Live Action Disney needs to Die...
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 фев 2025
- With the release of Mufasa as a live action Disney movie, I think it's obvious that live action Disney needs to die. In the last ten years, Disney has systematically been re-doing all of their classic films in live action with very mixed results.
With the exception of a few, Disney live action films have been mid to terrible. And this year with the upcoming release of the live action Snow White, Disney is set to continue the trend of live action disasters.
Join me in this video as we discuss the flops that the Disney live action films have been and why these movies just need to die and never come back.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
As Walt Disney himself quoted "The goal of animation isn't realism, but believability" The reason why the live action movies don't have the color and vibrancy of the animated classics is they really can't. When you make these fantasy worlds analogous to reality you have stipulate on that otherwise it breaks our categories and shatters verisimilitude of the world. The reason Little Mermaid under the sea kingdom is dark and dreary, that's what the ocean is. The realistic animals don't have emotional range well in real life they don't emote like humans. Disney understood that animation was a medium that could tell stories live action couldn't and 100 years later his own company proved him right.
There are underwater photographs and pics of the African plains that are, in fact, colorful and vibrant.
They could, but they chose not to in their quest for "realisim".
I truly wish that I could step in to lead Disney. While I don’t have “relevant experience”, but I have vision and I would NEVER forget what’s important and I would respect all that Walt Disney stood for. I started working on a project that’s a detailed list of what has to be fixed at Disney in specific areas and general parts
And that's why animation is the best form of storytelling. (In my opinion) You can make the expressions as vibrant as you want, you can hurt the characters as much as you want, you can give make them jump over a great distance and it won't look rediculous and so much more. The fact that it's been relegated to mostly kids shows kinda annoys me, since it has so much more potential than that. You can tell stories you wouldn't be able to tell without serious backlash. An example I can think of is Cuties (never saw the movie but heard some things) A criticism is that it talks about the message its trying to convey by doing that exact thing. If Cuties had been animated it could've told the same exact story without the backlash.
@@michaeldavis255 Which one of these is the best idea for Disney’s possible return to traditional animated feature films? Even you doubt that traditional animation will ever come back at least at Disney or in the near future, still which one of these 2 ideas you think is the best one,
1.) Solely produce films using the software Meander because it’ll keep traditional animation alive and still use computer animation and it would help distinguish them from the Pixar films. In case you don’t know or remember, Meander was the software that essentially put the hand drawn lines onto computer models. It was first used in the 2012 short film that was in front of Wreck-It Ralph. After that, it was used in the shorts Feast (2014) and Far From the Tree (2021). I think everyone, including me, thought that it was the solution and it was the future of 2D animation. While it was said that the 2023 feature Wish used the method, a video essay said that the method was very toned down in the finished film. But perhaps a second try could use it to its fullest potential as a middle ground
Or
2.) Start up a different unit, either where DisneyToon Studios used to operate or the new Vancouver studio, that would produce the 2D films that can be released once in a blue moon, which could be even once a decade as an event. The plan would be a steady production time in which production would not officially start until the story is refined to the point where it’s ready to be produced. An added bonus is to adopt what the SPA Studio did for the 2019 film Klaus to make 2D animation new
Or
3.) Completely ditch full computer animation features and focus solely on traditional animation and leave the computer animation to Pixar. And still adopt the method used in Klaus
Which of the 3 is the best option?
@@michaeldavis255Please answer the question. Which one of the 3 options is the best?
One of the biggest things that turns me away from these remakes is the character assassination that is consistently in them. Maleficent can't be a petty fairy that enjoys flaunting her power over others. Pinnochio can't make any mistakes. Mulan can't struggle with the physical challenges that realistically come with being a soldier. Peter Pan can't be a naughty but charming swashbuckler. Snow White can't be a graceful and patient young woman. It's always about what they CAN'T be instead of what they CAN be.
Exactly. And Ariel can't be an impulsive teenager, she has to be competent in every way. Aladdin can't be a scoundrel who thinks life is only worth living if you're rich and powerful, he has to know that's a delusion from the start. Mowgli can't be a conflicted boy with an identity crisis, he has to be a virtuous boy who is just misunderstood. Wendy can't be a motherly caretaker who loves kids, she has to be an angry little elitist who thinks a prestigious career is better than having a family. And Alice can't be a young girl who learns how terrible a world without logic would be, she has to be a prophesied girlboss.
@vetarlittorf1807 Precisely. I just didn't have time to list everyone else at the moment.
Cinderella is a rare example, live action Disney could've worked. Than they decided to put identity politics above good storytelling.
Live action Flintstones movie from the 90s is another example. Faithful to the source material and both William Hanna and Joseph Barbara were involved in the production.
There's actually hints in Cinderella that the studio was already trying to push the agenda, but the adaptation is different enough from the original that those agenda tweaks are somewhere between barely noticeable and completely irrelevant
@@Drixenol86 That Flintsones movie ain't that good though bud.
I didn't even like Cinderella because I've seen so many live action versions of Cinderella and that wasn't even in the top ten.
Only one that worked for me was Alice in Wonderland because it wasn't a remake, but an imaginative new story trying to build off what came before rather than undermine or "correct" it.
Jungle Book was pretty sweet too!
The thing I find most Poetic Is that Walt almost bankrupted Disney to make Snow White, decades later they’re doing the same thing only this time it’s not going to pan out.
A whole century later, actually.
A decade or so ago when they started doing the live action adaptations I thought that they would never touch Snow White. It was too “sacred” to the core of the company that they never would try to remake it. But I also said that the day that they do is the day they fall.
I know I said it, I remember the conversation distinctly, but I honestly can’t believe it’s happening before my eyes. It’s hard to watch.
lol You think one movie that cost around $260 million will bankrupt a company worth over $200 billion lol
@luismedrano6680 He was referring to the original cartoon made by Walt Disney himself over a century ago. It was the first full length animated movie ever made and cost a fortune.
@@luismedrano6680 on it’s own no but Disney have been burning money for the last 3 years, the parks have taken a massive hit, their self governing status has been revolved, not to mention the hefty legal fees that came with that.
Having said that I wasn’t suggesting that Snow White would bankrupt them but it’s definitely the last nail in the coffin for Disney’s powerhouse days, it marks the beginning of the end.
I’ve yet to get a clear answer as to what the point is of making a live action movie that will always be inferior to its animated counterpart no matter how much money you pour into it
To make money out of some people's nostalgia.
To replace the original with a soulless piece of corporate propaganda
@@SeyhawksNow That's not the intention... just the result.
From what I've heard, it's to maintain copyright on the IPs.
@@PublicLeeSpeaking> Moana comes out 8 years ago
> Live action Moana is on production
To be fair, this was made because The Rock knew He couldn't pull this out if It came out years later.
Gotta rake all the money before the ages shows.
100% agree - Aladdin remake was awful, Mulan was unforgivable.
And they still haven't learned their lesson. They're currently working on a "Lilo And Stitch" CGI remake, to be released in 2025.
Mulan live action remake was absolutely garbage 🗑️
@@Hollyucinogen dude, they have to lose money and not just one or 2 here and there but consistently which hasnt been the case at all
This deluge of live action remakes proves that Disney's well of creativity has gone dry a long long time ago...
EXCELLENT NERDWORD WORK.
and it doesn’t have to be that way,there are plenty of folktales and original stories to adapt if only they would take some risks 🤔
I liked The Jungle Book remake, but that's it. Sher Khan is actually threatening and I like that Mowgli stays with the jungle animals instead of leaving them just because he saw a cute girl.
Thats less original than these remakes hollywood has always been adapting,remaking and reboot stuff walt disney himself wasnt telling original stories he instead adapating well known beloved stories using the latest technology at the time and obviously original stories are important you better wtach if you want more of them but im sure some of your favourite movies were based on a book, comic, broadway show or even another movie
Dude, Disney's "classic" films like Snow White, Bambi, Cinderella, etc, are all adaptations of the Brothers Grimm works lol. These were also not completely original ideas
If I recall correctly in the animated Aladdin movie when prince Ali arrives at the palace after the big musical number, he is trying to discuss marriage with the sultan with Jafar trying to argue his way between them. All three of them ignoring Jasmine who is right there. Of course she gets mad, and angrily demands to know if she is just some prize to be won. In one sentence she calls out the hero, the villain, and the the king himself on their behavior, and puts them all on the back foot. Even to a guy like me that seemed far more empowered than some cringe song out of left field while more important things are happening. Live action Jafar was taking over the kingdom. Is that really a good time to complain about people listening to you or not?
Remember that Disney basically said doing 2D for Wish was too hard
Which one of these is the best idea for Disney’s possible return to traditional animated feature films? Even you doubt that traditional animation will ever come back at least at Disney or in the near future, still which one of these 2 ideas you think is the best one,
1.) Solely produce films using the software Meander because it’ll keep traditional animation alive and still use computer animation and it would help distinguish them from the Pixar films. In case you don’t know or remember, Meander was the software that essentially put the hand drawn lines onto computer models. It was first used in the 2012 short film that was in front of Wreck-It Ralph. After that, it was used in the shorts Feast (2014) and Far From the Tree (2021). I think everyone, including me, thought that it was the solution and it was the future of 2D animation. While it was said that the 2023 feature Wish used the method, a video essay said that the method was very toned down in the finished film. But perhaps a second try could use it to its fullest potential and as a middle ground
Or
2.) Start up a different unit, either where DisneyToon Studios used to operate or the new Vancouver studio, that would produce the 2D films that can be released once in a blue moon, which could be even once a decade as an event. The plan would be a steady production time in which production would not officially start until the story is refined to the point where it’s ready to be produced. An added bonus is to adopt what the SPA Studio did for the 2019 film Klaus to make 2D animation new
Or
completely ditch full computer animation features and focus solely on traditional animation and leave the computer animation to Pixar. And still adopt the method used in Klaus
Which idea is the best?
Which one of these is the best idea for Disney’s possible return to traditional animated feature films? Even you doubt that traditional animation will ever come back at least at Disney or in the near future, still which one of these 2 ideas you think is the best one,
1.) Solely produce films using the software Meander because it’ll keep traditional animation alive and still use computer animation and it would help distinguish them from the Pixar films. In case you don’t know or remember, Meander was the software that essentially put the hand drawn lines onto computer models. It was first used in the 2012 short film that was in front of Wreck-It Ralph. After that, it was used in the shorts Feast (2014) and Far From the Tree (2021). I think everyone, including me, thought that it was the solution and it was the future of 2D animation. While it was said that the 2023 feature Wish used the method, a video essay said that the method was very toned down in the finished film. But perhaps a second try could use it to its fullest potential and as a middle ground
Or
2.) Start up a different unit, either where DisneyToon Studios used to operate or the new Vancouver studio, that would produce the 2D films that can be released once in a blue moon, which could be even once a decade as an event. The plan would be a steady production time in which production would not officially start until the story is refined to the point where it’s ready to be produced. An added bonus is to adopt what the SPA Studio did for the 2019 film Klaus to make 2D animation new
Or
completely ditch full computer animation features and focus solely on traditional animation and leave the computer animation to Pixar. And still adopt the method used in Klaus
Which idea is the best?
Please answer. Which one of the 3 is the better option?
@ 1 I guess
@@Evets_03 Is there a part you don’t understand?
Agreed. They need to end. The laziness and utter lack of creativity is nauseating.
And yet... even Mufasa managed to make over $600 million in total now. Therein is the problem. Granted, it hasn't even made half of the 2019 Lion King film, but it is still making money because people still give in to Nostalgia and The Brand. Until the Live-action remakes start losing money, this will not change.
Stupid parents still supporting Disney
@Bean-s7o: Kids will watch whatever you put in front of them, as long as it is visually stimulating. But children's entertainment is education as well as entertainment. That is why classic Disney movies contained wholesome family values and moral lessons, so that while the kids were being entertained, they could also learn to be good people. Not the case with modern cultural Marxist Disney. Gonna be a real fucked up generation coming down the pike, who grew up watching this slop and internalizing those values.
Which is exactly why I made a vow about 5 or 6 years ago that I would boycott all future Disney live-action remakes. I recommend everybody else do the same!
That's still flop territory when you consider budget (what Disney planned to spend-- they often go over this), marketing and the theater's cut. I don't see another live action remake making a billion or really making a profit for a long time. At this point though, they have so many in the pipeline to be released and are getting ready to run out of films to remake.
@@greenliongirl07 What's in the profit territory in your eyes then for Mufasa? $700, 800 million? Movies that reportdely cost $200 million needs to make at least a billion to be profitable now? Disney will soon release Moana remake next year, they announced a Tangled remake, and Maleficent 3 is still in the works per Angelina Jolie.
_CINDERELLA_ (2015) The only live-action "Cinderella" movie that knew what it was doing and how to do it. It's quite the timeless movie.
Does that mean Nostalgia Critic was wrong?
@@kasaibouF29 The Disney animated and live-action _Cinderella_ movies have different contexts and circumstances, which often makes it absolutely ridiculous to argue which movie did a certain scene better. If the context and circumstances are not the same, it makes sense for those scenes to also be rewritten to fit in with those changes.
The dress ripping scene in the live-action movie would have looked really awkward and very stupid if they copied the animated movie. The context and events have been altered, so it would literally makes no sense why all of a sudden out of nowhere the stepsisters would be viciously attacking Ella's dress while making angry faces at her.
One of the problems with the live-action _The Little Mermaid_ is that when they lazily copied scenes from the animated movie, they forgot to alter them to match the differences they made to the context and circumstances. This resulted in those scenes looking random and nonsensical, ruining the intent. You can find videos explaining why the live-action movie's climax was horribly ruined because of all the changes done to it.
@@kasaibouF29I actually agree with Nostalgia Critic. Ever After is the best Cinderella story.
@@thepanda1044 I consider the claim of _Ever After_ to be the best anything to be a very stupid one. It's not a fairytale movie, it's not beautiful or whimsical or magical, and half the stuff haze zero to do with the Cinderella story. It's just some movie with Cinderella elements in it.
WHO THE HELL WOULD READ THE SYNOPSIS OF _EVER AFTER_ TO A CHILD?
_Once upon a time there was a dying old woman called the Dame who was meeting the Brothers Grimm about Cinderella's slippers, and she proceeded to tell them a useless story about her ancestor, a "not like other girls" stereotype whose father can't remember the last time he hugged her without mud on her face._
That is so stupid.
@@0deadx21 It's a movie, not a book. And if you have this much rage built up over a movie opinion, go seek some professional help.
I don’t understand how CGI can be considered live action. It’s another form of computer animation, albeit a sophisticated and potentially (but not always) realistic looking one.
Which idea is best for Disney’s possible return to traditional animated feature films? Even you doubt that traditional animation will ever come back at least at Disney or in the near future, still which one of these 2 ideas you think is the best one,
1.) