Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
i'm sure the man who installed my refrigerator had a lot of personal failings which unfortunately haven't been well documented. because if they were i'd return the thing. and who made that bridge there? were the engineers pure? i won't cross it unless i have proof!
(not writing this "at" you btw)
|
It's not relevant to his art but let's face it, Disney is an iconic company that transcends the cartoons it made during its heyday. As a corporation it promotes a wholesome image and portrays Walt as a benign, loving father figure, so it's fair to highlight those those areas of his character that contradict the image. Otherwise you're just accepting lies.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
not sure so much exploitation as the human habit of looking for an "individual creator" even in an industrial system. in a similar vein, chuck jones gets all the credit for bugs bunny, for example.
|
No, exploitation. Animators working round the clock in workhouse conditions. If people want to be lazy and accept the myth that figures like Disney and Chuck Jones were solely responsible for certain characters, they can. The difference is Walt actively suppressed knowledge of Iwerk's involvement whereas Jones didn't deliberately deny the involvement of others (namely Tex Avery) in the creation of Bugs Bunny. Jones was actually key to highlighting the role of figures that Disney obscured.
There's plenty of credible books on this stuff. None of it's particularly contested now, except by the Disney corporation, who just don't mention it.
Disney reminds me of Apple. It makes a great product (sometimes) but everything about its practices
building those products are horrible. That wouldn't be so bad if itheir corporate image wasn't so at odds with their corporate reality.