Lightyear | 6/17/22 | Disney/Pixar | PUPPY INTERVIEW FRIDAY SO NO REASON TO SEE MOVIE NOW. FLOP INCOMING

[YM!]

1 minute ago, AniNate said:

They do this all the time, it's really just background noise at this point.

Besides iirc a plot point of Love and Thunder is about Valkyrie’s love life and if the rumors about her GF are true, it’ll be more than just small things.

[filmlover]

Nobody actually cares what Ted "I think about Mickey and Pluto getting it on" Cruz has to say about Disney movies.

[Cap]

Monday Morning Quaterbacking, hindsight makes it obvious that numerous reasons lead to this perfect storm:

• Top Gun over-performing
• Pixar underselling the film in its marketing.  I have no idea how they messed that up so badly. It's not hard. They clearly set up the premise in a title card at the beginning of the film.
• Conservative Media using it as an excuse to create "don't look at our real problems behind the curtain" culture wars.
• Reviews being golf-clap positive.

It is, what it is. As I said on Friday, they're gonna sell so much Sox merch Disney probably isn't really sweating it.  And if they were going to send it to Disney+ anyway, then this is just an extra 50-75M they managed to squeeze out of it.  

 

I'm sure it will do fine on Disney+.  I joked with my friend it's the perfect streaming movie.  I don't have to watch it.  I can just have it on a loop in the background since I'm really only listening to Chris Evans voice.

 

Buuuuuuuut none of this matters cause we got a full Evans Press Tour out of it where he looked STUPID hot and played with puppies.  So I won.  I don't know about the rest of you all, but I definitely won.

[Eric Loves Rey]

1 hour ago, El Squibbonator said:

And I'm really, legitimately, afraid Disney is going to listen to those people and dial back any LGBTQ inclusion in their future movies. 

No offense, but they can keep their "inclusion" for all I care. All of Disney's gay characters are "likable, but still never say the 'G word' to avoid censorship" at best to "I didn't even know they were in the movie" at worst, all for capitalist greed purposes.

 

Spoiler

This and Doctor Strange 2 basically do the same "Bury Your Gays" trope with dead lesbian moms. That's like nothing to me.

 

This is true for all the studios of course, don't worry. It's crazy that Hollywood's mainstream studio movies do a worse job at making interesting and compelling LGBTQ+ characters and stories than what they put out in the 1990s. At this point, why even try?

[WittyUsername]

4 minutes ago, Eric Lightyear said:

No offense, but they can keep their "inclusion" for all I care. All of Disney's gay characters are "likable, but still never say the 'G word' to avoid censorship" at best to "I didn't even know they were in the movie" at worst, all for capitalist greed purposes.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

This and Doctor Strange 2 basically do the same "Bury Your Gays" trope with dead lesbian moms. That's like nothing to me.

 

This is true for all the studios of course, don't worry. It's crazy that Hollywood's mainstream studio movies do a worse job at making interesting and compelling LGBTQ+ characters and stories than what they put out in the 1990s. At this point, why even try?

From the sounds of it, Strange World is apparently supposed to have more blatant LGBT representation, and it’s going to involve a male character, which is arguably even riskier. Of course, who knows if Disney will stick to their guns with that. 

[TomCruiseTop]

Do we think CE is going to join the 'Can't carry a movie outside of the MCU' group of actors or is this a blip? 

 

13 minutes ago, Eric Lightyear said:

No offense, but they can keep their "inclusion" for all I care. All of Disney's gay characters are "likable, but still never say the 'G word' to avoid censorship" at best to "I didn't even know they were in the movie" at worst, all for capitalist greed purposes.

 

Preach sister. Tokenism has to end. They go hard or they go home. 

[Menor the Destroyer]

18 minutes ago, TomCruiseTop said:

Preach sister. Tokenism has to end. They go hard or they go home. 

The argument here seems to be that there should not be any minor LGBTQ characters, only major ones? Seems like having both would be a preferable option.

 

I don't see how it applies to this movie, anyway, considering that Commander Hawthorne has a pretty major role in the story. Definitely don't see how it's comparable to Strange 2. 

[TomCruiseTop]

1 minute ago, Menor Reborn said:

The argument here seems to be that there should not be any minor LGBTQ characters, only major ones? Seems like having both would be a preferable option.

 

They make them gay with token gestures or scenes. They don't make them gay AS characters. It's pandering. They see it as a demographic to be tapped and that's what needs to change. The answer isn't as black and white as do/don't, but the cynical methods they're currently using are not helping at all. 

[Menor the Destroyer]

2 minutes ago, TomCruiseTop said:

They make them gay with token gestures or scenes. They don't make them gay AS characters. It's pandering. They see it as a demographic to be tapped and that's what needs to change. The answer isn't as black and white as do/don't, but the cynical methods they're currently using are not helping at all. 

What you're saying is true for many movies, but I still don't really think it applies in this case. I did not see Hawthorne's gay romance being underplayed at all compared to if the character had been straight. 

[TomCruiseTop]

Just now, Menor Reborn said:

What you're saying is true for many movies, but I still don't really think it applies in this case. I did not see Hawthorne's gay romance being underplayed at all compared to if the character had been straight. 

Fair enough, I can't judge at all, since that character isn't repping me. However, as a gay man I felt if her character HAD been a gay man I wouldn't have really seen that as 'representation'. Sure it's better than a lot of the tokenism we do see, but it's still heavily in the tokenism zone in my view - esp. when you watch the film and you can almost see that it's constructed in such a way that they could cut it out if they wished to. 

[Menor the Destroyer]

11 minutes ago, TomCruiseTop said:

Fair enough, I can't judge at all, since that character isn't repping me. However, as a gay man I felt if her character HAD been a gay man I wouldn't have really seen that as 'representation'. Sure it's better than a lot of the tokenism we do see, but it's still heavily in the tokenism zone in my view - esp. when you watch the film and you can almost see that it's constructed in such a way that they could cut it out if they wished to. 

Being straight I can't speak to the representation aspect at all. I'm just not sure from a storytelling perspective what could have been done differently. Ultimately the movie doesn't have much focus on romance in general, so any romantic subplot would inevitably be in the background.

[AniNate]

Rather than keep drowning in our anxieties, maybe one can just hope Disney and Pixar actually do only take the right lessons from this performance until there is concrete evidence otherwise, such as not greenlighting more weak franchise origin stories

Edited June 21, 2022 by AniNate

[cannastop]

 

[Cappoedameron]

 

[Cappoedameron]

21 hours ago, TomCruiseTop said:

They make them gay with token gestures or scenes. They don't make them gay AS characters. It's pandering. They see it as a demographic to be tapped and that's what needs to change. The answer isn't as black and white as do/don't, but the cynical methods they're currently using are not helping at all. 

 

Let's take a look at before this how great the Disney LGBT representation was in their big films.

 

Beauty and the Beast - ( Lefou)Comic relief, 5 second implication at the end of the movie

Avengers Endgame - One of the Russo brothers, cameo 5 second scene.

Jungle Cruise - Comic relief, stereotypical gay character, no romance.

Rise of Skywalker - 5 second kiss of two background characters nobody cared about meanwhile Oscar Isaac was begging Disney to do Finn and Poe.

Eternals - Didn't do much with the character or his partner. Didn't have much of a storyline

Lightyear - Probably the most respected of them all so far, however could have been done much better. Imagine being outraged at a couple and family acting like a couple and family. 

 

Strange World has a confirmed gay teenage boy so that is gonna be interesting.

 

 

Edited June 21, 2022 by Cappoedameron

[Ipickthiswhiterose]

One thing that seems to have gone rarely commented on and yet  absolutely blows my mind about the mis-marketing and mis-positioning of Lightyear is that they do not make one scurrock of an attempt to do a single thing with the 'made in the 90s' conceit.

 

A central premise of the entire film is it is from 1995. Why did nobody think of that as a gift? Why at no point did anyone sit down and think about the potential of that, or indeed go "Hmmm, what would that look like"

 

If this was truly a replication of a 1995 live action films why not use actors from the time? Why not, y'know, CAST the film AS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN?

 

Surely this would help achieve both:

 - Being obvious from the start as to what the film actually WAS, AND

- Provide a really interesting concrete gimmick to hang the film on and guarantee articles about, and have fun promos with.

 

Brendan Fraser is literally *right there* to do a voiceover, would have been perfect casting as Buzz in 1995 and - oh - is literally one of the internet's favourite people

 

Angela Bassett (Best Friend)

Lisa Bonet (Granddaughter)

Christian Slater (Sox)

Kathy Bates (Criminal)

Geoffrey Rush (Antipodean weirdo)

Alicia Silverstone (BF Wife)

Andre Braugher (New Boss)

 

...align perfectly with the cast that we got (and blend and adjust according to your preferences), along with many others would have been perfect to represent what the cast of this movie *would have been*. Heck, get Macauley Culkin to cameo as the rookie at the start. Get Wynona Ryder or Sean Astin in there and feed off Stranger Things.

 

Am I mad or was this not the obvious thing to do?

[Ipickthiswhiterose]

23 hours ago, Eric Presley said:

Spoiler

This and Doctor Strange 2 basically do the same "Bury Your Gays" trope with dead lesbian moms. That's like nothing to me

 

 

I think this is a bit of a stretch. I'm not sure that

Spoiler

bury your gays

 

applies when the

 

Spoiler

burying 

 

Is due to 

 

Spoiler

Old age having lived a long and rewarding life with her wife, son and grandchild

 

[TwoMisfits]

Wow, this movie.  Wow.  

 

It's awful.  It's really, really as bad as everyone says.  One of the 3 worst Pixar of all time (I've got to do some rewatches to see if it's the worst).

 

We were discussing all the ways in the car this was a D+.  It's a D+ for movie grade, it's a D+ for where you should watch it, it's a D+ for utterly dumb (in so many ways), it's a D+ for derivative and in the worst ways, and we could go on.

 

My teen daughter said something after - she said she was "Salty" after seeing this.  I thought she said "Insulted", but it almost works the same way.  My kids felt bad that I paid for this, so I told them it was only cheap Tuesday tickets.  And they wanted me to get the word out to keep you all from paying.

 

My grade - D+ - the only redeeming factor is the animation.  Don't get me started on the story, the characterization, the lack of soul, the lack of wit, the lack of good creative choices

My oldest daughter - C (she gives credit for the pretty animation, but she called the entire thing dumb)

The teen daughter above - D+

Her boyfriend - D+

My usually highest grading oldest kid son - B (and I think he was being charitable)

My youngest son - B+ - he was the only one who liked the movie, so boys between 8-12 is the market.

 

PS - I will say, my son said "why didn't they end the movie with an ending scene with Andy taking the movie out of the VCR and saying "mom that was great - can we go buy Buzz now, can we go buy Buzz" - yes, Pixar, he may be young, but he's got way better ending scenes than you provided, too!

 

PPS - And in a 250 seat theater with only 25 there, it was great having the one 5 year old kid scream and cry when the movie didn't go the way he wanted...guess Pixar forgot to have little kids at the test screenings...

Edited June 21, 2022 by TwoMisfits

[AniNate]

Sox is the only reason I don't think it's the worst

[ListenHunnyUrOver]

3 hours ago, Cappoedameron said:

 

Let's take a look at before this how great the Disney LGBT representation was in their big films.

 

Beauty and the Beast - ( Lefou)Comic relief, 5 second implication at the end of the movie

Avengers Endgame - One of the Russo brothers, cameo 5 second scene.

Jungle Cruise - Comic relief, stereotypical gay character, no romance.

Rise of Skywalker - 5 second kiss of two background characters nobody cared about meanwhile Oscar Isaac was begging Disney to do Finn and Poe.

Eternals - Didn't do much with the character or his partner. Didn't have much of a storyline

Lightyear - Probably the most respected of them all so far, however could have been done much better. Imagine being outraged at a couple and family acting like a couple and family. 

 

Strange World has a confirmed gay teenage boy so that is gonna be interesting.

 

 

Are we really counting Avengers: Endgame, Rise of Skywalker, and Beauty and the Beast as representation? The bar is in hell. If the “representation” amounts to split second scenes should it even count?