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

*FredWolfLeonardo* · 05-02-2019, 04:11 PM

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.

*Candy Kappa* · 05-02-2019, 04:31 PM

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.

*Original TMNT Cartoon Fan* · 05-02-2019, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FredWolfLeonardo

In animation, you can capture wonder and fantasy so much better and make everything so expressive and exaggerrated.

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.

~~ABrown~~ · 05-02-2019, 07:45 PM

*Autbot_Benz* · 05-02-2019, 07:46 PM

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

~~Leo656~~ · 05-02-2019, 08:40 PM

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.

*CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy* · 05-02-2019, 09:03 PM

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.

*ranger_scout* · 06-25-2019, 11:22 PM

Here are my thoughts on all of them.

Maleficent - I actually kind of enjoyed this film. When I first heard about it I thought it was going to be extremely dark and spooky, but I actually had some fun and humorous moments. Plus, Aurora got some much needed character development from the original film. They are also working on a sequel, but I see any need to expand the story.
Cinderella - This was one of the most gorgeous films I've ever seen. Out of all the fairy tales that have received the live-action treatment, this was easily the best one. The cast was just perfect and it was very faithful to the source material as well. I even thought it was better than the animated film, which I never actually loved as a kid.
The Jungle Book - Visually it was outstanding. Plus, I really liked the characters and the little twists that were made to the story. It was great to escape to such an imaginative world like that one, especially because I had a lousy first quarter of 2016.
Pete's Dragon - I'm might be cheating on this one, but the original film featured animated moments. I think this was probably the most underrated film of 2016. It was so heart-warming and had a beautiful message as well. I also liked a lot of the performances in This is something I could watch countless times and never get bored of it.
Beauty and the Beast - It's very hard to redo a masterpiece like the original. However, it mostly stayed true to the story it was based upon. Hearing the classic songs really did make feel like a kid again. Overall, I thought it was a solid adaptation and it was worth seeing in theaters. Plus, the movie and the original's 25th anniversary re-release on home media gave Belle a much needed boost in popularity. She made about less than $7,000 in merchandise on Ebay in 2013. Also, Emma Watson's portrayal was far better than the one Emilie de Davin played on Once Upon a Time.
Christopher Robin - I absolutely loved hearing Jim Cummings as Pooh and Tigger again. The man is a genius and I am astounded that Disney hasn't named him a Disney Legend for the numerous voices he's done for their projects for nearly 30 years now. Also, this movie really takes me back to their childhood. It was also nice to have Pooh and his friends return to the big screen after the underwhelming box-office performance of their animated film from 2011, which had to compete against Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows -Part 2 and The Smurfs.
Dumbo - I honestly don't know why this was given the live-action treatment. Tim Burton's work is either hit-or-miss for me. I did like the twist of seeing humans actually treating the sweet little outcast with respect before and after he flies. However, the script reallly could've been better.
Aladdin - The original will always be one my family's all-time favorite films, but I was having a good time watching it. I was so nice hearing that music I grew up with along with Pasek and Paul's new song. Will Smith has VERY BIG SHOES to fill when he plays the Genie, but I think he made it his own and did just fine. Naomi Scott was fantastic as Jasmine and Mena Massoud was a likable and believable Aladdin.
Some people consider Tim Burton's 2010 film Alice in Wonderland to be a remake or some kind of re-imagining of the 1951 animated film. However, Burton didn't even consider that to be a live-action adaptation at all. People either loved it or hated it. I personally enjoyed the movir, but I really didn't like its sequel Alice Through the Looking Glass at all.

*TheBlueTurtle1* · 06-26-2019, 01:45 AM

They stink, just cash grabs, no heart and soul to them and they add nothing. If anything they harm the and diminish the originals

*ranger_scout* · 07-18-2019, 01:47 PM

Today Entertainment Weekly published an article about why the majority of these remakes like Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, and The Jungle Book have all been successes. They also gave reasons why Dumbo didn't do to well at the box-office.

How Disney is succeeding with its live-action remakes

*raph27* · 07-18-2019, 05:02 PM

Early word of mouth isn't great about Lion King. It will be interesting to watch the box office numbers and see if it turns out more like Aladdin or Dumbo in terms of tickets sold. I keep forgetting as well that Maleficent's sequel is set for this year, which means we're basically seeing 4 live-action (don't get snarky with me about Lion King) remakes in the span of one year, a big jump over releasing one every year or so that used to be the pattern.

Personally, I don't have a huge problem with these remakes themselves. I just see them as reimaginings, similar to how so many video games are getting HD remasters this generation. The original is still there, but these

a) bring it back into the spotlight to rope in new fans that have never experienced the story before, especially kids, and

b) play on nostalgia from people that loved the original to begin with and would be interested in a reinterpretation.

But the big thing I've noticed this year, which parallels the increase in remakes released, is internet buzz about them, mostly negative. I think Beauty and the Beast was the first to really push it for some, and now with so many in a quicker timeframe it has become more of a talking point, and this is where I take issue. For these remakes and some of Disney's other recent stuff (MCU, some of Star Wars, etc.) where a lot of criticism has been laid that they "don't take risks/aren't original enough" the irony shows through when each little thing with these movies becomes some massive issue with thousands of tweets and articles and whatnot. A lot of them are saying the same comments over and over about how Disney has no originality in making these, while their arguments are exactly that, repeated over and over.

So I do somewhat agree with a boycott of these movies, not personally but in principle. I'm tired of all the same discussions and snippy comments about "no creativity" thrown around every time there's a development on one of these movies. Let the box office judge, because that's really the only deciding factor in how many of these continue to be made.

Egon1982 · 07-23-2019, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raph27

Early word of mouth isn't great about Lion King. It will be interesting to watch the box office numbers and see if it turns out more like Aladdin or Dumbo in terms of tickets sold. I keep forgetting as well that Maleficent's sequel is set for this year, which means we're basically seeing 4 live-action (don't get snarky with me about Lion King) remakes in the span of one year, a big jump over releasing one every year or so that used to be the pattern.

Personally, I don't have a huge problem with these remakes themselves. I just see them as reimaginings, similar to how so many video games are getting HD remasters this generation. The original is still there, but these

a) bring it back into the spotlight to rope in new fans that have never experienced the story before, especially kids, and

b) play on nostalgia from people that loved the original to begin with and would be interested in a reinterpretation.

But the big thing I've noticed this year, which parallels the increase in remakes released, is internet buzz about them, mostly negative. I think Beauty and the Beast was the first to really push it for some, and now with so many in a quicker timeframe it has become more of a talking point, and this is where I take issue. For these remakes and some of Disney's other recent stuff (MCU, some of Star Wars, etc.) where a lot of criticism has been laid that they "don't take risks/aren't original enough" the irony shows through when each little thing with these movies becomes some massive issue with thousands of tweets and articles and whatnot. A lot of them are saying the same comments over and over about how Disney has no originality in making these, while their arguments are exactly that, repeated over and over.

So I do somewhat agree with a boycott of these movies, not personally but in principle. I'm tired of all the same discussions and snippy comments about "no creativity" thrown around every time there's a development on one of these movies. Let the box office judge, because that's really the only deciding factor in how many of these continue to be made.

The problem is that some of today's filmgoers lack respect for their elder cinema (1990s and above) and should learn to respect/appreciate cinema when it was creative. In 20 years the remakes (even with creepy CGI) will not be considered classics and will be generally forgotten and the originals remembered better.

Well, the kids who see it might think that way.

Please parents show your kids the originals at least. Sorry Disney your not gonna get me with your nostalgia manipulation strings on these remakes, if i want to experience the wonder and magic of Aladdin, Lion King, Beauty and the Beast etc. i'll just watch the original animated movies on blu, i don't need to pay to see watered down weak live action version of them that don't have the same grandeour and wonder as sometimes you can't strike lightning in a bottle twice.

We just want new things like me for Disney as i support WDSA and Pixar as they do creative things which are better than these halfassed lazy remakes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=KTbOiqDRl2I

This is such a great video. It absolutely nails it. And it savagely smacks Disney where it hurts.

I am not going to give Disney a single cent this year except Toy Story 4 which earned my money and saw it again on Lion King's opening day out to prove i'm tired of these lazy remakes.. I haven't once this entire year. No ticket for Dumbo. No ticket for Aladdin and no ticket for Lion King. and no ticket for Star Wars episode 9.

I am putting my money where my mouth is. If more people did the same Disney might actually stop making these lazy live action remakes. But mark my words, the returns WILL diminish eventually once they bomb and will make Disney look at the bottomline and be like "oh wow i guess they are tired of this" and will cancel other remakes and do new projects.

