Comments by "Ash Roskell" (@ashroskell) on "Snow White - How To Destroy Your Own Movie" video.

  1. We don’t have to, “imagine,” any more, do we?
    3
  2.  @pamceol717  : Yes. Yes it would, “make more sense just to make a different movie.” Unless . . . Unless, that is, you are more interested in making some MONEY than you are in art, animation, the legacy of Walt Disney or pleasing an audience. They just want to cash in on old IP’s because they have no creative thoughts of their own and this model has worked pretty well for the juggernaut that is Disney PLC for some years now. They think they can have their cake and eat it too, by stepping on the shoulders of giants and hijacking their original artistic achievements for the sake of crowbarring their own political messaging in them, in a rather sinister, sort of Soviet Hollywood, kind of way, while making lots and lots of MONEY. I hope it backfires this time. 👍
    3
  3.  @clarkalvarez1729  : What has that to do with Disney remaking a version of their own movie? Yes, the original tales were far grimmer than the ones that made it to the screens of FAMILY audiences. How is that even relevant?
    2
  4.  @clarkalvarez1729  : What’s different now (and I can’t believe I’m having to explain this) is that Disney is not offering you a sociological analysis of post medieval world views, the moral ambiguity of folk tales, or a critique of womanhood as viewed historically. They are marketing a remake of their own FAMILY classic movie, as they have done with all the other cartoons they have translated to live action. To put it in simpler terms, Disney is supposed to be giving you a remake of THEIR OWN movie. Their own movie that was NEVER meant to reflect the values or horror beats of the original, just as Cinderella never did, nor did Pinokkio, etc. The complaint is NOT about the original tale. That misses the point entirely. The point is that Disney seems to be ashamed of their own classics, which the people in their audience are not. Snow White, the cartoon is still beloved, and will remain so, long after this revisionist trash of a, “remake,” is forgotten. Instead of insulting Walt Disney’s own work (he was the lead animator and artist for the original) why didn’t they just make a different movie about female power fantasies and how, “awful,” men are? Because no one is interested? Probably. Do you get it now? Maybe, if you still don’t, you could do some research on art, art criticism and the cultural relevance of revisionism? Y’know? Maybe, “read a book?”
    2
  5.  @thoughtprofit  : Well, that’s a good point. Yes, there can be things in these old movies that press some people’s, “Yikes,” nerves, but most audiences instantly place those things in their appropriate place in history and move on. That’s why The Jew Of Malta and The Merchant Of Venice still get stage plays and movies to this day, without anyone protesting the inherent, blatant racism of so many characters in the scripts. And, at least one of the reasons those plays are still popular is because they offer us a window into the times and the directors, writers and producers were smart enough to JUST LEAVE THEM TF ALONE without trying to change them! ✌️
    2
  6.  @sydliquid2152  : Jeez, calm down, kid. Why shouldn’t people, “care,” about art, criticism or their heritage? And, you’re wrong. Studios fund movies for the, “cash grab,” but artists, who believe in art, make the movies. Or that is how it is supposed to work, and that’s why people don’t like to see resources wasted on cynical cash grabbing, when it could be spent on better, more entertaining, less, “lecturing,” content. I put the question to you out of politeness, but you had to be a dick about it. So, now I’ve shown you how and why you are WRONG, empirically. You were better off putting questions instead of turning into a Disney Dicktator. 😉
    2
  7.  @clarkalvarez1729  : Yes I did, didn’t I. Still, not bad for a dyslexic who relies on autocorrections, etc, for most of his written sentences. At least I was right about everything else, like, the content of my message, right?
    1
  8.  @gwynnapnudd702  : Don’t eat brown snow. 😉
    1
  9.  @clarkalvarez1729  : Firstly, I called you out for attempting to, “belittle,” the original commenter with your, “read a book,” quip, whilst demonstrably missing the point of her comment. Secondly, the kid who says, “read a book,” as a pejorative now says, “I don’t read many books,” adding hypocrisy to his growing list of charges. I was curt with you, but not rude or dismissive, taking the time to explain exactly how and why you are wrong, so you might learn something and grow. So, if you can step out from behind your shield of defensiveness, you might try spelling, “Pinocchio,” the way I did and find that YouTube’s engine does not offer an alternative? Then you might remember that the rules of grammar and diction are there for the sake of clarity? Did you understand me? Yes. Have you since learned of my disability? Yes. Do you persist in persecuting me for this one error, in an attempt to distract from the pompous, out of place, remarks you were being challenged for? Yes. Now, we can add bullying to your charge sheet. But never fear, as I can no more be offended or upset by bullies on social media than I can smell your farts. The mere fact that you pursue this line instead of defending the indefensible also marks you out as a moral coward, unwilling (or unable) to admit to being wrong. Just hold up your hands, tell me I have a point, and leave it at that. I may have a range of what is popularly known as, “neuro-divergent,” disabilities (I prefer to think of them as, “conditions,” even, “enhancements,” in some cases) but I am extremely smart, highly articulate and I give careful thought to my words before expressing them. You should try it some time? In the end, your initial criticism was snobbish, ill intentioned and fundamentally missed the point. I spoke up because I don’t like it when people dismiss others out of ignorance, attempting to crush their spirit for no other reason than their own insecurities. Stop doing that and you will have more friends . . . friends that are worth the name, that is.
    1
  10.  @sydliquid2152  : But isn’t that what Disney is doing? They, “see it as a redoing,” and not, “just a movie, like it or not,” which is why they’re using identical costumes, sets and character looks. It is quite deliberately using the original as its main marketing platform. So, surely what you ask is impossible?
    1
  11.  @thegreatveritas  : Exactly 🙄👍
    1
  12.  @dickottel  : Really? . . . 🙄
    1
  13. “The reality is that William Shakespeare wrote his entire cannon 400 years ago, so his attitudes are totally dated and irrelevant now . . .” Wait . . . What? . . .
    1