Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 11:20:38 AM

Login with username, password and session length

The 'Fuck You, Disney' Thread

Started by St_Eddie, April 24, 2019, 08:07:34 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

jobotic

If someone replaced my cigarettes with Chupa Chups I reckon I could live with that.


New page - and fuck you Disney.

madhair60

Quote from: Monsieur Verdoux on April 26, 2019, 01:21:33 PM
Isn't West Side Story about gang violence?

No, you're thinking of The Warriors.

here's the synopsis for West Side Story:

QuoteIn present-day New York City, an Eastern bluebird named Buster runs away from his siblings and he meets an intelligent orange Tyrannosaurus named Rex, who is playing golf. He explains to Buster that he was once a ravaging dinosaur, and proceeds to tell his personal story.

In a prehistoric jungle, Rex is terrorizing other dinosaurs when a spaceship lands on Earth, piloted by an alien named Vorb. Vorb captures Rex and gives him "Brain Grain", a breakfast cereal that anthropomorphizes Rex and vastly increases his intelligence. Rex is introduced to other dinosaurs, altered by the Brain Grain: a blue Triceratops named Woog, a purple Pteranodon named Elsa, and a green Parasaurolophus named Dweeb. They soon meet Vorb's employer Captain Neweyes, the inventor of Brain Grain, who reveals his goal of allowing the children of the present time to see real dinosaurs. He plans to take them to Doctor Julia Bleeb who will guide them to the Museum of Natural History, and warns them of Professor Screweyes, his cruel and insane brother who travels around down at the time causing mischief, after being driven mad by the loss of his eye long ago.

Neweyes drops the dinosaurs off in the Hudson River in the present day, but they are unable to meet with Bleeb. Instead, they meet a young boy named Louie, who plans on running away to join the circus. Louie agrees to help the dinosaurs get to the museum. Riding on Elsa, Louie soon encounters a girl named Cecilia, who is miserable with her life because of her neglectful parents. She agrees to run away with Louie and help the dinosaurs, and when she threw away her Thanksgiving hat, it lands on a little girl who wished for a similar hat and ends up granting her wish. To prevent mass panic, Louie decides that the dinosaurs need to stay hidden during their journey to the museum. He disguises them as floats in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. But when Rex sees the Apatosaurus balloon coming out in the parade, Rex naively greets it, thinking it is real and already intelligent like he is. Then in the process of hand-shaking, Rex unwittingly punctures the balloon, causing it to run out of air and fall on the dinosaurs, but left them unharmed. When the audience realize that live dinosaurs are among them, they fly into a panic, and the dinosaurs flee to Central Park while being pursued by the police and the army.

Meanwhile, Louie and Cecilia meet Professor Screweyes, who is running his "Eccentric Circus". Unaware of Screweyes' sinister nature, the children sign a contract to perform in his circus troupe. When the dinosaurs arrive at the circus, Screweyes explains that he delights in scaring people and believes that the dinosaurs would make a great addition to his circus. Using his "Brain Drain", pills that are the polar opposite of his brother's Brain Grain, Screweyes devolves Louie and Cecilia into chimpanzees. When he offers the dinosaurs to consume the pills and join his circus as a ransom in exchange for the two children's freedom, they reluctantly accept and Screweyes releases Louie and Cecilia, agreeing to tear up their contract in the process. Knowing their friendship will be lost forever, Rex transforms Louie and Cecilia back to their human forms with his gentle pats. And before leaving, he sadly tells the two children to remember him.

As the kids awake the next morning, they are greeted by a circus clown named Stubbs, who works for Professor Screweyes, serves them breakfast and explains everything. Upon seeing the dinosaurs returned to their natural savage states, Louie and Cecilia plan to sneak into the night's show and save the dinosaurs with Stubbs' help. That night, Professor Screweyes opens his circus with a parade of demons and evil spirits, and then unveils the dinosaurs to the terrified audience. Screweyes says he can control Rex, and proceeds to hypnotize him, while bragging that he is never afraid. However, a crow unintentionally activates the flare lights, breaking Rex out of the trance. Realizing he has been tricked, Rex becomes enraged and attempts to eat Screweyes, making him afraid after his talk. However, Louie steps in and desperately talks Rex out of killing Screweyes. His impassioned pleas and loving touches, along with Cecilia's, return Rex and the other dinosaurs to their kind and friendly natures. Just then, Captain Neweyes arrives in his ship and congratulates Louie and Cecilia, who proceed to kiss, while Stubbs announces his resignation from Professor Screweyes' employ. Neweyes, Louie, Cecilia and the dinosaurs board the aircraft, leaving Screweyes to be swarmed upon and devoured by the crows and one crow flies off with his now powerless screw.

The dinosaurs spend the rest of their days in the museum, allowing children to see live dinosaurs, and thus fulfilling their wishes. Back in the present, Rex tells Buster that he and his fellow dinosaurs are still in the museum. He also reveals that Louie and Cecilia have reconciled with their respective parents and become a couple. Rex returns Buster to his family, ignoring his brothers' taunts while hugging his mom, and Rex tells him to remember his story before leaving for the museum.

Natalie Wood made a pretty convincing stegosaurus imo

SavageHedgehog

Quote from: jobotic on April 26, 2019, 01:22:53 PM
If someone replaced my cigarettes with Chupa Chups I reckon I could live with that.

You ever play the original pre-censored version of Zool which was sponsored by Marlboro?

greenman

Quote from: colacentral on April 26, 2019, 12:04:48 PMYeah, spot on; what I was trying to say about the Arnie dreck of the 90's, the Lost in Space's, The Mummy franchise with Scorpion King spinoffs etc. As if pre-Iron Man it was a golden age of quality blockbusters. They were churning out superhero films for years before that, like X-Men, Daredevil, Catwoman etc, and they were 90% bobbins.

And as you say, the big issue isn't so much that they aren't making dramas etc for an adult audience - it's the dearth of both talent and criticism producing and lapping up utter crap. Widows and Us are two recent films that got rave reviews but which I thought were really pretty horrendous stinkers, but the bar is that low now.

I think there are other issues affecting the quality of the arts really - social media and YouTube, less people reading, economic issues etc that are bad for fostering creativity.

Honestly the mid/late 90's was a fucking aweful era for blockbusters, soulless CGI crap(with crap CGI) with the odd exception. The 00's did have stuff like Lord of the Rings and Nolan's Batmans(Batmen?) but still it was a far cry from any kind of golden era and I don't think were really any worse off now unless you really dislike superhero films, perhaps better off in terms of consistency.

I haven't seen Widows yet but honestly the trailer/concept didn't seem very interesting and perhaps shows you part of the problem that one of the most acclaimed directors of recent years ended up making what looks like a fairly bog standard heist drama. I mean I don't think theres any lack of more ambitious cinema in recent years but very little of it makes its way into mainstream cinema releases, something like the Favourite is a rarity that I don't have to wait for a home viewing.

St_Eddie

Quote from: Timothy on April 26, 2019, 09:20:47 AM
...people are still defending cigarettes in movies? artistic choices? Mate. They arent. Theyre free advertising. No need for cigarettes in movies.

Of course it's an artistic choice.  I'll agree that smoking has no real place in kids movies but film in general?  I can't stand the kind of black or white thinking that says "no, there should never be any smoking in any film ever".  People smoke in real life and yet that should never ever be reflected in art?  I simply cannot fathom the thought process behind that.

Quote from: jobotic on April 26, 2019, 09:26:28 AM
Should we have guns in films?

And there's the rub.  Apparently cigarettes are big no-no in film because it might encourage people to take up smoking but guns and mass murder (even in kids films) are a-okay to depict, despite the ease of acquiring guns in America and the ongoing issue of mass shootings.  Such double standards.

Quote from: Noodle Lizard on April 26, 2019, 10:15:47 AM
Smoking is a part of our world.  Movies (and other art forms) reflect our world, primarily.  It seems a little utterly bizarre to suggest they should never depict something that around 20% of the world's population, from all ethnicities and classes, indulge in both socially and privately.  Also, if you don't think cigarettes have been used well visually or in terms of character-building, then I don't know what to say except I feel bad for you.

Absolutely correct.

Quote from: jobotic on April 26, 2019, 01:17:55 PM
I agree completely about films marketed at children, but I thought earlier in the thread it was said that there is no room for cigarettes in any films.

It was indeed said, repeatedly.

Quote from: madhair60 on April 26, 2019, 01:20:48 PM
In addition to the removal of cigarettes from all future films, i'd also like to see them digitally removed from existing flicks and replaced with Chupa Chups.

No, no.  You can't have Chupa Chups!  That might encourage kids to eat more sweets and add to the child obesity problem!  Films should not contain anything that could ever possibly have any kind of negative influence.  Films should be a moralistic lecture towards the audience.

Relevant.

madhair60

Why do you extrapolate everything everyone says in the most absolutely sopping fanniest way possible

Christ, I need a fag (Lights up, is immediately bundled by the SJWs)


St_Eddie

Quote from: madhair60 on April 26, 2019, 02:31:48 PM
Why do you extrapolate everything everyone says in the most absolutely sopping fanniest way possible

May I suggest that you argue against the specifics of what I said, instead of continually insulting me and calling me names?

madhair60

Quote from: St_Eddie on April 26, 2019, 02:36:30 PM
May I suggest that you argue against the specifics of what I said, instead of continually insulting me and calling me names?

It didn't seem worth your or my time but I suppose I can give an earnest take, haven't done a good post in a while now though so it's gonna take it out of me, christ (rolls neck, loud cracking sounds) fuck me (stretches arms, even louder popping noises) oof

Can't do it I'm sorry. I just can't do it right now. I really did try

Replies From View

Quote from: St_Eddie on April 26, 2019, 02:27:49 PM
Of course it's an artistic choice.  I'll agree that smoking has no real place in kids movies but film in general?  I can't stand the kind of black or white thinking that says "no, there should never be any smoking in any film ever".  People smoke in real life and yet that should never ever be reflected in art?  I simply cannot fathom the thought process behind that.

Do you also complain that characters aren't continually farting in films?  They do it in real life after all, it's just there isn't a huge industry out there pushing for it to be reflected.  I'm sure the farting could be depicted artfully so it's nothing to do with that.

And characters who smoke in films don't tend to be depicted with the side effects that are largely understood to be attached to the habit in real life.  Action heroes who smoke aren't shown to be continually short of breath, for example.  No, you are meant to perceive smoking as a positive action rather than one with consequences, so the "it only reflects real life" argument is misguided.

St_Eddie

Quote from: Replies From View on April 26, 2019, 03:49:31 PM
Do you also complain that characters aren't continually farting in films?  They do it in real life after all, it's just there isn't a huge industry out there pushing for it to be reflected.  I'm sure the farting could be depicted artfully so it's nothing to do with that.

I don't particularly care to see characters farting in films and yet, I'm certainly not going to say that there's no need to ever show a character farting in a film and it should effectively be banned from the medium, which is what some are arguing for in regards to cigarettes in film within this thread.

Replies From View

Quote from: St_Eddie on April 26, 2019, 03:51:31 PM
I don't particularly care to see characters farting in films and yet, I'm certainly not going to say that there's no need to ever show a character farting in a film and it should effectively be banned from the medium, which is what some are arguing for in regards to cigarettes in film within this thread.

In this case why have you been complaining about the under-representation of smoking in modern films rather than farting this entire time?

St_Eddie

Quote from: Replies From View on April 26, 2019, 04:11:47 PM
In this case why have you been complaining about the under-representation of smoking in modern films rather than farting this entire time?

I can only fight so many battles, you know?

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth


Replies From View

Quote from: St_Eddie on April 26, 2019, 04:22:25 PM
I can only fight so many battles, you know?

And your main priority is to ensure that smoking is repeatedly perceived positively in the minds of cinema audiences.  A noble endeavour.

St_Eddie

Quote from: Replies From View on April 26, 2019, 04:25:33 PM
And your main priority is to get smoking perceived positively in the minds of cinema audiences.

It's really not.  If that's what you genuinely think that I've been saying, then you've missed the entire point of my argument.

Replies From View

Quote from: St_Eddie on April 26, 2019, 04:28:03 PM
It's really not.  If that's what you genuinely think that I've been saying, then you've missed the entire point of my argument.

What was your point.

mothman

So Eddie's a stooge for Big Tobacco. I think deep down we all knew.

Shit Good Nose

Quote from: mothman on April 26, 2019, 04:29:34 PM
So Eddie's a stooge for Big Tobacco. I think deep down we all knew.

It's clear that he's been trying to get us all to take up smoking instead of farting.  It's either to do with Brexit or Extinction Rebellion.

St_Eddie

Quote from: Replies From View on April 26, 2019, 04:28:37 PM
What was your point.

That it's daft to say that there's never a reason to have a character smoking in a film ever and as such, there should never be a character smoking in a film ever.  I think that's a ridiculous thing to have said and the vast majority of my argument has been countering that stance.

Replies From View

Quote from: St_Eddie on April 26, 2019, 04:33:58 PM
That it's daft to say that there's never a reason to have a character smoking in a film ever and as such, there should never be a character smoking in a film ever.  I think that's a ridiculous thing to have said and the vast majority of my argument has been countering that stance.

We've twisted and turned a lot from your grievance around the restrictions that are in place for family films, then.

I'm sorry for missing your entire point, but it hasn't been particularly consistent throughout.

Timothy

Quote from: St_Eddie on April 24, 2019, 08:07:34 PM
A thread for all things fuck you, Disney.

Oh no!  Not LETTERS!

Fuck you, Disney.

Quotebut SMOKING IS A STEP TOO FAR for The Mouse.

Fuck you, Disney.

QuoteI feel as though you're missing the point somewhat.  The no cigarette mandate is not a film specific decision, it's an across the board rule.  Since when has dictating what can and cannot happen in art been a good thing?

QuoteI'll agree that smoking has no real place in kids movies but film in general?

So you do agree that the ban for West Side Story that you initially used to start this thread is logical and therefore makes sense?

QuoteThat it's daft to say that there's never a reason to have a character smoking in a film ever and as such, there should never be a character smoking in a film ever.  I think that's a ridiculous thing to have said and the vast majority of my argument has been countering that stance.

And I don't see any reason for smoking to be in films. It doesn't add anything. Not to a story, not to the visuals, not to the characters, nothing. Therefore I see no need for characters smoking in films.

St_Eddie

Quote from: Replies From View on April 26, 2019, 04:38:06 PM
I'm sorry for missing your entire point, but it hasn't been particularly consistent throughout.

One's thoughts and stances evolve and change as the debate continues and as one takes onboard other people's input, no?  Or at least that's what should happen, provided that one's not ego-centric and more interested in being 'right' than actually engaging in debate.

Quote from: Timothy on April 26, 2019, 04:42:06 PM
So you do agree that the ban for West Side Story that you initially used to start this thread is logical and therefore makes sense?

That's a tricky one because, as I pointed out earlier within this thread that film started out as a project under development over at 20th Century Fox, prior to Disney's acquisition of the studio and furthermore, I wouldn't classify West Side Story as a kids film.  I think that Disney should release it under the Fox label and allow Spielberg make it the way that he wants to make it, cigarettes included if that's what he cares to include.

