#I hate every other live action Disney remake

[artist-issues]

I will never shut up about how Cinderella (2015) is the only Disney Live Action Remake to ever be good. Or successful in any true sense. You know why? It’s the only one to not only remind everyone of what was beloved about the original, but it enhanced the original without twisting its meaning.

[frenchgremlim1808]

Why Midori is such a breath of fresh air or how to actually write a Villain.

So the awaited essay, the winner of the FrenchGremlin polls of laziness finally has come! It took some time but it’s finally over. If your choice didn’t get chosen that’s okay! I’ll repost a new poll with old and newer options. Please reblog this one i put a lot of time in it, it's like, five pages long over a silly goose. Also sorry for the grammar i sucks and i'm not native. So let’s begin:

(also here is the link to the video format)

So first let’s make things clear, What IS a villain?

“A villain is a character whose evil actions or motives are important to the plot.” That is why I do want to make a difference between a villain and an antagonist, an antagonist is a character who are a plot devices that creates obstruction to the protagonist. That means that a villain is forced to be an antagonist while an antagonist is not forced to be a villain. For example shin is an antagonist but not a villain, he is driven by selfish desires which are themselves fueled by fear anger and loss, he is the protagonist of his own story and is a sympathetic character despite it all, and Midori is just a bitch. Midori falls under multiple stereotypes of villains. Such as “the mastermind”, “evil incarnate” (lmao),”related to the protagonist” etc. Midori is evil, there is no denying in this, he is purely evil, and he doesn’t have a sad weepy backstory, he doesn’t feel empathy towards other, he is a despicable piece of shit who ruined so many lives. I won’t list everything but here is a list of his crimes, murder, assault, domestic abuse, grooming, verbal abuse, and torture, crimes against humanity lmao, stalking, violent crimes, and participation in a cult. And his worst crime is being a pussy bitch of course. So now that we have put the bases up let’s really begin.

Hollywood has a hate boner against villains and I hate them for that.

Recently Hollywood decided that pure evil bad guys is actually a bad thing, so now they decided to do stupid side story with them, to give them ”””depth””” since I guess how could we like those villains since they are bad. A great example of this is the Disney remakes which I loathe so much oh god I hate them. So first they did a maleficient it was okay honestly, then they did a freaking cruella movie where her mom gets killed by Dalmatians, that’s not a joke, in the peter and wendy movie that nobody saw they decided to have made the captain hook be a lost boy who was abandoned by the lost boys and peter, oh also they decided that PETER CUT HIS HANDS OFF AND LEFT HIM TO DIE BECAUSE HOOK WANTED TO SEE HIS FAMILY. They are going to do a freaking mufasa movie, in no time I can’t wait to have a Ursula movie where it’s discovered that ariel killed all of her family in cold blood or something’s. So you might say what’s the problem? I mean isn’t that supposed to make the story more interesting. No, no it doesn’t, because first they take all of the character personality traits and throw them in the bin, second they are supposed to be the vilain in a musical animated movies, I am not against complex villain, I love them, but by doing this, the original character doesn’t exist anymore. Just create original content with new interesting characters instead of doing stuff like this. Also it’s kind of funny than in all of those interpretation they take all the fun and sucks it out, what do I mean by fun, the gayness, Disney vilain are fun because they are camp, they are fabulous extravagant extra in all the ways possible, and that’s the reason we liked them. Not every character needs something super deep, like “my family was burned down at the stake and my dog was eaten by my ex”, sometimes we just like bad fun people, they are the story, and Hollywood hating them so bad just bothers me a lot. Also now the new thing is to not have a villain at all which can works in some narrative but not all of them, it gets boring after a while. In the past people were angry that villains are bland, but now I kind of miss it. While I will critique villains who have no purpose outside of being evil that’s dumb, like for example Voldemort is bland like white bread because his only motivation is being evil, but evil people do exist compared to what some Hollywood writers think, they should know. So that’s why I will put a difference between evil villains and villains whose only purpose is being evil; we loved Disney villains but they still had motivations, goals, reasons that to them a least were worth everything. World domination isn’t enough, why do you want world domination, what is the true reason deep in your heart, is it an inferiority complex, is it a savior complex fuelled by xenophobic beliefs.

That is how to write a pure evil villain, evil people exist all over the world, but I have never seen one who doesn’t have they own reasons to be so bad, it doesn’t excuse their actions nor really explains them. We do not want justifications we want explanations. If you are justifying evil behavior then do it, but don’t claim that it is a pure evil character. A pure evil character can be fun, can be interesting, he can be deep, it’s all about balancing all of their traits to truly make them greats. Which is why midori succeeds while current villains fail. Current stupid remake/spin off try to justify the behavior because they feel like this is what the audience wants, but it’s not what we need. So I will defend to the grave evil villains.

Creating an evil villain doesn’t make them boring guys.

Why the heck does big budget movies have either the blandest protagonist or the blandest villains sometimes both, like I said evil people do exist but comically evil character only works in satire not in a serious multiple millions of dollar movie. Example that boring ass avatar movie, the one with blue people, none of the characters are interesting the villain is one note. The lords of the rings also suffers from that, but I don’t care because the protagonist are so awesome that sauron being personality less doesn’t matter. Also sauron is more of a force of nature villains so it’s not the same. The recent kingsman movie has a bland one note villain, there is nothing entertaining, funny, about him he’s just evil, borrrrring. Every Disney remakes depiction of the characters are boring. I just feel bored out of my mind. Atla one of my favorite shows of all time has a main villain that’s kinda one note, Ozai, but he is actually intimidating guy, azula is the superior character, but I wouldn’t consider her a villain she is an antagonist though. I honestly don’t get why Hollywood thinks that just creating a character with no personality and whose only goals is to be evil is good.

So back to midori for a second, here is my question, when midori was on screen did you ever feel bored? Never right! Because despite midori being an evil character he has an actual personality, he’s fun, you want to punch him in the balls. Because midori has other personality traits than evil, midori is petty, childish, extremely intelligent, controlling, a natural manipulator, he is a trickster, he doesn’t seem to get some social norms, he is narcissistic, easily angry, and fears death etc See how I counted a lot of traits, traits that in other character would works, midori has positive traits, and I think that is the best thing nankidai could have ever done, midori has traits that a regular person could have. Which is why if I put midori in any settings his character would work.

Example, instead of a death game the cast is under the sea to discover the insane wildlife and supernatural stuff happening, what would midori do in this situation? Well he would very passionate about finding all of what’s happening, he’ll do anything to find out, even sometime sacrificing others, not only will he try to find what’s happening, but he is also going to try to find a way to make this discovery favour him in the end. Or let’s imagine it’s a vampire situation, where a vampire attacks  the city, midori would try to stop it, not because he cares, but to experiment on them to get their biology and finds the real secret of immortality since he fears death.

Here is my second advice, after creating your character try to imagine them in another completely different situation, like normal life, or a fantasy world, ask yourself the question what would they do in that environment? If you can find a real complete explanation of their actions then yes your character has multiples dimensions if not try thinking about it again. Some example of questions I do want to point out are some like “if my character had all the power in the world what would they do first or”, “if my character had only a day left to live what would they do”

Why is Current media incapable of creating good threats like bruhhhh.

Okay so first of all let’s talk about stakes in a story, let’s say you are watching a slasher movie, slowly the cast gets slimmed down and people die in horrible ways, that should set stakes right ? Well if the villain is an absolute buffoon who makes the stupidest actions and decisions in the world, you wouldn’t feel intimidated at all because despite what the filmmaker might try to say the plot armor will NEVER make a character intimidating. It’s just like a detective character who just seems to know everything without a thought, well you won’t really fear the character failing. Worse is the the final girl, who is for some reason always escaping the slasher guy by pure luck every time, she is shown as incompetent but still she survives, which make the villain seem completely incapable so now you feel nothing.

To avoid this filmmaker often use techniques such has unpredictability, I mean good I mean good ones, for example instead of immediately seeing whose going to survive because the black guys always dies first and the virgin white woman is the last survivor, change the status quo, make us think that this character is obviously safe while they actually aren’t at all. Or actually make them menacing by SHOWING to the audience how horrible dangerous they can be. Which is why SHOW DON’T TELL is so important, telling us how dangerous someone can be only to see them get beaten to death at the end of the movie makes us feel nothing.

Midori felt like a impossible person to beat, he is smart, had twenty plans in advance, even in situation where the cast felt like they might have a chance he was always armed, just like the gun he promised to use or the rocket punch. When they felt like they were finally advancing, he put obstacle in their ways, such as the collar game or the moment he put the collar on explode mode for  ranmaru. The entire point in the murder game was to make time pass, it took a long time for the cast top realize that this whole time they were losing precious time not realizing that the dummies were the real problem. The characters that made you feel the most hopeless were the dummies, if you won by killing midori they would die, but if you lost you might lose people you love (keiji or gin). It felt hopeless because they were no solutions in the end. That creates tension so that creates stakes. If we were told how dangerous unpredictable sou was then it wouldn’t hit the same, we are shown that he is that terrible. There is a scene ingame where bbg shin ai tells us that midori tortured and like to destroy people. That’s exposition so TELL, but do you why it works, because we are SHOWN before his behavior. Midori felt unbeatable, so the fact that we were shown his weakness such has his petty behavior, hatred of minors, and fear of death, for the first time it feels like there is a chance that we might survive this. And still after he isn’t shown has an incompetent buffoon, he is one, but the narrative doesn’t show us that he is.

What is also consider is good to make the audience feel actual stakes is to first really develop well the main characters, how can we feel worry for a character if we don’t know them, the audience need to feels emotional connection to the main cast to actually care. You can use things such has moments where there is nothing special happening just character talking getting to know them. Make us feel why we need to care about them possibly losing, instead of being indifferent. Or I don’t know maybe make an entire spin off game where we get to have the cast talk to each other and seeing dynamics between character that died early to get them a chance to shine and make their death even more tragic, or even make mini episodes of characters who only got a single chapter to show off their characteristic, to get us to know them better? But that’s just a silly idea of course, wink, and wink.

My favorite thing about Midori is that he is actually pathetic, like really pathetic, but weirdly realistic?

Midori is the most pathetic character in the cast, yes more than shin, shin is leagues less pathetic. No I’m not saying that midori is not intimidating or scary, I would piss myself if I saw him. He’s a scary guy. But if you look at him more closely you can see that he is a baby brat in a big boy suit.

So let’s start by something clear, Sou Hiyori clearly displays antisocial behavior, or in common terms he is a psychopath/sociopath, this illness is very badly seen in medias, I am not saying that people who lacks empathy like him are inherently bad, he is, a lot of people with antisocial behavior actually suffers a lot and have a difficult life. Sou real issues is not his antisocial behavior, it’s his narcissism and god complex. Sou feels the need to HAVE CONTROL over others, he like the feeling of being in power, he sees the rest of the world has beneath him, toys for his pleasure. He says that he “really like humans” because despite it all he seems to put himself in a different categories than regular people, they are beneath him. When he loses control his calm and cool behavior disappears and we see his true face, a grown man who has throws a tantrum like a baby. One of the best representation of this is midori views on the cast:

Midori hates kanna, like no jokes he has beef with her, a fourteen years old, actually he has beef with a lot of people in the cast. Midori views emotional people has weak, people who are loving optimistic as beneath him and useless. He preferred when sara was cruel and horrible, that’s what he loved about her, he liked seeing her scary emotionless side. But Kanna, kanna is everything he hates. A crybaby who not only puts the group in harmony, is a source of hope in general, is the reason he near got to have closure with shin (killing him), he views kanna as “not fun shin”. We have many proofs for this, if you type the word kanna kizuchi he says this: “Poor Kanna'd weep! I think a more worthless name would be better for someone like me” He mocks her, but also himself (I’lll come back on this later), he calls her worthless. Also in the electric charge minigame, when he can choose who to shocks he chooses two people in particular, kanna who he hates and hinako who ruined his fun by giving the cast a chance in saving ranmaru. But he does also says mean spirited stuff to other people, qtaro and gin. He also says some sarcastic comments about nao and joe, saying that it’s such a shame that they died so young. But you might say why kanna especially? Because he is a petty baby who is jealous of kanna, Yes jealous, of kanna, a fourteen years old. Because he feels like she stole his hubby wubby shin away from him…. God I hate him. And you know what that make him a pathetic idiot, after the scene where kanna beats his ass, he’s all mad and like “uhh I’m going to pout I wanted you to cry like a lot, now I’m gonna cry”. An that’s actually god, because it humanize him, he wants need thoughts, he isn’t one note, and that’s the most important!

Sou is a villain but before that he is a character, a fully developed character, and THAT’S WHAT MAKE HIM GREAT, Sou works because he works realistically, I mean if you forget the robot part, it’s easy to imagine a narcissist man child who needs to feel in power towards other, so his main prey are young vulnerable people.Which leads me to my next point:

Sou is a failure like really, and we aren’t sad for him.

Sou failed everything he worked on, he failed to get the paper from alice, he failed whith shin since he had to leave earlier than he thought he would leave, because of his mistake he lost his position in the death game, then he failed to kill gin or keiji, and then he died like an idiot losing his cool and acting like a toddler. And he knows it that why he is a bit self-hating (he should be). And yet none of us feel any sympathy towards him, why? Because sou is one of the most despicable guy in existence. He is a disgusting pervert, sadistic asshole, and abusive narcissistic cunt who thinks he is better than everyone. From the bottom of my heart I hate him sooooo much he is literally the character I hate the most in existence. He abused shin, ruined keiji’s life, traumatized the entire cast, literally assaulted sara like he physically assaulted her. He mocked nao and joe and kugie life as useless. He is an obsessive jerk AND I HATE HIM. And you know what…… It’s good. Like I actually feel a lot of emotions when I think about him, he fuels me with anger and disgust, and if your characters can make me feel that much rage then you did it, you created an actual perfect character. Hiyori is such a shit person that I think about him a lot, writers shouldn’t be scared to make a character such hittable assholes, example bojack horseman in bojack horseman is the vilest man on earth and I love it, because I genuinely hate him. Just like I genuinely love kanna, like really I really love her, I in the same time despise midori so bad. We hate him because he is horrible to good people that WE KNOW AND CARE ABOUT, not random npcs. There is a lot of… disgusting implications in his story with shin that I will not talk about it makes me really uncomfortable right now. SO HERE IS A VERY TACKY TRANSITION TO TALK ABOUT WHY I HATE JUNKO FROM DANGANRONPA.

Junko is boring, that’s it, she is boring, not funny not interesting, she is a fetish, she is the biggest Mary sue on earth, she is a gross character made to make fun of people with disabilities and queer people. Her only traits is being crazy, that’s it. I wouldn’t call midori that crazy actually, he’s methodical calculated, and precise. Crazyness is a term for people who aren’t in control of their actions and delusional about reality, sou is not crazy, he knows what he is doing, he is in full control, while characters like shin should actually be consider crazy, like shin is actually crazy but sou isn’t.

Conclusion:

Sou is a breath of fresh air, because nankidai had the balls to write an actually interesting deep and threatening character AND make him a villain. He didn’t fall into the trap of making him have a sad backstory or good motives, sou is just selfish, that’s all he is. He make him a fun entertaining guy who you absolutely hates, he made him threatening and at the same time a complete doofus. He made him humane and pathetic.

But the thing that make me love nankidai the most is this

The fact that he actually killed him that takes courage as a writer to just end a character THAT WAY, which is why midori will never come back alive he is forever dead. And that take a lot of talents as a writer to just take one of the most important characters and just get him drilled to death in the anus, like dammn nankidai you are a savage. That fact alone makes him one of the best characters in game, I hate him as a person, but has a character he is a masterpiece.

Though Kanna could solo him

this was posted as a video on my blog this is mainly so people who don't want to stay there reading a 24 minute video of my stuttering can have a bit of quiet

[waitinqroom]

the only criticism of the new snow white that i find valid is the fact that disney’s “ideas” are running dry and their latest projects are completely void of originality. instead of remaking every one of their old films they should come up with brand new ideas and princesses and such. but if they Are going to remake the old ones they might as well rehash the stories for the 21st century, to make them interesting and refreshing at the very least??? like what’s the harm in a brand new take on the story of snow white when we’ve already seen the same thing done over and over again the past… this time she can still be a pretty princess wearing a dress And an independent woman with her own autonomy… and i see no harm in perpetuating that narrative for all the young girls who will inevitably be exposed to this new film. Also if you’re worried about the physical character, rachel zegler’s face literally looks like a live action version of the animated character and her singing voice suits the role unlike pretty much any other contemporary actress. plus most of the things she’s actually said about this film have been taken out of context, beaten with a stick, and misconstrued completely… people are just looking for new ways to hate on successful & talented young women

[lol-jackles]

What do you think of Rachel Zegler and her badmouthing Snow White every chance she gets? It seems like she doesn't even like the character but it doesn't seem smart to bash such an iconic and beloved character, who's a Disney princess no less! She's been going viral on tiktok for this reason. The beginning of this clip has made it's way into so many tiktoks all saying they hate this girl and that she doesn't deserve Snow White (I kinda agree tbh). Conversely, it did make the actress from The Little Mermaid trend positive because if nothing else, she at least loved playing Ariel.

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8N8YXQP/

Hold on while I work through the mental equation where Gal Gadot would be jealous of Rachel Zegler's ~superior beauty. *The Evil Queen is beautiful in her own right. It is the opinion of the mirror that causes all the drama.* There it is.

Okay, first, having seen West Side Story and Shazam, fury of the gods, Rachel does a good job convincingly playing sweet and kind characters on screen, which makes her ideal for Snow White. Now with that said, Disney either dropped the ball on providing Rachel media training, or she's saying exactly what Disney want her to say, thinking it will appeal to feminists Zoomers.

Whether or not these are Disney's talking points, let's review (link):

"She's not going to be saved by the prince"

Um, well, okay, let's give them that in the original Grimm she was not saved by the prince.

"She's dreaming about becoming a leader"

As the commentator said, she can have both true love and a career since male superheroes do it all the time. But I would argue that in the original film, Snow White was already a leader: she survived childhood abuse and assassination attempt, ran into the forest to save herself, then ran her own household as a teenager, and never gave up believing that she deserved love and care regardless of how people treated her in the past. Above all, Snow White was a tale about resilience and never giving up on the life you desire regardless of your current circumstances.

Then the commentator point out that it makes sense for Snow White to dream about true love because she doesn't remember what it was like to be loved after her biological parents died and she was mistreated by her stepmom and forced to work as a scullery maid for years. The prince was the first person to show her affection and kindness.

I've seen Rachel disparage the OG Snow White as outdated since it's from 1937. I wished I could explain to Rachel (or her Disney handler) that in 1937, many Americans had been through WWI and the Great Depression and Americans needed a message of hope and a reminder to stay positive and carry on despite hardships. Snow White embodied this resilience, her strength is underappreciated. I mean, come on, despite the shocker of a day Snow White had with the assassination attempt and all, when she found the house, she was deeply moved by the thought that seven little children with no mother lived there, so she cleans their house to surprise them. She’s always thinking of others. And despite the horrible situation she’s in she remains kind and optimistic, and quietly holds tight to her dream.

Disney did such a great job with the first live action remake of Cinderella in 2015 that I don't understand why it was down hill from there. They kept the same character traits as the 1950s version, being kind, never giving up hope, and then improving on that. It's message about "having courage and be kind" is a very good one because it's easy to become hardened and bitter when people treat you badly, but it takes a very strong person to be kind even after all that.

[hello-nichya-here]

Why is it okay to ship canonically confirmed straight characters with characters of the same sex, but it isn't okay to ship canonically confirmed gay characters with characters of the opposite sex?

It's okay to ship any character with any other character. There's a big difference between "I just like the dynamic/chemistry of this ship, even if it could never happen in canon because character A is gay" and "I want these two together because I hate gay people" - and on the scenario, the problem is the real word homophobia that can hurt real people, not the "I want character A to kiss character B instead of character C."

"Oh, but what about representation?" The fanfics are not going to change canon. And even then, while representation is nice and can help people feel seen, understood and accepted, that is not the be all end all of LGBT+ rights - and honestly, I think this over-focus on making sure every fictional media we like checks every box for all kinds of representation ever is why activism has become so shallow and why a ton of media that is claiming to be "bold and revolutionary" is just bland characters waving a pride flag around to distract audiences from the fact that they don't have a personality.

It's also why we have bullshit like Disney's 50th "first" gay character that shows up for five seconds and gets cut depending of where the movie is being released, or all the live action remakes that are basically Disney trying to get easy money by slightly changing a script of an old, already successful movie, only with a minority group that had previously not been there shoved awkwardly into the story with no care. Minimum effort and creativity, yet MASSIVE profit because people forgot that oppression won't end because a mega corporation doesn't discriminate between getting money from straight people with no taste and getting money from gay people with no taste (also controversy is often free publicity).

[yeslordmyking]

The Real Captain Hook Disney Movie?

You know what Disney Live Action Remake (ish) we really need: Captain Hook!

Peter Pan was actually a phantom that lured kids to Neverland like the Pied Piper, made them forget about their parents and want to party on Neverland forever, and killed them when they grew up or missed Mommy!

But who wants to go home and get old when Jeremy Sumpter is whispering dreams in your ear?

Captain Hook was a child that escaped and becomes Peter's enemy because his childhood was taken away, and he tried to stop him from kidnapping and murdering more children. And the only portrayal of that story that I’ve seen that even comes close to touching Peter Pan's dark roots was Once Upon a Time! And Peter Pan was Rumpstiltskin’s father in that version! As a diehard OUAT time, the show should hold a huge credit for giving us the closest portrayal to the real Peter Pan that we’ve ever gotten. Even then, there wasn’t a real focus on the rivalry between him and Killian (Hook) since it leaned more into the father-son dynamic the show set up.

Robbie Kay did awesome btw, his Peter was chilling and absolutely none of my fondness for the Disney version carried over, I hated this kid's guts!

(Oh yeah, disclaimer before I go on: no I’ve never seen Robin William’s Hook, I was too young when it came out and I never got around to seeing it, so that one’s probably good, but I’m not sure how it potrays Hook, please don’t kill me hehe)

Disney is probably the biggest influence of making Peter Pan known as a mischievous cutiepatootie that just loves to have fun, and doesn’t want to become an adult because he thinks you can’t have fun anymore as an adult. And I totally adore that version of him. Unfortunately, Disney decided to make Hook into an incompetent bumbling buffoon (which I do get in a sense because essentially he was ripped from his family at a young age and never really got to grow up and mature in a conventional sense, get his full education etc.) But, man he was no match for Peter at all! If Peter Pan is supposed to be so difficult to best, it should be because he's a clever quick-witted trickster, not because his opponent is so pathetically dim-witted and easily defeated! It takes away from both of their characters a little. We're supposed to believe Hook become a captain of anything by any other means than "the least dumb pirate so captain by default?" Really? This man lives on a *boat* and jumps into his crew's arms when he hears a crocodile or octopus nearby!

Bruh! You're a pirate! 😐

Granted he has clever moments like consoling a dejected Tinkerbell and getting her to reveal the Lost Boys' hideout, and in Return to Neverland he (almost) successfully manipulates Jane into trusting him. But even then, it's doesn't take a ton of sharp wit to use a child's naivety and a recently scorned fairy's notorious jealousy against them. Not that I've tried.

But anyway, if Disney wants a remake idea that isn’t note-for-note from the animation, showing Captain Hook’s side of the story a-la-Maleficent I think would be a good move, showing that Hook really was the good guy all along. Give him actual leadership skills, nautical knowledge, swordsman skills, etc. Play around with the balance between holding onto your childhood and developing maturity, go into origin stories about Peter having a terrible relationship with his mother and choosing to leave her for eternal youth in Neverland, vs. Hook having a wonderful mother that he misses every day, and his childish tendencies are because he was ripped from his mother's care before he was able to learn how to face fears like losing your hand to a crocodile. Maybe Hook sacrifices his childlike innocence and loses the ability to use pixie dust and escape Neverland because stopping Peter from doing the same to more children is more important than his return home. Let the bitter irony of growing up being both the only way to defeat Peter and reason Hook will never see his mother again callous over his innocent young heart and make him more and more pirate-like out of desperation to escape, and he starts letting things slide that used to keep him awake at night-like nearly leaving Tiger Lilly for dead in a cave filling with water- because the end justifies the means: Hook had to defeat Peter. That boy took his mother away from him, and anyone who stands with Peter-Tinkerbell, mermaids, three Darling children who have trusted him- is the enemy. Fuel Hook's rage towards Peter because they'll never see eye to eye on loving the people who raised you, and the absolute frustration of everyone in Neverland being in love with Peter, and the unintelligent band of swashbuckler thieves are his only aid in bringing Peter Pan down. Hook dances on a line between noble cause and pure revenge, until eventually, the other pirates offer him a leadership position: Captain. This authority will be the death of his youth, ensuring Hook is trapped on Neverland forever, but this way, Hook is the only way there will be no more Lost Boys and no more innocent children crying for their mothers before Peter kills them.

Maybe show children viewers that the world doesn’t always works as Kids vs Adults like they think. There are good adults and bad kids, and a live action Captain Hook that harkens to the orginal folktale could be a great way to be more original with the live action adaptations this time around. I don't know, I'm just tossing ideas around.

I know Disney just dropped Peter Pan and Wendy, so making Peter the villain is probably nowhere near becoming an idea Disney would consider creating, but hey, I can dream. And I really don’t mind seeing Peter as a immature yet lovable scamp at all. I just think Hook’s story would be a good way to give Disney fans something more original. With the exceptions of less popular Peter Pan movies and shows, Hook probably, and what I think 2015′s Pan would’ve tried to do if it wasn’t too bland to get a sequel greenlit (man I would’ve kinda loved to see Garret Hedlund as full fledged Hook and not prequel cowboy Hook or whatever was going on, none of that movie made much sense regardless.)

Many many adaptations have chosen not to stay true to the source material and pander to kids because “Kids Rule!” (sorry that sounds so 90s, I’m a milennial!) so maybe this can give Disney something creative and original to give to fans who don’t feel that’s what they’ve been getting from Disney lately.

[heavenlyhoundoom]

Me roasting Hoenn.

Treecko: I bet this pokemon licks its eyes.

Grovyle: You had a very weird meme.

Sceptile: Do those back seeds hurt?

Torchic: The boys have small specks on their butts.

Combusken: Some pointed out that it looks like a certain body part, and now I can't unsee it.

Blaziken: The first fire/fighting starter that everyone "loves".

Mudkip: The most overused pokemon meme.

Marshtomp: It looks like it can't think.

Swampert: One razor leaf and you're dead.

Poochyena: Only known for chasing Birch.

Mightyena: Aka, Diet Houndoom.

Zigzagoon: I hope we get a tanuki pokemon that actually looks like a tanuki one day.

Linoone: Apparently, tanukis evolve into badgers.

Wurmple: Slightly more interesting than the other regional bugs due to its split evolutions.

Cascoon and Silcoon: It sucks that which evolution you get is determined by something completely out of your control.

Dustox and Beautifly: Living proof of pretty privilege.

Lotad, Lombre, and Ludicolo: Did you know these pokemon are based on kappas, a yokai known for drowning people?

Seedoot: This kind of looks like a mario enemy.

Nuzleaf: Why does it have nipples?

Shiftry: How are you able to do anything with those leaf hands?

Tailow: It's just a bird.

Swellow: You're mainly known for one of the biggest ass pulls In the anime.

Wingull and Pelliper: Why are you in every region after your introduction!?

Ralts: And the winner for most ridiculous haircut goes to...

Kirlia: Your haircut has gotten slightly better, but only slightly.

Gardevoir: Poor thing was rule 34ed beyond repair.

Surskit: Ah. =)

Masquerain: You have to be the most forgettable gen 3 pokemon.

Shroomish: I can't unsee the clip where someone flipped its face upside down and made another face.

Breloom: AKA: The kangashroom.

Slakoth: I wish people could be as chill as this guy.

Vigoroth: The caffeine addict pokemon.

Slaking: Oh my gosh, it's the man behind all those live action Disney remakes!

Nincada and Ninjask: They went from having a super cool type combo to having the most overused bug combo ever.

Shedinja: Don't go looking at its back.

Whismur: Why does it have a butt hole!?

Loudred: It's so ugly!!!

Exploud: Why would anyone want to train such a loud pokemon!?

Makuhita and Hariyama: It's sumo time!!!

Azurill: This pokemon created the first pokemon trans icon.

Nosepass: How big are its boogers?

Skitty: Too bad You're only known for being able to breed with a whale.

Delcatty: Look at that neck pillow.

Sableye: I feel like if it could talk, it would sound like Stitch.

Mawile: How heavy is your mouth hair?

The Aron line: Why would you create metal termites!?

Meditite: It looks like it's wearing a diaper.

Medicham: Now it looks like a pingas!

Electrike and Manectric: I would've never known that these were supposed to be dogs if people didn't tell me.

Plusle and Minun: These pokemon only exist to show off the new(at the time) double battle mechanic.

Volbeat and Illumise: Zzzz....

Roselia: You should've been a gen 4 pokemon.

Gulping and Swalot: Their names are such a dirty mind test.

Carvanha and Sharpedo: Apparently, piranhas evolve into sharks.

Wailmer: Not nearly as memorable as your evolution.

Warlord: And you're only known for being able to breed with a tiny cat.

Numel: The slowpoke for camel lovers.

Camerupt: You're Maxie's ace pokemon, and you're still forgettable.

Spoink: I would hate to have to bounce all the time to stay alive.

Grumpig: Miss Piggy without her makeup.

Spinda: If you're trying to catch every spinda variant, then you have no life.

Trapinch: This was the bane of my existence in X and Y.

Vibrava and Flygon: The "Why aren't these bug/dragon type" pokemon.

Cacnea and Cacturne: I'm gonna add these pokemon to my list of reasons to never go to the desert.

Swablu and Altaria: Mmmm... cotton candy...

Zangoose: Don't leave this pokemon alone with your pet snake

Seviper: Shiny killers, shiny killers, shiny killers!

Lunatone and Solrock: Shouldn't you two be in the super star daycare?

Barboach: More like barbitch!

Wishcash: This pokemon eats masterballs for breakfast!

Corphish and Crawdaunt: Mmmm...crawfish...

Baltoy: Dreidel, dreidel, dreidel, I made it out of clay.

Claydol: Ah, yes. Biblically accurate pokemon.

Lileep: You'd think the first rock/grass type would look more interesting.

Cradilly: Don't lie. You also used to think Cradilly's eyes were its teeth.

Anorith: Stop staring at me with them big old eyes!

Armaldo: A another shiny ruined by the saturation of the 3d era.

Feebas and Milotic: Ugly duckling but with fish.

Castform: How does it feel to have gone years without shinies for your alternative forms?

Kecleon: How are you able to hide from opponents when the stripe on your belly doesn't change?

Shuppet and Banette: You two really need therapy.

Duskull: You're just a bully.

Dusclops: I don't like how it feels like it's staring into my soul.

Tropius: Are those bananas removable, asking for a friend.

Chimecho: Who are you again?

Absol: The emo pokemon.

Wynaut: Was this pokemon really necessary?

Snorunt: It looks so puntable!

Galie: Why do you look so pissed, man?

Spheal: I can't roast perfection.

Sealeo: Your mustache looks like cut-up paper.

Walrein: Who else used to think this pokemon was a pseudo legendary?

Clampearl: Give me them pearls!

Huntail and Gorebyss: Everyone keeps talking about how Remoraid evolving into Octillery makes no sense, but what about these guys?

Relicanth: How have you survived for so long while also being able to die from a single vine whip?

Luvdisc: Boring pokemon, cool shiny.

Bagon: How are you able to do anything with those practically nonexistent arms!?

Shelgon: Another cacoon pokemon.

Salamance: I'm glad you can finally fly, but is shooting all those beams of energy necessary?

Beldum: Just stay in the ball, damn you!

Metang: Hide your Nosepasses.

Metagross: I've got nothing. This is such a cool pokemon.

The regis: I can take you all down with one fighting type!

Latias and Latios: The only difference between their megas is their eye color!

Kyogre and Groudon: Someone clearly has an unfair advantage.

Rayquaza: Its mega has to be the most op thing in the franchise!

Jirachi: I wish Gamefreak would just give us a fire/fairy type already!

Deoxys: The ultrabeast before ultrabeasts.

[shebeafancyflapjack]

So I really don't like the live action Disney remakes, but I think what makes them extra frustrating is that every single one has just ONE moment where I think "Oh this is something that's better than the original" and it's like the potential for something great was there but never allowed to grow.

In Cinderella it's how they make the Prince more of a character, bit to the films detriment as Cinderella herself is rather bland in comparison.

In Beauty and the Beast it's Maurice. Just wanna hug that guy in every scene he's in.

In Aladdin it's Friend Like Me. Not necessarily better than the og, apples and oranges, but it's the peak of the films energy, visuals and Will Smith's performance.

In Lion King it's Timone and Pumba. Specifically the Be Our Guest parody.

In Peter Pan it's the backstory of Hook and the relationship between him and Peter.

In the Little Mermaid, I actually found a lot to enjoy in this one even if I still wouldn't call it good. Hard to say if my favourite was their version of Under The Sea or Ariel's new song when she becomes human (God Halle's voice!!).

Lady and the Tramp is the only one I'm struggling on but it was direct to streaming so I wasn't expecting much. Diverse casting I guess?

Mulan....I'll be honest, I do not remember if I've actually seen this or just seen a lot of clips. Pass. If someone thinks of something they liked in this, mention it.

Maleficent I know technically isn't a remake but it does follow a lot of beats from Sleeping Beauty. This is a guilty pleasure for me, even if I hate what's done with the king and the good fairies. Just everything involving Aurora and Maleficent and Diaval is found family gold though.

Oh and I know it's not in the same league but shout out to 101 Dalamations for Glenn Close. Iconic.

Jungle Book I barely remember much of other than I prefer the ending with him staying rather than going to the man village.

(Also I'm not counting Alice in Wonderland because they're more sequels to the originals rather than remakes).

[smol-warrior-1258]

What's The Point Of A Faithful Mario Adaptation?

Obvs this is very focused on video games to movies, but honestly the discourse on adaptations writ large is exactly how I usually talk about it. I've had the conversation so many times talking about adaptations (typically book to movie/tv or remakes of movies/tv) and how any adaptation should be looking at how the new medium can be uniquely leveraged to reimagine the same content. If I ever find the time I want to check out some of the references he uses and read more.

That's basically the tl;dr bc the rest is a lot of assorted thoughts on adaptation & meta content without a ton of cohesive flow. I have a lot of feelings on the topic and not a lot of structure while expressing them . . .

A huge example of missing the mark re: changing medium is all the live action Disney remakes. I personally find them somewhat disappointing across the board simply because they don't use the live action-ness to any substantial effect. It reads much more as "live action is the ultimate goal in cinema on principle" than "live action would provide genuine enhancement to the material in ways the original animation couldn't" which feels very hollow as a viewer. (Not even considering The Lion King and it's souless and still ultimately animated 'realistic' animals) The engaging aspect of retellings as discussed in this video - ie that they're a fundamental aspect of the human condition re: storytelling - is to cast new light on a beloved piece of content and, in doing so, shine up one facet of a larger jewel. That will inherently mean deviations to some extent, but those deviations ideally work in conversation with the source material and other adaptations, and changes are made with a purpose that will theoretically make up for anything lost in the process.

