#what's funny is there's that whole thing in the beauty and the beast remake about how everybody thinks belle shouldn't be able to read | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

aceofshitposts · 3 years ago

Note

I saw that you like CATS the musical. What are your thoughts on the movie?

AAAAH AHHAHA oh man oh boy y'all should BUCKLE IN cuz it's a ride

my simple thoughts? it's entertaining if only because it butchered the stage show so badly in an attempt to idk modernize it? Well, modernization is one part of it I think. The other part I'll go into below lol. I don't necessarily hate some of the more modern renditions of the songs (mostly the ensemble sets like Jellicle Song for Jellicle Cats) but then others are just... so poorly done it's insulting.

I've said this at the end of this whole rant too but I'm gonna put it up here in case people don't (justifiably) wanna see me go on and on about it:

The movie wasn't made for fans of the musical. It was made to make money and I believe they choose, at least partially, to do that through making it the weirdest and worst possible adaptation they could so that people would want to go see the train wreck. Which, really, worked! It was all people could talk about for a good while so like... Goal achieved, I guess.

A MUCH MORE COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS UNDER THE CUT cuz i don't wanna. flood your dash with... this

ALRIGHT SO. Most of my friends know I'm actually a huge fan of new adaptations of things. I love remakes (provided the people making it are coming at it with some form of heart and not just... cash grabbing which is more often the case) I love seeing other peoples interpretations of characters, or changing settings. It's one of the reasons I like American comics so much, getting to see different writers takes is fascinating.

I think musical movies can be wonderful ways to introduce people to a stage show that might have been unavailable to them otherwise! Chicago, for example, is one of the BEST musical to movie adaptations in my opinion. It kept the heart of the show, it's funny and the song numbers are done really well.

There are of course other famous examples, such as Grease or Bye Bye Birdie. Hairspray was also a wonderful take. These are simply off the top of my head, there are of course more.

CATS in particular has a history. If you go through my CATS tag you may see a few posts from @catsnonreplica which posts photos from non broadway productions of CATS! It's a fascinating read and I love, love, love looking at the other interpretations of the characters! CATS is a musical full of fun and wonderful characters if you take the time to see past the ridiculousness haha and the Korean and Japanese runs of CATS especially have some of my favourites.

How does this relate to the movie, I hear you say well. As you might has noticed the movie's interpretations of the characters is........ lackluster at best and downright uncanny valley at best.

CATS is, at its core, a ridiculous thing. I will fully admit that! But it's fun, it's entertaining and if you pay a little attention you can actually get the plot. (Honestly I don't understand when people complain it has no plot but that's a whole other rant for another day)

The movie was... obsessed with this idea of like... semi realism? Like obviously, as a fan, I think they should have leaned into the over the top character designs but instead we got...w ell:

Bombalurina:

Demeter left and Bomba right. Demeter was actually cut! From the movie which is. upsetting lmao.

Macavity is one of the worst offenders for me:

Macavity was... I wish I could know what the hell they were thinking there cuz it's even in his song? Ginger cat??? THAT IS NOT... A GINGER CAT...... but I digress. I would show more examples but I think you get the point.

So. We've butchered the characters appearances. Okay that's fine but what about their personalities?

ALSO BUTCHERED.

There's... there's a lot to unpack here. Just for context: the Jellicle Ball happens once a year and the Jellicle leader chooses a single cat to be reborn into a new life. In the stage play all the cats who are nominated for this honour are on the older side (Jenny-Any-Dots, Bustopher Jones, Skimbleshanks, Gus The Theatre Cat, and eventually Grizzabella) AND are always nominated by another cat. Not themself, unlike the movie where they all seem to nominate themselves.

Jenny-Any-Dots went from a doting grandmother figure who's celebrated for her selfless volunteering and tireless work into a conceited, vain younger cat who is obsessed with fame.

It's an incredibly strange dichotomy. I don't doubt some of it isn't the result of the uh people playing the characters honestly. I do think some of them did the best they could! I don't really blame Jason Derulo, for example, for Tugger. And honestly, Tugger was probably closest to his stage version (while being a trouble maker, he's shown to show Deuteronomy an immense amount of respect)

Speaking of Tugger! This will bring us to one of the biggest grievances with the movie and that is how they handled Mr Mistoffelees.

So... Ugh. So. We have Victoria as the pov character, which imo is like whatever in the grand scheme of things, and then we have Misto who they have decided will be get live interest cuz... Of course. Misto is shown throughout the musical to be awkward, unsure of himself and well. Really, kinda incompetent. Which is Wild cuz in the stage show he might be aloof but he's fairly confident in his powers.

So, Old Deuts gets kidnapped. In the stage show Tugger is the one to bring Misto forward! It's really quite sweet, imo, and I'm showing myself as a Tuggoffelees shipper here, but again Tugger is previously shown to be pretty conceited but then here he is boosting and hyping up Misto to bring Deuteronomy back. My friends and I have lovingly dubbed this the boyfriend hype song.

SOMEHOW. The movie manages to make this, easily, the MOST BORING number in the whole thing. Which, again, WILD. Misto awkwardly stumbles through his whole song, which again is... Boasting of his supreme magical powers which movie Misto clearly. Does not have or believe to have. The song, to me, feels super awkward and unnecessarily drawn out in the movie which sucks cuz it's one of my favourites in the show.

The declawing (heh) of Mr Mistoffelees actually reminds me strongly of how they changed Gaston in the live action Beauty and the Beast movie. He's gone from a beloved figure in the animated movie to someone so disliked in the town that Le Fou has to pay people off to say nice things about him. It's just. Wild character choices were made!!

Skimbleshanks the Railway Cat is probably my favourite in movie non ensemble number. It feels the most... Genuine? Compared to the other nomination songs.

Other problems include but are not limited to:

The inconsistent size scale of the CATS which throws me off constantly.

The weirdly overt sexual overtones added to MANY of the songs (Jenny and Bustopher being the worst)

This is just a personal gripe and opinion but I don't like that they used the UK version of Mungojerrie and Rumpleteazer. The American version is both better known and tbh way more fun. Teazer's giggle? Adds ten years to my life every time.

Victoria's added solo song, Beautiful Ghosts, while I like the song as a song it doesn't fit the style of message of the musical. In the movie she's singing directly to Grizzabella who's being an outcast for years that she should be grateful she even has memories of being part of the tribe?? What?? But I know they had to add an original song to be able to be nominated for awards in like the Grammys n shit (which is why all musical movies will have an original song, fun fact!!) kinda funny they went to the effort though considering........... I don't think anyone could have genuinely believed CATS 2019 was gonna win anything but golden rhaspberries.

Movie Mr Mistoffelees has made repeated appearances as my sleep paralysis demon

The various cut characters, shout outs to Jemima, Demeter and Jellylorum especially

Bombalurina being a henchman to Macavity rubs me the wrong way

God I've written... So much. You probably get it by now haha. Like I said at the beginning, I try to go into any adaptation with an open mind but... Let's be honest, this movie wasn't marketed to people who are fans of the musical.

It was marketed, and made, to make money. And they choose to do that through, I think, intentionally making the worst possible version ever. Bad press is still press and the more outrageous people said the movie was the more people wanted to go see exactly what kind of train wreck it was.

Which is a disservice to the stage show, honestly, and all the people who've worked on it over the years.

But what can we do, right?

And besides all that, I do... Still own the movie version and I do still rewatch it on occasion. It is entertaining even if it's in a train wreck kind of way. I usually end up watching the 1998 version, then 2019 and then various tour runs that are on YouTube. (I highly recommend the 2016 tour, it's very good)

So in conclusion. It's fun (?) to watch. I enjoy picking things apart and doing analysis (if you couldn't tell!) so like... I don't hate it?

It did what it set out to do, I guess, and I can't fault it for that but. It's not a fair metre with which to judge the stage show imo. But I know it's not everyone's cup of tea, haha.

Jazz hands. I'm more than happy to elaborate or just chat about CATS if anyone wants! I grew up listening to the Broadway CD since I was a toddler so it's been! A very long standing obsession haha. Probably the only other thing on par with CATS is my obsession with Jurassic Park which I've also been a fan of since I was 3 (but that's a whole story in and of itself)

#astrix thoughts #cats the musical #Thanks for the opportunity to talk about one of my hyperfixations anon!#And to anyone who reads this whole mess lmao

7 notes · View notes

britesparc · 3 years ago

Text

Weekend Top Ten #497

Top Ten PC Games No One Talks About Anymore

Blimey, Quake is rather good, isn’t it? Have you heard about it? I really hope so, because it’s only twenty-five years old. I mean, Jesus. What’s up with that? Quake is meant to be the future. It’s full of true-3D polygonal texture-mapping and real-time dynamic light-sourcing. Fancy it being a quarter of a century old. That’s ridiculous. “Old” is for things like, I dunno, Space Invaders or The Godfather or I Wanna Hold Your Hand. Stuff that our parents heard about before we were born. It’s not – it’s absolutely not – used to describe something that people bought 3D accelerator cards for. It’s not used to describe a game that popularised online gaming.

But old it is, getting silver anniversary cards and everything. No longer the angry, hungry young tiger, devouring its ancestors and growling at upstart rivals like Duke Nukem 3D – sure, you’ve got non-linear levels, interactive scenery, and toilet humour, but we’ve got grenades that bounce with real physics – Quake is now an aged beast of the forest, resplendent, battle-scarred, weary with gravitas. Quake is the game that shaped the now, but it does not represent the future anymore. In fact, arguably its greatest rival – Unreal – is the game with the lasting, living legacy, its progeny building the next generation of gaming with one of the most popular and impressive engines around, the framework underpinning everything from Gears to Jedi to Fortnite. Quake blew us all away, but arguably it ceded the conflict, secure in its status as one of the most important and influential games of all time. Quake II got plaudits for actually having a proper story and an engrossing single-player campaign (and coloured lighting!), and its immediate descendants such as Half-Life changed the nature of what FPS games could do, but in a funny way it feels like Quake has long since retired. A sleeping titan. It got old.

So it’s great that they rereleased it on modern systems! The version of Quake released last month is basically the game I remember, but tarted up a little around the edges, with texture filtering and dynamic shadows and other stuff that I couldn’t manage on my Pentium 75 back in the day. It plays great – it’s slick as anything, and you go tearing round the levels like a Ferrari with a nail gun, blasting dudes and ducking back around a corner before you get hit with a pineapple in the face. It’s the first game I’ve played in a long, long time that evokes the feel of classic PC first-person shooters of that era – which, y’know, kinda makes sense as it is a first-person shooter of that era. But that style of fast-paced run-and-gun, circle-strafing gameplay has gone out of fashion now, with FPS games usually favouring slow, methodical, tactical combat, or larger-scale open-world warfare usually involving vehicles. Whether it’s a straight-up no-frills blaster like Quake, or a game that takes you on more of a linear, narrative journey, like Quake II, or even just a multiplayer-focused arena shooter, like Quake III Arena, it does feel like a dying artform, like a style of gameplay that could do with a resurgence (and, to be fair, there are games on the horizon that look like they’re harking back to the era, so that’s cool).

But it’s not just first-person shooters like Quake that I feel have slipped from gaming’s shared consciousness. Maybe it’s my age (it’s definitely my age) but there seems to be quite a lot of games that were a big deal twenty or so years ago that are utterly forgotten now, whereas some – Doom, Duke Nukem, Command & Conquer, Age of Empires – are often namechecked or rebooted (even before the full-on 2016 reboot, Doom must have been one of the most re-released games of the last thirty years). But there are lots of others where sometimes I feel like I’m the only one that remembers it. And that’s where this list comes in: inspired by the excellent re-release of the Quake franchise, here are some other great PC games of that general era that I feel still need shouting about, even if I’m the only one doing the shouting. Maybe they don’t all need a full-on remaster or whatever, but it’d still be nice if they got a bit of modern gaming love.

No One Lives Forever (2000): coming at a time when most FPS games were still Doom-style blasters with little in the way of real plot, NOLF was different: stylish and funny, genuinely well-written (as in the dialogue), with interesting objective-based missions and a cool female protagonist. It skirted similar ground to Bond and the then-white-hot Austin Powers franchise. Two games were made and then, as far as I’m aware, it evaporated into a mess of tangled rights, hence no sequels or remakes. A shame, because it was great.

MDK (1997): the next game from the people who made the multimedia phenomenon that was Earthworm Jim, MDK was a really cool slice of sci-fi style, all sleek level design and intriguing features. It had a supremely bonkers plot which bled through into a game with a sense of humour, but mostly it was the run-and-gun gameplay and innovative use of a scoped weapon – possibly (don’t quote me on this) the first sniper rifle in a videogame. An even wackier sequel followed, but despite its cult status, that was it.

Star Trek: The Next Generation – Klingon Honor Guard (1998): it’s probably fair to say that Star Trek has not had as many great videogames as Star Wars, perhaps because Trek’s historically straightlaced earnestness just didn’t translate as well as bashing someone up the chops with a laser sword. Honor Guard shook things up by casting you as a Klingon, showering levels with pink blood and going Full Worf. It was the first game to licence the Unreal engine, and had a cool level where you walked along the outside of a ship like in First Contact. Also: shout out to the Voyager game, Elite Force (2000), which was another really good FPS set in the world of Trek, with intriguing gameplay wrinkles as you fought the Borg. It also let you wander round the titular starship between levels. Trek deserves more quality action games like these.

