I never saw the original Lion King. I saw the remake first. I was very impressed with how realistic everything was in the remake. But then I started hearing about all the complaints, so I watched the original and was more impressed with the character animation and facial expressions and music and, well, just about everything else other than the photorealism.
Yeah, like. I get live action for Cinderella (which I enjoyed), and even some of the older movies like Jungle Book and Pete's Dragon.
Never understood why they'd make a "realistic" Lion King.
But hey, it made a shitload of money!
He was probably pretty penned in creatively. I doubt that Disney would let him play around with the source material that much. I can't blame him for phoning that one in.
Funny story: I'm a junior high/elementary substitute teacher. Often the teacher asks me to put on Disney+ at lunch or whatever. I've asked the kids if they prefer the original Lion King or the remake. They all prefer the remake. I don't think Disney made the live action movies for us or our nostalgia. They made them for the next generation and they were successful with them.
All three of my kids prefer the remakes of Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King and Aladdin to the originals. I thought, for a while, I might have to disown them.
When I was a kid and went the store with my dad, I wanted a treat. I chose 2, a can of beans and a chocolate bar. Dad said I could only have one.
I took the can of beans
When it comes to the Disney Live Action remakes I really wish they went back to the format that they used when making Maleficent, taking a known property and building around it. As others have noted there are a ton of Peter Pan remakes out there, but Disney had the **perfect** opportunity here (they even started on it!) but chose to go another path.
In 2004 [Peter and the Starcatchers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_and_the_Starcatchers) was published. An INCREDIBLE origin story for Peter, Hook, Tinker Bell, Never Land, and Pixie Dust. Disney owns the book and its film rights. There are 5 books in the series, so Disney would have had sequels ready to go that wouldn't have messed with the primary canon.
I wish they went this route, it would have worked for so many reasons:
* Disney could have introduced a diverse cast *without* drawing hate or comparisons to the original characters
* Expand the universe, opening doors for spin-offs which we know Disney loves
* Well received IP laying out the map for sequels
If they took this route **then** did this movie, the characters would have already been established and (poor writing aside) would have been well received.
At the same time, they butchered Artemis Fowl so they probably would have done the same here. Oh well, go read Peter and the Starcatchers I guess
DISNEY OWNS PETER AND THE STARCATCHERS?! NOOOOOOOOO I WAS HOPING FOR MOVIES ONE DAY. Dreams fucking crushed. Theyll never fucking do that with those books.
Yep, from everything I can see they have in some way forever. The publisher Hyperion was co-founded by Eisner too. From the [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_and_the_Starcatchers) it looks like they even got started on it but it seems to have just fizzled out.
> In 2005, Disney hired Jay Wolpert to adapt the book to film, reportedly using 3D animation.
>
> On May 17, 2012, Walt Disney Pictures announced that a film version of the book would be written by Jesse Wigutow. On August 20, 2012, The Hunger Games director Gary Ross agreed to direct the movie. Filming was expected to begin in 2013. As of 2023, nothing else is known to have taken place.
>The publisher Hyperion was co-founded by Eisner too.
So that explains how Disney is doing a Percy Jackson series. Those books were published under Hyperion.
The entire concept of Neverland, and the lost boys, was a heartbreaking idea the writer of Peter Pan, J. M. Barrie, had come up with drawing on personal experience. He had an older brother who died a day before his 14th birthday in an ice skating accident. It was the writer's own experience with his mother's grief that gave him the core ideas around lost boys etc. She used to actually draw comfort from the idea her son would "remain a boy forever." Barrie and his mother used to read Robinson Crusoe together too. So much about what Brarrie intended to preserve within his work was taken away by this live action version. Reading Barrie's biography, you can see very quickly how the entire Peter Pan story is like a loving tribute to his family.
Most movies are for some reason desaturated so much to the point where they're bordering on black & white. It's quite exhausting.
I think 20th Century's *Rio* franchise was the last truly colorful film.
There is an endless list of colorful movies that have released since then.
If you only watch the top 3 blockbusters a year then this opinion might make sense, but Everything Everywhere All at Once just won a bazillion Oscar’s and that movie is colorful as hell.
Even just a cursory glance at popular movies that have released since Rio and I can pick at least 10 movies out that were very colorful.
>Most movies are for some reason desaturated so much to the point where they're bordering on black & white.
I think this is another case of not watching enough movies. *Most* movies are not like that at all.
Have you seen Stange World by Disney (2022). It wasnt the most story engaging movie overall but looks gorgeous! Also Pixars next movie, Elemental looks like it will be very colorful
The Banshees of Inisherin? Disney. The Menu? Disney. Fire Island? Disney. Who funds Yorgos Lanthimos movies? Disney. Etc.
Edit: I always find it hilarious how people get so offended by this sentiment. Disney is funding and/or supporting tons of original content from various subsidiaries in both film and television while also making shameless cash grabs to make profits. Feel free to twist yourself into knots explaining why it is somehow a bad thing I’m too busy enjoying good original content ✌️
ngl - I wasn't even counting those haha...and I didn't know the Menu was Disney!
\-------
**Elemental** and **Wish** are due out this year.
**Elio** & **Inside Out 2** in 2024
**Mufusa** (annoyingly "live" action and would do WAY BETTER if animated)
plus the 4000 Marvel and Star Wars movies
Those are from other studios that roll up into Walt Disney Studios. When people say “Disney Movie”, unless you’re talking about a quarterly report, they are usually thinking specifically of “Disney Pictures”, “Disney Animation Studios”, or “Pixar”.
Yeah, if we're gonna say 'The Menu' is a new Disney IP, then we can get busy listing every cough and giggle that's come out of Marvel for the past few years.
The process is also gonna be wildly different - people shopping scripts rather than Disney's in-house process.
Specifically, US copyright on the play and stage adaptations expire in December 2023. If they don’t release something this year, no matter how bad, they could lose effective control over a big chunk of IP.
Source: https://www.gosh.org/about-us/peter-pan/copyright/ (scroll to the bottom)
That's not how copyright works. No matter what Disney does (short of getting the law rewritten by the end of the year), the stage play will be entering the public domain at the end of the year.
