Charlie The Chatbox Ghost
Well-Known Member
Yes, I am thinking for myself. I am seeing people say "this is what happened in the movie" and choosing to not see it based on my own tastes and beliefs. I have a principle of not seeing these live action films, that's a decision I made for myself long before it was "popular" to do so. Movies live and die by word-of-mouth, so to say that choosing whether or not to see a movie based on word-of-mouth and not seeing is bad undermines how the movie industry works. People are allowed to have opinions of whether or not they want to see a movie without actually seeing it. If a movie has bad word-of-mouth, that's the movie and its marketing's problem. And to say "oh well $15 is insignificant in the grand scheme of things" is just a lazy excuse to justify seeing it even if you're against it. I guarantee you that there are enough people out there actively choosing not to see this to make up a notable amount of lost income- not more than it makes without them, of course, but look at how many people protested Snow White (for reasons that may or may not have been valid)- it bombed. People choosing to vote with their wallet works whether you want to believe it does or not.
And to what I heard- yeah, it's what happens. I have seen dozens and dozens of people say the same exact thing, I have read the official plot summary, I have even looked at clips that have surfaced online of said scenes. You can argue semantics because "oh well Lilo gets given to the neighbor, so technically Nani didn't give her to the state" (even though Nani gave Lilo to the state and the state gave her to the neighbor) and "oh she has a portal gun so she can visit whenever" but that's ignoring the fact that the decision to give Lilo to the foster care system, which just so happens to favorably home Lilo, happened. And it is a very real-world issue in Hawaii of indigenous children being put into the foster care system because it's "better" for them than to live with their families, so for the movie to depict it in a positive manner is enough of a reason for many to not see it. That, plus the absolute butchering of Jumba, the removal of Pleakley's dressing in drag, the casting of a non-Hawaiian girl (half white, half Filipino) to play Nani and the artificial darkening of her skin instead of just casting an actual Hawaiian actress (this is not saying she's a bad actress), the sanitation of the "tourism negatively affects natives" message because of Aulani, the changing of the core message of the original... there's plenty of criticisms being talked about online that are true and valid. The people complaining this movie is "woke" are morons who would've never given this movie a chance anyways- if they did, they'd see it's actually far from it and is more conservative than the original (again, the removal of Pleakley doing drag and the whole message about tourism shows this). I have also seen people praise this movie- but the positives I have seen and don't disagree with are not enough to counter the negatives I have seen and agree with, and they're certainly not enough to counter my entire belief about these movies and how they are an insult to the medium of animation and the animators like myself who work so hard to make these works of art.
The stakes are high with this one, but only because it's the deciding factor on whether or not these remakes are going to keep happening. The bombing of Snow White made Disney cancel some remakes in production, but this remake doing well is going to reverse that decision. Those are the stakes- if it succeeds (which it has), we get more of these. If it fails (which it hasn't), we don't.
You can feel how you want. You are allowed to love this movie. People can love this film and think it's better than the original, they can cry their eyes out at the ending, they can do and say whatever they want. I never said they couldn't, nor am I denying that they are. The box office and audience reviews show that, for better or for worse, this movie is doing great with general audiences. I said I didn't understand why this one is more popular than other remakes despite being of a similar quality, but I never said "you are not allowed to like this film and you're wrong if you do."
All I did was state my opinion and some people got defensive after drawing incorrect conclusions about myself or my knowledge of the film- if it's "torture" to hear an opinion other than your own, maybe you need to reconsider things. You're agonizing over something so unimportant as someone having a different opinion about a movie than you.
I think if the original movie had the changes the remake added, it wouldn't be as beloved. I'm serious. Some of the changes take all the stakes and tension out of the movie, the message is weaker than the original, and some changes play into cliches rather than originality. It'd still be loved, sure, because Stitch is a merchandizing powerhouse. But the original is so beloved BECAUSE of what it does with its characters, story, and themes. There's a reason why so many people look back so fondly on Lilo & Stitch and not, say, Chicken Little.
And for as many movies that I actively choose to not see in theaters, there are ones I go out of my way to see. I drove over an hour each to see Robot Dreams and The Day The Earth Blew Up to support their box office runs. I just went to my local theater to see Friendship on Tuesday, and I saw Thunderbolts the other weekend. I'm not hurting my theater any more by not seeing another pointless live action remake than someone who's choosing not to see a film that I like. Yeah, local theaters are hurting, but the solution isn't "you should see every movie, including the ones you don't want to see."
