Disney's Mort

[pinkrenata]

Isnt somebody supposed to be shirtless?

I know! I was trying to figure out who Jacob was, but it was hard to identify him, since they're all wearing shirts. I guess it's the beefy version of Eric?

I think they're all just supposed to be the Cullens. No Jacob Black.

*<i>Why, oh why am I admitting to knowing this much about <b>Twilight</b> characters?</i>*

[Elladorine]

First, since when does Who Framed Roger Rabbit, a film which melded Disney with Warner Brothers, which is un-Disney, fair game? It's not, because it's not a Disney animated classic which is what we are talking about.

I didn't know a film had to be a DAC in order to be considered "Disney." Feel free to exclude it for that reason but it is a film produced and released by Disney, and by definition that makes it Disney. You can call it "un-Disney" all you like and point out that it has characters from other studios, but that doesn't change what the film is. In fact they were going for "Disney heart" within the film, which may not be far off from that elusive Disney Essence term you're so quick to toss around.

Anyway, talk about Disney-fied sex: why do you think Jock and/or Trusty were going to propose to Lady? (That reference was cut from the Dutch dub, by the way.) Because Tramp knocked her up during their night together.

I wanted to use that as an example too but it's not as blatant. But yeah, Jock and Trusty wanted to defend her honor . . . good little ladies don't go sleeping around when they're single. I remember totally not getting that part when I was a kid.

[Goliath]

I wanted to use that as an example too but it's not as blatant. But yeah, Jock and Trusty wanted to defend her honor . . . good little ladies don't go sleeping around when they're single. I remember totally not getting that part when I was a kid.

I remember not getting it either. As I said, that reference was cut, but even then I didn't understand why Lady was so angry with Tramp for having been with all those different lady dogs. I was like: "well, that's all in the past, so what's the big deal?" I still think so, but now I understand it better, and now I understand the time period the film is set in (and the time period it was being made).

[Disney Duster]

I think there is a Disney essence, but that it is quality, family-friendly film-making. Disney doesn't need a specific formula or moral for every single one of their movies.

That makes no sense when you think about it. If Disney's essence is quality family-friendly entertainment, how does that make them different from other studios which also make pretty good quality family entertainment? There is much more too it, so many of Walt's films are similar, have similar themes. Lots of people have already tried to point out how his films are very different, but I've gone and pointed out how they are similar already, this is not the place for me to re-do it. But there is definately a concentration on classic stories and characters, magic, wishing, believing, warmth, and artsiness, talking animals, and royalty in Walt's films. And not just those things, but the Disney kind of those things.

I did not say I didn't approve of death because of his design.

Yes, you did. You just painted yourself in a corner with that remark.

You must find where I said that and show everyone for me to believe you.

Fair enough point on Roger Rabbit which I agree shouldn't be an example to use, but you I like how you you couldn't argue against Hunchback's example I gave.

Hunchbavk is a classic of literature, just like Jungle Book, Alice, Peter, mythology and fairy tales, hence it's acceptance as that's what Disney did before. Discworld is not any of those.

Next, the caterpillar could be smoking some Wonderland whatever,

He's smoking a Hookah.[/quote]
Yes and you can put anything in a hookah, including a made-up Wonderland drug, but it doesn't matter. They are not showing the mind-altering effects of illegal drugs that are from real life. Growing tall and big is not altering your mind like happens with real drugs, you see.

It doesn't matter how friendly death is. Death is a wacky Discworld type comedic take on death, he is not a mythical or folklore character like Hdes, who by the way did not represent death, he didn't kill people and take their souls, he just ruled the place where there souls were.

Just like Ron and Jon made a wacky comedic "christianize" take on the more serious mythological, and Greek myth -> Heracles. Not mention Mort will be directed by same directors.[/quote]
That is not the same kind of (also more adult and twisted) wackiness that Discworld has. Hercules is mythology so it fits, Discworld doesn't.

yet they're going to try and make it Disney, because they just liked Mort so much and just want to put Disney animation on whatever they're personally interested in.

Which most of us don't really see any problem with.[/quote]
The reason it's a problem is because they are just doing what they want to do instead of what fits Disney. Just like all the science fiction films the company was obsessed with for a while, we all know Treasure Planet was a personal project of theirs, not a "roght for Disney" project.

quote="Linden"]I was trying to figure out who Jacob was, but it was hard to identify him, since they're all wearing shirts. I guess it's the beefy version of Eric? [/quote]
That is a beefy version of Prince Charming.

