Freakier Friday cast and crew criticise ‘hurtful' Asian stereotypes in 2003 film
The director and leading cast member of Freakier Friday, the soon-to-be-released sequel to Disney's 2003 body-swap comedy Freaky Friday, have criticised the 'hurtful' Asian stereotypes of the older film and said they 'owed audiences to make it right'.
Speaking to Entertainment Weekly, director Nisha Ganatra, a Canadian whose parents were first generation immigrants from India, said of the 2003 film: 'I remember watching it and feeling torn, mostly about the Asian representation … It was something I brought up right away when I had my first meetings with the producers. I had a moment of the presentation that was like, 'problematic Asian representation!''
Ganatra was referring to a pivotal scene in Freaky Friday, in which stars Jamie Lee Curtis and Lindsay Lohan, playing a mother and daughter, read the messages in a pair of magical fortune cookies in a Chinese restaurant which then triggers their body swap. (This is not a scene that appears in either the original 1972 novel, written by Mary Rodgers or the 1976 film adaptation starring Jodie Foster and Barbara Harris.)
Freakier Friday, written by Jordan Weiss, has dropped a repeat of the Chinese restaurant scene, given Rosalind Chao and Lucille Soong, the actors who appeared in the 2003 scene, cameo appearances, and, according to Ganatra, provides 'little moments that don't betray this movie, but were satisfying for people who found hurtful moments in the last one'.
The Philippines-born Canadian actor Manny Jacinto, who plays Lohan's fiance in Freakier Friday, also expressed concerns about the earlier film, saying: 'I remember watching the first Freaky Friday and being like, this did not age very well, regarding the diverse characters.'
Jacinto added: 'Knowing Nisha and speaking to other people within our circles, I knew we had a captain who was very much aware of those archetypes, or those issues presented in the first one.'
Ganatra said: 'It was a different time and wasn't done intentionally [in the 2003 film], but it's a real thing. It's something I, being Asian, was super conscious of.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
24 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Can you spot the fake? The AI ‘bootlegs' that have infuriated Disney
Disney and Universal have filed a lawsuit against a tech firm that creates AI-generated images of characters including Shrek and the Minions. The two media giants have mounted a claim against Midjourney accusing the company of making and distributing 'innumerable' copies of characters from their libraries without permission. In the lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles, the film studios said: 'By helping itself to plaintiffs' copyrighted works, and then distributing images (and soon videos) that blatantly incorporate and copy Disney's and Universal's famous characters – without investing a penny in their creation – Midjourney is the quintessential copyright free-rider and a bottomless pit of plagiarism.' They added that the alleged copyright infringement was 'calculated and wilful'. Midjourney has been contacted for comment. Midjourney is a popular generative AI software that allows users to create images from text prompts. For example, if a subscriber asks Midjourney to generate an image of Yoda in a particular setting or carrying out a certain action, the software will oblige with a high-quality and downloadable image. The quality of the images is such that they are often impossible to distinguish from the authentic, copyrighted versions. Can you spot the difference? Test your ability to spot the AI fake with our quiz. Midjourney made revenues of $300m last year through what Disney and Universal branded a 'bootlegging business model'. The Hollywood studios accuse the San Francisco-based tech company of ignoring their requests to stop infringing their copyright, or to at least adopt new technological measures to prevent the practice. They allege that Midjourney instead 'doubled down' on its actions by releasing newer versions of its AI image generation software and teasing a new video service. The lawsuit references a range of copyrighted characters including Darth Vader from Star Wars, Elsa from Frozen, Lightning McQueen from Cars, Toy Story's Buzz Lightyear, Sully from Monster's Inc, Marvel's Iron Man and Homer Simpson from The Simpsons. Disney and Universal have asked for a preliminary injunction to prevent future copyright infringement and are seeking unspecified damages from Midjourney. 'Thievery on a high scale' It comes amid a broader battle between AI companies and the creative industries over concerns the new technology is riding roughshod over copyright protections. Sir Elton John has described the actions of tech companies as 'thievery on a high scale'. While major record labels and publishers are already locked in legal battles with AI companies over copyright disputes, the lawsuit marks the first time large Hollywood studios have entered the fray. Horacio Gutierrez, Disney's chief legal and compliance officer, said: 'Our world-class IP is built on decades of financial investment, creativity and innovation – investments only made possible by the incentives embodied in copyright law that give creators the exclusive right to profit from their works. 'We are bullish on the promise of AI technology and optimistic about how it can be used responsibly as a tool to further human creativity. But piracy is piracy, and the fact that it's done by an AI company does not make it any less infringing.' Kim Harris, NBCUniversal's general counsel, said: 'We are bringing this action today to protect the hard work of all the artists whose work entertains and inspires us and the significant investment we make in our content. 'Theft is theft regardless of the technology used, and this action involves blatant infringement of our copyrights.' It is not the first time Midjourney, which was founded in 2021, has been accused of misusing copyrighted material to train its AI model. Alongside rivals including Stability AI, Midjourney is currently facing a lawsuit filed by 10 artists who accused the tech companies of copying and storing their work without permission. In a 2022 interview, Midjourney chief executive Holz said he built the company's database by performing 'a big scrape of the internet.'. Asked whether he sought consent of the artists, he responded: 'There isn't really a way to get a hundred million images and know where they're coming from.'
Metro
29 minutes ago
- Metro
Doctor Who fans are convinced the show is dying – but they're wrong
Doctor Who has survived an awful lot. We've seen the Doctor fall off a giant telescope, absorb a lethal amount of radiation (twice), and even bump their head on the Tardis console, yet they still walked away to tell the tale. True, they might not have had the same face after these incidents, but that's pretty run of the mill for Time Lords. It's strange, then, that for the first time since 2005 and Doctor Who's triumphant return that it feels like the beloved sci-fi series is in peril. Low viewing figures, mixed critical reception, and growing fan antipathy have dogged the show over the last few series, and there's a fear amongst fans that the Doctor might be done for. Wake up to find news on your TV shows in your inbox every morning with Metro's TV Newsletter. Sign up to our newsletter and then select your show in the link we'll send you so we can get TV news tailored to you. Yet, do you know who else has believed the Doctor was defeated over the years? The Daleks… and the Cybermen… and The Master. In fact, countless villains over the years have considered the Doctor to be beaten, only to be proven wrong, and recent news has me optimistic that the Last of the Time Lords can do the impossible once again. On June 12, the BBC announced that they're working on a new CBBC spin-off featuring the Doctor. According to the BBC press release, this new animated show – which is aimed at the pre-school audience — will see the Gallifreyan gadabout 'solving mysteries and problems alongside their companions and other friends'. Now I know what you're thinking. Why am I excited about the news of a show aimed at people who've only just learned object permanence? Well, there's a simple answer to that, I think this demonstrates that the Beeb still have faith in Who as a brand. After all, why would they be willing to invest in the wider franchise if they weren't sure if the series still had legs (and arms, hands, ooh, fingers, lots of fingers. Ears, yes, eyes too)? I must admit, in my darkest moments, I have entertained the terror that the Beeb might shelve Who, but this recent announcement has me convinced we're going to hear news on the main series return soon. Of course, there are already rumours online about where the series might be heading. There are unverified reports online that Disney is done with Doctor Who and that they won't be helping produce another season. On paper, that sounds like a massive blow, but before you start wailing into your Tom Baker scarf, there is some good news. Supposedly, the BBC is close to finding a new partner for the beleaguered series, which will allow them to continue Doctor Who in some form or another. What form will the show take next? Who knows? To paraphrase the Doctor, regeneration is a lottery; you never know what you're going to get, and so is renewal in the TV world. What I do know is that whoever takes it over is unlikely to have pockets as deep as Disney – unless it's Apple TV Plus, they're Scrooge McDuck rich – which means Who's going to have to make some adjustments. And you know what? I think that's great. The BBC may have grand ambitions for Doctor Who to be a big-budget affair like the MCU or other modern sci-fi series, but that's not what audiences watch the show for. They watch it because they love the characters, the stories, and the incredible creativity of the writers. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The House of Mouse's cash might have allowed the Doctor to go on bigger adventures than ever before through impressive special effects, incredible sets, and stunning CGI, but it also robbed the show of some of its underdog spirit. Now, the stereotype of every Doctor Who monster being made of a pedal bin with bubble wrap glued to it is a bit outdated, as is the belief that it's filmed exclusively in Welsh quarries. Yet it is true that the series' limited budget forced the show's writers and producers to get creative, which gave Doctor Who a certain charm all of its own. Monsters felt more real because they were just people in goofy costumes, not CGI behemoths. Alien worlds felt tangible because they weren't green screens, they were… well, to be honest, they were Welsh quarries, but they used other places in Wales too! More than that, I think the limited budgets pushed writers and producers to think their way out of problems, rather than throwing cash at them. There are plenty of examples from across the show's history, but the best example I can think of involves the iconic Tardis. Have you ever wondered why the Tardis is a blue police phone box? No, it's not because the chameleon circuit is broken. It's because the BBC didn't want to pay for a new prop every week. More Trending That's right, one of the most important pieces of iconography in British pop culture was born because some backroom accountant wanted to save a couple of quid. Glibness aside, I do think a big problem in recent years has been an overreliance on spectacle over character and plot (most notably in the last two season finales). With that in mind, I'm hopeful that whoever takes on Who will make Russell T Davies and his writers realise expensive CGI isn't a substitute for a coherent story. So what I'm saying to my fellow fans is that the Doctor might have been injured in recent months, and change may be coming, but the future of this wonderful show seems brighter than a regenerating Time Lord. Do you have a story you'd like to share? Get in touch by emailing Share your views in the comments below. View More » MORE: Sabrina Carpenter knew you'd hate her kinky album cover – that's the point MORE: Period tracking apps might sell our data – but women are trapped MORE: Race Across the World's Sioned shouldn't be sneered at for her tears
