Christopher Lee as Dracula? Although picking the villain from a horror movie franchise is probably cheating.
The Disney Thread: For Everything Concerning the House of Mouse
- Thread starter filmfanatic
- Start date
Presumably we're excluding stuff in which dying repeatedly is part of the plot, such as Stephen Strange vs Dormammu? Because if not, I nominate Stephen Strange vs Dormammu.
RIP Disney, at least in Florida.
abcnews.go.com
DeSantis &Co have essentially taken Disney World away from Disney. Yes I know this is probably something more suited for the political thread(s), but felt it significant enough to the brand to put it here, instead.
—Patrick
DeSantis takes over Disney district, punishing company
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has signed a bill that gives him control of Walt Disney World’s self-governing district, punishing the company over its opposition to the so-called “Don’t Say Gay” law
abcnews.go.com
—Patrick
Dave
Staff member
I know several people who were going to go to Orlando this year to go to Disney, etc. And they are choosing to go elsewhere because they don't want to give Florida their money. I know it's a drop in the bucket, but it is happening.RIP Disney, at least in Florida.
DeSantis &Co have essentially taken Disney World away from Disney. Yes I know this is probably something more suited for the political thread(s), but felt it significant enough to the brand to put it here, instead.DeSantis takes over Disney district, punishing company
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has signed a bill that gives him control of Walt Disney World’s self-governing district, punishing the company over its opposition to the so-called “Don’t Say Gay” law
—Patrick
I've heard some talk about them buying land in ether Texas or Georgia and setting up shop there (as they both have ports Disney uses for things) but that would still be a long term thing.
Isn't cancel culture or wokeism just market forces acting against the political will of the minority?
DeSantis Promises Florida Will Control Disney Content
Right-wing board to clamp down on “woke ideology” in cartoons.
nymag.com
How long between DeSantis saying "stop making the content I don't want" and "start making the content I do want?"
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
Yet.
Theofascism seems to be getting a lot of traction these days, and next year is election year again! (groan)
Not that I don't think DeSantis is an evil bastard whom I hope karma catches up with swiftly, but did he forget that Disney also runs out of California, where most of their content is made and he has no jurisdiction? Like, he may try to control Disney World, but that's not the whole company. As I'm sure Disney lawyers are already all over this.DeSantis Promises Florida Will Control Disney Content
Right-wing board to clamp down on “woke ideology” in cartoons.
How long between DeSantis saying "stop making the content I don't want" and "start making the content I do want?"
What I've seen someone else point out is a lot of DeSantis' policies, not just Disney-related, are going to/in the process of having lawsuits thrown at them left and right, since most them are unconstitutional. The problem is, once they're challenged, and hopefully dismantled, he'll already be making his presidential run. It's a disgusting win-win for this shitbag because he run on having made the policies, regardless if they stay.
I’ve said at work that he’s going to happily bankrupt Florida for votes because he fully expects to be living in MD by Jan ‘25 and it will no longer be his problem.
—Patrick
This is the icing of the whole Cinderella Castle shape cake.
I hate to say it but I think Disney may have messed this up. Charles is His Majesty Charles the Third, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. King of England is not one of his official titles. There hasn't been a King or Queen of England for over 300 years since the 1707 Acts of Union.
If DeSantis can argue in court that this means that "King Charles III, King of England" is a made up person that may be enough to get this thrown out. Maybe they can argue that "His other Realms and Territories King" covers England but that's usually held to cover countries like Canada & Australia rather than constituent parts of the UK.
If DeSantis can argue in court that this means that "King Charles III, King of England" is a made up person that may be enough to get this thrown out. Maybe they can argue that "His other Realms and Territories King" covers England but that's usually held to cover countries like Canada & Australia rather than constituent parts of the UK.
Pretty sure this one covers England (and Wales and Scotland).
figmentPez
Staff member
I'd argue that's not true. The United States is set up with an intentional separation of powers. The President of the US isn't President of Maryland because the system intentionally says he is not. Charles III is "king of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland." (reference for usage of that phrase from the BBC). While no one would say that the US President is president of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, etc, if the BBC is saying that Charles III was crowned king of England, etc, then it seems likely that Disney's claim will hold up in court, since they can pretty easily prove that there is a king of England, the BBC says there is.
There is undoubtedly tons of precedent in law for what happens when a legal document gives the wrong title to someone, but unless Charles III was named specifically because of his authority under his actual title, I imagine all Disney will have to prove is that "Charles III, King of England" clearly refers to a specific, easily identifiable person, and not to anyone else. It's not out of the realm of possibility that US law is pants-on-head stupid about this matter, but I doubt "and there is no King of England" is going to be the loophole that will take down Disney.
You do realise that the BBC can get things wrong don't you? And that they're not the ones that decide what Charles official title is?
Listen, if you or anyone else here had called Charles the King of England I wouldn't bother correcting you. Everyone would know who you meant. But Disney used that term in a legal document, and in a legal document it doesn't matter what you meant - it matters what you said. And what Disney said is, strictly speaking, wrong.
Maybe that won't matter. Maybe the Judge in the inevitable court case about this will say "Yeah, I clearly know who they're referring to here". Or maybe he won't. Maybe he'll say "The last official King of England died over 300 years ago" & throw out Disney's declaration. Maybe it'll get thrown out on other grounds.
But the possibility is that Disney could lose this because they couldn't be bothered to look up the correct way to refer to King Charles. That's a lot sloppier than I'd expect of them.
figmentPez
Staff member
Yes, I do, but I don't think they're wrong in this case. Charles III is king over England. That is title is not normally phrased as such may be irrelevant, since it can be phrased that way and still be accurate.
Is it wrong, though? I don't think either of us know. There are thousands of sources that call Charles III the King of England. Legal precedent may say it doesn't matter if that's his official title, but it only matters how he is known. If someone named "Michael Jackson, King of Pop" in a document, it probably wouldn't be invalid just because there's no official, legal status to be King of Pop, but Michael Jackson was well known as that. Charles III is well known to be the King of England, erroneously or not, and that may matter more to the court than his official legal title.
The question is, when it comes to this legal title, what matters more? The legal title, or being able to correctly identify the person named? I suspect that being able to correctly identify the person named is the only important part when it comes to this law, since his status as king probably makes no difference to the law.
Last edited:
I suspect we're never going to agree on whether calling Charles "King of England" is wrong or right. To you as an American calling him that seems unusual, but not wrong. To me as someone from the UK and more aware of the rather strongly held opinions about calling something English, or British it's blindingly obviously wrong. (Seriously if you're ever in the UK, don't call him that. In Wales it's a bad idea, in Scotland it's a really bad idea. In NI it's a potentially fatally bad idea.) Rather like how in the UK calling someone a Yankee means they're American, whereas I believe over there it refers specifically to someone from the Northern half of the US?
And, to be fair, since this case will be decided in American Courts, the Judge is probably more likely to be thinking like you than me. Although that will just leave me thinking "Damn Americans don't know how the British Royal Family works", rather than "Huh, guess it is correct to call Charles the King of England".
Careful what you wish for. In a Trump v DeSantis debate, the only way to win is for the whole building to crumble in upon itself on both their heads.
When you wish upon a star...See, that's the problem, you seem to think that they need to use an official title.
I don't think they do, not any more then that BBC article had to.
But i do wonder, would you have objected to calling him King of Great Britain ?