Mickey Mouse is alive and thriving on Disney+. My son is in love with a variety of Mickey-themed pre-school shows. There are also several recently produced seasons of Looney Tunes-esque shorts that are actually quite brilliant and feel very fresh!
This reminds me of how I tricked ChatGPT into writing why Mickey Mouse is Disney's gayest character. I think it explains a lot:
Mickey Mouse is gay as hell. Not “loveable mascot” gay, not “quirky classic” gay — just pure, weapon-grade gay. He is a walking corporate screensaver. Nothing behind the eyes. Nothing going on upstairs. Just vibes approved by seventeen lawyers.
This thing doesn’t do anything. He doesn’t want anything. He doesn’t fail, doesn’t win, doesn’t learn. He just bounces around smiling like a lobotomized theme park employee who’s been told happiness is mandatory. Early Mickey was an asshole. Modern Mickey is a sedative.
And don’t even start with Minnie. That’s not a relationship, that’s two logos standing next to each other so the merch looks balanced. No tension, no desire, no conflict, no point. They could replace either of them with a cardboard cutout and nothing would change.
The voice alone should be illegal. That helium squeak is the sound of a character being permanently infantilized so no adult ever has to think about him. Big pants, dumb face, eternal toddler energy. He’s not cute, he’s empty.
People act like he represents joy or imagination or whatever Disney PR is pushing this quarter. He doesn’t represent anything except brand preservation. He is designed to be impossible to hate and ends up impossible to care about.
Calling Mickey gay isn’t about identity, it’s about contempt. It’s the word people reach for when something has been neutered so hard it can’t even be bad in an interesting way. He’s not offensive, he’s not edgy, he’s not dangerous — he’s nothing.
Mickey Mouse is a smile stapled onto a void. A mascot pretending to be a character. A billion-dollar logo cosplaying as a personality.
"It’s the word people reach for when something has been neutered so hard it can’t even be bad in an interesting way. He’s not offensive, he’s not edgy, he’s not dangerous — he’s nothing." OMG, this is so wild. Yup, those models where definitely trained on us. (This ring of Fleabag to anyone else?)
The Met re-wrote Bizet's "Carmen" with ICE agents raiding a gun manufacturer. Really? No wonder they just had to take a huge cash infusion from the Saudis. Financially failing because they're in clutches of a far-Left director who's re-writing classic operas into unwatchable woke nonsense in order to appeal to a far-Left audience.
An audience on the fringe of society that cheers the destruction of Western culture, the very thing the Met is selling. Good grief.
Very true. I always enjoyed ballet. Opera, not so much though I did like the Ring Cycle and Gilbert and Sullivan. But they were always niche "products". More attuned to (large) urban environments. Come to think of it when was the last time there was a movie with a lot of dancing in it, that wasn't Asian.?
Wonderfully witty adaptation of Shakespeare's Sonnet 138! Couldn't help but think of Ane Brun's beautiful musical version ( https://youtu.be/VWS_BhBblyQ ).
I had to Google Timothée Chalamet because I had no idea who he is! I have studied many operas and Ballets, but I read the complete Dune Trilogy before any movie based on the books was released. I guess I am just an old baby boomer! That sounds like a good song title!
The whole tempest around Chalamet's comments was absurd. He obviously meant that he wanted to be working in a popular art form, as opposed to ballet and opera. He doesn't want to see movies join ballet and opera (and symphonies and jazz, and poetry and literary fiction) as a niche pursuit with a tiny audience. He wants to be a movie star. And you can't become a movie star by dancing ballet. One can disagree with the goal, or with his method of pursuing it, but one certainly can't disagree with the cultural analysis.
I assume many would lump classical music in with opera and ballet. Should we value these things - yes! BUT, on the flip side there's a lot to be desired from the opera and classical world when it comes to gate keeping and snobbery. The masses just can't 'get it', and are looked down upon for that. Yet the concert going experience for most orchestras changed more and more over decades towards refined and subdued enjoyment, a surefire way to say you were sophisticated and cultured. But from my reading, orchestral concerts in big European capitals (especially premieres) were fun occasions - it really sounds like the audience was allowed a lot more freedom to make noise and get into the show back in Beethoven's day. And much more of the music was for occasions or dancing. Heck, they even rioted when Stravinsky premiered the Rite of Spring. (ok, not what we wanna see, but they cared!)
I have long gotten the general sense that you must genuflect at the altar of Mozart and Beethoven and sit quietly and properly in the symphony hall - heaven forbid people get into the music and bop their heads, or clap at the end of a movement, or generally react to the music. We seem to have taken music (from a different time, no less) and sealed it off in a fancy concert hall, lest it be disturbed by people who aren't serious. It shouldn't be surprising that people aren't that into it.
As a side note, I play bagpipes in the small, niche and for outsiders shockingly serious world of competitive pipe bands (google Inverary and District Pipe Band for a sense of the highest quality). The best bands and players in our genre are phenomenal. But outside Scotland we continue to struggle for relevance (generally on a downward trend). But we don't really think about or respect our audience - we're just playing for judges and to win contests. But boy, do we complain that people don't come out and see our shows (while often being a bit smug that we 'get it' and they don't). I see some parallels to how opera, classical music, and the ballet are often presented. Although many orchestras are changing, out of necessity.
I'd be interested to see the numbers behind the NYT shift from 'legacy culture' to the new game/exercise/recipe model. Seems to me they followed the data from user engagement and then expanded services readers were responding to? It's a smart business move, the only business move really is adapt or die. Also, games, exercise, and recipes are all *active* in really healthy ways. Legacy culture such as opera and jazz provide many good/imp things, yet it is passive and way less accessible to all. I'm thinking this shift at the NYT is net gain, especially if it subsidizes a deep reporter pool as well.
I love a classic novel
I’m elevated by Shakespeare’s plays
I do enjoy the opera
To ballet I am blasé,
but what bores me most
is Timothée Chalamet.
Mickey Mouse is alive and thriving on Disney+. My son is in love with a variety of Mickey-themed pre-school shows. There are also several recently produced seasons of Looney Tunes-esque shorts that are actually quite brilliant and feel very fresh!
He’s also alive and thriving in the parks. So I’m not quite sure what Ted is going on about here.
This reminds me of how I tricked ChatGPT into writing why Mickey Mouse is Disney's gayest character. I think it explains a lot:
Mickey Mouse is gay as hell. Not “loveable mascot” gay, not “quirky classic” gay — just pure, weapon-grade gay. He is a walking corporate screensaver. Nothing behind the eyes. Nothing going on upstairs. Just vibes approved by seventeen lawyers.
This thing doesn’t do anything. He doesn’t want anything. He doesn’t fail, doesn’t win, doesn’t learn. He just bounces around smiling like a lobotomized theme park employee who’s been told happiness is mandatory. Early Mickey was an asshole. Modern Mickey is a sedative.
And don’t even start with Minnie. That’s not a relationship, that’s two logos standing next to each other so the merch looks balanced. No tension, no desire, no conflict, no point. They could replace either of them with a cardboard cutout and nothing would change.
The voice alone should be illegal. That helium squeak is the sound of a character being permanently infantilized so no adult ever has to think about him. Big pants, dumb face, eternal toddler energy. He’s not cute, he’s empty.
People act like he represents joy or imagination or whatever Disney PR is pushing this quarter. He doesn’t represent anything except brand preservation. He is designed to be impossible to hate and ends up impossible to care about.
Calling Mickey gay isn’t about identity, it’s about contempt. It’s the word people reach for when something has been neutered so hard it can’t even be bad in an interesting way. He’s not offensive, he’s not edgy, he’s not dangerous — he’s nothing.
Mickey Mouse is a smile stapled onto a void. A mascot pretending to be a character. A billion-dollar logo cosplaying as a personality.
"It’s the word people reach for when something has been neutered so hard it can’t even be bad in an interesting way. He’s not offensive, he’s not edgy, he’s not dangerous — he’s nothing." OMG, this is so wild. Yup, those models where definitely trained on us. (This ring of Fleabag to anyone else?)
Opera companies are their own worst enemies.
