coincidence?
Peter Pan - J. M. Barrie wrote this story, and then he died. Well, OK, he lived a long and full life first, it's not like Disney offed him so they could steal his work. But strange how so far, every originator of works which Disney used are DEAD! *Dun dun daaaaah*
Lady and the Tramp - Fuck, has it been fifteen films already? Fifteen films before Disney had a major hit with something THEY originated?...
Sleeping Beauty - ... Only to go back to stealing works for film 16. Oh Walt, how could you? Charles Perrault's work again, that 247-years-dead guy. Walt Disney's last film before he became Walt Zombie (last one he worked on, not last released before dying).

To cut the rest of the list short, 101 Dalmatians was originally by Dodie Smith. The Sword in the Stone was by T. H. White. Rudyard Kipling wrote The Jungle Book. The Arisocats was adapted from the works of Tom McGowan and Tom Rowe. Just try telling me you think Robin Hood was Disney origin, considering English folk tales of him pre-date Walt Disney's birth. Alan Alexander Milne's widow sold the rights of Winnie the Pooh to Disney, which gave them rights to make The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh. Multiple novels by Margery Sharp were the origin behind The Rescuers. Daniel P. Mannix wrote The Fox and the Hound. The Black Cauldron is from Lloyd Alexander's "Chronicles of Prydain" stories. Gotta love this one, The Great Mouse Detective was taken from "Basil of Baker Street" by Eve Titus, which in turn, took heavily from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's stories of "Sherlock Holmes", which makes it twice-stolen. Oliver & Company even admits its theft in the character's name, being a ripoff of "Oliver Twist" by Charles Dickens. Perhaps one of their most successful films, The Little Mermaid is taken from the fairy tale by Hans Christian Andersen, who in turn, wrote his story based on Danish folk lore. As with "The Rescuers" (above), The Rescuers Down Under is the work of Margery Sharp. Film #30, Beauty and the Beast is again plagiarized work under the guise of "the author has been dead for centuries"; Madame Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve is credited with the first written version, "La Belle et la Bete", back in the mid 1700's. As mentioned before, Aladdin is directly copied from Arabian Nights, a collection of ancient Arabic folklore. But perhaps the absolute WORST case of copying someone else's works comes from The Lion King which is a scene-for-scene plagiarism of Osamu Tezuka's "Kimba the White Lion", and the first time where Disney actually denies using the works of others, saying The Lion King was entirely their creation... Yeah fucking right! Anyhoo, Pocahontas was based on real Native folklore (and a real woman of the same name), The Hunchback of Notre Dame was originally by Victor Hugo, and you are a fucking RETARD if I have to point out to you the true origin of Hercules. Mulan was from the Chinese legend of "Hua Mulan", Sui Dynasty (581-618AD). Tarzan of the Apes was by Edgar Rice Burroughs, and became Disney's Tarzan in 1999, 38th film of Disney Animation Studios, and the last one actually worth mention. 10 films since the turn of the millennium, with Bolt being the most recent, but that was in its own way just another product of the Miley Cyrus craze (voice of Penny in the film).

Thirty Eight Films from their opening day till the year 2000, and in that time, "Lady and the Tramp" is the only success that is actually Disney's own creation.

If you managed to read all that above, you probably have worse insomnia than I do right now, but the bottom line is, Disney is soulless and devoid of ethics, and people buy their shit by the truckload, raking in millions for a company that truly makes NOTHING.

But think about it. They turned those stories into movies and if they didn't do that then some of the stories you just pointed out would've never been known.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

nastaliga is the only reason why any one likes any of those movies.

Well, first I'd say it was "nostalgia", and Disney has always been a hotchpotch of tat and brilliance.

Alice in Wonderland, The Little Mermaid, Robin Hood, Snow White are all gems. Toy Story, Wall-e, from the recent generation.

As for the idea of "remakes"...exactly how many people know the original Russian Cinderella where she hacks off the back of her foot to make the fur slipper fit?

What Disney doesn't do well, but does a lot of, is the horrifically twee moral movies that haven't been any good since the original Freaky Friday.

Edit-Do people even read OPs? Or do they see the word Disney and jump right down to the bottom so they can post mindless hate?

You're lucky some of them read the title.

