MovieChat Forums > CookieDragon83 > Replies
CookieDragon83's Replies
Iswallace82, I think you've got it the other way around. Tris's mother didnt choose Abnegation as the Choosing Ceramony, she chose Dauntless. Remember when she secretly met Tris to tell her how dangerous the last test in Dauntless is? Tris asked her how she knew about it and asks if she was once dauntless. If her mother was born Dauntless and chose Abnegation when she came of age, she wouldn't have known such tests existed.
But now I'm curious to know what faction she was indeed born into? Did I miss it in the film, or does it state it in the book?
It wasn't Erudite. Jeanine and her cronies did it. But I see your point though. It would be easier to control the minds of Abnegation directly, although how would they convince them to willing take that shot in the neck without raising suspicion?
Maybe because even in this day and age women are still not treated with 100% equality.
What makes it leftist, exactly?
And if, for you, a remake of any film can ruin the original then I'd rather suspect you're not a true fan to begin with. The same thing goes for sequels. I've seen many sequels that I thought were completely rubbish but it in no way ruins the magic of the original for me. I mean, how can it? What is it that actually ruins it for people. That's a serious question because I dont understand it.
Why cant people just enjoy each film in it's own right. If you truly like, love, adore a movie, and you're steadfast in that then how can it be tainted?
Could you explain why exactly you feel this way?
I much as I love him, I think Jim Carrey would have been a bit over the top. Robin William's talent and whackiness worked for the '92 version, but I think Disney made a wise choice by dialling it down a bit. But that's just my opinion ๐
Before watching this, I didn't expect Will Smith to be able to pull it off. I mean, who can fill the shoes of the great late Mr William's! But I think Smith did a fantastic job!
Why shouldn't Will Smith start out as the mariner? And he still sang Arabian Nights at the beginning of the film.
How was the movie rushed?! It's over 2 hours long whereas the original was barely an hour an 20 minutes.
Why is it important to have the scene where both Aladdin and Abu feast on the a loaf of bread? What is the significance of it that was vital to have in this version?
Aladdin didn't follow Dalia, he didn't follow anyone. He MET Jasmine. Jasmine later on told him her name was Dalia, after her hand maiden, to hide her identity. How did you miss that?
Raja is a girl.
These live-action versions of the originals aren't always gonna follow the originals scene-by-scene. It makes better sense to add things or go a slightly different way to jazz it up a bit. That way we fans can enjoy the nostalgia of our childhood movies whilst enjoying a movie that could be special movie in its own right. These movies are more adaptations rather than exact replicas. I honestly dont think they'd get as much of a following if they kept it exactly the same.
If I'm honest, I think you're nit-picking a little bit. I think the magic of turning a beloved Disney cartoon into live-action may be lost on you.
Personally, I'm not a massive fan of the original (despite the fact I've seen it so many times ๐). I have only just now watched this version, almost a year since it's release, but I was impressed by it.
Just let the magic be what it is.
No, he didn't actually, because pointing out that The Little Mermaid is portrayed by a black woman means nothing. And what does it matter?
Besides, if you guys hate the fact that Disney are supposedly racist then why endorse/condone it by watching and buying their films, huh?
"Facial expression is a fundamental, important aspect in portraying emotion", whilst that's very true, if you're a human, it's not how they wanted it to be like this time round.
If they made every character use every human facial expression in a live action film I think it would look rather creepy. It's works in a cartoon (like the original) but not this.
The whole point of making it live action, making it look more real, etc, is to exclude the necessity for total facial expressions because obviously animals don't use or have as many facial expressions as we humans do.
Did you know that a huge percentage of communication is via body language? The idea behind all this is, again, to make it more animalistic. You must not be an animal lover, or maybe you are, but either way you don't seem to be in tune with understanding body language/communication from specie to specie. A dog or cat, for example, doesn't have to smile to convey they're happy to see you. Equally they don't have to frown or cry to convey they're upset or scared. That's how it works across the specie gap. Body language is universal and constant, whereas oral/verbal language is not.
If you can allow the fact they didn't emote human expressions to ruin the movie for you then maybe the movie isn't as magical to you as you thought.
However, I must say, if you have a problem with this then I'm surprised you haven't mentioned the fact that each and every specie in the film can all speak the same oral language ๐ Now THAT is far-fetched.
I thought she did it well. In fact, I even forgot it was her after a while!
My god, does it really matter? Just enjoy a film for what it is.
I can't tell you how many times I've heard people scream 'racism' against black people if there are too many white people in a film, and vice versa.
The voice actors are all of African decent (or so I read). So what if they have never set foot in Africa? Hey, Scar and Zalu are played by British actors......so it can't be completely 'racist', can it....
It was a creative choice by the makers. I bet if the entire cast were white people, folks would still scream racism because 'there's not a single black person in it'.
Besides, it's different with voice actors as opposed to screen actors. In animation you can't see the actor, so what's the problem?
As far at The Little Mermaid goes, well, it doesn't bother me at all. As I said in another comment, is the girl can do Ariel justice then what's the problem, you know?
To be honest, I don't see a problem with it. If she can do Ariel justice then why not, you know.
It was deliberate to make it more like 'live action', to make it more animalistic, etc. They portrayed their behaviour and emotions through body language, just like real animals.
Asom, I'm not sure what you're getting at there. Why would she be swapped with a black girl?
Kuku, cats and black Africans have no relation, no, but you're missing the point, which is the theme and setting - Africa! You just said it yourself when you mentioned that they live in the same continent. That's part of it.
Toy Story 4? If the movie was set it China then maybe. It would be entirely up to the makers of it. But that example does not back up your opinion because it's not even relevant. It's not the same thing.
Be Prepared is actually included. I see you wrote your post 7 months ago. Perhaps you should have waited to see it first....
Also, if you think a remake can tarnish and original, then you can't be that secure in your appreciation/love for it in the first place. If you truly love an original, whatever that may be, then no amount of re-hashes would change that.
And it's not that Disney lost its creative spark, they're re-modelling a best loved classic, to see it again all fresh and new for this day and age. I'm a HUGE fan of the original since day one back in 1994. When I learned they were making this over a year ago I couldn't wait to see it! I love this version. I was not disappointed!
If you read up you will learn that the team wanted actors of African descent to keep with the tone of the film, to make it more authentic, if you like. Funnily enough, they happen to be black as that's usually the case if you're of African descent. It's not racist, it's just what they chose to do.
I was waiting for someone to pick on this. Just waiting ๐
SPOILERS!!
Considering the original was 90 minutes long and this one is 118 minutes long, I'd say it definitely was not exactly done 'shot by shot'. Yes, it is largely very close to the original but some scenes are extended, whilst also there are brand new scenes (seeing Nala actually leave Pride Rock to find help while avoiding Scar comes to mind).
A lot of the dialogue is spoken differently too (hell, even Ed speaks!), there's a few new side characters, and some scenes are even played out differently.
I really cannot understand how you can say 'it is the exact same movie', and 'literally nothing else is new'. Maybe you just don't know the original that well to begin with.
To me, itโs her voice that has made her the most different. Her voice is almost completely different than it was before. I think thatโs whatโs throwing people off.....in my opinion anyway.
Even if she could bring the shelf down, how would it help her get the phone? She had already tried reaching the phone with her foot and she was still a distance away from the bedside table, let alone the phone itself (by the way, who has a bedside table that far away from the bed anyway ๐).
But don't forget, she needed the shelf to stay there anyway as that was the only thing that made that water accessible. If she had used the shelf then she would've forgone the water.....just to find out the phone is dead anyway.....which then also means she wouldn't have ultimately used her own blood as lubricant.
I have to agree with you about the phone charger though. I would've gone straight to the phone after but not before obviously taking in some fluids first! But I guess maybe her first thought was just to get to some help, and leave before the Moonlight Man returned.
Remember, by this point she's really disoriented, weak, and dehydrated, not to mention rather traumatised. People usually don't (or can't) think straight anymore.
Marriage and material rights would state "what's yours is mine", but it also states the fact that 'the house was as much hers as it was his', meaning that no she did not have any right to tell him to leave, just as much as he had every right to stay. No court in the land would side with her UNLESS she got the house in a divorce settlement.
All the while ANYONE has their names on the deeds, (single, divorced or married) they do not have to leave, and the other person cannot change the locks by law.