Mulan was pretty bad. Lion King was mainly just pointless. I thought Cinderella was a mixed bag and Aladdin seemed quite bad to me.
I did not see Lady and the Tramp and the most panned of the bunch was Pinocchio, which I also skipped.
I also didn’t see Little Mermaid.
101 Dalmatians was tolerable. (The sequel, however…)
I also heard Dumbo was lame. Tim Burton has talked about being miserable making it. His return for Beetlejuice 2 is what reinvigorated him.
They are in the trailer that I bumped the thread with, too.
I still wonder if CGI dwarfs were the plan all along and the seven “magical creatures” from that photo were stand-ins or if the CGI was a desperate Plan B after the backlash. If they were always the plan, I would hope they would have used better CGI than what we are seeing now.
Which also doesn’t look that great to me based on the previews.
They sure look like computer-generated dwarfs to me. Not sure how it can be called live action.
I mean, I have no idea. I don’t consider the first one to be all great. I didn’t want a sequel to this at all, but if he is happy and feeling creative, go for it.
I mentioned the problems that I think are inherent to a Snow White love action remake, but when it comes to the Dwarfs, I have no complaint whatsoever. I think they look good, they evoke the same feel as the original Dwarfs. Which takes some doing in live action!
I think it would have made a lot of sense for them to use actors with dwarfism for the motion/performance capture, and maybe that would have avoided the controversy, but even if they had done so I think CGI “magical creatures” that look like the originals would have been the way to go, but maybe that’s just me.
A porno?
To be quite honest, I thought the first Beetlejuice was ‘pretty good’, at best. To be honest, the sequel actually looks better, in my humble opinion.
I liked the original’s characters, and their charm. I liked the Goth, and the gross, weird, macabre. I don’t think it’s story is as “fleshed out” as I would’ve liked. It didn’t really explain a few things, that I believe were more ‘fleshed out’ originally. There’s, of course, some cringe, problematic stuff. I think it was first intended that Lydia to be SA’d, or something like that… crazy. I never watched the cartoon, but I’ve actually heard good things.
As far as this flick’s concerned; I’m 5’5’, so, though I’m “short” for an “average” sized person, I simply can’t relate. I would have to get other opinions, (preferably from them) to try to form an opinion, though I will say, Dinklage’s acting ability exceeds all other traits of his. Though I couldn’t really get into GoT, his work in The Station Agent totally sold me on his ability. I hope there’s nothing problematic about me saying this, but the dude could play the role of tallest man in the world, and nail it.
The sequel look like it could be better*
(As I couldn’t couldn’t judge the movie without seeing it).
Peter Dinklage was great in Three Billboards as well, although there’s no reason his character had to be played by a dwarf. Maybe that was the point, come to think of it. He was just another guy having some difficulty getting to date women.
Listen… I think I"ve asked about this way back in the ol’ days, but almost everything (I see) with a marginalized lead, or leads, are about that fact, or it’s heavily referenced. I think of my personal favorite film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and I wonder, what if these actors are weren’t white, hetero, cis gender, but it’s never referenced once in the flick? It would work (for me) but what will audiences, and people who aren’t like myself think? Not that the other stories don’t have their purpose… just br interesting.
…and I DEFINITELY, could be wrong, and biased, or maybe missing the mark, but hateful incounters, while living in America without privilege, is sadly all over and very prevalent, it’s not The ONLY defining factor about a person. (Is there room for both?) Depending on the story, of course… Like Eternal Sunshine dosent have characters interact with the outside world all that much.
Ever heard of the Bechtel test? It’s a way to look at female interaction in a film. It was devised by Alison Bechtel and has you look at whether there are conversations in the film between two females that isn’t about a man. It’s a pretty low bar, but there are a surprising number of films that don’t measure up. Star Wars had only one female character, for example. The point is, what we see becomes our normal reality, which is simple if you’re a white male, but a little off-putting if you’re not. Lots of women and non-white actors get taken for granted. I can’t remember the last time before Dinklage in Three Billboards where I saw a dwarf in a film that wasn’t a sendup. Inclusion is a concept a lot of audiences still don’t understand.
Films made for women fail this test. It really is useless.
Hardly. It’s a very minimal expectation about the importance of women in a story. And many films fail because they disregard the female viewers. Some, like Black Widow, tend to overcompensate and piss off a lot of male viewers. Big surprise. Do you have examples of films made “for” a female audience that you think fail this basic test?
Many Romances- the women talk about men mostly. It is a silly ass test.
It’s not silly, it’s demonstrative.