Given this year's lackluster movie lineup and Disney's continued financial troubles, Inside Head 2 seems like a bit of divine intervention. It's not just that This year's highest-grossing movieswhich has collected more than $1.6 billion worldwide. It's also Highest grossing animated film of all time. On top of that, it's a really good movie, recapturing much of the magic that made early Pixar and Disney films so beloved.
But not everyone involved in the project is celebrating its success. long article IGN's report Many of the people who worked on this film actually unhappy We discuss what that success means for Disney's future. They are dissatisfied with the film's safe approach to cultural issues, its rigid creative hierarchy, and the pressure it places on employees to deliver results.
What really bothered the employees was Pete Docter's insistence on creating a “universal story.”
While some of these complaints may seem trivial, they highlight deep causes behind the decline of mainstream entertainment. It's all about streaming platforms, global audience demand, huge budgets that limit creative risks, and even more. The rise of dopamine culture It turned viewers into restless viewers. What's really killing Disney, and Hollywood as a whole, is the rampant immaturity and laziness of the creative workforce.
Almost everyone interviewed for the IGN article complained about the pressure to meet deadlines and achieve goals. Apparently, the producers' desire to make a profit on a project costing more than $200 million was really depressing for some staff members.
Those outside of Hollywood may wonder why this isn't necessarily the case when making movies. Instead of being told that the film has to be a success, some film set workers feel at ease because even if the project fails, it's no one's fault except perhaps the audience. It reassures me that I should take it easy and prioritize my mental health. This is because TV series like She-Hulk: The Lawyer, The Acolyte, or Ring of Power have huge budgets ($225 million, $180 million, and nearly $1 billion, respectively). That might explain why it still looks cheap despite requiring . And it's poorly made.
And there's also resentment towards Pete Docter, chief creative officer of Inside Head 2. Having worked on nearly every successful Pixar film, including Toy Story, Wall-E, Up, and Inside Head, it made sense to cast the Doctor. “So you saw the end result,” one said of the Doctor taking on a larger role. “[‘Inside Out 2’] It earned $1 billion at the box office. That was a direct result of Pete's involvement. Pete is a genius. No one can dispute this. ”
But Pixar dissatisfied people will actually object to this. It's true that Docter had a proven track record and seemed like a relatively good boss, but he was also a symbol of Pixar's reluctance to bring in new directors or speakers, and stubbornly sticking to its own internal culture. ”. ”
What really bothered the employees was the Doctor's insistence on creating a “universal story.” He wanted to make a film that a wide audience could relate to, rather than imposing an agenda that would appeal to a select group.
Naturally, this posed a problem for progressive staff. They didn't seem to have learned anything from the failure of “Lightyear,” which openly featured a lesbian couple kissing. Many on the team were keen to tell the story of 13-year-old Riley, who enters into a romantic relationship with another girl. That's because we believed this was something families with young children would want to see. The Doctor intervened and asked for Riley to be edited to be “not gay,” resulting in “a lot of additional work to make sure no one would interpret her as not being straight.” ”.
As “South Park” memorably pointed out, the novelty of “putting a chick in it and making her lame and gay” doesn't work, and it never did.
The fact that these edits were necessary begs the question: what would have happened if the Doctor hadn't taken over and screenwriter Kelsey Mann had been pressured to make Riley gay? What if instead of anxiety, anger, a decidedly conservative white male stand-in, became the antagonist, trying to force Riley to conform to heteronormative expectations and repress her emotions?
That would definitely have been a disaster. Not because it necessarily offended viewers, but because it was boring and trite. Gay Riley never makes a mistake and always has pure intentions. The only way to counter the homophobic rage would be to lecture him about how normal and natural it is to be attracted to the same sex. Instead of telling a story about emotions going on a journey to work together for Riley's mental health, the film would be a fight between Unger and his friends to free Riley's sexuality.
Out of respect for the queer community, it is nearly impossible to be frivolous about any part of this story for fear of trivializing or misrepresenting the issue and the people involved. The only potentially interesting and relatable character may be the antagonist Anger, but even he has to be censored and redeemed in order for young viewers to understand that he is homophobic. It will be necessary to sufficiently smooth out the qualities that do not have room for.
Perhaps a few people are genuinely interested in showing this type of movie to their children, but most will understandably pass by. Not because they don't care about gay people, but because the movie lacks humor and ends up being boring and patronizing. As “South Park” memorably pointed out, “Put a chick in there and make her lame and gay” doesn’t work—and it never did.
Still, disgruntled Pixar employees will lament, “We may never see a major gay character in a Pixar movie.” Of course, there will be plenty of gay characters elsewhere, but Docter and the other sober leaders at Pixar realize that this approach doesn't quite fit in a family film. They hold on to their time-honored belief that entertainment is not about promoting progress or indoctrinating young audiences, but about telling stories that everyone can relate to and enjoy. It's about uniting people in artistic experiences that speak to our common humanity. And above all, make money.
Until today's creators understand this and adjust their expectations, they will continue to see the industry decline.
