jay stayed on topic but Ashley kept going between Pixar and how women should be better represented not answering the questions at all and i dont think there sexist considering the amount of no humanoid characters they use just sounding like shes trying to get people to focus on something that aint really a problem
Yeah and I like how neither of them mentioned the obviously overexaggerated shape of Mrs. Incredible's rear end. (In fact, I'm surprised they were able to get away with that in a kids' movie even in the early 2000's, especially since they later made a sequel in the late 2010's.)
Whether something is sexist or not is not black and white. It's basically impossible to have anything in our modern culture NOT use some sort of harmful gender stereotype or not have enough female characters. Even if the movie was made entirely by women, it would be practically impossible to not do something a little wrong. Thus, there isn't really an answer to the question "is ___ sexist." You just need to ask the question "how sexist is ___," and that is what they attempted to do. They also spent more time on gender specifically in Ash's video.
As a feminist that also applies to typical gender norms in most instances I agree. You can be a strong female while also being a mother, even a stay at home mom.
Honestly I think the more people worry about intentionally shoeing in diversity the more it shows that we aren't equal, it shouldn't matter if someone is a certain gender, race, or sexuality, if they play the role well than congratulations, they have proved their talent in this industry, nothing else really should matter as long as someone in the films isn't obviously prejudice in some way.
Yeah. Used to you rarely saw a female hero, so I enjoyed seeing them because it made them seem hardcore since it was so uncommon. Now everyone wants it because it's "Sexist" if they're not a female, and so every hero is a female now and it's getting old. But you know what? You can be sexist towards men too, and racist towards whites as well and any other race.
Nate TSO and so so many other movies, yet they aren't good enough, YET, movies with tokens in are amazing, so my entire community is seen as that token character, instead of, you know, fleshed out characters with depth, who go through hardship, whose characters don't entirely revolve around how black they are, how gay they are, how trans they are, they're actual people just like everyone else
Ok, think about this DISNEY- The main characters are usually female with a male animal sidekick and/or prince/love interest (the number of male/female villains are about 50/50 or 60/40) PIXAR- The main character either a male animal, insect, toy, car or human, but always has at least 1 or more sidekick who is of the female gender (With a lot more male villains with 1 or more female) As a woman I don’t care as long as the movies good. My favourite character in the Pixar universe is Frozone because it’s Samuel.L.freaking.Jackson. I do hope we get more movies like Brave done by Pixar but I hope normal Disney animated movies have main male character, not just in live action. I hope people see my point
A). The Bechdel test is NOT widely accepted. B). The reason why objects are gendered is to further personify them, as it makes them easier to relate to to the very vast majority of the audience.
Personification is literally one of the easiest to understand and perform things in the arts, what is so difficult about understanding this lmao 100% agree
I consider myself occasionally non-binary, but I do classify as female if I must. And I definitely totally agree with what your saying. But to be honest, a non-binary person can just look up to both sexes.
I agree. AND the toys can also have a gender because that’s how Andy perceived them. He thought certain ones were boy/girls because that’s how he played with them!
not to mention everything has a gender in french (and other langues like) and she goes from talking about how they should included non-gendered entities for the sake of diversity. So if you want to write a story set in France and then have to include a non-gendered character cause idk there is a talking scooter in it and the SJWs are like no more diversity they you end up just undermining and demeaning hundreds of years of culture just cause someone didn't want their feelings hurt. People just need to let free speech and artistic licence go to be it's own thing and if you want more representation go make it nobody is stopping you. Look and what Rebecca sugar has achieved (even tho the plot is getting kinda convoluted these days..), she took something she knew and made a pretty good show about it. People are always gonna write what they know look at rappers for example most fallout of popularity when they get rich because they don't remember what it was like before, what got them famous.
I think that Inside Out is the most forward-thinking movie Pixar has. Not only is it progressive in its views of psychology and emotion, but its main cast is a gender-balanced team working together. It's literally set in the mind of a girl, showing the deep and diverse complexities of the female mind. All the women in the movie are strong, unique and have set goals and ideals.
Myststorm, it’s possible, I know SuperCarlinBrothers made a video about possible reasons for Riley having male and female emotions. Personally, I think Riley is nonbinary and doesn’t realize it yet, but we won’t know unless Pixar discloses that information.
@@nos5915The emotions in Riley's dad has same genders as Riley's.Genders of emotions are fixed for everyone. Truth be told it's just stereotypes men are angry and afraid sometimes(that isn't a stereotype but whatever) woman are happy, sad and easily disgust. That's why emotions are of different gender
Myststorm she isn’t so stop trying to make things up. It’s just a diversity in cast. Nothing more. Stop pushing stuff on kids movie where it doesn’t need to be
Tell a story that is diverse and good. If only there was a movie about Scottish culture, Danish culture, who knows maybe even Polynesian culture.Brave, Frozen, and Moana. They also have female protagonists.
I totally get why you would confuse this, because we are a lot alike, but as a Norwegian, national pride compels me to point out that Frozen is set in Norway, not Denmark. Honest mistake, especially science it's based on a danish fairy tale, but there you go.
Why would the race or gender of a character make a difference just focus on the story Just think to yourself do you actually get offended by your race or gender not being represented or you think you should because of dumb people on the internet or just in general
I don't like the Bechdel Test. It was never meant as a test. Alison Bechdel wrote a satirical comic strip that was meant to give you a good laugh and make you think about how misogynist Hollywood can be. Then Internet did what it does best and blew things out of proportion, created the Bechdel test and blinded itself as to what constitute a feminist positive movie. So many movies who fail that test have great female characters(A few Harry Potter movies, The passion of Joan of Arc, The Terminator, Watchmen) in them and some movies that passes the test are somewhat doubtful. (Scary Movie, How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, American Pie 2 and Weird Science) All in all, this just isn't a test. It's a fun exercise some people indulge into and it should never influence how we view a movie. Anyone thought of Dory as a sexist character? Nobody? Didn't think so.
Liber Khaos Agreed. I cannot say I ever looked at a movie as a child and said 'hey, how come there aren't more girls talking to each other about something other than guys?'. Nope... I was focussed on the story. Oh, and I love how more of the films coming out seem to have a family base to them!
My issue is what if the film is at an all boys school? Or even an all Girl's school. I don't like that you need to include females (or males) in movies.
Liber Khaos Exactly. The Bechdel Test was a measurement of how much its creator-- who was a lesbian by the way, so having no female-female relationships of any sort in a movie was a concern to her interests-- would enjoy watching a film than its actually quality. As an actual measurement, the patterns of passes and fails are more notable than individual pass-fails. 10/14 (which actually, I think is 10/15 now because Inside Out must've passed) movies failing is a pattern to think about, but it's not so much a representation of issues with Pixar itself but more of a representation of issues with the marketing of media as a whole to that target audience. With kids shows/movies, the mindset is "Girls will watch a show about boys, but boys won't watch a show about girls". A movie or show marketed to both genders will more often than not have a male protagonist, and that's not a problem exclusive to Pixar. And while a lot of writers and producers are trying to break down that barrier and away from that school of thought, it's persisted this long because it does kind of work in practice.
Liber Khaos I think the Bechdel test is a good way to get people to think about sexism in Hollywood. However, if you look at the reverse Bechdel test (seeing if two named male characters talk about something other than a woman) there are very few films that don't pass. In 2013, only 12% of films had a female lead, and women only had 30% of all speaking roles. Personally, I think that that is sexist of the movie industry, and that it needs to improve. Women make up half of the cinema audience, and films with female leads do make money (just look at The Hunger Games for example).
"Why do we give non gendered objects genders in movies?" Uh, why do we make inanimate objects move? Why do we make them talk? Why do we give them emotions? The answer is personification. In movies, we gives these objects human qualities so that the audience can better relate to them and the situation. Gender is definitely one of those human qualities to make them better relatable. Gender, above things such as race, is especially important as it needs to be implied by the voice of the actor.
Aditya Sundaram not only that but you would have to find voice actors, all of them in a movie with non human characters, who would be able to not sound like a man or woman. That's pretty much 90% of what decides a non human characters gender. Does this thing sound like a man or woman?
Not all the way through the video, but Ash said "objects in media", not "objects in movies where they are alive and moving". Which could be the difference between talking about, say, ToyStory, or talking about who a helicopter toy is advertised to. That said though (more to address other comments), gender isn't always obvious through voice acting- see cases, especially in anime, of male characters voiced by women. It turns out it's not too hard to make the gender of a character different to their VA, or to make them ambiguous enough that it causes entire fandoms to break down in arguments.
"Diversity for the sake of diversity is unnecessary" Maybe the conversation around diversity is getting out of hand. If diversity for its own sake is unnecessary, why is it such a big deal? Don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I just genuinely don't understand. What's the end goal, or the golden standard to strive for? What separates "good" diversity from diversity for its own sake?
Well, for example, if you already had a perfect story, but then you add lots of unnecessary characters just because they are of a certain race, gender, etc. They don't add anything to the story, and they might even take away from it if they take the focus from the main characters. Also, sometimes they hire people valuing diversity first, talent second. Of course, if the culture is very important part of the story, or being a minority is one of their obstacles, it is a good type of diversity. For example, if Miguel in Coco was American, it just wouldn't make sense, because the story is about Mexican culture. However, if you added a random group of black people to Brave, it wouldn't really add anything.
Unnecessary diversity is like adding in a character simply because they represent a certain race/gender/culture and don't actually contribute anything to the story they're just there to say 'hey we included a gay person, yay us sorta thing. A good way of implementing things like that is the way Mitch and Cam are done in modern family. I'm one of the most straight guys you'll ever meet but Cam is still my favourite character because he is implemented well, he contributes to the show, is hilarious and extremely caring and is just enjoyable to watch. I also feel a way in which diversity for the sake of diversity could be made is putting in an unrealistic amount of minorities into a show/movie. They're exactly that, minorities. Almost every single movie now has at least one gay/trans/bi/pan etc. character, one character from another race, many female characters in unlikely positions etc. because they're trying to display empowerment, when, realistically, the odds of a black character being in a white group of friends, an interracial marriage, a gay person hanging out with a bunch of straight people, women being in higher end jobs (especially in the financial industry) etc. are a lot less likely to happen. (and there isn't a problem with that, it's just the way things naturally work)
@@stiffcliff4245 I agree and I don’t think Miguel should be American but there were Americans living in Mexico during the 1920s they just weren’t very common
I completely disagree with the message "more diversity is better" in any situation. It's based on environment. If your movie is based in Eastern Russia, you're going to have a white cast. If it's in Central Africa, you'll have an African cast. It also depends on the message/cast pool. If the message is about a specific societal group, you'll cast mostly that societal group (see Wolf of Wall Street). I remember a few months back, a Broadway crew came under fire for an all white cast of a play based in Egypt. Now, this may sound bad, but you have to realize this was A) a preliminary casting, nowhere near the final, and B) their casting poll had very few non-white candidates, and those who were non-white didn't capture the character traits the directors wanted. Diversity does not make a good film in and of itself. Talented diversity is where you find new strengths.
SirRandomMonkey ya but when you're having the movie set in a place where many kinds of reces live ant there is no general race, like America or the UK for the matter, it has a lot of impact over the viewers, plus, it's true that in placed like russia and africa there is a certain race that is more common than the others, but *that does not mean other people of different races live there*, and even if races arn't the minority in question, queer people needs to be shown as well as a norma in one's life.
Maya Edri I get what you are saying but it would still be ok for most cast members in movies based in the US or UK to be white because America’s white population is 77% a high number and the UK’s are almost in the 90’s. I got what you are saying though.
+Hagen von Eitzen plus 100% of the cast was White. what is this the 1900's. it's not like we can just have a good movie without ulterior motives attached to them. I rate this video 0/10 because it is not racially diverse.
It's just the people, just because they are white does not mean they need to throw in a black person plus they don't need to make 2 of both genders to make it not sexist. This is why I disagree with the video.
well you see this is a seven minute video with two people, versus a two hour feature-length film with a budget of a million dollars, so it is hard to use a test built for movies for it
Adding diversity just for the sake of ticking a box would be/is a problem because those characters are rarely well fleshed out, with good character arcs. They tend to show up, dance around on screen then disappear having filled the movies diversity quota, a good example of this is the cliche of the black guy dying first in horror movies. The characters are often just there to pull in left-wing audiences, and so big company heads can say they're good guys, and it's not really diversity. Yes it's better than nothing, yes it can still be better.
I agree to your argument on its face. However, I don't think that if you did opt to make a character a minority it can be done in a way where you feel like it has been intelligently handled rather then just there to check a box. Look at Russell from Up... it's not even a thing, but it's kind of a thing... and he's funny, and he's adorable... and by the end it doesn't even matter... which is in my opinion the point! Ultimately what you look like has little to do with who you are as a person... and honoring the integrity of the character who just so happens to be of a specific race... idk... there is never an easy answer to any of this...
not really. both are not good, but i'd rather have kids that belong to minority groups seeing themselves on tv and smiling about it (even if the character is not the best) than then just having to relate to the same white, straight, male characters we always see on film. progress is not always lineal, but small things can inspire future film makers to divesify their stories
I personally think that the story should be about the story... when you Care more about what the character looks like as opposed their decisions and characteristics that actually is more racist because it really shouldn't be about the looks...
Thank you! I tend to write stuff with some amount of historical inspiration, so yeah if the characters go to some desert with nomadic traders and raiders, it's likely based on Saharan culture, or if they go to a northern coastal area it might have some Norse influence, but other than that I focus on writing the actual story and placing stuff where it feels natural. I espouse the principle of Chekhov's Gun, the idea that if something is present in Act 1 of a story, by Act 2 it should be used. So if the main character is X thing and I introduce a character that is Y thing, I want their to be a reason why they are Y instead of X besides 'for the sake of diversity'.