On that topic, changes - large or small - are a very slippery slope. I am generally inclined to hold the first version I encounter of a particular story (whether that is the original or not) much closer to my heart, and prefer that all the little details that make it up remain untouched. It seems to me that without all those little things, the story simply wouldn't be precisely what it is, and tweaking elements can have a major ripple effect. All that said, changing mediums fundamentally changes the tools you're working with and therefore your ability to convey the same narrative. For example, the most common change from book to movie is simply to cut and/or shorten scenes. Books can be a lot longer/narratively dense than movies can and it is unreasonable to make a 6hr movie just to include every scene. They are tonally very different mediums, and the audience expectations differ as well. Much as I hate to see scenes cut, I can understand the limitation. Similarly, movies & tv are subject to ratings that books are not. Many adaptations have to tone down violence, gore, and other mature or taboo content just to reach the same audiences as their source material and therefore cannot be wholly text accurate (Game of Thrones and Outlander would definitely fall into that category). Those types of adjustments are all understandble even if they take away from the viewing experience for some people. A quick call out for things like Rent or Little Shop of Horrors where the endings were completely changed in specific recognition of the fact that character death is much easier for theatre audiences to stomach than to see on screen bc you get to break the immersion at the end. The real problem, in my opinion/experience, is when changes are made with no clear goal/rationale/purpose - or worse, when source content is removed but then new material is added without justifying the switch (especially when that then causes plot holes or other narrative problems that need to be resolved!) Those kinds of things not only feel like a slap to the face on principle, but can radically alter the larger tone and miss more foundational aspects of the source material (at best; at worst they can actively go against characterizations, plot points, or worldbuilding established in the source material - a personal pet peeve of mine).

There's also a whole conversation to be had about the phethora of movies adapted from books where they had to drastically expand the scope in order to fill a runtime. This mostly applies for picture book to movie adaptations (Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs, Horton Hears a Who, most versions of The Grinch Who Stole Christmas), but also for longer form novels that are just less involved (idk if that's the right word for it) than movie producers would like (The Hobbit though that's a topic unto itself and overdiscussed to boot, A Wrinkle in Time, I would even place Cats [the movie] in this category) Just as another aspect to consider, particularly when it comes to the video game to movie adaptations he talks about in the video, but I think it's a separate enough topic to not get into here.

This video also naturally made me think of fanfiction (my husband & I actually paused it to have a sidebar on the topic) and how it often serves the retelling function discussed in the video. There's the stuff like describing scenes from an alternative character pov, writing in scenes that were skipped/glossed over, expanding on background moments, etc which are fundamentally about producing more of the existing content but a little to the left, as it were, while generally operating within the confines of canon. We, as consumers of the source material, simply want to have more of a thing we like and thus the lovely creative fans of the world produce content to fulfill that desire. There is also the wide variety of truely adapted content in fanfiction like AUs, canon divergence, role swaps, non-canonical shipping, or introducing realistic elements to stylized and/or sanitized source content (cursing, violence/injury, sex or other explicit material, diverse characters, etc) which by & large enhance the overall experience of engaging with the source material even while altering it. Even the act of speculation & extrapolation in the form of headcanon-ing helps audiences participate in the process of storytelling and subsequently enjoy it more as an active process of engagement, rather than something passively consumed.

There is also a conversation to be had about using adaptation as a vessel for accessibility to larger, newer, or different audiences. This is both on a logistical level (ex audiobooks & visual adaptations for those with dyslexia, cinematic versions of broadway shows for those who cannot afford to see it on stage, etc) and on a more abtract level (ex recasting a story with a female lead like His Girl Friday does with The Front Page in order to examine how the same circumstances play out differently, using a modern setting to make a statement on society through the lens of a known story like West Side Story does with Romeo & Juliet, etc). Many current remakes & adaptations of beloved franchises are no doubt motivated by profitability, but it doesn't change the fact that a variety of new viewers are being exposed to the source content for the first time. We as fans hope that will only be the gateway drug introducing fresh faces to the entire fandom, but even if it doesn't (or if the adaptation is intolerable to those who were already fans) there is some intrinsic merit to expanding that audience. Fanfiction also often operates to open source material up to marginalized audiences in ways mass produced content doesn't, and allows sidelined stories to be told through known material.

Idk where I really meant to land with all this, but the video really helped me solidify my existing Adaptation Thoughts and I wanted more people to see it and engage in a very interesting conversation!

[imagitory]

So I realize I'm late to talking about this, but...

Although I personally find Snow White (2024) to be just as pointless as all of the other recent Disney live action remakes -- even the ones I think have some value like The Little Mermaid (2023) -- I haven't hated everything I've heard about it. I really like Greta Gerwig's work overall -- I mean, heck, she worked on that recent Barbie movie that everyone's gone gaga for, and I also loved her take on Little Women. Gal Gadot is a striking choice for the Evil Queen. Even Rachel Ziegler herself I had no problem with, considering she previously was in the remake of West Side Story playing Maria, which means she has the vocal range to perform the role of Snow, unlike some of the other actors chosen to play the leads in these remakes. *side-eyes the hell out of Emma Watson, Dan Stevens, and Mena Massaud*

That being said...I hope Snow White (2024) does finally spark a real conversation about how to truly embrace a film's legacy. Because here's the thing -- there are issues one can point out with the original Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs that could be addressed in a new adaptation. The Prince is woefully underdeveloped as a character, to the point that the Dwarfs honestly are the real heroes of the story. You could give the Dwarfs more depth and backstory, so as to give the actors playing them more to work with. (As much as Peter Dinklage’s comments about the original Seven Dwarfs were controversial and arguably resulted in other actors with dwarfism being shut out of the parts, I would like to write roles that can really showcase these actors’ abilities outside of comedy, so they like Dinklage can score more roles besides just as fairy tale Dwarfs.) And Snow is a bit young to be thinking about a committed romantic relationship if she's truly 14, let alone a romance with a full-grown man.

Even with these critiques, though, the idea that this film is somehow antiquated and unrelatable to modern audiences because it came out in 1937 is just flat-out not true. This film has been re-released to theaters seven times since its initial release, oftentimes when Disney was in financial trouble. 1944? Used to raise revenue during WWII when Disney was only able to release pro-American propaganda projects. 1952? Three years before Walt's expensive Disneyland project was opened. 1958? One year before one of Walt's most expensive films, Sleeping Beauty, was released. 1967? One year after Walt's death and arguably the beginning of Disney's "Dark Age." 1983? In the midst of Disney's "Dark Age" -- it wouldn't release another animated film until two years later, and that film was The Black Cauldron. 1987? Once again in the midst of Disney's Dark Age -- Disney's hand-drawn animation studio was on its last legs, with its heroic release of The Little Mermaid still two years away. Even Snow White's final release in 1993 made it the very first film to be entirely scanned to digital, restored, and then re-recorded to film. And every single time it came back to theaters, this film made bank. It was profitable every single time, even after over fifty years. And this doesn't even touch the home video/DVD/Blu-Ray or streaming markets.

On a personal note, I recently unearthed an old home movie of myself at age three, on Christmas. I was so excited about one particular present I'd received that I wouldn't let go of it for a good chunk of the home movie. You want to know what that gift was? A VHS copy of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, which had only just been put out on home video two months prior. My mum presumes that I'd known Snow White only as one of our storybooks and/or as a CD, and I was so, so excited to finally get to watch the full movie. The following year at a dance recital, I was asked to talk about myself, and when asked about my favorite movie, I boldly said Snow White, and when I was asked who my favorite dwarf was, without skipping a beat I said, "Grumpy!" This is all -- for the record -- coming from a child who was never as much into romance as magic, music, and adventure and would eventually come out as asexual (though still romantic) as an adult. I certainly never saw the original Snow White as just being about waiting for a Prince or True Love's Kiss. I saw it as being about a girl who has to go through some really scary stuff, but gets through it by being kind and befriending creatures and people who help her, and the wicked woman who takes her jealousy out on her and ultimately pays the price for choosing cruelty over kindness. And I don't think I was the only one who saw the story that way.

I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with taking a new angle on a classic story, let alone offering good-faith criticism to an older, classic film. But I think the best way to honor Snow White's legacy is not to just take the original film and rip it apart in order to prop up a "new and improved" version. I look at how Guillermo Del Toro's Pinocchio doesn't take pot-shots at Disney's Pinocchio, or how the multiple TV movie productions of Rodgers' and Hammerstein's Cinderella or the film Ever After don't take cheap shots at Disney's animated film. Sure, I think one would be foolish to act like those filmmakers weren't at least somewhat inspired by Disney's work in places -- the 1997 version of R&H's Cinderella was even produced by Disney -- but they still did their own thing, often taking a completely different direction than Disney's film in places, even despite any possible inspiration. They didn't try to copy Disney's work. They didn't try to "fix" these already beloved films. They just tried to stand on their own merits. They told the original story the way they wanted to tell it, with their own characters, plots, music, themes, and distinctive tone, rather than take someone else’s adaptation of the material and pick and choose what they wanted to copy from it so as to leech off that adaptation’s fanbase. And I truly wish more Disney "remakes" would do that, as opposed to taking these pre-established films and then either ripping them apart and putting them back together Frankenstein-style or adding a whole bunch of insubstantial, fluffy whipped cream to an already perfect sundae. Then maybe we could have two special, unique films to enjoy as two separate entities -- the way we can enjoy films like Disney's Peter Pan and Peter Pan (2003), or Tangled and Barbie as Rapunzel, or (most relevantly of all) Disney's Cinderella and Rodgers' and Hammerstein's Cinderella simultaneously -- rather than having to act like we're "fixing" or even "replacing" old classics that a lot of people still really love and Disney clearly doesn't want to stop marketing.

[livelymyrtle]

Honestly atp I don’t know how to feel about Lin Manuel Miranda. I don’t want to be in that crowd of the “Hamilton and everything else he does sucks and it’s all awful” because it’s not really true… Hamilton was very good (mostly brought down from excellence by the second act), and I actually quite liked Encanto (aside from the fact that Abuela gets pretty much excused at the end + Disney forced him to do stuff like writing in Isabela). In The Heights I haven’t paid much attention to, but what I saw I remember being good, and I know he has plenty of other gems…

so why is it that I, like so many people, am just not feeling it? Netizens have recently been feeling more meh on him or even begun to hate him. So why this shift in perspective?

I think the sudden scrutiny against LMM has two main components:

1) Overexposure

After Disney has been putting him in everything, which was already after everyone was saturated with Hamilton and ITH stuff, I think people are just getting a bit sick of the man. It’s especially damning for Lin that he tends to make every main character himself, and that he has such a distinctive lyrical style(or rather, he is unwilling to diverge from that style - he wrote How Far I’ll Go for Moana and that was more off par for him). As a result, it just feels like you are watching the same thing over and over and over again with him - and at this point it’s just getting kind of exhausting to see him all the time doing what feels like the exact same thing.

It also probably doesn’t help that he has become associated with Disney just as Disney has begun losing popular favor. Nowadays, they mostly are doing mediocre movies with the exact same plot, characters, art style, aesthetic, and message(basically trying to be Studio Ghibli in plot except that they don’t have the slow pensiveness, nor the understanding of what consumers actually want, nor the desire to create art for art’s sake), and extremely awful live action remakes that literally nobody likes, so Disney’s new stuff has been bleeding popularity like a bullet wound. Now, people think of Lin in the same vein that think of their disappointment with Disney, which is probably not making him look better. I’ve even seen people blame Disney’s negative shift on him, which isn’t really fair, but… I can see why someone would draw that conclusion, you know?

2) More importantly, cultural shift in attitudes.

Post COVID and what I like to call the Reality Exodus, everyone went on their phones, got really depressed and pessimistic, and got really online. I think that this has directly lead to why people are no longer ok with some aspects of LMMs stuff. In 2015-16, we all loved Hamilton: it was an inclusive and fresh new take on US history, something that we were pretty starved of pride in. With the election of Trump, things seemed bleak: but people remained hopeful still that there could be pride in this country. The concept of Miranda only hiring actors of color was also just the right amount of groundbreaking but not too shocking for the culture - we were committed to diversity, but not so much to the point where we wanted truly diverse stories to be told, so the all-POC cast in a very white story was a good way to knock on the glass ceiling without breaking it. The added message of “we are all a part of America” was fitting for the widespread “we don’t see color, everyone is welcome, hakuna matata” brand of anti-racism that was the most widely accepted narrative at the time.

But as we got into COVID, we see In the Heights released. And all of a sudden, the Twitter mob has come out against LMM for… colorism in his casting, of all things??? Casting that was very diverse?? And that he wasn’t even in charge of anyway???

In hindsight the whole Twitter cancellation thing seems ridiculous, but I do think it’s an important example of how much more aware and critical we had gotten as a culture. And I think our new perspectives shifted our views on some of his earlier work, too: namely, Hamilton.

After COVID, a play written by a nonblack man about rapping slave masters (but they are all played by POC) didn’t really seem all that revolutionarily anti-racist. We as a culture had developed our understanding of racial theory to a different, more radical narrative: we should start uplifting the stories of real POC and make actual changes. All of a sudden, LMM’s rooting for diversity just didn’t seem genuine anymore the the culture at large. I think that has played one of the biggest parts in his loss of popular favor.

And that’s where we get to now: I just don’t know what to think. I mean, on the one hand, of course Lin Manuel Miranda does some great stuff artistically. But his art, his messaging, his image in general has become associated with an era of lenient attempts at equality that I just don’t really support. And no, before you think it, this isn’t going to devolve into the regular separation of art and artist stuff. But it is a question of separation: Can we separate the goodness of an art piece from its intent? Can we judge art or media as being good objectively? And how important of a part does messaging play in what makes something “good”?

My answer? I don’t know. I need a cup of tea and a nap. Peace.

[moosecow]

UNPOPULAR OPINION TIME!

Ten things I wish would just DIE already…

10. Miraculous Ladybug

Before you sharpen your pitchforks! Hear me out! I actually REALLY like this show…but GOD It is the BIGGEST tease I have EVER seen! Marinette and Adrien should have gotten together at the end of the first season, and maybe we could have explored their relationship, given them more depth? Raised the stakes instead of the CONANT. ENDLESS. FILLER. Of absolute nothing that is this show. We all know they’re going to get together, just rip the bandaid and let us move on. I’ve never seen a show jerk its fan base around so much!

9. Avatar the Last Air Bender

Again, I LOVE THIS SHOW, SO, SO MUCH! But I can tell that they’re now turning this into a cash cow. I don’t want to see another avatar show, especially after what they did with Legend of Korra. What made Avatar so special was that, yes there was a lot going on in their world, but it never stopped focusing on the core cast, their development, their relationships, and their reactions to the world they live in. Korra just gave us more and more characters instead of focusing on the ones we had, and it lost me with its overcomplicated plot, and I fear legend of Genji, AND the live action remake (which already has alarm bells going up because it’s live action and when has worked out well?) Can we just…revive an old gem on Nickelodeon? Or make something new and substantial instead of relying on SpongeBob reruns?

8. Dragon Ball

Yes, another show I like! But MAN! How many power-ups can we go through before it gets old! Even ASH finally reached his goal in pokemon! There’s so much content here, and I’m grateful for that! I don’t mind more games and merchandise, but enough of the show! It’s clear that only Goku and Vegeta are the only characters capable of beating the big enemy, and no one cares much for the younger characters taking over. But at this point their not that interesting. ESPECIALLY Goku. He’s just a guy that likes fighting. Vegeta was more interesting with his reformed villain arc, but he is constantly overshadowed by his dumber super-saiyen. It feels like they’ve exhausted all their stories….

7. Velma

I’m gonna barf. Seriously, all people do is complain about this show. Can we just, STOP? Review bombing it, complaining about it, making reaction videos to it, is just…feeding it at this point. If all of us hate so much! So many shows that deserved to be watched and enjoyed were completely ignored and faded away from the public consciousness, but not this one, at least, not yet. I see video and video about it! Ignore it. Let it die like it’s supposed to! And now I will never mention it again, and neither should you!

6. Marvel

It’s not so much as I want this franchise to die…more like…I think we need a break! It’s been like 20 years of non stop Marvel and I feel like we already peaked with the Avengers Endgame. Besides Moon Knight and Wakanda Forever, all I’ve seen is general dislike of all the new stuff coming out. I know that Disney is a big conglomerate and they’re going to milk this thing for all it’s worth…but wouldn’t people enjoy it more if you let it simmer for a bit, let the ideas come back after some rest, and then get back into it?

5. 13 Reasons Why

This show should have stayed a book! Oh. My. God. As someone that struggles with mental illness, watching this get sensationalized and reduced to nothing more then teenage angst for badly written teenage characters is so gross! I don’t have much to say about it. It just makes me so angry! How do people actually like this and continue to watch and recommend it? It’s basically the same as every other “dramatic” teen show out there, but uses suicide as a hook to draw people in, which is so disrespectful! You want a show that is more mature then this and actually handles mental illness well? Watch BoJack Horseman.

4. Grey’s Anatomy

I don’t care about the relationships in this show. I don’t who broke up with who, who died, who couldn’t have a kid, who cheated on who. I cared more, in the first season at least, when they were just young surgeons, and they were dealing with the struggles of that. BUT MAN! This show quickly became a soap opera! I mean what did I expect from an ABC show. Just end it already! If you want a good show about doctor’s that focuses on their personal growth and the difficulties of the job watch House, or better yet, watch Scrubs.

3. Kingdom Hearts

This hurts. This hurts. So. Much. GOD! I love these games…but I REALLY hate the direction they’re going. KH3 was such a red flag! The story was complicated enough with time travel, the whole foretellers things, how we keep adding characters instead of focusing on the core Destiny Islands Trio, how Kairi is basically a plot device where, EVEN IN HER OWN GAME, she has to be rescued by Sora. And now, KH4 is on its way and Nomura is basically turning it into versus 13….I don’t even know anymore. Things were getting real dumb in Dream Drop Distance. I’m just going to pretend thee series ended at KH2, where the emotions were there and the story wasn’t derailed and removed of all the charm it had…Either end it…or do something actually good with it, because at this point, it’s just getting ridiculous. And this is coming from someone that loves this series with every fiber of their being.

