'Strange World' Disney's 2022 Animated Film

[LittleBuford]

Two very different show/ movies with different target audiences

I went on to add Moana, Coco, and Encanto to my list.

 

[mickEblu]

Like I've said before here, none of the advertising hints at any of the characters being gay at all. In fact I didn't even know it starred a gay character until I visited this forum. The closest there is in any of the advertisments was a character who, to me anyways, has a stereotypical "gay voice".

The most obvious thing about the characters in the trailer is that its a mixed family. Disney has released many movies recently starring people from other cultures that made more bank than Strange World, so its not that either.


It's just a bland looking movie from trailers alone.

People/ families opposed to this kind of stuff in childrens cartoons were on high alert after Lightyear.

 

[LittleBuford]

The fact that they decided the father/ son adventure movie was the right movie for the gay crush stuff is a real head scratcher.

Why do you say this?

 

[WorldExplorer]

Personally, I have my fingers crossed that they I settle on blaming the character designs.

I don't care if they're actually the cause of it failing, I just want them blamed. Then hopefully we won't get more.

 

[mickEblu]

Why do you say this?

It’s just really not the kind of thing you bond over or want to see in an action/ adventure animated film for children.

 

[LittleBuford]

It’s just really not the kind of thing you bond over or want to see in an action/ adventure animated film for children.

Would you feel the same if the crush were on a girl?

 

[mickEblu]

I went on to add Moana, Coco, and Encanto to my list.

Well different cultures/ ethnicities/ races is much different than the inclusion we find in Lightyear and Strange World. Also the three examples you listed were good movies.

 

[mickEblu]

Would you feel the same if the crush were on a girl?

No

 

[LittleBuford]

Well different cultures/ ethnicities/ races is much different than the inclusion we find in Lightyear and Strange World. Also the three you listed were good movies.

So the difference for you lies in the later films’ (brief) portrayal of same-sex romance?

Also the three you listed were good movies.

That’s my point. They were good movies and full of diversity. See, it can be done!

 

[TwilightZone]

This thread be like

 

[LittleBuford]

No

Well, it may be worth asking yourself why you feel that way.

As a gay man, I’m delighted that young queer people are finally able to see people like themselves in Disney productions. Perhaps it’ll help them to feel better about themselves than I did growing up. Hurrah for progress!

 

[TP2000]

As a gay man, I’m delighted that young queer people are finally able to see people like themselves in Disney productions. Perhaps it’ll help them to feel better about themselves than I did. Hurrah for progress!

Unfortunately, statistically very few of them actually saw Strange World. Most people don't even know it exists.

 

[LittleBuford]

Unfortunately, statistically very few of them actually saw Strange World. Most people don't even know it exists.

I was making a general point. Queerness in Disney films and shows is here to stay, regardless of how Strange World did. And it’s a wonderful thing!

 

[TP2000]

I was making a general point. Queerness in Disney films and shows is here to stay, regardless of how Strange World did. And it’s a wonderful thing!

I agree with that as a point for general entertainment, particularly for adult movies that are rated PG-13 or R.

But I will be watching very closely for Elemental and Wish and future family animation from Burbank to see if they try shoehorning in more gay characters into family films. I'm thinking they're going to pause and pull back on that for now.

The box office failure of Strange World, much of it of their own making marketing-wise, has to mean something to them. Disney is a business, not a social service agency or educational department funded by the UN. This current path is not sustainable for their business.

 

[LittleBuford]

I think it all depends on what the characters are doing, I wouldn’t want a movie geared for 8 year olds to show anyone (straight or gay) being intimate beyond a hug or a welcome home kiss, up to that point though I don’t see the harm in it whether it’s a straight or gay couple.

I’m surprised you would draw the line at a welcome-home kiss. Classic Disney animated films often depict full-on snogging:

Would you consider this inappropriate for an eight-year-old? (I’m asking sincerely, by the way, not to catch you out or anything!)

 

[BrianLo]

Anyway being discriminated against has nothing to do with the childrens movies we’re talking about.

Part of this stems from heterosexuality being normative and homosexuality being taboo likely in the era you grew up. That makes homosexuality unfortunately seen more 'sexualized' than it really should be. Little Mermaid by all accounts is a kind of raunchy film and I assume something you would have seen during your own childhood.

Why Childrens films matter is because if they become an indiscriminate lens homosexuality becomes more 'normative' and therefore less sexualized for a future generation. I think the goal is to make it normal, but unfortunately the implication that a gay crush is inappropriate, but a straight one is... then gay isn't really normal.

(American) Society isn't clearly there yet, you are right. But I do think that's why Children's movies actually do matter for the next generation.

 

[ILoveWDW4ever]

Because of a brief depiction of a narratively inconsequential gay crush? Are straight audiences really that easily triggered?

As I pointed out earlier. No. So many mainstream, gay families and couples in entertainment.

The problem is, and this is a real issue. Disneys reputation has changed. They used to be known for making creative, funny, exciting, family movies. Now, they are known for diversity and inclusion in film making. Not both. Just the latter.

If I see a new Disney movie/series coming out, I just assume it’s going to be pandering. And it looks like I’m not alone.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

But how it is overbearing if it’s a five-minute subplot that has no bearing on the overall plot?

Have you ever met a four year old? A five minute subplot mean four hours of questions that day, and 45 minutes of questions every day for the next month. Lots of kids have simplified worldviews where a "family" is a mom and a dad who fall in love and have children. They don't understand same-sex relationships just like they don't understand divorce, single parenthood, split custody, adoption, infertility, surrogacy, teen pregnancy, contraception, abortion, and ten thousand other concepts in the sphere of sexuality and family formation.

A parent who doesn't want those conversations sprung on them isn't evil or a bigot, they just don't want to be forced into grand conversations about the nature of humanity when they're trying to watch a fun family movie.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Part of this stems from heterosexuality being normative and homosexuality being taboo likely in the era you grew up. That makes homosexuality unfortunately seen more 'sexualized' than it really should be. Little Mermaid by all accounts is a kind of raunchy film and I assume something you would have seen during your own childhood.

Why Childrens films matter is because if they become an indiscriminate lens homosexuality becomes more 'normative' and therefore less sexualized for a future generation. I think the goal is to make it normal, but unfortunately the implication that a gay crush is inappropriate, but a straight one is... then gay isn't really normal.

(American) Society isn't clearly there yet, you are right. But I do think that's why Children's movies actually do matter for the next generation.

Two points.

1. Normalization is partially a reflection of what's considered acceptable and what's considered taboo, like you said, but it's also a reflection of what's  common. If all you've ever seen in your life are blue cars and all of a sudden you see a red car, the red car is going to stand out to you, even if you have zero moral or religious or cultural or any other sort of objection to red cars. There are neighborhoods in this country where half the people are LGBTQ, and there are neighborhoods where no one is. In those neighborhoods, and for kids who have lived in them their whole lives, it's something that will *stand out* even if it's not seen as *taboo.*

2. Oh the topic of why homosexuality is seen as more sexualized, I've been thinking about it and I have a theory. When parents introduce the idea of sex to children, it's not framed in terms of pleasure or even romance. It's framed in terms of procreation. "This part goes here because this from the man and that from the woman need to combine inside of the woman and that's where babies come from." It's all very clinical. When you're talking about a same-sex relationship, there's no procreative angle to approach it from so you lose the ability to frame things that way. When you take away the possibility of the creation of children, you're left with sex-for-sex's sake. Obviously there are a lot of straight people having sex-for-sex's sake too, but at least parents have an "out" in those situations.

 

[Chi84]

Two points.

1. Normalization is partially a reflection of what's considered acceptable and what's considered taboo, like you said, but it's also a reflection of what's  common. If all you've ever seen in your life are blue cars and all of a sudden you see a red car, the red car is going to stand out to you, even if you have zero moral or religious or cultural or any other sort of objection to red cars. There are neighborhoods in this country where half the people are LGBTQ, and there are neighborhoods where no one is. In those neighborhoods, and for kids who have lived in them their whole lives, it's something that will *stand out* even if it's not seen as *taboo.*

2. Oh the topic of why homosexuality is seen as more sexualized, I've been thinking about it and I have a theory. When parents introduce the idea of sex to children, it's not framed in terms of pleasure or even romance. It's framed in terms of procreation. "This part goes here because this from the man and that from the woman need to combine inside of the woman and that's where babies come from." It's all very clinical. When you're talking about a same-sex relationship, there's no procreative angle to approach it from so you lose the ability to frame things that way. When you take away the possibility of the creation of children, you're left with sex-for-sex's sake. Obviously there are a lot of straight people having sex-for-sex's sake too, but at least parents have an "out" in those situations.

I understand what you're saying, but we're talking about a kiss or hand-holding in a movie. Those actions don't have to lead to introducing the idea of sex to children. From the earliest age, children understand kissing and hand-holding as displays of love and affection between people without connecting them to sex. When kids see Prince Charming kiss Cinderella, are parents going into full on explanations of what parts go where for procreation?