« Home | It looks like Marvel had reason to rid themselves ... » | Scott Lobdell was accused of another instance of s... » | How Spider-Man's secret identity was turned into a... » | Mad magazine comes to an end after nearly 70 years » | Tom King says he wrote the Heroes in Crisis plot, ... » | IDW hires a Vox co-founder to script Transformers ... » | George Perez's run on New52 Superman made him lose... » | So this is what Marvel movies will be about going ... » | Thor's hammer inscription changed for the sake of PC » | "Integral" doesn't equal exoneration or guarantee ... » 

Monday, July 08, 2019 

How many Disney cartoons are going to be live-actioned, and how many will contain PC alterations?

You may have noticed in recent years how Disney's been going out of their way to adapt some of their old animated cartoons dating at least till the early 90s into live action remakes. And these remakes are even getting the race-change treatment, as the planned remake of The Little Mermaid from 1989 makes clear:
Following the announcement that Halle Bailey has been cast as Ariel in Disney's upcoming live-action The Little Mermaid, Berry took to social media to celebrate the 19-year-old actress.

Notice that the eponymous heroine from the animated film looks darker complected in the picture Berry posted? I don't think she was drawn that way when the original production debuted. Is this some kind of absurd gimmick to justify their direction now? Pretty ridiculous alright, and they decidedly missed an opportunity to conceive a separate fantasy film which could just as easily star black figures, and come off much more delightfully. Just another obvious effort to resort to "diversity" at all costs rather than concentrate on story merit.

While we're on the subject, I can't recall if I spoke about the live action remake of Beauty and the Beast from 1991, but according to this Federalist review from 2017, it's both sexist and absurdly feminist simultaneously:
In Disney’s animated story, Belle is the Beast’s prisoner of her own volition. When she discovers her father’s imprisonment, she begs the Beast to release him because he is sick, pleading, “Surely there’s something I can do!” Beast callously replies, “There’s nothing you can do.” In the following pause, Belle is obviously considering her choices, then softly says, “Take me instead.” Rather than allow her ailing father, Maurice, to remain locked in a dank dungeon, Belle willingly relinquishes her freedom in exchange for her father’s release.

Disney’s live-action movie obscures this powerful act. Instead, it is Beast who asks, “Do you wish to take your father’s place?” The exchange of Belle for her father is no longer of Belle’s own initiative, which considerably cheapens the sacrifice.
In the animated film, Belle’s refusal of Gaston is a side story that contrasts Gaston’s self-absorption with Belle’s self-denial. In this film Belle is independent, but it is not Belle’s defining characteristic, as Watson would have the audience believe. In Watson’s retelling, Belle does not want to marry Gaston because she expects it to be an imprisonment of washing clothes, shining boots, cooking meals, and birthing children. She wants an adventure like in one of her beloved books. In the new retelling Belle’s major concerns are for herself, rather than a commitment of love to others such as her father.
So it was two sides of the same coin. On the one hand, Belle takes her father's place as a hostage because Beast offers her the choice, and on the other hand, she's portrayed as selfish and doesn't want to marry Gaston because she doesn't want to do stuff most women are accustomed to doing even when they're not married, and she doesn't want to have children either. Sounds almost like Angela Merkel and the recently resigned UK premier Theresa May. They may claim it's all played for laughs, but there's some things that just aren't funny, so much as they are insulting. And there was even homosexual propaganda thrown into the live action remake for extra measure:
Unfortunately, in the lead-up to the live-action movie’s release, Watson’s feminism and the director’s identity politics have far overshadowed the story’s inherent themes of selflessness and redemption. In a recent article, director Bill Condon explained that LeFou, Gaston’s bumbling sidekick, was reinterpreted as a gay character who gradually comes to terms with his sexuality and true feelings for Gaston. [...]

In Disney’s animated film, LeFou was written as comic relief and to showcase Gaston’s cruelness. The new interpretation of LeFou is appalling in inserting adult-level latent sexuality and upstaging the beauty and selflessness of Belle’s love with the shallow love LeFou has for the villain Gaston. Indeed, how can audiences celebrate an infatuation with a cruel, self-absorbed object? “Groundbreaking” though this alteration may claim to be, it still falls woefully short of being praiseworthy.
And it's just not suitable for children. Why, even the live action rendition of the anthropomorphic utensils in the film isn't very impressive compared to animation:
...did we really need to have realistic renditions of those sidekicks? In the original film, part of their charm came from fluidity of their animation. This version turns them into stiff, mostly lifeless entities, because, after all, an actual clock and a real teapot are only capable of so much mobility. The candelabra has a bit more, since its arms can move. The same goes for the coat rack, and at least the operatic armoire features some internal curtains to replicate the movement of a mouth speaking.
Sounds like they made this live action movie on a shoestring budget compared to the cartoon, instead concerning themselves with the PC messaging.

In the end, this says pretty much all we need to know about where Disney is going with their products. Even without the identity politics, the live action remaking suggests they no longer consider animation good enough. Depending how long Disney will still be around, we can probably expect a live action remake of Toy Story and Monsters Inc, because even 3-D animation isn't good enough for them any longer. Then they'll take the Mickey Mouse and Company costumes worn by performers at their theme parks and turn all their anthropomorphic animals into live action actors to boot. We've clearly reached a stage where art forms such as illustration aren't considered worthy any longer. No wonder the Marvel movies matter so much more to Disney than the comics do.

Labels: , , ,

Yeah, it's stupid to change Ariel's ethnicity in this, even moreso considering that, due to Lin Manuel Miranda's involvement and his previously barring whites from participating in the casting of Hamilton, that Halle Bailey's being signed on was most likely racially-motivated pure and simple. Say what you will about Emma Watson and Belle, at least she actually resembles Belle more or less.

Speaking of Emma Watson, I'll be honest, while not much good (I was very disgusted with how they made LeFou homosexual in the remake, and in fact, that was what started my full boycott against Disney when this became apparent), I personally thought the remake was actually BETTER than the 1991 film for a variety of reasons, and that if anything, the 1991 film was actually just as guilty if not even MORESO than the remake of many of these PC options (well, barring LeFou's sexuality or any character's sexuality, although Don Hahn did imply that The Mob Song was meant to invoke AIDS victims due to Howard Ashman having his last throes during that time), and I can even give a whole list of just how bad the original 1991 film was.

Not seeing the problem with Ariel being black in the live action remake. The question I have is will the prince also be black? If not, a significant portion of the black audience will not be happy. Then again, making the audience happy is no longer a big Disney priority at this point.

(continued from prior post)

For starters, Belle in the beginning song, while clearly framed as being some poor sap who can't get much respect, is shown to basically be talking down to her fellow peers at the village, many of whom, such as the baker, simply cannot afford the time to listen to her talking about her books simply because they are busy with work, and disses the village as provincial. And many of the reasons she refused to marry Gaston actually did match up with the Federalist's complaints about the movie regarding why she refused to marry. In fact, in the original film, when Gaston is outlining their future plans as husband and wife, she develops a sickened reaction the second he mentions "dogs" in reference to children she'll bear him, and she actually humiliates him by launching him into a mudpool (and her smirk afterward implied she deliberately intended for him to fall into the pool). What's even worse is that the only women in the film who show ANY positive views towards marrying are the Bimbettes, and as you can guess from the name, they're demeaned by being depicted like dumb blondes and bimbos who fall for the nearest hunk. Might as well also add that the reasons she even was in the village in the first place are never revealed, nor do they explain why, despite clearly being able to afford the time to read all day instead of doing any actual work, neither Belle nor Maurice even seemed to consider moving out (it clearly can't be due to finances, since Belle having the ability to read all day, a luxury especially back then, would suggest she's financially capable of simply moving out).

Oh, and while she does take initiative in doing the prisoner swap, she unfortunately managed to violate her promise within just a few hours, indicating she wasn't even trustworthy with her own word (deliberately disobeying Beast and the servants and going into the West Wing, and for reasons that came across as being out of spite), and her violation of that promise (which she even admitted she was violating the deal) meant she just endangered her dad into getting abducted again. Oh, and when Beast saved her sorry butt from the wolves, while she does save him (and came across as superhuman by lifting Beast onto the horse without any apparent aid), and give a curt thanks, she basically blamed him for the whole thing despite the whole situation was more her fault than his fault. Oh yeah, and she refused to dine with him even when he politely asked twice, albeit at the servants prodding and was clearly uncomfortable having to swallow his pride, and even blew off the wardrobe's attempt at convincing her to give him a chance. She even glares at him when he tells her to close her eyes since it's a surprise gift, indicating the only reason she fell for him was because of that library he gave her.

Oh, and after leaving the castle, despite clearly deducing Gaston was responsible for organizing the mob as blackmail against her to force her hand in marriage, she ends up selling out Beast and the servants all in order to get out of a jam, and she clearly didn't even think that through since she reacted with surprise when Gaston inevitably rabbleroused. And thanks to her "civilizing" Beast and how he doesn't even attempt to fight back to defend his servants, let alone himself, when the mob came for him, until Belle was present, it's implied that men aren't even allowed to defend themselves unless a woman is nearby. Oh yeah, and Lumiere was depicted as an unrepentant womanizer in the original, especially in the sequels (where he had another girlfriend named Angelique in addition to the featherduster) and the special edition (where he shamelessly admits he's going to resume his sporting and courting, which if Mrs. Potts is to be believed, he's even gone as low as to bed already-married women). That's about as inappropriate for kids as LeFou being gay in the remake was. Maurice wasn't even allowed to save Belle even ONCE, instead he has to be saved. Actually, I must admit, with the triplets and Belle, they completely screwed up their characterizations, since the triplets came far closer to actually having inner beauty even WITH their crush on Gaston than Belle did. And there's some implicit denouncement of Christianity since the villagers often used phrases such as "sin", "praise the lord", and "say a prayer", and are clearly depicted as bad guys (not helping matters is Gaston actually making most Bond villains seem smart by openly bragging about key details about his plan to blackmail Belle and the villagers supporting him due to the writers being cynical about their audiences), and by contrast, Belle, the character the story treats as a moral paragon, is implied to not even believe in God.

Not to mention it seems to condemn marriages, since aside from Belle ruining a wedding and being treated positively for it, we don't even see or have it even be implied that Belle and Adam are married. What's worse, Linda Woolverton, the lady who screenwrote the movie, makes it very clear she was trying to push feminism onto the masses in every interview she made since I think 1992, as did Don Hahn, and apparently, it pushing feminism (especially the far-left kind from the 1970s) was due to Jeffrey Katzenberg demanding that thanks to some critics denouncing Ariel as "cloyingly sexist"... get this, because she even WANTED to go for Eric at all. A bit of a side note, but for all of the narrative of how Belle's the most beautiful woman in the village, she certainly seemed to be outclassed by the triplets and to a lesser extent the featherduster's human form, both of whom wouldn't look out of place in a Dead or Alive game. If I must be honest, The Little Mermaid did the whole foil thing regarding the moral of true beauty coming from within far better between its female protagonists.

At least the remake included a Village Chaplain who is both treated positively and is also shown to actually approve of Belle's literacy (in fact, that's actually pretty accurate to history, since Christianity if anything encouraged literacy to both women and men), not to mention her dad is actually allowed to save her once, Belle in the remake actually HAS foils that befit the moral of the tale who do come across as internally ugly to say the very least, and Lumiere and the featherduster are an actual married couple and not "friends with benefits." Not to mention her reason for going to the village is actually explained, as is why they don't just pack up and leave (as her dad's too depressed over his wife's death to care about moving out). So, yes, even with LeFou being changed into a homosexual man for no reason at all, I STILL would label it a better movie than the original.

Sorry for the lengthy multi-posts, but it was way too long to fit into one post.

Mr. Bee, maybe if they didn't blatantly hire Halle Bailey to play Ariel to fill racial quotas as part of that leftist diversity con due to Lin Manuel Miranda playing a role in the production of the movie (you remember him, the guy who did Hamilton and explicitly... blacklisted any white actors from any involvement in the cast, whites need not apply I believe the casting call said), there'd be little problem with Ariel being black, no matter how nonsensical it is for there to be a black mermaid when she is apparently surfacing even LESS than in the original thanks to Scuttle being changed into a diving bird. However, as it is, it's a mistake.

Why exactly do you even care Mr. Green? You don't even like western animation! Hell, even the one cartoon you actually watch (Rocky & Bullwinkle) you probably don't care for much, what with the sketchy animation, long drawn-out plotlines, and the fact that fairy tails are used in-between the main portions of the cartoon just to extend the length of the average episode to about 30 minutes.

It seems more likely that mermaids are a case of divergent rather than parallel evolution. That is, they evolved from people, not fish. They are obviously mammals, can breathe in the atmosphere, and have characteristics like long flowing hair that would have been unlikely to evolve from fish under water. They are more like other aquatic animals that evolved from land animals - dolphins, whales - than like fish.

For that to have happened, it would have had to happen in warm waters; people who threw off their clothes to go into the water full-time would have frozen to death in Norway. So Africa is a likely spot. Would they have lost their pigmentation over time like the Africans who migrated to Northern Europe? Perhaps - but mermaids like to bask in the sun on rocks, so they would still have needed sun protection, and even the whitest of skin would not have let in much vitamin C at the bottom of the ocean. In real life, I think, mermaids would be colored like many marine animals - light on the belly, so someone looking up would confuse them with the light from the surface, dark on the back, so that someone looking down would confuse them with the ocean bottom.

Man may be the product of evolution, but mermaids are a direct creation of God.

This will blow the tops of super religious people who read the above comment.

So how do people decide how to create racial quotas anyway?

Post a Comment

About me

  • I'm Avi Green
  • From Jerusalem, Israel
  • I was born in Pennsylvania in 1974, and moved to Israel in 1983. I also enjoyed reading a lot of comics when I was young, the first being Fantastic Four. I maintain a strong belief in the public's right to knowledge and accuracy in facts. I like to think of myself as a conservative-style version of Clark Kent. I don't expect to be perfect at the job, but I do my best.
My profile



  • avigreen2002@yahoo.com
  • Fansites I Created

  • Hawkfan
  • The Greatest Thing on Earth!
  • The Outer Observatory
  • Earth's Mightiest Heroines
  • The Co-Stars Primer
  • Realtime Website Traffic

    Comic book websites (open menu)

    Comic book weblogs (open menu)

    Writers and Artists (open menu)

    Video commentators (open menu)

    Miscellanous links (open menu)

  • W3 Counter stats
  • Bio Link page
  • blog directory Bloggeries Blog Directory View My Stats Blog Directory & Search engine eXTReMe Tracker Locations of visitors to this page  
    Flag Counter

    This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

    make money online blogger templates

Older Posts Newer Posts

The Four Color Media Monitor is powered by Blogspot and Gecko & Fly.
No part of the content or the blog may be reproduced without prior written permission.
Join the Google Adsense program and learn how to make money online.