🐱 Does Lightyear's Failure End Disney's LGBTQ+ Plans?

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
CatParty

If Disney/Pixar decides to blame Lightyear's disappointing box office numbers on the LGBTQ+ character, it could cause trouble for future films.
The poor box office return of Disney/Pixar’s Lightyear creates a major question around how the studio might make an example of the film. Despite the legacy of its predecessors, the not-quite-prequel didn’t seem to interest what should have been its largest viewership: the adults who grew up with the original Toy Storymovies. Considering that Lightyear contains some of the studio’s strongest depictions of LGBTQ+ relationships with Commander Alisha Hawthorn and her wife, its poor numbers—and the unsurprising backlash to that aspect—could leave future Pixar films with queer storylines in flux.

The lesbian relationship in Lightyear isn’t actually the first depiction in the Toy Story series. There’s a split second in Toy Story 4 where a child and their lesbian moms are seen outside of Bonnie’s school. As the film didn’t linger on these characters, it was something viewers could have missed entirely. But, even with such a brief appearance, eagle-eyed audience members caught it—and so the backlash began. Conservative groups called for a boycott of the film, while some in the LGBTQ+ community felt it wasn’t enough representation. Luckily for Disney/Pixar, these reactions did nothing to stop the film from becoming the second-highest-grossing film for the studio (after The Incredibles 2). So, there wasn’t yet a financial deterrent for including further, or even expanded, depictions of LGBTQ+ characters.

Still, Lightyear already had a tough job ahead of it. As with any beloved franchise, whether audiences will accept a new entry is a toss of a coin, and the Toy Story series is the flagship for Pixar Studios. Taking such a sideways approach for a film about a major character—wherein this is the in-universe film that made Tim Allen’s Buzza toy in the first place—was truly a risk that didn’t pay off. Studios often look for a scapegoat after a commercial failure, and rather than reevaluating the decision to make this film in the first place, it’s possible Pixar will decide that portraying Alisha and her wife was the wrong call.


Disney and its associated studios are no strangers to displaying this kind of overreaction. With the extreme fan backlash to new character Rose Tico in The Last Jedi, her role was significantly reduced in the following The Rise of Skywalker. (She’s in the film for barely more than a minute.) Disney’s also guilty of either overpromising—and therefore under-delivering—LGBTQ+ representation or completely censoring it. From LeFou’s underwhelming gay moment in the 2017 Beauty and the Beast remake to Disney employees revealing in an open letter that many queer characters and storylines were cut from films, the studio is regularly disappointing its LGBTQ+ viewers.

With this in mind, it’s unclear how Disney is going to treat future films. Even as the studio was working on Lightyear, it backed away from stronger LGBTQ+ stories. Notably, when it acquired and subsequently shuttered Blue Sky Studios, Disney cut the cord on the animated adaptation of Nimona, a graphic novel with several queer themes. Still, it’s moving forward with other representations. At the Annecy International Animation Film Festival, a sneak peek for Walt Disney Animated Studios’ upcoming film Strange World depicted main character Ethan flirting with Diazo, another boy. This has led audiences to believe that Ethan will be openly gay. However, with little known about the film’s plot or how prominent Diazo’s character is, there’s no guarantee that Disney is finally committing to true representation. If it’s easy to remove without losing the film’s integrity, it’s possible that the Lightyear failure will tempt Disney to leave that plot on the cutting room floor.

The reaction to Lightyear—as well as past Pixar films like Luca and Onward—certainly isn’t a motivator for Disney Studios’ approach to LGBTQ+ representation in its films. But it shouldn’t be enough to condemn future depictions. If the studio can introduce prominent queer characters in strong stories, it’s more likely to see box office numbers to justify a legitimate commitment to this community of viewers.
 
No, because many other reasons it could have failed rather than just that and the other movies they have tried that in haven't failed nearly as much (talking about box office wise not quality wise)
 
If you put your sermon ahead of your story your sermon is only going to irritate people and your story is going to suck. See: anything by Ayn Rand and the various Christian comics forced on me in my youth.

