I think I've pissed myself

Buzz cut

Lightyear posterDisney's drive to mine its past creative heights, in place of anything truly original, continues unbounded. This time, it's the turn of Pixar's Toy Story franchise to give it up for the house of mouse. Lightyear is the origins story behind the toy voiced by Tim Allen. And it's the film that Andy watched, sometime in the early '90s, that made him covet his very own Buzz Lightyear.

When Disney inevitably subverted expectations, again, with a same-sex family and same-sex kiss, again—how many times do they have to do this before it stops being stunning and brave?—conservatives and Christians lost their collective shit. Oh, and Islamic nations banned its release in their markets. Who would've thunk it?

Thus, the most significant intimate character moment in Lightyear is when a woman snogs her partner who identifies as absent membrum virile. And this occurs in what is ostensibly a child-friendly film made in the mid-'80s.

As far as I'm aware, the only films from that era featuring girl-on-girl action…well, let's just say they wouldn't have been wearing much in the way of clothing. And Andy wouldn't have been watching. At least, I don't think so: his mother didn't seem particularly unconventional. Besides, any toy named Buzz released as a tie-in wouldn't have been marketed for kids! (wink)

Lightyear opens with: In 1995 Andy got a toy. That toy is from his favorite movie. This is that movie. Except it can't be; the inclusion of a same-sex relationship and lesbian kiss is incongruous to that narrative. Current-day virtue signalling negates the film's primary concept, through the logical fallacy that it introduces into what is supposed to be a thirty-year-old film. Don't any of the creatives at Disney Pixar think this continuity shit through, while they're joining the dots with their crayons? (SMH)

There comes a point when representation becomes forced and over-representative, when DiVeRsItY aNd IcLuSiOn becomes simply an ideological checkbox item to be applied, irrespective of its authenticity within a story's context. But Disney doesn't seem to understand the concept of less-is-more. Everything has to pander to the correct sociopolitical agenda, rather than follow an organic path to entertaining the audience. Simple, straightforward entertainment, what a crazy concept, huh?

For his part, Chris Evans, the star of Lightyear, lambasted critics of the gay kiss, stating: social awakening and growth…that’s what makes us good. This comes from someone in the pay of a company that's complicit in genocide and financing re-education camps, and who is, presumably, okay with that. So, yeah.

Anyhow, Disney's standing firm on the issue: the kiss is in, and it's staying in, no matter what. It's not going to be removed, not even to appease China. If they don't want the kiss, they can't have Lightyear.

At least that was the case, when the film was projected to rake in over $100M in its first weekend at the US box office. Those initial predictions were later adjusted down to $70–80M. So, its actual opening weekend of just $51M, and global total of $85.6M, must've come as sombre and thought-provoking news to the suits at Disney.

Let's see how resolute they are, in the face of disappointing box office receipts. After all, what it finally comes down to is this simple fact: pandering is ephemeral, but money is money.

Buzz's ship on ready for launch
Cool artwork though.

Commentators on social media have attributed Lightyear's poor box office performance to one of two things. Firstly, the gay kiss and, more broadly, a perceived attack on the traditional family and fatherhood, in what is supposed to be a children's film which was released, ironically enough, over the Father's Day weekend. And, secondly, the absence of Tim Allen in the lead role. In reality, it appears that the film just isn't that good.

Whatever, anything that loses money for Disney is fine by me.
[ dances the die dismal Disney dance ]

Note to reader: As you read this, you might be inclined to think of me as a homophobe. If so, then that would be unfair. I'm an ordinary guy who doesn't hate on anyone who just wants to live their best life. Unless their best life is that of serial killer or rapist.

I'm all for acceptance and tolerance. But I'm also weary of Hollywoke's continual messaging and grandstanding. There is, certainly, a right way to achieve representation, when it's in keeping with the narrative rather than contradictory to it. It's just unfortunate that the entertainment industry appears, by-and-large, neither willing or able to expend the effort to make it work seamlessly, nor respectful of what's gone before. What we get instead is the message shoved ham-fistedly down our throats at seemingly every opportunity.

We're not all bigots, and we can appreciate progression when it's done sensitively.