Talk:Mulan (2020 film)/@comment-27373870-20180728212006/@comment-27373870-20181028103805

lol, you are wrong, the war in Mulan is based on real historical event - it's the war between China and the Northern aggressors, you can't put a dragon or a noticeable

fantasy element in it. In Asian cultures, dragons are very powerful, Asian people worship them like gods, they don't act like a comedy actor, that's why Mushu is so ridiculous and as annoying as Jar Jar Binks in Star Wars to Chinese people. Sorry for saying this again but you clearly don't understand our culture. If there's a dragon in Mulan, you know, all they need to do to end that war is telling that dragon to show up and command the aggressors to surrender, it's too easy (wait, no one tells the dragon what to do, even the Emperor has to bow to him). Disney took our sacred animal, turned him into a f*cking joke, made fun of our culture once and you are asking them to do that again? And still keep saying you love Chinese culture and studied a lot of it? Wow.

How is my logic "Disney's Belle must have a yellow dress because it's iconic" but not "Disney's Mulan must have Mushu because it's iconic." Well, this is a pretty good question.

There are many ways to remakes Disney animated films, for Sleeping Beauty, they changes everything, focus on Maleficent, and Cinderella, they get rid all the songs, keep the storyline but rewrite the screenplay and remove all the animals sidekicks - Jaq, Gus-Gus, Bruno, (those mice in the live action one are just... some random mice share the same name with Jaq and Gus Gus, they don't wear clothes, don't talk, don't sing, they are completely normal). Beauty and the Beast, they makes exactly the same movie, just in live-action form with some more details, they keep all the songs and even minor characters (Tom, Dick, Stanley, the Bimbettes and the dog...), I don't think it's a remake, it's more like a movie adaptation of musicals (like Phantom of the Opera, Chicago, Les Miserables, Sweeney Todd or Into the Woods) and it's better that way because Beauty and the Beast is a masterpiece, it's immortalize. Now back to Mulan, why don't they remake it like the way they did to Beauty and the Beast? Well, there are many reasons, I'll try my best to tell you (you know, I'm not good at speaking English, it's not my native language).

1st, Mulan is no where near Beauty and the Beast's level, the music, the story, the characters... everything, it would be boring if they just translated it to live-action form. And Disney knew this, they changed it because they don't want it to bomb at the box office (and critical response as well).

2nd, the dragon, as I told you before, is a disgrace to our culture, we are not okay with him, he need to be removed. Unfortunately, that dragon is a key character, if you remove him, you need to change the whole story as well. actually, not only the dragon but also the story itself doesn't seem satisfied in our culture, it's a poor representation, it still need to be change anyway.

3rd, talking animals don't fit in live action films, Mulan would be weird if it included one, not only dragon but also other animals (some mice,or panda, or horses...). I can't imagine how Mushu look like in live action, I think he would be pretty creepy because you know, everything looks realistic in live action film, for example, one of the biggest challenge in making Beauty and the Beast live action is design magical objects, you can't just put CGI eyes, nose and mouth in those objects, you need to try like... a hundred different designs to make them look believable, some of them was re-designed (the feather duster was turned to a peacock). the thing is, you can't re design dragons, because you know, they are our sacred animal, their looks, their structure is permanent.

4th, Transform sth from cartoon to live action isn't as simple as it seem. Like... uhm.... in Aladdin there is a part where Princess Jasmine seduces Jafar and kiss him, that scene would be offensive and unhealthy in live action because of course it is, a teenage girl seduces an old man, so Disney choose a young actor to play Jafar (and people call him Hot Jafar) - that's a smart solution and they are lucky because that problem has a solution. But some problem has no solution and Mushu is one of them, removing him is the best way.

The whole point is respect someone else’s culture, why is this concept so hard for you? And seriously? You are here to tell me that Mushu is fine in my culture? No he's not, definitely not fine. And what? A marriage of styles? Chris Jesus!!! Is that even a thing in making films?