You underestimated the full power of Star Wars fans that have no idea what the European Union even is.
Also I am sure they can make money back from the buy out with a fucking cartoon.
Fans are not what they want.
They want the money back.They want you buying all this shit!This is Disney's real 'agenda' here. Here's the best example I have for illustrating it with.
Guardians of the Galaxy has received two films as well as their appearances in Infinity War and Endgame. The films established a new core lineup that differed from the team in the comics that originally featured those characters. Since then they've added in a few that were omitted. There's still a handful that are left, most notably Adam Warlock (who's almost certainly in the third film) and Bug, but also Moondragon and Phyla Vel. Characters with plenty going on with them and interesting dynamics with the rest of the team, who also happen to be, and pretty much always have been in that comic run, dating lesbians.
I like the Guardians films as they are. I like them a lot. I don't feel they would be improved by the presence of these two. Indeed diversity isn't inherently good or bad on its own, and doesn't add anything of substance to a film just by existing (context is everything). One would safely assume however for them to be an auto-include in Disney's search for wokeness, if they were so blind in their pursuit for all things diverse and 'SJW' that they did not care about the ramifications it has for their content.
It's almost as if Disney's 'commitment' to diversity extends only so far as that which is immediately and obviously demonstrable to potential audiences. Things that are slight, such as female and minority casting choices, that are easily put in posters and other marketing materials. Depicting a pair of lesbians on the Guardians would require actual development, commitment and run time. It would mean addressing that's a thing that exists front and centre within your intellectual property in board room meetings with crusty old Disney executives. Justifying it in similar meetings with toy manufacturers. Things that MIGHT effect the bottom line.
It doesn't matter how well liked or how important these characters were in the source material. They will not turn up in this way in the films because their inclusion would greatly surpass the wokeness threshold they currently believe plays best, and most safely, to modern audiences, as ascertained in board room meetings to increase their audience numbers
And that is the important bit. These choices from this company are almost always done so in the search for profit, with no actual demonstrable commitment to social justice.
Rey succeeds at everything she does because that is the easiest way they can imagine to convey a strong woman,
because they believe women want to see strong women, regardless of how vapidly they are constructed, which broadens their potential audiences and can be translated into selling toys, which brings them MONEY.
Holdo is right in the film with her shooting down of Poe in the face of all logic to the contrary, because they wanted an authoritative, and therefor strong female character. There was no commitment to actually having that earned or properly demonstrated, because all you need to do is simply say its true in the movie, where its then true for marketing, merchandising and people who haven't thought beyond what the movie presents itself as, which all brings them MORE MONEY.
Lando is, apparently, pansexual because that can be said whimsically in a media interview, and has no impact on the film the interview was marketing or his character in it. They genuinely believe that just saying these things attracts an LGBT audience, which brings them MORE MONEY.
Captain Marvel being THE FIRST FEMALE LED MARVEL MOVIE was so important and shouted in every bit of pre-release material surrounding that film because it covers up for a substance less character, and gives her a marketable identity when they realised they've made a film about a character with no identity at all. It also changed what really should have been the discussion surrounding the film, 'How has it taken this long for this unsinkable media franchise to have a female led movie?', which frankly, that that question never gained any media traction at all says just how good a PR play it was for them. Good PR for them is good PR for the film, and good PR for the film brings in bigger audiences, which will bring them MORE MONEY.
Lindsay Ellis had some pretty good take's and further examples on this just the other day. Each and every one of those *vomits* live action Disney classics reboots they do has some social justicey element installed within it that wasn't in the original. But its so surface level or blink and you'll miss it that it scarcely even matters, except when spoken about in a pre-release interview, because then its a huge plot point. Do you truly believe that such little effort would be put in by anyone with creative influence on the film, actually wishing to discuss or represent a thing or change minds and perceptions? This is just Disney wanting to have their cake and eat it too.
Meanwhile they never address social issues with the original films that people
actually had.
Across all their big cinematic products, Disney are simply engaging with a target market, or two, really. The people who pat themselves on the back for engaging with and supporting this perceived wokeness, and the people who rally and rage at it for being such, only further validating the mindset of the people who like it for being fooled into thinking its 'progressive' in the first place!
I don't think criticism of nerd media is bad. Star Wars is a hot mess right now, and there's a lot of positive to be had by engaging with that negative. But Disney are definitely taking advantage of you when you think you're speaking out against their almost non existent politicisation.
