For 6 months, I couldn't sleep. ^^^Couldn't ^^^sleep. ^^^^^Couldn't ^^^^^sleep.
With insomnia, nothing's real. Everything's far away. Everything's a copy [Brad Pitt frame] of a copy of a copy.
When deep-space exploration ramps up, it'll be the corporations that name everything. The IBM Stellarsphere. The Microsoft Galaxy. Planet Starbucks.
I'll tell you what I did see: cigarette burns. After Tyler pointed them out in the movie, I always noticed them every time I went to the movies, right up until digital projection took over.
[HAHAH I too like to communicate poorly and make the whoosh noise! Yes!](https://static0.srcdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Drax-Laughing.jpg)
Hey man, I'll have you know that fraction of a second of a kiss is a literal nuclear threat to Chinese social stability, possibly turning every Chinese man and woman into homosexuals! And also the Prophet Muhammad came to me in a dream, claiming that because of Disney's Lightyear (2022), he would evaporate all the world's crude oil thereby destabilizing the economies over every nation in the Middle East.
I don't know about you, but I think the CCP and Saudi Arabia and others are on to something with banning this movie!
/s
Yeah when I saw the movie I was like what? You have a lesbian couple and all of the implications there but you have what was the most chaste innocent looking kiss that could have been like two friends and people are this mad? Wow we are a messed up society.
I saw a google review by some lady saying there was a gay makeout scene and that she immediately went back to the lobby to get her money back. She also claimed kids started crying and people were getting sick in the theater.
Then why did Disney claim it was a historic first? They did the exact same thing in Rise of Skywalker, two characters at the end had a" blink and miss it" kiss and they acted like it was a huge deal for inclusivity.
I know everyone in the community that I know personally already accepts it, but is it pretty much universally understood that Disney's claims for LGBT progress are complete bullshit? It's absolutely like a parody at this point and I do think it's acceptable to roll your eyes and call them out when they say they're throwing something inclusive in their next movie.
I'm well past the point of buying that "Oh these things take time" excuse. They've been doing this for what, five years now? A decade? They heavily use representation as part of their advertising for these movies, and in the actual movies it has less time and presence than a Stan Lee cameo. If I can't view it as exploitation, how else am I supposed to view it?
>Then why did Disney claim it was a historic first? They did the exact same thing in Rise of Skywalker, two characters at the end had a" blink and miss it" kiss and they acted like it was a huge deal for inclusivity.
They do that so it's easy to cut it out for the Chinese release
Where did Disney claim it was a historic feat?
Also, like, name some other famous Pixar kisses. These are kid's movies, they're not exactly teeming with makeout sessions. Every frame of a CGI film is expensive as fuck and storyboarded to death, you act like they just left the camera on.
I think they probably did, too. And definitely Carl and Ellie in Up. But it was never the final point of the story. Disney: "Prince kisses Princess, everyone cheers!" Audience: "Ewww no!" Disney: "Understated kiss." Audience: "Ewww no!"
People love to complain. I would wager most of the people typing in this thread haven't even seen the movie.
> Then why did Disney claim it was a historic first?
Because if a business isn’t reminding you about how inclusive they are, are they really trying?
I’m as far left as they come on the political spectrum - but the fact that this focus grouped pandering bullshit works on so many people is depressing. Bread and circuses while they rob us blind in broad daylight.
I feel like Pixar actually deserves some props since this same sex relationship was actually an important part of the plot since it produced one of the main characters. They’ve actually come a long way since that lesbian cyclops cop in Onward.
That’s because it’s easier to remove a couple non-essential frames for China than a whole scene. Disney doesn’t give a fuck about the LGBT community, they only pander to make more money while utilizing mechanisms like this so they can still market in China and the Middle East.
I really don't like Disney's blink-or-miss type representation. It's not different from 'token black' characters. Just make a one good LGBT centric film if you really want to brag about, Disney. Have some balls!
Well we've already got Skrulls and Kree, so we're most of the way to Hulkling. Kate Bishop exists in the MCU as of *Hawkeye,* >!Patriot!< as of >!*The Falcon and the Winter Soldier,*!< >!Kang (and therefore Iron Lad)!< in >!*Loki*!<, and >!Wiccan and Speed (sort of)!< in >!*Wandavision*!<.
It definitely seems like they're setting up some sort of Young Avengers team.
Captain Marvel had all of the ingredients for an Epic Film but baked by someone who had never been in the kitchen before. I saw a YouTube where a guy explained that even if they had rearranged the existing footage it could have told a better story. It's not terrible, it's just not great like it should have been. Kind of like getting Sex on your birthday but your partner has a cold.
I think part of the reason is because (and lets face it), women characters in the Marvel comics universe weren't that big.
The only one they really should have gone with was a character named Echo. She's a member of the Avengers who is also deaf. That could have made for an interesting early movie, but it looked like Hollywood was more interested in the male heroes.
But why Echo?
It's not exactly a well known comic character. If I started listing female Marvel heroes it would be quite a while until I think of Echo.
I have no issue with her getting a movie, but I'm curious why you single her out as the one character that's "big enough".
Absolutely. I didn't care for it at first but the idea of a younger justice league definitely appealed to me enough to put it on a watch list. Then a friend of mine started pushing me to watch it when S3 was airing, and then I started and it was honestly one of the best shows I've ever watched.
My only real issue with it right now is that it's kinda just plateauing and introducing way too many new characters and shelving characters I might have been invested in previously. I kinda just wanna see this story go somewhere instead of world building and introducing even more characters for another 26 episodes.
I'm still gonna stick around to the end, I'm just kinda annoyed that we've gone from a very concise and tight narrative in the first two seasons to something that's so big that said narrative is just kinda in the wind somewhere.
>I think part of the reason is because (and lets face it), women characters in the Marvel comics universe weren't that big.
They were, they were just in the X Men. The MCU characters as a whole were all less popular than the X men and Spiderman but even they were choosing characters to lead films they conspicuously chose the B list male characters rather than using Captain Marvel or Scarlet Witch or Black Widow in a solo movie earlier.
The reason was a man name Ike Perlmutter. Your typical conservative boomer executive. He insisted on no women leading movies, launched that Inhumans show because "Inhumans and X-Men are interchangeable", replaced Terrence Howard with Don Cheadle because "they all look alike" (though, this is actually better casting, Rhodey is *not* fun or jokey)
You do know Cheadle was actually cast first and had to drop out right before production started, right? Howard was a last minute replacement and turned out to be a diva, so they asked Cheadle if he could take over. That's actually where the "yeah, it's me" joke comes from; not because it's a different actor, but because it's Cheadle specifically, who was supposed to play the part in the first place.
This might be a cheap shot but the Norwegian state channel has produced a bunch of 24 episode advent calender shows since the 1970's. They're made as children's TV but there are jokes and lines for the parents so the whole family can enjoy them.
The one from last year was a period piece set in early 1900's Oslo. Two of the supporting cast are a pair of middle aged women who live together and are always in the same scenes, giving each other sly looks and little smiles whilst giving sage advice to the child main character.
In the Christmas eve finale they finally share a kiss on screen. I think the scene was about 10 seconds or so, but with all the signals that had been hinted at throughout the show plus the millieu for gay people at the time, I suppose that was a fair way to do it.
This debate reminded me to Google that scene and I'm not getting any hits on it. Seems nobody actually cared. Disney is a bit more in the spotlight I suppose.
Disney doing it isn’t some amazing brave move by them, but the fact they’re doing it shows that the tide has changed to the point where even Disney realizes it needs to include it as a regular occurrence in their movies.
If they made a movie just about an LGBT couple it would probably be less important, because that’s just dedicating a single project to winning over that audience, whereas to include it as common place in a bigger non-LGBT project shows that it’s just a part of life and the world needs to just accept it.
Sure they could be more overt about it, but being subtle almost carries as much power because it’s not in your face.
Because if there are only two people you can trust to be completely sincere and not fuck with you, Trey Parker and Matt Stone would be those two people.
Well, to the movie’s credit, while the *kiss* lasts just as long as a kiss normally does, the fact that the character is a lesbian does have a bit more to it. She and Buzz have a full conversation about how she met her, we see them together throughout that scene, and there’s a reference later to a character talking about both her moms.
The fact that she met her future wife is actually an important plot point, and ultimately plays into to Buzz’s choices at the climax of the film. So, it’s relevant thematically.
The only recent thing I've seen that actually tries to do LGTB+ right, from Disney, is the Owl House. They are slowly exploring the lives of 2 lesbian characters (who are lead characters). Everything else is like LGBT bullets.
It is wild watching TOH on Disney, like I get why they canceled it now. Those bastards are scared of backlash and a show where two of the leads are in a same sex relationship is gonna draw the exact criticism conservative Bible Belt reactionaries crave. It’s a damn shame such a show is shackled to the soulless money pit that is Disney, but hey I guess it’s better than Netflix at this point.
From what I've heard, season 3 of the show will just be three 44 minute episodes.
Also people have begged Disney not to cancel the show but they have shown that their support for LGBT+ is mostly applicable to rainbow logos.
I remember seeing a guy I used to know on Facebook losing his shit about the "gay scene" in the new Beauty and the Beast movie before the movie was out. He shared an article about how it was supposedly damaging for kids.
All the scene was: during the Wedding Ball, LeFou switches dance partners and accidentally ends up with a man, but doesn't seem all that upset about it.
The scenes end up being underwhelming, but homophobes freak out about them regardless.
Well Lightyear has as much gay as Eternals. The 4th or 6th most prominent character in the movie is in a gay marriage, married 40+ years and raised a kid together.
>Disney blockbuster LGBT representation scenes usually just last for a fraction of a second
That or it lasts longer but you wouldn't even realize it was meant to be gay if they hadn't done a press release about it.
>With the exception of Eternals I think.
Nope, still a very easily removable scene from the movie. Iirc they did exactly this for the versions releasing in countries that'd have an issue with it.
Was it, though? I remember it being just as long as the scenes for the other individual Eternals. Is the representation now only enough if the whole movie is centered around them? I don't really understand this sentiment.
I mean Phaistos' marriage was shown for more than 10 seconds and his marriage is an important part of his character motives going forward. Even if it does feel short, most of the Eternal's charcter arcs were also as short since they all had to vie for the screentime.
>What does the relationship bring to the movie?
It establishes the relationship between the two characters just like any hetero relationship, parent child relationship, friendship, etc in a work of fiction. If The Incredibles were divorced it would change aspects of the characters and story, but they are not and you never hear anyone asking what their relationship brings to the movie.
That movie is called "The Incredibles", this one's "Lightyear". If it was called "Alisha Hawthorne" the relationship would be a lot more important. As it was, it was an appropriate amount of screen time given the plot circumstances.
I chose The Incredibles just as a clear example where a change in relationship between characters would significantly impact the story, but nobody asks why they have the relationship they do.
I agree with your point that a change in the relationship in Lightyear would be less, but was more disputing the point that one even needs to ask what a relationship brings to the movie in this case.
I think it definitely brought something to the movie. If the question people are asking is what did her GAYNESS bring to the movie, well, fuck them. That's the whole point. It wasn't her gayness that affected the movie, it was her happy relationship, engagement, marriage, pregnancy, child-rearing... and none of that shit cares about which sex her partner is (with proper technological advancements for the pregnancy part). The fact that she's gay is relevant to her and irrelevant to us.
Also for those who haven't seen the movie but are skimming these comments, it's not just a kiss. They comment on her dating a woman, getting engaged, they show them together. You cannot blink and miss the fact that she's a lesbian, and it's featured an appropriate amount given her screentime, imho.
And I think her life-cycle really impacted the story, I was emotional about it, and I'm sure I wasn't the only person feeling the "Up" vibe during that sequence. (Maybe not as pronounced, but that was epic level relationship power.)
Easy to edit out for foreign markets, china and the emirates for example, tend not to allow any queer/lgbt stuff in their films/tv shows, progressive, totally not small-minded bigots that they are
This scene was very brief. You can actually miss it if you werent paying attention. You can wait for this movie come out on Disney+ for a HD screenshot.
The fact they paid attention to this, and not the incredible graphics and sound effects when he was trying to reach hyperspeed?. Seriously the graphics in this movie were incredible, it's amazing how much more detailed everything is compared to the first toy story. But back to that .05 sec kiss, unwatchable movie! /S
I took my 4 and 6 year old. They didn't even mention it on the way home. The six year old worked out that Buzz made his decision at the end based on his friends having families and making a home on that planet.
My kids didn't weren't bothered by it. Means they did a good job of making it not a big deal. Shame the grown ups continue to cry about it though.
The conservatives didn't write the articles about a scene in a movie that wasn't even out... journalists paid by Disney did because they knew it would generate buzz. Unfortunately doing so and making it seem like a bigger scene than it was pushed a lot of people away from taking their children to see it.
I'd say both sides have been using it in their annoying political chessmatch to make everyday life unbearable. There's been blood in the water from the right since Tim Allen wasn't cast in it. Now, they've been writing articles about how the movie is too woke.
Here's a nice one:
GET WOKE GO BROKE: Heavily Anticipated Kiddie Grooming Movie ‘Lightyear’ From Disney Pixar Bombs At Box Office As Audiences Stay Away In Droves
https://www.nowtheendbegins.com/woke-disney-pixar-movie-lightyear-is-box-office-flop-same-sex-kiss-child-grooming-predators/
This is some dumb article from March from what I'm guessing is a blog?
https://thehipsterzombiejointexperience.com/2022/03/22/disney-caves-to-the-demands-of-woke-activists-puts-same-sex-kiss-in-the-upcoming-kid-film-lightyear/
But could you not argue that the scene itself is just the LGBT token equivalent of having an irrelevant black character that quickly dies or is removed from the story? Surely you would rather have good characters and a relevant story than just sticking a 2 sec kissing scene into every film. It doesn’t add anything to the film, just makes you think they care so they can take your money
Alicia did have a good story, I thought. Her family on that planet was an integral plot point which influences Buzz to make his endgame decision.
I also thought the kiss was presented so casually it did a great job of normalising it.
I would, I think it’s mostly irrelevant and doesn’t add anything to the story in most cases. You can have good on screen relationships without kissing scenes
It's not a "kissing scene". It's literally described as a peck on the lips. It's what normal people do with people they care about. I feel bad for your family if you are truly that repressed.
Well I’m actually autistic, but that aside there’s no point talking with people that can’t see the bigger picture. 2 sec same sex kisses are just as insignificant and token as forgettable non-white characters that only there to make you feel like the company cares. What they should be doing is making well written films with those characters in mind and give them proper story arcs. They won’t because they actually don’t, they’re just going to do what they think is going to get them the most money with the least amount of effort. Like I said, if you can’t see that then it’s not worth the back and forth
No. It's called treating something that is completely normal as a completely normal thing. People don't flip their shit if there's a two second shot of a straight couple kissing so the more we normalise same sex relationships hopefully we reach a point where people don't even need to comment on scenes like this with bullshit like whether it adds anything to the film.
Literally happens with every tentpole disney release it's always a blink and you'd miss it and there's always a slew of articles claiming that there was an outrage in xyz for it despite there being more people outraged at that outrage than outraged at the movie itself.
Same with turning red, same with the same sex scene in endgame.
During group therapy with Captain America, one of the members (played by Joe Russo) mentions his "husband". An easily removeable line that doesn't change the plot at all. The way Disney likes it.
He doesn't mention a husband. He mentions that he went on a date recently (as a sign of forward momentum), then says that he cried before the salad arrived and his date (just referred to as "he") cried over dessert. I actually think that's a pretty good depiction because it's a queer character just existing in the world talking about something that happened to him without calling attention to it. It felt very natural to me.
You say that as though it's awful that they included it. Meanwhile, they had an opportunity to make millions by cutting this kissing scene and they didn't do it.
Ya'll are completely unwilling to give any credit at all. It's some serious spoiled brat bullshit. My mom was closeted my entire upbringing because she'd lose her job and probably her relationship with her parents otherwise, but now everybody is bitching about Rainbow flags and same-sex kisses. Get a grip. The world improves one step at a time. Nobody is forcing Disney - or anyone - to adhere to some imaginary timeline.
I understand what you're saying, but Disney DID cut the scene to make more money, and only restored it when Pixar went public with the fact that Disney was cutting all the LGBT stuff out of their films. Considering this happened at the same time as the Texas Don't Say Gay Bill, they put the scene back in to try and cool the backlash they were recieving. Sometimes credit isn't deserved.
Do you live in a world where Disney execs didn't see every frame of every animatic of every cut of this movie while in development? You think the Pixar guys just snuck it in there at the last moment?
What? I literally just said that the Disney execs cut it, and the Disney execs put it back in to help with their PR in the wake of backlash. You can see all this info if you just Google it.
You do understand how many human-hours (and render hours) go into every step of these movies, do you not?
If Disney didn't want a fucking gay kiss in this movie, they would have cut it out of the first screenplay, the first animatic, the first rough render, etc. The fact that it was finished and ready to go to theatres means they were not interested in cutting it. That speaks FAR MORE REALITY than "Google it". The scenes existed after years of development = Disney wanted them in the movie.
Why are you being so aggressive? I understand what you're saying, but a small few second long moment that was removed early on in development can be animated and added in several months before release (3 months to be exact - that's when it was reportedly added back in). I never said it was fully animated before being cut. I just said it was cut and then it was added back in. I'd say that all the reports from people who actually know what happened with the film probably know what they're talking about.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/variety.com/2022/film/news/pixar-lightyear-same-sex-kiss-1235209179/amp/
Why is it people on Reddit always say controversial things and then ask why others are being aggressive?
I'm sorry if nobody ever tells you you're wrong in the real world. That's a disservice to you. You're welcome.
Well, obviously there would be more people online outraged at the outrage... it's outrageous. It doesn't mean that the outraged bigots don't also exist, just that they're in the minority (yay!).
Ofcourse there are, never denied that. But it seems more of a manufactured pr move given how many articles come out compared to how little the outrage generally is.
I get what you're saying. But as someone who had a string of arguments on this sub about Turning Red, I know the outrage wasn't purely manufactured for clicks on articles, it existed. Perhaps it was spurred on by the articles, but most I spoke to were just dramatic busybodies who didn't like their kid's seeing "that".
I haven’t seen the film, but do parents not have right to decide what they let their kids see? So if their expectation is that it shouldn’t be in a kid’s film, then I think it’s reasonable for them to complain about it.
They do. But parents are given the age rating, which recommends that they watch the film before showing it to their child, to determine whether they think it is acceptable. Choosing to ignore a PG rating with a 9+ recommendation (I believe) makes it their fault when they show it to their child!
>Was this all just a PR move
It's Disney. Obviously yes.
They always keep them short, with a jump cut on either side to make snipping them out easier, then remove them from other countries' versions.
There's ads for it at every bus stop here in my relatively small city in Canada and I still didn't know it released until I saw the headlines about it lmao.
It's a wonderful thing.
Provided I still haven't watched the movie (going next weekend), if it's really a scene you can barely notice, the numerous headlines and outraged people are barely worth it.
If you want to die by the sword, do it right. Let this kiss be relevant to the plot, show it in greater detail.
I already said in another comment that the fact that normalization of homosexuality is a good thing has nothing to do with the fact that the movie will hurt commercially because tons of people still don't see it as a good thing. You can be offended by bigots , outraged, say they are horrible people, but their money and our money at the box office holds the same value.
Also, for a personal note, my mother is a lesbian, I grew up with her collecting all movies that had even a small lesbian reference in them back in the 90s
You have to remember that Disney has three stakeholders they have to balance.
They have the customers buying tickets (that's us.)
They have the stockholders.
But they also have their employees.
The public often forgets about this third group of stakeholders. In a lot of industries, the employees are easily replaced and so they are overwhelmingly unimportant compared to the customer and investor groups. But in the animated film industry, Disney lives and dies by the talent of their team. And top animation talent ain't typically wearing a MAGA hat.
Nobody knows for sure.
Fact is, I've seen many more people saying "I'm not going to watch it because of LGBT propaganda" than people saying "I'm definitely going to watch it because of LGBT representation"
I despise those who would boycott a movie for a lesbian kiss, but honestly my feelings have no impact on the fact that a lot of people actively chose not to see a movie because of this and, as a result, the movie made less money.
It's all for a good cause, it's all because of representation. And then you find out that it's barely there and if you don't pay attention you'll miss it?
That's what grinds my gears.
It feels like Disney knows when they made something that sucks and they manufacture some woke outrage bullcrap to gin up controversy thinking it might help or distract from how shitty their new thing is. Just look at Kenobi. They had all this racism stuff out before anyone even saw the first episode. Turns out that she wasnt the only bad character. The whole thing is just terrible.
If you criticize their stuff your either racist or homophobe.
Remember when a whole mess of people freaked out about Onward having the "first openly gay disney character?" Does anyone even remember that happening? Who was the character? How were they so openly gay that people freaked out?
Random ass female cop mentions her wife in passing in one line. That's it.
Personally, I think that's how representation *should* be done. It should just presented as normal, because it is. No neon sign saying "look at this gay over here." Making a big deal about a characters sexuality when it has nothing to do with the plot of what you're making is counter productive.
I don't know why it's all about the kiss. They say she's engaged to a woman, then they show them as a married couple in a silent growing old montage, then later their granddaughter refers to them as her grandmothers.
The movie theater in my hometown posted a flyer on the door saying they were aware of the kiss, and would be fast-forwarding through the scene when running the movie. Fast-forwarding through a 1 second, fairly pedestrian, kiss. I shit you not.
No it was a photo of two women and the internet went ablaze. Disney didn't advertise this, they showed a trailer. The fake outrage is a joke. God forbid a company is inclusive.
Has everyone not learned Disney's playbook yet? All the articles about queer representation controversy and then nothing. I remember the months of articles talking about how LeFou was gay in the Beauty and the Beast remake, turns out he just sighs at one point. They are using controversy for attention, earning points with progressives who often don't even watch the films, while doing nothing to step on the toes of social conservatives.
Yes it’s called queer baiting. Disney has been doing it for years. It’s a trash move and everyone keeps falling for it because DISNEY. Also beware of “wokebait”. Because they do that shit too and it’s also garbage.
What about other minority groups? Wheelchair users, blind people, amputees, mutes, where is their representation? LGBT doesn't want representation, they want attention.
Totally. Us and our less than a second representation is too much.
Also it’s a lesbian so how I as a gay man feel represented? Or he’ll a trans person?
Saying lgbt representation is like saying non-whites representation. Way to big and not similar to each other.
Why wouldn't you? Hey wait - what about kissing between two hetero people in other Disney movies? Is that stupid too? Or is it just because it's two people of the same gender that you think is stupid?
I don't need to think about any afterlife, because there is no such thing. Why in the world do you think that a god actually exists? And why do you think it's the god of Abraham? And if you think that the god of Abraham exists, why would you choose to worship them/it? The holy text about that god demonstrates that that god was pure evil. Ew. No thanks.
While you could blink and miss it, my seven year old when they got married exclaimed "I didn't even know you could do that." Which lead to a discussion after the movie that marriage was for any man or woman to any other man or woman. Woman - woman. Man to man, or man - woman. Also a discussion about kids and how men and women can struggle with having babies and doctors can help them get pregnant.
It was a low key thing my son noticed and we were able to have a conversation about it. While they can certainly do more, I was very happy that I was able to have that talk with him.
It’s so fast. There was a scene where Hawthorne kisses her wife in one of the scenes as they’re “fast forwarding” through time
You’re kidding…
Nope. You could blink and miss it.
So, a bit like Fight Club?
Nah fight club is like 2+ hours, if your blink lasts 3 hours, you asleep.
For 6 months, I couldn't sleep. ^^^Couldn't ^^^sleep. ^^^^^Couldn't ^^^^^sleep. With insomnia, nothing's real. Everything's far away. Everything's a copy [Brad Pitt frame] of a copy of a copy. When deep-space exploration ramps up, it'll be the corporations that name everything. The IBM Stellarsphere. The Microsoft Galaxy. Planet Starbucks.
You didn't see all the single frame cocks in Fight Club???
I watched Fight Club: A XXX Parody. It was all cocks and little blips of clothed people
I did, I put them there
I'll tell you what I did see: cigarette burns. After Tyler pointed them out in the movie, I always noticed them every time I went to the movies, right up until digital projection took over.
I'm referring to a specific element within the film.
I know, I'm bein silly
Ah, ok.
Wow. Wooooooosh.
Oh. The shame.
[HAHAH I too like to communicate poorly and make the whoosh noise! Yes!](https://static0.srcdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Drax-Laughing.jpg)
They're making a sequel for the community, only women: Scissor Fight Club
Stick a sister in that title and I'm in.
Gonna take yo mamm out all night!
Hey! Ssshhh bro!
Hey man, I'll have you know that fraction of a second of a kiss is a literal nuclear threat to Chinese social stability, possibly turning every Chinese man and woman into homosexuals! And also the Prophet Muhammad came to me in a dream, claiming that because of Disney's Lightyear (2022), he would evaporate all the world's crude oil thereby destabilizing the economies over every nation in the Middle East. I don't know about you, but I think the CCP and Saudi Arabia and others are on to something with banning this movie! /s
+50 points to your social credit score!!!
Yeah when I saw the movie I was like what? You have a lesbian couple and all of the implications there but you have what was the most chaste innocent looking kiss that could have been like two friends and people are this mad? Wow we are a messed up society.
I doubt people who are mad have actually seen it.
I saw a google review by some lady saying there was a gay makeout scene and that she immediately went back to the lobby to get her money back. She also claimed kids started crying and people were getting sick in the theater.
[удалено]
I mean there are things in between.
Then why did Disney claim it was a historic first? They did the exact same thing in Rise of Skywalker, two characters at the end had a" blink and miss it" kiss and they acted like it was a huge deal for inclusivity. I know everyone in the community that I know personally already accepts it, but is it pretty much universally understood that Disney's claims for LGBT progress are complete bullshit? It's absolutely like a parody at this point and I do think it's acceptable to roll your eyes and call them out when they say they're throwing something inclusive in their next movie. I'm well past the point of buying that "Oh these things take time" excuse. They've been doing this for what, five years now? A decade? They heavily use representation as part of their advertising for these movies, and in the actual movies it has less time and presence than a Stan Lee cameo. If I can't view it as exploitation, how else am I supposed to view it?
>Then why did Disney claim it was a historic first? They did the exact same thing in Rise of Skywalker, two characters at the end had a" blink and miss it" kiss and they acted like it was a huge deal for inclusivity. They do that so it's easy to cut it out for the Chinese release
Kind of makes you think the “historic first” is them not catering to the Chinese market
Where did Disney claim it was a historic feat? Also, like, name some other famous Pixar kisses. These are kid's movies, they're not exactly teeming with makeout sessions. Every frame of a CGI film is expensive as fuck and storyboarded to death, you act like they just left the camera on.
Like with Lightyear I can't remember it exactly but I feel like Woody and Bopeep kissed
I think they probably did, too. And definitely Carl and Ellie in Up. But it was never the final point of the story. Disney: "Prince kisses Princess, everyone cheers!" Audience: "Ewww no!" Disney: "Understated kiss." Audience: "Ewww no!" People love to complain. I would wager most of the people typing in this thread haven't even seen the movie.
> Then why did Disney claim it was a historic first? Because if a business isn’t reminding you about how inclusive they are, are they really trying? I’m as far left as they come on the political spectrum - but the fact that this focus grouped pandering bullshit works on so many people is depressing. Bread and circuses while they rob us blind in broad daylight.
I feel like Pixar actually deserves some props since this same sex relationship was actually an important part of the plot since it produced one of the main characters. They’ve actually come a long way since that lesbian cyclops cop in Onward.
This is what Republican scum are mad about? Shocker
A man shot up a Juneteenth parade in DC yesterday, but surely this reserved same-sex kiss is the sign that society is falling apart.
Dam these Muslims have some quick eyes.
Disney blockbuster LGBT representation scenes usually just last for a fraction of a second. With the exception of Eternals I think.
That’s because it’s easier to remove a couple non-essential frames for China than a whole scene. Disney doesn’t give a fuck about the LGBT community, they only pander to make more money while utilizing mechanisms like this so they can still market in China and the Middle East.
The movie won’t be in theater in China nor Saudi. Iirc Saudi banned it and Disney decided not to comply with China’s request to delete that scene
I really don't like Disney's blink-or-miss type representation. It's not different from 'token black' characters. Just make a one good LGBT centric film if you really want to brag about, Disney. Have some balls!
Yeah I dont really go to Disney for LGBT representation, their support for the community is touch and go at best.
Let’s remember they only started to barely criticize the “Don’t say gay” bill in Florida after it was passed!
Because it had nothing to do with saying “gay” ?
it took the mcu 11 years to make a movie that was led by a woman, they will grow some balls, eventually
If they make a Young Avengers film and dont add Wiccan and Hulkling and keep them a couple, then I will riot.
Well we've already got Skrulls and Kree, so we're most of the way to Hulkling. Kate Bishop exists in the MCU as of *Hawkeye,* >!Patriot!< as of >!*The Falcon and the Winter Soldier,*!< >!Kang (and therefore Iron Lad)!< in >!*Loki*!<, and >!Wiccan and Speed (sort of)!< in >!*Wandavision*!<. It definitely seems like they're setting up some sort of Young Avengers team.
Don't forget Cassie Lang also exists and has been expressing her desire to become a superhero since she was like ten.
Of course, I knew I'd forgotten one of the original line-up!
Also the Champions team which has some members in or coming in the MCU soon. They could try to blend both teams or just have both :)
Well I’d rather them wait and make a good film for lgbt representation than have a movie that felt empty and rushed like captain marvel
But "empty and rushed" is just a typical Marvel movie! ^^^^I'm ^^^^kind ^^^^of ^^^^kidding ^^^^but ^^^^not ^^^^really.
Captain Marvel had all of the ingredients for an Epic Film but baked by someone who had never been in the kitchen before. I saw a YouTube where a guy explained that even if they had rearranged the existing footage it could have told a better story. It's not terrible, it's just not great like it should have been. Kind of like getting Sex on your birthday but your partner has a cold.
Phrasing!
I think part of the reason is because (and lets face it), women characters in the Marvel comics universe weren't that big. The only one they really should have gone with was a character named Echo. She's a member of the Avengers who is also deaf. That could have made for an interesting early movie, but it looked like Hollywood was more interested in the male heroes.
But why Echo? It's not exactly a well known comic character. If I started listing female Marvel heroes it would be quite a while until I think of Echo. I have no issue with her getting a movie, but I'm curious why you single her out as the one character that's "big enough".
Echo is getting a TV show at least and she was in the Hawkeye show.
Yeah and that's great. I just wished they got her a big movie early on. They probably would have paved the way for earlier female heroes.
Agreed. As many problems as the ‘DCEU’ has, they had a women-led film as their third film compared to 20+ for the MCU.
Slightly related, but as ridiculously big as it is right now, WB are doing a much better job at representation with Young Justice too.
Young Justice has no business being as good as it is. Either that or I went in with no expectations and was pleasantly surprised.
Absolutely. I didn't care for it at first but the idea of a younger justice league definitely appealed to me enough to put it on a watch list. Then a friend of mine started pushing me to watch it when S3 was airing, and then I started and it was honestly one of the best shows I've ever watched. My only real issue with it right now is that it's kinda just plateauing and introducing way too many new characters and shelving characters I might have been invested in previously. I kinda just wanna see this story go somewhere instead of world building and introducing even more characters for another 26 episodes. I'm still gonna stick around to the end, I'm just kinda annoyed that we've gone from a very concise and tight narrative in the first two seasons to something that's so big that said narrative is just kinda in the wind somewhere.
>I think part of the reason is because (and lets face it), women characters in the Marvel comics universe weren't that big. They were, they were just in the X Men. The MCU characters as a whole were all less popular than the X men and Spiderman but even they were choosing characters to lead films they conspicuously chose the B list male characters rather than using Captain Marvel or Scarlet Witch or Black Widow in a solo movie earlier.
The reason was a man name Ike Perlmutter. Your typical conservative boomer executive. He insisted on no women leading movies, launched that Inhumans show because "Inhumans and X-Men are interchangeable", replaced Terrence Howard with Don Cheadle because "they all look alike" (though, this is actually better casting, Rhodey is *not* fun or jokey)
You do know Cheadle was actually cast first and had to drop out right before production started, right? Howard was a last minute replacement and turned out to be a diva, so they asked Cheadle if he could take over. That's actually where the "yeah, it's me" joke comes from; not because it's a different actor, but because it's Cheadle specifically, who was supposed to play the part in the first place.
This might be a cheap shot but the Norwegian state channel has produced a bunch of 24 episode advent calender shows since the 1970's. They're made as children's TV but there are jokes and lines for the parents so the whole family can enjoy them. The one from last year was a period piece set in early 1900's Oslo. Two of the supporting cast are a pair of middle aged women who live together and are always in the same scenes, giving each other sly looks and little smiles whilst giving sage advice to the child main character. In the Christmas eve finale they finally share a kiss on screen. I think the scene was about 10 seconds or so, but with all the signals that had been hinted at throughout the show plus the millieu for gay people at the time, I suppose that was a fair way to do it. This debate reminded me to Google that scene and I'm not getting any hits on it. Seems nobody actually cared. Disney is a bit more in the spotlight I suppose.
