As a whole, how do you feel about live action Disney remakes?
 

I know we have individual threads for the live action Disney movie releases, but I was wanting to see people's overall thoughts in one place.

First of all, let me get this out of the way: I absolutely love the OG Live Action remakes from the 90s (1994 Jungle Book and 101 Dalmations from 1996).

Ok, now moving on.

For me personally, I will be honest when I admit that I really, really don't like these remakes and how many of them have continued to make so much money for Disney.

The main reason for this is that they are just inferior in nearly every way to the originals, which had the landslide advantage of being animated.
In animation, you can capture wonder and fantasy so much better and make everything so expressive and exaggerrated.
So I really don't understand whats the point of making these films photo-realistic when it takes away from makes the originals so attractive in the first place.

What I've also noticed with these films is that while trying to be realistic, Disney ends up giving most of them this dull and greyish colour palette which once again, I don't understand what part of it appeals to pepple.
A lot of the human actors in these films were mediocre,with some I'd argue even being terrible when compared to the originals (looking at you, Emma Watson as Belle).
I'd say that the CG animals have a similar problem due to not being expressive beyond what a real animal is, which really sucks me out when I'm supposed to believe that these characters talk and are supposed to have human like personalities.

That being said, I don't hate CG animation at in live action films as a whole, seeing as how when used right, you can absolutely capture the same sort of expressions made by hand drawn characters.
An example of this would be in "Mowgli" by Andy Serkis from 2018, which used heavy mocap on their CG animals, and the result are characters which while not looking the most realistic, are widely expressive and instantly memorable.

I don't hate the concept of remaking films either, since many great films have been remakes which have added something new that wasn't in the original (my personal favourite being the Ten Commandments).
With these Disney films, I feel like these films are hardly adding anything new, mostly just telling the story using much worse acting, presentation and a tone which is all over the place, often because of trying to be "mature" while still catering to nostalgia.

In terms of positives however, I would say that I do like the few changes that these remakes do make from time to time, such as making King Louie a mafia boss in the Jungle Book voiced by Christopher Walken.

Since these remakes are also made on such a high budget, being able to get well respected and big name voice actors on board such as Idris Elba and Ben Kingsley is also admirable.

Some human performances I thought were pretty nice as well, such as Belle's father from Beauty and the Beast, as well as LeFou who admittedly had way better chemistry with Gaston than Belle and the beast lol.

I also thought that in the recent Aladdin trailer, Genie looked pretty good which is an unpopular opinion, but Will Smith really does have those exaggeratted expressions which reminds me of a hand drawn character.

But all in all, those handful of reasons aren't enough to make me check out what is at its core, a repackaged and inferior product.
So I have decided in the end, that everytime a Live Action Disney remake comes out, I won't throw my money at them, and I really hope that other people do the same and boycott these films, so Disney is forced to stop making them and focus on the original stuff they've always been so loved for over the years.

Pointless Internet rant to get attention over.

Eh, they could have been better. I enjoyed Malificent, and The Jungle Book despite completely missing the point with the ending.

But the Lion King, should have been a cgi marvel, but it looks a bit boring with the lack of "acting" in the characters. Beauty and the Beast was baaaaad, and Aladdin looks... eh. Didn't bother to watch Cinderella. Dumbo looks really cute, the character, I'm not sold on the movie.

I feel they're more of a IP flex from Disney then actual movie production, so anything genuinely good is almost accidental.

I agree. If you want to see realistic lions, you can always watch a documentary about animal life in South Africa.

I had never cared much even for the TMNT live-action films. The comics and cartoons are better mediums when it comes to make talking turtles believeable.

Why would i go see these ****** remakes when I have the classic animated movies at my disposal.

I thought Beauty and the Beast was okay, but aside from one brief scene (which the original screenwriter argues actually breaks the entire movie) it was the same exact thing we've already seen.

There's nothing creative about tracing over someone else's work. That's why Rob Liefeld is such a goddamn hack; his original artwork is trash, and anything "good" he draws was simply traced over from something a much better artist drew. That's how these live-action films feel, to me, like a simple trace-over job.

They're functional. They do what they aim to do, which is re-do the exact same movie with a new "filter", so to speak. But it's not like that's a difficult job; people are already in romantic love with most of the originals (I'm not surprised that Dumbo didn't do great, because the original wasn't a huge hit either), so as long as they tell the same story, they're guaranteed a built-in audience.

If people wanna like them, that's fine. They're not "bad" per se - because the originals weren't bad, and it's the same exact movie - but it IS the most lazy and creatively bankrupt thing I've ever seen, and if anyone but Disney tried this they'd be catching all kinds of hell for it.

While it's really, really cool to see these old animated movies brought more realistically to life with live-action CGI...

It's also incredibly, horribly cynical. Cash in with the same story, beat for beat, and give it a CGI makeover with a big star-studded cast.

This should not work. It's creatively bankrupt. But hey, Emma Watson as Belle! And (still not sure it's not an elaborate prank) Tim Burton directing Dumbo!

Profit.

I adore how they made the Dumbo movie a meta-commentary on crass corporate greed and consumerism, and big corporations swallowing up the smaller ones on their way to making everything sh*tty. At the same time as the Fox merger was going through, no less! :lol:

That took serious balls. And it proved that Disney does indeed have self-awareness, and are completely aware of how people perceive them. They just have more money than God so they simply don't give a f*ck.

That was the moral of Dumbo: "Whine about us all you like, you stupid rubes. You're still gonna buy these plush dolls and blow two months' rent on trips to our theme parks no matter what we do." I just can't believe that they went ahead and used one of these things as a vehicle for that message. Very ballsy move. But they can pull it off, so I guess it's not too surprising after all.

If its the exact same story, I have no problem with it.

I just don't think live action is suitable for telling these stories which were designed with animation in mind.

If anything, I would prefer classic Disney films being re-made in the cartoony CG style like Wreck it Ralph.

I'd argue that's equally creatively bankrupt, just from a different direction.

Someone did an article last week or the week before, can't remember where, but they made an excellent point: The problem with remakes of any kind, is that Hollywood generally only remakes movies that people already love. That makes it a "safe investment", but there's almost no room for improvement. Best case, you make something bland and inoffensive, but you're not going to blow anyone away or eclipse the original. Worst case, you taint the brand for many years to come and waste a ton of money and a lot of people's time.

They'd be much better served in trying to remake movies that didn't get it right the first time, but they won't do that because such properties are considered "risky".

Like, I'm not really too invested in The Lion King remake because The Lion King was already a really good movie, the new coat of paint only serves to entice the easily amused. But how about, say, The Black Cauldron? Lots of room for improvement, there. Even Sword in the Stone; not bad, but not a lot of people saw it and nobody remembers it. THOSE kinds of things, I could see myself getting a little bit more interested in, because there's at least a small chance that the remake could do some things better than the original, perhaps even becoming the superior film. These other remakes have zero chance of that, because the originals were nearly-perfect, and thus, it's all rather pointless.

I'm pretty sure I heard they're working on those, so we'll have to wait and see.

101 Dalmatians was good, then again I was a kid. Cinderella was pretty good. Only 2 I've seen so far.

So far as the vote, my opinion doesn't fall into either of them. The trailers seem to make the movies look better than they turn out to be from what I have seen, Cinderella was okay , though it didn't wow me.

I don't count Maleficent as it was a different story but I did enjoy that for a good part anyway when I watched it.

They need to stop.

The fact we have 3 of these things coming out this year alone is very disturbing.

Also even if they do manage to do a good job on any of them it doesn't matter we have the originals and I prefer animation.

I'll pick the 3rd option of 'I have no interest in seeing them, and I'll never see them for as long as I live'

Out of the ones I've seen, they're not very interesting. I know they're technically remaking the Black Cauldron, which I am interested but mostly because they intend to adapt the full series of books this time, not so much because I'm all that fond of the original.

There should be a third option. I'm apathetic to them. I mean, I haven't cared about any of the ones so far (Lion King was aight, I guess), but something like a totally realistic, live-action Little Mermaid? I'd see that.

Horrible choice. Should have been, like, a "young Jennifer Connelly" type.

I'd have to agree with you. :tsad:

Completely uninterested. Nothing appealing or interesting about them to me. Disney really need to show some restraint, I don't think even Platinum Dunes cranked out remakes at this speed and quantity.

The only good thing to come out of these for me was the "Evermore" scene in Beauty and the Beast.

Other than that, it really feels like they're trying to grab the "Cinderella is too antifeminist, she was dumb doormat and needed a man to save her!/Belle has Stockholm Syndrome/Ariel traded her legs for d!ck" crowd. It's why the Mulan remake keeps getting increasingly more awful the more detail gets revealed. It's why they stopped designing Elsa as a villain and turned it into what it is now (and why I'm far more of a Tangled person).


They're remakes for people who have missed the point or don't care to analyze the finer details.

Cinderella's bravery was in her kindness and optimism in the face of abuse.
Belle may have been trapped, but she was never made out to be or treated like a prisoner; she never, ever took the Beast's sh!t lying down.
Ariel's problems were more with her father being terrible and disrespecting her passions; the story is about him realizing he's put his daughter in a situation where she has to hide parts of herself from him.

Garbage in my opinion, I hate it. Me being a 90s person myself and loved everything Aladdin animated series related is just bleh. Iago was my favorite character of that entire series, I dread what they've done to the poor bird in the live action version. Not to mention whoever played Jafar is doing a horrible job, again my opinion. Not seeing that pile of crap live action version of Aladdin, I hope it bombs in the box office too bleh.