*ranger_scout* · 10-30-2019, 10:24 PM

According to Disney Studios' chief Alan Horn, at some point the remakes will stop or they will try some new ideas with these adaptations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Horn

“There is no question that we, at some point, are going to run out of the kinds of films like Aladdin or Lion King. We have taken a step past that now, so Maleficent is a step away from Sleeping Beauty, and Cruella (2021) is a step away from 101 Dalmatians. But there is no question it’s a finite universe.”

https://collider.com/disney-live-act...its-alan-horn/

*ranger_scout* · 07-20-2019, 10:46 PM

After I see The Lion King tomorrow I think I'm probably going to take a short break about talking about these remakes. I might just wait till the full cast of The Little Mermaid is announced at D23 Expo, which is likely to happen, to start discussing them again. Hollywood Reporter had this to say about originality and the backlash that the remakes are getting.

'Lion King', Originality and the Backlash Against Remakes

These people are also right that as long as these films keep making money, they will continue to happen.

Disney Won't Stop Making Live-Action Remakes Until They Stop Making Money

*TurtleTitan97* · 06-26-2019, 08:02 AM

The only ones that have interested me were Jungle Book and Christopher Robin.

*Shark_Blade* · 06-30-2019, 09:41 AM

2D animation movies are dead today anyway so it’s good that they remake them for the younger generations to continue the legacy.

They’re mostly great retelling and make tonnes of money. Can’t wait for Cruella and Little Mermaid live action.

*IndigoErth* · 06-30-2019, 11:14 AM

Don't mind it overall, IF it was just now and then, but it seems to be a serious focus for them right now and too many in a rather short span of time. Is Disney running low on ideas at the moment? Because new (and non-sequel) original films seem to have taken a backseat for the most part.

Also, as much as I was always into 3D animation and support the advancement of CGI in film and watching how far it has come over the years... I'm actually also starting to miss Disney's traditional 2D like it was back in the day. Never wanted to see it replaced, just have it and 3D coexist as different animation art forms. But with Pixar seeming to take over much of that particular area of Disney entertainment...

*DarkFell* · 12-15-2019, 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IndigoErth

Don't mind it overall, IF it was just now and then, but it seems to be a serious focus for them right now and too many in a rather short span of time.

This, I agree on. Disney is flexing their CGI skill muscles, but, those skills can be polished more so into new ideas.

However, it would appear that the Nostalgia Train still rides on within the Mansion of the Mouse.

*ranger_scout* · 07-03-2019, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shark_Blade

2D animation movies are dead today anyway so it’s good that they remake them for the younger generations to continue the legacy.

They’re mostly great retelling and make tonnes of money. Can’t wait for Cruella and Little Mermaid live action.

For a lot of people, including myself, who were born around the time where the VHS was HUGE, it was amazing to find out when the classic movies were first released in theaters. It blew my mind that films like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Pinocchio, Fantasia, Dumbo and Bambi were made in the 1930's through 1940's. Then you've got the Gold Age of films from the 1950's and 1960's that include Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, Lady and the Tramp, Sleeping Beauty, One Hundred and One Dalmatians and The Jungle Book. I also didn't know at first that The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh and The Rescuers hit theaters in the 1970's. That just shows how well they have stood the test of time.

The Disney Renaissance masterpieces like The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King are still considered beloved by audiences today. The titular heroines of Pocahontas and Mulan brought diversity to the Disney Princess brand just like Jasmine did. It was also nice to see Tiana from The Princess and the Frog, a slightly flawed but underrated movie, also join that group of characters.

Egon1982 · 07-10-2019, 10:34 PM

Don't just boycott the new Little Mermaid film. Boycott all of Disney's live action remakes. That includes The Lion King and Lady and the Tramp.

Because if you contribute to The Lion King being hit, you are not showing Disney anything other than you want more of this horseshit. Bad reviews won't mean a thing. Disney cares only about the bottom line and pure profit.

Can't we just re-issue the original films Aladdin and Lion King with some updated remastered animation because they still hold up really good to this day, both Aladdin and Lion King and two of them in my opinion are the best animated films of the 90s among others. We don't need an update, we don't need a live-action remake of Lion King which isn't even live-action, it's CGI, don't need a live-action remake of Aladdin as it's already been made.