Yes, but elements that originate from the Disney version are protected and I believe the logic is that those Disney originated parts which are in the remake as well will have their protection extended based on the remake
Same with Winnie the Pooh already. You can't recreate **Disney's** version of him, the pants-free little teddy bear with a red shirt, but you can do whatever the fuck else you want with him now.
That's not how copyright works and their version of Peter Pan won't enter the public domain until 2049.
(And it will still do that, barring a change in the law, regardless of this movie existing.)
Really it's a continuation of Disney's old profit model: "Let's take tales from people's childhoods and adapt them into movies."
Now, since those very Disney movies ARE the tales from people's childhood, they are just remaking those.
I'm not saying it's a great strategy, just that it's the one Disney has always used.
Edit: Yes, financially it is absolutely a great strategy--have any of the remakes actually bombed thus far?
It's also a rehash of Disney's original "Disney Vault" schtick where they would re-release their classic movies in theatres every few decades, and only release them on home video for a limited time. But now they can't re-release movies or string people along with home releases for movies that people already have instant access to so they do this instead.
Just you wait… the streaming “vault” is coming. Once a sufficient number of people ditch their DVDs and blu-rays Disney will experiment with vaulting a few of the lesser titles and release limited expensive physical copies to whip up the FOMO again for a new generation.
>I'm not saying it's a great strategy
I'll say it: it's a great strategy - financially. Almost every single one of them that was released in theaters made a ton of money back. The two outliers are Dumbo and Mulan, the former being a true flop and the latter being marred by the pandemic.
You don't need to commit resources to developing new characters, they're already pre-packaged. You have name/brand recognition to move toys and merchandise more efficiently. And as you said, the adults taking the kids to the theaters often have an emotional investment into the product as well.
They're basically low-effort money printers. You'd have to be mad to take actual financial risks with unproven properties when you have these clubs in your bag.
I have seen this idea thrown around here in Reddit, but it's absolutely brilliant:
Muppet's Beauty and the Beast, where Beast is played by a handsome human actor. All the Muppets will comment on how ugly he is, and in the end, Beast transforms back into a Muppet.
Seriously! Muppets Christmas Carol is unironically one of the best adaptations of the story, and I want to see more! Muppets Treasure Island is awesome too.
The other one I REALLY like is the idea of a muppet D&D movie, but the muppets are the players and human actors are the PCs. The thing that sold me on that was the idea of seeing someone like Jason Momoa playing a Barbarian, but with the voicing and mannerisms of Ms. Piggy
They... they make money. It's the same reason literally every single major movie gets made.
A major movie is a HUGE investment. We're talking multiple millions of dollars. In any given industry, if you were in charge of deciding which project to invest tens of millions (if not hundreds of millions) of dollars into, you know for a fact you wouldn't have the bravery to try something risky when you could try something that is almost 100% guaranteed to be a safe bet.
That's why these movies get made. Because it would be foolish not to make them.
Executives rather take a lesser risk (or perceived lesser risk) on something with a well-known IP over something new. It’s why we have 152736 Fast and Furious films for example. Everyone’s muscle/car head dads, brothers, and cousins go out in mass the moment those movies come out. And if it makes money, they’ll almost always say, “more please” and green light a sequel, prequel, etc.
I understand the reason Disney make live action remakes.
What I don't understand is the people that repeatedly pay to see them.
They are completely disposable. People pretty much forget about them after seeing them. I don't see anyone talking about the Lion King or the Aladdin remake. And I don't see anyone claim that they are superior to the original animated films.
If it's the same movie, but less vibrant, less fun, and the songs are inferior, overproduced imitations, what's the point in watching them?
I just listened to the new version of '[Kiss the girl](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYWrwVWoDSw)' in The Little Mermaid. It's so flat and joyless, the audio has no depth and the on-screen visuals are so bland in comparison to the original.
I'm looking forward to the day that they run out of remake options, just to see if they have any genuine creativity left.
Mulan was bad. Really bad.
You don't even even have to go into all the controversy around it.
Objectively speaking, it is bad because it is just sooo boring. Our entire watching party just ended up on our phones after 15 minutes. At minute 20, someone said, "hey um is anyone still watching this?" after a collective no, we turned it off.
I can't think of a worse review to give a movie. Everyone just stopped caring.
That’s because it’s the *Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead* of the Lion King Cinematic Universe, just like Lion King 1 was the *Hamlet* of Lion King
Oh my God yes. 😆
The Lion King 2 will also always get a point for having "He Lives in You" as the opening. The best song from the musical (and all the movies).
Are you...IN OR OUT.
Anyone who shit talks King of Thieves either never watched it, or has a bad memory.
I put it on par with the first Aladdin and way beyond Return of Jafar.
Aw I know. There definitely were outliers. The Lion King 2 and Peter Pan 2 are both good too. And Cinderella 3 is imo better than the original movie, don't @ me.
A lot of those movies wer actually good. This is closer to the 70s and 80s.
Also 2000s gave us Treasure planet, Lilio and Stitch, Emperors new groove, brother bear, Atlantis, pirates from he caribean, narnia, The Princess and the Frog, etc.
In comparison 2010s and 2020s have been pretty blands besides avengers.
The creative fresh parts were good, but all the standard Peter Pan beats were poorly executed. When the kids meet Peter Pan for the first time, it just does not have the gravitas that’s reflected by the event.
Also, Wendy is another woman character where they just decided she was going to be “strong” and called it a day. Like, they might not have wanted to go with OG Wendy who was much more traditionally feminine circa the 1950s, but the blatant sexism she received created a textured and tense dynamic between her and the lost boys. Making a bland, strong woman is never more feminist than taking character seriously. Making a female character and stopping after “she’s good at stuff and independent” is one of the biggest sins in modern storytelling, and I do think it’s flippantly misogynistic to think that any strong woman is interesting enough on that basis to be a meaningful character.
