RANT (and DISCUSSION): Disney Characters, Disney Plots

[Rath Darkblade]

Just 'cos it's late, and I'm tired - and also because this thread and this thread weren't enough).

All right, we all know that Disney makes fairy tales. Their films are not about real people, they never were. Disney just stea-- adapts other countries' cultural heroes and heroines, and then Disneyfies them to make money. Who cares about the original source material? We'll slap on whatever message we want, from "freedom" to "individualism" to "girl power". Yay, Mulan - you go, girl! (Please, I'm making myself sick).

It didn't start out like that. And it shouldn't have to be like that. And now that Disney owns LucasArts, they could take "Monkey Island" and turn it into a cartoon romance called "Elaine", or take "Grim Fandango" and turn it into a ... I'unno, something kid-friendly. (Without the calacas dolls, and the awesome music, and the great cars, and the wonderful Bauhaus designs ... sigh ... But Dios mío, why bother? It'd just destroy everything that made it "Grim Fandango". Disney may as well just pick some other culture and rip it to shreds, like the vultures they are).

But that's another rant. Here's what I want to ask: yes, Disney films look beautiful, and the DeviantArtists who remake Disney "princesses" or "characters" do beautiful jobs. When the film is also a musical, Disney knows how to write catchy music, blah blah blah. But is it possible ... maybe it's just a pipe dream ... but is it possible, just maybe, to take back these characters and recreate them the way they actually were? In art, or in real-life movies? I'd watch that.

- Hua Mulan didn't look the way Disney drew her. (She certainly didn't have a pet dragon, for a start).

- Neither Anastasia (the real one) nor her family were murdered by Rasputin, as the film claims. Rasputin died a year before they did. And he definitely didn't look like his Disneyfied counterpart.

Disney Rasputin. Note especially the "DARK MAGIC, WOOOO" aura.
Real Rasputin. In that shot, he could be someone's kind old uncle.

- The Hercules film is ... well, utter rubbish. (But it is Disney).

Etc., etc., etc.

And if anyone thinks "Oh, it doesn't matter because it's only for kids" ... well ...? Kids are impressionable. Some of them, at least, will grow up thinking these films are really what happened. No wonder there are so many articles online that try to correct the damage created by Disney films.

What if - just rhetorically - what if, tomorrow, Disney released a film based on the American Civil War, and portrayed Abraham Lincoln as an angelic "savior of the nation", and Jefferson Davis as EVIL INCARNATE, MWAHAHA? Or base it on the American War of Independence, where George Washington would be the hero-who-does-no-wrong, while King George III (who in real life suffered a great deal from abuse and various illnesses) or Benedict Arnold (who was passed over for promotion, and because he wasn't paid and needed the money, was tempted into betrayed) are portrayed as DEEEEEMONS, BOOO! and so on?

Would those be OK? If not, then why is it OK to take myths and historical characters from other countries, and do it to them? Real life isn't like Disney. Disney is a caricature of real life, but it didn't start out like that.

Maybe, instead of doing endless remakes of its own films (Dumbo remake, Lion King remake, Little Mermaid remake, Mulan remake ... yaaaawwwwnnn ...), Disney should examine its early years. Perhaps create a new film with its original creations (i.e. Mickey, Donald, Goofy, Minnie etc.), using classical music - like they used to do?

And instead of simplistic good-and-evil characters, they could do something original. A king (or queen/prince/princess/etc.) aren't "good" just because they're royalty. An advisor (e.g. Jafar, Rasputin - who look very similar, btw) aren't evil just because they're an advisor. Why not swap? "Good" advisor, "evil" king? It'll be more interesting, for a start. How about this for a plot:

Mickey is a bank clerk who loses his job and falls on hard times. His best friend Donald takes him drinking (sarsaparilla - this is for kids, right?) At the sarsaparilla stand (run by Goofy), Mickey meets Minnie. But it's not love at first sight. He likes her, but she can't stand the sight of him because she hates everything to do with banks. Instead, she falls for Donald the sailor man! Goofy whips out the accordion and plays a cheery tune. Donald and Minnie start dancing, while Mickey steams with anger. Finally, he blows up and starts yelling, Donald-style.

What do you reckon? Go ahead and fill in the rest. For instance ...

- Why did Mickey lose his job - did Goofy show up one day and (true to form) do something stupid, so Mickey blew up at him and got the sack?
- Why does Minnie hate everything to do with banks? Maybe she likes Goofy (as a friend), but a banker refused to bankroll Goofy's sarsaparilla stand.
- Why does Minnie like Donald? Is his profession (sailor) more romantic than Mickey's (bank clerk)?
- How does Mickey win her back? Or maybe he doesn't, but he drinks up his sarsaparilla for 'mouse courage', and challenges Donald to a fight? Then Donald blows up (as he usually does), but fights Mickey anyway - and Minnie says, "You're both losers, I'm going out with Goofy" - to which Goofy says "Nyuk nyuk, gorsh..." etc...

What happens next? Who knows? But it'll be far more interesting than the current fare. What do you think?

[Tawmis]

And if anyone thinks "Oh, it doesn't matter because it's only for kids" ... well ...? Kids are impressionable. Some of them, at least, will grow up thinking these films are really what happened. No wonder there are so many articles online that try to correct the damage created by Disney films.

So you must hate how Bugs Bunny can actually talk?
And is taller than Elmur Fudd?
And that Road Runner is way taller than the bird actually is.
And that the Coyote knows how to paint and make bombs?

Because... kids are impressionable?

If you want to hate Disney for what they're doing - don't forget to look at all your favorite cartoons also.

[MusicallyInspired]

Disney movies are great.

Except Frozen.

And the souless live action remakes.

[Semi-Happy Partygoer]

I do see where some of your points are coming from. The endless live-action remakes of their animated canon are perhaps becoming a bit much. Disney does tend to latch onto trends, and remakes seem to be their new thing since the DTV sequels were squashed.

I'm partial to the films produced during Walt's lifetime, largely due to being a big fan of traditional animation. I'd love to see Disney do another one of those. Say what you will about those sequels, at least they were forging ahead with traditional animation at a time when 3D was becoming the norm.

Like so many studios nowadays, art is secondary to franchises and money, and what they're producing is obviously what's bringing in the dough, even if it may no longer appeal to me. I'd love to see more original IPs and a return to 2D art, but that's unlikely anytime soon.

[Semi-Happy Partygoer]

And if anyone thinks "Oh, it doesn't matter because it's only for kids" ... well ...? Kids are impressionable. Some of them, at least, will grow up thinking these films are really what happened. No wonder there are so many articles online that try to correct the damage created by Disney films.

So you must hate how Bugs Bunny can actually talk?
And is taller than Elmur Fudd?
And that Road Runner is way taller than the bird actually is.
And that the Coyote knows how to paint and make bombs?

Because... kids are impressionable?

If you want to hate Disney for what they're doing - don't forget to look at all your favorite cartoons also.

I suspect Rath was referring more to Disney films "based" on real events, like Mulan and Pocahontas. However, with smartphones at their fingertips, most children could easily look up the figures who inspired these stories and learn more about them.

Historical fiction can often lead to a stronger legacy than simply restating the facts in history books. How many would know of Eva Peron nowadays if the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical had never been written? Likewise, on the Disney side, Mulan and Pocahontas. Disney made those names far more recognisable than they would've been otherwise, artistic license aside.

[Tawmis]

Maybe, instead of doing endless remakes of its own films (Dumbo remake, Lion King remake, Little Mermaid remake, Mulan remake ... yaaaawwwwnnn ...), Disney should examine its early years. Perhaps create a new film with its original creations (i.e. Mickey, Donald, Goofy, Minnie etc.), using classical music - like they used to do?

Because the world has changed?
Mickey, Donald, Minney, are iconic - but not widely known. And classical music does not provide songs for children to sing along with.
Both of these would do poorly in today's world.

The music my father enjoyed; wasn't enjoyed by my generation, over all. It turned to Hard Rock, Metal, Rap, and Dance.
The music of my generation, now isn't enjoyed by the current generation. Rapper are now in movies and TV shows. Heavy Metal is all but dead, except in small areas of Norway and Europe.
Disney shifted - as any company should - in order to survive and has done so beautifully.
It's similar to a rant I had about comics.
Back in "my day" it was very much good guy vs bad guy.
Nowadays? There's endless talking heads, endless teenage angst, and I can't stand it.
However, comics are still selling incredibly well (sure the MCU movies have helped, but they were still doing pretty well before that).
It's not my generation of comics; but the industry has shifted to appease the tastes of the new audience.
So while I don't enjoy comics; I do appreciate all these new, younger fans finding that same excitement in an industry I once loved.

- Neither Anastasia (the real one) nor her family were murdered by Rasputin, as the film claims. Rasputin died a year before they did. And he definitely didn't look like his Disneyfied counterpart.
Disney Rasputin. Note especially the "DARK MAGIC, WOOOO" aura.
Real Rasputin. In that shot, he could be someone's kind old uncle.

Also the stab at Rasputin and blaming Disney is an incorrect one.
https://villains.fandom.com/wiki/Rasput ... n_Bluth%29

It was Anastasia made by Don Bluth.

Who made Secret of NIMH... and probably more widely known for Dragon's Lair.

He'd worked for Disney - but from what I see - left Disney to make his own company.

And if anyone thinks "Oh, it doesn't matter because it's only for kids" ... well ...? Kids are impressionable. Some of them, at least, will grow up thinking these films are really what happened. No wonder there are so many articles online that try to correct the damage created by Disney films.

So you must hate how Bugs Bunny can actually talk?
And is taller than Elmur Fudd?
And that Road Runner is way taller than the bird actually is.
And that the Coyote knows how to paint and make bombs?
Because... kids are impressionable?
If you want to hate Disney for what they're doing - don't forget to look at all your favorite cartoons also.

I suspect Rath was referring more to Disney films "based" on real events, like Mulan and Pocahontas. However, with smartphones at their fingertips, most children could easily look up the figures who inspired these stories and learn more about them.
Historical fiction can often lead to a stronger legacy than simply restating the facts in history books. How many would know of Eva Peron nowadays if the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical had never been written? Likewise, on the Disney side, Mulan and Pocahontas. Disney made those names far more recognisable than they would've been otherwise, artistic license aside.

Oh I get that. But if you're expecting "correct historical adaptations" of Disney - why can't the same be said about expecting "correct historical anatomy and behavior of animals" in other cartoons?
And you're right - Mulan and Pocahontas did become far more known thanks to Disney. But blame them for good, fun, story telling that Children and Adults enjoyed?
Isn't it up to the parent or the teacher, to teach their kids what "really" happened? Why even expect Disney to "hamper" their creativity in telling a fun story?

[Rath Darkblade]

Hey, hey! Wait a minute. I never said that Disney is "evil" or anything like that.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Disney movies that are (perhaps, I don't know) based on non-historical figures (e.g. Lady and the Tramp, Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid, etc.). They are based on folk tales, etc.

As for Disney films that are based on historical/mythical figures (e.g. Hercules, Anastasia, Mulan, Pocahontas and so on) ... they are also fine - for what they are: introducing children to a historical or mythical person. I don't object to that.

But my point is this: I simply hope that after the film is over, if the child is enthusiastic and says (for instance) "Dad/mum, I liked that! I want to know more about Hercules/Anastasia/Mulan/Pocahontas/etc." ... then the parent is smart enough to take the child to the library and find something age-appropriate. That's all.

It's very simple: Disney films about history/mythology are all very well. They are well-presented, and have beautiful images and catchy music. BUT ... there's far more to history (and mythology) than Disney, obviously! And to me it seems a shame if a child grows up - and becomes a teenager, and then an adult - with only Disney as his/her reference points.

I agree that Disney can be an introduction to someone else's story. Personally, I never knew about Mulan or Pocahontas before I watched the movies. But after that, I wanted to know more, so I went to a library/online and read more. If I can do it, and a child - any child - also wants to learn (and is dedicated to learning and reading), why should anyone say "No, you're too young. Go watch this film, instead"? I've heard of things like this happening, e.g. a school librarian confiscating a book from a 7-or-8-year-old, because it's deemed as "too hard" or "above your level".

I was very young when I started reading by myself (maybe 4 or so), and I read so many books when I was young. If a kid wants to read - even above his/her level - let them read!

Yes, take an interest in what they read, and if (for instance) they're reading a history of the Civil War at age 10 or 12 ... maybe that's too complicated. But why confiscate books from kids, or force them to watch a movie instead, if they don't want to? It just seems cruel to me.

I hope that explains my original post. I'm sorry if I expressed myself in an offensive or crude way. *blush* As always, be careful of posting when it's late and you're tired...

[Tawmis]

Hey, hey! Wait a minute. I never said that Disney is "evil" or anything like that.
I hope that explains my original post. I'm sorry if I expressed myself in an offensive or crude way. *blush* As always, be careful of posting when it's late and you're tired...

Hah! I didn't say you said they were evil? And it wasn't offensive or crude. Maybe my reply came across that way? I was going more for sarcasm - like Disney isn't your kid's teacher, they're telling entertaining stories.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Disney movies that are (perhaps, I don't know) based on non-historical figures (e.g. Lady and the Tramp, Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid, etc.). They are based on folk tales, etc.
As for Disney films that are based on historical/mythical figures (e.g. Hercules, Anastasia, Mulan, Pocahontas and so on) ... they are also fine - for what they are: introducing children to a historical or mythical person. I don't object to that.
But my point is this: I simply hope that after the film is over, if the child is enthusiastic and says (for instance) "Dad/mum, I liked that! I want to know more about Hercules/Anastasia/Mulan/Pocahontas/etc." ... then the parent is smart enough to take the child to the library and find something age-appropriate. That's all.

Ah, see it seemed to me you were saying they shouldn't be telling their version of Hercules, because it's not historically correct.
As if Disney films should be a documentary or history cartoon vs just telling an entertaining story.
Was going to mention, there's Olympians and Norse Gods in Marvel Comics too which are obviously nowhere near "historically" correct.

It's very simple: Disney films about history/mythology are all very well. They are well-presented, and have beautiful images and catchy music. BUT ... there's far more to history (and mythology) than Disney, obviously! And to me it seems a shame if a child grows up - and becomes a teenager, and then an adult - with only Disney as his/her reference points.

Well, that's going to be the case, for some - but not all.
Some kids, when they saw Hercules (for example), loved it for the cartoon, animation and songs.
But once they grew older, perhaps cared nothing for the mythology. So they never learned more about Hercules and Greek/Olympian mythology; beyond what's taught in school.
But I don't think any adult (well, I will say the majority of adults) don't think that the "story of Hercules" is "accurate."

I agree that Disney can be an introduction to someone else's story. Personally, I never knew about Mulan or Pocahontas before I watched the movies. But after that, I wanted to know more, so I went to a library/online and read more. If I can do it, and a child - any child - also wants to learn (and is dedicated to learning and reading), why should anyone say "No, you're too young. Go watch this film, instead"? I've heard of things like this happening, e.g. a school librarian confiscating a book from a 7-or-8-year-old, because it's deemed as "too hard" or "above your level".

That's a failure on the person who would even say that (being too hard).

I was very young when I started reading by myself (maybe 4 or so), and I read so many books when I was young. If a kid wants to read - even above his/her level - let them read!

I didn't begin reading until the 4th grade (on my own) - and that was just "The Hobbit." Which I literally read back to back, for 2 years, over and over. By this time, I was also reading comics too.

Yes, take an interest in what they read, and if (for instance) they're reading a history of the Civil War at age 10 or 12 ... maybe that's too complicated. But why confiscate books from kids, or force them to watch a movie instead, if they don't want to? It just seems cruel to me.

If they're reading it; it may not be too much. I'd say let them read it and come back with any questions they might have.

[Rath Darkblade]

Well, that's going to be the case, for some - but not all.
Some kids, when they saw Hercules (for example), loved it for the cartoon, animation and songs.
But once they grew older, perhaps cared nothing for the mythology. So they never learned more about Hercules and Greek/Olympian mythology; beyond what's taught in school.
But I don't think any adult (well, I will say the majority of adults) don't think that the "story of Hercules" is "accurate."

See, for the longest time, I also thought so - i.e. that the stories of Hercules and other Greek heroes were just entertainment, not "history". But then I started digging into it, and discovered that Hercules and other Greek heroes - definitely Theseus and Perseus - were real people. We even know when they were born and when they died (well the years and months of birth, anyway). We also can re-construct the mythical journeys they went on, more or less accurately.

It's like the stories of the Trojan war, or the Labyrinth and the Minotaur: until the late 19th century, everyone assumed the Trojan war was a myth. Until the early 20th, everyone assumed the Labyrinth/Minotaur was a myth. Then along came archaeologists (as well as enthusiastic amateurs) ...

There are always amazing things being found.

Yes, take an interest in what they read, and if (for instance) they're reading a history of the Civil War at age 10 or 12 ... maybe that's too complicated. But why confiscate books from kids, or force them to watch a movie instead, if they don't want to? It just seems cruel to me.

If they're reading it; it may not be too much. I'd say let them read it and come back with any questions they might have.

Is it possible for a kid of 10 or 12 to read and understand a serious history of the Civil War? (I mean serious, not something as simple as "slavery was bad, and Lincoln saved the Union, end of story"). I don't know what education in the US is like, so I wouldn't like to assume.

By serious, I mean something like The Real History of the Civil War by Alan Axelrod. I picked up a copy of this book because I didn't know much about the ACW, and this book seemed rigorous and intellectual, but well-illustrated and easy to grasp. (Important for me, as I was and maybe still am a bit of a beginner on the ACW. Obviously it was a sad book in places, too.)

I also picked up his other book on the American Revolution, since I knew only a little about it and wanted to know more than just a handful of names (e.g. Washington, Jefferson, Lafayette, Valley Forge, and battles of Princeton, Trenton, Brandywine, Kings Mountain, etc.) A very interesting book! I recommend it, but it's certainly not for experts.

[Tawmis]

See, for the longest time, I also thought so - i.e. that the stories of Hercules and other Greek heroes were just entertainment, not "history". But then I started digging into it, and discovered that Hercules and other Greek heroes - definitely Theseus and Perseus - were real people. We even know when they were born and when they died (well the years and months of birth, anyway). We also can re-construct the mythical journeys they went on, more or less accurately.

For me, it was Marvel Comics. Thor was a character in the Avengers comic I got (and made me pick up his solo series). Then I played D&D and saw Thor, Odin, etc there too.
Which then made me go to the library and look up information.
And learned about Norse (then other mythologies). But that's why Norse has always been a favorite of mine.

Is it possible for a kid of 10 or 12 to read and understand a serious history of the Civil War? (I mean serious, not something as simple as "slavery was bad, and Lincoln saved the Union, end of story"). I don't know what education in the US is like, so I wouldn't like to assume.

Sure. There's kids, probably like yourself, who have that kind of brain power to understand it.
I mean, I do not consider myself smart (in regards to knowledge of history and a ton of other things). But in the 4th grade, I was reading The Hobbit.
Yeah, that's no Civil War, but it's also not a kid's book. I think it depends on what your interests are - even at that age.
So someone between that age can definitely understand and digest the contents of what happened during the Civil War, if their interest is there.

[Rath Darkblade]

Oh, OK. But my question is ... what do they teach them in US schools? Do they teach them ACW or American Revolution at that age (about 4th-to-6th grade?) I assume so, being America. But I wonder how much they give them - is it just bare names and dates, or the full story (e.g. "The ACW started because..." etc.)

I agree, "The Hobbit" is definitely not a kids' book. 4th grade is awfully early for it - I don't think I read it until I was in 7th grade (in Hebrew, 'cos I grew up in Israel, of course). I don't think I read it in English until I was in my mid-20s ... I was suffering from a flu, and bored out of my mind from having to be in bed, so I thought "Hey, I never read this in English..."

And it made a lot more sense then!

When did you read LOTR? Me, I tried reading it in Hebrew after seeing the first film, back in 2003 - but it didn't make much sense (because try translating those names and place names into a language that was never meant for them!) Then, a couple of years ago, I finally got around to reading LOTR in English. And it made much more sense!

[Tawmis]

Oh, OK. But my question is ... what do they teach them in US schools? Do they teach them ACW or American Revolution at that age (about 4th-to-6th grade?) I assume so, being America. But I wonder how much they give them - is it just bare names and dates, or the full story (e.g. "The ACW started because..." etc.)

7th Grade is where I remember first learning that stuff.

I agree, "The Hobbit" is definitely not a kids' book. 4th grade is awfully early for it - I don't think I read it until I was in 7th grade (in Hebrew, 'cos I grew up in Israel, of course). I don't think I read it in English until I was in my mid-20s ... I was suffering from a flu, and bored out of my mind from having to be in bed, so I thought "Hey, I never read this in English..."

And that's what I mean. Because the teacher read it to the class in my 4th grade - it captured my imagination. So that when she was done, I spent the next 2 years reading it back and forth.
And I am not - by any stretch of the imagination - a smart.
But because of the teacher... It captured my attention and imagination enough to try and consume it.

When did you read LOTR? Me, I tried reading it in Hebrew after seeing the first film, back in 2003 - but it didn't make much sense (because try translating those names and place names into a language that was never meant for them!) Then, a couple of years ago, I finally got around to reading LOTR in English. And it made much more sense!

I read all three books for Lord of the Rings in the 6th grade; when my teacher saw me reading "The Hobbit" for weekend on end and asked how long it took me to read it.
And then he explained that it continued in a series called "Lord of the Rings."
Mind. Blown. Powered through all three books in less than a year.
I go back and re-read all three from time to time; but it's now been (due to life in general) been about 10 years.
I am currently VERY slowly reading The Hobbit again. Like it was the first time.

[DeadPoolX]

All right, we all know that Disney makes fairy tales. Their films are not about real people, they never were. Disney just stea-- adapts other countries' cultural heroes and heroines, and then Disneyfies them to make money. Who cares about the original source material? We'll slap on whatever message we want, from "freedom" to "individualism" to "girl power". Yay, Mulan - you go, girl! (Please, I'm making myself sick). :

Welcome to modern media, where everything is about appearing "woke" and social acceptance to the point of absurdity. Don't get me wrong, it's good to have inclusivity, but not at the expense of everything else.

It didn't start out like that. And it shouldn't have to be like that. And now that Disney owns LucasArts, they could take "Monkey Island" and turn it into a cartoon romance called "Elaine", or take "Grim Fandango" and turn it into a ... I'unno, something kid-friendly. (Without the calacas dolls, and the awesome music, and the great cars, and the wonderful Bauhaus designs ... sigh ... But Dios mío, why bother? It'd just destroy everything that made it "Grim Fandango". Disney may as well just pick some other culture and rip it to shreds, like the vultures they are).

Fun fact: Originally, the movie Pirates of the Caribbean was supposed to be a Monkey Island movie. If you look at the similarities between them, you can see it. For whatever reason, the name and some plot details were changed.

What if - just rhetorically - what if, tomorrow, Disney released a film based on the American Civil War, and portrayed Abraham Lincoln as an angelic "savior of the nation", and Jefferson Davis as EVIL INCARNATE, MWAHAHA?

Then you'd be called an "evil, racist, hate-monger." Remember, history doesn't matter, it's appearing sensitive to everyone so they don't hear or experience anything they find potentially offensive.

In case you didn't notice, I'm being sarcastic, but yeah... that's how it is today. Facts and accuracy be damned, it's all about our "feelings" and "beliefs."

Sometimes I really, really hate humanity.

And instead of simplistic good-and-evil characters, they could do something original. A king (or queen/prince/princess/etc.) aren't "good" just because they're royalty.

What you're looking for is a complex character, but you're just not going to find that in media made for kids. Hell, it's hard to find that in media made for adults. A complex character is difficult for the audience to understand because people, by and large, are stupid. They need stuff kept simple and usually that means villains who have all the depth of a Saturday morning cartoon character.

It turned to Hard Rock, Metal, Rap, and Dance.
The music of my generation, now isn't enjoyed by the current generation.

My extensive collection of Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Dio, KISS, and so on takes issue with that! Oh... wait a sec... I'm 40. Dammit.

I suspect Rath was referring more to Disney films "based" on real events, like Mulan and Pocahontas. However, with smartphones at their fingertips, most children could easily look up the figures who inspired these stories and learn more about them.

People rarely look anything up themselves. It's why you'll see people ask really moronic questions, like asking if a particular airlines flies to such-and-such destination. They could look that up themselves, but that won't, so instead they'll wait for someone else to look it up and tell them. Why? Because they're lazy and probably stupid.

[Tawmis]

It turned to Hard Rock, Metal, Rap, and Dance.
The music of my generation, now isn't enjoyed by the current generation.

My extensive collection of Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Dio, KISS, and so on takes issue with that! Oh... wait a sec... I'm 40. Dammit.

Welcome to my world. But just shy of being 10 years younger than me. (Turning the 50 this year...)
Not that my maturity level reflects that.
I was literally discussing with my wife I want to buy 500 marbles on Amazon for $30 bucks...

I suspect Rath was referring more to Disney films "based" on real events, like Mulan and Pocahontas. However, with smartphones at their fingertips, most children could easily look up the figures who inspired these stories and learn more about them.

People rarely look anything up themselves. It's why you'll see people ask really moronic questions, like asking if a particular airlines flies to such-and-such destination. They could look that up themselves, but that won't, so instead they'll wait for someone else to look it up and tell them. Why? Because they're lazy and probably stupid.

Some of us rely on that laziness to keep us employed.
I always say, in a Service Desk environment - it's not that we're always smarter - we just google better.

[Rath Darkblade]

It turned to Hard Rock, Metal, Rap, and Dance.
The music of my generation, now isn't enjoyed by the current generation.

My extensive collection of Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Dio, KISS, and so on takes issue with that! Oh... wait a sec... I'm 40. Dammit.

Welcome to my world. But just shy of being 10 years younger than me. (Turning the 50 this year...)
Not that my maturity level reflects that.
I was literally discussing with my wife I want to buy 500 marbles on Amazon for $30 bucks...

I'll be two years older than the Meaning of Life this year ... drat it.

I suspect Rath was referring more to Disney films "based" on real events, like Mulan and Pocahontas. However, with smartphones at their fingertips, most children could easily look up the figures who inspired these stories and learn more about them.

People rarely look anything up themselves. It's why you'll see people ask really moronic questions, like asking if a particular airlines flies to such-and-such destination. They could look that up themselves, but that won't, so instead they'll wait for someone else to look it up and tell them. Why? Because they're lazy and probably stupid.

Some of us rely on that laziness to keep us employed.
I always say, in a Service Desk environment - it's not that we're always smarter - we just google better.

That sounds familiar. I don't work in a Service Desk environment, but I've contracted all over the place in the healthcare and aged care industries (though only in accounts jobs).

I've fielded so many stupid questions about people's bills, you might be amazed. (Or probably not).