I hope the people who saw the trailers to Lion King and didn't like what they saw then speak with your wallet, and if your tired of Disney's lazy halfassed cashgrab remakes of their classics, don't pay to see them and that's how your gonna send your message. So if you are sick of this lazy crap as much as I am, do not pay to see any of their live action remakes and just contribute to diminishing returns. I have yet to give them a single cent for these casghrab efforts and I will continue to do so. That is the only way they will consider stopping. Because if they keep making money, no matter how bad the word of mouth and reviews are, Disney will not give a damn and keep making them. And if any film of live-action bombs which has happened to Dumbo then Disney will be like "oh wow, i guess people are tired of this! i guess audiences doesn't want this!" and that's how your gonna send your message.

I mean your gonna get live-action remakes of Pinocchio and all. it's going to happen, i guarantee it and all but eventually the bottom will completely fall out and they are just gonna get diminishing returns, because they are no longer about the ideals that Walt Disney built his company around. They are about greed, power and manipulation of your nostalgia.

If not? That what is the point? There is no need for lazy live action Disney remakes and it is a shame that films like this get the pass and make millions. Like i said, eventually your just gonna get diminishing returns and soon the bottom will eventually fall.

I want the Disney that made the original and was a genuine trendsetter back in the good old days. Not the current version which is just pumping out reheated left overs from the past, bad Pirates sequels with a upcoming reboot, sequels to Cars and failed adaptations of parts of their park like Tomorrowland. I want them to do creative things like Zootopia and some others.

The biggest problem with film today if you ask me boils down to the audiences themselves.

I would argue it's not audiences getting dumber that's the problem. It's audiences lowering their expectations that is. So much of the mass audience nowadays that sees films have standards that are so low that all that matters is that the film was entertaining or had a few scenes they liked. And it's a good if not great movie.

They are also lacking respect for elder cinema (1990 and above), and don't have the necessary knowledge of what makes a film good, great or even truly terrible. They lack appreciation for every aspect of filmmaking and don't really know what is truly good, bad or even mediocre because their standards are so low.

And Hollywood studios know this. This is why they pump out formulaic lazy sequels, remakes, prequels and reboots because they know the audiences eat it up and does not ask that much of them anymore.

Yes. There are exceptions. But they are clearly outnumbered by the mass amount of people who have lowered expectations and let their viewing habits and opinions on films be skewed by youtube videos (despite Ocpcommunications is one of my favorite reviewers with such high standards like myself and honest opinions as he's not afraid) and rotten tomatoes scores. Further spreading this cancerous disease of little to no standards for filmmaking or storytelling. And the death of the individual opinion amongst the hordes of audience members. The people who say "just watch a movie" or "don't judge it, it's just entertainment."

Need to shut the hell up when it comes to critiquing any review of a movie. Your standards are so low that no one should ever come to you for advice or recommendations of films or take you seriously.

I get pissed at watching a ****** movie, because I actually care. That's why. I care about the filmmaking process and films are more than just strictly entertainment to me. That's only part of it. A considerable part of the effectiveness of any film, but not the only part.

If a film wastes my time, is boring, and has next to no redeeming qualities, I should be upset and so should you. If you aren't that's another problem all together. We have ourselves to blame! eventually the returns are going to diminish and when they do? We have no one to blame but ourselves.

Or more importantly, do you? And if you don't want to see this? Then don't pay for it. Speak with your wallet. Wait to rent those films on blu ray or dvd. Don't just pay for a ticket just because of name recognition.

I have no desire to see it but slavishly praising the live action Beauty and the Beast and not realizing it for the shameless cash grab that it is? hate that they are doing this. There's a reason why adapting classic fairytales into animation works best. These live action films have been mediocre to disastrous. Although Jungle Book wasn't quite a direct remake of the 1967 film but there were some homages to it and more of another adaptation of Kipling's novel unlike a direct shot to shot remake of Beauty and the Beast.

Is the reason why we get so many halfassed remakes made and released in theaters. That exact mindset. Disney truly does feel that they are too big to fail. Which is why I am going to tell that mouse to suck it and ban his furry ass in 2019.

I have come to the sobering reality that in essence the audiences going to movies today are to blame for the chain of unoriginality being unbroken. For the countless streams of sequels, reboots, and remakes. No. They are rolling in your cash. They have no reason to stop rehashing the same plotlines and using the same formula over and over again. And is that really what you want? You can't keep doing the same thing again, and again, and again, and keep expecting the same result. Eventually the returns are going to diminish and when they do? We have no one to blame but ourselves.

