Exactly, and Death in this story isn't even evil. He just views his job as a public service. He doesn't do the killing, he just helps the souls of the dead pass on.
In fact, Death's character is very interesting because he's intrigued and fascinated by humans and attempts to imitate their lives. He went even so far to adopting a daughter, who he saved as a baby after her real parents were killed.
enigmawing wrote:Yeah, Disney would never depict drugs or sexuality in their animated films, so I don't know why they'd depict such an embodiment of evil either.
If this spreads, could we get controversies in line with alleged sexual innuendos in The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, and The Lion King?
DisneyDuster wrote:The Haunted Mansion has ghosts, and it could even have death itself. But Death itself being made into a talking, personal character, the kind that could walk around the parks, is different. It's different from Haunted Mansion, from Hades, etc. These things are not the same, there are differences, and in these differences, it feels un-Disney to have Death as, well, a Disney character.
Thank god we have you to tell us what is and isn't un-Disney . It seems that you have this idea of what this particular characterisation of Death is when you haven't yet read the book or looked into it in any depth. It sounds ridiculous but in a way Death is very similar to Ariel; he just wants to be human, as well as to feel the emotions that humans feel. In comparison to some of Terry Pratchett's other characters, Death is not a dark or evil character in any way.
You see, since people are already not understanding what I wrote very well before, my complaint that people simply don't understand me even when I explain myself is legitimate.
I already asked if sex and drugs could be Disneyfied, in the sense that Death could be Disneyfied. It means you can make either sex, drugs, or death be friendly and nice and not evil or a killer, like all of you said he is in the book, but it doesn't matter if you make death, sex, or drugs, look friendly and not bad or evil, because it's still sex, Death, and drugs, all un-Disney (Death as a person, not death as an occurence in the story).
Was the Horned King Death? He wasn't? Then that's still my point. Maleficent had horns too. It's not the same thing, and for it not being the same thing, that is the difference between what is Disney and what is not.
I simply said it feels un-Disney. That's a true statement because I feel it. All of you do know what is or Disney comes from feelings that are hard to explain, capiche? I simply made a statement that is true, you can't explain it any more than that, thus I've explained all I could.
Part of it is that death, a concept, is made into a character with personality that talks and something that ironically twists and parodies the concept. It is the Discworld style of irreverent humor and ideas, not Disney humor or ideas.
Since it feels so un-Disney, let's see just how Disney they can possibly make it.
Disney Duster wrote:Was the Horned King Death? He wasn't? Then that's still my point. Maleficent had horns too. It's not the same thing, and for it not being the same thing, that is the difference between what is Disney and what is not.
I don't know what you're saying here. Do you mean Disney could have used creative license and made the Horned King Death despite the fact he wasn't Death in The Chronicles of Prydain? I don't get why Maleficent was brought in besides her having horns.
Exactly! These things are all similar to Death meaning those are all the closest the Disney essence would ever get to personifying death. Those are how Disney does death.
Those are all myth or folklore characters, not the concept of death personified like Discworld does.
But the way they are talking about doing it now is the un-Disney way of doing death, the Discworld way.