#criticism of Walt Disney co

[twopoppies]

"not that i can afford pleasing but disney is literally on the boycott list"

I don't care one way or another for pleasing either but please can we allow people to live their lives without throwing at them some boycott list internet warriors like to feel superior and get mad over. Over this past month I watched the remake of beauty and the beast, I had a cheeseburger at McDonald's and drank a pumpkin spice late from starbucks. This doesn't make me a bad person

Personally, I don’t think a brand aligning themselves with a company that is so polarizing is a smart move. As far as the boycott goes, I do think for some people it’s very much virtue signaling to bring that up, for others it is yet one more sign that this brand/person doesn’t align with their values.

I think this fandom tends to act as though Harry set off an atomic bomb every time something he’s connected to is anything less than absolutely pure from every standpoint. The truth is somewhere in between.

People have been complaining that Harry isn’t connected to Pleasing since, maybe, the fourth drop. You can’t have it both ways. He can’t be so disconnected that you won’t buy it and you think it sucks, but simultaneously be angry at him for collaborating with a company you don’t support. Yes, his name is attached to Pleasing, and maybe he signed off on this collab, but I don’t think we can use it as a watershed moment where we all realize he’s actually a terrible person.

[a34trgv2]

Why It Worked: Inside Out

Introduction: Inside Out is an animated coming-of-age film produced by Pixar Animation Studios and distributed by Walt Disney Pictures. Directed and co-written by Pete Docter, with the screenplay being co written by Meg LaFauve and Josh Cooley, the film stars Amy Poehler, Phyliss Smith, Lewis Black, Mindy Kaling, Bill Hader, Kaitlyn Dias, Diane Lane, Kyle MacLachlan and Richard Kind as Joy, Sadness, Anger, Disgust, Fear, Riley, her parents Bill and Jill, and Bing Bong respectively. Released on June 19, 2015, the film was a major box office success grossing $858.8 million on a budget of $175 million. It also received critical acclaim from critics and audiences alike. According to Rotten Tomatoes, out of the 384 reviews aggregated, 98% gave a positive review with an average rating of 8.9/10. It also received numerous awards, including an Oscar for Best Animated Feature, several Outstanding Achievement Awards at the Annies, a Golden Globe for Best Animated Feature, and a Critic's Choice Movie Award for Best Animated Feature. It is often seen as a culturally significant film for mental health and the importance of expressing one's emotions. I saw this film for my birthday back in 2015 and I loved it right out of the gate. After multiple rewatches over the years, I stand by my personal opinion that this is a masterpiece of animation and visual storytelling. I'm overjoyed to talk about this film now that it finally has a sequel out.

The Plot: This film has 2 stories that are interconnected to one another, taking place in the mind of an 11 year old girl. On the outside, it's a bout a kid moving to a new city and being overwhelmed by the sudden changes happening all at once. On the inside, it's about Joy and Sadness trekking through Riley's mind, while along the way understanding each other's importance. Together, they create a very unique and engaging plot about growing up and learning to express yourself. The film brilliantly cuts between Riley, Joy and Sadness' journey, and what's happening at HQ to organically show what Riley's feeling and how her actions have psychological consequences. In addition to having powerful gut punching drama, it's also a very funny film with plenty of slapstick, goofy gags, and impressive word play that always gets me to belly laugh. Michael Giacchino also provides an enchanting, dreamlike score with great use of the piano and brass sections. The true highlight of the story is, of course, Pixar's masterfully crafted and innovative animation. The film makes Riley's mind so vibrant and expansive with Dream Productions and Imagination Land being major highlights. The outside world also looks very well done with the people looking very appealing, San Francisco looking grimy yet lived in, and Riley's old home in Minnesota looking very welcoming and colorful. Speaking of color, the use of colors in this film is nothing short of excellent from the radiant colors of Riley's memories, to Riley's clothes reflecting her current state of mind throughout the film. I also love how they use black and gray to represent faded memories and lack of emotion. If there's one word to describe Inside Out's story and animation, it's colorful.

Cast and Characters: This is an outstanding cast they brought on board for this film. Shout outs to the film's casting directors Natalie Lyon and Kevin Reher for picking out some excellent actors. Amy Poehler was phenomenal as Joy, perfectly capturing her bubbly and eccentric personality while also naturally showing her vulnerability and frustrations. Phyliss Smith sound perfectly dower and soft spoken as Sadness, yet at the same time making her sound so innocent and relatable. Lewis Black was the best match for Anger, making him sound crusty, cynical, and having a short fuse. Mindy Kaling brought in the right amount of sass and pettiness as Disgust and her comradery with the other emotions was brilliant. Bill Hader did a great job making Fear funny and relatable as a character. Kaitlyn Dias also deserve major props for her vocal performance as Riley, making her sound like a soft spoken but fun kid who goes through a great character arc in the film. Lastly, Richard Kind was the absolute surprise standout of the cast as Bing Bong as not only did he do a great job making him funny, but also made him relatable, selfless, a bit of an airhead, but also really resourceful. The cast did such a great job bringing these characters to life, with all of them being iconic and memorable in their own way.

Where It Falters: Outside of maybe adding another scene or 2 with Riley's life in Minnesota, I wouldn't change a thing with this film. It's one of those films where the only nitpick I have is I wanted more. Fortunately, that's remedied with the existence of the 2024 sequel. Coming out a couple years sooner wouldn't have been so bad either, but like I always say, quality>quantity.

Conclusion: There are a select few movies I consider to be a masterpiece. Inside Out is most certainly one of those movies. With outstanding writing, iconic characters, wonderful voice acting, masterfully crafted animation, and an enchanting score, it has more than earned its cultural significance. I cannot recommend this film enough, especially for those who struggle with expressing themselves such as yours truly. I promise this film will speak to you as it has for me after all these years. Thanks so much for reading and I'll see you soon ;)

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Ramon Antonio Vargas at The Guardian:

The Washington Post’s Pulitzer prize-winning editorial cartoonist Ann Telnaes has resigned from her position at the newspaper after its refusal to publish a satirical cartoon depicting the outlet’s owner, Jeff Bezos – along with other media and technology barons – kneeling before Donald Trump as he gears up for his second US presidency. “I have had editorial feedback and productive conversations – and some differences – about cartoons I have submitted for publication, but in all that time I’ve never had a cartoon killed because of who or what I chose to aim my pen at,” Telnaes wrote on Friday in an online post on the Substack platform detailing her decision to quit. “Until now.”

In a statement reported by the New York Times, the Post’s opinions editor, David Shipley, defended the newspaper’s decision against publishing Telnaes’s cartoon, saying he disagreed with her “interpretation of events” and that “the only bias was against repetition”.

“Not every editorial judgment is a reflection of a malign force,” said Shipley, whose statement added that he had spoken with Telnaes and asked her to reconsider leaving. “My decision was guided by the fact that we had just published a column on the same topic as the cartoon and had already scheduled another column – this one a satire – for publication.” Telnaes’s Substack post from Friday contained a rough draft of her cartoon. Beside Bezos, who founded Amazon before buying the Post, the cartoon portrayed caricatures of Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg, Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong and Walt Disney Co mascot Mickey Mouse.

“The cartoon … criticizes the billionaire tech and media chief executives who have been doing their best to curry favor with … Trump,” Telnaes said. “While it isn’t uncommon for editorial page editors to object to visual metaphors within a cartoon if it strikes that editor as unclear or isn’t correctly conveying the message intended by the cartoonist, such editorial criticism was not the case regarding this cartoon.

“To be clear, there have been instances where sketches have been rejected or revisions requested, but never because of the point of view inherent in the cartoon’s commentary. That’s a gamechanger … and dangerous for a free press.” Telnaes announced her resignation less than three months after the Post and Bezos faced withering backlash over the outlet’s decision to prevent its editorial team from publishing an endorsement of Kamala Harris in the presidential election of 5 November. Soon-Shiong had also similarly refused to allow the LA Times’ editorial board to publish an endorsement of Harris.

[...] Telnaes won the prestigious Pulitzer for illustrated reporting and commentary in 2001 – coincidentally, while working for the LA Times Syndicate – and was a finalist in the same category for the Post in 2022. She also received the National Cartoonists Society’s Reuben award in 2017, becoming the first woman to win both that prize as well as a Pulitzer.

Pulitzer-winning cartoonist Ann Telnaes resigned from The Washington Post over the paper spiking her cartoon that was very critical of its owner Jeff Bezos in that the cartoon depicting Bezos and other tech and media moguls kneeling in front of a Donald Trump statue. The Post’s refusal to publish this cartoon is more proof that many outlets are obeying in advance to Trump’s attacks on the freedom of the press.

See Also:

The Left Hook: Drawing The Ire of Trump and the Broligarchy: A Cartoonist Resigns to Defend The Free Press

[beardedmrbean]

"Disney wasn't an antisemite"

Uh you sure you wanna die on that hill?

How about we ask the Jewish Press what they think

Actress Meryl Streep reignited a debate that has simmered below the surface in Hollywood for decades: Was Walt Disney anti-Semitic?

The occasion was the annual awards event of the National Board of Review, an organization of filmmakers, students, and movie scholars. Streep presented an award to Emma Thompson, for her role in the new movie “Saving Mr. Banks,” about the making of the 1964 Disney film “Mary Poppins.” Thompson co-stars as Poppins author P.L. Travers, alongside Tom Hanks as Walt Disney.

Streep took the opportunity to blast Disney as racist and misogynist who also “supported an anti-Semitic industry lobbying group.”

She did not actually call Disney an anti-Semite, but many people took it that way. The Hollywood Reporter declared that Streep accused Disney of being “sexist, racist and anti-Semitic.” Film professor David Hajdu said Disney was “a deeply flawed human being. A misogynist? You bet. An anti-Semite? That, too.” An unnamed “female Academy member” interviewed by the Reporter referred to him as “that old anti-Semite, himself, Mr. Disney.”

Hollywood historian Neal Gabler examined the anti-Semitism charge in his 2006 biography of Disney. “Of the Jews who worked [with Disney], it was hard to find any who thought Walt was an anti-Semite,” Gabler reported. “Joe Grant, who had been an artist, the head of the model department, and the storyman responsible for Dumbo… declared emphatically that Walt was not an anti-Semite. ‘Some of the most influential people at the studio were Jewish,’ Grant recalled, thinking no doubt of himself, production manager Harry Tytle, and Kay Kamen [head of Disney’s merchandising arm], who once quipped that Disney’s New York office had more Jews than the Book of Leviticus. Maurice Rapf concurred that Walt was not anti-Semitic; he was just a ‘very conservative guy.’ ”

On the other hand, one former Disney animator, David Swift, has claimed he heard Walt make an anti-Semitic remark, and another ex-staffer, David Hilberman, has alleged that one employee was fired because he was Jewish. (However, according to Gabler, Disney himself was rarely involved in firing anyone except the top brass). In addition, the original animated version of the “Three Little Pigs” portrayed the Big Bad Wolf as a stereotypically Jewish peddler, although after complaints, the segment was altered.

When it comes to explicit proof that Disney was anti-Semitic, the critics’ case weakens.

“There is zero hard evidence that Disney ever wrote or said anything anti-Semitic in private or public,” according to Douglas Brode, author of Multiculturalism and the Mouse: Race and Sex in Disney Entertainment. Brode told The Hollywood Reporter that Disney used more Jewish actors “than any other studio of Hollywood’s golden age, including those run by Jewish movie moguls.”

Gabler also revealed that Disney “frequently” made unpublicized donations to a variety of Jewish charities, including a Jewish orphanage, a Jewish old age home, Yeshiva College (precursor to Yeshiva University), and the American League for a Free Palestine. The League, better known as the Bergson Group, publicly supported the armed revolt against the British in Palestine by Menachem Begin’s Irgun Zvai Leumi. Disney was embracing not just Zionism, but its most militant wing.

How, then, did the rumors of Disney’s alleged anti-Semitism spread so far and wide?

That’s where Meryl Streep comes in. The “anti-Semitic industry lobbying group” with which Disney was associated was the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals. The group’s statement of principles said nothing about Jews; its declared purpose was to prevent “Communist, Fascist, and other totalitarian-minded groups” from gaining a foothold in Hollywood. Among its members were politically conservative actors such as John Wayne, Clark Gable, and Ginger Rogers. But some of its other members were accused of being privately anti-Semitic, and in general it had a reputation as being reactionary.

Gabler believes that “the most plausible explanation” for the rumors about Disney were a kind of guilt by association: “Walt, in joining forces with the MPA and its band of professional reactionaries and red-baiters, also got tarred with their anti-Semitism. Walt Disney certainly was aware of the MPA’s purported anti-Semitism, but he chose to ignore it…. The price he paid was that he would always be lumped not only with anti-Communists but also with anti-Semites.”

The irony is that while Meryl Streep was condemning Walt Disney for associating with extremists, she herself was doing the very same thing. The actress to whom she gave that award when she made her anti-Disney speech, her close friend Emma Thompson, is active in the anti-Israel boycott movement.

Streep hailed Thompson as “splendid, beautiful, practically a saint…a living, acting conscience.” Yet this “saint,” together with other British actors, publicly urged a boycott of Israel’s Habimah theater troupe when it participated in a festival in England. Habimah, of course, has nothing to do with Israeli government policies or any political issues. Its only “crime” is that it’s Israeli.

By contrast, Thompson had no problem with the National Theater of China taking part in that festival, even though it really does represent the Chinese regime – a regime guilty of the most heinous human rights violations, aid to terrorists around the world, and support for the genocidal government of Sudan. But of course, hypocrisy is the hallmark of the “saints” of the anti-Israel boycott crusade. ______________________

The Antisemitism claim is literally communist propaganda.

[burningthrucelluloid]

Christmas Carol-cember Day 3

When you name a cartoon character “Scrooge McDuck,” you’re pretty much guaranteed to have that person play Ebenezer Scrooge.

If you aren’t? Then what are you even doing when this golden opportunity is literally gift wrapped for you? It’s like making a character named “Spider-Man" and he has nothing to do with arachnids. Wasted opportunity.

This 1983 short film truly was a testament to the animation team at the Disney Company, especially for a time when the higher ups were strongly considering shutting down the animation department after a slew of films distributed by the company that weren’t major financial draws. Even more impressive to consider this short film was conceived by the late Disney Legend Burny Mattinson, who passed away last year after a 70-year career at the Walt Disney Company. He started out working as an in-betweener and character animator for 30 years until he grew bold and sent a pitch to Disney’s former CEO, Ron Miller. Miller, according to Burny, tried to strong-arm him over the pitch but Burny held his ground until Miller finally relented, admitted he actually liked the pitch and immediately approved the project.

While the short was originally intended to be released on Christmas 1982, an animator strike delayed the short from it’s Christmas release, forcing Disney to show the short before a re-release of 1977’s “The Rescuers.” Funny enough, the last Mickey Mouse cartoon released in theaters was 30 years prior under RKO Radio Pictures. The short was critically received upon release, even garnering Mattinson an Academy Award nomination. As a result, Mattinson found himself a co-director on a feature film for “The Great Mouse Detective,” bringing along two character animators he had worked alongside.

But the story of John Musker and Ron Clements and their success within the Disney Company is a story for another day.

Naturally since this is an animated short film, many story beats from the original story had to be dropped. Although Scrooge’s nephew remains in the story, his connection to Scrooge’s sister Fran is not present. Nor is the iconic moment of the Ghost of Christmas Present showing “Want” and “Ignorance" to Scrooge as he warns they are the children of Mankind.

But I suppose that’s the tricky thing with adaptation. How much to keep vs how much not to keep.

I was about to ask why Fred was even here until I learned that Burny Mattinson’s dream project was to have the “Big Five” of Disney here. Mickey Mouse, Minnie Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy and Pete. While many of the original voice actors had passed on, Clarence Nash was still alive though he had to limit performing the Donald Duck voice as it strained his voice. A rumor that may or may not be true tells that the voice directors brought Nash in and worried if he could still do the voice until someone spilled coffee on Nash’s arm. As the story goes, Nash cursed out in the Donald voice and the voice directors supposedly just said “yup, he’s still got it.”

He died two years later, marking this short the last time one of the surviving original Disney voices would perform their characters for a new animated short.

But of course, this is about performances of Scrooge. How does this one measure, especially when it’s animated and has more to do in a short time?

Alan Young as Scrooge McDuck is, to put it best, just a perfect combination of what you want out of the character of Ebenezer Scrooge.

His Scottish drawl and delivery of his lines makes his Scrooge feel genuine.

Someone that is cold, but clearly able to comprehend sympathy.

It also helps that Alan Young makes Scrooge’s greed hilariously lacking in self-reflection; my favorite line being “In his (Marley) will, he left me enough money to pay for his tombstone. Yet I have him buried at sea!” 

It’s a funny take but Young captures the greed that befits the Scrooge character, but also demonstrates the humanity that is clearly inherent. Such as the remorse when he reflects on losing Isabelle or the dawning realization that his penny-pinching causes direct harm to Tiny Tim. Heck, that sequence of Scrooge seeing Mickey Mouse shed a tear before laying Tim’s crutch against his tiny grave, all done without words, is beautifully done. Huge props to Mattinson and his animation team for pulling that off.

Even more praise is deserved with the sequence that has become something of an image of nightmares for some kids who saw this: Pete tossing Scrooge into an open grave as smoke and fire bellows out from below while Scrooge pleads for a second chance, complete with Will Ryan’s cackle at Scrooge’s terror.

Even if it kind is lifted from another Christmas Carol movie, but we’ll get to that one in due time.

Revisiting this short film after all these years and reading up on the passion that the late Burny Mattinson had to make this labor of love at a time when the Disney Company shut down the short films department as a cost-saving measure and was considering doing the same to the animation department as well, really allowed me to appreciate this cartoon more than I did as a kid.

The reunion of many Disney characters who were most likely forgotten by that time (Willie the Giant or Ratty and Moley come to mind) and given exposure to an new audience while also introducing a new generation to a voice for Scrooge McDuck who would ingratiate himself with the character until his death in 2016.

As far as adaptations of the Charles Dickens story go, this one is perfectly suitable for all age groups and I would easily recommend it for parents who want to introduce their children to the Dickens story without necessarily traumatizing them.

It’s the right balance of Christmas cheer and scares to get them into the story.

“Mickey’s Christmas Carol” is available for streaming on Disney+.

Next time? We return to television with a Scrooge not from England, but from America...

[kylesvariouslistsandstuff]

Well, THAT's definitely big...

Jennifer Lee has stepped down as Chief Creative Officer of Walt Disney Animation Studios, following two genuine box office losses in STRANGE WORLD and WISH, in addition to several directors and staff leaving, some of which criticizing what the studio's output and workflow has become...

A decision she was apparently largely behind, herself, as she wants to continue her career as a director/writer/filmmaker and not lead a studio's creative process...

Taking her place is Jared Bush, who was a co-director and writer on ZOOTOPIA with Byron Howard and Rich Moore (both of them were considered to lead Disney Animation in 2018 when John Lasseter was being ousted), then graduated to director (no "co") on ENCANTO, and is confirmed to be the director of ZOOTOPIA 2. In addition to that, he did some script stuff for MOANA, and served as part of the studio's creative leadership for about a decade, his earliest WDAS credit being BIG HERO 6. Elsewhere in the Mouse domain, he co-created Disney TV Animation's PENN ZERO: PART-TIME HERO with former WDAS staffer Sam Levine, who was at one point set to direct the video game adventure movie that later evolved into WRECK-IT RALPH.

