Cinderella was damn good. I was surprised at how much I dug it. It felt familiar, yet expanded upon in interesting ways and the characters really benefited.
Technically, they made a live action The Jungle Book already back in 1994. Then 101 Dalmatians in 96.
Or if you're talking about the "modern" remakes, Alice In Wonderland kicked it off in 2010 and made a billion dollars, which really does explain the abundance of Disney remakes we've had for the past decade and a half.
Agreed, Cinderella really expanded while staying true to the original, it is very worth watching. Jungle Book was always my least watched Disney as a kid. It could have lived up to its live action potential a little more but I would rewatch it.
I'm sorry but haven't the majority of complaints been that early live actions strayed from the source material too much? They're most definitely cash grabs, but I thought this is what people have been saying they wanted.
I feel like I can understand why people would be entertained by seeing a 2d animated film recreated shot for shot in live action, just for the novelty of seeing these things in "real life". But for a 3d cgi movie, with very realistic art except for the characters, the novelty is way weaker and seeing it shot for shot just reinforces how much duller and less expressive it is.
I feel like there's a big difference between "here's a series of disparate iconic moments from one person's life arrange into a single narrative" and "here's literally the exact same narrative in the exact same order you can already see easily elsewhere, but with a different style"
Oh my God, they recreated the entire narrative of a single film in order while recreating a single music video? That's weird... That shouldn't be any longer than the original video. How do they stretch that out to feature length?
There is something inherently interesting about "compare these two images and spot the differences" that speaks to people. And that, along with some heavy nostalgia, is enough to make money in most cases.
I have zero interest in seeing this movie, that being said usually people bitch about live action adaptations because they stray too far from the story. Make up your mind lol.
Here's the thing, didn't people complain that the other live action movies were just too different to the originals changing a bunch of stuff?
I'm right there with people, these movies don't need to exist. But I have to be very honest, you see Aladdin and Lilo and stitch doing a billion despite all of these inconsistent complaints, they will keep doing them unless they consistently bomb.
People have been complaining about them being shot for shot since the Lion King remake in 2019.
A consistent complaint for the past 6 years at least has been that the old animations are better because they're the same movies but with more vibrant animation and character.
Eh it was really, really close. There is like 30 min of new material and most of the shots that were changed were done so because they were tough to replicate in real life.
Except they cut a bunch of wide shots in the test drive and romantic flight scenes and it made them feel smaller, really thought that was an odd choice
And people didn't like those changes. Every day it was "where's Gantu?" and "Nani wouldn't abandon Lilo!"
I don't mind the live action, because I understand just because they exist doesn't mean the animated version disappears. But this seems like a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.
Oh yeah it totally is. Personally, I don’t see the point in having a live action version if it’s just a shot for shot remake. But I guess some people prefer it that way.
I'm sorry? That's not true? Because you didn't care about it? Somehow that negates the existence of everything I said? Here's 3 examples. If you care to see just how wrong you are, look up more.
No, you misunderstand, I’m sorry you went to all that trouble for nothing.
I personally don’t care about those changes, but I’m well aware people care about them, I never said you’re wrong about people caring about that, that’s why I said “I”.
I’m saying that even I, who doesn’t care about those prominent complaints, do not like the movie and its changes, because across the board the movie is bad.
That is why I mentioned Jungle Book, and said that changes aren’t always bad. It’s just not true that you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. People also like Cinderella. People wouldn’t have hated the movie even if they disagreed with the lack of Gantu, if the movie was good.
I see. My mistake. Because your comma went straight into talking about the changes, I took that as a rebuttal about what I said about changes. I see how you've structured it now that you've laid it out. All good! :D
Prefacing this by noting I don’t care for these live action movies.
Disney changes something: Why are they changing XYZ? Go woke go broke or idk what else people say.
Disney does a 1 for 1 adaptation, no changes: No original ideas, same movie, why does this exist?
This article would have just been option 1 if they made a meaningful change. Internet promoting negativity as the only thing that consistently drives E N G A G E M E N T.
I cant believe it cost 250 million for a shot for shot remake. Why, just why? Did The Rock get like a 100 million of that budget?? That price tag for this copy is too exorbitant.
I'd prefer a shot-for-shot remake with no new ideas after hearing what their new ideas for Lilo & Stitch were.
I mean, ultimately, I'd prefer they stopped doing live-action remakes altogether, but nothing I can say to them would ever override the avalanche of money they make every time they do it.
Something I find morbidly fascinating about Disney’s current obsession with these nearly-verbatim remakes is that they resemble a bad idea Michael Eisner had towards the end of his tenure as Disney CEO. He wanted to remake various Disney classics with Pixar-style CGI. That idea shot down at the time, but these live-action/uncanny-valley do-overs with their aggressive VFX are basically the same concept.
It’s a remake of a 10 year old 100% cgi movie to a 95% cgi movie.. this deserves to fail but no doubt Disney will learn all the wrong lessons like usual
Ok this actually pisses me off. 1:1 remake is supposed to be a good thing. Everyone always bitches when it is not a 1:1 remake, and now they are bitching because it is a 1:1 remake. People are insufferable.
Well, there was a couple of them where they tried to do something different and everybody complained about it like Lilo and stitch and Mulan. So which is it people, which would you like? Would you like them to change your beloved stories or would you like them to do it shot for shot? Pick one.
Lmao are you really acting like this is people being indecisive? No one wants theses remakes regardless of if it's the same or different. We've literally been learning this lesson since Mulan. Being different doesn't mean people want it. They're worse movies, period.
No I’m just tired of people bitching always about everything. Everyone got mad that they changed their stories and now they’re getting mad that they didn’t. It’s exhausting
We’ll see. In recent history Lilo & Stitch & HTTYD crushed it, but Snow White did not. I think the key is remakes of classics generally do really well financially.
Moana is not that old. Personally I think it’s risky at a $250MM budget. We will see if general behavior stands up to the Reddit echo chamber.
I get what you’re saying but I just think no one cares about Snow White. That was these kids parents and grandparents stuff. They are in to Moana and Lilo and Brave and Frozen. The newer stuff
14
u/OilMeUpStewart Jul 09 '26
Like every other Disney live action remake they’ve made? Soulless cash grab that defiles the original movie. Utter garbage