DVDizzy Forum

Does anyone think that the "disney essence" is being lost with the Diamond Edition releases? I feel that they are keep their films on the shelf longer which kind of takes the value out of the films.

The Lion King, Snow White & The Seven Dwafs, and Beauty and the Beast were so rare and sought after because how hard they were to find once DVD exploded.

I dunno I like the whole release for a VERY limited time as it makes the films feel better.

I thought about that a little- do we cherish the films more because they're hard to find... The answer is: I don't know. Since they won't let them stay in print, how would we ever know feeling overexposed.

I honestly hate if a movie is very limited for how long it stays out. Why? Money. I don't always have the money to get the movie between other obligations, and sometimes the stores here don't get them in/out on the shelves right away. So I'm rather glad they're still easily found for that reason, but also because it makes them more accessible to people who are casual buyers that still want to enjoy the films too. Not everyone is a "Be there day one to buy it" kind of person, some like to wait for the price to drop a little, and others again just aren't that hardcore for buying movies.

I think Disney keeps the films out for just a limited enough time. Walt Disney himself didn't want his films to be out for too long, to make them special. But they shouldn't be out for too limited a time, either. Chernabog_Rocks, I know it's not the same, but there is online stores like Amazon and sometimes the films are still on the shelf after their "back in the vault" date.

DisneyAnimation88, I'll talk about Jungle Book below. In Tangled's case, no, I did not need the film to be like that, I was just using that to show how it was more changed than Jungle Book and The Little Mermaid, which by the way I explained why those are not factually more changed than Tangled, they are changed but not as much as Tangled.

All I really want for Tangled is the original title and character backgrounds. That is it. Because Walt always kept those things. If you don't agree when I say character backgrounds, than let me explain it as character birth status/title and whether they are magical or ordinary.

I think Walt kept the animation studio open because he realized it was the heart of his company. He used things from the films as big attractions in his parks, including the symbols at their hearts, the castles.

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:

DisneyDuster wrote:Some parts tradtion and some parts new boundary-breaking. All at the same time.

You mean like Tangled is boundary-breaking in that it is the first traditional Disney fairy tale to be animated in CG?

Haha, yes, but the things that need to be traditional need to be the things that have always stayed traditional, the things that Walt always, always kept. Original titles and backgrounds.

SuperAurora, okay, well unfortunately I am not exactly sure what I said you had a point too. If I can guess correctly, I said you had a point to the film being very changed. But nothing has told me of changes as big as Tangled's. An example of a change as big as Tangled's would be something like if they changed Mowgli to be...I dunno, some British aristocrat's son or something.

Disney Duster wrote:Dr. Frankenollie, as far as I am aware, 101 Dalmatian's plot was very much the same. The most changed thing was what characters did and how much money they had?

So, in other words, their character backgrounds were changed, the thing that you think is the exact opposite of the Disney Essence.

Disney Duster wrote:For The Jungle Book, all I know of changing is some characters' traits/reputations, and because the book covered many different stories, they made one cohesive story.

As DisneyAnimation88 may have said, I don't think you're the best judge on whether The Jungle Book was changed a lot from the book to the Disney film if you haven't read the book.

Disney Duster wrote:With Tangled, not only were the main character's backgrounds changed, but the plot. Not only set upon a completely different idea (instead of a witch exchanging lettuce for a child of her own, an ordinary woman steals a baby for magic hair to stay young?!), but in the middle the film completely diverges with no loving visiting prince but a thief taking the main character on an adventure, and then the only thing the ending has in common with the original is cut hair and a wound healed by tears. :/

Once again, as I think DisneyAnimation88 said, the original plot of Rapunzel was awfully brief and simplistic; they obviously needed to stretch out the story.

Disney Duster wrote:

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Why does the 'correct birth status' matter? Why does staying completely faithful to the source material (which WALT NEVER DID) result in a good movie, or a 'Disney' movie? You're making up all these nonsensical rules as you go along.

No, I never said he had to be completely faithful to the source material. But it is a fact he was always faithful to their birth status and royalty.

So what? Does it matter that Walt happened to be partially faithful to the original fairytales and Tangled allegedly didn't? Of course not. The modern Disney can still be faithful to Walt, but if Walt could see his company now, then I think he'd care more about the quality of the movies made after his death yet in his name rather than unimportant details like whether the hero was born a prince.

