I agree with you completely Veggi. I believe that Disney should be the place where discerning between "good" and "bad" shouldn't be ambiguous in the slightest. It's kind of sad that this attraction has led to the suggestion that parents need to educate their children on the differences between fantasy and reality. Isn't the whole point of WDW that it's supposed to be an escape where fantasy becomes reality? When it comes to "morality," I strongly believe that Disney should make things as clearly black or white as possible. (No pun intended.)
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Does Michael Jackson belong at WDW?
- Thread starter wizards8507
- Start date
I agree with you completely Veggi. I believe that Disney should be the place where discerning between "good" and "bad" shouldn't be ambiguous in the slightest. It's kind of sad that this attraction has led to the suggestion that parents need to educate their children on the differences between fantasy and reality. Isn't the whole point of WDW that it's supposed to be an escape where fantasy becomes reality? When it comes to "morality," I strongly believe that Disney should make things as clearly black or white as possible. (No pun intended.)
Future Guy
Active Member
There should be a "Meh" option for those of us who are past caring either way. It's nice to have something in that space other than HISTA. At this point, a show called "The Amazing World of Carpet Fibers" would have been an improvement. Of course, that's more an indictment of TDO's complete lack of regard for their customers than anything.
As for all of MJ's "issues" a lot of what I've seen here sounds like it was written by adherents of the Nancy Grace School of Criminal Justice where accusations=guilt. I find it very interesting that the first people to accuse MJ of molesting their child chose not to pursue criminal charges, but to seek a monetary settlement from MJ. If your child were violated like that, what would be your priority, getting the guilty person behind bars or getting a lot of money from him? Something doesn't smell right there.
As for the second incident where criminal charges were filed, let's not forget that MJ was acquitted in a court of law. Is the legal system perfect? Of course not. Are mistakes made? Sure. But does that mean that the acquittal is invalid? No, and don't trot out that whole "OJ was guilty but he got acquitted, too" argument. That was a different case, with a different judge, different prosecutors, different attorneys, different plaintiff and defendant, different everything. The Simpson case and the Jackson case simply have nothing to do with each other, and to claim otherwise, well, that's the kind of thing that disingenuous cable news pundits do to fire up their viewership of pointy-headed mouth-breathing simpletons.
That being said, do I think MJ was a child molester? I don't know. I wasn't there. I don't have all the facts. All that can be proved is that he was guilty of exercising remarkably bad judgment. A grown man having sleepovers with children just isn't a good idea, even if it really is completely innocent. If I had children, would I have let them go to a sleepover at his house? Heck no. I wouldn't let them within twenty miles of Neverland Ranch. Better safe than sorry, after all. But to state that Michael Jackson was a child molester, as though it's a proven fact, just makes you look like, well, Nancy Grace. And nobody wants to be compared to that.
As for all of MJ's "issues" a lot of what I've seen here sounds like it was written by adherents of the Nancy Grace School of Criminal Justice where accusations=guilt. I find it very interesting that the first people to accuse MJ of molesting their child chose not to pursue criminal charges, but to seek a monetary settlement from MJ. If your child were violated like that, what would be your priority, getting the guilty person behind bars or getting a lot of money from him? Something doesn't smell right there.
As for the second incident where criminal charges were filed, let's not forget that MJ was acquitted in a court of law. Is the legal system perfect? Of course not. Are mistakes made? Sure. But does that mean that the acquittal is invalid? No, and don't trot out that whole "OJ was guilty but he got acquitted, too" argument. That was a different case, with a different judge, different prosecutors, different attorneys, different plaintiff and defendant, different everything. The Simpson case and the Jackson case simply have nothing to do with each other, and to claim otherwise, well, that's the kind of thing that disingenuous cable news pundits do to fire up their viewership of pointy-headed mouth-breathing simpletons.
That being said, do I think MJ was a child molester? I don't know. I wasn't there. I don't have all the facts. All that can be proved is that he was guilty of exercising remarkably bad judgment. A grown man having sleepovers with children just isn't a good idea, even if it really is completely innocent. If I had children, would I have let them go to a sleepover at his house? Heck no. I wouldn't let them within twenty miles of Neverland Ranch. Better safe than sorry, after all. But to state that Michael Jackson was a child molester, as though it's a proven fact, just makes you look like, well, Nancy Grace. And nobody wants to be compared to that.
Did you read the rest of the posts? Most of us aren't arguing whether or not he was guilty of any crime. People forget that he admitted to sleepovers with children, which is technically not illegal, but still "messed up" enough for people to object.
THEMEPARKPIONEER
Well-Known Member
Now a while back I heard a great deal of complaints about the absence of the attraction. Now we want Michael Jackson out of the attraction. What do you want, the Jonas Brothers?
Future Guy
Active Member
Yeah, but I had refrained from commenting on the issue before now and just felt obliged to throw my two cents in. Hey, it's the Internet.
I really doubt that the people missing EO were the same people who want it gone.
stlbobby
Well-Known Member
It's not capitalizing on his death it's celebrating his life. :ROFLOL::ROFLOL::ROFLOL:
Wow, I can't believe I was actually able to type that with a straight face. Whew.
While I agree the media can wrongly crucify a person just for being investigated. I think a $20+ million settlement with a gag order is way more damning than just an accusation. I just don't think an innocent man would have paid the hush money. It's not proof, but it's enough for me.
Tater48
Well-Known Member
Money.....the root of all evil. While most of us have morals and if he did molest one of our children, we would fight to see this pushed through the courts. However, money has a mysterious grip on some people. We have all seen where kids kill their parents, spouses kill spouses, and many other atrocious acts for the allure of the almighty dollar. Obviously most of these parents who allowed their children to do a "sleepover" with this freak, are morally deficient anyway. If he did indeed do this, then dangled a tidy sum in front of them to go away, I believe that they would take the money and claim that it never happened. "Wow, MJ molested my child and he paid me millions to not go to the Police". Do I believe he did this? Yes, I do. Will I go and see this freak show? No, I will not. Just my .02
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
Very well said. One of the better posts in this thread which I suspect won't last 24hrs.
As for avoiding showing your children movies that portray actors with sketchy pasts in a positive light, it sounds like the parent has a harder time separating reality from fiction than the children. Or are obsessive about a singular individual to the point where the rest of the cast or hundreds of other people involved in creating a film are conveniently forgotten. Who knows what crap they did?
Should we ditch Swiss Family Robinson, Old Yeller, Flight of the Navigator, and Aladdin from our video libraries or remove them from circulation because individuals who contributed to those films did bad things and children might see them? No! I don't see why when they fail to portray, hint or mention the behavior these accused people did. Ignorance is bliss and if your a big enough kill joy to deprive them of family film work because of your own personal problems I feel sorry for the kids.
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
I could be wrong, but any individual who damages a person's good name, without proof, in writing risks being accused of libel defamation. It would be unwise (from legal or logic standpoint) for anyone in or out of Disney to argue EO should not be returned to a Disney park because it would support someone whom an individual believes (and therefore accuses) of being a child molester.
Just sayin'. :wave:
I love when the uneducated spout legal jargon.
Libel only applies to media (published works, broadcast, etc.)
"Truth" is an absolute defense against defamation in any form. Since libel is a tort (i.e., would require a lawsuit, not a criminal trial), burden of proof would be on Michael Jackson's estate. In other words, they would have to PROOVE that he DIDN'T assault any children to win the suit.
Finally, defamation dies along with the plaintiff, i.e. Michael Jackson would have to be alive to sue.
Do your research.
"Just sayin."
Libel only applies to media (published works, broadcast, etc.)
"Truth" is an absolute defense against defamation in any form. Since libel is a tort (i.e., would require a lawsuit, not a criminal trial), burden of proof would be on Michael Jackson's estate. In other words, they would have to PROOVE that he DIDN'T assault any children to win the suit.
Finally, defamation dies along with the plaintiff, i.e. Michael Jackson would have to be alive to sue.
Do your research.
"Just sayin."
VeggiFruitFruit
Member
For some. Definitely not for me. I prefer not to be ignorant.
This would assume that I, or my children, would take joy in seeing Captain EO?:veryconfu
I see it as protecting them. Do you deprive your children of adult films?
Even what some might consider "family" film work is not necessarily good for kids.If you are finding fault in a parent because of their choices, might I also find fault in MJ because of his choices?
Do you really think that kids will grow up scarred from missing EO because their parents decided not to bring them?
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
Hence why I said "I could be wrong". Ignoring the fact that I was educated in law (not US and was some time ago and could therefore make a mistake), you ignored the main point of my post which was this:
The media storm that could be generated by a company like Disney agreeing that MJ was a bad person for the reasons listed in this thread would be pretty big. It would definitely impact those who sell products involving MJ's name for example and cause at least some kind of trouble for Disney.
To Veggie, I'm just saying that if went to the trouble of doing research on film stars personal lives and decided that the behavior discovered, but not mentioned on a film was enough to give reason to avoid showing these films to a certain audience, we'd probably be surprised at the number of films that would be affected.
You are entitled to your opinion, and the probability of a child being "scarred" for missing EO is unlikely. However I would certainly hope that your reasoning for not showing them EO (if they ever asked) does not extend to other films aimed at a family audience.
As a side note, naturally, I would not show a kid an adult film for the content actually shown on screen could be bad for kids, but that is another discussion all together.
I love Captain EO (did then, still do). I think it fits great in the Imagination Pavilion. But Disney shouldn't be showing an attraction featuring a pedophile. So I voted "no" - some crimes are too heinous to be acceptable ... and there was plenty evidence for a "conviction" in the court of public opinion.
Timekeeper
Well-Known Member
Walt Disney is still alive? :brick:
PirateFrank
Well-Known Member
Here's the thing about Michael Jackson.
People are desperate to exonerate the man at all costs. They view him as an icon, be it musically, socially, etc....and they can't stand the fact that their childhood hero became a freak that preyed upon helpless children. They make excuses left and right. "he had a horrible childhood"..."He had no childhood"..."he had a skin condition"..."he was framed"....
...they never once considered the possibility that maybe, the huge amount of smoke actually came from a fire. Because to do that, they would have to tear down their image of their hero. These same people can't look at Jacko hanging his baby out a hotel balcony several stories up. They can't accept the fact that he stated on national tv that he slept with other children and complained about not being able to sleep with other children. They'll do anything they can to discredit his accusers...yet they refuse to come to grips with the fact that a person who would need to be bought off to the tune of 20 million+ wouldn't be discredited easily.
Those same people welcome EO, because it sorta erases all of the bad that Jacko brought to life....and they get to bury their head in the sand and think happy, happy thoughts about Jacko's moonwalk and glove.....and forget about what he probably did to McCauley Culkin during breaks from shooting the video to Black or White.
Heck, I think it's easier for people to accept being betrayed by their politicians/representatives than it is for them to accept betrayal from their pop culture heroes. That's a sad testimony on the conditional thinking of some people.
People are desperate to exonerate the man at all costs. They view him as an icon, be it musically, socially, etc....and they can't stand the fact that their childhood hero became a freak that preyed upon helpless children. They make excuses left and right. "he had a horrible childhood"..."He had no childhood"..."he had a skin condition"..."he was framed"....
...they never once considered the possibility that maybe, the huge amount of smoke actually came from a fire. Because to do that, they would have to tear down their image of their hero. These same people can't look at Jacko hanging his baby out a hotel balcony several stories up. They can't accept the fact that he stated on national tv that he slept with other children and complained about not being able to sleep with other children. They'll do anything they can to discredit his accusers...yet they refuse to come to grips with the fact that a person who would need to be bought off to the tune of 20 million+ wouldn't be discredited easily.
Those same people welcome EO, because it sorta erases all of the bad that Jacko brought to life....and they get to bury their head in the sand and think happy, happy thoughts about Jacko's moonwalk and glove.....and forget about what he probably did to McCauley Culkin during breaks from shooting the video to Black or White.
Heck, I think it's easier for people to accept being betrayed by their politicians/representatives than it is for them to accept betrayal from their pop culture heroes. That's a sad testimony on the conditional thinking of some people.
That's not proof of innocence. In a criminal trial, you are innocent unless guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. An acquittal isn't proof of innocence, it's just proof of "reasonable doubt."
Monty
Brilliant...and Canadian
- In the Parks
- No
A lovely construction... In two successive sentences you contradict yourself perfectly "you are innocent" followed immediately by saying that acquittal doesn't prove it. Acquittal does have to prove it. It is a fact until disproven.
Why can't you accept the most basic tenet of your U.S. legal system... Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
PirateFrank
Well-Known Member
Throw the innocent/guilty crap out of this discussion.
We're not talking about whether Captain EO belongs in jail....we're talking about whether Captain EO belongs in Disney.
To that end, the court of public opinion rules......
the law is the lowest level of moral standard.....if you want your theme-park to play to the lowest common denominator, go to Six Flags....
We're not talking about whether Captain EO belongs in jail....we're talking about whether Captain EO belongs in Disney.
To that end, the court of public opinion rules......
the law is the lowest level of moral standard.....if you want your theme-park to play to the lowest common denominator, go to Six Flags....