The Disney Corporation...

"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!