'Strange World' Disney's 2022 Animated Film

[TwilightZone]

I just looked at the trailer with the youtube frontend, Piped

Holy cannoli, look at those dislikes

The comments underneath says it all

 

[LittleBuford]

How does it advance the storyline? Especially if his sexuality is of no particular concern to his family and culture?

Why does it have to advance the storyline? Aren’t you undermining your own point—that Disney is putting too much emphasis on diversity—by finding fault with the film’s understated, matter-of-fact handling of gayness? It seems to me you would prefer this approach to one foregrounding the character’s sexuality.

 

[TwilightZone]

Honestly if the gay thing really was a brief message, as I've heard around here, it is a bit odd.

My in my mind, never seen the movie, reworking is the father and son, they don't understand each other. Dad is more of a tough, go on an adventures kinda guy. Son is the shy introvert. They come to terms with each other during their adventure and the gay thing is a big powerful reveal moment, where the Dad is shocked but comes to understand his son more thanks to the journey and accepts it.

Sadly might be better than the scene in the film, though yet to see how close or unclose I am.

 

[LittleBuford]

When Disney created its first gay character, I would have liked him/her to be gay for a reason and to have an impact because of that.

In Avalonia, no one cares that Ethan is gay. So why should I care? Why even bother?

But your other posts seem to be saying that his gayness is the main factor behind the film’s failure. So if I understand you correctly, people dislike the film not because it focuses too much on issues of sexuality, but because it briefly and casually depicts an otherwise inconsequential gay crush? Do you think the reaction to the film would have been substantially different if the crush subplot were removed and everything else remained the same?

 

[TwilightZone]

"youtube frontend, Piped" (whatever that is....zzzzzzz)

Piped is just an easy way to watch youtube with the dislike bar enabled (since youtube disabled it). It's youtube otherwise, so everything there is 1 - 1 with one of the most popular social media websites right now.

It's 75% positive on Rotten Tomatoes.

That's pretty bad for a Disney movie, the closest movies to that ranking all come from Disney's post renaissance

 

[TP2000]

PS - If you thin Disney movies are "cartoons" rather than sophisticated animated films, maybe get your entertainment elsewhere.

I call 'em like I see 'em. Cartoons are cartoons. Some are better than others.

Just like Disneyland is an amusement park. You can call it a "theme park" or even an "immersive adventure" like Bob Chapek used to say, may he RIP.

But I'm like Walt. On the 10th anniversary of Disneyland in July, 1965, at a gala dinner celebration in the Grand Ballroom of the Disneyland Hotel, Walt got up on stage with a Scotch in his hand and called Disneyland "that damn amusement park", and the audience of Disneylanders went wild!

I say cartoon, you say sophisticated animated film. I say amusement park, you say immersive themed adventure. Why don't we call the whole thing off?

 

[TP2000]

But your other posts seem to be saying that his gayness is the main factor behind the film’s failure. So if I understand you correctly, people dislike the film not because it focuses too much on issues of sexuality, but because it briefly and casually depicts an otherwise inconsequential gay crush?

I think the film bombed because it had almost no marketing, many Disney fans themselves didn't even know it existed, and that it wasn't a very good movie to start with.

We also had at least two posters here that said they had seen extensive online conversations among parents on Facebook and other Social Media spreading the word that the boy in this new movie was gay and that it had a gay sub-plot. That helped doom it at the box office too, but those posts were somehow deleted quickly even though they didn't contain profanity or objectionable material. I imagine this post of mine might get deleted too for even mentioning those other posts talking about the Facebook chats of concerned parents?

Do you think the reaction to the film would have been substantially different if the crush subplot were removed and everything else remained the same?

Now that everyone in this thread already knows the plot, I think the reaction to the film would have been different had they focused the story on traditional father/son adventure in that very strange world. Instead, they let HR get too involved in the storyline and character development and made it into some sort of weird diversity training video.

They likely realize their mistake now, but it cost them at least $150 Million. At a time the company can't afford that kind of mistake, at least socially if not financially.

I'm sure Disney will survive the losses incurred by Strange World's failure. But will they learn the lesson here? They can't go on torching money like this with every big-budget cartoon they make. Luca, Lightyear, now Strange World.

