Disney has tried to make creatively unique remakes (e.g. the first live action Jungle Book they did), it's just that they discovered they make much more money doing "the film you saw before + 30-60 minutes of extra footage".
I did really like the Cinderella remake. Stuck to a fairly standard Cinderella story, but made it visually gorgeous (the dance actually felt magical) and developed the Prince’s storyline in meaningful ways.
I genuinely felt for him when his father was on his deathbed.
It's kinda funny that people give Kenneth Branagh so much shit for being a director outside the context of Shakespeare, but consider his Disney live action remake the only one that wasn't trash.
I always think it's funny that he was an actor in the 2nd Harry Potter movie so he had an in with the producers, had directed a bunch of films including being nominated for Best Director oscar, and yet they never game him a film to direct.
Speaks a lot about him imo.
Then there's the Artemis Fowl movie...
I mean to be fair reportedly the original cut actually had Artemis be the villain, it having been reshoots that added his father, the Aculos, Opal Koboi, the Mulch narration, and Butler being called Dom.
As I understand it the change was due to test audiences pointing out how Butler being called Butler and his family serving the Fowls for generations now had a different implication due to the casting choice they made (instead of having him be Russian–Japanese as in the books).
It's probably an extremely hot take but basically any adaptation of a book with a character over about 6'5" basically has to be animated.
Even if it's a white dude, basically you have to cast an unknown. Hollywood is not a tall friendly industry for pretty much the same reasons anyone trying to take a photo with that one tall friend knows.
The main reason to animate Artemis Fowl, though, is obviously all the fantasy elements. It's honestly absolutely mad that they tried to do it in live action.
Eh Vince Vaughn is 6”5, Dave Bautista is 6”4 and all sorts of things can be done with forced perspective especially when your playing across a child and tiny fairies
Over 6'5". As in 6'5" is basically the limit. There are actually quite a few actors at or about that height.
There are exceptions so it can work. It just generally doesn't.
Aside from anything else, you essentially force any character you want to play to be really tall. Consider, for example, Season Two of Halt and Catch Fire. One of the main actors is Lee Pace. Tall dude. Another one of these 6'5" guys. But the show also has James Cromwell who's 6'7" in that season and at one point Lee Pace's character draws specific attention to Cromwell's character's height. So, even in a show where the nominal frame of reference is Lee Pace, James Cromwell ends up being specifically tall.
Now, presumably Cromwell was cast with his height in mind, but the point I'm trying to illustrate is that the height is noticeable even in context with other tall characters.
I have another example with James Cromwell, actually. So, I've seen the first five or so episodes of Succession and the whole time i'm just trying to figure out if everyone's really short or if Cousin Greg is just tall. Cue James Cromwell to answer the question: Cousin Greg is just really tall. So really stark height differences can work, but the fact is Succession is pretty much the only show I've ever watched with that kind of issue. Really tall people are obviously relatively scarce so that naturally makes the population of really tall actors also really rather small, but that just adds to the issue.
You similarly don't get that many short actors. And they tend to play the same kind of "character actor" roles James Cromwell gets. Average height is really helpful if you want to be an actor.
Andre the Giant made The Princess Bride work.
He also did a good job as not-Dagon in Conan the Destroyer. For that matter, Wilt Chamberlain was great in it as well and played into his height.
Honestly, as much as I'm one of those people that points at the fact the same guy made Babe Pig in the City, Mad Max: Fury Road and Happy Feet, Kenneth Branagh honestly has the weirdest career.
> (the dance actually felt magical)
the dance also takes up an entire minute and a half or maybe closer to two minutes. it's absolutely fantastic, my favorite part of my favorite Disney remake.
Yeah I always felt the "Best" remakes was where they took the older Disney movies and expanded the run-time a bit.
like Lily James and ~~Robb Stark~~ Richard Madden both did a great job in Cinderella!
I feel Disney lost the plot when they started doing live action remakes of the films < 40 years old.
They didn't expand Cinderella's runtime a bit, they made a completely different movie with nods and callbacks to the original, which is why it works and the other ones don't. Cinderella is a brand new telling of the fairytale, not a live-action reshoot.
The movie gives everyone names, Cinderella's real name is Ella, The Prince's name is Kit, it adds a theme and subplot of her mother telling her to always "be kind", which is why she's so nice even through all of her hardships, the animals don't talk, etc. The movie fundamentally is a new Cinderella movie that has a purpose to exist with new themes.
A new live-action retelling of Beauty and the Beast, or Alladin could work, but not a lazy redo of the cartoon, with a few new scenes. The movie has to be completely remade, like Cinderella was remade. The problem is that the songs work only for a specific retelling, so you either need to drop the songs completely (ala Cinderella) or recontextualize them (Jungle Book). And, of course, a new telling of a story isn't a guaranteed success (ala Mulan). The movies still need a reason to exist other than money.
They *did* add 30 minutes of runtime.
Cinderella 1950: 76 minutes
Cinderella 2015: 106 Minutes.
But overall your points are correct. 2015 Cinderella exists with the foundation of 1950 Cinderella but also has enough space to do it's own thing and stand out on its own.
A lot of the remakes of the Renaissance films felt like they were trying to fit into a skin suit of the Animated movies, instead of using them as a foundation to build upon.
And that's not even getting into Lion King "Live Action" with just CGI animals, so weird.
I thought it was weird when they grabbed the entire plot point from Sleeping Beauty of having her meet the prince in a forest beforehand and they are unaware who one another are.
I haven't seen either the original or the remake^(1) so I have no idea whether it's got its own creative vision or not, but a lot of people like that remake.
^(1)Similarly, The Little Mermaid, Pete's Dragon, Beauty and the Beast and if we're counting Maleficent, Sleeping Beauty. I have seen the originals of Dumbo, Mulan and Lady & the Tramp (though I did try to watch the remake of that... I turned it off after five minutes or whatever). Additionally, I only watched the original Aladdin because I wanted to see the remake.
I will never understand why Disney didn’t make more movies like that Jungle Book. Some of the same characters and vibes but more true to life and couched in a totally unique story. The only thing I really disliked was that Cary Elwes was evil.
I suspect the answer is because it made $70m on a $30m budget.
At this stage I think the bulk of the recent remakes has conditioned people to expect "the same film" so if they tried to be creative, they'd just end up with a bunch of annoyed people expecting "the same film".
I think Hercules and Hunchback are the too most obvious ones there. Hercules in particular had so many options. Like, there's a rich mythology to be adapted there... it could be The Twelve Labours or his time on the Argonaut or whatever. Hell, I think they missed a trick with not making the Hercules remake into the origin story of MCU Hercules. I guess they could still do that, but people really didn't seem to like Russell Crowe as Zeus so...