Lady and the Tramp doesn't show sex at all! They only kinda sorta not really imply it. Meanwhile Death will be a whole character!!!!

[Super Aurora]

Hunchbavk is a classic of literature, just like Jungle Book, Alice, Peter, mythology and fairy tales, hence it's acceptance as that's what Disney did before. Discworld is not any of those.

But Black Cauldron, Lady and the Tramp, Fox and the Hound, 101 Dalmation, etc are all literature too and not as well known or "classic"(at the time) as the one you listed. I guess that mean they are "un-Disney" as well.
Disney will adapt anything. Whether it's literature, mythology, folklore, fairy tales, or even just regular original stories. Disney will make whatever it deems it wants to make.

They are not showing the mind-altering effects of illegal drugs that are from real life. Growing tall and big is not altering your mind like happens with real drugs, you see.

It's about distorting your perspective. I've taken pot(so I would know.), and know that it can do that. Cocaine and Heroin can do even more(and worse). But point of matter is that there is many allusion of drug usage in the movie and the effects it gives you. What Enigmawing point out was a visual symbolization. But alcohol, cigarettes, anything that can give you addiction is called a "drug". So in the sense, Disney has given us subliminal or light heart reference to drugs and the after effects from them.
Dumbo also gave pure visualize drug vision.

That is not the same kind of (also more adult and twisted) wackiness that Discworld has. Hercules is mythology so it fits, Discworld doesn't.

Dude, DiscWorld is no more "adult" than Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings is, both being PG at most. It's a fantasy novel series.

Stop making up shit just so you can have something to argue about.

Again Disney adapted not so known novels before. Black Cauldron. In fact you make the analogy that Adapting Mort is no more different than when they decided to adapt The Black Cauldron.

The reason it's a problem is because they are just doing what they want to do instead of what fits Disney. Just like all the science fiction films the company was obsessed with for a while, we all know Treasure Planet was a personal project of theirs, not a "brought for Disney" project.

personal project or adaption, disney make whatever they think they think would make a good movie.

You have to stop putting your pink nostalgic glasses on and look at the real picture.

Lady and the Tramp doesn't show sex at all! They only kinda sorta not really imply it. Meanwhile Death will be a whole character!!!!

Big Deal. Who care's.

[LySs]

Fair enough point on Roger Rabbit which I agree shouldn't be an example to use, but you I like how you you couldn't argue against Hunchback's example I gave.

Hunchbavk is a classic of literature, just like Jungle Book, Alice, Peter, mythology and fairy tales, hence it's acceptance as that's what Disney did before. Discworld is not any of those.

I don't mean to get involved with this debate, but I just wanted to throw in that 101 Dalmatians was based off a novel which was published in 1956. The movie came out in 1961. I don't think the novel was considered "classic literature". Or at least it didn't magically become a classic novel by 5 years.
Lady and the Tramp, although not based on a book, was adapted by a short story in Cosmopolitan Walt Disney read in 1943 titled "Happy Dan, The Whistling Dog".
I don't think a short story from a magazine, especially from Cosmo of all places (yes, I know the magazine was originally meant for families before it became the smutty mag we all know today, but you get my point), is by any means a piece of classical literature.

So I just wanted to point out that Disney has adapted movies from novels/short stories that weren't famous, or at least for the time their adapted films came out.

As far as I know, there's no written rule that says all Disney movies need to be based off a famous fairy tale/myth/legend/classic novel. And for some people, the Discworld novels ARE considered classics.

If there's one movie which should not have been "Disney-fied" it's Pocahontas.
Nothing says magic and stardust like a massive genocide of the Native American people, rape, and pedophilia. That's a movie that wasn't based off a novel or fairy tale, but a true historical event that was skewered to make a family-friendly movie, which funny enough, happens to be my favorite Disney film.

The point I'm saying is, if Disney is able to "Disneyfy" the settlement of the Virginia Company, they can certainly take Mort and give it the so-called "Disney Essence" you proclaim the films to have.

