This was mean spirited, vile and straight up weirdly nihilistic...

This was mean spirited, vile and straight up weirdly nihilistic. Why would Disney disgrace their catalog of films and shows by making the characters “actors”, it’s such a weird choice for their canon

Attached: 4E0648FB-F1D2-47BC-9ECD-E784631766CF.jpg (828x1206, 1.56M)

You're taking this shit too seriously, user.

0.001 shekels have been deposited in your disney account

Who the fucks cares? You're a grown man watching a sequel to Rescue Rangers. Grow up

I’m not taking it any more “seriously” than the meta narrative wanted me to. It was like an over extended robot chicken skit

who cares, it's not canon

And you’re a grown man (probably a troon) defending a jewish cartoon, what's your point?

>The characters in the film take whats happening seriously so I should too
Are you serious

What I’m saying is I’m taking at face value. My problem is with the erasure of the sincerity of golden age disney

'sincerity'
It's a cartoon film for adults, and adults aren't supposed to take cartoons seriously.

I'm not defending it. I never watched it because I'm not a manchild. I'm just tired of you freaks flooding the board with this shit. Take it to Any Forums

I forgot to mention in my posts I'm trans if it matters

>Why would Disney disgrace their catalog of films and shows by making the characters “actors”
That's been a thing in Disney for ages. At the very least, for all of the Mickey and Friends cartoons. But then there's also stuff like House of Mouse that had a ton of Disney characters outside of their universes.

ok doomer

>I’m not defending it even though I’m angrily defending it
Hahaha this is every thread, you’re too much of a pussy to express your opinion

But the premise of those things were always “these are the characters” not these are characters played by actual cartoon actors that have no relation yo the stories

Insincere post

>Why would Disney disgrace their catalog of films and shows by making the characters “actors”
you should watch who framed Roger Rabbit

My opinion is that you're a faggot. I told you I haven't seen it. You're too old to be watching cartoons

You’re not supposed to take robot chicken seriously either.

Sometimes I feel like those who complain about the post modern nihilism and not being sincere enough in casual things are the real post modern nihilistic assholes and they will inevitably kill themselves in their own morbid obsession

Attached: 88166654_42919bf20c_o.jpg (1225x1000, 316.38K)

in what was was it mean spirited?

In Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Roger Rabbit was Roger Rabbit, with Roger Rabbit's voice and Roger Rabbit's personality and Roger Rabbit's sensibilities intact. The only character not genuinely playing himself was Baby Herman who was only pretending to be a baby. In this NuDisney version, every cartoon was merely playing a role. Everyone is Baby Herman

That makes no sense.

Attached: 20220518_105226.jpg (1536x2048, 214.85K)

>nihilistic

Cynical. The word you're looking for is "cynical". Redlettermedia makes the same mistake.

I think kids should have some fun magical positive media, the same kind I grew up with. Kids are being robbed a positive outlook on the world. Everything is le subversion.

It unironically feels like what would happen if moviebob wrote a movie

>in what was was it mean spirited?

Instead of being heroic characters who went on adventures and helped people they were just actors and not only that a bunch of washed up losers 30 years later.

chip and dale were very similar to their characters in real life other than their voices.

gadget was exactly like her character. Monty was exactly like his character

But even if what you were saying was true—and, to be clear, it’s not—why would that be an issue?