Strange World (WDAS, November 23, 2022)

[dancerslegs]

Originally Posted by RevolverOcelScott

But most of what Disney/Marvel are doing feels like pandering.

That's because it is pandering. Disney is in the business of pandering, as are all Hollywood studios. Movies from "Tinsletown" cost so much now, everything is done to pander to their target audiences as much as possible to ensure the highest possible payday for their shareholders. It's the reason why you have so many plainly self-descriptive or one-word titles, with as slick a look as possible, characters from stock voiced by celebrities, and stories unencumbered by as few of challenging elements as possible. Being that Disney dedicates itself to going after those "kids of all ages" dollars, they're going to pander as much with simplistic formulas and archetypes and such as they can possibly get away with. If you're going to embrace the Hollywood product, that's just something you have to accept.

The issue is, amongst an absolute ocean of pandering going on in these films, it's only a very small set of them that just happen to align with a certain political leaning's culture war talking points that they zero in on to go hysterical over. These same folks don't scream when it's their values that are being pandered to. And they certainly don't even think about all the other pandering that goes on in these films because--surprise!--a trillion dollar corporation like Disney is, at the end of the day, only deeply invested in separating you from your hard-earned dollars.

If you claim to have a problem with pandering, then for consistency's sake, you must also take issue with the runaway capitalism that is allowing corporate giants like Disney to grow ever bigger and ensure that creative ideas increasingly originate in boardrooms full of money men vs the minds of film artists.

On the other hand, only ever screaming about your pet issues makes your grievances sound politically- or religiously-motivated, and guarantees your thin arguments aren't taken seriously by a lot of posters.

[RevolverOcelScott]

Originally Posted by dancerslegs

That's because it is pandering. Disney is in the business of pandering, as are all Hollywood studios. Movies from "Tinsletown" cost so much now, everything is done to pander to their target audiences as much as possible to ensure the highest possible payday for their shareholders. It's the reason why you have so many plainly self-descriptive or one-word titles, with as slick a look as possible, characters from stock voiced by celebrities, and stories unencumbered by as few of challenging elements as possible. Being that Disney dedicates itself to going after those "kids of all ages" dollars, they're going to pander as much with simplistic formulas and archetypes and such as they can possibly get away with. If you're going to embrace the Hollywood product, that's just something you have to accept.

The issue is, amongst an absolute ocean of pandering going on in these films, it's only a very small set of them that just happen to align with a certain political leaning's culture war talking points that they zero in on to go hysterical over. These same folks don't scream when it's their values that are being pandered to. And they certainly don't even think about all the other pandering that goes on in these films because--surprise!--a trillion dollar corporation like Disney is, at the end of the day, only deeply invested in separating you from your hard-earned dollars.

If you claim to have a problem with pandering, then for consistency's sake, you must also take issue with the runaway capitalism that is allowing corporate giants like Disney to grow ever bigger and ensure that creative ideas increasingly originate in boardrooms full of money men vs the minds of film artists.

On the other hand, only ever screaming about your pet issues makes your grievances sound politically- or religiously-motivated, and guarantees your thin arguments aren't taken seriously by a lot of posters.

That's much less pandering and more making a product for an intended audience. We expect that a kids movie follows tropes that nearly all kids movies do. You don't bring kids to an animated movie like Strange Worlds and are instead shown something like John Wick. They use simple relatable themes, with bright colors, easy to understand visuals and dialogue.

The point I was trying to make is that Disney/Marvel are doing the bare minimum for diversity, making them giant hypocrites when they say they want inclusion, but make it selective inclusion to maximize their dollars in every market they can. It'd be like Kanye West putting out a Hanukkah themed album. IF Disney REALLY wanted to be inclusive, they would. Instead, they slip in quick scenes that they can delete to suit the market they are selling to.

And I really hope those last sections were general "you" and not me specifically, as I made no arguments against inclusion, only for it to be legitimate inclusion and mentioned nothing of religion.

[-JKR-]

Originally Posted by mwynn

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.

Seems like you are somewhat confused about when that happened, and I doubt that you even read the Nicieza and Waid miniseries, and the Joe Kelly issues before he had him break the fourth wall.

