Pixar films are usually comprised of the ‘traditional’ family and have only recently started to uncover what an untraditional family is (Finding Dory). Dreamworks, however, managed to address this topic much earlier, such as in the Shrek Series (Donkey Dragon) or Kung Fu Panda (Po has both an adoptive and biological father in his life). Has Dreamworks surpassed Disney on animating the concept of modern family in their films? Explore the expectations of how Disney is supposed to portray a family and did these also apply to Dreamworks?
I think just narrowing down this topic to the nontraditional in films will yield enough material to write an effective analysis. – Munjeera8 months ago
Disney might have been the first, but they have always been behind on the times (as the years have transpired). I agree with your assumption that they do feel they, too, need to address this relevant topic of the untraditional family in order to make impressionable children feel included as opposed to outcasted. Nice topic. – danielle5778 months ago
Steven Spielberg tries to incorporate non-traditional families, instead of focusing on what happens when the supernatural intersects with single parents or parents getting a divorce as in the case of Jurassic World last summer. ET took place in the context of a single parent family and Jurassic Park 2 had Jeff Goldblum with an African-American daughter and there were no references to if she was adopted or where her mom was, as far as I can remember. I heard in an interview that this is intentional. – Munjeera8 months ago
SPOILER ALERT: There is a lot going on in Zootopia regarding minority-majority relations, "us vs. them" mentalities and exploration of stereotypes and how they’re developed and reinforced. It’s practically begging to be written about.
There also ought to be discussion of how, in their attempt to make the subject matter friendly to kids, Disney drops the ball with the social metaphors. For example, after some of them go savage, the carnivores in Zootopia are at one point clearly paralleled to Muslims and their treatment in the U.S.: an entire group of people is suddenly regarded as dangerous because any one of them, for unknown reasons, could "go savage" and just start hurting people (hence the stereotype of suicide bombers).
In the real world, these conditions are brought about by deeply problematic religious relations, but in the name of relating to the targeted audience Disney turns to the catch-all solution of a poisonous flower whose fluids just cause animals to lose their minds.
I should say I am currently writing an article which argues how Judy is the best feminist icon and complete female character Disney has ever created, and I do tackle some of the social commentary in regards to her arch as a child-friendly character.However, I do not go near the religious implications of the commentary. These are extremely good points, and could profit from looking at American political propaganda focusing on immigration and religious freedom. – C N Williamson12 months ago
Excellent topic. Zootopia (Zootropolis) is easily one of the most poignant films ever made about contemporary America and to a lesser extent the West. – Luke Stephenson11 months ago
Zootopia is definitely sending the message about stereotypes and minorities. Even the hate-crime of forcing a young fox into a muzzle, and displaying it as not only bullying but as stereotyping.
While also showing characters like Judy's fox bully at home can change. That the stereotypes given to minorities do not define how we must live their lives.
Just as Nick Wilde eventually fought against stereotypes, it is hard to do unless there is someone like Judy Hopps there to support you and fight alongside you. – epindera11 months ago
I disagree that Disney drops the ball with the social metaphors. I would consider how the movie portrays the dominant ideology of a culture stereotyping others, and that the hero, representing "good people" are not exempt from making assumptions or having prejudices. – rhetoricofafangirl11 months ago
ME!ME!ME! is not a new video but I recently stumbled across it and was taken away by it’s imagery and symbolism. Normally watching such blatantly sexual animation is deterring, but it’s underlying message shone through. Other critiques have been made on the video but I feel the Artifice’s community especially would appreciate another thorough analysis. Pick apart ME!ME!ME! as a warning for the destructive powers of the protagonist’s lifestyle (becoming overly obsessed with anime characters). You can find a light analysis on youtube by Gaijin Goombah, but he also makes it quite personal in the end. Write a more professional and organized article on the theory, hopefully starting with something close to his main thesis, followed by specific imagery in the video to solidify the stance. Perhaps address various case studies on the reality of being addicted to such fantasies; statistically how many lives are ruined by this fascination and is there such thing as rehab?
