'Strange World' Disney's 2022 Animated Film

[ILoveWDW4ever]

Given that I can likely count on one hand for the amount of black Disney characters there are, just two of them being leads, this “joke” doesn’t hit. Where’s the punchline? Or did I misunderstand?

Do you honestly not get it?

 

[Californian Elitist]

Do you honestly not get it?

I didn’t insert the last question in there for nothing.

Care to explain?

 

[DKampy]

You certainly have a talent for spinning a very rich narrative out of very little material. You've repeated your line about Strange World so many times now that one would believe it to be a cold hard fact backed up by actual data. Even I have to remind myself that what you're now describing as "a big part" of the film's failure was, the other day, secondary to other factors:

Some people who have complained about Lightyear and Strange world about certain scenes seem to have an agenda themselves( who I think is a small minority…it is just the same people repeating themselves over and over again) the truth is neither movie has great word of mouth…and no one that has seen it mentioned gay representation as the problem

 

[ILoveWDW4ever]

I didn’t insert the last question in there for nothing.

Care to explain?

Well I didn’t make the joke. So I can’t with 100% certainty explain it. Here’s how I took it….

The Washington Post published an article asking why there were no black players on the team. A hysterical premise.

Disney is now known for representation for the sake of representation.

So the joke is, unlike Disney, the Argentinian national team isn’t going to make their team more diverse for the sake of diversity.

Get it?

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Given that I can likely count on one hand for the amount of black Disney characters there are, just two of them being leads, this “joke” doesn’t hit. Where’s the punchline? Or did I misunderstand?

I think "Disney" here is a stand-in for "ham-fisted corporate committees who have a 'one of each' approach to diversity."

They write a story in which actual diversity is irrelevant, and then they populate the cast with one man, one woman, one black character, one Asian character, one Hispanic character, one character in a wheelchair, one rich character, one poor character, one gay character, one yada yada yada yada.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Well I didn’t make the joke. So I can’t with 100% certainty explain it. Here’s how I took it….

The Washington Post published an article asking why there were no black players on the team. A hysterical premise.

Disney is now known for representation for the sake of representation.

So the joke is, unlike Disney, the Argentinian national team isn’t going to make their team more diverse for the sake of diversity.

Get it?

I think "Disney" here is a stand-in for "ham-fisted corporate committees who have a 'one of each' approach to diversity."

They write a story in which actual diversity is irrelevant, and then they populate the cast with one man, one woman, one black character, one Asian character, one Hispanic character, one character in a wheelchair, one rich character, one poor character, one gay character, one yada yada yada yada.

So, the article title reads “why doesn’t Argentina have more black people.” The inclusion of “more” suggests that there is at least one black player on the team, possibly a few more, tokens, if you will. If this is true, then, they’re exactly like Disney, with just a handful of black characters (players), many of them tokens, two prominent. Regarding other tokens, this isn’t anything new.

But, heehee, I guess…?

 

[CaptainAmerica]

View attachment 684983

So, the article title reads “why doesn’t Argentina have more black people.” The inclusion of “more” suggests that there is at least one black player on the team, possibly a few more, tokens, if you will. If this is true, then, they’re exactly like Disney, with just a handful of black characters (players), many of them tokens, two prominent. Regarding other tokens, this isn’t anything new.

But, heehee, I guess…?

You're wrong in at least 4 ways.

1. The Argentina national team does not have any black players.

2. Less than one percent of the population of Argentina is black. On a roster of 26, it would be mathematically more unusual if they did have black players than if they don't.

3. The author is arguing in favor of tokenism, saying that Argentina ought to have black representation on the squad, rather than the squad being composed of the 26 men most likely to win matches.

4. "Merit" means nothing in a fictional context and everything in an athletic context. Tokenism in sports has consequences (a worse team than one fielded on merit). Tokenism in fiction is arbitrary and meaningless.

Now, actual diversity in fiction is good (see Coco, Encanto).

 

[Californian Elitist]

You're wrong in at least 4 ways.

1. The Argentina national team does not have any black players.

2. Less than one percent of the population of Argentina is black. On a roster of 26, it would be mathematically more unusual if they did have black players than if they don't.

3. The author is arguing in favor of tokenism, saying that Argentina ought to have black representation on the squad, rather than the squad being composed of the 26 men most likely to win matches.

4. "Merit" means nothing in a fictional context and everything in an athletic context. Tokenism in sports has consequences (a worse team than one fielded on merit). Tokenism in fiction is arbitrary and meaningless.

Okay. So with this new information (with the exception of number three), the joke really isn’t hitting now. If “merit” means nothing in fictional context, but everything in athletic context, why even bring up fictional context in the tweet instead offering something more accurate to compare themselves to? About 13% of America’s population is black, so, according to some here, the amount of black Disney characters is spot on (maybe seven in total). If Argentina’s black population is less than one percent, then, yeah, their team is also spot on with having exactly zero players. I will agree that expecting Argentina to have black players is far-fetched.

I’m not laughing, but okay. Anyways…

 

[Heppenheimer]

You're wrong in at least 4 ways.

1. The Argentina national team does not have any black players.

2. Less than one percent of the population of Argentina is black. On a roster of 26, it would be mathematically more unusual if they did have black players than if they don't.

3. The author is arguing in favor of tokenism, saying that Argentina ought to have black representation on the squad, rather than the squad being composed of the 26 men most likely to win matches.

4. "Merit" means nothing in a fictional context and everything in an athletic context. Tokenism in sports has consequences (a worse team than one fielded on merit). Tokenism in fiction is arbitrary and meaningless.

I'm surprised that the author didn't mention France, whose black players make up a disproportionate fraction of the team compared to the French population, also happens to be doing very well in the World Cup. Or at least, they didn't have a problem with black over-representation.

I'm pretty sure most French citizens care mostly that their team is probably on the cusp of winning their second straight World Cup, and not the anscestoral origins of the players.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Okay. So with this new information (with the exception of number three), the joke really isn’t hitting now. If “merit” means nothing in fictional context, but everything in athletic context, why even bring up fictional context in the tweet instead offering something more accurate to compare themselves to? About 13% of America’s population is black, so, according to some here, the amount of black Disney characters is spot on (maybe seven in total). If Argentina’s black population is less than one percent, then, yeah, their team is also spot on with having exactly zero players. I will agree that expecting Argentina to have black players is far-fetched.

I’m not laughing, but okay. Anyways…

The answer is supposed to be stupid because the question is stupid.

 

[Heppenheimer]

Okay. So with this new information (with the exception of number three), the joke really isn’t hitting now. If “merit” means nothing in fictional context, but everything in athletic context, why even bring up fictional context in the tweet instead offering something more accurate to compare themselves to? About 13% of America’s population is black, so, according to some here, the amount of black Disney characters is spot on (maybe seven in total). If Argentina’s black population is less than one percent, then, yeah, their team is also spot on with having exactly zero players. I will agree that expecting Argentina to have black players is far-fetched.

I’m not laughing, but okay. Anyways…

I think "merit" in this context applied to Disney would be to put priority on a good story with the kind of broad general appeal that puts butts in seats. We can argue forever on why those seats remained empty for Strange World, but the fact is that they did.

 

[Californian Elitist]

The answer is supposed to be stupid because the question is stupid.

K.

I think "merit" in this context applied to Disney would be to put priority on a good story with the kind of broad general appeal that puts butts in seats. We can argue forever on why those seats remained empty for Strange World, but the fact is that they did.

I agree that Disney hasn’t been coming up with good stories lately. I’m not blaming token characters on that.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I agree that Disney hasn’t been coming up with good stories lately. I’m not blaming token characters on that.

If an architect has four months to design a house and they spend three months on internal meetings about what shade of yellow paint to use in the guest bedroom, are you going to be surprised if the house has structural problems?

It's not the yellow walls' fault that the house has structural problems, but I think it's perfectly legitimate to ask questions about the architect's use of time and resources.

We're not saying "stop painting walls yellow." We're saying "stop obsessing over wall color and get the big things right first."

 

[Heppenheimer]

K.

I agree that Disney hasn’t been coming up with good stories lately. I’m not blaming token characters on that.

I don't think one thing necessarily causes the other, but it could suggest they have the wrong priorities. And if it doesn't feel organic to the plot, or completely out of place for the time and locale of the story, it comes across as awkward and pandering.

I'm not saying this is the case for Strange World, because I haven't seen it yet. But for the live action Pinocchio, that was set in a very specific time and place that certainly did not share the ethnic make-up of the contemporary US? It just came across as forced. But of course, this would not have mattered if the story was good, but it really stands out in a bad movie.

 

[GimpYancIent]

Oof. Such a huge mistake.

What? You think it should go to D+ sooner?

 

[Californian Elitist]

If an architect has four months to design a house and they spend three months on internal meetings about what shade of yellow paint to use in the guest bedroom, are you going to be surprised if the house has structural problems?

It's not the yellow walls' fault that the house has structural problems, but I think it's perfectly legitimate to ask questions about the architect's use of time and resources.

We're not saying "stop painting walls yellow." We're saying "stop obsessing over wall color and get the big things right first."

I don’t see the obsession you’ve mentioned here.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

What? You think it should go to D+ sooner?

It should have been either direct to D+ in the first place or had a longer theatrical-exclusive run, followed by a "dark" period, followed by a PVOD period, followed by a Disney+ release maybe 6 months total after the theatrical debut.

They need to start retraining people that skipping theatrical releases will have consequences, at least in terms of time. Right now, people can say "lol why bother, it'll be free on Disney+ in a month" and they're right.

 

[Californian Elitist]

I don't think one thing necessarily causes the other, but it could suggest they have the wrong priorities. And if it doesn't feel organic to the plot, or completely out of place for the time and locale of the story, it comes across as awkward and pandering.

I'm not saying this is the case for Strange World, because I haven't seen it yet. But for the live action Pinocchio, that was set in a very specific time and place that certainly did not share the ethnic make-up of the contemporary US? It just came across as forced. But of course, this would not have mattered if the story was good, but it really stands out in a bad movie.

I’ve only seen the last scene in Pinocchio. I was not pleased at all.

This is all subjective anyway. What could feel like pandering to one could feel genuine to another. I don’t think Disney is hyper-focusing on token characters and putting all their energy into token character development. I just see a lack of good writers.

 

[_caleb]

It should have been either direct to D+ in the first place or had a longer theatrical-exclusive run, followed by a "dark" period, followed by a PVOD period, followed by a Disney+ release maybe 6 months total after the theatrical debut.

They need to start retraining people that skipping theatrical releases will have consequences, at least in terms of time. Right now, people can say "lol why bother, it'll be free on Disney+ in a month" and they're right.

I’m convinced Strange World was made for D+.

 

[Heppenheimer]

I’m convinced Strange World was made for D+.

Then they REALLY messed up with the budget.