Hercules Live Action Remake in development at Disney

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Originally Posted by neatoman

1. The Princess and the Frog
2. Winnie the Pooh (2011)
3. Bolt
4. Meet the Robinsons
5. Chicken Little
6. Home on the Range
7. Treasure Planet
8. Atlantis: The Lost Empire
9. The Emperor's New Groove
10. Fantasia 2000

These are 10 of the 21 animated features Disney released in the past 21 years (not counting Pixar). They either did poorly or straight up lost money.

The following movies failed to quadruple their budget, so they didn't do poorly but were not a big success either:

1. Dinosaur
2. Lilo & Stitch
3. Tangled
4. Wreck-It Ralph
5. Ralph Breaks the Internet

So out the 21 movies, 6 were really successful, 5 only did moderately well and 10 did poorly. Essentially, Animated Disney movies have a 25% chance of doing really well, 25% chance of moderate success and 50% rick of failure.

I have a problem with this list, though- MOST of those you just listed were made when Disney was on a downslope after the "Renaissance" era. And several of those were the reason WHY. IE, they were either too obscure (Meet the Robinsons, Home on the Range) or too far from their usual formula (Chicken Little, Bolt) Atlantis actually did well enough to get a sequel (dtv), Fantasia 2000 WAS a sequel, and Emperor's New Groove did well enough to have a cartoon series, so, no, not really failures by the standards of the day. Which, btw, were actually partly BEFORE the "make at least half a billion or it's a failure" became a thing.

The "moderately successful" movies you mentioned were in fact considered quite successful for the time, particularly Lilo and Stitch and Wreck It Ralph. Both got sequels, and Lilo even had it's own series as well, owing to its popularity.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

That's CGI.

Originally Posted by Leo656

Yeah, maybe it's pedantic but I don't lump CGI in with "animation" either, or at the very least I'll use "CGI animation" as a qualifier. I know it's technically "animation" but I feel like it deserves its own categorization.

I kind of feel that it needs to be said, but CG=animation. Just because it's on a screen instead of paper, doesn't make it any less animated. Different tools, but the process is very similar, and ends with the same result. Pictures of imaginary/cartoon people or whatever that move on screen. Disney helped pioneer this way back in the Tron era! (The cg parts were in fact considered animated, as they were done BY THE ANIMATION DEPARTMENT.)

[Leo656]

It's "animation", sure, in the sense that it's bringing static images into motion. But there's enough to differentiate the two in both presentation and execution that it doesn't feel right to lump "traditional" and "CGI" animation under a blanket term.

"Stop-motion" is technically "animation" as well. But people always, always qualify it as "stop-motion", they don't just call it "animation".

Again, probably pedantic. But still accurate. Especially since there are many people who are fans of one animated medium but can often strongly dislike another. So the qualifier does matter if we're factoring in why certain animated films either were or weren't successful. Styles, trends, and tastes are all important data when looking at the big picture of why some things did better than others, and when.

[ranger_scout]

Guy Ritchie, who directed the live-action Aladdin, has signed on to direct the film. That makes sense because it is a similar story and Disney is doing what John Favreau did by having him do The Lion King remake after he did the new The Jungle Book.

https://deadline.com/2022/06/hurcule...in-1235047935/

Danny DeVito really wants to reprise his role as Phil, Hercules’ mentor.

https://comicbook.com/movies/news/da...tion-hercules/

[Andrew NDB]

This reminds me. Did anyone see that Hercules movie with the Rock that came out like 5 minutes ago? Was that any good?

[Cowabung-Gal]

Originally Posted by ranger_scout

Guy Ritchie, who directed the live-action Aladdin, has signed on to direct the film.

Okay, then. I’ll go get the tombstone ready. It’ll read, Hercules Live-Action, Another Disney Dud

[Last Ronin]

Disney sure is ****ing up with their live action movies. Haven't liked one not one.

[Leofan26]

Originally Posted by ranger_scout

Guy Ritchie, who directed the live-action Aladdin, has signed on to direct the film. That makes sense because it is a similar story and Disney is doing what John Favreau did by having him do The Lion King remake after he did the new The Jungle Book.

https://deadline.com/2022/06/hurcule...in-1235047935/

Danny DeVito really wants to reprise his role as Phil, Hercules’ mentor.

https://comicbook.com/movies/news/da...tion-hercules/

At least that character should be in CGI and has a big part in it so I don’t know why he couldn’t be, unless they change it like what happened in Snow White live action remake.

So, that guy keeps working on live action versions of Disney movies? I wonder if he gets hate mail?

[oldmanwinters]

Forgive me, but I can never read that name without thinking of:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR1UiNdQnDw

[TigerClaw]

Originally Posted by Leofan26

At least that character should be in CGI and has a big part in it so I don’t know why he couldn’t be, unless they change it like what happened in Snow White live action remake.

So, that guy keeps working on live action versions of Disney movies? I wonder if he gets hate mail?

Guy Ritchie is known for doing a particular style of movies, So its nice that he's doing movies that aren't the type of movies he's usually known for.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by TigerClaw

Guy Ritchie is known for doing a particular style of movies, So its nice that he's doing movies that aren't the type of movies he's usually known for.

The only thing nice about it - is a hefty paycheck he gets for making generic crap designed by a committee for a lowest common denominator.

[turtle1237]

All later Hercules will always be compared to Steve Reeves. No way Disney will top that imo. Not even there animated film top it.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

That's CGI.

Still animation. Doesn't matter if it's digital or by hand, it is the same form of art, the only difference is the method of animating. The fact that 2d animation is largely "dead" makes little difference if they are still doing animated movies.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

it is the same form of art

No, and most people understand under "animation" 2D stuff.

[Shark_Blade]

Aladdin live action is pretty good so I’m interested.

Originally Posted by Last Ronin

Disney sure is ****ing up with their live action movies. Haven't liked one not one.

101 Dalmatians live action with Glenn Close >>> 101 Dalmatians animated movie

[ranger_scout]

Rumor has it that the film is being redeveloped and will now be titled Hades. It will be told from Hades' point of view like how Maleficent told the story of Sleeping Beauty from the villain's perspective.

https://www.cbr.com/rumor-disney-her...-remake-trend/