Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Dark Horizons)   New Aladdin film will pass the Bechdel test but fail the Baekho test   ( darkhorizons.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Jasmine, Henchman, Jasmine's relationship, English-language films, female character, upcoming live-action adaptation, original 1990s cartoon, sole female character  
•       •       •

2099 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 09 Nov 2017 at 5:40 AM (13 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



33 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2017-11-09 05:42:40 AM  
Holy shiat subby, you reached far for that one.
 
2017-11-09 05:51:14 AM  
Korean mythology reference? That's a rarity.
 
2017-11-09 06:11:26 AM  
FTFA: Rajah is gone in order to focus on Jasmine's relationship with a new character, her handmaid Dalia (played by Nasim Pedrad).
Why is this? Because the film wanted to show how Jasmine relates to another woman and, unfortunately in the original 1990s cartoon, Jasmine is the sole female character main or supporting. Scott says:


So let me get this strait there is going to be Will Smith as the Genie the poor man's Eddie Murphy?  We're adding unneeded female characters to pass some dumb test that will really just dumb it down even further? 
Part of the reason I liked Jasmine as a kid was the fact that she held her own among this seemingly male dominated society that was Agrabah. She stood up and said "Sorry I wanna love someone and not be held down by your rules Dad," Adding to the fact that this will be directed by an action movie director who possibly won't translate well into family entertainment is another red flag.
With no Rajah and no Iago in it this movie is starting to sound like a box office disaster waiting to happen.
 
2017-11-09 06:25:17 AM  

alice_600: With no Rajah and no Iago in it this movie is starting to sound like a box office disaster waiting to happen.


I have zero hope for it personally; hell, I forgot it was even happening. In general it seems like most of these live action Disney films have done poorly, and I don't see it changing for this one. Not even convinced on Lion King.
 
2017-11-09 06:48:14 AM  

FriarReb98: alice_600: With no Rajah and no Iago in it this movie is starting to sound like a box office disaster waiting to happen.

I have zero hope for it personally; hell, I forgot it was even happening. In general it seems like most of these live action Disney films have done poorly, and I don't see it changing for this one. Not even convinced on Lion King.


We still have Dumbo coming out too.
 
2017-11-09 06:54:06 AM  
Have they white washed the film yet?
 
2017-11-09 06:54:18 AM  
The farking bechdel test isnt meant to be a test of quality it was a writing tool to showcase a trope, this is as stupid as people that think white priviledge is supposed to be about individuals instead of a statistical thing about a whole class.

Removing the tiger of all things is stupid. A whole part of the theatrical presentation of Jasmine was how she lounged with the tiger.
 
2017-11-09 06:59:52 AM  

FriarReb98: alice_600: With no Rajah and no Iago in it this movie is starting to sound like a box office disaster waiting to happen.

I have zero hope for it personally; hell, I forgot it was even happening. In general it seems like most of these live action Disney films have done poorly, and I don't see it changing for this one. Not even convinced on Lion King.


Maleficent, Pete's Dragon. and the Jungle Book were great. Haven't seen Cinderella.

Beauty and the Beast was only OK in my book. Which is weird because the original is hands down my favorite out of the 90's movies. The remake felt like a well done high school play version of the original. It could just be nostalgia, but the animated version has more emotion in it for me.

I'd have much rather they'd done a less direct remake and taken a different angle on the original story. Maybe given Gaston even more depth than the smidge they tried to do. Even better and really ballsy would have been to tell a story from the enchanted servants perspective with the main story going off in the background, when they aren't front and center. Could have been really subversive and done the show about a show thing, implicating everything Belle experienced was staged for her benefit. Because it kinda was.
 
2017-11-09 07:04:40 AM  
I hope it has a live-action Gilbert Gottfried in a parrot costume. I'd pay to see that.
 
2017-11-09 07:26:59 AM  
No Raja and no Iago? That's a surprising move by Disney simply from a commercial perspective...
Guess they're relying solely on Abu for adorable animal sidekick merch money.

I'm still not sure how well some animated stories translate to live action, particularly ones involving lots of effects. CGI has come an awful long way, and it's pretty awesome what they can do, but a great deal of the time, it's still noticeable as CGI, and tends to stick out. Whereas animation is generally uniform visually. I think Beauty and the Beast suffered a bit from that. I found the CGI servants... Visually distracting?

