Disney Becoming Blander?

[Kitten Champion]

Between the backlash when they inevitably whitewash the film,

I doubt it. Disney's pretty hyper-aware of such criticisms at this point and actively attempts to ward off bad press with their creative and casting decisions. Even with their European settings that they've reproduced so far in works like Beauty and the Beast or Cinderella they have poc littered among their extras and into the extended cast.

Chances are good that Jasmine, Aladdin, Jafar, and the Sultan will be - likely English actors - of Middle Eastern descent. The extended cast beyond that will probably have a mix of peoples, with the justification of Agrabah being cosmopolitan and/or it's a fairy tale rather than history.

Pretty much what they did in Once Upon a Time, though their Aladdin was Australian I believe.

I mean, Disney is a Corporation with a capital C that doesn't really have scruples in their business practices, but they've conflated their brand with socially conscious progressiveness that's represented in their works and attempt to be held to a higher standard in that regard. Which is how you get a pretty diverse Stars Wars cast, but then cut the prominent Black main character from your advertising in the Chinese and Russian markets.

and the impossibility of surpassing Robin Williams, I think that particular venture might not be a success.

GW

Eh, if they try to replicate the goofy cartoon comic relief Genie that would probably be an issue, but I imagine they'll tonally adapt the character into something different and hire a really prominent actor. That characterization wouldn't work particularly well in live action anyways.

[Liquor Box]

Yes, because nudity is such a good indication that something isn't bland. It's certainly totally incompatible with a dull and uninteresting plot.

Nudity might be one element detracting from the blandness of an otherwise bland movie for some people. Nudity wasn't presented as conclusively determining the blandness of the movie, only as an example of a trend.

[Ramza00]

Kitten Champion and Grey Wolf, the cast for Aladdin has been known for months (July 2017) here are the 3 main cast members.



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt6139732/

Personally I care more about Lion King live action remake (think Jungle Book) and its awesome cast.

[Liquor Box]

Certainly, but Disney has a habit (for male villains) of giving them effete and fey mannerisms as a quick and lazy way of making the audience dislike or distrust them. I wasn't talking about their canon sexuality per the plot, just the way they are made to behave.

I don't recognise most of the examples you gave. But as Georgie said, Gaston appears to be coded as being almost as far from gay or effete as possible. His wikipedia page describes him as having "excessive masculinity".
"Gaston is essentially a caricature of hypermasculinity; he proudly hunts, drinks, fights, spits, bullies and lies in addition to being shallow and ignorant, exuding what are considered to be some of the worst masculine traits.[47] Gaston intimidates and threatens anyone opposed to his ideas,[48] and actively attends male social gatherings via which he can exercise his "alpha male" status"

[Kitten Champion]

Kitten Champion and Grey Wolf, the cast for Aladdin has been known for months (July 2017) here are the 3 main cast members.

Huh, Will Smith gets to be in something plausibly good for once. Also Aladdin's an Egyptian Canadian and Jafar's a Dutch actor, my expectations Re: Britishness of the cast have imploded.

Personally I care more about Lion King live action remake (think Jungle Book) and its awesome cast.

But, without any human actors and presumably mostly CGI'd animals, is that even Live Action?

That's a magical cast though.

[Lvl45DM!]

I don't recognise most of the examples you gave. But as Georgie said, Gaston appears to be coded as being almost as far from gay or effete as possible. His wikipedia page describes him as having "excessive masculinity".
"Gaston is essentially a caricature of hypermasculinity; he proudly hunts, drinks, fights, spits, bullies and lies in addition to being shallow and ignorant, exuding what are considered to be some of the worst masculine traits.[47] Gaston intimidates and threatens anyone opposed to his ideas,[48] and actively attends male social gatherings via which he can exercise his "alpha male" status"

Yes, thats why the phrases "Habit" and "generally" have been used. And its not so much that ALL DISNEY VILLAINS ARE GAY as it is, in a Disney film, the more associated a character could be with queer stereotypes, the more villainous they are.

[Ramza00]

Yes, thats why the phrases "Habit" and "generally" have been used. And its not so much that ALL DISNEY VILLAINS ARE GAY as it is, in a Disney film, the more associated a character could be with queer stereotypes, the more villainous they are.

Examples please?

[Liquor Box]

Yes, thats why the phrases "Habit" and "generally" have been used. And its not so much that ALL DISNEY VILLAINS ARE GAY as it is, in a Disney film, the more associated a character could be with queer stereotypes, the more villainous they are.

Sure, but unless I missunderstood Psyren he specifically mentioned Gaston when saying characters are 'coded gay'. Then when someone specifically mentioned that Gaston was explicitly straight, the reply was not "Gaston may be an exception", instead he said that even where they are not explicitly gay, they are given effete characteristics.

Even if I have missunderstood, I don't think it is wrong of me to clarify that Gaston is in no way effete or conforming with gay stererotypes.

Personally, I can't see anything gay about Jafar or Scar either (the only two other examples on Psyren's list that I recognised). But they are not as obviously masculine as Gaston, and it may just be that I am missing something that others (well, a small group of others) see.

[Reddish Mage]

I’d like to add that the classic Disney princes can be seen as effete themselves. Sure they are tall dark and handsome, but they are so handsome they are pretty, take on a relatively passive role in the stories that are all about the girl anyway, hardly talk, and basically don’t have any personal agenda as regards anything except worrying about their love life.

Then there was Aladdin, who is basically a male Cinderella.

There is basically one villain that fits the bill as effete and he didn’t make the list: Hades. Hades actually is paired against a very straight-seeming Hercules too, nevermind any myths to the contrary (I don’t think they get referenced).

[Vinyadan]

Yes, thats why the phrases "Habit" and "generally" have been used. And its not so much that ALL DISNEY VILLAINS ARE GAY as it is, in a Disney film, the more associated a character could be with queer stereotypes, the more villainous they are.

Like the Genie!

[Leewei]

Yes, thats why the phrases "Habit" and "generally" have been used. And its not so much that ALL DISNEY VILLAINS ARE GAY as it is, in a Disney film, the more associated a character could be with queer stereotypes, the more villainous they are.

I don't know how true this is in its entirety, but Ursula was explicitly inspired by Divine.

The practice of casting actors in drag as villainous women has been around for centuries. It's very possible Disney's villains are, in part, antagonists of classical theater.

[Mightymosy]

I really liked Disney's Aladdin as a kid, and Yasmin was my favourite Disney princess by some good margin, but as for the musical: The Genie needs to be blue! Period. Come on, the Blue Man Group could to it, why can't you?

Certainly, but Disney has a habit (for male villains) of giving them effete and fey mannerisms as a quick and lazy way of making the audience dislike or distrust them. I wasn't talking about their canon sexuality per the plot, just the way they are made to behave.

I certainly give you Ursula.
Although I never thought like that as a kid, I can see where you're going with that analysis, and I think it is spot on.
And I agree that this is a bad habit.

But then again, why do you bring up Gaston?
Are you talking the same Gaston as I am thinking of?
The bad guy in Disney's Beauty and the Beast?

If I was asked to give an example of a straight hetero macho antagonist in the Disney universe, I think Gaston would come up as one of the top choices!
Maybe I'm the one who has badly adjusted gender excpectancies, but Gaston of all people doesn't seem "queer" to me at all.

Jafar, ok, I could see that one. Yeah, he wants to "marry" Yasmin, but I can easily imagine him never "getting to it" with her, since he wants the marriage for power purposes only.

Scar.....don't know. Hard to tell with animals. And hard to tell with Disney excluding actual sexuality from their movies anyway, except for innocent kisses.

The other ones of your examples I don't really recognise. Maybe I didn't watch those movies, or I was too young and forgot about what happened in them.

I think you could make a case for Maleficent, though. I think it is possible she might have been designed for hit that "queer" scheme - but then again she certainly rings with a lot of straight males, especially since Angelina played her.

[Rodin]

(It's hinted at when the hyenas look like a Nazi parade, with Scar reviewing them as he sings).

Fun exercise: Try watching the German dub of Be Prepared. The voice actor they got for Scar is amazing, and German makes the song 1000x more menacing.

[Friv]

There is a tendency in classic Disney to contrast an intellectual, sly villain against a dashing, athletic Prince-type character. I don't think it's a gay coding thing, except insasmuch as there was a correlation between "not athletic" and "not manly" which segued into "not straight", it's just a classic Conan Vs Wizard thing. And it's certainly not universal: Gaston and Clayton would be the obvious exceptions, along with the Hun in Mulan doing the opposite (his strength against her cunning), or Atlantis (which featured a hyper-masculine aggressor against a nebbish nerd).

As to the OP, I don't see it. There was definitely a dip in the animated canon for a while, but the past ten years have been solid hit after solid hit, exploring a variety of different stories in a variety of different approaches. It sounds more like the OP just isn't a fan of CG movies, honestly.

[Knaight]

Nudity might be one element detracting from the blandness of an otherwise bland movie for some people. Nudity wasn't presented as conclusively determining the blandness of the movie, only as an example of a trend.

Exactly. It was usually used in an attempt to salvage some truly insipid comedies, or as a secondary appeal in dumb action movies. Bland, cheesy, and enjoyable as bad movies basically sums up 80's cinema, and claiming that the reduction in use of bad-movie repair kits is an indication that movies have gotten worse is questionable.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Exactly. It was usually used in an attempt to salvage some truly insipid comedies, or as a secondary appeal in dumb action movies. Bland, cheesy, and enjoyable as bad movies basically sums up 80's cinema, and claiming that the reduction in use of bad-movie repair kits is an indication that movies have gotten worse is questionable.

It was sometimes also used because the film already had an R rating due to violence, and therefore there was nothing to lose by throwing in some titillation. Reportedly, that's the reason for the sex scene in Die Hard 3. So it could be argued that it is also in part due to changing rating standards (which allow far more violence per rating step, and possibly less nudity per rating step than 30 years ago).

GW

[Liquor Box]

Exactly. It was usually used in an attempt to salvage some truly insipid comedies, or as a secondary appeal in dumb action movies. Bland, cheesy, and enjoyable as bad movies basically sums up 80's cinema, and claiming that the reduction in use of bad-movie repair kits is an indication that movies have gotten worse is questionable.

I guess it depends what is meant by more 'bland'. I had taken it to mean a movie that played it safe, by telling a story that would offend nobody, and would attract no criticism. You are perhaps thinking of it a different way.

So by my thinking Game of Thrones is an example of a recent series that was not bland - it pushed the boundaries in several respects - and one of those was depicting nudity and sex scenes (others included dark themes and good characters doing bad things etc). I understand it was criticsed in some circles for the amount of sex and nudity (and sometimes for the nature of that sex and nudity, ie rape), but instead of taking what I would think of as the safer blander option and reducing it, it continued to depict it. Of course GoT was also well written, and its depiction of sex and nudity would not have rescued it had it been poorly written. But, in my opinion this was one element of GoT being less safe and less bland.

[Keltest]

I think "implausible" is too soft to describe how uncanny really is exclusive carnivores surviving on a meerkat's diet. Funny enough, I just discovered they are also called "rock-dwelling cats" or something like that.

I always assumed that simba supplemented his diet with the birds and whatnot that also lived in the area. He would have to hunt significantly more than he would be used to, but with the lack of regular competition from other predators it would probably be manageable.

[Rockphed]

I guess it depends what is meant by more 'bland'. I had taken it to mean a movie that played it safe, by telling a story that would offend nobody, and would attract no criticism. You are perhaps thinking of it a different way.

Attracting criticism is not the same as telling a powerful story. Avoiding it is not the same as telling a weak story. Are there stories that become more powerful with the depiction of socially questionable things? Undoubtedly. However, trying to tie how good of stories are being told to the number of bare-bodied people on screen is an incredibly poor metric. If that were a valid metric, porn film would be considered the highest possible cinema. Instead, highly regarded films typically exemplify good technique, plot, and pacing or produce a consistent emotional reaction among their target audience.

[Liquor Box]

Attracting criticism is not the same as telling a powerful story. Avoiding it is not the same as telling a weak story. Are there stories that become more powerful with the depiction of socially questionable things? Undoubtedly. However, trying to tie how good of stories are being told to the number of bare-bodied people on screen is an incredibly poor metric. If that were a valid metric, porn film would be considered the highest possible cinema. Instead, highly regarded films typically exemplify good technique, plot, and pacing or produce a consistent emotional reaction among their target audience.

You are right - that is why I specifically said "Of course GoT was also well written, and its depiction of sex and nudity would not have rescued it had it been poorly written." I don't think I disagree with a thing you say.

I don't say that nudity is necessary for a story to be powerful, or that it makes the story better in any way. All I am saying that it is one element of a movie being played less safe, and thereby being less bland. Of course I would agree with you that the movie being well written (or a powerful story as you put it) is much more important.

[danzibr]

Anyone see the sketches of the original ending they had planned for the Little Mermaid? So much better than what hit the theaters imo.

[Ramza00]

Anyone see the sketches of the original ending they had planned for the Little Mermaid? So much better than what hit the theaters imo.

This or something else?

[Knaight]

I guess it depends what is meant by more 'bland'. I had taken it to mean a movie that played it safe, by telling a story that would offend nobody, and would attract no criticism. You are perhaps thinking of it a different way.

Just about nothing fits all of those categories, but playing it safe is generally one way to produce a bland product. It's just far from the only way.

There was a term used elsewhere on this forum (probably by Warty Goblin), "Extruded Fantasy Product". It's exactly what it sounds like, and is basically fantasy blandness. A story with nothing to say, going through the expected motions, in the most banal commercialized way possible. Playing it safe is one way to do that. For another, I quote the Bard: "A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

Disney knockoff animation can be really bland. So can straight up grindhouse films. Heck, extreme violence and lots of nudity basically sums up the whole torture porn subgenre of horror, and while the way the genre is bland and repetitive isn't usually the criticism that gets made of it (for obvious reasons) it's certainly one that could be levied.

[Liquor Box]

Just about nothing fits all of those categories, but playing it safe is generally one way to produce a bland product. It's just far from the only way.

There was a term used elsewhere on this forum (probably by Warty Goblin), "Extruded Fantasy Product". It's exactly what it sounds like, and is basically fantasy blandness. A story with nothing to say, going through the expected motions, in the most banal commercialized way possible. Playing it safe is one way to do that. For another, I quote the Bard: "A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

Disney knockoff animation can be really bland. So can straight up grindhouse films. Heck, extreme violence and lots of nudity basically sums up the whole torture porn subgenre of horror, and while the way the genre is bland and repetitive isn't usually the criticism that gets made of it (for obvious reasons) it's certainly one that could be levied.

What I hear here, is that you think there are other ways things can be bland other than lack of nudity, and you can think of a genre that has lots of nudity that you still think is bland. Is that a fair interpretation of what you said?

Because nothing there contradicts the earlier point that a lack of nudity may be one way in which the industry is becoming safer. Sure, there are lots of other factors. Sure there are things with nudity that are still 'safe' or 'bland'. But in at least some people's opinion the lack of nudity is still a factor.

[Knaight]

What I hear here, is that you think there are other ways things can be bland other than lack of nudity, and you can think of a genre that has lots of nudity that you still think is bland. Is that a fair interpretation of what you said?

Because nothing there contradicts the earlier point that a lack of nudity may be one way in which the industry is becoming safer. Sure, there are lots of other factors. Sure there are things with nudity that are still 'safe' or 'bland'. But in at least some people's opinion the lack of nudity is still a factor.

I can't contest that in some people's opinion it's still a factor. What I can say is that the actual set of movies produced doesn't back that up, as the factors which produce blandness are orthogonal to the fluctuations of individual stylistic elements.

[Liquor Box]

I can't contest that in some people's opinion it's still a factor. What I can say is that the actual set of movies produced doesn't back that up, as the factors which produce blandness are orthogonal to the fluctuations of individual stylistic elements.

I don't think we can take this discussion much further. It is simply that some people see nudity or the lack thereof as one factor in whether a movie is safe, and you do not. There is no right or wrong on the point.

[Kyberwulf]

lol I hate it when they make a character have to be played by a certain race. Such as the cast for Lion King. First off. It's about Lions. -_-' Second when you do that, you're pigeon holing people into a certain ting. I mean, where you picked because you had the talent to be that character? Where you picked because your skin was.. pick a color, white, black, purple... whatever.

It's just as bad as when you pick white people, and only white people. The only time a person's skin color should matter... is when they are playing a specific person from history. Even then, it's iffy to me. I mean why draw the line at the race. When casting a movie to play, say.... Marthin Luther King Jr. Why not make it so that you have to be the Exact weight, height, same facial features.. make sure the person playing him went to the same school, high school, college. Same city, same neighborhood. Heck, why not have to have the same birthday.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Heck, why not have to have the same birthday.

Because they're actors. They can pretend to have a different birthday. Technically they can pretend to be a tall young black trans-dude post operation while they're actually two tiny middle aged Asian women, but somehow that often doesn't quite live up to the same standard of convincingness. When you have a plot about a guy who turns out to have been kidnapped from a nearby Yupik village it helps if he looks at least sort of Yupik. If he doesn't it's a tomato surprise.

[JadedDM]

lol I hate it when they make a character have to be played by a certain race. Such as the cast for Lion King. First off. It's about Lions. -_-'

And where do these lions live, Kyberwulf? Poland? Switzerland? Kansas? Gosh, I just can't remember. Where does The Lion King take place again?

[zimmerwald1915]

And where do these lions live, Kyberwulf? Poland? Switzerland? Kansas? Gosh, I just can't remember. Where does The Lion King take place again?

The Pride Lands. Which if Kingdom Hearts has taught me anything is its own universe disconnected from everything else and accessible only with highly advanced magitek.

(EDIT: No point to make here, just riffing.)

(EDIT 2: Although, now I think about it, Zazu refers to "Africa." Once.)