Sfdebris.net

Seeing the success of the Mario movie has has me looking back at the disaster that was 2022 for Disney animation. In know the anti-woke crowd screams bloody murder about the gays representation in "Lightyear" and "Strange World." However, as the anti-woke crowd usually is, it doesn't get into the actual problems these films suffered from.

Getting into "Lightyear" specifically, my friend said they were not going to see it because they were a fan of Lightyear the toy, and this was not the toy. I personally found that rather close-minded, but the actual movie did little to help my case.

The whole idea (we're even told at the start of the movie) is what we're about to see is supposed to be a science fiction film released in the mid-90's that would lead to a toyline that is Buzz Lightyear of Star Command. And it's a good thing we're told this at the beginning, because the movie itself does nothing to suggest that.

If Buzz Lightyear in Toy Story is anything to go by, his character is meant to be a pulpy sci-fi hero like Flash Gordon or Buck Rogers. The 90's was also a time when spaceships and aliens were in vogue. The grittiest popular science fiction property generally available on screen at the time was Babylon 5.

Really, we already got the media that inspired the toy in the form of the "Buzz Lightyear of Star Command" animated series that intentionally follows the conventions of a Saturday Morning merchandise-driven animated sci-fi series.

That's not what we got. Instead, it felt very much like the gritty speculative fiction we got in the late 00's into the 10's where the set pieces are drab, humans are the only sapient species, and time dilation is at the crux of the story but doesn't follow the actual science (okay, that last one is specific to "Interstellar" and this movie). While there are attempts to make Buzz seem like the pulpy hero, they mostly fall off and feel out of place. Also, if this was the movie, Buzz would've come with a Sox accessory.

However, I'm here to talk about the lesbian couple. The ones with one quick kiss and have a kid amongst Buzz constantly pressing the fast forward button on the universe and written out before the end of the first act. I was initially going to say these were another example of how this was not something we would see in the 90's. However, I then went back to B5 and DS9. We can assume the move Andy saw would come out in the summer of 1996 which would be quickly on the heels of DS9's "Rejoined" and Ivanova confessing she loved Talia Winters. So, brief glimpses of a lesbian couple in the first act is actually the most 90's thing about this movie.

I see people whine about "Woke Disney" but it absolves them of what actually hurt them last year. They're making bad business and creative decisions. Strange World got it even worse as Bob Chapek was actively sabotaging it in an attempt to destroy the animation studio. Both movies were weak in terms of storytelling and the gay characters had nothing to do with that.

The Mario movie is probably a great illustration of this. Illumination understood the mission, make an hour and half nostalgia trip with enough story to make the set pieces work together. Pixar could've done the same thing with "Lightyear" if they had remembered what kind of character Lightyear was supposed to be and what had been established before rather than making a gritty speculative fiction rehash of "Up" and slapping Lightyear on it.

I think there are a few things to consider about this whole topic.

One is that I think people in the "progressive" camp (for lack of a better term) need to acknowledge/accept that there really is a sizable population of people who are unhappy to see LGBT themes in films.

On the other hand, I think people in the "conservative" camp (for lack of a better term) need to acknowledge/accept that there is a good sized population of people who are happy to see LGBT themes in films.

(A key note: when I say "accept" I don't intend to exclude (either, I suppose) group working to change the "hearts and minds" of society so that more people will view things as they do. I just mean they need to not deny the current, right-now reality).

A corollary that I think is much more important: while I think the group that is not happy to see these themes is probably sizable but still a minority in general, if we're talking specifically about family or children's films I think it probably accounts for the overwhelming majority.

To put it one way, if that kiss were in a film intended for adults - a PG-13 film, for instance - I don't think too many people would have cared and I think the number of people who would have changed their opinion on the film as a whole or not seen it because of it would have been almost nobody. However because the film was a kids' movie, I think that number of people was enormous.

Partially to the OP's point, though, the overall quality of the film also makes a big difference. For example, there was a brief moment in Finding Dory which appears to feature a lesbian couple but the film was still incredibly successful and while people who aren't happy with these themes do mention it, almost nobody actually rejects the film because of it.

On the other hand the moment in Finding Dory is not as "explicit" as what's in the Lightyear film. In a similar way, the moment at the end of The Legend of Korra is also less "explicit" or "definite", but it's still there and very few people object to Korra because of it.

I think the bottom line is this - and I don't express any value judgment here but am trying to look at this in a purely "empirical" way:

* Unambiguous LGBT moments are at the current time not going to be accepted by a majority of the population in films with children as the audience. These films will not succeed financially.
* More ambiguous LGBT moments can at the current time be accepted by the majority of the population in films with children as the audience if the films are good enough. These films can succeed financially.
* Ambiguous or unambiguous LGBT moments will probably not make any difference in the success of films intended for adults audiences, though I suspect that there will probably be a slight or moderate decrease in a film's success as these moments' significance to the overall film increases
* This dynamic changes significantly if LGBT themes are the main point of the film (e.g., Brokeback Mountain)

LIGHTYEAR sucked because it's fundamentally disconnected from its property. Buzz Lightyear is a kind of cartoonish 1980s Saturday Morning cartoon show that, itself, would be based on Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers (or just Star Wars).

This is very much the case of the creatives slapping on a license on something that has nothing to do with the property.

Because let's face it, Buzz Lightyear would not be a popular CHILDREN'S TOY if it was based on something like CONTACT.

None of that has anything to do with whether there's lesbians in the movie or not.

There is no way on God's Earth that Andy ever watched this show in the 90s. I know you pointed that out, but in the immortal words of Kryten, I thought it was such a major problem that it was worth saying twice. They had a real opportunity for something original here. Something - again like you said - in the vein of the Flash Gordon movie. But one of the reasons why I hate Disney is that they are creatively bankrupt. This is not a cool idea ruined by bad execution because its a cool idea that never got off the starting block enough to BE executed.

Also, the concept is kind of confusing for casuals and young kids alike. ''Its not the Buzz Lightyear from the films, or the Buzz Lightyear from the animated show, its the Buzz Lightyear that Andy once watched that led to the toy Buzz Lightyear, only not really because this Buzz Lightyear isn't really anything like that Buzz Lightyear in personality or looks. He's also not voiced by Tim Allen, he's voiced by Captain America, work that out.''

A sizeable chunk of people I suspect didn't know that going in. Or were annoyed that they had to try and explain it to little Johnny after a ten hour shift at work.

At the end of the day, to further what Lazer was saying, I would say that there is a 50/50 split in 2023 when it comes to LGBT content in family films. Maybe it is as simple as Zoomers V Boomers I don't know. But its the Boomers who are taking the Zoomers (and the Alphas) to the cinema so... its not actually a case of losing 50% of your audience. Its potentially a great deal more than that.

I think it would bother people less BTW if Disney weren't such massive hypocrites. They don't care about the LGBT community one damn bit as evidenced by the fact that they are 100% willing to erase LGBT people (and blacks for that matter) from their foreign releases because ''fuck you, give me money'' to quote Angry Joe. We're being preached to by the equivalent of an anti-smoking campaigner who is shamelessly selling cigarettes to foreigners. Members of the LGBT community defending this film need to understand exactly who it is they are defending because Disney is not your ally.

We're talking the generation of kids who grew up with mainstream and casually LGBT inclusive shows like: MLP Friendship is Magic, Adventure Time, Steven Universe and sequel series, Kipo and the Age of the Wonderbeasts, The Dragon Prince, She-Ra and the Princesses of Power, Amphibia, Marvelous Ladybug, The Owl House, Star vs the Forces of Evil, and I'm sure I'll find out about a new one next time I visit someone who has kids. The parents who were fine with all that are not going to be the same people as have a problem with two married women sharing a chaste kiss.

The oldest Zoomers are 26. They and the youngest millennials are the ones with young kids to take to the cinema. I swear, you blink and the babies are grownups with their own babies.

Other than those quibbles I think clearspira hit it on the head.

clearspira wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 6:31 pm He's also not voiced by Tim Allen, he's voiced by Captain America, work that out.''

Well, he was voiced by Kronk in the show. And Allen would've been perfect for Old Buzz. I guess he and Disney are still in a pissing match over not renewing "Last Man Standing".

Really, Disney's biggest problem is wanting to avoid making people angry. They want the LGBT+ community to like them, but they also want the homophobes to like them. That's why they've sterilized so much of their recent products like the Pinocchio remake. That's why many of the live action movies about the turn of the 20th Century are still not on Disney+ despite there being nothing racist about them aside from having entirely white casts. That's why they're now having no villains in their animated movies. The problem is that means a lot of their work has no conflict and are therefore about nothing as a result.

Disney needs to remember you can't please everyone all of the time, because they're currently not pleasing anyone.

I 100% guarantee this was someone's idea for a deep concept sci-fi movie they tapped Buzz Lightyear on instead and then justified retroactively.

"He's Buzz Lightyear except he has nothing to do with Buzz Lightyear except for being in space."

CharlesPhipps wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 9:04 pm I 100% guarantee this was someone's idea for a deep concept sci-fi movie they tapped Buzz Lightyear on instead and then justified retroactively.

"He's Buzz Lightyear except he has nothing to do with Buzz Lightyear except for being in space."

Agree, heck Buzz outfit feels like it was added at the last minute.

Al-1701 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 8:33 pm

clearspira wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 6:31 pm He's also not voiced by Tim Allen, he's voiced by Captain America, work that out.''

Well, he was voiced by Kronk in the show. And Allen would've been perfect for Old Buzz. I guess he and Disney are still in a pissing match over not renewing "Last Man Standing".

Really, Disney's biggest problem is wanting to avoid making people angry. They want the LGBT+ community to like them, but they also want the homophobes to like them. That's why they've sterilized so much of their recent products like the Pinocchio remake. That's why many of the live action movies about the turn of the 20th Century are still not on Disney+ despite there being nothing racist about them aside from having entirely white casts. That's why they're now having no villains in their animated movies. The problem is that means a lot of their work has no conflict and are therefore about nothing as a result.

Disney needs to remember you can't please everyone all of the time, because they're currently not pleasing anyone.

That part seems a bit....much as an assumption.

Especially given the huge number of entirely white casts already on the channel.

They swapped out Princess Peach and Luigi. Luigi was the damsel in distress for most of the movie, the person he was trying to save. It worked because they are brothers and Mario was out there to save his brother. So it worked.

Princess Peach was established as being well trained within her world and it's rules but she didn't know overshadow Mario in the key parts.

That's as complicated as the movie gets.