Disney Debates #6: Does Disney pander too much to parents?

[2099net]

Disclaimer: Some issues raised in this post are raised for discussion only and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.

Disney unlike any other entertainment media has high expectations thrust upon it by the public. They trust a Disney film to be wholesome, moral and unthreatening.

I've never quite understood how this happened. After all, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is far from "unthreatening". Compared to films of a similar time like Universal's Dracula and Frankenstein (both of which had audience members fainting in the theatres) Snow White is downright terrifying.

The difference is, when Snow White was released, parents understood their parental responsibilities. They went to the theatre with their children, and enjoyed the film viewing it together. Children who were scared did so in a safe environment, next to mother or father, and parents enjoyed watching their children stare at the screen in wide eyed wonder, excitement or fear.

Flash forward to the 21st Century, and it would be unthinkable of The Walt Disney Company to make a film with as much [proportional] frightening content as Snow White.

Be it engineered or simply attributed to them by accident, the company now has a reputation of being whiter-than-[snow]white. Parents see the Disney name, and automatically assume it will be suitable viewing for their children, of all ages. When films are made which don't conform to the larger public's general perceptions, they suffer. While not perfect, The Black Cauldron and The Hunchback of Notre Dame suffered financially compared to brighter, breezier animated films that sandwiched them. But it's not just animated films – Something Wicked This Way Comes and Watcher in the Woods failed so spectacularly under the Disney brand that research by the company ultimately resulted in Touchstone being set up (so that "edgier" and "adult" films could be made without tainting the Disney name).

Indeed, just as every rule seems to have an exception, only the supernatural heebie-jeebies in The Pirates of the Caribbean films seem to successfully fuse the Disney name and chills successfully.

To me, it appears this trend for safe, unthreatening films from Disney started in the 1970's, after Walt's death. Films like Robin Hood, The Aristocats and The Great Mouse Detective hardly have anything in them to disturb a younger viewer. As pointed out the one film of the time that does The Black Cauldron was a financial disappointment compared to films released either side like the much less threatening Fox and the Hound.

It's also these films that the parents of today grew up with. Today's older parents went to see them in the theatres, making them "their" films. Younger parents probably sat watching them hour after hour on VHS.

True, later films, noticeably those of the "Fab Four" have brought back some menace in the form of Ursula in The Little Mermaid or Scar in The Lion King (who was actually seen plotting and then in affect executing Simba's father) but none of their evil compares to those of classic Walt era villains. The one movie that did, perhaps, do so – The Hunchback of Notre Dame with the cruel Frollo, was criticised by the majority of the media as not being suitable for young children. Was Frollo really any different from Lady Tremain or Snow White's Witch?

Which beings me to the real reason Disney films can no longer feature too many scares and remain "acceptable" in the eyes of the public. All too often Disney films are seen as substitutes for parenting. We all know Disney films are often used as "video babysitters" – a cheap and easy way for a harassed parent to quieten and entertain a child. Disney are aware of this, and to some extent are exploiting it – recent Disney DVD releases feature more pre-school titles than ever before.

Disney has gradually transformed from being a form of entertainment enjoyed by all ages to a familial substitute. And just as family members expect other family members to be on their best behaviour around their children, people expect Disney films to likewise be on their best behaviour.

This thinking has also, through no fault of Disney's also tainted other non-Disney branded children's and family films. Often these are casually dismissed – sometimes in a derogatory fashion – as "just a Disney film". Because of the "Disney Effect" people these days expect all animated features to be safe, threat free and suitable for children of all ages. People who confuse Shrek or Surf's Up as Disney films aren't really confusing the filmmakers – most people don't care about which studio makes or distributes a film – they are just mentally creating a "Disney" genre in their head, and assigning these films to it. Safe, reliable, unthreatening.

How would Walt Disney himself feel about the "safe, unthreatening" nature of the films still released under his name? Would the creator who made the Witch in Snow White so evil, included Strombolli's threat to chop up Pinocchio and use him for firewood and created Maleficent (voted the best Disney villain of all time on Ultimate Disney) feel proud of recent films? Or would he insist the dark thrills and chills of his earlier films were still present in the films of today? Could it be that Walt understood a scare or two, in the right environment, is actually healthy for a growing child?

And would he be proud that overworked parents often used films with his name on as an excuse not to spend time with their children, or would he be absolutely horrified?

Of course, these days the average person is just as likely to associate Disney with it's Disney Channel series, or High School Musical and sequel, than evil Witches, children turning into donkeys or demons dancing on Bald Mountain. Of course, the Disney Channel's offerings are all – repeat after me - "Safe, unthreatening and uncontroversial".

Other Disney Debates
Disney Debates: #1 Snow White should be redubbed for blu-ray started by Ichabod
Disney Debates: #2 Are People too accepting of Pixar films? started by 2099net
Disney Debates: #3 Disney Princesses, long term damage? started by Ichabod
Disney Debates: #4 Disney TV, original ideas preferred? started by 2099net
Disney Debates: #5 Bring Back Eisner? started by Ichabod

[Ariel'sprince]

I agree with you but I don't think this should be a problem anymore,Disney stopped it these days-the Pirates Of The Caribbean films used the Disney name (thought only some people knows it's a Disney film),when the Nightmare Before Christmas came it didn't showed the Disney name because Disney thought the film is too dark for small children,today the film has the Disney logo.

[PrincePhillipFan]

I completely agree with all the points that you made, 2099net. I've often had a lot of discussions like this before with my friends about how it seems most people assume Disney is just for children and complain it's too scary. I never thought before of the 70s/80s movies having an influence before, but I think that it gives a great explanation why so parents come to expect nothing being really menacing in any of the Disney films.

I think Walt himself would be upset at the recent sort of sugarcoated expectations most people have of his films. I forget the exact quote, but I remember reading in one of my Disney biographies that Walt himself thought the idea of fear was vital to part of a child growing up. Such as when at the Snow White premiere he took his daughter Diane to see the film. He thought that she didn't want to see the Witch and would be too afraid, but watched it through her fingers spread. Despite being scared, she still loved the character and was fascinated by her. I think Walt realized that having a certain menace was what made any picture great, and having a clear and defined clash between good and evil.

I think that's why most of the pictures from the 70s really don't appeal to me that much as the ones from the 50s and 60s. They're cute pictures, but sort of lack a proper villain to give any good vs evil kind of clash. Edgar is too bumbling to be really thought of as scary, Prince John too childish and whiny. And while Medusa can be heartless, she lacks the real menace of Cruella and is too over the top comical. While they all do plot against the heroes of the film, something about them lacks the intense clash between the characters, like between Tremaine and Cinderella, or Maleficent and Phillip and Aurora.

I personally find it sad that it seems like anytime Disney tries something daring and new, they're deeply criticized for it, like Hunchback, Atlantis, and Treasure Planet. It's a shame that parents who think leaving on a Disney film is a form of babysitting, can't understand that a part of what makes so many of the older Disney classics so great is the clash between hero and villain. Sadly, most of them think now that Disney is just fluff kind of entertainment for their children, and they whine and complain as much as they can if their child is scared by it. It's a shame that Disney really is forced into a corner by these expectations of the overprotective parents most of the time.

[Ariel'sprince]

I agree with you,PrincePhillipFan,thought I think it's stopped.
The villains are evil and that's what makes them so great-they're evil and sick,like killing puppies for a coat or killing their families,not some fools who suck their tumb and cry for their parents when things go wrong.
And also the clash-Aurora VS. Maleficent or Hercules VS. Hades and etc.

[Jules]

"You're dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway." - Walt Disney

[Touchstone84]

One of the key aspects of making movies in the G/PG-rated target domains is to make sure that it appeals, not only to the ”kiddies”, but also to the adults and/or guardians that will pay for those services rendered in whatever medium it is delivered. It’s of course an interesting topic to discuss whether or not Disney is nowadays too restrictive or lenient when it comes to the Disney-branded output.

[Prudence]

The latter.

"You're dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway." - Walt Disney

How true.

[SpringHeelJack]

Um, heck yes they do. This is like having "Disney Debate: If Disney releases something on DVD, will Reyquila buy it?"

[Lazario]

I think Disney is constantly at war with itself about just who it's more financially beneficial to pander to.
But pandering really is bad, whether you're doing it to parents, children, or aliens.

[blackcauldron85]

I think that movie ratings have something to do with the public trusting “a Disney film to be wholesome, moral and unthreatening”. Most Disney animated films are rated G, so parents know that the movie is probably at least wholesome and unthreatening, if not moral, too.

Some parents won’t let their children see movies or TV shows (or read books) that deal with magic, so some movies may be (minimally, at least) financially affected by these families not coming to see the newest Disney movie, even when they go to see most others.

To me, it appears this trend for safe, unthreatening films from Disney started in the 1970's, after Walt's death.

Well, the people at Disney after Walt’s death wanted to stay with the “Walt formula”- they wanted to play it safe. They just continued with the same types of movies that had been made when Walt was still alive, kind of an “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” mentality.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame with the cruel Frollo, was criticised by the majority of the media as not being suitable for young children.

The source material for “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” is kind of atypical of where you’d expect a Disney movie to come from. The book is dark. I think that part of the criticism is that the film was even made in the first place- Disney definitely made it family-friendly by adding the gargoyles, but it still has heavy sexual undertones (“Hellfire” anyone?!?). It was a departure from the norm, and I applaud them for it, but some families either thought that it was too dark of a movie to take their children to or they wanted more furry animal movies. I was 11 when THoND came out, and I remember thinking, at age 11, while watching the movie in the theater, that it should have been rated PG- I couldn’t believe that it was rated G, what with the lusting and the cruelty towards Quasimodo.

Was Frollo really any different from Lady Tremain or Snow White's Witch?

I would say that the Queen is not too different from Frollo, but Lady Tremaine is a different kind of villain. Sure, she’s mean, but she didn’t physically harm or intend to physically harm Cinderella- Cindy was definitely emotionally harmed by her stepmother, but her stepmother didn’t necessarily want her dead (even though Lady Tremaine didn’t particularly care about Cinderella, she loved not having to do housework!). As Netty pointed out, “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” has dark undertones and is a scary movie at times; the Queen ordered the huntsman to kill Snow White! She wanted Snow White to be murdered! In a G-rated film!!! Times definitely have changed…or have they? As Netty also mentioned, Scar killed Mufasa, and it all was shown on screen. Then we have Frollo, who killed Quasimodo’s mother and he wanted to kill Quasimodo, too. Frollo wanted the gypsies killed…he was kind of like a Hitler-type figure, if you will. THoND definitely could have been rated PG, and surely, if it came out today, it would be rated PG. At that point in Disney history (and movie history, I guess, too), it really took a lot for a Disney animated feature to be rated PG; in 1996, when THoND was released, only “The Black Cauldron” had been rated PG, and that also had dark undertones, what with the Cauldron-Born. This raises the whole question of what makes an otherwise-potential G-rated film a PG-rated film? Should murder be a factor in deciding whether or not an otherwise-“wholesome, moral, and unthreatening” film should be rated PG? I mean, “Lilo and Stitch” was rated PG for “sci-fi action” or some thing like that. I guess the point I’m getting at is that, if many Disney films had been released today, would they have had different ratings than they do now?

Which beings me to the real reason Disney films can no longer feature too many scares and remain "acceptable" in the eyes of the public. All too often Disney films are seen as substitutes for parenting.

To me, the direct-to-video movies are made more as “substitutes for parenting”, they way you’re implying that phrase. The animated “classics” are more artistic, more “serious” films, more “for the whole family” types of films, versus what many call the “children-only” DTV sequels. If you compare the sequels to the animated classics, there is overall much less violence, much less dark or sexual undertones in the sequels than in the DACs. I don’t think that Disney would “harm” (for a lack of better word) the integrity of the DACs just to pander to families. Sure, they are family films, but Disney puts more pride, I guess, in the DACs- they are the bread and butter of the company. The sequels are aimed more for children to watch at home while the parents are busy, versus the DACs are artistic masterpieces, made for people to watch for generations to come.

I think that's why most of the pictures from the 70s really don't appeal to me that much as the ones from the 50s and 60s. They're cute pictures, but sort of lack a proper villain to give any good vs evil kind of clash. Edgar is too bumbling to be really thought of as scary, Prince John too childish and whiny. And while Medusa can be heartless, she lacks the real menace of Cruella and is too over the top comical.

This illustrates what I said earlier- after Walt’s death, the people at Disney wanted to stick with the “Walt formula”- asking “What would Walt do?” They didn’t want to step on any toes. They probably didn’t want to make a villain too violent; since Walt wasn’t around for them to ask, “Hey, is this villain too violent?”, they just had to make sure that villains weren’t too violent, that things weren’t too over the top. I guess it took Michael Eisner to really let everyone know that it was okay to have mean, violent villains again, since Card Walker, Ron Miller, et al, were in charge following Walt’s death- I guess Eisner must have felt that Walt had been gone long enough where toes weren’t going to be stepped on, that the integrity of the films should be what matters- make the best film that you can make.

