DVDizzy Forum

Disney's Divinity wrote:By all means, if LGBT simply allowed themselves to be censored and silenced...

Except they are still being silenced. LGBT content is still getting banned. So, what is exactly gained by this policy? How does it benefit gay people living there?

Disney's Divinity wrote:Blame-shifting from the victimizer to the victim. People who hate LGBT will hate them regardless--giving into their demands will not help LGBT -in the slightest-.

When people from those countries cannot watch the latest Hollywood movie they were anticipating because of Disney's no-censorship policy, they aren't blaming their government or their religion. They're blaming gay people. That creates an uptick in anti-LGBT sentiment which can potentially lead to increased hate crimes. It's not victim-blaming to be aware of this.

Then that's on them for placing blame where it doesn't belong, and is symptomatic of their own hatred of LGBT. You can't claim to really want to see a film and be willing to sacrifice a part of it--the LGBT characters are as much a part of the film as the rest of it. It would be like claiming you want to see Beauty and the Beast, but wanting the scenes of Belle and Beast dancing to be exxed out and their kissing scene at the end to be censored. If you don't want to see those parts, then you don't really want to see the movie, do you? They are a part of the movie, its story, its characters, and its message. You don't get to cherry pick which parts of the movie constitute the movie and the same goes for a book or any other piece of media.

OK, so I looked up spoilers for this, because I'm not planning on watching it any time soon, and I can't believe they made Buzz the villain. He's Emperor Zurg! Well, a version of him from one of the time jumps. That is so lame. It sounds like something out of a bad superhero movie. I think The Flash series on the CW did the exact same thing. It shouldn't surprise me though they made the sole white character in the film the villain.

Another thing that doesn't make sense is that at the end the people of the colony decide to stay on the planet they got stranded on instead of going back to Earth. Who would choose a barren, alien planet over Earth? This is like the opposite message of Wall-E. No wonder this movie is getting mixed reviews.

I instantly clicked on the spoilers because I also can’t wait to not watch this.

They’ll do literally ANYTHING to keep this surprise villain routine going. Now that it’s so standardized in the scripts (and therefore not a surprise anymore), they’ve resorted to turning the hero into the villain. What an absolute joke. How is that storytelling?

Hard pass.

I'm still going to see this film this weekend but my expectations are low.

Sotiris, I think you might be right and this film won't end up being nominated, just like Frozen II didn't. It depends on whether it'll be worse than Strange World I guess.

Disney wokeness = white people (especially men) bad.

With 29 reviews, Lightyear has a metascore of 59 on Metacritic, the second lowest rating of all Pixar films and the third yellow after Cars 2 and Cars 3.

^There are still many reviews to be added, so that could change. On Rotten Tomatoes it's faring much better: 84% with 69 reviews, as of now.

Here are a new featurette and clip.

Another story about time dilation is To the Stars by L. Ron Hubbard. It's an idea that have been used more than once, including in the Ender's Game movie, but in a different context. In Hubbard's story the main character returns to earth only to find his girlfriend having grown old.

I actually intended to post the idea that the would probably end with the colony, now several decades into the future, had decided to call it their new home after having children and grandchildren there, and in the end not wanting to return to earth. Then I changed my mind because I couldn't imagine how anyone would chose to stay on such a barren and depressing planet that we saw in the trailer when all their roots were back on earth. But it sounds like I was wrong. And the villain is like Savitar from The Flash?

If fans are a little disappointed, it may be because the trailer is a bit misleading. It gives the impression that the movie will be a long journey to the stars. Now it turns out it is actually about being stranded on a hostile planet and Lightyear only going out into space now and then, and always returning to his stranded friends. That should probably have been explained in the first trailer.

D82 wrote:Here are a new featurette and clip.

The second clip doesn't look bad, and is clearly from the beginning of the movie.

D82 wrote:^There are still many reviews to be added, so that could change. On Rotten Tomatoes it's faring much better: 84% with 69 reviews, as of now.

Here are a new featurette and clip.

