Which change left you saying, “Oh my Disney?!” Let us know in the comments! For more Disney content like this, click here!: ruclips.net/video/ChWVxK1ZxPE/видео.html Don't forget to play our Live Trivia (www.watchmojo.com/play) games at 3pm and 8pm EST for a chance to win cash! The faster you answer, the more points you get!
i don't mind some of the changes, as change can be refreshing. but to dramatically change the core aspects of a specific character's identity (ie, base personality, and character design) is completely unnecessary for the most part. I'll admit, the way the Little Mermaid tried to do colour-blind casting is smart, but also problematic for several reasons (I'm not just talking about Halle Bailey here). Triton has 7 daughters, now it's never really mentioned whether all 7 daughters share the same mother, not at least in the original movie, and since they mostly looked like actual sisters, we never questioned their parentage. In the new film, Triton still has 7 daughters, but they are each a different race. For any child that has any sort of understanding of how genetics work (and most of them do at 13), this immediately implies that Triton was either a polygamist or liked to "sleep around", now to be fair, the Greek Myths of the gods (which the Little Mermaid is loosely based on) don't mess around by saying the gods did in fact like to sleep around often, but for a company that built it's legacy on family-friendly entertainment, this kind of implication is a huge no-no. And before you say, that colour-blind casting is not meant to be taken seriously, there are 2 types of comedy films. the first is an outright comedy, a genuinely funny script paired with expert comedic performances; then there's the "parody style" comedy, a type of low-budget comedy where the actors are just riffing off each other regardless of how bad the jokes can get, or how awful the production quality is, sometimes it can be in the "it's so bad it's good" category, it doesn't mean that there aren't any good parody-style comedies, just that most of them are trash. an example of a good parody-style comedy where colour-blind casting worked well, is Roger and Hammerstein's Cinderella. Cinderella is played by R&B singer Brandy, her Prince is played by Filipino actor Paolo Montalban and his parents are played by Whoopi Goldberg (black) and Victor Garber (white). Now i'm no geneticist, but i don't believe that a White man and a Black woman can produce an Asian baby, so obviously the casting is not meant to be taken seriously, especially since it's based on a stage-musical that is loosely based on the original animated film (ie the 1997 Cinderella is not an official remake), whereas this Little Mermaid is a fully-fledged remake of an older film that was loosely based on a Danish story. Secondly, now i'm gonna talk about Halle Bailey here, if they are gonna stress that colour-blind casting is not to be taken seriously, then why would they race-swap the main character for an official remake of a well-known older film. If Ariel remained white, while her other less well-known sisters were racially/ethnically different, then nobody would've batted an eyelid at it, Halle could've still had a major supporting role as one of Ariel's sisters and nobody would've cared that she's black, and casting her in an originally Caucasian lead role makes it seem like the film is following the "blackwashing" trend of recent Hollywood movies. But then if Hollywood casts a white actor in the originally black Shaft role, then people will go nuts. The reason why people care so strongly about Ariel, is because she is by far and away the most popular Disney character, many boys (of all ethnicities) had a massive crush on the red-headed mermaid, and most of them can't see an actress of any other race filling that role, kinda like how perfectly cast Margot Robbie is for the Barbie movie. Realistically speaking, the only reason why they gave Ariel's sisters different vibrant hair colours and styles in the original movie, is so that it's easier for them to be differentiated, Ariel's bright red hair and blue eyes stood out because of another cartoon red-headed bombshell that had her feature film debut a year earlier - Jessica Rabbit.
I know I’m gonna get some heat for saying this, but changing the color of Ariel’s skin, making Sebastian and Flounder look realistic instead of lively, and changing the lyrics to “Kiss the Girl” got me to say no to the remake of The Little Mermaid.
Mulan 1998: An ordinary, Determined young woman who rises against the odds placed against her. Mulan 2020: A Mary Sue who is perfect and inexplicably has superpowers.
The main thing is that it's a story from the east. The 1998: movie well fun was an insult to the story. The 2020 was a vary bad attempt to fix this. As for the cutting of hair men had long hair so cutting it would not work.
I have a feeling if he was forced to watch the 2020 remake as punishment for his misogynistic behavior towards the original and women in general, Chi Fu would end up having newfound respect and appreciation for the original Mulan.
I can't believe that they didn't let Scar sing "Be Prepared", AKA one of the best villain songs of all time. They kept most of the dialogue the same, so what's even the point?
At least Luke Evans and Melissa McCarthy got to perform their respective villains’ songs from the original and give their own take. What’s the 2019 Lion King’s excuse?!
@@mlggamer5296I didn't have a problem with the 2019 version of Be Prepared either since I thought it could work for an seriously evil villain and have better visuals in the proper film.
I agree with most of these, but let me explain why Cinderella doesn’t try to escape in the 2015 version, because I feel a lot of people don’t realize the slight change that explains why she wouldn’t: In the animated version, Lady Tremaine announces loud and clear that the royal party is coming to every house to find girls. So Cinderella knows that she can’t miss her chance, hence why she tries to escape due to knowing who’s coming and what it means for her. In the 2015 version, the glass slipper announcement doesn’t happen until after Cinderella is already locked up, so she has no reason to believe anyone coming to their house out in the country would be royal or looking for her, especially with her stepmother making other plans behind the scenes. Her making the best of her situation is supposed to be her subtlety telling her stepmother that her spirit can’t be broken, which is then heard by everyone when the mice open the window. Could they maybe have shown it a little more to get that point across? Admittedly, probably. But it makes sense for the story being told, and it’s not as awful as people think.
I actually liked Cinderella one of my favs, that’s interesting you brought up, because i never questioned that until now why didn’t she escape, I could see that, but saying that when you’re in a hostile situation or in a an abusive home i get that there trying to show how strong she is, but the best course of action is to escape that, so that would of made more sense even though she was trying to escape in the original movie, that would make ALOT more sense, and plus i think in the original opening of Cinderella showed us her spirit and how she is not letting her life no matter how bad it is affecting her spirit.
I agree, Cinderella is one of the few disney live actions I actually enjoyed because it changed a bit and I never liked the animated version that much (Ever After is still the best version of the tale), and everything made sense to me. In this movie, Ella's kept trying to find happiness even in the dark. So when she was locked up she decided to find her happiness in the memory of her moments with the prince.
The only problem I had with the new Aladdin was Iago didn’t get angry and frustrated and The Sultan wasn’t jolly and perky and childlike, despite being strict and bossy at times, since his character was inspired by The Wizard of oz.
It had good actors that did the best they could with what they were given. But the script was just meh. It seemed like they were trying to make it realistic and woke at the same time.
The worst things Disney changed: - Sheer Khan killing Akaela (doesn't happen in the original, doesn't happen in the original book) - Changing so much from Mulan: they rewrote the ENTIRE story & also took out Mushu for "not being realistic" yet replace him with a pheonix Also, this list will eventually get a remake or sequel...
@@michaelwinters4231If you mean that that's racistic then looked at how the butchered Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Now it is more like "Cole black and the seven woke guys". They butchered the movie, before it even comes to cinema. That's not racism. That's Disney trying to force everyone into accepting wokeism
Many people were critising this decision. Just like upcoming live-action Snow White, it has awful grasp of source material because of wrong actors. You all remember films like Last Airbender (live-action adaptation of greatest Nickelodeon's Avatar: the last Airbender) or Gods of Egypt. You all critised it for choosing European and American actors instead of Chinese (for Avatar) and African (for Egypt)
Nah, it's a remake with a few changes such as Alice already being there before. If it was a sequel to the animated version, there'd be continuity problems.
@@tanandalynch9441 Yes, sequel to the original animated film. Alice was a child in the animated version, this one she’s 18 i think? So sequel and NOT A REMAKE.
The whole point of the muted colour in Burton’s “Alice” was deliberate - because Wonderland is diseased and falling apart, with the need for Alice to return and turn things back (all of the characters mention that Alice had been to Wonderland in the past - essentially the animated classic version).
And it’s not necessarily a remake of the original Alice in wonderland movie from the 50s. It’s a little bit more of a sequel and remake together, whatever that would be called. Since Alice is not a young girl in this film, she is returning to Wonderland, which she thought was just a weird dream and coming to realize that dreams can be a reality and finding her destiny. I actually really enjoyed the movie, and saw nothing bad about it at all. Honestly, not having any musical numbers sung by any of the characters, makes it pretty good, having character singing in such a serious scenario, would make things a little weird.
I would agree with you there, because in the movie of Alice In Wonderland it was muted colours for a reason, because of that, but when you compare it to The Little Mermaid and Peter Pan & Wendy those don’t make sense due to the vibrant colours of the original.
Yeah it’s such a good and unique little lesson in like less than 30 seconds and it’s done in such a unique way that you won’t forget it. It’s one of my favorite movie quotes of all time.
Doug Walke/Nostalgia Critic: "Money means nothing without caring. And all you care about is making money off of these because they're popular, even if you don't understand why. They may look like the original characters and sound like the original characters, but poorly copying what they did doesn't make them the original characters. It just makes them a poor copy." Keep in mind, this was back in 2019.
I turned it off during be prepared. Most of the voice actors are still with us, so it's strange that only James Earl Jones was the only one to come back/be asked? Plus their voices are so distinct it's hards to watch it with anyone else. The lion king 1994 is my favourite movie and Scar is my favourite character. Be prepared in the live action just killed me😂😂😭
@@girlygirlsummer5761 but there are those that think that making a character suffer will automatically make us care about him or her If they try too hard to be mean-spirited, people will stop carrying, because they know that everything will work out for the character in the end
I have to disagree with Gaston leaving Belle's Dad to die that actually fits Gaston to a tee. All he cares about his himself and marrying Belle for her looks. Everyone else he really doesn't care for besides if they praise him.
I saw that clip and I had to skip ahead. Be prepared is my favorite song from the movie. Be Prepared was Scars big theater moment and they completely took it away.
Gaston was always a villain even in the animated version. There was less of a progression toward villainy and more of a peeling back of layers until the depths of his villainy was revealed. I’d actually argue that for this reason Gaston’s live action counterpart was faithful to the original.
I like what they did with Gaston in the live-action in the original we knew he was a hunter he was a narcissistic brute but they upped his violent streak and drove home how much of an ass-whole he was with the whole revealing that he would seduce and sleep with widows as well as him wanting to kill bells Father himself and ultimately leaving the man in the woods to get eaten by wolves.
I disagree that he was a faithful adaptation. Animated Gaston was conceited but not a murderous psychopath. The adaptation took him from a town hero who is used to getting what he wants (largely because he works for it. Those antlers in decorating didn't hunt themselves), to a blood thirsty and debaucherous maniac. I don't think Gaston would have come close to murder in the original if he would have seen the beast as human instead of an animal.
@@AJPapi Gaston is still a faithful adaptation from the animated film-in fact, I'd argue that the live action version was nicer. He actually starts off giving Belle some well-intentioned advice (unwanted, but not unusual for the time period) and politely asks to have dinner with her. Having the wolves kill Maurice means Maurice is still killed fairly quickly compared to the original where he is sent to the insane asylum right away. Do you have any idea what insane asylums were like back then?
Live action Mulan can hardly even be classified as brave. Bravery doesn't mean being fearless, it means persevering even though you are afraid. Live action Mulan doesn't show any fear, so she has nothing to be brave about.
There's an unintentionally hilarious detail in the remake. Early on, Mulan comments on how the makeup she wears to meet the matchmaker makes her face stiff. The obvious message being that they're trying to force her into a role that robs her of her individuality and ability to express herself. Then she wears the exact same expression throughout the entire movie, never displaying any emotion whatsoever and turning her into just another Mary Sue protag that's good at everything with no effort. The fact that nobody on staff, at any point, caught that obvious hypocrisy, made me laugh.
It is just so hypocritic when consider those actor actress in live action Mulan who support Chinese government but enjoying their freedom in US during my place of democracy in Hobg Kong..and they belive it (Don't anyone sare told me they force to do,they are much believe what they say with no excuse.)This remake it just like a typical Chinese kungfu movie than any disney movie.
I'm actually surprised Tim Burton didn't have the pink elephants on parade scene in the remake. If he had added the scene, they'd have been elephants with black and white stripes.. because for some reason he's obsessed with black and white stripes.
Yeah i can agree with that, i love the dark themes as well, and a bit dark twisted tales or fairytales as well, but i don’t mind the brighter stories, as well.
Changing the personalities of other animated Disney side characters, the birdy boiler scene from The Lion King(1994) being absent in the remake, Mowgli not going to the man village in The Jungle Book(1967), Colonel Hathi's March being absent in the remake, Baby Mine, When I See An Elephant Fly, and other songs from Dumbo(1940) being heard in the remake end credits, Stromboli telling Pinocchio that he'll use him for firewood, the croquet scene(Alice In Wonderland), Jaq and Gus getting Lady Tremaine's key(Cinderella(1950)), Cinderella and The Prince singing So This Is Love, Flora and Fauna making Princess Aurora's dress blue and pink with their wands(Sleeping Beauty), the Lion King characters not having cartoon features in the remake, Scar smacking Zazu(The Lion King(1994)), The monkeys kidnapping Mowgli and messing with Baloo(The Jungle Book), Jimminy Cricket calling out Pinocchio for playing pool and smoking(Pinocchio(1940), and other changes that no one asked for when these remakes happened should've been on the list. 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
I don't think that mogwli not going to the man village in the remake was a problem thats why in the animated one, there was a pt 2 to tell us what had already happened in the man village after leaving us curious to know what would happen after the original film , and I think that was enough unless you want them to do another pt 2 real life remake 😂
I’ll die on this hill, but Babe had the BEST animal mouth movements ever. To this day, I still don’t know how they got everything to be so seamless and perfect
Fro what little I've heard, Tim Burtons "Alice" sounds more like a ripoff of the A. G. Howard "Splintered" book series, which is a dark take on "Wonderland."
Remeber that era when Disney was obsessed with making directed DVD sequels to older Disney classics? This is basically the same thing, but with live action remakes
For me Jon Favreau's The Jungle Book is better than the animated version (which I still adore), especially the human protagonist Mowgli and the spectacular final climax. Its special effects are incredible and deserved all the accolades including the Oscar.
I agree. I prefer the original Baloo, and what they did with the music in the remake was just stupid, but literally everything else was better in the remake
I would also like to add aging Cinderella up when her father remarried and died. In the original she was a child and suffered more than a decade of abuse. However, when she’s about a young adult when it happens, and is seen going out and about before the ball and talking to people, it’s harder to see her as an abused and imprisoned servant in her own home and that she deserves her happy ending (not that she doesn’t deserve it, but it feels less earned).
When Disney announced they were going to make live-action remakes of their classic animated films, I wasn’t impressed. The results of this are mostly turning out to be as I expected. I’ve always understood that animation is always more magical than live-action CGI will ever be. Animation is spontaneously more dynamic, emotional and fun as a result. Disney has lost sight of what made its original movies classics in the first place.
One thing that should've been on the list is the remakes not including any of songs from the broadway versions like "Endless Night" and "Shadowland", a song Beyonce would've done amazingly!
Why can’t Disney do more animated originals? They should’ve never canceled gigantic. They would’ve been a big hit. Or give Fraidy cat another go, but this time with a new art style, mixing with Apex legends and into the spider verse art style.
Cost too much money takes too much time 2d amination d Wasent profitabel enough thats why its called common sense. Disney aint gonna go back to 2d amination the less money they make the wont risk that is that simple 😊
Spoiler alert for the 2023 version of The Little Mermaid. A friend of mine told me 2 things about the unnecessary changes to the ending. 1. It undermines Triton's character development. At the beginning of the original film, he hates humans, but by the end of the film, a human defeats Ursula and saves his kingdom, which gives Triton an actual reason to stop hating humans. By replacing Eric with Ariel, it will make him seem like he just stops hating humans because "he hurt Ariel's feelings." 2. It makes Eric less important to the story. Throughout the original film, after Ariel rescues Eric from the storm, he obsesses over the girl who rescued her, completely unaware that the girl (i.e. Ariel is right in front of him). When he finally realizes it in the climax, he returns the favor by rescuing Ariel from Ursula. The remake seems like he's only really there for Ariel to lust over.
I really hated it that the Grand Duke from Cinderella was made, basically, a villain henchman. Why would Disney do that? And I never saw live action Mulan. And the main reason was that the actress who plays the titular character, is for the repression of Hong Kong democracy activists. So in the movie she fights for freedom but in real life she's for imprisonment. Also I did not like that Shan Yu, the menacing animated villain, was re-created in a villain that is not interesting or appealing in any way
It also doesn't help that they changed the film to suit the Chinese Communist Party, who are repressing Uyghurs in the very location used for the film. It's disgusting that Disney sold out like that.
One of the main problems as to why Disney live-action movies/shows are horrible nowadays is due to the fact that they're changing everything that may cause a "trigger". Disney forced Alan Menken to change some of the lyrics to "Kiss the Girl" in the live-action remake of "The Little Mermaid". The lyrics are not telling Prince Eric to force himself on Ariel. That's downright absurd! Late Millennials and Gen Z need to get a grip on reality. They're too busy changing everything and not learning from the past.
@@star-boltlover9609I can see where that idea can come from which is why context is important. Even without the scene that song will put me on edge just picturing my fav ship and just about screaming at them “Kiss already! Stop procrastinating!”
Your honour, I would like a chance to defend Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland on the charge of muted colours. I think something to remember is this is a mix of a reboot and a sequel to the 1951 version in that she's a young woman here, not a child. I argue that the colours are muted for two reasons; one, is because the Red Queen has taken an even tighter strangle hold on Wonderland than she had in the 1951 version (as referenced by her beheading the King) and, with this hold, had sucked much of the 'wonder' from her corner of Wonderland. I reference the difference between the area directly surrounding Mirana's kingdom of Marmoreal as opposed to Iracebeth's kingdom. Kind of like Pride Rock between Mufassa's rule VS Scar's. Secondly, I believe it's supposed to reference Alice's transition from child to womanhood; when she was a child, Wonderland was perplexing and vibrant, but now people are pushing her to grow up and marry that boring little twerp, Hamish and she sees her life becoming very gray and boring.
Yeah i wouldn’t necessarily put Alice in Wonderland in that camp, it had a reason for muted colours and also The Lion King has muted colours for part of the film as well, yeah i think Alice In Wonderland changes a lot for the original in a good way, because not only she is not a kid anymore, but she is in adulthood trying to figure who she is going to be and sometimes imagination takes you away from the real world and solves all your problems and i think every adult feels like that, just to escape all of it, and that’s what Alice represents.
Thank you for bringing up Tim Burtons Alice In Wonderland. It was not a remake, it was clearly a sequel. We didn’t get to see wonderland at its best or even a re-imagining of the original! It honestly was kind of a rip off of American Mcgees Alice but less scary. What a total missed opportunity!
A nitpick I had with the Alice Movie ever since it first showed up: Calling the monster "The Jabberwocky". No! "Jabberwocky" is the POEM. The MONSTER is called "The Jabberwock". And honestly, without the Y he sounds more menacing.
I didn't actually mind Christopher Walken's version of "I want to be like you" to me it kind of gave a bit more enthusiasm like a bit more bounce. And the part about not all of them being musicals I don't think it's a bad change thankfully that's number 20. Not everything has to be a musical and there is no guarantee that the actors/actresses that they get can sing. I think what they were trying to do is revamp it so it's going to be telling the same story but it's going to be different in some ways and I don't mind the difference. Makes them slightly unique
Except here's the problem with Walken's I Wanna Be Like You: it doesn't fit. Because the movie hadn't established itself as a musical. Also, there's no build-up to it. It relies on the original for context and serves no purpose other than nostalgia. In the original, the song was personality-driven, it fleshed out the bombastic atmosphere of the bandar-log and it foreshadowed Mowgli's mastery over fire.
I like it when the remakes attempt not to be a musical like their animated predecessors. It at least gives them some attempt to distinguish themselves from the original than be copy-paste.
I love that Jasmine is more than just a locked up princess who's curious about the outside world. In the remake she wants to learn more about her people because she wants to be more involved in the politics and ruling Agrabah as its princess. This makes it all the more infuriating when they removed one of her greatest moments from the original rooftop chase scene where she ran ahead of Aladdin and jumped first. Instead of letting her jump on her own, she hesitates and needs Aladdin to encourage her first. With all the positive changes that show her to be even more fearless and independent princess, this change was unnecessary and feels more like two steps forward, one step back.
One more thing I should probably mention about the live action's is that you're not going to be able to please everybody and I think Disney understands that. If you keep it exactly to the original people going to say what was the sense of making it which is why the changes are needed make it a bit more unique and if they completely change it they say your ruin your childhood. It depends on your tastes honestly whether you fully agree with this List fully disagree with this list or partway agree with it
I agree, I think making the live action EXACTLY like the original makes it boring. BUT I'll also say that some changes end up decreasing the quality instead of making it better or more unique. I really enjoyed the Cinderella movie exactly because it changes things but in a way that gave more character to Ella and specialky the prince, who in the animated version didnt even have a name. On the other hand, some changes like the ones in Alladin and Mulan specially did not have the same effect, at least not to me.
Regarding the mulan complaint, it would have been better if they actually followed the source canon where her dad trained her (without turning her into a mary sue). i guess we're lucky disney didn't think of accusing those who hated the remake of sexism
The enchanted book in 'Beauty and the Beast' only creates an illusion of the location around you without anyone there, it doesn't teleport you. You are still physically in the location you used the book while it creates a magical backdrop around the user of the location they want to visit. I think the magic mirror in the remake only allows you to view people you know and not locations.
Exactly, the beast even called it "another illusion of the enchantress". We all got closure about the characters and the couple in question saw deeper into each other's souls. This book scene became a centerpiece at my wedding. The movie overall was our theme. It means the world to us.
I agree with a lot of your criticisms, except a couple i consider nitpicks, including the Beasts book. I have watched most of the remakes, and in contrast to what I suspect are the opinions of most of your commentators, i enjoyed them. I know they're not perfect, but as you've said, they improve on certain bits and are very well done films. My top ones would be: The Lion King Aladdin Lady and the Tramp Beauty and the Beast The Little Mermaid The Jungle Book. I have been ridiculed regularly for ny defense of these films, but i can take it. My opinion is my opinion, and i will stand by it.
Changing the name of the creature from Jaberwock to Jaberwockee. Jaberwockee is the name of the poem. So basically in that movie Alice went through all these hoops and was the chosen one because she was destined to find a paper shredder.
Actually I like the Alice of Wonderland. It became different because it's obviously directed by Tim Burton. And also weird that Johnny is the main, not Mia. The Queens(Anne and Helena) were based in Looking Glass book even the Jabberwocky. So yeah, I know the colors are not vibrant unlike the 2nd movie and you know Burton will change it from the original. I don't expect that especially when he directed Dumbo and Miss Peregrine 🙄
@@alexisdominey6487 bs, dude! the 2010 film (and actors) clearly called itself Underland and not Wonderland. 'Alice in Wonderland', my ass. the filmmakers straight up lied. the film doesn't deliver what the title promises: a full-on, faithful adaptation. Care Bears in Wonderland is a better adaptation than this! yeah, i said it!
there is nothing wrong with the 101 dalmatians remake. it's way better than most of the remakes than came after it. Also, Gaston leaving Maurice to die actually seems in character for him. it not only shows how unredeemable he was but also shows how LeFou really is a good man.
20. Didn't mind 19. Yeah, it was underwhelming 17. I actually didn't notice in some of these movies 13. Yeah, he was boring 7:35, Yeah, he's lighter than him 12. A salt in the wound 10. Yeah, they didn't deserve this 7. Literally plain as paper 5. Loser 4. Should've stick with the mirror or use it to its potential
not every movie needs to be a musical. i always felt awkward hearing king louie in the live action version sing, while the original version has a lot of charm when the character sings and makes it feel natural. also, i'm 100 percent certain that animals in real life would show at least a tiny bit more emotion than the lion king 2019. what i don't get though, is why do people think the blue skin on the genie looks bad?
I'm bummed that the pink elephants scene was changed. Isn't the Jabberwocky part of Alice lore? They made a practical costume for the beast didn't they? I saw it in an image. Why didn't they use it? Mulan also had a sister who had no purpose in the story. Why did Geppetto not go with Pinocchio to school? It's not like Pinocchio is familiar with this town.
and people say cartoons are for kids. "HA!" i say. give me Disney classic animated movies over any of the remakes, even some new ones, any day. why can't Disney go back to the drawling board, literally?
6:01 Yes! Definitely this! It was bad enough the entire town never turned on Gaston following that moment because I would say this also makes this Gaston probably less likable than the original version of the character is supposed to be
I didn't necessarily hate that change from Cinderella where she didn't even try to escape because it's sort of plays into the fact that the animal still helped her. That's kind of part of her character though so if anything it just put that front and center
And there’s a deleted scene where she writes a letter to the prince explaining who she is and asking to meet with him. She takes it to the palace and the grand Duke burns it before Kit can read it…
The original "Moana" was perfect just the way it is, and it really bummed me out to find out that a live-action reimagining of it was announced by Maui himself "Dwayne Johnson" and the Disney Revival Era restored everyone's faith in Disney as a whole and if they really go after the rest of the Revival Era films like my fave: "Zootopia" I'm going to be upset at that and just disappointed in Disney if they actually ever do that unless they cease and decease on anymore future Disney Live-action remakes in development
Zootopia features no humans. How could it possibly have a live-action version? But they might still do it, as long as the box office projections are promising.
@@hunterrousseau3770 , if Disney actually went ahead with such a misbegotten idea, this video would have to be updated--with live action *Zootopia* in the #1 slot!
Another worst thing that Disney did in their remakes was trying to add too much female empowerment by making their original female characters Mary Sues who can do everything perfectly and don't need help, and they can't even feel vulnerable when they have to. But the thing is, those characters were all perfect from the beginning. - I don't really need to say anything about Cinderella because she's still kind and strong at the same time, just like in the original, and that's what I love. - They changed Belle by making her a little too stubborn just because Disney thinks that Belle has Stockholm Syndrome because every critic said so, and they wanted to fix a problem that was never actually a problem in the first place. Belle was already perfect as she is because she's kind, nurturing, stubborn when she needed to be, and she faced her fears, even when she was scared. The remake lacked all of that. - Disney even made Mulan a flawless character and removed every struggle she had in live-action. That's not normal because going through a struggle is what makes you strong. - But although I do want to watch the live-action "Little Mermaid," I already know what happens, but I did hear that in the final battle with Ursula, Ariel and Eric's roles are reversed. This time, Eric is the one in the whirlpool while Ariel is the one in the ship and is the one impaling Ursula. First of all, Ariel is still a mermaid, so how would she be able to get to the steering wheel? She doesn't even know how to drive a ship, and that's fine! And are Disney and the other critics forgetting that Ariel tried to save Eric TWICE?! Because when Eric impaled Ursula in the original, it was just fine because they saved each other, and that's what caused King Triton to believe that Ariel and Eric really do love each other. It's even okay if you need help as well, but too bad nobody likes that. 😡 Honestly, I don't see why everyone made such a big deal out of the climactic battle, and why others made such a big deal out of Ariel's entire character arc. They just thought Ariel was too much of a damsel, but she sang an entire song about wanting to be part of the human world. Prince Eric was just a bonus, and there was nothing wrong with that! DID YOU ALL NOT EVEN PAY ATTENTION TO THE ORIGINAL? AND DID YOU EVEN WATCH IT?! - They even made Wendy a Mary Sue in "Peter Pan & Wendy," and that's not good. There's a reason why Disney live-action remakes exist. To make their original Disney Princesses Mary Sues and too stubborn. This is all the critical people's fault because they like to make a big deal out of everything and they hate every character who has a kind trait and a pure heart. YEAH, I'M TALKING ABOUT YOU, CRITICS! HOW DO YOU LIKE ME NOW?! Backlash me all you want, but I am not changing my opinion. AT ALL.
I think The Lion King might personally offend me a bit more, but Mulan is for sure the worst. It's like they fundamentally didn't understand anything in terms of the themes. I mean if you want to change things, sure, but at least make the change in line with the story. Maleficent is telling the story from the villain's perspective, Twisted did the same thing. It throws out the original ideas because we have a completely different point of view. Each version vilifies the other side, so having two very different stories in terms of the meat and conclusion makes sense. Having a story focusing on the same point of view but completely changing a character, especially for the worse is not good. I thing Cinderella is probably the best of them because it adds to the story and while it changes the flow of the movie, the things it sacrifices are in service for character development, Ella's backstory with her father and her actually having conversations with the prince so that it's not the only time they meet before he scours the kingdom for her. They also give him a name, which is nice.
Little Mermaid shouldn’t have changed the ending battle. Eric should have been the one to save Ariel from Ursula, not the other way around. Pinocchio and Milan changed WAY too much for worst.
Wow I do agree that the chosen one trope is annoying I honestly don’t have a problem with it in some movies like the Alice in Wonderland 2010 movie or the matrix basically what I’m saying is most of these changes I like except for the be prepared thing that was way better in the original heck I’m still mad about the can you feel the love “tonight” thing in the remake
16:17 that scene is one of my favorites from Beauty and the Beast. It is just so cool, beautiful, and touching. In fact, I’m watching the movie right now. Then again, I watch it all the time. 😁🤭🤗🥰😍
Honestly, I love Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland! Everything about it was great to watch, and I loved the emotional drama it had! It was a joy to watch from start to finish! The epic fantasy vibe it gave was probably one of the best things about it (as well as the musical score)! I understand why it may not have had the most positive reception, but for me, It’s one of my favourite films of all time! 🤩🤩
As a Lewis Carroll super fan, I LOVED that it combined Alice in Wonderland and the poem Jabberwocky! The new interpretations of the created words in the poem were so entertaining! It takes a small level of nuance to enjoy the Tim Burton movie, he did an amazing job for literary fans.
10:03 I didn’t know this was not the first time we have seen. A side characters removed like Mushu but Timothy Q. Mouse Should have been given bigger part In a remake they’ve also removed chef Louis from the little mermaid which made the reboot worse. Why not remove Gurgi for the black cauldron reboot because of how annoying and grating he is! That would work!
There is actually one change I really like from the live-action remakes that should've been in the original: Giving LeFou a redemption arc ("Beauty and the Beast", 2017).
About Maleficent: Stephan was charged by the previous king to SLAY her, not just cut her wings off. He brought back her wings as proof that she was dead so the previous king would let him marry his daughter and become king after the old king died (which he did). Stephan COULD have killed Maleficent, and even raises a dagger to do so once she's drugged out, but he doesn't because, in spite of his burning ambition, he still sees her as his childhood friend. However, that ambition has so deeply warped any sense of good in him that he was still reasonably okay with maiming her. Over the rest of the movie, as he goes mad with power, that last bit of good in him is destroyed and he goes full-on evil revenge-seeker. It's sort-of an anti-parallel to Maleficent herself, who curses Aurora to get revenge, but eventually grows to love her and becomes a better person because of that love.
Hold on a minute you're saying to me that him killing Maurice and then being revealed as the real beast it detracts from it? What?! If anything that makes him more of a beast! It actually adds to the narrative! What do you mean?
Removing Mushu, deleting all the clever songs, Mulan just being rather lame compared to the animated... Making Ed talk, completely removing Be Prepared (aside from a chant), altering Pumbaa's "They call me MISTER PIG" line to be some cliche about bullying (relevant as it is to the modern day, but let's be real, it's always relevant and just a cheesy cliche in this scene)...Lion King list goes on. I can barely tell Mufasa apart from Scar in the remake... No Jafar snake - my main gripe about Aladdin. However, I liked this one and could watch it again.
I never watched the “live action” Lion King. It legit scares me. I love we got to see the real animals but it takes away from the charming nature of the characters. It makes them hard to connect to
you know it's the worst when even the mainland Chinese griped about the loss of the musical numbers and Mushu (the latter which ironically they griped about decades ago) regarding "brave Mulan", the original "Ballad of Mulan" only has *the titular character being willful in a filial manner* ("My father has no grown-up sons"), since without hesitation she abandons her womanly lifestyle for the military, and even has her parents' permission (though admittedly "Reflection" is a perfect response to the beginning line of "Mulan sighs at her loom" where she has an identity crisis of sorts)
Them making Alice the chosen one........ it kind of makes it seem like she was supposed to fall down there. I mean it's not exactly a terrible change but it's not like she was a little girl going down this Rabbit Hole like in the original so I see the difference. I would say it was an okay change. It actually gave her a reason to be there while also being curious about what the hell the place is all about
Are you guys also gonna do "Top 20 Best Changes in Disney Live Action Remakes"? Because - as hard as it is for some people to believe - these movies do have their saving graces.
Which change left you saying, “Oh my Disney?!” Let us know in the comments!
For more Disney content like this, click here!: ruclips.net/video/ChWVxK1ZxPE/видео.html
Don't forget to play our Live Trivia (www.watchmojo.com/play) games at 3pm and 8pm EST for a chance to win cash! The faster you answer, the more points you get!
Could’t you have Wait until the little mermaid remake come before this video was made?
0:39 people 1:02 1:39
i don't mind some of the changes, as change can be refreshing. but to dramatically change the core aspects of a specific character's identity (ie, base personality, and character design) is completely unnecessary for the most part. I'll admit, the way the Little Mermaid tried to do colour-blind casting is smart, but also problematic for several reasons (I'm not just talking about Halle Bailey here). Triton has 7 daughters, now it's never really mentioned whether all 7 daughters share the same mother, not at least in the original movie, and since they mostly looked like actual sisters, we never questioned their parentage. In the new film, Triton still has 7 daughters, but they are each a different race. For any child that has any sort of understanding of how genetics work (and most of them do at 13), this immediately implies that Triton was either a polygamist or liked to "sleep around", now to be fair, the Greek Myths of the gods (which the Little Mermaid is loosely based on) don't mess around by saying the gods did in fact like to sleep around often, but for a company that built it's legacy on family-friendly entertainment, this kind of implication is a huge no-no. And before you say, that colour-blind casting is not meant to be taken seriously, there are 2 types of comedy films. the first is an outright comedy, a genuinely funny script paired with expert comedic performances; then there's the "parody style" comedy, a type of low-budget comedy where the actors are just riffing off each other regardless of how bad the jokes can get, or how awful the production quality is, sometimes it can be in the "it's so bad it's good" category, it doesn't mean that there aren't any good parody-style comedies, just that most of them are trash. an example of a good parody-style comedy where colour-blind casting worked well, is Roger and Hammerstein's Cinderella. Cinderella is played by R&B singer Brandy, her Prince is played by Filipino actor Paolo Montalban and his parents are played by Whoopi Goldberg (black) and Victor Garber (white). Now i'm no geneticist, but i don't believe that a White man and a Black woman can produce an Asian baby, so obviously the casting is not meant to be taken seriously, especially since it's based on a stage-musical that is loosely based on the original animated film (ie the 1997 Cinderella is not an official remake), whereas this Little Mermaid is a fully-fledged remake of an older film that was loosely based on a Danish story. Secondly, now i'm gonna talk about Halle Bailey here, if they are gonna stress that colour-blind casting is not to be taken seriously, then why would they race-swap the main character for an official remake of a well-known older film. If Ariel remained white, while her other less well-known sisters were racially/ethnically different, then nobody would've batted an eyelid at it, Halle could've still had a major supporting role as one of Ariel's sisters and nobody would've cared that she's black, and casting her in an originally Caucasian lead role makes it seem like the film is following the "blackwashing" trend of recent Hollywood movies. But then if Hollywood casts a white actor in the originally black Shaft role, then people will go nuts. The reason why people care so strongly about Ariel, is because she is by far and away the most popular Disney character, many boys (of all ethnicities) had a massive crush on the red-headed mermaid, and most of them can't see an actress of any other race filling that role, kinda like how perfectly cast Margot Robbie is for the Barbie movie. Realistically speaking, the only reason why they gave Ariel's sisters different vibrant hair colours and styles in the original movie, is so that it's easier for them to be differentiated, Ariel's bright red hair and blue eyes stood out because of another cartoon red-headed bombshell that had her feature film debut a year earlier - Jessica Rabbit.
DISNEY'S LIVE-ACTION REMAKE HOT 🔥 GARAGE HOT 🔥 GARAGE.
I know I’m gonna get some heat for saying this, but changing the color of Ariel’s skin, making Sebastian and Flounder look realistic instead of lively, and changing the lyrics to “Kiss the Girl” got me to say no to the remake of The Little Mermaid.
Mulan 1998: An ordinary, Determined young woman who rises against the odds placed against her.
Mulan 2020: A Mary Sue who is perfect and inexplicably has superpowers.
Mulan 1998 is still a classic
Unfortunately I must agree with this, she didn't even cut her hair in remake.
The main thing is that it's a story from the east. The 1998: movie well fun was an insult to the story. The 2020 was a vary bad attempt to fix this. As for the cutting of hair men had long hair so cutting it would not work.
@@tyleryardley845 its never been stated to be in insult, many chinese love the animated version.
I have a feeling if he was forced to watch the 2020 remake as punishment for his misogynistic behavior towards the original and women in general, Chi Fu would end up having newfound respect and appreciation for the original Mulan.
Disney: *makes another live action remake*
Everyone: "HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO TEACH YOU THIS LESSON, OLD MAN?!"
SQUIDWARD: THE TRUTH WILL BE REVEALED!
@@chasehedges6775 Patrick: Woo Hoo! Right on Squidward!
@@benitosierrajr3958 👍👍👍
So long as people keep taking their kids to this dreck, they will keep making them. The almighty dollar is all that matters.
Until people stop watching them
"Evil cannot create anything new. It can only corrupt and ruin what good forces have invented or made."
- JRR Tolkien
He saw the future where classic works get tarnished and tried to warn us.
