BisectedBrioche's Brilliant Bread Random Banter Bthread #243

[Jasdoif]

I'm not sure what I'd classify as my actual favorite Disney film(s). I'd probably go by decade.

Hmm. Assuming we're about full-length 2D animated features....

• 40s - Dumbo
• 50s - Alice in Wonderland
• 60s - The Sword in the Stone
• 70s - The Aristocats
• 80s - ...if The Brave Little Toaster not being produced by Disney disqualifies it, then The Great Mouse Detective
• 90s - Mulan

[Rater202]

There are now Cookies and Cream flavored Oreos.

You know... the ice cream flavor based on Oreos?

They taste just like a ****ing Oreo.

We're not far away from Jim Gaffigan's joke about the Hotpocket flavored Hotpocket at this rate.

(they're like, quadruple stuffed too. They're labeled as "The Most Oreo Oreo.")

[Metastachydium]

So no Disney. How about Ferngully, then?

Well, it does have a pretty clear pro-planty stance. I could've done with less singing, though.

Atlantis is fun.

It is!

Hunchback needed tightening up.

And to not be a painful failure of an adaptation, if you ask me.

Oooh, I do love the Hellfire song from Hunchback of the Notre Dame. Now there's an excellent villain song. It's got a bunch of really good female covers as well by various artists. And a metal one.

The Dies irae thing at the beginning is pretty good as music too. But that's about all the good things I can say about Hunchback (and, mind you, I haven't even brought up the sequel).

[Mystic Muse]

And to not be a painful failure of an adaptation, if you ask me.

What things would you have kept in from the book? Genuinely curious.

[Peelee]

What things would you have kept in from the book? Genuinely curious.

Well, probably the wood pulp, for one.

[LaZodiac]

Pft. Mulan has what, the Chinese army? Moana has Maui, Shapeshifter, Demigod of the Wind and Sea, Hero of Man.

Mushu's status as comic but genuine mentor figure of great power would cause an absolute feedback loop where Maui owns himself to serve as a lesson that even something small and goofy like a lizard pretending to be a dragon is far, far stronger than you might expect.

Ok, gotcha. In which case I revert to my "wrong things by wrong people", no insult intended to your friend. Moana is 100% an awesome story with awesome protag and well communicated themes even without songs. Also, every song is a banger IMO (On relistening, i will actually agree that HFIG is the best song in the movie but You're Welcome and Shiny are both more fun, IMO) and give excellent characterization to it's singers.

Moana would be on my list of perfect movies if not for one thing:

Spoiler

Show

the coconut pirates seem kind of out of place. They don't really seem to add anything either practically or thematically, and I feel like they were just added to extend the runtime a bit and toss in a danger beat while they were at it.

That said, I'd love to be incorrect on that.

The coconut pirates are a break for some action, and are very cute in design (and also a reference to cultural folklore). They don't rightly serve the film as well as Tama-toa, but it's important in establishing that all things want that gem stone.

Hm. Should I take it that this is perhaps not the right place to express my fervent dislike for Mulan (even if I'll concede that there's worse out on the prairie (Hunchback, I'm looking at you!))? Not that I like anything by Disney much, excepting Atlantis (the very best one ever!) and that thing with the dinosaurs (I think I'd probably like Black Cauldron, but I didn't actually see it, so…).

You're allowed to have these opinions. Especially Hunchback, it has amazing songs but the film itself is rancid.

I wanna know how the hell the soundtrack to that got past the censors.

We've got a sexually charged song about how much the villain loves pollution and a sexually charged song about how much a goanna wants to eat that one dude.

Toxic Love especially has like, no subtlety about it.

Is that the uncut version of the song? Because the fact that the song used to be longer and hornier was astounding a revelation to me.

Ferngully got made because people saw The Genie in Alladin and were like "we will okay anyone's film as long as they promise us That". Robin Williams as Batty got them that.

There are now Cookies and Cream flavored Oreos.

You know... the ice cream flavor based on Oreos?

They taste just like a ****ing Oreo.

We're not far away from Jim Gaffigan's joke about the Hotpocket flavored Hotpocket at this rate.

(they're like, quadruple stuffed too. They're labeled as "The Most Oreo Oreo.")

I've seen those around! I should try them...

ALSO: I really adore how recent Disney films haven't had villains. Moana (technically), Encanto, Frozen 2, Luca (also technically)... it's quite good all around.

