75 employees laid off at Pixar, including the director of Lightyear

[Smugpugmug]

Correct, but it is 100% is their fault that they did not know who their customers were that had made them successful. Disney has been made a massive cultural juggernaut on epic proportions on primarily Middle America's families. Middle America is primarily made up of moderates pretty much in the center of the political spectrum.

Engaging in the culture war on either side is a lose-lose proposition for Disney, period. Disney would be equally stupid to put a bunch of right wing crap in their movies also. If Disney made a movie about a devout family with tons of biblical imagery in it, that would enrage the left correct?

Tbh I wouldn't care if it was done well and was an engaging story. One of my favorite animated films of all time is Prince of Egypt and I'm not religious in any way. Not a Disney movie obviously but is a biblical story.

 

[Disney Bobby]

This is such a weird example because the “ad” was a social media post by Mulvaney. Literally the only people that saw it were people that followed them. If you find that partnership offensive… you had to go out of your way to find the post. People really need hobbies beyond finding things to get upset about.

I also don’t see how that was a political statement but the above posts did a good job of responding to that.

Ridiculous. Nobody had to go out of their way to find that story. Social media posts aren't just seen by the people that follow them. Many are shared with people that don't follow them, and some go viral with discussion going far beyond social media. I've never been to any of these social media, and I've seen stories about it everywhere. Even here. And that was the purpose of the person that created the campaign.

As for it being political, BL decided to declare her a woman. He is not a woman. He is a man acting like a woman, and poorly. People look at this as a campaign to change the definition of a woman, something that is everywhere in politics. Gender identity was the subject of one of the first executive orders signed by our current President the day he took office. Politics is in everything now, which is part of our problem as a country.

 

[mdmost]

Of course you and everybody else gets it with Ariel. You just don't want to admit it because you don't agree with it. I'll say it, since nobody wants to, and you can virtue signal your horror and disagreement, and we can move on.

In the original, Ariel was a pasty white girl with flowing red hair. People connected with her, and part of that is the image. How she looks. Nostalgia. So while her race is a part of that, expecting her to look like that in the new movie isn't inherently racist. Even non-whites overseas expected to see someone that looked like the character they fell in love with 30 years ago. If the original Ariel had been dark skinned and they made the new girl look like the original Ariel, the response would have been the same.

And if you still don't get, imagine a live action Princess and the Frog with a white girl playing Tiana. The world would be on fire. And it would fail miserably, as it should. A big part of nostalgia is authenticity and being true to the original. Image is a big part of that. You can disagree, but that's just reality.

People didn't seem to have an issue when Brandy played Cinderella in 1997. That's a much bigger nostalgia piece for Disney than Ariel. Yet now it's a problem.

 

[starlite_]

Again, you're the one who threw out TLM as a bad or misguided thing that Disney was doing, not the rest of us.

How... how is TLM not a "traditional family"? These ppl are bizarre.

 

[starlite_]

Tbh I wouldn't care if it was done well and was an engaging story. One of my favorite animated films of all time is Prince of Egypt and I'm not religious in any way. Not a Disney movie obviously but is a biblical story.

Prince of Egypt is epic. Honestly one of the best animated films out there. Musical based on it is not bad either.

 

[Karin1984]

People didn't seem to have an issue when Brandy played Cinderella in 1997. That's a much bigger nostalgia piece for Disney than Ariel. Yet now it's a problem.

I wrote below in a different thread on this topic.

I think there are some things different with Brandi as Cinderella.

1. This day and age, colourblind casting is a much hotter topic today. Especially after everything that happened around this topic in the last few years.

2. They were definitely helped by not explaining anything and that they did it much more obvious. Black queen, white king, Asian prince.

Coming up with a story about Eric being adopted was unneccesary. Especially because they didn't use it to its full potential.

3. It was also helped by having big names in the cast who were also people of colour. Whoopi and Whitney being extremely popular at the time.

Halle had to do it on her own. The supporting cast of colour was not used in the promotion. Still a bit angry at Disney about it, they could have made it easier on her.

4. Cinderella has been told so many times in many different ways. There is less attachment to Disney's story because there are other versions, like Rodgers & Hammerstein, Ever After etc.

5. I think Disney underestimated how attached people were to Ariel. And I think that goes beyond skin colour. To me, I was 5 when the original movie came out, it was much more about how she moved and her hair. Under water scenes work much better in animation. It was like she was flying.

I think people who say Halle is not believable as Ariel have an issue with how she moves. She cannot move as freely in a live action movie. By making it real, you burst the bubble of suspension of disbelief. And I can imagine people might not realize that is what is off for them and get stuck in "it just doesn't look like her".

 

[Scalemaster34]

Been that way on the opposite side for a LONG time. I mean, if you can find a message of hate in Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah, you got no room to criticize others as overly sensitive. What you are seeing now is just the push back.

Funny that back at it's release The Princess and the Frog" got some of the same criticism for historical negationism.... that Song of the South was accused of. I guess Uncle Remus was just not trying hard enough to improve his lot in life?

 

[Jwaire]

You are putting Turning Red and Soul in the “flop” category?

Soul made $120 million and cost $150.
Turning Red made $20 million and cost $175.

That number includes digital paid downloads for Turning Red. I guess you could argue they drove subscribers to Disney+, but we now know they didn’t really happen. They also weren’t big merchandise films either.

That’s a flop to me.

 

[Karin1984]

Prince of Egypt is epic. Honestly one of the best animated films out there. Musical based on it is not bad either.

Prince of Egypt as a musical has a lot of potential. I saw it in previews in London and it was good, but there was also work to be done. The opening number is one of the best openings I ever saw

I sent an email with my thoughts to Stephen Schwartz and to my big surprise he responded!

 

[Smugpugmug]

Soul made $120 million and cost $150.
Turning Red made $20 million and cost $175.

That number includes digital paid downloads for Turning Red. I guess you could argue they drove subscribers to Disney+, but we now know they didn’t really happen. They also weren’t big merchandise films either.

That’s a flop to me.

I was at World of Disney last week and there was a ton of Turning Red merch in the Pixar section. Now whether people are buying that merch is another question. I will agree with you about Soul in that regard though.

 

[BrianL]

Soul made $120 million and cost $150.
Turning Red made $20 million and cost $175.

That number includes digital paid downloads for Turning Red. I guess you could argue they drove subscribers to Disney+, but we now know they didn’t really happen. They also weren’t big merchandise films either.

That’s a flop to me.

You can't really know those numbers though. Unlike box-office returns they are not concrete nor tracked. Disney doesn't have to release streaming performance at all. There are also things like merchandise sales and advertising revenue for when tehy run those movies on The Disney Channel or other networks (I am not sure that they have with those movies yet). Box-office is the standard metric because it is trackable. Honestly, I would bet that Turning Red did okay based on how they still use it and have some merch. Luca on the other hand is practically invisible.

 

[PolymerSkywalker]

I do think race swapping a beloved white Disney princess for a minority was a stupid move, it created controversy where it didn't need to be imho. I also think casting a white girl of Norwegian heritage as the lead in a live action Moana would be a stupid move that would create controversy where it didn't need to be imho.

I also think the "me too" alterations to the song "kiss the girl" was a stupid change.

I also think changing the narrative to where Ariel saves the day and is the one who steers the ship into the big bad is a stupid change.

I also think the CGI of Flounder and Sebastian looked really really bad. I also think the underwater stuff looked off for some reason, and did not match the feel of the original.

I think the movie was a beloved classic, that was near perfect as it was. I didn't think it needed "fixing" at all imho.

How about let's remake black panther with a white actor, sounds ludicrous correct? The character was from African heritage in all the source materials and all the comic representation of him was a always a strong black male. The character would look utterly stupid with a white dude playing that role!

How about a remake of Blade the vampire super hero with a pasty white dude in the lead role. Sounds really stupid right?

 

[nancipants]

Phrases I would like to never hear again: woke, culture war, alternative lifestyle, traditional family.

 

[PolymerSkywalker]

You can't really know those numbers though. Unlike box-office returns they are not concrete nor tracked. Disney doesn't have to release streaming performance at all. There are also things like merchandise sales and advertising revenue for when tehy run those movies on The Disney Channel or other networks (I am not sure that they have with those movies yet). Box-office is the standard metric because it is trackable. Honestly, I would bet that Turning Red did okay based on how they still use it and have some merch. Luca on the other hand is practically invisible.

But we do know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Pixar has not had a movie that 100% for sure made money since Toy Story 4. It's really hard to argue that something "did okay" when it was primarily dumped on streaming service that loses money. If either of the streaming movies hit really big, you and I both know that Disney would be shouting that from the rooftops. No one is creating some narrative that Pixar has had a really rough patch here, it is verifiable fact at this point.

 

[irlandaise]

Yes, I do love it when people or "bppl" tell you exactly who they are. Like when you are offended by me wanting Disney to return to being apolitical. I have nothing against the LGTB+ community, I have dear friends that are alternative lifestyle. We go out to dinner, have parties at each other's homes. We all ride mountain bikes together.

But why is it that if there is a straight couple in a movie that is not political, but a same sex couple is? This stuff isn't even usually a major part of the plot, it's simply reflecting that people like that exist.

Indeed, hypocrisy at its finest.

And the reference to LGBTQ+ people having an "alternate lifestyle" is horribly disrespectful and dismissive. Do the straight people who use that phrase consider their own marriages to be some faddish "lifestyle"? Someone's "lifestyle" is whether they choose to vacation in a national park or at a five-star resort. Their innate identity—sexual preference, gender identity, etc.—is not a "lifestyle." It's who they are.

 

[bryaalre]

Soul made $120 million and cost $150.
Turning Red made $20 million and cost $175.

That number includes digital paid downloads for Turning Red. I guess you could argue they drove subscribers to Disney+, but we now know they didn’t really happen. They also weren’t big merchandise films either.

That’s a flop to me.

Neither of these movies should be considered box office flops as they never released in the U.S. It's one thing when a movie doesn't get released in China or the Middle East due to censorship and stuff but most American movies number market is the U.S. Not only would both movies more likely than not make over $100M if released in the U.S., both movies were also limited in it's international release and didn't release in countries like U.K, France, Germany or Japan.

Soul making the amount it did is actually very impressive and would look to have been profitable thanks to its reasonable budget.

 

[jade1]

Halle had to do it on her own. The supporting cast of colour was not used in the promotion. Still a bit angry at Disney about it, they could have made it easier on her.

I still haven't seen the movie but will (to much good streaming to get through).

But that was my first reaction as well.

Why have the out of the sun character a darker skin tone, and not have Eric (in the sun) be the darker tone.

But then found out the location was set in a similar environment to her existence. Which I never really quite got in the trailer.

At least I assume that was the take on it, without seeing it yet.

 

[BrianL]

But we do know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Pixar has not had a movie that 100% for sure made money since Toy Story 4. It's really hard to argue that something "did okay" when it was primarily dumped on streaming service that loses money. If either of the streaming movies hit really big, you and I both know that Disney would be shouting that from the rooftops. No one is creating some narrative that Pixar has had a really rough patch here, it is verifiable fact at this point.

We don't know. That's the point. You don't know they did poorly. I don't know they did good. Holding them up as examples of failures is disingenuous. That they were dumped on D+ has nothing to do with the stories and nothing to do with Pixar. I agree it was a mistake that hurt the films and the studio, but it's just not the same as a box-office miss.

 

[starlite_]

I still haven't seen the movie but will (to much good streaming to get through).

But that was my first reaction as well.

Why have the out of the sun character a darker skin tone, and not have Eric (in the sun) be the darker tone.

But then found out the location was set in a similar environment to her existence. Which I never really quite got in the trailer.

At least I assume that was the take on it, without seeing it yet.

All the sisters reflect the ocean they protect.

Spoiler: spoiler kinda

Eric is mentioned to have been adopted. He shipwrecked in that Caribbean island.

 

[PolymerSkywalker]

We don't know. That's the point. You don't know they did poorly. I don't know they did good. Holding them up as examples of failures is disingenuous. That they were dumped on D+ has nothing to do with the stories and nothing to do with Pixar. I agree it was a mistake that hurt the films and the studio, but it's just not the same as a box-office miss.

Answer this question for me then. If these movies did incredibly well on Disney+, would there be no information out there stating that? That's insane, and you and I both know that if Disney had a massive streaming hit on their hands that they would have been publishing that data in every single entertainment rag that would be willing to publish it.

The silence tells you the truth here. If you had full theatrical releases on these there might have been a chance that they did better, but we don't know that. What we do know is that they were dumped on a streaming platform that loses money, and barely a word was uttered about them during that time.