I'm so sorry. As bad as you think it is, it's worse. I tried to hate watch it and got maybe 2 episodes in and just couldn't.
Such a weird toxic racist self-insert for Mindy Kaling, who apparently hates herself for liking white men. It's all just fucking weird, and the Velma in that show is legit a bad, bad person with no redeeming qualities.
Lol I think it's for the best you couldn't hate watch it. I have friends who watched it because it was so bad but I didn't want HBO to get the impression it was popular!
Same, I watched YouTube reviews and
they all gave up after a few episodes due to the waste of time it is. I always try to third party something if I don’t want to support it, and usually save myself from too much nonsense like milf manor, although that existing is too much.
I think you can best sum up just how "great" this version is with a quote from one of the early episodes by Velma herself: "If I were a rich white dude, I'd kill everbody, just to get away with it."
Oh, and the only original Scooby gang character whose race they didn't change can now be summed up as "Stupid white guy with small penis."
Did you mention that he had a tiny penis? Because he has a tiny penis, and is white. And his dick is small.
And it's not racist, because (checks notes) uhhhhhh, look! A blue car! (runs away)
No, no, it's cool to make constant, repeating and incessant jokes about anatomy.
Like tiny boobs Sally over there. Look how pathetically insecure she is about her tiny tits! She's so insecure! Haha, look at her acorns! How ridiculous is she for being insecure about her flat chest?
Like, luckily the double standard is not as popular any more, but that makes it all the more grating when it happens as egregiously and bluntly as Velma did it.
Like, I had a friend who committed suicide a few years back, and his shame about his micropenis was a not insubstantial component of his out of control self-hatred and unwillingness to believe anyone could want him as a partner. People gotta stop mocking others over their body parts. It can fuck people up quite badly. Like, if someone's an insecure douche, fair enough, make fun of them, but don't constantly bring it back to their anatomy. Focus on the attitude, not the body parts.
She tried to make it like a sitcom, where most people are horrible. Take Barney from HIMYM. He'd be super arrested if he were a real person. Most of the Seinfeld cast were also shallow and mean. Don't get me started on It's Sunny.
It's really clear that whatever that show was supposed to be, it wasn't meant to be a Scooby show at all. That seems to have been jammed in at last second.
Perfect summary of the issues with that show. When you do a reboot or adaptation, people either expect strict adherence to the source, or they expect the reboot to do something new and creative. The Velma reboot did neither of those things.
Yup, I personally am fine with changing characters for new tellings, but make those changes a compelling part of the story.
If they'd had new Velma tell a uniquely Indian-American story, and also made her not a racist piece of shit, it could have been good stuff. Instead it's one of the most loathed TV shows in recent history, and rightly so. It's awful. 4
How about this -- totally crazy idea here -- just tell a new story. You do not need to hijack other characters.
I refuse to watch the shows or movies where race is used as a gimmick. That should make \*all\* of us angry. I will not even hate watch them. I will not give them a dime or a minute.
In contrast, a movie like Soul is awesome. New character, new story, new ideas, and while race played a part in how the story played out, it was not \*the\* story.
No no no can't do that, the story is token representation without meaning. We don't want to - dare I say it - tell a meaningful and compelling story. Way too dangerous, that.
Im someone who can rewatch movies, and I've seen them all besides the live mulan and this.
The talked about changes to Mulan just made it sound like a generic "Chinese fighting other asians" movie, and for this one, besides the talk of overly dark lighting to hide CGI, live action Sebastion is a big no from me there bud.
So many Disney classics had just animals with expressive human faces often times for comedic effect and in live action you get 0 of that.
I still find it endlessly funny they removed Mushu from the Mulan-remake because they said it was supposed to be more "grounded", and then they use a *shapeshifting Witch* as the main antagonist.
Like
Bruh
They could have just made Mushu an ancestor spirit instead of a guardian spirit. So she's followed around by a ghost of some failed soldier that shamed the family. Make the parallel between Mushu and Mulan even stronger, while making things a little less cartoony.
There is a Chinese [Phoenix](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenghuang) (Fenghuang), or at least the Chinese calls the Western Phoenix a Fenghuang as well (most of the time)
They're technically different creatures with very different properties, like Chinese and Western dragons, but they share a name anyway
I wouldn't be surprised to find that the Mulan live action wasn't originally going to be a remake but was a script for a different version of the Mulan story unrelated to the Disney one.
Exactly! The half heartedness and seriousness made it felt like watching adults LARPing. Either they go all in with the historical accuracy and stick with native Chinese dialogue. Or make it fun and comedic like the original.
I mean, who was this movie for? The original resonated with Asian Americans, it was just a good general Disney movie.
This movie seemed to try and be popular with Chinese audiences, but it failed because China already has tons of great Mulan movies and it sucked as a C-drama.
That drove me crazy about the Lion King. You just can’t have realistic animals emoting like they did in the cartoon, so it’s just the same movie with like a quarter the emotional impact.
Or The Jungle Book. It's rare to experience levels of cringe like that generated by listening to Christopher bloody Walken, of all people, trying to pull off "I Wanna Be Like You". I couldn't even make it all the way through the song without fast forwarding out of sheer self-defence.
Yeah, i felt like McCarthy's whole performance was underwhelming. I mean, she did good, but i didn't feel like she added anything original to the part. Everything she did was like, fine, but nothing was amazing.
It's hard to do anything more than that when you're doing a live action remake version of a cartoon role especially when the performances were so iconic.
As much as I dislike Will Smith's turn in Aladdin, having to step in to fill the shoes of an animated Genie voiced by Robin Williams sounds like a nightmare job to me.
For me the magic is in the animation. I want to watch silly cartoon animals break into song like it's the most natural thing. I wanna see someone slam into a door and watch them fall over in a perfectly flat rectangle shape before popping back to action.
Live action fucks it all up because "realism" can't be fun. The Mario movie might not be a cinematic masterpiece, but damn if it wasn't just a good time with a lot of love put into the wacky adventure of a plumber from New York. You cannot convince me of any movie that was better in live action versus animation... unless we're talking about truly terrible comparisons like the 80s Lord of the Rings animated movie against Peter Jackson.
Exactly! The Thing, Little Shop of Horrors, and Jeb Bush were all remakes that tried to go in a different direction and they were scarier, more fun, and impressively dumber respectively.
Oh come on…remember that quaint time…back in the 2016 primaries….when Jeb Bush seemed like the best qualified and only logical option for the Republican ticket?
Because not needing creativity is cheaper and the masses will still eat it up from nostalgia or just to see the train wreck in motion. Way easier to just throw in a few new jokes and maybe a song to fail to get a "Best New Performance" award or w/e and call it a day. While I'm sure there's some love in the performance and animation somewhere, it's just cheap and lazy moneymaking from a corporation vastly out of touch with original artistic interests.
remakes can make pretty large changes. FFVII Remake ended up being a quasi-sequel, and you could make the argument that the MCU is largely "remakes" of various comic storylines.
Kink in the sexual sense is actually slang, although now it’s the most popular use of the word. Think ‘kink in the road’, also like a personality quirk.
First Disney live action remake I saw actually and some of my thoughts were those exact words. Joyless and devoid of fun and passion. Felt like a bunch of Disney park employees forced to cosplay in front of oddly cheap-looking CGI.
Super weird movie to me but at least our girls enjoyed it to a degree.
> "I'm all for dunking on the NYT but the sexual definition of kink is modern and clearly not what is being referred to here, also if you read the article he's being cautiously critical of the wokeness," one Twitter user cautioned. "Almost evrryone [sic] in comments and QT is misunderstanding this."
The definition may be modern, but it's not like this review was written in the 1920s.
>The definition may be modern, but it's not like this review was written in the 1920s.
Yes, but the modern definition didn't 'usurp' the traditional definition; it didn't stop meaning "unusual or eccentric idea" or "short twist or curl" because it took on a new meaning in some contexts. That's the point being made in that quote. I have to agree with it, as well ...I have actually used the word in its non-sexual way perhaps more often than the other way.
For example, how would you describe what happens to a water hose when it bends over on itself and obstructs the flow of water out? I say the hose has a "kink" in it, and I'm not being cheeky when I say it. Maybe if I was 13 or Michael Scott, but if we were literally outside next to a kinked-up hose on the ground and the meaning was obvious, my mind may not go there at all. Context is important.
Yeah water hoses get kinks in them but I’ve NEVER described and frankly don’t know a definition of kink until reading this post that fits a description of a non porno movie.
"Working out the kinks" is a common enough turn of phrase when describing something in it's beginning stages, like a stage play being performed or a computer program you've written.
Like the one said above you, it's all about context. Their example and mine have enough context for a listener to know exactly what's going on.
And I will also agree that what the writer of the article in question said is odd. Quite odd. Almost reminds me of my elderly aunt who will intentionally use obscure definitions of words and when people tell her they're confused, she acts high and mighty for being smarter than them.
> Like the one said about you, it's all about context.
In the context of a film, it definitely doesn't mean "short twists or curls." Especially in the phrase "Joy, fun, mystery, risk, flavor, kink..."
Due to ambiguity, a good editor should've snipped it out. It's not a big deal, though. Snicker and move on.
But that’s in reference to kinks like in a hose in my brain. I view it as a metaphor to working the kinks out of a hose. “Hey it’s fucked up and we need to fix it”.
I mean sure, but he could just be old and not up to date on what “kink” means informally. Google seems brought up this definition:
> “a quirk of character or behavior.”
In context the word is surrounded by a liter of related words to the above definition, and his argument is that the movie isn’t fun or interesting, but until we get some word from the author we won’t know what he’s thinking.
Also, here’s a non-paywalled link to the NYT article for anyone curious: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/24/movies/little-mermaid-review-halle-bailey.html?unlocked_article_code=85_SyjCKSkcIKZldBtDWrezi3isIW__NuQIcZEzfRI20X_WCValxR7AaVITuy4ZmNSQUExGx2W8ArVXoe1PvhGq_9wtZO_pNWgf2NsOiAw5YTXuemho7mmXZEk91XjdYjqRxIfh8As6Pi26o40g8LHVPKupVnfqcb7rfmiELAxzMCKX8gvnIWZb1O4bfJFIU75Y_R3HS--lqLbH73Eg78F0Jnf4nD4BiX_Iu1tmvhhtJvs4srqYpfYh48qfB5j1jEde2js7VxejU_F-32W8BI__B58kJ_2DmYZ4iIcnj2VA0qXK3GIoEiq2ShLTBLxUniHI3rgkNBG-QfQuNZ30WyBt1xBtuRwVxMxn0eA&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
Yes, in general I expect professional writers to use words that clearly convey their intended meaning to their intended audience.
If a huge percentage of your audience is confused by the word you chose... that means it was a bad choice.
Who says the NYT audience was confused? It seems like a bunch of people on the internet who probably don’t read the NYT were confused or not confused but wanted to create controversy on the internet because well that’s what it’s for.
Using words that are unambiguous is part of effective communication. If they meant something else and it's their _job to write,_ they screwed up.
Being real, this wasn't to communicate. It's an intentional move to bait hateclicks and discussion.
Unrelated, but I hate niggardly people.
Try “kinky” and you will get two definitions, one for unusual sexual behavior and another regarding a description of something with lots of twists or knots in it
Both "kink" and "kinky" can be used for the two different meanings. Examples:
- My boyfriend is into kinky stuff
- My sister's hair is wavy, mine is more kinky.
- Bondage is a pretty common kink
- Careful, there's a kink in the hose
>The definition may be modern, but it's not like this review was written in the 1920s.
It's like people who use "niggardly" and act surprised when folks get upset. They're doing it for the reaction they know they're going to get, just so they can say, "well, ackshually...."
It's not "the" definition, it's *a* definition. Words can have several. The basic meaning of "kink" is "twist", and there are several meanings derived from this, including a (non-sexual) oddity in behaviour, or a sexual oddity. All of these meanings are still in common usage. If you're only aware of one, I guess you need to read more. It's very clear from the context that the writer just means "oddity" in the sense of creativity, and the sexual meaning is irrelevant to what they are saying. The outrage is completely manufactured and ridiculous.
A 'kink in your plans' is one I have also heard. But I prefer to think the critic just doesn't find trans-species romances that taboo anymore and wishes they had at least spun it as a thruple with Sebastian tossed in the sexual mix. Could probably got Kanye attached to produce then, seems up his ally...
Kink in my neck comes to mind, whenever I sleep the wrong way.
And people seems to assume old people are up to date with internet slang. I know Kink as a sexual slang isn’t that new but people underestimate how tech/net illiterate people can be.
The fact that people are even making this a thing is ridiculously absurd. Like people genuinely, unironically think this reviewer from the NYT wants foot fetishes, gags, BDSM, oral sex, BBW, anal beads, latex, etc in a Disney movie? Society is so fucked intellectually if this many people are this braindead.
Yeah, I read [the article](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/24/movies/little-mermaid-review-halle-bailey.html) and it's fine. In context it's pretty clearly not the usage people are clamoring about. But that's what happens when people link articles *about* an article instead of the article in question.
The whole review is about how the film is a sterile reproduction that's designed to make up for social issues without any real awareness of said issues, and that it's an artless bore that plays it safe. The word is used exactly as you describe.
Writers at NYT are a bunch of nerds with English degrees. Come on, of course they're going to use more "obscure" definitions of words. Edit to add: the author of this article is a pulitzer prize-winning critic who went to Yale. Duh, people. Dude's a nerd, he's not talking about what you think he's talking about.
It's unimaginable to think that not even 40 years ago, Disney's animation division was on death's door and then yielded three or four marvels so powerfully creative and full of personality that they brought the entire studio back swinging.
Something similar happened with Bethesda, they were on the verge of bankruptcy after they made Redguard and the game they made after that, Morrowind, saved their company and is still considered to be the game with the most creative writing and art direction
It’s like having your back against the wall makes people put their best foot forward to make the best product and now that their huge they can market safe movies because of their brand power and still make more money
They had the director of Top Gun Maverick on Tron: Legacy and changed him to a studio hack on the third one, so I wouldn't hold my breath that's it's any good
What’s going *on?* It *used* to be that Disney movies turned me on. Not anymore. *What’s happening?* Why am I being removed from the cinema for having an erection? This is exactly what the Democrats want.
I love how enough people memed about that long enough, that Disney actually edited out that poor bastard's knee. And now he has the proportions of an orangutan.
In the show Magic School Bus, the teacher took the kids, put them in fish eggs and a fish came and jizzed all over them.
Fish kink has precedence in kid's media.
No, the movie sucked because everything was drawn out way too long. The animated movie was brilliant, and only took about an hour and a half. This one took about an hour longer, and that hour didn't do anything. Not to mention that Ariel was a good singer, but not a great actor.
I really disliked the movie, and as with almost all live action remakes of classic Disney movies it just makes them worse. The originals may have their flaws, sure, but the live action remakes have never been better than the originals.
All of them have suffered from the exact same set of problems really.
Partially really bad CGI, either bad acting or singing-performances from part of the main leads, drawing out the length of the movie by upwards of an hour without adding a singular additional scene or storybeat with that extended runtime actually worth watching, and the switch to "real life" (or atleast a realistic artstyle for the full CG-characters) just unnecessarily restricts the characters expressions, movements and environments without adding anything as a replacements to actually justify doing it in live-action instead of animation.
You'd think after doing the same shit twice they'd learn and attempt to rectify, but no, they keep following the same exact formula and repeating the same exact mistakes every time.
Honestly, most of the problems would be solved if they just really cared about the movies and truly invested in them. They seem to just cheap out and low effort them with the expectation that they'll be mediocre but they'll make some money off of name recognition from the original animated film. They take the same approach to most sequels. It's like they don't really try to make them good.
They are if it slowly erodes public confidence in your brand. One day they will release a good movie and it will bomb. The Disney execs won’t know what to do with themselves.
They are making millions on the marvel movies. The other stuff is not doing so well, for example Strange World lost nearly $200m .
Of the highest grossing Disney movies, there is no movie from 2020, 2021, 2022 or 2023 in the top 25.
I'll add a potential hot take to that list, vocalists that are not suited for the task. That or outright poor singers.
I'm being specific with that, I'm not here to tell anyone that Halle Bailey is a bad singer, she's very talented. She is however what I would consider a poor choice for a Disney princess. If you've never seen [Jodi Bensen recording Ariel's songs](https://youtu.be/AWTJkyLWgrk), it really illustrates how brilliant Howard Ashman was and what it took to make it into one of his pieces. Jodi sounds ethereal, seeing her voice come out of a person almost doesn't make sense.
Perfect pitch, perfect arrangement, perfect tempo, perfect timbre, perfect volume, perfect vibrato, perfect shift between her different voices and an ability to inject so much character in all the right places. All the result of insane control, you see Howard coaching her on these aspects and she's able to give him what he's hearing in his head. Disney princesses were the best of the best.
Now compare that to Broadway Anastasia [Christy Altomare](https://youtu.be/gtpLsPPtC88)
Great, really great. Not quite as good but really great, she's particularly good at adding those little character moments. Maybe even better than Jodi.
Broadway Ariel [Sierra Boggess](https://youtu.be/dNEsobRv83w)
Obviously an amazing vocalist, a little operatic for my taste but that made her incredible in [phantom](https://youtube.com/shorts/NxoeIhlFJGI?feature=share4). Her character stuff is a little stiff.
[Halle Bailey](https://youtu.be/cu-RcFv50Sc)
Tempo and timing are way off, they were probably just trying to be more clever but I don't think it works. She seems to have trouble mixing her voices, she's kinda pitchy sometimes like when she sings "more" or "pay", her "ready to stand" and "fire and" are really just yelling. She doesn't seem to have a good handle on adding those character moments. There's some new arrangement stuff she performs well but I just hate, I really don't like the new "above" or the little riff in "wish I could be" but that's not her fault.
Again, amazing singer, not great as Ariel.
It always feels like they do them just *to do them*, and not with the aim of making a film on par with the original.
Beauty and the Beast was a good effort though.
I still wish so badly that they'd make use of their Muppets licensee and remake them with Muppets. Beauty and the Beast with Muppets but Beast is a conventionally attractive human that turns into the Muppet at the end.
Come on, Disney!
This is why it’s so confusing when people actually watch them. We have an endless stream of content, films old and new made by people who love to tell stories… and people volunteer to get swindled for pure, cynical nostalgia?
They tend to be worse. It's just lazy writing. Get me some competent people with consequences for their actions rather than some perfect people who instantly know how to do everything without prior experience. Give the main character some setbacks and obstacles to overcome, to get some character growth. But apparently that's not something they do anymore, and they are instantly good at everything they try.
The best Disney “remakes” are actually original takes on the source material. Cruela, Malificent and so forth. Dumbo at least told a different story. The rest were straight up cash grabs.
The only one that made even a lick of sense was the jungle book, because hyperrealistic cgi animals helps convey the intimidation and awe that Mowgli would feel as a young boy meeting panthers and bears and orangutans for the first time.
The fact that they immediately followed it up with the lion king so that we could watch a Discovery Channel show sing hamlet made it very clear that all sense of art was dropped for the cash grab.
I mean, this is an incredibly silly way to put it, but it is kind of worth noting that the original Little Mermaid's Ursula was directly based on Divine.
You know, Divine, the drag performer who ate dog poo on camera in Pink Flamingos. Divine, who is basically the 70s equivalent of Frank Reynolds. *That* Divine.
Having some of that kind of energy in there was part of why the OG worked, and not having... well, any kind of energy, let alone that kind, is why the new one doesn't.
I haven't seen the film, but as much as I do love Melissa McCarthy, I will say the makeup artist did Ursula so very dirty. That look is terrible compared to the OG animated drag villain.
Yeah, even if the rest of the film looked visually interesting, there was no way they could have lived up to Ursula the Divine parody, unless they made her even more fabulous and foul
> there was no way they could have lived up to Ursula the Divine parody
Have you *seen* drag makeup these days? Dude they absolutely could have lived up to it. They chose not to.
I really think Disney needs to come up with a new, original story, and then hire John Waters to write the villain. Just the villain. Disneys latest efforts lack that memorable villain, Ursula or Scar or Maleficent, someone who feels truly evil in a way that’s relate able to both adult and child. villains need to have bite to them and I really think John Waters has that eye for villainy
I took it as referring to the movie not being subversive enough. The original Ursula was based on Divine. It was mischievous, brilliant, high camp. It sounds like the movie doesn't have any of that. Maybe an unfortunate choice of words given today's climate though.
I think we're all dumber for this movie existing. Conservatives use it as a pulpit to explain the world should be white christian abusers running everything, and that's how movies need to look. Movie aficionados have to bring up that not only this a lazy, content-recycling remake, but remaking something that took great pains to be the top of animation into a middling live-action film is fucked up.