Death himself is based on the Grim Reaper, which is also from folklore. And there is nothing UnDisneylike for Death to be portrayed as a whole character, as it's been done before. Chernabog is supposed to be the embodiment of all evil, and Walt even referred to him as Satan himself in an interview. I think the devil is a Disney film is less Disneylike than a character who ushers souls.

Actually, here's a funny tidbit: It's said that the Headless Horseman took inspiration from a mythical faerie from Irish folklore called a Dullahan, which is pretty much the Irish equivalent of the Grim Reaper.
So if you think about it, Disney has ALREADY indirectly portrayed the Grim Reaper character in The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad, or at least to certain cultures.

[Super Aurora]

Great Post LySs.

[Disney's Divinity]

I don’t know, I think the initial idea of adapting Treasure Island was fairly “Disney.” It’s definitely a classic story, and the sci-fi take on it isn’t the first time the company’s drastically changed a commonly-known story to give it a different take (like Robin Hood as animals). Overall, I think the concept of the film is Disney-esque, but the side aspects don’t fit well. And I do wonder if Musker and Clements necessarily wanted it to be as sci-fi as it was, or if Disney asked them to emphasize the sci-fi to pull in the boy demographic. Disney seemed to have a period there where there was a lot of sci-fi, and several attempts to capture boys’ interests, so I wouldn‘t be surprised.

As for Mort, I personally feel excited for the film. The fact that I’ve mostly loved all of M&C’s films makes me more excited, because I honestly don’t expect them to let me down. Even when there are flaws, like with TP and TP&TF, there’s always some gold there.

[LySs]

Great Post LySs.

Why thank you

[BelleGirl]

If there's one movie which should not have been "Disney-fied" it's Pocahontas.
Nothing says magic and stardust like a massive genocide of the Native American people, rape, and pedophilia. That's a movie that wasn't based off a novel or fairy tale, but a true historical event that was skewered to make a family-friendly movie, which funny enough, happens to be my favorite Disney film.

The point I'm saying is, if Disney is able to "Disneyfy" the settlement of the Virginia Company, they can certainly take Mort and give it the so-called "Disney Essence" you proclaim the films to have.

Lyss, have you actually read a history book about that very period? There was no mass genocide of Native Americans at that time, it was the other way around. Thus far I haven't found any evidence of pheodphelia or rape in the books I read about this episode, I suppose they are just rumours spread by certain people. Just saying.

The history of Pocahontas and the settlers in Jamestown is interesting and tragic enough without the unproven 'facts' that some writers make up.

At least with Disney we know it's just 'inspired by a historic event'.

[Super Aurora]

Lyss, have you actually read a history book about that very period? There was no mass genocide of Native Americans at that time, it was the other way around.

Yes and no. There was no outright genocidal killing going on but The native were being killed off by presence of White people in form of "small pox". So in a sense, yes it was. But the white were also having trouble living at the time too for a number of reasons.

Thus far I haven't found any evidence of pheodphelia or rape in the books I read about this episode,

Not sure about rape, but you could consider a form of pedophilia in sense that Pocahontas was 12 and married off to a guy 10 x her age. But that was normal back then.

The history of Pocahontas and the settlers in Jamestown is interesting and tragic enough without the unproven 'facts' that some writers make up.

At least with Disney we know it's just 'inspired by a historic event'.

If anything the Disney adaption is much closer to the exaggerated tales John Smith did tell (like being captured by natives and then a young native girl saves him etc), hence where the myth and legend around her seems to be known for.

[PatrickvD]

I totally agree with LySs and that view on source material for Disney animated features. They can come from anywhere.

Bambi also hadn't become some type of literary classic when Disney acquired the film rights in 1937, which would be like 15 years after publication. And Lilo & Stitch is the result of a failed attempt at a children's book publication from the mid eighties.

There is no reason why a Discworld novel couldn't be source material for a Disney animated feature. What I'm more annoyed by than anything is that this thread is constantly at the top of the forum, yet if I'm not mistaken we haven't had any updates on this thing since it was first rumored to be in production. I'd like some news ...

[BelleGirl]

Lyss, have you actually read a history book about that very period? There was no mass genocide of Native Americans at that time, it was the other way around.

Yes and no. There was no outright genocidal killing going on but The native were being killed off by presence of White people in form of "small pox". So in a sense, yes it was. But the white were also having trouble living at the time too for a number of reasons.

