Disney's last politically incorrect movie?

[Disney's Divinity]

'Political correctness' is a plague! This

Only for people without manners. Because that's all "political correctness" amounts to in the end--manners.

[BelleGirl]

'Political correctness' is a plague! This

Only for people without manners. Because that's all "political correctness" amounts to in the end--manners.

Why than is it called 'political correctness' instead of just '(good) manners'? For me what it amounts to in the end is: stifle freedom of expression and don't reveal painful truths.

[Disney's Divinity]

It doesn't in any way stifle freedom of expression. All it means is if you say/do something disgusting or hateful, some people will criticize you. In other words, they'll exercise their freedom of expression, but that doesn't take away yours.

[BelleGirl]

It doesn't in any way stifle freedom of expression. All it means is if you say/do something disgusting or hateful, some people will criticize you. In other words, they'll exercise their freedom of expression, but that doesn't take away yours.

No, Disney's Divinity,it's not that simple! I've given an example from England. See also the discussion about Disney movies overhere: Disney in no way wants to offend anybody, still people are offended, they are looking for something to be offended by! Political Correctness even goes so far that Yoga lessons were forbidden in an Canadian university because of fear that it would offend Indians, see this article:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/new ... d=11550505

I think this is beyond ridiculous!

Or do you think giving yoga lessons is disgusting or hateful?

[Disney's Divinity]

I don't really believe that anyone is "looking for something to be offended by," except for opportunists who want to make money by suing.

As far as the news story you posted, the blame falls on the university for being idiotic and fearful, and catering to a minority of people who would have randomly found something offensive about yoga. They should've done what they wanted and ignored the criticism. Someone will always complain about everything, and always have, and the world doesn't stop spinning round. One Million Moms complained about The Muppets (TV series), for instance, but the show wasn't cancelled and no apology was issued because no1currs.

[carolinakid]

Political correctness had a lot to do with the covering up and under reporting of the Cologne sexual assaults.

[Disney's Divinity]

"Political correctness" is abstract. It's not a person or an establishment. It isn't responsible for anyone's actions--or inaction.

It's the equivalent of the "peer pressure" excuse. BS, imo, but even if you believe in the pressure of PC, it still doesn't excuse a person's behavior.

[Marky_198]

Films should per definition NOT be politically correct.

[Rumpelstiltskin]

A bit of common sense would be healthy, this pandering to oversensitiveness is not.

It could be defined as a doctrine which goes beyond common sense, and where the message is the dominant factor in the movie.

[Marky_198]

"common" changes every 10 years.

You should always see a film as a product of the time and situation it was made in, and not even necessarily as veracious.

Being gay was something very different in the 20's than it is now. No reason to feel offended.
Smoking was something very different in the 70's than it is now. No reason to feel offended.

The list is endless.

And even if a character does smoke in a film now, still no need to feel offended. It might be a fantasy character and story.

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Being gay was something very different in the 20's than it is now. No reason to feel offended.
Smoking was something very different in the 70's than it is now. Now reason to feel offended.

I think that tells a lot about what politically correctness really is. We are told what you should and should not feel offended by. Those who for instance feel offended by openly gay characters in a Disney movie are told they should not feel offended, and if they do, they are told they are an exception from the rule and where they belong (amongst the bigots or somewhere else). People feel offended that you are offended. It's more about the viewers than it is about the element in the movie that offends them.
But if it is OK to feel offended by something, then it is most important that this offending element is not present in the movie, because offending someone for not following the rules has become a major crime.
That's my definition of political correctness.

[Disney's Divinity]

I disagree. It reminds me of that argument about "tolerance," which is linked to political correctness. Expecting people to be tolerant of those who are intolerant, ie homophobes, misogynists and racists, would be illogical. And on that front I agree that something homophobic, racist, or misogynist should not be in a film aimed at children (as Disney films generally are), sorry, and when Disney films are called out for it deservedly, that's a good thing.

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Portraying a person of another race as inferior to others is unacceptable in movies today. But not having black characters in Frozen is not intolerance, or not having Scandinavian characters in Moana for that matter.

[Disney's Divinity]

But not having black characters in Frozen is not intolerance, or not having Scandinavian characters in Moana for that matter.

You're taking something said by one person or a few people as an excuse to deride idea of tolerance or political correctness in general. It would be like me taking the words of a couple religious idiots I met on a bus as a reason to deride all religion in general.

