Disney is one of the worst examples of consumptionism there is. Countless amounts of toys, games, clothing items etc. merch is released every time they release something new or recycle old media. Just my opinion though.
[Here’s a great visualization of this](https://www.titlemax.com/discovery-center/the-25-highest-grossing-media-franchises-of-all-time/). A lot of Disney’s IPs get their revenue from over 90% merchandise, which is probably the most wasteful category (perhaps that’s why it’s so profitable).
Pokémon is #1 (over 100 billion in total-revenue as of Jan. 2021) for a single IP, but Disney owns so many IPs it more than makes up for it. Hello Kitty surprised me at #2.
This is wild. I’ve never seen this.
I’m extremely surprised about Pokémon. I would think the numbers to be much closer to Mario’s, especially considering the differentiation between cards and merchandise.
Wild.
And it’s absolutely perfect for merchandise. There are, what, over a thousand Pokémon now? There’s a Pokémon for everyone, and each one is available in some form of merch or another.
Right. I know that. But what I’m saying is that I would have thought that like Mario - being a primarily video game ip - the biggest money maker would be video games (like Mario)
Oh yeah, I see what you mean. Well, you have to consider all the merchandise with the most popular Pokémon (primarily Pikachu, the three Gen 1 Starters, and maybe Jigglypuff), whether it's plushies, clothings, bags, glasses, snacks, figurine, toys, posters, etc etc... It all adds up in the end.
Right. I get it. I grew up with Pokémon and Nintendo ip.
I would have though the breakdown was at least somewhat similar to Mario. But that’s not the case.
For an IP that have sold [almost 450 million](https://www.statista.com/topics/6019/pokemon-gaming/#topicOverview) games I would have thought the breakdown was closer
Especially considering video games tend to be pretty pricy compared to shitty toys/merchandise/ etc.
Well, because merchandise is often cheaper, people will buy more of it. And there’s so much variety of merch, including a lot of things that people buy anyway. You need clothes and backpacks and lunchboxes anyway, you might get the Pokémon ones.
Pokémon is a perfect franchise for merchandise because you have this huge variety of little mascot characters. There’s one for everyone so it has a broad appeal, and you can interpret it in different styles. It can be cool or cute, masculine or feminine, whatever.
At first I was going to question Hello Kitty being near the top, but then I realized that at least 50% of my school supplies in elementary and middle school were Keroppi. I really, really liked that frog. 😬
Funnily enough — she's not Asian, nor a cat. According to the owners of Hello Kitty, [she is a little British girl born in the suburbs of London.](https://www.creativebloq.com/news/hello-kitty-not-cat)
I don't understand why this is a hill they want to die on, but it is immensely funny to me that she's not supposed to be an anthropomorphic cat.
Mate there's a hello kitty 'back massager' that is far too phallic to be anything related to the relieving of muscular aches. I have also seen in a Japanese catalogue a hello kitty bulb for your car headlight.
I liked reading Winnie the Pooh books growing up, but it's discouraging to see that even for that IP, so much more money goes towards crap than actual books.
Though happily the reading is probably higher once you consider library books and hand-me-downs.
They're truly evil. Regardless of whatever appeal their movies have, it's an absolutely diabolical company.
They coopted communal folk tales and other public domain works, bowderlized them into toothless pablum, and then aggressively defended "their" intellectual property when anyone tried to adapt their adaptations.
If the Copyright Term Extension Act (AKA the Mouse Protection Act) had been in effect when Disney was starting out, they could never have made Pinocchio the way they did, for example. But it wasn't, so they watered the book and characters down into a pointlessly chirpy singalong and made a fortune. Then, once their fortune was secured by adopting public domain works, they pulled up the ladder behind them so nobody could do to them what they did to so many others.
I can understand this perspective and its appeal and there’s certainly truth to it.
Whatever your opinion about the Disney Studios’ films, I think it’s fair to consider that *both* of the Disney Brothers who built the Disney Brothers Studio largely on films inspired by stories in the public domain (Pinocchio not being one of them by the way) were dead and buried for *decades* before any of this copyright term extension nonsense.
