'Strange World' Disney's 2022 Animated Film

[TP2000]

Of course not!!! Representation and diversity for the sake of checking boxes. That’s the problem.

Thank you for making that smart and important distinction.

So many people in media today are so quick to scream "Bigot!" at anyone for daring to not issue wide-ranging blanket statements about "diversity" and "representation", that they miss the important distinction that if you do that all the time in everything, it's just cringey and dumb.

And movie audiences, being made up of humans, can smell that type of fakeness and pandering a mile away.

The historic box office failure of Strange World is just the latest clear example of that. It could've been a great father/son guy movie franchise and huge money maker in the Target toy aisles. But it failed miserably because "representation matters!" was apparently more important than story or knowing the audience.

Modern Family. One of the most successful shows in TV history featured a gay family! It was a mammoth, spectacular success. Why didn’t all these bigots and fear mongers “review bomb” that show?

Exactly.

I loved that NBC show Jack & Karen er..., Will & Grace during its first run circa 1998-2003, it was absolutely hilarious. And very gaaaaayyyy!

Then it came back in 2017 and it was obsessively political and mean-spirited. It wasn't funny any more, it was just sad and... mean. I stopped watching it after the second episode, as did most of the audience.

 

[TwilightZone]

There are no secrets in the Age of the Internet.

I didn't even know the main character was gay before it released. No one did. News articles didn't discuss about it until after the movie already flopped and lost millions of dollars.

It was well hidden, if there was anything about the main character being gay before it released, it certainly wasn't discovered by most.

 

[LittleBuford]

We're not talking about content. We're talking about audience reactions to content. That's where your denial is creeping in. Eichner might be harsh in his assessment of his film's failure, but he might very well be right. And you might very well be wrong.

You may not be talking about content, but others are. Multiple posters are saying that Disney is too preoccupied making "woke" films to make good films. That's the claim I'm responding to.

Now, as to your argument that queer characters and themes may be automatically off-putting to certain viewers (regardless of the production's quality), I agree that's probably—and regrettably—the case. But that's really those viewers' problem, and I don't want Disney or any other company pandering to them.

 

[TP2000]

Good lord. Give it up already.

No, thank you. I find this discussion we are all having here quite interesting.

Now that we all know the plot, and the plot twists, I'm fascinated that they felt they needed to have Ethan's character be 2SLGBTQQIA+.

Because it's not even the kind of 2SLGBTQQIA+ that is problematic to his dad and grandfather and family. Apparently Ethan's budding sexuality is of no socio-religious concern in fictional Avalonia, and is simply part of his character. Like being born left handed or a red head. So why even include it in this children's movie?

Honestly, you've already got a story that involves the Clade family diving into the innards of a giant sea creature that hosts their entire world on its back, traveling through its internal organs and cell structures for excitement and adventure in an attempt to save their world. And that's not enough of a hook? You had to make the boy gay? Why? How does that help the storyline if being gay is not a problem for anyone in Avalonia like it might be if the film was set in 1958 Indiana?

That's where the cringe sets in quickly for many in the audience. Which is probably why Strange World tested so badly with males, and performed so badly in the free marketplace. Because of cringe.

And I haven't even mentioned the three legged dog!

 

[TwilightZone]

Decided to look back earlier in this thread for historical reasons I suppose lol

"The 61st film in the Walt Disney Animation Studios canon has a tentative title of Searcher Clade. This information comes following several trademarks filed by the Walt Disney Company in recent days, including this title. Other trademarks filed include the character names of Ethan Clade, Meridian Clade, and Captain Calypso Kahn. As Ethan was previously revealed to be the main character in the film, it can only be assumed he is the titular “Searcher Clade”

Ethan Clade is a Bi-racial (Caucasian/African-American) 14-year old. The studio is looking for voiceover talent 18 and older to play the role. According to the logline, Ethan “sounds very typical as far as teenagers go. Playful and quick-witted, but can also retreat. He can be a wise-, but he isn’t particularly tough. The actor VOICING him should be FUNNY, LIKABLE, & SOUND LIKE A 14 YR OLD, but also possess the ability to quickly turn inward and show us a SOFT EMOTIONAL SIDE.”

The movie is directed by Don Hall (Director of Winnie the Pooh, Raya and the Last Dragon, & Big Hero 6) with writer Qui Nguyen (Raya and the Last Dragon) writing the film. The release date is currently set for November 23, 2022.

Title Revealed for 2022 Animated Disney Film

We now have information regarding the title of the Walt Disney Animation Studios film following Encanto. Read: Teaser Trailer For Walt Disney Animation Studios’ Newest Film ‘Encanto’ is Here The 61st film in the Walt Disney Animation Studios canon has a tentative title of Searcher Clade. This...

thedisinsider.com

Disney Enterprises Inc Trademarks & Logos

uspto.report

Now titled Strange World. Here is the first piece of concept art!

