Live Action Disney

[SkyKnight03]

Seeking thoughts. Has anybody seen live action Disney adaptations? What did you think?

I'm a little disappointed live action became the market. Animation has come so far and fluid. I'd have liked to have seen what Pixar could turn the first Toy Story into. Or maybe get a modern Great Mouse Detective.

If you look at video games, remasters with modern art are a huge interest.

Within my interest of it, I'm considering watching the Mulan adaptation. It's one of my favorite animated movies of all time.

And I guess I found it kinda amusing that Javier Bardem was in the live action Little Mermaid. He was the serial killer in No Country For Old Men.

 

[Dunquixote]

Nope. I’m not planning on it until they stop supporting a genocide.

 

[Yoshi155]

I normally like live action movies more than animated ones, but the Disney live action remakes are terrible for two main reasons.

First, it takes away the soul of the originals by making them look more realistic and not cartoony and colorful. One of the main highlights of animation is being able to do stuff you can’t do in real life. Which is what makes those movies unique. But by making it live action, you’re essentially restricting what was unrestricted, and also, in general a lot of the characters look uglier. And there’s also way more narmy moments because of how restricted movement is now.

The second reason they’re bad is because they’re another way of Disney to milk old IPs to death instead of just… coming up with new ones. At this point, it’s not sarcastic to call that breaking new ground. Just like most Disney sequels, the only reason they exist is nostalgia. I’m not one of those people that hates everything new and thinks everything that’s older is perfect, but these remakes still deserve the hate they get because there’s no real redeeming qualities to them.

Wow it’s been so long since I’ve made one of these essay posts.

 

[Mr.Fox]

Beauty and the Beast kicked things off pretty well, Cinderella was passable, but then everything went downhill. I’m fine when they change little things, but not when they alter storylines. The giant Iago scene in Aladdin, for example, was ridiculous. One of the best things about the original Aladdin was the big fight scene at the end, when everyone is present. The live-action just bypassed the whole thing.

…and the whole doing movies from the villain’s perspective thing is just trash. Showing why the villains aren’t actually bad, cmon. Cruella is fine killing puppies to make clothes. Maleficent’s original curse was that the princess would die on her 16th birthday, just because she wasn’t invited to a party. Trying to pull a 180 on these established characters is just a lame attempt at a cash grab.

 

[Reginald Fairfield]

I've only seen the Jungle Book. Apparently that was a good one, according to some people. I thought it was just unnecessary.

I like the original Disney Mulan, more for things that wouldn't translate well to live action, including Shang.

 

[QueenCobra]

I saw live-action Beauty and the Beast in the theater. I thought it was cute, but that the cartoon was far better. I also thought the plague doctor sub-plot made no sense.

I’ve seen the beginning of Cruella and parts of live-action Cinderella. (It still weirded me out to see Daisy from Downton Abbey as one of the stepsisters lol. I also think Matthew Crawley from the same series was in Beauty and the Beast.)

Oh! And when I was little, I had the VHS of live-action 101 Dalmatians with Glenn Close. I remember enjoying it for some reason. I don’t think I’ve seen the original cartoon in full lol.

(the live-action 101 Dalmatians came out in the ‘90s btw)

 

[Bruscoe]

The two words that instantly come to mind when I hear about Disney making another live-action remake: cash grab. All they're doing is taking an already great story and redoing it to modern times, and most of the time, they completely change cast appearances compared to the original characters (like how they did with Genie and Ariel's actors). Also, is the 2019 Lion King and its upcoming sequel (yep) really even considered live-action films? They're CGI animated animals made to look hyper-realistic for crying out loud.

Whatever happened to 2D animated Western films? When was the last really good 2D film made in general that wasn't an anime? I'd love to see another film like what we saw during the '90s renaissance, but all we get now are these crummy remakes, CGI movies that makes me want to fall asleep (by the way, how come Disney still occasionally makes CGI films themselves when they wholly own Pixar?), and way too much Disney+ content to keep up with (this is making them lose money by the way). Don't get me wrong - I do like a lot of the Pixar films - but I miss the simplicity of well-made traditionally animated films.

Oh! And when I was little, I had the VHS of live-action 101 Dalmatians with Glenn Close. I remember enjoying it for some reason. I don’t think I’ve seen the original cartoon in full lol.

(the live-action 101 Dalmatians came out in the ‘90s btw)

Oh, I like Glenn Close. I haven't seen the live-action 101 Dalmatians movies featuring her, but man does she play a great Cruella from the endless VHS trailers I've seen of the films. She's excellent in general when cast as a grandma. Heck, I smiled big when I saw her ride that horse in that Super Bowl ad a few months ago.

 

[QueenCobra]

Seeking thoughts. Has anybody seen live action Disney adaptations? What did you think?

I'm a little disappointed live action became the market. Animation has come so far and fluid. I'd have liked to have seen what Pixar could turn the first Toy Story into. Or maybe get a modern Great Mouse Detective.

If you look at video games, remasters with modern art are a huge interest.

Within my interest of it, I'm considering watching the Mulan adaptation. It's one of my favorite animated movies of all time.

And I guess I found it kinda amusing that Javier Bardem was in the live action Little Mermaid. He was the serial killer in No Country For Old Men.

Javier was also recently in a kids’ movie “Lyle Lyle Crocodile” and also Desi Arnaz in a movie/miniseries about I Love Lucy. But then coming up, he’s going to be the Menendez dad in a show about the Menendez brothers? (Back to creepy) So I guess he’s expanding his horizons lol.

Post automatically merged: May 29, 2024

Beauty and the Beast kicked things off pretty well, Cinderella was passable, but then everything went downhill. I’m fine when they change little things, but not when they alter storylines. The giant Iago scene in Aladdin, for example, was ridiculous. One of the best things about the original Aladdin was the big fight scene at the end, when everyone is present. The live-action just bypassed the whole thing.

…and the whole doing movies from the villain’s perspective thing is just trash. Showing why the villains aren’t actually bad, cmon. Cruella is fine killing puppies to make clothes. Maleficent’s original curse was that the princess would die on her 16th birthday, just because she wasn’t invited to a party. Trying to pull a 180 on these established characters is just a lame attempt at a cash grab.

I would actually like to see one of these villain origin stories about Ursula though. I mean…she’s more likable than Cruella, for me at least.

 

[cornimer]

I'm not a fan of Disney live-action remakes. I don't see the point of re-watching an animated movie in live-action; I'd rather just re-watch the original animated version. I wish they'd stop making so many live-action remakes

 

[BakaRina]

I’m never a fan of their live-action remakes of their popular animated stuff. I’d rather just watch the animated movies at that rate since I enjoyed those more than a quick cash grab.

 

[QueenCobra]

Honestly this thread reminded me of this sketch lol

 

[demoness]

the criticism about these is so overstated because millennials and zoomers are finally old enough to start noticing a big part of Hollywood is reimagining older films, but it's actually nothing new, as some of our century's most noted films are actually themselves remakes, alternate visions of the same source material with different titles, or conveyed in an entirely different medium, and it's been a film staple since at least the 1930s when many 1900s silent films were re-contextualized into "talkies" and then remade in the 60s and 70s, and then have been further re-imagined since. 80s franchises have had a slew of remakes since as early as our childhoods. now the 90s and naughties are slowly being revisited, and now it's our turn to cry about IPs we have painstakingly protected in our narcissistic wistfulnness like our parents used to c:

if cashgrab means maximize profits for new or other audiences besides peter panned thirty-somethings or letting writers and artists or actors work with stories they enjoyed, sure

but you would have to have a lot of poor education or none in the arts not to realize the whole function of story telling is .... retelling, and it's pretty funny because many animated Disney films are reimagined versions of things in print or were done live first lol

so i'm just saying that it's pretty conceited and anti-art to gatekeep films to a certain medium especially when the inspiration for said cartoons predate even us in this situation. i guess people have this fantasy that ethereal, empty concepts like heart and soul and vague qualifiers like necessity, meaning, and originality make the best movies?

i'm not be going to pretend like creators are soulless sheep because i don't like the pencil neck reselling it to me to be rich, has nothing to do with the film or it's merits. cut out the nostalgic self importance and i think you have solid family movies that are on par, sometimes better, particularly character studies like Cruella, that examine classic stories in different contexts

 

[Neb]

I refuse to watch any of them. They look so lifeless and bland compared to the original movies and I’d rather just watch those instead. It feels like Disney only made them since live action has less of a stigma than animation and they wanted to capitalize on old stories.

 

[Reginald Fairfield]

I refuse to watch any of them. They look so lifeless and bland compared to the original movies and I’d rather just watch those instead. It feels like Disney only made them since live action has less of a stigma than animation and they wanted to capitalize on old stories.

Plus to keep the rights to things, since they screwed up lobbying to extend copyright protections.

 

[-Blue-]

Within my interest of it, I'm considering watching the Mulan adaptation. It's one of my favorite animated movies of all time.

I heard the Mulan live action is really bad. Well almost all of their live actions are border-line passable or trash. But the whole premise of Mulan was a female disguising herself as a male to take her father's spot in the war because he was too old (and I think permanently injured from a previous war?)

All of the recruits are so green and helpless. But with enough training they all become formidable warriors and each others equal. In the remake Mulan is just some prodigy warrior right off the bat. I get what they were trying to go for, but they missed the mark.


I don't watch movies that much, but I'm less inclined to watch a live action version of anything because it's often a cashgrab where the creators were too lazy to make their own movie so they're riding on the curtails of an established series to push their own version forward.

 

[Chris]

I've seen Beauty and the Beast, Mulan, Aladdin, and The Little Mermaid and enjoyed them all.

3/4 of those were some of my favourite Disney movies growing up, so I didn't expect to enjoy them, but was pleasantly surprised. I think my favourite of them was The Little Mermaid. I only took interest in it after seeing Halle Bailey as Sky in Grown-ish, and thinking that if her portrayal of Ariel was anything like how she played Sky then she would be perfect for the role - and I was not disappointed!