fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2251 ]

[ SECRET POST #2251 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2251 ⌋

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.

__________________________________________________

16.

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 112 secrets from Secret Submission Post #322.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

06. http://i.imgur.com/hICljyY.png

Yeah, cause that'll happen. After the backlash with a casually mentioned gay character in Paranorman, I doubt another animated movie will have a gay character. At least not for a few years.

I wouldn't even say it was that impressive of a backlash. You have to realize, a lot of the time it's the media stirring the pot rather than a reflection of how many people actually care.

Plus, there's the Unfortunate Implications of having a gay character who's a villain.

was just about to mention this
only gay character ever in a pixar/disney movie is a sneaky villain, that'll go down well

It also depends on a studio's ability to have a gay character without reeking of indoctrination. Mixing sexuality into children's entertainment does not go over well in America no matter how liberal the parents.

I'm wonder, how exactly would one manage to include a gay character into an animated movie and make it reek of indoctrination? Or do you mean that American parents see indoctrination everywhere and it would be hard to include a character in a way that wouldn't make them piss their pants?

DA: In my experience, the latter. I know one man who heard about that episode of Spongebob where Spongebob and Patrick raise a baby clam and start dressing and acting like a married couple with a newborn, Spongebob the nagging housewife in curlers and Patrick the absent office-working dad.

He decided the characters and the whole show were gay and forbid his son from ever watching another episode.

(no subject)

world_eater - 2013-03-03 00:50 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

lunabee34 - 2013-03-03 02:23 (UTC) - Expand

Actually, het sexuality gets mixed in all the time. It's just that people who grew up with that consider it normal, and see any other portrayal as overtly more sexual, while (frex) the dogs eating spaghetti in Lady and the Tramp eating spaghetti just pings as "heartwarming." It's easy to be aware that *your* orienation is all about feelings, and only a small subset of those are sexual. Minorities are still pushing for that kind of acknowledgement with limited success, and until they get it, a gay character is going to be interpreted by the mainstream as provocative and in-your-face sexual, even if they aren't.

Very good point. In a culture where het is the default, two guys exchanging even a chaste peck makes onlookers aware that their sexual orientation is important enough to them that they're willing to tolerate the ignorance and inconvenience which our current society forces them to endure.

Het relationships, on the other hand, we can kind of just skip over if we don't want to think about their sexuality; similar to how you generally don't think of your parents as anything other than asexual.

In other words, someone wearing a 'Gay and proud!' shirt is on the same level as a straight man wearing a shirt that said 'I only sleep with redheads'. Nothing wrong with that, but who wants to know?

The ideal solution would be for the next generation to get a chance to see homosexuality as normalized, just another option and not really a big deal, so they *don't* have to grow up with this knee-jerk response, but sadly it seems like that'll be a long time in coming.

I don't think laika really gave a fuck about the complaints tbh. the worst it really got iirc was a few pissed off comment sections around the web

Sorry but Pixar would never. They are not in the slightest bit a progressive studio.

What about the kid in Ratatouille clearly being illegitimate?

It's been a long time since I've seen Ratatouille so I don't remember what you're talking about. I also don't understand how that connects to this conversation at all.

The deuteragonist in that movie, Linguini, is explicitly an illegitimate child from a brief affair between Chef Gusteau and Linguini's mother, Renata. It's a huge plot point.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-03-02 23:10 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

fenm - 2013-03-02 23:16 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-03-02 23:20 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-03-03 00:02 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-03-03 02:34 (UTC) - Expand

No more or less progressive than any other CGI studio.

They do play with very unusual family dynamics a lot, and there was WALL-E, which being that it was a film about the apocalypse basically occurring because of global warming combined with corporate America getting so out of hand that they essentially destroyed the world, had a pretty boldly progressive message and pissed off a lot of conservatives.

Eh, you really want the villain of the first movie to be gay? Considering he's a cheating, child-stealing, life-sucking bastard I wouldn't exactly want him out of anyone.

Sometimes one does peg a villain as sharing traits one has. I'm never going to be convinced Caliborn of Homestuck doesn't have the cherub equivalent of high-functioning autism.

pretty sure he's just an asshole who doesn't have social skills due to being isolated for most of his life (and also due to the fact that he's, again, an asshole) rather than due to him having a developmental disorder

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-03-02 22:23 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-03-03 20:55 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

diet_poison - 2013-03-02 23:56 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-03-03 10:07 (UTC) - Expand

I really hope he's not sympathetic. The woobie Randall fen are already obnoxious enough.

im ok with it, coz there's not much else to get excited about with this movie?

like, oh wow college jokes. oh look there are jocks. and cheerleaders. and goths. wow. its funny because its referencing things. so fresh. so edge.

I don't see how it would make the movie more interesting. If anything it would just be annoying to me. I don't think every villain needs a tragic past.

I didn't enjoy the first Monsters Inc, but I'm going to see the sequel if only because their college website pimping the movie was hilarious, and pretty much identical to mine but with a monster bent.

And if the website can be that hilarious, maybe the movie will be okay.

He takes the bum and he puts it in a barrel, or else he gets the moose again.

I really don't want any backstory for Randall. I just want him to remain the office creep.

I just rewatched Monsters, Inc. for the first time in some six or seven years, and even its flaws are flawless. Is anyone else really ambivalent about this prequel?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only