Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
If it benefits anyone in any market, that's what I care about. Representation in some places but not others benefits some, no representation anywhere benefits no one.

Would I prefer representation everywhere, absolutely, but refusing to settle for anything less than that is Perfect Fallacy. Results matter to me far more than intentions or motivations.
Tokenism isn't helping. Sometimes doing a thing poorly is worse than not doing it at all.

Plenty of times a sort of character has been "included" but in a way that is a lazy stereotype or the like, and that doesn't necessarily help anyone, and might hurt. Disney made Song of the South, too, and yes, that "included" minorities, but it was most certainly not welcomed or helpful. The modern films don't rise to quite that overt level of stereotype, but yeah, when you make a habit of putting characters in a tangential role so you can cover over the presence entirely in a different market, that's...not really inclusive.

Also, I'm not sure why you're slapping the word "fallacy" in there. What purpose does it serve? Are you attempting to reference the Nirvana fallacy? To do so would imply that you believe that treating everyone as equals is an impossible ideal. That's...very strong. I'd rather not jump to that interpretation, so perhaps there is some other thing you mean by it.

I think it's entirely reasonable to have films about pretty much anyone that are good, and all stories ultimately come back to the same elements. Are the characters interesting? Do we understand their motivations and empathize with their struggle? Is the plot coherent, and well established and paid off? The entire concept of the monomyth in literature is identifying common storytelling traits across many cultures, times and histories. Good and bad stories can be told regarding pretty much anyone and anything.

That given, there is not much value to demanding that a weak tale be lauded simply because of who happens to be in it. It diminishes those stories that are genuinely good, and can even be somewhat patronizing. It is best if we simply judge works on their merits.

The consensus is that the movie is good, or at least decent, and that its box office failure is not due to it being devoid of quality. I don't see how recognizing that is "giving them a pass."
The movie is mediocre, but that is only a portion of the trend. Disney's products, in general, have been on a slump. This particular movie is probably incurring more of the financial cost for that slump than others that were arguably more deserving, sure...but Disney has earned this in general. It certainly appears as if you wish to defend Disney, and their products as a whole.