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Actually there was public websites dedicated to the subject. Either way, this was meant as an example of political correctness, not a topic itself. As long as you get an idea what it is about, you don't have to personally agree.

[Disney's Divinity]

O-kay......

The problem is that everyone who examines a text (like film, books, etc.) through the lens of gender, race, social staus, etc. is at the end of the day only giving one opinion. Not everyone who examines a text through the lens of race will see the same thing, for example. It's the same with words like "feminism"; not all feminists believe the same thing, or see the same things as offensive, etc. One feminist's outlook and opinion doesn't represent all feminists, and so on.

[Wonderlicious]

There will always be hypersensitive people out there who complains about everything, like Frozen being "too white", no matter how hard you try not to offend anyone. But movies that in hindsight makes you think; this could really not have been done today, is something else. As mentioned, parts of Aladdin could not have been made today, but I don't see how Lion King or Princess and the Frog could have been rejected.

I know that some people admittedly try and nitpick slight problems in films. The Internet and the ability to critique things and get one's views out so easily has probably contributed to that. Hence why we hear some people complain loudly that Elsa is too white, or that there aren't enough poor characters in Disney films, or that such-and-such a thing does something wrong. The criticism of The Lion King is a bit more valid, but doesn't make it not worth showing to children. If anything, they can just learn from their mistakes. Same goes for some of the unrealistic bodies for Disney heroines; it'd be nice for a pretty yet chunkier heroine or a handsome hero with love handles, but I think the worship of the slimline body is part of a general wider problem within the media.

That said, there are some things which are perhaps a bit more concerning. The problem, I think with, Pocahontas has more to do with the historicity more than the actual portrayal of Powahatan culture, which is lightyears ahead of the portrayal of the Indian tribe in Peter Pan. The film, while dramatic and "more mature" than preceding films, is essentially still a fairy-tale version of the Pocahontas legend. The ending sort of implies that the European settlers and the Native Americans simply came to coexist and respect each other, which seems somewhat ignorant when one considers the hardships many Native Americans went through over the next few hundred years thereafter. I think The Princess and the Frog is a bit similar to a lesser extent; the portrayal of the African-American characters is positive overall, but I was struck by how much white and black characters seemed to interact happily in a society that would have been far more segregated and far more prejudiced, and I know that a lot of critics agreed. There are some hints regarding the race barriers of the time, but it could have been pushed a bit further and still have not interfered too much with the principal plot and genre conventions.

In 2016, Aladdin seems less "stereotypical" then ever! ISIS, anyone?

What? ISIS ride flying carpets and dress monkeys up in fezzes and purple waistcoats?

[carolinakid]

No, ISIS is barbaric, but hey, it's home. And now they're bringing "home" to Europe and the USA. Cologne, San Bernardino, Philadelphia, Paris and other places, anyone?

[Disney Duster]

I thought because The Princess and the Frog was a fairy tale, the way they positively showed blacks and whites was well balanced and not something offensive. If people were offended, there is still one thing:
Disney didn't mean any offense. Meaning offense counts for or against something.

[Wonderlicious]

Of course Disney didn't mean to cause offence. In fact, I think the problems with Pocahontas and The Princess and the Frog lie more with trying not to cause offence and to please as many people as possible. As such, historical accuracy may end up being compromised. And as I said, compare Uncle Remus to Tiana or the Indian tribe in Peter Pan to Pocahontas, and there's no denying that the portrayal of ethnic characters has rapidly changed for the better over the course of a few decades.

No, ISIS is barbaric, but hey, it's home. And now they're bringing "home" to Europe and the USA. Cologne, San Bernardino, Philadelphia, Paris and other places, anyone?

As a European fully aware of the ripples being made by the Syrian War in both my own but especially in neighbouring countries, I'm not condoning ISIS. I hate them and the warped mentality they stand for, which is largely due to their own misinterpretation of their own holy texts. That said, as somebody from a multi-cultural area of Britain and comes into daily contact with a range of people with different faiths and beliefs (Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics...), I think you need to be careful to separate the majority of normal, peaceful Muslims from dangerous extremists, who while sadly loud and noticeable, are a minority. It's a bit like saying that all Christians go picketing soldiers' funerals with offensive, homophobic placards. And I think Islamaphobia is what ISIS want, as it sets off a war-mongering "them vs us" attitude. Just be careful with paranoia, as it can make you look foolish and insensitive.