>> Even though Disney's idea of "cute" is too artificial to look cute to me, but de gustibus non est disputandum.
>
>Perhaps I'm jumping the gun by not translating the phrase in italics but I think getting the message out ("Being nice has it's upside and, therefore, something to aspire to") by using 'cute' kids has been around forever. Disney didn't invent this. Good is pretty; bad is ugly.

Just like Eddy Izzard said: "it's 70% how you look, 20% how you sound, and only 10% what you say".

Disney didn't invent this, the company is just the only one who has a 100% record of never showing anyone with, say, a missing tooth, mole on the lip, rash, or having 50 extra pounds, unless any of these were specifically important for the plot. Looks like a virtual ghetto to me.

> Maybe we'll all grow up and discover different ways to teach children flexibility (which a wise man once used as a definition of wisdom.)
>I do remember that as a kid I wondered why everyone on TV was beautiful and not average in looks. That's why I wasn't ever going to make it as a movie star...
>Oh well, next life, eh?

Not exactly - remember Jean Paul Belmondo? Even with all the Hollywood's xenophobia (or is it just solipsism), I figure few of his movies have made it into the States (even though the "Breathless" wasn't produced well enough, so it had to be remade in Hollywood). Well, that's the film noir, and the sixties when you didn't actually have to look nice to be a movie star. But then as the wave of the sixties deflated, the movie industry has gone back to its sillycon (misspelling intentional) addiction.

>So let me take a crack at a translation. Wind in a bus is not disputable!

Close enough :). "about tastes is not to be disputed"