Disney Film Featuring Gay Main Character Bombs at Box Office
Category: News & Politics
Via: vic-eldred • 2 years ago • 119 commentsBy: Steven Spielberg (YahooNews)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Disney suffered one of its worst theatrical releases ever with its latest animated movie Strange World, which brought in just $18.6 million over the five-day holiday weekend despite being heralded as the first Disney movie to include an openly gay main character.
Strange World had Disney's second-worst opening weekend ever, behind only the pandemic-era release of West Side Story directed by Steven Spielberg, Variety reported Sunday. Ultimately, Strange World only garnered about half of its projected long weekend revenue.
The film featured a star-studded cast including voice acting from Jake Gyllenhaal, Dennis Quaid, Lucy Liu, and Gabrielle Union, and sported a massive budget between $120 and $130 million, the Daily Mail writes.
Expectations were initially high for Strange World with Disney projecting the film to earn between $30 and $40 million dollars over the long weekend. However, those figures were rapidly, and significantly, revised downwards when it was understood how poorly the movie was performing with audiences.
As with other recent Disney animated movies including Lightyear (another disappointing box office flop), Strange World sought to crowbar progressive causes into the film, including for the first time in Disney's history an openly gay main character. However, one liberal movie reviewer said Disney would likely use homophobia to shield it from the film's obvious shortcomings.
"Disney is 100% going to blame STRANGE WORLD's inevitable bad box office on the fact that there's an openly gay character in the movie when in reality, it's going to flop because they didn't market it at all. They'll use this as an excuse to not have queer rep ever again," film critic Jordan Woodson tweeted last week.
Aside from the progressive emphasis, for some, the movie simply failed to entertain. "Took the kids to the movies today to watch a Disney cartoon called Strange World. Within 10 minutes of the movie, my 10-year-old son said 'Dad, I have no desire to watch this movie. Can we leave?' We left. The leaders at Disney have forgotten who the PAYING customer is," the popular podcaster Patrick Bet-David tweeted.
Story continues
Disney's latest flop comes on the heels of the return of its iconic former CEO Bob Iger who is expected to turn around the ailing company after suffering several financial setbacks. Iger is taking over for Bob Chapek, who openly embraced progressive social causes while leading the media company, drawing the ire of Governor Ron DeSantis and fellow Florida Republicans.
Disney+, the company's touted streaming service, has lost more than $8 billion since it first launched three years ago.
Tags
Who is online
81 visitors
You mean Bob Chapek didn't know that family people weren't going to take their children to see a movie with such a featured character?
That's a big part of the reason Chapek is out and Iger is back.
There must be something in the air.....Chalk up another one for normalcy.
You would not watch a movie that has an openly gay featured character? Better not seen and not heard, eh?
Why do they need a gay character at all? What's the point other than trying to normalize something that most normal people don't care about anyway.
Strange World is rated PG. I doubt many responsible parents want to expose very young children to sexual issues. As we've seen, parents across the country are already fighting against this in our schools.
Again...I said family people won't take their kids.
I would not take my 5 year old to such a movie, no.
There is such a thing as "age-appropriateness", whether the American far left wants to acknowledge that or not.
Nonsense. Embracing tolerance and diversity and the LGBTQ community/our fellow human beings is a bad thing to teach Jasper??????
Yeah, God forbid a kid learns that well adjusted happy gay couples even exist!
Or, be entertained by a man in drag, which has been standard fair in the theater, on tv and in popular movies since, um, forever...
Will & Grace has been rerun for 15 yrs...
An old person in New Jersey be like this!
Question isn't why do kids want to be entertained by drag queens. The real question is, why do drag queens want to entertain children.
Did you enjoy Flip Wilson as Geraldine or watch Busom Buddies? Were those after your time? What about Some Like It Hot?
Flip Wilson was more for adults as his show was in prime time.
Bosom Buddies had a reason. The guys wanted to be close to the women.
Some like it hot had a plot and a reason for the men to dress as women as well. They witnessed a mob hit and chose to disguise themselves women to join a band and get out of state.
Milton Berle and Bob Hope were also adult entertainment.
Because they are entertainers and are doing nothing wrong.
Didn't watch the movie until I was in my 20's. And in 1959, I was only 4 years old so no.
Were you scarred by seeing men in drag?
Bob Hope and Milton Berle were family fare as was Flip Wilson and Busom Buddies...
I enjoyed Victor/Victoria with Julie Andrews.
And there was humor in the storyline in all those cases. It was like Halloween in prime time. Not because they liked dressing as women. It was a costume crucial to the stories and Wilson's humor.
All the women's parts in Shakespeare's plays were played by men in drag. There were men pretending to be women who performed both comedy and drama on stages going back to ancient Greece...
Hell, drag was probably used for comic effect by cavemen and Neanderthals!
So? Drag Queen Story Hour is a draw for libraries because the kids are entertained while learning about books and literature.
There is nothing sexual or dirty about it...
How are these Disney characters different?
Exactly, they dressed up in furs.
Question is: If the goal is entertaining-what's the difference. It's not like the drag queens plan to sleep around with the children! Or, maybe you can't recognize a difference between those who 'drag' and what they sexually choose to do? Well Jim, drag queens are not 'notorious' for child 'bangin.'
It was a 'campy' so it was acceptable. After all, a woman was the object of the production. That makes it 'okay' (selective and toned out the 'outrage').
You have no clue as to what Wilson's motivation or cross-points were. For me and you it was just good clean humor. So we laughed with Flip. In this case right here; it's mocking and laughing at Sam for being who he is. Let's be clear about your motivation on this.
Strange World is probably a very appropriate title. Strange as in bizarre. America is just not ready for that subject matter in a animated family movie. My hope is not in my lifetime anyway, but hey I'm old fashioned.
I don't think that it's old-fashioned to believe that children shouldn't be exposed to sexual material that they cannot understand at young ages.
Have you seen the movie? I doubt there is sex involved.
Funny that you all think just by being gay is sexualizing...
Riiiiight. Because the difference between a gay character and a straight one is....
Is what?
Sexual. Obviously.
Sexual? So showing a straight couple is not sexual but showing a gay couple is?
Do you realize how bigoted and actually just stupid that sounds...
Who they love is the difference between a gay character and a straight one.
Is who they love. Being gay is no more sexual than being heterosexual is.
The straight characters kiss and lick each other more often in movies; even when the scene is obviously not fully cleared of its danger-they are two 'star-crossed lovers' staring into each other's eyes and kissing and licking each other.
Do you have to work at outrageously misinterpreting people's comments or does it just come naturally?
Nonsense. They both love their mothers.
The difference is the people to whom they are sexually attracted.
We're talking about Disney movies for small children. They have a noticeably low amount of kissing and a complete lack of licking unless the characters are dogs.
It's been years since watching Ratatouille with my daughter, but there might have been some licking in it. It was an enjoyable movie.
Romantic love is different than familial...
Unless you have romantic feels for Mom.
When did you become an expert on gay?
I know several gay couples who have been married for 15 years or more. Obviously there's more there than just sexual attraction.
Then you have 'squared' your own question! Good on you! In case you missed the answer you delivered:
So what other gay/straight difference is 'disturbing' to you? Help me understand better.
Ah-ha! So you ARE writing about sexual attraction, and are 'worried' there may be kissing and licking , in Disney movies now?
A straight person is driven as much by sexual attraction as a gay person is. Does a straight person not marry someone they are sexually attracted to? Of course they do. There's no difference whatsoever between the two so your argument is just based on your bias and nothing else.
We. Are. Talking. About. DISNEY. Films.
At least attempt to pay attention.
Do you have any concept of the idea of "age appropriateness"?
And. Disney. Films. Can. Have. Characters. Who. Love. One. Another. Whether. They. Are. Gay. Or. Straight.
If. You. Want. Disney. To. Not. Show. Any. Characters. Who. Love. One. Another. Then. Disney. Should. Get. Out. Of. The. Movie. Making. Business. Altogether.
I have been paying attention. It's not a bad thing for children to learn that two women can love each other or that two men can love each other.
Amazes me people trying to make their own interpretations. Being gay is only sexual while being straight is more than that.
Makes me wonder about people themselves if when they picture two men or two women together that they can only imagine them having sex...
Miss me with your misdirection. You brought this up with your less than stellar slight about gays being "sexual" implying it is all that homosexuals are about! Moreover that sex seeps into their acting, so stereotypical of you to notice how "hetero" culture have dominated and marginalized homosexuals such that sexual sensitivity is all they are haltingly permitted to 'be" know for as a category.
So I point out to you that kissing and licking goes on in heterosexual movies too, but now you want to talk age appropriateness? How about just coming back up to a standard of 'good taste' in movies?
Yeah, long walks on the beach and taking care of elderly/aging parents are not traits you can ever credit to homosexuals. Oh look! A men's room (truck-stop) means. . . what?!
No shit. You don't say.
Of course that was the point of my post, wasn't it?
Or, in your case, misinterpretations. You're on quite a roll with those today.
How is it misrepresentation? Are you not the one saying gay couples are only sexual?
That's not what I said at all. Read it again.
Because that's not what I said at all.
Let me help you. Tell me what you think the difference between a gay couple and a straight couple is?
“Tell me what you think the difference between a gay couple and a straight couple is?”
Not a single thing, other than a penis…
…and whenever that appendage is involved, expect nothing but the obligatory wagging of the same.
Not what you said at all? Are you dismissing your own posts?
I'm dismissing your batshit misinterpretation.
You didn't answer the question. Tell me what you think the difference between a gay couple and a straight couple is.
So it's sexual. Thank you.
No it's not sexual. If you hear the words gay, lesbian, etc., and the only thing you think about is sex, that's a you problem and shows that you fell for the propaganda that told you that it's all about sex. Again, it's no more about sex than being heterosexual is.
Tell me what you think the difference between a gay couple and a straight couple is.
One of the couples is the same gender. Gender and sexuality are not the same thing.
“Tell me what you think the difference between a gay couple and a straight couple is.”
Again, not a damn thing.
Can you please answer the very question you pose?
Exactly. Because they are sexually attracted to people of the same gender.
I think qualification is in order here.
Technically, as noted by afrayedknot, the difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual couple is that the former have like genetalia whereas the latter have differing genetalia.
There is no requirement that a couple engage in sexual activity to be considered a couple. In this case the couple is not sexual (as in active) but the couple itself is characterized by their relative sex parts.
And, of course, this starts getting very complicated if we move from pure biology into gender identification. So let's table that for now.
So ... the difference is based on the relative biological sex of each partner and has nothing to do with behavior. Other than that, human couples are human couples.
Good grief...
You're talking to someone who is Bisexual. From experience, I know more about this topic than you do. It's a difference in who you fall in love with. And don't give me your bullshit about it being about who you're sexually attracted to because heterosexual relationships are the same way. Are you going to fall in love with or marry someone you're not sexually attracted to? LGBTQ relationships start the same way heterosexual relationships do, usually you start out with a crush on someone and it develops from there. You fell for the propaganda machine to turn LGBTQ people into the "other" so you treat them as such, but again, that's a you problem.
The same way heterosexual people do. Are you going to be in a relationship with or marry someone who you aren't sexually attracted to? No, you're not. So there's no difference.
You do not seem to understand that the LGTBQ community loves their partners and children and families and friends exactly the same ways that your "pure" breeders do.
Perhaps more so because they fought for the legal rights straights take for granted
Well that's moronic. If that were true we wouldn't bother with the adjective at all, now would we?
I already have. It's an utterly obvious answer, BTW.
But we've got several people playing that favorite game where we pretend the utterly obvious things are somehow not real because it's inconvenient for their politics.
"Good girls do it too" - My Mom - 1972...
Being LGBTQ had nothing to do with politics no matter how hard conservatives try to make it political.
Why not just spell it out. Spit it out. Say it!
You already beat a trail around that bush.
Altough being a gay republican is akin to being a Jewish Nazi, but yes they do exist.
You disagree? How so?
If a male is attracted to a female and vice-versa, the resulting couple is considered heterosexual. Whether or not they have had sexual relations.
If a male is attracted to a male, or female is attracted to a female, the couple is consider homosexual. Whether or not they have had sexual relations.
If a heterosexual couple ceases to have sexual activity, are they no longer considered a heterosexual couple?
I am assuming we all generally agree that the word 'couple' as used here indicates a romantic attraction between two people and an agreement to 'be with each other'. That is, I am assuming we are not using the most broad meaning of 'two people' (as in the 'Odd Couple').
Yes. If you had read carefully you would have noticed that I never stated otherwise.
Yes. So it actually IS about who you're sexually attracted to.
Thank you.
I realize you think so, but you're not reading carefully, you're not following the whole conversation, and you're not paying attention.
You just described an idea as bullshit and then proclaimed it emphatically. You are so convinced you are about to be attacked that you can't fathom any other possibility.
You just said that these things happen just like they do with straight couples. The ONLY difference is who they're attracted to.
There is also no requirement that a person walk upright to be considered human. But given the percentages, it's a safe generalization.
I'm reading carefully and paying close attention since I'm BISEXUAL. You're just talking in circles. You've proven my point about you falling for propaganda, and I've explained to you over and over and over again that it's no different than being heterosexual other than the parties involved. And you have yet to answer the question posed to you over and over again. Are you going to be in a relationship or marry someone that you are not sexually attracted to? If your answer is no, then you're just being a hypocrite and showing your bigotry towards the LGBTQ community. You've shown your hand over and over, and I have given you answers over and over which you have just ignored.
Just like with most heterosexual couples the few minutes out of their lives spent in sex acts are a special form of personal intimacy. And, just like with heterosexual couples their lives are mostly lived doing the drudge work of normal life like going to work, cooking meals, cleaning, doing laundry. It is not all about sex for either.
Good Grief!
Indeed, walking upright is not a necessary property for being a human.
Have you considered how many animals (and insects) are bipedal?
I do see your point ... that if two people are a couple that they more than likely have an active sexual relationship. But I think a much stronger discriminator is, as noted, biological sex.
You recognize a human need not walk upright to be human, so I suspect you see that active sexuality is not a defining property for homosexual or heterosexual couples. Given a couple is a romantic pairing (assuming we are on the same page here) the adjective homosexual or heterosexual is most accurately determined by the respective genetalia.
An interesting question arises when the genetalia is biologically mixed (hermaphrodite). Obviously extreme, but this is where the biological factor loses its discriminating power.
( Again, I am intentionally steering clear of gender identification. )
By the way, my uber point is simply: homosexual and heterosexual couples are almost indistinguishable in all the properties of the relationship except for biological sex.
Are you going to be in a relationship with or marry someone that you are NOT sexually attracted to?
[deleted]
Removed for context
[deleted]
I think your earlier comments sounded as though you thought gays only formed sexual relationships, not long term unions in personal relationships.
That's exactly how it sounds.
Batshit misrepresentation? It is what you are saying....
And said again ...
Twice you have said it was sexual then try to accuse me of misrepresentation...
Ok, I am starting to wonder here...
*sigh*. Keep trying. Try reading without the presumption that you're being attacked. My numerous gay friends describe me as "open and affirming", BTW.
Yes. Which has, in fact, been my point from the very beginning.
No. And here we are in agreement again. Isn't this great?
So.... in your mind.... asserting that gay relationships are very similar to straight ones is "bigoted" or "hypocritical". Do you even hear yourself? Or are you just so desperately convinced you're being persecuted that you can't acknowledge the meaning of basic English words?
Once again.... pay very close attention and see if you can follow it this time.....
So in your discombobulation driven by your presumption that you were being attacked, you have proceeded to confirm the very points you called "bullshit".
Yes. Thoroughly. At no point have I said gay couples are "only sexual".
Do you understand the meaning of the word "only"?
Do you understand the difference between the phrases "only sexual" and "the only difference"?
You're the one who keeps saying it's ALL ABOUT SEX WHEN IT'S NOT. End of story. If you think I feel attacked, you're wrong. I was trying to teach you something, but my assumption that you were open to learning something was wrong. You just want to argue.
Cite me.
Only because you believe I disagree with you, and you only believe that because you refuse to read carefully.
As I've already stated, I've read it carefully. You're still not learning anything.
Riiiiiight.
And yet you still cannot manage to cite these egregious things you claim. Very curious.
Well Disney will live and learn. Too bad, the featured 'normalcy' around kids getting gunned down at school has not flopped! Now there is a 'neato' animated concept: A series of high production value movies with great story lines about kids getting "mowed down" while sitting at their homeroom desks! /s
Stock issue: boys will be boys 'material.' Those movies will be family-centered hits!
Seems to me the flop is not about a character, just a bad film.
I agree with the one guy, I have never even heard of this movie until today. So it was not really promoted.
I think I heard somewhere a day or two ago that the Thanksgiving weekend box office for movies at theaters was the worst in decades.
The new Black Panther movie also did not do as well as predicted. Maybe families dont want to see movies where all the main characters are black. Of course the first Black Panther movie did extremely well, but this is a new day.
I will say that I think Hollywood is in some danger of overplaying the emergence of gay and trans characters in movies, but that would stem from the usual, and idiotic tendency for entertainment to overmilk whatever the hot topic of the day is. I think that gay and trans characters should be represented in entertainment, for sure, but perhaps not at a higher level than they exist in the general population. Had this Disney movie been a hit we likely would see a string of animated movies with gay lead characters. I think there should be a balance.
Exceedingly well said.
Because anyone that had read the comic books knew that they bastardized Namor. Tell us if the Disney version of Namor even looks remotely like this?
Now compare him to what Disney presented in the movie.
For any comic Nerds (like I was growing up)- the movie version of Namor is completely perverse. Namor would never wear a crown; nose piercing; earrings; necklaces, or any of that ornate garbage. Namor ruled Atlantis by might alone. There are far more comic Nerds out there than Disney will ever admit to. If the comic Nerds refuse to go see a super hero movie; then it tanks.
Only in those on the left that view everything about being racial.
Disney wrecked Namor. The movie sucked. Not all the wokeness in the world was going to save it.
news.yahoo.com /worst-thanksgiving-weekend-box-office-205240754.html
This Was the Worst Thanksgiving Weekend in Box-Office History.
Tom Brueggemann 7-9 minutes 11/27/2022
“ Black Panther: Wakanda Forever ” is still number one and “ Strange World ” tanked, but here’s what’s important: The three-day Thanksgiving box office weekend came to $95 million. In 2o19, this weekend’s total was $181 million; in 2018, $216 million. For all of 2019, only four weekends fell short of $100 million.
The last time a Thanksgiving weekend grossed under $100 million was… never? Nearly 30 years ago, Thanksgiving 1994 saw a three-day weekend of $94.5 million… when ticket prices averaged $4.08.
James Cameron’s “Avatar: The Way of Water” (Disney) opens December 16 and (as we’ve said too often) it can’t come soon enough. But if we’ve learned one thing this year, an occasional massive hit will not salvage what continues to be a troubled theatrical marketplace.
Dominant distributor Disney will take the crown by a narrower margin for 2022. The cause is helped by taking the two top slots at this holiday, normally a major achievement. But the asterisk accompanying this “triumph” is huge.
“Black Panther: Wakanda Forever” (Disney) amassed nearly half the weekend’s take with $46 million. That’s subpar for Thanksgiving weekend as a #1 ; many years saw two films gross over $40 million for the three days.
At #2 , Disney’s animated “Strange World” is something like an unparalleled disaster. Forget the disappointment of Pixar’s “Lightyear” in June, with its $50 million opening weekend. “Strange World” is less than $19 million over five days on one of the year’s best release dates.
Its budget has been reported as anywhere from $130 million-$180 million. The marketing expense might exceed its ultimate domestic take (which, particularly with expected by-Christmas streaming, could fall short of $40 million).
By anything other than the standards of 2018’s “Black Panther” (and theaters’ need for films to exceed beyond all expectations), “Wakanda” continues to perform well. Through its third weekend, it is just under $370 million. It’s on track to hit $500 million domestic, with play through Christmas. That would compare to $700 million previously (closer to $850 million at today’s prices), but also position it as #2 for the year — at least until “Avatar” opens. Decent results, but theaters today need more than that.
I have thought, why go to a theatre when one can sit at home and stream it.
It used to be , back in the Blockbuster days, that it took about four months for a movie to go from theaters to video. Now with streaming either a movie opens on streaming or even if it does open in theaters it is available for streaming a week or two later. Box office receipts may never go back to where they were before all this.
Think about it though. Spend 20 bucks to stream it at home or 40 bucks (just for tickets) for a family of 4 in theatre.
For some the pageantry (for lack of a better word) is what draws them. The big screen and sound etc.
Yet that is also getting to be a thing of the past with people having 65 inch tevisions with surround sound.
The snacks are cheaper and there’s a pause button to go with a clean private bathroom too!
Don't have to lug the kids around...
And even if you can't stream it right now, you'll be able to stream it soon.
I agree. I don't go to the theatre unless it's something I REALLY want to see.
In the bigot Pavlov test, every time the word gay is mentioned a visual of a penis entering a butthole comes to mind. Then the same bigots go beg their wives for anal sex.
I doubt that. Social conservatives might say that, but I doubt Disney will say that.
This. I have kids and we watch lots of Disney stuff, but I didn’t know this existed until today.
And nothing about that is unusual. Disney has had other movies that they neglected to promote. I don’t know why. Maybe the voice cast is not popular. Maybe it looks too weird and unrelatable. Maybe because it’s not a princess movie. Maybe a modest budget didn’t compel expensive promotion. Maybe it just sucks. Not every movie is a winner. That’s true for any studio.
It’s also a tough time for movies, in general. Regardless, this is not some clear signal that there should never be gay characters in an animated family movie.
It was up against 9 or 10 hours of NFL football on Thursday, World Cup on Friday
and college football playoffs on Saturday, NFL all day Sunday.
Sports won.
Absolutely nothing to do with gay animated characters or gay football players in Qatar or anywhere else.
Ishtar thanks Disney for their support.
It is my understanding the movie has a 2 minor passing mentions of same sex marriage. The issues at play are the ex-CEO didn't like animated movies so didn't market it and the other is mediocre writing. Then there is still a very visible loss of people not going back to movie theaters in general. That's been showing across almost all movies all year. The whole, "Go woke, go broke" bullshit is just that. Bullshit. The movie will quickly move to Disney+ and do okay there.
This whole anti-woke thing is hilarious, though. The sounds of your lamentations keep me warm in the cold winter darkness.
IMO Hollywood is going to extremes to comply with the most recent fad. For example, there was no way that the recent The Magnificent Seven was going to be anywhere as iconic as the original just because they bent over backward to be "inclusive" and had to include as many possibilities of race, religion, faith and culture among the seven as they could, although they didn't include a transgender lesbian Muslim.
Hollywood can market to the masses or market to the fringes - their money, their choice.
It is not acceptable to blame/shame people for not wanting to waste their time and money on Hollywood's vanity projects.
Sometimes it is not the movie's message (or lack thereof), the movie itself is just not worthwhile.
Kind of like the difference between The Graduate and Myra Breckinridge .
and
Society is continually changing. A lot of the time, I watch comedy to gain some perspective on the good old days of yesteryear.