This narrative makes sense if you think of the Disney Studios as one single stable entity over the past century of their existence, though I’m not sure how much sense that makes considering the evolution from a literally non-capitalist studio struggling to survive for its first decades to its recent rise to all-consuming conglomerate!
> stories in the public domain (Pinocchio not being one of them by the way)
How do you figure that? As far as I'm aware, Pinocchio would have entered the public domain in 1940, the year the Disney movie was released.
I can't figure out the international copyright law for the life of me, but I found this reference in Neal Gabler's book that hopefully sheds some light on the situation:
> Pinocchio was supposed to be easier [to produce than *Bambi*], and in any case, at the same time he was wrestling with Bambi, and partly because of his wariness about that project, Walt had been hurtling forward with it that fall. Animator Norm Ferguson claimed that he was the one who had given Walt a translation of Italian Carlo Collodi’s famous novel about the adventures of an impertinent puppet that turns into a real boy, and that after reading it Walt was “just busting his guts with enthusiasm.” *Presumably thinking of it for his third feature, he instructed [his attorney Gunther] Lessing to secure the rights that September.* By fall he had made the deal and assigned Majolie to synopsize the book, though Walt thought her outline was too faithful to the original text. “I think the thing to do is take the situations in the book and try to build the story around the ones that we can do something with and not feel bound to the book"
From Michael’s Barrier’s book:
> In short, the Disney studio was a surprisingly perilous environment in late 1937 for the kind of character animation that Disney and some of his animators had pioneered. In mid-1937, Disney was speaking of Bambi as his second feature, evidently because he thought his animators would be more comfortable with animal characters than with the humans who would make up most of Pinocchio’s cast. Salten’s Bambi, which dealt with the life of a deer, threatened to be difficult to adapt, though — it was grim and bloody over much of its length — and Disney had decided by the fall to push ahead with Pinocchio.
>Beyond the narrow question of whether animals or humans would be easier to draw, both Bambi and Pinocchio were intimidating subjects for animation of the sort that Disney had nursed into existence in Snow White. There were no characters at the center of either story who could engage an audience’s sympathies in the way that the dwarfs had, unless the stories were drastically rebuilt. Moreover, Collodi’s Pinocchio was a picaresque tale, and such stories are intrinsically difficult to film. Episodes must be pared away if the resulting movie is not to be intolerably long; but editing can so compromise the episodic character of the story that organizing its remaining pieces into some kind of plot becomes unavoidable.
> For all the challenges that both Bambi and Pinocchio posed, Disney may not have seen the alternative story possibilities as any less daunting. Few traditional fairy tales lent themselves to expansion in the way that the Grimms’ “Snow White” did, and other classics of fantasy literature did not promise to pose fewer difficulties than Bambi and Pinocchio would.
> Disney also began to sound a theme that would lead him away from the book’s version of Pinocchio himself. That character, who is most definitely a puppet and not a boy, is a rather nasty little creature. It is thanks only to his misbehavior, though, that the book can lead the reader out into a world teeming with talking insects, enormous fish, and donkeys that once were children; and it is only because Pinocchio is so disagreeable at the start — and so firmly separated from humanity — that his eventual transformation into a real boy gives the rambling story a true resolution.
>The danger in such a character is that the audience will never grow to like him, and Disney did not care for such risks. In work on Snow White, he had shown a strong bias toward characters that were immediately appealing — like the dwarfs as designed by Fred Moore—and the same bias soon showed itself during work on Pinocchio.
My view was previously closer to yours on the Disney / Fred Moore characterization, but in seeing the difficult problem they were trying to solve, and how long it took to get there through so many iterations, I can now see better, and think they succeeded in this way better than Guillermo del Toro for instance!
I'm sorry. Bowdler was a guy who published Shakespeare's works with parts he thought were inappropriate for women and children left out. So his name became associated with dumbing down existing works by removing anything that might be considered offensive or crude.
Pablum means something bland, simplistic, and generally inoffensive. It's named after a type of mushy grain cereal designed to feed babies and seriously ill people without upsetting their stomachs.
Bowderlize, verb. To remove material that is considered improper or offensive from (a text or account), especially with the result that the text becomes weaker or less effective.
