#disney discourse

[artist-issues]

And another thing.

The original The Little Mermaid is about understanding. One of the main plot devices is that the witch takes what from Ariel, ladies and gentlemen?

Her voice.

Ariel did not leave the sea “for a boy.”

Ariel left the sea to be understood. Because for the whole first part of the movie, we’re shown hints of what her life is already like, and how she’s tried to be understood but nobody’s listening or communicating.

She’s introduced by describing a ship as amazing and wonderful, while her fish friend clearly does not understand and wants to get out of there.

Even her best friend doesn’t share her love for another world.

Her first interaction with her father, count how many times he’s speaking over her.

He has this prejudice against humans, and because she’s disobeyed him, he won’t listen to any of her evidence that they may not all be bad.

Even when she has a voice and a cavern full of proof that humans aren’t all barbarians, her father won’t listen to her, so he can’t understand.

And the truth is, she doesn’t have that much proof. She knows that humans are clever and make “wonderful things,” and that’s what she bases her belief in them on. But those beautiful objects, and her pretty ideals, are not enough to make her abandon her family and culture and world.

When she sings and talks about why she wants to be Part of That World, it’s because she wants to understand it. And, subconsciously, Ariel also hopes to be understood up there. Where they make cool devices, and maybe daughters can stand instead of being reprimanded. There’s this hope for freedom and being known associated with the surface.

But it’s not until she meets Eric that those ideals are really, actually, proven true.

Ariel sees Eric out on the sea exploring instead of staying in a palace on his birthday. He gets a gift from the closest person to him, and it’s clear that even the closest person to him doesn’t understand his tastes—he doesn’t want an over-dramatic statue of himself. He sticks to his ideals in an argument that somewhere out there, is the right girl for him. But he doesn’t have to leave the argument in frustrated tears. In the end, he risks his life to not only watch out for his friend, but nearly dies going back to a burning ship to save his dog.

Eric personifies everything Ariel has always idealized about the Human World—AND he might understand her.

In her one observation of him, she finds out that he, a human, is:

A Prince, but nobody can tell him what to do.

More interested in activity and exploration than palace ceremony.

Unable to relate to his closest companions.

Handsome—beautiful, not a savage.

Criticized for “silly, romantic notions” but sticks to the idea of something wonderful out there in the great beyond.

Brave, self-sacrificial, and compassionate to animals.

Eric is, all at once, everything Ariel always hoped a human could be, and yet still so like herself. They have twin souls.

She’d rather be exploring human ships, he’d rather be out exploring the sea. She believes the surface world is good and beautiful, he believes in the girl of his dreams, no matter what anyone says. She has nobody who gets excited about new adventures, and he has nobody who gets excited about new adventures.

When she sees him, she falls in love not just with his upstanding character, or even the human world he represents—she falls in love with the hope that he might understand her in away nobody under the sea does.

Then the ironic thing is, she’s got to make him understand who she is and what she should mean to him without a voice. And unfortunately, that’s really hard because he is suddenly associating his dream girl with a voice and a magical rescue.

As close as they may get when she finally does meet him face to face and gets herself human legs, Ariel and Eric can’t be together until he knows who she is, for real. After all, how can love be true without understanding?

And we’re not DONE with understanding. Because even after he learns what and who she is and still commits to her and saves her and loves her, Ariel’s back to having a tail. She’s back to being in a world where he can’t be.

Except now, Triton is the one who understands. He finally sees what they’ll do for each other—and that Eric, ”savage, spineless, harpooning fish eater with no regard” saved his daughter. He sees that they love each other and are each worthy of the other’s love.

It’s not until Triton understands what Ariel has known and felt all along that he gives her human legs the right way.

That’s the point of Disney’s The Little Mermaid. “True love is found in understanding and sacrificing for one another.”

Triton had the sacrificing idea down, but he didn’t have understanding. Eric had understanding, but he didn’t have the chance to sacrifice for it.

Ariel has both. She understands that Eric’s world is not only barbaric, but beautiful, and she’s willing to sacrifice her tail to be understood in that world.

That is what this movie is all about. And because they’re probably willing to sacrifice critical scenes, like the Prince saving the day (which is important because it provides Triton with a new understanding of humans) or the girl leaving the ocean to be with the boy (which is important because what she really wants is to be understood) the creators of the Live Action Little Mermaid are going to miss the point and ruin the movie.

[cottonvanjogh]

Me, unaware that Alex Hirsch has been stirring the pot again, logging onto Tumblr Dot Com: what the FUCK do we have against Salt and Pepper??