Rotten Tomatoes has lost a lot of credibility in recent years. Just look at what's happening right now with Obi-Wan. The score jumped from rotten to fresh, yet the reviews no longer show up, except for one. Very sus.
click over to the audience reviews, you'll negative after negative review, yet the score is still positive?

Its clearly pay to win at this point, corrupt to the core. This is coming from someone who used to respect them for the most part. Now I don't know what metric to measure the general consensus with, but this doesn't seem to be it anymore.

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:Another story about time dilation is To the Stars by L. Ron Hubbard. It's an idea that have been used more than once, including in the Ender's Game movie, but in a different context. In Hubbard's story the main character returns to earth only to find his girlfriend having grown old.

I've seen Ender's Game, but I don't remember much of it. Time dilation sounds like an interesting device for sci-fi stories, though.

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:If fans are a little disappointed, it may be because the trailer is a bit misleading. It gives the impression that the movie will be a long journey to the stars. Now it turns out it is actually about being stranded on a hostile planet and Lightyear only going out into space now and then, and always returning to his stranded friends. That should probably have been explained in the first trailer.

I also had the impression they would travel to more planets at first. I was a bit disappointed when I realized that probably wouldn't be the case, but I think the film can be interesting in spite of that. As for the reviews, I never expected Lightyear to be a masterpiece, so they don't make me less excited for it. If anything, I think I'm more curious to see how I'll feel about the movie now, as it seems people are quite divided on it; some love it and others hate it.

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:The second clip doesn't look bad, and is clearly from the beginning of the movie.

Though I've posted them, I actually haven't watched any of the clips or TV spots this time; just the trailers and featurettes. I did the same with Turning Red, but in that case due to lack of time. I think it made me enjoy the movie more, so I decided to do the same with Lightyear. I wouldn't be able to resist the temptation if it was a WDAS movie, though, as I'm usually more excited for them.

Kyle wrote:Rotten Tomatoes has lost a lot of credibility in recent years. Just look at what's happening right now with Obi-Wan. The score jumped from rotten to fresh, yet the reviews no longer show up, except for one. Very sus.

I didn't know that about Obi-Wan's score. Could a new episode have caused the score to jump, for example, if people liked it and made them change their opinion on the show? I don't usually check the score for series, so I don't know how it works or if that's possible.

Disney's Divinity wrote:I like how people attach the word "woke" to anything they don't like these days; it's funny being a liberal myself, since I've never used that word to describe myself ever. It's one of those slang words only ever used to prop up regressive viewpoints.

It's gotten to the point now where someone using "woke" to complain about something means their opinion isn't worth listening to. I don't even see the word used anymore to describe someone being aware of social injustice (which, I believe, was the original intent) as it's been co-opted by a different crowd to complain about media being progressive. I even saw it used to describe the new Jurassic Park movie, because there's a black woman in it. This despite black characters existing in the franchise since the very first movie and Ian Malcolm even had a black daughter in The Lost World.

Hilariously, I also saw a YouTube thumbnail praising Morbius for not being woke. The word has basically lost all meaning now.

estefan wrote:I even saw it used to describe the new Jurassic Park movie, because there's a black woman in it. This despite black characters existing in the franchise since the very first movie and Ian Malcolm even had a black daughter in The Lost World.

It's used wherever there are female characters, non-White characters, or LGBT characters. Their mere existence is considered an "agenda" to some people--only White male characters are "legitimate" or "apolitical." I'm glad that viewpoint ultimately holds little sway over Disney's decision-making. In fact, instead of making Disney hesitant, I think those criticisms are likely spurring them on. *shrug*

Hopefully I'll be able to see this the day it comes out. But, aside from the fact I had little interest in this from the jump, I really can't imagine it being worse than The Good Dinosaur or the Cars films. The review situation is probably just critics having an ax to grind about sequels / offshoots from Disney, much like how critics started rating all the remakes worse on instinct to the point they were at extreme odds with the audience ratings. We'll see.

Kyle wrote:Rotten Tomatoes has lost a lot of credibility in recent years. Just look at what's happening right now with Obi-Wan. The score jumped from rotten to fresh, yet the reviews no longer show up, except for one. Very sus.