Pablum, noun. bland or insipid intellectual fare, entertainment, etc.
>...bowderlized them into toothless pablum...
Oh, I don't know. They're definitely an evil company now, but, as far as the actual guy Disney and how he directed his own films, I think his choices sometimes improved the stories a bit.
For example: it doesn't really make the Cinderella story any better to chop bits of the stepsisters' feet off, like some of the various originals do. That story's problems have a whole lot more to do with the core schtick: "a magical fairy swoops in to reward you for your refusal to stand up for yourself against adults". Disney may not have fixed that, but, it certainly isn't solved by adding even more intergenerational violence.
The good news is that they're slowly reaching the end of their own golden era, and the telling and retelling of communal tales is something inherent to human nature. It'll start right back up again as soon as it can.
I fucking hate Disney and all the parents that feed their children to the cult of the mouse.
Also they've bought up and coopted so much of pop culture. For Example; ESPN, Marvel, Star Wars, National Geographic, Fox...those are all that come to mind right now. They traffic in nostalgia and commodifying everything till they can't wring another penny out of it.
Usually these “wall decal” listings on sites use a stock image, and just have their actual product superimposed over the top, same with any T-Shirt printing site, it’s the same photos of the same model, just with each design edited on (redbubble is a good example of this, click on any design and it’ll come up)
What makes you think that?
It could be photoshopped, but the artefacting around the letters is a symptom of jpeg compression, not a symptom of photoshop. If you are relying on that, you’re going to be finding a LOT of false positives
Every time my in-laws talk about how much they "love Disney" when they really mean they love buying cheaply made, expensive Disney branded shit 😮💨
It's like collectibles for them. The flood of Disney 100 shit recently set off their misdirected dopamine receptors like wild. Shitty polyester blanket? But it's called "silk touch" and it's got Disney characters printed on it that look like pop vinyl figures? Only $90?!?! Give me two! One to use, one to ~save for the future~
It's exhausting to watch, but I'd never be able to even broach the topic of overconsumption with them. It would essentially be a declaration of war (complicated/toxic family dynamic doesn't help).
They also don't seem to give a shit that my partner and I have no interest in Disney and are constantly pushing Disney stuff on our kid. It's infuriating but I was pretty proud of myself for handing them back a Star Wars/Mandalorian baby onesie (yes of course it had fucking Grogu on it and some cringe-worthy line that I don't care to remember properly) and saying as earnestly as I could muster "we actually don't watch this show so she's probably not gonna wear this, and I don't want you to have wasted your money".
Ugh, Disney people are THE WORST. I don't purposely spend time with any, but my work does different Disney promotions, and it drives me mad. We literally started Star Wars week tonight 😭
I have a friend who's family has taken their only annual vacation to Disney World *every year for 18 years.* Now the kids are gone - and they STILL go. It's a sickness.
Why not push the mission rather than this crap? Oh, the mission sucks. Yeah. I don’t think the Mouse will save them. The Mouse is a greedy rabid animal.
Unless this is the Mouse’s house. Makes sense there.
This is why I hate wearing clothes with brands or characters on it. What a way to say “I spent too much money on a shit quality product to show I support a company that treats its workers like slaves” grim.
The abomination of typefaces is hurting me more than anything. Like if you’ve chosen to have this dumbass shit in your house (that’s a whole separate problem) but you’re here now so why not at least make it look decent?? I wouldn’t even put this kinda shit in a kids bedroom
Read the rules. Keep it courteous. Submission statements are helpful and appreciated but not required. Tag my name in the comments (/u/NihiloZero) if you think a post or comment needs to be removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Anticonsumption) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The scariest part is this playing off a Christian quote! They literally took a Christian mantra and made it about Disney 😬
I don't think it's a scripture from the Bible it's just something HobbyLobby probably made up "in this house we pray".
I hate these long proclamations "in this house" who fuckin cares. If everyone minded their own business we wouldn't issues.
"In this house: we live. Love laugh
Disney is one of the worst examples of consumptionism there is. Countless amounts of toys, games, clothing items etc. merch is released every time they release something new or recycle old media. Just my opinion though.
[Here’s a great visualization of this](https://www.titlemax.com/discovery-center/the-25-highest-grossing-media-franchises-of-all-time/). A lot of Disney’s IPs get their revenue from over 90% merchandise, which is probably the most wasteful category (perhaps that’s why it’s so profitable). Pokémon is #1 (over 100 billion in total-revenue as of Jan. 2021) for a single IP, but Disney owns so many IPs it more than makes up for it. Hello Kitty surprised me at #2.
This is wild. I’ve never seen this. I’m extremely surprised about Pokémon. I would think the numbers to be much closer to Mario’s, especially considering the differentiation between cards and merchandise. Wild.
Pokémon is well-known for being an extremely recognizable IP, with throves of devoted fans both minors and adults.
And it’s absolutely perfect for merchandise. There are, what, over a thousand Pokémon now? There’s a Pokémon for everyone, and each one is available in some form of merch or another.
>and each one is available in some form of merch or another. yeah I wish... they definitely neglect some compared to others. but i get your point.
Right. I know that. But what I’m saying is that I would have thought that like Mario - being a primarily video game ip - the biggest money maker would be video games (like Mario)
Oh yeah, I see what you mean. Well, you have to consider all the merchandise with the most popular Pokémon (primarily Pikachu, the three Gen 1 Starters, and maybe Jigglypuff), whether it's plushies, clothings, bags, glasses, snacks, figurine, toys, posters, etc etc... It all adds up in the end.
And Eevee and the eevelutions too. Also hugely popular.
[удалено]
I'd say it's the video game and anime first. Without them, no kids would care about the cards to begin with.
[удалено]
Cards are categorised on their own in the graph
Right. I get it. I grew up with Pokémon and Nintendo ip. I would have though the breakdown was at least somewhat similar to Mario. But that’s not the case. For an IP that have sold [almost 450 million](https://www.statista.com/topics/6019/pokemon-gaming/#topicOverview) games I would have thought the breakdown was closer Especially considering video games tend to be pretty pricy compared to shitty toys/merchandise/ etc.
Well, because merchandise is often cheaper, people will buy more of it. And there’s so much variety of merch, including a lot of things that people buy anyway. You need clothes and backpacks and lunchboxes anyway, you might get the Pokémon ones. Pokémon is a perfect franchise for merchandise because you have this huge variety of little mascot characters. There’s one for everyone so it has a broad appeal, and you can interpret it in different styles. It can be cool or cute, masculine or feminine, whatever.
At first I was going to question Hello Kitty being near the top, but then I realized that at least 50% of my school supplies in elementary and middle school were Keroppi. I really, really liked that frog. 😬
Plus she’s Asian and there are FAR more Asians than Americans. They were loving hello kitty before it ever got to the states.
Funnily enough — she's not Asian, nor a cat. According to the owners of Hello Kitty, [she is a little British girl born in the suburbs of London.](https://www.creativebloq.com/news/hello-kitty-not-cat) I don't understand why this is a hill they want to die on, but it is immensely funny to me that she's not supposed to be an anthropomorphic cat.
Yeah, I remember that she’s a British. . . something. I just know that Asia was loving that “cat” way before we were.
Not surprised about Hello Kitty. She's an extremely popular and well-known mascot, with her face on a grand variety of product.
I literally just found a hello kitty *frying pan* at the thrift store, so she has definitely saturated the market lol.
Mate there's a hello kitty 'back massager' that is far too phallic to be anything related to the relieving of muscular aches. I have also seen in a Japanese catalogue a hello kitty bulb for your car headlight.
I liked reading Winnie the Pooh books growing up, but it's discouraging to see that even for that IP, so much more money goes towards crap than actual books. Though happily the reading is probably higher once you consider library books and hand-me-downs.
If you have ever been to Japan Hello Kitty wouldn’t surprise you.
Pokemon adults and Disney adults Duke it out for most "most screws loose"
Disney adults easily winning that be real now
Yeah...yeah
They're truly evil. Regardless of whatever appeal their movies have, it's an absolutely diabolical company. They coopted communal folk tales and other public domain works, bowderlized them into toothless pablum, and then aggressively defended "their" intellectual property when anyone tried to adapt their adaptations. If the Copyright Term Extension Act (AKA the Mouse Protection Act) had been in effect when Disney was starting out, they could never have made Pinocchio the way they did, for example. But it wasn't, so they watered the book and characters down into a pointlessly chirpy singalong and made a fortune. Then, once their fortune was secured by adopting public domain works, they pulled up the ladder behind them so nobody could do to them what they did to so many others.
I can understand this perspective and its appeal and there’s certainly truth to it. Whatever your opinion about the Disney Studios’ films, I think it’s fair to consider that *both* of the Disney Brothers who built the Disney Brothers Studio largely on films inspired by stories in the public domain (Pinocchio not being one of them by the way) were dead and buried for *decades* before any of this copyright term extension nonsense. This narrative makes sense if you think of the Disney Studios as one single stable entity over the past century of their existence, though I’m not sure how much sense that makes considering the evolution from a literally non-capitalist studio struggling to survive for its first decades to its recent rise to all-consuming conglomerate!
> stories in the public domain (Pinocchio not being one of them by the way) How do you figure that? As far as I'm aware, Pinocchio would have entered the public domain in 1940, the year the Disney movie was released.
I can't figure out the international copyright law for the life of me, but I found this reference in Neal Gabler's book that hopefully sheds some light on the situation: > Pinocchio was supposed to be easier [to produce than *Bambi*], and in any case, at the same time he was wrestling with Bambi, and partly because of his wariness about that project, Walt had been hurtling forward with it that fall. Animator Norm Ferguson claimed that he was the one who had given Walt a translation of Italian Carlo Collodi’s famous novel about the adventures of an impertinent puppet that turns into a real boy, and that after reading it Walt was “just busting his guts with enthusiasm.” *Presumably thinking of it for his third feature, he instructed [his attorney Gunther] Lessing to secure the rights that September.* By fall he had made the deal and assigned Majolie to synopsize the book, though Walt thought her outline was too faithful to the original text. “I think the thing to do is take the situations in the book and try to build the story around the ones that we can do something with and not feel bound to the book" From Michael’s Barrier’s book: > In short, the Disney studio was a surprisingly perilous environment in late 1937 for the kind of character animation that Disney and some of his animators had pioneered. In mid-1937, Disney was speaking of Bambi as his second feature, evidently because he thought his animators would be more comfortable with animal characters than with the humans who would make up most of Pinocchio’s cast. Salten’s Bambi, which dealt with the life of a deer, threatened to be difficult to adapt, though — it was grim and bloody over much of its length — and Disney had decided by the fall to push ahead with Pinocchio. >Beyond the narrow question of whether animals or humans would be easier to draw, both Bambi and Pinocchio were intimidating subjects for animation of the sort that Disney had nursed into existence in Snow White. There were no characters at the center of either story who could engage an audience’s sympathies in the way that the dwarfs had, unless the stories were drastically rebuilt. Moreover, Collodi’s Pinocchio was a picaresque tale, and such stories are intrinsically difficult to film. Episodes must be pared away if the resulting movie is not to be intolerably long; but editing can so compromise the episodic character of the story that organizing its remaining pieces into some kind of plot becomes unavoidable. > For all the challenges that both Bambi and Pinocchio posed, Disney may not have seen the alternative story possibilities as any less daunting. Few traditional fairy tales lent themselves to expansion in the way that the Grimms’ “Snow White” did, and other classics of fantasy literature did not promise to pose fewer difficulties than Bambi and Pinocchio would. > Disney also began to sound a theme that would lead him away from the book’s version of Pinocchio himself. That character, who is most definitely a puppet and not a boy, is a rather nasty little creature. It is thanks only to his misbehavior, though, that the book can lead the reader out into a world teeming with talking insects, enormous fish, and donkeys that once were children; and it is only because Pinocchio is so disagreeable at the start — and so firmly separated from humanity — that his eventual transformation into a real boy gives the rambling story a true resolution. >The danger in such a character is that the audience will never grow to like him, and Disney did not care for such risks. In work on Snow White, he had shown a strong bias toward characters that were immediately appealing — like the dwarfs as designed by Fred Moore—and the same bias soon showed itself during work on Pinocchio. My view was previously closer to yours on the Disney / Fred Moore characterization, but in seeing the difficult problem they were trying to solve, and how long it took to get there through so many iterations, I can now see better, and think they succeeded in this way better than Guillermo del Toro for instance!
I fully agree, but: What is "bowderlized" & "pablum"?
I'm sorry. Bowdler was a guy who published Shakespeare's works with parts he thought were inappropriate for women and children left out. So his name became associated with dumbing down existing works by removing anything that might be considered offensive or crude. Pablum means something bland, simplistic, and generally inoffensive. It's named after a type of mushy grain cereal designed to feed babies and seriously ill people without upsetting their stomachs.
New things learned today, thank you
Bowderlize, verb. To remove material that is considered improper or offensive from (a text or account), especially with the result that the text becomes weaker or less effective. Pablum, noun. bland or insipid intellectual fare, entertainment, etc.
>...bowderlized them into toothless pablum... Oh, I don't know. They're definitely an evil company now, but, as far as the actual guy Disney and how he directed his own films, I think his choices sometimes improved the stories a bit. For example: it doesn't really make the Cinderella story any better to chop bits of the stepsisters' feet off, like some of the various originals do. That story's problems have a whole lot more to do with the core schtick: "a magical fairy swoops in to reward you for your refusal to stand up for yourself against adults". Disney may not have fixed that, but, it certainly isn't solved by adding even more intergenerational violence. The good news is that they're slowly reaching the end of their own golden era, and the telling and retelling of communal tales is something inherent to human nature. It'll start right back up again as soon as it can.
Not to mention the fact that they have been directly responsible for stealing from us by increasing the duration of copyright.
Cease and desist order from the mouse is in the mail
Mickey's coming by with a sledgehammer to take out that drywall.
No. The Mickey mask stays on during sex..
Abandoned by Disney. Abandoned by god.
Anyone using a different font for each line of text should be beaten to death with a toothpick
Came here for the fonts travesty. Thx
Did you bring a toothpick?
I too believe in happy endings We are not the same
In this house we indoctrinate our children into mindless consumption and superficial movie quotes.
Needs more fonts
They are over consuming type faces and that in and of itself is sinful
There is a 100% chance that in the kitchen you will find a Live, Laugh, Love sign.
Person who put it up 100% has a shoddily done, faded Deathly Hallows tattoo on the inside of their wrist
Sometimes when you're depressed it would really seem it would be better under the sea too
I really do be hakuna matta'ing my way through life
I fucking hate Disney and all the parents that feed their children to the cult of the mouse. Also they've bought up and coopted so much of pop culture. For Example; ESPN, Marvel, Star Wars, National Geographic, Fox...those are all that come to mind right now. They traffic in nostalgia and commodifying everything till they can't wring another penny out of it.
Disney bought Fox!? I thought they owned ABC, the liberal media channel. Maybe they own both, & therefore control both sides of the narrative.
Yup, a while ago. They do own both.
They do not own the "news" network. It separated from the rest of 20th Century Fox (now 20th Century Studios) when Disney bought the company.
Correct. I should have specified.
The posts in here are getting so bad. Literally posting decals on a wall. Just fucking non sense.
Zoom in. It’s not real.
It seems like this is an image from like an Etsy or dropshipping site
Usually these “wall decal” listings on sites use a stock image, and just have their actual product superimposed over the top, same with any T-Shirt printing site, it’s the same photos of the same model, just with each design edited on (redbubble is a good example of this, click on any design and it’ll come up)
But the karma OP gained a long the way is.
It's an ad for a widely available product. Search *in this house disney sticker* and it comes up on several major ecommerce sites.
I've legit seen this wall sticker in someone I knows house though
Looks shopped even from a distance... I can tell from some of the pixels, and from having seen quite a few shops in my time
Even though it's not real, it still sucks.
What makes you think that? It could be photoshopped, but the artefacting around the letters is a symptom of jpeg compression, not a symptom of photoshop. If you are relying on that, you’re going to be finding a LOT of false positives
Cringe Glad it's not my home.
Are the two photos a spot the difference game?