[sunshine-tattoo]

There is something you Disney gays need to understand.

The Walt Disney Corporation never has, and never will be, your friend or ally.

Disney is a multi billion dollar conglomerate.

Their one and only goal is to make more money than they did the previous year.

That is it.

They aren't trying to help you or your community.

Any politics they have either reflects the best way for them to make money or it was because someone put political pressure on them to do it. Or it is a publicity stunt.

"But what about creators like Dana Terrace? Or the history of queer people in animation?"

Listen to me. Artists like Dana and others do not work at The Rat because they want to.

They work there because Disney buys up every other little animation company there is and shuts it down, ensuring that any money being made from the medium is going to them.

DreamWorks and a tiny handful of others are the only ones left in western animation.

I am not kidding.

Blue Sky, who made Ice Age, was one of Disneys latest victims.

They shut down all production, even for things that were nearly complete, on all products that did not fit their brand.

Such as the movie adaption of Lumber Janes, a queer focused comic by ND Stevenson (creator of the She-Ra reboot).

As for the historical guys, such as Howard Ashman AKA the father of the Disney Renaissance, they may have worked there and done amazing things but it doesn't mean they were respected by the company.

Howard and his fellow gay artists were only allotted the creative freedom to work because at the time Disney was nearly penniless and this was a last ditch effort to save the company.

Gay artists may have risen Disney up, but it does not mean that the company cares for them or us.

In the eyes of these boardroom execs, the artists are tools needed to make a profit.

And gay consumers are the fools who will buy the rainbows-colored sweatshop produced products and call the company woke.

So. What can we do about this?

Rule #1: Avoid giving Disney money at all costs.

I know this is really hard because they own literally everything. But do your best.

This also includes any of their streaming services.

Buy used DVDs or just pirate.

And before anyone gets their panties in a wad about wanting support queer creators like Dana Terrace, let me remind you:

Creators and animators are paid a lump some regardless of if something does well or not.

All that revenue produced by things like Gravity Falls or Luca goes to the execs and stock holders, not the people responsible.

Rule #2- Support artists directly

If you like things like The Owl House and Dana Terrace's work, make a lot of noise about it on social media.

Buzz absolutely is a currency and the more that is generated, the more likely that these things will get renewed.

Rule #3- Support Unions

Unions are what keeps artists from being treated like slaves.

And any union (regardless of background or career) is a good union.

Rule #4- Do not fall for Disney's bullshit

No matter how progressive they may seem, there is always an ulterior motive and always a catch.

They are not our allies no matter what.

[merp-blerp]

So I haven't seen Disney's Wish myself (I'm waiting for it to assumedly go to Disney+, theaters are a lot of money to spend too often), so I can't speak on the film from my own point of view yet, but I have seen the reaction to it so far and I wanted to share my thoughts on why I think some of these reactions are happening, based on my own experience of watching and listening to the Disney fandom's critiques over the many years I've done so. These are just my observations based on my experiences and it's okay to disagree, just be cordial.

Opinions below the cut ↓

I feel like a part of why Wish is the way it allegedly is has to do with something that has been plaguing Disney for a while: trying to prove bad-faith criticisms wrong instead of knowing their strengths.

I'm sure they still happen, but especially in the early and mid-2010s Disney had a lot of half-baked criticisms directed at their stories and characters. Wish might be another one of many attempts to quell these critiques. For example, I remember a common piece of writing advice would be to make villains complex all the time, with villains who are evil for evil's sake being seen as less well done (this was towards media in general, but it applied to Disney too), so Disney began the surprise villain and/or the sympathetic villain trend in their films. Now people have seen that shtick so much they want traditional villains back (me too). It's now overdone and no longer shocking or subversive in their movies anymore. [And as a little add-on, I understand why people want King Magnifico's design to be more "traditionally villainous" but I'm actually happy he isn't, as it's really hard to design a villain like that without perpetuating some kind of bigoted stereotype that a lot of traditional villains have. Even Mother Gothel, one of the last, if not the last of the classic villains Disney has attempted, had a lot of antisemitism baked into not only her design but also her actions. Disney's done that a lot, which is likely accidental, but still bad. I'd much prefer him to look and act like some guy over an awful Jewish stereotype or something similar.] People also called princesses with the temperaments of, say, Aurora, Belle, or Cinderella "boring", or hell, "sexist" in their characterization, so the heroines were made more relatably quirky, as that type of humor towards/by girls and women were very popular in the 2010s. Asha is allegedly somehow both socially inept and socially competent, which arguably isn't a flaw at all, just contradictory. (My neuro-spicy brain wants to somewhat lean towards neurodivergence when I hear that, but I haven't seen the film, so what do I know?) Now people are souring to that too, understandably, as that humor's kind of dated and overdone with Disney's heroines. These traits aren't bad on girls automatically, especially if they make sense for the environment they grew up in like Anna or Rapunzel, but they've just been done to death with Disney. Ironically, now when I see people suggest alternative traits for Asha they propose a more "sophisticated", "mature", or "self-assured" type of personality, aka, what the "sexist" traditional heroines had a lot of the time.

