rhutton125 said:

---

I think we saw a teaser trailer for this about 6 months ago and it seemed to be very… 1930s, pulpy, strange adventures narrator guy like you'd expect on a Tarzan or old King Kong trailer. If I'm even thinking of the same movie.

That era has a lot of nostalgia among filmmakers but just doesn't seem to be shared by fans.. I'm talking your Rocketeer, the Spirit, things like that.

---

The Rocke-who?

Claude! said:

---

OnlyForNow said:

---

Went to see it. 8 year old thought it was ok, 4 year old didn't like it.

Making the MCs family mixed race was done solely for wokeness, making the young MC gay was done entirely for wokeness - it had absolutely zero influence on the story.

The story line was live with what you've got and "humans are bad and destroy things" also "horse and buggy over electricity."

---

I see that Disney has been overrun by Big Amish.

---

Big Amish doesn't care about the little guy. All Big Amish cares about is its 3rd quarter profits.

Where Lightyear was a more subtle insert of wokeness, this was an over the top, written to check every woke box crap fest. I've never rooted against every main character until this one. The most annoying and miserable people ever which I guess is perfect representation of the typical woke prognosticator.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Just to play devil's advocate, what is a movie celebrating white culture?

---

300

Back to my thread about how Hollywood could stop producing acclaimed flops. This is the stuff the critic was talking about. No one wanted this movie.

Claude! said:

---

rhutton125 said:

---

I think we saw a teaser trailer for this about 6 months ago and it seemed to be very… 1930s, pulpy, strange adventures narrator guy like you'd expect on a Tarzan or old King Kong trailer. If I'm even thinking of the same movie.

That era has a lot of nostalgia among filmmakers but just doesn't seem to be shared by fans.. I'm talking your Rocketeer, the Spirit, things like that.

---

The Rocke-who?

---

pick up a newspaper and learn german you nazi banging bimbo!!!

I had no interest in watching it because I saw lots of commercials. Looked awful.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Gaius Rufus said:

---

OnlyForNow said:

---

When it's written into a kids story, for the sole-purpose of being different it's patronizing and obvious of why it's there.

---

How, specifically, is it patronizing?

Do you believe that movies focused on white people are patronizing to other races? Or do you believe movies featuring white people should be considered "normal" and everything else should be considered "patronizing"?

---

Don't put words in his mouth.

For one, many consider it a form of tokenism. Take Finn in the SW sequel trilogy as an example. He was only a character because Disney was looking for a diverse cast. There's nothing wrong with a black lead in Star Wars, or any movie for that matter, but in that specific instance it really didn't fit. He had nowhere to go and nothing to be. Even John Boyega got pissed about the lack of character development and called them out on having a token black character so they could put a black guy on movie posters and talk about how diverse they were. The concept of a defecting storm trooper with a conscience could have been good, but it simply didn't fit in those movies with everything else going on and was very poorly executed. If anything it should have been its own movie similar to Rogue One, which also had a very diverse cast but didn't shoehorn in extra characters and plotlines to make it happen. Rogue One, and Andor, both have very diverse casts, and no one says anything about it because the narratives are so good and all of the characters fit perfectly. They're proof that as long as you focus on good storytelling and create a quality narrative and movie/show, no one cares what the cast looks like. Rogue One/Andor and the sequels are perfect examples of what diversity should and should not be on screen.

For two, in this instance, the kind of inclusivity and "queering" that some Disney execs have said they are engaging in is patronizing to parents. Discussions on sexuality, gay relationships, etc are discussions parents want to, and should, have when they feel it is appropriate for their kids, and a woke producer or writer's idea of when that is and how it should be approached are not universal. It's patronizing for them to use a movie or show as a platform to try to force/frame that conversation instead of trusting parents in their audience to parent and do that themselves. I know they think they're doing this good and noble thing to change the world for the better, but all they're doing is preaching to the choir and pushing people away with self-righteousness.

---

I thought Darth Vader was an amazing black character

What's a Nubian?

