I think a big problem with Live Action Disney is that they don't give storytelling as much importance as the popularity and spectacle of their movies. Whenever they change/retain scenes or characters from the animated versions, they don't seem to check whether it will make the storyline more cohesive or not. In my opinion, movies aren't supposed to be just a compilation of taped shots. They're supposed to be a series of events that make up a single bigger picture.
I completely agree! I think the scene that defines your comment is, Can You Feel The Love Tonight, being in the daytime. It's like they didn't even have the foresight to make it nighttime, as long as the scenes looked similar to the original.
I feel that the biggest problem with these remakes is that they are not needed and make unnecessary changes to try and be “modern”. I personally feel that a remake is needed when the old version is obsolete or inaccessible like say Resident Evil 2 for PS1 getting the remake treatment for newer audiences but movies are always accessible with streaming services nowadays, so what’s the point
@@Freeman_Reviews I Always felt that almost all the live action remakes were carbon copies only exceptions to Dumbo & The Jungle Book, plus Having Can You Feel The Love Tonight in daytime was destroying the point of The original scene which is one of my favorite moments from the original, I thought also the battle scenes felt very Violent and up close compared to the original which was more tame
While that is a fair point, something else you need to remember is that these are remakes. Meaning Disney has made a version of the movie in question prior. And yes, they're animated. Honestly, I think Pinocchio is the worst of them. Though The Lion King is a close second.
You can just take this Jiminy out of the live action and NOTHING would be different. Why? Because they made Pinocchio smart for NO REASON. He basically already knows the difference between right and wrong in every situation and doesn't have to learn or grow from his experiences or mistakes. Because who CARES about a story of meaningful character development? Who cares about showing a protagonist be flawed or have character downfalls because of said flaws? Who cares about showing kids that you can change yourself and learn when you fall? Just who cares? Robert and his team clearly didn't.
@@Freeman_Reviews Not to mention they neutered half the mature content that is suppose to be serious. Root beer instead of beer, no cigars and they censored jack*** by literally clipping in the heehaw as the guy who begins morphing says jack and then the A word swear is cut off.
@@Thomasmemoryscentral The kids smoking cigars and drinking beer was never in the original Carlo Collodi novel. It’s entirely exclusive to the Disney version as other adaptations of Pinocchio don’t depict kids smoking or drinking beer. In the original Carlo Collodi novel, Pleasure Island, or The Land of Toys as it was named in the novel, is a place for boys (and girls depending on the retelling or adaptation of the story) to play all day and not do school work. It never really was a carnival or a gangster’s paradise as depicted in the Disney film. The idea being when the boys (and girls depending on adaptation) transform into donkeys, they’re punished for skipping school or neglecting work and study and spending more time playing.
I'm afraid of when The Little Mermaid comes out, because as soon as that starts getting panned, there's going to be more people being slandered as racist than a counter protest to BLM.
@@hunterolaughlin But the Disney version still kept the same message, that if you break the rules and do bad things, there are consequences; you smoke and drink, you turn into a donkey, or you lie, your nose grows big, etc. In the remake, Pinocchio doesn't even learn from the experience cuz everything happens to him beyond decision and he's already a good boy from the get-go. At least the original Disney film, whether it was beer or root beer, Pinocchio made his own choices and dabbled in doing those bad things in order to see the consequences and learn not to do them, showing a relatable growth that sticks with you.
I definitely agree with a lot of your points. Disney’s latest era of live action really puts the wonder and magic of animation into a dull blending pot of reality. Real life can only take you so far, ya know? Which is why they would’ve needed to expand on the stories in a way that adapts to what real life can offer, which is real emotions in real moments. Having cartoony, exaggerated actions/emotions in limited live action doesn’t make sense :/ (i.e. any of the CGI characters. Real lions aren’t going to have human expressions 😶)
Also, had no one noted that the clay faces of Thomas the tank engine and friends express more with a fraction of the budget and you'd need to change our the faces between takes to give them a new look each time
I think Disney has already done an incredible adaptation - The Lion King Musical. (And it baffles me that not a SINGLE song from TLK musical made it into the realistically animated TLK movie.) They added songs to the musical changed it enough to fit the theatre. And honestly? It's such a gorgeous show. I love it more than the animated movie (sometimes). Everything new makes sense and the way the adaptation from screen to stage is magnificent. Every new part makes sense. TLK musical was such a wonderful experience. (I saw it on tour in Chicago.) But why is it such a huge success? It understands what the strengths and weaknesses of the mediums (animated movie and theatre). It asks, "Why was this originally an animated movie?" And it plays with the animated aspect but fits it to stage. It keeps the elements that made TLK what it was and BUILDS onto it. These adaptations don't do that. They don't alter it so it fits the medium. They very rarely build onto the world. They just force it to fit into a medium that it doesn't fit. I do think most of these movies could make okay live action movies. But I don't think they could be made identical to their animated counterparts. Because animated movies and live action movies, albeit being the same medium, are not the same.
My wife and I saw the Lion King Musical in Des Moines, and I agree wholeheartedly! It was a SPECTACLE, it was epic, it was an experience! Then you get the live action reboot, and it's just... bleh.
Same goes to Black Cauldron. I think it could've been perfect make it into a live-action movie, but considering how many live-action remakes that we got, it can be risky.
If you make Treasure Planet live action you might as well just turn it into Treasure Island. What makes Treasure Planet special is the synthesis of 18th Century nautical adventure with fantastical science fiction art. Turning it into something photo-realistic misses the point entirely.
The fact that James Earl Jones reprised his role as Mufasa in The Lion King (2019), I think they would’ve done the same thing with Aladdin (2019) by reprising Robin Williams as the Genie if he was still alive back then. But he died 5 years before Aladdin (2019) was made.
I really wish we could've seen that happen. We lost Robin Williams too young, and even though I liked Will Smith, he would've made the film even better.
@@Freeman_Reviews Just so you know, because of our “heroes” Sam Witwicky and (especially) Optimus Prime, Transformers 1, 2, 3 & 5 make Transformers 4 look like Bumblebee, as would most live-action remakes of Walt Disney Animation Studios films. Oh yeah! And for as problematic as Batman & Robin may be, at least it’s hilariously bad, while Batman Returns and Batman v Superman are just charmless drivel. I agree with everything else though!
If they wanted to reprise James Earl Jones as King Mufasa, then maybe he shouldn’t have been the only choice, there could also have been alongside Jeremy Irons as Scar (NGL, Chiwetel Ejiofor is a talented actor, especially as Solomon Northup in 12 Years a Slave, but I don’t think even he was motivated to try here) and/or Rowan Atkinson as Zazu, Robert Guillaume (had he still been alive) in Jamaican accent as Rafiki and last but not least, Nathan Lane (or Billy Crystal, NOT that other Billy with the last name being Eichner) and Ernie Sabella (in Northern American accent) as Pumbaa!
I agree, then they go on social media and blame everyone for not liking the fact they keep changing stuff in a way that doesn't add to the story, and these movies flop... I don't understand why these media companies would rather go and whine on twitter. they should be trying to figure out why people aren't going to go see their movies, then stop doing that.
Worst part about Pinocchio was we don't even know if he really did become a real boy because the stupid cricket was all like "some say he did but WHO KNOWS" which just made that a big cockblock. At least with Aladdin and The Lion King it was casting and directing that was the issue, like they almost had it but the mistakes and changes made were just overall the worst things to happen to them. Worst part is The Little Mermaid had the potential to be good, but already in the trailer everything is dark and "realistic" and the fish actually look like the worst, especially Flounder. They're just taking the colour and magic out of everything.
So they're vague in the ending for pinocchio and the colour scheme for little mermaid appears too dark? Yeah what a money waste. Feel bad for Halle Bailey given shes given a hand me down role in a useless remake rather than a better project.
Critical Drinker pointed out that part of what made the originals so good was their art style. They were lush, beautiful, and visual feasts for the eyes (my words, but what he said wasn't that far off).
@@Thomasmemoryscentral I do think Halle Bailey will strongly regret being featured in such a bad reboot later in her life. After all, she needs paycheques too.
When Maleficent first came out, I was excited. I thought the trend that Disney would take was going to be origin/backstory movies on all the villains, giving us new takes on classic Disney movies. Jafar. Ursula. Scar. THAT would have been somewhat justified and THAT would have made them plenty of money, if not more! I could not be more disappointed about where they've been taking these remakes over the years. A shame.
I didn't like Maleficent that much, but the film at least did something entirely new and creative with its property and was a step in the right direction. I would prefer villains to mostly not be redeemed though - I'd just like to see what made them take their path of evil. Imagine if Disney villain movies got released every year around Halloween. Disney would be ROLLING in money and the audience would be more satisfied. a dream that will never come true...
Man the Pinocchio trailer looked so weird and uncomfortable, a lot like lion king. maybe the only thing i disagree with you on is Jafar in the first couple scenes. I thought they made him seem kinda cool and like a feared and powerful villain in the beginning, but yeah he's definitely a little bitch for the rest of it after that lmao. excellent review, looking forward to more!
Yeah, I might have gone a little hard with Jafar, but after rewatching the original Kenzari's performance stuck out like a sore thumb. I definitely think he has room to grow though. Also, thank you for the consistent support as always!
I feel like he was miscast. No discredit the actor at all, I just feel he didn't fit the role. Having to play a dark, malevolent old man with a deep and malicious voice, he was too young and his voice was too high.
From the trailer, it seemed they at least did 2 different scenes: 1. Jasmine gets a song 2. Aladdin gets chased by Jafars parrot through a magic expansion
At this rate, Disney's just gonna keep doing this until the remakes just get 0% on rotten tomatoes. And even THEN they won't stop, and they're basically just gonna be known as "Remakes: The company".
And as long as loyal brand myrmidons keep watching this garbage and buying all the merch -- because it's Disney, and YOU HAVE TO LOVE DISNEY -- they'll keep making 'em.
@@Disneyfan82 they got drunk off the unexpected success of the tim burton 2010 remake of Alice in Wonderland. Ironically, 2011, 2012 and 2013 remain the only years a liveaction remake or prequel weren't released
I have a cat that if you look at 10 different pictures of her you'll see 10 different facial expressions - her face is incredibly expressive. They EASILY could have added some expression to the faces of the lions and still made them look realistic.
Cats actually can absolutely smile and they bring the corners of their cat mouths upper than usual when they are pleased. And their eyes get big and shiny. And their tails are up and shaking and they graciously circle you around.
The company is known for their ANIMATION which is one of the most common forms of art and entertainment in the media animation gives the characters a lot of different expressions and make numerous possibilities reality wether it’s hand drawn CGI or stop motion it’s very creative.
I think the Lion King remake would've been better if none of the characters talked. Being more like a "National Geographic" kind of thing. But then again it's Disney.
One thing that I like about Aladdin 2019 is how Will Smith didn't try to replicate Robin Williams version. He knew that Robin Williams Genie is iconic it is impossible to replicate. So Will Smith decided to make his own version and I'm glad that's what we got
Yeah. I thought Will Smith looks like a Smurf, until his acting makes him more doing his own thing than trying hard to be Robin Williams in terms of respect. Aladdin 2019 is pretty okay compared to some bad ones, but Will steals the spotlight (And about the Oscar incident? Yeah.)
@@poweroffriendship2.0 I made a meme out of that scene. Except Will Smith is me and Chris Rock is Sonic Lost World. (I have a hatred of that game but it's already a running gag in my channel whenever I play a Sonic game).
The only two Disney live-action remakes I've seen that I actually like were 101 Dalmatians way back in 1996 (mainly because they used REAL animals for most of the scenes, and limited the use of CGIs and animatronic animals), and Cinderella. The others I've seen -- Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and Dumbo -- I was NOT impressed with. I haven't seen the new Little Mermaid, but if Disney wanted to come up with a black mermaid character, why didn't they just come up with a new character altogether, with a new name and a new storyline, instead of just giving an existing character a different skin tone? Apparently, that was just too much work for the writers and animators. I'll be glad when Disney gets off this trend of re-making perfectly good animated films that do NOT need to be remade, and start making ORIGINAL films again, that are not prequels, sequels, spin-offs or remakes of existing films!
Disney thought they could ignore the rotten rating for 2019 lion king because they made a billion dollars worldwide but you'd think they'd learn something once mulan 2020 bombed. Even if you took away the lockdowns, what more money could the remake pull in?
A black Little Mermaid would have made sense if they had moved the story from Denmark to Melanesia. That would have the added advantage of being the native range of dugongs, the sea mammals most often mistaken for mermaids.
@@janach1305 I think the original Disney version already moved the story to the Caribbean. But honestly I don't care about Ariel's skin tone. It's how they're going to fuck up the emotional beats of the story that really matters.
@@TheHopperUK On the other hand, there is no reason for mermaids and the adjacent land population to be ethnically similar. They are not related to each other. They are entirely different species. This adds an extra creepiness factor to the story, but the original Hans Christian Andersen tale had plenty of creepiness in it, so why not?
If Walt was as old as Yensid this company would be a much better place. God I hate modern Disney and their remakes. They just can’t live up to the originals.
It really feels like to them, it's all about the money. Especially with Bob Chapek now in charge, all creative vision is getting thrown out the window, and it's truly sad to see.
I think that live-action Disney remakes could be good...if they focus more on the ones that were a bit underdeveloped in the first place. For example...they could do a more complete adaptation of The Wind In The Willows, focusing on the entire book instead of just the Toad parts. Or a version of The Sword In The Stone that's more faithful to the book (whether it's the stand-alone original or the version in the omnibus edition of The Once And Future King). Ideally, Disney would do the appropriate amount of groveling to the Lerner and Loewe estates and get the rights to the rest of TOaFK...they could make a really good trilogy, starting out with the innocents of SitS and getting more adult as we get into Arthur's adulthood and the dilemmas and heartbreak he faces. At one point, they were planning to make a live-action adaptation of the Night on Bald Mountain sequence of Fantasia, but it seems to have been shelved for the time being. I think it could work quite well...make it a sort of Hammer-lite historical fantasy-horror piece, focusing on the village beneath Bald Mountain and the legends of Chernabog and his yearly revels, and you'll have a costume spooker that's perfect for Halloween.
They really missed an opportunity with Aladdin by not adapting the Broadway show instead, which resurrected characters, songs, and ideas that were part of earlier drafts of the movie. (For example, Aladdin has three roguish friends who have a couple of songs of their own. And "Proud Of Your Boy" is added back in, though in this version it's Aladdin singing to his deceased mother's memory. And the stage show's Genie is modeled more on Cab Calloway, as he was originally supposed to have been.) That would have made it more of its own thing, especially if they'd gone with the "classic MGM musical" feeling they were going for in early drafts, as well as bringing these concepts to the big screen at last.
Even Mulan, which had the right idea of do its own thing to put its own spin on the material, sucked hard. They fundamentally misunderstood the heart of the movie. THEIR OWN MOVIE. Like how is it possible for the same Disney that brought us these timeless classics to fuck it up this bad?
I think Critical Drinker said it best in a review for one of the Predator movies. What's original isn't good, and what's good isn't original. Plus, now they're changing the stories up so that they basically lose what made them great in the first place. Snow White is gonna be a disaster, no doubt. Also, I saw what they did to Flounder... gah DANG! Just make it a horror movie at this point.
I think by a significant margin the best "remake" (though some say they changed enough from the original that many say it's not nearly as much of a remake as the others) is The Jungle Book. I really enjoyed that one a lot and could rematch it, it has a lot of heart and does it all right. I wish the put as much into the design and feel of the others as they did with The Jungle Book.
They had a chance to do "The Jungle Book" right and not only did they botch it again, Disney's re-write back in the 1960s botched ALL the "Jungle Book" remakes that came out within a couple years of each other. Because Kaa the python is supposed to be a hero who helped rescue Mowgli from the monkey city, not a villain.
I actually liked The Jungle Book quite a bit! I think part of the reason The Lion King did such great numbers, was because it was made by John Favreau as well.
I wanted to like it but it was so off for me. It wanted to be darker but still keep the songs and comedy. That just made it uncanny and felt like they didn't know what to do with the tone & atmosphere that kept randomly changing. There is way to much monologue and not much showing. I disliked Baloo in it and Mowgli was just annoying. Many of their actions did not make any sense. That's just my opinion ...
They give us a black Ariel, so yay for black representation… I guess… While ppl argue about her skin color, the Mouse can sit back and relax, knowing we’re too busy to concern ourselves with how the story will be adapted…
Yeah, I think Halle Bailey is a good actor, and will do a good job, plus the representation is always great to see! Unfortunately, that teaser they put out was lack luster, and just seemed so dark and bland, which is nothing like the original animation. I'll always have hope, but right now it doesn't look promising.
But it's such a cheep and lazy representation. I honestly wish they did something original and instead of calling her Ariel they would have made an original movie with a different setting, new characters and songs. Have the main mermaid with a different personality and why not even introduce pirates and treasures. Make a new fun, romantic adventure movie. It can be set in a fantasy land or even in the Caribbean. Ariel in Disney will always be seen as the blue-eyed red haired. This will be regarded as a cheap knock-off and that is really sad for both the main actress and the hard work of the team behind the effects of this movie.
@@julimibz that’s my point. This is lazy representation, yet ppl flock to it like moths to a flame. Anyone saying otherwise is immediately deemed a racist. Ariel is an identified character, with distinguished personality and traits. Changing her just for representation’s sake, yet not doing a thorough job by changing the rest of the cast black? Yeah, I’m not buying to this bs…
@@watercat1302 Halle Berry apparently got the role by being the best actress. There is a theory about race baiting where PoC are given disproportional representation so that idiots like you will start shit online, at which point well-intentioned people will defend it, ignoring genuine problems with the script, directing, visual effects, ect. Ultimately, and I say this as a white person, white people have not been oppressed and marginalized throughout their history, having their stories and cultures undone. So I don't really give a fuck if "hIstorically white" characters are portrayed by people of other races.
@@Freeman_Reviews I noticed that too. The background was so blue that it was hard to make out the rocks, corals, fish, etc. In that same scene from the animated movie, you can actually see Ariel's collection and the rock shelves they were on.
Amazing work my guy ❤ this is such a funny and informative video essay! I cannot wait to see more of ur content, I could not believe how small ur following was when I looked at ur channel 😮
The only live-action remake I actually liked better than the animated original was The Jungle Book. The remake took the story in some interesting new directions and actually drew some elements from Rudyard Kipling's book.
We all know the live action remakes are worse than the original, but i genuinly liked Alladin, it’s easily the best remake out of all the ones that are out at the moment, mainly because it felt like it kept most of the original contonuity unlike what many of the other remakes did
I was just genuinely wondering why they didn't remake them all in the CGI Frozen style because then it still keeps the beauty of animation but they can update all of their IPs. And I've always wondered if they're going to go live action. Why not create live stageplays and revitalize interest in a dying art form of stage theater?
To be fair to the Pinocchio remake, Monstro’s redesign was a callback to the original fairytale in which he was a giant dogfish as opposed to a whale, so I can see what they were going for there. But aside from that, it doesn’t really change anything else.
I really don’t understand what’s happening with these live action Disney remakes when they stated they where actually pretty promising but now a lot of their most recent ones are…..not promising
disney tried to recreate a photorealistic monkey yet Raider of the Lost Ark achieved that decades prior without computer. if 101 Dalmatians released today, all the dogs will be cgi...
THE DISNEY METHOD (Now The Standard Hollywood Method for Any Project): STEP 1: Make a misbegotten, mediocre, cash-grab film remake nobody asked for, that probably won't live up to the animated version which everyone has loved for several decades. STEP 2: Release the trailer and watch it get panned. STEP 3: Try to find some way -- if at all possible -- to slander and discredit the critics, and stir up a lot of online hate, divisiveness, and controversy for lots of free publicity and spin some social media cred. STEP 4: Mobilise the loyal Disney myrmidons and well-meaning others whose hearts are probably in the right place into thinking that by watching the remake over and over, and buying all the merch, it will somehow "show those dirty, evil nay-sayers" and make the world a better place for children and puppies and togetherness and so forth. Somehow. STEP 5: Release the film, because some brand cultists will watch anything with Disney slapped on the label, and because money. STEP 6: Sit back and laugh while everyone dances like puppets due to your masterful manipulation and propaganda and watch the money roll in. Repeat Steps 1 - 6 ad nauseam.
Disney remakes are releasing every single year. And people criticize them for being nowhere near as good as the original, having ugly CGI, being shot for shot retellings, and having little personality to them. Also not to mention people are just getting tired of the Disney remakes. I just think they don't know how to make movies anymore and that's evident with them buying Fox and the Disney remakes releasing every single year. Not to mention with remakes like Lion King, Mulan, Pinocchio, Dumbo, and Lady & The Tramp, they honestly have no idea as to why people loved the original movies at all.
What is even more disappointing about the live-action remakes is that Disney doesn't give 2D animation much of the limelight to the modern movie screens, except for some movies like _Mary Poppin Returns_ or that _Chip and Dale Movie._ Isn't that animation a pinnacle to Walt Disney's career and legacy? If I learn anything from Solar Sands from "Reality Isn't Always Right", that's because art is realistic doesn't mean it's better. Even if you choose to be accurate to reality, you don't have to give up your own artistic influence or style.
What are you got to remember in the early 2000s a lot of 2D animated films from Disney didn't do well at the box office even though most of them were pretty good I think if people should have appreciated those movies maybe Disney will have a different tone when it comes to 2D
I think what goes wrong for Disney's live action movies is that they try to make something more faithful to the original work than something more faithful to animation, or the question of doing something totally realistic (like the Lion King case), or simply the case that everyone is talking about the choice of actors (as is the case with The Little Mermaid)
Pinocchio is one of my favorite movies of all time and all my friends knew I watched the remake the day it dropped. This meant I had about a week of the same conversation: "Did you like the movie?" "Pinocchio's donkey tail is articulated and wooden like a puppet and that was very cute." "Ok? But did you like it?" "....the little wooden donkey tail made cute click clack noises." The entire movie, literally every scene, I was in denial and kept telling myself it's not that bad and it'll pick up as it goes along. It just has a rough first act.... and second act..... well maybe they can pull it together for the ending aaaaaand nope.
Current Disney leadership, and by extension their creatives, don't understand what made the original movies special. This misunderstanding of their own brand extends to the way they manage their parks as well.
Since I never particularly cared for the original, I didn't mind Pinocchio personally, though there were things that were annoying. Why did they give Jiminy such human-like feet? It's so weird. Even in the cartoon I think he only had tree toes? Cleo is definitely off-putting, and a real cat would have helped so much for Figaro. If they'd just done some CGI overlay to help with facial expressions (1995's Babe did this right) that would have been perfect. I think the art director/s saw the green sea dragon from Sea Beast and said "Yeah, let's change the whale into one of those things real quick!"
Personally I don’t think Aladdin was bad I actually Enjoyed it. Sometimes even more then the original. Do I think it’s better then the original? No. Do I like it more? Yes I do. It’s probably my favorite Disney Live action Film. But that’s just my opinion feel free to disagree.
i used to like The lion king remake but now all i see that that movie is crappy, boring, emotionless, trash, and atrocious. i wanna sue the director as the original always brought tears to me when i was younger. i am crazy about the amazing Aladdin remake. but it's dumb to remake the lion king
Also, breaking the Pinocchio story in the way that they did, they somehow made the implications of Pleasure Island just a *little bit Worse*. How? One *tiny* little change... In the original, the Coachman is just looking for stupid little *boys*. Now it's bad enough that this is so that he can take them to Pleasure Island, let them act out, and do all the 'bad' things before they get turned into donkeys so that he can sell them to the coal mines, salt mines, circus, and farmers who will work them to death... But. Disney made is so that both bad little boys *and* girls can go to Pleasure Island. Bad little boys *and* girls are getting turned into donkeys and being sold off. Now, you can't tell me that the Coachman being the greedy profit driven monster that he is with his brand new *jennies* aka female donkeys... wouldn't be selling them off for *breeding* purposes. I welcome your "Thanks I hate it." comments for this lovely little rotten cherry on top of an already horrible movie.
I disagree I think the Pinocchio remake got too much hatred I think the only reason people don't like the movie because they rule with the original and they don't want to remake but they ever considered the fact that many people who didn't watch the original Pinocchio and kids in this generation probably I'm going to be more interested in the new remake. Let's not forget the original Pinocchio was never a box office success either
If I'm going to be honest. There's only two of them that I actually like. Beauty and the beast and the jungle book. I really wish Disney would stop making these stupid remakes. And actually focus on making original movies like encanto. And I bet you in a few years they're going to try and remake rapunzel, Frozen and encanto I pray that I'm wrong. 😡
Aladdin - not the best remake but memorable to watch The Lion King - exactly the same but realistically flawed Mulan - The (another) Last Airbender movie The Lady and The Tramp - wait, that was a thing? Pinocchio - dammit Zemeckis, you made me prefer Guillermo's version! The Little Mermaid - Aquaman is better
Aquaman is better but Willem Dafoe was Better in the Tobey Maguire Spider-Man movies and in Spider-Man No Way Home he's just kinda bland in Aquaman and honestly forgettable
Okay, ya see, this is why I can't get excited for The Little Mermaid. There is nothing that Disney has done with any of the previous remakes to make me even consider the possibility that it could be anything other than terrible.
Instead of Disney remakes, they should make Disney retellings. Most Disney movies are at least loosely based on earlier stories/myths/ect. Imagine a more accurate version of furry Hamlet or a Pinocchio with its own new story. Say what you will about Maleficent, since at least they were doing something distinct
Idk if this has anything to do with Disney but I'm gunna say it anyway, In the fifth grade my class read a book called "Sign of the Beaver" and it was a good book. When we finished my teacher told us that we would watch a movie on Sign of the Beaver. We were all exited and when the day came, we were disappointed. You see, in the book the two main characters fought a bear and in the movie, they didn't do that. They kept focusing on the boys family when they didn't in the book. And every interesting part in the book wasn't in the movie. It SUCKED and people in my class weren't afraid to say it, even my teacher agreed
Live action Lion King is the film I find MOST insulting! I agree that live action Pinocchio is TECHNICALLY worse but I never saw the original animated Pinocchio as a kid, at least in its entirety. Please forgive me if you feel uncomfortable hearing Channel Awesome references but the Nostalgia Chick once said that if you are at least 10 years of age, the badness of a straight-to-video Disney sequel is usually inverse with how much you like the original (although personally I consider the Lion King and Lilo & Stitch sequels to be among the few good ones), and I guess that’s why I hate live action Lion King so much. Like Mars Needs Moms, it’s a glorified tech demo. It doesn’t even feel like a Disney film at all (a problem I also have with live action Beauty & The Beast) and overall, why watch the lifeless live action Lion King when the original clearly shows why the original NEEDED to be animated the way it was? I am ESPECIALLY enraged by the prospect of a live action Lilo & Stitch remake! If The Lion King made my childhood, Lilo & Stitch made my teenage years! Remaking the latter in live action will ALSO turn out badly! The original wasn’t even 20 years old yet when the remake was announced and this remake has the director of the Jem and The Holograms movie onboard! (I know about that flick from RebelTaxi and The Black Nerd) I am all for diversity so I will at least give the live action Little Mermaid points for giving us a black Ariel.
I’m ngl with the lion king I understand why they looked so emotionless. It is so incredibly difficult to add emotions onto an animal that does not normally make those emotions. Like how do you make a lion look sad or concerned?! The chronicles of narnia struggled with it in their first 2 movies but they did a much better job with aslan, the beavers, even the wolves! They even made a badger look sad!
If they're making adult versions of childhood classics, I wish that they took "dark" versions of the original stories inspiring them. For example, when remaking Ariel, the mermaid's feet turn to concrete or something in the original if memory serves. Sisters cut their toes to fit in Cinderella's glass slipper with no luck. Aurora only wakes up because giving birth to twins really bloody hurts. Pocahontas....well. we all know that the reality of Pocahontas was very not great. I would *love* to see this, and I think live action would be a great fit. It would also target the adults who grew up on these fairy tales and learned just how dark the original stories were and many are going to be curious enough to see it.... ...but that takes effort and the kids of today won't be seeing a film like this so ig it's not happening
i think if walt himself were still alive he’d be pissed about all these damn remakes & pull the plug on them. i think he’d want the movies 2 stay just the way they r & the way he wanted them. i just saw the teaser 4 that mufasa shit the other day & im pissed. it looks stupid as hell. it pissed me off when i heard about the first damn remake too. a 3d rerelease was awesome but not a fucking remake. my brother & i r twins & we were born in 94. im always gonna be thankful the 3d version let us see it in theaters. everybody stood up & clapped at the end. that was all it needed. i found a few scene comparisons but besides that i never saw the rest of the damn remake & prolly never will
The live action movies are a one-time cash grab per film, like selling your furniture. When your house runs out of it, you can't get money that way anymore. Disney still has a few more live action cash grabs after "The Little Mermaid" and "Snow not-White." I suspect a live action Frozen and Frozen II are in the works as a couple of quick cash-ins for Disney, possibly a PC Peter Pan, Hunchback, Pocahontas, Hercules, Bambi, and Tarzan, but there's not much else. That sounds like a lot, but that's maybe 2 or 3 years of theatrical movies and Disney+ shows, possibly four at most. They did live action versions of Lion King, Dumbo, The Jungle Book, Beauty and the Beast, Mulan, Cinderella, a vomit-inducing version of Pinocchio, Lady and the Tramp, Alice in Wonderland (done a while ago), and a long history of 101 Dalmatian remakes. I don't think The Aristocats, The Black Cauldron, The Fox and the Hound, Robin Hood, Oliver and Company, Treasure Planet, Brother Bear, Lilo and Stitch, the Emperor's New Groove, that Atlantis movie, or the early 2000s garbage like Chicken Little, Home on the Range, or Meet the Robinsons have any future in 3D, and neither do ones which only work in 3D such as Zootopia or Wreck-It Ralph, given that it would all have to be CGI anyway. I guess they could do The Princess and the Frog for woke points, but that's almost it. And the Malificient movies basically are Sleeping Beauty, but I can see them doing the story straight-up if Disney drops the woke angle and REALLY needs new ideas for live action movies made from older films. I will say that a Disney+ live action Rescuers duology is certainly feasible. Not sure about the Great Mouse Detective. Point is, not all of these movies made money when they first came out, so they don't all have a fanbase which would tune in again and see them if they were remade. And I don't think live action Pixar movies would work, except for maybe The Incredibles. Again, most things in those movies would have to be CGI in any event.
90s and 00s: Disney pumps out terrible direct-to-dvd sequels to their films 10s and 20s: Disney pumps out terrible live action versions of those exact same films Why can't they leave their classics alone?
Cinderella is by far the best Disney live action till this day and the only one I will never stop rewatching it. It's probably the best Cinderella live action movie that anyone could possibly imagine. I love how they make it like a Jane Austen esc style to it
I just recently watched the Italian Pinocchio, and it was stupendous. It's probably the definitive version (we've get to see Mister Del Toro's version), at least as far as live action goes. Almost everything in the movie is practical, barring the whale and a few animals. And the first thing I noticed about the little boy who played Pinocchio was how expressive his eyes were. I cared about what happened to him, because he didn't know any better. And it stuck more closely to the original tale, minus a few things. The Disney one just frustrates me.
I liked the jungle book live action. It was great. As far as the rest, they were garbage. Tlk one was hideous. None of the actors could sing and the music to it...WHAT?? It was one of those "what did I just see?" Responses...It was one of the worst, colorless, life less movies I have EVER seen
It’s kinda weird how the critics were actually right in the case of the first two movies here, while the audience ate that shit up, but everything went 180 for the Mulan remake. Also is it me or does the new Pinocchio sound like kazoo kid?
Honestly I think Disney gets too much hate nowadays. I mean sure they've made some bad decisions, but people seem to judge them ONLY by their live-action remakes, completely ignoring how they've given us some masterpieces such as Zootopia and Encanto.
Also, to add to Mulan, they took out... basically EVERYTHING from the original. No Mushu, no songs, and no lesson about hard work and determination. Plus, while the UNSPECIFIED VIRUS OF UNKNOWN ORIGIN (or the beer bug, whichever you prefer) DID have an effect on the movie, a lot of people were likely just burnt out by the remakes. I dread The Little Mermaid and ESPECIALLY Snow White. Mostly the latter, as it seems everything is going wrong. One of the sets burned down, the main actress won't shut up, no dwarves, and the story is changed from the original.
You know what's sad though Disney once said we don't make movies to make money we make movies make more movies. Nowadays Disney is like 🤑 And not to mention Jumbo Dumbo's mom in the remake did not die. Like she did in the original. Kids deserve better.
Note: This may be a lengthy comment of mine as I have a lot to say. The 2010s with Disney's obsession with the Live Action remakes has been something I can't help but feel that has been getting worse and worse as time has pass, and in more recently politically corrupted over their stupid political agendas and identity politics (including some of the upcoming ones like Little Mermaid and Snow White, as well as the 2020 Mulan and 2022 Pinocchio). The movies are not looked backed fondly for the right reasons and are easily forgotten after they hit their time on the big screen or streaming service platform as the next "big movie remake" except for the 2016 Jungle Book (don't know what's people's thoughts on it now in the past 6 years)?. Though thinking about it now, I'm not sure what people's thoughts are now a days with the 101 Dalmatians remake way back around 1996 and it's sequel 102 Dalmatians 2000 because they seem a lot more faithful to the original 1961 101 Dalmatian story. But getting back to the main topic, MY biggest problem with the Disney Live Action remakes is that they forget what made the original animated versions so beloved and remembered masterpieces to a lot of us, and do those things even worse. To quote a comment I made a few weeks ago; "I would say the laziness is only part of the reason why these remakes are so bad and unnecessary. They forget and overlook key aspects that makes the original animated films beloved and remembered for generations. The remakes goes against that and tries to modernize things in films that are trying to be TIMELESS. They disrespect the audience with their forced down political agenda and message, and will attack ANYONE who goes against the 2010-Current Disney. I'm sure there are some positive things in some of these remakes, but they're not enough to keep them from being mediocre to bad, boring to forgettable, and even mocked and memed on." You ever noticed how in recent years the Disney remakes mainly put particular time in on certain films? Yep, it's the 1990s Renaissance, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Lion King, Mulan, and the upcoming Little Mermaid? Why those films when they're not even about 50 years old compare to Alice in Wonderland, Jungle Book, and Pinocchio even though they got remade? It's simple to me, their films people remember the most and Disney decided to use nostalgia as a means to make a quick buck to their Live Action Cash Cows like the greedy scumbags they are, and people are starting to realize and get tired of Disney's recent shady practices. To quote the Lorax's lyrics from the original demo / cut song Biggering; "Greed... ya see it's like a little pet, alright? A-and the more, and more and more that you go and feed it, the more hungry it'll get! But... You know, you really can't blame greed. No that's stupid. You see, it's got a little worm inside. Oh yeah, that's right. It's one that always needs to feed, and it is never satisfied. You get it? But the more you go and try and find it, the more it likes to hide! Now listen, that is a NASTY little worm! I like to call it... Pride. See, now that's why you're biggering! Listen here, idiot! I'm figuring on biggering! But that biggering's just triggering more biggering! Got that? Alright!" Aside the greed Disney has just to keep itself afloat with all the stuff under it's belt like Star Wars and Marvel, it's now at a point where their pride is destroying the very legacy Walt Disney himself build up upon, they're disrespecting the core audience with their forceful beliefs injected in the movies and on social media, turning the stories into disgusting insults for their ideal remakes, and the creativity is bankrupted by having the wrong kinds of people working in the entertainment industry. I apologize if this post is lengthy, but I'm just stating my own passion and love I have for the original animated films as Disney clearly has all the wrong notes for when it comes to these remakes they made that I noticed in recent years and figured it was more than pass the point to express my own feelings and call them out for their own ridiculousness and stupidity.
it's like Disney is testing how much their quality can drop while still being profitable.
Bob Iger, the previous Disney president, teaming up with Warner Bros. on the DC Cinematic Universe: *Likely not for long...*
I think a big problem with Live Action Disney is that they don't give storytelling as much importance as the popularity and spectacle of their movies. Whenever they change/retain scenes or characters from the animated versions, they don't seem to check whether it will make the storyline more cohesive or not. In my opinion, movies aren't supposed to be just a compilation of taped shots. They're supposed to be a series of events that make up a single bigger picture.
I completely agree! I think the scene that defines your comment is, Can You Feel The Love Tonight, being in the daytime. It's like they didn't even have the foresight to make it nighttime, as long as the scenes looked similar to the original.
I feel that the biggest problem with these remakes is that they are not needed and make unnecessary changes to try and be “modern”. I personally feel that a remake is needed when the old version is obsolete or inaccessible like say Resident Evil 2 for PS1 getting the remake treatment for newer audiences but movies are always accessible with streaming services nowadays, so what’s the point
@@zeldagameryt4018 I feel the same way, give remakes only to those that really need it.
@@Freeman_Reviews I Always felt that almost all the live action remakes were carbon copies only exceptions to Dumbo & The Jungle Book, plus Having Can You Feel The Love Tonight in daytime was destroying the point of The original scene which is one of my favorite moments from the original, I thought also the battle scenes felt very Violent and up close compared to the original which was more tame
While that is a fair point, something else you need to remember is that these are remakes. Meaning Disney has made a version of the movie in question prior. And yes, they're animated. Honestly, I think Pinocchio is the worst of them. Though The Lion King is a close second.
You can just take this Jiminy out of the live action and NOTHING would be different. Why? Because they made Pinocchio smart for NO REASON. He basically already knows the difference between right and wrong in every situation and doesn't have to learn or grow from his experiences or mistakes.
Because who CARES about a story of meaningful character development? Who cares about showing a protagonist be flawed or have character downfalls because of said flaws? Who cares about showing kids that you can change yourself and learn when you fall?
Just who cares? Robert and his team clearly didn't.
That's exactly my thoughts! The entire Pleasure Island sequence is ruined because of this, and it made the story as a whole make ZERO sense.
@@Freeman_Reviews Not to mention they neutered half the mature content that is suppose to be serious. Root beer instead of beer, no cigars and they censored jack*** by literally clipping in the heehaw as the guy who begins morphing says jack and then the A word swear is cut off.
@@Thomasmemoryscentral The kids smoking cigars and drinking beer was never in the original Carlo Collodi novel. It’s entirely exclusive to the Disney version as other adaptations of Pinocchio don’t depict kids smoking or drinking beer. In the original Carlo Collodi novel, Pleasure Island, or The Land of Toys as it was named in the novel, is a place for boys (and girls depending on the retelling or adaptation of the story) to play all day and not do school work. It never really was a carnival or a gangster’s paradise as depicted in the Disney film. The idea being when the boys (and girls depending on adaptation) transform into donkeys, they’re punished for skipping school or neglecting work and study and spending more time playing.
I'm afraid of when The Little Mermaid comes out, because as soon as that starts getting panned, there's going to be more people being slandered as racist than a counter protest to BLM.
@@hunterolaughlin
But the Disney version still kept the same message, that if you break the rules and do bad things, there are consequences; you smoke and drink, you turn into a donkey, or you lie, your nose grows big, etc. In the remake, Pinocchio doesn't even learn from the experience cuz everything happens to him beyond decision and he's already a good boy from the get-go. At least the original Disney film, whether it was beer or root beer, Pinocchio made his own choices and dabbled in doing those bad things in order to see the consequences and learn not to do them, showing a relatable growth that sticks with you.
“Doesn’t need to create a whole new world of it’s own”
I see what you did there
It wasn't originally written in the script, but I saw the opportunity and had to take it. I'm glad you enjoyed it!
I definitely agree with a lot of your points. Disney’s latest era of live action really puts the wonder and magic of animation into a dull blending pot of reality. Real life can only take you so far, ya know? Which is why they would’ve needed to expand on the stories in a way that adapts to what real life can offer, which is real emotions in real moments. Having cartoony, exaggerated actions/emotions in limited live action doesn’t make sense :/ (i.e. any of the CGI characters. Real lions aren’t going to have human expressions 😶)
Also, had no one noted that the clay faces of Thomas the tank engine and friends express more with a fraction of the budget and you'd need to change our the faces between takes to give them a new look each time
Disney doesn't know when to stop.
I mean when 90% of there live action films make billions, why would they stop.
people need to stop seeing them in theatres only money talks for them .
@@AngelichuXD and that’s not going to happen. The general audience ( large amounts being kids) like them.
@@lunarose3100 yeah sadly
Still bothers me they removed Rafiki’s speech about the past.”the way I see it, you can either run from it or learn from it.”
@Mickey Mouse Cause it's being run by cowards and idiots.
I mean they did remove his stick which is the main reason why that lesson from rafiki works
About Mulan 2020, there is one thing I can give the other remakes credit for, at least they didn’t film near a concentration camp.
I think Disney has already done an incredible adaptation - The Lion King Musical. (And it baffles me that not a SINGLE song from TLK musical made it into the realistically animated TLK movie.)
They added songs to the musical changed it enough to fit the theatre. And honestly? It's such a gorgeous show. I love it more than the animated movie (sometimes). Everything new makes sense and the way the adaptation from screen to stage is magnificent. Every new part makes sense.
TLK musical was such a wonderful experience. (I saw it on tour in Chicago.) But why is it such a huge success? It understands what the strengths and weaknesses of the mediums (animated movie and theatre). It asks, "Why was this originally an animated movie?" And it plays with the animated aspect but fits it to stage. It keeps the elements that made TLK what it was and BUILDS onto it.
These adaptations don't do that. They don't alter it so it fits the medium. They very rarely build onto the world. They just force it to fit into a medium that it doesn't fit. I do think most of these movies could make okay live action movies. But I don't think they could be made identical to their animated counterparts. Because animated movies and live action movies, albeit being the same medium, are not the same.
My wife and I saw the Lion King Musical in Des Moines, and I agree wholeheartedly! It was a SPECTACLE, it was epic, it was an experience!
Then you get the live action reboot, and it's just... bleh.
There's two movies they can redo and it could work: Atlantis, and Treasure Planet. Non-musicals, action based, perfect for this time
I'd love to see those remade, but knowing Disney they'd unfortunately would likely find a way to screw those up too
@@paulgrotebeverborg1119 Knowing them... I dread to imagine what they would do.
Same goes to Black Cauldron. I think it could've been perfect make it into a live-action movie, but considering how many live-action remakes that we got, it can be risky.
If you make Treasure Planet live action you might as well just turn it into Treasure Island. What makes Treasure Planet special is the synthesis of 18th Century nautical adventure with fantastical science fiction art. Turning it into something photo-realistic misses the point entirely.
The fact that James Earl Jones reprised his role as Mufasa in The Lion King (2019), I think they would’ve done the same thing with Aladdin (2019) by reprising Robin Williams as the Genie if he was still alive back then. But he died 5 years before Aladdin (2019) was made.
I really wish we could've seen that happen. We lost Robin Williams too young, and even though I liked Will Smith, he would've made the film even better.
@@Freeman_Reviews I was 17 when Robin Williams died. I was moving into 12th grade back then.
@@Freeman_Reviews Just so you know, because of our “heroes” Sam Witwicky and (especially) Optimus Prime, Transformers 1, 2, 3 & 5 make Transformers 4 look like Bumblebee, as would most live-action remakes of Walt Disney Animation Studios films.
Oh yeah! And for as problematic as Batman & Robin may be, at least it’s hilariously bad, while Batman Returns and Batman v Superman are just charmless drivel.
I agree with everything else though!
Yet they didn’t pick Jeremy Irons to reprise Scar’s role
If they wanted to reprise James Earl Jones as King Mufasa, then maybe he shouldn’t have been the only choice, there could also have been alongside Jeremy Irons as Scar (NGL, Chiwetel Ejiofor is a talented actor, especially as Solomon Northup in 12 Years a Slave, but I don’t think even he was motivated to try here) and/or Rowan Atkinson as Zazu, Robert Guillaume (had he still been alive) in Jamaican accent as Rafiki and last but not least, Nathan Lane (or Billy Crystal, NOT that other Billy with the last name being Eichner) and Ernie Sabella (in Northern American accent) as Pumbaa!
I agree, then they go on social media and blame everyone for not liking the fact they keep changing stuff in a way that doesn't add to the story, and these movies flop... I don't understand why these media companies would rather go and whine on twitter. they should be trying to figure out why people aren't going to go see their movies, then stop doing that.
Because it's easier to gaslight then to improve
Worst part about Pinocchio was we don't even know if he really did become a real boy because the stupid cricket was all like "some say he did but WHO KNOWS" which just made that a big cockblock. At least with Aladdin and The Lion King it was casting and directing that was the issue, like they almost had it but the mistakes and changes made were just overall the worst things to happen to them. Worst part is The Little Mermaid had the potential to be good, but already in the trailer everything is dark and "realistic" and the fish actually look like the worst, especially Flounder. They're just taking the colour and magic out of everything.
So they're vague in the ending for pinocchio and the colour scheme for little mermaid appears too dark? Yeah what a money waste.
Feel bad for Halle Bailey given shes given a hand me down role in a useless remake rather than a better project.
She slowly turns into a real bow as he walk away from the camera so the movie can't even decide on its own ending
Critical Drinker pointed out that part of what made the originals so good was their art style. They were lush, beautiful, and visual feasts for the eyes (my words, but what he said wasn't that far off).
What's even worst is the miscasting on Ariel? Don't get me started with the culture war nonsense.
@@Thomasmemoryscentral I do think Halle Bailey will strongly regret being featured in such a bad reboot later in her life. After all, she needs paycheques too.
When Maleficent first came out, I was excited. I thought the trend that Disney would take was going to be origin/backstory movies on all the villains, giving us new takes on classic Disney movies. Jafar. Ursula. Scar.
THAT would have been somewhat justified and THAT would have made them plenty of money, if not more! I could not be more disappointed about where they've been taking these remakes over the years. A shame.
I didn't like Maleficent that much, but the film at least did something entirely new and creative with its property and was a step in the right direction.
I would prefer villains to mostly not be redeemed though - I'd just like to see what made them take their path of evil. Imagine if Disney villain movies got released every year around Halloween. Disney would be ROLLING in money and the audience would be more satisfied.
a dream that will never come true...
Man the Pinocchio trailer looked so weird and uncomfortable, a lot like lion king. maybe the only thing i disagree with you on is Jafar in the first couple scenes. I thought they made him seem kinda cool and like a feared and powerful villain in the beginning, but yeah he's definitely a little bitch for the rest of it after that lmao. excellent review, looking forward to more!
Yeah, I might have gone a little hard with Jafar, but after rewatching the original Kenzari's performance stuck out like a sore thumb. I definitely think he has room to grow though. Also, thank you for the consistent support as always!
I feel like he was miscast. No discredit the actor at all, I just feel he didn't fit the role. Having to play a dark, malevolent old man with a deep and malicious voice, he was too young and his voice was too high.
Pinnochio looks accurate to what he is in the movie, but he doesn't look so good.
@@poweroffriendship2.0 I disagree I think you look so bad
@@animezilla4486 Nope. I'm talking about Pinocchio, not me.
Hot Take: Scooby Doo and the Arabian Nights was a better adaptation of Aladdin than the live action one by Disney.
It’s not a hot take if it’s true.
From the trailer, it seemed they at least did 2 different scenes:
1. Jasmine gets a song
2. Aladdin gets chased by Jafars parrot through a magic expansion
It didn’t even sound like Hanna- bbarbera though, the sound Fox and music sounded like 1990s Warner’s cartoons rolleyes
At this rate, Disney's just gonna keep doing this until the remakes just get 0% on rotten tomatoes.
And even THEN they won't stop, and they're basically just gonna be known as "Remakes: The company".
Why won't they stop and grow the hell up? It would do them good to admit their screw ups like grown men.
And as long as loyal brand myrmidons keep watching this garbage and buying all the merch -- because it's Disney, and YOU HAVE TO LOVE DISNEY -- they'll keep making 'em.
@@Disneyfan82 they got drunk off the unexpected success of the tim burton 2010 remake of Alice in Wonderland.
Ironically, 2011, 2012 and 2013 remain the only years a liveaction remake or prequel weren't released
They could care less about RT. Those scores don’t matter because audience will still go out and watch it.
As far as I’m concerned the live action adaptations don’t exist. They are just non-canon videos made by fans that exist for us to get mad at.
I have a cat that if you look at 10 different pictures of her you'll see 10 different facial expressions - her face is incredibly expressive. They EASILY could have added some expression to the faces of the lions and still made them look realistic.
Cats actually can absolutely smile and they bring the corners of their cat mouths upper than usual when they are pleased. And their eyes get big and shiny. And their tails are up and shaking and they graciously circle you around.
The company is known for their ANIMATION which is one of the most common forms of art and entertainment in the media animation gives the characters a lot of different expressions and make numerous possibilities reality wether it’s hand drawn CGI or stop motion it’s very creative.
I think the Lion King remake would've been better if none of the characters talked.
Being more like a "National Geographic" kind of thing.
But then again it's Disney.
One thing that I like about Aladdin 2019 is how Will Smith didn't try to replicate Robin Williams version.
He knew that Robin Williams Genie is iconic it is impossible to replicate. So Will Smith decided to make his own version and I'm glad that's what we got
Yeah. I thought Will Smith looks like a Smurf, until his acting makes him more doing his own thing than trying hard to be Robin Williams in terms of respect.
Aladdin 2019 is pretty okay compared to some bad ones, but Will steals the spotlight (And about the Oscar incident? Yeah.)
@@poweroffriendship2.0 I made a meme out of that scene. Except Will Smith is me and Chris Rock is Sonic Lost World. (I have a hatred of that game but it's already a running gag in my channel whenever I play a Sonic game).
My favorite part about the Aladdin remake is how it made me want to rewatch The original
The only two Disney live-action remakes I've seen that I actually like were 101 Dalmatians way back in 1996 (mainly because they used REAL animals for most of the scenes, and limited the use of CGIs and animatronic animals), and Cinderella. The others I've seen -- Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and Dumbo -- I was NOT impressed with. I haven't seen the new Little Mermaid, but if Disney wanted to come up with a black mermaid character, why didn't they just come up with a new character altogether, with a new name and a new storyline, instead of just giving an existing character a different skin tone? Apparently, that was just too much work for the writers and animators. I'll be glad when Disney gets off this trend of re-making perfectly good animated films that do NOT need to be remade, and start making ORIGINAL films again, that are not prequels, sequels, spin-offs or remakes of existing films!
Disney thought they could ignore the rotten rating for 2019 lion king because they made a billion dollars worldwide but you'd think they'd learn something once mulan 2020 bombed.
Even if you took away the lockdowns, what more money could the remake pull in?
A black Little Mermaid would have made sense if they had moved the story from Denmark to Melanesia. That would have the added advantage of being the native range of dugongs, the sea mammals most often mistaken for mermaids.
What about the remake of The jungle book I wouldn't mind seeing the sequel to that
@@janach1305 I think the original Disney version already moved the story to the Caribbean. But honestly I don't care about Ariel's skin tone. It's how they're going to fuck up the emotional beats of the story that really matters.
@@TheHopperUK On the other hand, there is no reason for mermaids and the adjacent land population to be ethnically similar. They are not related to each other. They are entirely different species.
This adds an extra creepiness factor to the story, but the original Hans Christian Andersen tale had plenty of creepiness in it, so why not?
If Walt was as old as Yensid this company would be a much better place. God I hate modern Disney and their remakes. They just can’t live up to the originals.
It really feels like to them, it's all about the money. Especially with Bob Chapek now in charge, all creative vision is getting thrown out the window, and it's truly sad to see.
I think that live-action Disney remakes could be good...if they focus more on the ones that were a bit underdeveloped in the first place. For example...they could do a more complete adaptation of The Wind In The Willows, focusing on the entire book instead of just the Toad parts. Or a version of The Sword In The Stone that's more faithful to the book (whether it's the stand-alone original or the version in the omnibus edition of The Once And Future King). Ideally, Disney would do the appropriate amount of groveling to the Lerner and Loewe estates and get the rights to the rest of TOaFK...they could make a really good trilogy, starting out with the innocents of SitS and getting more adult as we get into Arthur's adulthood and the dilemmas and heartbreak he faces.
At one point, they were planning to make a live-action adaptation of the Night on Bald Mountain sequence of Fantasia, but it seems to have been shelved for the time being. I think it could work quite well...make it a sort of Hammer-lite historical fantasy-horror piece, focusing on the village beneath Bald Mountain and the legends of Chernabog and his yearly revels, and you'll have a costume spooker that's perfect for Halloween.
If I can summarize Disney's Live Action Films to me at least feel so lifeless and soulless.
Most of them yes but Cinderella is probably the only one that's not lacking in terms of heart and soul
@@LebahG4nteng what about the jungle book remake
They really missed an opportunity with Aladdin by not adapting the Broadway show instead, which resurrected characters, songs, and ideas that were part of earlier drafts of the movie. (For example, Aladdin has three roguish friends who have a couple of songs of their own. And "Proud Of Your Boy" is added back in, though in this version it's Aladdin singing to his deceased mother's memory. And the stage show's Genie is modeled more on Cab Calloway, as he was originally supposed to have been.) That would have made it more of its own thing, especially if they'd gone with the "classic MGM musical" feeling they were going for in early drafts, as well as bringing these concepts to the big screen at last.
Even Mulan, which had the right idea of do its own thing to put its own spin on the material, sucked hard. They fundamentally misunderstood the heart of the movie. THEIR OWN MOVIE. Like how is it possible for the same Disney that brought us these timeless classics to fuck it up this bad?
Different C-suite executives calling the shots + younger filmmakers who want to Make Their Mark on the Brand = Pile of barnyard fertiliser.
The thumbnail sums up the whole thing In this video.
I’m not a Rotten Tomatoes person. But yeah, the live action reimaginings haven’t been all that.
The best live action Aladdin and Lion King are the Broadway shows.
As long as they make their profits back and viewership is high, these remakes will keep on coming, to our chagrin.
I think Critical Drinker said it best in a review for one of the Predator movies.
What's original isn't good, and what's good isn't original.
Plus, now they're changing the stories up so that they basically lose what made them great in the first place. Snow White is gonna be a disaster, no doubt.
Also, I saw what they did to Flounder... gah DANG! Just make it a horror movie at this point.
Pinocchio makes Aladdin look like Infinity War when it first released
People got tired of seeing their favorite childhood movies being remade. That’s what went wrong
There's nothing wrong with remaking old movies from the past especially when they are other people that didn't grow up with them
I think by a significant margin the best "remake" (though some say they changed enough from the original that many say it's not nearly as much of a remake as the others) is The Jungle Book. I really enjoyed that one a lot and could rematch it, it has a lot of heart and does it all right. I wish the put as much into the design and feel of the others as they did with The Jungle Book.
They had a chance to do "The Jungle Book" right and not only did they botch it again, Disney's re-write back in the 1960s botched ALL the "Jungle Book" remakes that came out within a couple years of each other. Because Kaa the python is supposed to be a hero who helped rescue Mowgli from the monkey city, not a villain.
Jungle book was really good
I actually liked The Jungle Book quite a bit! I think part of the reason The Lion King did such great numbers, was because it was made by John Favreau as well.
@@Freeman_Reviews very true
There are so many things to love about that movie, and number one is King Christopher Walken monk
I wanted to like it but it was so off for me. It wanted to be darker but still keep the songs and comedy. That just made it uncanny and felt like they didn't know what to do with the tone & atmosphere that kept randomly changing. There is way to much monologue and not much showing. I disliked Baloo in it and Mowgli was just annoying. Many of their actions did not make any sense. That's just my opinion ...
@@julimibz I honestly prefer the new Mowgli and the fire plays a big part into the climax.
That 2016 remake felt earned
They give us a black Ariel, so yay for black representation… I guess…
While ppl argue about her skin color, the Mouse can sit back and relax, knowing we’re too busy to concern ourselves with how the story will be adapted…
Yeah, I think Halle Bailey is a good actor, and will do a good job, plus the representation is always great to see! Unfortunately, that teaser they put out was lack luster, and just seemed so dark and bland, which is nothing like the original animation. I'll always have hope, but right now it doesn't look promising.
But it's such a cheep and lazy representation. I honestly wish they did something original and instead of calling her Ariel they would have made an original movie with a different setting, new characters and songs. Have the main mermaid with a different personality and why not even introduce pirates and treasures. Make a new fun, romantic adventure movie. It can be set in a fantasy land or even in the Caribbean.
Ariel in Disney will always be seen as the blue-eyed red haired. This will be regarded as a cheap knock-off and that is really sad for both the main actress and the hard work of the team behind the effects of this movie.
@@julimibz that’s my point. This is lazy representation, yet ppl flock to it like moths to a flame. Anyone saying otherwise is immediately deemed a racist. Ariel is an identified character, with distinguished personality and traits. Changing her just for representation’s sake, yet not doing a thorough job by changing the rest of the cast black? Yeah, I’m not buying to this bs…
@@watercat1302 Halle Berry apparently got the role by being the best actress. There is a theory about race baiting where PoC are given disproportional representation so that idiots like you will start shit online, at which point well-intentioned people will defend it, ignoring genuine problems with the script, directing, visual effects, ect. Ultimately, and I say this as a white person, white people have not been oppressed and marginalized throughout their history, having their stories and cultures undone. So I don't really give a fuck if "hIstorically white" characters are portrayed by people of other races.
@@Freeman_Reviews I noticed that too. The background was so blue that it was hard to make out the rocks, corals, fish, etc. In that same scene from the animated movie, you can actually see Ariel's collection and the rock shelves they were on.
the Jungle book and Alice In the Wonderland were best
Agreed.
Amazing work my guy ❤ this is such a funny and informative video essay! I cannot wait to see more of ur content, I could not believe how small ur following was when I looked at ur channel 😮
The only live-action remake I actually liked better than the animated original was The Jungle Book.
The remake took the story in some interesting new directions and actually drew some elements from Rudyard Kipling's book.
Thats true.
I agree I like that one
We all know the live action remakes are worse than the original, but i genuinly liked Alladin, it’s easily the best remake out of all the ones that are out at the moment, mainly because it felt like it kept most of the original contonuity unlike what many of the other remakes did
Cinderella was the only good live action remake
It was only one that they did right
I was just genuinely wondering why they didn't remake them all in the CGI Frozen style because then it still keeps the beauty of animation but they can update all of their IPs.
And I've always wondered if they're going to go live action. Why not create live stageplays and revitalize interest in a dying art form of stage theater?
Disney should just stop making live remakes already and go back to 2D animation, before things get worse.
To be fair to the Pinocchio remake, Monstro’s redesign was a callback to the original fairytale in which he was a giant dogfish as opposed to a whale, so I can see what they were going for there. But aside from that, it doesn’t really change anything else.
Looks like something out of a SYFY movie.
@@bighand1530 I didn’t say the special effects were good, just that the design has its roots.
Certainly the design does have some resemblance to the dogfish illustration of the original book...but they added tentacles for unexplainable reason
Huh. I could’ve sworn that dogfish had those tentacle/antenna thingies, but I guess I was thinking of catfish. Go figure.
@@andrewchung2940 monstro the Lovecraft monster!
Aladdin was honestly the most tolerable of the remakes…which is saying something.
I really don’t understand what’s happening with these live action Disney remakes when they stated they where actually pretty promising but now a lot of their most recent ones are…..not promising
Put out more videos please this was funny
disney tried to recreate a photorealistic monkey yet Raider of the Lost Ark achieved that decades prior without computer. if 101 Dalmatians released today, all the dogs will be cgi...
Just for the record, that ballerina girl from the Pinocchio 2022 remake.....
Yeah...she...she didn't exactly add anything either...
I think she was interesting
THE DISNEY METHOD (Now The Standard Hollywood Method for Any Project):
STEP 1: Make a misbegotten, mediocre, cash-grab film remake nobody asked for, that probably won't live up to the animated version which everyone has loved for several decades.
STEP 2: Release the trailer and watch it get panned.
STEP 3: Try to find some way -- if at all possible -- to slander and discredit the critics, and stir up a lot of online hate, divisiveness, and controversy for lots of free publicity and spin some social media cred.
STEP 4: Mobilise the loyal Disney myrmidons and well-meaning others whose hearts are probably in the right place into thinking that by watching the remake over and over, and buying all the merch, it will somehow "show those dirty, evil nay-sayers" and make the world a better place for children and puppies and togetherness and so forth. Somehow.
STEP 5: Release the film, because some brand cultists will watch anything with Disney slapped on the label, and because money.
STEP 6: Sit back and laugh while everyone dances like puppets due to your masterful manipulation and propaganda and watch the money roll in.
Repeat Steps 1 - 6 ad nauseam.
Tried and true.
Disney remakes are releasing every single year. And people criticize them for being nowhere near as good as the original, having ugly CGI, being shot for shot retellings, and having little personality to them. Also not to mention people are just getting tired of the Disney remakes. I just think they don't know how to make movies anymore and that's evident with them buying Fox and the Disney remakes releasing every single year. Not to mention with remakes like Lion King, Mulan, Pinocchio, Dumbo, and Lady & The Tramp, they honestly have no idea as to why people loved the original movies at all.
"Beyonce and her cursive singing" that took me out 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
What is even more disappointing about the live-action remakes is that Disney doesn't give 2D animation much of the limelight to the modern movie screens, except for some movies like _Mary Poppin Returns_ or that _Chip and Dale Movie._ Isn't that animation a pinnacle to Walt Disney's career and legacy?
If I learn anything from Solar Sands from "Reality Isn't Always Right", that's because art is realistic doesn't mean it's better. Even if you choose to be accurate to reality, you don't have to give up your own artistic influence or style.
What are you got to remember in the early 2000s a lot of 2D animated films from Disney didn't do well at the box office even though most of them were pretty good I think if people should have appreciated those movies maybe Disney will have a different tone when it comes to 2D
I think what goes wrong for Disney's live action movies is that they try to make something more faithful to the original work than something more faithful to animation, or the question of doing something totally realistic (like the Lion King case), or simply the case that everyone is talking about the choice of actors (as is the case with The Little Mermaid)
Pinocchio is one of my favorite movies of all time and all my friends knew I watched the remake the day it dropped. This meant I had about a week of the same conversation:
"Did you like the movie?"
"Pinocchio's donkey tail is articulated and wooden like a puppet and that was very cute."
"Ok? But did you like it?"
"....the little wooden donkey tail made cute click clack noises."
The entire movie, literally every scene, I was in denial and kept telling myself it's not that bad and it'll pick up as it goes along. It just has a rough first act.... and second act..... well maybe they can pull it together for the ending aaaaaand nope.
Current Disney leadership, and by extension their creatives, don't understand what made the original movies special. This misunderstanding of their own brand extends to the way they manage their parks as well.
Since I never particularly cared for the original, I didn't mind Pinocchio personally, though there were things that were annoying.
Why did they give Jiminy such human-like feet? It's so weird. Even in the cartoon I think he only had tree toes?
Cleo is definitely off-putting, and a real cat would have helped so much for Figaro. If they'd just done some CGI overlay to help with facial expressions (1995's Babe did this right) that would have been perfect.
I think the art director/s saw the green sea dragon from Sea Beast and said "Yeah, let's change the whale into one of those things real quick!"
Personally I don’t think Aladdin was bad I actually Enjoyed it. Sometimes even more then the original. Do I think it’s better then the original? No. Do I like it more? Yes I do. It’s probably my favorite Disney Live action Film.
But that’s just my opinion feel free to disagree.
Me too
i used to like The lion king remake but now all i see that that movie is crappy, boring, emotionless, trash, and atrocious. i wanna sue the director as the original always brought tears to me when i was younger. i am crazy about the amazing Aladdin remake. but it's dumb to remake the lion king
This is exactly why I stick with the classics. Heck, I'd take direct-to-video sequels over these live-action films.
Also, breaking the Pinocchio story in the way that they did, they somehow made the implications of Pleasure Island just a *little bit Worse*.
How? One *tiny* little change...
In the original, the Coachman is just looking for stupid little *boys*.
Now it's bad enough that this is so that he can take them to Pleasure Island, let them act out, and do all the 'bad' things before they get turned into donkeys so that he can sell them to the coal mines, salt mines, circus, and farmers who will work them to death...
But.
Disney made is so that both bad little boys *and* girls can go to Pleasure Island.
Bad little boys *and* girls are getting turned into donkeys and being sold off.
Now, you can't tell me that the Coachman being the greedy profit driven monster that he is with his brand new *jennies* aka female donkeys... wouldn't be selling them off for *breeding* purposes.
I welcome your "Thanks I hate it." comments for this lovely little rotten cherry on top of an already horrible movie.
I disagree I think the Pinocchio remake got too much hatred I think the only reason people don't like the movie because they rule with the original and they don't want to remake but they ever considered the fact that many people who didn't watch the original Pinocchio and kids in this generation probably I'm going to be more interested in the new remake. Let's not forget the original Pinocchio was never a box office success either
@@animezilla4486 I like turtles.
The biggest example of the definition of insanity!
So we just gonna ignore that closeup on Stromboli’s buns
Can confirm that Mulan is completely soulless. They quite literally removed EVERYTHING that made the OG version great
If I'm going to be honest. There's only two of them that I actually like. Beauty and the beast and the jungle book. I really wish Disney would stop making these stupid remakes. And actually focus on making original movies like encanto. And I bet you in a few years they're going to try and remake rapunzel, Frozen and encanto I pray that I'm wrong. 😡
I liked two as well. But for me, it’s Alice in Wonderland and Jungle Book. I still wish Gigantic wasn’t cancelled.
@@bighand1530 why was it canceled
@@animezilla4486 it was too much of a risk for higher ups.
Theaters should offer full refunds for bad movies.
That moment when you realize there's not a single Italian in the movie set in 19th century Italy
DAMNNNNN, I was gonna make a video on this. Beat me to it. Such a solid video, though. I loved this !
Aladdin - not the best remake but memorable to watch
The Lion King - exactly the same but realistically flawed
Mulan - The (another) Last Airbender movie
The Lady and The Tramp - wait, that was a thing?
Pinocchio - dammit Zemeckis, you made me prefer Guillermo's version!
The Little Mermaid - Aquaman is better
Aquaman is better but Willem Dafoe was Better in the Tobey Maguire Spider-Man movies and in Spider-Man No Way Home he's just kinda bland in Aquaman and honestly forgettable
Okay, ya see, this is why I can't get excited for The Little Mermaid. There is nothing that Disney has done with any of the previous remakes to make me even consider the possibility that it could be anything other than terrible.
Instead of Disney remakes, they should make Disney retellings. Most Disney movies are at least loosely based on earlier stories/myths/ect. Imagine a more accurate version of furry Hamlet or a Pinocchio with its own new story. Say what you will about Maleficent, since at least they were doing something distinct
Idk if this has anything to do with Disney but I'm gunna say it anyway,
In the fifth grade my class read a book called "Sign of the Beaver" and it was a good book. When we finished my teacher told us that we would watch a movie on Sign of the Beaver. We were all exited and when the day came, we were disappointed. You see, in the book the two main characters fought a bear and in the movie, they didn't do that. They kept focusing on the boys family when they didn't in the book. And every interesting part in the book wasn't in the movie. It SUCKED and people in my class weren't afraid to say it, even my teacher agreed
Live action Lion King is the film I find MOST insulting! I agree that live action Pinocchio is TECHNICALLY worse but I never saw the original animated Pinocchio as a kid, at least in its entirety. Please forgive me if you feel uncomfortable hearing Channel Awesome references but the Nostalgia Chick once said that if you are at least 10 years of age, the badness of a straight-to-video Disney sequel is usually inverse with how much you like the original (although personally I consider the Lion King and Lilo & Stitch sequels to be among the few good ones), and I guess that’s why I hate live action Lion King so much. Like Mars Needs Moms, it’s a glorified tech demo. It doesn’t even feel like a Disney film at all (a problem I also have with live action Beauty & The Beast) and overall, why watch the lifeless live action Lion King when the original clearly shows why the original NEEDED to be animated the way it was? I am ESPECIALLY enraged by the prospect of a live action Lilo & Stitch remake! If The Lion King made my childhood, Lilo & Stitch made my teenage years! Remaking the latter in live action will ALSO turn out badly! The original wasn’t even 20 years old yet when the remake was announced and this remake has the director of the Jem and The Holograms movie onboard! (I know about that flick from RebelTaxi and The Black Nerd)
I am all for diversity so I will at least give the live action Little Mermaid points for giving us a black Ariel.
Cinderella is the ONLY live action done right.
It is a stand alone with an amazing storyline, not a shot for shot worse remake.
I feel like these remakes were unnecessary because face it the original films is all we needed
I’m ngl with the lion king I understand why they looked so emotionless. It is so incredibly difficult to add emotions onto an animal that does not normally make those emotions. Like how do you make a lion look sad or concerned?! The chronicles of narnia struggled with it in their first 2 movies but they did a much better job with aslan, the beavers, even the wolves! They even made a badger look sad!
If they're making adult versions of childhood classics, I wish that they took "dark" versions of the original stories inspiring them. For example, when remaking Ariel, the mermaid's feet turn to concrete or something in the original if memory serves. Sisters cut their toes to fit in Cinderella's glass slipper with no luck. Aurora only wakes up because giving birth to twins really bloody hurts. Pocahontas....well. we all know that the reality of Pocahontas was very not great. I would *love* to see this, and I think live action would be a great fit. It would also target the adults who grew up on these fairy tales and learned just how dark the original stories were and many are going to be curious enough to see it....
...but that takes effort and the kids of today won't be seeing a film like this so ig it's not happening
It's so funny to me, where everyone else goes to see these and is the Pikachu meme, I'm the face of Blitzo in the lion's mane.
i think if walt himself were still alive he’d be pissed about all these damn remakes & pull the plug on them. i think he’d want the movies 2 stay just the way they r & the way he wanted them. i just saw the teaser 4 that mufasa shit the other day & im pissed. it looks stupid as hell. it pissed me off when i heard about the first damn remake too. a 3d rerelease was awesome but not a fucking remake. my brother & i r twins & we were born in 94. im always gonna be thankful the 3d version let us see it in theaters. everybody stood up & clapped at the end. that was all it needed. i found a few scene comparisons but besides that i never saw the rest of the damn remake & prolly never will
The live action movies are a one-time cash grab per film, like selling your furniture. When your house runs out of it, you can't get money that way anymore. Disney still has a few more live action cash grabs after "The Little Mermaid" and "Snow not-White." I suspect a live action Frozen and Frozen II are in the works as a couple of quick cash-ins for Disney, possibly a PC Peter Pan, Hunchback, Pocahontas, Hercules, Bambi, and Tarzan, but there's not much else. That sounds like a lot, but that's maybe 2 or 3 years of theatrical movies and Disney+ shows, possibly four at most.
They did live action versions of Lion King, Dumbo, The Jungle Book, Beauty and the Beast, Mulan, Cinderella, a vomit-inducing version of Pinocchio, Lady and the Tramp, Alice in Wonderland (done a while ago), and a long history of 101 Dalmatian remakes. I don't think The Aristocats, The Black Cauldron, The Fox and the Hound, Robin Hood, Oliver and Company, Treasure Planet, Brother Bear, Lilo and Stitch, the Emperor's New Groove, that Atlantis movie, or the early 2000s garbage like Chicken Little, Home on the Range, or Meet the Robinsons have any future in 3D, and neither do ones which only work in 3D such as Zootopia or Wreck-It Ralph, given that it would all have to be CGI anyway. I guess they could do The Princess and the Frog for woke points, but that's almost it. And the Malificient movies basically are Sleeping Beauty, but I can see them doing the story straight-up if Disney drops the woke angle and REALLY needs new ideas for live action movies made from older films. I will say that a Disney+ live action Rescuers duology is certainly feasible. Not sure about the Great Mouse Detective. Point is, not all of these movies made money when they first came out, so they don't all have a fanbase which would tune in again and see them if they were remade.
And I don't think live action Pixar movies would work, except for maybe The Incredibles. Again, most things in those movies would have to be CGI in any event.
90s and 00s: Disney pumps out terrible direct-to-dvd sequels to their films
10s and 20s: Disney pumps out terrible live action versions of those exact same films
Why can't they leave their classics alone?
They can’t leave the classics alone because of how much money they make.
The live action villain spin offs are pretty decent, and Jungle Book was also pretty good, but the literal live action copies on the other hand…
I sick of remake movie of great Disney movie so lazy
Cinderella is by far the best Disney live action till this day and the only one I will never stop rewatching it. It's probably the best Cinderella live action movie that anyone could possibly imagine. I love how they make it like a Jane Austen esc style to it
I disagree I think the jungle book also work along with Pete's Dragon
@@animezilla4486 Both were good but Cinderella was far better
Agreed. Cinderella is the only good one
Aaaand Pinocchio bombs
"A whole new world of its owns"
Peter Griffin: Ah! He said it
It's not that big of a mystery. They're running out of ideas.
There could have been Gigantic. Which I think would have been a big stand out(no pun intended).
I just recently watched the Italian Pinocchio, and it was stupendous. It's probably the definitive version (we've get to see Mister Del Toro's version), at least as far as live action goes. Almost everything in the movie is practical, barring the whale and a few animals. And the first thing I noticed about the little boy who played Pinocchio was how expressive his eyes were. I cared about what happened to him, because he didn't know any better. And it stuck more closely to the original tale, minus a few things.
The Disney one just frustrates me.
I liked the jungle book live action. It was great. As far as the rest, they were garbage. Tlk one was hideous. None of the actors could sing and the music to it...WHAT?? It was one of those "what did I just see?" Responses...It was one of the worst, colorless, life less movies I have EVER seen
It’s kinda weird how the critics were actually right in the case of the first two movies here, while the audience ate that shit up, but everything went 180 for the Mulan remake.
Also is it me or does the new Pinocchio sound like kazoo kid?
Honestly I think Disney gets too much hate nowadays. I mean sure they've made some bad decisions, but people seem to judge them ONLY by their live-action remakes, completely ignoring how they've given us some masterpieces such as Zootopia and Encanto.
Also, to add to Mulan, they took out... basically EVERYTHING from the original. No Mushu, no songs, and no lesson about hard work and determination. Plus, while the UNSPECIFIED VIRUS OF UNKNOWN ORIGIN (or the beer bug, whichever you prefer) DID have an effect on the movie, a lot of people were likely just burnt out by the remakes.
I dread The Little Mermaid and ESPECIALLY Snow White. Mostly the latter, as it seems everything is going wrong. One of the sets burned down, the main actress won't shut up, no dwarves, and the story is changed from the original.
Wait.........there will be no dwarfs in the remake of Snow White? Seriously?
I still think Jamie Foxx would've made a better genie...
I appreciate your sentiments for “The Lion King”, it was one of my inspirations for “The Jungle House”.
At some point, their gonna run out of animated films to turn into live action flops that they're going to remake those back into animation.
You know what's sad though Disney once said we don't make movies to make money we make movies make more movies. Nowadays Disney is like 🤑 And not to mention Jumbo Dumbo's mom in the remake did not die. Like she did in the original. Kids deserve better.
2D animation has way more creative liberties than live action recreations, for example robin william’s genie and the live action genie
Note: This may be a lengthy comment of mine as I have a lot to say.
The 2010s with Disney's obsession with the Live Action remakes has been something I can't help but feel that has been getting worse and worse as time has pass, and in more recently politically corrupted over their stupid political agendas and identity politics (including some of the upcoming ones like Little Mermaid and Snow White, as well as the 2020 Mulan and 2022 Pinocchio). The movies are not looked backed fondly for the right reasons and are easily forgotten after they hit their time on the big screen or streaming service platform as the next "big movie remake" except for the 2016 Jungle Book (don't know what's people's thoughts on it now in the past 6 years)?. Though thinking about it now, I'm not sure what people's thoughts are now a days with the 101 Dalmatians remake way back around 1996 and it's sequel 102 Dalmatians 2000 because they seem a lot more faithful to the original 1961 101 Dalmatian story.
But getting back to the main topic, MY biggest problem with the Disney Live Action remakes is that they forget what made the original animated versions so beloved and remembered masterpieces to a lot of us, and do those things even worse.
To quote a comment I made a few weeks ago; "I would say the laziness is only part of the reason why these remakes are so bad and unnecessary. They forget and overlook key aspects that makes the original animated films beloved and remembered for generations. The remakes goes against that and tries to modernize things in films that are trying to be TIMELESS. They disrespect the audience with their forced down political agenda and message, and will attack ANYONE who goes against the 2010-Current Disney. I'm sure there are some positive things in some of these remakes, but they're not enough to keep them from being mediocre to bad, boring to forgettable, and even mocked and memed on."
You ever noticed how in recent years the Disney remakes mainly put particular time in on certain films? Yep, it's the 1990s Renaissance, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Lion King, Mulan, and the upcoming Little Mermaid? Why those films when they're not even about 50 years old compare to Alice in Wonderland, Jungle Book, and Pinocchio even though they got remade? It's simple to me, their films people remember the most and Disney decided to use nostalgia as a means to make a quick buck to their Live Action Cash Cows like the greedy scumbags they are, and people are starting to realize and get tired of Disney's recent shady practices.
To quote the Lorax's lyrics from the original demo / cut song Biggering; "Greed... ya see it's like a little pet, alright? A-and the more, and more and more that you go and feed it, the more hungry it'll get! But... You know, you really can't blame greed. No that's stupid. You see, it's got a little worm inside. Oh yeah, that's right. It's one that always needs to feed, and it is never satisfied. You get it? But the more you go and try and find it, the more it likes to hide! Now listen, that is a NASTY little worm! I like to call it... Pride. See, now that's why you're biggering! Listen here, idiot! I'm figuring on biggering! But that biggering's just triggering more biggering! Got that? Alright!"
Aside the greed Disney has just to keep itself afloat with all the stuff under it's belt like Star Wars and Marvel, it's now at a point where their pride is destroying the very legacy Walt Disney himself build up upon, they're disrespecting the core audience with their forceful beliefs injected in the movies and on social media, turning the stories into disgusting insults for their ideal remakes, and the creativity is bankrupted by having the wrong kinds of people working in the entertainment industry.
I apologize if this post is lengthy, but I'm just stating my own passion and love I have for the original animated films as Disney clearly has all the wrong notes for when it comes to these remakes they made that I noticed in recent years and figured it was more than pass the point to express my own feelings and call them out for their own ridiculousness and stupidity.