DVDizzy Forum

PrincessElsa wrote:

qindarka wrote:If Hollywood found enough people voting with their wallets for different kinds of movies, they would make those different kinds of movies.

Hollywood often does not make "different" movies out of a fear that they won't earn as much money. They like safe bets over risks and this is why we get movies like Transformers 4 and Smurfs 2 over original screenplays and why "indie" titles struggle to get wide distribution. People can't "vote" when they're not really given choices.

Flanger-Hanger wrote:

PrincessElsa wrote:

Hollywood often does not make "different" movies out of a fear that they won't earn as much money. They like safe bets over risks and this is why we get movies like Transformers 4 and Smurfs 2 over original screenplays and why "indie" titles struggle to get wide distribution. People can't "vote" when they're not really given choices.

"Safe bets" are safe bets for a reason. Generally speaking, they do better thank "risks." (That's why "risks" are risky.) The gambling adage is a good one: you can't expect the film industry to keep betting on films that have terrible odds of doing well. It would quickly go broke that way.

If, when Hollywood took risks and promoted "indie" titles, those films generally did well, then the movie industry would be promoting indie films left and right. But those films generally don't make very much money, because the stories don't have mass appeal, but rather, niche appeal.

The democracy of the wallet wins. People generally prefer to view safe bets over indie films, because indie films have stories and themes and characters that appeal to niche audiences (like, say, extreme feminists or extreme whatever-ists) and not to as many people as possible. There are always exceptions, but that's all they are -- exceptions -- and the film business can't keep hoping for exceptions; it has to appeal to the majority.

And Disney has made many masterpieces, truly timeless masterpieces, by appealing to the majority.

About there not being any other minor female roles in the film.

How many women were in Princess and the Frog? About 3 which includes Tiana, Charlotte, and Eudora (Tiana's Mother.)

So this isn't exactly new.

In Hercules there was Meg and Hera.

In Hunchback of Notre Dame there was Esmeralda and Laverne.

In Lion King there was Nala, Simba's Mother and Shenzi

In Aladdin there was just Jasmine.

In Beauty the Beast there was Mrs. Potts, Belle, and the Wardrobe.

Heck in The Jungle Book there was, the mother elephant and the girl (Shanti) that got Mowgli to return to the man village.

In Snow white and The seven Dwarfs there was The Evil Queen and of course Snow White.

In Fox And The Hound, there was Vixey who Tod fell in love with.

In Bambi there was Bambi's mother.

I could go on and on about the comparisons that show a lot of Disney Animated Movies don't have a lot of female leads and it isn't anything differ with Frozen.

qindarka wrote:I'll give you a personal example. Whenever I create stories in my head, I imagine all my characters as white. And I'm not even white myself. That's what the media has done to affect my thought processes.

I’ve also had that problem. I’ve actually had to consciously examine the things I write/my ideas to make them more diverse and the female characters more empowered. It even works at a deep level, because I’ve unconsciously coded “female” as evil just in symbols. It’s one of those things that you have to constantly question yourself on, otherwise they just slip by without notice. It’s too bad filmmakers don’t do that when creating their films instead of perpetuating the problem.

This is a problem of Disney’s that hasn’t changed for 70 years, so I don’t seem them progressing. Whenever they have a female-focused film, that means two main female characters (usually one is the protagonist and the other is the villain) with the rest of the characters being male. I believe TP&TF and Frozen have had differences (neither have evil female characters and TP&TF had both female friendship between Charlotte and Tiana and a benevolent female authority).

That said, I think it’s perfectly understandable why people would complain about this. I mean, Disney isn’t very progressive, so it’s not like it’s uncalled for.

PrincessElsa wrote:

qindarka wrote:It's not an either-or scenario. Disney can make movies that feature more female representation without compromising the quality of their films.

Yes, so long as the choices are made for artistic reasons and not political ones. There is a huge difference between the two imperatives, and grading a film based on a political scorecard, as the writer of the Tumblr piece under discussion appeared to be doing, is an example of putting politics above story quality, and that is a recipe for creative disaster.