2. Stranger Things

Yeah, Netflix will cancel actually interesting things like Inside Job, Dead End National Park, I’m not okay with this, Sense 8, and introduce stupid ideas such as removing password sharing (EVEN AFTER RAISING THE PRICE BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE PASSWORD SHARING) but they will keep things like Cuties and…this show. At this point, Stranger Things is a shadow of its former self. Not only are there no stakes, because everyone has plot armor, but it’s basically just teenage drama at this point. Remember how in Season 1, the demagorgan was actually scary? Remember how going into the upside down had health consequences? The characters just walk around now without a problem. But this show is just drama filled enough to keep the attention of the masses without actually having any substance. It makes me sad that it followed the pattern of the first season being the most interesting season and then everything going down hill from there. How did THIS show, of all shows…make me not care? What could be worse then this?

Well…

#1. Harry Potter Series

I loved this as a kid. I read this thing so many times…but now…I’m past it, and JK is just. A. Terrible. Terrible. Person…the fact that it doesn’t end with her words, that she actively gives money and supports hate groups, kind ruins the messages I learned in HP. As a kid, I thought part of the point was to be inclusive, and to make life better for people that are mistreated by the mainstream. But no. Not only were the last few movies terrible, but Rowling keeps digging that hole. Even if I wanted to, I just can’t enjoy it anymore. So, even if not everyone will. I’m going to let it die. We need another book series to inspire a generation…I just can’t with this anymore…

[mortallyclearwonderland]

Reasons not to watch Peter Pan and Wendy

1. It's another Disney ''live-action'' reboot. ''Live-action'' in air quotes because you just know a terrible CGI will show up eventually.

''It's not even out yet. Why are you hating it already? You HAVE to watch it first!''

No, I don't! Every single one of those remakes ranged from meh to terrible pieces of shit! The only ones I liked were the 101 Dalmatians movies from the 90s and early 2000s, before the dark times. All those remakes encouraged me to do is get myself physical copies of the original movies before the Chinese puppet censures them all.

''Stop comparing them to the originals! They're their own think.''

No, they're not! If they're supposed to be their own thing why do they go almost exactly the same as the original plot, why do they use the iconic imagery and music instead of creating their own (Why not change Belle's dress from golden to blue?)?

Just the idea of turning these beloved classics into live-action is an insult to animation and creativity. Imagine in place of every lazy remake there was an original animated movie. Not all of them would've been good. But people wouldn't hate them just for existing.

''But what about kids now? They deserve to see those classic stories.''

Yes, they do! So show them the originals, they still hold up! Are you worried about outdated stuff like language, stereotypes, smoking, etc? Then maybe explain this stuff. Or watch other live-action or animated versions. Disney isn't the only company that makes movies.

2. It looks like shit!

Disney remakes are notorious for being ugly and dark.

I don't mean dark as in dark themes, stories, and moments. They try but usually, they fall flat on their faces. Making awe-inspiring and funny moments creepy and ugly, and moments that are supposed to be scary and dramatic end up being funny. Mufasa's death original vs reboot, anyone?

When I say they're dark, as soon as a scene is at night or in a cave you can't see shit!

3. Race swaps.

''So, you're a racist !?!''

No! Shut up! To hell with this argument! I'm sick and tired of giving valid and logical criticism and Disney defenders brushing it off as people just being racist.

Don't you think people deserve their own characters instead of getting sloppy seconds?

''But there is so little representation! I just take what they give at this point. I don't care about the story as long as there are POCs on screen! - Insert iconic white character- is Black now, die mad about it racists!''

I'm sorry but you're part of the problem! If you're fine with race swaps of the white characters then companies have no reason to create original ones. If you will watch anything with anyone of the same race as you in it, producers will just put them in, without carrying about the story. That's how we end up with pointless token characters and bad stories.

There is not enough representation? Just google a movie, a show, a book, a comic, etc.

People aren't mad at the Black fairies and mermaids. They're mad because Disney's Tinkerbell is a white blond and Ariel is a white redhead. If they changed Tinkerbell into a redhead and Ariel into a blond people would still be mad. 

If someone race-swapped them or changed really anything about these characters in a way that fans don't like there would've been a backlash.

There are plenty of stories from all over the world! It's the 21st century! Just use the internet! Or make something up! But then it wouldn't have a brand recognition and making original scripts is hard and long work and Disney needs to make 10 movies and shows in a year!

People are trained like dogs at this point!

Disney puts out a trailer for their remake with all the race and sex changes front and center.

Some people love it. Some people hate it.

Controversy ensues!

The trailer is dunked on.

''Give it a chance!'' people start to defend the movie.

The movie comes out and is just as bad as every other remake. And it would've been bad with or without those pointless changes.

4. Lost boys are not all boys.

Some idiot tried to argue that because there are women in the x-men team there is no reason to be upset over the lost boys having girls in them.

First of all, ‘’men’’ can be used as a synonym for people, humankind.

The x-men had female characters from the beginning.

Peter Pan already has female representation! You have Tiger Lily, Wendy, and Tinkerbell.

There is a bunch of stories with all-female groups or at least one girl in a group but as soon as there is an all-male thing Twitter screams.

The explanation as to why all the lost boys were lost in the first plays is because they were stupid and hyperactive and fell off their prams.

Nice going Disney, all those diverse characters were morons as babies. And it's true, everybody can be stupid, especially when they're just babies. But I can guarantee they will never show them being immature and childlike like in the original.  

Also, the lost boys were inspired by real boys. And I can guarantee when people learn about their tragic backstories there will be a lot of angry people. Just like after they turned Peter Pan into a villain and everybody learned about the backstory of his voice actor.  

Let the shitstorm begin! I'll be watching from the sideline.  

[ilovescaredysquirrel2]

What I think of the live action Disney remakes 🤮😡

Okay, I'm going to start off with making it clear that I like SOME Disney movies, but not all of them, and that includes live action remakes. The 2016 Live action Cinderella, Live action Jungle Book, and Live action 101 Dalmatians were incredible. The ones I have complaints with are the Live action Mulan, and the others that are currently being crapped out one after another. I'm not complaining about the Live action Little Mermaid for racial reasons, because her skin color doesn't matter, it's a 200 year old fairytale adaptation and her skin color was never confirmed. Snow white on the other hand, frankly it doesn't make much sense and feels a like changing everyone's skin color is a bit awkward (I mean, she is Snow WHITE). However, people with differnet skin colors may feel different and if they approve, then I approve too. I'm not one of those people who grew up with the old Disney movies and got overly attached to them... instead I grew up and got obsessed with cartoons from Nickelodeon, Sprout, and Qubo.

About the live action Little Mermaid, again, who the heck cares about her skin color, I'm just mad that they didn't make much changes to her outfit. Like, they could have gave her a little top made of seaweed that covers the breasts more, but I do approve of her newer outfit over the 1980s movie. Like, nobody hates Ariel's design more than I do, in fact it's the second thing that comes to my mind when I think of bad character designs (The firsts are Tim burton stop motion, and Goat story's designs, do not ever watch goat story, it's the scariest thing!). I'm also angry about Tinker Bell's design too, in both the live action and 1950s movie, she's supposed to be 12! Betcha didn't know that, huh? If I were to redesign Tinkerbell I'd actually give her a full length dress to fit in with the time period, plus she's a fairy. I'm just really uncomfortable with the old movies portraying underage girls as "Sexy" and no one seeing anything wrong with it for all these years. Does it make me think the live action movies are going to be any better? NOPE!

The ones I'm most angry about are the live action Lilo & Stitch and the live action Moana because those are actually Disney's own stories that aren't based off any fairytale or story, and making them live action is like a slap in the face to the original animated version that people worked hard on. I get that Lilo and Stitch doesn't have the most aesthetically pleasing art style (I think the old 40s and 50s ones look worse) but it's an amazing movie for it's time, and it stands out as being an original story and not adapted form anything. As for Moana, it came out in 2016 and it's way too soon to make a remake of it. Like, I understand for something like Little mermaid or Pinocchio because they're old as dirt, but for Moana? Like, there's nothing politically incorrect about Moana that they need to change to fit in with today's standards. If they make a live action Moana they have to make a live action Tangled too.

Another big thing that ticks me off is when they forget about ACTUAL live action Disney originals like Teen Beach Movie and Enchanted. Especially Teen beach Movie, that was incredible and creative and it had girl power and I love it! Ross Lynch and Maya Mitchell both did an amazing job, especially Ross. Anyway, not all live action Disney movies are horrible but these ones that they've been announcing lately, like I swear they announce a new live action movie every week, thinking that people will get excited but really they don't give a darn. Wait until Disney makes a live action Finding Nemo with kallmeKris as Dory, the world is gonna go insane! (I'd rather have KallmeKris than Ellen)

[metalandmagi]

Can someone please explain to me why everyone seems to hate this movie (apart from the fact that it's an Amazon original)? Because I've watched it twice now, and I think it's tons of fun. I'm not really a Camilla Cabello fan, but I'll watch this movie a hundred times over the live action Disney one from 2015 that everyone else seems to like for some reason.

