'Strange World' Disney's 2022 Animated Film

[LittleBuford]

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.

Beyond the (admittedly minor) framing issue, I found the plot dull and ponderous. I didn't need it to be a normatively "kid-friendly" movie, but I needed it to be fun and exciting, and it was, for me at least, neither of those things. It joins the small list of Disney/Pixar films I have no desire ever to rewatch.

 

[SuddenStorm]

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.

Where's this quote? I missed it.

 

[LittleBuford]

Onward (which I know missed with a lot of people).

A hidden gem as far as I'm concerned.

 

[LittleBuford]

Where's this quote? I missed it.

Here it is:

Representation is not a hindrance to storytelling but an obsession with representation is absolutely a hindrance to storytelling.

"I will tell you for the first time we received some incredibly well-written scripts that did not satisfy our standards in terms of inclusion, and we passed on them."

Dana Walden Says ABC Passed on Pilots for Not Being Inclusive Enough

Walden revealed that "for the first time," the network received "some incredibly well-written scripts that did not satisfy our standards in terms of inclusion."

www.hollywoodreporter.com

The problem isn't the diversity we see on screen, it's the mindset of the people behind the scenes. They're making conscious decisions to forego quality to achieve their DE&I goals.

 

[brideck]

Beyond the (admittedly minor) framing issue, I found the plot dull and ponderous. I didn't need it to be a normatively "kid-friendly" movie, but I needed it to be fun and exciting, and it was, for me at least, neither of those things. It joins the small list of Disney/Pixar films I have no desire ever to rewatch.

So that's two votes for dull/boring and a vote for a lack of emotional connection. No slight intended, but those are pretty nebulous things for a movie to overcome -- everyone's going to come at the story with their own perspective. While not me in any real way, I found a story about a workaholic who (quite literally) can't get out of his own way pretty relatable. Add in some topsy-turvy timey-wimey sci-fi and I was onboard.

Is the need for fun and excitement a requirement because Disney (per the statements about expectations upthread), or a general statement about what you like in movies? If the latter, no worries... a glance at the box office every week shows that you are far from alone in that desire.

 

[LittleBuford]

So that's two votes for dull/boring and a vote for a lack of emotional connection. No slight intended, but those are pretty nebulous things for a movie to overcome -- everyone's going to come at the story with their own perspective.

I agree they're nebulous, but I think the film's rather poor performance, together with the lukewarm critical reviews, shows that our criticisms aren't unfounded. And I should add that I'm an unabashed Pixie Duster who generally likes all things Disney.

 

[brideck]

I agree they're nebulous, but I think the film's rather poor performance, together with the lukewarm critical reviews, shows that our criticisms aren't unfounded. And I should add that I'm an unabashed Pixie Duster who generally likes all things Disney.

For sure. Lightyear got about half positive reviews and half "it was fine" reviews, which when the bar is universal acclaim (see Toy Story or Inside/Out) is certainly going to look like failure. If you look at some of the positive reviews you see things like "funny ... with suspense and heart," "the wittiest comic action," "the trademark Pixar sense of humor," etc. Exactly the kind of stuff that people who didn't like it say was missing from it. I guess all I'm getting at is that if I were on the story team at Disney (and I'm not) I would find it terribly frustrating to try to figure out where I may have made a misstep with so much contradictory feedback. FWIW, Strange World has gotten better reviews than Lightyear, but as is well-documented, no one is going to see it. For me... I see a lot of movies, so they don't all need to be amazing in order for me to enjoy or appreciate them for what they're bringing to the table.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Is the need for fun and excitement a requirement because Disney (per the statements about expectations upthread), or a general statement about what you like in movies? If the latter, no worries... a glance at the box office every week shows that you are far from alone in that desire.

I’m guessing a bit of both, I watch movies to forget about the worlds troubles, the same reason I watch sports, I think Disney is close to being in the same situation pro sports had a few years ago when activism was front and center, some people will love it, others will be driven away by it.

The good news is people have short memories and once the activism stopped making the news most people started watching again.

 

[brideck]

A hidden gem as far as I'm concerned.

I somehow managed to see Onward twice in theaters right before the pandemic shut everything down. There are not many things that I see more than once period, let alone in the theater.

 

[LittleBuford]

For me... I see a lot of movies, so they don't all need to be amazing in order for me to enjoy or appreciate them for what they're bringing to the table.

The same goes for me. I didn’t need Lightyear to be amazing, just enjoyable. I personally didn’t find it so, though I appreciate that you and others did.

 

[TP2000]

Aye, and that's the rub. It really pains me to think that the American (worldwide?) public won't let Disney break out of its childish box even a little without punishing them for it. I have really enjoyed the vast majority of Disney (and Pixar's) recent animated output, but I also like more complicated fare than most.

It also sounds like you are a grown adult. Which is an entirely different demographic than a 9 year old boy.

Historically, Disney cartoons were mostly aimed at parents taking their young children to the movies. That's not to say that a couple of college kids couldn't have gone to see Sleeping Beauty or Aladdin or Frozen together on a date nite. Also not saying that a childless adult living in New York couldn't have gone to see those movies with their childless adult friends after drinks at a local bar.

But those are not the demographic that these films are not only aimed at, but (perhaps most importantly) are required to make financially successful.

[Note that I am not saying in any way that something like Lightyear or Strange World is actually complicated, just that it's not as simple as the public's expectations.] The trick, if they want to keep on the current course, is managing to do both in the same story, and the recent movies are lacking much of a kid-facing hook to engage that demographic...

I think the problem here is that the Burbank executive class, living in the sealed off bubble that so many in media/entertainment live in, convinced themselves by listening to their own morally superior Talking Points that they were right to push the envelope on gay themes in children's films as they have the past few years.

The marketplace of free consumers has spoken in 2022, and that marketplace was clearly not ready for it. Not in 2022, likely not in 2025. Maybe in 2030 or 2040? Who knows?

I liken it to the first inter-racial kiss on American TV; the kiss between Captain Kirk and Lt. Uhura on Star Trek around 1967 or '68. It pushed envelopes, to be sure, but it was timed correctly. If the first Television broadcasts in America in 1939 and 1940 had featured inter-racial kissing it would have revoked broadcast licenses and crashed whatever business plan of whichever network dared to show that in 1939. But by 1968? It was racy, to be sure, but the timing was right.

I think that Burbank has overplayed their hand on their timing for putting gay characters into children's cartoons. The free marketplace of parents around the entire planet in 2022 has now made that quite clear.

After 2022's decisive marketplace statements, the ball has been placed back in Burbank's court. Where will they serve it, I wonder?

 

[brideck]

It also sounds like you are a grown adult. Which is an entirely different demographic than a 9 year old boy. Historically, Disney cartoons were mostly aimed at parents taking their young children to the movies. That's not to say that a couple of college kids couldn't have gone to see Sleeping Beauty or Aladdin or Frozen together. Also not saying that a childless adult living in New York couldn't have gone to see those movies with their childless adult friends after drinks at a local bar.

But those are not the demographic that these films are not only aimed at, but (perhaps most importantly) are required to make financially successful.




I think the problem here is that the Burbank executive class, living in the sealed off bubble that so many in media/entertainment live in, convinced themselves by listening to their own morally superior Talking Points that they were right to push the envelope on gay themes in children's films as they have the past few years.

The marketplace of free consumers has spoken in 2022, and that marketplace was clearly not ready for it. Not in 2022, likely not in 2025. Maybe in 2030 or 2040? Who knows?

I liken it to the first inter-racial kiss on American TV; the kiss between Captain Kirk and Lt. Uhura on Star Trek around 1967 or '68. It pushed envelopes, to be sure, but it was timed correctly. If the first Television broadcasts in America in 1939 and 1940 had featured inter-racial kissing it would have revoked broadcast licenses and crashed whatever business plan of whichever network dared to show that in 1939. But by 1968? It was racy, to be sure, but the timing was right.

I think that Burbank has overplayed their hand on their timing for putting gay characters into children's cartoons. The free marketplace of parents around the entire planet in 2022 has now made that quite clear.

After 2022's decisive marketplace statements, the ball has been placed back in Burbank's court. Where will they serve it, I wonder?

Guilty as charged -- grown adult, married with no kids even. (What am I doing on this site again?) FWIW, we do try to share slightly deeper media with our godkids/nieces/nephews when we have them, but we also have the time/energy to make those things more engaging by helping the kiddos through them. I entirely understand why so many parents end up falling back to Paw Patrol instead.

I totally agree with the business cases you're making. There's really been a triple whammy here: 1) the pandemic caught everyone with their pants down, 2) Disney shifted all of their eyeballs to the money-losing D+ (with the exception of the MCU, which remains "event" viewing), cannibalizing all of their ancillary income in the process, and 3) the culture wars that you're alluding to.

I wonder if it would have worked for them if they had practiced a "one for me, two for everyone" strategy instead where they slowly worked certain elements into their movies alongside their broad appeal stories.

 

[TP2000]

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.

How do you know @mickEblu is not Muslim, or Hindu, or Atheist? Or any number of cultures or religions where the third week of December bears no more cultural significance than the second week of June or the first week in October?

Or, perhaps he is a devout Christian who places homosexuality in the same category as divorce and adultery and eating beef on Fridays? That would actually seem to make the most sense, if he finds the addition of a gay character in a children's cartoon inappropriate for his family's culture and values.

He might even be Canadian for all we know.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

I think the problem here is that the Burbank executive class, living in the sealed off bubble that so many in media/entertainment live in, convinced themselves by listening to their own morally superior Talking Points that they were right to push the envelope on gay themes in children's films as they have the past few years.

The marketplace of free consumers has spoken in 2022, and that marketplace was clearly not ready for it. Not in 2022, likely not in 2025. Maybe in 2030 or 2040? Who knows?

I liken it to the first inter-racial kiss on American TV; the kiss between Captain Kirk and Lt. Uhura on Star Trek around 1967 or '68. It pushed envelopes, to be sure, but it was timed correctly. If the first Television broadcasts in America in 1939 and 1940 had featured inter-racial kissing it would have revoked broadcast licenses and crashed whatever business plan of whichever network dared to show that in 1939. But by 1968? It was racy, to be sure, but the timing was right.

I think that Burbank has overplayed their hand on their timing for putting gay characters into children's cartoons. The free marketplace of parents around the entire planet in 2022 has now made that quite clear.

After 2022's decisive marketplace statements, the ball has been placed back in Burbank's court. Where will they serve it, I wonder?

I agree with these 2 points, with the majority of Disney studio employees located in the LA area they are in a liberal echo chamber and I have no doubt the producers, directors, and writers feel they are giving the public what they want, the problem is LA is not indicative of America though, not even indicative of much of California for that matter.

That said I think they’ve been very light handed with gay characters, it’s not like they jumped straight into making movies featuring 2 princes as the leads, the gay characters are minor roles in the background, similar to how minority characters were often background characters a couple decades ago, it feels like the same slow approach that took minority characters from background to lead characters, They’ve been much more heavy handed with race and gender swapping though, it’s rare to see a Disney remake now where the former white female lead isn’t a minority or the former male lead isn’t now a female, and it feels very in your face.

 

[TP2000]

Guilty as charged -- grown adult, married with no kids even. (What am I doing on this site again?)

Don't worry, I'm in the bachelor niche of the same category! And I'm coming up on two decades here, even though a few people here wish I hadn't been so committed.

FWIW, we do try to share slightly deeper media with our godkids/nieces/nephews when we have them, but we also have the time/energy to make those things more engaging by helping the kiddos through them. I entirely understand why so many parents end up falling back to Paw Patrol instead.

I used to babysit my two nephews when they were young, about 20 years ago. It was nerve wracking trying to find a movie to watch that would keep them entertained but not trigger the wrath of my sister (their mom) for having too much T&A or violence or swear words. I barely survived!

Once I even tried to teach them how to play Backgammon to keep them entertained until the pizza showed up. You can imagine how that went over with 9 and 11 year old boys.

I totally agree with the business cases you're making. There's really been a triple whammy here: 1) the pandemic caught everyone with their pants down, 2) Disney shifted all of their eyeballs to the money-losing D+ (with the exception of the MCU, which remains "event" viewing), cannibalizing all of their ancillary income in the process, and 3) the culture wars that you're alluding to.

I don't envy Burbank executives in the past three years, or any media execs really. But especially Burbank executives, who had their properties in California shut down for just over a year while their properties in Florida were reopened after only six weeks of closure. Navigating that business-political environment must have been nightmarish for them, which lets me cut them some slack when I'm feeling generous and forced to explain it like this.

I wonder if it would have worked for them if they had practiced a "one for me, two for everyone" strategy instead where they slowly worked certain elements into their movies alongside their broad appeal stories.

A very good point. I think they got caught in bubble-think. I'd lived in SoCal until six weeks ago. In a new state it's been absolutely stunning for me to see how the world moved on while so many in LA are still masked up and fearful right now as if it was March, 2020. And yet they're quadruple vaxxed!

Burbank leadership and the cubicle armies below them are victims of that type of bubble-think; not so much with Covid specifically (but it's a part of it!), but with other socio-political aspects that are never challenged in elite conference rooms or cocktail parties or Silver Lake brunches.

But the free market of consumers are happy to challenge that bubble-think by not spending their dirty, suburban money on morally superior art like Strange World. Or so the Silver Lake bubble-think goes, sadly.

 

[brideck]

I agree with these 2 points, with the majority of Disney studio employees located in the LA area they are in a liberal echo chamber and I have no doubt the producers, directors, and writers feel they are giving the public what they want, the problem is LA is not indicative of America though, not even indicative of much of California for that matter.

It's interesting because there are specific business problems with Disney targeting liberals that people should have been able to tell them. A lot of liberals (if they don't have Disney nostalgia from their childhoods) don't actually like how conservative traditional Disney princess movies, etc. are, so they never bothered to engage their own children with Disney media. Case in point, my spouse's sister had to be harangued into believing that modern Disney animation might be okay/useful for her children to watch. So they're going after people who are not naturally predisposed to the brand.

Also, the generations younger than mine (Gen X) are the more liberal ones, but they're also the ones who've grown accustomed to being able to watch/play/listen to anything and not have to pay much (if anything) for it. Why pay when you can just stream/download/torrent things instead? (Answer: So people can afford to make more of the entertainment that you like, but I digress.) Most modern forms of entertainment are in the process of reckoning with this change, and it's not going to end well for a lot of them. The future: where everything is a niche market.

 

[TP2000]

It's interesting because there are specific business problems with Disney targeting liberals that people should have been able to tell them. A lot of liberals (if they don't have Disney nostalgia from their childhoods) don't actually like how conservative traditional Disney princess movies, etc. are, so they never bothered to engage their own children with Disney media. Case in point, my spouse's sister had to be harangued into believing that modern Disney animation might be okay/useful for her children to watch. So they're going after people who are not naturally predisposed to the brand.

Another really great point! That may be helpful in explaining why Burbank made the decisions that it did the past five years. So many people who read The Atlantic and never vacation in WDW wouldn't have touched a Disney product in 2010.

I think Disney execs, moving in those circles increasingly, knew it and wanted to be able to brag at the Silver Lake brunch about their career choices instead of make excuses for their career choices. And the shift was born.

Also, the generations younger than mine (Gen X) are the more liberal ones, but they're also the ones who've grown accustomed to being able to watch/play/listen to anything and not have to pay much (if anything) for it. Why pay when you can just stream/download/torrent things instead? (Answer: So people can afford to make more of the entertainment that you like, but I digress.) Most modern forms of entertainment are in the process of reckoning with this change, and it's not going to end well for a lot of them. The future: where everything is a niche market.

The entire streaming thing is baffling to me. I simply can not pencil out how it makes Disney any money long-term, or even mid-term. For only 8 bucks a month, no matter how many Doritos commercials they ladle on to the family in Denver just trying to watch Herbie Goes To Monte Carlo or Toy Story 3.

In another thread I likened streaming to Cryptocurrency. I just can't figure out how it works long-term or how it makes any sense financially. My tiny brain just can't comprehend it, and I'm left living rather comfortably off of real stocks and bonds and watching a BluRay disc of Airport 1975.

 

[TP2000]

The bag girl at Trader Joe’s asked me if I was excited for “the Holiday” last week. Singular. I asked “which one?” Lol. Just silence. Then I asked “Christmas? Oh yes I am, how about you?”

I love Trader Joe's, and Target. And as of about two days ago I started saying "Merry Christmas!" to any and all service workers. And I'm in a new town where none of these employees knows me yet. They light up and say "Merry Christmas!" right back at me. I wouldn't have been able to say that a week or two ago, because the Christmas spirit never hits me until about a week before Christmas.

But from now through Sunday? Watch out grinches! I'm on fire!

It's funny that when you are genuine with people how warmly they respond to you, even if the HR department and our moral betters don't approve of genuine warmth and cultural foundations.

 

[Heppenheimer]

It also sounds like you are a grown adult. Which is an entirely different demographic than a 9 year old boy.

Historically, Disney cartoons were mostly aimed at parents taking their young children to the movies. That's not to say that a couple of college kids couldn't have gone to see Sleeping Beauty or Aladdin or Frozen together on a date nite. Also not saying that a childless adult living in New York couldn't have gone to see those movies with their childless adult friends after drinks at a local bar.

But those are not the demographic that these films are not only aimed at, but (perhaps most importantly) are required to make financially successful.




I think the problem here is that the Burbank executive class, living in the sealed off bubble that so many in media/entertainment live in, convinced themselves by listening to their own morally superior Talking Points that they were right to push the envelope on gay themes in children's films as they have the past few years.

The marketplace of free consumers has spoken in 2022, and that marketplace was clearly not ready for it. Not in 2022, likely not in 2025. Maybe in 2030 or 2040? Who knows?

I liken it to the first inter-racial kiss on American TV; the kiss between Captain Kirk and Lt. Uhura on Star Trek around 1967 or '68. It pushed envelopes, to be sure, but it was timed correctly. If the first Television broadcasts in America in 1939 and 1940 had featured inter-racial kissing it would have revoked broadcast licenses and crashed whatever business plan of whichever network dared to show that in 1939. But by 1968? It was racy, to be sure, but the timing was right.

I think that Burbank has overplayed their hand on their timing for putting gay characters into children's cartoons. The free marketplace of parents around the entire planet in 2022 has now made that quite clear.

After 2022's decisive marketplace statements, the ball has been placed back in Burbank's court. Where will they serve it, I wonder?

Hey, I saw Aladin on a date! High school, though

 

[Heppenheimer]

Great point. It never feels natural and organic, it feels forced and fake and mandated by HR. Audiences, made up of real humans who are naturally intelligent, can spot the fakeness from a mile away.

It's also always a very noticeable one-way street the past 15 years or so. If you have a famous story written by a European author based in European cultures, like Frozen with The Snow Queen or The Little Mermaid by Hans Christian Andersen, you almost have to swap out the leading white European roles for a non-white actor or actress.

But can you imagine if Disneyland had a blonde white surfer guy named Tyler from Laguna Niguel play the role of Simba in the stage version of The Lion King in the Fantasyland Theatre?!? Heads would explode in fury and rage, even though The Lion King is all about animals who have no race or ethnicity or culture. But somehow only Black actors/actresses can play the leads and take the leading roles in onstage performances of The Lion King?

Only Asians may play Mulan. Only Pacific Islanders may play Moana. Etc., etc. But an ancient European story written by a European author and set in a well-established European culture? Let's find non-whites for those roles. Inclusion!

Disney California Adventure presents Frozen Live On Stage!

I basically agree with the sentiment here, and as a lover of history-based entertainment, it largely kills the verisimilitude of these kinds of films with this new habit of inserting peoples and ideas into historical times and places where they simply would not have been present. It doesn't serve the story, it only seems to serve a studio agenda. Not to say we can't have more diverse history films. Westerns, for one, should feature far more black and hispanic characters to be accurate to the times.

Live theater, though, is a little different. There's more of a suspension of disbelief implied in the process. For musical theater, in particular, proper voice casting has long been more important than matching the ethnicity (or even age) of the character, which often isn't even directly spelled out in the libretto anyway. That's why you could get away with old, morbidly obese and barely mobile Pavarotti playing young, heroic Radames in Aida. He didn't look the part at all, but he could sure still sing it!