If you think this guy was right at any point of the movie, you are most like a dumb "American" who will easily trade their freedumbs for a tiny bit of security.
Give it up willingly, forget you ever had it, can't even make it by yourself. But hey, you're at least safe under his control and in your place forever under your overlords.
How did you dumbasses not understand the revolution scene?
Not saying it's a good movie, but the message was pretty clear.
He doesn't look villanous at all.
>Not saying it's a good movie, but the message was pretty clear.
And a bad movie with one message makes a great argument for the opposite idea. Not that this AI-generated slop has a message to begin with
who cares about modern Disney
I didnt even watch this shit
Yeah but the movie is so dogshit at communicating this as a problem that people naturally gravitate to trusting him. Asha wants "more" for her people but her people are happy with what they have along with a sustainable economy. We don't see how losing their wishes impacts them negatively outside of one side character that gets 10 minutes of screen time, and Asha's only point for what happens if a wish is bad/vague is "if it's bad they can be stopped." Like what if someone wishes to be a literal dictator of the world and to have supreme power over everything and everyone? What's gonna stop them? Plus if they don't even remember what it is that they've forgotten then they can't exactly be mad about it either
In summary the reasons the movie gives for erasing wishes are told and not shown, while the positives are shown and not told.
Wish is a film where the antagonist's worst crime is creating a system that is less than ideal and the protagonist fails to properly articulate its failings or how they're going to address things for the better. It's a essentially an ethical argument regarding the boundaries between societal regulation and personal activities and where it should lie and is completely flubbed.
Wish is a movie for what can only be called, THE SPOILED GENERATION. There's no actual conflict. Nobody is trying to escape a bad situation. Nobody is living under any sense of misery with only a faint feeling of hope to serve as their motivation to hang on. Nobody is curious about the unknown. Nobody is desperate to escape loneliness. Nobody is trying to save or protect anyone. What we have here is a heroine (and through extension creative team) who have EVERYTHING handed to them so easily that the one time they get told they can't have ONE thing they go completely berserk and treat the person who told them NO like they're the devil.
Yeah the entire movie felt like when people support rebels to take down some jackass in the middle of middle east for no clear reason even though the ones opposing them are often nothing but terrorists and warlords.
>freedom
Pixar and Disney wrote dozens of movies showing dictadorship in a good light from Snow White to Black Panther, was the protagonist pro democracy? No? So they weren't supporting freedom, there is absolutely no freedom under a totalitarian goverment.
>Snow White
>showing dictatorship in a good light
Elaborate
Do you mean monarchy? There is not a single film disney has made (except for Mulan 2020) that promotes dictatorship
Monarchies are dictadorships you silly willy
>Monarchies are dictadorships you silly willy
The western education system has fallen, billions must study
>A dictatorship is an autocratic form of government which is characterized by a leader, or a group of leaders, who hold governmental powers with few to no limitations. Politics in a dictatorship are controlled by a dictator, and they are facilitated through an inner circle of elites that includes advisers, generals, and other high-ranking officials. The dictator maintains control by influencing and appeasing the inner circle and repressing any opposition, which may include rival political parties, armed resistance, or disloyal members of the dictator's inner circle. Dictatorships can be formed by a military coup that overthrows the previous government through force or they can be formed by a self-coup in which elected leaders make their rule permanent. Dictatorships are authoritarian or totalitarian and they can be classified as military dictatorships, one-party dictatorships, personalist dictatorships, or absolute monarchies.
So in short, Dictatorships can be considered Monarchies, but Monarchies are not Dictatorships.
Try again.
and every single Disney monarchy shown so far was a dictadorship, frick off OP and your bullshit "freedom" argument, unelected leaders and citizens without legal means to question or resist their authority is not freedom, your thread is just as moronic as the movie itself
>Dictatorships can be considered Monarchies, but Monarchies are not Dictatorships
Are you clinically moronic?
>what are constitutional monarchies?
>>what are constitutional monarchies?
A form of cope
>limiting the power a government has is cope
>absolute monarchies.
Yes, ABSOLUTE monarchies. As in, there as non-absolute monarchies.
>there as
*are
No kings generally did not have the absolute power everyone seems to think they did.
dictatorships don't have something called "noblesse oblige."
>How did you dumbasses not understand the revolution scene?
Do you? They merely replaced one monarch with another. One who was willing to throw her husband of several decades of marriage under the bus just so she could take the throne for herself.
Fact: Everyone in the kingdom willingly entered the kingdom
Fact: Everyone was super happy in the kingdom
Fact: Everyone willingly gave a tiny part of their memory away for a lottery.
Fact: This prosperous kingdom with nor racism, no poverty, no dangers of outside threats, was build by the man they overthrew
Oooh, but you sure got me with "If you agree with him at any point you're American"
When tf did people confuse Monarchies for Dictatorships
England in its Imperial phase has a lot of blame for that, I think. Empires in general, really
Both can be used to mean the same word, Monarchy literally means "single ruler" and wans't synonymous with dinasty, nobility or royalty, dictadorship literally means a single person with unchecked power.
Both had other meanings of course but it's original, literal meaning is basically the same in theory.
>well, if I be a giant pedantic twat about it, they literally mean the same thing!
Sure. Guess you missed
Both are highly subjective terms and historians just use it in different ways for different places and times so yeah.
>historians just use it in different ways for different places and times
Because there's a difference.
sometimes
*enough times that there are two different words for it
Neither word is used in a consistent way so you're simply picking your favorite take that is not even the official, original one that is often used by hystorians to this day, so whatever.
>Neither word is used in a consistent way
Have you never studied history? Monarchies always come from bloodlines; dictatorships come from any number of things, including bloodline. That is the consistent definition. There's only overlap because -absolute- monarchies exist.
>Monarchies always come from bloodlines
No, that's a dinasty, monarchs didn't necessarily need to pick one of their relatives to be the next monarch and their sucessor could legally pick some other random to replace them as well without really breaking any law.
He was right the entire movie.
Weak bait thread.
The only thing more pathetic than blindly defending a bad movie out of a moronic sense of brand loyalty is pretending to defend it only to sow outrage. At least the former think he's doing the right thing, but the later is just giving undeserved attention to a movie that will be rightfully forgotten in a couple years.
what freedoms do we have to surrender, exactly?
>muh freedumbs
Truly spoken like a moronic American