[Form]

There are now Cookies and Cream flavored Oreos.

You know... the ice cream flavor based on Oreos?

They taste just like a ****ing Oreo.

We're not far away from Jim Gaffigan's joke about the Hotpocket flavored Hotpocket at this rate.

(they're like, quadruple stuffed too. They're labeled as "The Most Oreo Oreo.")

At the end of Time, where the universe loops back in on itself, All is Oreo.

[Rater202]

In the last couple of Disney movies I saw anything about the villain was "generational trauma."

"Grandma insists that we use our special powers for the good of others which means we get burned out and limited to the most obviously practical use of our gifts"

"Mom is overbearing and won't give me any agency. She especially tends to overreact over minor things."

[LaZodiac]

In the last couple of Disney movies I saw anything about the villain was "generational trauma."

"Grandma insists that we use our special powers for the good of others which means we get burned out and limited to the most obviously practical use of our gifts"

"Mom is overbearing and won't give me any agency. She especially tends to overreact over minor things."

We've also got...

"God's boyfriend left her because he's a **** and now she needs someone to help her feel better."

"Our family did some really nasty **** in the past and we should fix it somewhat."

[Peelee]

What movies are these?

[Lord Raziere]

There are now Cookies and Cream flavored Oreos.

You know... the ice cream flavor based on Oreos?

They taste just like a ****ing Oreo.

We're not far away from Jim Gaffigan's joke about the Hotpocket flavored Hotpocket at this rate.

(they're like, quadruple stuffed too. They're labeled as "The Most Oreo Oreo.")

I can't wait to finally eat my Potato Flavored Chips. Mmm, recursion. What genius flavor will they come up with next? Cheese and tomato flavored pizza? Sounds awesome, just like that regular pizza flavor I like! ....Wait.

I mean generational trauma is basically the theme of God of War Ragnarok through a fate metaphor, so I guess generational trauma is just the new trend to examine I guess.

[LaZodiac]

What movies are these?

In order;

Encanto

Turning Red

Moana

Frozen 2

[Peelee]

I figured it would be four movies i hadnt seen. Was defo not expecting Moana for any of them.

[Metastachydium]

What things would you have kept in from the book? Genuinely curious.

The freaking chracters, perhaps? I mean:
–Claude Frollo – in the original,

Spoiler: Is This Even a Spoiler? Whatever.

Show

he's this well-respected, incredibly learned (he's giving the king himself private lectures on alchemy) and ultimately well-meaning clergyman, who might not be a stellar father figure, but who's trying really hard to do the good thing when he saves Quasimodo and tries to build a life for him and in how he attempts to raise his obnoxious little brother; but he's eminently fallible and in struggling with his repressed desires, he rapidly spirals out of control, losing everything. How he falls out with his "children" is very poignant in a way,

which is the main reason why cutting Jehan bothers me. The Disney version, in the meantime? He's some racist jerk, motivated by racist racism tempered with ephebophilia and entitlement.

–Clopin –

Spoiler: As Above

Show

Book!Clopin is the ultimate badass crime boss; calm, efficient, wise, dangerous and unsettling – but not evil, merely operating by a different ethos

. Disney made him an annoying clown having annoying conversations with a puppet of himself. And that's before we get into the bit with the siege of the Notre Dame (completely neutered by Disney)

Spoiler: As Before

Show

, a gloriously chaotic and pointless four-way struggle where most participants are more or less subtly sabotaging their own objectives.

–Phoebus. I can't stress this one enough. Disney made him the flick's prince charming who opposes Disney!Frollo's braindead racist racism. Originally,

Spoiler: As Above

Show

he is the single worst jerkwad ******* of his generation; an excellent and well-liked soldier, this shallow ****head uses his reputation to get into young women's underwear, casting them aside once he's had his way. He's also very petty and wantonly mean.

–Esmeralda – while I can appreciate the whole

Spoiler: As Above, again

Show

ditching the "stolen as an infant" angle and somewhat downplaying the cringey witch trial bits

, I'm not terribly fond of Mary Sues and Disney!Esmeralda, the wisest, most moral, most fantastic and salivated after paragon of everything (I can't go into that, but the silver-for-her-head bounty stuff is so bad it hurts) is one of those, big time.

Spoiler: As Above, still

Show

The original version is kind, talented, loyal and a teenager: a bit vain, somewhat flighty and superficial, lacking an unimpeachable mental fortitude which makes it easier for actors of the shadier sort to land her in trouble she doesn't deserve.

–Pierre Gringoire – the Disney version didn't do him quite as dirty as the others, but that's mostly because they removed him and any mention of him from the story altogether. Which is a pity:

Spoiler: As Above

Show

he's a very flawed person, but his delusions of well-mannered intellectualism, combined with his ugly, cowardly pragmatism is quite compelling in its own way.

[HalfTangible]

ALSO: I really adore how recent Disney films haven't had villains. Moana (technically), Encanto, Frozen 2, Luca (also technically)... it's quite good all around.

I must respectfully disagree.

I miss Disney villains. Mustache twirling pure evil monstrosities that are out to make your life hell, have fun doing it and probably have the best song in the movie.

[Rater202]

@Metastachydium: For what it's worth, apparently, the Disney on Broadway version is more faithful to the novel.

I don't know how much more faithful, I haven't seen it, but I've heard the Stage Musical version of Bells of Notredame and characters that were omitted from the film are mentioned by name

[Batcathat]

Are any animated Disney movies adapted from existing stories that much closer to the original though? I feel like they should be judged as "a kid-friendly movie inspired by..." rather than "an adaption of...". Which I suppose doesn't make it better, exactly, but I don't think Hunchback stands out in that regard.

[LaZodiac]

I figured it would be four movies i hadnt seen. Was defo not expecting Moana for any of them.

In fairness I did stretch Moana's a bit. Moai hurt Tefiti and it literally broke her heart, and Moana's gotta bring it back to her and provide a gentle comfort so she can calm down. It's ostensibly what I wrote.

The freaking chracters, perhaps? I mean:
–Claude Frollo – in the original,

Spoiler: Is This Even a Spoiler? Whatever.

Show

he's this well-respected, incredibly learned (he's giving the king himself private lectures on alchemy) and ultimately well-meaning clergyman, who might not be a stellar father figure, but who's trying really hard to do the good thing when he saves Quasimodo and tries to build a life for him and in how he attempts to raise his obnoxious little brother; but he's eminently fallible and in struggling with his repressed desires, he rapidly spirals out of control, losing everything. How he falls out with his "children" is very poignant in a way,

which is the main reason why cutting Jehan bothers me. The Disney version, in the meantime? He's some racist jerk, motivated by racist racism tempered with ephebophilia and entitlement.

–Clopin –

Spoiler: As Above

Show

Book!Clopin is the ultimate badass crime boss; calm, efficient, wise, dangerous and unsettling – but not evil, merely operating by a different ethos

. Disney made him an annoying clown having annoying conversations with a puppet of himself. And that's before we get into the bit with the siege of the Notre Dame (completely neutered by Disney)

Spoiler: As Before

Show

, a gloriously chaotic and pointless four-way struggle where most participants are more or less subtly sabotaging their own objectives.

–Phoebus. I can't stress this one enough. Disney made him the flick's prince charming who opposes Disney!Frollo's braindead racist racism. Originally,

Spoiler: As Above

Show

he is the single worst jerkwad ******* of his generation; an excellent and well-liked soldier, this shallow ****head uses his reputation to get into young women's underwear, casting them aside once he's had his way. He's also very petty and wantonly mean.

–Esmeralda – while I can appreciate the whole

Spoiler: As Above, again

Show

ditching the "stolen as an infant" angle and somewhat downplaying the cringey witch trial bits

, I'm not terribly fond of Mary Sues and Disney!Esmeralda, the wisest, most moral, most fantastic and salivated after paragon of everything (I can't go into that, but the silver-for-her-head bounty stuff is so bad it hurts) is one of those, big time.

Spoiler: As Above, still

Show

The original version is kind, talented, loyal and a teenager: a bit vain, somewhat flighty and superficial, lacking an unimpeachable mental fortitude which makes it easier for actors of the shadier sort to land her in trouble she doesn't deserve.

–Pierre Gringoire – the Disney version didn't do him quite as dirty as the others, but that's mostly because they removed him and any mention of him from the story altogether. Which is a pity:

Spoiler: As Above

Show

he's a very flawed person, but his delusions of well-mannered intellectualism, combined with his ugly, cowardly pragmatism is quite compelling in its own way.

Hey you know maybe Disney shouldn't have tried to make an animated film about this book. Just a hunch.

(Movie!Frollo's sins are more nuanced than just being a racist, and I'll admit it has been awhile since I read Hunchback, but I imagine they're basically similar and the film just accentuates the chaos consumed priest aspect)

I must respectfully disagree.

I miss Disney villains. Mustache twirling pure evil monstrosities that are out to make your life hell, have fun doing it and probably have the best song in the movie.

We've still got those too, these films are just made by folk who want something a bit more nuanced than coded queer cackling evil-doers who often have the best song in the film, yes. Coco's a good example of that, as a pretty big example of a film that could very much otherwise BE about familial trauma and nothing else. Luca has that kinda too but no music and he's less an antagonist and more representative of the bigger picture problem.

EDIT: Hunchback stands out as "all the edges filed off adaptation" because the only other example of that wide a gap between source and film is Hercules- and with Hercules that's because they were making a movie About Something (sports fame culture) and not JUST making an adaptation of a story. Still absurd to present Zeus and Hera as so loving to each other, but the point is there was no point to Hunchback beyond "adapt Hunchback but for kids" and that makes the starkness between book and film that much grander.

I can't believe I'm losing poker to a pidgeon.

[Jasdoif]

I must respectfully disagree.

I miss Disney villains. Mustache twirling pure evil monstrosities that are out to make your life hell, have fun doing it and probably have the best song in the movie.

Indeed. I'm pretty sure Hades sold Hercules himself, and Scar did a lot of the work for Lion King. Not that a big overarching villain is strictly necessary (see Sword in the Stone, where Madam Mim is as close to a Disney villain as it gets and she's as much of a minor character as "real" antagonist Kay is), but there's definite value to be had from clearly showing a conflict is rooted in unreasonableness.

[Batcathat]

While there are certainly villains of the moustache twirling variety that I enjoy, I think it's usually despite that quality rather than because of it (and the same goes for their knight in shining armor counterparts), I'll take some nice shades of gray any day of the week.

[Metastachydium]

@Metastachydium: For what it's worth, apparently, the Disney on Broadway version is more faithful to the novel.

I don't know how much more faithful, I haven't seen it, but I've heard the Stage Musical version of Bells of Notredame and characters that were omitted from the film are mentioned by name

Hm. Well, that's not a high bar to clear, but I'm not familiar with that one either.

Hey you know maybe Disney shouldn't have tried to make an animated film about this book. Just a hunch.

A hunch? Heh. (Also, yes. If they didn't feel up to task or, what is even more likely, didn't even want to try due to likely being aware of how bad an idea that is, why on earth did they make it anyway?)

(Movie!Frollo's sins are more nuanced than just being a racist, and I'll admit it has been awhile since I read Hunchback, but I imagine they're basically similar and the film just accentuates the chaos consumed priest aspect)

I don't know about that. For starters, Disney!Frollo is not even a priest (which paints the originals sometimes benevolent, sometimes deranged attempts at acquiring a family in a different light): the Archdeacon who literally has to frighten him into being wary of murdering an infant? That was Frollo huimself in the original, dealing with superstitious simple folk. Basically Disney just removed all his saving graces (his intellect, his responsible adulting done for his "sons"…) and added "did I mention yet I hate these people for their skin colour in the last minute yet, because I totally do" plus a dose of big time entitlement. (Also, the book is entitled The Notre Dame of Paris; Frollo, Esmeralda and Gringoire are all closer to being the protagonist than Quasimodo anyhow.)

EDIT: Hunchback stands out as "all the edges filed off adaptation" because the only other example of that wide a gap between source and film is Hercules- and with Hercules that's because they were making a movie About Something (sports fame culture) and not JUST making an adaptation of a story. Still absurd to present Zeus and Hera as so loving to each other, but the point is there was no point to Hunchback beyond "adapt Hunchback but for kids" and that makes the starkness between book and film that much grander.

Pretty much. (And again, seriously: why?)

[HalfTangible]

While there are certainly villains of the moustache twirling variety that I enjoy, I think it's usually despite that quality rather than because of it (and the same goes for their knight in shining armor counterparts), I'll take some nice shades of gray any day of the week.

We've still got those too, these films are just made by folk who want something a bit more nuanced than coded queer cackling evil-doers who often have the best song in the film, yes. Coco's a good example of that, as a pretty big example of a film that could very much otherwise BE about familial trauma and nothing else. Luca has that kinda too but no music and he's less an antagonist and more representative of the bigger picture problem.

*shrug* You can still have nuance with pure piece of **** baddies and frankly I'd rather go for a villain that's fun than one that hits me with a freshman course on ethics as told by a third grader.

EDIT: Hunchback stands out as "all the edges filed off adaptation" because the only other example of that wide a gap between source and film is Hercules- and with Hercules that's because they were making a movie About Something (sports fame culture) and not JUST making an adaptation of a story. Still absurd to present Zeus and Hera as so loving to each other, but the point is there was no point to Hunchback beyond "adapt Hunchback but for kids" and that makes the starkness between book and film that much grander.

I can't believe I'm losing poker to a pidgeon.

Let's not kid ourselves, Disney's films have never gone for accurate adaptation.

Also, sports fame culture exists in the film but to say it's the main point is just silly to me.

Indeed. I'm pretty sure Hades sold Hercules himself, and Scar did a lot of the work for Lion King. Not that a big overarching villain is strictly necessary (see Sword in the Stone, where Madam Mim is as close to a Disney villain as it gets and she's as much of a minor character as "real" antagonist Kay is), but there's definite value to be had from clearly showing a conflict is rooted in unreasonableness.

Maleficent, Ursula, Jafar, Cruella De Vil...

[Jasdoif]

While there are certainly villains of the moustache twirling variety that I enjoy, I think it's usually despite that quality rather than because of it (and the same goes for their knight in shining armor counterparts), I'll take some nice shades of gray any day of the week.

Nice shades of gray, sure; simply being a shade of gray is inadequate.

And, I mean...Hercules' Hades is dealing with an Elder-Scrolls-esque prophecy. Hades real problem is with Zeus, who has him constantly busy in the underworld while the other gods are having parties up on Mount Olympus and who seems entirely oblivious to the fact, and Hades aims to get out of this situation by taking over Olympus himself. And he receives a prophecy from the Fates that he'll win...except if Hercules fights, then he'll fail. Hence his problem with Hercules. He's not exactly "just for the evil" level.

Maleficent, Ursula, Jafar, Cruella De Vil...

Hrrm....I skipped Maleficent because I had a recollection of an attempt to give her her own movie to pretend there was gray involved, and I didn't want to get into it with a movie I have never seen...but you just reminded me, that all applies to Cruella too. Nothing says "overvaluing shades of gray" quite like "let's paint the puppy butcher gray".

[Batcathat]

*shrug* You can still have nuance with pure piece of **** baddies and frankly I'd rather go for a villain that's fun than one that hits me with a freshman course on ethics as told by a third grader.

And you can still have fun with a nuanced villain. Of course the concept can be poorly executed, anything can be, most certainly including the "Muhaha! I'm so evil!" school of villainy.

[LaZodiac]

A hunch? Heh. (Also, yes. If they didn't feel up to task or, what is even more likely, didn't even want to try due to likely being aware of how bad an idea that is, why on earth did they make it anyway?)

I don't know about that. For starters, Disney!Frollo is not even a priest (which paints the originals sometimes benevolent, sometimes deranged attempts at acquiring a family in a different light): the Archdeacon who literally has to frighten him into being wary of murdering an infant? That was Frollo huimself in the original, dealing with superstitious simple folk. Basically Disney just removed all his saving graces (his intellect, his responsible adulting done for his "sons"…) and added "did I mention yet I hate these people for their skin colour in the last minute yet, because I totally do" plus a dose of big time entitlement. (Also, the book is entitled The Notre Dame of Paris; Frollo, Esmeralda and Gringoire are all closer to being the protagonist than Quasimodo anyhow.)

Pretty much. (And again, seriously: why?)

I mean they felt up to the task. They just weren't actually.

I'll admit I figured by Judge they meant like, priestly inquisitor judge, given what he was doing.

*leans in close to the microphone* money

'd rather go for a villain that's fun than one that hits me with a freshman course on ethics as told by a third grader.

Also, sports fame culture exists in the film but to say it's the main point is just silly to me.

Maleficent, Ursula, Jafar, Cruella De Vil...

Hell of an assumption, that.

It is very much a corner stone of the film. It's what Zero to Hero is all about. It's why Pan is a wrestling second.

Maleficent is impressive and stylish but not necessarily interesting. Ursula is entertaining as hell (also based on a drag queen). Jafar is Very Evil and voice acted well but isn't actually all that honestly? Cruella is a good example of how contrasts work (the main leads are so dull that her genuine insanity is amplified), and certainly entertaining, but again not interesting.

Nice shades of gray, sure; simply being a shade of gray is inadequate.

And, I mean...Hercules' Hades is dealing with an Elder-Scrolls-esque prophecy. Hades real problem is with Zeus, who has him constantly busy in the underworld while the other gods are having parties up on Mount Olympus and who seems entirely obvious to the fact, and Hades aims to get out of this situation by taking over Olympus himself. And he receives a prophecy from the Fates that he'll win...except if Hercules fights, then he'll fail. Hence his problem with Hercules. He's not exactly "just for the evil" level.

Hrrm....I skipped Maleficent because I had a recollection of an attempt to give her her own movie to pretend there was gray involved, and I didn't want to get into it with a movie I have never seen...but you just reminded me, that all applies to Cruella too. Nothing says "overvaluing shades of gray" quite like "let's paint the puppy butcher gray".

Yeah those prequel films are genuinely terrible! Impressively so!

[Aedilred]

Hm. Should I take it that this is perhaps not the right place to express my fervent dislike for Mulan (even if I'll concede that there's worse out on the prairie (Hunchback, I'm looking at you!))? Not that I like anything by Disney much, excepting Atlantis (the very best one ever!) and that thing with the dinosaurs (I think I'd probably like Black Cauldron, but I didn't actually see it, so…).

I tend not to express my opinion vis-a-vis Disney movies around here because I know it'll be unpopular, but my view is that, ultimately, they're for kids. There is obviously stuff in them for adults to appreciate so that their brains don't leak out of their ears during the inevitable viewing with their kids in the way that they do with, say, Paw Patrol, but the core audience for these movies - and the market for whom they are targetted - is children under the age of, say, twelve.

Children can be quite discerning, but their expectations of media and appreciatoin of what they're seeing are nevertheless very different to those of adults. (There may also be a sense that Disney movies ought to be kind of "edutainment" in terms of the messages they deliver, which might be one of the reasons why I gather recent movies haven't had designated villains in the same way.)

I don't have anything against adults watching kids' movies, per se, but I feel like it should be part of a balanced diet and in the same way that there's not much point analysing a Big Mac, tasty as it might be, applying serious adult brainpower to the analysis of Disney movies is at best a waste of time. And I am concerned about the way that my generation and younger seem to be almost deliberately infantilising themselves by way of their media consumption and discussion. I feel uncomfortable that people in their 30s have their "favourite Disney movie" (or a request for yours) as the main feature on their Tinder profile. I am frustrated at the quantity of virtual ink expended by adults discussing the relative merits of films made for children without acknowledging that elephant in the room. The way that they're talked about often makes me think that the people discussing them would be much happier, or at least, the discussions would be less of a waste of time, if they were watching films made for, you know, adults, and discussing them instead.

Like, if you want shades of grey, nuanced villains, why the hell would you look for them in Disney movies of all places, the studio that pretty much defined the one-note moustache-twirling villain? Go watch... pretty much anything else.

[Lord Raziere]

And you can still have fun with a nuanced villain. Of course the concept can be poorly executed, anything can be, most certainly including the "Muhaha! I'm so evil!" school of villainy.

Yeah, most of the time a piece of media isn't bad because of any specific inclusion of something, but rather because that thing was poorly executed.

Its just that some things are more easy to execute than others, some are harder, and as a writer you have to know what you can and can't execute well, which is why you need to write what what you know, as in, learn/research well so that you know what your doing when you write something new.

[Rater202]

I didn't mind Maleficent. It as clearly just Disney trying to cash in on the popularity of Wicked and it feels like the same. Like, Maleficent cursing Aura is still prevented as a bad thing, the difference between the "good/shade of grey" Maleficent and the Evil One is that the live-action version felt bad about it later and tried to fix things before it was too late. They give her a justification for being evil, but she's still evil until she makes the effort not to be.

At leas to my recollection. If I'm misremembering then give me hell for it.

To me it doesn't feel like an attempt to rewrite or retcon the original movie, it feels like a reimagining.

Cruela was just... Okay, so you want to give girls a new role model... So you choose the insane lunatic who murders animals for selfish reasons*, including an attempt involving puppies, and who is literally named "Cruel Devil?"

There is not a single other woman in the catalog of villains who might fit better as being reimagined as a morally grey potential role model? Or maybe grab one of the female protagonists from a movie and make them a touch more proactive? Maybe have the Ugly Stepsister who gets kind of a face turn in one of the direct-to-video Cindereela sequels get her own movie, did ya think of that?

The amount of work they have to do to turn Cruela into a potential role model results in something that has very little resemblance to the source material it is based on.

[LaZodiac]

I tend not to express my opinion vis-a-vis Disney movies around here because I know it'll be unpopular, but my view is that, ultimately, they're for kids. There is obviously stuff in them for adults to appreciate so that their brains don't leak out of their ears during the inevitable viewing with their kids in the way that they do with, say, Paw Patrol, but the core audience for these movies - and the market for whom they are targetted - is children under the age of, say, twelve.

Children can be quite discerning, but their expectations of media and appreciatoin of what they're seeing are nevertheless very different to those of adults. (There may also be a sense that Disney movies ought to be kind of "edutainment" in terms of the messages they deliver, which might be one of the reasons why I gather recent movies haven't had designated villains in the same way.)

I don't have anything against adults watching kids' movies, per se, but I feel like it should be part of a balanced diet and in the same way that there's not much point analysing a Big Mac, tasty as it might be, applying serious adult brainpower to the analysis of Disney movies is at best a waste of time. And I am concerned about the way that my generation and younger seem to be almost deliberately infantilising themselves by way of their media consumption and discussion. I feel uncomfortable that people in their 30s have their "favourite Disney movie" (or a request for yours) as the main feature on their Tinder profile. I am frustrated at the quantity of virtual ink expended by adults discussing the relative merits of films made for children without acknowledging that elephant in the room. The way that they're talked about often makes me think that the people discussing them would be much happier, or at least, the discussions would be less of a waste of time, if they were watching films made for, you know, adults, and discussing them instead.

Like, if you want shades of grey, nuanced villains, why the hell would you look for them in Disney movies of all places, the studio that pretty much defined the one-note moustache-twirling villain? Go watch... pretty much anything else.

I get what you mean by people infantilizing themselves (gestures vaguely to how capital F Fandom has consumed so many people that Girl In Star Wars drives some people ****ing insane) but really? "I have a favorite Disney film" is a red flag? 30 year olds used to be kids too, and nostalgia leads to having favorite movies that came out when they were kids, and that's a normal thing. Watching tehse with your children isn't tedious directly BECAUSE they're designed to be enjoyable for adults and kids alike, even if the focus is on kids.

What killed your joy in sitting down, relaxing, and enjoying some nice animation and music? Like you yourself said, it's important to have a balanced diet- why be so against enjoying some sweets?

(also most of the people getting mad at children's movies tend to be getting mad at it for good things they do, foaming at the mouth because there's one(1) scene of a lesbian in the Buzz Lightyear movie no one watched or whatever. I doubt they'd actually enjoy discussing good adult films like The Man From Earth as well!)

[Aedilred]

I get what you mean by people infantilizing themselves (gestures vaguely to how capital F Fandom has consumed so many people that Girl In Star Wars drives some people ****ing insane) but really? "I have a favorite Disney film" is a red flag? 30 year olds used to be kids too, and nostalgia leads to having favorite movies that came out when they were kids, and that's a normal thing. Watching tehse with your children isn't tedious directly BECAUSE they're designed to be enjoyable for adults and kids alike, even if the focus is on kids.

What killed your joy in sitting down, relaxing, and enjoying some nice animation and music? Like you yourself said, it's important to have a balanced diet- why be so against enjoying some sweets?

On the Tinder thing, that's a platform for people to meet up and have sex with each other. If one thinks that in this endeavour the most important thing that the two parties need to know about each other is what each other's favourite Disney movie is then I can't help but feel something has gone wrong somewhere along the line. Having a favourite movie is one thing; putting it front and centre on your profile something else.

It's not just "favourite Disney movie from when we were kids", either. It's evident that people didn't just watch these films when they were age-appropriate but have continued to watch the new ones, in some cases making a point of doing so. And sure, watch them if you like, but at that point it's going beyond nostalgia.

Nothing "killed my joy" in watching children's entertainment. I don't do it often but I do occasionally. What bugs me is the disproportionate attention paid to kids' entertainment by apparent adults, as if it were anything more than a bit of light relief. It's not just Disney - I've asked for recommendations for new TV shows from friends before and got exclusively lists of kids' shows - but it is the most prominent manifestation by some distance.