Whoever came up with the idea to make a Disney quiz based on one-star reviews from Amazon is a genius. This quiz is hilarious! I got a 6 out of 10. Take the quiz here and see if you can do better than me!
Friday, November 4, 2016
Wednesday, November 2, 2016
Wise Text Response
Recently, I have read "Notes from the Aladdin Industry: Or, Middle Eastern Folklore in the Era of Multinational Capitalism," by Christopher Wise. In this piece, I really enjoyed that Wise chose not to focus on the countless racist implications given throughout the film. Instead, Wise explicitly states that "I will seek to demonstrate how the film functions as a symbolic resolution of the contradiction (for Westerners mainly, especially Americans) of the persistence of Islamic theocratic government in the era of former president George Bush's '[whole] new world order,'"(Wise 106). Now, that's a mouthful and a lot to take in. Basically, Wise wants to prove that Aladdin promotes freedom in a western sense and vilifies Islamic Law.
I particularly enjoyed this article because it created a new point of view that I previously did not have before. Honestly, I do not know much about Muslims or the Islamic culture. The only thing that I understood before reading this article is that Muslims are heavily misrepresented in the popular media. I did not know about Muslim culture or anything. As someone who has grown up in the United States surrounded by patriotism, I never stopped to wonder whether other countries had the same desires as the United States. Freedom, to me, had always been the ideal. In my head, I always had this image that Islamic people were oppressed by their government because they did not have the same freedoms that the people of the United States have. Then, I reached the point in the article that made it all clear to me: Islam is the Arabic word that signifies submission to the will of God.
As soon as I read this, I felt as though I had been in a darkness that was just illuminated. Islamic people do not want freedom the way that the people of the United States do. They do not value freedom as much as we do; instead, they wish to devote their lives to the will of God. The Islamic people are not oppressed, their laws are simply based off of their religion.
At this point, I finally realize how insensitive the government is for trying to force democracy on Muslims, who deem Western-style democracy as inappropriate for themselves (Wise 108). Even though democracy and freedom are seen as unfit for Muslims, the United States still continues to paint them as oppressed to the public and force its values on them. Now that I understand that most of Islamic Law is based off of belief and religion, I can see that the constant implications that their laws must be changed are, in a way, an attack on their religion.
In addition, Disney portrays the Middle East as a barbaric place where the hu-dud laws are always executed. For example, the punishment for being a thief would be to cut off the thief's hand. Disney does this to promote the Middle East as backward and culturally undeveloped, making the audience believe that the United States must intervene and impose itself. However, what Disney does not show is that these punishments have been rarely administered during recent times. Muslims do not always practice a literal interpretation of the Qur'an. Many places do not even carry out these laws that Disney presents as "barbaric" anymore.
Ultimately, I enjoyed reading Wise's text because it effectively opened my eyes to a new perspective in an educative, but also interesting, way.
I particularly enjoyed this article because it created a new point of view that I previously did not have before. Honestly, I do not know much about Muslims or the Islamic culture. The only thing that I understood before reading this article is that Muslims are heavily misrepresented in the popular media. I did not know about Muslim culture or anything. As someone who has grown up in the United States surrounded by patriotism, I never stopped to wonder whether other countries had the same desires as the United States. Freedom, to me, had always been the ideal. In my head, I always had this image that Islamic people were oppressed by their government because they did not have the same freedoms that the people of the United States have. Then, I reached the point in the article that made it all clear to me: Islam is the Arabic word that signifies submission to the will of God.
As soon as I read this, I felt as though I had been in a darkness that was just illuminated. Islamic people do not want freedom the way that the people of the United States do. They do not value freedom as much as we do; instead, they wish to devote their lives to the will of God. The Islamic people are not oppressed, their laws are simply based off of their religion.
At this point, I finally realize how insensitive the government is for trying to force democracy on Muslims, who deem Western-style democracy as inappropriate for themselves (Wise 108). Even though democracy and freedom are seen as unfit for Muslims, the United States still continues to paint them as oppressed to the public and force its values on them. Now that I understand that most of Islamic Law is based off of belief and religion, I can see that the constant implications that their laws must be changed are, in a way, an attack on their religion.
In addition, Disney portrays the Middle East as a barbaric place where the hu-dud laws are always executed. For example, the punishment for being a thief would be to cut off the thief's hand. Disney does this to promote the Middle East as backward and culturally undeveloped, making the audience believe that the United States must intervene and impose itself. However, what Disney does not show is that these punishments have been rarely administered during recent times. Muslims do not always practice a literal interpretation of the Qur'an. Many places do not even carry out these laws that Disney presents as "barbaric" anymore.
Ultimately, I enjoyed reading Wise's text because it effectively opened my eyes to a new perspective in an educative, but also interesting, way.
Tuesday, November 1, 2016
Increased Security
There is no doubt that the rise of mass shootings and acts of terrorism bring a new sense of fear into the public. This is really not something that people or businesses would have had to be constantly weary of in the past. This threat should be accompanied by an increase in security, right?
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/investigators/spending-on-police-at-disney-world-surges
Well, according to an article published by Orlando's Channel 6 News, Disney has nearly QUADRUPLED the amount that they are spending on security from off-duty police from last year. The amount of money they are spending has risen from an already impressive $1.5 million to a staggering $5.6 million. This comes after a claim that there is evidence that Omar Mateen, the shooter of the Pulse night club, had been scoping out different areas of Disney in the months preceeding his shooting at Pulse.
Of course, Disney is always going to pay special attention to prevent these types of attacks. Not only is Disney a gigantic park that gets filled with millions of people who would be vulnerable to one of these attacks every day, but Disney is considered an American treasure. Many believe that Disney embodies the American ideal, a perfect place that can do no wrong. This makes it a target for anyone who wants to attack America and make a true on the people of the United States, who hold Disney so dear to their hearts.
Disney clearly realizes it is susceptible to being targeted, and wants to make sure that the patrons of the park feel safe and secure. The patrons have taken notice of Disney's increase of security and efforts to keep the park safe, and while some would say that the security increase is unnecessary, most of the patrons agree that they feel safer in the park.
Disney is working hard to maintain a fun, family friendly environment around the park, sparing no expense to accomplish this.
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/investigators/spending-on-police-at-disney-world-surges
Well, according to an article published by Orlando's Channel 6 News, Disney has nearly QUADRUPLED the amount that they are spending on security from off-duty police from last year. The amount of money they are spending has risen from an already impressive $1.5 million to a staggering $5.6 million. This comes after a claim that there is evidence that Omar Mateen, the shooter of the Pulse night club, had been scoping out different areas of Disney in the months preceeding his shooting at Pulse.
Of course, Disney is always going to pay special attention to prevent these types of attacks. Not only is Disney a gigantic park that gets filled with millions of people who would be vulnerable to one of these attacks every day, but Disney is considered an American treasure. Many believe that Disney embodies the American ideal, a perfect place that can do no wrong. This makes it a target for anyone who wants to attack America and make a true on the people of the United States, who hold Disney so dear to their hearts.
Disney clearly realizes it is susceptible to being targeted, and wants to make sure that the patrons of the park feel safe and secure. The patrons have taken notice of Disney's increase of security and efforts to keep the park safe, and while some would say that the security increase is unnecessary, most of the patrons agree that they feel safer in the park.
Disney is working hard to maintain a fun, family friendly environment around the park, sparing no expense to accomplish this.
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
Child-Aimed Advertisements
It seems as if Disney can't go a week without being caught up in some sort of controversy.
 |
| 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.
Saturday, October 22, 2016
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)