Pixar Animation Studios generally has had a good reputation. Since its debut film of “Toy Story” in 1995, Pixar has become a household name. Sadly, though, after literally selling out to Disney in 2006, Pixar is being dragged down by its parent company. The film company that specializes in creating children’s content is all on board with the radical woke movement.

Disney has decided to embark upon the mission to introduce themes like LGBTQ+ into children’s films, or discuss periods, or lecture the culture at large about racial hierarchy and tiers of victimhood.

Pixar’s latest offering, a film called “Elemental,” did most of these things — and it was a spectacular flop.

The film opened in theaters last weekend and only brought in $29.5 million in ticket sales. It had a $200 million dollar budget — not including advertising. This grossed only slightly more than Pixar’s first-ever film, “Toy Story,” which earned $29.1 million its first weekend. However, when you take into account that “Toy Story” only had a budget of $30 million, was done in a new animation style, and Pixar was an unknown company, it was pretty good earnings for an opening weekend.

Why did “Elemental” bomb so spectacularly? If you listen to Disney executives, they blame it on lazy audiences who are waiting for the film to come to the Disney+ streaming platform. If you listen to friendly critics, they point to Pixar not being able to find a balance between new and old films, or retreading story formulas. If you read the audience feedback, however, a much different picture emerges.

The world-building of “Elemental” was heavily invested in and the animation was beautiful. However, there were too many subplots, the main story was boring and predictable, and the overall tone came off as preachy. Many parents complained that this was not really a children’s film at all. Their kids were not at all entertained and many ended up leaving after the first 20-30 minutes.

Other parents were turned off before the film even hit theaters. Like “Lightyear” before it, “Elemental” also decided to get on the LGBTQ+ bandwagon. Whereas “Lightyear” had a same-sex kiss by side characters, “Elemental” advertised its “historic” “nonbinary” character voiced by a “nonbinary” voice actor.

Why would they feature a gender-confused character in a children’s film? Diversity, equity, and inclusion, of course! “Nonbinary” has to do with the rejection of the male/female binary and not much to do with sexual attraction. What Disney consistently fails to understand is that there is a telos to sex and sexuality. The purpose of sex (i.e. gender) is to define a person’s genitalia and biological makeup. Sexuality’s purpose is to create and educate the next generation of children. That is why not every sexual preference is morally equivalent. A parent doesn’t want to have to explain to their first grader why a character isn’t a boy or a girl or why that matters.

Then there is the whole racism narrative. The fire character, Ember, is representative of a second-generation immigrant. The water character, Wade, is representative of a supposedly white-privileged American. Director Peter Sohn talked about his struggles to pay homage to his Korean immigrant parents’ story. Both his parents passed away while he was making the film, and those emotions contributed toward a bleak racism storyline. Sohn even noted that he had to temper that storyline quite a bit: “The xenophobia aspect had become a loud piece in the movie, but in honoring my parents, it felt like the wrong thing. The intent was to make something hopeful that focuses on something anyone can connect to, which is gratitude toward those people who sacrifice for you.”

Exploring the story of overcoming racism and helping others discover the beauties in other cultures has been explored successfully in previous films. However, leftists have changed the definition of racism. It no longer means hating someone because of their race. Instead, one is racist or “the oppressor” simply by being part of a privileged group. The oppressed are those who have been marginalized by society. This Marxist theory developed by Kimberlé Crenshaw and Richard Delgado and those in the Frankfurt School has filtered its way down from the hallowed halls of academia and into the cultural narrative. Critical race theory divides people into rigid categories based on perceived oppression by society. There is no restoration with this definition of racism; by one’s very existence, they are either oppressor or oppressed, making it just as racist than the original definition of racism.

Frankly, parents don’t trust Disney and Pixar to refrain from this reframing of the word “racism.” With good reason. One Christian film reviewer said that the preachy emphasis on “privilege” (read: oppressor) was at times too heavy-handed.

Pixar and Disney have lost touch with their audience. Instead of telling stories that are based on timeless values and heartfelt fun, they are trying to impose their vision of the world on their viewers. They also aren’t appropriately gearing their stories to their target audience: children.

Disney was the first to taste the wrath of parents who felt betrayed by the children’s film company. It still hasn’t learned its lesson.