pimisi
Joined Feb 2008
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges4
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings50
pimisi's rating
Reviews7
pimisi's rating
This is not Snow White in any way-neither the story, the characters, nor the narrative. It should have just been named "A Girl and an Evil Queen".
I struggle to understand why studios drastically alter beloved stories instead of creating something new. A tale that has stood the test of time does so because of its themes, characters, and essence. Changing 80% of what made it a classic begs the question-why even call it the same story? At that point, it's less an adaptation and more a new narrative borrowing a familiar name.
It often seems like a marketing tactic, leveraging nostalgia and a built-in audience while delivering something barely recognizable. If they truly wanted to tell a fresh story, they could simply create one-perhaps "inspired by" the original. That way, they could modernize or innovate without alienating fans who love the classic for what it is.
Ironically, such drastic changes often lead to backlash rather than success. Fans feel betrayed, while new audiences may not connect with something that has lost its original magic. A well-crafted original story, even if influenced by an existing one, would likely be received far better than a hollow rewrite of something iconic.
I struggle to understand why studios drastically alter beloved stories instead of creating something new. A tale that has stood the test of time does so because of its themes, characters, and essence. Changing 80% of what made it a classic begs the question-why even call it the same story? At that point, it's less an adaptation and more a new narrative borrowing a familiar name.
It often seems like a marketing tactic, leveraging nostalgia and a built-in audience while delivering something barely recognizable. If they truly wanted to tell a fresh story, they could simply create one-perhaps "inspired by" the original. That way, they could modernize or innovate without alienating fans who love the classic for what it is.
Ironically, such drastic changes often lead to backlash rather than success. Fans feel betrayed, while new audiences may not connect with something that has lost its original magic. A well-crafted original story, even if influenced by an existing one, would likely be received far better than a hollow rewrite of something iconic.
A competition should ensure that all players have a fair chance to determine whether they win or lose. Why invite participants to compete if all they are expected to do is "sacrifice" themselves without even a single fighting chance?
Beyond the irritating camera movements, excessive "shout speaking," childish behavior from most contestants, and incessant crying, the games themselves are baseless and sillier than what a 3-year-old might come up with.
It feels like a wasted opportunity to create something truly remarkable, as the sets were the only impressive aspect of the show. I recommend hiring a Korean production team if they plan to make another season.
Beyond the irritating camera movements, excessive "shout speaking," childish behavior from most contestants, and incessant crying, the games themselves are baseless and sillier than what a 3-year-old might come up with.
It feels like a wasted opportunity to create something truly remarkable, as the sets were the only impressive aspect of the show. I recommend hiring a Korean production team if they plan to make another season.
