Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2019/05/30 18:56:06
Subject: Alad...I mean, Jasmine, the live action movie
Called it. Knew it would be garbo just based on the time period it is being made. Just like about 90% of the movies out there not named John Wick.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2019/05/30 20:48:43
Subject: Alad...I mean, Jasmine, the live action movie
Disney has no need to renew copyright on these properties, not when they've spent the last century making copyright essentially infinite less Mickey Mouse enter the public domain.
I suspect these films are intended to appeal simultaneously to new children audiences, while drawing interest from people who saw the originals as kids.
Belle and Jasmine being better independent Disney princessess than MULAN?
Mulan is the only Disney movie that would be worth of a live action remake. Is an action packed movie based in the most mature context of any disney movie alongside Pocahontas and The Hunchback of Notredame: A war. And Shang Yu don't let me start with Shang Yu the only Disney villain without a fething song (And the "How many men are needed to deliver a message". THAT in a child movie?! WTF)
You have a badass woman that breaked all rules and risked her life just to save her father (And before anyone comes here and says that because it was her father is in some way patriarchit or any bs , Mulan would have done the same for her mother), going to war, and instead of falling on the trap many "Strong women teach men how to do things" movies end up: The woman teachs men how to do things by behaving like a man, she actually uses his personal skills: Tenacity, Will and Intelligence to overcome all the hardships she has to endure, and the bunch of funny iditiots what were the epitome everything's wrong with "toxic masculinity" end up respecting her and learning from her.
And theres no stupid romantic subplot, she doesnt even kiss the guy. Shangs doesnt fall in love with her because shes beauty or any crap. HE RESPECTS HER AS A HUMAN BEING BECAUSE SHES AWESOME. And THEN, falls in love with her.
And how she did everything for his father and family's honour only to learn that at the end, she was the only thing that mattered.
Man what a great movie. I don't know how anybody can think the extremely toxic "Endure your relationship with an abusive beast until he becomes a better man, sure trust me that works" Belle and the Beast storyline can even try to compare with that.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/05/31 01:58:17
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2019/05/31 02:10:24
Subject: Alad...I mean, Jasmine, the live action movie
In what regard? Releasing new movies doesn't renew copyright. Effectively, copyright renewal isn't a thing anymore, and extensions have been automatically granted since the 90s.
Releasing remake movies does nothing to renew anything relating to copyrights for these properties. Technically speaking, the live action movies would be new copyrights anyway.
Only reasons sometimes people have to make movies to keep the copyright is when the rights to make the movies are loaned out.
Eg, Spiderman and Fantastic 4
5000pts 6000pts 3000pts
2019/05/31 13:31:46
Subject: Alad...I mean, Jasmine, the live action movie
It took me a while to realise why I have such a revulsion to Disney’s live action remakes, but it hit me the other day.
The only legitimate reason for a film company to remake its own movies, especially ones only a couple of decades old, is to make them better. I mean that’s obvious. No company is saying, “let’s remake our old movies and make them worse!”
So why are they better? Is the acting better? Is the script better? I don’t think so. I can’t shake the feeling that Disney wants us to think they’re better because they’re live action.
So I’m left with the impression that the company that did more to push the boundaries of animation as an art form than any other film studio (outside of Japan), is now saying that live action is better than animation.
That actually sucks. I mean it’s actually truly terrible if you’re a fan of animation.
2019/05/31 13:53:57
Subject: Alad...I mean, Jasmine, the live action movie
MonkeyBallistic wrote: It took me a while to realise why I have such a revulsion to Disney’s live action remakes, but it hit me the other day.
The only legitimate reason for a film company to remake its own movies, especially ones only a couple of decades old, is to make them better. I mean that’s obvious. No company is saying, “let’s remake our old movies and make them worse!”
So why are they better? Is the acting better? Is the script better? I don’t think so. I can’t shake the feeling that Disney wants us to think they’re better because they’re live action.
So I’m left with the impression that the company that did more to push the boundaries of animation as an art form than any other film studio (outside of Japan), is now saying that live action is better than animation.
That actually sucks. I mean it’s actually truly terrible if you’re a fan of animation.
Certainly some good points, however I've always taken as "the technology is now so good that we CAN remake cartoons IRL"
I mean, you can't really make a practical affect for the majority of what the Genie does, so previously that was relegated to cartoon animation.
So from that perspective, they are still "pushing the boundaries" of animation, just not "traditional" animation. BUUUUUT, I do agree that making them basically shot-for-shot remakes isn't great, nor is altering the basic story. If these movies have "failed", IMO it is because they haven't struck the right balance between staying faithful to the original and adding something new. They're either too much of one or the other.
Belle and Jasmine being better independent Disney princessess than MULAN?
Mulan is the only Disney movie that would be worth of a live action remake. Is an action packed movie based in the most mature context of any disney movie alongside Pocahontas and The Hunchback of Notredame: A war. And Shang Yu don't let me start with Shang Yu the only Disney villain without a fething song (And the "How many men are needed to deliver a message". THAT in a child movie?! WTF)
You have a badass woman that breaked all rules and risked her life just to save her father (And before anyone comes here and says that because it was her father is in some way patriarchit or any bs , Mulan would have done the same for her mother), going to war, and instead of falling on the trap many "Strong women teach men how to do things" movies end up: The woman teachs men how to do things by behaving like a man, she actually uses his personal skills: Tenacity, Will and Intelligence to overcome all the hardships she has to endure, and the bunch of funny iditiots what were the epitome everything's wrong with "toxic masculinity" end up respecting her and learning from her.
And theres no stupid romantic subplot, she doesnt even kiss the guy. Shangs doesnt fall in love with her because shes beauty or any crap. HE RESPECTS HER AS A HUMAN BEING BECAUSE SHES AWESOME. And THEN, falls in love with her.
And how she did everything for his father and family's honour only to learn that at the end, she was the only thing that mattered.
Man what a great movie. I don't know how anybody can think the extremely toxic "Endure your relationship with an abusive beast until he becomes a better man, sure trust me that works" Belle and the Beast storyline can even try to compare with that.
I just haven't seen Mulan.
Also, there's more going on in Beauty and the Beast than just the - admittedly - extremely toxic 'rely on Stockholm Syndrome' method of dating. A witch turned an eleven-year-old boy into a beast and damned his entire household because he wouldn't let her, a stranger, into his house. You know, like we teach our kids not to.
Way back when hospitality was serious business. Zeus himself was the Greek god of hospitality (or "xenia"), for example. Telling someone seeking shelter for the night to get bent, especially if you had a mansion of your own, would have been severely frowned upon. The obligation to provide for your fellow man is the other side of the "don't kill your hosts, donkeycave!" coin of Game of Thrones fame.
It's simply a very old moral that doesn't apply any longer because these days you're highly unlikely to be travelling somewhere and have to randomly stop without shelter for the night.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
2019/05/31 14:27:54
Subject: Alad...I mean, Jasmine, the live action movie
Man what a great movie. I don't know how anybody can think the extremely toxic "Endure your relationship with an abusive beast until he becomes a better man, sure trust me that works" Belle and the Beast storyline can even try to compare with that.
Belle doesn't really "endure" it. She frequently shuts down the Beast immediately when he is being beastly. When he literally goes violent (after she finds the rose) she does leave, regardless of her initial promise.
She treats him with respect and kindness when he does the same to her. When he doesn't, she shuts that right down. Lindsay Ellis covers this much better than I could in a rebuttal to the whole "Stockholm Syndrome" stuff that people bring up about the film.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/31 14:28:19
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
2019/05/31 15:04:01
Subject: Re:Alad...I mean, Jasmine, the live action movie
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Way back when hospitality was serious business. Zeus himself was the Greek god of hospitality (or "xenia"), for example. Telling someone seeking shelter for the night to get bent, especially if you had a mansion of your own, would have been severely frowned upon. The obligation to provide for your fellow man is the other side of the "don't kill your hosts, donkeycave!" coin of Game of Thrones fame.
It's simply a very old moral that doesn't apply any longer because these days you're highly unlikely to be travelling somewhere and have to randomly stop without shelter for the night.
And if your "fellow man" is in fact an apparently orphaned eleven-year-old that still applies?
And the correct response is to transform him into a literal beast for at least ten years, hopefully forever, and damn all his staff and servants with him, too?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Way back when hospitality was serious business. Zeus himself was the Greek god of hospitality (or "xenia"), for example. Telling someone seeking shelter for the night to get bent, especially if you had a mansion of your own, would have been severely frowned upon. The obligation to provide for your fellow man is the other side of the "don't kill your hosts, donkeycave!" coin of Game of Thrones fame.
It's simply a very old moral that doesn't apply any longer because these days you're highly unlikely to be travelling somewhere and have to randomly stop without shelter for the night.
Insofar as I understand it (and I'm admittedly an Iron and Bronze Age specialist) it's not actually a particularly common theme, and there is very little evidence that this was ever much of a reality outside of the elite, anywhere, ever - and whether it was even a reality for them was always pretty dependent on context.
In any case, as I remember the fairy tale, the witch doesn't exist and I don't think the origin of the beast is tackled. Beauty's dad steals a rose from the Beast when he does take him in when he's travelling. I don't think a cartoon in 1991 was really shooting for a just-retribution-for-denied-hospitality angle that doesn't even exist in the original.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/05/31 15:34:44
2019/05/31 15:26:11
Subject: Alad...I mean, Jasmine, the live action movie
The only legitimate reason for a film company to remake its own movies, especially ones only a couple of decades old, is to make them better. I mean that’s obvious. No company is saying, “let’s remake our old movies and make them worse!”
That would be a reason, but it's not necessarily the only reason. In the case of these live action remakes, I think the goal is just to tell the story in a different way, rather than necessarily to tell it better. It's ultimately the same thing as making a movie from a book or graphic novel.
Taken another way, the live action films are an effort to fix perceived errors in the original work. Don't take it as an assault against animation- take it as what Disney has always done by making fairy tales palatable for the broadest possible audience.
As has been mentioned, the original surviving versions of the fairy tales are horribly gruesome by modern standards. So much death, so many pregnancies where the female character is unaware of the consequences of sex, or unconscious... Then Disney turned them into singing tales of happily ever after for these poor orphans.
But each live action has worked to eliminate the offensive material from the previous one. We are given a reason and an excuse for the Beast to treat people like garbage- he's raised that way, and even being cursed hasn't fazed him. Gaston is no longer the unambiguous hero of the town- he thinks he is, in an illusion crafted by his devoted Lefou. I didn't see Cinderella, but I'm guessing it added more agency to Cinderella than kindhearted girl who's not good at telling time. There's also a lot more racial diversity. I think if you went back and looked at the criticism of the animated films, you'd find that most of them are addressed by the live action versions.
It isn't an assault on animation- it's an attempt to keep the Disney name synonymous with entertainment for all ages in an increasingly politically correct world.
Klawz-Ramming is a subset of citrus fruit?
Gwar- "And everyone wants a bigger Spleen!"
Mercurial wrote:
I admire your aplomb and instate you as Baron of the Seas and Lord Marshall of Privateers.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Star Trek also said we'd have X-Wings by now. We all see how that prediction turned out.
Orkeosaurus, on homophobia, the nature of homosexuality, and the greatness of George Takei.
English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleyways and mugs them for loose grammar.
2019/06/01 00:42:43
Subject: Alad...I mean, Jasmine, the live action movie
It isn't an assault on animation- it's an attempt to keep the Disney name synonymous with entertainment for all ages in an increasingly politically correct world.
Times have changed, I don't think little girls, the bread and butter of the Disney princess movies, would be interested in the very passive princesses that Disney presented and popularised in its older movies (Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty), even the semi-passive princesses of the 90's (Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladin) would probably have a difficult time with a modern audience which wants and expects more active roles from what is basically either the protagonist or deuteraginist of the story. It's hard to go from a very pretty and very cool and badass princess to just a very pretty princess. I'm not exactly suprised that all the recent Disney live action version of its classic princess stories are giving the said princess more agency.
On another note, a live action version of Mulan could actually be quite kickass in my opinion, especially with a more polished scenario.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/01 00:43:51
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
