Becuase the amount of Live Action remake threads are getting cluttery, I made this thread so people could discuss all of them in one neat place. For ease of catching up, I'll post all the Live action Disney movies we have and the movies that will be coming soon.
In Production:
- Beauty and the Beast
thread
- Winnie the Pooh thread
- Dumbo thread
- Mulan thread
- Pinocchio thread
- Night on Bald Mountain from "Fantasia"
- Maleficent sequel
- Prince Charming thread
- Aladdin prequel: Genies
- Sword in the Stone thread
Released:
edited 15th Jul '17 2:12:16 PM by VeryMelon
Professional Moldy Fig/Curmudgeon
Yes, Universal is working on their own take on the story. I had heard it was supposed to be more accurate to Andersen's tale - but also that it was supposed to be a "progressive, revisionist" take on the story, which sets off my buzzword alarm...
In any case, we all know which one people will go to see. The Disney one will have "Part of Your World." The Universal one won't.
"They say I'm old fashioned, and live in the past, but sometimes I think progress progresses too fast."
Mweheheh
Is that story in the public domain?
Peace is the only battle worth waging.
I believe so. We're also getting another Jungle Book adaptation (from WB) in 2018 (directed by Andy Serkis) which is supposed to be "darker" and more similar to the original book I think.
Professional Moldy Fig/Curmudgeon
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Hans Christian Andersen has been dead nearly a century and a half now, so of course it is...
I don't know how I feel about this... on the one hand, it's great that they're doing it; on the other, do they really think they'll make money with this? Disney already beat them to the punch, and they'll never outgross that.
(Also - "darker" is kind of a sign here. Hopefully they mean "darker" as in "it's darker than the Disney film" and not "darker" as in "forced, boring pseudo-darkness" like every other "dark" thing from Hollywood these days...)
edited 28th May '16 8:21:28 AM by Aldo930
"They say I'm old fashioned, and live in the past, but sometimes I think progress progresses too fast."
Don't Try It
Leaning on the "Darker than the Disney version" as I heard it's going to follow the book more closely.
That's what I heard as well.
Mweheheh
Isn't the sequel to Favreau's Jungle Book also scheduled for 2018?
Peace is the only battle worth waging.
IF it is, then the Disney version will be the bigger box office success, especially since the current one is such a juggernaut - over 865 million dollars in takings since April 15:
If Warner Bros keeps going "dark", it'll turn out to be box office poison for them eventually. I mean, just look at what happened to BVS.
Professional Moldy Fig/Curmudgeon
Hopefully this won't be the same kind of "dark."
"They say I'm old fashioned, and live in the past, but sometimes I think progress progresses too fast."
belongs to the hurricane
I don't think the movie being dark was the main issue with that film, or with Mo S.
Well, Alice Through the Looking Glass fell wwwwwaaaaaayyyyy short of its predecessor at the box office. Is it time for the Mouse House to rethink their live-action stigma?
Honestly, the first Alice movie wasn't that great either, but that movie at least had Tim Burton going for it. This one.....doesn't.
Mweheheh
And the Avatar 3D craze.
I wonder how the Johnny Depp abuse scandal will affect Dead Men Tell No Tales next year.
edited 29th May '16 10:45:39 AM by Spinosegnosaurus77
Peace is the only battle worth waging.
Professional Moldy Fig/Curmudgeon
There is only so far you can underestimate the American public.
edited 29th May '16 10:47:13 AM by Aldo930
"They say I'm old fashioned, and live in the past, but sometimes I think progress progresses too fast."
Adam Sandler remains profitable.
Also have you guys read the Jungle Book? It's dark as shit.
Mweheheh
Wasn't it also pretty racist?
Actually, no he doesn't. What is interesting, though, is that for awhile he was the most profitable star around, when you compare the budget of his films to how much money they made. It's when he started appearing in bigger budgeted films that he stopped being profitable. He's been massively successful when in low budgeted films, though.
x7 I agree that the dark tone wasn't all that was wrong with both Mo S and Do J, but that's the primary thing that most of the folks who view those films negatively keep talking about. Probably because it's the easiest thing to point to. The general feeling among the movie going public, at least among the most vocal of the movie going public, is that they're getting sick of grimdark, though it's probably be more accurate to say that grimdark's novelty, when applied to things like super-hero films and "family" entertainment, is wearing off.
edited 29th May '16 11:24:53 AM by Robbery
Wasn't it also pretty racist?
Kinda but I'm Indian so I get a pass on liking it.
Visiting from the Hoag Galaxy
From what I've heard, the Jungle Book kind of gets a pass because, while it's sort of colonialist, it was written by a guy who genuinely meant well. Yeah, that's not perfect, obviously, but Kipling loved India. He was just pretty condescending about it.
Also, the Jungle Book remake is now the highest grossing Hollywood movie in India. Ever. Which is actually a curiously low bar, comparatively, but I guess India's enormous domestic movie industry has a lot to do with that.
Not Three Laws compliant.
I've heard (correct me if I'm wrong) that Mowgli himself is pretty well regarded in India.
Yeah we like him. There was a dubbed anime that aired here a long time ago. Before we abandoned socialism that was one of the like 5 cartoons you could watch.
It's pretty astonishing that this is all somehow working when the major appeal of the originals was that they were animated, or essentially "moving artwork". Now that's gone, but lo and behold...
I believe that another studio (Universal I think) is also working on a Little Mermaid adaptation (starring Chloe Grace Moretz). So perhaps that' why?