#i think i just dislike most disney films in general

[not-wholly-unheroic]

I recently found a copy of the graphic novel version of Straight on Til Morning at my local used bookstore and got a great deal so I wanted to share a few of my likes, dislikes, and general observations. I’d been meaning to write up a proper review of the book for awhile now but have been SUPER behind. Anyway, the graphic novel follows the book pretty closely and I’ll be sharing some images from it, so this WILL CONTAIN SPOILERS for those of you who haven’t read it.

First off, the artwork for the graphic novel is beautiful and some scenes are illustrated in a really creative way. For example, I love the depiction of this particular scene where Wendy is writing her stories and Hook sort of…comes to life off the page.

I also really love that while (most of) the characters are still recognizably Disney’s version…they also look a tad more realistic and have some of the illustrator’s own personal interpretation mixed in.

George Darling is a great example. In the graphic novel he is slimmer than in the film and looks remarkably like J.M. Barrie…which I have to consider was probably intentional.

And then there’s the Lost Boys in their animal costumes…Tootles, Skipper (excuse me, this is Nibs erasure—you can add Skipper but don’t just eliminate Nibs!), Slightly, Cubby, and the Twins.

The pirates, however, are a totally different story. Who the heck are these guys???

Anyway… at least they get Hook’s personality right. I love this bit, in particular, where one of the pirates gets a little rough with Wendy and Hook is having none of it. Also, the idea of Hook capturing Wendy to be a mother to the crew is a nice nod to the book.

One big complaint I do have is that the characters are, on occasion, a little TOO self-aware. Like in this scene where one of the pirates makes a sort of on-the-nose observation about Hook’s feud with Pan.

But I will admit, I did cackle at Hook’s reaction.

He said would you please stop trying to psychoanalyze me and look for symbolism and just let the story be about a boy and a pirate? (Hook, how do you even know who Freud is??)

You may have noticed by now that I haven’t said anything about Peter… That’s because Peter barely features in the story at all and honestly when he does show up, he’s…kinda useless and clueless. Now, admittedly, Wendy is meant to be older in this (around 16) so of course, it’s reasonable to think she might not quite view him the same way she did at 12…but in having her team up with Tink to do all the heavy-lifting of the plot (because, ya know, girlpower and all that), Peter sort of ends up not really doing anything. I’d almost rather have an evil Pan, as annoying as that trope is because at least then he actually does something. In this story, it truly feels like Wendy has just…outgrown Peter altogether. And that hurts.

Speaking of which…ya know what hurts even more for me as a Hook fan? THIS.

This poor man is curled up on the deck in the fetal position, terrified of a crocodile who has been long-dead, crying out for a best friend who never even existed except inside his own mind because he was so alone that he made him up.

O W !! Why would you do this to me, Disney?!

It ends for Hook with the crew deciding to drop him off somewhere with enough gold to pay for his keep and hire a caretaker because he’s so mentally unstable they don’t trust him to live by himself.

I hate to say it, but honestly, watching him die would be less painful. At least that would be over with fairly quickly. This just hurts.

But everyone else lives happily ever after, so it’s okay, right? Right??? 😫😭 (Don’t mind me, I’ll just be over here in the corner, crying over my pirate boy.)

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

So, I saw one of your posts talking about your favorite adaptations of Alice in wonderland. I'm curious if you have any disliked adaptations of it?

[Referencing this post!]

Oh gosh 💦 There’s definitely been AiW media I don’t like, but it’s not because it’s objectively bad or anything like that… As I said before, I’m just really picky and what may not appeal to me could very well find its audience elsewhere (so if you like any of the things I'm about to talk about, it's totally fine!). Some are:

A looooot of AiW-inspired novels, whether retellings, adaptations, reimaginings, or what have you (I’ve read enough titles to be disappointed in most of them, so I won’t name individual books here; the issue is that a lot of them try too hard to be dark and that kills a lot of the original charm 😭)

Alice in Wonderland (2010) directed by Tim Burton (the designs and CGI are so… grotesque… the colors are so muddy too… altogether, the visuals are just uncanny and made it hard to watch; I genuinely don’t think AiW works well in live action)

Alice in the Country of Hearts by Quin Rose (originally a visual novel, I first experienced this via a manga adaptation since the artwork, done by a different mangaka, caught my eye; not really a fan of Quin’s own style though)👇 Was interested in the story at first, but found myself increasingly annoyed with the guys being very violent and also simultaneously obsessive about Alice to a creepy degree; I think I just don’t like a yandere coloring of AiW 😅 fun fact about Alice in the Country of Hearts though, there’s a cheery knight of hearts named Ace and he was as one of my favorite characters though he’s still very violent and obsessive to a creepy degree)

Descendants: Rise of Red (a few songs and costumes aside, I dislike Descendants in general because it feels so very on-the-nose and riddled with plot holes + missed opportunities; Rise of Red is no different, but I take particular offense with it because I like AiW so much)

American McGee’s Alice (a dark fantasy action-adventure game with many AiW motifs; I appreciate its story for what it is (separate from AiW), but again, I’m not a fan of how dark and gothic the general aesthetic with AiW elements is)

And in case you’re wondering what my thoughts in the Disney animated film are (since this is a Twst + vaguely Disney studf blog, lol)!! I’m pretty neutral on it?? Not a fan of many character designs in it and the world itself could honestly be wackier, but it adapts the events of AiW fine. I’ll give them this, their Alice and Cheshire Cat designs are iconic.

I think my main issue with a lot of AiW inspired media is that there’s this tendency to make it super edgy to juxtapose it with the innocent, child-like wonder of the original. It’s not that I don’t like dark content (Twst, Taisho Alice, and many other media I enjoy have dark content), but it’s that it’s so easy to fumble the execution. Part of AiW’s appeal to me is how dream-like and whimsical it is. The problem with many darker interpretations is that it largely erases that original whimsy of the residents and world, and there’s little, if anything, dream-like about it. At that point, what is honestly differentiating it from just a general dark story that just so happens to have gratuitous mentions of tea and beheadings?

Haven’t heard of Habromania but I checked it out after receiving the third ask! The name is very interesting—habromania being a form of delusional insanity in which said delusions involve the appearance of a cheery character. Wonder who that’s referring to…?

I love the designs of the characters 😭 The looks and colors remind me of antique dolls. I also enjoy that it though it’s a horror game, it still retains that classic AiW style wonder (at least from the previews I watched + artwork I’ve seen). Thanks for letting me know about this project, I’ll definitely be following its development 👀 and hopefully playing when it comes out!

By the way, thank you to everyone who expressed an interest in this topic and sharing other AiW media with me! I didn’t think you’d be this invested in it, but it was for sure a pleasant surprise 😳

[alexanderwales]

The second chapter of Save the Cat! is about genre, titled "Give me the same thing ... only different!". The general principle is one that I strongly agree with, even if I don't always practice it in my writing: you must know how and why things work in fiction, you must be a student of the realms you're writing in, you must give your own twists on clichés if you think you might be writing them, and must be familiar with clichés so that you don't end up boring people. Study things that are like the thing you're trying to create. Analyze them, take them apart, understand how they work or don't work.

But then a lot of the chapter is taken up with Snyder's own system of ten genres, and when I was reading it I wanted to just stop him and say "hey, what the fuck, did you even watch that movie?"

Also I laughed for like five minutes at him putting Schindler's List in the "Dude with a Problem" genre, even though I agree that according to his typology it completely fits.

