Hot take: I think the remake of The Little Mermaid should have completely replaced the animal characters with the mermaid's sisters. Crabs and fish are impossible to make as cuddly in a photorealistic style and the sisters could have easily sung Under the Sea and Kiss the Girl. There could be a sister who remembered going up to the surface world before it was outlawed and who could tell Ariel about "dinglehoppers." There could be another sister who was assigned to look after her and who would tell the king about her saving the prince. Things would get a little tricky once the story moved to land but it wouldn't be impossible to work around. You could argue that the animated movie already gave the roles of the sisters and grandmother in Hans Christian Andersen's story to the animal characters. It makes sense to give them back for a less cartoony version.
That would certainly be an interesting approach to see… I don’t think I would want them to go that route though. If we were to have real actors performing sequences like Under the Sea, I think they’d still have to find a way to include Crab Sebastian™️ & the gang to the extent that the mice were used in Cinderella. I’d be open to exploring the idea of certain characters having sea magic that allows them to morph into animals (in a spirit animal/patronus type of way)-maybe even Sebastian is only in crab form on land, so he can supervise Ariel. IDK, there are different paths to take there…
@@TommyRoss FWIW, I basically enjoyed Sebastian and Scuttle's characters in the remake. It's just that in addition to what I said about visuals, I feel like it could have stood to do more of its own thing to develop its own personality and step out from the 1989 movie's shadow more.
I think 2015 Cinderella did it the best. The CGI mice look and behave realistic but still have enough emotions in their face and still have personality
Yes, I believe they handled the mice as best as they could. Then again, they had an advantage over the other films, because the mice aren’t *that* important in the story, so it doesn’t really matter if they speak or not…
Theory : I think Sebastian and Flounder was magically transformed by Triton to be able to talk, this way they could have less real appearance. Leaving Scuttle getting struck with Triton's Lightning accidentally and get the ability to talk with ocean creatures.
Winnie the Pooh live action design is really really good and If they added eyebrows it would make better but anyway I love it! Rabbit and Owl is the real animal in the first place So it makes sense! I Really love the teddy ❤
Lion King should’ve done what lion the witch and the wardrobe did about 20 years ago. I watch that even now and think Aslan still looks impressive as a lion who can emote. Same for some of the background animals like leopards and wolves, bears, beavers, foxes etc like if they could do that THEN there’s no reason they couldn’t have done all that and more now. As for the little mermaid… the internet wanted excuses to hate that movie. My honest to god reaction when I watch is I don’t mind the animal designs at all and that “fans” don’t know what they want, actually. Like I’d have loved Ariel to have more dresses, I’d have loved Atlantica and everything under water to look as fantastic as snippets of under the sea or poor unfortunate souls does- I’d have liked Ursula to not have to exposition every aspect of her plan and remind us how related to Triton she is in every scene. Those are the things that would take the movie up a level for me not Sebastian looking more like his 80s cartoon origin.
Honest John and Gideon from Pinocchio should have been brought to life with make up and prosthetics (like in the 2019 live action Italian adaptation). There was also no need for Pinocchio himself to be fully CGI. He looked like cheep plastic doll instead of a wooden marionette. Also, as a director, Robert Zemeckis seems to have completely lost his touch. Both Pinocchio and The Witches were travesties. On another note, I wonder if the upcoming Aristocats remake will use real cats or CGI. I hope they go for real cats or at least a mix of both.
I'd be open to exploring that route, as long as they didn't end up like Johnny Depp in Into the Woods. 🤐 It seems from the original concept art from the version Paul King was developing that they were going with human designs for Honest John & Gideon (though I did also see some art that depicted them with animalistic features). I'd be interested in the idea of having them be affected by the same type of magic that turns the boys into donkeys. Yeah, Robert Zemeckis just needs to retire. I think Aristocats will probably use mostly CGI with some real cats used sparingly.
whats crazy about lion king is this assumption that lions arent expressive, yea mybe not in the face like us. but in body language! the live action LK has NONE OF THAT or barely any body language! Lions use their mouths, ears, tail, their entire bodies to communicate and show how theyre feeling. but they atill have enough mucles in the fscd to make expression we consider human! they just wouldnt do it for the same reasons we do (aka a "smile" or barring teeth is not happiness for them.). theyre the mot expressive cats cus theyre social Whats also crazy is the 2d animators knew big cats are expressive, and its cus they used actual lions as reference! They went to zoos, and even brought a live lion to the studio! so for example, simba's ears folding down to show his fear may not be reasitic for a lion to do in that specific situation, but its an expression a lion is capable of doing anyway, and we the audience associate that ear lowering with fear cus we see it with other animals. humanoid facial expressions help sell it a bit further but what also makes the 2D work is they still used lions faces as reference, its stil anatomically correct to a lion (like even cats recognize Simb's facial and body expressions when they watch lion king.) unlike say the goat Valentino from Diney's Wish who has a flat human face all around except for a tiny tiny snout. or the Raya dragon with literally Elsa's very human face... you can make animals expressive by using body and face expressions you jut gotta be bit unrealstic about it. hell Babe managed this bck in the 90s, that's a good example of Diney making expressive animals with the limits of said animals and technology back then
I think the real takeaway here is that you put more thought into this video than Disney has put into almost every movie they've made in the past few years.
Even though I agree with you about the lion king, I still like the movie. I remember I was blown away how good and real the animation looks. I mean they animated ever piece pf hair. It's really amazing that it's possible. But yeah they could easily have more emotion and life
Tbh I think, even if Little Mermaid was not a musical (which tbh I would´ve liked to see) like you said talking animals would still have fit very well. And maybe even needed bc in the animated one the animals like Sebastian had such an important and big role (unlike the mice in Cinderella where with some minor changes still can include them in the story), that, if they wouldn´t have talked at all, they would´ve been pretty useless. This is just a me thing but I´m kind off tired of the trope that all mermaids don´t eat fish or all mermaids can understand every water creature (bc it makes no sense, humans also can´t talk to every land animal) so in a live actoin adaptation I would´ve maybe liked a explanation why Ariel can talk to sea animals like maybe the royal family is gifted with magical bracelets or sth. But that´s just me.
Thanks for addressing the fact that real lions aren't just straight-faced 24/7. I've never seen anyone else make that point, but it's true - real animals are expressive. They may not emote the same way humans do, but they're not just emotionless blobs like how the 2019 Lion King thinks they are. They emote not only with their faces but with complex body language that the movie didn't reflect at all. The best examples of "live-action" CGI Disney characters are still Aslan from 2005 and Davy Jones from 2006 - Aslan in particular being a perfect example of how to make a photorealistic animated lion expressive.
I just didn't have much to say there... they're all photorealistic & don't speak in either version (sans Iago), so yeah. It's a bit different from taking a talking animated animal & figuring out how to translate it to live-action.
I suppose that in terms of your thoughts of the visual effects on the Aladdin adaptation, you can say that the animals there are at least visually nice along with wolves that appear in beauty and the beast plus, as a multifaceted filmmaker scout myself, it is safe to say that all the visual effects on the animal characters are technically well crafted in cgi standard with all the needed details that can be mostly standard, but it can be understandable that can be ranked by either amazing to polarizing in terms of specific uncanny details, right?
Disney already working on the princess and the frog live action reamake in which most of the time will be frogs. It's interesting how they will look like in movie, but i'm already sure people will be angry about their designs
Everything you said about The Lion King was exactly my thoughts! The edits are absolutely awful and feel pointless, but animals can express a bit more. Also with The Little Mermaid, I feel like Flounder was the one animal that was kinda weird but only because he isn’t a bigger fish. Some people definitely just blow things out of proportion. It’s live-action so I always KNOW that the animal characters will not look the same, so to see people get so overheated about it is honestly just dumb. Sebastian and Scuttle are honestly fine to me though. I didn’t have a problem with those two.
I am surprised that Chronicles of Narnia The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe is a Disney movie I mean the lion in that is photo realistic but actually shows emotion though he wasn’t in the movie much but dang then look at Live action Lion King How the Heck do you go from Narnia to that? ( Narnia was from 2005 and it looks freaking better than the live action Lion King )
Am hoping that the dragons for the how to train your dragon remake that they will still have them show some emotion and make them have unique designs that stay true to the original but add something new so they won’t look like typical dragons and I am hoping that they take notes from the early concept art from the lion king but everything else for the remake I still have hope it will be good 👍
Honestly, I do like the 2019 lion king because they did a really good job based on characters in real life. For example, Mufasa is a Black, Mane lion, and for those who don’t know like mean, lions are more dominant the golden mean males.
Okay, I was gonna mention him, but I forgot. The overly cartoony look actually works in that case, because like Scooby-Doo, the Rescue Rangers movie is supposed to be goofy and meta.
I was hoping you would talk about Gideon's design since he was in the thumbnail as well as Honest John's design which in my opinion is the worst design I've ever seen particularly for the eyes which look like they're staring into my soul especially when he has a creepy smile and this is coming from someone who likes foxes
I thought I had honestly - don't know what happened 😰I guess I mentally grouped them in with the other Pinocchio designs because I feel the same about all of them (they look ridiculous & garish, which is gross because Pinocchio is supposed to have prestige in its essence)
I love the live action beauty and the beast i actually liked it better than the original animated one. I know a lot of people will disagree but thats just my opinion :p :)
You didn't talk about Si and Am- Uh I mean, Devon and Rex in the remake of Lady and the Tramp, those cats are freaking ugly. Especially on the face. (I know that breed looks like that, but that's a whole other level).
They could have easily just used actual Siamese cats (they are lovely in real life) and give the song a new arrangement to do away the racist caricature of the original.
@@minako10 That's what I say! The arrangement Geek Music did sounds like something you'd hear in a remake. They were able to get two real Siamese cats, and tell us a little more about them. But they didn't.
Yeah, I thought they looked a little wack, but it was kinda suitable. Their song was atrocious though. They should've just used Siamese cats--it's not like that's an inherently racist breed lol... it's just how they were depicted in the original was gross, so utilizing them differently would've worked.
@@TommyRoss And that's why I hate when remakes are done they don't check for deleted concepts of the original film, or other material like books/novels (on which they are based, or like the Little Golden Books or the stories told in LP; Things like that).
Hot take: I think the remake of The Little Mermaid should have completely replaced the animal characters with the mermaid's sisters. Crabs and fish are impossible to make as cuddly in a photorealistic style and the sisters could have easily sung Under the Sea and Kiss the Girl. There could be a sister who remembered going up to the surface world before it was outlawed and who could tell Ariel about "dinglehoppers." There could be another sister who was assigned to look after her and who would tell the king about her saving the prince. Things would get a little tricky once the story moved to land but it wouldn't be impossible to work around. You could argue that the animated movie already gave the roles of the sisters and grandmother in Hans Christian Andersen's story to the animal characters. It makes sense to give them back for a less cartoony version.
That would certainly be an interesting approach to see… I don’t think I would want them to go that route though. If we were to have real actors performing sequences like Under the Sea, I think they’d still have to find a way to include Crab Sebastian™️ & the gang to the extent that the mice were used in Cinderella. I’d be open to exploring the idea of certain characters having sea magic that allows them to morph into animals (in a spirit animal/patronus type of way)-maybe even Sebastian is only in crab form on land, so he can supervise Ariel. IDK, there are different paths to take there…
@@TommyRoss FWIW, I basically enjoyed Sebastian and Scuttle's characters in the remake. It's just that in addition to what I said about visuals, I feel like it could have stood to do more of its own thing to develop its own personality and step out from the 1989 movie's shadow more.