Also have you heard they have now officially axed X-force due to the Fox Merger!? This right here proves that Disney does not give a flying **** about the property nor what it has achieved when the first film came out. I've been on the hard edge against Disney in the past few months but im honestly at the point where im now officially throwing in the towel and kick the Mouse ciao and goodbye for good. They screwed up star wars (proof you can't strike lightning in a bottle of the original trilogy twice) as luckily Solo flopped and so did the Star Wars land in Disneyland, they are greedy as hell and power hungry, they wanna constantly silence fans and push agendas, their Marvel films needs a serious break and screw all those lazy piece of garbage live action in name only rip off remakes. But i will give Disney chance if it's something new like Zootopia or the Wreck it Ralph franchise or Pixar's new projects. I've been feeling this for a long time but the recent X-force cancellation is the absolute final nail for me.

I am done with Disney period unless there's something new/fresh like Zootopia and Wreck it Ralph. They are a monopoly and something needs to be done to make them at least change their course a bit. I know it hurts, but it's the honest truth and comes from my heart. Not getting a cent from me for either of these movies. Stop supporting Disney's monopoly on entertainment and hollywood. They do not give a flying damn about you or storytelling anymore. All they care about is money. Even more so than ever before.

The blind love and catering to Disney's every whim lately is a deadly mistake. Don't be surprised if Disney continues to dominate screens with their product in years to come if this keeps up and prevent other projects from ever seeing the light of day.

But be my guest if you want to keep feeding the mouse. I am not giving it any more cheese. Disney is not getting a dime from me. Something has to be done to stop them or at least make them think about changing directions with this monopoly thing they have going on and milking franchises. I am going to at least do my part and not give the mouse any more cheese. He's fat enough and soon the remakes will get diminishing returns and send them the message.

The truth hurts.

View Poll Results: What are Live Action Disney remakes to you?
My absolute babies! I will go and see every single one and give Disney my money.	4	19.05%
They can go die in a hole.	17	80.95%
Voters: 21. You may not vote on this poll

05-02-2019, 04:31 PM	#2
Candy Kappa The Agenda of Existing Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Vikingland Posts: 14,596	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. __________________ devianArt Instagram Youtube Tumblr Art Blog Patreon

05-02-2019, 07:46 PM	#5
Autbot_Benz Hellblazer Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: Ventura California Posts: 9,192	Why would i go see these ****** remakes when I have the classic animated movies at my disposal. __________________ I respect what FW cartoon did for the turtles franchise but it is the most overrated and hard to watch of the 3 turtles cartoons.

05-02-2019, 09:03 PM	#7
CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy Annalist Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 16,435	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. __________________ *ALL THEIR DAYS ARE NUMBERED*

