About "The Gays"

Set my “Hasn’t defended/criticized Disney in __ days” counter to 0!

2023 wasn’t a strong year Disney. With the exception of Elemental, which took a while, and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, none of their theatrical output gained financial traction. Additionally, the writers’ and actors’ strikes shed light on their reinstalled CEO’s views on creatives. And then there’s the Secret Invasion A.I. scandal, which left a bad taste. But I’ve already covered that.

One of the consequences was a decision to steer their future content in a different direction. No more original stories, it’s remakes and sequels from now on! Even Elio, their one original IP, has gone under the radar marketing-wise, and we’ve yet to see another trailer despite releasing next year. Still, the decision’s paid off so far, with Inside Out 2 surpassing the box-office of the remake of The Lion King. This despite Pixar laying off 14% of its workforce.

It'd be bittersweet that a Pixar sequel over-performed despite this, but the story doesn’t end there. According to IGN reports from laid-off employees, the higher-ups requested to tone down Riley’s romantic persuasion:

“…Sources describe rumors that there was special care put into making the relationship between Riley and Val, a supporting character introduced in Inside Out 2, seem as platonic as possible, even requiring edits to the lighting and tone of certain scenes to remove any trace of ‘romantic chemistry.’ One source describes it as ‘just doing a lot of extra work to make sure that no one would potentially see them as not straight.’”

This saddens me. The debate around Disney characters being gay became apparent with Ron DeSantis’s now-overturned “Don’t Say Gay” bill a few years ago. When Disney’s creatives pressured them to take a public stance, DeSantis threatened to revoke Disney’s special status, forcing a court case that he lost. I’d elaborate, but I’m not a legal expert. Besides, I’ve already shared my thoughts.

Anyway, Disney was slowly warming to queer representation with Strange World, which had an openly gay character in a leading role, and Lightyear, which featured a scene involving a lesbian couple kissing. Unfortunately, since both movies were box-office disappointments, as well as getting lukewarm reception, it seems like Disney’s having second thoughts. That Riley might’ve had an interest in an older girl in Inside Out 2 was promising, and not at all surprising, but removing hints of that to be “more universal” is depressing. I mean, it’s 2024. Do execs still think being gay isn’t universal in much of the world? Are they living in the 1960’s? Does no one at Disney read current events?

I could say so much negative about this, but I won’t. However, as someone who’s experienced genuine isolation and marginalization because of his disabilities, this stings. The scrubbing of Riley’s lesbianism, and let’s not pretend otherwise, wasn’t even that well-hidden. Pixar are masters of their craft, and Riley’s true character came through anyway. It was so clear that, despite not being openly said, I could tell right away.

This is also annoying because it defeats the purpose of Riley’s age and growth. Remember, she’s 13 here, hence a teenager. Teenagers experiment with a lot, including sexuality. It’s the transitionary period where they’re finding out who they really are, and while not always appropriate, that self-discovery should be encouraged. After all, what’s growth without making mistakes?

By removing this kind of experimentation, Pixar, and Disney generally, are making a statement about queer people. They might not be saying it outright, but they’re implying these individuals don’t matter. And for a multi-billion dollar conglomerate, this is a red flag. Especially since queer people connect with and watch their output. Why brush that aside?

It doesn’t help that queer people are still persecuted in countries where being openly queer is acceptable. The US, for instance, has the ever-looming shadow of Project 2025, and the chances of its mandates becoming law aren’t zero. Among these include a nation-wide ban on gay marriage. People might’ve fought for the right to marry the same sex, sometimes dying for it, but the pendulum could always swing the other way.

By scrubbing itself of a queer-inclusive image, Disney’s caving to a minority that doesn’t view queer people as valid. They’re submitting to DeSantis’s “Don’t Say Gay” law. They’re also paving the way for Project 2025’s mandates. That might sound extreme, but it’s a reality. And that’s upsetting.

It also takes the wrong lessons from past failures. I definitely liked Lightyear and Strange World more than many, but they lacked the narrative cohesion of Pixar and Disney’s best. However, that doesn’t mean including gay characters was bad. On the contrary, they were brave and welcomed inclusions. Why would that be what needs course correcting?

Part of me now prefers, in retrospect, that Disney hadn’t even “come out as an ally”. It feels like they were never sincere, queer-baiting people to make money. And yes, Rainbow Capitalism’s always been cynical. But it’s an attempt, which this is a slap in the face of. Especially since Riley’s queerness seeped through.

I don’t know how this can be resolved. Is it the end of the world? Maybe not. Is it the only problem with Disney’s business model, this movie in particular? Definitely not, assuming the former employees are to be believed. But it hurts. It hurts enough to write about it.

So yes, Disney, if you’re reading this…shame on you. I may like your output, and I’ll definitely watch it if I feel it’s worth my time, but you’ve disappointed me. You’ve taken what could’ve been potential for growth and learned the wrong lessons, irrespective of how you try to spin this. It sucks. Do better.

Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice

This isn’t news if you’ve read my previous stuff, but I’m mixed on Tim Burton. I respect his craft, and he’s talented, but his films have always been hit-or-miss for me. He also struggles with material that isn’t suited to his sensibilities, and even when something is…he needs to self-impose restraints to produce something good. He’s also kind of racist in his casting and storytelling, sanitizing stories from other cultures, but that’s for another day. Besides, I’ve already touched on that.

I mention all of this because Burton recently directed another movie. Not only that, a sequel to an earlier movie, and arguably one of his most-beloved. I’d never gotten into the Beetlejuice franchise outside of the cartoon I barely remember, but since the trailers for Beetlejuice Beetlejuice were an indication this’d be another winner, I decided to watch the 1988 film. After having now seen both movies…they’re okay. Cute, funny, but okay.

This is sounding anticlimactic, so I’ll mention now that “okay” isn’t inherently bad. Plenty of movies are okay, and that’s fine. Not everything will knock your socks off, and it’s important to adjust your expectations accordingly. Especially when it comes to classics from Tim Burton. We cool?

That’s not to say these movies aren’t worth discussing, as they are. Not only are they well-acted and directed, but the themes of grief, loss and learning to move on are their strongest qualities. I especially appreciate how the second movie isn’t afraid to follow-through on the protagonist from the first movie’s trauma and how that’s impacted her. Remember, Beetlejuice’s dénouement had Lydia Deetz marry a kooky poltergeist to save a recently-deceased couple from an exorcism, only to then have to find a way out. Even though that movie had a happy and fun ending, that’s going to haunt anyone.

How fitting, then, that both movies bookend actress Winona Ryder’s career. Ryder was a rising talent in the 80’s and 90’s, working her way up the ladder from being a Burton regular to becoming a big-name. Unfortunately, a shoplifting scandal in the 2000’s made her “toxic” to work with, and it wasn’t until Stranger Things that she bounced back. Starring in yet another Burton film, and a sequel to her breakout role, brings everything full-circle. Doubly-so now that her character’s a mother to Astrid, played by up-and-coming talent Jenna Ortega.

Let’s be clear: both Ryder and Ortega are fantastic. Ryder starting as a gothic teen and turning into a gothic adult makes a perfect foil to Ortega’s subdued and “normal” Astrid in Beetlejuice Beetlejuice. I appreciate the parallels between Lydia being estranged from her parents in the first movie and Astrid being estranged from Lydia in the sequel. It’s a dynamic that’s played out from different angles, and it’s why these movies work. As George Lucas said: “It’s like poetry, they rhyme!”

But the real secret is Michael Keaton’s role as Beetlejuice. Specifically, the limited usage of Keaton. Sure, Keaton as the titular troublemaker’s one of the few instances where overacting feels earned and natural, chewing the scenery whenever he’s on-screen, but Burton’s smart enough to know to reign him in. It’s telling that Burton, a director who’s been accused of excess, recognizes this. It’s equally telling that he shows restraint with his effects in the sequel, opting for practical and stop-motion work. Given how ubiquitous CGI has become, particularly bad or unpolished CGI, that’s commendable.

