It may, just, have made it’s money back. I’m not sure how that counts as a success.
Well,he thought she was dead. And magic was involved. Since it takes the kiss of love to wake her up.
He didn’t know he was going to find her ‘dead’ and was moved to kiss her by grief. Its hardly outlandish.
The dwarves in the book, the Hobbit, are a little problematic. It’s an old book, and it’s a product of it’s time.
It’s pretty good as books of that era go, honestly. I was really pissed at the treatment of Gimli in the LOTR movie, though.
Fairly few movies, especially of the Disney crowd, this year seem to be pulling that off. Even Indiana Jones disappoints. More to the point is the company it is keeping in the live action remake: 101 Dalmatians ($320 million), Cinderella ($543 million), Maleficent ($758 million), The Jungle Book ($966 million), and the billion-dollar-plus blockbusters — Aladdin , Alice in Wonderland, Beauty and the Beast, and The Lion King.
There are live action flops (Pinocchio comes to mind) but not many have lost huge amounts and that likely helps getting a big investment greenlighted.
And note: some of those successes were fairly faithful re-dos and some very complete re-imaginings.
Yes, earlier I posted that the “dwarfism community” seems to be very angry that Dinklage- who has already got it made- opened his big fat mouth, as they would love a nice fat Disney check.
The main people who complained about that film never even saw it. Read “Who’s afraid of Song of the South” by Jim Korkis to get the real story. Not to mention that film was made in 1946, which is over 70 years ago.
Yes, and yeah, there are a few things that are -today-a little bit controversial, somne things could be called stereotypes. But it isnt racist at all. I mean, look at all the praise for Gone with the Wind, which is racist as all fuck.
I didnt miss his point, nor did the “dwarfism community”- his point was “I got mine jack,” so I dont give a fuck if other members of the community get work.
She is, the Wicked Queen is her stepmother. And when a lifeguard does the “kiss of life” no one screams it isnt consensual. Not to mention they love each other, and if he didnt she’d rot and die.
After the two real comic relief characters left (Merry and Pippin) Jackson unwisely picked on Gimli a few times.
Since we’re getting quasi-political while remaining very polite:
My biggest problem isn’t race-swapping (though i prefer if the production tries a little to make it make sense). It’s in order of annoyance:
-
“We want the show to reflect the world outside our door”. Whose door?? the vast vast majority of the world doesn’t look like that Benneton ad/ community theatre pic we’ve been talking about.
-
A failure to understand the theme of the show or just changing it so much that its isn’t even the base property. There’s no Prince Charming? MMMMM Snow White don’t need no man!!! What’s wrong with love FFS? You wanna tweak it? Throw in a trope-buster line…ok fine.
But the worst offender was Peter Pan and Wendy. Girls in the Lost Boys? The book SPECIFICALLY says there are no girl Lost Boys because girls arn’t stupid enough to fall out of their prams.
After the two real comic relief characters left (Merry and Pippin) Jackson unwisely picked on Gimli a few times.
My take overall was that he was a ‘laugh in the face of danger’, While strengthing his bond with Legolas. But YMMV
They seem to mean “the statistical average demographics for the US as a whole”. But of course the racial/ethic distribution in individual areas is much more lumpy than the national average. My area of rural South Carolina is well above 90% white, for example, while for the US as a whole it is less than 70%.
THE dwarfism community? So they all feel this way?
You really think this is his point?
I believe it’s true that the community of second-tier dwarf actors would, by and large, rather get a role than not get a role. I think most dwarfs aren’t actors at all, and are more interested in how dwarfs are portrayed than in how many dwarfs get acting jobs.
Yes.
I think I haven’t a clue what “most” think, neither do any of us, but I do not accept Mr. Dinklage as spokesperson for the whole. If I had to make a WAG I’d guess most are not so invested in Hollywood upcoming releases and would wait to see what something was before condemning it for what it might or might not be.
They’re important as a group, as in someone has to find Snow White have her stay with them, and someone needs to be sad when bad things happen to her.
But they’re not important at all as individuals. They are used primarily as comic relief outside of what I described above. They each have a single characteristic which is used for comedy. You could replace all seven of them with maybe 2 or three people out in the woods and the plot wouldn’t really change.
I do also think Disney doesn’t really treat the Dwarfs as quite human. Unlike other animated humans, they aren’t face characters. They’re played in a full suit, like the animated animals and mythical/magical creatures.
So I can understand the idea that they aren’t really treated like people, and thus why Dinklage might object to that. That said, I could also think that Dinklage’s goal was just to push Disney to not do it like that again, encouraging them to make them fuller characters who matter.
As for the remake itself: Disney does two different kinds: the one that is mostly faithful to the original, and the one that is deliberately trying to be something different. They seem to have decided on the latter for this. And, yes, this could be in large part due to Dinklage’s objection.
Waiting until the movie came out would not allow his influence. And this is clearly something he feels passionate about.
That’s fair. But as BigT says, Dinklage had influence at the start, and not after it’s out.
And while i have no idea how the typical dwarf will take this movie that I’ve never seen and know little about, i suspect that most find the original cartoon pretty cringey. I certainly would.
There’s a fair amount of discussion upthread (from when the thread first appeared a year and a half ago) over whether the dwarfs (in the original animated film) are intended to be human beings or nonhuman mythic/folkloric creatures.
I’m inclined toward the latter, though it’s been a long time since I’ve seen the film.
I interpreted what he said as the original is so problematic that it should never be remade at all despite how ground breaking it may have been, like Birth of a Nation or something.
Yes, not to mention their big pink clown noses. They do look more like creatures than humans.
It’s a pretty horrible story, if you think about it.
So if there is no Prince Charming this time around, how will she come back from “the dead”? Something about this version feels a little off to me.