And it just so happens “artistic reasons” = few female characters. That is a ‘political act,’ as you say, just unconscious; whereas most people would see multiple female characters consciously as ‘political’ because female power is not the norm. The fact is, they are both ‘political’ choices, but since the majority of characters being male is as “normal’ as it is in film, it appears otherwise.

PrincessElsa wrote:One could make the argument that the opposite is true. After all, there are no pro-white-male affirmative-action policies, but plenty of universities and government jobs have anti-white-male affirmative-action policies.

Now, one can make the argument that this is justified for one reason or another, but it is clearly these laws privilege non-whites and non-males, and anti-privilege white males. They are explicitly written to do just that. As a result, as you know, today, over 58% of college degrees go to women, not men.

I wouldn’t call that “as a result,” considering affirmative action laws are mostly about helping women and minorities whose backgrounds are underprivileged and who most likely can’t afford college, unlike most white males--despite their grades. This is because women and minorities are systematically disadvantaged, and thereby more likely to be impoverished. The fact is that the majority of white men are often so privileged that they don’t see it as “privilege“ but “normal,” while laws are in place to keep the scales even--mostly because otherwise people would treat females/minorities as lesser because they would have no reason not to (which includes not hiring someone non-white or non-male who is equally capable for a job or paying a woman/minority less for the same job).

Women have always done better with education than men (the way it generally is today anyway, as far as sitting in one place, listening, concentrating, not losing interest, etc.), but they are less likely to be able to afford or be encouraged to do well (which circles us back around to why looking at the depiction of female characters in film is important), which is where those policies come from.

I’m also thinking that men without degrees have a greater likelihood of being paid equal to or getting a job as a women with degrees, since you bring up that percentage. The degrees awarded do not represent the number of women with jobs or their pay in comparison to men.

Disney's Divinity wrote:

qindarka wrote:I'll give you a personal example. Whenever I create stories in my head, I imagine all my characters as white. And I'm not even white myself. That's what the media has done to affect my thought processes.

I’ve also had that problem. I’ve actually had to consciously examine the things I write/my ideas to make them more diverse and the female characters more empowered. It even works at a deep level, because I’ve unconsciously coded “female” as evil just in symbols. It’s one of those things that you have to constantly question yourself on, otherwise they just slip by without notice. It’s too bad filmmakers don’t do that when creating their films instead of perpetuating the problem.

Sometimes I wonder if it's a mistake to treat racism/sexism etc as an 'other', as attitudes only held by nutjobs who use abusive language. I believe that most people are outwardly supportive of equality and like to think of themselves as moral people who are free from such biases. You're right in that we must recognise that these attitudes are present within most of us, not that blatant or malicious perhaps, but they still affect out actions. Often, there are a lot of common practices which are discriminatory but are not recognised as such.

disneyboy20022 wrote:About there not being any other minor female roles in the film.

How many women were in Princess and the Frog? About 3 which includes Tiana, Charlotte, and Eudora (Tiana's Mother.)

So this isn't exactly new.

In Hercules there was Meg and Hera.

In Hunchback of Notre Dame there was Esmeralda and Laverne.

In Lion King there was Nala, Simba's Mother and Shenzi

In Aladdin there was just Jasmine.

In Beauty the Beast there was Mrs. Potts, Belle, and the Wardrobe.

Heck in The Jungle Book there was, the mother elephant and the girl (Shanti) that got Mowgli to return to the man village.

In Snow white and The seven Dwarfs there was The Evil Queen and of course Snow White.

In Fox And The Hound, there was Vixey who Tod fell in love with.

In Bambi there was Bambi's mother.

I could go on and on about the comparisons that show a lot of Disney Animated Movies don't have a lot of female leads and it isn't anything differ with Frozen.

That doesn't make it better, if anything it makes it worse. It's a reflection of a long-standing negative trend.

In the case of Frozen, it's more apparent because the source material did have a large cast of female characters. I've defended this film to hell and back over multiple forums and regret none of it but this is one criticism I have to acknowledge.

Disney's Divinity wrote:That said, I think it’s perfectly understandable why people would complain about this. I mean, Disney isn’t very progressive, so it’s not like it’s uncalled for.

It's not "called for" at all, except by people with a political agenda.

You're working from the assumption that so-called "progressive" (a good PR word for what actually means Leftist) means "better." But that's not necessarily the case at all. Eastern Europe under the communists was very "progressive" -- in fact, it was Leftism incarnate -- and look where that ended up. Detroit has had "progressive" politics for decades, and it hasn't done the city much good, has it? It has ended up bankrupt. I could go on...

The point is simply this: progressive Leftist and "better" are not synonymous. Making something more Leftist might not only fail to make something better, but might also make it worse, both culturally and artistically. So to pretend that making something more Leftist is superior is nothing but a bias and isn't necessarily borne out by the facts.

Disney's Divinity wrote:

PrincessElsa wrote:Now, one can make the argument that this is justified for one reason or another, but it is clearly these laws privilege non-whites and non-males, and anti-privilege white males. They are explicitly written to do just that. As a result, as you know, today, over 58% of college degrees go to women, not men.

I wouldn’t call that “as a result,” considering affirmative action laws are mostly about helping women and minorities whose backgrounds are underprivileged and who most likely can’t afford college, unlike most white males--despite their grades.

"Most" white males? Most white males are working class or below the poverty line. So they, in fact, get doubly disadvantaged: they can't afford college, and they are discriminated against by anti-white "affirmative action" policies.

Now, if you want to defend the idea of race-blind laws to benefit people cased strictly on the basis of poverty, not on the basis of skin color, that might at least be closer to an "equality of opportunity" premise.

Disney's Divinity wrote:This is because women and minorities are systematically disadvantaged, and thereby more likely to be impoverished. The fact is that the majority of white men are often so privileged that they don’t see it as “privilege“ but “normal,” while laws are in place to keep the scales even--mostly because otherwise people would treat females/minorities as lesser because they would have no reason not to (which includes not hiring someone non-white or non-male who is equally capable for a job or paying a woman/minority less for the same job).

Vague allusions about "systematic disadvantage"? One could hallucinate anything and make any claims if one doesn't need concrete, tangible evidence to support it.

On the other hand, laws that discriminate against white men are real, actual, and explicit examples of discrimination. Those are rather more immediate than lingering myths about "disadvantage."

Disney's Divinity wrote:And it just so happens “artistic reasons” = few female characters. That is a ‘political act,’ as you say, just unconscious

Not at all. It could well be an artistic choice not a political one. For example, Oaken -- were there equivalent female business owners in Norway in the 19th century? If there weren't, then making him a male character is strictly a reflection of historical fact. Or Marshmallow -- anthropomorphic males are generally physically larger and more intimidating than females, so in creating a snow monster that the filmmakers wished to convey menace, it is logical to give him an aggressively male quality. There may also well be a "brother" undercurrent going on between him and Olaf, to match the "sister" story of Elsa/Anna.

The point is, to sweepingly say that introducing male characters is a political act is an unwarranted and biased assumption, when there could very well be sound, non-political artistic reasons for making this choice.

Disney's Divinity wrote:Women have always done better with education than men (the way it generally is today anyway, as far as sitting in one place, listening, concentrating, not losing interest, etc.),

So what you acknowledge, in fact, is that there is a "systemic disadvantage" against men. Good to hear it. I hope you keep this in mind.

Disney's Divinity wrote:but they are less likely to be able to afford or be encouraged to do well (which circles us back around to why looking at the depiction of female characters in film is important), which is where those policies come from.

Again, if you propose a race-blind, gender-blind policy that benefits those who are impoverished, whatever their race or gender, that would be fair. But if you propose something that discriminates against white men (even when those white men are themselves poor, as many are) then there's no equality at the basis of that.

And regardless, that is a political matter, not a filmmaking matter. There is not, thank goodness, any law on the books that says that films must be propaganda factories for Leftist (or any other brand) of politics or social engineering. May there never be, or else we truly will be living in a totalitarian state (as was the case, as mentioned before, in eastern Europe just a few decades ago).

Disney's Divinity wrote:I’m also thinking that men without degrees have a greater likelihood of being paid equal to or getting a job as a women with degrees, since you bring up that percentage. The degrees awarded do not represent the number of women with jobs or their pay in comparison to men.

Studies have shown that women are more often interested in part-time work than men are, while men are more interested in full-time work. That plays a huge role in the pay-percentage stats (though it is, of course, often elided).

qindarka wrote:Sometimes I wonder if it's a mistake to treat racism/sexism etc as an 'other', as attitudes only held by nutjobs who use abusive language. I believe that most people are outwardly supportive of equality and like to think of themselves as moral people who are free from such biases. You're right in that we must recognise that these attitudes are present within most of us, not that blatant or malicious perhaps, but they still affect out actions. Often, there are a lot of common practices which are discriminatory but are not recognised as such.

What is also important to recognize is how imagining that racism/sexism exists where it does not can inadvertently lead to actual racism/sexism in the opposite direction. ("Reverse racism," or "reverse sexism," if you will.)

The point is, to sweepingly say that introducing male characters is a political act is an unwarranted and biased assumption, when there could very well be sound, non-political artistic reasons for making this choice.

You are missing the point. The fact that there are always more male characters than female characters cannot be swept under the rug as “artistic reasons.” That’s just a flimsy excuse to avoid justified criticism.

It's not "called for" at all

It is called for, because not only white men grow up watching these films, and, yes, films condition people how to see the world and how to think.

But you are clearly a Fox news junkie who thinks “more women/minority characters in film” = “communism.” I mean, seriously, what the…. So it’s clear there’s no rationalizing with you.

I would also like to point out that there are no facts in your post, so all your points are just as easily written off as delusions/hallucinations as anybody else’s. Do you even believe the Holocaust, or do you think some Leftist made that up to benefit minorities? The one percentage you gave is random with no source, so I’m sorry if I’m not taking you seriously. It’s hilarious that the only sexism/racism you can see is in reverse, when white men are still the most advantaged on the planet by a very large degree.

Studies have shown that women are more often interested in part-time work than men are, while men are more interested in full-time work. That plays a huge role in the pay-percentage stats (though it is, of course, often elided).

Do you have a link? Because that sounds like complete nonsense.

Disney's Divinity wrote:You are missing the point. The fact that there are always more male characters than female characters cannot be swept under the rug as “artistic reasons.” That’s just a flimsy excuse to avoid justified criticism.

But on what basis is that criticism "justified"? On the basis of a political agenda. If one doesn't subscribe to that political agenda, then the criticism is not justified.

I am not against having more female characters in film. But I am not for the idea that there should be more female characters just for the sake of having more female characters. If a filmmaker (e.g., Disney) feels that a film would be more appealing to Disney's target audience by having more female characters, and if the writer and director feel that having more female characters better expresses their artistic vision, then by all means.

But if, on the other hand, Disney or the writer or director feel that, for artistic reasons, a story is better told with a different set of characters, they should be free to tell the story in that way. And no one should try to politically pressure them into changing their artistic vision for ideological reasons.

Because of course, what you're not considering is the dangerous precedent that this sets. As soon as someone is allowed to set political/ideological quotas for films, it never ends.

E.g., if fundamentalist feminists get to insist on more female characters, then there's no fair reason for a studio to resist demands from, say, fundamentalist Christian ideologues, who might say, "The depiction of magic in this film is blasphemous, therefore it must be removed." Think not? Remember that some towns have actually banned Halloween for that very reason.

So for the sake of having enjoyable films, it's infinitely better to let the filmmakers tell the stories in the way that they believe the stories will best be told and will best connect with the audience.

And given Disney's track record in producing beautiful films, I certainly don't want anyone mucking that up, based on their agenda -- of whatever "ism" they favour.

It is called for, because not only white men grow up watching these films, and, yes, films condition people how to see the world and how to think.

So who gets to decide the "correct" kind of conditioning for society to experience? You? Me? I might consider someone else's formula for "correct" conditioning to be just as appalling as someone else might consider my formula for "correct" condition to be appalling.

But fortunately, we live in a democracy, where we give artists freedom to tell the stories that the public wishes to see. And if someone doesn't like those stories, then they can go off and tell stories of their own -- not infringe on the rights of creators to tell the stories they want to tell, or to infringe on the rights of audiences to see the stories that they wish to see (or, if you want to put it this way, the conditioning that they wish to see).

