'Strange World' Disney's 2022 Animated Film

[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.

 

[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?