going to a housewarming party today

[wingblossom]

So! I caved and signed up for an account with Twitter. I will probably regret this in the days to come. (Now to find the people I know who are using it. That should be a grand total of...one?)

Life is going along swimmingly -- once in a while, I feel a vague sense of guilt for not posting more often, buuuut there are worse things to consider, I guess. Like the fact that I am currently trying to type without wearing my contact lenses right now, for instance.

Lastly, I take back everything I said about not begrudging Pixar/Disney their Oscar win, because UGH.

Comments

[cyanwitch]

Haha, but didn't you know? Half the reason you get twitter is so you can follow celebrities like OMG.

Also, I always did begrudge them that win, but you knew that. XD On the other hand, I'm not sure what your problem with that link is?

[wingblossom]

Hahah, would it make you laugh if I told you that never even occurred to me? I mean, yes, I do know that people on Twitter follow celebrities, but I never thought to do the same.

As to my problem with that link: I should have clarified it in the actual post, whoops. Basically, I'm really sick and tired of marketing executives who think they have to change kids movies (and television shows, come to think of it -- I'm looking at you, Cardcaptors) in order to appeal to a wider audience. And when they say "wider audience," they mean "boys." Because no matter how many girls watch something that's aimed at a male demographic, the common assumption is that the reverse will never be true.

I'm pretty disappointed with Disney, especially because this nonsense about Rapunzel (or oops, I guess I should say "Tangled") has come so soon on the heels of The Princess and the Frog. It's always one step forward, two steps back; and hence, very, very irritating. Also, way to get rid of genuinely cool projects, like an adaptation of Hans Christian Anderson's The Snow Queen. But hey, who cares: I guess box office figures are the only things that matter, right?

[cyanwitch]

Mmm, I think a lot of that is societal stereotypes, though. A girl who watches boyish stuff is less likely to be made fun of by her peers than a guy who watches girly stuff. It's annoying, but I think a valid point from a money-making standpoint.
And I think part of it is just gender stereotyping all over again - growing up, my sister and I subsisted on Disney movies, every single one. On the other hand, when my parents would put one in for my brother, they were usually things like The Lion King or Peter Pan, or not even Disney at all. (I swear there was a point when if I ever heard Milo and Otis playing I was going to rip the video out of the TV.) Boys aren't expected to like them, so nobody even tries - and then they don't when they're older, because they're used to cars and explosions and things, and even if they do, their peers don't, and kids can be really mean.
So I guess tl;dr is I'm not happy with it, but I can't really blame them for thinking like that since so many people do, and then they just start the cycle all over again. I guess for me it's more of a general anger than one directed at anything.
(Also, it bugs me less for the Rapunzel mythos than it would if it was say, The Snow Queen. Because Rapunzel didn't really do much in the tower - having a male protagonist who's more active makes sense in this case, imo, since it's not like The Snow Queen where the boy was the passive character.)
...And I'm pretty sure I'm mostly just playing devil's advocate here, but. *shrugs*

[wingblossom]

Mmm, I think a lot of that is societal stereotypes, though. A girl who watches boyish stuff is less likely to be made fun of by her peers than a guy who watches girly stuff.

That's true; in terms of audience demographics in the U.S., "female" is the marked category , "male" is the unmarked category. And I still don't think that excuses Disney in the slightest. The marketing executives responsible for promoting their movies are so quick to assume that Princess and the Frog did poorly because it had a female protagonist. Instead of the fact that it went up against Avatar, the highest grossing film of all time, during a financial recession.

It's annoying, but I think a valid point from a money-making standpoint.

I can't agree with you here -- for example, there are plenty of examples from across the Pacific of cash cow franchises that focus on females and make huge amounts of money. Again, why should gender stereotyping in kids' entertainment be allowed to remain the status quo?

It's not just this one incident, either. Like I said on gchat before, how many of Pixar's films feature female characters in leading roles, let alone at all? Decisions like this don't exist in a vacuum. And I see no reason to consider it acceptable, because all this does is perpetuate the trend seen in children's movies and elsewhere. I'm aware that bucking the trend isn't always the easiest thing to do, but damn it, I do expect these companies to try. And I do blame them for continuing to promote backwards thinking, for not even attempting once to toe the line.

[cyanwitch]

The marketing executives responsible for promoting their movies are so quick to assume that Princess and the Frog did poorly because it had a female protagonist.

I'm not entirely sure about that, actually. That one post that you linked seems to be the only reporting that I can find on the situation, honestly, and I have to wonder how much is interpretation on the part of the article-writer. I think that the idea of boys not wanting to see a movie with "Princess" in the title isn't wrong - but I think that expanding the premise to all feminine-titled movies is faulty. But I think there's a big difference between "movies with female protagonists" and "movies with excessively girly titles."

why should gender stereotyping in kids' entertainment be allowed to remain the status quo?

Well, I'm not really saying that it should. XD But I would argue that Disney isn't generally, (in the Disney incarnation, at least, and not acquired things like Pixar and Marvel) subject to the gender stereotyping that's kind of apparent here. They've got a pretty long tradition of female protagonists (I am not sure why the article says "'The Snow Queen' ... would have marked the company's fourth animated film with a female protagonist," considering previous films like Mulan or Alice in Wonderland had very obviously female protagonists, for one) and a lot of their programming on the disney channel is female-oriented. I think it's a little less so now, actually, than it was but I'm not sure, since I don't really watch it much anymore. So I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for this one case. (Pixar, on the other hand, is a whole 'nother story, but they existed as a company before Disney bought them out, at least, and I'm not sure what Disney's policy on the companies they take over is. But you already knew that I'm not overly fond of Pixar's movies.)

how many of Pixar's films feature female characters in leading roles, let alone at all?

