There is a beautiful version of Moana already. I can't imagine needing to see this. I don't hate these remakes for existing, but I just don't see the point.
I mean yes on average but potentially no on the trend. The whole point is to de-risk their bullshit, if they view this as a trend instead of an isolated incident other projects might be more likely to get greenlit instead of recycled stories. Pretty much any soulless cash grab bombing incentivizes making actual art.
If they thought they had a good chance of losing that much money, they wouldn't have made the movie. The news here is more about how their risk calculations were off.
The movie's made nearly 100 mill worldwide. With brand new IP there's no guarantee to even get that much. Plus you'd need more marketing, etc.
They lost, but the risk was smaller than it could've been.
Think about two different scenarios:
Brand new IP, movie costs 250 mill to make, it could be the next Avatar and make well over a billion, or it could make 10 mill because nobody cares
Existing IP, almost certainly going to make under a billion, but there's essentially no way it'll make significantly under 100 million against the same budget of 250 mill.
My daughter loves the Moana movies. I've told her about this one - and the anti-excitement of "the same movie but with actual persons" is quite obvious. I can only conclude that no actual parents were involved in its inception.
Here's my pitch: Let's animate the live action Disney movies. They have these properties to draw from, and instead of making a live-action remake of them like Freaky Friday or Herbie, or a sequel like Hocus Pocus or Mary Poppins Returns, reinvent it as an animated feature.
That one in particular is what got me started on this thought. I've been playing the game Grounded and it's really brought me back to that movie and realizing what was so evocative about the premise.
Rick Moranis is also freaking great in it. He somehow manages to come across in the movie as a cartoon character.
I came back to see if The Black Hole was on your list. That would be an interesting one too, The Black Hole was actually one of the last movies to use the hybrid hand drawn animation/live action approach. It’s hard to tell though because it’s only used for the special effects like the black hole itself.
It’s one of my favorites but definitely not like other Disney movies at the time or anything that came before or since really. I freely admit that I have nostalgia goggles for it and that it’s definitely one of those love it or hate it kind of movies.
One of the more interesting things for me in addition to the animation is it was planned to be their Star Wars. There was a huge merchandising push behind it that had board games, and action figures, and a novelization, etc. and there were planned sequels. Of course it went nowhere because the movie was very much a love it or hate it kind of movie.
AFAIK, they’ve actually tried to remake it two or three times in the last 30 years or so and every time it’s run into development hell because people have wildly different interpretations of what the main theme or point of the movie is just for starters.
There were quite a few movies that used this technique after that, including some produced by Disney (most notably Who Framed Rodger Rabbit). It was pretty common, at least for effects shots, will into the 90s and early 2000s.
Yes and no, I was specifically talking about the practical effect of combining animation with live action. Every movie that came after had some form of computer assistance whether in camera control or in using CG for the actual combination even if the animation was still hand drawn or in some other way. The Black Hole used some computer help but at that time there were only a couple entities, like the newly formed ILM, that could do things the new way and they were all tied up with other projects like Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and Alien. So a bunch of the shots in The Black Hole were done using the same double exposure techniques used in Mary Poppins and Bedknobs and Broomsticks among others.
It sounds like you are trying to describe the sodium vapor process, which would be a more accurate way of saying this. Hand drawn animation was used a lot, this specific process was not, and the differentiation is not "using computers" or "CG". It was a Disney developed process that was not used by anyone else, so obviously it would only appear in Disney films or collaborations.
Its a pretty elegent way of doing this and it looks better than even a lot of modern computer equivalents because it essentially places the animated sequences on the same plane as the live action. It also required a lot of bespoke equipment and knowledge that no one was able to effectively copy.
Its why the animated sequences in the films that used it look better than a lot of the stuff that came after.
Animation is now about as expensive as live-action, and Disney, like most studios, is still on "animation is for kids". They're trying to position these live-action remakes as somehow "more adult" because they're not animated.
This might be the end, or at least the muting, of The Rock's movie career. The Rock had to push Disney to make this and I don't think The Rock has had a hit in years.
Really proves how simple-minded these people were. They were creating cashgrab nostalgia remakes in a manner that snubs royalties to original crews who worked on the original films, but they couldn't even tell remaking a modern film with no nostalgia value was a bad idea.
It’s not quite 10 years old. The animated version (and I hate I now need to qualify that) came out November 23, 2016. Still way too soon for a remake, especially when you don’t even recast the second name on the call sheet.
I think they do animate his tattoos. I partially watched a review and saw them moving around as they talked about how jarring some of the CGI to real life transitions were.
Ten years. Still not old enough. To maximize nostalgia, they would have to wait until those who enjoyed the original movie have their own children of the right age, so at least 20-25 years. Which, to nobody's surprise, neatly matches the time span between original and remake for The Lion King (25 years) and The Beauty and the Beast (26 years). For The Little Mermaid, they waited even longer (34 years).
I wouldn't really count that as a remake though, just a new (and very different) movie based on the same source material.
The newer "live action" / CGI remakes on the other hand are overall closer to the animated versions than to their source material with the same original characters, same songs and so on.
I mean...I already watched this movie like 10 years ago. I know what happens already.
OK, Maui is now The Rock in a muscle suit and a wig. But most of the new movie is CGI. The original movie was also animated. Why do I need to watch the new one?
At least with the lion king there was a 25 year gap between the two movies so the target audience would've been entirely different generations.
But Moana 2 came out 2 years ago. Anyone who watched it, probably watched the first one beforehand, even if we're talking about a 5 year old in 2024 who wasn't around in 2016 - the kid's parents would've probably pirated or streamed it to watch before going to the movies to see Moana 2.
The CinemaSins video on the trailers suggested making a live action remake of Atlantis. That would sell like gangbusters, but Disney has spent the last 20 years pretending it didn't exist
But the IP of the characters are extended. You’ll have to convince a court you’re using the original characters in public domain and not the updated characters still under copyright. And this is in a fight against Disney.
Except no. There wasn't any fight like this when Mickey Mouse/Steamboat Willy went into public domain.
You have different depictions of the same characters characters going into public domain in the order that they were created. Not that difficult to get your head around.
Good, hopefully this will serve as a message to stop making pointless live action remakes. The fact they didnt cast the original voice actress for the lead role is bewildering, but maybe she read between the lines and didn't want it.
Plus Moana was all about the vibrant colors and visuals.
How the live action looks so lifeless and this was considered acceptable baffles me. Even when the teaser was first shown many had complaints that it looked nothing like the source material in terms of vibrancy and color choices.
Feels pretty disrespectful to the audience of the original, like “you watched an animation but it’s a real movie now!”, except the real movie is just as much an animation.
Yeah, I was thinking kind of the opposite, "at least one of these is finally a flop." I don't know why audiences keep going to these things.
I can kind of see doing a remake with Aladdin, because there's reference humor in the original (like doing a quick gag around imitating a late-night TV format) that might not mean anything to a modern audience. The remake still suffered from regression to the mean, though. Still, I can imagine some young audiences finding the original hard to relate to at times, so some kind of update might have felt worthwhile. And giving another actor a chance to try putting his spin on the genie I'm sure felt generous. That at least guaranteed it would offer some kind of difference that would distinguish it.
But The Lion King and Lilo and Stitch and Moana don't really have any of that going on. The originals are fairly charming, not particularly tied to any specific time period, and don't offer any big roles that provide room for a new interpretation. (Well, maybe Maui, but they gave that role to the same guy again.)
And the animation was such a big part of the appeal of the originals! Replacing that with bland, lifeless CGI is such a let-down. I haven't actually watched any of these new releases, but I've seen trailers, and the CGI just feels awful in them. It's hard to even describe, but it's like there's a greasiness to it. It's profoundly offputting.
And people keep turning out. I don't get it. Is it just that people want their kids to experience theaters and popcorn and it doesn't really matter what's on the screen as long as it's Disney?
So yeah. I'm glad to see one finally underperform. Maybe people are finally getting tired of slop. I hope it's not just that people can't afford the cinema anymore.
People might want to take their kids to see a movie that they liked when they were a kid. Or just go see it themselves for nostalgia. Live action remakes aren't going to be as good as the original animated movie but they are a little twist on something familiar.
The original animated version of Moana came out 10 years ago. The kids who may have loved this movie ten years ago don't have their own children yet, and haven't reached the age where they're all that nostalgic for something from when they were a kid. People in their early 20s want to experience new things, they aren't at an age where they want to revisit something from their youth.
