Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Disney is safeguarding its future by buying childhood, piece by piece

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 172 posts

Re: Disney is safeguarding its future by buying childhood, piece by piece

#111

Post by olewhalehunter »

JabavuAdams wrote: post #106
olewhalehunter wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fundamentally their films are there to make money in a global economy and to ensure the artists stay hired there. And their art is shit, repetitive, and horrifically ethnocentric, they draw all their eyes the same, big, colorful, inviting, with nice clear whites; their bodies are soft, squeezable, like big babies, with fuzzy or gleaming hair, to exploit humanistic reactions.

Is there anything you're trying to accomplish? I love myself a good rant, and most of us love to be righteous ... but ... What's the state of the world that you want? Does being this angry help you get it there?

I'm automating distributed dialectics software and it appears to be working.

Re: Disney is safeguarding its future by buying childhood, piece by piece

#112

Post by PhasmaFelis »

olewhalehunter wrote: post #96
JabavuAdams wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not referring to Steve Jobs, I'm referring to the Pixar "Brain Trust": http://www.fastcompany.com/3027135/lessons-learned/inside-th... Fundamentally, these people are artists.

Fundamentally their films are there to make money in a global economy and to ensure the artists stay hired there. And their art is shit, repetitive, and horrifically ethnocentric, they draw all their eyes the same, big, colorful, inviting, with nice clear whites; their bodies are soft, squeezable, like big babies, with fuzzy or gleaming hair, to exploit humanistic reactions.

> they draw all their eyes the same, big, colorful, inviting, with nice clear whites; their bodies are soft, squeezable, like big babies, with fuzzy or gleaming hair, to exploit humanistic reactions.

Do you also hate the Muppets? Or are you just trolling now?

Re: Disney is safeguarding its future by buying childhood, piece by piece

#113

Post by lambda »

tunesmith wrote: post #7

FYI, the first part of the article spoils some minor things about the new star wars film, for those who haven't seen it. I bailed out of reading it after that.

At some point, you have to stop considering any discussion of a movie as spoiler.

The term "spoiler" should be reserved for a reveal that actually spoils the movie; where some crucial element of the movies emotional impact can be taken away by knowing some fact in advance that is held secret through the movie.

The discussion in the first paragraph here pretty much just covers the exposition in the credits, and the material you learn very early on about one of the main characters.

I feel like treating this kind of information as a spoiler will just lead you to endless anxiety until you have seen every possible movie that could be "spoiled" for you this way. Why not just relax, accept that people are going to do some light discussion of movies, and reserve your outrage for actual spoilers of surprising plot points, mysteries solved, puzzles spoiled, and the like?

Re: Disney is safeguarding its future by buying childhood, piece by piece

#114

Post by olewhalehunter »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #105
olewhalehunter wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ekman#Criticisms

So have we dialed back from "Inside Out's psych theories are monstrous corporate brainwashing lies" to "Inside Out's psych theories are mildly controversial"? I get that you didn't like the movie, and that's okay, and it's certainly reasonable to not like Disney in general; but I don't think you have any grounds to extrapolate that to the movie's message being actively and specifically harmful.

I've dialed it to "Inside Out is such an effective piece of brainwashing that it can get people to passionately defend it for free on the Internet".

Re: Disney is safeguarding its future by buying childhood, piece by piece

#115

Post by olewhalehunter »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #112
olewhalehunter wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fundamentally their films are there to make money in a global economy and to ensure the artists stay hired there. And their art is shit, repetitive, and horrifically ethnocentric, they draw all their eyes the same, big, colorful, inviting, with nice clear whites; their bodies are soft, squeezable, like big babies, with fuzzy or gleaming hair, to exploit humanistic reactions.

> they draw all their eyes the same, big, colorful, inviting, with nice clear whites; their bodies are soft, squeezable, like big babies, with fuzzy or gleaming hair, to exploit humanistic reactions. Do you also hate the Muppets? Or are you just trolling now?

