captain_aggravated , 3 days ago

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.