In 2009 Walt Disney Studios released The Princess and the
Frog, its last traditionally drawn 2D animated feature. It made some money but
wasn’t as cost effect as computer animation had become so they declared that
would be their final 2D production.
Another aspect to what Disney felt was a problem with The
Princess and the Frog was that “little boys” wouldn’t go see a movie about a
princess (a girl). Why did they think that? Was it because without a fair
damsel in distress there was no real incentive for a boy to become a hero and risk his life so
there was no clear role model in these films for boys?
Women complain that in
the films of the past the women were all helpless victims waiting to be rescued
by a man (they’re right about that), but the women being in peril was what
motivated and drove the entire story. Take out the need for a male hero by
making the female lead a take charge heroine and why do you need the male
character?
In this “Princess Warrior” (King Arthur, Tim Burton’s Alice In
Wonderland, Alien, Star Wars) genre the male is reduced to the usually
immature, love-sick, or stubbornly macho sidekick or worse yet, comic relief.
He usually grows up during the course of the film to redeem himself in the end,
maybe even helping to save the Princess (who certainly didn’t need a MAN to
help her!). Maybe this is why boys don’t want to see movies with “Princesses”.
If a film is about a girl then it’s pretty certain the boy / man / love
interest is probably going to be an embarrassment to males of all ages. Why
support a whole genre of films that use you as the buffoon? These days you
can’t make fun (or the villain out) of any particular racial / social /
national / religious / political / etc. group and you certainly can’t ridicule
women. So that leaves males. Thanks a lot.
No comments:
Post a Comment