"The Problem With Disney Fans"

[Zorro]

Robert Louis Stevenson

There's a difference between being influenced by a common culture or lore and directly doing an adaptation of a work. By your standard, POTC was also directly based on the works of Rafael Sabatini and Howard Pyle as well as movies starring the likes of Errol Flynn, Charles Laughton, Wallace Beery, and Douglas Fairbanks, Sr. Are you also going to say that the Haunted Mansion was directly based on Robert Wise's "The Haunting" and the 1946 version of "Beauty and the Beast" since Rolly Crump and Yale Gracey used various elements from those films when developing the attraction? POTC was influenced by an amalgamation of pirate history, lore, and tradition, and that of course would have included the Robert Louis Stevenson book and the 1950 film, but to say that the attraction is directly based off of it is, to put it mildly, misleading.

 

[Phil12]

There's a difference between being influenced by a common culture or lore and directly doing an adaptation of a work. By your standard, POTC was also directly based on the works of Rafael Sabatini and Howard Pyle as well as movies starring the likes of Errol Flynn, Charles Laughton, Wallace Beery, and Douglas Fairbanks, Sr. Are you also going to say that the Haunted Mansion was directly based on Robert Wise's "The Haunting" and the 1946 version of "Beauty and the Beast" since Rolly Crump and Yale Gracey used various elements from those films when developing the attraction? POTC was influenced by an amalgamation of pirate history, lore, and tradition, and that of course would have included the Robert Louis Stevenson book and the 1950 film, but to say that the attraction is directly based off of it is, to put it mildly, misleading.

The phrase "mortui non mordent" translates as "dead men tell no tales," and "dead men don't bite." It is an old Latin phrase that is used to reaffirm the wisdom of killing one's enemies or victims. Once dead, those victims will not be around to testify about the perpetrator's conduct or deeds, and they won't be alive to exact revenge.

As you can see, the quote comes directly from "Treasure Island". But if you wish to believe that Pirates of the Caribbean was merely influenced by a combination of history, folklore and custom then you're welcome to have that opinion.

I'll have to get busy and create a rodent that says, "See ya real soon!". If anyone objects I'll use your argument in my defense.

Also, the song "Yo Ho (A Pirate's Life for Me) is derived from "Dead Man's Chest" which was also in Stevenson's "Treasure Island".

 

[Tony the Tigger]

This assumes all people are equally qualified and capable - and they are not. Plenty of people form irrational opinions.. Plenty of people are unaware of their ignorance of a subject.. Plenty of people are incapable of seeing beyond the tip of their nose.

If all opinions were equal and as worthy - there would be no market for critics, reviewers, or specialists. You could ask random person and get just as good of an view on something. And that's not the case.

Everyone is on equal footing to give their opinion - but not all opinions are equally worthy or respectable. People can torpedo that quite easily.

Plenty of people overestimate their own opinions and “knowledge” as well.

The best you can do here is “Well-known Member.”

Nobody gets labeled CM, insider, or anything else, and nobody should expect to be treated as anything more than the rest without laying out their credentials. Anybody can say they are anything.

And working Pirates for two years doesn’t make you an Imagineer, either. Neither does knowing an Imagineer or knowing a higher-up.

My position is unless you have been specifically trained by Disney in the topic at hand, I’m more inclined to accept something like @Tom P. ’s assessment that all opinions are fairly equal. Having a hobby or interest doesn’t make one an expert.

Too many people pass themselves off as experts here without backing it up. If they can’t back it up because they’re still employed, don’t expect every newbie to genuflect when you enter a thread and lay down your version of “the law.”

 

[flynnibus]

My position is unless you have been specifically trained by Disney in the topic at hand, I’m more inclined to accept something like @Tom P. ’s assessment that all opinions are fairly equal. Having a hobby or interest doesn’t make one an expert.

Too many people pass themselves off as experts here without backing it up. If they can’t back it up because they’re still employed, don’t expect every newbie to genuflect when you enter a thread and lay down your version of “the law.”

But everything you just outlined is what YOU interpret their worth to be -- You are gauging what respect or not YOU give an opinion. Problem is, your perspective is immaterial to the validity (or not) or other attributes of someone's statements. Your POV does not shape nor redefine the other person's statements that live entirely independently of you.