We didn't listen.
If he was still alive today, this would be the world's best, "I told you so".
Considering how the head of Disney is acting that is sadly true
That’s what these remakes are.
@@jcj268The only remake I'd like to see is the Hunchback of notre dame
I can't believe that they didn't let Scar sing "Be Prepared", AKA one of the best villain songs of all time. They kept most of the dialogue the same, so what's even the point?
I didn't think it was that bad at all. certainly gave chills down my spine which was the point.
At least Luke Evans and Melissa McCarthy got to perform their respective villains’ songs from the original and give their own take. What’s the 2019 Lion King’s excuse?!
@@mlggamer5296I didn't have a problem with the 2019 version of Be Prepared either since I thought it could work for an seriously evil villain and have better visuals in the proper film.
@@mlggamer5296 it was crap -10/10
Imagine they won't let Frollo sing "Hellfire" in the live action remake of Hunchback of Notre Dame.. That would be the same level of stupidity
I agree with most of these, but let me explain why Cinderella doesn’t try to escape in the 2015 version, because I feel a lot of people don’t realize the slight change that explains why she wouldn’t:
In the animated version, Lady Tremaine announces loud and clear that the royal party is coming to every house to find girls. So Cinderella knows that she can’t miss her chance, hence why she tries to escape due to knowing who’s coming and what it means for her.
In the 2015 version, the glass slipper announcement doesn’t happen until after Cinderella is already locked up, so she has no reason to believe anyone coming to their house out in the country would be royal or looking for her, especially with her stepmother making other plans behind the scenes. Her making the best of her situation is supposed to be her subtlety telling her stepmother that her spirit can’t be broken, which is then heard by everyone when the mice open the window.
Could they maybe have shown it a little more to get that point across? Admittedly, probably. But it makes sense for the story being told, and it’s not as awful as people think.
Nnna man nha man
Plus it's part of her character it's putting that centre-stage. Doesn't she usually sing and animals come and help her or interact with her?
I actually liked Cinderella one of my favs, that’s interesting you brought up, because i never questioned that until now why didn’t she escape, I could see that, but saying that when you’re in a hostile situation or in a an abusive home i get that there trying to show how strong she is, but the best course of action is to escape that, so that would of made more sense even though she was trying to escape in the original movie, that would make ALOT more sense, and plus i think in the original opening of Cinderella showed us her spirit and how she is not letting her life no matter how bad it is affecting her spirit.
I agree, Cinderella is one of the few disney live actions I actually enjoyed because it changed a bit and I never liked the animated version that much (Ever After is still the best version of the tale), and everything made sense to me. In this movie, Ella's kept trying to find happiness even in the dark. So when she was locked up she decided to find her happiness in the memory of her moments with the prince.
I think it's a very accurate portrayal of child abuse and how being under such a hold for so long makes it hard to break away.
The removal of the "it's in the past" interaction with Rafiki in The Lion King is CRIMINAL and should've been on this list
The only problem I had with the new Aladdin was Iago didn’t get angry and frustrated and The Sultan wasn’t jolly and perky and childlike, despite being strict and bossy at times, since his character was inspired by The Wizard of oz.
It had good actors that did the best they could with what they were given. But the script was just meh. It seemed like they were trying to make it realistic and woke at the same time.
@@stevenceja4706 at least Will Smith’s genie still got silly and crazy just like Robin Williams version.
@@jonkeiser6092 No argument there. Will Smith was one of the best parts of that movie.
@@stevenceja4706 absolutely!
The worst things Disney changed:
- Sheer Khan killing Akaela (doesn't happen in the original, doesn't happen in the original book)
- Changing so much from Mulan: they rewrote the ENTIRE story & also took out Mushu for "not being realistic" yet replace him with a pheonix
Also, this list will eventually get a remake or sequel...
Little mermaid changes her race becoming black.
@@Gvair22Stop being so racist.
@@michaelwinters4231If you mean that that's racistic then looked at how the butchered Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Now it is more like "Cole black and the seven woke guys".
They butchered the movie, before it even comes to cinema. That's not racism. That's Disney trying to force everyone into accepting wokeism
@@Gvair22of all problems to list out,? because of skin colour??!
Many people were critising this decision. Just like upcoming live-action Snow White, it has awful grasp of source material because of wrong actors.
You all remember films like Last Airbender (live-action adaptation of greatest Nickelodeon's Avatar: the last Airbender) or Gods of Egypt. You all critised it for choosing European and American actors instead of Chinese (for Avatar) and African (for Egypt)
Alice in Wonderland was NOT a remake, it's technically a sequel.
Indeed, They didnt even Watch the movies.
I agree
Nah, it's a remake with a few changes such as Alice already being there before. If it was a sequel to the animated version, there'd be continuity problems.
@@mattiasolsson1523how so? It's implied to be a sequel to the original
@@tanandalynch9441
Yes, sequel to the original animated film. Alice was a child in the animated version, this one she’s 18 i think? So sequel and NOT A REMAKE.
The whole point of the muted colour in Burton’s “Alice” was deliberate - because Wonderland is diseased and falling apart, with the need for Alice to return and turn things back (all of the characters mention that Alice had been to Wonderland in the past - essentially the animated classic version).
something can be deliberate while still being a poor choice. and there are more ways to convey that without making it nearly black and white
And it’s not necessarily a remake of the original Alice in wonderland movie from the 50s. It’s a little bit more of a sequel and remake together, whatever that would be called. Since Alice is not a young girl in this film, she is returning to Wonderland, which she thought was just a weird dream and coming to realize that dreams can be a reality and finding her destiny. I actually really enjoyed the movie, and saw nothing bad about it at all. Honestly, not having any musical numbers sung by any of the characters, makes it pretty good, having character singing in such a serious scenario, would make things a little weird.
I’m pretty sure in the book Alice beheads the jabberwocky as well. I actually adored both the live action Alice movies
Also I could of sworn when she did remember there was color in wonderland when she was a kid because she added color, especially for the red queen
I would agree with you there, because in the movie of Alice In Wonderland it was muted colours for a reason, because of that, but when you compare it to The Little Mermaid and Peter Pan & Wendy those don’t make sense due to the vibrant colours of the original.
Everyone: "What inspired you to make a live action movie after releasing the original one?"
Disney: *"MONEY"*
Yeah it’s such a good and unique little lesson in like less than 30 seconds and it’s done in such a unique way that you won’t forget it. It’s one of my favorite movie quotes of all time.
Doug Walke/Nostalgia Critic: "Money means nothing without caring. And all you care about is making money off of these because they're popular, even if you don't understand why. They may look like the original characters and sound like the original characters, but poorly copying what they did doesn't make them the original characters. It just makes them a poor copy."
Keep in mind, this was back in 2019.
Be prepared in Lion King 2019 left me like, “Really? This is how we’re commemorating this all time classic’s 25th anniversary?”
Yeah
He was whispering for one minute and then yelled the next minute
Yes. Why cut it!? It's the most bombastic villain song ever, imo.
The live action remake didn't even have the musical charm the animated one had.
I turned it off during be prepared. Most of the voice actors are still with us, so it's strange that only James Earl Jones was the only one to come back/be asked? Plus their voices are so distinct it's hards to watch it with anyone else. The lion king 1994 is my favourite movie and Scar is my favourite character. Be prepared in the live action just killed me😂😂😭
It was stupid
"Technology fades overtime, the orginal's raw emotion and hand drawn artistry won't." Well said.
You know, a mean-spirited story is the result of lazy writing
As a writer, not exactly. I love dark and mean spirited shit but I do actually try
@@girlygirlsummer5761 but there are those that think that making a character suffer will automatically make us care about him or her
If they try too hard to be mean-spirited, people will stop carrying, because they know that everything will work out for the character in the end
@@girlygirlsummer5761
2004s "Around The World in 80 Days" is one of them
Amen
Or part of an agenda
I have to disagree with Gaston leaving Belle's Dad to die that actually fits Gaston to a tee. All he cares about his himself and marrying Belle for her looks. Everyone else he really doesn't care for besides if they praise him.
I think so too. So he can take care of Belle, really a villain acting to be honest.
Exactly it adds to The Narrative of him being the real beast. That's what I said. By doing something so heinous it informs that climax
He technically did that in the original, wanting to send him to the Looney bin
The Disney classics will always be iconic but the Disney Remakes will be dust in the wind
Amen brother
I spit in the faces of the remakes’ directors!
the classics will always be the best
I'd put "Botching Prepared" higher on the list; that was unforgivable
Yep. One of the best and most bombastic villain songs!
I saw that clip and I had to skip ahead. Be prepared is my favorite song from the movie. Be Prepared was Scars big theater moment and they completely took it away.
Gaston was always a villain even in the animated version. There was less of a progression toward villainy and more of a peeling back of layers until the depths of his villainy was revealed. I’d actually argue that for this reason Gaston’s live action counterpart was faithful to the original.
I like what they did with Gaston in the live-action in the original we knew he was a hunter he was a narcissistic brute but they upped his violent streak and drove home how much of an ass-whole he was with the whole revealing that he would seduce and sleep with widows as well as him wanting to kill bells Father himself and ultimately leaving the man in the woods to get eaten by wolves.
Truth.
I disagree that he was a faithful adaptation. Animated Gaston was conceited but not a murderous psychopath.
The adaptation took him from a town hero who is used to getting what he wants (largely because he works for it. Those antlers in decorating didn't hunt themselves), to a blood thirsty and debaucherous maniac.
I don't think Gaston would have come close to murder in the original if he would have seen the beast as human instead of an animal.
@@AJPapi Gaston is still a faithful adaptation from the animated film-in fact, I'd argue that the live action version was nicer. He actually starts off giving Belle some well-intentioned advice (unwanted, but not unusual for the time period) and politely asks to have dinner with her. Having the wolves kill Maurice means Maurice is still killed fairly quickly compared to the original where he is sent to the insane asylum right away. Do you have any idea what insane asylums were like back then?
Live action Mulan can hardly even be classified as brave.
Bravery doesn't mean being fearless, it means persevering even though you are afraid.
Live action Mulan doesn't show any fear, so she has nothing to be brave about.
There's an unintentionally hilarious detail in the remake. Early on, Mulan comments on how the makeup she wears to meet the matchmaker makes her face stiff. The obvious message being that they're trying to force her into a role that robs her of her individuality and ability to express herself. Then she wears the exact same expression throughout the entire movie, never displaying any emotion whatsoever and turning her into just another Mary Sue protag that's good at everything with no effort. The fact that nobody on staff, at any point, caught that obvious hypocrisy, made me laugh.
It is just so hypocritic when consider those actor actress in live action Mulan who support Chinese government but enjoying their freedom in US during my place of democracy in Hobg Kong..and they belive it (Don't anyone sare told me they force to do,they are much believe what they say with no excuse.)This remake it just like a typical Chinese kungfu movie than any disney movie.
"No booze near the baby!"
Literally who was offended by a baby cartoon elephant getting drunk on champagne by accident
As much as I dislike the remake, that was at least a nice jab at the scene of Dumbo getting drunk. I admit I got a chuckle out of that part.
I'm actually surprised Tim Burton didn't have the pink elephants on parade scene in the remake. If he had added the scene, they'd have been elephants with black and white stripes.. because for some reason he's obsessed with black and white stripes.
In fairness, I'm used to dark themes and I'm used to both vibrant colors and dark themes as long as they were written right.
Yeah i can agree with that, i love the dark themes as well, and a bit dark twisted tales or fairytales as well, but i don’t mind the brighter stories, as well.
So many items you got right that it was a refreshing reminder why I watch this channel.
Changing the personalities of other animated Disney side characters, the birdy boiler scene from The Lion King(1994) being absent in the remake, Mowgli not going to the man village in The Jungle Book(1967), Colonel Hathi's March being absent in the remake, Baby Mine, When I See An Elephant Fly, and other songs from Dumbo(1940) being heard in the remake end credits, Stromboli telling Pinocchio that he'll use him for firewood, the croquet scene(Alice In Wonderland), Jaq and Gus getting Lady Tremaine's key(Cinderella(1950)), Cinderella and The Prince singing So This Is Love, Flora and Fauna making Princess Aurora's dress blue and pink with their wands(Sleeping Beauty), the Lion King characters not having cartoon features in the remake, Scar smacking Zazu(The Lion King(1994)), The monkeys kidnapping Mowgli and messing with Baloo(The Jungle Book), Jimminy Cricket calling out Pinocchio for playing pool and smoking(Pinocchio(1940), and other changes that no one asked for when these remakes happened should've been on the list. 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
I don't think that mogwli not going to the man village in the remake was a problem
thats why in the animated one, there was a pt 2 to tell us what had already happened in the man village after leaving us curious to know what would happen after the original film , and I think that was enough
unless you want them to do another pt 2 real life remake 😂
I’ll die on this hill, but Babe had the BEST animal mouth movements ever. To this day, I still don’t know how they got everything to be so seamless and perfect
The worst thing Disney did was start making live-action remakes.
No argument there whatsoever
THIS!
The remakes are so good unless it's Cinderella and mulan and Peter and Wendy
Do you thinks its worse than making Nazi propaganda videos or the appalling racism in song of the south?
@@allyphifer7279 lion king is crap
I don't think of the live action Alice in Wonderland as a remake. It has it's own plot and it's own story.
Yes. Both are totally diferent.
True. I kinda like the live action version more for its grittiness.
Fro what little I've heard, Tim Burtons "Alice" sounds more like a ripoff of the A. G. Howard "Splintered" book series, which is a dark take on "Wonderland."
But it's still called "Alice in Wonderland" and features a girl falling down a rabbit hole. It's more of a remake than Maleficent.
@@SeanWheeler100yeah true.
Remeber that era when Disney was obsessed with making directed DVD sequels to older Disney classics? This is basically the same thing, but with live action remakes
7:06. Thank for crediting the original supervising animator of Jafar. The legendary Andreas Deja.
Agree 100%!
Love your lists so much!
For me Jon Favreau's The Jungle Book is better than the animated version (which I still adore), especially the human protagonist Mowgli and the spectacular final climax. Its special effects are incredible and deserved all the accolades including the Oscar.
I agree. I prefer the original Baloo, and what they did with the music in the remake was just stupid, but literally everything else was better in the remake
I would also like to add aging Cinderella up when her father remarried and died. In the original she was a child and suffered more than a decade of abuse. However, when she’s about a young adult when it happens, and is seen going out and about before the ball and talking to people, it’s harder to see her as an abused and imprisoned servant in her own home and that she deserves her happy ending (not that she doesn’t deserve it, but it feels less earned).
When Disney announced they were going to make live-action remakes of their classic animated films, I wasn’t impressed. The results of this are mostly turning out to be as I expected. I’ve always understood that animation is always more magical than live-action CGI will ever be. Animation is spontaneously more dynamic, emotional and fun as a result. Disney has lost sight of what made its original movies classics in the first place.
Agree 💯 Disney will be a much better place when they stop these live-action reimaginings of their own beloved animated classics for good 👏👏👏
One thing that should've been on the list is the remakes not including any of songs from the broadway versions like "Endless Night" and "Shadowland", a song Beyonce would've done amazingly!
This is hitting the nail on the head
Disney in the 1900s: Masterpieces.
Disney right now: Bad. Just Bad. SMH!
animation department still puts out gems just too much time between each one
Why can’t Disney do more animated originals? They should’ve never canceled gigantic. They would’ve been a big hit. Or give Fraidy cat another go, but this time with a new art style, mixing with Apex legends and into the spider verse art style.
Cost too much money takes too much time 2d amination d
Wasent profitabel enough thats why its called common sense. Disney aint gonna go back to 2d amination the less money they make the wont risk that is that simple 😊
What about living things they could’ve done it stop motion style and it going to be directed by the same guy who did Mulan (1998)
Spoiler alert for the 2023 version of The Little Mermaid.
A friend of mine told me 2 things about the unnecessary changes to the ending.
1. It undermines Triton's character development. At the beginning of the original film, he hates humans, but by the end of the film, a human defeats Ursula and saves his kingdom, which gives Triton an actual reason to stop hating humans. By replacing Eric with Ariel, it will make him seem like he just stops hating humans because "he hurt Ariel's feelings."
2. It makes Eric less important to the story. Throughout the original film, after Ariel rescues Eric from the storm, he obsesses over the girl who rescued her, completely unaware that the girl (i.e. Ariel is right in front of him). When he finally realizes it in the climax, he returns the favor by rescuing Ariel from Ursula. The remake seems like he's only really there for Ariel to lust over.
We were right to hate that remake.
if thats true than god dam these writers are dumb
It's to bad this video was uploaded a couple days too soon. I would have liked to see The Little Mermaid's changes to be a part of this video.
Its also funny to me that Ariel is joining Eric in his voyage. Ariel wants to be "part of that world" but still goes exploring and traveling seas😂😂😂
@@cameronmcewen9666 it was a box office success
I really hated it that the Grand Duke from Cinderella was made, basically, a villain henchman. Why would Disney do that?
And I never saw live action Mulan. And the main reason was that the actress who plays the titular character, is for the repression of Hong Kong democracy activists. So in the movie she fights for freedom but in real life she's for imprisonment. Also I did not like that Shan Yu, the menacing animated villain, was re-created in a villain that is not interesting or appealing in any way
It also doesn't help that they changed the film to suit the Chinese Communist Party, who are repressing Uyghurs in the very location used for the film. It's disgusting that Disney sold out like that.
Thank you for pointing out the real problems with the alladin remake. No one has had the balls to admit how soulless it felt, especially with jafar.
I’m still annoyed mushu didn’t show up in Mulan remake
One of the main problems as to why Disney live-action movies/shows are horrible nowadays is due to the fact that they're changing everything that may cause a "trigger". Disney forced Alan Menken to change some of the lyrics to "Kiss the Girl" in the live-action remake of "The Little Mermaid". The lyrics are not telling Prince Eric to force himself on Ariel. That's downright absurd!
Late Millennials and Gen Z need to get a grip on reality. They're too busy changing everything and not learning from the past.
Thank You! People today are just so damn sensitive about everything!
@@star-boltlover9609 you mean americans are sensitive XD
@@star-boltlover9609I can see where that idea can come from which is why context is important. Even without the scene that song will put me on edge just picturing my fav ship and just about screaming at them “Kiss already! Stop procrastinating!”
Your honour, I would like a chance to defend Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland on the charge of muted colours.
I think something to remember is this is a mix of a reboot and a sequel to the 1951 version in that she's a young woman here, not a child.
I argue that the colours are muted for two reasons; one, is because the Red Queen has taken an even tighter strangle hold on Wonderland than she had in the 1951 version (as referenced by her beheading the King) and, with this hold, had sucked much of the 'wonder' from her corner of Wonderland. I reference the difference between the area directly surrounding Mirana's kingdom of Marmoreal as opposed to Iracebeth's kingdom. Kind of like Pride Rock between Mufassa's rule VS Scar's.
