REGISTER TO REMOVE ADS |
I really think otherwise. By supporting homosexuality, they would be continuing Walt Disney's legacy of radicalism. Even if not explictly stated, there is a chance that Riku's homosexuality could be another subversive message, as has been seen in other Disney films.HAH! A company like Disney would prefer to take no stance in the issue. Including a gay character defines their stand, so it won't happen in this century.
The truth hurts.Xiao said:When Riku has been your all time favorite fictional character for five years, and then someone comes in with a stupid idea like this, yeah it kinda does x.x.
And gain paying people.By supporting a controversial matter, they lose paying people.
You bracket homosexuality in the same category as abortion and paedophilia? LOL WUT?It won't have homosexuality anymore than it'll have abortion or pedophilia.
True, Disney has a very 'wholesome' image, but the target audience isn't always children. As I said, not so many people have unfavourable views on homosexuality, and therefore a same-sex romance would be akin to any other romance story that Disney might use. You know, Disney made anti-Nazi Propaganda cartoons in the past, so I'm suggesting that they wouldn't do something totally dissimilar today, in asserting a bold stance on a controversialish issue. Besides, it would add another dimension to any storyline.People don't want to think of that stuff when they watch or play Disney.
And gain paying people.
You bracket homosexuality in the same category as abortion and paedophilia? LOL WUT?
True, Disney has a very 'wholesome' image, but the target audience isn't always children. As I said, not so many people have unfavourable views on homosexuality, and therefore a same-sex romance would be akin to any other romance story that Disney might use. You know, Disney made anti-Nazi Propaganda cartoons in the past, so I'm suggesting that they wouldn't do something totally dissimilar today, in asserting a bold stance on a controversialish issue. Besides, it would add another dimension to any storyline.
Nazisim was a black and white issue. Homosexuality isn't. Anti-nazisim things brought money. Anything related to homosexuality in their works in this day and age will only drive people away. People turn to Disney to get away from reality, to simplicity. Adding homosexuality in forces them to think.
Wrong on two accounts. Some people would start buying Disney merchandise purely for including gay characters and some would desist buying Disney merchandise for not including gay characters. The balance is that so Disney would stand to gain money for including gay characters. Homosexuals are a minority, but those who openly oppose homosexuality are an even smaller minority.Wrong. Nobody stops buying Disney merchandise for not including gay characters. And since homosexuals are a minority anyway, they stand to lose more money.
In an obvious way. There are subtle messages in Disney films. Just like Riku's homosexuality could easily be one.Why must you take the worst meaning? I meant that Disney does not deal with controversial issues.
Nazism wasn't a black and white issue in the 1940's. By openly denouncing Germany's regime, they could have stood to loose all their German market, and that of Germany's conquered territories.Nazisim was a black and white issue. Homosexuality isn't. Anti-nazisim things brought money.
I don't think Disney is always a form of escapism. Neither is it a simple as it may appear; I know this is a bad example, but in Disney's adaption of Pocohontas, they made it into a debate on the morality of colonization, having a much deeper meaning than at first glance.Anything related to homosexuality in their works in this day and age will only drive people away. People turn to Disney to get away from reality, to simplicity. Adding homosexuality in forces them to think.
Wrong on two accounts. Some people would start buying Disney merchandise purely for including gay characters and some would desist buying Disney merchandise for not including gay characters. The balance is that so Disney would stand to gain money for including gay characters. Homosexuals are a minority, but those who openly oppose homosexuality are an even smaller minority.
In an obvious way. There are subtle messages in Disney films. Just like Riku's homosexuality could easily be one.
Wrong on two accounts. Some people would start buying Disney merchandise purely for including gay characters and some would desist buying Disney merchandise for not including gay characters. The balance is that so Disney would stand to gain money for including gay characters. Homosexuals are a minority, but those who openly oppose homosexuality are an even smaller minority.
In an obvious way. There are subtle messages in Disney films. Just like Riku's homosexuality could easily be one.
Nazism wasn't a black and white issue in the 1940's. By openly denouncing Germany's regime, they could have stood to loose all their German market, and that of Germany's conquered territories.
I don't think Disney is always a form of escapism. Neither is it a simple as it may appear; I know this is a bad example, but in Disney's adaption of Pocohontas, they made it into a debate on the morality of colonization, having a much deeper meaning than at first glance.
Ok, the point here is that there is no reason why Riku couldn't be gay.
>>I meant that Disney does not deal with controversial issues in an obvious way, choosing the subtler approach instead.Obvious subtilty? There's a new one.
These films are made with the intention that at least SOMEONE will take more from it than face value, a reason why Disney is so popular and so loved. Moreover, those involved in the production of Disney films do add idiosyncratic touches – private jokes and so on. I'm sure the production team thought long and hard about the way in which Riku's sexuality was being portrayed.That's called over-analyzing.
You're being naive. Why is it only the ones that openly oppose it counted? Everyone who gets bothered by it in the smallest degree, openly or not, would stop buying Disney products. The number of people who'd start buying Disney just because they included a gay character wouldn't even make a percent.
ER, on what side did the ***goverment*** stand?
That wasn't such a hot issue at the time. Homosexuality is.
>>I meant that Disney does not deal with controversial issues in an obvious way, choosing the subtler approach instead.
These films are made with the intention that at least SOMEONE will take more from it than face value, a reason why Disney is so popular and so loved. Moreover, those involved in the production of Disney films do add idiosyncratic touches – private jokes and so on. I'm sure the production team thought long and hard about the way in which Riku's sexuality was being portrayed.
Disney still wouldn’t lose a significant amount of revenue from the inclusion of gay characters alone. Those bothered by homosexuality enough to abstain from buying any Disney products would most certainly be frowned upon by most people, as people tend to sympathise with supporters of homosexuality.
It just isn’t the case that Disney adopted an anti-Nazi stance for financial motives.
How did anti-nazi things bring money? To suggest that they did would disregard the fact that the timespan where people opposed Nazism was incredibly short, and in America, Nazism wasn’t strongly disliked enough to the point where Disney could be playing up to popular demand for financial motives. There is a greater likelihood that openly declaring an anti-Nazi stance was simply a result of candour, hence Disney could likewise expose a pro-homosexuality stance, with little concern for the repercussions.
Was. 20 years ago.
Not like this. Being pro-homosexuality is being anti-Bible (any honest man knows this).
negative prejudice, which the bible says is wrong.