I don't understand why these articles treat this kind of film as having a single income stream (i.e. box office ticket sales). In fact, one could argue that these articles themselves serve to market the film. We know, for example, that movie theater viewership is declining rapidly. Given that Disney will have multiple income streams planned for any given movie, the box office will only be some portion of the total, and you can bet that The Mouse has done the math. The linked article even alludes to this:
(the two Moana animated movies have sold $22M in toys, generated $26M in music streams and have clocked 1.5B hours watched on the streaming service)
But crucially, that 1.5B hours watched on the streaming service is hard to quantify in dollars -- for the public, but not for Disney. They have a number of subscribers and a dollar amount that time corresponds to. They are folding those numbers into their calculations.
Disney knows that people aren't going to the movies, but their stranglehold over them is such that the film is shown widely anyway. Terms for showing movies in the theaters are famously pro-studio. It's almost certain that the box office isn't even the key factor for the studio heads here. It's likely that they didn't greenlight yet another flop; rather, they have more data than we do.
Then people read these articles, and they say "damn, it sounds so bad! We'll have to see how bad when it comes out on streaming." And the cycle continues. Movie theaters should not be the yardstick by which anything is measured. There is a reason why seemingly every studio is losing money at the box office: it's because they actually aren't losing money overall, or at least not as much as these kinds of articles would have you believe. Even if they did have numbers available, streaming income, like toys / music / etc, do not come in until well after a film's release.
Toy Story 5 had the second-highest grossing opening weekend for an animated film with $160 million domestically. It looks like Toy Story 5 will make at least $420 million domestically and has already made $879 worldwide. The estimated cost of the film is $200 million.
People go to the movies to see things they want to see. If they are only marginally excited to see a movie, they'll just watch at home. Great movies have just been in short supply recently between covid and the way studios were treating cast members.
That said, I'm sure Disney has accounted for flops, especially given how poorly many of their live actions have performed. I'm sure they see a bump in ticket sales for their parks after a big movie is released and theres a ton of merchandise between popcorn buckets, pins, and recycling some of the older merch from around the original release.
Absolutely. A simple re-release the original would do better I assume. Remaking Moana is one of those decisions that don't make any sense at any level.
There's no point to it. The original is only 10 years old, so there's no real graphical fidelity upgrades, nor is it old enough to ride the nostalgia wave, which usually requires 20-30 years.
Well, it seems Supergirl was way more popular in it's reportings of failure. Supergirl wins this one. I wonder if The Odyssey or Ulysses or whatever it's called will bring people back to the theater? I stopped going decades ago but I'll be going to see this one.
Teal and orange color scheme. It's the symptom of the disease. It's always teal and orange. Since years none of large studio ever tried anything different. And that issue spreads far and wide well beyond color pallette. Every movie is the same bland garbage repeating things that were done before.
It's worth repeating a gazillion times over: it's unaffordable to go to the cinema nowadays, so we wait for the stream or pirate. If it's worth it. Few movies released recently are even worth our ears and eyeballs.
129 Comments
MagicShel@lemmy.zip · 207 pts · 38d
There is a beautiful version of Moana already. I can't imagine needing to see this. I don't hate these remakes for existing, but I just don't see the point.
BigShammy80@feddit.org · 56 pts · 38d
No one does... any why should they? The classic disney films are great, they don't need remakes...
altphoto@lemmy.today · 49 pts · 38d
I wish someone re-mastered the Donald duck and Goofy driving instructional/documentary videos/movies
ICastFist@programming.dev · 21 pts · 38d
Goofy teaching how to play sports was great, too. Basketball game starts, players jump and start slapping one another
mereo@piefed.ca · 40 pts · 38d
Studios don't like risks nowadays. So they'd rather remake successful past movies.
samus12345@sh.itjust.works · 74 pts · 38d
Apparently it's not as risk-free as they thought.
UnspecificGravity@piefed.social · -2 pts · 38d
Against the billions they have made churning these out? Yeah, it is.
gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 37d
I mean yes on average but potentially no on the trend. The whole point is to de-risk their bullshit, if they view this as a trend instead of an isolated incident other projects might be more likely to get greenlit instead of recycled stories. Pretty much any soulless cash grab bombing incentivizes making actual art.
blartcap_@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 37d
If they were looking at things collectively this way, they wouldn't be making so many remakes and would be making more original movies.
This movie is the result of the risk analysis of each project, not the risk over a time period with multiple projects.
Tiresia@slrpnk.net · 33 pts · 38d
Ah yes, losing $100,000,000 seems very low-risk.
blartcap_@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 37d
If they thought they had a good chance of losing that much money, they wouldn't have made the movie. The news here is more about how their risk calculations were off.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 37d
And now they realise it isn't risk free after all.
