-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The new Pinocchio live-remake is, surprise surprise, a pointless cashgrab
- Thread starter Bragr
- Start date
RoboFu
One of the green rats
This is the exact response the filmmakers wanted to create.
The blue fairy is scary and ugly. If it was a bald scary looking white woman people would have the same reaction.
There are hundreds of beautiful black actresses that would make excellent blue fairies, but again the film makers wanted to produce the response to an off putting blue fairy so they can deflect to racism.
SJRB
Gold Member
<<<NON-INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE DETECTED>>>
<<<THOUGHT CRIME COMMITTED>>>
<<<AUTHOROTIES ALERTED>>>
<<<THOUGHT CRIME COMMITTED>>>
<<<AUTHOROTIES ALERTED>>>
Last edited:
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Big is not great. Or maybe it is? I don't remember what I think of it, lol.
But he has been in quite a few meh movies. Maybe not many shit ones though.
Last edited:
Gifmaker
Member
Well, I watched it and the harsh reviews are pretty exaggerated. It is by no means a perfect movie, but neither is the original. The claim that this movie is "woke" is blowing things out of proportion. Yes, changing the great fairy into a bald black woman was kind of unnecessary, with the near-baldness being the most distracting and WTF part about it. But then again, she is even cut entirely from one of the only two scenes she originally appeared in, so it's not at all like this movie is centered around that in any way. It adds a few elements which feel out of place if you know the original movie, like doing some extra social justice commentary about how Stromboli treats his workers so badly that they eventually get rid of him - "eat the rich", if you will. It feels very unnecessary, because the original movie (and more importantly, the fairytale itself!) pretty much sold the message: "Listen to your parents and be aware of strangers". Here, the message gets more muddled down into what seems to say: "If something bad happens to you, there are others who have it worse". Which is pretty in line with certain modern activism... but for a classic fairytale with a pretty clear cut message, as I said, it feels like an unnecessary addition. But ultimately, it's not too distracting, and I think that in the end the movie basically hit all the strong points of the animated one, which in itself is a kind of weird movie in hindsight.
Talking about distraction, the "CGI quality distribution" is very weird in this one. Pinocchio, of course, looks fantastic. It's literally the cartoon version come to life. That being said, it has the disadvantage of still looking like a cartoon. Like, the cartoon Pinocchio character design was not developed to look like a realistic puppet, but a cartoon puppet one. Soooo, that's a little clash. But then again, I guess they opted for going with visual continuity to the original movie over something more realistic, and succeeded in that.
The supporting characters can be hit and miss. Jiminy is alright, the greatest offender is figaro the cat. Why they would 100% CGI a cat that has not much of a real role in the movie is completely beyond me, but that's modern moviemaking for you. In that regard, I really miss the 90s, when the cat would simply have been, well, a cat. That would have meant to tone down on the expressiveness and the amount of slapstick of the character, but I'd take a more toned down role with a real cat over a weirdly animated CGI cat any day.
That being said, I was sold on the movie the moment Honest John appeared on screen. Not only is he, somehow, the best animated character in the whole film, but he's just a brilliantly funny character to begin with, even moreso than in the original movie. Too bad that him and Gideon are, again, cut a little short because they miss out on one of their two major scenes. In the original movie, they were the one who sent Pinocchio to Pleasure Island; in this one, he basically gets picked up coincidentally on the kids' ride there.
Coming to think of it, the pair of Honest John and the Pleasure Island scenes really highlight two major weird facets of the original movie which are also in full display here. First, the fact that we have animated Cleo and Figarro, which are supposed to represent real, realistic animals, just very expressive ones. But them being CGI, and having anthropomorphic animals running around being fully CGI as well, it really makes you frown upon what kind of weird world the story takes place in. With John and Gideon just roaming around like ordinary people, it kind of explains why nobody is too surprised that a wooden puppet like Pinocchio is suddenly alive. But then again, Gideon never talks. Is he even a real anthropomorphic animal? Or is he like the missing link between Figarro, the real cat, and humans/intelligent animals? Would Figarro be able to learn to walk upright and talk and smash a fox with a hammer? In the original movie, he jumps into a glas bowl to kiss a fish, so... maybe I'm overthinking this. But it's kinda weird.
Second: the whole deal with Pleasure Island. Soooo... the coachman ships kids off to a distant island, where there is a huge amusement park. Kids would drink beer (except for in this movie, the beer is CGI for some reason I cannot fathom, just so that one kid in one scene can jug down a gallon of it in two seconds I guess?), smoke cigars (except for this movie, which entirely omitted that because smoking is bad, kids), smash stuff, eat candy, go on roller coaster rides all day long, in short: have a good time. For free! And after all's said and done, the beer has been drugged to turn them into donkeys which are about to be shipped into the salt mines.
So you're telling me that the coachman, who has access to this magical wonderland and a drug that literally makes people change their species (ah, I suppose we got a hint about where the anthropomorphic animals come from in this universe?), makes a living... selling, what, 50 donkeys per night? That was always a weird conjuncture in the original movie, but here, it's even more highlighted because of how flashy and loud the PI scenes are. It really makes you wonder why the hell the coachman has to sell some fucking donkeys and doesn't simply charge people to visit his Pleasure Island and make tenfold the living with it. But yeah, as I said, this was also a weird aspect of the animated movie and it's just a losely adapted fairytale in the end. Of course Pleasure Island stands for the tempations of hedonism, and Pinocchio needs to learn the lesson of withstanding that. Which, in this movie, is pretty underminded, because Pinocchio is never really comfortable with all the things going on there in the first place. Yes, he agrees to go to the island on his own (after a pretty manipulative song, that is), but the moment they get there, he's like "Nah, I don't think that's a good idea". So the moral falls really flat in this act, because unlike the original animated movie, Pinocchio never really embraces the temptations of the island. He reluctantly drinks some beer and he plays some pool, he even complains about Lampwick not playing by the rules, and that's it. In the original, the lesson was much stronger because Pinocchio actually was fairly tempted and gave in to some of his inner crazy child. He enjoyed his time with the other kids there and thought that a life of all fun and games was a cool thing. And then he had to pay a price for that. Here, he pays a (smaller) price for... reluctantly sitting there and watching other people have fun. The thing is... if you have a movie about Pinocchio - which should be a tale about a boy who learns to speak the truth because his nose grows when he is lying - and you only have one scene where the lying and nosegrowing part even play a role in, and you dedicate the rest of your movie to episodes of "fun and dangerous adventures Pinocchio has in a world that's unfamiliar to him", the morals in these episodes should not fall flat. At all. They should be the strong points of your narrative, and the third act of the movie is a bit of a letdown in that regard.
So, all in all, I would say that this was actually one of the better live action attempts (with the best one yet being Aladdin, imho). It's certainly better than the last D+ exclusive release on that front, Lady and the Tramp; and I also enjoyed it more than Lion King, because that one basically recreated the animated one in worse ways, frame for frame at times. Pinocchio 2022 doesn't do that, and it still nails all the important parts of the animated original, mostly. Some additions are a tad unnecessary, but they are ultimately not too distracting, and I had some genuine fun with the movie, with Honest John being the clear highlight in it. Strangely, by the end they seem to kind of loosely set up for a possible sequel? Which, if they went off in the direction that I suspect they would with this one, could be a real disaster of a movie, but probably a "so bad it's good" one. Just one hint without wanting to spoil too much: Pinocchio love interest.
So yeah, if you have any interest in the movie, go watch it, you can't do much wrong with its one and a half hour runtime imho.
Talking about distraction, the "CGI quality distribution" is very weird in this one. Pinocchio, of course, looks fantastic. It's literally the cartoon version come to life. That being said, it has the disadvantage of still looking like a cartoon. Like, the cartoon Pinocchio character design was not developed to look like a realistic puppet, but a cartoon puppet one. Soooo, that's a little clash. But then again, I guess they opted for going with visual continuity to the original movie over something more realistic, and succeeded in that.
The supporting characters can be hit and miss. Jiminy is alright, the greatest offender is figaro the cat. Why they would 100% CGI a cat that has not much of a real role in the movie is completely beyond me, but that's modern moviemaking for you. In that regard, I really miss the 90s, when the cat would simply have been, well, a cat. That would have meant to tone down on the expressiveness and the amount of slapstick of the character, but I'd take a more toned down role with a real cat over a weirdly animated CGI cat any day.
That being said, I was sold on the movie the moment Honest John appeared on screen. Not only is he, somehow, the best animated character in the whole film, but he's just a brilliantly funny character to begin with, even moreso than in the original movie. Too bad that him and Gideon are, again, cut a little short because they miss out on one of their two major scenes. In the original movie, they were the one who sent Pinocchio to Pleasure Island; in this one, he basically gets picked up coincidentally on the kids' ride there.
Coming to think of it, the pair of Honest John and the Pleasure Island scenes really highlight two major weird facets of the original movie which are also in full display here. First, the fact that we have animated Cleo and Figarro, which are supposed to represent real, realistic animals, just very expressive ones. But them being CGI, and having anthropomorphic animals running around being fully CGI as well, it really makes you frown upon what kind of weird world the story takes place in. With John and Gideon just roaming around like ordinary people, it kind of explains why nobody is too surprised that a wooden puppet like Pinocchio is suddenly alive. But then again, Gideon never talks. Is he even a real anthropomorphic animal? Or is he like the missing link between Figarro, the real cat, and humans/intelligent animals? Would Figarro be able to learn to walk upright and talk and smash a fox with a hammer? In the original movie, he jumps into a glas bowl to kiss a fish, so... maybe I'm overthinking this. But it's kinda weird.
Second: the whole deal with Pleasure Island. Soooo... the coachman ships kids off to a distant island, where there is a huge amusement park. Kids would drink beer (except for in this movie, the beer is CGI for some reason I cannot fathom, just so that one kid in one scene can jug down a gallon of it in two seconds I guess?), smoke cigars (except for this movie, which entirely omitted that because smoking is bad, kids), smash stuff, eat candy, go on roller coaster rides all day long, in short: have a good time. For free! And after all's said and done, the beer has been drugged to turn them into donkeys which are about to be shipped into the salt mines.
So you're telling me that the coachman, who has access to this magical wonderland and a drug that literally makes people change their species (ah, I suppose we got a hint about where the anthropomorphic animals come from in this universe?), makes a living... selling, what, 50 donkeys per night? That was always a weird conjuncture in the original movie, but here, it's even more highlighted because of how flashy and loud the PI scenes are. It really makes you wonder why the hell the coachman has to sell some fucking donkeys and doesn't simply charge people to visit his Pleasure Island and make tenfold the living with it. But yeah, as I said, this was also a weird aspect of the animated movie and it's just a losely adapted fairytale in the end. Of course Pleasure Island stands for the tempations of hedonism, and Pinocchio needs to learn the lesson of withstanding that. Which, in this movie, is pretty underminded, because Pinocchio is never really comfortable with all the things going on there in the first place. Yes, he agrees to go to the island on his own (after a pretty manipulative song, that is), but the moment they get there, he's like "Nah, I don't think that's a good idea". So the moral falls really flat in this act, because unlike the original animated movie, Pinocchio never really embraces the temptations of the island. He reluctantly drinks some beer and he plays some pool, he even complains about Lampwick not playing by the rules, and that's it. In the original, the lesson was much stronger because Pinocchio actually was fairly tempted and gave in to some of his inner crazy child. He enjoyed his time with the other kids there and thought that a life of all fun and games was a cool thing. And then he had to pay a price for that. Here, he pays a (smaller) price for... reluctantly sitting there and watching other people have fun. The thing is... if you have a movie about Pinocchio - which should be a tale about a boy who learns to speak the truth because his nose grows when he is lying - and you only have one scene where the lying and nosegrowing part even play a role in, and you dedicate the rest of your movie to episodes of "fun and dangerous adventures Pinocchio has in a world that's unfamiliar to him", the morals in these episodes should not fall flat. At all. They should be the strong points of your narrative, and the third act of the movie is a bit of a letdown in that regard.
So, all in all, I would say that this was actually one of the better live action attempts (with the best one yet being Aladdin, imho). It's certainly better than the last D+ exclusive release on that front, Lady and the Tramp; and I also enjoyed it more than Lion King, because that one basically recreated the animated one in worse ways, frame for frame at times. Pinocchio 2022 doesn't do that, and it still nails all the important parts of the animated original, mostly. Some additions are a tad unnecessary, but they are ultimately not too distracting, and I had some genuine fun with the movie, with Honest John being the clear highlight in it. Strangely, by the end they seem to kind of loosely set up for a possible sequel? Which, if they went off in the direction that I suspect they would with this one, could be a real disaster of a movie, but probably a "so bad it's good" one. Just one hint without wanting to spoil too much: Pinocchio love interest.
So yeah, if you have any interest in the movie, go watch it, you can't do much wrong with its one and a half hour runtime imho.
The entire setup and sequence is not quite as dark and intimidating as in the original one, but the body horror aspects of that certain scene are still legitimately terrifying in this one.
Last edited:
OmegaSupreme
advanced basic bitch
This movie didn't need to be made
Doom85
Member
Aladdin remake was fairly good, the Bollywood feel was a nice touch. Felt Aladdin and Jafar’s actors were meh, but Jasmine and Genie were well cast.
Lion King remake though I detested. Can’t decide if I dislike it or Mulan‘s remake more. But you do you.
Jungle Book remake was solid though, and I’m not even that big on the original besides the awesome songs. Cinderella remake was fairly good, it has its pros and cons versus the original.
Cruella was excellent, really happy how that turned out. Was scared it would be like the Maleficent film which was really forgettable to me. But with Cruella, the cast was excellent, and the director and crew really brought a lot of life to the film. It felt like a film they genuinely wanted to make rather than just “oh, Disney wants us to do another remake or such”. And there were a lot of bangers in the soundtrack.
Jinzo Prime
Member
You know what? They should have just gone all the way with it and gotten RuPaul as the fairy godmother. At least they'd get points for being "bold" and "forward-thinking" because this looks terrible!
Scotty W
Banned
Fuck that’s brilliant
Dural
Member
The first time I saw the trailer I was pissed thinking they did the same thing as the Amazon Cinderella and cast a man as the blue fairy. I searched the cast and saw it was a woman and was relieved, but it's still really strange that they thought a bald woman was the right choice for the blue fairy. What exactly were they going for there? I'll watch it tonight or tomorrow, but my expectations are way low with the bad reviews and the weird choice for the blue fairy. I love Robert Zemeckis, he's made some of my favorite movies, so it's disappointing with how this looks to have turned out.
I've seen all the live action remakes and only really love Jungle Book, Beauty and the Beast, and Cinderella. Aladdin and Lion King are just ok, not a fan of the voices of Timon and Pumbaa at all. Lady and the Tramp and Mulan were forgettable.
I've seen all the live action remakes and only really love Jungle Book, Beauty and the Beast, and Cinderella. Aladdin and Lion King are just ok, not a fan of the voices of Timon and Pumbaa at all. Lady and the Tramp and Mulan were forgettable.
///PATRIOT
Banned
Why did they make the fairy a male? :/
Yeah, these writers and producers are activists, they really don't respect the source material. It's a power trip to them, the movies are props to advance their shallow virtue signaling. assholes.
Yeah, these writers and producers are activists, they really don't respect the source material. It's a power trip to them, the movies are props to advance their shallow virtue signaling. assholes.
IDKFA
I am Become Bilbo Baggins
Lion King remake has to be the bottom of the pile. It's so creatively bankrupt. It just remade the original animated classic "live action", but completely sucked the soul out of it. It was just a sad, dull waste of a film.
ManaByte
Member
That was The Lion King’s problem, which they just repeated.
Trunx81
Member
Judging by my daughter, I can rank the live action remakes from the times she watched them:
1. Lion King
2. Aladdin
3. Dumbo (no music but cute elephant)
4. Lady and the Tramp
5. Jungle Book
6. Cinderella
Mulan is “brutal” and has no music, so we won’t watch it with her. Pinnochio just started, we will see. Cruella has no music, so it’s a pass as well.
1. Lion King
2. Aladdin
3. Dumbo (no music but cute elephant)
4. Lady and the Tramp
5. Jungle Book
6. Cinderella
Mulan is “brutal” and has no music, so we won’t watch it with her. Pinnochio just started, we will see. Cruella has no music, so it’s a pass as well.
Doom85
Member
It felt way too obsessed with showing off the special effects. Yes, the animals looked impressive, but by making them so accurate it robbed the characters of emotive possibilities. Simba screaming at his father falling looks stupid as we’re just seeing a lion open its mouth wide, whereas the cartoon showed genuine horror in his eyes as he screamed.
Jon Favreau directed this and the Jungle Book remake, but with the latter it felt like they allowed a little more emotion in their faces. Not too much, but just enough to show a bit of emotion without looking totally unrealistic. Also helped they’re playing off an actual human there with Mowgli. Plus some of the added scenes were cool, particularly those focused on Shere Khan. The part where he just instantly murders the wolf dad like it was nothing, and then later makes it very clear to the wolf mom how he could kill all her children easily just made an already intimidating villain that more terrifying. Felt like Favreua actually had at least some interest in doing this one, but Lion King felt like he was kinda forced into it or just wanted the paycheck.
If they keep doing remakes, where the fuck is Black Cauldron? I know book fans have been begging for a more faithful adaptation for decades, and even if the animated version is obscure, if they marketed a new one like a big fantasy epic and such it could do well. People wouldn’t even need to know there was an animated version, they could just check the new one out. And I doubt Disney would insist the writers follow the script of the animated version mostly as that version bombed in the box office so the remake’s writers would probably have more freedom to do a more book faithful script hopefully.
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
She's a born female heterosexual woman. Not a dude nor transwoman
chromhound
Member
Like every live action movie from Disney
teezzy
Banned
dr_octagon
Banned
A story about a wooden character as the lead, is this another movie about Gal Gadot?
GeorgioCostanzaX
Gold Member
That’s a stretch black casting is not woke nor is making a woman strong and self reliant that’s been a theme in Hollywood since the beginning of cinema and literature for even longer sorry if it bothers you when a chick holds a gun to defend herself. Sexuality is a part of our culture dating back to the ancient Greeks and was only suppressed by religious zealots in the relatively recent past. Sorry if puritanical brainwashing has made you think otherwise. They’re catering to new audiences because we’ve seen all lily white casts for the last 100 years of film History. Studios are now attempting to be more inclusive of what society actually looks like to make money that’s it: the leave it to beaver all white casting has been done to death and was a lie to begin with.
None of this is woke it’s just reality. If you want to label something woke find something truly dumb like normalizing pedophilia or insisting that there are no biological differences between male and female or the term pregnant capable persons or some shit: just casting people of color to make a diverse audience more interested in a film because white Anglo Saxon southerners aren’t going to watch the film because they’ve decided Disney is too woke and they’re only going to watch shitty bible animation from now on is not woke its smart business.
Last edited:
The criticism is not that the fairy is black, but that they purposely made she look like a man.
That way they can deflect criticism while enforcing their agenda.
Last edited:
Mr Hyde
Member
Just saw it. It was okay. Not Zemeckis finest work, but not his worst either. The CG is uneven, with some fantastic effects and characters like Jiminy Cricket, Gideon and Honest John (with great voice acting by Michael Keegan Key) but at the same time looking phony like Pleasure Island and the donkeys. The biggest issue I have with Disneys live action remakes is that they feel kinda pointless. Always felt like this. I guess it's for newer younger crowds. And if people are labeling this movie woke because the blue fairy is black, then the word woke has truly lost its meaning. And it just goes to show how fucking stupid the anti woke brigade has become.
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
I agree with the new crowd focus.
It’s in line with superhero movies where the trend is grittier and realistic cgi fights whereas they used to be ultra cheesy.
It’s amazing how different movies like batman, super man compared to the 80s and 90s.
Bragr
Banned
Do you think societies are 50/50 black and white?
If we would make movies based on what western societies look like, they would still be mostly white. What you are talking about, is representation.
What's weird, is that most of the time when Hollywood does this, it's always black people. It's odd how non-diverse filmmakers behave when they try to be diverse.
The problem is not more colored people in movies, the problem is converting "white characters" into different races just to spite people with rules that only apply against white characters, but would never fly with colored ones.
Try making a Malcolm X movie cast as a white guy as Malcolm X. There would be hell to pay.
But making a JFK movie with a black guy as JFK, it would be controversial, but half of Hollywood would praise it as diverse and breaking norms. You could probably pull that off.
Especially if you have people come in and say shit like you say "we are tired of lily white casts". Well, are you tired of japanese or bollywood movies too? do you say the same thing there?
dr_octagon
Banned
Malcolm XX now returns as the fierce Black Panther-ess in 'KKK Boogaloo'
Only on Disney Plus
️
Only on Disney Plus
️
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
You said this...
But then you said...
You stayed consistent with "inclusions" but you changed up what you said in the first and second sentences.
40s to 60s were the Whitest era of modern movies... You said you want movies like in that era. Then you say something about "source of inspiration"
What's different from the original movie and this? The story is still basically the same... Only superficial casting is different (as different as can be since the original is a cartoon and this is live action, mostly).
So you either want the movies YOU like to be like it was from the 40s-60s (mostly or all white) or you want something else...
Also your assertion of "In fact, I have no problem with other films including characters from other cultures..."
You have no problem with it...
But then you said...
You stayed consistent with "inclusions" but you changed up what you said in the first and second sentences.
40s to 60s were the Whitest era of modern movies... You said you want movies like in that era. Then you say something about "source of inspiration"
What's different from the original movie and this? The story is still basically the same... Only superficial casting is different (as different as can be since the original is a cartoon and this is live action, mostly).
So you either want the movies YOU like to be like it was from the 40s-60s (mostly or all white) or you want something else...
Also your assertion of "In fact, I have no problem with other films including characters from other cultures..."
You have no problem with it...
GeorgioCostanzaX
Gold Member
Mixed race casting has been there since the very first feature length film which coincidentally tracks with white nationalism you speak of. Might want to check the used of “colored” just a note…America is a melting pot Europe and asia are mostly homogenous so I don’t get your argument.
1st film featuring a multi racial cast
Last edited:
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
It's always weird when people contrast ACTUAL people who lived (Malcolm X or MLK) to FICTIONAL characters that are figments of imagination.
JFK would be be portrayed as white, still, as it should be. Malcolm X would still be portrayed as black, as it should be.
But fictional characters can be whatever UNLESS their color and heritage is tied into the story like Black Panther or Thor.
Bragr
Banned
I didn't contrast actual characters, that's why I used JFK instead of the fairy as an example.
Hamilton is white. They made him black. People praised it. They could easily do the same with JFK.
VulcanRaven
Member
Google the actress Cynthia Erivo. I don't think she looks like a man.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
There’s way more Latinos in the US than Black people yet in media, the minority group that by far gets the most airtime is Black people.
In Canada it’s even more skewed. The Black population is 4% as a country and 8% in the GTA and a lot less in Vancouver (where lots of tv ads are filmed), yet someone watching Tv ads there’s more Black people than Indian and Asians even though threes literally about triple the number here.
Figure that minority split out in media north of the border.
Last edited:
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
She's bisexual... not hetero... my bad
Bragr
Banned
Mixed race casting has been there since the very first feature length film which coincidentally tracks with white nationalism you speak of. Might want to check the used of “colored” just a note…America is a melting pot Europe and asia are mostly homogenous so I don’t get your argument.
1st film featuring a multi racial cast
Europe is homogenous? you haven't been to Europe lately have you?
My argument is not about mixed-race casting, it's about changing roles that were cast as a specific race when it's not needed, but it's done just to prove a point, that's what's triggering people.
Are you talking about specifically North American movies? if so, then what is your issue? they are incredibly diverse.
dr_octagon
Banned
Isn't that polka dot man from suicide squad?
bob_mugabe
Banned
Honestly, you'd have to be very stupid not to notice the pattern behind these forced inclusions when they're now systematic in every Hollywood production, to the point they don't even make any sense. Disney made snow white a Latina, The Little Mermaid black (notice that they never normally go full ebony for some reasons, light skinned black people or mixed races seem more acceptable for some reason). Hell, ITV even made Anne Boleyn black so I guess Queen Latifah isn't totally out of the picture for the next Elizabeth II biopic.
FunkMiller
Member
Extremely glad to see such blatant laziness and greed being rewarded with terrible scores. Hope the box office is awful too.
Hari Seldon
Member
Ugggh not even Hanks can save this. It seems like weekly I ask my wife why in the fuck are we paying for D+ and she reminds me that our kids will kill us in our sleep if we cancel it due to all of the early 2000s tween shows they watch.
Konnor
Member
40 years ago some were saying she looked like a man. Even then, to a child, the grousing from the obsolete hominids seemed to be about trying to retain control over appearance.
That's so unfair, she doesn't look like a dude, she looks like an alien.
NeoIkaruGAF
Gold Member
It’d be interesting to know if the producers were happy with Aladdin as the non-white setting made it so easy to make the cast inclusive, or terribly disappointed they couldn‘t trigger outrage casting POC as characters that were never really white to begin with.
Current, multiethnic societies? American society since Europe discovered the continent? Sure. Who ever complained about all-American stories and movies set in the current era featuring black, Latino or Asian people? Plenty of memorable black people in those beloved 80s movies.
Now though, a movie set in 19th century Italy? Sorry, “inclusiveness” is kinda harder to believe there. It’s token “representation” for the sake of it and literally everyone knows it.
Make new stories with black characters and only the most irredeemable racists will make a fuss. Disney made that with The Princess and the Frog and it was one of their best movies from that period.