7 Classic Disney Movies that Taught Terrible Lessons

[ulthar]

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?

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...

[Jim H]

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.

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.

[ulthar]

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.  

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.

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.

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?

[rebel_1812]

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

[Jim H]

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.

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 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 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.

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?

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.  

[HarlotBug3]

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.

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 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 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.

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?

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.

[BTM]

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.

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?

[Mr. DS]

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.

[The Gravekeeper]

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.

[ChaosTheory]

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.

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?

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  )

[Jim H]

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.

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. 

[Sersonius]

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...  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:

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.

I can't agree more about this one.