• 7 Posts
  • 355 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: August 8th, 2024

help-circle
  • Lord of the Rings. The pacing is absolutely untenable. And it’s not the wide shots; it’s the constant close up reaction shots. Just endless seconds wasted on people staring at each other.

    The Dark Knight is overrated. The ending makes no sense. The people would lose hope if they knew Harvey Dent went crazy, but they’re still perfectly hopeful believing he was murdered by Batman? Come on.

    Also, Batman voice is stupid. It’s a silly creative choice, and I just can’t take it seriously.



  • Ok, so then extrapolate further. What if the other person wasn’t tied to the tracks and instead the switched train just barrels through one child’s bedroom. Still moral?

    Extrapolate even further. Suppose three different people are dying because they each need different organ transplants. Is it moral to kill one person and save those three? What if someone else kidnapped the victim but asked you to do the deed - is that person the killer? If your line isn’t at “My actions resulted in this death that otherwise wouldn’t have happened,” then where is it?











  • moakley@lemmy.worldtoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world•Oh Eddy Boy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    None of that contradicts what I said. Of course they’re aware of the outsized backlash from the incel community. Of course they need to prepare their stars against the disgusting threats of your cohort. That doesn’t mean the South Park demographic has any financial weight behind it when it comes to Disney Princess movies.

    And none of that even begins to suggest that they actual benefit from the anti-hype, and as I already pointed out, there’s a significant financial disincentive to cast a Black lead, because it loses the Chinese market.

    So you’re just really bad at arguing. Your whole premise is easily dismissed by thinking about it for like a second. You just want to hate on Black Ariel for some reason you refuse to name, and you think that makes you clever. It doesn’t.


  • moakley@lemmy.worldtoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world•Oh Eddy Boy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    You can’t just do the movie-goer equivalent of “I can’t be racist because I have a black friend”. That doesn’t matter.

    I’m going to assume you believe the following: Disney understands that casting non-white actors as white characters (based on prior depictions) is going to be controversial.

    You assume incorrectly. Their choices are only controversial to chuds. It’s not controversial to anyone without that same ragebait agenda. Chuds happen to be an extremely loud minority, but they don’t buy tickets to children’s princess movies.

    This whole thing is just silly. You think they hired Rachel Zegler not because she was arguably the biggest breakthrough young actress that year and had just won a Golden Globe for her first ever film, but because her skin tone is two shades darker than a 90 year old cartoon? Seriously? You really think that?

    Be serious for a moment, because that’s obviously ridiculous.



  • moakley@lemmy.worldtoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world•Oh Eddy Boy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    So you’re describing a conspiracy theory where you think Disney is the architect of this culture war bullshit because it’s free advertising for their live action remakes.

    That doesn’t hold up to even a little bit of scrutiny.

    • Diverse casting in a remake was a thing for decades before the current culture war situation. Disney cast Brandy as Cinderella in 1997 to absolutely no backlash.

    • The racist backlash doesn’t actually provide any financial benefit for Disney. In fact there’s a significant cost to it, because Chinese audiences won’t see a movie with a Black lead.

    So if you’re being sincere here you should reconsider your stance. Unless there’s some other reason you might want to take that side.


  • moakley@lemmy.worldtoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world•Oh Eddy Boy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    It’s about making movies for little girls. It’s also about representation.

    I do think Disney was thinking about it, because they saw the backlash and they kept doing it.

    So doing it again in spite of the negative reaction is what it looks like when they care?

    What do you suppose it would look like if they didn’t care what lonely white men think? They’d react directly to their desires and not do it again?

    Does that really make sense?



  • moakley@lemmy.worldtoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world•Oh Eddy Boy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Disney deliberately makes these choices, knowing it will piss people off,

    Do you really think that Disney was focused on what lonely white men think while casting these actresses for princess movies?

    Because that makes you sound like someone who is so used to being the default demographic for everything that maybe you have trouble processing the idea that this specific thing just isn’t about you.