Disney's Subliminal Messages

People read way too much into things. I don't know if it's because our culture, despite having more things to do than ever, is designed for antisocial people who sit at home with too much time on their hands or if humans just have a predisposition to act like Freud, but it's kind of ridiculous how many rumours go around about Disney movies.

Disney isn't actually all that shy about hiding dirty jokes in their movies. I'm not talking about hidden boners or "sex" secretly written all over the place either. I'm talking about the run of the mill adult jokes that are right there subtly hidden in the dialog. Yes those exist. Children won't get them so no one has an issue when the genie in Aladdin and the King of Thieves says, "I thought the ground wasn't supposed to shake until the honeymoon." (What makes people think they'll notice the other stuff either for that matter?)

Instead of spending your time trying to convince everyone that Disney is secretly hiding dongs in its movies, why don't you campaign against the things that are actually there? I'm not saying these dirty jokes shouldn't be in there because they are damn entertaining, I'm just saying if you're going to complain, actually have something to complain about.

Thanks to the internet everyone seems to have a bug up their ass about something. One of those somethings happens to be Disney movies. Everyone seems to be convinced that they're brainwashing children in the Tyler Dirden "cock flash" way. I could argue that they are brainwashing children (that's a rant for another time), but they're not doing it by secretly giving the priest a boner in The Little Mermaid. 

That boner mentioned above was supposed to be the priests knee and if you actually look at the frames in question you'll relize it's either a knee or that priest has a serious penis deformation. After much complaint (and likely many face palms) Disney did remove that sequence from newer versions of the film just to get people to shut up. (That's what Disney gets for giving priests knees. Everyone knows they don't have knees.)

Now that I've dispelled (or more likely sparked people angrily telling me I'm wrong about) the rumours of the priest's boner someone else has to pop up and ask about the penis that was drawn on the VHS case. I will admit that yes it does suspiciously look like penis. Not going to lie, but that doesn't mean it was intentional. According to the artist, that piece of artwork was rushed and it's just what happens when you're hastily drawing something that already looks sort of phallic. It is quite possible that he didn't notice it until way later when some bored kid with no life decided to stare intently at the case.

Before you go telling me, "That's total bullshit! How could you not notice?" Let me tell you a story.

When I was a freshman in high school we were doing charcoal drawings in my art class. My teacher had us doing this (what I found frustrating and annoying) exercise of drawing a blurry image and she'd focus it in more and more as time went on. When the class ended, she had us put our drawings up on the wall. The next class she told us to take our drawings down and get to work. Mine wasn't there, so I went up and talked to the teacher. She asked me which drawing was mine and when I told her, she nodded like she totally knew why it was missing. She led me across the room to her desk where she opened a drawer and pulled out my drawing. She asked, "did you do this on purpose?" Me being a totally confused ninth grader said, "no." I didn't know what she was talking about. I went to sit down and get started. I saw my art teacher go across the room and could totally tell she was telling the other art teacher about what just happened. I remained confused until the other art teacher yelled and I quote, "Bad Penis Girl no more penises on the wall!" across the art room. I spent the next three years of high school being called the penis drawer by that art teacher who didn't bother to learn my actual name until my senior year.

So there you have it. It is completely possible to draw a giant dong and not notice until someone else points it out. If you don't believe that anyone, even me, could be that oblivious, then the only other explanation is that my subconscious mind had taken control and was making a political statement about the assignment.

Now for the whole "sex" written in The Lion King bologna. I've looked multiple times and even if I play the movie frame by bleeding frame, it's still a stretch. Sure I see a bunch of blobbular dust that could maybe form a word, but I highly doubt it was intentional.

People have this annoying habit of seeing things that aren't there. Have you ever looked at a knot in the floor board and saw a face? What about in the random placement of objects? It's the same basic principal here. This guy named Gestalt had this brillaint theory about closure. People generally like to connect object that are broken up. It's why you can look at a square drawn with dotted lines and still see the square. We piece things together in out minds. The sum is greater than the parts to use a more cliche explanation.

I also remain sceptic of the "sex" hidden everywhere theory just because of how freaking ridiculous it actually is. There is one video on YouTube where a guy litterally spends ten minutes ranting about this by taking random frames from Beauty and the Beast and finding ways to write "sex" in the blobbules of water in the frame. He's trying just a bit to hard for me to believe that it was intentional and that this guy's not just being a jackass because he has nothing better to do.

Then of course there is the suspicion that in Aladdin he whispers under his breath "good teenagers take their clothes off." Again I find this just people trying too hard to find something to complain about. If you actually listen or at the very least turn on the subtitles you'll discover that that he's talking to the damn tiger. You know, Raja, the giant tiger Jasmine's got as a body guard. He says, "Good Kitty, Take your claws off." Probably because that tiger was likely planning to eat the random guy that just showed up on it's owner terrace. Just a thought, but doesn't that make just a bit more sense (or really any sense at all).

While I find all the above claims to be total bullshit there is one case where there was some of that Tyler Dirden-esgue subliminal messaging going on. In the 1970s a movie called The Rescuers came out. There was a topless woman shown in one of the windows they fly past. It was only there for a fraction of a second, too quick for the human eye to consciously register. Disney didn't actaully play the whole denial game with this one because it was actually there. They said, "Well, will you look at that?", apologized, and took it out of later releases of the films. It is the only case of this that actually has any supported evidence.

I find it hilarious when people start saying that Disney must be guilty because they deny it so much. Well don't you deny things about you that aren't true? What the hell are they supposed to do? I personally like the option of saying, "Screw it! Believe what you want!"

There is something about having too much time on one's hands that makes everyone turn into less spectacularly bearded version of Freud. Seriously, it's kind of amazing how many blogs and websites are dedicated to debating this stuff.

The War On Classic Cartoons

Is it just me or has Cartoon Network declared war on classic cartoons? Don't get me wrong. I love cartoons, always have and always will, but a lot of the ones that are being remade are terrible. I spent my childhood watching cartoons and still spend more time than I should admit watching them. Hanna-Barbara cartoons alone make up at least half my cartoon related thoughts. The old cartoons were great because everyone could enjoy them.

The old Tom & Jerry covered everything. There was wonderous amounts of slapstick for everyone to enjoy. There was situational comedy. There was even comedy of manners (for those of you that don't know that's the highest form of comedy) shoved into these short mostly nonverbal surprisingly ungraphic, but ridiculously violent cartoons. They were genius.

Then Cartoon Network decided they had to keep resurrecting the poor show until even it's hoping to die. It doesn't matter whether they're on the mars, a pirate ship, or working for a magician you just can't make a two hour movie out of Tom & Jerry. It's boring and even the best slapstick gets old after awhile. The old ones worked because they were to the point and funny. The new ones don't because they're trying too hard to exist. They're dragging out the same story line for so long no one cares anymore. If you're gonna show a kid Tom & Jerry, please show him/her the classic ones.

Worse than that, Cartoon Network is destroying Looney Tunes. The old ones with Bugs in drag duping everyone, Wile E. Coyote trying too hard, and that one really annoying rooster who gets kidnapped by the tiny chicken hawk, are no longer the same. They have been revamped into what is called the Looney Tunes Show. It's like the writers once saw a picture of the characters with a half assed biography and decided to write a terrible sitcom. (Actually that's exactly what it is.) There's no Bugs in drag (at least not in any of the snippets I cringed through), they've completely butchered the personalities of the characters, and seriously what's the point of Daffy and Bugs if they're not trying to convince Elmer Fudd to blow the other one's head off? Please please please. If you're going to show your kid Looney Tunes, show them actual Looney Tunes. I'm begging you.

The ultimate crime against classic cartoons, however, is that of Scooby Doo: Mystery Incorporated. It is like the Scooby Gang's arch enemy got license to write about them. (Basically like what happened to Edgar Allen Poe. Look it up.) I am damn right depressed at the thought of children growing up thinking of this when someone mentions Scooby Doo. In future generations, no one will want to dress up as Velma, Daphne, Fred, or Shaggy for Halloween. Few thoughts are that depressing.

The classic ones were fun. Silly and light hearted. The same every time, but that's how cartoons work. The characters at the very least had brains. I don't care if you don't like the classic Scooby Doo (but if that's the case; What the hell is wrong with you?), but you at the very least should appreciate the fact that the characters aren't stupid. Scooby Doo: Mystery Incorporated sucked out everything about Scooby Doo that was awesome and replaced it with drrrrrrrrrr. I'm not even kidding.

Velma who was once the brains and most levelheaded of the group is now an irrationally angry slightly psychotic girlfriend who's pressuring Shaggy into the next step (not even sex, but just telling their friends). Fred who, while not the smartest, at least had something in his head, is now just a dude obsessed with traps. That literally is his personality. Daphne is just a girl who does nothing, but chase after Fred; trying just about anything to make him forget about traps and notice her. Shaggy and Scooby are about the same because messing too much with them is asking to be assassinated.

Who ever wrote this show sucked out the traveling around in a van, the actual solving of individual mysteries, and all the fun. Instead of traveling the world they stay in Coolsville. Instead of multiple mysteries there's this one nagging mystery involving some previous group of teens called Mystery Inc. With all this added space now that they don't have to do anything interesting, they just have annoying teen drama pitty parties. This show is like listening to a thirteen year old complain about everything.

The worse part is that there are no longer strong female characters. Sure Velma's kinda maybe possibly smart (actually no no she's not), but we don't see it in action because she's too busy bitching at Shaggy. At least in the old cartoons I cared if the saw hacked up Daphne. Now I kind of just hope there's somehow a disaster that leads to everyone's demise in a Quentin Tarantino blood bath sort of way.

If you let your kids watch these shows and don't at least show them the classics, "Parenting you're doing it wrong."

Stick World Comics

My friend makes these awesome comics. I figured the world should know more about them. so here's the link if you're interested.

Brittany S. Pierce Is A Genius

Since I am one of those mythical creatures known as a giant geeky dorky nerd, I have recently fallen in love with the show Glee. It's an awesome show and most people who say otherwise haven't actually seen it. Anyways, one of the characters in the show is a blonde cheerleader who is so stupid her GPA might just be negative. (Something that is somehow actually possible. Seriously I've seen it.) I however think that Brittany S. Pierce is a genius.

1. She doesn't over think anything.

How many times have you been trying to figure out what to do and your mind won't stop talking? You think so much about everything you get nothing, but a headache and usually the wrong solution. I do it all the damn time and never get anywhere.

Brittany doesn't over think it. She just goes with what she feels is right and things work out brilliantly for her. Her life is so much less complicated than mine simply because she just goes with it. There's no second guessing, over thinking, or loathing (of self or others). She does know what's going on she just doesn't rip it into tiny little pieces like the rest of us do.

2. Her ridiculous answers do have a basis in logic.

When she answers a question, the answers are so unbelievably wrong the audience can't help but laugh and face palm. However her answers do make sense (at least to my slightly cracked mind).

In one episode Mr. Shuster asks, "Who can tell us what an anthem is?" She replies, "The bottom of an ants pants." I find that a genius answer. If you split "anthem" into two words you get, "ant hem" which would be the bottom of an ants pants. (I spent all of high school making puns. No way I could miss this one.)

Another example. A teacher asks, "What's the capital of Ohio?" Brittany replies, "O." And she is correct O is the capital of Ohio. She thinks differently than most people and that is awesome! I kind of wish my brain worked like that.

One more just because. Mr. Shuster says, "What's a duet?" Brittany says, "A blanket." Duet sounds pretty similar to "duvet." I can see someone making that mistake. People mix up words and their meanings all the time. I know I do. Something sounds similar and our brain waves cross and we get a wrong answer that made sense before it left our mouth.

You'll also note that Brittany answers really quickly without hesitation. She just says the first thing that pops into her head. With all the useless junk I have in my head, I would sound like such a dumbass if I did that. Chances are you would too.

3. She's slow, but not stupid.

Brittany usually takes a moment to catch up. She processes the information a bit slower than anyone else, but she does catch up and she does know what's going on.

Example:
Mr. Shuster: Take it away, Brittany.
Brittany: Take what away?

4. She gets people better than anybody I know.

Seriously she is a genius when it comes to people. She knows exactly what they are and loves them for it regardless. She's nonjudgemental no matter what.

Since she's not over thinking everything, like us people who think we're oh so smart, she always knows what people need to hear. She knows Kurt is awesome and should celebrate it as much as possible. She knows Santana shouldn't hide who she is because who she is is awesome and so on. She gets people and doesn't care.

5. She's braver than most people.

Throughout the series she is never afraid to say what's on her mind, do what she thinks is right, or do what makes her happy. She seriously is the poster child for guts.

She offers to go first when coming out with Santana. (Which is seriously one of the scariest damn things.) She tells people what she feels all the time and is always willing to show that she doesn't get it. There's none of that prestigious pretend laughter when you don't get something that all us smart people do to avoid looking dumb.

Say what you want, but Brittany gets it. She really does. She sees the world completely differently from everyone around her and that makes for some damn entertaining statements, but Brittany, my friends, is a genius. If the Glee characters weren't fictitious, Brittany would be the one of them that would be happy for the rest of her life no matter what.

Velociraptors

When I first was allowed to watch Jurassic Park all the way through, (not just the scene where the baby velociraptor is born) I was like six. So at the perfect age to start enjoying it when people got ripped apart on film, velociraptors became my favorite. Let's face it velociraptors are kind of the most bad ass of all the dinosaurs.

In Jurassic Park, the velociraptors are large, intelligent, hungry lizards. Now everytime I look at an updated image of a velociraptor, the damn thing gets more feathers. It started with a tuft or two on the top of their heads in Jurassic Park III and has progressed ever since. Last I checked, it was looking like a very angry cross between a turkey and a parrot. The velociraptor is like a drag queen slowly getting more comfortable with it's sexuality and love of the performing arts.

While the velociraptor still remains totally awesome for it's ripping apart ability, I have a feeling the next time I see a picture of one it's going to look like an Angry Bird. Just a round ball of poofy brightly colored feathers. A very violent, six foot long ball of poofy feathers, but a ball of poofy feathers none the less.

The Cell Phone Conundrum

There used to be a time when horror movies just had to take place in the middle of nowhere and the audience had nothing to say about their inability to call for help. Now that everyone has a cell phone, there is almost a requirement for someone to pull one out at some point and either break it, lose it, or make the obligatory, "crap no service!" If it's not said somewhere in the film that the cell phone is useless or even that they just forgot it that day, the audience is going to leave saying the people are stupid for not calling 911 or even sending a text of, "SOS evil killer after me. At abandoned mansion. Hurry." Rather than the more standard complaints of "they shouldn't have split up" or "maybe they shouldn't have gone into the abandoned cabin." And as a film maker you can't have that.

In older horror movies, it's a pretty simple case of establishing no hope. Now it has to be established that there's no way out, no phone, no cell phone, and no wi-fi. The only thing dying more than the people is the damn cell phones. Horror movies are now homages to crappy cell service. Otherwise the audience would be face palming way more than the obligatory horror movie amount.

The fact that everyone has a cell phone does limit the amount of miscommunication related situations available in films. The fact that I have a computer in my pocket more advanced than the first space shuttle, kind of puts a damper on conflict.

In high school, I didn't have a cell phone and neither did my parents. There were all sorts of ridiculous misunderstandings, getting mixed up, and getting forgotten going on. Had my parents just had one indestructible Nokia, doing things would have been far easier. (To be fair we did have one shared family cell phone.) It's a lot harder to be forgotten when you can call someone and ask, "hey where the heck are you?" This state of constant communication really makes it harder to find conflict. (Maybe that's why there are so many stupid arguments online.)

Seriously just think of a show and add cell phones. Changes things doesn't it? Can you just imagine how much easier it would be? Hell there's a damn good chance there'd be a lower death rate, less miscommunication, and who knows what else. Really puts a damper on screenwriter laziness, doesn't it?

ParaNorman

I fell in love with the movie, ParaNorman the moment I saw it. It was a fantastic film. Creative, funny, and overall just plain great.

Since someone will complain if I don't say so SPOILER ALERT!

There was an endless stream of complaints about the fact that at the end of the movie it's revealed that the Jock character as gay.

As expected there were complaints from your normal everyday homophobes. That's just to be expected. As noted by the theory that "sex" is secretly written all over Disney movies, if a character were to sneeze and it could possibly be speculated into them saying something inappropriate, someone would complain.

What you wouldn't expect however is the people who called the screenwriters homophobic for the way they wrote it. In one article I read, the author said that they should have showed the characters' progression with the realization and that "the filmmakers felt having an openly-gay character would undermine the enjoyment of the film." They then called the filmmakers the homophobes.

I take issue with that. Personally I thought it was done brilliantly and I do believe it was shown quite well throughout the course of the film. At the very least, I saw it coming. (To be fair i see everything coming.) Throughout the entire film I kept thinking, "that guy is totally gay." I didn't actually expect it to be blatently stated on screen. That was the surprising part for me and I wanted to stand up and cheer. (Which I could've since my friend and I were the only ones in the theater). Let's face it, not even the meat-headiest of straight men could be that oblivious to a woman hitting on them as obviously as she was. Believe me, I know, I've been friends with some of them.

As for it not being mentioned sooner, why would it be? At what point in that situation would an openly gay person just blurt that out. Sorry to tell you, but gay people don't spend every waking moment thinking about the fact that they're gay. Just like straight people don't think about the fact that they're straight and women don't just think about tthe fact they have boobs. When was the last time you heard a straight person just bring up their sexuality for no reason? It would have made no sense for someone who is comfortable being gay and already out to bring it up at random points in time especially a point in time when they are a bit more preoccupied with zombies.

The way they revealed it at the end was brilliant as well. It was very nonchalant. In real life, you either find out someone's gay by your impeccable gaydar, they tell you because you asked them out or it just  came up in conversation, or they casually mention their boyfriend/girlfriend just like you'd mentioned yours.

To be honest, the fact that it's straight up said in a movie with a rating under PG-13 is alone amazing. For once, the multitudes of fans don't have to write countless fan fictions and subpar arguments for it to be true. We should just be glad that a children's movie has an openly gay character in it, rather than complaining about it.

I won't blame you if you didn't see it coming, but I will blame you for expecting it to be a big deal within the context of the film. Why does every movie with a gay character have to focus on that fact?