I'm a huge fan of making up arbitrary categories and then stuffing things into them. I don't think it's often very useful, no, but it's fun, and when you're done shoving things into boxes, you can pull them back out, find a new set of boxes, and repeat the process. I'm not going to repeat Snyder's categories here, but I think they kind of suck, and don't accurately reflect genre as we understand them, and the whole thing would have been better off is it was taking story archetypes and saying why they work and then what the usual deviations from them were.

Here are two examples that I take issue with, among others. First, by his accounting Planes, Trains, and Automobiles is a "Golden Fleece" movie, the kind of film centered around a hero's journey where what he ends up finding is, ultimately, himself, and every set piece along the way is important only in the way it relates to the hero's self-acceptance or whatever.

No. Wrong. Planes, Trains, and Automobiles is very very clearly a "Buddy Love" under this system. Look at this fucking image:

Could this DVD cover make this any more obvious? Literally all the promotional material is like this. It even says in the book that most "Buddy Love" movies start with the "buddies" disliking each other, and that their relationship is central to the movie. And if Snyder is getting this wrong, what else is he getting wrong about his own system?

Example two. I'm just going to quote it in full:

Now look at The Matrix and compare and contrast it with the Disney/Pixar hit Monsters, Inc. Yup. Same movie.

Fucking what do you mean.

Under this system of genres, Monsters, Inc. is very clearly another "Buddy Love" movie. There's a kid they have to deal with, but most of the movie is grounded in the relationship between Mike and Sulley. Like, what's the low point of the whole movie? They get banished to the Himalayas and then have a big fight! It's about their relationship to each other!

(I looked this up on the savethecat website and found an article claiming that it's an example of "Monster in the House", which is fucking stupid, because what's the monster and what's the house? Just does not apply. The child is takes the role of the "monster" for such a small amount of the movie, then they're looking after her and trying to return her home, and even before that it's not relatable as a monster to the audience. Blake Snyder didn't write the article, so maybe he had something different in mind.)

Meanwhile, The Matrix most closely falls into either "Dude with a Problem" (ordinary man thrust into extraordinary circumstances) or "Superhero" (extraordinary man in ordinary circumstances) and I would argue that it's actually neither of those because it's a goddamned hero's journey and those are their own thing and it makes no sense to try to split them into two parts because you don't get more explanatory power of what's working and what's not. His analysis of what he calls "Superhero" films also sucks for that reason and just totally misses the mark about what makes them tick.

So how are these the same movie? I don't know, it probably made sense to Blake Snyder. I have done my due diligence and searched for answers online, but haven't found much, just some weak ass defenses.

Also, I really hated that he says Chinatown and Who Framed Roger Rabbit? are basically the same movie because no shit. Who Framed Roger Rabbit? is a parody of noir, and was adapted from the script for a never-produced third film in what was supposed to be a Chinatown trilogy. But even then, I don't get how you can say they're the same movie without pointing out the strong "Buddy Love" through line in Roger Rabbit!

This whole chapter was a total miss for me. Decent advice at the start that I've been hearing and preaching for a long time, but this typology sucks and he doesn't even seem to understand it (or the movies he's putting in it) very well. And since the typology sucks, it's a bad lens for understanding the underlying rules of writing, of story structure, the components of story, etc.

[moonlitlex]

I personally also dislike billie and David coming back as new doctors. Maybe its because I wasnt around when their season was on television. But also David can come back as 10 anytime. Could literally make up a reason to follow him in the 14 specials, like the newly generated doctor is missing and 10 has to find him. Having David as 14 to just seems redundant. And with billie i just know rose will be a plot point and I just want something new. And ncuti was so fun its sad to see him go and even if he chose to quit regenerations used to be big events and this one was not and it got overshadowed by billies return. And this sours billie returning too cause I want to keep ncuti.

yeah, i agree with you. bringing david and billie back was 100% a "shit, we're losing viewers and we don't know what to do. quick, come up with some nostalgia bait that will drum up engagement".

but the thing is, this kind of casting decision can only do so much for a show that is suffering because of bad writing. and i also think it's a sign that the people at disney/the bbc/whoever else i need to blame just really don't understand the doctor who and casual, non-fan audience dynamic.

i've already spent years harping on the bad writing so i won't touch on that right now. but there's this thing with brits and doctor who where doctor who was kind of a cornerstone of their childhood for a lot of people. but not all of these people grew up to be doctor who fans. so, it's still something they recognize and care about to some extent, but it's not enough that they'll follow the show. these are the people who watch specials and if they feel intrigued enough, they'll start actually watching the show too.

these are the people who came back to doctor who when they announced david's return. but david's return was 3 "anniversary" specials that didn't really celebrate the history of the show and did nothing to keep them. they just wanted to see david tennant on screen again, maybe because they remember when he was the doctor and they remember liking him. and the 20 minutes of screen time gatwa got did absolutely nothing to sell him to the audience. it still feels like a david tennant doctor story, and ncuti gatwa is just also there. so casual viewers weren't really sold on the new doctor.

it's likely going to be the same with billie. i've already seen several people talk about how their casual viewer friends and family are so excited to have billie back because they loved rose. but it's going to be the same thing. casting billie will appeal to the casual fans who just like rose, but it's not doing anything to keep them around.

but like.... even if they're nostalgic for 2005-2009 doctor who, recognizable faces is not what made them fans in the first place. they weren't huge household names back then and they would not have been a draw to most people. casting david was even a controversy because he was too young and hot. billie had literally only been in a handful of things before doctor who. i know chris was already well known, but i don't think he was the draw. the draw was "doctor who is back, guys!" and the show built a larger fanbase based on its own merit, not based on name recognition.

the horrid thing to me is they're kind of destroying the show right now focusing on trying to appeal to people who are only mildly interested in doctor who. instead of us, the actual fans of the show, who will be watching even if they cast complete unknowns as doctor and companion.

like.... what did david being the fourteenth doctor even add? why couldn't he just have been the tenth. hell, why couldn't we have had a different type of 60th anniversary altogether? i know both jodie and ncuti were unavailable for filming, but they weren't the only two options! we could have done a multi-doctor story with no incumbent doctor. we could have just brought david and catherine back anyway and set it sometime in season 4. there are so many previous doctors and companions who are still alive and willing to come back to the show for specials. do that instead.

and that way, you aren't literally bending the rules of the doctor who universe to allow a third david tennant doctor. especially a third david tennant doctor right before you introduce ncuti gatwa, your first incumbent black doctor. and he doesn't even regenerate normally. david tennant splits down the middle because rtd is that allergic to killing this man (seriously— first with tentoo, then with ten's actual regeneration, and now with "fourteen". twice can be a coincidence, but three is definitely a pattern). and we just did the same thing with billie piper now.

i don't really care if she's going to be the doctor or not. the fact is that first and last stories before/after regeneration are a big deal. and both of ncuti's were overshadowed by rtd's favourite white people from his 2005-2009 run. it would be terrible for literally any doctor, but the fact that it's the first incumbent black doctor leaves a particularly sour taste in my mouth.

ncuti barely got to make his mark. the writing he got was horrible. and he didn't even get to stay the full 3 seasons as is standard for nuwho doctors (and yeah, i know he chose to leave, but i think anyone would choose to leave when you don't even know if the show is renewed or not. you can't leave your career in limbo like that). but he brought good energy to the role! he could have been such an interesting doctor but he barely even got to be the doctor. rtd was constantly writing fifteen to be out of his depth and have bizarre morals. and instead of trying to make the show good he just fell back on nostalgia bait again.

i genuinely can't keep watching this show right now. i said this after the pro genocide eurovision episode too, but if there was any doubt in my mind, reality war totally destroyed it. and if it wasn't the rest of that episode, regenerating into billie piper 100% would have destroyed it. doctor who is eating itself. it's gone from bringing back old enemies to just showing you things you recognize and hoping it'll make you happy. bringing back a 2005-2009 actor once was bad enough, but i let that slide because i was hoping an actually good show would follow. this, after the garbage writing we've had for two seasons? i'm just not interested anymore. i don't care. i will come back after they replace rtd as showrunner (but not if his successor is pete mctighe lmao). until then i just really don't fucking care what kind garbage rtd is vomiting onto a paper and calling a script.

[antianakin]

@theneutralmime

That's incredibly subjective at this point, since we've got at LEAST 3-4 different "canons" depending on how you look at it right now.

The first is Lucas's personal canon, which I imagine is what you're remembering having read somewhere as being just the films and TCW, although this would just be the first SIX films and the first SIX seasons of TCW and nothing else (this includes the sequel trilogy and season 7 of TCW, as well as films like Solo and Rogue One).

Anything beyond those things but that was created prior to the Disney buyout in 2014 is considered "Legends" canon (previously known as the Extended Universe before the buyout). This includes things like the original Thrawn trilogy, the Jedi Apprentice/Quest novels, the 2003 Clone Wars show, etc. Lucas did not consider them part of HIS Star Wars story and had no problem with ignoring anything introduced in Legends material if he didn't like it (nor did he have an issue with USING things he DID like from Legends material, but he often warped it to fit into his own story). Disney doesn't consider any of it as canon, but different creators have been slowly "re-canonizing" some of it in recent media (like Jango/Boba Fett being Mandalorians, or Siri Tachi's existence).

Anything created AFTER the 2014 buyout is considered "Disney canon." Unlike Lucas, Disney doesn't seem to be really separating their films/TV shows from their other content like books/comics/games in terms of continuity, but not everyone is actually consuming everything so sometimes shit doesn't match anyway. Generally the films and Disney+ TV shows (which for this purpose will include things like Rebels even though that show was created prior to Disney+ existing) are probably considered "higher" canon than things like the books, comics, and games, but it isn't as clear cut as it used to be under Lucas. While I think many of the things created under Disney canon, especially the films and Disney+ shows, are TRYING to be considered part of the same continuity as Lucas's canon, they're also definitely still doing their own thing and Lucas himself has no influence on them.

Rebels would be considered DISNEY canon since it was created after the buyout. Same goes for The Bad Batch as well as the Obi-Wan Kenobi show.

Tales of the Jedi is weird because it technically is within Disney canon, but I believe Filoni has claimed that audiences should see it less as actual canon events and more as like... "fables" or something like that. So basically the dude in charge said we can disregard anything in this show as canon if you want to, I guess. That being said, there's nothing in it that completely contradicts the more accepted canon (Lucas's stuff and the Disney films and TV shows), so I think that most people generally consider this show as "canon" no matter what Filoni said.

And of course, there's always your personal canon, which is just whatever you decide to SEE as canon regardless of anything "official." I personally dislike Tales of the Jedi and the Ahsoka show and am fully willing to just... pretend they're not canon. Neither of them has any real bearing on the larger narrative Lucas wrote anyway and you can obviously understand and enjoy the original six films without them.

I mostly use these distinctions when I'm having a discussion with someone about something like, say, the intentions behind the story. Because that can obviously change WILDLY depending on who is writing the story. Lucas and Filoni are not the same person, much as Filoni might like to believe otherwise, and so they have radically different approaches to Star Wars, its messages, and its worldbuilding. Something Filoni writes in a Disney canon show does NOT have any relevance to a discussion about what Lucas was trying to say about the Prequels Jedi, for example. Same goes for anything written in a Legends novel or comic book.

Star Wars is relatively easy to cherry pick from depending on what you enjoy. Especially these days, with how much content is being cycled out all the time. So if you just don't care for Disney canon at all, you can just... ignore it and focus on Lucas's canon and Legends material if you want. If you happen to be one of the people who just doesn't vibe with Lucas's messages, you can focus more on Legends canon and Filoni's more recent work. Or you can exclusively enjoy Lucas's canon and absolutely nothing else. Or you can pick and choose from within each "canon" depending on what vibes with you. The galaxy far far away is your oyster!

[calliecat93]

The problem with the live-action Snow White isn't that it's 'woke' or whatever buzzword you want to use. Changing Snow White's race isn't a problem. Making her more proactive isn't a problem. Even casting an actress who wasn't a huge fan of the film isn't a problem, it's not a requirement to enjoy the original after all.

The problem is the complete and total disrespect to the original from the cast and Disney itself. Say what you want about how outdated the original is, but without that movie? DIsney as a studio doesn't exist. Animation as we know it doesn't exist. There is SO MUCH that SNow White impacted in both animation and film in general despite all the odds against Walt. It may be hard to understand nearly 80 years later, but this was revolutionary for it's time and changed the game and made Walt a big name in the cinematic world after having been a laughingstock for even attempting an animated film.

This is why I am against the film. Them saying that Snow White was a bad role model and trying to 'girlboss' it is disrespectful. Dissing the original as offensive and outdated is disrespectful. There's ways to go into updating the film and NOT bashing the very film that you owe your company's existence to or to uphold the legacy of the character that you have been made responsible to represent. For us who love animation and Disney all the way back to those beginning years, it is a monumental disrespect that has been building since these remakes started. The executives only see dollar signs and appeal to what they think is the current generation, when in reality they're showing how little they care about any of that and how out of touch with their audience they are.

That is why I've refused to watch most of the remakes and why I disliked ones like Maleficent, The Lion King, and Pinocchio. They all have the same issue of taking something that is beloved and making it a shell of itself and I am TIRED of it. Many of us ae tired of it and to do Snow White is just a low blow. I don't care what Snow White's ethnicity or race is, I want the character to be treated with respect, and by all accounts she isn't nor is any part of the film that started it all. That is why I am against it.

[chaifootsteps]

hey chai, found some shit that aged like milk while digging around.

tl;dr evidently viv was aware of how animators were mistreated / uncredited during sausage party's production and spoke about how their hard work deserved support.

(all the below is circa 2016)

she made a bunch of sausage party fanart that she apparently "gave to a friend at Sony" who "knew some of the uncredited animators" and said they wanted people to "respect" and "admire" the hard work they put into the movie.

she wrote the following on the page of fanart...

additionally, viv made a video about her thoughts on sausage party, and she made some interesting remarks in the comments...

...i can't watch the video myself as i also don't want to hear viv's voice,

but here's some tid-bits from the transcript...

she's seen "all of family guy... all of south park... and all of drawn together..." and thinks drawn together is "the most offensive" thing she's seen to-date

the only r-rated content she dislikes is ren and stimpy's adult party cartoon. she thinks it is the "apex of shock value... has no reason to exist... is painfully unpleasant to witness... not funny... not well done... just complete and utter garbage."

sausage party's stereotypes "didn't bother" her bc "everybody in the entire world is equally made fun of," it's "so offensive it's no longer offensive it's just stupid," none of the stereotyping is "mean-spirited," and the stereotyping "serves a purpose in the setting"

she says that it's "not fair" for artists to be... "uncredited... expected to work overtime for no money..."

she talks about how sausage party was this company's first film and they were using a very small budget that they should've used more carefully, but it went to other areas that were not the animators, who were expected to work nearly for free and without proper credit (that all sound familiar?)

she laments how these animators put "such amazing work" into the movie and "really cared about it" and that she "can't imagine doing that and not being credited"

she talks about how the company probably wanted sausage party to be "as good as possible for as cheap as possible" but that "doesn't excuse" how they treated their animators.

