Inside Out 2 | June 14, 2024 | Biggest animated movie of all time! We aren’t Pixover but Pixulling Back!

[HummingLemon496]

Why did this thread randomly get a bunch of posts

[Block-Busted]

6 minutes ago, Darth Lehnsherr said:

Yeah the only silver lining I would say unlike the Spider-Verse story is at least it seems like the actual leaders of Pixar like Pete Docter and Jim Morris are doing the best they can under the circumstances. Nevertheless it is very disappointing if not that surprising and it's hard to see this change anytime soon unfortunately with how Disney operates. IO2 may have had the most pressure of any Pixar film since they were starting out in the late 90s and early 2000s.

 

And yeah no way this affects the Oscar chances Wild Robot was always gonna be the biggest challenger and with the critical acclaim it may do it though Dreamworks has always not had the best time at the Oscars.

Exactly. While Docter and Morris might not be entirely blameless in this situation, it looks like at least they tried to do something about it and I wouldn't be surprised if this was true even during Lasseter era as well.

Edited Tuesday at 01:16 AM by Block-Busted

[HummingLemon496]

What is even going on in this thread lmao

[Block-Busted]

4 minutes ago, ThomasNicole said:

Yeah, the article was very clear about Pixar being fairly responsible with the crew and with the productions deadlines until late 2023 when the Lightyear failure started to be used as excuse to pressure them to rework a lot of the movie, which seems to be when Docter entered to direct it.

I was quite sad reading that people at Pixar was actually trying to provide heath care and everything they could to help the animators during the crushed months. The whole thing just screams professionals not knowing what else to do to please Disney and kept existing. 
 

Docter did said weeks ago that he was worried that if IO2 didn’t work, Pixar would have to face a radical change to keep working, so the article is just explaining this in details, we just didn’t know how bad the thing is. Very revolting situation.

The sad thing is that even Disney might have at least a tiny bit of excuse since this was the surest candidate to get themselves back on their feet after 2023 didn't go so well with them - and they probably saw that possibility with Pixar when Elemental defied all of its odds and became a sleeper hit.

 

And like I've said, Disney probably didn't want a senile bullshitter like Nelson Peltz to come back around.

[Eric Prime]

4 minutes ago, HummingLemon496 said:

Why did this thread randomly get a bunch of posts

 

2 minutes ago, HummingLemon496 said:

What is even going on in this thread lmao

Well golly gee whiz, maybe you could take note of the tweets and articles being shared over these last couple pages, maybe then you would figure it out.

[MysteryMovieMogul]

One thing I'm really not sure of is how Pixar, and Disney in the bigger picture, fixes their "gay" problem.

 

Strange World had a gay lead, and it wasn't in the background like Netflix's The Mitchells and The Machines. But, for some reason, the response was overwhelmingly negative, at least on social media. I remember finally watching it and being surprised by how much hate the film elicited because I found it really inoffensive. I found it to be at the level of Atlantis or Emperor's New Groove. I genuinely think that because it was so average, the anti-woke segment of the critic community was able to control the narrative. I guarantee that had the character been straight, the film might not have performed better (Disney and Sci-Fi don't mix well for some reason), but it wouldn't be looked at in such a negative light by folks.

 

And the aforementioned Lightyear was 100% affected by the culture war surrounding the kiss. Not to mention, both the films I'm discussing were either edited or completely banned from certain countries.

 

Really, the only thing Pixar or Disney can do is make a film where one of the main characters is gay, make sure to market the hell out of it so people can't go a day without seeing it mentioned, like Warner Brothers did with Beetlejuice Beetlejuice, and keep the costs down so it guarantees a profit. Oh, and the film has to be guaranteed to be really good. But that's impossible because if you give the film with a gay character less of a budget, there will be outrage. If the film with the gay character fails to make enough money at the box office, which will be heavily monitored by bad faith actors, there will be outrage. And even if the film is really good, who knows if whatever anti-woke campaign happens will hit or miss its target. The only way Disney or Pixar will be able to have a successful gay lead in a film is if a smaller studio makes the first move and has a success of their own.

 

But that's also why DreamWorks is sticking with making romanceless films about anthropomorphic animals (Puss in Boots, Kung Fu Panda 4, The Bad Guys) or robots (The Wild Robot). The jury is out on Shrek 5.

[HummingLemon496]

3 minutes ago, Eric the Marxist said:

Well golly gee whiz, maybe you could take note of the tweets and articles being shared over these last couple pages, maybe then you would figure it out.

Off to Reddit it goes!

[AniNate]

1 minute ago, Mojoguy said:

Its not fake outrage. Just people wishing the animators would be treated better by the billion dollar company. Disney can afford it but they got to save every dollar.

 

Also the whole making animated films proccess can be much better planned. We are getting glimpses of some of the horror stories of the massively rushed productions, so of course people will react.

 

Sure, but I do think it should be noted that Disney's animation arms had been in a pretty rough spot pre IO2. Pixar barely saved face with Elemental but it was still uncertain if they'd ever be able to achieve the kind of box office heights they'd previously been able to again. Unfair and backwards as it might be, Disney had reason to be nervous and micromanage them. 

 

Whatever reason they're continuing the crunch with Elio, it's already been delayed more than a year and I feel like there's only so long you can not have people crunch before you have to have them crunch. Clearly animation is not the line of work one should get into if they're looking for a predictable M-F 9-5 job, and I'm sure sometimes it's a soul-crushing endeavor where your work isn't fully appreciated. But at least based on the article it doesn't seem like it's being implied that Disney is looking over their shoulders as much now as they were on Inside Out 2. 

[Block-Busted]

3 minutes ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

One thing I'm really not sure of is how Pixar, and Disney in the bigger picture, fixes their "gay" problem.

 

Strange World had a gay lead, and it wasn't in the background like Netflix's The Mitchells and The Machines. But, for some reason, the response was overwhelmingly negative, at least on social media. I remember finally watching it and being surprised by how much hate the film elicited because I found it really inoffensive. I found it to be at the level of Atlantis or Emperor's New Groove. I genuinely think that because it was so average, the anti-woke segment of the critic community was able to control the narrative. I guarantee that had the character been straight, the film might not have performed better (Disney and Sci-Fi don't mix well for some reason), but it wouldn't be looked at in such a negative light by folks.

 

And the aforementioned Lightyear was 100% affected by the culture war surrounding the kiss. Not to mention, both the films I'm discussing were either edited or completely banned from certain countries.

 

Really, the only thing Pixar or Disney can do is make a film where one of the main characters is gay, make sure to market the hell out of it so people can't go a day without seeing it mentioned, like Warner Brothers did with Beetlejuice Beetlejuice, and keep the costs down so it guarantees a profit. Oh, and the film has to be guaranteed to be really good. But that's impossible because if you give the film with a gay character less of a budget, there will be outrage. If the film with the gay character fails to make enough money at the box office, which will be heavily monitored by bad faith actors, there will be outrage. And even if the film is really good, who knows if whatever anti-woke campaign happens will hit or miss its target. The only way Disney or Pixar will be able to have a successful gay lead in a film is if a smaller studio makes the first move and has a success of their own.

 

But that's also why DreamWorks is sticking with making romanceless films about anthropomorphic animals (Puss in Boots, Kung Fu Panda 4, The Bad Guys) or robots (The Wild Robot). The jury is out on Shrek 5.

I feel like this film's production history kind of reveals a drawback of Pixar's CCO system - it makes them less likely to take a "true" risk.

[ThomasNicole]

Know what’s funny? Riley is still gay as fuck in IO2 lol 

 

The whole interactions just feels sapphic no matter how many lines they throw about friendship and being a fan.

[Block-Busted]

2 minutes ago, AniNate said:

 

Sure, but I do think it should be noted that Disney's animation arms had been in a pretty rough spot pre IO2. Pixar barely saved face with Elemental but it was still uncertain if they'd ever be able to achieve the kind of box office heights they'd previously been able to again. Unfair and backwards as it might be, Disney had reason to be nervous and micromanage them. 

 

Whatever reason they're continuing the crunch with Elio, it's already been delayed more than a year and I feel like there's only so long you can not have people crunch before you have to have them crunch. Clearly animation is not the line of work one should get into if they're looking for a predictable M-F 9-5 job, and I'm sure sometimes it's a soul-crushing endeavor where your work isn't fully appreciated. But at least based on the article it doesn't seem like it's being implied that Disney is looking over their shoulders as much now as they were on Inside Out 2. 

Yeah, this situation doesn't seem to be as black-and-white as Across the Spider-Verse situation was.

[emoviefan]

5 minutes ago, HummingLemon496 said:

Off to Reddit it goes!

[Mojoguy]

Riley was going to be gay? Like I don't care if she is or not.

 

But Disney REALLY should have told them to not make Riley gay from the very start in the development stage if it was that important to them she not be instead of wasting time, money, and work hours trying to fix it much later on.

Edited Tuesday at 01:38 AM by Mojoguy

[WorkingonaName]

3 hours ago, Hades said:

Wonder if Elsa is still getting a Gf in F3..

Not gonna happen in a franchise that makes 70% of its gross overseas. 

[ThomasNicole]

1 minute ago, Mojoguy said:

Riley was going to be gay? Like I don't care if she is or not.

 

But Disney REALLY should have told them to not make Riley gay from the very start in the development stage if it was that important to them she not be instead of wasting time, money, and work hours trying to fix it much later on.

Seems like it, 1/3 of the article is about how Disney kept asking changes to make sure no one else would perceive her as queer because of Lightyear. 
 

 

[Kon]

22 minutes ago, ThomasNicole said:

Know what’s funny? Riley is still gay as fuck in IO2 lol 

 

The whole interactions just feels sapphic no matter how many lines they throw about friendship and being a fan.

The interesting thing is Riley being gay was apparently never part of the plan for this movie. Disney just really feared the audience could read the character in that way.

 

I assume there was an issue with media and (anti-woke) audience focusing too much on that in previous Pixar films like Lightyear and Strange World. So, they wanted to avoid that situation.

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, Mojoguy said:

Riley was going to be gay? Like I don't care if she is or not.

 

But Disney REALLY should have told them to not make Riley gay from the very start in the development stage if it was that important to them she not be instead of wasting time, money, and work hours trying to fix it much later on.

If you read the article, it says Riley isn't gay. It's never said they planned to make Riley gay.

 

Disney just really feared the interactions between Riley and Val could be read as gay.

Edited Tuesday at 01:51 AM by Kon

[ThomasNicole]

I wonder what Disney actually wanted different in Elio to pressure that as well and delay it.
 

The workers did said they had to change a lot of the story, yet no one said it was due to bad quality. 
 

I wonder if the whole “feeling alien” with mommy issues vibe was also some queer allegory and Disney freaked.
 

Before anyone think i’m crazy, the previous director Adrian Molina is gay and even said he would like to see a fully gay movie in Pixar right after he finished Coco.

[cannastop]

1 hour ago, keysersoze123 said:

f*** Disney.

 

 

 

Ah this is the IGN article that was in the works. One that someone said would not be written 

[MysteryMovieMogul]

3 minutes ago, Mojoguy said:

But Disney REALLY should have told them to not make Riley gay from the very start in the development stage if it was that important to them she not be instead of wasting time, money, and work hours trying to fix it much later on.

I mean, there's the Pixar short Riley's First Date, which is about about her going on a date with a boy. Before that, in the first film, we have the "imaginary boyfriend" machine. Riley's sexuality was already developed. If the filmmakers were planning to change her sexuality for this film without explicitly addressing it as part of the plot, then Pixar/Disney did the right thing by nipping that right in the bud. Because that would have been injecting politics into the film for no reason than to make the film more Liberal.

 

And I'm not against a film with a Gay lead, but adapting a character's sexuality without dealing with the emotions that would go with such a sexuality adaptation would have been awful.

[Kon]

15 minutes ago, ThomasNicole said:

Seems like it, 1/3 of the article is about how Disney kept asking changes to make sure no one else would perceive her as queer because of Lightyear. 

The article never mentioned they originally planned Riley to be gay. In fact, it says Riley isn't gay.

 

Disney seems to really fear the interactions between Riley and Val could be read as gay. That's why they tried to change the tone.

 

 

PS: I just noticed I've already answered you in a previous message. Sorry.

Edited Tuesday at 01:56 AM by Kon