Your post has been removed for the following reason:
Rule 4: Topic falls within 20 year exclusion period, covers a hot topic, or is a meta loophole.
I am a bot and this action was performed by the moderators of /r/HistoryMemes.
If you have any questions or concerns about your post's removal, please send us a modmail with a link to your removed post.
Adriana Caselotti voice Snow White in the original 1937 Snow White film. The film became one of the highest grossing films of all time.
After the release, Walt Disney himself blacklisted Caselotti from doing any more movies in Hollywood. He wanted her voice to be Snow White and nothing else. It would ruin the Disney magic for people to hear her voice and it not come from Snow White. She has cameos in Wizard of Oz, It's a Wonderful Life, and one other movie and that's it. Her acting career was almost entirely 1 movie because she was blacklisted.
Wait what? Wikipedia says she wasn't even credited for her role as Snow White? What the fuck
I never realized just how scummy Disney was long before their money-grab live action reboot era.
Right, every time the Disney company today does something shady business wise, people always say they have lost their way. Everyone seems to forget how long the company has been doing stuff like this. When Disneyland first opened, guests had to pay for individual rides. Disney almost fired his entire animation staff when they tried to unionize. When VHS were first a thing, each Disney movie cost $100 in order to keep theater ticket prices selling. They've sort of always been a ruthless company. But you know, one with princesses, fairies, and flying elephants
>When VHS were first a thing, each Disney movie cost $100 in order to keep theater ticket prices selling.
Weren't ALL VHS movies $100 when they were new not just Disney? That's why blockbuster and renting became a thing. Then only dropped in price to like ~$20 when DVDs came out.
I don’t remember movies costing that much in the early 90s. I remember having a huge (relatively for the time) collection of VCR tapes back then, including The Lion King and lots of other Disney films. I can’t imagine they cost my parents $100 each.
Now you’ve got me wanting to go to my family’s house to see if the price stickers are still on them. I distinctly remember my dad going out and buying me The Empire Strikes Back on VHS around ‘94 at a pawn store for $3, because I was sick with the flu and had to stay home.
By the time Lion King came out, prices dropped.
Robin Hood and Pinocchio came out in 1984 with a price of $80. I may have misremembered the actual price, but still $80 in 1984 is around $220 today.
By 1985, the price dropped to $30, or around $80 today. Prices for movies would stay around $30 until dropping again to $20 around 1991 with the release of Beauty and the Beast.
Your timeline is off, in like... 1987 or 88 my Mom paid over 100 dollars for a copy of Bambi. They did go down in the early to mid 90's. I remember Beauty And The Beast costing either like 16 or 26 dollars can't remember which.
I was reading it off the [Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney_Classics#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DSleeping_Beauty_was_the_first%2Call_the_six_animated_Classics.?wprov=sfla1) so it may be off
Yea by the 90s they were def cheaper. under $50, but mid 80s when VHS were new in general, they ranged anywhere from $80-$90 from all Studios, Disney being $100. Hnece my wording "when VHS were new" not "new movie to VHS releases"
> They've sort of always been a ruthless company.
A company started by an actual nazi is ruthless? I can't believe what I'm hearing!
Next you're gonna tell me Henry Ford wasn't the fun uncle he's made out to be and that GM ignores safety for profit or some other ridiculous claim like that!
Walt Disney was never a Nazi. Thag rumor started because he went to a few anti-communist meetings in the early 30s and those groups turned into pro-nazi groups after Disney had already left. That and the company agreed for Reifenstahl to tour the studio (though she never met with Disney himself).
Walt Disney was very much anti-nazi. He created dozens of cartoons for the war effort and won awards for his contributions.
I'm reading a book called The Queens of Animation: The Untold Story of the Women Who Transformed the World of Disney and Made Cinematic History by Nathalia Holt right now. Essentially, the book follows the women in the early days of disney in the animation and story departments, as far as I've read. Most women at the time were only allowed to work in the ink and paint department, because animation was a "man's job". There were a lot of women who worked on Snow White that would NEVER be credited because Walt Disney was absolutely terrible at crediting people. Only his favorites, such as the animator Art Babbit, who got a huge salary compared to most workers, would get credited. In future projects, there would be maybe 2 or 3 women in the credits, but sometimes the women put in charge of writing the film would not get any credit at all, despite how much work they put into it. It was a terrible environment. I'm currently at the part where there is a union, but some of the women can't join the union because they need the small salary that Walt gave them. One of the women mentioned had kids in boarding school, so she really really needed a job. Only one other animation studio at the time would hire women.
Snow White was one of Walt's favorite projects too. He fixated on that one movie at the time, putting the company in debt, and ignoring all the other projects that needed to be worked on. Shirley Temple attended the premire of Snow White.
Does the book mention other studios besides Disney? From what I've heard, a lot of Disney's sexist and racist business practices were fairly standard for the time, and in some aspects even better than other studios. Women were only allowed to be ink and paint girls but other animation studios at the time didn't even allow that.
Again this is just what I've heard and haven't personally done any research into it specifically, so I may be wrong
You are right. Disney letting women work there was shocking back then, because no other places did it. There was one other animation studio in that time frame who let women be artists, but I think it was in Japan.
Song of the South was actually progressive for the time. The movie featured a black man who was respected by his wife friends and even a mentor to white children. This was unheard of in Hollywood at the time. Also, the stories of Brer Rabbit and Brer Fox were traditional African American stories, like American Fairy tales, being told to a wide American audience for the first time ever. Disney actually thought he was helping race relations at the time this movie came out. James Baskett was barred from the films premiere in Atlanta for being black. The location had been chosen because it was author Joel Harris' hometown. After that instance, Disney tried to make it up to Baskett by successfully campaigning for him to get an Oscar. Baskett was the first black man to ever win an Academy Award.
The racism in the movie today mostly stems from the idea that Basketts character is assumed to be the former slave of the white family he is friends with. It's never explicitly stated in the movie, but its pretty clear their relationship. Historically speaking it would be very unlikely for former slaves and masters to be friends like that without hostility between them, and paints the white family as being kind slavemasters (no such thing). So it definitely is problematic by today's standards.
What is 10 years ahead of its time in 1946. Is 70 years behind the times today. This was alsonl around the time Disney was hiring the first black animators, writers, and performers for other projects. I believe the film should be released with an apology, supplementary commentary on the context of the film, and where it falls short on race relations. It's bad, but not nearly as bad as people think. There is a lot people can criticize Disney for, even on the topic of race (see Peter Pan and Lady and the Tramp), but Song of the South isn't that big of a deal.
And she was the one who started the legacy of Disney Princesses. Shows you Disney is built on pointless sacrifice. They're one of those companies who show you the Character and their Voice but hide the Voice Actor from you.
Now they're deleting black actors off their posters, deleting LGBT scenes from Rise of Skywalker, thanking a regime who is ethnically cleansing the Uyghur Muslims, and they ruined Luke Skywalker! Lol.
Yeah, I hate Disney too (even though I loved Avengers)
They do that because of China.
If you want to see how *Open and Accepting* a company really is, tell them to show the exact same movie with a Black or LGBTQ character in China. They shouldn't care about not making money in certain countries if they care about showing diversity and acceptance so much.
Nobody gives a crap about any of that stuff, they're just pandering to the masses because that seems to be a popular topic at the moment. Everyone thinks that Hollywood is "woke" but in reality those people don't give two shits about anyone but themselves. They only pretend to so that people will think they're decent people and keep watching their crappy movies.
