'Strange World' Disney's 2022 Animated Film

[mickEblu]

There was nothing at all wrong with the content to which you are referring. Question-did you even see it or areYou blabbing about it like that martini shaking dog?

I saw the scenes on YouTube yes. Not a fan.

 

[BuddyThomas]

Why are princesses, parades and magic Gay? You don’t get to claim that stuff. And how does Gay people existing in the world and doing their jobs relate to the point I’ve been making about the PG movies?

Good lord.

 

[brideck]

I think classic Pixar already struck the balance you're asking for. Up and Inside Out are especially good examples.

Agreed. I almost invoked a number of those movies in my statement. John Lasseter cannot be the only person on the planet capable of shaping a story to do this, can he?

The alternative is that you have to find a way to market a movie as NOT being explicitly for 5-year olds and then figure out how to get people to go see it. In a post-March 2020 theatrical market, that seems nigh impossible to do.

 

[mickEblu]

Well until you see the full movie, perhaps don’t comment about what you do t understand.

You’re too much

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Why is it disgusting that I don’t want that stuff In rated PG animated children’s films?

Because kids can handle the presence of gay characters just fine and the double standard that a gay relationship is any different than a straight relationship is homophobic.

A prince and princess in a relationship is the same as a prince and a prince, in terms of age appropriateness.

 

[mickEblu]

A prince and princess in a relationship is the same as a prince and a prince, in terms of age appropriateness.

No it’s not.

 

[brideck]

Why is it disgusting that I don’t want that stuff In rated PG animated children’s films?

You keep emphasizing the PG rating. Is 13 when kids are old enough to suddenly know about gay people? Just trying to understand where you're coming from.

In neither of the two movies primarily being discussed is anyone's gayness particularly front and center or truly even important to the plot -- it's just simply there. One could argue that this is even a weak point of Strange World, as the grandpa (who is portrayed as a real rough-and-tumble survivalist type) doesn't even blink or even really acknowledge his grandson's homosexuality when he mentions it to him. Good from the perspective of normalization, probably not a particularly three-dimensional characterization, though. But then, having an added conversation there would have made the movie more about being gay, which contrary to popular belief, Disney is probably actually trying to avoid.

 

[LittleBuford]

You keep emphasizing the PG rating. Is 13 when kids are old enough to suddenly know about gay people? Just trying to understand where you're coming from.

Relatedly, what exactly is the issue with kids knowing about gay people? They know about criminals and murderers from Disney films, but gay people are somehow too much for them to take?

 

[mickEblu]

You keep emphasizing the PG rating. Is 13 when kids are old enough to suddenly know about gay people? Just trying to understand where you're coming from.

In neither of the two movies primarily being discussed is anyone's gayness particularly front and center or truly even important to the plot -- it's just simply there. One could argue that this is even a weak point of Strange World, as the grandpa (who is portrayed as a real rough-and-tumble survivalist type) doesn't even blink or even really acknowledge his grandson's homosexuality when he mentions it to him. Good from the perspective of normalization, probably not a particularly three-dimensional characterization, though. But then, having an added conversation there would have made the movie more about being gay, which contrary to popular belief, Disney is probably actually trying to avoid.

I think PG 13 would be a better cut off. By 13 it’s more natural to have that discussion with your child. But I don’t think it should be in any Disney full length animated feature. But they would never make one of those movies PG 13 anyway so kind of a moot point. I think it’s confusing for young kids.

 

[BuddyThomas]

No it’s not.

It's pretty sad when someone has nothing better to do with their time the week before Christmas except splatter all sorts of homophobia on a Disney chat board.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Does anyone think this movie would have been successful if the son had a crush on a girl instead of a boy?

There’s so much focus on gay this or gay that people seem to be overlooking that the movie wasn’t very good, same with Lightyear.

Add a secondary gay character in a quality movie like Inside Out and I don’t think anyone even cares (Oaken in Frozen For example), the simple truth is Disney is making bad movies right now, their inclusion key timing just makes for an easy target.

A few days ago someone shared a quote from Disney saying they are foregoing good scripts if they don’t meet their inclusion standards, that “gay aspect” may be affecting quality but I don’t think a couple minute of secondary characters carries the weight many think it does.

 

[Phroobar]

Does anyone think this movie would have been successful if the son had a crush on a girl instead of a boy?

There’s so much focus on gay this or gay that people seem to be overlooking that the movie wasn’t very good, same with Lightyear.

Add a secondary gay character in a quality movie like Inside Out and I don’t think anyone even cares (Oaken in Frozen For example), the simple truth is Disney is making bad movies right now, their inclusion key timing just makes for an easy target.

A few days ago someone shared a quote from Disney saying they are foregoing good scripts if they don’t meet their inclusion standards, that “gay aspect” may be affecting quality but I don’t think a couple minute of secondary characters carries the weight many think it does.

The trailers were just plain bad. There is nothing in it to make someone want to spend $11-14 on it when we know it will be on Disney+ shortly after.

There was a time when you took your kids to every Disney movie released in the theaters because there were simply no other G rated movies. Now there is a lot of competition. The Disney name doesn't carry the same weight as it did in 70s-90s.

 

[brideck]

... people seem to be overlooking that the movie wasn’t very good, same with Lightyear.

And this is the part that I'm liable to take offense to. This isn't merely directed at you, but what are the things in these two movies that people found to be "not very good?" The echo chamber rings loudly with the lack of specifics. They are not particularly like a lot of typical Disney fare, but that doesn't automatically make them bad, it just runs counter to expectations (which indeed, normally leads to box office death).

 

[LittleBuford]

Does anyone think this movie would have been successful if the son had a crush on a girl instead of a boy?

I asked this question already, and believe it or not, some people here do think it would have been more successful.

For what it’s worth, I agree with you.

 

[mickEblu]

And this is the part that I'm liable to take offense to. This isn't merely directed at you, but what are the things in these two movies that people found to be "not very good?" The echo chamber rings loudly with the lack of specifics. They are not particularly like a lot of typical Disney fare, but that doesn't automatically make them bad, it just runs counter to expectations (which indeed, normally leads to box office death).

So why do you think they run counter to expectations?

 

[LittleBuford]

The Disney name doesn't carry the same weight as it did in 70s-90s.

Disney animation was not in a good place in the ’80s. Hence the Renaissance. It’s easy to romanticise the past, but this isn’t the first slump Disney has had, and it won’t be the last.

 

[LittleBuford]

And this is the part that I'm liable to take offense to. This isn't merely directed at you, but what are the things in these two movies that people found to be "not very good?" The echo chamber rings loudly with the lack of specifics. They are not particularly like a lot of typical Disney fare, but that doesn't automatically make them bad, it just runs counter to expectations (which indeed, normally leads to box office death).

I haven’t seen Strange World yet so will withhold comment, but I found Lightyear to be a poor to mediocre movie, and not for any reasons related to all this “agenda” nonsense. Here’s what I posted about it at the time:

Just finished watching it. It was pretty boring, I have to say, and the opening text—“In 1995, Andy got a toy from his favourite movie. This is that movie”—totally clashed with the very contemporary feel of the film. I’d give it a B at most.

Goofiness was sorely missing. Zurg went from being the comically absurd supervillain we know and love to . . . well, I won’t spoil it just in case you change your mind and decide to watch. I actually don’t mind that they went in the direction that they did—it could have been quite entertaining had they done it well—but why they set things up with the needless and discordant “This is that movie” conceit is beyond me.

 

[brideck]

So why do you think they run counter to expectations?

My cynical response would be that people are largely looking for something cute or funny (preferably with good music) or a simple fairy tale with easy morals when it comes to Disney animation, and if they stray from that it must be woke or bad or both. As mentioned upthread, some Pixar movies are exceptions to this, but they also include characters designed to attract and engage wee ones' attentions.

My honest response is that if I understood people's expectations, I'd be a millionaire.

 

[brideck]

Just finished watching it. It was pretty boring, I have to say, and the opening text—“In 1995, Andy got a toy from his favourite movie. This is that movie”—totally clashed with the very contemporary feel of the film.

Funny. I'm pretty sure that screen was a bad retcon only included after tests to placate people who couldn't understand how that movie might tie into Toy Story, but it's presence only served to confuse and/or sour more people. The sad truth is that it just shouldn't have been needed. Buzz Lightyear's a toy -- and we already have dozens of movies based on toys/games. Pretty self-explanatory.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

And this is the part that I'm liable to take offense to. This isn't merely directed at you, but what are the things in these two movies that people found to be "not very good?" The echo chamber rings loudly with the lack of specifics. They are not particularly like a lot of typical Disney fare, but that doesn't automatically make them bad, it just runs counter to expectations (which indeed, normally leads to box office death).

I can’t speak for Strange World (because I won’t see it til Friday) but Lightyear was boring and never connected emotionally, I watched it once on D+ and haven’t felt the need to watch it again.

Disney/Pixar seem to work best due to music emotions, comedy, or a combination of all of the above… Lightyear didn’t connect on any of them for me.

I’ve watched (listened to) Encanto, Moana, Frozen, Aladdin, Lion King, etc more times than I care to admit due to the soundtracks. The same is true of emotional connection movies like Inside Out and even Onward (which I know missed with a lot of people). Stitch is always good for a laugh.

I can’t place my finger on why I didn’t love Lightyear, I didn’t dislike it, but I can’t see it going into my normal viewing rotation.