Disney's Divinity wrote:But you are clearly a Fox news junkie who thinks “more women/minority characters in film” = “communism.” I mean, seriously, what the…. So it’s clear there’s no rationalizing with you.

a) That's an ad hominem.
b) I do not watch Fox news.
c) No, I do not think "more women/minority characters in film" = "communism." I think politically pressuring artists to tell stories based on a Leftist agenda is communism. I believe in artistic freedom, not political pressure on artists.

Disney's Divinity wrote:I would also like to point out that there are no facts in your post, so all your points are just as easily written off as delusions/hallucinations as anybody else’s. Do you even believe the Holocaust, or do you think some Leftist made that up to benefit minorities? The one percentage you gave is random with no source, so I’m sorry if I’m not taking you seriously. It’s hilarious that the only sexism/racism you can see is in reverse, when white men are still the most advantaged on the planet by a very large degree.

"The Holocaust," really? Because I am against political interference with artistic creation, whereas, e.g., fascism is a statist ideology that does believe in political interference with artistic creation? That doesn't follow.

My statistic comes directly from the U.S. Dept of Education:

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/ ... 12_310.asp

And no, based on affirmative-action laws, poor white men (i.e, the majority of white men) are, as I pointed out, doubly disadvantaged -- disadvantaged by poverty, and disadvantaged by anti-white legislation.

Disney's Divinity wrote:

Studies have shown that women are more often interested in part-time work than men are, while men are more interested in full-time work. That plays a huge role in the pay-percentage stats (though it is, of course, often elided).

Do you have a link? Because that sounds like complete nonsense.

Here you go. Not nonsense at all, but fact:

http://ideas.time.com/2013/06/12/lets-n ... work-less/

Can we please move all of this to another forum?

No one is going after artist freedom/free speech It's the artist right to make whatever they wish, and it's our right to react however we like.

And "artistic version" hardly has a place in this debate, let's be real. Disney movies have not been purely artist for decades. Many, many decisions about them are made in boardrooms by studio executives with only money in mind. Anyone posting on this board should know this.

I think she's got a few valid points, even if she's too aggresive for the matter (something i've always hated).

I'm still not seeing Frozen- sexism or not- it just doesn't seem that interesting/good.

In B4 all the Frozen fangirls attack me.

I completely agree with the original post (saw it on Tumblr awhile back) and with everything qindarka wrote earlier in the thread.

I have never had a problem with 'Disneyfication' until this film. As a fan of the original story (which is a FULL narrative, with a strong plot and strong cast of characters. Give them a little more backstory and, boom, you don't REALLY need that many changes) I found the initial title change jarring and stupidly cynical enough. ('Frozen,' what could be MORE generic?) but, then, I thought, as long as Disney keeps the story relatively intact it could turn out fine...

Then we find that the story not only has nothing to do with the original tale's plot, but it doesn't even feature remotely similar characters or circumstances, and it isn't even The Snow Queen-In-Name-Only!

All of the things that made the original story SO endearing (the idea of a little girl going on a journey and being a hero, saving the boy, the fantastical characters met along the way, including the Bandit, the Witch, the reindeer...) all of those elements have been stripped away.

I've not had the least shred of interest in Frozen since I heard about the story changes. And seeing all of the concept art, trailers, etc., have only worsened my opinion of it. It looks, to me, like another sad attempt by Disney to try to have their cake and eat it, too. (In regards to the 'Oh! Better change the title so nobody thinks it's a GIRLIE MOVIE! Wouldn't wanna poison the box-office with VAGINA.' and the 'LOOK! TWO MORE PRINCESSES!...That means two more Barbie dolls, two more dress-sets, two more figurines, two more t-shirts, and two-more officially licensed Elsa and Anna Disney-Dildos for your special little girl!' corporate mindset.)

My main qualm about Frozen is that the two female main characters are princesses. It's as if Disney is suggesting that the sister story that they fabricated wasn't compelling enough, so they had to make Anna and Elsa royalty in order to reach an audience.

Disney's Divinity wrote: The fact that there are always more male characters than female characters cannot be swept under the rug as “artistic reasons.” That’s just a flimsy excuse to avoid justified criticism.

Nope. That just a delusional assumption you're making a generalization of. Hell there even some Disney films that have more female cast than males.

Disney's Divinity wrote:It is called for, because not only white men grow up watching these films, and, yes, films condition people how to see the world and how to think.

You mean "sheep". That's only the case when you make it out to be such, even when in reality there isn't.

Disney's Divinity wrote:But you are clearly a Fox news junkie who thinks “more women/minority characters in film” = “communism.” I mean, seriously, what the…. So it’s clear there’s no rationalizing with you.

I would also like to point out that there are no facts in your post, so all your points are just as easily written off as delusions/hallucinations as anybody else’s. Do you even believe the Holocaust, or do you think some Leftist made that up to benefit minorities? The one percentage you gave is random with no source, so I’m sorry if I’m not taking you seriously. It’s hilarious that the only sexism/racism you can see is in reverse, when white men are still the most advantaged on the planet by a very large degree.

And here is where all credibility of and profound and worth of your argument ends. WTF does Holocaust even have anything to do with this discussion even? Funny how you're saying you can't take him seriously when it really should be the opposite. You just called him a fox news junkie when there is no shred hint even him being so, just because he's bringing up a point (that doesn't conform to your opinion)how people go overboard of gender issues on fucking entertainment movies.


Also stop acting like women don't get their fair share of political advantages.

40 yr old man touch young girl- gets 30+ years in jail + nasty social stigma

40 yr women or even younger does same to young boy(bonus points if the suspect is super hot)- gets slap on the wrist/ community service with mild social stigma.

Yeah...I know I'm not going to have a "discussion" with you and I already read all I planned to of PrincessElsa with my last response, so I'm hitting the brakes right here. Thanks and bye.

ProfessorRatigan wrote:I've not had the least shred of interest in Frozen since I heard about the story changes. And seeing all of the concept art, trailers, etc., have only worsened my opinion of it. It looks, to me, like another sad attempt by Disney to try to have their cake and eat it, too. (In regards to the 'Oh! Better change the title so nobody thinks it's a GIRLIE MOVIE! Wouldn't wanna poison the box-office with VAGINA.' and the 'LOOK! TWO MORE PRINCESSES!...That means two more Barbie dolls, two more dress-sets, two more figurines, two more t-shirts, and two-more officially licensed Elsa and Anna Disney-Dildos for your special little girl!' corporate mindset.)

Guess the only sensible thing to do is...wait til the film comes out.

Lame title aside, the only problem I have with FROZEN so far is that Disney is starting to glut their Princess lineup. Which is where I can see the frustration behind many of the films' original characters being dropped. Not so much the male-to-female ratio in their selected stories that's troubling, but the lack of diversity among the female characters. It seems most of the time, Disney only values a heroine if she can be made into a princess (unless their name is Eilonwy). I'm sure there ARE female Disney fans out there who are not interested in royalty, much less the sparkly pink and purple plastic world each new heroine is eventually placed into (and there ARE a few such examples, like Alice, Lilo, and Vanellope to start with.)

SO, Disney doesn't want to be FORCED into any political agenda, which is what many wrongly believed of The Princess and the Frog. But they should remember what happens when they get out of touch with the outside world.

ajmrowland wrote:She raises some valid points, but I seem to forget when all the Princesses were white. Even if you're technical, there's at least Jasmine and Pocahontas(Mulan and Tiana start off working class so they don't really count).

To be honest, Disney is adapting European fairytales...so of course the characters are going to be white. It just is.

That reminds me some tumblr users have been trying to reimagine Frozen in an Inuit setting. I wonder if they ever watched that Happily Ever After show on HBO that adapted their own version of the Snow Queen. It had Earth Kitt voicing the titular Snow Queen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsYnlk5VpIo

Here's the full episode. Man, Eartha we all miss you.

Why do people freaking insist on adding Mulan and Pocahontas to this dumb line when they're not fucking princesses in the first place?

In tumblr people are all "REPRESENTATION MATTERS SO IT'S OKAY TO ADD MULAN AND POCAHONTAS FOR THE NATIVE AMERICAN AND CHINESE GIRLS TO FEEL OKAY BUT NOT EILONWY CAUSE SHE'S A WHITE BITCH"

Gah. Tumblr people are stupid.

I hope this Princess line goes off and dies soon.