-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Toy Story Hotel Planned to replace Paradise Pier Hotel?
- Thread starter mickEblu
- Start date
No Name
Well-Known Member
Not upset, just baffledI guess my "Huh" meant I was confused how upset you seem to be over this rather minor topic of discussion.
CaptinEO
Well-Known Member
What about Soul? I don't see how this has a narrow demographic.
Not speaking in your case but I get the feeling many men are uncomfortable with the idea of women's menstrual cycles and that fear is driving them to say comments similar to yours.
I've never been a Toy, a Car, a Bug, a Fish, a Senior Widow, or a Robot but I had no issue with those Pixar movies.
The menstrual cycle thing doesnt make me uncomfortable at all. I wasn’t crazy about Soul either for different reasons but I still think it has broader appeal than Turning Red. To start you have male and female leads. The soundtrack consisted of more than fake N sync songs and there was that little “villain” I forget what they re called that was entertaining. What I’m trying to get at is their are usually more diverse characters, songs, villains etc to appeal to more people and age groups. This is a very linear story about the day in the life of this young girl and her 3 best friends and the climax is at an N Sync concert. Lol
CaptinEO
Well-Known Member
There was plenty of diverse characters in Turning Red. White, Middle Eastern, African American, Indian, Chinese. I don't understand the complaint in this regard.
Encanto and Coco are not diverse at all, are those fine in your eyes?
As for as age groups its about the children, parents, and grandparents generations. But the main focus is the Mother and Daughter relationship.
To me the Nsync thing I found hilarious as a comedic element and it reminded me of my sister growing up going crazy over those MTV boy bands. But of course I can see why others wouldn't like it.
I didn’t mean diverse in regards to ethnicity. I mean different types of characters one might be able to relate to or be entertained by. But I’ve said my piece. I’d like to spend zero more minutes of my day talking about this.
CaptinEO
Well-Known Member
Got it! Totally understand what you mean.
The cast is pretty limited to just youngsters that are fans of a boy band and strict parents. I see your point for sure!
WDWJoeG
Well-Known Member
Asked my 12 year old nephew if he had any interest in seeing this - said nope. One data point for you, but he sees pretty much all Disney/Pixar movies. It's a movie targeted at adolescent girls - nothing wrong with that, but let's not pretend it is not.
Oh, and if it is not only for adolescent girls, then everybody in Disney marketing should be fired.
Shang Chi just came out a few month ago and everyone was raving about it, including me - a non Marvel fan. Maybe the movie just wasn’t great AND just doesn’t appeal to a wide demographic. Does everything always have to be about race? Got Damn
Last edited:
CaptinEO
Well-Known Member
Why would its target be adolescent girls if it takes place 20 years ago, long before they were born?
Or the company could just make stories and hope people go to see them.
WDWJoeG
Well-Known Member
Casually seeing the advertising, billboards, etc., this comes across as a movie targeting adolescent girls. I can only respond to the ads I've seen, not what they meant it to be or what the actual movie is about. Same with my nephew.
And I don't understand point about time period - soooooo, because it's about an adolescent girl 20 years ago that's different than it was about an adolescent girl today? Uh, OK. And I had no idea it was a period piece (pun totally intended).
Paw Patrol was advertised to pre-school kids - maybe it has some powerful Shakespearean arc in it, I wouldn't know, I'm only responding to what they put out.
I agree.
Also I realize I have inadvertently been using the word “targeted.” I never meant to imply that Disney was targeting teen girls (even though it appears that way) as I wasn’t concerned with the intention only the result. Which I believe is a product that appeals to a more narrow demographic than any other Disney or Pixar animated movie that has come before it.
britain
Well-Known Member
As a white cis male dad of 7 girls, I thought Turning Red was fine. The menstruation jokes were funny. I don't even mind the "Sneaking around disobediently" message which some commentators don't like. Sneaking around against the wishes of parents is at the core of like 90% of all coming-of-age tales.
My only objection was they try to have their cake and eat it too with <spoiler alert> mom returning to "suppress" her panda while Mei choosing to live with it freely. Either condemn suppression and have mom happily embrace her 'pandaness', or condemn expression and have Mei find value in locking the panda up (She can always break it open in case of emergency, as was demonstrated by the plot).
By not coming out directly for one and against the other, the story ends up splitting their two paths. They even acknowledge this by Mei saying she's worried her path will take her away from her mom. How do they reconcile this? By having mom say, "The further you go, the prouder I'll be!" Which means... what? That mom regrets her own choice? That the film is actually coming down against suppression (fine) but they're saying the mom doesn't have the will to follow that path too? The patriarchy has beat her down? I guess. What a sad note to end on for mom! She doesn't get to be a villain or a hero, she stays a victim! If there's another way of reading this plot point, I'd like to know.
My only objection was they try to have their cake and eat it too with <spoiler alert> mom returning to "suppress" her panda while Mei choosing to live with it freely. Either condemn suppression and have mom happily embrace her 'pandaness', or condemn expression and have Mei find value in locking the panda up (She can always break it open in case of emergency, as was demonstrated by the plot).
By not coming out directly for one and against the other, the story ends up splitting their two paths. They even acknowledge this by Mei saying she's worried her path will take her away from her mom. How do they reconcile this? By having mom say, "The further you go, the prouder I'll be!" Which means... what? That mom regrets her own choice? That the film is actually coming down against suppression (fine) but they're saying the mom doesn't have the will to follow that path too? The patriarchy has beat her down? I guess. What a sad note to end on for mom! She doesn't get to be a villain or a hero, she stays a victim! If there's another way of reading this plot point, I'd like to know.
CaptinEO
Well-Known Member
I still disagree with your usage of narrow demographic and don't know what it means.
Canadians? Women? Chinese? Teenagers? Nsync Fans?
