Disney's Live-Action Thread

I think that if these movies were less self-serious than they end up being, a lot of the villains would have been allowed to give more out there performances. That's why I really love Glenn Close's Cruella, and think the live action Dalmatians movie is the peak of all these remakes, even if it does predate the trend.

Oh yeah, Glenn Close Cruella was absolutely iconic. Actually now that I think about it, I can't think of hammy villains in the recent live action movies.

Again, you're making it sound like it's a general adaptation problem when it isn't. It's that the Disney LA of the 10's are just lifting the source material from the rennaissance version specifically with some winks here and there that makes it so superficial. See why 101 Dalmatians was great - it has the beats of the original film but then the characters and dialog are more retrofitted to sound like an actual live action film, and pretty much became Home Alone. And there's those Jungle Book live action movies (I still think the 1994 was the best on just how brutal it was).

Hilariously enough it's why I think Maleficent works. Despite being based on Sleeping Beauty it diverged on its own.

Nah, the closest he got self-aware was at the end about "holding off their marriage".

Edited by Ookamikun on Jan 12th 2024 at 9:06:44 PM

Funny enough, I was gonna mention how both 101 Dalmatians 1996 and Cruella each got praised for taking the opposite approaches to remaking the material. So there you go.

You must not like Tangled: The Series.

Nah that is a series so it can take its time. Did it ruin Gothiel?

Edited by Ookamikun on Jan 12th 2024 at 10:52:55 PM

Depends on what you mean by ruin. MAJOR spoilers here: It gave her a biological daughter who she treated even worse than Rapunzel, who she abandoned. It also made her one of several apprentices of a magic artificer who turned against him to help a vindictive demon seize the power of the sundrop and its pair the moonstone opal. It definitely made her an even worse person.

Despite some contentious choices, if they do a live-action remake of Tangled, I'd love for them to incorporate series elements. And if they're going to add in representation, I'd make Flynn a composite of Eugene and Cassandra and so either actually a woman or gender-fluid.

As I said on the Snow White 2025 thread, I think if it can be to the original what Cinderella 2015 was to the original—and Jungle Book 2016, it'll definitely help. Cinderella 2015 is probably the gold standard to me.

Those remakes definitely had the advantage that their original films, while still good and rightfully considered classics, have definitely aged quite a bit and have issues that could stand to hbe rounded out, which also applies to Snow White. The Renaissance films, on the other hand, are still widely agreed to be excellent and nearly-perfect even watching them today, so their remakes were a) unnecessary, and b) had less room to actually try and improve stuff, and what they tried improving on didn't really need to be touched. Of course, there's still Dumbo, which was still a bad film on its own even when it tried to remake a film that's cute overall but has clear issues like a meandering plot, a short length, and uncomfortable racism.

No, I was pointing out that it isn't actually a problem in the first place.

That's why I'm reiterating that it's nothing new. Because it isn't. Some adaptations endeavor to be brand new takes on material. Some adaptations endeavor to be reiterations of trodden material in a new form for a new audience. Neither is inherently flawed as an approach, because not every person or group who creates an adaptation is going to want to do it exactly the same way as everyone else, nor is every person who watches and enjoys an adaptation going to have the same experience.

What adaptations that are reiterations are is less interesting and palatable to people who have seen that story already (though, again, only sometimes), but most of the time those adaptations aren't specifically made for those people anyway.

Edited by KnownUnknown on Jan 13th 2024 at 12:07:37 PM

But the twenties' approach to live action remakes is really just about trying to pander to the nostalgia. It is why the awful Lion King 2019 movie got so much gross. It is why you get awful lines of dialog to the likes of Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin.

Yes, but a couple things to that:

The first is that why these films are made isn't important to the question of whether the way in which they're made is, itself, intrinsically bad. My point is that making adaptations that don't take liberties or change things ambitiously is not in itself a problem, and that remains regardless of why these films were created. It doesn't change any of that.

The other is that, well, yeah. Every single film Disney's made for the last half a century at least has been made for selfish reasons, and it's kind of odd to point to only these films specifically as ones that are wrong because they come from a selfish place. Back in the 80's and 90's it was overemphasizing negative female character types because that's what traditionalist exes and toy companies thought girls would pay for. In the 70's and 80's, they were trying to ape the audience that really liked Mary Poppins, and that gave us a long list of copycats (leading to Bedknobs and Broomsticks). The specific moneymaking pandering goal is different, but the approach is rarely different.

I don't really have a response for "the movie was gross" because that's an opinion.

Edited by KnownUnknown on Jan 13th 2024 at 1:12:51 AM

This post  reminded of this pitch meeting for Alladin 2019

The Producer Guy goes on to ask why we should remake the movie in the first place when the original already exists and is accessible. And in the best-case scenario, you will end up with a movie as good as the original.

