I don't know what children did to the Disney corporation to inspire such hatred within them but I'm deeply saddened that the Disney corporation can't let go of their hate.
This is right in the article There's also this that is left out of this specific article but not others
See, this is the problem with online journalism currently... and the people who share. There's a damned thing called "due diligence" in journalism (check, double check and triple check your sources). People on the interwebs need to remember this as well when they share biased media content that doesn't paint the full picture.
Strange though.. Marvel Approves Iron Man Engraving for Gravestone of Child Who Died of Cancer Though I guess one was listed as "Marvel" and the other as "Disney."
Hmm. Ok I'll admit that's odd. Yes they did ask Marvel but I assume Disney would have a say too. My only guess is that maybe at the time Marvel had greater control over this kind of stuff. EDIT: I did a little research and learned that Marvel characters have only recently started appearing prominently in Disney parks. That might be a factor in this.
Disney has owned Marvel since 2009, but that is also possible. Now the fact it is in the UK itself does also complicate the matter.
Well yeah I knew that. What I'm saying is that there is probably a reason they waited so long to implement the characters into their parks. Like some complicated rights issue or something. Really I'm not really sure what's going on here anymore I'm just trying to come up with some possible explaination but whatever the case I'm not going to boycott Disney. Heck with all they own now is that even possible? I've already had a love-hate relationship with Disney, mostly hate lately but, they do still make some good stuff.
I can't attest to your age, but when I was 11 years old, they didn't own a majority, well on the way to nearly all of the entertainment industry. It's kind of a different environment now than when I personally was 11.
I'm with Disney on this one. Their response was heartfelt and classy. I'm not gonna take a shit on a company that wants to preserve childlike innocence and sense of magic.
If this were something like Barney the Dinosaur I'd agree, but Disney isn't exactly synonymous with innocent entertainment. A recent movie by Disney showed Spider-Man slowly turn to ash while begging for his life. That's going to give kids nightmares more than seeing a tombstone with Spider-Man on it would. I can't imagine any kid seeing Spider-Man on a tombstone and being turned away from the franchise. Honestly, Disney should have just ignored the request. Then people would have just assumed Disney didn't receive it. It's not uncommon for major companies to ignore fan-mail and requests. Saying "no" makes them look hypocritical and insensitive, and saying "yes" would have opened them up to more people wanting to use their characters. Ignoring it would have gotten Disney what they wanted, but without controversy (especially when a Spider-Man movie is currently in theaters).
I'm talking about Disney as a whole while you chose one movie under their banner. I'm talking about the big picture. And by actually responding shows that they are too classy to ignore a request. Again points for Disney.
But it's not just that one movie. Many (if not most) Disney movies contain death, abandonment, betrayal, terror, and all sorts of other mature and upsetting things. And it's not just live-action "older kids" stuff like Marvel and Star Wars...animated movies like Lion King Bambi, (both G-rated movies) and Up deal with death in a very mature (and potentially upsetting) manner. When I think of Disney I don't think of innocence or naivety to death. On the contrary, I tend to think of entertainment that doesn't hide or sugar-coat stuff like death. I do get where Disney's coming from. And I know Disney has always been picky about people using their characters. But I just think this is a somewhat hypocritical way to go about it. Probably would have been better just to give a neutral "we don't allow our characters on third-party objects". It's kind of silly to hide behind "protecting the innocence of the brand" when people know Disney better than that.
In a vacuum I wouldn't disagree with you, but.. the timing of it, being right as the new Spiderman movie was about to hit theaters is rather suspect. The approval of a stone just last year versus this this year. I would suppose though, after a few days to stew on it, the whole situation with tombstones is lose lose PR situation. But Disney could take advantage of this situation to lay out, plain and clear rules for it to the whole public.