Another aspect these movies have going for them is their score. Danny Elfman, for all the scandals he’s been embroiled in, is incredibly-talented, having composed for shows and movies that are often more iconic than what they’re meant for. He’s as prolific as he is memorable, but it’s his collaborations with Burton that’ve produced his best work. And the Beetlejuice franchise remains a prime example, with a motif that marries carnival vibes with haunted house vibes perfectly. If all else, Elfman’s theme for these movies works wonders.

My issue, then, is that these movies have the inverse problem of one-another. For Beetlejuice, it’s simple, but major: this is a well-written movie about coping with tragedy, but the Burton-y elements, particularly the ghostly stuff, aren’t fully-actualized. I’m not sure if it’s because it was an early project, hence lacking the budget and resources, but those elements feel undercooked. We only get about 30 minutes of ghostly and afterlife material, so this is mostly a straightforward drama about a ghostly couple shooing away a family and failing. It’s disappointing.

Beetlejuice Beetlejuice, however, takes full-advantage of its premise, even diving into the ghostly afterlife early, but it does so at the expense of its narrative. It’s not a badly-written movie, but it’s a messy one. It feels, to paraphrase someone in a Discord server I’m part of, like 3 or 4 scripts mashed together. It coalesces at the end, but the subplots often detract from the main story. It’s as if Burton realized the mistake of the first movie, only to overcorrect it here.

It feels like I’m being overly-harsh, but only because this highlights Burton’s strengths and flaws. He knows how to suck you in, but often at the cost of elements that’d elevate his movies. I wish that, if a third entry gets made, these strengths could be carried over into a great film. Keep the weirdness of the second movie, but don’t sacrifice the scripting of the first. That’s not that big an ask.

Either way, I implore you to check these movies out. We often bemoan Hollywood for being sterile, not taking risks on bizarre premises that utilize the medium of film properly, but the Beetlejuice movies show that spark still exists. All it takes is the right talent and audience engagement. Beetlejuice Beetlejuice even utilizes effects work that’s been abandoned in this day and age. That alone should pique people’s curiosity, even if it’s a legacy sequel. It piqued mine!

Now then, about the sequel’s bonkers ending…what’s up with that?

Evolving Star Wars

I sometimes wonder if we deserve Star Wars. On one hand, we bemoan the franchise for not innovating. On the other hand, whenever the franchise tries something unique, we get annoyed and act vitriolic. The latter’s especially bad because it harms real people and forces the creators to backtrack. What should we expect?

I’m sure you’re aware that The Acolyte wasn’t renewed for a second season. This make me somewhat sad. Yes, it was messy and narratively-unfocused, bringing up concepts that weren’t fully resolved. I get that. At the same time, it was daring. It not only broke away from what so much of Star Wars has centred around, it also served as a deconstruction of The Jedi. Particularly, it tackled corruption, ignorance and the notion that The Jedi are flawless, suggesting they might not actually be. This, I think, is in keeping with what George Lucas was initially getting at with The Prequels.

So why was a second season scrapped? The obvious answer is that it wasn’t doing well ratings-wise, but I’m not convinced. Ratings are influenced by those watching, and people couldn’t shut up about this show during its syndication. If anything, the conversation should’ve kept the numbers high, so there’s got to be more. And I think there is.

I suspect bigotry played a part in why The Acolyte was ended early. I say this because the same bigotry made the franchise “course correct” following the fan-reception of Star Wars: The Last Jedi. Ignoring the quality of the movie, many longtime fans weren’t pleased with its choices. They were also really vocal, sending death threats to cast members and the higher ups. It got so bad the franchise returned to the familiar with the next movie, which also caused a huge outcry.

