Rockinghorse Winner wrote:further
The new Disney adaptation of the evergreen children's story is
being panned by reviewers all over the internet as woke trash, that
tarnishes the Disney brand. It currently has a 20% favoarablerating on
Rotten Tomatoes. Released direct to cable, it seems some incorporate knew
enough than to release it to theaters, so it could suffer it'signominy in
relative privacy. Choosing to update the cultural aesthetic to 21stc norms,
while keeping the Edwardian setting of the original book, all itsucceeds at
doing is creating a cringe-fest that makes you feel embarassed foreveryone
involved.at last It declares
--
'Many have sought in vain to tell joyously of the Most Joyous. Now
Itself to me, now in this misery.' - Holderlin
____
/. \
___________< |___________
\___________ ___________/
\___________ ___________/
\___________ ___________/
| |
^^^ ^^^
_________
| R W |
| (*) |
|____U____|
Rockinghorse Winner wrote:further
The new Disney adaptation of the evergreen children's story is
being panned by reviewers all over the internet as woke trash, that
tarnishes the Disney brand. It currently has a 20% favoarablerating on
Rotten Tomatoes. Released direct to cable, it seems some incorporate knew
enough than to release it to theaters, so it could suffer it'signominy in
relative privacy. Choosing to update the cultural aesthetic to 21stc norms,
while keeping the Edwardian setting of the original book, all itsucceeds at
doing is creating a cringe-fest that makes you feel embarassed foreveryone
involved.
Why does it have to be a remake? Why
not just fill in the gap between or after the following. Even a story
before the before.
"Fox-five Peter-Pan"
and
"Hook"
Or make it a horror story like "Pan's Labyrinth".
This is a response to the post seen at: >http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=644804354#644804354
On Thu, 30 May 2024 06:03:54 +0000,
danmin@danminart-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (Danart) wrote:
Rockinghorse Winner wrote:
The new Disney adaptation of the evergreen children's story is
being panned by reviewers all over the internet as woke trash, that
further tarnishes the Disney brand. It currently has a 20% favoarable
rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Released direct to cable, it seems some in
corporate knew enough than to release it to theaters, so it could
suffer it's ignominy in relative privacy. Choosing to update the
cultural aesthetic to 21st c norms, while keeping the Edwardian setting
of the original book, all it succeeds at doing is creating a
cringe-fest that makes you feel embarassed for everyone involved.
Why does it have to be a remake? Why not just fill in the gap between
or after the following. Even a story before the before.
Disney still thinks remakes are worth doing.
-or-
Disney is suffering from a total lack of imagination
On 2024-05-30 15:31:57 +0000, Paul S Person said:
On Thu, 30 May 2024 06:03:54 +0000,
danmin@danminart-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (Danart) wrote:
Rockinghorse Winner wrote:
The new Disney adaptation of the evergreen children's story is
being panned by reviewers all over the internet as woke trash, that
further tarnishes the Disney brand. It currently has a 20% favoarable
rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Released direct to cable, it seems some in
corporate knew enough than to release it to theaters, so it could
suffer it's ignominy in relative privacy. Choosing to update the
cultural aesthetic to 21st c norms, while keeping the Edwardian setting >>>> of the original book, all it succeeds at doing is creating a
cringe-fest that makes you feel embarassed for everyone involved.
Why does it have to be a remake? Why not just fill in the gap between
or after the following. Even a story before the before.
Disney still thinks remakes are worth doing.
-or-
Disney is suffering from a total lack of imagination
Neither of those is unique to just Disney. About 90% of lazy-ass
Hollyweird suffers from those same things too. :-(
On 2024-05-30 20:34:40 +0000, Your Name said:
On 2024-05-30 15:31:57 +0000, Paul S Person said:
On Thu, 30 May 2024 06:03:54 +0000,
danmin@danminart-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (Danart) wrote:
Rockinghorse Winner wrote:
The new Disney adaptation of the evergreen children's story is
being panned by reviewers all over the internet as woke trash, that
further tarnishes the Disney brand. It currently has a 20%
favoarable rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Released direct to cable, it
seems some in
corporate knew enough than to release it to theaters, so it could
suffer it's ignominy in relative privacy. Choosing to update the
cultural aesthetic to 21st c norms, while keeping the Edwardian
setting of the original book, all it succeeds at doing is creating
a cringe-fest that makes you feel embarassed for everyone involved.
Why does it have to be a remake? Why not just fill in the gap
between or after the following. Even a story before the before.
Disney still thinks remakes are worth doing.
-or-
Disney is suffering from a total lack of imagination
Neither of those is unique to just Disney. About 90% of lazy-ass
Hollyweird suffers from those same things too. :-(
I should add, it's not just Hollyweird either. Book publishers do the
same thing.
They often redesign the book covers, which when done *during* the
release of a series is {beep}ingly annyoying for those collecting them
who end up with either a mismatched set or having to rebuy the older books.
Dorling Kindersley (DK) are also have a bad tendency to release a new edition of a book with a few added new pages - again {beep}ingly
annoying for those who already bought the previous edition.
Then there's the car industry with their rebooting of old models - the"new" Beetle and the "new" Mini being two of the best known examples.
On 5/30/2024 1:58 PM, Your Name wrote:<snippo>
On 2024-05-30 20:34:40 +0000, Your Name said:
On 2024-05-30 15:31:57 +0000, Paul S Person said:
And you think those outcomes are "by accident" because...?Disney still thinks remakes are worth doing.
-or-
Disney is suffering from a total lack of imagination
Neither of those is unique to just Disney. About 90% of lazy-ass
Hollyweird suffers from those same things too. :-(
I should add, it's not just Hollyweird either. Book publishers do the
same thing.