A lot of his prior work, curiously, was in network TV. Very little in animation, though. He got to WDAS when BIG HERO 6 was in the works, and immediately became part of the leadership there. Contrast that with Lee, whose only film/TV media credit prior to arriving at WDAS in 2011-ish to work on WRECK-IT RALPH's script was... A 2004 short film called A THOUSAND WORDS, which another RALPH writer - Phil Johnston - wrote and directed. Must've been a real referral! Soon after, Lee found herself writer and director on FROZEN, directing alongside veteran Chris Buck of TARZAN and SURF'S UP fame. That movie was a troubled-as-hell production, stuff was changed and re-arranged at the very last minute, it goes on to become the highest grossing animated movie (holding the title for nearly 6 years) and a worldwide phenomenon... And Disney Animation's first Oscar for Best Animated Feature winner.

So after that, after her story work on ZOOTOPIA, and after her exec roles on other movies, they made her CCO while she was deep in production on FROZEN II. Which despite being an equally troubled production where many last-minute changes were made, was still a huge box office smash... COVID-19 definitely hit her run as CCO like a freight train, as I do think RAYA AND THE LAST DRAGON and ENCANTO would've fared well at the box office w/o a pandemic going on. The latter won the BAF Oscar and was a monster success on Disney+ in addition to having a 2x Platinum-selling soundtrack in the U.S. alone. I myself also feel that those two films are the strongest movies released during her tenure.

But even the good seemed to be marred by a lot of the things that were evident in Lasseter's tenure: Last-minute changes to things and upending whole movies the closer they get to the finish line, director removals and swaperoos (RAYA, particularly)... and much more caving to the focus groups. I also feel that Lee's storytelling instincts seemed to translate to "Well let's do every movie like FROZEN. The same kinda tone, art style, dialogue, etc." When it doesn't fit every movie, especially when they're going for genres that aren't what FROZEN is. I'd imagine it's the rest of the leadership too, and who she has to answer to and work with. Lasseter seemed to know how to skirt around focus groups for the most part, which could explain why some of the Lee-era movies just lack any kind of bite or even any kind of distinct directorial vision. When I hear stories like "The WISH co-director's 7-year-old kid got scared by the original ending, so they changed it", I do not approve. I don't think that's a good way of doing things. I kinda got the sense that she was unsure of herself being the leader and maybe trusted others over her own instincts... Thus her choosing to step down and focus on FROZEN III & IV and other projects checks out honestly.

The structure there has to change, really, no matter if Lee or Bush are leading the filmmaking charge. WDAS needs to worry less about living up to their legacy, and think more about creating new and dynamic kinds of movies that build a legacy in the first place. Like the way Walt himself and his crew did. That being said, Bush I think is a decent choice, with his experience and whatnot, he may do the leader thing just fine. MOANA 2 is likely the end of the Lee era then, as it's only two months away from release. ZOOTOPIA 2 is already in full production, as evidenced by the scene shown at D23 last month, so is that bridge to the Bush era? Or does little change under his role as CCO? Sometimes a filmmaker being CCO means the movies made by multiple people end up suiting that person's vision. And can lead to things being homogeneous.

We'll have to see, but it's a huge development nonetheless.

Lee has only lasted 6 years in charge, Lasseter lasted 11-12 years. His ouster was awkwardly prolonged when word got out about his inappropriate behavior, first going on "sabbatical leave" for half a year, and then being in some "consultant" role at the company before leaving altogether over one full year after the accusations got out.

Another cool detail about this change... Lee's directing partner on FROZEN III & IV is Marc Smith, not Chris Buck like the first two movies. Buck also directed WISH, and I wonder if - since he's free of FROZEN duties - he's staying at WDAS or he packs his bags and directs somewhere's else? WISH didn't seem like a particularly rewarding production for anybody, in addition to becoming a critical dud (a rare one for WDAS, with a low Rotten aggregate) and box office disaster, sooooo... That remains to be seen. As is what the 2026 original movie is... Maybe that's why Lee was weirdly quiet about it at D23...

[haggishlyhagging]

Media critic Jennifer L. Pozner has spent thousands of hours and an immense amount of patience watching both cable news and reality television, and understands better than the average person how alike they've become. "We treat stories that we would have never treated as journalism twenty years ago like headline news," she muses. And we treat reality TV the same way. More relevant to feminism, however, is how the reality genre has harnessed the belief in a postfeminist world and, in doing so, reframed retrograde gender dynamics as expressions of freedom and empowerment. Far more than any backlash could have predicted, the feminist rhetoric of individuality, opportunity, autonomy, and choice has been co-opted by a consumer media that has very non-ulterior motives for presenting women as willingly sexualized, hyperfeminine ciphers.

In Pozner's 2010 book Reality Bites Back: The Troubling Truth About Guilty-Pleasure Television, she asserts that one of the most jarring features of reality TV is the way it urges its female participants—and often, the women and girls who watch them—toward narrower and narrower definitions of beauty, self-worth, and success, as well as a truncated sense of what kind of life is possible and desirable, all while encouraging them to see other women only in terms of competition and comparison. But "reality" functions as a magic shield against accusations of racist and sexist cliché and regressive storylines: producer and participants alike will reason that if you put twenty-five women in a room with a man they barely know, of course the evening will end with the women sobbing, yelling, yanking each other's hair extensions out, calling each other sluts, and drunkenly slurring, "We're meant to be together" to floor lamps. Reality TV is part of an ongoing narrative of postfeminism that, like Wonderbra billboards once did, assures women that feminism has granted them the power and the freedom to be whatever they want to be. And if what they want to be just so happens to conform to a smorgasbord of insecure, catty, vapid, and villainous stereotypes that even Walt Disney's frozen head would reject as too cartoonish, who's to say that's not empowering?

Let's take The Bachelor because, since it's one of the highest-rated network shows for more than a decade, we kind of have to. Since its debut in 2002, ABC's reality flagship has drawn in advertisers' favorite cash-cow demographic, women 18-34, by the millions, and has served as a barometer of how young, heterosexual, and mostly white women are encouraged to alter their ambitions, personalities, and behaviors to compete in the dating market. The show, mused media critic Susan J. Douglas when it premiered, "offers highly normative female ‘types’ into which most women allegedly fall ... urged to place themselves on a post-feminist scale of femininity to determine how far they have to go to please men without losing all shreds of their own identity and dignity. In the process, young women calibrate, for better and for worse, what kind of female traits are most likely to ensure success in a male-dominated world." For twenty seasons, the series has confirmed centuries' worth of entrenched beliefs about what women want (marriage, money, the knowledge that they've beaten out masses of other women for the a man they barely know), and what men seek (a thin, deferential woman who's only as ambitious as she needs to be to bag a husband).

-Andi Zeisler, We Were Feminists Once

[dorothydalmati1]

Obscure Animation Subject #71: All Dogs Go to Heaven

Originally posted on Twitter on May 21, 2023.

Happy birthday to me! Since its my birthday today, why not talk about a feature film for a change?

It is directed by Don Bluth with a screenplay by David N. Weiss from a story by various people in the industry business.

The film is a collaboration between Goldcrest Films and Sullivan Bluth Studios Ireland Ltd., a co-production between the United Kingdom, Ireland and the United States, it was distributed by United Artists in the US and Rank Film Distributors in the UK and Ireland.

Released on November 17, 1989 in the US, February 8, 1990 in the UK and April 6, 1990 in Ireland, it follows a shepherd named Charlie B. Barkin, whose murdered by his former friend, Carface Carruthers. Charlie escapes from Heaven to return to Earth where his best friend, Itchy Itchiford.

Charlie still lives, in order to take revenge on Carface. Instead, he ends up befriending a young orphan girl named Anne-Marie (voiced by Judith Barsi in her final film role). In the process, Charlie learns an important lesson about kindness, friendship and love.

On its US release, it competed directly with Walt Disney's The Little Mermaid, released on the same day. While it did not repeat the box-office success of Sullivan Bluth's previous features, it was successful on home video, becoming one of the biggest-selling VHS releases ever.

And, its a very bizarre piece of animation I will say. Critics were polarized on the film and I was confused when watching, being a serious film about death that the gabling Shepherd is facing, then shifts to a cutesy tone when the girl comes in then, dark as hell?

Yeah, this is the most bizarre film from Bluth. It didn’t do very well at the box-office when competing with the superior Little Mermaid, but when it was released on home media, it became a sleeper hit and has been on top of the VHS sales, forming a cult following.

It was so successful that a theatrical sequel, a television show and direct-to-video holiday film were produced. Afterwards though, nothing from the franchise came since. However, it still has its fandom and like The Little Mermaid, it may get its live-action remake, who knows…

It may not be the best from Bluth, but I highly recommend it if your curious. It’s such an interesting film to discuss about, although it went through more hell than heaven. Kinda a shame it did because the sequel sucked, the TV show is meh and the Christmas film also sucked.

[courseyoulovemeyoudontknowme]

WALL-E (2008, Andrew Stanton)

22/03/2024

WALL-E is a 2008 CGI animated film, directed by Andrew Stanton; produced by Pixar Animation Studios, in co-production with Walt Disney Pictures, and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures.

The film, created and written by Stanton himself together with Pete Docter and Jim Reardon, is the ninth Pixar feature film and tells the story of the robot WALL-E, who in the distant future is the only inhabitant of the planet Earth, now abandoned by human beings due to excessive pollution and the continuous accumulation of waste.

The film was acclaimed by critics for the quality of the animation, the technology, the story and the soundtrack, obtaining numerous awards, including the 2009 Oscar for best animated film (out of 7 nominations), the Golden Globe and the BAFTA in the same category. It is dedicated to Justin Wright, a Pixar animator who died in the company's studios on March 18, 2008.

In 2105 the level of pollution on planet Earth is very high, with the Earth's surface now completely covered in garbage.

People on the Axiom move in floating seats through which they can also feed themselves drinks and communicate only by speaking through holographic screens.

WALL-E gives the planet to EVE, who closes it inside herself, after which the two sympathize, kiss and begin to fly in space, attracting the attention of two humans.

AUTO then uses his taser to melt the robot's central memory, which falls unconscious and with the plant inside it into the waste dump together with EVE, who is turned off.

In the meantime, the captain manages to stand up and grab AUTO, then deactivate it and take manual control of the spaceship, directing it towards Earth with a hyperjump.

WALL-E: is the protagonist of the film, he is similar to a cube equipped with two tracks moved by three gears each. He is equipped with two cameras as eyes, mechanical arms that allow him to grasp objects and a device that allows him to compact waste.

EVE outwardly resembles Jony Ive's designs for Apple, Inc. (owner of Pixar), in particular the iMac G3.

Upon the announcement of the discovery of the plant, the commander is initially scared because of the radical change that returning to Earth will entail, but thanks to the involuntary help of WALL-E he remains fascinated by the plant (using his time to research Earth on the computer of the spaceship) and will do anything to get home.

AUTO: is the main antagonist of the film, "voiced" in the original by the MacInTalk computer program (developed by Apple).

[squideo]

Squideo’s Favourites: WALL·E 🌱

Released in 2008 as Pixar Animation Studio’s ninth feature film, its third since the company was purchased by the Walt Disney Company in 2006, WALL·E had been in the works since the nineties. Created by Andrew Stanton and Pete Docter, this fast classic has become one of Pixar’s standout films. So much so that Disney pushed for an Academy Award Best Picture nomination.

Controversially, this wasn’t accepted by the judges but WALL·E did go on to win their Best Animated Feature prize, and also scooped it up at the BAFTAs, Golden Globes, Hugo Awards, People’s Choice Awards, Saturn Awards, and many more. It even scored two Grammys for Randy Newman and Peter Gabriel’s music performances.

We’re diving into the production behind this animated film, exploring the style and techniques which came together to create this compelling story.

Creating a Story

When Andrew Stanton first came up with the idea for WALL·E, the premise was simple: “what if mankind left Earth and somebody forgot to turn the last robot off?” This was first pitched in 1994 when the young company was thinking about its future films, yet WALL·E wouldn’t start production until 2003 – eventually making it onto screens in 2008.

Stanton continued to develop the idea of a Robinson Crusoe robot with Pete Docter in the nineties, even as both went on to direct other Pixar projects – Finding Nemo (2003) and Monsters, Inc (2001) respectively. There was doubt, however, that this film could be pulled off. Pixar had created anthropomorphised robots before in its first animated short Luxo Jr. (1986). The lamp depicted in this short would become Pixar’s mascot, but was a feature film about a robot something that could be compellingly animated?

What helped to move WALL·E into production was the release of the massively successful Finding Nemo. Like robots, fish weren’t expressive. Like outer space, water was difficult to animate. And yet they pulled it off, releasing what became the highest-grossing animated feature film of all time up to that point and Pixar’s first Academy Award winner. Directed by Stanton, he now had the attention of the company who were eager to hear his next idea.

“WALL-E was a very conscious dive into risk. I knew nobody really wanted to make it. But I also knew nobody could say no to me because Nemo was just so big… we’d been so successful at that point that we could afford the hiccup. If we called it wrong economically or critically, we’d survive it.” Andrew Stanton

The film centred on two robots who only spoke when communicating their names and directives. The majority of WALL·E’s first half is largely free of dialogue, with the exception of live-action recordings from Hello, Dolly! (1969) and Buy n Large’s owner. Many robot characters only converse with chirps and beeps, and the only robot with full lines of dialogue is 2001: A Space Odyssey-inspired villain Auto.

Key to getting WALL·E into production was the approval of Steve Jobs, who was Pixar’s primary investor and acted as their co-founder and chairman. Jobs split his time at Pixar with Apple where, in 2004, an exciting new product was announced to a select number of people: the development of the first iPhone. The developments at Apple ended up having a profound impact on WALL·E, with the team at Pixar receiving prototype phones before the general public. The film was punctuated throughout with Apple references, using the sound of the Mac boot-up chime when WALL·E finishes charging, and the iPod and iPhone inspiring EVE’s design.

The story is built on themes of environmentalism and global catastrophe, examining consumerism and complacency. One of Pixar and Disney’s most politically themed films, WALL·E attracted conservative criticism but that didn’t stop it from performing at the box office: grossing $532 million worldwide. Receiving widespread acclaim, WALL·E became the second Pixar feature film to be preserved by the National Film Registry and Library of Congress in 2021. In 2022, WALL·E also became Pixar’s first film selected by The Criterion Collection.

Animation Style

While other Pixar films typically generated between 50 and 75,000 storyboards for each production, WALL·E ended up with over 125,000 drawings and 96,000 storyboards. A lot of thought had to go into the character’s design, since their emotions would have to be conveyed physically rather than verbally.

“Robots are a huge challenge, because robots are function-based machines. When you’re drawing them, you can only make up so much stuff that doesn’t actually function, or the person looking at them, even if they’re not engineers themselves, they’re going to notice that that joint wouldn’t actually work. So it became important to look at actual robots. You can only make so much up out of your head.” Jason Dreamer

The team looked at a variety of robots, including those made for bomb disposal. For Jim Reardon, head of story for WALL•E, it was important that they didn’t “draw human-looking robots with arms, legs, heads and eyes, and have them talk. We wanted to take objects that you normally wouldn’t associate with having humanlike characteristics and see what we could get out of them through design and animation.”

To help, Stanton arranged film screenings of classic silent films from the likes of Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton to show how silent film actors told stories without reliance on dialogue.

To create the wasteland that WALL·E is left behind in, the animators looked at everything from local dumps to the abandoned city of Chernobyl. For the modern ship Axiom, they looked to Disneyland’s Tomorrowland and cruise ships. To design the human characters, they consulted with physiologist James Hicks to find out the effects of atrophy and prolonged weightlessness while living in space, proving that no detail was too small for the team behind WALL·E.

All of these considerations created a future that seems tangible, and helps to drive the importance of the film’s themes. WALL·E ends on an optimistic note, with Jim Capobianco’s end credits which show the evolution of humanity through different schools of art. For audiences facing the realities of climate change and environmental destruction, this confidence in the power of humanity to fix our world is the right ending. Perhaps explaining why it is one of the few Pixar films to receive no sequel or animated shorts. The story is perfect as it is.

Get Started With Your Video

Inspired to create a unique animated video of your own? Watch the video below to get a better understanding of how Squideo can help promote your business, then get in touch with us to find out more!

[intothewildsstuff]

Disney beats investor lawsuit over feud with DeSantis | Reuters

Fucking conservatives

[enterprisewired]

Disney to Name Bob Iger’s Successor in 2026, Appoints James Gorman as New Chair

Source: telecom.economictimes.indiatimes.com

Share Post:

LinkedIn

Twitter

Facebook

Reddit

Walt Disney Company has officially set a timeline for the announcement of Bob Iger’s successor as CEO, signaling a critical milestone in its leadership transition. On Monday, Disney announced that the company would name Iger’s replacement in early 2026, marking the first time the entertainment giant has set a formal timetable for this crucial decision.

The move is seen as a long-awaited step toward addressing Disney’s succession challenges, which have plagued the company for several years. Iger, known for transforming Disney through key acquisitions, including Pixar, Marvel, and Lucasfilm, has had his retirement date extended multiple times. Initially returning from retirement in 2022 after his chosen successor, Bob Chapek, was ousted, Iger had planned to stay for two years but later extended his tenure until 2026.

While the announcement comes as a relief to many investors, the search for a suitable successor to Bob Iger remains a critical challenge. Disney has yet to make a final decision, with several internal and external candidates in the running for the role. The succession plan will be closely monitored as Disney aims to ensure a smooth leadership transition before Iger’s expected departure.

James Gorman to Lead Disney’s Board as Chair

In addition to revealing the CEO succession timeline, Disney also announced the appointment of James Gorman, a veteran executive from Morgan Stanley, as its new chairman of the board. Gorman, who will take over the role on January 2, 2024, brings a wealth of experience, having served as CEO of Morgan Stanley for 14 years, where he led the firm through significant growth, particularly in its wealth management division.

Gorman’s leadership in executing Morgan Stanley’s own succession plan, which saw Ted Pick assume the CEO role while other contenders remained at the firm, has earned him praise from peers. His focus on transparency and rigor in leadership transitions is expected to play a key role as Disney embarks on its search fo rBob Iger’s replacement.

The appointment of Gorman comes as Mark Parker, the current chair of Disney and executive chairman of Nike, steps down after nine years on Disney’s board. Parker expressed confidence in Gorman’s leadership, noting that his experience would be instrumental in guiding Disney through its CEO succession process, a top priority for the board.

Candidates for Disney’s CEO Role Emerge

As Disney gears up for the 2026 leadership transition, several internal candidates are emerging as potential successors to Bob Iger. Among the contenders is Dana Walden, Disney Entertainment Co-Chair, who is seen as a creative executive with a track record of success in television. Walden’s deep relationships with talent and her creative vision align closely with Bob Iger’s leadership style, making her a strong candidate.

Other potential successors include Josh D’Amaro, the charismatic chairman of Disney Experiences, who oversees the company’s lucrative theme park operations, and Jimmy Pitaro, the chairman of ESPN, known for spearheading the sports network’s digital transformation. Alan Bergman, a Disney veteran who oversees the company’s film studios, is also seen as a strong contender, having led successful box office hits this year.

Disney’s board, led by Gorman, will continue to evaluate both internal and external candidates as the company prepares for its leadership transition. As the process unfolds, investors and analysts will keep a close watch on the company’s efforts to ensure a smooth and successful handover in 2026.

[secretstalks]

Overcoming the Gender Gap in ‘Founder Mode’: Insights from Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky on Women Founders’ Challenges

The tech world has been abuzz with discussions about “founder mode” this week, a management approach that emphasizes direct involvement from founders rather than relying heavily on delegation. This concept has sparked varied reactions, particularly among different groups of founders.

Brian Chesky, CEO of Airbnb, recently highlighted this discussion, prompting Paul Graham, co-founder of the startup accelerator Y Combinator, to write an essay on the topic. Graham described founder mode as a hands-on approach to managing a company, contrasting it with “manager mode,” which typically involves delegating responsibilities and allowing team members more autonomy.

Chesky's remarks on founder mode sparked significant conversation, especially on social media. He noted that women founders have reached out to him, expressing that they feel excluded from adopting founder mode in the same way men might. Chesky emphasized that this disparity needs to be addressed.

In response to a query about what he meant by “permission,” Chesky shared a screenshot of a 2020 Business Insider article titled, “The Fall of the Girl Boss is Actually a Good Thing.” The article discussed several female founders who resigned due to claims of hostile work environments, highlighting broader issues of workplace culture and gender.

Chesky also retweeted stories from female entrepreneurs who claimed they faced negative repercussions for embracing founder mode, underscoring the challenges women face in adopting this approach.

In his essay, Graham contrasted founder mode with manager mode, which he described as a strategy where companies hire capable individuals and trust them to perform their roles independently. However, he criticized manager mode for sometimes leading to ineffective leadership and company mismanagement.

Chesky, who co-founded Airbnb in 2008, mentioned that his interest in founder mode was influenced by figures like Jony Ive and Hiroki Asai, both formerly of Apple, and cited notable founders such as Steve Jobs, Walt Disney, and Elon Musk as exemplars of this management style.

READ MORE

[shrimps4wimps]

Inside Out is a 2015 American animated coming-of-age film produced by Pixar Animation Studios for Walt Disney Pictures. It was directed by Pete Docter from a screenplay he co-wrote with Meg LeFauve and Josh Cooley. The film stars the voices of Amy Poehler, Phyllis Smith, Richard Kind, Bill Hader, Lewis Black, Mindy Kaling, Kaitlyn Dias, Diane Lane, and Kyle MacLachlan. Inside Out follows the inner workings of the mind of Riley, a young girl who adapts to her family's relocation as five personified emotions administer her thoughts and actions. Docter conceived Inside Out in October 2009 after observing changes in his daughter's personality as she grew older. The project was subsequently green-lit, and Docter and co-director Ronnie del Carmen developed the story, while consulting psychologists and neuroscientists in an effort to accurately portray the mind. Development took five and a half years on a budget of approximately $175 million. Significant changes to the film's story and characters delayed the film's production schedule.

Inside Out debuted at the 68th Cannes Film Festival on May 18, 2015, and was released in the United States on June 19. It received positive reviews from critics for its craftsmanship, screenplay, subject matter, plot, and vocal performances—particularly those of Poehler, Smith, Kind, Hader, Kaling, and Black. The National Board of Review and the American Film Institute named Inside Out one of the top-ten films of 2015. It grossed $858.8 million worldwide, finishing its theatrical run as the seventh-highest-grossing film of 2015. The film was nominated for two awards at the 88th Academy Awards, winning Best Animated Feature, and received numerous other accolades. Philosophical journal Film and Philosophy recognized Inside Out as one of the best animated films ever made. A sequel, Inside Out 2, was released on June 14, 2024.

I know it's you Dunny S.

[usagirotten]

Review: Jim Henson Idea Man is the fantastic portrait of a creator

Much has been said about documentary films, throughout their history, we have seen the most faithful interpretation of what could have happened in historical events, famous people, celebrities, etc., each of them has its structure and rules. It is a way to see nostalgia from another perspective, the point of view of specialists or family members and loved ones, even co-workers, and what others think and perceive about the events that arise. One of the very critical things that they have in recent years is the morbidity, knowing what happened or, well, knowing what their filmmakers think to sequentially narrate the trajectory of something or someone that manages to involve us as an audience, having a little more information than we possibly already have. The genres within these documentaries are vast, from cinematography and its history to things that are intended to be dark and terrifying, the truth is that all this causes expectation among locals and strangers, each country and each culture has seen this as an opportunity to have a collection that preserves what has happened to those involved. The decade of the 70's and 80's continued to explore the way of living and how the future of things is perceived to this day. Technology in cinema has played a very important role and its evolution has been documented more than once. perhaps having with this a point of comparison with what is done today. One of the visionary people and celebrities who contributed a lot to cinema and television with his particular point of view has undoubtedly been James Maury Henson, an American puppeteer, animator, actor, and filmmaker who gained worldwide fame as the creator of the unmatched but widely imitated Muppets, without these characters the world of cinema would be very different. Documentaries in particular about the lives of those who have contributed something to the world of entertainment, there are many, and a new one that adds to this list, Jim Henson's Idea Man by director Ron Howard takes us on a journey to meet this man who changed the way of educating and watching entertainment for children and adults over several decades.

What is the documentary about?

This documentary film takes us into the mind of this creative visionary, from his early years as a puppeteer on a local television channel to the legendary program Sesame Street to The Muppets among other great successes, we have had access to unpublished images to offer us a fascinating story and introspective of a complex artist whose limitless imagination inspired the entire world. I dare say that almost everyone knows his work, that those who saw his works as children can now revisit them with their children and grandchildren regardless of the generation gap, works so well that they have not changed or been modernized and remain unchanged. just as we remember them, however, as the years go by there are new stories and new characters that have joined this great family to continue being the entertainment of new generations. The Muppets Show is an American family entertainment program with characters that are puppets known for their varied species and personalities defined with an absurd, surreal, burlesque, cynical, and self-referential comedy style, they were created by Jim Henson in 1955 and are until now from the most beloved and most popular franchises in film, television, theater, music and other media associated with the characters in stunning merchandise. Originally these adorable puppets were owned by the Jim Henson Company for almost 50 years, after he died in 1990 his work and legacy were put on hold while his family decided what to do with them so that they would not be lost and continue to be exploited and that is how Finally this franchise was bought by the Walt Disney Company in 2004 who decided to give it a change and a different twist to what we already knew and were used to seeing, the humor that characterized it took a backseat to give more importance to current situations, wanting to emulate in a more modern way what was successful in previous years. The show no longer focused on having children as its key audience but expanded the idea to create and recreate situations taken from the same show in its best years that had as guests a long list of artists and stars who interacted with these characters. in hilarious situations that took place in a theater that presented a frivolous and light vaudeville with plots based on the situation comedy that included musical numbers and variety sketches. The main puppet cast includes Kermit the Frog, Miss Piggy, Fozzie Bear, Gonzo, Rowlf the Dog, Scooter, Rizzo the Rat, Pepe the King Prawn, Dr. Bunsen Honeydew, Beaker, Statler and Waldorf, The Swedish Chef, Sam Eagle, Walter, the music band called The Electric Mayhem includes Dr. Teeth (vocals, keyboards), Animal (drums), Floyd Pepper (bass, vocals), Janice (guitar, vocals), Zoot (saxophone), and Lips (trumpet) and among the puppeteers and voices who gave them life are Jim Henson, Frank Oz, Jerry Nelson, Richard Hunt, Dave Goelz, Steve Whitmire, Louise Gold, Kathy Mullen, Eren Ozker and John Lovelady. It was not surprising that they made the transition from television to cinema. The Muppets Movie premiered in the summer of 1979 with great success and a new way of telling their adventures, the franchise was already expanding beyond just television episodes and special programs and This required more work and a new way of managing, animating, and giving life to everyone without losing their essence and personality. This documentary shows us what was in each of Henson's ideas to carry out a project that he never imagined would be so big and that his name would be remembered as a visionary with his contributions to the entertainment industry with his Muppets workshop, Inc., Henson Associates, Inc. and Jim Henson Productions Inc, who have worked not only on their show but on various film productions such as Star Wars and Dark Crystal, which are already a classic of fantasy cinematography.

