Woke Disney

Video Statistics and Information

Video
Captions Word Cloud
Reddit Comments

I never understood creative decisions like Beauty and the Beast remake covering "Plot Holes" when it's a freaking fairy tale. It doesn't need "logic" applied to it, just because the internet makes fun of genre tropes. Maleficent, as bad as that movie is, is not afraid to stick to fairy tale logic and plays with the material like sympathetic character motivation and a layer of re contextualization to make this retelling of a simple story feel more layered in seeing a different angle a la "Wicked".

I bet the Little Mermaid remake is just going to condemn and mock Arial for going after a guy, when it was revolutionary at the time for the princess to actually go and get her prince, because her heart wanted it.

👍︎︎ 772 👤︎︎ u/Pancake_muncher 📅︎︎ Sep 30 2019 🗫︎ replies

You know what I like about Lindsay's videos? There aren't edit cuts every few seconds when its just her speaking. These days that's pretty pro.

👍︎︎ 239 👤︎︎ u/SoundProblem 📅︎︎ Oct 01 2019 🗫︎ replies

I agree with Lindsay. Maleficent may be trash but I give huge props to Angelina Jolie for putting in her work. It at least makes the movie more fun to watch than a lot of the other live action remakes.

👍︎︎ 424 👤︎︎ u/videoninja 📅︎︎ Sep 30 2019 🗫︎ replies

Is it me or live-action versions felt more dumbed-down than animation counterparts? Which is strange considering how people view animations as childish but these live-action movies are more childish than your regular family movies. This will be the sign that the society should stop viewing animations as an artistic medium for child audiences.

I mean, there has been a lot of great live-action movies based on fairy tales, don't get me wrong (see Jean Cocteau's take on Beauty and the Beast). But Disney's movies don't try to be unique or stand-out. Then again, Michael Eisener, the former CEO of Disney, don't want his entertainment to be his personal statement.

👍︎︎ 208 👤︎︎ u/Raccoon_JS 📅︎︎ Sep 30 2019 🗫︎ replies

Princess Jasmine was already a badass! the remake version over-sharpened the pencil.

👍︎︎ 339 👤︎︎ u/bexar_necessities 📅︎︎ Sep 30 2019 🗫︎ replies

If I was remaking Dumbo, I would expand the use of crows instead of eliminating them. It makes sense for Dumbo to learn how to fly from animals that know how to fly. I thought of a plot line where crows sort of know where peanuts are but they can't find them in the snow. They help Dumbo escape from the circus because they think his nose can find the peanuts. Dumbo ends up sliding down a snowy hill. He goes off little ski jumps and the crows give him advice on how to not land on his head. Eventually, Dumbo goes off a real ski jump and crows talk him through how to not kill himself. That's his first flying lesson and the circus sends a truck to go fetch Dumbo.

👍︎︎ 28 👤︎︎ u/hawkwings 📅︎︎ Oct 01 2019 🗫︎ replies

"this trend of family films being self-aware and trope savvy"

That's New Disney being like "Think I'm just too woke n' nerdy. Can't you see I'm woke n' nerdy"

👍︎︎ 120 👤︎︎ u/moderate-painting 📅︎︎ Sep 30 2019 🗫︎ replies

EPIC GIRLBOSS MOMENT

👍︎︎ 246 👤︎︎ u/[deleted] 📅︎︎ Sep 30 2019 🗫︎ replies

I think another reason why Disney sidesteps race issues is because addressing race can be tricky and Disney is aggressive about protecting it's family friendly and wholesome persona. I think its a road they don't even want to go down for fear of hurting their image. They recognize the backlash if they attempted to address race but did it improperly or stop too short or go too heavy handed. It's just easier to whitewash their old media and sidestep.

