The Instigator
Harlan
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
Miserlou
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points

The Disney Corporation...

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/26/2007 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,745 times Debate No: 1040
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (11)

 

Harlan

Con

We are here to discuss the corporation, Disney.

We are here to discuss the largest name in the children's entertainment industry.

We are here to discuss the corporation that has completely mastered every level of the media, in the entire world.

It is usually not surprising that when corporations get this big, so overwhelmingly large, that there was –is- some shady tactics involved.

Maybe, however, it is inevitable for corporations to get that large, for them to become so unstoppable. So powerful. Becoming completely schizophrenic entities, without any moral values, when compared to the human psychology. But Disney, especially, has despicable tactics for marketing.

The first and most prominent, and, so frustratingly obvious yet notorious, grievance of the Disney Corporation is the traumatizing of the child in regards to the losing of the child's parents. This can be said of almost ANY Disney movie picked at random.

The first (of many) examples I will conjure is one of the films to which I hate the most, "the lion king".

Let me give you some quotes from the movie:

"Banzai: We gotta finish the job.
Shenzi: Well, he's as good as dead out there anyway. And IF he comes back, we'll kill him.
Banzai: [calling out to Simba] Yeah! You hear that? If you ever come back, we'll kill ya!"

Ah…and who could forget this lovable scene:

"Scar: Simba, Simba. Please. Please have mercy. I beg you.
Adult Simba: You don't deserve to live.
Scar: But, Simba, I am family. It's the hyenas who are the real enemy. It was their fault. It was their idea!
Adult Simba: Why should I believe you? Everything you ever told me was a lie.
Scar: What are you going to do? You wouldn't kill your old Uncle...?"

And…

"Scar: Oh where have I seen this before? Oooh, yes, this is exactly the way your father looked before he died. And here's my little secret... I killed Mufasa!"

Sounds like great material for a rated G movie, doesn't it? Honestly, the only reason they can get away with this is because they are colorful cartoon animals. But I state that in essence, the child sees the lions as people and relates with the lions, because they talk and act like people.

It is deeply wrong to have a children's movie about an adult trying to kill the main character child. It is very, very wrong to have a story line about an uncle murdering the father of a child, and then trying to murder the child, after blaming the child for the death of his own father. That traumatizes the child on a deep level.

Watch this, or as much as you can take:

Tell me that isn't traumatizing.

The whole story of the Lion King revolves around the murder of the child's father. His father is murdered savagely, RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE KID LION.

If I told you there was a movie about a child watching his father THRPWN OFF OF A CLIFF AND TRAMPLED by stampeding animals, and it was rated G, you would gasp in horror, but then when I explained that it was animated, and about animals and by Disney, most people would let it slide.

Almost every single Disney movie at least has the lack of parental presence, the past death of a parent, or the death of a parent during the movie.

It is full fot hese subliminal messages, such as the prince of the forest telling innocent little bambi:

"Your mother can't be with you anymore"

What message does that give the kid?

And who could forget when, in the pirates of the Caribbean 2, a father is reluctantly forced to whip his son's back into a bloody mess. You will refute by saying that this movie was pg13, but it is quit3e obvious that the movie was targeted for young audiences, just look at this:

http://www.biblio.com...

Somehow, I doubt people over the age of 13 are going to enjoy coloring books very much, so it is obvious that Disney is TRYING TO SHOW IMAGES OF FATHERS WHIPPING THERE OWN CHILDREN .

Another one of the best exaomples is "tarzan" in which the child watches both parents eaten by a cheetah. Some gorillas adopt him, but tarzan strives for the the acceptance of his gorilla dad. And JUST AS SOON as the gorilla dad accepts tarzan as his son…get this…THE GORILLA DAD IS SHOT AND KILLED IN FRONT OF HIM. Disney has a very strict formula for their movies, and they couldn't POSSIBLY allow the movie to end with tarzan having a father…even if just a gorilla….that's sick.

Also, "finding nemo", and that is pretty self-explanatory, the whole plot revolves around the separation and grief as a dad and son are seemingly hopelessly sperated. But…at leats they let the dad live…unlike the mother (they hate mothers the most) who was eaten by a shark as soon as the movie started. The father got it easy…in comparison…but it is so obvious what it is about when watching the nemo movie, that it makes me want to throw up.

They recycled the plot of finding nemo with another movie about lions, but I forgot what it was called. But when the same, horrible, plot is used in parallel, two times, the pattern is especially obvious.

After my younger cousin saw "The Tigger Movie", he was playing games where he said "I'm gonna go find my real family!" to his parents, in imitation of the beloved tigger. How, then, can you deny that it passes subliminal messages?

Below is a list of characters that have been orphaned

Aladdin (Aladdin) – orphaned and homeless; petty crimes for food and shelter
• Annie (Annie) – orphan adopted by rich single dad
• Ariel (The Little Mermaid) – dead mother, rebellious teen who runs away to be with a man
• Aristocats – Marie, Berlioz and Toulouse – three kittens raised by a single mother
• Bambi (Bambi) – raised by single mother who is murdered, has never met his absent father
• Belle (Beauty and the Beast) – dead mother, raised by single father
• Cinderella (Cinderella) – dead mother, raised by abusive Stepmother and neglectful, absent father
• Dumbo (Dumbo)– raised by a stigmatized, depressed single mother
• Elliot (Pete's Dragon) – orphaned, runaway from abusive foster parents, adopted by single mother
• Hercules (Hurcules) – son of gods transracially adopted by humans
• Lilo (Lilo and Stitch)– orphaned, raised by older sister
• Mowgli (The Jungle Book)– orphaned, raised by 2-male heads of household (bear and panther)
• Mulan (Mulan) – cross-dressing teen girl with intact, multi-generational family unit
• Nemo (Finding Nemo) – dead mother, raised by single overprotective father
• Oliver (Oliver & Company) – orphaned kitten transracially adopted by rich girl
• Peter Pan (Peter Pan) – orphaned, troublemaker and gang leader of Lost Boys
• Penny (The Rescuers) – orphaned girl kidnapped from orphanage
• Pinocchio (Pinocchio) – wooden toy adopted by aged creator Gepetto
• Pochahontas (Pocahontas) – dead mother, raised by single father
• Quasimoto (The Hunchback of Notre Dame) – physically disabled male adopted by evil church minister Frollo
• Simba (The Lion King) – father murdered by uncle, raised by 2-male heads of household (meerkat and warthog)
• Sleeping Beauty (Sleeping Beauty) – parents transferred custody to 3 fairies
• Snow White (Snow White & the 7 dwarves) – dead mother, raised by abusive Stepmother and neglectful father
• Tarzan (Tarzan)– orphaned, transracially adopted by gorilla family

That is not even CLOSE to all, either, the actual list, which I can't find, is much bigger.

From the evidence I have provided, to all people reading this, I ask you to re-think the Disney corporation. How can parents take their children to the movie theaters to see these movies about people's parents being murdered? Does that not seem a tad strange? The children then grow up to show their children Disney movies, and the process goes on, unimpeded, and not enough people are stopping and saying: "Hey, wait a minute. That's not right." The psychological ease of a child is extremely important. Don't let disney ruin it.

-Harla
Miserlou

Pro

Me, my parents, and my friends have noticed the "dead parent" trend, but I don't think it's incredibly harmful or immoral as you say it is. First off, Disney can't be blamed for absent parents (usually mothers) in movies like Cinderella, Snow White, Hunchback of Notre Dame, Pinocchio and all the others based on fairy tales or classic stories, because those characters had dead parents to begin with. However, in regards to their original stories or ones where parental situations aren't specified, you do have a point.

Now, I grew up like a lot of people my age watching these movies, especially the Lion King which was my favorite, and I don't recall ever being traumatized. One big reason is that all these movies have happy endings. Simba's father dies, yes, and he thinks he's responsible but, by the end everything has been cleared up and he's got his mother, a girlfriend and a kingdom. And I think it should be noted that his father's ghost visits him and gives him some nice, supportive advice. The characters of these movies endure tragedy but they overcome it and are fine at the end. And this tells kids that even when bad things happen, it's not the end of the world; they can overcome tragedy in their lives, and even if that's not relevant at the moment it will be at some point.

I come from a good home. My family life and my relationship to my parents is stable; we haven't had any deaths or divorces or anything like that. But a lot of families aren't like that. There are kids growing up without a mother or father, or with neither. There are kids who have been adopted and kids with abusive parents. One thing, among others, that can add to that kind of pain is feeling that you're different or abnormal. A main character's trauma could be even inspirational in a way to children like this because a) they feel they can connect and b) again, the characters overcome their tragedy.

And regardless of what kind of home a kid comes from, I don't think it's okay to teach a child that everything in the world is nice and sweet. Yes, you want to sugar coat a lot of things because you don't want to disturb them, but sheltering a child too much will make them feel even worse when something bad does happen. That's not to say parents should be overtly blunt or harsh; I think a medium is where it should fall. But I don't think that Disney movies are too harsh.

For one, in most of them, the parent's death or absence isn't dealt with directly. Ariel, Jasmine, Belle and few others simply don't have a mother (and it is usually a mother as you pointed out). So do a lot of children who your children will meet. Kids should be used to the idea of single parent families, or pretty much any type of family that is different than their own. As for the others, like Simba, Mufasa's death isn't gory, his reaction is appropriate and normal (crying). It's done tactfully.

And on a different level, there's a big difference between real life and movies that kids understand, and these are movies. They're lions and princesses with animated bodies. Even when I'm emotionally invested in something, tragedy in a movie can't elicit emotions that a real tragedy can. So even if Simba is crying on screen I'm not disturbed, just sad. Even children who believe in fairies won't take on-screen grief nearly as much as they would in real life.

Whew, that was a lot.
Debate Round No. 1
Harlan

Con

Hello and thank you for accepting this challenge…

It is not only in the old fairy tale stories that the parents are dead…in "chicken little" a story that had absolutely nothing to do with a mother being dead, they made the mother dead.

It would not be so bad to follow the original story of the fairy tales if they didn't put so much stress on the fact that the parents were dead…but aside form that…I do think that Disney didn't use to be quite as bad as it is now…I am, for the most part, not that offended by the earlier films…Probably the first of their movies that were meant to be psychologically traumatizing, was, of course, Bambi.

"One big reason is that all these movies have happy endings."

This seems to be the main points of you're argument.

But in reality, when a child goes through a traumatic experience, it does not blow away when there is happy ending…it lingers…in the same way that my younger cousin would tell his parents "I'm gonna go find my real family" for weeks after seeing the tigger movie.