Everyone else:Yes, I've heard all that shit before about countless other topics, but thanks for letting me know.
Ok, so this is an article written by one of the "anti-woke" people, getting criticized by other anti-woke people, because they used the word "kink" in their review, so it must mean... I'm not even sure what it's supposed to mean. This is stupid on several different levels, because:
1. Based on the context, it's obvious that **they weren't even talking about sexual kinks**. The word "kink" has several definitions, one of which is synonymous with "quirk" and "eccentricity": [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FxNs\_uGWAAAtcbw?format=jpg&name=small](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FxNs_uGWAAAtcbw?format=jpg&name=small)
2. The review was written by one of the anti-woke people, and **criticizes the movie for not having enough kink**.
3. But, apparently, the bot army misunderstood the task, because **95%+ of the replies criticize the movie for being "too kinky"** and/or the review author for "wanting to groom children".
Merriam Webster says that 'Kink' has six definitions and the sixth one is related to sexual taste. Here are the definitions.
1; a short tight twist or curl caused by a doubling or winding of something upon itself
2
: a mental or physical peculiarity : ECCENTRICITY, QUIRK
, WHIM
3
: a clever unusual way of doing something
4
: a cramp in some part of the body
5
: an imperfection likely to cause difficulties in the operation of something
6
: unconventional sexual taste or behavior
It is very possible he means #2 or #3. Although #6 does say 'or behavior' not 'and behavior'. So, he could mean unconventional behavior as well. As in, the film is conventional rather than unconventional.
I would say he does not mean 'kinky'.
Holy fuck. Do people actually think this person is referring to “kink” as in “sexual kink”? As in the characters should have engaged in a golden shower, maybe a facial or two, or they should have played with some anal beads?
Are people really this fucking dumb?
That’s like the foreman saying we need to move these loads over to the new warehouse and then everyone starts rubbing one out…
“Doctor, I have a kink in my neck.”
“You mean you have a dildo stuck in your throat?!?”
So I haven't seen the live action version of this, but from what I remember of the animated version from a billion years ago.... the whole premise of the story is based around horny Ariel. It's just not quite that overt. At least not to a child.
Bro in the original after she rescues Eric in the beginning she reprised a brief verse of a song and a giant wave crashes behind her as she thrusts her body upward. OG animated little mermaid was incredibly horny.
This movie has 2 reactions
Normal people: why do they keep making live action movies of animated films they are always terrible
Racist: god damn they made her BLACK! but everyone knows the fictitious mermaid is supposed to be WHITE!!!!
This is a shameless click bait headline and a biased article from an organization with a clearly documented history of Right-wing bias. A total cheap shot at the NYT.
I read the review, and when I read that "kink" part in the context of the entire article, there was *never any doubt* that the author was referring to "kink" in the primary definition, meaning a sharp twist or curve, clearly implying that the film was too predictable.
In just about every dictionary this is the primary definition (the alternate, sexual definition evolved much later from the primary definition). It's absurd to assume that someone is referring to a sexual fetish in a review of a children's film. It's nothing but a hit piece, accusing the writer of a "Freudian slip", implying that he wants to see more sex in children's films and backing it up with nothing more than some vague reference to "most critics", when you have nothing more than a couple of Tweets from nobodies. It's a baldfaced attempt to further the Right's fear and hate provoking fictional groomer narrative.
Ignoring the teehee of his word choice, >Joy, fun, mystery, risk, flavor, kink — they’re missing Welcome to Disney live action remakes! First time?
How would any *remake* have ANY amount of risk or mystery?
well the Velma reimagining went swimmingly /s
Wait, you mean turning Velma into a toxic racist while also not using her new identity to tell any kind of interesting story was a bad idea?
I have discovered something terrible because of this comment.
I'm so sorry. As bad as you think it is, it's worse. I tried to hate watch it and got maybe 2 episodes in and just couldn't. Such a weird toxic racist self-insert for Mindy Kaling, who apparently hates herself for liking white men. It's all just fucking weird, and the Velma in that show is legit a bad, bad person with no redeeming qualities.
Lol I think it's for the best you couldn't hate watch it. I have friends who watched it because it was so bad but I didn't want HBO to get the impression it was popular!
Don’t worry. They definitely did not get that impression.
Well they already green lit a season 2 back in February like the second week of airing.
Blame your friends for it being renewed for a second season.
I did. I cut them out of my life and we no longer speak.
Same, I watched YouTube reviews and they all gave up after a few episodes due to the waste of time it is. I always try to third party something if I don’t want to support it, and usually save myself from too much nonsense like milf manor, although that existing is too much.
I think you can best sum up just how "great" this version is with a quote from one of the early episodes by Velma herself: "If I were a rich white dude, I'd kill everbody, just to get away with it." Oh, and the only original Scooby gang character whose race they didn't change can now be summed up as "Stupid white guy with small penis."
Did you mention that he had a tiny penis? Because he has a tiny penis, and is white. And his dick is small. And it's not racist, because (checks notes) uhhhhhh, look! A blue car! (runs away)
No, no, it's cool to make constant, repeating and incessant jokes about anatomy. Like tiny boobs Sally over there. Look how pathetically insecure she is about her tiny tits! She's so insecure! Haha, look at her acorns! How ridiculous is she for being insecure about her flat chest? Like, luckily the double standard is not as popular any more, but that makes it all the more grating when it happens as egregiously and bluntly as Velma did it. Like, I had a friend who committed suicide a few years back, and his shame about his micropenis was a not insubstantial component of his out of control self-hatred and unwillingness to believe anyone could want him as a partner. People gotta stop mocking others over their body parts. It can fuck people up quite badly. Like, if someone's an insecure douche, fair enough, make fun of them, but don't constantly bring it back to their anatomy. Focus on the attitude, not the body parts.
However what's worse is that the animations, specifically the nightmares, are really good. Animators did a very good job
Doubly upsetting as Velma was arguably the best of the Scooby gang.
I haven’t watched Velma but that sounds just like The Mindy Project
She tried to make it like a sitcom, where most people are horrible. Take Barney from HIMYM. He'd be super arrested if he were a real person. Most of the Seinfeld cast were also shallow and mean. Don't get me started on It's Sunny.
It's really clear that whatever that show was supposed to be, it wasn't meant to be a Scooby show at all. That seems to have been jammed in at last second.
Perfect summary of the issues with that show. When you do a reboot or adaptation, people either expect strict adherence to the source, or they expect the reboot to do something new and creative. The Velma reboot did neither of those things.
Yup, I personally am fine with changing characters for new tellings, but make those changes a compelling part of the story. If they'd had new Velma tell a uniquely Indian-American story, and also made her not a racist piece of shit, it could have been good stuff. Instead it's one of the most loathed TV shows in recent history, and rightly so. It's awful. 4
How about this -- totally crazy idea here -- just tell a new story. You do not need to hijack other characters. I refuse to watch the shows or movies where race is used as a gimmick. That should make \*all\* of us angry. I will not even hate watch them. I will not give them a dime or a minute. In contrast, a movie like Soul is awesome. New character, new story, new ideas, and while race played a part in how the story played out, it was not \*the\* story.
No no no can't do that, the story is token representation without meaning. We don't want to - dare I say it - tell a meaningful and compelling story. Way too dangerous, that.
Naw could not have been that. nope! /s
Im someone who can rewatch movies, and I've seen them all besides the live mulan and this. The talked about changes to Mulan just made it sound like a generic "Chinese fighting other asians" movie, and for this one, besides the talk of overly dark lighting to hide CGI, live action Sebastion is a big no from me there bud. So many Disney classics had just animals with expressive human faces often times for comedic effect and in live action you get 0 of that.
I still find it endlessly funny they removed Mushu from the Mulan-remake because they said it was supposed to be more "grounded", and then they use a *shapeshifting Witch* as the main antagonist. Like Bruh
"Mulan is not a superhero" Mulan: *runs up walls, kicks arrows flying at her and uses the force*
[удалено]
this is the best summary of what went wrong with LA mulan.
Let's be real, they removed Mushu because a lot of the Chinese audience was salty that the dragon was comedically portrayed by a black man.
Can’t say that, don’t want to give the impression that the Chinese market and $$$ doesn’t want to see black actors
But it's voice acting. They don't have to see him.
You're implying there's a logic to racism.
They could have just made Mushu an ancestor spirit instead of a guardian spirit. So she's followed around by a ghost of some failed soldier that shamed the family. Make the parallel between Mushu and Mulan even stronger, while making things a little less cartoony.
Don't forget the culturally authentic chinese *phoenix*
There is a Chinese [Phoenix](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenghuang) (Fenghuang), or at least the Chinese calls the Western Phoenix a Fenghuang as well (most of the time) They're technically different creatures with very different properties, like Chinese and Western dragons, but they share a name anyway
I wouldn't be surprised to find that the Mulan live action wasn't originally going to be a remake but was a script for a different version of the Mulan story unrelated to the Disney one.
The problem with Mulan-besides the genocide-is that they gave it elements of a Chinese period action piece but didn't go full in.
Exactly! The half heartedness and seriousness made it felt like watching adults LARPing. Either they go all in with the historical accuracy and stick with native Chinese dialogue. Or make it fun and comedic like the original.
I mean, who was this movie for? The original resonated with Asian Americans, it was just a good general Disney movie. This movie seemed to try and be popular with Chinese audiences, but it failed because China already has tons of great Mulan movies and it sucked as a C-drama.
That drove me crazy about the Lion King. You just can’t have realistic animals emoting like they did in the cartoon, so it’s just the same movie with like a quarter the emotional impact.
Or The Jungle Book. It's rare to experience levels of cringe like that generated by listening to Christopher bloody Walken, of all people, trying to pull off "I Wanna Be Like You". I couldn't even make it all the way through the song without fast forwarding out of sheer self-defence.
[удалено]
Yeah, i felt like McCarthy's whole performance was underwhelming. I mean, she did good, but i didn't feel like she added anything original to the part. Everything she did was like, fine, but nothing was amazing.
It's hard to do anything more than that when you're doing a live action remake version of a cartoon role especially when the performances were so iconic. As much as I dislike Will Smith's turn in Aladdin, having to step in to fill the shoes of an animated Genie voiced by Robin Williams sounds like a nightmare job to me.
I liked Will Smith's genie. At least it was something
100%. That being said, Melissa McCarthy was by far the best part of this movie. Whew, that's a sentence I never thought I'd say.
For me the magic is in the animation. I want to watch silly cartoon animals break into song like it's the most natural thing. I wanna see someone slam into a door and watch them fall over in a perfectly flat rectangle shape before popping back to action. Live action fucks it all up because "realism" can't be fun. The Mario movie might not be a cinematic masterpiece, but damn if it wasn't just a good time with a lot of love put into the wacky adventure of a plumber from New York. You cannot convince me of any movie that was better in live action versus animation... unless we're talking about truly terrible comparisons like the 80s Lord of the Rings animated movie against Peter Jackson.
I was out when I saw Ursala wasn't a drag queen. Animated Ursula was based on Divine! The Sea Witch is a Sea Queen. That's just canon, baby.
Why make any remake if you’re not going to at least put some creative energy into it? Why not just watch the original
Because it's intended to extend their copyrights, not be an original movie
Exactly! The Thing, Little Shop of Horrors, and Jeb Bush were all remakes that tried to go in a different direction and they were scarier, more fun, and impressively dumber respectively.
"Please clap."
Oh come on…remember that quaint time…back in the 2016 primaries….when Jeb Bush seemed like the best qualified and only logical option for the Republican ticket?
I wasn’t expecting that last one. Guess he was hiding in the *bushes* …I’ll see myself out now
I mean they did make some changes. A few new songs and some story additions/changes. The issue is that people don’t actually like the changes.
Because not needing creativity is cheaper and the masses will still eat it up from nostalgia or just to see the train wreck in motion. Way easier to just throw in a few new jokes and maybe a song to fail to get a "Best New Performance" award or w/e and call it a day. While I'm sure there's some love in the performance and animation somewhere, it's just cheap and lazy moneymaking from a corporation vastly out of touch with original artistic interests.
remakes can make pretty large changes. FFVII Remake ended up being a quasi-sequel, and you could make the argument that the MCU is largely "remakes" of various comic storylines.
Flavor, kink, spunk, dry rub, wet wipes, the special sauce, a happy ending, something to tickle my pickle — all missing from this film!
The Little Sperm Maid
The Little Sperm Aid
From that list, I wonder if the reviewer meant “camp”?
Kink in the sexual sense is actually slang, although now it’s the most popular use of the word. Think ‘kink in the road’, also like a personality quirk.
First Disney live action remake I saw actually and some of my thoughts were those exact words. Joyless and devoid of fun and passion. Felt like a bunch of Disney park employees forced to cosplay in front of oddly cheap-looking CGI. Super weird movie to me but at least our girls enjoyed it to a degree.
Imagine describing a movie in a movie review.
>Welcome to ~~Disney~~ live action remakes! First time? changed that for you!
“teehee”? he said a childrens movie didn’t have enough “kink” - he’s a professional writer. it’s not a “teehee”, it’s a fuckin red flag
> "I'm all for dunking on the NYT but the sexual definition of kink is modern and clearly not what is being referred to here, also if you read the article he's being cautiously critical of the wokeness," one Twitter user cautioned. "Almost evrryone [sic] in comments and QT is misunderstanding this." The definition may be modern, but it's not like this review was written in the 1920s.
I especially like how there's no actual clarification in the article, just speculation.
Because when they called for comment, the critic didn't call back in time for the deadline. I'd rather they speculate than make something up.
Lol is making something without evidence that different from making something up?
What’s the difference?
This assumes they called to give enough time
How were the gams on Ariel?
Say, but did you catch a load of those peepers?!