If Tom Fitzgerald came on here tomorrow and posted anonymously about something... by your own description you'd put his posts on the same level as goofs like jt. His opinion on something in the parks is far more refined -- even if you aren't aware of it. So again... worthiness is not in the eye of the beholder... the eyes may not know enough to qualify something... that doesn't mean its not worth something more.

It's like saying "I can't tell the difference between a diamond and cubic zirconia... so all stones are just equal". That's not how it works.

Not being able to pick out the differences doesn't mean they don't exist.

In your POV.. you can view the world as you please.. but that doesn't mean the reality is only as you see it.

There are differences.. and not all are equal... even if the audience doesn't know it.

 

[josephinelcajon]

I like change IF it is done with Disney quality that I grew up knowing! (I am 50) First maintain what you do have! And I mean keep it in perfect Disney perfection! Second if its not operational get rid of it completely immediately! If you put something new in think of Walt Disney original idea of the park ("a clean happy place that EVERYONE can and will enjoy" per my words)("intended Disneyland to have educational as well as amusement value and to entertain adults and their children" per History Channel) I think Disney needs to remember this! A immaculate clean park! The highest hospitality to the guest! Attractions and entertainment for all guest ages and background! Value that all people can afford and feel like their dollar was well spent! Educational past present or future!

*This is my thoughts and ideas in words. I might be wrong or rite I do the best I can with the knowledge that I have.

 

[Zorro]

The phrase "mortui non mordent" translates as "dead men tell no tales," and "dead men don't bite." It is an old Latin phrase that is used to reaffirm the wisdom of killing one's enemies or victims. Once dead, those victims will not be around to testify about the perpetrator's conduct or deeds, and they won't be alive to exact revenge.

As you can see, the quote comes directly from "Treasure Island". But if you wish to believe that Pirates of the Caribbean was merely influenced by a combination of history, folklore and custom then you're welcome to have that opinion.

I'll have to get busy and create a rodent that says, "See ya real soon!". If anyone objects I'll use your argument in my defense.

Also, the song "Yo Ho (A Pirate's Life for Me) is derived from "Dead Man's Chest" which was also in Stevenson's "Treasure Island".

"To be, or not to be, that is the question." Uh-oh! I just quoted Shakespeare. That means that my post is now "directly based on" Shakespeare's Hamlet!

"Let the punishment fit the crime!" - Oh great, now my post is "directly based on" Gilbert and Sullivan's the Mikado!

Incidentally, the writers of enotes would like to be properly attributed. Your post is so much based on it that part of it was just copied and pasted from it!

What is the point? Merely quoting a previously source does not necessarily mean that a work is based upon the quoted source. As I said earlier (which you seem to have conveniently ignored) Robert Louis Stevenson's Treasure Island is certainly one of the major influences of POTC - the "dead men tale no tales" is evidence of that. By the time of the 1960s, Treasure Island was one of the sources of folklore that Marc Davis, X Atencio, and others drew from to create their work. Atencio said that he consulted the book and the 1950 film to get a feeling for pirate language. A source of inspiration? Sure. Directly based on? That is not a tenable argument. I'm not sure why you're even objecting to what I have said since I'm just saying what the likes of X Atencio and Jason Surrell have said (and I can cite the source if necessary).

As you you and the enotes writers noted, mortui non mordent is an old Latin phrase. People of Stevenson's time would have been more familiar with Latin phrases than perhaps we are today. As such, it is not shocking that Stevenson borrowed from linguistic culture to craft the colorful "dead men don't bite." That just goes to show that what X Atencio did was not that much different. Atencio also quoted Shakespeare when he used the phrase "grim grinning ghost" for the Haunted Mansion so I am sure by your reasoning the Haunted Mansion was based of off Shakespeare's poem Venus and Adonis.

As for your "See ya real soon" remark, if your rodent says that in the form of a song that sounds awfully like the MMC alma mater, you may want to cut out a check to the Jimmie Dodd estate and/or the Disney Music Group since you're not exactly crafting a new phase after being inspired by culture. It's a pesky little thing called copyright. You may want to cut a check out to the enotes people while you're at it.

 

[bUU]

No, I'm pretty sure your posting proves yourself incorrect. Not all customers are equals - some you just have to accept are impossible. It's why every good sampling tosses out the extremes... because they are not representative of typical.

