I wonder if Budweiser is getting a cut of the profits

[LilyLocksley]

Sure, makes sense to me. I mean why would it be a big deal if some people paid for it at one site, but never got it, and now have to go and pay for it at a different site. What could possibly be wrong with that?
 :roll:

[HawkGirl]

Personally, I think that most of these companies should take advantage of the free advertisement.
Painting Mickey on a garage door shouldn't be reason to call their legal dept!
And Hec, that's ridiculous. I'd have stripped nakee and told him to fuck off...lol

I would have challenge them as fan art that was not being sold, if it had been my garage. A lot of people here in CA have Disney characters on their homes, cars. But, I think some of that stuff is just show to keep true idiots from trying to sell stuff with their copyright on things. The little elementary school here, right down the street. Now remember I am not far from Disneyland. They did a show on Beauty and the Beast from the cartoon. They charged 2 dollars per person, the proceeds were to take the children that couldn't afford it to Disneyland at the end of the year. So they could go with all the other children. Disney went after them by the throat. They only got to do one show, the second night got cancelled. It cost the school more than they earned. They had to pay for the licensing agreement to do the show, and had to cancel any future showings. They didn't care about threats of boycotts, etc.

But guess what? Myseriously at the end of the year all those children went to Disneyland from a non mentioned donar. Plus, they all got a free picnic. My children were long gone from the school, but one of the teachers told me it was Disney. The school wasn't allowed to disclose who did it to any of the children or their families. They didn't care if everyone boycotted them, they were making a statement. Or why else would they have turned around let the whole school go for free, pay for a picnic. You know good and well that cost them way more than what it cost the school for the licensing agreement. Then, not allow them to tell who the mysterious donar was?

[neriana]

When I was a teenager, I applied to all the stores at the mall that were hiring. The Disney Store hired me. They "strongly encouraged" girls to wear certain makeup, nail polish, and pantyhose. I was naive, I thought it wouldn't be a problem if I didn't do that and just showed up clean and neat, in the proper clothing, and did my job.

Well, I was naive, but not naive enough. The day I went in to sign the papers was the day I quit. I'm a lawyer's daughter, and I read every single line in the THIRTY or so pages they wanted me to sign. Included: a page saying anything I created while I was working for them belonged to Disney, whether it was for Disney or not. I read that page about 5 times. As far as I could tell, it meant that my stories, my doodles, my papers, my diary -- everything would belong to Disney if I made any of it while working for them for minimum wage.

I've never had to sign more than 5 pages for any other employer, and none of it has been that complex, including the stuff for working in a law firm where I handled confidential documents all the time. Disney paperwork for a kid working in a mall was longer and more complex than a mortgage. It was harder to understand than financial aid. Disney sucks.

[blackmars]

Disney does indeed suck. Glad I don't work for them or endorse them (except for the fact that I love Kingdom Hearts even though I want to kill off the Disney characters).

And about that bar...midge's comment got deleted? All because they were upset about the item being free and now pay? So people can't have opinions on TSR? They're the definition of sheep.

[Redikolous]

HA!!  We're watching a film in Sociology called "Mickey Mouse Monopoly" and it talks about how Disney manipulates its image of itself, how Disney manipulates the public view of innocence, and what kind of perspective they put into our young girls.  It's quite disturbing.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=byaMd_PNyIY

The worse was the Beauty and the Beast.  I loved that movie, and it started talking about how it teaches girls to accept abuse and look for the prince.

[mando]

HA!!  We're watching a film in Sociology called "Mickey Mouse Monopoly" and it talks about how Disney manipulates its image of itself, how Disney manipulates the public view of innocence, and what kind of perspective they put into our young girls.  It's quite disturbing.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=byaMd_PNyIY

The worse was the Beauty and the Beast.  I loved that movie, and it started talking about how it teaches girls to accept abuse and look for the prince.

Well, you can't entirely blame Disney for that as "Beauty and the Beast" is based on an older fairytale (although you can blame them for advocating the acceptance of the behaviour encouraged by the older story).

