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
In the case of Back to the Future and Harry Potter, that's the instance of an actor who plays the current day version of the character having to play the future version of the character. And they do it because they want the audience to recognize who those characters are. Neither would be the case for Vincent playing Doofenschmirtz.
The Mary Poppins example is purely due to the fact that they needed someone who could dance.
Most of the time, old people are played by old people. I think that goes without saying.
Also, again, the joke would only apply to people who understood what Vincent looked like and who he originally voiced and...that's pretty much the entire joke. What, exactly, would be funny about it?
The Mary Poppins example is purely due to the fact that they needed someone who could dance.
I mean, none of that really matters in regards to what we're talking about (and the second one is almost certainly completely incorrect).
The point was that, if the filmmakers want to - for the sake of a joke, for the sake continuity, for the sake of anything that tickles their fancy - they can make a young person play an older person, and it's something that Hollywood does, in fact, do.
Welcome to in-jokes and Actor Allusions: that's pretty much how they always work.
The key is that regardless of whether they get the joke, most of the audience also goes "the guy playing that character is really funny." That way, it doesn't impact the experience of people who don't have context.
And if you don't think the idea is funny, okay. Just say so. But I'm not getting into it with you based on the fact that I found the idea of a joke funny and you didn't.
Edited by KnownUnknown on Feb 23rd 2019 at 8:02:00 AM
"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
Vincent playing Phineas's dad would be an in-joke. Vincent playing Doofenschmirtz would just be...an actor playing another role.
It's not just the fact that I don't find it funny, it's the fact that 1) Vincent wouldn't be old enough to play Doofenschmirtz (and yes, you could have him wear age makeup, but that's just more money you're adding to the budget in order to use an actor that's mainly a voice actor) and 2) Doofenschmirtz is a major character, so why wouldn't you get a major actor to play him? I mean, they cast Christy Carlson Romano in the Kim Possible movie, but it was in a minor role (as "pop star Poppy Blu"). She wasn't suddenly playing Shego. That would be weird and take people out of the movie.
By the way, that's also not what Actor Allusion means. If Vincent shows up as a different character and someone asks him "Are you a little young to [X]" and he replies, "Yes, yes I am," that's an Actor Allusion, because he is alluding to his role as Phineas. If he just shows up as another character...that's just him showing up as another character.
I don't want to argue here, but I just think that casting Vincent Martella as Doofenschmirtz is a bad idea. Especially when you can cast Dan Povenmire instead.
I just told you I'm not going into it with you simply so you can prove or disprove what works as a joke, so drop it.
Edited by KnownUnknown on Feb 24th 2019 at 7:09:26 AM
"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
I think it would have been better to just have Will Smith in the costume he was wearing in that behind the scenes article and not bother with the blue CGI. It isn't like people would have been confused who he was playing.
Or at the very least would give the film its own identity instead of just... repeating the designs and concepts of the story that another film already did.
I assume he will be wearing that costume, and the blue form is for his initial appearance from the lamp and big power moments.
Basically, Genie Jafar.
"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
Part of the problem I think, is that the visual style of Aladdin just doesn't really translate that well to live action. It's a lot more exaggerated and cartoony than Disney's usual house style (especially, but not limited to the Genie), and wouldn't work in a more naturalistic medium such as live action film.
If you look at a film like "Atlantis: The Lost Empire", which I'd argue isn't a bad movie at all, the tone and wold that film creates doesn't require much animation to pull off. One could easily do a live action remake of it because, while the animation is certainly good, it doesn't exactly take advantage of the medium.
Whereas, if you look at Aladdin, or, you know what, just this scene in particular. Like, really look at it, because this animation is incredible. The goal of the scene is to show off the limitless powers of the genie, and to do that, they dish out some insanely imaginative and speedy moments. More than that, look how it transitions from moment to moment. He makes a table for Aladdin to sit on, turns into a waiter, turns into a chicken, turns himself and his ear giant, than multiplies into 4 people who then take the table cloth and turn it into a barber chair before changing the entire background into a gold palace. All of that happens in about 30 seconds, and is perfectly timed to the music. This sounds insane when you write it all out, but because of how animation lets you transition and control every frame, none of it feels jarring.
And keep in mind, these are top animators making the most use of the medium doing things you simply can't do in live action.
Now, is this to say you couldn't do a scene like this without animation? No, but you would need a different approach. Instead of just trying to replicate this with CGI (which they almost certainly will), think about what's impressive in the real world. Look at how Broadway shows can pull off dazzling feats and transitions; or look at how Jackie Chan movies feel like cartoons because of the creative and awesome stunts. You can pull off a similar amazing feats in live action.
And truthfully, you can in CGI as well, but the core problem with CGI is how it's used. In live action movies, it's used to simulate real events that would be too difficult or impossible to pull off practically. But because they don't want the fakeness to stand out in a sea of real, they have to emulate the restrictions of the real and the ordinary. This means it has to behave slower, and look more realistic (i.e. boring)
And really, that's the problem with all of these Disney remakes in a nutshell, by trying to take their animated works and make them fit inside the more realistic live action mold, they're taking away the creative strengths of what made those work without adding the strengths of our realistic world.
To keep it within the context of Aladdin, a good example of playing to the strengths of a new medium is how they reworked the same scene for the musical version.
Edited by megaeliz on Mar 7th 2019 at 10:46:21 AM
I've always felt a weakness Hollywood always falls into in adapting cartoons to live action (at least, when they're not doing the opposite of this) is in trying to adapt "cartoony" visuals verbatim rather than using live action tricks and cinematography to accomplish something that the same effect. Adapting the humor/concept to the medium, rather than simply adapting the humor/concept.
A good example in how to make it work is in, say, Deadpool. Instead of literally giving Deadpool yellow textboxes to expresses his forth wall breakiness (like the video game), the movie accomplishes the same effect by replacing it with fluidly speaking to the camera.
Edited by KnownUnknown on Feb 25th 2019 at 10:14:27 AM
"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Maybe that's why the stage adaptations of many animated films tend to work better than the live action ones. The limitations of writing the stage often forces the writers to creatively retool the plot, effects, musical numbers, etc, so they can be performed live on a stage every night.
Live action is just similar enough to animation to be a lot less forgiving with those type of changes, since the medium needs to be a lot more naturalistic and detailed to be believable.
Edited by megaeliz on Mar 4th 2019 at 8:58:00 AM
Disasturbator
They should have based their movie off ""Aladdin's Wonderful Lamp" instead of their own version,gives them more room I think
like the setting can still be Arabia but the city is "Baghdad" instead of Agrabah
Edited by Ultimatum on Feb 26th 2019 at 1:58:53 PM
New theme music also a box
There, that should be all the explanation you need.
Little Mermaid made $200 million. Hercules made $250 million. The Jungle Book made nearly $400 million. Aladdin made half a billion. Great Mouse detective made less than $50 million. Why on earth would an Eisner era Disney bother doing anything with it?
The Unknown
Eisner greenlit a show about Gummi Bears. And milked literally everything with the cheapquels.
It wouldn't have been beneath him.
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?
I'm watching you!
I think it was more a case that the film is slightly darker than most Disney films (show me another Disney animated film where the villain needlessly murders his or her own lackey), and if there had been a sequel, or series, it might have been made Lighter and Softer.
With all the memes about women choosing a bear over a man, Hollywood might wanna get on an 'East of the Sun and West of the Moon' adaptation
who said anything about "beneath him"? It wasnt literally everything, just everything that was remotely successful - notice how there was never a direct to DVD sequel to The Black Cauldron. Hell, they were planning to make as many tv series and direct to video sequels as they could for Treasure Planet before they saw how bad it did at the box office and Eisner pulled the plug.
He didn't refuse to flog sequels out of Great Mouse Detective due to any form of virtue, it was cause it literally was not worth it.
Edited by qwigly on Mar 2nd 2019 at 8:30:49 AM
Lilo & Stitch is getting a live make now.
Edited by megaeliz on Mar 4th 2019 at 9:02:40 AM
That one was actually announced a while ago.
Well, I guess I'll link this storybook Chris Sanders made about overrelying on old ideas.
That analogy would only work if Disneys new ideas for live action movies not under the Star Wars or Marvel umbrellas were any better than the remakes. And if you think they are, fine, I'm not gonns tell you whst to like, but I'm betting most people making this argument couldnt tell me how much they liked giant flying leaf insect Reese Witherspoon, Hook with creepy puppets, whatever the hell Nutcracker and the Four Realms was about, or the upcoming movie sbout a "Fun-loving" Artemis Fowl.
See, this is what everyone keeps missing. Disneys problem is not that they're remaking old animated movies in live action, its that since they diverted all talent to Marvel and Star Wars, they just straight up suck at live action. But no-one ever recognizes that part and insists the problem is that they're remakes, in spite of the remakes being the only live action Disney movies that can be good these days - of the live action disney movies releaded in the last 5 years, the top 3 critical performers were all remakes.
Edited by qwigly on Mar 4th 2019 at 6:47:08 AM
I'm watching you!
Sheesh. The movie's not even 20 years old.
On the flip side, this could mean work for actors of Hawaiian descent (I can't remember if the animated film did).
With all the memes about women choosing a bear over a man, Hollywood might wanna get on an 'East of the Sun and West of the Moon' adaptation
Cringe but free
That movie was pretty radical when you think about it. Raw depiction of trauma, the central conflict being wrapped around the entirely-too real horror of family separation, and a hint of anti-Indigenous racism just below the surface (made explicit in a deleted scene). Even the opening song is about the Kingdom of Hawaii losing its independence to the US.
Echoing hymn of my fellow passerine | Art blog (under construction)
And the cause of said impending threat of family separation? an older sibling struggling to take on a guardianship role to her younger sister, after both parents were killed in a car crash.
I don’t think there was anyone of true Native Hawaiian Decent but both the voice actors for Lilo’s sister Nani, and her friend David grew up in Hawai’i, and helped to rewrite dialogue to make it more authentic.
Edited by megaeliz on Apr 1st 2019 at 3:36:51 PM
There was also the not so subtle dig at tourists who come to islands like this and photograph the people living there as if they are part of some sort of exhibit.
It was more explicit in the deleted scenes.
here you go:
I can see why it was cut, but I wonder if it will make it into the remake?
Me and a friend were talking once about how today older actors don't really need to worry about onky playing older roles, with today's technology, they can ge made up to look like they're in their 30s.
With all the memes about women choosing a bear over a man, Hollywood might wanna get on an 'East of the Sun and West of the Moon' adaptation