Inside Out was also a teenage girl but no one was up in arms about it.
PiratesMansion
Well-Known Member
Perhaps they were going for allowing both to choose whether or not they wanted to express their panda form beyond that point?
The panda form seemed like a blessing for Mei and a curse for her mother, hence they made the choices that they did.
I think the difference was that Inside Out pointedly was about a teenage girl *just before* the onset of puberty, but Turning Red puberty is actively happening. I often feel like Americans are weirdly squeamish about puberty and related topics even though basically every person goes through it sooner or later.
While not a particularly graphic depiction of puberty, it's also undeniable in Turning Red that it is occurring, and that by itself is enough to trigger some people.
Well, Mom's panda was REALLY big...
CaptinEO
Well-Known Member
I think you are right about this. The girl in Inside out having a crush on a boy is seen as cute but in Turning Red it is seen as pervy.
People are very embarrassed about puberty to a sense they are fearful of talking about it.
I’m not sure how many more times I can keep repeating that in all the other movies you are bringing up there were more of a variety of characters, plot lines, songs, settings, villains etc that appeal to a wider demographic of people.
Look something had to be last right? There has to be one movie that appeals to the most people and one that appeals to the least people. Turning Red is the latter IMO. Sorry that it happens to be centered around a Chinese girl. But I’m not sensoring my opinion because of it.
Nobody had a problem with Moana right? Or Mulan? Or Tiana? At least I didn’t.
I recently posted a ranking of all the Pixar and Disney movies that have come out during the pandemic. Here’s the list.
1. Encanto
2. Onward
3. Soul
4. Luca
5. Raya and the Last Dragon
I’m Italian and had Luca # 4 of 5. It’s not about not being able to relate. It’s about what I find appealing and the quality of the movie. People need to relax with the “racist” and “sexist” labels. All movies are open to being critiqued. Even if it’s not popular on social media and happens to showcase an Asian teenage girl.
Last edited:
ParkPeeker
Well-Known Member
I don’t know if this is the right thread for this but w/e I’ll respond haha.
The film definitely needed to make the message more clear. I think it’s this whole idea of deciding for yourself what your life is going to be. I think 1st gen/2nd gen immigrants are able to see the message a little clearer but not by a great margin, because again I don’t think the film makes the message clear enough.
So Mei’s mother, grandma, aunties etc all represent the older generation, one can see them as perhaps 1st generation immigrants, or the older generation in general. Mei herself represents the 2nd generation immigrants or young generation in general.
At the beginning of the film Mei has a whole daily routine decided for her by her mother. She does all these chores etc and barely has time to hang out with her friends, she has straight As. All of these are expectations put on her by her mother. The mom even projects a future career for her (forgot what she specifically says). So basically older generation making younger generations decisions, deciding for them what’s best.
The panda, I think, represents a quirk or quality you have, or even an interest you have that in many situations is largely repressed for the sake of growing up to please external expectations, or maybe even survive, both financially and socially. In the movie they say something like, the more you stay in panda form, the harder it is to trap it later or something. I think that means the more you lean into this thing the harder it is to detach from it.
Mei gets comfortable with the panda. Her social settings like her friends and school help her be proud of it. It’s actually a positive thing that people like and she is even getting MONEY selling merch and doing meet n greets with this panda. So Mei in her journey is finding the Panda to be a viable path in the future both socially and financially, so an interest or quirk that can relate to a viable social and financial future? At the same time it becomes a big part of her life.
The mom brags about how Mei is able to control the panda to the highest level. Meaning she and her sisters were never able to find out how to live with theirs like Mei has. I don’t know how this fits with the analogy but I’ll just point it out.
We learn a little about the mom, in that she had a mother who was very strict like herself. Her Panda caused her to have a fight with her mom (scratch), the father also mentions she destroyed half of the TEMPLE, which is basically where they get their money to live. So from this we can conclude that Mei’s mom wasn’t able to see a positive future with her Panda, no social or financial benefit.
So at the end, Mei chooses to keep the panda because she sees a future with it and it’s a part of her now. The older generations only have negative memories with it, they have lived much of their teen and adult life without it, and it doesn’t benefit them in any way so they choose to just keep it locked. They also aren’t as attached to their Pandas since they haven’t spent long periods of time in the form like Mei. They choose to go with what they’re used to, which is much easier than changing it up.
So with the interest/quirk analogy, Mei’s mother chose to forget about her early interest, because she could not see a social or financial future with it (caused her a fight with her mother, and destroyed half the temple, her financial future) , and she sacrificed a part of herself so she could grow up financially and socially well. At the end she chooses not to reconnect with the interest because she has lived a lot of her adult life without it. So she isn’t that attached to it and it’s also much easier to continue the way you’ve been living , than to start introducing a past interest into your life. ALTHOUGH it is hinted that she does revisit her interest/is on the path of re introducing it into her life, as we see at the end her Panda is stuck in a tomodachi, and even though it’s not “real,” it’s still a virtual and interactable version of the real thing, she is seen feeding it or something.
Mei on the other hand, from a young age, despite messages and expectations set by older generations, found a social and financial future for her interest, and she is going to continue cultivating it. And you best believe she’s in control of her future from this young age.
Not sure if this was the message that was intended. If it is, I feel they hid it as much as possible as to not have a heavy mood looming over the film. Cause look at it artistically it’s sooo kawaiiii, which is much appreciated ha.
WDWJoeG
Well-Known Member
OK, OK, enough bickering (and this isn't even the Turning Red forum where this belongs), but at least everybody on all sides can come together on one common point: Disney's first full length feature movie with a menstruation reference being titled "Turning Red" was an unfortunate choice.
(Edited for those literal people who feel the need to parse a childish, sarcastic comment)
Last edited: