'Strange World' Disney's 2022 Animated Film

[Disney Analyst]

I’m not sure that means much. Home Alone from 1990 is spot #4. Plus, didn’t this just get released last week? What other new content is it competing with? Do you think it’ll be #1 next week or in a month? If people still have Disney + then clearly they re not really the ones boycotting Disney or Disney +. I wouldn’t jump to conclusions based off people subscribed to Disney +.

If people didn’t want to watch it, it certainly wouldn’t rank over Encanto at the Hollywood bowl, or the original Avatar which is up there due to the sequel.

The fact is, many people are watching it now, and it’s not being boycotted.

 

[mickEblu]

I’m not sure that means much. Home Alone from 1990 is spot #4. Plus, didn’t this just get released last week? What other new content is it competing with? Do you think it’ll be #1 next week or in a month? If people still have Disney + then clearly they re not really the ones boycotting Disney or Disney +. I wouldn’t jump to conclusions based off people subscribed to Disney +.

All I’m saying is if I showed up at my sons school tmrw and raced the kids in his first grade class and won it doesn’t mean I’m fast or in good shape. Plus it was just released last week. I’m not really sure how streaming works or how long hit shows or movies stay in the # 1 spot but it would take more than a week to impress me.

 

[Rich T]

..I also think for that reason, Strange World will age well. What may be seen by some as "woke" by 2022's standards will be seen as no big deal by 2032's standards.

I also agree that Strange World has a great chance of aging well based on its strong points. But it’s still, unfortunately, going to be a movie full of generic sitcom dialogue and unfunny jokes. Maybe, as pop culture moves on and away from the never-ending glib sarcasm style of humor that nearly all recent animated films cling to (everybody talks like a character on “Friends” or “The Gilmore Girls”) the dialogue in Strange World will seem less been-there-heard-that.

 

[BrianLo]

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.

Although facetiously many also have two moms or dads. It would be odd if they barred the entire Disney back catalogue (ironically including Strange World), because it features straight content.

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.

Yes I do understand this perspective. A lot of parents simply don’t have the tools to discuss things they perhaps have a limited exposure to. That doesn’t make the content age inappropriate necessarily, it more speaks to the parents own lack of comfort. I do think this is the role for educators though, to fill in for parents gaps, but that’s a charged topic.

Not to throw it back on you though, but I’m curious why you’d also share that perspective (discomfort around exposing children) to a topic you are presumably more comfortable with. Not in the context of forcing it upon other families, but for example if you had a niece or nephew and a supportive ally in a sibling, why wouldn’t you go to one of those movies with them?


I do broadly think this whole Disney pushing the envelope thing with strange world is kind of surprising. Considering what they put out for kids in the 80’s.

I watched this as Epcot when I was ‘just’ 6.

 

[Prince-1]

Are you talking about me? If so...

There was no boycott. What are you even talking about? Hardly anyone even knew this movie existed in the first place, let alone was there enough knowledge of it to mount some sort of silly boycott.

We will never know what caused Burbank execs to abandon this movie in the marketplace by not marketing it, after spending $180 Million to produce it. We will only be able to guess. Through this thread I've read some really interesting points and perspectives on it, and at this current state in the conversation I'm of the opinion that... (Read on only if you are open to wild assumptions bordering on conspiracy theory, but it's all we've got!)....

Burbank execs got scared by summer '22 after the backlash and bad publicity surrounding a very minor Lesbian character mention in Lightyear. And Lightyear did poorly at the box office (not as disastrous as Strange World, but that was in the future still). Knowing that they had doubled-down on putting gay characters into children's animation, they knew Strange World had the teenage boy who was gay and had dialogue and supporting characters to clearly spell it out that he was homosexual. It was unavoidable. And test audiences of boys/men really disliked Strange World, while women were indifferent. So by mid summer Burbank execs think "Uh-oh. If we thought the PR on Lightyear was bad, wait until America learns about Strange World!". So they buried it. They cancelled most of the marketing for it. They pulled the toys and children's merchandise from open distribution at Target and WalMart and DisneyStores for Christmas. Strange World was purposely buried to avoid as much bad PR as possible. And it mostly worked for them, to their credit! It slid under the radar for most Americans, and never got mentioned by conservative media during its launch because almost no one even knew it existed. It only is getting mentioned now in passing, in a woke-year-in-review type format. On to Disney+ which is burning money even without Strange World!

That's about as good an explanation as I've got, after six weeks on this thread.

It still doesn't explain why Strange World was released in over 4,100 theaters without any real marketing, but that may have something to do with contractual obligations with theater chains. If anyone here knows how that part of the movie business works and how theater slots get divvied up between films, please weigh in here! I'd love to know how that works!

Does anyone else have another theory they'd like to throw out? I'd be interested to hear other thoughts on this mystery.

Yes, you said this as one of the reasons why the movie failed:

Apparently a majority of parents with small children around the world share that opinion too. Which really makes me question Burbank's current business strategy regarding these family animated movies aimed at children.

I am just looking for proof for this statement.

 

[Rich T]

Anyways, any other thoughts on the score?

Loved it! Bought the soundtrack on iTunes. I even like the Clades’ song.

Its composer, Henry Jackman, ironically also did the music for the first Puss in Boots film.

 

[Prince-1]

All I’m saying is if I showed up at my sons school tmrw and raced the kids in his first grade class and won it doesn’t mean I’m fast or in good shape. Plus it was just released last week. I’m not really sure how streaming works or how long hit shows or movies stay in the # 1 spot but it would take more than a week to impress me.

And again if the reason why this bombed was because of parents not wanting their kids to see an innocent crush between a boy and another boy they would not allow it on their TV at home at all and it would have bombed once again but it didn’t. Bad logic Mick.

 

[Rich T]

Y’know what upsets ME???? All the billboards in Florida advertising a machine gun shooting range as “Family Fun.”

 

[mickEblu]

If people didn’t want to watch it, it certainly wouldn’t rank over Encanto at the Hollywood bowl, or the original Avatar which is up there due to the sequel.

The fact is, many people are watching it now, and it’s not being boycotted.

Yeah I mean there are a lot of Disney + subscribers and it’s only been a week and there is not a lot of competition.

 

[TP2000]

Although facetiously many also have two moms or dads. It would be odd if they barred the entire Disney back catalogue (ironically including Strange World), because it features straight content.

I understand that. I actually have old friends who are in that boat. They are gay men who had twin boys via a surrogate mother in the 1990's, when they were already in middle age. That was groundbreaking then! The stories they tell of navigating Cub Scouts and soccer leagues circa 2003 with their boys would make you laugh and cry at the same time. And they were raising them in the very gay-friendly Palm Springs area!

But I am also adept enough at statistics to know those families are still a tiny, tiny minority of the American population. Even today.

Not to throw it back on you though, but I’m curious why you’d also share that perspective (discomfort around exposing children) to a topic you are presumably more comfortable with. Not in the context of forcing it upon other families, but for example if you had a niece or nephew and a supportive ally in a sibling, why wouldn’t you go to one of those movies with them?

Thinking back on my babysitting days when my nephews were young, I just don't think I wanted to wade into that topic with them. It wasn't my place. It wasn't appropriate. It was inherently sexual, and that's simply not okay to discuss with children. Especially children who are not your own.

My sister told me that she explained my sexuality and why I didn't have a wife to her boys individually, both when they were early-teens. Both boys went "Oh, I get it!". They may have already known for a year or two based off of scientific information learned on the play ground, but they at least played it off as though Mom was letting them in on a family secret and admitting them into a more mature stage of life. I should ask them sometime! (Dammit, they already left and flew back home from their Christmas visit!)

But I certainly wasn't going to bring it up. That was her job, her responsibility, her right as the parent.

I do broadly think this whole Disney pushing the envelope thing with strange world is kind of surprising. Considering what the put out for kids in the 80’s.

View attachment 689524

I watched this as Epcot when I was ‘just’ 6.

I mentioned it earlier, but it sort of meshed around in my brain over dinner just now. I think Disney is having problems with pushing cultural envelopes. It's just not been their brand or their business model for the past 100 years. Parents are hesitant to let Disney do that for them. I think Burbank needs to rethink their business strategy on pushing cultural boundaries with their children's films.

Leave that stuff for PG-13 or higher, if they feel the need to do it. It's clearly not working well for them at the PG animation level.

 

[mickEblu]

And again if the reason why this bombed was because of parents not wanting their kids to see an innocent crush between a boy and another boy they would not allow it on their TV at home at all and it would have bombed once again but it didn’t. Bad logic Mick.

So because there are enough people who have no issues with this movie to keep it in the # 1 spot for a week against the likes of Home Alone (1990) that means people didn’t boycott the movie? What kind of logic is that?

 

[Californian Elitist]

Loved it! Bought the soundtrack on iTunes. I even like the Clades’ song.

Its composer, Henry Jackman, ironically also did the music for the first Puss in Boots film.

Listening to it now! The music is definitely the best thing about the movie. Would love to hear it live.

 

[TP2000]

I am just looking for proof for this statement.

Here's your proof.

You can adjust things by 10% or 20% with excuses about "franchises" and "weather", but it's pretty clear how these two family animated films performed during the 2022 Holiday Season. Burbank's decision to not market Strange World was obviously a huge reason why the film failed. So we must ask ourselves "Why did Burbank choose not to market Strange World on purpose?"

 

[Prince-1]

So because there are enough people who have no issues with this movie to keep it in the # 1 spot for a week against the likes of Home Alone (1990) that means people didn’t boycott the movie? What kind of logic is that?

You have zero proof of anybody boycotting the movie in large numbers. And again if they boycotted it in the theaters they would’ve done the same thing at home where they have just as much control over their Disney+ account. What kind of logic is that Mick?

 

[Prince-1]

Here's your proof.

You can adjust things by 10% or 20% with excuses about "franchises" and "weather", but it's pretty clear how these two family animated films performed during the 2022 Holiday Season. Burbank's decision to not market Strange World was obviously a huge reason why the film failed. So we must ask ourselves "Why did Burbank choose not to market Strange World on purpose?"

View attachment 689525

See now you’re just embarrassing yourself. This does not show any boycotting of the movie because of a gay crush. It shows that people didn’t go see the movie but nothing about the reason why. It is cute that you tried so I do appreciate that.

 

[mickEblu]

You have zero proof of anybody boycotting the movie in large numbers. And again if they boycotted it in the theaters they would’ve done the same thing at home where they have just as much control over their Disney+ account. What kind of logic is that Mick?

Aside from the 1000s of comments I’ve read online stating such let’s simplify things- do you know who makes up a large part of Middle America? Do you think they were running to take their kids to see Strange World? You know, the “bigots” as you guys around here like to say.

 

[TP2000]

See now you’re just embarrassing yourself. This does not show any boycotting of the movie because of a gay crush. It shows that people didn’t go see the movie but nothing about the reason why. It is cute that you tried so I do appreciate that.

Did I ever say there was an organized boycott of Strange World? I don't remember that at all.

I think you may have thought I imagined some organized boycott of the film, like that ridiculous thing the Southern Baptists tried in the 2000's with Disney World.

I think Strange World failed mostly because it wasn't marketed at all. And I think a smaller percentage of its failure is due to parents learning from their own research and social groups (Facebook, etc.) that it featured a gay teenage boy as the main protagonist in the film, and their natural hesitancy to allow their children under about age 12 to go see that movie because of that.

But a boycott? That seems wildly optimistic for a film most Americans didn't even know existed.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Y’all have literally zero concrete proof as to the actual reason(s) why million of Americans chose not to see this movie in theaters. No getting around that.

 

[mickEblu]

Did I ever say there was an organized boycott of Strange World? I don't remember that at all.

I think you may have thought I imagined some organized boycott of the film, like that ridiculous thing the Southern Baptists tried in the 2000's with Disney World.

I think Strange World failed mostly because it wasn't marketed at all. And I think a smaller percentage of its failure is due to parents learning from their own research and social groups (Facebook, etc.) that it featured a gay teenage boy as the main protagonist in the film, and their natural hesitancy to allow their children under about age 12 to go see that movie because of that.

But a boycott? That seems wildly optimistic for a film most Americans didn't even know existed.

Right. I didn’t use that term until other starting using it. Who said there was some huge organized effort against Strange World? Just parents who don’t feel comfortable taking their kids and expressing their opinion.

 

[Rich T]

I understand that. I actually have old friends who are in that boat. They are gay men who had twin boys via a surrogate mother in the 1990's, when they were already in middle age. That was groundbreaking then! The stories they tell of navigating Cub Scouts and soccer leagues circa 2003 with their boys would make you laugh and cry at the same time.

But I am also adept enough at statistics to know those families are still a tiny, tiny minority of the American population. Even today.



Thinking back on my babysitting days when my nephews were young, I just don't think I wanted to wade into that topic with them. It wasn't my place. It wasn't appropriate. It was inherently sexual, and that's simply not okay to discuss with children. Especially children who are not your own.

My sister told me that she explained my sexuality and why I didn't have a wife to her boys individually, both when they were mid-teens. Both boys went "Oh, I get it!". They may have already known for a year or two based off of scientific information learned on the play ground, but they at least played it off as though Mom was letting them in on a family secret and admitting them into a more mature stage of life. I should ask them sometime! (Dammit, they already left and flew back home from their Christmas visit!)

But I certainly wasn't going to bring it up. That was her job, her responsibility, her right as the parent.



I mentioned it earlier, but it sort of meshed around in my brain over dinner just now. I think Disney is having problems with pushing cultural envelopes. It's just not been their brand or their business model for the past 100 years. Parents are hesitant to let Disney do that for them. I think Burbank needs to rethink their business strategy on pushing cultural boundaries with their children's films.

Leave that stuff for PG-13 or higher, if they feel the need to do it. It's clearly not working well for them at the PG animation level.

A lot of this is just the time we all live in. Society will continue to evolve. There will be steps forward and back along the way.

Strange World would probably have underperformed (despite its good points) even if advertised well simply because it’s just a “good” animated sci-fi film and not a great one, just about on the exact same level as Treasure Planet and Atlantis. It’s perfect for streaming.

The public knows there’s never been a great animated sci-fi film yet.

The real test for public reaction will come if and when Disney or another studio releases a FANTASTIC, must-see animated family film that happens to feature a gay character.

But, again, as I’ve mentioned before, it’s sort of already happened with the How To Train Your Dragon films and nobody batted an eye.