Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Walt Disney on the Hundred Dollar Bill

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Walt Disney on the Hundred Dollar Bill

    I saw a news story (probably more story than news) that Walt Disney was going to be on the Hundred Dollar Bill for a year. Either the mint has lost its mind or the Onion has taken over reality.

    What's your take?

  • #2
    I couldn't find any news about this that wasn't on something affiliated with Disney. I think it might just be a publicity thing; esp. considering how long it takes for US currency changes to get processed.

    Comment


    • #3
      I think it might be a fake news clip.


      What in the name of Set is going on here?

      Comment


      • #4
        I would lean towards poorly handled marketing campaign than fake news. As little as a difference that means these days with how fast things can spread on the Internet without people doing a bit of digging, the intent really does seem to be to draw attention to some rebate/deal/etc.that's part of some Disney park rewards membership package and wasn't even meant to go wide publicly.

        Comment


        • #5
          Yeah, this is clearly fake. If you want to know what the real version of such a thing is like just google "Harriet Tubman 20 dollar bill".

          From googling it seems that last year some people made a joke about this happening because 2023 is an anniversary for Disney and Disney used to have something called "Disney Dollars". I guess that was the inspiration.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
            I would lean towards poorly handled marketing campaign than fake news. As little as a difference that means these days with how fast things can spread on the Internet without people doing a bit of digging, the intent really does seem to be to draw attention to some rebate/deal/etc.that's part of some Disney park rewards membership package and wasn't even meant to go wide publicly.
            True Disney is losing lots of money from the last three years from the pandemic and not so profitable movies that came out and pissed off fans of well loved properties like Star Wars, Marvel and Indiana Jones to name a few and not to mention wading into the world of politics. So I can see them wanting recoup there losses with events like this.


            What in the name of Set is going on here?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Lysander View Post

              True Disney is losing lots of money from the last three years from the pandemic and not so profitable movies that came out and pissed off fans of well loved properties like Star Wars, Marvel and Indiana Jones to name a few and not to mention wading into the world of politics. So I can see them wanting recoup there losses with events like this.

              I've proactively stopped purchasing from the Rat. I'm becoming increasingly concerned about the monopoly they have on our culture when combined with their total lack of ethics.

              Comment


              • #8
                Likewise I won't buy anything from Disney or Warner Brothers for that matter as they stopped telling good stories in general and to be fair they are hardly alone in that regard. I don't need a character to look like me or be my gender or be whatever sexual attraction for me to relate to them at all, all I care about is he or she likeable, flawed or interesting in general. Growing up I liked Batman, Sherlock Holmes, James Bonds & The Transformers and I'm not a billionare playboy, a charming super spy or brilliant detective with a cool accent or a giant robot. So this debate of needing people that look like you in the movies or tv shows is strange to me.
                Last edited by Lysander; 01-30-2023, 03:48 PM.


                What in the name of Set is going on here?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Is anyone else excited for next year when the Mouse becomes public domain? I wonder if we will get another extension on copyright?


                  To whomever reads this, I hope you have a good day/night. May you be Happy.

                  So, I made some Mage Legacies here, with some help. They vary in quality, but I hope you take a look at them. Every one contains pieces of me, for better or worse.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I don't think to many people want to invest in a company that lost 122 billion last year TempleBuilder.


                    What in the name of Set is going on here?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I think it's just the "mouse" that is seen on the steamboat in that 40s-cartoon that is supposed to go public.

                      I mean, who knows... Disney wants copyright to be as stringent as possible in order to protect their IPs. So who knows... Disney might celebrate this early version of Mickey Mouse going public and the moment anyone tries to do something using this early version, Disney will sue them anyway... or said person will just accidentally meet their demise in a way that Disney has absolutely nothing to do with...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by TempleBuilder View Post
                        Is anyone else excited for next year when the Mouse becomes public domain? I wonder if we will get another extension on copyright?
                        ‚Äč

                        Even if Disney doesn't further make copyright law a joke, they have a very strong backup plan in trademark protection. All that's realistically going to happen is a bunch of people are going to distribute old Disney material in a non-trademark-infringing way. Anyone that tries to make new content based on those old works is going to find that Disney's legal team that's currently very copyright lawsuit happy is just going to shift to trademark suit happy. One of the big reasons they use characters in so many of their trademarks, is so that once the early stories using those characters go public domain, they can still claim any new stories based on those public domain stories are an attack on their trademark. As long as Mickey = Disney, Mickey isn't going to be functionally public domain.

                        Originally posted by Lysander View Post
                        Growing up I liked Batman, Sherlock Holmes, James Bonds & The Transformers and I'm not a billionare playboy, a charming super spy or brilliant detective with a cool accent or a giant robot. So this debate of needing people that look like you in the movies or tv shows is strange to me.
                        So... you grew up with a bunch of stories about white men (including the main human character in the original Transformers show). Is it really that hard to understand why growing up with everyone already looking like you might mean you just didn't think about how it feels for everyone that didn't get to have that experience?

                        Representation matters. It shouldn't be a debate. It literally saves lives because it reduces suicide rates in minority groups to see that they're considered part of "normal" through media, instead of media constantly reminding them that they're others. If empathy doesn't work, and simply wanting less unnecessary death in our society doesn't matter to you... not sure what to say other than the problem isn't Disney's writers.