Essentially, toxic backlash hurt The Star Wars Sequels. And now it’s hurting shows like The Acolyte, shows that are telling innovative stories. What’s worse, it’s sending a message to executives like Kathleen Kennedy that innovation’s bad, and that it’s bad to gamble on exciting storytellers. That’s terrible for many reasons, but chief among them is that it’s causing stagnation. It’s also leading to the belief that Star Wars isn’t innovative, despite that being untrue.

It also doesn’t give adventurous shows a chance. I remember Jessie Gender mentioning that many fondly-remembered series on TV had rocky starts, but they were given time to grow and get better. With the advent of streaming and instant gratification, that’s not happening. I agree with that sentiment. Because why bother with persisting if you have no reason?

Perhaps the best example is Star Wars: The Clone Wars. I love that show, considering it one of the franchise’s best. That said, its initial season’s rough. I even remember that the pilot movie, which introduced Ahsoka Tano, was trashed in 2008. People remember the show fondly now, but that took time. It wasn’t an immediate sell.

Still, it had time to grow. And that was because no one was clamouring for instant returns on the series, which even gave us a spin-off on Disney+. If Star Wars: The Clone Wars debuted today, it’d most-likely be cancelled after 1 season. It’d be criticized for its piss-poor storytelling, but also because its main focus, Anakin’s Padawan, is a bratty kid taking time away from more interesting characters.

That’s another aspect with the backlash over The Acolyte: its new characters. Specifically, most of the first season’s roster’s female, a minority, or both. The only familiar character of note is Yoda, who has a brief cameo in the finale. But the cast being new and diverse was an issue for many people, and they let Kennedy and show-runner Leslye Headland know. They let them know so often and excessively that the show’s been cancelled after one season, and we’ll never see the cliffhanger at the end of Season 1 get resolved.

This is what I don’t get: the show wasn’t great immediately? Give it time. The show introduced ideas that challenged what people knew? So what? The show had a diverse cast? Okay, why’s that a reason to be toxic?

I’m not sure if these fans realize they’re the reason Star Wars doesn’t innovate. Forget new characters, let’s focus on old ones! Forget seeing The Jedi as flawed, or good and evil being about perspective, let’s have The Jedi be superheroes! Forget Luke Skywalker being layered and conflicted emotionally, making him feel real, let’s have him young, cool and waving around his lightsaber with a de-aged body and A.I. voice! Is this what we want from Star Wars? Because I don’t!

Oh, and if anyone higher up is reading this: please don’t cave to fan-backlash. It not only validates their behaviour, it makes you look like you don’t know what you’re doing. For a franchise that’s worth more now than when it was purchased from George Lucas, the appearance of mismanagement, even if that’s not reality, isn’t a good look. It also gives ammo to awful people. The franchise deserves better.

I’m not saying you can’t dislike or be cold to a Star Wars-adjacent property. I’ve made my thoughts known about Andor myself! But personal qualms shouldn’t give you free reign to be nasty to those involved in making what you’re consuming. Because it has real-world consequences, even if you don’t think so. It also makes you look childish.

It’s probably too late now to reverse The Acolyte’s cancellation. Yet that doesn’t make me less sad, especially when it posed interesting ideas that warranted exploration. It may not have been the most-polished offering from Star Wars, but it was fun anyway! Besides, it’s Star Wars! If a franchise about magic monks with laser swords makes you toxic, then chances are that says more about you. I mean that.

A Poisonous Apple

Snow White’s most-likely doomed to fail. Not only is it another live-action Disney remake, it also looks unappealing visually and stylistically. This doesn’t include the bizarre press tour, in which facets of the original were chastised without context. And then there are the behind-the-scenes scandals. Those alone are enough to ruin the end-result!

But that’s not what I want to talk about. I’d like to dissect the criticism for the leads. Specifically, their politics, as well as how they’ve been tainting the conversation. More-specifically, I’d like to zoom-in on one issue. There’s no beating around the bush, let’s talk about Gaza…again.