Though admittedly doing the opposite is no guarantee the story still won't suck, I guess you could call the above a necessary but not sufficient condition.

As an aside, I kind of wonder how big a deal Tim Allen not being the voice of Buzz Lightyear matters.
 
Disney acting like gay stuff was the reason that movie bombed is pure, unadulterated cope.
 
What ever happened to Touchstone? When Disney wanted to make an off-brand film they published it under that pseudonym and nobody batted an eyelid.

If they want to make faggot media, nobody is going to complain if it comes out under a different banner. There's probably a niche market of bastardising 80s classic teen movies like Pretty In Pink and other films that circle prom night (which is for some reason an obsession with queer film makers, quite inexplicably so) and queering them up. The tiny 3% gay ultra minority get half a dozen new films a year, and nobody accuses them of grooming children by crowbarring sexuality into Disney animation very obviously aimed at little kids. Disney gets to tick a precious woke box or four, everybody wins.
 
Sadly, no. They will be back in a few months touting the next movie as having the “first ever” or making some powerful statement.
 
they should have just gotten John Lasseter a HR protection concubine to keep making good movie ideas, a lot of the movies since he left have had a significant hole in them
 
What ever happened to Touchstone? When Disney wanted to make an off-brand film they published it under that pseudonym and nobody batted an eyelid.
made completely redundant when they bought Fox.
Iger specifically wanted to get rid of it and focus their energy on capeshit. It's why the only thing released by Touchstone during the last decade was either from their DreamWorks deal (the live action division not their animation division), English dub for The Wind Rises, and Strange Magic, the George Lucas animated film they only released because they bought LucasFilm.
 
The “homophobic” are just a scapegoat for what was probably overall just a shitty movie. Story > message, if you work backwards from message to story it is going to suck. “Representation” is misguided. People connect with relatable and well written characters in good stories whether they are the same type as the character or not. Trying to make something relatable and likeable by focusing on such a niche trait is almost guaranteed to fail. People don’t find Walter White a sympathetic or relatable protagonist because they also have cancer or a bitch wife, people don’t find the lion king compelling because they are lions or heirs to a kingdom.
 
If you put your sermon ahead of your story your sermon is only going to irritate people and your story is going to suck. See: anything by Ayn Rand and the various Christian comics forced on me in my youth.

Though admittedly doing the opposite is no guarantee the story still won't suck, I guess you could call the above a necessary but not sufficient condition.

As an aside, I kind of wonder how big a deal Tim Allen not being the voice of Buzz Lightyear matters.
IMO, Tim Allen essentially being fired and then Chris Evans acting like a retard in his interview are probably major contributing factors to the movie having a bad opening weekend. The fact that the movie is just kinda shit is 100% the reason for its ultimate flop. Good word of mouth can save a movie from controversy, and bad word of mouth can tank a movie that opened strong (see: Dr Strange). But if it has a bad opening due to controversy AND the story just isn’t good, nobody is gonna bother coming to see it.
 
What ever happened to Touchstone? When Disney wanted to make an off-brand film they published it under that pseudonym and nobody batted an eyelid.

If they want to make faggot media, nobody is going to complain if it comes out under a different banner. There's probably a niche market of bastardising 80s classic teen movies like Pretty In Pink and other films that circle prom night (which is for some reason an obsession with queer film makers, quite inexplicably so) and queering them up. The tiny 3% gay ultra minority get half a dozen new films a year, and nobody accuses them of grooming children by crowbarring sexuality into Disney animation very obviously aimed at little kids. Disney gets to tick a precious woke box or four, everybody wins.
Because the LGBQ+ that took over Disney DON"T want that, they want to put their flag on the company they grew up with and tell every one "THIS IS OURS NOW". The point isn't to make faggot media, its to turn ALL media into faggot media.