The newer tropes Disney tried to do in place of their old ones don't have as much staying power as the old. Once they're done so much they get stale. If they're based on trends in media rather than being actually captivating in writing, they become timely. People can digest characters like Cinderella, who are interesting and aren't overly worried about upholding trends in their characterization, for centuries whether they realize it or not. But characters like what Asha is allegedly like are based on trendy, shallow politics that aren't as deep as they sound, maybe sometimes even circling right back into the bigotry it was trying to combat (like the girl-boss stuff), and become overdone and/or dated if they aren't done well or in a new way. I feel like because of the poorly made assessments that people used to make towards Disney, Disney is almost embarrassed by their past films when they really shouldn't be. This is why the recent remakes tend to over-correct the originals. In the original Beauty and the Beast, it was not a flaw that Adam was eleven when he was made to look like a beast in my opinion, it just made it more interesting, but some reviews saw it as a bad thing, so they changed the line in "Be Our Guest" that implied his age. It was seen as a flaw that the original Cinderella didn't have a clear reason to stay with her abusive family, even though that's how familial abuse works often and it's really rude to victims to ask "Why don't you just leave?" or something like that; so Disney gave Ella the explanation that she stays because it was her father's home in the 2015 remake, which only added more flaws when you remember that she does leave the house in the end anyway. What was the point in saying that? People wanted strong female characters, so Mulan in her remake is a flawless, emotionless girl-boss. It was seen as sexist when female characters wanted romantic love because "girls don't need a man, so romance is sexist", so Disney stopped telling love stories and focused more on issues of the self, which isn't bad, but now people want Disney to tell love stories again and are disappointed that Asha didn't have a romance with the mostly cut "Star-Boy" character in Wish (again, me too, I love Disney's love stories). All of these are overcorrections to things that were never flaws to begin with, just nit-picks from bad observations of their films. There are too many examples. It's like Disney is insecure.

If Disney understood that these things weren't bad in essence, Wish would be more liked by its critics; if Disney wasn't afraid to let their female characters have actual flaws, not see romantic love as something dated, not continue to listen to these types of shitty judgments, or just take more risks again because that's what shaped the company—taking risks against the odds, Wish would be better (I assume all of the former based on what I've heard, again I haven't seen Wish myself). The pseudo-feminism and CinemaSins type of critiquing from the 2010s has mostly died out. The culture's changed. The tropes people once condemned are now being begged to be brought back. What goes around comes back around. It showcases what was truly timeless and what was just a trend in media.

In my opinion, old bad-faith "fan" responses are partially to blame for these themes in recent films, but of course, Disney is ultimately at fault because they make their own choices. There could also be plenty of other reasons why Wish feels half-done to some, like the alleged poor treatment of employees behind the scenes.

By the way, if you were a Disney fan who had these types of opinions in the past, you shouldn't be hard on yourself about it, especially if you were just a kid listening to and trying to appeal to the adults that were around you or influenced you. The latter is the boat I was in once, and now I've grown up past that. Needlessly cynical film takes and pseudo-feminism were all the rage for a while and many have had that phase of being really into those mindsets. You're not bad if you've been in it at any time in the past as long as you are learning and growing.

I'm choosing to be optimistic about Disney. Somehow I still am. They have been in a creative rut for what seems like a while now. Disney-creative doesn't seem to be allowed to tell the stories they want to tell, instead being made to cater to the wrong people. The people who like to insult Disney more than they like watching their films. They should make movies for the fans of all ages who love them. But I believe Disney can bounce back from this. Disney has been through rough patches before, but these rough patches in the past have led to eras like the Disney Renaissance. I'm hoping the backlash from Wish will lead to Disney making changes once more. They've done that repeatedly in their complex 100 years of establishment. Gone are the times when the Disney remakes were panned by fans but still made tons of money that justified their continued production. And long gone are the days when fans were actually excited about the prospects of Disney recreating their movies (because yes people felt that way once upon a time). Now the remakes aren't making as much as Disney wants and sometimes even flopping. Gone are the days when their animated films were their critical lifeline, Wish proves that they are not immune to being received poorly. It's time for something new. Or old done new. Just something different. It would be one thing if this were just another bad movie, but this was their 100th-year celebration, you think they'd be more careful to not muck it up. But apparently, all it did was reflect all the flaws that have been in Disney's storytelling as of late. That's why the backlash is so great. It feels like the last straw. Once time goes on past the 100th-anniversary era, I think the hate for Wish will die down, but that wouldn't make it less potentially flawed. When I first caught wind of this film, way before we had a trailer even, I was very excited that it seemed like a return to form for Disney, but apparently, it might not be, and that's got a lot of people disappointed, especially since this movie was meant to be a celebration. I've loved Disney for as long as I can remember and I know a lot of people are the same way. People wouldn't be so disappointed in the state of the company if they didn't care deeply about Disney and believed that they could do better. I still think Disney could be great. I still believe in them. They just need to believe in themselves again.

If you made it this far, thank you so much for reading! ♥

[werewolf-cuddles]

I will concede that the tail looks amazing, and I'm sure Halle will be great in the role.

But that still doesn't change my thoughts on the project as a whole. It's an unnecessary, soulless, lifeless remake of an already great, timeless, classic movie, and I really wish Disney would just stop.

[littlemisstfc]

I dunno how the fuck some of y’all didn’t understand the messages behind how indigenous Hawaiians are treated by the USA, specifically how much damaging the tourist industry is and how social services tear apart indigenous families, in Lilo and Stitch. 😭

[616natsromanoff]

michael eisner adding his two cents about the state of the walt disney company is fucking wild if i was bob chapek right now i would never show my face again

[meridaism]

People hate lesbian headcanons so much that once a character is confirmed to be a lesbian or is heavily lesbian-coded, the first thing people will ask for is proof. Like it's an accusation or something. God forbid said lesbian character has smiled at exactly ONE man for like a millisecond, then all of a sudden it's “UMM ACTUALLY THEY R CANONICALLY ATTRACTED TO MEN SO….”

You have no idea how many “has Disney said anything about this?” and “If Disney hasn't outright said anything then I can't take this as the truth” responses I've gotten towards my posts (especially my pinned) when there's so much canon proof of Merida being a lesbian in all of the properties and pieces of media that Disney themselves owns that they don't have to say anything.

Not to mention y'all use her comphet as a means to say she's straight in Bravely when her love interest is literally canonically non-binary???

Us: Merida is a canon lesbian

Them: “But you failed to consider where there is a brief mentioning of Merida’s childhood in Bravely where she was attracted to a BOY. 🤓”

Meanwhile, what Merida actually said and meant: “For a short period of time during my childhood I was attracted to the body and build of a boy but the more he spoke the more I realized I wasn't really attracted to HIM at all. Ever since then, I haven't gone out of my way to find the right man for myself someday because I knew they'd all anger me, bore me, and fail to give me what I really want. It is for this exact reason why I do not care for Feradach’s male appearances whatsoever, and I really only care for who he is internally: a genderless, bodiless being made of air whom is kind, curious, and loving. That is who I love, no matter what physical form he takes. I love Feradach internally, not externally. His physical forms don't matter to me, only his truest and happiest form made of air because that is his true self. Which is exactly why I am aiming to free him from his curse of having to wear the human faces and bodies of those he unwillingly brings ruin to. I am aiming to restore him back to his original, happiest form: a feeling, an internal bliss made of air, the one I love.”

Brave has always been about internal vs external change, and Bravely is the perfect sequel to that. Don't dismiss the message of Merida’s story and her growth as a person just because you want to have a nonexistent gotcha moment out of a pathetic desperation to erase her canon lesbianism and take a beloved character away from the lesbian community and erase the representation she gives us.

[dross-the-fish]

As we get closer to the release date I want to know: what are your thoughts on Halle Bailey as Ariel?

Listen, anon, I don't really have any hot takes on this topic. I'm not going to see the film because I've been sick of these garbage movies since the Beauty and The Beast remake. But, I have no complaints yet with Halle Bailey. From what little I can see she is a decent singer and she can convey more than two emotions. That already puts her leagues ahead of her predecessors. Honestly the bar is so low at this point that the Phantom of the Opera, in his underground lair, is looking down at it and going, "What is that at the bottom of my lake?" I mean we've had Pinocchio playing in horseshit. What further depths are there anymore?

[daisychainsposts]

I hate when people talk about Gaston from beauty and the beast (the animated Disney one) like he’s just some “uwu strong guy who was just trying to help a kidnapped woman who he loved”.

Did we watch the same movie?!

He tries to blackmail Belle into marriage and he wasn’t all that concerned with the beast until Belle rejected him twice in public and he saw how much she cared for Beast.

[ssadumba55]

unpopular opinion and i'm not african american so if you are you can feel free to tell me this is a bad take and i'll take it down. but people who complain about tinker bell/ariel being african american/black, say you want original characters of that skin colour and then didn't go to see strange world (or princess and the frog for that matter since compared to tangled after it it didn't do as well financially); you are the problem.

maybe yall should like pull up and support when original characters are made and they'll make more???? just a thought. i mean they are the problem but also you're the problem for not putting your money where your mouth is.

[hilli98215]

I really love DreamWorks animation. Fuck Disney animation, they’re overrated snobs anyway.

First of all anon,

The way you worded your ask is incredibly rude and disrespectful. I personally love all kinds of animation. Dreamworks actually created some of my favorite animated films like the How to Train Your Dragon series, The Prince of Egypt, Shrek 1 and 2, Chicken Run, and Antz to name a few.

Disney has been an animation company since 1923 and has given animation a way to become its own genre. Not to say that Dreamworks hasn’t done the same thing with many of the films stated above.If you were to talk about the company as a whole being over rated at times, then I would agree with you but you are only talking about the animation department. Now, for you to also say that the department is filled with snobs… that is a biased statement which does not take the creative, hard working, often underpaid animators who are real people that work tirelessly on these films and television shows into account. I know when I watch a film,I  make sure to read all the names in the end credits and everyone who worked on these movies are included. 

If you are talking about the types of movies Disney Animation creates then let’s talk about it. For example, Frozen is a movie I will genuinely skip because it is an overrated film. But that is my opinion. But you also need to also talk about the failures of the early 2000s like Home on the Range, Dinosaur, and Chicken Little (though the former does have its good parts). 

But again, that is your opinion. And I am going to respect that opinion. But also if you ever want to ask me about Disney (let it be about animation, the parks, or what I think about happening with the company) please do because I will answer.

[historymakesmeangry]

I just watched Return to Oz for the first time, when I finished I was struck with how magical the film felt and I asked myself when was the last time a Disney film made me feel magic, it hasn't been for a long time, and it not because I grew up. Movies have always been made for money, but modern Disney films feel like that is the only propose and they don't even try to hide it. I'm bored of modern children's films and how commercial they are (not to say that they haven't been commercial in the past)

[blogtaculous]

Oaken was a price gouging piece of shit and, indeed, a crook.

[werewolf-cuddles]

I saw a gifset last night showing a comparison between the teaser for The Little Mermaid remake and the equivalent scene in the original movie, and WOW

never before have I seen such an unintentionally perfect demonstration of how much of a fucking DOWNGRADE these films are

like damn, you have all this fluid, colourful animation, and then you trade it in for a dreary "realistic" colour palette, and uninspired, boring camera angles and panning

There is literally no point in remaking classic movies that still hold up beautifully years later. Great movies are timeless, and remaking them is redundant and just goes to show how little the biggest animation company in the world actually respects the medium of animation.

[oppaihun]

Hey full fucking offense to Disney adults but if you see something you don’t agree with in discourse and ask the individual if they’re mentally handicapped I need you to fuck all the way off.

What started as an opinion on Disney magic on tiktok has devolved into people throwing insults instead of talking points. And asking me or anyone for that matter if they’re mentally handicapped because you deem them to aggressive, trolly, or whatever is kind of a shit take bud.

I don’t care if you agree with me or don’t agree with me, that’s okay. Don’t try and equate me and my behavior to either being a child or mentally handicapped in any capacity.

I stand by what I said, that Disney magic has always and will be the people who despite everything have come to work and done their job. I get it, it’s a job, and a job these folks to beautifully IMO. They deal with customer service on a level I could never deal with and they have my respect.

Disney Magic is the folks behind everything at Disney, from creators, park employees, and character actors of all sorts. People who have shown up and spread kindness when the company and the world has given them every right to be angry and bitter.

You don’t have to agree with me. But the more you yell at me, the more confusing I’m going to be.