👍︎︎ 40 👤︎︎ u/Trigunesq 📅︎︎ Oct 01 2019 🗫︎ replies
Captions
"Let's get ready for Dumbo!" Twice. They do it twice. "Let's get ready for Dumbo!" In the last couple of decades, there's been this trend of family films being self-aware and trope-savvy, as if to say: yes, parents in the room, we know that you have to endure this, but we also know that you are, in fact, smarter than your five-year-old. You did it. And while this has been present in Disney films since debatably Aladdin, this kind of meta-commentary has slowly been shifting from the occasional throwaway gag-- "It's a small world after all..." "No! No. Anything but that." --to full-on important thematic statement. Enchanted is the real milestone here and also represented a turning point for the studio in general, the entire premise of the film positing what would actually happen if a Disney princess were magically transported into the real world. "Don't sing. It's okay. You know, let's just walk." See, Patrick Dempsey's trying to get his daughter into, like, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "A book?" He wants her to be a strong independent woman. But then, hey, a literal Disney Princess brings magic into their lives. So hey, I guess the truth is somewhere in the middle. You can be a strong independent woman who also buys Disney Princess merch. "And today we're going to be checking out some new toys in honor of Princess Jasmine." It wasn't obvious at the time, but this was laying the groundwork for a much broader trend of Disney acknowledging that times have changed from the era of princesses being saved by princes, and it's cool that you want to go to law school, strong independent woman. But please don't stop buying our stuff. Audiences really liked this meta aspect of Enchanted, and we saw similar elements in other films like Frozen. "You got engaged to someone you just met that day?" "Yeah. Anyway..." Moana "If you wear a dress and you have an animal sidekick, you're a princess." And more recently, Wreck-it Ralph: Ralph Breaks the Internet "Were you poisoned?" "No." "Cursed?" "No." "Kidnapped or enslaved?" "No. Are you guys okay? Should I call the police?" Soon we entered the era of the live-action remake/sequel/spin-off, beginning debatably with Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, starring Girl Interrupted Alice what wears armor and a tortured tragic Mad Hatter and whatever this is. As far as this trend goes, Cinderella felt like a test-run. It had no real interest in reinventing the wheel so much, as much as it slides in on the whole knowing the prince before the ball/riding a horse equals empowerment shtick that Ever After did better. Because by this point, that was old hat. But on the flip side of the coin, we have Maleficent. Or as I like to call it: my trash. Maleficent is a remake sort of, which works as meta commentary by suggesting that the villain wasn't one-dimensional but had sympathetic motivations. Very sympathetic motivations. Motivations which I think that only Angelina Jolie knew what she was doing. I mean, I get a girl. But really, the difference now even from a movie as relatively recent as Maleficent is that these films are not so much using commentary as a means to examine their past and the films that they are based on as much as they are using meta commentary to justify their own existence. "Teaching another girl to read? Isn't one enough?" Get it? The original movie wasn't empowering. But now it is. The tendency to self-correct the outdated or questionable morality of the source material is all over the place in these remakes. Dumbo in particular is rife with it. "Look at the sign! Dumbo!" See, in the original film, Dumbo accidentally gets lit on some champagne and hallucinates. But here... "Champagne for Dumbo!" "No booze near the baby." No, we couldn't allow underaged elephants to drink. What would the children think? And where the original Dumbo reunited with his mother at the end of the movie, who seems to be enjoying retirement on her own train car, the remake has them return to the jungle. And Danny DeVito gets an epilogue where he explains to the viewer that the circus is now cruelty-free. "We believe no wild animals will be held in captivity." So the remake has this forced Aesop that animal cruelty is bad. You know, which is not a bad thing in and of itself. It is bad, and I'm glad animals in circuses have been phased out. But that Dumbo happens in the late 1910s, and that this is how the film ends feels a little...disingenuous. Like, audiences know it was a different time. I don't think anyone wanted or expected a Dumbo remake to have a message about how it's probably kind of unethical to have circus animals. "Here I'm making fun of your ugly baby." So instead of addressing actual criticisms that people have had of Dumbo--and we'll get to that--it seems that the film is presenting itself as thoughtful by fixing a moral outrage that no one but PETA really had. So some of this strategy is built either around blatantly ignoring said dated material and cutesily joking it away, but in the interest of pretending that Disney is at least somewhat more hip to the criticism that it faces as a powerful conglomerate, it has latched on to addressing other critiques with that thing that the kids like nowadays: The woke-ness. "How do you do, fellow kids?" "What?" Because these movies need a reason to exist, right? So it's that thing you like already. But woke. I've done a whole 35- minute video on this topic, so I will be brief in my beating of this very dead horse and very girlboss horse. But the 2017 Beauty and the Beast remake is what I see as the turning point from meta commentary as a fun way of reexamining Disney canon to woke meta commentary as justifying the film's existing at all. "Yes, the poor thing is probably in there scared to death." "Exactly." This is where the movies stop trying to expand and instead want to be more like, Yeah, we've read the YMMV/Head Scratchers page on TV Tropes, so let's nitpick our own movies! "What's your name?" "That is a hairbrush." She doesn't have Stockholm Syndrome. She's...she...she basically says so! "You've taken me as your prisoner, and now you want to have dinner with me?" The Beast negs her, and she rolls her eyes at him. "Actually, Romeo and Juliet's my favorite play." "Why is that not a surprise?" She tries to escape. See? What a girl boss. She's an inventor, who reads! Girl boss. Their utter lack of chemistry is, I don't know, feminist somehow. And as much as the 1991 Beauty and the Beast was a success for the studio, it also became an easy target for bad faith or lazy criticisms. It feels like an exercise of self-flagellation, but one that the audience is in on. Since Disney Studios' brand is so tied up in the idea of princesses, it's been constantly re-evaluating its relationship to the concept. We definitely saw some evolution in the 90s. "Then maybe I don't want to be a princess anymore!" But in the wake of Lean In, it's like we can't have a female character without really overt text about how empowered she is. In Dumbo, there is a girl child, Colin Farrell's daughter, who wants to be a scientist. "Toys?" "They're not toys. They're for my science experiments." Not a circus performer like her father wants, which, fine. "I want to be noticed for my mind." Except it plays into the plot not at all. Like, she doesn't discover anything about Dumbo or, like, figure out the aerodynamics of elephants flying. It serves no other purpose other than to show that, like, she's not like other girls. What with their frippery and need for attention. "Maybe I don't need the world staring at me." This girl is like two lines away from pulling a Neil deGrasse Tyson and asking her dad if he knows how many people die in elephant related accidents compared to the Spanish flu. And in The Lion King, not only is Nala's part expanded, but Shenzi is a girl boss now. You know, but sinister. Which means they listened to the feminist critique of the original, or something? It wasn't a critique that any actual human person had, but okay. Let's pretend there was this big groundswell of mad feminists who were like, Yeah, Shenzi should have been a girl boss, and Disney was like, yeah, we hear you. So they added that but changed nothing else nor does the film change any of the elements that people actually did take issue with, so...thanks? Aladdin likewise features new empowered girl boss Jasmine. "I was born to do more than marry some useless prince." Jasmine in this version doesn't only want to marry for love--which to her, seems kind of a secondary concern if that-- she wants to be the Sultan. "I have been preparing for this my whole life." She quite literally aspires to be a girl boss. "You shall be the next sultan." See, the monarchy isn't bad. It's progressive. It just needs a female CEO. Also Jasmine, one of the most iconic dynamic and beloved princesses, gets her own power ballad about how she's not speechless, and you're gonna listen to her. "I won't be silenced!" Even though that was never an issue for that character in the original. "How dare you? All of you. Standing around deciding my future? I am not a prize to be won!" And also isn't really an issue in this movie either. She doesn't really self-censor, she's not shy about her needs or stating them. Also there's something just kind of hilarious about a character power ballading to the gods about being speechless and then immediately being taken prisoner and needing to be rescued. "I won't be silen--" Fwoop! So the goal here is to make princesses feel still relevant, and they do that in the way that's effectively, you know, we need more female CEOs. "The people, they make it beautiful. And they deserve a leader who knows that." And with that in mind, I really can't wait to see how they're gonna wokeify The Little Mermaid. Like, it'll have Ariel really lean into that like, "bright young women, ready to stand" line, and have her wanna be on land because she found a shipwrecked copy of Girl Wash Your Face. And they're gonna go way out of their way to say it's not for a guy. It's not for a guy! He's just a...he's a fringe benefit. So the metatextual inclusion of gender-related progress gets addressed by adding Lean In feminism and making everyone a girl boss. But how do these new live-action movies address critique of race in older Disney films? That's certainly a hot topic. Well, here is a Washington Post article that asked that very question about Dumbo. How do they deal with it? They don't. Despite being more than happy to address gender-related criticisms in the metatext by just adding a coat of girl boss paint, race-related issues go completely ignored. Take, for instance, The Lion King, a story about how divine right birthright monarchy is not only good, but divine by nature. And also about how segregation is probably best for everybody. Now, these themes are there in the original, but given that the original elevates itself into this magical emotional realm, it just reads differently than the remake, which is run through this hyper-realism sterilization filter. So while Lion King 2019 does a little bit of the girl boss thing, it also kind of doubles down on the whole "race mixing is bad" thing. It can't just be this obscure "nature is mad at the disruption of the natural order" as it was in the original, the text has to explain why the hyenas are bad for the pride lands. It has to justify why they are naturally worse than lions. "The lions eat after the hyenas. And they don't leave much behind." This sidestepping of race issues is nowhere more evident than in Dumbo. The original Dumbo was kind of beautiful in how flawed it was, including the elements that are abrasive to modern sensibilities. Which happened. And are a part of Disney history, and we're not doing ourselves any favors by pretending that they did not. Take, for instance, the scene of baby Dumbo accidentally getting lit, which, yes, we need to lampshade. "Champagne for Dumbo!" "No booze near the baby!" Now, the pink elephant sequence--which is one of the best sequences from early Disney because it's just so unapologetic and creepy and, you know...good-- does get referenced in the remake. umm...uh...kay... "Pink elephants!" "So?" Sure. Dumbo is also arguably the most... let's be charitable and call it "racially insensitive" of the feature canon. The Song of the Roustabouts shows these guys pitching a circus tent and has lyrics like this So that's completely ignored in the remake. More infamous, and perhaps the most glaring in omission, are the crows Dumbo befriends towards the end of the film. The crows employ some pretty egregious stereotyping, singing a song written by white songwriters. "But I be done seen 'bout everything when I see an elephant fly." the crows voiced largely, if not entirely by white actors, featuring a lead crow named by the animation department, Jim Crow, "What's cookin' round here? What's the good news? What's fryin' boys?" And it took us a while to figure out whether this was apocryphal or not because Dumbo is like the least-chronicled of all of the Disney movies, and there basically are no production notes, and what few there are don't actually mention it, but turns out, yep. Yep, that was a thing. And I know there is discourse on how to handle history like this, but pretending that it just didn't exist, just ignoring it all together and pretending it didn't happen... How is that helping make the world better or educate people? "When I see an elephant fly!" The crows are a part of the DNA of Dumbo, just as much as Baby Mine or Pink Elephants, but unlike those two, which are ham-fistedly jammed into the remake, the crows don't even get mentioned. The song isn't there, save a few words, which strikes me as noteworthy since the song itself is pretty tame. "You've seen a horsefly. You've seen a dragonfly." "Well, I've seen a horsefly." "I've seen a dragonfly." "I've seen a housefly." "You've even seen a housefly." But the crows aren't referenced, and even Dumbo's feather, which was gifted to him by the crows in the original-- "Use the magic feather. Catch on?" "The magic feather! Yeah!" --has somehow also managed to turn white. It's like there