The Little Mermaid - it hasn't been out yet but it'll flop
Annie - $133.8 million vs $65-78 million budget..hardly a massive hit
Fantastic 4 - Only made $167.9 million against a $200 million production/marketing budget
The Wiz - Only made $13.6 million on a $24 million budget
How about they make up new stuff instead of rebooting every film they ever made?
shareThank you!
shareI agree. People say Disney/Hollywood have run out of ideas but I don’t buy that. There are multitudes of stories out there that they still haven’t told, and people come up with new ones every day. Hollywood is less interested in creativity and new, groundbreaking ways to tell new stories, and more interested in cashing in on films that were already successes as well as ideology and indoctrination.
Disney in particular couldn’t be in a better position to tell new stories. Walt Disney took risks as he built his empire, and the Disney company were broke many times and close to bankruptcy, yet Walt never considered selling out. Now the Disney company has billions upon billions of dollars, they have more than enough room to be creative, and if a movie doesn’t do well it’s no big loss. Yet what are they doing? They are taking the easy, lazy way out by playing on peoples’ nostalgia and remaking the same movies that are a more crappy version of the classics they were made from.
This is not their culture. They are being shoehorned into it. It was not the mindset of their people to originate this. All they have is taking what we come up with. If they stayed in their original habitat it would not be an issue.
Also: dogs can't run for office- the right tool for the right job.
But then they wouldn't have an already built fanbase to try and milk.
shareI’m pretty sure The Wiz did horribly because it was botched from the otherwise very good Broadway musical.
shareYou'll also notice people forgot about those films less than a year after they came out.
share[deleted]
I recall people here celebrating because Hidden Figures, a film that focused on the efforts of three female black employees of NASA was going to bomb; because "everyone just knew only white people contributed to the space program".
I guess it did bomb, as long as box office bomb is defined as only making nine times the production cost.
Why are you bringing that up?
What does that have to do with anything? You are trying to compare apples and oranges. Those were real people who were really involved in NASA.
The Little Mermaid is an existing story that doesn't need to be remade at all then those in charge want to virtue signal by changing the race of a beloved and well established character to be inclusive and to get rid of those evil white people.
Many people hate petty crap like this.
I guarantee you that if they just came up a brand new story with a black mermaid.....something totally new, no one would bat an eye. They just want existing, established, well known characters to be left alone.
That relates in no way to Hidden Figures. Good movie, I liked it.
Because certain people are offended when a character they feel that they "own" is corrupted by something as meaningless as the color of the skin the character has. They are upset when a person of color is acknowledged to have simply existed. Did you read the Hidden Figures forum?
The "race" is mermaid. Why are you getting upset as something as meaningless as skin color? The petty crap is people complaining about skin color. The opinions of a few vocal racists are nothing to be upset over.
Your guarantee is meaningless. Take a fictional story like Asimov's Foundation. The skin color of the characters were, for the most part, not mentioned at all in the books. But this did not stop some people from complaining about the non-white cast. One person even claimed that science fiction characters and readers were, by default, white.
I’ve asked this question before, and I will ask it again here.
Would you be saying all that if the reverse happened? Which would be if a black character was rewritten into a white character?
It would depend upon why the character was re-written. If the casting was colorblind, then not a problem.
shareOkay.
Say Disney decides to remake The Incredibles into a live action movie. Say they decide to rewrite the character Frozone into a white man instead of black. Doesn’t really change the story, although he is a pretty well-liked character from what I can tell.
Would you be okay with that?
I would be okay with it; not my property to do with as I please. I can't imagine anyone else pulling off the character the way Jackson did though. I think the film would have less impact without him. Jackson is like some other actors, a person whose presence transcends race.
If they do a live action version, I doubt Jackson would be in it as he is 73 now.
I will make a note that you said all this, in the event that something like this should ever happen.
shareWhat, was Chelsea the Golden Retriever supposed to be a Black Lab in the original version?
shareI can tell you I will not bother seeing this.
I have already seen The Little Mermaid. I have zero interest in reboots.
I never saw Total Recall 2....Footloose 2....Ghostbusters reboot or any other.
I have seen the REAL movie and have zero interest in reboots.
But you are very interested in discussing the film. Why?
shareBecause this is a discussion board, not a fan board, and anyone can discuss anything about the movie they want.
Maybe he/she has his/her own reasons for discussing this movie and he/she does not have to tell you what they are, and you are only asking that question because he/she is not interested in the way you want him/her to be interested.
Just a thought.
So I should be able to discuss Hans-Wilhelm's obsession with The Little Mermaid without backlash?
shareI’m saying you guys obviously want us to care. And not just about this Little Mermaid movie, but any issue.
Particularly issues that the ones who push them want approval from public opinion. Actually not just approval, but celebration. And if anyone forms an opinion that is anything but that, the response is” why do you care so much! you’re intolerant! You bigot! You racist! Can’t be for any other reason. Why do you care so much?” While obviously, you wanted us to care. Why would you have opened yourselves to this publicly if you didn’t? You didn’t just want us to care, you wanted all of us to celebrate with you but life doesn’t work that way.
Same with this Little Mermaid movie. Disney is gallivanting around and going, “Look guys! We’re remaking this movie that you love so much! Oh, and we cast a black actress this time! Don’t you just love it???” And if someone says no, they don’t love it, they’re told, “ Oh, you racist bigot! Why do you care so much? Can’t be because of any other reason!” Disney, you wanted us to care about this. If you didn’t want our opinion, maybe you shouldn’t have opened yourselves to this. Instead of insulting your own audience, try listening to them for a change.
We’re sick and tired of it.
You are weaseling around what the whiners are actually saying. The whiners are saying they do not want a black actress in the role of Ariel, because her skin is not white.
It is not an insult to cast a black actress in a role that was previously filled by a white actress.
If Disney decides to listen to the minority highly vocal racist audience, they will lose.
And there you go again, throwing the racist label around without providing any evidence for it. Gee, I wonder who does that all the time, weaseling around by accusing the other side of what they are actually doing?
Guess what, Ranb? Disney doesn’t get to decide how we view things they put out. And neither do you. You put things in the public eye, you don’t get to decide the outcome.
Insulting me for my view is not going to change my mind, or make me want to give Disney my money. Disney could learn that same lesson.
There is evidence in The Little Mermaid portion of this forum if you're willing to read it. When a person (not you) tells me that the white race is superior to others due to the color of their skin, that is racism.
Everyone knows that Disney doesn't get to decide how you view things. Did you think anyone is going to amazed at your claim?
I'm quite certain that Disney is not re-making this film for you or other people whose dick falls off at the sight of a black actress in a remake of a fantasy cartoon.
I think if Disney has a lesson to learn, it is to never ever to even consider pandering to a racist crowd.
In other words, you have no evidence. And you have no argument. You sure are acting like you can determine that outcome, by deeming everyone who doesn’t agree with the casting choice as racist.
Because no one here is saying that white is superior to black. You are making that claim. The burden of proof is on you.
What if someone shows you that whites are superior to black? Is that racism or simply reality?
Go look at the history of every African country and the race of the leaders of those countries over time. You will see that when they have a white leader they do better than when they have a black leader. That same thing also tends to hold true for American cities and states. Now you've got data showing whites make better leaders... is that racism or simply reality?
You can also find area where blacks out perform whites, simply look at basketball and some other sports. Clearly if you are using only athleticism as a measure you would come to the conclusion that blacks are superior to whites... Is that racism?
It all depends upon who is showing me and what data they are using.
What does this got to do with people losing their minds over a black actress playing a mermaid based upon a old fairy tale?
[deleted]
As a colony, Haiti residents (slaves) were very brutally treated. You think they were better off as slaves?
share[deleted]
You act like you understand words on a forum. Why?
shareDo you even understand the concept or "remake" or the concept of "change the race of the main character"??
Some people might complain about Hidden Figures but those are usually a minority. Ignorant idiots are everywhere.
Plus: Hidden Figures had a budget of 25 mils :D
Changing the skin color of a fictional character is usually inconsequential. Changing the color of Ariel is really meaningless, based upon what I've seen in the trailer.
It was not that people "might have complained about Hidden Figures, some of them lost their minds over the depiction of black women as something more than a maid, slave or whore.
The people complaining about Ariel's skin color are also in the minority even if they are very vocal one on this forum.
I recall people here celebrating because Hidden Figures, a film that focused on the efforts of three female black employees of NASA was going to bomb; because "everyone just knew only white people contributed to the space program".
No longer hidden are they?
You're just making up crap and hopping people are stupid enough to believe you. It seems you haven't the slightest idea how many people were working for NASA back then. It was over 300,000. Many of them have been featured in books and online articles; you just can't be bothered to pick up a book and read or even surf the internet. Some of them are also featured in films and got far more attention than the three main characters in Hidden Figures.
It seems you would rather forget about almost anyone who got us to the moon; as long as you can complain about it.
LITTLE MERMAID ISN'T OUT YET,ANNIE WAS A BAD IDEA REGARDLESS OF RACE,FANTASTIC FOUR WAS A TERRIBLE MOVIE AND THE WIZ HAS COME TO BE KNOWN AS A CULT CLASSIC...YOU HAVE NO POINT.
NEXT YOU WILL THROW OUT GHOSTBUSTERS 2016...A FILM THAT IS NOT GOOD BECAUSE OF THE SCRIPT AND THE DIRECTOR'S INABILITY TO KNOW WHN ENOUGH RAMBLING IMPROV IS ENOUGH,NOT THE FEMALES.
But that's one of the points: when they focus on "how stunning and brave are to change the race/sex" and they forget that a movie needs more than just that. Even more when you piss off your audience with "stunning and brave" moves.
shareYou seem to not understand that a film such as Fantastic Four 2015 is a terrible film for a number of reasons. It was not terrible just because of a race swap, that is foolish and ignorant to think that. You can change the race of a fictional character so long as the race is not essential to the character. The Batman had a black commissioner Gordon and a mixed Catwoman and was a a successful film. It was also considered a good film.
shareCan you actually try to understand what I'm saying???
shareNo not when it doesn't make sense.
shareCan you actually try to understand what I'm saying???
Let me repeat:
"they forget that a movie needs more than just that."
DO YOU GET IT? Or do you need a map to understand what I mean by "more"??? Let me help you: "more" means a story, good characters, good cinema, good everything else.
No, a movie IS NOT good because you have a black character you idiot.
I never said it was good off that alone. Apparently you missed where I said fantastic four 2015 is an awful film. You believe that's the sole reason it's bad though. Which is why you claimed the Batman to be a bad film.
shareHuh? Did I say that Batman is a bad movie because catwoman was black?? HHahaha, you are insane.
shareYou claimed it to be bad. Is it just a coincidence it happens to have the aspect you don't like? I noticed a pattern if it doesn't fit your ideology it can't be considered a good film. Nothing about Catwoman's race is essential yet people such as yourself create outrage culture.
shareIt's not about financial failure. It's about subverting the image of our beloved characters and pushing the Leftist agenda. Soros and other wealthy shadowy backers will gladly eat the loss in order to distort the culture.
shareWhat about when they changed the race of Aladdin?
What about when Disney changed the original Little Mermaid story's plot? Wasn't the story itself beloved for 150 years before Disney pretty much erased the entire Christian moral of the story? Why does that not upset you, but changing the colour of a non human character does?
When did Leftists become the guardians of Christian morality?
shareWhat does that have to do with my question?
I'm trying to understand the outrage over skin colour over a mermaid, when changing a character from Chinese to Middle Eastern wasn't an issue. Why does a black actress change a character more than the entire reason for the mermaid wanting to be human in the first place?
The original Aladdin was only described as being from China by Arabic tale-tellers to invoke images of an exotic, faraway land. In the original and in every version of the story since, he has never explicitly been portrayed as Chinese. It's the kind of insignificant detail that can easily be changed by the teller. Thanks to Tales of the Arabian Nights, Medieval Arabia is already seen as more exotic and magical than medieval China by Westerners, who the movie was made by and for.
The original Little Mermaid story had too many adult themes that were inappropriate for modern children to be exposed to. No helicopter parents of little Millennials in the 90s would ever have taken their kids to see it.
Changing the race of the character alters their instantly recognizable appearance and also, it is usually done in a ham-handed way that makes no sense. If the story was shifted to the coast of Africa, perhaps it would have seemed more natural and not merely a sop to wokeness, as planting a black mermaid in a Scandinavian setting does.
Also, this is being done with virtually every single movie property that has been popular in the past. It's a cheap, exploitative ploy by unoriginal filmmakers. It's a cliche now. Why don't they write new stories starring people of color instead of stealing existing ones?
Well Jason Scott Lee has played Aladdin in Arabian Nights, so the role has been played by a Chinese person.
It's the kind of insignificant detail that can easily be changed by the teller.So why would that not apply to this role?
The original Little Mermaid story had too many adult themes that were inappropriate for modern children to be exposed toSo again, you have no issues with them sanitizing the story then to make it for "modern audiences", but you have a problem with it now because too many movies are doing it? Disney's Little Mermaid was changed drastically, including the setting. There is no way those characters are Danish. So, complaining that the remake of Disney's story isn't set in Denmark just seems weird to me. I also think that the topics in The Lion King, and The Hunchback of Notre Dame were quite adult and 90s parents didn't lose their shit over that.
It's a cliche now. Why don't they write new stories starring people of color instead of stealing existing ones?Disney has never been one for original stories. I think a lot of us would love to see originality, and would spend money to do so. Maybe not all of us are even looking forward to this version of The Little Mermaid. Just the outrage over skin colour really seems to be overkill for a mythical creature that doesn't even exist. share
So who is being exploited in your scenario? Do you feel exploited? If so, why? Viewing this film is entirely voluntary.
shareThe classic stories themselves are being exploited. Also, the many authors of color whose stories are ignored in favor of Woke retellings of traditionally white stories are being cheated out of the chance to have their original stories adapted.
shareThat is why books are turned into films; exploitation for money.
How many examples of "authors of color whose stories are ignored in favor of Woke retellings of traditionally white stories are being cheated out of the chance to have their original stories adapted", can you name?
Are you saying there is not enough room in this world for adaptations of works by people of color due to remakes of other works?
The stories are being turned into political propaganda, which is worse than mere exploitation for money. The black elf in Rings of Power getting chased and chained by white Orcs turns into an embarrassingly obvious "lesson" about evil whites mistreating noble blacks. Who wants their cultural touchstones weaponized against them?
Charles Saunders, M.K. Jemison, Marlon James, Octavia Butler... Those are just a few in the SF&F genres. There are many more authors of color whose works have not been deemed worthy of adaption. Are you saying there are no authors of color whose works are worth adapting?
LOL. I am not saying there isn't enough room for adaptions of works by people of color. HOLLYWOOD is saying that by neglecting to make these films in favor of revising proven properties with white characters. I guess that means Hollywood doesn't trust that authors of color would be marketable.
PROVEN PROPERTY OR UNPROVEN ...WONDER WHICH WINS OUT IN A BUSINESS SCENARIO MOST OF THE TIME.
shareSo yeah. You guys are saying there's no room for adaptions of works by people of color. Even though many of those works have won multiple awards.
Jemison wins the Hugo Award for best SF or F like every year she publishes. Hollywood still won't trust her and prefers to blackwash white characters.
It seems altering white characters is much more important than bringing originally black ones to the screen.
PLENTY OF ROOM...MORE SHOULD BE DONE...HOWEVER...MOVIES ARE A BUSINESS...AND IN BUSINESS A COMMODITY WITH BUILT IN FANS AND AWARENESS IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE AN EASIER SELL THAN AN UNPROVEN COMMODITY.
shareTo many people on this forum lose their minds if a person of color is on the screen in any role they think is unacceptable. The character of Ariel is a good example.
Orcs are cultural touchstones? Afraid you lost me on that one. Or did you mean something else?
I'm not saying the works of authors of color are not worth adapting. Either someone wants to adapt them or they don't.
The Lord of the Rings mythos as a whole is a cultural touchstone. Now it is being used as a weapon to "put Whites in their place."
shareWhy did that film make you feel as if you were being put "in your place"?
I'm not really buying that whole "cultural touchstone" thing. Lord of the Rings is just an old book and a film based upon it.
I did not feel that way, but it was obvious that the filmmakers intended to vilify white people and lay a slavery guilt trip on them with the evil, ugly white Orcs chaining and abusing the handsome, noble black elf. You couldn't get much more heavy-handed.
The Lord of the Rings is as close to a cultural touchstone as there has been for the last 100 years.
What did the producers say when you asked them about their motivations? Did they also state that was their obvious intent?
I've watched those films and I'm not seeing any cultural touchstone there.
The Lord of the Rings and Hobbit films were based on an extremely popular and beloved series of books written decades ago by J.R.R. Tolkien. They have become the standard for fantasy literature and have inspired serious study by academics. Without them, and the popularity they have worldwide, it's very likely the Fantasy and SF boom of the 70s and 80s would never have happened.
And yes, the producers confirmed every word I said.
Look, it's obvious to me from your last post that we aren't really shooting with the same caliber here. It's kind of pointless for me to argue about this with someone who is incapable of spotting the most blatant and unsubtle references.
"I'm trying to understand the outrage over skin colour over a mermaid, when changing a character from Chinese to Middle Eastern wasn't an issue."
Because it wasn't politically motivated and because the story itself is Middle Eastern in every single way except for that one line that refers to China. Disney wasn't the first to make Aladdin Middle Eastern.
Except for the ending, Disney's The Little Mermaid cartoon follows the original story pretty closely. It even takes place in a Mediterranean setting like the original. Turning her suddenly black does not make much sense.
Who gives a fuck. Its all make believe
shareSo are you.
shareLeast I’m not enraged over a make believe kids movie hahaha. Sad existence you live
share99% of your posts consists of you getting enraged about what someone else here on MC said. At least I don't live a troll existence...
shareYour team gave enough of a fuck to cry and race swap the make believe character in the first place.
shareDon’t have a team or a side boss. Couldn’t care less. Funny watching people get butthurt though. Having a good time stalking my posts there creep?
shareHave a little crush do you Miyagido? I’m don’t swing that way. But I’m flattered none the less!!
shareCome on now less of the homophobia, don't make that mod spank you again.
share[deleted]
Poor baby. What kind of adult runs to the mods. What a bitch you are. Loser incel
sharelol you just can't help yourself can you kid?
shareYou are the one that stalks me. Creep. Time to get a life son
shareAh yes we are "stalking" each other by replying on a public online forum, my god you're so dumb. Your routine is tiresome now though so time for you to go on the Old Yeller list with all of the other yappy dogs.
shareloser, you pop up on threads im on that you arent. You seek me out intentionally. Thank you though, its very flattering. Sad for you though
share👍
shareWhen conservatives finally perceive the disconnect between Christianity and Republicanism, they will choose Republicanism.
shareYep. Not about race either, but try telling these people that. And they know it’s not about race, but they will continue to claim it is anyway.
shareThey filmed an entire bat girl and it made the woke crowd vomit
shareThe 1982 Annie was a flop as well. It only made $57 million on a $35 million budget.
shareThe differences are quite simple. When you white wash a character such as having a movie called the prince of Persia yet the main character is “whitest guy ever” Jake Gylenhall, the outrage is kept at a minimum because the reason why he is there is not political, woke, or any other millennial nonsense, it’s simply because they think the movie might make more money that way (even if it often isn’t the case) and most of us can get behind someone trying to make more money.
When you take a child cartoon icon with red hair such as Ariel and make her black you are not doing it to make money, you are doing it to push some woke agenda and the movie doing well stops being your main concern. The movie will flop and Disney won’t care because they made their point.