…and this is a 
Disney has always been aggressive about extending their copyright to the various Disney characters — they keep going to congress and getting more years tacked on. It's clearly past due that we should revoke all that (come on, Ol' Walt died when I was in 4th grade, and I don't care if his cryogenically frozen head is occasionally revived to dispense marching orders and consume baby brain smoothies). As evidence, I present to you the latest atrocity from the Disney channel, "Disney Blam!" What they do is take classic old Disney cartoons from the 40s, 50s, and 60s and 'update' them by adding obnoxious voiceovers. The narrator yells out grating descriptions of what's going on visually, shouts "BLAM!" too frequently, and adds slo-mo instant replay to scenes where characters get bonked on the head. Really. It has to be seen to be believed.
Don't you feel dumber for having watched that? Or at least, that Disney Corp. thinks you're an idiot?
Why, in my day, I remember when we could expect five year olds to be able to watch these with comprehension, without some jerk on the soundtrack pointing out "BLAM! He got hit in the head with an anvil!" It's not as if these things were ever intellectually subtle, you know.
Stop the disease before it spreads to Tex Avery and Chuck Jones! The Idiocracy will have arrived when the media overlords decide that Roadrunner cartoons need a play-by-play for their audiences to appreciate them.
(via Jhonen Vasquez)
Comments
Posted by: gussnarp
|
September 1, 2010 10:28 AM
Holy FSM that was awful. This (along with a lot of other things Disney has done since his death) is clear proof that Walt is not being defrosted to make decisions or he'd sack the lot of them.
Posted by: ThatOtherGuy
|
September 1, 2010 10:29 AM
Yeah... while much more recent, Disney's copyright stuff over one of my favorite cartoons (Gargoyles) is keeping anything from happening with it... when they borked the third season of the show Greg Weisman said "screw it" and went to Slave Labor Graphics to start making a comic out of it, which they did for a while, until Disney's licensing fees got too high for them to pay. And they haven't done a single thing with the material since sometime in the nineties. It's fantastically disappointing.
Posted by: Kawa
|
September 1, 2010 10:31 AM
Great, now my ears are bleeding.
* pokes *
...rubber cement?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
September 1, 2010 10:34 AM
oy.
That's a barbarism, all right.
It reminds me, though, of the new National Geographic narrations.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
September 1, 2010 10:37 AM
It occurs to me to hope that these guys never et their hands on the 3 Stooges.
Posted by: Aliasalpha
|
September 1, 2010 10:39 AM
So already lowbrow entertainment is now made worse by adding obnoxious sports voiceovers?
Could this perhaps be some experiment to try and prove that everything is cyclical? Maybe disney have noticed that people are increasingly stupid and are trying to accelerate the process so average intelligence will clock, we'll all become endowed with an amazing genius level intelligence and the world will be an astonishing place of progress and advancement.
Well its that or disney creative people are fucking retarded...
Posted by: irenedelse
|
September 1, 2010 10:41 AM
Hacks endlessly rehashing old material at Disney? *Big* surprise. /snark
Posted by: jay.sweet
|
September 1, 2010 10:41 AM
Oh man, I fondly remember that particular Donald Duck cartoon. My parents had a bunch of VHS of old Disney cartoons, and that was one of them. If I recall correctly, there was *already* a narrator voiceover on that episode. Heh...
Very disappointing.
Posted by: cracycarl
|
September 1, 2010 10:41 AM
From the youtube comments.
Posted by: dibkins
|
September 1, 2010 10:42 AM
This looks like a South Park aside.
Posted by: Nick
|
September 1, 2010 10:48 AM
Oh, now THAT is blasphemy.
Posted by: jeffery.g.davis
|
September 1, 2010 10:49 AM
Family guy has the asides, not so much South Park. But yeah, I keep having Idiocracy flash backs.
Posted by: Janice in Toronto
|
September 1, 2010 10:51 AM
Pass the brake fluid, I have to wash that image out of my eyes!
Poor Walt, that's just sad...
Posted by: Frank b
|
September 1, 2010 10:54 AM
Boy!! That is stupid. Donald Duck ought to sue.
Posted by: Paul J.
|
September 1, 2010 10:55 AM
Oh my. Can someone please kill me? Now? This is wrong on so many levels. They ruin some very old, very fond memories of mine. Atrocious.
Posted by: gussnarp
|
September 1, 2010 10:55 AM
I'm still trying to decide if this is worse than inserting Jabba the Hutt and making Greedo shoot first in Star Wars.
Posted by: owlbear1
|
September 1, 2010 10:56 AM
ABC is just trying to capture all those home schoolers who don't have any cultural references to 'get' the jokes.
Posted by: Timberwoof
|
September 1, 2010 10:57 AM
The biggest problem I have with Disney is not how they trash their own intellectual property, but how they've taken ownership of the IP of others. For instance, the characters from the fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm. If I mentioned Cinderella or Snow White, the most likely image to pop up in your head is Disney's cleaned-up image.
I wonder what would happen if someone else made movies of those tales with all-new interpretations of the "classic Disney characters" and pushed them around for free on YouTube. Would Disney try to exert ownership?
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmqD_mcUIrSfOTlK3iGVsnEDcZmI43srbI
|
September 1, 2010 10:59 AM
This is clear and compelling evidence that PZ is bored out of his skull.
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti
|
September 1, 2010 11:02 AM
"BLAM! Greedo shot! Watch out, Han!"
"He stepped on his tail! BLAM!"
Posted by: cousinavi
|
September 1, 2010 11:04 AM
There are few things that might move me to violence...but were I to ever meet the Disney executive who thought this was a good idea, I would be forced to mount a defense of necessity / provocation to a charge of assault and battery.
I think I have an even shot at jury nullification.
Posted by: sqlrob
|
September 1, 2010 11:05 AM
Too late, they've got another disease. Those cartoons have been cut to hell. Last one I saw on TV had the explicit acts of violence cut out; couldn't see the antagonist drop the anvil, but all of a sudden the protagonist got out of a hole like an accordion. Absolutely no sense of continuity.
Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
|
September 1, 2010 11:06 AM
W...T...F?
Posted by: Peter Ashby
|
September 1, 2010 11:07 AM
@Timberwolf
Didn't Disney try that with Winnie the Pooh? They tried to claim that the copyright they bought on the books should be extended because of the cartoons and extended to anyone who made any reference at all, including but not limited to references to Pooh Sticks. Raised considerable outrage here in the UK as an act of cultural imperialism.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
September 1, 2010 11:10 AM
This doesn't even seem to be effective at its stated goal. It's not doing anything new iwth the characters..
Posted by: ralphgentile3
|
September 1, 2010 11:19 AM
Disney had Toy Story 3 cooking several years ago with no help from Pixar - supposedly a truly horrific plot. Thankfully, Bob Iger recognized that Disney had a Pixar-sized creative void and gave Pixar full creative control in the acquisition. Imagine a CEO making such a bold, value-generating move!
Posted by: Hairhead
|
September 1, 2010 11:23 AM
This reminds me of a story about Ted Turner and John Huston.
In his last year of life, John Huston had emphysema and was pushed around in a wheelchair, connected to an oxygen tank. At some big old-movie to-do, he was asked what he thought about the Turner co., which had bought his old films, colourizing The Maltese Falcon and Treasure of the Sierra Madre. Between sucks on his oxygen, Huston growled that Ted Turner was, "a cinematic child molester."
Ted Turner heard this, of course, and called his lawyers, demanding that they sue Huston for public slander. The advice he received was as follows:
"Don't do this, Ted. If you take it to court, you will testify, young, handsome, and rich, and then they will wheel in Walter Huston, an icon of the film industry, old and dying, in his wheelchair and oxygen tank. Not only will you look like the biggest asshole in the world, if Huston actually takes the stand, what he says there will be TEN TIMES worse than what he's already said. By the end of the trial, a minimum of 100 million people will hate your guts. Trust us on this, Ted: you may win, legally, but you WILL LOSE! Drop the idea."
Turner didn't sue. Too bad. I would have paid money to sit in court and listen to Huston testify.
Posted by: Sajanas
|
September 1, 2010 11:24 AM
Sorry to break it to you PZ, but WB has been editing the old Loony Toons cartoons for years to make them more socially acceptable by removing black face and the like. One that I remember best was Bugs Bunny was trying to infiltrate the dreams of Elmer Fudd, and so he went to sleep by taking a big swig of sleeping pills. Watching that now, it just cuts to bugs going to sleep. I'm a little torn, because something like this might be a necessary edit, given that kids might imitated it.
Posted by: sqlrob
|
September 1, 2010 11:34 AM
But here's the problem - they didn't before, why now?
Posted by: iasasai
|
September 1, 2010 11:44 AM
Am I the only that doesn't give a damn about Disney in the first place? The only thing I ever liked by them was TRON and I already have my own copy of that, so I could kind of care less about whatever butchery might happen to it in the future. I was a Hanna-Barbera kid...
Posted by: realinterrobang
|
September 1, 2010 11:47 AM
Yeah, that definitely removed a noticeable portion of my IQ. Thanks, PZ, I needed that; I actually have work I need to do today. The sound of that obnoxious guy and his obnoxious accent are going to follow me around all day, too.
One question I've got about this kind of thing (and the Bowdlerization of the Warner Brothers stuff and suchlike) is: If it was perfectly okay for kids born between the 1940s and the 1990s to watch this stuff (and as far as I know, we all did, and we never killed ourselves trying to imitate it because our parents made sure that we knew the difference between things that are okay in cartoons and things that are okay in real life), why is it somehow not okay for kids now to see the same things?
Speaking as a history buff, even the really egregiously racist stuff doesn't bother me; people in the 1940s were really egregiously racist by today's standards, and it's kind of stupid and mendacious to chuck all that stuff down the memory hole because some pearl-clutcher somewhere gets the vapours about it. As far as I'm concerned, removing those kinds of references amounts to rewriting history, albeit in a small way, and that offends me more than the damn blackface.
(Yeah, probably my white privilege showing, but in my own defense, I similarly don't get het up in a similar way about historical misogyny, and that does apply to me. People in the past were okay with much more blatant expressions of woman-hatred than they are now; ain't it great how far we've come?)
Posted by: Shala
|
September 1, 2010 11:50 AM
FUCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
I remember back when the good Disney cartoons were on. Duck Tales, Talespin, Darkwing Duck.
Fuck yeah.
Posted by: marteani
|
September 1, 2010 11:55 AM
You don't have to worry about Chuck or Tex. Reissuing with voice-overs just isn't TimeWarner's style. Rather, they like to completely redesign their old characters to fit an arbitrary concept of coolness. It never lasts long, but I'd rather a new take (Tailspin) than reappropriation of older content (This mess). Sadly, it's always cheaper to do the later than the former, although rarely as profitable.
Posted by: alistair.coleman
|
September 1, 2010 11:55 AM
Good grief, I didn't realise that was official Disney product.
I can feel IQ points slipping away.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
September 1, 2010 11:57 AM
I remember being told Darkwing Duck would be in Kingdom Hearts 2. I was a disappointed panda.Posted by: Nichodeemous
|
September 1, 2010 12:01 PM
If 'doing something' with their older properties is all they have to do to demonstrate a need to retain ownership, they would certainly want to do it by spending as little money as possible. It would be easier for me to understand these little spoonfuls of abomination as greed made manifest, than it would be to believe someone thought this was a good idea.
Anyone know if using a property helps your case in retaining rights? It might help me sleep better.
Posted by: locka99
|
September 1, 2010 12:02 PM
Disney channel, at least in Europe is so sterile, ultravapid, so mindnumbingly bland that I don't see how they can make it any worse.
It's just one stupid high school "comedy" after another, all virtually interchangeable in terms of characters and plot. Oh look here's an episode where the black sassy one lies and then learns a valuable life lesson. Oh there's one with the wisecrackin' munchkin is running for class president. etc. There must be about 12 basic plots and they are repeated over, and over, and over again.
Disney is intellectually bankrupt at least on TV.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/DhjBEuJ8pt63x6eBKuPx0Jv9_QE-#7c327
|
September 1, 2010 12:13 PM
I learned a lot from thr Roadrunner cartoons. For example, you won't fall after stepping off a cliff until you actually look down.
Also, an entire bottle of Acme brand vitamin pills will endow you with powerful leg muscles.
Today's cartoons don't teach kids anything useful.
Posted by: Everyday Atheist
|
September 1, 2010 12:16 PM
My Copyright prof in law school told us the "First Rule of Copyright Law" on day 1 -- the copyright on Mickey Mouse will never expire.
Posted by: Steve Page
|
September 1, 2010 12:20 PM
@dibkins: Agreed. It even sounds like the voiceover to the South Park episode where Stan teaches peewee hockey.
Posted by: Wayne
|
September 1, 2010 12:36 PM
No leftist should EVER support anything Disney- LONG history of support for right wing causes (they gave friggin' Reagan his seed money), racist and sexist in everything that comes from their studios, totally homophobic, ridiculous bigoted rules about who can work for them and even who can enter their disgustingly bigoted theme parks. Why the hell leftists support right wingers with their dollars I will never understand. The right wingers certainly don't support anything on our side.
Posted by: MichaelEybye
|
September 1, 2010 12:41 PM
I've said "This is an outrage!" many times, but I've never really meant it.
Now though, with Disney's slaughter of classics...
This is an Outrage!
Posted by: Blondin
|
September 1, 2010 12:43 PM
So does this give chef Emeril Lagasse grounds to sue chef Donald Duck? Blam is awfully close to Bam.
Posted by: residualecho
|
September 1, 2010 12:43 PM
Nobody ever gets that joke right. Disney is not a Waltsicle, with a belt connecting his body, spinning in its grave, powering the turbines that provide the power for the Nation/State of Disneyland--Walt Disney is in suspended animation.
I must ask, why would anybody watch any of this crap on broadcast or cable? The better DVD and Blu-Ray releases are compiled by animation historians, and are not bowdlerized. Some of the more controversial Warner Bros. collections are introduced with a caveat by Whoopi Goldberg, who rightly claims that it would be worse to pretend that such racist attitudes never existed.
That's Disney's problem--they want to pretend that their product was never racist, and yet Mickey Mouse epitomizes the blackface minstrel entertainer from the era of Al Jolson. There is little substantial difference between Mickey and Minnie, and WB's Bosko and Honey. The rebellious, adolescent, troublemaking attributes of Mickey were generally offloaded to his posse of Donald Duck and Goofy, freeing up Mickey to be a white suburban celebrity, as the character pinked up, his lips and eyes on a black face expanding into a pink face with black hair.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 1, 2010 12:47 PM
They tried to mess with Pooh Sticks???? That was, like, one of the first games on the internet. At least, the internet I encountered as a young college student. I loved that game.
Posted by: j-brisby
|
September 1, 2010 12:48 PM
Oh my god, they took a cartoon and made it intellectually unstimulating!
Where ya been, PZ? This is Disney. Shameless pandering to the masses has been part of the game from the beginning. I hate to break it to the aging boomers, but other than one powerful moment, Bambi was a complete suckpile of a movie.
Posted by: residualecho
|
September 1, 2010 12:48 PM
Watch Mickey's Mellerdrammer from 1933, as Mickey and the gang stage Uncle Tom's Cabin.
Posted by: johnnykaje
|
September 1, 2010 12:51 PM
Wayne- what major megaconglomerate media empire should we support, then?
Sqlrob- I hear people saying "kids from our generation never imitated those cartoons." To my knowledge, niether side has provided evidence one way or the other. It's a confirmation bias- "I never hurt myself apeing Wile E Coyote, no one I knew did either, therefore no kids did."
I know I once imitated Donald Duck when I was a toddler by trying to do a swan dive into a hardwood floor. But I was kind of a dumb kid.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter
|
September 1, 2010 12:51 PM
Reminds me of the shows you find on the "Man TV" stations. I know very few men who are as moronic as those shows think they are...
But they did. Kids used to tie a towel around their necks and jump off the porch roof, a la Superman.People were more into "boys will do stuff like that" and less sue-happy back then. Editing stuff out is a CYA move.
Posted by: Bostonian
|
September 1, 2010 12:54 PM
This issue is not just about Disney, though they are an actor in the realm of copyright law that is hard to ignore. It's really about the different purposes that copyright law is designed serve. In a nutshell, copyright protects creators but is intentionally designed to expire after a reasonable amount of time. This balances the rights of, say, Scienceblogs LLC (which if I understand the notices available below is the holder of the copyright to PZ's writings on this blog). Under the original intent of copyright law, Scienceblogs is the only entity that can publish and profit from PZ's posts, and the rest of us (perhaps including PZ) can only post excerpts and links, and would need permission to do anything more.
This is a great arrangement for all concerned, IMHO. Scienceblogs gets a revenue stream that helps them to maintain the site and gives them incentive to do so, and we get to entertain ourselves by reading his musings and posting comments. However some day all these posts and comments will fall into the public domain, the idea being that our children, grandchildren, etc. will have full access to PZ's contributions to our culture, without restrictions, and at that time it will be far too late for Scienceblogs to have any real chance of profiting from them (and anyway, they should be creating new content by then if they're still around).
The link PZ posted is an article from 2002 about Eldred v. Ashcroft, which was just about to go before the Supreme Court. It was argued by Professor Lawrence Lessig of Harvard, formerly of Stanford. (He's the guy who created the Creative Commons licensing system used by many people on the Internet to allow expanded uses of their work not allowed by default copyright protection.) Lessig argued that the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act was unconstitutional. His reasoning was that the Constitution grants power to the Congress "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries," but that continually enacting new laws to extend copyright before the oldest works expire amounted to an unlimited term, rather than the limited one Section 8 requires.
He lost the case. The Supreme Court held that if the Congress wants to extend copyright to cover cartoons drawn by people who are all dead, and allow corporations made up of people generations younger to hold those copyrights, they can. The implication is that it's up to us to elect a Congress that will not do those things. Which makes this like many other issues facing the US: entities with lots of money want laws that are not in the public interest, so those laws get passed. The purpose of copyright is to encourage creators to make new works, but copyright-owning companies like Disney would rather recycle old works than just make new ones, so they spend a lot of money on lobbying and political campaign contributions to undermine copyright. They succeed.
My bet is that this trend will never change unless the political system does. And good luck with that.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/O.jullMj0I2VvJaxMMVeNKSfOPf73voLSxJAe9PdlOWwi8Y-#258ec
|
September 1, 2010 12:55 PM
even with the history of a "political agenda" that Disney had what saddens me most is the obvious death of the creative and the rise of marketing as the driving force.
the Name will live on in Disney Hall which does not have a direct corporate connection even as the Corporation becomes itself a burlesque
uncle frogy
Posted by: residualecho
|
September 1, 2010 12:56 PM
@j-brisby, you wouldn't be related to Jonathan Brisbym would you? Brisby was a character from former Disney animator Don Bluth, who wanted to give the character the name from the book he adapted for the screen, Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH, until lawyers from Wham-O, makers of Frisbee, forced to poor sound editor to splice the "b" sound from the last syllable of any take of the character saying "Frisby" and splice it on to the beginning of the name, changing it to "Brisby."
Copyrights and trademarks are intellectual property blackmail.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 1, 2010 12:56 PM
There's a difference, though, between keeping it as an important part of history that is learned about in a historical context, and presenting it to kids as fun fare for a Saturday morning. Placed out there with no context, it reinforces the same racism that was there to begin with and which is still there now. No vapours about it; broadcasting blackface for a laugh is just as racist now as it was 50 years ago. It's just that now some people prefer not to be racist or to inundate themselves and their children with racist images.
Posted by: Don Quijote
|
September 1, 2010 12:57 PM
Wait a minute! Imagine a voiceover like that on Tony Blair´s speeches, Fox News etc. Canned laughter would be good.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
September 1, 2010 12:58 PM
Thanks, PZ. Ten years of steadfastly avoiding reality TV so as to protect the few brain cells that haven't been destroyed by booze, drugs, pornography, and Howard Jones singles, all undone in 1:32 seconds.
But Sven's right about the NG narration. It's like all of TV is being narrated by the guy who does FOX's America's Deadliest Snowplow Drivers, or whatever those shows are.
Posted by: smsprite
|
September 1, 2010 12:59 PM
I was born in 1975. I remember watching these cartoons and Warner Bros. cartoons over and over again. And they were OLD at that time. But a cartoon is a cartoon to kids. By the time I was old enough for music lessons I knew so many of the songs because I recognized them from the cartoons. No WONDER my students don't recognize anything in the books outside of Ode to Joy.
Posted by: residualecho
|
September 1, 2010 1:01 PM
What Bostonian said @#50.
Posted by: Form&Function
|
September 1, 2010 1:01 PM
Whenever I see something like this (and this blog is fo' sho' a major source of links to the bafflingly stupid--thanks, PZ!), I experience a strange sort of disorientation. This world I live in... it's not reality. Because in reality, there exist things like Disney Blam.
I feel dizzy.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 1, 2010 1:15 PM
It's like they're trying to MST3K it, but missing the point by going along with it rather than making fun of it. Or something.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm7Lkkdg4CIy1B8h65Id6DQsHtXrK2STZk
|
September 1, 2010 1:28 PM
WTF Disney?! WTF?! Not only was that idiotic, it drained it of any humour that may have remained after recutting the original. That was among the most boring Donald Duck I have ever seen, and not because of the content, but because of the voiceover... WTF Disney!?
Posted by: MoonShark
|
September 1, 2010 1:30 PM
I don't mind so much if they ruin their own creations, as long as A) the original can still be obtained somewhere, and B) I get to do it too.
A lot of this should have been public domain long ago.
Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies!
|
September 1, 2010 1:43 PM
Hope they don't screw up Pixar.
Surprising how ALL their movie are well made.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
September 1, 2010 1:51 PM
I guess it's nice that Mr. Derp found work again after Chef came back to the South Park cafeteria.
Posted by: johnnykaje
|
September 1, 2010 1:51 PM
Holy crap, Jhonen Vasquez? I haven't heard of that guy since my freshman Hot Topic phase. I didn't imagine him to be a "tweeter".
Posted by: Rich Wilson
|
September 1, 2010 2:02 PM
Time for my favorite Jack Valenti quote
Considering what Disney is doing to their own material, I sure wish I could keep them away from the public domain.Posted by: F
|
September 1, 2010 2:04 PM
K-i-l-l-e-d: Revoked.
Posted by: timgueguen
|
September 1, 2010 2:13 PM
Feh, if they're gonna have a stupid voiceover they at least could have used John Dimaggio instead of Mr. Bland.
Posted by: sasqwatch
|
September 1, 2010 2:19 PM
Apparently I'm not the only one who thought this was a Trey Parker - Matt Stone parody of what American entertainment has devolved to. I was expecting Rob Schneider and "durp-de-durp" to be coming out of the announcer's mouth next.
I'd like to think Walt's head would've been flopping around inside that cryogenic bell jar in disgust, except for the fact that he is one of Satan's minions anyway, and thus heartily approves of anything his corporation does, as long as there's human misery involved.
Posted by: tas121790
|
September 1, 2010 2:22 PM
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK DISNEY!!!!!!!!
Born in 90 and watched classic Disney/WB cartoons on TV and VHS, this stuff gets me angry. The audacity to take the work of the great creative minds of decades ago and 'improve' them is shocking.
@Aliasalpha, its not fair too call a kids cartoon 'lowbrow' they were actually well made kids cartoons.
@UberFubarius
John Lassiter is the chief creative officer of both Pixar and Disneys traditional animation wing. That explains why Pixar has maintained its quality and why the traditional films have been getting better.
Posted by: Plot Device
|
September 1, 2010 2:51 PM
The Warner Bros cartoons have been mistreated enough over the years as it is, but if anything like this happened to my precious Looney Tunes, I think it would be time to grow a beard, move into a shack in the woods, and plan.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawklQCMOUYkXvJ3xvNRf3qfdsk3ifWI6JPM
|
September 1, 2010 3:11 PM
That's the worst thing I've ever seen.
Posted by: Scorpy1
|
September 1, 2010 3:13 PM
I'm with Aliasalpha; these cartoons are intended for kids.
In other words, Disney Corp. thinks your kids are idiots, which is a hell of a lot sadder.
Posted by: spacefall
|
September 1, 2010 3:24 PM
Does anybody remember when, if you didn't get something on TV, you were supposed to figure out what it meant somehow? You know, somehow other than having an irritating narrator explain it to you step-by-step?
Dumbing down doesn't do anyone any favours.
Posted by: jerkemy
|
September 1, 2010 3:32 PM
Holy shit, I thought this "BLAM!" thing was a parody someone had done. I laughed out loud at least a few times during each one. If this is actually legitimate, nothing means anything anymore.
Posted by: Hurin, Nattering Nabob of Negativism.
|
September 1, 2010 3:33 PM
The next fundie troll who comes through should get the job of explaining how a benevolent and omnipotent God/intelligent designer would allow something like this to happen.
I've often felt as though I've lost IQ points when watching TV, but this is probably the first show to make me wonder if I gained chromosomes.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
September 1, 2010 3:38 PM
Why do you hate blind people?Posted by: Susan Silberstein
|
September 1, 2010 4:15 PM
Jhonen Vasquez rocks. Bring back "Invader Zim"!
Posted by: Pitini
|
September 1, 2010 5:26 PM
My wife made a good comment. Its just an advert or info advert. Its the same length, same tone, same background music, same non stop voice over. Kids will watch this as they would an ad and not know the difference. What will happen if kids start to talk like that?
Posted by: residualecho
|
September 1, 2010 5:33 PM
"What will happen if kids start to talk like that?"
Blipverts.
Posted by: j-brisby
|
September 1, 2010 5:38 PM
residualecho@52: That's it exactly. NIMH is in my opinion the finest cell animated film ever made, and I should know, I founded the Secret of NIMH Archive back in 96, and it's been on the web ever since.
Posted by: Imadumas2
|
September 1, 2010 6:39 PM
Since the 80s I have grown to despise the beast that is Disney...
Posted by: avosant
|
September 1, 2010 6:48 PM
I really do not like disney and they really are pervs if you break down their movies
Search Engine Optimization Consultant | environmentally friendly organic clothing | Social media marketing News Blog | beverly hills breast implants | Long term Care insurance | Oriental Rug Cleaning NY
Posted by: Shala
|
September 1, 2010 6:48 PM
NIMH is in my opinion the finest cell animated film ever made, and I should know, I founded the Secret of NIMH Archive back in 96, and it's been on the web ever since.
I was wondering if your name related to that.
It's one of my favorite animated movies next to End of Evangelion. Shame Don Bluth became so bad in the 90s though.
Posted by: residualecho
|
September 1, 2010 7:04 PM
NIMH did raise the bar for a bit, but after that it was all downhill for Bluth. I still have my suitable-for-framing certificate with Don, John and Gary's signature on it, promising me 7/10ths of 1 percent of the profits from NIMH, printed up and distributed 3 months after they'd signed away any profit-participation, in order to obtain their completion bond. I still remember his Sunday school stories--he told the tale of the Little Red Hen, as a rationale for our low pay, so often, that I wondered if he was pitching it as our next project. I took a job at Filmation after that, which paid for my education in the burgeoning CG industry.
Posted by: refugefromreality
|
September 1, 2010 10:36 PM
@Wayne (#41):
Please back up this claim with specific examples from EVERY movie and television show produced by Disney (or, y'know, at least 10 recent ones - the 1960s and before don't count due to it being a different era. Oh, and picking on Pocahontas is too easy, so 10 besides that one). Thanks. And yet Disney was one of the first companies to voluntarily offer partner benefits for their homosexual employees' families. Huh. Such as...? I was a Disneyland Annual Passholder for 10 of the 13 years I lived in California and am unaware of "bigoted rules" about who can enter the theme parks. Please enlighten me.
@residualecho (#52): Ouch. I wondered why they changed the name from the book. Stupidest copyright claim I ever heard? The Dolby company tried to sue singer Thomas Dolby ("She Blinded Me with Science") for performing under his own birth name.
General comments: If you all want to force Disney to give up copyright on their older works, then I suppose we'll also have to wrest the Peter Pan royalties rights from Great Ormond Street Hospital. Rights, btw, that (if I'm understanding this correctly) gained the hospital money from Disney's own version of the story. Also, the 1928 version of the Peter Pan play is still under copyright in the US. Mickey Mouse was created in 1928; ergo, shouldn't all Disney work still be under copyright anyway? I grant I'm not an expert in these matters, but although Walt is deceased, I see no problem with the company that bears his name retaining copyright so long as they're in business. Do they try to take things too far sometimes? Certainly. (Yes, I'm going to end there. I don't have a solution, I just admit that they try to take it too far at times.)
And as for the future of Disney animation: I can't speak for that video above, but for the features? John Lasseter is head of Disney Animation. All is well. Stop worrying. If anything, things will improve from here.
Posted by: Left_Wing_Fox
|
September 1, 2010 10:52 PM
@Bostonian: Well said, but one tiny pedantic quibble.
Isn't quite right. Default copyright law already allowed copyright holders to grant permission for their works to be used in any way they deemed fit. Creative Commons is simply a standardized licensing agreement that encourages proactive permission for creative purposes.Bluth was one of my heroes growing up as well. Unfortunately, now that I'm in animation, I've heard WAY too many stories to have much respect for him anymore. :(
Posted by: Stardrake
|
September 1, 2010 10:55 PM
refugefromreality@84:
No, they didn't. He was born Thomas Morgan Robertson. He took "Thomas Dolby" as a stage name. Dolby Labs (named for Dr. Ray Dolby) sued, and they eventually settled. Now he has to use "Thomas Dolby", but not just "Dolby".
Accuracy is important.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 1, 2010 11:14 PM
I was a Disneyland Annual Passholder for 10 of the 13 years I lived in California and am unaware of "bigoted rules" about who can enter the theme parks. Please enlighten me.
Things have changed. I grew up in SoCal. I seem to recall about 15 years or so ago, it was indeed a different place, and there were some discrimination lawsuits filed.
pretty swamped out by all the articles about the "Gay Days" events that started there a few years back now, and the histeria seems to be in the opposite direction: right wing talking heads complaining about how the park is "no longer family oriented".
Google is not my friend here; I can't seem to find reference to the discrimination lawsuits of yesteryear, but I know they happened.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 1, 2010 11:17 PM
I did manage to find an indirect reference to these:
http://www.units.muohio.edu/psybersite/disney/lawsuits.shtml
gees, was it that long ago?
*sigh*
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 1, 2010 11:21 PM
Thomas Dolby also basically created rmf files and ringtones, so Dolby Labs can suck it. ;p
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 1, 2010 11:24 PM
please tell me someone already linked to...
Walt Disney attacks!
http://www.elfreebo.com/?module=View&id=-ReNlBU2464
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 1, 2010 11:27 PM
...Elllliiiiaaaaaannnnn!
Posted by: j-brisby
|
September 1, 2010 11:29 PM
Ken Cope, right? Man, I'd love to hear the dirt that doesn't make the papers. I agree, Bluth's career is a testament to bad judgement, bad timing and bad luck. His later work is so awful, that one could make a good case for Bluth to become the first Mormon saint, because...NIMH is some sort of minor miracle.
Posted by: Leon
|
September 1, 2010 11:46 PM
Wow. That was awful. Even I didn't think Disney would do something along those lines. Don't they sue other people for doing things like that?
"A delicious bowl of BLAM!"? More like a big bowl of SUCK.
Posted by: residualecho
|
September 2, 2010 12:00 AM
Nyms are obviously useless around here. I learned a lot working for Bluth. Bluth liked Bambi well enough; you should be able to identify a scene Bluth lifted whole from that film for NIMH. Most sane people I know have a love/hate relationship with Disney's body of work, the parks, and what violence has been done in the name of heteronormativity.
