From: YourName@YourISP.com   
      
   On 2024-05-31 15:07:41 +0000, Dimensional Traveler said:   
   > On 5/30/2024 1:58 PM, Your Name wrote:   
   >> On 2024-05-30 20:34:40 +0000, Your Name said:   
   >>   
   >>> On 2024-05-30 15:31:57 +0000, Paul S Person said:   
   >>>> On Thu, 30 May 2024 06:03:54 +0000,   
   >>>> danmin@danminart-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (Danart) wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> Rockinghorse Winner wrote:   
   >>>>>> The new Disney adaptation of the evergreen children's story is   
   >>>>>> being panned by reviewers all over the internet as woke trash, that   
   >>>>>> further tarnishes the Disney brand. It currently has a 20% favoarable   
   >>>>>> rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Released direct to cable, it seems some in   
   >>>>>> corporate knew enough than to release it to theaters, so it could   
   >>>>>> suffer it's ignominy in relative privacy. Choosing to update the   
   >>>>>> cultural aesthetic to 21st c norms, while keeping the Edwardian setting   
   >>>>>> of the original book, all it succeeds at doing is creating a   
   >>>>>> cringe-fest that makes you feel embarassed for everyone involved.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Why does it have to be a remake? Why not just fill in the gap between   
   >>>>> or after the following. Even a story before the before.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Disney still thinks remakes are worth doing.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> -or-   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Disney is suffering from a total lack of imagination   
   >>>   
   >>> Neither of those is unique to just Disney. About 90% of lazy-ass   
   >>> Hollyweird suffers from those same things too. :-(   
   >>   
   >> I should add, it's not just Hollyweird either. Book publishers do the   
   >> same thing.   
   >>   
   >> They often redesign the book covers, which when done *during* the   
   >> release of a series is {beep}ingly annyoying for those collecting them   
   >> who end up with either a mismatched set or having to rebuy the older   
   >> books.   
   >>   
   >> Dorling Kindersley (DK) are also have a bad tendency to release a new   
   >> edition  of a book with a few added new pages - again {beep}ingly   
   >> annoying for those who already bought the previous edition.   
   >   
   > And you think those outcomes are "by accident" because...?   
      
   I never said anything about "by accident". They're obviuously done on   
   purpose because the companies are greedy and the selfish idiots in   
   management want bigger pay packets and more perks / bonuses ... at   
   their customers' expense (in terms of both money and satisfaction).   
      
      
      
   >> Then there's the car industry with their rebooting of old models - the   
   >> "new" Beetle and the "new" Mini being two of the best known examples.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)