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.