Disney Duster wrote:

Dr Frankenollie wrote:But Walt abandoned the traditional 'fairy tale' Disney movie after Sleeping Beauty and adopted a whole new style with 101 Dalmatians (thematically, animation-wise, setting-wise and story-wise).

Walt did things in certain parts forward and certain parts past. Sleeping Beauty was new animation-wise, too. And the Sword in the Stone was in some ways a mix of 101 Dalmatians' and Sleeping Beauty's looks. And it had medieval setting and royalty and magic. Similarities. It just means Disney should always be some parts future and some parts past. Some parts tradtion and some parts new boundary-breaking. All at the same time.

Okay, you're right here. Walt did do things, as you say, with 'certain parts forward and certain parts past.' And guess what? The modern Disney company is doing the same. Tangled is a Disney princess movie and a musical ('certain parts past') yet is CGI and uses some modern slang and humour ('certain parts forward').

Disney Duster wrote:I think Walt would be more upset if the studio made a Disney film that was good but was rated R and ended with the main characters turning evil and shooting everyone, than if Disney made a bad film that was rated G and had the main characters staying good and living happily ever after. This explains what I mean.

Stop blowing things out of proportions and using examples that favour your argument; let's use a neutral argument. Why would a good Disney film without your 'Disney Essence' have to be rated R and ending with the protagonists turning evil? It's because you can't form an argument so you use ridiculous examples with irrelevant details; besides, your didn't even properly answer my question, and as your example was so silly, I still don't know what you mean.

I was asking you what do you think is better: a good Disney film without the Disney Essence (and also without the protagonists turning evil and killing each other), or a bad Disney film with your idea of the Disney Essence?

Disney Duster wrote:All I really want for Tangled is the original title and character backgrounds. That is it. Because Walt always kept those things. If you don't agree when I say character backgrounds, than let me explain it as character birth status/title and whether they are magical or ordinary.

It seems like you also want the plot to be identical to the exceedingly short original fairytale, but, I digress.

I also would prefer it if Tangled had its original title, and that's not simply because Walt may not like it; more importantly, Tangled just isn't a good title. However, this character birth status/title thing is becoming ridiculous; do you honestly see this as more crucial than characters who develop and have depth? Do you like a character more if they were born to royalty?

Disney Duster wrote:An example of a change as big as Tangled's would be something like if they changed Mowgli to be...I dunno, some British aristocrat's son or something.

This will unequivocally enrage you, but I don't see that as bad; if it was just passingly mentioned by the narrator or something, it wouldn't have an effect on the plot. At all. I don't know how else it could be revealed however, so if you want to make this point well you should elaborate.

DisneyDuster wrote:In Tangled's case, no, I did not need the film to be like that, I was just using that to show how it was more changed than Jungle Book and The Little Mermaid, which by the way I explained why those are not factually more changed than Tangled, they are changed but not as much as Tangled.

I don't agree. The entire crux of The Little Mermaid's plot was changed by Disney, removing all trace of the tragedy that is an essential part of Han Christian Andersen's story. The didn't do it for the sake of doing it, they did it because some stories just don't fit the Disney style of storytelling. As has been said to you many, many, many times before, Disney have done this with every story they've adapted into an animated film, including those made during Walt's lifetime.

DisneyDuster wrote:All I really want for Tangled is the original title and character backgrounds. That is it. Because Walt always kept those things. If you don't agree when I say character backgrounds, than let me explain it as character birth status/title and whether they are magical or ordinary

I know what you mean but I don't agree that those things detract from how entertaining the film was or from those things that made it such a quintessentially Disney film. I wish that Peter Jackson had included the character of Tom Bombadil in The Lord of the Rings films but the fact that he doesn't doesn't detract from my enjoyment of them.

DisneyDuster wrote:Haha, yes, but the things that need to be traditional need to be the things that have always stayed traditional, the things that Walt always, always kept. Original titles and backgrounds.

But there are things that, in the grand scheme, have to take more importance; an entertaining and enthralling storyline for example.

DisneyDuster wrote:I think Walt kept the animation studio open because he realized it was the heart of his company. He used things from the films as big attractions in his parks, including the symbols at their hearts, the castles.

I agree that I don't think he would have closed down animation but I think in his later life, his priorities were the theme parks and his Experimental Prototype Community Of Tomorrow.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:Dr. Frankenollie, as far as I am aware, 101 Dalmatian's plot was very much the same. The most changed thing was what characters did and how much money they had?

So, in other words, their character backgrounds were changed, the thing that you think is the exact opposite of the Disney Essence.

Those aren't character backgrounds. Roger was not born into money, he acquired it. He kept the same non-royal/noble status as the original book. And by what a character does I meant specific actions, as in if a character chases a car in the film but in the original story that character ran around the park, it is different actions but not changing the character's background.

Look, I can sum up what I am talking about for both you and DisneyAnimation:

Walt always did somethings forward and something's past. Tangled does do some of that, but there is one more thing to notice, and that is which things did Walt always keep?

Two things Walt always kept was the titles and character backgrounds extremely close to those of the original stories. So it is when Tangled broke this that Tangled broke long, long standing tradition and broke Disney, it felt un-Disney to me or only half-Disney to me because of it.

I already wrote out a version of the film where those things are kept and yet it's is not an exact copy of the original fairy tale and follows the personalities and development and length of the film very closely.

Having the characters stay princes or peasants may not make the film better, but it would make the film feel more Disney to me and others so that Walt could be proud it was a Disney film and not the kind of film that could be made by any studio.

In answer to the question "which is better: a film made by the Disney studio that is good or a film made by the Disney studio which feels like it has the Disney essence to me?" the latter is my answer.

Since Tangled could have fit my ideas of the Disney Essence and still be relatively the same, it is not asking to much of you to think maybe we could agree that maybe, possibly, it could work, we could all get what we want and it would feel Disney to all of us and we'd all be happy.

Dear Disney Enthusiasts,

XXX!

DisneyDuster wrote:I already wrote out a version of the film where those things are kept and yet it's is not an exact copy of the original fairy tale and follows the personalities and development and length of the film very closely.

No offense but I preferred the film and I don't see why it is so wrong that Disney branched out and tried to expand upon an old fairytale and make it their own.

DisneyDuster wrote:Having the characters stay princes or peasants may not make the film better, but it would make the film feel more Disney to me and others so that Walt could be proud it was a Disney film and not the kind of film that could be made by any studio.

Rubbish. The film feels very much like a Disney film and it's an excellent indictment of the creative talent at Disney today. Walt is gone, we're in a different era now so it's time to move on and either enjoy the films or dislike them. If you dislike something you can't keep bringing up the "Walt would't like this" argument, it's a tired argument that bears no weight if you can't say with any degree of certainty what he would have thought.

DisneyDuster wrote:Since Tangled could have fit my ideas of the Disney Essence and still be relatively the same, it is not asking to much of you to think maybe we could agree that maybe, possibly, it could work, we could all get what we want and it would feel Disney to all of us and we'd all be happy.

Not to those of us who enjoyed the film and wouldn't want to see it changed. In this case it's not about getting what "we all" want, it's about getting what you want, at least that's the impression I get here.

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:No offense but I preferred the film and I don't see why it is so wrong that Disney branched out and tried to expand upon an old fairytale and make it their own.

Can you tell me what in Tangled you preferred to my version?

And I already explained it: There's some things we can't know Walt wanted or not. There's some things that must stay the same and some things that can change. But to determine what things must stay the same, it is easy. Walt always kept the title and character backgrounds closer to the originals.

And that is what is wrong. They broke something Walt always, always did. There was nothing unknown about that one.

Otherwise I think the problem here is not that you love the film so much, because no one here thinks it's perfect, but rather that you are unwilling to consider compromising with me, to change it in a very tiny bit, so that, yes, then everyone really would be happy, because you would not be nearly as distraught over the movie being the exact same except for the royalty of the characters as I am distraught over them not having it right.

DisneyDuster wrote:Can you tell me what in Tangled you preferred to my version?

I just thought Tangled was more entertaining. To me, you just went and filled your version with the conventions of Walt's films; you even said at the end that is is "more Walt". You didn't change the character of Flynn, who you have said you didn't like over and over again and called "jerky", but just changed him to being a prince. You said that Mother Gothel should be a witch with a bird sidekick (I think you even said it should be a raven), just like Maleficent. You have't changed anything for me so it lacks originality.

DisneyDuster wrote:And that is what is wrong. They broke something Walt always, always did. There was nothing unknown about that one.

They haven't "broke" anything. Why do you have to be so melodramatic? Walt Disney changed the stories and characters he adapted. END OF STORY. All this "he didn't change anything as much as they did in Tangled" nonsense is getting old and quite boring now.