"the animators sold this movie, without the animation this movie would not nearly be as good or charming"

she felt the sexual humor "wasn't as uncomfortable" as other sexual humor can be simply because the characters weren't humans

she generally *really* sucks sausage party's dick saying it's an "existential allegory" and "critique of religion" and "going to be part of history" (these are of course subjective opinions ppl may or may not agree on but since it's what she thinks i'm including it.)

God, I almost hate to admit this, but I actually really liked Sausage Party in a vacuum. It's nice looking, the character designs are worlds better and more distinct than what you'll find in most Disney movies, and it's a nice balance of South Park-esque raunchiness and some genuinely interesting existential stuff about life, religion, and the human condition.

But...no, it's not high art, and it's not going to be part of history. Any slim chance it had of being part of history was blown to bits by the disgusting, unforgivable way it treated its animators.

Watching it now, you can absolutely see how Vivzie attempted to follow its example in all things, from crudeness to commentary on religion/human nature. The difference is that Sausage Party doesn't pull its punches when it comes to the former and is at least sort of intelligent when it comes to the latter. The result is that even at its dumbest and worst, it has a better understanding of what it's doing and what it's trying to be than Vivzie's stuff.

In the end, the only thing Vivziepop succeeded in taking away from Sausage Party was how to treat the people working for you.

[beyonddarknessintolight]

Deep in my Star Wars feelings tonight...

I am admittedly a Lucasian purist at heart, due to how I find his vision to be ultimately more thematically consistent than what the old EU was, as well as modern canon. Which is down to how it all came from one dude, who had a specific story to tell.

That said.... I have been thinking a lot lately about the state of modern Star Wars. I am coming around to the idea that, however I may feel about the direction Star Wars has gone in, it's just a fact of life. This is the way (heh) that franchises inevitably evolve to suit the desires of the audience, and reflect the world around them.

This much is cold hard fact: Lucas built SW to be a very morally black-and-white idealistic fairy tale, which is what America needed during the 70's, in a time of suffocating cynicism and despair after Vietnam broke our collective spirit. But now, what the world asks for is stories that examine the nuances of good and evil, and take greater care to properly represent the world we live in, the people who inhabit it, the diversity that has gone undervalued for too long, etc. This isn't 'bad,' unless if you are a Fandom Menace weenie.

And George Lucas himself recently spoke about how, even though Star Wars has become something different than what he wanted and he dislikes a lot of what Disney has done to his baby, he has accepted it, and moved on. There is a lesson there for all of us, and it's the same lesson he attempted to teach us with the prequels: we need to learn to accept change. We cannot stop the change any more than we can stop the suns from setting. We must learn to let go of all that we fear to lose.

Star Wars has become something very different from what it was when I was young, just like it turned into something radically different for the OT generation, and one day it will become something very different for the sequel generation. This is part of the circle of life. If Lucas could make peace with it, so should I.

So as much as I grouse about how things are done now, whenever they make choices that I don't like... I must accept it's not all about me. 'My' Star Wars is not the 'only' Star Wars. And even the most loathed installments of this series, have their earnest and passionate fans.

I want to try harder to focus on the good in this franchise. It's why I decided to start this blog, and erase my old account that trafficked too much in my own negativity about the way things have changed.

I lived through the No Man's Land of the prequel years, where my enjoyment of those movies as a youngster was hijacked by overwhelming negativity whenever I tried to find a community to share in my love of them. I remember how much that hurt, and I see the same kind of nasty rhetoric used with a lot of the sequel-trilogy hate.

But one day, the kids who grew up with this as THEIR Star Wars, will have a voice... and the cycle will begin again. I want to be there for them when that day comes, and be able to say that I didn't repeat the sins of prequel haters, by fixating on the negatives about these films and contributing to a climate of hostility to their fanbase.

May the Force be with us all.

[casp1an-sea]

Thoughts on Rey Standalone film?

OK I’m trying to be more open minded than I previously was. Do I think it’s going to be a good movie? No. Am I mad they’re making the movie? Kind of. Is that just for petty reasons? Mostly. I’m not going to sugarcoat it.

I dislike Rey. I have explained before why that is and I’m trying to be a bit more civil about it especially now that I have friends that are Rey fans. I personally think if they are making a standalone movie, they should explore the characters that have more potential for growth. Of course they could introduce a character flaw in this movie but I feel it’s a bit late and I don’t really see A very compelling story from Rey considering the canon that we have. Because you know, Palpatines granddaughter to me is not really something I want them to explore more, and we’ve already seen Jedi’s struggling to teach their powers to someone else before, so that isn’t really unique to me. That is all I can really think that they could do with her character. Aside from like romance and I am not a FinnRey shipper, even though I know that is a very popular ship. I’d probably only be interested in the relationship mildly if it was a lesbian one, and God knows Disney is not gonna do that. (they should confirm it and rebuild the galaxy though evil Rose x Darth Rey is cool.) and even then I would only be interested in it because I appreciate lesbian representation that doesn’t necessarily mean that I would be invested in the ship because I simply just do not care about Rey’s relationships and honestly, it would be equally cool if they revealed her as being Ace Aro which they also won’t do (she does give Ace vibes though). Anyway, I went on a tangent.

Now a stand alone movie about Finn I would understand, Poe even though I feel like Finn would make more sense. In fact, I think a flashback movie dedicated to Kylo Ren, and how he fell to the Darkside and his first days in the order would be great. Arguably the most interesting option. And I’m not just saying that because I like Kylo a lot. (I know logistically getting Adam driver to reprise The role is probably a lot harder than getting Daisy Ridley to. I’m just saying it would be cool.)

now that brings me to the petty reason, you know aside for me just not liking her character. It’s just gonna remind me that Kylo is dead. And I don’t think he should be dead, and that angers me. And then it’s just a pipeline because if I start thinking about Kylo, then I start thinking about Hux and how I’m angered about what happened to him. Which will also intern, make me feel angered about how they treated the entire first order in general, when in my opinion, they were far more interesting than the republic and resistance. So I’m just going to spiral for a bit. And I’m also going to be thinking about how the movie would be different if those people were alive and how I would probably like it better. And also how I’m just mad at Disney, and Disney, Star Wars in general, which will lead me down a rabbit hole of being depressed about acolyte cancellation again.

anyway all of this to stay if you are excited for the movie and you want to watch the movie then good for you. I’m glad you can be excited about something Star Wars even if I don’t share the same sentiment. And if they make the movie and I hate it, I’m not going to come attack you I’m not going to harass, you with hate comments and constantly talk directly to you about how I feel it’s bad just because I know you like it, and I’m not going to say how I think it should be removed from Disney. Because just because I don’t like some thing does not give me the right to ruin it for the fans. If it’s not for me, I just will not watch it Again. And I will share my criticism in constructive ways towards people that want to hear it and asked for it. (yes, this is me being passive aggressive to acolyte haters) And I will, by no means come for the Actors. Poor Daisy, Ridley has to deal with enough from all of the male fans getting pissed that she said she couldn’t change the way how SOME men saw a women. Like come on people we are adults.

