1 minute ago, VanHammersly said:

I saw Aladdin too.  It was good for what it was.  But it's not art.  It didn't have anything particularly new to say.  It's just a remake of a Disney property.

I'm not really looking for some deeper meaning when I watch Disney movies. I just want to be entertained. I'm not sure I was deeply moved by the message when I first saw Hamilton (which was on Disney+ oddly enough) but I did come away thinking the music was pretty awesome.

3 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

A musical inspired by a recently released book about Hamilton, who was a literal person in history, not a fictional fairytale character.

Yes, decades of people grew up with the story of Alexander Hamilton...

2 minutes ago, Boogyman said:

I thought Alladin was the best of the live action remakes, of the ones I've seen. My wife saw Little Mermaid when she was on a work trip and said it was just ok.

The kids had been wanting to see it at the theatres but it got caught up in a bunch of other releases that we wanted to see more like Guardians 3, Super Mario Bros, Elemental, and Spiderverse. We'll catch it when it comes out on Disney+.

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Yes, decades of people grew up with the story of Alexander Hamilton...

I mean, we literally all learned about him in history class and he happens to be on the $10 bill. I'm not really sure what you're getting at. That nobody knew he was a white guy prior to the musical?

Just now, we_gotta_believe said:

I'm not really looking for some deeper meaning when I watch Disney movies. I just want to be entertained. I'm not sure I was deeply moved by the message when I first saw Hamilton (which was on Disney+ oddly enough) but I did come away thinking the music was pretty awesome.

But, again, if it's not done for artistic purposes then it's just being done to pander.  And people hate that.  It hurts their sales and somehow hurts the cause of liberalism.  I know that's an insane thing to say based on how ultimately trivial it is (and how it, you know, has absolutely nothing to do with actual politics) but it's true because the right uses this sheet like a weapon.

disney presents a story about a great american hero in the new movie, "oh john henry" starring david spade as john henry and lizzo as the steam drill. 

 

coming next summer. 

5 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

But after Miranda did it for Hamilton, it was done.  It already happened.  A studio changing the race of a character isn't novel.  It isn't saying anything anymore.  It's just pandering.

I'd say it's not viewed as pandering when Miranda did it because the end result was good and he was careful to cast talented people. If he had casted people that weren't as talented and the whole thing flopped, it almost certainly would've been viewed as a failed experiment in pandering.

6 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I mean, we literally all learned about him in history class and he happens to be on the $10 bill. I'm not really sure what you're getting at. That nobody knew he was a white guy prior to the musical?

You can't be this dense. That's it not a classic fairy tale story like Snow White. 

You think more than 20% of Americans can tell you who Alexander Hamilton was? Even after the musical? 

16 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Very small.  And it more than likely hurts their sales in the broad sense.  It's incredibly stupid from a business standpoint and if it's coming from some sort of ideological POV, then it's flat out counterproductive.

Not just for the movie but overall. You will see folks, let’s call them the former bud light crowd, rejecting any and all things Disney going forward.  

5 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

But, again, if it's not done for artistic purposes then it's just being done to pander.  And people hate that.  It hurts their sales and somehow hurts the cause of liberalism.  I know that's an insane thing to say based on how ultimately trivial it is (and how it, you know, has absolutely nothing to do with actual politics) but it's true because the right uses this sheet like a weapon.

But without knowing the end result or anything about the people being cast, I'm not sure how we would know. Like I said, it very well could suck, but I would've said the same about Hamilton before I ever saw it. It's not like Miranda invented the concept of casting minorities in place of white actors "for artistic purposes." We're only using terms like that because of how good Hamilton was, which is entirely due to the benefit of hindsight. I think he maybe had done one play before this, but unless you're big into the broadway scene (which I wasn't and I doubt many of us were) nobody had heard of him before that, much less were we willing to give him the benefit of the doubt when it came to casting minorities in place of some very significant characters of our nation's history.

5 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I'd say it's not viewed as pandering when Miranda did it because the end result was good and he was careful to cast talented people. If he had casted people that weren't as talented and the whole thing flopped, it almost certainly would've been viewed as a failed experiment in pandering.

Probably but more than likely it would've just never been noticed since it was a play.  Disney stuff is different because whether it sucks or is great, everyone knows about it.

3 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

You can't be this dense. That's it not a classic fairy tale story like Snow White. 

You think more than 20% of Americans can tell you who Alexander Hamilton was? Even after the musical? 

I know, that's literally my point. One is a fairy tale, completely untethered to realty, and the other is based on a real, actual person providing a context in which people would rightfully question the decision to cast him and others (like our first president) in another race. You think Americans aren't familiar with George F'ing Washington?  

1 minute ago, VanHammersly said:

Probably but more than likely it would've just never been noticed since it was a play.  Disney stuff is different because whether it sucks or is great, everyone knows about it.

Hamilton is on Disney+ though, and it's a pretty big part of recent American pop culture IMO.

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT IS GOOD OR NOT

When you take intellectual property that is universally known, like Snow White, and especially ones that relate to childhood, and do this -- you're going to get this reaction. Comparing it to something like Hamilton is ridiculous. It would be like if they made Superman a transgender woman.

There are certain intellectual property/characters that are ingrained into the culture that will spur this reaction.

2 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Probably but more than likely it would've just never been noticed since it was a play.  Disney stuff is different because whether it sucks or is great, everyone knows about it.

Fair enough, movies definitely reach a wider audience, I'll give you that. 

1 minute ago, Boogyman said:

Hamilton is on Disney+ though, and it's a pretty big part of recent American pop culture IMO.

It is now, but if it had sucked, it would've been quickly forgotten.

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I know, that's literally my point. One is a fairy tale, completely untethered to realty, and the other is based on a real, actual person providing a context in which people would rightfully question the decision to cast him and others (like our first president) in another race. You think Americans aren't familiar with George F'ing Washington?  

One is a musical that maybe 20% of people have seen (most in large cities) about historical figures most people can't name. 

The other is a widely released movie from Disney retelling a classic fairy tale that ~90% of people know about. 

Honestly, I hope you're just trolling. If so, well done.

i'd definitely go see snow black. 

 

 

 

 disney's WOKE agenda

1 minute ago, vikas83 said:

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT IS GOOD OR NOT

When you take intellectual property that is universally known, like Snow White, and especially ones that relate to childhood, and do this -- you're going to get this reaction. Comparing it to something like Hamilton is ridiculous. It would be like if they made Superman a transgender woman.

There are certain intellectual property/characters that are ingrained into the culture that will spur this reaction.

George Washington played by a black man = totally fine

 

Snow White played by a half-white girl = 

8 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

But without knowing the end result or anything about the people being cast, I'm not sure how we would know. Like I said, it very well could suck, but I would've said the same about Hamilton before I ever saw it. It's not like Miranda invented the concept of casting minorities in place of white actors "for artistic purposes." We're only using terms like that because of how good Hamilton was, which is entirely due to the benefit of hindsight. I think he maybe had done one play before this, but unless you're big into the broadway scene (which I wasn't and I doubt many of us were) nobody had heard of him before that, much less were we willing to give him the benefit of the doubt when it came to casting minorities in place of some very significant characters of our nation's history.

I just know.  It's a big budget Disney remake.  There's literally no way it's some groundbreaking film that wins Best Picture and is taught in AI film school 100 years from now.

Got it, you're trolling. Nice job. Damn AC is broken in my office, so I'm ornery.

2 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

I just know.  It's a big budget Disney remake.  There's literally no way it's some groundbreaking film that wins Best Picture and is taught in AI film school 100 years from now.

Of course not, if that's the standard for art then sure, it's a failed experiment in pandering. But if it's as good as Aladdin or Lion King, then it's good enough for me to not care about the race of the actors portraying these fictional characters. Maybe that's just me though, some people like vikas seem to have some deeper connection to the characters than I do.  

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Of course not, if that's the standard for art then sure, it's a failed experiment in pandering. But if it's as good as Aladdin or Lion King, then it's good enough for me to not care about the race of the actors portraying these fictional characters. Maybe that's just me though, some people like vikas seem to have some deeper connection to the characters than I do.  

Yes, that came across when I said I couldn't care less but that it would trigger MAGA. I have very clear shown myself to be a MAGA supporter. 

Try harder with the trolling son.

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Of course not, if that's the standard for art then sure, it's a failed experiment in pandering. But if it's as good as Aladdin or Lion King, then it's good enough for me to not care about the race of the actors portraying these fictional characters. Maybe that's just me though, some people like vikas seem to have some deeper connection to the characters than I do.  

But if it hurts Disney's bottom line, says nothing new artistically and gives the right more fodder for literally the only issue keeping that poverty party alive and kicking, then it's doing way more harm than good.

SNOW WHITE BOOTS