The only reason you should do a remake at all is to tell the story from a different angle. Joker did this remarkably, as well as Christopher Nolan's Batman Trilogy.
@@osakarain8284 you do understand how flawed your logic is. Walt Disney made animated movies for his passion of animation, not to promote any racist or anti-communist ideals
Where the blue blazes of heck is my The Brave Little Toaster live action remake, so I can see a real air conditioner shoot sparks and violently explode?
The creator originally wanted to make a sequel with cgi animation, but the movie got sold off to another company. No one really knows when it'll be made now.
The toaster should be portrayed like the one in Fallout New Vegas: "I AM AS BRAVE AS ALL OF YOU OTHER PATHETIC APPLIANCES COMBINED! IF ONLY I HAD A MEANS OF LOCOMOTION I WOULD CONQUER THIS WORLD!"
I remember crying so hard when I watched the animated Lion King and I was so afraid to watch the remake because I would cry the same way. I was so bored and walked out feeling fine - there was no emotional connection. I get more emotional connection from narrated lion documentaries than I did with the Lion King remake lol
I saw a clip of the Mufasa dying scene in the live action one and laughed. My cat has hit me more violently than Scar hit Mufasa. It looked like a minor cat spat.
I seriously miss 2D animation. There’s so much more magic behind it. I know when I was a child, I was inspired by the fact I could try and draw these characters. 2D animation feels like such a lost art now, and I truly miss it.
@@radiofloyd2359 It's not that 2D animation is completely dead. Modern cartoons are great and all, but Disney's older films had that magic that can't be recreated or found in some of today's cartoons or 2D animated films by other studios.
I suggest you look up a videogame called "Cuphead". It's a platformer with an incredibly charming 50's saturday morning cartoon art style (exactly like Tom & Jerry i'd say). All of its character movements and animations, level layouts and backdrops is exclusively hand-drawn. I highly recommend checking out.
@LVS96 I mean most of their older films weren't "original" but I know what you mean! Every Grimm Fairytale (and other authors) based film they made had it's own story in a way. Their films that were indeed original, like Brother Bear, was fantastic. If they do decide to start getting creative again, they could try rewriting more old fairytales, like Rumpelstiltskin or Hansel and Gretel. If they do decide on something original, let's hope it has those same elements and feels Brother Bear had. (i keep rambling im sorry??)
They're not even kids movies anymore. As a kid I hated live action movies, I thought they were so boring. Cartoons are so much nicer to look at, even regular cgi. But when you make your movie look like the animal channel...no kids wanna watch that.
I loved both as a kid, some were exceptionally well done (see The Chronicles of Narnia). These are not creative, most are lame copies of the animated originals with little fresh storytelling.
As much as we hate live action Disney remakes, having a live action Ratatouille remake with Gordon Ramsay the Big Blue Engine, Chef Mike, and Nino will make us happy and Disney will make a lot of money for doing this. They can even make a brand for Nino’s lamb sauce, now who the fuck wouldn’t want that?
"How am I supposed to empathise with a real lion?" They did a pretty good job of it with Aslan in the Narnia films. Now, their lions look lifeless despite the technology being more advanced.
Matthew St. Cyr The thing with Aslan is that he wasn’t the main focus. We still had Human characters to connect with. Watching photo realistic lions talking with less facial expression & no humans is gonna be a giant bore.
@@Gamelover254 I'm just saying; they were able to make Aslan talk and emote effectively despite him being photorealistic (for the time), yet this film's trailers can't seem to make any of the lions talk or even make any expression at all. I agree that The Lion King is going to be a giant bore; not because of lack of human characters, but because it's a shameless, uninspired rip-off that can't even convey any emotion or expression at all through its characters.
Aslan was more relatable not only because of the human characters, but because they incorporated some human expressions into the lion, it was subtle but it worked.The video ''Why the Lion King(2019) doesn't work'' by Toon Ruins explains this perfectly.
well tbh, disney is now larger and adults who watched it would probaly watch it with their children. and for some reason cgi makes more cash then animated. animated > cgi/live action
The biggest problem is that with these "live action" movies, the animals or objects are strictly realistic. The thing about the Disney animations is that they were *anthropomorphic,* having HUMAN qualities. You can't be super realistic with the animals AND still have them have human like qualities with facial expressions, it can't mix. The whole point of having human like qualities in these characters is so the audience can get emotionally connected to a character's human traits. That's what Disney isn't understanding. A lion drawn with similar qualities to a human mouth laughing and an actual lion "laughing" are completely different and elicit a different response from the audience.
James Burgess Kind of makes you wish they were using the level of CGI from the Scooby-Doo and Garfield movie doesn’t it. Or God forbid any of the Sony Animated Movies.
I honestly never thought about it but, now that you mention it, it really is impossible too make the two work together and, it’s basically what causes these films to enter the uncanny valley. Compared to zootopia, the animals in the live action jungle book are way too realistic and you can never really read the emotion in their face. Seriously, I love Disney, but, they really need to stop with the live action remakes.
Or, said in other words: it just doesn´t work. From an artistical perspective, they were doomed. In fact, my first thought was "How are they going to even resemble the same magic and beauty from those animations?". And the answer is simple: they just can´t. I think that knowing that we still have those classics is more than enough.
That's not true for all live action movies, I mean, The Detective Pikachu Movie seems like it might make that work, so it might work for the Live Action Lion King. Then again, The Detective Pikachu movie has an original plot, is being made by people who really like Pokemon, and the Pokemon designs are being made with the idea of "make it as realistic as possible, but without making it creepy/ too uncanny valley feeling" (I mean, never did I think a "hyper realistic" Mr. Mime would be less creepy then its game counter-part), and hiring actors/ artists who are at least semi-passionate about being part of the project... So yeah, maybe not the best comparison, but a live action remake can work, the makers just have to give a crap about what they're making.
They used to do that, actually. Snow White from what I've read was given a limited time back in theaters for it's 50th Anniversary. Nowadays, it's all about cash grabs though.
I just hate how gloomy and boring the live actions look. Where's the color? The energy? It's just so dull and depressing to look at. IHE made some great points.
+Nathan L-Yeah, one of the things that have made me absolutely livid is Disney claiming the Lion King remake is "live action." The fuck it is. . .It's CGI. . .just an entirely different form of animation but STILL animation. . .There is no way the Lion King remake ever should have been considered "live action" unless they are somehow adding humans into the mix. . .At best, the Lion King remake will be more along the lines of the Disney Dinosaur movie where the characters are CGI but there are live backgrounds. . .And Disney wasn't nearly stupid enough at the time to consider Dinosaur live-action in any way. . . Anyway, Lady and the Tramp is getting the "live action"/CGI treatment. WHY?!?!?!?!? What even %^%^%^%^ purpose does that serve? It doesn't make the story any better, it doesn't change the story in any way, and it only further undermines all the hard work, love, and care that did go into these original animated movies.
I once saw a comment defending live action remakes saying “Walt Disney wanted to introduce his films to new generations”. Yeah, he did that by re-releasing his films in theaters, and years after his death on video/DVD. A few years ago Disney actually DID do that, by releasing Lion King and Little Mermaid in 3D. If you want younger people to experience old Disney movies, just show them the movies! Bambi came out in 1942 and I watched it when I was 5 in 2006, and I still enjoyed it despite how old the movie was. I also agree with Alex’s idea to remaster old Pixar movies and re release them, because the only thing going against them is some aspects of the animation (especially the humans in Toy Story)
@@Lewtable th-cam.com/video/bfL6CIUiFx4/w-d-xo.html even demon souls, Spyro, crash shadow of the colossus suck the old 3D graphics is what makes the game special
@@alanmooreisrasputinreincar8106 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lion_King_(2019_film) The Wikipedia page for The Lion King 2019 calls it an "animated musical fantasy adventure" I think the "live action remakes" is something someone else started calling them.
No. It's CGI animated, ie It's realistic animation. You wouldn't call a fully 3D rendered realistic video game like Halo "live action." (And they certainly wouldn't want to market it as such, since the term is kind of taboo among the gaming community now).
Molly May The title of “live” is meant to imply that it is real. And although it isn’t, it mimics that style and calling it animated wouldn’t work since it lacks traditional animation styles.
@@dreadlordhg360 the definition: live action noun action in films involving filming real people or animals, as contrasted with animation or computer-generated effects.
Bbbmurr I mean, The Jungle Book and Beauty and The Beast had live actors, soooo, they were live action in a way. As for The Lion King, that's just an animated movie since it's literally 100% CGI.
@@Jasmine-xb1ws But they never needed to! Nobody cared if the older movies showed the culture the right way or whatever; they just cared about the characters and the stories!
As someone who wants to work in the animation industry, seeing a company I grew up with go down this path makes me incredibly sad. The whole point of animation from the beginning was to do what 'live-action' movies couldn't- they pushed the boundaries of what was possible. If you're making an animated movie as realistic and fancy as possible, why not just make it using real actors? Movies like 'Into the Spider-verse' really capture the essence of what animation could be. The blend of completely different animation styles and effects that wouldn't be possible with real actors is what makes that movie so appealing to look at. Heck, Fantasia was revolutionary because of how unique the animation was. Sure, you could do any of that stuff with computers now but what would be the point? It's already been done beautifully.
I was actually thinking about going to see that movie in theatres, and after reading your comment I think I’m gonna go see it. Hopefully it’s funny as fuck, I didn’t think the trailers were bad!
As a Supervising Animator on a number of the original versions of the films you discuss here, I agree with you on nearly all counts. You make some very good points in you analysis. Hollywood seems to have forgotten that animation is not the replication of reality it is the caricature of same. It is sad to have to sit and watch the films and characters we toiled so hard on be reduced to mediocre film graphics. But look at the BO (that’s box office not body odor), on these things. People get huge bonus’ for bringing in that kind of money and the profits tell them that what they are doing is wanted and needed. As for respect for what has come before, for the most part, yes, I know my work will outlive me. But having taught animation for over 30 years, in studio and in colleges, I have to say that in very recent years the lord and master of many future animators is, indeed, technology. What we did is looked down upon as old and irrelevant by some of today’s students. They want ease and repetition and arch characters in random situations because it’s easier to create and builds upon known vernacular over creating new. Attention to detail, likable characters, warmth, depth, life, it’s all just to hard to do and requires thought and commitment so it is being dismissed as out of fashion. Of course there are many talented young people studying animation today who do not fit this mold and I pray they will succeed and be given the opportunity to give their best on something slightly more challenging and rewarding that Stephen Universe, Gravity Falls or Rick and Morty. Time will tell, I guess. Thank you for you post and I’m sure you don’t REALLY hate EVERYthing 😉.
Thanks, for your comment. I will like to create a hand-drawn and CGI mix movie myself. And I am sure that in the future the playing field will be much more even in animation.
Disney fans: this is the new live action Lion King remake? Disney: yep Disney fans: but all the characters are CGI Disney: yep Disney fan: and the backgrounds are CGI too so if that’s the case then this is an animated movie Disney: that sounds right to me Disney fan: then it’s an animated movie Disney: it’s a live action remake
Disney fan: Where is the live part? Disney: We dress the voice actors in full body blue suits with ping pong balls stuck all over to capture the live motion, thus, live action!
Disney fan: Excuse me childhood influence would you like a hand with that box? Disney: *Cancellation of cartoons on Disney channel* Disney fan: Ouch! Disney: *buys Lucasfilm, Marvel and 21st Century Fox* Disney fan: Ahh you exploitative money hungry company! What's in that box anyway? Disney: Live action remakes and sequels
The Lion King actually totally proves your point about emotions. Simba looked heartbreaking in the cartoon and everyone felt sorry for him. In this new version he looks.. well.. idk, how am I supposed to know how a lion feels?
And That What Make Photorealistic CGI Is Bad , They Can't Create The Same Magic Like The Animation One .and hopefully pixar will never make an remake live action of their movie , also im rooting for wes anderson because for me , he was the only one who survived cgi travesty , he rarely used cgi and used stop motion or practical effect . Also i really like a live action movie with no cgi on it , it feel real rather than used cgi .
This is not just a problem with Disney but the movie industry as a whole. There are so few truly original movies that are free from any ties to a previously successful franchise nowadays and honestly it is sad to see.
@@fakebird000 As a kid Avatar reminded me a lot of the Transall Saga and something else I can't quite put my finger on. It didn't seem that original to me.
Avatar kind of supports the Disney remake idea though, since that sold mainly due to its visuals, so the takeaway seems to have been instead of making something original make things with a lot of CG. Idk, CG is fine, but I hope they'll get back to some of the art direction from before
Okay think of it this way: You're a child with lovingly parents, but one day your parents get replaced by robot parents. The robot parents look the same, act the same as your real parents, but your real parents are slowly getting forgotten. It's the same with the reboots against the classics
That's an interesting analogy. It makes sesne the true spirit of the old movies is not the same as its represented in the remakes. The remakes never capture the spirit of the old movies. There's no heart in the new Disney remakes. Much like the robot parents 🤖 not having a soul or a heart compared to the real parents. Makes sense to me.
I can see why Disney would remake some of their more flawed films like Pete’s Dragon (1977) among other select Disney films. But yeah, remaking Beauty and the Beast, Alice in Wonderland, Cinderella, and literally almost every other Disney classic... Doesn’t add anything to the original experience, and as you mentioned, just results in a film with a lot less heart purely made for cashing in on the animated counterpart’s legacy. Hell in a few decades, I’ll bet nobody’s even going to remember these live action remakes.
What truly terrifies me is the concept that Disney will downplay the older, original movies to hype up these ones, leading to people only remembering Wiil Smith as the Genie, or Emma Watson’s autotuned screeches as Belle.
Nothing beats hand drawn or animated. Absolutely NOTHING! Live action versions of animated movies has always looked lazy and uninspired to me (take The Smurfs - absolute fucking garbage). Obviously, it's all about the money, but I'm getting pretty sick of this whole remake trend. Can we please get some unique ideas out there on the table? The only live action animated movie that I'm at least fairly interested in is that Pokemon movie that's coming out next year with Pikachu being voiced by Ryan Reynolds. Sorry, but I HAVE to see that! I HAVE to.
As an aspiring film maker, I feel sorry for those creators who actually have original ideas for new stuff that Disney rejects to make these remakes. The movies seem like such money grabs and when I try to convince others about this, they just think I'm some film student obsessed with perfection. :(
@@calebproductions1264 I heard about that one, but a Lady and the Tramp "live action" remake is going to be almost as bad as the Lion King remake will be.
@@musicalmuddinto4256 Why stop there? Why not all the animated movies? Hell, why not do a live action remake of the cartoon shows? Come on, Di$ney, that money is out there, waiting for you. Don't you know that those movies and shows no longer exist, and the current generation need them?
Disney was originally against 3d and CGI, and fired that guy who wanted to try to convince them to try it. That guy later turned to make pixar what it is today. Disney remained against 3d untli they saw Pixar's success. And now these two companies have merged... So
Then Disney's jump into 3D with Meet The Robinsons was so wonderful and the creator, team, and message behind it hit so well on top of it being funny and entertaining. I cried. But i guess they read the Walt quote of "Keep Moving Forward" and shat on it.
Don't people hate them because of nostalgia? I mean people compare them to the old ones and say that because it's not in the goofy exaggerated drawings then it's an insult to the main product. When the movies are still animated, they keep the same story, and are trying something new and not just giving the same things over and over. If anything that sounds like everything people want in a reboot.
@@NhBleker The difference being that, while Disney is doing it purely for the money, the guys at id Software and Machine games knew what made the DOOM and Wolfenstein franchises work (even if id DID originally make both DOOM and Wolfenstien 3D, id is now almost entirely composed of new blood by this point).
I'd agree on you with this one. Apart from being cash grabs they're just flexing their "animation" skills. The New Lion King was just a 2 hour tech demo.
Yeah, that is actually a pretty good way of summing it up.. I don't see why they feel the need to subject us viewers to it though... apart from the cash grabbing, of course.
The biggest part of it: the original writers, storyboard artists and other people who worked on the original will never see a CENT of the millions Disney makes off the remake.
well, they did a job to make a movie for Disney, they got paid, that's it. Disney owns the product of their labor, and can then make sequels or remakes and the artists aren't entitled to anything because they signed up to make a movie for a gigantic corporation in the first place. Makes sense to me. Hell 80% of these stories are based on fables that the artists you mention did not originate, so I see even less reason to pay them into perpetuity.
Nunni and Zippy D The original had so much color to reflect in the mood and the movie itself was pure magic, the 2019 version is just dull and boring, I just wanted to leave the theater right then and there.
There is no point of remaking popular movies like Aladdin and The Lion King. Now if they remade underrated movies like Treasure Planet and Atlantis now I would go watch that.
NO LEAVE TREASURE PLANET ALONE THEY’D JUST MAKE JIM A “RELATEABLE” DUDE BRO TYPE TEEN INSTEAD OF A CHARACTER WITH ACTUAL DEPTH & SILVER THE TIRED “BATTLE WORN MENTOR” STEREOTYPE & THEY’D MAKE AMELIA A MARY SUE WITH NO PERSONALITY Just have the original directors make the Treasure Planet sequel that they had planned already ;3;
Treasure Planet, No; aspects about it being 2D animated (as well as flat CGI and Deep Canvas) work perfect for itself and wouldn't translate as beautifully if made all live action (or in the case of the non-human characters, CGI abominations). Atlantis, *YES* ; There's a lot of potential for using CGI to get that 1900s steampunk aesthetic machinery, and there's a whole cast of actual human characters that won't need replaced with CGI characters. And despite not being a Disney movie, I think there should be a live action remake of The Road to El-Dorado. That movie would look great if done in live action; it already feels like a live action movie, but done in animation, as it's more grounded in reality and doesn't have as much animated splendor (aside from that GORGEOUS color pallet in certain scenes) or style like Treasure Planet has
Exactly. Nobody thought animated drawings could bring such emotions back in the day, and it was Disney who proved to the world that it was possible. I don't even understand why they focus so much on creating CGI crap when they could be master of animated drawings.
@@Meyour67120 They have to move with the market. Shrek and Toy Story proved that 3D animation and ironic fairytales is where it's going. And Princess and the Frog showed where it isn't.
Thats their best live action remake IMO it took a different angle from the original and used real non talking dogs and allowed the human characters to be more fleshed out.
TUSSLES they’re remaking that too. Seriously check out the Disney films Wikipedia page, you’ll be either totally shocked or totally unsurprised....but every film they’ve ever made will be going under the knife in the next few years. Disney is just the show Botched
Looking forward to the next one where Cruella Deville is CGI, the dogs are completely CGI, the cameras that film the movie are CGI, the director is CGI, when we go watch the movie at the cinema we get transformed to CGI. It'll be great
Are we going to talk about the upcoming live-action remake of Mulan? Mulan has always been my favourite disney movie, with one of the first badass heroines. As a kid I watched it LITERALLY EVERY DAY. In the upcoming remake they removed the songs, Mushu, Shang and they replaced the Huns with the tipical mediocre "Evil Witch". I'm so disappointed, it's not Mulan anymore. One of the thing i loved was that, despite some fantasy/folklore elements on it(eg the dragons, the ancestors... ) the enemy felt real... If you want a "realistic" remake I can understand if you want to remove the songs and maybe modify Mushu, but at least keep Shang and the Huns... It doesn't make any sense the evil witch thing...
People give the excuse of Lion King 2019 being emotion less and bland: WeLL TheY'Re TrYinG to BE REALISTIC. Okay then, why is there no lion genitals? No lion balls?? Why are lions talking? Why are lions friend with a BIRD??And a Mandrill?? Why does animals worship lions? You know REALISTICALLY they don't right? And lions don't sing, either does meerkat, and bird, and boar? And why is this meerkat staying with a boar? In the animates version these are fine details because they're NOT SUPPOSED TO MAKE SENSE, but when you make CGI animals that can't even emote any emotions, with no soul, and stale movements, then there is no excuse. No facial expressions means it's very hard for the audience to relate to the characters, why not just watch a animal documentary right?? Aslan from Chronicles of Narnia in 2005 did it gazillion times better. It looks real, it has emotion, and you can relate because even subtle movements with his eyebrows are him communicating with the audience. Disney has the ability to make this look both real and full of life and emotion, but they chose not to do that, because people will see it no matter what, and in the end, they will still have all the money.
@@Xehanort10 from what I remember Walt told the animator to make Micky more realistic but not close to reality but to feel and look lively and expressive or something Idk I'm not an expert sorry for hearing me ramble OK good bye
How about instead of remaking good movies into something that'll never live up to it, they remake movies that didn't come out too well but deserve a second chance?
Many of the bad Disney movies were either bad because they didn't care at all about their quality and the films were unnecessary (the direct to DVD sequels) or they were trying to be "hip" (Chicken Little, arguably Wreck it Ralph 2). I don't think your idea would work because Disney's failures aren't because of execution, it was because of ne ideas
Eh, I think Robin Hood could make a good film for them. As far as I know, they haven't done a live action one, and they could do one with humans rather than animals. Imagine, a Robin Hood by Disney, built from the ground up, all cohesive and not made from old animation dyed a different color and patched together into a cheap quilt. It could be cool. They could afford it now, unlike the original. And more importantly, it could be different and stand out from the animated film easily considering the range possible with an old folk legend like Robin Hood. Kind of like the reverse of Treasure Planet's inception. First came a Treasure Island live action film, later came a re-imagining of the original book story as Treasure Planet. If they could make something different based on the same source, but in live action I think they would be more worthy of respect.
I do agree of remaking Treasure Planet the story and characters were great and developed, the color palette was gorgeous, and I think it’d look great w modern CGI. Same goes for Atlantis, both movies deserve a second chance
I'd just like to state for the record that The Lion King is gonna have almost entirely computer generated animals and they're still calling it a live action film. And yet at the same time Disney treats Dinosaur as one of their animated films
Disney isn't calling it live action, audiences are. All Disney said was they are making a Lion King Remake and since all their remakes have been live action everyone called it that.
Plus, in the case of the Lion King remake, it's not even a real friggin' lion!!! I will much more readily empathize with a real one I see in a National Geographic documentary, for example.
Christopher Robin actually continued the story of Winnie the Pooh. It was charming in it's message about growing up but not forgetting your childhood. Everything else is just a nostalgia grab.
Why is everyone not mentioning Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland? What was wrong with that movie? Much of the material in that movie is based on the original story.
I've literally been trying to explain this to my dad and his girlfriend a million times in this past year and someone FINALLY expressed exactly what I was thinking in a more intelligent and thoughtful way! You will not believe how happy I got after watching this.
I sure didn't! I always thought that movie a bit boring and not to mention majorly depressing. I like Tim Burton, but you just know he's going to make the movie look even more gloomy with drab colors just like his Alice movies.
TheVanishing87 Better yet, the elephant can’t even talk in this one! They are literally writing a mostly new story with the same characters. This movie is gonna flop (I hope)
You know what bothers me the most? It is not even the CGI - it's the fact, that they change the characters and stories to the worst. Beauty and the Beast was such a wonderful story about inner beauty, trust, forgiveness and love - and they changed it to "belle knows how important she is", "the beast is a jerk the whole time", "the witch comes back in the end and smiles knowingly". No. Just no. I am really afraid, that they do that to Aladdin and the Lion King to.
YES! Like from the first scene I knew this movie was going to be a shit fest of dumb changes. Why did the enchantress have to literally break int the castle? In the original, she was at the door. How are we supposed to think that it's ok to give shelter to a rando who BROKE INTO YOUR FUCKING HOME? They just wanted a bombastic opening scene and didn't take into account that it makes the enchantress look like an entitled bitch to the point that she's actually the bad guy. It might be a nitpick but it illustrates what kind of nonsense this movie was going for. And yes, the beast was just a an asshole. Like the library scene! OMGGGGG! In the original he was explicitly looking for a way to make her happy that's why he showed her his library, in the remake he was just showing-off after telling her she has shit tastes in literature. This isn't just dickhead attitude. It's also a dangerous idea for the young impressionable girls watching this movie. Disney is perpetuating this idea that it's ok to fall in love with someone who belittles you and is full of himself. He has no redeeming qualities yet he "gets the girl". There are still girls growing up believing that this attitude is attractive. I use to think that when I was younger, I use to read fanfics written by other girls with the same content and think it's a hot romance. We were raised on this kind of stories from Hollywood. But it's not ok! People like the beast aren't worth falling for, in real life they often turn out assholes who will ruin your life. We need to stop romanticizing this shit. The original was way more progressive, by showing that it's only after he's changed as a person that Belle loves him. In the remake, Belle is trying harder than he is and it's not ok to sell this idea to young girls. Assholes can change, but if he's not changing you don't have to take him as he is. Know your worth! and the worst change was Lefou. It's ok and even important to have LGBT representation in children media but not this!!! They took everything that made him a wimp, pathetic excuse for a man and said it means he gay now. They change boot licking into cock sucking! WTF! And he wasn't even open, what the fuck were they talking about? The movie just perpetuates bad tropes and expect praise for it: 1. being gay needs to remain a secret to the audience 2. He's gay so his entire character and pretty much everything he says has to be related to his sexuality 3. Gay-dude-who-wants-to-fuck-his-oblivious-straight-friend cliche 4. LGBT= joke (I mean, Lefou is just a comic relief, his name even translate to "The fool"). The only people who think this is good representation are morons who only care about LGBT issues when people can give them a pat on the back for being "woke". Shame on you Disney, for ruining one of your best creations and insulting people in an attempt to pander to them. I heard people say that they are trying to update the movies because of the morals that aren't always "progressive enough" but honestly the originals had more progressive messages than the remakes. That's because the remakes are ordered by old men who don't even understand what those "progressive buzzwords" like LGBT representation and Feminism stand for and they are making movies for morons like them to like. They don't even realize the way the changes they make affect the original morals, because they don't understand enough of those morals, to begin with.
@@KookiesNolly Yes to this. In order to change a story, you have to understand what makes the previous work succeed and what makes it fail. Like their remake of Cinderella. Their failure in the animated film was that they concentrated too much on the animals and not enough on the humans. But when they made the remake, she is supposed to be this strong, independent woman but she is honestly weaker than her animated counterpart. Movie makers and tv producers not taking the art of film seriously is why I have pretty much turned away from movies and tv. There are some good things out there but I will not waste money on anything that doesn't feel like actual work hasn't been put behind it. Do not get me started on Jurassic World either, which isn't Disney but my complaint is the same.
Mandy Fleischer they already white washed Aladdin and then tried to make up for it by casting will Smith as the creepy cgi genie. The girl playing jasmine has literally the same skin tone as Cinderella, and for some reason nobody is talking about it. It’s sad that just because America hates the Middle East as a whole, nobody cares about all the middle eastern girls who are Americans and won’t get to see themselves represented in a movie that was already based on a movie that got so much about the culture wrong...like they could’ve at least *tried* to fix the problems with the original. It would’ve been more warranted than what they did with beauty and the beadt
nah they fixed some of the plot holes in beauty. mainly how in the remake it took more than dancing and giving her bird seeds to make her fall in love with the person who kidnapped her father and kept her away from all of her family. the live action element ads realism to the movie while still keeping the sense of magic disney movies are iconic for of it all and noone can tell me OH NO the beast is ugly who wanted that. he is SUPPOSED to be ugly thats the whole point. and no one going to tell me they hate a movie because of the expressive art palet thats basically a none reason and anyone who tells me that they dont like the movie because the "shot pallet was less expressive" case in point the jungle book. the first jungle book was a disaster if you judge itby any actual RELEVANT standered of movie making i.e coherent storyline,more than two likable characters, good voice acting it would fall short" but its ok because the faces were more expressive" thats not what makes a good movie and lacking these things doesnt make a bad movie . i mean you could argue that realism is even better. i mean the things he argued in his video and some of things you have said aren't even relevant making a good movie especially if the remake fixes flaws in the original sorry this was so long
I agree. It hurts my heart to think of what Walt/the talented people that worked on the Disney classics who put a lot into their work would say if they saw what the people in charge of Disney were doing now. It's just crazy how I can love Disney so much and simultaneously be so mad at it. Hopefully people will stop seeing these live action remakes they churn out and Disney will finally stop. I just want quality, well-made, emotionally touching movies again. Just last week they released the teaser for the Artemis Fowl movie and it made the fans of the original books very upset. I hope they get their act together soon. I want to live in a good era of Disney, not one filled with lifeless, soulless movies
yeah walt would feel so bad funny enough with the 12 principles of animation sumn disney studios made the principle "appeal" walt was passionate about lol he liked having his characters fun and appealing not realistic and dull
Disney Live Action Remakes: For people so lodged up their own comfort zone that they can only watch things that they already like. Except now without any of the color, life, humor or passion.
I'm both looking forward and dreading the Mulan movie. Mulan is my absolute favorite and I can't imagine the movie without the songs or that dramatic tonal shift between the happy "A Girl worth fighting for" and the scene of a village massacred. Sure, the fight choreography will be awesome and they could do wonders with the avalance scene but everything else? I dont know. Not looking forward to CG Mushu either. It's more a strange curiosity rather than wanting to see something again.
no passion? i think every artist who worked on those films would have a bone to pick with you, and lets not forget that back when disney was REMAKING classic books into his animated movies, they used to call his films "silly money grubbing cartoons that disrespect the books"
Yeah, they put a different dimension on stories that people are familiar with. Now the others, not only have no originality, but have no emotion expressed.
Once it was plain there was money to be made off of student loans a glut of flyby night VFX schools began opening just about everywhere. These schools dumped its graduates and their very limited degrees into an already flooded market and now cgi is everywhere. I dabble into 3d modeling and rendering and its a hobby that can force the unwary onto a treadmill of buy, buy, buy. You've got to buy the latest whatever and constantly upgrade or you'll get left behind of whatever is new and trendy. Its a fascinating medium if you stay on the periphery but at its core its pretty much evil incarnate.
"realistic" = better is probably my least favorite trope in media/audience opinion. It's the same reason so many people prefer impossibly overly edgy and terrible DC movies still over literally any other superhero film. It's baffling to me how unappreciated animation, Especially 2D animation is to me nowadays everywhere other than Japan. I really hope this trend ends at some point and we just go back to making films and games in whatever presentation style actually makes the product as good as it can be.
@@DeepFriedSpagehetti-rq7iu Marvel is for sure much more popular, but the DC movies somehow keep making enough money to continue being made, despite all of them being awful and rated very poorly on any review site. So clearly some large group of people somewhere keeps watching them like the transformers movies.
UuUuUh bUt If ItS rEaLiStIc It MeAnS iTs mOrE MaTuRe, CaRtOoNs ArE fOR kIdS, No MaTtEr ThE cOnTeNt (you know, like rick and Morty, bojack horseman, south park, a lot of anime, Ralph Bakshi movies.... I still don't get why people see animation as being only for kids)
I hate live action remakes. I wish they would stop. But something I hate the most is that kids now are growing up with those instead of the classics. It really makes me mad tbh.
Actually, kids are always being exposed to the originals and even if they do see the remake, they immediately forget about it and keep liking the original.
I hate how people are like “oohh lets go see lion king live action!” “Why?” “well because its lion king!” If thats the case, JUST GO WATCH THE ORIGINAL LION KING!
It's absurd why people don't just NOT go to watch them... You already know the stories, and if you grew up with them, then you likely already have them to show your kids. What a waste of like $30.
@@Attmay Cinema is going to die if it stops taking risks. Animation is in danger now because the massive company that pioneered it is playing the easy card too often. Eventually the sheep will be sheared and no longer trust the shepherd. These safe movies have a stigma! They're more concerned with likes than respects. No new classics then... classics are old things.
@@runningoncylinders3829 Those classics were new once upon a time. That's the difference. The CGI Lion King paradoxically looks more drab and flat than the original. There is no artistry to it. None of it was worth getting rid of traditional animation. Am I bitter? You better believe it, little britches! Have I stopped supporting the company partly for this reason? Absobloominlutely!
Maleficent was intriguing, Cinderella brought some interesting perspective to the inner strength of Cinderella’s character, then Beauty and the Beast was soulless and overhyped and everything after that utterly overwhelmed by sheer cynicism of the exercise
@@senpaithehandsomelad7732 Yes! I actually love the Alice In Wonderland live action remake, it's a continuation of the original story and not just a "live action" copy and paste of the original, same with Maleficent. If live action remakes were more like them then they probably would get less hate.
I think these 'live action' movies are also testament to how theatrical 2D animation is no longer desirable in the west. It shows how little faith the film industry has in the medium nowadays.
because why go through the painstaking process of frame-by-frame 2D animation when you can make your computer do it in 3D and it will still shit money for you?
And yet the sheer amount of hype around the upcoming Dragon Ball Broly movie would indicate that 2D animation is very much *not* dead...Hollywood just don't seem to care or understand that it is the superior animation style. Probably because it takes more time and effort to hand draw animations instead of using 3D modelling and animation software to do the heavy lifting for them. Same reason stop-motion doesn't get a look in any more, despite Wallace and Gromit and Chicken Run being some of the best movies going.
@@TheKazragore do you actually realize the amount of work and time that has to go into 3D as well? 2D animation is done digitally 99,99% of the time nowadays anyway. I hate that 2d is dying but it isn't because it's easier, it's because it's a fad
I recently commented on the live action Lion King trailer, saying I was sick of it and who would rather watch this dull movie compared to the colorful, brilliant animation of the classic version. A lot of people agreed but some people were like I'd rather watch this. And I lost hope for humanity. I don't understand the appeal, it's ugly, boring, watereddown, and such an obvious way to exploit money from nostalgia. People kept commenting, the King is back! I said they dug him up from the grave, spat on him a little bit, and drug his dead corpse in front of the audience. Hate these 'live remakes'.
I have a feeling those people have no respect for the work and effort that went into the original and think animation is only for children unless it's CG.
im glad to hear someone explain how much different and sometimes better animation is than realistic looking things. animation is probably the type of thing i watch the most and i dont care to say that i watch cartoon/anime bc cartoons/anime is awesome. love yourself and thanks for appreciating this art form.
This. Is. What. I've. Been. Saying. For. MONTHS!!! Honestly, if disney wants to keep doing live action remakes, remake a film that did poorly, one that can be improved. Black Cauldron comes to mind, it failed critically and financially. Imagine giving that to Guillermo del Toro, think of what he can do with that material!
That's not how it works, or how producers and game developers think. A good movie remade, will gather more interest than a bad one remade, because people expect them to follow the same line. If something is bad, you're not going to think the next one will be better, due to previous thoughts on it. That's why they remake popular movies to keep the tempo going. EDIT: IHE ellaborates what I said at around 2:00
The problem is that Disney rarely takes responsibility for their bad films. They either A) Refuse to acknowledge that the film was bad, and prefer to blame the financial failure on "Well audiences just don't like 2D animation anymore" (Black Cauldron, Home on the Range) Or B) Completely sweep it under the rug and hope people forget about its existence (Dinosaur, Chicken Little...Black Cauldron and Home on the Range again)
JUST LIKE TO SAY The original voice actors for Timon and Pumbaa are still alive! Don’t see why they couldn’t just recast them like they did with Mufasa
At first I thought it's a race thing, cause they wanted a more or less all black cast, which is why Jeremy Irons isn't cast as scar. But then they cast Seth Rogen as Pumba, so I guess they just want famous names to cash in on.
Maybe they're worried it would just make the whole thing seem even more unnatural. They make the characters sound different because they look different.
If Walt Disney himself was still alive today, he'd be ashamed to see how Corporate Greed has corrupted the very same company he's built from the ground up, *"Money doesn't excite me, my ideas excite me"*
I feel like the reasoning behind these films being made can be summed up in one quote from a Mr. Eugene Krabs
“Hello, I like money”
And what inspired you to make these movies?
Mr Krabs "Money"
Just like sequels.
And traveling theater like lion king.
What about
“Am I really gonna defile this grave for money?”
“You bet I am!”
Walt Disney once said “We don’t make movies to make money, we make money to make movies.” Oh, how Disney has completely thrown THAT out the window!
The only reason you should do a remake at all is to tell the story from a different angle. Joker did this remarkably, as well as Christopher Nolan's Batman Trilogy.
@@thunderbird1921 exactly
He ( *his company ) became what he swore to destroy.
Walt Disney was also a racist and reported communists to the CIA to be murdered. Guess Disney should get back to their roots and do that by your logic
@@osakarain8284 you do understand how flawed your logic is. Walt Disney made animated movies for his passion of animation, not to promote any racist or anti-communist ideals
Where the blue blazes of heck is my The Brave Little Toaster live action remake, so I can see a real air conditioner shoot sparks and violently explode?
Oh and the clown could be a CGI humanoid monstrosity to perfectly encapsulate the terror that film made me feel!
Oh... god... that dredged back memories of playing with my A/C unit... and having it spontaneously combust.
MoonBunny24 They should write a solo for the Clown and get Colossal is Crazy to voice it.
The creator originally wanted to make a sequel with cgi animation, but the movie got sold off to another company. No one really knows when it'll be made now.
The toaster should be portrayed like the one in Fallout New Vegas: "I AM AS BRAVE AS ALL OF YOU OTHER PATHETIC APPLIANCES COMBINED! IF ONLY I HAD A MEANS OF LOCOMOTION I WOULD CONQUER THIS WORLD!"
I remember crying so hard when I watched the animated Lion King and I was so afraid to watch the remake because I would cry the same way. I was so bored and walked out feeling fine - there was no emotional connection. I get more emotional connection from narrated lion documentaries than I did with the Lion King remake lol
Because none of the characters expressed any emotion, so neither did you.
I mean even though mufasa was played by the same actor he wasn’t doing to well, I think he was just bored
-_-
When I saw the live-action Lion King I cried...
Because I wasted my money 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
Soo SAD
I saw a clip of the Mufasa dying scene in the live action one and laughed. My cat has hit me more violently than Scar hit Mufasa. It looked like a minor cat spat.
Disney: Am I going to defile this grave to get money?
Disney: of course I am!
Better make sure finding the original is near impossible!
- Eugene Krabs.
@Rip Stephen Hillenburg ur doing the exact same thing except for likes you dick
You're Walter White
I think the ending of the episode also applies to Disney."Didn't you hear? We found an old warehouse full of them, they're worthless!"
I seriously miss 2D animation. There’s so much more magic behind it. I know when I was a child, I was inspired by the fact I could try and draw these characters. 2D animation feels like such a lost art now, and I truly miss it.
YES! i miss the warmth and beauty of 2D animation! i would love to see it come back
At least anime is still there for us. Also a few semi decent CN and Nickelodeon shows...
@@radiofloyd2359 It's not that 2D animation is completely dead. Modern cartoons are great and all, but Disney's older films had that magic that can't be recreated or found in some of today's cartoons or 2D animated films by other studios.
I suggest you look up a videogame called "Cuphead". It's a platformer with an incredibly charming 50's saturday morning cartoon art style (exactly like Tom & Jerry i'd say). All of its character movements and animations, level layouts and backdrops is exclusively hand-drawn. I highly recommend checking out.
@LVS96 I mean most of their older films weren't "original" but I know what you mean! Every Grimm Fairytale (and other authors) based film they made had it's own story in a way. Their films that were indeed original, like Brother Bear, was fantastic. If they do decide to start getting creative again, they could try rewriting more old fairytales, like Rumpelstiltskin or Hansel and Gretel. If they do decide on something original, let's hope it has those same elements and feels Brother Bear had.
(i keep rambling im sorry??)
Simba: What's that shadowy place?
Mufasa: That's the 2019 remake. You must never go there Simba.
Too late...
The live action Lion King is what the characters look like after drinking too much rhino milk.
Oh he did :(; And he became that 2:12
They're not even kids movies anymore. As a kid I hated live action movies, I thought they were so boring. Cartoons are so much nicer to look at, even regular cgi. But when you make your movie look like the animal channel...no kids wanna watch that.
I grew up on live action and cartoon shows and movies so it doesnt really bother me as much.
I loved both as a kid, some were exceptionally well done (see The Chronicles of Narnia). These are not creative, most are lame copies of the animated originals with little fresh storytelling.
Lady Galeophie
Well... animal channel is great
Lady Galeophie the live action arent made for the kids...theyre made for the parents
Yep
*Old animated movie exists*
Disney: it’s free real estate.
Its just good business
Bambi
They made a live action Pete's Dragon, so I fully expect a remake of Black Cauldron
Thank you big smoke, very cool.
There are 420 likes on this comment nobody ruin this
I literally just finished editing a video about this, glad to know that I'm not alone on this one lol
Don't reply to them
Edit: Lol he deleted his comment
No
Noooooooooo
Love your vids dude
Edited video and edited comment. N o i c e
ily
When you run out of ideas so you make HD versions of your ideas
Tbh i enjoy them
Ironically this also applies to Kingdom Hearts.
@@fyrflyr2378 that is the point of kingdom hearts dumb ass
How I feel about Disney right now.
The only one I'm excited for is The Lion King simply because it's my favorite Disney movie
I swear to god if they make a toy story live action remake I'm done with life.
...with the exact same look
DONT GIVE THEM IDEAS!
Some no life loser. Well say goodbye to life because I’m from 2022 and they already did it
Really?😉😉
They already did...
*live action Ratatouille starring Gordon Ramsay*
*WHY IS THERE A FUCKING MOUSE IN THE FUCKING KITCHEN YOU FUCKING PILLOCKS!*
Actually, I would pay to see that. XD
As much as we hate live action Disney remakes, having a live action Ratatouille remake with Gordon Ramsay the Big Blue Engine, Chef Mike, and Nino will make us happy and Disney will make a lot of money for doing this. They can even make a brand for Nino’s lamb sauce, now who the fuck wouldn’t want that?
I'm fucking c h o k i n g YES
@@calebproductions1264 Did someone say
NINOOOOOO?
Finally someone brings up how bland the Lion King trailer colours look compared next to the original 2D animation.
RickRaptor105 Do they look like puppets to you too?
alize0623 *COLOURS* is what he said *COLOURS*
꧁𖤐ᴛѕᴜᴋᴋɪ𖤐꧂ Okay? I’m adding onto that. I think the colors are bland and that the models look like puppets.
alize0623 no you fucking aren't you literally only mentioned "puppets"
Not as bland as the dceu
"How am I supposed to empathise with a real lion?" They did a pretty good job of it with Aslan in the Narnia films. Now, their lions look lifeless despite the technology being more advanced.
Matthew St. Cyr
The thing with Aslan is that he wasn’t the main focus. We still had Human characters to connect with. Watching photo realistic lions talking with less facial expression & no humans is gonna be a giant bore.
@@Gamelover254 I'm just saying; they were able to make Aslan talk and emote effectively despite him being photorealistic (for the time), yet this film's trailers can't seem to make any of the lions talk or even make any expression at all.
I agree that The Lion King is going to be a giant bore; not because of lack of human characters, but because it's a shameless, uninspired rip-off that can't even convey any emotion or expression at all through its characters.
Aslan was more relatable not only because of the human characters, but because they incorporated some human expressions into the lion, it was subtle but it worked.The video ''Why the Lion King(2019) doesn't work'' by Toon Ruins explains this perfectly.
@@Tinky11221 I just thought of that video when I read this comment lo
Aslan was a much more stoic character and didn't sing and dance.
And now the "Live action" Lion King has made more money in the box office than any animated movie in history. _This truly is the darkest timeline..._
@proud hufflepuff that's true tbh
Too bad the main 2 are ugly now
Dequan Milete, great, just great. Proof Disney makes these for money.
well tbh, disney is now larger and adults who watched it would probaly watch it with their children. and for some reason cgi makes more cash then animated. animated > cgi/live action
Nice Community reference!
Just wait for the live-action remakes of the "Not Disney" collection
They're gonna dress up cats to be lions.
BattleUp Saber oh god
which will all be like porn spoofs or something
NO NO NO NO
I need a dark gritty Ratatoing
I will only allow for Hercules, that is if they let Danny DeVito wear horns and hairy legs
Daddy Eyebrows I’d actually watch that
Only if he's swimming in a pool full of chocolate lol
That one yes i would love to see a remake just to see if they will go with the greek mythology this time it worked for jim Henson.
Rick Scott as Hades: imagine
He's a trash demon! He eats GARBAGE!
The biggest problem is that with these "live action" movies, the animals or objects are strictly realistic.
The thing about the Disney animations is that they were *anthropomorphic,* having HUMAN qualities. You can't be super realistic with the animals AND still have them have human like qualities with facial expressions, it can't mix. The whole point of having human like qualities in these characters is so the audience can get emotionally connected to a character's human traits. That's what Disney isn't understanding.
A lion drawn with similar qualities to a human mouth laughing and an actual lion "laughing" are completely different and elicit a different response from the audience.
James Burgess Kind of makes you wish they were using the level of CGI from the Scooby-Doo and Garfield movie doesn’t it.
Or God forbid any of the Sony Animated Movies.
I honestly never thought about it but, now that you mention it, it really is impossible too make the two work together and, it’s basically what causes these films to enter the uncanny valley. Compared to zootopia, the animals in the live action jungle book are way too realistic and you can never really read the emotion in their face. Seriously, I love Disney, but, they really need to stop with the live action remakes.
Or, said in other words: it just doesn´t work. From an artistical perspective, they were doomed. In fact, my first thought was "How are they going to even resemble the same magic and beauty from those animations?". And the answer is simple: they just can´t. I think that knowing that we still have those classics is more than enough.
This is exactly what was said in the video.
That's not true for all live action movies, I mean, The Detective Pikachu Movie seems like it might make that work, so it might work for the Live Action Lion King. Then again, The Detective Pikachu movie has an original plot, is being made by people who really like Pokemon, and the Pokemon designs are being made with the idea of "make it as realistic as possible, but without making it creepy/ too uncanny valley feeling" (I mean, never did I think a "hyper realistic" Mr. Mime would be less creepy then its game counter-part), and hiring actors/ artists who are at least semi-passionate about being part of the project...
So yeah, maybe not the best comparison, but a live action remake can work, the makers just have to give a crap about what they're making.
What they should do is put the originals back in theatres. I would definitely pay to watch Disney classics on a big screen.
@A sad, strange little man Me too. Thank our Heavenly Father for Mary Poppins Returns and The New Adventures of Lassie!
Same!
smart
They used to do that, actually. Snow White from what I've read was given a limited time back in theaters for it's 50th Anniversary. Nowadays, it's all about cash grabs though.
@@thunderbird1921 wish they still did that :(
Now we need animated remakes of the live action remakes
Leviathan *3D animated remakes
Leviathan
And then we need live action remakes of those animated remakes
That One Guy at 7/11 I mean, these “live action” remakes have so much CGI in them they’re pretty much just 3D animated movies
Lethal Weapon: The Animated Series?
Yeah, like videogames based on a movie that is based on a videogame.
I just hate how gloomy and boring the live actions look. Where's the color? The energy? It's just so dull and depressing to look at. IHE made some great points.
Wyatt Cheng nigga what
In fairness, the Cinderella liveaction remake had really pretty visuals tho that was one of the first of the remakes.
I've heard from a animator friend that if you can't animate then you hide that fact with gloomy colours and darkness. Kinda like Disney~... oh wait...
If Buena Vista pictures was in buisness again, all of the disney remakes are going to be 2d animated
“Lady and the Tramp” is going to be rebooted?
My god.
We’re going to have to watch two dogs eat spaghetti together in “live-action”?
With CGI?
Yes :( is gonna be horrifying (unless the CG is good)
oh dear
I just hope it's two literal dogs eating spaghetti for 2 hours while romantic Venetian music plays softly in the backround
Who doesn't want to see realistic dogs making out?
+Nathan L-Yeah, one of the things that have made me absolutely livid is Disney claiming the Lion King remake is "live action." The fuck it is. . .It's CGI. . .just an entirely different form of animation but STILL animation. . .There is no way the Lion King remake ever should have been considered "live action" unless they are somehow adding humans into the mix. . .At best, the Lion King remake will be more along the lines of the Disney Dinosaur movie where the characters are CGI but there are live backgrounds. . .And Disney wasn't nearly stupid enough at the time to consider Dinosaur live-action in any way. . .
Anyway, Lady and the Tramp is getting the "live action"/CGI treatment. WHY?!?!?!?!? What even %^%^%^%^ purpose does that serve? It doesn't make the story any better, it doesn't change the story in any way, and it only further undermines all the hard work, love, and care that did go into these original animated movies.
I once saw a comment defending live action remakes saying “Walt Disney wanted to introduce his films to new generations”.
Yeah, he did that by re-releasing his films in theaters, and years after his death on video/DVD. A few years ago Disney actually DID do that, by releasing Lion King and Little Mermaid in 3D. If you want younger people to experience old Disney movies, just show them the movies! Bambi came out in 1942 and I watched it when I was 5 in 2006, and I still enjoyed it despite how old the movie was.
I also agree with Alex’s idea to remaster old Pixar movies and re release them, because the only thing going against them is some aspects of the animation (especially the humans in Toy Story)
Also hes def
Same can be said for video games remakes are uneeded I hate that argument introducing it to the new generation
@@Lewtable th-cam.com/video/bfL6CIUiFx4/w-d-xo.html even demon souls, Spyro, crash shadow of the colossus suck the old 3D graphics is what makes the game special
There's nothing wrong with the originals. The remakes are stupid.
@@Strange9952 two words: Corporate Greed
Next thing you know: "live action" emoji movie.
It's just a stop motion movie with emoji pillows
God please no-
NO
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
I would love an anime emoji movie
Oh god please no
Why is Lion King even considered live action? It's just photorealistic CGI
What if they suddenly introduce human characters out of nowhere?
Exactly they pump these out so much and people are so blind that they don't even question the fact that it's the same and it isn't even live action
I don't think Disney has ever claimed that it's live action
@@TheDjurze they do They're called the "live action remakes."
@@alanmooreisrasputinreincar8106 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lion_King_(2019_film) The Wikipedia page for The Lion King 2019 calls it an "animated musical fantasy adventure" I think the "live action remakes" is something someone else started calling them.
so if the entire movie is CGI is it really "live action "
Yeah
No. It's CGI animated, ie It's realistic animation. You wouldn't call a fully 3D rendered realistic video game like Halo "live action." (And they certainly wouldn't want to market it as such, since the term is kind of taboo among the gaming community now).
Molly May
The title of “live” is meant to imply that it is real. And although it isn’t, it mimics that style and calling it animated wouldn’t work since it lacks traditional animation styles.
@@dreadlordhg360 the definition:
live action
noun
action in films involving filming real people or animals, as contrasted with animation or computer-generated effects.
Bbbmurr I mean, The Jungle Book and Beauty and The Beast had live actors, soooo, they were live action in a way. As for The Lion King, that's just an animated movie since it's literally 100% CGI.
Everyone: Why did you decide to remake these classic disney movies?
Disney: *money!*
Blitzy BringsTheHorror they also are trying to (for the ones from different culture) make them better to make a more accurate show the culture
Slade Racer yes money is apart of it but they’re also trying to make movies like Mulan more respectful and accurate to the culture
Mr Krabs: "Hello I like money!" 💵
Disney: "Me too!"
@@Jasmine-xb1ws But they never needed to! Nobody cared if the older movies showed the culture the right way or whatever; they just cared about the characters and the stories!
@@colbbot3291 apple: hey boys I have some money so we could eat
*All three eat their money*
As someone who wants to work in the animation industry, seeing a company I grew up with go down this path makes me incredibly sad. The whole point of animation from the beginning was to do what 'live-action' movies couldn't- they pushed the boundaries of what was possible. If you're making an animated movie as realistic and fancy as possible, why not just make it using real actors? Movies like 'Into the Spider-verse' really capture the essence of what animation could be. The blend of completely different animation styles and effects that wouldn't be possible with real actors is what makes that movie so appealing to look at. Heck, Fantasia was revolutionary because of how unique the animation was. Sure, you could do any of that stuff with computers now but what would be the point? It's already been done beautifully.
I was actually thinking about going to see that movie in theatres, and after reading your comment I think I’m gonna go see it. Hopefully it’s funny as fuck, I didn’t think the trailers were bad!
All Light
Your comment is the voice of our generation. A really racist generation. A really racist generation of Donald Trump supporters.
Hey I’ve once heard an advice from an animator to other people about becoming animators:
*_DON’T_*
@All Light you are the definition of racist
@Guy With A Camera their problem is their racist.
As a Supervising Animator on a number of the original versions of the films you discuss here, I agree with you on nearly all counts. You make some very good points in you analysis. Hollywood seems to have forgotten that animation is not the replication of reality it is the caricature of same. It is sad to have to sit and watch the films and characters we toiled so hard on be reduced to mediocre film graphics. But look at the BO (that’s box office not body odor), on these things. People get huge bonus’ for bringing in that kind of money and the profits tell them that what they are doing is wanted and needed. As for respect for what has come before, for the most part, yes, I know my work will outlive me. But having taught animation for over 30 years, in studio and in colleges, I have to say that in very recent years the lord and master of many future animators is, indeed, technology. What we did is looked down upon as old and irrelevant by some of today’s students. They want ease and repetition and arch characters in random situations because it’s easier to create and builds upon known vernacular over creating new. Attention to detail, likable characters, warmth, depth, life, it’s all just to hard to do and requires thought and commitment so it is being dismissed as out of fashion. Of course there are many talented young people studying animation today who do not fit this mold and I pray they will succeed and be given the opportunity to give their best on something slightly more challenging and rewarding that Stephen Universe, Gravity Falls or Rick and Morty. Time will tell, I guess. Thank you for you post and I’m sure you don’t REALLY hate EVERYthing 😉.
Thanks, for your comment. I will like to create a hand-drawn and CGI mix movie myself. And I am sure that in the future the playing field will be much more even in animation.
Wow I can't believe this comment doesn't have more attention! It's so incredible to see a legend in the animation industry discuss the modern era
I think Steven universe is overrated
Disney fans: this is the new live action Lion King remake?
Disney: yep
Disney fans: but all the characters are CGI
Disney: yep
Disney fan: and the backgrounds are CGI too so if that’s the case then this is an animated movie
Disney: that sounds right to me
Disney fan: then it’s an animated movie
Disney: it’s a live action remake
Disney fan: Where is the live part?
Disney: We dress the voice actors in full body blue suits with ping pong balls stuck all over to capture the live motion, thus, live action!
Disney fan: Excuse me childhood influence would you like a hand with that box?
Disney: *Cancellation of cartoons on Disney channel*
Disney fan: Ouch!
Disney: *buys Lucasfilm, Marvel and 21st Century Fox*
Disney fan: Ahh you exploitative money hungry company! What's in that box anyway?
Disney: Live action remakes and sequels
So like an “it’s not my wallet” scenario with Patrick
The Lion King actually totally proves your point about emotions. Simba looked heartbreaking in the cartoon and everyone felt sorry for him. In this new version he looks.. well.. idk, how am I supposed to know how a lion feels?
" meow prrrr I feel like licking ma ballz"$
And That What Make Photorealistic CGI Is Bad , They Can't Create The Same Magic Like The Animation One .and hopefully pixar will never make an remake live action of their movie , also im rooting for wes anderson because for me , he was the only one who survived cgi travesty , he rarely used cgi and used stop motion or practical effect . Also i really like a live action movie with no cgi on it , it feel real rather than used cgi .
@@ProwerAdmirer Holy shit! Fuckin Accurate!
6:50 Hands with googly eyes, my favorite Jungle Book character.
Looks like something straight out of Don't Hug Me I Am Scared.
Nobody ever told me Oobi was in The Jungle Book!
Kingsley CY, I was just gonna say that. XD
This is strangely terrifying,.. I love it
I heard that they cut out Hands googly eyes and re edited his scene by CGing him over. Waste of a good character if you ask me.
This is not just a problem with Disney but the movie industry as a whole. There are so few truly original movies that are free from any ties to a previously successful franchise nowadays and honestly it is sad to see.
That's always been the case.
@@fakebird000 As a kid Avatar reminded me a lot of the Transall Saga and something else I can't quite put my finger on. It didn't seem that original to me.
Stop looking at Hollywwod, then. The movie industry is way bigger than that
Avatar kind of supports the Disney remake idea though, since that sold mainly due to its visuals, so the takeaway seems to have been instead of making something original make things with a lot of CG. Idk, CG is fine, but I hope they'll get back to some of the art direction from before
If they weren't so financially sucessfull, they'd stop making these easy cashgrabs and have to actually take more risks
Old classic movie: Exists
Disney: *_OH BOY HERE WE GO_*
Why is this comment underrated?
What about this
Old Movie from Disney: Exists
Disney: Its free real estate
(Not my comment)
Okay think of it this way:
You're a child with lovingly parents, but one day your parents get replaced by robot parents. The robot parents look the same, act the same as your real parents, but your real parents are slowly getting forgotten.
It's the same with the reboots against the classics
Actually, people are already forgetting about each remake that comes out and going back to the originals.
Wes McInerny I’m hoping you’re right.
That's an interesting analogy. It makes sesne the true spirit of the old movies is not the same as its represented in the remakes. The remakes never capture the spirit of the old movies. There's no heart in the new Disney remakes. Much like the robot parents 🤖 not having a soul or a heart compared to the real parents. Makes sense to me.
this is exactly what I say when people ask me why I hate the remakes omg
Your profile pic got me to remember that I just ordered a gravity falls journal 3 special edition thanks
Can we get a finding nemo live action where it’s just two hours of fish in a tank?
I would pay for that one
I would watch that.
I would definetely watch that epic flick!
Mm, potential-filled idea but it will never compare to the champion of classics: Paint Drying the Movie. No, seriously. It exists. Google it.
@@graphitetailgrace3870 holy shit I thought you were joking.
We already got a live action remake of "The Lion King", it was called "Black Panther".
lmao
It’s creepy how similar they are.
And it sucked.
Savage
i mean, both are obviously inspired by hamlet so that makes sense
I can see why Disney would remake some of their more flawed films like Pete’s Dragon (1977) among other select Disney films. But yeah, remaking Beauty and the Beast, Alice in Wonderland, Cinderella, and literally almost every other Disney classic... Doesn’t add anything to the original experience, and as you mentioned, just results in a film with a lot less heart purely made for cashing in on the animated counterpart’s legacy.
Hell in a few decades, I’ll bet nobody’s even going to remember these live action remakes.
Decades? No one will remember these movies in a few months
What truly terrifies me is the concept that Disney will downplay the older, original movies to hype up these ones, leading to people only remembering Wiil Smith as the Genie, or Emma Watson’s autotuned screeches as Belle.
That last sentence pained my heart
Claudiu Gagea Lmao, well said.
Nothing beats hand drawn or animated. Absolutely NOTHING! Live action versions of animated movies has always looked lazy and uninspired to me (take The Smurfs - absolute fucking garbage). Obviously, it's all about the money, but I'm getting pretty sick of this whole remake trend. Can we please get some unique ideas out there on the table?
The only live action animated movie that I'm at least fairly interested in is that Pokemon movie that's coming out next year with Pikachu being voiced by Ryan Reynolds. Sorry, but I HAVE to see that! I HAVE to.
As an aspiring film maker, I feel sorry for those creators who actually have original ideas for new stuff that Disney rejects to make these remakes. The movies seem like such money grabs and when I try to convince others about this, they just think I'm some film student obsessed with perfection. :(
It's sad to see how Corporate Greed has corrupted our childhood in Disney. Imagine if they one day force Pixar down this route... 😭
This is why David Lowery and Rob Marshall need to be blacklisted from Hollywood.
Damn. I thought the Dumbo remake was unnecessary, but Lady and the Tramp? Really?
It gets worse, they’re gonna make a live action remake of Mulan next year.
@@calebproductions1264
I heard about that one, but a Lady and the Tramp "live action" remake is going to be almost as bad as the Lion King remake will be.
Son we need a little mermaid 2 remake
@@musicalmuddinto4256
Why stop there? Why not all the animated movies? Hell, why not do a live action remake of the cartoon shows? Come on, Di$ney, that money is out there, waiting for you. Don't you know that those movies and shows no longer exist, and the current generation need them?
@@whiterabbit75 I've always wanted a live action Johnny test
The classics are beautiful. If it ain't broke. Don't fix it.
That metaphor doesn't really apply to the concept of live-action remakes.
@@happyh0ur888 yeah it does, there's nothing wrong with the classic 2d movies, they ain't broke, there is nothing to fix, so don't fix them
@@Resters52_official They're intent is not to fix it, ergo the metaphor does not apply to live-action remakes.
Just cause something isn’t broken doesn’t mean there’s no room for improvement
If it’s not Baroque don’t fix it.
~Cogsworth
now whenever I look up "Lion King" I get only the remake and barely the original so now I have to say it's from 1994.
😭
That’s the tragedy of all this. The original films, while way better, just don’t feel so unique anymore.
Disney was originally against 3d and CGI, and fired that guy who wanted to try to convince them to try it. That guy later turned to make pixar what it is today. Disney remained against 3d untli they saw Pixar's success. And now these two companies have merged... So
Catwhale
Quite funny, isn't It?
Now they are too afraid of going back to 2D. Since Pixar made them look old and out of fashion.
Then Disney's jump into 3D with Meet The Robinsons was so wonderful and the creator, team, and message behind it hit so well on top of it being funny and entertaining. I cried. But i guess they read the Walt quote of "Keep Moving Forward" and shat on it.
@@aliciab33 I completly agree. It isnt that much a problem of 2D or 3D but of cuality. The last 2D films of Disney where at best mediocre.
Because 🤑
in summary: why would you ever watch the remake when you can just watch the original
Precisely!
Ask the morons who line up to pay their hard earned money to be schilled.
Elyssae kinda to make it look modern
NINJA FIRE your stupid
@@TheLegodude102 says the one using the wrong 'your'
“I hate it when big companies try to make profit off nostalgia.”
Me too
Best line: "What us this photo-realistic baboon thinking?"
Don't people hate them because of nostalgia? I mean people compare them to the old ones and say that because it's not in the goofy exaggerated drawings then it's an insult to the main product. When the movies are still animated, they keep the same story, and are trying something new and not just giving the same things over and over. If anything that sounds like everything people want in a reboot.
Ricey超極 Unless it’s in the case of ID software with Doom 2016 and Machine Games with Wolfenstein The Old Blood and New World.
Cole Brown Sony killed 3, but it’s still a good close. Also Goth Peter best Peter prove me wrong
@@NhBleker The difference being that, while Disney is doing it purely for the money, the guys at id Software and Machine games knew what made the DOOM and Wolfenstein franchises work (even if id DID originally make both DOOM and Wolfenstien 3D, id is now almost entirely composed of new blood by this point).
I'd agree on you with this one. Apart from being cash grabs they're just flexing their "animation" skills. The New Lion King was just a 2 hour tech demo.
Yeah, that is actually a pretty good way of summing it up.. I don't see why they feel the need to subject us viewers to it though... apart from the cash grabbing, of course.
Disney 2050: THE LION KING 4D REMAKE *WITH 3D GLASSES*
That literally makes no sense
@@Dashinvader thats the joke
@@Koraketta Obviously. But the joke it's self doesn't even make sense
I think you're vastly over estimating the timeline here.
It won't take until 2050. Not even close. We'll get that in like 2024.
Disney 2050: The Lion King now with actual lions who have had their brains scientifically altered to act in our movie.
The biggest part of it: the original writers, storyboard artists and other people who worked on the original will never see a CENT of the millions Disney makes off the remake.
well, they did a job to make a movie for Disney, they got paid, that's it. Disney owns the product of their labor, and can then make sequels or remakes and the artists aren't entitled to anything because they signed up to make a movie for a gigantic corporation in the first place. Makes sense to me.
Hell 80% of these stories are based on fables that the artists you mention did not originate, so I see even less reason to pay them into perpetuity.
CGI artists rendering Iron Man don't get a cut of RDJ's $200m from Infinity War.
They need to remake Hercules
Why?
DANNY DEVITO AS PHIL LETS GO
The Accidental Hipster YES
That is the only remake I would be on board for!
Scooty scoot
I would actually like to revise my plan
Hercules except danny devito plays all the characters. Hercules, meg, phil, everyone
Best thing is, Danny Devito is in the live action Dumbo
The new lion king sucked in my opinion
And that’s a fact!
Nunni and Zippy D
The original had so much color to reflect in the mood and the movie itself was pure magic, the 2019 version is just dull and boring, I just wanted to leave the theater right then and there.
Creepykid And Infinite Dreams
Exactly! At least there are the originals that we can still watch and love
Nunni and Zippy D
Agreed. :D
Nunni and Zippy D ok u make a better movie so I can say ur movie sucks ass
I mean nothing wrong watching child abandonment in 4K right?
Damn u came so fast Justin y v.2
Yea one hand, no on the other.
I don't like that idea ☹
I can’t wait to watch Mufasa get brutally trampled on. Nothing says ‘nostalgia’ quite like mentally scarring the next generation of children.
@@feralgator1863 "mentally *scarring*" Was that a pun on Scar?
There is no point of remaking popular movies like Aladdin and The Lion King. Now if they remade underrated movies like Treasure Planet and Atlantis now I would go watch that.
I would watch those, but only if they were being made by people who cared about the project, and as long as they aren't just copies of the originals.
NO
LEAVE TREASURE PLANET ALONE
THEY’D JUST MAKE JIM A “RELATEABLE” DUDE BRO TYPE TEEN INSTEAD OF A CHARACTER WITH ACTUAL DEPTH & SILVER THE TIRED “BATTLE WORN MENTOR” STEREOTYPE
& THEY’D MAKE AMELIA A MARY SUE WITH NO PERSONALITY
Just have the original directors make the Treasure Planet sequel that they had planned already ;3;
I'd rather they not touch Treasure Planet, remake anything but that. That film was 2D animation magic to me (though it has Deep Canvas and CGI too).
Treasure Planet, No; aspects about it being 2D animated (as well as flat CGI and Deep Canvas) work perfect for itself and wouldn't translate as beautifully if made all live action (or in the case of the non-human characters, CGI abominations).
Atlantis, *YES* ; There's a lot of potential for using CGI to get that 1900s steampunk aesthetic machinery, and there's a whole cast of actual human characters that won't need replaced with CGI characters.
And despite not being a Disney movie, I think there should be a live action remake of The Road to El-Dorado. That movie would look great if done in live action; it already feels like a live action movie, but done in animation, as it's more grounded in reality and doesn't have as much animated splendor (aside from that GORGEOUS color pallet in certain scenes) or style like Treasure Planet has
@@kimuires What the fuck?? *CHILL.*
Disney needs to get back to their animation. That is what made them famous and unique.
Exactly. Nobody thought animated drawings could bring such emotions back in the day, and it was Disney who proved to the world that it was possible. I don't even understand why they focus so much on creating CGI crap when they could be master of animated drawings.
Princess and the Frog looked beautiful. They need to bring back 2D
In your opinion. The stories is what made them unique.
Mandi Lu But wasn’t that The Princess and the Frog flopped so they stopped making 2D?
@@Meyour67120 They have to move with the market. Shrek and Toy Story proved that 3D animation and ironic fairytales is where it's going. And Princess and the Frog showed where it isn't.
I will never give Disney my money anymore. I wish other people felt that way too, then maybe they would stop making them
Yeah, if people were to stop seeing these, maybe there'd be less.
I don't see
@@artbytesia I mean not like a small dip in profit is going to hurt Disney...
Remember 101 Dalmatians from the 90s? That was a true "live action" remake
Thats their best live action remake IMO it took a different angle from the original and used real non talking dogs and allowed the human characters to be more fleshed out.
TUSSLES they’re remaking that too. Seriously check out the Disney films Wikipedia page, you’ll be either totally shocked or totally unsurprised....but every film they’ve ever made will be going under the knife in the next few years. Disney is just the show Botched
Remember the live action 90s jungle book movie by Disney
I remember Glenn Close being an absolute nutcase in it... ended up just making it even funnier though.
Looking forward to the next one where Cruella Deville is CGI, the dogs are completely CGI, the cameras that film the movie are CGI, the director is CGI, when we go watch the movie at the cinema we get transformed to CGI. It'll be great
The idea of a live-action Lilo & Stitch terrifies me, honestly, and that’s my favorite Disney movie.
Cool profile pic.
That's my second,I just hope they don't make a live action Nightmare Before Christmas
L Fuck no.
Professor Oak Right back at you.
@@user-we9pt4xg4j Oh god
Are we going to talk about the upcoming live-action remake of Mulan? Mulan has always been my favourite disney movie, with one of the first badass heroines. As a kid I watched it LITERALLY EVERY DAY. In the upcoming remake they removed the songs, Mushu, Shang and they replaced the Huns with the tipical mediocre "Evil Witch". I'm so disappointed, it's not Mulan anymore. One of the thing i loved was that, despite some fantasy/folklore elements on it(eg the dragons, the ancestors... ) the enemy felt real... If you want a "realistic" remake I can understand if you want to remove the songs and maybe modify Mushu, but at least keep Shang and the Huns... It doesn't make any sense the evil witch thing...
Shang is actually my favourite Disney villain and him not being in the remake just annoys me alot
Huehuehue
What the hell!? They're ruining Mulan as well!? First The Lion King. Now Mulan!
Furo_kun goddamit disney
They better fvcking not I sweater God
People give the excuse of Lion King 2019 being emotion less and bland: WeLL TheY'Re TrYinG to BE REALISTIC.
Okay then, why is there no lion genitals? No lion balls?? Why are lions talking? Why are lions friend with a BIRD??And a Mandrill?? Why does animals worship lions? You know REALISTICALLY they don't right? And lions don't sing, either does meerkat, and bird, and boar? And why is this meerkat staying with a boar?
In the animates version these are fine details because they're NOT SUPPOSED TO MAKE SENSE, but when you make CGI animals that can't even emote any emotions, with no soul, and stale movements, then there is no excuse. No facial expressions means it's very hard for the audience to relate to the characters, why not just watch a animal documentary right??
Aslan from Chronicles of Narnia in 2005 did it gazillion times better. It looks real, it has emotion, and you can relate because even subtle movements with his eyebrows are him communicating with the audience.
Disney has the ability to make this look both real and full of life and emotion, but they chose not to do that, because people will see it no matter what, and in the end, they will still have all the money.
@@panlis6243 yeah I know and it's makes me so mad... The lion king was already perfect, it really doesn't need to be remaked....
And realistic doesn't equal emotionless or bland either.
@@Xehanort10 from what I remember Walt told the animator to make Micky more realistic but not close to reality but to feel and look lively and expressive or something Idk I'm not an expert sorry for hearing me ramble OK good bye
I like how the first place you went to is the private parts and not how they talk 😂
@@brandonsaquariumsandterrar8985 lmao it’s because I watch a lot of animal documentaries, and seeing a flat under area just makes it so weird to me
They could have even very easily made live action simba expressive and not have lost ANY of the realism. Real life cats are *incredibly* expressive.
I know I have a 2 cats
Aladdin won't be the same without Robin Williams, and its odd that Disney doesn't realize that
I agree. That us my exact thought when the news about Aladdin remake was announced.
um I believe the word is realize
All they see is money, money everywhere
They realise, they just don't care. They could pump out any old shit and rake in the cash
Javan Patrick Reigner They fucking put in will smith for the genie
How about instead of remaking good movies into something that'll never live up to it, they remake movies that didn't come out too well but deserve a second chance?
Many of the bad Disney movies were either bad because they didn't care at all about their quality and the films were unnecessary (the direct to DVD sequels) or they were trying to be "hip" (Chicken Little, arguably Wreck it Ralph 2). I don't think your idea would work because Disney's failures aren't because of execution, it was because of ne ideas
Do you honestly think Disney would spend 100s of millions of dollars on a remake of a movie that failed before
Eh, I think Robin Hood could make a good film for them. As far as I know, they haven't done a live action one, and they could do one with humans rather than animals. Imagine, a Robin Hood by Disney, built from the ground up, all cohesive and not made from old animation dyed a different color and patched together into a cheap quilt. It could be cool. They could afford it now, unlike the original. And more importantly, it could be different and stand out from the animated film easily considering the range possible with an old folk legend like Robin Hood.
Kind of like the reverse of Treasure Planet's inception. First came a Treasure Island live action film, later came a re-imagining of the original book story as Treasure Planet. If they could make something different based on the same source, but in live action I think they would be more worthy of respect.
Dumbledoresarmy13 a live action Robin Hood just came out and it wasn’t to good
I do agree of remaking Treasure Planet the story and characters were great and developed, the color palette was gorgeous, and I think it’d look great w modern CGI. Same goes for Atlantis, both movies deserve a second chance
"if it ain't broke, don't fiddle with it."
you know it's a problem when you have to quote something from teen titans.
"Nope."
Activision and Disney seem to share that very same thing in common: Fixing stuff that isn't broken
I'd just like to state for the record that The Lion King is gonna have almost entirely computer generated animals and they're still calling it a live action film.
And yet at the same time Disney treats Dinosaur as one of their animated films
Disney isn't calling it live action, audiences are. All Disney said was they are making a Lion King Remake and since all their remakes have been live action everyone called it that.
Exactly. I don't get that one. Does anyone smell hypocrisy anywhere?
i would actually love to see dinosaur redone with the modern technology. It was one of my favorite movies growing up
@@wil.d_sage such an underrated movie imo
thelankymidget the soundtrack is amazing!
In 2030: Disney buys Sony
2031: *live action remake for into the spider-verse*
2059: Disney owns every major studio in Hollywood.
3001:Disney makes live action alidin live action
3004: Disney makes a live action emoji movie
3058: Disney takes over all studios in the world
3100:Disney bought earth
As someone who also adores Treasure Planet, bless you
Moocake mooCAKE
God, I loved that film when I was younger. That would explain why I'm a fan of Sci-Fi/Sci-Fantasy
Literally same
Oh dude those films were both my childhood! Live action takes would be interesting, but nothing beats that classic animation
Its always been the one I relate to most and my absolute favorite. Bless YOU.
"How am I supposed to empathize with a real lion" :D
Plus, in the case of the Lion King remake, it's not even a real friggin' lion!!! I will much more readily empathize with a real one I see in a National Geographic documentary, for example.
Christopher Robin actually continued the story of Winnie the Pooh. It was charming in it's message about growing up but not forgetting your childhood.
Everything else is just a nostalgia grab.
...Debatable, but ok.
I mean, it was ALSO a nostalgia grab
But it tried to be its own thing so its okay in my book
Why is everyone not mentioning Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland? What was wrong with that movie? Much of the material in that movie is based on the original story.
Some little kids might still watch the classics if their parents get it for them
DPC I personally loved Christopher Robin
What's next? Dumbo assembled cinematic universe?
Avengers dumbo assemble.
this, please
No. Donald Glover singing THIS IS AFRICA
Dumbo can be one of the characters who can fly, while Mrs. Jumbo can be Thanos.
When we getting a live action Goofy Movie.... actually, no, don't do that Disney.
You best not jinx it. If you do I'll punch your lights out.
Gary Busey as Goofy!
damn i want to see goofy's big stinky toes in realistically rendered glorious 4k
An extremely fucking gritty Goofy Movie
Delete this comment before Disney sees
That edit at 6:45 had me in laughing hysterically, I had to pause the video to regain composure. A perfect 'WTF' moment if I ever saw one.
I've literally been trying to explain this to my dad and his girlfriend a million times in this past year and someone FINALLY expressed exactly what I was thinking in a more intelligent and thoughtful way! You will not believe how happy I got after watching this.
What kinda stuff does your dad and his girlfriend say about animation?
Who asked for a ' Dumbo remake?'
I sure didn't! I always thought that movie a bit boring and not to mention majorly depressing. I like Tim Burton, but you just know he's going to make the movie look even more gloomy with drab colors just like his Alice movies.
I think it's a good thing. Maybe this one will flop, and they'll stop milking this cash cow, and start making original stories
TheVanishing87 Better yet, the elephant can’t even talk in this one! They are literally writing a mostly new story with the same characters. This movie is gonna flop (I hope)
despair bear
Let alone a Dumbo remake directed by Tim Burton! Jesus, hasn't that bastard done enough damage to classics like Willy Wonka?!
Imagine Pixar running out of ideas and making A “live action” toy story
I would watch live action Cars though.
Sexual Chocolate Robbie that would probably be weird and creepy cause A “real life” car with a face would probably fail hahahaha
Stop motion?
Live action zootopia
May Dayo real animals with clothes 🤔
I can’t wait for the reanimated remakes of the remakes they made.
Don't give them ideas!!
Disney: WRITE THAT DOWN, WRITE THAT DOWN
Already done
And then they will remake those
You know what bothers me the most? It is not even the CGI - it's the fact, that they change the characters and stories to the worst.
Beauty and the Beast was such a wonderful story about inner beauty, trust, forgiveness and love - and they changed it to "belle knows how important she is", "the beast is a jerk the whole time", "the witch comes back in the end and smiles knowingly". No. Just no.
I am really afraid, that they do that to Aladdin and the Lion King to.
YES! Like from the first scene I knew this movie was going to be a shit fest of dumb changes.
Why did the enchantress have to literally break int the castle? In the original, she was at the door. How are we supposed to think that it's ok to give shelter to a rando who BROKE INTO YOUR FUCKING HOME? They just wanted a bombastic opening scene and didn't take into account that it makes the enchantress look like an entitled bitch to the point that she's actually the bad guy. It might be a nitpick but it illustrates what kind of nonsense this movie was going for.
And yes, the beast was just a an asshole. Like the library scene! OMGGGGG! In the original he was explicitly looking for a way to make her happy that's why he showed her his library, in the remake he was just showing-off after telling her she has shit tastes in literature. This isn't just dickhead attitude. It's also a dangerous idea for the young impressionable girls watching this movie. Disney is perpetuating this idea that it's ok to fall in love with someone who belittles you and is full of himself. He has no redeeming qualities yet he "gets the girl". There are still girls growing up believing that this attitude is attractive. I use to think that when I was younger, I use to read fanfics written by other girls with the same content and think it's a hot romance. We were raised on this kind of stories from Hollywood. But it's not ok! People like the beast aren't worth falling for, in real life they often turn out assholes who will ruin your life. We need to stop romanticizing this shit. The original was way more progressive, by showing that it's only after he's changed as a person that Belle loves him. In the remake, Belle is trying harder than he is and it's not ok to sell this idea to young girls. Assholes can change, but if he's not changing you don't have to take him as he is. Know your worth!
and the worst change was Lefou. It's ok and even important to have LGBT representation in children media but not this!!! They took everything that made him a wimp, pathetic excuse for a man and said it means he gay now. They change boot licking into cock sucking! WTF! And he wasn't even open, what the fuck were they talking about? The movie just perpetuates bad tropes and expect praise for it:
1. being gay needs to remain a secret to the audience
2. He's gay so his entire character and pretty much everything he says has to be related to his sexuality
3. Gay-dude-who-wants-to-fuck-his-oblivious-straight-friend cliche
4. LGBT= joke (I mean, Lefou is just a comic relief, his name even translate to "The fool").
The only people who think this is good representation are morons who only care about LGBT issues when people can give them a pat on the back for being "woke".
Shame on you Disney, for ruining one of your best creations and insulting people in an attempt to pander to them.
I heard people say that they are trying to update the movies because of the morals that aren't always "progressive enough" but honestly the originals had more progressive messages than the remakes. That's because the remakes are ordered by old men who don't even understand what those "progressive buzzwords" like LGBT representation and Feminism stand for and they are making movies for morons like them to like. They don't even realize the way the changes they make affect the original morals, because they don't understand enough of those morals, to begin with.
Eli N.S although it’s all for a good cause, filling up the less full pockets of the Disney execs.
@@KookiesNolly Yes to this. In order to change a story, you have to understand what makes the previous work succeed and what makes it fail. Like their remake of Cinderella. Their failure in the animated film was that they concentrated too much on the animals and not enough on the humans. But when they made the remake, she is supposed to be this strong, independent woman but she is honestly weaker than her animated counterpart. Movie makers and tv producers not taking the art of film seriously is why I have pretty much turned away from movies and tv. There are some good things out there but I will not waste money on anything that doesn't feel like actual work hasn't been put behind it. Do not get me started on Jurassic World either, which isn't Disney but my complaint is the same.
Mandy Fleischer they already white washed Aladdin and then tried to make up for it by casting will Smith as the creepy cgi genie. The girl playing jasmine has literally the same skin tone as Cinderella, and for some reason nobody is talking about it. It’s sad that just because America hates the Middle East as a whole, nobody cares about all the middle eastern girls who are Americans and won’t get to see themselves represented in a movie that was already based on a movie that got so much about the culture wrong...like they could’ve at least *tried* to fix the problems with the original. It would’ve been more warranted than what they did with beauty and the beadt
nah they fixed some of the plot holes in beauty. mainly how in the remake it took more than dancing and giving her bird seeds to make her fall in love with the person who kidnapped her father and kept her away from all of her family. the live action element ads realism to the movie while still keeping the sense of magic disney movies are iconic for of it all and noone can tell me OH NO the beast is ugly who wanted that. he is SUPPOSED to be ugly thats the whole point. and no one going to tell me they hate a movie because of the expressive art palet thats basically a none reason and anyone who tells me that they dont like the movie because the "shot pallet was less expressive" case in point the jungle book. the first jungle book was a disaster if you judge itby any actual RELEVANT standered of movie making i.e coherent storyline,more than two likable characters, good voice acting it would fall short" but its ok because the faces were more expressive" thats not what makes a good movie and lacking these things doesnt make a bad movie . i mean you could argue that realism is even better. i mean the things he argued in his video and some of things you have said aren't even relevant making a good movie especially if the remake fixes flaws in the original
sorry this was so long
I agree. It hurts my heart to think of what Walt/the talented people that worked on the Disney classics who put a lot into their work would say if they saw what the people in charge of Disney were doing now. It's just crazy how I can love Disney so much and simultaneously be so mad at it. Hopefully people will stop seeing these live action remakes they churn out and Disney will finally stop. I just want quality, well-made, emotionally touching movies again. Just last week they released the teaser for the Artemis Fowl movie and it made the fans of the original books very upset. I hope they get their act together soon. I want to live in a good era of Disney, not one filled with lifeless, soulless movies
They won't stop watching them though. They'll just share that adam sandler facebook meme and use nostalgia to make it ok
Eh Walt was not all sunshine and rainbows shooting out his ass.
yeah walt would feel so bad funny enough with the 12 principles of animation sumn disney studios made the principle "appeal" walt was passionate about lol he liked having his characters fun and appealing not realistic and dull
Well I’m Walt’s will it says that Disney has to remake each movie eighteen years so they can be around for each generation
Yote Goat no it doesn’t. That’s a lie.
