Pixar's Latest -- Onward...and Backward?

The first images from Pixar's latest film, Onward, dropped today via People:

📷: People: Tom Holland (left) and Chris Pratt's (right) characters

📷: Julia Louis-Dreyfus (left) and Tom Holland's (right) characters

Okay.

I admit, I knew nothing about this film. So I did a little digging.

The film is set to come out in March of 2020 and is written and directed by Dan Scanlon who, while working on other Pixar films, most notably wrote Monsters University. (Meh.)

Here's the plot summary from Wikipedia -- so take it for what it's worth:

"The film is set in a suburban fantasy world where humans do not exist, instead populated with elves, trolls, and sprites, where unicorns are as common as rodents. Two teenage elf brothers, Barley and Ian, embark on a quest to discover if there is still magic in the world in order to spend one day with their father, who died when they were too young to remember him.'

Apparently, the story is "inspired by Scanlon's father's death when Scanlon and his brother were younger, and their relationship" which kinda makes me feel bad for what I'm about to say.

But even though there's an emotional center to the story; even though Chris Pratt and Tom Holland are adorable and are sure to have good chemistry; even though.

There's that little voice in the back of my head that thought, "Really Pixar? Really?"

Because leaving aside the fact that the plot sounds an awful lot like Zootopia -- it just feels like Pixar is falling back on their typical formula. And I don't mean the "What If X Had Feelings" one (although it is hilarious):

 It's the buddy film -- two guys on an emotional journey where they each help other learn something that changes them--usually with the tough macho guy learning to be emotional and, well, less macho. A little vague but it's Buzz & Woody, it's Mike & Sully, it's Marlin & Dory (who's female, yes, but let's not unpack that rn), it's Mr. Incredible & Syndrome, it's Lightning & Mader, it's Remy & Linguini, it's Carl & Russell, it's Miguel and Hector. It's more of the same.

via GIPHY

So, yeah. Even though this story is based on Scanlon's life and we can't fault him for that -- someone at Pixar heard this pitch, read this script and thought "Yep. That's on brand." To be fair, the film was announced back in 2017, at the D23 Expo, when the now-disgraced-COO John Lasseter was in charge. So it's easy enough to lay the blame at his feet and be done with it. After all, Lasseter was at Disney since the early 1980s (ish), and he helped found Pixar and was integral in having Disney shift to computer animation. 

But that's almost too easy, isn't it? This is, I'm sure, indicative of a larger gender-based issue in Hollywood: despite fiction and storytelling being coded as female, making money is decidedly coded male, with women comprising only 8% of Hollywood directors. 

Think about it. 

Out of Pixar's 20 films, 17* have male leads. That's 85% of Pixar's films. 

Of those 17, some do have a female character of some significance -- it's debatable whether the role is large enough to be considered a co-protagonist: Princess Atta in A Bug's Life, Dory in Finding Nemo (it's really the story of Marlin and Nemo), maybe ElastiGirl in The Incredibles (again, it's really the story of Mr. Incredible and Syndrome), maybe Eve in Wall-E, and maybe ElastiGirl in The Incredibles 2 -- because even though it's about her getting to be the one to save the world, it's still about how Mr. Incredible deals with it. 

That leaves 3 -- THREE -- films that are anchored around female characters: Brave was the first (with Merida and her mother Elinor), Inside Out was next in 2015 (Joy and Sadness), and Finding Dory in 2016. 

So, yeah. I'm sure this story is deeply personal to Scanlon, and I certainly don't begrudge him that. Let him tell his story. But that doesn't mean I wasn't disappointed to see another male-buddy story from Pixar, with Julia Louis-Dreyfus mentioned as just "the mom."

Let's hear some other stories, Pixar. Disney, for all their faults, at least puts female characters at the forefront of their animated stories -- Zootopia needed both Judy Hopps and Nick Wilde to make it work (and even changed the story to make Judy the heart of the story) and Wreck-It Ralph is anchored by the friendship between Ralph and Vanellope. (On a side note, it was really weird to skim the Wikipedia page and see all the animated films Disney now owns after their merger with 20th Century Fox...like Bob's Burger's The Movie...) 

Spotted: Target Run & Done

After being cooped up in our house since Wednesday evening -- thanks, Hurricane Florence -- my family and I ventured out to Target this morning. (Honestly, though, where else would we go?) We didn't really need anything, but Target is such a great place to wander around and somehow end up with a cartful of random things.

Plus there's coffee. Which, after four days in the house, was definitely, actually needed. (Starbucks + Target is my second favorite pairing behind Starbucks + Disney.)

Target's also a great place to do "field research," which is a fun way of saying I get to look at the Disney-related merchandise through an academic lens.

And Target didn't disappoint. First up:

📷: Me (and yes, that's my coffee in the background)

First, I tried searching Target for "mulan doll" and the only one that came up was the Hasbro doll. (At least she's wearing the outfit from the end of the movie and not the matchmaker outfit that she's usually in.) This one is marketed as an "Action Adventure Figure" so that's a solid plus. Also a plus -- this is the closest thing to Warrior Mulan I've seen in the Mulan merchandise. Normally, for whatever reason, she's marketed in a dress and definitely conforms to feminine conventions. So, another solid plus for a Mulan figure who's wielding a sword and is portrayed as a kick-ass woman. 

But...those legs!? 

Not exactly a win in the "realistic body image" column there, Hasbro. So, Con. 

On a less relevant note, I also saw this:

📷: Me

My daughter wanted to watch Tangled this weekend -- anything that wasn't Frozen! -- and I'm just really confused about why Maximus has such a glittery mane. I'm pretty sure he's not glittery in the movie and can't we market a male horse without adding glitter? My daughter loves Maximus just fine without the glittery mane, and I'm pretty sure she doesn't need to have one marketed towards her.

And we may or may not have left the store with this shirt:

Dream big, princess.

You Can Be Feminine AND Feminist

I'm in the middle of Googling Mulan images for a post about the up-coming live-action adaptation, and I came across this image:

PC: Rebloggy

YAAAAAS.

This. All this.

One of the major criticisms thrown at Disney is that there are a lot of pretty, delicate, feminine heroines. This is true. Nobody is denying this.

But the implication -- or, sometimes, the overt, explicit, statement -- is that this BAD. That being feminine is somehow bad. Or weak. Or "less."

And I do see some of the counter-arguments: that Disney princesses are always feminine and that can lead to the assumption that only feminine girls can be princesses/heroines. That strong females are often the villains and that can imply that strong, powerful women are threatening and evil.

But the thing is...I'm not sure where "feminine" and "weak" became synonymous. Cinderella was basically living in a household where everyone hated her and heaped at least emotional abuse on her, and girl still got up every morning with a smile and a song. That is not weakness.

You can be kind and "girly" and wear pink poofy dresses (or more form-fitting blue dresses with a thigh-high slit) and like glitter and make-up and romantic-comedies and it doesn't make you weak. You can do/like all of those things and still be strong.

Why Elsa Shouldn't Have A Girlfriend

Trending Hashtag Right Now: #GiveElsaAGirlfriend 

Also trending: #GiveCaptainAmericaABoyfriend. (Clearly this was before Marvel revealed that the comic book world's Golden Boy was a sleeper agent for the Nazis Hydra. Or maybe that doesn't matter.)

This may be a controversial thing to say but...I don't support either of these campaigns.

Now, let me clarify this: I'm definitely not saying I don't support LGBTQ+ rights. I'm definitely not saying I don't want to see a homosexual relationship in a Disney film. I'm definitely not saying I don't want to see a homosexual character in a Disney film.

I am saying that I just don't think that either Elsa or Captain America is that character. 

A little bit of background:

This all started when Twitter user lexi4prez tweeted this out:

According to her own essay on MTV,  the motivation for her Tweets is 100% valid. She starts her essay, for instance, by noting what she doesn't/hasn't seen:

"Growing up, I never saw a princess fall in love with another princess — and neither have girls growing up right now. The entertainment industry has given us girls who have fallen in love with beasts, ogres who fall for humans, and even grown women who love bees. But we’ve never been able to see the purity in a queer relationship."

The lack of homosexual characters in children's media isn't a new issue -- or an inaccurate one -- in children's media scholarship. Critics have pointed out that children's media in particular focuses on heterosexual relationships, with the traditional "happily ever after" usually being a marriage between a man and a woman. And Disney, as one of the giants in children's media. is often lambasted for its lack of diversity in many ways, not just with regards to homosexual characters.

SIDEBAR: As influential as Disney can be, it can be fairly reluctant to take a step that would anger its middle-class fanbase: it won't take a step in a progressive direction unless it knows it won't financially hurt them. That is, while there hasn't been a homosexual character in an animated film, the company is by no means anti-LGBT. The Disney Channel show Good Luck, Charlie featured a lesbian couple; the ABC show Once Upon A Time has the bisexual Mulan (and Ruby); and the fact that Disney World has specifically designated LGBT friendly days (Gay Days, usually in early June) has angered more than a few conservative groups. But feature-length animated films are the company's bread-and-butter, and they're going to be extra cautious.

And she concludes with an equally valid point:

"Giving young girls the chance to understand that a princess can love another princess the same way Cinderella loved her Prince Charming is vital to their development. No one deserves to feel isolated and confused about who they are. All we need is someone to show us that there are other options, other kinds of princesses, and other ways to have the happy ending that you deserve."

Yes, "no one deserves to feel isolated and confused about who they are." And, yes, it is important to show girls "that there are other options, other kinds of princesses, and other ways to have the happy ending that you deserve." I agree with this 100%.

But this is also where I start to disagree. Because while I agree that Disney needs be more diverse, needs to have a homosexual character and, one day, needs to show a homosexual relationship, I really don't believe that Elsa is that character, nor should she be.

Earlier in the easy, Alexis Isabel makes this statement:

"Yet Elsa, the film’s protagonist, will probably end up with a male prince or king in the upcoming Frozen sequel."

I understand where this concern comes from: every single Disney Animation Studios Princess before Elsa has ended up with a man in some way. I'm excluding Merida since she has the (more progressive) Pixar behind her story.
[SIDEBAR: It's interesting to note that only four Disney princesses actually get married (in the film itself, not in sequels or shorts): Cinderella, Ariel, Rapunzel, and Tiana -- and Flynn Rider only tells us that he and Rapunzel get married in the "epilogue" of the film. Snow White, Aurora, Belle, and Jasmine are merely shown with their princes at the ends of their films, usually dancing off screen with them. Pocahontas, of course, ends up alone; and Mulan merely invites Shang to dinner.]

So I get it. The temptation to pair Elsa with a man is there -- although I sincerely hope that Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee developed a better story than that. And I'd be lying if I didn't think the Internet's obsession with shipping Elsa & Jack Frost (from Rise of the Guardians) isn't absolutely adorable and perfect. I even own a TeeTurtle shirt with them building a snowman together.

But that doesn't mean I want to see them end up together in a Frozen sequel.

And here's why: there was nothing -- and I'm not counting the lyrics of "Let It Go," since the power of that song comes from the myriad of situations it can be applied to -- in the original film that implied or even hinted at Elsa's sexuality.

And that was the brilliance of it.

Because, again, yes. It's important to have a homosexual character in a Disney animated film -- but only if it is true to the character and the story.

Yes, it is important to have "other kinds of princesses, and other ways to have the happy ending that you deserve." But the emphasis here is on "kinds" -- plural. Not just another "kind" of princess -- singular. There are other options besides a straight princess in a heterosexual relationship and a gay princess in a homosexual relationship. There can, for instance, be a princess queen who is "enough" on her own -- who is strong and independent and resourceful.

I'm not saying she needs to be completely isolated -- that is, after all, the point of the first movie.  We need other people in our lives, our friends and family.

But for me, one of the most progressive aspects of the original film was that Elsa didn't need to be married to rule her country. There was no annoying subplot where she had to be married in order to become queen. (Which is, unfortunately, the plot of The Princess Diaries 2, itself a Disney princess film. Mia can't rule Genovia without being married. And while, in the end, she does give a powerful speech extolling the virtues of female rulers, and the law is overturned, it's still the plot of the movie.) Here, in Frozen, it's not even an issue, it's not even mentioned: the King and Queen of Arendelle die, Elsa turns 21, she's crowned as queen. There's no meeting of Parliament to decide whether she should take the crown; when she spazzes out and unleashes an eternal winter, no one mentions her gender (they mention her "evil magical powers," but that's completely unconnected to gender); and no one says anything about how a man would have been a better ruler. After all, the male authority figures in the film are largely ineffectual (excluding Grandpabbie, as he's a troll): the King of Arendelle is in the running for Worst Parental Advice Ever (when he tells Elsa to suppress her true self); the Duke of Weselton is an ineffectual dignitary with a Napoleon complex; and Hans...well, Hans seems like he could have been a good ruler (he did take care of the people when Anna was searching for Elsa), but he's too power-hungry and narcissistic to really rule well. (Plus, he's the villain.)

This is just as important a message, just as important an image, for little girls (and boys!) watching Frozen to see. You don't need to be in a relationship to be successful: you are capable of great things on your own. Yes, you need friends and family to keep you grounded, but a relationship isn't the only way to define happiness.

So while a gay Disney princess would be great, I still don't think it should be Elsa. Let Elsa rule Arendelle as a strong, empowered monarch and leave the romantic subplot out of it. The first truly gay Disney princess should be a character worthy of that storyline.

[SIDEBAR: All of this applies to Captain America, too. I get it. He and Bucky have an awesome bromance fraught with tension that people love to read stuff into. BUT. Cap loved Peggy Carter. That's like a big point of this most recent film: he goes to London for her funeral (because he loved her), and it's Sharon's recollections of her aunt's advice that cause Cap to not join with Tony Stark and whatever UN accords they're agreeing to. (Again, because Cap loved Peggy. And may or may not have had a thing with Black Widow. And may or may not have a thing with Sharon Carter, because that's not weird at all.) So, yes: it wouldn't be true to his character or his storyline. At least not in the Marvel movies; the comics have shown that Cap's identity and character are apparently pretty fluid, so, yeah.]