 

[LittleBuford]

Instead, they let HR get too involved in the storyline and character development and made it into some sort of weird diversity training video.

Because of a brief depiction of a narratively inconsequential gay crush? Are straight audiences really that easily triggered?

 

[TP2000]

Because of a brief depiction of a narratively inconsequential gay crush? Are straight audiences really that easily triggered?

Apparently they are. Especially when the film is marketed at their children. Parents are funny that way.

I'm not a parent, so I have no personal experience. But the free market is speaking very loudly and clearly on this topic.

Burbank would ignore the free market at its own long-term peril.

 

[TwilightZone]

Because of a brief depiction of a narratively inconsequential gay crush? Are straight audiences really that easily triggered?

Depends on their views sadly. A lot of america taking kids to films are parents, and in my own personal experiences, a lot of them still "aren't cool" with too much representation. It's not that they dislike gay people or even gay representation, but the "overbearingness" of it is too much for them. And this is not coming from only online. This is real life experiences I have.

I think people forget today's parents are folks from the 80s and maybe early 90s all grown up.

 

[TP2000]

Depends on their views sadly. A lot of america taking kids to films are parents, and in my own personal experiences, a lot of them still "aren't cool" with too much representation. It's not that they dislike gay people or even gay representation, but the "overbearingness" of it is too much for them. And this is not coming from only online. This is real life experiences I have.

I think people forget today's parents are folks from the 80s and maybe early 90s all grown up.

Exactly.

It also makes a huge difference how old the child is. If he or she is 8 or 9, that's an entirely different type of movie night the parent takes them to than if the child is 14 or 15.

Strange World was rated PG, not PG-13. It had children's toys and Little Golden Books created and manufactured for the 7 to 10 year old set, not teens. Parents will be a completely different kind of protective of their 8 year old child than they will be of their 15 year old child.

And that is the parent's sacred and undeniable right, no matter what the HR Department or childless adults online say.

 

[LittleBuford]

Depends on their views sadly. A lot of america taking kids to films are parents, and in my own personal experiences, a lot of them still "aren't cool" with too much representation. It's not that they dislike gay people or even gay representation, but the "overbearingness" of it is too much for them. And this is not coming from only online. This is real life experiences I have.

I think people forget today's parents are folks from the 80s and maybe early 90s all grown up.

But how it is overbearing if it’s a five-minute subplot that has no bearing on the overall plot?

 

[TP2000]

Well if that’s really what’s going on, I hope Disney continues to make films that keep such people away.

Okay. How many fiscal years do you think they can do that? How long can Burbank hold out burning $100 to $150 Million per film? Two more years? Three? Maybe four if they start selling off some property and smaller divisions?

Remember, as of today Wakanda Forever still hasn't earned a profit. It cost $250 Million to produce, and it's global box office hasn't yet broken the 3X The Budget threshold of $750 Million. That will happen sometime this weekend, but it's already petering out at the box office. Wakanda Forever may only make $100 Million or less for Burbank.

And you want them to continue making flops like Lightyear and Strange World just to prove a point?

That's not realistically or financially sustainable, no matter how lofty the ambition.

 

[TwilightZone]

But how it is overbearing if it’s a five-minute subplot that has no bearing on the overall plot?

To some people, it doesn't matter how long it is in there, if its there its already too long, too much, too overbearing.

The people I know in my life aren't that extreme thankfully, but there's plenty of people that are.

I'm not one of those people, I don't really care there's a gay crush in the movie. But I do care its failing in the box office during such a hard time for the company. I don't think the gay crush is causing the movie to fail, but I do understand why its a point to consider as well.

 

[LittleBuford]

I tend to think the film would have done well if Disney had marketed it more effectively and if critics had liked it more than they did. I’m not convinced that the brief depiction of a gay crush is enough to have kept significant numbers of parents away.

 

[Californian Elitist]

I’m less cynical than that. I tend to think the film would have done well if Disney had marketed it more effectively and if critics had liked it more than they did. I’m not convinced that the brief depiction of a gay crush is enough to have kept significant numbers of parents away.