Which is okay, but...

[fighthefutureofhd]

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.

The problem with your argument is in how the word panders is being used. By your definition, everything Hollywood does is pandering. And that's not true. Pandering basically means "to please other people by doing or saying what you think they want you to do or say". So, pandering is the not right word. I think you are wanting to say Hollywood movies are not original anymore and that I can agree with. For the most part. I know that I have used pandering a bit more than I probably should. Let me go back to my original example. When The Cure set out to make and record their record Wish, they had no intention of trying to make a record that would intentionally sell by "manipulation" or by "pandering". They made art free of any constraints other than the fact that they just wanted to make good art. It was not about trying to sell a "product". I've got a problem with people "pandering" or shoehorning in something just to please an audience or tick off a box. I don't care what kind it is and it's got nothing to do with a character being gay or not. It's not good storytelling. It's actually lazy and does not service the story. I hope all this makes some sense. I am having a little trouble right now getting my thoughts together and out in a way that makes sense. Forgive me for that.

[avs commenter]

Talk about a strange world

[sandman slim]

Originally Posted by avs commenter

Talk about a strange world

The real strange world was the blu-ray.com members we met along the way.

[Hardback247]

Wasn't there supposed to be a short film called "Magnum Opus" released in front of this movie?

[Lacrimosa]

We're here, we're queer, fine.

Parents don't care for their kids to see it. Audiences in general are turned off by it. Spin it however you want, there's just not an audience for it. Until the studios finally realize this, films like these will suffer.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Lacrimosa

We're here, we're queer, fine.

Parents don't care for their kids to see it. Audiences in general are turned off by it. Spin it however you want, there's just not an audience for it. Until the studios finally realize this, films like these will suffer.

Right. It’s really no different than parents refusing to take their kids to films with heavy religious themes or whatever else that they don’t care to have them watch. There isn’t some sinister force at work here, despite what some claim. People just don’t care to watch certain things, especially with their kids.

Deal with it.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by RevolverOcelScott

That's much less pandering and more making a product for an intended audience. We expect that a kids movie follows tropes that nearly all kids movies do. You don't bring kids to an animated movie like Strange Worlds and are instead shown something like John Wick. They use simple relatable themes, with bright colors, easy to understand visuals and dialogue.

The point I was trying to make is that Disney/Marvel are doing the bare minimum for diversity, making them giant hypocrites when they say they want inclusion, but make it selective inclusion to maximize their dollars in every market they can. It'd be like Kanye West putting out a Hanukkah themed album. IF Disney REALLY wanted to be inclusive, they would. Instead, they slip in quick scenes that they can delete to suit the market they are selling to.

And I really hope those last sections were general "you" and not me specifically, as I made no arguments against inclusion, only for it to be legitimate inclusion and mentioned nothing of religion.

Yep. Kids movies ought to not be so complicated but my goodness the last few from Disney sure have tried their hardest, LOL.

You are correct though that inclusion or throwing a few scenes or characters is just a move to placate a few folks. It’s so Disney can go "see, see? We CARE!". Meanwhile… you know.

It still boils down to: Parents are simply uncomfortable with certain themes and they don’t want their kids to see it. They will discuss those things with them when they deem it appropriate. Yes, this drives the agenda crusaders crazy but guess what? Parents and families decide all of this. Not you. Sorry.

[fighthefutureofhd]

That is so true, s2mikey. Could haven't said it better. I'd like to add that parents aren't really getting that say anymore it seems. And THAT is what is bugging people more than anything. 5 year old don't need to know about periods and puberty. No matter how good the story may be and no matter how well-intentioned one's intentions are.

Originally Posted by Hardback247

Wasn't there supposed to be a short film called "Magnum Opus" released in front of this movie?

I think the "Magnum Opus" is the movie itself. Or is supposed to be.

[murphywmm]

I’m not sure why the same posters keep coming in here to repeatedly rehash their takes on a movie they’ve never seen and apparently have no desire to see. This is really starting to remind me of the “Bros” thread. We get it already.

[dancerslegs]

Originally Posted by RevolverOcelScott

That's much less pandering and more making a product for an intended audience. We expect that a kids movie follows tropes that nearly all kids movies do. You don't bring kids to an animated movie like Strange Worlds and are instead shown something like John Wick. They use simple relatable themes, with bright colors, easy to understand visuals and dialogue.

Nah, it's pandering. The money men want maximum return on their investment, so they dumb as many elements down to lowest common denominator level as they can. Sometimes you have film artists within the system with enough clout and passion to push back at this; but at best, you're seeing a vision heavily compromised by box office considerations. And no studio suits ever compromise on the side of challenging the mass audience vs pandering to their typical low standards for movie entertainment.

The point I was trying to make is that Disney/Marvel are doing the bare minimum for diversity, making them giant hypocrites when they say they want inclusion, but make it selective inclusion to maximize their dollars in every market they can.

So what? Aggrieved folks like you who pretend to care so much about the industry scream endlessly about inclusiveness pandering, but not all the other sorts of pandering that goes into the mass market Hollywood movie product. Why does this one type of pandering bother you so much, to the point of decrying the imminent death of wOkE hOlLyWoOd, while expending relatively little, if any, oxygen bemoaning the insidious influence of art-hostile billionaire capitalists throttling nearly all the challenging, risk-taking creativity out of the industry? That's every bit as hypocritical.

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

I've got a problem with people "pandering" or shoehorning in something just to please an audience or tick off a box. I don't care what kind it is and it's got nothing to do with a character being gay or not. It's not good storytelling. It's actually lazy and does not service the story.

Then you should be as bothered by all the lazy, cynical tropes these ultra-homogenized entertainments reel out to pander to as many demographics and tastes at once as they possibly can. You should be as bothered by the fact that these boardroom bean-counters think you're an idiot whom can't handle something challenging to your sensibilities, instead of invariably pandering to them. (Of course, if you go as haywire over the brand of ultra-sanitized, pandering inclusiveness studios like Disney indulge in, I can only wonder how right on the money their cynicism is about your unwillingness to engage with legit challenging content?)

Ever heard of the term "fan service"? What is that if not pandering? And what does that describe better than modern Hollywood's endless machine-made nostalgia-bait fare?

Originally Posted by s2mikey

It still boils down to: Parents are simply uncomfortable with certain themes and they don’t want their kids to see it. They will discuss those things with them when they deem it appropriate.

Exactly. The issue isn't tHiNk Of ThE cHiLdReN as the Helen Lovejoys of the moviegoing public like to pretend. It's the Helen Lovejoys themselves--the parents--who can't handle stuff like gay characters. Kids these days are much smarter, more "hep", and more sensible than you think, no matter how you'd like to pretend to the contrary. They're just fine becoming aware of the existence of homosexuality and gay people from an early age--and they all do, I assure you--it's the parents who aren't. Which is simply more hypocrisy.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

That is so true, s2mikey. Could haven't said it better. I'd like to add that parents aren't really getting that say anymore it seems. And THAT is what is bugging people more than anything. 5 year old don't need to know about periods and puberty. No matter how good the story may be and no matter how well-intentioned one's intentions are.

I think the "Magnum Opus" is the movie itself. Or is supposed to be.

Nope - there are those that apparently know better about what your kids should be shown. Not the Parents. Uh huh. How stupid is that concept?

Originally Posted by murphywmm

I’m not sure why the same posters keep coming in here to repeatedly rehash their takes on a movie they’ve never seen and apparently have no desire to see. This is really starting to remind me of the “Bros” thread. We get it already.

Look, this stuff has to come up because it is a very real problem with film & entertainment right now. If you read through the posts, the vast majority are respectful & reasonable, even if we disagree on many points. Thats like "working as designed". Dunno what the problem is. Unless one makes it a problem.

Originally Posted by dancerslegs

Exactly. The issue isn't tHiNk Of ThE cHiLdReN as the Helen Lovejoys of the moviegoing public like to pretend. It's the Helen Lovejoys themselves--the parents--who can't handle stuff like gay characters. Kids these days are much smarter, more "hep", and more sensible than you think, no matter how you'd like to pretend to the contrary. They're just fine becoming aware of the existence of homosexuality and gay people from an early age--and they all do, I assure you--it's the parents who aren't. Which is simply more hypocrisy.

So, young kids are smarter and more aware of "stuff" than their adult parents who just *might* have a little more knowledge and information about various life topics? Is that what we're going with? Holy goodness.

Interesting take, to say the least.

[joshsquash729]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

So, young kids are smarter and more aware of "stuff" than their adult parents who just *might* have a little more knowledge and information about various life topics? Is that what we're going with? Holy goodness.

Interesting take, to say the least.

Just wanted to jump in to say that, at least in this case, I do think kids are more educated, or at least more aware, of things. I hear from my niece all the time that at her school (a public school in Kansas, of all places), they make a big deal about respecting pronouns, acknowledging LGBTQ students and allowing them to wear what they want, use the bathroom they identify with, participate in LGBTQ clubs, etc. It's much more a way of life for a lot of kids than it was for their parents, so there really is a divide. It wasn't necessarily taught to or integrated into the daily lives of a lot of the parents who'd be taking their kids to this movie, so of course they're gonna be the ones who are offended or caught off guard or overprotective.

Now, I totally understand that my niece's school isn't at all the norm these days- you'll find every inch of the spectrum of tolerance out there. That said, media in general- be it movies, TV shows, books, social media, etc., is far more diverse and varied than it was when the parents of today were growing up, and the audience that is arguably the biggest users of said media- kids and teenagers- are taking it in and normalizing it. I think if parents were to really talk to their kids, without judgment or fear of punishment, and ask their thoughts on things, they'd see that their opinions differ quite greatly, and their knowledge of these issues is far greater than the parents might think. I know we treat teens these days like they're not smart because of social media (and don't get me wrong- there's some kids out there that are dumb as rocks, no doubt), but I do think that, even if they're not smarter, per se, kids these days are at least aware of a much more broad range of social matters than many generations before them.

Anywho, that's just my two cents. Just wanted to comment and share that perspective. Not looking to argue- don't have the energy for it. Ya'll are allowed your opinions as well, I respect that.

[50strat54]

Originally Posted by joshsquash729

Just wanted to jump in to say that, at least in this case, I do think kids are more educated, or at least more aware, of things. I hear from my niece all the time that at her school (a public school in Kansas, of all places), they make a big deal about respecting pronouns, acknowledging LGBTQ students and allowing them to wear what they want, use the bathroom they identify with, participate in LGBTQ clubs, etc. It's much more a way of life for a lot of kids than it was for their parents, so there really is a divide. It wasn't necessarily taught to or integrated into the daily lives of a lot of the parents who'd be taking their kids to this movie, so of course they're gonna be the ones who are offended or caught off guard or overprotective.

Now, I totally understand that my niece's school isn't at all the norm these days- you'll find every inch of the spectrum of tolerance out there. That said, media in general- be it movies, TV shows, books, social media, etc., is far more diverse and varied than it was when the parents of today were growing up, and the audience that is arguably the biggest users of said media- kids and teenagers- are taking it in and normalizing it. I think if parents were to really talk to their kids, without judgment or fear of punishment, and ask their thoughts on things, they'd see that their opinions differ quite greatly, and their knowledge of these issues is far greater than the parents might think. I know we treat teens these days like they're not smart because of social media (and don't get me wrong- there's some kids out there that are dumb as rocks, no doubt), but I do think that, even if they're not smarter, per se, kids these days are at least aware of a much more broad range of social matters than many generations before them.

Anywho, that's just my two cents. Just wanted to comment and share that perspective. Not looking to argue- don't have the energy for it. Ya'll are allowed your opinions as well, I respect that.

I don't have kids so this is an interesting take.

I think you might be right, kids are much more aware but I think there is still bullying and mean girls going on, they're still kids after all. In subtle ways adults still do the same thing.

I have not seen the movie but probably will next week, I'm gonna try and see that cannibal movie today. But regardless of a movie's agenda if it's a bad movie people will not see it.

Mississippi Burning had an agenda and a message and yet it is a F'n incredible film. I have watched on YouTube more times than I can count Gene Hackman's encounter with Michael Rooker in the private KKK bar..."Is that gun just for show deputy?" Gene Hackman is one mean MF'er

Same with In The Heat Of The Night.

If a movie is well made it will do box office regardless of it's message or agenda. Bad movies, like Bros will not.

[RevolverOcelScott]

Originally Posted by dancerslegs

Why does this one type of pandering bother you so much, to the point of decrying the imminent death of wOkE hOlLyWoOd, while expending relatively little, if any, oxygen bemoaning the insidious influence of art-hostile billionaire capitalists throttling nearly all the challenging, risk-taking creativity out of the industry? That's every bit as hypocritical.

So your takaway from my post about how Disney needs to be better about inclusion and diversity and not shoehorn it in, is to make veiled attempts to label me a bigot

Originally Posted by dancerslegs

Why does this one type of pandering bother you so much

and mislabel me as someone crying "woke hollywood". When I never used or inferred the word once, or implied the death of hollywood.

Originally Posted by dancerslegs

to the point of decrying the imminent death of wOkE hOlLyWoOd

Bravo.

I'm done, enjoy villifying the very people championing actual diversity and inclusion in films. That'll really help your cause!

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by joshsquash729

Just wanted to jump in to say that, at least in this case, I do think kids are more educated, or at least more aware, of things. I hear from my niece all the time that at her school (a public school in Kansas, of all places), they make a big deal about respecting pronouns, acknowledging LGBTQ students and allowing them to wear what they want, use the bathroom they identify with, participate in LGBTQ clubs, etc. It's much more a way of life for a lot of kids than it was for their parents, so there really is a divide. It wasn't necessarily taught to or integrated into the daily lives of a lot of the parents who'd be taking their kids to this movie, so of course they're gonna be the ones who are offended or caught off guard or overprotective.

Now, I totally understand that my niece's school isn't at all the norm these days- you'll find every inch of the spectrum of tolerance out there. That said, media in general- be it movies, TV shows, books, social media, etc., is far more diverse and varied than it was when the parents of today were growing up, and the audience that is arguably the biggest users of said media- kids and teenagers- are taking it in and normalizing it. I think if parents were to really talk to their kids, without judgment or fear of punishment, and ask their thoughts on things, they'd see that their opinions differ quite greatly, and their knowledge of these issues is far greater than the parents might think. I know we treat teens these days like they're not smart because of social media (and don't get me wrong- there's some kids out there that are dumb as rocks, no doubt), but I do think that, even if they're not smarter, per se, kids these days are at least aware of a much more broad range of social matters than many generations before them.

Anywho, that's just my two cents. Just wanted to comment and share that perspective. Not looking to argue- don't have the energy for it. Ya'll are allowed your opinions as well, I respect that.

Excellent post. This is how you do it.

Now, I disagree with some of it though. Accepting people & feeling as if you have to drastically bend your own belief systems to accommodate what is a small minority are very different things, IMO. Every person is protected by the laws in this country & bill of rights as they should be. Hate never ends up good and is a terrible lesson for any parents to teach.

But, I struggle with this "identity" stuff that appears to really push the envelope a little too far. Just my opinion. Again, thanks for a well-thought out reply.

[fighthefutureofhd]

Originally Posted by joshsquash729

[Show spoiler]Just wanted to jump in to say that, at least in this case, I do think kids are more educated, or at least more aware, of things. I hear from my niece all the time that at her school (a public school in Kansas, of all places), they make a big deal about respecting pronouns, acknowledging LGBTQ students and allowing them to wear what they want, use the bathroom they identify with, participate in LGBTQ clubs, etc. It's much more a way of life for a lot of kids than it was for their parents, so there really is a divide. It wasn't necessarily taught to or integrated into the daily lives of a lot of the parents who'd be taking their kids to this movie, so of course they're gonna be the ones who are offended or caught off guard or overprotective.