For those living under a rock, on October 7th, 2023, waves of Hamas insurgents infiltrated Israel, murdered 1200 civilians, wounded 3000 more and took over 250 people as hostages. In the nearly 11 months since, a war between Israel and Gaza has occurred. I know everyone and their dad has an opinion, but I ask that you save it. This is merely a backdrop for the piece. Moving on.

When the most-recent trailer for Snow White was revealed at D23, the reactions were mixed. In particular, Gal Gadot, who plays the Queen, and Rachel Zegler, who plays Snow White, received plenty of bigoted attacks. It didn’t help that Zelger made a comment about freeing Palestine in the comments, which went as well as you’d expect. It also prompted attacks on Gadot for her Israeli background, especially given her outspokenness about October 7th. Joy!

Firstly, do people have nothing better to do than make everything political football? Ignoring how human lives are at stake, progressives are showing that they’re equally as toxic as the Neo-Nazis they deride. It’s bad enough that I can’t watch a trailer to something that doesn’t interest me without people getting mad over who’s in it. It’s also the wrong place for having a conversation about Israel-Palestine.

Secondly, leave Gal Gadot alone! I get it: she’s Israeli. So what? Plenty of people are Israelis, some of whom we aren’t even aware are. And as for promoting awareness of October 7th? That that bothers so many people says more about them than her.

Thirdly, quit bothering Rachel Zegler! Poorly-timed statement aside, it’s also not unexpected. Many high-profile celebrities have been outspoken about the Gaza for different reasons, some of which are sympathetic. Yes, those bloody hands pins from this year’s Oscars were tone-deaf, especially given the context behind that symbolism, but not everyone who wants a ceasefire and/or Palestinian self-determinism’s an awful human being. Contrary to popular opinion, many people in Israel want that too. There’ve even been protests over how badly the war’s been handled.

And fourthly, why’s Gadot as the Queen symbolic of something? Her casting most-likely had less to do with her politics than someone thinking she was perfect for the role. There’s no hidden agenda. But if you think there’s a deeper meaning behind the coding of the Queen and Snow White, then I have bad news to deliver. It’s not something you’re going to like:

The Queen in the original film’s coded in Antisemitism.

This isn’t a shocking revelation, especially given who Walt Disney was. You know how the Queen’s vain, craves Snow White’s purity and disguises herself as an old hag to poison her? Like Mother Gothel in Tangled, leeching off the beauty of a white innocent is a typically Antisemitic trope. Even the hag’s appearance, complete with a wart and a hooked nose, is Antisemitism! That’s not to downplay Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, it’s a classic for a reason, but coding’s coding.

In a way, Gadot being cast as the character might actually be her reclaiming her for the Jews. I’d still prefer this remake not exist, but I take wins when they happen. Even outside of that, to assume there’s a “hidden agenda” involving a Jewish villainess terrorizing a Latina heroine, especially considering Disney’s attempt at DEI with their recent casting, says, again, more of those espousing the claim than Gadot or Disney. Essentially, grow up.

I’m tired of Israeli-Palestinian discourse seeping in where it doesn’t belong. It’s bad enough that Antisemitism and Islamophobia have gotten out of control since the war started, as that’s had real consequences for Jews and Muslims everywhere. I can’t go outside for long stretches of time now without covering my kippah with a hat. I’d rather not have to, as I live in a predominantly-Jewish neighbourhood, but I don’t want to draw attention. Especially when I see all of kinds of attacks on Jews, direct and indirect, whenever I leave my neighbourhood.

The people spreading vitriol in real life are the same ones poisoning the trailer for Snow White with their comments. They might be a minority, but vocal minorities often ruin everything anyway. Besides, what does this accomplish? Gal Gadot and Rachel Zegler probably don’t care, Gadot specifically because of her background. And that they can put aside their differences long enough to work together speaks louder than anything you can say about them.

Look, I know that the Gaza conflict’s upsetting. It’s upsetting for me too! But that doesn’t give you carte blanche to be bigoted to others, even if you don’t like their country of origin. All that does is make you a moron. It also doesn’t free Palestine. I’m sorry to tell you that.