The Writer Guy, offers a very convincing answer to that: Money

The Producer Guy is convinced immediately .

Edited by jawal on Jan 13th 2024 at 10:15:07 AM

They said 'Got so much gross' as in 'made a lot at the box office.'

I agree though we can't pretend that Disney's old movies were purely selfless artistic endeavour and modern ones are soulless cash grabs, they were always about the cash.

Oh not saying they were made with an artistic merit as intent, they themselves admit as such. It's just so blatant in the recent remakes and the whole "wink to the audience" doesn't really give a good feeling to me.

Aladdin 2019 is a fun recreation, Little Mermaid 2023 found a really good balance, seeing Beauty and the Beast 2017 be different enough while being very similar is interesting enough to be a bit more than passable—especially with the effort put into it too, Lion King 2019 despite being really unnecessary at least had small moments of potential and Mulan 2020 is fine despite the drastic changes. That's where I stand on the Renaissance ones. Unless they do the Rescuers movies, after Hunchback and potentially Hercules, the well there has run dry with Pocahontas being too problematic and too many Tarzan versions existing already.

Objectively, Pinocchio 2022–while at least a fascinating train-wreck that's probably the worst—is unique to the original—even though I definitely can't say it's good.

Disney's Annual Meeting of Shareholders just showed footage of the Mufasa prequel film early this afternoon. It was featured during a sizzle reel.

Here’s the first image:

So glad they took that "Why does Africa look so ugly" criticism to heart.

To be fair, that might just be an area meant to look bad (like the elephant graveyard in the original).

I will say, for a 'live-action' (actually CGI but TBF usually very impressive) movie, it doesn't look very real, though it's unfair to judge at this point.

Edited by king15 on Apr 3rd 2024 at 6:26:57 PM

The Sword in the Stone might work as a remake. They only need expanding. Don't spin so much in situ with the transformations and show some of Arthur's actual maturing into a king. You even can set stuff for sequels saying Mim was working for Morgan all the while, or something like that.

The Arthurian myth has so much to work with, and Disney has wasted it for decades by now.

Mufasa at least has the major benefit of being its own story with new animation while Lion King 2019 being almost the exact same thing under a different packaging was the problem right from the start. Again, the other remakes being live action and using human actors gave making those movies purpose. Lion King 1994 due to strictly having only animals meant a remake in basically a different animation style was unnecessary from the start.

Is this thread restricted to just discussing the Live Action Remakes? As pointed out on the Western Animation Disney thread, the title says Live Action and I think the original purpose was probably to discuss all Live Action Disney movies in general here since all animated works as a catch all are discussed over there as is.

Shame that Sky High sequel never got off the ground when that is an incredibly underrated movie. An actual sequel now would probably be much different from what was originally planned back then too.

Holes is great. That's another majorly underrated one too.

I guess it's sort of like how Cruella was a decent "live-action remake" because it's not a remake of 101 Dalmatians, and instead is telling it's own story.

Um... I guess Maleficent was too... except Cruella has a more enjoyable lead actress.

I haven't seen Cruella, but enjoyed Maleficent mostly off the back of Jolie's talents (though from the clips of Cruella I've seen, I do imagine Stone would have the same effect).

I respect those films because they at least took the original and actually took it to new places. Whether you like those places or not, it is at least being more creative with the source material which I personally prefer when remakes (I know Cruella isn't exactly a remake, I guess 2 live-action Dalmatian remakes might be too much) are made.

This Mufasa film is likely just a cash grab, but I suppose I at least respect that they aren't just doing the same thing again. And a film about Mufasa wouldn't have been my first though for making another Lion King film, a straight sequel would have seemed the safer bet (hey, they could have been really creatively bankrupt and just remade the sequel to the original film), so I do think there are interesting places they could take this.

I do hope the lions emote more in this film.

Certainly. It's just that the desire for wealth (which isn't a problem because it is a job after all) needs to be mixed with a genuine desire to make something good.

Edited by king15 on Apr 3rd 2024 at 9:56:45 AM

Artists are ALWAYS concerned about cash if they're successful. Unsuccessful artists might be recognized after their death, but that death is usually early and miserable if they don't make enough money to support themselves.

It's the 'artists' who are SOLELY concerned with making money, with no concern for artistic merit, that are the problem. Consider the Disney Star Wars movies - even the people who like them have to acknowledge that story and message were afterthoughts given secondary concern to making movies to draw in audiences.

I personally would've liked to see Glenn Close back for 103 Dalmatians. I did really enjoy Cruella though.