They often redesign the book covers, which when done *during* the
release of a series is {beep}ingly annyoying for those collecting them
who end up with either a mismatched set or having to rebuy the older books. >>
Dorling Kindersley (DK) are also have a bad tendency to release a new
edition of a book with a few added new pages - again {beep}ingly
annoying for those who already bought the previous edition.
On 2024-05-30 15:31:57 +0000, Paul S Person said:
On Thu, 30 May 2024 06:03:54 +0000,
danmin@danminart-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (Danart) wrote:
Rockinghorse Winner wrote:
The new Disney adaptation of the evergreen children's story is
being panned by reviewers all over the internet as woke trash, that
further tarnishes the Disney brand. It currently has a 20% favoarable >>>> rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Released direct to cable, it seems some in >>>> corporate knew enough than to release it to theaters, so it could
suffer it's ignominy in relative privacy. Choosing to update the
cultural aesthetic to 21st c norms, while keeping the Edwardian setting >>>> of the original book, all it succeeds at doing is creating a
cringe-fest that makes you feel embarassed for everyone involved.
Why does it have to be a remake? Why not just fill in the gap between
or after the following. Even a story before the before.
Disney still thinks remakes are worth doing.
-or-
Disney is suffering from a total lack of imagination
Neither of those is unique to just Disney. About 90% of lazy-ass
Hollyweird suffers from those same things too. :-(
On Fri, 31 May 2024 08:34:40 +1200, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:
On 2024-05-30 15:31:57 +0000, Paul S Person said:
On Thu, 30 May 2024 06:03:54 +0000,
danmin@danminart-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (Danart) wrote:
Rockinghorse Winner wrote:
The new Disney adaptation of the evergreen children's story is
being panned by reviewers all over the internet as woke trash, that>>>> >>>>> further tarnishes the Disney brand. It currently has a 20%
favoarable>>>> rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Released direct to cable, it >>>>> seems some in>>>> corporate knew enough than to release it to theaters, >>>>> so it could>>>> suffer it's ignominy in relative privacy. Choosing to >>>>> update the>>>> cultural aesthetic to 21st c norms, while keeping the >>>>> Edwardian setting>>>> of the original book, all it succeeds at doing is >>>>> creating a>>>> cringe-fest that makes you feel embarassed for everyone >>>>> involved.
Why does it have to be a remake? Why not just fill in the gap
between>>> or after the following. Even a story before the before.
Disney still thinks remakes are worth doing.
-or-
Disney is suffering from a total lack of imagination
Neither of those is unique to just Disney. About 90% of
lazy-ass>Hollyweird suffers from those same things too. :-(
Indeed.
But I expect Disney/Pixar to have higher standards.
On 5/30/2024 1:58 PM, Your Name wrote:
On 2024-05-30 20:34:40 +0000, Your Name said:
On 2024-05-30 15:31:57 +0000, Paul S Person said:
On Thu, 30 May 2024 06:03:54 +0000,
danmin@danminart-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (Danart) wrote:
Rockinghorse Winner wrote:
The new Disney adaptation of the evergreen children's story is
being panned by reviewers all over the internet as woke trash, that >>>>>> further tarnishes the Disney brand. It currently has a 20% favoarable >>>>>> rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Released direct to cable, it seems some in >>>>>> corporate knew enough than to release it to theaters, so it could
suffer it's ignominy in relative privacy. Choosing to update the
cultural aesthetic to 21st c norms, while keeping the Edwardian setting >>>>>> of the original book, all it succeeds at doing is creating a
cringe-fest that makes you feel embarassed for everyone involved.
Why does it have to be a remake? Why not just fill in the gap between >>>>> or after the following. Even a story before the before.
Disney still thinks remakes are worth doing.
-or-
Disney is suffering from a total lack of imagination
Neither of those is unique to just Disney. About 90% of lazy-ass
Hollyweird suffers from those same things too. :-(
I should add, it's not just Hollyweird either. Book publishers do the
same thing.
They often redesign the book covers, which when done *during* the
release of a series is {beep}ingly annyoying for those collecting them
who end up with either a mismatched set or having to rebuy the older
books.
Dorling Kindersley (DK) are also have a bad tendency to release a new
edition of a book with a few added new pages - again {beep}ingly
annoying for those who already bought the previous edition.
And you think those outcomes are "by accident" because...?
Then there's the car industry with their rebooting of old models - the
"new" Beetle and the "new" Mini being two of the best known examples.
Paul S Person wrote:
That Pan was not named Peter.
Nice try though
Paul S Person wrote:
That Pan was not named Peter.
Nice try though
Please do not attempt to be a wise-#$@$ with me on the subject of
Pan.
"Fox Five Peter Pan" is the animated series that ran for a
very long time second to "Pirates of The Dark Water".
It was as Good as having Peter Pan everyday.
"Hook" was an unofficial sequel to PP series. However
linking it up to Disney is weak and frail so I might as well go with
FFPP. This scenario he grew up and mark the End of the Pan series.
"Pans Labriyth" is an original work in reference to the term
"Pan" and even references the movie "Labyrinth" in
which clearly both have "The Devil". In fact in PL the idea
the Devil is serving God makes more sense as with David Boey movie.
Point I am making is that
"I want to see a horror movie featuring "The Pan". Boy
or Man or teenager. But then again dickless-Holywood is going
J$#R#@-it-up as they always do and create rubbish instead of gold.
This is a response to the post seen at: >http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=644804354#644804354
"Pans Labriyth" is an original work in reference to the term
"Pan" and even references the movie "Labyrinth" in
which clearly both have "The Devil". In fact in PL the idea
the Devil is serving God makes more sense as with David Boey movie.
It is not about Peter Pan. And no amount of expostulation can make it
so.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 36:24:58 |
| Calls: | 10,392 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,064 |
| Messages: | 6,417,153 |