Hi Slaidey,I think there is a typo for "quiet personal">>>>>"quite personal."– Munjeera8 months ago
"The crux of the proposed article is not clear. Are you suggesting an article that argues against the use of violence in viodeo-games, utilizing Me!Me!Me! as a case study? What is the underlying message that you mention? Be clear, because even if I'm familiar with the game (which I'm not), individual interpretations of texts (like this game) are not universal. Overall, I would like to see some clarification regarding the argument that you're proposing."- AnaMRuiz. I wish there was a way to reply to revision suggestions. ME!ME!ME! is not a conventional AMV from any anime/show/game. It could be considered an animated short film since it is animated and sound-tracked with originality (to my knowledge) but is often referred to as an AMV because it intentionally follows that style-- but with a specific message and point in mind. Individual interpretations of it may vary in some degree but it was animated with an intended message that should be easy to notice, so it's not a case study imposed on any external media. I would suggest watching it first, to understand what it's going for. It's the story of a young man who became over obsessed with anime and ruined his real social relationships because of it. – Slaidey8 months ago
Discuss the role of the female dragon character from the film Shrek (2001) and its sequels. Do the character’s unexpected gender and romantic relationship with Donkey effectively subvert the fairy tale genre’s tropes of monstrous (presumably male) dragons, or does her animated femininity – long eyelashes, red lips, mating instinct, etc – perpetuate patriarchal gender ideologies? How might this be related to other ways in which the film attempts to recast female archetypes, most prominently through the character of Fiona? Do these non-normative portrayals of female characters send better messages to young viewers than the standard fairy tale (or "Disney princess") representations?
Perhaps comparing it to another other female dragon might help this analysis, I am thinking of Maleficent in Sleeping Beauty (1959.) Who also has the role of keeping the prince away from the princes. But unlike the Shrek dragon she looks complete masculine. – odettedesiena9 months ago
Specifically looking at Disney, it seems to be a fad of late that animated films from the past are being given a life-action face lift. Is there an actual reason behind re-creating the Disney classics other than doing so from a purely capitalistic standpoint? There is controversy that Disney films are quite dark and if they are appropriate for their target audience, that is children. So are these remakes being created to be targeted more towards the children and being used to censor their animated predecessors? To they alter too much from the original and does it retain the same magic created by the hand painted animated stories that established the Disney brand?
When the film is reimagined (Think: Maleficent) the live-action remake can serve as a new medium for a new message. When it's the same story, the new medium feels almost like pandering. I'd rather have a remastered release than for someone to tell me the same script, same characters, same story is truly new just because it's been recast.Corinne Andersson just posted on the future of this topic, but her article didn't explore feelings about the process, in case whoever writes on this might find it useful: http://www.insidethemagic.net/2016/04/16-animation-to-live-action-movie-remakes-disney-has-in-the-works-right-now/ – Piper CJ10 months ago
I think the sense of "magic" that was present in early Disney films would be impossible to recreate nowadays. The new live-action movies, beyond existing purely as a gesture for capital gain, seem to pander to modern celebrity culture in which we desire to see our favourite actors playing iconic characters...this is happening in Beauty and the Beast for sure, which features a whole bunch of super famous actors.