Disney Artwork -- Isaiah Stephens

Blogger tells me that my last post was March 8th. Oof.

To be fair, I'd like to think I had a pretty good reason:
Another Disney princess (and future Disney consumer?) has entered the world. :) Our little Cricket Bug was born on April 21, three weeks early, and I've been playing catch-up ever since.

Cricket Bug has -- surprise surprise! -- yet to wear a Disney outfit -- but when she does, I'll be sure to document and share it.

For now, I thought it was fitting that my first post back be this "Disney Princesses As" piece by Isaiah Stevens for Cosmo: Disney Princesses As Mothers. (Follow Isaiah Stephens on Instagram here! He does a lot of Disney work that's super cool and inventive.)

[Sidebar: I just finished reading "Nearly Everybody Gets Twitterpated: The Disney Version of Mothering" by (Hollins professor!) Lisa Rowe Fraustino--which...well, let me just quote a line from the abstract:
"The animated films [reproduce traditional mothering ideology] not by animating the realities of marriage, childbirth, and mothering work for girls to model after but instead by idealizing the dream of romance that leads to the making of the traditional patriarchal family."
Basically, Disney movies end with the fairy-tale happily-ever-after of a wedding, and basically ignore everything that comes after -- including motherhood (although that's not necessarily a requirement).
So it's interesting to see Stephens kind of take up that mantle and portray the princesses (albeit in a romanticized, stylized way) as mothers. I dig it.]

Quite possibly my favorite:

This one just makes me smile -- even more so because I think the photo in the background is women of all different body types spelling out "B-E-A-U-T-I-F-U-L." I don't know if this is a subversive dig at Cosmo or something that was sanctioned by the magazine, but either way, I love it.

Okay, so this one's not as romanticized...but I love that Flynn is wearing a gas mask. (Although...shouldn't Rapunzel's hair be short and brown?) 

#ParentingTruth. I know Cricket Bug is only 4.5 weeks old, but I have nieces and nephews. This is pretty much how it goes. 

Also--it's called "karma," Merida. :) 

Disney + Toys + Gender = Newsworthy

So, gender + toys has been an interesting discussion of late. Ever since Target decided to remove gender-specific signs in their toy section (which is much less controversial than it actually sounds -- all they did was remove "Boys Toys" and "Girls Toys" from the end of the aisle and the backs of the walls; "girl" toys are all still lumped together in a giant explosion of pink and purple), toys and merchandise have kinda been a hot button issue.

No surprise, given that we're a consumerist society.

But what is a surprise -- at least to Star Wars fans -- was the lack of Rey merchandise in stores following the release of the film. Like, people were pissed. (Which is oddly reminiscent of the situation 2 years ago, when Frozen came out. There was a surprising lack of Frozen themed merchandise, and parents went crazy on the Internet complaining to Disney.)

And then this story popped up in my NewsFeed the other day:

Whoops.

Now, obviously, one Internet story does not mean that there is any truth to this whatsoever. After all, the article reports that it was an "inside source" who only told the story after being guaranteed anonymity. 

Surprising? Definitely not. If I was revealing scandalous, controversial information about Disney, I'd want anonymity too. 

But automatically reliable? Also definitely not.

That being said...it's not impossible to believe:

The idea that "boys won't play with girls' toys" but that "girls will play with boys' toys" isn't new or revolutionary: it parallels the idea in the literary world that girls won't hesitate to read a book with a male protagonist but boys won't go near a book with a female protagonist. (Hence the success of Harry Potter and part of the reason why Joanne Kathleen Rowling is better known as J. K. Rowling. Initially, that "J" and "K" could have stood for anything.)

If the story is true -- and, as much as I love Disney, I can totally see the moneymakers making this decree -- then at least the response to it is encouraging. At least we're talking about gender-segregated toys and the lack of strong female characters. As the article pointed out, the lack of Rey merchandise sparked an outcry of hostility and even a trending hashtag -- #wheresrey -- and comparisons to the other lack of female superheroes in toy merchandise. After Guardians of the Galaxy came out, Gamora was nowhere to be found, and neither was Black Widow after Avengers 2 came out. And all three of those females -- Gamora, Black Widow & Rey -- were protagonists: front and central in the storyline and integral to the plot. (We'll leave my disappointment with Black Widow for another post.) It's not like they were helpless damsels in distress or relegated to the romantic love interest: the future of the Star Wars story is going to rely on Rey -- her parentage is one of the new trilogy's essential mysteries. 

So far, having Hasbro as their toy manufacturer has worked out well for Disney...let's hope that the progressive attitude continues.