was never racism here in this universe and there never will be. We just kind of live in this nice multi-culti-verse where other forms of bigotry exist and are not the ones we live with in the real world, but, you know. "What'd you do to that thing? That ain't a real elephant. Those ears are fake!" We have our cutesy analogs sometimes. If the films acknowledge racism at all, it's never systemic, but the product of a few bad apples, ie, The Princess and the Frog-- "Which is why a little woman of your background would have had her hands full." --and not the system itself. Systemic racism doesn't exist in the metaverse. If it does--again, Princess and the Frog--it can be handled with basically the ideological equivalent of a good guy with a gun. John Goodman just needs to realize that the woman who makes his favorite beignets needs more money. "This is it. I'm gettin' my restaurant!" See? He's a nice guy. There are good rich whites. It seems like meaningfully addressing any of these societal problems in the text of their films would mean that Disney would have to really acknowledge its own past, which, well, that's not really why these films have meta-commentary, now is it? They aren't woke to make the world better. They're woke for you to buy stuff. "Next we have the singing Jasmine doll from Hasbro inspired by the Disney's Aladdin movie." "Jasmine is smart, she's funny, she's brave." It's... it's a whole new world... to lean in to. See, there's no, like, Girl Wash Your Face lean in feminism that Disney can make marketable where race is concerned, so where they can over-correct the princesses and make them more marketable by turning them into girl bosses, ain't much they can do to correct critique of race in Disney movies that's, you know, corporate approved. So they just ignore it. But one of the more nefarious of these "joking about the sins of the father" aspects of these remakes comes at the "expense" of the Walt Disney Company itself and its business model. Dumbo really leans in to this. The plot of the original Dumbo comprises basically the first act of the 2019 remake, and from there, goes into what appears to be a winking metacritique of Disney itself. "Join me in my family. "Let me take us all into the future. Let me take us all to Dreamland." With really obvious and heavy-handed references to Disneyland in its theme park owned by Michael Keaton's villain, Vandermeer, himself a weird mixture of PT Barnum, Walt Disney, and Vanderbilt? There are blatant nods to actual attractions like the Astro Orbiter and the Carousel of Progress and just park aesthetic in general. There's a Wonder of Science attraction that, well... "Dad! Wonders of Science!" Don't worry, honey. It's bought by Exxon Mobil. Also, within this, is a weird half-assed critique of the overuse of the word "dream" and the need to feel like a child again. "You've made me a child again." I'm still parsing out what the intention of this weird take on Disney's own past and corporate culture is meant to...say... besides a weird, "Well, you can't hate their corporate monopoly if they make fun of themselves. Self-awareness is relatable." It feels like commentary, but it's commentary that does not say anything. Vandermeyer's park looks like Disneyland, but beyond that, it seems to be an indictment of PT Barnum more than anything. Especially since the film ends with Dumbo going back to the jungle and woke circus getting rid of all their animal acts. Mary Poppins returns also has a curious relationship to wealth and power. Jane has grown up to be a union organizer. "No, it's the society for the protection of the rights of the underpaid citizens of England." "A labor organizer." Which, considering Walt's relationship to unions itself is kind of hilarious. But she is mostly portrayed as kind of a ditz, and the ending relies on her asking the lamplighters for unpaid labor not for the benefit of any kind of, you know, labor union, but to help her save her house that she owns. Jane's advocacy doesn't really do anything for organized labor. If anything, it's just more, you know, just ripping off the original, you know. Well, her mom was a suffragette, so... Jane's a pinko, I guess. But the main plot surrounds the Banks and also the bank, which wants to repossess the Banks's house. In the original, the bank is portrayed as something of a neutral evil. Heartless and bottom-line-obsessed. Something that Mr. Banks over- values at the expense of his family. Meanwhile, in sequel land, the main villain is a rogue Colin Firth, the bad rich man. "In two days, Banks will be out on that street, and the house will be ours." The Banks family is on the cusp of losing their house because Michael is bad at money and Jane is a communist. A home