How it all comes together

So, this is what I can state with some confidence will have some slight relation to what my final paper may be on:

WATCO: Parental Criticism on Disney's animated movie output

Claim: Parental criticism has made Disney's animated movie output less proactive

Reason: Because parental criticism sets strict standards that do not tolerate any deviation from expectation.

Assumtion: Whatever sets strict standards that do not tolerate any deviation from expectation makes the subject of its criticism less proactive.

Audience: Mostly the parents who are always so ready to crticize Disney for any little thing it does wrong.  Being ready to fly off the handle makes it less likely that Disney will do good things in its movies.  It is getting skittish, and will bow to popular demand.  It is especially annoying when people find so many faults with the older Disney movies.  They were made a log time ago, and had to respond to the critiques of parents in their own time.  Disney is getting so attuned to popular sentiment that their movies will be obsolete in just a few years.  This is not good.  We should focus criticizing their over-all themes that will always be wrong, no matter what year it is.  We should not focus on the little things that do not really matter.

Responding to Counter Arguments, mostly

To address myself to the main counter-argument against me, I will first have to re-hash the counter arguments that will probably be made against my enthymeme, which should probably also be re-hashed...Ok, I will state my claim again, and then the main counterargument.

My Claim/Reason-Disney's specialized output has lost its ability to innovate, because it created a conservative, easily-angered audience.

Counterargument-The audience is encouraging Disney to be more proactive, so it cannot be making Disney less proactive.  If everyone is saying that Disney should take its ideas into the 21st century, how would this make it more likely to create movies that belong back in 1937?

Ok, here is my answer to the counter-argument.  I am not talking about conservative in the traditional, moral sense.  I am not saying that all parents are parochial Republicans.  What I am saying is that the parents of today are very definitive in what they think is right and what they think is wrong.  My definition of conservative for this paper is someone who is unwilling to accept that they are not always right.  (I will probably have to come up with a new word to express this in my paper, since conservative is waaaaaaaaaay too politically charged.)  So, someone can be proactive and also conservative for my purposes.  Someone who thinks that being proactive is the only correct way to be is a conservative, because they do not see the value of tradition.

Yeah, I am already seeing trouble with conservative.  So, instead of conservative, I will say...inflexible, or scrupulous, or picky.  Those words are so much better.  What I want to say is that parents who are being too picky are forcing Disney to only respond to what they want.  Disney has lost the ability to introduce new things to its audience, because its audience is not interested in new things.  Its audience is only interested in...what it is interested in.

So, even though parents are encouraging Disney to "be proactive", they really just mean "follow what we want from you more closely".  If the popular trend is racial equality, Disney is encourage to be more proactive and include its first colored princess.  Can you imagine what the parents would have done if The Princess Frog, or whatever it's called, was released before the Civil Rights movement?  It would be like Disney putting in a homosexual couple today.  The audience members are not asking for new things, unless they have already thought of them.

Just to clarify

It occurred to me that my new media plan has absolutely no relation to how my blog actually went.  So I just want to clarify what is and was going on:

1/20 and 1/22 were posts completely dedicated to developing my Enthymeme.

1/29 was my first truly semi-followed Enthymeme, as well as when I Defined Key Terms.

2/12 and 2/19 were my attempts at Rhetorical Analysis.

2/26 was another, better Enthymeme, and when I Argued the Other Side.

3/5 is when I will Answer the Arguments Against my Enthymeme.

I might do a final wrap up on 3/12.

A definitive argument and preemptive strike

Ok, I have an argument that I think I can actually back up and write a paper on, etc.  Ahem...

WATCO: Disney's specialized output on ability to innovate

Claim: Disney's specialized output has lost its ability to innovate

Reason: Because Disney's specialized output caters to a very conservative, easily angered group.

Assumption: Whatever caters to a very conservative, easily angered group loses its ability to innovate.

Audience: I am writing to the people who always want Disney to try new and progressive things, like adding homosexual couples to fairy tales.  Disney cannot be that progressive, because it is playing to perhaps the scariest audience in the world-over-protective parents.  Let's face it-kids watch Disney.  Why?  Because their parents trust it to be as nice and not-indoctrinating, and warm-fuzzy as possible.  If Disney suddenly came out with an R-rated movie, no one would ever watch it.

Aha!  Now for a preemptive strike by showing that I know all the counter-arguments that will be raised against me:

Parents are criticizing Disney for being too Conservative.  Their first black princess came out less than a year ago!  Parents aren't complaining about that.  They are complaining about old stereotypes that Disney has not changed since 1937.  Pixar is new and progressive, and they aren't getting angry parent's picketing.  Disney's specialized output should help it to innovate.  They don't have to worry about pushing a language or violence barrier, so they can focus on social commentary.  Knowing your audience helps you talk to them better.  What do you mean that parents are conservative and easily angered?

No, no clue at all

So, I'll probably have to push my media plan back another week, since I am only now sure of how to rhetorically analyze something. 

Work-"Are Disney Movies Really the Devil's Work?" by K. Marling (I've tried everything to link it, and it just won't, so you can find it on BYU's library website)

Argument-No, Disney is not of the Devil (dang, looks like I was wrong).  Disney is responding to the surrounding culture.

Audience-The people who always find reasons to think that Disney is of the Devil.  (You know...Ariel is teaching children to hate authority...Why are all the girls blonde...Maybe even, ahem, that Disney, sort of, hurts families, ha ha, etc)

Goal- To help them recapture their ability to see Disney like children seeing for the first time, and help them see movies in their cultural context.

How- The author starts with humor and a sticky story to get attention, then makes herself credible by giving lots of examples as to why her view is correct.  She is also very moderate in her views, never calling those with different opinions idiots.  She shows change over time, making herself more credible and moderate by showing how any black and white view is wrong in this situation.

Effective-Yes.  She cites some of the most popular and classic disney movies everyone knows by heart, and then introduces the context people might miss.  For example, Snow White was being put out during the Great Depression, so "Whistle While you Work" is more about people's desperation to have a job than female subservience.  And just compare Cinderella to Mulan.  Not just in story line, but in looks, too.  What?  We're saying that you can be a Disney protagonist without blonde hair and blue eyes?  Looks like it. 

Do I actually have a clue about Rhetorical Analysis?

I tried a new approach this time-find a source I'd like to cite and see what it tells me about Disney.  So I found a few sources, and what I got out of them was this: Disney was able to make just what it wanted at one point, but now it is like Mc Donald's responding to carb crunch and making a salad.  Disney is now accountable to the public. 

So here's a new idea that will probably be discarded by me before the end of this blog:

The commercial success of Disney has made it more dependant on the likes and dislikes of the public, not the other way around.  Ooh, I can even tie Pixar into it.  When it first started out, no one really knew what it was, so no one cared.  Now that it is wildly successful, the public is telling it what to make.  Like sequels.  Instead of a window to the future, Disney has become a magic mirror, only capable of reflecting, and slightyl jazzing up, the real world.

A good source for me to rhetorically analyze is this commentary by K. Marling.  It argues what I am now (yes, just for now, since I will probably not stick to it, but you never know...) thinking, that Disney is merely following what it sees in society.

The article is pretty sticky, starting out with an anecdote, and not fully giving away its position until readers are hooked.  The author actually starts out by arguing the opposite side of the argument than what the paper tries to prove is correct.  This is a good way to get the proper audience to read the rest of the article.  It starts out with very familiar images, then gives a few unexpected twists to interest people.  However, it does get technical and detailed in the middle, where it is most dangerous.  Readers, like myself, are liable to get over our first interest and then despair when we see that we are nowhere near the end.  We can just barely hang on with the help of her chronological arrangement, and her very logical argument.  A is followed by B in a clear manner that won't confuse anyone.  The work cites very familiar Disney movies to prove its points, which is something I want to do in my paper. 

In fact, this paper is a lot like something that I could write and turn in for this class.  It has some ideas about stickiness and the rhetorical situation, though it is not perfect.  It is comforting to know that not even professors know how to write the perfect persuasive paper.

No way, no how

Yeah...so this week was insane!  I'm just gonna push my media plan back a week, and worry about it then.  No post this week.

This is just getting ridiculous

It occurred to me that with my newly expanded topic, and a vauge enthymeme that will have to be worked on, I should actually get some things straight about what I want to write on.

Disney-I am going to stick to movies that were made exclusively by Disney, or where Disney was the leading creator in cahoots with a smaller company that doesn't do much else.  (For example, I have never heard of Silver Screen Partners before, but they worked on such favorites as Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid.  If that's not Disney, what is?)  Pixar counts as Disney.  I am going to work with popular Disney movies.  What is my definition of "popular"?  I have done some research on the highest grossing Disney movies ever.  Though I can't get the same answers twice, it gives me some parameters.  I will also just be asking everyone I know to get some other opinions.  So far, I would classify the most popular Disney films as those done by Pixar, and the classics.  Those every child knows by name.

So, I actually started going through a list of Disney movies, and I'm talking about all the way from Snow White to The Princess and The Frog.  What really surprised me was that what I considered Disney (the pure form) is mostly pretty old.  So that got me thinking: How has Disney changed its movie output over time?  I am loathe to say it, but my past argument is directed at a style of movie making that ended a while ago.  Disney is actually diversifying and making its movies less the stereotypical princess film.  Not to say that I am in complete favor of its new-found maturity.  With maturity comes greed.  How else can their growing list of truly awful straight-to-VHS or DVD sequels be explained?

That made me realize that I have no idea what my argument is anymore.  I remember asking on Twiiter whether we should chagne our opinions when confronted by better ideas.  I am being confronted by a better idea, and I am yeilding.  My WATCO is even changing.
WATCO Parents on Disney's movie output?  Claim:  Parents' standards regarding what is important for children to learn in their youth is forcing Disney to create certain kinds of movies.   Reason: These standards dictate what parents spend their money on.  What people are willing to buy, companies are willing to make to get money.  I am pretty much switiching my entire argument around so that society is to be blamed for Disney's movies; Disney is not to be blamed for society.

So, there goes another new new new new media plan.  Hopefully by next week I'll have a better grasp on the subject.

Looks like I'll have to expand

I had no idea Disney could be blamed for so much in society, and it seems unfair for me to limit my bitter diatribes to just the effect Disney may be having on the traditional family unit.

So, I'll change my Enthymeme thusly: What are the consequences of Disney on American society? Disney is a bad influence on American society's self-esteem. Reason? Disney sells unfair expectations of women, men, and pretty much anything else you care to mention as gospel truth. Whatever sets impossible standards is a bad influence on self-esteem.

I know I sound like I hate Disney, but that's not true at all. I was raised on it, and watch it to this day. Disneyland is the happiest place on earth. I guess my main problem is that kids are impressionable young souls, and Disney might not be the best thing for them to hear day after day. Girls are all raised on pictures of princesses. Guys are all swamped with images of slaying monsters. Normal people are no fun. Has anyone ever noticed how you have to be either amazingly beautiful or extremely ugly to be a main character in a Disney movie?

The essence of Disney, the verb of Disney-ing, is sprinkling fairy dust on something normal and making it

un-normal. That's really what all of Disney has in common. And the problem is that normally, life is normal. And kids are not being raised to believe that. They're being raised with expectations of a fairytale life. Not that I think Disney means to do anything like that. They are just trying to make money (as someone on Twitter reminded me). Still, there have to be better ways to sell movies.

Ok, I lied. New Topic!

 

Try and think of all the Disney movies that have a nice, normal, traditional family unit. As in a dad, mom, and kids. Take all the time you need. Minutes. Hours. Go search your DVDs and Wikipedia. Phone a friend and ask the audience.

Stumped? Or at least very nearly? Yeah. Me too. Admittedly, I am mostly limited to animated movies in my knowledge, but still. Here's what I can think of:

The Incredibles: though there was that whole part in the middle where everyone thought that he was having an affair, and the bad guys were going to ruin the marriage.

101 Dalmatians: but they're dogs.

Sleeping Beauty: which is a split, since only the princess has both parents. What happened to the prince's mom? And the princess was raised by three weird ladies instead of her parents anyway.

Like I said, I don't know about live-action movies, like Old Yeller or anything. If someone is more informed, go ask them.

So, this begs the question: Why haven't American parents risen up and revolted against Disney's terrible role models and unbearable media influence? Isn't everyone worried about how the media is affecting the youth of today with depictions of violence and promiscuity? Isn't the nation in a crisis of divorce and other family issues the likes of which has never been seen?

Here's my point: Disney is a bad influence on the traditional American family unit. Disney is one gigantic bad role model for solid marriages. Bad role models are also (practically by definition) a bad influence. That is the consequence of Disney movies on the American family.

Yeah, yeah. Disney is supposed to be the last place on earth that espouses good, wholesome family values. What else are kids going to watch? I don't pretend to know what children would be like without Disney. (Probably a mix between The Omen kid and a Chucky doll.) All I know is that something has to be changed. Something is rotten in the state of Disney.

Dumbing Down Education

The American education system that I have lived with (though I often wished one of us would die) for all my life has inspired my bitter diatribes for 15 years of K-12 and beyond, and does not look to be stopping anytime soon. No, I don't think that school is too hard. I am in a good college, doing very well, and maintaining a scholarship. I'm white and wealthy, so I don't think that education is prejudiced against me. I don't think that teachers need to be more understanding in grading, or that scholastic requirements need to be eased. My problem with school is exactly the opposite: School is getting to easy.

I remember, very vaguely, the days when students were told when they did things wrong in easy-to-understand words, spoken in firm tones, highlighted in red ink. I think I was in 2nd grade. Now, it seems that "fail" is a four-letter word, banned in classrooms across the country. Students must be made to feel that they are not failing; they are simply not succeeding as much as they could be, and after all, they are so special and gifted that grades do not do them justice. It is one thing to tell this to sensitive parents who need all the encouragement they can. It is an entirely different thing to keep telling this to the students themselves.

There are some facts that whoever is running America's educational system seem unaware of, such as: Not everyone can graduate in the top 10% of their class. Half of all students are below average. Sometimes, failing happens in the real world, and the point of school (at least this is what everyone keeps telling me) is to get us ready for the real world.

Now, do not get me mixed up with the radicals calling for an end to special-needs classes, scholarships based on criteria such as race or gender, or Santa Clause. I'm a whole different kind of radical. And I realize that I sound a bit like Darwin (that heretic!). Like a coyote complaining that cute, fluffy bunnies being kept in safe cages is unfair, because if I'm bigger, faster, and have pointier teeth I should be allowed to eat them.

I am not saying that survival of the fittest, with the teacher playing God or referee, is any way to run a classroom. I just want school to be a little more realistic. It has gotten better in college, but by now some irreversible damage has been done to the students' psyches. A lot of students are surviving college through feeding off of their feeling of entitlement. My generation has been raised on the idea that late work is merely docked a few points, tests will be curved, and no grade is final. Everything can and will be sugarcoated.

The worst part is that this system of education is not helping anyone. The students to "benefit" from these slackening guidelines will one day run up against as assignment (be it in school, work, or home) that cannot be readjusted to politically correct levels. Teachers are not free to run their classrooms the way they want, because there is always some student, parent, or administrator that is concerned that the teacher is doing the students' self-esteem harm. Students who are not benefiting from all this, yes I consider myself one of these, are merely frustrated beyond belief.

I do not remember the first time I complained to anyone who would listen about school, but I remember the last time. Not that I'm going to talk about that. As long as I am at BYU, it is the Lord's University, Amen. Instead, I'll write about high school graduation. Please, someone correct me if I have been mistaken my whole life, but I think that "valedictorian" is supposed to apply to the best student of the year. Maybe two students. Not 12. Especially not in a graduating class of 350 students in an arts 'n' crafts high school where kids are mostly concerned with singing or dancing or playing the tuba. And it wasn't even 12 kids who all took advantage of the same ridiculously low expectations the administration set for becoming a valedictorian. They ranged from kids who had, indeed, gotten straight A's while taking 4 or more AP (really hard) classes to kids who had gotten B's while taking 2 AP classes, then simply re-taking classes to get A's. What kind of message is that sending people? And that's not even as bad as the class that graduated two years before, where there were 14 valedictorians, and there would have been 15 if one of them hadn't been caught drinking on school property.

Ok, I know I sound petty. (Yeah, I was one of the 12 valedictorians.) With all the terrible things going on in the world, I am bitter about my graduating class being too full of high-achievers? And who am I to generalize this experience to everyone in the country, anyway? Well, I am not anyone, yet. That is one reason I'm writing this blog. I want to change from some random person with a bias to an informed random person with a bias.

Just to see if I'm completely inept or not

Utterly ridiculous. What am I doing? Oh, right. Testing out my mad blogging skills to see if I have a clue. Mostly, I want to try out all the cool stuff I've heard about, links and such. Let's see... http://www.homestarrunner.com/ is always a good one. Or this: http://icanhascheezburger.com/ . Ok, links are good. And I see that my image is up.

That would be my sister's cat-Tigger. But we all call him Satan. He is the devil. Deceptively attractive, but poised to strike at any moment. Anyway, good to see that all is well. I'll work on my bitter diatribe later.