Posted by: Left_Wing_Fox
|
September 2, 2010 12:07 AM
j-brisby: Actually, I've heard it from a number of sources. I've met and worked with a couple of Irish ex-employees who left his studio before he moved to Phoenix, and I've heard interviews with folks who worked at Disney before he led the exodus to create NIMH. Too many tales line up for me to dismiss them as unsubstantiated mudslinging.
Posted by: Left_Wing_Fox
|
September 2, 2010 12:11 AM
Oh wait... *rereads thread.* Hi! I've enjoyed your work residualecho. :)
Posted by: residualecho
|
September 2, 2010 12:41 AM
I'm happy that some of the work you've enjoyed has been mine.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
September 2, 2010 2:04 AM
I'm not familiar with this part of disney. Can you elaborate?Posted by: Harbo
|
September 2, 2010 2:50 AM
The whole "intellectual property" thing is absurd. Can this just go on forever?
For example, some turkey, in your USA "owns" Waltzing Matilda, and thus we break copyright when singing at rugby games!
It was written in 1891!
I'd love to be able to share all of Carl Barks with the world, one of your greatest writers in any medium, But Disney "owns" him and drip feeds it out at vast expense....Pricks.
There should be some time limit when the copyright just ends, and stuff becomes generally available.
Posted by: =8)-DX
|
September 2, 2010 3:37 AM
There is no reason - from a standpoing of law, progress, freedom of speech and humanity, to extend copyright claims for decades after ecen the author of the work has died. Such works should rightly become public and free copy to modify (since they already ARE part of history and language).
And yes this BLAM thing was just terrible.
Posted by: residualecho
|
September 2, 2010 3:46 AM
See the violence inherent in the cartoon! Here's a dead give away: Advice for Young Girls from The Little Mermaid
Posted by: nightgoblin
|
September 2, 2010 9:08 AM
Donald duck is -- te derp te derpity derp te derp! Until one day te derp tee derpity dum de doo!
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
September 2, 2010 9:30 AM
@Residual Echo: Slightly uncomfortable conflating on screen evil messages with actual violence.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
September 2, 2010 9:44 AM
Why do people act like Disney is one entity? Yes there is sexism, racism, biggotry in Disney because that was there in the people who made up the company. Do you really expect that to be carried on as much in modern day? Do you think the people who wrote Mulan or Frog are as racist as Dumbo?
Posted by: P_Smith
|
September 2, 2010 1:32 PM
The really appalling thing about Disney bribing politicians to extend the copyright laws is their hypocrisy.
Many of the books from which Disney made movies were themselves in the public domain, and some of those books were from the late 19th and early 20th centuries. If the copyright laws were the same in the 1930s/40s/50s are they are now, many of Disney's movie subjects would have been under copyright by others and Disney would have had to pay royalties all this time. Disney should either pay up, or they should stop whining if someone copies "Steamboat Willie".
http://copyfight.corante.com/archives/026595.html
A suggestion I've heard is that we, the public, should act and trade materials as if the laws had never changed: obey the law as it was at the time the work was produced. Anything that has expired under the copyright law at the time of its creation (e.g. Disney's "Fantasia") should be traded freely - not sold - and the companies which lobby for extended copyrights told to go stuff themselves.
Of course, I'm not advocating it, in case any lawyer-whore of Disney is reading this. I'm merely repeating what I've heard others say.
.
Posted by: jnordstrom
|
September 2, 2010 4:39 PM
This isn't the first time Disney's made an unnecessary overdub. Raymond Briggs' "The Bear" got the same treatment, which is pretty sad when the film's so beautiful. They got Judi Dench to to dub in some narration when the film moved much better without it. My kids love films without narration, and I would like to think other kids like them too.
In December, the Victoria Symphony Orchestra will be playing alongside the two major Raymond Briggs-based films, "The Snowman" and "The Bear." I'd love to attend that concert, just to watch "The Bear" without the inane narration.
Other companies do it too. The English translation of 'Fantastic Planet' has an idiotic narrator, too. It's a shame, but the trippy 70s soundtrack makes it kitschy enough that it's almost excusable. Almost.
Posted by: matt.montag
|
September 2, 2010 5:57 PM
Haha, I liked it.
Posted by: Arancaytar
|
September 2, 2010 7:21 PM
That was so stupid that it was hilarious, but then I felt stupid for laughing.
Posted by: residualecho
|
September 2, 2010 10:33 PM
"Slightly uncomfortable conflating on screen evil messages with actual violence."
Good.
Posted by: pranie dywanów warszawa
|
May 24, 2011 1:24 PM
disney's cool