'Strange World' Disney's 2022 Animated Film

[LittleBuford]

I have absolutely no plans to watch the movie.

We know. See my previous post.

 

[Californian Elitist]

No, I was not. And I will sleep soundly tonight knowing quite clearly that I was not mingling with racists.

If I had been at a party or event where someone made a racist remark, or used bigoted language, I would have exited that situation almost immediately. I can not remember any time within the past few decades where I have been in that type of situation in Southern California, or in my own OC neighborhood that was noticeably racially diverse (and quite friendly!).

The party I went to last night celebrated 2023, not 1953. I happily live in the year 2023.

I said what I said.

Who here has seen the movie?

 

[TP2000]

We know. See my previous post.

Yes. You aren't the only person here who feels you can't discuss a movie you haven't seen.

I haven't discussed the artistic merits of the film here, as I haven't seen it. From what I've read, it actually has some stunning visuals and fun environments? And a unique plot twist that children would probably find really fun to ponder.

But the financials behind this giant flop right at a time of corporate crisis.... Oof!

 

[Chi84]

Again, these are issues you need to ask the parents. I am not a parent.

But if you are asking me as a childless adult, let's pretend that I am tasked with babysitting some children and am taking them to the movies. If the children are aged 6 and 8, I would not take them to a movie with an openly gay character in it. That is subject matter that should be handled by the parents when the parents want to discuss sexuality with their kids.

But if I am babysitting children who are aged 14 and 16, I would be far more comfortable taking them to a movie with an openly gay character in it. At that age, it's almost always healthy for them to see that type of thing in movies and media.

There is a giant difference between an 8 year old boy and a 14 year old boy. There is a chasm of difference between a 6 year old boy and a 16 year old boy. I don't blame parents one bit for knowing that instinctively and being cautious and purposeful of when they introduce certain concepts into their child's development.

You seem to think you know a lot about parents and kids.

Actually, your post does not answer my question at all and I’m pretty sure you know it. I can tell from your last few posts that you’re just playing with people here. Enjoy.

 

[TP2000]

I said what I said.

You tried to claim that I hang out with racists. I do not.

You were still likely mingling with racists and bigots.

Saying that people you've never met in real life hang out with racists is not just wildly impolite and inappropriate, it is slanderous.

You simply owe me an apology. I'll wait...

 

[TP2000]

You seem to think you know a lot about parents and kids.

I know very little about parenting. But what I do know about it, I have great respect for them.

Actually, your post does not answer my question at all and I’m pretty sure you know it. I can tell from your last few posts that you’re just playing with people here. Enjoy.

Your question was odd, to say the least. I felt I did a pretty good job answering it with my babysitting at the movies analogy.

 

[LittleBuford]

I said what I said.

Who here has seen the movie?

The unfortunate thing is that I had to actively work not to think of this thread while watching it. For me at least, the discussion here tainted what was otherwise a very pleasurable experience. It’s a terrible shame that such a well-intentioned film should have been turned into a dumping ground for reactionary grievances.

 

[Californian Elitist]

You tried to claim that I hang out with racists. I do not.



Saying that people you've never met in real life hang out with racists is not just wildly impolite and inappropriate, it is slanderous.

You simply owe me an apology. I'll wait...

No, I didn’t. I said you likely mingled with them in Orange County, a notoriously racist and bigoted county. I stand by that.

I owe you nothing, but if you want to ever try and get one from me in the future, send me a PM.

 

[Californian Elitist]

The unfortunate thing is that I had to actively work not to think of this thread while watching it. For me at least, the discussion here tainted what was otherwise a very pleasurable experience. It’s a terrible shame that such a well-intentioned film should have been turned into a dumping ground for reactionary grievances.

I too actively thought of this thread while watching it, sadly. I partially blame myself, though. I didn’t have to keep engaging in the thread, but I chose to do so.

 

[TP2000]

I owe you nothing, but if you want to ever try and get one from me in the future, send me a PM.

If you had tried to claim that I hung out with racists via PM, I would ask for that apology for your slander via PM.

You claimed I hung out with racists on an open thread. The apology for your lie and that slander should be delivered via the thread.

 

[Chi84]

I said what I said.

Who here has seen the movie?

I’m watching it right now! It’s just fair as far as I’m concerned. It’s definitely a beautiful film, but I can understand how some might think boxes were being checked.

That type of thing doesn’t bother me at all. Nor would it bother kids unless you teach them it should. (I am the parent of two children so at least have some experience in discussing them.) And while I agree that parents are ultimately responsible for raising their children, I’ve seen too many horrible examples of parenting to extol their virtues without question.

 

[Californian Elitist]

If you had tried to claim that I hung out with racists via PM, I would ask for that apology for your slander via PM.