Earth 2150 (2000): the nineties on PC really saw RTS games come down to those who liked Command & Conquer or those who liked Warcraft, but as the decade drew to a close other titles chased the wargame crown (including Total Annihilation, which would have made this list, except I feel like the Supreme Commander franchise is a sequel in all but name). 2150 was notable for its Starcraft-like mix of three factions with contrasting play styles, and its use of 3D graphics and the ability to design and build weapons of war that could lay waste to armies and bases with spectacular results. I think the genre has ossified into something more hardcore, and this was probably an inflex point where idiots like me could still get a handle on things.

Midtown Madness (1999): Microsoft has a history of building up great racing franchises and then abandoning them, but their “Madness” line of games in the late nineties/early noughties was terrific and much-missed. Back when tooling round actual 3D cities was still new and exciting, this was a no-holds-barred arcade racer, with some gorgeous shiny chrome effects on the cars, and very nippy handling. It was great fun smashing up VW Beetles and the like. It was surpassed, I guess, by Project Gotham on the Xbox, and sadly the whole franchise was then forgotten, despite the ascendent Forza franchise mostly shunning city driving.

Commandos: Behind Enemy Lines (1998): part tactical war game, part puzzler, Commandos was famous for its gorgeously intricate graphics and its difficulty – I mean, it was way too hard for me. But its beautiful top-down design and its slow, methodical gameplay was compelling, as you evaded Nazis and solved missions with a team of unique units with special skills. Sequels followed, and western spin-off Desperados, but there’s not been a true follow-up for quite some time, despite promises; and few games have echoed its style or look.

The Pandora Directive (1996): okay, so really this is just a placeholder for an entire subgenre of game that appears to have been forgotten: interactive movies. I know, there are flirtations with this from time to time; and many of these games featured obtuse puzzles and relatively little gameplay strung between FMV scenes. Pandora was great though; a first-person 3D game with loads of old-school adventure aspects, as well as FMV, it was a noir-tinged detective story but set in the future. The Tex Murphy series (of which this was the fourth instalment) has had sequels – the most recent one was sadly cancelled only this year – but many other games of a similar ilk, such as Phantasmagoria and even Wing Commander – have fallen by the wayside. With in-engine graphics now allowing the fluidity and expression of cinematic renders of old, shooting movie inserts doesn’t seem like it’s worthwhile; but I still always loved a point-and-click game that featured digitised actors milling about. Toonstruck, anyone?

Marathon (1994): before Halo there was… Marathon! Back when I used to lug my Pentium round my mate’s house so we could play different games on different machines side-by-side, he’d bang on about this Mac-first series of games, like Doom but better, with an intricate plot and complex levels. And y’know what? He was actually onto something. There’s a style and an earnestness to the Marathon franchise, along with many concepts that would be refined in Halo years later. With Bungie now seemingly committed to Destiny, and Halo in Microsoft’s hands, I’m not sure what could possibly become of this, their forgotten FPS forebear, especially as it shares so much DNA with its offspring.

Outlaws (1997): LucasArts are famous for two things, really: their Star Wars games and their adventures. But they made loads of other stuff too – including this intriguing Western shoot-em-up. Back when Western games were rarer than Western movies (which were rare at the time), this quirky and difficult cowboy-em-up saw you rounding up outlaws in typical oater locations such as saloons, trains, and mines. It had great music and a really intriguing set of weapons, including (don’t quote me on this) the first sniper rifle in a game. Sadly Outlaws’ success could be described as “cult” and it never got a proper sequel. and, weirdly, despite the success of Red Dead Redemption, we’ve never had a bit Western-themed FPS again. Which is really odd.

Soldier of Fortune (2000): I pondered whether to include this one, as if I’m honest I’m not sure I want this licence brought back. But I can’t deny the game was a huge deal and has seemingly been forgotten. A relatively gritty and realistic combat game with a huge variety of excellent real-world weaponry, its big hook was its incredibly detailed damage modelling, that could see you blowing limbs off enemies, or splitting open heads, or disembowelling them. Whilst its OTT violence made headlines, the granularity of its systems meant you could be more tactical, shooting weapons out of hands. But really its biggest controversy should be its association with a big old gun magazine.

There are many, many other games that nearly made the list - I almost had a Top Ten of just FPS games, for instance. Little Big Adventure was here, till a sequel was announced the other day. Hexen and Heretic I think still have a place in FPS history. Toonstruck, although without a sequel, was only really a cult hit at the time, and I feel the people who’d love it already know about it. I do tend to overthink these things, y’know.

So maybe not all of these could make a comeback, but all the same I don’t think they should be forgotten, and it does make we wonder what games will fall by the wayside twenty or more years from now. That game about the big green space marine dude in a mask – what was that called again…?

#top ten #games #pc games #fps #shooter #strategy #1990s #2000s

7 notes · View notes

theodorebasmanov · 4 years ago

Text

I’ve watched “Aladdin” 2019 remake and I liked it! I like the original very much (it’s one of my favourite Disney cartoons), I know most of the songs almost by heart and this remake is pretty respectful, it adds some funny moments and at least one cool song. (Spoilers!) The very best thing about that movie is Will Smith! I mean he’s a locomotive of that movie – he makes the best jokes, he dances and singes (and even his rap in “Friend Like Me” didn’t confuse me unlike some of my friends) and of course – he’s just an awesome actor! I liked most of the new scenes – funny as “the jam scene” and serious – as the whole new plot-line about Jasmine. By the way – Jasmine – they made her a much more relatable character – in the new movie she’s not just a girl who lives in luxury and “wants more” (as Ariel, for example) – she’s concerned about the life of her people and wants to be sultan herself not to let some foreign stupid prince rule her country. There’s also a very significant phrase by Jafar: “You’d better be seen and not heard”. Speaking of Jafar – I don’t get why everybody’s complaining about him – he’s a pretty good actor and suits the role – yes, he’s not as nasty as he was in the cartoon and his beard isn’t as twisted – but there it was a hyper-expressive animation and here it’s a real person. The line about Genie falling in love with Jasmin’s maiden wasn’t very necessary but it wasn’t bad either. What’s also good – I’ve noticed that it’s a Guy Ritchie’s movie, even though I’ve seen just two his movies before – all that slow-motion and action scenes. I’m actually happy that I didn’t go to see that film in the cinema – because I would have died somewhere in the middle of “Prince Ali” and even if I had survived I would have been killed by other onlookers because of badly singing along with “A Whole New World”. So – yes, finally a good Disney remake (especially after “Beauty and the Beast”).

35 notes · View notes

being-worthy · 4 years ago

Text

Saturday Home Cinema: Mulan (2020) - A very honest review!

I just had to write this review because Mulan is one of my heroes and I’m a huge fan of the original Disney Mulan (1998). I saw the movie for the first time as a kid when I had trouble feeling integrated and was daily bullied at school. I re-watched it again and again and again until I was able to learn by heart the script and all the songs in German (and later on, even in English). I just saw so much of myself in Mulan (maybe except for the fact that I’m not as beautiful or witty as she is). I too always felt out of place and I couldn’t be my true self and I was never very ladylike either. I also looked up at her and saw her as a role model. Sometimes I thought that if I stared long enough at my reflection in the mirror, it’d show me my true self - and I’m still waiting to this day… Disney’s 1998 version of Mulan was and still is my favourite Disney movie.

> SPOILER ALERT AHEAD!! <

The best thing about this movie is the soundtrack, especially at the end. Christina Aguilera was the right choice to sing Reflection and Loyal Brave True. The goosebumps her voice gives, I can’t even describe how extraordinary her voice is. In the end credits, you can listen to the English version of Reflection as well as the Chinese version (sadly sung by Liu Yifei ¬¬). It’s worth to watch the end credits and listen to the songs.

*My suggestion: Stop whatever you’re doing. Put on some headphones (even better if they’re noise-cancelling), close your eyes, play the song Reflection song (and Loyal Brave True if you feel like it) by Christina Aguilera, no distractions no interruptions, forget about everything and everyone, let the song flow through your ears, mind, heart, body, and soul, and you will feel like you’re Mulan, especially when the drumming gets louder, it’s epically epic! (Sorry for the redundancy but it IS a remarkable song!)

I welcome the idea of wanting to take a classic and do something new, something fresh with it but humanity could’ve gone without this movie and they shouldn’t ask for $35 to watch it on Disney+ and sometimes a classical doesn’t need to be redone. Additionally, I can’t entirely understand what’s going on these past years not only with Disney but Hollywood and all other big movie production companies. It’s either remake of this classic or a 2nd/3rd sequel of a movie that doesn’t actually require a sequel but it’s still done anyway. Why even bother wasting big amounts of money to create a disaster? You’re better of donating that money to charity (or to me lol). The main thing that Disney has been doing lately are remakes of many of our childhood movies Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, Dumbo, The Jungle Book, The Lion King, among others, and now Mulan. Some have a few good parts in them but they still can’t and never will compare to the original. Why is there no originality and innovation anymore? Have they run out of ideas? Furthermore, let’s be honest people will always compare the remake (either consciously or unconsciously) with the original because there are less than a dozen movies where the remake either was (almost) as good as the original much less better than the original. The movie Mulan (2020) had a massive budget and is the most expensive film made by a female director (Niki Caro), yet how they made it, the battle sequences and CGI effects, etc. they’re all crappy.

Budgets of all Mulan interpretations:

Mulan (1998) - $90 million > Directed by Tony Bancroft and Barry Cook. Made $304.3 million in the box office

Hua Mulan (2009) - $12 million > Directed by Jingle Ma. Sadly, made only $1.8 million in the box office. It deserved more love!

Mulan (2020) - $200 million(!!) > All that budget was a waste!

I’ve seen all three versions. The 1998 version is for everybody and it’s funny and you feel with the characters and the film. Let’s be honest, the granny is one of the best characters, most of us have or had a granny like that in our lives. The 2nd one is a 2-hour long movie, a more mature adaption which illustrates the ugly harsh truth about war and the loss and death it brings with it and that there’s nothing funny or cool about it. This one is not suitable for children. You feel with the characters and their sacrifices and they also develop along the movie. I can only recommend to watch this version if you haven’t. And the latest one is a disgrace.

I’m a bit confused as to what the message of the movie is. On one hand, it tells you shouldn’t hide your inner beauty, you shouldn’t hide who you are, you shouldn’t hide your abilities, you shouldn’t try to hide who you truly are in order to conform to what the world/society wants you to be or who you should be, let your true self shine and be yourself and don’t allow anyone to tell you that you’re inferior just because they think/say you are. This is something powerful and admirable but, on the other hand, at the same time, it tells you that you can only do that if you are the chosen one. Let me explain... In the beginning, we see Mulan as a little girl chasing a chicken up to the roofs of the houses at the village where she lives. Basically, she’s born as a one-woman army (almost deus ex machina) and doesn’t require any further training which is total and utter rubbish. She has all the skills because of her powerful chi (vital life force energy) but has to underplay them because it’s not very ladylike to behave like she wants to and she still underplays them when she trains with the soldiers so as to keep a low profile. Her being so powerful from the beginning makes me feel alienated from her and I can’t empathise with her. It’s also not very realistic, nobody is born with their abilities fully developed. For example, even Bruce Lee had to train hard to get where he got and he wasn’t the only one.

The original version shows us a regular girl, at times clumsy (which is a cliché but we still liked it) and when she’s confronted with new situations, she analyses them and finds a quick canny solution to them. She also has to train her body and mind to get to the peak of her potential and accomplish what nobody else could in her time, and here the character is done from the start of the movie and the only thing she has to do is choose not to hide her chi anymore. This tells us that you don’t have to work hard to achieve your dreams whereas in reality you actually do have to work your butt off!

I’m not a fan of the leading actress they chose for Mulan, aka Liu Yifei, not only because she’s a police brutality supporter according to her controversial tweets a while back - this already makes her unworthy to portray Mulan who is the complete opposite - but also because she didn’t do a good job at depicting this great role. Mulan is a role model for every girl and woman and it’s a massive contradiction if a woman who agrees to the atrocious police methods impersonates her role. What message do we send out to every girl out in the world? In her acting she’s this blank and hollow person through the movie and transmits no emotion whatsoever - not even when she cries. This also makes it difficult for me to identify myself with her. She’s this wooden plank, she is and stays a blank canvas through the whole movie with no growth in her character and it’s frustrating having to see this because the character of Mulan isn’t at all like this. Mulan experiences many emotions from the moment where she makes the decision to enlist so her father doesn’t have to or when she experiences the loss of her comrades or has to kill someone for the first time, etc. she suffers along her journey and all this changes her but you see nothing of it in Liu Yifei’s Mulan.

In the Disney version, there are some crucial moments that are missing in the new one. For instance, the most crucial one is the moment where Mulan decides to go to war. If you remember the animation one, she’s sitting in the rain by the dragon statue and at that moment makes a decision that could kill her or worse bring dishonour to herself and her entire family (including ancestors) which was far worse than death during that time! She gets up, marches to the altar of her ancestors, takes her father’s sword and cuts her hair (I know men had long hair back then too but still), puts on the armour and goes to war. All this while being accompanied by an epic song written by Jerry Goldsmith called Haircut. This is one of the most intense and dramatic moments in the movie and in all Disney movies! You can understand and feel the importance of this decision for the character and you feel the weight of it! In the 2020 one, she takes the sword and the next shot presents her already with the armour on - there’s zero dramatic impact here. That was a great missed opportunity!! By omitting important scenes and their dramatic impacts like this one that are essential to the story and to the characters, to their development and their journey throughout the story and you really need to rely on the original from 1998 to have this context.

The battle scenes are like many modern movies: lots of action, lots of moving (too fast-moving), a few amazing fighting moves and fights but not showed entirely. I at least expected some similar quality, like we’ve seen in films such as Hero (2002), House of Flying Daggers (2004), and Tiger & Dragon (2020) to name a few. Sadly, these movies had better fight scenes quality than Mulan which were filmed in high frame rate but over-edited with action that is negatively frenetic and have artificial CGI effects (even the CGI effects in Independence Day were better - I’m watching the movie while writing this). We’re in the 21st century with great advances in technology and movies are given big budgets (particularly Hollywood films), yet despite all this, most movies end up with CGI effects from another era. How come this happens over and over? In this one, we see people running too fast, horses running too fast, and they’re all like a big mass of headless chickens and you don’t know exactly what is happening where. All this fast running, the constant cut and paste of scenes looks all too modern and doesn’t fit the current time period of the movie and it surely doesn’t transmit the way of fighting of that period.

Moreover, we get lots of flashback-lesson learning scenes throughout the movie. This is another fashion in movies lately, playing the film in the present time while at the same time jumping back and forth between flashbacks. It spends a good portion of the movie with these flashbacks. This is not a big issue and admirable per se but when these scenes are insignificant because they’re glossed over and transmitted without zilch emotion, then why even bother to include them in the first instance?

As a last comment, I like the fact that they hired Chinese actors and actresses for the movie (although I don’t know why it had to be in English, I’d have preferred it to be in Chinese, it’s not like we’re allergic to subtitles - unless they’re not done properly), some of them of renewed name, like Gong Li, Rosalind Chao (I loved her in The Joy Luck Club), Jet Li, Donnie Yen (legendary Ip Man), Jason Scott Lee (saw him in Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story), Tzi Ma but they won’t be able to save the movie even with a great cast like this one.

#disney mulan #disney mulan 2020 #mulan live action #saturday home cinema #boycott mulan #don't watch it #don't watch mulan #don't watch mulan 2020 #disney should be ashamed #honest review #a very honest review #film night #movie night

59 notes · View notes

thelittlehansy · 4 years ago

Text

Things that Annoy me in the Treatment of Prince Hans character

Because i love this gif gonna here is it : 😅

Over identification to Elsa and Anna :

literally what happen in the movie : Prince Hans try to took advantages of a princess title later let her to died to took over her kingdom with also murdering a queen in order to escalated in a monarchy in order to be king also to reverse the winter cant ignore the fact that arendelle was literraly Frozen.

people : Their Ex or A guy ( hans)) try to manipulated them or their daughter ( Anna) and later try to kill an other girl. ( possibly also them a friend , or their daughter or sister)

this is basically how act a lot of fans , the cast , the creators a good part of people. This is annoying let fictonal character be fictional dont hold them in hostage because " i want to relate"

people in sleeping beauty after Maleficent try to murder aurora , threaten her during 16 whole years , succeeded to murder Her kidppap Phillip tried to murder him later because she wasnt invited at the baby shower of aurora :

Aurora and phillip are boring: I wish maleficent would have won.

what people will said if phillip and aurra where as adore as elsa and anna : They both have post traumatic stress disorder.

Treatment of Hans fans

imagined living in a fandom that think liking a Disney villain and finding him interesting is worse that put down mock several people and treat them like trash reject them and talk about them with disgust as basically “those small tiny delusional Hans community who promot abusive relationship” ? just told people they are invalid because they find him interesting. fortunly didnt happen to me but sick !

Chidish and immature behavior :

sorry but there are a lot of hans antis who act this way 😅 WITH THING WRITE LIKE THIS BECAUSE THEY THING THIS IS FUNNY OR TO JUST SHOW THEY ARE ANGRY LIKE LOOK I M SCREAMING RIGHT KNOW and are gonna added you : 😡😡😡😡😡 ireedeamble monster 😄.

Different treatment :

Not treat like the others Disney villains FACT !! no one hate the others disney villains the way Hans is hate even tremaine and frollo dont have that hate so the argument "he is just a random human so he connect more with reality wrong" gaston is even love ! so some will say but no one tried to justify what the others disney villain did !!! Well first no one justify what hans has done but here is :

maleficent : justified actions by her being a fairy and having a different morality also in tradition this was a big offend to not being invited. Also we ve got also The awful remake ( sorry if you like the movie i hate it) tried to justfy her bahvior.

gaston : a hunter ? he saw a beast he had to klil it ! read several time !

The evil queen : again...like have you ever see someone hate the queen to have give snow white the apple ? Nope ! But snow white is insult to have eat the apple ! So no one defend her but no one blame her also. The one that took all the critiscm is snow white and modern interpreation tried to defend her behavior.

gothel : she is also kind of defen like this is that bad what she did but she give rapunzel a tower she was a little nice ?

Ursula : seriously There is literally no one that blame ursula to have trick ariel but everyone blame Ariel to have trust Ursula could you imagine prince hans in this situation ariel will not be blame at all. and you even got the Urusla didnt break the rules of the deal and she was acting as a buissness woman.😅

Facilier : blame naveen and also his background is sometimes used to defend his actions.

Hook : i see also a lot of times him being defend !

so others Disney villains actions are justify or reduct. I have never see someone honestly defend Hans action and said this le alright was he did.

Dismiss Hans life in the southern isles

we have Hans quote in the movie , lee words , A Frozen Heart , comic but this is not enough and you will always heard people said that hans exaggerated his life with his brothers.

The lack of morality : ( that one is more subjective )

i m a very empathetic person personally but i cant help find that some person took the excuse of Hans is the villain to tolerate abuse and even justify it. to me whatever his crimes in Frozen he does not deserve to be punished by his abuser and people who know about his life in his homeland choose to ignore it on purpose sometimes. me personally it bother me ! it bothers how people who know about how mess up his life in the southern isles is choose to ignore it on purpose because he is the villain. Sorry but it work also in the others sense to me hans actions does not justify the abuse he goes throught by his family. I dont like vendetta so i m sorry but the fact he tried to kill a favorite disney princess does not justify anything. So then this is very convenient to reject it : by this is not canon but sorry a frozen heart or not this is canon that Hans live in an unloving environment.

Not funny humor

those cameo are just not funny even when i was no interest in the character i was finding them useless. hahaha the villain is hit !!! how many years old are you if you laughed at that ?😅

Bad lesson for kid

Disney : yeah litle kid see your princess is punching the villain

kid : hahahahahhahahaah

Disney : see kid now the horrible villain receive a snowball in the face that makes go him in horse poop.

kid : ahahhahahaahahahaha

Disney : hey look at our ester egg in big hero where the statue is smashed ?

kid : AHAHAHAHAHAHA

disney : see kids see kid elsa is smashing his statue !

kid : AHAHHAHAHAHAHAA elsa is smashimg Hans statue.

Me : hey kid what about go saw cinderella live action and how piss off was tremaine when she ignore her and forgive her at the end To go take Her happy ending and forget her😅

So well i dont know if kids really laughed at all of That but you have understand the point.

If Hans was a girl...

Well i m sorry but i Cant not notice that if hans was a girl first the punch will not exist. Keep the same actions that Hans his crimes never the evil princess would have been punch. And you know what never the evil princess would have been humiliated at the end when he is violently throw in the cell with the bucket on his head And never the evil princess would have be hit by a snowball or smashed. I think there are actually high possibilities that the evil princess would even have more compassion and no one would have choose to dismiss her backstory. The evil princess would not even have bother people if she was ship to one of the Nice prince. So thats make a lot of thing i cant ignore. If Hans was not a man but keep the same actions he would have less hate.

#prince hans #hans #hans westergaard #frozen hans

22 notes · View notes

stuckasmain · 4 years ago

Text

I still don’t think your ready for it, but here’s my Batb Cruise show review:

Yes you read the title completely right, I was made aware of this a day or two ago but apparently one of the Disney Cruises is doing/did beauty and the beast the musical but based upon the live action movie. So naturally a massive fan of the live action I was both shocked and wildly confused, lucky for me I found a video on the entire performance(likely taken from a cruise tv.) from what I skimmed over it looks like instead of full body suits to look like they are it’s going to be regular (human outfits.) and then puppets, so I am Really really interested to see how this goes.

The timing is a little off we skip the prologue (Aria etc.) and start straight in How does a moment last forever... are they placing Belle after it? It was before in the movie. Wait oh my god he’s also narrator- it is the prologue! Pulled a sneaky one on ya.

•Adams dramatic sassy hand movements are my entire life (no dance just this art right here.)

•The enchantress looks straight outa Atlantis but I LOVE the effects used omllll

• MARIE THE BAGUETTES.

•who needs her when you’ve got us (LE DUO OMG- it’s the thing.)

•from what I’m seeing it’s a combination of both the animated and live action, as some lyrics/moments are the animated , like Lefou reverted back to his original sorta idiot phase.

•met HER saw HER *kick* we stan.

•Lefou just waving his bag in the girls face. Legend lmao.

•a LOT more comedy then the movie. When Gaston drops the Boquet Lefou picks it up and smells it and just melts all cute like. My heart?

•”keep moving old legs.”

•Gaston is also a lot more like the animated, more dumbed down for comedic effect.

•so there’s no Philippe so some dudes took her dads wagon. That’s how jumanji started you know smh.

•PUPPETS IM SCREAMING.

Lumire looks like he’s absolutely losing his mind I’m deadddd. Also Cogsworth’s wig is my entire life.

• ok so the beasts voice- he sounds like a Pirate I’m crying “ee stole me rose matey.”

•belle straight up using the stick like a musket

•OML SO I NOW SEE THE EYES ON THE PUPPET AND IM LOSING MY DAMN MIND.

•storage space! Storage space! For all of Lumiere’s shoes! His shoes yes he had a feel large collection of shoes- he rather likes Heels-

Cogsworth.

What?

Stop talking.

•while my love massages my tight caves.

I’ll massage your caves Gaston!

Who has no one snatched you up yet? (He didn’t say girl :0)

•everyones awed and inspired by au

Gaston placing a hand to his chest.

•Gaston kissing his own portait, no bimbettes Lefou sings their line, no Tom , Dick or stanley that I can see either

•they all start russian dancing instead of the stopping/sword fight. Weird flex but ok.

Now the girls are... is that the cancan?

•Fun cult activity’s with friends

•lefou dreamily gasping over gaston along with the women.

•WHERED THE UKALELE COME FROM?!

• they kept my favorite line :)

•So Gaston has the French flag now? Also Maurice runs in automatically? Damn there goes pacing i guess- like aren’t they supposed to be together for at least awhile before going after her jeez

•why’s every single woman in this show use a super high pitched cutesy voice “YeAaA!” Is the audience one year olds and dogs???

•Gaston was a captain :0 Damn high rank.

•or a Budae *laughing* *distant roar* *s c r e a m *

•Madame de Garderobe has me screaming lmaoooo

•Mrs.Potts was a governess? Wack.

•ok so I cant describe the noise i made

L: OH YES! Darling

P: high pitched giggling.

The stage is still black and I can’t breathe-

They were definitely- whatever the equivalent would be of making out

•This plan is uh Dangerous~

I’m-I’m gay for the featherduster. This is not allowed. THEY ARE SO CUTE I CANNOT FUNCTION.

*more adorable couple giggling*

Cogsworth coughing

•food fashion show.. I cannot... I can’t function.

•Lumiere being dramatic:

Coggsworth: if i had hands, I’d slap you.

•*Whispers*Skin.

That’s- that’s not creepy at all lmao.

C’Est LA SALADE I CANT BREATHE WHATS HAPPENING.

•you lost me 2 verses ago now there’s cheese

•no one:

Plumette giggling and calling out everything:

•HOW IS MADAME DOWNSTAIRS IM SO CONFUSED

•OWWWWWWWWEWWWWWWWWWWW.

That hurts.

•ok so Mrs. Potts being a governess in this version now makes sense as she’s the one to start days in the sun instead of the queen/little Adam

•So Candenza is completely gone from this version????? So Lumierè and Plumette get both love lines from the song. Their still busy being cute as hell tho. (Does this imply their also singers? Pretty sure their still just footman/maid.)

•cogsworth now has Mrs.Potts lines but his voice is great.

•instead of soup it’s tea he I N H A L E and belle looks SO done lmao. Also no library?

•oh jeez yea no library just straight into something there.

•oh so the library is now IN something there, alright.

•Adam just DECKS Lumiere. Idk what that was about lmao - showing he’s nice now by uppercutting a candlestick across the room.

• BELLE:D this dork-

•Hes making jokes now.

•SWORDS. FIGHTING.

•”we love you.” But... everyone is still all-

Ok so either Mrs.Potts is a massive liar or they don’t count

•the dress is low key just as underwhelming as in the film

• Adam is trying *SHOVES CHAMPAGNE IN FACE*

•Plumette keeps running on and off stage idk what that’s about.

•the danceeeee

•Adam keeps talking about his mom

•no evermore ;-; my favorite song and it’s gone for a 5 second day’s in the sun reprise.

I’m wounded.

•belle casually taking a dudes knife to cut them free

•I feel like the mob song is cute down a lot, also Lumiere comes in sliding on his knees. Respect.

•”Gaston help.” Is kinda like nothing now as they have been so comedic. I feel nothing.

•i like the way they executed the final fight (beast/Gaston as servents vs the villages was literally nothing.)

•Lumiere sliding in on his knees again *French accent*YAAAAAAS

•ok so the death scene still hurts me like a truck.

Lumire: guys we did it :)

*literally watches the love of his life, his best friend and other friends die(yes it’s technically death.)*

Everyone steps away from the puppet and turns around, the lighting goes dark I’m - ;-;

•the prince is low key better in the suit the guy playing him is uhhhhhhhh I know the whole point is to look past Appearance but who’s dad is this?

•I’m absolutely SCREAMING. Instead of the dramatic one by one they all pop up together and collectively go :00000 what?! Whoa!

•Lumiere and Plumette low key not even a “hi.” Just kiss and start dancing. Mood.

•Ballet attack part 2 and middle aged prince returns.

•No chip or Madame at the end either! :0

•oh wait here’s chip!

Cogsworth melting in the background is me

𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬/𝐏��𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐲𝐚𝐥𝐬

so as I’ve said it’s like a mash up of the original and the remake with some of the choices it makes, I think it really makes or breaks some of the characters.

Lefou/Gaston-

Both of them fell back more into their Cartoon counterparts of : here to be the bad guy, here to be funny. Both of them become so overly comedic that you wouldn’t be able to tell who’s line was whos if you were shown them without being told. I think , funny as they were it negatively effected their character’s. Same case with the beast he definitely became more comedic if anything at all.

Lumierè/Cogsworth/Plumette-

These guys I think are the opposite. I think having a slight bit more of the animated made both banter and flirting hike it’s way up. Cogsworth and Lumierè were more showy in their banter , while Lumierè and Plumette were much more loud and showy with banter. Also the accents are art. Mrs. Potts was there to be the mother like figure and not given much of herself

Rip to chip who had like 4 lines and didn’t even show up to seconds before curtain. Also Madame de Garderobe who was there to be a good singer and nothing more as she lost her whole arc.Rip to Cadenza, Frou frou , Chapu and Philippe for being written out all together.

𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐬/𝐭𝐡𝗼𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬

As I’ve said the changes either make or break some moments, like adding a overwhelming amount of comedy like the og movie. As funny as it was it did not have that same weight/gravity the remake did in its more serious/emotional scenes like the death/human again scenes I felt little here and Gaston betraying Lefou. As well as having the more serious/soft songs as the remake really backfired with so much comedy, and not even the more Witty subtle humor of the movie. Funny, but odd as character choice

So I know you had to cut it down a lot in order to fit it on stage however, nessisary parts or songs (evermore ;-;) were completely excluded likely do to the slightly unessisary over extension of dance numbers in Gaston(that didn’t need it) and Be our guest. Which could have been time better spent.

The servants are the absolute saving grace of this musical. The costumes! Oh!(again cogsworths wig is my life.) the humor! The acting, the singing, the relationships- all of it- all of it. They carry the entire thing, and if I’m honest it’s mainly Lumierè, Cogsworth and Plumette, occasionally Mrs. Potts if you stretch.

#batb 2017 #beauty and the beast 2017 #disney cruise #disney cruise show????#buckle up bitches #la salde #this was meant to have photos forgive me im lazy

12 notes · View notes

wingedweasel · 4 years ago

Text

My thoughts on Disney Remakes

Get ready for a loooooooooong post. Sorry.

So let me start by saying I don’t have Disney+ and haven’t seen Mulan yet, so I’m only going off of what I’ve seen in trailers and the reviews of other people - both who liked it and those who didn’t. Warning, spoilers if you haven’t seen the animated or remakes of Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, or Mulan.

My opinion is that it seems like Disney really doesn't understand what to do with these remakes.

With Beauty and the Beast, they tried something different and added/changed some things hoping that it would make the story more enjoyable but kept it generally the same, and people didn't react as positively as Disney wanted. In The Lion King, they went the exact opposite and made it a shot for shot remake, and people still didn't react as positively as Disney was hoping. Now with Mulan, it's a completely different story and people are still not happy with the end product.

I don't think it's an issue with the audience being unsatisfied with everything no matter what. There is a little bit of that, make no mistake. There are people who will be unhappy no matter Disney did. However, I think it's more of an issue of Disney not realizing what people liked about the originals and enhancing that and failing to commit.

Beauty and the Beast tried to be more ‘real’ in bringing in PTDS and references to war, death, illness, and grief over losing a loved one, ramping up the sexism, and making Gaston more of a douche, but I think it would have been a better story if they made it more real/dark. One of the easiest things would be to make Gaston more of a threat and his followers either more blind in worshiping him - more cult like if you will - or having him have to work harder to get them on his side. The animates version had the almost cult like mentality of how the people of the village treated Gaston. If he said jump, they would have started jumping before asking how high. It was easy for him to get blind followers into charging the castle to kill the beast.

In the remake, there were times where, while Gaston was able to talk his way out of a problem, his anger or manipulative actions were kind of just waved away or people were only accepting of him and his desires due to peer pressure - which makes a good foil to the Beast before he was cursed. It could have been something the Beast could have recognized and wanted to changed because he sees that acting this way is really bad, wont get the girl, and doesn’t want to be like Gaston (or making it a teaching moment for Gaston if you want to give the villain a possibility of redemption, either works). Another thing would have been to capitalize on the fact Belle is just as much as an inventor as her father and/or she is secretly the one who makes gadgets the village uses and likes or what her father is going to sell. That way it shows she is smart, resourceful, and would be respected if only she just wasn't a gosh darn woman. At the end, when it’s revealed that Gaston is a bad guy and that Belle is the one who created everything, she would be able to get the respect and acceptance of the village she should have had all along. Instead she gets belittled for being able to read and is a senseless romantic because she like Romeo and Juliet? What? Honestly, I don’t think if she ever returned to the village and tried to encourage and teach the little girl to read again, she would have been just as dismissed as she was at the beginning. Her life wouldn’t have changed in any way if she did go back to her ‘provincial life.’

People know this story, as I said, so changing it up a bit with the background things but still making it about the message of it's the personality that makes a good person and how you overcome people not believing in you the focus would have made it better than just Gaston having PTSD, Belle wants to teach girls to read, and a potentially hidden gay character. In short, they could have made this a completely different movie and I think people would have been happy with that. Instead, they started to make changes, doubled back, and we got some lackluster kinda pro-feminism...thing. Also, get a singer for musicals. The singing wasn’t terrible, but still actual singers should be used in musicals more often.

The Lion King suffered for opposite reasons. It seems as if Disney saw that people didn’t like the changes they made to Beauty and the Beast, and went “Okay, not changes at all!” A shot for shot remake should only be done if you can make it interesting. You get bonus points for getting original actors, settings, and crew. Update the technology and it usually becomes better. This should have been an easy A+ since The Lion King did all this. However, it didn’t because it was too real - in a bad way. I haven’t seen the remake of the Jungle Book, but I have heard good things about it because of the way the characters were designed. They were interesting to look at even if they looked more realistic and not as cartoony as they could have done. The Lion King should have gone this root. The characters here were a bit bland looking. They’re just lions, which cool. They hyper realism of the CG was an interesting thing to do - in theory. The hyperrealism in something like Beowolf made it eye catching and was almost a character itself. In The Lion King, there wasn’t a whole lot of variance between everyone. All the animals all looked the same as one another. Sure in nature animals tend to have little variance within their species, but in movies 0 especially a kid’s movie - characters need to stand out from one another to be easily identifiable. Some of the quirks of the animated version could have been used to do this. Make Simba’s mane more reddish-orange, Scar’s mane should have been black. Some of my favorite characters were the lead hyenas. They all had a unique look - it didn’t hurt that Whoppi Goldberg was Shenzi. Now everyone is the same. Also, the mouth and facial emotes didn’t really work with the hyper realism. If they had made the facial features ‘looser’ and a bit more animated, it would have helped convey the expressions so much more and when they started singing, it would have looked more ‘natural’ for them to be doing so.

Nothing was really changes story-wise; they did add some dialogue and minor things like that, but not a whole lot else. It probably could have gotten away with making more alterations to the story - either by adding scenes or changing backstories or things like that - and people wouldn’t have been as mad as with other movies (as long as the changes made sense and added to the plot and weren’t changes just to be changes).

Now Mulan, on the other hand, seems to be split 50/50 sor far. It’s only been out for a short time, so not a whole bunch of people have seen it - myself included - but looking at reviews, it looks like Disney say the hate The Lion King got for being a shot for shot remake and went, “Fine, we’ll change everything!” And they did. I mean, they kept the general idea of a young woman taking her father’s place in the army to fend off an invading force and she somehow defeats the big bad (I think? I heard something about the Emperor fighting the big bad? I mean, it is Jet Li, so he has to have at least one fight scene, so...). I will say that from the previews that I have seen and all the reviewers agree that the movie is very pretty. It has gorgeous cinematography and the set design looks amazing. There were some other positives that a lot of people toted like even though Mulan has a love interest, it really isn’t that big a thing, and the fight scenes were very well choreographed, and some character interactions that were quite funny - things like that. Important things to be sure, but some of the biggest complaints were that Mulan in the animated version was shown to be resourceful, cunning, and proved that a woman could save the day just a s successfully - if not better - than a man (although why she had a fan when she went back to being a woman, I don’t know, but whatever). In the remake, it seems like strength and fighting prowess is all that is needed to be a hero.

Apparently, Qi is a thing in the movie and if you have more of it, it allows people - men - to be good fighters and do more athletic things better than those without it (I guess?) Women who have it are apparently shunned, which is part of one of the Witch’s backstory. She has Qi and uses it for dark magic...okay? Do some men not use it for evil? Is every woman who has it eventually turn evil? Speaking of the Witch, she is super more powerful than the main baddie. She is physically more powerful, has Qi, uses magic - some of which she uses to shapeshift? Like, why do we need another baddie? She should be the main villain. One reviewer said it would have been a great twist if she was just pretending to be the main guy using her shapeshifting powers and we only find out right at the end. Now that would have been cool. We get a strong female villain who plays off of the gender restrictions of the society and turns everything on its head by going, “I was a woman the whole time! All those things you said a woman couldn’t do, well, I was doing them and you didn’t have any complaints then!” Instead, we get another movie where the villainous woman is second to the villainous man simply because of gender stereotypes. Hell, even if the man was just pretending to be the main baddie and acting as her puppet would have been better.

I guess because she really isn’t the main villain, she gets to have a redemption scene and save the hero, but was that really necessary? Couldn’t she be bad and stay bad until the very end? Why not? Anyway, she sacrifices herself to save Mulan, and it’s supposed to be an emotional scene which causes Mulan to find her inner strength and gives her a power boost to defeat the baddie.

Mulan also doesn’t have a lot of cunning in this remake, apparently. She’s more physical than the animated version, but...wasn’t the point of Mulan to show that you needed more than physicality to save the day? The thing that I’ve seen most people complain about is this. In the animated version, Mulan and the other soldiers are given the task to climb a pole wearing heavy weights (I’ll Make a Man Out of You is one of the best songs ever, fight me). After a montage of her failing physical tasks, she is only able to succeed climbing the pole through her smarts. Not because she suddenly got supper buff and could lift herself up the pole. Yes, she gets physically stronger and becomes the best at everything during the finale of the song, but that just a result of training. You start off really bad and then become good. I believe what made this scene so powerful was that she was held back by the belief that she wasn’t ‘cut out’ for the army. She had to overcome her own mentality before she could start to be a better soldier. She does that by using her brain to find a different way to climb the pole.

In the remake, the task is to climb steps up a mountain carrying buckets of water. It’s not an easy task, as everyone fails, but apparently, she just keeps at it until she is physically strong enough to do it? No more effective way of carrying the buckets than just T-pose while holding them out to the side. Like I said, training makes you stringer. Practice makes you better. This is obvious. You get stronger the longer you work your muscles. There’s nothing special about that. Yes, the men were probably comparatively physically stronger than her, but they all struggled too. What’s the lesson here? Just keep at it and one day you will be big and strong? Okay, cool I guess. That’s something that is helpful, don’t get me wrong. Dedication and hard work are important. Being physically strong is one aspect of being a soldier - especially during the time period the movie is set in, but it’s not the be all end all. That’s what made Mulan stand out: she was at such a disadvantage she had to find a different way of doing things to succeed. Then the training kicked in and she became physically stronger.

It’s also good to note that in the animated version, she never relies on her physical strength to do something. Sure she is super awesome at the end of the training montage, but that’s all we see of her being physical. She uses smarts to defeat the army, the previous method of climbing the pole to get inside the palace, and deception to knock out the guards. No epic parkour, no breaking down walls, just her brain. In the remake, it seems as if strength is the be all end all. Mulan is supposed to be a role model for young girls and an example of why you shouldn’t listen to stereotypes. At least, she is supposed to be. And she is - in the animated version. Here, it seems as if the message is forget about being intelligent. All that really matters is that you be physically strong. I mean, even that hot mess of a movie Hercules taught us that this is wrong. You need more than just muscles to be a hero. Being able to fight isn’t what makes you a hero (it’s certainly part of it, obviously). You need a good heart and a good head, not a six pack.

With all that said, it looks like the Mulan remake suffered from trying to not be Mulan. It went too far in changing things. It added things that it didn’t need to add, and took out things that helped make the animated version well liked. The love story that wasn’t? They took out Shang, but added another love interest? Just keep Shang. Looking back, and even at the time I first saw it, it’s amazing to see the hero is a woman and she doesn’t need to rely on a relationship to reach her goals. The added bonus of having Shang was that he os believed to be the first LGBT Disney character. He respected Ping and thought him a friend before the big reveal and no one can convince me otherwise the looks Shang gave Ping during the training montage and after Ping gives Shang some encouragement right before they march out to the meet the main army are anything other than Shang thinking “Damn, I want some of that.” Add in the fact that he starts to act all flustered when he returned the helmet just shows that he had feelings for Ping, but now that Ping is actually a girl he can act on those feelings (this is both Ancient China we are talking about, not 2020...where being LGBT is still not always accepted...).

Okay, so what does all that mean for the Mulan remake? Beauty and the Beast wasn’t the best because it didn’t go far enough with its changes, The Lion King didn’t have enough changes, and Mulan had too many changes? Not exactly. Mulan, as a story, can work with being completely different from the original animated version. It probably mostly does. It’s more than like going to be a success on Disney+. But if any movie could have been a shot for shot remake, it should have been Mulan. Hell, making it not be a musical and adapting the story to account for that could work. It was the lessons that made the animated version so well liked. Also the humor, Eddie Murphy makes a great side kick. You have the yearning for ‘more’ and the feeling of not fitting in that Beauty and the Beast has combined with the self-doubt and acceptance despite origins of The Lion King. You have a kickass female hero who breaks all the gender rules of her society and saves the day by using her brain and not a sword. No magic to save the day - the ancestor spirts being the only mystical thing about the movie. Mushu isn’t overtly magical and he doesn’t really help do anything except be a convenient Zippo light two times in the movie - it could be argued that he, and magic in general, is a source of conflict since the other spirits all want to bring Mulan home. Also no stupidly forced romance subplot - or worse a love triangle. The remake just doesn’t have any of that, really. It’s basically just another action movie with the added flavor of a woman pretending to be a man in the army. It’s almost a ‘chosen one’ narrative since the aspect of Qi looks to be a major plot point - and source of conflict. There’s magic - and oh by the way, there’s a phoenix attached to Mulan for some reason...? - and what looks like a romance subplot (one where the guy isn’t Bi boooooooo). Mulan could have been shot for shot and would be successful. It can also be successful by making changes, but not many. We like Mulan the way it was. If you need to make changes or updates to it, fine, but don’t make the story so unrecognizable that it becomes a different movie. Mulan doing a whole bunch of fancy martial arts before literally beating the big bad and an evil Witch who turns into a bird are things we don’t want and the story doesn’t need.

Disney needs to stop messing with the original stories. We liked the old animated versions for a reason. Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King were two of the biggest box office hits and two of the most popular Disney movies today. The were huge successes and are still talked about 20+ years later. These remakes are just meh.

If Disney does change the story, change it in a way that emphasizes what was liked about the original. Otherwise, make it into a different movie and - more importantly - call it something else.

#Disney #Mulan #Lion King #Beauty and the Beast #remake #rant #film review

7 notes · View notes

chacusha · 4 years ago

Text

Trials of Mana remake liveblogging (3/...)

From the last benevodon to the postgame:

I like how the original handled the Jungle of Illusions and Pedda a bit better. I liked having enemy encounters in the jungle (in fact, I spent a while in the SNES version grinding here). I also liked the dreaminess of stepping into an area and the screen going wiggly (uh I don’t know how to describe it) and suddenly you see more signs of a town that wasn’t there before. Having the town be blocked/inaccessible until you defeat 7 benevodons and then you sleep at a ruined inn (why would you even do that...?) and then the town appears isn’t as trippy/dreamy. I don’t know how you would convey the same effect without the screen wave effect (maybe things materializing in front of you?) but it’s very effective on the SNES at conveying that your senses might be deceiving you or that you’re only reliving a memory/dream.

I got very excited seeing young Prince Richard and Duran with a pencil mustache Loki, though!

I’m a bit confused by what exactly happened to the Darkstone here. Shade said it was destroyed and Zable Fahr was released. But Belladonna said the Darkstone was in Mavolia and they brought it back to this world. And we see the Darkstone shatter in front of our eyes right before encountering Zable Fahr (whereas the other Manastones shattered earlier). So is it that the Zable Fahr was re-sealed in the Darkstone after being defeated and then unsealed (again) in the real world after Belladonna and co. transported it? Or are the Zable Fahr and Darkstone we encounter from the past?

The Darkshine Knight encounter was less “feelsy” than the one in my Collection of Mana playthrough, since Duran wasn’t in my party. But I like how he also alludes to the fact that Angela is Richard’s daughter.

Ooh I got a rainbow item seed. I have no idea what that does.

The Crimson Wizard was a bit of a tedious boss fight with his teleporting and spells that knock you down. But ultimately, for both him and the Dragon King, I was basically never in any danger of dying despite not being very leveled up, and only having a partial set of ultimate equipment (especially not with the Crimson Wizard��s link ability equipped on Kevin - so much free MP!).

I feel like the original SNES ending feels both a bit more bittersweet and more incomplete. In the original credits, rather than seeing how the world is coping with no mana (largely it seems like everyone is doing fine), you just see Flammie flying mostly all alone. It’s a very beautiful ending but it also feels rushed/incomplete and very lonely. The remake ending feels a bit more fleshed out but also less sad.

This is the first time I’ve seen Kevin’s ending and I really do not like it. While I like the fact that Karl is in fact still alive (Kevin deserves it) I feel like the whole ending gives a pass / extremely rushed moral redemption to the Beast King, and that’s not what I’m here for! The Beast King is one of the most interesting characters in this whole game because he’s the only protagonist-related antagonist who isn’t being brainwashed into being eeeevil. That makes him one of the legit most grey characters in the game and his psychology and motivations fascinating! But the game just glosses over that, and it and Kevin forgive him too easily. I would have liked to see the Beast King begin the journey to redemption and show at least a bit of remorse for his actions, while also implying that journey is longer than what can be shown at the end of the game. They skip this redemption arc and manage to make Kevin look like an idiot in the process -- I definitely don’t think it should have been done this way. I’m mentally rewriting this whole scene.

That said, Kevin training with Ludgar in the ending was adorable.

I thought I multishipped everyone in this game, but I was wrong. I really did not like the Hawkeye and Jessica interaction in the credits (I’m just pretending this is platonic), nor the ending scene where Angela blows a kiss at Kevin (he’s too young/innocent for her! ToT). It’s actually really funny -- I saw someone on the /r/secretofmana reddit being like “Why was I led to believe that Hawkeye/Riesz was the big pairing in this game when they barely interact and Hawkeye is thinking about Jessica all the time” because like, yeah, I get that there isn’t a lot of interactions and that they’re fairly subtle, but also these games are very platonic, which makes even a tiny hint of romance Very Significant, as well as ANY time there is character-specific interaction or dialogue -- it seems very HMMMM. (Also, I think the remake, when it had to fill in dialogue, played it “safe” by giving Riesz only Elliott-related thoughts and (I assume) Hawkeye only Jessica-related thoughts, rather than drop shippy hints.)

Anyway, I’m in the postgame content and really enjoying the new stuff! I like how the three characters have very different battles and content. Riesz gets a group battle against the guardian of the sphere and gets to talk to her dead parents again, which is really sweet (I hate King Joster’s voice though). Kevin gets a one-on-one duel with his dad which is kind of what I expected from his plotline because of how easily his dad pwns him in the beginning of the game which just sets up a rematch in his arc, so am surprised that this WASN’T an aspect of his story before. Angela also gets a one-on-one duel, but it’s with a copy of herself (apparently the Class 4 version of herself that she will eventually become), a nice throwback to Secret of Mana. Despite the fact that my characters are the three royalty characters, their stories play out very differently.

Riesz’s Meteorite class looks very... Aquaman.

Wow, this postgame dungeon is REALLY long. Interesting how you go through the castles of the six main characters. Lazy level reuse, but I appreciate the sheer length of content here, especially since it gives you the chance to try out the characters’ Class 4 skills.

There’s also Class 4-specific ultimate equipment too! Neat.

Anise wasn’t too difficult. I ended up getting game overed once on her second form because I wasn’t careful, but overall it was fine.

I went back for the Black Rabite boss in the Crystal Desert. I got pwned a lot -- that one-hit KO Jumbonk really gave me issues especially when the four Black Rabites come out and they’re all doing it, but I finally beat it after 20 or so tries. Ended up controlling Kevin again (my healer/fighter) to win this one but probably Angela did the most damage to the Black Rabite by spamming Ancient Curse. What I ended up mostly doing as Kevin was just being more proactive with the healing to prevent the other characters from being KO’d prematurely, as well as attracting the attention of the Black Rabite’s attacks and doing a better job of dodging them. Kevin had dark saber on his fists for maybe a third to a half of the fight so I didn’t do a lot of attacking, really.

New game plus time! To be continued...

#trials of mana #seiken densetsu #trials of mana liveblogging #video game liveblogging #seiken densetsu 3

2 notes · View notes

mariolucario493 · 5 years ago

Text

A Frozen 2 review no one asked for! (POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD)

Okay, hear me out. I’m probably in the minority when I say this, but...

I think it’s better than the first one.

I liked the original Frozen just fine. I liked how it depicted anxiety and how it subverted a lot of Disney tropes, but I probably wouldn’t put it in my top ten.

(Which, in case you’re interested, is:)

10. Tarzan

9. Aladdin

8. Beauty and the Beast

7. Frozen 2 (this one!)

6. Lilo & Stitch

5. Wreck-it Ralph

4. Moana

3. The Lion King

2. The Hunchback of Notre Dame

1. Zootopia

(And that’s not even including the Pixar ones.)

But it seems that the general consensus of Frozen 2 is the same as a lot of sequels (especially Disney sequels): that it’s not as good as the first one. Or, dare I say it, that it’s just the first one all over again. But here’s my argument against that. I think being similar to the first one actually works in its favor.

What do I mean by that? Well, after the prologue, the movie opens with a song called “Some Things Never Change,” in which all the characters sing about how happy they are in their current life. Although Olaf worries that change might be inevitable (I love how woke he’s become, btw), no one is really seeking anything new. Now that sounds like the setup for a lot of recent Disney movies, I know. But it's an idea that’s really explored throughout the entirety of the movie.

Every character reacts to change differently. Elsa is nervous, but tries to embrace it anyway; Olaf dismisses it as something he will understand when he’s older; Kristoff feels like he and his friends are drifting apart; and Anna struggles to accept it overall. And we see how each of them goes through it. Even the inclusion of darker themes allows the audience to react similarly to the characters onscreen. Kids probably won’t always understand what’s going on; but they’ll have a good time anyway. And just like Olaf, they’ll understand it when they’re older. That does seem to be one of the major criticisms I’ve seen for Frozen 2, that it’s too dark and too complicated for kids. But Disney’s never been afraid to tackle heavy subjects before, because they know that challenging the audience helps them grow. And hey, at least it’s not Crimes of Grindelwald, right?

I think the reason they made Frozen 2 similar to Frozen 1 was the same reason they used similar themes in Frozen 1 that we were already familiar with - princesses, magical kingdoms, curses, goofy sidekicks. And that’s to deconstruct and subvert them. In fact, I might even go so far as to say that this was an attempt to remind Disney to always try new things, which they have had trouble with recently. Just look at all those live-action remakes that no one asked for. The exact same thing all over again disguised as something new, but without all the stuff that made the originals so good in the first place.

Frozen 2 also continues the tradition of having interesting female protagonists. Well, interesting ANIMATED female protagonists, anyway. It’s not like the Aladdin remake, where Jasmine has a whole new song about girl power, but then she becomes the damsel in distress anyway and does nothing to fight back. It’s not like Captain Marvel, who makes a big deal about being a female superhero even though the Avengers already have several much more interesting female members. It’s not like the new Star Wars movies, in which they’re so focused with making Rey a strong female role model that they forget to give her a personality. And it’s not going to be like the Mulan remake, which I’m just going to assume is going to be another soapbox feminist’s wet dream. Oh, wait, I forgot this is Tumblr, and they love that shit.

But really. Starting with Tiana, Disney’s animated leading ladies have become such well-written characters. From Rapunzel to Vanellope to Judy Hopps to Moana to Elastigirl, they are fully fleshed-out characters first and agenda pushers second. Anna and Elsa are no exception. Elsa battles magical spirits and tames a water horse, and Anna has a crisis of ethics that feels really genuine. All without saying something dumb like “Look how capable I, a female, am in this situation, in comparison to my less competent male companions.”

Oh, by the way, for those of you who wanted Elsa to be revealed as a lesbian, I think we have a few more hints that she may be. She does not end up with a love interest, but I noticed she does seem to get along really well with Honeymaren. So maybe? Definitely better than the live-action Beauty and the Beast, am I right?

Oh, and the songs are great. We get not one, but TWO big numbers from Idina Menzel. Olaf and Kristoff both get new songs that are pointless, but still really funny. Anna has a new song that is one of the emotional highlights. The lyrics are just as clever, and they help further each character’s story arc. Even the lame pop versions of the songs over the end credits, which I usually DESPISE; hearing Imagine Dragons’ cover of “Into the Unknown” was actually pretty decent.

So, those darker themes. The reveal that one of Anna and Elsa’s ancestors was a genocidal tyrant who built the dam as a way to restrict the Northuldra tribe’s resources, and then declared war on them. Pretty ballsy, I have to say. And pretty creative that the villain of this movie is a character who is already dead before the movie even begins. Kind of like Coco, but they don’t even interact with him as a spirit or anything. What I like about this is that it kind of explains why the father in the first movie didn’t always do the right thing when it came to raising his kids. Locking up one of your daughters because she has supernatural abilities seems like a terrible move. But when you consider that Agnarr’s father was also distant from his son and had the goal of suppressing magic, you realize that it may have been a subconscious choice on his behalf. And hey, it’s also revealed that the reason Agnarr left on the ship that would eventually be his grave was to find answers about Elsa. So he probably felt remorse about it.

And now it’s time to compare this movie to today’s political climate. And before you start typing about how I’m wrong like Tumblr users are prone to do, maybe take a hint from the first movie and let it go. This is just my personal analysis.

The Northuldra tribe is clearly inspired by the Sami, the indigenous people of Norway, who have been persecuted for generations. But I don’t know much about Norwegian history, so let’s just compare it to America. Now let’s see...does America have a history of persecuting its indigenous population and disguising acts of war as offerings of peace? Hey, didn’t this movie come out just a week before Thanksgiving?

That’s right, I’m going there. Come to think of it, this whole movie radiates Thanksgiving vibes. It’s set in autumn, and it opens with everyone having a big feast with pumpkins and stuff.

King Runeard is a historical figure within Arendelle, and he is considered a hero. The dam that Runeard built is a monument that is ultimately destroyed by Anna in the film’s climax. And Anna initially refuses to do so because she believes the dam represents all that her kingdom stands for. I might be crazy, but this reminds me of how people are starting to take down statues of Confederate soldiers or how many cities have stopped recognizing Columbus Day as a national holiday, despite others saying that they are important parts of our heritage. One of the lines in “Some Things Never Change” is “Arendelle’s flag will always fly.” Sounds kind of like those conservative nuts who think the American flag is an infallible symbol and anyone who disrespects it (say, by taking a knee during the national anthem) is not a true patriot. Might be grasping at straws with that one.

And what Anna decides to do ultimately makes Arendelle a better place, even though she worries that it will be an unpopular decision. So we have a person in a position of political power who puts aside her own hubris for the good of her people. She asks for nothing in return, and knows that the right choice is not the easy one. She destroys a physical bridge, but builds a metaphorical one. Anna really is the type of leader we need. And if you think that it’s ethnocentric that a white person saves the day for a minority, remember that Anna and Elsa are actually half Northuldran on their mother’s side.

Yes, I believe Frozen 2 is up there with Zootopia as one of the great Disney flexes on right-wing extremists. But it’s subtle enough that we can enjoy the characters, the music, and the story first; and the message second. It reminds us to step outside our comfort zones and to always think about what it means to do the right thing.

If you didn’t like the first Frozen, you probably won’t enjoy this one either. I can understand what people mean when they say the movie throws a lot at you and doesn’t always feel focused on a coherent story. But regardless, I think it is an important movie.

#frozen 2 #disney #review #anna #elsa #olaf #kristoff #sven

24 notes · View notes

imagitory · 5 years ago

Text

Review: The Lion King (2019) [spoilers]

NAAAAAANTS IGONYAMA BAGITI BABA -- !

Ahem. So...I just got back from seeing the new Lion King remake, and I guess it’s time to talk about it. For those of you who wish to avoid spoilers... *exhales heavily* how do I say this kindly, um -- you don’t need to go see this. Like, really, you don’t. Not to rain on anyone’s parade, but you would miss absolutely nothing watching the original instead of this one, and honestly, I think it’s fair to say you’ll have much more fun watching the original too. As much as I haven’t loved Disney’s line of recent remakes, I at least found something in most of the films I saw that I could praise, but with this one? I don’t recall ever being so utterly bored sitting in a movie theater in my life.

If you would like a more detailed opinion, here’s a cut!

The Good!

+For once, Disney decided to hire a cast full of singers that don’t require autotune, including Donald Glover, Billy Eichner, and of course Beyonce, as well as quite a few lovely people in the chorus like Brown Lidiwe Mkhize (who sang The Circle of Life). Even some of the performers with weaker singing voices like John Oliver were able to hold their own well enough.

+The voice acting overall wasn’t bad. I’ll have to leave it at that, though, since this is supposed to be the positive section.

+The Circle of Life and Can You Feel the Love Tonight? were well-performed, though I will be getting to other issues I had with them later.

+Zazu was actually given a bit more pathos rather than just exclusively being comic relief. He not only tries to protect Nala and Simba from the hyenas, but he also rushes to go get the lionesses when Simba’s in trouble, makes a distraction for Nala so she doesn’t get caught by Scar, and even helps a little more in the final battle. I won’t act like he was an improvement on the orginal exactly, as the best compromise would’ve been to have him be both funny and supportive, but at least there was an attempt to give him some depth.

+As much as I’ll critique the animation further down, I will give the animators credit for its realism. A lot of hard work was obviously put in, and it shows.

The Not-So-Good...

+The number one problem with this movie is, as I feared, the animation. I can respect that this is my opinion and many others might find some charm in how “real” everything looks, but I’m sorry -- musicals =/= realistic . Musicals are supposed to be over-the-top. They are supposed to be theatrical. Hell, even the Broadway production of The Lion King understood that to tell this story without animated lions, you had to treat it like a folktale. The story was never about lions -- it was a human story told with lions. The ideas of family -- responsibility -- duty -- leadership -- grief -- hope -- these are human values. The Lion King was inspired by Shakespeare’s Hamlet. It also has ripples of the Moses story, given that it revolves around someone running away from their home and responsibility, only to realize their true calling and go back to save their people. And you know something? I am positive that the filmmakers knew full well how ridiculous these National-Geographic-esque animated creatures would look suddenly bursting into song -- that’s why they tried at every single opportunity to depict the musical sequences in wide, impersonal shots that barely correspond to the rhythm or mood of the song at all. Unless it’s The Circle of Life, which is literally a shot-for-shot recreation of the original sequence accompanied by a song sung by none of the characters on screen, the only way that these supposedly “realistic” creatures could communicate energy or emotion during the song sequences was by running and climbing things. And in the end, it just looks lazy and dull. There’s no energy in either the shots or the editing. Hakuna Matata and I Just Can’t Wait to Be King suffer the most because of this, as those songs were so dependent on bright colors, spontaneity, and enthusiasm, but none of the songs are done justice with this animation.

+Another issue with the animation is in the characters themselves. As realistic as it looks in the textures of the fur and the way the animals move, it is utterly lifeless in practice. I swear to God, there are points where these animals looked stuffed, they’re so blank and hollow. You know those live action movies, like Cats and Dogs, where they would have real dogs and cats play the characters and then just “fix” their mouths with post-production CGI to make it look like they’re talking, even if their eyes and faces still end up looking so blank that it never looks like they’re saying what’s coming out of their mouths? THAT’S THE ENTIRE MOVIE. It didn’t matter how good the voice acting was, because it was invalidated by the lack of expression of the characters who were supposedly saying the lines. The only character in this movie who seemed to have any emotion in his eyes was Scar, and that was because his animated model was apparently given permission to narrow his eyes more, presumably to look more “eeeeeviiiiiiil~.” Even the hyenas were just given hollow black eyes that only ever looked alien and inhuman most of the time (clearly to remind you that they’re the bad guys) -- there were no emotions other than “mwehehehe we’re gonna eat you” on their faces the entire movie. But yeah, think of all the really emotional scenes in this movie. Think of Mufasa seeing Simba hanging on that tree -- the fear in his face as Simba almost loses his grip on the branch -- the pain and fear in Simba’s expression when Mufasa puts him up on a small ledge, only to get yanked backward by the wildebeest and disappear from view -- the struggle in Mufasa’s body language as he tries to climb up the edge of the gorge -- the betrayal and horror in Mufasa’s expression when Scar reveals his true colors -- the desperation, disbelief, horror, and grief in Simba’s face when he finds his father and screams at the open air for help. ...Yeah. Now imagine all of those scenes being acted out by EMOTIONLESS PUPPETS. That’s even what Mufasa looks like when he’s thrown backwards off the cliff -- a puppet. A scene that has left people in tears almost made me snort with laughter because of how bad it looked!

+The animation’s realism also, as others pointed out when the trailers first came out, made it very difficult to pick out individual characters. When Nala grew up, there wasn’t even a way to tell that she was the youngest of the lionesses -- they all looked like clones of each other. There’s a bit where one of the hyenas (I guess he’s supposed to be Banzai, but I guess he’s been renamed something else?) confuses Scar for Mufasa at a distance and I almost burst out laughing because it was like the movie characters themselves even realized how identical all of the lions look. Simba’s face “turning into Mufasa’s” in the water had no emotional impact at all because you could barely tell that anything had just happened.

+Geezus, and I thought that Beauty and the Beast took too many ideas from the original? Oh boy. This movie took so much from the original, it was like the filmmakers copied something they found on the Internet for a school assignment and then added and switched around a couple of lines just so they wouldn’t be accused of plagiarism. There were quite a few points while watching this where I was going, “Oooookay, and this is where Simba sees a lizard. ...Yup, there it is. He’s gonna try to roar twice. ...Yup, and...yup. And on the third try, he’s going to roar loud enough for it to echo, and we’ll cut to the top of the gorge. ...Called it. And wildebeest in three, two, one...” Now, of course, knowing what’s going to happen shouldn’t reduce suspense -- if anything, when something suspenseful is done well, it doesn’t matter if you know what happens, because now you’re excited to see those things happen. But in this? How could I be excited when they recycled almost every joke, almost every shot, almost every scene, only with half the energy and sincerity? Even Beauty and the Beast tried to throw in some twists now and again, even if I didn’t end up liking most of them...the only things I can think of in regards to “changes” were some extra scenes that didn’t add much of anything, such as Scar leaning even more into his “Claudius” role and trying to court Simba’s mother Sarabi. Oh, and on that note...

+...The original movie was about an hour and a half long. This one was two hours. You want to know how they stretched that run-time out? Largely by adding in extended nature sequences. Perhaps if you really like the “realistic” animation, you might enjoy the gratuity of it, but some of them just got ridiculous. Remember how in the original, Scar caught a mouse and kind of taunted it? Now we get almost a whole minute just watching the mouse running around and doing nothing before Scar even shows up. Remember how we got a short, smooth transition from Pride Rock to Rafiki’s tree with a rainfall and soothing music? Have one that’s twice as long and is devoid of any of the epic, solemn atmosphere. Remember how we got a cute little giggle when Timon and Pumbaa sang The Lion Sleeps Tonight, only for it to get interrupted by Nala’s arrival? Now that song is treated like a full musical number with lots of danc -- sorry, walking around aimlessly, because it’d be stupid if animals actually danced or something. Remember how Simba collapses into some leaves, which sets loose some dust which in a ten-second-long cut scene is blown through the wind into Rafiki’s hand? Now it lasts almost two whole minutes and involves a tuft of Simba’s fur landing in a river, being picked up by a bird, becoming stuffing in a nest, being tossed out of the nest, being accidentally eaten by a giraffe, being shat out by that giraffe, being picked up by a dung beetle -- OH, COME ON. NOW YOU’RE JUST SEARCHING FOR EXCUSES TO DRAG THIS MOVIE OUT.

+I love James Earl Jones, but he should not have reprised his role as Mufasa. I’m sorry, but the man is 88 years old now, and he just sounded so tired. He didn’t show even half of the energy and enthusiasm he had playing the part the first time. If he was Simba’s grandfather, that’d be one thing, but he’s not. Half of what makes Mufasa’s death so tragic is how alive and young he seemed and how close his bond was with his friends Rafiki and Zazu and his family Simba and Sarabi, but thanks to Jones’s low-key performance and the lack of emotion in Mufasa’s animation, all of that is lost.

+Just like with Jafar in the recent Aladdin remake, this movie tries to give Scar some depth, but the halfhearted attempt only serves to take away what made Scar a great villain in the first place -- namely, his dry wit, ruthlessness, talent for manipulation, dynamic attitude, arrogance, immaturity, and most of all passion. Combine this not-deliciously-evil-but-definitely-not-sympathetic characterization with such bland animation that neither conveys energy or intrigue, and we’re once again left with a very forgettable, uninteresting villain. Come on, Disney, you used to be so good at writing villains -- just because you’re trying to make a more “realistic” story doesn’t mean your villain can’t crack a smile every-so-often, geezus!

+If Sarabi was chasing off hyenas with the lionesses, how in the world did she and the lionesses get back to Pride Rock fast enough for them to be lounging around when Simba came to get Nala? Scar and Simba’s interaction isn’t nearly long enough to encompass Sarabi finishing up with the hyenas and returning home. This is a problem that comes from how much this remake copies from the original -- because it wants so many scenes to play out identically to the original, it gives any subtle line changes the writers do make the potential to create plot holes.

+Oh yeah, and the joke of Simba pouncing on Zazu really doesn’t work if we see Simba getting ready the entire time and Zazu makes it easy for Simba by spinning around in circles looking at nothing. One would think Zazu was trying to let Simba pounce on him.

+There’s no kind way to put this -- Timon and Pumbaa were just flat-out INSUFFERABLE in this. Not only were their deliveries of lines from the original movie pretty awful, but they also added in a bunch of new, often fourth-wall-breaking jokes that just made me hide my face in my hands and groan. In Hakuna Matata in particular, they act offended by Simba not being more excited when they first say the phrase, ruin the joke of Pumbaa farting by having him say it and Pumbaa then being upset that Timon didn’t interrupt him, AND give Simba a hard time for continuing the song until it fades out by saying that Simba’s “gained 400 pounds” since they started it! This isn’t even touching on how TERRIBLE Seth Rogen was as Pumbaa while singing -- like, I know that’s supposed to be part of the joke, but Ernie Sabella was “a bad singer” by being over-the-top, not by being off-pitch and painful to listen to! Not to mention that Sabella packed so much more characterization into his line deliveries -- the chasm of quality between Sabella and Rogen’s performances all the more highlighted to me the difference between an actor and a voice actor. You can’t just get away with speaking your lines in an ordinary voice when you’re voice acting -- you need to emote solely with your voice, as your face is not doing any of the work, and with animation this emotionless and bland, one really needed to have given 120% in their voice work for it to be even passable. (And honestly, none of the actors stood out well performance-wise...not that they should have to singlehandedly bear the burden of depicting their characters’ emotions just with their voices: this is an animated movie, not a radio drama!) As if breaking the fourth wall for no reason, telling bad jokes, and singing poorly wasn’t enough, Timon and Pumbaa also come across as infinitely more selfish and mean-spirited. They say they’re outcasts, and yet there’s a whole friggin’ community of animals in their jungle home. Simba actually hears Timon and Pumbaa selfishly decide to “keep him” because having a creature bigger than them around might help them out. Timon flat-out tells Simba to only look after himself and no one else. Whereas in the original film, Timon and Pumbaa almost raise Simba like adopted parents, having fun with him and genuinely showing concern for him -- here, Timon and Pumbaa act more like a pair of frat boys who adopted the “new kid” in college and induct him into their friend circle, even though, yeah, Simba first meets them as a cub and they’re already adults. Rather than just laugh at the thought of “royal dead guys watching them” for a quick moment, they openly roar with laughter at Simba, dragging it out even when it’s very clear Simba is hurt by their amusement and not even bothering to apologize. At least in the original, Simba acted like it was funny and then left abruptly, but here? Simba never laughed or showed any amusement, so it came across as Timon and Pumbaa bullying him. Oh yeah, and speaking of bullying, remember how there was that one-off pop culture reference where Pumbaa gets mad at being called a pig? Now that’s been replaced with Pumbaa saying he doesn’t like bullies -- seems like that would’ve been a lovely thing to set up earlier, maybe to give that line some emotional pay-off, but nope! There’s no joke AND there’s no point. But you want to know what made me hate these two beyond reason in this movie? You want to know what finally pushed me over the edge? They broke the fourth wall beyond repair by -- rather than randomly putting on a hula skirt and dancing goofily, because of course we’re a SERIOUS animated movie, one that’s so REAL -- singing Be Our Guest from Beauty and the Beast, French accent and all. ...Excuse me for a minute. *buries her face into a pillow and screams in rage*

+By the way, those other animals who live in the jungle Timon and Pumbaa are from and therefore invalidate their assertion of being “outcasts”? Completely pointless. They don’t even come with Timon and Pumbaa and fight for the Pridelands! You could have cut them completely and lost nothing.

+As much as Hakuna Matata was the most irritating of the numbers, I Just Can’t Wait to Be King and especially Be Prepared were just pathetic. I Just Can’t Wait to Be King largely suffered, again, due to the “realism” of the animation, but the slow editing and even the vocals slowed the whole sequence down and sucked out any energy or excitement from the piece. I’ll give credit to Nala and Simba’s voice actors for their vocal quality, but there was still none of the spontaneity and recklessness in their voices that the song requires, so it just came across as Disney karaoke, rather than anything professional. But Be Prepared was easily the worst of the lot. It would be a challenge to try to evoke the level of dread and demented thrill you get from the original song sequence, but here, the filmmakers didn’t even try. Not only do we only get part of the song, but Scar’s voice actor Chitwetel Ejiofor barely sings a word of it and brings none of the dynamic, power-hungry, conniving, almost hypnotic mania that’s supposed to define Scar in that moment. He’s mostly just shouting like an old man yelling at a kid to get off his lawn -- there’s no attempt at persuasion or temptation in his voice at all. And just like in most of the other musical numbers, the only way Scar’s character model can emote during his song is to climb on things. Even in songs that were performed well, there were notable problems. The Circle of Life was basically animated on autopilot, replicating every single shot without taking any time to show any genuine emotion anywhere, whether when Zazu and Rafiki greeted Mufasa or when Simba sneezed away the dust in his face...and Can You Feel the Love Tonight? Haha, yeah, right -- more like “Can You Feel the Love in the Mid-Afternoon”! It was absolutely comical, hearing them sing “tonight” when the entire sequence was done in daylight!

+I’ve always liked The Lion King, but...wow, after seeing this remake and how much they tried to lean into the “hyenas as outsiders” idea in this, I have to acknowledge that there are some uncomfortable elements to this story. In the original, we solely focus on Shenzi, Banzai, and Ed with other hyenas in the background, so them being outside the Pridelands could just be seen as the case of a few bad apples, rather than it being an indictment on an entire group. But here, in this version, Shenzi is depicted more seriously as the leader of all the hyenas and it’s established that the war between lions and hyenas has gone on for a long time. Basically this movie turns Shenzi into Zira from The Lion King 2...and yeah, that makes it so that the hyenas -- as the outsiders -- should theoretically be slightly sympathetic, right? You know, to show that it’s wrong to cast others out because they look or act different from you? Nope! Nope, they’re all just evil! They’re manifestations of greed and hunger with no potential for redemption whatsoever. They’re not like our good, pale-colored lionesses who all look the same -- they’re dirty, and conniving, and they seek to creep out of the shadows and leech on everything the lions hold dear. I could very, very easily see how some vile, disgusting people could embrace such a narrative in this current climate, seeing themselves in the lions trying to “take their land back” from the shadowy, evil hoard of creatures who have come from outside to tear down their way of life. I can’t act like this adaptation added something that wasn’t at all in the original movie, as, let’s be honest, it plagiarized most of it...but perhaps because of how they reused this story and in some cases leaned into some elements of that story, this remake has very, very bad timing in when it was released. Those elements of the story probably wouldn’t have been read into it back in the 90′s, given the relative stability of the political landscape, but now? Now I could see how people could read it that way. It’d be like trying to make a movie like Independence Day, where national monuments get blown up, right after 9/11.

Looking back on what I just saw, I’m still absolutely stunned. Never before have I felt like my time has been more wasted than when I decided to sit down and watch this movie. I’ve tried to find shreds of praise, but whenever I try, it feels like I’m grasping at straws, only to fall back into a big pool of “blah.” I have never been so bored by a movie in my life -- and if there’s anything Disney, and especially Disney musicals, should never be, it’s boring. I would still say Maleficent makes me the most angry of Disney’s recent remakes, considering that that one openly insulted the original it was based off and this one is just clearly so up the original’s ass that it’s obnoxious...but this one was easily the biggest disappointment. I went in with almost no expectations, and yet still came out disappointed in the result. That, I think, says a lot. I could see someone who simply wants to see some cute animals and ride a bit on the nostalgia train enjoying this...but forgive me, but that bar is way too low. Disney is capable of doing so much better -- the true Lion King, the 1994 classic that broke records and surpassed all audience expectation, is more than enough evidence of that.

Overall Grade: D-

#the lion king (2019)#the lion king #disney #the lion king spoilers #opinion #oh boy here i go #reviews #disney remakes #remakes

74 notes · View notes

msawesomegeek · 5 years ago

Text

Aladdin (2019) movie review

So I finally got around to watching the Aladdin remake. I imagine everyone has seen either that or the original so I hope no spoilers.

First off I will say that I remember watching the original on DVD as a kid, so of course I could not help but compare them as I was watching it.

I have never been shy about how much I distaste remakes and unnecessary sequels, since I would rather watch something original than something I have already seen well made 10 years ago. And I have seen most of the disney remakes, and to say I have not been impressed is an understatement. The only thing good about the best of the remakes which is beauty and the beast is the visuals during be our guest, everything else is just the same.

Now, if you go into this thinking you are going to get a whole new spin on the story of Aladdin, then you're going to be disappointed. It has a few new elements here and there, some feminism and a new song added to give Jasmine some depth. Which I didn’t mind. Her song was a little pop’y for my taste, but she sang it pretty well and the message is pretty good.

Sure, the story is still thin and highly reliant on magic ex machina. The things I can complain is that the cgi with genie and the magic was not always too good. Some scenes were unnecessary yes, but it was not too much that it was distracting.

It had some newer scenes that were genuinely funny. And I know a lot of people have bashed Will Smith’s performance and look as genie, and I can see where they're coming from with the press photos. However in the movie, you don’t notice his cgi or make up, it isn’t so bad that you notice. And yes, he is not Robin Williams, but you know what? Will Smith does a damn good job as the genie. He is sassy, charming, fun and heartwarming.

I liked the changed they made to the story, they did not disturb the original message, and some of it was just mindblowingly adorable in the end. The dance numbers were amazing, and I loved the fact that they did not try to make it gritty or hide the music, but rather embraced that yes, this is a musical, enjoy it. Because the songs in this movie are really god damn good. The acting was good, the girl who plays Jasmine did a pretty awesome job.

But the reason I am deeming this movie, the best and only remake I will ever accept (until now) is because it had the one thing every other remake was lacking. I can’t explain why, but this movie had the perfect balance between cartoonish and realistic, it was funny but took itself seriously, and most of all it was heartwarming. It had what Disney has been missing ever since they stopped making good original movies. It had Disney magic.

It had that thing that makes us come back to those movies, that pixar, dream works, Disney magic, that makes us feel like kids where everything is possible again.

I am not and never will be a supporter of remakes, but damn it this is actually a good movie. Like every other remake can go die in a fire, but this one can stay.

I give it 8 out 10 childhood magics.

5 notes · View notes

nemetonisevilpassiton · 6 years ago

Text

Is Teen Wolf Lovecraftian?

Yes, very much so.

Why?

To understand if Teen Wolf is a Lovecraftian horror we need to start by defining our terms and providing comparisons. Lovecraft stories directly made into movies as a whole are just bad, and most video games too. However, using Lovecraftian ideas and tropes creates a successful narrative in most cases.

Several things define the Lovecraftian horror experience.

Isolation both mentally and physically

Lack of character information which is replaced by character reaction.

Lack of information about the world in which the protagonist finds themselves with a penalty for discovering that information.

The revelation that that which was formerly known is now revealed to be unknown and the consequences thereof

Fear of the unknown, specifically the previously thought known

Body Horror, specifically bodily transformation, from which there is no reversal

The insignificance of the subject in regards to the whole

These look specifically vague and you can apply them around a lot, and people do, but you might also notice a lack of tentacles there.

So before we turn this on Teen Wolf let’s present an example that you can understand the points in question

John Carpenter’s The Thing (1982)

A group of men in an Antarctic station inadvertantly let something other into their base.

Interestingly the least Lovecraftian thing in “The Thing” is the thing itself, and wasn’t that a fun sentence to write.

The Americans [as opposed to the late Norwegians] are already at breaking point, isolation - caused by the weather, their close proximity to each other, boredom and exhaustion have taken their toll, they are a brush fire just waiting for a spark, and that spark is the thing. It is not the spark because it’s hunting them down, because that seems almost incidental in it’s desire to just survive and hide despite it’s otherness, it’s the fact that any of them could BE the thing. I’m going to start calling it the alien - it sounds less like I’ve forgotten the word. This will probably cause problems when I move on to Alien (1979) in a minute.

Combined with that Carpenter uses long empty tracking shots (a technique he used in Halloween [1978] ) which creates a voyeuristic feeling which removes the safety of the base. The way that it works matches “The Strangers” (2008) which removes the feeling of being safe in your own home. The rich white affluent suburb with it’s white clapboard houses and wide green open spaces is invaded by “the shape” as he is called the in the credits, and those shots, in which nothing happen, makes the space unknown and terrifying for it. It removes the illusion of safety.

We know almost nothing about the men in the base, we become invested in them not because of what they are but who, they are charming, funny, tired, and very realistic but it becomes hard to remember their names because those things are ultimately irrelevant. Combined with the discovery of the space ship those men are irrelevant, what they undergo is irrelevant, no one is on the other end of the radio, they will not be saved and their deaths serve no purpose. They and their experience doesn’t matter.

In Ridley Scott’s Alien (1979) does the same thing, a random ship encounters something vast and unknowable and is infected, the Xenomorph then picks off the crew for no other reason than to continue it’s own species, it doesn’t choose them for any other reason than they are there. The robot’s betrayal makes them even more meaningless, any ship that encountered alien life would do, it just happened to be that one.

The presence of the Xenomorph makes the ship unknown, it could be anywhere. At first they think it’s something small and don’t learn otherwise until face to face with it. They have to use technology they don’t quite understand and can’t really use to find it in their own safe space. A safe space surrounded on all sides by absence - space itself. All the things on the ship which previously gave them safety, the machines that allow them to exist on the ship, are now dark places for it to hide.

In Dario Argento’s Suspiria (1977) - the only film not to have aliens - Suzy goes to a place that is grotesquely beautiful and just happens to be in the next room to the girl who is investigating it, when that girl goes missing she looks for her and discovers the old witch and kills her to save her own life.

Yet Suspiria, which might be the most Lovecraftian film of them all, has no exposition, most of the characters aren’t introduced, and the movie is mostly experiential, maggots rain from the ceiling, but we don’t know why, the witches are killing the girls in the academy but we don’t know why, instead we have a lurid oversaturated nightmare of a narrative where the dance academy swerves from mundane to brightly lit Roger Corman-esque interior design fantasy. It is a building that if Ludwig II took acid he might design using only primary colours, art nouveau doors, blood red walls and corridors that seem to ooze menace without doing anything, overlaid with Goblin’s infamous soundtrack. Combined with that the actors filmed the dialogue in their own language and English was dubbed over so the characters are not really communicating.

Suspiria is as close to reading Lovecraft (without the racism) as it is possible to get. And it does also feature body horror when Sarah is resurrected by the witches to act as a weapon, despite her slit throat and the pins in her eyes. It is a nightmare on film.

It is also not a film you watch. It’s a film you experience. [The remake is good but very different and not so Lovecraftian, although most of the characters are played by Tilda Swinton, it’s really squinting are you Tilda Swinton too?]

So having given defintions and examples of what it is - does Teen Wolf fit.

Isolation both mentally and physically

It is impossible for the characters in the know to leave the town, and even if they do then they must return.

We see Scott try to leave twice, once in Motel California and again in Ghosted. Both times they enter a phantasmagoric town which is certainly not the outside world. Other characters are taken by the Wild Hunt. Derek Hale manages to leave, but only after “evolution”.

His trips to Mexico are also phantasmagoric in that it is hard to say that they are not dreams, the Calavera stronghold for example uses a lot of dream logic and wonky camera angles giving the idea that it’s not real. La Iglesia does this as well.

Within the town there are those who know and those who do not. Those who know flock together but have to keep their secret from those who don’t. So Scott doesn’t tell his mother until season 2, Stiles doesn’t tell his Father until 3b, Lydia is still trying to tell her mother in s5.

Characters unaware of the knowledge that others know are completely isolated, without anyone to go to, which usually ends in violence, often against themselves - the Chimera.

With as much as the main characters know it is clear that they know very little about the town, as shown by the family of wendigo who were part of the community.

2. Lack of character information which is replaced by character reaction.

We know almost nothing about any of the characters. We know how they react and how they interact, and how they change, but their histories are completely absent. This is as true of the main characters as it is the victims who only appear in one episode.

3. Lack of information about the world in which the protagonist finds themselves with a penalty for discovering that information.

People know nothing, research can present viable answers which are later proven wrong, characters guess in good faith and are wrong, characters lie, but ultimately they know very little about the world in which they’ve found themselves and those who do know often withhold or manipulate that information.

An easy example is Damnatio Memoriae in which Scott discovers what he believes to be the identity of the original Beast, a serial killer in France, who has nothing to do with the Beast at all. It’s a coincidence that the term has been applied. The knowledge is irrelevant and Scott is left with no more information about the Beast than he did at the start, then the person who does tell him, in Maid of Gevaudan, is Gerard and has every reason to lie, and that’s assuming his guess was correct.

The more characters know in Teen Wolf the more likely they are to end up in Eichen House, and Dr Fenris, in 6b, with the information he has, becomes a mass murderer.

4. The revelation that that which was formerly known is now revealed to be unknown and the consequences thereof

The town is a supernatural hotspot and the revelation of that is the entire plot. I think we can agree that that one certainly applies. Combined with that the use of “safe spaces” as battlegrounds, such as the school, the school bus, the sheriff’s station.

5. Fear of the unknown, specifically the previously thought known

Dr Fenris killed the monsters in his care, the Sheriff nearly has a nervous breakdown with the appearance of the chimera, the possession of Stiles and Scott’s reaction thereafter. These all very much apply, even Stiles fear when Scott attacks him in the locker room in pilot. The more people know the more scared they become.

Traditionally in horror the less people know the more they have to be scared of, but in Lovecraftian horror they know enough to fear it, but not much more, often the creature, by its very existence can induce fear (like the Anuk-Ite) because it is so outside the realms of what the human mind can comprehend.

6. Body Horror, specifically bodily transformation, from which there is no reversal

Werewolves. It is worth mentioning here however that there are anomalies in the transformations, almost all of the werewolves speak of pain during transformation, and Derek uses pain to help control it by overwhelming them with pain, but Scott does not. Just as the protagonist in “The Dunwich Horror” finds himself turned into a fishman there is an inevitability to the transformations in certain cases. Derek is on a path to his inevitable evolution. Scott’s natural evolution is subverted, this might be because he never transforms after his black eyed beast form in season 4. His fear of his transformation holds him back from his inevitable end form, yet there is no way he can be human again, no matter how much he wants it.

7. The insignificance of the subject in regards to the whole

Scott is not important because of who he is. He’s important because he happened to be the person in the wrong place at the wrong time. He is incidental to most of the story despite him being the focus character, the world doesn’t care about Scott McCall, it is interested in the True Alpha, but that could as easily be Chuck Norris. Scott isn’t even the true alpha by virtue but for reasons we do not know, Deucalion had no interest in it, Peter thought it was hilarious, Morell manipulated it to save her own life and Deaton worshipped it. Others use it as a target. When Scott says, “I’m a true alpha you don’t know what I’m capable of” it defines the character. Kincaid tells him he’s not as strong as a normal alpha. There are questions around his biting of Liam. Scott is not the Chosen One, he’s the one that was there and that’s ignoring his questionable behaviour and the very strong argument that he is a villain, and that his narrative was one of fallen messiah and not the hero’s journey.

Frodo was not the Chosen One, he was the guy who had the ring, and many of his successes are because of his party of companions, but Frodo’s quest, which he fails, is of world ending importance.

In Scott’s case, he again succeeds mostly because of his companions, though, unlike Frodo, he is unaware of this, he is not throwing the ring into Mount Doom to defeat Sauron, returning the ring to the jeweller because it needs resized, and might pick up some milk as well while he’s in the area.

So in conclusion is Teen Wolf Lovecraftian = yes

Does it fit the criteria laid out by works accepted to be Lovecraftian = yes

Does it follow the conventions of similar Lovecraftian works = yes

Is it the Lovecraftian conventions spread over such a large scope that cause so much dissatisfaction in the audience = yes

Almost every point in the list is something I’ve seen people complain about, we don’t know about this, we know nothing about that, that makes no sense, I think this episode would make more sense on hallucinogens etc

It is a well written Lovecraftian nightmare, it uses variant realities and isolation, suspicion and distrust well = but it tells us nothing, resolves very little and has a main character who could deliberately be replaced with a well meaning bag of sand.

But at least there were no tentacles.

#teen wolf meta #teen wolf and lovecraft #anti scott mccall

69 notes · View notes

bsawinart · 5 years ago

Photo

You Are My Cup Of Tea (Chip) 12″ x 12″ Metallic Acrylic on Canvas To purchase Artwork, please visit BSSart.com/ordering LINK Chip, the teacup from Disneys Beauty and the Beast was used for this version of the Teacup series. Most of the image is metallic, reflective paint, but there is alot of matte colors to offset as well. All black is flat to define the image at all angles.

Chip Potts is a supporting character who was featured in Disney's 1991 animated film, Beauty and the Beast. He is the son of Mrs. Potts. As a human, Chip is a young boy who works with his mother in the castle kitchens. Like the other inhabitants of the castle, Chip was cursed by the Enchantress. When his mother was turned into a teapot, Chip was likewise turned into a teacup. At the end of the film, once Belle and the Beast fell in love, Chip was magically restored to his human form

Chip is adventurous and constantly curious about the world around him. Chip is a cheerful and active young boy and (like his mother and friends) is shown to have a great fear of the Beast's temper. He is also shown to be very brave and heroic shown in the first film, where he saved Belle and her father Maurice in order for them to rescue Beast from Gaston and the angry mob. He loves Belle very much and views her as his big sister and best friend. As is typical of curious boys his age, he apparently has an overactive imagination; when he comes rushing in to inform his mother that there is a girl (Belle) in the castle, she scolds him for making up such tall tales. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); 15 facts about Beauty and the Beast

1. WALT DISNEY CONSIDERED REMAKING THE FAIRY TALE AS FAR BACK AS THE 1930S.Walt Disney liked to take his time mulling things over, and while he was pondering Beauty and the Beast, a live-action version of the movie was released by French filmmaker Jean Cocteau. Perhaps not wanting to release an animated version of a movie that had just been released, Disney tabled the idea

.2. A NON-MUSICAL VERSION WAS COMMISSIONED IN THE LATE

1980S.In the late '80s, Disney hired British animator Roger Purdum to direct a non-musical version of Beauty and the Beast, with Linda Woolverton writing the script. But the company wasn't happy with the result of 10 weeks of storyboarding (which you can see here)—the story was too dark and depressing."In the middle of our process, The Little Mermaid premiered, and that changed everything," Woolverton told the Los Angeles Times. "[T]he concept of the musical, the Broadway musical brought to animation by Howard Ashman and Alan Menken. So I was flown to Disney in Florida to meet with Howard. Howard and I just clicked. ... In a hotel room in Fishkill, New York, Howard and I pretty much conjured up this version of Beauty and the Beast. Howard and I never clashed. I was his student. He taught me everything I know about musicals."

3. JACKIE CHAN CONTRIBUTED TO AN INTERNATIONAL VERSION.Jackie Chan dubbed the Beast’s voice for the Chinese translation of the movie—including the singing. Here he is performing the title track in Mandarin with Sarah Chen:

4. "HUMAN AGAIN" WAS CUT FROM THE ORIGINAL MOVIE.

The song “Human Again” was cut from the original movie, in part because it added 11 minutes to the film, and partially because it created a problem with the passage of time. "[W]e kept asking, 'Well what? Is Maurice wondering around in the woods all this time? Is Gaston just sitting around in a tavern drinking beer after beer growing a long white beard?,'" co-director Kirk Wise said. "We couldn't quite figure out what to do with the other characters during this time that Belle's at the castle and keep the motor of the story running." In recent years, the whole sequence has been included on DVD and Blu-ray extras. In case you don’t have either of those sitting around your house, check out part of it here:

5. THREE OF ITS TUNES EARNED "BEST ORIGINAL SONG" OSCAR NOMINATIONS.

Many people remember that the title song from Beauty and the Beast took home the “Best Original Song” Oscar in 1992, but it was just one of three songs nominated from the movie. But “Belle,” the opening song, and “Be Our Guest” were also up for an Oscar. Must have been rough to be the writers of the other two songs in that category: “When You’re Alone” from Hook and “(Everything I Do) I Do It For You” from Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves

.6. THE CO-DIRECTOR STARTED HIS CAREER DRAWING CARICATURES.

Co-director Kirk Wise started his career drawing caricatures for tourists—but not Disney tourists. While attending art school, Wise made extra money by working at Universal Studios

.7. THE BEAST IS A MASH-UP OF VARIOUS ANIMALS.

He’s got the mane of a lion, the beard and head of a buffalo, the brow of a gorilla, the eyes of a human, the tusks of a wild boar, the body of a bear, and the legs and tail of a wolf ... and a little something extra. Animator Glen Keane claims that “Beast actually has a rainbow bum, but nobody knows that but Belle.”

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

8. ONE ANIMATOR WISHED THAT THE BEAST STAYED A BEAST.

Keane wished that the Beast had stayed a Beast instead of transforming into his princely human form. To help bridge the gap, he penned a funny line for Belle to say at the end: “I had them record Belle saying, ‘Do you think you could grow a beard?’ It was a good idea. It’s not in the movie. We should have put it in there.”

9. ANGELA LANSBURY SAID THE DEMO MUSIC WAS A LITTLE TOO ROCK 'N' ROLL.

When Angela Lansbury heard the demo of "Beauty and the Beast," it was "kind of a rock song," she told The Huffington Post. "I told them, 'This is a sweet message, but this really isn't my style. Are you sure you want me to do this?' They told me to sing the song the way I envisioned it, so that's what I did. I created it the way a little English teapot would sing the song." Producer Don Hahn said that Lansbury "went into the booth and sang 'Beauty and the Beast' from beginning to end and just nailed it. We picked up a couple of lines here and there, but essentially that one take is what we used for the movie."

10. THERE'S A SLY REFERENCE TO DISNEYLAND

.You have to squint to see it, but when Maurice gets lost in the woods toward the beginning of the movie, one of the road signs he finds points the way toward Anaheim—which is home to Disneyland.Walt Disney Studio

s11. THE POSTER WAS DESIGNED BY A MASTER OF THE ART.

John Alvin, the artist who created Beauty and the Beast's iconic movie poster, also designed the posters for some other films you might be familiar with, including E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial, Gremlins, The Lion King, The Color Purple, and Blazing Saddles.

12. BELLE MADE A CAMEO IN THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME.

Fittingly, she has her nose in a book. You can also see brief appearances by Pumbaa from The Lion King and Magic Carpet from Aladdin. It’s hard to spot Pumbaa—and tragic, as he appears to have been slaughtered—but both directors have confirmed all three cameos.

13. BELLE ISN’T THE ONLY BEAUTY AND THE BEAST CHARACTER THAT POPS UP IN OTHER MOVIES.The Beast can momentarily be seen in Aladdin as one of the animal stacking toys the Sultan plays with

.14. THERE'S A NON-MUSICAL VERSION.

An earlier version of the movie contained no music. It also gave Belle a little sister named Clarice and a cat named Charley.

15. AUDIENCES WERE SUPPOSED TO SEE THE SEQUENCE WHERE THE YOUNG PRINCE IS TURNED INTO THE BEAST.

The sorceress would chase the prince through the castle hurling magic at him, hitting servants and accidentally turning them into objects instead. Eventually, she hits her target and turns him into an animalistic creature. She leaves, and we see the young Beast looking out from the castle windows, screaming for her to come back and fix him. Wise nixed the sequence. He later said, “The only thing that I could see in my head was this Eddie Munster kid in a Little Lord Fauntleroy outfit.”

2 notes · View notes