DisneyDuster wrote:Otherwise I think the problem here is not that you love the film so much, because no one here thinks it's perfect, but rather that you are unwilling to consider compromising with me, to change it in a very tiny bit, so that, yes, then everyone really would be happy, because you would not be nearly as distraught over the movie being the exact same except for the royalty of the characters as I am distraught over them not having it right.

So you don't only read Walt's mind these days, you can read those of the rest of us as well?

I never said it was perfect but I think it's a very good film that doesn't need to be changed just to satisfy you. Don't tell me what I think and don't presume to know why I think that way. I'll be honest what I think; the fuss you've made over Tangled is massively over-the-top and driven by nostalgia. If you think you can do better than the people at Disney then get a job there and prove it. You've already whined about Wreck-It Ralph being "un-Disney" so you're going to create this debate all over again when that film is released; the Disney of today is not the one that existed when Walt was alive or even in the 1990's. It's time to accept it and either enjoy or dislike the films they release today and in the future, not keep using the same old, tired arguments of them being "un-Disney" because I think a lot of us are getting tired of it now.

Jackoleen wrote:Disney Duster, what do YOU think of "Aladdin", as it relates to "The Disney Essence"?

Let's see, the movie was released in 1992...

... that means he thinks it's classic Disney.

Had it been released in the exact same form today, he would think it was totally un-Disney, though. He would complain about hiring a foul-mouthed comedian (who talked about sex and sweared and used the f-bomb onstage) to voice a Disney character.

Oh, and all this talk about Rapunzel has made me want to see the movie *again*! I've seen it six times in the past half year, but it's *so* good, that I keep going back to it. The only thing that I have a very tiny problem with, is the thugs-have-good-hearts song in the Snugly Duckling. Even though it's sooooo funny, it *is* a bit predictable when the big guy walks up to Rapunzel and says: "I.... had a dream once". Could see where the scene would go immediately.

Other than that: great movie, worthy of the 'Disney'-title.

Jackolen, oh sorry, I missed your question. It could be more "Disney essency" lol, but the genie's humor makes sense because he knows about the future when those modern references would exist, and because they still kept the title and character backgrounds.

DisneyAnimation, first, please stop getting mad at me. Do you know how big of a Disney fan I am/used to be? Do you know how much Tangled has made me feel terrible and dislike Disney now? Please try to work with me instead of saying you think nothing at all should be done about a huge, huge fan's concern, when it is still true that Walt kept the character backgrounds, at least whether they were royal, commoner, or magical, the same as the original sources for all his films. I always care about what you are saying, too, and I think we can compromise. I don't know why you and everyone are refusing to compromise as I am willing.

Anyway, usually when anyone makes an adaptation, you keep certain things reasonably the same, like character names, who they are, their roles, and then the it's just up to the adaptation to get the personalities and character in the acting. And as I already explained Walt kep the character backgrounds. So all I did was keep Mother Gothel a witch, meaning she just was just given some magic powers (and her garden) and if you don't want the raven, fine, and then Flynn just became a prince. They still kept the things about them that were original: their personalities, designs, songs, and how they play out the story.

Anyway, which is more right: keeping the things Walt kept in all his films, or doing whatever they want?

The fact is, you would be less sad if the film had Rapunzel be a princess, Flynn be a prince, and Mother Gothel be a witch, than I am sad that they aren't. That is the point. If you want, even though Flynn was a prince, maybe he could have left his castle to become a thief with the Stabbington brothers and he steals some treasure just like the crown and so the film plays out even more close to the one you like (but don't even really like all that much).

Disney Duster wrote:DisneyAnimation, first, please stop getting mad at me. Do you know how big of a Disney fan I am/used to be? Do you know how much Tangled has made me feel terrible and dislike Disney now? Please try to work with me instead of saying you think nothing at all should be done about a huge, huge fan's concern, when it is still true that Walt kept the character backgrounds, at least whether they were royal, commoner, or magical, the same as the original sources for all his films.

Duster, earlier you denied the fact that the character backgrounds of 101 Dalmatians were changed. Let me explain something Duster: character backgrounds does not = who their parents were. A character background is much more than that, encompassing what they did in the past and why, how they got where they where in the present time of the story, etc. And as Roger was wealthy in the book due to his background of having solved the debt crisis in England (whilst in the movie he was a songwriter making little money), his character background was changed. And guess what? That film was overseen by Walt.

Disney Duster wrote:I always care about what you are saying, too, and I think we can compromise. I don't know why you and everyone are refusing to compromise as I am willing.

Perhaps we see you as unwilling when it comes to the possibility of a compromise because you refuse to accept these facts:

1. Walt made a lot of changes
2. The Jungle Book was changed from its source material much more than with Tangled
3. Rapunzel only had a very brief and dated story to begin with, so the filmmakers had to fill in the countless gaps themselves
4. No Changes DOES NOT = 'Disney Essence'
5. Character backgrounds aren't always important, at least the backgrounds you've been describing
6. Walt changed character backgrounds

Disney Duster wrote:Anyway, which is more right: keeping the things Walt kept in all his films, or doing whatever they want?

I would personally go for the third option (although this is directed at DisneyAnimation88): keep moving forward, but have the modern Disney filmmakers to still glance back over their shoulder at the past upon occasion. This is what led to the Disney Renaissance, which led to films that you consider to be Disney classics despite going against some of your Disney Essence criteria (character backgrounds are changed, for example, in Hercules, with Hercules having two god parents instead of being born a demi-god).

Disney Duster wrote:Walt always did somethings forward and something's past.

I'm not really paying much attention to this thread, but a chance look through this one bit did catch my attention. I 100% agree, Walt had a foot in the future and a foot in the past. That is a thing I feel today's Disney corporate leadership doesn't get.

As far as Tangled goes, since that seems to be the discution, if I may share my two cents. I think Disney finally made CGI "feel" like a "Disney" film. I can't really put my finger on it, but Tangled had something the previous Disney CG films lacked in the "feels like a Disney film" department. If all future Disney CG films felt like Tangled, I may not worry about them as much. That is not saying I don't want to see more hand drawn, but I'd feel the CG format could actually "feel" like "Disney."

DisneyDuster wrote:DisneyAnimation, first, please stop getting mad at me.

I'm not mad in the slightest, I'm just tired of these endless debates that never go anywhere because you're too close-minded to accept any opinion that doesn't correspond with your own.

DisneyDuster wrote:Do you know how big of a Disney fan I am/used to be?

I assure you I am just as big a fan as you.

DisneyDuster wrote:Do you know how much Tangled has made me feel terrible and dislike Disney now? Please try to work with me instead of saying you think nothing at all should be done about a huge, huge fan's concern

This sums you up for me; you seem to be of the opinion that unless they bend to every one of your whims then Disney are wrong or doing badly when we don't believe that. I'm sorry but I think it's wrong that just because you don't like something you think that the rest of us should agree and all think Disney are doing something wrong. I just think you're being a bit melodramatic here; if you don't like the film fine but I will not see faults in it that I don't think are there simply to please you or make you feel better.

DisneyDuster wrote:Please try to work with me instead of saying you think nothing at all should be done about a huge, huge fan's concern, when it is still true that Walt kept the character backgrounds, at least whether they were royal, commoner, or magical

Why should I work with you when you ignore perfectly valid and true point that others and I have made; that Walt Disney consciously and significantly changed the stroyline of The Jungle Book in his adaptation for example? I understand you're point about the backgrounds but if those changes aren't having a detrimental effect on the film for me, why should I give in and say you're right if I don't believe that that is the case?

DisneyDuster wrote:I don't know why you and everyone are refusing to compromise as I am willing.

Again, why should I go against what I believe to please you? I don't think I've seen you compromise very often on this forum so if you did so, maybe others would be more willing to compromise with you.

DisneyDuster wrote:Anyway, which is more right: keeping the things Walt kept in all his films, or doing whatever they want?

The priority should be to make an excellent and entertaining film in it's own right. For me, and others on the forum, Tangled was very much a quintessential Disney film reminiscent of the films of the Renaissance in the 1990's. If a director has the conviction in their ideas to make the changes they deem necessary, why shouldn't they? Walt did it himself after all.

DisneyDuster wrote:The fact is, you would be less sad if the film had Rapunzel be a princess, Flynn be a prince, and Mother Gothel be a witch, than I am sad that they aren't. That is the point. If you want, even though Flynn was a prince, maybe he could have left his castle to become a thief with the Stabbington brothers and he steals some treasure just like the crown and so the film plays out even more close to the one you like (but don't even really like all that much).

I can't make this any clearer: I don't want anything in Tangled to be changed. For me, it's great as it is. It's not a perfect film, but then again very few are, and I do see some slight faults in it (I would have like the characters of the Stabbington Brothers to be a little more developed for example). But on the whole I like it very, very much as it is, both for it's originality and it's traditional elements. So I don't know how I could be less sad; on the contrary I'm not sad at all when it comes to Tangled, I'm very, very happy with it and hope that it's a good indicator of the quality we can expect from Disney animation in the coming years.

DrFrankenollie wrote:I would personally go for the third option (although this is directed at DisneyAnimation88): keep moving forward, but have the modern Disney filmmakers to still glance back over their shoulder at the past upon occasion. This is what led to the Disney Renaissance, which led to films that you consider to be Disney classics despite going against some of your Disney Essence criteria (character backgrounds are changed, for example, in Hercules, with Hercules having two god parents instead of being born a demi-god).

That is exactly what I think Dr. Frankenollie. By all means I would never want Disney animation to forget it's roots and traditions but I also don't want it to become bogged down in the past or governed by people who make assumptions of what a man who has been dead for nearly half a century might have thought. Walt was a genius when it came to storytelling, of that I have no doubt, but I firmly believe that in John Lasseter, Disney have someone in charge who shares Walt's instincts and has a knack of knowing exactly what audiences want to see in a Disney film. Jeffrey Katzenberg couldn't have been more different from Walt but under his leadership, Disney made some of the best animated films of all time. I want to see Disney push the envelope and go outside of their comfort zone to be as original and inventive as they can possibly be but I also want to see them continue to adapt and put their own spin on classic stories and fairytales. I don't believe in "essence" or "un-Disney" or by judging films against what's already been done before; this is a new era at Disney so why compare the films they're making now to those that were released fifty or sixty years ago? For me Tangled is an excellent film, both original and traditional, that has made me very excited for Wreck-It Ralph and the other films that are to follow and I won't change that belief to please others who don't share it.

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:

DisneyDuster wrote:DisneyAnimation, first, please stop getting mad at me.

I'm not mad in the slightest, I'm just tired of these endless debates that never go anywhere because you're too close-minded to accept any opinion that doesn't correspond with your own.

This is what I don't get. If DisneyDuster doesn't agree with an opinion (and they have every right not to just as you have the right to not agree with theirs), why are they close-minded? Why do they have to accept an opinion they don't agree with? Why does the debates have to end with DisneyDuster giving into others' opinions?

I feel bad that it's always everyone vs DisneyDuster. I'm not even going there with that atrocity of a religious thread which consists of everyone trying to convince DisneyDuster that everything they say is wrong.

By close-minded I mean that he simply won't agree with anything that contradicts his opinion. For example, he claims that Walt Disney never made any significant changes to any film that he adapted from a classic story. I and others have pointed out that The Jungle Book is a contradiction of this, using the fact that Walt threw out Bill Peet's storyboards that were faithful to Kipling's book as the story was "too dark" and told his animators and story team not to read the book they were adapting. However, when this was put to Disney Duster, his reply was that "Walt was joking" or something to that effect. If you can't or won't accept a valid point or a bit of evidence to back up that point then I would consider that to be a little close-minded.

I've never told him he has to give in to my opinion on this forum. But I won't back down on my own opinions or beliefs too make him feel better.

The-Iceflash, you know perfectly well what we mean when we say Disney Duster is close-minded and you know perfectly well it's not because he doesn't agree with us. You're purposefully ignoring what we said before. You know what we mean, yet you're pretending you're don't. You're being disingeneous. (Shocker!)

The_Iceflash wrote:I feel bad that it's always everyone vs DisneyDuster. I'm not even going there with that atrocity of a religious thread which consists of everyone trying to convince DisneyDuster that everything they say is wrong.

...If Duster is willing to debate and discuss when it comes to the topic of religion, let him! When it was still unlocked, it wasn't like the participants were cyber-bullying Duster, they were just discussing and debating (you know, the thing a forum is for). The fact that you called the religious thread an atrocity makes me think that despite not being involved in it, you PMed CJ about how you felt Duster was being "personally attacked" and were partially responsible for it's locking.

Why are you defending Duster so vehemently? He's willing to discuss with us and we're not being cruel to him whilst doing it.