Not many, not. As for movies that feature a female protagonist in the lead, titular role? None. Which has always been something I've disliked about them, although apparently they're attempting to remedy that with "The Bear and the Bow."

And I do blame them for continuing to promote backwards thinking, for not even attempting once to toe the line.

And see, here is where I'd disagree with you. Because I think that they have pressed forward in other places before. For example, I am lazy and am going to quote things. But, Disney-owned ABC did this:
"Near the end of the fourth season, main character Ellen Morgan... announces that she is gay. That made her the first primary character of a prime-time series to "come out" on-screen and "Ellen" the first show to star an openly gay character." And, according to the information I've found online, they had to run the scripts past Disney execs first. So while I wouldn't say they've got an exemplary record, I also wouldn't say that they never push the envelope.

....I... may have lost my thread of thought in there at points, since my sister had people over and I kept getting drawn into their conversations, but... I think what I'm trying to say is that if Disney turns this into a trend, as the parent company and not as a subset like Pixar, because I'm really not sure about its practices regarding those companies cause there're like hundreds of them geez, and how much autonomy they're given, then I'd start getting angry. As it is, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for this one movie.

Also, I don't really mind the idea of giving more equal time to the protagonists of both sexes, like they did in the Princess and the Frog, because though Naveen was around a lot, and a central part of the storyline, the focus was still on Tiana and she still got the crowning moment of awesome, and I kind of assumed that it was going to be something like that, with a dynamic that didn't shuttle one character out of the spotlight in favor of the other.

And tl;dr, I guess it's just that I'm vaguely skeptical, but I'm not willing to base my opinions off of one article that seems to be all anyone else quotes without seeing it for myself.

[wingblossom]

That one post that you linked seems to be the only reporting that I can find on the situation, honestly, and I have to wonder how much is interpretation on the part of the article-writer.

Possibly -- there's no such thing as completely unbiased reporting, after all. However, Ed Catmull, president of Pixar and Disney, did say this: "We did not want to be put in a box. Some people might assume it's a fairy tale for girls when it's not." No, no, no. You mean that a story all about a princess and hair and imprisonment isn't for girls?

There's enough information given in that article, based on at least the quotes given, to irk me about the decisions Disney is making.

I think that the idea of boys not wanting to see a movie with "Princess" in the title isn't wrong - but I think that expanding the premise to all feminine-titled movies is faulty. But I think there's a big difference between "movies with female protagonists" and "movies with excessively girly titles."

Who's to define what's excessively girly, though? Why should that demarcation even apply? I don't see anyone complaining about the title of the Transformers franchise -- aimed at a youngish male demographic, but with plenty of females interested enough in it to see both movies. In comparison to that, a fairytale like Rapunzel, which has gone by that title for a much longer period of time, ends up being revamped in order to make a fleeting shot at higher box office ratings.

And why is it accepted that whenever a form of entertainment is tweaked to appeal to a larger audience, it's always to cater to males, rather than the other way around? Yes, I know this is due in part to societal stereotypes. Yes, I know that U.S. mainstream media promotes a flawed view of gender, and that kids' movies are only one part of that whole. It's something that's deeply embedded in our culture, and not particularly easy to change. But I refuse to believe that it makes this all right in any sense.

In fact, I was just thinking of Twilight here: even though that series has its own set of genderfail issues, it is clearly aimed at a female audience. It unarguably brings in more than its share of revenue, and I've never seen any attempt to claim that the books, movies, or merchandise should be changed in order to attract a wider audience (ie: guys). It's proof that a franchise doesn't have to make these sorts of alterations in order to make a lot of money. That being the case, why does Disney seem to think they have to do that in order to ensure their movies do well?

But I would argue that Disney isn't generally, (in the Disney incarnation, at least, and not acquired things like Pixar and Marvel) subject to the gender stereotyping that's kind of apparent here. They've got a pretty long tradition of female protagonists (I am not sure why the article says "'The Snow Queen' ... would have marked the company's fourth animated film with a female protagonist," considering previous films like Mulan or Alice in Wonderland had very obviously female protagonists, for one) and a lot of their programming on the disney channel is female-oriented.

That's the reason why Disney's decisions here are troubling. If they didn't have a track record of featuring female leads for at least some of their movies, it would be less of a letdown.

Disney-owned ABC did this: "Near the end of the fourth season, main character Ellen Morgan... announces that she is gay. That made her the first primary character of a prime-time series to "come out" on-screen and "Ellen" the first show to star an openly gay character." And, according to the information I've found online, they had to run the scripts past Disney execs first. So while I wouldn't say they've got an exemplary record, I also wouldn't say that they never push the envelope.

Okay, I stand corrected on that count. But I will say that they tend to be very, very conservative in their approach to sensitive (or potentially controversial) issues -- when they do break away from that, it's all the more surprising because the majority of the time, they well...don't. I mean, I was pleased to have a black lead in Tiana for The Princess and the Frog, but how long did it take for Disney execs to do that?

I won't solely judge Disney on the decisions they've made here, but I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on this, either. It's just not something that sits well with me, and I think the alterations they've chosen to make here -- with the movie already so far in production -- are a lot more unsuited than, say, giving Tiara and Naveen about equal screen time.

Frankly, I'm almost more disappointed that they canceled The Snow Queen than anything else, because I loved that story when I was little.

And tl;dr, I guess it's just that I'm vaguely skeptical, but I'm not willing to base my opinions off of one article that seems to be all anyone else quotes without seeing it for myself.

Fair enough!