Teaser trailer released -

More details from Annecy...

"Dennis Quaid, Lucy Liu, Gabrielle Union and Jaboukie Young-White have joined the key voice cast of “Strange World,” the upcoming adventure film produced by Walt Disney Animation Studios and scheduled to be released on Nov. 23.

Directed by “Big Hero 6” helmer Don Hall, rolling off the success of “Raya and the Last Dragon,” and written and co-directed by Qui Nguyen, who co-wrote “Raya,” “Strange World” follows three generations of the Clade family, legendary explorers, who arrive at a dazzling land full of mysterious phenomena – shoals of flying fish, walking rock columns, and octupus-looking monsters, a recent trailer suggests.

Narrated in a retro visual style of ‘50s sci-fi B movies, “Strange World” will have granddad Jaeger Clade voiced by Quaid. Young-White voices the grandson, Ethan. Union voices Meridian, who is married to son Searcher, played as already announced by Jake Gyllenhaal. Liu is Callisto Mal, head of Avolonea, the magical setting to the film.

Inspired by Edgar Rice Burrows and Jules Verne, the movie incorporates other non-speaking characters, such as a three-legged dog, Legend, and a gelatinous blue blob , Splay, whom they meet on their adventure."


Description of the scenes:

"Walt Disney screens three sequences of “Strange World.” In the first, Ethan seems to have a same-sex flirtation in a field with heartthrob Diazo, the flirtation being interrupted by Searcher whose very accepting reaction embarrass Ethan.

The second sequence unveil at Annecy was an action scene as the whole family explores a cavern in a lime green looking submarine which is attacked by a creature which resembles origami fuchsia stingrays.

The attack ends with the family separated, Searcher and his dog stranded in a strange new world while Ethan and mom stay on the ship.

In sequence three, Searcher and the dog explore new surroundings, the crazy landscape looking like a coral refer painted bright pink.

Meeting Splat, they get attacked by a Cthulhu-looking beast, only to be rescued by a bearded old hunter who takes off his hood. “Dad?!!” Searcher exclaims."

Jake Gyllenhaal Joined by Dennis Quaid, Lucy Liu, Gabrielle Union in Disney’s ’Strange World’

In an Annecy 'Strange World' unveil, Disney revealed a queer lead character of color, played by Jaboukie Young-White.

variety.com

What was known about the movie originally, here the premise seemed to have promise and value.

New trailer -



Poster -

View attachment 668189

This trailer, however, killed all the hype. May have killed the movie entirely.

Has it been mentioned that this film will feature a gay romance? I found this news recently:

Disney's "Strange World" Features Gay Teen Romance

The animated feature "Strange World," scheduled for release in November, will be the first Disney movie to feature a gay romance.

www.metroweekly.com

Not making a statement one way or another, but you have to admit that may divide audiences. I am betting now that they pull an Osmosis Jones and the "strange world" in question is inside the protagonist and it is all about growing up and discovering who you are.

Agree with others that the animation could be more interesting...

The first news article mention of the gay romance


Lots of comments from a variety of members predicting the movie would fail, not just cause of the gay main character, but because the first trailer made the movie look bland

Disney really doesn't know how to make movies anymore, huh? Everything since Frozen has felt like a return to the early 2000's. This gives off such strong Atlantis, Treasure Planet, Lilo and Stitch, Meet the Robinsons vibes. Not a good sign.

Hm, I'm conflicted on this one. I LOVED the vibe from the original teasers, but this trailer does nothing for me. The cast doesn't seem likeable, and the lines that I think are supposed to be jokes don't hit with any actual humor.

I thought it was going to be more mysterious with a touch of spooky, but instead they went with slapstick and wacky.

I'm expecting mind-blowing visuals with completely forgettable characters (a la Rogue One).

I loved the first trailer but didn't like the second. I agree that this feels weirdly like an early 2000s Disney movie. Now I happened to like Atlantis and Treasure Planet and thought Meet the Robinsons is better than its reputation, but all of those were commercial dissapointments.

Everyone stay clear of this one, it looks like a bomb. Terrible ... absolutely terrible. I don't know if they have been using new outside "talent" or what, but it doesn't look like a Disney film. It looks like the characters that didn't make it into Buzz Lightyear.

I'm not even going to watch it for free on Disney+.

This trailer confirms my first thoughts on this film: unappealing characters (some are downright ugly, thanks to below-par character design), a storyline that fails to intrigue or inspire (why should we care about the dad finding HIS dad?) and an uninteresting fantasy world. This does not look like a Disney film. No magic, no charm, no visual beauty. This is sad. Some are comparing it to Treasure Planet, but Planet had absolutely beautiful visuals, wonderful character designs, and real personality (I love Dr. Doppler and Long John Silver in particular). This has FAIL written all over it. We'll see how it does at the box office...

My impression after seeing the trailer = MEH!

Yep, it doesn't look good at all.

Plus Disney has been unable to create a good futuristic/space film.

This is definitely going to be put on D+ either right away or within a month or so after it debuts.

I'd love it if they put all their efforts into telling a great story with great characters. But that has become secondary for them for some reason. Even though that's what makes them money.

And not just those movies, but Titan AE and The Iron Giant were also financial failures upon their initial release.

The track record for Western animated sci-fi in theaters is pretty bad, regardless of any one film's quality. Lilo and Stitch and Wall-E appear to be the main exceptions, but the former isn't really hard sci-fi after the prologue and Wall-E was released at a time when Pixar had a near flawless track record for critical and commercial success.

Given all that, it's surprising this movie even got green lit in the first place.

However, the lack of substantial promotion 2 months out suggests that Disney may have already regretted that decision.

It also doesn't help that the movie is sandwiched in between Black Panther: Wakanda Forever and Avatar: The Way of Water — two movies that have a good chance of making more than a billion dollars. Since Disney now owns Marvel and the Avatar franchise, the company will probably make more of an effort to promote those films than Strange World.

Even if Strange World didn't have a gay kid in it, I would still be concerned about its box office prospects. The film is giving strong Atlantis/Treasure Planet vibes. While I personally enjoyed all three of those movies, each was a notorious sci-fi Disney flop. Outside of Star Wars and Lilo & Stich, Disney rarely has financial success when it comes to tackling science fiction.


Black Panther and Avatar are going to be the movies that save Disney's fourth-quarter earnings.

I definitely think Strange World will strongly underperform.

However, the vast majority of their last 10 feature films have been incredibly successful. It's a little difficult to say whether Raya left much impression and Winnie the Pooh would be the distant one on that list. It's otherwise one of their most successful runs of ten perhaps next to the Mermaid through Tarzan stretch.

Strange World seems to have a fairly uninteresting protagonist. I'm not sure anyone is rushing out to watch a movie about a Fish out of Water Dad. It's going for the 50's/60's throw back family drama flare, but Incredibles did that so much better.

Most of what they showed at their Animation Panel looked very good, Strange World I was distinctly meh on. Atlantis and Treasure Planet seem like poignant comparators.

This one is going to tank hard.

At least with Buzz Lightyear you had a known character. This one has a bunch of people that look like extras in Lightyear. Plus the trailer is strange and it doesn't grab me at all. I wouldn't even watch it on Disney+ for free.

Disney has to stop making these niche movies that the masses don't want to see.

Aren't you glad I love looking around?

 

[Magenta Panther]

You may not be talking about content, but others are. Multiple posters are saying that Disney is too preoccupied making "woke" films to make good films. That's the claim I'm responding to.

Now, as to your argument that queer characters and themes may be automatically off-putting to certain viewers (regardless of the production's quality), I agree that's probably—and regrettably—the case. But that's really those viewers' problem, and I don't want Disney or any other company pandering to them.

Fair enough.

 

[TP2000]

I didn't even know the main character was gay before it released. No one did. News articles didn't discuss about it until after the movie already flopped and lost millions of dollars.

I only knew about it because of this thread, and only until a couple days before it opened. So why even bother?

It was well hidden, if there was anything about the main character being gay before it released, it certainly wasn't discovered by most.

Strange World was well hidden all over the place. Deliberately buried. And that's the real story, which too many folks here seem to want to ignore. $180 Million goes POOF! at Thanksgiving and no one thinks it's weird? I think it's weird.

 

[LittleBuford]

So why even include it in this children's movie?

Why not include it?

 

[TP2000]

Why not include it?

How does it advance the storyline of being inside the internal organs of a giant sea creature?

Especially if his sexuality is of no particular concern to his family and culture?

 

[TwilightZone]

I just looked at the trailer with the youtube frontend, Piped

Holy cannoli, look at those dislikes

The comments underneath says it all

 

[LittleBuford]

How does it advance the storyline? Especially if his sexuality is of no particular concern to his family and culture?

Why does it have to advance the storyline? Aren’t you undermining your own point—that Disney is putting too much emphasis on diversity—by finding fault with the film’s understated, matter-of-fact handling of gayness? It seems to me you would prefer this approach to one foregrounding the character’s sexuality.

 

[TwilightZone]

Honestly if the gay thing really was a brief message, as I've heard around here, it is a bit odd.

My in my mind, never seen the movie, reworking is the father and son, they don't understand each other. Dad is more of a tough, go on an adventures kinda guy. Son is the shy introvert. They come to terms with each other during their adventure and the gay thing is a big powerful reveal moment, where the Dad is shocked but comes to understand his son more thanks to the journey and accepts it.

