Disney General - The saddest fandom on Earth

  • Thread starter Thread starter KO 864
  • Start date Start date
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

Which is Better

  • Chicken Little

    Votes: 433 27.5%

  • Hunchback 2

    Votes: 57 3.6%

  • A slow death

    Votes: 1,087 68.9%
  • Total voters
    1,577
Steamboat_Bill said:
There have already been several film versions of the story made in Europe, some under the "Donkeyskin" title, and others under the Grimms' title, "All Kinds of Fur."

No Disney version, though.
Click to expand...
Shows how popular a story like that could still find use in the film world at all.
 
JambledUpWords said:
If Disney were to make an animated telling of a classic fairytale that would make people lose their minds, moreso than The Little Mermaid, it would be Donkeyskin.

Donkeyskin is a Grimm’s fairytale that’s about a princess who ends up marrying her dad (the king) because his wife’s dying wish was that in order to remarry, he had to marry someone as beautiful as her (in the story, the only person that fits the description is the daughter)
Click to expand...
Have you seen the fact that Elsanna actually had a following? Not just guys who think sisters banging is hot, there were some lesbians too who were into it. Fucking lol at the fact that this is what some people took out of a "romantic love isn't the only important kind" message aside, there are people who would go for that. Donkeyskin isn't the same thing, but seeing incest and Disney forcibly reminded me this happened.
 

The spergs are going nuts with this movie. Funny because these are the same manchildren who hate the Emoji Movie as if it raped their mother. Ralph 2 does the same product placement but suddenly it's "witty", "wonderful", and more blah.
 
I get a bit annoyed that people always say Beauty and the Beast is Stockholm syndrome. You get a lot of feminist types shitting on that movie too. But Beauty and the Beast is one of the few movies where they didn't fall in love after one meeting. I really liked how it showed Belle and the Beast falling in love. I also am a big book worm, so Belle was my favorite princess growing up. I couldn't wait to find my prince that would give me a big library.
 
Nekromantik said:
I get a bit annoyed that people always say Beauty and the Beast is Stockholm syndrome. You get a lot of feminist types shitting on that movie too. But Beauty and the Beast is one of the few movies where they didn't fall in love after one meeting. I really liked how it showed Belle and the Beast falling in love. I also am a big book worm, so Belle was my favorite princess growing up. I couldn't wait to find my prince that would give me a big library.
Click to expand...
This. If it were Stockholm syndrome the Beast wouldn't have changed his ways but Belle would've wound up liking him anyways. But the movie clearly shows that Belle didn't spend time with the Beast until after he stopped yelling and trying to order her around like one of the servants. And yes, it's really nice to see that things happened gradually, over the course of an entire winter, instead of the span of a couple of days or so.
 
Bread Fetishist said:
https://wdwnt.com/2018/12/craig-gil...on-cruella-de-vil-emma-stone-to-play-cruella/
Click to expand...

Did Disney forget how awful 102 Dalmatians was? Much like Barney Fife, You can't make Cruella de Vil a central character because that's not how the character works. In order for the character to work you have to have good characters for her to bounce off off and you can't have her on the screen all the time because you start to realize how two dimensional the character is. There's a reason it's Horace and Jasper that steal the puppies and take them out to the country where they spend their day watching What's My Crime until Pongo and Perdita come to rescue them.

It's always amazed me that Disney has never realized what made Cruella de Vil work. They seem to think she just shows up, acts evil and audience loves her. They don't realize that part of what made Cruella memorable was her being able to play off of Anita and Roger Radcliffe, Horace and Jasper and vice versa. This was due to the talents of the voice cast which included Lisa Davis (Anita) Ben Wright (Roger) , Fredrick Worlock (Horace) and J. Pat O'Malley (Jasper) who in addition to being talented had good chemistry with Cruella's actress Betty Lou Gerson.

Disney needs to stop trying to make 101 Dalmatians a live action thing. It's very clear they only care about Cruella, they don't put any effort into the scripts or casting and they seem to try to want to have gurrrlll power by making the Roger Radcliff, Horace and Jasper expies as stupid as possible, which comes off as very misandrist and stupidly not realizing what made the original characters great.
 