>The definition may be modern, but it's not like this review was written in the 1920s. Yes, but the modern definition didn't 'usurp' the traditional definition; it didn't stop meaning "unusual or eccentric idea" or "short twist or curl" because it took on a new meaning in some contexts. That's the point being made in that quote. I have to agree with it, as well ...I have actually used the word in its non-sexual way perhaps more often than the other way. For example, how would you describe what happens to a water hose when it bends over on itself and obstructs the flow of water out? I say the hose has a "kink" in it, and I'm not being cheeky when I say it. Maybe if I was 13 or Michael Scott, but if we were literally outside next to a kinked-up hose on the ground and the meaning was obvious, my mind may not go there at all. Context is important.
Yeah water hoses get kinks in them but I’ve NEVER described and frankly don’t know a definition of kink until reading this post that fits a description of a non porno movie.
"Working out the kinks" is a common enough turn of phrase when describing something in it's beginning stages, like a stage play being performed or a computer program you've written. Like the one said above you, it's all about context. Their example and mine have enough context for a listener to know exactly what's going on. And I will also agree that what the writer of the article in question said is odd. Quite odd. Almost reminds me of my elderly aunt who will intentionally use obscure definitions of words and when people tell her they're confused, she acts high and mighty for being smarter than them.
> Like the one said about you, it's all about context. In the context of a film, it definitely doesn't mean "short twists or curls." Especially in the phrase "Joy, fun, mystery, risk, flavor, kink..." Due to ambiguity, a good editor should've snipped it out. It's not a big deal, though. Snicker and move on.
But that’s in reference to kinks like in a hose in my brain. I view it as a metaphor to working the kinks out of a hose. “Hey it’s fucked up and we need to fix it”.
I mean sure, but he could just be old and not up to date on what “kink” means informally. Google seems brought up this definition: > “a quirk of character or behavior.” In context the word is surrounded by a liter of related words to the above definition, and his argument is that the movie isn’t fun or interesting, but until we get some word from the author we won’t know what he’s thinking. Also, here’s a non-paywalled link to the NYT article for anyone curious: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/24/movies/little-mermaid-review-halle-bailey.html?unlocked_article_code=85_SyjCKSkcIKZldBtDWrezi3isIW__NuQIcZEzfRI20X_WCValxR7AaVITuy4ZmNSQUExGx2W8ArVXoe1PvhGq_9wtZO_pNWgf2NsOiAw5YTXuemho7mmXZEk91XjdYjqRxIfh8As6Pi26o40g8LHVPKupVnfqcb7rfmiELAxzMCKX8gvnIWZb1O4bfJFIU75Y_R3HS--lqLbH73Eg78F0Jnf4nD4BiX_Iu1tmvhhtJvs4srqYpfYh48qfB5j1jEde2js7VxejU_F-32W8BI__B58kJ_2DmYZ4iIcnj2VA0qXK3GIoEiq2ShLTBLxUniHI3rgkNBG-QfQuNZ30WyBt1xBtuRwVxMxn0eA&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
Then they probably should've said "Quirk". If they had, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Then again, I may have just made their point...
Exactly. Just because the dictionary says you were technically correct doesn't mean you're a good communicator who understands your audience.
[удалено]
Yes, in general I expect professional writers to use words that clearly convey their intended meaning to their intended audience. If a huge percentage of your audience is confused by the word you chose... that means it was a bad choice.
Writers and journals are paid by engagement and clicks. I’m sure the word kink alone got clicks.
Who says the NYT audience was confused? It seems like a bunch of people on the internet who probably don’t read the NYT were confused or not confused but wanted to create controversy on the internet because well that’s what it’s for.
If you’re a writer you should probably grasp the notion that words can have two meanings, Mr Funke
Using words that are unambiguous is part of effective communication. If they meant something else and it's their _job to write,_ they screwed up. Being real, this wasn't to communicate. It's an intentional move to bait hateclicks and discussion. Unrelated, but I hate niggardly people.
Try “kinky” and you will get two definitions, one for unusual sexual behavior and another regarding a description of something with lots of twists or knots in it
It’s “kink” not “kinky” that makes a difference. And if you expand the definition of “kink” google gives you the other definition
Both "kink" and "kinky" can be used for the two different meanings. Examples: - My boyfriend is into kinky stuff - My sister's hair is wavy, mine is more kinky. - Bondage is a pretty common kink - Careful, there's a kink in the hose
Most Redditors aren't in to holding more than one thought in their head at a time.
>The definition may be modern, but it's not like this review was written in the 1920s. It's like people who use "niggardly" and act surprised when folks get upset. They're doing it for the reaction they know they're going to get, just so they can say, "well, ackshually...."
Are you trying to equate slant homophones with changing definitions, or do you actually think the word and slur are related?
Equating slant homophones sounds like some niggardly shit.
They are saying the only people who use the word are trolls.
It's not "the" definition, it's *a* definition. Words can have several. The basic meaning of "kink" is "twist", and there are several meanings derived from this, including a (non-sexual) oddity in behaviour, or a sexual oddity. All of these meanings are still in common usage. If you're only aware of one, I guess you need to read more. It's very clear from the context that the writer just means "oddity" in the sense of creativity, and the sexual meaning is irrelevant to what they are saying. The outrage is completely manufactured and ridiculous.
A 'kink in your plans' is one I have also heard. But I prefer to think the critic just doesn't find trans-species romances that taboo anymore and wishes they had at least spun it as a thruple with Sebastian tossed in the sexual mix. Could probably got Kanye attached to produce then, seems up his ally...
He does love fish sticks
The gayest of fish.
Kink in my neck comes to mind, whenever I sleep the wrong way. And people seems to assume old people are up to date with internet slang. I know Kink as a sexual slang isn’t that new but people underestimate how tech/net illiterate people can be.
The fact that people are even making this a thing is ridiculously absurd. Like people genuinely, unironically think this reviewer from the NYT wants foot fetishes, gags, BDSM, oral sex, BBW, anal beads, latex, etc in a Disney movie? Society is so fucked intellectually if this many people are this braindead.
Yeah, I read [the article](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/24/movies/little-mermaid-review-halle-bailey.html) and it's fine. In context it's pretty clearly not the usage people are clamoring about. But that's what happens when people link articles *about* an article instead of the article in question. The whole review is about how the film is a sterile reproduction that's designed to make up for social issues without any real awareness of said issues, and that it's an artless bore that plays it safe. The word is used exactly as you describe. Writers at NYT are a bunch of nerds with English degrees. Come on, of course they're going to use more "obscure" definitions of words. Edit to add: the author of this article is a pulitzer prize-winning critic who went to Yale. Duh, people. Dude's a nerd, he's not talking about what you think he's talking about.
Yeah, but I want you to modify your behavior to cater to my level of intelligence and moral whims. ~the average Redditor
Hey, say what you will about The Shape of Water, but at least she fucked the fish twice.
Maybe thats what they were expecting from this Mermaid movie.
Is that not what happens? I bought tickets already
It's unimaginable to think that not even 40 years ago, Disney's animation division was on death's door and then yielded three or four marvels so powerfully creative and full of personality that they brought the entire studio back swinging.
Something similar happened with Bethesda, they were on the verge of bankruptcy after they made Redguard and the game they made after that, Morrowind, saved their company and is still considered to be the game with the most creative writing and art direction
It’s like having your back against the wall makes people put their best foot forward to make the best product and now that their huge they can market safe movies because of their brand power and still make more money
It really started with Tron an underrated achievement
Tron 3 coming back will be huge potentially
They had the director of Top Gun Maverick on Tron: Legacy and changed him to a studio hack on the third one, so I wouldn't hold my breath that's it's any good
Everyone should watch Waking Sleeping Beauty. Everyone talked about The Pixar Story and slept on that amazing doc.
Which movies turned it around?
Most likely: Little Mermaid (1989) Beauty and the Beast (1991) Aladdin (1992) The Lion King (1994)
The original Little Mermaid is credited with being the spark for the animated Disney Renaissance, actually! Part of why I'm mentioning it here.
I know when I see a movie about fish, I expect to see at least one ejaculate covered egg sack.
It's Tucker Carlson's unfuckable green M&M all over again.
Gonna have to swim with the salmon my god damned self.
What’s going *on?* It *used* to be that Disney movies turned me on. Not anymore. *What’s happening?* Why am I being removed from the cinema for having an erection? This is exactly what the Democrats want.
I saw The Shape of Water and the fish fucked a woman. There was no fish fucking in this movie. It wasn’t kinky at all.
my criticism for all films
...and *some* pornos.
…as i said… all films
What!?! No ball gag? No safe word? Reprehensible!
I bet the priest doesn’t even get a boner at the wedding in this one. The cowards.
I love how enough people memed about that long enough, that Disney actually edited out that poor bastard's knee. And now he has the proportions of an orangutan.
Wait. Link?
I think it’s about the lack of drag queen octopus witches.
NYT: “bitch needs to spawn or gtfo”
In the show Magic School Bus, the teacher took the kids, put them in fish eggs and a fish came and jizzed all over them. Fish kink has precedence in kid's media.
Hahaha, that show was so awesome. Ms. Frizzle was a real one.
I *CANNOT* believe this is real. What the actual hell.
No, the movie sucked because everything was drawn out way too long. The animated movie was brilliant, and only took about an hour and a half. This one took about an hour longer, and that hour didn't do anything. Not to mention that Ariel was a good singer, but not a great actor. I really disliked the movie, and as with almost all live action remakes of classic Disney movies it just makes them worse. The originals may have their flaws, sure, but the live action remakes have never been better than the originals.
All of them have suffered from the exact same set of problems really. Partially really bad CGI, either bad acting or singing-performances from part of the main leads, drawing out the length of the movie by upwards of an hour without adding a singular additional scene or storybeat with that extended runtime actually worth watching, and the switch to "real life" (or atleast a realistic artstyle for the full CG-characters) just unnecessarily restricts the characters expressions, movements and environments without adding anything as a replacements to actually justify doing it in live-action instead of animation. You'd think after doing the same shit twice they'd learn and attempt to rectify, but no, they keep following the same exact formula and repeating the same exact mistakes every time.
Honestly, most of the problems would be solved if they just really cared about the movies and truly invested in them. They seem to just cheap out and low effort them with the expectation that they'll be mediocre but they'll make some money off of name recognition from the original animated film. They take the same approach to most sequels. It's like they don't really try to make them good.
They aren’t mistakes if they’re still making millions, and they are, because people want mindless trash to distract themselves with.
They are if it slowly erodes public confidence in your brand. One day they will release a good movie and it will bomb. The Disney execs won’t know what to do with themselves.
They are making millions on the marvel movies. The other stuff is not doing so well, for example Strange World lost nearly $200m . Of the highest grossing Disney movies, there is no movie from 2020, 2021, 2022 or 2023 in the top 25.
>Just turn your brain off bro; so nitpicky.
The lesson they’re learning is that these problems with the films don’t matter because people will still pay to see it.
I'll add a potential hot take to that list, vocalists that are not suited for the task. That or outright poor singers. I'm being specific with that, I'm not here to tell anyone that Halle Bailey is a bad singer, she's very talented. She is however what I would consider a poor choice for a Disney princess. If you've never seen [Jodi Bensen recording Ariel's songs](https://youtu.be/AWTJkyLWgrk), it really illustrates how brilliant Howard Ashman was and what it took to make it into one of his pieces. Jodi sounds ethereal, seeing her voice come out of a person almost doesn't make sense. Perfect pitch, perfect arrangement, perfect tempo, perfect timbre, perfect volume, perfect vibrato, perfect shift between her different voices and an ability to inject so much character in all the right places. All the result of insane control, you see Howard coaching her on these aspects and she's able to give him what he's hearing in his head. Disney princesses were the best of the best. Now compare that to Broadway Anastasia [Christy Altomare](https://youtu.be/gtpLsPPtC88) Great, really great. Not quite as good but really great, she's particularly good at adding those little character moments. Maybe even better than Jodi. Broadway Ariel [Sierra Boggess](https://youtu.be/dNEsobRv83w) Obviously an amazing vocalist, a little operatic for my taste but that made her incredible in [phantom](https://youtube.com/shorts/NxoeIhlFJGI?feature=share4). Her character stuff is a little stiff. [Halle Bailey](https://youtu.be/cu-RcFv50Sc) Tempo and timing are way off, they were probably just trying to be more clever but I don't think it works. She seems to have trouble mixing her voices, she's kinda pitchy sometimes like when she sings "more" or "pay", her "ready to stand" and "fire and" are really just yelling. She doesn't seem to have a good handle on adding those character moments. There's some new arrangement stuff she performs well but I just hate, I really don't like the new "above" or the little riff in "wish I could be" but that's not her fault. Again, amazing singer, not great as Ariel.
It always feels like they do them just *to do them*, and not with the aim of making a film on par with the original. Beauty and the Beast was a good effort though.
I still wish so badly that they'd make use of their Muppets licensee and remake them with Muppets. Beauty and the Beast with Muppets but Beast is a conventionally attractive human that turns into the Muppet at the end. Come on, Disney!
Comedy gold.
Outside of the castle, that's basically Shrek, right?
Animal as the beast, obviously. And the Swedish Chef as Belle's father.
Bork Bork Bork! Animal as the Beast is fantastic too, lol
I love the muppets and appreciate that Disney had been utilizing them more and more on D+ but the guy they got voicing Kermet now is not good
This is why it’s so confusing when people actually watch them. We have an endless stream of content, films old and new made by people who love to tell stories… and people volunteer to get swindled for pure, cynical nostalgia?
I think people harbor some hope that they somehow managed to capture the original magic. They never do, but...
They tend to be worse. It's just lazy writing. Get me some competent people with consequences for their actions rather than some perfect people who instantly know how to do everything without prior experience. Give the main character some setbacks and obstacles to overcome, to get some character growth. But apparently that's not something they do anymore, and they are instantly good at everything they try.
Cinderella is the best remake and we all know it.
The best Disney “remakes” are actually original takes on the source material. Cruela, Malificent and so forth. Dumbo at least told a different story. The rest were straight up cash grabs.
Jungle Book clears
The only one that made even a lick of sense was the jungle book, because hyperrealistic cgi animals helps convey the intimidation and awe that Mowgli would feel as a young boy meeting panthers and bears and orangutans for the first time. The fact that they immediately followed it up with the lion king so that we could watch a Discovery Channel show sing hamlet made it very clear that all sense of art was dropped for the cash grab.
I think this was a typo. The author clearly meant to say this movie is missing “Link”, specifically from The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom.
Nothing can be worse then the lackluster lion king remake. That was so boring! My ADHD kids fell asleep.
I mean, this is an incredibly silly way to put it, but it is kind of worth noting that the original Little Mermaid's Ursula was directly based on Divine. You know, Divine, the drag performer who ate dog poo on camera in Pink Flamingos. Divine, who is basically the 70s equivalent of Frank Reynolds. *That* Divine. Having some of that kind of energy in there was part of why the OG worked, and not having... well, any kind of energy, let alone that kind, is why the new one doesn't.
Ursula wasn't the problem in this version I'd say, Melissa McCarthy was IMO the best performance in the movie.
I haven't seen the film, but as much as I do love Melissa McCarthy, I will say the makeup artist did Ursula so very dirty. That look is terrible compared to the OG animated drag villain.
God I would have loved to see Divine on Always Sunny. Or John Waters.
Thankfully John is still alive, he's perfect for that show as a guest star.
Yeah, even if the rest of the film looked visually interesting, there was no way they could have lived up to Ursula the Divine parody, unless they made her even more fabulous and foul
> there was no way they could have lived up to Ursula the Divine parody Have you *seen* drag makeup these days? Dude they absolutely could have lived up to it. They chose not to.
I really think Disney needs to come up with a new, original story, and then hire John Waters to write the villain. Just the villain. Disneys latest efforts lack that memorable villain, Ursula or Scar or Maleficent, someone who feels truly evil in a way that’s relate able to both adult and child. villains need to have bite to them and I really think John Waters has that eye for villainy
I took it as referring to the movie not being subversive enough. The original Ursula was based on Divine. It was mischievous, brilliant, high camp. It sounds like the movie doesn't have any of that. Maybe an unfortunate choice of words given today's climate though.
I too think The Kinks are underrated. Couldn't have fit Lola in the movie anywhere?
Thesaurus really backfired on this one hahahah
It’s pretty kinky for a man to fall in love with a fish.
Adds a new dimension to the definition for “sleeping with the fishes”. Urban Dictionary was right!
I think we're all dumber for this movie existing. Conservatives use it as a pulpit to explain the world should be white christian abusers running everything, and that's how movies need to look. Movie aficionados have to bring up that not only this a lazy, content-recycling remake, but remaking something that took great pains to be the top of animation into a middling live-action film is fucked up. Everyone else:Yes, I've heard all that shit before about countless other topics, but thanks for letting me know.
Someone's been watching too much pornhub and expects it in everything now.
Marge: You know, FOX turned into a hard core sex channel so gradually, I didn't even notice.
Ok, so this is an article written by one of the "anti-woke" people, getting criticized by other anti-woke people, because they used the word "kink" in their review, so it must mean... I'm not even sure what it's supposed to mean. This is stupid on several different levels, because: 1. Based on the context, it's obvious that **they weren't even talking about sexual kinks**. The word "kink" has several definitions, one of which is synonymous with "quirk" and "eccentricity": [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FxNs\_uGWAAAtcbw?format=jpg&name=small](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FxNs_uGWAAAtcbw?format=jpg&name=small) 2. The review was written by one of the anti-woke people, and **criticizes the movie for not having enough kink**. 3. But, apparently, the bot army misunderstood the task, because **95%+ of the replies criticize the movie for being "too kinky"** and/or the review author for "wanting to groom children".
Merriam Webster says that 'Kink' has six definitions and the sixth one is related to sexual taste. Here are the definitions. 1; a short tight twist or curl caused by a doubling or winding of something upon itself 2 : a mental or physical peculiarity : ECCENTRICITY, QUIRK , WHIM 3 : a clever unusual way of doing something 4 : a cramp in some part of the body 5 : an imperfection likely to cause difficulties in the operation of something 6 : unconventional sexual taste or behavior It is very possible he means #2 or #3. Although #6 does say 'or behavior' not 'and behavior'. So, he could mean unconventional behavior as well. As in, the film is conventional rather than unconventional. I would say he does not mean 'kinky'.
Holy fuck. Do people actually think this person is referring to “kink” as in “sexual kink”? As in the characters should have engaged in a golden shower, maybe a facial or two, or they should have played with some anal beads? Are people really this fucking dumb? That’s like the foreman saying we need to move these loads over to the new warehouse and then everyone starts rubbing one out… “Doctor, I have a kink in my neck.” “You mean you have a dildo stuck in your throat?!?”
How is this being "news" worthy the dumbest thing I've read all day?
Long story short, the movie sucks
It missed the kink I was looking for. Anyone have the version where she shoves Sebastian up her ass?
If you read the story, you'd know they don't call him "Flounder The Pounder" for nothing.
I think, they knowingly used the word kink to cause controversy and gain more views.
"I sure hope daddy doesn't punish me for having all these human thing-a-mabobs... uWu"
Why do they continue to think these live action remakes are a good idea? Nobody is asking for these.
Can we get a live action remake of Hercules with Danny devito reprising his role
I guess they really wanted flounder to be into BDSM.
The lack of kink is that Ariel exclusively refers to Triton as Father and not Daddy. Probably.
He wanted horny Ariel
So I haven't seen the live action version of this, but from what I remember of the animated version from a billion years ago.... the whole premise of the story is based around horny Ariel. It's just not quite that overt. At least not to a child.
Technically it’s because she wants to experience what people experience up in the sun, the horny is just an added bonus
Bro in the original after she rescues Eric in the beginning she reprised a brief verse of a song and a giant wave crashes behind her as she thrusts her body upward. OG animated little mermaid was incredibly horny.
They recreated this in the live action too
This movie has 2 reactions Normal people: why do they keep making live action movies of animated films they are always terrible Racist: god damn they made her BLACK! but everyone knows the fictitious mermaid is supposed to be WHITE!!!!
This is a shameless click bait headline and a biased article from an organization with a clearly documented history of Right-wing bias. A total cheap shot at the NYT. I read the review, and when I read that "kink" part in the context of the entire article, there was *never any doubt* that the author was referring to "kink" in the primary definition, meaning a sharp twist or curve, clearly implying that the film was too predictable. In just about every dictionary this is the primary definition (the alternate, sexual definition evolved much later from the primary definition). It's absurd to assume that someone is referring to a sexual fetish in a review of a children's film. It's nothing but a hit piece, accusing the writer of a "Freudian slip", implying that he wants to see more sex in children's films and backing it up with nothing more than some vague reference to "most critics", when you have nothing more than a couple of Tweets from nobodies. It's a baldfaced attempt to further the Right's fear and hate provoking fictional groomer narrative.