[RE:Khell's Rant]
Castle Wolfenstein ripped off World War 2.
Left 4 Dead ripped off Day Of The Dead.
Balder's Gate ripped off Chainmail.
Quake ripped off Dungeon Master.

What Disney does best is "repackage". And look at Harry Potter, The Da Vinci Code, Jason Bourne. Obviously they're totally original....

Oh, and one final word:

No Disney? No Pixar.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I REALLY want to see Up, but Transformers 2 comes out this week, before payday, so I saved up to see that instead of going to it this week.

Oooh, you're not going to enjoy that decision.

 

[SprodeMaster]

I say they cut the crap and make gold like the Lion King and Bambi again, but without any warning or transition phase. Can you imagine what it would look like to see kids smacked in the face with actual quality content?
I miss the Angry Beavers

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I REALLY want to see Up, but Transformers 2 comes out this week, before payday, so I saved up to see that instead of going to it this week.

Oooh, you're not going to enjoy that decision.

I doubt that. I REALLY enjoyed the first movie, and my Brother is in this one. I think I actually saw him in the trailer...

What does he transform into?

 

[Russian_Assassin]

It's not Disney we should blame, it's Mickey Mouse! Thankfully, he was recently defeated and returned to Valhalla, where he shall sleep for 1000 years. And yes, Jonas Brothers and Hannah Montana ARE shit

 

[Shapsters]

Big ol snip

At any point(besides Lion King) did they deny it was a story already told? What is wrong with taking classic stories, and making them kid friendly? Most, nay, almost all of these stories would not be known to the average person if not for Disney. Explain to me how retelling the exact same story is stealing? They got stories that were classic, some that were even more than classics, and retold them, in the same way the originals were told(albeit being more kid friendly). And if you look at originality, what is original anymore? Nothing, so instead of stealing from an idea, but telling a slightly different story, why not retell the story and bring it to the attention of a new generation?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I doubt that. I REALLY enjoyed the first movie, and my Brother is in this one. I think I actually saw him in the trailer...

What does he transform into?

He transforms from a Top-Notch Air Force Combat Medic into an Everyday Gun-toting Marine...

Yeah, he took a promotion in Rank but a demotion in Intelligence Stereotype to do it, but he is in the movie...

Hey, everyone in a movie has to take a -1 to INT for that +5 to CHA, but definitely worth it.

 

[Dooly95]

Big ol snip

Nothing, so instead of stealing from an idea, but telling a slightly different story, why not retell the story and bring it to the attention of a new generation?

How odd though, after Pixar entered the fray, they didn't even bother to do this.

And who can blame them? Disney can still churn out High School Musical (3, I think?) and get money for it.

 

[HentMas]

no, why? because Disney is a corporation made to appeal to kids, so they can make money, they are not "dumbing down" the kids, they just arranged their immage to appeal to those same kids...

imo, they are doing the right thing (corporationaly speaking) they tried a new thing when they made those shows, and they succeded, making the risk an awesome win

for they... still i think hanna/jhonas are stupid haha

 

[GrinningManiac]

At what point did it become crap?

I remember watching the likes of "Tarzan", "Recess" and "Kim Possible" when I was a young'un, and I enjoyed both immensley. Recently, I looked them up again to find out how they ended, and it gave me a good vibe for the day.

These days, yeah, it annoys me. My sister is very subsceptible to it, and I mock her and taunt her 24/7.

One thing I cannot stand universally in these stupid new Disney "comedies" is that the laugh tracks have ADULTS in the audience. Like fuck an adult would find that funny, or BE THERE.

 

[Zombie_Fish]

So here is my question to The Escapist members, is it Disney's fault that the current generation has been dumbed down into liking the current selection of Disney products? Should they be criticized because they know who they are selling their products to?

They have always known who they have aimed their products at, but they're getting so much hate recently because previously their films were mainly aimed at families, whilst nowadays the majority of their products are aimed at a much more specific audience. The result being they become hated by everyone else.

I say the criticism should stop! Its not Disney's fault that the kids like this crap, they need to make money don't they?

Of course they need to make money, but they make it by selling crap. That's just like saying it's not Microsoft's fault that people bought Windows Vista.