I agree. The movie was barely marketed. I didn’t even know it was being released this year.

 

[LittleBuford]

And you want them to continue making flops like Lightyear and Strange World just to prove a point?

No, I want them to make great films that people will want to see. Lightyear was a rubbish movie, and for reasons that have nothing to do with diversity. I can’t really speak to Strange World, having not yet seen it, but it’s not like critics are raving about it. There are easier ways to explain why it failed than its brief portrayal of a gay crush.

And to be clear, I think you missed the fact that I was being somewhat facetious in my last reply to you, because I don’t think that’s what’s going on at all. If a film is good enough, people will want to see it. Sure, there are those who will stay away for ideological reasons if they know gay themes will be addressed, but their numbers are shrinking, and I doubt very much that we owe Strange World’s poor showing to such a zealous minority.

 

[TP2000]

No, I want them to make great films that people will want to see. Lightyear was a rubbish movie, and for reasons that have nothing to do with diversity. I can’t really speak to Strange World, having not yet seen it, but it’s not like critics are raving about it. There are easier ways to explain why it failed than its brief portrayal of a gay crush.

I agree with all of that!

And to be clear, I think you missed the fact that I was being somewhat facetious in my last reply to you, because I don’t think that’s what’s going on at all.

I think I did. But let's be kind and just blame the two glasses of Pinot Grigio on a weeknight which apparently equals "bombed", instead of me just being a bit dense in general.

If a film is good enough, people will want to see it. Sure, there are those who will stay away for ideological reasons if they know gay themes will be addressed, but their numbers are shrinking, and I doubt very much that we owe Strange World’s poor showing to such a zealous minority.

I agree with that as well. Strange World failed mostly all on its own, regardless of any gay sub-plot. There were a few folks here who said that the gay sub-plot was being discussed in Facebook parenting groups, and I believe them and think that deserves a portion of the blame. But not the majority of the blame.

This movie has just been a disaster for Disney. But because it involves a gay sub-plot, I fear the industry media covering it won't ever really dive in to why it failed so spectacularly. Which is a shame. Because any business worth its monthly payroll can't continue on a path like this for very long.

 

[mickEblu]

I imagine the reason for the set-up is the exact reason that we aren't allowed to discuss here for some bizarre reason. It's the ultimate The Emperor Has No Clothes scenario, where we all know it but no one is allowed to say it. If the author of this article did come out and say it, he'd be blasted as a hate-monger and horrible bigot who must be fired from his blogging job immediately and cancelled from polite society forever.



Which is the part I find the most damning. They designed and manufactured toys, books, and children's clothing for Strange World. Then purposely didn't send all that merch to stores at Christmas, and only offered it online in backwater search tabs. That's really weird!

I'm going to go out on a limb and risk having my post deleted or "reported" by someone with hurt feelings and say that the plot and story arcs of the main Strange World characters, namely Ethan and how his family responds to him, was shoehorned into the story a couple years ago after the story had already been developed. Then the Ethan character and all the supportive pablum the other characters heap on him doomed this movie with test audiences. And in the months leading up to the film's release, the popular governor of Florida was cruising to an easy landslide victory in November's election, just to rub salt in Burbank's wounds.

So Disney had no choice but to bury the film and take the loss. Pull the children's merch from distribution, run only a few ads in the few days before opening, and hope to God no one makes a big deal about it.

The fact that male audiences over age 25 hated this movie is proof that a big mistake was made with the story development for Strange World. This should have been the ultimate father/son adventure guy movie! The 2020's version of Cars and a big money maker in merch and boys t-shirts and a sequel. But obviously, it is not.

So in Burbank's defense, this is perhaps the best last minute scenario they could come up with for this film.
I don't envy them though.

The fact that they decided the father/ son adventure movie was the right movie for the gay crush stuff is a real head scratcher. Of course without even getting into the fact that it’s a PG animated film. Just “interesting” choices all around.

 

[mickEblu]

Andor for one. A fantastic show with a very diverse cast. Ergo, representation and diversity are not the problem here.

Two very different show/ movies with different target audiences