The Review Geek
30 minutes ago
- The Review Geek
How to Train Your Dragon (2025) Movie Review
The perfect adaptation Live-action films of animations have never been a sure-fire success; in fact, it's easier to remember more bad adaptations than good ones. Unfortunately, things haven't changed much nowadays, as the general reaction to Disney's remakes will show you. But How to Train Your Dragon comes as a beacon of hope. Fans will be glad to know it's the best adaptation of any animated film until now. How to Train Your Dragon is a beautiful coming-of-age story following Hiccup as he tries to find his place in his village and connect with his father, Stoick, the village chief. Unlike the other Vikings, he's meek, skinny, and only seems to bring trouble wherever he goes. That is, until the day that'll change his whole life: when he catches a Night Fury, the scariest beast of all. The only problem is that no one believes him, and he actually wrecks the place while doing that. The live-action is an almost perfect adaptation, bringing the incredible scenery, John Powell's breathtaking soundtrack, and charismatic characters to life. You can feel the amount of respect the entire team has for the original in every corner. Even the dialogues are close to a one-to-one recreation. Many people wish they could watch their favourite movies for the first time again. The fans got exactly that here. As with the animation, Hiccup's friendship with Toothless, the Night Fury, is the highlight of the film. Every time they meet and get closer, you can feel in your bones how much they care for one another. When Hiccup finally earns the dragon's trust and pats its head — the movie's most iconic scene — it's hard not to shed some tears. Both of them are each other's first real friends, and it shows. They can only be their true and best selves together until they grow and show the whole village who they are. Hiccup's relationship with his father is another key aspect of the film. How could he, the chief's son, not be the best and baddest Viking there? But instead of building legends like his father, he was overlooked by everyone. That's why his friendship with Toothless is even more beautiful; killing him would solve all his problems, but he saw something else in the creature. So, the dragon did the same and was the first to see something unique in the boy. Stoick isn't a bad person, and he tries to connect with his son. But it's as if the bond they need for that connection is missing. Even if it's hard in the beginning, Toothless is also the one who makes that happen. Although it follows those story beats perfectly, the remake has a few changes. And, happily, all of them add something new to the plot. Snotlout receives more screen time, focusing on his damaged relationship with his father. Much like Hiccup, he can't fill his shoes and only disappoints the man. That gives a new layer to the character and even makes him more likable. But the best addition is Astrid's rant to Hiccup. In the animation, she's great, but also the stereotypical tough girl who ends up helping the boy. Here, we learn a bit more about her life and her ambitions. And also why the boy annoys her so much. When he answers, we see how his emotions start to sway her, even if a little. Instead of a sudden change of heart, her help here feels more believable and emotional. Of course, the scene would be as great as it is if it weren't for Nico Parker's amazing skills. She delivers her lines and feelings flawlessly. Not every member of the cast gets a similar chance to shine, but they are still near perfect. All of them seem like they were born to play their characters, mainly Parker, Mason Thames (Hiccup), and Gerard Butler (Stoick). The CGI also doesn't disappoint, as the dragons look amazing. They're all just like you imagine them when watching the cartoon; it's fantastical. If there's one small disadvantage, it's that Toothless sometimes feels less expressive than in the original. Still, it's hardly a problem, and he's the most beautiful of all the creatures. Although it's the best live-action remake we have, it's still a pity it doesn't try to do more. As it's nearly the same as the first one, it can feel like it doesn't justify its existence. Seeing how much the production team loves the original and how successful their small changes are, it would have been great to see them being riskier. Their additions could still be respectful and make the movie feel even fresher. But, if How to Train Your Dragon's sin is living up to the original, maybe that's a small price to pay. Read More: How To Train Your Dragon (2025) Ending Explained
