Nah. The Little Mermaid live action was pretty good. There are many kids I know that prefer the remakes than the original cartoons. I’m okay with letting them have their own movies that us old folks maybe don’t like as much
this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2023
369 points (95.6% liked)
Disney
813 readers
11 users here now
Everything Disney Related!
Resort Abbreviations
DCA - Disney California Adventure
DCL - Disney Cruise Line
DL - Disneyland
DLP - Disneyland Paris
HKDL - Hong Kong Disneyland
SDL - Shanghai Disneyland
TDL - Tokyo Disneyland
TDS - Tokyo DisneySea
WDSP - Walt Disney Studios Paris
WDW - Walt Disney World
WDW Park Abbreviations
AK - Animal Kingdom
EP - EPCOT
HS - Hollywood Studios (formerly MGM)
MK - Magic Kingdom
(Courtesy of @ilovepudding)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
What if we tried coming up with new stories instead of giving our kids the same reheated leftovers from yesterday?
“Capitalism breeds innovation”. The “innovation”: Entertainment executives too afraid to try out new ideas for the absolute dread of commercial failure, so they'd rather give us Despicable Me 8 and Toy Story 6 instead
Easy money. That’s the result of late stage capitalism consumer culture.
These remakes feel like a copyright extension as well as a cash grab for Disney. Win win for the mouse
It's one of those things you can't un-see
What if we tried coming up with new stories instead of giving our kids the same reheated leftovers from yesterday?
All of theater is basically a nostalgia game. Shows and Operas have been playing for hundreds of years, and that's fine. Even something like "Lion King" is a not-so-subtle replay of the incredibly traditional Shakespearean play "Hamlet".
And plays like Peter Pan were going on for decades before Disney's cartoon edition.
Sometimes, its nice to just lean into the nostalgia. A changed song or two with a new set of actors is ... fine? Its how its been done for decades, or even centuries of theater.
I'm well aware most of the themes and plots in literature are an exercise in “Can I copy your homework?” “Sure, just change it up a bit so it doesn’t look obvious”.
But there's “original”, and then there's “are you even trying?”. We all know the current live action remakes were done for copyright extension reasons and little to no effort was put into refreshing up the stories, giving them a nice twist, nada.
If Sophocles was able to do retellings of ancient myths, which his audience already knew in full, and still could keep people interested in the play and even introduce enough innovations to earn the praise of his peers, then so can we even if we start from a material that's not truly original.
Actually, Lion King is a testament Disney knows how to do this. When it came out, nobody was saying “This movie is trash. It's just Hamlet with talking animals”, even though when you're told you can clearly see it takes lots of themes and character archetypes from said play. But it also changed things up a bit to warrant being it’s own thing, and praised accordingly.
Treasure Planet was one of the best animated Disney movies of the early 21st century (and arguably, of all time) and the story could hardly be called original. It's what the movie built on top of that, including the experimental seamless union of animation styles, that made it great. But it was a comercial flop (more of a self-fulfilled prophecy with its release date), so the mouse said nevermore.
Its how its been done for decades, or even centuries of theater.
Trying to compare mediums like animation movies to theatrical plays is bound to make for some strange comparisons. With movies if I want to take a stroll down memory lane I can just replay the old ones, even show them to my kids for them to see what I liked when I was their age.
On the other hand, it's in the very nature of theatre to redo the same plays over and over by one same company, sometimes in an itinerant fashion sometimes not. Because it's a live spectacle, that's the only way for new audiences to actually watch the play.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Yeah I just ignore their existence. The last one I watched was beauty and the beast I think. And I didn't like it so I was like aight I'm out
load more comments
(2 replies)
I thought Aladdin was good too.
They all just feel so…..lifeless and uncanny
I’ve tried to avoid the new ones, but with kids I inevitably end up at one. They are all so bland and boring. They don’t even try to be there on thing. I guess if you’re hungry potato chips work, and there’s an entire aisle at the grocery store to choose from, but if you want something decent, you gotta look somewhere else.
But wait. Did the kids like it?
Moana might be pushed by Dwayne Johnson since he's still playing Maui and has a pretty huge ego and influence
I literally just posted if Dwayne plays Maui, I'm in, lol. And I haven't had much interest, none lately, in the remakes. I love Dwayne, though.
Okay now you sold me on it.
Some of their movies work okay as live action, they weren't great, but with the context of the story being human centric, making a live action version is understandable. But when they make "live action" versions of something like Lion King, then just use CGI to make the lions anyway, wtf disney. Plus when they used CGI and made realistic looking lions, it removed the expressiveness the cartoon versions of the lions had.
The absolutely hard stop for me is fucking Lilo & Stitch, my favorite disney cartoon movie, and the movie that will lose the most in translating it into live action. Fuck disney, they actively make the world of media worse. They own too much, and pump out mediocre workshopped slop.
I would have liked The Lion King a lot more if it had somewhat matching voices. The least they could have done is bring back Jeremy Irons opposite James Earl Jones and do Be Prepared. But as is, most of the voices were just jarring.
Live action remakes are fine if they bring something new to the table that brings a new perspective to the original.
Like the upcoming "Barbie" movie, for example.
Thank you Margot Robbie. Can't wait to watch you on the big screen in the upcoming "Barbie" movie
Never heard of it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
It is because their previous CEO said animated movies are for kids:
https://gizmodo.com/disney-ceo-bob-chapek-animated-films-quote-frozen-pixar-1849710032
The board finally got rid of him and his mentality, but the "make everything live action so that people who think animation = kid can still watch our stuff" division is still churning out stuff while the "how do I make AI art into a whole Disney movie for pennies" division is still trying to get off the ground.
load more comments
(3 replies)
As long as Disney fanatics continue to buy anything $DIS, then they will continue to pump out these cash cows.
This is the essence of it: Remakes will continue as long as they make money.
A lot of people seem to think The Little Mermaid is doing quite well and if you're just reading the headlines from all the major reporting groups I could see why. If you look at the box office numbers, it is a different story. Many sources state the break-even point for it to be north of $500 million and after almost a month in theaters it still hasn't made the mark.
Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar, and their animation studio have produced a lot of content since 2020 with most of it losing money, barely breaking even, being critically panned, or having terrible viewership. Disney is in turmoil financially and it's clear that their current pool of talent isn't delivering what fans want to see. Elemental just released to the worst opening weekend for a Pixar movie ever. They need some changes to right the ship. Chopping some live actions from the line up may be something we see if they dry up as a major cash source as is indicated by The Little Mermaid.
Honest question, what is Disney being in financial turmoil based on? They beat/met expected EPS (earnings per share) three of the last four quarters. They are more than a TV/streaming/movie making business. They have LOADS of assets. They report losing money on streaming, but if you look back they didn’t expect streaming services to be profitable until 2024. it looks to me like Disney is and will be fine financially.
load more comments
(1 replies)
It's infuriating how many of the biggest media releases these days are either re-release, remakes, or very stale additions to long standing franchises.
I hate how much Hollywood is relying on pre-existing stuff, it's incredibly lazy.
They keep starving or burning out the actually creative writers, so no one wants to make new stuff for them.
Not just that. There used to be a time when producers took risks. They were the ultimate arbiter if something got made or not, and they would sometimes gamble it all on a total roll of the dice, but because of it we got multiple generation defining films (like the Godfather or Star Wars to name a few).
Now companies like movie studios are massive and the power is no longer consolidated like that, and a board is much less keen on taking a gamble, so they take safer risks. How do they know what's safe? Well there are all these statistics that they've paid for, and those statistics have told them:
Previously existing IPs have a guaranteed audience.
