What's up with the pathetic remakes of shit

[anarky]

The media is reporting that one of the Game of Thrones writers has been hired to write a "live action remake" of Disney's The Sword in the Stone.

Most comments on the internet that I've seen are complaining about "ruining" what apparently some people don't recognize as one of Disney's lesser cartoon movies, mixed with comments about King Arthur and Guinevere being siblings, because writers never do anything different, right? I honestly don't think many realize that it was based on a book that was in turn based on centuries of legends.

I saw the headline and my first thought was, "Holy shit! Is someone going to finally make the first great King Arthur movie in decades?"

[Jargo]

If I remember correctly, it was based on 'The once and future King' by T.H. White. Which is a fantastic book for readers of 8 and above. And of course TOAFK was based on Morte d'Arthur by Thomas Mallory. Which in turn was based on copious volumes of verse and legend. Truth is Arthur never existed. And if he had he would have been French, or Gaulish. Certainly around well before the middle ages. And the round table would have been rectangular. The whole knights thing is a later concoction. Adjusting legend to suit modern tastes. Much as this retelling will. Further muddying the origins of the legend.

[Ran]

I believe Jargo remembers correctly. I read "The Once and Future King" when I was in my early teens. Since that was about 30 years ago, I don't remember many details. If I remember correctly, the Sword and the Stone wasn't bad, but once again, it has been many years since I've seen it.

Some historians argue that King Arthur was at least loosely based on someone, but they can't really prove it.

Unless this is the movie anarky is referring to, there will be 2 King Arthur movies out. Now I feel the need to watch Monty Python.

[anarky]

It occurs to me that the new Ghostbusters will probably be every bit as shit as it looks. And, while it may turn a profit, there is no way it can perform up to the hype the filmmakers are creating around it.

Which means, given the totally moronic thought processes of everyone in power in Hollywood, any hopes for good female-led action movies or action comedies are probably fucked for the next decade.

[Diabolical]

Don't forget, Captain Marvel is coming.

[anarky]

It's not out yet, though.

[Diabolical]

No, but it'll probably help repair the damage "Ghostbusters" will do.

[Diabolical]

And why hasn't anyone drawn the Ghosterbusters logo with tits yet? That seems like a no-brainer for this flick.

[Diabolical]

Pan is flopping spectacularly...to nobody's surprise.

Nobody gives a shit about Peter Pan, and people give less of a shit about his origin.

[Ran]

I wonder if Disney is worried about all of their other live action movies they have lined up. There are several coming over the next few years.

[Diabolical]

I think all the live-action Disney remakes have been successful.

Robin Hood Origins has suddenly been delayed. Must be a coincidence...

[Tom Foolery]

Pan is a Warner Bros film. Apparently the rights became public domain recently or something.

Not that a Disney live action Peter Pan movie would be any better or worse.

[anarky]

Is it public domain? IIRC, Fables had to switch the identity of The Emperor because he was originally intended to be Peter Pan, and they're still under copyright in England.

[Tom Foolery]

It might be that the original copyright holders have some kind of protective clause so you can't make Pan a pimp whoring out Lost Girls in a slave trade ring. But as long as you stay relatively faithful to the original tale and characters, they can't refuse anyone making new stories.

Or something.
Copyright law is fucked thanks to Disney and WB being greedy fucks.

[Ran]

I didn't realize Pan wasn't a Disney flick.