Changes

|R

|R

|The second film, ''Aliens'', is an anti-Vietnam War statement<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T543J2L-gXU</ref> and, like its predecessor, copies another earlier feature (in this case, the 1954 film ''Them!''<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVoX-C9J4Zk</ref>). However, liberal pundits currently denounce it as a pro-war film, and it is to be noted that despite technically pushing anti-Vietnam messaging, it unintentionally ends up being a pro-Vietnam statement at the same time, as the Vietcong stand-in for the film was the titular antagonists, the Xenomorphs, hinting at the Vietcong being depicted negatively. Motherhood is also depicted neutrally. Although the Xenomorph Queen, who is depicted as embracing her maternal instincts, is depicted in a negative light, the film's protagonist Ellen Ripley was also shown to embrace motherly instincts as well and treated positively for it, acting as a surrogate mother to the orphan Newt and going out of her way to protect and rescue her in the film (most feminists even back then, much less today, tend to demonize the concept of motherhood).

|The second film, ''Aliens'', is an anti-Vietnam War statement<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T543J2L-gXU</ref> and, like its predecessor, copies another earlier feature (in this case, the 1954 film ''Them!''<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVoX-C9J4Zk</ref>). However, liberal pundits currently denounce it as a pro-war film, and it is to be noted that despite technically pushing anti-Vietnam messaging, it unintentionally ends up being a pro-Vietnam statement at the same time, as the Vietcong stand-in for the film was the titular antagonists, the Xenomorphs, hinting at the Vietcong being depicted negatively. Motherhood is also depicted neutrally. Although the Xenomorph Queen, who is depicted as embracing her maternal instincts, is depicted in a negative light, the film's protagonist Ellen Ripley was also shown to embrace motherly instincts as well and treated positively for it, acting as a surrogate mother to the orphan Newt and going out of her way to protect and rescue her in the film (most feminists even back then, much less today, tend to demonize the concept of motherhood).

|-

|-

|''Alien Resurrection''

|''Alien Resurrection''

|R

|R

|The fourth film is overtly feminist. But on the other hand, Annalee Call was also depicted as a Roman Catholic (with the novelization elaborating that she willingly chose to become one due to viewing it as "rational", which acted as a rare instance of rationality and Christianity being rightly treated as complements, as most liberals tended to act like rationality and religion are completely separate entities since the Enlightenment).

|The fourth film is overtly feminist. But on the other hand, Annalee Call was also depicted as a Roman Catholic (with the novelization elaborating that she willingly chose to become one due to viewing it as "rational", which acted as a rare instance of rationality and Christianity being rightly treated as complements, as most liberals tended to act like rationality and religion are completely separate entities since the Enlightenment).

|-

|-

|''Antz''

|''Antz''

|PG-13

|PG-13

|A biopic of [[Freddie Mercury]], the lead singer of the band Queen. While it does show elements of the practice of homosexuality and hedonism, at the same time, the film largely condemns the practice since it was made clear that Mercury's embracing of these things was what ultimately ruined Queen and his personal relationships, and is what ultimately killed him via AIDS. In addition, Paul Prenter, the only other major character to embrace homosexuality in the movie, was depicted in a very negative light, as he was one of the reasons Mercury went down a bad path, with it being made clear later on that Paul largely was using Mercury for his own gratification, blamed others for his bad ideas, and even hid vital information from Mercury deliberately such as the Live Aid concert plans as well as Mary Austin calling him. It also had a promotion of redemption, as Mercury, inspired largely by his former girlfriend/wife, Mary Austin, nearing the end of the film, attempts to reconnect with his band and family and make amends in the time he had left before dying from AIDS. That all being said, however, it's debatable whether the film intended to paint his homosexual escapades in a negative light, as several members of the production company, including Freddie Mercury's actor Rami Malek, indicated that it was a "regrettable" decision as a result of not having enough time to give a "more balanced" view of (i.e., promoting) his bisexual lifestyle.

|A biopic of [[Freddie Mercury]], the lead singer of the band Queen. While it does show elements of the practice of homosexuality and hedonism, at the same time, the film largely condemns the practice since it was made clear that Mercury's embracing of these things was what ultimately ruined Queen and his personal relationships, and is what ultimately killed him via AIDS. In addition, Paul Prenter, the only other major character to embrace homosexuality in the movie, was depicted in a very negative light, as he was one of the reasons Mercury went down a bad path, with it being made clear later on that Paul largely was using Mercury for his own gratification, blamed others for his bad ideas, and even hid vital information from Mercury deliberately such as the Live Aid concert plans as well as Mary Austin calling him. It also had a promotion of redemption, as Mercury, inspired largely by his former girlfriend/wife, Mary Austin, nearing the end of the film, attempts to reconnect with his band and family and make amends in the time he had left before dying from AIDS. That all being said, however, it's debatable whether the film intended to paint his homosexual escapades in a negative light, as several members of the production company, including Freddie Mercury's actor Rami Malek, indicated that it was a "regrettable" decision as a result of not having enough time to give a "more balanced" view of (i.e., promoting) his bisexual lifestyle.

|

|$

|-

|-

|''The Brady Bunch Movie''

|''The Brady Bunch Movie''

|2000

|2000

|G

|G

|Produced by [[Jeffrey Katzenberg]], this vegan propaganda film compares a chicken farm to the [[Holocaust]].<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynn_A73hcfs</ref> The main villain of the movie is a capitalist who wants to make chicken pies. The film also promotes feminist and anti-American themes. On the other hand, the main villain of the movie is also a feminist, as she calls her husband's ancestors "poor, worthless nothings"

|Produced by [[Jeffrey Katzenberg]], this vegan propaganda film compares a chicken farm to the [[Holocaust]].<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynn_A73hcfs</ref> The movie's main villain is a capitalist who wants to make chicken pies. The film also promotes feminist and anti-American themes. On the other hand, the main villain of the movie is also a feminist, as she calls her husband's ancestors "poor, worthless nothings."

|$106,834,564

|$106,834,564

|-

|-

|2023

|2023

|R

|R

|This horror-comedy film, directed by feminist Elizabeth Banks, is loosely based on an incident in 1985 involving a Georgia black bear consuming 75 pounds of cocaine. While the bear in real-life died from an overdose, the bear in the movie lives and terrorizes people in the Chattahoochee National Forest in northern Georgia. On the one hand, there is plenty of swearing (even from the kids), blood, and drug use in this film. On the other hand, the movie also shows the damage drugs can do; the two main kid characters try a brick of cocaine but spit it out immediately. A sense of family is also upheld, as the single mother Sari is determined to find her lost pre-teen daughter despite being in the woods with a cocaine-riddled bear roaming around. Two drug-dealers also eventually decide not to carry out their boss's insane orders, one of them - his son - promising to be a better father to his son (he had left his son in the drug boss's care to drink over his dead wife, which his father and best friend call him out on).

|This horror-comedy film, directed by feminist Elizabeth Banks, is loosely based on an incident in 1985 involving a Georgia black bear consuming 75 pounds of cocaine. While the bear in real life died from an overdose, the bear in the movie lives and terrorizes people in the Chattahoochee National Forest in northern Georgia. On the one hand, there is plenty of swearing (even from the kids), blood, and drug use in this film. On the other hand, the movie also shows the damage drugs can do; the two main kid characters try a brick of cocaine but spit it out immediately. A sense of family is also upheld, as the single mother Sari is determined to find her lost pre-teen daughter despite being in the woods with a cocaine-riddled bear roaming around. Two drug-dealers also eventually decide not to carry out their boss's insane orders, one of them - his son - promising to be a better father to his son (he had left his son in the drug boss's care to drink over his dead wife, which his father and best friend call him out on).

|$

|$64,670,240

|-

|-

|''Coco''

|''Coco''

|2017

|2017

|PG

|PG

|A beautiful animated film about tradition and family. In Santa Cecilia, Mexico, 12-year-old Miguel Rivera secretly dreams of becoming a musician like Ernesto de la Cruz, a popular actor and singer from his great-grandmother Coco's generation, despite his family despising music. After entering the Land of the Dead, Miguel encounters Héctor, a down-on-his-luck skeleton who once played music with Ernesto. Héctor offers to help Miguel reach Ernesto; in return, he asks Miguel to take his photo back to the Land of the Living, so that he might visit his now-elderly daughter before she forgets him and he disappears completely. However, strong [[feminism]] is also present, as the men in the movie are typically weak, and the only strong male figure is the villain. Not to mention it presents a bizarre afterlife without the reality of Heaven, Hell, or any need for the Gospel.

|A beautiful animated film about tradition and family. In Santa Cecilia, Mexico, 12-year-old Miguel Rivera secretly dreams of becoming a musician like Ernesto de la Cruz, a popular actor and singer from his great-grandmother Coco's generation, despite his family despising music. After entering the Land of the Dead, Miguel encounters Héctor, a down-on-his-luck skeleton who once played music with Ernesto. Héctor offers to help Miguel reach Ernesto; in return, he asks Miguel to take his photo back to the Land of the Living so he can visit his now-elderly daughter before she forgets him and he disappears completely. However, strong [[feminism]] is also present, as the men in the movie are typically weak, and the only strong male figure is the villain. Not to mention it presents a bizarre afterlife without the reality of Heaven, Hell, or any need for the Gospel.

|$591.4 million

|$591.4 million

|-

|-

|2012

|2012

|R

|R

|Quentin Tarantino's own version of the Django character (there's a scene where the original Italian Django makes a cameo and Tarantino's version speaks to him, another tribute by Tarantino to the Spaghetti-Western genre that has always been his source of inspiration). As common for Tarantino's movies, graphic violence with practical effects and the constant use of the word nig*er is the norm also here, but this time there is one revisionist take on the author of the book ''[[The Three Musketeers]]'', in which German former dentist and now bounty hunter Dr. Schultz tells the racist slave owner Calvin Candie that [[Alexandre Dumas]], the author of ''The Three Musketeers'', of which Candie is a reader, is black and said in a way like he was not even French. This, of course, is universally known and proven to be very far from true, and it takes very little to debunk this gigantic lie. There's also the ridiculously exaggerated reaction of terrorized people when they see a black man on a horse coming into town; this is surprisingly unrealistic for a Tarantino movie. However, the reason this film is in this section is because the protagonist Django, when discussing with Schultz the plan to take Django's wife from Candie's plantation pretending to be in the business of slave mandingos, he mentions that there's no worse dishonor than being a black slave owner, and this is a more unique than rare time in which really and historically existed black slave owners in America (just like black [[Confederates]]) are mentioned in a liberal Hollywood film.

|Quentin Tarantino's own version of the Django character (there's a scene where the original Italian Django makes a cameo and Tarantino's version speaks to him, another tribute by Tarantino to the Spaghetti-Western genre that has always been his source of inspiration). As is common for Tarantino's movies, graphic violence with practical effects and the constant use of the word nig*er are the norm also here, but this time there is one revisionist take on the author of the book ''[[The Three Musketeers]]'', in which German former dentist and now bounty hunter Dr. Schultz tells the racist slave owner Calvin Candie that [[Alexandre Dumas]], the author of ''The Three Musketeers'', of which Candie is a reader, is black and said in a way like he was not even French. This, of course, is widely known to be false, and it takes very little to debunk this gigantic lie. There's also the ridiculously exaggerated reaction of terrorized people when they see a black man on a horse coming into town; this is surprisingly unrealistic for a Tarantino movie. However, the reason this film is in this section is because the protagonist Django, when discussing with Schultz the plan to take Django's wife from Candie's plantation pretending to be in the business of slave mandingos, he mentions that there's no worse dishonor than being a black slave owner, and this is a more unique than rare time in which really and historically existed black slave owners in America (just like black [[Confederates]]) are mentioned in a liberal Hollywood film.

|-

|-

|''The Crow''

|''The Crow''

|1993

|1993

|R

|R

|Film takes jabs at many [[liberal values]], [[illegal immigration]], union workers, multiculturalism, (one scene where Bill tells his ex-wife that the ice cream shop him and his family used to go to is now a Mexican store) and foreign aid (in one scene Bill asks an illegal Korean immigrate a rhetorical question on how much America has given his country and yells at him after he refuses to learn the language).<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4tC4qfv92Q</ref> It's also one of the very few films to be truthful in the "Nazis were right-wingers" myth perpetrated by liberals, in which Bill informs a Neo-Nazi that he's an American and the Nazi is a sick a-hole. As well as many shots where the America flag is trashed upon (which could symbolize how liberalism has trashed everything America has stood for).<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piPzExBdfIg</ref> But at the same time it also takes jabs at capitalism, where Bill believes he's no longer commercially valuable. And although the plot is about man trying to reach his daughter's birthday party, the film seems to toy with its audience in suggesting whether he's mentally ill or not, as opposed to a pro-family message.   

|Film takes jabs at many [[liberal values]], [[illegal immigration]], union workers, multiculturalism, (one scene where Bill tells his ex-wife that the ice cream shop him and his family used to go to is now a Mexican store) and foreign aid (in one scene Bill asks an illegal Korean immigrant a rhetorical question on how much America has given his country and yells at him after he refuses to learn the language).<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4tC4qfv92Q</ref> It's also one of the very few films to be truthful in the "Nazis were right-wingers" myth perpetrated by liberals, in which Bill informs a Neo-Nazi that he's an American and the Nazi is a sick a-hole. As well as many shots where the America flag is trashed upon (which could symbolize how liberalism has trashed everything America has stood for).<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piPzExBdfIg</ref> But at the same time it also takes jabs at capitalism, where Bill believes he's no longer commercially valuable. And although the plot is about man trying to reach his daughter's birthday party, the film seems to toy with its audience in suggesting whether he's mentally ill or not, as opposed to a pro-family message.   

|$40,903,593

|$40,903,593

|-

|-

|2009

|2009

|PG

|PG

|Based on the 1970 children's book of the same name by Roald Dahl, Wes Anderson's first animated film stars Mr. Fox - an anthropomorphic red fox who used to steal farm birds for a living - growing bored with domestic life. He decides to get back into stealing poultry with the help of a meek opossum named Kylie, but their attempt at one final heist brings three farmers - Boggis, Bunce, and Bean - to target Mr. Fox and his family, and he has to enlist the help of his friends and family to fight back against them. On the one hand, the farmers appear to be capitalists since the store that the animals take food from belongs to all three of them (Roald Dahl had refused to put this in the book when he was alive, saying that it would be too easy a solution for the animals, as well as concerned that it would teach kids to steal). Mr. Fox's son, Ash, is also said to be "different," possibly referencing being homosexual or transgender, with Beaver's son even mentioning that Ash dresses like a girl. The characters also swear, but since it's a PG movie, they replace these swear words with "cuss." On the other hand, while Wes Anderson's style of dysfunctional family shows up here, Mr. Fox ultimately loves his family and would do anything for them, even willing to sacrifice himself to save his nephew when the farmers capture him; he also fights his former partner-in-crime Rat to the death when the latter threatens his son and acts lecherously toward his wife. Mr. Fox also faces the consequences of his thieving ways and vows to make it up to everyone, showing that, despite his arrogance, he wants to do right by his friends and family and admits he was in the wrong.  

|Based on the 1970 children's book of the same name by Roald Dahl, Wes Anderson's first animated film stars Mr. Fox, an anthropomorphic red fox who used to steal farm birds for a living, as he grows bored with domestic life. He decides to get back into stealing poultry with the help of a meek opossum named Kylie, but their attempt at one final heist brings three farmers - Boggis, Bunce, and Bean - to target Mr. Fox and his family, and he has to enlist the help of his friends and family to fight back against them. On the one hand, the farmers appear to be capitalists since the store that the animals take food from belongs to all three of them (Roald Dahl had refused to put this in the book when he was alive, saying that it would be too easy a solution for the animals, as well as being concerned that it would teach kids to steal). Mr. Fox's son, Ash, is also said to be "different," possibly referencing being homosexual or transgender, with Beaver's son even mentioning that Ash dresses like a girl. The characters also swear, but since it's a PG movie, they replace these swear words with "cuss." On the other hand, while Wes Anderson's style of dysfunctional family shows up here, Mr. Fox ultimately loves his family and would do anything for them, even willing to sacrifice himself to save his nephew when the farmers capture him; he also fights his former partner-in-crime Rat to the death when the latter threatens his son and acts lecherously toward his wife. Mr. Fox also faces the consequences of his thieving ways and vows to make it up to everyone, showing that, despite his arrogance, he wants to do right by his friends and family and admits he was in the wrong.  

|$21,002,919

|$21,002,919

|-

|-

|2010

|2010

|PG

|PG

|This film is environmentalism and anti-[[capitalist]] on steroids. A wealthy businessman and his employees are the antagonists for doing their job. One of them gets attacked by a raccoon. In the end, the main character, a real estate developer, is forced to change his job after "learning the animals' stories," and he even puts up a poster stating that anyone who violates forest preservation laws will be fined $1,000,000.00. However, the film is also pro-family, as well as taking a jab at LGBT, with a joke of the protagonist being forced to wear his wife's clothes after the animals steal his, this is played for laughs and is clearly anti-[[cross dressing]]. (Though they are wearing again in the end credits).   

|This film is environmentalism and anti-[[capitalist]] on steroids. A wealthy businessman and his employees are the antagonists because they do their jobs. One of them gets attacked by a raccoon. In the end, the main character, a real estate developer, is forced to change his job after "learning the animals' stories," and he even puts up a poster stating that anyone who violates forest preservation laws will be fined $1,000,000.00. However, the film is also pro-family, as well as taking a jab at LGBT, with a joke of the protagonist being forced to wear his wife's clothes after the animals steal his, this is played for laughs and is clearly anti-[[cross dressing]]. (Though they are wearing again in the end credits).   

|$35,000,000

|$35,000,000

|-

|-

|1988

|1988

|UR

|UR

|While the film has been labeled anti-war, the director Isao Takahata stated the actual meaning was about growing up. The film's message is still debatable to this day.

|While the film has been labeled anti-war, director Isao Takahata said the real meaning was about growing up. The film's message is still debatable to this day.

|

|

|-

|-

|2006

|2006

|PG

|PG

|Environmentalist movie about a bunch of kids who stand up to a CEO company that is trying to put one of its restaurants on a burrowing owl habitat. However, despite a businessman being the main villain, it doesn't condemn capitalism as a whole, since it doesn't portray the company in a negative light. The protagonists clearly have nothing against the business itself; even the main character states, "A pancake house would be great." It also shows a police officer in a positive light. Overall, the movie contains many morals, including friendship, and it gives kids great inspiration to stand up for what they believe is right.  

|Environmentalist movie about a bunch of kids who stand up to a CEO company that is trying to put one of its restaurants on a burrowing owl habitat. However, despite the businessman being the main villain, it doesn't condemn capitalism as a whole, since it doesn't portray the company negatively. The protagonists clearly have nothing against the business itself; even the main character states, "A pancake house would be great." It also shows a police officer in a positive light. Overall, the movie has many morals, including friendship, and it inspires kids to stand up for what they believe is right.  

|$8,117,637

|$8,117,637

|-

|-

|1996

|1996

|G

|G

|Released during Michael Eisner's presidency at Disney, the film presents a mixed package. The original source material was not intended for children, yet the Disney film was marketed to young audiences as such.

|Released during Michael Eisner's presidency at Disney, the film presents a mixed package. The original source material wasn't intended for children, yet Disney marketed the film to young audiences.

In some cases, the film manages to be slightly more pro-Christian than its source material. For example, the character of Frollo, who was the corrupt archdeacon in the novel, is now the minister of justice, and the Archdeacon is now a separate character voiced by Davis Odegn Steirs, who serves as the positive Christian conscience in the film (albeit the only positive Christian conscience). The Archdeacon is the one responsible for saving Quasimodo from Frollo committing infanticide and encourages Esmeralda to pray to God. Phoebus is also depicted in a good light, as an honorable soldier, and also shown to genuinely love Esmeralda, even going as far as to save her as well as Quasimodo. This is a stark contrast to the book, where he was a callous womanizer who abandoned Esmeralda to be hanged.

In some cases, the film is slightly more pro-Christian than its source material. For example, Frollo, the corrupt archdeacon in the novel, is now the minister of justice, and the Archdeacon is a separate character voiced by Davis Ogden Steirs, who serves as the film's positive Christian conscience (albeit the only one). The Archdeacon is the one responsible for saving Quasimodo from Frollo committing infanticide and encourages Esmeralda to pray to God. Phoebus is also depicted in a positive light as an honorable soldier and is shown to genuinely love Esmeralda, even going so far as to save her and Quasimodo. This is a stark contrast to the book, where he was a callous womanizer who abandoned Esmeralda to be hanged.

