Thanks for the mind fuck. I was confused until I say the one right side up. Still weird I can reread that they are all upside down and go back to looking at the picture and they look upside down.
My understanding of this phenomenon is there is a committee of “You can’t eat salsa, that’s cultural appropriation” types who have the final edit on them, which is why you get movies like “What if Beauty and the Beast, but more feminist grudge porn, and a 🏳️🌈🏳️🌈🏳️🌈GAY🏳️🌈🏳️🌈🏳️🌈 character!” or “What if Mulan, but it’s about Chinese people so there can’t be anything fun or amusing in it, and…look we’ve got to get rid of this character arc shit. We can’t have this character be intrinsically weak and then learn to use her wits to compensate for it. She’s a girl, she has to be perfect and effortlessly better than the men from the start or we’ll hold our breath. That’s what a Strong Female Character is.”
That’s why they’re not fun. People who are not fun are in charge of making them.
What a garbage answer. You can make fun content and still be inclusive, execs just don’t want to take any risks on new IPs because they can milk old ones. Stop blaming inclusiveness when the real answer is greed.
What about those live-action remakes are “inclusive?”
They cast a black Ariel and portrayed Gaston’s sidekick as gay, in both cases so they could say they did it?
From the WIkipedia article on Mulan (2020 film):
The film received generally positive reviews from Western, non-Asian critics, who praised the action sequences, costumes, and performances, but was criticized for the screenplay and editing. It received unfavorable reviews from fans of the original animated film, Chinese diaspora, and Chinese critics, who criticized the character development, its cultural and historical inaccuracies, and its depiction of Chinese people.
The article goes onto say there was controversy about a lack of east Asians in the production team of the film, as well as the removal of the character Li Shang as a response to the MeToo movement which was then criticized by the LGBTVNX8L community, who saw the character’s romantic relationship with Mulan’s male persona as representation of bisexuality.
Yeah nah this sounds “inclusive” as fuck.
execs just don’t want to take any risks on new IPs because they can milk old ones
To my knowledge none of the “live action remakes” or the animated features they’re based on are original Disney IP; Dumbo was based on a children’s book, The Little Mermaid was a fairy tale, Beauty and the Beast was a French short story and then an old silent film, Aladdin was a middle-eastern folk tale, Mulan is based on a Chinese legend…Disney’s never not been milking old IP. They’ve been doing it consistently since Snow White. Thing is, they used to make it work. Those animated features were huge hits. These live action remakes aren’t.
Stop blaming inclusiveness when the real answer is greed.
Greed has ALWAYS been Disney’s motivation. To quote Disney CEO Michael Eisner:
We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective.
Disney’s greed hasn’t changed since they were a reliable classic factory, only the implementation of that greed has changed.
One way they’ve changed their implementation is to remake things they’ve already done before. The strategy seems to be to target millennials like myself who grew up during the Disney Renaissance and who now have children of their own to take to the theater. “Oh look honey, they’re remaking Aladdin! Let’s take Aiden Brayden and Cayden down to the octoplex to see it!” Honestly I think that part of the strategy is sound. I get why Disney Corporate had these movies made.
I take issue with the idea that these remakes are any more “inclusive” than the originals. Disney isn’t being “inclusive,” they’re pandering to a very particular demographic’s taste for performative virtue signaling and grievance airing. Pissing off the LGBTQ community via censoring a character in anticipation of MeToo feminists is a rather on the nose example of this.
Reminder: We’re talking about fairy tales for children here.
The kind of people who add a scene to Beauty and the Beast where some of the villagers break Belle’s washing machine because “white men be oppressin’, amirite?” aren’t the kind of people capable of making fun movies for children. They’re simply too hateful.
Honestly I think that part of the strategy is sound. I get why Disney Corporate had these movies made.
I’m old enough to remember people complaining about the feminism in the original Little Mermaid / Beauty & the Beast. There was even a spat about Aladin being Satanist.
The complaints about these movies are almost as old and hackneyed as the movies themselves.
Surely there’s a difference between an animated movie loosely inspired by a traditional story with original songs, character designs, and dialogue, and remaking that movie beat-for-beat with just a few scenes changed for pandering.
Which does make me wonder why not just re-release the original animated features to theaters. Surely “Returning to theaters this summer: Disney’s Aladdin!” That seems to be the lazier way to make a buck off of old properties, you don’t have to hire a cast and crew, build sets wardrobe and props, etc.
It is my understanding that broadway adaptations of their animated features have been reliable money makers, so were the coke addled executives at Disney thinking “Let’s make Aladdin the movie the broadway show: The Movie! It can’t fail!”
Inside Out 2 is the second highest grossing animated movie of all time. Yes I know it’s a sequel, but the original IP is less than a decade old and the movie isn’t a remake. Frozen 2 is third and Frozen is fifth.
They try to go as close to the source material (their own version) as possible while following a checklist of fixes. That checklist involves things like CinemaSins-tier critiques of the original, and what corporate execs think as “good representation” (the most corporate-safe way, e.g. gay characters that can be cut out for certain audiences, because you need that money from Saudi, Chinese, Russian, etc. audiences), with the latter being the most blamed for the issues. But the actual greatest issue itself is that they try to redo even the stuff that only works within the realms of animation in live action.
Animation relies on exaggeration, which doesn’t work in real life, thus getting rid of the most fun part of the animation medium, just to win over the “cartoons are for children” crowd. This leads to stuff like The Lion King “live action” remake, with its expressionless realistic animals acting out what cartoon animals did in a previous, animated version of The Lion King. The same is in to different extents and versions in all the other “live action” remakes.
They try to go as close to the source material (their own version)
Except they changed Mulan to appease a Chinese audience. Before release everyone thought the remake would be closer to the original story because of the rumor that the movie targeted the Chinese market. But they turned it into a Marvel movie and made Mulan a superhero resulting in that almost everyone disliked the movie.
Everything about that was puzzling. They changed the story supposedly to be more culturally accurate, but what they came up with wasn’t culturally accurate at all. How did that happen?
Besides, when Chinese people want a culturally accurate Mulan, they watch one of the many Chinese-made adaptions of the story. The animated was appealing because it was a fresh take, a Disney musical that Chinese could relate to. The remake was just a huge miscalculation.
But the animation flopped in China. Mainly because it felt foreign for the Chinese. They even found Mulan’s design too westernized. That’s why Disney thought they had to make a different Mulan story.
Most will. In wild dog packs, puppy survivability is around 5%. In comparison with their the closest relative, the gray wolf's puppies have a 91 ~ 95% chance of surviving.
yeah, yummy meat. I like it a lot. Sometimes i salt it than dry it myself, and god, does it taste delicious. I might be bothered by the cruelty of all this meat industry, but guess what, if i were to choose, i’d rather be a farm pig. Anything actually that does not comprehend the cruelty of this reality, and i’m not talking about farms here. Also, unlike most of us they go away quickly.
P.S. fyi, latest studies show that plants might also feel the pain. Sorry to disappoint you guys, but it seems like we are just doomed to bring more suffering in this world. You better find a way to cope with this before it became more researched.
I think most people dont even care about pain. CO2 is rising and we are all going to die. We eat too much meat without thinking either. Its nonsense to eat that much meat. Once a month is perfectly fine.
If you care about CO2 that much, go strangle a billionaire or two, or, i don’t know, go change how our whole grocerie system works, because if you didn’t know, everything we find at stores is produced with great margin. Most of the product simply being destroyed simply to keep the prices where they are.
I certainly don’t care about CO2. Why? “We all die”? No, silly, some of us will (both of us most certainly), but don’t underestimate our species’ adaptability. And you know what, it’s fucking beautiful because eight billion is a bit too much. That’s a perfect self regulation kinda thing.
Its nonsense to eat that much meat. Once a month is perfectly fine.
Its nonsence to eat such overprocessed food as some of you vegans do i could say. Not that i would mean it. All I’m saying, the amount of any type of food is a matter of personal preference, And since we both live at the time when we could afford such a luxurious thing as an ability to choose what to eat, and not just consume whatever we were able to find/produce, i would like to try to enjoy this little bliss. Fuck you guys for even attempting to ruin it for me, and then telling me what to do, you brave don quixotes fighting your imaginary windmills.
whether or not we can live without meat (we can), we certainly can’t live without plants. Even if you eat only meat, you depend on plants (and roughly 10x as much) in a lower trophic level. There is currently no way to avoid starving to death or dying of malnutrition without harming plants
well duh. Not my point. It was just so funny that you actually used kinda the same rhetorics as meatlovers usually do.
Anyway, i still wanna adress your arguments. We can live without meat in the same manner we can live without plants. Good luck on getting your minimal daily value of b12 or d3. You can always get them in the form of pills, too bad animals still will be hurt for that. Fatty acids and fats are important too, as the modern studies show (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5577766/ ), what about them? My point is, you can have no meat in your diet just as you can have a meat only nutrition, both need to be adjusted with bioactive supplements.
Also, since most guys here don’t know any better than simply to press the vote down button without actually answering, and you seem to be the one that actually wants to discuss the topic, may i ask you a question? How come that we blame meat industry, and i cite (surprisingly, from wikipedia page for meat), for global warming, pollution and biodiversity loss (last one actually surprised me), while it is our endless fields of wheat are the reason we have little to no forests where they were normal not so long ago, therefore less co2 being processed back into o2, and it is this very fields we cover in chemicals therefore the pollution and biodiversity loss. I mean, it almost seem like meat industry is just a handy target to blame, while certain guys can continue doing their business.
Was the chillest dude - sitting under a waterfall in the spray, having a good time. Waited patiently until I had taken 2-3 photos, then went about his day :)
lemmy.world
Oldest