Now, I totally understand that my niece's school isn't at all the norm these days- you'll find every inch of the spectrum of tolerance out there. That said, media in general- be it movies, TV shows, books, social media, etc., is far more diverse and varied than it was when the parents of today were growing up, and the audience that is arguably the biggest users of said media- kids and teenagers- are taking it in and normalizing it. I think if parents were to really talk to their kids, without judgment or fear of punishment, and ask their thoughts on things, they'd see that their opinions differ quite greatly, and their knowledge of these issues is far greater than the parents might think. I know we treat teens these days like they're not smart because of social media (and don't get me wrong- there's some kids out there that are dumb as rocks, no doubt), but I do think that, even if they're not smarter, per se, kids these days are at least aware of a much more broad range of social matters than many generations before them.

Anywho, that's just my two cents. Just wanted to comment and share that perspective. Not looking to argue- don't have the energy for it. Ya'll are allowed your opinions as well, I respect that.

I take umbrage with this particular part of your post, as it is simply wrong. The media today (movies, music, books, tv, etc.) is not more diverse and varied than when these parents today were growing up. Going back at least 30 years, you could see how much more varied and diverse the art was. Take a look at music, for example. On the radio and the hot 100, you would find artists such as Mariah Carey, Nirvana, Madonna, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Boyz II Men, The cure, Garth Brooks, Right Said Fred, Paula Abdul, R.E.M., The B-52's, U2, Elton John, Metallica, Guns N' Roses, and many others. That's just a small sampling, but you can see how diverse and varied the music is. Check the radio and hot 100 today. You will not find such diversity and variedness at all. Media has become so dumbed down and homogenized, it isn't funny. What constitutes varied or diverse these days is sad.

And kids aren't aware of a more broad range of social issues than their parents were. Not in the least. That's because there isn't a movement in the media that tackles social issues in an in-depth way like our parents had. 30 years ago, college radio and its "alternative" scene often dealt with a lot of social issues in a very nuanced way with a deft hand. And much of that music made its way to top 40 radio and the hot 100. I would argue that kids today don't have a better understanding or knowledge of social issues. And a big reason for that is because social media dumbs everything down.

Originally Posted by dancerslegs

Then you should be as bothered by all the lazy, cynical tropes these ultra-homogenized entertainments reel out to pander to as many demographics and tastes at once as they possibly can. You should be as bothered by the fact that these boardroom bean-counters think you're an idiot whom can't handle something challenging to your sensibilities, instead of invariably pandering to them. (Of course, if you go as haywire over the brand of ultra-sanitized, pandering inclusiveness studios like Disney indulge in, I can only wonder how right on the money their cynicism is about your unwillingness to engage with legit challenging content?)

Ever heard of the term "fan service"? What is that if not pandering? And what does that describe better than modern Hollywood's endless machine-made nostalgia-bait fare?

I am. I hate all aspects of the lazy cynical tropes. I can't stand fan service either really. None of what you bring up makes for good art and I don't like it. I never have. It's nothing new for me. In this case, the fact that they make it so blatantly obvious how they are shoehorning in something that really doesn't need to be there is disgusting. And the fact that you could excise it from the movie and it doesn't hurt anything about the movie makes it even worse. Hollywood just needs to stop with this crap.

[Kuja]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Right. It’s really no different than parents refusing to take their kids to films with heavy religious themes or whatever else that they don’t care to have them watch. There isn’t some sinister force at work here, despite what some claim. People just don’t care to watch certain things, especially with their kids.

Deal with it.

You'd have to prove causal connection for that take to have any validity. Most people who aren't caught up in the homophobia hate spiral can see that sci-fi films have always been unsuccessful for WDAS. Strange World isn't the first. To a person who isn't purposely looking at the situation with tinted glasses, it's much more apparent that's the reason than a gay character that wasn't marketed.

Originally Posted by murphywmm

I’m not sure why the same posters keep coming in here to repeatedly rehash their takes on a movie they’ve never seen and apparently have no desire to see. This is really starting to remind me of the “Bros” thread. We get it already.

And those who don't watch Disney movies anyway, I'm willing to bet good money. If they were, they'd have heard of all Disney's sci-fi flops like Treasure Planet, TRON, Mars Needs Moms, John Carter, Tomorrowland, etc. before. Disney and WDAS films aren't the reason they're here, it's about gay people and spewing hatred at that community vicariously via a movie. They're wasting their time though, LGBT characters in film won't be disappearing because of one film's performance.