About Cinderella - she shows when You are stuck. Be patience and be kind. She wasn't passive. I don't know why people think ,she is passive. The era she lived , she literally can't do anything .Situation changes .
Farhana Sarmin the original wasn’t passive and was way more of a better role model because she’s not waiting for someone she’s doing her own thing she just wanted one break to have fun where they kinda twist their motive in the live action
@afootineachworld but that is the issue with the Cinderella's remake. Cinderella is not a story about romance. Is a story about a child who was abuse and still grow up to be nice, positive and resourceful and smart enough to save herself and get at the end a prince as a bonus. Everything people complained about the original Disney movie are in fact only happening in the remake. Looks like people never really watched the original one. if you want to watch a better romance then watch Ever After. Is definitely a better movie with better story and character than the new Disney's remake.
That's right, and also have a habit of miscasting the actors. Like in the remake Beauty and Beast, I felt Emma Watson was really miscast. I saw her as Emma Watson, not as Belle. Plus her singing, while okay, didn't resonate with me.
The problem with Disney is that they don't seem to be creative at all lately and because they don't come up with new good movies faster they remake animated movies to earn some money. Also can we talk about the fact that live action junglebook and lion king still used animation for the animals? Like they are an animated live action of an animated movie. How dumb is that?
@@sirclassicalhou3650 thank you! there was not one second of that movie that I forgot it was Emma Watson (plus her painful British accent when Belle is French). She was horrible in the role.. Belle is so charismatic and Emma is as charismatic as a toilet.
My grandma hates animated movies, she will never watch them. She thinks they're all loud, goofy, and boring. To an extent I understand how she feels (and she's entitled to that opinion blab blah blab disclaimers) but I think it's incredibly narrow minded. Bright and colorful animation can be just as interesting, deep, meaningful, ect. Ironically I am surprised she prefers looking at dark and gritty realistic films, they are often literally dark and hard to see whereas in animated films, you can actually see and hear what's going on rather than just whispers and darkness (also throw in the word "war")
Ian Conlee couldn't agree more. This movies have all the same formula, i can't help feeling like this live action films are made on an industrial scheme, wich by the way has a very poor quality making.
::shudder:: The Beast looks SOOO BAD. Hell, even Thanos looks bad. The only Disney property with good CGI - other than Fox's Planet of the Apes movies of course has been Star Wars. And now that they're flopping with Solo, god help LucasFilm
Has anybody else noticed how dark they all are? I don't mean story wise. I mean they are all literally dark. I feel like I can't see what's going on sometimes. DC movies do this too (though theirs are plot-dark as well as dark dark so I guess it's fitting). The original movies that these remakes are based on all very light and colorful. So why do all of the remakes have black, grey, and muted color palettes? Even scenes with lots of color still feel dull somehow. This might just be something that bothers me, but please let me know your opinions.
I definitely saw what you're saying when I watched Alice in Wonderland. I didn't really notice it in the other remakes but now that I think back to Beauty and the Beast, I see what you're talking about.
maddie clarke I've noticed that too!! I am not into movies like that, so I turn away. I just tune into "Once Upon a Time" every week on ABC. I love that damn show!!!
I have that exact same problem with most movies made nowadays, not just the Disney films. You literally can't see a damned thing onscreen. ("The Dark Knight," for example, was literally that: SO damn dark I couldn't even tell what the hell was even happening most of the time. Which is one reason why the movie made so little sense to me.) Which is one additional reason (among many) why I don't see that many modern movies nowadays. (I'm also not a fan of the style of photography known as "jiggle-cam," but that's a separate issue...)
Isobelle Faulkner here’s the weird thing, I can actually see Mulan working as a slightly grittier action-style remake, kind of like Pirates of the Caribbean but in wartime China. That being said, it’s still a Disney remake and I don’t have much hope in it working.
Posh Prick Reviews then again pirates of the Caribbean was Disney n at least the first couple films were well done I think so hopefully though it is a Disney remake they will do a similar thing to the likes of pirates of the Caribbean. I mean Mulan isn’t your typical sleeping beauty, beauty and the beast or Cinderella type princess or story.
I think they've ruined it already by not including any music. At least that's the last news I heard. I'm not sure if they'll finally include the music.
Beauty and the Beast really pissed me off. I mean, why have the leads played by people who cannot sing when you have someone like Audra McDonald in your cast? Also, the beast in the remake looks weird and is such an idiot. At least in the original he knew that if Belle fell in love with him he'd be free of the curse. He at least tried to be nice to her. The remake was just garbage in my opinion.
I think the look of the Beast summed up the film perfectly: uninspired. They went all-out on the look of the animated Beast in the original; they had a chance to have some fun with his design here and....just went with a really flat, "couldn't care less" ripoff of the '91 version.
i am excited for The Lion King, The Jungle Book 2 and Mulan live action remakes. that is literally all. the others, i don't have high hopes for the others, nor do i care for them.
"Maleficent" didn't "add depth" to Maleficent; it was a totally new character. Instead of giving us some idea why is she so evil, they went the "she's not evil, king is" route. They sabotaged all the characters (except the not-so-proactive Aurora) - the kindly king is a psycho, the evil witch is hurting but ultimately does the right thing, and the three fairies, such an amazing characters in the original series, are nothing more than dunce heads. And I dunno, just seeing Maleficent in a mini-skirt during the final confrontation really killed any epicness in it.
For me, I see the Maleficent movies as different from The Sleeping Beauty. It was different in a of ways so once i separated it from the sleeping beauty film, Maleficent is actually a really good film. It's like an alternate universe and focuses more on her.
But what if it is broke and y'all too blinded by nostalgia to see it Cause I saw it. And I've hated Disney for years. They made boring movies that were full of plot holes and unlikable characters, and the crowd goes wild! Woo! Disney! Their reputation is the only reason they exist, if Frozen 2 hadn't had been Disney, i can assure you it would've bombed, hard. Lucky for them, it was Disney, so no one cares about proper storytelling. Oh, not to mention that if you don't like Disney you're automatically alienated from the vast majority of people, and a good portion of them will even tell you to your face that "you're not human" I hate Disney.
ditto. disney needs 2 quit ruining their movies & leave them alone, the way we grew up with them. i think if walt disney himself were still alive he’d be pissed & cancel all of them. i think he’d want them 2 stay the way they r :(
They just don’t want to take risks. I can guarantee you there are passionate and creative people working on amazing thought provoking and whimsical pieces working at Disney, but they just get the occasional project to work on a short before corporate forces them to work on the movie that is approved by the council of old white men who think only of their wallet
Takeme Rightnow I think anyone is delusional if they think anything positive of that Beauty and the Beast remake. Emma Watson does not have the grace of a princess nor the enthusiasm nor the emotional range. Her flat acting was torturous to watch. She most certainly is not a natural singer. And she looks nothing like Belle. The Beast's visual representation was atrociously awful and uninspiring and artificial and stiff looking. It was awful to look at it. The chemistry between the Beast and Belle was nonexistent. The Beast did not show any growth in the way he was presented and through his behavior. And the conversations between them was just so flat. And this is a result of a shit script, so whoever wrote it is in the wrong career field. It was so dull and lifeless and bad that I had to stop it midway on Netflix (as it was my first time seeing it as two years have passed since it was released) and exit out. I could not make it through to the end. Then a year or two later I looked up the Be Our Guest scene out of curiousity, and it was the most dull and lifeless thing I had ever seen in my life. And then not that long ago I saw a youtube review video that agreed with me and pointed out things I couldn't see because I couldn't make it through the end of it. And in this review video, I saw the dumb enchantress lift the spell and intrude on what was supposed to be a very intimate moment. Which completely misses the point about Beauty and the Beast. Selfless love broke the spell. If the enchantress had the ability to remove the spell then Belle was never needed to break it, it was counterintuitive. And Belle came off as arrogant and superior toward Gaston when Belle's character was always gracious and never took Gaston seriously because she knew he was a fool. She was never abrasive about it. Belle also loved to read because she enjoyed adventure. The town never outcasted her, they just never understood her. So this her vs. town thing didn't make sense. They never had a problem with reading females either so they made it seem like a forbidden/authoritative/sexist rule of law. 🙄 The town just found it peculiar. The whole thing was awfully poor quality. So extremely bad and uncharacteristic. A real shame. Because it had great actors. And they had to ruin it with so much careless mistakes and awful execution and writing and by casting Emma Watson. It also didn't make sense they had English accents.
@@twilightfades_7 absolutely agree with everything you said, especially the part on Emma Watson's acting, her fame causes people to ignore what a poor job she did in this film. I don't have a problem with subtleties like accents or dark skinned people in the era because at the end of the day it's not historical fiction, it's Disney fantasy. But I do wish Watson was critiqued fairly by critics instead of being lavished due to her following and fame.
mathsisdeadtomenow 💯 People were very biased toward Emma Watson because of her feminism and association with Harry Potter. That's the only reason why she was casted. A real shame.
Yeah, I adore the classic animated Disney films, but Maleficent, Cinderella and Beauty and the Beast are atrocities. But of those 3, I think B&B was the worst. Horrible acting n singing all around. No redeeming factors, not even the set pieces nor costumes were all that. This live action film came off more cartoony than the original animated one. I'm a pretty easy going guy, but I hate the live action B&B wit all my being. What an insult to one of the crown jewels of Disney films, just trash that wishes it can be a cheap knock off but it's not even decent enough for that title. I'll stick to the oringals thank u very much. Cheers +_0
I agree, it was terrible. The sets looked more fake than in the animated movie. Soo cheap. To be fair, I will say the inn song with Gaston and his friend was an exception. Luke Evans and Josh Gad were good, but they were the only ones.
At least B&TB followed the original story. Maleficent is my least favorite because they butchered the story to fit the narrative that tried to make her sympathetic. You can tell they were trying to be the next Wicked, but it fell completely flat.
i agree with you... but i think burtons alice in wonderland is more of a sequel instead of a remake, its a continuation strenghtening the animation by saying all that happen in the animation is not dreams but memories, so its different from maleficent that clearly contradicts the animation😊
the problem I had with Burton's Alice is.....this is seriously *the* perfect setting for Burton; it's pretty much the ideas he wanks to on a daily basis, and.....he clearly has no idea what to even do with it, somehow...
I thought of that movie as more of a Burton film than a Disney film; I wasn't sure it even was Disney at first. Of course, now he's doing DUMBO, which I'm really looking forward to because I loved it as a kid...but oh has it NOT aged well, especially with that "newsreel narrator" and the "Mr. Stork" jingle at the beginning. Not to mention the jive-talking crows.
The real efect that the live action have toward the film is one of explaination, wile the wonderland werent as wierd as the original it woul make scence because alice wass a kid in the original making the more abstract wonderlan harder to grasp and racionalize, make the hole thin seem even wierder trough a kid view.
@@KingRandor82 You'd think so but in interviews Burton has admitted to not liking Lewis' Caroll Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. You know you made a mistake choosing a director when said director hates the source material.
Mowgli did return to the jungle at the end of the Kipling story but only after the man village cast him out. The live action remake randomly combines elements fron the Disney version and the original without understanding what made those elements work.
I love that live action version. I'll admit, I mostly watched it though because Cary Elwes was in it, even though he was a villain. But yeah, that version was great.
I really didn’t like beauty and the beast remake I thought Emma Watson was a really shitty actor to play bell and she was horrible at singing and had no facial expression when she talked. They could have done WAY better
funny you should say that cause one of my (many) problems with the film was that....Emma Watson looks good....at *certain* angles, but that sure as hell doesn't make her the "Beauty" :P
Disney’s Coco - Buuuuuttttt..... OMG BELLE IS THE SAME GURL AS THAT PRETTY WIZARD FROM THOSE OTHER MOVIES! DID YOU KNOW THEY WERE THE SAME CHARACTER?! OMG SHES SOOOOOO PRETTY AND HER DRESS IS SOOOOOOO PRETTY AND SHES MAGIC!!!! ~ my impression of the little girls I work with who love the remake and say that the animated version is “boring and scary”.
Honestly, the dress in the B&B remake is the most boring and modern thing in the movie. Like they went out of their way to make the movie "period accurate" with the costume and set design (even some of the dialogue) butBelle's dress looks like something some teenager would wear to prom in 2017.
You touched on making Cinderella more book-smart and resourceful but how about what they did with Belle? In the animated film, she was already a strong, capable independent heroine who takes an active role in fixing her situation by taming a malicious Beast. The only way they could possibly improve on that is to go full third-wave feminist, which is what they did in the live-action remake. Nothing is ever satisfactory for these people with "modern sensibilities". Like no matter how strong and independent you make a female character, they're still going to find it problematic.
it was all Emma Watsons messed up mentality, "She can't wear a pretty dress because it would be uncomfortable", "She likes inventing", "she can't be too much of a dreamer or too princess-like", honestly its like Watson think that things stereotypically feminine are wrong and girls should be more like men to be empowered, which is honestly, ironically, really sexist.
I'm not surprised though since she also regretted working with more male directors than female ones (I'm sure those male directors of movies in a franchise that put you on the map appreciate your devaluing them, Missy) and had no qualms becoming a spokesperson for a gendered charity (#heforshe) while claiming feminism is for men too (not buying it, Watson).
I think the problem in these so-called live action remakes is that actors are playing next to CGI most of the time, with CGI character that's why the connection is lost. The soul dies the moment someone is supposed to talk to a green screen absent character. But these actors need to strive harder. These modern technology supported remakes make 1930s special effects "special."
It's not a sequel, because she's falling down the rabbit hole just like the original and meeting all the characters for the first time. If it were a sequel, it wouldn't be her first time in Wonderland. It's a horrible remake.
The biggest problem I have with the live action remakes is that they perpetuate the myth that animation is kid's stuff and live action movies are "real movies".
I think Disney remakes are a major waste of money. At least in my case, the ones I've enjoyed the most (Cinderella & The Jungle Book) are the ones that stay the closest to the original, but spending $150 million to make again the same old stuff isn't worth it, in my opinion. On the other hand, the ones I didn't really like (Alice in Wonderland, BatB, Maleficent) are the ones that has some differences with the original, but, because of that, they seem to have lost some magic and end up looking as a mundane (and somewhat creepy) version of a timeless film. I don't want to watch the same stuff over and over again, but I expect my Disney remakes to capture effectively the spirit of the film (not the original story) they're based on. Because when I like the atmosphere of a film, is not just the plot that makes that effect. Is the character development that affects. The side characters affects. The animation (I guess we're doomed in that aspect) affects. The soundtrack affects. Even the cast affects. Just change one of those aspects, and the film will not be the same anymore.
Samah y Almudena I agree with everything you said. Except for the Alice in Wonderland by Tim Burton. I thought it was beautifully creative and wonderful.
My favorite is Cinderella and BatB, actually. My least favorite is Alice in Wonderland and Maleficent, and my reason is completely the same as yours. They changed them to much from the original, and thus they lost their magic. Maleficent is one of the greatest Disney villains! I'd like them to keep her image that way instead of turning her into a good person.
Mei Feng But alice in wonderland was never a disney original. There where already plenty of alice movies out that also had a more dark touch, And i actually preffer the live actions that are different. Its way more interresting to see a new side to the story, than to just see something again in real life section, with misunderstood characters *cough cough* belle.
@@sparklegirl1006 YES!!! all the new characters look the same. Plus, before the Princesses were graceful and had delicate movements (their hair were always my favorite, such as Ariel's graceful red locks underwater), now literally all characters are way too expressive and all over the place (how many Annas from frozen do we need)? - i.e. same personalty as Anna = Jessie (toy story), Joy (inside out), Rapunzel (tangled), Moana..... ALL.THE.SAME.CHARACTER!
Dude, I agree with you, word-for-word. And it’s not that they’re not enjoyable (somewhat). It’s that I can’t help but hear my conscience telling me that Disney’s just playing on my nostalgia. And I really do love the new Revival era! However, when it comes to these live-action remakes, I feel somewhat let down. I don’t like criticizing Disney bcuz I know everyone involved in a film works so so hard!!But I’m not sure this area of Disney has its act together.
I hate all f the Disney remakes expect for The Jungle Book because I honestly feel that the filmmakers improved on the original. And this is coming from a big fan of the original.
And even then, the original clearly watered down and ruined the book, but was still popular. So feeling that way about the live action movie is fine. XD
michael houghton Agreed. The only ones I enjoyed actually were Cinderella and Alice in Wonderland. The Jungle Book I thought was decent. The essence of the story was lost on me. After reading the writing of the original story I think that is why it doesn't live up to what the story of Mowgli was actually about.
That’s funny because I really like the remakes except the Jungle Book . More like i didn’t like the boy who played Mogli . I know he’s a kid but his acting was a no for me .
Disney isn't what it used to be anymore... We need a movie that has to be genuinely made. This entire "Money is our only motivation" thing is seriously irritating me!
YamiNoGame Mulan is my absolute favourite Disney princess and one of my favourite movies of all time. I am disappointed how they’re taking it. And from what I’ve read, they’re going for a bs “women can do anything a man can do” aspect. Yes Mulan goes to war and earns the respect of the people of the imperial city for what she has done. But that was never her goal. All Mulan wanted was to protect her family, find her place in the world and save China. The whole her being bowed too for her courage was just extra. She was never looking for glory. She just wanted to keep what she loved safe. If you’re going to war for something as shallow as “I'm only here because Chi-Fu said girls can’t be,” that’s not even close to the same as saying “I’m here to save my father.” Why would I route for her if all she’s doing it for is to prove a dum point? Especially if you’re talking going to war to prove it. And also there’s a witch? Like who the hell invented her and where the hell is my boi Shan-Yu?! This remake of Mulan seems like it’s going to be so shallow and not at all what my home girl stands for
Tale as old as time Stale as it can be Recycled and tame So much more the same Unfortunately Maybe just a change Singers that aren't fake But the suits are scared No one is prepared Disney's Bland Remake All of it's the same Never a surprise But you'll watch it all 'Cause Disney's got your balls At the critic's side Even what is new Makes no friggin' sense Really got it all The film viewers forgot What wasn't half as dense Certain as the cash The studio will rake Hear a second time Songs played for rewind Disney's Bland Remake Who cares if it blows? We're rolling in the dough Disney's Bland Remake...
Same. Disney's remakes tend to feel really cynical to me; even when they have good ideas for changes, they tend to screw it up and the end result feels more like nostalgia pandering. The only remake I truly enjoyed was The Jungle Book, but even then I didn't love it l, and I never saw the original to compare them. By the way, what did you think of the Pete's Dragon remake? You seemed to miss that one.
That's the one I haven't seen yet. Maybe it's better than the others but I've heard incredible reactions of "Meh" so I haven't bothered watching it yet.
The ending of the Jungle Book remake makes much more sense. It's a story about family, Mowgli understands that family is not a matter of blood, but a matter of bond. He decides to stay with his family. In the original animated movie, he decides to go with humans because he's human. That's very problematic. I'm glad they changed it.
He mentions that the moral of the original book was Mowgli learning to grow up and take responsibility for his humanity. The live action movie, by itself, sure that ending is fine. But in comparison to its origin, it's pretty bad. In conclusion, Disney doesn't want to tell a good story, they just want your money.
zachanikwano taking responsibility for his humanity doesn't even make sense. He was never raised as a human, he has no link to human appart from his genetics, why would he have any responsibility to be part of humanity ? It's like saying an adopted child has a responsibility towards his country of birth, it's stupid as fuck. Also, Disney is a non-person. The movie was made by people, by artists. Artists that don't care about profit because they don't make it, their employer does.
For what it's worth, I practically fell in love with the original "Maleficent" when I first saw "Sleeping Beauty" as a kid. I must've been the only kid in the entire known universe who wasn't scared of her. Instead, from the moment she first appeared on-screen, I was like, "Ohhh....I think I'm in love...!" (I know, I know: I'm weird...)
I know what you mean. I’m always shocked to hear that the reason people have only seen Sleeping a Beauty once was because Maleficent was too scary for them as kids. She was the best part! Well the whole movie is incredible. Sleeping Beauty is one of my all time favorite Disney films, which is why I so passionately loathe the Maleficent remake. It ruined everything great about the original.
don't believe I ever even saw the original Sleeping Beauty until it came out on DVD; I bought it when it came out too....just had a feeling I'd enjoy it. I had the Disney book for it initially though. Movie was a lot of fun....and the animated movie *didn't* make the three fairies brain-dead morons who not only turned on their former friend Malificent (for no reason other than the script telling them to), but were clearly too incompetent to be raising a child properly, either.
Its nice to see people who dislike the modernization of the films values without coming off as a "SJW Hater". However I still prefer the reinterpretation angle over spicing up the same film with simple modernizations, sometimes to the detriment of the film. Nevertheless, there's no denying that many of these films aren't done out of desire but do to money.
@Eric Burkheimer or more like self entitled asshole ho use his "minority" status as a shiled wile they try enforce they worldview on other and victmize thenselves at the minor pushback, aka PC culture.
Honestly, I'd give Disney more kudos if they took the original source materials and put a new spin on them instead of making new adaptations of their old adaptations.
I have to totally agree, these live action Disney movie remakes are unorignal carbon copies of their animated versions. There predictable, unoriginal, and unnecessary. I swear, if Disney'll do Peter Pan, this will look a lot like the 2003 version. #FuckDisney
+Will Lyon Thank you for reminding me of yet another reason I hate the Disney of today. I don't know if I will ever forgive them for the way they shafted Kathryn Beaumont in the making of that Peter Pan sequel. When Disney made it, they brought Kathryn in to reprise her role as Wendy. But for some strange reason, they brought in another voice artist to replace her before the film was released. What makes it all the more strange is that this was at about the same time that Kathryn was redoing her roles as Alice and Wendy on TV for House of Mouse, which implies that it wasn't an age issue at all. So cheesy.
In the next couple years, we're getting a live action Pinnochio and Dumbo. Think about that. The only way these movies will work is massive CGI. Is it really a live action film when the characters have to be done in CGI? No, they're just 3D animated movies. So that begs the question...why make a $200 million dollar animated movie when...they're already animated?
And-let's face it-without even seeing them, we all know they're going to absolutely stink on ice...(which, naturally, will not deter the Mouse Factory from cranking out still more "remakes" and sequels...)
Then ten-to-one it was probably because they didn't want to pay her royalties. I'd bet money on it. There was probably some clause in her contract that demanded a larger percentage than the Shylocks at the Mouse Factory were willing to part with, and they probably gave her the heave-ho on that basis. They dragged out that legal dispute with Peggy Lee for the same reason: over royalties owed to her for the songs she wrote for "Lady & the Tramp". The Mouse Factory dragged it out for literally decades in the courts, and only reached a settlement only a short while before she died.
Yeah, Maleficent & Alice in Wonderland were frustrating because they totally disregarded the beloved animations & told me my childhood was a lie. But I love the faithful adaptations such as Cinderella, The Jungle Book, and Beauty & the Beast. They’re not necessarily “remakes” but “adaptations”. They are adapting animation into a new medium, live action, which is not an easy thing to do. Like adapting a book into a movie. Even though animation and live action are both visual mediums, there’s still a huge difference. What the faithful films are are further explorations of the animated films. They don’t try to replace or reconstruct them, but bring them to life with more detail, complexity, and sophistication. You will find freshness and new material in expansion, rather than reconstruction. The reason we go to Disneyland is to see the characters brought to life and that's the same case here. It’s not “pointless” because seeing something you love come to life brings you a feeling of joy you can’t get by simply rewatching the original. Nostalgia is often looked down upon but it’s a feeling that should be felt! And with that whole Jungle Book ending thing, a theme that popped up in the new film was that if you’re different, that doesn’t mean you don’t belong, and families come in all different shapes/sizes. So they wanted to reflect that in the ending. A more metaphorical approach.
Tommy Ross the Alice in wonderland remake is based more of the book. The cartoon Alice in wonderland was just made more simpler for children to understand
LilPolar The 2010 film is nothing like the book at all and hardly draws anything from it. The animation is actually surprisingly close to the book and doesn’t really simplify too much
OMG that's exactly how I felt too and I couldn't put my finger on why I felt nothing after watching those remakes! And you nailed it, it's the feeling of magic being lost, to seeing all the artifices behind it all, seeing Disney for what it is. Very good vid!
I agree 100% with everything you said in this video. You expressed in a beautiful way , why I hate every live action Disney movie made so far. The worst for me was the recent Beauty and the Beast. I love the animated one, I felt they got their message across very clear, I feel there was no need to remake it, but as you said Disney got greedy. I hated the cast most of all, nobody could sing, and Emma waston was not bellel. I am so glad I found this video, when I said I hated Beauty and Beast everybody said I was crazy and had no heart. I did not care for the sleeping beauty re make either for the very reason you , just said . I also did not like Cinderella as well, it did not bring anything new to the story, I might as well watch the cartoon. they are empty have no heart and shows just how lazy Disney and Hollywood has become. Thank you for doing this video .
I agree generally with many of the points made, but with one additional point of my own. The main problem I have with most of these live-action remakes is that, regardless of how technically-slick the SFX may be, they're never able to get around the "creepiness" factor. Which is an odd paradox anyway: Namely that the more "realistic" a live-action fantasy movie attempts to be, the more *creepy* it often ends up looking. 2 examples (mentioned in the video): The remakes of "Alice in Wonderland" and "Beauty & the Beast." In both cases, the visual effects, while impressive (to those who care about such things while ignoring everything else) seriously undercut the main primary visual appeal on the most basic level (at least for me they do.) Certain fantasy elements work in a cartoon (talking teapots, candlesticks, and too many examples from "Alice" to list) but when done in a live-action film only end up looking so creepy that they make one's flesh crawl. (Watching the live-action "Alice" movies, for example, was like having a bad LSD trip while simultaneously experiencing the DTs, a severe migraine and the worst hangover of one's entire life.)
I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said. The problem with the visuals, for me anyway, is that they don't really seem all that good-looking. They try to recapture the same visuals from the animated movies but don't realise that by directly translating them to live-action they lose the magic of the original.
Yes I could swear that I read on Freud's essay "The Uncanny" something similar to what yoi describe. The things you describe aren't creepy in the cartoons because... they are cartoons. You could slap a pair of generic animated eyes and mouth in anything and give it round features and make it cute and appealing, but in live action...not so much
Maleficent infuriated me. She's the mistress of all evil with all the powers of hell whose name literally means to do harm. Not every character needs to have a tragic past.
Thank you for this video, it really can't be said often enough. The Disney live action remakes are the old animated sequels all over again. It's done purely for money. While I understand that a big corporation would behave like this, I won't support it. Disney is known for one thing: making great ANIMATED movies. Why make a live action version of an amazing animated classic? It tarnishes Walt Disney's legacy - he wanted to show the world that animation could be a form of art, and now the studio is doing the exact opposite. And in the process they ridicule the old classics. Sleeping Beauty is a wonderful movie, and if it has stereotypical gender roles, well it's made in 1959, but why should that mean a modern audience can't enjoy it? Plus it didn't need to be remade into a feminist movie, since it's already full of strong female characters. The three funny and badass good fairies (that Maleficent completely ruined) as well as one of film history's most awesome female villains. The old Cinderella was, as you say, relatable. Though passive and she's kind, compassionate and intelligent, whereas the modern one just seemed stupid when they tried to portray her as a modern and independent woman. And why change the fairy godmother from an old woman to a hot, younger one with a huge cleavage? Because every woman has to look beautiful in a live action Disney film? What's that about?! Honestly there are so many problems with these remakes that I can't ever list them all - would take up too much space. But after Maleficent tried to replace the wonderful original, and after I struggled to get through a boring and generic new Cinderella (Burton's Alice in Wonderland isn't that great either, but at least it tries to be original without ridiculing the original film), I'm simply boycotting these remakes. I won't be a witness when they butcher Aladdin, Lion King or even Mulan.
True, and he didn't mention it. But that was a completely different era, and a different style. I personally really enjoyed that one as a kid. And I would argue the first 101 dalmatians remake pretty much fits that description too.
Maleficent is by far my least favorite disney remake. it just made me angry! It ruins every single character for me: maleficent whos supposed to be bad, aurora who just becomes a bland princess barely in the movie, the three good fairies who are supposed to care for aurora (instead they were just in the way), and prince phillip whos supposed to be a hero (not just a last minute addition to the movie). If you need to change that many characters in order to make maleficent good, that just proves how evil she really is
I seriously couldn't agree more. Maleficent is one of the greatest and probably most beloved Disney villains!!! People love her, because she's mean and villainous. Making her good is just completely the opposite of what she's supposed to be. I also don't like the way they make the good characters bad, like the king and the three fairies. My least favorite Disney remake is actually Alice in Wonderland, but Maleficent comes close second.
All of these Disney remakes are just hit or miss to me. If they don’t learn from Beauty and the Beast that it’s okay to keep the musical parts, then all is lost for the remakes as a series.
You've put it perfectly: you can actually FEEL the corporate side of Disney leeching off our nostalgia. That's exactly how I feel, and I'm so glad you've put it into words that make perfect sense whenever people tell me these are "better" than the original, to which I haughtily scoff. So thanks. And cool vid. New sub :)
I will always love Sleeping Beauty more than Maleficent, and I will always love the original cruel and sadistic Maleficent over this new too modern misunderstood rebel.
I read something about why Maleficent (2014) got a sequel (Maleficent Mistress of Evil) and it said that it got a sequel because Sleeping Beauty didn’t got a straight to DVD sequel like every other movie did
My guess is that people like these films because they appear more mature, even though they aren't. I love the animated films not simply for childhood nostalgia, but for the intelligence and emotion. When a character is feeling or thinking something, you can see it on their face, making them more interesting. With these adaptations, most of the actors just stand around with blank stares, or they overreact to things. Im not saying there are no good live action movies that can make you think or tug at your heartstrings, but a simple drawing has so much potential and can do that easily. It doesn't matter what age you are.
My issue with these remakes is that, I don't know why I would want to watch a version of these movies with ugly CGI effects when the original beautiful animated versions still exist. This goes double for the Disney Rennesance movies. The original Aladin has aged pretty well and there's no reason to remake it.
As a 2D animator, I find them insulting. To have all the hard work that the nine old men put into the originals, be reduced to some live action CG bullplop.
What pisses me off most about "Maleficent" is that it set up an interesting idea of her past, portraying her and Aurora's father as a couple in their youths, and yet it's never brought up again after he betrays her. For the rest of the movie, there's nothing to indicate from either the script or the acting that those two characters were once lovers. For the gods' sakes, Disney, even when you come up with an emotionally intriguing twist on a classic, you don't use it! Why?
What I hate is how the lighting is always so dark and 'gritty' to be more 'realistic'..... I would love more lighting that could benefit the wardrobe they have. Make dark nights magical, add lighting and have that vibe of joy, until the villian comes, then make it dark and gritty.
I completely agree with your rant; the remake of the classics ruins the heart of what made the story special in the very first place. It is the dazzle, the adventure, the wit, or the humour but the lesson. And next to the lesson is the circumstance of the story, the original context. For me the remakes are as awful and dangerous and re-writing history; if one generation values integrity and the next material wealth, the remake of the story to favour the sentiments of the newer would or could forever alter the story for the generation that follows after. And if that generation disfavours the latest, then the story can be forgotten. The worst for me is Maleficent where the antagonist is made to be misunderstood. the value of the original ls good versus evil but the remake distorted it to now, while we should consider how becomes what one is now, the importance of knowing that evil exists and the imperative in overcoming it is all but lost. And the bad guy, in this case, is the King whereas originally he was good but now bad. Why him? Why change him into a nemesis? Why not add a different character? Because by changing him and showing him [SPOILER ALERT] with his army of men....battling against her army of trees and plants and animals seemed awfully political to me. Feministic hatred of men? Environmentalist much? Is Disney trying to please the Left or attempting to convert or condition the audience? If you think I'm crazy then do tell me of any recent Disney movie that gives Conservatives to smile about? Hits of traditional values? Right to bear arms? Pro-military? Instead [SPOILER ALERT], Cinderella has the Secretary of War as the enemy,. Beauty & the Beast hints of Homosexuality, Alice in Wonderland shows her rebelling against the traditional mores of her day, and the leader of the pack is a female (which was not an original part). Now I would welcome an even amount of hints but that's not what I really want. I just what to see a movie that is POLITICALLY NEUTRAL... and FAITHFUL to the original. I'm a Christian and i'm sure that none of you would like to have my religion shove down your throat, nor do you want your children to be converted without your permission so WHY ... is it OK for Disney to do that same?
bluejay1611 why do I agree with you so much? The worst remake for me was beauty and the beast, Emma Watson is pretty but she is no belle. The beauty of the classics was that it was able to relate to people on all levels and still leave a sweet taste in your mouth but now it all seems like leftist propaganda to me. 😞😒😒
My problem with the Disney remakes is they are trying to “fix” the originals. Wether that means the characters not being independent enough (they were), the messages not being progressive enough (they were solid themes about growing up that anyone in any age could relate to), or any of the other many reasons they changed seemingly minor but actually very important elements of the story. They never work because they originals are not broken. They were actually carefully thought out and produced masterpieces. They had deep meanings and the movies were made by the very best in movie making with lots of love put in. If Disney continues to try to make a better movie than the originals by only making shallow decisions that have drastic consequences on the story then they will only ever be a cheap imitation. The only way Disney could update/improve the movies is if they took them seriously and treated them with respect. If they realized that the classics were meticulously planned art and try to put that same level of care into the remakes.
What bothers me the most is Maleficent. I actually like the idea of giving backstories to the villains we already know and love, that's way more interesting than just remaking already existing movies, and of course for that to work you need to make them sympathetic. The problem is that instead of showing us the reasons why she became the way we know her they just turn her into the hero of the story. There's no middle ground, yeah she made some bad stuff but they just keep showing how "she's right, everyone else is wrong". Wasn't she the mistress of evil? Where is that? One thing is changing the motivation of a character, other is just changing their core completely
While I agree with you that the remakes are poorly done, a lot of the complaints you have seem to be tied to Disney's forcing of social ideology into their movies. Especially the irony of them trying to make female characters stronger, but instead making them feel the opposite because they lack motivation or common sense. Hopefully the audience will start seeing this and the films will start losing profit, before the entire past Disney library is ruined. But heavy marketing and nostalgia are a hard thing to overcome. You know, unless you go to the lengths The Last Jedi did to spit in the audiences face.
Well said. I hope for the day that Disney realizes that audiences do not want to be force-fed social ideology or feminist agendas in their films, and that they just want to see something entertaining and worth watching.
My biggest issue with remakes is that they're generally pretty boring. They may be "live action," but there's less life and far less heart and charm to them then their original animated counterparts. I found Alice in Wonderland dull and just another excuse to put Johnny Depp in another lead role (Alice actress was boring as hell, she looked like she wasn't even interested in the role, and Depp was front and center of all promotional material). Maleficent was just another movie we didn't really need, same with Cinderella. Beauty and the Beast, I hate Emma Watson, I don't think she's all that good an actress, never thought so. The Jungle Book was a respectable remake, even if some of the characters felt miscast with certain voices. But seriously, we don't need remakes to tell us old stories we already know, unless they are truly doing something different and makes sense.
The worst part of the original Sleeping Beauty is that our title character only had 8 lines (not including singing) in the entire movie. If they wanted to remake it, give Aurora more personality besides “nice and pretty” (and no, making her clumsy or “booky” will not make her a more interesting character Disney! Try harder!) Give her and and the Prince more time to get to know each other so the kiss at the end isn’t as sexual-assaulty. Keep the fairies as they were! All of them! Have them tell Aurora about the curse, work together to find a solution, but no matter what they do, they are no match for Maleficent’s magic and Aurora falls asleep anyways. Then the three help the Prince find her, wake her up, and the two agree that they would like to get to know each other better before getting married. It stays true to the original, but updates it so that Aurora is more proactive and less of a victim, and the fairies are given more credit for the active role they played. Phillip is not as much of a creeper as in the original, and Maleficent gets to stay her powerful, beautifully despicable self. If you want to give her a tragic backstory, make her hate the fairies for something that they did to her a long time ago, and believe that she deserved to be at the christening more than any of them (idk maybe she was bullied as a kid for not having wings and that’s why she’s evil. Honestly, I think giving her a backstory just raises more issues. Why can’t she just be evil because she’s literally the “Mistress of All Evil”?)
I completely got that feeling you talked about while seeing Beauty and the Beast which didn't do nothing for me.I felt like I waste my time. Emma was such a bad choice for the role and even though she comes through in some scenes as a character , you can't see her as Belle , + the robotic autotuned voice made it worst. Maleficent was garbo also. Angelina did a great job but the whole idea of her being "good" made the movie worthless. Cinderella is probably the best live action princess so far. For me they did it right. Very elegant work , there were remarkable scenes that enhanced the original , not boring and it worked as a whole. Now .., let's hope they won't ruin other live actions by lets say making the little mermaid African ...
I think you're too harsh on Cinderella. It is often difficult for abuse victims to leave their situations, and it's not like she had a place to go. I also think 2017!Belle is better than 1991!Belle, because the older one came off as sort of a snob who thought she was better than everyone and didn't bother to try to talk to people. 2017!Belle did make an effort to connect with the villagers and shared her love of learning with them, but that is kind of where it stops being better. I also wouldn't count Alice and Maleficent as "remakes". Maleficent is no more a remake of Sleeping Beauty any more than Wicked is of The Wizard of Oz. And Alice in Wonderland is just a retelling, even if I do agree that it's a bad retelling. However, I do think Disney needs to start thinking of new and original ideas rather than just copying their animated movies.
I disagree; I think '91 Belle made *far* more of an effort to connect with the villagers, and despite knowing she wanted more still managed to emphasize that she *deserved* it, too. '17 Belle is just going thru motions, and goes thru town like she honestly couldn't even care less to be there.
Original Belle gladly talked with those who talked to her. The Baker just said hello and she started going on about her book. He cut her off because he wasn't genuinely interested. And maybe she's not a good conversationalist. Neither of the Belles seem to be. They also both tend to speak when spoken to. They're not outgoing. New Belle greeted M. Jean, but he didn't seem to take any issue with her at all. Original Belle was more "day-dreamy" new Belle is more "aloof." Watson's expression throughout the "Belle" number came off as snobby and disinterested in the town. As if she wasn't aware they were talking about her. Cartoon Belle, at least by the end of the song, knew everyone was watching her/still gossiping about her. In both cases, this isn't the first time they've walked through town, we don't know how they've been treated off-screen. Either way, it hasn't been good, so their decided avoidance of the people is justifiable.
for belle, well just cause shes a princess doesn't mean she cant have flaws. I would love if the wrote a selfish mean princess and in the end she learns a lesson and becomes kind
Belle in the 1991 was ALL WOMAN and she ran out to the cliffs (after the disaster of a proposal from Gaston) she sang her heart out about having adventures and wanting more. Belle in the 2017 barely lifted an eyebrow or sung with longing.
What I don't understand is if Disney plans on doing Live-Action remakes for years to come, why not remake the films that deserve to be remade into something better like The Black Cauldron or Chicken Little? It would be still be stupid granted, but it would at least make more sense than remaking films that have aged wonderfully like Beauty and the Beast, Cinderella, The Jungle Book, and Aladdin. What the fuck has happened to this company?!
I enjoyed Maleficent, Alice in Wonderland, Cinderella, and The Jungle Book but I absolutely hated Beauty and the Beast. Autotune too obvious and the way they portrayed the story fuckin sucked.
Disney is living in the past. When i look at beauty and the best do not understand the need to remake a beautiful story about a clumsy and immature beast being guided by the beauty, with this live action he looks like a hairy (or a fury ) tycoon, just compare the scene of the great dance. You don't see passion, you see a dance well done, a beautiful scenario, but without soul, without passion, without the sensitivity of the camera and the feelings of the main characters, it seems that Disney did not understand that what made this film a success were not the clothes and the sophistication, it was the story about love and feelings accompanied by a beautiful aesthetic.
Have you seen "Get Out" yet? Me and my girlfriend saw it and she was disappointed with it, but me on the other hand thought it was one of the best movies this year. Think the producer of that also produced "Split" which is brilliant and I liked his comment about how he feels he can take more risks with lower budget movies and they come out better than almost high budget ones. Hopefully you can make a review on Get Out would like to hear another opinion from someone who specialises in movie reviews
I've been meaning to watch that one. Just been really busy with other things. I think I'll give it a watch today though and have my review up by tomorrow.
I still like Cinderella, even despite some of the plot holes. I believe that for Cinderella her sentimental feelings towards her house were important because she had no other love in her life other than the memories of her parents and the happy years they've spent together, but when she met the prince, she had a family and true love in her life once again, so she didn't need to hold on to the house so much. However, I agree about the other movies, at least about those that I've seen. I think the point of Disney remakes has to be to make to the original story deeper while remaining truthful and respectful to the source material, and I think that "Cinderella" succeeded in it, while "Maleficent" all other remakes that I've seen did not.
What i don't like is when Disney has remakes but then alter them into something completely different. Leave the originals alone and start something new
If you want a nostalgia trip that reminds you of the original classics, then just watch those films, for crying out loud! Don't watch a stupid live action remake!
HotWax93 can’t in some cases. Look at bedknobs and broomsticks. They stuck several minutes of unvoiced footage that were singing to a musical score... and eh. Voices in both pitch and cadence were wrong for the characters and the accompanying music went from a rich twenty piece Orchestra to a just five pieces and it showed. Cheap. Cheap. Cheap. It wasn’t even a remake but a reissue.
I just realized something. Disney remaking their animated films into live action has less to do with nostalgia and more to do with greed. Burton's Alice in Wonderland made over 1 billion at the box office and began Disney's urge to projectile vomit out remake after remake. Eventually, so did Wicked with Sleeping Beauty, The Jungle Book with actual CGI, and Beauty and the Beast Again. I bet next year, Aladdin and The Lion King will make that much money, but (hopefully) less than Avengers 4, Frozen 2 and Star Wars episode 9 (all Disney as well).
I hope around this year Disney can announce a Little Mermaid live action remake with Halle Bailey that they can cancel the movie that the film is not complete and I hope Disney can announce that The Little Mermaid live action will not be finished filming because they already started filming but I'm just hoping they I guess they'll be shut down permanently.
I'm calling it; the Lion King "live-action" remake will be the worst and most ludicrous of them all. I recently saw the trailer and I'm very certain the entire cinematography was greenscreen and CGI motion capture.
Disney's taking every movie we used to like as children so we can buy it now that we are adults, to play with the nostalgia. Why do think the Incredibles came back after more than 10 years! Or Monsters Inc., Toy Story, and all the remakes. They're watching what we love on social media and suddenly there's a new old movie coming back just after a small trend on tumblr or twitter. Make a post saying how wonderful a scene was in X movie 20 years ago, get a trillion notes of that in tumblr, that goes to instagram, then goes to facebook, and gets to mickey's ears and boom, a few weeks later you get the rumour of Disney working on bringin back "insert any movie you loved watching eons ago, that now are trendy" with overly feminists actresses to fit the whiny petitions of special snowflakes that wants to see lesbians in every princess to include Disney in their political agenda. Yes, I'm pissed at Beauty and The Beast and Emma Watson. Disney, LEAVE THE OLD CLASSICS A CLASSIC
I never liked the remakes! It really isn't creative. Sure they could play with the visuals, but I feel they shouldn't waste it on something that's been done already! Maybe if they create a new movie with a great original plot and characters, it'd be more amazing! Other than that these Disney remakes just show that disney has run out of ideas. I mean remake after remake? When will it end?
I don’t really think that Tim Burton’s Alice In Wonderland was trying to be a remake of the classic Alice in Wonderland but instead an alternative story to the original because the stories seem different enough to be not considered a remake to me in my opinion.
Agree with most of what you said. Especially for Maleficent. I absolutely HATED that movie for ruining the deliciously villainous character of Maleficent. And I felt like the only one feeling that way. Although for Cinderella, I have to disagree. The message was kindness and patience -- virtues that are called passive and weak in modern day and I liked that they were highlighted. Cinderella gave her step family chances to redeem themselves while honouring her father's memory. I think that made her more brave and hardworking than ever. Imo Cinderella is by far the best remake. I hated how the changes to Beauty and the Beast ruined the original chemistry between Belle and the Beast. In the original, Beast respects Belle's passions and supports them and recognizing this, he gifts her the library. In the remake, first he makes fun of her for liking Romeo and Juliet and then casually gives away his library to her, like, oh this? Sure, take it. It doesn't mean anything to me. Like, whyyyyy.
Sums everything I hate about the remakes up nicely. My family defends them, but they're just so...bleh. They say I hate them because I am "biased towards animation" because it's what I wanna study, but I'm allowed to prefer a better story. Never have I seen an animated movie and gone "That should've been live action" but many times I've seen live action movies and gone "Why not just animate it?". With the amount of CGI in these movies, I doubt they'll age well and everyone will be asking that soon enough.
Alice in Wonderland was a reimagining and wasn't meant to be like the original. Mowgli staying in the jungle at the end is only so that they can do a sequel. Not good storytelling and more 💰. Retelling old fairytales is also a popular trend with YA novels now. So it makes sense for Disney to do it
Beautifully explained, thank you. I personally hate the Alice in Wonderland live action movie, it's makes me cringe, while I love the original version with all the loveable nonsense in it.
I've always had a problem with how we talk about Cinderella. We call it "rags to riches" story, but it really is a moderate wealth to rags to riches story. Cinderella isn't poor, she's been disherited. I always assumed that when Cinderella lost her father, she lost her dowery, (she even says this in the live action and the audience of the brothers grim would have assumed this as well). If she leaves, she leaves as a servant, with no means to return to her old status. She finds it unlikely that a "single man of good fortune" will take her with no dowry and thus stays with a way of improving her lot. It's possible that she is weighting for her stepmother to die, thinking that her stepsisters will not be able to claim the whole estate with her there (basically insert the financial issues of pride and prejudice into the tale as they would have been operating in the time the Grims brothers collected the stories.
>the problem with Disney remakes
>They exist
I've once argued the exact same point, so I agree. At least all of the recent ones (beginning with Alice in Wonderland, for example).
About Cinderella - she shows when You are stuck. Be patience and be kind. She wasn't passive. I don't know why people think ,she is passive. The era she lived , she literally can't do anything .Situation changes .
Farhana Sarmin the original wasn’t passive and was way more of a better role model because she’s not waiting for someone she’s doing her own thing she just wanted one break to have fun where they kinda twist their motive in the live action
Yeah she was patient but not as much active as the original Cinderella
@afootineachworld but that is the issue with the Cinderella's remake. Cinderella is not a story about romance. Is a story about a child who was abuse and still grow up to be nice, positive and resourceful and smart enough to save herself and get at the end a prince as a bonus.
Everything people complained about the original Disney movie are in fact only happening in the remake. Looks like people never really watched the original one.
if you want to watch a better romance then watch Ever After. Is definitely a better movie with better story and character than the new Disney's remake.
The problem with Disney remakes: They aren’t creative.
Ikr ,the problem is with the writters like they have so talented actors stylists and scenario makers but all gets really bad because of the writers
That's right, and also have a habit of miscasting the actors. Like in the remake Beauty and Beast, I felt Emma Watson was really miscast. I saw her as Emma Watson, not as Belle. Plus her singing, while okay, didn't resonate with me.
The problem with Disney is that they don't seem to be creative at all lately and because they don't come up with new good movies faster they remake animated movies to earn some money. Also can we talk about the fact that live action junglebook and lion king still used animation for the animals? Like they are an animated live action of an animated movie. How dumb is that?
@@sirclassicalhou3650 thank you! there was not one second of that movie that I forgot it was Emma Watson (plus her painful British accent when Belle is French). She was horrible in the role.. Belle is so charismatic and Emma is as charismatic as a toilet.
@@anabanana0101 Indeed. She was great as Hermione in Harry Potter, but not as Belle.
The biggest problem with maleficent movie:
SHE DOESN'T TURN INTO A DRAGON!!!!🐲
Yes
She... well... she turns someone else into a dragon, does that count
@Reaper Slasher lol
moto moto !?, True Buddy.
@Reaper Slasher I guess but even in the live action she was still a kinda badass character but yeah i see your point
Can we also talk about the CGI looking exactly the same across all these movies? The uncanny valley of reality?
and it looks like mist, especially in the alice in wonderland movie.
My grandma hates animated movies, she will never watch them. She thinks they're all loud, goofy, and boring.
To an extent I understand how she feels (and she's entitled to that opinion blab blah blab disclaimers) but I think it's incredibly narrow minded. Bright and colorful animation can be just as interesting, deep, meaningful, ect.
Ironically I am surprised she prefers looking at dark and gritty realistic films, they are often literally dark and hard to see whereas in animated films, you can actually see and hear what's going on rather than just whispers and darkness (also throw in the word "war")
Ian Conlee
couldn't agree more. This movies have all the same formula, i can't help feeling like this live action films are made on an industrial scheme, wich by the way has a very poor quality making.
::shudder:: The Beast looks SOOO BAD. Hell, even Thanos looks bad. The only Disney property with good CGI - other than Fox's Planet of the Apes movies of course has been Star Wars. And now that they're flopping with Solo, god help LucasFilm
The CGI used by Disney is really stale and always usually the same too I agree.
Has anybody else noticed how dark they all are? I don't mean story wise. I mean they are all literally dark. I feel like I can't see what's going on sometimes. DC movies do this too (though theirs are plot-dark as well as dark dark so I guess it's fitting). The original movies that these remakes are based on all very light and colorful. So why do all of the remakes have black, grey, and muted color palettes? Even scenes with lots of color still feel dull somehow. This might just be something that bothers me, but please let me know your opinions.
I definitely saw what you're saying when I watched Alice in Wonderland. I didn't really notice it in the other remakes but now that I think back to Beauty and the Beast, I see what you're talking about.
maddie clarke I've noticed that too!! I am not into movies like that, so I turn away. I just tune into "Once Upon a Time" every week on ABC. I love that damn show!!!
maddie clarke Pssttt its to hide their shit cgi.
Cake# 😂
I have that exact same problem with most movies made nowadays, not just the Disney films. You literally can't see a damned thing onscreen. ("The Dark Knight," for example, was literally that: SO damn dark I couldn't even tell what the hell was even happening most of the time. Which is one reason why the movie made so little sense to me.) Which is one additional reason (among many) why I don't see that many modern movies nowadays. (I'm also not a fan of the style of photography known as "jiggle-cam," but that's a separate issue...)
They better not ruin Mulan.
Edit: Well that aged badly
Isobelle Faulkner here’s the weird thing, I can actually see Mulan working as a slightly grittier action-style remake, kind of like Pirates of the Caribbean but in wartime China. That being said, it’s still a Disney remake and I don’t have much hope in it working.
Posh Prick Reviews then again pirates of the Caribbean was Disney n at least the first couple films were well done I think so hopefully though it is a Disney remake they will do a similar thing to the likes of pirates of the Caribbean. I mean Mulan isn’t your typical sleeping beauty, beauty and the beast or Cinderella type princess or story.
They’ve removed all the music, given Mulan magic and replaced Li Shang. So basically the only thing it shares with the original is the name.🙁
Grace Mosby Apparently the villain was changed too. Will not be watching the movie. Love the animated one though.
I think they've ruined it already by not including any music. At least that's the last news I heard. I'm not sure if they'll finally include the music.
Beauty and the Beast really pissed me off. I mean, why have the leads played by people who cannot sing when you have someone like Audra McDonald in your cast? Also, the beast in the remake looks weird and is such an idiot. At least in the original he knew that if Belle fell in love with him he'd be free of the curse. He at least tried to be nice to her. The remake was just garbage in my opinion.
I think the look of the Beast summed up the film perfectly: uninspired. They went all-out on the look of the animated Beast in the original; they had a chance to have some fun with his design here and....just went with a really flat, "couldn't care less" ripoff of the '91 version.
@Chris Cipollini Honestly that's true.😳
Actually, Beastly was more interesting to watch than the official live action 💔
I want to like them but I can't. Something just seems soulless
Agreed. You destroy much of the magic by replacing animation with live action.
I agree!
Duchesse de Berne I am connected to the originals, I feel betrayed by the company my grandfather helped to make its legacy known.
they just replaced the soul by cgi
i am excited for The Lion King, The Jungle Book 2 and Mulan live action remakes. that is literally all. the others, i don't have high hopes for the others, nor do i care for them.
"Maleficent" didn't "add depth" to Maleficent; it was a totally new character. Instead of giving us some idea why is she so evil, they went the "she's not evil, king is" route. They sabotaged all the characters (except the not-so-proactive Aurora) - the kindly king is a psycho, the evil witch is hurting but ultimately does the right thing, and the three fairies, such an amazing characters in the original series, are nothing more than dunce heads.
And I dunno, just seeing Maleficent in a mini-skirt during the final confrontation really killed any epicness in it.
Bible Illustrated 💯 agree. It's a trash film. And they're sadly making a garbage sequel.
@Tangential_Tangine leather leggings. Sorry :D
For me, I see the Maleficent movies as different from The Sleeping Beauty. It was different in a of ways so once i separated it from the sleeping beauty film, Maleficent is actually a really good film. It's like an alternate universe and focuses more on her.
@@souhiyori8032 you're a moron lmfao
Less so "the king is evil" than "Maleficent is evil because she was raped! This justifies her actions!"
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Precisely.
But what if it is broke and y'all too blinded by nostalgia to see it
Cause I saw it. And I've hated Disney for years. They made boring movies that were full of plot holes and unlikable characters, and the crowd goes wild! Woo! Disney! Their reputation is the only reason they exist, if Frozen 2 hadn't had been Disney, i can assure you it would've bombed, hard. Lucky for them, it was Disney, so no one cares about proper storytelling.
Oh, not to mention that if you don't like Disney you're automatically alienated from the vast majority of people, and a good portion of them will even tell you to your face that "you're not human"
I hate Disney.
Jeez. Calm down. If you don't like Disney, you don't like Disney and that's that.
@@yuzukistardust87075 Not what everyone else says:)
To me Disney live action remakes are just Disney running out of ideas
Same with me. That's one of my beefs with them.
FACTS
That and they're just done poorly and lack the creativity, fun, and heart of the originals.
ditto. disney needs 2 quit ruining their movies & leave them alone, the way we grew up with them. i think if walt disney himself were still alive he’d be pissed & cancel all of them. i think he’d want them 2 stay the way they r :(
They just don’t want to take risks. I can guarantee you there are passionate and creative people working on amazing thought provoking and whimsical pieces working at Disney, but they just get the occasional project to work on a short before corporate forces them to work on the movie that is approved by the council of old white men who think only of their wallet
That ship sailed before I was born.
I hated the Beauty and the Beast remake for destroying Chip's storyline!
Takeme Rightnow I think anyone is delusional if they think anything positive of that Beauty and the Beast remake. Emma Watson does not have the grace of a princess nor the enthusiasm nor the emotional range. Her flat acting was torturous to watch. She most certainly is not a natural singer. And she looks nothing like Belle. The Beast's visual representation was atrociously awful and uninspiring and artificial and stiff looking. It was awful to look at it. The chemistry between the Beast and Belle was nonexistent. The Beast did not show any growth in the way he was presented and through his behavior. And the conversations between them was just so flat. And this is a result of a shit script, so whoever wrote it is in the wrong career field. It was so dull and lifeless and bad that I had to stop it midway on Netflix (as it was my first time seeing it as two years have passed since it was released) and exit out. I could not make it through to the end. Then a year or two later I looked up the Be Our Guest scene out of curiousity, and it was the most dull and lifeless thing I had ever seen in my life. And then not that long ago I saw a youtube review video that agreed with me and pointed out things I couldn't see because I couldn't make it through the end of it. And in this review video, I saw the dumb enchantress lift the spell and intrude on what was supposed to be a very intimate moment. Which completely misses the point about Beauty and the Beast. Selfless love broke the spell. If the enchantress had the ability to remove the spell then Belle was never needed to break it, it was counterintuitive. And Belle came off as arrogant and superior toward Gaston when Belle's character was always gracious and never took Gaston seriously because she knew he was a fool. She was never abrasive about it. Belle also loved to read because she enjoyed adventure. The town never outcasted her, they just never understood her. So this her vs. town thing didn't make sense. They never had a problem with reading females either so they made it seem like a forbidden/authoritative/sexist rule of law. 🙄 The town just found it peculiar. The whole thing was awfully poor quality. So extremely bad and uncharacteristic. A real shame. Because it had great actors. And they had to ruin it with so much careless mistakes and awful execution and writing and by casting Emma Watson. It also didn't make sense they had English accents.
@@twilightfades_7 absolutely agree with everything you said, especially the part on Emma Watson's acting, her fame causes people to ignore what a poor job she did in this film. I don't have a problem with subtleties like accents or dark skinned people in the era because at the end of the day it's not historical fiction, it's Disney fantasy. But I do wish Watson was critiqued fairly by critics instead of being lavished due to her following and fame.
mathsisdeadtomenow 💯 People were very biased toward Emma Watson because of her feminism and association with Harry Potter. That's the only reason why she was casted. A real shame.
Yeah, I adore the classic animated Disney films, but Maleficent, Cinderella and Beauty and the Beast are atrocities. But of those 3, I think B&B was the worst. Horrible acting n singing all around. No redeeming factors, not even the set pieces nor costumes were all that. This live action film came off more cartoony than the original animated one. I'm a pretty easy going guy, but I hate the live action B&B wit all my being. What an insult to one of the crown jewels of Disney films, just trash that wishes it can be a cheap knock off but it's not even decent enough for that title. I'll stick to the oringals thank u very much. Cheers +_0
Rodeo Varro *cue slow clap of agreement*
Yeeessss!!! You are spot on. I’m baffled at why so many people liked it.
I agree, it was terrible. The sets looked more fake than in the animated movie. Soo cheap.
To be fair, I will say the inn song with Gaston and his friend was an exception. Luke Evans and Josh Gad were good, but they were the only ones.
At least B&TB followed the original story. Maleficent is my least favorite because they butchered the story to fit the narrative that tried to make her sympathetic. You can tell they were trying to be the next Wicked, but it fell completely flat.
@@monmothma3358 they could have filmed it in an actual French village but no, let's not...
i agree with you... but i think burtons alice in wonderland is more of a sequel instead of a remake, its a continuation strenghtening the animation by saying all that happen in the animation is not dreams but memories, so its different from maleficent that clearly contradicts the animation😊
the problem I had with Burton's Alice is.....this is seriously *the* perfect setting for Burton; it's pretty much the ideas he wanks to on a daily basis, and.....he clearly has no idea what to even do with it, somehow...
I thought of that movie as more of a Burton film than a Disney film; I wasn't sure it even was Disney at first. Of course, now he's doing DUMBO, which I'm really looking forward to because I loved it as a kid...but oh has it NOT aged well, especially with that "newsreel narrator" and the "Mr. Stork" jingle at the beginning. Not to mention the jive-talking crows.
The real efect that the live action have toward the film is one of explaination, wile the wonderland werent as wierd as the original it woul make scence because alice wass a kid in the original making the more abstract wonderlan harder to grasp and racionalize, make the hole thin seem even wierder trough a kid view.
@@KingRandor82 You'd think so but in interviews Burton has admitted to not liking Lewis' Caroll Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. You know you made a mistake choosing a director when said director hates the source material.
@@LeonGun8 not necessarily; he isn't fond of Batman, either
Mowgli did return to the jungle at the end of the Kipling story but only after the man village cast him out. The live action remake randomly combines elements fron the Disney version and the original without understanding what made those elements work.
I love that live action version. I'll admit, I mostly watched it though because Cary Elwes was in it, even though he was a villain. But yeah, that version was great.
I was actually ok with the live action version of the Jungle Book...cause I *really* hated the animated version of Mowgli...
I grew up watching this movie as a kid.
@@chiara1194 Yes!!! It's one of my favorite Jungle Book movies!! The story was done really well. Now I need to find it and rewatch it.
It feels more like a Tarzan rip off.
I really didn’t like beauty and the beast remake I thought Emma Watson was a really shitty actor to play bell and she was horrible at singing and had no facial expression when she talked. They could have done WAY better
funny you should say that cause one of my (many) problems with the film was that....Emma Watson looks good....at *certain* angles, but that sure as hell doesn't make her the "Beauty" :P
I completely agree
Disney’s Coco I agree. It’s like she wasn’t really into the role completely.
Disney’s Coco - Buuuuuttttt..... OMG BELLE IS THE SAME GURL AS THAT PRETTY WIZARD FROM THOSE OTHER MOVIES! DID YOU KNOW THEY WERE THE SAME CHARACTER?! OMG SHES SOOOOOO PRETTY AND HER DRESS IS SOOOOOOO PRETTY AND SHES MAGIC!!!!
~ my impression of the little girls I work with who love the remake and say that the animated version is “boring and scary”.
Honestly, the dress in the B&B remake is the most boring and modern thing in the movie. Like they went out of their way to make the movie "period accurate" with the costume and set design (even some of the dialogue) butBelle's dress looks like something some teenager would wear to prom in 2017.
You touched on making Cinderella more book-smart and resourceful but how about what they did with Belle? In the animated film, she was already a strong, capable independent heroine who takes an active role in fixing her situation by taming a malicious Beast. The only way they could possibly improve on that is to go full third-wave feminist, which is what they did in the live-action remake. Nothing is ever satisfactory for these people with "modern sensibilities". Like no matter how strong and independent you make a female character, they're still going to find it problematic.
it was all Emma Watsons messed up mentality, "She can't wear a pretty dress because it would be uncomfortable", "She likes inventing", "she can't be too much of a dreamer or too princess-like", honestly its like Watson think that things stereotypically feminine are wrong and girls should be more like men to be empowered, which is honestly, ironically, really sexist.
I'm not surprised though since she also regretted working with more male directors than female ones (I'm sure those male directors of movies in a franchise that put you on the map appreciate your devaluing them, Missy) and had no qualms becoming a spokesperson for a gendered charity (#heforshe) while claiming feminism is for men too (not buying it, Watson).
they put fake feminism, where it's not supposed to be, and don't apply the real feminism, where it's still required.
Emma Watson as "Belle" was horrible.
I like Emma Watson as an actress, but almost all Disney live action remakes are trash.
"The live action remakes are the absolute worst part of modern Disney."
Disney Star Wars: "Hold my beer..."
I will wait on that.
No, the remakes are still the worst...
Disney Star Wars is still better than Prequel Star Wars...
The difference is that they at least tried make something new and they pass emotions..
he said that while i read it haha
Nah, the star wars movies are leagues better than these shitshows.
I think the problem in these so-called live action remakes is that actors are playing next to CGI most of the time, with CGI character that's why the connection is lost. The soul dies the moment someone is supposed to talk to a green screen absent character. But these actors need to strive harder. These modern technology supported remakes make 1930s special effects "special."
Alice In Wonderland is NOT a remake, it's rather a sequel to the original
If that's the case, that only makes it a bad sequel. And if that was the purpose why call it Alice in Wonderland? as it was the first one?.
@Jorge Vila: Yeah, the same thing happened THE THING (2011).
Alice in Wonderland was not the first one, it was Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. The shortened title was used for the awful Disney animated cartoon
It's still shit anyways. Sorry for Tim Burton, he's great tho
It's not a sequel, because she's falling down the rabbit hole just like the original and meeting all the characters for the first time. If it were a sequel, it wouldn't be her first time in Wonderland. It's a horrible remake.
The biggest problem I have with the live action remakes is that they perpetuate the myth that animation is kid's stuff and live action movies are "real movies".
I think Disney remakes are a major waste of money. At least in my case, the ones I've enjoyed the most (Cinderella & The Jungle Book) are the ones that stay the closest to the original, but spending $150 million to make again the same old stuff isn't worth it, in my opinion.
On the other hand, the ones I didn't really like (Alice in Wonderland, BatB, Maleficent) are the ones that has some differences with the original, but, because of that, they seem to have lost some magic and end up looking as a mundane (and somewhat creepy) version of a timeless film.
I don't want to watch the same stuff over and over again, but I expect my Disney remakes to capture effectively the spirit of the film (not the original story) they're based on. Because when I like the atmosphere of a film, is not just the plot that makes that effect. Is the character development that affects. The side characters affects. The animation (I guess we're doomed in that aspect) affects. The soundtrack affects. Even the cast affects. Just change one of those aspects, and the film will not be the same anymore.
must be self sabotage
It's not a waste of money if they end up making more than they started with.
Samah y Almudena I agree with everything you said. Except for the Alice in Wonderland by Tim Burton. I thought it was beautifully creative and wonderful.
My favorite is Cinderella and BatB, actually. My least favorite is Alice in Wonderland and Maleficent, and my reason is completely the same as yours. They changed them to much from the original, and thus they lost their magic. Maleficent is one of the greatest Disney villains! I'd like them to keep her image that way instead of turning her into a good person.
Mei Feng But alice in wonderland was never a disney original. There where already plenty of alice movies out that also had a more dark touch, And i actually preffer the live actions that are different. Its way more interresting to see a new side to the story, than to just see something again in real life section, with misunderstood characters *cough cough* belle.
I think the remakes are all stupid and pointless. They're inferior to the originals because they're made by inferior filmmakers.
Who miss that Disney 2D animation flow?
Me! Everyone in 3D cant express a lot of emotion and they all have the same face
@@sparklegirl1006 YES!!! all the new characters look the same. Plus, before the Princesses were graceful and had delicate movements (their hair were always my favorite, such as Ariel's graceful red locks underwater), now literally all characters are way too expressive and all over the place (how many Annas from frozen do we need)? - i.e. same personalty as Anna = Jessie (toy story), Joy (inside out), Rapunzel (tangled), Moana..... ALL.THE.SAME.CHARACTER!
Dude, I agree with you, word-for-word. And it’s not that they’re not enjoyable (somewhat). It’s that I can’t help but hear my conscience telling me that Disney’s just playing on my nostalgia. And I really do love the new Revival era! However, when it comes to these live-action remakes, I feel somewhat let down. I don’t like criticizing Disney bcuz I know everyone involved in a film works so so hard!!But I’m not sure this area of Disney has its act together.
I agree. I made a mention in another comment that Julia Roberts looked nothing like the original Tinkerbell and I was so disappointed.
Pete's Dragon is probably the most Disney necessary remake there is since the original movie is a bit mediocre and forgetable.
And it wasn't a live action remake, just switched the animation from cel to keyframe.
So was the live action one
I loved that movie I thought it was very good.
I hate all f the Disney remakes expect for The Jungle Book because I honestly feel that the filmmakers improved on the original. And this is coming from a big fan of the original.
And even then, the original clearly watered down and ruined the book, but was still popular. So feeling that way about the live action movie is fine. XD
I also did enjoy Cinderella, though I do understand its flaws. But yeah...haven't been impressed by any of the others thus far.
michael houghton I prefer the actual book that it’s based on.
michael houghton Agreed. The only ones I enjoyed actually were Cinderella and Alice in Wonderland. The Jungle Book I thought was decent. The essence of the story was lost on me. After reading the writing of the original story I think that is why it doesn't live up to what the story of Mowgli was actually about.
That’s funny because I really like the remakes except the Jungle Book . More like i didn’t like the boy who played Mogli . I know he’s a kid but his acting was a no for me .
None of the Disney remakes are good or remembered. I just realized that
Disney isn't what it used to be anymore... We need a movie that has to be genuinely made. This entire "Money is our only motivation" thing is seriously irritating me!
YamiNoGame
Mulan is my absolute favourite Disney princess and one of my favourite movies of all time. I am disappointed how they’re taking it. And from what I’ve read, they’re going for a bs “women can do anything a man can do” aspect. Yes Mulan goes to war and earns the respect of the people of the imperial city for what she has done. But that was never her goal. All Mulan wanted was to protect her family, find her place in the world and save China. The whole her being bowed too for her courage was just extra. She was never looking for glory. She just wanted to keep what she loved safe. If you’re going to war for something as shallow as “I'm only here because Chi-Fu said girls can’t be,” that’s not even close to the same as saying “I’m here to save my father.” Why would I route for her if all she’s doing it for is to prove a dum point? Especially if you’re talking going to war to prove it. And also there’s a witch? Like who the hell invented her and where the hell is my boi Shan-Yu?! This remake of Mulan seems like it’s going to be so shallow and not at all what my home girl stands for
Disney is 100% "leeching off peoples nostalgia".
Best way ive heard it described it yet.
Tale as old as time
Stale as it can be
Recycled and tame
So much more the same
Unfortunately
Maybe just a change
Singers that aren't fake
But the suits are scared
No one is prepared
Disney's Bland Remake
All of it's the same
Never a surprise
But you'll watch it all
'Cause Disney's got your balls
At the critic's side
Even what is new
Makes no friggin' sense
Really got it all
The film viewers forgot
What wasn't half as dense
Certain as the cash
The studio will rake
Hear a second time
Songs played for rewind
Disney's Bland Remake
Who cares if it blows?
We're rolling in the dough
Disney's Bland Remake...
If this was Reddit I'd give you gold lmao
Same.
Disney's remakes tend to feel really cynical to me; even when they have good ideas for changes, they tend to screw it up and the end result feels more like nostalgia pandering. The only remake I truly enjoyed was The Jungle Book, but even then I didn't love it l, and I never saw the original to compare them.
By the way, what did you think of the Pete's Dragon remake? You seemed to miss that one.
That's the one I haven't seen yet. Maybe it's better than the others but I've heard incredible reactions of "Meh" so I haven't bothered watching it yet.
The ending of the Jungle Book remake makes much more sense. It's a story about family, Mowgli understands that family is not a matter of blood, but a matter of bond. He decides to stay with his family. In the original animated movie, he decides to go with humans because he's human. That's very problematic. I'm glad they changed it.
He mentions that the moral of the original book was Mowgli learning to grow up and take responsibility for his humanity.
The live action movie, by itself, sure that ending is fine. But in comparison to its origin, it's pretty bad. In conclusion, Disney doesn't want to tell a good story, they just want your money.
zachanikwano taking responsibility for his humanity doesn't even make sense. He was never raised as a human, he has no link to human appart from his genetics, why would he have any responsibility to be part of humanity ? It's like saying an adopted child has a responsibility towards his country of birth, it's stupid as fuck. Also, Disney is a non-person. The movie was made by people, by artists. Artists that don't care about profit because they don't make it, their employer does.
Camilla Johansson you have the right to
The original book was way much better than the Disney version.
For what it's worth, I practically fell in love with the original "Maleficent" when I first saw "Sleeping Beauty" as a kid. I must've been the only kid in the entire known universe who wasn't scared of her. Instead, from the moment she first appeared on-screen, I was like, "Ohhh....I think I'm in love...!" (I know, I know: I'm weird...)
My first animated crush was a redheaded mermaid. Who am I to judge? XD
Ah yes! I quite agree with you there! I felt the same way myself!
Ah no me too
I know what you mean. I’m always shocked to hear that the reason people have only seen Sleeping a Beauty once was because Maleficent was too scary for them as kids. She was the best part! Well the whole movie is incredible. Sleeping Beauty is one of my all time favorite Disney films, which is why I so passionately loathe the Maleficent remake. It ruined everything great about the original.
don't believe I ever even saw the original Sleeping Beauty until it came out on DVD; I bought it when it came out too....just had a feeling I'd enjoy it. I had the Disney book for it initially though. Movie was a lot of fun....and the animated movie *didn't* make the three fairies brain-dead morons who not only turned on their former friend Malificent (for no reason other than the script telling them to), but were clearly too incompetent to be raising a child properly, either.
Its nice to see people who dislike the modernization of the films values without coming off as a "SJW Hater". However I still prefer the reinterpretation angle over spicing up the same film with simple modernizations, sometimes to the detriment of the film. Nevertheless, there's no denying that many of these films aren't done out of desire but do to money.
What does ""SJW" mean?
Social Justice warrior
Eric Burkheimer they honestly don't
@Eric Burkheimer or more like self entitled asshole ho use his "minority" status as a shiled wile they try enforce they worldview on other and victmize thenselves at the minor pushback, aka PC culture.
Honestly, I'd give Disney more kudos if they took the original source materials and put a new spin on them instead of making new adaptations of their old adaptations.
I have to totally agree, these live action Disney movie remakes are unorignal carbon copies of their animated versions. There predictable, unoriginal, and unnecessary. I swear, if Disney'll do Peter Pan, this will look a lot like the 2003 version. #FuckDisney
Will Lyon stfu you stupid idiotic fuck.
+Will Lyon Thank you for reminding me of yet another reason I hate the Disney of today. I don't know if I will ever forgive them for the way they shafted Kathryn Beaumont in the making of that Peter Pan sequel. When Disney made it, they brought Kathryn in to reprise her role as Wendy. But for some strange reason, they brought in another voice artist to replace her before the film was released. What makes it all the more strange is that this was at about the same time that Kathryn was redoing her roles as Alice and Wendy on TV for House of Mouse, which implies that it wasn't an age issue at all. So cheesy.
In the next couple years, we're getting a live action Pinnochio and Dumbo. Think about that. The only way these movies will work is massive CGI. Is it really a live action film when the characters have to be done in CGI? No, they're just 3D animated movies. So that begs the question...why make a $200 million dollar animated movie when...they're already animated?
And-let's face it-without even seeing them, we all know they're going to absolutely stink on ice...(which, naturally, will not deter the Mouse Factory from cranking out still more "remakes" and sequels...)
Then ten-to-one it was probably because they didn't want to pay her royalties. I'd bet money on it. There was probably some clause in her contract that demanded a larger percentage than the Shylocks at the Mouse Factory were willing to part with, and they probably gave her the heave-ho on that basis. They dragged out that legal dispute with Peggy Lee for the same reason: over royalties owed to her for the songs she wrote for "Lady & the Tramp". The Mouse Factory dragged it out for literally decades in the courts, and only reached a settlement only a short while before she died.
Yeah, Maleficent & Alice in Wonderland were frustrating because they totally disregarded the beloved animations & told me my childhood was a lie. But I love the faithful adaptations such as Cinderella, The Jungle Book, and Beauty & the Beast. They’re not necessarily “remakes” but “adaptations”. They are adapting animation into a new medium, live action, which is not an easy thing to do. Like adapting a book into a movie. Even though animation and live action are both visual mediums, there’s still a huge difference.
What the faithful films are are further explorations of the animated films. They don’t try to replace or reconstruct them, but bring them to life with more detail, complexity, and sophistication. You will find freshness and new material in expansion, rather than reconstruction. The reason we go to Disneyland is to see the characters brought to life and that's the same case here. It’s not “pointless” because seeing something you love come to life brings you a feeling of joy you can’t get by simply rewatching the original. Nostalgia is often looked down upon but it’s a feeling that should be felt!
And with that whole Jungle Book ending thing, a theme that popped up in the new film was that if you’re different, that doesn’t mean you don’t belong, and families come in all different shapes/sizes. So they wanted to reflect that in the ending. A more metaphorical approach.
Tommy Ross the Alice in wonderland remake is based more of the book. The cartoon Alice in wonderland was just made more simpler for children to understand
LilPolar The 2010 film is nothing like the book at all and hardly draws anything from it. The animation is actually surprisingly close to the book and doesn’t really simplify too much
Tommy Ross 😑
Alice in Wonderland was more like a sequel; the title was a misleader. It was essentially a feminine empowerment piece a la The Hunger Games.
Hugh S Haven’t you read the official sequel, Through the Looking Glass?
The live action Maleficent just felt like a cheap knockoff version of Wicked. Similar premise, but lacked everything that made Wicked great.
OMG that's exactly how I felt too and I couldn't put my finger on why I felt nothing after watching those remakes! And you nailed it, it's the feeling of magic being lost, to seeing all the artifices behind it all, seeing Disney for what it is. Very good vid!
Thanks for the luv!! Glad you agreed :D
I agree 100% with everything you said in this video. You expressed in a beautiful way , why I hate every live action Disney movie made so far. The worst for me was the recent Beauty and the Beast. I love the animated one, I felt they got their message across very clear, I feel there was no need to remake it, but as you said Disney got greedy. I hated the cast most of all, nobody could sing, and Emma waston was not bellel. I am so glad I found this video, when I said I hated Beauty and Beast everybody said I was crazy and had no heart. I did not care for the sleeping beauty re make either for the very reason you , just said . I also did not like Cinderella as well, it did not bring anything new to the story, I might as well watch the cartoon. they are empty have no heart and shows just how lazy Disney and Hollywood has become. Thank you for doing this video .
I agree generally with many of the points made, but with one additional point of my own. The main problem I have with most of these live-action remakes is that, regardless of how technically-slick the SFX may be, they're never able to get around the "creepiness" factor. Which is an odd paradox anyway: Namely that the more "realistic" a live-action fantasy movie attempts to be, the more *creepy* it often ends up looking. 2 examples (mentioned in the video): The remakes of "Alice in Wonderland" and "Beauty & the Beast." In both cases, the visual effects, while impressive (to those who care about such things while ignoring everything else) seriously undercut the main primary visual appeal on the most basic level (at least for me they do.) Certain fantasy elements work in a cartoon (talking teapots, candlesticks, and too many examples from "Alice" to list) but when done in a live-action film only end up looking so creepy that they make one's flesh crawl. (Watching the live-action "Alice" movies, for example, was like having a bad LSD trip while simultaneously experiencing the DTs, a severe migraine and the worst hangover of one's entire life.)
I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said. The problem with the visuals, for me anyway, is that they don't really seem all that good-looking. They try to recapture the same visuals from the animated movies but don't realise that by directly translating them to live-action they lose the magic of the original.
Exactly! And by not looking good, the visceral reaction they produce instead is kind of: "Ewwww....!"
I also felt like some things in the remakes looked more over the top rather than stunning
Yes I could swear that I read on Freud's essay "The Uncanny" something similar to what yoi describe. The things you describe aren't creepy in the cartoons because... they are cartoons. You could slap a pair of generic animated eyes and mouth in anything and give it round features and make it cute and appealing, but in live action...not so much
Yeah, like gilding the proverbial lilly, so to speak.
Maleficent infuriated me. She's the mistress of all evil with all the powers of hell whose name literally means to do harm. Not every character needs to have a tragic past.
Thank you for this video, it really can't be said often enough. The Disney live action remakes are the old animated sequels all over again. It's done purely for money. While I understand that a big corporation would behave like this, I won't support it. Disney is known for one thing: making great ANIMATED movies. Why make a live action version of an amazing animated classic? It tarnishes Walt Disney's legacy - he wanted to show the world that animation could be a form of art, and now the studio is doing the exact opposite. And in the process they ridicule the old classics. Sleeping Beauty is a wonderful movie, and if it has stereotypical gender roles, well it's made in 1959, but why should that mean a modern audience can't enjoy it? Plus it didn't need to be remade into a feminist movie, since it's already full of strong female characters. The three funny and badass good fairies (that Maleficent completely ruined) as well as one of film history's most awesome female villains. The old Cinderella was, as you say, relatable. Though passive and she's kind, compassionate and intelligent, whereas the modern one just seemed stupid when they tried to portray her as a modern and independent woman. And why change the fairy godmother from an old woman to a hot, younger one with a huge cleavage? Because every woman has to look beautiful in a live action Disney film? What's that about?! Honestly there are so many problems with these remakes that I can't ever list them all - would take up too much space. But after Maleficent tried to replace the wonderful original, and after I struggled to get through a boring and generic new Cinderella (Burton's Alice in Wonderland isn't that great either, but at least it tries to be original without ridiculing the original film), I'm simply boycotting these remakes. I won't be a witness when they butcher Aladdin, Lion King or even Mulan.
The live-action remakes actually started with The Jungle Book (1994).
True, and he didn't mention it. But that was a completely different era, and a different style. I personally really enjoyed that one as a kid. And I would argue the first 101 dalmatians remake pretty much fits that description too.
Maleficent is by far my least favorite disney remake. it just made me angry! It ruins every single character for me: maleficent whos supposed to be bad, aurora who just becomes a bland princess barely in the movie, the three good fairies who are supposed to care for aurora (instead they were just in the way), and prince phillip whos supposed to be a hero (not just a last minute addition to the movie).
If you need to change that many characters in order to make maleficent good, that just proves how evil she really is
I seriously couldn't agree more. Maleficent is one of the greatest and probably most beloved Disney villains!!! People love her, because she's mean and villainous. Making her good is just completely the opposite of what she's supposed to be. I also don't like the way they make the good characters bad, like the king and the three fairies. My least favorite Disney remake is actually Alice in Wonderland, but Maleficent comes close second.
All of these Disney remakes are just hit or miss to me. If they don’t learn from Beauty and the Beast that it’s okay to keep the musical parts, then all is lost for the remakes as a series.
I hate when animated movies are filmed with real actors like I think it takes ALLLL the magic away 😩💔
You've put it perfectly: you can actually FEEL the corporate side of Disney leeching off our nostalgia. That's exactly how I feel, and I'm so glad you've put it into words that make perfect sense whenever people tell me these are "better" than the original, to which I haughtily scoff. So thanks. And cool vid. New sub :)
I will always love Sleeping Beauty more than Maleficent, and I will always love the original cruel and sadistic Maleficent over this new too modern misunderstood rebel.
I read something about why Maleficent (2014) got a sequel (Maleficent Mistress of Evil) and it said that it got a sequel because Sleeping Beauty didn’t got a straight to DVD sequel like every other movie did
finally someone said it! thank you!
You're welcome! :D
My guess is that people like these films because they appear more mature, even though they aren't. I love the animated films not simply for childhood nostalgia, but for the intelligence and emotion. When a character is feeling or thinking something, you can see it on their face, making them more interesting. With these adaptations, most of the actors just stand around with blank stares, or they overreact to things. Im not saying there are no good live action movies that can make you think or tug at your heartstrings, but a simple drawing has so much potential and can do that easily. It doesn't matter what age you are.
PREACH
My issue with these remakes is that, I don't know why I would want to watch a version of these movies with ugly CGI effects when the original beautiful animated versions still exist.
This goes double for the Disney Rennesance movies. The original Aladin has aged pretty well and there's no reason to remake it.
As a 2D animator, I find them insulting. To have all the hard work that the nine old men put into the originals, be reduced to some live action CG bullplop.
They should just stop remaking these great films and try bringing back traditional animation.
The remakes aren’t anywhere as good because they don’t look like or act like the characters. Less well thought through
The Broadway adaptations are way better than the remakes! I am referencing BatB!
Problem with Disney: Lack of imagination as per evidence
They happen TOO OFTEN nowadays. I wasn't against the pre-Alice in Wonderland remakes as they were not saturating their slate.
What pisses me off most about "Maleficent" is that it set up an interesting idea of her past, portraying her and Aurora's father as a couple in their youths, and yet it's never brought up again after he betrays her. For the rest of the movie, there's nothing to indicate from either the script or the acting that those two characters were once lovers. For the gods' sakes, Disney, even when you come up with an emotionally intriguing twist on a classic, you don't use it! Why?
What I hate is how the lighting is always so dark and 'gritty' to be more 'realistic'..... I would love more lighting that could benefit the wardrobe they have. Make dark nights magical, add lighting and have that vibe of joy, until the villian comes, then make it dark and gritty.
5:32 well don't try make her green
Donut Dog Because she’s a fairy not a witch.
Of course you forgot about the 1994 live action remake of The Jungle Book, which was way better than the 2016 remake
I think there is an even older one as well🙊
EXCELLENT points (also love your choice of background music)
Thank you! :D
I hate the new maleficent movie. There is no reason that movie should've turned out that bad.
I completely agree with your rant; the remake of the classics ruins the heart of what made the story special in the very first place. It is the dazzle, the adventure, the wit, or the humour but the lesson. And next to the lesson is the circumstance of the story, the original context.
For me the remakes are as awful and dangerous and re-writing history; if one generation values integrity and the next material wealth, the remake of the story to favour the sentiments of the newer would or could forever alter the story for the generation that follows after. And if that generation disfavours the latest, then the story can be forgotten.
The worst for me is Maleficent where the antagonist is made to be misunderstood. the value of the original ls good versus evil but the remake distorted it to now, while we should consider how becomes what one is now, the importance of knowing that evil exists and the imperative in overcoming it is all but lost.
And the bad guy, in this case, is the King whereas originally he was good but now bad. Why him? Why change him into a nemesis? Why not add a different character? Because by changing him and showing him [SPOILER ALERT] with his army of men....battling against her army of trees and plants and animals seemed awfully political to me.
Feministic hatred of men? Environmentalist much? Is Disney trying to please the Left or attempting to convert or condition the audience? If you think I'm crazy then do tell me of any recent Disney movie that gives Conservatives to smile about? Hits of traditional values? Right to bear arms? Pro-military? Instead [SPOILER ALERT], Cinderella has the Secretary of War as the enemy,. Beauty & the Beast hints of Homosexuality, Alice in Wonderland shows her rebelling against the traditional mores of her day, and the leader of the pack is a female (which was not an original part).
Now I would welcome an even amount of hints but that's not what I really want. I just what to see a movie that is POLITICALLY NEUTRAL... and FAITHFUL to the original. I'm a Christian and i'm sure that none of you would like to have my religion shove down your throat, nor do you want your children to be converted without your permission so WHY ... is it OK for Disney to do that same?
bluejay1611 why do I agree with you so much? The worst remake for me was beauty and the beast, Emma Watson is pretty but she is no belle. The beauty of the classics was that it was able to relate to people on all levels and still leave a sweet taste in your mouth but now it all seems like leftist propaganda to me. 😞😒😒
My problem with the Disney remakes is they are trying to “fix” the originals. Wether that means the characters not being independent enough (they were), the messages not being progressive enough (they were solid themes about growing up that anyone in any age could relate to), or any of the other many reasons they changed seemingly minor but actually very important elements of the story. They never work because they originals are not broken. They were actually carefully thought out and produced masterpieces. They had deep meanings and the movies were made by the very best in movie making with lots of love put in. If Disney continues to try to make a better movie than the originals by only making shallow decisions that have drastic consequences on the story then they will only ever be a cheap imitation. The only way Disney could update/improve the movies is if they took them seriously and treated them with respect. If they realized that the classics were meticulously planned art and try to put that same level of care into the remakes.
What bothers me the most is Maleficent. I actually like the idea of giving backstories to the villains we already know and love, that's way more interesting than just remaking already existing movies, and of course for that to work you need to make them sympathetic. The problem is that instead of showing us the reasons why she became the way we know her they just turn her into the hero of the story. There's no middle ground, yeah she made some bad stuff but they just keep showing how "she's right, everyone else is wrong". Wasn't she the mistress of evil? Where is that? One thing is changing the motivation of a character, other is just changing their core completely
While I agree with you that the remakes are poorly done, a lot of the complaints you have seem to be tied to Disney's forcing of social ideology into their movies. Especially the irony of them trying to make female characters stronger, but instead making them feel the opposite because they lack motivation or common sense. Hopefully the audience will start seeing this and the films will start losing profit, before the entire past Disney library is ruined. But heavy marketing and nostalgia are a hard thing to overcome. You know, unless you go to the lengths The Last Jedi did to spit in the audiences face.
Well said. I hope for the day that Disney realizes that audiences do not want to be force-fed social ideology or feminist agendas in their films, and that they just want to see something entertaining and worth watching.
My biggest issue with remakes is that they're generally pretty boring. They may be "live action," but there's less life and far less heart and charm to them then their original animated counterparts. I found Alice in Wonderland dull and just another excuse to put Johnny Depp in another lead role (Alice actress was boring as hell, she looked like she wasn't even interested in the role, and Depp was front and center of all promotional material). Maleficent was just another movie we didn't really need, same with Cinderella. Beauty and the Beast, I hate Emma Watson, I don't think she's all that good an actress, never thought so. The Jungle Book was a respectable remake, even if some of the characters felt miscast with certain voices.
But seriously, we don't need remakes to tell us old stories we already know, unless they are truly doing something different and makes sense.
Chaikovsky is the best choice. I enjoyed this video so much
The worst part of the original Sleeping Beauty is that our title character only had 8 lines (not including singing) in the entire movie. If they wanted to remake it, give Aurora more personality besides “nice and pretty” (and no, making her clumsy or “booky” will not make her a more interesting character Disney! Try harder!)
Give her and and the Prince more time to get to know each other so the kiss at the end isn’t as sexual-assaulty.
Keep the fairies as they were! All of them! Have them tell Aurora about the curse, work together to find a solution, but no matter what they do, they are no match for Maleficent’s magic and Aurora falls asleep anyways.
Then the three help the Prince find her, wake her up, and the two agree that they would like to get to know each other better before getting married.
It stays true to the original, but updates it so that Aurora is more proactive and less of a victim, and the fairies are given more credit for the active role they played. Phillip is not as much of a creeper as in the original, and Maleficent gets to stay her powerful, beautifully despicable self. If you want to give her a tragic backstory, make her hate the fairies for something that they did to her a long time ago, and believe that she deserved to be at the christening more than any of them (idk maybe she was bullied as a kid for not having wings and that’s why she’s evil. Honestly, I think giving her a backstory just raises more issues. Why can’t she just be evil because she’s literally the “Mistress of All Evil”?)
I completely got that feeling you talked about while seeing Beauty and the Beast which didn't do nothing for me.I felt like I waste my time. Emma was such a bad choice for the role and even though she comes through in some scenes as a character , you can't see her as Belle , + the robotic autotuned voice made it worst. Maleficent was garbo also. Angelina did a great job but the whole idea of her being "good" made the movie worthless. Cinderella is probably the best live action princess so far. For me they did it right. Very elegant work , there were remarkable scenes that enhanced the original , not boring and it worked as a whole. Now .., let's hope they won't ruin other live actions by lets say making the little mermaid African ...
I always assumed they were aimed at an angsty teenage demographic. My gf and I actually call this movement the Twilightification of Disney.
I think you're too harsh on Cinderella. It is often difficult for abuse victims to leave their situations, and it's not like she had a place to go. I also think 2017!Belle is better than 1991!Belle, because the older one came off as sort of a snob who thought she was better than everyone and didn't bother to try to talk to people. 2017!Belle did make an effort to connect with the villagers and shared her love of learning with them, but that is kind of where it stops being better.
I also wouldn't count Alice and Maleficent as "remakes". Maleficent is no more a remake of Sleeping Beauty any more than Wicked is of The Wizard of Oz. And Alice in Wonderland is just a retelling, even if I do agree that it's a bad retelling.
However, I do think Disney needs to start thinking of new and original ideas rather than just copying their animated movies.
I disagree; I think '91 Belle made *far* more of an effort to connect with the villagers, and despite knowing she wanted more still managed to emphasize that she *deserved* it, too. '17 Belle is just going thru motions, and goes thru town like she honestly couldn't even care less to be there.
Original Belle gladly talked with those who talked to her. The Baker just said hello and she started going on about her book. He cut her off because he wasn't genuinely interested.
And maybe she's not a good conversationalist. Neither of the Belles seem to be. They also both tend to speak when spoken to. They're not outgoing. New Belle greeted M. Jean, but he didn't seem to take any issue with her at all.
Original Belle was more "day-dreamy" new Belle is more "aloof." Watson's expression throughout the "Belle" number came off as snobby and disinterested in the town. As if she wasn't aware they were talking about her. Cartoon Belle, at least by the end of the song, knew everyone was watching her/still gossiping about her.
In both cases, this isn't the first time they've walked through town, we don't know how they've been treated off-screen. Either way, it hasn't been good, so their decided avoidance of the people is justifiable.
for belle, well just cause shes a princess doesn't mean she cant have flaws. I would love if the wrote a selfish mean princess and in the end she learns a lesson and becomes kind
Belle in the 1991 was ALL WOMAN and she ran out to the cliffs (after the disaster of a proposal from Gaston) she sang her heart out about having adventures and wanting more. Belle in the 2017 barely lifted an eyebrow or sung with longing.
SwiftsMorrison 😂They pushed feminism way too much down out throats for that trash remake. Belle already represented strong feminist qualities.
agreed! remake of Alice was the worst and Maleficient just destroyed the original meaning
1995--Disney's "Tall Tale"
the fact that this video was made THREE years ago and, not only it still holds up, but it got even worse... despicable. Great video tho!!
Jungle book was better though
Jovany Marquez Not as good as the actual book.
What I don't understand is if Disney plans on doing Live-Action remakes for years to come, why not remake the films that deserve to be remade into something better like The Black Cauldron or Chicken Little? It would be still be stupid granted, but it would at least make more sense than remaking films that have aged wonderfully like Beauty and the Beast, Cinderella, The Jungle Book, and Aladdin. What the fuck has happened to this company?!
I enjoyed Maleficent, Alice in Wonderland, Cinderella, and The Jungle Book but I absolutely hated Beauty and the Beast. Autotune too obvious and the way they portrayed the story fuckin sucked.
Holy shit they fucking autotuned the songs??? Really???
YarugumaSou cant tell if youre being sarcastic but if you look up “beauty and the beast autotune” on youtube im sure youll find it
I actually enjoyed it. And auto tune?? I didn't hear any auto tune. What else you didn't like about it??
Shaylah M. She was clearly using autotune. She had random high notes and such. I just disliked the movie all in all.
Odd. The movie felt almost exactly like the cartoon to me. XD And I don't even like the cartoon one that much either.
Disney is living in the past. When i look at beauty and the best do not understand the need to remake a beautiful story about a clumsy and immature beast being guided by the beauty, with this live action he looks like a hairy (or a fury ) tycoon, just compare the scene of the great dance. You don't see passion, you see a dance well done, a beautiful scenario, but without soul, without passion, without the sensitivity of the camera and the feelings of the main characters, it seems that Disney did not understand that what made this film a success were not the clothes and the sophistication, it was the story about love and feelings accompanied by a beautiful aesthetic.
Have you seen "Get Out" yet? Me and my girlfriend saw it and she was disappointed with it, but me on the other hand thought it was one of the best movies this year. Think the producer of that also produced "Split" which is brilliant and I liked his comment about how he feels he can take more risks with lower budget movies and they come out better than almost high budget ones. Hopefully you can make a review on Get Out would like to hear another opinion from someone who specialises in movie reviews
I've been meaning to watch that one. Just been really busy with other things. I think I'll give it a watch today though and have my review up by tomorrow.
Posh Prick Reviews looking forward to it!
I still like Cinderella, even despite some of the plot holes. I believe that for Cinderella her sentimental feelings towards her house were important because she had no other love in her life other than the memories of her parents and the happy years they've spent together, but when she met the prince, she had a family and true love in her life once again, so she didn't need to hold on to the house so much. However, I agree about the other movies, at least about those that I've seen. I think the point of Disney remakes has to be to make to the original story deeper while remaining truthful and respectful to the source material, and I think that "Cinderella" succeeded in it, while "Maleficent" all other remakes that I've seen did not.
What i don't like is when Disney has remakes but then alter them into something completely different. Leave the originals alone and start something new
If you want a nostalgia trip that reminds you of the original classics, then just watch those films, for crying out loud! Don't watch a stupid live action remake!
HotWax93 can’t in some cases. Look at bedknobs and broomsticks. They stuck several minutes of unvoiced footage that were singing to a musical score... and eh. Voices in both pitch and cadence were wrong for the characters and the accompanying music went from a rich twenty piece Orchestra to a just five pieces and it showed. Cheap. Cheap. Cheap. It wasn’t even a remake but a reissue.
I just realized something. Disney remaking their animated films into live action has less to do with nostalgia and more to do with greed.
Burton's Alice in Wonderland made over 1 billion at the box office and began Disney's urge to projectile vomit out remake after remake. Eventually, so did Wicked with Sleeping Beauty, The Jungle Book with actual CGI, and Beauty and the Beast Again.
I bet next year, Aladdin and The Lion King will make that much money, but (hopefully) less than Avengers 4, Frozen 2 and Star Wars episode 9 (all Disney as well).
I hope around this year Disney can announce a Little Mermaid live action remake with Halle Bailey that they can cancel the movie that the film is not complete and I hope Disney can announce that The Little Mermaid live action will not be finished filming because they already started filming but I'm just hoping they I guess they'll be shut down permanently.
I'm calling it; the Lion King "live-action" remake will be the worst and most ludicrous of them all. I recently saw the trailer and I'm very certain the entire cinematography was greenscreen and CGI motion capture.
Disney's taking every movie we used to like as children so we can buy it now that we are adults, to play with the nostalgia. Why do think the Incredibles came back after more than 10 years! Or Monsters Inc., Toy Story, and all the remakes. They're watching what we love on social media and suddenly there's a new old movie coming back just after a small trend on tumblr or twitter. Make a post saying how wonderful a scene was in X movie 20 years ago, get a trillion notes of that in tumblr, that goes to instagram, then goes to facebook, and gets to mickey's ears and boom, a few weeks later you get the rumour of Disney working on bringin back "insert any movie you loved watching eons ago, that now are trendy" with overly feminists actresses to fit the whiny petitions of special snowflakes that wants to see lesbians in every princess to include Disney in their political agenda.
Yes, I'm pissed at Beauty and The Beast and Emma Watson.
Disney, LEAVE THE OLD CLASSICS A CLASSIC
I never liked the remakes! It really isn't creative. Sure they could play with the visuals, but I feel they shouldn't waste it on something that's been done already! Maybe if they create a new movie with a great original plot and characters, it'd be more amazing! Other than that these Disney remakes just show that disney has run out of ideas. I mean remake after remake? When will it end?
I don’t really think that Tim Burton’s Alice In Wonderland was trying to be a remake of the classic Alice in Wonderland but instead an alternative story to the original because the stories seem different enough to be not considered a remake to me in my opinion.
Agree with most of what you said. Especially for Maleficent. I absolutely HATED that movie for ruining the deliciously villainous character of Maleficent. And I felt like the only one feeling that way.
Although for Cinderella, I have to disagree. The message was kindness and patience -- virtues that are called passive and weak in modern day and I liked that they were highlighted. Cinderella gave her step family chances to redeem themselves while honouring her father's memory. I think that made her more brave and hardworking than ever. Imo Cinderella is by far the best remake.
I hated how the changes to Beauty and the Beast ruined the original chemistry between Belle and the Beast. In the original, Beast respects Belle's passions and supports them and recognizing this, he gifts her the library. In the remake, first he makes fun of her for liking Romeo and Juliet and then casually gives away his library to her, like, oh this? Sure, take it. It doesn't mean anything to me. Like, whyyyyy.
How cute, you think the animated Cinderella does stuff. Well, she does chores and the movie makes sure she can't do anything else.
Sums everything I hate about the remakes up nicely. My family defends them, but they're just so...bleh. They say I hate them because I am "biased towards animation" because it's what I wanna study, but I'm allowed to prefer a better story. Never have I seen an animated movie and gone "That should've been live action" but many times I've seen live action movies and gone "Why not just animate it?". With the amount of CGI in these movies, I doubt they'll age well and everyone will be asking that soon enough.
Alice in Wonderland was a reimagining and wasn't meant to be like the original. Mowgli staying in the jungle at the end is only so that they can do a sequel. Not good storytelling and more 💰. Retelling old fairytales is also a popular trend with YA novels now. So it makes sense for Disney to do it
Beautifully explained, thank you. I personally hate the Alice in Wonderland live action movie, it's makes me cringe, while I love the original version with all the loveable nonsense in it.
I hope the Little Mermaid live action can go on Disney Plus home release stream.
I've always had a problem with how we talk about Cinderella. We call it "rags to riches" story, but it really is a moderate wealth to rags to riches story. Cinderella isn't poor, she's been disherited. I always assumed that when Cinderella lost her father, she lost her dowery, (she even says this in the live action and the audience of the brothers grim would have assumed this as well). If she leaves, she leaves as a servant, with no means to return to her old status. She finds it unlikely that a "single man of good fortune" will take her with no dowry and thus stays with a way of improving her lot. It's possible that she is weighting for her stepmother to die, thinking that her stepsisters will not be able to claim the whole estate with her there (basically insert the financial issues of pride and prejudice into the tale as they would have been operating in the time the Grims brothers collected the stories.