Take for example the girl behind Owl House. Netflix offered her a sweet heart deal to produce the show there, but she refused cause she want to queer up a show on the Disney channel as a point of pride/dominance.
 
Because the LGBQ+ that took over Disney DON"T want that, they want to put their flag on the company they grew up with and tell every one "THIS IS OURS NOW". The point isn't to make faggot media, its to turn ALL media into faggot media.

Take for example the girl behind Owl House. Netflix offered her a sweet heart deal to produce the show there, but she refused cause she want to queer up a show on the Disney channel as a point of pride/dominance.
Should we add smug to the list?
 
made completely redundant when they bought Fox.
Iger specifically wanted to get rid of it and focus their energy on capeshit. It's why the only thing released by Touchstone during the last decade was either from their DreamWorks deal (the live action division not their animation division), English dub for The Wind Rises, and Strange Magic, the George Lucas animated film they only released because they bought LucasFilm.

That's a shame, Touchstone had some great titles: Good Morning Vietnam, Dead Poets Society, Pretty Woman, The Rocketeer, Father Of The Bride, Con Air. Come on, Con Air! Starship Troopers as well! Touchstone released The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, too. Talk about diversity of output. That's the infuriating thing, we used to enjoy real diversity in media back when it meant "You've not seen anything quite like this!" I'm sure Touchstone released a load of old shite, too, but that was part of the diverse spread; not everything is going to stick when thrown at the wall.

Disney could easily fund a small studio dedicated to queer cinema with the remit to make three new films a year, and just cut through all of this bullshit. Call it something like Rainbow Bridge or whatever. Hah, Red Ribbon Productions, there we go. Monkeypox Pictures Presents...

Because the LGBQ+ that took over Disney DON"T want that, they want to put their flag on the company they grew up with and tell every one "THIS IS OURS NOW". The point isn't to make faggot media, its to turn ALL media into faggot media.

Take for example the girl behind Owl House. Netflix offered her a sweet heart deal to produce the show there, but she refused cause she want to queer up a show on the Disney channel as a point of pride/dominance.

That makes a lot of sense. They're quite insane in that case. A 3% micro minority is not going to cater for the 97% massive super-majority no matter how talented they are, and let's face it if the past decade is anything to judge by they are devoid of even mediocrity. At no point in any of these inserted queer productions have I glimpsed any insight into what being gay is like at all, other than they are really resentful towards prom night for whatever reasons, reasons they do not communicate at all.
 
Despite the legacy of its predecessors, the not-quite-prequel didn’t seem to interest what should have been its largest viewership: the adults who grew up with the original Toy Storymovies.

This is stupid. We are not, despite what the media and everyone on KiwiFarms states, literal man-children. Toy Story was a kids movie. It is not a movie I would watch again myself even if I liked it as a kid.
 
What ever happened to Touchstone? When Disney wanted to make an off-brand film they published it under that pseudonym and nobody batted an eyelid.

If they want to make faggot media, nobody is going to complain if it comes out under a different banner. There's probably a niche market of bastardising 80s classic teen movies like Pretty In Pink and other films that circle prom night (which is for some reason an obsession with queer film makers, quite inexplicably so) and queering them up. The tiny 3% gay ultra minority get half a dozen new films a year, and nobody accuses them of grooming children by crowbarring sexuality into Disney animation very obviously aimed at little kids. Disney gets to tick a precious woke box or four, everybody wins.

I don't get that either. Maybe troons want to look like Molly Ringwald?

I think a terrible queered up remake of Pretty In Pink would be hilarious.
 
A friend told me about the movie, and he legit said the lesbian shit was barely there and it was just a boring ass, lame fucking movie that his kids (7 and 3) didn't even like.

If you stop putting LGBTQ shit in everything, cool, but it's not going to save you at this point because you've spent the better part of 12 years making the same shit over and over and over again.
 
Back
Top Bottom