And it IS traumatic. The child closely relates with Simba. They, then, think of it as their own father, when they see the daddy lion being thrown off of a cliff and trampled by animals. And also, most traumatic, is the unbound hatred that the evil lion (what's his name?) shows when THROWING HIM OFF OF A CLIFF. A child should not be exposed to the idea of someone savagely, hatefully, maliciously, murdering there parents in some of the most gruesome ways imaginable.

You think that it goes away as soon as they sing some pointless song at the end of the movie?

Of course not, and I can hardly say the ending is happy. Someone is viciously murdered by hungry hyenas a few minutes before the credits; I could hardly call that "happy". Also, in Tarzan, another one of the worst Disney films, both his human parents AND gorilla parent is killed, and it is not exactly happy.

"There are kids who have been adopted and kids with abusive parents."

Right…and the prince of the forest telling Bambi: "Your mother can't be with you anymore" the end of the movie is going to make them feel just plain old jolly isn't it? Of course not. It will make them feel horrible. You must be kidding to say that Disney's purpose in killing the parents is to make the kids feel "good", that is insane.

"And regardless of what kind of home a kid comes from, I don't think it's okay to teach a child that everything in the world is nice and sweet. Yes, you want to sugar coat a lot of things because you don't want to disturb them, but sheltering a child too much will make them feel even worse when something bad does happen."

WHAT?!?!?

You said: "sheltering a child too much will make them feel even worse when something bad does happen"

Here are the flaws in that statement:

1. An extremely vast majority of children watching the movie will never have their father be forced to whip them, have their father thrown off of a cliff by a talking lion, or have you're adopted gorilla dad shot by a hunter.

2. These movies do not present real-life situations, (see above), and children will probably never have to deal with having their father thrown off of a cliff. Therefore, it does not help them in real life, because it is uselessly traumatic. In other words, IT DOES NOT REPRESENT REAL LIFE, IT REPRESENTS A NIGHTMARE.

3. It is one thing having conflict in the story, it is another to have it be a completely traumatic, and terrifying experience for the kids.

I can tell you from personal experience, because I have several younger siblings, that 3 year olds or 2 year olds (lion king is rated G) have little distinction between real-life and a movie. The way that Disney presents it, is meant to give the maximum trauma.

"I don't think that Disney movies are too harsh"

If a little kid watching his father thrown off of a cliff in hatred, to be trampled by stampeding animals, is not harsh, then I have no clue what is. If a father watching his son be token away by a boat, and as fast as he goes he can not catch them, and sinks in to the lowest possible depression, is not harsh, I do not know what is. If an infant witnessing a cheetah eat his parents is not harsh, I don't know what is.

"Kids should be used to the idea of single parent families, or pretty much any type of family that is different than their own. As for the others, like Simba, Mufasa's death isn't gory, his reaction is appropriate and normal (crying). It's done tactfully."

Maybe, but doesn't strike you as strange that nearly every single movie produced by Disney has a plot that almost completely revolves around the death of a parent, or the absence of a parent…does it maybe seem as if they WANT kids to feel detached from their parents; making it easier for a capitalist corporation to manipulate the kids in a way to suit their own marketing interests?

"And on a different level, there's a big difference between real life and movies that kids understand, and these are movies. They're lions and princesses with animated bodies. Even when I'm emotionally invested in something, tragedy in a movie can't elicit emotions that a real tragedy can."

I beg to differ, my friend. Though mature minds understand the difference, most kids do not. Like you said, the kid relates with the character. To a 3 year old, it does not matter whether they are talking animals, they think of them as real people, as they think and talk like real people.

If you want proof, check out this: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com...

It says: "Not until second grade were a majority of children able to differentiate human from animated and puppet characters"

That is proof enough that kids don't understand the distinction very much…and to the very least, a child's sub-conscious mind will always think of the characters as real people.
Miserlou

Pro

Okay, you talked a lot about the villain in the Lion King (his name's Scar). Now this movie was intended for adults, I'd watch it and probably be affected by his cruelty and by his violent death, because I am expecting complex characters and plots that aren't black and white. But in a kid's movie, I am expecting black and white. I expect the villain to be cruel and heartless and I expect him to die. Children aren't psychologists; if Scar was sad as he killed Mufasa, and kid would think "well, if he's upset, why'd he kill him?" Evil in movies makes sense to children because saying "he's good and he's bad" is simple. And death by fire is violent, but there are a few reasons why I don't think this would be traumatizing.

1) It isn't graphic. All you see are flames and silhouettes, or someone closing their eyes. Which in a lot of cases makes all the difference, and it doesn't just apply to Disney movies. The difference between PG-13 and R movies is often not how a character dies, but if that death is shown. In the news (if not currently than at one point) stations are/were not allowed to show dead soldiers. They can tell you how man died, they can talk about the deaths all they want, but they're not allowed to show it.

2) This is a lesser point, but when I watched Disney movies as a toddler, the villains scared me. When Scar and company did their big musical number I had to have my mom watch it with me. To me he was evil and dangerous, so when he died I was relieved. Now, before you take this as Disney turning kids into vindictive murderers, let me say that children have a much simpler view of the world. They don't see the layers of pain and emotional complexity that adults do, so the villain dying isn't horrible and violent, it's just him going away. And yes, that'd be a pretty messed up attitude for an adult to have, but I don't know a soul who didn't grow out of it by age 8.