Another question, now that they have started these new products, will they be able to make another classic like previous Disney movies, or are the destined to be stuck with what they have started? And will a great cartoon bring them back to their former glory or is it too late?

Of course they could make a comeback, if they released another classic children's movie. If they released something similar to one of their classic cartoon movies or something like the classic Pixar collaborations then they could easily become successful again.

 

[chefassassin2]

If you managed to read all that above, you probably have worse insomnia than I do right now, but the bottom line is, Disney is soulless and devoid of ethics, and people buy their shit by the truckload, raking in millions for a company that truly makes NOTHING.

I could go on and on about this topic, and possibly will in the future. But before I go feed a ton of football players, I want to throw in my 2 cents about your this posting. I keep seeing that people say that Disney rips off other writings. Shakespeare himself said, "There are no new tales to tell, only new ways to tell them." People, layreaders and scholars alike, recognize that Shakespeare wrote only 2 plays that were original. By that token, using the excuse that Disney ripped off others is, in my opinion, somewhat flimsy and pointless. Stories are retold and reimagined all the time, Disney just manages to work it so it reaches a gigantic audience, that's what a company like they are in business to do. I'll admit, I feel their more recent movies and shows are not up to par with what I used to watch, but maybe I'm just used to the older movies and animation styles.

 

[ElephantGuts]

Because Walt Disney was an anti-semitic Nazi-loving prick.

Unwarranted personal issues and opinions not related to the topic are meant to be checked at the door.

Unwarranted personal issues? Opinions not related to the topic? What? The OP asked a question and I answered it. How's that not related to the topic? And there's nothing personal about a person's recorded actions and opinions.

OPs question refers to recent Disney films ie. after the Lion King, so at most, 15 or so years in the past. 1994, lets say. Disney films/properties since 1994 are enquired about in the topic.

Walt Disney died in 1965.
That is, and my maths isn't perfect, so bear with me, but that is give or take a couple of years, about 3 decades before 1994.

Can you see why your joyful tidbit of a post might be irrelevant? And might in fact, just come across as pent up bile?

Unless it was all a scam he's actually been preserved inside a Dragoon all this time, I would say Walt Disney, the man has next to nothing to do with the OPs question.

If you want to post 1 sentence hate rants, that add nothing to the discussion, at least have a paragraph or so of reasoning, pertinent to the topic, to back it up.

Otherwise, go and make a topic about Walt Disney with the OP:

'Walt Disney was an anti-semitic Nazi-loving prick.
Discuss.'

You'll find it much more enjoyable if thats what you're looking to talk about.

Teel;Deer?
Then pretty much this:

Edit-Do people even read OPs? Or do they see the word Disney and jump right down to the bottom so they can post mindless hate?

Okay, I think I see the issue here. It is your opinion that the Disney corporation today is not related to the man. Which is understandable, and there are plenty of reasons for that. But I don't feel the same way. When I hear "Disney" I think of its founder of the same name, a person I hate for his beliefs. As I said before, if they don't want me to associate the company with its founder then they should take his bloody name off of everything. If the Nazi party had survived and changed its ways and started helping people, I wouldn't care if it was 3 decades later, they're still the Nazis.

Besides, I wanted to say something different than complaining about the crappy shows and music they shove down our children's throats, as I knew plenty of people would.

And I don't think my statement required any explanation, or how I would even go about doing that.

Because Walt Disney was an anti-semitic Nazi-loving prick.

And that's what made his movies so great.[/sarcasm] That and he had a sick sense of humor, and a penchant for hidden messages.

Wait, your sarcasm confuses me. What are you saying? What is and isn't sarcasm?

Everything BEFORE /Sarcasm (Read as End Sarcasm) is Sarcastic, everything FOLLOWING that is his true opinion.

Yeah, I got that, but I was confused as to whether or not he was actually saying that Disney's anti-semitism didn't make his movies great. Was it really necessary to say that? I never said that, but just because he still made good movies doesn't redeem his other qualities.

Because Walt Disney was an anti-semitic Nazi-loving prick.

You speak as if that is a bad thing.

Yes, yes I do.

...

Was it necessary to point that out? I thought it was fairly clear, are you insinuating I should revise my statement in order to clarify it?