You might want to listen to this episode of Logically Critical, as it is all about fairytales (but not about Disney, sorry) and is, I promise, very funny. I think he might even mention Beauty and the Beast at some point in it.

[neriana]

In the original fairytale, the Beast was a complete gentleman, kind and gentle the whole time Beauty was with him. He did con Beauty into living with him by threatening her father, but considering his position, it's kinda hard to blame him. He redeemed himself by letting her go to simply visit her family, which nearly killed him. Disney's Beauty needed to justify leaving because her father was dying, but that wasn't in the story. Gaston was, of course, totally Disney.

Disney made the Beast into a violent, spoiled brat. And they made the Prince in The Little Mermaid into a Prince Charming and turned the Witch into an evil fat ugly monster (she's a fat and ugly woman, obviously she's evil!), thereby completely turning the story on its head. I'm sure if they made The Snow Queen, they'd make the queen turn into a huge yeti in the end so Kay could kill her with a giant icicle.

I hate Disney a lot.

[HawkGirl]

HA!!  We're watching a film in Sociology called "Mickey Mouse Monopoly" and it talks about how Disney manipulates its image of itself, how Disney manipulates the public view of innocence, and what kind of perspective they put into our young girls.  It's quite disturbing.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=byaMd_PNyIY

The worse was the Beauty and the Beast.  I loved that movie, and it started talking about how it teaches girls to accept abuse and look for the prince.

You know their new little meal ticket, just got posted on the net in the buff. They are freaking out trying to do damage control. What's worse is they think it was her boyfriend that did it. He's also her boyfriend in the High School Musical movies. Zac Efron?
http://tinyurl.com/2adagr

[Redikolous]

In the original fairytale, the Beast was a complete gentleman, kind and gentle the whole time Beauty was with him. He did con Beauty into living with him by threatening her father, but considering his position, it's kinda hard to blame him. He redeemed himself by letting her go to simply visit her family, which nearly killed him. Disney's Beauty needed to justify leaving because her father was dying, but that wasn't in the story. Gaston was, of course, totally Disney.

Disney made the Beast into a violent, spoiled brat. And they made the Prince in The Little Mermaid into a Prince Charming and turned the Witch into an evil fat ugly monster (she's a fat and ugly woman, obviously she's evil!), thereby completely turning the story on its head. I'm sure if they made The Snow Queen, they'd make the queen turn into a huge yeti in the end so Kay could kill her with a giant icicle.

I hate Disney a lot.

We watched the second half today.  It talked about how Disney perpetuates racial stereotypes.  The only representation of African-American people was in the Lion King, and they were the evil hyenas.  You know who I identified with growing up?  Pocahontas.  She was the closest thing to my skin color.  My mom didn't think there was anything wrong with tv and Disney until I told her I was white (which I'm not).  She went crazy and made me watch "Imitation of Life" and gave me a Kenya doll for my birthday.

*edit* BTW, yeah, when I read the original fairy tales, I was shocked.  More violence and gore in some, less in others.  Beauty and the Beast was better in the fairytale version.

[Irish Wench]

You know their new little meal ticket, just got posted on the net in the buff. They are freaking out trying to do damage control. What's worse is they think it was her boyfriend that did it. He's also her boyfriend in the High School Musical movies. Zac Efron?

More damage control since it seems sweet Vanessa has sent these types of photos twice before, once when she was just 15. Poor Disney.  :lol:

[mando]

In the original fairytale, the Beast was a complete gentleman, kind and gentle the whole time Beauty was with him. He did con Beauty into living with him by threatening her father, but considering his position, it's kinda hard to blame him. He redeemed himself by letting her go to simply visit her family, which nearly killed him. Disney's Beauty needed to justify leaving because her father was dying, but that wasn't in the story. Gaston was, of course, totally Disney.

Disney made the Beast into a violent, spoiled brat. And they made the Prince in The Little Mermaid into a Prince Charming and turned the Witch into an evil fat ugly monster (she's a fat and ugly woman, obviously she's evil!), thereby completely turning the story on its head. I'm sure if they made The Snow Queen, they'd make the queen turn into a huge yeti in the end so Kay could kill her with a giant icicle.

I hate Disney a lot.

I'm not an expert on Beauty and the Beast (either the original or the Disney version), but your reading seems solid. The fact that they change old fairytales to fit certain societal ideas of proper behaviour and what makes a fulfilled life (or at least the Disneyfied version of them) is not a shock. I shudder everytime I see an ad for one of their "Princess" series pieces of garbage, as I see a lifetime of unhappiness for kids that buy into it (both girls and boys). However, you have to give them some leeway, as having Cinderella's step-sisters cut off their toes and get their eyes pecked out by birds, though accurate, would probably bring it up above a "G" rating :lol: .

The message within the original "Little Mermaid" is a much better one than the Disney version, I think (although, I will admit that it was some time ago that I read it...like, erm, 20 or 25 years :lol: ). While where I'm from the belief that reaching for your dreams even against reason and better judgement is put forward as an excellent goal, I think a dose of reality along with your dreams is not a bad thing. In the Little Mermaid, the mermaid is so fascinated by the life beyond the waves and the man she saved from drowning that she doesn't appreciate her own circumstances or that things may not work out as planned (and of course, they don't).

The fact that the Prince ends up marrying the woman who actually found him on the beach he'd been carried to and not the mermaid who saved him tells the reader that waiting for someone to appreciate you and your fantastic qualities or that there is a "Prince" somewhere out there for you are futile and unrealistic hopes. Plus, Disney made the woman that the Prince in the original story married and loved into an evil shrew (and she was turned into the witch who gave the mermaid the potion to change her into a human? And the "witch" was evil? What?! I was highly annoyed by that in the Disney film), in order that the mermaid's silly dream would come true. In the original the mermaid decides to sacrifice herself rather than kill the prince and his new wife, and accepts that that is result of her foolish fantasies and that she, and only she, is responsible for her own choices. Disney films, on the other hand, set kids up for a lifetime of disappointments and bizarre gender roles.

[calalily]

I'm not an expert on Beauty and the Beast (either the original or the Disney version), but your reading seems solid. The fact that they change old fairytales to fit certain societal ideas of proper behaviour and what makes a fulfilled life (or at least the Disneyfied version of them) is not a shock. I shudder everytime I see an ad for one of their "Princess" series pieces of garbage, as I see a lifetime of unhappiness for kids that buy into it (both girls and boys). However, you have to give them some leeway, as having Cinderella's step-sisters cut off their toes and get their eyes pecked out by birds, though accurate, would probably bring it up above a "G" rating :lol: .

Of course, though, the Brothers Grimm actually originally censored the tales - and were in turn censorsed themselves.  The original story of Red Riding Hood had her being called a slut by one of the kettles in the house, and it wasn't a happy ending either.  Some of the other things are left in - like the name Rumpelstiltskin (the stilt with the rumpled skin - penis) and the original tale, was a metaphor for him plugging her vagina.

When the Brothers brought out their tales there was a big uproar and parents called for censorship, for fear of damaging their little children.  Here's one tale you won't read apart from in the older versions - this one is from 1884. It's called "The Jew among the Thorns" http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~wbarker/fairies/grimm/110.html Not quite the morality tales we're used to.

[tgriffy]

Of course, though, the Brothers Grimm actually originally censored the tales - and were in turn censorsed themselves.  The original story of Red Riding Hood had her being called a slut by one of the kettles in the house, and it wasn't a happy ending either.  Some of the other things are left in - like the name Rumpelstiltskin (the stilt with the rumpled skin - penis) and the original tale, was a metaphor for him plugging her vagina.

When the Brothers brought out their tales there was a big uproar and parents called for censorship, for fear of damaging their little children.  Here's one tale you won't read apart from in the older versions - this one is from 1884. It's called "The Jew among the Thorns" http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~wbarker/fairies/grimm/110.html Not quite the morality tales we're used to.

The thing about that is that those tales were not originally "fairy tales" in the sense they were meant for children.  These stories started out as folk tales that adults told each other.  When the brothers Grimm originally collected these stories, it was a scholarly effort at recording them--they had not yet realized that they could market them for children.

Tim