- Joined
- Aug 16, 2018
So what has been the worst? My least favorite has been Maleficent.
Lion King and Beauty and the Beast are tied for second
Lion King and Beauty and the Beast are tied for second
Worst Disney live-action remake thread - It deserves its own thread
- Thread starter JambledUpWords
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2014
All of them.
((Lion King is easily the most soulless though))
((Lion King is easily the most soulless though))
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2018
The Mufasa death scene in The Lion King was hilarious though. It was played in slow motion near the end and looked even funnier. You’re right, it was soulless. It was all style and big names without substance. It didn’t help that the lions were pretty expressionless as well because they wanted to have “realism” (it’s a movie with talking lions though, so expecting realism is ridiculous in the first place)
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2018
The only one I've seen is the Beauty and the Beast a couple years back and that was only because my niece was pulling my leg off to take her. It was bland and unremarkable, the most memorable thing I remember about it is thinking that there weren't nearly as many (if at all) blacks in Metropolitan France in the 1600s. Every performance was underwhelming and the music was only catchy because they lifted it from its much better predecessor. Personally, I blame the Chinese for making these things viable, since they don't have the animated films as reference they go to these things in droves. The remakes leave in a bad taste in my mouth, they're all so cynical and soulless.
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2017
It's funny how people always forget about Disney's live action Jungle Book movie.
No, not that one... (though that was also pretty forgettable)
It's gotta be some kind of world record- the exact same company making the exact same movie 3 times over, and it somehow getting worse every single time..
It's gotta be some kind of world record- the exact same company making the exact same movie 3 times over, and it somehow getting worse every single time..
Answer
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2014
I think the rationale for making all these live-action remakes is the same for the slew of direct-to-video sequels Disney made in the 1990s and early 2000s: cashing in on nostalgia and the popularity of the originals. Like with those sequels, Disney will stop making live-action remakes when sales start dropping or when they start feeling like they’re cheapening the sacred Disney brand.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2018
My wife loves it, but I just can’t take Maleficent seriously in that stupid costume.
Also Beauty and the Beast was dumb and boring. It did however, help reveal how much of a weirdo freak Emma Watson is.
Also Beauty and the Beast was dumb and boring. It did however, help reveal how much of a weirdo freak Emma Watson is.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2018
The Force Awakens was a bad remake of A New Hope and The Last Jedi was a bad remake of Plan Nine From Outer Space.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2019
101 Dalmatians > ... > all the rest live action remakes > maleficent
EDIT: Unfortunately, I just found out they are sorta remaking 101 Dalmatians, the movie is going to focus on Cruella de Vil and Emma stone is (mis)cast as her.
EDIT: Unfortunately, I just found out they are sorta remaking 101 Dalmatians, the movie is going to focus on Cruella de Vil and Emma stone is (mis)cast as her.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 29, 2018
Damn, 101 dalmatins were my favourite movies when i was a kiddo, i hoped they woudn't remake it.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2015
No way she can chew scenery as well as Glenn Close.
I haven't seen any of the live action remakes all the way through. Tried watching Jungle Book, but the animated one already bored me, and the live action one seemed even slower. Couldn't make it past the first song in the Beauty and the Beast one. I just haven't been interested, so I haven't bothered to see them.
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2013
I haven't seen any of them because I'm a grown man and don't care about Disney shit. Neither should you.
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2015
"B-b-but muh corporate owned childhood!"
- Joined
- May 10, 2019
I only saw Maleficent because she was my favorite villain growing up. It turned me off of seeing any of the others.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2018
The thing about those is, even if they were bad, at least they had to write new stories.
The live action remakes are just the same thing that's already written so it's even lazier.
All those CGI effects and especially the green screen will age horribly (Disney often has horrible green screen in their movies because they rush the effects artists), especially since their goal seems to be realism and realistic effects age the quickest.
Meanwhile, at least a fraction of those sequels will stand the test of time, simply because those original designs are timeless.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
Beauty and the Beast is the worst,. The original represents Disney mastering the musical theater style that their renaissance was built on, even by way of introducing some Broadway actors to film. So of course, the remake is a vehicle for big names and mostly non-singers.
RumblyTumbly
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2018
Its kind of sad that the 101 Dalmatians live action movie is probably their best one. That one, at least, made the creative decision to not have the dogs speak (helping to separate it from the earlier film) and a batshit crazed performance from Glenn Close as Cruella DeVil.