they love so much they've tied their identity to it in much the same way that Mr. Banks did his job in the original. Towards the end, it looks like they're going to lose their house unless they do the thing by the stroke of midnight. But don't worry, the one bad man is removed, they are able to keep their house because the bank itself is good and moral and is on the side of the middle class, and thus... "The house is yours." The Banks's identity and happiness can continue to be tied to their possession of material things. And I find that interesting, because in the original, Mr. Banks lets go of the thing that he had erroneously attached his own value and sense of identity to. But in the remake, don't worry, they never have to have that moment of self-reevaluation because they never lose the thing they were worried about losing. Because good capitalist is here to save the day. And he's played by Dick Van Dyke! Dick Van Dyke is over here like, "Oh, the bank would never intentionally hurt their trusting customers!" "I've nearly doubled the profits of this bank." "Yes, by wringing it out of the customers' pockets." A large business always has the best intentions. Big corporations aren't bad. But the rare nefarious individual, that is the bad one. It is not the system that is bad, but a few bad apples. If anything, the transition from old Disney to new Disney is a transition from "monarchy is good" to "capitalism is good." There's always a good king or a good bank or a good businessman. And these conclusions, while they pay lip service to progressive ideals, ultimately conclude that nothing of the status quo need be challenged. Not really. Which feels pretty convenient when the company producing these things owns more and more of the media that we consume every day. "But now Disney will have full control of Hulu. Uh, will control its customer management, its technology, its data sharing." This is not to say that empowering women to be leaders, or a family keeping their house, or cruelty-free circuses are a bad thing, but if that's all you got, then that's not progress. That's just marketing. These movies are redundant with a couple of exceptions, weird outliers like...Maleficent. And I guess you could make a case for the Jungle Book... But for the most part, these movies don't need to exist. So they give themselves a metatextual reason to exist in the text. It's that thing you like. But woke. For The Lion King, it's take the majestic thing and run it through this hyper-sterilized realism filter. For Beauty and the Beast, it's sending this love story about personal growth and forgiveness through the #BeastForShe filter. And for Aladdin, its sending Princess Jasmine through the girlboss filter. And for Dumbo, it's take the problematic thing and deproblematizing it to the point where it's unrecognizable, and Dumbo isn't even the main character anymore. "Wow. This is a disaster." Like, okay, so you've taken a property from the 1940s and you have identified that it has certain... insensitivities relating to race and animal cruelty. You have declared the thing problematic. Yeah, great. Good for you. In the words of Alan Arkin, "So?" And that's one of the more frustrating things about this era of pop-criticism, where we look back on media history, and be like, "thing bad!" And people can look on history with this smugness of hindsight and say, "You know that thing you liked as a kid? Well, it had problems. It was problematic. Did I blow your mind yet?" And it's like, okay. "So?" You've taken step one. You've identified the problem. What do you want to do with that? Are you that guy in that Onion article that always likes to bring up that John Lennon beat his wife? Do you want to drag the company that made the thing through the street? Do you want to wave it off and say it was a product of its time, so who cares? Or do you want to do what Disney is doing with its remakes and just erase the history and just ignore the stuff that aged poorly and just pretend it never happened? "Wow. This is a disaster." Because a part of media literacy is taking film history, understanding its context, exploring different viewpoints on the media and the history in question, and accepting it for what it was. Not pretending it didn't happen. There are some power structures that Disney movies are never going to challenge. The original entries in the Disney film canon were never about challenge or change. And so it goes with their remakes and their reboots and their sequels. It's not the system that's bad, it's that women aren't allowed to be CEOs. Let Jasmine be a girl boss Sultan. It's not that class stratification is bad, it's just Belle totally sticking it to those narrow-minded poor townies by owning a VC funded washing machine startup. Only Maleficent, hot mess though it is, kind of feels a little transgressive and an outlier in this trend because it's actually centered on women in their pain. And actually challenges the foundation of the original in a way that you don't see in any of these other movies. And Maleficent's girl boss angle doesn't feel so hollow since it ends with the ladies in power, and we actually develop the originally very underdeveloped lead of Aurora in lieu of trying to correct anything in the original. It must needs be remarked that one of the big issues here, especially once Disney started dipping into the waters of making animated films with non-European settings or characters of color, is that people of color or from the backgrounds of the people being depicted were rarely involved in the behind the scenes work. With the live-action films, there could have been space to correct this, but... Guy Ritchie's directing Aladdin, I guess. Was all of Bollywood busy? All of it? Again gains made, but ultimately still minute compared to the sheer volume of content that Disney puts out. Especially in the live-action department that is presently... doing pretty... pretty well. Why the company wants to show that they recognize their problematic past with gender but totally ignores its problematic history with race is because it's really easy to make lean in feminism profitable. After all, Disney Princesses are girl bosses now. "Do people assume all your problems got solved because a big strong man showed up?" "Yes! What is up with that?" Just like you will be one day. And this is why I find Disney wokeness highly cynical. They're more than happy to show how they've changed in some regards but only the profitable ones. They have better race representation now, which is good, but they aren't about to admit that there was ever ever anything the company has to move beyond. Song of the South? That didn't happen. That's never getting a release. These parts of Dumbo? That didn't happen. What Makes the Red Man Red? We Are Siamese? Didn't happen. There's no, like, corporate approved profitable way to make any metatextual examination of Disney's history with race representation, or lack thereof, profitable. So they don't. The insidious thing to me is that with Disney positioning itself to be the biggest media monopoly in history, the trend is less about meta commentary, but priming people to be loyal to the company. After all, the company sees and hears your criticisms. It agrees with your ideals about inclusivity. So don't worry about the fact that they're well on their way to owning...everything. They're here to support you being a girl boss. "Do you have daddy issues?" "I don't even have a mom!" "Neither do we!" And speaking of being a boss babe, we need to pay the bills. Because we live in a society. So this episode was sponsored by Audible. And originally, this episode was going to have way more to do with Disney in the 90s. But then it didn't. But I'm going to recommend Disney War on Audible to you anyway. If you want to read about the supervillain rise and fall of Michael Eisner. Audible has the world's largest selection of audio books and audio entertainment, including Audible Originals. Audible members get more than ever before. Every month, you can choose one audio book regardless of price as well as two Audible Originals from a fresh selection. Try saying that 10 times fast. Members stay motivated and inspired with unlimited access to exclusive guided fitness and meditation programs. Yes, I know I should do that. I don't have time! Audible members can easily exchange any title that they don't love at any time. And members keep their library of listens forever even if they cancel. So start listening with a 30-day Audible trial today. Choose one audiobook and two Audible Originals absolutely free. Visit audible.com/LindsayEllis or text LindsayEllis to 500-500 that is audible.com/Lindsayellis or text LindsayEllis to 500-500 Yes, I have to say this twice. Like it's the radio. And now I finally earned this... I don't even know what these things are called.
Info
Channel: Lindsay Ellis
Views: 2,423,012
Rating: 4.863215 out of 5
Keywords: lindsay ellis, lindsay ellis video essay, lindsay ellis disney, lindsay ellis beauty beast, lindsay ellis dumbo, disney remakes rant, lindsay ellis lion king, lindsay ellis disney live action, disney live action remakes, nostalgia chick disney, live action beauty and the beast, live action aladdin, lindsay ellis aladdin, lindsay ellis girlboss
Id: xU1ffHa47YY
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 30min 1sec (1801 seconds)
Published: Mon Sep 30 2019
Related Videos
Note
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.