So they just keep rehashing the same thing because its a "guarantee." While I may not like the new DIsney movies, and think that Lion King (2019) is a fucking abomination, it is a) the highest grossing animated film of all time, b) the 7th highest grossing FILM of all time, and c) has a bigger box office than the original lion king by almost double.
load more comments
(4 replies)
But Moana's animation was so beautiful...it was one of the best parts of that movie.
I think there's something to be said for accepting that we're old and what our kids get excited for and enjoy isn't going to and doesn't need to make sense to us.
It would be nice if they used more practical effects though.
I do agree. But least Moana is mostly humans and can mostly actually be live action, and not CGI. I've seen a couple of the remakes, but they impressed me so little I haven't watched the others. But, if Dwayne plays Maui, I'm in.
Aladdin was one of my favorite Disney animated movies and I also enjoyed the live action version. Was it something I was asking for? No, but I don’t think there is anything wrong with making a live action version just as long as it is well done.
load more comments
(3 replies)
I’ll know they are serious when they remake Song of the South. All live-action segments are now animated, previously animated segments are now live-action.
You know what, let’s not stop there. Live-action remakes of the Don Bluth movies, starting with The Secret of NIMH, then All Dogs Go To Heaven, An American Tail, then Land Before Time. Shit, let’s do Rankin, too! Who’s up for a live-action The Last Unicorn?
load more comments
(2 replies)
The only live action remake I would approve is a remake of 1979 movie The Black Hole.
Do it you cowards
I wonder when they'll do Song of the South
The Little Mermaid was a huge hit. So huge in fact, that they greenlit Moana as a result so I don’t see them changing their minds. I liked Moana, but to be honest I think it probably works best as an animation. What’s exciting about it though, is that there hasn’t been a huge CGI-fest movie about Polynesian myth that takes place in a time without any colonization. It’s exciting.
There has been talks of a Moana remake before the little mermaid cast choices were released. As far as I can tell, support was there if auli'i cravalho maintained her role but that is not the case. And a "CGI-fest" about Polynesian myth is a bit insulting if the cast, writers, and directors are not Polynesian. Or don't respect Polynesian culture like the original Moana production team did. I am not looking forward to this film.
Disney only cares about money, and these live action remakes have been a huge gold mine for them with almost no risk compared to an original movie. In other words, learn to accept the things you cannot change, because this one ain't changing.
It's a money tree. You can make the same crap starwars or marvel movie every 3 months and it will continue to make money because people kept buying it. It's low effort free money. Why be creative when you can just remake the same. It's happening with videogames too.
Fewer remakes period would be nice. Fewer CG blockbusters with ridiculous casts of overpaid actors and more fun stylised CG/animated movies would also be nice and probably tempt me to go to the cinema more often, but I know I'm not the target demographic. Although it's a Sony movie, Spiderverse is a great example of this being done well, although they are also making more regular Spiderman. I've not seen a regular Spiderman movie since the old ones from the early 2000s, back when there weren't 10 superhero movies a week.
Splitting movies into parts is another emerging trend I'm not a fan of. If you are going to do it, make each movie feel satisfying in itself instead of finishing out of nowhere with an unsatisfying non-ending or cliffhanger. I'm kind of shocked so many people are OK with these bullshit endings.
The main purpose is to hold onto the copyrights they have and thus their empire. The copyright for Moana isn't set to expire till 3065. Why would they need a refresh so soon?
If they do make them, they should at least make them incredibly good. The new Peter Pan and Wendy movie SUUUUCKS. Not because there are black actors in it, at all. It sucks because it's very bland and just boring.
Also that movie didn't need to get made, because the 2003 Peter Pan (NOT by Disney, which is probably why nobody knows about it) was AWESOME. Seriously, see that one.
The Little Mermaid was good, they put more effort into the casting this time I think which helped, nothing against the other actors, but Halley can sing like an angel and Melissa McCarthy did Divine proud. I think a lot of it has to do with copyright more than anything else. While they don't reset the copyright, they give Disney vast new swaths of copyrightable material on the same subject with the same name. But lord they totally do NOT need a new version of Moana yet.
view more: next ›