now they’re making a live action moana in 2025. it hasn’t even been 10 years, disney is lowballing so hard with these lifeless remakes. hopefully ariel flops bad enough that they change their minds.

  • Margot Robbie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Live action remakes are fine if they bring something new to the table that brings a new perspective to the original.

    Like the upcoming “Barbie” movie, for example.

  • politemenace@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The new Little Mermaid was fantastic. Hard disagree, as long as they keep the quality. I didn’t care for most of the other live actions.

  • wwaxwork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The Little Mermaid was good, they put more effort into the casting this time I think which helped, nothing against the other actors, but Halley can sing like an angel and Melissa McCarthy did Divine proud. I think a lot of it has to do with copyright more than anything else. While they don’t reset the copyright, they give Disney vast new swaths of copyrightable material on the same subject with the same name. But lord they totally do NOT need a new version of Moana yet.

  • wheresyourshoe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I do agree. But least Moana is mostly humans and can mostly actually be live action, and not CGI. I’ve seen a couple of the remakes, but they impressed me so little I haven’t watched the others. But, if Dwayne plays Maui, I’m in.

  • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’ve always wanted the opposite to happen. I want to see live action movies made as cartoons. Mostly with sci-fi/fantasy stuff where the impossible is made possible, and animation would make visualizing some of the fantastic things a lot better and ultimately easier. I mean if 90% of the movie is already animated with CGI, why not just also animate the last 10%, too? 🤷🏻‍♂️

  • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Moana might be pushed by Dwayne Johnson since he’s still playing Maui and has a pretty huge ego and influence

  • MrFlamey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Fewer remakes period would be nice. Fewer CG blockbusters with ridiculous casts of overpaid actors and more fun stylised CG/animated movies would also be nice and probably tempt me to go to the cinema more often, but I know I’m not the target demographic. Although it’s a Sony movie, Spiderverse is a great example of this being done well, although they are also making more regular Spiderman. I’ve not seen a regular Spiderman movie since the old ones from the early 2000s, back when there weren’t 10 superhero movies a week.

    Splitting movies into parts is another emerging trend I’m not a fan of. If you are going to do it, make each movie feel satisfying in itself instead of finishing out of nowhere with an unsatisfying non-ending or cliffhanger. I’m kind of shocked so many people are OK with these bullshit endings.

  • boborygmy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    If they do make them, they should at least make them incredibly good. The new Peter Pan and Wendy movie SUUUUCKS. Not because there are black actors in it, at all. It sucks because it’s very bland and just boring.

    Also that movie didn’t need to get made, because the 2003 Peter Pan (NOT by Disney, which is probably why nobody knows about it) was AWESOME. Seriously, see that one.

  • malloc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    As long as Disney fanatics continue to buy anything $DIS, then they will continue to pump out these cash cows.

    • Thwompthwomp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve tried to avoid the new ones, but with kids I inevitably end up at one. They are all so bland and boring. They don’t even try to be there on thing. I guess if you’re hungry potato chips work, and there’s an entire aisle at the grocery store to choose from, but if you want something decent, you gotta look somewhere else.

  • thisisdee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nah. The Little Mermaid live action was pretty good. There are many kids I know that prefer the remakes than the original cartoons. I’m okay with letting them have their own movies that us old folks maybe don’t like as much

    • BrokebackHampton@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      What if we tried coming up with new stories instead of giving our kids the same reheated leftovers from yesterday?

      “Capitalism breeds innovation”. The “innovation”: Entertainment executives too afraid to try out new ideas for the absolute dread of commercial failure, so they’d rather give us Despicable Me 8 and Toy Story 6 instead

      • dragontamer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        What if we tried coming up with new stories instead of giving our kids the same reheated leftovers from yesterday?

        All of theater is basically a nostalgia game. Shows and Operas have been playing for hundreds of years, and that’s fine. Even something like “Lion King” is a not-so-subtle replay of the incredibly traditional Shakespearean play “Hamlet”.

        And plays like Peter Pan were going on for decades before Disney’s cartoon edition.

        Sometimes, its nice to just lean into the nostalgia. A changed song or two with a new set of actors is … fine? Its how its been done for decades, or even centuries of theater.

        • BrokebackHampton@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m well aware most of the themes and plots in literature are an exercise in “Can I copy your homework?” “Sure, just change it up a bit so it doesn’t look obvious”.

          But there’s “original”, and then there’s “are you even trying?”. We all know the current live action remakes were done for copyright extension reasons and little to no effort was put into refreshing up the stories, giving them a nice twist, nada.

          If Sophocles was able to do retellings of ancient myths, which his audience already knew in full, and still could keep people interested in the play and even introduce enough innovations to earn the praise of his peers, then so can we even if we start from a material that’s not truly original.

          Actually, Lion King is a testament Disney knows how to do this. When it came out, nobody was saying “This movie is trash. It’s just Hamlet with talking animals”, even though when you’re told you can clearly see it takes lots of themes and character archetypes from said play. But it also changed things up a bit to warrant being it’s own thing, and praised accordingly.

          Treasure Planet was one of the best animated Disney movies of the early 21st century (and arguably, of all time) and the story could hardly be called original. It’s what the movie built on top of that, including the experimental seamless union of animation styles, that made it great. But it was a comercial flop (more of a self-fulfilled prophecy with its release date), so the mouse said nevermore.

          Its how its been done for decades, or even centuries of theater.

          Trying to compare mediums like animation movies to theatrical plays is bound to make for some strange comparisons. With movies if I want to take a stroll down memory lane I can just replay the old ones, even show them to my kids for them to see what I liked when I was their age.
          On the other hand, it’s in the very nature of theatre to redo the same plays over and over by one same company, sometimes in an itinerant fashion sometimes not. Because it’s a live spectacle, that’s the only way for new audiences to actually watch the play.

          • dragontamer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Trying to compare mediums like animation movies to theatrical plays is bound to make for some strange comparisons. With movies if I want to take a stroll down memory lane I can just replay the old ones, even show them to my kids for them to see what I liked when I was their age. On the other hand, it’s in the very nature of theatre to redo the same plays over and over by one same company, sometimes in an itinerant fashion sometimes not. Because it’s a live spectacle, that’s the only way for new audiences to actually watch the play.

            Except you know as much as I do that “The Great Gatsby” and “A Star Is Born” is remade every 20 to 30ish years. That’s well within movie/cinema tradition.


            When I look at the good remakes, like Aladdin, I can easily point out that all the songs have changed significantly. Will Smith is more of a rapper than a singer. As such, the Genie songs were closer to rap. And that’s an interesting change.

            The stunts in the live-action version of Aladdin are real. The actor they chose was an expert parkour guy with incredible moves: able to leap, roll, climb, and descend on-par with Jackie Chan. These stunts hit in a way that a cartoon-movie could never do.

            Finally: each Live-action remake is ~2 hours of runtime rather than ~1h 30m. There’s at least 30-additional minutes of script in all of them. Its not always used effectively, but I think its safe to say that Cinderella, Aladdin, and The Little Mermaid all did a good job with the additional 30-minutes. (Other movies: Dumbo or Mulan, did not do a good job).

          • dragontamer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Actually, Lion King is a testament Disney knows how to do this. When it came out, nobody was saying “This movie is trash. It’s just Hamlet with talking animals”, even though when you’re told you can clearly see it takes lots of themes and character archetypes from said play. But it also changed things up a bit to warrant being it’s own thing, and praised accordingly.

            One more thing (I’m making a new post because I forgot about this point a few days ago…)

            All the parts that weren’t stolen from Hamlet were stolen from the 1966 Japanese-anime “Kimba the White Lion”. Which were basically the animal parts. Simba himself is damn near identical to a golden-fur’d Kimba.

            The actually unique story, which Disney had to pour tons-and-tons of money into to actually get done, was Pocahontas. But as we all know, Lion King made more money, so Disney learned its lesson.

            Uniqueness / new stories don’t sell as well as you think they do. Unfortunately. Its a lot easier to take designs from 30+ years ago (ie: a 1990s cartoon stealing a successful style from a 1960s anime) than to invent a new style.


            The difference was that in 1990s, we didn’t have Wikipedia, so it was harder to notice what was, or wasn’t “stolen” or “borrowed” from other cultures.

  • FanciestPants@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I hope they quit this fad and get back to the direct to video sequels. The Little Mermaid 2: Return to the Sea was the bomb!

  • Landrin201@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s infuriating how many of the biggest media releases these days are either re-release, remakes, or very stale additions to long standing franchises.

    I hate how much Hollywood is relying on pre-existing stuff, it’s incredibly lazy.

    • dustyData@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They keep starving or burning out the actually creative writers, so no one wants to make new stuff for them.

      • MercuryUprising@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not just that. There used to be a time when producers took risks. They were the ultimate arbiter if something got made or not, and they would sometimes gamble it all on a total roll of the dice, but because of it we got multiple generation defining films (like the Godfather or Star Wars to name a few).

        Now companies like movie studios are massive and the power is no longer consolidated like that, and a board is much less keen on taking a gamble, so they take safer risks. How do they know what’s safe? Well there are all these statistics that they’ve paid for, and those statistics have told them:

        Previously existing IPs have a guaranteed audience.

        So they just keep rehashing the same thing because its a “guarantee.” While I may not like the new DIsney movies, and think that Lion King (2019) is a fucking abomination, it is a) the highest grossing animated film of all time, b) the 7th highest grossing FILM of all time, and c) has a bigger box office than the original lion king by almost double.

      • dustyData@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The story might not have been original, but it was the first feature length animated film. It was revolutionary and original at the time. It was a feat of innovation when a lot of people said that animation was a cute trick but wasn’t good enough to hold an audience attention for longer than 10 minutes. The “animation is cinema” debate has been going on for as long as cinema has been a thing.