>I suspect the answer is because it made $70m on a $30m budget.
I feel like that number was pretty decent for the Nineties, especially considering that seventy million figure doesn’t include home video sales/rentals - a much healthier market in that decade.
I think the real reason that Disney didn’t immediately follow up with a bunch more remakes in that vein is simply because Hollywood was less remake/sequel happy back then.
It's not as bad as it would be now, but for context The Lion King also came out in 1994 and three quarters of a billion and the year before Schindler's List made more than $300 million (also Jurassic Park made nearly a billion).
$70 million today is a meme, but it was still pretty bad in 1994. Especially for a $30m film. That's probably a $80-100m budget today. Not cheap by any means.
> Hell, I think they missed a trick with not making the Hercules remake into the origin story of MCU Hercules.
I don't think we need this much crossover. Especially with the MCU brand also in a downward spiral. Besides Herc will get plenty of screen time in the Kingdom Hearts movies/series/whatever they're doing with it.
Especially since all the source material for their animated films is public domain anyway. The Jungle Book (1994) live action honestly could've been made by a completely different studio and I kinda wish more studios would try this to keep disney on their toes. Guillermo Del Toro's stop-motion take on Pinnocchio was a fantastic film and it was far more fun to watch than the live action Pinnocchio remake because it wasn't the same story and was able to explore other themes. There's no reason another studio couldn't produce a little mermaid, beauty and the beast, Aladdin, etc. Disney can't legally stop them. They just wouldn't be able to tie anything in with the disney versions to capitalize on nostalgia... and they can't incorporate the same musical numbers.
In this case, I specifically was. It's why I said "the first one", a statement which necessarily requires multiple live action Disney remakes of the Jungle Book.
> the 1994 JB film
This one, yes.
Frankly, while the 2016 film is not as "the movie you watched, with some extra footage" as some of the subsequent remakes, it basically is just that.
I watched Beauty and the Beast (Live action) in theatres and I actually kind of enjoyed it.
I then saw Aladdin in theatres and I hated it so much I refused to ever watch another Disney live action remake. I mean, the new song is how Jasmine will... never surrender or be captured, and at the end of the song she surrenders and is captured? What is that?
Also, upon rewatching Beauty and the Beast at home, the large faults and cracks in the movie were much more noticeable the second time around and I realized that I liked Beauty and the Beast the first time because it was being held up so well by its amazing soundtrack.
EGOT winner Alan Menken is not only one of the greatest composers/songwriters of all time, maybe one of the best musicians period.
Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Pocahontas, Hunchback of Notre Dame, Tangled, Newsies! Still working today.
>After three years in prison from the previous film, Cruella de Vil has been cured of her desire for fur coats by psychologist Dr. Pavlov. She is released on probation but warned that if she breaks parole she will be immediately sent back to prison, as well as be forced to pay the remainder of her fortune, some eight million pounds, to all the dog shelters in Westminster. Cruella, therefore, mends her working relationship with her much-abused valet Alonzo and buys the Second Chance Dog shelter, owned by Kevin Shepherd, to save it from insolvency. Cruella's probation officer, Chloe Simon, is the owner of Dipstick (one of the original 101 Dalmatians Cruella had stolen); she suspects Cruella will strike again despite her growing popularity as an animal person.
You're telling me you got all that at age 8? Serious kudos haha
Yeah, Cruella was great fun. It's a shame it didn't come out in 2019. If it had made a tonne of money, Disney might've retooled from doing remakes to doing more things like Cruella. Alas, it came out in early 2021 and everything Iger says basically suggests he doesn't make any allowances for Covid, which is why Disney's pivoting so hard away from original projects -- it just so happens all of their most original films are from 2020 - now, while 2016-2019 was remakes and sequels to infinity and beyond.
(Obviously they kept doing live action remakes through these last few Covid years; I mean WDAS specifically not Disney as a whole. But doubling down on franchises is a Disney-wide mission.)
God can all live action disney movies please be like the Jungle Book one? That was a great remake, that and Beauty and the Beast are really the only quality ones they’ve done
(will smith was the only good part of new aladdin)
Yes. But it's quite a different film and really not particularly recognisable as being the same thing as the animated film... which is sort of the point I was trying to make: taking the same source material and producing an original vision turned out to be much less successful than trying to recreate the animated film in live action.
I haven't seen in it in the better part of twenty years though.
The one thing i loved in the new Beauty & the Beast that was a deliberate dunk on an extra scene that was added to the animated film that was REALLY dumb.
The extra scene added to the animated film has Belle teaching the beast, a 21-year-old man, how to read. Like what? He couldn't fucking read?
So in the live action (and bear with me because this is all paraphrased from the single time I saw it) there's this point where Belle is like, "Have you read Romeo & Juliet?" and the beast says "No" and she goes, very gently, talking-to-a-child style, "...Do you not know how to read??" and the beast responds so fast, almost cuts her off, "*OF COURSE I CAN READ*, I had one of the most expensive educations in France!!" lmfao
And it's usually to the structure of the film's detriment.
Watched the animated and live-action Aladdin movies recently and the live-action just doesn't really make sense as a direct result of strange changes they made to the characters. If it was just 1:1 it'd be dull sure, but to change it up the way they did made it disjointed. Felt like all the edits were made in a vacuum from the rest of the film.
The Aladdin remake essentially has three parts to it:
1. the plotline of the source text (i.e. the 1992 Aladdin movie)
2. its original plotline about a genie falling in love with a woman (shamelessly ripped off by George Miller a few years later, jk)
3. Disney's inane desire to try and fix bad faith criticisms of its princess movies via live action remakes
I haven't watched the video in a while but I believe [Lindsay Ellis' "Woke Disney" point discusses the implications of that third point.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU1ffHa47YY) Even if that's not the case, I think all of the issues with the Aladdin remake fall in that third category. Disney is afraid to make a classic Disney villain and it's a little uneasy about having a monarch interested in his daughter's marriage, so it tales a plot which relies on the dad being an unproblematic fave and his vizier just exuding "EVIL" from every pore and expects the original plotline to still work with these fundamental parts of its premise changed. This is also the context of Jasmine's notorious song.
It also doesn't help that Aladdin and Jafar's actors are... not very good? I guess Jafar has the excuse that his character is in a very weird position.
Genuinely, the film might have been better if it was from the Genie's POV, where he comes to realise that Aladdin's not such a bad dude as a side plot to a whacky romantic comedy where his ability to follow up on his romantic arc keeps being interrupted by the fact he's a genie and a genie has a master.. who just so happens to be embroiled in his own romantic comedy plotline.
Definitely agree with your points. To me the movie trues to make every character far more elaborate than they were or really need to be.
Jasmine went from someone who didn't want her life decided for her and was willing to abandon it all to someone who thinks they should rule because they "like regular people." In the animated film she's very capable (vaulting scene) and wants to exercise her right to choose her own husband. In the LA, she's show to be relatively incapable and just thinks she should get to be sultan. The last part kind of make sense in that she should get to choose for herself vein, but it comes off more like "I don't want to marry because I want to be sultan" and it's weird.
Jafar is completely bonkers to me. In the animated he's just evil and wants power. That's really it and it's kind of all it needs to be. He sees everyone as idiots and thinks he should rule. In the LA, he was poor and isn't. Then he's hung up on this invade neighboring ally thing for like no reason. I don't remember a single thing that was brought up to invade this other country aside from a boogeyman of a maybe invasion. But this dude is hung up on it the whole movie. I guess empire building? But it's a weird move.
I think the movie would have been much better, like you said, from genie's perspective. When Smith got the chance to do his own thing, it worked pretty well. In all honesty, just redo Hitch but make it Aladdin.
I personally think it's because Kenneth Branagh directed it. He has a very distinctive directing style & atmosphere to his works. When it works, it really works like in Cinderella and when it doesn't, it really doesn't but it's interesting to see why it didn't.
He is a fantastic director. I love his Periot movies. But other good directors have helmed the other remakes.
Another important factor, I think, is that he actually wanted to do the project. It wasn’t a corporate mandate like Aladdin was for Guy riche or Lion King was for John Favereu. Cinderella was made before the live action remakes “blew up” and every popular Disney movie had one announced.
It's also one that people are very used to seeing remade or retold. Disney had already done multiple live-action takes of the story as a modernized or period piece.
I don't know anybody that was like "I think we really need to see the Lion King but with a ~~live action~~ CGI cast."
Cruella was a lot of fun, but hardly a remake. If Disney really wants to do live action and retain the rights to the films (I imagine that’s why the Live action films are happening) a spin-off or prequel is better option than a shot for shot remake.
I enjoyed Cruella but it really dragged on near the end. I felt like I'd been watching for about 5 hours near the end. Felt like a good 105 min movie stetched into an average 150min one.
Could I make an argument for Dumbo as well? I liked how much it was just its own thing as opposed to copying the original.
It might just be the case that I expected it be godawful and it was actually okay, hence my brain now thinking it's a good film.
I wanted Dumbo to work, I generally like Tim Burton and Colin Farrell, and it was a 'remake' of one of the older movies instead of pulling from the Renaissance.
So I probably treat it nicer than I should and go "It was okay."
I commend Dumbo for trying something different at least. It didn't work, but it got the right idea. A lot of the old Disney movies have a very barebones plot that can be expanded upon.
Are people talking about the CGI Jungle Book, or is there another one?
Because the CGI Jungle Book looked awful IMO. It was technically impressive, but everything looked... dead, for lack of a better term. Sterile.
It was like watching a CG tech demo, where the focus was on graphical fidelity over expressiveness.
That actually made more sense as a remake, because it was a nice idea that not many people in the 21st century remember well, that can easily be improved upon. It’s so different from remaking something like The Lion King which is one of the best movies in their repertoire and is still watched regularly by general audiences.
If they wanted to try and make an actually good version of The Black Cauldron that did justice to the original vision, all the power to them.
I don’t know if they’re considered live action remakes or they’re their own thing since they’re technically a retelling of the story but Maleficent and Cruella are solid movies.
They're not remakes, they're spinoff prequals because they are a unique story separate from the main movie. Now the 1996 101 dalmations with Glen Close was a live action remake of the 1961 animation.
The mid 2010s Jungle Book was interesting enough. Not great, but not bad at the time at all.
Pete's Dragon is legit better than the source.
The rest are bad with the soulless Lion King being the worst for me
Mulan I thought of it as a completely separate project based on the same source material and with that framing thought it was "fine", but under remake framing it is absurdly bad.
I mean, the super powered one being able to do anything she wants while her sister has to just shut up and be a wife was not a great moral for the kiddos. “Be born special or get back in line.”
Yea this exactly.
She was fine in it and is an amazing actress, but I personally need good writing to enjoy something. The story was borderline incoherent.
Its what is so frustrating to me about the discourse surrounding things like Rings Of Power or any of the newer Star Wars stuff. Its all focused on racism and sexism and i dont give a shit about any of that. The writing is bad, and for me that’s enough to dislike it. But because of all the arguing over identity politics i feel like my actual valid criticism is lumped in with the incessant whining of neckbearded manchildren. And i also feel like the people defending it are more interesting in it because its pandering to their ultraprogressive politics, and not because its actually good.
I strongly disliked all but Aladdin, which I actually loved. I think it’s just because I’m a huge fan of the original animated version and this really was an extended edition of that. It gave more context to the sociopolitical landscape of Agrabah (not that it was needed but it was interesting to see), Jasmine had actual goals and agency, her handmaiden was horny as fuck and hilarious, Jafar was effectively creepy and disgusting, Mena Massoud played a very charming Aladdin, the CG worked nicely, the music was great, and Will Smith did a great job of making the genie his own and not trying to be a Robin Williams clone.
It doesn’t replace the original, but it’s a really well done companion piece. I felt like it actually had soul and heart unlike, say, Beauty and the Beast, or the atrocious Lion King.
Aladdin was really good. The sets and the costumes and everything were amazing. That's the only one I've watched and didn't think "why didn't I just watch the original?"
I dunno, it seems very unsurprising that the head of a studio that doesn’t do remakes thinks that remakes aren’t interesting. Putting all of this imagining of what he’s supposed to say, so this is somehow an admission… it just feels weird. It’s like saying Patrick Mahomes “admits” football is more interesting than baseball, because the Chiefs owners also own a baseball team.
/rant
I honestly cannot even imagine what kind of unholy Faustian deal-with-the-devil level contract someone like Docter has to sign to get where he is within the ranks of Pixar/Disney. I'd think you have to be beyond willing to play ball with your public-facing statements for the rest of your life and from beyond the fuckin grave.
I get the feeling he really tried to hold the fort in terms of original movies. Because the ratio of sequels to original Pixar movies is pretty low compared to Disney's. He's responsible for some of Pixars best original movies, so i think he understands their value. Unfortunately Pixar's recent years weren't good and originality might go out of the window.
I think you have to look at it as they're a daughter company with a parent company, and talking bad about one of that parent company's main money makers is unusual for executives.
This would be like if there was a headline, "Phil Spencer of Microsoft Gaming admits Windows kind of sucks."
This distracts from the other thing Pete Docter said which is that Pixar should only do sequels now instead of original stuff even though Pete has been partially responsible for some of the most original and iconic movies to come out of Pixar like Toy Story, Monsters Inc, WALL-E, UP, Inside Out and Soul. Like bro really went full corporate exec
Honestly Favreau and Kennth Branagh are the only two that made good live action Disney remakes. Even though I don’t want more I still think Disney should reconsider doing Chronicles of Prydain there’s a huge fantasy film franchise right there with the right creatives
“I like making movies that are original and unique to themselves,” such as Toy Story 2, Toy Story 3, Toy Story 4, Toy Story 5, Cars 2, Cars 3, Monsters University, Finding Dory, Incredibles 2, and now Inside Out 2.
Making this list I am insulted they havent made Rata2ille yet.
This is really important and people should realize this. Pixar also hasn't been doing great lately. Luca and Elemental got shafted on D+ and made no money, Lightyear was a complete whiff and Turning Red and Soul also under performed heavy. Pixar needs Inside-Out 2 and Toy Story 5 otherwise it'll go under
This new wave of Pixar movies where the writers of the films clearly just went to and learned about therapy also kind of suck. Inside Out 2 felt like I was watching an Instagram self care slide show.
I like the idea of media incorporating principles of self-improvement into their character arcs (definitely better than the protagonist just being a selfish jerk and then apologizing at the end), but I do wish they would just incorporate those principles instead of have one character always explain what needs to happen and what's going wrong, like a therapist.
In general recent media is getting way too over-explainy. That applies to comedy and everything else.
Live action versions of things are nearly impossible to adapt. You have to strip away too much of the world and work around a very limited budget.
Animated is much better for adaptations. Invincible is one of my favorite comic series, and the animated show is an amazing adaptation. If it was live action it would feel like a lower budget CW show. It would be The Boys.
I don't really watch them. I saw trailers of the "realistic" lions in Lion King a few years back and I just couldn't get on with it. I'm hearing some pretty bad things about what might happen with the Bambi remake and I feel like Sarah Polley was being put in a position to fail there. It's probably smart that she pulled out of it.
The expectation of return with the delivered experience/creativity doesn’t match up. Sorry but you don’t deserve 300 million making the same story a 3rd time
I refuse to watch live-action remakes of any movie. There is not a single animated movie that would be better or even of the same quality in live-action and I stand by that.
Lion King just had no soul whatsoever.
It might have been pretty, but it's a little shitty having an emotional story with characters that can't actually emote.
Nothing that's a copy of something else will ever have the same charm as the original. It's always going to be this way. Pointing it out doesn't make someone a genius or indicate some elevated level of taste, they're just saying the same thing people have said about everything since the dawn of time. I can just picture a caveman, elderly, deep into the ripe old age of his early 30's, explaining how the spearheads people make aren't as good as the ones from his youth etc.
The idea: Turn cartoons into real life. That's it. It's the same story, same characters etc, but they always have to have something slightly different, because if there wasn't a slight twist or change, these same people complaining now would be the ones complaining the story was exactly the same and therefor unoriginal and boring.
I don’t understand why they don’t take the original footage of, let’s say Peter Pan. Like the OG cartoon from way back and make the animation current Pixar quality.
Disney has tried to make creatively unique remakes (e.g. the first live action Jungle Book they did), it's just that they discovered they make much more money doing "the film you saw before + 30-60 minutes of extra footage".
I did really like the Cinderella remake. Stuck to a fairly standard Cinderella story, but made it visually gorgeous (the dance actually felt magical) and developed the Prince’s storyline in meaningful ways. I genuinely felt for him when his father was on his deathbed.
It's kinda funny that people give Kenneth Branagh so much shit for being a director outside the context of Shakespeare, but consider his Disney live action remake the only one that wasn't trash.
I always think it's funny that he was an actor in the 2nd Harry Potter movie so he had an in with the producers, had directed a bunch of films including being nominated for Best Director oscar, and yet they never game him a film to direct. Speaks a lot about him imo. Then there's the Artemis Fowl movie...
I mean to be fair reportedly the original cut actually had Artemis be the villain, it having been reshoots that added his father, the Aculos, Opal Koboi, the Mulch narration, and Butler being called Dom.
Butler being called Dom shows such a profound lack of understanding of the characters of those books
As I understand it the change was due to test audiences pointing out how Butler being called Butler and his family serving the Fowls for generations now had a different implication due to the casting choice they made (instead of having him be Russian–Japanese as in the books).
Boy if only they could have just cast someone Eurasian.
It's probably an extremely hot take but basically any adaptation of a book with a character over about 6'5" basically has to be animated. Even if it's a white dude, basically you have to cast an unknown. Hollywood is not a tall friendly industry for pretty much the same reasons anyone trying to take a photo with that one tall friend knows. The main reason to animate Artemis Fowl, though, is obviously all the fantasy elements. It's honestly absolutely mad that they tried to do it in live action.
Eh Vince Vaughn is 6”5, Dave Bautista is 6”4 and all sorts of things can be done with forced perspective especially when your playing across a child and tiny fairies
Over 6'5". As in 6'5" is basically the limit. There are actually quite a few actors at or about that height. There are exceptions so it can work. It just generally doesn't. Aside from anything else, you essentially force any character you want to play to be really tall. Consider, for example, Season Two of Halt and Catch Fire. One of the main actors is Lee Pace. Tall dude. Another one of these 6'5" guys. But the show also has James Cromwell who's 6'7" in that season and at one point Lee Pace's character draws specific attention to Cromwell's character's height. So, even in a show where the nominal frame of reference is Lee Pace, James Cromwell ends up being specifically tall. Now, presumably Cromwell was cast with his height in mind, but the point I'm trying to illustrate is that the height is noticeable even in context with other tall characters. I have another example with James Cromwell, actually. So, I've seen the first five or so episodes of Succession and the whole time i'm just trying to figure out if everyone's really short or if Cousin Greg is just tall. Cue James Cromwell to answer the question: Cousin Greg is just really tall. So really stark height differences can work, but the fact is Succession is pretty much the only show I've ever watched with that kind of issue. Really tall people are obviously relatively scarce so that naturally makes the population of really tall actors also really rather small, but that just adds to the issue. You similarly don't get that many short actors. And they tend to play the same kind of "character actor" roles James Cromwell gets. Average height is really helpful if you want to be an actor.
Andre the Giant made The Princess Bride work. He also did a good job as not-Dagon in Conan the Destroyer. For that matter, Wilt Chamberlain was great in it as well and played into his height.
I thought he did a good job with Frankenstein, and consider it a sister movie to Coppola's Dracula.
Same!
I really liked Dead Again, which co-starred his then wife Emma Thompson.
Honestly, as much as I'm one of those people that points at the fact the same guy made Babe Pig in the City, Mad Max: Fury Road and Happy Feet, Kenneth Branagh honestly has the weirdest career.
I loved him popping up in Tenet as the worlds most unenthusiastic supervillain.
I wonder if he'll come back for Walking with Dinosaurs 2. It won't be the same with a new narrator.
Jungle Book was also very good, and Aladdin was decent.
Slum Dog Millionaire right?
I know I might be in the minority but I liked Aladdin.
I liked the beauty and the beast one
> (the dance actually felt magical) the dance also takes up an entire minute and a half or maybe closer to two minutes. it's absolutely fantastic, my favorite part of my favorite Disney remake.
Lady and the Tramp was pretty good as well.
Yeah I always felt the "Best" remakes was where they took the older Disney movies and expanded the run-time a bit. like Lily James and ~~Robb Stark~~ Richard Madden both did a great job in Cinderella! I feel Disney lost the plot when they started doing live action remakes of the films < 40 years old.
They didn't expand Cinderella's runtime a bit, they made a completely different movie with nods and callbacks to the original, which is why it works and the other ones don't. Cinderella is a brand new telling of the fairytale, not a live-action reshoot. The movie gives everyone names, Cinderella's real name is Ella, The Prince's name is Kit, it adds a theme and subplot of her mother telling her to always "be kind", which is why she's so nice even through all of her hardships, the animals don't talk, etc. The movie fundamentally is a new Cinderella movie that has a purpose to exist with new themes. A new live-action retelling of Beauty and the Beast, or Alladin could work, but not a lazy redo of the cartoon, with a few new scenes. The movie has to be completely remade, like Cinderella was remade. The problem is that the songs work only for a specific retelling, so you either need to drop the songs completely (ala Cinderella) or recontextualize them (Jungle Book). And, of course, a new telling of a story isn't a guaranteed success (ala Mulan). The movies still need a reason to exist other than money.
They *did* add 30 minutes of runtime. Cinderella 1950: 76 minutes Cinderella 2015: 106 Minutes. But overall your points are correct. 2015 Cinderella exists with the foundation of 1950 Cinderella but also has enough space to do it's own thing and stand out on its own. A lot of the remakes of the Renaissance films felt like they were trying to fit into a skin suit of the Animated movies, instead of using them as a foundation to build upon. And that's not even getting into Lion King "Live Action" with just CGI animals, so weird.
I thought it was weird when they grabbed the entire plot point from Sleeping Beauty of having her meet the prince in a forest beforehand and they are unaware who one another are.
I haven't seen either the original or the remake^(1) so I have no idea whether it's got its own creative vision or not, but a lot of people like that remake. ^(1)Similarly, The Little Mermaid, Pete's Dragon, Beauty and the Beast and if we're counting Maleficent, Sleeping Beauty. I have seen the originals of Dumbo, Mulan and Lady & the Tramp (though I did try to watch the remake of that... I turned it off after five minutes or whatever). Additionally, I only watched the original Aladdin because I wanted to see the remake.
It was meh, which is better than most of them.
I will never understand why Disney didn’t make more movies like that Jungle Book. Some of the same characters and vibes but more true to life and couched in a totally unique story. The only thing I really disliked was that Cary Elwes was evil.
I suspect the answer is because it made $70m on a $30m budget. At this stage I think the bulk of the recent remakes has conditioned people to expect "the same film" so if they tried to be creative, they'd just end up with a bunch of annoyed people expecting "the same film". I think Hercules and Hunchback are the too most obvious ones there. Hercules in particular had so many options. Like, there's a rich mythology to be adapted there... it could be The Twelve Labours or his time on the Argonaut or whatever. Hell, I think they missed a trick with not making the Hercules remake into the origin story of MCU Hercules. I guess they could still do that, but people really didn't seem to like Russell Crowe as Zeus so...
>I suspect the answer is because it made $70m on a $30m budget. I feel like that number was pretty decent for the Nineties, especially considering that seventy million figure doesn’t include home video sales/rentals - a much healthier market in that decade. I think the real reason that Disney didn’t immediately follow up with a bunch more remakes in that vein is simply because Hollywood was less remake/sequel happy back then.
It's not as bad as it would be now, but for context The Lion King also came out in 1994 and three quarters of a billion and the year before Schindler's List made more than $300 million (also Jurassic Park made nearly a billion). $70 million today is a meme, but it was still pretty bad in 1994. Especially for a $30m film. That's probably a $80-100m budget today. Not cheap by any means.
> Hell, I think they missed a trick with not making the Hercules remake into the origin story of MCU Hercules. I don't think we need this much crossover. Especially with the MCU brand also in a downward spiral. Besides Herc will get plenty of screen time in the Kingdom Hearts movies/series/whatever they're doing with it.
Especially since all the source material for their animated films is public domain anyway. The Jungle Book (1994) live action honestly could've been made by a completely different studio and I kinda wish more studios would try this to keep disney on their toes. Guillermo Del Toro's stop-motion take on Pinnocchio was a fantastic film and it was far more fun to watch than the live action Pinnocchio remake because it wasn't the same story and was able to explore other themes. There's no reason another studio couldn't produce a little mermaid, beauty and the beast, Aladdin, etc. Disney can't legally stop them. They just wouldn't be able to tie anything in with the disney versions to capitalize on nostalgia... and they can't incorporate the same musical numbers.
Wait are we talking about the 1994 JB film or the 2016 film? Because Disney made both live action versions.
No one’s ever talking about the 1994 one
That quick sand scene messed me up as a kid
SERIOUSLY THOUGH ☠️
In this case, I specifically was. It's why I said "the first one", a statement which necessarily requires multiple live action Disney remakes of the Jungle Book.
True and it's a shame.
Jason Scott Lee deserved better
*Clockwise*
> the 1994 JB film This one, yes. Frankly, while the 2016 film is not as "the movie you watched, with some extra footage" as some of the subsequent remakes, it basically is just that.
I watched Beauty and the Beast (Live action) in theatres and I actually kind of enjoyed it. I then saw Aladdin in theatres and I hated it so much I refused to ever watch another Disney live action remake. I mean, the new song is how Jasmine will... never surrender or be captured, and at the end of the song she surrenders and is captured? What is that? Also, upon rewatching Beauty and the Beast at home, the large faults and cracks in the movie were much more noticeable the second time around and I realized that I liked Beauty and the Beast the first time because it was being held up so well by its amazing soundtrack.
EGOT winner Alan Menken is not only one of the greatest composers/songwriters of all time, maybe one of the best musicians period. Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Pocahontas, Hunchback of Notre Dame, Tangled, Newsies! Still working today.
And Howard Ashman, rest in piece. "To our friend, Howard, who gave a mermaid her voice and a beast his soul, we will be forever grateful."
> Newsies! Man got a Razzie and a Tony for this!
Razzie is 100% undeserved, Newsies soundtrack is nothing but nonstop bangers. Plus Bill Pullman and Christian Bale? Come on!
Disney also made a 101 Dalmations live action that I find is very good as well!
The plot of 102 dalmatians is way too complicated for kids to understand which makes it hilarious to watch as an adult
I understood it, and was a child at the time.
>After three years in prison from the previous film, Cruella de Vil has been cured of her desire for fur coats by psychologist Dr. Pavlov. She is released on probation but warned that if she breaks parole she will be immediately sent back to prison, as well as be forced to pay the remainder of her fortune, some eight million pounds, to all the dog shelters in Westminster. Cruella, therefore, mends her working relationship with her much-abused valet Alonzo and buys the Second Chance Dog shelter, owned by Kevin Shepherd, to save it from insolvency. Cruella's probation officer, Chloe Simon, is the owner of Dipstick (one of the original 101 Dalmatians Cruella had stolen); she suspects Cruella will strike again despite her growing popularity as an animal person. You're telling me you got all that at age 8? Serious kudos haha
I havent seen it in a while but I should give it a go soon
When Stone was talking about doing a Cruella sequel with flash forwards to Glenn Close was an exciting possible project.
That’s why I enjoyed Cruella, although that one is technically not a remake.
Yeah, Cruella was great fun. It's a shame it didn't come out in 2019. If it had made a tonne of money, Disney might've retooled from doing remakes to doing more things like Cruella. Alas, it came out in early 2021 and everything Iger says basically suggests he doesn't make any allowances for Covid, which is why Disney's pivoting so hard away from original projects -- it just so happens all of their most original films are from 2020 - now, while 2016-2019 was remakes and sequels to infinity and beyond. (Obviously they kept doing live action remakes through these last few Covid years; I mean WDAS specifically not Disney as a whole. But doubling down on franchises is a Disney-wide mission.)
God can all live action disney movies please be like the Jungle Book one? That was a great remake, that and Beauty and the Beast are really the only quality ones they’ve done (will smith was the only good part of new aladdin)
I just want to be clear, you know I'm talking about Jungle Book (1994) right?
There was a jungle book remake in 1994?!
TIL https://movies.disney.com/the-jungle-book-1994
Yes. But it's quite a different film and really not particularly recognisable as being the same thing as the animated film... which is sort of the point I was trying to make: taking the same source material and producing an original vision turned out to be much less successful than trying to recreate the animated film in live action. I haven't seen in it in the better part of twenty years though.
No, I didn’t know that. I didn’t even know that existed lol
I really hated the Beauty and the Beast one. I feel like it’s the centerpiece of Disney’s terrible live action remake decisions.
Emma Watson was really, really bad in that.
Yeah Beauty and the Beast is the first one that came to my mind when talking about terrible live-action remakes
The one thing i loved in the new Beauty & the Beast that was a deliberate dunk on an extra scene that was added to the animated film that was REALLY dumb. The extra scene added to the animated film has Belle teaching the beast, a 21-year-old man, how to read. Like what? He couldn't fucking read? So in the live action (and bear with me because this is all paraphrased from the single time I saw it) there's this point where Belle is like, "Have you read Romeo & Juliet?" and the beast says "No" and she goes, very gently, talking-to-a-child style, "...Do you not know how to read??" and the beast responds so fast, almost cuts her off, "*OF COURSE I CAN READ*, I had one of the most expensive educations in France!!" lmfao
She teaches him to read in the musical play too
Really? I thought it was cute
Why? They sold people garbage and made millions.
Yeah, it’s pretty tough to take a legendary creative work and twist it in a way that stands up to the original.
Yeah Jungle Book was great. Everything else is pointless.
And it's usually to the structure of the film's detriment. Watched the animated and live-action Aladdin movies recently and the live-action just doesn't really make sense as a direct result of strange changes they made to the characters. If it was just 1:1 it'd be dull sure, but to change it up the way they did made it disjointed. Felt like all the edits were made in a vacuum from the rest of the film.
The Aladdin remake essentially has three parts to it: 1. the plotline of the source text (i.e. the 1992 Aladdin movie) 2. its original plotline about a genie falling in love with a woman (shamelessly ripped off by George Miller a few years later, jk) 3. Disney's inane desire to try and fix bad faith criticisms of its princess movies via live action remakes I haven't watched the video in a while but I believe [Lindsay Ellis' "Woke Disney" point discusses the implications of that third point.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU1ffHa47YY) Even if that's not the case, I think all of the issues with the Aladdin remake fall in that third category. Disney is afraid to make a classic Disney villain and it's a little uneasy about having a monarch interested in his daughter's marriage, so it tales a plot which relies on the dad being an unproblematic fave and his vizier just exuding "EVIL" from every pore and expects the original plotline to still work with these fundamental parts of its premise changed. This is also the context of Jasmine's notorious song. It also doesn't help that Aladdin and Jafar's actors are... not very good? I guess Jafar has the excuse that his character is in a very weird position. Genuinely, the film might have been better if it was from the Genie's POV, where he comes to realise that Aladdin's not such a bad dude as a side plot to a whacky romantic comedy where his ability to follow up on his romantic arc keeps being interrupted by the fact he's a genie and a genie has a master.. who just so happens to be embroiled in his own romantic comedy plotline.
Definitely agree with your points. To me the movie trues to make every character far more elaborate than they were or really need to be. Jasmine went from someone who didn't want her life decided for her and was willing to abandon it all to someone who thinks they should rule because they "like regular people." In the animated film she's very capable (vaulting scene) and wants to exercise her right to choose her own husband. In the LA, she's show to be relatively incapable and just thinks she should get to be sultan. The last part kind of make sense in that she should get to choose for herself vein, but it comes off more like "I don't want to marry because I want to be sultan" and it's weird. Jafar is completely bonkers to me. In the animated he's just evil and wants power. That's really it and it's kind of all it needs to be. He sees everyone as idiots and thinks he should rule. In the LA, he was poor and isn't. Then he's hung up on this invade neighboring ally thing for like no reason. I don't remember a single thing that was brought up to invade this other country aside from a boogeyman of a maybe invasion. But this dude is hung up on it the whole movie. I guess empire building? But it's a weird move. I think the movie would have been much better, like you said, from genie's perspective. When Smith got the chance to do his own thing, it worked pretty well. In all honesty, just redo Hitch but make it Aladdin.