Yes that happened later, but not in the period when the settlers erected Jamestown in the early 17th century: at that time the Powhatan tribe was much stronger, while the colonists knew hardly how to survive. If they did not die of diseases they starved, especially after John Smith left. The famine the colonists endured in 1710 (some of them resorting to cannibalism) is known as 'starving time'.

Thus far I haven't found any evidence of pheodphelia or rape in the books I read about this episode,

Not sure about rape, but you could consider a form of pedophilia in sense that Pocahontas was 12 and married off to a guy 10 x her age. But that was normal back then.

Pocahontas and John Rolfe married in 1614, so she was about 18 and not a kid of 12 at the time. Yes, John Rolfe was older than she and he was married before, but 10 times her age is somewhat of an exaggeration.

The history of Pocahontas and the settlers in Jamestown is interesting and tragic enough without the unproven 'facts' that some writers make up.

At least with Disney we know it's just 'inspired by a historic event'.

If anything the Disney adaption is much closer to the exaggerated tales John Smith did tell (like being captured by natives and then a young native girl saves him etc), hence where the myth and legend around her seems to be known for.

It's hardly an established fact that John Smith really told exaggerated tales. I have a little book called "Did Pocahontas save Captain John Smith" by J.A. Leo Lemay, which argues strongly for the honesty of Captain Smith and I find it quite convincing.
In addition I've read "Love and Hate in Jamestown" by David A. Price, "The three worlds of captain John Smith" by Philliph L. Barbour and the essay by Laura P. Striker: " The rehabilitation of captain John Smith", Journal of Southern History no. 28 - 1962. These historians are well-documented and also plead for Smith's honesty.

Sorry If I'm going on to long about this subject and into much detail, but I'm just fascinated by it. I think I have to thank Disney for introducing me to this part of history I did not know of before.

[LySs]

If there's one movie which should not have been "Disney-fied" it's Pocahontas.
Nothing says magic and stardust like a massive genocide of the Native American people, rape and pedophilia. That's a movie that wasn't based off a novel or fairy tale, but a true historical event that was skewered to make a family-friendly movie, which funny enough, happens to be my favorite Disney film.

The point I'm saying is, if Disney is able to "Disneyfy" the settlement of the Virginia Company, they can certainly take Mort and give it the so-called "Disney Essence" you proclaim the films to have.

Lyss, have you actually read a history book about that very period? There was no mass genocide of Native Americans at that time, it was the other way around. Thus far I haven't found any evidence of pheodphelia or rape in the books I read about this episode, I suppose they are just rumours spread by certain people. Just saying.

The history of Pocahontas and the settlers in Jamestown is interesting and tragic enough without the unproven 'facts' that some writers make up.

Okay I'm actually not sure about the rape part myself, but I do remember reading that Pocahontas told her sister she was raped by the English Governor Thomas Dale at a young age. As for the genocide part, I read about it here http://www.wicocomico-indian-nation.com ... ocide.html Whether these statements are true or not is another debate. I also have Native American friends who despise Disney's adaption for sugarcoating and romanticising what historically happened. The point I'm trying to make is, if its not "Disneylike" to adapt a book that's not considered a classic story, than its even less "Disneylike" to take a real historical event and tell it their own way. In my opinion, there's absolutely nothing wrong with adapting Mort. It doesn't matter what the source material is, but the execution. Whether its about Death, the Devil, Pocahontas, Peter Pan, the 101 Dalmatians, etc. Hell, they can even adapt the events of WWII into a full length film if they wanted to. Not saying they would but you get what I'm saying. Hopefully.

[BelleGirl]

Lyss, have you actually read a history book about that very period? There was no mass genocide of Native Americans at that time, it was the other way around. Thus far I haven't found any evidence of pheodphelia or rape in the books I read about this episode, I suppose they are just rumours spread by certain people. Just saying.

The history of Pocahontas and the settlers in Jamestown is interesting and tragic enough without the unproven 'facts' that some writers make up.

