They could have those characteristics as notable but if that’s all they have they end up as less interesting.
When I say
I mean that multiples of those conflicting characteristics can (and should) be represented in a single role, not that you have a single character called “good” and “evil” etc. (though I do see, purely by coincidence, that I listed 7 distinct traits…my bad)
I’m talking about if the “sidekicks” are exactly as they are depicted, but called by a different word.
First of all, lifeguards dont ask for consent for the kiss of life. next, it it still not uncommon to kiss a loved one in their coffin. I realize that for many that’s a 'eewww", but it was expected of me as a child at my grandmothers funeral- and pretty much every one who would kiss Grandmother while she was alive kissed her in the coffin… maybe an ‘air kiss’ sure.
The whole “consent” thing in this case is fucking stupid.
And as for “The Prince is a stalker! Weird…Weird!!”
I’d have to see it again.
Modern culture, IMHO, has erred on the side of conflating ‘pursuit and courting’ with stalking.
Is it wrong for Lloyd Dobler to stand outside whassheraces with a boombox? Nowadays…yes but moreso because you’d text a spotify link to your intended to get the same reaction…though maybe if youre being ironic, you could do the boombox thing.
Anyway, Lloyd Dobler almost certainly moved to Chicago and opened a record store.
I wonder if people are confusing this story with the Sleeping Beauty story, in which the princess is not presumed dead but only asleep, and is awakened with a kiss. There the “consent” objection makes slightly more sense.
I think he is advancing the cause of dwarfs by being known as a great actor, not just a great dwarf actor.
Dunno. It’s an interesting thought. They look cartoonish (non-human) enough that that might have done the trick.
I don’t know what to tell you if think lifeguards are kissing people. Maybe you think what happens in movies is real life? Here’s a link to help:
I’m sure he doesn’t think that, and that his point is that putting your lips on someone else’s, which under normal circumstances is something that is considered intimate enough that you don’t do it without the other person’s consent, is considered quite differently when the other person is unconscious and you’re doing it to try to save their life.
FYI, I’ve recently been certified in first aid in the US. You are required to obtain consent before administering first aid. There is a specific legal assumption that an unconscious person consents to first aid. Yes, if, somehow, the prince had been administering abdominal thrusts to attempt to dislodge the apple, that is allowed if the victim is unconscious. (If the victim is conscious, you must obtain consent before manhandling them.)
In contrast, the law assumes that an unconscious person DOES NOT consent to sexual activity. Which is what the prince is doing. I mean, I guess if she’s dead, the whole notion of consent doesn’t apply at all.
Anyway, it’s just a fairy tail. An icky fairy tale.
Tell yall what…if i happen across an unconscious maiden lying in a castle overgrown with a hundred years of flora OR i happen across a dead maiden who somehow resists decay locked in a glass coffin…imma kiss em both.
It is a strange word indeed where the biggest problem people have with a story, in which stabbing and poisoning of family members is front and centre, is when a prince kisses his lost love goodbye.
It is the equivalent of glossing over the infanticide and geronticide in Hansel and Gretel and focussing on the problems presented by a suger-rich diet.
Um, i started by objecting to the dwarfs. There’s a whole lot to dislike in that fairy tale. The kiss is just one of many icky features.
The thing that bothers me most is the whole “who is the fairest of them all” schtick, fwiw.
Now I’m hoping that instead of singing “Heigh-Ho” we get a scene of the Seven-Definitely-Not-Dwarves-But-Instead-Are-Serious-Characters-With-Agency end up singing “Baby, It’s Cold Outside.”
Well of course, that’s the point. It should bother you.
It is the villain that places the greatest emphasis on beauty and is so jealous of someone who she perceives as prettier that she is consumed by rage and is driven to murder. The clear message being that vanity is a bad thing.
It’ll be brought bang up to date “Hamilton” style with a rap battle, lay odds on it.
Letters
There’s lots of humor to be … mined by these “dwarfs” …
And very seriously some not quite fourth wall breaking comments that tease about the current culture inappropriateness of the cartoon could get some laughs. I’m hoping it doesn’t take itself too seriously but hope they resist the temptation to call one of the new magical cadre “Dinky”.
That said many fairy tales, especially the Grimm ones, are “icky” … and attempts to make them less so usually destroy them. Not sure how much such applies to this story and these changes but often these stories had staying power over many years because they addressed real unarticulated and perhaps “inappropriate” dark fears and fantasies in the safer space of stories. Vanity and jealousy and fears of parent figure loss, abandonment, and even betrayal … these are weighty things to a kid.
In any case, it is a given that Disney is going to leverage/exploit its library of intellectual property. It is pretty clear that the original is very dated, more in keeping with Walt’s view that women were just not right to even apply for certain jobs. A movie aimed at the little girl market today has to include her taking charge of her own fate and celebrate her not for her beauty most of all. It can mock patriarchy. It can twist old tropes. But end of day the girl finds her strength and saves herself and others.
None of that should shock anyone.
I feel this is a reference lost on me.
Extra letters for Discourse.