[the_af]

That's not a charitable reading of the comment, and furthermore, it's not even a reasonable assumption. Other comments clarify that the "theft" is in quotes because it's a figurative theft, not from Disney to themselves, but from Disney to the earlier, non-copyrighted folk tales it drew inspiration from. And the "theft" is that the Disney IP supplanted (via ubiquity) the public domain versions to the point lots of people aren't even aware they exist. Nobody is arguing it's literal theft, hence the quotes.

[inanutshellus]

I don't think it's "uncharitable"? Seems perfectly reasonable to not like a remake.

He says:

> ... this corporate remake is a worse creative "theft" than ...

Context is that "this" is the 1999 film.

A sibling comment makes a separate point that even the 1992 film is not original content but nowhere in falcor84's comment does he refer to the franchise as a whole being "theft".

Regardless, it's clear from the post that the context is the 1999 film being `creative "theft"` which I inferred meant they changed the story in ways he didn't like but... he can weigh in if he feels like it.

[the_af]

> Seems perfectly reasonable to not like a remake

That's not the uncharitable part of your comment.

> [...] but he wants it to be because he doesn't like the 1999 film

This is the uncharitable part.

[inanutshellus]

Nothing charitable or uncharitable in the sentiment. Just interpretation.

Keeping context confined to the 1999 and 1992 films... What meaning do you infer?

I still can't find an alternative.