TV/Movies Megathread

[Oexmelin]

I am sure the thinking is recycling old IPs, and that the industry, like all entertainment industry, has become extremely risk-averse. 

But I also think there is a true formal crisis at Disney. They do not seem to know what to do with animation as a distinct more of storytelling. Pixar characters all look like Pixar characters. Sometimes they have great stories and are able to tap into the Zeitgeist (Frozen, Inside Out), or create really gorgeous visual set pieces (Coco). Sometimes they take risk on the story (Turning Red), though the backlash on this one will probably ensure it's going to be the last for a bit. But otherwise, I don't understand the decision to reshoot precisely those movies where animation had a major added value: signing furniture, animals, or anthropomorphic animals, or even the deliberate artistic choices of Lilo and Stitch, who do not look like typical a Disney characters. They work great in animation. It's considerably impoverished in live-cgi.

[Jacob]

I think you're looking too much into it. For Disney those remakes are just a way to repackage their classics and sell them again, it's all about creating IP. The choice of making them live action is just to give a pretense of novelty.

But I agree on your broader commentary about how tales are becoming ossified in our modern culture. There's always been an interplay between the familiar and the new when you're telling a story, but it feels the balance is breaking in the past 10-20 years in favor of reitereating not just characters and stories, but even storytelling devices and structures themselves. And I always wonder whether is a product of risk adversity from the industry (which, I can tell you first hand, is extremely risk adverse), or they are truly giving audiences what they want - in part at least.

I think there's definitely a part of the audience that wants it - they're (at least partially) catering to the detail obsessed fans who wants the "lore" and "world building" to be intricate, detailed, and above all internally consistent and factual.

But I'm pretty sure risk adversity also plays into it. Effectively milking established IP (and buying other successful IP to expand the stable) provides more predictable returns for shareholders than taking creative risk.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

I mean the had to put creepy dwarfs in it because the original motely crew tested so badly that they panicked. So the wokest option didn't stay but the decision doomed it from the start.

that 'motely' crew were already the replacements after they decided not to use actors with dwarfism. (Iirc, after Peter Dinklage yapped a bit too much, much to the chagrin of the actors losing those opportunities)

[Josquius]

The media really should stop casting people with dwarfism as dwarfs. LOTR did it right.

[HVC]

The media really should stop casting people with dwarfism as dwarfs. LOTR did it right.

Peter Dinklage agrees with you, after getting his start with stereotypical roles of course. All the other little people actors have some strong words for you though.

[Josquius]

The media really should stop casting people with dwarfism as dwarfs. LOTR did it right.

Peter Dinklage agrees with you, after getting his start with stereotypical roles of course. All the other little people actors have some strong words for you though.

Its fine to do it in panto. And of course have regular human roles played by people with dwarfism. But this should be clearly a distinct thing from fantasy dwarves. They can even be in fantasy ala Tyrion.
When the dwarves showed up in the Witcher....that was a major "This show has gone shit" breakpoint. It just looks wrong.

[HVC]

Your concerns don't pay the bills for the actors it's not like they have a lot of roles to begin with. Dinklage actually faced a lot of backlash within his community.

Look up Brad Williams. You should anyway, he's hilarious.

[Josquius]

Your concerns don't pay the bills for the actors it's not like they have a lot of roles to begin with. Dinklage actually faced a lot of backlash within his community.

Lots of actors without dwarfism who can do a fine Scottish accent would like a job too :p

I have noticed since GOT that I do see people with dwarfism in regular-people roles more and more. When I was a kid they basically were just stuck doing low budget fantasy.

[HVC]

Your concerns don't pay the bills for the actors it's not like they have a lot of roles to begin with. Dinklage actually faced a lot of backlash within his community.

Lots of actors without dwarfism who can do a fine Scottish accent would like a job too :p

I have noticed since GOT that I do see people with dwarfism in regular-people roles more and more. When I was a kid they basically were just stuck doing low budget fantasy.

You can fake an accent, you can't fake being tall... unless you're Tom cruises I guess

[HVC]

Quote from Brad Williams to save you some time. He also has a bit about it, but this is his serious view:

CGI. They CGIed dwarves. There we are. Aren't those good looking little people? The reason for it, now, there's some misconception or some debate about what the actual reason is, but I believe, I believe the reason is literally Peter Dinklage was on the Marc Maron podcast. He is really good, and I'm not a fan of him for this. But he pretty much said, because Maron brought up that they're doing a live-action version of Snow White, and Dinklage kind of went like 'oh, I hope they're not doing the dwarf thing again. Like we have to deal with that.' And I'm sitting here like 'well, some of us would like to deal with that, Dink!' Some of us would like to have that opportunity to deal with that. Because there's not that many roles. Like he's been amazingly successful and I love that he takes roles that aren't written for dwarves. When he hosted SNL, they never made one dwarf joke. And I found out from some friends that were cast members that that was one of the rules. He came in and said no dwarf jokes. So I'm saying, Lorne, if you're listening, I could host, you can make all the dwarf jokes you want. Let fly. Let's go.

If you want to make it a little more woke, okay. Make different gendered dwarves. Make dwarves of different races, fine. Give people more opportunities. I'm all for that, but I'm not for just being like 'nah.' Because there's not that many roles. If you look throughout the history of Hollywood, the game is usually the same. The game is whatever race you are, whatever minority you are, you start getting roles by taking the stereotypical roles, and then you slowly assimilate yourself.

I find The liberal tendency to need save people from themselves to be very problematic.

[garbon]

I guess in this instance, Jos and Peter Dinklage are stand-ins for this monolithic liberal bloc?

[HVC]

I guess in this instance, Jos and Peter Dinklage are stand-ins for this monolithic liberal bloc?

In this case, yes this isn't the only example though. My pet peeve is the LatinX thing, but I recognize it irrationally bothers me. Mostly dying down though.

[Josquius]

I don't know what you're talking about saving people from themselves.
My problem with people with dwarfism playing Dwarves is it looks silly. That's not what a fantasy Dwarf is
It's bad enough when theres just one Dwarf but when you've a band of them, with all their diversity of types of dwarfism, it's pretty obvious these are just humans and not Dwarves.

I get little people want those roles. But I'm sure lots of unsuitable people want lots of unsuitable roles.

[crazy canuck]

Dinklage was brilliant in portraying a man who was rejected by his father because of his appearance.

He may have had some experience to draw from for that role.

[The Brain]

Are there people who confuse Dwarfs derived from the beings of Nordic myth, often encountered in Fantasy, with actual real-life Dwarfs?