DVDizzy Forum

Disney Duster wrote:

Goliath wrote:But I wish more people on UD would *finally* understand that a very large part of this is marketing!

Or maybe most of us are rather aware of what you're talking about, but want to buy into it, and believe as much good about Disney as we can because we cherish it so much and don't want those feelings ruined.

Disney itself wants to make itself seem perfect. Well, it's fans do, too. They create a feeling, and we want to keep that feeling.

this is how i feel.

But I still disagree about the making-ofs as more recent documentaries have begun to open up about Walt's dark side and his reactions to the problems at the studio. It may not be what Goliath wants to hear, but it's a step closer to revealing.

Goliath wrote: I disagree a bit. It's true that die-hard Disney fans probably know a lot of the history behind the films already, but those 'Making Of'-s on the DVD's are not made exclusively for the fanboys, but for the general audience as well. And often they are about preserving the carefully crafted image of "good Uncle Walt"; no criticism is ever allowed. And it's that way with the newer films as well. Now, that's all very understandable. Of course, this is a corporation which wants to make as much money as possible off their films and they want to keep a good public image, so of course they're not going to say anything negative about their products or the people who worked on them. But I wish more people on UD would *finally* understand that a very large part of this is marketing! It's selling an image; and the Disney heirs also profit from painting Walt as some kind of saint.

It's not exactly good business to bring up old shames or mention fallings out from a company POV. Disney will never bring up personal issues in their makings of, because people involved might not like being slandered or put down on the extras of a film they helped made.

I'm sure many people know the extras on Disney DVD's for the most part are glossed over (certainly UD's reviews have always been quick to point out when such an extra is just doing by-the-numbers praise and chatter). But it's not like Disney doesn't allow some truth out there. After all "Dream on Silly Dreamer" and "The Ub Iwerks Story" have some slightly less flattering stuff about the company in them and "Toy Story"'s DVD extras discuss the disaster that was the original film pitch. Several books supported or published by Disney have also had some controversies over the years covered too.

In terms of Walt, official publications have spoken about the strikes that rocked Walt himself and the company, and certainly Bob Thomas' book did not paint Walt as a complete saint (the recent Biography is even more cynical, though unofficial) . It is always worth remembering that Disney was human; he was not a saint, but he was also not a devil in the slightest. It can be at least agreed that he was a man that managed to do many amazing things in his lifetime and influenced many, regardless of intent or will towards fellow men. With that in mind, out of respect (I imagine) the company rarely speaks ill of it's founder.

I think we're getting WAY off-topic here. I think maybe part of the reason Walt did not particularly care for Goofy is because of his falling out with Pinto Colvig, the original voice of the character, who then moved to Max Fleischer.

Disney Duster wrote:Or maybe most of us are rather aware of what you're talking about, but want to buy into it, and believe as much good about Disney as we can because we cherish it so much and don't want those feelings ruined.

Disney itself wants to make itself seem perfect. Well, it's fans do, too. They create a feeling, and we want to keep that feeling.

So you finally confess that you're willingly and purposefully deluding yourself?

Well, that's a huge step forwards. Recognition is the first step towards healing.

It is not a delusion to believe that Walt was a good man who created something amazing, some Disney essence or magic, that no one else can. Also, no one can truly know everything about the man, everything he did or everything that happened. But you can delude yourself that you can!

jennytablina wrote:It can be at least agreed that he was a man that managed to do many amazing things in his lifetime and influenced many, regardless of intent or will towards fellow men. With that in mind, out of respect (I imagine) the company rarely speaks ill of it's founder.

I especially agree with this, but there's something I don't understand. Are you saying some books said that he had ill will towards fellow men?

It isn't delusional it's common sense; Walt Disney was a genius who achieved amazing things that not one single person in the entertainment industry has ever achieved. And I agree somewhat with what you said; the only people who can claim to have known the real Walt are those who knew him personally not biographers who purposely search to find the worst in their subject.

That being said, of course he had ill will toward fellow men. At the start of his career he was furious at the animators who abandoned him when he lost the rights to Oswald. He spent the remainer of his life after the strike hating those who organised it, particularly the animators he felt had betrayed him. There remains a rift in the Disney family today between Walt's children and those of his brother because of the two men's arguments, something Diane and Roy.E Disney have acknowledged. The man had ill will because he was a human being. No one is perfect and, as much as Walt Disney was a genius and, I believe, a good man, he also had flaws like the rest of us. Anyone can try to destroy the image of Walt Disney through vicious myths and legends, they can't destroy a legacy that has spanned the best part of a century and continues today.

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:It isn't delusional it's common sense; Walt Disney was a genius who achieved amazing things that not one single person in the entertainment industry has ever achieved.

Nobody, including me, is denying that. That's a caricature of my post. Disney Duster claimed he was willfully and knowingly casting aside every bit of information on Disney that could put him/the company in a bad light, just because he wanted to preserve that happy feeling. THAT'S what's delusional. Ignorance is bliss?

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:And I agree somewhat with what you said; the only people who can claim to have known the real Walt are those who knew him personally not biographers who purposely search to find the worst in their subject.

Wrong. You're caricaturizing and demonizing and misrepresenting animation historians. I didn't expect such a statement from somebody as intelligent as you, DisneyAnimation88.

My mistake I meant to say "biographers who may purposely search to find the worst in their subject" and didn't notice my error. As I hope you saw from a previous post of mine on this topic, I try to take a more practical outlook on the way Walt Disney has been depicted in various biographies and didn't mean to place all animation historians in one, negative category.

If Disney Duster would rather do that, let him. That is the remarkable thing about someone like Walt Disney, that, over forty years after his death, we still don't know the "real" man. Ultimately, today Walt Disney is too much of a mythical figure for some to believe that the man who created and inspired theme parks that call themselves "the happiest place on earth" had flaws. I know he did, but that doesn't bother me as much as it seems to bother other people. If Walt Disney's fantasy has become a form of reality for some of us that influences how we see the world and the people around us, that is a testament to his genius.

DisneyAnimation88, yaya, we agree! But I thought ill will meant he hated certain people or whole groups of people a lot. So I'm waiting for what jennytablina meant.

But this:

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:If Walt Disney's fantasy has become a form of reality for some of us that influences how we see the world and the people around us, that is a testament to his genius.

Was beautifully, wonderfully put!

Goliath, leave DisneyAnimation alone, that was not what he meant. And what I meant was that we buy into the marketing of Disney as something great and good, and we choose to believe about Disney the more positive things, when we can. But when there are obvious hard facts about the man, then we will accept them. Well, at least I will, I can't speak for everyone. And what are the obvious, hard facts, you may disagree with us on which exactly those are.

Have you heard of his issues with communism? I think that was the one, pure hatred of Walt Disney's life, mostly because of the repurcussions at the studio of the 1940's strike.

I agree with points that both you and Goliath have made. I admire your passion for Disney and that is something I think we share, though it might not seem like that to you based on some of my previous posts where I have disagreed with some of the points you have made. But I share Goliath's opinion that there are things we might not like about Disney, but have to admit could be true.

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:My mistake I meant to say "biographers who may purposely search to find the worst in their subject" and didn't notice my error. As I hope you saw from a previous post of mine on this topic, I try to take a more practical outlook on the way Walt Disney has been depicted in various biographies and didn't mean to place all animation historians in one, negative category.

Yes, I got a bit too angry at your post, but that's because I'm a film scholar myself and so those guys are really my 'colleagues' --even though I haven't published any books (yet).

I took it personal when I shouldn't have.

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:If Disney Duster would rather do that, let him. That is the remarkable thing about someone like Walt Disney, that, over forty years after his death, we still don't know the "real" man.

I would --if Duster didn't always claim to speak for Walt Disney. In almost every thread, Duster says things like: "You're opinion is wrong, because that's not what Walt would have wanted." Any other person making that claim about ignoring the 'bad sides' of the man/company, I would have left alone. But a person who constantly corrects others because he thinks he 'knows' what 'Walt would have wanted'... I'm sorry, I cannot let that slide.

Agreed with all the other things you said.

Goliath wrote:Of course Disney isn't going to trash his own characters in public. It's all marketing, and I can't believe how many people on UD fall for 'the official story'.

Are you saying that "the official story" is a lie? What sources should people on UD (or anywhere else) believe?

Big Disney Fan wrote:

Goliath wrote:Of course Disney isn't going to trash his own characters in public. It's all marketing, and I can't believe how many people on UD fall for 'the official story'.

Are you saying that "the official story" is a lie? What sources should people on UD (or anywhere else) believe?

Yeah, let's hear what Goliath has to say on this matter.




















Goliath is gone.

I like Goofy personally. Old and newer versions. It's Minnie that I like the least out of the main troop.

Walt however whether he liked Goof or not, I don't think that we can really truly know.