#i know they're from different worlds in the pixar universe

[astuteology]

♡Some beautiful and wholesome observations♡

°○●•°○●•°○●•°○●•°○●•°○●•°○●•°○●•°○●

Ps: the following observations are written from a positive perspective. Each and every sign has negative and dark qualities as well but i wanted to share the good and positive side.

----------------------------------------------

《 🌊💧🧊❄️ ♡ 🔥💥🌋🧨 》

◇ WATER SIGNS [cancer, scorpio & pisces] and FIRE SIGNS [aries, leo & sagittarius]‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐ can become the best lovers for each other. They both need adventure. They have an inbuilt passion for life. I highly recommend you all to watch ELEMENTAL movie by Disney pixar. It perfectly portrays the love between them. Its really the universal law with them: opposites attract.

But both the elements are scared to share their intensity. Both know that only the other one can make them feel alive. Fire keeps the water flowing and water keeps the fire alive. Water can calm the fiery rage in the fire. Fire can keep the water stable within their mind. Together its like a volcanic eruption. Unfortunately, either one or both are immature and runs away from commitment, responsibility and accountability. I really wish both the elements heal from their deep rooted trauma/issues/wounds. Fire signs, let water drown you in their love where you will feel safe and alive. Water signs, let fire make the steam, you will feel relaxed and warm.

`°•`°•`°•`°•`°•`°•`°•`°•

《💨🌫️🌪️🎐 ♡ 🌍🌱⛰️🗺 》

◇AIR SIGNS [gemini, libra & aquarius] and EARTH SIGNS [taurus, virgo & Capricorn]‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐ make very stable and beautiful couple together. They make each other grow. They fulfill their destiny together. With this, i high recommend you to watch WALL‐E, eva as the air sign and wall‐e as the earth sign. Its the case of polar opposite. Both are unique and hard working in their own ways. Air can show earth a new and different way to live life. Earth can show air the importance of stability and that how important it is to have a plan in life. Air gives out of the box solutions whereas earth is the natural problem solver. Air shows earth the new perspective of life and earth feels mesmerized by it. Earth takes pretty good care of the air and air gives earth the support and motivation they never get from anyone. Its very balancing. Very soothing. Very strategic and long lasting.

Unfortunately, either one or both of them have their guards wayyyy high up and refuses to let the other in. Due to their little to no trust in people, they put on a false facade for the world to see. Its almost impossible for them to trust anyone. They see other people as non ambitious. They don't like low life people. As a result, earth starts throwing hard tests on air just to see if they're trustworthy. Air, as a result, gets exhausted and flies away, which in turn makes the earth feel toxic and negative emotions. They feel so hurt that their mind starts seeing everyone as unworthy of their time and heart. Air on the other hand likes a slow burn. They like teasing, they want earth to earn them. They want earth to learn them because air feels deeply misunderstood. But earth is already exhausted by expecting people to act right, they shut down infront of air. They find love and friendship in each other that no one else could never give them. Unfortunately, both of them turn toxic for each other. Instead of healing, they blame each other. I really wish they both practice listening and communicating. Air signs, please don't feel terrified of earth, take their hand, you'll be safe forever. Earth signs, they won't let you down, I know you want to relax and enjoy life, let the air take you in their arms, you'll feel okay. You will feel free.

°•○●°•○●°•○○°•○●°

◇ aries and scorpio makes a very redamancy couple. Both gives each other the love that no one ever gave them. They protect each other's feelings and each other also.

◇ Capricorn and cancer together are like dad and mom. You know those old couples we see, they're so affectionate and supportive of each other? Yes that, both the signs are like that for each other.

◇ aries and Capricorn make a very powerful couple together. They protect each other from the outer world. They learn from each other alot. They both grow together. Aries gradually learn to tame down their anger and frustration and they become balanced with their emotions due to Capricorn. Capricorn on the other hand gradually learns to feel emotions that they kept buried inside, they let their inner child finally come out due to aries.

◇ taurus and sagittarius makes a very bubbly and wholesome couples. They enjoy alot with each other. Opposite attracts.

◇ cancer and pisces together makes a very emotional couple. Both learn from each other's emotions. They know each other to the core.

◇virgo and libra / aquarius and libra makes for a very happy and supportive couple. They prefer being a team and don't let anyone get between them.

◇ libra relaxes Capricorn's mind.

◇ aquarius and Capricorn= mindfully connected couple.

◇ sagittarius and aries = chaotic together.

◇ pisces and Capricorn = protecting each other at any cost.

◇ taurus and scorpio = long lasting.

◇ gemini and pisces= they understand each other. Since gemini is one of the most misunderstood sign, pisces empathise with gemini making them feel safe and understood.

◇ leo and Capricorn/ scorpio and Capricorn = can actually work together really really well. Capricorn is strategic and leo/scorpio just goes for it. Together they can attain so many things together.

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤

That's all for now <3

[sweetmariihs2]

Title: a huge unnecessary ramble about Jessie's and Buzz' age inside the Toy Story universe AND in their respective in-universe shows (I'm not well)

(And a lot of theories/headcanons about the toys memories when they get out of the box, along with debates about personalities and stuff)

"How much a toy can be a character and how much they can be themselves depending on their life experiences?" - me in other post

I think it's funny (and a bit weird) how Jessie was made around 1959-1967 (during the period when Woody's Roundup was on TV) and Buzz was made around 1995 (his show Buzz Lightyear Of Star Command supposedly was also on TV, because Andy watched the show and liked the character, that's why he wanted the doll), making Jessie a lot older than Buzz, and therefore a little bit wiser/mature due to life experiences.

But the toys that are made based on characters tend often to have the same personality as these characters. There are debates around the "woke up having real memories and not thinking they're toys" thing, because not even the Woody's Roundup gang and none of the other characters except from toys from the Buzz Lightyear collection show that they thought they were real, and this maybe be just a manufacturing defect from the Buzz Lightyear toy collection, or maybe this now happens with the most modern/recent/electronic toys that have wires and reprogramming and all that... anyway, I'm not going deep into these theories right now.

The toys can already know that they're toys, but their personality still matches their characters. Buzz is heroic, kind, analytical, and Jessie is brave, adventurous, confident. Their personalities don't change much from the characters they were based on even after knowing the truth, and what makes two Buzz Lightyears different from eachother are their life experiences, each one having their own life, memories, opinions, and everything, after getting out of the box. Overall, maturity. But I wonder if the characters' "factory" maturity changes anything about this, I believe it does. If an adult character toy comes out of the box with the adult character's mentality, then this toy will be mature and will only become more mature as the years go by, living as a toy; since whether the toy likes it or not, it still has a lot to learn about how things work after leaving their box. In the same way that a child character would have the mentality of a child, and could be matured over time, like the Sunnyside baby, who still acts like a baby to this day, but can understand the world around and have opinions.

The Buzz Lightyear toys are made based on the characters from the Buzz Lightyear of Star Command cartoon (recently a retcon happened and Pixar said that this toyline was actually made based on Lightyear, but I can't take that seriously, since BLOSC had been canon since the year 2000, and the Buzz toy that Andy wanted looks nothing alike with the character from the movie Lightyear). Apparently, Buzz Lightyear from Toy Story remembers himself as the character from the show and looks like he had memories from the show too, somehow. Inside the show, Buzz' character is described, and knows himself, as a guy in his 40s (we know this based on the episode Tag Team and it's also written in his fandom wiki ), which shows that he's experienced in life as a Space Ranger and overall a "mature person" (not that much lmao). Furthermore, he is always shown and described as a seasoned veteran of Star Command while the other characters on his team are rookies. He had a lot of training, a lot of study, and seems more confident and responsible than his teammates, which is fitting for this age.

As for Jessie, we can't watch Woody's Roundup because it was never made into a real, watchable show. But when Toy Story 2 was released, Pixar hired the band "Riders In The Sky" to make an entire album themed around Woody's Roundup and eventually use these songs in the film, many of which were not used but work as bonus content. (By the way, in this album the band added a bonus song, which is a cover from the Buzz Lightyear Of Star Command theme song that was released around the same time, "To Infinity And Beyond", in Woody's Roundup style! I love creative people). In this album, Riders In The Sky made certain theme songs for Woody's Rounduo characters, and telling in-universe Woody's Roundup stories about them, including Jessie's character backstory! The song is called "Jessie The Yodeling Cowgirl" and a fem singer, who is playing Jessie, sings about how she left her home in Oklahoma to move to California to sing.

For me, this all sounds like a story that would happen to her while her character was still young, and Jessie in the Woody's Roundup universe does look quite young indeed. Leaving her homeland, apparently for the first time, to go pursue her dream, added to her appearance and naivety in the show, makes me think her character was not even in her 30's yet. Maybe she was 27? At most?

The average age for woman to get married in the 50s was around 20 years old. Based on that and at the time period, I highly doubt that a show aimed at children made in that highly conservative time would have a fem, strong and tomboy-ish (she wore pants!!!) — and to make matters worse, who is also single in her adulthood because at that time a 20 years old SINGLE woman was almost in her old age in people's eyes, — character as a co-protagonist. Meaning that: they made adult characters with child-like features to appeal to their young audience (because everybody knows that children love to admire adults and wish to grow up, but at the same time, playing and living adventures is a lot more attractive to them than paying taxes, so the creators of the show made adults that act like children which would be a perfect combo to sell well) OR their characters are just that young, young enough to be able to show these child-like features. Which means that Jessie is pretty capable of being like — in this context specifically — 20? To be a young and single lady at that time and still be accepted on TV? Maybe less? Or they're just from that kind of show where the creators never tell the characters ages, ever- like in Barbie Life In The Dreamhouse? I wouldn't be surprised if Jessie's character were a teenager, to be honest, but I prefer not to believe in that because I love Jessie x Buzz so much and their shipp is too cute and healthy for me to make them weird like this

I also find it interesting to note how (back in the 1900s) they made dolls that looked like children but wore adult clothes and little girls would play with them that way. Maybe Jessie is something similar, with an undefined age, because her character in the show is clearly not a child, however she has very child-like characteristics such as big head and big eyes, somewhat innocent behavior at times, adventurous, and someone who would care more about playing and having fun than romance, since the show is targeted at children. If the show were targeted at adults, her character would be extemely different and would probably be more limited in a romantic role because adults already care about that. If her character is indeed in her 20s and still was well accepted on TV... that means that Jessie was a feminist icon in the media from her time and in the Pixar universe??? Oh wow

But oh well, Woody's Roundup looks like a very innocent and soft show to watch, like those cute pre-school cartoons, Sofia The First for example, just so you can get the view, but with a bit of adventure (oh if you knew the amount of adventures that happened in Sofia The First...). Well, the way we make shows and cartoons changed a lot since the 50s and today younger children watch cartoons with more script and drama, but at that time some shows were just innocent and fun like that, with simple premises in each episode and that was enough even for older audiences; that's why I think Emily (Jessie's previous owner) watched a show that today would be classified as for pre-schoolers due to it's simplicity and cute lessons about friendship. I think I just let myself write stuff that came to my head and now I lost where I was at.

Going back to where I was at, I think Jessie's character is naturally very naive since the show, besides being brave and adventurous. Maybe the script, and the characters, and the whole story overall, made the Woody's Roundup characters come out of the boxes like this (despite probably not having memories from their show like Buzz Lightyear does, they still have the same personality as their characters), very naive, much how they already were in Woody's Roundup. I'm trying to voice ny thoughts here, wait

I came to this conclusion based on how the toys have their characters personalities at first and that is slowly changed and shapes them into unique beings overtime due to life experiences. Buzz Lightyear acted like Buzz from the cartoon even after learning that he was a toy, and that will never go away, but will be matured and more explored overtime, to a level that two 15 yo Buzz Lightyears from different places and owners would be really different from eachother. If one is traumatized, he will have to deal with that trauma, when other Buzz Lightyear didn't went through that and does not have to, like Jessie was traumatized by Emily and has claustrophobia, but other Jessies don't. I think that our Toy Story Jessie was like Jessie from the show, naive, when she was straight out of the box, and she learned to have more common sense, opinions and tastes, ability to distrust and read people/situations, much like humans learn with experiences. Which means that the Jessie we know today is probably very different to how she was like when she was new, and not only because of trauma.

Which also means that the "When She Loved Me" sequence happened when Jessie was much more unprepared, immature and optimistic, that subconsciously thinks that things will always turn out fine because in her show they always do (Buzz was like this, even after finding out he was a toy, he had an absurd sense of optimism, still inside the limits of his character, which is a hero from the cartoon he's in but still very cautious and analytical not to let things go wrong. In Woody's Roundup the characters don't have to be analytical, the script just works for them because it's a very light and simple show. You can take your conclusions from there...). Sorry for ruining your day

Anyway, the conclusion I wanted to get was that even though Jessie's character is younger than Buzz' and their behaviors/maturities follow their characters until a certain point, the fact that Jessie is a lot older than Buzz makes her more mature than him sometimes, which works as a good balance, I guess? Maybe I'm just overthinking. Gosh I wrote so many good (and messy) points here. I need to sleep

[spacebug7]

about to do a luca wordvomit sorry sorry

i just saw someone saying that luca was "queerbaiting" or like. an example of writers/executives being to afraid to write queer romance, and while that may or may not be true (given the context, like how maybe a year after that film came out those pixar employees wrote that one letter) i actually think that luca is impressive and impactful because it isn't a romance-- it exists within a pre-romance, and because of that, it hits that much harder.

also they aren't canon just because kenna jean harris made fanart of them but that's another conversation. back to my actual point:

viewing luca through a queer lens, there is SO much to be found that is immensely relatable to the queer experience-- primarily, what it's like to grow up gay. you have the concerned, fearful mother; you have the supportive relative and ally friend; the bullies, the mentor-- and more importantly, you have that one person that absolutely changed everything.

i'm not going to say that this is a universal experience-- everyone's journey is different. but i am going to say that this is something that is incredibly common, even more so within queer media-- and luca is just another example of this. no doubt about it-- alberto's presence in the film is one that is both vital to the plot and to the allegory that the story presents.

it's almost common to joke about life-ruining/world-altering homoerotic friendships in online queer spaces. that's probably why the film was so relatable to a lot of queer people, myself included. not only that, but the way the characters are written-- when i joke about this film being the pixar fish version of "call me by your name" i'm not actually all-the-way kidding. this film, i feel, is so intertwined with queerness and the experience of growing up queer that it's really difficult to look at it and go, "okay, but they're not gay."

THAT BEING SAID. they shouldn't have been canonized. like, ever. that would have ruined the allegory luca presents. purposeful or not, whether the writers really did want to make them a thing, they shouldn't have been. i'm really glad they're not.

i'm not saying that every queer story ends in heartbreak. but i am saying that it's common for those pre-teen/teenaged formative experiences-- the ones where you're young and inexperienced and unsure because what if dad found out? or mom? those stories, those connections, they are almost bound to break your heart.

luca paints a picture of a story just like that. luca has a deep fascination for something that's forbidden. he takes a chance, befriends someone-- alberto, who's already crossed over into this other land-- and falls in love with all of it. he goes to great lengths to hide this from his parents. when they find out, they try to send him away to a place that will try to permanently change him and his perception of what he actually wants, so he decides to run away with this other, braver person instead.

they go to a town that's unwelcoming to a fatal extent. they have to stay hidden to survive. they make a friend-- but they can't even trust her, at first, since her father is one of the people that wants their kind dead. i could go on and on and on-- the point is, this all reads queer. allegorically, or within the film itself.

and the ending, the goodbye-- it's bittersweet, because this is something they're not ever going to be able to replicate. this has changed all of the characters, internally, in every way-- but especially the main two. it always gets me choked up, because i know that feeling. and a lot of other queer people do, too.

basically, they're not REALLY gay, but aren't they? when you watch luca as a queer film, everything gets so much worse, because the "what-could-have-been," or even the "what-could-be" becomes so glaringly obvious and beautifully awful. and it's GREAT. why would i want them to be boyfriends within the story itself, when what we're presented with already is so much more complicated and gut-wrenching, especially when you contextualize it with the time period? why would i want fanon luberto to be canon when canon luberto already fucking slaps?

tldr: luca and alberto are only kind of gay. the vague platonic-ness of the nature of their relationship plays to the strengths of the story. i am absolutely obsessed with this film

sorry if some of this is a little incoherent i refuse to proofread byebye

[kylesvariouslistsandstuff]

I'll be brief about the Pixar expose... It's a lot for me to think about.

Disney requiring every movie of theirs to make $600m worldwide or else it's a big ol' flop (see how they 180'ed on ELEMENTAL after release) is a shit model, and it needs to go bye-bye. Not every animated movie, or movie for that matter, can just magically pull that out of a hat. Especially in such a wildly different marketplace post-COVID outbreak.

Despite Pete Docter being less like John Lasseter, that old pyramid-like system is still very much a thing there among other complications. Also kinda surprising that he, despite being CCO, functioned as a co-director on INSIDE OUT 2 during its final laps. I know that he conceived and directed the original INSIDE OUT, but CCO usually means you're too busy to direct.

Pixar should be part of The Animation Guild. They're one of the few big studios that aren't. Redundant of me to say, but yes, it's true.

It seems like INSIDE OUT 2 needed some rewrites and some tune-up, and the writer and actor's strikes happened about a year before release... They really should've delayed it, then. I know the movie went on to be a summer smash, though it probably would've done pretty great as a fall release, BUT... If they needed time, they needed time. No more of this crunch stuff.

The stuff about the laid off employees... Inexcusable. Especially that utterly weird shit about them not being allowed back to get their belongings in case of awkward feelings or whatever? The hell is THAT?

Absolutely loser behavior from corporate Disney about LIGHTYEAR, and mandating Pixar to tone down queer stuff or anything that could be interpreted as queer. (Makes those recent Pete Docter interviews make more sense, about telling "universal" stories. I was pretty sure Bob Iger had a gun to his head.) All that stuff about INSIDE OUT 2 with Riley and Val? I mean, it was pretty obvious from the trailers even... But still, I wonder what kind of layer Riley having a crush on Val would've added to the film's story, how that factors into her trying to be cool like them and kinda neglecting her friends. I still really dig the movie, but that could've added to the story they were telling.

To go on about LIGHTYEAR, I've already written about why I feel that film didn't reach audiences, but I will say... Unfortunately, I do think queerphobia did play a small part in its dismal legs at the box office. Not enough to sink the movie, I think it would've sunk anyways because of what that movie was. I think it still would've had trouble even if it were an original $200m-costing sci-fi adventure story and not a Buzz Lightyear movie... But, I work at a movie theater, and I remember some customers demanding refunds over that nanosecond barely-visible kiss. And also over cousin studio's STRANGE WORLD because the son is gay and has a crush on someone. I think audiences being queerphobic factored into it a little bit, but it was not as much of a thing as Disney would like to think it is.

So I feel, to repeat myself and to be a broken mp3... Maybe Disney wouldn't struggle so much if their movies didn't cost astronomical amounts of money. Pixar's on average hover around $175-200m... That's not sustainable. Spend less, allow for more creative risks, and screw the out-of-touch conservative audience that gets their collective panties in a peppermint twist over two men in the background of a movie looking at each other. Instead of having to rely on the grosses of those particular bigoted audiences here and all around the world, maybe don't pump hundreds of millions into these movies so that they CAN succeed in case a bunch of people get all upset about some gayness? So that the creators can take risks and not have to compromise key parts of their stories for an audience that isn't worth chasing? Not everything has to be a blockbuster behemoth. This is a big part of what's stagnating almost all of Disney's theatrical product, and animation is particularly getting hurt by it all.

Negotiations are resuming for fairer conditions for animation workers and employees, so this expose coming out was what we needed... Let's hope some progress is made this month!

...

[bluezey]

Sharing cause had to. It's nice to see people admit they're wrong, and that Elemental didn't flop. It's not a smash hit, but it's a hit

It does hint that Saberspark is going over what's ruining Pixar. And my two cents is, it's not ruined. It's not a failing company, and their films are not bad. With exception of Cars 2, and Lightyear I take with a pinch of salt. But, I do admit that there's a shift in the company since John Lassetter left. Now don't get me wrong, if the allegations are true, and I don't have confirmation of that, Lassetter needed to leave. But, company wise, he was a big piece of Pixar, and something has changed since Pete Docter took over. Now it's not a bad shift, they're still making good films. I'll even admit, Lightyear was fine. Flawed, bit fine. But, I do see one difference with Pixar films after Lassetter left. But, it's difficult to describe it, so bear with me.

With exception of Soul and Lightyear, the films after Lassetter left aren't as big or grand. They're still great stories with great animation, and everything we like about Pixar. But, they're mostly simpler stories. Onward had a deep story, but it was not big or grand. Luca was a nice slice of life story, but it was not big or grand. Turning Red, great story, still simple. Elemental is a little different, as it's a simple story, but the concept, world and racial overtones gave it a big scale, but not big enough

If you want to know what I mean by big, we'll, compare it to Up, or Coco, or Finding Nemo, or Incredibles, or Wall-E. Something about those films had everything on a grand scale. The story, the animation, the characters, the innovation. Just everything clicked in a big way. Now I admit, there were some smaller films in the Lassetter era, such as Ratatouille and Monsters University, heck even Monsters Inc was kinda small (but gets a pass as I think the first three Pixar films and the Toy Story sequel are automatically big because it was during Pixar's infancy). But, in the Lassetter years, there were bigger films with bigger spectacle. In the Docter years, there's more simpler films than grander films. They still deliver what people love about Pixar, but to the average film goer who's not in it for the Pixar magic, it doesn't wow people. And losing that chunk of the audience could lead to a problem.

Which could explain why the films are a little simpler: Pixar hasn't been doing so hot financially. It's mostly due to covid, but covid did happen around the time of the shift from Lassetter to Docter. Pixar are gamblers, and did some gambles such as doing something innovative such as the animation style in Luca, the deep plot and abstract great before in Soul, going meta like Lightyear, or going big budget wise with Elemental. Some of them did well like Soul, some failed like Lightyear, but mostly they're breaking even like Luca and Lightyear. And breaking even is a safe result for gambling, but apparently not in the animation film industry

With exception of Disney, I don't think Pixar has much issues with competition. Unless Sony can find another big franchise to go with Spiderverse, DreamWorks and Illumination can make films that can be upsets in the awards season, but they're few and far between. I think the big issue is somewhere in the Pixar company itself, but as a viewer looking in from the outside, I can't exactly pinpoint the precise problem. All I can find is that it involves the shift from Lassetter to Docter, followed by the films getting simpler but still Pixar quality films. It's just, they're still Pixar quality films, so I'm not sure what's missing other than they're not as epic as Wall-E or Up or Coco. And epic doesn't always mean good, but to some film viewers, it's important.

Thankfully, I see Elio having a chance at being a grander film. I mean the teaser doesn't exactly show it, but it does show it's in space, and what little we saw, it looks far better and grander than Lightyear. So hopefully the official trailer will drop and show us something as big as Wall-E with the style of Luca. I also have high hopes for Inside Out 2 as well. Granted, Inside Out 1 had a simple story from Riley's perspective: she just moved across the country. But, through her emotions, it was a big, epic deal, that led to a deep story and a big adventure. I'd love to see what kind of problem will become a bigger deal in the sequel.

So long story short, I wouldn't count out Pixar. While it may have a stumble and a shake up, I don't see them hurting their final products, which is the films themselves. But, there is something small affecting them between the audience and the film production, and they need to find and resolve it before it snowballs into a bigger problem.

[bearpillowmonster]

I know you see Moana 2, this year no less, but really it's not all that exciting. One of the reasons Moana was so good in the first place is because it was from Jon Musker and Ron Clements, who literally made the Disney Renaissance and Moana was their last film. Plus we had Lin Manuel Miranda basically at the top of his game because this made the most name for him, only after did he get all these other hit roles to play in the music department or even acting and well, none have hit as hard, so he's apparently not coming back.

I'm not discrediting whoever takes these people's place, I'm sure they do great work, which the director was already announced and he also did Raya which...brings me to Disney's most recent track record. They just haven't been doing so hot with good movies, I think maybe Encanto actually made a splash and everything else has been received mostly poorly. So who's to say how Moana 2 will be any different.

They also announced a series of other projects that were in the works and their release dates with Inside Out 2 and rough years for other sequels and a whole frickin Disney universe in Fortnite, you think this is a joke?

But you have to realize why they're doing this, why today just all of the sudden, I mean it's just a bit odd that- OH MY GOODNESS

They're baiting you. They're trying to cover up as much as they can saying "Look, look what we have in store this year, forget all about a few hours ago and what's to come later on." It's all so obvious, it's all so planted, even talking about it makes me cringe because it obviously worked to a degree. Don't let Disney trick you, talk about how they could very well lose this battle, give them a fight.

(It was also Disney's Quarter 1 Earnings Call but it's all so coincidentally placed, tell me it doesn't have SOMETHING to do with it. They had to have known it was coming and scheduled around it or even hastily posted the stuff that should stay under wraps)

Don't give in to the shill, resist their corporate branding. I mean how blantant can it be when they flex their companies all over Fortnite, there's literally an island with Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar, Fox, ESPN, their flipping cruise line and Disney+, that's horrifying. How corporate can you get? Even from just a design standpoint and this is coming from a Kingdom Hearts ride-or-die, they actually take care of their worlds and properties that they choose and then incorporate it into a story without trying to straight up market to you, it's that simple, KH fans know that Disney is just the side-piece to an already delicious meal. Fortnite won't be that. It will never be that. I don't care if you can access Disney+ inside a video game to watch with your friends (doesn't that go against what you cracked down on?) I don't care what maps or characters you have and it really goes to show that they don't give a flying f- anymore.

Nintendo wanted Samus in Fortnite as well as Epic Games but Nintendo wanted it exclusive to Switch (which isn't really possible given the nature of the game) but it goes to show that they're picky about what they choose to do and they can be. Back in the day, Kingdom Hearts had to fight to even get Mickey to appear and instead we got a 2 second silhouette and it was awesome. Now they're tossing him out like candy, yeah his copyright basically expired but then we have the violence factor. You shoot people...with guns...in Fortnite. You straight up murder people then dance over their corpses which would've been the pig's behind back then, every news station would be covering it saying that it's trying to corrupt children (those darn video games at it once again) and so Mickey isn't in a fighting game. But here we are. They censored Epic Mickey so that it wouldn't look too scary. But here we are. They've given up, they'll loan out to whoever offers the money because they're weak. I know it's hard but-

Get the old regime out and bring in a new brighter future, one not so corrupted by money and corporate ideals.

[vaarsuvius6]

"You guys act like two of the most popular redemption arcs in fiction didn't also happen to characters who destroy planets."

I don't know much about Dragon Ball, but unless I'm remembering wrong, Vader never actually destroyed a planet. The Death Star destroyed a planet. Don't get me wrong, Vader works for Palpatine, who ordered the Death Star built and used, but technically, no, Vader never destroyed a planet.

"Hell, the Galactic Empire Vader works for is supposed to be a direct analogue to the Nazis for fucks sake."

And Return of the Jedi ends with Palpatine dying, while SU ends with the Diamonds living in a palace. Okay, the movie says they aren't in charge of the Gem species anymore, but they're still living in a palace. So while I won't say that Star Wars is perfect, I will at least say that it handled its themes better. (Also, Anakin used to be a mostly normal guy until Palpatine started gaslighting him, so his character can be viewed as a metaphor for people who get sucked into cults and extremist ideologies. White Diamond, on the other hand, has no sympathetic backstory to speak of - no-one convinced her to go around being a dictator, she chose to do that of her own volition.)

"No one is calling Stars Wars or Dragon Ball Nazi propaganda just because these two got character development. That'd be fucking absurd."

Here's the thing. Star Wars was made in the 70's, Dragon Ball was made in the 80's and 90's. SU was made in the 2010's. Like it or not, people are going to be more critical of media released today than they are of media released a long time ago. For example, people forgive writers like C.S Lewis for having dated politics in the Narnia books, because Narnia was written in the 50's. A book that used the same tropes that Lewis did would be criticized harshly if it was released today. So if you're saying "Why do people forgive these old villains being shown in a sympathetic light, but not do the same for these new villains?", my response to that is "Because the old villains were made a long time ago when standards were different, and the new villains were made in a decade defined by political turmoil and the rise of right-wing extremism". SU's finale was aired while Trump was president of the U.S. and Bolsonaro was president of Brazil. Star Wars and Dragon Ball were made in a simpler time. Steven Universe was not.

"Like, complain about how the Redemption Arc got rushed all you want (even if that's on the producers for canceling the show early and not the writers)..."

The show being cancelled early didn't create problems. It just enhanced problems that already existed. One complaint was that the Diamonds (authoritarian dictators) recieved more sympathy from the writers than Keven (a jerk who never killed anyone). That problem began much earlier than Season 5. Executive meddling may have made the writing issues more obvious, but it didn't create them.

"...but please just acknowledge the calling the Jewish woman a Nazi sympathizer because you didn't like her kids cartoon is fucking vile."'

While I agree that calling Rebecca Sugar a sympathizer for fascist regimes is obviously immoral, I feel the need to add two points. Firstly, calling it a "kids cartoon" is dishonest - like Pixar movies, it was aimed for the whole family not just kids. I mean, have you seen some of the jokes they got away with? The show was clearly trying to appeal to more than just kids, or the writers wouldn't have tried to tackle tough topics like abuse (Jasper and Lapis) or colonialism (the Diamonds) or ableims (the Off Colours), which they did. So if they wanted adults to watch the show, that means adults have the right to complain if they felt it handled those topics badly.

Secondly, while I'm not accusing Sugar of sympathising with real-world extremist ideologies (as you say, that idea is ludicrous), I do think that Sugar doesn't get how dangerous or how toxic real-world extremist ideologies are. The end of Steven Universe was not long before the rise of QAnon. And in the post-QAnon age, the idea of people with far-right views being redeemed because of some big speech seems awfully naive. If reasoning with extremists was that easy, then forums like Qanoncasualties would not exist, but they do.

I remember Sugar once saying something like "The idea of a world where people are inherently good is no less absurd than the idea of a world with aliens and spaceships." That's not the exact quote, but it was something along those lines. But after Covid and January 6, it has become clear to me that Sugar was wrong - a world where people are inherently good IS more absurd than a world with aliens and spaceships. And that wouldn't bother me, except the show was being written at the same time when right-wing extremist groups were gaining popularity in the US, and the writers didn't really seem to grasp that the political message they were trying to send seemed increasingly out of touch. In a world where people were forced to fight back - sometimes literally - against the alt-right, a show that said "Well, maybe the right-wing dictators just need a hug" seemed in increasingly poor taste.

I'm not accusing the SU writers of being racist. I am, however, accusing them of not thinking through the subtext of their story. And I maintain that the subtex of SU is, at best, dated to the pre-Trump era - the era when Obama was president and it seemed like things were getting better. It's subtext that didn't age well, is what I'm saying.

And yes, Sugar is Jewish, but many people who criticised the show were themselves minorities. For example, black critics pointed out that "Bismuth" has the black-coded Gem who advocates using lethal force against her oppressors be the villain. And this is my big problem with your post - you're saying that the minorities who worked on the show deserve sympathy, but the minorities who criticised the show do not?

For the record, I don't hate Steven Universe. I think it's a mediocre show that had a lot of good ideas but poor execution (i.e, the Off Colours being introduced and then mostly forgot about by the writers. Yes I know the show was shortened by the producers, but even in Future, the Off Colours barely did anything. Other than Lars, they didn't even have any dialogue.). I like the fanfics more than I like the actual show. I don't hate the show. It had some good episodes despite its many flaws. But you're saying "Well, this kind of character arc didn't raise eyebrows in the 90's, so why is it raising eyebrows now?" And that is not a good faith argument.

"Steven Universe is Nazi propaganda because characters who destroyed planets got a redemption arc!"

You guys act like two of the most popular redemption arcs in fiction didn't also happen to characters who destroy planets.

Hell, the Galactic Empire Vader works for is supposed to be a direct analogue to the Nazis for fucks sake. No one is calling Stars Wars or Dragon Ball Nazi propaganda just because these two got character development. That'd be fucking absurd.

Like, complain about how the Redemption Arc got rushed all you want (even if that's on the producers for canceling the show early and not the writers), but please just acknowledge the calling the Jewish woman a Nazi sympathizer because you didn't like her kids cartoon is fucking vile.

[illiana-mystery]

I think Professor Knight and Gil would be friends. And honestly, that's a crossover I would love to see.

[violet-dragongirl]

Colour asks! Red, yellow, blue, coral ☺️💙

red - what are you most passionate about? how did this passion develop?

Well...2 passions (one's on hold but whatev's) 1) Art. I've been doing art for a good chunk of my life and it's something that I've extended to understanding the art I like and wish to see more of with better content and composition of course. I haven't...sadly...touched art materials or tools in years but I'm hoping to get back into it...it's...almost an ethereal dream but...I still see it ya know? 2) Cyberpunk media. I won't go too deep into this but honestly I feel like, even if there TRULY ARE (and were) artists, game developers, authors, and content creators that are trying hard not to get into the shitty orientalistic Dad Rock Cyberpunk that plagues the subculture, cyberpunk needs to grow up as a genre, and like I said: there are people trying to do this (and have done so in the past!) effectively and especially without the orientalism and Dad Rock BS.

yellow - what’s your happy place? real or fictional

Well...hmmm...this is interesting because...I...actually don't have one...well...maybe not in the sense I'm immediately thinking of. So...hmm...maybe I do? Both realistic and fiction...I'll start with reality first. It's something I wished for a long time ago and was a...different person then...but for me my happy place is...it's somewhere not in the US. Tbh it was Hokkaido, Japan but...thinking back on that...I dunno anymore. Just...almost anywhere that isn't the US. I'm tired of this place, and while there's a shit ton of work to do here anywho and things I won't get into as to how it's going or needs to be done...I'm honestly burned out. It's a country where I've gotten most to all of my baggage that now I have to manage without it overloading me or killing anything load bearing...so...yeah Fictionally...it's my own universe I call Xeralis, within a solar system that's super large, has 3 stars in a weird orbital fashion that has some planets have day time nearly all the time...on a planet called Hybridia. A mostly (like 84%) purple ocean planet that's about...oh...hmm...8 earths big with very large land masses that don't ever touch each other but from space look super close to one another (one...ah...I think like a canal? maybe? yeah lets go with that--has a width of over 3 kilometres!) The fauna and flora are much like earths but also like...extremely alien. One species of wolf like creatures have multiple eyes along their spine and again have a lavender or a cool blue hue to their fur! well...over all it's a wonderful place...a place of peace, lots of festivals and holidays in the 2 archologies found on the planet (they're relatively small in scale...barely make up about 2 percent of the planet's surface but that's subject to change...ish), and...it's functionally a whole lot better than the governments here on earth obviously. Sure there's problems and BS that I haven't been able to solve world building wise but Hybridians handle it those problems better than we do I'll say that.

blue - which is your favourite mode of long distance transport? have you ever been on a plane? - if so, where?

I used to LOVE wanting to sail everywhere as a kid...but...eh...not so much anymore. Long distnace transport's gotta tie between planes (cargo planes like the Beluga) and trains!! :D I've been on like...oh goodness...where should I start...I'll just say I've been on at least 7 planes traveling places in my life xD.

coral - which is your favourite disney movie? who makes the better movies, disney or pixar?