All this said, I rather enjoyed Maleficent, I thought Cinderella was alright, and B&B was okay.
I've appreciated the fact they've at least tried to add/improve/change various character/plot elements that might have been lacking in the originals. I liked in Cinderella how they actually gave the stepmother some characterization and made her a little sympathetic, rather than just being an evil b*tch just for the sake of being an evil b*tch. As for B&B, I liked that they fleshed out Gaston a little more, too.
Maleficent I appreciated simply for the fact that, rightly or wrongly, they took a character and did something different with them, sorta. Well, and Ms Jolie is usually pretty fun to watch.

TL:DR - I'll give it a shot, I'm not overly enthused or anything, but I won't throw in under the bus just yet.
 
2017-11-09 07:56:37 AM  
Jasmine is supposed to be isolated with only a tiger for a friend. That is half the point of her story arc. Argh.
 
2017-11-09 08:01:14 AM  
Not enough?
stateplanthire.com.auView Full Size
 
2017-11-09 08:13:35 AM  

Satampra Zeiros: I liked in Cinderella how they actually gave the stepmother some characterization and made her a little sympathetic, rather than just being an evil b*tch just for the sake of being an evil b*tch.


The Jerry Lewis movie Cinderfella actually did this as well. Yes, she wanted what was best for her sons, but when truth came to light, she took her lumps.
 
2017-11-09 08:19:16 AM  
alice_600:So let me get this strait there is going to be Will Smith as the Genie the poor man's Eddie Murphy?

...what?
 
2017-11-09 08:19:57 AM  

Boudyro: Maleficent, Pete's Dragon. and the Jungle Book were great.


Maleficent was awful. As a lifelong second-wave feminist I was aghast at the idea of making Maleficent into a sympathetic character because she was allegorically "raped" by her lover, and turning her evil acts into a simple "revenge against all men in response to the horrible things they did to her" subplot. Every male character in that movie was a cartoonish stereotype, and they were all either irrationally evil, stupid lackeys, or useless pretty things that served no purpose. That movie was a love letter to Valerie Solanas. I half-expected Maleficent to require her dumb lackey to call himself a turd.
 
2017-11-09 08:47:00 AM  
All Disney, all the time, does much to explain the childishness of modern American culture.
 
2017-11-09 08:57:13 AM  

Smashed Hat: I hope it has a live-action Gilbert Gottfried in a parrot costume. I'd pay to see that.


Go full weird the. Add Christopher Walken as the tiger, not doing the voice of a fake tiger, but as a man that Jasmine has been told is a tiger and she doesn't know any better.
 
2017-11-09 09:31:24 AM  

WilderKWight: Boudyro: Maleficent, Pete's Dragon. and the Jungle Book were great.

Maleficent was awful. As a lifelong second-wave feminist I was aghast at the idea of making Maleficent into a sympathetic character because she was allegorically "raped" by her lover, and turning her evil acts into a simple "revenge against all men in response to the horrible things they did to her" subplot. Every male character in that movie was a cartoonish stereotype, and they were all either irrationally evil, stupid lackeys, or useless pretty things that served no purpose. That movie was a love letter to Valerie Solanas. I half-expected Maleficent to require her dumb lackey to call himself a turd.


See you saw all that baggage, and I saw a story that focused on Maleficent and Aurora's relationship that laid on a strong message of: Revenge is bad because it rarely ever satisfies and can hurt you and the ones you love more than your target.

There had to be a significant betrayal of Maleficent's trust to advance the story. Using your filter there isn't anything a storyteller could use that you wouldn't equate with rape. Rape is a betrayal so any sufficiently nasty betrayal is going to meet that criteria.

She didn't target all men, just one man in particular, and to hell with anyone between her and him. She had no anger towards Prince Phillip, if he'd have woken Aurora Maleficent would have been happy.

Stephan wasn't irrational, he was power hungry. He chose power over love, and every action he takes after that makes perfect sense in that context. His story is actually a tragedy, because he doesn't overcome his flaw, which by the way, is how it goes for most villains. Not overcoming their flaw while the hero overcomes theirs is why villains lose in the end.

The main person directly harmed by Maleficent's actions (outside of battle) was Aurora. How does targeting her curse on Aurora equal revenge against all men?

I took Diaval to be a sidekick, and not a stupid one. One who acted more like her conscience.
 
2017-11-09 09:32:04 AM  

FriarReb98: alice_600: With no Rajah and no Iago in it this movie is starting to sound like a box office disaster waiting to happen.

I have zero hope for it personally; hell, I forgot it was even happening. In general it seems like most of these live action Disney films have done poorly, and I don't see it changing for this one. Not even convinced on Lion King.


Actually the live action Beauty and the Beast is currently the top grossing movie of 2017 in the US.

img.fark.netView Full Size


The Jungle Book remake was also #5 for 2016. Disney has actually printed money off of these remakes.
 
2017-11-09 09:45:05 AM  
No Iago alone is reason enough for me to ignore this movie. Why did they drop him anyways? Everyone still mad about the inappropriate joke Gottfried made about the tsunami in japan?
 
2017-11-09 09:52:27 AM  
Just read on io9 that the tiger will be in the movie.
 
2017-11-09 10:33:43 AM  
Sounds like they're taking a few pages from the musical production, which can be good or bad, depending on execution. I saw the Chicago production a few months back, my summary as follows was:

- The Genie was fantastic fabulous, and I'm happy that they just redefined the way the character was portrayed for a new actor rather than aping Williams,
- Replacing Abu with a trio of dudes to hang out with Aladdin was... fine. They gave Jasmine some handmaidens but they had all of two or three lines. They weren't significant in any way
- The actors playing Aladdin and Jasmine were... fine. Those characters are MacGuffins, anyways, it's not their story
- The songs they added in to fill time were... fine. Jarring, because I was so used to the movie's songs and rhythms, but otherwise executed alright
- Turning Iago into a sidekick human actually worked really well
- The guy playing Jafar, or the way the part was written, was TERRRRRRRIBLE and nearly ruined the entire production for me

A lot of these things were because the stage performance couldn't do a lot of things that you can do in an animated film (duh) or even a live action film production, so I figure they'll be closer to the original again in the movie. Just as long as they once again have the Genie based more off of the actor rather than trying to imitate Williams (which I expect they are, given they picked Will Smith).
 
2017-11-09 11:08:56 AM  

Bermuda59: Smashed Hat: I hope it has a live-action Gilbert Gottfried in a parrot costume. I'd pay to see that.

Go full weird the. Add Christopher Walken as the tiger, not doing the voice of a fake tiger, but as a man that Jasmine has been told is a tiger and she doesn't know any better.


Now, I am picturing Walken saying:
"I am a tiger. In the bedroom."
 
2017-11-09 11:14:37 AM  

Thosw: FriarReb98: alice_600: With no Rajah and no Iago in it this movie is starting to sound like a box office disaster waiting to happen.

I have zero hope for it personally; hell, I forgot it was even happening. In general it seems like most of these live action Disney films have done poorly, and I don't see it changing for this one. Not even convinced on Lion King.

We still have Dumbo coming out too.


Counter point

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-11-09 11:15:13 AM  

JayCab: Sounds like they're taking a few pages from the musical production, which can be good or bad, depending on execution. I saw the Chicago production a few months back, my summary as follows was:

- The Genie was fantastic fabulous, and I'm happy that they just redefined the way the character was portrayed for a new actor rather than aping Williams,
- Replacing Abu with a trio of dudes to hang out with Aladdin was... fine. They gave Jasmine some handmaidens but they had all of two or three lines. They weren't significant in any way
- The actors playing Aladdin and Jasmine were... fine. Those characters are MacGuffins, anyways, it's not their story
- The songs they added in to fill time were... fine. Jarring, because I was so used to the movie's songs and rhythms, but otherwise executed alright
- Turning Iago into a sidekick human actually worked really well
- The guy playing Jafar, or the way the part was written, was TERRRRRRRIBLE and nearly ruined the entire production for me

A lot of these things were because the stage performance couldn't do a lot of things that you can do in an animated film (duh) or even a live action film production, so I figure they'll be closer to the original again in the movie. Just as long as they once again have the Genie based more off of the actor rather than trying to imitate Williams (which I expect they are, given they picked Will Smith).


That's too bad about Jafar, he's my second favorite Disney villain after Scar. But I could see how he wouldn't translate well to a stage production, a lot of what makes him great in the film is subtle; a facial expression, or an eye twitch, the clear "stay in control, stay in control" he's telling himself while he does the bidding of those he considers his lessers
 
2017-11-09 11:19:00 AM  

JayCab: The actors playing Aladdin and Jasmine were... fine. Those characters are MacGuffins, anyways, it's not their story


Aladdin isn't about Aladdin?
 
2017-11-09 12:08:24 PM  

alice_600: FTFA: Rajah is gone in order to focus on Jasmine's relationship with a new character, her handmaid Dalia (played by Nasim Pedrad).
Why is this? Because the film wanted to show how Jasmine relates to another woman and, unfortunately in the original 1990s cartoon, Jasmine is the sole female character main or supporting. Scott says:

So let me get this strait there is going to be Will Smith as the Genie the poor man's Eddie Murphy?  We're adding unneeded female characters to pass some dumb test that will really just dumb it down even further?
Part of the reason I liked Jasmine as a kid was the fact that she held her own among this seemingly male dominated society that was Agrabah. She stood up and said "Sorry I wanna love someone and not be held down by your rules Dad," Adding to the fact that this will be directed by an action movie director who possibly won't translate well into family entertainment is another red flag.
With no Rajah and no Iago in it this movie is starting to sound like a box office disaster waiting to happen.


They didn't make this change because of the 'test'.

They made this change because they didn't want the hassle of the tiger.

With the tiger, they get PETA on their necks, and have to deal with using a real animal (trainers, risks, insurance, etc.) or CGI (adding to the existing effects load).

They leave out the tiger, they have a hole in the script they have to fill, so they add a handmaid.  Faster, cheaper, easier to film, avoid the headaches, and get some cred for another female character and a little more diversity.

The 'test' stuff and all the other verbiage in the article is how they rationalize it.
 
2017-11-09 12:17:15 PM  
They should have given Jasmine a best friend who believed she was a tiger. She would paint her body and wear little ears and a tail.
She'd be Jasmine's confidant and they would spend all their time sharing secrets and bathing each other.
 
2017-11-09 01:12:40 PM  
Thank god.

I hate going to movies where I don't know beforehand whether or not I'm allowed to enjoy them.
 
2017-11-09 01:18:48 PM  

Boudyro: JayCab: Sounds like they're taking a few pages from the musical production, which can be good or bad, depending on execution. I saw the Chicago production a few months back, my summary as follows was:

- The Genie was fantastic fabulous, and I'm happy that they just redefined the way the character was portrayed for a new actor rather than aping Williams,
- Replacing Abu with a trio of dudes to hang out with Aladdin was... fine. They gave Jasmine some handmaidens but they had all of two or three lines. They weren't significant in any way
- The actors playing Aladdin and Jasmine were... fine. Those characters are MacGuffins, anyways, it's not their story
- The songs they added in to fill time were... fine. Jarring, because I was so used to the movie's songs and rhythms, but otherwise executed alright
- Turning Iago into a sidekick human actually worked really well
- The guy playing Jafar, or the way the part was written, was TERRRRRRRIBLE and nearly ruined the entire production for me

A lot of these things were because the stage performance couldn't do a lot of things that you can do in an animated film (duh) or even a live action film production, so I figure they'll be closer to the original again in the movie. Just as long as they once again have the Genie based more off of the actor rather than trying to imitate Williams (which I expect they are, given they picked Will Smith).

That's too bad about Jafar, he's my second favorite Disney villain after Scar. But I could see how he wouldn't translate well to a stage production, a lot of what makes him great in the film is subtle; a facial expression, or an eye twitch, the clear "stay in control, stay in control" he's telling himself while he does the bidding of those he considers his lessers


Now I want to see Alan RIckman play Jafar.  And I'm sad all over again.
 
2017-11-09 01:48:47 PM  
I can deal with no Rajah, but no Iago is a deal breaker.

I have no problem with the new handmaiden character but why not just add it with out removing stuff?
 
2017-11-09 04:29:15 PM  

homarjr: JayCab: The actors playing Aladdin and Jasmine were... fine. Those characters are MacGuffins, anyways, it's not their story

Aladdin isn't about Aladdin?


No, it's about the Genie.
 
2017-11-10 10:44:39 AM  

Colour_out_of_Space: They should have given Jasmine a best friend who believed she was a tiger. She would paint her body and wear little ears and a tail.
She'd be Jasmine's confidant and they would spend all their time sharing secrets and bathing each other.


FARK is not your personal erotica site.
 
Displayed 33 of 33 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report