[twistedtummies2]

Fifteen Days of Disney Magic - Number 11

Welcome to Fifteen Days of Disney Magic! In honor of the company’s 100th Anniversary, I am counting down my Top 15 Favorite Movies from Walt Disney Animation Studios! Today’s entry is truly a Tale as Old as Time. Number 11 is…Beauty and the Beast.

Of all fifteen films on this list, the four-part stretch between 11th and 8th place was the hardest bunch of movies to sort out. I knew what films made up this particular section of the countdown, but ranking them was a lot tougher. To try and work things out, I first took time to revisit all the films basically back-to-back. Then I asked myself a few questions: how much would I like to play a part in the film (such as in a stage production)? Similarly, how often have I written about or would like to write about each movie’s world? How often do I reference this movie or talk about it in general? Which world and story would I like to write most for? And finally, which picture do I have the most general nostalgia for? Unfortunately, after asking myself these questions, and revisiting the films, “Beauty and the Beast” – perhaps shockingly, to many – lost out the contest. Do not misconstrue this, however, to mean that I dislike the movie, or think it has less merits than the other three to come above it. In some ways, I think it’s the technical best of the movies in question…but again, there’s a difference between “best” and “favorite,” and if certain earlier entries have not made it clear, the latter is really what I’m talking about with this countdown, not the former. But now, let’s focus on the positives, because – needless to say – there are MANY positives. The original fairy-tale of “Beauty and the Beast” has become just as much a trope, in and of itself, as it is a classic story. Disney’s version changed several elements of the original tale, and virtually all of them were for the better. Long before “Frozen,” this film essentially acted as a subversion and deconstruction of a lot of Disney staples from years before, while still being its own great story with incredible artistry and wonderful characters and music. In a way, you can see this as the direct precursor to a lot of modern Disney movies, with a heroine and a hero who learn from each other and have complex personalities, writing that has an ironic sense of humor, and a villain who does not at first SEEM to be the villain…although Gaston, admittedly, works very differently from characters like Hans or Bellwether, but that’s another story. The film is largely regarded as one of the single best Disney movies ever made, and it’s not hard to see why. Indeed, it’s fitting I bring up “Frozen” so much, because when that film came out, the common phrase I heard everyone use to describe it was, “It’s the next Beauty and the Beast!” While I do like “Frozen,” I think I’ll always prefer this film. I love it’s sense of artistry; its visual style and the feeling of size and splendor that comes with it. I love how it’s subtle and simple with its messages and themes, being both layered and yet totally easy to get a grasp of. I love how it takes so many fantastical concepts and characters, yet makes them feel so real and so easy to empathize with. SO…why isn’t it in my Top 10? Simply put, if you look back on the criteria I named, it actually ranks the lowest on all counts. I don’t watch Beauty and the Beast that often, compared to the other three movies, and I don’t quote Beauty and the Beast that often (except for the songs). I’ve never really written for it and do not currently plan to (nor expect to), and of the four films in question, it’s the one I’d least like to play a part in…although, to clarify, I’d still love to be in it. Cogsworth and LeFou both sound like tons of fun to play…just saying. 0:) The countdown moves into my Top 10 tomorrow, with my 10th Favorite Disney Movie! HINT: It Never Gets Old.

[marciabrady]

Hi, I really love your crits ❤ but I'm wondering why you dislike Frozen so much? I'm a huuuge fan of Aurora and Mulan myself, and I hate more and more every 3D/live action film and terribly miss 2D animation, but I must say I really loved Frozen (only the first one!!), I saw it together with my sister, who's also my bff, so maybe that's why it appealed to us, there were also some traits we felt like we had in common with these characters... and maybe it's also the thing we didn't see the film with English dub, which didn't the best (totally agreed with your take on K Bell! I'm not a fan of her personally). And I know this movie has a lot of flaws, but at the same time it was really easy for me to ignore them - until F2 I guess, it brought up all of my problems with this franchise lol Anyway, I just wanted to ask - bc I think it can be the problem with all of the new (3D) princesses - aren't they a bit bland? I was thinking about it the other day, what's characteristic for Anna and Elsa and... well, he's extrovert, and the other introvert I guess? And Anna is romantic? But there's no hobby, no distinct personal trait, nothing. On the other hand Rapunzel was briefly shown to can/like literally ALL! You make candles? Play guitar? Sew? Sing? No problem, she's just like you, you can identify with her. And the bland princesses? You can easily project yourself onto them if you will, it's not same they like to, it's say, paint - but it's not said they hate/can't do it either, right? Sorry for my rambling, it's quite late, and I've just finished my weekend Disney Princess movie marathon. Anyway, love your blog and take care xxx

So I wouldn't necessarily say I hate Frozen, I just strongly dislike certain tonal elements to it but I generally don't really think about it because it didn't resonate to me. Frozen to me doesn't really feel like a film but rather a commentary on other films? With all of the "you can't marry a man you just met" lines and how all of the plots that occur were clearly planted in order to combat criticisms of the Disney Princess line: ie them not being active, or physical, or being too naïve, or lovesick which is why I think Anna is treated as a joke pretty much. So I feel like I'm watching a commentary track where this film is retroactively beating up the previous films on which it was based on and whose success made that endeavor possible? And honestly...I think that's what a lot of people like about it. At the time it came out, I never really heard anyone talk about the value of the characters- rather the emphasis was on "Elsa's the first Princess who didn't need a man! She's independent! Unlike the other princesses, she's a BADASS" or them applauding how Hans killed the Prince Charming trope (which I think is largely reductive, and not even inventive as Gaston had accomplished that previously, but I digress). In general, most of the elements people find revolutionary about this film are anything but- this film essentially just takes elements from other films and infuses it with a lot of meta-textual criticism and added in some sparkly magic to divert toddlers. I even read a book about women in animation and the author said that a woman contributed the idea of Anna being gassy (which I hate btw, it's not charming it's uncouth and I don't think men or women should openly act like that lol) and how it was game changing for how women were depicted when Princess Fiona already did that over a decade earlier?

Apart from the elements I mentioned above, as I touched on in my previous response, Kristen Bell's voice gives nothing to me. I don't like how Anna is treated as a joke, I think it's visually very boring, I don't like the 3d design, and I have no object permanence for the plot because it feels like there's just a lot happening to keep people from being bored without any weight behind it. I'm also not a fan of the universe, with the trolls and just none of it makes sense? Like they go through hoops to try to hit us over the head with how strong Elsa and Anna are as female leads and how men are useless but then Elsa runs away from her own kingdom and Anna leaves it to the attention of Hans while she goes off in search of Elsa??? I don't know, it just all isn't for me lol I know a lot of people like it and they're certainly entitled to, I just think it isn't to my taste.

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

Maybe it is not because of cgi movies but because how bad written the characters especially the villains. So far the only villain I can think fits is Mother Gothel because of how well-written her character is despite lacking of powers and a twisted version of her helps. Although they did take inspiration from CGI movies like Big Hero 6 for that chapter 6 plot and even took some TV shows like Lion Guard which it revealed to have lion guards in Leona's hometown.

[Referencing this post!]

As I mentioned in the original post, yes; TWST does take inspiration from and make reference to many Disney properties regardless of artistic medium. This extends to their animated and live action films and shows, as well as musical productions (the whole plot line with Rollo having a little brother that was led astray by sin comes from an obscure Hunchback of Notre Dame German musical) and more. It’s just that TWST has yet to introduce characters in their own universe explicitly twisted from characters in the 3D era, whether villains or not.

Seeing as the big “sell” of Twisted Wonderland is its villain-based characters, I can see why one might think poor quality of the original (3D) Disney characters would be a factor in preventing them from being successfully adapted. However, I personally don’t think this is a huge consideration since that would imply Disney’s old villains are all written significantly well when some are simply generically evil or not that interesting (though this will vary depending on who you ask). Besides, it would also discount the fact that no matter how low quality or boring the original villain was, they can always be “dressed up” and given a more interesting story and character by the TWST team; they are not 100% beholden to the mold the original Disney character set.

I definitely agree that many of the more recent villains aren’t the… strongest… (if we had a villain at all, that is). Mother Gothel is the only one that immediately sticks out in my mind as a great villain from the 3D era. (She’s so uniquely wicked in how she gaslights and manipulates Rapunzel.) However, we don’t know if the people on the TWST team also hold this same opinion of disliking the 3D era and letting that actively influence their design direction for the game. It’s very hard to discern what the overall sentiment is since we don’t often hear from the TWST devs and just make assumptions of what the popular opinion is based on what we hear from our own social circles.

With the deliberate 3-4 years of staying with 2D animated characters (+ the G7 being some of the most iconic Disney villains) and now the Platinum Suit line now making references to the classics, I really think nostalgia is the main motivator rather than TWST (or Disney) questioning the quality of their 3D stories and characters. If anything, they (Disney, that is) seem pretty eager to stroke their own egos about mega box office and merchandising hits 😂 Frozen, anyone?

[knifebaby3000]

Your OC Tian looks like he could he my OCs brother and I'm so obsessed with him. The beauty marks and the oblivious glazed over look really fucking do it for me

can u share more about him :0c

Omg thank you so much!!!!! I designed Tian to be so extremely husband-coded To Me so I'm happy some of the boxes he checks 4 me ✅ are checked 4 u also ✅🙏🏼

Tian (and Zhu) is the protagonist of two of my projects, the original and its overgrown AU. The OG is........ A xianxia romcom bildungsroman like....... Swan-maiden myth meets FFIX meets Disney Hercules.......... And the AU is what I usually draw/upload, which is a neo noir like...... FFVIII meets........ Drive (2011)....... Meets........... Disco Elysium which is a connection I'm only making right here, right now, as I type?????? Anyway OG-style Baby T is "tiger", "spring", vs Big T who is "dragon", "winter". Both are True Neutral tho I think Baby T leans Chaotic...

Some quick blips: Cap sun, Aries moon, Taurus rising, bday is 31 Dec; 6'2 188cm, ~190lbs 86kg, benches above his bodyweight; vegetarian, doesn't drink, healthiest guy you know (chainsmoking is healthy); blue MCR-coded tobacco depression wifeguy to Zhu’s red LDR-coded cocaine mania guywife

Charm points: natural curls, beauty marks, underbite

Talents: carpentry, wushu, gymnastics, fixing whatever

Likes: Zhu, tofu, his motorcycle

Dislikes: texting, cardio, doing laundry

Songs: MCR – Drowning Lessons + Fashion Statement + Desert Song (it's bad!!!!!!), The National – Walk Off, Hyukoh – 似是故人來 Like An Old Friend Arrives

Motifs: chrysanthemums, smoke, temples, the moon

Not really a talker, he's all abt acts of service and can be hard to understand if you're looking specifically for words. I like to think of him as the lead in a Western film except the horse is a black motorbike – silhouetted against the horizon, never says more than he has to, does what needs doing. His catchphrase is basically "🆗", "Sure." Also he doesn't use guns but anything else goes 🔨

Some flavor:

More under the cut if this hateful app will let me add one 🤪

I think he's best understood thru the way other ppl talk abt him – so here are a couple names/epithets!

His maternal grandmother is a distinguished mobster known as The Old Empress, which is why most ppl call Tian "Crown Prince", "the Prince", etc. Their family is more/less popularly-elected local deities (see "city god" on Wikipedia) and he's the last of the bloodline But has been refusing to officially inherit for over a decade, though he performs all the duties anyway. Old, old agreements put them above virtually all modern law, generally thru loopholes that allow them to, for example, literally start a gang war at 23 bc you got a little too annoyed Or take an eye for an eye/publicly execute someone as ritual vengeance. Pls note that Zhu is a criminal defense attorney. Smile

They also sometimes call him "Bodhisattva" bc he, due to Circumstances, grew up in a Buddhist monastery from age 8, along with Jin, his baby brother. He became an ordained monk at 20 but disrobed at 22 so he could help Jin thru university. During that time, he worked three primary jobs: seasonal construction worker/contractor, auto mechanic, and plumber. "why not model" No Vanities Lifestyle. He Is Just Some Guy. He Wishes He Were Still Bald. Fuck Fast Fashion Btw.

With his name specifically, Tian Tian, family name 田 “field” + given name 天 “heaven/day/sky” is his entire character – simple, no frills, unassuming on paper, but also strong, steady, salt of the earth. It's a name that once you see him both does and doesn't do him justice, like surely there's something fancier and yet between those two characters you already have the world. The name is also 9 strokes altogether! Fav number and an auspicious one – 9 heavens + if you've ever seen an imperial dragon robe, it's 9 dragons with scales in multiples of 9, eg 81.

A few bonus reasons I chose 天:

I associate him with swans (symbol of beauty but also violent, aggressive birds), 大天鹅 Big Heaven Goose

Single-character names are so elegant/Tough to me

Canonically seen as a "Fifth Great Beauty", literally a man named Heaven, the H is for Husband TO ME

FACT I decided on the monk thing after I named him and I think it's funny. His Dharma name is 釋恒心 Shi Hengxin btw which means "monk", literally, and "resolution"

Final bonus, literally my man:

[a-couple-of-notes]

Too Many Words on Mean Girls the Musical

The discovery of Mean Girls (2024) has sent me into a genuine tailspin, y'all. The adaptation nerd in me is intrigued and screaming. The younger version of myself for whom Mean Girls on Broadway acted as a gateway to musical theater is just screaming. The film school graduate is confused???

I think I'd much rather gush over why the original stage show, despite its flaws, does work--it's generally more fun for me to dissect a thing that I love rather than something I dislike--but the fact is, I am STILL trying to figure out what the hell I actually think about the 2024 movie. I guess this is my flailing, word-vomit style attempt to do so.

Okay, some context: I have watched all three versions in their entirety. I think the 2004 movie is very well-done and absolutely deserves its status as a cultural icon, but I've always connected more with the original Mean Girls musical, which ran on Broadway from 2018-2020. It was one of the first musicals I ever got into, one of the first cast albums I ever bought with my own money, and though over time I came to recognize many of its flaws (the lyrics can be hokey, I wish they'd threaded in Cady's stars motifs better, there's an argument a bajillion people have already made about the girls not being mean enough, etc.), Broadway!MG was always going to hold the peak Mean Girls place in my heart.

But I'm also an adaptation nerd, and I was fully aware of my bias going into the 2024 musical movie. I tried to keep an open a mind as possible, even looking forward to changes and what they might do with new character interpretations or space from cut songs. Maybe I didn't do a good enough job keeping that open mind, because I'm seeing a lot of people who liked the musical saying that this was an okay adaptation. I just. I don't know what they watched. I don't know what I watched.

In roughly chronological (read: increasingly ????) order, a list of bullet points:

I understand the motive behind replacing "It Roars"--not because I think "It Roars" is a weak song, though. I think "It Roars" is actually quite good, despite some debatably rough lyrics; it neatly sets up Cady's excitable energy ("I've got new things to try / like high school, and skateboards, and rapping / and Starbucks venti chai"), her roots in Africa (the drumbeat musical sound, which will recur through Cady's songs), and her naiveté ("Hi teens!"). The transition from African drumbeats/Disney princess to pop/rock as the percussion and guitar kick in really effectively communicates the transition from Cady's world to the world of Western high school. Most importantly, though, "It Roars" introduces us to Cady's fundamental want and a big theme of the show: friendship and belonging. ("They all want to be included like me / so eventually, I'll win!")

But 2024!Cady is a different character, and the movie seems to want to explore different themes (maybe??). So it makes sense that they would need a different opening number, because they're establishing different things. 2024!Cady is quieter, but much more unhappy in Africa; her main want is to live life freely and without regret. Fair enough! That works well with how she'll be challenged in the story, wanting to try living like the Plastics but being forced to hold back in the process. I can get behind that.

HOWEVER. Cady's signature sound is gone, as are pretty much all the signature styles, leaving the musical language of the film much weaker. By replacing "It Roars" but leaving other songs the same ("Apex Predator" and "I See Stars," mostly), they muddy the themes and metaphors threaded throughout. And crucially, they frame "What Ifs" and "Stupid with Love" as dream sequences that get cut off by the Real World of high school.

This is...certainly a decision. It sets up expectations about how the music works in this world that they can't follow through on--there are scenes Cady doesn't see, and therefore cannot dream-musicalize. So when normal people start singing outside Cady's perspective, it's so jarring, because this high school has not been established as a Musical World. (Compounded by the ensemble and the instrumentation sounding thin, and Cady's performance being like it is.)

The establishing of the music as Cady's dream sequences also does a disservice to the real feeling of high school. High school is big and dramatic and the emotions you feel are larger than life. To delineate it so firmly, to have it only be so big and campy in Cady's head, like a sort of "oh, look at that weirdo, thinking that high school is like a musical" feels, to me, so much less genuine.

It sort of felt like if they could have gotten away with playing all the musical numbers as insert songs over the actual action, they would have. They tried so hard.

I think the orchestrations in general are bad and afraid to be a musical. And I don't get people who say that "they had to tone it down for the screen, because you don't have to go as big on screen." I mean, I do, but there is precedent for doing big, loud, ensemble-heavy numbers on screen and it working. Look at The Prom movie, or Hairspray. Look at freaking High School Musical. They could have done it, and it wouldn't have broken the cinema screen or anything.

I love Renee Rapp, I do. But Cady is the protagonist of the story for a reason (just like Emma was the protagonist of The Prom for a reason, and look, the same thing happened there.) Broadway!MG worked because, under all of Regina and Damian's show-stopping numbers, Cady was there as the emotional backbone of the show. You can have your "Stop"s and your "World Burn"s because you have "More is Better" or the reprise of "Fearless" that is tragically missing from the OBC. I always had the sense in the show that everything would eventually feed into Cady's arc; she would learn something from the number (or refuse to), and/or whatever happened through the song would affect her behavior going forward. The sense I get from 2024!Cady is that she exists to be swallowed up by Renee Rapp, which, good for her, but it can't support the narrative.

In general, they've just gutted a lot of Cady's internality by cutting her songs (and her musical asides! Justice for the musical asides!), leading to this lack of agency/accountability/character. Which I find dishearteningly funny, given that the Broadway cast have talked about how this was an issue the creative team was aware of in the original stage show, and how hard they worked to fix it.

I disagree with the notion that the dialogue scenes could replace the impact of these songs. I just don't see it. Once you add musical numbers, you're adding emphasis--here's the big emotional moments I want you to pay attention to. And the emotion dips back down, so we talk--and here's another big emotion, so music, pay attention. The 2024 movie has told us what it considers important: the fun numbers and the Plastics, mostly Regina. And that completely kneecaps the core narrative arc (as well as the pacing, because we're speeding through in weird places before stopping down for a full Regina song).

I just. I really don't know why (narratively--I understand the meta-reasons and they're bad) they cut "More is Better." I'm not joking when I say the movie would have been significantly better with it in. It would have improved the pacing, at least in a musical sense, because going straight from "Revenge Party" to "Someone Gets Hurt (Reprise)" left a surprisingly noticeable gap that made me wonder if they'd forgotten what they were adapting. It would have given Cady a little more voice, and it would have fit really well thematically with what should have been the arc of 2024!Cady--living without holding back, living sincerely. (Also, since Aaron is literally the only person this Cady cares about, that reality check would have packed an even greater wallop.)

I will give credit to the scene with Cady crying as her mom comforts her. That was a good scene.

I was glad they reprised "What Ifs" briefly in the Mathletes competition, although I do miss "Do This Thing," especially because I think it would have worked with 2024!Cady's character arc.

Also, I do sort of get putting "Stupid with Love" over the Mathletes/getting ready for prom, but why the "calcu-lust" portion of the song? And why is it the only song to depart from the musical style this movie is determined to stick to (I'm not counting Damian's iCarly rendition, great as it is--that's meant to be a joke.)

"I See Stars." Okay. Unironically, I love this song as the ending of the Broadway show. I do. You can fight me on it. In Broadway!MG, Cady's driving want is the need to belong, the need for friends; "I See Stars" is her reaching out to the other students (and the audience) and "including" everyone, finally achieving that sense of belonging and friendship by being kind to everyone. The ensemble all coming in and saying "We're all stars," when at the beginning they are so opposed to her ("Just ignore her!") or focused on Regina warms my heart every time. It so earnestly resolves the thematic through line (and also I love Erika's voice).

HOWEVER, it does not work in the 2024 movie. 2024!Cady's desire has never been about friends or belonging. Again, she wants to be herself and live without regrets. I could buy that she would sing an inspirational finale a la "I'd Rather Be Me" or a rousing reprise of "What Ifs" to say something like "we can all do what we want AND be kind to each other." But the thematic throughline to "I See Stars" is much thinner--and the ensemble doesn't even sing together! It defeats the original power of the songs and makes it one more insert song.

I guess what confuses me about this movie the most is that the two takes I've seen are "they changed everything about the arrangements, now it sucks" and "must a movie be good? I enjoy the 2024 movie for what is is." I generally dislike the arrangements, yes, but I think changes to a source material can be interesting and worthwhile, and honestly, the musical arrangements/production is only one of many problems I had with the movie.

And on the other hand, I think I'm frustrated because I wish I could enjoy the 2024 movie for what it is. After all, I enjoy Broadway!MG for what it is, calcu-lust and all.

But maybe that's why--Broadway!MG knows what it is, and genuinely, goofily revels in it. Mean Girls (2024) is a wild mishmash of pop music and TikToks playing over Renee Rapp and the amalgamation of three different scripts of Mean Girls, filmed by a camera that won't stop spinning. That is to say, I don't think Mean Girls (2024) has any more of an idea what it is than I do.

[icharchivist]

Hello fellow European,

I feel your grievances about the localization of Disney movies. First of all, I like most German dubs, they do great jobs, we have great voice actors and usually there's a lot of effort put into things. I generally feel that they hold up in a lot of cases. But I also noticed that in recent years, they got super lazy about the songs, especially. Like. They don't even rhyme. I almost liked it better when they altered the meaning slightly (like they did with most Renaissance movies) to make sure it stays in the meter and rhymes. Let It Go in German is a travesty

So I started mostly watching the movies in English, so as to not tear out my hair and then checking the songs out later

I gotta say, there was an uptick in the quality of Encanto, those songs were good again and I'm glad

However, the most interesting discovery of today is that one, yes, the French version of Zero to Hero is superior, I admit defeat, the German one is fine but not great, but, more importantly. There's no German version of I'm Still Here at all.

They just used the English song. That's so fucking lazy. I couldn't believe it at first, they've never done that, but maybe since Disney had basically given up on the film they weren't ready to put in effort? Or since nobody was singing it in-universe, they left it in like a music video?

But they translated other songs, like every song from Tarzan has a German version that's in the movie. Funnily enough, Phil Collins sang those as well. But those aren't diegetic either, so there's no excuse

So yeah, that's currently driving me insane

Happy Summer Belial anniversary though

HELLO DEAL EUROPEAN!!

i've heard the German songs were pretty decent in general but i didn't know that it seemed to take a dive in quality tho D:

i think the same reason as to why there was a dive in quality with French dub probably applies: less time in between the release of the English movie and the Dub for the translators to actually do their work.

Before the Internet became big enough for torrent movies to become a thing, at least with France, there was at least a 6 months period between the release of the movie in English and the release of the translated version in France. So it meant for 6 months, the translators AND the voice actors had a lot of time to work on their things and make decisions and stuff.

Once torrent became super big and it became easy to find a movie as it was just released in English with subs online (or, in case of French, having a French Canadian dub ready at the time of the release of the movie while our dub studios weren't ready yet), it became necessary for the European releases to align as close as possible to the English releases of the movie.

It means that any work of translation and voice acting were all in pre-production along with the work of the English studios, and it also means that it is less likely to rework on your translation or acting because everything has to be done quick to adapt to the ultimate release. If an English production would make a sudden cut right before release of the movie in English (like it was the case for Frozen and stuff), the adjustment for the French version has to be immediate.

I would be willing to bet the same thing happened to German releases.

Translation and re-dubbing are jobs on their own that takes a lot of time to be reworked, and it's typically the type of things that suffers from a rushed job.

The dive in quality in translation really started happening around that time where movies became a worldwide release event rather than allowing a few months for translators to do their jobs.

I still have some raising eyebrows moment looking at old translations at times, but it's clear people worked on it with like, intentions and meaning on their own. But once you look at mid 00s project and onward a lot of the most questionable decisions can easily be given to "the translators were hella rushed."

I also really dislike the French version of Let It Go, but in Frozen at least the one that REALLY annoyed me and missed the point to me was Love Is An Open Door, which was translated Love is a Gift. Which is like. Bro. Sweetie. It's a girl singing about how love must be an open door because she's traumatized by the way her sister has literally and metaphorically closed the door in between the two of them since forever. Come on. And other details of this song that drives me insane.

Encanto's french version... i watched the movie in French but i honestly don't remember the lyrics or song. I just remembered thinking the flow was extremely awkward in French though.

VERY GLAD you like the French version of Zero to Hero tho, i'm obsessed by how good it is personally, it's really rare i genuinely think a French song is doing a hell of a good job.

however, shocked to hear the Treasure Planet song wasn't even something they translated. It might not have been something Jim himself was singing but it was an important song for the flow of his character, which is why i hate the French take on it so much for just patronizing him while the whole point of the song is "i'm sick of being patronized". But not even showing the meaning of this song in German? That's such a shame.

I know in France we had another problem with the fact that it was a superstar's son who was tasked with making the translation and the whole mediatic buzz around the movie was all about the fact this famous guy did the song in French and put his own spin on it. Considering how often in the 00s they just kept the English song without changing it in some movies, i'd say the only reason Treasure Planet's song was translated is bc they had that one star to do it for them honestly. God this movie was really sabotaged from the inside at this point.

For Tarzan/Phil Collins's soundtrack movies tho it's totally because Phil Collins himself is a madman (respectfully) and is the one who insisted on singing the songs in as many languages he could. He's an outlier and shouldn't be counted as to why some disney that are non-diegetic gets translated and others don't.

Very glad to be sharing this very unique type of frustration that is just "wtf were the translators thINKING"

and Happy Summer Belial Day Release To U Too o7

[castlebyersafterdark]

ok i suppose as a follow up question, without getting into significant storylines or characters (i can barely remember it), why do you think that the creators of the star wars series chose these decisions? creatively, writing? like why did they think these were good choices? i suppose thats my overall question. it's really something to produce a movie that weirds out both fans and non-fans alike, when you're meant to be at the top of your game in the industry. then again, many films are seen as iconic years after the fact when they were lambasted at the time.

i suppose that overall im just curious about why so many odd film choices are being made in the industry, why do people feel so disenfranchised with moviemaking right now?

Finally getting to this one (I had a span of time at the end of '24 where I fell so behind with asks and left so many to sit in my drafts - working through more in my spare time! Sorry!)

So. This ask. Buddy ol pal - these are the questions that definitely keep me up at night regarding the sequel trilogy. Did I see all three of them in theaters? Yes. Was it fun seeing new Star Wars movies in the cinema as an adult? Hell yes. Did I experience moments of wonder and fun watching these movies for the first time? Certainly. Was I massively disappointed after each movie? You bet your sweet, sweet ass I was.

I don't know what it is about Hollywood and the reboot machine and this obsession with undoing endings and subversion. Why can't things just be? Why can't stories end or remain mysterious? I've worded it this way before - the more they fill in the edges of the galaxy, the less I'm inclined to tune in to the official world of Star Wars. I didn't really need to see more of Luke and Leia and Han - to me, their arcs were complete? There are few things I dislike more than undoing a happy ending. Does that make me simple and sentimental. Sure. But I'm not budging.

What was the point of undoing the happy ending for the OG trilogy trio? Why did we need to ruin Luke and break up Leia and Han and cast them into happiness? Why did they need to kill them all off. Seeing them all die on screen was the most dissatisfying thing I've ever had to sit through in any movie. Gosh, I'm still unnerved by it all. Why? I keep asking myself - why did this new generation feel the need to do this? To kill them off for some "fresh start" passing the story to a newer gen - and yet, the franchise continues to pulverize the corpses of these characters by making more and more movies and shows about their pasts, their origins. I've had enough.

You'll never convince me they meticulously planned these movies out and just were winging it the entire time from film to film in the sequels. Ain't no way. The writing was so flawed. I think the point overall was that Disney had the Star Wars property and needed to push out a new generation of movies and stories centering around the IP franchise. To build theme parks and sell merch. It was more about continuing to milk a cultural tentpole and pop culture marketing and money making venture than care and devotion to story. Honest opinion.

There's a fear of originality. Remakes, sequels, prequels, origin stories, reboots. Gaaaaagggggg meeee. Fear of failure. High risk. Money making. Profit. Knowing the average person will show up in the seats for any familiar junk. Nostalgia is one hell of a drug. So is money.

Here's an article that's a lot kinder than I usually am but it's a valid read of things. I liked this ending line: "But in the end, as long as you enjoy something, you don’t need someone online to validate what you like or don’t like." Rings true for all media, to be honest...