I think that the Bechdel Test is pretty arbitrary and not always a good judge of whether a film/TV show/book/whatever has enough female representation. If two female characters briefly introduce themselves, but then vanish and the rest of the film is purely males, the movie does technically pass the Bechdel Test because the two-second interaction between the females can technically count as a conversation, and if there was no man involved, then the test is passed. However, there are many films (etc.) that don't pass the Bechdel Test but still have plenty strong female characters, such as many Pixar movies.
@@VixxKong2 That is an instance where a film would pass the bechdel test, yes. I'm not saying if a film sets out to pass the test they can't do it easily. I'm trying to say that it's a misleading measure of 'how sexist' a movie is.
You.. Do know that Pixar didn't just pick Ellen to voice dory just because she's gay right? Pixar didn't just go out of their way to put a minority in an animated film about fish.
Dory was originally going to be male, but when Andrew Stanton went home to write the script his wife was watching The Ellen DeGeneres Show, and on hearing her voice he decided to make the character female and cast her in the role
+Chara Dreemurr Gay is the generic term for one who is attracted to those of their same gender. It simply also happens to be used for men who are attracted to other men.
English is my second language, and in my language (Danish), there's only ONE word for are/is... I'm sorry that I type faster than my brain can think...
Please explain, I’m not trying to attack you or anything, I’m genuinely curious. I haven’t yet looked outside of the Bechdel test, which I don’t think is a fair test. I would look into the ratio of male-female characters, type of story, and the quality of characters.
@@carrie637 There is nothing that indicates that Pixar is sexist. I've been a hardcore Pixar fan my whole life and never once have I thought "That was sexist." These thoughts never cross my mind because Pixar knows how to portray their characters. Characters like Jessie, Elastigirl, and Dory are fan-favorites because of who they are.
WarMachine MI, I agree that Pixar is not sexist, but there are problems I have with their gender representation. It seems like most of the women in their movies have the same personality and it’s the same with the men. There’s nothing wrong with their personalities, but it can be harmful to people who don’t fit into that narrative.
@@carrie637 Art cannot harm you. No painting has ever assaulted you, no film has ever robbed you at gun point (even though some of them might feel that way sometime). I empathize with your line of reasoning here and I don't disagree with where your heart is at, but making the argument that art can be harmful is what authoritarian movements do to supress peoples expression and control how people think. Freedom of thought is paramount in a liberal society and therein freedom of expression must be protected dearly.
Things like the Bechdel test is what puts people off from including diversity in their movies. Include a character based on their performance and whether they fit well in that role, not because society tells you If you don't you're not diverse.
Let's try seeing this from another perspective. From now, start looking for movies where the only males characters with names ONLY talk about women, nothing else, and list them down. Then you'll see how ridiculous "normal" movies are...
@Alistocrat is right. why do we have to make those tests, if someone really isn't fit in the role. Why do we have to change famous characters skin, just for the sake of diversity. I prefer when a movie is more authentic and not trying to change things that doesn't fit with the story. I believe we should push for equal chance not equal result.
Irony since it is probably one of the least gender equal movies to come out in the past few years (without twilight) as it's premise is literally a woman being owned by a man (with twilight perpetuating the stereotypes of women)
People don't understand the concept.... they think that just because it "should be" means it will be, equality is about equal chances, not equal results.
I'm a hardcore advocate of women's rights, and I (and a majority of my feminist friends) agree the Bechdel test is bullshit. 50 Shades of Grey, porno flicks, Twilight, and a series of widely regarded misogynistic films all passed it. Know what doesn't? Mad Max: Fury Road, Gravity, all the Harry Potter movies, Star Wars, Run Lola Run, Alien, etc. There are tons of movies that empower women in great ways but may not fill these requirements. Movies are far too complex to be judged by such a small and silly test.
Adults discussing issues i almost guarantee any child hasn't even considered. When my nephew watched finding Nemo, he didn't care who, what, or how the character was voiced, it just had a voice. I swear the world is looking for reasons to complain about sexuality and gender. So what if an asian bike had slanted headlights. newsflash, most asians have slanted eyes!! is it offensive? no, its funny, if not factual. I for one dont care whos gay, straight, gender queer, or if a character has "stereotypes" in it. Just enjoy the damn film and stop reading into things so much!
It's not a lack of understanding the need for representation, its the fact nothing needs representing in a children's animated film. Taking "inside out" as the example. It doesn't matter that the girl has a mix of male and female emotions, yet the parents do not. There is probably no reason behind it, but everyone saying, because she is bisexual or she hasn't decided on her gender yet. That's just people looking for something that probably isn't there. Wanting their reason to be right for "representation" Its far safer for pixar and any other company to not have gender or sexuality defined choices that could land them in a bad light. Dory the fish being voiced by someone gay has ZERO impact on the film, and shouldn't even be thought about. Dorys voice is a voice, even more so to a child who probably believes the fish really talks, irrespective of the person behind it. The "need" for representation comes from an individual who wants more attention to being different to the normal, or as you put it "straight white male" i'm the sheep of the world, no different stand out features or quirks. Unless you include my polydactylism. but that wont ever be represented, maybe i should start a movement!
No, your very first comment. "Let me guess, straight and white?" when someone says a movie about fish doesn't need representation. That's like saying "Let me guess, you're black?" when someone says they shoplifted from a store. You're enforcing negative racial stereotypes and not to mention being pretty heterophobic. A person's race and sexuality doesn't matter; attacking someone for being a specific race or sexuality is disgusting, sorry.
I'm gay and I like when I see a gay actor voice a character in a Pixar or Disney film. However, only 8% of the population identifies as LGBTQ and therefore it bothers me when people scream Sexism, Racism, or discrimination if a character is not voiced or portrayed as a LGBTQ person. It's a cartoon for God sakes, you don't need to shove your personal agenda down the throats of kids and their parents watching the movies. I get that you want to see someone like yourself being a part of a movie that you watch, but one or two actors from your community should suffice, especially since most people don't or can't identify as such, or simply just don't care. Also, if 10 out of 14 movies past your little test than you should be happy.
Exactly. I don't care at all if characters are Asian or not, or straight or not, or male or not. If they're good characters, then I can enjoy them, regardless of their arbitrary characteristics. The only time these traits matter is in cases where accuracy to source material is something to consider, but even then, I'm not that strict.
Yeah. I completely agree with you. Minorities are by definition, less prevalent, so getting pissed when they are less prevalent in art is simply silly. People try to, basically, Affirmative Action fictional characters and get angry when others don't. It's done with good intentions but is incredibly misguided and not completely thought through.
+Joshua “JJ” Jin The Q stands for Queer which is basically an umbrella term for the rest of the sexualities and genders not mentioned outright in the rest acronym.
+Probably Anonymous I think she did her job so well that we perceive Dory as a real person, so we don't even think to connect her with an actress. Like pulling back the curtain in Oz. Also, though it's great that Ellen is gay and all, I don't think they should make a big deal out of that. Pushing human sexuality problems onto a forgetful fish seems a bit forced.
Screw Frozen being "the first Disney movie to teach girls they don't need a prince"! The girl from Brave(I don't remember how to spell her name)didn't even get married or even had a love interest! Get your facts straight people!
+octoberbaby 14 Except Li Shang didn't really factor into story and only later came to propose her. You could basically cut him out after the training montage and very little would change for the story.
+DINO GOJIRA GUY Bruh, I had no idea......but I haven't seen the movie in years....and the only thing that people talk most about her is her "just keep swimming" line.....and even then I didn't even have the lightbulb go off....
So what you're saying that Pixar needs to buy 2000 dozen eggs, crack them open, discard the yoke , cover their office floor with the shells, and carefully walk on them.
the term Cultural appropiation is racist and stupid. What if Smeone is born Asian and likes cornrows, if someone is born white and wants to dress as a samurai or if someone is bron black and wants to dress a s a viking? Acusing someone of 'cultural appropiation DIVIDES PEOPLE... diferent cultures are to be shared and celebrated not asigned only to their specific etnicities
007GoldenLion I agree with this. A culture doesn't belong just to you. If an American wants to wear a kilt they can; if a Spanish person fancies wearing a kimono, they can; or if an African person wants to decorate their house with Chinese decor, they can. I really dislike the "that's our thing attitude".
007GoldenLion that is totally fine with how you describe it. the problem with appropriation is that when the people who borrow it are doing so not only in a way that is ignorant of the culture without even trying to understand the true culture, but actually doing it in a way that your version of their culture is good while the true culture is "barbaric and evil". this goes with how people STEAL cultures for their own and then demonize the true culture. so yes culture is meant to be shared, but do so that is respectful and try to be correct with it and don't treat it as a fashion statement.
Nicholas Crewse I never see people 'stealing' culture and designating the original wearers of the culture as evil. it's the opposite, if they see a culture as barbaric and evil they do whatever they can to look completely different. IE I have seen a few white supremacists groups and they tell their kids to not listen to hip hop, to not watch Japanese Anime. To only use the same 5 haircuts etc. In some middle east countries they send young men to cut their hair if they don't use 'Muslim hairstyles' etc.
but that is how it is today, and for a small margin of people. also, the stuff that white people THINK that they created by themselves are heavily influenced or stolen from other cultures mostly from POC's, like how country is based on the blue's and how English tea is from india. what you're thinking is how in the imperialism age where the European countries and the US destroyed native culture to make it easier for them to be defeated. also they did take their culture too. England took from india, the US took from the native americans, and rome took from northern Africa. cultural appropriation has been going on for so long white people think all of that stolen culture is theirs! that is so sad.
Michael Puglia I’m Italian and I couldn’t care less. I think the people who get offended by their race or heritage being stereotyped, are just insecure about them selves.
the best way to write someone with a different race/sexuality/gender is to write him/her like any other character.like I don't I'll give an example lets say your writing a movie and you have a lesbian character in the movie just write her like you would write a character who's left handed.
+Spotted Purple I think what Mr Rono was saying is, Should characters in kids movies have a determined sexuality? I personally think no because these films are mainly ment to be for kids under the age of 12 and that is the least of these kids concerns
***** calm down!! How else to the parents have kids? sure you could make the movie have two dads but that would confuse kids under 12... then their parents would have to explain how it all works... again these movies should be based on sexuality, but on other things
Why do you act as if diversity of something of almost no value such as skin color or gender are more important to a character than there actions,thoughts,and feelings
"Only ten of fourteen of their fourteen films passed the Bechdel Test." Okay, only ten. Only. Of fourteen. 10/14. Last I recall, that's a majority, not a minority.
Shadow Wolf Corey it's not a hard test to pass. 4 out of 14 films don't have 2 named female charter who have a conversation that's not about a man. That's pretty bad.
That's not a good system though. The Emoji Movie fails the test and it has a ton of very on the nose feminism references, also someone else said Mulan fails, I'm not sure if that's true I haven't seen the movie in a while, but if so think about that. Sidenote shadow wolf 10 of the 14 films fail the test, despite this films that fail like Ratatouille, Finding Nemo, Wall-E, Toy Story 2, and Up all have strong female characters, (Collette, Dory, Eve, Jesse, Ellie). It's just not a good system
Meh, I'm a feminist and I don't find Pixar sexist at all. There's so many badass women to look up to in the Pixar movies. Disney used to be because that's how it was at the time, but you can really see from recent films, especially Frozen, Tangled and Big Hero Six, how they are changing that.
+FUgoogle feminists are advocating for equal rights. We fight for women, men, and non gender conforming people. Please educate yourself. Also stop using the term "feminazi" this isn't 2008
If you want to know how diversity quotas such as the Bechdel test can impede storytelling, take Up! as an example. There are a total of six named characters with speaking roles in it (by my count). Two of them are dogs, one of them is the childhood-hero-turned-villain, and one is the wife who dies tragically setting the entire plot in motion. The last two are a pair of males, an old man and a young boy. Tell me, how could you possibly get this story to fit the Bechdel test without having to completely rewrite the plot by adding two extra named characters or changing the sex of some of the characters already present? This is what us story-tellers mean when we say these quotas are burdensome.
I have no problem with equality, however I hate the idea that if someone isn't 100% inclusive, it means they're prejudiced. I'd like to write as a profession. Most of my characters are white and straight. I didn't set it up that way to be non-inclusice. I just happen to be white and straight so I'd rather stick to what I can easily relate to over trying to be diverse. To me, there is very little innately different about a white person and a black person (besides appearance) if the character's personality is not dependent on race, then what difference does it make. How different would Lee Jordan from Harry Potter be if he was white. It wouldn't make a difference. Edit: okay, it's been two years and I had completely forgotten this comment and had no idea how much traction it had gotten. Let me explain a few things. I describe characters in whatever ways come naturally whether that refers race, gender, sexuality, etc. varies. I've written characters that are not representative of my own race, gender, sexuality, etc. but for me, the default is similar to me because when you're raised in the US white, straight people are the most common type you'll run into.
I know you commented this six months ago, but I felt the need to point out how you claim you write white characters because you relate to them better but then go on to say a character's personality doesn't depend on if they're black or white. So I feel like these two statements are a bit hypocritical. If you genuinely believe nothing about the character changes but appearance, why not write something that people who don't look like you can be represented in? I understand that it seems arbitrary. But the stories we tell have real world consequences for minority groups. Look at how few directors are female or how few people of color win awards at the oscars or the golden globes. recently we just had our second golden globe winner whose asian in over a decade. Representation matters because it hurts to not see the stories you love and cherish never involve characters that look like you, that have the same background as you, that struggle because of systems put into place against them like they do. In the end the stories we tell shape our society just as much as society shapes the stories we tell, it's cyclical. Currently the majority of actors, directors, and writers are white straight men. There's nothing wrong with white straight men. There's not even anything wrong with a singular movie or story including mostly straight white men. The problem is the trend, which is minorities are being silenced. This isn't done intentionally by most people, but I feel like we have a responsibility as people who have never not been represented to take a risk, educate ourselves, and do better when it comes to representation.
owls Personally, I am not going to change the way I feel my story work out in my head just to satisfy some arbitrary rule made by people who care about the wrong thing. Nor, will I change the way my story works for the sake of race. My story is mine, and anyone that says that is inadequate for subjective reasons can deal with it. Not saying I disagree with your points about diversity, but that I disagree with any story that doesn't pass some test being considered worse than one that caters to the test and looses the story.
Michael Fort I don't think that they were trying to say that things had to be in that 100%. Being inclusive is nice, and of course much appreciated, but I don't think the intent of the video was to demand that things be 100% pc 24/7. No, they stated it was hard to make things non offensive, of course, but they never said directly that it had to be PC all the way.
I agree! I'm making a tv show project as part of a media studies course and when I was making the characters I didn't factor race in until I was designing their physical appearance because, as you rightfully stated, race is purely skin colour and possibly language. I didn't see the point in making some stupid highlight on "this character's actually gay" or "this character is native American" or anything along those lines if they didn't affect any of the plot (it won't in terms of this project because I only have to construct a trailer and pilot episode so these topics won't be covered until I work on it privately, away from school). It seems pointless to force race into someone's face when they can see their appearance and most likely don't care about it. Race and diversity shouldn't be the most important thing about a character because they barely affect them. However, most of my characters are pretty diverse which either happens randomly through what I imagine them to look like or considering cosplay options (I like to make it so that the audience can relate somewhat to a character through personality or look like one enough to be able to cosplay as one easily... mainly bc of my own struggles when finding a character to cosplay as).
Preach! I myself am a straight white female, so a lot of my characters end up being straight white females because I don't want to make mistakes portraying other races or sexualities. (Since I write shitty fan fictions, that's probably why yay me.) I've not been writing for long, and don't have much practice as I find it hard to focus on one story at a time, yet if I did make a character be another race, I'd research the shit out of it.
+Broguy the Shy Guy Some people don't have as thick skin or the same sense of humors. While I personally find stereotypes funny myself. But...I'm kinda politically incorrect sooo...there's that.
my sister hates stereotypes, I don't mind them, the only problem is they end up doing the same things and the personality runs dry, also the character can seem bland. but apart from that I don't mind them that much.
+Broguy the Shy Guy ... wait wait, are you saying that you have a hard time understanding that there are different people how react differently??? MY god
+Broguy the Shy Guy I agree ... It used to be that stereotypes were based on real or more likely perceived truths and exaggerated by ignorance, fear and/or hatred; now, I am more inclined to believe that people are actually taking on stereotypical behavior because it is easier than creating an individual identity ... This is my personal opinion based on my person life experience. I know I have stereotypical qualities, some very real other effected, but I am also truly me so I just don't get worked up over stereotypes as much as others.
She just has that feminist dialect, I swear. There's a certain tone of voice that immediately gives away that i'm not going to enjoy listening to this person.
humans are the only species that have a problem with gay things, things of different races, and things of different gender, so a fish can be gay with no one (besides humans) giving a single shit about it. so, a lot a fish you see are most likely gay.
This is the worst period in history to be a white, heterosexual male. Sure, everything used to be catered to us before I was born, but now it's all about making everyone that isn't a white heterosexual male happy. Don't get me wrong, I believe in equality for everyone. I just can't help, but feel like who I am and what I like is constantly under some kind of scrutiny or criticized for not catering to everyone else enough. Yet, movies that are specifically about those things are never questioned for not having anything to relate with white, straight men. You can't fight discrimination, with discrimination.
I'm glad you made this video (in fact, I like all these videos), but I just wanted to say something real quick: There is sexism everywhere against both men and women. It's pretty good in the US as opposed to places like Iran where you could get stoned to death as a female for messing something up at work. But since women's rights have raised rather significantly....when will we start focusing on the guys? Don't get me wrong, I'm a girl (hence the username), but we don't need female-focused equality any more than male equality now, nor do we need either as much as other countries that aren't as developed. Back to male equality: for example, I really hate it when people say "men cannot cry." They obviously can. Besides, crying is pretty important: otherwise, we probably wouldn't still do it. Tears help you way more than you might think, so it's pretty stupid to tell people they're not allowed to use their own body. I'll stop there, but I think you should make a video about this too
+Elsa Robison I 100% agree with you, but the truth is women have many more rights then men and still dont have to do all the same stuff for example Male turns 18 he has to sign up for selective service Female turns 18, nope nothing Female accuse someone of raping her, the guys arrested and tossed into jail, many times without any proof on the females part. Male claims he was raped, the male is laughed at and seen as a lying, and told males can't be raped by women. I'll make it very clear a male can be raped by a women, so guys dont make my mistake never trust a female whos says they are a friend and invites you over for the night or you might end up with them on top of you while you sleep. ~these references are from my own personal life so if you try to tell me i'm wrong that's fine but i'll just laugh at you~
+Kenn Senn you are definitely right. I always try to stay in the neutral/open-minded section (as you are) because, well, it's the only way you ever learn - without pissing everyone off. I've noticed that no matter what, no matter what you are, you're going to be made fun of or even given less rights for just being born or feeling a certain way. I just look forward to the future \( :/ )/
+Kenn Senn I agree men can totally be raped by both men AND women. The sad reality of it is while there is little to no support for male rape victims, and this is a huge problem that needs to be resolved, females do get raped a lot more often than men and often the rapists run free there are some cases where after rape the female victim got pregnant and the rapist fought for custody of the child and won.
+NotTombRaider I think The Good Dinosaur will certainly be added. Dinosaurs were around before humans so it is probably first putting Brave in second place
+Robyn Bevkford I don't think the story of Inside out itself can be in the Pixar theory but maybe some of the characters, side characters and background characters pop up in other movies and can help with the theory
this was a really good discussion about diversity and representation. very thought out. something i will add is that while passing the beechdel test is a plus for female representation, it does not automatically make it good female representation example while mulan fails this test and twilight passes it, one is about female empowerment and the other is about romanticizing sexual predators to woman as viable romantic partners. as you said diversity for the sake of diversity doesnt automatically make it good. some consideration is needed as well
@Kat Actually no, now that I think about it. When we first meet her mom and grandmother, they are getting her ready to meet the matchmaker, then at dinner she is silent until she blows up at her father. So they really don't talk about anything else with her.
Here's a question for you: Why do we need to have stuff shoved in our face all the time? I mean, is it possible that the reason why it seems to be a problem is because it keeps being rehashed and made into a problem, when its not? Men and women are different, and always will be. Similarly with people who have inherited traits. Does that mean that they should be treated any less or any more? No! But making people have to worry about it is creating a problem were there isn't one. Don't force a girl where there should be a guy, or a gay or lesbian where it doesn't make sense. If the writer feels that it advances the story, then good for them. But don't force it down my throat because you feel the need to satisfy some imaginary "diverse culture" chart.
Jessie is one of my fave gender role breaking female characters. She is compassionate yet adventurous. She loves animals and fights for what is right instead of just sitting and chillin. Not only does she break gender roles, she is an example of a person who is a doer. Helping Buster go potty, staying with the animals in the old timey cartoon to comfort the shows that she does not let people and animals sit there and suffer, but helps them. She is compassionate yet strong, which is why she is one of my favorite characters of all time.
She obviously loves Bullseye and in the old black and white woody's round up gang cartoons, she talks to the animals. She also helps Buster get to the bathroom in one of the movies.
I like how this test could declare many historic movies sexist. Try to remember a WWII film that would pass, sometimes it is just the way a story goes.
Well I mean, a movie about WWII is not something they can warp to include more women because that's just what happened like you said, however as an animation, the creators have complete control over the concepts and the diversity and they can warp it because it's not based on a prior event :)
+Haley Sim I know, I just don't think the test really indicates whether it's sexism. I mean do you really think that they are trying to put women down with these movies? I'm sure there are movies that are very sexist and also pass the test, it is just some arbitrary box to be checked
The fact is that most movies have male main characters because we consider male the default gender and the one that's easiest to identify with at a glance. And, since most movies have male main characters, it makes sense that most films would focus ON that character and their journey or the plot around them instead of on any female side characters that, as side characters, are less of the focus of the story. For example, Olaf never talks to the reindeer in Frozen, the guy in The Little Mermaid never talks to another man, no members of the group in The Wizard of Oz ever really talk to eachother unless Dorthy is involved or potentially related to the conversation, and so on and so forth. This doesn't make the films bad representations of men, snowmen, reindeer, or whatever side character, it's just that those things just happen to not be the main character in their own story so they don't get as much focus because films are inherently limited in how many scenes they can have. If anyone's wondering why the test is so broken, that's pretty much why.
People that complain about filming industry pisses me off, who the fuck cares if the actor is a specific color, gender, gay or not. Just watch the damn movie and enjoy it.
It's like how people complain that Hollywood is " whitewashing" when the country is predominantly white. But white people don't make a fuss when they blackout white characters. For instance Lawrence fishburn in man of Steel his character is white in the comics but you didn't hear us cry about it we say back and watched a shitty movie
also have you noticed most people who complain about sexism in this stuff only complains about sexism against women mainly, but nobody mentions sexism against a man
Am I the only one that think the Bechdel test is kinda unnecessary? I mean, if no two female characters talk to each other, that doesn't mean it isn't equal, and it definitely doesn't mean it's sexist. I'm a girl myself, and I don't mind at all. *shrugs* and if Dory just happens to come across a female fish, talks to her. Does that make it more diverse...? No...
It's better for showing a trend than for judging a particular movie. It doesn't say much about a movie's attitude toward women, but the fact that there are so many movies that don't pass is probably an issue.
You don't mind because we're used to movies being like this (either too less female roles or other reasons). Let's try seeing this from another perspective. From now, start looking for movies where the only males characters with names ONLY talk about women, nothing else, and list them down. Then you'll see how ridiculous "normal" movies are...
Terk from Tarzan! She’s great for pushing female gender norms, and I really appreciate Disney creating a character like that, as I don’t fit into the box of typical female actions.
I remember being confused about the gender of this character, and when I realised she was a woman it kinda felt good to see a tomboyish character, I felt a bit more represented.
princess hasbro really “all races should be in a movie”? in the same movie? in every movie? how would that be accurate to real life? do you interact with ALL races on a daily basis?
There less Mexican characters than black and white !!!! This is an outrage!!! Nah, I'm just kidding, I don't care. For me as a kid I didn't care if all the people in a movie were white, black, asian, or anything, I just wanted to watch the fricking cartoon! Of course people are going to get offended because there will always be at least one person who isn't happy and that won't change. People need to chill. I hardly see Indians (india), Samoans, hispanics, asians, mixed people, etc. in movies and most of them aren't complaining I think, with the exception of the blacks and whites. Let me watch my cartoons in peace!!!!
The 'males in chick flicks' test 1) there must be a realistic portrayal of two men who aren't dicks, eye candy, comic relief, love interests, gay friends, insanely perfect or evil. 2) They must have names and lines not about love. 3) They need to drink alcohol and watch any unisex or male TV/movie.
I'm sorry but the Bechdel test is absolute bullshit when applied to things like Wall-E and Finding Nemo. There's only two main characters in those (Marlin & Dory, Wall-E and EVE) and forcing in another female character just for the sake of passing the Bechdel test would ruin the dynamic of those characters.
Mate, the bechdel test isn't just for main characters, it's for ANY speaking character with a name. No-one needs to 'force' a female character into the story - each story includes multiple characters necessary to the plot (even if it's just giving lost fish directions) and yet they end up being male even when gender is not relevant to their role. In film, being male is considered the default, the 'norm'. The point is that we should be addressing unconscious bias in story telling. The world consists of just over 50% females, but in Pixar female characters only represent 30% of the world.
Why is this important? I don't care about diversity as long as the content is enjoyable. If they just bring in diversity for the sake of diversity that would be bad story-telling. I'd rather be not represented at all than be represented by a 2 dimensional, undeveloped, stereotypical character. If they create great characters with lots of diversity that actually portray real life well and are relatable, that's awesome, but otherwise, I'm fine with how they are now.
I don't use the Bechdel test. My test is: is it a good movie and do I enjoy it? Most Pixar movies passed. I don't care what gender or race a character is, as long as it's a good character that I can relate to.
Was it a male balloon? If so, make sure to see a female balloon too. Was it a white balloon? In that case make sure to see a black balloon as well. Was it a straight balloon? Make sure you get to see a gay balloon some time today. Otherwise people will call you sexist, racist and intolerant hater.
Why does it matter? Isn't giving the issue this much attention just make it worse? Sorry I come from a country where no one gives a shit if someones is black 'yellow' brown or white, nor we care about gay people, at the end I can't understand the americans at all ._.
These are movies kids will watch. If they are more diverse and aren't sexist kids will pick up on that and therefore they will be more accepting towards diverse cultures and races and possibly not be sexist.
+Alex W Actually, kids do understand, and that's precisely why diversity is important to show them. Kids can tell when groups of people are being treating differently or when they are shown doing different roles. They can even tell what group they belong to early on (they even know what gender they are considered and what they are supposed to do as part of that gender as early as two). Diversity is so important because of that! :)
totally agree, i wrote this random comment on another video and i thought i might reiterate: I've always thought questions like this one make no sense, the point of a movie is to entertain you, a movie is not made to pat you on the back and show you've been represented, the movies job is to entertain you and so if a movie entertains you it has done its job, if it shows a certain minority great thats cool, but it doesnt matter if an entertaining movie doesnt represent a certain group of people because in the end, the movie has its job and shouldnt be asked for more, this does not mean movies shouldnt represent minorities but it does mean that it doesnt matter whether or not it does as long as the movie has entertained people. Also, even if a movie is sexist or racist, then dont watch it, if you dont watch it, the company earns less money and wont make more, if you really wanted to stop those sort of movies being made, then dont watch them and dont talk about them, talking about them spreads word about the movie and so more people will watch it the company will see that and will make more of those movies, if you dont agree with something, then fuk off pretty much, just dont watch it and dont tell other people about it. it is not the companies job to teach kids whats right and wrong, it is their job to entertain the people watching the movie and get money and make more. EDIT: and just a final note about how brave promotes gendered roles, its set in the dark ages, in scotland, its not sexism its accurate portrayal of historical norms, although the rest of that movie isnt historically accurate, but meh, they tried. its like watching an anti-gay ad from the 1930s and applying modern logic to it, it doesnt work like that, you cant apply modern logic to things created without modern logic because thats just kinda unfair
I felt like I was watching a video about Tumblr. Diversity for the sake of it almost always is a bad idea, because it always feels forced. You can usually tell when a company who makes movies or other forms of entertainment have diversity for the sake of diversity. If it makes sense for the story, then go for it!
"A waist of time"= Hourglass figure Hourglass figure= what some women want A woman is in this video... Woman has 5 letters and so does "Super" which is the first word in your username ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED
The Bechdal test is a rubbish measure of how well a piece of media treats women on its own. Plenty of films with respected, kick ass, nuanced female characters don't pass it. The worst thing about it is it implies males and females cannot be in platonic/friendship relationships. That in order to be not about wanting a/the man, the conversation must be between two women and that a inter sex/gender conversation has to have a romantic motivation. It also ignores gay people of any gender/sex....
What the hell are you talking about? The Bechdel test is to determine women representation. If all the female characters are nameless, then women aren't represented. If the only things females ever talk about is males, then women aren't represented. A named female asking another named female about the weather is enough to pass that fucking test. It is a bare minimum test. The only way a film can fail the Bechdel test and still be ok is if there are no named males talking to named males about anything other then females. Equality is equality.
Ireallyreally Hategoogle How is it sexist if movies don't represent women? I mean sure if it is a thought out effort to not include women in the movies then yeah that is sexist but apart from that I don't see how not meeting a diversity quota is sexist.
I am familiar with what the rules of the test are. I just don't see it as particularly useful. Also, it was originally conceived as a semi joke in a comic strip and people have made it into this major, be all and end all piece of feminist theory. While I think representation is important I also think its important not to have people's creative choices constrained by that. I refer you to my original comment for my valid reasons...
Umm have you seen Pitch Perfect? The movie is so sexist towards men. It paints us as mean douchebags that wanna use women. Think about it, the entire story is basically defeating their male counterparts. But nobody bats an eye at that. But if the roles were reversed, it would be a huge deal.
Much of the racism and sexism has shifted from one group to another. White man kills a black man: all over the news Black man kills a white man: nobody cares (this is just one example, i couldn't really think of any more at the moment)
+TylerStanleyFitness Pitch Perfect is a good example of a movie that is supposedly inclusive and feminist. Although I won't speak on the feminist issue (that is a delicate topic on the internet) I will say that I agree with your statement about the lack of understanding the characters, both male and female. With the exception of Jesse (who's main character trait is just being charming and persistent) all the guys are very one sided, most of them very similar (with the exception of Benji who is supposed to be a joke). All the women in the movie are a variety of harmful, unoriginal and frankly not funny stereotypes. So I completely agree with you Tyler
Welp, that rule about two female characters isn't okay. Movies can be about anything. What if a movie features, I dunno, an old war? You just can't fit female characters there. And even if you did, they also ask you to have character development on them? -Sorry, but that's BS-
It's not a 'Rule', it's a measure of the writers understanding of women. No one said it should be a rule. Assuming I'm thinking of the correct era, the WWI & WWII had army nurses. And Britain had the 'Women's Royal Naval Service' for example. You could have a primarily female cast, you'd just be telling a very different story, but I think that is the point. A holistic film of such wars would at least give you a scene.
@@Dialethian "you'd just be telling a very different story" Shouldn't story be the most important thing? If I want to watch an inspiring story of the Invasion of Europe on D-day, the last thing I want is for it to cut away to some Women talking
@@charlesevanshughes3638 I don't think historical accuracy diminishes the potency of a story. What if once of those Women were, for example, Nancy Wake? The Gestapo's most wanted person with a 5-million-franc price on her head. She reportedly led the Maquisards, 7000 French men and women who rebelled against France's annexation and stood against a much larger number of German soldiers with minimal casualties (killing a large number of the opposing force) in a spartan effort. She even parachuted into occupied territory. Does this not sound inspiring?
@@Dialethian I would love to see a movie like that. I just don't want that crammed into a movie about say, D-Day. If Wake played a large role in D-Day, which she didn't, than it would be fine to put her there. And historical accuracy, while not completely necessary, is important. If you were watching a movie about the American Revolution, you wouldn't want a squadron of fighter pilots appearing during the Battle Of Saratoga, even if it did make a cool moment.
Honestly I know I'm expected to care about representation in the media, but most of the time I just don't. As a child I felt connected to all kinds of characters; the anthropomorphic animals in Looney Tunes, Arthur, and Disney cartoons (like Winnie the Pooh, and 101 Dalmatians), the caucasian characters like Harper (from Wizards of Waverly Place), Numbah Four (from Codename:Kids Next Door), and _especially_ Ariel (The Little Mermaid), along with those that actually looked like me (black female characters), such as Tia in "Sister, Sister", Keesha (from the Magic School Bus), and Penny Proud. It never bothered me that the characters didn't look like, live like, dress like, or even weren't the same sex as me. And for the most part it still doesn't. I get why it's a big deal when sex or race (or even sexuality) get in the way of actors and such trying to get jobs, but I don't get trying to make it a big deal for kids. I'm fairly confident that there are many people like me in the way that if no one had pointed out to them that their race or sexuality was underrepresented in the media, then they probably wouldn't have noticed. I guess as I get older race just doesn't matter to me. I see it, of course, and I know that my race _has_ become part of my identity, but it's really just another fact about a person that I am getting to know, it has nothing to do with who they are. Nationality on the other hand...
this went from is Pixar sexist to is Pixar racist in about 2 minutes
Yeah
Gemma Johansen I love the shit out of this channel, but this is super cringe
i know right
Well pixar is sexist i dont think anyone needs to get convinced on that
Oo K what no it's not. It portrays female characters just as well as it portrays male characters.
This video went from 'Is Pixar sexist' to 'Is Pixar racist' in about 1.5 minutes
+KittenKindness no not usually. Like, ever.
+KittenKindness it's just the girl going off topic
agreed
+Victor Ugo yup
And back in 5 minutes.
Am I the only one who realised that im pretty sure they didn't even answer the original question which is Is Pixar Sexist
No
jay stayed on topic but Ashley kept going between Pixar and how women should be better represented not answering the questions at all and i dont think there sexist considering the amount of no humanoid characters they use just sounding like shes trying to get people to focus on something that aint really a problem
Yeah and I like how neither of them mentioned the obviously overexaggerated shape of Mrs. Incredible's rear end. (In fact, I'm surprised they were able to get away with that in a kids' movie even in the early 2000's, especially since they later made a sequel in the late 2010's.)
BadPiggies 9 I mean there’s really nothing wrong with it
Whether something is sexist or not is not black and white. It's basically impossible to have anything in our modern culture NOT use some sort of harmful gender stereotype or not have enough female characters. Even if the movie was made entirely by women, it would be practically impossible to not do something a little wrong. Thus, there isn't really an answer to the question "is ___ sexist." You just need to ask the question "how sexist is ___," and that is what they attempted to do. They also spent more time on gender specifically in Ash's video.
I don't think a character needs to break gender norms to be a strong character
As a feminist that also applies to typical gender norms in most instances I agree. You can be a strong female while also being a mother, even a stay at home mom.
Odd_Thoughts may I ask why?
sherbetpie They aren't saying thar
See, that's where I am. I'm about equality and strong women
Yeah I mean it's a kids movie
When the female clownfish dies, the male becomes a female
Marlin broke the rules of nature
dosent the father/mother mate with its babies after the mother dies?
I thought only happened when the male got too large. Wait...isn't Marlin's wife still slightly smaller than him?
DOUBLE KILL!
+Henrique Carballo Aranha imagine if nemo became a girl
this is a kids movie.
+Henrique Carballo Aranha Its a movie about frickin talking fish!
I think we ll live
Honestly I think the more people worry about intentionally shoeing in diversity the more it shows that we aren't equal, it shouldn't matter if someone is a certain gender, race, or sexuality, if they play the role well than congratulations, they have proved their talent in this industry, nothing else really should matter as long as someone in the films isn't obviously prejudice in some way.
Yeah. Totally agree with you.
Yeah. Used to you rarely saw a female hero, so I enjoyed seeing them because it made them seem hardcore since it was so uncommon. Now everyone wants it because it's "Sexist" if they're not a female, and so every hero is a female now and it's getting old. But you know what? You can be sexist towards men too, and racist towards whites as well and any other race.
What a great point, this needed to be pointed out.
I agree
This, right here, and the few comments after it. Pure genius.
Sitting here after Coco and just being like well there you go then.
Nate TSO and so so many other movies, yet they aren't good enough, YET, movies with tokens in are amazing, so my entire community is seen as that token character, instead of, you know, fleshed out characters with depth, who go through hardship, whose characters don't entirely revolve around how black they are, how gay they are, how trans they are, they're actual people just like everyone else
Nate TSO I was thinking the same!
Lol
Anyone here after the Soul trailer
Jayrich 03 yup
Ok, think about this
DISNEY- The main characters are usually female with a male animal sidekick and/or prince/love interest (the number of male/female villains are about 50/50 or 60/40)
PIXAR- The main character either a male animal, insect, toy, car or human, but always has at least 1 or more sidekick who is of the female gender
(With a lot more male villains with 1 or more female)
As a woman I don’t care as long as the movies good. My favourite character in the Pixar universe is Frozone because it’s Samuel.L.freaking.Jackson. I do hope we get more movies like Brave done by Pixar but I hope normal Disney animated movies have main male character, not just in live action.
I hope people see my point
So.... when are you gonna talk about sexism?
Nick Papadopoulos Like really thier just talking about stereo typing
so, shouldn't this video be called "is pixar prejudiced"? that feels like a more accurate title
"sexist" get's more views than "prejudiced".
I can see what you mean
5:25
A). The Bechdel test is NOT widely accepted.
B). The reason why objects are gendered is to further personify them, as it makes them easier to relate to to the very vast majority of the audience.
Personification is literally one of the easiest to understand and perform things in the arts, what is so difficult about understanding this lmao
100% agree
catlover12670
Yeah, but if there are people who are non-binary or don’t have a gender, how are *they* going to relate to the characters?
I consider myself occasionally non-binary, but I do classify as female if I must. And I definitely totally agree with what your saying. But to be honest, a non-binary person can just look up to both sexes.
I agree. AND the toys can also have a gender because that’s how Andy perceived them. He thought certain ones were boy/girls because that’s how he played with them!
not to mention everything has a gender in french (and other langues like) and she goes from talking about how they should included non-gendered entities for the sake of diversity. So if you want to write a story set in France and then have to include a non-gendered character cause idk there is a talking scooter in it and the SJWs are like no more diversity they you end up just undermining and demeaning hundreds of years of culture just cause someone didn't want their feelings hurt.
People just need to let free speech and artistic licence go to be it's own thing and if you want more representation go make it nobody is stopping you. Look and what Rebecca sugar has achieved (even tho the plot is getting kinda convoluted these days..), she took something she knew and made a pretty good show about it. People are always gonna write what they know look at rappers for example most fallout of popularity when they get rich because they don't remember what it was like before, what got them famous.
I think that Inside Out is the most forward-thinking movie Pixar has. Not only is it progressive in its views of psychology and emotion, but its main cast is a gender-balanced team working together. It's literally set in the mind of a girl, showing the deep and diverse complexities of the female mind. All the women in the movie are strong, unique and have set goals and ideals.
Although, Riley's team is the only one shown that isn't all-male or all-female. So maybe she is non-binary/trans and hasn't realized yet?
Myststorm, it’s possible, I know SuperCarlinBrothers made a video about possible reasons for Riley having male and female emotions. Personally, I think Riley is nonbinary and doesn’t realize it yet, but we won’t know unless Pixar discloses that information.
Many think it’s because of her personality. But who knows
@@nos5915The emotions in Riley's dad has same genders as Riley's.Genders of emotions are fixed for everyone. Truth be told it's just stereotypes men are angry and afraid sometimes(that isn't a stereotype but whatever) woman are happy, sad and easily disgust. That's why emotions are of different gender
Myststorm she isn’t so stop trying to make things up. It’s just a diversity in cast. Nothing more. Stop pushing stuff on kids movie where it doesn’t need to be
Tell a story that is diverse and good. If only there was a movie about Scottish culture, Danish culture, who knows maybe even Polynesian culture.Brave, Frozen, and Moana. They also have female protagonists.
I totally get why you would confuse this, because we are a lot alike, but as a Norwegian, national pride compels me to point out that Frozen is set in Norway, not Denmark. Honest mistake, especially science it's based on a danish fairy tale, but there you go.
Why would the race or gender of a character make a difference just focus on the story
Just think to yourself do you actually get offended by your race or gender not being represented or you think you should because of dumb people on the internet or just in general
Tyler Weaver Frozen and Moana weren't made by Pixar.
Tyler Weaver ii
Only one of the three you listed are Pixar, and none of those three are races.
OOOh, this was such a fun discussion to participate in! Thanks for letting me be part of this vid! Made me think and learn a lot :)
Are you the one who's trying to ruin Video games and movies? Because you feel they don't care about woman?
Are you the Feminist
why did you use the word queer
***** Because I am a member of the queer community, and like many others I like re-claiming the word.
Jaden Messier No, then yes.
I don't like the Bechdel Test. It was never meant as a test.
Alison Bechdel wrote a satirical comic strip that was meant to give you a good laugh and make you think about how misogynist Hollywood can be. Then Internet did what it does best and blew things out of proportion, created the Bechdel test and blinded itself as to what constitute a feminist positive movie.
So many movies who fail that test have great female characters(A few Harry Potter movies, The passion of Joan of Arc, The Terminator, Watchmen) in them and some movies that passes the test are somewhat doubtful. (Scary Movie, How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, American Pie 2 and Weird Science)
All in all, this just isn't a test. It's a fun exercise some people indulge into and it should never influence how we view a movie. Anyone thought of Dory as a sexist character? Nobody? Didn't think so.
I totally agree. The quantity of female characters shouldn't matter-the quality of them should.
Liber Khaos Agreed. I cannot say I ever looked at a movie as a child and said 'hey, how come there aren't more girls talking to each other about something other than guys?'. Nope... I was focussed on the story. Oh, and I love how more of the films coming out seem to have a family base to them!
My issue is what if the film is at an all boys school? Or even an all
Girl's school. I don't like that you need to include females (or males) in movies.
Liber Khaos Exactly. The Bechdel Test was a measurement of how much its creator-- who was a lesbian by the way, so having no female-female relationships of any sort in a movie was a concern to her interests-- would enjoy watching a film than its actually quality. As an actual measurement, the patterns of passes and fails are more notable than individual pass-fails. 10/14 (which actually, I think is 10/15 now because Inside Out must've passed) movies failing is a pattern to think about, but it's not so much a representation of issues with Pixar itself but more of a representation of issues with the marketing of media as a whole to that target audience. With kids shows/movies, the mindset is "Girls will watch a show about boys, but boys won't watch a show about girls". A movie or show marketed to both genders will more often than not have a male protagonist, and that's not a problem exclusive to Pixar. And while a lot of writers and producers are trying to break down that barrier and away from that school of thought, it's persisted this long because it does kind of work in practice.
Liber Khaos I think the Bechdel test is a good way to get people to think about sexism in Hollywood. However, if you look at the reverse Bechdel test (seeing if two named male characters talk about something other than a woman) there are very few films that don't pass. In 2013, only 12% of films had a female lead, and women only had 30% of all speaking roles. Personally, I think that that is sexist of the movie industry, and that it needs to improve. Women make up half of the cinema audience, and films with female leads do make money (just look at The Hunger Games for example).
"Why do we give non gendered objects genders in movies?"
Uh, why do we make inanimate objects move? Why do we make them talk? Why do we give them emotions? The answer is personification. In movies, we gives these objects human qualities so that the audience can better relate to them and the situation. Gender is definitely one of those human qualities to make them better relatable. Gender, above things such as race, is especially important as it needs to be implied by the voice of the actor.
Aditya Sundaram not only that but you would have to find voice actors, all of them in a movie with non human characters, who would be able to not sound like a man or woman. That's pretty much 90% of what decides a non human characters gender. Does this thing sound like a man or woman?
Aditya Sundaram Not to mention she’s talking about not giving them genders how are you going to do that and have them voiced
I agree, this conversation is actually quite stupid in my opinion
Aditya Sundaram I praise you for critically thinking and coming up with respectful counter-arguments. Thank you. 👏
Not all the way through the video, but Ash said "objects in media", not "objects in movies where they are alive and moving". Which could be the difference between talking about, say, ToyStory, or talking about who a helicopter toy is advertised to.
That said though (more to address other comments), gender isn't always obvious through voice acting- see cases, especially in anime, of male characters voiced by women. It turns out it's not too hard to make the gender of a character different to their VA, or to make them ambiguous enough that it causes entire fandoms to break down in arguments.
"Diversity for the sake of diversity is unnecessary"
Maybe the conversation around diversity is getting out of hand. If diversity for its own sake is unnecessary, why is it such a big deal? Don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I just genuinely don't understand. What's the end goal, or the golden standard to strive for? What separates "good" diversity from diversity for its own sake?
Natural diversity is good diversity
Well, for example, if you already had a perfect story, but then you add lots of unnecessary characters just because they are of a certain race, gender, etc. They don't add anything to the story, and they might even take away from it if they take the focus from the main characters. Also, sometimes they hire people valuing diversity first, talent second. Of course, if the culture is very important part of the story, or being a minority is one of their obstacles, it is a good type of diversity. For example, if Miguel in Coco was American, it just wouldn't make sense, because the story is about Mexican culture. However, if you added a random group of black people to Brave, it wouldn't really add anything.
Unnecessary diversity is like adding in a character simply because they represent a certain race/gender/culture and don't actually contribute anything to the story they're just there to say 'hey we included a gay person, yay us sorta thing. A good way of implementing things like that is the way Mitch and Cam are done in modern family. I'm one of the most straight guys you'll ever meet but Cam is still my favourite character because he is implemented well, he contributes to the show, is hilarious and extremely caring and is just enjoyable to watch. I also feel a way in which diversity for the sake of diversity could be made is putting in an unrealistic amount of minorities into a show/movie. They're exactly that, minorities. Almost every single movie now has at least one gay/trans/bi/pan etc. character, one character from another race, many female characters in unlikely positions etc. because they're trying to display empowerment, when, realistically, the odds of a black character being in a white group of friends, an interracial marriage, a gay person hanging out with a bunch of straight people, women being in higher end jobs (especially in the financial industry) etc. are a lot less likely to happen. (and there isn't a problem with that, it's just the way things naturally work)
@@stiffcliff4245 I agree and I don’t think Miguel should be American but there were Americans living in Mexico during the 1920s they just weren’t very common
I completely disagree with the message "more diversity is better" in any situation. It's based on environment. If your movie is based in Eastern Russia, you're going to have a white cast. If it's in Central Africa, you'll have an African cast. It also depends on the message/cast pool. If the message is about a specific societal group, you'll cast mostly that societal group (see Wolf of Wall Street). I remember a few months back, a Broadway crew came under fire for an all white cast of a play based in Egypt. Now, this may sound bad, but you have to realize this was A) a preliminary casting, nowhere near the final, and B) their casting poll had very few non-white candidates, and those who were non-white didn't capture the character traits the directors wanted. Diversity does not make a good film in and of itself. Talented diversity is where you find new strengths.
SirRandomMonkey ya but when you're having the movie set in a place where many kinds of reces live ant there is no general race, like America or the UK for the matter, it has a lot of impact over the viewers, plus, it's true that in placed like russia and africa there is a certain race that is more common than the others, but *that does not mean other people of different races live there*, and even if races arn't the minority in question, queer people needs to be shown as well as a norma in one's life.
Shaylan Bhundia You're not wrong
Not to mention all the movies set in Asia or Africa that shoehorn in white protagonists (Lookin at you, Last Samurai).
Maya Edri I get what you are saying but it would still be ok for most cast members in movies based in the US or UK to be white because America’s white population is 77% a high number and the UK’s are almost in the 90’s. I got what you are saying though.
SirRandomMonkey Thank you for posting this I feel the same way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This video has only one named female protagonist - so it fails the test?
nice
+Hagen von Eitzen plus 100% of the cast was White. what is this the 1900's. it's not like we can just have a good movie without ulterior motives attached to them. I rate this video 0/10 because it is not racially diverse.
It's just the people, just because they are white does not mean they need to throw in a black person plus they don't need to make 2 of both genders to make it not sexist. This is why I disagree with the video.
well you see this is a seven minute video with two people, versus a two hour feature-length film with a budget of a million dollars, so it is hard to use a test built for movies for it
Julia Torokhov it was clearly a joke making fun of a clearly arbitrary means of determining if a film is sexist.
what is worse though, lack of variety or adding diversity just to tick a box?
i personal would say the latter can be worse.
Adding diversity just for the sake of ticking a box would be/is a problem because those characters are rarely well fleshed out, with good character arcs. They tend to show up, dance around on screen then disappear having filled the movies diversity quota, a good example of this is the cliche of the black guy dying first in horror movies. The characters are often just there to pull in left-wing audiences, and so big company heads can say they're good guys, and it's not really diversity. Yes it's better than nothing, yes it can still be better.
David Cheese amen
I agree to your argument on its face. However, I don't think that if you did opt to make a character a minority it can be done in a way where you feel like it has been intelligently handled rather then just there to check a box. Look at Russell from Up... it's not even a thing, but it's kind of a thing... and he's funny, and he's adorable... and by the end it doesn't even matter... which is in my opinion the point! Ultimately what you look like has little to do with who you are as a person... and honoring the integrity of the character who just so happens to be of a specific race... idk... there is never an easy answer to any of this...
I agree...
not really. both are not good, but i'd rather have kids that belong to minority groups seeing themselves on tv and smiling about it (even if the character is not the best) than then just having to relate to the same white, straight, male characters we always see on film.
progress is not always lineal, but small things can inspire future film makers to divesify their stories
Whenever they say "Hey Brother" I think of James Charles popping up in a dark mirror screaming HI SISTERS
Omg its the show they did Brother and Sister
(Because Ian says Hi Brother and James says Hi Sister)
HEY SISTERS
*AAAAAAAH-*
Lol
Yeah but SCB was before James
Ok but this is much less cringe
I personally think that the story should be about the story... when you Care more about what the character looks like as opposed their decisions and characteristics that actually is more racist because it really shouldn't be about the looks...
mm88deathmatch THIS
So true!!
Thank you! I tend to write stuff with some amount of historical inspiration, so yeah if the characters go to some desert with nomadic traders and raiders, it's likely based on Saharan culture, or if they go to a northern coastal area it might have some Norse influence, but other than that I focus on writing the actual story and placing stuff where it feels natural. I espouse the principle of Chekhov's Gun, the idea that if something is present in Act 1 of a story, by Act 2 it should be used. So if the main character is X thing and I introduce a character that is Y thing, I want their to be a reason why they are Y instead of X besides 'for the sake of diversity'.
I think that the Bechdel Test is pretty arbitrary and not always a good judge of whether a film/TV show/book/whatever has enough female representation. If two female characters briefly introduce themselves, but then vanish and the rest of the film is purely males, the movie does technically pass the Bechdel Test because the two-second interaction between the females can technically count as a conversation, and if there was no man involved, then the test is passed. However, there are many films (etc.) that don't pass the Bechdel Test but still have plenty strong female characters, such as many Pixar movies.
the bechdel test is also not as easy as you might expect to pass, given that a woman speaking to another woman about her son does not pass
@@MrMinermation
But if she's speaking about her daughter, it passes. Just as simple
@@VixxKong2 That is an instance where a film would pass the bechdel test, yes. I'm not saying if a film sets out to pass the test they can't do it easily. I'm trying to say that it's a misleading measure of 'how sexist' a movie is.
@@MrMinermation
So the test means nothing really.
@@VixxKong2 yup
I'm Hispanic I think we need a mariachi car that runs on tacos wouldn't even be offended
With a "Jesus luminoso" on the back, and some graffiti tags on the side. And a strong Mexican accent.
It’s not that people get offended.. it’s that a lot of people think they should get offended for others
Captain Cupcake I think it ran on tapatio in also hispanic
I thought ramón was already supposed to be Hispanic. He speaks spanish at some parts if I remember correctly and he's played by cheech marin.
Kendall Italian?
How about you hire the people who are talented, regardless.
GASP!
Doctor... is that u?
Hi
YOU ARE NOT DR.PHIL YOU HAVE ONE VIDEO I CHECKED!😎😱😡😡😡😡😡😡😡
Are you serious, could giving everyone an equal opportunity possibly work?
Ellen voices Dory!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHAT??????!!!!!????????
OMG I had no idea.
my mind is Blown....
I had no idea she was gay
its true
Really, i knew this since i first watched it. Her voice is so distinct
+Nevaeh A Ramos yeah
+KaptainRogers Are you serious, capitan?
You.. Do know that Pixar didn't just pick Ellen to voice dory just because she's gay right? Pixar didn't just go out of their way to put a minority in an animated film about fish.
Which is the only way to do it. Would be wrong to cast her only cus of her sexual orientation.
Dory was originally going to be male, but when Andrew Stanton went home to write the script his wife was watching The Ellen DeGeneres Show, and on hearing her voice he decided to make the character female and cast her in the role
Couldn't find a good name
Since she is a girl it is technically called Lesbian. Just saying =
They picked Ellen because she's a good entertainer and actor.
+Chara Dreemurr Gay is the generic term for one who is attracted to those of their same gender. It simply also happens to be used for men who are attracted to other men.
There ARE Japanese cars in the second Cars movie
There ARE Japanese cars in the second Cars movie
+MinecraftdSimmer thank you my inner grammar nazi was dying
Sry, I fucked up. Excuse me VERY much, Mister Grammar Nazi...
English is my second language, and in my language (Danish), there's only ONE word for are/is... I'm sorry that I type faster than my brain can think...
***** Hey its fine, I shouldn't be doing that. At least you know more than one language. Most people here only know english
“Is Pixar Sexist?”
*Answer:* No.
There, I saved you 7 minutes and 44 seconds.
Please explain, I’m not trying to attack you or anything, I’m genuinely curious. I haven’t yet looked outside of the Bechdel test, which I don’t think is a fair test. I would look into the ratio of male-female characters, type of story, and the quality of characters.
@@carrie637 There is nothing that indicates that Pixar is sexist. I've been a hardcore Pixar fan my whole life and never once have I thought "That was sexist." These thoughts never cross my mind because Pixar knows how to portray their characters. Characters like Jessie, Elastigirl, and Dory are fan-favorites because of who they are.
WarMachine MI, I agree that Pixar is not sexist, but there are problems I have with their gender representation. It seems like most of the women in their movies have the same personality and it’s the same with the men. There’s nothing wrong with their personalities, but it can be harmful to people who don’t fit into that narrative.
@@carrie637 Art cannot harm you. No painting has ever assaulted you, no film has ever robbed you at gun point (even though some of them might feel that way sometime).
I empathize with your line of reasoning here and I don't disagree with where your heart is at, but making the argument that art can be harmful is what authoritarian movements do to supress peoples expression and control how people think. Freedom of thought is paramount in a liberal society and therein freedom of expression must be protected dearly.
Actually you saved me two minutes and ninety-one seconds.
Ben: Ok Ashley tell us what the bectal test is?'
Voice: "THE FITNESS GRAM PACER TEST IS A MULTISTAGE AEROBIC....."
lol
yes that thing is hell!!!!!!!!!
No, I had forgotten the voice, why did you have to bring it up!
Ben? This is jay!
+Olivia Grant Whomis ben?
Ashley sounds a little like sock from Welcome to Hell....
OMG she totally does!!
Lkn
Now I really wanna hear her say "Hey hot stuff, y'see something you like?".
OHM Y GOD SHE DOES
Omg she does
Things like the Bechdel test is what puts people off from including diversity in their movies. Include a character based on their performance and whether they fit well in that role, not because society tells you If you don't you're not diverse.
Let's try seeing this from another perspective. From now, start looking for movies where the only males characters with names ONLY talk about women, nothing else, and list them down. Then you'll see how ridiculous "normal" movies are...
50 shades of gray passes the Bechdel test.
@Alistocrat is right. why do we have to make those tests, if someone really isn't fit in the role. Why do we have to change famous characters skin, just for the sake of diversity. I prefer when a movie is more authentic and not trying to change things that doesn't fit with the story. I believe we should push for equal chance not equal result.
Irony since it is probably one of the least gender equal movies to come out in the past few years (without twilight) as it's premise is literally a woman being owned by a man (with twilight perpetuating the stereotypes of women)
People don't understand the concept.... they think that just because it "should be" means it will be, equality is about equal chances, not equal results.
Why can't they just make a movie
Because people in social media will nitpick to get an outrage out of minor details that don't even matter
And The Wild Bean Appears this is soo accurate I can’t even 😂😂
Because liberals are grasping at straws at this point
that is exactly what they do now
I completely agree, just MAKE A MOVIE
I'm a hardcore advocate of women's rights, and I (and a majority of my feminist friends) agree the Bechdel test is bullshit. 50 Shades of Grey, porno flicks, Twilight, and a series of widely regarded misogynistic films all passed it. Know what doesn't? Mad Max: Fury Road, Gravity, all the Harry Potter movies, Star Wars, Run Lola Run, Alien, etc. There are tons of movies that empower women in great ways but may not fill these requirements. Movies are far too complex to be judged by such a small and silly test.
What about when Umbridge fires Trelawney in The Order of The Phoenix
Adults discussing issues i almost guarantee any child hasn't even considered. When my nephew watched finding Nemo, he didn't care who, what, or how the character was voiced, it just had a voice. I swear the world is looking for reasons to complain about sexuality and gender. So what if an asian bike had slanted headlights. newsflash, most asians have slanted eyes!! is it offensive? no, its funny, if not factual. I for one dont care whos gay, straight, gender queer, or if a character has "stereotypes" in it. Just enjoy the damn film and stop reading into things so much!
+Ashlina Rose what does that have to do with anything?
It's not a lack of understanding the need for representation, its the fact nothing needs representing in a children's animated film. Taking "inside out" as the example. It doesn't matter that the girl has a mix of male and female emotions, yet the parents do not. There is probably no reason behind it, but everyone saying, because she is bisexual or she hasn't decided on her gender yet. That's just people looking for something that probably isn't there. Wanting their reason to be right for "representation" Its far safer for pixar and any other company to not have gender or sexuality defined choices that could land them in a bad light. Dory the fish being voiced by someone gay has ZERO impact on the film, and shouldn't even be thought about. Dorys voice is a voice, even more so to a child who probably believes the fish really talks, irrespective of the person behind it. The "need" for representation comes from an individual who wants more attention to being different to the normal, or as you put it "straight white male" i'm the sheep of the world, no different stand out features or quirks. Unless you include my polydactylism. but that wont ever be represented, maybe i should start a movement!
Wow, Ashlina's comment was so racist I cringed. Nice way to continue enforcing racial stereotypes. Bitch.
Well then, congrats, you were just racist against your own race.
No, your very first comment. "Let me guess, straight and white?" when someone says a movie about fish doesn't need representation.
That's like saying "Let me guess, you're black?" when someone says they shoplifted from a store. You're enforcing negative racial stereotypes and not to mention being pretty heterophobic. A person's race and sexuality doesn't matter; attacking someone for being a specific race or sexuality is disgusting, sorry.
Every fish in nemo, every monster in monsters inc. every car in cars, not white.
They discussed that in Ashleys video.
How many females?
Ireallyreally Hategoogle A lot. Have you ever even watched those movies? There's a lot of females in them.
True, but they include stereotypes and cultural references.
Ireallyreally Hategoogle Many, but WHO GIVES A FUCK?
Guys... we are gonna have to answer this question by ourselves
I'm gay and I like when I see a gay actor voice a character in a Pixar or Disney film. However, only 8% of the population identifies as LGBTQ and therefore it bothers me when people scream Sexism, Racism, or discrimination if a character is not voiced or portrayed as a LGBTQ person. It's a cartoon for God sakes, you don't need to shove your personal agenda down the throats of kids and their parents watching the movies. I get that you want to see someone like yourself being a part of a movie that you watch, but one or two actors from your community should suffice, especially since most people don't or can't identify as such, or simply just don't care.
Also, if 10 out of 14 movies past your little test than you should be happy.
Exactly. I don't care at all if characters are Asian or not, or straight or not, or male or not. If they're good characters, then I can enjoy them, regardless of their arbitrary characteristics. The only time these traits matter is in cases where accuracy to source material is something to consider, but even then, I'm not that strict.
Yeah. I completely agree with you. Minorities are by definition, less prevalent, so getting pissed when they are less prevalent in art is simply silly. People try to, basically, Affirmative Action fictional characters and get angry when others don't. It's done with good intentions but is incredibly misguided and not completely thought through.
Wait, Q? What does that stand for? LGBT is lesbian gay bisexual transgender, but what's Q?
Joshua Jin It stands for queer, I think. Don't ask me what that means though. I don't know.
+Joshua “JJ” Jin The Q stands for Queer which is basically an umbrella term for the rest of the sexualities and genders not mentioned outright in the rest acronym.
HOLD ON A SEC...Ellen Degeneres voice acts Dory for years i never fogured this out? ive watched the movie so many times! Why am i sucha dumbass😂
+Probably Anonymous I didn't know either.
+Probably Anonymous
I think she did her job so well that we perceive Dory as a real person, so we don't even think to connect her with an actress. Like pulling back the curtain in Oz. Also, though it's great that Ellen is gay and all, I don't think they should make a big deal out of that. Pushing human sexuality problems onto a forgetful fish seems a bit forced.
WHAT I HAD NO IDEA
+Probably Anonymous I had the exact same reaction XD
I found that out like 2 years after Finding Nemo came out… 😂😂
Screw Frozen being "the first Disney movie to teach girls they don't need a prince"! The girl from Brave(I don't remember how to spell her name)didn't even get married or even had a love interest!
Get your facts straight people!
Cartoon High I like the fact the only reason a prince wasn't the hero of the movie was because the only main one was the evil character.
let's not forget Mulan, Pocahontas, and many more
my point was less that they didn't have a prince, and more that they didn't _need_ one
+octoberbaby 14 Except Li Shang didn't really factor into story and only later came to propose her. You could basically cut him out after the training montage and very little would change for the story.
+Cartoon High well, I wouldn't say either was really a good movie, so...yeah.
ashley- “that would be offensive right? *RIGHT*”
me- oh ok there...
am I the only one here that didn't know Ellen voiced Dory???
DINO GOJIRA GUY Yep.
i didn't
+DINO GOJIRA GUY Bruh, I had no idea......but I haven't seen the movie in years....and the only thing that people talk most about her is her "just keep swimming" line.....and even then I didn't even have the lightbulb go off....
Iloverrb just keep swimmin just keep swimmin
DINO GOJIRA GUY
Just keep swimming, swimming X'D
So what you're saying that Pixar needs to buy 2000 dozen eggs, crack them open, discard the yoke , cover their office floor with the shells, and carefully walk on them.
***** Sounds like the plot to a new Pixar movie. Brilliant!!!
the term Cultural appropiation is racist and stupid. What if Smeone is born Asian and likes cornrows, if someone is born white and wants to dress as a samurai or if someone is bron black and wants to dress a s a viking? Acusing someone of 'cultural appropiation DIVIDES PEOPLE... diferent cultures are to be shared and celebrated not asigned only to their specific etnicities
007GoldenLion I agree with this. A culture doesn't belong just to you. If an American wants to wear a kilt they can; if a Spanish person fancies wearing a kimono, they can; or if an African person wants to decorate their house with Chinese decor, they can. I really dislike the "that's our thing attitude".
007GoldenLion that is totally fine with how you describe it. the problem with appropriation is that when the people who borrow it are doing so not only in a way that is ignorant of the culture without even trying to understand the true culture, but actually doing it in a way that your version of their culture is good while the true culture is "barbaric and evil". this goes with how people STEAL cultures for their own and then demonize the true culture. so yes culture is meant to be shared, but do so that is respectful and try to be correct with it and don't treat it as a fashion statement.
007GoldenLion Excellent point.
Nicholas Crewse I never see people 'stealing' culture and designating the original wearers of the culture as evil. it's the opposite, if they see a culture as barbaric and evil they do whatever they can to look completely different. IE I have seen a few white supremacists groups and they tell their kids to not listen to hip hop, to not watch Japanese Anime. To only use the same 5 haircuts etc. In some middle east countries they send young men to cut their hair if they don't use 'Muslim hairstyles' etc.
but that is how it is today, and for a small margin of people. also, the stuff that white people THINK that they created by themselves are heavily influenced or stolen from other cultures mostly from POC's, like how country is based on the blue's and how English tea is from india.
what you're thinking is how in the imperialism age where the European countries and the US destroyed native culture to make it easier for them to be defeated. also they did take their culture too. England took from india, the US took from the native americans, and rome took from northern Africa. cultural appropriation has been going on for so long white people think all of that stolen culture is theirs! that is so sad.
0:33 Wouldn't it make more sense to say "Only 4 of their 14 films don't pass the Bechdel Test"?
Well, you've gotta manipulate the emotions
In cars they already practically stereotyped Italians ALOT, but nobody really cares about that, XD
Michael Puglia
I'm Italian and I just found it funny!!!!!
OHHHHHHHH THEY STEREOTYPED ITALIANS SO SAD! WE BETTER BOYCOTT CARS
Michael Puglia I’m Italian and I couldn’t care less. I think the people who get offended by their race or heritage being stereotyped, are just insecure about them selves.
Right im french and Irish and loved Collette and Merida(technically is scottish but who the hell cares)
Debo Datta the original commenter was just observing that nobody cared when Italians were stereotyped in cars.
the best way to write someone with a different race/sexuality/gender is to write him/her like any other character.like I don't I'll give an example lets say your writing a movie and you have a lesbian character in the movie just write her like you would write a character who's left handed.
+ginga bang 2 why does sexuality have to be a matter in kids movies?
+Spotted Purple I think what Mr Rono was saying is, Should characters in kids movies have a determined sexuality? I personally think no because these films are mainly ment to be for kids under the age of 12 and that is the least of these kids concerns
+Spotted Purple Umm. maybe because it is the norm. At least, the text book definition of norm. That which is most common in a given population.
***** calm down!! How else to the parents have kids? sure you could make the movie have two dads but that would confuse kids under 12... then their parents would have to explain how it all works... again these movies should be based on sexuality, but on other things
+ginga bang 2 ?!?!?!?
HOLD UP. ELLEN DEGENERES DOES THE VOICE OF DORY HOW DID I NOT NOTICE THIS I AM SO DUMB.
.-. Really
same tho, I didn't know until someone told me
Hahaha same! I just learned this a few months ago!😂
I never knew that! I'm soooooo STUPID! I'm such a BAKA!
+Hot Sweet Dog Hehe baka
Why do you act as if diversity of something of almost no value such as skin color or gender are more important to a character than there actions,thoughts,and feelings
Best comment.
because SJW's have totally F'd up society
Why can't someone of a different skin color be shown having actions, thoughts and feelings?
Large Big Brand They aren't saying that
Exactly.
Or maybe just don't concern yourself with the sexual identity of a fish.
Bear McBear MC so much this
you cracked me up with this, thank you xD
What's the real sexuality from the well-mentioned fish!?
2:46 You do know the headlights aren't eyes in the cars movies right?
that´s kinda the point. smaller eyes in a car are complicated to make considering thar their eyes are the windshield. i get what she meant :)
There is a car with headlights for eyes that freaks mator out in the second movie. It's possible.
Azim Alif what about the headlights salesmen in cars 2
Azim Alif it was referencing to a classic Disney Cartoon about a little blue car, I forgot what the title was
yes thank you 🐼
I really like Mulan. She's awesome, but she was actually a general, not just a solider.
In the first movie, she was just a soldier.
+ShadeSlayer1911 she means in real world history
She was promoted to general.
in real life mulan got figured to death and wasnt the greatest person you now
gasps OMG ITS A RED PANDA
Just so you know, Twilight passes the Bechdel test, so does 50 Shades of Gray, its a pointless and arbitrary test of basically nothing
"Only ten of fourteen of their fourteen films passed the Bechdel Test." Okay, only ten. Only. Of fourteen. 10/14. Last I recall, that's a majority, not a minority.
Shadow Wolf Corey it's not a hard test to pass. 4 out of 14 films don't have 2 named female charter who have a conversation that's not about a man. That's pretty bad.
That's not a good system though. The Emoji Movie fails the test and it has a ton of very on the nose feminism references, also someone else said Mulan fails, I'm not sure if that's true I haven't seen the movie in a while, but if so think about that. Sidenote shadow wolf 10 of the 14 films fail the test, despite this films that fail like Ratatouille, Finding Nemo, Wall-E, Toy Story 2, and Up all have strong female characters, (Collette, Dory, Eve, Jesse, Ellie). It's just not a good system
I know right!!!
Meh, I'm a feminist and I don't find Pixar sexist at all. There's so many badass women to look up to in the Pixar movies. Disney used to be because that's how it was at the time, but you can really see from recent films, especially Frozen, Tangled and Big Hero Six, how they are changing that.
***** So am I. Mature.
Thank God! A good feminist. I wasn't sure if they existed. Most of them have very biased logic.
Grey Habeck Thank you! It seems ***** doesn't know the difference between actual feminists and these 'feminazis' who like to man hate.
***** There*
+FUgoogle feminists are advocating for equal rights. We fight for women, men, and non gender conforming people. Please educate yourself. Also stop using the term "feminazi" this isn't 2008
If you want to know how diversity quotas such as the Bechdel test can impede storytelling, take Up! as an example. There are a total of six named characters with speaking roles in it (by my count). Two of them are dogs, one of them is the childhood-hero-turned-villain, and one is the wife who dies tragically setting the entire plot in motion. The last two are a pair of males, an old man and a young boy. Tell me, how could you possibly get this story to fit the Bechdel test without having to completely rewrite the plot by adding two extra named characters or changing the sex of some of the characters already present? This is what us story-tellers mean when we say these quotas are burdensome.
I have no problem with equality, however I hate the idea that if someone isn't 100% inclusive, it means they're prejudiced. I'd like to write as a profession. Most of my characters are white and straight. I didn't set it up that way to be non-inclusice. I just happen to be white and straight so I'd rather stick to what I can easily relate to over trying to be diverse. To me, there is very little innately different about a white person and a black person (besides appearance) if the character's personality is not dependent on race, then what difference does it make. How different would Lee Jordan from Harry Potter be if he was white. It wouldn't make a difference.
Edit: okay, it's been two years and I had completely forgotten this comment and had no idea how much traction it had gotten. Let me explain a few things.
I describe characters in whatever ways come naturally whether that refers race, gender, sexuality, etc. varies. I've written characters that are not representative of my own race, gender, sexuality, etc. but for me, the default is similar to me because when you're raised in the US white, straight people are the most common type you'll run into.
I know you commented this six months ago, but I felt the need to point out how you claim you write white characters because you relate to them better but then go on to say a character's personality doesn't depend on if they're black or white. So I feel like these two statements are a bit hypocritical. If you genuinely believe nothing about the character changes but appearance, why not write something that people who don't look like you can be represented in?
I understand that it seems arbitrary. But the stories we tell have real world consequences for minority groups. Look at how few directors are female or how few people of color win awards at the oscars or the golden globes. recently we just had our second golden globe winner whose asian in over a decade. Representation matters because it hurts to not see the stories you love and cherish never involve characters that look like you, that have the same background as you, that struggle because of systems put into place against them like they do. In the end the stories we tell shape our society just as much as society shapes the stories we tell, it's cyclical. Currently the majority of actors, directors, and writers are white straight men. There's nothing wrong with white straight men. There's not even anything wrong with a singular movie or story including mostly straight white men. The problem is the trend, which is minorities are being silenced. This isn't done intentionally by most people, but I feel like we have a responsibility as people who have never not been represented to take a risk, educate ourselves, and do better when it comes to representation.
owls Personally, I am not going to change the way I feel my story work out in my head just to satisfy some arbitrary rule made by people who care about the wrong thing. Nor, will I change the way my story works for the sake of race. My story is mine, and anyone that says that is inadequate for subjective reasons can deal with it. Not saying I disagree with your points about diversity, but that I disagree with any story that doesn't pass some test being considered worse than one that caters to the test and looses the story.
Michael Fort I don't think that they were trying to say that things had to be in that 100%. Being inclusive is nice, and of course much appreciated, but I don't think the intent of the video was to demand that things be 100% pc 24/7. No, they stated it was hard to make things non offensive, of course, but they never said directly that it had to be PC all the way.
I agree! I'm making a tv show project as part of a media studies course and when I was making the characters I didn't factor race in until I was designing their physical appearance because, as you rightfully stated, race is purely skin colour and possibly language. I didn't see the point in making some stupid highlight on "this character's actually gay" or "this character is native American" or anything along those lines if they didn't affect any of the plot (it won't in terms of this project because I only have to construct a trailer and pilot episode so these topics won't be covered until I work on it privately, away from school). It seems pointless to force race into someone's face when they can see their appearance and most likely don't care about it. Race and diversity shouldn't be the most important thing about a character because they barely affect them. However, most of my characters are pretty diverse which either happens randomly through what I imagine them to look like or considering cosplay options (I like to make it so that the audience can relate somewhat to a character through personality or look like one enough to be able to cosplay as one easily... mainly bc of my own struggles when finding a character to cosplay as).
Preach! I myself am a straight white female, so a lot of my characters end up being straight white females because I don't want to make mistakes portraying other races or sexualities. (Since I write shitty fan fictions, that's probably why yay me.) I've not been writing for long, and don't have much practice as I find it hard to focus on one story at a time, yet if I did make a character be another race, I'd research the shit out of it.
Pixar needs diversity but doesn't need diversity for the sake of diversity?
Wh--
What....
So.... you think that sexism is only towards women? Really?
Yes
(Jk)
+Νικόλ Ασωνίτη I know, that's what I thought. Although it IS generally towards women, but not always.
Mira Meffie
Sexism is generally towards both sexes. Men are as often towards sexism as women. But, sexism towards men an women is in different
cases.
Νικόλ Ασωνίτη yeah
Why are people so offended by sterotypes? I just laugh at them... even when they are directed at me!
+Broguy the Shy Guy
Some people don't have as thick skin or the same sense of humors. While I personally find stereotypes funny myself. But...I'm kinda politically incorrect sooo...there's that.
my sister hates stereotypes, I don't mind them, the only problem is they end up doing the same things and the personality runs dry, also the character can seem bland.
but apart from that I don't mind them that much.
+Broguy the Shy Guy ... wait wait, are you saying that you have a hard time understanding that there are different people how react differently??? MY god
+Broguy the Shy Guy I agree ... It used to be that stereotypes were based on real or more likely perceived truths and exaggerated by ignorance, fear and/or hatred; now, I am more inclined to believe that people are actually taking on stereotypical behavior because it is easier than creating an individual identity ... This is my personal opinion based on my person life experience. I know I have stereotypical qualities, some very real other effected, but I am also truly me so I just don't get worked up over stereotypes as much as others.
I agree. People are so offended these days
Her: talking about a rice burner crotch rocket be offensive
Me an aisan: you have described the cars caracter I never knew I wanted
She just has that feminist dialect, I swear. There's a certain tone of voice that immediately gives away that i'm not going to enjoy listening to this person.
Have you ever seen or heard of a gay fish.
Lol
Fish can literally change their gender, so many humans want this ability too for some reason....
Yeah they love fish sticks (South Park reference)
humans are the only species that have a problem with gay things, things of different races, and things of different gender, so a fish can be gay with no one (besides humans) giving a single shit about it. so, a lot a fish you see are most likely gay.
why yes i am a huge fan of kanye west
When Ashely brought up an Asian car in a Cars, just make it a Toyota
I was shocked by the Frozone and Russell thing
This is the worst period in history to be a white, heterosexual male. Sure, everything used to be catered to us before I was born, but now it's all about making everyone that isn't a white heterosexual male happy. Don't get me wrong, I believe in equality for everyone. I just can't help, but feel like who I am and what I like is constantly under some kind of scrutiny or criticized for not catering to everyone else enough. Yet, movies that are specifically about those things are never questioned for not having anything to relate with white, straight men. You can't fight discrimination, with discrimination.
I don't know what you are talking about my family is from Norway and we don't get shit catered to us.
Your acting as if America is the problem
**plays world's smallest violin**
Not asking for sympathy, just making an observation.
I'm glad you made this video (in fact, I like all these videos), but I just wanted to say something real quick:
There is sexism everywhere against both men and women. It's pretty good in the US as opposed to places like Iran where you could get stoned to death as a female for messing something up at work. But since women's rights have raised rather significantly....when will we start focusing on the guys? Don't get me wrong, I'm a girl (hence the username), but we don't need female-focused equality any more than male equality now, nor do we need either as much as other countries that aren't as developed.
Back to male equality: for example, I really hate it when people say "men cannot cry." They obviously can. Besides, crying is pretty important: otherwise, we probably wouldn't still do it. Tears help you way more than you might think, so it's pretty stupid to tell people they're not allowed to use their own body. I'll stop there, but I think you should make a video about this too
+Elsa Robison You-You're just-Wow. You need an award or something. _Someone, give this woman a reward!_ -internet high five-
Elsa Robison (^_^)
+Elsa Robison I 100% agree with you, but the truth is women have many more rights then men and still dont have to do all the same stuff for example
Male turns 18 he has to sign up for selective service
Female turns 18, nope nothing
Female accuse someone of raping her, the guys arrested and tossed into jail, many times without any proof on the females part.
Male claims he was raped, the male is laughed at and seen as a lying, and told males can't be raped by women.
I'll make it very clear a male can be raped by a women, so guys dont make my mistake never trust a female whos says they are a friend and invites you over for the night or you might end up with them on top of you while you sleep.
~these references are from my own personal life so if you try to tell me i'm wrong that's fine but i'll just laugh at you~
+Kenn Senn you are definitely right. I always try to stay in the neutral/open-minded section (as you are) because, well, it's the only way you ever learn - without pissing everyone off. I've noticed that no matter what, no matter what you are, you're going to be made fun of or even given less rights for just being born or feeling a certain way. I just look forward to the future \( :/ )/
+Kenn Senn I agree men can totally be raped by both men AND women. The sad reality of it is while there is little to no support for male rape victims, and this is a huge problem that needs to be resolved, females do get raped a lot more often than men and often the rapists run free there are some cases where after rape the female victim got pregnant and the rapist fought for custody of the child and won.
This is a little off topic but is inside out gonna be part of the Pixar theory?
It most certainly is!
It most certainly is what? Off topic?
+NotTombRaider I think The Good Dinosaur will certainly be added. Dinosaurs were around before humans so it is probably first putting Brave in second place
+Robyn Bevkford I don't think the story of Inside out itself can be in the Pixar theory but maybe some of the characters, side characters and background characters pop up in other movies and can help with the theory
this was a really good discussion about diversity and representation. very thought out. something i will add is that while passing the beechdel test is a plus for female representation, it does not automatically make it good female representation example while mulan fails this test and twilight passes it, one is about female empowerment and the other is about romanticizing sexual predators to woman as viable romantic partners. as you said diversity for the sake of diversity doesnt automatically make it good. some consideration is needed as well
Amozon28 Mulan fails? Doesn’t she talk to her mother or grandmother about something other than her father or future husband even once?
@Kat Actually no, now that I think about it. When we first meet her mom and grandmother, they are getting her ready to meet the matchmaker, then at dinner she is silent until she blows up at her father. So they really don't talk about anything else with her.
Wait, what if there's 2 named women who talk about another woman? o,o
DibbyDPS ! It doesn't matter
No it doesn't because it's not the exact specific situation
They aren't talking about a man so it doesn't matter
MarMar LikesBunnies but they're still talking about dating
karli Hodge well that's a plus because they're representing a minority
Here's a question for you:
Why do we need to have stuff shoved in our face all the time? I mean, is it possible that the reason why it seems to be a problem is because it keeps being rehashed and made into a problem, when its not?
Men and women are different, and always will be. Similarly with people who have inherited traits. Does that mean that they should be treated any less or any more? No!
But making people have to worry about it is creating a problem were there isn't one.
Don't force a girl where there should be a guy, or a gay or lesbian where it doesn't make sense. If the writer feels that it advances the story, then good for them. But don't force it down my throat because you feel the need to satisfy some imaginary "diverse culture" chart.
Jessie is one of my fave gender role breaking female characters. She is compassionate yet adventurous. She loves animals and fights for what is right instead of just sitting and chillin. Not only does she break gender roles, she is an example of a person who is a doer. Helping Buster go potty, staying with the animals in the old timey cartoon to comfort the shows that she does not let people and animals sit there and suffer, but helps them. She is compassionate yet strong, which is why she is one of my favorite characters of all time.
Comfort them, not the.
She obviously loves Bullseye and in the old black and white woody's round up gang cartoons, she talks to the animals. She also helps Buster get to the bathroom in one of the movies.
see this is where we took it too far
we’re questioning the sexuality of fictional characters
I like how this test could declare many historic movies sexist. Try to remember a WWII film that would pass, sometimes it is just the way a story goes.
Yeah. sometimes it just happens in a story. A character supplements the story, not the other way around.
And everyone was sexist/racist because twas the accepted norm.
Well I mean, a movie about WWII is not something they can warp to include more women because that's just what happened like you said, however as an animation, the creators have complete control over the concepts and the diversity and they can warp it because it's not based on a prior event :)
+Haley Sim I know, I just don't think the test really indicates whether it's sexism. I mean do you really think that they are trying to put women down with these movies? I'm sure there are movies that are very sexist and also pass the test, it is just some arbitrary box to be checked
The fact is that most movies have male main characters because we consider male the default gender and the one that's easiest to identify with at a glance. And, since most movies have male main characters, it makes sense that most films would focus ON that character and their journey or the plot around them instead of on any female side characters that, as side characters, are less of the focus of the story. For example, Olaf never talks to the reindeer in Frozen, the guy in The Little Mermaid never talks to another man, no members of the group in The Wizard of Oz ever really talk to eachother unless Dorthy is involved or potentially related to the conversation, and so on and so forth. This doesn't make the films bad representations of men, snowmen, reindeer, or whatever side character, it's just that those things just happen to not be the main character in their own story so they don't get as much focus because films are inherently limited in how many scenes they can have.
If anyone's wondering why the test is so broken, that's pretty much why.
People that complain about filming industry pisses me off, who the fuck cares if the actor is a specific color, gender, gay or not. Just watch the damn movie and enjoy it.
Exactly
I bet u that the people who make these movies don't even think of this and people are just making all this a video.
It's like how people complain that Hollywood is " whitewashing" when the country is predominantly white. But white people don't make a fuss when they blackout white characters. For instance Lawrence fishburn in man of Steel his character is white in the comics but you didn't hear us cry about it we say back and watched a shitty movie
yeah what the fuck bro
also have you noticed most people who complain about sexism in this stuff only complains about sexism against women mainly, but nobody mentions sexism against a man
Am I the only one that think the Bechdel test is kinda unnecessary? I mean, if no two female characters talk to each other, that doesn't mean it isn't equal, and it definitely doesn't mean it's sexist. I'm a girl myself, and I don't mind at all. *shrugs* and if Dory just happens to come across a female fish, talks to her. Does that make it more diverse...? No...
Snakes on a Plane passes the Betchdel test.
Nitro Indigo The Croods passes the Beichdol test
It's better for showing a trend than for judging a particular movie. It doesn't say much about a movie's attitude toward women, but the fact that there are so many movies that don't pass is probably an issue.
You don't mind because we're used to movies being like this (either too less female roles or other reasons). Let's try seeing this from another perspective. From now, start looking for movies where the only males characters with names ONLY talk about women, nothing else, and list them down. Then you'll see how ridiculous "normal" movies are...
Terk from Tarzan! She’s great for pushing female gender norms, and I really appreciate Disney creating a character like that, as I don’t fit into the box of typical female actions.
I remember being confused about the gender of this character, and when I realised she was a woman it kinda felt good to see a tomboyish character, I felt a bit more represented.
I DONT CARE IF THE CHARACTERS ARE DIFFERENT RACES AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT HINDER THE MOVIE
I care if it helps a movie or setting. Nick Fury becoming black is the best thing to happened to that badass. he looked silly before that.
Sir. Grumpy Pawson that's because your white probaly
Sir. Grumpy Pawson I love other races and all races should be in a movie
princess hasbro really “all races should be in a movie”? in the same movie? in every movie? how would that be accurate to real life? do you interact with ALL races on a daily basis?
There less Mexican characters than black and white !!!! This is an outrage!!! Nah, I'm just kidding, I don't care. For me as a kid I didn't care if all the people in a movie were white, black, asian, or anything, I just wanted to watch the fricking cartoon! Of course people are going to get offended because there will always be at least one person who isn't happy and that won't change. People need to chill. I hardly see Indians (india), Samoans, hispanics, asians, mixed people, etc. in movies and most of them aren't complaining I think, with the exception of the blacks and whites. Let me watch my cartoons in peace!!!!
i agree completely
Amen brother~
Ikr they can't have every single race in one movie lol
same
+terminastrator actually they don't 😂😂 elaborate?
The 'males in chick flicks' test
1) there must be a realistic portrayal of two men who aren't dicks, eye candy, comic relief, love interests, gay friends, insanely perfect or evil.
2) They must have names and lines not about love.
3) They need to drink alcohol and watch any unisex or male TV/movie.
I'm sorry but the Bechdel test is absolute bullshit when applied to things like Wall-E and Finding Nemo.
There's only two main characters in those (Marlin & Dory, Wall-E and EVE) and forcing in another female character just for the sake of passing the Bechdel test would ruin the dynamic of those characters.
Mate, the bechdel test isn't just for main characters, it's for ANY speaking character with a name. No-one needs to 'force' a female character into the story - each story includes multiple characters necessary to the plot (even if it's just giving lost fish directions) and yet they end up being male even when gender is not relevant to their role. In film, being male is considered the default, the 'norm'.
The point is that we should be addressing unconscious bias in story telling. The world consists of just over 50% females, but in Pixar female characters only represent 30% of the world.
Why is this important? I don't care about diversity as long as the content is enjoyable. If they just bring in diversity for the sake of diversity that would be bad story-telling. I'd rather be not represented at all than be represented by a 2 dimensional, undeveloped, stereotypical character. If they create great characters with lots of diversity that actually portray real life well and are relatable, that's awesome, but otherwise, I'm fine with how they are now.
I don't use the Bechdel test. My test is: is it a good movie and do I enjoy it? Most Pixar movies passed. I don't care what gender or race a character is, as long as it's a good character that I can relate to.
Today, I saw a balloon.
:0
TheSwedishViking FUS RO DAH
good for you
0_o what color?!?
Was it a male balloon? If so, make sure to see a female balloon too. Was it a white balloon? In that case make sure to see a black balloon as well. Was it a straight balloon? Make sure you get to see a gay balloon some time today.
Otherwise people will call you sexist, racist and intolerant hater.
I didn't even know Ellen did Dory's voice until Finding Dory came out
i always thought mr potato head was black
Keana Astalos me too
yeah
Keana Astalos me too
ya just the way he talks and sort of the skin colour gives of the effect he's black
i always thought he was Jewish lol
The real question is: Who cares?
Why does it matter? Isn't giving the issue this much attention just make it worse? Sorry I come from a country where no one gives a shit if someones is black 'yellow' brown or white, nor we care about gay people, at the end I can't understand the americans at all ._.
These are movies kids will watch. If they are more diverse and aren't sexist kids will pick up on that and therefore they will be more accepting towards diverse cultures and races and possibly not be sexist.
***** With kids they don't understand and by watching movies that promote diversity and equality they most likely wont end up feeling that way
+Alex W Actually, kids do understand, and that's precisely why diversity is important to show them. Kids can tell when groups of people are being treating differently or when they are shown doing different roles. They can even tell what group they belong to early on (they even know what gender they are considered and what they are supposed to do as part of that gender as early as two). Diversity is so important because of that! :)
totally agree, i wrote this random comment on another video and i thought i might reiterate:
I've always thought questions like this one make no sense, the point of a movie is to entertain you, a movie is not made to pat you on the back and show you've been represented, the movies job is to entertain you and so if a movie entertains you it has done its job, if it shows a certain minority great thats cool, but it doesnt matter if an entertaining movie doesnt represent a certain group of people because in the end, the movie has its job and shouldnt be asked for more, this does not mean movies shouldnt represent minorities but it does mean that it doesnt matter whether or not it does as long as the movie has entertained people. Also, even if a movie is sexist or racist, then dont watch it, if you dont watch it, the company earns less money and wont make more, if you really wanted to stop those sort of movies being made, then dont watch them and dont talk about them, talking about them spreads word about the movie and so more people will watch it the company will see that and will make more of those movies, if you dont agree with something, then fuk off pretty much, just dont watch it and dont tell other people about it. it is not the companies job to teach kids whats right and wrong, it is their job to entertain the people watching the movie and get money and make more.
EDIT: and just a final note about how brave promotes gendered roles, its set in the dark ages, in scotland, its not sexism its accurate portrayal of historical norms, although the rest of that movie isnt historically accurate, but meh, they tried. its like watching an anti-gay ad from the 1930s and applying modern logic to it, it doesnt work like that, you cant apply modern logic to things created without modern logic because thats just kinda unfair
in cars two wouldn't the cars in the Tokyo section technically be Asian?
little Sebastian Michaelis but they were stereotyped which is just as bad as not having them at all.
Nathan Creek that is true but does anyone really like cars 2 to begin with? also the Italian car is a stereotype too.
little Sebastian Michaelis you make a good point xD
Nathan Creek thank you
*thumbs up* it won't let me thumbs up, so don't judge.
Mrs.. Incredible is my favorite and the Incredibles series is awesome. I'm Black. Just to put that out there.
I felt like I was watching a video about Tumblr. Diversity for the sake of it almost always is a bad idea, because it always feels forced. You can usually tell when a company who makes movies or other forms of entertainment have diversity for the sake of diversity. If it makes sense for the story, then go for it!
What a waist of time. People need to stop being butt hurt about everything.
waste*
I wish _I_ had a waist of time! My waist is so boring and normal.
I disagree I didn't see a single waist in the video.
"A waist of time"= Hourglass figure
Hourglass figure= what some women want
A woman is in this video... Woman has 5 letters and so does "Super" which is the first word in your username
ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED
+Xreiii
Wow.
I'm impressed.👍🏼
I was listening... until she said 'culturally appropriating". That's when I stop caring.
Eve from Wall-E. Definitely my favorite. She broke away from her programming proving that we are more than we've been told we are.
The Bechdal test is a rubbish measure of how well a piece of media treats women on its own. Plenty of films with respected, kick ass, nuanced female characters don't pass it. The worst thing about it is it implies males and females cannot be in platonic/friendship relationships. That in order to be not about wanting a/the man, the conversation must be between two women and that a inter sex/gender conversation has to have a romantic motivation. It also ignores gay people of any gender/sex....
What the hell are you talking about?
The Bechdel test is to determine women representation. If all the female characters are nameless, then women aren't represented. If the only things females ever talk about is males, then women aren't represented.
A named female asking another named female about the weather is enough to pass that fucking test. It is a bare minimum test.
The only way a film can fail the Bechdel test and still be ok is if there are no named males talking to named males about anything other then females.
Equality is equality.
Ireallyreally Hategoogle
Why do women need to be represented?
Brock Jones
Because ignoring 50% of the population is not nice and also sexist.
Ireallyreally Hategoogle How is it sexist if movies don't represent women? I mean sure if it is a thought out effort to not include women in the movies then yeah that is sexist but apart from that I don't see how not meeting a diversity quota is sexist.
I am familiar with what the rules of the test are. I just don't see it as particularly useful. Also, it was originally conceived as a semi joke in a comic strip and people have made it into this major, be all and end all piece of feminist theory. While I think representation is important I also think its important not to have people's creative choices constrained by that. I refer you to my original comment for my valid reasons...
Umm have you seen Pitch Perfect? The movie is so sexist towards men. It paints us as mean douchebags that wanna use women. Think about it, the entire story is basically defeating their male counterparts. But nobody bats an eye at that. But if the roles were reversed, it would be a huge deal.
Much of the racism and sexism has shifted from one group to another.
White man kills a black man: all over the news
Black man kills a white man: nobody cares
(this is just one example, i couldn't really think of any more at the moment)
I can't agree more... More and more people are mistaking the definition of "equality."
The world is so sexist
+TylerStanleyFitness If the roles were reversed? Well it would be interesting.
+TylerStanleyFitness Pitch Perfect is a good example of a movie that is supposedly inclusive and feminist. Although I won't speak on the feminist issue (that is a delicate topic on the internet) I will say that I agree with your statement about the lack of understanding the characters, both male and female. With the exception of Jesse (who's main character trait is just being charming and persistent) all the guys are very one sided, most of them very similar (with the exception of Benji who is supposed to be a joke). All the women in the movie are a variety of harmful, unoriginal and frankly not funny stereotypes. So I completely agree with you Tyler
2 girls 1 cup passes the test... great test.
Welp, that rule about two female characters isn't okay. Movies can be about anything. What if a movie features, I dunno, an old war? You just can't fit female characters there. And even if you did, they also ask you to have character development on them?
-Sorry, but that's BS-
It's not a 'Rule', it's a measure of the writers understanding of women. No one said it should be a rule.
Assuming I'm thinking of the correct era, the WWI & WWII had army nurses. And Britain had the 'Women's Royal Naval Service' for example. You could have a primarily female cast, you'd just be telling a very different story, but I think that is the point. A holistic film of such wars would at least give you a scene.
@@Dialethian "you'd just be telling a very different story"
Shouldn't story be the most important thing? If I want to watch an inspiring story of the Invasion of Europe on D-day, the last thing I want is for it to cut away to some Women talking
@@charlesevanshughes3638
I don't think historical accuracy diminishes the potency of a story.
What if once of those Women were, for example, Nancy Wake?
The Gestapo's most wanted person with a 5-million-franc price on her head.
She reportedly led the Maquisards, 7000 French men and women who rebelled against France's annexation and stood against a much larger number of German soldiers with minimal casualties (killing a large number of the opposing force) in a spartan effort.
She even parachuted into occupied territory.
Does this not sound inspiring?
@@Dialethian I would love to see a movie like that. I just don't want that crammed into a movie about say, D-Day. If Wake played a large role in D-Day, which she didn't, than it would be fine to put her there.
And historical accuracy, while not completely necessary, is important. If you were watching a movie about the American Revolution, you wouldn't want a squadron of fighter pilots appearing during the Battle Of Saratoga, even if it did make a cool moment.
@@charlesevanshughes3638 You are correct in that, my bad. I was too focused, I think, on the spirit of the original comment.
The majority of this video was talking about racism, not sexism...
"Meow, I have a hat on..... Listen to me talk" That's the most queer thing I've ever heard
Fr though
Honestly I know I'm expected to care about representation in the media, but most of the time I just don't. As a child I felt connected to all kinds of characters; the anthropomorphic animals in Looney Tunes, Arthur, and Disney cartoons (like Winnie the Pooh, and 101 Dalmatians), the caucasian characters like Harper (from Wizards of Waverly Place), Numbah Four (from Codename:Kids Next Door), and _especially_ Ariel (The Little Mermaid), along with those that actually looked like me (black female characters), such as Tia in "Sister, Sister", Keesha (from the Magic School Bus), and Penny Proud. It never bothered me that the characters didn't look like, live like, dress like, or even weren't the same sex as me. And for the most part it still doesn't. I get why it's a big deal when sex or race (or even sexuality) get in the way of actors and such trying to get jobs, but I don't get trying to make it a big deal for kids. I'm fairly confident that there are many people like me in the way that if no one had pointed out to them that their race or sexuality was underrepresented in the media, then they probably wouldn't have noticed. I guess as I get older race just doesn't matter to me. I see it, of course, and I know that my race _has_ become part of my identity, but it's really just another fact about a person that I am getting to know, it has nothing to do with who they are.
Nationality on the other hand...
All of this was heard and applied to Coco.
At least in my eyes.