My thoughts on the other ones I've seen:
My thoughts on the other ones I've seen:
The Jungle Book (Jon Favreau version) = It got a ton of praise when it came out and I was like "Huh...really". Okay, it isn't a dumpster fire and isn't a beat for beat remake of the original, so I can at least excuse it for that. However, as I've said before, the scene with Kaa perfectly captures everything good and everything bad about the movie in one scene. Acting from the kid that played Mowgli? Solid. Voice acting and animation of the animals? Mostly good. Clumsy exposition and nonsense writing? Yep! I've jokingly called Kaa in this film the Exposition Snake, as she literally shows up and drops a bunch of backstory of Mowgli....why she does this, I have absolutely no idea, but it happened.
Also, I much preferred the original film's take on Sher Khan in that he is actively hunting for Mowgli, creating tension throughout the film as Mowgli could run into him at any moment. Here, he takes over the Wolves' lair and waits for Mowgli to come to him. Because, you know, the Jungle is known for its transmitting of information and I'm sure the recent developments will get back to Mowgli and he'll come running right back. Its like Khan made a wish upon a star and just hoped for Mowgli to come back to him. Major misfire.
Cinderella = Admittedly, Cinderella was never one of my favorites, so I never had much personal investment in this, but once again, I found this film to be clumsy. Looked gorgeous in parts, but the acting is a bit off (The Stepmother is not menacing at all) and by making Cinderella smarter and more capable, they actually made the story make less sense....why doesn't she just leave? The film even asks this question and we don't get a satisfying answer. It just makes Cinderella look like a glutton for punishment.
Compare this to the original film where she's, for all intents and purposes, kept prisoner and doesn't know what life is like outside of her cottage. Doesn't that make more sense to making Cinderella sympathetic and make her ultimate victory even better? I rewatched the animated version after watching the live action one and I gained a new appreciation for it. The ending of the animated version is almost Hitchcock-like, and Cinderella whipping out the 2nd slipper at the end is a huge fucking fist pump/mic drop moment. With all its flaws (Prince is dull and has no character, talking mice can get a little grating), I still managed to be more satisfied with it than the live action update.
Alice in Wonderland = This is when I started to accept that Burton had lost his magic touch. Give Tim Burton Alice in Wonderland in 89-92? If it isn't good, you are at least going to get something batshit crazy and weird? At this stage of his career, what we got in this film was a very confusing ripoff of Narnia. Seriously, it is basically a crappy version of The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, but in Wonderland. I fell asleep in the theater when I saw it, so that should tell you something.
Maleficent = This might be the worst. Its funny because the main complaint for some of these films is that it is just a rehash of what came before it without being able to stand on its own. Well, this movie changed the most and tried to make something different, but it ended up making something so bombastically stupid, I can't believe somebody got paid to write a script for it.
What I was hoping for with this film is that we would get to see Sleeping Beauty, as it was in the original film, but told from Maleficent's point of view. What was going on in the 16 years between the Christening of the princess and when she is ultimately found? Will she lose power and the fear she's cultivated if her promise to end the princesses life is not fulfilled? How desperate does she get, and on and on and on.
This felt like bad fan fiction that somehow got greenlit. Apparently, Maleficent is SOOOOOO awesome, that she is both the hero and the villain of her own story. The King is a douchebag that broke her heart (what?), the three fairies (the protagonists of the original film IMO) are blithering idiots that can barely wipe their asses, and she finds Aurora within a day of her going to into hiding, making the entire in-between period completely pointless. This was just dumb, dumb, DUMB and it made a truckload of money. I guess it is hard for me to get mad at Disney when we as people are stupid enough to shell out money for this slop.
I get it, you're trying to be Wicked, but this was a sorry and misguided attempt, in just about every way.
Beauty and the Beast = Straight up, they just made the animated version again, but shittier. Almost everything about it is a downgrade. Emma Watson can't sing worth a lick, I felt absolutely NOTHING for the relationship between Belle and the Beast, the additions actually create more plotholes, and the entire time I was watching it, I was just wishing I was watching the original. And with all the talk of making Le Fou gay, I have to question everyone being happy about that. They took the dumb idiot sidekick to the bad guy whose name literally translates to "The Fool" and made him the gay representative in the film. Good going guys. You really got that much needed victory for gay representation (though fuck it, I have read articles about people being pissed that Pennywise isn't a gay ally, so what do I know?).
Aladdin = This was the one that broke me. I saw it and I said "Never again". I've watched too many of these shitty remakes as it is and I am becoming more resentful. Sadly, it isn't even among the worst that they've done, but like Beauty and the Beast, everything about it is just a downgrade from the original. The only sequences I kind of liked were Friend Like Me and this dance sequence at the palace that was pretty neat. Everything else was just pain. Pure...pain. Why does Genie need a love interest? Why does everything look shittier than the near 30 year old cartoon (compare the two Cave of Wonders)? Why is Jafar not menacing at all? Why did they go to the trouble of casting a voice actor like Alan Tundyk to play Iago when all he does is squawk like a normal parrot? And why is Aladdin kind of a douche? Seriously, the Aladdin/Genie friendship was the heart of the original film to me, and here, I just wanted Genie to slap the fuck out of him. (Look at the scene in the original where Aladdin tells Genie he can't set him free and compare it to the new one).
But hey! They expanded Jasmine's role and gave her a new song and everything to get woke points...except the song amounted to nothing as she ultimately failed anyway. Speechless? More like Pointless, am I right?
The Lion King = I didn't see it. I straight up refused too. I looked at the trailers and said "Its a shot for shot remake, isn't it?" and sure enough, everyone told me that is exactly what it was. Well, with an additional half hours worth of material. Cause, you know, the Lion King needed an extra half hour. I did listen to the new version of Be Prepared and I got insulted. They straight up did not try. They made this solely to cash in on nostalgia and just farted this into existence. The other ones I listed AT LEAST tried to do something a little different to at least lie to us that they made something new. This was just the mouse going "Fuck it, we'll slap Lion King on this and make a billion because whatever, fuck you".
Christopher Robin = Okay, technically, this is not a remake, but rather Disney's version of "Hook" where we get to see the futures of the characters from the classic stories and, to be perfectly honest, I actually really liked it. Seriously, this is by far the best of the shitty attempts to cash in on an established properly that Disney has made in the last few years and the overall reaction to it was ho-hum. Critics were meh towards it and it didn't make bank at the box office, and it had some legitimate heart and soul to it. I'm not saying it is a masterpiece or anything, but it stayed faithful to the characters, had a nice performance from Ewan McGregor, and was overall a sweet and fun film that legitimately did something different with the established properly...and this is the one that gets no attention. Ugh.
From what I've heard, the Pete's Dragon remake is the one I would like, and to be honest, I am not opposed to that one being remade as the original doesn't exactly hold up as a timeless classic. BUT, Pete's Dragon doesn't have the huge nostalgia cult surrounding it, so nobody saw it. How sad is that?
Also, I much preferred the original film's take on Sher Khan in that he is actively hunting for Mowgli, creating tension throughout the film as Mowgli could run into him at any moment. Here, he takes over the Wolves' lair and waits for Mowgli to come to him. Because, you know, the Jungle is known for its transmitting of information and I'm sure the recent developments will get back to Mowgli and he'll come running right back. Its like Khan made a wish upon a star and just hoped for Mowgli to come back to him. Major misfire.
Cinderella = Admittedly, Cinderella was never one of my favorites, so I never had much personal investment in this, but once again, I found this film to be clumsy. Looked gorgeous in parts, but the acting is a bit off (The Stepmother is not menacing at all) and by making Cinderella smarter and more capable, they actually made the story make less sense....why doesn't she just leave? The film even asks this question and we don't get a satisfying answer. It just makes Cinderella look like a glutton for punishment.
Compare this to the original film where she's, for all intents and purposes, kept prisoner and doesn't know what life is like outside of her cottage. Doesn't that make more sense to making Cinderella sympathetic and make her ultimate victory even better? I rewatched the animated version after watching the live action one and I gained a new appreciation for it. The ending of the animated version is almost Hitchcock-like, and Cinderella whipping out the 2nd slipper at the end is a huge fucking fist pump/mic drop moment. With all its flaws (Prince is dull and has no character, talking mice can get a little grating), I still managed to be more satisfied with it than the live action update.
