The Spirited 11th Hour ...

[PhotoDave219]

So Star Wars Celebration returns to Orlando April 13-16 2017. Should keep the parks busy. Also new Star wars game announced from the makers of Titanfall, not much more than that to say about it. Also an neat prop pic from an upcoming Star Wars movie is making the rounds as well. But I will leave that for you all to find. And that is the Star Wars day lunchtime update, May the Fourth Be With You.

Celebration returns?!? Woot!

 

[ChrisFL]

Why would Disney have expected more cleanliness now than when Hong Kong Disneyland opened?

because they have their head in the sand

 

[flynnibus]

I agree with you. But I will say for everyone Elsa has not been confirmed to be any sort of LGBT character therefore for now she is not an lgbt character. BUT for the people who see that in her story arc I would like to share a post of mine that delves into why people can interpret her as a CODED lgbt character. And it goes far beyond not having a male love interest. That can be seen here for those who wish to gain a perspective on perhaps why some folks can see her story lining up with lgbt themes
http://didyouknowmagic.tumblr.com/p...ouknowmagic-reading-into-it-elsa-frozen#notes

Does the word 'parallel' mean anything to you? Just because you can draw likenesses between two things does not make them equal or intersect.

Oranges are round.. so are kickballs
Oranges are soft.. so are kickballs
Kids play with oranges.. kids play with kickballs

That does not make an Orange a kickball. Even if you used one metaphorically.

 

[ford91exploder]

Does the word 'parallel' mean anything to you? Just because you can draw likenesses between two things does not make them equal or intersect.

Oranges are round.. so are kickballs
Oranges are soft.. so are kickballs
Kids play with oranges.. kids play with kickballs

That does not make an Orange a kickball. Even if you used one metaphorically.

Ah brings back my undergrad 'Formal Logic' course.

One of the incorrect proofs went like so,

An Apple has red cheeks, I have red cheeks therefore I am an apple.

 

[flynnibus]

First part - These are movies aimed at five year olds. I feel that any sexuality (m/w, w/w, Ogre/Donkey, etc) is just a horrible idea to start with. I mean if Disney wants to get OG then we're left with arranged marriages and we saw how well that worked for

Spoiler

Sansa Stark with Ramsey in GOT

. I'm fine with the concept - I just dont see it happening anytime soon.

I think people get hung up on the specifics and don't really understand what their true objection is.

Many people don't want to deal with these topics in a Disney film because they don't want a Disney film to be the place where they are forced to face difficult or contentious topics they may not be comfortable with.. and hence then having to expose and deal with their children's followups from that. They don't want their 'family' product to be the 'battleground' for the contentious topic - they want to keep that place sheltered.

If the topic were inter-racial things, feminism, race, etc.. those who want to believe their 'family' product is a safe haven from all those potentially difficult topics. LGBT stuff is just the latest contentious topic many people would prefer their 'family' product not to be the battleground for.

It's not about the films including sexual or attraction topics or not.. it's about avoiding disagreement, difficult topics, or contention.

Topics like death are difficult to face, but not contentious. Topics like male/female attraction may be difficult based on the age, but were not contentious and you could explain man liking girl without debating controversial aspects like birth control, physical sex, etc.

Many want their 'family friendly' product to be a SAFE HAVEN instead of a place for people to make STATEMENTS.

If you are the audience that feels neglected in these representations - I can understand the push for wanting inclusion or representation. But I think the main resistance is not so much TOPICAL but this general desire for avoiding reality.

People want a fairytale to end happily ever after... not be a experience where they learn to face the harshness of life.

This is why the medium has been relatively CONSERVATIVE and avoids being a social statement. Often that means the medium perpetuates the past and avoids facing important inflexion points.

 

[ChrisFL]

Also reminds me of this:

Spurious Correlation graphs, such as the correlation of cheese consumed and people who died by being strangled in their bedsheets

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

 

[Sped2424]

Does the word 'parallel' mean anything to you? Just because you can draw likenesses between two things does not make them equal or intersect.

Oranges are round.. so are kickballs
Oranges are soft.. so are kickballs
Kids play with oranges.. kids play with kickballs

That does not make an Orange a kickball. Even if you used one metaphorically.

Does the word late mean anything to you? Or reading comprehension for that matter? As you seem to be lacking it severely.

 

[Crazydisneyfanluke]

So Star Wars Celebration returns to Orlando April 13-16 2017. Should keep the parks busy. Also new Star wars game announced from the makers of Titanfall, not much more than that to say about it. Also an neat prop pic from an upcoming Star Wars movie is making the rounds as well. But I will leave that for you all to find. And that is the Star Wars day lunchtime update, May the Fourth Be With You.

Hopefully be attending my first celebration next year!

 

[flynnibus]

Does the word late mean anything to you? Or reading comprehension for that matter? As you seem to be lacking it severely.

Sorry, I have my sped2424 notifications turned off and I don't reply to your posts within the allotted 15mins allowed. It was a post from YESTERDAY - god forbid!!

Too bad you didn't actually respond to any of the actual discussion. I guess your insight was CODED

 

[Andrew_Ryan]

If the topic were inter-racial things, feminism, race, etc.. those who want to believe their 'family' product is a safe haven from all those potentially difficult topics. LGBT stuff is just the latest contentious topic many people would prefer their 'family' product not to be the battleground for.

It's not about the films including sexual or attraction topics or not.. it's about avoiding disagreement, difficult topics, or contention.

I don't agree with the distinction you are making.

Wanting to avoid representation of LGBT characters for fear of explaining their existence to children is the same as having issues with LGBT people. If someone thinks that, say, a gay person existing in a Disney film is somehow invasive of their children's safe space, then I'd say they probably have an issue with gay people. They aren't topics, they are human beings.

I do think we have gone off track from the initial comments that spurred this topic. To tie it back in, I'd say that, while I don't expect them to have Elsa come out in Frozen 2, if they did it in an appropriate way (the same way they do with heterosexual couples in every other piece of Disney entertainment) it would be a great step forward and I would welcome it.

 

[flynnibus]

I don't agree with the distinction you are making.

Wanting to avoid representation of LGBT characters for fear of explaining their existence to children is the same as having issues with LGBT people

You've missed the point which is people want to avoid having the discussion. Doesn't matter if the topic is anti-war, globalism, immigration policies, or whatever. The point is its about CONTENTION - regardless of which side of a particular topic someone falls on.

It could be simply summed up as 'A time and place...' - and some people don't think their 'family entertainment' is the time or place to address those contentious topics. This applies regardless of the subject in itself. And it explains why you have the same problem over a variety of topics - not just LGBT topics.

 

[Andrew_Ryan]

You've missed the point which is people want to avoid having the discussion. Doesn't matter if the topic is anti-war, globalism, immigration policies, or whatever. The point is its about CONTENTION - regardless of which side of a particular topic someone falls on.

It could be simply summed up as 'A time and place...' - and some people don't think their 'family entertainment' is the time or place to address those contentious topics. This applies regardless of the subject in itself. And it explains why you have the same problem over a variety of topics - not just LGBT topics.

No, I get that. People don't want to discuss difficult topics with their young children.

To clarify, I interpreted your previous post as trying to make a separation between having an issue with a specific topic and not wanting to talk about said topic with their kids. I don't find the existence of LGBT people to be a difficult, contentious topic. I believe that anyone who does is a bigot and has an issue with them as people.

EDIT: Bigot is a harsh word. I should have said they are prejudiced.

 

[flynnibus]

I don't find the existence of LGBT people to be a difficult, contentious topic. I believe that anyone who does is a bigot and has an issue with them as people.

Well newsflash.. there is not consensus and it's been a unsettled topic for tens of thousands of years. I think that pretty much defines the term.

You don't have to be against something to recognize the topic as difficult or contentious. But you jump right to the attacking everyone with broke strokes approach. Kudos for knowing how to make transitions so smooth and well received...

 

[Andrew_Ryan]

Well newsflash.. there is not consensus and it's been a unsettled topic for tens of thousands of years. I think that pretty much defines the term.