"You think that it goes away as soon as they sing some pointless song at the end of the movie?"

Yes, because the story is simple. This one's good, that one's bad, things are bad, now things are good. A four year old is not sitting their reading into the levels of the characters; if they're smiling than they're happy and that's good. Evil is done and gone, so why feel sad? Again, that's not a healthy attitude for an adult, but they aren't adults.

"You said: "sheltering a child too much will make them feel even worse when something bad does happen" Here are the flaws in that statement:"

1) When I said "something bad", I didn't mean that the movie is going to mirror their life.

2) Again, too literal! I doubt strongly a kid's going to see their father die before their 5, but they might before their 50. A lifespan is a long enough time for tragedy to happen. Now, a person's tragedies might not be as traumatic as these characters', but a child watching these movies is not experiencing the tragedy for themselves, so it is not as traumatic to them. Even if they identify with the character, even if they think it's real, it still won't be anywhere close to how their father really dying would affect them.

3) I don't think that they are so traumatic, as I said above"

"I beg to differ, my friend. Though mature minds understand the difference, most kids do not. Like you said, the kid relates with the character. To a 3 year old, it does not matter whether they are talking animals, they think of them as real people, as they think and talk like real people."

True, but how the events affect them is still different than how it would affect them if it were directly happening to them. History is full of traumatic events; lots and lots of them. As a kid I learned about slavery and persecution, wars and all those other lovely things. It's real. And even though the stories I read might make me angry and upset, I don't think any of them traumatized me because they were part of a different world. Serious trauma and pain is something that has to be experienced personally to fully understand it, and the vast majority of little kids haven't, they won't be disturbed by it.

"Maybe, but doesn't strike you as strange that nearly every single movie produced by Disney has a plot that almost completely revolves around the death of a parent, or the absence of a parent…does it maybe seem as if they WANT kids to feel detached from their parents; making it easier for a capitalist corporation to manipulate the kids in a way to suit their own marketing interests?"

I'm not being sarcastic when I say I've got respect for most conspiracy theories, but to me this is a little to out there. There's too big of a distance between Aladdin being an orphan and a toddler demanding toys. He might demand them because he liked the movie and wants the doll, but I don't think the character's lack of parents has much to do with it. And if a parents relationship with their kids is so fickle that it can be torn apart by Mufasa's death (and Simba later avenges him) than I think that family needs to work a few things out.

I don't think Disney movies ever had a negative affect on my family life. In fact, in some small ways it was better, because the movies were intelligent and funny enough to keep my parents from hating them, and I remember my Dad being able to imitate the characters' voices and acting out skits with my action figures. They were good movies, and as a family we liked them.
Debate Round No. 2
Harlan

Con

"you talked a lot about the villain in the Lion King (his name's Scar). Now this movie was intended for adults"

Twas' not intended for adults, it is rated G. I will assume that that was a mistake.

"But in a kid's movie, I am expecting black and white. I expect the villain to be cruel and heartless and I expect him to die."

Sure, there would be conflict…but the children should not be shown this nightmarish, intense, hatred…and children don't "Expect" people to "die", their lives are free of such alien things as death. The characters should face conflicts to overcome…but not conflicts such as there parents murdered in extremely gruesome was.

"It isn't graphic. All you see are flames and silhouettes, or someone closing their eyes."

The kids are not clueless of what is going on…it is still the same message…it has the same exact subliminal effect. It makes little difference for the children…who have positively magnificent imaginations. I have observed small children become very concerned with such scenes. It does not makes VERY little difference between seeing the death and seeing the shadow…and hearing the screaming agony of death…as a living entity is eaten alive by hyenas. They may not be psychologists, but there sub-conscious brain definitely picks up on this, though they may not immediately, consciously, think about it.

"The difference between PG-13 and R movies is often not how a character dies, but if that death is shown."

Very true…but the lion king is NOT pg-13…its rated G. 2 year olds even watch it.

"This one's good, that one's bad, things are bad, now things are good. A four year old is not sitting their reading into the levels of the characters; if they're smiling than they're happy and that's good."

Are you kidding? You can not justify putting these horrible scenes in a movie, simply because the ending is "happy". It does not go away…there subconscious mind keeps it there…it lingers. You can not relieve those feelings so fast. Disney movies are meant to be traumatic…and that feeling is a lot stronger than any sense of happiness that the bad guy was murdered.

(on a sidenote, though this is slightly irrelevant...what if they don't see the ending?)

"When I said ‘something bad', I didn't mean that the movie is going to mirror their life"

Yes and Disney movies are far worse than any real life experience (99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the time) and therefore, it can not help kids in the real world…it only gives them nightmares in the real world. It does not help them…it hurts them. It makes them feel detached from their parents.

"Again, too literal! I doubt strongly a kid's going to see their father die before their 5, but they might before their 50."

Yes, and 50 year olds can probably watch Disney movies with no psychological effect. But, once more…the lion king is rated G. 2 year olds watch the lion king…and they should have no concern of the death of their parents…so it will only scare them.

"Now, a person's tragedies might not be as traumatic as these characters', but a child watching these movies is not experiencing the tragedy for themselves, so it is not as traumatic to them."

Take it form someone who spends every day with several small children, that small children are EXTREMELY absorbent…their minds are at an age to soak up anything and everything…so when they watch a character, to which they greatly relate…and think of as real…it is traumatic…I never claimed that it is as traumatic as real life…but it is still traumatic.

"It's real. And even though the stories I read might make me angry and upset, I don't think any of them traumatized me because they were part of a different world. Serious trauma and pain is something that has to be experienced personally to fully understand it, and the vast majority of little kids haven't, they won't be disturbed by it."

NO…it is not real…it is a nightmare more than reality…in reality, 2 year olds don't need to concern themselves with wars, slavery, or homicidal lunatics throwing their father off of a cliff in hatred, to have the father trampled by stampeding animals…and dying in an extremely gruesome way.

"There's too big of a distance between Aladdin being an orphan and a toddler demanding toys."

HA! You used Aladdin as an extremely soft example. Regardless of Disney's purpose, it is still traumatic…I have been speculating on the purpose for a while…the most plausible is that it is for their own commercial appeal.

And once more, for weeks after my cousin saw the tigger movie, he was shouting that he "was gonna go find his real family"…so do you really think that there is no effect on the child's mentality?

Once more…kids absorb everything…there minds are extremely receptive. So it is very unhealthy and insensitive for Disney to make these movies to have traumatic subliminal messages. Disney is a heartless machine to make money…like most corporations that reach such sizes.

"In fact, in some small ways it was better, because the movies were intelligent and funny enough to keep my parents from hating them, and I remember my Dad being able to imitate the characters' voices and acting out skits with my action figures."

Did he imitate a father reluctantly forced to whip his son's back into a bloody mess, as punishment?

That sounds like so much fun, doesn't it?

Did he imitate an infant watching a cheetah eat his parents alive?

Did he imitate full grown adults attempting to murder little children in hatred…nearly killing them in horrible ways?

Disney would be alright…if only they did not impose the nightmare-ish traumatic, subliminal messages on little children.

So…please answer me: Why do you not care or ignore the fact that almost every single recent Disney movie, has a plot that mainly circulates around the idea of being hopelessy distant from parents?

Would it not seem obvious that they are trying to exercise the point of being detached from parents?
Miserlou

Pro

"Twas' not intended for adults, it is rated G. I will assume that that was a mistake."

It was, I meant to type and if in there.

"The kids are not clueless of what is going on…it is still the same message…it has the same exact subliminal effect. It makes little difference for the children…who have positively magnificent imaginations. I have observed small children become very concerned with such scenes. It does not makes VERY little difference between seeing the death and seeing the shadow…and hearing the screaming agony of death…as a living entity is eaten alive by hyenas. They may not be psychologists, but there sub-conscious brain definitely picks up on this, though they may not immediately, consciously, think about it."

You said in a previous paragraph that children are "alien to death". In some ways they are; as a toddler I knew what death was but I had never experienced it personally so I had no concept of the pain that it actually entails. Therefore, when I saw a villain die I didn't think in terms of what that death would fully mean, so I didn't think of it as unnecessarily painful or cruel because I didn't know better.

"'"The difference between PG-13 and R movies is often not how a character dies, but if that death is shown."

Very true…but the lion king is NOT pg-13…its rated G. 2 year olds even watch it."

But it can also be the difference between PG and G.

"Are you kidding? You can not justify putting these horrible scenes in a movie, simply because the ending is "happy". It does not go away…there subconscious mind keeps it there…it lingers. You can not relieve those feelings so fast. "

Okay, if I may use myself as a case example, having seen the Lion King at age 3 when it first came out. When Mufasa died I was sad for Simba and angry at Scar- although I wouldn't say that I ever felt disturbed- but at the end when Simba defeated Scar I felt avenged, that justice had been served, and even though his father was gone he had his mother, hid girlfriend, his friends, and his kingdom. And if those scenes were truly horrible than you'd have a point, but they're not.

"Disney movies are meant to be traumatic…and that feeling is a lot stronger than any sense of happiness that the bad guy was murdered."

Disney movies are not meant to be traumatic. I'm pretty sure the writer's don't sit around and think "Hey, what would be really disturbing to small children?" Especially since if enough children were actually being traumatized by these I think parents would have started complaining by now.

"(on a sidenote, though this is slightly irrelevant...what if they don't see the ending?)"

(I'm not sure, though that could be a little disturbing because they would care about the characters)

"It makes them feel detached from their parents."

How so?

"NO…it is not real…it is a nightmare more than reality…in reality, 2 year olds don't need to concern themselves with wars, slavery, or homicidal lunatics throwing their father off of a cliff in hatred, to have the father trampled by stampeding animals…and dying in an extremely gruesome way."

I said earlier that kids wouldn't be traumatized because the characters weren't real, and you responded saying that the characters were real to them. I concede on that point, and my point then was that a fantasy movie and historical fiction (or just plain history) can be compared at the same level if the child believes them both to be real. I don't think I ever truly believed talking lions existed, but I did believe the historical stories I would read, which contained stuff on par with the Disney scenes in question. I wasn't traumatized by the things I felt were real, or the things I felt were fake.

"HA! You used Aladdin as an extremely soft example. Regardless of Disney's purpose, it is still traumatic…I have been speculating on the purpose for a while…the most plausible is that it is for their own commercial appeal."

Actually, I just thought I'd get away from Lion King examples for a while since we're talking about Disney movies in general. If you want, I'll say that there's no correlation between Simba's dead father and toys. Except, maybe, that the movies are good and kids like them a lot so they demand toys. Again, I doubt there's a capitalist conspiracy behind this, and I doubt even stronger that they intentionally try to disturb kids.

"And once more, for weeks after my cousin saw the tigger movie, he was shouting that he "was gonna go find his real family"…so do you really think that there is no effect on the child's mentality?"

Of course they affect a child's mentality, as all good movies should, but those affects aren't necessarily bad. Your cousin is one example, but I watched all those movies as a young kid, so did most of my friends; and I can't recall any negligible effects. My friends little sister (3 years old) and one of my teacher's daughters (2) are both Lion King fans.

"Did he imitate a father reluctantly forced to whip his son's back into a bloody mess, as punishment?

That sounds like so much fun, doesn't it? "

You've wonderfully missed the point. They were good movies, and my whole family loved them.

"So…please answer me: Why do you not care or ignore the fact that almost every single recent Disney movie, has a plot that mainly circulates around the idea of being hopelessy distant from parents?

Would it not seem obvious that they are trying to exercise the point of being detached from parents?"

No, it wouldn't. They're detached, but none of the characters celebrate being away from their parents, or if they do initially they'll get into trouble and have to reconcile. Ariel and Jasmine who run away make up with their fathers, Simba learns to take responsibility and so forth. I think Peter Pan is the only one where absence of parents doesn't some how come back to bite them, and that was already a classic book by the time Walt got around to it.
Debate Round No. 3
Harlan

Con

"You said in a previous paragraph that children are "alien to death". In some ways they are; as a toddler I knew what death was but I had never experienced it personally so I had no concept of the pain that it actually entails. Therefore, when I saw a villain die I didn't think in terms of what that death would fully mean, so I didn't think of it as unnecessarily painful or cruel because I didn't know better."

Yes, an extremely vast majority of small children are unfamiliar with death…and almost NO small children are familiar with the hatred behind the murdering of their own parents…so why make a kid's show about it?

The villain vaguely going away is one thing. Seeing the shadows of hungry hyenas viciously eating him alive…hungrily tearing his body apart…and hearing the painful cries of agony as the person is murdered in a horrific manner, is definitely quite another.

"But it can also be the difference between PG and G."

It is fine, I agree, in a pg-13 movie…but not in a movie shown to 3 year olds.

"Okay, if I may use myself as a case example, having seen the Lion King at age 3 when it first came out. When Mufasa died I was sad for Simba and angry at Scar- although I wouldn't say that I ever felt disturbed- but at the end when Simba defeated Scar I felt avenged, that justice had been served, and even though his father was gone he had his mother, hid girlfriend, his friends, and his kingdom."

Any good psychologist would tell you that using yourself as an example does not work, miserlou.

You can not prove that you did not have sub-conscious feelings (by definition you don't consciously think about them). Also, that would be 14 years ago, and you were 3…so this is not a reliable example, once more.

"And if those scenes were truly horrible than you'd have a point, but they're not"

An infant watching his parents eaten alive by a hungry cheetah is not "horrible"?!! Geez, man… I think any one with a sense of morality could reasonably say that an infant watching his parents eaten alive could be considered "horrible".

"Disney movies are not meant to be traumatic. I'm pretty sure the writer's don't sit around and think "Hey, what would be really disturbing to small children?" Especially since if enough children were actually being traumatized by these I think parents would have started complaining by now."

1) If it gave them a marketing advantage…of course they would! Why not? You think that capitalist corporations are not capable of being immoral for the sake of making money?

2) Of COURSE parents are complaining. Or maybe, as you might suggest…I am the only person in the entire world who complains about Disney…that is a bit farfetched, however…and I can easily disprove that statement. You might want to concede that many parents are complaining.

"How so?"

I really don't want to be repetitive, but you ask again…though I have addressed it already.

You have already agreed that children associate with Disney characters. You have already conceded that they have little differentiation between a cartoon characters and real characters. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that when a cartoon character (with whom they associate) has their parents harshfully murdered, they would, at least sub-consciously, think of it on personal grounds.

"I said earlier that kids wouldn't be traumatized because the characters weren't real, and you responded saying that the characters were real to them. I concede on that point, and my point then was that a fantasy movie and historical fiction (or just plain history) can be compared at the same level if the child believes them both to be real. I don't think I ever truly believed talking lions existed, but I did believe the historical stories I would read, which contained stuff on par with the Disney scenes in question. I wasn't traumatized by the things I felt were real, or the things I felt were fake."

Yes…but there is a difference between reading a textbook, and watching a movie. It is hard to frighten or traumatize someone with a text book. The simple knowledge of information itself (such as history) is not what is traumatic…it is how the movie is made, and the way it is shown to them. It is also things characters say to each other.

"Actually, I just thought I'd get away from Lion King examples for a while since we're talking about Disney movies in general. If you want, I'll say that there's no correlation between Simba's dead father and toys. Except, maybe, that the movies are good and kids like them a lot so they demand toys. Again, I doubt there's a capitalist conspiracy behind this, and I doubt even stronger that they intentionally try to disturb kids."

Do you deny that having kids feel detached from their parents, and thinking of them as gone (sub-consciously…slightly) would not help marketing? Also, for kids and parents who feel they need to spend more time together (because they feel detached), a great way to do so…is to go to the movie theater and watch Disney movies.

"Of course they affect a child's mentality, as all good movies should, but those affects aren't necessarily bad. Your cousin is one example, but I watched all those movies as a young kid, so did most of my friends; and I can't recall any negligible effects. My friends little sister (3 years old) and one of my teacher's daughters (2) are both Lion King fans."

Children's fantasy games are in their imagination…hence in their head. Hence they think on those terms. They associate and imitate their beloved tigger character; the tigger character that is used to pass these subliminal messages.

"You've wonderfully missed the point. They were good movies, and my whole family loved them."

Errrr…glad to hear it.

"No, it wouldn't. They're detached, but none of the characters celebrate being away from their parents, or if they do initially they'll get into trouble and have to reconcile. Ariel and Jasmine who run away make up with their fathers, Simba learns to take responsibility and so forth. I think Peter Pan is the only one where absence of parents doesn't some how come back to bite them, and that was already a classic book by the time Walt got around to it."

Yes, but the WHOLE PLOT is almost exclusively about bad relations with parents, parents that have gone far away and are trying to get to find them, or parents that die.

Take finding nemo, here is my personal plot summary:

A kid's mother is murdered just before a kid is born. The kid is born. The Kid tells dad "I hate you". The Kid gets kidnapped right in front of dad. Dad runs aftyer kidnapper, but can't catch them. He falls into a deep state of depression. His son, miles and miles away, is imprisoned. The kid knows that soon he will be murdered by someone. He is in a state of panic. Dad finds son.

WOW!, doesn't sound like a kid's movie does it? If they made it in real life, with actors, it would have been rated pg-13, but no, it was not…only because the characters who acted out this nightmare of a movie were cartoon fishes.

You, however, have already conceded that they think of it as real…so it does not matter that it is a cartoon.

Oh yes, and I would also like to squeeze in more about pirates of the Caribbean two. IN the pirates of the Caribbean two, a movie intended for small children who like coloring books, it includes:

-cannibalism
-a father whipping the flesh off of his son's back
-birds plucking the eyes from people
-suggested threat of rape

Ah yes! Good old family entertainment! That is the kind of thing 4 year olds should watch!
Miserlou

Pro

"Yes, an extremely vast majority of small children are unfamiliar with death…and almost NO small children are familiar with the hatred behind the murdering of their own parents…so why make a kid's show about it?

The villain vaguely going away is one thing. Seeing the shadows of hungry hyenas viciously eating him alive…hungrily tearing his body apart…and hearing the painful cries of agony as the person is murdered in a horrific manner, is definitely quite another."

"It is fine, I agree, in a pg-13 movie…but not in a movie shown to 3 year olds."

The point is not that the same thing could be shown in a G and a PG-13 movie, it is that how you show things makes can determine how it affects people. Since this relates to what you said above I'll deal with it all at once. How graphic something is, the level of realism shown (in this I'm not talking about whether a child believes in a character, but how much the scene looks like real life; animation doesn't look like real life even if the child thinks the characters exist). Blood is a major factor, as are seeing real wounds. When Mufasa dies he doesn't have any cuts or bruises on his body, and no one actually sees Scar's flesh getting torn off. And since young children will probably not have the life experience to fill in these gaps; they don't know what someone should look like after falling off a cliff. When I made the comment about the difference between PG-13 and R movies, I was saying that both can involve a gruesome death, but in the R movie that death will be shown full-out, and in the PG-13 one it will only be implied or half-shown. In a PG movie there might be blood, and in a G movie there probably won't be. And in regards to realism, I am talking about it on a visual level; it's not hard to tell the difference between animation and real life. This creates a distance even if you're involved emotionally in the story.

"Any good psychologist would tell you that using yourself as an example does not work, miserlou.

You can not prove that you did not have sub-conscious feelings (by definition you don't consciously think about them). Also, that would be 14 years ago, and you were 3…so this is not a reliable example, once more."

True, but I also know little children who are Disney fans, two particularly of the Lion King, who haven't had any issues.

"An infant watching his parents eaten alive by a hungry cheetah is not "horrible"?!! Geez, man… I think any one with a sense of morality could reasonably say that an infant watching his parents eaten alive could be considered "horrible"."

An infant is not watching his parents getting eaten alive. First of all, those those characters aren't his parents (and even if they identify with the character there is still a distinction). And for my reasons why the "eating alive" part isn't as bad as that, I'll say what I said before about scenes being graphic.

"1) If it gave them a marketing advantage…of course they would! Why not? You think that capitalist corporations are not capable of being immoral for the sake of making money?"

They are, but the way your theory would work is too far of a stretch to up their profit considerably. Even if kids did feel detached, there's no guarantee that it would drive them straight for Disney merchandise, and anyway at that age the parents are still doing the buying. A couple of strict and Disney-disapproving parents are going to put a stopper in that idea, and if the movies were seriously harming kids, more would disapprove. Which brings me to yours and mine next point:

"2) Of COURSE parents are complaining. Or maybe, as you might suggest…I am the only person in the entire world who complains about Disney…that is a bit far fetched, however…and I can easily disprove that statement. You might want to concede that many parents are complaining."

I wouldn't say you're the only one in entire world, but you're certainly the first one I've heard of, and that includes my parents and all the parents I know. At any rate I think the vast majority don't have a problem with it.

"You have already agreed that children associate with Disney characters. You have already conceded that they have little differentiation between a cartoon characters and real characters. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that when a cartoon character (with whom they associate) has their parents harshfully murdered, they would, at least sub-consciously, think of it on personal grounds."

They think of it personally as you would think of a close friend, but a child isn't going to replace their parents with a cartoon's. If my friend's parents died, I wouldn't feel detached from my parents; I'd be grateful that they were still around.

"Yes…but there is a difference between reading a textbook, and watching a movie. It is hard to frighten or traumatize someone with a text book. The simple knowledge of information itself (such as history) is not what is traumatic…it is how the movie is made, and the way it is shown to them. It is also things characters say to each other. "

I wasn't reading a textbook, I was reading historical fiction; it wasn't just information it was a story just like these movies.

"Do you deny that having kids feel detached from their parents, and thinking of them as gone (sub-consciously…slightly) would not help marketing? Also, for kids and parents who feel they need to spend more time together (because they feel detached), a great way to do so…is to go to the movie theater and watch Disney movies."

But I still don't see how these movies would make kids feel detached. And if parents want to take their kids to see a Disney movie, that's their decision. Some decide to do other things. Again, what would happen is too circumstantial for Disney to base gaining profit of it. Yeah, it could work, but there's nothing they can do to ensure it will without being a lot more obvious. So I don't see why executives would waste their time.

"WOW!, doesn't sound like a kid's movie does it? If they made it in real life, with actors, it would have been rated pg-13, but no, it was not…only because the characters who acted out this nightmare of a movie were cartoon fishes.

You, however, have already conceded that they think of it as real…so it does not matter that it is a cartoon."

Even if they feel the characters are real, the manner in which it is done is a major factor. Finding Nemo had its serious parts and its moral, but it was also a comedy. If they made it in real life, with real actors, but kept the same script, musical score, and everything else, people would think it was kind of weird but not bad. If they took the same plot and made it a lot more serious and more realistic (again, I'm referring to realism in terms of how things look ect., not whether kids believe in it) than it might be rated PG-13.

"Oh yes, and I would also like to squeeze in more about pirates of the Caribbean two. IN the pirates of the Caribbean two, a movie intended for small children who like coloring books"

It was not intended for small children; it was rated PG-13. A lot of parents ignored that rating, but I've seen them do that with all sort of movies that aren't Disney. It's true that Disney marketed it in some ways to kids, but that's the exception, not the rule, and the solution is don't take them to see that one. The other movies are perfectly fine for children.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 9 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Bambi=Satan

I can name many, many people who agree with me on this.
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
I apologize for any copywrighting problems this might create. I did not think of it at the time.
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
WEll, the worst paret of the dsiney corporation is the content of thier movies, though there are trivial other problems with the disney corporastion, that we could hgave gonen into detail of more.
Posted by firemonkey6775 9 years ago
firemonkey6775
totally random but say disney corparation at the begingin and then all you talk about is the movies
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
I was watching TV with my little sister and james and the giant peach comes on (the movie).

I remembered being v ery fond of the book of james and the giant peach when I was little...and just barely rememebered the movie.

I thought: "JAmes and the giant peach is truly a great story...surely they wont viciously murder the parents in this one, it would be just unecessary".

And I thought I was right. The beginning actually seemed to emphasize how happy the kid was with his parents.

The beginning scene was them gazing at the clouds and finding shapes.

It was so nice...until the disney formula kicked in.

It turned out that the emphasis on being happy with parents was only their to make the grtinding trauma and grief all the more painful.

They (very suddenly) interrupted what was a great moment -completely ruining the happy scene-...by...get this...

A giant angry rhinocerous came out of the clouds (which had turned black) and ate his parents...right in front of him.

It didn't even make sense...it was just a random way to ill off the parents. They had to make the movie fit the formula....so they randomly made a rhinocerous eat their parents.
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
They are obviously encouraginf kids to watch it if they make a coloring book endorsing it.

The marketing for the movie was aimed at young kids.
Posted by Miserlou 9 years ago
Miserlou
It's marked in some ways to kids, but the marketing deptarment and the people who actually make the film are not one in the same. And the marketers see that parents will ignore the ratings they figure they can get a market out of it. The target audience is still older kids and teenagers.

Anyway, good debate
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
to YOU, having a mature brain, it is a someone, but not to a CHILD, who sub-consciously relates to them and sees them as people. (I gave a link proving this with a psychological study)

They have the personalities of people. They talk like people. They ahve emotions of people. They in and out have the minds of people. They are people.

Regardless of physical appearance...they are people.
Posted by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
It's not a someone , its a fictional cartoon character ... a lion... and it taught lessons , I don't remember exactly what as I haven't seen it in years , I will have to watch it again...
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
I am not sure. All I know is that it doesn't seem right in my mind for a 2 year old to watch a movie about someone being thrown off of a cliff and stampeded by wildebeests.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by solo 9 years ago
solo
HarlanMiserlouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by GBretz 9 years ago
GBretz
HarlanMiserlouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by righty10294 9 years ago
righty10294
HarlanMiserlouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by conbot10 9 years ago
conbot10
HarlanMiserlouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
HarlanMiserlouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Partyboat 9 years ago
Partyboat
HarlanMiserlouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by aaeap2 9 years ago
aaeap2
HarlanMiserlouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by RepublicanView333 9 years ago
RepublicanView333
HarlanMiserlouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Miserlou 9 years ago
Miserlou
HarlanMiserlouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by NSG 9 years ago
NSG
HarlanMiserlouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30