I think 2015 Cinderella did it the best. The CGI mice look and behave realistic but still have enough emotions in their face and still have personality
Yes, I believe they handled the mice as best as they could. Then again, they had an advantage over the other films, because the mice aren’t *that* important in the story, so it doesn’t really matter if they speak or not…
Disney: We are going to ground our remakes in realism!
Also Disney: *gives Scuttle the ability to breathe underwater*
Theory : I think Sebastian and Flounder was magically transformed by Triton to be able to talk, this way they could have less real appearance. Leaving Scuttle getting struck with Triton's Lightning accidentally and get the ability to talk with ocean creatures.
I mean at least that would provide some sort of explanation as to why the other animals/fish DON’T speak…
Winnie the Pooh live action design is really really good and If they added eyebrows it would make better but anyway I love it! Rabbit and Owl is the real animal in the first place So it makes sense! I Really love the teddy ❤
Lion King should’ve done what lion the witch and the wardrobe did about 20 years ago. I watch that even now and think Aslan still looks impressive as a lion who can emote. Same for some of the background animals like leopards and wolves, bears, beavers, foxes etc like if they could do that THEN there’s no reason they couldn’t have done all that and more now.
As for the little mermaid… the internet wanted excuses to hate that movie. My honest to god reaction when I watch is I don’t mind the animal designs at all and that “fans” don’t know what they want, actually. Like I’d have loved Ariel to have more dresses, I’d have loved Atlantica and everything under water to look as fantastic as snippets of under the sea or poor unfortunate souls does- I’d have liked Ursula to not have to exposition every aspect of her plan and remind us how related to Triton she is in every scene. Those are the things that would take the movie up a level for me not Sebastian looking more like his 80s cartoon origin.
It’s not that they COULDNT it’s that they WOULDNT. Lions actually show emotions.
Honest John and Gideon from Pinocchio should have been brought to life with make up and prosthetics (like in the 2019 live action Italian adaptation). There was also no need for Pinocchio himself to be fully CGI. He looked like cheep plastic doll instead of a wooden marionette. Also, as a director, Robert Zemeckis seems to have completely lost his touch. Both Pinocchio and The Witches were travesties. On another note, I wonder if the upcoming Aristocats remake will use real cats or CGI. I hope they go for real cats or at least a mix of both.
I'd be open to exploring that route, as long as they didn't end up like Johnny Depp in Into the Woods. 🤐 It seems from the original concept art from the version Paul King was developing that they were going with human designs for Honest John & Gideon (though I did also see some art that depicted them with animalistic features). I'd be interested in the idea of having them be affected by the same type of magic that turns the boys into donkeys.
Yeah, Robert Zemeckis just needs to retire.
I think Aristocats will probably use mostly CGI with some real cats used sparingly.
Wow the concept art for Lion King was so good 😮 First time seeing that
whats crazy about lion king is this assumption that lions arent expressive, yea mybe not in the face like us. but in body language! the live action LK has NONE OF THAT or barely any body language! Lions use their mouths, ears, tail, their entire bodies to communicate and show how theyre feeling. but they atill have enough mucles in the fscd to make expression we consider human! they just wouldnt do it for the same reasons we do (aka a "smile" or barring teeth is not happiness for them.). theyre the mot expressive cats cus theyre social
Whats also crazy is the 2d animators knew big cats are expressive, and its cus they used actual lions as reference! They went to zoos, and even brought a live lion to the studio! so for example, simba's ears folding down to show his fear may not be reasitic for a lion to do in that specific situation, but its an expression a lion is capable of doing anyway, and we the audience associate that ear lowering with fear cus we see it with other animals. humanoid facial expressions help sell it a bit further but what also makes the 2D work is they still used lions faces as reference, its stil anatomically correct to a lion (like even cats recognize Simb's facial and body expressions when they watch lion king.) unlike say the goat Valentino from Diney's Wish who has a flat human face all around except for a tiny tiny snout. or the Raya dragon with literally Elsa's very human face...
you can make animals expressive by using body and face expressions you jut gotta be bit unrealstic about it. hell Babe managed this bck in the 90s, that's a good example of Diney making expressive animals with the limits of said animals and technology back then
I think the real takeaway here is that you put more thought into this video than Disney has put into almost every movie they've made in the past few years.
Even though I agree with you about the lion king, I still like the movie. I remember I was blown away how good and real the animation looks. I mean they animated ever piece pf hair. It's really amazing that it's possible. But yeah they could easily have more emotion and life
Oh the visual effects are incredible, but other than that, everything else is just lazy & unimaginative for me
Sprinkle in some pixie dust but not peter pan and wendy pixie dust PLEASE!
Tbh I think, even if Little Mermaid was not a musical (which tbh I would´ve liked to see) like you said talking animals would still have fit very well. And maybe even needed bc in the animated one the animals like Sebastian had such an important and big role (unlike the mice in Cinderella where with some minor changes still can include them in the story), that, if they wouldn´t have talked at all, they would´ve been pretty useless. This is just a me thing but I´m kind off tired of the trope that all mermaids don´t eat fish or all mermaids can understand every water creature (bc it makes no sense, humans also can´t talk to every land animal) so in a live actoin adaptation I would´ve maybe liked a explanation why Ariel can talk to sea animals like maybe the royal family is gifted with magical bracelets or sth. But that´s just me.
The irony is that Disney's live action films are like 99.9 cgi so they might as well just be fully animated also cartoon characters can emote way more
Thanks for addressing the fact that real lions aren't just straight-faced 24/7. I've never seen anyone else make that point, but it's true - real animals are expressive. They may not emote the same way humans do, but they're not just emotionless blobs like how the 2019 Lion King thinks they are. They emote not only with their faces but with complex body language that the movie didn't reflect at all. The best examples of "live-action" CGI Disney characters are still Aslan from 2005 and Davy Jones from 2006 - Aslan in particular being a perfect example of how to make a photorealistic animated lion expressive.
I was waiting for you to talk about iago, rajah and abu😅
I just didn't have much to say there... they're all photorealistic & don't speak in either version (sans Iago), so yeah. It's a bit different from taking a talking animated animal & figuring out how to translate it to live-action.
I suppose that in terms of your thoughts of the visual effects on the Aladdin adaptation, you can say that the animals there are at least visually nice along with wolves that appear in beauty and the beast
plus, as a multifaceted filmmaker scout myself, it is safe to say that all the visual effects on the animal characters are technically well crafted in cgi standard with all the needed details that can be mostly standard, but it can be understandable that can be ranked by either amazing to polarizing in terms of specific uncanny details, right?
Disney already working on the princess and the frog live action reamake in which most of the time will be frogs. It's interesting how they will look like in movie, but i'm already sure people will be angry about their designs
I'm already disgusted thinking about super realistic frogs that talk. So disgusting 🤢
Let's hope Tiana doesn't remain a frog for 80% of the movie this time around. That's the original's biggest flaw.
Very curious to see how that pans out... Tiana better not be a frog for most of the movie this time.
Dont even get me started on how Louis the Alligator and Ray the Firefly aboutta look 💀💀💀💀
@@JAYZ-47465 a fucking nightmare
They need to go in the middle, make them have emotions but make them look real.
Everything you said about The Lion King was exactly my thoughts! The edits are absolutely awful and feel pointless, but animals can express a bit more. Also with The Little Mermaid, I feel like Flounder was the one animal that was kinda weird but only because he isn’t a bigger fish. Some people definitely just blow things out of proportion. It’s live-action so I always KNOW that the animal characters will not look the same, so to see people get so overheated about it is honestly just dumb. Sebastian and Scuttle are honestly fine to me though. I didn’t have a problem with those two.
So nice those animals good film 📽 I just love It ❤
I am surprised that Chronicles of Narnia The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe is a Disney movie
I mean the lion in that is photo realistic but actually shows emotion though he wasn’t in the movie much but dang then look at Live action Lion King How the Heck do you go from Narnia to that? ( Narnia was from 2005 and it looks freaking better than the live action Lion King )
Yep. While I think the visual effects in Lion King are superior, Narnia did a better job at personifying a realistic lion.
Disney Live Action Animals
Should fix this indeed ☺️😊
I enjoyed your thoughts!
ARE ARE THOSE LIONS
ALL THAT PHOTOSHOPPED?!?
Dumbo had the best design!
I Like Dumbo To. That’s Right; They Managed To Make My Boy Look Accurate To The Original And Not Mess It Up!
I think narnia did it best
Ahem
Disney
Pls make a live action of Brother Bear
I agree that the Dumbo remake is one of the worst Disney remakes. Also I love the live action Scooby-Doo movie too.
Am hoping that the dragons for the how to train your dragon remake that they will still have them show some emotion and make them have unique designs that stay true to the original but add something new so they won’t look like typical dragons and I am hoping that they take notes from the early concept art from the lion king but everything else for the remake I still have hope it will be good 👍
I'm curious to see them, as well... they have the potential to look really cool.
Honestly, I do like the 2019 lion king because they did a really good job based on characters in real life. For example, Mufasa is a Black, Mane lion, and for those who don’t know like mean, lions are more dominant the golden mean males.
What’s about Dale 😂
ps. I love Dale design It looks like Alvin but it’s not Dale cgi is more cute and modern ❤
Okay, I was gonna mention him, but I forgot. The overly cartoony look actually works in that case, because like Scooby-Doo, the Rescue Rangers movie is supposed to be goofy and meta.
At least The 2016 Jungle Book got it right
Some live action Disney movie work other just ok
You forgot about the true start, 1994’s The Jungle Book.
I don't count that one 🥸It has nothing to do with the 1967 Jungle Book
why do you have 244k subscribers but only 244 views in 6 hours
No more Remakes
I was hoping you would talk about Gideon's design since he was in the thumbnail as well as Honest John's design which in my opinion is the worst design I've ever seen particularly for the eyes which look like they're staring into my soul especially when he has a creepy smile and this is coming from someone who likes foxes
I thought I had honestly - don't know what happened 😰I guess I mentally grouped them in with the other Pinocchio designs because I feel the same about all of them (they look ridiculous & garish, which is gross because Pinocchio is supposed to have prestige in its essence)
I guess you decided to ignore Peter Pan and Wendy
I mean I guess the crocodile looks solid. I just thought that movie was a dud, so I kind of forgot about it...
I love the live action beauty and the beast i actually liked it better than the original animated one. I know a lot of people will disagree but thats just my opinion :p :)
You didn't talk about Si and Am- Uh I mean, Devon and Rex in the remake of Lady and the Tramp, those cats are freaking ugly. Especially on the face. (I know that breed looks like that, but that's a whole other level).
They could have easily just used actual Siamese cats (they are lovely in real life) and give the song a new arrangement to do away the racist caricature of the original.
@@minako10 That's what I say! The arrangement Geek Music did sounds like something you'd hear in a remake. They were able to get two real Siamese cats, and tell us a little more about them. But they didn't.
Yeah, I thought they looked a little wack, but it was kinda suitable. Their song was atrocious though. They should've just used Siamese cats--it's not like that's an inherently racist breed lol... it's just how they were depicted in the original was gross, so utilizing them differently would've worked.
@@TommyRoss And that's why I hate when remakes are done they don't check for deleted concepts of the original film, or other material like books/novels (on which they are based, or like the Little Golden Books or the stories told in LP; Things like that).
@@SashaV. I kept thinking they could've gotten Brenda Song to voice them.