Maybe ... but I'm wondering how quickly it actually arrives.
Gay families in Disney animated cartoon to be seen soon
There’s just a matter of time for our children to watch animations with gay family plot ... Disney direction has moved far away from its conservative pattern in recent years, and is considered to be “an extremely gay-friendly company” ...
I doubt that Disney will go out of its way to make animated features with on-the-nose gay themes anytime soon. Wild Life, a c.g. feature that got pretty edgy before Roy Disney pulled the plug on production, was considered by some staffers to have gay elements in it. I knew gay artists at the studio who thought it ended up pretty weird and twisted before finally being killed in the cradle during the Schumacher era. (I'll take their word for it. Beyond a few sketches, I never saw much of the feature's development.)
The Disney Co, ran into problems about being "pro gay" when it offered same-sex couples employed by the company health benefits. A large, Christian denomination mounted a Disney boycott to get the House of Mouse to change its mind. But Disney stood its ground, and ultimately the boycott fizzled out. So is the conglomerate anxious to court controversy now if controversy can be avoided? I don't know the answer, but I can't imagine that most people under twenty-five would care about gay characters being animated pictures. Most of the individuals who get knotted up over that kind of thing are far outside the target demographic anyway.
Posts
23 comments:
Rich Ross is openly gay, so it wouldn't surprise me at all. But I wouldn't expect it to be front and center any time soon.
Andreas Deja, whose work for Disney includes Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King, told News.com.au that if executives “find the right kind of story with that kind of concept, they will do it.”
Only a niche news source would wishfully treat that as some kind of solid confirming statement, and not like a parent's "We'll see, dear, now eat your oatmeal."
(And the rest of us know the money people would never allow it, as it would play right into the deranged Southern Baptists' fantasies--
Say "Gay Disney characters", and you're probably thinking the exact same thing I am: Scar.
We've lived through those years, thank you, nobody wants to see them come back.)
Who is Andre Deja?
Everyone knows the gay-ist animated feature will always be El Dorado.
Clearly, Andreas' remarks were taken out of context, a too literal response to what had to be a very loaded question about a very hypothetical situation.
There is a mile of difference between a company that has progressive, broad minded employment policies and the story content of mass market animation. Sexual preference, (of any kind), is very much an adult subject and should and would never be the establishing trait for a character in a Disney film, Scar notwithstanding, (did the character ever make any overt or veiled reference to sexual preference?).
For Pink and Andreas to provide fodder for every right wing religious fanatic in the country was highly irresponsible. Be satisfied with what you have achieved in the workplace; it's no small victory.
Does Andreas even work at Disney anymore ?
I'd heard that he left to pursue some personal projects.
(and also that he's another of the top Disney animators who are being courted by Jeffery Katzenberg to come join the Dreamworks team)
I think he still works at Disney.
I work at Disney Mexico and Andreas came last week (very nice guy, btw) to promote "Alice in Wonderland" and "Bambi" blu rays.
First the pink Disney Princess franchise, and now this? it will appeal the essential male audience, for sure.
and should and would never be the establishing trait for a character in a Disney film, Scar notwithstanding, (did the character ever make any overt or veiled reference to sexual preference?).
"Unmarried uncle" cliche's aside, I took the sudden introduction of a female romantic interest in the vidquel (that we forgot to tell you about!) as a sort of confession/damage control after the fact.
(And the irony is, the Baptists thought they were referring to Timon & Pumbaa, even before Nathan Lane came out.)
Disney would lose huge chunks of its family audience if it were to introduce an in-your-face gay character into any of its animated shows or films. Despite what the hype tries to sell us, America leans more to the right than the left, more conservative than liberal, and homosexuality is still considered unwholesome in many households. Disney would be committing professional suicide to take such an unnecessary leap. I hope it's never stupid enough to do it.
^^^ I assume you're speaking about yourself when you say 'America'?
"(and also that he's another of the top Disney animators who are being courted by Jeffery Katzenberg to come join the Dreamworks team)"
Clearly coming from someone that doesn't know what he is talking about. It's widely known that Deja only works on hand drawn films and has refused time and time again at moving over to the computer. He's stated that if Disney ever totally abandons hand drawn then he'll look for a new employer.
