Disney General - The saddest fandom on Earth

  • Thread starter Thread starter KO 864
  • Start date Start date
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

Which is Better

  • Chicken Little

    Votes: 433 27.4%

  • Hunchback 2

    Votes: 57 3.6%

  • A slow death

    Votes: 1,088 68.9%
  • Total voters
    1,578
Not A Bunny said:
What is it with defanging the villains anyway?
Click to expand...

TLDW for the sake of the story and the hero's journey the villain is an obstacle to overcome. since modern heroes by shitty writers are already perfect, they can never be defeated or challenged even once - especially if the hero is female or some shade of brown. this makes the villain's role pointless, thus leading to a boring story since there is never any struggle to emphasize with.
 
Not A Bunny said:
What is it with defanging the villains anyway?

Like, when Ursula's lines about men liking women that don't talk are cut, it's because girls might get the wrong idea.

You know, like Ariel did in the original movie.

Because Ursula is a villain and villains lie.

I mean, it gets all kinds of insidious even down to where in Pinocchio on Pleasure Island, one kid runs up and yells, "So much ROOT BEER!"

Fucking root beer? Kids get turned into donkeys because drinking root beer is so terrible?

Of course, I don't expect Disney to understand things like characterization and how stories work. That stuff is for the dregs of society. You know, the ones without a soapbox and a bullhorn.
Click to expand...
I think they do the defanged villains because they imagine it makes the story more mature and kids in test audiences won't complain about being scared.

It's a pretty cynical decision when you end up looking at how frequently it's done. Reminds me of how many kid's movies would have everyone dancing at the end, likely to be this cutesy little send off as the kids and parents leave the theater. But then you just kept seeing it, whether it was Shrek, Megamind, Hotel Transylvania, or whatever else. Makes it look less like an artistic decision and more of a studio board room decision, or in other words a bit more soulless.
dance ending.jpg


They don't want audiences complaining about anything no matter what. So the villains have to go, the beer turns to root beer, and you have a decent chance of a dance party ending.
 
SBG said:
They don't want audiences complaining about anything no matter what.
Click to expand...
That's an impossible thing to do. You can't please everyone on the planet, some people like things that others don't and some people have an oppinion that other people don't agree with. It's what makes all of us human, and in my opinion, going for something bland and souless is 10x worse than having a villain that might be "scary", even though villains are SUPPOSED to be scary, if not the physical kind then the emotional and mental kind of scary.
 
Test audiences rarely have someone in there who actually knows what the fuck is going on and can give reasonable suggestions that have nothing to do with "muh fee-fees". Normies just go to forget about their problems for a couple hours, and connoisseurs go to feel smarter than they actually are. I honestly don't know when they decided to have test audiences for movies, they never end well.

Well, there was the one time for Finding Nemo where the test audience wanted the angler fish toned down or outright changed/removed, and then some nine(?)-year-old kid spoke up (paraphrasing), "Turning down the angler will be like turning down Nature itself." So the angler fish was saved.
 
Celebrate Nite said:
That's an impossible thing to do. You can't please everyone on the planet, some people like things that others don't and some people have an oppinion that other people don't agree with. It's what makes all of us human, and in my opinion, going for something bland and souless is 10x worse than having a villain that might be "scary", even though villains are SUPPOSED to be scary, if not the physical kind then the emotional and mental kind of scary.
Click to expand...
Even if it's impossible they'll still try.

Like with Pixar, they are so against alienating anyone ever that they'll change characters around to appeal to specific countries. Which is likely why 3D animation is so popular with studios, since it makes switching things around easier.

Feel like the problem is you don't really have some figure behind these projects that has a lot of passion for it, it's instead a big team deciding every aspect of how the story will go and going through meetings to decide different cultural changes to be made to maximize reception of the movies. You don't have a lot of guys like Don Bluth going around trying to enact a special vision, I imagine in part because the cost of movies has gone up so much while those comfortable doing smaller projects want to be a lot more artsy rather than make something for kids.
Zootopia.jpg
 
SBG said:
You don't have a lot of guys like Don Bluth going around trying to enact a special vision, I imagine in part because the cost of movies has gone up so much while those comfortable doing smaller projects want to be a lot more artsy rather than make something for kids.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Combine that with the idea that "making something for kids" means having to dumb it down hard. Meanwhile, you have stuff like Hazbin that tries to be more artsy, but ends up going too far down the "crudeness" hole. It almost makes you think that you have to be overtly crude or sweary in order to be creative.
 
I_Am_Not_Bruce_Willis said:
Exactly. Combine that with the idea that "making something for kids" means having to dumb it down hard. Meanwhile, you have stuff like Hazbin that tries to be more artsy, but ends up going too far down the "crudeness" hole. It almost makes you think that you have to be overtly crude or sweary in order to be creative.
Click to expand...
Yeah it's a bad habit of modern children's entertainment people that they want to speak down to kids.

Probably has a ripple effect on all animation, whether for kids or adults, since the animation aimed at adults often seems to have this animosity towards anyone treating things with any seriousness (in the sense of genuinely wanting to enjoy the silly stories). Checking out some of those shows down on HBO Max it's like they regularly feel they need to mock the concept in order for people to enjoy it, in the case of adult animation this means more crudeness.

It's a weird distinction for the writers/staff to worry about when it's not like it was that terribly long ago you had Bugs referencing Wagner or the Simpsons doing gags referencing Clockwork orange which people could like regardless of whether it was meant for kids or adults.

Bugs wagner.jpg


250px-Bart_cupcakes.png
 
Celebrate Nite said:
That's an impossible thing to do. You can't please everyone on the planet, some people like things that others don't and some people have an oppinion that other people don't agree with. It's what makes all of us human, and in my opinion, going for something bland and souless is 10x worse than having a villain that might be "scary", even though villains are SUPPOSED to be scary, if not the physical kind then the emotional and mental kind of scary.
Click to expand...
This is the type of thing that happened to Rise of Skywalker. The attempt to please everyone led to it being a shitty film that pleased virtually no one.

If you have an audience that treasures your material, treasure them. Stop trying to please people that are flaky with their support.
 
Lot of things would probably improve if studios were fine funding more small budget productions where the creatives had more control. Would have immensely more stinkers, but at least have some interesting stuff come out of it that'd help make the whole enterprise worthwhile.
 
SBG said:
Lot of things would probably improve if studios were fine funding more small budget productions where the creatives had more control. Would have immensely more stinkers, but at least have some interesting stuff come out of it that'd help make the whole enterprise worthwhile.
Click to expand...
It still baffles me that after the success of Lilo & Stitch, a small budget production where the creative had more control, Disney said "nope, we're never doing that again."
:stress:
 
SBG said:
Going off the trailer I feel like I can sorta guess where this story is going.

King takes peoples' wishes and decides which to make true and by taking them those that had the wishes don't feel bummed out if the wish doesn't come true. Making everyone sorta fake happy since they feel everyone's wishes must be coming true while the king stores away the ones he disagreed with or reasonably thought would cause problems.

(You can see in one scene the king is pulling wishes out of people and then he has that one room with those wishes/orbs are just floating so why have them if the wish was granted?)

Daughter finds the wishing star that lets her make whatever wishes come true, but gradually comes to find how it also fucks things up so maybe dad wasn't that wrong all along.

Compromise ending of making some wishes come true if reasonable and giving back the wish if it isn't.
Click to expand...
So the villain is like the one in Wonder Woman 2?
 
SBG said:
Like with Pixar, they are so against alienating anyone ever that they'll change characters around to appeal to specific countries.
Click to expand...
A.) Zootopia is not pixar.

B.) Changing the anchor is a joke, not to avoid alienation. Nobody is going to be alienated by a leopard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom