Strange World (WDAS, November 23, 2022)

[Rayjg]

Originally Posted by Hardback247

You take pleasure from a movie's suffering?

‘Tis a strange world we live in.

[MazeRunner]

Originally Posted by VikingHead2000

It’s the biggest failure for Disney and I love it. It’s already lost over a $100 million already.

Bigger flop than John Carter?

[Hardback247]

Originally Posted by Rayjg

‘Tis a strange world we live in.

It really is, and I don't like that.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Hardback247

It really is, and I don't like that.

It’s all good, Hardy. Don’t let some internet bickering get ya down. Most people are reasonable. A few aren’t. We outnumber them.

But, as the Doors once sang….. "People are strange…..".

[RevolverOcelScott]

Originally Posted by Kuja

As has been mentioned before, the LGBT character wasn't marketed, so not sure what you're referring to?

This is where things get murky with what is and isn't marketing or "marketing". I hadn't seen a single ad for this movie, yet I saw countless "First gay" this and "LGBT" that over and over. Not complaining, just saying what I saw. That leads me as an outsider (of the film) to see it as a viral marketing campaign. Because how did all of these articles come out before the movie came out? I'm genuinly curious and not playing dumb. How was I reading these articles before the film even premiered?

To me, it sounds like Disney saying "Hey, we can get a bunch of press if we leak this character's sexuality, that will get the articles flowing." Everyone who is loving on this movie states that it's barely even an aspect in the movie, so how was it so well known? It all screams marketing, because it's such a small aspect of the movie to get written about so much before the actual plot might even be known to most people. To me that appears more offensive, as if Disney is using the character's sexuality as a pawn to drum up chatter.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Kuja

Likewise this film--and its LGBT character--are also going nowhere, which I think is the part that's upsetting to some. If it was simply this one film that those were bothered by, they would be satisfied that it flopped. No, it's a larger "culture war" that this film is only one piece of for them that is bothering some people, that we all know isn't simply going to go away with one film's performance. LGBT characters aren't going to up and vanish from cinema now even though some wish that would be the result.

And, moreover, a new generation of children will still be growing up with Strange World and who knows, it may even develop a cult fanbase over time the way films like Treasure Planet, Robin Hood, The Black Cauldron, etc. did. It's not like when a random studio's animated film flops and falls off the radar of the public, all these films will be on Disney+ for its lifetime, which is slowly becoming the dominant streaming service in the U.S. Reminds me of the way my sister and I grew up with the clamshell-esque VHS cassettes of all the Disney Animated Classics available to watch any time as children.

If Disney keeps making animated content that is objectionable to 30-50% of the country, their films will continue to bomb and will ultimately be relegated to direct-to-video, as Disney is not running a charity. Illumination films will replace Disney as the theatrical family film company like they did in 2022

[eightslicesofpie]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

Then you may need your eyes checked cause it was blatant pandering. It was not hard to miss. It was an unnecessary detail that had nothing to do with the plot or forward it along. And it's not really about him being gay. The same could be said if it was a girl he was crushing on. The problem here in this case is that they made it too obvious and it stuck out horribly. It didn't mess with the movie THAT much, but it is a knock against an otherwise great film.

I haven't seen Strange World, so I have no opinion on it in general, but this is one of the most baby-brained opinions about storytelling/art and it always gets circulated when it comes to this topic.

Not every detail about every single character has to meaningfully progress the plot of a story. Plot is not the be-all end-all. Sometimes details are in there to flesh out a character and that's it! And that's a good thing! Because otherwise every character we ever encounter would be some cardboard cutout that is only there to be a cog in the Plot Machine to get you from Point A to B.

God forbid we simply learn something about the character.

[fighthefutureofhd]

Originally Posted by eightslicesofpie

I haven't seen Strange World, so I have no opinion on it in general, but this is one of the most baby-brained opinions about storytelling/art and it always gets circulated when it comes to this topic.

Not every detail about every single character has to meaningfully progress the plot of a story. Plot is not the be-all end-all. Sometimes details are in there to flesh out a character and that's it! And that's a good thing! Because otherwise every character we ever encounter would be some cardboard cutout that is only there to be a cog in the Plot Machine to get you from Point A to B.

God forbid we simply learn something about the character.

But it doesn't flesh out the character and we don't need to learn about the character. It doesn't do anything for the movie and does not help move the story along. I can understand you point if it were a long running tv series, but it's not. It's a movie and you have to worry about these things in a movie.

[eightslicesofpie]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

But it doesn't flesh out the character and we don't need to learn about the character. It doesn't do anything for the movie and does not help move the story along. I can understand you point if it were a long running tv series, but it's not. It's a movie and you have to worry about these things in a movie.

Learning a detail about a character is, by definition, fleshing out the character. Also "we don't need to learn about the character" is a wild claim lol the whole point of having a character is to learn about them! Again, your whole worldview with a movie seems to be "everyone should be a cog in the machine that is 100% dedicated to the plot and nothing else"

Also my point was "not everything has to move the plot forward" and your counter-argument is just "it's bad because it doesn't move the plot forward"

And as for TV vs. movies...I still like to know anything at all about the characters in the movies I watch beyond "how they're going to find the jewel" or whatever other plot point you can dream up, but that's just me I guess!

[Havenbull]

Originally Posted by eightslicesofpie

plot is not the be-all end-all.

lol

[mwynn]

Plot not being the end all be all is an accurate statement. Which is why one of the first things you learn in a writing class is the difference between plot and story.

https://www.masterclass.com/articles/plot-vs-story

The terms “plot” and “story” are often used interchangeably, and indeed, there is some overlap between these terms. However, there are substantive differences between plot and story; whether you’re a first-time writer or a seasoned veteran, understanding the difference between story and plot can bring clarity to your endeavors.

A plot is the sequence of events within a story: a description of what happens and why it happens. A story is a comprehensive narrative. Plot is a part of the story, but a story also includes settings, characters, themes, and other factors that influence how the events (or plot) are told. While a plot is chronological, a story may unfold nonsequentially, combining the action with sections that focus on character development, philosophy, or building atmosphere and setting.

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by eightslicesofpie

Learning a detail about a character is, by definition, fleshing out the character. Also "we don't need to learn about the character" is a wild claim lol the whole point of having a character is to learn about them! Again, your whole worldview with a movie seems to be "everyone should be a cog in the machine that is 100% dedicated to the plot and nothing else"

Also my point was "not everything has to move the plot forward" and your counter-argument is just "it's bad because it doesn't move the plot forward"

And as for TV vs. movies...I still like to know anything at all about the characters in the movies I watch beyond "how they're going to find the jewel" or whatever other plot point you can dream up, but that's just me I guess!

I think must characters would fall into the empty husk category, without nuance. Deadpool was a pretty plain character until he started breaking the fourth wall.

[-JKR-]

Originally Posted by mwynn

I think must characters would fall into the empty husk category, without nuance. Deadpool was a pretty plain character until he started breaking the fourth wall.

Ah, that's a very superficial (and maybe uninformed) take on Deadpool, as the character had already been imbued with enough nuance and interesting elements by writers Fabian Nicieza, Mark Waid and Joe Kelly, before the latter had him break the fourth wall for the first time.

Of course the fourth wall breaking was a great addition to the character, but to say that he was plain must mean that you've missed or completely ignore some beautiful character building and development the character went through in his first two mini-series and the beginning of his first regular comic book run.

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by -JKR-

Ah, that's a very superficial (and maybe uninformed) take on Deadpool, as the character had already been imbued with enough nuance and interesting elements by writers Fabian Nicieza, Mark Waid and Joe Kelly, before the latter had him break the fourth wall for the first time.

Of course the fourth wall breaking was a great addition to the character, but to say that he was plain must mean that you've missed or completely ignore some beautiful character building and development the character went through in his first two mini-series and the beginning of his first regular comic book run.

I am talking before even Fabian got his hands on him. Back in New Mutant he was a bland Merc with a healing factor, so nothing he did mattered. Breaking the fourth wall gave the character nuance and made him stand out from every other Merc with a healing factor, or who could take untold amounts of damage. There were a lot of them in New Mutants, X-force, Brigade, etc.

