The Movie Thread Reloaded

[Trond]

  So...odd thing there her name is literally snow white because of her very fair skin right?   I get that people want "representation" but why the fork remake classic tales with clearly defined characters into something else....just WRITE YOUR OWN STORY WITH THE NEW DIVERSE PERSON and be done with it.

Outrage marketing. The equivalent of clickbait.

They know people will complain and that will drive up attendance. Free advertising.

It seems to have stopped working. About time really.

[jhkim]

  So...odd thing there her name is literally snow white because of her very fair skin right?   I get that people want "representation" but why the fork remake classic tales with clearly defined characters into something else....just WRITE YOUR OWN STORY WITH THE NEW DIVERSE PERSON and be done with it.

I agree. I'm not a Disney fan, but I've seen some - and I thought original works like Moana and Coco was far better than their rehashed live-action remakes.

---

That said, I think the originality angle is weird for fairy tales -- because the whole point of fairy tales is adapting them to the different times and places. The Brothers Grimm version of the story in 1812 used the title of "Snow White", but they were giving their own twist on versions of a folk tale that had been around for centuries, and was constantly retold with different names and other elements. Her snow white skin is not a constant. Here are some variations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Young_Slave
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myrsina
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nourie_Hadig

I think there's some argument for keeping to the source material for original works like Pinnochio (written by Carlo Collodi in 1881) or Mary Poppins (written by P. L. Travers in 1934). But fairy tales are by their nature constantly rewritten in different forms. Disney's versions of fairy tales has generally mangled them far from their version by the Brothers Grimm -- The Little Mermaid is quite different -- but the Brothers Grimm were just retelling stories that were constantly twisted on their own.

[Eirikrautha]

  So...odd thing there her name is literally snow white because of her very fair skin right?   I get that people want "representation" but why the fork remake classic tales with clearly defined characters into something else....just WRITE YOUR OWN STORY WITH THE NEW DIVERSE PERSON and be done with it.

I agree. I'm not a Disney fan, but I've seen some - and I thought original works like Moana and Coco was far better than their rehashed live-action remakes.

---

That said, I think the originality angle is weird for fairy tales -- because the whole point of fairy tales is adapting them to the different times and places. The Brothers Grimm version of the story in 1812 used the title of "Snow White", but they were giving their own twist on versions of a folk tale that had been around for centuries, and was constantly retold with different names and other elements. Her snow white skin is not a constant. Here are some variations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Young_Slave
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myrsina
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nourie_Hadig

I think there's some argument for keeping to the source material for original works like Pinnochio (written by Carlo Collodi in 1881) or Mary Poppins (written by P. L. Travers in 1934). But fairy tales are by their nature constantly rewritten in different forms. Disney's versions of fairy tales has generally mangled them far from their version by the Brothers Grimm -- The Little Mermaid is quite different -- but the Brothers Grimm were just retelling stories that were constantly twisted on their own.

Except, you disingenuous twat, Disney isn't changing the story to be creative or to be "original."  They are changing them to incorporate the criticism of woke ideologues (not shared by their audience) in an attempt to push their twisted neo-Marxist-derived critical-theory-based culture.  No one objects to the dwarves (an actual mythological entity) except the woke, and Disney is changing the story for them.  It is a purely political change.

[Ratman_tf]

I'M GLAD THEY CHANGED THE TITLE OF THE FILM TO RELFECT THE CASTING.

[Reckall]

I think that many people misunderstood this movie. The actress who plays "Snow White" is of Colombian origins. This is Disney's version of "Narcos".

[jhkim]

I think there's some argument for keeping to the source material for original works like Pinnochio (written by Carlo Collodi in 1881) or Mary Poppins (written by P. L. Travers in 1934). But fairy tales are by their nature constantly rewritten in different forms. Disney's versions of fairy tales has generally mangled them far from their version by the Brothers Grimm -- The Little Mermaid is quite different -- but the Brothers Grimm were just retelling stories that were constantly twisted on their own.

Except, you disingenuous twat, Disney isn't changing the story to be creative or to be "original."  They are changing them to incorporate the criticism of woke ideologues (not shared by their audience) in an attempt to push their twisted neo-Marxist-derived critical-theory-based culture.  No one objects to the dwarves (an actual mythological entity) except the woke, and Disney is changing the story for them.  It is a purely political change.

I agree. It's a purely political move. I didn't intend to imply otherwise.

Disney has always been about twisting to try to profit from current politics - like releasing "Song of the South" in 1949 and then pulling it so that no one could see it a few decades later. And editing _Fantasia_ to bowdlerize it, which is even more annoying.

What bugs me about their live-action remakes is that they are clearly low-creativity rehashes, with little creative vision, because they're purely trying to sell to parents who liked the original cartoon taking their kids who won't watch lo-fi cartoons. I find them completely pointless exercises in moneymaking that just make the original worse.

But I don't think they should do it with less changes. I'd prefer they simply not do remakes at all, or if they must, they should have more changes and re-interpret the fairy tale in a new way - just like fairy tales have done for centuries.

[DocJones]

Except, you disingenuous twat, Disney isn't changing the story to be creative or to be "original."  They are changing them to incorporate the criticism of woke ideologues (not shared by their audience) in an attempt to push their twisted neo-Marxist-derived critical-theory-based culture.  No one objects to the dwarves (an actual mythological entity) except the woke, and Disney is changing the story for them.  It is a purely political change.

The 2012 movie, 'Snow White and the Huntsman', is already a live action movie and far more creative twists than any of Disney's remakes.
They didn't include LGBTQ2S+ or BIPOC.  They did make Snow White into a bit of a girl boss though.

[Ratman_tf]

What bugs me about their live-action remakes is that they are clearly low-creativity rehashes, with little creative vision, because they're purely trying to sell to parents who liked the original cartoon taking their kids who won't watch lo-fi cartoons. I find them completely pointless exercises in moneymaking that just make the original worse.

But I don't think they should do it with less changes. I'd prefer they simply not do remakes at all, or if they must, they should have more changes and re-interpret the fairy tale in a new way - just like fairy tales have done for centuries.

The live action Aladdin had the interesting idea that the Genie became mortal, and was telling the tale to his family I think? I thought that was a really neat idea, and made me wish they'd gone even further.
Yes, the live actions could have been a chance to tell the stories in new ways, with new details, but instead they're regurgitated cut and pastes of the cartoon versions, now with more Woke garbage nonsense for clickbait value.

Eh.

[Lurkndog]

Are the Disney live action remakes informed at all by the Broadway musical versions of the stories?

[Lurkndog]

There is a new Justified series on TV: Justified: City Primeval. The first two episodes aired last night on F/X, but they will probably repeat them during the week.

It's somehow 15 years since the end of the previous series, and Raylan Givens now has a 15 year old daughter, played by his real daughter Vivian Olyphant. He winds up in Detroit, assisting a police investigation into threats against a corrupt judge.

I've only watched the first episode. So far it is not as immediately great as Justified, but it is certainly watchable. It is good enough that I'll give it a chance to improve.

One change in this one is that in corrupt Detroit, Raylan is suddenly the honest one. We'll see how well that works, in the original he was the problem child of the US marshalls' office.

Unfortunately, it seems that none of the supporting cast from the previous series came back for this one. This hurts the show somewhat, as Raylan doesn't have normal straight-arrow types to play off of. There is a new flashy bad guy, but so far he's no Boyd Crowder.

Anyway, I say check it out and see what you think.

[Thornhammer]

I forgot about the new Justified series, thanks for the reminder.

[jhkim]

Are the Disney live action remakes informed at all by the Broadway musical versions of the stories?

As far as I can recall, the Beauty and the Beast live-action movie took nothing from the Broadway musical. I haven't seen the others and don't see any summary of that from brief search.

What bugs me about their live-action remakes is that they are clearly low-creativity rehashes, with little creative vision, because they're purely trying to sell to parents who liked the original cartoon taking their kids who won't watch lo-fi cartoons. I find them completely pointless exercises in moneymaking that just make the original worse.

But I don't think they should do it with less changes. I'd prefer they simply not do remakes at all, or if they must, they should have more changes and re-interpret the fairy tale in a new way - just like fairy tales have done for centuries.

The live action Aladdin had the interesting idea that the Genie became mortal, and was telling the tale to his family I think? I thought that was a really neat idea, and made me wish they'd gone even further.
Yes, the live actions could have been a chance to tell the stories in new ways, with new details, but instead they're regurgitated cut and pastes of the cartoon versions, now with more Woke garbage nonsense for clickbait value.

I agree it was a neat idea -- but it didn't have any impact on the movie since the movie was set on hitting the same beats as the original - so that was a impactless side plot. Likewise, the live action made Jasmine more concerned about ruling her father's kingdom, but that also didn't go anywhere.

It seems to me that the live-action adaptations are set on sticking closely to the beats of the original cartoon, to go for the safe bet of drawing in parents who loved the original cartoon, dragging along their kids who would mostly prefer to be playing their video games or similar.

[Thornhammer]

There is a new flashy bad guy, but so far he's no Boyd Crowder.

Watched the first episode. Walton Goggins brings joy to everything he's in, and this suffers distinctly from a lack of Baby Billy Freeman.

Not bad, though. Olyphant is great as always.

Still pissed off about Santa Clarita Diet getting cancelled.

[Omega]

Weird one just came across.

Invisible Avenger from 1958.

Arguably one of the most off the wall The Shadow adaptions ever. Looks to be updated to the 50s of New Orleans and in this Lamont Cranston never dons a costume. Instead he can turn invisible and a sort of shadow.
 
Also while looking up that one came across Tōmei Ningen Arawaru: The Invisible Man Appears from 1949. A Japanese take on the Invisible Man by HG Wells. Feels more like an adaption of the Claud Rains movie though.

Then from that found Tōmei Ningen: Invisible Man from 1954 which is about not one but two invisible men in Japan.

[hedgehobbit]

Arguably one of the most off the wall The Shadow adaptions ever. Looks to be updated to the 50s of New Orleans and in this Lamont Cranston never dons a costume. Instead he can turn invisible and a sort of shadow.

Interesting that this film was made long after The Shadow had dropped out of pulps and after the radio drama was cancelled. Of course, today we are used to properties from 20 or 30 years ago constantly getting revived.