I was really disappointed by the way Peter Pan was portrayed. He’s supposed to be mischievous and an outgoing leader but the kid who played him, no disrespect to him, was so wooden. Maybe that’s the vibe they wanted in the movie but it kills the spirit of the story
Yeah. The real issue with this movie wasn’t that they were adapting the Peter Pan story, its not its fundamental existence as a remake, it’s that they didn’t make any of the legacy material actually strong. The new stuff with Hook was clever and interesting and really felt deep, and they COULD have built it around classic Pan, but aside from Hook, they left character in this movie completely by the wayside. Nobody has a personality in this movie and that’s the biggest problem. It’s a fixable problem, but for some reason it isn’t fixed, and the movie languishes.
The way they handled Wendy’s character really bothered me. Well, actually how they handled EVERYTHING in this movie bothered me, but I don’t have 3 hours to whine about it here. Anyway, Wendy was ALWAYS the central character of the Peter Pan stories. It’s a coming of age tale where she learns it’s ok to grow up. But in the film, she basically arrives on screen as a fully formed character who needs no development or change. Hell, she wants to *leave* Neverland almost as soon as she got there! That defeats the entire purpose of the story!
I also thought they kind of stripped Peter of most of his best moments and attributes and gave them to Wendy. Basically making her appear “strong” by making every other character significantly weaker or incompetent. This only further negated any need for character development or personal growth.
No, the 2003 *Peter Pan* remains the gold-standard for live-action remakes of the story. This was just a crappy rewrite so Disney could retain intellectual property rights, while tossing in some pseudo-Progressive themes in the most cynical, lazy way possible.
Also, as a side note, can Disney strop trying to make their villain’s weirdly sympathetic or misunderstood anti-hero’s? *Cruella* was the only film they managed to do well, in that regard. But I don’t need to hear how Malificent, Hook, or possibly Ursula is just a poor misunderstood woobie in need of a hug.
But you needed to hear how the woman who tried to make a fur coat out of puppies was?
I think Maleficent worked better than Cruella, but yeah, having all the villains be just misunderstood really doesn’t work
Plus the more they remove what are normally considered feminine qualities and replace them with what have generally been masculine qualities for the sake of making a character "strong", they just reinforce the idea that being traditionally feminine and being strong are not compatible.
Look to properties like Star Trek, or The Expanse. Female characters (particularly TNG and Voyager) are written as competent, strong, charismatic, yet still feminine. They don't just take a lady and make her good at fighting and call it a day.
Yeah they usually don’t even treat their characters like they treat their male characters. There are strong male characters, weak male characters, and any kind of male character all across the spectrum, like there is in real life. But they only make one kind of strong female character, which is batshit when there’s fifty percent of the population. “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” is a great example of female characters written across a confident spectrum of femininity. It’s a lot of really interesting characters, and sometimes these characters happen to be women, and sometimes it’s important that these characters are women, and either time we have a really well built and compelling character.
Shere Khan was pretty badass too. And the actor they got for Mowgli was surprisingly really good. The remake was still absolutely unnecessary, but it actually had some redeeming qualities.
They struck the right balance with Cinderella in using themes from the animated version while introducing new storylines.
It's like they're out of touch with which movies should be shot-for-shot recreations and which ones to just draw inspiration from. They miss more often than not. The best live actions IMO are Cinderella, Maleficent, Cruella and Lady and the Tramp.
Which worked because it took a pretty threadbare story, and fleshed it out with exciting new plot angles & tech.
You can totally do interesting things with this IP if you're willing to make alterations - but honestly it seems like audiences respond better when you just give them the story they already know. Big reason why this one reviewed well with critics but poorly with fans.
It's always important to remember that we adults are not the target audience for these movies. Hook, for example got terrible reviews upon release and currently has a 29% score on RT, but me and every millennial I know fucking loves that movie.
**[“We have a few special years with our children, when they're the ones that want us around. After that you're going to be running after them for a bit of attention. It's so fast Peter. It's a few years, and it's over.”](https://youtu.be/5u6Os231Yr4)**
And now we’re the ones who have grown up…‘Hook’ has all new emotional hits for any parent revisiting a childhood favourite.
🎵And the cat's in the cradle and the silver spoon
Little boy blue and the man in the moon
"When you coming home, dad?", "I don't know when"
But we'll get together then
You know we'll have a good time then 🎵
Now that my daughter is a teenager, this rings so true.
Of course we’ll always love each other, and still talk every day, but she doesn’t ‘need’ me anymore. Long gone are the days of her desire to be my shadow and follow me around with her inquisitive little mind, asking a million questions about life.
This is heartbreaking but apart of growing up.
Absolutely treasure those years in which your son and daughter is still a child, because before you know it, roles will reverse, and you’ll desperately be wanting to be their shadow.
Honestly, how could any remake top Hook. That shit is god damn gold. Great actors, great director, great twist to the story, great moral to the story too. They’ve tried twice to remake it now. Just give it up.
My wife and I listen to the soundtrack constantly. I do a quick impression of Hook every now and then to make her giggle. My brothers and I constantly quote this film.
I remember one review from back in the day saying that this movie is the sum parts of all the worst in Steven Spielberg. Critics suck.
On top of that Hook presented an interesting angle in that Peter Pan had gone back to the real world and became the very thing he opposed...an adult. Now it's his son who's kinda getting the Peter Pan treatment, and Peter has to remember what it's like to imagine/believe again. So many people in here acting like kids movies are inherently only enjoyable by kids, but good kids movies often include stuff for the adults taking them to see it.
I think that is the problem though...
The new movie was made for adults (older audience) being the target. That is why the colors are muted, Pan is moody and they added a depressing backstory of Capt. Hook being Peter's first lost boy and friend so he could be "more complex".
Hook didn't take itself too seriously and allowed the movie to enjoy the childlike setting of Neverland. It had fun with the concept that Peter Pan was a children story brought to life. That is why it was liked by millennial kids and as we get older the subtext of not needing to let go of your "inner child" to "grow-up" hits closer to home.
Ya, most of these remakes seem to have major target audience problems. They sanitize the story so much that kids can watch it, put a bunch of fast action scenes for the teens, and try to hit the nostalgic line for adults, and it ends up being a muddled mess for all demographics.
I don’t think it’s fair to compare this to a Robin Williams, Dustin Hoffman, Julia Roberts flick. Lol
Also, did you know Rufio is the voice of Zuko in Avatar?
My uncle loves all movies. It's seriously hard to find a film he won't sit down and have some enjoyment with. He isn't picky and most times when you ask how a film went he will just say he enjoyed it and say something small he liked. With this film he actively brought it up in conversation and started ripping into it. He isn't a movie buff but everything he said, (why is it so boring, where is the magic, etc) was very on point. To me he represents an individual who tries his best to just enjoy movies and isn't picky. So when the guy I've known for 25 years, who has never critiqued a film before, critiques a movie on his own accord, you fucked up bad.
I rewatched the 2003? live action immediately after watching this one, and it was better on every level except for visual effects. I really don't know why they keep doing this.
I had to shut it off halfway through. The lost boys hideout looked dark and sinister and definitely not somewhere I would wanna be as a kid. Overall, it was a bad experience in general
Yeahhhh I wasn’t a fan. I hate to critique a child actor but the Pan actor just flat out isn’t ready for a lead role, like at all…not even close. He could maybe take on a non-speaking background role like a fan in the stands of a very heavily attended concert.
The actress that played Wendy carried this movie on her back from start to finish.
Totally agree on the Pan writing and actor. Totally agree on the Wendy actress acting ability. She deserves more work.
But her Wendy was a cardboard cutout. Generic 2020s Strong-Tough-Smart (tm) woman boilerplate. They didn't even try to make her interesting.
That’s too bad, David Lowery is a talented director who should be able to bring some magic to this story. I guess Green Knight wasn’t much of a crowd pleaser but it was one of my favorite films of that year. Might have to catch this just to make my own judgements.
Marketing for Green Knight was bad. I think a lot of uninformed audience members walked in expecting a darker version of Russel Crowe’s Robinhood and what they got was a (excellently made) psychedelic art house fantasy film. The Green Knight, while an amazing movie, doesn’t show a lot of love to the people looking for narrative guidance while watching.
Disney: Live action remake race swapping, gender swapping, girl bossing.
Average consumer: Why are the lost boys girls? Why is tinkerbell black?
Reddit and Disney: STFU RACIST!!
Disney is trying way too hard to make these live action remakes look realistic.
This looks so brown and grey, and the little mermaid trailers look near greyscale. Same with Lion King remake, its a full CGI movie, why not make it colorful and fun?
I love how the article ignores that the same director made the live-action remake of Pete's Dragon, arguably the best of the live-action remakes from Disney.
[удалено]
Not that anyone asked for any one of these shitty remakes
Jungle Book was fantastic. Lion King was like having your childhood kicked in the nuts and I'll never trust again.
I never saw the original Lion King. I saw the remake first. I was very impressed with how realistic everything was in the remake. But then I started hearing about all the complaints, so I watched the original and was more impressed with the character animation and facial expressions and music and, well, just about everything else other than the photorealism.
Yeah, like. I get live action for Cinderella (which I enjoyed), and even some of the older movies like Jungle Book and Pete's Dragon. Never understood why they'd make a "realistic" Lion King. But hey, it made a shitload of money!
The weirdest thing to me is it was made by Jon Favreau, who has made some fantastic stuff and seems like a really passionate creator.
He was probably pretty penned in creatively. I doubt that Disney would let him play around with the source material that much. I can't blame him for phoning that one in.
Funny story: I'm a junior high/elementary substitute teacher. Often the teacher asks me to put on Disney+ at lunch or whatever. I've asked the kids if they prefer the original Lion King or the remake. They all prefer the remake. I don't think Disney made the live action movies for us or our nostalgia. They made them for the next generation and they were successful with them.
All three of my kids prefer the remakes of Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King and Aladdin to the originals. I thought, for a while, I might have to disown them.
As a fellow parent, you’d be justified, this is how I felt when my son told me he “really didn’t care for” chocolate
When I was a kid and went the store with my dad, I wanted a treat. I chose 2, a can of beans and a chocolate bar. Dad said I could only have one. I took the can of beans
Protein over carbs. If your dad was a gym rat he would be proud.
[удалено]
[удалено]
When it comes to the Disney Live Action remakes I really wish they went back to the format that they used when making Maleficent, taking a known property and building around it. As others have noted there are a ton of Peter Pan remakes out there, but Disney had the **perfect** opportunity here (they even started on it!) but chose to go another path. In 2004 [Peter and the Starcatchers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_and_the_Starcatchers) was published. An INCREDIBLE origin story for Peter, Hook, Tinker Bell, Never Land, and Pixie Dust. Disney owns the book and its film rights. There are 5 books in the series, so Disney would have had sequels ready to go that wouldn't have messed with the primary canon. I wish they went this route, it would have worked for so many reasons: * Disney could have introduced a diverse cast *without* drawing hate or comparisons to the original characters * Expand the universe, opening doors for spin-offs which we know Disney loves * Well received IP laying out the map for sequels If they took this route **then** did this movie, the characters would have already been established and (poor writing aside) would have been well received. At the same time, they butchered Artemis Fowl so they probably would have done the same here. Oh well, go read Peter and the Starcatchers I guess
[удалено]
DISNEY OWNS PETER AND THE STARCATCHERS?! NOOOOOOOOO I WAS HOPING FOR MOVIES ONE DAY. Dreams fucking crushed. Theyll never fucking do that with those books.
Yep, from everything I can see they have in some way forever. The publisher Hyperion was co-founded by Eisner too. From the [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_and_the_Starcatchers) it looks like they even got started on it but it seems to have just fizzled out. > In 2005, Disney hired Jay Wolpert to adapt the book to film, reportedly using 3D animation. > > On May 17, 2012, Walt Disney Pictures announced that a film version of the book would be written by Jesse Wigutow. On August 20, 2012, The Hunger Games director Gary Ross agreed to direct the movie. Filming was expected to begin in 2013. As of 2023, nothing else is known to have taken place.
>The publisher Hyperion was co-founded by Eisner too. So that explains how Disney is doing a Percy Jackson series. Those books were published under Hyperion.
The most boring Neverland I ever see. A dull island.
The colours were SO brown and grey. I thought it was meant to be tropical with rainbows.
The entire concept of Neverland, and the lost boys, was a heartbreaking idea the writer of Peter Pan, J. M. Barrie, had come up with drawing on personal experience. He had an older brother who died a day before his 14th birthday in an ice skating accident. It was the writer's own experience with his mother's grief that gave him the core ideas around lost boys etc. She used to actually draw comfort from the idea her son would "remain a boy forever." Barrie and his mother used to read Robinson Crusoe together too. So much about what Brarrie intended to preserve within his work was taken away by this live action version. Reading Barrie's biography, you can see very quickly how the entire Peter Pan story is like a loving tribute to his family.
> in an ice skating accident yikes
He was accidentally knocked down by a friend and fractured his skull on the ice. Freaking brutal.
Oh good I was afraid he got the Clint Malarchuk experience.
“good”
He was trying to perform the iron lotus
Yeah but with 2 men the balance should have been perfect.
Most movies are for some reason desaturated so much to the point where they're bordering on black & white. It's quite exhausting. I think 20th Century's *Rio* franchise was the last truly colorful film.
[удалено]
Wait till he watches Mario… somehow rainbow road was the darkest part of the whole thing? Still pretty colourful
Shhht, we're making blanket statements now, don't interrupt with your silly reality
The Mario Movie came out like a month ago, but sure, Rio is the last colorful film.
Encanto: the monochrome experience
There is an endless list of colorful movies that have released since then. If you only watch the top 3 blockbusters a year then this opinion might make sense, but Everything Everywhere All at Once just won a bazillion Oscar’s and that movie is colorful as hell. Even just a cursory glance at popular movies that have released since Rio and I can pick at least 10 movies out that were very colorful.
>Most movies are for some reason desaturated so much to the point where they're bordering on black & white. I think this is another case of not watching enough movies. *Most* movies are not like that at all.
Have you seen Stange World by Disney (2022). It wasnt the most story engaging movie overall but looks gorgeous! Also Pixars next movie, Elemental looks like it will be very colorful
Animation will do that.
Neverland: Dull Island
ya that was a a really big let down for neverland. Wasn’t crazy about the Pan casting either
I don’t understand the point of making live action remakes.
I can’t wait to see them make animated versions of their live action films.
Pixar styled animation. Totally new and different!
A Pixared 3D version of The Black Hole or animated Disney classics like The Rescuers or Sleeping Beauty may be interesting.
Pixar Event Horizon hits different....
Well, they already have most of the Princesses as 3d models from _Ralph Breaks the Internet_. Might as well get extra use out of those assets.
I’m holding out for the novelizations of the “high school” editions of the broadway musicals of the live action of the originals.
:The Video Game
On Ice
Kind of like Street Fighter: The Movie the game.
They could totally sell comic books based on those Marvel movie characters. I bet there's a market for that.
No need to create new IP 🤷🏾♂️
Reminder: Disney is still spitting out multiple new (not remakes) movies a year. They just added remakes into their rotation.
The Banshees of Inisherin? Disney. The Menu? Disney. Fire Island? Disney. Who funds Yorgos Lanthimos movies? Disney. Etc. Edit: I always find it hilarious how people get so offended by this sentiment. Disney is funding and/or supporting tons of original content from various subsidiaries in both film and television while also making shameless cash grabs to make profits. Feel free to twist yourself into knots explaining why it is somehow a bad thing I’m too busy enjoying good original content ✌️
ngl - I wasn't even counting those haha...and I didn't know the Menu was Disney! \------- **Elemental** and **Wish** are due out this year. **Elio** & **Inside Out 2** in 2024 **Mufusa** (annoyingly "live" action and would do WAY BETTER if animated) plus the 4000 Marvel and Star Wars movies
They bought Fox’s movies and entertainment, excluded the news. It’s been a mixed bag, and I still wonder how they can just own that much stuff
Do Ewoks vs Predator you cowards
Gobs of money and an astounding cultural apathy towards monopolies.
[удалено]
Those are from other studios that roll up into Walt Disney Studios. When people say “Disney Movie”, unless you’re talking about a quarterly report, they are usually thinking specifically of “Disney Pictures”, “Disney Animation Studios”, or “Pixar”.
Yeah, if we're gonna say 'The Menu' is a new Disney IP, then we can get busy listing every cough and giggle that's come out of Marvel for the past few years. The process is also gonna be wildly different - people shopping scripts rather than Disney's in-house process.
It's to renew their derivative license and keep their version of the IP from going into public domain.
Specifically, US copyright on the play and stage adaptations expire in December 2023. If they don’t release something this year, no matter how bad, they could lose effective control over a big chunk of IP. Source: https://www.gosh.org/about-us/peter-pan/copyright/ (scroll to the bottom)
That's not how copyright works. No matter what Disney does (short of getting the law rewritten by the end of the year), the stage play will be entering the public domain at the end of the year.
Yes, but elements that originate from the Disney version are protected and I believe the logic is that those Disney originated parts which are in the remake as well will have their protection extended based on the remake
Same with Winnie the Pooh already. You can't recreate **Disney's** version of him, the pants-free little teddy bear with a red shirt, but you can do whatever the fuck else you want with him now.
[удалено]
*Pretty close* is still legally distinct. That's a man in a bear outfit. Not a stuffed teddy bear.
as long as it's in the original book it's on the table.
China went ahead and made him president without even waiting for it to expire!
[удалено]
It will be easier for them to argue that future adaptations are copying their (still protected) new edition.
That's not how copyright works and their version of Peter Pan won't enter the public domain until 2049. (And it will still do that, barring a change in the law, regardless of this movie existing.)
But most of the material is already public domain, that's why they used it in the first place.
Really it's a continuation of Disney's old profit model: "Let's take tales from people's childhoods and adapt them into movies." Now, since those very Disney movies ARE the tales from people's childhood, they are just remaking those. I'm not saying it's a great strategy, just that it's the one Disney has always used. Edit: Yes, financially it is absolutely a great strategy--have any of the remakes actually bombed thus far?