Alice in Wonderland = This is when I started to accept that Burton had lost his magic touch. Give Tim Burton Alice in Wonderland in 89-92? If it isn't good, you are at least going to get something batshit crazy and weird? At this stage of his career, what we got in this film was a very confusing ripoff of Narnia. Seriously, it is basically a crappy version of The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, but in Wonderland. I fell asleep in the theater when I saw it, so that should tell you something.
Maleficent = This might be the worst. Its funny because the main complaint for some of these films is that it is just a rehash of what came before it without being able to stand on its own. Well, this movie changed the most and tried to make something different, but it ended up making something so bombastically stupid, I can't believe somebody got paid to write a script for it.
What I was hoping for with this film is that we would get to see Sleeping Beauty, as it was in the original film, but told from Maleficent's point of view. What was going on in the 16 years between the Christening of the princess and when she is ultimately found? Will she lose power and the fear she's cultivated if her promise to end the princesses life is not fulfilled? How desperate does she get, and on and on and on.
This felt like bad fan fiction that somehow got greenlit. Apparently, Maleficent is SOOOOOO awesome, that she is both the hero and the villain of her own story. The King is a douchebag that broke her heart (what?), the three fairies (the protagonists of the original film IMO) are blithering idiots that can barely wipe their asses, and she finds Aurora within a day of her going to into hiding, making the entire in-between period completely pointless. This was just dumb, dumb, DUMB and it made a truckload of money. I guess it is hard for me to get mad at Disney when we as people are stupid enough to shell out money for this slop.
I get it, you're trying to be Wicked, but this was a sorry and misguided attempt, in just about every way.
Beauty and the Beast = Straight up, they just made the animated version again, but shittier. Almost everything about it is a downgrade. Emma Watson can't sing worth a lick, I felt absolutely NOTHING for the relationship between Belle and the Beast, the additions actually create more plotholes, and the entire time I was watching it, I was just wishing I was watching the original. And with all the talk of making Le Fou gay, I have to question everyone being happy about that. They took the dumb idiot sidekick to the bad guy whose name literally translates to "The Fool" and made him the gay representative in the film. Good going guys. You really got that much needed victory for gay representation (though fuck it, I have read articles about people being pissed that Pennywise isn't a gay ally, so what do I know?).
Aladdin = This was the one that broke me. I saw it and I said "Never again". I've watched too many of these shitty remakes as it is and I am becoming more resentful. Sadly, it isn't even among the worst that they've done, but like Beauty and the Beast, everything about it is just a downgrade from the original. The only sequences I kind of liked were Friend Like Me and this dance sequence at the palace that was pretty neat. Everything else was just pain. Pure...pain. Why does Genie need a love interest? Why does everything look shittier than the near 30 year old cartoon (compare the two Cave of Wonders)? Why is Jafar not menacing at all? Why did they go to the trouble of casting a voice actor like Alan Tundyk to play Iago when all he does is squawk like a normal parrot? And why is Aladdin kind of a douche? Seriously, the Aladdin/Genie friendship was the heart of the original film to me, and here, I just wanted Genie to slap the fuck out of him. (Look at the scene in the original where Aladdin tells Genie he can't set him free and compare it to the new one).
But hey! They expanded Jasmine's role and gave her a new song and everything to get woke points...except the song amounted to nothing as she ultimately failed anyway. Speechless? More like Pointless, am I right?
The Lion King = I didn't see it. I straight up refused too. I looked at the trailers and said "Its a shot for shot remake, isn't it?" and sure enough, everyone told me that is exactly what it was. Well, with an additional half hours worth of material. Cause, you know, the Lion King needed an extra half hour. I did listen to the new version of Be Prepared and I got insulted. They straight up did not try. They made this solely to cash in on nostalgia and just farted this into existence. The other ones I listed AT LEAST tried to do something a little different to at least lie to us that they made something new. This was just the mouse going "Fuck it, we'll slap Lion King on this and make a billion because whatever, fuck you".
Christopher Robin = Okay, technically, this is not a remake, but rather Disney's version of "Hook" where we get to see the futures of the characters from the classic stories and, to be perfectly honest, I actually really liked it. Seriously, this is by far the best of the shitty attempts to cash in on an established properly that Disney has made in the last few years and the overall reaction to it was ho-hum. Critics were meh towards it and it didn't make bank at the box office, and it had some legitimate heart and soul to it. I'm not saying it is a masterpiece or anything, but it stayed faithful to the characters, had a nice performance from Ewan McGregor, and was overall a sweet and fun film that legitimately did something different with the established properly...and this is the one that gets no attention. Ugh.
From what I've heard, the Pete's Dragon remake is the one I would like, and to be honest, I am not opposed to that one being remade as the original doesn't exactly hold up as a timeless classic. BUT, Pete's Dragon doesn't have the huge nostalgia cult surrounding it, so nobody saw it. How sad is that?
RumblyTumbly
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2018
Yes! Little Indian, Big City was the French movie and was apparently super successful in France, leading to it getting a release here and the Disney remake starring Tim Allen, Jungle 2 Jungle.
I never saw the French film, but I remember seeing a trailer for it, and I also remember the Sisken and Ebert review of Jungle 2 Jungle, where they were amazed that the original film was popular in France and that it would even warrant a stateside remake.
I remember liking Jungle 2 Jungle when I was young, but I have no doubt that it holds up about as well as hard boiled eggs left out in the sun.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2016
Malificent and Beauty and the Beast for me.
They both suffer from the same poor writing gimmick that I hate: making surrounding characters look bad, dull, stupid to prop up the main character.
This is inexcusable writing for me. The best writers can have hero's while still having believable (and even LIKEABLE!) supporting and villain characters. Hell if any of these were true to the spirit of Disney they'd have that concept nailed, seeing as how 80% of Disney enjoyability is the charisma of their villains and yes even the annoying comedic relief stoog.
Maleficent made Aurora dumb as nails and she lacked any personality. The fairies were jarring and unlikeable. The king was bland and edgy for no reason. If they could have fixed the surrounding cast, you could still keep your stupid 'shes a victim' take and Maleficents character would have remained likeable, but the writers clearly thought their audience was a bunch of brain dead for morons.
Beauty and the Beast was this but worse. The village people were supposed to be ignorant, easily riled up and judgemental but not down right cruel for no reason. They were so spiteful to Belle despite in the original they more or less thought she was just a weirdo that they shrugged at. They took Maurice's talent and switched it to fucking Belle because you know, she has to be able to do EEEEVERYTHING because NO ONE is allowed to outshine her, god damnit. Reeks of spoiled white liberal girl entitlement, oh-- well no shit. This is Emma Watson. Who, by the way, wanted Belle to be just like her. What a sperg.
But BATB's biggest sin is that Gaston lacked the charisma and fun of the original. Hard act to follow, maybe, but once again these writers forgot to realize that even the children who drag their mom to watch these films understand that even the funnest of bad guys are still evil.
I just really hate this. These two movies are a cautionary tale of how not to prop up your heroes.
They both suffer from the same poor writing gimmick that I hate: making surrounding characters look bad, dull, stupid to prop up the main character.
This is inexcusable writing for me. The best writers can have hero's while still having believable (and even LIKEABLE!) supporting and villain characters. Hell if any of these were true to the spirit of Disney they'd have that concept nailed, seeing as how 80% of Disney enjoyability is the charisma of their villains and yes even the annoying comedic relief stoog.
Maleficent made Aurora dumb as nails and she lacked any personality. The fairies were jarring and unlikeable. The king was bland and edgy for no reason. If they could have fixed the surrounding cast, you could still keep your stupid 'shes a victim' take and Maleficents character would have remained likeable, but the writers clearly thought their audience was a bunch of brain dead for morons.
Beauty and the Beast was this but worse. The village people were supposed to be ignorant, easily riled up and judgemental but not down right cruel for no reason. They were so spiteful to Belle despite in the original they more or less thought she was just a weirdo that they shrugged at. They took Maurice's talent and switched it to fucking Belle because you know, she has to be able to do EEEEVERYTHING because NO ONE is allowed to outshine her, god damnit. Reeks of spoiled white liberal girl entitlement, oh-- well no shit. This is Emma Watson. Who, by the way, wanted Belle to be just like her. What a sperg.
But BATB's biggest sin is that Gaston lacked the charisma and fun of the original. Hard act to follow, maybe, but once again these writers forgot to realize that even the children who drag their mom to watch these films understand that even the funnest of bad guys are still evil.
I just really hate this. These two movies are a cautionary tale of how not to prop up your heroes.