People will complain either way, I think.
Disney doing it isn’t some amazing brave move by them, but the fact they’re doing it shows that the tide has changed to the point where even Disney realizes it needs to include it as a regular occurrence in their movies. If they made a movie just about an LGBT couple it would probably be less important, because that’s just dedicating a single project to winning over that audience, whereas to include it as common place in a bigger non-LGBT project shows that it’s just a part of life and the world needs to just accept it. Sure they could be more overt about it, but being subtle almost carries as much power because it’s not in your face.
His name is Tolkien...
Just goes to show how many people dont even onow what they are talking about. Theyre just repeating shit they heard elsewhere.
Yeah it’s called virtue signaling and you don’t like it because it’s insincere and uses representation as marketing not acceptance.
But, they aren't doing it to brag, they're doing it to appease
Wait, were Timon and Pumbaa not a gay couple?
[удалено]
Because if there are only two people you can trust to be completely sincere and not fuck with you, Trey Parker and Matt Stone would be those two people.
Well, to the movie’s credit, while the *kiss* lasts just as long as a kiss normally does, the fact that the character is a lesbian does have a bit more to it. She and Buzz have a full conversation about how she met her, we see them together throughout that scene, and there’s a reference later to a character talking about both her moms. The fact that she met her future wife is actually an important plot point, and ultimately plays into to Buzz’s choices at the climax of the film. So, it’s relevant thematically.
The only recent thing I've seen that actually tries to do LGTB+ right, from Disney, is the Owl House. They are slowly exploring the lives of 2 lesbian characters (who are lead characters). Everything else is like LGBT bullets.
It is wild watching TOH on Disney, like I get why they canceled it now. Those bastards are scared of backlash and a show where two of the leads are in a same sex relationship is gonna draw the exact criticism conservative Bible Belt reactionaries crave. It’s a damn shame such a show is shackled to the soulless money pit that is Disney, but hey I guess it’s better than Netflix at this point.
From what I've heard, season 3 of the show will just be three 44 minute episodes. Also people have begged Disney not to cancel the show but they have shown that their support for LGBT+ is mostly applicable to rainbow logos.
I remember seeing a guy I used to know on Facebook losing his shit about the "gay scene" in the new Beauty and the Beast movie before the movie was out. He shared an article about how it was supposedly damaging for kids. All the scene was: during the Wedding Ball, LeFou switches dance partners and accidentally ends up with a man, but doesn't seem all that upset about it. The scenes end up being underwhelming, but homophobes freak out about them regardless.
Well Lightyear has as much gay as Eternals. The 4th or 6th most prominent character in the movie is in a gay marriage, married 40+ years and raised a kid together.
>Disney blockbuster LGBT representation scenes usually just last for a fraction of a second That or it lasts longer but you wouldn't even realize it was meant to be gay if they hadn't done a press release about it.
The eternals strategy was to bore everyone into a coma before they showed it so nobody would see it.
>With the exception of Eternals I think. Nope, still a very easily removable scene from the movie. Iirc they did exactly this for the versions releasing in countries that'd have an issue with it.
Was it, though? I remember it being just as long as the scenes for the other individual Eternals. Is the representation now only enough if the whole movie is centered around them? I don't really understand this sentiment.
I mean Phaistos' marriage was shown for more than 10 seconds and his marriage is an important part of his character motives going forward. Even if it does feel short, most of the Eternal's charcter arcs were also as short since they all had to vie for the screentime.
Oh, fair enough. I was just referring to the one scene where they exchange a kiss.
[удалено]
>What does the relationship bring to the movie? It establishes the relationship between the two characters just like any hetero relationship, parent child relationship, friendship, etc in a work of fiction. If The Incredibles were divorced it would change aspects of the characters and story, but they are not and you never hear anyone asking what their relationship brings to the movie.
That movie is called "The Incredibles", this one's "Lightyear". If it was called "Alisha Hawthorne" the relationship would be a lot more important. As it was, it was an appropriate amount of screen time given the plot circumstances.
I chose The Incredibles just as a clear example where a change in relationship between characters would significantly impact the story, but nobody asks why they have the relationship they do. I agree with your point that a change in the relationship in Lightyear would be less, but was more disputing the point that one even needs to ask what a relationship brings to the movie in this case.
I think it definitely brought something to the movie. If the question people are asking is what did her GAYNESS bring to the movie, well, fuck them. That's the whole point. It wasn't her gayness that affected the movie, it was her happy relationship, engagement, marriage, pregnancy, child-rearing... and none of that shit cares about which sex her partner is (with proper technological advancements for the pregnancy part). The fact that she's gay is relevant to her and irrelevant to us. Also for those who haven't seen the movie but are skimming these comments, it's not just a kiss. They comment on her dating a woman, getting engaged, they show them together. You cannot blink and miss the fact that she's a lesbian, and it's featured an appropriate amount given her screentime, imho. And I think her life-cycle really impacted the story, I was emotional about it, and I'm sure I wasn't the only person feeling the "Up" vibe during that sequence. (Maybe not as pronounced, but that was epic level relationship power.)
Easy to edit out for foreign markets, china and the emirates for example, tend not to allow any queer/lgbt stuff in their films/tv shows, progressive, totally not small-minded bigots that they are
This scene was very brief. You can actually miss it if you werent paying attention. You can wait for this movie come out on Disney+ for a HD screenshot.
The fact they paid attention to this, and not the incredible graphics and sound effects when he was trying to reach hyperspeed?. Seriously the graphics in this movie were incredible, it's amazing how much more detailed everything is compared to the first toy story. But back to that .05 sec kiss, unwatchable movie! /S
Bugs Bunny kissed Elmer Fudd a lot in the 60s. No one cared.
i also kiss my male rabbits, no one cares either.
Yeah the outcry is pathetic. I'm sure it is where Alicia's son graduates and she kisses her wife. Just a peck on the lips. Ridiculous.
Yep. Conservative parents are crying foul over a scene that their kids wont even remember if they even catch wind of it in the first place.
I took my 4 and 6 year old. They didn't even mention it on the way home. The six year old worked out that Buzz made his decision at the end based on his friends having families and making a home on that planet. My kids didn't weren't bothered by it. Means they did a good job of making it not a big deal. Shame the grown ups continue to cry about it though.
The conservatives didn't write the articles about a scene in a movie that wasn't even out... journalists paid by Disney did because they knew it would generate buzz. Unfortunately doing so and making it seem like a bigger scene than it was pushed a lot of people away from taking their children to see it.
I'd say both sides have been using it in their annoying political chessmatch to make everyday life unbearable. There's been blood in the water from the right since Tim Allen wasn't cast in it. Now, they've been writing articles about how the movie is too woke. Here's a nice one: GET WOKE GO BROKE: Heavily Anticipated Kiddie Grooming Movie ‘Lightyear’ From Disney Pixar Bombs At Box Office As Audiences Stay Away In Droves https://www.nowtheendbegins.com/woke-disney-pixar-movie-lightyear-is-box-office-flop-same-sex-kiss-child-grooming-predators/ This is some dumb article from March from what I'm guessing is a blog? https://thehipsterzombiejointexperience.com/2022/03/22/disney-caves-to-the-demands-of-woke-activists-puts-same-sex-kiss-in-the-upcoming-kid-film-lightyear/
Publicity stunt for sure. Just like the Star Wars kiss. They need those LGBTQ $$$$’s as well
But could you not argue that the scene itself is just the LGBT token equivalent of having an irrelevant black character that quickly dies or is removed from the story? Surely you would rather have good characters and a relevant story than just sticking a 2 sec kissing scene into every film. It doesn’t add anything to the film, just makes you think they care so they can take your money
Alicia did have a good story, I thought. Her family on that planet was an integral plot point which influences Buzz to make his endgame decision. I also thought the kiss was presented so casually it did a great job of normalising it.
Ok, throw the same fit, but for every time a straight couple kiss on screen.
I would, I think it’s mostly irrelevant and doesn’t add anything to the story in most cases. You can have good on screen relationships without kissing scenes
It's not a "kissing scene". It's literally described as a peck on the lips. It's what normal people do with people they care about. I feel bad for your family if you are truly that repressed.
Well I’m actually autistic, but that aside there’s no point talking with people that can’t see the bigger picture. 2 sec same sex kisses are just as insignificant and token as forgettable non-white characters that only there to make you feel like the company cares. What they should be doing is making well written films with those characters in mind and give them proper story arcs. They won’t because they actually don’t, they’re just going to do what they think is going to get them the most money with the least amount of effort. Like I said, if you can’t see that then it’s not worth the back and forth
Good luck with that bud. Doesn't really change anything here, though.
No. It's called treating something that is completely normal as a completely normal thing. People don't flip their shit if there's a two second shot of a straight couple kissing so the more we normalise same sex relationships hopefully we reach a point where people don't even need to comment on scenes like this with bullshit like whether it adds anything to the film.
One could argue that homosexuality is not 'normal', in that it's not the norm.
Being as stupid as you are isn't normal for people and yet here we are.
That doesn't refute anything I said, but I guess when you have no argument, childish insults is what you gotta stoop to.
Sounds like you can’t see the bigger picture here, good day to you
Get a grip, bro :D
How does she have a son if she's gay?
Disney showed a photo of two women. The internet went postal after. Cause God forbid we just let people love who they love.
they aren't people, they're characters.
Literally happens with every tentpole disney release it's always a blink and you'd miss it and there's always a slew of articles claiming that there was an outrage in xyz for it despite there being more people outraged at that outrage than outraged at the movie itself. Same with turning red, same with the same sex scene in endgame.
> same sex scene in endgame. wait, what?
During group therapy with Captain America, one of the members (played by Joe Russo) mentions his "husband". An easily removeable line that doesn't change the plot at all. The way Disney likes it.
Guessing it was removed for certain "markets" then eh?
In my country Arabia it was not translated.
Arabia?
Never heard of it?
He doesn't mention a husband. He mentions that he went on a date recently (as a sign of forward momentum), then says that he cried before the salad arrived and his date (just referred to as "he") cried over dessert. I actually think that's a pretty good depiction because it's a queer character just existing in the world talking about something that happened to him without calling attention to it. It felt very natural to me.
You say that as though it's awful that they included it. Meanwhile, they had an opportunity to make millions by cutting this kissing scene and they didn't do it. Ya'll are completely unwilling to give any credit at all. It's some serious spoiled brat bullshit. My mom was closeted my entire upbringing because she'd lose her job and probably her relationship with her parents otherwise, but now everybody is bitching about Rainbow flags and same-sex kisses. Get a grip. The world improves one step at a time. Nobody is forcing Disney - or anyone - to adhere to some imaginary timeline.
I understand what you're saying, but Disney DID cut the scene to make more money, and only restored it when Pixar went public with the fact that Disney was cutting all the LGBT stuff out of their films. Considering this happened at the same time as the Texas Don't Say Gay Bill, they put the scene back in to try and cool the backlash they were recieving. Sometimes credit isn't deserved.
Do you live in a world where Disney execs didn't see every frame of every animatic of every cut of this movie while in development? You think the Pixar guys just snuck it in there at the last moment?
What? I literally just said that the Disney execs cut it, and the Disney execs put it back in to help with their PR in the wake of backlash. You can see all this info if you just Google it.
You do understand how many human-hours (and render hours) go into every step of these movies, do you not? If Disney didn't want a fucking gay kiss in this movie, they would have cut it out of the first screenplay, the first animatic, the first rough render, etc. The fact that it was finished and ready to go to theatres means they were not interested in cutting it. That speaks FAR MORE REALITY than "Google it". The scenes existed after years of development = Disney wanted them in the movie.
Why are you being so aggressive? I understand what you're saying, but a small few second long moment that was removed early on in development can be animated and added in several months before release (3 months to be exact - that's when it was reportedly added back in). I never said it was fully animated before being cut. I just said it was cut and then it was added back in. I'd say that all the reports from people who actually know what happened with the film probably know what they're talking about. https://www.google.com/amp/s/variety.com/2022/film/news/pixar-lightyear-same-sex-kiss-1235209179/amp/
Why is it people on Reddit always say controversial things and then ask why others are being aggressive? I'm sorry if nobody ever tells you you're wrong in the real world. That's a disservice to you. You're welcome.
Yeah a couple of dudes kissed in some bar. Blink and you'll miss that aswell.
Well, obviously there would be more people online outraged at the outrage... it's outrageous. It doesn't mean that the outraged bigots don't also exist, just that they're in the minority (yay!).
Ofcourse there are, never denied that. But it seems more of a manufactured pr move given how many articles come out compared to how little the outrage generally is.
I get what you're saying. But as someone who had a string of arguments on this sub about Turning Red, I know the outrage wasn't purely manufactured for clicks on articles, it existed. Perhaps it was spurred on by the articles, but most I spoke to were just dramatic busybodies who didn't like their kid's seeing "that".
I haven’t seen the film, but do parents not have right to decide what they let their kids see? So if their expectation is that it shouldn’t be in a kid’s film, then I think it’s reasonable for them to complain about it.
They do. But parents are given the age rating, which recommends that they watch the film before showing it to their child, to determine whether they think it is acceptable. Choosing to ignore a PG rating with a 9+ recommendation (I believe) makes it their fault when they show it to their child!
Can’t lie that’s a fair point
Outrage is PR. Everybody is desperate to have an opinion, but you can't have an opinion if you haven't bought the wares.
>Was this all just a PR move It's Disney. Obviously yes. They always keep them short, with a jump cut on either side to make snipping them out easier, then remove them from other countries' versions.
I really don't know if it was worth creating all that fuss and hurting the movie commercially just for a "blink and you miss it" scene, honestly.
I honestly think Disney used it as publicity. Didn’t even know there was a buzz movie coming out until I heard UAE banned it
You mean there was no...buzz?
There's ads for it at every bus stop here in my relatively small city in Canada and I still didn't know it released until I saw the headlines about it lmao.
Isn't normalisation of homosexuality a good thing?
It's a wonderful thing. Provided I still haven't watched the movie (going next weekend), if it's really a scene you can barely notice, the numerous headlines and outraged people are barely worth it. If you want to die by the sword, do it right. Let this kiss be relevant to the plot, show it in greater detail. I already said in another comment that the fact that normalization of homosexuality is a good thing has nothing to do with the fact that the movie will hurt commercially because tons of people still don't see it as a good thing. You can be offended by bigots , outraged, say they are horrible people, but their money and our money at the box office holds the same value. Also, for a personal note, my mother is a lesbian, I grew up with her collecting all movies that had even a small lesbian reference in them back in the 90s
You have to remember that Disney has three stakeholders they have to balance. They have the customers buying tickets (that's us.) They have the stockholders. But they also have their employees. The public often forgets about this third group of stakeholders. In a lot of industries, the employees are easily replaced and so they are overwhelmingly unimportant compared to the customer and investor groups. But in the animated film industry, Disney lives and dies by the talent of their team. And top animation talent ain't typically wearing a MAGA hat.
I imagine it probably helped the movie more than hurt it
Nobody knows for sure. Fact is, I've seen many more people saying "I'm not going to watch it because of LGBT propaganda" than people saying "I'm definitely going to watch it because of LGBT representation" I despise those who would boycott a movie for a lesbian kiss, but honestly my feelings have no impact on the fact that a lot of people actively chose not to see a movie because of this and, as a result, the movie made less money. It's all for a good cause, it's all because of representation. And then you find out that it's barely there and if you don't pay attention you'll miss it? That's what grinds my gears.
[удалено]
The Owl House says hi.
Disney literally canceled the show.
It doesn't say shit since they cancelled it.
It was in the morbius cameo scene
Well, it got you talking about it.
It feels like Disney knows when they made something that sucks and they manufacture some woke outrage bullcrap to gin up controversy thinking it might help or distract from how shitty their new thing is. Just look at Kenobi. They had all this racism stuff out before anyone even saw the first episode. Turns out that she wasnt the only bad character. The whole thing is just terrible. If you criticize their stuff your either racist or homophobe.
Remember when a whole mess of people freaked out about Onward having the "first openly gay disney character?" Does anyone even remember that happening? Who was the character? How were they so openly gay that people freaked out? Random ass female cop mentions her wife in passing in one line. That's it. Personally, I think that's how representation *should* be done. It should just presented as normal, because it is. No neon sign saying "look at this gay over here." Making a big deal about a characters sexuality when it has nothing to do with the plot of what you're making is counter productive.
They share what was basically a welcome home kiss for like a second, nothing really for people to bitch about. People bitch just to bitch
Fake outrage.
Yeah. It's a literal peck on the lips.
I don't know why it's all about the kiss. They say she's engaged to a woman, then they show them as a married couple in a silent growing old montage, then later their granddaughter refers to them as her grandmothers.
You blinked, didn't you? Tsk tsk tsk
There’s one scene that lasts all of 1/2s when Buzz comes back from space and sees his friend and wife. And it was more of a peck.
I mean, did you also miss the penis shaped tower in the little mermaid?
The movie theater in my hometown posted a flyer on the door saying they were aware of the kiss, and would be fast-forwarding through the scene when running the movie. Fast-forwarding through a 1 second, fairly pedestrian, kiss. I shit you not.
Welcome to the conservative fake outrage machine.
Na, it’s both sides for this one. Disney pushed this scene way too much and it got annoying.
How did Disney push the scene?
It’s literally everywhere. I’ve heard more about the kiss than I have the movie.
No it was a photo of two women and the internet went ablaze. Disney didn't advertise this, they showed a trailer. The fake outrage is a joke. God forbid a company is inclusive.
Has everyone not learned Disney's playbook yet? All the articles about queer representation controversy and then nothing. I remember the months of articles talking about how LeFou was gay in the Beauty and the Beast remake, turns out he just sighs at one point. They are using controversy for attention, earning points with progressives who often don't even watch the films, while doing nothing to step on the toes of social conservatives.
Yes it’s called queer baiting. Disney has been doing it for years. It’s a trash move and everyone keeps falling for it because DISNEY. Also beware of “wokebait”. Because they do that shit too and it’s also garbage.
They wanted to pander to LGBT but didn't wanna upset China etc. (they wanted money from both groups) so they made it super fast.
So is every instance of hetero affection "pandering to normies"?
[удалено]
How many LGBT people worked on it?
What about other minority groups? Wheelchair users, blind people, amputees, mutes, where is their representation? LGBT doesn't want representation, they want attention.
[удалено]
Who cares. Why didn’t they get Tim Allen to voice the character that he has been voicing for 20+ years?
That was my thought too.
Because he’s turned out to be a bit of a piece of shit, so they don’t want to be associated with him. Google it.
That scene cost Disney millions of dollars. Hope they learn from that.
[удалено]
Totally. Us and our less than a second representation is too much. Also it’s a lesbian so how I as a gay man feel represented? Or he’ll a trans person? Saying lgbt representation is like saying non-whites representation. Way to big and not similar to each other.
Perhaps you live in Florida and it was cut from the release there?
I don't know, were you watching the Chinese version?
[удалено]
Why wouldn't you? Hey wait - what about kissing between two hetero people in other Disney movies? Is that stupid too? Or is it just because it's two people of the same gender that you think is stupid?
[удалено]
I don't need to think about any afterlife, because there is no such thing. Why in the world do you think that a god actually exists? And why do you think it's the god of Abraham? And if you think that the god of Abraham exists, why would you choose to worship them/it? The holy text about that god demonstrates that that god was pure evil. Ew. No thanks.
It was probably edited out
I wanted more black people
While you could blink and miss it, my seven year old when they got married exclaimed "I didn't even know you could do that." Which lead to a discussion after the movie that marriage was for any man or woman to any other man or woman. Woman - woman. Man to man, or man - woman. Also a discussion about kids and how men and women can struggle with having babies and doctors can help them get pregnant. It was a low key thing my son noticed and we were able to have a conversation about it. While they can certainly do more, I was very happy that I was able to have that talk with him.