Loved Turning Red. Loved every inch of it. Watch it. That's the post.
Pixar movies
-
Like the Avatar? / Like the Miis?Dragalia Lost ID: 97617932505
-
Yeah, Turning Red was darn good. I especially love the animation. Very high-energy and definitely has its own style. Doesn't quite hit the emotional highs of other Pixar movies, but it comes fairly close.
! I appreciate they addressed the obvious menstruation metaphor by just straight up owning it for a few minutes. And once that was done I didn't really think about it at all.
! Oh, and of course James Hong is in this, because it's a law that he must be in every Asian-themed American movie ever. -
It was excellent. A must watch for any Millennial and ESPECIALLY if you have an Asian mother.
Didn't make me cry, but I felt it.
! I don't think I've ever laughed so hard at pads in my life.
-
no kidding, watching Turning Red was a better experience than Soul for me.
the study on face journeys they had to make for this movie alone is worth it (saw some early Dragon Ball, Sailor Moon and maybe emojis there). it's cute and endearing, and made clear cut characters with such good-to-follow story arcs. the main group of girls had some one-note moments, but overall their interactions save them from that critic. the
! double jump sequence and the kaiju "battle" made me grin like a maniac. And Mei's decision at the finale was worth it, she really earned that through the movie.
of the recent pixar bacht, one of the best no doubts about it.
-
All the anime faces was definitely a treat. The early aughts was when anime was really taking hold, so it fits.
-
Pixar decides to shove it to Disney and put the lesbian kiss back in Lightyear:
https://movieweb.com/lesbian-kiss-restored-lightyear-staff-uproar-lgbtq-censorship-pixar/?utm_source=MW-FB-P&utm_medium=Social-Distribution&utm_campaign=MW-FB-P&fbclid=IwAR0YHOQpXspWQknJpbRDjG-VXn_rM3CP2if26EjHpuh6pn73r-UA-Plo-zIIt's so hard when artists have to deal with greedy corporate. You can tell that artists at Disney themselves are trying, there's an episode of the new Proud Family that deals with the new sibling characters being targeted for having gay dads. And yet Disney didn't censor that, or the kiss between the dads. Who's making the decisions between each project here?
[hide]
-
These decisions are more complicated than the internet wants them to be. As evil and greedy as Disney can be, this is more of a globalization issue than a Disney-specific problem.
Proud Family is less likely to be marketed outside of the US, whereas something as big to Disney's portfolio as the next Pixar movie (that is also based on Toy Story) is the type of product you want to market globally as best as possible.
This in turn means that you have to dance around other countries where "promoting" LGBTQ stuff is deemed to either be criminal activity, or the type of offense that means you cannot sell the product in an entire region or country. In that sense it's not as hard being the artist who has to fight corporate while facing very limited repercussions for wanting inclusivity that matches the liberal landscape of west coast, USA. It's much harder being the person who has to consider that if you don't push back on this there's a possibility that the employees that work for your company while living in Russia or China could face much more serious repercussions. Not to mention that if as an artist you want everyone to see your product, it kind of sucks to know that one single scene that may have nothing to do with the core message could cause a significant portion of the world to suddenly lose access to your creation and its entire message.
I also hate to point out that it's not just entirely about "greedy corporate". For a lot of businesses that operate globally, the market in other countries can be as large as two-thirds of the entirety of what you make. This money isn't unfortunately just lining the pocket of higher-level executives, but also the operating income for all the artists at the company who want to be able to enjoy things like health insurance, benefits, bonuses, decent paychecks, etc.
The logical decision would be to just make different scenes/products for each region, but then you still have the problem of 1) that is still censorship and people will still not like it and 2) it massively increases the time and money cost of production. Especially if it is a story-significant scene that you cannot simply cut without affecting the integrity or value of the project.
Personally, I figure that if companies want to make global profit then they should commit to spending on the resources to make that profit without limiting what non-censory regions get to see…. but that's also me talking about this without knowing what the actual cost is of operating like this.I'm really curious if part of what motivated this pushback is also the mentality that we don't need to worry about censoring same-sex kisses for Russia if the whole world is avoiding Russia. But I would still love to see the decisions that are made when selling this in areas like China where it could be considered "inappropriate". I'm more interested in this whole topic than in the actual movie at this point XD
-
Idunno I think Disney is making such ridiculous money and has such a dominance of the market that they survive "sacrificing" a market or two for certain products and still pay their employees, maybe even through some of the millions and millions of dollars that go into executive bonuses.
At any rate they're still being shamelessly two-faced about it when posturing outwards as LGBTQIA+ allies.
-
Hard to say. It takes millions to make those millions, and I bet that losing that much money is the sort of thing that wouldn’t affect the multimillionaire executives, but the people at the bottom whose output will be deemed less valuable as a result.
Do we really believe any Disney executive would eat this cost to make an ethical stand? No way, they’ll toss aside the management types that allow this to happen. I agree that we call egotistical maniacs out, but the harsh reality is that there’s also regular working people behind these executives who don’t deserve the hate falloff and repercussions.
-
Well yeah end-stage capitalism is absolutely fucked, but Disney is the dominant popculture procider on the planet by far, and produces movies that rake in hundreds of millions over what they cost to make in profits - Disney doesn't need to grow from this, it doesn't need that much money to simply survive, it certainly doesn't need to pay its executives that much. But just because the system is fucked doesn't mean it needs to be. I refuse to belive Disney going from making insane to merely extreme profits is the dividing line in whether you can pay your employees. You should be able to do that so long as you're not operating on a loss, but of course capitalism isn't designed for sustainability.
-
Plot went in a direction I didn't quite expect:
And I see a Zurg!
-
It's almost like a 3rd trailer:
-
Pixar's next movie is coming out Summer 2023, and it's called "Elemental".
https://movieweb.com/pixar-unveils-details-next-project-elemental/?utm_source=MW-FB-P&utm_medium=Social-Distribution&utm_campaign=MW-FB-P&fbclid=IwAR3Itrtq0Inqe-KhgKgZ1g9OIrl_zjMAqqmSTVXLvzccHEH0llQ5_U6M0RwPixar really loves going meta lately. First they made characters out of feelings, then of souls, and now out of the actual elements.
-
And everything changed when the Fire Nation attacked-gunshot
-
Inside Out 2 is coming out in 2024.
-
Debuting of a new emotion: horny
-
The chaos of puberty is coming.
-
"what if elements had feeling?"
the meme goes on
-
Once again the only kind of imagination you can get from Pixar. (Ember looks amazing)
-
Such cheesy dad jokes:
Adorable and obvious racism parallels. Other than that, eh?
-
Feels like they should be doing something more with the premise, but...I guess we'll see. Pixar does have a history of putting out mediocre trailers.
-
what bumms me out is that's the perfect setting for a non-straight romance and, uh, Disney just couldn't.
-
@puffing-cinema I see what you mean. Would've been a great opportunity for gender-fluids.
-
Guess even Pixar is afraid of pushing it.
-
@puffing-cinema said in Pixar movies:
what bumms me out is that's the perfect setting for a non-straight romance and, uh, Disney just couldn't.
I am gay and pro LGBT... and I think at this point even I understand that they are in a very delicate place right now and they should be careful. I think they need to rebuild their credibility and profitability before doing more representation.
-
I had very little interest in this before the trailer... and now that I realize its the director that did Good Dinosaur, I have zero interest.
Its a shame, Pixar used to be must see films.
He's been a storyboarder and animator on a lot of A+ films but... Good Dinosaur. Ugh.
-
. -
@Captain-Krupp I may be out of the loop, are you talking about the on-going drag-hunt in the US? I do understand your optic, but I can't get behind it at all.
-
@puffing-cinema said in Pixar movies:
@Captain-Krupp I may be out of the loop, are you talking about the on-going drag-hunt in the US? I do understand your optic, but I can't get behind it at all.
Nononono! I dont mean the drag hunt and I dont mean "Lets make less LGBT movies to capitulate to dangerous bigots" no, bigots can fuck off! I meant more that every movie Disney has made in this really mediocre rut of movies that has caused so many flops already unintentionally has added ammo to the pundits and bigots argument that animated movies with major gay characters are doomed to be flops and will never be profitable. I meant that Disney Pixar should really do a shake up and improve their movies before trying LGBT rep because otherwise they hurt more than they help.
-
oh, I see! I really was looking at it backwards. Thank you for your explanation!
-
Or you know, just make a good movie and let the characters be characters without making it a point.
The lead character in Mitchells vs. the Machines is gay but its not drawn attention to or made a big deal about or advertised, its just there and super obvious. (Until like, the last 10 seconds of the film with a line that makes it explicit for anyone that missed it) but all the other points are subtle enough to be missed, because its not that big a deal.
The problem is, like 8 times now, they keep going "Its the first gay character in a disney film!" and they try to promote it as a big deal to get some credit, but its inevitably so minor and sidelined that it can be cut for foreign markets without changing anything. So... don't agendize it. Don't tiptoe around it as carefully as possible. Just have it in there and be important enough that it can't be edited around... but don't make it a big deal, make it so people have to have already seen the movie and liked the character before they pass judgement. But actually make it part of the character, not just one throwaway line.
Scooby Doo just officially made Velma gay (or bi) and in the movie itself no one reacted to it like it was a big deal, she was just hot for a girl, and they ran the exact same plot they would have if it was a male love interest. Normalized it as part of every day life with no judgement from those around her. No Daphne going "Oh my gosh Velma, I had no idea you liked girls! How weird!" No, they just go with it being normal and acceptable.
Or go to the other end of the spectrum like She-Ra and just make EVERY character gay with like one token straight couple, and don't put any judgement or stigma on it.
That's how it moves forward and gets normalized.
Or you know, basically this clip.
(But for cripes sake if you're going to have one token gay, don't make them a cop. The unflattering, ugly, cyclops minor character cop. Ugh.)
-
Ummmmmmmm... that was exactly my argument. They need to make GOOD MOVIES before even attempting to make GOOD MOVIES with LGBT characters.
-
@Captain-Krupp said in Pixar movies:
Ummmmmmmm... that was exactly my argument. They need to make GOOD MOVIES before even attempting to make GOOD MOVIES with LGBT characters.
That's not at all what I said. You're implying they should just leave the LGBT out all together until they can make better movies again, so that their first big LGBT movie also happens to be good.
No, screw that. Don't sacrifice progress and good in the name of perfect.
My point is you can have gay characters and it doesn't affect the plot at all. Just have them be gay. Don't make it a plot point or a marketing tool. If there's a gay romance, cool. Don't treat it any differently than the thousand straight romances they've shown before.
There's no reason to not have a gay character as a neutral part of everyday life, anymore than they needed to include an Asian character in Up or a black character in Incredibles or an armless guy in Luca or mention periods in Turning Red.
(it's downright embarassing that there was such a reaction to even MENTIONING pads in Turning Red... when half the population has periods, it shouldn't be a weird taboo.)
It can just be part of the actual world as is. There is ZERO reason to "wait until the time is right." or "they need a really good gay story before they do anything gay."
It shouldn't be a big deal. It shouldn't be the only thing the character is about. It should just BE. So standard, and so normalized, that they don't feel the need to draw attention to it at all. So that when the time comes that they do want to do a very specific gay story and make that the main big focus, its not a big deal.
Representation matters. Having it there NOW, and normalizing it NOW, is important. Waiting for the perfect time? Then it will never happen. Just do it so much and so often it stops being a talking point. It doesn't matter what bigoted conservatives think. But kids growing up on these things today? If they see it as completely normal when they're 5, they won't be questioning it or having as hard a time with it when they're 20.
Again, I point to Mitchells versus the machines. Where it was there, it was a major part of the character. You could see in in the movies and films she picked out and idolized and referenced, (especially the really obscure ones) and how she dressed and how she talked about another girl.... but it was so normalized that most people won't realize she was gay until its spelled out in a throwaway line in the final sequence... even though there's a ton of subtle things and background details showing it wasn't just a throwaway line. "You mean this character I watched for this entire movie was gay? Okay, neat. "
Princes and the Frog was the first animated Disney movie to have a black person, somehow. It's not a great movie and it was decades later than it should have been. But it exists, it came out in 2009, and in the decade and a half since no deal at all has been made about the animated films that have someone with a different skin tone, they just include the constantly instead of defaulting to white. Should they have waited until they had a perfect movie to break that barrier and normalize it? Of course not.
When original star trek aired it was a BIG DEAL that that there was a black woman on there in a major position. (And also a russian!) And nowadays its so normalized that's quaint and not a big deal. Just put it out there, don't make noise about it in the actual film, and just make progress.
(Similarly, Star Wars had a female X-wing pilot in the original cut of the film and then cut her out. It would have been SUCH a big deal and positive step if they'd left her in fifty years ago.)
Gay people exist. Just have them in your movies, get the representation going, there's zero reason to wait. Let people see themselves in movies, don't wait for one perfect niche opportunity to do something explicit.
-
Yeah, no. Why can't the experiences of the LGBT+ population be an asset to an movie? I think this "it must NOT be a thing" is not that good of a philosophy guidance as people seem to believe it is. well, if you are navigating this world and you happens to not be a part of the norm, your sexuality will very much BE a thing. you'll probably have a phase where you make it a major point of being you. In the movies, you need to balance that niche experinece with points that connects to the experience of being human. So, I fully believe moviemakers have the talent to export that to a movie and make it seems relatable even to the ones who did not had that experience. And if they don't get the whole ordeal, that's what the little details and chatting after the movie are for, anyway...
-
@Robby said in Pixar movies:
@Captain-Krupp said in Pixar movies:
Ummmmmmmm... that was exactly my argument. They need to make GOOD MOVIES before even attempting to make GOOD MOVIES with LGBT characters.
That's not at all what I said. You're implying they should just leave the LGBT out all together until they can make better movies again, so that their first big LGBT movie also happens to be good.
No, screw that. Don't sacrifice progress and good in the name of perfect.
My point is you can have gay characters and it doesn't affect the plot at all. Just have them be gay. Don't make it a plot point or a marketing tool. If there's a gay romance, cool. Don't treat it any differently than the thousand straight romances they've shown before.
There's no reason to not have a gay character as a neutral part of everyday life, anymore than they needed to include an Asian character in Up or a black character in Incredibles or an armless guy in Luca or mention periods in Turning Red.
(it's downright embarassing that there was such a reaction to even MENTIONING pads in Turning Red... when half the population has periods, it shouldn't be a weird taboo.)
It can just be part of the actual world as is. There is ZERO reason to "wait until the time is right." or "they need a really good gay story before they do anything gay."
It shouldn't be a big deal. It shouldn't be the only thing the character is about. It should just BE. So standard, and so normalized, that they don't feel the need to draw attention to it at all. So that when the time comes that they do want to do a very specific gay story and make that the main big focus, its not a big deal.
Representation matters. Having it there NOW, and normalizing it NOW, is important. Waiting for the perfect time? Then it will never happen. Just do it so much and so often it stops being a talking point. It doesn't matter what bigoted conservatives think. But kids growing up on these things today? If they see it as completely normal when they're 5, they won't be questioning it or having as hard a time with it when they're 20.
Again, I point to Mitchells versus the machines. Where it was there, it was a major part of the character. You could see in in the movies and films she picked out and idolized and referenced, (especially the really obscure ones) and how she dressed and how she talked about another girl.... but it was so normalized that most people won't realize she was gay until its spelled out in a throwaway line in the final sequence... even though there's a ton of subtle things and background details showing it wasn't just a throwaway line. "You mean this character I watched for this entire movie was gay? Okay, neat. "
Princes and the Frog was the first animated Disney movie to have a black person, somehow. It's not a great movie and it was decades later than it should have been. But it exists, it came out in 2009, and in the decade and a half since no deal at all has been made about the animated films that have someone with a different skin tone, they just include the constantly instead of defaulting to white. Should they have waited until they had a perfect movie to break that barrier and normalize it? Of course not.
When original star trek aired it was a BIG DEAL that that there was a black woman on there in a major position. (And also a russian!) And nowadays its so normalized that's quaint and not a big deal. Just put it out there, don't make noise about it in the actual film, and just make progress.
(Similarly, Star Wars had a female X-wing pilot in the original cut of the film and then cut her out. It would have been SUCH a big deal and positive step if they'd left her in fifty years ago.)
Gay people exist. Just have them in your movies, get the representation going, there's zero reason to wait. Let people see themselves in movies, don't wait for one perfect niche opportunity to do something explicit.
Ok. That's true. I didnt mean Disney should hold off until they can make the perfect LGBT movie that's ridiculous. But they are making constant flops lately and many of these are with gay leads and major characters. I meant they should ensure they can even make GOOD movies first because if the movies with gay characters keep flopping they WILL stop making them and it will take years to correct course and try again.
-
That's the same thought process that's stopped them from making 2D animated films.
And it's dumb. Don't blame the success or failure of a film on one aspect.
Blame it on being released against Avatar.
-
That's true. And while I dont think sending LGBT movies to be canon fodder is a good idea I hate that they dropped 2D movies so I will drop this.
EDIT: One thing though, I never ever said "Perfect". I mean GOOD, as in not bad or mediocre. If that's too much to expect from Pixar my bad. Thought they were the darlings of animation. My bad.
-
Part of all this is that even now we hold Pixar to a very high standard. A CGI film from another studio that was good would at Pixar be considered "meh".
-
That's so far off know I really dont care anymore. I just want a good movie. Pretty Please?
-
Pixar's track record has been pretty weak for over a decade now. Toy Story 3 in 2010 was the end of their nearly flawless streak of bangers.
Toy Story 1, 2, and 3, Bugs Lfe, mosnter's Inc, FInding Neo, Incredibles, Ratatouille, Wall-E, Up,... 10 absolutely timeless bangers, Cars was the only miss in the lot and even that had a kind of beauty and moments of wonder and character to it.
In the 15 films since then its been lackluster films and sequels. I think Inside Out and Coco are the only ones that are near universally liked. Toy Story 4 was fine but totally unnecessary, Soul had moments, and Luca was charming but it's just... not the same.
Of course since they split their talent with Disney we've gotten Tangled and Zootopia and Moana and the first Wreck it Ralph and Frozen (love it or hate it, its Frozen) and Encanto...
Meanwhile Dreamworks which was kind of a joke during Pixar's peak did the Kung Fu Panda trilogy and How to Train Your Dragon and Megamind and the most recent Puss movie and Bad Guys... but also a bunch of junk. Not a continuous streak but enough hits to be satisfied. And Sony is hitting with Mitchells and Spiderverse and...
No studio is doing hit after hit like Pixar in its prime decade, but there's lots of good stuff between all the studios now.
-
@Robby said in Pixar movies:
Pixar's track record has been pretty weak for over a decade now. Toy Story 3 in 2010 was the end of their nearly flawless streak of bangers.
Toy Story 1, 2, and 3, Bugs Lfe, mosnter's Inc, FInding Neo, Incredibles, Ratatouille, Wall-E, Up,... 10 absolutely timeless bangers, Cars was the only miss in the lot and even that had a kind of beauty and moments of wonder and character to it.
In the 15 films since then its been lackluster films and sequels. I think Inside Out and Coco are the only ones that are near universally liked. Toy Story 4 was fine but totally unnecessary, Soul had moments, and Luca was charming but it's just... not the same.
Of course since they split their talent with Disney we've gotten Tangled and Zootopia and Moana and the first Wreck it Ralph and Frozen (love it or hate it, its Frozen) and Encanto...
Meanwhile Dreamworks which was kind of a joke during Pixar's peak did the Kung Fu Panda trilogy and How to Train Your Dragon and Megamind and the most recent Puss movie and Bad Guys... but also a bunch of junk. Not a continuous streak but enough hits to be satisfied. And Sony is hitting with Mitchells and Spiderverse and...
No studio is doing hit after hit like Pixar in its prime decade, but there's lots of good stuff between all the studios now.
I feel "pretty weak" is a little harsh. There has been an obvious decline since Toy Story 3 and their record has become a little more hit and miss, but maybe that was also inevitable? It was super impressive that they were able to keep such an impressive streak of quality for 15 years, and that was bound to change at some point.
Imo, Inside Out, Coco, Toy Story 4 and Soul were all amazing, Luca was hella charming, and Incredibles 2 and Finding Dory, while not as good as the original films, were quite a lot of fun. I would call none of these films weak. Turning Red and Lightyear, I haven't seen yet, so I can't say anything about their quality. Cars 2 and 3 and The Good Dinosaur were really weak. Brave, Monsters University and Onward were alright, but flawed.
Obviously, all of that is subjective, and I'm not diasgreeing with your general assessment. But "weak" sounds like they churned about 2 or 3 passable movies and everything else completely sucked.
It's good to see the other animation studies stepping up and creating amazing films. Dreamworks always had the potential; the first two Shrek were both pretty good, as well. As for Sony, I would throw in "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs" as well, I love that film! The second one is also fun, though definitely a bit weaker. Looking at Sony's list of released animated picture, they've also created a lot of absolute crap, though, yikes.
We are living in a pretty great age of animation, all things considered. It's amazing how many absolutely stunning animated movies have been released in my lifetime
-
I haven't seen Lightyear yet (really need to), but I can call Turning Red a very solid movie. It might give you more emotional pull if you're also Asian, but regardless it's a good movie. I just don't forgive them for not casting Backstreet Boys as the boy band.
-
@Satsuki said in Pixar movies:
I haven't seen Lightyear yet (really need to), but I can call Turning Red a very solid movie. It might give you more emotional pull if you're also Asian, but regardless it's a good movie. I just don't forgive them for not casting Backstreet Boys as the boy band.
I think Turning Red is great even if its not really my thing at all. That's why I dont think its unreasonable to wait a bit for more well made movies to start doing representation.
This response I had prepared for Robby if he doubled down but since he mellowed out so will I, and I will explain my point kindly and politely instead of a bit peeved. Look, representation is great, and yes, Disney is a company worth billions and even if they do like a jillion flops it probably wont hurt them. But they are still a company that wants to make money and if they keep on flopping with movies about LGBT people they will just stop making them. I know its unfair, I know its unreasonable of them to do that, I know they shouldnt blame us LGBTees for their failures nor should I do it either, there's plenty of reasons for why something flops, they shouldnt home in on that, but they will. Robby's comment is kindhearted, inclusive, sensical but its made by someone who really doesnt understand what is at stake. If Disney keeps floppping and they stop with LGBT movies for years (Which his argument for Disney killing 2d ironically entirely shows which shows there is an actual tangible possibility they might do they same with LGBT representation) its not his sexuality, orientation or gender identity that will vanish from Disney or Pixar films if these movies keep flopping. I am not even saying we need the "perfect LGBT movie" to break the glass ceiling because that's a myth. We just need good LGBT movies In fact I DO agree with Robby, we dont just need GOOD LGBT movies, we also deserve mediocre ones, if movies made about white cis straight people keep getting made despite most of them being mediocre why should any minority deserve less? We want the full spectrum of movies good, bad and ugly. But if Disney keeps slapping LGBT rep onto their most mediocre and unispired fare we may not get any. AT ALL. Disney is petty, they already killed 2D animation. Dont let that happen with LGBT rep.
-
I hate double posting but it seems like Elemental will be another flop for Pixar. It's getting terrible reviews and its budget is 200 Million Dollars.
-
@Riddler said in Pixar movies:
Obviously, all of that is subjective, and I'm not diasgreeing with your general assessment. But "weak" sounds like they churned about 2 or 3 passable movies and everything else completely sucked.
Compared to the bar they themselves set, yes. They're weak for Pixar films. They'd be on average for Dreamworks or Sony but not their best, they'd be below average for Laika, pretty decent coming from Illumination or Blue Sky, and amazing coming out of Crest. But they're not hitting anywhere near the high bar Pixar showed it could consistently do, or matching the better Dreamworks or Sony outings.
They're 70's or 80's, nothing awful... but Pixar doesn't signified guaranteed top quality films like it did, now its just "it'll be fine, probably, can see it when it gets to streaming." when it used to be "it'll be amazing, guaranteed, gotta see it opening weekend and maybe two or three times in the theater."
Yeah obviously Pixar wasn't going to keep its perfect streak forever, Cars was always the weak link and Cars 2 the definite dividing line, but I'd give almost everything in that golden era super high marks and they've done little to really wow me or blow me away with the unusual premise or delivery since.
Incredibles 2 was especially bad since they waited literal decades for Brad Bird to figure out what to do for a sequel and THAT'S what he took 15 years to figure out? If that had been a direct to video sequel a year or two later it would have been perfectly acceptable as the lazy brainless cash in with nothing to say that it was, but as the "waiting till we have it right" project that took THAT long? Just no. Meanwhile the Toy Stories manage to nail the sequel every time somehow so I have no complaints there.
-
This post is deleted!
-
It's something new. We can appreciate that. And I love all the alien designs already.
