|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Both a revealing and insanely clueless anecdote. I'm just the messenger of the anecdote. Its implications and meanings are another kettle of fish entirely.
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 08:25 |
|
|
Tartarus Sauce posted:I'm just the messenger of the anecdote. Its implications and meanings are another kettle of fish entirely. Oh, I know, it's just remarkable the way social norms change in living memory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Oh, I know, it's just remarkable the way social norms change in living memory. It really is. Thinkers and artists who were considered progressive--even radical--in their own day are considered backwards and prejudiced today. And, it occurs to me that even if they *had* tried to envelope even a little harder--assuming the thought to do so would've occurred to them at all--they probably would've been completely dogpiled. James Baskett receiving an "honorary" Academy Award for his performance was actually impressive in its day, and that's rightly mortifying to us today.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
Tartarus Sauce posted:And, it occurs to me that even if they *had* tried to envelope even a little harder--assuming the thought to do so would've occurred to them at all--they probably would've been completely dogpiled. That's part of it as well. Heck, the Hayes Code was in effect Walt Disney's entire life. Even if he'd had a reel of Lilo & Stitch he wanted to bring to the world, there's nowhere he could have shown it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
Pick posted:That's part of it as well. Heck, the Hayes Code was in effect Walt Disney's entire life. Even if he'd had a reel of Lilo & Stitch he wanted to bring to the world, there's nowhere he could have shown it. Well, and if you can believe it, the Hayes Code was originally implemented as a "compromise" to help directors retain creative control of their projects! Really, there are echoes of the MPAA here, but that's another conversation entirely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Waffleman_ posted:Well, I believe the characters are still in use on Splash Mountain, which was partly inspired by Song of the South. As of two years ago those characters were definitely roaming Disney World in full costume like Mickey or Donald would — almost makes me wonder why Song of the South is completely unavailable, yet the characters have their own theme park ride and more.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
redcheval posted:As of two years ago those characters were definitely roaming Disney World in full costume like Mickey or Donald would — almost makes me wonder why Song of the South is completely unavailable, yet the characters have their own theme park ride and more. Because with the exception of "Tar Baby" - which is questionable - the cartoons themselves aren't bad, it's the framing story that's unacceptable. Robindaybird fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Feb 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
The Brer rabbit and brer bear (and other animals like a fox and such) still often appear in Dutch donald duck comics. The comics made them more generic incompetent bad guys against the good rabbit though, basically dagobert duck versus the beagle boys but with carrots.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
Robindaybird posted:Because with the exception of "Tar Baby" - which is questionable - the cartoons themselves aren't bad, it's the framing story that's unacceptable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
I imagine most people, especially the younger generation, associates Brer Bear and Brer Rabbit (as well as the songs) with Splash Mountain more than Song of the South at this point. It's one of the most popular rides at the park, and any merchandise with them is usually centered around Splash Mountain. It's all pretty far removed from Song of the South at this point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
^^^ also this probablyRobindaybird posted:Because with the exception of "Tar Baby" - which is questionable - the cartoons themselves aren't bad, it's the framing story that's unacceptable. True, and I didn't know apparently some of them were released outside of the actual film — even so, I would assume these are characters not many people have actually seen, so it was weird seeing the costumed characters giving little kids signatures and stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
resurgam40 posted:Song of the South is... interesting to consider, on a racial perspective. There are a lot of people who would say it was another noble attempt at racial relations that misfired, others that say it should be kept for posterity as a lesson, and all that; I'd like it to be released myself (mostly so I can give it to my step-father; Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah is his favorite song), but I can't say in good conscience that it is inoffensive. There's a real discussion to be had, but being white, I can only say so much... Fortunately, Big Media Vandalism has an exploration of Song of the South that's good for a synopsis too; I think it's a good review and exploration of the issues. That link is a very interesting read, thank you for posting it. It actually clarifies a lot for me. I really think Disney should just release it and maybe do as the Popeye cartoon did and put a disclaimer in front. quote:Davincie posted:The Brer rabbit and brer bear (and other animals like a fox and such) still often appear in Dutch donald duck comics. The comics made them more generic incompetent bad guys against the good rabbit though, basically dagobert duck versus the beagle boys but with carrots. Probably because we're not that familiar with the stereotype they had. Only the bear is really incompetent though, the fox generally has decent enough plans. All this talk about the Croods being good makes me want to see it. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 09:50
|
|
|
I had to tell the story of Br'er Rabbit and the Tar Baby to a group of colleagues who had never heard the term "tar baby." Is this a generational thing, a cultural thing, a regional thing, or all or some of the above? Oh, and I'm hoping to make the family watch the Croods this week sometime, because the designs really are stunning.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
All of some of the above, definitely regional, too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
Tartarus Sauce posted:I had to tell the story of Br'er Rabbit and the Tar Baby to a group of colleagues who had never heard the term "tar baby." Is this a generational thing, a cultural thing, a regional thing, or all or some of the above? I heard the story as a child and they just excised the tar baby part entirely, it's not like it was a crucial part of the story instead of some other trap.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9AtLVPjPLw
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
what the hell did I just watch?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
I think i ate something bad. That was either animation or a halucination.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Tell me I wasn't the only one who thought of this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
Wow, I haven't thought of Bobby's world in ages.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
A new Resident's music video?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
It honestly reminds me of this classic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiARsQSlzDc
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
I see "tar baby" as kind of like "Uncle Tom" - it's a racial slur based on a willfully racist misinterpretation of a non-racist (or, in the case of Uncle Tom, explicitly anti-racist abolitionist) story, and I don't want to acknowledge the existence of the slur because I feel that gives credence to the willfully racist misinterpretation. EDIT: Oh, poo poo, Wikipedia actually agrees with me on this! I wasn't expecting that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar-Baby LaughMyselfTo fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Feb 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Tartarus Sauce posted:I had to tell the story of Br'er Rabbit and the Tar Baby to a group of colleagues who had never heard the term "tar baby." Is this a generational thing, a cultural thing, a regional thing, or all or some of the above? I feel like aside from the n-word, most racial slurs are generational. I know terms like "tar baby" and "spooks" from reading, taking classes, and watching movies circa 1930-40, but if I didn't do those things (and lots of people don't), I would have never heard them before. I remember taking an ethnic studies class in high school where the first thing we would do for each unit was to list stereotypes for each race, and then we would explore where those stereotypes come from--and I remember being totally baffled at some of the things that my instructor mentioned (like black people being afraid of ghosts), which I had never heard of at the time, and, with the exception of old Mantan Moreland films, have never heard of since. Speaking of how fast social mores change, there's a good example--I can't imagine an ethnic studies class today being given free reign to suggest and discuss racial slurs and stereotypes with no real context. And that was less than 15 years ago. To get back to the Disney and -isms discussion, one of my friends last year pointed out how many of Disney's villains are queer-coded. There's Ursula, who was pointedly modeled on the drag queen Divine. There's Scar and Jafar, who are presented as scheming and effeminate (remember Scar's limp wrist?), foppish Captain Hook, Prince John in Robin Hood, Ratigan (so much sexual tension with Basil! kidding, but not really kidding), Hades in Hercules. (I've also seen talk about the Pocahontas villain, but I only saw that once, so I can't swear to it.) It's something I'd never thought of before, but once explained it was so obvious that now I can't help from it being the first thing I see. I think Disney's more or less abandoned it once it moved into the 21st century, but up until that point it was a pretty common trope for them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
So I'm going to die in 7 days since I just watched that right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
I think that it's easy to conflate a queer reading and the "smooth operator" archetype, or the "schemer". There is crossover, but I think to some degree that it's more about macho culture than sexuality in particular. Mufasa is better than Scar because he offers to straight-up fight him for dominance. Scar couldn't win in a fight though, like a man. Scar's a manipulative poo poo, like a woman. Whether this means Scar has sex with other male lions (such as??) is practically a detail or a flourish. The shameful part is their refusal to evidence traditionally "masculine" traits, whether or not it's even within that person's capacity to do so ("shallow end of the gene pool"). This gets muddied because it's so strongly associated with homosexuality, but I think it stands as its own kind of bigotry as well. I don't think Ratcliffe, for example, was meant to be read as even potentially gay. He more exemplifies the "rich people couldn't do a day's worth of a Real Man's job if they tried" idea, which is popular with, well, everyone who isn't rich. I think the maroon color of his outfit is more to establish his aristocratic character than make any suggestion as to his sexuality (lots of jewel tones). I think his hairstyle is supposed to be more evocative of a ram's horns than evocative of dick lust. The film also makes a point to show him out of this regalia.  (Wiggins, on the other hand  ) Likewise, I think Jafar falls into this boat. He's slimy as hell, but I don't think it is supposed to read as indicative of his sexuality. I think he's supposed to give you more that "creepy rear end in a top hat boss whose exploitative behavior gets excused or overlooked because he's good as his job" vibe. Its own thing. Also, Jafar is not built particularly differently than Aladdin, who has modest shoulders and a thin waist. It feels more like it's keyed into the general style of the film (lots of long, wavy vertical lines).  This absolutely follows for Hades as well. (They're cut from the same cloth, but let's be honest, Hades is better even than Jafar  ) Frollo would certainly also be categorized here if not for his extremely explicitly sexual behavior towards Esmerelda. He also has a thin waist, flowing clothes, jewel tones. He's a manipulator and his movements have that smooth, flowing quality that people tend to see as effeminate.  (Big ol gay hat) Goethel, Edgar Balthezar, and Facilier also have grandiose motions and rely on trickery but they never seem to get thrown onto the list of super gay villains for whatever reason--it ends up feeling a little arbitrary who is and isn't. I think the better question is "why are villains presented with more exaggeration?" where these exaggerations sometimes lead people to see stereotypes I feel are not always intended (but sometimes are). So I don't think you can just look at the color purple and smooth motions and go "BIG OL GAY", especially in the earlier films, in part because the association with "un-manliness" and homosexuality per se seems to wax and wane a little. I mean, the "gayest" character in all of Disney canon by today's standards is probably the titular Reluctant Dragon, but I have a hard time thinking that this was their intention in 1941. On the other hand it's definitely a recurring implication, occurring more prominently in some films than others. In Lion King, for example, the Broadway show actually has a clumsy subplot about Scar wanting to bang Nala in an effort to diffuse this. (I think Scar, in the original film, really is supposed to have an a homosexual read). I think of the entire Disney villain canon, Scar and Ratigan are the two for whom it seems they were most suggesting this dimension.  Though is he really that different from Jafar? He almost looks like Lion Jafar. Part of that might be Deja's style. e: It's interesting to make the similarities and differences between him and Shere Khan, because they definitely cribbed a bit of Khan-ness but you wouldn't confuse the two in a million years. 
Pick fucked around with this message at 06:40 on Feb 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
God drat, look at Ratcliffe and Wiggins there compared to Smith and Jonathan. That film had stylistic consistency problems out the buttzoo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
Pick posted:God drat, look at Ratcliffe and Wiggins there compared to Smith and Jonathan. That film had stylistic consistency problems out the buttzoo. Atlantis and Treasure Planet are the worst Disney offenders in that regard (and in many others). Aside from Xtreme Skysurfer Kid and his mom, I don't think you could pick two Treasure Planet characters who look like they're from the same film.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 09:13
|
|
|
Kid Fenris posted:Atlantis and Treasure Planet are the worst Disney offenders in that regard (and in many others). Aside from Xtreme Skysurfer Kid and his mom, I don't think you could pick two Treasure Planet characters who look like they're from the same film. I figured they were going for that given the entire rest of the cast are all different types of aliens
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
It's the chin. Shere Khan's chin is rounded and masculine, whereas Scar's is slender and effeminate. Shere Khan will eat you. Scar will hire some Hyenas to do it for him then take the credit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
It's not the chin, it's the cheekbones. Almost all Disney villains have pronounced cheekbones.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