Nice, snindy jab at Disney, but it fell flat.
Sorry. Perhaps you should check your facts next time?
**^^^ I assume you're speaking about yourself when you say 'America'?**
I'm speaking for all those people who voted against gay marriage in over 40 states in America. Including California. TWICE.
Tolerance isn't acceptance; and acceptance can't be mandated by any court.
^^^ I guess I was right - you are speaking about yourself. And it can be mandated. Ever her of the Civil Rights Act?
"Sorry. Perhaps you should check your facts next time?"
So, you really think Jeffery isn't calling on Andreas these days along with Glen and several others who could be named ?
And calm down: there are no "facts" here, just the usual water-cooler/coffee break speculation that goes on constantly at the studios. (this stuff is out there)
A week ago when Hulett posted the piece about Glen considering the possibility of leaving Disney and being approached by Jeffery Katzenberg to come work at Dreamworks there were howls of "that's not true, you don't know what you're talking about, take it back! Glen will never leave the hallowed House of Mouse" from the Disney fans that hang out here.
Now a week later here we are (seen the latest post from Steve this morning ?)
Dreamworks does have a heavy need for 2D character animation for Me and my Shadow feature right??
The 2D stuff is reportedly going to be done by the Duncan Studio.
@anoy 11:21
it's funny you reference to the civil rights act which gave rights to blacks something that's genetically controlled with homosexuality which is purely motivated by enviroment.
But of course most of the commentors around here live in Hollywood, so your bias is understandable.
"homosexuality which is purely motivated by enviroment"
No, what you're thinking of that's controlled by enviroment (and poor parenting) is bogotry. Something you seem very familiar with.
We shouldn't resort to namecalling, don't you think?
But anyways there's a difference between the "bogotry" based on faulty or experiments with some type of meddling involved like Hitler's studies during the 30s and studies on blacks during the 19th century or maybe that one gene that was supposedly the sexual orientation gene but was proven false. Oops. But believing in that gene clearly isn't the same thing as being a bigot is it?
And how about genetic twins where one is gay and one is not? Isn't it genetic?
You guys are going WAY off topic
Best solution for Disney and gay characters: don't ask, don't tell.
Hey, it worked for Cogsworth and Timon and Pumbaa. ;)
comparing the gay marriage issue to anything race related is completely faulty argument.
It is wrong to discriminate against someone because of the color of their skin because they are still a person. I am the same person as someone with a different skin color in the same manner that I am the same person as someone with a different eye color.
Gay marriage is an issue of gender. The definition of marriage - throughout all of human civilization - is a pairing of male and female genders, with the stated purpose of marriage to establish a family institution for the raising of children.
Two men are not equal to a man and a woman. A man is not the same as a woman and a woman is not the same as a man. Isn't it ironic that liberal America hangs their hat on science and evolution at the end of the day and they want to disregard the facts of gender when the gay community cries about it?
When you fail to provide half of the established genders that make up a traditional marriage, the children raised are only exposed to half of the genders that inhabit the world. Single parents exist yes, but you are never going to find a single parent that wants it that way, or that excludes the other gender from their home life.
And what about transgender parents? How appropriate are they when it comes to raising children? Thats not a misnomer, the gay community is known a LGBT(google it) and the "T" of that equation is transgender individuals. The right to get married is ALSO the right to adopt children and raise a family. When transgender individuals adopt children, who is being served? The parents or the children?
And if you want to extend marriage to gay couples, then why not polygamists? Polygamy is established in many functioning nations today. It was part of the social structure of some of the greatest societies in the history of the world and has a factual historic precedent. It clearly can be seen as a religious freedom. Yet, we are going to step over them to grease the squeaky wheel of the gay community for the right to marry and raise kids?
No.
The nation has voted on this repeatedly and in the few places world wide where it has been established it remains an experiment. Civil unions grant all of the legal protections that gay individuals rightly deserve, but redefining the institution of marriage is not what the nation wants.
Post a Comment