![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re-imagined. Right.
May. 18th, 2010 12:36 pmBecause everything old is new again, have some Disney Princesses reinvented as, well, strippers and porn stars--but drawn in comic book style!
Anyway, as for the art, I think this comment says it all:
So.... boobies and disfiguring spinal injuries all around then.
It may surprise some folks, but I don't really have a problem with this art except where it's bad. ( Anyone die of shock reading that? )
What kills me is the written content, not the slutty pictures of Disney Princesses. Is it just me, or is it obvious that when you put forward the pwetty, pwetty pwincesses, you're selling them as these perfect, innocent (i.e. virginal) creatures, what you're really doing is inviting people to come up with the flip side of that dynamic, a.k.a. the whore versions? That's all this is. Natural progression, really.
Anyway, back to what the blog post said: apparently, Disney is letting the idiot who wrote the lamentably bad 27 Dresses--which could have been a good movie about how ridiculous it is to expect people to cater to the every whim of the modern bride, who is herself brainwashed by the wedding industrial complex, but of course wasn't--pen a live-action Cinderella movie. Honestly, the description of that travesty is worse than some of these pictures. It's no less ridiculous for the fact that a) all romantic comedies these days are Cinderella movies (what the hell is "girl loses boy" except an elaborate way to dress up the be-home-by-midnight, lose-your-shoe-in-the-process escape?) and b) they have actually made several live-action Cinderella movies. I think, like, Hilary Duff was in one, and she's still popular, so it had to have been in the last ten years, which ridiculous. GRAH.
Anyway, as for the art, I think this comment says it all:
So.... boobies and disfiguring spinal injuries all around then.
It may surprise some folks, but I don't really have a problem with this art except where it's bad. ( Anyone die of shock reading that? )
What kills me is the written content, not the slutty pictures of Disney Princesses. Is it just me, or is it obvious that when you put forward the pwetty, pwetty pwincesses, you're selling them as these perfect, innocent (i.e. virginal) creatures, what you're really doing is inviting people to come up with the flip side of that dynamic, a.k.a. the whore versions? That's all this is. Natural progression, really.
Anyway, back to what the blog post said: apparently, Disney is letting the idiot who wrote the lamentably bad 27 Dresses--which could have been a good movie about how ridiculous it is to expect people to cater to the every whim of the modern bride, who is herself brainwashed by the wedding industrial complex, but of course wasn't--pen a live-action Cinderella movie. Honestly, the description of that travesty is worse than some of these pictures. It's no less ridiculous for the fact that a) all romantic comedies these days are Cinderella movies (what the hell is "girl loses boy" except an elaborate way to dress up the be-home-by-midnight, lose-your-shoe-in-the-process escape?) and b) they have actually made several live-action Cinderella movies. I think, like, Hilary Duff was in one, and she's still popular, so it had to have been in the last ten years, which ridiculous. GRAH.
