DVDizzy Forum

Disney Duster wrote:The That's So Raven episode didn't air when it was supposed to, but I think did later, I did see it on Disney Channel when flipping through.

Yeah, I remembered that after I posted it. I think it was the last episode of the series ever aired.

I would not agree with having gay/lesbian characters. Now before I, too, am accused of being homophobic , I'll clear everything up by saying I'm not. Just because I disagree with homosexuality does not mean I'm afraid of it or repulsed by it. It simply means I believe it's wrong. I realise that it takes a lot of guts to be openly gay/lesbian, and I understand that it's difficult, what with all the degrading looks/comments. I even respect homosexuals for standing up for what they believe in. But I still think that what they believe in is wrong. Does that make sense?

I don't want to see gay/lesbian Disney characters, but I think Disney will eventually have some. Probably in another fifty to a hundred years. Maybe less.

Regarding Disney's first step being ambiguously gay characters, what about Sharpay's brother in the HSMs? I read somewhere that Disney declined to comment on his sexual orientation.

I'm just worried that people ran with my joke post and took it to a very scary place.

Dear Disney Enthusiasts,

I personally don't know how comfortable many people, including myself, would be with such a movie. I'd certainly be going crazy with curiosity if such a movie were ever released.

There have, no doubt, been gay, or seemingly gay Disney characters within a good number of Disney movies.

I think that the delivery of such a movie would be the toughest aspect of releasing the movie. I mean, the movie-makers wouldn't want to surprise families with a gay storyline once they were already INSIDE the theatres, but revealing a gay storyline BEFORE the release of the movie to which it belonged could be disastrous.

How would such a movie be marketed, and what if the news headlines roared with such choice sentiments as "The Disney Company Comes Out of the Closet, Goes Out of its Mind!"?

There'd be accusations of "A Liberal takeover at The House of Mouse!", etc.

I think that The Disney Company might be able to work its way TOWARD the release of a movie with a gay storyline by, unfortunately enough, moving very slowly, like a patient who won't be able to remove the cast from their leg for awhile.

I think that The Disney Company would be wise to start out by moving towards storylines which DON'T require a marriage-minded ending and/ or which don't require the pairing of two TRADITIONAL characters (Ie: A heroine could go on a quest for herself, and gain a FRIEND during the process, or she might be paired off with a non-human character).

I think that "The Fox and the Hound" may be the best current example of a Disney movie during which two characters of the same gender maintain a strong connection to each other, despite the various forces which separate them.

Thank you in advance for your replies.

Disney Duster wrote:

Wonderlicious wrote:Considering Disney's stance as a moral backbone, society's general attitudes would have to do a complete 180. Children would first have to be educated from an early age about homosexuality; the number of complaints Disney would get from parents over gay characters would likely stem from unwitting children asking their parents why two guys were kissing. That could ultimately lead to wider acceptance, which would make homosexual characters a possibility.

...I may not get you straight, but it sounds like you're saying that, unlike how little kids learn about straight love for the first time through Disney movies...they can't learn about gay love for the first time through Disney movies? All they have to do is see one of Disney's gay featuring films among the many they watch at a young age, and there should be no problem.

I wasn't saying they couldn't/shouldn't learn about homosexuality through Disney; my post overall was in favour of it, but I was addressing some hard facts about acceptance and understanding, and the fact that many people still aren't completely comfortable talking about homosexuality (sad as that may be). Most children from a very young age would be introduced to the idea of a man and a woman together from real life experience (parents, people talking about marriage etc). Images of romance in films, books or TV programmes would simply complement supposed ideals of love. I was simply stating that having an overall education from an early age on homosexuality, which would bring about more acceptance and understanding, would be needed before Disney could realistically give the go-ahead for a gay Disney character. Young children do find it hard to grasp romantic concepts (I know I did, and I'm sure others did as well), and I don't think simply having two Disney princes kissing would be enough, sad as that sounds.

Actually, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I don't think they should do it. It has nothing to do with being homophobic or against same sex relationships.

I simply think that the struggle with a person's own sexuality is something which they really come to terms with in their teens and into adulthood, and I don't think an animated movie / fairytale is the right place to address such issues.

At an early age, children are very easily influenced, and I don't think they are old enough to make an informed choice at that age - too readily going with what is considered to be cool or hip or trendy. If a gay relationship is promoted in a film in that way, then that could influence them before they are old enough to find their own way in life.

I think there are the same concerns with same sex couples adopting. It's a difficult issue, because who's to say they couldn't provide a better home for a child - but I think the most important thing is that children should be able to find their own way in life.

BellesPrince wrote:At an early age, children are very easily influenced, and I don't think they are old enough to make an informed choice at that age - too readily going with what is considered to be cool or hip or trendy. If a gay relationship is promoted in a film in that way, then that could influence them before they are old enough to find their own way in life.

Yes, but then you could say the same thing with heterosexual couples. They might influence potentially homosexual children to be heterosexual. I don't think that what children watch is going to affect who they will be sexually attracted to in the future.

They might pretend to be heterosexual (or vice versa) for various reasons, but overall you really can't change your sexual orientation.

I'm not homophobic or anything and i think everyone is free to love who they wish, but in a Disney movie i'd rather see they just stick with the prince/princess stuff. Dreamworks has already done the transgender thing (with the ugly stepsister and prince charming) but i don't see that happening with Disney.

No because first and foremost they would be portrayed in the film as a gimmick (or make them into one). It will be The Princess and the Frog all over again. They made "First Black Princess" into a gimmick and the film itself would suffer from outside people saying how the film should be made (like with TPATF).

That aside, I don't see the big deal with wanting them in a Disney film anyway. I think the whole argument "It will teach kids it's ok..." is a bunch of BS. To me, that's not what a Disney film is for and I would not want a Disney film to be made to push an agenda.

Bottom line: I don't think it belongs in a Disney film.

DisneyDuster wrote:I must say here, that 1) Walt Disney didn't care when he found out Tommy Kirk was gay, he was fired for his reckless behavior and picking up a minor, and 2) you can be family friendly and traditional and still have things we now allow in modern times. The things that are traditional about Disney that should be kept are more the way they do the films. Their good main characters do bad things and get away with it, even in Walt films.

Yes but homosexuality is not a traditional family subject. Disney have never done an animated film with gay characters and have never faced any serious calls for them to do so. If an animated Disney film centred around two gay character who fall in love, do you think parents would be comfortable taking young children to see it? I'm not sure I do.

DisneyDuster wrote:Once again, they should keep some things about Disney traditional, but since Walt never seemed to have a problem with gays specifically, at least they are okay in Disney's films.

What? I'm not going to suggest that Walt Disney was homophobic as I don't know whether he was but you're making a presumption that has no foundation. As a well-known public figure in his era, he would never have publicly declared his feelings on the subject when homosexuality was a particularly taboo subject. You said on another post on the forum that Walt would be "turning in his grave" because the poster for the new Pooh film feature the phrase "Oh Pooh" and yet you are so sure he would have had no problems with homosexuality featuring in his animated films based on he "never seemed" to have a problem with it? It seems very presumptious to think such a thing when you never knew the man.

Wonderlicious wrote:

Disney Duster wrote: ...I may not get you straight, but it sounds like you're saying that, unlike how little kids learn about straight love for the first time through Disney movies...they can't learn about gay love for the first time through Disney movies? All they have to do is see one of Disney's gay featuring films among the many they watch at a young age, and there should be no problem.

I wasn't saying they couldn't/shouldn't learn about homosexuality through Disney; my post overall was in favour of it, but I was addressing some hard facts about acceptance and understanding, and the fact that many people still aren't completely comfortable talking about homosexuality (sad as that may be). Most children from a very young age would be introduced to the idea of a man and a woman together from real life experience (parents, people talking about marriage etc). Images of romance in films, books or TV programmes would simply complement supposed ideals of love. I was simply stating that having an overall education from an early age on homosexuality, which would bring about more acceptance and understanding, would be needed before Disney could realistically give the go-ahead for a gay Disney character. Young children do find it hard to grasp romantic concepts (I know I did, and I'm sure others did as well), and I don't think simply having two Disney princes kissing would be enough, sad as that sounds.

At most, at young ages what should promoted is tolerance and acceptance in general. Anything more I think is inappropriate and agenda pushing. At young ages they don't even understand most if not all about romance and people think teaching kids at that age about them is going to serve a purpose? I don't even think kids at any age should be told what their views on it should be. I would be appalled if some random person told me what I should think about certain lifestyles. Should I be taught tolerance and a acceptance of others generally? Yes. Should I be told what my views should be toward lifestyles different from my own? No.

I would personally like to see openly gay characters displayed in Disney films under the condition that the writers do not rely on stereotypes and cliches.

I don't see the inclusion of openly gay characters in Disney movies as an agenda. Instead, I see it as getting audiences to realize that homosexuals do exist, that they are not depraved individuals who must be hidden from children and overly-sensitive adults, and that pretending that they don't exist would be senseless.

Furthermore, if being homosexual is a lifestyle, then so is being heterosexual, because there is no overall drastic difference between the lives of homosexuals and the lives of heterosexuals other than to whom their romantic and sexual inclinations are directed. The notion that there is a homosexual lifestyle is nothing more than a tool used by social conservatives to paint homosexuals as deviants.

Having said all that, I don't mean to come off as overly preachy, but some of these things need to be said.

Cheshire_Cat wrote:I would personally like to see openly gay characters displayed in Disney films under the condition that the writers do not rely on stereotypes and cliches.

Just look at the production of The Princess and the Frog for an idea how they might approach that.

I don't see the inclusion of openly gay characters in Disney movies as an agenda. Instead, I see it as getting audiences to realize that homosexuals do exist, that they are not depraved individuals who must be hidden from children and overly-sensitive adults, and that pretending that they don't exist would be senseless.

Audiences already realize this. They aren't a figment of people's imagination. Them not being in a Disney film isn't pretending they don't exist. You said it's not an agenda yet you say it's getting audiences to realize they do exist, etc. If you want to get technical, isn't that in a way an agenda? To do what you say is getting audiences to realize they do exist sounds like to me shoving them own people's throats and I wouldn't want their appearance in a Disney film to come off that way. Again, it comes down to if it's portrayed as a gimmick in the film.

Furthermore, if being homosexual is a lifestyle, then so is being heterosexual, because there is no overall drastic difference between the lives of homosexuals and the lives of heterosexuals other than to whom their romantic and sexual inclinations are directed. The notion that there is a homosexual lifestyle is nothing more than a tool used by social conservatives to paint homosexuals as deviants.

Both are things that make up one's lifestyle. Who one sleeps with, how promiscuous one is, etc are all things that make up one's lifestyle.

I can not believe that this was even posted as a topic for discussion. I come to this board to discuss my love for Disney films and the appreciation for them. If having a gay couple or character was a integral part of a plot..then, I do not understand why there would be a issue. There are homosexuals, bisexuals, transgenders in our society...so...would it be odd to have them in a film? The topic of homosexuality brings out a lot of flared and tempered emotions and I do not think this was a topic that should have been posted.

The_Iceflash wrote:Just look at the production of The Princess and the Frog for an idea how they might approach that.

How were the characters portrayed in The Princess and the Frog in any way stereotypical?

The_Iceflash wrote:Audiences already realize this. They aren't a figment of people's imagination. Them not being in a Disney film isn't pretending they don't exist. You said it's not an agenda yet you say it's getting audiences to realize they do exist, etc. If you want to get technical, isn't that in a way an agenda? To do what you say is getting audiences to realize they do exist sounds like to me shoving them own people's throats and I wouldn't want their appearance in a Disney film to come off that way. Again, it comes down to if it's portrayed as a gimmick in the film.

How is the mere presence of openly gay characters shoving anything on anyone? Again, I don't see including openly gay characters in a movie as an agenda as much as I see it as a shrug-off of people's silly sensitivities.

The_Iceflash wrote:Both are things that make up one's lifestyle. Who one sleeps with, how promiscuous one is, etc are all things that make up one's lifestyle.

I would not consider one's sexual orientation to be a lifestyle all its own. That was my point, there is no difference between the way homosexuals live and the way heterosexuals live.

Cheshire_Cat wrote:

The_Iceflash wrote:Just look at the production of The Princess and the Frog for an idea how they might approach that.

How were the characters portrayed in The Princess and the Frog in any way stereotypical?

Did I say they were? I said look at the production of the film to see how they might approach it.

The_Iceflash wrote:Audiences already realize this. They aren't a figment of people's imagination. Them not being in a Disney film isn't pretending they don't exist. You said it's not an agenda yet you say it's getting audiences to realize they do exist, etc. If you want to get technical, isn't that in a way an agenda? To do what you say is getting audiences to realize they do exist sounds like to me shoving them own people's throats and I wouldn't want their appearance in a Disney film to come off that way. Again, it comes down to if it's portrayed as a gimmick in the film.

How is the mere presence of openly gay characters shoving anything on anyone? Again, I don't see including openly gay characters in a movie as an agenda as much as I see it as a shrug-off of people's silly sensitivities.

I said your rationale was. Using it to get audiences to realize they exist sounds like shoving it down their throats to me. Their mere appearance doesn't do that. That's why I said I wouldn't want their appearance to come off that way and/or portrayed like a gimmick.

The_Iceflash wrote:Both are things that make up one's lifestyle. Who one sleeps with, how promiscuous one is, etc are all things that make up one's lifestyle.

I would not consider one's sexual orientation to be a lifestyle all its own. That was my point, there is no difference between the way homosexuals live and the way heterosexuals live.

Right. It is part of it though so my initial post talking about lifestyles still applies. Since your remark about lifestyles was an obvious reply to my use of it, I'll explain it again:

I would be appalled if some random person told me what I should think about certain people's lifestyles (it is part of their lifestyle so my use of the word is valid here). Should I be taught tolerance and a acceptance of others generally? Yes. Should I be told what my views should be toward lifestyles (or what makes up one's lifestyle) different from my own? No.

justcuttinhair wrote:I can not believe that this was even posted as a topic for discussion. I come to this board to discuss my love for Disney films and the appreciation for them. If having a gay couple or character was a integral part of a plot..then, I do not understand why there would be a issue. There are homosexuals, bisexuals, transgenders in our society...so...would it be odd to have them in a film? The topic of homosexuality brings out a lot of flared and tempered emotions and I do not think this was a topic that should have been posted.

I agree. I think part of the issue is how it's done. If a film is built around that topic in of itself, then there's a very high risk of it coming off as gimmicky and agenda pushing, etc and Disney to most of us is first and foremost entertainment and to most of us that should always come first. Doing something like this runs the risk of alienating audiences and Disney has always been enjoyed by all.

The_Iceflash wrote:Did I say they were? I said look at the production of the film to see how they might approach it.

I misunderstood your previous comment. My mistake.

The_Iceflash wrote:I said your rationale was. Using it to get audiences to realize they exist sounds like shoving it down their throats to me. Their mere appearance doesn't do that. That's why I said I wouldn't want their appearance to come off that way and/or portrayed like a gimmick.

The impression that I get from Disney movies is that they blatantly ignore their existence. There has always been real-world depictions in Disney movies, even though they're often set in fantasy realms. Disney has covered all kinds of societal issues in their movies for the sake of getting people to realize that these things are going on.

And fine, I may be advocating pushing an agenda by calling for openly gay individuals in Disney movies, but at least I know that it wouldn't be the first time that Disney has utilized a particular social agenda for their films. Hunchback of Notre Dame comes to mind.

While Tiana may have been the "first black Princess" she was not the first African American character to appear in a Disney property. Looking at Disney's specturm of characters we see all kinds of races, both genders and various economic backgrounds represented. To seemingly not have even one openly gay character in any property* in this century seems odd and backwards. It need not be in a major animated release or even central role, but something should show up soon.

The again, maybe Disney's more subtle accapetance of gays is more important (allowing for commitment ceremonies and gay days in the parks, health benefits to gay employees, pariciapating in the "it gets better" campaign etc.) as it shows acceptance better than any ficticious token personality.

*Ryan Evans in the stage production of HSM appears to be the only exception

Scarredforlife wrote:

Belle'sPrince wrote:At an early age, children are very easily influenced, and I don't think they are old enough to make an informed choice at that age - too readily going with what is considered to be cool or hip or trendy. If a gay relationship is promoted in a film in that way, then that could influence them before they are old enough to find their own way in life.

Yes, but then you could say the same thing with heterosexual couples. They might influence potentially homosexual children to be heterosexual. I don't think that what children watch is going to affect who they will be sexually attracted to in the future.

Exactly. If both are presented alongside each other, they are not promoting anything. Anymore than HP promotes children to be witches or South Park promotes people to use foul language. It's just complete nonsense--just because a couple would be featured, doesn't mean they are "promoting" anything. Do they "promote" heterosexuality with heterosexual couples? I thought they were just telling love stories.

The_Iceflash wrote:That aside, I don't see the big deal with wanting them in a Disney film anyway. I think the whole argument "It will teach kids it's ok..." is a bunch of BS. To me, that's not what a Disney film is for and I would not want a Disney film to be made to push an agenda.

It's not BS when it actually needs to happen. But of course you could care less what gay children experience at the hands of other children.

And, moreover, having a film with gay characters doesn't mean the film would be about teaching kids anything. If they learn that it's okay from the movie, that's something they learn on their own--the same thing with any other gay-related TV show or movie. If anything, it would teach kids that, yes, gays have a right to exist, and love, and that white Christian males are not the only people who have the right to live as they choose in this world (though they'll keep that a secret from you).

Your post reads like a conservative whitewash, what with the whole "agenda" you're inventing. Yes, having a gay character in anything must be a sign of an underlying agenda to turn the world into homosexuals! Save us! It might just be that gay people exist and that, yes, they have as much right as you to see a character like themselves. And maybe they sympathize for children who are growing up in an oppressive family/school/community like they did, where homosexuals are treated like boogeymen--you've never seen them, but they're something evil lurking in the schools.

At most, at young ages what should promoted is tolerance and acceptance in general. Anything more I think is inappropriate and agenda pushing. At young ages they don't even understand most if not all about romance and people think teaching kids at that age about them is going to serve a purpose? I don't even think kids at any age should be told what their views on it should be. I would be appalled if some random person told me what I should think about certain lifestyles. Should I be taught tolerance and a acceptance of others generally? Yes. Should I be told what my views should be toward lifestyles different from my own? No.

So we should teach tolerance without actually showing what to be tolerant towards? Yes, that'll teach a child something. About being tolerant in name only.

Again, having a gay character is not an agenda, anymore than having heterosexual characters is an agenda. That's complete nonsense. The presence of gay characters does not promote homosexuality. More or less, it is not about you. Movies and characters don't exist to please your ideas of right and wrong. And to believe a movie with gay characters "tells children what to think" is beyond bizarre. Especially when they'll see that 99% of the other movies they watch are heterosexual.

Also, if I get this right, it would be wrong to display romantic homosexuals, but it's fine to display 50+ films where girls and guys get it on in the end and we meet their baby in the sequel? It sounds to me like you have an 'agenda.'

The_Iceflash wrote:

I don't see the inclusion of openly gay characters in Disney movies as an agenda. Instead, I see it as getting audiences to realize that homosexuals do exist, that they are not depraved individuals who must be hidden from children and overly-sensitive adults, and that pretending that they don't exist would be senseless.

Audiences already realize this. They aren't a figment of people's imagination. Them not being in a Disney film isn't pretending they don't exist. You said it's not an agenda yet you say it's getting audiences to realize they do exist, etc. If you want to get technical, isn't that in a way an agenda? To do what you say is getting audiences to realize they do exist sounds like to me shoving them own people's throats and I wouldn't want their appearance in a Disney film to come off that way.

Except...um...it wouldn't have to be. Having gay characters doesn't = a gimmick. There's nothing to say they wouldn't just have a normal film with gay characters. And if the first film with gay characters came off as a gimmick (a la TP&TF; which I personally find to be a good film anyway, and it hardly felt like a gimmick to me), maybe that needs to happen because they've ignored an entire demographic in their filmmaking history and everybody's noticed.