anyone else see the disney dvd collection of 108 movies ?

[Jules]

If people can't distinguish Madagascar from Beauty and the Beast, then it's no wonder people think that Valiant and The Wild are Disney Classics.

[w00t]

as well as new age movies like madagascar, finding nemo, all shreks..

Well, since these aren't Disney, his statement on eBay is false. Sure these are animated films, but that does not make them Disney. That's what is wrong in the world today. The general public, assuming that if it is animated it is Disney, will go and buy it because they think that it is Disney, where in reality it isn't. That is why I think that some people should be better educated in the world of....... the world. Honestly, it's not that hard. That seller should probably say that included are other animated titles that are not Disney, like "Madagascar," "Finding Nemo," and the films from the "Shrek" series.

Finding Nemo isn't Disney?

[Escapay]

Well, since these aren't Disney, his statement on eBay is false. Sure these are animated films, but that does not make them Disney. That's what is wrong in the world today. The general public, assuming that if it is animated it is Disney, will go and buy it because they think that it is Disney, where in reality it isn't. That is why I think that some people should be better educated in the world of....... the world. Honestly, it's not that hard. That seller should probably say that included are other animated titles that are not Disney, like "Madagascar," "Finding Nemo," and the films from the "Shrek" series.

Finding Nemo isn't Disney?

It's a Pixar film.

Escapay

[Disneyfreak1990]

i've always hated this fact. the fact that people think everything animated is Disney. like when i first tried to explain that Shrek wasn't Disney and told them to look at the logo they got mad and i learned my lesson which was never argue with people about this stuff. and that person was my sixth grade teacher. thankfully i didn't get detention for that. then i have a friend who HATES Disney tottaly. she likes Ever After but doesn't like Cinderella even though they are the same film with different stuff. she only hates Disney because she says that the stupid Bible says that it is evil like the Devil. when we start talking about Disney and she dosen't want to talk about it i just want to hit her in the jaw sometimes.
and Finding Nemo is Disney since it's made by Pixar which is owned by Disney.

[Lars Vermundsberget]

I don't think Disney was mentioned in the Bible.

[Disneyfreak1990]

that's what i thought. i have also heard that people say the dinosaurs are mentioned but the excerpts don't sound like them. then there are people who say the world is 300 years or less old are old farts to me since there are maps that date back to the 1400's which is more than 300 years ago.

[UncleEd]

I HATE how most people use the term "Claymation" for ALL stop motion animation. Claymation is a specific type of stop motion. Not stop motion itself. It's like how all facial tissue is Kleenex to most people too.


Disney is not in the Bible but some kooks (who live in fear of EVERYTHING) hide behind the Bible for their fear of Disney. These same people don't like Santa Claus and Fairy Tales and you name it. I also find that these people freak out when you tell them that Jesus hung out with sinners to be a good influence on them and the Temple Leaders even confronted Him about it and he told them flat out that He'd rather hang out with the sinners because you don't help people who aren't drowning but the way He said it was a total slam on how the Temple Leaders treated these people and I see many Christians behaving the same manner today.


As for Dinosaurs in the Bible, I'm only aware of this in Job and it does sound like a Dinosaur there. The creature is called a bohemouth and the only creature known to history that fits the description os a brontosaur type dinosaur. I'll have to look it up but it talks about this creature having a tail that swings like a cedar tree and a long neck among other things. I believe that some dinosaurs have coexisted with man for one simple reason. Everywhere you go in the world every single culture has myths about dragons. Any anthropologist will tell you that when cultures around the world share a story or legend then it must have truth to it. Because dragon stories were known to people who we are told never comingled there must have been some creature that these peoples knew that is the root of these legends. Live dinosaur reports from credible sources date through the 1800's. The last known account was about a village in Italy that was over run with those little cjicken sized ones. The village formed a party to kill them off and one was stuffed and put in the London Museum but was destroyed in a fire. I find it all quite interesting.


Also, the Leviathan in the Bible sounds like a description of the Loch Ness Monster. That is in Job too. (I can post the quotes if interested) It's all interesting and it's more because of cultures sharing stories that I came to believe in the Bible than anything else. Anywhere you go in the world through out history they all share similar Creation and Great Flood stories and dragons and giants. In the case of the Great Flood it's shocking how much in common all the flood stories have with each other. Again, how could they share details when these cultures were supposed to have developed independant of one another? It's all quite interesting.

I've never heard of Christians saying the earth is 300 years old but I've heard some say between 6,000-20,000. I don't have a set number belief myself but I can tell you why these Christians feel this way. Several hundred years ago some priest or monk figured out that with all the stories in the Bible the earth would be 6,000 years old. This is assuming that everything that ever happened to mankind is in there with no gaps in time though. The reason they believe when confronted with carbon dating is because the nature of how carbon dating works. It assumes that the same amount of carbon has fallen to the earth every year since the dawn of time. The only problem with this assumption iswhen scientists themselves date some man made artifacts the dates are much older than what the accepted dates for humans being around are. There is a book written by a non Christian about this called Forbidden Archelogy and it's a great resource for anyone interested. This book gathers a trove of anomolies of manmade artifacts found in places they should not be and how mainstream scientists have ignored them or hidden them. The author believes that man has been around for millions of years based on the datins of such artifacts. Some of the most interesting are human skeletons found in coal and shale deposits. They were there when these deposits were laid down. So either it doesn't take millions of years for these to form or man has been around longer than mainsteam text books will have us believe. It's all just an interesting subject and I hope I've interested some in exploring it.

[UncleEd]

Double post. Sorry.

[Escapay]

and Finding Nemo is Disney since it's made by Pixar which is owned by Disney.

Just because it's now owned by another company doesn't inherently make it that company's film.

Cases in point:

-Paramount now owns DreamWorks SKG (but not DreamWorks Animation), and they now have distribution rights to all the DreamWorks films (animation included). While they did co-produce several DreamWorks films, they didn't necessarily make all of them, even though they now distribute DreamWorks films that were co-produced with other companies (for example: A.I. Artificial Intelligence was co-produced with Warner Brothers, while Gladiator was co-produced with Universal[/i]). So, is Gladiator a Paramount film now just because they own and distribute one of the production companies behind it?

-In the early 1980s, MGM had acquired the now-bankrupt United Artists, absorbing their entire film catalog. They also acquired the film catalogs for the Mirisch Company, as well as the Samuel Goldwyn Company. Later on, Ted Turner entire MGM film library up to 1986, essentially 60+ years of films, for his Turner Entertainment Company. These films are now distributed by Warner Brothers, while Sony and 20th Century Fox have distribution rights for the current MGM library (post-1986 MGM films, as well as the MGM-acquired United Artists, Mirisch, and Goldwyn film catalogs). Warner Brothers, it should be noted, also owns the entire RKO film catalog. So, are the pre-1986 MGM films and the RKO films considered Warner Brothers films now?

-George Lucas (through Lucasfilm) owns all the Star Wars and Indiana Jones films, but 20th Century Fox and Paramount have the distribution rights, respectively for each franchise. Do we still call them Fox films or Paramount films?

With Disney/Pixar, it's the exact same thing. Disney only distributed Pixar's films, and even after they bought the company, it's still a company separate from Disney. People can claim them as Disney because of the close relationship they have, but they're Pixar films first. Disney itself is pretty much the umbrella title for anything from Walt Disney Feature Animation, Pixar Animation, the now-defunct DisneyToon Studios, as well as Disney-distributed films by other companies (Bruckheimer films for the Pirates movies, for example). And let's not forget Touchstone, Miramax, Hollywood Pictures, Dimension, and no-brand Buena Vista Home Entertainment. Would someone consider Sin City a Disney film since it's distributed by Dimension, a branch of Miramax, which is a distribution company that Disney acquired?

I HATE how most people use the term "Claymation" for ALL stop motion animation. Claymation is a specific type of stop motion. Not stop motion itself.

Ditto!

There's also the shadow-puppet stop animation (such as The Adventures of Prince Achmed), and plasticine stop motion (okay, that could fall under claymation, but plasticine and clay are two different substances)

Not to mention SnowMation, as invented and perfected by Jason Fox.

And I'm not even touching the whole Disney/Bible thing. That's just disturbing (that people hide behind the Bible as a way of dissing Disney).

Escapay

[UncleEd]

I thought Fox owns the original Star Wars and Lucas owns the rest?

People hiding hate and agendas behind the Bible is nothing new. The one I find most shocking is how some people, in many cases these same anti-Disney people, go after Santa Claus and call him "Satan Claus" when "Santa" means "Saint". It's not a name. Secondly, they totally reject SAint Nicholas and this man endured 10 years of torture for his faith without backing down and was instrumental at the Council of Nicea. Yet, he gets cast in the pot of "evil" because so many people are sheeple and are too ignorant to study things for themselves and find out that they probably don't have half the courage or faith this man had. Anywho...,