Badmovies.org Forum

I found this list on cracked dot com and it instantly caught my attention.  I find it pretty amusing and in reality, they do bring up some good points about some of the weird tones in the film.  I think the Little Mermaid one gets me the most and makes the most sense to me how bad the lesson is in reality when you really sit down and think about how Ariel got what she wanted.

http://www.cracked.com/article_16905_7-classic-disney-movies-that-taught-us-terrible-lessons.html (http://www.cracked.com/article_16905_7-classic-disney-movies-that-taught-us-terrible-lessons.html)

I'm sure I'll still love the Disney classics, but I totally agree with all of those. The problem with most Disney films is causality and consequence. There are no consequences for the questionable actions of the hero/heroine.

I'll add Pinocchio to the list. The Blue Fairy gives this poor old man an animated marionette with no moral compass, save a cricket who is supposed to be his conscience, since he has no soul. What a recipe for disaster from the start, that horrible b***h Blue Fairy. The poor old man, with no clue how to raise a child, just sends the completely naive little golem on his own to fend for himself with no guidance whatsoever. Then Pinocchio proceeds from one disastrous decision to the next, until the hapless old man has to go save his ass, and the little splinter gets to become a real boy anyway. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that the real ending is, the little s**t, after becoming a real boy, is good for about a day before going back to being a little s**t, and the dopey old man will continue to offer no guidance and bail the bastard out over and over, in an endless cycle of codependency, unless the little idiot goes and gets himself killed, which is probably the more likely outcome.

Although it's not on the list, BAMBI, sends some mixed messages.

Such as: All HUNTERS ARE EVIL AND BURN DOWN FORESTS

My husband has been an avid hunter for over 35 years.  He is an ethical hunter, admires the wildlife, and respects the enviornment.   I am sure that there are more hunters like him, than not. 

Yeah, I know it's a cartoon, but I had to put my 2 cents in.

These three bother me the most and are sooo true. 
From the list...
Cinderella~
"If you wait around long enough, the universe will practically hand stuff to you".

Beauty and the beast~ 

"Underneath the abusive exterior of your man is a loving heart he's just dying to share with you"

 The fox and the hound~
"And by "get along" we mean "don't kill each other." We certainly do not mean "live together." Don't be silly, you belong to different races!"

 
 

You know I like that list.  It is well thought out and accurate. 

I've always said the Beast is a complete d*ckhead. He only starts to be nice to Belle when he realizes his time is short to find love to end the curse. 

Another thing I don't like about The Little Mermaid is Ariel's direct disobeyment of her father.  To make matters worse that disobeyment leads to her dreams coming true.  Nothing like saying "F" your parents to get what you've always wanted. 

Yeah, they make some good points there.

I'll play devil's advocate real quick on a couple of them: Belle hated the Beast at first and didn't give him any positive reaction until he stopped acting abusive (but yeah, it's still an unhealthy message).  And in Sleeping Beauty, Aurora & Prince Philip had already met and hit it off before the spell took effect.  That raises something that's always bugged me about Disney flicks though: the love stories are always absurdly rushed. Seriously, you've known each other, what, two days?  Mulan and Aladdin are the only ones where the relationship progression feels even a little natural.
Didn't they do a DTV Hunchback sequel where Quasi DOES land a pretty girl?  It always struck me as kind of odd that they even adapted that story at all; that's some dark material in there, even with the weird slapped-on happy ending.
One Disney movie that surprised me in terms of sending a POSITIVE message was The Princess and the Frog. The primary message was, it takes hard work to get what you want; family and self-reliance are more important than material things, and a deal with the devil? NOT a good idea.

Yeah, it's actually a little better in the original book.  I might add the consequences in the book are considerably darker - for example, Pinocchio's friend who gets turned into a donkey?  Pinocchio meets him later, and finds out a farmer has been mistreating him badly, so badly in fact that the boy dies soon after.

But in the original, Gepetto is a better father (he's basically a flawless character in the book) and in fact the block of wood Pinocchio was carved from could ALREADY talk before he made him into a puppet.  Suffice to say, Pinocchio is just a bad son, who through many awful trials learns his lessons. 

I have to disagree with the list a little bit on Cinderella.  It was supposed to be her extreme kindness that led to her happy ending.  She wasn't miserable at all, she was really quite happy with her little animal friends, singing songs and doing little sewing projects.  I always had a feeling that if the whole ball & prince thing didn't work out, her and her little friends would eventually get the step-family out of the picture.

I also disagreed with Sleeping Beauty, but ChaosTheory already pointed out the flaw there.

I have to disagree with number three- not all ugly guys gets the girls, hell, I'm ugly as sin and i still got a girlfriend!

I can't plug Cracked.com enough. It's like a magical land where crass humor lives in harmony with knowledge and thought.

50s and 60s kids seem so nostalgic about their good ol days. Cracked's disney lists, among others, really point out how 80s kids are growing up to realize they were fed a steady cultural diet of complete BS.

 

Perhaps a bit too crass and not enough "thought."

I'd love to share that article with a friend of mine (who has two daughters)...the points are solid enough.  But the language is atrocious and I know my friend would NOT appreciate me sending her such an article.

I've said this a bunch, and I'll repeat it here again:  Why?  Why is lowering the standard deemed so necessary?  Would that article not be just as good without the gutter talk?  What does it add?

Really, it makes me think a teenager (or just as bad, a college student) wrote it, thereby losing about 93% of the credibility it almost had.

Sorry.

It's part of the exaggerated, open-eyed persona that all the writers on Cracked use - they're writing as if they were an everyman who suddenly discovered these things and is, like, totally shocked, or, whatever.  It's supposed to add humor, somewhat similar to Ben Thompson, writer of Badass of the Week.

The biggest difference is I actually find Ben Thompson is actually amusing and the stores are interesting, whereas Cracked lists are just interesting.

http://www.badassoftheweek.com/list.html (http://www.badassoftheweek.com/list.html)

I think that this is the key to why more and more "serious" writers are using profanity, even when it doesn't add anything to the piece.  They think dropping a few f-words makes them sound unpretentious, just like an average Joe.  I think they're trying to portray themselves as smart, but not stuck up: "see, I may be brainy and insightful but it's nonthreatening 'cause can cuss just as hard as you guys!" 

Personally, I'd rather be threatening.

Oh man, that's even worse!  So it's fake - an affect?  Someone trying to "portray" being cool or just an Average Joe?

I guess my question is why is THIS the measure of cool or how to show you are not stuck up?  Do all Average Joes really talk this way when just discussing DISNEY MOVIES?  Wow.

Seems like a good way to show you are not pretentious is to just BE non-pretentious.  But what could *I* possibly know about that?   :twirl:

Well, arguably the way people write when they are in their normal voice is just as fake.  Anyone who writes for a specific market is doing an affect to some degree or another.  And almost all for-profit writers are doing just that.  Or for that matter, consider the angry editorials in local newspapers that are completely lacking in swearing, when in fact they'd be likely to have some in them if the papers allowed it.  Isn't that basically the same thing in reverse?

That said though, I think some people at Cracked are decent writers, but I must admit the voice they use I do find irritating as generally the stuff they dig up is interesting enough that I'd prefer a more straight forward, clearly presented method.

You are making an assumption that everybody swears or at least that everybody swears when they are (a) angry (b) trying to be persuasive and/or (c) speaking/writing formally.

Most professionals that I know do not swear, especially in professional environments or when wanting to be taken seriously by their colleagues.  I think Hollywood movies have done a lot to promote this notion that EVERYBODY swears in ordinary, everyday life.

Letting something fly spontaneously in a very stressful situation is one thing.  I think Mary's three-word tirade in SAVED was pretty realistic and very effective characterization.  But it is completely different, and false in my view, to portray say a doctor or cop throwing out f words and s words in what amounts to casual speech. 

I think movie writers overuse the profanity cliche (even something as benign as the d-word) as a lazy shortcut to to show "this character is SERIOUS about what he's saying."

I sure don't take real-life people seriously when they swear...in fact, I have a tendency to dismiss them as juvenile, just as I did the writers of this article.

Just my point of view...

It's not just the lack of swearing.  The way people write when they're creating magazine, newspaper or web articles is deliberately altered to suit the market they're writing for - whether it is for Cracked, The New York Times, or Mad Magazine.  That's what I'm getting at.  

In any case, you'd be hard-pressed to convince me the vitriolic pieces I've read in some extreme places lack a few cuss words for any reason besides editorial standards.

Here's where we disagree.  I DON'T think everyone alters the way they write to suit the market.  Some people talk and write in an erudite, professional manner because that is who they are.  They DON'T have to strip out 'the gutter' to APPEAR professional.  For these people, those I have met anyway, talking in a lower form would be the affect that is put on when they think they need to do that to appear 'cool' in some informal, social situation.

But they likely would not bother even then.  It's not who they are.  Not everyone talks like that.


I don't suppose I will convince you, but I believe that in at least SOME cases, those pieces lack that language because it is NOT the way the people that wrote them think or speak.

I'm sorry, but we used to use a term for this:  class.  Higher "class" people (which has little to do with money) don't speak in a manner that may offend others.  They don't assume the lowest common denominator in ANY social behavior.  Classiness was something to which we used to aspire; now it is derided or assumed already non-existent.

And my real point in bringing this up to begin with is to ask:  "What does this lowering of the social standard bring to the discussion?"  In my opinion, the answer is, "absolutely nothing of value."  Would the merit of the Cracked article on Disney films' bad messages be any lessened without the foul language?

And part of the reason I ask that last question is because the presence of the language most certainly DETRACTED from their readership.  As I said, I would have liked to have passed it on to not just one friend, but a whole network of friends with children.  But I know NONE of these acquaintances would have liked that aspect, nor my lack of consideration for sending it to them knowing it contained that language.

So, the final score on this article as I see it:  foul language adds nothing to the piece but reduces readership.  How is that good business for cracked.com?

The lesson learned from beauty and the beast was the best.  Abusive men have big hearts!!!

I agree, actually.  I just think a significant number of people do write in a way outside of their normal writing voice to appeal to specific markets.  It's not just swearing, as I've said earlier, nor is it just being professional.  There are a variety of voices used in commercial writing.


I didn't say ALL of them were like that; I specifically limited it to some of the worst I've read.  It sounds to me like you agree that some pieces are self-censored because of where they're being published - you even see the writers themselves alluding to this in some pieces (they'll say they wish they could use harsher language, or some such).  Point is, it's done for the exact same reason Cracked might deliberately decide to include swearing.


You kind of answered your own question: "Classiness was something to which we used to aspire; now it is derided or assumed already non-existent."  

If the people they're catering to WANT liberal swearing (I will say for internet writing of this type, there's actually not that much - six cusses beyond the PG level) and a general lack of class (this is the same site that has a list of the worst celebrity sex tapes, and details what occurs in them, after all), and that ensures they come back, it makes sense from a business stand point.

I should add I'm mostly playing Devil's Advocate here.  I do think swearing can be used in a humorous way to add something to writing like this, which is why I mentioned Ben Thompson.  But in the case of Cracked, for me personally, the writing style doesn't add much (with or without swearing), I mostly just find the information itself interesting.  

It was fun to read this back and forth between you two. A shame it seems to be winding down as I'd love to play Devil's-Devil's advocate, or Devil if you please.

No one can curse or NOT curse insincerely. The choice is made with every word and made in the author’s own unreachable mind. It’s impossible to know whether they are smarting up or dumbing down, a balancing act in either case and thus a paradox.

Well, in fairness, I'm don't think that's meant to be portrayed as a "realistic" romance rather than just a device to move the plot forward.  I mean, after all, Romeo and Juliet got married after knowing each other what, a day?

It seems to be pre-Pixar that the lessons are kind of odd.  Pixar seems to get the lessons right in general.  For example the Toy Story series;

Toy Story - Jealousy will lead you nowhere.
Toy Story 2 - Fame won't ever make up for good friends.
Toy Story 3 - Friends stay together although sometimes, they can outgrow each other. 

Finding Nemo is a very heart felt one for me as a parent.  It actually covers both ends of the parent/child spectrum.  As a parent, you eventually have to let go of your baby and let them explore the world.  As a kid, you may earn your wings to explore the world but your parents will be there for you and you should continue to listen to their guidance.

Yeah, older Disney kinda bugs me. I mean, sure, the stories are generally pretty well told and entertaining, but they tend to reinforce the old stereotype that all that a girl should hope for in life is to be with a man. Belle was so close to breaking the mold on that one, but of course as soon as the Beast starting being nice to her, well, her entire life seemed to revolve around him. I know it sounds harmless, but when a little girl's movies are full of messages that inadvertently say "you're worthless without a man" it can affect her outlook on life. It probably won't mold her into some sort of zombie with the goal of simply getting married, but the influence is still there.

Well, okay, Mulan was an exception since her goal was to help save China and her father rather than to bag herself a husband. I'm still disappointed that she turned down an extremely influential position for no adequately explained reason. "I want to go home" doesn't count since she could have visited her father first and then come back for the job.

Yeah, that's true enough.  I suppose it would bug me less if - as Gravekeeper pointed out so well - the female protagonists were allowed other goals besides landing a husband.  Mulan managed to break from that, and to some extent Tiana from Princess & the Frog; she marries Naveen but she also opens up her own restaurant in the end like she wanted.  
Of course it's not just Disney that does this, that's what's so frustrating. Just about every movie that's marketed towards girls takes this tack.  (Anybody here suffer through The Ugly Truth?  That movie made me want to burn things  :hatred:)

What's funny about Mulan is they portray China as more backward and sexist than it actually was in the era, which is pretty friggin' impressive. 

Ehmmm... What are you talking about guys (and girls) ? The movies like Cinderella portrays passive women because they were made in a different era. The perception of woman's postion in society and provate life changed sginificantly since then. I cant understand how it is bad (or good) ? It just is. Saying it is a "terible lesson" is like saying that the whole 19th century literature taught 'wrong' lessons - and i know that some people do...  :bluesad: It is not a coincidence that the heroines of more recent movies from the studio becomes more independent, more accomplished and less passive - as they should. Saying however that the older Disney movies taught "wrong lessons" is illogical because they taught exactly what society at the time expected. It is the exact opposite of "terrible".
On the other hand, if "The Princes and the Frog" taught the same things as Cinderella movie... but it doesn't because times have changed.


Most of those supposedly "terrible Lessons" listed are bulll***t imho but Disney movies DO teach "wrong" things sometimes, good exemple from one of previous posts:

I can't agree more about this one.