I always enjoyed working with autistic campers ‘cause many of them had genuine questions about rules and wanted full explanations for why it’s not appropriate to say or do certain things at camp, and I was happy to answer. Even if it meant sitting in the dirt for an hour finding different ways to explain why certain words are considered bad or rude.
I don’t think you can assume that children will understand why something is offensive unless you are prepared to give them genuine reasons. It was so frustrating to watch my coworkers offer “because” or “that’s just the way it is” as explanations for rules when the child clearly did not ‘get it’ and was not old or experienced enough to figure it out. You can say that breaking a rule is bad, but unless you show what its greater purpose is, how can you expect a child to respect it?
Agreed up to the last point. I desperately wanted answers - but even when given the “Just Because” explanation I still respected the rules; the same goes for my siblings and friends. A kid doesn’t need a reason to be a good person.
“A kid doesn’t need a reason to be a good person.” I think a kid needs to understand why something is considered good and why something else is considered bad. Example: we do not throw things in public. Some children have already figured out that throwing things is not allowed because it could easily hurt someone, or damage something that people care about. Most people think that “hurting people is bad” is self-evident, but is it really? Kids are still figuring out where they end and the rest of the world begins, and sometimes you really do need to explain to them reasons why they should be considerate of other people’s feelings.
You don’t necessarily need a reason to be obedient, but I think “goodness” is learned and then put into practice through reasoning and experience. Obedience is convenient for adults, but I think it’s important that we give children more explanation for it if we want them to grow.
marvel: ‘infinity war is the most ambitious crossover event in history’
me:
It’s true! Especially given a) the technology they had at the time to pull this off, and b) that they had characters from TWO separate companies as opposed to different characters from the same comics publisher.
So yeah, Roger Rabbit wins the ambitious crossover award, hands down. Sorry Marvel.
The agreement with Disney and Warner Bros was that they could only use their biggest characters (Mickey and Donald, Bugs and Daffy) if the other corrosponding character had the exact same amount of screentime. This is why, in the movie, Bugs and Mickey are sharing scenes, and Daffy and Donald are sharing scenes.
It’s also worth mentioning that every single animator in the industry that wasn’t already working on something was called in to work on this film. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.
Oh, they got more than TWO separate companies’ characters.
They had Betty Boop, whose current ownership of the old cartoons is a weird quagmire and chain of sales (plus some in the Public Domain), but it seems the character proper remains under Fleischer Studios and King Features Syndicate.
Droopy Dog had the killer elevator gag, and he’s under MGM.
Woody Woodpecker shows up at the end, who was from Walter Lantz originally, and had been acquired by MCA/Universal shortly before Roger Rabbit.
Felix the Cat shows up in a photo but not animated, which… I couldn’t say what -if any- permissions would be needed for that but honestly Disney’d likely play it careful.
More cameos from outside Disney & WB were planned but didn’t happen, shown in a storyboarded but never-made scene of Marvin Acme’s funeral. Popeye, Bluto, Felix, and Tom & Jerry would have been there.
i heard a voice in my head say “guess theres a reason people like you have such short lifespans” and not a full second later i barely caught myself before plugging in a surge protector while my fingers were touching the metal prongs
