A Spirited Perfect Ten

[Cesar R M]

Think of all the shares they could have repurchased with that cash!!!

...stocks repurchases.. somehow better..

 

[TalkingHead]

I don't see where because Davy Crockett was on TV the concurrent Civil Rights Movement was set back measurably.

Nice straw man. Davy Crockett didn't "set back" the Civil Rights Movement, but Walt was clearly presenting a romanticized version of America that has never existed and which the Civil Rights Movement confronted.

I think Disneyland is a malleable, evolving concept and place, but there's no question that the image it projected in the 1950s was socially conservative. That's fair to observe and comment on.

 

[WildcatDen]

He may have subscribers but he's annoying as spit.

I was hit by a goober from Valjean when sitting in the 2nd row to see Les Miserable. It was annoying.

 

[ford91exploder]

You've got a lonnnnngggg way to go before understanding this industry if you think Maker is only making a couple hundred bucks per video. The way you're talking I wouldn't be surprised if you're still cutting checks to AOL for internet connection.

http://socialblade.com/youtube/youtube-money-calculator

Put in some channels under Maker in there, then we can talk $$$. There's plenty of tools which will give you an idea how much a YouTube channel makes.

If Maker.tv has a successful transition from YouTube (which will take 2-3 years) they are going to be worth A LOT more than a billion. 5.5 billion combined daily views is no joke if they pull away.

I know exactly how AdSense works, I've even visited the Googleplex the reality is that for the majority of YouTube channels NEVER reach the threshold of 'revenue sharing' so GOOG keeps it all. Right now the highest payout is $2.30/per thousand views BUT that payout level is only with corporate 'sponsored' accounts. i.e. the Sponsor is paying for the ads.

Do you even know what Maker's business model is?, It's a multichannel YouTube network, recently signed as well with Vimeo, Their revenues are tiny their model is to throw a bunch of stuff at the wall and hope some of it sticks.

Nearly all these so called New Media Studios are trying to do the classic pump and dump scheme, None of them have any real revenue behind them, They are just hoping to be bought by some mainstream conglomerate before their funding runs out.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Fandom is pleasurable. It's not exclusive to Disney. When anything is pleasurable it is addictive. Again, this is not exclusive to Disney. Obsession and escapism can be inspired by anything that is pleasurable be it drinking, gambling, drugs, shopping, celebrities, comic books, movies, etc etc etc. People need perspective and self control. The fact is there's millions of people that enjoy these things in moderation and with the proper perspective of what's important but some people just get consumed by it.

Is it really a "problem" to the degree that is being implied in that clip? I know "lifestylers" are much maligned around here (to a degree where it appears to some the obsession with keeping tabs lifestyler is on par with the lifestyler's obsession with Disney).

However, it seems that the argument that is being put forth is the escapism provided by Disney is/was detrimental to society as a whole, not a few dozen people who have managed to make a living hocking Disney's PR spin. I just don't think that's a leap that can be made. I don't see where because Davy Crockett was on TV the concurrent Civil Rights Movement was set back measurably.

By framing the Disney intent as escapism it means that deliberately ignoring social issues was an integral part of the purpose of the various forms of entertainment produced. In the late 20th century Marcist critique, entertainment replaces religion as the opiate of the masses. Issues of social justice are held back because those in power follow through on these idyllic images and build them in real space, further segregating and marginalizing the oppressed.

 

[TalkingHead]

What's objectionable is that these types of self-important nitwit bores like Susan Douglas in the PBS trailer present the issue as if Walt Disney invented the concepts prevalent in American society circa 1948-1962. And not only did he invent it, he then shoved it down everyone's throats by forcing Americans to go to Disneyland.

"Self-important nitwit bores." Aight.

Disneyland is no more an example of what we now find offensive (or even just funny) about American post-war society than any other successful enterprise of the time.

If by "successful enterprise" you mean popular form of entertainment, there were successful forums of media that managed to be critical and entertaining at the same time -- westerns by John Ford, thrillers by Hitchcock. Disneyland does project a lack of critical awareness that a lot of intellectuals (darn 'em) find disturbing.

Ms. Douglas could flip through a random issue of Life Magazine from 1955 and find a hundred similar examples of white-washed culture of the era, but instead she uses Disneyland as her big example and presents it as if it was something unique for the era. It wasn't unique. Disneyland '55 was influenced by the era, not the other way around.

Yeah, but Life Magazine isn't a cultural force in 2015 in the way that Disney's parks continue to be. I think the fascination is with a contemporary place that ostensibly owes so much to its 1950s values.

And then she has to have that snotty tone that most self-important lefty professors have, as if she is so brilliant and wise for explaining to us mortals that Disneyland was responsible for keeping women in the kitchen, Indians on the reservation, and black folks at the back of the bus.

I think that says more about you than it does about her. You've really got a thing for calling people "self-important." Wonder what Freud would say about that?

Ms. Douglas in the PBS clip displays an old 1980's lefty opinion that just seems silly and tired in the 21st century. America was racist and sexist and oppressive? Blame Disneyland!

I dunno if you can date her opinion to the 1980s. Negative assessments of Disney's work had appeared in print in the late 1960s. But where did anyone "blame Disneyland" (God forbid, not dear old Disneyland)? I admittedly didn't study the clip like it's the Zapruder film, but I took it that she was saying that Disneyland sold a romanticized image of America, not that Walt invented that image.

 

[PhotoDave219]

I know exactly how AdSense works, I've even visited the Googleplex the reality is that for the majority of YouTube channels NEVER reach the threshold of 'revenue sharing' so GOOG keeps it all. Right now the highest payout is $2.30/per thousand views BUT that payout level is only with corporate 'sponsored' accounts. i.e. the Sponsor is paying for the ads.

Do you even know what Maker's business model is?, It's a multichannel YouTube network, recently signed as well with Vimeo, Their revenues are tiny their model is to throw a bunch of stuff at the wall and hope some of it sticks.

Nearly all these so called New Media Studios are trying to do the classic pump and dump scheme, None of them have any real revenue behind them, They are just hoping to be bought by some mainstream conglomerate before their funding runs out.

They would've done better to buy up geek and sundry…

 

[raymusiccity]

I don't really like children, to be honest.

 

[ford91exploder]

They would've done better to buy up geek and sundry…

Yes they would have as both of those have a good revenue stream.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I dunno if you can date her opinion to the 1980s. Negative assessments of Disney's work had appeared in print in the late 1960s. But where did anyone "blame Disneyland" (God forbid, not dear old Disneyland)? I admittedly didn't study the clip like it's the Zapruder film, but I took it that she was saying that Disneyland sold a romanticized image of America, not that Walt invented that image.

The 1980s say a rise in analysis of Disneyland. Edited by Michael Sorkin, Variations on a Theme Park: The New American City and the End of Public Space comes at the sort of end of this surge in 1992. I think the text of its back cover is a good summary of the general sentiment that had come out of this discourse.

"America's cities are being rapidly transformed by a sinister and homogenous design. A new Kind of urbanism--manipulative, dispersed, and hostile to traditional public space--is emerging both at the heart and at the edge of town in megamalls, corporate enclaves, gentrified zones, and psuedo-historic marketplaces. If anything can be described as a paradigm for these places, it's the theme park, an apparently benign environment in which all is structured to achieve maximum control and in which the idea of authentic interaction among citizens has been thoroughly purged. In this bold collection, eight of our leading urbanists and architectural critics explore the emblematic sites of this new cityscape--from Silicon Valley to Epcot Center, South Street Seaport to downtown Los Angeles--and reveal their disturbing implications for American public life."

 

[zooey]

By framing the Disney intent as escapism it means that deliberately ignoring social issues was an integral part of the purpose of the various forms of entertainment produced. In the late 20th century Marcist critique, entertainment replaces religion as the opiate of the masses. Issues of social justice are held back because those in power follow through on these idyllic images and build them in real space, further segregating and marginalizing the oppressed.

Even if that were true, the conservatism inherent in the design and execution, you can't say that it was doing that more than anything else. The lands and its cinematic representations are reflections of 1950s society NOT the impetus for it. I still say it was more about ideals of no prejudice rather than assumed prejudice as Douglas is saying. Look at the Indian tribes that were showcased in Disneyland. They were real native Americans that came to show the authentic side of their culture with dances and crafts. In 1950s America that was quite progressive as the Native American was usually portrayed as a savage or idiot drunk in most westerns.

 

[jakeman]

Nice straw man. Davy Crockett didn't "set back" the Civil Rights Movement, but Walt was clearly presenting a romanticized version of America that has never existed and which the Civil Rights Movement confronted.

I think Disneyland is a malleable, evolving concept and place, but there's no question that the image it projected in the 1950s was socially conservative. That's fair to observe and comment on.

No question it was conservative, but to the detriment of society as hypothesized by the clip seems to be an academic stretch.

By framing the Disney intent as escapism it means that deliberately ignoring social issues was an integral part of the purpose of the various forms of entertainment produced. In the late 20th century Marcist critique, entertainment replaces religion as the opiate of the masses. Issues of social justice are held back because those in power follow through on these idyllic images and build them in real space, further segregating and marginalizing the oppressed.

I get the premise, I just don't agree with the hypothesis that it affected society to the point of retarding social change. This would be especially true of Walt Disney singularly.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I get the premise, I just don't agree with the hypothesis that it affected society to the point of retarding social change. This would be especially true of Walt Disney singularly.

I don't disagree that Disney and Disneyland affected American culture and society, but I do disagree with the hypothesized intent and outcome. My point is that by constantly categorizing Disney's work and themed entertainment as 'escapism,' fans are aligning the objects of their fun with these critiques and the retardation of social change, because these critiques put Disneyland at the forefront of a variety of escapist trends.

 

[zooey]

The 1980s say a rise in analysis of Disneyland. Edited by Michael Sorkin, Variations on a Theme Park: The New American City and the End of Public Space comes at the sort of end of this surge in 1992. I think the text of its back cover is a good summary of the general sentiment that had come out of this discourse.

"America's cities are being rapidly transformed by a sinister and homogenous design. A new Kind of urbanism--manipulative, dispersed, and hostile to traditional public space--is emerging both at the heart and at the edge of town in megamalls, corporate enclaves, gentrified zones, and psuedo-historic marketplaces. If anything can be described as a paradigm for these places, it's the theme park, an apparently benign environment in which all is structured to achieve maximum control and in which the idea of authentic interaction among citizens has been thoroughly purged. In this bold collection, eight of our leading urbanists and architectural critics explore the emblematic sites of this new cityscape--from Silicon Valley to Epcot Center, South Street Seaport to downtown Los Angeles--and reveal their disturbing implications for American public life."

I've read this. It's a bit dated now. Sam Gennaway has some good pieces on Disney space design and I think I agree with him more that these types of spaces at least in a theme park environment while controlled are more positive for community than negative. People go into a Disney park and feel a little looser more friendly and more willing to engage with others. Hopefully they take that sense of kinship back with them to their own community and enact it there. Just anecdotally I've seen my own city of Minneapolis embrace a bigger sense of community in many gatherings and shows and utilize public space for all sorts of interaction for entertainment art and politics. So, the doom and gloom they're hocking may already be proven false or at least not as damaging as once thought.
The Internet has changed a lot of that too. It's the gathering place for like minded people now, not physical but virtual. I'm not sure if it's overall good or bad it has shades of both to be sure.

 

[jakeman]

I don't disagree that Disney and Disneyland affected American culture and society, but I do disagree with the hypothesized intent and outcome. My point is that by constantly categorizing Disney's work and themed entertainment as 'escapism,' fans are aligning the objects of their fun with these critiques and the retardation of social change, because these critiques put Disneyland at the forefront of a variety of escapist trends.

I guess there is a lack of understanding on the academic definition/nuance of the word "escapism", because I would think that most laypersons consider any vacation/hobby escapism to some degree without the negative connotations that academia (or at least the ones cited in this broadcast) are piling on it.

 

[zooey]

I guess there is a lack of understanding on the academic definition/nuance of the word "escapism", because I would think that most laypersons consider any vacation/hobby escapism to some degree without the negative connotations that academia (or at least the ones cited in this broadcast) are piling on it.

Right. If people get addicted to escapism in whatever form that may be its not healthy. But escape from work for small periods of time are very healthy because they remind you and give perspective on the important things in life. you'd never be able to convince me that Disney is abnormally harmful to individuals just based on the connection it allows people to feel and have with eachother. That's the quintessential Disney experience.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Right. If people get addicted to escapism in whatever form that may be its not healthy. But escape from work for small periods of time are very healthy because they remind you and give perspective on the important things in life. you'd never be able to convince me that Disney is abnormally harmful to individuals just based on the connection it allows people to feel and have with eachother. That's the quintessential Disney experience.

Siri you telling me that escaping with a fifth of tequila, An 8-ball and two courtesians is unacceptable?

 

[zooey]

Siri you telling me that escaping with a fifth of tequila, An 8-ball and two courtesians is unacceptable?

Depends how often

 

[PhotoDave219]

I guess there is a lack of understanding on the academic definition/nuance of the word "escapism", because I would think that most laypersons consider any vacation/hobby escapism to some degree without the negative connotations that academia (or at least the ones cited in this broadcast) are piling on it.

My only real problem with the lifestyle or movement down and Orlando is the lack of jobs. A lot of them create a blog and try to live off that… Which is good if you can somehow pull that off but the odds are highly against you. A lot of the high school-ish behavior by these people just reinforce a lot of negative things In society

if they want to go into debt and make their problems worse? Not my problem.

 

[jakeman]

My only real problem with the lifestyle or movement down and Orlando is the lack of jobs. A lot of them create a blog and try to live off that… Which is good if you can somehow pull that off but the odds are highly against you. A lot of the high school-ish behavior by these people just reinforce a lot of negative things In society

if they want to go into debt and make their problems worse? Not my problem.

In reality though, how many folks are there in relation to the massive numbers of people who consider themselves fans? A few dozen? A couple of hundred?

Folks here hyper-focus on such a minority group in the fandom. I get they are fun to watch. It's fun to watch people watching them, but I don't think they are capable of being the societal drain that is being extrapolated from the PBS special.

Apologies in advance to @lazyboy97o, if I'm taking his initial comments out of context.