Live-Action Mulan remake.

I think Critical Dissonance is the term you're actually looking for here.

Because the general public doesn't seem to love the declining quality of the remakes.

Edited by BrightLight on Mar 1st 2020 at 5:09:41 AM

Kind of random, but I just stumbled upon these character posters and had to do a couple of Takes:

• Why. Is. Mulan's face reflected on every single one. I know it's a Call-Back to the "reflection" motif but it just makes her look like some wandering spirit about to possess them all.
• The Chinese characters' costumes sort of, kind of, broadly fit into an early-mid Tang-era-inspired aesthetic, but I'd dismissed the "northern invaders" as generic fantasy bad guys until I noticed Bori's costume here and decided to take a closer look.◊ Sure enough, his outfit looks like it's very loosely-inspired by the wide-lapelled jackets◊ worn by Turkic and East Iranic cultures of the era, which is kind of neat... though the real thing would've been in brightly-coloured felt instead of black biker leather. Can't have the bad guys looking too fancy, after all.

Wait is Bori Khan being played by the Red Ranger?

That'd be Jason Lee Scott.

They literally have the same the name.

It’s just the middle & last name are reversed.

x4 That pretty creepy to have a face in every blade. Also why the heck is the Emperor holding a ji/halberd/whatever. Those are old.

Man, it's kinda weird seeing people complain about this film not being the same as the animated version is weird.

To me the fact that this version is doing its own thing with the source material, instead of just copying its predecessor, makes it more worthwhile than the previous remakes. Not that this film should be considered a remake really.

I think it's pretty clear by now that this isn't a remake of Disney's Mulan in live action, but rather a retelling of Mulan in live action by Disney.

Well yeah,that much is obvious,which means at some point they'll probably release a remake of their animated film on Disney + and they'll the hell out of people

Mulan has many different adaptations. Spin the dawn, Mulan: Rise of a Warrior. Heck their is even a new book based on the legend called The Magnolia Sword: A Ballad of Mulan.

It's like king arthur or robin hood. One of the most adaptable and flexible stories.

Seeing a "live-action renaissance of Disney films" is the main selling point of these movies. There's a reason most probably haven't seen any of the other Mulan movies.

Maybe to people following the film online but to the general public? Doubtful.

Edited by Soble on Mar 1st 2020 at 10:15:01 AM

Online people regarding previous Disney remakes: they're just rehashing the same thing again and again originality is dead boooo my life is ruined forever and ever aaaaahhh

Online people regarding Mulan: hey where's the funny dragon, the boyfriend, and the Huns? there's nothing connecting this to the other one boooo my life is ruined forever and ever wahhhhh

In all seriousness, it sucks that this coronavirus situation is making it hard for Chinese folks to catch in theaters. (And it sucks just as much that some trolls are apparently calling it karma for some dumb reason or another...)

From one Transformers fan to another (judging by your pic), that's a bit of a Strawman's Argument.

The reboots/remakes of Transformers actually have some measure of quality to them, because while some elements are carried over from incarnation to incarnation (for example, characters, especially beloved ones at that), the story and journey is different each time.

While the quality of incarnations may vary, the best stories of the franchise have proven that you can mine depth, character development, maturity and intelligence out of a family franchise.

Meanwhile, Disney live-action remakes either copy scenes with little variation (and usually making those copies inferior to the scenes of the originals), or the pendulum swings too far the other way and as a result you get things like the only recognizable characters here being Mulan, her parents and her grandmother. And the Emperor too.

Edited by BrightLight on Mar 2nd 2020 at 7:32:24 AM

My problem with this Mulan being so different from the animated Mulan is that you could call this The Great Wall 2 and nobody would bat an eye.

Hopefully this movie doesn't have anything as stupid as the Crane Corps.

My problem is if the appeal of the remakes is supposed to be "See your favorite Disney classics in live-action!" why take all the shit people recognize from the animated film out? Why even bother at that point?

Its all to do with branding

Soble: I don't speak for the general audience but for me the main reason I haven't watched most of the Disney remakes is that they look basically the same as the animated movies except worse. Talking animal sidekicks work better in animation than in live-action and I didn't think Mushu was exactly the best character in Mulan anyway.

There is a live-action musical Lady General Hua Mu-lan (1964), which was released by the Shaw Brothers and I think at least some songs in the 1998 movie could work in a more serious live-action version even without making it a musical but I don't think including songs is necessary in a new version.

Edited by harkko on Mar 2nd 2020 at 5:09:59 AM

I think The Jungle Book (2016) worked the best for me because it realised that it couldn't translate the original into live-action frame-for-frame and instead went for a tone that better suited its format.

It also helps that the original film is lackluster.

The Junglebook isn't what I'd call,lackluster,it has some great songs in it at least

Edited by Ultimatum on Mar 2nd 2020 at 5:50:29 PM

It's a product of it's time, but heavily dated and kinda dull

It was the last animated film Walt worked on and has no resemblance to the source material at all (reportedly he told his animators not to read it,but at least one person did anyway)

Its far,far from the best animated film Disney has made on that I agree,but given that Aristocats followed after I'd say Junglebook is better)

The original Jungle Book isn't the most ambitious or polished Disney film, but it definitely is one of the most charming. "Bare Necessities" and "I Wanna Be Like You" are considered iconic vintage Disney songs on par with "When You Wish Upon A Star."

Thing is that all the remakes have had to deviate from the original to a certain degree, but since they are all based on existing stories from novels and fairy tales that leads all of them closer or further away from the original. Mulan particularly seems to be based on more the broad idea because that's all the original story really was, rather than something with a clear beginning, middle and end (the core dilemma is solved the instant she joins the army in her father's place, which is a first act sort of thing). At this point we don't know how much closer it will be to the Disney version other than the musical cues, the trailer action scenes may all be late act II and they are saving the fireworks at the capital for the movie itself.

I’m an enormous fan of the Jungle Book and it’s tone/aesthetic (to the point where I’d argue the remake’s vague bridging of the movie with the books ultimately does the animated film’s themes more justice than the actual animated sequel did), but... yeah. It’s definitely a story written for moments, and outside those individual moments, as a plot it’s not particularly good.

The “plot” is really just Mowgli wandering into moments, often with songs, and then leaving to wander into another - with little character strength for Mowgli himself and a kind of weak framing. A lot of classic Disney movies were made with that “written for individual scenes with a Pinball Protagonist” mentality, and ultimately Jungle Book is a better version of Sword In the Stone, but a worse version of Alice In Wonderland or Mary Poppins.

Charming is a good word for it. But I’d have to say the remake was an overall improvement.

Edited by KnownUnknown on Mar 2nd 2020 at 3:05:29 AM