Pick posted:I think that it's easy to conflate a queer reading and the "smooth operator" archetype, or the "schemer". There is crossover, but I think to some degree that it's more about macho culture than sexuality in particular. Mufasa is better than Scar because he offers to straight-up fight him for dominance. Scar couldn't win in a fight though, like a man. Scar's a manipulative poo poo, like a woman. Whether this means Scar has sex with other male lions (such as??) is practically a detail or a flourish. The shameful part is their refusal to evidence traditionally "masculine" traits, whether or not it's even within that person's capacity to do so ("shallow end of the gene pool"). This gets muddied because it's so strongly associated with homosexuality, but I think it stands as its own kind of bigotry as well. This was a particularly interesting post to read, thank you! My first natural reaction is to argue that I think it's probably more common/likely that homosexual reads on characters (and hell, Jafar totally wanted to hook up with Jasmine. Maybe?) are just an accidental or coincidental byproduct of their design and general personality. But then I remembered both Scar and Jafar were designed by Andreas Deja, who is a gay animator and artist. I even have a piece of his Scar concept art lying around somewhere that I remember him writing about, saying he was too similar to Jafar and adding some of that scruff on his cheeks helped differentiate the designs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
Kid Fenris posted:Atlantis and Treasure Planet are the worst Disney offenders in that regard (and in many others). Aside from Xtreme Skysurfer Kid and his mom, I don't think you could pick two Treasure Planet characters who look like they're from the same film. I think Atlantis works, but you're right on Treasure Planet. Some designs are very busy/angular and look odd when they're next to something simple/rounded (or busy/rounded and simple/angular). Some are very cartoony, like the slug pirate, and others are not really at all. Like Flint! Let's appreciate this overlooked but extremely cool-looking Disney villain for just a moment. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
Pick posted:I think Atlantis works, but you're right on Treasure Planet. Some designs are very busy/angular and look odd when they're next to something simple/rounded (or busy/rounded and simple/angular). Some are very cartoony, like the slug pirate, and others are not really at all. Like Flint! Let's appreciate this overlooked but extremely cool-looking Disney villain for just a moment. I wanted to say he's not precisely a villain and just a legendary badass, but then I remember that he really raised my expectations for that movie. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
Pick posted:I think Atlantis works, but you're right on Treasure Planet. Some designs are very busy/angular and look odd when they're next to something simple/rounded (or busy/rounded and simple/angular). Some are very cartoony, like the slug pirate, and others are not really at all. Like Flint! Let's appreciate this overlooked but extremely cool-looking Disney villain for just a moment. Treasure planet has probably the worst ratio of quality of movie to quality of animation of all time. The opposite of Hoodwinked, if you will.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
I actually like Treasure Planet, but it could easily have been much, much, much better and no, I wouldn't give a poo poo about it if the animation were Robin-Hood-tier. Same way I feel about Atlantis, actually, although Atlantis is funnier.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
The "Scar wants to bang Nala" dealie was in one of the early script treatments for Disney, along with a Be Prepared reprise and a major creep factor: http://m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F#/home (Hopefully that's not just a mobile link, friggin' Kindle.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Hmm, they must have gone pretty far with it if they'd fully animated parts (like Zazu). My problem with it is the same as it probably was for the writers; it's just unnecessary, plus it lacks a certain logic. Scar is supposed to be an intelligent villain, he can suffer a certain degree of denial but that's stretching it a ways.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
I liked Treasure planet myself, long john silver being the standout of the cast while the cgi robot nearly made it terrible. Still while it's alright there are clearly better Treasure island movies out there. Like Muppet treasure island!
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 08:25 |
|
|
Pick posted:Hmm, they must have gone pretty far with it if they'd fully animated parts (like Zazu). My problem with it is the same as it probably was for the writers; it's just unnecessary, plus it lacks a certain logic. Scar is supposed to be an intelligent villain, he can suffer a certain degree of denial but that's stretching it a ways. Agreed. I think adding in the Nala subplot would confuse his motivation as a villain (you got lust in my greed) and part of Scar's charm was his social objectivity. His villainy is logical whereas someone like Frollo would exemplify emotional villainy. Best left unused.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 17:51
|
|