Offensively idiotic IMDB comment about Disney

[GhostHost]

Back to Disney's origin, I love that!, 10 November 2005

Author: mirkaltern from Mexico

Whoever gives a bad critic about this movie haven't realize Disney is a company for children. This charming movie reminded me of Bambi, Snow White, Dumbo and all the movies I watched in my childhood, and I'm positively sure that if I watch them again, I would probably find them boring and too simple, just as some people found Chicken Little. Well, I think it is better for children to watch a nice, charming, simple Disney movie and be talking about it and saying "the sky is falling" rather than having them burping in your face as they do after watching, let's see... Shrek!

So, please understand... this is a movie for CHILDREN. Wait for Shrek 3 if you want to be laughing out loud with jokes that and adult understands.

Two thumbs up, once again, Disney makes a sharp move back to their origin!


This person has no idea the greatness of a true Disney movie, and the ones he refrences are some of the greatest. Disney makes movies suitable for children, but not only for children. Bambi, Dumbo, and Snow White are some of the most beautiful pieces of art created and if they don't understand that, they don't understand film.
This person needs to go back and watch these films and with that he will see why Chicken Little isn't the greatest. Disney moves far away from their origins with CL, not towards it.

[Escapay]

It's imdb, what do you expect?

I couldn't find anything offensive and idiotic in his review though. It may be offensive and idiotic by your standards, though, but not mine. It seems like this is just a guy who is saying he thinks Disney movies are just for kids. It's not a fact, it's just his opinion. Granted, it's also the opinion of a lot of other people (none of whom can be found at UD), but then again, that's the way it is. Not everyone is a fan of Disney. That's a fact of life we all have to accept, so just be grateful that the reviewer enjoyed Disney movies, even if he thinks they're for children now.

Escapay

[brownie]

Yeah, I don't see what's so offensive about it. He doesn't like Disney movies, but he admits that he liked them as a kid..I guess not everyone appreciates Disney movies at an older age. You could say that's ignorance, or you could just say that's personal taste.

[dvdjunkie]

I will join in here and agree with all that has been said. Disney is for kids, it is just that all of us are kids in one way or another. A critic is a critic and I never pay attention to them anyway. I will read what they have to say usually after I have seen the movie, and then I can tell whether or not they know what they are talking about.

I have seen "Chicken Little" four times now, and I find it entirely charming in its presentation. There are enough jokes and laughs to keep the kids interested and enough adult material to keep us interested. But I think that when we go to see a Walt Disney production we all become like little kids, don't we?

[Alan]

I really don't see anything "offensive" or "idiotic" about that. Thats his own opinion, you can agree or disagree all you want about it. I've seen plenty of far more "idiotic" and "offensive" posts on imdb.

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

So, please understand... this is a movie for CHILDREN. Wait for Shrek 3 if you want to be laughing out loud with jokes that and adult understands.

Okay I agree, THAT was idiotic!

I've also been to IMBD and seen MUCH worse insults at Disney from other members, so it's unfair to pick on this person!

[Aqua]

I think being branded a homosexual at IMDb because your first animated film was The Little Mermaid is idiotic and offensive.

[Lazario]

Actually... The only thing I find really out-there about that guy's comment (the first one, the one this topic is posted about) is that he seems to be saying adults can't enjoy children's entertainment - especially if they loved it as a child. And he/she also seems to think Shrek was a Disney movie, am I correct? Shrek was stupid for many of those reasons. And it would also bother me a lot if critics were panning Chicken Little because it was "innocent" or because it wasn't like Shrek.

[PatrickvD]

why do people find Shrek to be such a comedy masterpiece. I thought it was on the border of mediocrity... at best.

[ZOOMBOOM0688]

I LOVE SHREK just as much as some of the disney movies. I hate it when people always say shrek isn't for kids or somthing I know some jokes might be offensive but I love all the characters more than the jokes and shrek does have nice little messages like disney movies. Also some of the disney classics were made a long time ago and you can't really compare them but I wish we could have more movies like sleeping beauty and even Beauty and the beast that don't try to make the movie entertaining by putting in stupid jokes. I haven't seen CHICKEN LITTLE yet so I can't comment on that.

[Kenai]

Yeah, I saw that comment this morning. I didn't find it too idiotic either. I'm actually glad he enjoyed the movie,too.

why do people find Shrek to be such a comedy masterpiece. I thought it was on the border of mediocrity... at best.

Welcome to the 21st century I'm afraid. Oh well, though, IMO, Jeffrey Katzenburg eats his words of success with his company's other mediocre crap of animated movies for sure.

[Alan]

I think being branded a homosexual at IMDb because your first animated film was The Little Mermaid is idiotic and offensive.

Now I find that comment stupid, immature, and ignorant. This comment is a lot more offensive than the original post.

[drnilescrane]

Dont worry, as long as people continue thinking Disney is all about Pixie Dust, and thinking Pop Century at WDW is 'more Disney' than some of the better themed resorts, nobody really will understand what disney is about.

I'll give you a hint: Story and Family (Not to be confused with Kids) are two key words

[Pluto Region1]

I think the person who posted this topic is offended because the reviewer said that only kids can like Disney movies and he finds that to be also idiotic.

It offends him because he likes Disney movies and he's an adult... I can understand where he is coming from but like you all say, we just have to accept that reviewers are going to be that narrow minded and get over it.

On the bright side, at least he gave it a thumbs up!

[Loomis]

Well, the person's heart was in the right place, and they are obviously a fan of the film. They seem to be reacting strongly to the suggestion that in order for a animated film to be good, it has to appeal to adults and not kids. As any fan of film - Disney or otherwise - will know, a great film appeals to everyone and is timeless. However, this person seems to think the Disney film has become "kiddiefied".

In a certain respect, that is true. Disney has become a victim of its own success in the "family market". Now there is a certain expectation on them. As I have said elsewhere... In Disney War, an excellent account of the Eisner years by James B. Stewart, there is a paragraph that mentions Walt wanted more from the Disney Studio. After viewing To Kill a Mockingbird, Walt commented: "I wish I could make movies like that...I've worked my whole life to create the image of what 'Walt Disney' is. It's not me. I smoke, and I drink, and all the things that we don't want the public to think about". This is why Disney created the Touchstone division and the Miramax deals - so the main "Disney" label could be seen as a "family" (meaning, family with children) label.

Now, I actually don't mind Shrek that much, although some of the other DreamWorks films (especially Shark's Tale) just don't appeal. I think Shrek has limited rewatchability, whereas a more traditional tale tends to last forever.

Besides, do the people who dislike those other films simply do so because they are Dreamworks and not Disney? After all, the very factors that Shrek is criticized for - adult humour, anachronistic elements - were what made Pirates of the Caribbean work. After all, it was the same writers doing pretty much the same thing - take an existing genre and making it "modern". I liked PotC too, and it has nothing to do with the Disney label (ok, it does a little )

While I wouldn't call the post "idiotic" and certainly not "offensive", IMDB don't apply the same strict posting guidelines that a well-moderated forum would. Hell, their news seems to be pulled out of nowhere half the time. I'm not surprised to see a user post something that has no basis in fact. Even so, they are expressing an opinion - one that sees Disney films "for children". As I have said above, this is true on some level - and not a bad thing either.

[Pluto Region1]

As any fan of film - Disney or otherwise - will know, a great film appeals to everyone and is timeless. However, this person seems to think the Disney film has become "kiddiefied".

.....After viewing To Kill a Mockingbird, Walt commented: "I wish I could make movies like that...I've worked my whole life to create the image of what 'Walt Disney' is. It's not me. I smoke, and I drink, and all the things that we don't want the public to think about". This is why Disney created the Touchstone division and the Miramax deals - so the main "Disney" label could be seen as a "family" (meaning, family with children) label.

You point out alot of interesting things to think about here. An interesting standard - a great film is one that appeals to all ages. Of course this doesn't work with many films that are considered classics but in no way appeal to all ages - examples off-hand: Gone with the Wind, Citizen Kane, To Kill a Mockingbird, Blackboard Jungle, On the Waterfront, etc. All are considered great films but do not appeal to all ages....

I guess we are speaking in terms of animation? And even with this category of film, it will be a person's opinion as to whether or not it appeals to all ages. For example, one of the few films I saw this year was Disney's golf film "Greatest Game Ever Played" (I think is the title) and I am sure it was yanked after being in the theater for 1 week! Now I thought it was a great film and would appeal to a wide age group yet it is a flop - so not "great" in terms of box-office. Hopefully history will judge it better! The golf movie is not going to appeal to a very young kid - only a kid of say, 8 or 9 and up...(but this is my opinion - how do I know?)

But how can a film appeal to a 4 year old and equally be as appealing to a 20 or 50 year old? That is a hard standard.

the very factors that Shrek is criticized for - adult humour, anachronistic elements - were what made Pirates of the Caribbean work. After all, it was the same writers doing pretty much the same thing - take an existing genre and making it "modern". I liked PotC too, and it has nothing to do with the Disney label (ok, it does a little )

Well but Shrek was supposed to be a kids movie - it is a cartoon, right? Like Monsters Inc.... wheras IMO, POTC is a teenager to adult film. POTC has adult content in it, but is appealing to young children because it has pirates in it. I doubt small children get all the humor in POTC (this is like the Loonie tunes cartoons - they appealed to us as young kids, but we didn't get alot of the gags until we got older). The adult jokes would fit right into POTC whereas I guess people are questioning the type of adult jokes in Shrek? Again, I have not seen Shrek, so I am speculating on something I have yet to see.... but I think Chicken Little fits that definition of great (appealing to all ages) in that it has got the necessary humor in it to appeal to adults too. it is a necessity that they put some adult humor in these cartoon films since adults are the ones who take their kids to see the movies. They have to sit there for 1.5 hours.... which means some adult humor is necessary. I think making a film that appeals to both the young kids yet an adult can enjoy the humor is quite a feat for any movie studio to meet. (I also think I am out of my league here, sorry!)

I don't know, but maybe the adult humor in Shrek is tasteless or too adult? My husband says he was watching the promos for shrek and said the character is belching and while my husband is a former musician and punk rocker and no way a prude or fuddy duddy, yet he questions the appropriateness of that. (ala Beavis and Butthead?)

Now this promo was being run on one of the Disney Channels (I forget which) and it kind of makes you wonder - by running a negative promo of this other competing movie, belching - is Disney trying to defrock this cartoon? I think I would agree - we don't need to see the belching, but I guess I should see the film or promo myself first before making this judgement.

[GhostHost]

if by adult humor, you mean sex jokes, then no they do not need to be in an animated film for it to appeal to (intelligent) adults.

[nachonaco]

"How do you make a movie for a four-year-old appeal to an older person?" (okay, okay, paraphrased but it's 6 AM where I live, I've been up for 2 hours and I'm not thinking very clearly)

Easy. Have you ever seen The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, or the Little Mermaid?

These were movies from Disney's golden era, and I must say at sixteen (I'll be 17 when the TLM PE comes out) I still treasure these films.

Sure, for some it's not the heartwarminess or the slapstick, but moments that make you think....things that little kids aren't smart enough to pick up.

[jamminjake245]

I don't think that is idiotic or offensive at all. It is a matter of opinion, but now to that severe of state. lol

[Wonderlicious]

I am not too bothered about this comment, as it is simply personal opinion, but it is tragic to see people always dismiss Disney stuff, or anything animated or whimsical as "kid's stuff". I was watching a film programme on TV yesterday and was quite annoyed when I heard Ralph Feinnes, commenting on his roles in Wallace and Grommit and the upcoming Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, saying that it seems as though he's becoming a "children's entertainer." It's really a shame that people are so snobby to films for everyone, just because they may appeal to all, including children.