Edit: replaced the original blurry tweet with a more legible version, remade by @gofsckyourself@lemmy.world!
this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2024
622 points (98.3% liked)
Microblog Memes
5792 readers
2640 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Oh yes.
In the original Japanese version of the movie, Mewtwo is less of a "destroy the world" villain and Mew is less of of an innocent that shows up to save the day.
It's not quite as big a flip as the person above is suggesting, but it is absolutely more gray.
Basically, Mewtwo is depicted as deeply confused and trying to justify its existence by proving that it and the other clones are superior. It's not out to destroy anything, he just wants to prove he deserves to exist.
Meanwhile, Mew is actually kind of a purist, claiming the clones are just fakes and don't deserve to exist. It definitely starts the movie as a vibing space cat, but once it encounters the clones, it instigates the battle as much as Mewtwo does.
I could get into it but this article does a good job summarizing it.
https://www.denofgeek.com/culture/how-the-us-version-of-pokemon-the-first-movie-changed-its-meaning/
Oh, that's actually a pretty great plot. And, just like how in that story no side is necessarily the "good" guys, he says it got changed because the "multiethnic audience" of America wouldn't have liked it, because I very, very much doubt the American marketing team that simplified it would say that.
I would argue the chauvinism that they both display makes them both solidly in the wrong.
Very much a commentary on war and an argument for anti-imperalism I'd say.