'Strange World' Disney's 2022 Animated Film

[BuddyThomas]

It's just creepy and dumb. And cringey. And feels so fake and just weird.

Why did they even do it? No one can really explain that. In SoCal, it was actually a bigger deal than you'd imagine where nearly 1 Million locals have AP's.

Again, you are objecting to moves inclusive to the LGBTQ community. I'm starting to think you really are Milo.

 

[SuddenStorm]

I will just give one really small example. The elimination of the introduction Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls. An all-inclusive non offensive long term general announcement suddenly an issue? that needed to be corrected? presented abruptly and not without proclamation of the change. Why? An unnecessary irritation. I do not see any point in laundry listing more the poor presentation and judgment in the parks and media with this supposed inclusivity. The public / guests / viewers / visitors are reacting with their $ and time.

Man, I keep forgetting they changed that and it's so disappointing. Ladies and Gentleman Boys and Girls sounds far more formal than Hello friends! or Hello dreamers! or whatever the new greeting is.

It's funny to, for the MSEP 50th at Disneyland they went to great lengths to redo the intro in such a way to distract from the fact the Ladies and Gentleman is missing. It's like Peterson and his team knew the new mandate from Burbank's DEI department was dumb and tried to do their best to mitigate the damage.

 

[BuddyThomas]

I haven't had a cocktail yet, I just opened the Pinot Noir a glass ago.

But I'm planning on doing a Rusty Nail later tonight as my nightcap. They're my go-to Christmas cocktail, and it's gotten very chilly here tonight. It will be a double Rusty Nail; Johnnie Walker Black and a bit heavy on the Drambuie, with a twist.

I'll report back on how it turns out. Strip steak time!

I can't wait to read those posts.

 

[celluloid]

It is not a freaking "jarring social take". I hate to break it to you, but this is 2022, not 1952.

You are quite the confusing poster.

According to you the movie has not been critically or publically deemed bad, so that is not the reason people aren't seeing it. You imply you understand what is going on here, that it must be some sort of hate.

Then you state that it is not jarring. I never said if it was right or wrong. But it would in fact be jarring if people do not care to see it portrayed the way the movie did it, which would be just as badly written if it were a straight couple, which again, was poor writing in mine and other's opinion. Sure, just an opinion, it may even be a minority but it is still a valid opinion that is not JUST me.

So for you it is not that the movie performed poorly due to it being jarring to those you deem hateful or otherwise.

And it is not a box office bomb due to it being poorly received and bad word of mouth for no one to rush to see it to help it perform well.

So what is the reason then, since you seem to have the answer and "see what is happening here."

 

[BuddyThomas]

Why are you so hateful? I don't care who gives me an emoji, and why are you so invested in that. You don't want to have a discussion at all. You want to say I can't have an opinion, and say the same to others.

Ummmmm, I already said that your opinion is valid. I just said that it is a provable fact that most critics and audience members disagree with you. Hateful? That's hysterical considering the hate I have witnessed from the phobes on this board for the past 10+ years.

 

[GimpYancIent]

Doesn’t the fact that the change was made “without proclamation” disprove your assertion that these initiatives are “in-your-face”? Would a first-time visitor have any idea that the greeting had once been “Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls”? In what ways, and for what reasons, does the replacement greeting diminish your enjoyment of the parks?

Uh, quote it correctly please "not without proclamation". I invite the posters to please read my initial post. We are done. Have a nice day.

 

[celluloid]

Ummmmm, I already said that your opinion is valid. I just said that it is a provable fact that most critics and audience members disagree with you. Hateful? That's hysterical considering the hate I have witnessed from the phobes on this board for the past 10+ years.

Ok, I can say that people who were hateful to you are hateful as well. But that does not change the fact nor make it right that I am receiving hate from you now does it?

And I don't care if the majority of people don't agree with my take on the movie. Nor should you so much.

 

[Chi84]

If you do not understand people reacting to things that irritate, do not interest, find unnecessarily distracting, do not find applicable to them or simply not worth their time not going to, not wanting to view and definitely not spend money or time. Well, we have no conversation.

I’ve been to the parks recently and haven’t noticed what you’re describing. Also, the parks are packed. I was just asking for what you mean by people reacting with their time and money. Are you saying people are not going to the parks because they’re annoyed by the announcement?

 

[SuddenStorm]

I can't wait to read those posts.

Same! I love a good steak- and while my drinking hasn't extended much beyond bottom shelf vodka and orange juice, or cheap beer- I respect the art behind a good cocktail.

 

[BuddyThomas]

Ok, I can say that people who were hateful to you are hateful as well. But that does not change the fact nor make it right that I am receiving hate from you now does it?

And I don't care if the majority of people don't agree with my take on the movie. Nor should you so much.

You're not receiving any hate from me. Maybe you are inferring a tone that is not there. It is a message board, not a Toni Morrison novel. Anyway, I give you credit for at least having seen the film, which is more than most of those on this thread can say. Most people are talking about how bad it sucks and they have not even seen it. That is absolutely ridiculous, especially since the reason they are saying this is because they heard it has a gay character in it.

 

[celluloid]

You're not receiving any hate from me. Maybe you are inferring a tone that is not there. It is a message board, not a Toni Morrison novel. Anyway, I give you credit for at least having seen the film, which is more than most of those on this thread can say. Most people are talking about how bad it sucks and they have not even seen it. That is absolutely ridiculous, especially since the reason they are saying this is because they heard it has a gay character in it.

Maybe you were not intending for it to be hateful, but you were certainly hateful towards me in your posting word choices. I would like to point out some examples of what discourse would cause someone to feel that way.

using the "Ummmmm" exaggerated in an overmount of letters like you did earlier when quoting me at the start of your post comes across as facetious.

Ending your post towards me with "I can see what is going on here" comes across like you feel I have some hidden agenda.

You also quoted me and lumped the fact that someone put a love emoji to my comment to somehow lower the value of my post.

Avoiding those kinds of postings will help keep better discourse and provide a welcoming environment. On that note, I am sorry that there have been posters hateful towards you. I would also ask the same of anyone being that way towards another poster, such as you on this forum for the same reasons. I will do better as well.

If you did not intend for that to be hateful, that makes me feel better and I appreciate that. I just wanted to clarify why it would come across that way in discourse. No Toni Morrison novel needed. :-D

 

[BuddyThomas]

Maybe you were not intending for it to be hateful, but you were certainly hateful towards me in your posting word choices. I would like to point out some examples of what discourse would cause someone to feel that way.

using the "Ummmmm" exaggerated in an overmount of letters like you did earlier when quoting me at the start of your post comes across as facetious.

Ending your post towards me with "I can see what is going on here" comes across like you feel I have some hidden agenda.

You also quoted me and lumped the fact that someone put a love emoji to my comment to somehow lower the value of my post.

Avoiding those kinds of postings will help keep better discourse and provide a welcoming environment. On that note, I am sorry that there have been posters hateful towards you. I would also ask the same of anyone being that way towards another poster, such as you on this forum for the same reasons. I will do better as well.

If you did not intend for that to be hateful, that makes me feel better and I appreciate that. I just wanted to clarify why it would come across that way in discourse. No Toni Morrison novel needed. :-D

Apologies. I won't lie. This thread has me totally triggered. You may not have seen some of the stuff that has been deleted, but it has been disgusting and unreal, and as a person who does not tolerate homophobia at all, I am very on edge with all of this. Maybe I misunderstood your post.

 

[celluloid]

Apologies. I won't lie. This thread has me totally triggered. You may not have seen some of the stuff that has been deleted, but it has been disgusting and unreal, and as a person who does not tolerate homophobia at all, I am very on edge with all of this. Maybe I misunderstood your post.

That is very respectable of you. I appreciate you replying. I want to end the hate. I was feeling contentious and attacked and maybe that was the reason, maybe I am triggered too because I wanted to love this movie, but the writing and direction were just blah to me. I am not an amazing writer, but I like to think given a few drafts I could fix some things about it. It is my trade.

I wanted to enjoy it, but I just could not. And how they did a lot of things could have been better.

 

[SuddenStorm]

Hateful? That's hysterical considering the hate I have witnessed from the phobes on this board for the past 10+ years.

Keep fighting the good fight my brother. I'm horrified that phobes have been running rampant on this forum for 10+ years and am thrilled you've been working to shut them down.

For 10+ years.

 

[LittleBuford]

Quit invalidating someone's take on it.

You didn’t react this way when he disagreed with my take earlier. We’re dealing in subjective opinions; I can no more invalidate his personal feelings than he can invalidate mine. All we can do is share our thoughts and respectfully challenge each other. It’s up to others to decide whose take they find convincing.

 

[LittleBuford]

Why did they even do it? No one can really explain that.

It’s been explained multiple time: it’s a way of being more inclusive. But some simply don’t like the explanation.

 

[celluloid]

You didn’t react this way when he disagreed with my take earlier. We’re dealing in subjective opinions; I can no more invalidate his personal feelings than he can invalidate mine. All we can do is share our thoughts and respectfully challenge each other. It’s up to others to decide whose take they find convincing.

I think you will find I was not posting then, or posting at the same time frame window of the posts that I did not see it. You can disagree with takes, I hope no one is invalidating and rude intentionally to someone else's opinions. I only saw what was in the midst of someone coming across as hating on me. You too are included in the right to not be hated. Sorry I missed that. I am not going to catch everything.

Your last part is not necessarily true either. There is no requirement in life to get others to agree with you or convince them. It is ok for someone just to share there take on it and not expect a win or to persuade about every aspect.

 

[LittleBuford]

Uh, quote it correctly please "not without proclamation". I invite the posters to please read my initial post. We are done. Have a nice day.

I apologise for my misreading. I don’t recall any fanfare about the change at the time, but I may have missed it.

 

[LittleBuford]

There is no requirement in life to get others to agree with you or convince them. It is ok for someone just to share there take on it and not expect a win or to persuade about every aspect.

That’s precisely what I was trying to say anyway.

 

[TP2000]

Again, you are objecting to moves inclusive to the LGBTQ community. I'm starting to think you really are Milo.

I'm objecting to movies inclusive of the 2SLGBTQQIAP+ community that are aimed at children under age 12.

It's quite telling that you refuse to make that distinction. You simply refuse. That's not going to be a winning strategy for our community long term, my dear.

We simply have to acknowledge the fact that almost all of us don't have children, will never have children, and mostly likely don't want children. Hell, I still have PTSD from babysitting my nephews a few times 20 years ago. Children?!? In my home for five hours?!? With sniffling noses and bad conversation skills and ugly shoes and chicken-tender focused dietary restrictions?!? I honestly don't know how I survived.

But would I have taken those boys to see Strange World when they were 8 and 10 years old respectively? Nope. Save the gay crush stuff in Disney movies for when they are teenagers and can process it better. An 8 year old boy shouldn't have to figure out in his brain why another boy would want to hold hands with another boy. It's just not the right time for that at age 8. At age 12, maybe. At age 15, much more likely.

But it should be up to the parents to determine the right age for that subject matter, based on inherent knowledge of their own child's development along with their familial cultural values. Weepy virtue signaling Burbank execs who live in a tight bubble like Karey Burke should not get to determine that for America's parents.

The box office results of Disney's last two animated family films produced with huge budgets of $180 to $200 Million apiece seems to prove that business plan is failing. Parents revenge, if you will.