Okay I'm actually not sure about the rape part myself, but I do remember reading that Pocahontas told her sister she was raped by the English Governor Thomas Dale at a young age. As for the genocide part, I read about it here http://www.wicocomico-indian-nation.com ... ocide.html Whether these statements are true or not is another debate. I also have Native American friends who despise Disney's adaption for sugarcoating and romanticising what historically happened. The point I'm trying to make is, if its not "Disneylike" to adapt a book that's not considered a classic story, than its even less "Disneylike" to take a real historical event and tell it their own way. In my opinion, there's absolutely nothing wrong with adapting Mort. It doesn't matter what the source material is, but the execution. Whether its about Death, the Devil, Pocahontas, Peter Pan, the 101 Dalmatians, etc. Hell, they can even adapt the events of WWII into a full length film if they wanted to. Not saying they would but you get what I'm saying. Hopefully.

Yes I get it. I don't know what to think about your link and the vague tale about 'Pocahontas told her sister' (which sister? When was this recorded?) In general I do not really trust 'historical' statements' if no source is mentioned.

[Disney Duster]

I was actually thinking of even things like Lady and the Tramp when I said Disney adapts classic stories. I mean they adapt stories that are classic-like.

Discworld is something that kind of twists everything, references to all sorts of things, including even religion and real events, with a certain humor that doesn't fit the classic sense or the Disney sense. It's also more adult than things like The Black Cauldron, in humor and in everything else. I'm even surprised the author of Discworld would want his type of stories and characters to ever be near Disney's.

The Black Cauldron was also adpating the first book and some others of the series, while Mort is going in the middle. I find that un-Disney because in the past Disney has adapted the first of things because that is the introcuction to the characters.

It doesn't matter if the Discworld Death was based on folklore, because Discworld is not folklore, which is what Disney used, literature that was also folklore, like fiary tales which were both literature and folklore. Also, the Headless Horseman and Chernabog may have been based on other things, but what matters is that they still aren't those things, they have different names, different forms, they are whole new characters. Meanwhile, Death is not based on death, he is Death! It's very un-Disney to make him a whole character to follow, no matter how benevolent or friendly he is.

It doesn't really matter even what evidence their is, the feeling is that it is un-Disney. There is something strange about the idea of meeting Death at the parks, it feels weird, it just doesn't feel Disney.

And Treasure Planet would have been very Disney if it weren't for the "Planet" part and the big sci-fi twist.

Pocahontas is perfectly fine because Disney shorts had covered history before and Pocahontas was also a legend. The whole legend thing fits with the Disney subjects, it just feels right up there with folklore. Like Mulan, too. Disney always made even the fairy tales feel like maybe they really did happen, like legends. At least that's how I always felt.

I didn't know Lilo & Stitch was based on an attempted children's book, though. That's like Dumbo, so that part's fine, they just didn't Disneyfy it well because Stitch and the whole movie were a bit to violent and bad for what Disney has always done.

[PatrickvD]

I was actually thinking of even things like Lady and the Tramp when I said Disney adapts classic stories. I mean they adapt stories that are classic-like.

And who decides what is classic-like? .... You?

[DisneyAnimation88]

I didn't know Lilo & Stitch was based on an attempted children's book, though. That's like Dumbo, so that part's fine, they just didn't Disneyfy it well because Stitch and the whole movie were a bit to violent and bad for what Disney has always done.

Again, violent and bad? This is just starting to get pathetic now, Lilo & Stitch is not a violent film.

It doesn't matter if the Discworld Death was based on folklore, because Discworld is not folklore, which is what Disney used, literature that was also folklore, like fiary tales which were both literature and folklore. Also, the Headless Horseman and Chernabog may have been based on other things, but what matters is that they still aren't those things, they have different names, different forms, they are whole new characters. Meanwhile, Death is not based on death, he is Death! It's very un-Disney to make him a whole character to follow, no matter how benevolent or friendly he is.

Once again I don't see one valid reason why Discworld shouldn't be adapted by Disney. You're perfectly entitled to your opinion but continuing to impose it on the rest of us won't make it fact.

The reason it's a problem is because they are just doing what they want to do instead of what fits Disney. Just like all the science fiction films the company was obsessed with for a while, we all know Treasure Planet was a personal project of theirs, not a "roght for Disney" project.

Clements and Musker were trained at CalArts by some of the Nine Old Men. They've both been at Disney for around three decades now and not only rejuvenated Disney animation with The Little Mermaid, it could be argued that they actually saved Disney animation with The Great Mouse Detective. They are more ingrained in the history of Disney animation than you or I could ever hope to be so saying "they just do what they want" does a disservice to both's huge contribution to the company. Neither are "doing what they want", their success has earned them the right to work on any projects they wish to.

Hunchbavk is a classic of literature, just like Jungle Book, Alice, Peter, mythology and fairy tales, hence it's acceptance as that's what Disney did before. Discworld is not any of those.

Discworld could be seen as a modern classic of literature. I don't know how appreciated and well-known he is in America but here in Britain, Terry Pratchett is a highly respected and admired authour and the Discworld series has been very successful. Out of interest, have you read Mort?

And who decides what is classic-like? .... You?

It certainly seems like he believes that to be the case.

[LySs]

Discworld is something that kind of twists everything, references to all sorts of things, including even religion and real events

And Aladdin and Hunchback didn't reference religion? Plus Neverland was a fictional world that had "Redskins" which are obviously American Indians.

The Black Cauldron was also adpating the first book and some others of the series, while Mort is going in the middle. I find that un-Disney because in the past Disney has adapted the first of things because that is the introcuction to the characters.

Except Mort is the first book that focuses on the character Death and introduces the character Mort to the readers.

Also, the Headless Horseman and Chernabog may have been based on other things, but what matters is that they still aren't those things, they have different names, different forms, they are whole new characters.

Walt Disney said so HIMSELF that Chernabog was actually Satan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Di ... #Chernabog

While officially a pagan god, it should also be noted that Chernabog might have originally been intended to be Satan: when "Night on Bald Mountain" appeared on the original Wonderful World of Disney, Walt Disney referred to Chernabog as "Satan himself."

Also, I haven't seen the film, but doesn't Darby O'Gill and the Little People have a dullahan that carries souls over to the land of the dead?

It doesn't really matter even what evidence their is, the feeling is that it is un-Disney. There is something strange about the idea of meeting Death at the parks, it feels weird, it just doesn't feel Disney.

Something that is considered "UnDisney" to one person can feel "Disney-ish" to another. See, that's the great thing about movies, they leave different impressions on different people. If we all felt the same about a movie, it would get boring and we wouldn't have anything to discuss or debate about now, would we?

Plus I don't know about you, but I would SOOO pay to see Death at the parks! If it's accepted to see Jack Skellington walking around, there's nothing wrong with seeing another skeleton walking around in a hood.
If anything, Death can be stuck in the Haunted Mansion section.

And Treasure Planet would have been very Disney if it weren't for the "Planet" part and the big sci-fi twist.

Disney doesn't do sci-fi? There's a whole park dedicated to space and science-fiction called Tomorrowland. Plus it's not like Disney hasn't taken a classic and added a different element to it. Robin Hood was done with furries instead of humans, and Oliver and Co. is basically Oliver Twist with a modern day New York City element with a cat and dogs.

Disney always made even the fairy tales feel like maybe they really did happen, like legends. At least that's how I always felt.

What you felt and what actually is are different. Disney is just telling their version of the stories they're adapting, as would any studio/author.

Stitch and the whole movie were a bit to violent and bad for what Disney has always done.

I honestly don't see what's so bad about Lilo & Stitch. When Walt Disney first created Mickey Mouse, he was originally intended to be a mischievous troublemaker. Stitch being a violent selfish creature who learns how to love and be kind to others could be compared to the Beast, who was also cruel, selfish, and violent toward others, but learned to love as well. The only difference is that Stitch was a troublemaking alien with guns who befriended a little girl, and the Beast was a secluded cursed prince who fell in love and learned not to judge others.

[Goliath]

I was actually thinking of even things like Lady and the Tramp when I said Disney adapts classic stories. I mean they adapt stories that are classic-like.

Oh, fuck... here we go again! Let it go, dude! You *always* do this: you say something that makes no sense, ten people call you out on it, then you say you actually meant something different and the whole discussion starts over again. But the point is: you didn't mean something different. You didn't mean "classic-like". You meant it like you said it the first time: "classics". And now that is has been pointed out how ridiculous that was, rather than admitting it, you make up a new addition to your original argument to hide behind.

How do I know all this? Like I said: because you always do this. Always, always, always. You cannot and will not admit that your own, personal, nostalgia-driven, fact-less vision of 'Disney' is *just* your opinion. You think it is fact and that we are all too fucking stupid to understand your facts. Well, guess what? We're not! Stop treating us like idiots!

Oh, by the way, LySs: great post! You absolutely nailed it.