Disney doesn't care if the movie loses money. They care more about pushing a woke agenda. Disney is losing money on it's movies and streaming but the company as a whole is not.

Aggie_Journalist said:

---

It's a weird sickness that convinces people that gay characters and mixed-race couples only exist because of "wokeness" (whatever that is) and not because gay people and mixed raced couples exist in the real world.

Y'all really need to get help. You'll enjoy life much more when you get over this strange obsession.

---

The problem as I see it is the film maker/director's focus should be on telling the story as efficiently and elegantly as possible. So having an exec or writer insert scenes or dialogue that is unnecessary because of an outside special interest, that is a story telling problem. And, yes, I would have had a problem if someone had insisted that Natasha Romanof was a Born-Again Christian and required her to have a 15 second scene where she prayed before a battle. If people complained about her character change and unnecessary prayer scene, are they complaining because they are anti-christian, or was it because it's an unnecessary change and scene of a movie. For directors, I imagine that it's like being asked to take someone on a 2-hour drive to a special destination, but can you pull over at a Hobby Lobby and make a quick trip to Starbucks for someone else. Sure, you can do it, but it changes the route and the timing.

It's to the point now that I expect every young female of color in a Disney movie or series show to express how much they love math or science or demonstrate how smart they are.

It also kills the unpredictability of most every family movie or show. Unless the protagonist is female or POC, it is almost a certainty that any traditionally under represented character is going to either be good or have some redeeming value in the end, and God forbid they ever show a girl losing to a boy. Off the top of my head, the last time was probably Thor defeating Hela.

It's the same with certain product placements....if you can see the character is using an Apple product, they aren't going to be bad. Every time. In Boba Fett, older white man from the city complains about youngsters not doing anything and causing a problem....pan to diverse group of young men and women....who is going to be good and who will be bad....I don't need to watch the characters when I already know based on their demographic information.

Imagine my surprise that this had nothing to do with Dr Strange and the MCU

So... apparently some people think it's wrong if a parent doesn't want to take their kids to a movie about a gay couple.

AggieUSMC said:

---

Disney doesn't care if the movie loses money. They care more about pushing a woke agenda. Disney is losing money on it's movies and streaming but the company as a whole is not.

---

No one has quite figured out streaming yet (though Disney is projected be profitable in streaming by 2024). I believe Netflix is the only major service turning a profit, ost of them are losing money.

I think you see Disney take a step back from these types of projects in the next couple years. With Iger coming back, they are clearly alarmed at the financial missteps of the last couple years.

They have the data they need to make good financial decisions with their properties:

Pixar: make thoughtful and challenging family movies like Inside Out, Coco, Up, etc. Stay away from sequels unless you have a natural next step

Star Wars: Throw money at Filoni and the Andor team and keep focused on the expanded universe for a while. No Jedi's or Skywalkers.

Marvel: Phase 1-3. Get back to that

Core Disney: The successful and natural way of introducing more diversity is to continue introducing more worldwide setting films. Moana (Polynesian), Frozen (Scandinavian), Encanto (Central America), Raya (Asian). Also focus on unique settings (Wreck it Ralph). All of those films have been great and expanded the Disney footprint and fanbase naturally. It didn't feel forced.

I'll actually defend Pixar a bit here. Outside of Lightyear (which I haven't seen yet and seemed like a sequel/story no one was asking for) Onward, Soul, Luca, and Turning Red were all strong to very strong.

I do think they picked the wrong film of those to release in theaters (and Covid had a big impact there as well) but the quality of their projects has been really solid.

fig96 said:

---

I'll actually defend Pixar a bit here. Outside of Lightyear (which I haven't seen yet and seemed like a sequel/story no one was asking for) Onward, Soul, Luca, and Turning Red were all strong to very strong.

I do think they picked the wrong film of those to release in theaters (and Covid had a big impact there as well) but the quality of their projects has been really solid.

---

I thought Luca and Turning Red were a little odd and forgettable. Enjoyed Onward and Soul a lot. Though Soul was a letdown for me because the premise had the potential to be top 5 Pixar.

They do seem to have taken a step down from their original Toy Story, Incredibles, Finding Nemo, Up, WALLE days.

Turning Red is a massive hit in my kids' age group. Every girl they know has every song memorized and they watch it repeatedly.

The Porkchop Express said:

---

Turning Red is a massive hit in my kids' age group. Every girl they know has every song memorized and they watch it repeatedly.

---

I think it gets sold short because it's a film that wasn't for everyone, but that doesn't mean it wasn't incredibly well done.

Gaius Rufus said:

---

OnlyForNow said:

---

When it's written into a kids story, for the sole-purpose of being different it's patronizing and obvious of why it's there.

---

How, specifically, is it patronizing?

Do you believe that movies focused on white people are patronizing to other races? Or do you believe movies featuring white people should be considered "normal" and everything else should be considered "patronizing"?

---

LGBT is not normal and should not be normalized. Queer, by definition, is not normal. Plenty of parents will refuse to expose their kids to overtly gay material. Disney should take note.

I have zero problem with mixed race heterosexual relationships. The representation in Hollywood dramatically over represents the domestic population at the expense of traditional white families. I think that's most peoples rub. If there is a white character in a family - they are typically gay, in a mixed relationship, the dumb beta dad ruled by his wife or the evil villain. Any of those characters at a certain level is tolerable but when it is 90% of white representation in movies, it becomes tiresome.

Skillet Shot said:

---

Gaius Rufus said:

---

OnlyForNow said:

---

When it's written into a kids story, for the sole-purpose of being different it's patronizing and obvious of why it's there.

---

How, specifically, is it patronizing?

Do you believe that movies focused on white people are patronizing to other races? Or do you believe movies featuring white people should be considered "normal" and everything else should be considered "patronizing"?

---

LGBT is not normal and should not be normalized. Queer, by definition, is not normal. Plenty of parents will refuse to expose their kids to overtly gay material. Disney should take note.

I have zero problem with mixed race heterosexual relationships. The representation in Hollywood dramatically over represents the domestic population at the expense of traditional white families. I think that's most peoples rub. If there is a white character in a family - they are typically gay, in a mixed relationship, the dumb beta dad ruled by his wife or the evil villain. Any of those characters at a certain level is tolerable but when it is 90% of white representation in movies, it becomes tiresome.

---

You're saying that's the case for 90% of white representation in movies?

Red Five said:

---

What's a Nubian?

---

Always some white boy gonna invoke the holy trilogy

The Porkchop Express said:

---

Skillet Shot said:

---

Gaius Rufus said:

---

OnlyForNow said:

---

When it's written into a kids story, for the sole-purpose of being different it's patronizing and obvious of why it's there.

---

How, specifically, is it patronizing?

Do you believe that movies focused on white people are patronizing to other races? Or do you believe movies featuring white people should be considered "normal" and everything else should be considered "patronizing"?

---

LGBT is not normal and should not be normalized. Queer, by definition, is not normal. Plenty of parents will refuse to expose their kids to overtly gay material. Disney should take note.

I have zero problem with mixed race heterosexual relationships. The representation in Hollywood dramatically over represents the domestic population at the expense of traditional white families. I think that's most peoples rub. If there is a white character in a family - they are typically gay, in a mixed relationship, the dumb beta dad ruled by his wife or the evil villain. Any of those characters at a certain level is tolerable but when it is 90% of white representation in movies, it becomes tiresome.

---

You're saying that's the case for 90% of white representation in movies?

---

I'm specifically talking about movies focused around a family, not individuals. A minority of movies portray a family with a strong father figure, loving wife and straight kids, for all races, but especially white. 90% I'm sure is high and an exaggeration on my part but the point still stands.

Should go without saying - but I enjoy movies with other races; I only care about good storylines without an overtly political message from left or right. People watch movies to escape from our crazy politics. When political narratives and representation become the focal point, the plot of the movie suffers and viewers get turned off.

Red Five said:

---

What's a Nubian?

---

Skillet Shot said:

---

Should go without saying - but I enjoy movies with other races; I only care about good storylines without an overtly political message from left or right. People watch movies to escape from our crazy politics. When political narratives and representation become the focal point, the plot of the movie suffers and viewers get turned off.

---

This was my whole point. It added ZERO to the story, and was only included to check a box and make a statement that "we" included those people.

Having not watched th movie, this thread reminds me that Disney/Pixar have a hard time with proper sci-fi (Wall-E among others being an exception). Magical realism and modernized folklore, maybe. But they still fall flat when it comes to decent sci fi. I guess because they try so hard to make the movie fit into their story-telling box and tip the scales in ways that sci fi fans find disingenuous maybe to the point of being duplicitous.

tk for tu juan said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Just to play devil's advocate, what is a movie celebrating white culture?

---

Days of Thunder

---

Finn should have been the catalyst for a mass uprising of stormtroopers in the third movie.

fig96 said:

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

Disney doesn't care if the movie loses money. They care more about pushing a woke agenda. Disney is losing money on it's movies and streaming but the company as a whole is not.

---

No one has quite figured out streaming yet (though Disney is projected be profitable in streaming by 2024). I believe Netflix is the only major service turning a profit, ost of them are losing money.

---

That projection may be optimistic... Chapek was potentially playing accounting shell games to make D+ look better. He was splitting production and meeting costs for some shows between D+ and their television division by having them premier on TV. D+ got the content, but television had to pay for part of it.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Finn should have been the catalyst for a mass uprising of stormtroopers in the third movie.

---

I like to think of the third movie as a bad dream that never happened

tysker said:

---

Having not watched th movie, this thread reminds me that Disney/Pixar have a hard time with proper sci-fi (Wall-E among others being an exception). Magical realism and modernized folklore, maybe. But they still fall flat when it comes to decent sci fi. I guess because they try so hard to make the movie fit into their story-telling box and tip the scales in ways that sci fi fans find disingenuous maybe to the point of being duplicitous.

---

I actually want a redone gritty/scarier "The Black Hole"

OnlyForNow said:

---

Skillet Shot said:

---

Should go without saying - but I enjoy movies with other races; I only care about good storylines without an overtly political message from left or right. People watch movies to escape from our crazy politics. When political narratives and representation become the focal point, the plot of the movie suffers and viewers get turned off.

---

This was my whole point. It added ZERO to the story, and was only included to check a box and make a statement that "we" included those people.

---

What does having all straight, white characters add to any story? This is a terrible argument.

AggieUSMC said:

---

Disney doesn't care if the movie loses money. They care more about pushing a woke agenda. Disney is losing money on it's movies and streaming but the company as a whole is not.

---

I can guarantee you, Disney only cares about making money...

Doesn't have to be all straight, doesn't have to be all white. Why does this issue keep coming up.

I already stated, that had the MCs been all non-white it would have been fine and not changed the movie at all (Soul, Mauna, etc.)

The fact that the young MC is gay, added zero to the storyline/plot, it was only there to pander to the alphabet crowd. If him being gay, had played some sort of character development role, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. Making him gay, just to make him gay is stupid. His love interest has about 25 seconds of screen time, and is mentioned MAYBE 2-3 other times in the movie.

OnlyForNow said:

---

Doesn't have to be all straight, doesn't have to be all white. Why does this issue keep coming up.

I already stated, that had the MCs been all non-white it would have been fine and not changed the movie at all (Soul, Mauna, etc.)

The fact that the young MC is gay, added zero to the storyline/plot, it was only there to pander to the alphabet crowd. If him being gay, had played some sort of character development role, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. Making him gay, just to make him gay is stupid. His love interest has about 25 seconds of screen time, and is mentioned MAYBE 2-3 other times in the movie.

---

But why does someone being gay have to add to the plot? Why does their existence need to be justified as opposed to that of a straight person?