Well the JB cartoon was interesting and the remake was altogether darker and actually more coherent as well IMHO, and only had 1 song iirc.
The villain was more fleshed out too.
And more villainous.
Aladdin didn’t do great stateside, but this movie is close to $900 million now thanks to the international box office.
I am looking forward to Lion King, I think, so I am glad they are still doing the Live Action thing.
The new Lion King is CGI not live action. At least I hope so.
Heh. That’d be a real short movie.
Probably a better one.
Feels like these movies are just there to remind people of the classics. They’re all garbage, because even the better ones pale next to the originals.
Which is why I am completely befuddled how more of them aren’t following the Malificent path, and forging a completely new take on the story. It pays homage to the original, but is wholly it’s own thing.
It is also, unshockingly, the best one I think,
Agreed.
That said, the newer Jungle Book was imho better than the original.
I am under the impression that since the original movies were animated, Disney doesn’t have to pay much or anything to reuse them, nor give the original authors of the animated movie any credit. So, there are a lot of cost savings to remaking the original film and using much of the same script.
Exactly. My wife took my daughter to see the live Aladdin and she was obsessed. I sat her down and watched the original with her, she liked it a lot more. I have no interest in these shot for shot remakes. Do the maleficent treatment if you are going to rehash the story.
Remind people around during the classics, but the kids love these… this is their classic. These are the movies a number of kids refer to now. I’m fine with them loving something that doesn’t look old and dated.
I think these movies lose all their charm when they are live action. Specifically this one, which was animated frenetically according to Williams’ improv. I saw the Beauty and the Beast one and it was like watching a green screen movie version of a classic.
I mean, they aren’t out of ideas. Wreck It Ralph is a completely new franchise. It seems though that only Pixar is coming up with the lion’s share of originality now. That and Illumination.
As long as they make money, though, they will all get the live action treatment. If they are doing that, how about a live action version of Robin Hood? That would be like the greatest furry fandom movie of all time.
That’s like saying the kids point to the George Lucas Remastered edition of Star Wars as the true classic. Or the remaster of the remaster. There is virtually no new edition here – just a scene for scene translation of something that worked well the first time, and is arguably far more ageless since 2d animation looks good forever, while 3d CGI ages really badly.
I’m not against remaking some of the movies that don’t work as well, like the 50s-70s Disney movies. But taking away the beautiful animation without replacing it with something that’s as ageless is already not doing the new movies justice.
Animated characters tend to have exaggerated expressions and to transition between expressions faster than real humans do. Enchanted demonstrated this well. 1 to 1 translation to live action isn’t going to be so good.
I have no issues with remakes. I like the new True Grit 100x more than the old one, and that doesn’t take away from the old. People who like the old, can still like the old. Who knows, one day they may make True Grit a third time and that will become that generation’s “classic.” It’s an okay thing to happen, but the young kids I know today, several of them won’t give animated Disney a second look, but they sure do like Beauty and the Beast. When my nephew’s cousin talks about her love of Beauty and the Beast, the movie, she’s talking about the live action.
I just saw this and now am afraid to see any Disney films again ever.
Top part is technically superior by a long mile.
The bottom part has alot more charm imho.
You can’t beat perfection. Lion King is the most ageless movie ever: There are no humans, so no cultural reference point, and stylized 2d animation can’t be beat. We’ll look back at the 3d version in a couple of years and it’ll look like awkward crapola.
Honestly, Aladdin isn’t that different, as the human culture that’s depicted is one from a mythical old culture. If anything, the Genie’s humor and 4th wall breaking will age the worst.
What they need to do is remake the lowliest and most aged of the Disney movies, not the best and most ageless ones. Hunchback could use some help, as could Pocahontas, and the 50s-70s Disney flicks really didn’t age that well, partially due to pacing issues.
So it’s funny, now that I’ve actually seen it, I actually disagree with the general opinion here.
I liked it. Not as much as the original, but more than most of the live action versions. And that is because it was not a shot for shot remake. Sure the story is near identical, with mostly only superficial dialogue changes, but the actual shots themselves have more life and flare than most of the others. There is color and personality in the filming and framing.
Ironically the worst scene was the wholly original one, the Jasmine solo song near the end.
3/5, there are worse movies to watch with kids. Will Smith also was a decent choice. Better than trying to ape Robin Williams with a current comedian.