The Americanisation Of Fairy Tales By Disney

Is this a good thing and a useful tool to bring great stories and legends to a new generation? Or, is this another example of a giant US media/entertainment company riding rough shod over other cultures in the the pursuit of the dollar and to please the domestic US audience?

Well, watchya reckon?

 

I think that it takes a bit awya from the origial story, but it gets the message across.

 

I dont see whats wrong with it. I enjoy them.

 

Many of the real fairy tales are dark stories. This gets lost in the Disney translation imo.

I also hate the way Winnie the Pooh has an accent not of his ilk.

 

Yeah some of the stuff they do is enjoyable but they almost completely remake the story and change to many parts of it so that you really dont get the actual message. Disney's Hercules for example completely trashed that myth by screwing up way to many facts of the story. I personally dont like them but I've got a problem with anybody that screws up even the basic facts of stories. So I guess that we'll continue to see more because Disney is always after that all important $$$.

 

But it is not like Disney is preventing anyone from seeking out the actual versions, or doing research on their own.

They are simply different mediums, and should be looked upon as such..

My niece is 3, and she loves just about everything Disney, especially Snow WHite and the Dwarves..

I think she should be allowed to enjoy them in her own way, without worrying about how the evil queen was killed in the original, etc...

When she is older, I'll certainly help her experience the original Grimm version, or look up the story of Heracles, but there is no real rush..

 

Well, I don't think it's really that surprising that Disney would Americanize fairy tales for an American audience, and it's not like changing the story when it moves to a new location is really anything new either. For example, the Romans renamed figures in Greek Myth, the four Gospels have different details and were written with different takes on the life of Christ. Also, I know that Brits do spell it with an "s" but I think they should make an exception for "Americanization" since then the word would be an actual example of the concept.

 

Maybe that is why Disney cartoon are doing terrible now days.

 

The worst Americanization that Disney has done has been The Hunchback of Notre Dame. That was just... horrendous. It's not really a fairy tale, but it's a good example of how Disney can warp stories.

 

I loved Disney's Hunchback, but I hated how they seemed to plop kid stuff into a movie that was intended for adults.

If there were better animation houses outside of the US then let them show another version. I say, let some real MOVIE houses get the nuts to show a descent, proper version.

 

Hunchback was quite enjoyable except for those damn gargoyle thingies. But on the whole, the nice songs (the Hell Fire song was damn entertaining) compensate for the usual Disney "Americanization" of everything.

Indeed, that's pretty much how I feel about Disney cartoons: if it's entertaining, they can do as much "Americanization" as they want (Hunchback is agood example of this, IMHO). But if it's crappy, I won't like it, simple enough.

 

Ooh...the Hell Fire scene was awesome. Yeah, the gargoyles ruined the movie. I wish they had of kept the original Adults Edition.

 

I have no problem with it. They're primarily making their movies for an American audience, so I'd find it rather odd if they weren't Americanizing them. It would be like buying a present for your own child that they didn't want, but his friends did, so you got it so they could play with it. No, you buy toys for your kid. Disney makes movies they think they're own kids would want to see, which means American.

Not really something I have a problem with. It's their money, they can make movies however they want. And if people don't like the results, they can seek out other film versions, or the original source material.

 

Are you American?

 

I am.

The interesting thing though is that many of the stories are from Grimm's Fairy tails, and have been cleaned up consiterably. In the originals, they had a lot more sex, violence, pillaging and the like. If these were made in say, Japan, they would probably be a lot more like the original.

 

I don't think it's a matter of "Americanisation" as much as just trying to PC everything to death. Di$ney is in the business of making money. And they always have been. Even Mickey Mouse was created by someone else and purchased.

If you can't tell a story right, then don't tell it at all. If there are things in that story that aren't appropriate for children, then make up an original story that is.

On the subject, Di$neys next foray into plagerism will be a cartoon remake of Sheakespeare's tragedy Romeo & Juliet called "Gnomeo & Juliet" which will star Ewan McGregor. If the main characters don't die then that defeats the entire purpose of the story. But all bets at this point say that both characters will live happily ever after.

 

Even Mickey Mouse was created by someone else and purchased.

Where did you get that idea? ?

 

Where did you get that idea?

I saw it on a docementary about animation and on another about Walt Di$ney himself. The character of Mickey Mouse was created by a co-worker of his and he later purchased the rights to the character real cheap. There was even an episode of The Simpsons that parodied this.

There are a lot of things about Walt Di$ney that Di$ney Corp. has been covering up for years. If people knew what kind of person he really was, it would hurt sales a lot.

 

I doubt it. Most people I know have a pretty low view on Disney business practices anyway.

 

Where did the docementary come from? Where was it aired? This is the very first I've heard of this.

 

The documenary on animation was aired on Bravo and IFC sometime last year and was preceeded by a special on The Simpsons (at least on Bravo).

As far as the one about Walt Di$ney goes, that was something that a friend and fellow animation fan rented a long time time ago (back in the VHS days)and I can't remember who made it and I haven't seen it since.

But don't take my word for it, look it up. I'm sure some of that stuff in the documentary about Walt Di$ney was sensationalized a bit since pretty much everything is.

 

Found it, read it, but I don't see anything bad about Disney in it. The two were friends and they got a bad deal once before so Disney did the smart thing and kept the rights for Mickey so it wouldn't happen again.

Roy Disney even allowed the doumentry to go on, even putting the Disney label on it. It was Eisner who objected so much.


The Hand Behind the Mouse

 

I don't think that was the same documenary I saw, but that's basicaly the same story. The one I saw was about the entire life of Walt Di$ney and was fairly low budget from the 70's.

Good find.

 

I don't find the Americanization to be nearly as troubling as the ethnocentrism. Up until fairly recently, every Disney hero/heroine had always been a white person. That has changed more recently, thanks to Pocahontas, Aladdin, Mulan, Lilo & Stitch, etc. But it's fairly troubling to me personally that there's still never been a Disney animated movie with an African-American or black protagonist. They won't even release "Song of the South" on video because they're afraid to be called racist.

 

I don't think I'd call it Americanization. I'm not even sure what that is. I'd rather call it Disneyfication. They have certain formulas that they like and they stick with them, sometimes to much.