fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2181 ]

[ SECRET POST #2181 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2181 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 100 secrets from Secret Submission Post #312.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 2 - too big ], [ 1 2 (again) - repeat ], [ 4 - trolls ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Actually people are trying to erase the diversity. If you look around you'll see a lot of people going on about how Disney only attempts white European stories, doesn't attempt POC, etc. So yes, they are.

They've actually done pretty well from the 90s onward. We had Aladdin and Jasmine, Pocahontas, Esmeralda, Kida, Kuzco, Lilo, Nani, Tiana, and Mulan. But unfortunately most of those movies are sort of ignored by Disney. I mean even though Pocahontas and Mulan are technically part of the princess line they're rarely included in merchandise.

And this is not to say that they don't need more diversity, because they totally do and I agree with that.

It's much more like that another company like Pixar or Dreamworks are going to be the first to really make an effort on the diversity front.

...No. Dreamworks has been infinitely whiter than Disney and Pixar has been better than DW but not on the same level as Disney. Disney has already made far more attempts at diversity than either of those companies. DW especially doesn't take any risks.

Prince of Egypt was about Egyptian and Hebrew characters

Kung Fu Panda is basically a huge tribute to kung fu movies and Chinese art and culture in general

Spirit had a major Native American character in it iirc

That upcoming movie The Croods is about cavemen who are very obviously not white

The rest of their movies star animals or aliens or fantasy monsters, there are only a few where the major human characters are all white

Dreamworks is far from perfect but you're factually incorrect there sorry to say

They have taken far more risks in their 15+ years of existence than Disney has since the beginning of its existence. They aren't so caught up in their company image yet that they aren't willing to have an ugly, gross, fat, weird, or obviously weak protagonist, for one thing. The most you can really fault them for at this point is milking the fuck out of Shrek and Madagascar, which is just good business sense.

Oh also they were the first animation studio to have a woman as the sole director for an animated film, so that gives them bonus points in my books.

Dreamworks also had Road to El Dorado and Sinbad. Like you pointed out, most of their work focuses on anthropomorphized animals and aliens and monsters and the like, too.

I think Disney does have more diversity than a lot of people give it credit for, but that doesn't mean that people are out of line asking for more. It's not like they reach a certain quota and have to stop. Also, I think that part of the reason some of Disney's diversity tends to get overlooked is because some (not all, but some) of the more diverse movies - like Brother Bear or Atlantis or Hunchback of Notre Dame or even Princess and the Frog - weren't the commercial successes that movies like The Little Mermaid or Beauty and the Beast were.

I am sorry but you can't argue animals as POC, especially one voiced by Jack Black. KFP is out, and it was so far from a risky movie (this isn't to condemn it on a quality level, as a movie doesn't have to be risky to be good- but talking animals doing kung fu while being voiced by famous comedians is not 'risky').

At least most of characters in Croods are definitely white.

They aren't so caught up in their company image yet that they aren't willing to have an ugly, gross, fat, weird, or obviously weak protagonist, for one thing.

It's not a risk to have male protagonists like this. Hollywood thrives on the unpleasant male lead becomes hero thing. It's hugely popular and very often brings in massive bucks. If anything it's gotten irritating how easily people will take to and cherish male protagonists like this. Females are never allowed to fill roles like this and be successful.

As for Spirit and PoG, point taken. I often forget about their older 2D output. Personally I felt they were braver with it than their CGI stuff.

But when it comes to storytelling, ignoring even the final quality of it, DW doesn't take many risks.

The most you can really fault them for at this point is milking the fuck out of Shrek and Madagascar, which is just good business sense.

Are you serious? THE MOST YOU CAN FAULT THEM FOR. I can fault them for many things. I can fault Disney for many things too, btw. You're really just sounding like a pressed DW stan when you make statements like that because you can't really make a statement like that about even the best of companies.

They have taken far more risks in their 15+ years of existence than Disney has since the beginning of its existence.