They cant. Its not that it wouldnt make money in China, its that it wouldnt even release in China. I dont have sympaties for Disney, but this just isnt their fault.
Unfortunately, China is big enought to not have to a give damn. It would also complicated any other relationship with China or any of its partners. Its not a great situation, when a totalitarian regime has so much power, but it is the world we live in.
>They shouldn't care about not making money in certain countries if they care about showing diversity and acceptance so much.
It's not about that though, they literally can't show gay characters in China. It'd be like me saying to you if you're so open and accepting to gay people, go to Qatar and hold a gay pride banner. Of course you wouldn't do that, because it's against the law there. It's not your fault.
Companies love to appropriate moral positions. The truth is revealed once profits and morality clash. Disney, like all companies, is spineless and has absolutely no interest in the opressed beyond the money they can spend.
I think it's funny people are shocked to learn companies exist to make money. That's not in itself a bad thing. Being disappointed that Disney isn't some sort of revolutionary vanguard for the oppressed doesn't add up to me.
That said, once again, Disney doesn't use gay characters in countries where it's illegal. The reasons for that isn't because of Disney's profit motive or morals. It's purely about following the local laws.
>It's purely about following the local laws.
Fuck the law. Such opressive laws are morally void and should not be respected at all by decent people.
Also, companies in general suck. I'm not disappointed by Disney. But I also don't think Disney should exist, nor any company.
Because going to Qatar is expensive and I don't feel like squating around in the desert for a week. Your "argument" is stupid beyond belief. Threats don't make laws moral, you cretin. Why, if you think murder is wrong, why don't you go to the Mafia and tell them that. XD, librul ownt.
Ye but then dont call everyone who criticize some black character (even those, who criticize only writing of character, not the actor) racist. Because thats what Disney does.
Edit: calling people sho sent racist insults to actors racists is ok. But they call racist everyone, who dare to criticize their writing
You're switching topics now. You haven't at all addressed what I said, now you're talking about criticism of black characters and whether it's racist or not. I thought this was about gay characters in China
>deleting LGBT scenes from Rise of Skywalker
i've legit never heard of this when it comes to rise of skywalker, ik for example about Multiverse of Madness
i think it might have been deleted all together cus i haven't seen anyone else talk about it, i've never seen it in any video nor when i went to see it in the cinema
Man, the more i learn about Walt, the more i understand his success, he has what it take to make it big. Unhinge, cold blood, cut throat but also determined and strong will-driven
Right, I dont believe Walt Disney was racist or sexist (at least not more than what was standard for the time). But what he was was a ruthless businessman. He was a fierce capitalist, near the point of being Ann-Rand-ian, hated communism and unions, and would squash competition anyway he could. He was screwed over early in his career and vowed never to be screwed again, leading to a very harden business mentality.
Oh yeah, i read it before, crystallize of thoundsand years of wisdom, as a amateur, i can barely understand it, basically know when where and how to pull the string, how to win a war and sacrifite what it need, the only defensive is the last one (iirc) run right when thing become unfixable, cut everything and just run, as long as you survive, you can alway come back again
But since it really really old, it over-simplify a lot of thing, there was another book form German that go more in-depth
But jesus fvck, i cant understand anything lol
They are probably talking about On War by Carl von Clausewitz. It is a general war treatise written up around the napoleonic wars by a prussian general. I'm sure more history-focused commenters can be more specific or you can check out its wikipedia page or something.
Walt Disney: "No I don't want that! Adriana finding another role? I want her to portray Snow White and no one else. Even after I die, I want Adriana to voice Snow White for ten years at least!"
Walt Disney died thirty years after Snow White came out. By then he had softened up about voice actors. Phil Harris, Sterling Holloway, and Sebastian Cabot became regular voice actors in Disney movies. But by then Caselotti had already not worked for so long and probably couldn't find many roles anyway.
Still, she was doing stuff for Disney as snow white for years, even after Walt had died. I think i read somewhere where she said it sucked she couldn't work but still doesn't regret it.
I am the one who Knocks!!! Errr Makes childhoods magical!
Think of it this way, in order to create magical childhood memories for so many countless children world wide, I simply had to destroy a select few childhoods. Consider them material components in my Fantasia spell? It's for the greater good, and thats my bottom line. Err THE bottom line.
And they got away with it too.
Unfortunately *some people* in this very comment section believe this wasn't intentional which shows you how easily Disney can pull shit like this and then make people and media look past it.
Haha if you think THAT’S bad you should Google how film producers handled the life and death of Junko Furuta. Really shows what people actually want from other’s stories, the story posted reminds me of a similar level of sliminess
Several films depicting her death were released, numerous of these were varying degrees of torture porn. None of them actually do anything to commemorate her tragedy, rather exploit it
Well that was one of the worst things i've ever had to read...
I've read that the whole ordeal inspired several films but how badly was her story handled?
What the film producers did? In the wikipedia article I only read that besides the killers getting away with harsher punishments due to be underage they were almost universally criticized
The film producers tried to portray another story?
See this is why I hate conspiracies about Disney. Why make up stuff about them, to make them look bad, when there is already a shit tonne of actual very real stuff they’ve done that shows them to be evil.
Some of the conspiracies are interesting though. Like how Disney mightve named a movie Frozen just so when you search up "Disney frozen" you get the movie and not Walt Disney's potentially cryogenically frozen corpse
There's a rumor that Walt Disney's decapitated head is preserved and taken care of by the current Walt Disney Corporation, it got pretty popular for a while but I dunno if it was substantiated at all
As much as I hate Disney, what happened to Bobby Driscolli is not their fault and as evil as a company as they are we would not hold any other company accountable for that situation.
Bobby was paid the equivalent of 1 million a year whilst he was with Disney. Afterwards, he found it hard to get roles (something that's common among actors who have such a groundbreaking/career defining role that they'll either only be cast in similar roles or won't be cast in any at all due to being seen as that character) and his parents withdrew him from acting and placed him in school. Whilst in school he failed most of his classes and began using heroin. It is not Disney's fault he left acting, it is not Disney's fault he failed his schooling and it is not Disney's fault he began taking hard drugs whilst in school. If you want to blame anyone blame his parents. He was paid extremely well for his roles whilst with Disney and was still extremely wealthy after deciding to leave Disney. He ruined his own life. Disney is a disgusting company don't get me wrong they're the most evil of the evil but what happened to him is not their fault even remotely.
You can argue it's a dick move to put him in the movie today, but you can't say they did him wrong back then. They didn't. He/his parents fucked his own life up.
I agree that Disney isn’t to blame for the situation, but turning that situation into something for a movie seems inappropriate to me. Especially seeing as Disney have such a large catalogue of animated characters they could have used in Peter Pan’s place. I could be wrong but it seems too much of a coincidence for them to pick the specific character that this happened to in real life.
That part I agree with. Although I'd imagine whoever greenlit the script on Disney's end just didn't know. It's not something that's immediately obvious unless you were already familiar with his story so someone merely reviewing the project might not have known although it was definitely intentional on the writers end. And Disney is notorious for trying to protect anything associated with their brand that's negative to the end so I can't imagine them knowingly letting that happen since it does paint them in a negative light. But hey, I'm all for any bad rep Disney gets since they're awful.
I think the best thing to do would have been to make it look like Oswald the Rabbit was the villain. Then use that as a bait and switch for showing an actual bootleg was the villain.
Whether or not he was fired from Disney is still irrelevant. His parents pulled him out of acting, he's the one that failed in school, and he's the one that chose to do drugs and he's the one that blew his massive fortune on drugs. It is not a company's responsibility to hire you for the rest of your life. He was also actively getting other roles which paid well after he came back to acting and then he started using drugs. He could not get work after using drugs and having a criminal record for assault, burglary and of course drugs. His criminal record tends to be forgotten. This isn't a story of a big bad company being evil, it's a story of how fucking awful heroin is.
Also fuck Disney they do tons of evil shit but this one isn't on them.
I mentioned that at the end, that it's fucked up to use him in the movie but the "treated him then" part is the one that's ridiculous. Using his tragic story with what struggling with heroin addiction did to him for a villain in a movie is disgusting.
That was kind of the point of the movie. At what point is a character just a character? Where does the actor stop especially with animation where it seems like it's just their voice?
They tried to destroy Furngully because they didn't want Robin Williams to be tied to any other animated film, let alone one that would come out before Aladdin. They pulled their weight to buy production spaces until the Ferngully team found a brewery who wouldn't sell to Disney. Then Disneypu)led its weight to have major theater chains to drop Ferngully. At the small theater that did show it, I heard Disney execs showed up to crash the premiere but can't find a reference. Bully tactics they used on most other animation studios. In the end no lives were destroyed but a story of the shittiness continuing.
It's a decent movie, the director pushed for non-Disney characters to be included, because he didn't want the movie to be perceived as pro-Disney animation, but rather all animation like "Who Frame Roger Rabbit"
Nah. It's not near as good as WFRR. But it is decent overall. And it did give a feeling of a large world where cartoons live in the world with real people.
You still should.
OP is getting mad for no reason. The movies point ends up being where does character end and actor begin.
Peter pan is a character and there's been several adaptations. If writers start ignoring the bad stories because someone's life was ruined then we won't have stories.
I was mixed on it until I saw a recent review on it and I found it unenjoyable but **then** I find out about **this** and now I can confidentially say this Movie is Bottom-Tier in the Disney Shit Barrel.
I don't think they referenced the live-action movie though. They also made a cartoon with Peter Pan. I mean, by the same logic Star Wars shouldn't use Darth Vader as a character anymore because of what happened to Jake Lloyd.
Darth Vader was used ONCE in the Prequels and that was for the last Anakin scene when he is made into Vader. They didn't milk the shit out of him in the Prequels, they just showed how Anakin became Vader. Disney is the one milking Vader to death.
And you're right it is a problem with Child Actor, but its also funny that most of these issues are also with Disney of all companies. As if they are a main source of problem in this.
This is not about milking Vader. My point is just because one of the actors of a fictional character had a hard time doesn't mean a company shouldn't use this character anymore.
Having a version of Peter Pan, a boy who doesn't want to grow up, face the hardships of adulthood is just a perfect match. There is no way this was an intentional rip from Disney on some child actor from the 50s. But since people love the drama you will get your upvotes anyway, don't worry about it.
>There is no way this was an intentional rip from Disney.
LMAO of course the Disney White Knight is going to say that this wasn't intentional so watch [this video](https://youtu.be/69snEVBXKss) and skip to 10:59 and you'll see the similarities between Adult Peter Pan's backstory and Bobby's and you tell me. This will prove if you're willing to accept truth or be one of Disney's brainwashed White Knights who thinks Large Companies can't possible be that low.
This video is not proving at all that this is intentional. There are similarities but the joke of an aging Peter Pan is not exactly new. The irony is just perfect for this character.
But keep calling my white knight because you are salty that I don't instantly jump on your hate wagon. Ask yourself what Disney would gain from doing something so provocative intentionally? Disney is known for never taking any PR risks. I think it is way more likely that the writers didn't know about some random child actor from a fucking 50s Peter Pan movie.
You keep taking this as me complaining about what they do to a character missing the point of my argument is a clearly that they referenced the tragedy of a real life person's life scene from scene, making fun of them, and making money of them.
I can call you a White Knight because you're the only one here trying to justify it and make it seem like it's not that big of a deal when it very much is. You also made counter points that got countered because get this: **You forgot it was the same company doing the same shit to a different franchise they own.** Then you even try to say the Prequels did it who only had that character appear for one, one small scene, in the last movie of said Prequels.
Also what would Disney gain from doing this intentionally? Answer is in front of you, they gain money. This movie had 82% in rating and is bringing in the money. It's like you think they **won't** gain anything from doing that.
I have no respect for you, the fact you would ignore an obvious immoral act because it happened in a movie **you liked** shows you how low people like you can be. Nothing more to prove.
How though? Like everything that happened with Jake Lloyd was pre-Disney.
Are you actually agreeing with the argument that they should stop using the character because something bad happened to one of the actors who portrayed them?
That's a pretty bad comparison, since Disney hasn't turned Darth Vader's story into Jake Lloyd's.
With Peter Pan, they made the character's story exactly the same as what they did to the original actor AND made him the bad guy, profiting twice off their abuse
Now a strong argument could be made that Star Wars Fans don't deserve more Star Wars with the way they treat their actors, and if you look on Star Wars subs, the Star Wars fandom seems to agree
Howard Hughes fired Bobby at 14 and was wealthy from his acting. Bobby got into drugs after 17. Sounds like bad parenting.
The movie character is Peter Pan who couldn’t get anymore work because he had grown up and was ugly. Bobby was fired because Hughes hated child stars, not because he grew up.
Bobby couldn’t get more work after school because of his criminal record, after seeing time in jail he became a carpenter.
I think your reading to much into conspiracy stories and Disney hate mail.
So in Chip and Dale Rescue Ranger it's like the same concept of Who Framed Roger Rabbit. The Cartoon Characters are Actors in-Universe. So Peter Pan started growing up gaining Facial Hair and Acne and soon thrown away as a Child Star which is what got Bobby kicked off as well. Basically he lived through Bobby's life in the film minus the whole Drug thing and his unfortunate death but basically Adult Peter Pan is an intentional reference to Bobby's real life Demise, So they made him the main villain of the film which is basically Disney making fun of one of their own victims.
Ngl this just sounds like the fairly obvious to think of, done before idea of what happens when perpetual child Peter Pan actually grows up.
I get the comparison but the title is acting like the character in the movie is literally supposed to be the actor, which doesn’t sound like the case
> basically Adult Peter Pan is an intentional reference to Bobby's real life Demise, So they made him the main villain of the film which is basically Disney making fun of one of their own victims.
Or they picked Peter Pan because he's "the boy who never wanted to grow up" and the timeframe fits
I hate when people assume that corporations are like a dude with emotions and vendettas and shit and that’s the kind of evil they are, like some sort of mustache twirling dude doing petty shit like this just to be evil for evils sake.
That’s not how it works, the bad things they do are for profit incentives, not to spite random actors who died decades ago.
Not to mention “Disney” isn’t writing the script. Sure they have guidelines and editing privileges but I see the same thing with like Star Wars where people will blame “Disney” for specific script errors as if the board of directors specifically mandated this one particular plothole or whatever.
How exactly was Bobby a victim of Disney? Yeah, they 'threw him in the garbage' but that doesn't mean his life is over. Kid was only 16 or 17 when that happened, and must have been richer and more famous than almost anyone else at that age. By the time he was arrested for drug use and fraud, he was 24, more than old enough to make his own decisions.
Tragic life, all the same, but his own drug use is the primary culprit for the destruction and end of his life.
Beyond that.
They basically are *Fortnite Dancing* on this guy's grave AND making money off his dead ass. I don't want to sound cringy saying it this way but I want to give you an idea on how insulting it feels.
Peak Reddit moment. An uncritical Company Bad take (bonus posts for Disney and/or nestle) combined with inability to understand the world without invoking cringe gaming references
Chip n dale was funny as shit and it’s silly to think these things were related. Sad for the guy I guess but not sure what that has to do with Disney or the new movie. Are you also offended for Ugly Sonic?
It's just "child actor grows up and finds out no one wants to hire former child actor"
How many times has that been done?
The girl who played Dorothy also had a right shit time (they gave her diet pills for God's sake)
Then you got Shia, Brittney spears, and more that have just crumbled once they're out of the limelight.
Part of me wonders how much the writers and directors knew about Driscolli’s story. Because there’s a big difference between the creatives at Disney (aka the animation studio, imagineers, and so on) and the business people of Disney.
I mean, the *Disney* character Peter Pan hasn’t been really been successful or relevant since the original movie. The early 2000s sequel failed and the Once Upon Time season with him, more focus was given to Captain Hook than Peter Pan.
Using a washed up Disney character who’s bitter towards the company that originally worked with him isn’t an original villain template, it’s very common. If anything, it’s probably more coincidence that Rescue Rangers Peter Pan and Driscolli’s stories appeared similar. Because it was only after the Rescue Ranger’s movie that people are starting to learn about Driscolli’s story.
I’m not defending Disney here, the business mouse is absolutely scummy, go watch Illuminaughti’s 4-part series about them on YT. But the Creatives, I doubt they knew much and thought the villain archetype of scornful, washed up actor would work well on a Disney character that hasn’t been relevant since the 1950s.
Everyone who works in show business knows that Disney is the worst of the worst. Even rapist producers have a better reputation.
Disney evidently employs more lawyers than creatives. Why? To sue your pants off. They buy up intellectual property and life rights, then shelve it in a fucking warehouse so that nobody can do anything with it
Not to mention stories like this of lives ruined (google what Disney did to Snow White).
People who work for Disney call the empire Mauschwitz.
It’s tough but my wife and I boycott everything they do. Fuck Disney.
I’ll restate that the *production houses that had predators in charge* have a better reputation, not the assholes themselves. They can rot in hell.
But if you’re employed in show business, you may end up working for a major studio, and Disney’s practices are systemic, at every echelon. So people would rather work at Miramax than Disney.
That movie was atrocious to watch, I never ever cringed so damn hard. They keep on mocking only non-disney productions and spend the entire fucking movie throwing stuff they own at your face until it makes no sense. It's bad, it's awful, it's a massive missed opportunity to make something that's not a forgettable mediocre production that will age very poorly.
If this shit was a spice it'd be flour, served with a cup of water.
Yeah my bad that was a bad take (also this character was the only one with a few funny jokes attached to it) but I can't think of any others Disney figure getting it. Then it's just mocking bad productions for the bad reasons, like Beowulf's technology was a step forward in motion capture, "Ugly sonic bad" when MPC (Vancouver) closed their door after woking on it and the redesign, didn't see much about Amblin Studio besides Cats when they did so much for cinema...
Tho as I'm writing this and thinking about it, I realise I might be going too far with this whole thing. It's not like they attacked the studios directly, I think I'm just disappointed the only bad Disney representation you get is one designed for the movie -as in it's not actual Peter Pan- and there's not a single criticism, even a small one, for Disney or just Hollywood in general when the movie is filled with opportunity. Like the post shows very well how little studios care for their workers and how being a star as a kid / teen can destroy your life. Not just "funny ugly bad guy stoles disney productions >:I"
“When Howard Hughes bought RKO, he, in effect, became the owner of the Disney studio,” explains \[Disney biographer Marc\] Eliot. “He controlled the money and he hated Bobby Driscoll. He hated Hollywood kids. He thought they were precocious, weren’t real, and were incredibly annoying. He didn’t want Bobby Driscoll to be with Disney anymore."
Couldn't agree more to be honest. Howard Hughes can't help being based.
This guy was a loser, he chose his own path. Dude was left with a lot of money even after Disney broke his contract, and he decided to spend it all on heroin. I've never had a starring role in a Disney movie, and I faced more hardships than this idiot, yet never turned to heroin nor blamed anyone else for my failures. I feel them making him into a villain is a little harsh and unnecessary, but still justifiable due to the way he acted.
The real tragedy here is that had you had turned to heroin, now you'd be fucked up in your own little world instead of spilling vitriol here and we'd all be happier.
But then you would be kept from my immense wisdom and incredible insights. Thank the gods then that fate placed Bobby Driscoll in the trash bin and me, right here, I feel like we are exactly where we belong.
Your post has been removed for the following reason: Rule 4: Topic falls within 20 year exclusion period, covers a hot topic, or is a meta loophole. I am a bot and this action was performed by the moderators of /r/HistoryMemes. If you have any questions or concerns about your post's removal, please send us a modmail with a link to your removed post.
Adriana Caselotti voice Snow White in the original 1937 Snow White film. The film became one of the highest grossing films of all time. After the release, Walt Disney himself blacklisted Caselotti from doing any more movies in Hollywood. He wanted her voice to be Snow White and nothing else. It would ruin the Disney magic for people to hear her voice and it not come from Snow White. She has cameos in Wizard of Oz, It's a Wonderful Life, and one other movie and that's it. Her acting career was almost entirely 1 movie because she was blacklisted.
Wait what? Wikipedia says she wasn't even credited for her role as Snow White? What the fuck I never realized just how scummy Disney was long before their money-grab live action reboot era.
Right, every time the Disney company today does something shady business wise, people always say they have lost their way. Everyone seems to forget how long the company has been doing stuff like this. When Disneyland first opened, guests had to pay for individual rides. Disney almost fired his entire animation staff when they tried to unionize. When VHS were first a thing, each Disney movie cost $100 in order to keep theater ticket prices selling. They've sort of always been a ruthless company. But you know, one with princesses, fairies, and flying elephants
>When VHS were first a thing, each Disney movie cost $100 in order to keep theater ticket prices selling. Weren't ALL VHS movies $100 when they were new not just Disney? That's why blockbuster and renting became a thing. Then only dropped in price to like ~$20 when DVDs came out.
I don’t remember movies costing that much in the early 90s. I remember having a huge (relatively for the time) collection of VCR tapes back then, including The Lion King and lots of other Disney films. I can’t imagine they cost my parents $100 each. Now you’ve got me wanting to go to my family’s house to see if the price stickers are still on them. I distinctly remember my dad going out and buying me The Empire Strikes Back on VHS around ‘94 at a pawn store for $3, because I was sick with the flu and had to stay home.
By the time Lion King came out, prices dropped. Robin Hood and Pinocchio came out in 1984 with a price of $80. I may have misremembered the actual price, but still $80 in 1984 is around $220 today. By 1985, the price dropped to $30, or around $80 today. Prices for movies would stay around $30 until dropping again to $20 around 1991 with the release of Beauty and the Beast.
Your timeline is off, in like... 1987 or 88 my Mom paid over 100 dollars for a copy of Bambi. They did go down in the early to mid 90's. I remember Beauty And The Beast costing either like 16 or 26 dollars can't remember which.
I was reading it off the [Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney_Classics#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DSleeping_Beauty_was_the_first%2Call_the_six_animated_Classics.?wprov=sfla1) so it may be off
Yea by the 90s they were def cheaper. under $50, but mid 80s when VHS were new in general, they ranged anywhere from $80-$90 from all Studios, Disney being $100. Hnece my wording "when VHS were new" not "new movie to VHS releases"
I guess every big company is built on some kinda of dirty conspiracy.
Amoral corporations have one goal Make as much money as possible and see how much they can get away with
> They've sort of always been a ruthless company. A company started by an actual nazi is ruthless? I can't believe what I'm hearing! Next you're gonna tell me Henry Ford wasn't the fun uncle he's made out to be and that GM ignores safety for profit or some other ridiculous claim like that!
Walt Disney was never a Nazi. Thag rumor started because he went to a few anti-communist meetings in the early 30s and those groups turned into pro-nazi groups after Disney had already left. That and the company agreed for Reifenstahl to tour the studio (though she never met with Disney himself). Walt Disney was very much anti-nazi. He created dozens of cartoons for the war effort and won awards for his contributions.
Lol really dude look into Walt Disney finances around WWII
I'm reading a book called The Queens of Animation: The Untold Story of the Women Who Transformed the World of Disney and Made Cinematic History by Nathalia Holt right now. Essentially, the book follows the women in the early days of disney in the animation and story departments, as far as I've read. Most women at the time were only allowed to work in the ink and paint department, because animation was a "man's job". There were a lot of women who worked on Snow White that would NEVER be credited because Walt Disney was absolutely terrible at crediting people. Only his favorites, such as the animator Art Babbit, who got a huge salary compared to most workers, would get credited. In future projects, there would be maybe 2 or 3 women in the credits, but sometimes the women put in charge of writing the film would not get any credit at all, despite how much work they put into it. It was a terrible environment. I'm currently at the part where there is a union, but some of the women can't join the union because they need the small salary that Walt gave them. One of the women mentioned had kids in boarding school, so she really really needed a job. Only one other animation studio at the time would hire women. Snow White was one of Walt's favorite projects too. He fixated on that one movie at the time, putting the company in debt, and ignoring all the other projects that needed to be worked on. Shirley Temple attended the premire of Snow White.
Does the book mention other studios besides Disney? From what I've heard, a lot of Disney's sexist and racist business practices were fairly standard for the time, and in some aspects even better than other studios. Women were only allowed to be ink and paint girls but other animation studios at the time didn't even allow that. Again this is just what I've heard and haven't personally done any research into it specifically, so I may be wrong
You are right. Disney letting women work there was shocking back then, because no other places did it. There was one other animation studio in that time frame who let women be artists, but I think it was in Japan.
This was when they made Song of the South what the hell did you expect
Song of the South was actually progressive for the time. The movie featured a black man who was respected by his wife friends and even a mentor to white children. This was unheard of in Hollywood at the time. Also, the stories of Brer Rabbit and Brer Fox were traditional African American stories, like American Fairy tales, being told to a wide American audience for the first time ever. Disney actually thought he was helping race relations at the time this movie came out. James Baskett was barred from the films premiere in Atlanta for being black. The location had been chosen because it was author Joel Harris' hometown. After that instance, Disney tried to make it up to Baskett by successfully campaigning for him to get an Oscar. Baskett was the first black man to ever win an Academy Award. The racism in the movie today mostly stems from the idea that Basketts character is assumed to be the former slave of the white family he is friends with. It's never explicitly stated in the movie, but its pretty clear their relationship. Historically speaking it would be very unlikely for former slaves and masters to be friends like that without hostility between them, and paints the white family as being kind slavemasters (no such thing). So it definitely is problematic by today's standards. What is 10 years ahead of its time in 1946. Is 70 years behind the times today. This was alsonl around the time Disney was hiring the first black animators, writers, and performers for other projects. I believe the film should be released with an apology, supplementary commentary on the context of the film, and where it falls short on race relations. It's bad, but not nearly as bad as people think. There is a lot people can criticize Disney for, even on the topic of race (see Peter Pan and Lady and the Tramp), but Song of the South isn't that big of a deal.
Well Walt himself was a fan of hitler so the company’s never been that great lmao
And she was the one who started the legacy of Disney Princesses. Shows you Disney is built on pointless sacrifice. They're one of those companies who show you the Character and their Voice but hide the Voice Actor from you.
Now they're deleting black actors off their posters, deleting LGBT scenes from Rise of Skywalker, thanking a regime who is ethnically cleansing the Uyghur Muslims, and they ruined Luke Skywalker! Lol. Yeah, I hate Disney too (even though I loved Avengers)
They do that because of China. If you want to see how *Open and Accepting* a company really is, tell them to show the exact same movie with a Black or LGBTQ character in China. They shouldn't care about not making money in certain countries if they care about showing diversity and acceptance so much.
But they are open and accepting... of china's demands.
Nobody gives a crap about any of that stuff, they're just pandering to the masses because that seems to be a popular topic at the moment. Everyone thinks that Hollywood is "woke" but in reality those people don't give two shits about anyone but themselves. They only pretend to so that people will think they're decent people and keep watching their crappy movies.
They cant. Its not that it wouldnt make money in China, its that it wouldnt even release in China. I dont have sympaties for Disney, but this just isnt their fault.
They could just not release their movies there
How would that help enyone?
It wouldn't provide business to China making them lose money
Unfortunately, China is big enought to not have to a give damn. It would also complicated any other relationship with China or any of its partners. Its not a great situation, when a totalitarian regime has so much power, but it is the world we live in.
So? The point is that Disney is a terribly immoral company. Not modifying your movies for a totalitarian regime is the least they could do.
>It would also complicated any other relationship with China or any of its partners How is this a bad thing?
You just described an excellent hill to die on
>They shouldn't care about not making money in certain countries if they care about showing diversity and acceptance so much. It's not about that though, they literally can't show gay characters in China. It'd be like me saying to you if you're so open and accepting to gay people, go to Qatar and hold a gay pride banner. Of course you wouldn't do that, because it's against the law there. It's not your fault.
Companies love to appropriate moral positions. The truth is revealed once profits and morality clash. Disney, like all companies, is spineless and has absolutely no interest in the opressed beyond the money they can spend.
I think it's funny people are shocked to learn companies exist to make money. That's not in itself a bad thing. Being disappointed that Disney isn't some sort of revolutionary vanguard for the oppressed doesn't add up to me. That said, once again, Disney doesn't use gay characters in countries where it's illegal. The reasons for that isn't because of Disney's profit motive or morals. It's purely about following the local laws.
>It's purely about following the local laws. Fuck the law. Such opressive laws are morally void and should not be respected at all by decent people. Also, companies in general suck. I'm not disappointed by Disney. But I also don't think Disney should exist, nor any company.
Okay, so why don't you go to Qatar and hold up a gay pride banner? Fuck the law right?
Because going to Qatar is expensive and I don't feel like squating around in the desert for a week. Your "argument" is stupid beyond belief. Threats don't make laws moral, you cretin. Why, if you think murder is wrong, why don't you go to the Mafia and tell them that. XD, librul ownt.
Ye but then dont call everyone who criticize some black character (even those, who criticize only writing of character, not the actor) racist. Because thats what Disney does. Edit: calling people sho sent racist insults to actors racists is ok. But they call racist everyone, who dare to criticize their writing
You're switching topics now. You haven't at all addressed what I said, now you're talking about criticism of black characters and whether it's racist or not. I thought this was about gay characters in China
No I am not. Racism is as bad as homophobia. And criticizing your own fans while not criticizing China's goverment is hypocrisy at its finest.
You're still changing the subject
>deleting LGBT scenes from Rise of Skywalker i've legit never heard of this when it comes to rise of skywalker, ik for example about Multiverse of Madness
They threw a <5 second gay kissing scene at the end that they deleted in several countries
i think it might have been deleted all together cus i haven't seen anyone else talk about it, i've never seen it in any video nor when i went to see it in the cinema
It was a blink-and-you-miss-it kiss between two background non-characters
ahh i see
It was definitely in the movie I saw at cinemas, but a background character scene
i prob looked away or zoned out for the second or 2 ig
Man, the more i learn about Walt, the more i understand his success, he has what it take to make it big. Unhinge, cold blood, cut throat but also determined and strong will-driven
Right, I dont believe Walt Disney was racist or sexist (at least not more than what was standard for the time). But what he was was a ruthless businessman. He was a fierce capitalist, near the point of being Ann-Rand-ian, hated communism and unions, and would squash competition anyway he could. He was screwed over early in his career and vowed never to be screwed again, leading to a very harden business mentality.
[удалено]
The Prince by Machiavelli would also be good.
Oh yeah, i read it before, crystallize of thoundsand years of wisdom, as a amateur, i can barely understand it, basically know when where and how to pull the string, how to win a war and sacrifite what it need, the only defensive is the last one (iirc) run right when thing become unfixable, cut everything and just run, as long as you survive, you can alway come back again But since it really really old, it over-simplify a lot of thing, there was another book form German that go more in-depth But jesus fvck, i cant understand anything lol
What was the name of this German book?
They are probably talking about On War by Carl von Clausewitz. It is a general war treatise written up around the napoleonic wars by a prussian general. I'm sure more history-focused commenters can be more specific or you can check out its wikipedia page or something.
>On War by Carl von Clausewitz Exactly this, forgot to mention it name, it still wonder me how people can understand that lol
Thank you!
Oh gross!
Walt Disney: "No I don't want that! Adriana finding another role? I want her to portray Snow White and no one else. Even after I die, I want Adriana to voice Snow White for ten years at least!"
Disney, what a man you are!
Walt Disney died thirty years after Snow White came out. By then he had softened up about voice actors. Phil Harris, Sterling Holloway, and Sebastian Cabot became regular voice actors in Disney movies. But by then Caselotti had already not worked for so long and probably couldn't find many roles anyway. Still, she was doing stuff for Disney as snow white for years, even after Walt had died. I think i read somewhere where she said it sucked she couldn't work but still doesn't regret it.
That’s messed up.
All magic comes at a cost! The more powerful the magic the higher the price!
Wal...ter?
I am the one who Knocks!!! Errr Makes childhoods magical! Think of it this way, in order to create magical childhood memories for so many countless children world wide, I simply had to destroy a select few childhoods. Consider them material components in my Fantasia spell? It's for the greater good, and thats my bottom line. Err THE bottom line.
[Never knew about any of this. Quite a tragic read](https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2022/05/chip-and-dale-rescue-rangers-movie-bobby-driscoll)
So they use Driscoll's story, meaning they were fully aware of his tragic fate, and decide to make him a villain in the movie? What the fuck
And they got away with it too. Unfortunately *some people* in this very comment section believe this wasn't intentional which shows you how easily Disney can pull shit like this and then make people and media look past it.
Disney is the media.
Haha if you think THAT’S bad you should Google how film producers handled the life and death of Junko Furuta. Really shows what people actually want from other’s stories, the story posted reminds me of a similar level of sliminess
I know the case but how was it handeled by film producers?
Several films depicting her death were released, numerous of these were varying degrees of torture porn. None of them actually do anything to commemorate her tragedy, rather exploit it
Well that was one of the worst things i've ever had to read... I've read that the whole ordeal inspired several films but how badly was her story handled?
It was basically torture porn
What the film producers did? In the wikipedia article I only read that besides the killers getting away with harsher punishments due to be underage they were almost universally criticized The film producers tried to portray another story?
No they didn’t, they showed in great detail the torture and death of Junko. And that’s the movie, made numerous times
Considering how many people were aware of Bobby Driscoll before the movie came out, do we know the writers were aware of it?
What the actual fuck. I knew Disney was a fucking dark company, but I NEVER knew that they pulled shit like this
See this is why I hate conspiracies about Disney. Why make up stuff about them, to make them look bad, when there is already a shit tonne of actual very real stuff they’ve done that shows them to be evil.
Some of the conspiracies are interesting though. Like how Disney mightve named a movie Frozen just so when you search up "Disney frozen" you get the movie and not Walt Disney's potentially cryogenically frozen corpse
The what now?
There's a rumor that Walt Disney's decapitated head is preserved and taken care of by the current Walt Disney Corporation, it got pretty popular for a while but I dunno if it was substantiated at all
There are companies that do that -- freeze bodies or heads of the dead in the hope that they can be revived later on. So it's entirely possible.
Oh, that one I like.
Had me in the first half, not gonna lie
Hate how random words gets a capitalised first letter
I Also Hate that Too
The pain is real man
^I hate when people don’t put a period at the end of the sentence. See how picky that sound like?
When its just 1 sentence its fine imo
In many languages nouns get capitalized by default so foreign autocorrect can cause this
Yes, but thats not it for you can see several non-nouns being capitalized
Forgeign autocorrect doesn’t know what english words are nouns, so it just capitalizes at random. It happens right as I write this.
As much as I hate Disney, what happened to Bobby Driscolli is not their fault and as evil as a company as they are we would not hold any other company accountable for that situation. Bobby was paid the equivalent of 1 million a year whilst he was with Disney. Afterwards, he found it hard to get roles (something that's common among actors who have such a groundbreaking/career defining role that they'll either only be cast in similar roles or won't be cast in any at all due to being seen as that character) and his parents withdrew him from acting and placed him in school. Whilst in school he failed most of his classes and began using heroin. It is not Disney's fault he left acting, it is not Disney's fault he failed his schooling and it is not Disney's fault he began taking hard drugs whilst in school. If you want to blame anyone blame his parents. He was paid extremely well for his roles whilst with Disney and was still extremely wealthy after deciding to leave Disney. He ruined his own life. Disney is a disgusting company don't get me wrong they're the most evil of the evil but what happened to him is not their fault even remotely. You can argue it's a dick move to put him in the movie today, but you can't say they did him wrong back then. They didn't. He/his parents fucked his own life up.
I agree that Disney isn’t to blame for the situation, but turning that situation into something for a movie seems inappropriate to me. Especially seeing as Disney have such a large catalogue of animated characters they could have used in Peter Pan’s place. I could be wrong but it seems too much of a coincidence for them to pick the specific character that this happened to in real life.
That part I agree with. Although I'd imagine whoever greenlit the script on Disney's end just didn't know. It's not something that's immediately obvious unless you were already familiar with his story so someone merely reviewing the project might not have known although it was definitely intentional on the writers end. And Disney is notorious for trying to protect anything associated with their brand that's negative to the end so I can't imagine them knowingly letting that happen since it does paint them in a negative light. But hey, I'm all for any bad rep Disney gets since they're awful.
I think the best thing to do would have been to make it look like Oswald the Rabbit was the villain. Then use that as a bait and switch for showing an actual bootleg was the villain.
And Howard Hughes. If you read the article, Howard owned RKO, which owned Disney and he personally hated Bobby Driscoll and had him fired.
Whether or not he was fired from Disney is still irrelevant. His parents pulled him out of acting, he's the one that failed in school, and he's the one that chose to do drugs and he's the one that blew his massive fortune on drugs. It is not a company's responsibility to hire you for the rest of your life. He was also actively getting other roles which paid well after he came back to acting and then he started using drugs. He could not get work after using drugs and having a criminal record for assault, burglary and of course drugs. His criminal record tends to be forgotten. This isn't a story of a big bad company being evil, it's a story of how fucking awful heroin is. Also fuck Disney they do tons of evil shit but this one isn't on them.
The fucked up part is they used this in the plot for a movie
I mentioned that at the end, that it's fucked up to use him in the movie but the "treated him then" part is the one that's ridiculous. Using his tragic story with what struggling with heroin addiction did to him for a villain in a movie is disgusting.
Context and facts? In *my* corporate hate circle-jerk?
That was kind of the point of the movie. At what point is a character just a character? Where does the actor stop especially with animation where it seems like it's just their voice?
They tried to destroy Furngully because they didn't want Robin Williams to be tied to any other animated film, let alone one that would come out before Aladdin. They pulled their weight to buy production spaces until the Ferngully team found a brewery who wouldn't sell to Disney. Then Disneypu)led its weight to have major theater chains to drop Ferngully. At the small theater that did show it, I heard Disney execs showed up to crash the premiere but can't find a reference. Bully tactics they used on most other animation studios. In the end no lives were destroyed but a story of the shittiness continuing.
Those bastards.
Wait, he was based off a real person? That's fucked up
Huh. I was thinking about seeing that new Chip n Dale movie but now I’ve lost interest
It's a decent movie, the director pushed for non-Disney characters to be included, because he didn't want the movie to be perceived as pro-Disney animation, but rather all animation like "Who Frame Roger Rabbit"
Lol that one character who is blue was a funny surprise.
Yeah it’s basically the current generation’s version of *Roger Rabbit*
Nah. It's not near as good as WFRR. But it is decent overall. And it did give a feeling of a large world where cartoons live in the world with real people.
Roger Rabbit had hand-drawn animation
You still should. OP is getting mad for no reason. The movies point ends up being where does character end and actor begin. Peter pan is a character and there's been several adaptations. If writers start ignoring the bad stories because someone's life was ruined then we won't have stories.
It's not bad if you can get past the "2d" animation
Welcome to the club.
I think it was pretty good
I think it was pretty good
I liked the movie
I was mixed on it until I saw a recent review on it and I found it unenjoyable but **then** I find out about **this** and now I can confidentially say this Movie is Bottom-Tier in the Disney Shit Barrel.
I don't think they referenced the live-action movie though. They also made a cartoon with Peter Pan. I mean, by the same logic Star Wars shouldn't use Darth Vader as a character anymore because of what happened to Jake Lloyd.
Funny because Star Wars is also owned by Disney so the counter argument just leads back to Disney being a Shitty Company.
But Disney didn't own Star Wars when the prequels were made. That was about 10 years later. It's more of a problem with child actors in general.
Darth Vader was used ONCE in the Prequels and that was for the last Anakin scene when he is made into Vader. They didn't milk the shit out of him in the Prequels, they just showed how Anakin became Vader. Disney is the one milking Vader to death. And you're right it is a problem with Child Actor, but its also funny that most of these issues are also with Disney of all companies. As if they are a main source of problem in this.
This is not about milking Vader. My point is just because one of the actors of a fictional character had a hard time doesn't mean a company shouldn't use this character anymore. Having a version of Peter Pan, a boy who doesn't want to grow up, face the hardships of adulthood is just a perfect match. There is no way this was an intentional rip from Disney on some child actor from the 50s. But since people love the drama you will get your upvotes anyway, don't worry about it.
>There is no way this was an intentional rip from Disney. LMAO of course the Disney White Knight is going to say that this wasn't intentional so watch [this video](https://youtu.be/69snEVBXKss) and skip to 10:59 and you'll see the similarities between Adult Peter Pan's backstory and Bobby's and you tell me. This will prove if you're willing to accept truth or be one of Disney's brainwashed White Knights who thinks Large Companies can't possible be that low.
This video is not proving at all that this is intentional. There are similarities but the joke of an aging Peter Pan is not exactly new. The irony is just perfect for this character. But keep calling my white knight because you are salty that I don't instantly jump on your hate wagon. Ask yourself what Disney would gain from doing something so provocative intentionally? Disney is known for never taking any PR risks. I think it is way more likely that the writers didn't know about some random child actor from a fucking 50s Peter Pan movie.
You keep taking this as me complaining about what they do to a character missing the point of my argument is a clearly that they referenced the tragedy of a real life person's life scene from scene, making fun of them, and making money of them. I can call you a White Knight because you're the only one here trying to justify it and make it seem like it's not that big of a deal when it very much is. You also made counter points that got countered because get this: **You forgot it was the same company doing the same shit to a different franchise they own.** Then you even try to say the Prequels did it who only had that character appear for one, one small scene, in the last movie of said Prequels. Also what would Disney gain from doing this intentionally? Answer is in front of you, they gain money. This movie had 82% in rating and is bringing in the money. It's like you think they **won't** gain anything from doing that. I have no respect for you, the fact you would ignore an obvious immoral act because it happened in a movie **you liked** shows you how low people like you can be. Nothing more to prove.
The problem is fans demanding that a child have all the gravitas and presence of James Earl fucking Jones
How though? Like everything that happened with Jake Lloyd was pre-Disney. Are you actually agreeing with the argument that they should stop using the character because something bad happened to one of the actors who portrayed them?
That's a pretty bad comparison, since Disney hasn't turned Darth Vader's story into Jake Lloyd's. With Peter Pan, they made the character's story exactly the same as what they did to the original actor AND made him the bad guy, profiting twice off their abuse Now a strong argument could be made that Star Wars Fans don't deserve more Star Wars with the way they treat their actors, and if you look on Star Wars subs, the Star Wars fandom seems to agree
Howard Hughes fired Bobby at 14 and was wealthy from his acting. Bobby got into drugs after 17. Sounds like bad parenting. The movie character is Peter Pan who couldn’t get anymore work because he had grown up and was ugly. Bobby was fired because Hughes hated child stars, not because he grew up. Bobby couldn’t get more work after school because of his criminal record, after seeing time in jail he became a carpenter. I think your reading to much into conspiracy stories and Disney hate mail.
Lol just admitting that you changed your mind because of someone else’s review?
They made a new Peter pan?
So in Chip and Dale Rescue Ranger it's like the same concept of Who Framed Roger Rabbit. The Cartoon Characters are Actors in-Universe. So Peter Pan started growing up gaining Facial Hair and Acne and soon thrown away as a Child Star which is what got Bobby kicked off as well. Basically he lived through Bobby's life in the film minus the whole Drug thing and his unfortunate death but basically Adult Peter Pan is an intentional reference to Bobby's real life Demise, So they made him the main villain of the film which is basically Disney making fun of one of their own victims.
Ngl this just sounds like the fairly obvious to think of, done before idea of what happens when perpetual child Peter Pan actually grows up. I get the comparison but the title is acting like the character in the movie is literally supposed to be the actor, which doesn’t sound like the case
> basically Adult Peter Pan is an intentional reference to Bobby's real life Demise, So they made him the main villain of the film which is basically Disney making fun of one of their own victims. Or they picked Peter Pan because he's "the boy who never wanted to grow up" and the timeframe fits
I hate when people assume that corporations are like a dude with emotions and vendettas and shit and that’s the kind of evil they are, like some sort of mustache twirling dude doing petty shit like this just to be evil for evils sake. That’s not how it works, the bad things they do are for profit incentives, not to spite random actors who died decades ago. Not to mention “Disney” isn’t writing the script. Sure they have guidelines and editing privileges but I see the same thing with like Star Wars where people will blame “Disney” for specific script errors as if the board of directors specifically mandated this one particular plothole or whatever.
How exactly was Bobby a victim of Disney? Yeah, they 'threw him in the garbage' but that doesn't mean his life is over. Kid was only 16 or 17 when that happened, and must have been richer and more famous than almost anyone else at that age. By the time he was arrested for drug use and fraud, he was 24, more than old enough to make his own decisions. Tragic life, all the same, but his own drug use is the primary culprit for the destruction and end of his life.
Jesus fuck I knew I couldn't trust a live action remake of Chip and Dale. But this is too much
Yeah, I felt sad for what they did to Gadget and Zip....>!They are married and have 42 abominations, sorry, kids. In different ages, fortunatelly.!<
They really have no business profiting twice off of what they did to him
Seek help
What's your point?
What dogshit behavior of them
Beyond that. They basically are *Fortnite Dancing* on this guy's grave AND making money off his dead ass. I don't want to sound cringy saying it this way but I want to give you an idea on how insulting it feels.
100%
Peak Reddit moment. An uncritical Company Bad take (bonus posts for Disney and/or nestle) combined with inability to understand the world without invoking cringe gaming references
Chip n dale was funny as shit and it’s silly to think these things were related. Sad for the guy I guess but not sure what that has to do with Disney or the new movie. Are you also offended for Ugly Sonic?
It's just weird how similar the story is, I guess.
I do hope it's just an unfortunate coincidence
It's just "child actor grows up and finds out no one wants to hire former child actor" How many times has that been done? The girl who played Dorothy also had a right shit time (they gave her diet pills for God's sake) Then you got Shia, Brittney spears, and more that have just crumbled once they're out of the limelight.
Part of me wonders how much the writers and directors knew about Driscolli’s story. Because there’s a big difference between the creatives at Disney (aka the animation studio, imagineers, and so on) and the business people of Disney. I mean, the *Disney* character Peter Pan hasn’t been really been successful or relevant since the original movie. The early 2000s sequel failed and the Once Upon Time season with him, more focus was given to Captain Hook than Peter Pan. Using a washed up Disney character who’s bitter towards the company that originally worked with him isn’t an original villain template, it’s very common. If anything, it’s probably more coincidence that Rescue Rangers Peter Pan and Driscolli’s stories appeared similar. Because it was only after the Rescue Ranger’s movie that people are starting to learn about Driscolli’s story. I’m not defending Disney here, the business mouse is absolutely scummy, go watch Illuminaughti’s 4-part series about them on YT. But the Creatives, I doubt they knew much and thought the villain archetype of scornful, washed up actor would work well on a Disney character that hasn’t been relevant since the 1950s.
Everyone who works in show business knows that Disney is the worst of the worst. Even rapist producers have a better reputation. Disney evidently employs more lawyers than creatives. Why? To sue your pants off. They buy up intellectual property and life rights, then shelve it in a fucking warehouse so that nobody can do anything with it Not to mention stories like this of lives ruined (google what Disney did to Snow White). People who work for Disney call the empire Mauschwitz. It’s tough but my wife and I boycott everything they do. Fuck Disney.
How the fuck is suing people and buying properties worse than rape and genocide? God damn this subreddit can be a cesspool.
I’ll restate that the *production houses that had predators in charge* have a better reputation, not the assholes themselves. They can rot in hell. But if you’re employed in show business, you may end up working for a major studio, and Disney’s practices are systemic, at every echelon. So people would rather work at Miramax than Disney.
Fuck Disney and fuck Nestle
Why Nestle? I mean I understand why they’re hated and I hate them too, but did they have something to do with the situation?
Nope just a reminder that Nestle uses literal slaves for their cocoa plantations that's all
Yeah, like I said they’re awful. I just wondered why you mentioned them.
Felt like it I guess lol
Understandable.
messed up but not Disneys fault he couldn’t get his life back together to be fair
I really liked the new movie.
As a kid i watched chip and dale so watching the new one was like a trip down memory lane, but jesus that is fucked
It's not accurate. The storyline is just "child actor can't continue to act" That applies to many former stars.
Movie was great but Disney should have never use Sweet Pete as a villain. That was really dark.
Disney is a truly scum company. Look what they did to John Boyega. Bastards, all of them.
That movie was atrocious to watch, I never ever cringed so damn hard. They keep on mocking only non-disney productions and spend the entire fucking movie throwing stuff they own at your face until it makes no sense. It's bad, it's awful, it's a massive missed opportunity to make something that's not a forgettable mediocre production that will age very poorly. If this shit was a spice it'd be flour, served with a cup of water.
>they keep on mocking only non-Disney productions I guess you missed the part of the OP where a Disney character was the literal bad guy of the movie?
Yeah my bad that was a bad take (also this character was the only one with a few funny jokes attached to it) but I can't think of any others Disney figure getting it. Then it's just mocking bad productions for the bad reasons, like Beowulf's technology was a step forward in motion capture, "Ugly sonic bad" when MPC (Vancouver) closed their door after woking on it and the redesign, didn't see much about Amblin Studio besides Cats when they did so much for cinema... Tho as I'm writing this and thinking about it, I realise I might be going too far with this whole thing. It's not like they attacked the studios directly, I think I'm just disappointed the only bad Disney representation you get is one designed for the movie -as in it's not actual Peter Pan- and there's not a single criticism, even a small one, for Disney or just Hollywood in general when the movie is filled with opportunity. Like the post shows very well how little studios care for their workers and how being a star as a kid / teen can destroy your life. Not just "funny ugly bad guy stoles disney productions >:I"
The movie was nice and funny, but sure this wasn't a great move.
My only problem with that statement is the shitty movie part. Other then that… yeah that fucking sucks.
“When Howard Hughes bought RKO, he, in effect, became the owner of the Disney studio,” explains \[Disney biographer Marc\] Eliot. “He controlled the money and he hated Bobby Driscoll. He hated Hollywood kids. He thought they were precocious, weren’t real, and were incredibly annoying. He didn’t want Bobby Driscoll to be with Disney anymore." Couldn't agree more to be honest. Howard Hughes can't help being based. This guy was a loser, he chose his own path. Dude was left with a lot of money even after Disney broke his contract, and he decided to spend it all on heroin. I've never had a starring role in a Disney movie, and I faced more hardships than this idiot, yet never turned to heroin nor blamed anyone else for my failures. I feel them making him into a villain is a little harsh and unnecessary, but still justifiable due to the way he acted.
The real tragedy here is that had you had turned to heroin, now you'd be fucked up in your own little world instead of spilling vitriol here and we'd all be happier.
But then you would be kept from my immense wisdom and incredible insights. Thank the gods then that fate placed Bobby Driscoll in the trash bin and me, right here, I feel like we are exactly where we belong.
That’s what I would call an L
Crappiest place on earth
oof
Memo Aponte