You don't have to be against something to recognize the topic as difficult or contentious. But you jump right to the attacking everyone with broke strokes approach. Kudos for knowing how to make transitions so smooth and well received...

I don't understand what topic you are speaking of. Do you mean the existence of gay people? What is unsettled in this instance?

I'm saying that if someone has an issue with talking to their kids about LGBT people, then they have an issue with LGBT people, whether they'd care to admit it or not. People use their kids as an excuse to stick their heads in the sand regarding important issues all the time. It is dangerous and wrong.

Edit: Sorry for branching off into this topic. I just felt like some things needed to be addressed. I'll stop!

 

[Goofyernmost]

I don't understand what topic you are speaking of. Do you mean the existence of gay people? What is unsettled in this instance?

I'm saying that if someone has an issue with talking to their kids about LGBT people, then they have an issue with LGBT people, whether they'd care to admit it or not. People use their kids as an excuse to stick their heads in the sand regarding important issues all the time. It is dangerous and wrong.

It is also dangerous and wrong to force the discussion into areas where it just doesn't belong.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

More details on Disney's possible investment/acquisition in/of MLB Advanced Technologies from re/code. The division's valuation sits at $3 billion and Disney currently wants to acquire a third of the company with options for future investments.
http://recode.net/2016/05/04/disney-mlb-video-streaming-company/

 

[flynnibus]

I don't understand what topic you are speaking of. Do you mean the existence of gay people? What is unsettled in this instance?

Clearly you can't have an objective discussion on this so no more from me after this. If you can't accept there is still unease in the world over how LGBT topics are addressed, faced, etc you need to get off your high horse and talk at a normal level that includes the reality that the world does not pivot instantaneously and there are GENERATIONS of people who have lived or been taught different ideals that will not magically just SWITCH or change instantly.

I'm saying that if someone has an issue with talking to their kids about LGBT people, then they have an issue with LGBT people, whether they'd care to admit it or not. People use their kids as an excuse to stick their heads in the sand regarding important issues all the time. It is dangerous and wrong.

Or... the world is more complex than some would like to generalize it as. For those who weren't born after 1980.. we have a similar example of how race was handled. Many good intentioned people who meant no harm would use terms that people today would find offensive or hurtful. Those people could include your own family, aunts, uncles, grandparents, great grandparents, childhood neighbors, etc. But no level of evangelizing or lecturing your 70 yr old grandparents would stop them from using terms like 'colored', or their description of how the city neighborhoods changed. It doesn't make you a racist, or mean you have a problem with black people if you didn't want to continue to have conversations with them on what is acceptable language or beliefs.

The world, society, and tolerance does not change instantly -- that's a reality. But please.. keep on thinking that you can speed change by trying to shame people or pigeon hole them into hateful stereotypes.

 

[Nubs70]

You've missed the point which is people want to avoid having the discussion. Doesn't matter if the topic is anti-war, globalism, immigration policies, or whatever. The point is its about CONTENTION - regardless of which side of a particular topic someone falls on.

It could be simply summed up as 'A time and place...' - and some people don't think their 'family entertainment' is the time or place to address those contentious topics. This applies regardless of the subject in itself. And it explains why you have the same problem over a variety of topics - not just LGBT topics.

This is a good summation.

I want to choose the time and place I have this discussion with my children. A Saturday afternoon Disney matinee is not one of those places.

 

[Rodan75]

I hate to bring this up, since it is likely crazy speculation...but some Columbian company is claiming TWDC has purchased 1000 acres in Columbia for a park and are trying to build some water reservoir. Pretty brave of this company to post it so that it got picked up on the news wire.

Anyone have insight? Has this already been debunked?

 

[the.dreamfinder]

I hate to bring this up, since it is likely crazy speculation...but some Columbian company is claiming TWDC has purchased 1000 acres in Columbia for a park and are trying to build some water reservoir. Pretty brave of this company to post it so that it got picked up on the news wire.

Anyone have insight? Has this already been debunked?

Who owns the land adjacent to this 1000 acre parcel by chance?