You claimed I hung out with racists on an open thread. The apology for your lie and that slander should be delivered via the thread.

You can re-read what I wrote, if you want.

I told no lies, I slandered no one. You are purposefully misunderstanding it to try and get a fake, insincere apology from me. I’m not sorry for what I said. As someone who briefly lived in Orange County, I too likely mingled with racists and bigots.

Again, for the last time, I have nothing to apologize to you for. You’re wasting your time trying to get one from me. In the future, if you think I owe you one, send me a PM. You’ve done it before.

Anyways, the movie.

 

[BrianLo]

Again, these are issues you need to ask the parents. I am not a parent.

But if you are asking me as a childless adult, let's pretend that I am tasked with babysitting some children and am taking them to the movies. If the children are aged 6 and 8, I would not take them to a movie with an openly gay character in it. That is subject matter that should be handled by the parents when the parents want to discuss sexuality with their kids.

But if I am babysitting children who are aged 14 and 16, I would be far more comfortable taking them to a movie with an openly gay character in it. At that age, it's almost always healthy for them to see that type of thing in movies and media.

There is a giant difference between an 8 year old boy and a 14 year old boy. There is a chasm of difference between a 6 year old boy and a 16 year old boy. I don't blame parents one bit for knowing that instinctively and being cautious and purposeful of when they introduce certain concepts into their child's development.

I’m curious because obviously straight content can be broached in an age inappropriate manner, as can gay content.

But say we have a Disney movie that society has deemed age appropriate and Disney literally subs out the character model for the opposite sex; what to you makes that age inappropriate?

I’m not talking about middle America or other parents, but what do you think is the change? What specifically elevates the contents appropriateness by substituting a gender or sex?

My suspicion is honestly just because as you’ve pointed out it’s the broader disapproval of gay relationship that is still a good 15-20 years behind the curve of interracial marriage. Rather than an actual meaningful difference in true age appropriate content.

 

[TP2000]

You can re-read what I wrote, if if you want.

I do not mingle with racists and bigots. You have no power over me to say that I do.

 

[Chi84]

But say we have a Disney movie that society has deemed age appropriate and Disney literally subs out the character model for the opposite sex; what to you makes that age inappropriate?

As someone who has watched the movie, this is exactly what was done in Strange World.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I do not mingle with racists and bigots. You have no power over me to say that I do.

No, you just like making racist and bigoted comments, over and over and over again.

 

[LittleBuford]

I’m curious because obviously straight content can be broached in an age inappropriate manner, as can gay content.

But say we have a Disney movie that society has deemed age appropriate and Disney literally subs out the character model for the opposite sex; what to you makes that age inappropriate?

I’m not talking about middle America or other parents, but what do you think is the change? What specifically elevates the contents appropriateness by substituting a gender or sex?

My suspicion is honestly just because as you’ve pointed out it’s the broader disapproval of gay relationship that is still a good 15-20 years behind the curve of interracial marriage. Rather than an actual meaningful difference in true age appropriate content.

This is very astutely put.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Anyways, any other thoughts on the score?

 

[LittleBuford]

Anyways, any other thoughts on the score?

I’ll need to rewatch (or rehear!) it to pay proper attention.

 

[TP2000]

I’m curious because obviously straight content can be broached in an age inappropriate manner, as can gay content.

Yes. But every child already has the point of reference of a mother and father. They live with them every day. They know what that is.

But say we have a Disney movie that society has deemed age appropriate and Disney literally subs out the character model for the opposite sex; what to you makes that age inappropriate?
I’m not talking about middle America or other parents, but what do you think is the change? What specifically elevates the contents appropriateness by substituting a gender or sex?

I think it's because it would require an explanation with an 8 year old of why that mom had a wife instead of a husband, or some such variation of that. It seems to be a topic most parents are not ready or willing to have with an 8 year old in the car ride home.

With a 12 year old? More likely. With a 14 year old? Of course. The exception to that is with families that have values and cultures that are stricter than the 2020's American average. Muslim families, for instance. Or devout Catholics in countries like Mexico or Central America.

My suspicion is honestly just because as you’ve pointed out it’s the broader disapproval of gay relationship that is still a good 15-20 years behind the curve of interracial marriage. Rather than an actual meaningful difference in true age appropriate content.

I agree with that to an extent. Just look at that Gallup polling on several cultural topics, the trend line is clear.

I have no doubt that gay characters in children's films will be less of a big deal in 2040 than they are today. But the issue is that Burbank needs to sell movie tickets in 2023. Should Disney be the culture's agent of change? Or should it follow along and mesh with the current zeitgeist and cultural mores? If you want to make money using Disney's established business model, they need to stick with the latter.