[-JKR-]

Originally Posted by mwynn

I am talking before even Fabian got his hands on him. Back in New Mutant he was a bland Merc with a healing factor, so nothing he did mattered. Breaking the fourth wall gave the character nuance and made him stand out from every other Merc with a healing factor, or who could take untold amounts of damage. There were a lot of them in New Mutants, X-force, Brigade, etc.

He didn't break the fourth wall yet under Fabian Nicieza IIRC. That came with Joe Kelly, and it took a while into the run until it happened for the first time.

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by -JKR-

He didn't break the fourth wall yet under Fabian Nicieza.

I know, and I did not find the character interesting until then.

[-JKR-]

Originally Posted by mwynn

I know, and I did not find the character interesting until then.

Uhm, sir... He did not break the fourth wall even back then, when Nicieza wrote the first Deadpool miniseries.

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by -JKR-

Uhm, sir... He did not break the fourth wall even back then, when Nicieza wrote the first Deadpool miniseries.

I did not find the character interesting until he broke the fourth wall. I liked the way it was explained that he was crazy. That is all.

[dancerslegs]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

There is no asking of censorship. I just would like my art to not pander to me or try knowingly manipulate me. It's bad art and I don't like it.

I find this a pretty hilarious statement, considering that Disney movies are some of the most pandering and manipulative Hollywood products in history. Shit, almost everything released by Hollywood is pandering and manipulative af to one degree or other. This ain't Ozu or Antonioni or Tarkovsky.

Just admit that you only have a problem with this specific kind of "pandering" and "manipulation", for reasons that I'm sure won't surprise many of us.

Originally Posted by Ruined

If Disney keeps making animated content that is objectionable to 30-50% of the country, their films will continue to bomb and will ultimately be relegated to direct-to-video, as Disney is not running a charity. Illumination films will replace Disney as the theatrical family film company like they did in 2022

30-50% of the country? Lol. The US is an absurdly puritan nation, but that's overstating the size of any demographic actually boycotting movies like this one by quite a bit. (Even 15% would probably be pushing it.)

Disney will continue on as the juggernaut that it is for some time to come, handful of setbacks or no.

[RevolverOcelScott]

Originally Posted by dancerslegs

I find this a pretty hilarious statement, considering that Disney movies are some of the most pandering and manipulative Hollywood products in history. Shit, almost everything released by Hollywood is pandering and manipulative af to one degree or other. This ain't Ozu or Antonioni or Tarkovsky.

Just admit that you only have a problem with this specific kind of "pandering" and "manipulation", for reasons that I'm sure won't surprise many of us.

There's a difference between having characters that are gay in a movie, and a movie using it as an angle. Brokeback Mountain, Everything Everywhere All at Once and Blue is the Warmest Color. Fantastic, beatiful movies where the stars are front and center gay. They don't feel like pandering because it's naturally occuring and vital to the plot. It feels important and part of the world. When Disney throws a "LGBTQ" moment or character in with no thought or reasoning to it's purpose it FEELS forced. And the proof in this is Disney's nature. Why does it seem all of these moments are never vital to the plot, and EASILY editable....like for China? The fact that it's not woven in and can easily be spliced out and have little to no effect on the plot shows they added them in with no regard to the character, because they have to be able to sell these movies to China. They want the money AND the representation, but not enough to go all in. To me, that is Disney being disingenuous to the LGBTQ community.

Not Dinsey, but a perfect example is a musical I saw recently called "Head Over Heels". The ENTIRE musical is about gender and sexuality acceptance, and it was great, until the last 5 minutes. It went from weaving a great story with those themes present in a logical, fun heartwarming way. Then in the last 5 minutes of the musical, pretty much every character announces they are suddenly gay, transgender, or non-binary, and to me, it destroyed everything they worked for. It made little sense and felt beyond forced and 100% pandering. But here's the thing, that's theater. Almost everyone going to see a play or musical is on board with the community, there was no reason to do this turn to absurdity, but they did.

I am 100% on board with logical, consistent and meaningful representation. But most of what Disney/Marvel are doing feels like pandering.