How do you guys feel about it? Don't care? Angry neck beard about it?
I always thought its a slap in the face to fans. Entirely depends on where others draw some lines.
For example; The Little Mermaid. I have no idea why a different casting of ethnicity needed to be made when red haired is already a minority but here we here we are. Dont get me wrong, love Halle Bailey, been a personal crush for awhile, but i think we Knew her as a redhead, so why the change? I never understood why the need to change casting when there's a plethora to fit the narrative. A better example is Spiderman as Miles. Tell that story!
Anywho, drunk.
Re: Different interpretations of source
Posted: Sat May 25, 2024 7:05 am
by pmac666
Dont care at all. Saw a vid once with black kids watching that and they were so happy to see someone like them on screen that i cant be mad about that. And it enrages the racists and fuckheads. Double win. And how is it a slap to the fans? Those fans are usually 7 yrs old (the 55 yr old white dude whos all winded up about it on Twitter is no "fan"). lol Also Disney wouldnt do it if there werent some good old moneys in it....
Also it happened throughout history. Men played women in antique greek plays, also in sheakespearen times. White men played black men in early cinema. Gays played the greatest lovers. Trump plays a politician. And now we have a black mermaid. Whats the deal?
Re: Different interpretations of source
Posted: Sat May 25, 2024 7:40 am
by 2dimes
Ok, I retract everything since we’re talking about something else now.
Re: Different interpretations of source
Posted: Sat May 25, 2024 7:45 am
by bigtoughralf
The Little Mermaid only has red hair in the first Disney film because that's the colour Disney picked, the book barely says anything about her appearance. How she looks isn't relevant to the character or the story.
Both Disney movies completely changed the story anyway. In the original the prince marries someone else and the mermaid kills herself. If the gatekeepers really care about lore they should be boycotting both Disney versions.
Re: Different interpretations of source
Posted: Sat May 25, 2024 9:07 am
by 2dimes
Yeah, time to stop pandering to peoples feelings and return to beatings at work, because Ralf dared talk back to his supervisor. Kids are too soft these days.
Re: Different interpretations of source
Posted: Sat May 25, 2024 10:52 am
by Lonous
Different interpretations is almost always lazy and/or awful, with few notable exceptions.
Notable horrible examples Highlander 2: changing the lore from immortals being special beings born with magical immortality in the first movie, to them turning out to be aliens from another planet in the 2nd. The change was so bad that when they did the 3rd movie, they just pretended that 2 never happened.
Star Wars, whichever sequel it was, 7,8 or 9? That had Leia flying through space. She goes from being barely cognizant of her connection with the force for 4 movies, to defying death and flying through space without suit or gear? GTFO
Notable exceptions Christopher Nolan and Batman The known Super Heroes have been around for more than half a century. While I personally am tired of the entire genre, I do understand that there is room to flesh out some of their stories a bit, as long as they don't completely rewrite them. Nolan did a fantastic job rebooting the Batman series. Would be nice if they could have settled on a single actor though.
The current trend of simply changing the race of a whole movie cast reeks of laziness and greed imo. Disney saves mucho money by not having to create new stories and scripts, and simply changes melanin for a new opening release. It also promotes an air of 'if the movie doesn't cater to me racially, its not worth watching'.
While it is lazy, there usually isn't anything seriously wrong with it, nor does it typically damage the story. As always there are/could be exceptions to it, but usually its just a meh move by the studio.
Re: Different interpretations of source
Posted: Sat May 25, 2024 11:51 am
by mookiemcgee
What the f*ck?
Highlanders were aliens??? I guess i need to go rewatch, in the end there can be only one... explanation that is accepted as cannon.
Re: Different interpretations of source
Posted: Sat May 25, 2024 11:58 am
by mookiemcgee
DirtyDishSoap wrote:How do you guys feel about it? Don't care? Angry neck beard about it?
I always thought its a slap in the face to fans. Entirely depends on where others draw some lines.
For example; The Little Mermaid. I have no idea why a different casting of ethnicity needed to be made when red haired is already a minority but here we here we are. Dont get me wrong, love Halle Bailey, been a personal crush for awhile, but i think we Knew her as a redhead, so why the change? I never understood why the need to change casting when there's a plethora to fit the narrative. A better example is Spiderman as Miles. Tell that story!
Anywho, drunk.
Free the Gingers!
Miles as spiderman is actual really well explained in comics and is fully cannon and part of the continuity. I wouldn't consider this a 'different interpretation of source' because Peter Parker is also still spiderman, they aren't rewriting just adding to the story.
Re: Different interpretations of source
Posted: Sat May 25, 2024 12:26 pm
by HitRed
The art rendering in Spiderman Miles is top notch.
Re: Different interpretations of source
Posted: Sat May 25, 2024 1:29 pm
by jonesthecurl
My Granddaughter loves Moon Girl, the 9-year-old Haitian-American superhero. It helps she looks quite a lot like her
Re: Different interpretations of source
Posted: Sat May 25, 2024 2:31 pm
by Dukasaur
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid. I never wasted my money going to see 7, 8, or 9. Now I'm glad I didn't.
The Highlander lore is completely retarded in either interpretation. We should have a Highlander 5 where it turns out he's a Cyberdyne Systems T-1000 model.
Ralf is absolutely right. Our perception of what Ariel looks like, or Snow White, or Cinderella, or Aladdin, is hopelessly twisted by the fact that for most of us the first Disney interpretation is the one that sticks in our head.
It bothers me far more that they've all been twisted to have unblemished perfectly innocent heroes and happy endings when in fact the heroes of the original folk tales were often morally questionable and the endings were often tragic. Ariel, as noted, killed herself. Aladdin wasn't the starving youngster who had to steal to eat, but in fact a typical young punk who stole just for the thrill, while his mother had a perfectly good dinner waiting for him at home. Snow White's evil stepmother didn't kill herself, she was tortured to death at the Prince's command. Pinocchio, in the original story, killed the cricket because he didn't want to listen to its moralizing.
Changing the appearance and race of people in new adaptations is actually perfectly normal throughout history. People depict people as they imagine them, and how they imagine the good guys is like their friends, and how they imagine the bad guys is the ones on the other side of town.
Re: Different interpretations of source
Posted: Sat May 25, 2024 3:40 pm
by DirtyDishSoap
Here's a fun tidbit that explains it better
I personally don't care at the end of the day, but just have to ask "why though?"
I don't know, i feel like if i were an author and people are changing it it to fit whatever narrative they want, it's done mostly in bad faith
Re: Different interpretations of source
Posted: Sat May 25, 2024 3:58 pm
by HitRed
Frankenstein is the most changed from the book. The monster is intelligent, emotional, strong and fast. Climbing and bounding with ease. How they got to the movie version is baffling.
Re: Different interpretations of source
Posted: Sun May 26, 2024 2:27 am
by 2dimes
Ok, so now we have decided to agree with Ralf and sing ring around the posey?
I have vague recollections of the original little mermaid from the book. Plus the book we had might have been a reinterpretation too.
Wasn’t she muted by the witch and when she used human legs it was incredibly painful?
I thought, maybe as a mermaid she was a siren. You know, her beautiful voice could make men fall in love. The purpose of that in mythology was to lure sailors to steer ships into the rocks. Possibly to eat the crew? So that was changed by Hans in his story to her wanting to marry the prince.
Looked into sirens. Turned out they weren’t originally mermaids. They were half birds. So I guess, now we need to get emotional about that reinterpretation?
This is why we can’t have nice things.
Re: Different interpretations of source
Posted: Sun May 26, 2024 8:20 am
by Dukasaur
If that's all you got out of that, you're impoverished.
I'm far more concerned about Pinocchio than Ariel.
Re: Different interpretations of source
Posted: Sun May 26, 2024 9:36 am
by Pack Rat
Grown men chatting about The Mermaid movies?
Hysterical!
Re: Different interpretations of source
Posted: Sun May 26, 2024 1:26 pm
by Votanic
The real point here is the hypocritical double standard of the self-serving Left. ...and the capitalist corporations that pander to them. The very ones who push for a mass-market black mermaid are the same people who screech out words like 'cultural appropriation', 'whitewashing', 'blackface', etc. etc. whenever they see something they don't like. They are opposed to the KKK but think the Black Panthers are just fine. ...so yes, they're totally racist.
I actually encourage all kinds of of cultural mash-ups. (Disney only cares about the dough...) Blacks as nordic-inspired mermaids, white actors playing murderous blackamoors in appropriate make-up, Amos & Andy (and Richard & Eddie,Wil & Chris, etc.), Aunt Jemima vs. the Quaker Oats Guy, White Chicks, Get Out, Birth of a Nation, etc, etc.
How about the all-mixed-up Hamilton play (which does exist), the all-white MLK play (which does not). so BY ALL MEANS, let's see a full range of creative interpretations.
pmac666 wrote:Saw a vid once with black kids watching that and they were so happy to see someone like them on screen that i cant be mad about that.
So then, the 'black kids' were racist. Not surprising, alot of that round.
pmac666 wrote:Also Disney wouldnt do it if there werent some good old moneys in it....
Yes indeed, this is the true reason. ..but it's also obvious, so don't feel too clever about it.
Re: Different interpretations of source
Posted: Sun May 26, 2024 1:55 pm
by Pack Rat
Looks like some white privileged guy is playing victim.
Re: Different interpretations of source
Posted: Sun May 26, 2024 2:05 pm
by Votanic
Pack Rat wrote:Looks like some white privileged guy is playing victim.
You're just a racist spam-bot... now come back with some more AI-generated 'catch-phrases'.
I am actually very unbiased. By all means get as melanin-creative as you want...
Re: Different interpretations of source
Posted: Sun May 26, 2024 5:41 pm
by mookiemcgee
So which highlander do i have to watch for the Alien backstory I apparently missed my whole life?
Re: Different interpretations of source
Posted: Sun May 26, 2024 5:41 pm
by pmac666
pmac666 wrote:And it enrages the racists and fuckheads. Double win.
Re: Different interpretations of source
Posted: Sun May 26, 2024 5:59 pm
by Votanic
pmac666 wrote:
pmac666 wrote:And it enrages the racists and fuckheads. Double win.
Totally! Like these racist fuckheads... and the thousands more like them. Imagine going around saying only one race or skin color matters. You'd have to be a totally racist libtard to buy into that. Non-racists know. • All Lives Matter • Imposing and relying on quotas and affirmative action to make you think you achieved something is the true hallmark of the inferior... • Limiting Freedom of Speech and Expression and embracing Cancel Culture just to give yourself an unfair advantage is pathetic.
Re: Different interpretations of source
Posted: Sun May 26, 2024 8:44 pm
by Dukasaur
Votanic wrote:Imagine going around saying only one race or skin color matters.
(,,,)
• All Lives Matter
I'm not sure if you're deliberately trolling or if you legitimately misunderstand the point.
But I guess it's only fair that I assume the latter.
At no point did anyone say that ONLY one race matters. They don't say, "Only Black Lives Matter" but rather that they matter also.
The point was, when a white kid is shot by the cops, it's seen as a great tragedy, there's (usually) a full investigation, often the cop is disciplined. When a black kid is shot by the cops, they shrug their shoulders, say "oh well, another dead n___, who cares?" and it's usually swept under the rug. The cop is rarely disciplined.
They weren't taking to the streets to demand special treatment, they were taking to the streets to demand equal treatment, to have their childrens' deaths treated as seriously as the deaths of our children.
Re: Different interpretations of source
Posted: Sun May 26, 2024 9:08 pm
by Lonous
mookiemcgee wrote:So which highlander do i have to watch for the Alien backstory I apparently missed my whole life?
If you have seen the original Highlander and are familiar with the lore, you can go straight to #2. The entire alien story is contained in Highlander 2
I will do my duty here to humanity, and caution you to make sure you really really want to proceed with a viewing. Just incase you do decide to throw caution and sanity to the wind and watch it once, I won't give any further spoilers than I already have. However I will leave you with a collection of snippets from official reviewers of the film
Critical response On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film has a rare approval rating of 0%
Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times gave the film a score of 0.5 stars (out of four), saying: "Highlander II: The Quickening is the most hilariously incomprehensible movie I've seen in many a long day—a movie almost awesome in its badness. Wherever science fiction fans gather, in decades and generations to come, this film will be remembered in hushed tones as one of the immortal low points of the genre … If there is a planet somewhere whose civilization is based on the worst movies of all time, Highlander 2: The Quickening deserves a sacred place among their most treasured artifacts."
Alex Carter of Den of Geek wrote: "I started writing this to try and shed a different light on this unappreciated classic, but I can't. I really can't. Highlander II is awful. It's not even "so bad it's good" territory, it skips right past that into the "so awful you can't look away for fear you'll both be killed" territory. And amazingly, it manages to not only be contender for worst film in the world, but it also runs the entire franchise into the ground and retcons the first film into oblivion in the space of 15 minutes ... For decades, this was the punchline for every bad movie joke, the bad sequel to end all bad sequels. This is a film that wishes it could be as good as Santa Claus Conquers The Martians."
Posted: Sat May 25, 2024 5:31 am
Like these racist fuckheads... and the thousands more like them. 