06-25-2019, 11:22 PM	#8
ranger_scout Foot Elite Join Date: May 2014 Location: Texas Posts: 3,776	Here are my thoughts on all of them. *Maleficent* - I actually kind of enjoyed this film. When I first heard about it I thought it was going to be extremely dark and spooky, but I actually had some fun and humorous moments. Plus, Aurora got some much needed character development from the original film. They are also working on a sequel, but I see any need to expand the story. *Cinderella* - This was one of the most gorgeous films I've ever seen. Out of all the fairy tales that have received the live-action treatment, this was easily the best one. The cast was just perfect and it was very faithful to the source material as well. I even thought it was better than the animated film, which I never actually loved as a kid. *The Jungle Book* - Visually it was outstanding. Plus, I really liked the characters and the little twists that were made to the story. It was great to escape to such an imaginative world like that one, especially because I had a lousy first quarter of 2016. *Pete's Dragon* - I'm might be cheating on this one, but the original film featured animated moments. I think this was probably the most underrated film of 2016. It was so heart-warming and had a beautiful message as well. I also liked a lot of the performances in This is something I could watch countless times and never get bored of it. *Beauty and the Beast* - It's very hard to redo a masterpiece like the original. However, it mostly stayed true to the story it was based upon. Hearing the classic songs really did make feel like a kid again. Overall, I thought it was a solid adaptation and it was worth seeing in theaters. Plus, the movie and the original's 25th anniversary re-release on home media gave Belle a much needed boost in popularity. She made about less than $7,000 in merchandise on Ebay in 2013. Also, Emma Watson's portrayal was far better than the one Emilie de Davin played on *Once Upon a Time. Christopher Robin* - I absolutely loved hearing Jim Cummings as Pooh and Tigger again. The man is a genius and I am astounded that Disney hasn't named him a Disney Legend for the numerous voices he's done for their projects for nearly 30 years now. Also, this movie really takes me back to their childhood. It was also nice to have Pooh and his friends return to the big screen after the underwhelming box-office performance of their animated film from 2011, which had to compete against *Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows -Part 2* and *The Smurfs. Dumbo* - I honestly don't know why this was given the live-action treatment. Tim Burton's work is either hit-or-miss for me. I did like the twist of seeing humans actually treating the sweet little outcast with respect before and after he flies. However, the script reallly could've been better. *Aladdin* - The original will always be one my family's all-time favorite films, but I was having a good time watching it. I was so nice hearing that music I grew up with along with Pasek and Paul's new song. Will Smith has VERY BIG SHOES to fill when he plays the Genie, but I think he made it his own and did just fine. Naomi Scott was fantastic as Jasmine and Mena Massoud was a likable and believable Aladdin. Some people consider Tim Burton's 2010 film *Alice in Wonderland* to be a remake or some kind of re-imagining of the 1951 animated film. However, Burton didn't even consider that to be a live-action adaptation at all. People either loved it or hated it. I personally enjoyed the movir, but I really didn't like its sequel *Alice Through the Looking Glass* at all.

05-02-2019, 07:45 PM	#4
~~ABrown~~ Banned Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,831

05-02-2019, 08:40 PM	#6
~~Leo656~~ Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: nWo Country Posts: 27,703	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.

06-26-2019, 01:45 AM	#9
TheBlueTurtle1 Foot Elite Join Date: May 2012 Location: UK Posts: 2,892	They stink, just cash grabs, no heart and soul to them and they add nothing. If anything they harm the and diminish the originals __________________ http://jandmdev.deviantart.com/ (My Brother and I have a dev page, I am J, brother is M)

07-18-2019, 01:47 PM	#10
ranger_scout Foot Elite Join Date: May 2014 Location: Texas Posts: 3,776	Today Entertainment Weekly published an article about why the majority of these remakes like *Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, and The Jungle Book* have all been successes. They also gave reasons why *Dumbo* didn't do to well at the box-office. How Disney is succeeding with its live-action remakes

07-18-2019, 05:02 PM	#11
raph27 Mad Scientist Join Date: May 2013 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,611	Early word of mouth isn't great about Lion King. It will be interesting to watch the box office numbers and see if it turns out more like Aladdin or Dumbo in terms of tickets sold. I keep forgetting as well that Maleficent's sequel is set for this year, which means we're basically seeing 4 live-action (don't get snarky with me about Lion King) remakes in the span of one year, a big jump over releasing one every year or so that used to be the pattern. Personally, I don't have a huge problem with these remakes themselves. I just see them as reimaginings, similar to how so many video games are getting HD remasters this generation. The original is still there, but these a) bring it back into the spotlight to rope in new fans that have never experienced the story before, especially kids, and b) play on nostalgia from people that loved the original to begin with and would be interested in a reinterpretation. But the big thing I've noticed this year, which parallels the increase in remakes released, is internet buzz about them, mostly negative. I think Beauty and the Beast was the first to really push it for some, and now with so many in a quicker timeframe it has become more of a talking point, and this is where I take issue. For these remakes and some of Disney's other recent stuff (MCU, some of Star Wars, etc.) where a lot of criticism has been laid that they "don't take risks/aren't original enough" the irony shows through when each little thing with these movies becomes some massive issue with thousands of tweets and articles and whatnot. A lot of them are saying the same comments over and over about how Disney has no originality in making these, while their arguments are exactly that, repeated over and over. So I do somewhat agree with a boycott of these movies, not personally but in principle. I'm tired of all the same discussions and snippy comments about "no creativity" thrown around every time there's a development on one of these movies. Let the box office judge, because that's really the only deciding factor in how many of these continue to be made.

07-20-2019, 10:46 PM	#14
ranger_scout Foot Elite Join Date: May 2014 Location: Texas Posts: 3,776	After I see *The Lion King* tomorrow I think I'm probably going to take a short break about talking about these remakes. I might just wait till the full cast of *The Little Mermaid* is announced at D23 Expo, which is likely to happen, to start discussing them again. Hollywood Reporter had this to say about originality and the backlash that the remakes are getting. 'Lion King', Originality and the Backlash Against Remakes These people are also right that as long as these films keep making money, they will continue to happen. Disney Won't Stop Making Live-Action Remakes Until They Stop Making Money

06-26-2019, 08:02 AM	#15
TurtleTitan97 Space Cowboy Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Speed Force Posts: 7,043	The only ones that have interested me were Jungle Book and Christopher Robin.

06-30-2019, 09:41 AM	#16
Shark_Blade Emperor Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 7,909	2D animation movies are dead today anyway so it’s good that they remake them for the younger generations to continue the legacy. They’re mostly great retelling and make tonnes of money. Can’t wait for Cruella and Little Mermaid live action.

06-30-2019, 11:14 AM	#17
IndigoErth Team Blue Boy Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: U.S., East Coast Posts: 16,296	Don't mind it overall, IF it was just now and then, but it seems to be a serious focus for them right now and too many in a rather short span of time. Is Disney running low on ideas at the moment? Because new (and non-sequel) original films seem to have taken a backseat for the most part. Also, as much as I was always into 3D animation and support the advancement of CGI in film and watching how far it has come over the years... I'm actually also starting to miss Disney's traditional 2D like it was back in the day. Never wanted to see it replaced, just have it and 3D coexist as different animation art forms. But with Pixar seeming to take over much of that particular area of Disney entertainment...

07-10-2019, 10:34 PM	#20
Egon1982 Hench Mutant Join Date: Jan 2019 Location: Planet Mars Posts: 367	Don't just boycott the new Little Mermaid film. Boycott all of Disney's live action remakes. That includes The Lion King and Lady and the Tramp. Because if you contribute to The Lion King being hit, you are not showing Disney anything other than you want more of this horseshit. Bad reviews won't mean a thing. Disney cares only about the bottom line and pure profit. Can't we just re-issue the original films Aladdin and Lion King with some updated remastered animation because they still hold up really good to this day, both Aladdin and Lion King and two of them in my opinion are the best animated films of the 90s among others. We don't need an update, we don't need a live-action remake of Lion King which isn't even live-action, it's CGI, don't need a live-action remake of Aladdin as it's already been made. I hope the people who saw the trailers to Lion King and didn't like what they saw then speak with your wallet, and if your tired of Disney's lazy halfassed cashgrab remakes of their classics, don't pay to see them and that's how your gonna send your message. So if you are sick of this lazy crap as much as I am, do not pay to see any of their live action remakes and just contribute to diminishing returns. I have yet to give them a single cent for these casghrab efforts and I will continue to do so. That is the only way they will consider stopping. Because if they keep making money, no matter how bad the word of mouth and reviews are, Disney will not give a damn and keep making them. And if any film of live-action bombs which has happened to Dumbo then Disney will be like "oh wow, i guess people are tired of this! i guess audiences doesn't want this!" and that's how your gonna send your message. I mean your gonna get live-action remakes of Pinocchio and all. it's going to happen, i guarantee it and all but eventually the bottom will completely fall out and they are just gonna get diminishing returns, because they are no longer about the ideals that Walt Disney built his company around. They are about greed, power and manipulation of your nostalgia. If not? That what is the point? There is no need for lazy live action Disney remakes and it is a shame that films like this get the pass and make millions. Like i said, eventually your just gonna get diminishing returns and soon the bottom will eventually fall. I want the Disney that made the original and was a genuine trendsetter back in the good old days. Not the current version which is just pumping out reheated left overs from the past, bad Pirates sequels with a upcoming reboot, sequels to Cars and failed adaptations of parts of their park like Tomorrowland. I want them to do creative things like Zootopia and some others. The biggest problem with film today if you ask me boils down to the audiences themselves. I would argue it's not audiences getting dumber that's the problem. It's audiences lowering their expectations that is. So much of the mass audience nowadays that sees films have standards that are so low that all that matters is that the film was entertaining or had a few scenes they liked. And it's a good if not great movie. They are also lacking respect for elder cinema (1990 and above), and don't have the necessary knowledge of what makes a film good, great or even truly terrible. They lack appreciation for every aspect of filmmaking and don't really know what is truly good, bad or even mediocre because their standards are so low. And Hollywood studios know this. This is why they pump out formulaic lazy sequels, remakes, prequels and reboots because they know the audiences eat it up and does not ask that much of them anymore. Yes. There are exceptions. But they are clearly outnumbered by the mass amount of people who have lowered expectations and let their viewing habits and opinions on films be skewed by youtube videos (despite Ocpcommunications is one of my favorite reviewers with such high standards like myself and honest opinions as he's not afraid) and rotten tomatoes scores. Further spreading this cancerous disease of little to no standards for filmmaking or storytelling. And the death of the individual opinion amongst the hordes of audience members. The people who say "just watch a movie" or "don't judge it, it's just entertainment." Need to shut the hell up when it comes to critiquing any review of a movie. Your standards are so low that no one should ever come to you for advice or recommendations of films or take you seriously. I get pissed at watching a **** movie, because I actually care. That's why. I care about the filmmaking process and films are more than just strictly entertainment to me. That's only part of it. A considerable part of the effectiveness of any film, but not the only part. If a film wastes my time, is boring, and has next to no redeeming qualities, I should be upset and so should you. If you aren't that's another problem all together. We have ourselves to blame! eventually the returns are going to diminish and when they do? We have no one to blame but ourselves. Or more importantly, do you? And if you don't want to see this? Then don't pay for it. Speak with your wallet. Wait to rent those films on blu ray or dvd. Don't just pay for a ticket just because of name recognition. I have no desire to see it but slavishly praising the live action Beauty and the Beast and not realizing it for the shameless cash grab that it is? hate that they are doing this. There's a reason why adapting classic fairytales into animation works best. These live action films have been mediocre to disastrous. Although Jungle Book wasn't quite a direct remake of the 1967 film but there were some homages to it and more of another adaptation of Kipling's novel unlike a direct shot to shot remake of Beauty and the Beast. Is the reason why we get so many halfassed remakes made and released in theaters. That exact mindset. Disney truly does feel that they are too big to fail. Which is why I am going to tell that mouse to suck it and ban his furry ass in 2019. I have come to the sobering reality that in essence the audiences going to movies today are to blame for the chain of unoriginality being unbroken. For the countless streams of sequels, reboots, and remakes. No. They are rolling in your cash. They have no reason to stop rehashing the same plotlines and using the same formula over and over again. And is that really what you want? You can't keep doing the same thing again, and again, and again, and keep expecting the same result. Eventually the returns are going to diminish and when they do? We have no one to blame but ourselves. Also have you heard they have now officially axed X-force due to the Fox Merger!? This right here proves that Disney does not give a flying ** about the property nor what it has achieved when the first film came out. I've been on the hard edge against Disney in the past few months but im honestly at the point where im now officially throwing in the towel and kick the Mouse ciao and goodbye for good. They screwed up star wars (proof you can't strike lightning in a bottle of the original trilogy twice) as luckily Solo flopped and so did the Star Wars land in Disneyland, they are greedy as hell and power hungry, they wanna constantly silence fans and push agendas, their Marvel films needs a serious break and screw all those lazy piece of garbage live action in name only rip off remakes. But i will give Disney chance if it's something new like Zootopia or the Wreck it Ralph franchise or Pixar's new projects. I've been feeling this for a long time but the recent X-force cancellation is the absolute final nail for me. I am done with Disney period unless there's something new/fresh like Zootopia and Wreck it Ralph. They are a monopoly and something needs to be done to make them at least change their course a bit. I know it hurts, but it's the honest truth and comes from my heart. Not getting a cent from me for either of these movies. Stop supporting Disney's monopoly on entertainment and hollywood. They do not give a flying damn about you or storytelling anymore. All they care about is money. Even more so than ever before. The blind love and catering to Disney's every whim lately is a deadly mistake. Don't be surprised if Disney continues to dominate screens with their product in years to come if this keeps up and prevent other projects from ever seeing the light of day. But be my guest if you want to keep feeding the mouse. I am not giving it any more cheese. Disney is not getting a dime from me. Something has to be done to stop them or at least make them think about changing directions with this monopoly thing they have going on and milking franchises. I am going to at least do my part and not give the mouse any more cheese. He's fat enough and soon the remakes will get diminishing returns and send them the message. The truth hurts.