The documentary opens in 1986, the middle of an extremely complex decade for the work and life of this artist, suggesting that what we are going to see is a fascinating journey in a compilation of unpublished images and interviews with those who worked with him at different stages. of his career, his creations are already known throughout the world by old and now new generations, Howard aims to present more revealing things and hidden truths that only serve to realize that this can be more complex than we imagine, the objective of this documentary is to know the person in parallel with his work and why he has been considered a visionary and a genius in the entertainment of an industry that is increasingly decadent. What we are finally shown is a tribute made with great affection and love to an endearing man that lacks an unhealthy morbidity that makes it more impressive, it is simply the director's vision of what Henson was in life and his creations. , does not take the risk of presenting complex situations or situations that are in the scandal and the eye of the viewer simply because there are none and if there were, it would not matter either, however, this documentary has the peculiarity of being for all audiences and at the same time for those fans of these puppets and their animation technique and voices. As a documentary and entertainment work, it does not disappoint, the main theme here is Jim Henson and how he forged his legacy and the creation of characters, Howard makes a very interesting compilation work that takes us from his first days of discovery of his creativity, reflecting the first incarnations on canvas of these personalities until we know and identify their definitive versions, perhaps the most darkly luminous part of this man is the change of interests that we see from being an expressionist artist to a more ambitious businessman. This leads to the exploration of other media, mainly cinema for The Muppets, and the intervention and creation of other exclusive characters for other films. He monetizes his ingenuity by further expanding his studio until it becomes something more competitive in the field of special effects. Even bigger and on a larger scale, the films that followed the big screen debut already planned what direction this would take, they concentrated so much on a more Hollywood success, and the television programs after this were not as careful or very celebrated. The plausible idea of ​​maintaining the essence and spirit of what he had done for decades and that revealed his ingenuity was in force until his sudden death in 1990 at the age of 53, it is unfortunate that being in one of his best moments many of the projects and ideas that were planned were left pending, some more were canceled and only a few have seen the light to this day, what we have left now from those good times is a captivating work that has continued and will continue to be and to be liked of several generations. Henson never imagined the reach that this format would have and this way of telling stories that over the years became even more prominent, requiring more attention and new characters that interact with real people in even more common situations with a touch of humor, but what about the children? Sesame Street continued to air for a general audience but aimed primarily at preschoolers with changes to its shorts and sketches that put it more in the decade it occupied. Regarding the above, the scriptwriters of the documentary Mark Mondoe and Michael Mitnick risk nothing more than showing Henson's life and creations from the friendliest side, no allusion is made to the controversy caused by stating that the characters of Bert and Ernie (Beto and Enrique) were a homosexual couple on the program, which led to them being taken off the air temporarily while the situation was clarified, which scandalized the most moralistic ones who did not see such a relationship as correct in a program aimed at preschool audiences. Nor does he need to risk telling the behind-the-scenes and the competitively technical problems that these studios had with Stan Winston Studio and the supposed rivalry of these 2 talented creators, little is explored about their family life, which was off-camera most of the time, and the biting showbiz. Hollywood, tells in more depth how he wanted these characters to look, and what personality he should give to each one so that together they would form a family in which each one was perfectly well defined. Not everything that is presented is so credibly good and as interesting as that may be, many of these revelations do not have a strong impact nor is it anything beyond what we already knew, everything is very superficial, we are very clear that this documentary pays deserved tribute to a creator with an overwhelmingly positive attitude towards his protagonist that defines it as a hagiographic portrait that does not delve into Henson's personality. Nor does he approach his failures riskily and forcefully and no matter how personal or professional they are, Howard resorts to what is easiest demonstrating and representing only the most positive aspects based on his work, we do not doubt that what he has achieved at the pace of The years is admirable, it details and further polishes the different stages of his life, presenting itself as a reflection of his tenacity to move forward with his ideas without abandoning the new goal of wanting to be a successful businessman, such a thing ends with an insubstantial and dull narrative that honors a man who deifies in a more common and banal posture. Although this documentary does not present very new things or break ground with a different vision regarding the investigation, it is entertaining and even moving, something that shamelessly advocates instant nostalgia for an older audience, its 108 minutes of duration knows very little for us. There is so much to tell, this was definitely to be presented in a miniseries of at least 3 parts in which everything would be addressed without haste but with the same detail plus the technical and mechanical aspects behind his puppets, the cuts to the Interviews are brief when they had the opportunity to give more time and screen space. As all of this unfolds we have fun and moving testimonies and anecdotes from his closest friends including Fran Brill, Jennifer Connelly, Dave Goelz, Brian Henson, Jim Henson, Rita Moreno, and Frank Oz among others, We appreciate that each one shows their sensitive side and the very personal opinion they have about Henson, there is no doubt that he managed to meet with the best in a very fun job and that it gave him excellent working relationships in the short, medium and long term.

Its structure is more similar to a program made and directed for children than a documentary, it is interesting to see how from its first minutes there is the intention to highlight not only Henson's best-known characters but also those more obscure to the general public. The montage of the interviews is in a cubist setting where a very brief segment is also included dedicated to his Oscar-nominated short film Time Piece to the participation that his characters had in advertising products. The music composed by David Fleming is only an accompanying link to everything we see, it is not intended to stand out or have memorable pieces, it only audiovisual frames this project that speaks for itself. In his desire to demonstrate at every minute the importance of Henson's work, any attempt to make his life and career something more normal and common fails because it is not so risky in its content, and by risky I do not mean something morbid but something to make things clearer and more concrete and not as something fantastic, its result is a very unconvincing and too timid effort to delve deeper into the life of this man. In conclusion, Jim Henson's Idea Man is a documentary film that leaves us no doubt about the love and attention that exists in his work, in his characters, in his ideas, and in the testimonies of his family, friends, and collaborators, they feel honest and sincere, pay tribute to an enormously talented creative who followed the path of the hero and reached beyond the success he expected, however, despite all the good that this man represents in this particular work, he falls far short of what was expected. of itself being simpler than complex. Jim Henson: Idea Man is now available on the Disney + platform https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyGFV6VIxkI Read the full article