Pete Docter scrapped a controversial ‘Elio’ plot point with an 11-year-old character.
Hollywood and the larger movie entertainment industry frequently tend to exhibit absurd, self-destructive behavior, with remarkable dedication to pushing an unnecessary, unpopular political agenda.
There are any number of examples from the last decade. Disney is the poster child, bringing the Marvel Cinematic Universe and “Star Wars” franchise down to their lowest point in decades after incorporating politically motivated concepts where they don’t belong. Warner Bros. Studios just spent an incredible $90 million on “The Bride!,” a proudly feminist film from Maggie Gyllenhaal made because Donald Trump was elected in 2016.
RELATED: Feminist Film ‘The Bride!’ Becomes Latest Gigantic Hollywood Box Office Disaster
Then there’s the once-invincible animation studio, Pixar. Pixar became synonymous with quality storytelling, family-friendly films, and entertainment the whole family could enjoy. The “Toy Story” franchise. “Monster’s Inc.” “Finding Nemo.” “Up.” “Cars.” It’s a list of timeless, successful movies that few other studios, if any, can match.
But even Pixar isn’t immune to the incredible pressure from staffers, employees, and executives to push activist agendas into literal children’s movies. Thankfully, though, it seems like the man in charge finally figured out that he can put his foot down and stop the encroachment of politics into family entertainment.
Pete Docter at the World Premiere of Disney and Pixar’s “Hoppers” held at El Capitan Theatre on February 23, 2026, in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Gilbert Flores/Variety via Getty Images)
Pixar Director Says ‘Elio’ Character Wasn’t There For Therapy
Pete Docter, the chief creative officer of Pixar and the director of “Monster’s Inc.,” “Up,” and “Inside Out,” spoke to the Wall Street Journal for a new interview as the studio’s latest release, “Hopper,” hits theaters.
During the interview, Docter touched on one of Pixar’s most contentious releases, “Elio.” “Elio” is the story of an 11-year-old boy who struggles to make friends with kids his age, instead looking to the stars. The film’s original director, Adrian Molina, though, wanted to make this 11-year-old child gay. Unsurprisingly, it was not popular with audiences.
When the studio did test screenings with the original storyline in place, virtually everyone who saw it said they wouldn’t pay to see it in theaters. Not a huge surprise, considering a divisive topic that the vast majority of parents do not want to address with their children, especially when they are paying for those children to do a leisure activity.
Docter, as chief creative officer, said the film should be completely revamped to remove the controversial storyline. Outrage among Pixar employees followed. The Hollywood Reporter quoted an assistant editor saying they were “deeply saddened and aggrieved by the changes that were made.”
Another former employee added, “Suddenly, you remove this big, key piece, which is all about identity, and ‘Elio’ just becomes about totally nothing.”
Docter addressed those comments in the new interview, explaining, correctly, that the studio made a decision that this storyline wasn’t appropriate for a younger audience. Then added, “We’re making a movie, not hundreds of millions of dollars of therapy.”
Absolutely brutal. Refreshingly honest. And a perfect summation of what’s wrong with modern Hollywood.
Many of the industry’s creative personalities view movies as exactly what Docter describes: “millions of dollars of therapy.” They have no creative talent or ability to compose unique stories, so instead they push their own experiences. It’s activism disguised as filmmaking. And it’s why these movies keep flopping.
Variety wrote that the original plot of “Elio” had a “scene where he [the 11-year-old character] imagines a life together with his male crush.”
In what universe is that appropriate for a children’s movie? The only reason for a director to make that the focus of his project is because it’s “therapy” for his own life. Docter should never have signed off on the film in the first place, knowing these ideas and concepts were in the script. But at least he figured out, eventually, that it was a terrible idea. Something for the rest of the industry to figure out, unless they want to keep losing money.