Disney Live Action Remakes: For people so lodged up their own comfort zone that they can only watch things that they already like. Except now without any of the color, life, humor or passion.
I wouldn't even go after the audiences. Disney just seems to be assuming this at the moment.
Disney doesn’t assume anything. They are only driven by green. I saw them run over 10 pedestrians for a dollar bill.
I'm both looking forward and dreading the Mulan movie. Mulan is my absolute favorite and I can't imagine the movie without the songs or that dramatic tonal shift between the happy "A Girl worth fighting for" and the scene of a village massacred. Sure, the fight choreography will be awesome and they could do wonders with the avalance scene but everything else? I dont know. Not looking forward to CG Mushu either. It's more a strange curiosity rather than wanting to see something again.
thats just wrong...i love rewatching disney films
these films r made only and only for money
no passion? i think every artist who worked on those films would have a bone to pick with you, and lets not forget that back when disney was REMAKING classic books into his animated movies, they used to call his films "silly money grubbing cartoons that disrespect the books"
Christopher Robin and Malificent are the only acceptable "remakes."
They just tell a whole different story.
Alice in wonderland was also good
I also thought those were good
I also liked The Jungle Book and Aladdin
Yeah, they put a different dimension on stories that people are familiar with.
Now the others, not only have no originality, but have no emotion expressed.
Nah not Maleficent. The acting and design is great, but Maleficent is SUPPOSED to be an evil badass bitch, not a anti-hero...
Live action lion king? It's 100 % cgi
It's funny because Dinosaur had realistic backgrounds and Models, Yet it was promoted as an animated movie
Thank you
100 % crap aswell
@@hailgarbage4435 re watching it again and god damn even the scales still hold up
Once it was plain there was money to be made off of student loans a glut of flyby night VFX schools began opening just about everywhere. These schools dumped its graduates and their very limited degrees into an already flooded market and now cgi is everywhere. I dabble into 3d modeling and rendering and its a hobby that can force the unwary onto a treadmill of buy, buy, buy. You've got to buy the latest whatever and constantly upgrade or you'll get left behind of whatever is new and trendy. Its a fascinating medium if you stay on the periphery but at its core its pretty much evil incarnate.
"realistic" = better is probably my least favorite trope in media/audience opinion. It's the same reason so many people prefer impossibly overly edgy and terrible DC movies still over literally any other superhero film. It's baffling to me how unappreciated animation, Especially 2D animation is to me nowadays everywhere other than Japan. I really hope this trend ends at some point and we just go back to making films and games in whatever presentation style actually makes the product as good as it can be.
@@DeepFriedSpagehetti-rq7iu Marvel is for sure much more popular, but the DC movies somehow keep making enough money to continue being made, despite all of them being awful and rated very poorly on any review site. So clearly some large group of people somewhere keeps watching them like the transformers movies.
UuUuUh bUt If ItS rEaLiStIc It MeAnS iTs mOrE MaTuRe, CaRtOoNs ArE fOR kIdS, No MaTtEr ThE cOnTeNt (you know, like rick and Morty, bojack horseman, south park, a lot of anime, Ralph Bakshi movies.... I still don't get why people see animation as being only for kids)
I think 2d animation is still popular especially in tv shows. Animator are explored everywhere though. Even in Japan
MCU was sucessful because how aware unrealistic and over the top thier stories are, just like a comic book.
Exactly
I hate live action remakes. I wish they would stop. But something I hate the most is that kids now are growing up with those instead of the classics. It really makes me mad tbh.
Megan Driscoll times change
@@pucakuku Sometimes for the worst
Matthew Lawton There’s been some good video game remakes. We’ve got Crash, Spyro and more recently, Resident Evil 2.
It's like the original is going to be replaced
Actually, kids are always being exposed to the originals and even if they do see the remake, they immediately forget about it and keep liking the original.
Image making a live action little mermaid.
*wait*
They are making live action little mermaid in 2020.
@@hehejinx and I have very low standards for it
I'm not sure sure if it's true if who I think is playing her, but I lost a bit of faith in Disney when I found out who's playing Ariel...
Cloudy Dreams Adolf Hitler, I think. I heard about it on Reddit.
At least there would be forced into LGBTQ representation since Ursula is based off a drag queen
Live action cars 2 remake with Larry the cable guy as shrek
Yes
We need to make a petition for this
Make this happen Disney
You have my vote
I hate how people are like “oohh lets go see lion king live action!”
“Why?”
“well because its lion king!”
If thats the case, JUST GO WATCH THE ORIGINAL LION KING!
I don't see the issue with that 😂. It ain't your money
mathabathe maripane but you are giving Disney money and encouraging them to make more
Star Wars Nerds Idgaf. I want to see a graphically superior lion king.
Mucchin it’s their opinion. You call them a ‘disgrace’ because they don’t share the same opinion as you? Okay.
Mucchin I’m not. No genuinely want to see the lion king again but in HD. You can fuck off if you have a problem with that for all I care.
“I wanna sit down and eat a banana with him!”
-I Hate Everything (2018)
*bass* OoOoH YeEaAhH
m a d u r o
Maduro? Nicolás Maduro? Pedazo de mierda Nicolás Maduro?
flying turtles Si
@@amber5539 lmao
I wish people would stop going to see these movies they are giving Disney the incentive to make.more
I feel the same way.
dee dra same
Shameless cash cows. It’s absurd how easily they can pump these out as well.
And its absurd how people don't understand that
It's absurd why people don't just NOT go to watch them...
You already know the stories, and if you grew up with them, then you likely already have them to show your kids.
What a waste of like $30.
The only reason they make money is based on name recognition; just because they paid money to see the film doesn't mean they enjoyed it.
@@Attmay Cinema is going to die if it stops taking risks.
Animation is in danger now because the massive company that pioneered it is playing the easy card too often. Eventually the sheep will be sheared and no longer trust the shepherd. These safe movies have a stigma! They're more concerned with likes than respects. No new classics then... classics are old things.
@@runningoncylinders3829 Those classics were new once upon a time. That's the difference. The CGI Lion King paradoxically looks more drab and flat than the original. There is no artistry to it. None of it was worth getting rid of traditional animation. Am I bitter? You better believe it, little britches! Have I stopped supporting the company partly for this reason? Absobloominlutely!
Next they are going to make animated remakes of their live action remakes.
John Jo
It'll never end...
@@bruhmomento6691 Yeah!
Maleficent was intriguing, Cinderella brought some interesting perspective to the inner strength of Cinderella’s character, then Beauty and the Beast was soulless and overhyped and everything after that utterly overwhelmed by sheer cynicism of the exercise
Birgitta Mabbett, yeah, at least Maleficent and Cinderella didn’t just copy their originals.
Alice In Wonderland was good too
@@senpaithehandsomelad7732 Yes! I actually love the Alice In Wonderland live action remake, it's a continuation of the original story and not just a "live action" copy and paste of the original, same with Maleficent. If live action remakes were more like them then they probably would get less hate.
It’s essentially like repainting Starry Night realistically. Like yea, impressive, but it’s no longer magical, original, or captivating
I think these 'live action' movies are also testament to how theatrical 2D animation is no longer desirable in the west. It shows how little faith the film industry has in the medium nowadays.
because why go through the painstaking process of frame-by-frame 2D animation when you can make your computer do it in 3D and it will still shit money for you?
Honestly, that might also be the reason why anime is getting increasingly popular. Might.
And yet the sheer amount of hype around the upcoming Dragon Ball Broly movie would indicate that 2D animation is very much *not* dead...Hollywood just don't seem to care or understand that it is the superior animation style. Probably because it takes more time and effort to hand draw animations instead of using 3D modelling and animation software to do the heavy lifting for them. Same reason stop-motion doesn't get a look in any more, despite Wallace and Gromit and Chicken Run being some of the best movies going.
Gamer Goku and yet we still have 2D for TV
@@TheKazragore do you actually realize the amount of work and time that has to go into 3D as well? 2D animation is done digitally 99,99% of the time nowadays anyway. I hate that 2d is dying but it isn't because it's easier, it's because it's a fad
I recently commented on the live action Lion King trailer, saying I was sick of it and who would rather watch this dull movie compared to the colorful, brilliant animation of the classic version. A lot of people agreed but some people were like I'd rather watch this. And I lost hope for humanity. I don't understand the appeal, it's ugly, boring, watereddown, and such an obvious way to exploit money from nostalgia. People kept commenting, the King is back! I said they dug him up from the grave, spat on him a little bit, and drug his dead corpse in front of the audience. Hate these 'live remakes'.
Dood he literally Said those things in the video dipshit
This is suprisingly enough their opinion
I have a feeling those people have no respect for the work and effort that went into the original and think animation is only for children unless it's CG.
lain iwakura I don’t think the latter is true for the artists, although for executives it may very well be the case.
Jeremy Irons' voice acting as Scar is one of my favorite voice acting performances in animation.
I’m pretty sure he wasn’t brought back because he’s white. His work as Scar was amazingly done. And no Be Prepared?! That’s a strong nope from me
@@bennu547 Where are you getting this from? If there's no Be Prepared scene then that sucks :=
im glad to hear someone explain how much different and sometimes better animation is than realistic looking things. animation is probably the type of thing i watch the most and i dont care to say that i watch cartoon/anime bc cartoons/anime is awesome. love yourself and thanks for appreciating this art form.
This. Is. What. I've. Been. Saying. For. MONTHS!!! Honestly, if disney wants to keep doing live action remakes, remake a film that did poorly, one that can be improved. Black Cauldron comes to mind, it failed critically and financially. Imagine giving that to Guillermo del Toro, think of what he can do with that material!
Wasn't Guillermo Del Toro making a Haunted Mansion Movie that got Shelved?
That's not how it works, or how producers and game developers think. A good movie remade, will gather more interest than a bad one remade, because people expect them to follow the same line. If something is bad, you're not going to think the next one will be better, due to previous thoughts on it. That's why they remake popular movies to keep the tempo going.
EDIT: IHE ellaborates what I said at around 2:00
The problem is that Disney rarely takes responsibility for their bad films. They either
A) Refuse to acknowledge that the film was bad, and prefer to blame the financial failure on "Well audiences just don't like 2D animation anymore" (Black Cauldron, Home on the Range)
Or B) Completely sweep it under the rug and hope people forget about its existence (Dinosaur, Chicken Little...Black Cauldron and Home on the Range again)
Imagine giving Iron Giant a live action reboot
petes dragon is pretty much t he only disney movie that made sense to be remade.
JUST LIKE TO SAY
The original voice actors for Timon and Pumbaa are still alive! Don’t see why they couldn’t just recast them like they did with Mufasa
Yeah. Im trying to understand the logic behind the choice too.
At first I thought it's a race thing, cause they wanted a more or less all black cast, which is why Jeremy Irons isn't cast as scar. But then they cast Seth Rogen as Pumba, so I guess they just want famous names to cash in on.
It's cause they probably can't get them to take part in such a catastrophe.
Maybe they're worried it would just make the whole thing seem even more unnatural. They make the characters sound different because they look different.
If they were gonna get one of the cast back it should of been Rowan Atkinson.
Man, I can't wait for the "Song of the South" remake.
Same
Zippa-dee-doo-dah!
It'll basically be "12 Years a Slave" but with singing animals.
We all are.
@@florida_mane6267 Zippy-dee-ay!
If Walt Disney himself was still alive today, he'd be ashamed to see how Corporate Greed has corrupted the very same company he's built from the ground up,
*"Money doesn't excite me, my ideas excite me"*
Still waiting for the "Song of the South" remake. It'll basically be "12 Years a Slave" but with singing animals.
Garrick Groover
so just a remake of Song of the South
(Which it probably needs. That movie’s boring as fuck)
We all are.
Starring Mike Myers as Uncle Ramus
Garrick Groover Isn’t song of the south that one racist movie Disney wants us to forget about
oh my god they killed Kenny Yep! Most people haven't forgotten about that movie though!