Yes, children have better things to do than watching television shows owned by Disney and OP's article details why.

Re: Disney is safeguarding its future by buying childhood, piece by piece

#116

Post by olewhalehunter »

bitwize wrote: post #103
olewhalehunter wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Emotions are so much more complex than our terrible labels for them, and much of your emotional sense of self comes from the language your parents branded you with for the most cultural convenience: '"Anger" is bad! It's your fault in not handling "it", not ours or the systems', but "Anger" in-of-itself doesn't exist outside of language, just the nebulous array of feelings and reactions we've been to coniditoned to l…

Actually psychologists have identified seven basic emotions: fear, anger, joy, sadness, surprise, contempt, and disgust. "Surprise" was considered similar enough to "fear" that Pixar made one character out of them; the same goes for "contempt" and "disgust". Complexity in emotions arises from their interactions, much like how we perceive a spectrum of colors as a mixture of three primaries. Most of the professionals…

Is there any evidence those labels aren't a product of linguistics and culture? Two things developed during childhood that Disney is working to profit from? Did those professionals grow up watching Disney movies?

Re: Disney is safeguarding its future by buying childhood, piece by piece

#117

Post by PhasmaFelis »

olewhalehunter wrote: post #114
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So have we dialed back from "Inside Out's psych theories are monstrous corporate brainwashing lies" to "Inside Out's psych theories are mildly controversial"? I get that you didn't like the movie, and that's okay, and it's certainly reasonable to not like Disney in general; but I don't think you have any grounds to extrapolate that to the movie's message being actively and specifically harmful.

I've dialed it to "Inside Out is such an effective piece of brainwashing that it can get people to passionately defend it for free on the Internet".

"All of my arguments have been refuted, so clearly this means that I have won."

That's kinda nostalgic, actually. I remember seeing it a lot on Usenet. It's dwindled since people stopped calling flamewars "flamewars." Dunno why.

Re: Disney is safeguarding its future by buying childhood, piece by piece

#118

Post by StavrosK »

angersock wrote: post #72
Animats wrote: post #71

When Disney acquires Barbie, their domination will be complete. (Check out "Hello Barbie", in stores now.[1] Now your kids can talk to Barbie and she'll talk back. Barbie has a WiFi connection to servers back at Mattel HQ running AI software. "ToyTalk, the tech company that partnered with Mattel to bring Hello Barbie to life, stores by default everything the doll records for at least two years to help it better analy…

I'm somewhat reminded of Harrison's "I Always Do What Teddy Says" ( https://opalcp12.wikispaces.com/file/view/I+Always+Do+What+T... ).

SPOILER ALERT! The story was a bit hard to believe, as it claims that everyone who wasn't conditioned against it (like none of us are) would just grow up to be a sociopath and kill their parents without second thought.

Re: Disney is safeguarding its future by buying childhood, piece by piece

#119

Post by eru »

chetanahuja wrote: post #100
rpgmaker wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone that watched the Star Wars film for the first time relatively recent, I concur. I did not like ANY of the films at all (I watched them in the order they were released). The scripts of the first three seemed utter shit to me. It works as a family movie I guess but not one an adult should be able to enjoy. Needless to say this opinion makes me part of a despised minority but I understand why many people love…

With you all the way brother. Stripped of nostalgia (I also saw the original movies for the first time only this year), It's a fun little space drama with the eternal good vs evil fight... with lasers and death rays.

Darth and Droids is still good fun to read, by comparison.

Re: Disney is safeguarding its future by buying childhood, piece by piece

#120

Post by eru »

swang wrote: post #59

> Marvel turned the story of a second-tier character, Iron Man, into a blockbuster. Iron Man was popular enough to have a 90s cartoon made for him. I'm not sure how he is second-tier...

Definitely second tier in mainstream culture compared to Batman and Superman---which are universally known.
Post reply on HN