Christian imagery is present throughout the film, which is appropriate since Notre Dame is an actual location, unlike several Disney films set during the Renaissance, where churches are absent of religious imagery to be more politically correct. The Latin Requiem Mass is also present in the musical score.

Christian imagery appears throughout the film, which is appropriate since Notre Dame is a real location, unlike several Disney films set during the Renaissance, where churches lack religious imagery to be more politically correct. The musical score also includes the Latin Requiem Mass.

Unlike most films in the Disney animated canon, this film actually has the characters relying on God's grace to resolve the conflict rather than on some special magic.

Unlike most films in the Disney animated canon, this film has the characters rely on God's grace to resolve the conflict rather than on special magic.

On the other hand, in some cases, the film actually manages to be even darker than the original novel. Originally, Quasimodo's vicious punishment at the hands of the Parisians during the Feast of Fools ceremony was not corporal punishment; in the Disney film, it was done at the Parisians' whim, just for the sake of it. In addition, Frollo himself was also made significantly more villainous in the movie compared to in the book despite being separated from the archdeacon role, removing most of his redeemable traits in the book (case in point, in the film, Frollo was responsible for killing Quasimodo's mother and nearly killed Quasimodo himself as a baby until being made to raise him as penance by the archdeacon, and was depicted as an abusive father figure overall, as well as depicted as sadistic, in contrast to the original novel, where he willingly took in Quasimodo when he was in fact abandoned by his mom and was depicted as a fairly good father figure, at least until Esmerelda entered the picture). Some Christian concepts were also removed from the film in an attempt to heighten Frollo's villainy (for example, Quasimodo in the film was named as an insult to his deformed appearance, whereas in the book he was actually named after Quasimodo Tuesday). It's also debatable whether it's pro-Christian overall, since while the Archdeacon himself was a positive influence, most of the other Christian characters, without even counting Frollo, were depicted in a very negative light. The director's commentary also implied that they may have included blasphemous material by depicting Frollo in a crucifix pose as he descends into Hell during the Hellfire visuals.<ref>DVD Commentary: "Here's some more of our ham-fisted symbolism--Frollo falls down in the shape of a crucifix!"</ref> The film, however, shows a clear case of divine punishment in animation, represented by the death of Frollo, literally seeing the Devil in the face, before falling to his horrible death into the "fiery pit". Also pretty ironic, considering that his last words a few instants before his death were "And he shall smite the wicked, and plunge them into the fiery pit!", when he was going to kill Esmeralda and Quasimodo with his sword.

On the other hand, the film is even darker than the original novel. Originally, Quasimodo's vicious punishment at the hands of the Parisians during the Feast of Fools ceremony was not corporal punishment; in the Disney film, it was done at the Parisians' whim, just for the sake of it. In addition, Frollo himself was also made significantly more villainous in the movie compared to in the book despite being separated from the archdeacon role, removing most of his redeemable traits in the book (case in point, in the film, Frollo was responsible for killing Quasimodo's mother and nearly killed Quasimodo himself as a baby until being made to raise him as penance by the archdeacon, and was depicted as an abusive father figure overall, as well as depicted as sadistic, in contrast to the original novel, where he willingly took in Quasimodo when he was in fact abandoned by his mom and was depicted as a fairly good father figure, at least until Esmerelda entered the picture). The film also removed some Christian concepts to heighten Frollo's villainy (for example, in the film, Quasimodo is named as an insult for his deformed appearance, whereas in the book he is named after Quasimodo Tuesday). It's also debatable whether it's pro-Christian overall, since while the Archdeacon himself was a positive influence, most of the other Christian characters, without even counting Frollo, were depicted in a very negative light. The director's commentary also implied that they may have included blasphemous material by depicting Frollo in a crucifix pose as he descends into Hell during the Hellfire visuals.<ref>DVD Commentary: "Here's some more of our ham-fisted symbolism--Frollo falls down in the shape of a crucifix!"</ref> The film, however, shows a clear case of divine punishment in animation, represented by the death of Frollo, literally seeing the Devil in the face, before falling to his horrible death into the "fiery pit". Also pretty ironic, considering that his last words a few instants before his death were "And he shall smite the wicked, and plunge them into the fiery pit!", when he was going to kill Esmeralda and Quasimodo with his sword.

To make the film even darker, a gypsy genocide plot is introduced, and Paris is also the victim of arson late into the film. The song 'Hellfire' was also notorious for making explicit references to lust. Not necessarily a bad or negative thing, it can be considered courageous, original, surprising, and entertaining artistically speaking, and for families with kids who are not "snowflakes". However, this is in stark contrast to most other Disney film adaptations, which have a history of toning down the original works (as in ''[[The Jungle Book]]'', where Disney advised the writers to ignore the book specifically because its contents were unsuitable for children). However, on the other hand, other films from the Walt's era were more dark with particular horror and dramatic elements than their original counterparts and source materials, like ''[[Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs]]'', ''[[Pinocchio]]'' (with evil and sadistic Stromboli unlike his novel countepart Mangiafuoco, the demonic and sa distici Coachman and all the cursed Pleasure Island with the impressive children turning into donkeys scene, and the terrifying whale Monstro), all the ''[[Night on Bald Mountain]]'' segment in ''[[Fantasia]]'' (with Chernabog and even harpies showing bare breasts, though for a few seconds), ''[[Dumbo]]'' (with its Pink Elephants on Parade allucination caused by accidental consumption of alcohol), ''[[Bambi]]'' (for the (in)famous scene of the death of Bambi's mother), ''[[Sleeping Beauty]]'' and ''[[101 Dalmatians]]'', this latter two specifically for their villains' scenes (Maleficent and Cruella De Vil). The Gypsies were also depicted in a more positive light, to the extent that they, at times, were considered preferable to Christianity, despite Gypsies essentially being pagans. Hints at race swapping were also included in the film, as Esmerelda was made into an ethnic gypsy in the movie, when in the original book, she was actually a blonde Parisienne and the daughter of an anchoress who was abducted by the gypsies and made into their own.

To make the film even darker, a gypsy genocide plot is introduced, and Paris is also the victim of arson late into the film. The song 'Hellfire' was also notorious for making explicit references to lust. Not necessarily a bad thing, it can be considered courageous, original, surprising, and artistically entertaining, especially for families with kids who aren't "snowflakes". However, this is in stark contrast to most other Disney film adaptations, which have a history of toning down the original works (as in ''[[The Jungle Book]]'', where Disney advised the writers to ignore the book specifically because its contents were unsuitable for children). However, on the other hand, other films from the Walt's era were more dark with particular horror and dramatic elements than their original counterparts and source materials, like ''[[Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs]]'', ''[[Pinocchio]]'' (with evil and sadistic Stromboli unlike his novel countepart Mangiafuoco, the demonic and sa distici Coachman and all the cursed Pleasure Island with the impressive children turning into donkeys scene, and the terrifying whale Monstro), all the ''[[Night on Bald Mountain]]'' segment in ''[[Fantasia]]'' (with Chernabog and even harpies showing bare breasts, though for a few seconds), ''[[Dumbo]]'' (with its Pink Elephants on Parade allucination caused by accidental consumption of alcohol), ''[[Bambi]]'' (for the (in)famous scene of the death of Bambi's mother), ''[[Sleeping Beauty]]'' and ''[[101 Dalmatians]]'', this latter two specifically for their villains' scenes (Maleficent and Cruella De Vil). The Gypsies were also depicted in a more positive light, to the extent that they, at times, were considered preferable to Christianity, despite Gypsies essentially being pagans. Hints at race swapping were also included in the film, as Esmerelda was made into an ethnic gypsy in the movie, when in the original book, she was actually a blonde Parisienne and the daughter of an anchoress who was abducted by the gypsies and made into their own.

Worst of all, one of the male gargoyles falls in love with Djali, who is male according to some descriptions (voiced, however, by a female voice-actress and fans mostly refer to it as a female goat, and probably the gargoyle confused Djali with a female goat, assumption supported by his known clear stupidity), which may have meant that liberals will subtly shoehorn the homosexual agenda into anything, even the gargoyles of Notre Dame (and also comes across as extremely hypocritical and blasphemous due to homosexuality being tolerated even less by God than Frollo's lust for Esmerelda, based on God explicitly referring to the concept as an abomination in Leviticus as well as his destroying Sodom and Gomorrah largely because of the practice of homosexuality). However, this should be taken with a grain of salt, because the DVD audio commentary Kirk Wise (co-director), Gary Trousdale (co-director), and Don Hahn (producer) suggest that it's possible that the three gargoyles exist purely in Quasimodo's mind and are in fact split-off portions of his own personality created to deal with his loneliness. This doesn't explain, however, their scenes when Quasimodo is absent, how animals (especially Esmeralda's goat) can see them alive, the damage thev do to Frollo's soldiers in the climax, and their constant change of positions when they stop animating themselves.<ref>'''Gary Trousdale:''' We've always operated under the assumption that the gargoyles were kind of figments of Quasimodo's imagination. They didn't really move around, or did they? You know...

Worst of all, one of the male gargoyles falls in love with Djali, who is male according to some descriptions (voiced, however, by a female voice-actress and fans mostly refer to it as a female goat, and probably the gargoyle confused Djali with a female goat, assumption supported by his known clear stupidity), which may have meant that liberals will subtly shoehorn the homosexual agenda into anything, even the gargoyles of Notre Dame (and also comes across as extremely hypocritical and blasphemous due to homosexuality being tolerated even less by God than Frollo's lust for Esmerelda, based on God explicitly referring to the concept as an abomination in Leviticus as well as his destroying Sodom and Gomorrah largely because of the practice of homosexuality). However, this should be taken with a grain of salt, because the DVD audio commentary Kirk Wise (co-director), Gary Trousdale (co-director), and Don Hahn (producer) suggest that it's possible that the three gargoyles exist purely in Quasimodo's mind and are in fact split-off portions of his own personality created to deal with his loneliness. This doesn't explain, however, their scenes when Quasimodo is absent, how animals (especially Esmeralda's goat) can see them alive, the damage thev do to Frollo's soldiers in the climax, and their constant change of positions when they stop animating themselves.<ref>'''Gary Trousdale:''' We've always operated under the assumption that the gargoyles were kind of figments of Quasimodo's imagination. They didn't really move around, or did they? You know...

|$214,030,500

|$214,030,500

|-

|-

|''Mufasa: The Lion King''

|''Mufasa: The Lion King''

|2024

|2024

|PG

|PG

|This prequel to 2019's ''The Lion King'' shows Mufasa's origin story, as Rafiki tells this to Simba's daughter Kiara. Mufasa is an orphaned lion cub who befriends another cub named Taka, who later becomes Scar. When a white lion named Kiros attacks their home, the brothers flee and make a journey towards a promised land called Milele, which would later be called the Pride Lands.

|This prequel to 2019's ''The Lion King'' remake shows Mufasa's origin story, as Rafiki tells this to Simba's daughter Kiara. Mufasa is an orphaned lion cub who befriends another cub named Taka, who later becomes Scar. When a white lion named Kiros attacks their home, the brothers flee and make a journey towards a promised land called Milele, which would later be called the Pride Lands.

On one hand, it does show a hint of feminism throughout the movie. Lionesses in real life are known to do most of the hunting for the pride, but the movie seems to hold them in higher favor than the males. Taka's father, Obasi, even gives his son terrible advice on how to be a king, such as being lazy and lying to his subjects.

On one hand, it does show a hint of feminism throughout the movie. Lionesses in real life are known to do most of the hunting for the pride, but the movie seems to hold them in higher favor than the males. Taka's father, Obasi, even gives his son terrible advice on how to be a king, such as being lazy and lying to his subjects.

On the other hand, the movie does portray family and friendship rather positively. Mufasa and Taka bond as brothers, and Taka's mother, Eshe, comes to care for Mufasa like another son. In the present, Simba is shown to be a good father to Kiara, telling her to be brave while he checks on Nala, who is giving birth to her second cub.

On the other hand, the movie does portray family and friendship rather positively. Mufasa and Taka bond as brothers, and Taka's mother, Eshe, comes to care for Mufasa like another son. In the present, Simba is shown to be a good father to Kiara, telling her to be brave while he checks on Nala, who is giving birth to her second cub.

|$

|$254,567,693

|-

|-

|''Monty Python's Life of Brian''

|''Monty Python's Life of Brian''