This is probably an unpopular opinion, but I think I like the Cinderella reboot better than the original. I think they filled in a lot of plot holes really well, kept enough of the original elements that it felt true to the story, but updated and changed the stuff they needed to. You can't really "replace" the old animated Disney magic with better effects/acting/writing/etc., but I do think these movies could potentially serve a cinematic purpose. I guess we'll see how the next five of them turn out. – darapoizner10 months ago
I don't mind live action remakes of movies, but I do wish they'd make more remakes of movies that didn't do well the first time around. I know they do what they know will work - Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid (upcoming) - but I'd like to see someone try to fix the issues with a less popular movie like Atlantis or Treasure Planet. – chrischan10 months ago
I love animated movies and am never quite sure how I feel about these remakes. Live action and animation are very different mediums, and I don't think that these live actions films can evoke the wonder that the hand painted works do. 'Maleficent' is an interesting film because it presents a really different version of the Sleeping Beauty story and gives the villain depth. However, I have a lack of interest in these other remakes because they seem to be just that, remakes for the sake of making money, taking advantage of the success of the originals, shows such as Once Upon a Time, and previous remakes like the aforementioned 'Maleficent'. – MelanieHurley10 months ago
I believe they do it to bring their old works to the modern age. For the most part, the perspectives in the live action films and being re-explored and the characters are much more independent and developed. – RadosianStar10 months ago
Pixar produces some of the most high-quality animation films in Hollywood. Pixar president Ed Catmull attributes this success to the "Braintrust" model, a set of four rules Pixar teams should follow that aims to "remove ego" for the ultimate creative success. Very briefly, these rules include
1. Removing power structure from the group 2. Only lateral, peer-peer interactions (no subordinates) 3. All success shared between team members 4. Honesty from peers on ideas proposed
How is this seemingly simple Braintrust model the key to Pixar’s success? Further, can this model be applied to other forms of entertainment (such as anime, film, literature) to unleash the potential to create quality, well-received work?
I think this is an interesting topic to analyze, but does require some knowledge of business I would assume, as well as some research into Disney's success as compared to other studios, as well as the knowledge that Disney is probably the largest media corporation in the entire world. A look into Pixar's history and the success of movies produced after this model was introduced in comparison to movies before would be a good contrast to have in this article as well. – Nayr123010 months ago
This sounds like a fascinating topic. Disney has also put into practice certain leadership ideals and their workshops available for business executives are legendary. I mean does anyone actually need anything from Disney, a cap with mouse ears? No of course not, but we all buy Disney. Their marketing strategies combined with corporate leadership has set the bar high. – Munjeera10 months ago
Wow, this is a really interesting topic. I didn't know that Pixar teams followed those rules, but obviously it's working for them. As for if that model could be applied to other forms of entertainment, I think it would be quite difficult for film production companies to employ because everyone's roles have their own set of rules (i.e. directors, editors, producers etc.) – shaniaclarke10 months ago
Although there are cartoons like Steven Universe and Adventure Time that implicitly show homosexual relationships, or have an "out" where the characters have no gender, why do children’s cartoon networks still have a stigma towards letting cartoons directly address the LGBTQ community?
I think the big question is are we ready to show the LGBTQ community to children? There is still a lot of homophobia and not enough education about the community in many areas. I think networks are trying to slowly integrate LGBTQ characters so that children aren't thrown something they don't understand. – LaRose11 months ago
I would love to see the LBGTQ community represented in a Disney cartoon. I think the critical mass standard has been reached. I agree! – elwilson10 months ago
Many networks are still uneasy about showing openly queer characters. I'm always surprised that the biggest strides that seem to have been made have been made in cartoons aimed at children. On the one hand, it makes sense given children are more accepting and open-minded than many adults. On the other hand, there's always the "are we ready to show the LGBTQ community to children" question that LaRose brings up. I think networks are still in favour of not rocking the boat too much, which is too bad. – Amanda10 months ago
I think you would need to likely address the shortcoming that do come in AD and SU as well – Darcy Griffin10 months ago
I think part of it is that, due to homophobia, queerness is still considered by some to be inherently more sexual than heterosexuality, and therefore less appropriate for children. Including LGBTQ characters in children's shows could help dispel that myth, but unfortunately the myth itself is a barrier to such representation. – ElijahBassett10 months ago
Part of many networks' reasoning for not including LGBTQ+ characters is the fact that their shows air in many countries, many of which don't allow that sort of content to be broadcast(ie russia, china, etc) – ealohr5 months ago