I really liked the idea of live-action remakes when it all began. I thought that it was nice that it was finally technically possible to create live-action movies that Walt Disney Studios couldn't create back at the time. I was just disappointed with the quality of some of these stories. I liked "Cinderella" though. And also I have just watched "Aladdin", and, while it's too early for me to establish how I feel about this movie, I think I like it, too.

@SuperMakki

3 жыл бұрын

Cinderella is my favorite one too, I like it almost as much as the original

@enrozen

3 жыл бұрын

@@SuperMakki yes, I like how respectfully they approached the original movie. It was exactly what I needed from the remake.

Disney had officially crossed the line when they announced live-action Moana as early as 2023, like seriously! Not every animated Disney masterpiece needs a live-action remake at all! I also find it unfair that so many instagrammers harass Sydney Agudong, yet they defend Halle Bailey, despite people's reasons for disliking Halle Bailey's casting role as Ariel being relatively the same as Sydney Agudong's casting role as Nani Pelekai! 😭💔🤬

What this guys saying sort of makes sense. It's not really Disney's fault for producing bad live actions, it's just that that stuff sells and when Disney has tried something original it's failed through no fault of their own.

@SuperMakki

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you. Go with what works right? Though I would argue Disney’s ‘fault’ is making lame movies, it still doesn’t change the fact that they DO try original ideas

really fun video and I like someone is finally showing Disney's POV all though those remakes could have been so much better :I (I am talking to you mulan)

@SuperMakki

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah Mulan sucked, I can't deny

Don't get me wrong, I love The Jungle Book and while I haven't seen Cinderella, I have heard positives about it, but I'm not a big fan of the Disney remakes only depending on the storytelling, along with the original live-action films.

Still holding out for Tron 3.

@SuperMakki

4 жыл бұрын

Amen! Legacy was actually more successful than any of the live action originals in the last 10 years. It deserved something more than it got. You can still see it’s one of the most requested sequels!

John Carter was actually a decent movie. They may have spent a lot on marketing, but the marketing department had no idea what to do with it.

That makes me so sad I miss the old disney of my childhood

this shit really pisses me off & it has 2 stop. the movies r perfect just the way they r & should stay that way. i just saw the teaser of the live action little mermaid yesterday & im pissed

I do enjoy Disney's live Action pictures... It still makes me sad how they seem to have completely given up on traditional/2d animation when it comes to movies...

I've only seen jungle book and maleficent. I couldn't bring myself to watch any of the others. I miss the animations. I actually liked Carter and Tommorowland.

@SuperMakki

11 ай бұрын

I guess you aren’t missing much though Cinderella is worth a look at least. I like it the most. None come close to the originals however. Also I love Tomorrowland as well, making a video on it to boot

....please not the lady and the tramp! Why?? oh why?

I don't want to make do with mediocrity, I know we have to, if we want to see "new" disney content, all Disney is doing with the remakes is cash in on fanbases of original masterpieces and ruining the trust they built up, and the sequel of Alice in Wonderland shows that people didn't enjoy the first live action remake. If you ask me they shoot themselves in the foot, and burn the precious trust they managed to build up with the animated masterpieces. Nice video tho =) Ps: the tomatometer is not what indicates wether the movie was good or not, the audience score is. The critics are partially bought by producers, which makes their opinions unreliable. Furthermore, there are only a few critics vs tens of thousands of people in the audience score.

Remakes of animation films are cool And for the sake of disney I hope they stay alive till the day I die

Why though? Why take a huge risk for a thing that probably dont give success? Sorry but as a fan of Jordan Peterson taking a risk that could give huge payoff is a myth. If thats the case gamblers could be at least millionaires by now. Even in entertainment industry like movies most of its history are just borrowed from other popular literature at that time. One huge example is Disney Snow White and 7 dwarfs, which is based on the same folk tale with the same title. There are PR and marketing people that Disney can consult what there audience really wants. Or this is just a big case of hubris?

@SuperMakki

3 жыл бұрын

That's a good question! It's only hubris in the sense that Disney can afford to make lame live-action movies. In point of fact, the problem isn't that they keep trying new things. It's that they do it wrong. First, a movie being based on popular literature, let alone an old fairy tale, has never been a guarantee of success. Jack and the Beanstalk from a few years ago? Fail. John Carter? Fail. Eragon (white-hot in 2006)? Fail. Disney's very existence is predicated on a risk that gave a huge payoff. The company quite literally was broke when it finished Snow White in 1937. Anything less that a smash hit would have killed the studio. Make no mistake, it was a huge risk: no one thought animated features would catch on. The fact it was based on a folk tale has little to do with it. The Snow White story wasn't exactly setting the world on fire in 1937. Back to the main point: no business in the arts industry could possibly survive without creating, or acquiring, new things. It's why Disney bought Marvel/Star Wars, and constantly creates new brands, like Frozen, Moana, and Big Hero 6. They're relying more on nostalgia, sure, but they still experiment with original movies because of the chance they get another Frozen or Pirates of the Caribbean. It also helps that they have lots of money to be able to withstand these live action failures.

@iidrlc5460

3 жыл бұрын

@@SuperMakki I asked that last comment because I will be frank I will defend Disney here. And I will defend them in a nihilistic fashion because in the end, Disney is a institution. Its already in worldwide culture. As what Jordan Peterson said in figure of speech manner, Disney already beaten the dragon in dark cave and already got the holy grail. What could Disney do is just share there experience and share knowledge for other new media that want to explore the dark cave to beat the dragon. Thats what these fans including you sadly dont get. Theres nothing Disney can be created new in there IPs. Even Pirates of the Carribean is just a old IP, a classic ride even that adapted to movie series. Thats why there original movies failed and there live action remake mostly commercial success. You posted Snow White and 7 dwarfs is a risk to them which just proves my point. They conquer the dark cave and get the holy grail with commercial success and a oscar. What can Disney do at this point is just ride its success. Theres a new dark cave Disney have to explore in there dark age. Thats why we have the reneissance with The Little Mermaid because they also conquer that cave. But after that Disney cant just do anything but just do the same thing they always do. In fact its too profitable what Disney could just do is to make direct to video sequels of there classic IPs and movies in 00s. Especially the animated ones. Contrary to popular belief on internet, the direct to video sequels are actually same revenue as there animated and live action movie hits without the huge risk of creating new cinematic movies

Remakes are fine and great, IF DONE RIGHT. Cinderella was done very well, used a Real Life Cinderella (drop dead gorgeous Angel) kept TRUE to the Original Story and Characters. Thats the Key. Once they deviate from that, it becomes Trash. It becomes Theft of their own IP and a slap in the Face of the Original story writers. Also ... Disney really needs not to do so dam many of them so dam quickly. The quality of the vast majority of Live Action Remakes are pure fecal matter dumpster fires. I will NEVER watch the vast majority of these Remakes, Ever, Period. Based on the Trailer and Reviews alone, I know, I not missing a dam second of my life from watching that Garbage. Look what disney did to WILLOW ... that was a homerun by even the most freshman of hollywood writers, yet somehow, Disney completely Destroyed that and Failed so horribly it was laughable. There is a cancer inside Disney today. Its called Wokeism. Its called the Trans Movement. Its called Socialism and the Extreme Far Left Politics of Hollywood.

So the answer is that Disney make live actions for money. That's a corrupted mindset. Like, I get it. The remakes don't replace originality because Disney make OG movies too. However, the problem is that it makes the money feel unearned. The animated movies were so beloved so blinded nostalgia nerds pay to see them in a new coat of paint. Money should be earned by high quality products, not by nostalgia baiting. If Disney wants money in a fair way that no one will complain about, they need to make Frozens, not remakes. By saying more Frozens I didn't mean more frozen sequels, I meant more original movies that got popular by themselves and were box office leaders. That way people will agree that the money Disney made is earned and won't dislike the company. Companies need money to operate, I get it. Disney didn't stop with originality. But to think that the money spent on making the remakes could've been used to make another new animated movie is kinda sad.

@SuperMakki

3 жыл бұрын

I think you're too hung up on "fair." All of Disney's revenue is fair, because at the end of the day people willingly bought tickets to watch these live action remakes. Even if the movies are mediocre, they are solidly produced. Unoriginal doesn't mean garbage. The problem is that when Disney decides to do something live action and original, they fall on their feet. These remakes are being made in place of original live action movies, not animation. They still do make original animated movies. Frozen 2 was a one-off thing. They even have Raya, a total original, coming out next month.

@roiitzkovich4545

3 жыл бұрын

@@SuperMakki By saying fair I mean gaining popularity by a word of mouth. People loved the movie and recommanded it to others. By saying unfair I mean riding on past success to get a quick buck. Other companies try originality constantly to gain popularity, but Disney has the advantage of nostalgic fans, which is an unfair advantage, leading to earning unfair money. For Frozen 2 I'm giving a pass because it was heavily original storywise and turned out damn great. Now, I have nothing against the crews behind the makings of these live-action remakes. I'm sure they put their heart and soul, their blood and sweat in effort to make the movies as polished as possible. It's the company going too safe just to produce other stuff. I like some of Disney's original movies, but to see that they get fonded by cold corporative and not by pure original good movies makes Disney look bad. The thing is that they obviously know what we feel about these, yet they don't stop. They have 2 options: A. To keep producing them and earning money, but keep getting backlashed. B. To stop making them and attempting to get solid money earning by pure originality. They decided to choose A so they shouldn't complain about the resulted backlash, as they brought it upon themselves knowingly and intentionally.

It’s the “wokeness” or forced diversity/inclusivity that annoys me in their recent live action remakes

Most of the examples you have of "original" films aren't though. They're based on book, theme park rides, TV shows, etc. If these are your best examples of Disney originality, it's a tacit admission that the closest Disney got to originality was a decade or more ago and even those were other people's stories with what Disney believed to have pre-existing brand recognition. You argument about Disney "just doing what is successful" is also debatable. Despite what you said about consistency, Aladdin's reviews were mixed at best, and Dumbo, which came out before you made this video, had straight up bad reviews. The Jungle Book remake you mention was actually the second one Disney made, with the first one flopping badly. The 101 Dalmatians remake and sequel had bad reviews, as did Maleficent 1 and 2 (well, I guess you could call the first one's mixed). So they're not consistently getting good/great reviews and huge success and they're not forcing Disney to reluctantly abandon originality. This is just Disney doing what they've always done, just a bit more blatantly.

@SuperMakki

3 жыл бұрын

You seem to consider adaptations as unoriginal. I guess in the literal sense they are, but the video doesn't imply that the "originals" were the creation of that IP. I mean that the adaptation was itself an original interpretation and wasn't a sequel/reboot/remake. Die Hard, Star Wars, Avatar, and every comic book movie ever, are all original works in my definition, despite being adaptations, or taking numerous ideas from other work. Your definition does them a disservice, in my opinion. Plenty of effort and creativity went into making these works their own thing. Why has only one version of Snow White, for example, stuck while countless others are forgotten? What do you consider "original" if not the ones I mentioned? I consider Bambi, for example, to be "original" in the sense that it wasn't a sequel or remake, and was a standalone work, as were most Disney films in the Walt era. Tarzan, Narnia, Frozen, etc all fit the same category. All were adaptations, yes, but not remakes and not sequels, i.e they were "new" Your second argument is also misleading. I never claimed these remakes were Oscar material. And "mixed" is not "bad." There's a clear decency in them, except Dumbo, which was the only one with bad critical and box office reception. And in any case, Disney doesn't release these remakes for critics. Aladdin and Jungle Book grossed a billion plus. They were objectively successful, whether critics liked them or not. Do you think Disney printed the billion dollars out of thin air? People obviously liked them. In fact both are probably getting sequels too. Also you seem to gloss over Cinderella, Christopher Robin, and Jungle Book 2016's reviews, which were quite good. Finally, this video specifically deals with the wave or remakes since 2010. I'm pretty sure I point that out. Yeah Disney tried it in the 90's, but it didn't work.

@olivergiggins7931

3 жыл бұрын

@@SuperMakki You can consider an adaptation "original" all you want, but as you yourself have just admitted, that's not what the word actually means. "Original" is not the opposite of "remake" and me pointing out that you are not using the word in its proper definition is not a reflection on the work itself. Many of the best films of all time (and some of my favourites) are adaptations, because there is nothing wrong with that. But that doesn't make them original in the same way that a piece of cheese being good doesn't make it a goat. Saying it isn't a goat isn't an insult to the cheese, and I didn't say that it was. But equally, changing the medium of a story doesn't make that story "new", because that's not what those words mean. And "new" doesn't mean good or bad, so calling something an adaptation isn't insulting it. Adaptations are difficult and a lot of talent goes into making them. But, again, if you are using someone else's characters, stories, locations and situations, you are not making your own. In what way is the Mary Poppins film original and the Cinderella film isn't? Is it just because the latter adaptation is between two visual mediums? Would a Mary Poppins comic book therefore be an adaptation, but a Mary Poppins radio play be an "original" work to you? Different mediums take different levels of change in the adaptation process, but that doesn't make them not based on something. If I print the text of your video, does me restructuring it for a new medium now make it my original work? No. And me setting it to music wouldn't make your words and ideas mine either. Did I say you claimed those remakes were Oscar material? No. I was answering the claim you made in the video about the responses to these films being consistent, which is an odd way of describing a range of films, some of which make over a billion dollars and some of which flop with both critics and audiences. The reason I didn't highlight that some of these films had been successful, apart from the fact that you already had and I don't feel the need to repeat someone's last statement before answering it in every conversation I have, is because that wasn't relevant. I wasn't saying none of them were successful, I was pointing out that, if Disney stopped doing things simply because audiences didn't flock to them, then we wouldn't have multiple Jungle Book remakes. Disney didn't abandon "original" work because it wasn't successful. As we've already established, any definition of "original" that includes most of their output is using the word in a highly subjective meaning which goes against that of the actual word Disney has always prioritised the tried and tested. Of the 20 most successful franchises of all time, they own 5,5 and the only ones in that list they created are Frozen and Pirates of the Caribbean, both of which are adaptations. All the others they bought after they were already successful. Many different screenwriters and creatives have testified to having meetings at Disney where it was made very clear to them that only pitches around previously established properties were wanted (the writers of A Quiet Place being some of the more recent examples.) Disney has never been the home of Original Works, and that is quite simply a fact. Whether that is also an insult is a value judgement which each makes on their own.