Sadly, most of them think now that Disney is just fluff kind of entertainment for their children, and they whine and complain as much as they can if their child is scared by it. It's a shame that Disney really is forced into a corner by these expectations of the overprotective parents most of the time.

I agree that this is a shame. PPF’s statement reminded me of the whole political-correctness issue in films. A few people’s complaints ruin it for everyone else. If a small minority of the viewing audience complains that a villain is too scary, Disney doesn’t want to lose their money, so they may take those complaints into consideration for future films. Heck, Disney changed the priest’s knee in “The Little Mermaid” and changed Aladdin’s “suggestive” line, and changed the stars in “The Lion King”- they don’t want to upset their (conservative) customers. I don’t mean to step on any toes, but usually it’s conservatives who complain about things like this, I guess. It is called political correctness, after all. I guess it’s easier/better, in Disney’s mind, to exclude certain types of material from their films (the stuff that these people are complaining about)…I don’t know quite how to word it, but I basically mean that they know that even if we, the die-hard fans, complain about the lack of whatever (be it scary villains or the priest’s knee), we’ll still be faithful (the vast majority of us will be, anyway)- we’ll still go to see the movies in the theater and will buy the DVDs and the merchandise, but they need to reassure non-Disney fanatics that they can trust in the company.

I think Disney is constantly at war with itself about just who it's more financially beneficial to pander to.
But pandering really is bad, whether you're doing it to parents, children, or aliens.

This is an interesting statement. I think it depends on what the product is as to who they pander to. For example, the Princess Collection, obviously, panders to little girls, but also to their parents, in the sense that the parents want their daughters (and sons) to play with “safe” things (meaning in content, not necessarily that the item itself is safe, i.e. lead paint, although the parents obviously want their children’s toys to be safe in that respect, too)- the Disney Princesses are not violent or too sexual, so they are okay for their children to play with. “High School Musical” has fans that are 6 and fans that are 36. The target market is tweens and teens, though- even if a 14-year-old’s parents don’t necessarily like HSM, the kid is old enough to buy his or her own HSM merchandise. Whereas the little girls who want Princess merchandise generally need to ask Mommy & Daddy, the target market HSM fanbase has their own disposable income to spend on the items, regardless if Mommy & Daddy “like” the franchise. HSM isn’t objectionable, so even if Daddy can’t stand musicals, he knows that his kid isn’t enjoying some violent, sexual franchise. Really, some parents only object to things in their kids' lives if they’re violent or sexual or harmful (like dealing with drugs).

Before I conclude, let me look up the word “pander”, so I can answer the question at hand- I know what “pander” means, but bear with me.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pander
To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses
To indulge, to minister to base passions
Yield (to); give satisfaction to
To give in to (a desire, especially if unworthy)
One who ministers to the evil designs and passions of another

Parents desire for their children to have wholesome entertainment. Children desire to be entertained. I think that, as far as the safety in films, that, if Disney is indeed making films less violent or less “objectionable” due to the fear of losing customers, then yes, Disney panders too much to parents. But, another question comes up- Does Disney have a societal obligation to produce “wholesome, moral, and unthreatening” entertainment? People expect “wholesome, moral, and unthreatening” entertainment from Disney (hence this whole discussion). Surely, in a business sense, the answer is yes- Disney is obligated to continue to put out unobjectionable media. If Disney were to put out objectionable media, under the Disney banner, then they would risk alienating their consumers. Disney loves money, as we all know, and they have a right to, as a business, so, in the business sense, Disney doesn’t want to stray too far away from their tried-and-true formula. Of course, Disney could gain some new fans if they did stray from their tried-and-true formula, but they would risk losing more fans than they would bring in.

As far as the tweens and teens, who have fast become such a huge target market for Disney- if Disney put out an objectionable movie aimed at tweens and teens, even if the tweens and teens desired the film, their parents may not allow them to see it; to further this thought, the tweens and teens whose parents forbid the film would have to make a decision: do I see this film and anger my parents, or do I obey my parents? If the tween or teen desires to get along with their parents, then they may not see the film. If they don’t have any desire to have a great relationship with their parents (if they desire to see the film more than they desire to please their parents), then they will do what will make them happy and see the film. We all know that Disney probably won’t put out an objectionable film aimed at tweens and teens, so in this case, since parents want their children to watch wholesome entertainment, Disney panders to parents.

So, all in all, yes, I believe that Disney panders to parents, but it makes perfect business sense. As much as I’ve ranted about John Lasseter being in charge, he is a creative person; the suits only care about the business side, the making money side, of the company, whereas Mr. Lasseter cares about the content. Only time will tell if Disney films will move into a new direction in the future.

[slave2moonlight]

Well, first, not all of Walt's own films had thrills and chills. Look at "So Dear To My Heart", "The Parent Trap", and even "Mary Poppins". And some of the oldschool animated stuff could probably fit in with today's stuff in the lack of truly horrifying villains. In other words, I think Walt would be more concerned about how good the overall product was. Fox and the Hound, for example, is a pretty good little film, and it has some serious elements, including guns being pointed at major characters. I'm not saying it's exactly the way Walt would have done it, but I don't think it's all that overly sweet and kid friendly. Though, I'll grant you that that is what parents want and expect from Disney nowadays, and Disney does often try to give it to them by targeting a large amount of its stuff directly at kids and preschoolers, which we all know is not whole family programming but kid-programming. I don't think Walt would be opposed to programming targeted directly at kids', but I think he would produce much better stuff and I don't think he'd let it take over his brand.

However, I do feel he would want to keep everything with the "Disney" name on it family friendly. A lot of Touchstone stuff probably wouldn't have been made by Walt, and likely all of it, as it is, would be slightly more family friendly. I think creating a different name for that stuff was a good idea. Walt seemed to want everything he did to be enjoyable by the whole family. Perhaps he wouldn't even get into the preschool stuff. I don't know.

More on topic, I think current Disney panders to kids more than anything lately because nowadays it pays to cater to kids (moreso than it did in the '30's, '40's, '50's, and '60's), but that means having to make the product "parent friendly" so they'll let the kids watch/buy it (the ones who DO regulate what their kids are into, that is). And, as you point out, people do just try to use "kids' TV" as a babysitter nowadays. Nickelodeon tries to do the same thing as Disney Channel, but they don't do as good a job catering to parents (with their live-action at least) and so their live-action is second banana. I don't believe Walt would have wanted to get into the babysitting business. I think he was more about bringing families together. And, of course, we're talking about the Disney Channel a lot here because it is like a throwback to '70's Disney live-action in a way, with its goofy, squeaky clean subject matter. The fact is, there's a big market for that in today's world, when handled in the flashy, modern, young-teen exploitation kinda way that is. Which is why it's a big part of what everyone thinks of when they think of modern-day Disney, sadly.

When it comes to the 70's and the Disney rep since then being squeaky clean and for kids, I believe this is also partially the result of looking at the oldschool Disney stuff with modern eyes. We see that old stuff and it looks like it's for kids by today's standards (despite that people want milder stuff for their kids today), probably even in the '70's. There's also the large percentage of Americans who can't get past the concept that animation is just for kids. Man, I HATE THAT, but a LOT of people think like that. There are those who just don't take it seriously because it is drawn. I've even heard people refer to some rather violent and sexual Anime as kids' videos. And, since Disney is most famous for its animation...

And, of course, Disney had high morals on sexual issues too. Didn't even want Annette to show her bellybutton in her post Disney work. His Mouseketeers were a perfect product of the 50's, and they're one of those things people think of first when they think of Disney, after the animation. Despite the violence of something like Treasure Island, people seem to remember Disney for its tamer stuff. I think you could blame the Mickey Mouse Club for a lot of this squeaky clean idea people have of Disney.

I personally do like the idea of preserving the "Disney" name for films that can be enjoyed by a wider audience. I believe Walt wanted his movies to be family friendly, but I also believe people have a very different idea today of what family friendly is. The parents who care about that sort of thing want their kids to only be exposed to the overly sweet and clean, nonthreatening stuff, especially with today's ultra-violent and sexual world, thinking that is healthier for their mind for some reason. They want programming they can leave their 3 year olds in front of the TV to watch, and they think THAT is family programming, even though it isn't aimed at the whole family. They think the slightest bit of violence and scariness is inappropriate for kids, even though such things are a fact of daily life like anything else and it'd be better to learn about it from a Disney villain than by acting it out in a video game. Basically, Disney has always been about family programming, but adults nowadays think family programming and kids' programming are the same thing, even though they usually don't want to watch that stuff themselves.

The real problem, and it's sad, but Disney is catering to it, is that families are growing further and further apart. There is programming for kids, programming for teens, programming for adults, programming for babies, and since these things are so targeted to those audiences, they are wildly successful with those audiences. Exploiting that is a good way to do business. When you make a family film nowadays, people tend to want to put it into one of those categories, usually the kids' category. So it is either to wild for the kids or it is too kiddie for the adults or teens, so a movie that is really great for everybody rarely has little chance to reach the wide audience it deserves and takes a risk by not fitting specifically into one of those target age groups. You have some rare exceptions, like the National Treasure movies and Pirates of the Caribbean films, which I think are exactly the kind of stuff Walt would be making these days, along with great animated features.

[2099net]

I think that movie ratings have something to do with the public trusting “a Disney film to be wholesome, moral and unthreatening”. Most Disney animated films are rated G, so parents know that the movie is probably at least wholesome and unthreatening, if not moral, too.

Some parents won’t let their children see movies or TV shows (or read books) that deal with magic, so some movies may be (minimally, at least) financially affected by these families not coming to see the newest Disney movie, even when they go to see most others.

So right away, that's pandering.

Well, the people at Disney after Walt’s death wanted to stay with the “Walt formula”- they wanted to play it safe. They just continued with the same types of movies that had been made when Walt was still alive, kind of an “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” mentality.

But as I pointed out, Walt's films weren't "safe". The witch in Snow White is terrifying, as is Strombolli in Pinocchio, or demons dancing in Fantasia. In those days, films like Dracula with Bela Lugosi, or Bride of Frankenstein were seen as terrifying. People were fainting as Dracula was shown in the theatre. Most, if not all of the universal horror films of the time look tamer to our modern eyes, than boys turning into donkeys do still today in Pinocchio. It's probably fair to say Walt's films did mellow in his later years, but even 101 Dalmatians has a villian who wants to kill all the puppies to make a coat.

And then there's the emotional content. Films like Bambi has a far stronger emotional punch than any of the 1970's Disney films.

Was Frollo really any different from Lady Tremain or Snow White's Witch?

I would say that the Queen is not too different from Frollo, but Lady Tremaine is a different kind of villain. Sure, she’s mean, but she didn’t physically harm or intend to physically harm Cinderella- Cindy was definitely emotionally harmed by her stepmother, but her stepmother didn’t necessarily want her dead (even though Lady Tremaine didn’t particularly care about Cinderella, she loved not having to do housework!). As Netty pointed out, “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” has dark undertones and is a scary movie at times; the Queen ordered the huntsman to kill Snow White! She wanted Snow White to be murdered! In a G-rated film!!! Times definitely have changed…or have they? As Netty also mentioned, Scar killed Mufasa, and it all was shown on screen. Then we have Frollo, who killed Quasimodo’s mother and he wanted to kill Quasimodo, too. Frollo wanted the gypsies killed…he was kind of like a Hitler-type figure, if you will. THoND definitely could have been rated PG, and surely, if it came out today, it would be rated PG. At that point in Disney history (and movie history, I guess, too), it really took a lot for a Disney animated feature to be rated PG; in 1996, when THoND was released, only “The Black Cauldron” had been rated PG, and that also had dark undertones, what with the Cauldron-Born. This raises the whole question of what makes an otherwise-potential G-rated film a PG-rated film? Should murder be a factor in deciding whether or not an otherwise-“wholesome, moral, and unthreatening” film should be rated PG? I mean, “Lilo and Stitch” was rated PG for “sci-fi action” or some thing like that. I guess the point I’m getting at is that, if many Disney films had been released today, would they have had different ratings than they do now?[/quote]

Well, I don't see Frollo as that different from Tremain. They both do in effect the same thing. Cruelly exploit and "enprison" a kind hearted person, while constantly stating that they are nothing. The bit with buring Paris and gypsies (which as you point out is basically a desire for genocide) is, ironically I feel given it's true evil, not a major part of Frollo as presented in the film.

As for Scar killing Mufasa, do you really think that would have been allowed were the characters human?

To me, the direct-to-video movies are made more as “substitutes for parenting”, they way you’re implying that phrase. The animated “classics” are more artistic, more “serious” films, more “for the whole family” types of films, versus what many call the “children-only” DTV sequels. If you compare the sequels to the animated classics, there is overall much less violence, much less dark or sexual undertones in the sequels than in the DACs. I don’t think that Disney would “harm” (for a lack of better word) the integrity of the DACs just to pander to families. Sure, they are family films, but Disney puts more pride, I guess, in the DACs- they are the bread and butter of the company. The sequels are aimed more for children to watch at home while the parents are busy, versus the DACs are artistic masterpieces, made for people to watch for generations to come.

I think you're right AND wrong about this. The theatrical films do have more scope, ambition and wider appeal than the DTVs. That's unquestionable. But sadly, people are stupid, and the bulk of people still use the classics as babysitting videos as well. After all, they're "Disney". That's all most people care about - the name. They don't have the critical eye or deep rooted appreciation of the films as we do.

And Disney obviously know this too.

I think that's why most of the pictures from the 70s really don't appeal to me that much as the ones from the 50s and 60s. They're cute pictures, but sort of lack a proper villain to give any good vs evil kind of clash. Edgar is too bumbling to be really thought of as scary, Prince John too childish and whiny. And while Medusa can be heartless, she lacks the real menace of Cruella and is too over the top comical.

This illustrates what I said earlier- after Walt’s death, the people at Disney wanted to stick with the “Walt formula”- asking “What would Walt do?” They didn’t want to step on any toes. They probably didn’t want to make a villain too violent; since Walt wasn’t around for them to ask, “Hey, is this villain too violent?”, they just had to make sure that villains weren’t too violent, that things weren’t too over the top. I guess it took Michael Eisner to really let everyone know that it was okay to have mean, violent villains again, since Card Walker, Ron Miller, et al, were in charge following Walt’s death- I guess Eisner must have felt that Walt had been gone long enough where toes weren’t going to be stepped on, that the integrity of the films should be what matters- make the best film that you can make.

But Walt had no quarms about making villains proper villains. Why should people following Walt suddenly have issues with it? Either because they weren't up to the job in the first place or because society had started to demand a change. I can't think of any other reason.

Parents desire for their children to have wholesome entertainment. Children desire to be entertained. I think that, as far as the safety in films, that, if Disney is indeed making films less violent or less “objectionable” due to the fear of losing customers, then yes, Disney panders too much to parents. But, another question comes up- Does Disney have a societal obligation to produce “wholesome, moral, and unthreatening” entertainment? People expect “wholesome, moral, and unthreatening” entertainment from Disney (hence this whole discussion).

What is wholesome? Does it mean without scares?

But why do people expect this. Why didn't they expect it when going with their children to see Snow White, Pinocchio or any other early Disney film? Obviously not, because those films are many times more scary than any Disney film since.

Disney has always been moral, but is hasn't always been unthreatening.

In those days, the audience would go and view the film as a family and knew any fears the child may have could be washed away with a reassuring hug from mother or father in the chair next to them. These days, families are less likely to do stuff together, and it results in - for want of a better phrase - dumbing down of the artform.

[blackcauldron85]

But as I pointed out, Walt's films weren't "safe".

I guess what I was trying to get at was that people at Disney didn't have Walt's approval, so maybe they felt that they didn't want to have too strong of a villain. It may be very improbable, but that was my thought.

As for Scar killing Mufasa, do you really think that would have been allowed were the characters human?

No, I don't.

The theatrical films do have more scope, ambition and wider appeal than the DTVs. That's unquestionable. But sadly, people are stupid, and the bulk of people still use the classics as babysitting videos as well. After all, they're "Disney". That's all most people care about - the name. They don't have the critical eye or deep rooted appreciation of the films as we do.

And Disney obviously know this too.

Before I read the last sentence, my answer would've been that it's the comsumers who are not caring about the "scope, ambition, and wider appeal" of the DACs versus the DTVs. Disney churns out so many of the "subpar" sequels that they must know that there's a different market for those than the DACs. Less money goes into the DTVs, and they market them more towards children versus marketing DACs to a more broad public. I think that Disney wants more people to see and appreciate the DACs; saying that, though, the current rereleases of the sequels obviously means that they want people to see these films, too, or maybe saying that they want people to purchases these films would be more accurate. One thing about the DTVs is the lack of merchandise- had "Return to Never Land" (which, even though it wasn't a direct DTV, having been in the theaters a short while, it still is a sequel) been a DAC, there surely would've been Jane dolls made, or for TLMII, Melody dolls made. Maybe there were Jane or Melody dolls, but not in the scope that the DAC characters have dolls. Disney invests more into the DACs, naturally, and that's shown in the way the market the films; Disney is a lot more pandering with the DTVs than they are with the DACs- the DTVs are much tamer, in general, than the DACs, since, basically, their target market is little kids, their main purpose to be babysitters.

But Walt had no quarms about making villains proper villains. Why should people following Walt suddenly have issues with it? Either because they weren't up to the job in the first place or because society had started to demand a change. I can't think of any other reason.

As I said earlier, I think the fact that Walt wasn't around to okay things made the workers uneasy, in the sense that they didn't want to tarnish the Disney name; without Walt, who was to say what Walt would have or would not have done? I totally agree with you on the fact that there were definitely some scary villains in Walt's films. Absolutely. But maybe the workers didn't want to go too far- they played it safe since they didn't have Walt as a guide- they may have been a little lost, a little timid- without Walt's say, they didn't want to do anything that would anger the public- they maybe wanted to do things that were safe, just to get by, not to anger anyone. If a film had massively failed, due to whatever reason, but in part due to an element that Walt may not have approved of, for whatever reason, the animation studio could have closed. They didn't want to risk anything, so they maybe just played it safe. Eventually, as I mentioned earlier, Michael Eisner came aboard, and he obviously didn't feel this way.

What is wholesome? Does it mean without scares?

But why do people expect this. Why didn't they expect it when going with their children to see Snow White, Pinocchio or any other early Disney film? Obviously not, because those films are many times more scary than any Disney film since.

Disney has always been moral, but is hasn't always been unthreatening.

Our society is so PC now, entertainment companies are probably afraid of making people upset- some people are so sensitive. People, as a whole, seem to be more a heck of a lot more sensitive now than they were then. If "Song of the South" or "Gone With the Wind" were even put in production today, they probably wouldn've have even made it to the theater, what with protest groups and all. By making the films unthreatening, they are insuring themselves against backlashes. Wasn't there already a stink about "The Princess and the Frog"? And that's a fairy tale. Cinderella was a maid, but no one complained, yet Tiana can't be a maid? People are so sensitive.

In those days, the audience would go and view the film as a family and knew any fears the child may have could be washed away with a reassuring hug from mother or father in the chair next to them. These days, families are less likely to do stuff together, and it results in - for want of a better phrase - dumbing down of the artform.

I agree with you here- families don't do that much together anymore, compared to back in Walt's time. I'm assuming that by "dumbing down of the artform" you mean that filmmakers are making safer films because they know that the chances of children seeing the movie with their parents are slim, so they just don't want to put objectionable material in the film.

[2099net]

I think political correctness is something different than what I am talking about. Everybody here would, I assume, agree that making a Disney Animated Classic set on a desert island and with black cannibals running around in grass skirts and shouting "umba bunga" while threatening to kill and eat the heroes would be ENORMOUSLY politically incorrect and NOT AT ALL suitable for being the subject of a film. Nobody here would want a Disney film made with content like that or similar content.

But if you made a Disney Animated Classic set on a desert island with fantastical half-human/half-reptile creatures summoned up by an evil witch running around threatening to kill and maybe even eat the heroes it wouldn't be politically incorrect and while it could be made to appear frightening for younger viewers - but would that make it unsuitable for being a Disney film? After all, haven't generations of children grown up with scary (much more scary than the Disney films) fairytales as part of their childhood?

Children like to be scared. In fact, I would go further and say Children need to be scared. It's part of the normal growing up process and them learning about the world that they live in. The key is to make sure that the scares are in a controlled environment.

And sadly, as I've already pointed out there's a significant number of parents these days who don't give a monkey about their children. And I do feel Disney films are suffering because of this. In fact, I feel all "childrens' films" are suffering because of it.

*sigh* A few healthy scares seem to be looked down upon, but fart, pooh and wee jokes are apparently okay in the eyes of today's parents.

As for political correctness, Disney's made loads of films that could be considered politically incorrect if you were that way inclined. Look at the insulting national stereotypes in Beauty and the Beast for example? Or possibly the Huns in Mulan? Or Frollo's distaste for the gypsies?

I think the stupidity of political correctness and Disney can best be summed up in comments I have read on this forum about "special episodes" of Disney Channel shows such as "That's So Raven" for example where it was considered "controversial" so have an episode about smoking. Why for Pete's sake was this even considered slightly controversial or even special? It's not as if the episode would ever come out pro-smoking. Frankly, if even showing an episode which points out scientific facts about what smoking does to a human body is considered "controversial" or special, then what has the world come to?