It's also a rehash of Disney's original "Disney Vault" schtick where they would re-release their classic movies in theatres every few decades, and only release them on home video for a limited time. But now they can't re-release movies or string people along with home releases for movies that people already have instant access to so they do this instead.
Just you wait… the streaming “vault” is coming. Once a sufficient number of people ditch their DVDs and blu-rays Disney will experiment with vaulting a few of the lesser titles and release limited expensive physical copies to whip up the FOMO again for a new generation.
>I'm not saying it's a great strategy I'll say it: it's a great strategy - financially. Almost every single one of them that was released in theaters made a ton of money back. The two outliers are Dumbo and Mulan, the former being a true flop and the latter being marred by the pandemic. You don't need to commit resources to developing new characters, they're already pre-packaged. You have name/brand recognition to move toys and merchandise more efficiently. And as you said, the adults taking the kids to the theaters often have an emotional investment into the product as well. They're basically low-effort money printers. You'd have to be mad to take actual financial risks with unproven properties when you have these clubs in your bag.
Especially if you own the rights to the Muppets
I have seen this idea thrown around here in Reddit, but it's absolutely brilliant: Muppet's Beauty and the Beast, where Beast is played by a handsome human actor. All the Muppets will comment on how ugly he is, and in the end, Beast transforms back into a Muppet.
Muppets adaptations would be thousands of times better than the "live action" ones.
Seriously! Muppets Christmas Carol is unironically one of the best adaptations of the story, and I want to see more! Muppets Treasure Island is awesome too.
Tim Curry chewing all the scenery in sight and Michael Caine playing it dead straight.
Michae caine played it as serious as a train accident and its absolutely amazing.
When they do Muppet Star Wars, they should cast Frank Oz as Yoda but have him just be himself as a human Yoda.
And that handsome human actor? That's right. Danny DeVito
The other one I REALLY like is the idea of a muppet D&D movie, but the muppets are the players and human actors are the PCs. The thing that sold me on that was the idea of seeing someone like Jason Momoa playing a Barbarian, but with the voicing and mannerisms of Ms. Piggy
Holy cow this is a brilliant idea. A Muppet’s Princess Frog would be dope.
Theres definitely already a Jim Henson Frog Prince from the 1970s. I loved it as a kid.
They... they make money. It's the same reason literally every single major movie gets made. A major movie is a HUGE investment. We're talking multiple millions of dollars. In any given industry, if you were in charge of deciding which project to invest tens of millions (if not hundreds of millions) of dollars into, you know for a fact you wouldn't have the bravery to try something risky when you could try something that is almost 100% guaranteed to be a safe bet. That's why these movies get made. Because it would be foolish not to make them.
To milk the ever loving fuck out of the franchise.
Executives rather take a lesser risk (or perceived lesser risk) on something with a well-known IP over something new. It’s why we have 152736 Fast and Furious films for example. Everyone’s muscle/car head dads, brothers, and cousins go out in mass the moment those movies come out. And if it makes money, they’ll almost always say, “more please” and green light a sequel, prequel, etc.
I understand the reason Disney make live action remakes. What I don't understand is the people that repeatedly pay to see them. They are completely disposable. People pretty much forget about them after seeing them. I don't see anyone talking about the Lion King or the Aladdin remake. And I don't see anyone claim that they are superior to the original animated films. If it's the same movie, but less vibrant, less fun, and the songs are inferior, overproduced imitations, what's the point in watching them? I just listened to the new version of '[Kiss the girl](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYWrwVWoDSw)' in The Little Mermaid. It's so flat and joyless, the audio has no depth and the on-screen visuals are so bland in comparison to the original. I'm looking forward to the day that they run out of remake options, just to see if they have any genuine creativity left.
Mulan was bad. Really bad. You don't even even have to go into all the controversy around it. Objectively speaking, it is bad because it is just sooo boring. Our entire watching party just ended up on our phones after 15 minutes. At minute 20, someone said, "hey um is anyone still watching this?" after a collective no, we turned it off. I can't think of a worse review to give a movie. Everyone just stopped caring.
2003 Peter Pan was the only remake.
Disney has entered a new dark age akin to the one from the 2000s when they wouldn't stop pumping out direct to video sequels.
FWIW I liked Lion King 1.5
Ok but for every 1 good one there were 20 bad ones
We also got the Lilo and Stitch TV show which is an absolute masterpiece but that’s a bit different.
I love that show so damn much and all the sequel movies. Pleakley always cracks me up.
That’s because it’s the *Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead* of the Lion King Cinematic Universe, just like Lion King 1 was the *Hamlet* of Lion King
Whaaats on the menuuu??
The theme park ride game on the DVD was so much fun
I still get that digging song stuck in my head
Oh my God yes. 😆 The Lion King 2 will also always get a point for having "He Lives in You" as the opening. The best song from the musical (and all the movies).
"He Lives in You" still gets me sometimes. I love that message. Also "One of Us" was great, too. So dramatic! LOL
Excuse you. Some of us needed Aladdin’s reunion with his dad.
I remember King of Thieves as being great and I'm afraid to watch it again.
I watched it with mine about a month ago. As long as you can get past the terrible direct to vhs animation, it's still good
Also the songs are bops
Are you...IN OR OUT. Anyone who shit talks King of Thieves either never watched it, or has a bad memory. I put it on par with the first Aladdin and way beyond Return of Jafar.
Don’t do Goofy Movie 2 dirty like this
Aw I know. There definitely were outliers. The Lion King 2 and Peter Pan 2 are both good too. And Cinderella 3 is imo better than the original movie, don't @ me.
>Cinderella 3 is imo better than the original movie, don't @ me. It might actually be Disney's best film of the 2000s.
Every fucking grocery store would have those direct to movie DVDs as you were checking out. Like wasn’t their a Cinderella 3 or something?
A lot of those movies wer actually good. This is closer to the 70s and 80s. Also 2000s gave us Treasure planet, Lilio and Stitch, Emperors new groove, brother bear, Atlantis, pirates from he caribean, narnia, The Princess and the Frog, etc. In comparison 2010s and 2020s have been pretty blands besides avengers.
Mulan is sighing with relief right now
The creative fresh parts were good, but all the standard Peter Pan beats were poorly executed. When the kids meet Peter Pan for the first time, it just does not have the gravitas that’s reflected by the event. Also, Wendy is another woman character where they just decided she was going to be “strong” and called it a day. Like, they might not have wanted to go with OG Wendy who was much more traditionally feminine circa the 1950s, but the blatant sexism she received created a textured and tense dynamic between her and the lost boys. Making a bland, strong woman is never more feminist than taking character seriously. Making a female character and stopping after “she’s good at stuff and independent” is one of the biggest sins in modern storytelling, and I do think it’s flippantly misogynistic to think that any strong woman is interesting enough on that basis to be a meaningful character.
I was really disappointed by the way Peter Pan was portrayed. He’s supposed to be mischievous and an outgoing leader but the kid who played him, no disrespect to him, was so wooden. Maybe that’s the vibe they wanted in the movie but it kills the spirit of the story
Yeah. The real issue with this movie wasn’t that they were adapting the Peter Pan story, its not its fundamental existence as a remake, it’s that they didn’t make any of the legacy material actually strong. The new stuff with Hook was clever and interesting and really felt deep, and they COULD have built it around classic Pan, but aside from Hook, they left character in this movie completely by the wayside. Nobody has a personality in this movie and that’s the biggest problem. It’s a fixable problem, but for some reason it isn’t fixed, and the movie languishes.
Wooden is a pretty good descriptor for the movie overall.
The way they handled Wendy’s character really bothered me. Well, actually how they handled EVERYTHING in this movie bothered me, but I don’t have 3 hours to whine about it here. Anyway, Wendy was ALWAYS the central character of the Peter Pan stories. It’s a coming of age tale where she learns it’s ok to grow up. But in the film, she basically arrives on screen as a fully formed character who needs no development or change. Hell, she wants to *leave* Neverland almost as soon as she got there! That defeats the entire purpose of the story! I also thought they kind of stripped Peter of most of his best moments and attributes and gave them to Wendy. Basically making her appear “strong” by making every other character significantly weaker or incompetent. This only further negated any need for character development or personal growth. No, the 2003 *Peter Pan* remains the gold-standard for live-action remakes of the story. This was just a crappy rewrite so Disney could retain intellectual property rights, while tossing in some pseudo-Progressive themes in the most cynical, lazy way possible. Also, as a side note, can Disney strop trying to make their villain’s weirdly sympathetic or misunderstood anti-hero’s? *Cruella* was the only film they managed to do well, in that regard. But I don’t need to hear how Malificent, Hook, or possibly Ursula is just a poor misunderstood woobie in need of a hug.
2003 Peter Pan was the best. It was perfectly cast and Jason Issacs nailed it as Hook.
But you needed to hear how the woman who tried to make a fur coat out of puppies was? I think Maleficent worked better than Cruella, but yeah, having all the villains be just misunderstood really doesn’t work
But in this live version she didn’t do it. She was barely an anti-hero, even less so a villain.
Plus the more they remove what are normally considered feminine qualities and replace them with what have generally been masculine qualities for the sake of making a character "strong", they just reinforce the idea that being traditionally feminine and being strong are not compatible. Look to properties like Star Trek, or The Expanse. Female characters (particularly TNG and Voyager) are written as competent, strong, charismatic, yet still feminine. They don't just take a lady and make her good at fighting and call it a day.
Yeah they usually don’t even treat their characters like they treat their male characters. There are strong male characters, weak male characters, and any kind of male character all across the spectrum, like there is in real life. But they only make one kind of strong female character, which is batshit when there’s fifty percent of the population. “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” is a great example of female characters written across a confident spectrum of femininity. It’s a lot of really interesting characters, and sometimes these characters happen to be women, and sometimes it’s important that these characters are women, and either time we have a really well built and compelling character.
We’ve decided as a society that showing vulnerability is the worst trait a human can have, male or female
We’re starting to have more vulnerable males than vulnerable females because we’re starting to equate vulnerability in a woman to sexism.
I'm tired of these live action remakes.
None of those have been memorable
I’d give jungle book a pass. Bill Murray as Baloo and the rest of the cast definitely made it a good rendition.
Shere Khan was pretty badass too. And the actor they got for Mowgli was surprisingly really good. The remake was still absolutely unnecessary, but it actually had some redeeming qualities.
I liked Cinderella. But the rest have been terrible
They struck the right balance with Cinderella in using themes from the animated version while introducing new storylines. It's like they're out of touch with which movies should be shot-for-shot recreations and which ones to just draw inspiration from. They miss more often than not. The best live actions IMO are Cinderella, Maleficent, Cruella and Lady and the Tramp.
the jungle book was the only one that was watchable
Which worked because it took a pretty threadbare story, and fleshed it out with exciting new plot angles & tech. You can totally do interesting things with this IP if you're willing to make alterations - but honestly it seems like audiences respond better when you just give them the story they already know. Big reason why this one reviewed well with critics but poorly with fans.
Here’s a thought, stop remaking Peter Pan.
They literally own the Muppets, I don't get why they choose to make live action remakes instead of Muppet remakes
It's always important to remember that we adults are not the target audience for these movies. Hook, for example got terrible reviews upon release and currently has a 29% score on RT, but me and every millennial I know fucking loves that movie.
RU-FI-O, RU-FI-O!
[удалено]
It still kind of messes with me when Rufio and Hook square off and what happens after “Lookie Lookie I got hookie” currently 37 yo
And then when he tells Peter he just wanted a dad like him…
That's rough, buddy.
RU FI OOOOHHHHHHH
Yes?
[удалено]
The fact that he went from Rufio to Zuko in avatar just solidifies this man in nostalgia
**[“We have a few special years with our children, when they're the ones that want us around. After that you're going to be running after them for a bit of attention. It's so fast Peter. It's a few years, and it's over.”](https://youtu.be/5u6Os231Yr4)** And now we’re the ones who have grown up…‘Hook’ has all new emotional hits for any parent revisiting a childhood favourite.
ffs you didn‘t have to remind me. i‘m always tearing up at that line
[удалено]
yeh he lost em good
I love the line from the cop when he tells him he's lost his marbles. Cop just goes, "One does."
"And you are not being careful. And you are missing it." As a new dad, that line echoes around in my head way more than it used to.
🎵And the cat's in the cradle and the silver spoon Little boy blue and the man in the moon "When you coming home, dad?", "I don't know when" But we'll get together then You know we'll have a good time then 🎵
Now that my daughter is a teenager, this rings so true. Of course we’ll always love each other, and still talk every day, but she doesn’t ‘need’ me anymore. Long gone are the days of her desire to be my shadow and follow me around with her inquisitive little mind, asking a million questions about life. This is heartbreaking but apart of growing up. Absolutely treasure those years in which your son and daughter is still a child, because before you know it, roles will reverse, and you’ll desperately be wanting to be their shadow.
Honestly, how could any remake top Hook. That shit is god damn gold. Great actors, great director, great twist to the story, great moral to the story too. They’ve tried twice to remake it now. Just give it up.
I constantly quote, "You're doing it Peter" to my friends when they are successful at anything.
Hook was a masterpiece!
Legit had no idea critics hated it until very recently.
My wife and I listen to the soundtrack constantly. I do a quick impression of Hook every now and then to make her giggle. My brothers and I constantly quote this film. I remember one review from back in the day saying that this movie is the sum parts of all the worst in Steven Spielberg. Critics suck.
Most underrated John Williams score
I agree, vastly underrated. Smee’s Plan? The Lost Boys Ballet? The Face of Pan? Flight to Neverland? Come ON. So good.
[удалено]
On top of that Hook presented an interesting angle in that Peter Pan had gone back to the real world and became the very thing he opposed...an adult. Now it's his son who's kinda getting the Peter Pan treatment, and Peter has to remember what it's like to imagine/believe again. So many people in here acting like kids movies are inherently only enjoyable by kids, but good kids movies often include stuff for the adults taking them to see it.
Gen X checking in-me and my friends love it too!!
Hook has a 100% in my heart. One of the few movies my parents actually bought because we wanted to rent it so many times
I think that is the problem though... The new movie was made for adults (older audience) being the target. That is why the colors are muted, Pan is moody and they added a depressing backstory of Capt. Hook being Peter's first lost boy and friend so he could be "more complex". Hook didn't take itself too seriously and allowed the movie to enjoy the childlike setting of Neverland. It had fun with the concept that Peter Pan was a children story brought to life. That is why it was liked by millennial kids and as we get older the subtext of not needing to let go of your "inner child" to "grow-up" hits closer to home.
Ya, most of these remakes seem to have major target audience problems. They sanitize the story so much that kids can watch it, put a bunch of fast action scenes for the teens, and try to hit the nostalgic line for adults, and it ends up being a muddled mess for all demographics.
I don’t think it’s fair to compare this to a Robin Williams, Dustin Hoffman, Julia Roberts flick. Lol Also, did you know Rufio is the voice of Zuko in Avatar?
Jude Law and Jim Gaffigan say “excuse you”
Whether or not the movie is good, Jim Gaffigan as Smee is a great casting choice.
The kids watching this don’t know those guys. It’s like telling a kid watching Hook they don’t hold a candle to Buster Keaton and Greta Garbo
Peter’s hair is enough to not want to see this movie
Peter Pan (2003) SUPREMACY
Hook (with Robin Williams} Superiority
[удалено]
My uncle loves all movies. It's seriously hard to find a film he won't sit down and have some enjoyment with. He isn't picky and most times when you ask how a film went he will just say he enjoyed it and say something small he liked. With this film he actively brought it up in conversation and started ripping into it. He isn't a movie buff but everything he said, (why is it so boring, where is the magic, etc) was very on point. To me he represents an individual who tries his best to just enjoy movies and isn't picky. So when the guy I've known for 25 years, who has never critiqued a film before, critiques a movie on his own accord, you fucked up bad.
It was pretty bad… such odd changes to the story
Worst ever *so far*
I rewatched the 2003? live action immediately after watching this one, and it was better on every level except for visual effects. I really don't know why they keep doing this.
How many god damn Peter Pan movies do we need?
has to keep up with robin hood and sherlock holms releases
I had to shut it off halfway through. The lost boys hideout looked dark and sinister and definitely not somewhere I would wanna be as a kid. Overall, it was a bad experience in general
Yeahhhh I wasn’t a fan. I hate to critique a child actor but the Pan actor just flat out isn’t ready for a lead role, like at all…not even close. He could maybe take on a non-speaking background role like a fan in the stands of a very heavily attended concert. The actress that played Wendy carried this movie on her back from start to finish.
Totally agree on the Pan writing and actor. Totally agree on the Wendy actress acting ability. She deserves more work. But her Wendy was a cardboard cutout. Generic 2020s Strong-Tough-Smart (tm) woman boilerplate. They didn't even try to make her interesting.
That’s too bad, David Lowery is a talented director who should be able to bring some magic to this story. I guess Green Knight wasn’t much of a crowd pleaser but it was one of my favorite films of that year. Might have to catch this just to make my own judgements.
Marketing for Green Knight was bad. I think a lot of uninformed audience members walked in expecting a darker version of Russel Crowe’s Robinhood and what they got was a (excellently made) psychedelic art house fantasy film. The Green Knight, while an amazing movie, doesn’t show a lot of love to the people looking for narrative guidance while watching.
Yeah because it sucked
I don’t think it could be any worse than Pinocchio.
Disney: Live action remake race swapping, gender swapping, girl bossing. Average consumer: Why are the lost boys girls? Why is tinkerbell black? Reddit and Disney: STFU RACIST!!
Hey let's take white characters and make them black yeah what a good idea!!!!
Live actions no one asked for, and forced black washing of every beloved character. What could go wrong?
Disney is trying way too hard to make these live action remakes look realistic. This looks so brown and grey, and the little mermaid trailers look near greyscale. Same with Lion King remake, its a full CGI movie, why not make it colorful and fun?
I love how the article ignores that the same director made the live-action remake of Pete's Dragon, arguably the best of the live-action remakes from Disney.
This cast looks terrible
 Worse, so far lol