Heck no. First off Snow White, their first film, was such a MASSIVE financial risk that people were calling it Walt's folly before it came out. It was such a huge gamble, and honestly it's still probably the biggest risk someone in the Western animation industry has ever taken. Walt Disney was ALL about taking risks. Fantasia? The list goes on. Walt rarely made movies that were sure-fire hits. Modern Disney took risks too. Hunchback of Notre Dame was a massively risky movie. It's extremely dark, has a not just 'unpleasant looking' but hugely disfigured lead, a woman of color as the lead female, and overall a tone that's very not Disney (despite the gargoyles). Lilo and Stitch is a sisterly bonding movie about two Polynesian girls who take in an alien as a pet. It's SO weird that it's surprising Disney even greenlit it. Atlantis is a PG sci-fi movie with an ensemble cast that's more inspired by old pulp stories than anything else. I could go on, but basically these movies were all huge storytelling risks. The only reason some of them probably even got greenlit is because they were hoping the power of the Disney name brought in audiences.

Disney is most famous for its yes, non-risky very European fairy-tale movies, but frankly they would not be here today if not for how risky they were in (even the recent) past. Expecting Frozen to take risks as well is not out there of people.

I pointed out the talking animal movies because you can't really put them in either camp. Because they are animals. Should have clarified that, sorry.

But I see KFP as an exception because it still obviously takes place in China and the animals are obviously Chinese, regardless of their voice actors.

The Croods are prehistoric humans. Prehistoric humans originated in Africa or Asia. They don't look white to me at all, honestly.

"Are you serious? THE MOST YOU CAN FAULT THEM FOR."

Yeah, that was a poor choice of words. I was trying to be a little joke-y there, but I guess it didn't work.

I wish they had more female leads as well-that's why I'm looking forward to The Croods, because I've heard Eep is basically the lead and she's great in the trailers so far. But Disney is hardly any better. It would be nice to have at least one movie from them about a girl that isn't just another obvious addition to their princess line. Something like Lilo and Stitch, which actually is one of my favorites, but that movie came out ten years ago and there hasn't really been anything like it since.

Funny how almost all of those risky movies you mentioned are either decades old, or are constantly swept under the rug/ignored by the very company that made them. I love a lot of the films you mentioned but it doesn't change the fact that the company itself seems to view at least some of them as mistakes.

Also, to use a more specific example, The Princess and the Frog suffered a TON because the studio was so unwilling to take risks with it. For fear of offending people, of course, which is a worthwhile thing to take into consideration, but a lot of the things they ended up dumbing down or reducing would have made it a more powerful movie. Specifically changing Tiana's job and name and barely addressing the societal problems at the time at all in the final film.

I appreciate Disney movies, but I personally think Dreamworks is better off for not having that same pristine, wholesome image that Disney has, and I think that gives them a bit of edge in the long run and more room to try new things and make mistakes. And I think they HAVE done that, and will probably keep doing that. If that makes me a DW stan, well, so be it. Sorry for having different opinions about movies than you?

"Expecting Frozen to take risks as well is not out there of people."

So you agree that they should be taking a risk, then? Then I really don't know why we're arguing about this, we're on the same side here, I just don't think they're going to do it. And, well... they aren't, if the concept art is anything to go by.

DA

Wasn't Tiana supposed to be called Madeline until somebody complained it wasn't "ethnic" enough?

I vaguely remember that she was supposed to be Maddie, but it was too close to Mammie- Mammie (or mammy?) being the "Happy black nursemaid to white children" archetype.

Dreamworks is worse than Pixar when it comes to representation?

In which universe?

Lemme think of PoC characters in Pixar movies... there's the kid in Up and Frozono in the Incredibles... and yeah, that's it.

Edited 2012-12-23 13:25 (UTC)

Seriously. Pixar is shit when it comes to gender and racial representations.

Lol. I was actually thinking you were the anon.

I legitimately forgot their 2D output. But I just doublechecked and they haven't had any POC characters in movies except for said 2d films, and the last one released was... 2003. They've made eighteen films since then, which is more movies than Pixar has released period. My point stands.

Both companies have a pretty crappy track record though, and Disney's done a lot better than both of them on that front.

It really doesn't. I don't get why people seem to believe Dreamworks only started doing movies with Shrek. Fact is that they have more PoCs than Pixar ever did.

By your logic, the only reason Disney is better is because it's been making movies since the 30s.

Not really, but continue your DW 'stanning.

By your logic, the only reason Disney is better is because it's been making movies since the 30s.

What.

Or the fact that in the last twenty-three years (since Little Mermaid, which kicked off the renaissance), nine out of twenty-five of their movies (and nine out of eighteen that actually star humans) have had POC in lead roles, which while not perfect, is a record that no other Western company can even come close to touching.

Edited 2012-12-23 17:23 (UTC)

And you can continue your irrational Dreamworks hating.

Disney has been making movies for a long time. They have more movies than either Dreamworks or Pixar, which is one of the reasons they have more movies starring POCs.

I don't hate DW. Being willing to point out problems/=/ hating. I love Pixar the most (more than Disney), but didn't I outright say above that they've done a pretty crappy job of including minorities (whereas you can't seem to do the same for DW)?

Disney has made less movies in the past twenty years (which is what I was pulling the POC number from) than DW has made in the whole of its existence. Pixar is the same. You can't go by number of years when DW puts out multiple films a year and the others put out only one (if that). It gives an inaccurate ratio.

Disney in the last twenty years- twenty-two movies, nine POC leads.
Dreamworks since their inception- twenty-five movies, two POC leads.

Or even-
Disney since 1998 (which is the year DW released its first film)- seventeen films, six POC leads.
DW since 1998- See above.

This doesn't include Disney's fairies franchise, which has Latina, Asian, and black characters.

Disney's been around a longer time, but by ratio of film they've still done better on the ethnic minority (and female lead) front. I don't even see how this is an argument. They've been the most progressive Western animation studio when it comes to inclusion by far.

Edited 2012-12-23 20:11 (UTC)

And I don't mindless stan Dreamworks, I'm well aware of its faults. So stop accusing me of things and I'll return the favour.

We can go by the amount of movies, which is what you were using against Dreamworks in comparison to Pixar. Disney has made more movies than Dreamworks, so yeah, they have more PoC. But this logic is faulty, since a lot of early Disney films were made in a time were a PoC lead would have been unlikely.

DW has had Prince of Egypt (no white person in sight), Joseph, Sinbad, Spirit and the Road to el Dorado. And if they don't change the source material, The True Meaning of Smekday will have a poc female lead. Pixar has the two characters that I mentioned. I was arguing against your "Pixar is better than Dreamworks in representation" No, they really aren't.

The first three things that come to mind when I think Dreamworks are Spirit, El Dorado, and (though non-animated) Paulie. Interesting contrast to the point above that with Disney it's the more diverse ones that get shunted to the side.

That's an interesting thought. I think one of the main reasons Disney movies with PoC are ignored is because they weren't the successes Disney was expecting them to be.

Sorry for posting to this old post, going through my f!w backlog now, but omg, Dreamworks is going to make a Smekday movie? I had no idea. Man, I LOVED that book! Though I listened to the audiobook and the narrator (Bahni Turpin) was just. Amazing. As J.Lo, and I can only hope whoever voices him in the movie will do nearly as good a job.

(Again, sorry for posting to a dead thread, but again, LOVE for that book but no one to talk about it with.)

I don' mind! Yes, Dreamworks is doing the adaptation of the book. The voices have already been cast, I think Rihanna is doing the girl's voice, we'll see how that goes.

True. They're far from perfect, but they're trying. Prince of Egypt, anyone?

They tried back in 1998. What have they done since then? They haven't had an ethnic minority in a major role since 2002. :(

You forgot Chihiro, Penny (Proud), and Spinelli.

There's more where the protagonist isn't female: Mowgli, Hercules (Greeks are not typically included in the conception of pale-skinned Northern Europeans), Geppetto (Italian isn't either), and Kenai.

And this is not including live action movies which have numerous non-Northern European protagonists, co-protagonists, and supporting characters, such as The Color of Friendship, The Cheetah Girls, Johnny Kapahala, Zenon, Twitches, Buffalo Dreams, High School Musical, College Road Trip, Wendy Wu, Anaganaga O Dheerudu, and Wizards of Waverly Place, The Movie.

People who say Disney only ever does white-bread characters are just blatantly ignoring numerous movies and shows.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2181 ]

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject