I haven't seen it myself (never really planned to because I was so disappointed with the live-action Beauty & the Beast, and haven't watched any of the other remakes since), but it certainly isn't faring well in the theaters right now:

Posted by: @ornclown

↑

I haven't seen it myself (never really planned to because I was so disappointed with the live-action Beauty & the Beast, and haven't watched any of the other remakes since), but it certainly isn't faring well in the theaters right now:

 

 

I don't bother with reviews or critics, as people know I make up my own mind about these matters. I absolutely LOVED Emma Watson, Dan Stevens and the cast of Beauty And The Beast, and I've loved all the live action remarks so far, and I collect the DVD's, CD soundtracks and the books. I also especially loved Aladdin and Little Mermaid (I loved Naomi Scott & Halle Bailey).

People should really give Snow White a chance and not rely on others to make up their minds for them.

I liked Mulan, and I especially loved the two Maleficent movies and Cinderella (particularly Helena Bonham Carter as The Fairy Godmother), but I did feel those latter movies could have benefited from more songs, original and new. I've also wondered what a more conventional Sleeping Beauty movie would have been like (with the same cast - Angelina Jolie & Elle Fanning).

Cruella with Emma Stone & Emma Thompson was awesome too.

Posted by: @ornclown

↑

I haven't seen it myself (never really planned to because I was so disappointed with the live-action Beauty & the Beast, and haven't watched any of the other remakes since), but it certainly isn't faring well in the theaters right now:

 

 

Beauty and the Beast was a tad swollen but overall I enjoyed it. The Jungle Book remains my favourite.

Hmmm, Jungle Book is another of my favorite Disney animated movies (Robin Hood, Sword in the Stone, Black Cauldron, and the aforementioned Beauty & the Beast being my all-time favs.)

I might give the live action version a shot... but, therein lies the crux of the problem for me: I feel that these movies were perfect as-is. There is no reason to remake them with live actors, no?

I believe the live action versions give live action actors the chance to play these characters, and to adapt these stories with new ideologies and songs. I believe they should have that chance. I love live action, animation, CGI and LEGO movie aesthetics all inclusive, and it's kind of like allowing the cinema to adapt plays and stage musicals for the same reasons. 😍 

In my youth, I once played The Wicked Witch Of The West in a school play of Wizard Of Oz and the Tin Man & Cowardly Lion were played by girls. I guess our version was "woke" before woke was even a thing. 🤗 

I rekcon there are several factors to consider.

1) Creative bancruptcy

Disney isn't run any more by creatives wanting to tell enchanting stories; projects like Snow White, or any of the other "live action reimaginings" are driven purely by the desire to take as  little risk possible while making a profit as big as possible. That's a business stragegy, but not art. Personally, it annoys me.

2) Re-writing classic tales

Disney wants to "educate" people, or give a voice to what they percieve to be a "modern audience". Which is fair enough. You could go ahead and invent new stories; stories that meet these creative (and arguably political) goals. Instead, they take beloved tales and re-write them. Why? See 1), and it annoys me.

3) Cultural heritage

Extending 2), these tales are treated as a sort of scrap yard from which mediocre writers are allowed to salvage what they want, building on existing fandom and general "recognizability". This is completely ignoring the sense of cultural "ownership" that many people experience. I mean, Snow White is a German fairy tale - and many of it's aspects are both deliberate and rooted in a historical context. But this is not acknowledged by studios like Disney; quite the opposite. It's treated as backwards and dated, in the sense "No no, this is not right, let's fix it". You know, rather than saying - well, this is how people in the 18th century saw the world. How about we let it stand for what it is - and create something generally new, something that reflects todays culture and world view(s).

But again, see 1)

So as much as people are evvidently starving for "entertainment", there is a not so small part of the population, that simply takes offence with the hypocritical approach that Disney is taking with their beloved IPs.

And the rest - well, quality lies in the eye of the beholder. Most people seem to agree that Zegler is doing a good job, that Gal Gadot can't act and the the CGI looks like a zombie unicorn exploded in a candy factory. And some people will love the movie regardless. I have a not so small list of guilty pleasures that I enjoy watching that were critically panned 😉

I believe these movies are relevant as art, and Gal Gadot is a fabulous actress, I loved her as Wonder Woman & The Wicked Queen.

Posted by: @ornclown

↑

Hmmm, Jungle Book is another of my favorite Disney animated movies (Robin Hood, Sword in the Stone, Black Cauldron, and the aforementioned Beauty & the Beast being my all-time favs.)

I might give the live action version a shot... but, therein lies the crux of the problem for me: I feel that these movies were perfect as-is. There is no reason to remake them with live actors, no?

Why do we crave new incarnations of He-Man? I think most people enjoy seeing characters they love retold from a new perspective. Besides the Jungle Book cartoon is not original fiction. It was based on a 1894 book and loosely at that. The live Jungle Book movie was directed by Jon Favreau who is a qualified director. It was made at a time before live action adaptations became a thing. It is more thrilling and intense than the cartoon and it is also less musical. Give it a try mate.

Posted by: @elder

↑

Posted by: @ornclown

↑

 

Why do we crave new incarnations of He-Man? I think most people enjoy seeing characters they love retold from a new perspective. Besides the Jungle Book cartoon is not original fiction. It was based on a 1894 book and loosely at that. The live Jungle Book movie was directed by Jon Favreau who is a qualified director. It was made at a time before live action adaptations became a thing. It is more thrilling and intense than the cartoon and it is also less musical. Give it a try mate.

 

 

I absolutely agree with this! I love different versions of stories, which is why I have (and love) six different film and TV versions of Little Women, from 1933, 1949, 1978, 1994, 2017 and 2019. Each version is similar and sticks to the source material, yet at the same time, each version is different enough to be captivating and offers a refreshing take in regard to story, characterisations, dialogue and essence.

I remember doing a University course in comparative literature that takes a well-known story and turns it into something new.

This is why I collect Disney novels like Twisted Tales (by various authors) and Disney Villains (by Serena Valentino) for the same reason.

This is why I also love different versions of the same songs by my favourite musicians, for example a great song like I Want To See The Bright Lights Tonight which I have by Susanna Hoffs, Siobhan Maher-Kennedy and Susan Cowsill, or Lay Down Your Arms, performed by both Belinda Carlisle & Charlotte Caffey. Different artists add their own flair to a song.

 

The producer had to personally fly to New York to reprimand Zegler for posting dumb political stuff on X because it alienates potential viewers of this movie, and apparently she refused to delete her posts. This chick is going to get herself blacklisted in Hollywood. Her reputation is already in tatters.

Rachel is true to her beliefs and she offers wisdom and compassion, which is why I stand by her. Only those against inclusiveness, diversity, equality and female strength are against her.

@michaelholloway Are you saying that her employer, DISNEY, is against inclusiveness, diversity, equality and female strength?

Posted by: @elder

↑

Why do we crave new incarnations of He-Man? I think most people enjoy seeing characters they love retold from a new perspective. Besides the Jungle Book cartoon is not original fiction. It was based on a 1894 book and loosely at that. The live Jungle Book movie was directed by Jon Favreau who is a qualified director. It was made at a time before live action adaptations became a thing. It is more thrilling and intense than the cartoon and it is also less musical. Give it a try mate.

 

I would say that I like to see the story / myth of MOTU continue to expand and progress toward a definite end. This is why I've gone on record as saying 200X / MYP is my least favorite iteration of MOTU... mostly because it's just a remake of the Filmation lore, e.g. unnecessary. And why I'm such a big New Adventures fan, it progresses the story / world of He-Man.

However, I totally see your point... I love the 1987 Masters of the Universe movie, and that is just a live-action version of MOTU for all intents and purposes.

Also, I'd argue that very few of Disney's animated features could be considered original fiction.

Indeed, of my favorites, Beauty & the Beast was originally a French folk tale written in the 1700s, The Black Cauldron was adapted from The Chronicles of Prydain written by Lloyd Alexander, Robin Hood is taken from ballads originating in the mid-15th century, and The Sword in the Stone is adapted from my all-time favorite book: The Once and Future King by T.H. White.

Posted by: @ornclown

↑

I might give the live action version a shot... but, therein lies the crux of the problem for me: I feel that these movies were perfect as-is. There is no reason to remake them with live actors, no?

Therein lies the problem: the animated film is a complete work unto itself; it is not improved upon in anyway by adapting it to live action. 

Posted by: @elder

↑

Why do we crave new incarnations of He-Man? I think most people enjoy seeing characters they love retold from a new perspective. Besides the Jungle Book cartoon is not original fiction. It was based on a 1894 book and loosely at that. The live Jungle Book movie was directed by Jon Favreau who is a qualified director. It was made at a time before live action adaptations became a thing. It is more thrilling and intense than the cartoon and it is also less musical. Give it a try mate.

They key word being new. The problem with most of the live action Disney adaptations is that they are not different enough from the animated film to justify their own existence. Especially something like The Lion King, which went from 2-D animated to 3-D animated, but is still animated, even though it is marketed as live action.

Posted by: @lasastard

↑

I rekcon there are several factors to consider.

1) Creative bancruptcy

Disney isn't run any more by creatives wanting to tell enchanting stories; projects like Snow White, or any of the other "live action reimaginings" are driven purely by the desire to take as  little risk possible while making a profit as big as possible. That's a business stragegy, but not art. Personally, it annoys me.

You can stop there. This is just the Disney marketing strategy of the '90s repeating itself again. Only instead of sequels, e.g. Beauty and the Beast II, Cinderella II, Little Mermaid II, etc. it is live action adaptations of Beauty and the Beast, Cinderella, and Little Mermaid.

As I've said many times, I love the direct to DVD sequels and live action versions as much as the original movies, and I believe they are all justified and have as much relevance and right to exist as any other form of art.

Part of the reason the live action remakes exist is because a lot of the originals are approaching 'public domain' due to their age, so when Disney puts the characters in their iconic outfits or looks in live action they still get to own that particular iteration going forward. Legally they wouldn't be claiming against the animation but the remake. It would all need tested legally of course... it's actually why anybody can now use Steamboat Willie but not Mickey Mouse as everybody recognises him today. 

@ornclown I don't think there will ever be an "end" to the MOTU mythos. Classics massively expanded the linear story for the eras before He-Man (Preternia) and after (Son of He-Man), with no end in sight. And since then it's become canon that there's a multiverse, so now the lore is limitless in every direction. Maybe at some point they'll continue with Son of Dare, LOL!

Posted by: @sketchyskeletor

↑

Part of the reason the live action remakes exist is because a lot of the originals are approaching 'public domain' due to their age, so when Disney puts the characters in their iconic outfits or looks in live action they still get to own that particular iteration going forward. Legally they wouldn't be claiming against the animation but the remake. It would all need tested legally of course... it's actually why anybody can now use Steamboat Willie but not Mickey Mouse as everybody recognises him today.

The first Disney feature-length animated film that is approaching public domain is Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, yet it is the 23rd feature-length live action adaptation, so I do not think that is a big part of it.

Posted by: @adam_prince-of-eternia

↑

Posted by: @sketchyskeletor

↑

Part of the reason the live action remakes exist is because a lot of the originals are approaching 'public domain' due to their age, so when Disney puts the characters in their iconic outfits or looks in live action they still get to own that particular iteration going forward. Legally they wouldn't be claiming against the animation but the remake. It would all need tested legally of course... it's actually why anybody can now use Steamboat Willie but not Mickey Mouse as everybody recognises him today.

The first Disney feature-length animated film that is approaching public domain is Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, yet it is the 23rd feature-length live action adaptation, so I do not think that is a big part of it.

 

I know, that's why I said part of it. Makes sense to lean on their more popular stuff first for what these things cost. While Snow White was a game changer it's trounced in popularity by so many other movies.

Posted by: @durendal

↑

@ornclown I don't think there will ever be an "end" to the MOTU mythos. Classics massively expanded the linear story for the eras before He-Man (Preternia) and after (Son of He-Man), with no end in sight. And since then it's become canon that there's a multiverse, so now the lore is limitless in every direction. Maybe at some point they'll continue with Son of Dare, LOL!

Oh, I completely agree with you.

What I should have said is a perceived ending.

I appreciate properties more fully when they have a beginning, middle and end... even if that end is just hinted at or foreshadowed in the lore.

Things like the original Doom Patrol, or R.E. Howard's Conan books... heck, even Batman can be considered to have an actual end (if you agree with the Bruce Timm-verse, or the Frank Miller-verse.)

With that said, much of MOTU has started to go the way of Spider-Man, e.g. never-ending adventures of a character who couldn't possibly have as many adventures as he does -weekly- and not be 200 years old. Even when Marvel tried passing the torch (at first to Ben Reilly and later to Miles Morales) fans wouldn't have it.

Yet, with He-Man, I feel that there is definitely a solid beginning (even if Preternia is a part of it), middle (the stories we all know so well), and end (King He-Man and his son, Dare.) So, in that sense, I can appreciate MOTU more knowing the outline, or roadmap to the end... even if it takes another 100 years to get there, lol.

Posted by: @sketchyskeletor

↑

Part of the reason the live action remakes exist is because a lot of the originals are approaching 'public domain' due to their age, so when Disney puts the characters in their iconic outfits or looks in live action they still get to own that particular iteration going forward. Legally they wouldn't be claiming against the animation but the remake. It would all need tested legally of course... it's actually why anybody can now use Steamboat Willie but not Mickey Mouse as everybody recognises him today. 

Ohhhhhhh is that what happened? I remember hearing some sort of slasher Mickey Mouse serial killer movie called Screamboat was announced. I was wondering how Disney would allow it. Now I get it bro!