[ SECRET POST #2181 ]

[case]

⌈ 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.

Comments

[iggy]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

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

[(Anonymous)]

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.