I wonder how they'll make Cruella some misunderstood feminist figure. It's really hard for audiences to sympathize with a dog killer. And if they're gonna pump her up as some "feminist role model", ala Maleficent... :story:
 
friedshrimp said:
I wonder how they'll make Cruella some misunderstood feminist figure. It's really hard for audiences to sympathize with a dog killer. And if they're gonna pump her up as some "feminist role model", ala Maleficent... :story:
Click to expand...

In the first crappy live action remake they hardly had her interact with the dogs at all and had another henchman named Skinner be the one to attempt to kill the dog. They also had everyone with a Y chromosome be as bumbling and incompetent as possible. They also implied the whole reason this happened was Cruella was angry Anita got married and that if Anita had stayed single or had gone Lesbo with Cruella this wouldn't have happened.
 
>Character is called Cruella
>Make her a sympathetic character

Why does Disney like to make characters who have evil names out to be sympathetic characters. Like this shit could work with characters who've done far less or could be rewritten to be morally grey/tragic figures (Like Frollo, Scar, Gaston, Ursula, and Captain Hook) but making a dog killer and a mistress of evil to be nice, just doesn't work. It's as logical as making Belle an evil sociopath who kicks dogs and eats children.
 
I always found it kind of funny how they took one of the most female centric stories out there (The Snow Queen), with 90% of the cast being female, with a girl saving a boy... and they added more male characters in it.

Girl power indeed. :story:
 
I'm just disgusted at Disney's regressive mentality.
I mean, seriously, why are their films starring WOMEN more now? First men, now women?!
Why JUST THEM?

What about the other 57 of us?!
 
Maybe they're gonna have Cruella be hilariously evil and have a villain centric movie. I mean it's hella unlikely, especially after Maleficent but how else they gonna make a puppy skinner sympathetic? As mentioned above lesbians does seem like a likely solution but it would cut out the China market (not that it would be a big film in Cathay anyway). Judging by the director's credits, (I, Tonya; United Sates of Tara; Million Dollar Arm; Lars and the Real Girl) it seems likely we'd be getting either an 'inspirational' movie, or a funny movie about mental illness. Shot in the dark really. Let's hope for the best.
 
FrickinFrackinFruckin said:
I feel bad for normal people who have to deal with 3rd wave feminist/SJW cunts at colleges. Seriously this shit is ridiculous. https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment...tle-mermaid-misogny-complaints-154743722.html
Click to expand...
I mean, of these really are random strangers being taken on stage to kiss someone they don't know that's pretty awkward. But the song is harmless, particularly as the movie makes it very clear that Ariel really wants to be kissed during that number.

I strongly suspect people are going after harmless shit like this is partly because it's well known, but mostly because the song was written by white men about a white couple (though sung by a Jamaican man) and more legitimate targets involves complaining about music by precious, innocent black men people of color.
 
How do you make a Disney film centering around someone who wants to kill puppies?

Like, realistically that kind of movie would be a psychological thriller of a woman growing up in a fucked up house hold and torturing animals at a very young age. Something that Disney I don't think has the balls to touch considering their "family friendly" brand.
 
scorptatious said:
How do you make a Disney film centering around someone who wants to kill puppies?
Click to expand...
I mean, The Simpsons made a parody of 101 Dalmatians with Mr Burns filling the role of Cruella, and it wasn't even that out of place for Mr Burns, who is supposed to be cartoonishly evil. That's how messed up the character of Cruella is.
 
scorptatious said:
How do you make a Disney film centering around someone who wants to kill puppies?
Click to expand...

Its not that hard to take a dark subject and set a fluffy enough tone so that it becomes suitable for children. See: Little Shop of Horrors, Sweeney Todd, and A Series of Unfortunate Events. Obviously Cruella can never murder a puppy on screen, but it wouldn't be difficult to portray her as a fun and eccentric character.

Or there's always the dumb option:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom