It's so funny to me to watch them take the name of something, then remove all the content that made it popular/celebrated, then replace it with the modern, dull, grey, agenda-ridden stupidity and then wonder why they lost money on the project.
I mean, it couldn't be funnier - the movie is called Snow White (nothing like this in this version) and the Seven Dwarves (only one in this version), so they even go against the title of the movie.
Why make a remake of something if you are not going to appreciate that something, but you rather replace everything that made it that something? If the not only 'whiteness', but SNOW-whiteness (indicating extreme one, as in albinoism maybe?) is a problem in a story, then why remake THAT story, why not remake something like SHAFT instead?
Oh yeah, that already did get remade a long time ago.
My point is, it's a really weird logic to take a BELOVED classic that has a very specific bunch of elements, and then REMOVE those elements and replace them with 'modern agenda' elements, but yet you still call it the same thing? It's NOT the same thing, so why do they call it Snow White and the Seven Dwarves?
It's like doing a remake of Dallas, but placing it in Sweden, and making it about robots fighting over a frozen lake. What kind of sense would it make to still call it 'Dallas', and expect the same audience to appreciate it?
You can't just take some classic and 'update' it to 'modern standards' (as idiotic as those are), and expect people to cheer.
People that love the old one, would never loved a completely mutilated one.
People that never heard of the old one, wouldn't care either way, so why use the name of the old one?
People that WANT to see this kind of agenda-ridden trash with no vision, no story, no imagination, no passion, would see ANY crap you make that follows this line of garbage, so there's no need to even use the name of the old one.
I mean, who is the audience supposed to be? I don't get the logic.
reply
share
avortac4 (3751)
a year ago
To me, the logic of 'it was made 85 years ago' and 'it's not 1937 anymore' makes no sense.
Does this mean people had more freedom back then, that we just CAN'T have anymore?
Does this mean we can't have original stories that do not bow down to the fema-fascist matriarchy anymore?
Does this mean we HAVE to make everything the same, repulsive mush for it to be acceptable these days?
Because that logic makes me seem like we lost a lot of freedom and nowadays we ALWAYS HAVE TO incorporate certain 'elements' into stories, or those stories won't be 'acceptable'. This logic sounds very 'let's murder freedom of speech and expression' to me. It sounds very dystopian that you have to 'upgrade' EVERYTHING to conform to an artificial standard that's based on misandry, false image of what human beings and especially women are, or your movie/story can't be made/appreciated, etc.
Wouldn't it be better if it WAS 1937, if that's the case? Wouldn't it be better if people COULD express themselves freely and not have to cowtow to the fema-fascists just to be able to create a story? Because it's not 1937, certain things can't be said, told, made or written to a story anymore, everything - EVERYTHING - has to follow the same, strict, stupid guidelines so everything becomes essentially the same?
So no diversity allowed anymore in storytelling.. women always have to be not only strong, but physically stronger than men. And yet there's no excuse to hit a woman. Doesn't anyone see the incredible hypocrisy here? Stop violence against women, although women are stronger than men. People seriously believe both of these simultaneously.
In any case, the logic behind these 'it's the modern times, so movies HAVE to be like this' is pretty darn oppressive, and at some point, I hope people will break free of this oppression and write WHATEVER they darn well please. Words have no power unto themselves, so no words or stories should EVER be banned/forbidden/agenda-diluted forcefully.
reply
share