In Peter pan lore, the reason why their are no girls among the lost boys is that girls are too clever to get lost. Disney is unintentionally saying that these girls are stupid.
That means that the original was sexist by saying only boys can be stupid and this version is more equal by saying girls can be just as stupid as boys.
@@GoddoDoggo Perhaps it could be perceived as sexist, but there are certainly biological differences between boys and girls, and from a purely clinical viewpoint it could be said that girls will often possess a lower level of impulsiveness and a higher level of forethought. Also from a clinical viewpoint, if they were to throw hands the boy would probably win statistically speaking. In its art form, these observable factors could be explored through hyperbole, the same way a film would show why stealing a candy bar is wrong by showing a supervillain trying to steal the moon.
People not being able to say that, a mega superstar asking parents if he could hangout and sleep in the same bed as their kids, is not okay and disturbing. That would make me uncomfortable too 😂
EXACTLY! I wish people would shut up about the race changing stuff and use this as valid criticism instead. These remakes look so drab for no reason whatsoever
It started with the 3D live action remakes because the effect needed dark colors to work. I suspect it's to blend the CGI by reducing the vibrance of real colors. Make reality look more dull so you'll be excited when everyone is in an expansive sprawling vista but won't stop clumping shoulder to shoulder.
"But you're not all boys" "SO?!" You just know they were trying to get attention putting that interaction in the trailer. who the hell would give a crap about adaptation number 1,000,000 of this story nowadays.
Srsly. Its just more rainbow capitalism. They are trying to get a pat on the back for saying that its a gender neutral term like good job Disney you know what "gender neutral" means. Fucking weirdos dude lol as a progressive it can become more than a bit grating because its so obvious they think I will clap and play along. And then they prey on the average person who thinks theyre just doing the right thing by clapping and playing along because its a good thing and they think it shows progress when it really shows that corporations are a super predator that can camaflogue themselves in any political enviornment.
@@xoxonaotchan_7902 Yep, shit is real weird. Even if MJ never actually molested kids, it’s not like it was unreasonable for people to think that he did. We have videos and even MJ himself admitting to enjoying hanging out with kids and sleeping in the same bed as them. Like bro 😂 That alone is wrong and disturbing.
I guarantee you that Tinkerbell and the mermaids are not gonna be jealous and petty with Wendy like in the original, they'll all be super empowered badasses and extremely supportive and encouraging towards Wendy
Lol I agree Micheal was creepy but like the parents of those kids are just awful. "Yeah this grown man you never met before wants to take your child on private trips and have sleep overs with them oh and he is the king of pop"
Oh yea getting paid to let your kids sleepover with someone who is most probably a pedophile is just super heinous. I could be wrong, but I heard someone mention that Macaulay Culkin said MJ never did anything to him. At the same time though, I’ve known people who have suffered from that and they usually act like it never happened and repress those memories. Like adum said, we will never know how far MJ took it, but we do know that he definitely at least slept in the same bed with other peoples children aaaannnd… THAT SHITS FUCKING CREEPY
I don’t know. MJ had an awful childhood (I mean the guy had it in his will that his father wasn’t allowed to raise his children). Suddenly MJ’s rich and famous. So what does he do? He uses his wealth to give kids the best day ever. If it’s proven (with solid evidence, not just he said, she said) then it’s fucked. But until then, I can only see the “victims” who agreed to settlements instead of justice as opportunistic assholes.
What is the camera filter they have? Sewage vision? I mean how are kids supposed to like this? It's literally the opposite of adventurous and playful, which is the main appeal of the aesthetics when it comes to Peter Pan.
Also this bland, irritating, post-Inception music that is in every trailer ever is infuriating. dutudutudutudutu BWAAAA. eff off with this crap, nobody does a normal full orchestra score anymore.
I think a reason why culture as a whole puts older Disney movies on pedestals is because of the historical significance of them. Snow White was their first animated feature, Fantasia introduced surround sound, and Bambi laid the groundwork for animating animals in a stylistic way. There’s a lot to appreciate
I think that explains why Disney thinks they can coast on the significance of their past glory. They think that their contributions to film can justify their output.
@@derickendric997 maybe, I feel like it’s pandering to nostalgia, not wanting to take risks, and perhaps thinking that a remake that’s better than the original movies would invalidate them and people wouldn’t watch them as much
People talking about the characters' race and genders when the most painful thing of this trailer is the average, overdone, drum beats filled remix music that every action movie has...
Ironically, when Adam started talking about the Michael Jackson accusations, Michael Jackson started playing at the cafe I was eating at where I was watching the video.
As a MJ fan, i agree that those things were weird af even if they actually were for the "purest" reasons, there's no way (or actual need) for someone to defend it, his music still bops. I also hate this new blue/muddy filter Disney era, seen with Little Mermaid remake too, it just looks so awful, it kinda reminds me the brown era of 3D gaming.
@@DinggisKhaaniMagtaal Basically Walt Disney saying this with the gun to his head. Then Smee stops him. Smee gives him the idea of remakes. Walt: I like it! I like it! I love it! Smee, what a superb idea! Tomorrow, I’ll make my workers remake my work. Oh, people will watch again. You’ll see. They laugh, they’ll sing, they’ll cry. And then, they’ll buy. (Laughs)
What frustrates me about the casting for these remakes is that it's the laziest avenue in which to be "progressive". If you actually care about diversity, why not put in the effort to create an original story that reflects the black/hispanic/asian/not-white experience rather than remaking existing properties? E.g. *The Little Mermaid* you could easily write a similar story about a young black woman who's a singer but loses her voice and shenanigans ensue. Similar to *The Little Mermaid* but fresh and more grounded in the black experience. I'm not mad that Disney wants to be more inclusive and cast diverse actors, I'm mad that they way in which they do it shows they don't actually care; they're just after the money and want to do everything the easy way.
They literally already have a black mermaid and a black fairy character in their catalog they could make movies about instead. I agree with you whole heartedly! If they are going to change literally nothing else, keep it shot for shot the same down to costume design and plot, then why change the race at all? If they were making their own spin on Peter Pan that was original and fresh then making her black wouldn’t matter to me. And that’s another thing!! Tinkerbell doesn’t speak, Ariel barely speaks for the majority of the movie and you pick black people to be two roles of women who have no voices? 🤦♀️
@@Theravingranter "you pick black people to be two roles of women who have no voices". Holy shit, thank you so so much for pointing that out! They literally cannot make a movie with a black lead who lives in their own blackness. *Princess and the Frog* the black female lead spends most of the movie as a frog; in *Soul* the black male spends most of the movie as a dog WHILE A CHARACTER VOICED BY A WHITE WOMAN SPENDS MOST OF THE MOVIE IN HIS BODY! Utterly grotesque use of "diverse casting".
I never understood this complaint, because like they could just do _both?_ And I definitely didn't see any of you making this complaint when the live action Beauty and the Beast came out, I wonder what the difference is. Also wtf does "the black experience" mean, not all black people have the same experience. A black person from Botswana doesn't have the same experience or life as someone from like Baton Rouge.
@@GoddoDoggo Oh me and a lot of people did complain about the other live action adaptations, including but not limited to Beauty and the Beast. The lighting, the hyper realism, the choice of cast who can’t sing and weren’t even remotely trying to do a french accent(Emma’s British accent really threw me off), making Gaston more evil and less charming, and of course the gay pandering with Lefou which felt wrong as the characters name is literally “the fool” and was straight in the original movie. It would have been way more interesting, if they felt they had to do a gay character in there, that they make Gaston the closeted gay and throw subtle hints into it with this explaining why he actually goes after Belle, because he knows he’ll never get her but to outsiders it looks like he’s your average joe trying to get a girl. Making Lefou gay served no purpose and a lot of people complained about that pandering just as much as the racial pandering in this movie, there are several video essays and reviews on why the reboot is shallow. Disney knows what they are doing, they made the gay characters easily able to cut out for Chinese and Russian audiences or played off for comedy or they told Pixar they weren’t allowed to show it all leading to them having to throw hints in there. (Such as with Turning Red) We want better representation, and their newest film Strange World was purposefully not marketed well enough because Disney is afraid of actually doing a gay character in cinema because they will lose that sweet sweet overseas box office moolah. This is the same with their recent race swaps, it’s just as pandering to black people as Lefou was the gay people. As someone who is bisexual and black I feel talked down to. Just make a new fresh idea with the same concept, there are African sirens make a movie about that and you can even still call it The Little Mermaid and have it actually be dark like the original book for an adult audience and honestly don’t even make a new Peter Pan, everything under the sun has been done with him making Tinkerbell black doesn’t add anything. If you’d like I can link a video made by a woman of color talking about why the race swapping doesn’t work and she cited other black creators who feel the same. Trust me we’ve all been saying we want original stories this whole time it just feels different now because the race is changed and people want to say that if you have any problem at all with that or this film, you’re racist.
@@GoddoDoggo “They could just do both.” Do both what? “I didn’t see anyone making this complaint when Beauty and the Beast came out.” In fact, quite a few people in the LGBT community were irritated at the “inclusion” of a gay character in LeFou. They made a very minor character gay and more or less hid him in the background, just like the lesbian couple in Rise of Skywalker. Disney is particularly careful about LGBT characters because they need to be able to sell their movies to Russia, China, and Southeast Asia (where homosexuality is illegal or otherwise looked down upon). No one cared much about this though because certain people are not listened to when they voice their frustration with things like this, while certain other people seem to get all the attention; this is an entirely different topic that needs to be addressed separately. Also, like most of these remakes, BatB was not well received by audiences and critics (if you go by Metacritic and Letterboxd) so it’s not as if it’s especially adored. You are correct that it didn’t face the same type of criticism because the cast for the remake was white, though for me that doesn’t excuse it’s badness. All these remakes are inherently bad in my mind, so don’t think that I’m especially frustrated with *this* movie or The Little Mermaid; the half-assed attempts at “inclusiveness” is just another strike against Disney rather than the films themselves. “Not all black people have the same experience.” I should have been more specific and said the black American or African American experience, as Disney movies almost always focus on those. The exception to this would be Black Panther, where Wakanda is representative of Africa as a whole (I believe it was based on Ethiopia).
i definitely think there's merit to some of the classic movies outside of nostalgia. like you said, they all have stunning animation (alongside music and effects) and even if their plots are weak it's still kind of insulting seeing these remakes turn that animation into colorless, dark basic movies that try to convert designs that specifically worked in 2d into uncanny valley cgi/live action hybrids. the push for these definitely is predicated on basic brand recognition and nostalgia though and they don't even try to fix any of the real issues with story that might exist, they just put bandaids over it. this is why the broadway versions are usually better, they have more to lose so they usually invest more time into interesting scenery/costumes/music/story changes
I don’t know how well Peter Pan 2003 holds up now but I remember it being one of my favorites as a kid, I liked it way more than the Disney animated movie. It’s live action and actually holds to the original spirit of the story without changing random things for clout and internet drama, and from my memory it was very whimsical and magical instead of looking like a war documentary
Before I watched this video I said to myself "What if they made Tininker Bell black?" as a joke genuinely thinking that it wasn't going to happen, that it was too predictable. Low and behold, I should have remembered this is Disney we're talking about.
I like that part in the movie when Peter Pan said "it's Petering Time," then proceeded to Pan all over the place. Truly one of the Disney movies of all time.
I'm happy there's still at least some movies I'm looking forward to this year. But man, I remember when Disney had at least some good stuff instead of everything they churn out resembling flavorless mush.
A lot of movies don't finish their visual effects until right before release now, meaning trailers often have significantly worse CGI than the final product. I'm beginning to wonder if Disney gauges the interest in a movie after a trailer is released and then decides whether or not they want to finish the effects. Clearly with Pinocchio a decision was made not to finish the visual effects, I'm just wondering when in the process that decision was made and if it's become something of a policy for them.
if roger eberts critics were like "yeah this is boring and michael jackson is sus" he would be the best critic of all time. as is stands, there is only one adum though
the one weird mj fan spamming the chat until adum engaged her (kate numberz) pissed me off an irrational amount. i think celeb bootlicking in general does lol
damn what a coincidence I just bought Moonwalker on Bluray which was a lot more bizarre than I remember from seeing it 30 years ago. It also goes nicely with my Moonwalker Michael Jackson beer coozy/marionette, a product that really exists!
I like how in the '90s there was a Peter Pan film with a bunch of black and asian Lost Boys, and there was a black Cinderella, and literally nobody gave a shit, but a full 30 years later everyone's like, "Why are you _altering history_ with this _woke garbage,_ how dare you make Ariel and Tinkerbell _black."_ And people are more upset about that than about the movie being shit, lol. We're straight up regressing at this point.
This is such a good point. I think people get upset because they see the remakes by disney as the "serious version" while those 90s and 00s versions are percieved as silly and invalid, so it doesnt matter if the characters are black in those versions
It's because back then nobody gave a shit about their races, they were just characters in a movie. Nowadays, companies do the same thing but market it as "This is the new, modern, inclusive, multicultural version of a classic story" and by acting like that not only they are trying to rewrite history, they are also proving that they only cast people of different etnicities in those roles solely for marketing purposes. The remakes themselves being bland and forgettable also hurts their case.
Because these are remakes of the Disney classics, with established character designs. The other movies are adaptions of the Fairy Tales. That why we dont complain when frozen is nothing like the snow Queen.
I have the same question I always have - albeit a rhetorical one: Why? Why does this need to be made? Doesn't even matter if it's political or whatever, just why? This story has already been told a hundred times too often, why make EVEN more of them? And the writing's probably going to be absolutely terrible anyway, so it's not like they'll be doing anything clever with it. It's just another waste of time, money and resources.
If you want to actually want to see a live action Peter Pan movie that's actually good, go watch Hook 1991, it's has a great cast, writing, and actual diversity that actually works, unlike what Disney is pushing out for attention nowadays.
I hate how old Wendy looks in this. She doesn't look like a -what, 12? 14?- years old girl who doesn't want to leave the nursery. In fact, she looks like a teenager who can't wait to get her own room, she looks so uninterested. Everyone looks uninterested! I also hate that they didn't even care enough to give Peter pointy ears. Okay, they can do without the red hair, but at least give him pointy ears!
5:35 yay close you wonder if everything looks like a blue smogging factory movie because all the sequences look blue and too smogging with filter like come on Disney, why make it blue?
11:38 yay just put it in Watch-Along and do all Peter Pan movies in your watchlist. Come on, you're thinking that director have not to do with Green Knight's related as Peter Pan.
I'm a fan of Michael Jackson's music but the ardent stans who go out of their way to defend some of the questionable, creepy stuff he did regarding kids will never fail to baffle me. You can be a fan of an artist's work and still call out their actions. It's not like MJ's music is going to disappear from cultural history any time soon.
And like, he's dead so it's kind of a double "who cares" for me. Dunno, it always seems like a virtue signaling thing. Usually there are also other people involved in the project, and if you hold "not going to support a creep" standard, you would have to check literally everyone in your life constantly for that stuff - even the guy you're buying a potted plant from. It's one of those things that's nice if you do but people hold as a "morally neutral" standard today and, again, it just seems like virtue signaling to me.
The dumbest thing about the MJ "he was just mentally a kid!" defense is that you can do that and still like, establish some boundaries and have supervision when playing with the kids? You don't need to be fucking alone and sleeping with them in the same bed without their parents? Hell, there are people that age regress today, or people that are either into playing kids or whatever, and they *don't* do that shit. They get themselves a responsible adult to watch over them and chill. It's just such a cope for MJ being a damn creep.
To be fair, the house was never empty 😂 it was literally a business complex. With all the kids, there were also help like maids, food services and some of the parents stayed in the house too. Shockingly enough, there were never more than 2 kids who's parents accused MJ. The two adults are cash hungry and shamelessly road the coattails of Surviving R Kelly. The sleepovers weren't a regular thing. They weren't a "mj and his sleepivers" thing. He hosted kids at the compound and his bedroom was the size of a small home😂 Roll out mattresses, plenty of furniture. Them being all in the same bed wasn't even described, just alluded to. He was weird and queer and people tried to create a story that didnt exist because MJ wasnt a machismo man. He was assumed gay during a time where America would ruin your life if you were.
Why is this movie so green? Its just so dark and gloomy why can these live action remakes never seem to get the lighting right? Pinocchio was garishly bright but now this one looks like its being shot somewhere just chock full of smog
Weird how I've also never heard of this movie or its trailer until this video. Also, very fitting that the lighting is just as lifeless and dull as these live-action features.
Disney literally blocked the comments on the video and is trying to take down people reviewing the trailer so that might be part of it and it’s being crapped out onto Disney+ in a mere 2 months. No theatrical release
I'm okay with this only in that this is probably David Lowery's "one for them" like Pete's Dragon was. I'll happily ignore this for whatever it is we get out of him next, Green Knight was awesome.
nothing but the literal people acting on screen looks real in this movie. Even if theyre using sets in some shots absolutely everything feels like it was made on a computer. Its awful
About the MJ thoughts... Ghandi literally did sleep next to young girls.. But he did it naked and he said he did it because he was trying to work on fighting temptation. So when Adam says "if anyone else did that.. " someone else did do it, way worse, and nothing was done yet again
9:39 yay when do we get MJ's Captain EO in Disney+? This ain't going to stream because of him just slumbering and sleeping around with the boys. Too much defending for this Jackson's claim and pleasing for this movie.
Kiiiiinda weird how Disney is changing all of these fantasy creatures to be black women within a relatively short period of time. Fairy Godmother: Black Now Blue Fairy: Black Now Tinkerbell: Black Now Little Mermaid: Black Now
I’m not upset that they race swapped the characters. They’re not based on real people. I just hate how smug Hollywood is and the lack or original black characters. Tired of these redos that are creatively bankrupt and only have “diversity” to add to the OG material. They should remake duds and bad movies that people remember. Show that there are still actual good writers out there.
Adam yes MJ did have sleepovers and stuff with kids, but the crucial thing to remember is that in his mind, he *was* a kid. It wasn't weird to him to sleep in a bed with other kids or things that would be considered horribly inappropriate for an adult to do, because he didn't see himself that way. To him it was just "well, that's what kids do at sleepovers!" It's a shitty catch 22, because he just wanted to live the life of a happy child with a lot of friends but in doing so it inherently would bring about unacceptable situations between an adult and kids. I'm not excusing his behavior, just contextualizing it. I firmly believe his behavior was not predatory, it was just the result of a damaged psyche that still believed it was 8 years old.
So was he entirely asexual? A child in the body of a sexually mature man seems MORE likely to commit abuse. Especially in a "no adults allowed" locked-door one-on-one sleepover scenario.
@@Toogs He was married/had relationships with women that I'm sure he had sex with. I mean he has at least one kid. I don't think he saw kids sexually the way most people think. It's going to sound contradictory when I say this next thing, but bear with me - I think there's actually a decent chance that the allegations are at least somewhat true. I think there's a pretty decent chance he showed his penis to kids/wanted to see theirs. Now obviously that's completely not OK, *but* we again have to examine his psychology - he desperately wanted to be a kid. And I don't know about you, but when I was 7-8 years old my friends and I showed each other our penises and butts and stuff, because that's what kids do. They're figuring out they have more private parts of their body and they want to see if other kids do too. It's a totally normal part of child development. So if MJ is psychologically 8 years old, he's going to have the same exploratory urges. The difference, of course, is he's a grown man so it's horribly damaging to those kids. But I don't think he meant it to be, and I don't think he was doing it in a predatory way. Again, not excusing the inexcusable. I'm sure those kids were traumatized and he shouldn't have been allowed around them. But when people say he was an abuser or predator, I think they're misunderstanding a really psychologically damaged dude who probably didn't even fully understand why what he was doing was so inappropriate.
however he saw himself doesn't change the fact that he wasn't an actual child and you can't know for sure that was even true, whatever proof you may think you have, you wouldn't really know unless you were there, and the whole situation is still pretty sus
@@lazyval27 Of course it's sus. Did you read what I said? I pretty much agreed with everything you just said. It's *very* clear based on his psychology that MJ thought he was still a little kid, but that doesn't excuse his behavior. It explains it.
All MJ discussion aside anyone else just annoyed that Disney gave this trailer the loud action movie jump cuts? Like it's not the first time but still yk
The thing I get less and less is why do these trailers have """""epic""""" trailer music? Like it's not a very grandiose story, why add so much base, trumpets, and drums?
I work professionally with kids and outside of not molesting them, there are two reasons why we go out of our way to make sure we don’t look like we are molesting them. I had to take special sexual assault awareness training. One, grooming behaviors like innocent inappropriate touching that would never turn into assault for you normalize the behavior to the children so when a predator does the same the children are less likely to be alarmed by it until they are harmed. Two, some kids will lie and say you assaulted them when you didn’t. By never being in a room alone with them (let alone a bed) it prevents that from happening, which also prevents kids from learning how to be manipulative assholes and get away with it. But if mj didn’t actually sa a kid I would be willing to forgive him because we didn’t really have that training available to people like him in the 80’s and 90’s.
In Peter pan lore, the reason why their are no girls among the lost boys is that girls are too clever to get lost. Disney is unintentionally saying that these girls are stupid.
Accidental sexism lmao
Boys can be stupid
Girls can be stupid
Now that's equality
Not only that, since they are all minorities Disney is also unintentionally saying it takes a white girl to fix everything.
That means that the original was sexist by saying only boys can be stupid and this version is more equal by saying girls can be just as stupid as boys.
@@GoddoDoggo Perhaps it could be perceived as sexist, but there are certainly biological differences between boys and girls, and from a purely clinical viewpoint it could be said that girls will often possess a lower level of impulsiveness and a higher level of forethought. Also from a clinical viewpoint, if they were to throw hands the boy would probably win statistically speaking. In its art form, these observable factors could be explored through hyperbole, the same way a film would show why stealing a candy bar is wrong by showing a supervillain trying to steal the moon.
I love that the trailer was so boring and forgettable that Adum drifted into discussing Michael Jackson accusations
Cool Cat taught me its not cool to diddle kids
People not being able to say that, a mega superstar asking parents if he could hangout and sleep in the same bed as their kids, is not okay and disturbing. That would make me uncomfortable too 😂
What is it with Disney live action remakes and their lack of colorful backgrounds? Are kids even excited for these dreary visuals?
EXACTLY! I wish people would shut up about the race changing stuff and use this as valid criticism instead. These remakes look so drab for no reason whatsoever
It has the same color palette as a WW2 movie.
They are trying to make these movies look realistic when these movies weren't meant to be realistic in the first place.
It started with the 3D live action remakes because the effect needed dark colors to work. I suspect it's to blend the CGI by reducing the vibrance of real colors. Make reality look more dull so you'll be excited when everyone is in an expansive sprawling vista but won't stop clumping shoulder to shoulder.
It may all be to hide visual effects flaws
Why do modern Disney movies have the colour palette of a Holocaust Documentary?
lmaoo
@@ULTRAOutdoorsman to pump up US soldiers into killing iraki children? lol
"Here is our newest masterpiece 'Peter Pan & Wendy'! We hope you like murky brown and green."
Because it's "realistic and dark"
Its a metaphor for their souls
Jesus the amount of trailer drums with each cut is borderline comical
Character: *coughs*
Trailer: BWAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Even when I watch trailers on mute, I can still hear them freaking thumps, it's ANNOYING!!!
EVERY SINGLE TIME. For the past what, 12 years? It's annoying as hell.
"But you're not all boys"
"SO?!"
You just know they were trying to get attention putting that interaction in the trailer.
who the hell would give a crap about adaptation number 1,000,000 of this story nowadays.
It reminded me of an article headline about the race-swap in House of the Dragon: “You’re still mad they put black people in HotD? GET OVER IT!”
Srsly. Its just more rainbow capitalism. They are trying to get a pat on the back for saying that its a gender neutral term like good job Disney you know what "gender neutral" means. Fucking weirdos dude lol as a progressive it can become more than a bit grating because its so obvious they think I will clap and play along. And then they prey on the average person who thinks theyre just doing the right thing by clapping and playing along because its a good thing and they think it shows progress when it really shows that corporations are a super predator that can camaflogue themselves in any political enviornment.
You know a trailer’s bad when the reaction turns into an eight minute Michael Jackson being sus piece
Well, Michael Jackson being sus is actually an interesting topic that people still care about.
To be fair, his chat was defending MJ, and I know plenty of people who ive heard defend him. Hes on a weird pedestal for a lot of people
cause he was a creep. extremely talented, but also a huge creep
@@xoxonaotchan_7902 Yep, shit is real weird. Even if MJ never actually molested kids, it’s not like it was unreasonable for people to think that he did. We have videos and even MJ himself admitting to enjoying hanging out with kids and sleeping in the same bed as them. Like bro 😂 That alone is wrong and disturbing.
"We all agree Michael Jackson shouldn't have done that right?"
"Sir, this is Wendy's."
The disturbing thing is that people don’t 😂
*Peter Pan and Wendy's
I guarantee you that Tinkerbell and the mermaids are not gonna be jealous and petty with Wendy like in the original, they'll all be super empowered badasses and extremely supportive and encouraging towards Wendy
Lol I agree Micheal was creepy but like the parents of those kids are just awful. "Yeah this grown man you never met before wants to take your child on private trips and have sleep overs with them oh and he is the king of pop"
Oh yea getting paid to let your kids sleepover with someone who is most probably a pedophile is just super heinous. I could be wrong, but I heard someone mention that Macaulay Culkin said MJ never did anything to him.
At the same time though, I’ve known people who have suffered from that and they usually act like it never happened and repress those memories.
Like adum said, we will never know how far MJ took it, but we do know that he definitely at least slept in the same bed with other peoples children aaaannnd…
THAT SHITS FUCKING CREEPY
It’s both their faults. The children are the real victims here
Acquitted on 14 counts by 2 separate grand juries.
I don’t know. MJ had an awful childhood (I mean the guy had it in his will that his father wasn’t allowed to raise his children). Suddenly MJ’s rich and famous. So what does he do? He uses his wealth to give kids the best day ever.
If it’s proven (with solid evidence, not just he said, she said) then it’s fucked. But until then, I can only see the “victims” who agreed to settlements instead of justice as opportunistic assholes.
He wasn’t creepy he was a child rapist
What is the camera filter they have? Sewage vision? I mean how are kids supposed to like this? It's literally the opposite of adventurous and playful, which is the main appeal of the aesthetics when it comes to Peter Pan.
Also this bland, irritating, post-Inception music that is in every trailer ever is infuriating. dutudutudutudutu BWAAAA. eff off with this crap, nobody does a normal full orchestra score anymore.
The crusty dusty filter is giving me Western vibes, not High Fantasy
@@shadowm2k7 I guess it's not accurate to the modern day for a children's film to be uplifting and whimsical.
There's literally no point to this movie because NO ONE is going to beat Dustin Hoffmans performance as Cap Hook in Hook (1991)
I love his performance, I even have a statue of him and Mr Smee on my shelf.
He and Bob Hoskins as Smee was so great.
also, the visuals of that movie holds up so well. can't also forget about Rufio.
2005 one comes close
@@X_Blake 2005 Hook gets points for serving absolutely unbridled cunt in that outfit.
Adam: "we're here for my commentary, not to watch the trailer"
Also Adam: "so ANOTHER thing about Michael Jackson"
MJ defenders creep me the fuck out too 😂
I think a reason why culture as a whole puts older Disney movies on pedestals is because of the historical significance of them. Snow White was their first animated feature, Fantasia introduced surround sound, and Bambi laid the groundwork for animating animals in a stylistic way. There’s a lot to appreciate
I think that explains why Disney thinks they can coast on the significance of their past glory. They think that their contributions to film can justify their output.
@@derickendric997 maybe, I feel like it’s pandering to nostalgia, not wanting to take risks, and perhaps thinking that a remake that’s better than the original movies would invalidate them and people wouldn’t watch them as much
Bambi inspired the anime visuals in Japan
The lost boys line is the most cringy thing I've heard all year. They might as well have looked at the camera and yelled "girl power!".
It's such a lazy attempt at lampshading too. They could've named themselves Lost Kids but that would make too much sense.
Right up there with both *"Are you with me, lions?"* and *"LIONS ATTACK!"*
All i can think about while watching the trailer is how horribly racist the original was lmao
People talking about the characters' race and genders when the most painful thing of this trailer is the average, overdone, drum beats filled remix music that every action movie has...
I really hate drum beats in trailers, they’re so overdone and annoying.
We can complain about both
I’ll take this over trash rap song
@@spinosaurusstriker Yup
Ironically, when Adam started talking about the Michael Jackson accusations, Michael Jackson started playing at the cafe I was eating at where I was watching the video.
That's not irony, that's coincidence
I was just gonna say
ok
what song was it
MJ started playing? Like, the man himself?
Wendys mouth is open the whole trailer. It was like Vince Vaughn in The Cell.
I hate the generic stock Epic musical sting used by production houses for their by the number movie trailers.
As a MJ fan, i agree that those things were weird af even if they actually were for the "purest" reasons, there's no way (or actual need) for someone to defend it, his music still bops.
I also hate this new blue/muddy filter Disney era, seen with Little Mermaid remake too, it just looks so awful, it kinda reminds me the brown era of 3D gaming.
Should have had Ezra miller as peter pan lol would hit a lot harder
I'd rather watch the fun & entertaining 1991 Hook film while eating Peter Pan PB than watch Disney's continuing journey in destroying itself.
Don't stop me this time, Smee
@@DinggisKhaaniMagtaal Basically Walt Disney saying this with the gun to his head.
Then Smee stops him. Smee gives him the idea of remakes.
Walt: I like it! I like it! I love it! Smee, what a superb idea! Tomorrow, I’ll make my workers remake my work.
Oh, people will watch again. You’ll see. They laugh, they’ll sing, they’ll cry. And then, they’ll buy. (Laughs)
@@DinggisKhaaniMagtaal “Smee, you better get up off your ass!” XD
What frustrates me about the casting for these remakes is that it's the laziest avenue in which to be "progressive". If you actually care about diversity, why not put in the effort to create an original story that reflects the black/hispanic/asian/not-white experience rather than remaking existing properties? E.g. *The Little Mermaid* you could easily write a similar story about a young black woman who's a singer but loses her voice and shenanigans ensue. Similar to *The Little Mermaid* but fresh and more grounded in the black experience. I'm not mad that Disney wants to be more inclusive and cast diverse actors, I'm mad that they way in which they do it shows they don't actually care; they're just after the money and want to do everything the easy way.
They literally already have a black mermaid and a black fairy character in their catalog they could make movies about instead. I agree with you whole heartedly! If they are going to change literally nothing else, keep it shot for shot the same down to costume design and plot, then why change the race at all? If they were making their own spin on Peter Pan that was original and fresh then making her black wouldn’t matter to me. And that’s another thing!! Tinkerbell doesn’t speak, Ariel barely speaks for the majority of the movie and you pick black people to be two roles of women who have no voices? 🤦♀️
@@Theravingranter "you pick black people to be two roles of women who have no voices". Holy shit, thank you so so much for pointing that out! They literally cannot make a movie with a black lead who lives in their own blackness. *Princess and the Frog* the black female lead spends most of the movie as a frog; in *Soul* the black male spends most of the movie as a dog WHILE A CHARACTER VOICED BY A WHITE WOMAN SPENDS MOST OF THE MOVIE IN HIS BODY! Utterly grotesque use of "diverse casting".
I never understood this complaint, because like they could just do _both?_ And I definitely didn't see any of you making this complaint when the live action Beauty and the Beast came out, I wonder what the difference is. Also wtf does "the black experience" mean, not all black people have the same experience. A black person from Botswana doesn't have the same experience or life as someone from like Baton Rouge.
@@GoddoDoggo Oh me and a lot of people did complain about the other live action adaptations, including but not limited to Beauty and the Beast. The lighting, the hyper realism, the choice of cast who can’t sing and weren’t even remotely trying to do a french accent(Emma’s British accent really threw me off), making Gaston more evil and less charming, and of course the gay pandering with Lefou which felt wrong as the characters name is literally “the fool” and was straight in the original movie. It would have been way more interesting, if they felt they had to do a gay character in there, that they make Gaston the closeted gay and throw subtle hints into it with this explaining why he actually goes after Belle, because he knows he’ll never get her but to outsiders it looks like he’s your average joe trying to get a girl. Making Lefou gay served no purpose and a lot of people complained about that pandering just as much as the racial pandering in this movie, there are several video essays and reviews on why the reboot is shallow. Disney knows what they are doing, they made the gay characters easily able to cut out for Chinese and Russian audiences or played off for comedy or they told Pixar they weren’t allowed to show it all leading to them having to throw hints in there. (Such as with Turning Red) We want better representation, and their newest film Strange World was purposefully not marketed well enough because Disney is afraid of actually doing a gay character in cinema because they will lose that sweet sweet overseas box office moolah. This is the same with their recent race swaps, it’s just as pandering to black people as Lefou was the gay people. As someone who is bisexual and black I feel talked down to. Just make a new fresh idea with the same concept, there are African sirens make a movie about that and you can even still call it The Little Mermaid and have it actually be dark like the original book for an adult audience and honestly don’t even make a new Peter Pan, everything under the sun has been done with him making Tinkerbell black doesn’t add anything. If you’d like I can link a video made by a woman of color talking about why the race swapping doesn’t work and she cited other black creators who feel the same. Trust me we’ve all been saying we want original stories this whole time it just feels different now because the race is changed and people want to say that if you have any problem at all with that or this film, you’re racist.
@@GoddoDoggo “They could just do both.” Do both what?
“I didn’t see anyone making this complaint when Beauty and the Beast came out.” In fact, quite a few people in the LGBT community were irritated at the “inclusion” of a gay character in LeFou. They made a very minor character gay and more or less hid him in the background, just like the lesbian couple in Rise of Skywalker. Disney is particularly careful about LGBT characters because they need to be able to sell their movies to Russia, China, and Southeast Asia (where homosexuality is illegal or otherwise looked down upon). No one cared much about this though because certain people are not listened to when they voice their frustration with things like this, while certain other people seem to get all the attention; this is an entirely different topic that needs to be addressed separately. Also, like most of these remakes, BatB was not well received by audiences and critics (if you go by Metacritic and Letterboxd) so it’s not as if it’s especially adored. You are correct that it didn’t face the same type of criticism because the cast for the remake was white, though for me that doesn’t excuse it’s badness. All these remakes are inherently bad in my mind, so don’t think that I’m especially frustrated with *this* movie or The Little Mermaid; the half-assed attempts at “inclusiveness” is just another strike against Disney rather than the films themselves.
“Not all black people have the same experience.” I should have been more specific and said the black American or African American experience, as Disney movies almost always focus on those. The exception to this would be Black Panther, where Wakanda is representative of Africa as a whole (I believe it was based on Ethiopia).
i definitely think there's merit to some of the classic movies outside of nostalgia. like you said, they all have stunning animation (alongside music and effects) and even if their plots are weak it's still kind of insulting seeing these remakes turn that animation into colorless, dark basic movies that try to convert designs that specifically worked in 2d into uncanny valley cgi/live action hybrids. the push for these definitely is predicated on basic brand recognition and nostalgia though and they don't even try to fix any of the real issues with story that might exist, they just put bandaids over it. this is why the broadway versions are usually better, they have more to lose so they usually invest more time into interesting scenery/costumes/music/story changes
That "But you're not all boys" line just reminds me of the line from Scott Pilgrim, "Is that girl a boy, too?" and the response is "Yes."
" is that the one band...with uh..crash? And the bois?"
I don’t know how well Peter Pan 2003 holds up now but I remember it being one of my favorites as a kid, I liked it way more than the Disney animated movie. It’s live action and actually holds to the original spirit of the story without changing random things for clout and internet drama, and from my memory it was very whimsical and magical instead of looking like a war documentary
If I was to listen to that trailer music blindfolded, I wonder how long it would take to connect it to this particular film.
Disney all woke until someone asks them to recognize Neverland as a sovereign and indipendent nation.
Before I watched this video I said to myself "What if they made Tininker Bell black?" as a joke genuinely thinking that it wasn't going to happen, that it was too predictable. Low and behold, I should have remembered this is Disney we're talking about.
And then theyre so fking lazy they dont bother doing any snazzy fairy after effects
I like that part in the movie when Peter Pan said "it's Petering Time," then proceeded to Pan all over the place. Truly one of the Disney movies of all time.
YMS ponders the limits of intimacy with children also Peter pan or smth idk.
The fact that this trailer got dropped weeks ago and it seems like barely anyone noticed says a lot. Either that or I'm living under a rock.
Why does NEVERLAND look so fucking ugly? Remember how vibrant it looks in every other version of Neverland looks compared to this?
This guy grew up without Disney. That is a blessing in disguise.
Yeah, it's also for the best
I love how Adam demands that the very trailers he is most likely going to hate and shit on be in 4K lol
I'm happy there's still at least some movies I'm looking forward to this year. But man, I remember when Disney had at least some good stuff instead of everything they churn out resembling flavorless mush.
Wasn't a fan of encanto or turning red?
Hook, Smee, and the splapstick with the crocadile are the only parts of the orignal that still hold up to me.
they should make a movie about only those three characters
splapstick lmao
A lot of movies don't finish their visual effects until right before release now, meaning trailers often have significantly worse CGI than the final product. I'm beginning to wonder if Disney gauges the interest in a movie after a trailer is released and then decides whether or not they want to finish the effects. Clearly with Pinocchio a decision was made not to finish the visual effects, I'm just wondering when in the process that decision was made and if it's become something of a policy for them.
I think Captain Hook would've been a more fitting role for Javier Bardem than King Triton. He probably would've had a lot of fun with it too.
i didnt realize neverland was actually scotland this whole tiem
if roger eberts critics were like "yeah this is boring and michael jackson is sus" he would be the best critic of all time.
as is stands, there is only one adum though
"But you're not all boys"
We can see that. Thanks for hammering it in like always
the one weird mj fan spamming the chat until adum engaged her (kate numberz) pissed me off an irrational amount. i think celeb bootlicking in general does lol
Peter Pain
damn what a coincidence I just bought Moonwalker on Bluray which was a lot more bizarre than I remember from seeing it 30 years ago. It also goes nicely with my Moonwalker Michael Jackson beer coozy/marionette, a product that really exists!
of course the person with an anime pfp has a shrine to a pedophile
I love diverse casting but I do find it funny that Disney has typecast all the black actors as mythical creatures like mermaids and fairies.
I like how in the '90s there was a Peter Pan film with a bunch of black and asian Lost Boys, and there was a black Cinderella, and literally nobody gave a shit, but a full 30 years later everyone's like, "Why are you _altering history_ with this _woke garbage,_ how dare you make Ariel and Tinkerbell _black."_ And people are more upset about that than about the movie being shit, lol.
We're straight up regressing at this point.
This is such a good point. I think people get upset because they see the remakes by disney as the "serious version" while those 90s and 00s versions are percieved as silly and invalid, so it doesnt matter if the characters are black in those versions
It's because back then nobody gave a shit about their races, they were just characters in a movie. Nowadays, companies do the same thing but market it as "This is the new, modern, inclusive, multicultural version of a classic story" and by acting like that not only they are trying to rewrite history, they are also proving that they only cast people of different etnicities in those roles solely for marketing purposes. The remakes themselves being bland and forgettable also hurts their case.
Because these are remakes of the Disney classics, with established character designs. The other movies are adaptions of the Fairy Tales. That why we dont complain when frozen is nothing like the snow Queen.
The movies so boring Adam starts talking about Michael Jackson 😂🤣
I have the same question I always have - albeit a rhetorical one: Why? Why does this need to be made? Doesn't even matter if it's political or whatever, just why? This story has already been told a hundred times too often, why make EVEN more of them? And the writing's probably going to be absolutely terrible anyway, so it's not like they'll be doing anything clever with it. It's just another waste of time, money and resources.
This is legit the first time I am hearing the trailer is out
If you want to actually want to see a live action Peter Pan movie that's actually good, go watch Hook 1991, it's has a great cast, writing, and actual diversity that actually works, unlike what Disney is pushing out for attention nowadays.
Wasn’t expecting a moonbase alpha joke here, perfect 😂
I hate how old Wendy looks in this. She doesn't look like a -what, 12? 14?- years old girl who doesn't want to leave the nursery. In fact, she looks like a teenager who can't wait to get her own room, she looks so uninterested. Everyone looks uninterested!
I also hate that they didn't even care enough to give Peter pointy ears. Okay, they can do without the red hair, but at least give him pointy ears!
I like how the trailer was so legitimately boring that the video just turned into A Michael Jackson trial
5:35 yay close you wonder if everything looks like a blue smogging factory movie because all the sequences look blue and too smogging with filter like come on Disney, why make it blue?
I love the awful grey color grading.
oh, im out of the loop, Adum is back at his old set up?
Can we get scoot kisses again??????
If I’m remembering correctly, don’t we already have a live action adaptation of Petter Pan? I remember a live action adaptation a number of years ago.
Is that a nicacado shirt? Fresh to death
hook already did live-action Peter Pan, and did it well.
11:38 yay just put it in Watch-Along and do all Peter Pan movies in your watchlist. Come on, you're thinking that director have not to do with Green Knight's related as Peter Pan.
All I can think is how much better the peter pan gone wrong play is
I'm a fan of Michael Jackson's music but the ardent stans who go out of their way to defend some of the questionable, creepy stuff he did regarding kids will never fail to baffle me. You can be a fan of an artist's work and still call out their actions. It's not like MJ's music is going to disappear from cultural history any time soon.
What was the creepy stuff he did with kids?
@@redfacegaming7727 Inviting kids to his estate and having sleepovers with them
@@ralelunar Do you understand why he did that?
And like, he's dead so it's kind of a double "who cares" for me.
Dunno, it always seems like a virtue signaling thing. Usually there are also other people involved in the project, and if you hold "not going to support a creep" standard, you would have to check literally everyone in your life constantly for that stuff - even the guy you're buying a potted plant from. It's one of those things that's nice if you do but people hold as a "morally neutral" standard today and, again, it just seems like virtue signaling to me.
It's definitely one of the cases of "Love the art, not the artist."
I'm literally forgetting this trailer as I watch it
David Lowery, director of A Ghost Story and The Green Knight, directed this.
Hmm.
The dumbest thing about the MJ "he was just mentally a kid!" defense is that you can do that and still like, establish some boundaries and have supervision when playing with the kids? You don't need to be fucking alone and sleeping with them in the same bed without their parents?
Hell, there are people that age regress today, or people that are either into playing kids or whatever, and they *don't* do that shit. They get themselves a responsible adult to watch over them and chill. It's just such a cope for MJ being a damn creep.
To be fair, the house was never empty 😂 it was literally a business complex. With all the kids, there were also help like maids, food services and some of the parents stayed in the house too.
Shockingly enough, there were never more than 2 kids who's parents accused MJ. The two adults are cash hungry and shamelessly road the coattails of Surviving R Kelly.
The sleepovers weren't a regular thing. They weren't a "mj and his sleepivers" thing. He hosted kids at the compound and his bedroom was the size of a small home😂
Roll out mattresses, plenty of furniture. Them being all in the same bed wasn't even described, just alluded to.
He was weird and queer and people tried to create a story that didnt exist because MJ wasnt a machismo man. He was assumed gay during a time where America would ruin your life if you were.
@@Urm0mz The only reason anyone thinks MJ is not guilty is due to a massive, ongoing PR campaign by his estate. They're the cash hungry ones.
@Jocelyn yeah but did you have to say that about R Kelly survivors?? That shit really fucking happened to countless people.
Dave Chapelles take on the Michael Jackson allegations pretty much sums it up
Why does every trailer have to have the same exact “epic” music and sound cues
I love the back n forth between Michael Jackson and Peter Pan
The trailer for every new disney live action remake just reminds adam tht he probably hasnt even started part 2...
Gotta love the two takeaways from this. "Peter Pan looks boring, Michael Jackson Suss" lol
Why is this movie so green? Its just so dark and gloomy why can these live action remakes never seem to get the lighting right? Pinocchio was garishly bright but now this one looks like its being shot somewhere just chock full of smog
Weird how I've also never heard of this movie or its trailer until this video. Also, very fitting that the lighting is just as lifeless and dull as these live-action features.
Disney literally blocked the comments on the video and is trying to take down people reviewing the trailer so that might be part of it and it’s being crapped out onto Disney+ in a mere 2 months. No theatrical release
I'm okay with this only in that this is probably David Lowery's "one for them" like Pete's Dragon was. I'll happily ignore this for whatever it is we get out of him next, Green Knight was awesome.
nothing but the literal people acting on screen looks real in this movie. Even if theyre using sets in some shots absolutely everything feels like it was made on a computer. Its awful
Damn it now all I can hear is the Death Grips song, too.
ITS SUCH A LONG WAY DOOOOOOOOWN.
About the MJ thoughts... Ghandi literally did sleep next to young girls.. But he did it naked and he said he did it because he was trying to work on fighting temptation. So when Adam says "if anyone else did that.. " someone else did do it, way worse, and nothing was done yet again
Jackson also gave the children "Jesus Juice" which was wine.
9:39 yay when do we get MJ's Captain EO in Disney+? This ain't going to stream because of him just slumbering and sleeping around with the boys. Too much defending for this Jackson's claim and pleasing for this movie.
Kiiiiinda weird how Disney is changing all of these fantasy creatures to be black women within a relatively short period of time.
Fairy Godmother: Black Now
Blue Fairy: Black Now
Tinkerbell: Black Now
Little Mermaid: Black Now
At the VERY least...at least it doesn't look like it's an abridged, shot-for-shot remake.
"He slept with children."
In a bedroom bigger than most apartments.
Were you expecting maybe the uhh Addams family?
I’m not upset that they race swapped the characters. They’re not based on real people.
I just hate how smug Hollywood is and the lack or original black characters. Tired of these redos that are creatively bankrupt and only have “diversity” to add to the OG material.
They should remake duds and bad movies that people remember. Show that there are still actual good writers out there.
Adam yes MJ did have sleepovers and stuff with kids, but the crucial thing to remember is that in his mind, he *was* a kid. It wasn't weird to him to sleep in a bed with other kids or things that would be considered horribly inappropriate for an adult to do, because he didn't see himself that way. To him it was just "well, that's what kids do at sleepovers!" It's a shitty catch 22, because he just wanted to live the life of a happy child with a lot of friends but in doing so it inherently would bring about unacceptable situations between an adult and kids.
I'm not excusing his behavior, just contextualizing it. I firmly believe his behavior was not predatory, it was just the result of a damaged psyche that still believed it was 8 years old.
Yep!
So was he entirely asexual? A child in the body of a sexually mature man seems MORE likely to commit abuse. Especially in a "no adults allowed" locked-door one-on-one sleepover scenario.
@@Toogs He was married/had relationships with women that I'm sure he had sex with. I mean he has at least one kid. I don't think he saw kids sexually the way most people think.
It's going to sound contradictory when I say this next thing, but bear with me - I think there's actually a decent chance that the allegations are at least somewhat true. I think there's a pretty decent chance he showed his penis to kids/wanted to see theirs. Now obviously that's completely not OK, *but* we again have to examine his psychology - he desperately wanted to be a kid. And I don't know about you, but when I was 7-8 years old my friends and I showed each other our penises and butts and stuff, because that's what kids do. They're figuring out they have more private parts of their body and they want to see if other kids do too. It's a totally normal part of child development. So if MJ is psychologically 8 years old, he's going to have the same exploratory urges. The difference, of course, is he's a grown man so it's horribly damaging to those kids. But I don't think he meant it to be, and I don't think he was doing it in a predatory way.
Again, not excusing the inexcusable. I'm sure those kids were traumatized and he shouldn't have been allowed around them. But when people say he was an abuser or predator, I think they're misunderstanding a really psychologically damaged dude who probably didn't even fully understand why what he was doing was so inappropriate.
however he saw himself doesn't change the fact that he wasn't an actual child and you can't know for sure that was even true, whatever proof you may think you have, you wouldn't really know unless you were there, and the whole situation is still pretty sus
@@lazyval27 Of course it's sus. Did you read what I said? I pretty much agreed with everything you just said. It's *very* clear based on his psychology that MJ thought he was still a little kid, but that doesn't excuse his behavior. It explains it.
Ppl have been in a lot of denial about MJ for a long time.
Does that Wendy actress have her mouth hanging open for the entire movie?? Yikes . . .
Michael jackson scary as fuck. King of pop Idgaf that dude scares me.
Why does Adam have a shirt full of Ralphthemoviemaker faces?
Also that Peter Pansexual joke in chat was greatness.
All MJ discussion aside anyone else just annoyed that Disney gave this trailer the loud action movie jump cuts? Like it's not the first time but still yk
Those loud noises between fast paced shots are extremely annoying to me
"... She said I am the one, but I didn't rape her son." Bass: Tutu tutu tutu tutu
Love the shirt!
here for the MJ commentary
Yes, all of the lost boys in the animated Peter Pan film were all boys.
That's literally Milla Jovavichs daughter holy shit
I’m 8 minutes in and I just noticed Adum’s shirt…wtf
Have you never noticed him wearing that shirt?
The thing I get less and less is why do these trailers have """""epic""""" trailer music? Like it's not a very grandiose story, why add so much base, trumpets, and drums?
Oooh the trailer John Campea thought looked like the best adaptation of Peter Pan ever made. I wonder what YMS thinks 😂
I work professionally with kids and outside of not molesting them, there are two reasons why we go out of our way to make sure we don’t look like we are molesting them. I had to take special sexual assault awareness training. One, grooming behaviors like innocent inappropriate touching that would never turn into assault for you normalize the behavior to the children so when a predator does the same the children are less likely to be alarmed by it until they are harmed. Two, some kids will lie and say you assaulted them when you didn’t. By never being in a room alone with them (let alone a bed) it prevents that from happening, which also prevents kids from learning how to be manipulative assholes and get away with it. But if mj didn’t actually sa a kid I would be willing to forgive him because we didn’t really have that training available to people like him in the 80’s and 90’s.