                        Originally posted by Lysander View Post
                        I don't think to many people want to invest in a company that lost 122 billion last year TempleBuilder.
                        Actually, it's a great time to invest in Disney, because Disney didn't lost $122 billion: investors lost $122 making dumbass bets about how Disney would do financially. Disney, the actually company, hasn't ended a year in the red in decades. The majority of their current debt is just because they bought another company that had a lot of debt (hence Disney could buy them in the first place) and Disney had to take on that debt in the deal. The company it self is solid, and shows zero signs of being a bad investment if you're looking for a long term low risk low yield dividend.

                        It's only a bad investment if you were one of the many stock tea leaf readers that decided that the pandemic boom to streaming services was an indicator of how growth in streaming would continue to pace as time went on, instead of streaming subscribers plateauing. Because every major media company that going into the streaming game saw a large stock devaluation last year because it turns out pretty much everyone that was going to switch to streaming basically has already. If the pandemic didn't convert you... you're probably not converting to streaming and new streaming customers are just young people moving out on their own now. But the big stock book makers decided the odds were that streaming was going to keep trending up like it had turning the pandemic, lots and lots and traders bet on those odds, and... it was a dumb bet that cost them a lot of money.

                        Remember that stock market trends are always reactionary. Especially over the short term, they fluctuate over insanely minor details, and frequently just because of feelings. ~$22 billion of their lose in '22? All motivated by investors nervous because Ron Desantis had a good election, and he doesn't like Disney. Investors don't want to be between a company and a politician. Nothing to do with the quality of the products the company handles at all, nothing to do with how profitable the company is, or anything like that. And poof ~$22 billion in stock value disappears.

                        For another example? Tesla and SpaceX lose stock valuation all the time because of Elon Musk Tweeting. If you just look at stock prices, you'd think SpaceX is going to ban non-white people from going to space in their rockets, but in reality it's just investors freaking out because Elon Musk retweeted a white supremacist. It has nothing to do with how SpaceX is actually doing as a company. Tesla investors at least have a reason to actually be worried about Musk because he put up his Tesla stock as collateral for buying Twitter, and if tanks Twitter he can take Tesla down with it. Something that isn't the case is 99% of market overreactions to the daily news cycle.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Lysander View Post
                          Likewise I won't buy anything from Disney or Warner Brothers for that matter as they stopped telling good stories in general and to be fair they are hardly alone in that regard. I don't need a character to look like me or be my gender or be whatever sexual attraction for me to relate to them at all, all I care about is he or she likeable, flawed or interesting in general. Growing up I liked Batman, Sherlock Holmes, James Bonds & The Transformers and I'm not a billionare playboy, a charming super spy or brilliant detective with a cool accent or a giant robot. So this debate of needing people that look like you in the movies or tv shows is strange to me.
                          While i think you're over stating your case (representation does matter to a degree) I'd probably comment that social depictions of peoples shouldn't really be in the hands of an amoral corporation who'd happily throw us/them under the bus in the right social climate. Not in the least because gradually associating such representation with vapid garbage or social gaffes.

                          I recall my response to seeing someone with my disability in the new doctor who was too snicker,forgive my cousin for teasing me about it as a child and reflect I'd rather they didn't do it If this was their best effort.
                          Last edited by Ragged Robin; 01-31-2023, 12:42 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Heavy Arms I never followed the human characters in Transformers and where you got I don't know. I was into the giant robots that could change there forms and there adventures. I have no problem with represention at all, but not when they decide to change existing characters to suit a "modern audience" trope or such. Is it that hard to create new characters that are inspired by older stories with changing it?



                            What in the name of Set is going on here?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Lysander View Post
                              Heavy Arms I never followed the human characters in Transformers and where you got I don't know. I was into the giant robots that could change there forms and there adventures.
                              You can't be into their adventures and ignore Spike Witwicky... he's in all of them (literally, he's tied for 3rd place in the number of Gen 1 episodes he's in after Optimus and Megatron, every other Autobot you can name was less involved with their adventures than Spike was). It's like saying you grew up with Batman but ignored Alfred and Commissioner Gordon because they weren't dressing up in funny costumes.

                              You can watch shows for the cool action scenes and ignore the plot, but that means you weren't into the actual adventures. Adventures include plots and characters interactions. And Spike is Optimus's Watson. If he wasn't there, you'd miss out on most of the story because there would be no reason for the main character to be telling the audience things via the audience-surrogate.

                              I have no problem with represention at all, but not when they decide to change existing characters to suit a "modern audience" trope or such.
                              That big of a but just makes it sound like you have a problem with representation, but know that would be unpopular to just say.

                              And I really doubt you care that much about changing "existing characters to suit modern audiences" for the thousands of times it's happened to let white men play pretty much anything. I've only seen you bring this up when it's about increasing minority representation, and never when it's casting minority characters with non-minority actors.

                              Is it that hard to create new characters that are inspired by older stories with changing it?
                              Why does it matter?

                              Hamlet, Prince of Denmark has centuries of non-Danish people playing him, why does it matter if a black man plays him? Or a Hispanic woman? Nobody bats an eye if an English man plays him. As we all know Shakespeare is best in the original Klingon anyway.

                              And people complain when you make new characters too. They complain when an old character passes their mantle to an existing character. Etc. etc. etc.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X