Secondly, I believe it's supposed to reference Alice's transition from child to womanhood; when she was a child, Wonderland was perplexing and vibrant, but now people are pushing her to grow up and marry that boring little twerp, Hamish and she sees her life becoming very gray and boring.
Yeah i wouldn’t necessarily put Alice in Wonderland in that camp, it had a reason for muted colours and also The Lion King has muted colours for part of the film as well, yeah i think Alice In Wonderland changes a lot for the original in a good way, because not only she is not a kid anymore, but she is in adulthood trying to figure who she is going to be and sometimes imagination takes you away from the real world and solves all your problems and i think every adult feels like that, just to escape all of it, and that’s what Alice represents.
Thank you for bringing up Tim Burtons Alice In Wonderland. It was not a remake, it was clearly a sequel. We didn’t get to see wonderland at its best or even a re-imagining of the original! It honestly was kind of a rip off of American Mcgees Alice but less scary. What a total missed opportunity!
A nitpick I had with the Alice Movie ever since it first showed up: Calling the monster "The Jabberwocky". No! "Jabberwocky" is the POEM. The MONSTER is called "The Jabberwock". And honestly, without the Y he sounds more menacing.
Thank You! I made the same point in a more recent post (as in about an hour ago, LOL). It may be a nitpick, but it still deserves to be said.
The remake of Mulan came out on my birthday March 27th and when I found out mushu wasn't going to be in it I didn't even want to see it
I didn't actually mind Christopher Walken's version of "I want to be like you" to me it kind of gave a bit more enthusiasm like a bit more bounce. And the part about not all of them being musicals I don't think it's a bad change thankfully that's number 20. Not everything has to be a musical and there is no guarantee that the actors/actresses that they get can sing. I think what they were trying to do is revamp it so it's going to be telling the same story but it's going to be different in some ways and I don't mind the difference. Makes them slightly unique
Except here's the problem with Walken's I Wanna Be Like You: it doesn't fit. Because the movie hadn't established itself as a musical. Also, there's no build-up to it. It relies on the original for context and serves no purpose other than nostalgia. In the original, the song was personality-driven, it fleshed out the bombastic atmosphere of the bandar-log and it foreshadowed Mowgli's mastery over fire.
@@vetarlittorf1807 I mean I guess so but even then I thought it was pretty good
I like it when the remakes attempt not to be a musical like their animated predecessors. It at least gives them some attempt to distinguish themselves from the original than be copy-paste.
I love that Jasmine is more than just a locked up princess who's curious about the outside world. In the remake she wants to learn more about her people because she wants to be more involved in the politics and ruling Agrabah as its princess. This makes it all the more infuriating when they removed one of her greatest moments from the original rooftop chase scene where she ran ahead of Aladdin and jumped first. Instead of letting her jump on her own, she hesitates and needs Aladdin to encourage her first. With all the positive changes that show her to be even more fearless and independent princess, this change was unnecessary and feels more like two steps forward, one step back.
I was literally not interested when I saw that mushu was not going to be in the Mulan remake.
The Movies I Loved From Disney Were From Touchstone and Hollywood Pictures I might as well watch one of them right now
Watching this and at the end seeing Simba trying to get his dad to wake made me cry. Lion King is my all time favorite Disney movie.
Kids know; when we played the original Mulan at the day care I work at, they literally said, “Yes, the good one!”
HAHA! YES!
One more thing I should probably mention about the live action's is that you're not going to be able to please everybody and I think Disney understands that. If you keep it exactly to the original people going to say what was the sense of making it which is why the changes are needed make it a bit more unique and if they completely change it they say your ruin your childhood. It depends on your tastes honestly whether you fully agree with this List fully disagree with this list or partway agree with it
I agree, I think making the live action EXACTLY like the original makes it boring. BUT I'll also say that some changes end up decreasing the quality instead of making it better or more unique. I really enjoyed the Cinderella movie exactly because it changes things but in a way that gave more character to Ella and specialky the prince, who in the animated version didnt even have a name. On the other hand, some changes like the ones in Alladin and Mulan specially did not have the same effect, at least not to me.
Regarding the mulan complaint, it would have been better if they actually followed the source canon where her dad trained her (without turning her into a mary sue). i guess we're lucky disney didn't think of accusing those who hated the remake of sexism
01:37 - God, I absolutely loved that scene! 😍
This presentation is well and truly on the money regarding Disney! (Shaking Head) 🤦🏼♂️
Top Ten Best Live Action Adaptations of Anything
They mentioned that Jungle Book won an oscar and then left out that Alice and Wonderland was nominated for one.
Was it, i didn’t know that.
Which shows that drug use is still alive and well in Hollywood.
The enchanted book in 'Beauty and the Beast' only creates an illusion of the location around you without anyone there, it doesn't teleport you. You are still physically in the location you used the book while it creates a magical backdrop around the user of the location they want to visit.
I think the magic mirror in the remake only allows you to view people you know and not locations.
Exactly, the beast even called it "another illusion of the enchantress". We all got closure about the characters and the couple in question saw deeper into each other's souls. This book scene became a centerpiece at my wedding. The movie overall was our theme. It means the world to us.
I agree with a lot of your criticisms, except a couple i consider nitpicks, including the Beasts book.
I have watched most of the remakes, and in contrast to what I suspect are the opinions of most of your commentators, i enjoyed them.
I know they're not perfect, but as you've said, they improve on certain bits and are very well done films.
My top ones would be:
The Lion King
Aladdin
Lady and the Tramp
Beauty and the Beast
The Little Mermaid
The Jungle Book.
I have been ridiculed regularly for ny defense of these films, but i can take it. My opinion is my opinion, and i will stand by it.
Why do you calling 2010s Alice in wonderland a remake of the classic? Its more like a follower to the classic, it does not count to be on this list.
Really appreciate the fact that you said what we were all thinking
Changing the name of the creature from Jaberwock to Jaberwockee. Jaberwockee is the name of the poem. So basically in that movie Alice went through all these hoops and was the chosen one because she was destined to find a paper shredder.
Oh, made that comment too. Glad to see I'm not the only one.
And it’s spelled with a “Y”.
@@brycecarroll9665 and it's "Jabber", not "Jaber." I know--picky, picky, picky...
Oops…sorry. Maybe this time I need to check the spelling. 😁
That huge parrot is arguably as terrifying as the snake honestly
Curse you Disney live action remakes. While not all of them are that bad they still ruin our childhood.
👍👍👍👍👍
Some are mostly good, some are disapointed, and some are just bad.
Just one clip from the original Lion King has me sobbing like a child again. 😭😭😭
Actually I like the Alice of Wonderland. It became different because it's obviously directed by Tim Burton. And also weird that Johnny is the main, not Mia. The Queens(Anne and Helena) were based in Looking Glass book even the Jabberwocky. So yeah, I know the colors are not vibrant unlike the 2nd movie and you know Burton will change it from the original. I don't expect that especially when he directed Dumbo and Miss Peregrine 🙄
That movie was more like a sequel to the Classic But live action, Alice was a child But this one she’s 19 i think?
@mattiasolsson1523
They could have called it Return to Wonderland, and there would have been fewer complaints.
@@alexisdominey6487
Yes
@@alexisdominey6487 bs, dude! the 2010 film (and actors) clearly called itself Underland and not Wonderland.
'Alice in Wonderland', my ass. the filmmakers straight up lied. the film doesn't deliver what the title promises: a full-on, faithful adaptation.
Care Bears in Wonderland is a better adaptation than this! yeah, i said it!
@@alexisdominey6487LOVE that title name.
there is nothing wrong with the 101 dalmatians remake. it's way better than most of the remakes than came after it. Also, Gaston leaving Maurice to die actually seems in character for him. it not only shows how unredeemable he was but also shows how LeFou really is a good man.
Agree, 101 Dalmatians from 1997 is great.
Can't wait for a part two. Disney keeps ruining their company name with bad films.
20. Didn't mind
19. Yeah, it was underwhelming
17. I actually didn't notice in some of these movies
13. Yeah, he was boring
7:35, Yeah, he's lighter than him
12. A salt in the wound
10. Yeah, they didn't deserve this
7. Literally plain as paper
5. Loser
4. Should've stick with the mirror or use it to its potential
not every movie needs to be a musical. i always felt awkward hearing king louie in the live action version sing, while the original version has a lot of charm when the character sings and makes it feel natural. also, i'm 100 percent certain that animals in real life would show at least a tiny bit more emotion than the lion king 2019. what i don't get though, is why do people think the blue skin on the genie looks bad?
I'm bummed that the pink elephants scene was changed. Isn't the Jabberwocky part of Alice lore?
They made a practical costume for the beast didn't they? I saw it in an image. Why didn't they use it?
Mulan also had a sister who had no purpose in the story.
Why did Geppetto not go with Pinocchio to school? It's not like Pinocchio is familiar with this town.
and people say cartoons are for kids. "HA!" i say.
give me Disney classic animated movies over any of the remakes, even some new ones, any day.
why can't Disney go back to the drawling board, literally?
It’s aggravating to see them discard 2D animation like it’s nothing
1:09-1:13, Because she never sang before
Peter pan and Wendy : The Whole Movie
"tHIS mAGIC bELONGS tO nO bOY!"
At least they left out the red man song due to offensive racial stereotypes.
6:01 Yes! Definitely this! It was bad enough the entire town never turned on Gaston following that moment because I would say this also makes this Gaston probably less likable than the original version of the character is supposed to be
I didn't necessarily hate that change from Cinderella where she didn't even try to escape because it's sort of plays into the fact that the animal still helped her. That's kind of part of her character though so if anything it just put that front and center
And there’s a deleted scene where she writes a letter to the prince explaining who she is and asking to meet with him. She takes it to the palace and the grand Duke burns it before Kit can read it…
@@angelfishlex1 oh really I wasn't aware of that
The original "Moana" was perfect just the way it is, and it really bummed me out to find out that a live-action reimagining of it was announced by Maui himself "Dwayne Johnson" and the Disney Revival Era restored everyone's faith in Disney as a whole and if they really go after the rest of the Revival Era films like my fave: "Zootopia" I'm going to be upset at that and just disappointed in Disney if they actually ever do that unless they cease and decease on anymore future Disney Live-action remakes in development
Zootopia features no humans. How could it possibly have a live-action version? But they might still do it, as long as the box office projections are promising.
@@MegaMaxiepad photorealistic, whatever. I just don't want it to happen anyway
@@hunterrousseau3770 , if Disney actually went ahead with such a misbegotten idea, this video would have to be updated--with live action *Zootopia* in the #1 slot!
@@ellynmacgregor8210 yeah, that would be bad, wouldn't it? Huh?
@@hunterrousseau3770 Definitely!
No Gilbert Gottfried as Iago is #20-1 as far as I'm concerned.
I find it funny how you parody How Far I’ll Go to How Jafar I’ll Go
Unnecessary race swaps, going for realistic animals with little to no emotion, not having Mulan get any songs
So in other words you want a copy of the original, ok go watch the original then.
@@sammyhiggs4202 I mean if it's going to be based on the cartoon then......
Another worst thing that Disney did in their remakes was trying to add too much female empowerment by making their original female characters Mary Sues who can do everything perfectly and don't need help, and they can't even feel vulnerable when they have to. But the thing is, those characters were all perfect from the beginning.
- I don't really need to say anything about Cinderella because she's still kind and strong at the same time, just like in the original, and that's what I love.
- They changed Belle by making her a little too stubborn just because Disney thinks that Belle has Stockholm Syndrome because every critic said so, and they wanted to fix a problem that was never actually a problem in the first place. Belle was already perfect as she is because she's kind, nurturing, stubborn when she needed to be, and she faced her fears, even when she was scared. The remake lacked all of that.
- Disney even made Mulan a flawless character and removed every struggle she had in live-action. That's not normal because going through a struggle is what makes you strong.
- But although I do want to watch the live-action "Little Mermaid," I already know what happens, but I did hear that in the final battle with Ursula, Ariel and Eric's roles are reversed. This time, Eric is the one in the whirlpool while Ariel is the one in the ship and is the one impaling Ursula. First of all, Ariel is still a mermaid, so how would she be able to get to the steering wheel? She doesn't even know how to drive a ship, and that's fine! And are Disney and the other critics forgetting that Ariel tried to save Eric TWICE?! Because when Eric impaled Ursula in the original, it was just fine because they saved each other, and that's what caused King Triton to believe that Ariel and Eric really do love each other. It's even okay if you need help as well, but too bad nobody likes that. 😡
Honestly, I don't see why everyone made such a big deal out of the climactic battle, and why others made such a big deal out of Ariel's entire character arc. They just thought Ariel was too much of a damsel, but she sang an entire song about wanting to be part of the human world. Prince Eric was just a bonus, and there was nothing wrong with that! DID YOU ALL NOT EVEN PAY ATTENTION TO THE ORIGINAL? AND DID YOU EVEN WATCH IT?!
- They even made Wendy a Mary Sue in "Peter Pan & Wendy," and that's not good.
There's a reason why Disney live-action remakes exist. To make their original Disney Princesses Mary Sues and too stubborn. This is all the critical people's fault because they like to make a big deal out of everything and they hate every character who has a kind trait and a pure heart. YEAH, I'M TALKING ABOUT YOU, CRITICS! HOW DO YOU LIKE ME NOW?! Backlash me all you want, but I am not changing my opinion. AT ALL.
I think The Lion King might personally offend me a bit more, but Mulan is for sure the worst. It's like they fundamentally didn't understand anything in terms of the themes. I mean if you want to change things, sure, but at least make the change in line with the story. Maleficent is telling the story from the villain's perspective, Twisted did the same thing. It throws out the original ideas because we have a completely different point of view. Each version vilifies the other side, so having two very different stories in terms of the meat and conclusion makes sense. Having a story focusing on the same point of view but completely changing a character, especially for the worse is not good. I thing Cinderella is probably the best of them because it adds to the story and while it changes the flow of the movie, the things it sacrifices are in service for character development, Ella's backstory with her father and her actually having conversations with the prince so that it's not the only time they meet before he scours the kingdom for her. They also give him a name, which is nice.
I have to say, Mulan is my favorite. Not for the soulless remake, the Mary sue, or etc. I love the fact that it cost Disney MILLIONS of dollars
Maleficent is a fantastic film!
Little Mermaid shouldn’t have changed the ending battle. Eric should have been the one to save Ariel from Ursula, not the other way around.
Pinocchio and Milan changed WAY too much for worst.
Wow I do agree that the chosen one trope is annoying I honestly don’t have a problem with it in some movies like the Alice in Wonderland 2010 movie or the matrix basically what I’m saying is most of these changes I like except for the be prepared thing that was way better in the original heck I’m still mad about the can you feel the love “tonight” thing in the remake
16:17 that scene is one of my favorites from Beauty and the Beast. It is just so cool, beautiful, and touching. In fact, I’m watching the movie right now. Then again, I watch it all the time. 😁🤭🤗🥰😍
Honestly, I love Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland! Everything about it was great to watch, and I loved the emotional drama it had! It was a joy to watch from start to finish! The epic fantasy vibe it gave was probably one of the best things about it (as well as the musical score)!
I understand why it may not have had the most positive reception, but for me, It’s one of my favourite films of all time! 🤩🤩
As a Lewis Carroll super fan, I LOVED that it combined Alice in Wonderland and the poem Jabberwocky! The new interpretations of the created words in the poem were so entertaining! It takes a small level of nuance to enjoy the Tim Burton movie, he did an amazing job for literary fans.
10:03 I didn’t know this was not the first time we have seen. A side characters removed like Mushu but Timothy Q. Mouse Should have been given bigger part In a remake they’ve also removed chef Louis from the little mermaid which made the reboot worse.
Why not remove Gurgi for the black cauldron reboot because of how annoying and grating he is! That would work!
Realism: Sebastian and Flounder look like they're bound for the Seafood Platter.
Or aquarium
More like they didn't make the cut.
@@MegaMaxiepad You mean the filet. 😁😁😆😆🤣🤣
8:42 That alone made me not watch it, I know the entire movie by heart and for them to cut out the best song is ridiculous
There is actually one change I really like from the live-action remakes that should've been in the original: Giving LeFou a redemption arc ("Beauty and the Beast", 2017).
About Maleficent: Stephan was charged by the previous king to SLAY her, not just cut her wings off. He brought back her wings as proof that she was dead so the previous king would let him marry his daughter and become king after the old king died (which he did). Stephan COULD have killed Maleficent, and even raises a dagger to do so once she's drugged out, but he doesn't because, in spite of his burning ambition, he still sees her as his childhood friend. However, that ambition has so deeply warped any sense of good in him that he was still reasonably okay with maiming her. Over the rest of the movie, as he goes mad with power, that last bit of good in him is destroyed and he goes full-on evil revenge-seeker. It's sort-of an anti-parallel to Maleficent herself, who curses Aurora to get revenge, but eventually grows to love her and becomes a better person because of that love.
I think that this is, what makes the Malificent movie so good and tragic and better than Sleeping beauty in my eyes
Hold on a minute you're saying to me that him killing Maurice and then being revealed as the real beast it detracts from it? What?! If anything that makes him more of a beast! It actually adds to the narrative! What do you mean?
i agree
Removing Mushu, deleting all the clever songs, Mulan just being rather lame compared to the animated...
Making Ed talk, completely removing Be Prepared (aside from a chant), altering Pumbaa's "They call me MISTER PIG" line to be some cliche about bullying (relevant as it is to the modern day, but let's be real, it's always relevant and just a cheesy cliche in this scene)...Lion King list goes on. I can barely tell Mufasa apart from Scar in the remake...
No Jafar snake - my main gripe about Aladdin. However, I liked this one and could watch it again.
I never watched the “live action” Lion King. It legit scares me. I love we got to see the real animals but it takes away from the charming nature of the characters. It makes them hard to connect to
I prefer the Animated One
@@chasehedges6775 The remake is animated too.
@@danielledewitt1 It’s CGI tho but it’s not really ANIMATED!
@@chasehedges6775 It is animated you fool.
you know it's the worst when even the mainland Chinese griped about the loss of the musical numbers and Mushu (the latter which ironically they griped about decades ago)
regarding "brave Mulan", the original "Ballad of Mulan" only has *the titular character being willful in a filial manner* ("My father has no grown-up sons"), since without hesitation she abandons her womanly lifestyle for the military, and even has her parents' permission
(though admittedly "Reflection" is a perfect response to the beginning line of "Mulan sighs at her loom" where she has an identity crisis of sorts)
Them making Alice the chosen one........ it kind of makes it seem like she was supposed to fall down there. I mean it's not exactly a terrible change but it's not like she was a little girl going down this Rabbit Hole like in the original so I see the difference. I would say it was an okay change. It actually gave her a reason to be there while also being curious about what the hell the place is all about
I think it could've worked if Alice was the unchosen one or grows into a hero.
@@georgeray1906 i mean either way would be fine
Are you guys also gonna do "Top 20 Best Changes in Disney Live Action Remakes"? Because - as hard as it is for some people to believe - these movies do have their saving graces.