I remember something similar happening with Mulan 2020.

Lightyear is now banned in 14 countries including Lebanon , Egypt , Indonesia and likely China. Woke Disney is really digging in its heels at the expense of Muslims’ feelings. Communist China disapproves of homosexuality obviously not for religious reasons. Anybody know why?

China has even banned Pooh in their country for political reasons. And I believe The Little Mermaid and Aladdin were banned in a lot of these countries back when for featuring women that showed skin. They hate women as much as LGBT.

Thankfully Disney is choosing to stand with the LGBT community even if there are people here who do not. Good for them. I don't think the people boycotting this film support Disney products anyway; it's the same crowd that hated Turning Red for featuring a group of non-White girls as the protagonists. That crowd has been tuned out of Disney at least since the '90s and they've been "boycotting" for thirty years. Yet Disney's probably stronger these days than they ever were...

Another featurette: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL7otn26_IA

Taika Waititi's character looks so much like him it is easy to see which one he is giving his voice to. That's usually a tradition one associates with Disney's features.

It is a little ironic that muslim countries are boycotting this movie that has females using hijab, which could be a first for Pixar (hard to tell since I have skipped many of Pixar's movies the last decade).

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:It is a little ironic that muslim countries are boycotting this movie that has females using hijab, which could be a first for Pixar (hard to tell since I have skipped many of Pixar's movies the last decade).

There were also women wearing hijabs in Turning Red (Mei scares one in a scene when she's in red panda form) and possibly Soul as well in the background of scenes.

So yeah, I got to see the film on Monday, and I thought it was entertaining, if superfluous. It also came with a Star Command patch!



If you want to read some quick notes before it comes out, check out the spoilers.

There are a few callbacks to some of Buzz's most iconic lines, but that's about it in terms of Toy Story references, and most of those are in the opening sequence. Surprisingly, "falling in style" wasn't used, even though there was an opportunity near the end. I guess they wanted to frontload the use of references right away, to get it out of their system.

It doesn't feel like a 90's blockbuster at all, but more like a mix between an MCU movie and your usual Pixar flick, down to the expected sob factor that controls the story. I think that alone will make this a hit with audiences, and the crowd I was with ate it up. But I do think that this is enough reason to assume that it won't win the Oscar this year, least of all due to the Academy's traditional distaste towards popcorn movies.

Chris Evans and Josh Brolin are fine as Buzz, but I don't see why Tim Allen had to be recasted, especially when they both were clearly trying to emulate his voice. I think it'll probably sting twice as hard if and when the eventual Woody's Round-Up Disney+ series keeps Tom Hanks.

The rest of the voice acting is solid, and the supporting cast is pretty likable, primarily Buzz's crew. Sox is especially adorable, and I think he'll become a favorite and the toy to watch out for. On a side note, I thought that he was voiced by J.G. Quintel, since he sounds a LOT like Mordecai.

As for Alisha and her queerness, it's very explicit, but doesn't dominate her character. We don't see her wife for too long, but she makes it clear that she's engaged to a woman and Izzy references her "grandmas" more than once, even if Alisha is the one she talks about the most. They don't discuss how Izzy's dad is conceived, though.

Yes, there's a twist villain, and yes it's Buzz from the future. I'm not sure how I feel about that? It doesn't seem like a logical turn for the Buzz we meet in the movie, but maybe I'm sick of generational trauma being the big bad, too, since I was largely fine with them returning to this trope. There's a character introduced earlier that the movie tries to push to be the antagonist, but that largely ends up being a red herring. If you've seen more than one Disney or Pixar film in the last decade, though, this shouldn't surprise you.

I think the backgrounds are gorgeous, enough so that I'm considering picking up the Art Of book. The character designs, not as much.

Overall, I'd put it above the fourth Toy Story, but definitely below the first 3. I know this movie will appeal to a lot of people, but probably not everyone.

estefan wrote:There were also women wearing hijabs in Turning Red (Mei scares one in a scene when she's in red panda form) and possibly Soul as well in the background of scenes.

It was actually Turning Red I had in mind, since someone mentioned the movie. Just forgot to point it out.