Tangled (Live-Action)

[Disney's Divinity]

I should have said--checklist first policy isn't just affecting performance of their recent films (although that is probably the most important point to the company, I know), it's affecting the quality of their films, which is more important to me. Checklists are fine, but when it comes at the cost of the quality of a story or soundtrack, then I'm sorry, somebody there needs to have enough of a spine to say no.

To your point about the suspension of belief, I think you cross it when you have a character we all know wouldn't have even been allowed in certain areas at that time period being in a monarchy position, it's just unbelievable to most people. You get away with it in plays or live shows, not so much with films. And while it's true technically that "power currently favors white" whatever, it really doesn't seem like audiences think that is true when it comes to Disney specifically right now. I remember several relatives rolling their eyes during the Wish teasers because of course the protagonist is going to be a poc, partly because this followed the furor of the TLM, B&tB Live, and Snow White racebends--and I admit even I did the same thing when we saw the new designs for Hexed. On the plus side, the originals will probably keep underperforming until they wake up and prioritize quality again rather than thinking first about how they can erase white people from all their movies.

[PatchofBlue]

I don't know if I can think of a single instance in which prioritizing minority representation has ever actually affected the quality of a film. I can think of several instances in which people have projected that thinking onto a film. Movies with those kinds of directives are just going to be grilled harder by angry white dudes than movies without it.

A lot of how people choose to define when "racebending" and the like is okay and when it is distracting, those rules tend to be written along the way. Something feels radical or excessive, until enough people do it, and then it's just normalized. It's fine to get the ball rolling.

I can believe that a lot of audiences probably are feeling like Disney, and Hollywood at large, is leaving white people behind. And those same people are probably ignoring the likes of Toy Story 5 and Frozen 3 and 4. Or that even after Marvel's great and unforgivable "awokening," the headlining cast for Avengers: Doomsdays is still 2/3 white. It only takes one or two instances of opening the door for white people to get nervous. White people will be fine.

[Disney's Divinity]

Except Toy Story 5 and Frozen /4 are sequels. Frozen's original was in 2013, Toy Story's was 20 years earlier than that.

Anyway, it's s stone cold fact that they picked the composer for Wish based off of identity and it resulted in a mediocre soundtrack because they put hiring someone qualified second. It's not much different than how John Lasseter prioritized his friendship with a composer over quality with TP&TF--another case where something was put before quality although it was nepotism there rather than identity-based like with Wish. As for the racebends, it's also undeniable those were forced and that it affected the performance--and at least in TLM's case I'd say it affected the quality of the product, too, because they had to alter the main character's design hair color to make it happen.

There's nothing "radical" about racebending, imo--it's just stupid, that's all, and always will be to most people when you alter characters in a remake who have designs that look a certain way out of some warped idea that that's "progress." It isn't progress at all. It's just a poison that dilutes the creative process because you're putting story, character, and design in the backseat. And I promise you it's not something that will ever be normalized because as everyone knows, fans will always reject a change to a property--and not just the white fans either--regardless if the people behind it think they're on some virtuous crusade or not. Doesn't matter if it's Scarlett Johansson playing what should be a trans character, a Velma who's a lesbian, or an Ariel that doesn't have red hair, it's all the same thing. The only people who make it about race in the instances that it happened to involve racebending as if it's any different are racists, since fans react the exact same way to genderswaps or any other kind of alteration. The racebaiting game was Disney's way of insulating their sweeping changes and they finally hit a brick wall (thank God) where they lost all credibility with the moviegoing audience. And I don't feel any pity for them. If they wanted a movie that doesn't come with the hindrance of preconceptions or design requirements for the cast, maybe make an original product where you can do anything you want?

[PatchofBlue]

I don't think that Toy Story and Frozen being franchises makes much difference. It's still serving white audiences images of themselves on the screen and affirming their stories as the most important to the culture. If anything, them being established brands just verifies that they are stories with history and cultural authority, which isn't something that exists in the same magnitude for historically marginalized groups.

You'll have to remind me how we decided that the WISH songwriters were verifiably diversity hires and not just general poor choices--akin to hiring Randy "I Never Even Liked Musicals" Newman to write for Princess and the Frog. I've heard loads of insinuations on that, but never anything concrete.

I think we can perhaps agree that a lot of 2010s activism from Hollywood was done more out of a desire to appear progressive than out of any kind of benevolence. And that insincerity is maybe part of the reason why American progressivism has had a hard time in recent years in accomplishing its goals.

Even so, whatever the hearts of the people who facilitated that change in casting, I think that a decision has to also be evaluated in the context of the impact it has on the society it is being served to. And I saw a lot of excitement from the Black community, both within my own circle and from the general public.

If historical realism were in fact a hardline within fiction, then a lot of media would look very, very different. Gladiator would look very different. Robin Hood would look very different. Pirates of the Caribbean would look very different. We already accept a level of romanticized distortion if it somehow makes the thing look more like how we wish it did. And so it really only is a small adjustment to allow that distortion to include racial groups that were not historically granted the opportunities to play these same roles in shaping society.

To me, something like letting a Black girl play Ariel is less about insisting that 1989 Ariel was wrong for being white or anything like that. I see it more as an acknowledgment that a character like Ariel has universal appeal and can be brought to life by any kind of actress. And because the story already has that tether to the popular consciousness, it becomes a priority for all viewers.

In a stratified society, any kind of attempt at adjustment is going to feel disruptive or showy. But I think that it's worth it to consider what it might actually mean to set that aside and consider what it might mean for underrepresented groups to participate in culture in the same way.

[Disney's Divinity]

A racebent character means absolutely nothing to anyone. These are nothing but empty and hollow tag lines designed to give Disney good PR--they had hoped so anyway, although it didn't turn out that way. Particularly when it concerns a *remake* character in a film that flops. An original character always has more value than one in a remake that's living in the original's shadow and has a very temporary shelf life as it is, made even shorter when that film is not well-received (thanks primarily *to* the severe changes--quite the conundrum!).

I don't think Toy Story and Frozen being franchises makes a difference towards the current perception of Disney. Hate to say it, but while on paper the demonized white people might seem to be becoming a minority, they really aren't yet and won't be for a while, which Disney might want to consider in their calculations. Although they will go under 50% soon (or have already), I believe, they ultimately are still the largest single consumer block--that other 50% is spliced between a multitude of groups, not one single group that is around 40% or anything. I can't remember if Black people are the next largest demo in the U.S. or if Latinos have overtaken that group--if it's the former, it's sort of odd that nearly every film they've made with a main Black character has seemingly flopped to some degree or another? Ironically, from early reports about TP&TF, they lied about its budget in order to paint it as flop because it was hand-drawn even though it made three times what it cost; and it's still had more impact than any Black-lead film to come since. On the other side, at least Coco did well. Encanto likely would've done likewise if not for the pandemic. Well, I think the spliced demos could be why they made Asha Afro-Latina?? To appeal to both? And successfully appealed to neither.

These days, they seem to have given up chasing poc consumers who don't show up as much as they had been--not sure if the continuous flops or the Trump Administration is the primary reason for the shift--and are instead lasering in on Chinese audiences. I thought that might've went away after Mulan failed massively due to the OTT, batsh*t crazy changes they made (all while claiming they were being more like the tale for those same empty and hollow PR notes--when in reality the film was *less* like it), but a lot of Zootopia 2's marketing felt built around China. Ne Zha 2 is probably the main reason they started looking that direction again.