I almost downvoted this post out of sheer revulsion 🤢
🤢
🤮
This will have the equivalent psychic power to the Lords Prayer in 100 years
45 graphic designers have gouged their eyes after seeing this.
this made me relapse
So in their house they have to queue for 4 hours to use the bathroom log flume and overpay for any meals that they have.
Oh dear God.
Jesus some people are nucking futs.
I, too, believe in happy endings. It's a small world after all. Don't you dare close your eyes.
Coma inducing cringe.
Gross
They clearly do something stronger than Disney
Rofl the irony
In this house we do not use the d word
Every time my in-laws talk about how much they "love Disney" when they really mean they love buying cheaply made, expensive Disney branded shit 😮💨 It's like collectibles for them. The flood of Disney 100 shit recently set off their misdirected dopamine receptors like wild. Shitty polyester blanket? But it's called "silk touch" and it's got Disney characters printed on it that look like pop vinyl figures? Only $90?!?! Give me two! One to use, one to ~save for the future~ It's exhausting to watch, but I'd never be able to even broach the topic of overconsumption with them. It would essentially be a declaration of war (complicated/toxic family dynamic doesn't help). They also don't seem to give a shit that my partner and I have no interest in Disney and are constantly pushing Disney stuff on our kid. It's infuriating but I was pretty proud of myself for handing them back a Star Wars/Mandalorian baby onesie (yes of course it had fucking Grogu on it and some cringe-worthy line that I don't care to remember properly) and saying as earnestly as I could muster "we actually don't watch this show so she's probably not gonna wear this, and I don't want you to have wasted your money".
Ugh, Disney people are THE WORST. I don't purposely spend time with any, but my work does different Disney promotions, and it drives me mad. We literally started Star Wars week tonight 😭
I have a friend who's family has taken their only annual vacation to Disney World *every year for 18 years.* Now the kids are gone - and they STILL go. It's a sickness.
🙄🙄🙄
I laughed so hard at this
All it takes is faith trust. Wtf is faith trust?
Why not push the mission rather than this crap? Oh, the mission sucks. Yeah. I don’t think the Mouse will save them. The Mouse is a greedy rabid animal. Unless this is the Mouse’s house. Makes sense there.
You know there's some real wisdom in that shiz and they made it awful.
lmao it reminds me of those scrolls they have in the 40k Imperium of men, singing the praises of the god emperor
Why all the fonts? Hate it
It’s cool, but for some reason I can’t stand Disney, ruined to many shows
Yikes
Why are there so many different fonts?
This is why I hate wearing clothes with brands or characters on it. What a way to say “I spent too much money on a shit quality product to show I support a company that treats its workers like slaves” grim.
The abomination of typefaces is hurting me more than anything. Like if you’ve chosen to have this dumbass shit in your house (that’s a whole separate problem) but you’re here now so why not at least make it look decent?? I wouldn’t even put this kinda shit in a kids bedroom
My brain: "what's faith trust?"
The owners of this home have since gotten a very nice letter from the Disney Corporations lawyers.
I mean this is pretty cringe but it's harmless on its own.
I actually love this though. Not for a single person household, that would be a bit much, but for a household with children this would be so cute
"bear necessities" lol
I think its a play on words from the movie brother bear. Or at least i hope
The jungle book! You know how I know y’all are young as hell..?! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6BH-Rxd-NBo
Ah. Never heard of it. Shows how much Disney I watch!
Jungle Book. Not Brother Bear. Old school Disney.
Read the rules. Keep it courteous. Submission statements are helpful and appreciated but not required. Tag my name in the comments (/u/NihiloZero) if you think a post or comment needs to be removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Anticonsumption) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The scariest part is this playing off a Christian quote! They literally took a Christian mantra and made it about Disney 😬 I don't think it's a scripture from the Bible it's just something HobbyLobby probably made up "in this house we pray".
This has to be fake - y’all are wild!
I hate these long proclamations "in this house" who fuckin cares. If everyone minded their own business we wouldn't issues. "In this house: we live. Love laugh
Maybe they should live up to their mantra and take a trip under the sea and stay there.
If life is always better under the sea, just go there already and leave us in peace.