Was it REALLY that bad?
I could shave her
>>217311152I don't know, i was told it wasn't made for me so I didn't watch it.
>>217311152I knew she was ugly but I couldn't believe how literally fucked up she looked in this. And that was in a movie with gadot.
>>217311152Probably. I'll never watch any of these Disney demakes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZY9PyT8EUwNah, it was fun and Rachel is cute.
>>217311152no, it was worse
>>217311152I don’t know because I don’t see the appeal in watching a children’s movie. All the backlash for it came from adults; you don’t hear actual children complaining about it
>>217311430This is what people call>Moving the goalpost out of the arena
Disney's deterioration timeline:1. low-effort cheapquels to all of our classic films2. replace all the handmade stuff with low-effort CG sloppa3. low-effort live action remakes to all of our class filmsNext step: AI sloppa sequels and remakes of everything!
Of course it wasn't. Incels were just mad because the girl in the movie they weren't gonna watch anyway wasn't a 10/10 model.
>>217311588>wasn't a 10/10 model???
>>217311152Praying mantis lookin ahh>>217311588>.t childless fat redditor
Remember that Emma Watson film 10 years ago or so that noone remembers or that nutcracker film? And the dumbo remake, it seems to me that the problem of these live action disney slop isn't the cast but that there seems to be no gravitas in their production, like universal does with wicked, they just churn them out as if they were direct to video productions
>>217311817This a 7 at most
>>217311909>cute but attainable girlI see no problem with this.
>>217311899yeah my niece liked nutcracker, i think they're okay for a really niche age range of kids and not very memorable. movies you feel safe leaving on the tv sort of thing.
