The contempt with which she speaks about the source material for the character she's playing should automatically disqualify her for playing this role.
Video: https://twitter.com/endwokeness/status/1683990536342962176?s=46
Guess no one should pay any mind to The Iliad and the Odyssey, The Aeneid, Beowulf, Dante's Divine Comedy, the collected works of Wm. Shakespeare, A Christmas Carol, Moby Dick, War and Peace, etc. etc. They're all much older still.
I think no statement I've ever read so perfectly encapsulates the narrow-minded, blinkered, self-absorbed view of the millennial generation. If it happened before their lifetime, it's just not important.
Another video: https://x.com/endwokeness/status/1690588204603215872?s=46
They really cast someone who clearly hates Snow White to play the lead. I don’t know who is advising/coaching this girl if anyone but she is not doing her film any favors.
Man, just her ATTITUDE is just provokingly intolerable!
Not doing her film any favors is right. Forget her disrespecting the original classic, she's throwing her prince co-star under the bus, saying "all of his scenes might get cut. Who knows? It's Hollywood!"
What a fucking BITCH.
I've long since been sick of actors who try to control the writing/directing process when their job is to portray the character as it's written. She shouldn't even be qualified for the role anyway because she wasn't meant for it, and I fully agree that disrespecting the source material shows even more that she doesn't deserve it.
And the cartoon is extremely dated when it comes to "women in power?" What about the queen? She's the most powerful character in the story.
This girl is just 22 and only has 2 movies to her name (the first being in 2021) and she is here acting all arrogant and stuff like she is some big thing. This won't age well for her.
shareYes, and that first film in 2021 happens to be a film that absolutely should NEVER have existed - Woke Side Story. West Side Story in 1961 (it infuriates me that I even have to make that distinction now) is my favorite movie of all time and the one movie I wanted Hollywood to NEVER remake ever. The remake-that-should-never-have-been shit all over what made the 1961 film a masterpiece, it bombed and deservedly so.
And our little Miss Perfect here has the full-on hubris of an A-list Hollywood actress? The more I hear about her, the more contempt I have for her. Before, I just thought her performance as Maria fell flat. Like you said, you can count the number of movies she has been in so far on one hand, at least one of them flopped at the box office (don't know about the other ones), and to say she really thinks she's something special is a massive understatement. This is a perfect case of vainglory in Hollywood if there ever was one - I really don't think there can be a more perfect one but correct me if I'm wrong.
🤣
shareIt's not dated. It's a classic.
shareWhat a twit.
shareBasically, what that means is: 'Only modern things are good'.
There ABSOLUTELY can't be anything good made 85 years ago, let alone anything older!
I have enjoyed relatively old comic books a lot - for example, the original Tintin comics have been greatly inspiring, the beautiful artwork is timeless and astonishing to my eye, evoking so many emotions, feelings, inspiration and beyond.
I always hated the word 'dated', because it seems like a stamp you can hit anything 'older' with, although originally it was supposed to mean 'that fashion dates this movie to the eighties'. It was supposed to mean that you can easily understand when the movie was made, so its DATE is obvious. It was a neutral statement.
However, people started using it as something to disparage - oh, that's so dated, I would never watch something like that.
It's like talking about food - if it's past the expiration date, it's inedible (although the whole 'expiration date' stuff is a scam anyway).
However, stories, games, books, movies, TV shows have no expiration date. I have always maintaned, that if something was good one second ago, or eighty trillion years ago, or anything inbetween, it is still good, and it will always be good (provided it doesn't deteriorate in some way, of course).
If a computer/video game that was made in 1983 was good in 1983, it will be good in 2817 and any year inbetween.
If something was DEEMED good in the seventies, but nowadays it's just awful garbage, it NEVER was actually good, it was just stupidly SEEN that way for a reason or another.
So time doesn't really make anything worse, it only tests whether the goodness was REAL or not. That's why it is called the 'test of time'.
I think many of the old Disney Cartoons have 'withstood' that test - they were good, are still good, will always be good. I have a soft spot for 'A Hundred and One Dalmatians', for example - the story itself is nothing to type home about, not that the book is that much better..
.. although the book's story is much longer.
However, the incredible atmosphere of the 'Twilight Bark' scene got me as a kid, and whenever I watch those beautiful stars and listen to the ambiance that's NOT ruined by some silly music, I get the shivers from sheer atmosphere and evocation.
Of course a movie made in 1937 is going to look 'dated' to modern eyes, but at the same time, we can still appreciate it for various ways and realize its genius and artwork on various levels. That particular movie was never that interesting to me, but that story IS an archetype in humanity's history, so trying to just say it's 'dated' and that it needs a modern twist to bring it up to date is just so stupid and an ignorant thing to say.
It's like looking at Ferrari Testarossa and saying, that would be good, if only it looked more like a modern SUV. Then you take it apart piece by piece and replace every part until it looks like the ugliest monstrosity of a 'car' ever devised by an evil capitalist pig, and call it 'modern'. Now it's no longer 'dated'.
However, it's also no longer beautiful, nostalgic, streamlined, lean, seductive or cool, and no one would play 'Out Run' or watch 'Miami Vice' with that thing replacing the original Ferrari Testarossa.
Now, you may say my example is pretty stupid and materialistic, and you'd be right, but I am sure people can understand my point. You can't take something good, think it 'just needs a little fixing', and then transform it completely into something hideous and think it's now the best it can be.
You can't improve on a Monet painting by adding lots of 'realistic detail', for example. Those paintings OOZE atmosphere so deeply, I can't even find a comparison point beyond maybe best works of Bob Ross (I know he wasn't technically the best, but some of his paintings have very deep 'feel' to them).
Hollyweird was supposed to be the innovator, Disney was supposed to tell us original stories, or at least 'diluted versions of Grimm's'..
Very well said avortac4.
Why take a classic beloved movie or any other piece of Art and change it all to please 'The modern audience'? (really a small minority of loud mouths). You will never make anything as good as the original and will very likely end up losing money and with each new movie lose a lot of good will with the general public as well.