Sadly might be better than the scene in the film, though yet to see how close or unclose I am.

 

[LittleBuford]

When Disney created its first gay character, I would have liked him/her to be gay for a reason and to have an impact because of that.

In Avalonia, no one cares that Ethan is gay. So why should I care? Why even bother?

But your other posts seem to be saying that his gayness is the main factor behind the film’s failure. So if I understand you correctly, people dislike the film not because it focuses too much on issues of sexuality, but because it briefly and casually depicts an otherwise inconsequential gay crush? Do you think the reaction to the film would have been substantially different if the crush subplot were removed and everything else remained the same?

 

[TwilightZone]

"youtube frontend, Piped" (whatever that is....zzzzzzz)

Piped is just an easy way to watch youtube with the dislike bar enabled (since youtube disabled it). It's youtube otherwise, so everything there is 1 - 1 with one of the most popular social media websites right now.

It's 75% positive on Rotten Tomatoes.

That's pretty bad for a Disney movie, the closest movies to that ranking all come from Disney's post renaissance

 

[TP2000]

PS - If you thin Disney movies are "cartoons" rather than sophisticated animated films, maybe get your entertainment elsewhere.

I call 'em like I see 'em. Cartoons are cartoons. Some are better than others.

Just like Disneyland is an amusement park. You can call it a "theme park" or even an "immersive adventure" like Bob Chapek used to say, may he RIP.

But I'm like Walt. On the 10th anniversary of Disneyland in July, 1965, at a gala dinner celebration in the Grand Ballroom of the Disneyland Hotel, Walt got up on stage with a Scotch in his hand and called Disneyland "that damn amusement park", and the audience of Disneylanders went wild!

I say cartoon, you say sophisticated animated film. I say amusement park, you say immersive themed adventure. Why don't we call the whole thing off?

 

[TP2000]

But your other posts seem to be saying that his gayness is the main factor behind the film’s failure. So if I understand you correctly, people dislike the film not because it focuses too much on issues of sexuality, but because it briefly and casually depicts an otherwise inconsequential gay crush?

I think the film bombed because it had almost no marketing, many Disney fans themselves didn't even know it existed, and that it wasn't a very good movie to start with.

We also had at least two posters here that said they had seen extensive online conversations among parents on Facebook and other Social Media spreading the word that the boy in this new movie was gay and that it had a gay sub-plot. That helped doom it at the box office too, but those posts were somehow deleted quickly even though they didn't contain profanity or objectionable material. I imagine this post of mine might get deleted too for even mentioning those other posts talking about the Facebook chats of concerned parents?

Do you think the reaction to the film would have been substantially different if the crush subplot were removed and everything else remained the same?

Now that everyone in this thread already knows the plot, I think the reaction to the film would have been different had they focused the story on traditional father/son adventure in that very strange world. Instead, they let HR get too involved in the storyline and character development and made it into some sort of weird diversity training video.

They likely realize their mistake now, but it cost them at least $150 Million. At a time the company can't afford that kind of mistake, at least socially if not financially.

I'm sure Disney will survive the losses incurred by Strange World's failure. But will they learn the lesson here? They can't go on torching money like this with every big-budget cartoon they make. Luca, Lightyear, now Strange World.

 

[LittleBuford]

Instead, they let HR get too involved in the storyline and character development and made it into some sort of weird diversity training video.

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

 

[TP2000]

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

Apparently they are. Especially when the film is marketed at their children. Parents are funny that way.

I'm not a parent, so I have no personal experience. But the free market is speaking very loudly and clearly on this topic.

Burbank would ignore the free market at its own long-term peril.

 

[TwilightZone]

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

Depends on their views sadly. A lot of america taking kids to films are parents, and in my own personal experiences, a lot of them still "aren't cool" with too much representation. It's not that they dislike gay people or even gay representation, but the "overbearingness" of it is too much for them. And this is not coming from only online. This is real life experiences I have.

I think people forget today's parents are folks from the 80s and maybe early 90s all grown up.

 

[TP2000]

Depends on their views sadly. A lot of america taking kids to films are parents, and in my own personal experiences, a lot of them still "aren't cool" with too much representation. It's not that they dislike gay people or even gay representation, but the "overbearingness" of it is too much for them. And this is not coming from only online. This is real life experiences I have.

I think people forget today's parents are folks from the 80s and maybe early 90s all grown up.

Exactly.

It also makes a huge difference how old the child is. If he or she is 8 or 9, that's an entirely different type of movie night the parent takes them to than if the child is 14 or 15.

Strange World was rated PG, not PG-13. It had children's toys and Little Golden Books created and manufactured for the 7 to 10 year old set, not teens. Parents will be a completely different kind of protective of their 8 year old child than they will be of their 15 year old child.

And that is the parent's sacred and undeniable right, no matter what the HR Department or childless adults online say.