It's got humor and camp that feels like it came out of the early 2000s (in a fun way).

Cinderella knows it's ridiculous that she talks to the mice. This movie knows what it is, and I bet everyone had fun making it.

"They made Cinderella into a girl boss!" Shut the fuck up. I'm putting the phrase "girl boss" on the high shelf. Giving Cinderella hobbies and a dream/goal for her future doesn't make her a "girl boss." It makes her more of a real person with an actual personality. She's not just "nice" or "kind" or "sweet." She wants to sell clothes and not be abused by her family. That's all.

Speaking of personalities, I love that the characters actually have personalities that subvert the original story. Even the step sisters! I love that the step mother wants Cinderella to marry the prince when she finds out it was her at the ball, because duh! Why wouldn't she want to have her whole family live in luxury? And I love that the step mother has a backstory that makes us understand more about why she is the way she is without necessarily forgiving her. There's a lot more humanity to her under the bitchiness.

I'm just gonna say it, I like this actor more as Robert than as Henry in the Red White And Royal Blue movie.

I like that Cinderella and Robert actually have fun and meaningful conversations instead of just "they dance at a ball and then get married." This has them act more like a regular couple, and I like that the end goal for them isn't getting married but getting to know each other better.

I like that Robert helps her leave the ball when he sees something is wrong and she's upset.

The songs are fun enough for the most part. We get Idina Menzel singing "Material Girl" and I love the "What A Man/7 Nation Army" mashup at the ball. And I actually listen to the cast version of "Am I wrong" all the time, unironically.

Love Minnie Driver in anything. She's so fucking funny in this movie (I crack up every time I see her measuring the thrones, I will not apologize).

Love Gwen. End of story.

Love the costume design for the other girls at the ball and the variety of styles for their hair and dresses.

Is this movie perfect? God no. Does it have parts I think are silly or dumb (*cough* the mice *cough*)? Yeah, but it's one of the more fun Cinderella adaptations I've seen. Again, it's got that early 2000s feel, so I guess if that's not your jam, I understand. But again, this has so much more energy and personality than the hundreds of Disney live action remakes coming down the pipeline. So seriously, why do people shit on this movie so much?

[exdraghunt]

I saw the Live Action Little Mermaid last night, so it's time for a review. (tl;dr I thought it was really good) Spoilers ahoy (though really, if you've seen the original you know what's going to happen)

The new Little Mermaid movie hits the same story beats as the original, but it's longer run time (2 hr 15m vs 1 hr 20m) allows it to flesh out its story more and expand on the themes of the original.

I'll start off by saying the casting is great. Halle Bailey stands up easily to Jodi Benson (OG Ariel) in the voice department, and all the actors do a great job in their roles.

The most notable difference between the original and the remake is that Prince Eric gets significantly more screentime. This allows us to know his character much better. He is given a motivation that matches Ariel: both are feeling restricted by their conservative parents trying to squash their desire to explore new worlds. Where Aerial longs for the human world, Eric longs for the sea and other cultures. Eric even gets an "I Want" song (Wild Uncharted Waters). Eric's mother (the Queen) is similar to Triton: struggling to control their headstrong children, and I think that giving us this relationship benefits the film's themes.

The movie opens as the animated film does: with the crew of a sailing ship. However, instead of singing and partying, they are trying to harpoon a dolphin they mistake for a mermaid. In this version of the story, the merfolk and humans are in a kind of cold war. It is explicitly stated that Aerial's mother was killed by humans, thus King Triton hates all humans. While the humans blame the merfolk for the frequent shipwrecks around the island. This gives more weight to the reconciliation between people we will eventually get.

"Fathoms Below" is sung (yes, unlike a lot of Disney remakes, this version is still a musical). Then we go below to the world of the merfolk and a very CGI undersea world. (I do kind of wish the underwater scenes used some live-action footage, nature documentaries have proved its possible to get some spectacular footage of coral reefs). Atlantica, rather than being a gleaming golden palace, is covered in plant and animal life, which I think works better for an underwater world. Nothing would stay without barnacles and anemones for long, after all.

King Triton's adult daughters have gathered (each one is a different ethnicity and tail design. I'm not sure how mer genetics work in this movie), but Ariel, the youngest, is missing. She is, of course, exploring shipwrecks with her best friend Flounder. The World's Most Aggressive Shark attacks, and the two escape.

Scuttle appears (now a Gannet rather than a Seagull, and female rather than male, as she is voiced by Awkwafina) and gives the same incorrect advice as in the original.

Sebastian is assigned to watch over Ariel, and finds her in time for her to swim for the surface to watch Prince Eric's birthday party. Eric is, of course, kind and valiant and expresses his desire to explore rather than stay at home and be a boring King. Ariel is smitten instantly, and rescues him from the shipwreck that follows.

Ursula appears on and off in the opening scenes, watching over Ariel and helpfully monologuing her plans to remind us that yes, she is evil, and yes, she is the Bad Guy. (She is also apparently King Triton's sister. I really don't know how merfolk genetics work in this movie). It's a little heavy handed, but this is a family/kids movie. Melissa McCarthy (Ursula) seems to savor every moment she's on screen, which makes her fun to watch. The animation on Ursula's tentacles is also spectacular.

Sebastian sings a wonderful rendition of "Under the Sea" with some gorgeous visuals to convince Ariel to stay (though I question some of the ocean creatures used. Manatees? in the open ocean?)

We get the confrontation where King Triton destroys Ariel's treasure trove, pushing her straight into the arms of Ursula. We get "Poor Unfortunate Souls" (though without the iconic "Body Language!" line, sad to say). Though this time, Ariel gives up her voice as part of giving up her "mermaid gifts" as opposed to it being a form of payment. I think this is a weaker change (having to offer some sort of payment for a magical change makes more sense than it being an arbitrary thing that must go). Ariel is also given some selective amnesia, making her forget that she must get a kiss within three days (explaining why she's a bit of a ditz and doesn't seem to be trying all that hard to get that kiss).

The movie really uses its longer run time to flesh out Ariel's time in the human world. Her time with Prince Eric feels real and genuine. They share a fascination with the world and exploring it. Them pouring over maps in the study, laughing in the market, and dancing with the villagers feels genuine and makes me believe in their relationship more. The film also cuts out Sebastian's misadventures in the kingdom (including his little battle with Chef Louie) which I think is fine. The movie is, after all, about Ariel.

Ariel also gets a new song here (which is a little odd, considering she has no voice, but its made clear the song is her internal dialogue. Also it gives Halle Bailey more time to shine). "For the First Time" lets us see Ariel enjoying all the new discoveries of the human world.

We get a lovely "Kiss the Girl" sequence in the lagoon, followed by them sneaking back into the castle and giggling as they avoid Eric's mother. (also Grimsby is a gem in this, an onboard Eric/Ariel shipper)

Ursula dons her Vanessa disguise and bewitches Eric, but unlike the animated film, they never get quite as far as the actual wedding. During the reception Scuttle attacks (just Scuttle, she doesn't summon all the ocean creatures. It's a fine change). Then, Ariel gets to pounce on Vanessa/Ursula and snatch her voice back. It's nice to see Ariel get more agency.

A similar change happens in the big Climatic Final Battle, where instead of damsel-in-distress Ariel getting saved by Eric, it's the other way around. Ariel steers the ship into Ursula, saving Eric's life. Again, it's nice to see Ariel having more agency and taking matters into her own hands.

We, of course, get a happily ever after. But now, Ariel and Eric are headed out to explore the sea, meet new people, and find uncharted waters. Both King Triton and the Queen have learned to let their children go to be happy.

Now, were there some things I didn't like in this movie? A few, but most of it can be handwaved by this movie being a fantasy. For example: where the hell is Eric's kingdom? It's tropical (there's palm trees and rainforest) and on an island. It's apparently not part of Europe (Eric mentions trading with Europe), but features a very European palace. And all the villagers have Jamaican accents (is that where Sebastian gets it?). Ultimately it doesn't matter, it's just kind of weird.

The horse drawing their carriage also just apparently stays put whenever Eric and Ariel run off to have fun. What a good horse.

Scuttle also gets a song number, which is a rap shared with Daveed Diggs (Sebastian). It's apparently very divisive, but I thought it was fine and cute.

In the end, I think that this movie works well. It builds upon the themes of the original, expanding the world and fleshing out the characters. It doesn't feel bloated with extra scenes, the longer run time works to its advantage in giving us more time exploring our characters and their motivations. I like seeing more of Prince Eric's personality, and more of Ariel's fascination with the human world. (A common complaint lobbed at the original is that Ariel gives up her agency for love, but in both versions of the film, it is her father's overbearing possessiveness and destruction of her things that drives her to the Sea Witch. Ariel loves humans, not just Prince Eric)

A sequel or two has been suggested, and I am cautiously optimistic. If you're a fan of the original, I recommend the remake.