maybe because of the karens of social media. they dont want their child daydreaming and getting distracted from real life or seeing any child misbehave on tv so they can copy the behavior. thats also why pan was dull and not charismatic and not attractive to anyone in the movie like he was in the cartoon.
Because they have zero creative wonder in their imagination. People who made the original Disney classics were full of wonder and passion. They saw the world completely differently than most people do, always seeing magical potential and inspiration to bring it into their work. If a movie looks dull and uninspiring, it's exactly because it's creators are dull and uninspiring people. I mean even the old black and white shows and movies still had it's form of expression, doing the best they could with what they had. It's why shows like the Rifleman, Adams Family, and Beverly Hillbillies still had a pleasing aesthetic, because you could still tell how colorful their surroundings were despite not having color because the producers did their damnedest to make it as easy as possible for the viewers to picture it in their minds as they watched on.
And the thing is they own National Geographic! The shows from that channel show the world in all it's wonder and glory. The world is bright and colorful! They could have easily pulled some inspiration even from watching the shows from National Geographic to make a good realistic movie...
that's the thing that shocked me about it, it's SO washed out with little vibrancy in colour, it just looks drab and boring and Neverland is meant to be extremely bright and colourful.
I didn’t understand what was tinker bells motivation in the new movie? Like Peter now can’t understand her. It’s clear he only uses her to fly….but what is he to her? They threw away the romance, they don’t even seem like friends because he can’t even understand her. She’s just sort of there
she is supposed to be protective of him but what do you base that protection on? he cant understand her and literally says that she says things she doesn't say. he's an a-hole. it was never shown that he had any affection for her. he doesnt seem to be friends with the lost boys or even wendy. pan was just a b!tch boy who needed to be saved 3 times. that was the motivation of the movie: take a strong male character and make him unattractive and weak so the woman must save him.
I lost it when tinker started whispering to Wendy indicating Wendy is the only person who tried to understand her Like... The reason why tink loves Peter is because Peter is the one who understands her the most. They make Peter a weak ass character with nothing 😭😭
Yes, the most unrealistic thing about a tiny woman with wings who can make children fly with magic dust and the power of positive thinking is the glow. 🙄 Of course you'd pretty much have to be totally devoid of imagination and joy to make a movie like this, so I guess that all checks out.
"Totally devoid of imagination and joy" just kind of seems to be an accurate description for everybody who works at Disney nowadays...possibly even the majority of Hollywood. And these are the types of people who like to call themselves "Creatives", ironically enough...
@@LochVandral this might be overthinking, but the thought has crossed my mind that the drab visuals in these films could reflect the mental state of the creators. Depression is linked to a reduced ability to see color, for example.
@@LindyLime I actually have had similar thoughts About that. Even the lack of Passion we see in the movies. You can see it when comparing the original little mermaid to what they've been showing us about the new one. You can tell the difference in the sound of the music, And the sound of the energy that the actors put in their voices. Most recent films are done by people who don't know how to express feelings and emotions, Because people don't actually experience life anymore. Experience everything through a screen. So they're trying to Display humanity when they're completely disconnected from it. No wonder Disney's lost their magic.
Pretty sure it's 100% imaginationdevoid and totally only to avoid rabid backlash from the group they pander to, since a glow can make her look slightly lighter. A capital crime apparently.
Modern Disney feminism is having Wendy blame her brothers for her mistake, slapping Peter, and taking no responsibility at all. What a hero we can all get behind 🙄
Yes, the new writers completely missed one of the key points of the original story, which was that Wendy was like the mother the Lost Boys never had. She certainly never raised a hand to them. What a terrible example modern Disney are setting with their "female role models".
She is what Disney thinks a modern woman should be: never be responsible for mistakes and be able to fight the patriarchy by hitting guys with no repercussions
@@Rocket1377 Wendy strength was in her feminine nurturing nature. She didn't force the change in Peter Pan and the people on the island. She did it naturally through showing them the Strength And the love of my mother, And the influence having a feminine energy has. Peter and the lost boys basically built their house tree house, But it was Wendy that made it a home. Not home was not the specific place But the feelings and connections they got to have with her being there. They got to experience what it's like to be cared for. To give him more Value to their lives then just survival. Even the pirates were affected by Wendy's Abilities, They respected her strength of character. They were willing to spare Wendy and let her be their mother. Without hesitation she stood strong. And even put herself in front of the other lost boys Using herself as a shield. The new stuff completely blind To the strength of these characters. So far everything new is just playing insulting and Pathetic compared to the original characters. Maybe that's the problem real people nowadays don't know how to have character personality values morals loyalty. Their minds are twisted So that What's truly beautiful they see as ugly, What's healthy They consider harmful. Was a violence they consider peaceful. And words are more harmful than actual violence. They can't see pass their tunnel vision. They project how they behave act feel believed think on the others. So that the world they see everyone is racist but them. Everyone else is the problem not them. And if you question it you're the problem.
Disney is making content for the fans they want, not the fans they have. I've personally accepted that Disney just isn't for me anymore. Cherish the memories but gotta move on. :)
Disney seems to have a very difficult time using lighting. From the clips you displayed of Peter Pan and Wendy, to Book of Boba Fett and Obi-wan Kenobi. I remember watching Book of Boba Fett with my mom and stepdad and during the darker night scenes, we couldn't see ANYTHING. I look at those clips and all I see are silhouettes. If someone has to up their brightness, then you've done a poor job of lighting. The thing is, their animation has never really had this problem. It's always been lit enough that you can actually SEE what going on for the whole movie. But I suppose that fits with the current Disney, as it's acting like a moody teenager in their "it's not a phase, MOM" phase.
The trailer for the Little Mermaid remake was so dark and washed out that even in the dark theater I saw it in, you can't see anything. Even at the part of the trailer where Ariel gets her legs and she (with other characters) are in broad daylight, it still looked dim.
I'm wondering if it's who they are hiring for their special effects. Apparently Victoria Alonso blacklisted a bunch of people who specialize in CGI, though given how the CGI and special effects have been looking in every branch, I think she might've pushed it to a company wide black list.
They also totally changed Tinker Bell (and I don’t mean the obvious), actual Tink would’ve flown faster than a bullet to slap anyone who dared lay a finger on Peter 😐 people think that changing her narcissistic and protecting over Peter personality is a fix??? Either that or they just didn’t wanna risk having a black actress playing a character with tose “bad” traits.
You made a great point about comparing Ariel with how she left the sea. Honestly she should have been able to go out of the sea, it makes more sense with her rebellious side.
It's a result of all the parents being mad at Ariel for disobeying the rules. It's been part of the movie's analysis for YEARS, so Disney had to address that.
I think they did it because Halle Bailey can't actually swim (I know) so they had to make a lot of scenes of her underwater but they're trying to mask it as "symbolism".
@@jillevers1432 Sadly, SO many people believe that Ariel is one of the most bratty princesses that Disney had no choice but to tone her character down somewhat. It seems the original's choice to have Ariel miss an important concert due to her fascination with the surface world DID NOT do the perception of Ariel's character any favors. It made many people's first impression of Ariel be bad. I KNOW that wasn't the intent of the writers, but when a very heavy chunk of your audience gains a negative perception of a character due to your writing it has to be addressed at some point.
So bottom line: they changed Wendy from a positive role model who matures and realises that being a child forever is not what it's cracked out to be, to an annoying little bitch. The original Wendy was gentle, intelligent, and soothing while also did have a limit to her (the mermaids and that Indian chief). Your Mother and Mine, anyone? This Wendy in the live-action makes me think of those stereotypical two-faced mean girls in high school: throws others under the bus even though it's *her* fault, and hits her love interest. She'd most likely grow into one at this rate. Additionally, why Eowyn worked in that scene was *not* because ooh she a woman so it's sooooo empowering!!1! Slay qween!1! That scene against the Witch King worked because she faced him as he was about to kill King Theoden, her beloved uncle and father figure: someone she loved and held highly. "I will kill you if you touch him." That nobility, loyalty, and determination to protect her loved one was what moved people the most: it was *not* an opportunity for glory, but one of protection. Her "I am no man" line only added the badassery because in general, it is practically *suicide* to face someone like the Witch King, regardless of being a man or woman. Disney is bankrupt in creativity now. The old beautiful stories told by Walt in relation to moral lessons and actual true relatability are gone. The Renaissance came and went, and today we have idiots who think they can imitate it while trying to downplay and even demoralise the originals. Competition is great because Mario and Puss in Boots point out the glaringly obvious in that people *don't want* to be lectured to or preached at, or told their politics are wrong. The Little Mermaid live-action has already caused points of mockery from many and Halle Bailey's remarks about how Ariel is now more empowered and less about a man are further points of mockery. She may have a good singing voice, but for sure, people are going to remember her downplaying and talking crap on the beloved redhead who was replaced so unceremoniously just because they don't get her at all.
In fixing things they somehow make things so much more problematic. Ariel pushes the plot in the little mermaid. It is her story. She does what she wants. How is adding mcguffins and reasons for everything other than Ariel doing what she wants just cause better. Girls should be able to want stuff and boys.
Oh man, gotta love the director questioning how Tink glows, even though she's a magical pixie, but not the absurdity of how it was even remotely possible for the kids to survive a DIRECT HIT FROM A FUCKING CANNON!! Seriously the impact alone should've killed at least 3 of them and fatally wounded the rest.
I watched Little Mermaid for the first time in like 20 years earlier this month and honestly, as an adult, yes, Kiss the Girl is kind of an uncomfortable scene but not for the reasons people always state. Ariel is not the one being coerced to kiss Eric, it’s the other way around. He’s the one being coerced. Ariel is constantly trying to get him to kiss her throughout the scene, leaning forward, puckering, she’s making it abundantly clear that she wants to be kissed. However, Eric is consistently leaning away and giving the impression that while he might be interested, he doesn’t want to and the animals still consistently pressure him to do it. He is not pushing himself on her whatsoever. The entire point of that song is them trying to talk him into kissing her even when he’s already shown he doesn’t really want to. The only reason we’re okay with it as an audience is because we’re rooting for it to happen so the protagonist can get what she wants. If people want to whine about consent in that scene, it has to go both ways (and I’ve always been curious as to whether or not that kiss would’ve even worked cause he’s still hung up on who he thinks is another woman).
Uh oh. Fair point. No, the kiss wouldn't have worked. Enchanted basically had that happen with Giselle, due to her falling in love with Robert before eating the poison apple. It sounds like the remake would have had to play an instrumental of Kiss the girl during the lake scene. It resolves the consent issue while providing nostalgia for fans of the original movie.
I totally get what you're saying. I always picture Ariel's face-palm (about Scuttle's singing) in response to Disney adding yet ANOTHER barrier between her and that kiss! But I always interpreted Eric's reluctance more as him being shy/second guessing himself than that he doesn't want to do it.
@@LindyLime Eric being shy is a fair argument. I think maybe that was the intention considering that’s what the song says but the scene came off kinda creepy after not seeing the film in years not gonna lie and this is coming from someone who genuinely loves the true loves kiss in Snow White that gets so much crap lol. I just don’t understand how people have somehow interpreted it as him or the animals pressuring her when her whole objective is to get him to kiss her, it’s so absurd.
I mean, in this versión they say they wanna make Ariel’s story “more nuanced than just giving up her voice for a man” (when that was actually never the case 🙄) but then here Ariel is never willing to go to the surface to visit her bird friend who teaches her about the human world but does it the first time she sees Eric’s ship… I’ll be watching it on the cinema so I hope it makes more sense in context.
I think that change was made because SO many parents hate Ariel for constantly disobeying the rule about not going to the surface. I mean, people have been bashing that part of the movie for years. It's one aspect of why parents won't let their young children watch this movie.
@@DrawciaGleam02 Well those parents are either stupid or stupid. When I was growing up my Mom would watch the older movies with me and whenever there was something she didnt think was okay for me to mimic she just told me and that was that. She even taught me early on that not everything I watched was real and that was what made it awesome to me! That there was more than just mundane reality. So parents, either do your dang job or keep paying these corporate yahoos to educate your kids. The latter was not an invitation!!
These Disney remakes feel like somebody grabbing something out of the freezer and then re-heating it for 3 mins in the microwave and then adding some new pepper on it so it tastes better, or something.
Hello reader if you're watching this and interested in a *good* live action Peter Pan movie, watch Hook. It's a movie about how Peter's grown up and forgotten the magic, but he sets to regain it when Hook kidnapped his kids. It's very creative and visually pleasing. :3
What about Jeremy Sumpter's "Peter Pan" (2003)? That is a way better live-action remake of Peter Pan than the current trash version Disney has made 20 years later
2003 Peter Pan is by far the most faithful adaptation of the original story. Highly recommended. Especially for Hook fans, as it's the perfect prequel to that movie.
The Tinkerbell comment kinda reminds me of when the writer for Maleficent questioned if Maleficent was a fairy where were her wings, nevermind that when she turns into a dragon she has wings and the good fairies can zap away their wings. Stories like these are one of the only times that "because Magic" can be a valid answer and not a cop out.
I hated when they tried to do that with Cruella. The woman who wants to skin puppies! Oh, but she's the real victim, because Dalmatians kicker her mom off a cliff.😂
Yes, I hate that. I know it's not their intention, but it looks they are making excuses for evil people that don't doubt to make someone's life difficult due to their own selfishness. Disney main characters were the opposite, and they always have endured bad things too, but they keep being kind to others.
Tim Burton has decided that he no longer wants to make movies for Disney because it's become "a horrible big circus." How terrible are things that Tim Friggin' Burton would use the phrase "horrible big circus" as something DEROGATORY? He's supposed to LOVE horrible circuses! That's his bread and butter! 😭
@@cynicalperson161 The original Wendy WAS classy, that's what makes it worse. She was able to wrangle that bunch of kids with her words like a young Mary Poppins or something, which is a far more valuable thing to show kids than "slap somebody you disagree with in the face". Disney just doesn't understand their own characters or stories anymore. Or even basic morals, character arcs and meaningful storytelling.
You know, they could have had the whole “breaking the mirror” scene actually work if Wendy had owned up to what she did. It would have insight into her character about being kindhearted and having integrity, and then that would be what prompts her father to send her out of the nursery.
Halle Bailey has a good voice, but from what I've seen of her acting so far, her Ariel seems kind of bland. I see many people defending the casting just because Halle has a great voice; but I contend that's actually a shallow take. Original Ariel was really lively and perky, and in the animation, we learned that Ariel's beautiful voice wasn't actually the most important thing about her. Rather, it's her sweetness and enthusiasm. Her personality is what is winning Eric over (Even though he's still hung up on the mysterious girl with the beautiful voice) He's actually decided to give up on mystery girl because he's falling for Ariel, even though she can't speak. (Causing Ursula to intervene by casting a spell on him.)A great singing voice isn't enough by itself to do justice to the character of Ariel.
Even on Twitter, you’re not allowed to say that The Little Mermaid live action won’t make a billion dollars. Mena Massoud was one such victim (he deactivated his Twitter account because of that statement and the harassment he endured).
@@Capydapy Yep, you can't dare say anything about anyone with non-white skin these days. Pathetic. It's a huge reason I hate zoomers and anyone after that generation.
Little Mermaid stans are the most toxic community I’ve ever seen. ANY critic in regards to the movie or god forbid the actress and they go full on psycho.
Bruh, the reason Tinkerbell glows is because of the damn pixie dust. Like did they not watch the original Peter Pan or any of the Pixie Hollow movies? Pixie Dust glows brightly, it flows through the tree at the center of Pixie Hollow. That's why Tinkerbell and literally all other fairies glow. I hate how Disney is ruining all of my favorite movies.
4:00 No, they are not taking the song out of context, they are literally making shit up at this point. "Kiss the girl" does not even suggest lack of consent in the first place, unless one assumes: "You may now kiss the bride." also suggests that every groom sexually assaults their bride on their wedding ceremony as well...
I think they got that "this magic belongs to no boy" scene from the sequel, Return to neverland. The issue with that, is Jane wasn't able to fly until that point. That's what made it such a triumphant scene. They even showed prior that, even with pixie dust, she CAN'T fly because she was always serious and logical. she had no Faith, Trust, or pixie dust. But since we already saw Wendy flying, this scene is not as impactful. in fact it's confusing why they would react like this. The only way this scene would work is if there was a time where she lost the ability to fly, and the happy thoughts she tried before didn't work anymore. THEN this moment would kind of work.
I think part of the problem is that these movies are made by children who never truly grew up, so they cannot understand the lessons we got from the originals, which were made for both kids and adults to learn and grow from and enjoy. Kind of like all the Hollywood actresses that came out against Cinderella and Snow White for “just waiting for a Prince to save them” rather than understanding that one was emotionally and verbally abused and just wanted one good memory and the other was a 13 year old girl who was being hunted down because she was pretty, what else is she to do but try to hide? I think many people need to rewatch these movies as adults.
4:50 "Where does the light come from? Do her wings light up?" Um, in the original her entire body was outlined with the yellow glow, so clearly her entire body is where the light comes from. Also, she's a fairy, why are you trying to assign logic to her glowing?
@@Saltedroastedcaramel omg this! But that’s also stupid, black skin looks gorgeous in golden glow, that’s literally the kind of reflectors photographers use when photo shooting dark skinned people. Yara would’ve looked stunning :(
Also the fairy dust, she was a flying shaker full of the glowy stuff, and that still glows in the live action, it actually doesn't make sense for her to be so devoid of glow, when she's still the source of it
Today i was applying for college when two of the workers there were discussing the little mermaid and one worker said the original was problematic because Ariel was forgetting/leaving behind her culture by becoming a human🙄 yikes I'm so done with the woke mindset
Yep, this movie is possibly one of Disney's most controversial movies nowadays, despite its great animation. So I KNEW that Disney would have to make major changes to the story when the remake was first announced.
With Hook’s version of Tinkerbell, her wings were indeed the source of the glow. In the Tinkerbell movies, the fairies don’t seem to glow but they leave a trail of pixie dust when they fly.
So yeah a common thing in CG or even video games is that if something looks awful. You turn down the lighting so it isn't as obviously janky. Another thing I notice is that for whatever stupid reason Disney keep doing the blurred background thing when they zoom into a character and it makes everything look worse. It puts all your focus on the CG character and as humans we are incredible at noticing details that if something is even slightly off you notice it straight away.
The director had so little imagination that he couldn't envision a fairy glowing.😐 That's not the guy to put in charge of a Peter Pan movie; a story where children's imaginations literally created magical island where they never grow up. (And in the original play, it's the children's power of belief that literally brings Tinkerbell back to life after she drinks po1son to save Peter. "Do you believe in fairies?" "I do! I do!")
Steven He made a video about how hollywood darkens everything now every time I see a disney remake stripped of all its color and joy I just think of that video and his director character removing visibility from a scene till the cameraman gives up and just places the lens cap on the camera prompting the director to say its perfect.
I agree, McCarthy looks and acts VERY lowered down since Ursula is supposed to be extremely sassy and expressive. But I don't like Bailey's acting either, too dull and unexpressive. Ariel is supposed to be extremely expressive, have somewhat of a temper, with a sort of innocence to her and I don't see all that in HB. Overall their performances seem dull just like the movie itself.
I think Strange World's flop had a lot to do with the severe lack of advertising it received. I didn't even know it existed till like a month or so after it came out.
Granted that Disney has been doing live-action remakes since the 90s with 101 Dalmatians and so forth, but even with their issues, those movies were at fun if not just cheesy. As of the past several years, Disney is putting in less effort, getting stupidly political and over sanitizing to the point that even older Disney think its too clean. Either way, Disney is losing is cinematic crown in both live-action and animation that it took decades to build.
You'd think we'd get some magical creatures on that island like more scenes with mermaids, unicorns, treasure, more fairies, dragons, lost toys, endless foods you could imagine like in the hook movie. Rainbows they could fly through, candy rain they could eat, cotton candy snow sweet water that could be of anything you could imagine, juice, milk, honey, soda, kinda like pleasure Island but it's not a trap for kids but, an island that no kid would want to leave. Adventures everyday with Peter Pan and the lost BOYS. That unfortunately is not what we got nope. We got a plain rock of an island
She was a terrible Ursula! Overall aggressive without any personality. Also they made so many weird choices with Vanessa towards the later part of the movie ending with a world star hip hop type ghetto fight with Ariel. Lots of weird choices
3:33 Reminds me of how in Cinderella 2015 they changed her motivation for wanting to go to ball from wanting a night to have fun to wanting to meet random guy she barely knows. It's exactly what they were criticizing but is now empowering because Ella rides a horse now.
Eh, I think that's okay? Ella wanted to go to hang out with the prince and learn more about him. Learning about someone is key to building a strong relationship.
@@DrawciaGleam02I just thought it kinda steered right into what they criticized the original for. It is admitting low on my list of personal problems with the film, but other things that got changed really poisoned the pre-ball meet cute for me.
@@Saltedroastedcaramel The fact that Ella did have freedom to leave the house whenever is higher on my list. Original Lady Tremaine would never have allowed Cinderella to have that much free time, which is what made the promise of going to the ball mean so much to her and made the dress scene later so heartbreaking. This is what I mean by other changes ruining the meet cute, I think Cinderella 97 did a lot of things 2015 tried but better.
Makes me sad that Peter Pan and Wendy turned out so bad. I was giving Director David Lowery some slack as he has a good filmography, and I thought the trailer was promising, but imagine my surprise that it was so drab and boring, just as people said it would be. Looking forward to when you review The Little Mermaid.
Just to elaborate on the video game curse not being an issue anymore, there’s this video game called League of Legends that came out with a Netflix animated series of it’s own called Arcane, now, I have not played the video game, but I have seen the first episode of the animated series and… It is so beautiful, every frame looks like a literal work of art, even the action/fight scenes had that beauty.
Lifeless and dull describes these disney movies very well. Some are just not working as live action movies. Of course it's not like the animated ones are going to vanish so people saying it will destory their childhood might take it a little too far but at the same time I kind of understand where they're coming from. Growing up with the disney classics... Of course the children of this time need their own movies to grow up but I feel like with these lifeless pieces they are getting ropped off something. If disney tried a little harder they could make it work. Just look at the movie "Hook" from 1991 with Robin Williams. It's not from disney and it might not be perfect but it surel has one thing: vision and imagination, proving that live actions could work out. But I do feel like disney pays much more money for their advertisement and pushing things than the actual movie. Also I don't mind Halle. At first I was a little sceptical but she's pretty and she has a beautiful voice. My problem with her is that as soon as there was backlash on the movie or even earlier she started to bash the original by saying that this version of "The Little Mermaid" would be entirely different and Ariel wouldn't leave the ocean for a man. Which only goes to show she either didn't watch the original animated movie or she didn't pay attention. I do feel sorry she gets so much hate she doesn't deserve when I think out of the casting choices made for the movie she holds up pretty well compared to prince Eric for example (just my opinion). But going against the original, not understanding it... you can' justify that. Of course it has no impact on her as an actress but to me it makes it seem like she's implying whoever watched the original movie must have ignored this fact when it isn't even an issue (same as with the change of the song lyrics like you said). Then agai I guess after it was made public she'd be casted as Ariel people watched her more closely and I know from experience when people already talk bad about you (out of context) every little thing you say makes you look worse. So maybe she didn't even mean it like that eventhough it could be perceived like this. Regarding the fact that in this version Ariel is going to leave the ocean the first time to see Eric's ship I think it's even closer to the original fairytale by Andersen where she is only allowed to swim to the surface on her (I think it was 15th) birthday (much like her sisters) and it's mere coincidence the prince's ship happens to be there too by the time it's her turn. So it's still ot because of that since she was excited to go to the surface from all the stories she has heared about it. But the way they seem to execute it with Scuttle does seem a little odd and I don't like the change about her amnesia which makes it even more look like she's doing this for a man. But like you said... we can only really judge this once the movie is out and we watched it. Edit: Oh, right... I'm also very excited for "Wish" (: (But I'm also still hoping one day disney will give us a Korean disney princess
Disney live action = Trash If they left Ariel a Caucasian the film would have most definitely bomb. But they’re banking on the “LOOK ARIEL IS BLACK NOW. Look at the good we do”
Ariel blows into rather than inhaling the pipe consequently spewing ash all over Grimsby’s face: Carlotta - “Why Eric, that’s the first I’ve seen you smile in weeks!” WEEKS and are we supposed to believe she just collected all her stuff in one day no she was always in love with the human world
i still don't really see Encanto as anything good let alone a gem in disney's line up as it was bare bones and kept holding your hand the entire time and never lets you take a moment to interpret things. not to mention the musical numbers are annoying because they don't really understand what a musical number is or how to utilize them correctly and just feels hamfisted. not to mention the lack in sublety in trying to explain character motivations where they basically gave it all away and there's a couple other things that are issues but I'll leave it at that. overall regardless disney has definitely fallen into the toilet and china ain't be bailing them out if the pre sale tickets in china are anything to go by for the little mermaid. and sadly it doesn't look like Pixar will fair any better with elemental tracking for a less than impressive box office run. indiana jones apparently didn't get recieved well, star wars is tracking to lose money again, and despite guardians 3 where like I told people despite that 1 spiderman movie that was the only one to make a billion dollars, 1 financial successful movie does not save your company. 1 or 2 failures are doable to bounce back from but with disney their consistent failures are draining money. and their PR hasn't been too great either. so yeah there is a lot wrong with disney right now.
Something about the Peter Pan that I just realized now, most of the lighting and everything else give me The Chronicles of Narnia Vibes. As in you look at how some of the lighting is and how dull some other things are in the movie and it kind of matches up with Chronicles. Honestly it's a bad movie all the way around same with just about every other live-action movie Disney's created so far
Cast her in perfect, direct lighting, add a little halo around her body in post-production, and that's LITERALLY all that you need to do with her in the entire movie! Come on, guys!
Guys, one of the UA-cam ads I just saw here was a Trailer for, and I don’t know if you heard of this yet or not, but Disney is remaking the Haunted Mansion movie. And Eddie Murphy is not in it. Now I think that’s a crime.
Earlier this week I was thinking about the new Peter Pan movie depicting being without loved ones as a happy, desirable end goal for women and became ticked off. That’s because I lost my father to colon cancer in 2002 (shortly before I turned 19) and my mother to various health issues in 2018 (shortly before I turned 35). I would love for my parents to be here to share my joys and my sorrows, my triumphs and my tribulations, so having a movie say, “Wow, isn’t it great that this woman is successful all by herself without any of those bothersome loved ones to cramp her style? Isn’t that just the best?” is aggravating to me.
11 seconds in - The funny part about that scene; and the reason it was written = it's not predominantly about "empowerment" though feminists will of course that it that way. Tolkien was a very specific writer. The scene is in the movie for the purpose of showing that no matter what magical invincibility you think you have - there's a loophole. For everything. It could have been a tiger or a puppy, and it still would have worked. It just would have made the ring wraiths very stupid to think an animal looked at all like a man. (Which again, modern feminists - please take notes) The problem is people miss that very semantical point in order to take it for more empowering than the moment really is. The character as she was written does NOT give a toss that she's a woman. She cares that she can protect her people as well as any other soldier; and will choose to fight and die like one. With honor. The only special treatment she wants to be allowed is the chance to prove herself by participation. Not because she has breasts, and empty space down there instead of a twig and berries. Not to "do it better." Just to contribute. In whatever way she can. Which was actually VERY common in the second world war effort. That's what Disney is missing. That's what everyone who would use this scene as "female empowerment" is being willfully ignorant of. For everything magic, for every power given... there is a way to negate it. To get around it's rule system. The ring wraiths were a very credible threat to the fellowship's forces. So Tolkien worked out a way that while simple, could be easily missed. By showing that the world in general does underestimate certain groups of people. Which dovetails back to his entire point with making the main character of the tales a Hobbit. Not Aragorn. Taking down that one general was an incredible morale boost for the fellowship's soldiers that helped them carry the charge and keep momentum. It was hope, when things looked grim. Which can be the most beautiful, powerful force in the world. Double edged sword or not. * Where's the light actually coming from? o. O Dude... you work for DISNEY! Disney... the most magical place on earth. The MAGIC kingdom; and you're going to freaking tell me you can't take a WILD guess where a PIXIE'S light comes from. * There are not enough palms to face hard enough that I think this person would ever feel it - they may be actually brain dead *
first, thank you, I swear people keep ignoring Sonic's movie success when mentioning Spiderman and Mission Impossible two, Disney is a lost cause at this point, they chose their audience and are destroying everything they own for it, even legendary Hollywood ips in Star Wars and MCU, even Pixar, so yeah, I hope going out of their way to do that and go to war with Florida was worth it
It's hard to believe how anyone could think making Peter Pan so visually dismal was a good idea. I'm seriously starting to wonder if the people making these have something wrong with their ability to see color.
Disney is gone. The old guard are gone. Those who care about the company no longer serve among its ranks. It is not what it once was. See how the paint cracks, the stones crumble, the verdant wither? No amount of wishing will restore it to its former glory. It too must pay for the passage of time as must we all. Let those fledgling talents that might oppose it flourish. Let those who would entertain without guile entertain. The jesters be jesters. The artists be artists. Cherish those memories you have, but do not grieve for what is gone. It is gone. There is no help for it now. Only those who remain and remember.
the Mario movie was great but Disney hasn't been taking risks just making the same movie just live action making it "better" where it's not yes I like some of the live-action movies like the jungle book but now they just make bad movies or cancel good shows or make more sequels to movies that don't need anymore like toy story 5 people were happy with 3
You can watch some videos on the making of those classic Disney films, when the writers were discussing what they should write for each scene, they were really having fun discussing ideas and combining ideas that could work with the film they were making, that's how you create films that are fun and enjoyable, but if your goal is to push for agendas, then you take the fun process out of the story.
0:42 wanna know what's outrageous? This gets a fresh tomato from the critics...while Mario gets a rotten one. And there's one critic that goes off on how kids shouldn't watch it because there's torture in it showing kids that torture is somehow right to them? Her full review is so much worse even with tons of typos! She even compares it to the live action Aladdin! Wtf!? Would love to see your reaction to her review! It's still on rotten tomato with the Mario movie!
I think it's funny that they seem to think that romance needs to be removed from movies for them to be correct, even as women pay huge amounts of money for romances where the males act in ways that are completely problematic from the feminist perspective. The original Peter Pan has three love interests at least competing for Peter, who is oblivious to it all because he is a boy, and is stuck at a level of maturity below the girls forever. He never grows up, which is his blessing and his curse. The revised version could be said to have two lesbian romances if you squint hard, but no straight ones. Wendy never loves any man or boy - her vision of happiness is to be alone forever, although the Tigerlily character seems enamoured with her. Tinkerbell seems perfectly fine with flipping over to be her sidekick. So if you're a lesbian and you like incest, you can watch Frozen, but if you are straight, then forget it, modern Disney has nothing for you. Love is heteronormative Patriarchy, you bigot. Live without. Die alone.
Hey, remember when Walt said “I dont make movies to make money, I make money to make movies”? Yeah. Modern disney would never. In other news, have you guys heard that the soulless corporation is going to remake Moana into another live-action garbage?
Disney Remakes basically a special effect with mediocre plot Thank Goodness i don't give the Peter Pan Remakes cringe show a hype and also i won't give Little Mermaid Remakes a hype either There is nothing so creative about Nostalgia marketing by recycle the old stuff , especially overfocus on useless remakes If they want go back to animation path , they need stop to milking on sequels and remakes
From the perspective of a writer, changing any aspect of the original story (in this case animated to live-action), can create more problems and not less. Disney has had a history of "sanitizing" stories to adapt them for children. So, they were already changed from teh start. Changing things to "modernize" them is preposterous and a never ending death nell for classical works whether written or on the big screen. The animated movies didn't show weak princesses who only needed men. They all have their own hurdles they traveserd well to overcome them. In the case of Peter Pan, once they changed Peter, Wendy, and left out why the lost boys were lost, the movie was doomed to fail. Once you try to take the magic and sass out of Tinker Bell, she was going to blend into the background. When you changed Tiger Lily, you have no choice but shoe horn her into the story and hope that no one noticed that nothing would change if you didn't include her at all.
Disney certainly makes weird choices. WISH has potential. I mean we don't know much about it, but it has the very basics that SHOULD make a good movie.
I love how they made SUCH a big deal about Eric and consent, only to imply Ariel disregarded Eric’s right to consent by giving her a “siren song”, that is described as being able to lure sailors. So now it just looks like she has cast a spell on him or something and he acts so, so stupid and desperate when looking for her.
What I find so ironic is that Mario and Sonic are both some of the most iconic characters in *gaming,* yet now they’re both spearheading a genre in filmmaking they weren’t even made for and are wildly successful, while Disney, “the industry standard”, crawls from one shill movie to the next.
Im honestly upset with Disney’s state right now. I actually thought both strange world and Peter Pan were excellent. Disney has all the potential so I have no idea what’s holding them back. Maybe wish will save disney and climb them to the top.
I honestly don't understand Disney anymore tbh...like...what's the point of even trying to attempt fantasy films anymore, if they're just going to suck the FANTASY aspect out of everything? not even the TWILIGHT films were this dull and colorless despite the whole franchise, and those were meant to be edgy as hell! Why even recreate a story abput a girl (Ariel for example) falling in love, if the producers and story board writers are going to omit half of her crushing over a guy because they see it as girly and weak? Why make every single disney female a rude stuck up tomboy/girlboss now when in the original disney films and og novels, they were nothing like that? Because they think all women on the planet now are stuck in their "not like other girls" phase and they see trashing anything akin to feminity, girliness, and romance as empowerment now? Sounds more mysoginystic to me than empowering! Every single thing from disney now just feels like a forced non binary sjw karen's fanfiction/ psa that sucks the fun out of everything 😓
I am NOT looking forward to Wish as it looks to me like another Girl Power fantasy since the villain is a white male and the hero an ethnic girl; but that's just how it looks to me. But what do I know. I am not really a movie goer. I prefer books.
If you want a more 'feminist' Peter Pan movie, check out the 2003 adaptation. It makes Wendy more proactive, but it puts her on EQUAL GROUND with Peter.
I will never understand why Disney thinks that the live action movies need to be dark with a washed away color palette in order to look "realistic".
maybe because of the karens of social media. they dont want their child daydreaming and getting distracted from real life or seeing any child misbehave on tv so they can copy the behavior. thats also why pan was dull and not charismatic and not attractive to anyone in the movie like he was in the cartoon.
It's less about being "realistic and more about hiding fuck ups.
Because they have zero creative wonder in their imagination. People who made the original Disney classics were full of wonder and passion. They saw the world completely differently than most people do, always seeing magical potential and inspiration to bring it into their work. If a movie looks dull and uninspiring, it's exactly because it's creators are dull and uninspiring people. I mean even the old black and white shows and movies still had it's form of expression, doing the best they could with what they had. It's why shows like the Rifleman, Adams Family, and Beverly Hillbillies still had a pleasing aesthetic, because you could still tell how colorful their surroundings were despite not having color because the producers did their damnedest to make it as easy as possible for the viewers to picture it in their minds as they watched on.
Disney could just thanosed at this point. THey are worthless. What do they produce?
ALl they have are the past, and we have that already.
And the thing is they own National Geographic! The shows from that channel show the world in all it's wonder and glory. The world is bright and colorful! They could have easily pulled some inspiration even from watching the shows from National Geographic to make a good realistic movie...
Animation > live action
💯
The 2003 live action Peter Pan was amazing I think Disney just isn’t trying
This. This again. I only want this.
As if there was any doubt 😂
@@JurassicReptile 2003 Peter Pan will always be ON TOP!!
that's the thing that shocked me about it, it's SO washed out with little vibrancy in colour, it just looks drab and boring and Neverland is meant to be extremely bright and colourful.
I didn’t understand what was tinker bells motivation in the new movie? Like Peter now can’t understand her. It’s clear he only uses her to fly….but what is he to her? They threw away the romance, they don’t even seem like friends because he can’t even understand her. She’s just sort of there
she is supposed to be protective of him but what do you base that protection on? he cant understand her and literally says that she says things she doesn't say. he's an a-hole. it was never shown that he had any affection for her. he doesnt seem to be friends with the lost boys or even wendy. pan was just a b!tch boy who needed to be saved 3 times.
that was the motivation of the movie: take a strong male character and make him unattractive and weak so the woman must save him.
I lost it when tinker started whispering to Wendy indicating Wendy is the only person who tried to understand her
Like... The reason why tink loves Peter is because Peter is the one who understands her the most. They make Peter a weak ass character with nothing 😭😭
Yes, the most unrealistic thing about a tiny woman with wings who can make children fly with magic dust and the power of positive thinking is the glow. 🙄 Of course you'd pretty much have to be totally devoid of imagination and joy to make a movie like this, so I guess that all checks out.
Not everything needs logic. That’s why we use our “imagination.”
"Totally devoid of imagination and joy" just kind of seems to be an accurate description for everybody who works at Disney nowadays...possibly even the majority of Hollywood. And these are the types of people who like to call themselves "Creatives", ironically enough...
@@LochVandral this might be overthinking, but the thought has crossed my mind that the drab visuals in these films could reflect the mental state of the creators. Depression is linked to a reduced ability to see color, for example.
@@LindyLime I actually have had similar thoughts About that.
Even the lack of Passion we see in the movies.
You can see it when comparing the original little mermaid to what they've been showing us about the new one.
You can tell the difference in the sound of the music, And the sound of the energy that the actors put in their voices.
Most recent films are done by people who don't know how to express feelings and emotions, Because people don't actually experience life anymore. Experience everything through a screen. So they're trying to Display humanity when they're completely disconnected from it.
No wonder Disney's lost their magic.
Pretty sure it's 100% imaginationdevoid and totally only to avoid rabid backlash from the group they pander to, since a glow can make her look slightly lighter.
A capital crime apparently.
Modern Disney feminism is having Wendy blame her brothers for her mistake, slapping Peter, and taking no responsibility at all. What a hero we can all get behind 🙄
Yes, the new writers completely missed one of the key points of the original story, which was that Wendy was like the mother the Lost Boys never had. She certainly never raised a hand to them. What a terrible example modern Disney are setting with their "female role models".
She is what Disney thinks a modern woman should be: never be responsible for mistakes and be able to fight the patriarchy by hitting guys with no repercussions
@@Rocket1377 Wendy strength was in her feminine nurturing nature. She didn't force the change in Peter Pan and the people on the island.
She did it naturally through showing them the Strength And the love of my mother, And the influence having a feminine energy has.
Peter and the lost boys basically built their house tree house, But it was Wendy that made it a home. Not home was not the specific place But the feelings and connections they got to have with her being there.
They got to experience what it's like to be cared for. To give him more Value to their lives then just survival.
Even the pirates were affected by Wendy's Abilities, They respected her strength of character.
They were willing to spare Wendy and let her be their mother. Without hesitation she stood strong. And even put herself in front of the other lost boys Using herself as a shield.
The new stuff completely blind To the strength of these characters. So far everything new is just playing insulting and Pathetic compared to the original characters.
Maybe that's the problem real people nowadays don't know how to have character personality values morals loyalty.
Their minds are twisted So that What's truly beautiful they see as ugly, What's healthy They consider harmful. Was a violence they consider peaceful. And words are more harmful than actual violence.
They can't see pass their tunnel vision. They project how they behave act feel believed think on the others. So that the world they see everyone is racist but them. Everyone else is the problem not them. And if you question it you're the problem.
It's ironic Disney try to create "female role model" by butchering their already good female role model, like Mulan & Wendy
That's always how feminism will be. It's a bias towards gender, meaning females are always right and never wrong.
Disney is making content for the fans they want, not the fans they have. I've personally accepted that Disney just isn't for me anymore. Cherish the memories but gotta move on. :)
Luckily re-watching the classics will never get old. ❤️
I couldn’t have said it better
Fun fact about movies: if the company doesn’t at least triple its budget, it’s a failure due to underlying costs.
They won’t be able to make that money back since this will most likely fail.
Disney seems to have a very difficult time using lighting. From the clips you displayed of Peter Pan and Wendy, to Book of Boba Fett and Obi-wan Kenobi. I remember watching Book of Boba Fett with my mom and stepdad and during the darker night scenes, we couldn't see ANYTHING. I look at those clips and all I see are silhouettes. If someone has to up their brightness, then you've done a poor job of lighting. The thing is, their animation has never really had this problem. It's always been lit enough that you can actually SEE what going on for the whole movie. But I suppose that fits with the current Disney, as it's acting like a moody teenager in their "it's not a phase, MOM" phase.
The trailer for the Little Mermaid remake was so dark and washed out that even in the dark theater I saw it in, you can't see anything. Even at the part of the trailer where Ariel gets her legs and she (with other characters) are in broad daylight, it still looked dim.
I'm wondering if it's who they are hiring for their special effects. Apparently Victoria Alonso blacklisted a bunch of people who specialize in CGI, though given how the CGI and special effects have been looking in every branch, I think she might've pushed it to a company wide black list.
Unless you count Pixar's Brave, that is. That movie was so poorly lit that you could hardly make out anything going on in some of the scenes.
6:44 the transition from Disney to Mario is dramatic! So many colors!
They also totally changed Tinker Bell (and I don’t mean the obvious), actual Tink would’ve flown faster than a bullet to slap anyone who dared lay a finger on Peter 😐 people think that changing her narcissistic and protecting over Peter personality is a fix??? Either that or they just didn’t wanna risk having a black actress playing a character with tose “bad” traits.
You made a great point about comparing Ariel with how she left the sea. Honestly she should have been able to go out of the sea, it makes more sense with her rebellious side.
It's a result of all the parents being mad at Ariel for disobeying the rules.
It's been part of the movie's analysis for YEARS, so Disney had to address that.
I think they did it because Halle Bailey can't actually swim (I know) so they had to make a lot of scenes of her underwater but they're trying to mask it as "symbolism".
@@DrawciaGleam02 sounds like new Ariel will be a tone down from the princesses today.
@@akiumzeno
Well, that's perfectly fine.
@@jillevers1432
Sadly, SO many people believe that Ariel is one of the most bratty princesses that Disney had no choice but to tone her character down somewhat.
It seems the original's choice to have Ariel miss an important concert due to her fascination with the surface world DID NOT do the perception of Ariel's character any favors. It made many people's first impression of Ariel be bad.
I KNOW that wasn't the intent of the writers, but when a very heavy chunk of your audience gains a negative perception of a character due to your writing it has to be addressed at some point.
So bottom line: they changed Wendy from a positive role model who matures and realises that being a child forever is not what it's cracked out to be, to an annoying little bitch. The original Wendy was gentle, intelligent, and soothing while also did have a limit to her (the mermaids and that Indian chief). Your Mother and Mine, anyone? This Wendy in the live-action makes me think of those stereotypical two-faced mean girls in high school: throws others under the bus even though it's *her* fault, and hits her love interest. She'd most likely grow into one at this rate.
Additionally, why Eowyn worked in that scene was *not* because ooh she a woman so it's sooooo empowering!!1! Slay qween!1! That scene against the Witch King worked because she faced him as he was about to kill King Theoden, her beloved uncle and father figure: someone she loved and held highly. "I will kill you if you touch him." That nobility, loyalty, and determination to protect her loved one was what moved people the most: it was *not* an opportunity for glory, but one of protection. Her "I am no man" line only added the badassery because in general, it is practically *suicide* to face someone like the Witch King, regardless of being a man or woman.
Disney is bankrupt in creativity now. The old beautiful stories told by Walt in relation to moral lessons and actual true relatability are gone. The Renaissance came and went, and today we have idiots who think they can imitate it while trying to downplay and even demoralise the originals. Competition is great because Mario and Puss in Boots point out the glaringly obvious in that people *don't want* to be lectured to or preached at, or told their politics are wrong. The Little Mermaid live-action has already caused points of mockery from many and Halle Bailey's remarks about how Ariel is now more empowered and less about a man are further points of mockery. She may have a good singing voice, but for sure, people are going to remember her downplaying and talking crap on the beloved redhead who was replaced so unceremoniously just because they don't get her at all.
Just with that clip at the beginning alone was enough to convince me to not see this remake.
Unlike current Disney, at least we get channels Like MJTanner to provide good content.
In fixing things they somehow make things so much more problematic. Ariel pushes the plot in the little mermaid. It is her story. She does what she wants. How is adding mcguffins and reasons for everything other than Ariel doing what she wants just cause better. Girls should be able to want stuff and boys.
Oh man, gotta love the director questioning how Tink glows, even though she's a magical pixie, but not the absurdity of how it was even remotely possible for the kids to survive a DIRECT HIT FROM A FUCKING CANNON!! Seriously the impact alone should've killed at least 3 of them and fatally wounded the rest.
I watched Little Mermaid for the first time in like 20 years earlier this month and honestly, as an adult, yes, Kiss the Girl is kind of an uncomfortable scene but not for the reasons people always state. Ariel is not the one being coerced to kiss Eric, it’s the other way around. He’s the one being coerced. Ariel is constantly trying to get him to kiss her throughout the scene, leaning forward, puckering, she’s making it abundantly clear that she wants to be kissed. However, Eric is consistently leaning away and giving the impression that while he might be interested, he doesn’t want to and the animals still consistently pressure him to do it. He is not pushing himself on her whatsoever. The entire point of that song is them trying to talk him into kissing her even when he’s already shown he doesn’t really want to. The only reason we’re okay with it as an audience is because we’re rooting for it to happen so the protagonist can get what she wants. If people want to whine about consent in that scene, it has to go both ways (and I’ve always been curious as to whether or not that kiss would’ve even worked cause he’s still hung up on who he thinks is another woman).
Uh oh. Fair point.
No, the kiss wouldn't have worked.
Enchanted basically had that happen with Giselle, due to her falling in love with Robert before eating the poison apple.
It sounds like the remake would have had to play an instrumental of Kiss the girl during the lake scene. It resolves the consent issue while providing nostalgia for fans of the original movie.
I totally get what you're saying. I always picture Ariel's face-palm (about Scuttle's singing) in response to Disney adding yet ANOTHER barrier between her and that kiss! But I always interpreted Eric's reluctance more as him being shy/second guessing himself than that he doesn't want to do it.
@@LindyLime Eric being shy is a fair argument. I think maybe that was the intention considering that’s what the song says but the scene came off kinda creepy after not seeing the film in years not gonna lie and this is coming from someone who genuinely loves the true loves kiss in Snow White that gets so much crap lol. I just don’t understand how people have somehow interpreted it as him or the animals pressuring her when her whole objective is to get him to kiss her, it’s so absurd.
I mean, in this versión they say they wanna make Ariel’s story “more nuanced than just giving up her voice for a man” (when that was actually never the case 🙄) but then here Ariel is never willing to go to the surface to visit her bird friend who teaches her about the human world but does it the first time she sees Eric’s ship… I’ll be watching it on the cinema so I hope it makes more sense in context.
That does make no sense. Guess she’s not so good friends with Scuttle as one would think!
I think that change was made because SO many parents hate Ariel for constantly disobeying the rule about not going to the surface.
I mean, people have been bashing that part of the movie for years. It's one aspect of why parents won't let their young children watch this movie.
@@DrawciaGleam02 Well those parents are either stupid or stupid. When I was growing up my Mom would watch the older movies with me and whenever there was something she didnt think was okay for me to mimic she just told me and that was that. She even taught me early on that not everything I watched was real and that was what made it awesome to me! That there was more than just mundane reality. So parents, either do your dang job or keep paying these corporate yahoos to educate your kids. The latter was not an invitation!!
@@DrawciaGleam02 so now Ariel is actually going outside just for a man xd
A rotting corpse doesn't stop being rotten, it just attract more flies.
These Disney remakes feel like somebody grabbing something out of the freezer and then re-heating it for 3 mins in the microwave and then adding some new pepper on it so it tastes better, or something.
Hello reader if you're watching this and interested in a *good* live action Peter Pan movie, watch Hook. It's a movie about how Peter's grown up and forgotten the magic, but he sets to regain it when Hook kidnapped his kids. It's very creative and visually pleasing. :3
What about Jeremy Sumpter's "Peter Pan" (2003)? That is a way better live-action remake of Peter Pan than the current trash version Disney has made 20 years later
@@kingandrewcecil348 haven't seen it I'm afraid
Peter is also played by Robin Williams in Hook, if you like his work
@@kingandrewcecil348 Both excellent film adaptations! Watch them both!
2003 Peter Pan is by far the most faithful adaptation of the original story. Highly recommended. Especially for Hook fans, as it's the perfect prequel to that movie.
Disney has gone from being Neverland to Mordor.
The Tinkerbell comment kinda reminds me of when the writer for Maleficent questioned if Maleficent was a fairy where were her wings, nevermind that when she turns into a dragon she has wings and the good fairies can zap away their wings.
Stories like these are one of the only times that "because Magic" can be a valid answer and not a cop out.
Did they really need to give the child murderer a tragic backstory? Can't we just have a villain be evil because they're selfish?
Disney's ability to add a tragic backstory that somehow makes the character blander than a rice cake is astonishing.
I hated when they tried to do that with Cruella. The woman who wants to skin puppies! Oh, but she's the real victim, because Dalmatians kicker her mom off a cliff.😂
They got twist villain pilled
Yes, I hate that. I know it's not their intention, but it looks they are making excuses for evil people that don't doubt to make someone's life difficult due to their own selfishness. Disney main characters were the opposite, and they always have endured bad things too, but they keep being kind to others.
@@fionnaitsradag5152 what's wrong with that
It's funny how a movie based on a story about imagination and wonder has no imagination and wonder.
It's quite ironic.
Tim Burton has decided that he no longer wants to make movies for Disney because it's become "a horrible big circus." How terrible are things that Tim Friggin' Burton would use the phrase "horrible big circus" as something DEROGATORY? He's supposed to LOVE horrible circuses! That's his bread and butter! 😭
And this one more reason why I love Tim Burton sm😂
Wendy punched Peter? So stunning and brave
I winced when I saw that. It sad to people who are supposed to be friends fight.
You would think Disney at least would make Wendy classy but nope.
That image is so wrong in so many levels
@@cynicalperson161 The original Wendy WAS classy, that's what makes it worse. She was able to wrangle that bunch of kids with her words like a young Mary Poppins or something, which is a far more valuable thing to show kids than "slap somebody you disagree with in the face". Disney just doesn't understand their own characters or stories anymore. Or even basic morals, character arcs and meaningful storytelling.
@@LochVandral Fully agree. This new version made her out as a bully just from that slap alone. So progressive.
You know, they could have had the whole “breaking the mirror” scene actually work if Wendy had owned up to what she did. It would have insight into her character about being kindhearted and having integrity, and then that would be what prompts her father to send her out of the nursery.
You're soft spoken but spitting hard facts.
Halle Bailey has a good voice, but from what I've seen of her acting so far, her Ariel seems kind of bland. I see many people defending the casting just because Halle has a great voice; but I contend that's actually a shallow take. Original Ariel was really lively and perky, and in the animation, we learned that Ariel's beautiful voice wasn't actually the most important thing about her. Rather, it's her sweetness and enthusiasm. Her personality is what is winning Eric over (Even though he's still hung up on the mysterious girl with the beautiful voice) He's actually decided to give up on mystery girl because he's falling for Ariel, even though she can't speak. (Causing Ursula to intervene by casting a spell on him.)A great singing voice isn't enough by itself to do justice to the character of Ariel.
She doesn't have a good voice either
Even on Twitter, you’re not allowed to say that The Little Mermaid live action won’t make a billion dollars. Mena Massoud was one such victim (he deactivated his Twitter account because of that statement and the harassment he endured).
I blame Halle Bailey stans. They're insane.
@@Capydapy Yep, you can't dare say anything about anyone with non-white skin these days. Pathetic. It's a huge reason I hate zoomers and anyone after that generation.
Little Mermaid stans are the most toxic community I’ve ever seen.
ANY critic in regards to the movie or god forbid the actress and they go full on psycho.
@@Capydapy an fake
@@Capydapy I hope the movie bombs and I won’t feel bad anymore if her career is ruined by this movie
Bruh, the reason Tinkerbell glows is because of the damn pixie dust. Like did they not watch the original Peter Pan or any of the Pixie Hollow movies? Pixie Dust glows brightly, it flows through the tree at the center of Pixie Hollow. That's why Tinkerbell and literally all other fairies glow. I hate how Disney is ruining all of my favorite movies.
4:00 No, they are not taking the song out of context, they are literally making shit up at this point. "Kiss the girl" does not even suggest lack of consent in the first place, unless one assumes: "You may now kiss the bride." also suggests that every groom sexually assaults their bride on their wedding ceremony as well...
Don't make this even more complicated.
I think they got that "this magic belongs to no boy" scene from the sequel, Return to neverland. The issue with that, is Jane wasn't able to fly until that point. That's what made it such a triumphant scene. They even showed prior that, even with pixie dust, she CAN'T fly because she was always serious and logical. she had no Faith, Trust, or pixie dust.
But since we already saw Wendy flying, this scene is not as impactful. in fact it's confusing why they would react like this.
The only way this scene would work is if there was a time where she lost the ability to fly, and the happy thoughts she tried before didn't work anymore. THEN this moment would kind of work.
I grew up with Hook with Robin Williams and it felt more like a live action Peter Pan movie than what is being portrayed here.
I think part of the problem is that these movies are made by children who never truly grew up, so they cannot understand the lessons we got from the originals, which were made for both kids and adults to learn and grow from and enjoy. Kind of like all the Hollywood actresses that came out against Cinderella and Snow White for “just waiting for a Prince to save them” rather than understanding that one was emotionally and verbally abused and just wanted one good memory and the other was a 13 year old girl who was being hunted down because she was pretty, what else is she to do but try to hide? I think many people need to rewatch these movies as adults.
4:50 "Where does the light come from? Do her wings light up?"
Um, in the original her entire body was outlined with the yellow glow, so clearly her entire body is where the light comes from. Also, she's a fairy, why are you trying to assign logic to her glowing?
Exactly...
Because they don't want to be accused of white washing
@@Saltedroastedcaramel omg this! But that’s also stupid, black skin looks gorgeous in golden glow, that’s literally the kind of reflectors photographers use when photo shooting dark skinned people. Yara would’ve looked stunning :(
Also the fairy dust, she was a flying shaker full of the glowy stuff, and that still glows in the live action, it actually doesn't make sense for her to be so devoid of glow, when she's still the source of it
Oh look, a bunch of raceswapping sympathizers.
Today i was applying for college when two of the workers there were discussing the little mermaid and one worker said the original was problematic because Ariel was forgetting/leaving behind her culture by becoming a human🙄 yikes I'm so done with the woke mindset
Yep, this movie is possibly one of Disney's most controversial movies nowadays, despite its great animation.
So I KNEW that Disney would have to make major changes to the story when the remake was first announced.
With Hook’s version of Tinkerbell, her wings were indeed the source of the glow. In the Tinkerbell movies, the fairies don’t seem to glow but they leave a trail of pixie dust when they fly.
So yeah a common thing in CG or even video games is that if something looks awful. You turn down the lighting so it isn't as obviously janky. Another thing I notice is that for whatever stupid reason Disney keep doing the blurred background thing when they zoom into a character and it makes everything look worse. It puts all your focus on the CG character and as humans we are incredible at noticing details that if something is even slightly off you notice it straight away.
The director had so little imagination that he couldn't envision a fairy glowing.😐
That's not the guy to put in charge of a Peter Pan movie; a story where children's imaginations literally created magical island where they never grow up. (And in the original play, it's the children's power of belief that literally brings Tinkerbell back to life after she drinks po1son to save Peter. "Do you believe in fairies?" "I do! I do!")
Steven He made a video about how hollywood darkens everything now every time I see a disney remake stripped of all its color and joy I just think of that video and his director character removing visibility from a scene till the cameraman gives up and just places the lens cap on the camera prompting the director to say its perfect.
I agree, McCarthy looks and acts VERY lowered down since Ursula is supposed to be extremely sassy and expressive. But I don't like Bailey's acting either, too dull and unexpressive. Ariel is supposed to be extremely expressive, have somewhat of a temper, with a sort of innocence to her and I don't see all that in HB. Overall their performances seem dull just like the movie itself.
People forget ther Kiss the girl was a song made by Sebastian because if ariel doesnt get the Kiss she umm i dunno LOSES HER SOUL !??
I think Walt Disney is never gonna stop turning in his grave.
The fixing of the problems make things so much worse.
I think Strange World's flop had a lot to do with the severe lack of advertising it received.
I didn't even know it existed till like a month or so after it came out.
Granted that Disney has been doing live-action remakes since the 90s with 101 Dalmatians and so forth, but even with their issues, those movies were at fun if not just cheesy. As of the past several years, Disney is putting in less effort, getting stupidly political and over sanitizing to the point that even older Disney think its too clean.
Either way, Disney is losing is cinematic crown in both live-action and animation that it took decades to build.
You'd think we'd get some magical creatures on that island like more scenes with mermaids, unicorns, treasure, more fairies, dragons, lost toys, endless foods you could imagine like in the hook movie. Rainbows they could fly through, candy rain they could eat, cotton candy snow sweet water that could be of anything you could imagine, juice, milk, honey, soda, kinda like pleasure Island but it's not a trap for kids but, an island that no kid would want to leave. Adventures everyday with Peter Pan and the lost BOYS. That unfortunately is not what we got nope. We got a plain rock of an island
She was a terrible Ursula! Overall aggressive without any personality. Also they made so many weird choices with Vanessa towards the later part of the movie ending with a world star hip hop type ghetto fight with Ariel. Lots of weird choices
3:33 Reminds me of how in Cinderella 2015 they changed her motivation for wanting to go to ball from wanting a night to have fun to wanting to meet random guy she barely knows.
It's exactly what they were criticizing but is now empowering because Ella rides a horse now.
Eh, I think that's okay?
Ella wanted to go to hang out with the prince and learn more about him. Learning about someone is key to building a strong relationship.
@@DrawciaGleam02I just thought it kinda steered right into what they criticized the original for.
It is admitting low on my list of personal problems with the film, but other things that got changed really poisoned the pre-ball meet cute for me.
@@CoolG97They did. Cinderella just wanted to get out of the house for once.
@@Saltedroastedcaramel The fact that Ella did have freedom to leave the house whenever is higher on my list. Original Lady Tremaine would never have allowed Cinderella to have that much free time, which is what made the promise of going to the ball mean so much to her and made the dress scene later so heartbreaking.
This is what I mean by other changes ruining the meet cute, I think Cinderella 97 did a lot of things 2015 tried but better.
Makes me sad that Peter Pan and Wendy turned out so bad. I was giving Director David Lowery some slack as he has a good filmography, and I thought the trailer was promising, but imagine my surprise that it was so drab and boring, just as people said it would be.
Looking forward to when you review The Little Mermaid.
Just to elaborate on the video game curse not being an issue anymore, there’s this video game called League of Legends that came out with a Netflix animated series of it’s own called Arcane, now, I have not played the video game, but I have seen the first episode of the animated series and… It is so beautiful, every frame looks like a literal work of art, even the action/fight scenes had that beauty.
Lifeless and dull describes these disney movies very well. Some are just not working as live action movies. Of course it's not like the animated ones are going to vanish so people saying it will destory their childhood might take it a little too far but at the same time I kind of understand where they're coming from. Growing up with the disney classics... Of course the children of this time need their own movies to grow up but I feel like with these lifeless pieces they are getting ropped off something. If disney tried a little harder they could make it work. Just look at the movie "Hook" from 1991 with Robin Williams. It's not from disney and it might not be perfect but it surel has one thing: vision and imagination, proving that live actions could work out. But I do feel like disney pays much more money for their advertisement and pushing things than the actual movie.
Also I don't mind Halle. At first I was a little sceptical but she's pretty and she has a beautiful voice. My problem with her is that as soon as there was backlash on the movie or even earlier she started to bash the original by saying that this version of "The Little Mermaid" would be entirely different and Ariel wouldn't leave the ocean for a man. Which only goes to show she either didn't watch the original animated movie or she didn't pay attention. I do feel sorry she gets so much hate she doesn't deserve when I think out of the casting choices made for the movie she holds up pretty well compared to prince Eric for example (just my opinion). But going against the original, not understanding it... you can' justify that. Of course it has no impact on her as an actress but to me it makes it seem like she's implying whoever watched the original movie must have ignored this fact when it isn't even an issue (same as with the change of the song lyrics like you said). Then agai I guess after it was made public she'd be casted as Ariel people watched her more closely and I know from experience when people already talk bad about you (out of context) every little thing you say makes you look worse. So maybe she didn't even mean it like that eventhough it could be perceived like this.
Regarding the fact that in this version Ariel is going to leave the ocean the first time to see Eric's ship I think it's even closer to the original fairytale by Andersen where she is only allowed to swim to the surface on her (I think it was 15th) birthday (much like her sisters) and it's mere coincidence the prince's ship happens to be there too by the time it's her turn. So it's still ot because of that since she was excited to go to the surface from all the stories she has heared about it. But the way they seem to execute it with Scuttle does seem a little odd and I don't like the change about her amnesia which makes it even more look like she's doing this for a man. But like you said... we can only really judge this once the movie is out and we watched it.
Edit: Oh, right... I'm also very excited for "Wish" (: (But I'm also still hoping one day disney will give us a Korean disney princess
Disney live action = Trash
If they left Ariel a Caucasian the film would have most definitely bomb. But they’re banking on the “LOOK ARIEL IS BLACK NOW. Look at the good we do”
Ariel blows into rather than inhaling the pipe consequently spewing ash all over Grimsby’s face: Carlotta - “Why Eric, that’s the first I’ve seen you smile in weeks!”
WEEKS and are we supposed to believe she just collected all her stuff in one day no she was always in love with the human world
i still don't really see Encanto as anything good let alone a gem in disney's line up as it was bare bones and kept holding your hand the entire time and never lets you take a moment to interpret things. not to mention the musical numbers are annoying because they don't really understand what a musical number is or how to utilize them correctly and just feels hamfisted. not to mention the lack in sublety in trying to explain character motivations where they basically gave it all away and there's a couple other things that are issues but I'll leave it at that.
overall regardless disney has definitely fallen into the toilet and china ain't be bailing them out if the pre sale tickets in china are anything to go by for the little mermaid. and sadly it doesn't look like Pixar will fair any better with elemental tracking for a less than impressive box office run. indiana jones apparently didn't get recieved well, star wars is tracking to lose money again, and despite guardians 3 where like I told people despite that 1 spiderman movie that was the only one to make a billion dollars, 1 financial successful movie does not save your company. 1 or 2 failures are doable to bounce back from but with disney their consistent failures are draining money. and their PR hasn't been too great either.
so yeah there is a lot wrong with disney right now.
I lose my faith on remakes
Since failure of Mulan and Pinnochio ,
No Remakes that i didn't ask for
This shows why animation is a superior form of visual-storytelling
Well it's because Disney's brain is out of the gutter... And by out... I mean waaaaay out.
Something about the Peter Pan that I just realized now, most of the lighting and everything else give me The Chronicles of Narnia Vibes. As in you look at how some of the lighting is and how dull some other things are in the movie and it kind of matches up with Chronicles. Honestly it's a bad movie all the way around same with just about every other live-action movie Disney's created so far
"Do her wings light up?" *YES. BECAUSE SHE'S A F&CKING FAIRY!!!!!* Jeeeeeesus.....
Cast her in perfect, direct lighting, add a little halo around her body in post-production, and that's LITERALLY all that you need to do with her in the entire movie! Come on, guys!
Did they seriously ripped off that concept from Pan where Peter and Hook used to be best friends before Hook betrays Peter?
Well, it's not a bad concept in itself......
There are some interesting ways to play around with that idea.....
@@DrawciaGleam02 Good point
Guys, one of the UA-cam ads I just saw here was a Trailer for, and I don’t know if you heard of this yet or not, but Disney is remaking the Haunted Mansion movie.
And Eddie Murphy is not in it. Now I think that’s a crime.
Earlier this week I was thinking about the new Peter Pan movie depicting being without loved ones as a happy, desirable end goal for women and became ticked off. That’s because I lost my father to colon cancer in 2002 (shortly before I turned 19) and my mother to various health issues in 2018 (shortly before I turned 35). I would love for my parents to be here to share my joys and my sorrows, my triumphs and my tribulations, so having a movie say, “Wow, isn’t it great that this woman is successful all by herself without any of those bothersome loved ones to cramp her style? Isn’t that just the best?” is aggravating to me.
11 seconds in - The funny part about that scene; and the reason it was written = it's not predominantly about "empowerment" though feminists will of course that it that way. Tolkien was a very specific writer. The scene is in the movie for the purpose of showing that no matter what magical invincibility you think you have - there's a loophole. For everything. It could have been a tiger or a puppy, and it still would have worked. It just would have made the ring wraiths very stupid to think an animal looked at all like a man. (Which again, modern feminists - please take notes)
The problem is people miss that very semantical point in order to take it for more empowering than the moment really is. The character as she was written does NOT give a toss that she's a woman. She cares that she can protect her people as well as any other soldier; and will choose to fight and die like one. With honor. The only special treatment she wants to be allowed is the chance to prove herself by participation. Not because she has breasts, and empty space down there instead of a twig and berries. Not to "do it better." Just to contribute. In whatever way she can. Which was actually VERY common in the second world war effort. That's what Disney is missing. That's what everyone who would use this scene as "female empowerment" is being willfully ignorant of. For everything magic, for every power given... there is a way to negate it. To get around it's rule system. The ring wraiths were a very credible threat to the fellowship's forces. So Tolkien worked out a way that while simple, could be easily missed. By showing that the world in general does underestimate certain groups of people. Which dovetails back to his entire point with making the main character of the tales a Hobbit. Not Aragorn. Taking down that one general was an incredible morale boost for the fellowship's soldiers that helped them carry the charge and keep momentum. It was hope, when things looked grim. Which can be the most beautiful, powerful force in the world. Double edged sword or not.
* Where's the light actually coming from? o. O Dude... you work for DISNEY! Disney... the most magical place on earth. The MAGIC kingdom; and you're going to freaking tell me you can't take a WILD guess where a PIXIE'S light comes from. * There are not enough palms to face hard enough that I think this person would ever feel it - they may be actually brain dead *
to the top, you go!
also she had help too she didn't solo the wraith
Can't wait to see how drab the Moana remake will look compared to the original from, like, 6 years ago
first, thank you, I swear people keep ignoring Sonic's movie success when mentioning Spiderman and Mission Impossible
two, Disney is a lost cause at this point, they chose their audience and are destroying everything they own for it, even legendary Hollywood ips in Star Wars and MCU, even Pixar, so yeah, I hope going out of their way to do that and go to war with Florida was worth it
It's hard to believe how anyone could think making Peter Pan so visually dismal was a good idea. I'm seriously starting to wonder if the people making these have something wrong with their ability to see color.
2:19 Furthermore, fairytales always bring positive messages.
Disney is gone.
The old guard are gone.
Those who care about the company no longer serve among its ranks.
It is not what it once was.
See how the paint cracks, the stones crumble, the verdant wither?
No amount of wishing will restore it to its former glory.
It too must pay for the passage of time as must we all.
Let those fledgling talents that might oppose it flourish.
Let those who would entertain without guile entertain.
The jesters be jesters.
The artists be artists.
Cherish those memories you have, but do not grieve for what is gone.
It is gone.
There is no help for it now.
Only those who remain and remember.
Hitting Peter Pan? This what you teach kids?
And what's point of having mermaids just in the trailer?
So many wrongs
It's a girl hitting a boy, so it's okay. Violence against males is acceptable.
It's not meant to spread a message
It was self defense
And why give the mermaids tentacles? They're not mermaids, they're grindylows like Ursula!
I don't think DIsney will learn their lesson and will still fix their old movies with "improved" live action remake
the Mario movie was great but Disney hasn't been taking risks just making the same movie just live action making it "better" where it's not yes I like some of the live-action movies like the jungle book but now they just make bad movies or cancel good shows or make more sequels to movies that don't need anymore like toy story 5 people were happy with 3
You can watch some videos on the making of those classic Disney films, when the writers were discussing what they should write for each scene, they were really having fun discussing ideas and combining ideas that could work with the film they were making, that's how you create films that are fun and enjoyable, but if your goal is to push for agendas, then you take the fun process out of the story.
0:42 wanna know what's outrageous? This gets a fresh tomato from the critics...while Mario gets a rotten one. And there's one critic that goes off on how kids shouldn't watch it because there's torture in it showing kids that torture is somehow right to them? Her full review is so much worse even with tons of typos! She even compares it to the live action Aladdin! Wtf!? Would love to see your reaction to her review! It's still on rotten tomato with the Mario movie!
I think it's funny that they seem to think that romance needs to be removed from movies for them to be correct, even as women pay huge amounts of money for romances where the males act in ways that are completely problematic from the feminist perspective.
The original Peter Pan has three love interests at least competing for Peter, who is oblivious to it all because he is a boy, and is stuck at a level of maturity below the girls forever. He never grows up, which is his blessing and his curse.
The revised version could be said to have two lesbian romances if you squint hard, but no straight ones. Wendy never loves any man or boy - her vision of happiness is to be alone forever, although the Tigerlily character seems enamoured with her. Tinkerbell seems perfectly fine with flipping over to be her sidekick.
So if you're a lesbian and you like incest, you can watch Frozen, but if you are straight, then forget it, modern Disney has nothing for you. Love is heteronormative Patriarchy, you bigot. Live without. Die alone.
Hey, remember when Walt said “I dont make movies to make money, I make money to make movies”? Yeah. Modern disney would never. In other news, have you guys heard that the soulless corporation is going to remake Moana into another live-action garbage?
3:46 She wanted him to check her lips for fish hooks. Common practise in atlantis, lol
😂
Disney Remakes basically
a special effect with mediocre plot
Thank Goodness i don't give the Peter Pan Remakes cringe show a hype and also i won't give Little Mermaid Remakes a hype either
There is nothing so creative about Nostalgia marketing by recycle the old stuff , especially overfocus on useless remakes
If they want go back to animation path , they need stop to milking on sequels and remakes
Disney just not the same
All I can say in regards to the Sonic and Mario movies is this. When is the Smash Bros movie?
From the perspective of a writer, changing any aspect of the original story (in this case animated to live-action), can create more problems and not less.
Disney has had a history of "sanitizing" stories to adapt them for children. So, they were already changed from teh start. Changing things to "modernize" them is preposterous and a never ending death nell for classical works whether written or on the big screen.
The animated movies didn't show weak princesses who only needed men. They all have their own hurdles they traveserd well to overcome them.
In the case of Peter Pan, once they changed Peter, Wendy, and left out why the lost boys were lost, the movie was doomed to fail. Once you try to take the magic and sass out of Tinker Bell, she was going to blend into the background. When you changed Tiger Lily, you have no choice but shoe horn her into the story and hope that no one noticed that nothing would change if you didn't include her at all.
Disney certainly makes weird choices.
WISH has potential. I mean we don't know much about it, but it has the very basics that SHOULD make a good movie.
I love how they made SUCH a big deal about Eric and consent, only to imply Ariel disregarded Eric’s right to consent by giving her a “siren song”, that is described as being able to lure sailors. So now it just looks like she has cast a spell on him or something and he acts so, so stupid and desperate when looking for her.
What I find so ironic is that Mario and Sonic are both some of the most iconic characters in *gaming,* yet now they’re both spearheading a genre in filmmaking they weren’t even made for and are wildly successful, while Disney, “the industry standard”, crawls from one shill movie to the next.
Im honestly upset with Disney’s state right now. I actually thought both strange world and Peter Pan were excellent. Disney has all the potential so I have no idea what’s holding them back. Maybe wish will save disney and climb them to the top.
Why’s it look so grainy as well?
WHEW, chile the ghetto.
Oh the ghetto. The ghetto...
I honestly don't understand Disney anymore tbh...like...what's the point of even trying to attempt fantasy films anymore, if they're just going to suck the FANTASY aspect out of everything? not even the TWILIGHT films were this dull and colorless despite the whole franchise, and those were meant to be edgy as hell!
Why even recreate a story abput a girl (Ariel for example) falling in love, if the producers and story board writers are going to omit half of her crushing over a guy because they see it as girly and weak?
Why make every single disney female a rude stuck up tomboy/girlboss now when in the original disney films and og novels, they were nothing like that? Because they think all women on the planet now are stuck in their "not like other girls" phase and they see trashing anything akin to feminity, girliness, and romance as empowerment now? Sounds more mysoginystic to me than empowering!
Every single thing from disney now just feels like a forced non binary sjw karen's fanfiction/ psa that sucks the fun out of everything 😓
Going to be honest, didnt even know the peter pan remake had came out
And they cancelled owl house for this!!!
I am NOT looking forward to Wish as it looks to me like another Girl Power fantasy since the villain is a white male and the hero an ethnic girl; but that's just how it looks to me. But what do I know. I am not really a movie goer. I prefer books.
They have been brought low, and I do not believe they can recover.
Disney is the dumpster fire that want stop.
I didn’t even knew that had a Peter Pan remake
Given their business practices, I’m not surprised at any of these issues they’re facing.
Well said.
If you want a more 'feminist' Peter Pan movie, check out the 2003 adaptation. It makes Wendy more proactive, but it puts her on EQUAL GROUND with Peter.