Frozengyro@lemmy.world · -6 pts · 38d
To them? Yes it is
mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 38d
No, no it's not.
They can absorb the loss, but it's by no means small
boonhet@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 37d
Low risk is still risk
The movie's made nearly 100 mill worldwide. With brand new IP there's no guarantee to even get that much. Plus you'd need more marketing, etc.
They lost, but the risk was smaller than it could've been.
Think about two different scenarios:
Brand new IP, movie costs 250 mill to make, it could be the next Avatar and make well over a billion, or it could make 10 mill because nobody cares
Existing IP, almost certainly going to make under a billion, but there's essentially no way it'll make significantly under 100 million against the same budget of 250 mill.
Which one is low risk and which one is high risk?
troed@fedia.io · 140 pts · 38d
My daughter loves the Moana movies. I've told her about this one - and the anti-excitement of "the same movie but with actual persons" is quite obvious. I can only conclude that no actual parents were involved in its inception.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 37d
No actual parents were involved in the inception of any of the live action remakes
brucethemoose@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 36d
…I’m trying to think. What animated -> live action remakes have we gotten, through history, that were really good?
Not just “alright” or fun, but like a landmark movie, unto their own?
I’m coming up blank. But I’m sleepy.
carbonari_sandwich@piefed.social · 84 pts · 38d
Here's my pitch: Let's animate the live action Disney movies. They have these properties to draw from, and instead of making a live-action remake of them like Freaky Friday or Herbie, or a sequel like Hocus Pocus or Mary Poppins Returns, reinvent it as an animated feature.
atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works · 40 pts · 38d
Bedknobs and Broomsticks but the animated parts are live action…
Incidentally Bedknobs and Broomsticks is the better Mary Poppins, I know I know it’s an unpopular opinion but I stand by it.
Maestro@fedia.io · 17 pts · 38d
I agree! As a kid I was obsessed by the final battle between the Nazis and the animated armors!
Duamerthrax@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 38d
ah, but would Di$ney risk possibly alienating a few movie goers by depicting Nazis as bad and incompetent today?
UnspecificGravity@piefed.social · 8 pts · 38d
Thats just because of how awesome Angela Lansbury is in everything she ever did.
Zoomboingding@lemmy.world · 27 pts · 38d
Honey I Shrunk the Kids would make a great animated movie, and Rick Morranis could reprise his role!
carbonari_sandwich@piefed.social · 10 pts · 38d
That one in particular is what got me started on this thought. I've been playing the game Grounded and it's really brought me back to that movie and realizing what was so evocative about the premise.
Rick Moranis is also freaking great in it. He somehow manages to come across in the movie as a cartoon character.
kata1yst@sh.itjust.works · 18 pts · 38d
Flubber (1997)?
atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works · 20 pts · 38d
That’s remake of The Absent-Minded Professor which is on the list.
kata1yst@sh.itjust.works · 11 pts · 38d
Oh I didn't realize they were one and the same!
atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 38d
That’s an easy one to miss. Unlike The Shaggy Dog or Escape to Witch Mountain, for instance, Flubber isn’t named the same as the movie being remade.
kn0wmad1c@programming.dev · 11 pts · 38d
Disney really wants everyone to forget this movie, wherein a thirty-something adult falls in love and makes out with a child, exists.
nullspace@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 38d
But Disney loves groomers. They produce all their live-action teen content.
ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 38d
As much as I love good animation, nothing can possibly replace 1991 Jennifer Connely.
atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 38d
I came back to see if The Black Hole was on your list. That would be an interesting one too, The Black Hole was actually one of the last movies to use the hybrid hand drawn animation/live action approach. It’s hard to tell though because it’s only used for the special effects like the black hole itself.
carbonari_sandwich@piefed.social · 4 pts · 38d
I'm not familiar with it, but it looks really interesting. I might have to go seek this one out.
atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 38d
It’s one of my favorites but definitely not like other Disney movies at the time or anything that came before or since really. I freely admit that I have nostalgia goggles for it and that it’s definitely one of those love it or hate it kind of movies.
One of the more interesting things for me in addition to the animation is it was planned to be their Star Wars. There was a huge merchandising push behind it that had board games, and action figures, and a novelization, etc. and there were planned sequels. Of course it went nowhere because the movie was very much a love it or hate it kind of movie.
AFAIK, they’ve actually tried to remake it two or three times in the last 30 years or so and every time it’s run into development hell because people have wildly different interpretations of what the main theme or point of the movie is just for starters.
UnspecificGravity@piefed.social · 2 pts · 38d
There were quite a few movies that used this technique after that, including some produced by Disney (most notably Who Framed Rodger Rabbit). It was pretty common, at least for effects shots, will into the 90s and early 2000s.
atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 38d
Yes and no, I was specifically talking about the practical effect of combining animation with live action. Every movie that came after had some form of computer assistance whether in camera control or in using CG for the actual combination even if the animation was still hand drawn or in some other way. The Black Hole used some computer help but at that time there were only a couple entities, like the newly formed ILM, that could do things the new way and they were all tied up with other projects like Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and Alien. So a bunch of the shots in The Black Hole were done using the same double exposure techniques used in Mary Poppins and Bedknobs and Broomsticks among others.
UnspecificGravity@piefed.social · 3 pts · 38d
It sounds like you are trying to describe the sodium vapor process, which would be a more accurate way of saying this. Hand drawn animation was used a lot, this specific process was not, and the differentiation is not "using computers" or "CG". It was a Disney developed process that was not used by anyone else, so obviously it would only appear in Disney films or collaborations.
Its a pretty elegent way of doing this and it looks better than even a lot of modern computer equivalents because it essentially places the animated sequences on the same plane as the live action. It also required a lot of bespoke equipment and knowledge that no one was able to effectively copy.
Its why the animated sequences in the films that used it look better than a lot of the stuff that came after.
UnspecificGravity@piefed.social · 5 pts · 38d
Honestly, I would watch animated adaptations of most of these.
Honytawk@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 38d
The real question is if these still hold copyright value for Disney.
That is why they are remaking the movies. To keep their rights on the more successful versions.
Pandantic@midwest.social · 2 pts · 37d
Newsies, please!
carbonari_sandwich@piefed.social · 2 pts · 37d
I feel like Sony Animation would knock this one outta the park.
edible_funk@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 37d
Remake any Disney owned movie with The Muppets. Slam dunk.
Mirshe@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 37d
Animation is now about as expensive as live-action, and Disney, like most studios, is still on "animation is for kids". They're trying to position these live-action remakes as somehow "more adult" because they're not animated.
hal_5700X@sh.itjust.works · 68 pts · 38d
What's the point?
Duamerthrax@lemmy.world · 33 pts · 38d
From that studio that gave you "Live Action" Lion King.
DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 57 pts · 38d
Good
Pray this is the end of this live action shit
ICastFist@programming.dev · 17 pts · 38d
They probably needed a tax writeoff or whatever, so don't keep your hopes up
Squizzy@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 38d
People need to stop mentioning tax write offs as if it is a strategic goal when it is a reaction.
J_N_F@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 37d
It's a write off!
Rhaedas@fedia.io · 12 pts · 38d
Yes. They will definitely get the message, this time.
bdonvr@thelemmy.club · 4 pts · 38d
I mean if they start losing money yeah maybe
TemplaerDude@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 38d
Pretty sure a bunch of them have lost money and Disney just doesn’t care.
WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 38d
They were losing money, then Lilo and Stitch made tonnes of it which convinced them to keep going. It'll take a few more flops for them to give up.
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club · 2 pts · 38d
This might be the end, or at least the muting, of The Rock's movie career. The Rock had to push Disney to make this and I don't think The Rock has had a hit in years.
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · 52 pts · 38d
Really proves how simple-minded these people were. They were creating cashgrab nostalgia remakes in a manner that snubs royalties to original crews who worked on the original films, but they couldn't even tell remaking a modern film with no nostalgia value was a bad idea.
RamenJunkie@midwest.social · 22 pts · 38d
Is Moana even old enough to HAVE Nostalgia? Isn't Moana like, 5 years old or something?
mercano@lemmy.world · 32 pts · 38d
It’s not quite 10 years old. The animated version (and I hate I now need to qualify that) came out November 23, 2016. Still way too soon for a remake, especially when you don’t even recast the second name on the call sheet.
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · 7 pts · 38d
If they had animated on top of Dwayne Johnson's bicep tattoos I might consider watching it.
rainwall@piefed.social · 8 pts · 38d
I think they do animate his tattoos. I partially watched a review and saw them moving around as they talked about how jarring some of the CGI to real life transitions were.
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · 5 pts · 38d
Oh they did get Johnson? It looks like Moana was the one who stepped away from the role, props to her.
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club · 1 pts · 38d
Johnson was pushing for the movie to be made.
dfyx@lemmy.helios42.de · 15 pts · 38d
Ten years. Still not old enough. To maximize nostalgia, they would have to wait until those who enjoyed the original movie have their own children of the right age, so at least 20-25 years. Which, to nobody's surprise, neatly matches the time span between original and remake for The Lion King (25 years) and The Beauty and the Beast (26 years). For The Little Mermaid, they waited even longer (34 years).
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · 1 pts · 38d
Alice in Wonderland did 59 years
dfyx@lemmy.helios42.de · 10 pts · 38d
I wouldn't really count that as a remake though, just a new (and very different) movie based on the same source material.
The newer "live action" / CGI remakes on the other hand are overall closer to the animated versions than to their source material with the same original characters, same songs and so on.
Jesus_666@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 38d
Do you think it's time for a remake of the Moana remake? We could concurrently start working on the remake of that.
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · 5 pts · 38d
Michael Bay would be proud!
luthis@lemmy.nz · 5 pts · 38d
They aren't really human. They don't think and feel like the rest of us
TomMasz@lemmy.world · 46 pts · 38d
Disney: Every one of our animated films requires a half-hearted live-action remake.
Everyone else: No.
DJKJuicy@sh.itjust.works · 44 pts · 38d
I mean...I already watched this movie like 10 years ago. I know what happens already.
OK, Maui is now The Rock in a muscle suit and a wig. But most of the new movie is CGI. The original movie was also animated. Why do I need to watch the new one?
mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works · 9 pts · 38d
Also, The Rock's acting in the trailers looked... stiff as a rock
But seriously, he doesn't have the charisma of the original Maui
serendepity@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 38d
Which is funny because he voiced the original Maui too. I guess the animators did a lot of work to sell his voice acting.
boonhet@sopuli.xyz · 7 pts · 37d
At least with the lion king there was a 25 year gap between the two movies so the target audience would've been entirely different generations.
But Moana 2 came out 2 years ago. Anyone who watched it, probably watched the first one beforehand, even if we're talking about a 5 year old in 2024 who wasn't around in 2016 - the kid's parents would've probably pirated or streamed it to watch before going to the movies to see Moana 2.
thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 38d
Honestly I didn't even realize it had been that long till you said it.
10 years is still to early for a "live action" (even though it's basically just animation) remake.
They would have made more money doing frozen
mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works · 11 pts · 38d
The CinemaSins video on the trailers suggested making a live action remake of Atlantis. That would sell like gangbusters, but Disney has spent the last 20 years pretending it didn't exist
mintiefresh@piefed.ca · 32 pts · 38d
Nobody asked for this movie.
Trex202@lemmy.world · 28 pts · 38d
The Rock did
ICastFist@programming.dev · 10 pts · 38d
I remember seeing a headline of "how The Rock co-opted Hollywood" some time ago, guess he really has a lot of influence there?
toynbee@piefed.social · 1 pts · 38d
https://youtube.com/watch?v=5ShkUp0h2PU ?
ICastFist@programming.dev · 1 pts · 38d
The recommended videos on the side will be a hell of a watch later, when I'm off work 😁
toynbee@piefed.social · 1 pts · 38d
Hope you enjoy!
SethTaylor@lemmy.world · 28 pts · 38d
I didn't even know it was coming out and even after seeing this post I still don't care enough to click the article
Feels fucking good leaving this nasty-ass comment though haha
accideath@feddit.org · 28 pts · 38d
Moana is probably my favourite animated movie. I see absolute zero reason to watch the remake.
resipsaloquitur@lemmy.cafe · 23 pts · 38d
Let’s dump all the charm and character of the famously last major hand-drawn animation and cover it in slop.
Wait, why aren’t people fighting to give us their money?!?!
davetortoise@reddthat.com · 11 pts · 38d
Moana was hand drawn??
resipsaloquitur@lemmy.cafe · 18 pts · 38d
I’m an idiot. And/or didn’t have my coffee yet.
I was thinking of Lilo And Stitch.
davetortoise@reddthat.com · 10 pts · 38d
Hand-drawn moana is an excellent idea actually
ecvanalog@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 38d
THAT is a way to get me to watch Disney remakes.
jacksilver@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 38d
That's still not the last handrawn movie, that would be the Princess and the Frog (although technically one of the Winnie the Pooh movies)
Zachariah@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 38d
Yes, but at least the intellectual property claim lasts ten years longer.
mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 38d
Except it doesn't. The original version will still take the same amount of time to enter public domain as it did before
Zachariah@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 38d
But the IP of the characters are extended. You’ll have to convince a court you’re using the original characters in public domain and not the updated characters still under copyright. And this is in a fight against Disney.
mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 38d
Except no. There wasn't any fight like this when Mickey Mouse/Steamboat Willy went into public domain.
You have different depictions of the same characters characters going into public domain in the order that they were created. Not that difficult to get your head around.
Zachariah@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 38d
I sure hope you’re right, but I’m cynical about Disney.
I wonder if anyone made a large-ish creative work and sold it with Wiily in it yet, or is it just random people posting on the web?
TheVoiceOfRaison@thelemmy.club · 16 pts · 38d
Good, hopefully this will serve as a message to stop making pointless live action remakes. The fact they didnt cast the original voice actress for the lead role is bewildering, but maybe she read between the lines and didn't want it.
CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de · 16 pts · 38d
It’s pretty obvious:
DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 13 pts · 38d
Plus Moana was all about the vibrant colors and visuals.
How the live action looks so lifeless and this was considered acceptable baffles me. Even when the teaser was first shown many had complaints that it looked nothing like the source material in terms of vibrancy and color choices.
NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone · 12 pts · 38d
Feels pretty disrespectful to the audience of the original, like “you watched an animation but it’s a real movie now!”, except the real movie is just as much an animation.
skeezix@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 38d
HA HA
phoenixz@lemmy.ca · 10 pts · 37d
So far all their live remakes have flopped, why do they continue this shit
TheImpressiveX@piefed.social · 11 pts · 37d
Aladdin, Lion King, and Lilo & Stitch have all been financial successes.
monotremata@lemmy.ca · 7 pts · 37d
Yeah, I was thinking kind of the opposite, "at least one of these is finally a flop." I don't know why audiences keep going to these things.
I can kind of see doing a remake with Aladdin, because there's reference humor in the original (like doing a quick gag around imitating a late-night TV format) that might not mean anything to a modern audience. The remake still suffered from regression to the mean, though. Still, I can imagine some young audiences finding the original hard to relate to at times, so some kind of update might have felt worthwhile. And giving another actor a chance to try putting his spin on the genie I'm sure felt generous. That at least guaranteed it would offer some kind of difference that would distinguish it.
But The Lion King and Lilo and Stitch and Moana don't really have any of that going on. The originals are fairly charming, not particularly tied to any specific time period, and don't offer any big roles that provide room for a new interpretation. (Well, maybe Maui, but they gave that role to the same guy again.)
And the animation was such a big part of the appeal of the originals! Replacing that with bland, lifeless CGI is such a let-down. I haven't actually watched any of these new releases, but I've seen trailers, and the CGI just feels awful in them. It's hard to even describe, but it's like there's a greasiness to it. It's profoundly offputting.
And people keep turning out. I don't get it. Is it just that people want their kids to experience theaters and popcorn and it doesn't really matter what's on the screen as long as it's Disney?
So yeah. I'm glad to see one finally underperform. Maybe people are finally getting tired of slop. I hope it's not just that people can't afford the cinema anymore.
WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 38d
The hierarchy of power in the live-action remake universe is about to change.
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 9 pts · 37d
We. Don’t. Need. To. Live. Action. Every. FUCKING. Thing.
bold_atlas@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 37d
Nowanna.
silentjohn@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 38d
Everybody needs to read Extended Universe, How Disney Killed Movies and Took Over the World.
Blackmist@feddit.uk · 9 pts · 36d
Good.
Disney's live action remakes are wank, and I'm really not sure why they started doing it or are continuing with it.
This is pure CEO "no, it's the children who are wrong" mentality.
SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca · 8 pts · 37d
People might want to take their kids to see a movie that they liked when they were a kid. Or just go see it themselves for nostalgia. Live action remakes aren't going to be as good as the original animated movie but they are a little twist on something familiar.
The original animated version of Moana came out 10 years ago. The kids who may have loved this movie ten years ago don't have their own children yet, and haven't reached the age where they're all that nostalgic for something from when they were a kid. People in their early 20s want to experience new things, they aren't at an age where they want to revisit something from their youth.
