Disney General - The saddest fandom on Earth

[cactus]

My thing is why does every character have to have a love interest otherwise these people will label them as a closet gay or asexual? Im starting to be convinced that the same people who complained about every character being in a relationship only did so to give them the asexual/aromantic label. Not every character a creator creates has to have their sexuality or gender in mind in the show.

Because shippers and gender specials are living vicariously through the characters.

 

[Trianon]

Perry has been asexual forever, referred to by the creators as "married to the job," and there are gags in the show about the writers never giving him a girlfriend under any circumstances, despite the Disney execs pushing for that plotline at times. They are basically just saying that they've always written him as not interested in anyone outside of Doof, which is a relationship based on the Coyote and Sheepdog dynamic from Looney Tunes that can hang a lot of different emotions on it. They've always been good at just writing what's funny, but if a viewer wants to read it a certain way, they can. Baljeet/Buford is probably the most ~gay~ thing in the show, but it's still coded as a codependent bully/nerd dynamic, which is fine because they're kids and don't need to worry about any of that yet. And both of them have had female love interests.

I'll give A Goofy Movie that Powerline is definitely based on Prince and contemporary R&B/pop singers, but they wanted it to be a completely universal story about fatherhood. I was watching the new making-of documentary, and the director said he worked through a lot of his emotions about his father abandoning him as a child by working on the movie, kind of being able to say how he wished his own relationship had gone and what he wanted to say. He only reconnected with his dad as an adult, and it was hard to communicate still.

 

[Newcomer 42]

yeah you can argue about him being "african american" but he's definitely colored black as his primary shade

...Then someone could argue that Disney is being racist as they're mistreating Mickey by barely having him a show for himself for years (the last one being made in 2022, I believe). ODd that no wokes had tried going for that angle.

 

[Pina Colada]

I know the former is supposed to promote the remake, but I am so fucking tired of seeing Stitch and out-of-season Nightmare Before Christmas merch.

 

[Fartificial Insmelligence]

I know the former is supposed to promote the remake, but I am so fucking tired of seeing Stitch and out-of-season Nightmare Before Christmas merch.

Think of it this way; the out-of-season NBX merchandise is necessary, because anyone who would buy that shit is someone you wanna stay FAR away from, so them having it available year-round is great! Imagine if you were hanging out with a girl at the mall for the first time, and she freaks out about a Jack Skellington backpack at Hot Topic. Right then and there you know she’s nuts and you should break off all contact immediately!

 

[X-avier cuck]

kinda yeah, his design is based in technical limitations and minstrel look (which itself was in no small part based in technical limitations of lighting and legal limitations of territories just flat-out not allowing blacks to perform)
yeah you can argue about him being "african american" but he's definitely colored black as his primary shade

tbh I'm not sure how much Ghibli cuts even by the storyboard phase
a lot of Continuity Scripts you'll get some changes from the finished product, like scenes cut with a big sharpie slashed through them, or like Eva was way different, iirc the first two eps don't pull the "shinji passes out and we find out what happens afterwards" card and it's just a straightforward progression in the storyboards
I vaguely recall flipping through the Porco Rosso storyboards at least?

This is correct because one thing that gets lost on today's audiences is that minstrel shows were not only incredibly prevalent but one of the world's favorite pastimes back in the early 20th century.

Specifically Al Jolson is the one that made it as big as it was because I don't like everybody else who just did it for a cheap race joke he actually put his all into the characters and stories he performed in blackface and use his Jewish heritage and experiences as a source .

People might hate them today, but he was probably the most left-leaning actor in Hollywood of his time since he not only gave most of his money to his black friends, he helped them get in the Hollywood and participated in multiple black productions.

Nobody could really tell him no because he was the biggest star of his era.

Characters like Mickey were just being creative when he was about to hit his stride, and soit's not too surprising

What I don't understand about this is why can't they just re-release these movies in theaters like studio Ghibli does it? It's a better cost cutting measure and is respectful to those who worked on those films.

It's fucking insane that Disney has been trying to make-up for the non politically correct things they've made in the past and then they remove crossdressing. Justice for my nigga Pleakley.

They do this to extend their copyright of their IPs which aren't even technically theirs.

That's why even though Mickey is technically in the public domain by all intents and purposes they still own the character by all intents and purposes they still own the character

 

[InJailOutSoon]

Perry has been asexual forever, referred to by the creators as "married to the job," and there are gags in the show about the writers never giving him a girlfriend under any circumstances, despite the Disney execs pushing for that plotline at times.

So that's the context behind that one joke when Doof pitches a show and the guy asks if the one change they can make is that the platypus have a girlfriend. Knowing that makes that whole scene of Doof getting upset by such a suggestion even funnier now.

 

[Vyse Inglebard]

Yep, hmmm, yes, quite.

Don’t you DARE go see this movie if you love the real Lilo & Stitch.

1 - Where is Gantu? Why did they cut him out of the trailer? Is it because they haven’t finished rendering him yet, because let me tell you, that’s what it looks like for every other character.

2 - Why is Stitch so small. Why is he so small. Why is Stitch that small. He’s supposed to be the same size as Lilo. 1.because it creates more visually-appealing shot compositions when the story is focused on the TWO of them 2. because thematically he is “a future Lilo,” he is the little monster-version of herself that she could turn into if she didn’t have family 3. because the size of a 6 year-old is the perfect balance between “threatening” and “non-threatening” when he has to interact with toddlers and 18 year-old women and 40-foot-tall aliens alike. He cannot. BE. That small. What, we’re supposed to have him stand up on a stool or a stack of books or a countertop every time he and Lilo need to look each other in the eyes?? Did anyone think while making this movie?

3 - How does his orange jumpsuit look so much lazier than it does when it’s a hand-drawn collection of colors and shapes in the original?

4 - Why did they choose the take where the New Nani Actress said “nobody get’s left behind” in a whiny, exasperated voice? When the real Nani specifically delivered that line as if she were somberly, mournfully, reverently remembering what her parents told her? And then moves on to “slightly-annoyed” but only when it’s time to say “I know, I know.”

5 - Why is Stitch so small.

6 - Is that Jumba’s voice?? Why? Why is it not even deep? Why did they re-write the line so he doesn’t mention Stitch as a “monstrosity?”

7 - Speaking of monstrosities—go back and re-do Pleakley. All of him. What—what happened. What happened?? They made every alien I can see in the trailer uglier and less appealing than Stitch—which is SO NOT THE POINT OF HIS CHARACTER DESIGN—but none looked worse to me than Pleakley. He has a fish eye. It is horrifying.

8 - And they made sun-tan-ice-cream-tourist look local. So like…what’s the point of her taking his picture, then? In the beginning of the movie? He’s in the movie to be an example of a hapless tourist, and tourists mean something specific in LILO’s little headspace—she takes safari-pictures of them in her hometown like they’re a rare, foreign sight, because that’s her way of processing the reality that these are people who specifically come to her home just to leave again—and Lilo has issues with people leaving.

9 - Don’t put Stitch on a leash. Don’t do that. There’s a reason they don’t do that in the movies. 1 He is super strong and he is not trying that hard to hide his super strength, especially not when it comes to resisting Nani telling him what to do. 2 Lilo and Nani live in a very laid-back sleepy neighborhood, it changes the vibe when dogs are on leashes. It’s supposed to feel so laid-back that there are lots of free-roaming dogs and no strictly-enforced leash-laws. There are other dogs in the movie and none of them wear leashes or collars. (I know it’s small but the small choices build the movie.)

10 - Lilo. I like that little girl. She can play Lilo all day for all I care. But that is not Lilo. Lilo doesn’t get hip-checked to the ground and then sit there looking sad. I don’t—why do I have to say that? That’s many people’s favorite part of the movie, that she just goes ballistic on Mertle the minute she’s provoked. That better just be a specific edit in the trailer. They better not have cut out her punching Mertle Edmunds in the face. And you know what else? She does not. SCREAM. When she first meets Stitch! You know they could’ve done that, right?? You realize that every other character who sees Stitch for the first time reacts LIKE THIS:





BUT NOT LILO. LILO does not react like any old stereotypical girl. She also does not react like any alien from any planet or any grown women or any tourists expecting to see foreign sights. She reacts uniquely like Lilo: like a nervous little girl hoping to find a friend, who doesn’t bat an eye if that potential friend is blue and shark-mouthed and monstrous. (Everything else about that little girl is perfect, I like her line delivery, I like that she goes “pretty close” when he mispronounces “family,” the original Lilo says “pretty close” in the same tone when she’s trying to teach him how to say new words in the television series.)11 - Why doesn’t Stitch’s face move at all? Why does it look like his eye muscles and nose muscles have no range of motion, but his lips have way too much? He’s supposed to talk with his jaws more than his lips, like how a crocodile can’t chew or keep food in so it just opens and shuts it’s jaw and throws food to the back of it’s head.

12 - Speaking of re-writing lines, what’s with Lilo and Stitch having an exchange where he admits to being “bad??” And then she point-blank says “family isn’t perfect. But that doesn’t mean they’re not good.” Is that supposed to be a nod to Stitch saying, at the end of the movie, “It’s little and broken but still good?” Do you know why the real Stitch is the one to say “it’s (his family’s) little and broken, but still good?” Because he’s saying “good” as in, “acceptable.” “The way it ought to be.” Not “good” as in “morally good” the way that Stitch is “morally bad.” He just uses the word “good” because Stitch can barely speak English and that was the simplest, best way for him to say what he was trying to communicate. If you take him to mean “morally good” then the whole point of the movie gets ruined.

The point of the movie is that the people in your family aren’t perfect, but imperfection won’t break your LOVE for them. It doesn’t mean you ignore your imperfections, and it doesn’t mean you embrace those imperfections and celebrate those imperfections—if it did, you know what, Stitch would still push Lilo to the ground and wreck her stuff and laugh when she’s hurting, the way he does because of his “imperfections” at the start of the movie. But instead, what family is supposed to do with “imperfections,” according to the original movie, is love you anyway and stick around helping you work through them. That’s the whole point of “nobody gets left behind or forgotten.”

It cannot mean “family members aren’t perfect but we still believe they’re morally good people.” Because that implies that it’s the fact that they’re “morally good people” that makes you stick around, when the whole point of the movie is the opposite: Stitch is objectively morally evil, and they choose to stick around anyway. Stitch is objectively morally evil. I have to stress that. That’s the whole movie. The whole movie is “what if we start with the villain and redeem him.” If he’s not a villain he doesn’t need redeeming and if he’s not bad it takes all the power out of Lilo’s love for him.

And honestly, he never comes to terms with the fact that he’s “morally bad” in this movie. That’s not the point. He would never admit “Stitch bad” in the original movie. Chris Sanders said, “By the end of the film, he’s not a better person. He has just understood family.” He becomes “a better person” in the epilogue. But in the original movie, Stitch doesn’t think so much about the difference between “bad” and “good.” He thinks more about the difference between “belonging” and “not belonging.”
Why is this so hard

If you like me don’t go see this movie. More importantly, if you like the original movie—if you think it was good—if you think it was excellent—accept no imitations. Do not go see this new remake. Remember what Anika Noni Rose just said about the new Princess and the Frog shorts that are coming out—Disney is counting numbers. Do not stream. Do not buy tickets. Just stream and watch the original. And tweet Chris Sanders and tell him how much you love the old one.

 

[StarkRavingMad]

With all of the talk about the 30th Anniversary of A Goofy Movie, I decided to watch that for the first time in a while this past week.

Man. It holds up. Granted, it's very much a "90's movie," but that's really part of its charm ... And the story in of itself is pretty timeless since it's about a father and son.

The premise of the movie is so simple, and yet so smart: What if you are a teenager and Goofy is your Dad? It was a great idea that has definitely paid off. The movie wrote itself, basically.

Anyway, it's a fun movie to revisit and it's an animated movie that appeals to both kids and adults. I'm sure this movie is going to start hitting a lot more differently once my kids are a bit older, haha.

Rewatching and enjoying this movie again makes me wonder, though: Why in the hell doesn't Disney just make a movie about their classic characters again? If they make a solid Mickey Mouse movie or something, I'm sure it would make a shitton of money. Alas, Disney does not value story anymore, and they'd probably fuck it up as long as they continue to hire weirdo millennials to write their stuff.