We're talking about two different things. Every guest is equally qualified and capable of determining whether what is offered is good or bad/liked or disliked by them. Again: Even if you can't admit that. What requires expertise is analysis of what the business should or shouldn't be doing. In that regard, qualifications and expertise are critical.

What is also critical is impartiality: A business analyst must not have any affinity toward any solution, but rather must be ruthlessly objective with regard to consideration of solutions. That's part of "The Problem With Disney Fans": So many of them think that because they have feelings about what they like or dislike that that qualifies them to analyze the business and its decisions. Nothing could be further from the truth. Having affinities (such as what the company used to do) actually is a detriment to analysis of the business.

It is a taught-and-learned skill to set aside affinities like that. I used to manage a third-party certification service at a Big Six firm and had a few dozen employees go through my department while I was there. Maybe one in three were able to do the job. And I'm not talking about random Joe's off the street - these were accomplished professionals in their field. However, in becoming accomplished professionals they established affinities for the approaches that they like or that had worked for them, and some of those professionals simply could not let go of those biases and assess the businesses they were certifying objectively.

 

[starri42]

Nobody gets labeled CM, insider, or anything else, and nobody should expect to be treated as anything more than the rest without laying out their credentials. Anybody can say they are anything.

What about bus drivers?

For all the accusations of "SHILL!" and "BOUGHT OFF!" he also made a point of mentioning that he hates Haunted Mansion Holiday.

The whole toxic fandom discussion--which isn't unique to Star Wars--is a long, depressing conversation best suited to somewhere else. But I kind of loathe the entire idea of superfans feeling like they have the right to gatekeeping of whatever is considered "correct" for whatever their particular fandom is.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

I kind of loathe the entire idea of superfans feeling like they have the right to gatekeeping of whatever is considered "correct" for whatever their particular fandom is.

100%

 

[Tony the Tigger]

But everything you just outlined is what YOU interpret their worth to be -- You are gauging what respect or not YOU give an opinion. Problem is, your perspective is immaterial to the validity (or not) or other attributes of someone's statements. Your POV does not shape nor redefine the other person's statements that live entirely independently of you.

If Tom Fitzgerald came on here tomorrow and posted anonymously about something... by your own description you'd put his posts on the same level as goofs like jt. His opinion on something in the parks is far more refined -- even if you aren't aware of it. So again... worthiness is not in the eye of the beholder... the eyes may not know enough to qualify something... that doesn't mean its not worth something more.

It's like saying "I can't tell the difference between a diamond and cubic zirconia... so all stones are just equal". That's not how it works.

Not being able to pick out the differences doesn't mean they don't exist.

In your POV.. you can view the world as you please.. but that doesn't mean the reality is only as you see it.

There are differences.. and not all are equal... even if the audience doesn't know it.

You’re making my point.

If I can’t tell the difference between a cubic zirconia and a diamond, I’m not buying either from some anonymous uncredentialed guy on the internet.

If they’re clearly marked by a reputable and experienced dealer, I’m more likely to trust them, although fraud is always possible. Of course, I can always get a second opinion (appraisal.)

Now, if a well meaning individual (also anonymous on the internet) has watched this:

and fancies himself an expert while calling himself Monacle1978, you’ll forgive me for being skeptical of his “skills” acquired through hobbying, not professional training.

And if he stomps up and down declaring his expertise...it carries no extra weight.

In reality, he may be right - on one point; he may be dead wrong on others. What he lacks is anything to back up his declarations of credibility.

He’d better not walk into a jewelry store and say, “I’ll tell you what’s what!”

And if Tom Fitzgerald came here tomorrow without identifying himself, calling himself Goofball71, you would be foolish to take his words above the average poster. It would and should take a long time to establish some measure of credibility.

People can (sometimes) discern basics like sincerity, attitude, pomposity, etc. from a group of posts. They can catch glimpses of experience such as “CM lingo,” etc.

But nobody here can see you unless you reveal yourself. Saying, “I know what I’m talking about” doesn’t count, especially in something as specialized as Disney Imagineering, for example. I’m glad you’re (general “you” are) interested. I’m glad you’ve paid attention and read some books. That doesn’t make you an imagineer. And if you are one, and just can’t say, then I appreciate your frustration. Write a book when you retire.

 

[larryz]

You’re making my point.

If I can’t tell the difference between a cubic zirconia and a diamond, I’m not buying either from some anonymous uncredentialed guy on the internet.

If they’re clearly marked by a reputable and experienced dealer, I’m more likely to trust them, although fraud is always possible. Of course, I can always get a second opinion (appraisal.)

Now, if a well meaning individual (also anonymous on the internet) has watched this:
View attachment 412002
and fancies himself an expert while calling himself Monacle1978, you’ll forgive me for being skeptical of his “skills” acquired through hobbying, not professional training.

And if he stomps up and down declaring his expertise...it carries no extra weight.

In reality, he may be right - on one point; he may be dead wrong on others. What he lacks is anything to back up his declarations of credibility.

He’d better not walk into a jewelry store and say, “I’ll tell you what’s what!”

And if Tom Fitzgerald came here tomorrow without identifying himself, calling himself Goofball71, you would be foolish to take his words above the average poster. It would and should take a long time to establish some measure of credibility.

People can (sometimes) discern basics like sincerity, attitude, pomposity, etc. from a group of posts. They can catch glimpses of experience such as “CM lingo,” etc.

But nobody here can see you unless you reveal yourself. Saying, “I know what I’m talking about” doesn’t count, especially in something as specialized as Disney Imagineering, for example. I’m glad you’re (general “you” are) interested. I’m glad you’ve paid attention and read some books. That doesn’t make you an imagineer. And if you are one, and just can’t say, then I appreciate your frustration. Write a book when you retire.

That said, there's a surefire method of determining the skills of an amateur mushroom hunter...

 

[flynnibus]

You’re making my point.

If I can’t tell the difference between a cubic zirconia and a diamond, I’m not buying either from some anonymous uncredentialed guy on the internet.

No, you're drifting off point. Now you're talking about trust and your perception of credibility. The original point is not about can you trust some post more than another... but was that literally some people are more qualified and disciplined than others. It doesn't matter if you don't know it from their posts.. or can't blindly trust it... it doesn't change the source material.

Hence the diamond analogy... it doesn't matter if you can't the stones apart, it's still a diamond regardless of your ability to trust that it is.

And if Tom Fitzgerald came here tomorrow without identifying himself, calling himself Goofball71, you would be foolish to take his words above the average poster. It would and should take a long time to establish some measure of credibility.

If you believe him or not... is not going to change if he's right or more qualified. That's why this whole credibility point is a tangent and not relevant to the initial point. He is more qualified than a random goofball even if you don't know it.

And second... never bother with posters who use 'goof' in their handle

 

[flynnibus]

We're talking about two different things. Every guest is equally qualified and capable of determining whether what is offered is good or bad/liked or disliked by them.

No, every customer is equally ENTITLED to deciding if they like something... not all are equally qualified to determine it accurately. It's why there are slick salesmen in the world.. its easy to deceive most into believing something you want them to believe and distort what the consumer actually values.

Most people are stupid and follow some example or latch onto something they believe is a good example to mimic.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

No, you're drifting off point. Now you're talking about trust and your perception of credibility. The original point is not about can you trust some post more than another... but was that literally some people are more qualified and disciplined than others. It doesn't matter if you don't know it from their posts.. or can't blindly trust it... it doesn't change the source material.

Hence the diamond analogy... it doesn't matter if you can't the stones apart, it's still a diamond regardless of your ability to trust that it is.



If you believe him or not... is not going to change if he's right or more qualified. That's why this whole credibility point is a tangent and not relevant to the initial point. He is more qualified than a random goofball even if you don't know it.

And second... never bother with posters who use 'goof' in their handle

Well, we disagree on the conclusions drawn from the same set of facts.

Yes, Tom Fitz knows more than an untrained person, whether or not that information is well-received or the source is known.

My main point is we are mostly flying blind around here, and it's usually not Tom, it's usually some armchair imagineer who thinks they know what they're talking about, just as surely as katiebug thought she knew what she was talking about.

We don't know who is a trained person here or an untrained person. We just have people with cutesy screen names making assertions.

Unless the site is willing to vet and take responsibility for vetting who is an "expert," then I think it's dubious to put one opinion above another without a whole lot of context.

My biggest issue is with untrained people passing themselves off as self-proclaimed experts.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Most people are stupid and follow some example or latch onto something they believe is a good example to mimic.

Here I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[flynnibus]

Well, we disagree on the conclusions drawn from the same set of facts.

Yes, Tom Fitz knows more than an untrained person, whether or not that information is well-received or the source is known.

My main point is we are mostly flying blind around here, and it's usually not Tom, it's usually some armchair imagineer who thinks they know what they're talking about, just as surely as katiebug thought she knew what she was talking about.

Correct.. it can be difficult to discern without good history who has more legit credibility and objectivity in their claims and a safe, common defense technique is to just trust everyone at the same, limited, level. That just means you've filtered how much you will buy into someone's words without more collaborating points (potentially from other sources). That simply means you've modified how much _you_ value the person's words... it doesn't change that the words can be proven more objective and credible elsewhere (even if not accepted by the listener).

I would not recommend buying any gemstones off the internet... but that doesn't mean there aren't legit gemstones being sold on the internet

This is a trust issue - not that it means all sellers are equal. Which is the original point... not all opinions are equal, even if you as a listener treat them as such. As a listener, due to uncertainty, you trust them all equally (even if that trust is low). AKA 'you don't trust any of them'

My biggest issue is with untrained people passing themselves off as self-proclaimed experts.

When you are qualified in a field, it's often pretty easy to spot the imposters hanging themselves

 

[Phil12]

"To be, or not to be, that is the question." Uh-oh! I just quoted Shakespeare. That means that my post is now "directly based on" Shakespeare's Hamlet!

"Let the punishment fit the crime!" - Oh great, now my post is "directly based on" Gilbert and Sullivan's the Mikado!

Incidentally, the writers of enotes would like to be properly attributed. Your post is so much based on it that part of it was just copied and pasted from it!

What is the point? Merely quoting a previously source does not necessarily mean that a work is based upon the quoted source. As I said earlier (which you seem to have conveniently ignored) Robert Louis Stevenson's Treasure Island is certainly one of the major influences of POTC - the "dead men tale no tales" is evidence of that. By the time of the 1960s, Treasure Island was one of the sources of folklore that Marc Davis, X Atencio, and others drew from to create their work. Atencio said that he consulted the book and the 1950 film to get a feeling for pirate language. A source of inspiration? Sure. Directly based on? That is not a tenable argument. I'm not sure why you're even objecting to what I have said since I'm just saying what the likes of X Atencio and Jason Surrell have said (and I can cite the source if necessary).

As you you and the enotes writers noted, mortui non mordent is an old Latin phrase. People of Stevenson's time would have been more familiar with Latin phrases than perhaps we are today. As such, it is not shocking that Stevenson borrowed from linguistic culture to craft the colorful "dead men don't bite." That just goes to show that what X Atencio did was not that much different. Atencio also quoted Shakespeare when he used the phrase "grim grinning ghost" for the Haunted Mansion so I am sure by your reasoning the Haunted Mansion was based of off Shakespeare's poem Venus and Adonis.

As for your "See ya real soon" remark, if your rodent says that in the form of a song that sounds awfully like the MMC alma mater, you may want to cut out a check to the Jimmie Dodd estate and/or the Disney Music Group since you're not exactly crafting a new phase after being inspired by culture. It's a pesky little thing called copyright. You may want to cut a check out to the enotes people while you're at it.

The attraction is called "Pirates of the Caribbean". Treasure Island is located in the West Indies. Here is a map of the West Indies:


And yes indeed that pesky little thing called copyright is part of this entire story. Walt Disney had a habit of using public domain material for his attractions and movies because he did not have to pay any royalties.

So in review, we have the title of the attraction and the geographic location directly linked. We have the theme song of the attraction directly linked. And we have the prominent catch phrase of the attraction also directly linked to Treasure Island.

Put it this way. Had Treasure Island not been in the public domain when the attraction "Pirates of the Caribbean" was first created, Walt Disney would have had to pay royalties to the estate of Robert Louis Stevenson.

Disney used a story in the public domain to create his attraction "Pirates of the Caribbean". He did it many other times as well including "Swiss Family Robinson" (which is also located in Adventureland in WDW).

But I think you knew that all along.

 

[danyoung56]

There may be a lot of anecdotal evidence leading to the conclusion that Pirates (the ride) was based on Treasure Island (the book). I've never read anything to indicate that Walt was basing his attraction on Treasure Island, but that may indeed have been the case.

 

[Zorro]

The attraction is called "Pirates of the Caribbean". Treasure Island is located in the West Indies. Here is a map of the West Indies:


And yes indeed that pesky little thing called copyright is part of this entire story. Walt Disney had a habit of using public domain material for his attractions and movies because he did not have to pay any royalties.

You actually haven't shown anything other than Robert Louis Stevenson, Rafael Sabatini, Howard Pyle, Marc Davis, X Atencio, et al were all inspired by common sources and would then frequently borrow from that common culture and even one another when it suited their individual purposes. That's how popular culture works. Ask Milton Berle.

So in review, we have the title of the attraction and the geographic location directly linked. We have the theme song of the attraction directly linked. And we have the prominent catch phrase of the attraction also directly linked to Treasure Island.

Um, you do realize that there was actual piracy in those regions several hundred years ago, right? I don't think that Mr. Stevenson had a copyright on history and geography the last time I checked. As for the theme song, Stevenson was inspired after seeing the name "Dead Man's Chest" as a location in the Virgin Islands in a book by Charles Kingsley. Ah, he was inspired by something he saw in a book to create something new! Sort of sounds like something that X Atencio did.

As for "Dead men tell no tales," you do realize that you can't exactly copyright a phrase that has been used for millennia, right? As you and enotes pointed out, the phrase has been in use since Roman times. Also, the phrase was used before Stevenson's times by writers such as John Dryden and Thomas Becon. What Stevenson did was to put it in a mouth of a pirate. Stephen King ordering a Big Mac doesn't grant him exclusives rights to the phrase "Big Mac" either.

Put it this way. Had Treasure Island not been in the public domain when the attraction "Pirates of the Caribbean" was first created, Walt Disney would have had to pay royalties to the estate of Robert Louis Stevenson.

Questionable. Since Mr. Stevenson borrowed extensively from history and other sources (including his famous phrases to some degree) to create his work, it'd be a difficult case to make that Disney would have been in violation of copyright.

Disney used a story in the public domain to create his attraction "Pirates of the Caribbean". He did it many other times as well including "Swiss Family Robinson" (which is also located in Adventureland in WDW).

Questionable. Again, you don't seem to understand the difference between being "based on" and being "inspired by." To use your Swiss Family Robinson example, Disney took a book by Johann David Wyss and made a movie based directly on that source. What that means is that he took the narrative, characters, and situations from that book and from it made a movie that was clearly labeled as an adaptation of a previous work. On the other hand, X Atencio was influenced by the colorful language of Treasure Island as well as other pirate related books and movies to create the script for the scenes devised by Marc Davis. Of course, that would have included the artful use of pirate cliches, some of which can be traced to Stevenson. As you can see, there's a clear difference between the two. One is doing a direct adaptation, and the other is drawing from the collective conscious. Kurosawa's "Throne of a Blood" is an explicit adaptation of Shakespeare's MacBeth, but me quoting in passing "Is this a dagger which I see before me" in a novel, play, or movie doesn't mean that my work is suddenly directly based on MacBeth. As I have said before, using your logic would force you to conclude that the Haunted Mansion is directly based on a work by Shakespeare, and I think most of us would consider that to be an absurd premise. Inspired by? Sure. Directly based on? Would you like to buy a bridge that I'm selling in Brooklyn?

But I think you knew that all along.

Um, where did I ever say that "Treasure Island" wasn't a significant influence? I'm just rightly pointing out the absurdity of the notion that POTC is a direct adaptation of it. I do wonder what you knew before you started cribbing from enotes though.

 

[Zorro]

Stop the presses! Yosemite Sam is guilty of violating Robert Louis Stevenson's sacred copyrights and trademarks! Hang, draw, and quarter the varmint for daring to quote a famous, if perhaps cliched, line from a famous novel without admitting that his whole entity is now based on Treasure Island! Think of the children! How dare the Yosemite Sam and the WB animators quote and paraphrase Stevenson at a time when that line was part and parcel of the popular perception of piracy! Being inspired by popular culture is no excuse for such a dastardly act!

Let's see - we have roughly at least the same geographical region of Treasure Island and the famous Yo Ho song/catchphrase from the work! So this can only lead us to conclude that this Bugs Bunny and Yosemite Sam cartoon is "directly based on" Robert Louis Stevenson's Treasure Island. That's piracy for you.