Getting Crap Past the Radar - in G rated movies

[Malthus]

I see a lot of references to outrage in this thread, but no actual outrage by anyone.

Chill out.  Nobody is trying to say you're outraged.  No need for your brand of passive-aggressiveness here.

I'm not claiming anyone is trying to say I'm outraged. I'm just pointing out the fact that all of the references are to "outrage" no-one has actually shown is expressed by anyone.

You are acting as if this "outrage" is an established fact.

But isn't that my point?

I'm not sure what your point is.

What I'm saying is that several people here are assuming that such scenes would be met with mass outrage nowadays. I have no idea if this is true or not, as no-one has shown any actual examples of such outrage in action.

Though given asking for evidence is now "passive aggressive", I'm not sure I should question this. 

[crazy canuck]

You know, granted they were direct follow-ons, but The Little Mermaid is basically a movie about a 16 year old's quest to fuck, Beauty and the Beast is baby's first dominance-submission story, and Aladdin has barely-veiled rape threats.  The Lion King and, lo these decades later, Frozen only have attempted dynastic murder, which isn't as outre, I suppose.  But that first wave of Renaissance films had some pretty severe adult content with the serial numbers just barely filed off.  Especially B+B, the child sex abuse victim's favorite Disney film according to my sample size of two.

Oh, and Rescuers Down Under features Bob Newhart killing Patton accidentally-on-purpose and a lot of sexual tension between that Crocodile Dundee rat and Ms. Bianca one one hand and Bernard's sexual frustration and perceived inadequacies on the other.

I think that most Disney movies featuring romance are suseptible to such comments ... but there is I would contend a significant difference between that and the scene I linked in the OP.  It's a trifle more ... direct.

Not really, for some reason you characterize a mouse taking off an outer layer of clothing to reveal what dancers/entertainers would have worn in that period as "stripping".  You claim not to be outraged but you sure go on like you are at least to some degree.

[Malthus]

Not really, for some reason you characterize a mouse taking off an outer layer of clothing to reveal what dancers/entertainers would have worn in that period as "stripping".  You claim not to be outraged but you sure go on like you are at least to some degree.

I characterize it as "burlesque". Which is what it is. And rather suggestive, which caused me to chuckle - because it was a good example of stuff intended for parents to get that would go right over the heads of the kiddies. 

Any "outrage" is purely in your mind. Why the hostility?  Between you claiming I'm outraged and Neil's screed to the opposite, what nerve have I unwittingly struck?

[derspiess]

Actually a lot of burlesque-type "stripping" in the old days involved a heavily-clothed woman stripping the outer layers of her clothing but still remaining clothed (albeit somewhat scantily by the standards of the day). 

[crazy canuck]

Not really, for some reason you characterize a mouse taking off an outer layer of clothing to reveal what dancers/entertainers would have worn in that period as "stripping".  You claim not to be outraged but you sure go on like you are at least to some degree.

I characterize it as "burlesque".

Yes and then you said

It is mostly the juxtaposition of Disney movie - with a stripping mouse - that creates the doubletake.

I think it is odd that you had such a reaction to the movie.  I also find it a bit odd that you find that odd.

[Malthus]

Actually a lot of burlesque-type "stripping" in the old days involved a heavily-clothed woman stripping the outer layers of her clothing but still remaining clothed (albeit somewhat scantily by the standards of the day).

Yup. Dunno when the notion that "stripping" = naked started.

Here, the mouse strips her skirt revealing her burlesque outfit; it's the lyrics that make it suggestive. "I'll take off all my blues" as she takes off her skirt to reveal - an all-blue outfit.

[The Brain]

Yeah that sounds truly outrageous, Malthus. Chillax.

[Malthus]

Not really, for some reason you characterize a mouse taking off an outer layer of clothing to reveal what dancers/entertainers would have worn in that period as "stripping".  You claim not to be outraged but you sure go on like you are at least to some degree.

I characterize it as "burlesque".

Yes and then you said

It is mostly the juxtaposition of Disney movie - with a stripping mouse - that creates the doubletake.

I think it is odd that you had such a reaction to the movie.  I also find it a bit odd that you find that odd.

The mouse does "strip". She strips off her skirt, to reveal her burlesque outfit.

As for the "doubletake", that is because the scene is, in reality, pretty suggestive. Are you claiming it isn't?  Or that it is "odd" to find it chuckle-worthy that a Disney movie has such a suggestive scene? 

I'm starting to think you are humour-impared. Is there some reason you have to take this seriously?

[Razgovory]

Lion King featured a successful dynastic murder and 10 years of fascism.

And how evil minorities will steal all our resources.

[The Brain]

Lion King featured a successful dynastic murder and 10 years of fascism.

And how evil minorities will steal all our resources.

That's just common sense.

[Malthus]

Lion King featured a successful dynastic murder and 10 years of fascism.

And how evil minorities will steal all our resources.

A fair number of fools - and some Swedes - believe this to be true. 

[LaCroix]

i don't think there's any more mass outrage over children's movies today than there were in the past. i also don't think modern children movies are any tamer. wall-e showed children a dead earth with humanity barely hanging onto existence. in up, the main character's wife has a miscarriage, is diagnosed with infertility, then dies - shattering their dream of exploring the world. all within four minutes.

[Savonarola]

i don't think there's any more mass outrage over children's movies today than there were in the past. i also don't think modern children movies are any tamer. wall-e showed children a dead earth with humanity barely hanging onto existence. in up, the main character's wife has a miscarriage, is diagnosed with infertility, then dies - shattering their dream of exploring the world. all within four minutes.

In the 1920s and early 30s parents groups complained about Mickey Mouse's bad behavior and its effects on children.  So Walt cleaned up Mickey's act, and created a new character with all of Mickey's negative traits; Donald Duck.  Naturally Donald became Disney's most popular character.

There's always going to be some amount of outrage; in my day it was Motley Crue and "The Simpsons" that were destroying America according to Tipper Gore and Barbara Bush, respectively.  I think you have to push the envelope much further today then in the past.  Here, for example, is one that outraged them in 1905:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii35WnEPaO4

It's a take off of "The Great Train Robbery" but with children.  (PROTECT YOUR WOMEN!)  It was made in a time when movies were new, and people were just starting to consider the effects that it would have on children.

[crazy canuck]

There's always going to be some amount of outrage; in my day it was Motley Crue and "The Simpsons" that were destroying America

Lets not forget Murphy Brown. 

[Capetan Mihali]

Actually, this reminds me that for the script I'm writing I have already surpassed the "fuck" quota I'm allowed in order to get a PG-13 rating, and thus I need an alternative to "For Fuck's Sake" that doesn't sound ridiculous. Any advice?
[/quote

I haven't read much farther than this, but don't use "goshdarnit."  I suggest "For the love of God!" or "Christ Almighty!"