GlendatheGayWitch@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 37d
Not to mention that the animated Moana is still active with Moana 2 released around Thanksgiving 2024.
bigbangdangler@reddthat.com · 8 pts · 37d
I don't understand why these articles treat this kind of film as having a single income stream (i.e. box office ticket sales). In fact, one could argue that these articles themselves serve to market the film. We know, for example, that movie theater viewership is declining rapidly. Given that Disney will have multiple income streams planned for any given movie, the box office will only be some portion of the total, and you can bet that The Mouse has done the math. The linked article even alludes to this:
But crucially, that 1.5B hours watched on the streaming service is hard to quantify in dollars -- for the public, but not for Disney. They have a number of subscribers and a dollar amount that time corresponds to. They are folding those numbers into their calculations.
Disney knows that people aren't going to the movies, but their stranglehold over them is such that the film is shown widely anyway. Terms for showing movies in the theaters are famously pro-studio. It's almost certain that the box office isn't even the key factor for the studio heads here. It's likely that they didn't greenlight yet another flop; rather, they have more data than we do.
Then people read these articles, and they say "damn, it sounds so bad! We'll have to see how bad when it comes out on streaming." And the cycle continues. Movie theaters should not be the yardstick by which anything is measured. There is a reason why seemingly every studio is losing money at the box office: it's because they actually aren't losing money overall, or at least not as much as these kinds of articles would have you believe. Even if they did have numbers available, streaming income, like toys / music / etc, do not come in until well after a film's release.
GlendatheGayWitch@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 37d
Toy Story 5 had the second-highest grossing opening weekend for an animated film with $160 million domestically. It looks like Toy Story 5 will make at least $420 million domestically and has already made $879 worldwide. The estimated cost of the film is $200 million.
People go to the movies to see things they want to see. If they are only marginally excited to see a movie, they'll just watch at home. Great movies have just been in short supply recently between covid and the way studios were treating cast members.
That said, I'm sure Disney has accounted for flops, especially given how poorly many of their live actions have performed. I'm sure they see a bump in ticket sales for their parks after a big movie is released and theres a ton of merchandise between popcorn buckets, pins, and recycling some of the older merch from around the original release.
https://boxofficewatch.com/movies/toy-story-5.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2026/06/21/toy-story-5-box-office-opening-weekend-record/90634730007/
xSikes@feddit.online · 7 pts · 38d
Disney can afford the loss
mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 38d
One, maybe. Hopefully this is just the start
panda_abyss@lemmy.ca · 7 pts · 38d
This probably would have been okay if they made it first, but they didn’t.
It’s a good story, but why would anyone want to watch the same story, just told in a way that was done for fast money instead?
hayvan@piefed.world · 4 pts · 38d
Absolutely. A simple re-release the original would do better I assume. Remaking Moana is one of those decisions that don't make any sense at any level.
huquad@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 38d
I prefer the Italian version of the live action. It came out in the 80s and is much more entertaining
WatermelonPaloma@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 38d
That one is not a family film😅
huquad@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 38d
Its more of a family making film
harambe69@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 36d
Good
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 38d
Good, it didn't need a rehash.
But also, fuck Disney.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 37d
We need a live action Jetsons on ice.
mereo@piefed.ca · 2 pts · 38d
nightlily@leminal.space · 2 pts · 37d
If you want a live action Moana, go watch Whale Rider instead. It’s a heavy inspiration and a much more authentic and better movie.
Sunshine@piefed.ca · 2 pts · 38d
Everyone hates life action.
FrankFrankson@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 38d
People don't currently have disposable income to piss away on unnecessary Disney live action remakes.
hitmyspot@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 38d
How is that possible? Has the quality dropped since Alladin or the lion king?
mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 38d
There's no point to it. The original is only 10 years old, so there's no real graphical fidelity upgrades, nor is it old enough to ride the nostalgia wave, which usually requires 20-30 years.
It's just a poorly timed soulless cash grab
melsaskca@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 37d
Well, it seems Supergirl was way more popular in it's reportings of failure. Supergirl wins this one. I wonder if The Odyssey or Ulysses or whatever it's called will bring people back to the theater? I stopped going decades ago but I'll be going to see this one.
BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 38d
Teal and orange color scheme. It's the symptom of the disease. It's always teal and orange. Since years none of large studio ever tried anything different. And that issue spreads far and wide well beyond color pallette. Every movie is the same bland garbage repeating things that were done before.
gringocano@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 36d
It's worth repeating a gazillion times over: it's unaffordable to go to the cinema nowadays, so we wait for the stream or pirate. If it's worth it. Few movies released recently are even worth our ears and eyeballs.