 

[Vyse Inglebard]

https://ghostarchive.org/archive/4N1X3

I’m gonna say this as bluntly as possible so people wakey wakey. You know how in Hotel Transylvania the human Johnny asks Dracula if that myth about a stake to the heart is true, and Dracula rolls his eyes and goes, “yeah, well, who wouldn’t that kill?”
That’s me, to you.
About thinking the Lilo & Stitch Live-Action looks “cute! Good, even!”
Don’t you get it?
They played the music you heard as a little kid. They combined a cute little child actress with all the features of animals your brain is programmed to love—bunny, cat, puppy, dye it blue—and they got the guy who originally voiced Stitch under contract to come back.

“Yeah, well, who wouldn’t think that’s cute?”

It’s a little girl and an amalgamation of your favorite animals set to your childhood. Of course it rings the “cute” bell.

That doesn’t mean it’s good.​

It means you’re Pavlov’s dog. They rang a bell, you started drooling for your mint.

A good movie. Is about. The music and the cuteness and the acting ALLLL working TOGETHER. Working together towards what? Working together towards reminding or convincing you of a good, beautiful, true MAIN POINT. The main point of the original Lilo & Stitch was “Family is choosing to love one another and belong to one another even when you’re flawed.”

It’s why Lilo NOT SCREAMING when she meets Stitch, in contrast to EVERY OTHER CHARACTER WHO MEETS HIM BESIDES HER, is important. Because she’s chosen to love him despite his ugly monstrousness. It’s why Stitch NOT UNDERSTANDING THAT HE’S BAD is important. Because it would be easier to love a little fellow who wants to be good, versus the actual character Stitch is: bad, likes being bad, and can’t help it on his own.

It’s why Lilo would NEVER IMPLY that “family members are morally good even when they’re not perfect” because if that were the lesson, she would not be trying to teach him to quit wrecking everything he touches, Nani would not try to make Lilo understand that she shouldn’t bite her classmates and would not try to stop herself from yelling at her. No. Family won’t give up on you when you’re bad, but that doesn’t mean they let you keep being bad and call it “good.”

The movie is going to suck because they got the characters wrong down to their core, and because they think all it takes to get you to drool is by ringing a fuzzy CGI bell that sounds like the music and voices from your childhood, which proves they’re lazy.
And they’re right to think that.

Because all you are like “Wow! Disney looks like they’re going to nail this one—based on the trailer where Lilo reacts the same way to Stitch that everybody else does and Stitch is the size of a terrier instead of the size of Lilo herself—duhhhh except for Pleakley not crossdressing lol”
And ya’ll are wrong. Ya’ll aren’t remembering what the real movie was like or why anything in it was actually important if you like those trailers.

 

[StarkRavingMad]

No offense to the girl who is playing Lilo in the remake, but after seeing the trailer, I really do not want to see an entire movie with her acting. lol.

This is the problem with the vast, VAST majority of child actors in the first place: A lot of them aren't good at acting. Why should they be though? They're CHILDREN. That's another topic for another day though. Anyway ...

It's almost like the original Lilo & Stitch was animated for a fucking reason ... Just like all of the other Disney animated movies that have been remade (aside from Cinderella, which I will still defend-- the only good one of the remakes).

 

[XYZpdq Jr.]

A lot of them aren't good at acting.

I remember after A.I. there was a lot of nerds screaming MAKE THE ENDERS MOVIE NOWNOWNOW because there was actually a kid who could carry it

 

[Lobster Cult High Priest]

No offense to the girl who is playing Lilo in the remake, but after seeing the trailer, I really do not want to see an entire movie with her acting. lol.

This is the problem with the vast, VAST majority of child actors in the first place: A lot of them aren't good at acting. Why should they be though? They're CHILDREN. That's another topic for another day though. Anyway ...

It's almost like the original Lilo & Stitch was animated for a fucking reason ... Just like all of the other Disney animated movies that have been remade (aside from Cinderella, which I will still defend-- the only good one of the remakes).

I didn't mind Luke Evans as Gaston in the Beauty and the Beast remake.

 

[StarkRavingMad]

I didn't mind Luke Evans as Gaston in the Beauty and the Beast remake.

The storytelling with Gaston in the remake is so bizarre that I actually found him to be the least detestable character in that movie. He was apparently a war veteran with PTSD in the remake? Well dang, that immediately makes him more sympathetic than everyone else right off the bat.

Gaston was actually really nice to Belle Emma Watson in the first scene with her from what I remember. Emma Watson acted like a stuck up bitch in that scene.

As for the casting, Luke Evans was not a bad choice. He definitely looked the part.

But, anyway, the Beauty & The Beast remake is the one that broke me with these Disney remakes. I remember seeing it in theaters with my friends, and I was quietly seething to myself. It was a "Look how they massacred my boy!" scenario.

EDIT: Adding the video of the scene I'm talking about for context

Gaston literally gave Belle flowers and complimented Belle on the book she was reading and all she did was roll her eyes at him. How is he the asshole again?

 

[Lobster Cult High Priest]

The storytelling with Gaston in the remake is so bizarre that I actually found him to be the least detestable character in that movie. He was apparently a war veteran with PTSD in the remake? Well dang, that immediately makes him more sympathetic than everyone else right off the bat.

Gaston as Napoleon's Top Guy

 

[Trianon]

So that's the context behind that one joke when Doof pitches a show and the guy asks if the one change they can make is that the platypus have a girlfriend. Knowing that makes that whole scene of Doof getting upset by such a suggestion even funnier now.

The funniest part is that the show Doof pitches *does* get made and gets renamed "The Platypus and His Girlfriend," in which they clearly just recast the Doof character as the girlfriend, lmao. But the real creators said they basically reacted the same way as Doof does in the episode, so it's 100% true to life. They react the same way when people ask about Phineas and Ferb's other biological parents. It's just not the point to them at all and they're not going to go there.

 

[Iamthesun]

As a Duck fan i hate Disney with a passion. Crucify the mouse.

 

[Amber the Hedgehog]

They react the same way when people ask about Phineas and Ferb's other biological parents. It's just not the point to them at all and they're not going to go there.

This is actually something I genuinely dislike about the show. They wanted to show a loving blended family where that isn't the star of the story because many kids grow up in blended families. Okey fair enough but you aren't really showing one because they are completely ignoring everything about blending families. No shared custody or grief about a missing or dead family member, no grandparents, aunts, uncles or cousins outside the present parents. It's completely pointless that the kids are step siblings because it's just something they state sometimes.

 

[Trianon]

This is actually something I genuinely dislike about the show. They wanted to show a loving blended family where that isn't the star of the story because many kids grow up in blended families. Okey fair enough but you aren't really showing one because they are completely ignoring everything about blending families. No shared custody or grief about a missing or dead family member, no grandparents, aunts, uncles or cousins outside the present parents. It's completely pointless that the kids are step siblings because it's just something they state sometimes.

I think they just handle all those difficult elements in the Doofenshmirtz plots where it fits better tonally (with alimony, custody, and the effects of poor parenting being touched on in most episodes in some way). They're just contrasting two versions of blended family dynamics that can happen, one where it's their normal and the circumstances of how they came together don't really affect their daily lives, and one where the negative effects are pretty present, either because Doof was traumatized as a kid or just because he's grouchy around his ex. They also do show the grandparents quite a bit and some British cousins on Ferb's side.

 

[Amber the Hedgehog]

I think they just handle all those difficult elements in the Doofenshmirtz plots where it fits better tonally (with alimony, custody, and the effects of poor parenting being touched on in most episodes in some way). They're just contrasting two versions of blended family dynamics that can happen, one where it's their normal and the circumstances of how they came together don't really affect their daily lives, and one where the negative effects are pretty present, either because Doof was traumatized as a kid or just because he's grouchy around his ex. They also do show the grandparents quite a bit and some British cousins on Ferb's side.

Yes but they only show relatives of Phineas' mom and Ferb's dad, no one from the other side of the families and they all treat everyone the same. So it's no different if these two adults were just the biological parents of the three kids.

I don't mind they are a happy, functional and drama free blended family, I mind that there is no signs of them being blended beyond the occasional line. It just feels like lazy virtue signaling and I find that annoying.