Gerald Fjord

I'm sorry but if you don't think smoking is cool you are a square

Timothy

Quote from: St_Eddie on April 26, 2019, 04:33:58 PM
That it's daft to say that there's never a reason to have a character smoking in a film ever and as such, there should never be a character smoking in a film ever.  I think that's a ridiculous thing to have said and the vast majority of my argument has been countering that stance.

I just don't agree with your reasons for cigarettes to be in movies I guess. I can understand it if a film is about tobacco or cigarettes like in Thank You For Smoking, but that's logical.

But using them as visual cues or character traits is just plain lazy imo.

colacentral

Quote from: St_Eddie on April 26, 2019, 04:42:13 PM
One's thoughts and stances evolve and change as the debate continues and as one takes onboard other people's input, no?  Or at least that's what should happen, provided that one's not ego-centric and more interested in being 'right' then actually engaging in debate.

That's a tricky one because, as I pointed out earlier within this thread that film started out as a project under development over at 20th Century Fox, prior to Disney's acquisition of the studio and furthermore, I wouldn't classify West Side Story as a kids film.  I think that Disney should release it under the Fox label and allow Spielberg make it the way that he wants to make it, cigarettes included if that's what he cares to include.

So it's really not as black and white as "fuck Disney" after all.

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

Quote from: Replies From View on April 26, 2019, 03:49:31 PM
And characters who smoke in films don't tend to be depicted with the side effects that are largely understood to be attached to the habit in real life.  Action heroes who smoke aren't shown to be continually short of breath, for example.  No, you are meant to perceive smoking as a positive action rather than one with consequences, so the "it only reflects real life" argument is misguided.
Yes indeed. Guns may be glamourised in many films, but they are still depicted killing, maiming and being generally dangerous. Other than some heavy cancer drama, fags are generally shown without any negative effects.

St_Eddie

#148
Quote from: Timothy on April 26, 2019, 04:51:38 PM
I can understand it if a film is about tobacco or cigarettes like in Thank You For Smoking, but that's logical.

But using them as visual cues or character traits is just plain lazy.

You see, I respect this statement.  I don't particularly agree with it but I respect it.  I only took issue with your previous statement because you had said that there never a reason for a character to smoke a cigarette in a film ever.

As you say, a film about smoking is reason enough, in of itself, to have characters smoking.  Furthermore, utilising smoking as a character trait is a reason to have characters smoking by definition of the word 'reason'.  That doesn't mean that you have to agree with that reasoning, which indeed you don't, but rather recognise that just because you don't agree with something, that it doesn't necessarily follow that it's not a type of cinematic language which exists.

St_Eddie

Quote from: Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth on April 26, 2019, 05:03:35 PM
Yes indeed. Guns may be glamourised in many films, but they are still depicted killing, maiming and being generally dangerous. Other than some heavy cancer drama, fags are generally shown without any negative effects.

When people actively make use of guns in real life situations, they are rarely free of negative effects.  However, when people smoke in real life, they are rarely accompanied by immediately visible negative effects.  People don't take a puff on a cigarette and suddenly drop dead of cancer, so I'm not sure how a film should be expected to demonstrate the negative effects of smoking without it becoming a condescending and lecturous bore (closing titles - 'Character A died of cancer several years later', completely divorced of the narrative itself).  Similarly, I think that it would be disingenuous to not show characters smoking, when people in real life do, just as it would be disingenuous to not show people using guns, when people in real life do.

The simple fact is that the vast majority of people are aware that guns are dangerous, just as the vast majority of people (and let's face it, all adults) are aware of the dangers of smoking.  Outside of kids films, I don't feel as though it's the job, nor the place of art to molly cuddle its audience and use the platform as a means of imparting the moralistic beliefs of society at large.  If guns are an issue or cigarettes are an issue, then these are things which need to be addressed within society itself.  Art does not exist to mirror your own political beliefs.