Live action remakes... how are they still a thing & why have they succeeded?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.พ. 2025
- ✔ SUPPORT ✔
Patreon: / councilofgeeks
TH-cam Membership: / @councilofgeeks
Paypal tip jar: PayPal.me/coun...
Ko-fi: ko-fi.com/vera...
Amazon Wishlist: www.amazon.com...
✔ OTHER CHANNELS ✔
Break Room of Geeks / @breakroomofgeeks
Vera Wylde: / verawylde
✔ SHOP ✔
Merch: www.teepublic....
My Book on Gender Fluidity: a.co/d/atfibBA (Amazon Associate link, commissions earned)
My Fantasy Novel: amzn.to/2SCxB8j (Amason Associate link, commissions earned)
✔ SOCIAL MEDIA ✔
Twitter: / councilofgeeks
Facebook: / councilofgeeks
TikTok: / verawylde1
Instagram: www.instagram....
Twitch: / councilofgeeks
✔ OTHER PROJECTS ✔
Council of Geeks Podcast (home of What the Frell & Jumpgate): councilofgeeks...
✔ CONTACT ✔
E-mail: councilofgeeks@gmail.com
Mail:
Council of Geeks
PO Box 4429
St. Johnsbury, VT 05819
The thing that really stung me about the HTTYD live action movie coming up is that what they could have done (they never would have, but at least it would have been different), is actually adapt the book series by Cressida Cowell more faithfully.
Because the animated HTTYD movies were already a nail in the coffin of the bookseries (that I absolutely adore) ever getting a real adaptation, and now the live action remake is just absolutely destroying any chances the HTTYD books ever had...
People don't even realize how in name only the animated movie is and now it is being remade while the original gets left behind...
These remakes either from Disney or DreamWorks are true “FUs” to the beautiful medium of animation. I don’t want to blame the cast and crew to these films but if it’s someone to blame for these unnecessary remakes, it’s definitely the executives in these studios. I’m just tired of hearing news about any live action remake happening especially to films that aren’t even 10 years old.
What's wild is that Toothless looks near identical in this remake. They're literally only limiting themselves by trying to tell the story in live action
@WiloPolis03 yeah on the one hand I'm relieved Toothless hasn't been butchered, but at the same time I'm wondering what the point is other than trying to catch up to Disney?
@@gRinchY-op5vr I mean... yeah that's basically it lol
They’re pretty weak insults since the public generally goes back to the original in any case.
@@WiloPolis03especially since what makes the HTTYD movies interesting to me is the way they push character designs to be more inclusive of disabilities and body types, and a live action remake focused on casting Hollywood actors will always look for conventionally attractive people and push out anyone who doesn’t fit that standard.
My son ADORED the HTTYD movies as they came out. His 4th birthday party even had that as its theme! Now at 14, he was originally intrigued at the notion of a live -action version, but that first trailer just seemed to be a big letdown. He even said, "What's the point if they aren't even gonna change anything?!" I can't help but agree.
Smart kid.
@@callisto8413 Not necessarily- I've felt similarly when the beauty and the beast remake came out, (and I'm only 21 rn, so I was at least, what 13-14 at that age?) Tbf, I've always been a fan of animation, and rather fixate on that, but Idunno it's not that astute of an observation.
Thats actually my Main issue with These. These Remakes dont really do anything different, except weeeird attempts to Look a bit more "modern" and usually Missing a Point. My favorite was Beauty and the beast somehow turning belle into Legolas and doing this weird "Woman No read" Thing because something something "the villagers are sexist but even more cartoonishly in Case someone Misses it".
With hhtyd i really dont get it because it Looks Like a Copy and Paste of the original movie but with less interesting character design
"What's the point if they aren't even gonna change anything?!" its a damned if you do, damned if you dont, situation. if they change, people will cry because a pebble is not the correct pebble, and if they dont, others will complain that its the exact same thing but not as good.
the issue is, even if you multiply one side by the other, its still not enough for most of those movies to end up being successes. sometimes small successes, but other times, massive hits.
and worse comes to worse, disney is big enough to eat a whole year of failures as if nothing.
@marcosdheleno Exactly, which is maybe why they're a bad idea in the first place. The only appeal they possibly have is to people who haven't seen what's being remade, which makes it even more nakedly obvious that it's just a cash grab.
I'll always so angry at how Disney mistreated Strange World. Just like they did with Atlantis and Planet of the Treasure. The three ignored gems.
I'm glad we're in agreement of wanting to see The Black Cauldron, a movie with tons of missed potential, get a live action remake over remakes of things that were already great
They should do something with Chronicles of Prydain tbh, that would make a terrific fantasy series.
I'd love to see a film of that that actually follows the books. The cartoon tries to smash the first books together. Just do one at a time. It's a great untapped franchise!
@sevensongs Yeah just going by the Lost In Translation video it seems like there's a lot of untapped potential that was lost when blending the books together
Definitely the Chronicles of Pyrdain needs to be made into a film series or tv series.
@@sevensongs An oracular pig! An adorable sidekick named Gurgi! I mean the merchandise alone.
Thank you!!!! This question absolutely needs said. These live action remakes are insane. I'm a MASSIVE fan of How to Train Your Dragon. I remember watching the first film and thinking "James Cameron, keep your Avatars, THAT'S how you do flying dragons". Stunning to look at, masses of heart, still probably one of my favourite films of the past 15/20 years (and a consistent trilogy to boot). And what does DreamWorks do? "Let's remake the film and then release a trailer which is a shot-for-shot lift from the original right down to the characters' muscle movements". What is the point? The original is already right there. If you're gonna just do the animation storybook, then all this is is a cynical cash grab with absolutely zero artistic merit. I'll be staying well clear of the remake when it opens.
I screamed NOOOOOO when I heard they were going to do a Live-Action remake because the original was so good and I didn't want Dreamworks to ruin it. But my kids were older when it came out and I have no grandchildren to bring to the new version so maybe I'm not the target market.
At the very least, if you’re doing a HTTYD movie again, you may as well actually try to adapt the books this time. Mind you, said books include Big Boobied Bertha and Kamikaze as characters, so maybe the target demo isn’t as the movies we got, but they are still very good books
Next for disney
- animating their original live action movies
- making live action and animated movies at the same time
Fun fact: if we got an animated Parent Trap, it would not be the first animated take on that story.
(Weirdly, I enjoy a lot of the other movies despite seeing them in unsubtitled German, a language I don’t speak. I follow the story pretty easily because they’re almost all reasonably faithful adaptations of a book I have read-the Disney version deviates the most).
I would assume that animated Emil And The Detectives would just be insane. The Disney version is reasonably faithful except that there’s some sort of robbery? (The 2001 German movie, despite switching Gustav and Pony, inflating the cash amount and changing Emil’s motivation, is surprisingly more faithful)
I wish Disney+ had their live action movies from the 60's, 70's, and 80's.
@@arbjbornk they do here. Pollyanna, Emil And The Detectives, Freaky Friday, Candleshoe, Parent Trap, That Darn Cat and 20,000 Leagues are all there.
the only exception to my hatred of live action remakes would be muppet remakes
That's because a Muppet remake is its own genre--it's doing something new with the same story
@@MC-lm7de Still disney ciould try that
but make it animated!
Still finding it insulting to the medium of animation. I don’t usually want something to fail but god I wish the live action remakes failed
Honestly I would love a return to putting the original back in theatres. Because yeah, I saw the HtTYD trailer and just thought, well I'll just watch the original, but I do understand wanting to share the going to see the movie in a theatre with a kid for the first time. I thought about commenting on the trailer but also, didn't want to engage beyond my one view and I wasn't going to rain on whatever parade people were haveing.
Seeing the original How to Train Your Dragon in the theater was wonderful, and I'd absolutely go again if they did a re-release of the animated version. I do plan to have a home re-watch with friends (probably of the full trilogy because we're nerds like that) instead of seeing the live action one this summer.
I think the problem there is, they tried with their run of 3D remasters back in the 2010s, and it didn't do as well as they predicted. Sure, the Lion King 3D was pretty successful, but barely anyone went to see Beauty and the Beast 3D, or Finding Nemo and Monsters, Inc 3D by comparison. Now you could argue that the 3D gimmick was already losing steam at that point and that's why people weren't going, but it still sent the message to Disney that people weren't going to go out to watch the original animated movies again.
@@SamWickens
Yeah, Disney was always great at missing the point.
But if “Disney parents “ wanted to share with them the experience, why not just simply show them the originals? Unless a part of it is that idea that they won’t show the kids the animated versions because “animated Disney princess bad role model”.
Which is a shame if that is the reason... "this character is a bad role model" can be a reason to avoid it, or a teachable moment. IMO if the kid is old enough to learn a life lesson from a movie, they're generally old enough to understand a grownup they trust explaining why it's wrong.
I've been doing this, and its working way better than taking my kid to see a remake in the theatre 😂 the only problem is its at home, not a cinema experience like we had when we were kids - if Disney re-released the classics in the theatres every 20 or 30 years so we could pay to have this experience with our kids we'd totally do it!
I was thinking this too; bring back limited theater runs!
@@gRinchY-op5vrI hear you on this - if Disney had cinematic releases of their animated vault like studio Ghibli does with Ghiblifest (annual showings of most of their animated films) it would reignite a lot of interest and income for brick and mortar theaters!
A) The cinema experience
B) The illusion of feeling like you're seeing it again for the first time.
Maleficent is amazing. I cried so hard throughout the film. Disney hated having it available on Disney+, which was baffling to me. I’m 45 years old. lol
Yeah, they messed up bad with the pixies but the rest of Maleficent is 🔥🔥🔥
3:25 - My thinking is that studios should follow the Stephen Soderbergh school of thought regarding remakes. Don’t remake a great film that did well and everybody loved; remake a film with a great concept which was executed poorly, like Soderbergh’s Ocean’s Eleven (2001) remake of Ocean’s 11 (1960).
Very random, but I let out a little sob when you said Pete’s Dragon wasn’t particularly loved. I’m sure you’re right on the numbers. But… it was loved by me! Granted I’m 52, and so it hit me at the pre-VHS sweet spot that was my childhood. Plus I loved the book Green Smoke (completely unrelated to the film, but it involves a little girl going to Cornwall on holiday and meeting a dragon - I never really forgave my parents for not taking me to Cornwall and thereby denying me my dragon moment) so it spoke to me. Plus there’s a lovely meme, taking the piss out of Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, where the full back tattoo is Pete’s Dragon.
More seriously, I don’t think parents need to have specific nostalgia for the film being remade; I think the nostalgia is for family trips to the cinema.
I just turned 39 a few days ago... I'm a little too young to have seen Pete's Dragon in theaters, but I loved my VHS of it when I was a kid. It was one of my favorites, and helped cement my lifelong love of fantasy in general and friendly dragons specifically. You're absolutely not alone in enjoying that one. 💜
Yeah Pete's dragon was one of my favs as a kid when it would come on tv every year before cable. I didnt even know there was a remake. I'm going to have to check it out.
I’m 24 and loved it as a kid! So it is also remembered and enjoyed by me.
I'm 25 years old, and I loved watching Pete's Dragon on VHS and DVD when I was a little kid. I remembered really enjoying the movie.
I loved it as a child, watching it again as an adult...it doesn't hold up well. So a remake of that felt more fitting to me, them remaking films that either haven't aged well or didn't do well to beging with is an opportunity - remaking classics that were hits from the get go is just hollow.
The ONLY live action remake I'm (conditionally) excited for being possibly announced is The Princess and the Frog, because Ncuti Gatwa said in an interview he wants to play the shadow man, and I REALLY wanna see what he'd bring to the role. Other than that, I've got no enthusiasm for the remakes.
I have a soft spot for Cruella. It's definitely a style over substance type of film but i think it's fun. Also the last original animated film from Disney animation was Wish. I think that bombed harder than Strange World.
Same here with Cruella. Admittedly, I only saw it once, but I still remember it and how bonkers it got with its plot at times! Also, the cast was all really good :)
It's a really fun movie that succeeds at what it set out to do - shades of the Devil Wears Prada, but with Cruella. You can tell that all the creatives involved with that movie had a great time recreating the 1970's British punk aesthetic and dressing Cruella up.
I legit forgot the existence of Wish when she mentioned Strange World being the last original animation. I just took that as a fact...that says a lot considering Wish is apart of the Disney princess line-up...jfc
It would be a better movie if it was an original character and didn't have to tie back to Dalmatians though, but obviously probably wouldn't have made as much money so worse it is.
im desperate for a 2d animation renaissance
2D *Hollywood* animation. Anime is still going, and smaller studios are doing good too (Nimona, for example).
Though speaking of Anime, we do have the One Piece as an example of well-done Live Action remake.
I really like the One Piece live action. It leans into stylism and makes good story choices but it sits in a very short list of really good live action remakes. (I do like Cinderella for similar reasons.)
Disney got rid of all their infrastructure for 2D animation. Any good traditionally animated movies will have to come from other studios.
The best remakes are almost always the ones that go their own way. The Thing is a great example of a remake that largely does its own thing while staying true to the source with updated technology. The problem is these films are always trying too hard to stay the same as the original film. The Jungle Book was alright in its variation, but The Lion King. Really? And they succeed because of nostalgia.
Christopher Robin is so underrated, one of the better of the Disney remakes, which was more of a retelling/continuation than a remake.
I actually prefer the recently released Lion King, even if the songs were a bit naff, because it felt like they actually made a movie that fit the animation rather than forcing an existing story into this animation style.
Ok fine, I’m subscribing 😂 Your videos keep popping up on my feed and I keep clicking them and they keep being good and I fed up so I’m subscribing 😂
You've just subbed to one of the best TH-camrs 👍
Welcome.
Welcome to the council.
Thank y’all for the warm welcome 😌
hi, have a muffin 🧁 😄
Thank you. I didn't take it fully into account that many people, maybe even a majority of the audience for a remake, don't worry or even think about artistic merit. I recognised it with some personal acquaintances, but I hadn't thought about how many people aren't going to do anything but think whether they think they'll like the remake. For them, seeing a live action remake of How to Train Your Dragon done by the director of the original animated film will feel that's a reassurance. Again, thank you, Vera. My pretend scholar likes explanations.
People in general don’t care about artistic merit to begin with.
It’s why ai slop with regular folk is semi popular 🤦🏾♀️
This sequel to your original Disney remake video is easily the best Disney sequel, with you realising why they existed.
You asked about any of the remakes we did like and I for one did actually like the Cinderella one. I think it managed to add a few things here and there that I felt added more depth to the characters that while not missing from the original gave it the feeling that it wasn't just a shot for shot remake. Mainly the added things with the prince. Also the work put into the costuming really showed.
I also liked what they added to the Little Mermaid (mostly) my sister spotted how Eric's room mirrors Ariel's grotto, and his added song is one of my favorites. There wasn't as much added there, but the passing of the torch and representation for a new generation are also nice.
Disney mostly did animated remakes of fairytales in the past and it worked. Because they made it their own. They should do more of that again.
Agreed! They haven't even mined out all of classic European folklore yet, plus there's countless other regions of the world with their own legends and mythology Disney could pull from if they wanted to. And more recent popular fantasy, too, if they want to avoid the potential backlash of messing up representation of other cultures (and don't want to put in the work hiring creatives from that culture to guide the process and do the acting).
What does it say about Wish that Vera completely forgot its existence?
I really wish Disney would make more animated movies in the spirit of those that went before. And the thing is, that would mean mostly not coming up with completely original stories. There are still plenty of fairy tales, folktales, myths and legends they haven't done yet, not to mention novels, plays, poems and short stories in the public domain.
I'd actually be interested in animated adaptions of a lot of plays, it could really add quite a lot.
I personally loved Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle for daring to take a beloved Disney movie into a darker direction, but I seem to be one of the few people that have seen it.
Is that a Disney movie, though?
I think I preffered that over most Jungle Book adaptations lol
@@g83sterno
We're in an interesting situation, so I'm curious how it will evolve:
Our kid is now 12. Which means she's old enough to have seen the original "Moana" in theatres (multiple times) and has seen the sequel, but thus far has shown no interest in the live action remake.
But, on the other hand, both the original "How to train your dragon" and "Leelo & Stitch" she has only seen on home video. She has had moments of pure obsession and hyperfocus on both of those. So seeing the remakes of them on the big screen, is something she very much looks forward to.
I think it's partly because it's a new experience on the big screen, but she knows exactly what to expect of the movie and knows she'll like it. (She'll probably comment on any changes made if she doesn't like it.)
For a kid it's new enough to enhance the cinema experience (apparently) but I suspect she'll grow out of that with the years. So I'm curious to see how it plays out, if she wants to see certain remakes and how she likes them...
Wait i actually didn't know reissues were a thing, my sister gaslit me into thinking i never saw ET in the cinema as a kid (it came out before i was born) i KNEW i had🤣😭 and given we lived on a really small island at the time it makes total sense theyd do that
lol Same. I saw it in the theaters when I was…maybe 4. And I remember vividly how it devastated me, sobbing, inconsolable. I would have been only two when it first premiered.
The Pinocchio live action remake, so bad it was completely forgotten about here.
Oh yeah, that happened
one of the many films that had all the fun sapped away from it so it was just a husk of its former self
Snow wight has basically the opposite problem of Moana. It’s so old, there are very few people who are genuinely nostalgic for it
Right! When I worked in the kids' section at Kohl's, I saw lots of Disney princess merch, and Snow White rarely made an appearance, probably because she's just so old-fashioned that modern audiences aren't super interested in her.
It did get released on VHS in the 80s and 90s, so a lot of kids would have seen it then along with the likes of Pinocchio, Alice in Wonderland etc so maybe that's who they were going for
I didn't appreciate Snow White until I was an adult. Unfortunately the new movie looks like slop, and though I want to support interest in the character, I do not want to support Disney Decisions
@@anaerobic I really thought those trailers were ai fan mockups when I first saw them. Im a firm believer that everyone gets one Disney LA remake that they can like. Mine is Peter Pan and Wendy for some reason. Maybe someone’s will be Snow White. Doubt it
Is nostalgia only felt by people that were children when a movie first came out?
No.
I, a 26, saw the classics as a kid, and have had strong feelings for them.
Also, what is true nostalgia?
What we clearly need is animated versions of live action classics. Give me animated Mary Poppins visiting the real world, give me animated Eglantine Price (Bedknobs and Broomsticks) visiting real life animals. Heck, give me an animated Herbie the Lovebug!
I think Disney should’ve went down the route of making live action versions of their least successful movies like Atlantis, Treasure Planet and The Black Cauldron, the latter is actually one of my favourite of the 80’s Disney animated movies.
Or make original live action movies like Christopher Robin which I also liked, saying that though we did just get Mufasa which is an Original “Live Action” movie, which I hated.
Atlantis is already pretty great and they're certainly not returning to film where a normal-seeming guy almost murders an entire civilization for profit and justifies it with how museums obtain artifacts.
I keep seeing these arguments of adapting the "least successful" films and I find it rather disrespectful and frustrating. Atlantis and Treasure Planet a great as they are and just because they weren't successful doesn't mean they deserve the remake treatment.
The Black Cauldron is a different matter, but I would rather argue that it deserves a less messy and more faithful adaption rather than a "remake"
@@AlexBrauer-s3wa full on remake would do just fine
I love how I always feel smarter when I come away from a Council of Geeks video. This was fascinating. Because for me, the live action movies didn't hit the nostalgia itch. I'd just rather watch the old movies. But this got me thinking about the combination of nostalgia and introducing new people to the movies. I guess part of the live action remake appeal is that parents might assume that the new movies will be more up to date and the kids would give it more of a chance than an 'old movie?' Since it's new, I guess Disney expects to get a new audience as well as capturing the old audience.
I think if Disney put the effort into marketing a full scale theater re-release of some of their biggest classics, on the same level as they do their new stuff, they'd see even better profit margins than the remakes bring. I know they sometimes do limited releases for special [number] year anniversaries or summer matinee events... but those are usually only a few showings on one or two screens for a week or two. Sometimes just a couple showings at all in limited theaters.
A full "showing on 1/3 of the screens your megaplex has, hyping people up for months, running it in the previews and commercials on TV, and putting it on the big posters/standees in the lobby" type of promotion? I don't recall seeing Disney try a re-release on *that* scale yet.
If you want to hit us in the nostalgia, HIT US IN THE NOSTALGIA, DISNEY. Do it with one fan-favorite film per year, maybe one every couple years. Keep it rare and special. Maybe make some of your showings sing-alongs for the folks who already know and love it? And by spacing the releases out like that you'll never run out, because by the time you've done all the classics another generation of kids will be the right age to see the earlier ones in the rotation.
Well we had a Disney renaissance, so maybe we’ll have a Disney Industrial Revolution?
Ooh, more steampunk/aetherpunk like Atlantis and Treasure Planet please!
There were a handful of noteworthy Disney direct to video sequels: Aladdin and the king of thieves, Lion King 2: Simba’s Pride, Return to Neverland, Extremely Goofy Movie, Cinderella 3: A Twist in Time.
Noteworthy live action remakes: Alice In Wonderland, Christopher Robin, Mary Poppins Returns, Cruella, Cinderella.
I don't think I'd count Mary Poppins Returns, since a) the original was majority live action as well and b) it was a completely different story as far as I could tell (did it match the book of the same name? no. but was it different from the first? yes.)
The rest of your list, though, I'll absolutely grant you, even if I've never seen some of the direct to video ones you mention I've heard tons of stories about many of them.
@ Thank you.
Christopher Robin isn't a remake, thank fudging God, and Marry Poppins Returns is only notable for being the first sequel to an ''original'' live-action movie done decades later that copies it beat for beat.
Lion King 3 was also good. Meanwhile Alice was really more of a sequel than a remake, and Cruella is a weird re-imagining.
Cinderella was one of the better remakes. I think though the best one was The Jungle Book (the more famous one, not the 90's one), because they used a LOT more of the actual book.
extremely goofy and lion king 2 are peak, original goofy movie is much better though but still
Thank you for this perspective. I would definitely prefer fresher content, like some of the more obscure fairytales or even *gasp* original stories, but I don't mind the remakes. I'm also not rushing out to see most of them. What bugs me more is the casting of so many big names. Disney has the chance to showcase newer talent in movies that have a guaranteed audience, and that's disappointing.
You're bang on about the notalgia aspect, though I will argue about the artistic merit. On the whole, following the original so closely is definitely lacking in creativity. From a design perspective, however, there is a lot ot admire. A lot of care is put into scenic and costume design, and that should count towards some artistic merit IMO. I like seeing how different designers translate the animated film to live action. (that said, I have *many* problems with Beauty and the Beast!)
The only remakes I truly liked were Dumbo 2019 (bcs I personally didn’t like the original very much), Christopher Robin (very heartfelt imo), and Cruella (which I had fun with). Like most other movies, I don’t rewatch them.
Maleficent was frustrating to me, because I was fully onboard with the idea of a live-action prequel to an animated movie, but the movie ended up being half-prequel and half-remake of the original (also the treatment of the character was just abysmal to me. The sequel was subtitled, “Mistress of Evil” and she barely did anything “evil”!). Regardless, a Moana remake shouldn’t be a thing, it should’ve been a Maui origins movie for crying out loud!
Maleficent was the last Disney live action I entertained, after that I didn't bother. Ironically I think that re-releasing some of the classic animations in theatres would be well received at this point and that's basically printing money 🤷♀️
Song of the South was FSK12 when it was shown in Frankfurt in the 80's. I remember being excited to be able to watch a movie without parents lol. So, while the movie was wrong on so many levels. All I remember is the excitement of taking the Ubon with a few friends to watch a movie. Can't remember the movie at all. I just remember being given 50 Marks to go to the movie, buy some snacks, take the ubon, and a meal (not sure how much I brought home.).
I would make the case for Jungle Book being the only good one (though I've heard Pete's Dragon is pretty decent) because it's the only one that meaningfully improves on the shortcomings of the original i.e. Walt's problem of not being able to reconcile Kipling's episodic narrative with the needs of a feature length film, making the original fun but disjointed. Mowgli doesn't have a lot of agency in JB '67, despite ostensibly being his manhood/coming of age story, and the remake rectifies this so he actually has more impact/choice in his own story. Plus Idris Elba as Shere Khan: excellent, like the closest to an old school, unapologetic evil Disney villain among their modern productions.
Ironically, Andy Serkis' Mowgli is closer to the other Disney remakes (despite being for Netflix) in this way: clumsily trying to be more faitful to the original stories in an attempt to 'fix' the past adaptations, but ends up dreary, dull and lacking a compelling dramatic throughline. The CGI on the animals is also really poor.
I'd add Cruella to that list. Sure, it has some problems, but the movie is just SO out there, that it actually becomes a lot of fun to watch. Plus, all the actors are doing a great job with the material they have.
For some reason, the remakes of 101 Dalmatians seem to be the exceptions to the rule regarding all of the remakes in general. They're all just lots of fun to watch :)
@@jeremyadler9620 Cruella is practically its own thing, and I kind of like it in a 'wow, can't believe Disney basically made Devil Wears Prada, by way of Batman Returns and a 60s heist movie, thinking it would sell to 10 year olds' (which somehow it did, so... guess sometimes it works out).
@@SavageBroadcast, Interesting way of putting it :) I can actually see that :)
Cinderella was also good. That and The Jungle Book were less remakes of the animated movies and more just another adaptation of the classic stories.
I haven't watched the original Sleeping Beauty but I remember really liking Maleficent. Of all the Disney Live-action remakes that's the one I actively think "I want to rewatch that."
Also enjoyed the Christopher Robin live-action thing they did a few years back.
The only ones that even proved the need to exist are the live action alice in wonderlands and Maleficent. Basically, they need to be a new story, not just a remake.
Yeah, originally I thought that was gonna be the whole point of these live action remakes - redone from a different point of view (aka the villains) an origin story (ala Cruella) or enough changes that they are just different versions of a story...but no, they are either just the exact same story in live action or the few changes that get made negatively impact the story/message. Alice in Wonderland live action felt more like an adaptation of Through the Looking Glass than its sequel (Through the Looking Glass) did 🤣
I wish they’d stop “live action” remaking the animal-focused animated movies. If they want to do anything with them, do “live action” spin-offs. I do enjoy the little bits of new characterization they add to some of them. I don’t want complete beat-for-beat copies, ideally, but there’s something about the things I enjoyed as a kid being given a level of “here are the things you weren’t old enough to see when you first watched it that makes it relevant to you now”. And if they don’t give that added depth in some way, I don’t see the point. I’d love to see a specifically trans film about Ursula that gives her a version of the Maleficent treatment. I’m personally convinced she shouldn’t be the primary villain of the story at all.
The only remakes I enjoyed were Alice in Wonderland, The Jungle Book, Christopher Robin, Mary Poppins Returns and Cruella. The only one I am looking forward to is Lilo & Stitch. I’ll check out Snow White and How To Train Your Dragon out of curiosity.
In that sense, live action remakes have more in common with Disney theme parks than with new movies, or an idea of cinema as art.
That's a great observation. I might steal it.
Cruella is the only one of these things I actually enjoyed outside the 101 dalmatians remake… maybe that says more about my obsession with glenn close and emma stone respectively, than actual quality
I like black cauldron, I think it's biggest problem is it came out in the wrong era
The last time I even went to the theatre to see a movie was when Gkids did a theatrical run of all the studio Ghibli films. I went to every movie. The ones I'd seen and the one's I hadn't. I'd love to see my favorite movies in theatres. I don't want remakes, I want the originals. I'm poor as shit but if they showed the original Beauty and the Beast in theatres, I'd find money somewhere to go see it. I'm genuinely kinda jealous of folks who got to see rereleases of movies. I wish they'd just rerelease movies. The live action remakes just make me feel frustrated and mad and sad.
I think, as humans, we see the disconnect between live action and animation and are often wondering what these characters would look like "in real life".
However, once we've seen our beloved characters in human form, we don't consider them to be as real as the animated versions we hold in our heart. Once our curiosity has been satiated, and we've seen how they filmed a favourite scene, or who they cast as our favourite character, all the nostalgia that is generated stays with the original.
Basically, we're fickle hypocrites.
I do think the fact that Dreamwork is now getting in on the act is the real worrying sign. It demonstrates that this infection is spreading. Another thing is, they aren’t doing this with any of their flops, the films that might have had some potential but needed reworking, they’re just redoing all the classics and adding nothing new.
I dont even know why they would jump on the trend since their movies animation age like a fine wine for the most part
Its not very well-remembered but I like the 90s live-action Jungle Book. Its a little darker than you might expect, and it has Lena Headey
As an artist and lover of animation films I utterly reject these live action adaptations, which are devoid of any artistic vision the originals had. I remember being very excited for the Maleficent film after seeing concept art on DeviantArt and how huge my disappointment was about the milktoast outcome the final film was.
The remakes are a shallow, obvious money grab and I cannot feel anything but frustration for them. This is what they killed 2D animation for. Our future and well-being lies in indie creators and artists, not big studios.
Something else: Vera, I've come to very highly regard your opinion on things, even on stuff that isn't my immediate interest, like Dr Who. But that at least means I'm able to know what my best friend is talking about, who loves Dr Who :D
Thank you for this; in these conversations, it has seemed rare that someone draws the necessary distinction between the cruella/maleficent/alice type films that rethink the original story in some way and the BatB/Aladdin/lion king films that are very much beat-for-beat rehashes in a slightly different medium. For me, my willingness to engage depends heavily on whether i think the team is bringing something new to the table beyond answering the occasional bit of fridge logic. I get why those aren’t the direction disney wants to go, however, since re-imagining a film opens it up to new criticism that the beat-for-beat rehashes avoid.
That said, as i think about these films, i realize that the ones i’ve been most curious about are the ones where i *don’t* have a strong attachment to the original. Those are the ones where i don’t feel as protective of that original and i’m more prepared to engage with the live action film as an untethered experience. I also realize that theatres are generally not a significant part of my movie engagement process-the crowd and the volume and the seating visibly worsen the experience for me-so i’m probably a little insulated from the effect these remakes capitalize on; if i’m going to stream a film at home anyway, there’s no real advantage to streaming a remake i might not like instead of the original i already love.
Thank you for the video, Vera!
What I do find really frustrating about these live action remakes of animated movies is how most of them not even bother to diferentiate themselves from the original ones in order to justify their existences, such as fleshing out characters or storylines. And, in Disney's case, when they do finally run out of animated movies to remake, I will not be surprise if they start to contemplate the idea of doing "second" or "third" remakes.
And "putting on my tinfoil hat" for a second, in the the case of the first "Moana" animated movie, I would not be surprise if Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson is the one who is really pushing more for the live action remake because, despite he still having a relatively successful actor career, he seems really desperated for one giant box office success movie.
I hated live action remakes ever since I saw that awful The Last Airbender movie that felt like getting a Nebari mind cleanse. I'm glad I never saw the live action Mulan remake or the direct to DVD sequel. The only good thing the live action Mulan did is that Xiran Jay Zhao made there TH-cam channel to destroy it. The only good live action remake is Netflix One Piece because Odo is involved and has complete control of his own IP.
Fwiw, I do think that the Cinderella remake is better than the original story wise - but that's because the original was already pretty short (it clocks in at 1h14min), and Cinderella herself is...actually not in the movie much. The singing mice take up MUCH more screen time than you would think. I can understand why the original is considered a classic of animation, especially on purely technical/artistic merits, but there was A LOT of room for improvement in terms of actual story and characterization.
The remake realized this, so it - 1. minimized the mice to just that, non-singing mice that didn't take up a lot of screen time and - 2. actually fleshed out Cinderella's story and character more. It wasn't afraid to dive more into the step mother's abuse and show how she initially broke Cinderella down. The climax of the movie isn't that the Prince finds Cinderella again, it's that Cinderella confronts and shuts down her abuser. Maleficent, while not as strong story wise, at least swung for the fences with its framing of the King as a r*pist and Wicked-fying Maleficent into the actual hero of the story. Cinderella and Maleficent not only changed aspects of the originals' stories, but they further engaged with the heavy, mature themes already present in those fairy tales.
I was very impressed with Disney for willing To Go There, so much so that I was actually incredibly excited for future live action remakes after those two - only for Beauty and the Beast to come along with its "Let's just remake the original scene by scene and add filler nobody will care about" formula. Instead of taking movies that genuinely have room for improvement and/or swinging for the fences with their themes/stories, Disney, predictably, has just settled for these bland, cookie cutter remakes* that won't offend anybody beyond the grifters that shit themselves every time a POC is on screen.
*Shout out to Cruella though, you were probably an original script that got reworked into a Cruella origin story.
I mean Cinderella is a story that you could and was adapted in so many different ways because its easy to do your own spin of it. Something Disnbey could do more.
The big problem with live-action Cinderella is that she's not trapped. She can leave anytime she wants, but she freely chooses to go back every time. I just can't get over that.
To me, 'Ever After' is by far the best Cinderella adaptation out there. It's aged like a fine cheese.
Organised Labour is our only hope to truly ending this obsession with Remakes.
The live action Treasure Planet was pretty good. Jude Law was great casting.
(Probably not very) Fun Fact: Song of the South took even longer to withdrawn from sale in the UK. It took until the year 2000!
Edit: I will always defend the writing and voice acting in Return of Jafar, but oh gosh the production quality.
Your Disney parent theory totally nails it. I've wondered the exact same thing and this makes perfect sense.
I also had an Uhghhgggg reaction to the trailer for HTTYD live action. It looks exactly the same as the original so why would I want to watch it when I can watch the original. They didn't even bother to change the dragons that much which is the only benefit I could see from a live action this soon.
I do think you are right at the end too. The Disney parent theory falls apart when the kids who watched a thing aren't old enough to have their own kids. And I think they are also at an age where they don't want to bother with kids movies. Like with Moana your talking maybe 6-12 for the original 10 years ago is teenager now. Not enough time for nostalgia.
As a parent, I am showing my kid Disney movies I grew up on using the streaming service as he is proffering those over these live action remakes, the only one he actively asked to go and see was live action The Lion King and even then he came home asking if we could watch the original again. What would a great idea om Disneys part was a re-release of these classings every 20 or 30 years of them in theatres, alot of us would definitely pay to have this experience with our kids!
26:52 as a massive httyd fan all I can think is, just watch the original! Watching this remake is just gonna leave a sour taste and they’re gonna go home and watch the original anyway (along with many break down video essays on how it’s worse than the original to feel better) I don’t understand it
For what you say about King Kong, I would use the gaming language of, King Kong is a remake but the Disney (and dreamworks) remakes are remasters. Remakes, given a long enough time between them, are ok to me. Remasters are not (specifically talking about movies, games are more nuanced)
I liked the remake of Cinderella better than the original cartoon. I have skipped all the other remakes. I would prefer they re-envision a property rather than making shot for shot live versions. If they aren't going to allow any innovation what is the point of watching it? I've already seen the original. There is way more entertainment available to modern audiences, they have to do something interesting if they want to draw us in.
They weren't ashamed of the song of the South in the 90s either
Does anyone else think it's incredibly counterintuitive that they had Tim Burton and didn't have him do an animated feature?
Not really given that the only animated stuff he's directed was stop motion (and does not include Nightmare Before Christmas, Henry Selick directed that), which is expensive, time consuming, and not reliably profitable.
I remember The Land Before Time being one of the most emotionally effective movies of my childhood. Then Disney made direct to video sequels a thing and a hundred cheap sequels of The Land Before Time eventually happened. Thanks Disney…
Land Before Time isn’t Disney.
@ Oh, I know. Neither was All Dogs Go to Heaven or Fern Gully. But both took Disney’s lead to make horrible sequels. That infection spread for a while
On the matter of "do you like the remakes and do you rewatch them?" Yes, but *only* Cinderella. I love both the original animated film as well as the remake. I can't tell you how many times I've rewatched both. To me, Cinderella (2015) did a little bit of magic on the landscape of tired remakes. It has heart in a way none of the others seem to have (arguably Maleficent has it, it's just not a remake in the same sense), and the audience can feel it respects the sources (the original fairy tale AND the animated film its "remaking") and it's beautifully done. The costumes and the filmography were handled with love and respect. The cast was carefully chosen to fit their live action roles (not to mimic their animated selves) and what was added and/or changed was made with logic to fit the new medium. It feels like a full meal, like a movie made to be able to stand on its own feet.
And that's what I find lacking in every other remake. They don't love nor do they respect the source. They feel hollow and devoid of life (ironic right? considering these have REAL people), and they are forgettable. They only have value, if any, thanks to being carbon copies of the original animated films. When they dare to add something or change, they do so to fill some checklist that only executives seem to know what it contains.
Live action remakes are the industry cannibalising itself. It's a very, very finite resource, just like you said. The difference between them and rereleases (be it on the big screen or VHS/DVDs) is that they can't really spawn much more money after the initial novelty cinema ticket. Not even the merch done for these remakes is as interesting as the one made for the originals. No clue if it's profitable, but I don't think it is. I mean, I never see that merch *bought*, I just see it being sold. Occasionally 😂
Hell, I'll add this: the re-release in cinemas of The Phantom Menace did really, really well!! Sure, it was for an anniversary, but it still did super well. Every year there's a new anniversary coming up, they could very well keep re-releasing their very long catalogue for said anniversaries. And while it would be an obvious cash grab, at least it wouldn't feel hollow as an experience.
They should start doing rerelease of the originals again.
8:01 SNL did a hilarious Disney Vault parody - thx for the memory. And great video. I'm SO over "remade" classics. Tho an improved Black Cauldron would be amazing.
As an anime fan, I have a similar frustration with those live-action remakes. Mostly due to Netflix. None of the ones that I've seen have been particularly good and Cowboy Bebop really should have been the last straw. I didn't hate it as much as most people, but it was a mess and the original is perfect and shouldn't have been touched. I'm just glad that they live-action Akira has been in development hell for ages and no one has come for Satoshi Kon's work yet.
One ona hand more people would look up Satoshi Kon, on the other, you are right. Millenium actress might the most doable and thats if they get the tone right. urg
Really? Most people think Cinderella is better than the original and the ONLY good live action remake. It respects the original, but isn't a shit for shot remake. It goes its own way. It is brilliant and one of my fav movies of all time - period!
P.S. If this Cinderella didn't have fans, why were people upset when it was removed from Disney+ to promote a restoration of the origin? 🤷♀️ Go look up how many women recreate her ball gown.
Well Vera did say she didn't know anyone personally who said any of the remakes were better than the originals in any way, that's just her experience. I know quite a few people who prefer the live action Cinderella and Pete' Dragon, but I know not everyone will have met someone who has that viewpoint - same people hated Maleficent despite it being more its own thing than a remake.
I mean when you think about it this is a studio that built itself on adapting familiar things. The bulk of their string 'popular' titles were just retellings of Fairy Tales they knew boomer parents knew already. Of course they were gonna take their kids to see Cinderella or the Little Mermaid. We can give them points where they really went off-book in adapting source material and made some incredible films, but the bulk of their library was always built on pinging something 'familiar' in a parent. They've just reached the point of cannibalizing their own library. 😅
I assume The Aristocats will be the only upcoming one to be somewhat drastically altered, considering it has things like a Chinese cat which is depicted as a racist caricature of East Asian peoples with exaggerated stereotypical traits such as slanted eyes and buck teeth. He sings in poorly accented English voiced by a white actor and plays the piano with chopsticks, while also singing a song that mocks Chinese language and culture like: "Shanghai, Hong Kong, Egg Foo Young. Fortune cookie always wrong."
Thank goodness!
His speech covers twenty seconds of the movie and he isn't important to it, so it wouldn't be drastic, meaning whatever is would be unwelcome, even changing the art style, since the movie is supposed to be, in my opinion, their most simplistic.
@ I meant that the inclusion of characters like this are deeply offensive. So it would be a drastic change to remove or change multiple characters, now seen as offensive.
I think you've definitely aced the reasons why these are successful. I'd also add, in the case of HTTYD, it helps that it's the first time Dreamworks do this, so maybe people aren't as bored of it as they're of Disney. In my case, I'm looking forward to it and it's due to emotion: the first time I saw the films was much later when I started going out with my partner, so they hold a dear memory for me and him, and I want to live the experience of going to the cinema together. Does that mean that I'd like if they remade the rest? Well... I guess my point would still exist, but I might start getting tired, as it happened to me with Disney. Who knows 🤷♀️
My first thought: because it makes an ungodly amount of money😂
But looking forward to your in-depth analysis!
"Song of the South" was broadcast at least once on Disney's Sunday afternoon/evening thing that was sometimes movies. There may have been 2 different ones, it's been far too long.
What is truly sad are the special Oscars and other technical awards Disney Animation have achieved for bringing something to ‘moving drawings’ that elevated the entertainment vehicle to then create less than stellar live action films that don’t receive the same acclaim from the industry insiders.
On the question of whether 20yr olds can get sucked in by nostalgia the way 30yr olds can: I was only 22 when the Dr Who 60th aired, and it was the most excited I’ve been for a new piece of media in a Very long time, and my relationship with Who at the time was only about 3 years longer than it’s been since How To Train Your Dragon first released. Moana’s a wild card, but given how miserable most of my generation is with the state of the world, I can absolutely see HTTYD taking off because a bunch of depressed 20 somethings wanted to re-experience that childhood magic.
I've seen very very few of these Live Action remakes - I dropped off on them real quickly. I'm in my early 30s but I've started to become a lot more critical of the media I consume. The obvious cash grabs or sequal baits tend to put me off a movie quicker and quicker, so when I see a movie with no artistic merit with nothing new to offer or say, I genuinely have no interest in it.
If they want to keep making money out of their IP, they could make a proshot of the stage versions like they did with Hamilton it was a huge hit and its not like it hurt Hamilton's ticket sales
Lion King, Alladin, Frozen, Hercules,
The problem there is there’s no precedent for releasing those to theaters and putting them on streaming generates little to no revenue on a per-project basis.
The quick answer I've always gathered for why remakes are successful is nostalgia, but your point of the Disney parent adds another layer to what I think is happening. These parents/adults are nostalgic sure, but the potential of sharing these moments with their kids brings about a new promise that things could make sense again or feel alright again while watching these movies. As adults, we could have 0 clue of what's going on or what any of us are doing or how to make the right choices, but at least you could feel rest assured that by watching the new live action remake with your kids that you did something right as a parent by giving them a unique experience.
The thing that bothers me most about Disney's live-action remakes is that they have announced some projects that would make some sense, but instead they keep making ones that have no reason being remade.
Spesifically, I'm talking about Hunchback of Notre Dame because it would be a chance to incorporate what they did in the musical that they weren't allowed to in the original film, especially with the "darker" tone the early remakes were going for. And Robin Hood, mainly because Honest John's animation was the best part of the Pinnochio remake and doing a whole film in that style would actually be visually unique in a way only their "live action"-CGI animation could do. If they wanted to make it a bit darker/more serious too (which seems less of a concern for them now), the source material had plenty to pull from.
These are both projects that would have a reason to exist; another chance of doing something closer to what the people who made the original wanted if they could, and a chance to use it as a vehicle for actually using their animation tech for something visually unique. But most of the things they proritize seem to have no "why" for why it exists except a second dip in the money pot. As you point out Moana shows they are not even banking on nostalgia anymore.
At-least Pete's Dragon was something. No one at Disney corporate was going "you know where the big bucks are? Pete's Dragon!". They could have named the film anything else and no one would have batted an eye. Someone had a spesific thing they wanted to exist, and they made it exist.
If they actually prioritized the "why" of remaking these films there are so many other potentially interesting opportunities they are just ignoring. A more book-accurate adaptation of The Black Cauldron, which has already been mentioned. Previously if a Disney film got made of a book or whatever, that was often a death-sentence for ever seeing that work being faithfully adapted to anything in the future. These remakes could have been used as a way to alleviate that. A version of Fox and the Hound that combines the first half of that film with an actual commitment to the book for the second half could be an excellent movie. I'm not sure their "live-action" animation would be the best fit for that, but if they wanted to actually use the spesific qualities of that medium for something interesting they could have the style look more cartoony at the beginning of the film and then gradually lean into their naturalism thing. A more faithfull Sword in the Stone adaption would at-least mean they aren't just hogging the rights. Hell, if they had guts they could even do a Song of the South remake that got rid of all the weird wishy-washy happiness-in-slavery implication and just was a celebration of African American folk-tales, a fairy-tale tradition that is criminally underepresented in American media.
Back when the remakes were supposed to be darker and aimed more at older audiences they could even have gone back and revitalize the old Raynard the Fox project Walt Disney wanted to do, but couldn't figure out how to make kid/Hays Code-friendly.
One thing that they also were doing around the same time as the 101 Dalmatians was going into Broadway. Beauty and the beast was wildly successful as a Broadway play, then go into Lion King which is still ridiculously successful. And they tried with multiple other properties including Aladdin, Tarzan and, frozen, and Little mermaid. Reach the height of Lion King. As someone who loved the Broadways of beauty and the beast and The Lion King, I was really annoyed when they did not pull songs from their existing Broadway plays.
27:28 I definitely had this when the first Jurassic World movie came out.
I was a dino loving girl who saw Jurassic Park film in theatres when the came out when I was a child. I then got to take MY dino loving girl to see the Jurassic World films as they came out.
However, we both only having a passing interest in seeing the latest reboot in theatres and we've talked about how the nostalgia of it all is fun, it’s certainly not enough to make us pony up the cash in this economy when it’ll be out on streaming in a matter of months.
Still waiting on that live-action Black Cauldron remake, Disney.
it wasnt always disney, but gone with the wind i think had an anniversary theatre run in the 90's, with its intermission even. (Yeah, that movie had an intermission.) So, it was rare in the 90's but they would still re-release into the 90's. i think bambi was the last disney re-release into theatres that i remember. And mother of god, while looking up when it originally came out, they apparently did a live of action of it last year. On one level make them stop. I hate that they are no longer changing anything about them. i love it when it brings a different side to the story, something that makes it unique. I keep wondering if it's something to do with copyrights, as these were originally open source material, and if they keep releasing them with the same title, then they get to keep the copy right's for the movie title. Like how bram stroker's dracula in the 90's had to be called "bram stroker's dracula", because the movie company from the original dracula movie still had the copyrights to the title. We all know how much disney love's copyrights. Also, money, money is always they answer, if it worked once, they will do so until the well runs dry rather than risk it on original IP. Elemental was a beautiful original story they did, but the marketing they did for it SUCKED, and it didnt do well.
Okay, let me just say straight up - I like the 90s Jungle Book movie. I like the storyline, I like the cast (Cary Elwes playing the bad guy? Delicious!), I like the references to the original animated film. I like the fact that the animals weren't CGI. I do not like the more recent live action remakes. Mulan was awful - the trailer was the best part of the whole thing. Beauty and the Beast was lackluster and the leads had no chemistry. The Lion King was pointless - it was a "live action" remake that was mostly CGI. Does....does Disney not understand that it still counts as animation even it's done on a computer? It's funny you mention Disney parents, though. I was not a Disney parent, as such. I was a teenager during the 90s renaissance, so I didn't watch a lot of animated movies. I was more into Hong Kong martial arts movies. However, I did buy my children box sets of the animated series of Transformers, She-Ra, He-Man and the 80s version of Astro Boy. Make of that what you will. 🙂
Schaffrillas Productions actually did say in his Disney ranking video that he prefers the live action version by a touch
id probably be a "disney parent" based on your description if i was a parent lol cuz if i had kids id definitely go see some of these. not having one if one of the only reasons i havent bothered. the idea of the remakes being as 1-to-1 as possible is one of the things about that that has interested me (not enough to go see any yet). tho i might see the how to train your dragon one, because just how absurdly faithful it looks like its gonna be. to me the change of format from animation to live action is change enough to see the same thing.
One simple question: WHO will play Mickey as the sorcerer's apprentice in the Live Remake of Fantasia? ^_^
We could get Jay Baruchel! And the sorcerer he’s an apprentice to can be played by Nicholas Cage!
(Edit: for those who don’t get the joke, look up what film was released by Walt Disney Pictures in July 2010)
If they so much as flirt with that idea, someone aught to vandalize their factor-- I mean, studio.
This was really interesting, especially the bit about Disney have always reused their stuff, and also Disney parents, but you're missing a huge piece of the picture here also.
Copyright.
The original mouse is already out of copyright, and more and more stuff is going to start coming out also. It's only a few more years until the whole Snow White film comes out, and then it's like the whole castle will crumble. But in making the live action remakes, they can copyright the dialogue for another 70 years, even if they can't preserve the visuals.
And it's not just direct copyright either. A lot of the films, particularly earlier ones, are a retelling of traditional folk tales. Some more faithful than others, but by making a copyrighted film about it, they are mostly blocking anyone else from using the same original folk tales to make new art of their own too.
The remakes do make me a little sad in that Disney were kinda known for their imagination and newness and now they do remakes and recycle old stuff (which I now understand a bit more heating your take on it). That said I loved the animated beauty and the beast and do REALLY like the live action which did tweak cetain aspects of the story (like what happened to belles mum). Also with that what's not to like about Luke Evans lol
Thank you for asking this question and answering it! Finally someone saying something new about the whole thing. And one more point, Jungle book and other remakes may have done better because this time there's a more global audience who is able watch all of Disney's film like India, China etc. Many of these nations barely had a chance to watch it or even if they did they almost never have purchased gigantic numbers of dvds and cds which allows Disney to sell the whole thing again to them.
It would be hilarious if they remade Treasure Planet! Considering how they set up that great movie to fail. It would genuinely excite people if they gave it a second chance. They need to start remaking the movies that actually didnt do well the first time and giving them a second chance and or improving them
Funny enough, we kinda got something like that with Skeleton Crew. And that show is actually legitimately really good! So, of course, it was the least watched Disney+ Star Wars show ever and probably won't get a second season.
Disneys dilemma will be solved by the usual corporate solution: acquisitions.
I do love your Flotsam and Jetsam earrings. So cute! It is truly unfortunate that they can't make a true live action remake of "The Emperor's New Groove." Rest in Peace Eartha Kitt!
I don't know. I share your feelings about some of these remakes, and a lot of the rest I haven't seen. _Maleficent_ I enjoyed. I can't help remembering, though, I think it was Kurt Vonnegut was asked "Why is 90% of science fiction shit?" and he replied "90% of everything is shit." And I also remember that most of the criticisms that can be made of live action remakes can also be made of adaptations of books or comics -- "the original is beloved, why are you ruining it with a shitty movie?" But once in a generation, you get an adaptation that _both_ captures what was great about the original _and_ uses the strengths of its own medium to the fullest. I'm not closing my mind to the possibility of some future live-action remake of an animated original achieving the same. It hasn't happened yet, but then it doesn't happen very often with adaptations either, so the possibility is still open.
I think for me the problem somewhat lies in a perception of what animation is in the west, you see a lot of people in the west will probably tell you "animation is for kids." This is a problem since the East doesn't actually have this problem, and talking about East versus West, I'm talking mainly the USA and Japan as European animation studios do tend to make more animation targeted towards adults, but Japan has always had animation targeted towards adults even a few Studio Ghibli films have a more mature target audience with Grave of the Fireflies and Princess Mononoke. And Studio Ghibli is basically the Japanese equivalent to Disney, but yet Disney has no animated films targeted towards adults, only a few shows and movies made by a specific animator Ralph Bakshi target adults in the western world of animation.
Also you could blame the hyper commercialization of film because the strangest thing is in the modern era you never really see the semi original film get popular, Oppenheimer and Barbie were basically the exception to the rule of modern film. Franchises and sequels are seen as safe because people will pay money to see those films but I'm also going to propose something that I think Hollywood needs to start doing, lower budget filmmaking is more creative and leads to more semi original projects because the lower budgets mean that if does end up failing the studio will not go bankrupt. Waterworld did not bankrupt the studio after it was made and yet in the modern day so many studios are becoming victims of a hyper capitalist mindset, as other studios just want to keep going bigger in terms of budgets. So those studios are no longer taking risks like they would've in the early 2000's or the 90s or the 80s. Because to take a risk is to risk bankruptcy.
Although a lot of movies are proving you can be successful with lower budgets, Godzilla Minus One was an excellent Godzilla film and it was really quite low budget, A21 as a studio is producing a developing low to mid budget films that are proving to be creative, artistic, semi original and pretty damn interesting, yes some of their films fail but A21 can have films fail because of the budgets being a lot smaller than Hollywood has usually in terms of budget.
I've enjoyed most of the live action remakes and am glad they exist. I'm looking forward to others.
I like Maleficent, since it expands the world and tells an interesting, more mature story through a new medium using the same characters. It’s like fanfiction or a reboot. I like that!
But Jesus Christ remaking HTTYD when the first movie isn’t that old, it had recent sequels and a tv series and part of the appeal of it is that characters are allowed to be fat, disabled, or otherwise non-conventional in ways we don’t see often even in animation, and then for all of that to be dashed with a live-action remake is so heartbreaking.