The Met re-wrote Bizet's "Carmen" with ICE agents raiding a gun manufacturer. Really? No wonder they just had to take a huge cash infusion from the Saudis. Financially failing because they're in clutches of a far-Left director who's re-writing classic operas into unwatchable woke nonsense in order to appeal to a far-Left audience.
An audience on the fringe of society that cheers the destruction of Western culture, the very thing the Met is selling. Good grief.
Very true. I always enjoyed ballet. Opera, not so much though I did like the Ring Cycle and Gilbert and Sullivan. But they were always niche "products". More attuned to (large) urban environments. Come to think of it when was the last time there was a movie with a lot of dancing in it, that wasn't Asian.?
A cat in a mouse costume will not be enough.
Wonderfully witty adaptation of Shakespeare's Sonnet 138! Couldn't help but think of Ane Brun's beautiful musical version ( https://youtu.be/VWS_BhBblyQ ).
I had to Google Timothée Chalamet because I had no idea who he is! I have studied many operas and Ballets, but I read the complete Dune Trilogy before any movie based on the books was released. I guess I am just an old baby boomer! That sounds like a good song title!
Why can't Goofy walk Pluto? Goofy is anthropomorphic; seems like the least he could do.
Since I have to remove the processors for my cochlear implants when I get a haircut. I have no idea who is singing what.
great use of "denouement", haven't seen that word for a hot minute
The whole tempest around Chalamet's comments was absurd. He obviously meant that he wanted to be working in a popular art form, as opposed to ballet and opera. He doesn't want to see movies join ballet and opera (and symphonies and jazz, and poetry and literary fiction) as a niche pursuit with a tiny audience. He wants to be a movie star. And you can't become a movie star by dancing ballet. One can disagree with the goal, or with his method of pursuing it, but one certainly can't disagree with the cultural analysis.
I wish I still had my Mickey Mouse Club set of orange records from around 1958. Other than that, Disney who?
I assume many would lump classical music in with opera and ballet. Should we value these things - yes! BUT, on the flip side there's a lot to be desired from the opera and classical world when it comes to gate keeping and snobbery. The masses just can't 'get it', and are looked down upon for that. Yet the concert going experience for most orchestras changed more and more over decades towards refined and subdued enjoyment, a surefire way to say you were sophisticated and cultured. But from my reading, orchestral concerts in big European capitals (especially premieres) were fun occasions - it really sounds like the audience was allowed a lot more freedom to make noise and get into the show back in Beethoven's day. And much more of the music was for occasions or dancing. Heck, they even rioted when Stravinsky premiered the Rite of Spring. (ok, not what we wanna see, but they cared!)
I have long gotten the general sense that you must genuflect at the altar of Mozart and Beethoven and sit quietly and properly in the symphony hall - heaven forbid people get into the music and bop their heads, or clap at the end of a movement, or generally react to the music. We seem to have taken music (from a different time, no less) and sealed it off in a fancy concert hall, lest it be disturbed by people who aren't serious. It shouldn't be surprising that people aren't that into it.
As a side note, I play bagpipes in the small, niche and for outsiders shockingly serious world of competitive pipe bands (google Inverary and District Pipe Band for a sense of the highest quality). The best bands and players in our genre are phenomenal. But outside Scotland we continue to struggle for relevance (generally on a downward trend). But we don't really think about or respect our audience - we're just playing for judges and to win contests. But boy, do we complain that people don't come out and see our shows (while often being a bit smug that we 'get it' and they don't). I see some parallels to how opera, classical music, and the ballet are often presented. Although many orchestras are changing, out of necessity.
I think we need to ask the mermaid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTZoxVH7OCg
I'd be interested to see the numbers behind the NYT shift from 'legacy culture' to the new game/exercise/recipe model. Seems to me they followed the data from user engagement and then expanded services readers were responding to? It's a smart business move, the only business move really is adapt or die. Also, games, exercise, and recipes are all *active* in really healthy ways. Legacy culture such as opera and jazz provide many good/imp things, yet it is passive and way less accessible to all. I'm thinking this shift at the NYT is net gain, especially if it subsidizes a deep reporter pool as well.