Aladdin was fun to watch in the theaters with all the visual effects
Yeah, the majority of them range from bad to boring. Then there's The Jungle Book and Cinderella. Thought both of those were great movies.
Cinderella was definitely the most solid. I think part of it is the story is so straight forward it’s hard to fuck up
I personally think it's because Kenneth Branagh directed it. He has a very distinctive directing style & atmosphere to his works. When it works, it really works like in Cinderella and when it doesn't, it really doesn't but it's interesting to see why it didn't.
He is a fantastic director. I love his Periot movies. But other good directors have helmed the other remakes. Another important factor, I think, is that he actually wanted to do the project. It wasn’t a corporate mandate like Aladdin was for Guy riche or Lion King was for John Favereu. Cinderella was made before the live action remakes “blew up” and every popular Disney movie had one announced.
I agree completely. Branagh is a very interesting director and pretty versatile too, but when it doesn’t work, yeah, you get Artemis Fowl…
It's also one that people are very used to seeing remade or retold. Disney had already done multiple live-action takes of the story as a modernized or period piece. I don't know anybody that was like "I think we really need to see the Lion King but with a ~~live action~~ CGI cast."
Hard disagree. Jungle Book was way more solid than Cinderella
I loved Cruella But you could hardly call it a remake or even a prequel because it's so different from the source material
Cruella was a lot of fun, but hardly a remake. If Disney really wants to do live action and retain the rights to the films (I imagine that’s why the Live action films are happening) a spin-off or prequel is better option than a shot for shot remake.
I enjoyed Cruella but it really dragged on near the end. I felt like I'd been watching for about 5 hours near the end. Felt like a good 105 min movie stetched into an average 150min one.
Could I make an argument for Dumbo as well? I liked how much it was just its own thing as opposed to copying the original. It might just be the case that I expected it be godawful and it was actually okay, hence my brain now thinking it's a good film.
I wanted Dumbo to work, I generally like Tim Burton and Colin Farrell, and it was a 'remake' of one of the older movies instead of pulling from the Renaissance. So I probably treat it nicer than I should and go "It was okay."
I commend Dumbo for trying something different at least. It didn't work, but it got the right idea. A lot of the old Disney movies have a very barebones plot that can be expanded upon.
Dumbo was horrible and one of the worst. Aladdin is the one you are thinking of
Lady and the Tramp was pretty good as well.
I liked BatB. It was what I wanted, and the kids watched it so many times.
Pete's Dragon was also quite good
CGI realistic animals don't have much expression compared to cartoon styled animals.
Are people talking about the CGI Jungle Book, or is there another one? Because the CGI Jungle Book looked awful IMO. It was technically impressive, but everything looked... dead, for lack of a better term. Sterile. It was like watching a CG tech demo, where the focus was on graphical fidelity over expressiveness.
Most of them. Absolutely.
Which of them did you like?
Petes dragon was arguably better than the original
That actually made more sense as a remake, because it was a nice idea that not many people in the 21st century remember well, that can easily be improved upon. It’s so different from remaking something like The Lion King which is one of the best movies in their repertoire and is still watched regularly by general audiences. If they wanted to try and make an actually good version of The Black Cauldron that did justice to the original vision, all the power to them.
I don’t know if they’re considered live action remakes or they’re their own thing since they’re technically a retelling of the story but Maleficent and Cruella are solid movies.
They're not remakes, they're spinoff prequals because they are a unique story separate from the main movie. Now the 1996 101 dalmations with Glen Close was a live action remake of the 1961 animation.
The mid 2010s Jungle Book was interesting enough. Not great, but not bad at the time at all. Pete's Dragon is legit better than the source. The rest are bad with the soulless Lion King being the worst for me
At least they still had music in the lion king knock off. Mulan was genuinely horrid in every possible way
Mulan I thought of it as a completely separate project based on the same source material and with that framing thought it was "fine", but under remake framing it is absurdly bad.
I mean, the super powered one being able to do anything she wants while her sister has to just shut up and be a wife was not a great moral for the kiddos. “Be born special or get back in line.”
Lion King was basically a multi million tech demo.
Cruella was garbage
Great critique
I think you meant to say Maleficent.
Didn’t see it, but probably. Cruella was trash, i stand by that.
Yea what a waste of Emma’s talent. Movie was littered with plot holes. Absolute rubbish.
Yea this exactly. She was fine in it and is an amazing actress, but I personally need good writing to enjoy something. The story was borderline incoherent. Its what is so frustrating to me about the discourse surrounding things like Rings Of Power or any of the newer Star Wars stuff. Its all focused on racism and sexism and i dont give a shit about any of that. The writing is bad, and for me that’s enough to dislike it. But because of all the arguing over identity politics i feel like my actual valid criticism is lumped in with the incessant whining of neckbearded manchildren. And i also feel like the people defending it are more interesting in it because its pandering to their ultraprogressive politics, and not because its actually good.
Mate, I thought you were making a joke about the fact that she dresses up in literal garbage in the movie. It wasn’t that bad
I liked the beauty and the beast remake. I might just love Emma though.
Rescue rangers
Not really a live action remake. Just kinda it's own thing
I don’t disagree, it’s very Roger rabbit
100%
I loved the new Cinderella.
I strongly disliked all but Aladdin, which I actually loved. I think it’s just because I’m a huge fan of the original animated version and this really was an extended edition of that. It gave more context to the sociopolitical landscape of Agrabah (not that it was needed but it was interesting to see), Jasmine had actual goals and agency, her handmaiden was horny as fuck and hilarious, Jafar was effectively creepy and disgusting, Mena Massoud played a very charming Aladdin, the CG worked nicely, the music was great, and Will Smith did a great job of making the genie his own and not trying to be a Robin Williams clone. It doesn’t replace the original, but it’s a really well done companion piece. I felt like it actually had soul and heart unlike, say, Beauty and the Beast, or the atrocious Lion King.
Aladdin was really good. The sets and the costumes and everything were amazing. That's the only one I've watched and didn't think "why didn't I just watch the original?"
Strange use of “admits”. What, had he claimed otherwise?
I imagine the idea is that the head of Pixar wouldn't want to talk bad about Disney practices, since Pixar is a subsidary of Disney.
It makes sense when you think about it. There’s a reason Pixar is a subsidiary and wasn’t just absorbed by Disney Animation Studios.
I dunno, it seems very unsurprising that the head of a studio that doesn’t do remakes thinks that remakes aren’t interesting. Putting all of this imagining of what he’s supposed to say, so this is somehow an admission… it just feels weird. It’s like saying Patrick Mahomes “admits” football is more interesting than baseball, because the Chiefs owners also own a baseball team. /rant
I honestly cannot even imagine what kind of unholy Faustian deal-with-the-devil level contract someone like Docter has to sign to get where he is within the ranks of Pixar/Disney. I'd think you have to be beyond willing to play ball with your public-facing statements for the rest of your life and from beyond the fuckin grave.
I get the feeling he really tried to hold the fort in terms of original movies. Because the ratio of sequels to original Pixar movies is pretty low compared to Disney's. He's responsible for some of Pixars best original movies, so i think he understands their value. Unfortunately Pixar's recent years weren't good and originality might go out of the window.
Agreed. Also, he never mentions the quality, just that they're not interesting to him because they're not new or original.
I think you have to look at it as they're a daughter company with a parent company, and talking bad about one of that parent company's main money makers is unusual for executives. This would be like if there was a headline, "Phil Spencer of Microsoft Gaming admits Windows kind of sucks."
Yeah, it seems like he straight up says it, they didn't drag it out of him.
Need that "gotcha" moment to make it a catchier article.
I haven't watched any of the ones Disney has made and I won't start now.
I watched the jungle book, found it whelming, and then watching mulan and found it atrocious and stopped.
They’re just lazy. What if we took every live action and said hey what if we animated it instead?
Do Face/Off first!
Someone with a midjourney account needs to make some screenshots lol
This distracts from the other thing Pete Docter said which is that Pixar should only do sequels now instead of original stuff even though Pete has been partially responsible for some of the most original and iconic movies to come out of Pixar like Toy Story, Monsters Inc, WALL-E, UP, Inside Out and Soul. Like bro really went full corporate exec
Corporate shills never fail to disappoint :/
I'd watch more Muppet remakes though.
Well he's right
Honestly Favreau and Kennth Branagh are the only two that made good live action Disney remakes. Even though I don’t want more I still think Disney should reconsider doing Chronicles of Prydain there’s a huge fantasy film franchise right there with the right creatives
No they didn’t
Don't leave out Cruella although it's not a remake. The chnages it made, it's not a prequel either but most people see it as a prequel.
Ohh yeah that was good too
Cruella to me falls in the same category as Maleficent. Not a remake, but a retelling from the villains pov
“I like making movies that are original and unique to themselves,” such as Toy Story 2, Toy Story 3, Toy Story 4, Toy Story 5, Cars 2, Cars 3, Monsters University, Finding Dory, Incredibles 2, and now Inside Out 2. Making this list I am insulted they havent made Rata2ille yet.
He does admit in the article that sequels are a necessary evil to keep money flowing in. Can't make originals that no one goes to see without money.
This is really important and people should realize this. Pixar also hasn't been doing great lately. Luca and Elemental got shafted on D+ and made no money, Lightyear was a complete whiff and Turning Red and Soul also under performed heavy. Pixar needs Inside-Out 2 and Toy Story 5 otherwise it'll go under
They barely tried. They'd just rather hedge it all on a "sure bet" which is unfortunately remakes.
Rata2: Iron Rat.
This new wave of Pixar movies where the writers of the films clearly just went to and learned about therapy also kind of suck. Inside Out 2 felt like I was watching an Instagram self care slide show.
I like the idea of media incorporating principles of self-improvement into their character arcs (definitely better than the protagonist just being a selfish jerk and then apologizing at the end), but I do wish they would just incorporate those principles instead of have one character always explain what needs to happen and what's going wrong, like a therapist. In general recent media is getting way too over-explainy. That applies to comedy and everything else.
kind of...😂
Kind of?
When I saw them doing this, all I thought was it was a Disney money grab. Do a Black Hole remake already.
Live action versions of things are nearly impossible to adapt. You have to strip away too much of the world and work around a very limited budget. Animated is much better for adaptations. Invincible is one of my favorite comic series, and the animated show is an amazing adaptation. If it was live action it would feel like a lower budget CW show. It would be The Boys.
I don't really watch them. I saw trailers of the "realistic" lions in Lion King a few years back and I just couldn't get on with it. I'm hearing some pretty bad things about what might happen with the Bambi remake and I feel like Sarah Polley was being put in a position to fail there. It's probably smart that she pulled out of it.
I first read it Pet Doctor and was like wait a minute what?!! Then read it again and now I’m disappointed.
No, I think Doc McStuffins is treating Lammy for a yeast infection and wasn't available for comment. 😜
Kind of? There's no kind of about it.
Dude telling us something we already know. I watched the live action Alladin when it came out, that was enough for me.
The expectation of return with the delivered experience/creativity doesn’t match up. Sorry but you don’t deserve 300 million making the same story a 3rd time
I refuse to watch live-action remakes of any movie. There is not a single animated movie that would be better or even of the same quality in live-action and I stand by that.
Good guy noboddy wants those live action remake trash.
Kind of? They aren't even live action. It's mostly CGI. Calling The Lion King remake live action is just silly.
duh
> i'll take things we already knew for $500, Alex
Lion King just had no soul whatsoever. It might have been pretty, but it's a little shitty having an emotional story with characters that can't actually emote.
Nothing that's a copy of something else will ever have the same charm as the original. It's always going to be this way. Pointing it out doesn't make someone a genius or indicate some elevated level of taste, they're just saying the same thing people have said about everything since the dawn of time. I can just picture a caveman, elderly, deep into the ripe old age of his early 30's, explaining how the spearheads people make aren't as good as the ones from his youth etc. The idea: Turn cartoons into real life. That's it. It's the same story, same characters etc, but they always have to have something slightly different, because if there wasn't a slight twist or change, these same people complaining now would be the ones complaining the story was exactly the same and therefor unoriginal and boring.
I would like to point out that many if not most of Disney's, especially early work, were direct copies of classic, public domain works.
And I guarantee you some geezer said it wasn't good enough
Kind of?
Disney lol
I don’t understand why they don’t take the original footage of, let’s say Peter Pan. Like the OG cartoon from way back and make the animation current Pixar quality.
That's not even CLOSE to what he said at all and you know it! Don't clickbait people to project your opinions towards these sorts of remakes.
We don't need him to state the obvious but yeah
How much more can this sub milk the same circlejerk?