Would you like to se an gay/lesbian couple in a Disney film?

[Lazario]

I'm with Divinity on this one, Iceflash - your use of the words "agenda" and "lifestyle" is unsettling and problematic. We all know this will never happen and we have no say over it. But instead of being at all supportive or understanding, the tone of your reply is very reactionary. Very crying outrage before anything has even happened.

And as a matter of fact, in case Divinity hasn't said this yet I'll go him one better; if Disney don't do a movie featuring an openly gay character soon, things will surely develop into The Princess and the Frog, where it's much too late to make a difference. That's why people became so vocal about that movie- because they knew Disney had been caving to racist views by waiting so long to feature a black hero or heroine. If you were only listening to the whiny white voices that thought Frog was serving an agenda, you really need to surround yourself with new voices.

[BellesPrince]

To be honest, it's just as reactionary from the gay rights lobbyists who are calling out for such a thing as it is for those of us who don't feel this should happen.

[The_Iceflash]

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.

Saying that isn't fair since it's not true at all. Nice spin/assumption though.

What NEEDS to happen is more teaching of acceptance and tolerance.

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).

Never said it would be.

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!

Your assumptions are hilarious! Too bad I never said anything about turning anyone into them.

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.

Except that there are infinite reasons for one to not be tolerant or be acceptant toward someone about.

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.

I never said having them in there by default is an "agenda". I already explained that. Did I say the characters "tell children what to think" or that they should exist to please my ideas of right and wrong? Did I say it promotes it? Stop saying things I didn't say and that I certainly DON'T think.

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.'

When did I say it would be wrong to display by default romantic homosexuals? Stop saying I said things that I didn't. I certainly do NOT have an agenda. I resent that.

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.

I never said it them being in there alone = a gimmick. I said I wouldn't want their appearance portrayed as a gimmick.

[The_Iceflash]

I'm with Divinity on this one, Iceflash - your use of the words "agenda" and "lifestyle" is unsettling and problematic. We all know this will never happen and we have no say over it. But instead of being at all supportive or understanding, the tone of your reply is very reactionary. Very crying outrage before anything has even happened.

Except that they're not unsettling and problematic as I explained that agenda = Cheshire_Cat's rationale and not the very existence of them in a filmand explained how things like who one sleeps with, how promiscuous one is, etc are things that "make up" one's lifestyle and not being such in it's own right. In fact, in my initial post, I never called it a lifestyle.

All I was explaining is what I would not want to see in such a film. I'm not against the idea of having gay characters but against certain ways they can be portrayed and different ways such a film would be made, promoted, etc.

And as a matter of fact, in case Divinity hasn't said this yet I'll go him one better; if Disney don't do a movie featuring an openly gay character soon, things will surely develop into The Princess and the Frog, where it's much too late to make a difference. That's why people became so vocal about that movie- because they knew Disney had been caving to racist views by waiting so long to feature a black hero or heroine. If you were only listening to the whiny white voices that thought Frog was serving an agenda, you really need to surround yourself with new voices.

I wasn't listening to anyone about it serving an agenda.

What I was saying in reference to TPATF is that it seemed like they were promoting more that the film featured "the first black princess" (which I saw as illustrating the Disney princess line as a gimmick as well) then about the film itself. I think it should be first and foremost about the story. I wouldn't want them in a film for the sake of it or to meet a quota (i.e to say they have done a film with them in it).

[The_Iceflash]

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.

I agree with that completely.

To be honest, it's just as reactionary from the gay rights lobbyists who are calling out for such a thing as it is for those of us who don't feel this should happen.

I agree.


@Everyone else who intends to quote me: If anyone who hasn't quoting me yet is going to, please read ALL my posts so I don't have to re-peat myself and do NOT make me out to look like a fool, bigot, etc when none of that is the point of my posts nor my beliefs. Got it?

[Disney's Divinity]

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.

Saying that isn't fair since it's not true at all. Nice spin/assumption though.

Why else would you be against a movie that "teaches" tolerance of gays specifically (considering that's the group that is most readily marginalized by everyone)?

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).

Never said it would be.

Um...you said you wouldn't want a movie with gays because it would be a "gimmick" that would "push an agenda."

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!

Your assumptions are hilarious! Too bad I never said anything about turning anyone into them.

Except you're the only one laughing.

Slapping the word "agenda" on the gay topic can't be read any other way. What else could an "agenda" mean?

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.

Except that there are infinite reasons for one to not be tolerant or be acceptant toward someone about.

But we have movies that tell us to be tolerant/accepting/understanding of ugly people, people with abnormalities, environmentalism, different beliefs, children, etc. Why should gays be any different? Assuming that a film with gay characters would have to have an agenda, what exactly would be so problematic of focusing a film on "tolerance towards gays," when gays are the group who people are generally most intolerant towards? You think the parents are going to teach them to be tolerant? Or rather to continue being intolerant?

I never said having them in there by default is an "agenda". I already explained that.

Except that's ignoring that most every film has some small "agenda," and you're dramatizing the word because of the topic. What is it about the message of being tolerant and accepting that would disturb you so?

I never said it them being in there alone = a gimmick. I said I wouldn't want them portrayed as a gimmick.

You also identified TP&TF as a gimmick, but the characters and the film itself work very well outside the "gimmick" created by the advertising and merchandise. Since I personally don't believe that happened with TP&TF, what's to suppose it would happen with a film like this?

To be honest, it's just as reactionary from the gay rights lobbyists who are calling out for such a thing as it is for those of us who don't feel this should happen.

Except you're not the one being excluded, are you? It's easy to feel there's nothing wrong when you're viewing it from outside the box.

[BellesPrince]

Well, in all fairness, it's a box I don't won't to climb into.

I just think it's wrong on every level, and they shouldn't do it.

No-one's being excluded from anything. If you want to go see a gay storyline, then go and see something other than Disney. It has no place in an entertainment that is primarily aimed at children.

Quote me however much you like. Call me homophobic if you like.

I just do not think it would be right to do this in a Disney Animation, and I agree that it's a topic which really should never have been started.

I do think this whole business of putting up endless quotes, quite often out of context to try and win an argument is a bit tiresome too.

Isn't anyone allowed to have the opinion that they don't think it's the right thing to do, and just leave it at that, without pulling their opinions apart in public?

[Elladorine]

They should do an animated version of And Tango Makes Three.

[Disney's Divinity]

Well, in all fairness, it's a box I don't won't to climb into.

Report me however much you like. Call me mean reactionary if you like.

Blah blah blah.

And this would be okay if it was against a movie with Black/Chinese/Korean/etc. people. But, I know, "you can't compare the Black struggle with the gay struggle." Yeah. It's worse.

[The_Iceflash]

Saying that isn't fair since it's not true at all. Nice spin/assumption though.

Why else would you be against a movie that "teaches" tolerance of gays specifically (considering that's the group that is most readily marginalized by everyone)?

Because I don't feel a Disney film is the place where that should be taught.

Never said it would be.

Um...you said you wouldn't want a movie with gays because it would be a "gimmick" that would "push an agenda."

I said it would be a "gimmick" because Disney would market it as such (which I explained in detail later). Simply being there doesn't make them one. Sorry if that was said wrong.

My last line of my initial post "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. "

I said I would not want a Disney film to push an agenda. I never said it would be one.

Your assumptions are hilarious! Too bad I never said anything about turning anyone into them.

Except you're the only one laughing.

Slapping the word "agenda" on the gay topic can't be read any other way. What else could an "agenda" mean?

I "slapped" on the word "agenda" in regards what I wouldn't want them to do with such a film and to Cheshire_Cat's rationale. You are the one jumping to other conclusions.

Except that there are infinite reasons for one to not be tolerant or be acceptant toward someone about.

But we have movies that tell us to be tolerant/accepting/understanding of ugly people, people with abnormalities, environmentalism, different beliefs, children, etc. Why should gays be any different? Assuming that a film with gay characters would have to have an agenda, what exactly would be so problematic of focusing a film on "tolerance towards gays," when gays are the group who people are generally most intolerant towards? You think the parents are going to teach them to be tolerant? Or rather to continue being intolerant?

What's problematic is not focusing ANY film on it but a Disney film. To me a Disney film is not the place for that.

Again, I didn't say it would HAVE to have an agenda.

I never said having them in there by default is an "agenda". I already explained that.

Except that's ignoring that most every film has some small "agenda," and you're dramatizing the word because of the topic. What is it about the message of being tolerant and accepting that would disturb you so?

There's nothing about such a message that would disturb me. All my posts here mention my wanting teaching of tolerance and acceptance.

I never said it them being in there alone = a gimmick. I said I wouldn't want them portrayed as a gimmick.

You also identified TP&TF as a gimmick, but the characters and the film itself work very well outside the "gimmick" created by the advertising and merchandise. Since I personally don't believe that happened with TP&TF, what's to suppose it would happen with a film like this?

I identified the PROMOTION of TPATF as a gimmick. I said I would not want a Disney film with them portraying them as such and feared that if Disney did make such a film they would promote it the same way as TPATF and thus under promote the story itself.

[Linden]

I do think this whole business of putting up endless quotes, quite often out of context to try and win an argument is a bit tiresome too.

I second that.

Isn't anyone allowed to have the opinion that they don't think it's the right thing to do, and just leave it at that, without pulling their opinions apart in public?

I guess I am, since I stated that I think it's wrong on the last page and no one jumped on me (or replied, for that matter). I guess it's how you say it.

[The_Iceflash]

Isn't anyone allowed to have the opinion that they don't think it's the right thing to do, and just leave it at that, without pulling their opinions apart in public?

I guess I am, since I stated that I think it's wrong on the last page and no one jumped on me (or replied, for that matter). I guess it's how you say it.

Most definately.

[Disney Duster]

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?

Can you say why you think it is wrong?

Wonderlicious, I'm not sure if I still don't get what you're saying or if you're saying something I still feel is wrong. Are you just saying that before Disney can do this, audiences would have to get to a point where they teach children about homosexuality themselves early on, to accept the movie happening. In other words, audiences would need to change? Because, if that's the case...well, of course they would have to!

Because otherwise, homosexuality would not have to be taught to children before they see the film because it should be. Because the only thing that "should be" is Disney should show what they want to show that is perfectly not harming children in any way, which a gay movie wouldn't be, even if children had never seen or heard of the same sex being romantic ever in their entire lives of 2-8 years. The film would teach them.

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.

Not only do young children grapple with their sexual differences from a young age, as I did, because I knew I was different and felt differently about boys at a young age but didn't know why, but children see adult and teen issues in Disney films all the time! By golly, marriage is an adult issue, and it's in too many Disney films to count! They even deal with death! High School Musical! Also, I'm pretty sure you're gay and are in the closet and don't want to admit it, all because of the way you were raised or some other reason.

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.

The stepsister was transgender? I thought it was just a woman so ugly she looked and sounded like a man. Anyway, there can be gay princes and princesses. They made up the fairy tale for The Princess and the Frog, that wasn't exactly a previous story. So they can make up a fairy tale again, this time with a gay prince or princess.

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.

What I was saying is rather hard to explain, I admit. What I was saying was that Disney has certain traditions. What they can do and what they can't do is a little hard to figure out, but they still can try. A lot of families may not take their kids to see the film, but what defines "family values" or "family entertainment". It is Walt who defined what family entertainment meant to him, and from all I have seen of his films, I mainly see the idea of being good and clean as being his idea of family entertainment. And we can have good, clean gay characters. I know there's a little more to the Disney idea of family entertainment, but this illustrates my point in the simplest way.

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.

First, almost every Disney fan ever has said at sometime "Walt must be rolling over in his grave". I've said it for the very reasons other Disney fans have said it, you know what they mean by it. The only reason I have been so picked on for saying it is because I say it when usually almost no one else agrees with me, and I defend my saying of it for as long as people keep attacking my saying it.

But more importantly, I already revealed at least two instances of characters that were intended to be ambiguously gay in Disney works. And they were positive characters, Cupid and the Reluctant Dragon. And actually Jaq and Gus in Cinderella actually did have a gay hinting. But more importantly than that, a book my one friend read revealed that Walt Disney did not have a problem with homosexuality when it was brought up by Tommy Kirk. He fired Tommy Kirk for bad behavior and picking up and having a relationship with a minor. I also heard someone say a relative of Walt Disney's say the same thing, he was okay with homosexuality when it was brought up by Kirk, but he fired him for different reasons.

It is for all these reasons that homosexual characters shown very positively in Disney films seems alright with Walt and the Disney way.

The_IceFlash, first, Disney has always had messages in their films alongside their entertainment. The biggest example of use here is Dumbo. In Dumbo, the film teaches tolerance of anything that is different. But Dumbo, the elephant some people didn't think was okay, was central to his film and got to have his own story and happy ending. The same should be able to be done for gays if they so choose to.

The Princess and the Frog did not have an agenda or anything wrong about it's portrayal of blacks in the actual film. the closest thing is the song "Dig a Little Deeper" where they say "it doesn't matter what you look like", which was totally appropriate for them being frogs as well. I know lots of black people who love the movie. If a Disney movie featuring the first gay prince or princess turned out like that, I would be extremely happy, even if the film wasn't that good (which I didn't think The Princess and the Frog was that good, but still good enough).

Finally, I noticed this is the second time you seem anti-gay, just like in the thread about Pixar's video on gay-bullying, where you said you thought the video should be about all bullying, when the video was in response to a lot of gay bullying that was happening, so it was made for gay people to feel better. I guess you don't want any gay kids to feel better. Because gay kids would feel a lot better seeing characters like themselves have a happy ending in a movie instead of just hearing that everyone should be tolerant.

Read everything else I said in this post for other details, because it covers other things you said.

Disney'sDivinity, you're my new hero. I want to especially note your great pointing out of the messages other Disney movies have that would allow a message of tolerance for gays in their films to be done like that.

[Scarred4life]

Isn't anyone allowed to have the opinion that they don't think it's the right thing to do, and just leave it at that, without pulling their opinions apart in public?

If you don't want your opinions to be responded to/scrutinized, don't post things on a forum, where the soul purpose is to discuss/debate things!

I just realized that I never stated my opinions on the subject. I feel that having a gay couple in a film would be perfectly fine. I think I would enjoy such a movie more if the storyline didn't revolve around the gay couple, just happened to feature one, ala The Princess and the Frog. Tiana didn't need to be black for the storyline to work, and I think they should do the same for a gay couple.

[The_Iceflash]

Finally, I noticed this is the second time you seem anti-gay, just like in the thread about Pixar's video on gay-bullying, where you said you thought the video should be about all bullying, when the video was in response to a lot of gay bullying that was happening, so it was made for gay people to feel better. I guess you don't want any gay kids to feel better. Because gay kids would feel a lot better seeing characters like themselves have a happy ending in a movie instead of just hearing that everyone should be tolerant.

Read everything else I said in this post for other details, because it covers other things you said.

I'm actually offended at that notion. First of all, with the Pixar Video, I would rather see a film in that ALL kids who are bullied can feel better watching and as someone who was bullied for other reasons and after knowing many who were bullied (including one for being gay), it really hits home and I resent the notion that I don't care. Just because I didn't want an anti-bulling video to solely focus on one reason for bullying doesn't mean I don't want any gay kids to feel better. I'm offended by that. I know the pain of bullying and wouldn't wish that pain on everyone. Yes there is a lot of gay bulling going on but guess what, there's a lot of bullying in general going on. There's way too much and ALL of it should be addressed.

So me wanting to have a film addressing all bullying vs isn't instead of just one seems anti-gay? That's so wrong.

[The_Iceflash]

I feel that having a gay couple in a film would be perfectly fine. I think I would enjoy such a movie more if the storyline didn't revolve around the gay couple, just happened to feature one, ala The Princess and the Frog. Tiana didn't need to be black for the storyline to work, and I think they should do the same for a gay couple.

I agree.

[Flanger-Hanger]

I think I would enjoy such a movie more if the storyline didn't revolve around the gay couple, just happened to feature one, ala The Princess and the Frog. Tiana didn't need to be black for the storyline to work, and I think they should do the same for a gay couple.

This would be the best way to do it, especially in TV where the potential failure of the attempt would be a lesser financial blow. Another comedy show aimed at tweens/teens with characters in the 14-16 year range that has familiar plot lines, but features gay characters could be a way to do it.

[Disney Duster]

So me wanting to have a film addressing all bullying vs isn't instead of just one seems anti-gay? That's so wrong.

No, what I meant was that a video that just talked about general bullying would not be a very good response to the recent terrible gay bullying that happened, and it would not make gay children feel better. You see, gay teens needed a video that told them not only that they can live through the bullying, but that it's okay to be gay and that they can live a healthy life as gay individuals. A video that was just about general bullying would not cover that. I'm sorry if I really did offend you. But now I hope you see what I meant.

[BellesPrince]

Well, in all fairness, it's a box I don't won't to climb into.

Report me however much you like. Call me mean reactionary if you like.

Blah blah blah.

And this would be okay if it was against a movie with Black/Chinese/Korean/etc. people. But, I know, "you can't compare the Black struggle with the gay struggle." Yeah. It's worse.

No thanks, I prefer girls.

[Disney Duster]

^ I seriously still think you may be in the closet and don't want to come to grips with your own sexuality.

I also forgot to say to The_Iceflash that having gay couples in a Disney film would not alienate the audience, not anymore than having black people be the main characters of The Princessa and the Frog would alienate audiences.