Child-Aimed Advertisements

It seems as if Disney can't go a week without being caught up in some sort of controversy.

It is no secret that children are the easiest age group for companies to advertise to. Children do not have the ability to distinguish between a quality product and a product that is simply hyped up by the company advertising it, so companies do not have to put a lot of effort in order to get children to be interested in their products. In addition, children offer the largest incentive for advertisement because of the influence they have on the purchases of their parents. A simple temper fit can get many parents throughout the world to cave and buy whatever their children want to calm them down. Children account for an increasing amount of consumer spending every year. The amount of power children have in the market coupled with their naive nature makes them not only easy targets, but ideal targets for companies. 

Illustration of both child influence on parent and media influence on child.

Disney is among multiple companies who are currently under fire for "Child Influencer Advertisements," taking advantage of the susceptibility of children. As a company that is constantly under attack by critics who are fed up with the projection of Disney as an innocent company with strong family values, there was no chance of these advertisements going undetected. Multiple consumer watchdog groups, including Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, Public Citizen, and the Center for Digital Democracy filed complaints with the Federal Trade Commission in an attempt to improve regulations and protect children from companies who try to manipulate them. 

Since the Federal Trade Commission has already regulated television advertising as a result of a similar type of manipulation occurring in television shows, Disney and other companies saw a new pathway through the popularity and fairly under-regulated internet video stars and content creators. The internet creators are allowed to distribute ads and commercials without directly informing the audience that they are being paid to do so. While watching, the children can't distinguish between the paid advertisement or genuine satisfaction about a product.

(more information at https://www.engadget.com/2016/10/24/ftc-complaint-over-influencer-videos-targeting-kids/ and https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/24/ftc-complaint-alleges-google-disney-others-profit-from-deceptive-ads-aimed-at-kids/)

It is certain to say that these tactics may not be the most respectable method of advertising ad increasing sales; however, I would just like to remind everyone that Disney is a business(more specifically a business aimed to entertain children). While Disney may commit shady business maneuvers, it is important to realize that as a company, making money will usually take priority over moral obligation in practice. After all, Disney will want to try to stay as far as possible out of the financial danger zone, considering the financial state that the company had reached in the 80's and early 90's. The first priority of Disney will always be to stay in business and avoid bankruptcy. 

Since Disney is a business, I would judge its character based on the content that it puts out, not the marketing methods that it practices. If you want to judge Disney based on the Moana costume that it released or the messages that its movies send, that is fair game, in my opinion; however, as Disney is just doing its job by making money, using whatever marketing techniques are necessary to maximize profits. The marketers for Disney are simply executing their jobs to maintain job security and employment. 

In the capitalist economy of the United States, children are going to be exposed to advertisements geared toward them no matter what regulations take effect. The advertisements are on billboards, children's favorite sports teams and players, and even in some schools. Since the children can't distinguish paid advertisement versus unpaid advertisement, it is the parents' jobs to make sure that the children do not get taken advantage of. Whether the parents complete this simply by saying no when their kids ask for toys or helping them understand advertisements, they must make sure that their kids are not vulnerable in an economy full of advertisements geared toward them.

Although I have spent most of this post defending Disney, I would like to assert that I do not support the "Child Influencer Advertisement." It is not Disney's job to get rid of these advertisements, because they are making a profit from them. Instead, it is the job of the Federal Trade Commission. to regulate these ads to make sure that children are not being taken advantage of. It is time for the Federal Trade Commission to make a change and get strict.

Disney World Night Weddings

Night Weddings at Disney

Disney just announced that it will offer night weddings. Who would not want to have a night wedding at Disney? It's where dreams come true. There is a giant fireworks display and plenty of night shows. You even get a reception in Fantasyland. There's even an option for a horse-drawn carriage. Wouldn't you want the bride to feel like a princess and the groom to feel like a prince for the night? Considering the amount of people that will want this, I might as well book the date for my wedding now. Oh wait, it has a starting price of $180,000. Time to buy some lottery tickets and cross my fingers.

Typical

http://time.com/4536044/lucasfilm-sues-lightsaber-jedi-school/

Of course Disney is suing somebody for operating a lightsaber Jedi school. It's not like Disney is already one of the wealthiest companies on the planet (obvious sarcasm). In reality, it's not like the man is actually teaching everyone how to be a Jedi, they do not have real lightsabers and they cannot use the force. Why can't Disney just let this man have some fun and accept the free publicity and relish because people enjoy their products enough to create activities like this? I thought that the whole goal of the company is to bring joy to its viewers.

Gender Transgression and Villainy in Animated Film

Recently, I read a text called "Gender Transgression and Villainy in Animated Film," by Meredith Li-Vollmer and Mark E. Lapointe. The text is an observational study that is looking to conclude whether gender transgression and queering are utilized in animated children's movies to signify villainy. The study used ten movies - both Disney and non-Disney movies - as evidence to ultimately conclude that gender transgression and queering are utilized in animated children's movies to indicate deviance. The study classifies whether villains illustrated gender transgression using physical characteristics, costuming, nonverbal gestures, activities(or lack thereof), dialogue, and queering.

There are a couple of issues that I have with the evidence presented by Li-Vollmer and Lapointe:

1) The movies that are utilized as to display that queering is used to display villainy are not randomly selected at all. Therefore, the sample that is presented is teeming with bias. The only conclusion that Li-Vollmer and Lapointe should be able to make is that queering is present in the selected sample of movies, since the bias makes the sample not representative of the population of movies. There is no opportunity for those movies who do not relate gender transgression to villainy to have representation in the sample. What if Mulan had been used in the sample? Shan Yu is certainly not in the "villain-as-sissy" archetype, but this is in the population of movies that Li-Vollmer and Lapointe are studying. In a random sample, this movie could have appeared and presented an accurate counter to their conclusion, along with all of the other movies that are not represented. Li-Vollmer and Lapointe make sure they are not mentioned in the study, however.

2) Li-Vollmer and Lapointe are clearly grasping at straws to make parts of their argument, which is truly concerning considering the bias that their sample holds.  I figure that if they hand-picked their sample, they should not have to resort to the evidence presented from The Lion King in queering. For example, Li-Vollmer and Lapointe reference that Zazu says "There's one in every family, sire, two in mine actually. And they always manage to ruin special occasions," when consoling Mufasa after a face-off with Scar. Apparently, this hints at the closeted homosexual identity of Scar. I do not know if I am the only person who does not see how this hints at his "closeted identity," but to me it appears as if there is an array of things that he could be referencing. Maybe he is saying that he has two people in his family who cause trouble, which I personally believe would be the logical conclusion. In my opinion, this is clearly a grasp at thin air to create an argument.

Ultimately, I agree that gender transgression and queering indicate villainy and deviance in children's animated films. I simply just believe that there are more accurate and convincing ways to get the point across to the audience. If I could find the bias and misrepresentation in this study as a college student who has not even delved into the depths of academia yet, I could only imagine how roughly the critics tore apart this study. Since this study is pertaining to a relevant and influential issue in society, I would expect better execution and planning.

Aladdin

GUYS. THIS IS MY FAVORITE DISNEY MOVIE.

This is one of the few Disney movies that I had seen before starting this class. I remember that I had to watch both of the sequels immediately after seeing the first Aladdin. This has everything needed to be a great Disney movie! The music is incredible in this movie, Robin Williams is brilliant playing genie, the playful fighting between the magic carpet and Abu, and there are many more attributes that make this movie amazing as a whole.

Even though this is my favorite Disney movie, that does not mean that I think this movie is perfect. Obviously, the flaws of the typical Disney movie exist. Once again, there are some strong racist implications. Similar to Pocahontas, the middle eastern people are directly referred to as savages and are displayed as barbaric and inhumane. The middle easterners are constantly chasing Aladdin, the hero of the movie, and at one point they are about to cut off his hand for stealing, when it is necessary for him to eat. Basically, at the beginning of the movie, almost everybody is depicted as a villain since they try to capture and punish the hero. In addition, this depicts Aladdin with the stereotypical features of a white man rather than the middle eastern ethnicity he is supposed to represent. Just look at him.

 Now let's compare him to the villains, who are illustrated with more stereotypical middle eastern features.

While Aladdin is supposed to be a middle eastern man, he does not hold the appearance of one. Rather, they leave this for the villains. 

Speaking of villains, Jafar is easily one of my favorite villains from any movie, let alone just Disney movies. First off, having a parrot companion voiced by Gilbert Gottfried is already a step in the right direction. Angry Iago is hilarious to watch. He is the villain that succeeded. He achieved all of his ambitions, becoming sultan and the most powerful wizard in the world. He truly had everything he could have asked for. The only way that he could have lost his power would be if someone had a genie and wished it away. However, he threw it all away because he still wanted more. He wanted to be all powerful, so he wished to become a genie. The downfall of Jafar is so amusing to me because Aladdin uses wit to defeat him. Aladdin knew that he could not physically beat Jafar, so he enticed him with the one thing he could not resist: power. Aladdin tricking Jafar into becoming a genie is easily one of my favorite villain downfalls.

Although it is possible relate to Jafar wanting power, the motives behind it make me wonder whether he deserves any sympathy. Jafar already has a lot of power as a wizard and Grand Vizier to the sultan. Why does he need any more? He is already rich, powerful, and holds a high status. He just could not appreciate everything he already had, when he was in a situation that most people could only dream of being in.

Pocahontas Response

Alright, so I just recently watched Pocahontas for the first time. Honestly, I have to say that this movie is disappointing for me compared to the other Disney movies. I have really enjoyed all of the Disney movies that I have seen before this, but I just felt like this movie is lacking something. The whole progression of the movie feels very long to me, even though the movie itself is very short. Maybe if they displayed the movie a little more historically accurate then it would have been better, but the conflict between the settlers and the Native Americans are severely downplayed. Let's not get into that right now. There's already been enough outrage about that.

Let's take a look at the representation of the villain in Pocahontas. Take one look at the two characters below and just guess which one is the villain, just based on visual appearance.

Obviously the villain is going to be the character with the fair complexion, blonde hair, strong jawline, and blue eyes, right? Of course not. That's obviously the hero, John Smith. You know, the guy who Pocahontas falls in love with. The villain is Governor Radcliffe, the overweight man that has exaggerated features with bows in his hair that appears to be wearing eye shadow and lipstick. I mean, of course the beautiful people can't be cruel and evil, right? Only ugly people can be bitter and evil, right? This is just typical Disney. This is just one example of many. It's almost as if Disney is trying to get children to believe that ugly people and people who do not display heteronormativity are evil and dangerous. Let's not make any negative assumptions, though. Instead, I will just assume that this is an accident so I can move on. 

Governor Radcliffe is an evil man, no doubt. He trivializes Native American lives, assuming that they are all savages simply because they do not have the same technology that the Europeans have. Radcliffe at one point orders one of his men to shoot any of the "savages" on sight, no questions asked. On the same note, Governor Radcliffe is an ambitious man. Radcliffe is not just simply killing the Native Americans just to kill them. He is being greedy, searching for gold in order to gain wealth, power, and status (as shown in his song "Mine, Mine, Mine"). Although his actions are disgusting and unforgivable, his motives are understandable, since most people desire the same status that he does. He could simply be ignorant and racist as a result of the delusion he faces due to his obsession with finding the gold to get power. He could just be crazy. At one point, he even comes to the spontaneous conclusion that the Native Americans are hiding the gold from him. He has no valid reason to believe this, but he is so caught up in this fantasy that he is ready to kill all of the Native Americans in the village. In a way, he could be seen as a sympathetic villain. Even though his beliefs and actions are inexcusable, it could just be because he is crazy and unsatisfied in life.

Disney could have done a lot better with this movie and the villain. 

Hurricane MatthEW

Disney and other Florida Theme Parks Watching Hurricane Matthew

Feeling bad right now for families whose vacations to Disney World could be ruined because of Hurricane Matthew. I remember my trip with my grandma to Disney World and the surrounding theme parks when I was 13 was one of the best experiences of my life. I was supposed to go to Jacksonville on Friday through Monday, which is nowhere near as "magical" as Disney, and I'm upset that my plans got cancelled.

Totally Relatable

This is basically how everyone looks at me when I say I did not watch a lot of Disney movies as a kid, so I can really relate on a personal level. (Even though I really enjoyed all of the movies I have seen)

Cinderella

Cinderella is a story known by almost everyone, it is basically common knowledge. At least the Disney version is... but we won't get into the original and the disgusting body mutilation that comes with it. Instead, we can talk about the Disney version. First off, I have never encountered a character that has irritated me more and made me smile more than Gus. Why could he not just leave some of the cheese behind instead of trying to pick ALL of the pieces up multiple times? He could have easily avoided any conflict with Lucifer if he would have just left some of the cheese behind. At the same time, this was completely adorable and pretty funny as well. Gus is definitely one of a kind. 

Now, let's talk about the stepmother and stepsisters. I do not understand how Cinderella could possibly remain as composed as she does while she is being mistreated. If I was her, I would have been throwing hands. Not really, but I would be very upset. I think you get the gist. It does not matter what level of jealousy they have for her or even how much she irritates them, tearing apart her dress after her day of long work is crossing the line. The sisters and stepmother are not only evil, but pompous as well. There is nothing more aggravating to me than the scene where they both pretend that the glass slipper is theirs. In reality, Cinderella's stepmother mistreats her because her father passed away, which makes this mistreatment even more disturbing. In a time when Cinderella needs support and comfort, she is instead shunned and abused. This is true, emotionless and insensitive evil. 

Now, since I love to talk about the messages in movies more than anything else, I'd like to start talking about the unrealistic standards that Cinderella's character sets. Cinderella is depicted as perfect stereotypical woman in every way. The animals even sing and communicate with her. Of course, there are some positive messages that everyone can take away from her perfect image. For example, still finding a way to be happy and sweet living in a house where she is being mistreated and she is treated as if she is a maid. This could inspire children to have a better temperament and to find the light in every situation. In addition, seeing Cinderella overcome a difficult situation to find the reward of being able to marry the prince of her kingdom could inspire young children who are in difficult situations and offer them hope. Although they do not have fairy godmothers, this movie could teach them that there is always hope for life to get better, and just to keep pushing through and doing what needs to be done. 

This movie is a popular target for women's rights activists, but if you look through the stereotypes, there is a useful message that could be found.

The Little Mermaid

Guess who's back. That's right, I'm reporting back after watching The Little Mermaid (1989). I really enjoyed watching this movie, Ursula got what she deserved. Anyway, there's a lot of different messages that can be taken out of this movie. I'm not entirely sure whether or not the kids watching this movie will recognize any of these messages, but these are just what I saw.

I should start off on a positive note. The first message that I took from the movie is to follow your dreams and not let obstacles stand in your way. I feel like this is the most obvious of all of the presented messages. Ariel is a mermaid who falls in love with Eric, a prince of the kingdom on the land who she saves from drowning in a shipwreck. Triton, Ariel's father, forbids the mermaids from having any sort of contact with the people of the land. In fact, Triton got upset with Ariel for saving Eric from drowning. Of course in this situation, Ariel made a risky and poor decision (hindsight 20/20) to make a deal with Ursula where she gave Ariel her voice and has three days to make Eric fall in love with her. She didn't succeed, but of course in Disney movies the protagonist always finds a happy ending so they defeated Ursula and Ariel and Eric got married.

Now for the more indirect messages. If you think about it, Ariel is teaching people not to be comfortable in their own skin. Ariel is not content being a mermaid, her dream is to be able to live on the land and explore all of the crazy things that she could not even imagine from the depth of the ocean. In a way, it is chasing her dream, but her dream is to be someone other than herself. The children that are watching this do not have a witch to make a deal with or an all powerful father that can transform them into who they want them to be, nor should they want to be changed to begin with. If Ariel is willing to risk her soul to have a chance to be a human, so it is as if she wants to be a human or wants to die. As I said before, I highly doubt that the children watching this movie are absorbing this message; however, in the off-chance that they are, this is not the message that we would want to send to our youth.

Finally, we have a message that is present in a majority of Disney movies. Disney once again showing love at first sight, based purely on appearance. I have to give Disney some type of credit and admit that this movie is based in a past time period where people did get married based on appearance and a husband and wife would not know each other very well. However, in modern times, I believe it is imperative that children are not grown up being taught to chase after the most attractive person they find, regardless of personality. Once again, children might be too young to understand what true love is and they might not understand that you should not fall in love with a person immediately upon sight.

This movie is message laden, as all Disney movies are. Are the children actually understanding the messages from the movie? It may be impossible to tell...