Disney's Raya And The Last Dragon

[EricJ]

Maybe the children's book industry needs more female editors?

(Actually, the industry problem right now is that we have too many female editors, and their ideas of what they want the industry to be "about", and those writing middle-grade or YA stories about white male heterosexual non-ethnic/immigrant characters need not apply...)

It's true that the female perspective often skews more towards the emotional aspect of things, but that's' not necessarily a bad thing. It's just not a typically "masculine" thing. And not every book or film needs to be for the boys.

The problem with female perspective in a DISNEY movie, however, is that the female perspective tends to lead to the symbolic view rather than the direct view--
Which leads female Disney writers and directors to see the classic characters and princesses not as, say, a young princess who escaped a psychotically jealous queen and found help by making friends with the most unlikely commoners, or a good girl who kept her faith in goodness even in the most abusive situations, but as "Symbols of an outdated view of unemancipated domesticity".
And want to write movies to "avenge" that straw-man symbol in their own minds, creating characters like Raya, Merida, and, yes, even Tiana, who have almost no discernible personality aspect beyond "Look, I'm INDEPENDENT!", and no elaborate story momentum beyond "Look at this OBSTACLE I'm overcoming, all by MYSELF, with NO HELP from duplicitous, timid or comically-obnoxious males!"

Case in point: Ralph Breaks the Internet should have been the perfect movie. It was the one we were all clamoring for them to make.
And while I remember being the Cassandra that "Look, we get a Princess reunion scene!" was not going to end well, even I was surprised how genuinely ugly and mean-spirited both scenes were, the latter almost enacting righteous Princess-avenging payback on Ralph directly because, um...I'm not sure why.
That would be bad enough, but then we had the whole puzzling "Vanellope Goes Turbo" ending, which does a complete nonsensical 180 from the message of the first movie, ie. that the grass isn't greener, but maybe things aren't so bad if you learn to like yourself where you are--A message that would horrify and apall most modern women's dream's of Empowerment, so now Vanellope has to triumph by Running Away To Do Whatever She Free-Spiritedly Wants, Because She Deserves To, and Ralph really is the Bad Guy for being clingy and not letting her.

[gaastra]

[Daniel]

Beautiful. So lush and calming. What far cry from those desert scenes!

[Bill1978]

Absolutely stunning poster

[ShyViolet]

Yes.

[gaastra]

For those who missed it the first teaser poster.

[Farerb]

Sisu:

[Daniel]

.. In her human form. She looks a little kooky.

By the way Gaastra, that was the Chinese New Year poster.

[Daniel]

Couple of new pics:

[Dacey]

I love how those contrasting images look like they're selling two completely different movies!

I quite like the fierceness of the first one, but the dragon's design is...different from what I was expecting (I think I was thinking something more in line with Elsa's water horse, instead of...whatever this is).

[Daniel]

Looks different from when it was first shown at D23:



Newer one looks more like Sully.

[Ben]

Um...hardly any different? Except one's a touched up hand drawing and the other is a CG character with its mouth shut...?

[Daniel]

The color, less fins, lack of white stripes/markings, no more whiskers, horn looks smaller. Maybe not a huge difference, but a difference just the same.

[ShyViolet]

It's true that the female perspective often skews more towards the emotional aspect of things, but that's' not necessarily a bad thing. It's just not a typically "masculine" thing. And not every book or film needs to be for the boys.

The problem with female perspective in a DISNEY movie, however, is that the female perspective tends to lead to the symbolic view rather than the direct view--
Which leads female Disney writers and directors to see the classic characters and princesses not as, say, a young princess who escaped a psychotically jealous queen and found help by making friends with the most unlikely commoners, or a good girl who kept her faith in goodness even in the most abusive situations, but as "Symbols of an outdated view of unemancipated domesticity".
And want to write movies to "avenge" that straw-man symbol in their own minds, creating characters like Raya, Merida, and, yes, even Tiana, who have almost no discernible personality aspect beyond "Look, I'm INDEPENDENT!", and no elaborate story momentum beyond "Look at this OBSTACLE I'm overcoming, all by MYSELF, with NO HELP from duplicitous, timid or comically-obnoxious males!"

But symbolism in itself really has nothing to do with the “female perspective” (kind of a generalized way of putting it, since there are many female writers who have quite a number of perspectives) but with how one reads different aspects of a text, whether it’s about women or not (it often isn’t).

And it’s pretty simplistic to claim that a female perspective in a Disney film is about contaminating the purity of a “classic” Walt-era Disney fairy tale with symbolism and hidden agendas. After all, Walt made his own updates to the original tales, such as giving more depth to Snow White and Cinderella so we can empathize with them better, as well as giving actual personalities to the Seven Dwarves. Was Walt a corrupter of the original tales because he changed aspects to better suit his vision? Say Walt had been a woman—would the revised fairy
stories suddenly become heresy in your eyes?

All the fairy tales/fables Walt adapted had symbolism built into them, and it WASN’T just about women, but men, childhood, desire, coming-of-age. Whether consciously or unconsciously, Walt drew upon these aspects and combined them with his own perspectives. So why is it a problem if Jennifer Lee or Linda Woolverton do the same thing?

[EricJ]

And it’s pretty simplistic to claim that a female perspective in a Disney film is about contaminating the purity of a “classic” Walt-era Disney fairy tale with symbolism and hidden agendas. After all, Walt made his own updates to the original tales, such as giving more depth to Snow White and Cinderella so we can empathize with them better, as well as giving actual personalities to the Seven Dwarves. Was Walt a corrupter of the original tales because he changed aspects to better suit his vision? Say Walt had been a woman—would the revised fairy stories suddenly become heresy in your eyes?

If "she" had done exactly what Walt had the obsessive bee in his bonnet about doing--namely, distilling the traditional story down to its most audience-friendly scenes, streamlining out the awkward parts, and keeping the story moving along at the emotional pace he had in mind--no.
But then, "she" would never have watched the original 1916 silent Snow White as a poor newsboy, and wanted to pay his own young audience thrills forward for new audiences.

If "she" cringed in personally-offended horror (as all female viewers judge all film characters solely on the basis on whether they themselves would ever do what the female protagonist does) that Snow sings happily while cleaning the house with squirrels and hopes princes will find her out of the blue, and instead had Snow-on-the-run set out to be a swashbuckling independent forest bandit, who singlehandedly helps "fix" the 7D by organizing their unsuccessful trade all by herself, I would have issues, and so would story-obsessed male-Walt.
And yes, I WAS making an ABC-TV "Once Upon a Time" reference...Oyy.