So...because of how much I adamantly loathe Disney...it's...kind of hard to say what's my favourite. The one that comes to mind when I think of Disney movies I would tolerate entirely is Lilo and Stitch. Hmmm...I can't really say who makes the better movies tbh...like...if you're talking about their entire filmography...*sigh* pixar only because I'd rather say pixar over 3000 rehashed terrible cgi marvel movies that disney is responisble for (to be fair the only 2...no...3 marvel movies I would watch with tolerance and a bit of fun is Thor: Ragnarok, Black Panther, and Spider Man: Into The Spiderverse...so there...that's it...that's all you're getting out of me as far as movies go xD) thanks for the ask!~ :D ^.^<3

[that-shamrock-vibe]

Disney+ What To Watch: My Top 10 Favourite Modern Day Disney Animated Movies

Alright so this is going to be my list for my Top 10 Favourite Modern Day Disney Animated Movies.

By "Modern Day", I am referring to any movies from Walt Disney Animation Studios starting in the year 2000 up to the present day. Effectively twenty years of Disney Animation that for some people may be considered classics.

I will be including movies that made up some of Disney's last 2D animations the studio is so famous for as well as the new era of 3D animations that seem to he the new direction for the studio.

As always, please keep in mind that my thoughts and opinions are my own and should be treated as such. Just because I rank these movies a certain way does not mean I am saying that's the universal truth, it is simply my truth.

#10. Wreck-It Ralph

I never saw this movie when it was first released in cinemas, however I also never saw a lot of hype surrounding the movie's release or reaction after the fact.

You would think, that because this was the norm movie type that Disney was producing as the noughties primarily tried moving away from the Disney Princess formula and instead tried to convey simple family friendly movies, that a 3D animated buddy movie that dives into the nostalgia of adult kids as well as appealing to younger audiences would be a hit.

Well, I enjoyed the nostalgia factor and the crossover value of seeing all of these different video game characters inhabiting what is literally the same cyberspace. We already knew that the 2D animated movies were contained in the same reality and, while the sequel would suggest that they are linked with the Wreck-It Ralph universe through cyberspace, having all of these classic real world games that Disney do not own the rights to like Sonic, Mario and the like was just a lot of fun to see.

Now obviously the idea of a gaming cinematic universe is currently on the books with Paramount, but the idea of Disnsy having it's own mini gaming universe could be interesting.

The only problem with that is, the only interesting characters are the main four characters plus the villain King Candy.

What that means is that these Easter Eggs of classic gaming characters are either a distraction or simply in the way. But I do understand why they were there in terms of world building.

I also do maybe wish we had some of these other games in action. For instance, when Turbo becomes that super virus at the end and begins deleting the entire video arcade cyberverse, instead of just seeing all the characters gather in the lobby, it would have been great to see maybe Mario escaping his universe or Sonic super speeding out of Silver Hills as it obliterates.

That lost emotion aside, the reason this movie does hit me emotionally is one scene when Disney Pure pull a Disney Pixar move and blatantly and brutally tug at the heartstrings when Ralph destroys Venelope's race car.

I understand why it's done, but it does flip what used to happen in these Disney movies when the liar reveal story unravels and the woman is upset with the man but then the man comes good in the end. It's very tired at this point even in 2011 when this movie came out.

I mean I am guessing it is supposed to put the viewer in the mindset of either feeling sorry for Ralph or disgusted at Ralph so that his redemption is that much better but as a 25yr old at the time of seeing this on a plane journey to Australia, it almost made me turn the movie off I was that annoyed.

I did enjoy the outsider aspect to Ralph's character, and in fact a lot of my choices on this list will be in support of outsiders because that's the direction clearly or indirectly taken by Disney after the Renaissance era.

But the fact he was shunned by the civilians of his game for being the villain but found kinship almost in Venelope who was deemed an outsider in her game for being a glitch was very good. In fact the first half of this movie definitely ranks high for me...but as soon as that liar revealed twist hits it becomes repetitive for me.

As for King Camdy. I give the writers credit as this was a rather genius creation in every aspect except one...the voice.

Now I like Alan Tudyk, I know he's one of the big name voice actors of the last decade and that he voices K2SO in Star Wars who is one of my favourite Star Wars characters...but his choice as King Candy sounds distracting similar to that of the Mad Hatter...because of the characters look as well as the king all you need do is change clothes and they're the same character.

Venelope I enjoyed not just because it was Sarah Silverman finally landing a hit but also because Disney have never really done a character like Venelope. Baring in mind this was 2011 before the likes of Frozen and you have a pseudo princess character who effectively has a glitchy superpower but who is also an outsider and seems to be the mentor of the movie. While some Disney Princesses also have that mentorship role, Benelipe does it in such a way that you don't realise she's the one teaching Ralph the lesson because not even she realises it.

Also Jane Lynch as Sergeant Calhoun was amazing, these characters not only looked like alternate universe versions of the actors voicing them but with Jane Lynch you have never seen her play this type of character before. She's always the comedic whether it be dark or light and sometimes the dramatic but action hero? Never and I loved it.

This was a movie at the time where I had the opportunity to see it for free (after paying for the flights) and I was glad I did. I'm not sure whether or not there are people that still haven't seen it but if you have Disney+ you're in the same boat as I was so I would recommend it.

So what do you guys think? Post your comments and check out more Disney+ What to Watch Top 10s as well as more Top 10 Lists and other posts.