Wreck-it Ralph 2: Disney Wrecks Itself?

The newest trailer for Wreck-it Ralph 2 hit the internet this past weekend, and people went nuts over it. For some, the scene with the Disney princesses in their casual-wear was hilarious, highlighting how great it is that the movie even features them at all. For others, it was a reminder that Disney’s milking their brand to their detriment. Basically, opinions were mixed.

Which leads to a concern I have about Disney’s business practices of late and how they’ve been perceived by cinephiles. I say everything out of respect, as I’ve grown up with Disney since I was about 3 years old. Many of their films hold a place in my heart, and quite a few are classics for a reason. So if I sound like I’m being a little bitter about the criticism, it’s only because I care.

Anyway, I like Disney. Their Pixar division has made some of the best animated films, or films in general, to ever exist, and I’m sure they’ll continue to surprise me. Their general animation division, though all-over qualitatively, is pretty solid, with some entries being masterpieces. Their Marvel output has consistently entertained, even challenging the perceptions of what comic book movies can be occasionally. And while it might annoy some of you to say this, I’ve really enjoyed their Star Wars output. Only the live-action remakes have turned me off, though, even then, there’ve been a few gems too.

I mention this because there’s a growing sentiment that modern-Disney lacks sincerity, especially with their recent trend of self-deprecating humour. Disney, as we’re well-aware, owns Marvel, Star Wars and The Muppets, and are soon to fully-acquire 20th Century Fox’s film division. Their roster of content is, to say the least, impressive. Which is all the more concerning that they’ve started flaunting it while simultaneously mocking it, as if that’s enough to keep people distracted from their questionable business practices. And while I wish it were only smoke-and-mirrors, I’d be dishonest if this didn’t bother me too.

The best way to tackle this is to trace the company’s origins. A lot of the detractors of modern-Disney point to Walt himself and his approach film. Walt, they claim, was an artist, strived to make art first, and would often prefer passion over money. This reflects in the output of his company while he was alive: masterpieces like Fantasia, which pushed the medium of film to its limits in 1940, wouldn’t be made today, while live-action classics like Mary Poppins, which came out late in Walt’s life, were so ambitious that nothing could top them now. The arguments for Walt Disney as an artist are really compelling, and it’s easy to think of him that way if you’re unfamiliar with their history.

See, Walt was…well, a capitalist. He may have feigned the illusion of being a cheery uncle, something Saving Mr. Banks touched on, but he was often cold and unsympathetic. Stories of his authoritarian stranglehold on artists are well-known in the animation world, and his workers went on strike at one point to demand better pay and working conditions. Walt was also known for cutting costs when it hampered profitability, as evidenced by his scale-back on animation funds following the financial flop that was Sleeping Beauty. Walt’s contributions to animation and film are immense, but he was never the saint some people claim him to be.

It’s worth understanding this because it re-frames the context behind Disney. While there’s no denying that anyone in film has money on their mind, for Disney it’s ingrained in their DNA. Disney doesn’t only make a fairy-tale because they have good stories to tell, but also because it’s a brand. Their decision to cater to a family market is because parents will pay money to see movies that’ll entertain their children. Even the themes in their films, which are incredibly general, are done so that they’ll net big bucks. Everything about Disney, right down to their marketing, is as much about money as art, perhaps even more so.

The one difference between Walt and his company is that Walt was, to be fair, occasionally experimental. He’d make safe bets like Cinderella, a typical fairy-tale, but he’d also try experimental work, like Fantasia, and films that tackled unique concepts, like Lady and the Tramp, when he felt there was the right budget and story. He was a businessman, yes, but he also did try new ideas that pushed the medium of film. This blend of financial success and artistic success kept Disney from going stale. Yet even after the Disney Renaissance in the late-80’s and early-90’s, following The Little Mermaid, money was still a primary drive for Disney.

It’s this desire to capitalize on a brand that explains why Disney’s become so tongue-in-cheek lately. Because audiences, whether they were aware of it or not, were becoming wise to Disney’s formula. We can argue nuances forever, and I won’t, but Disney saw that self-deprecation could net ticket sales; after all, if Shrek could make fun of Disney and work for Dreamworks, then why couldn’t Disney make fun of themselves too? Perhaps it’s too in-jokey and insincere for a company to knowingly mock their own brand, but it’s worked for them financially, so why not? It’s not like they’re a giant corporation willfully deconstructing their own nostalgia to-wait…

Yeah, that’s what people are concerned about: they can overlook Disney being edgy in their deconstruction of themselves, but not that they’re using it to distract from their uncomfortable decisions of late. This is the same company that fired James Gunn because of some Tweets he made almost 10 years ago on Twitter. This is also the same company that kept Roseanne Barr on a leash until a racist Tweet got her fired. And this is the same company that employs Johnny Depp and is dragging their feet on John Lasseter despite what we know about both. Add the Fox acquisition, and it's as if Disney’s overcompensating.

Does this mean that people suddenly can’t enjoy that scene? No. It might be over-indulgent and fan-service heavy, but there’s no denying its cute charm. Disney princesses, as we know, hold immense weight in pop culture. Having the veil lifted might, honestly, be more important than having them as stand-ins for agendas or themes. Besides, half of them were never that interesting to begin with!

I also think it’s cynical to deny people their right to enjoy this. The world is a scary place right now, and people need escapism. Regardless of the “cynicism” presented in Disney’s fan-service, it’s helping people to cope. That alone should be reassuring, no?

But if that’s doesn’t ease the tension, we can rest easy that this isn’t the whole movie. The trailers for the first film were also mediocre, but the end-result was quite decent. I’m sure this film will be too. And if not? Fine, but it’s not the end of the world.

Finally, I want to address the hardened cynics and ask them why they’re ruining other people’s fun. Art isn’t be-all-end-all, you can like something while recognizing its awfulness. If Disney’s bringing happiness to people, then let them be happy. If these movies end up being enjoyable, then let them be enjoyable. Because your energy can be much better-spent on other, more pressing concerns than constantly raining on someone’s parade!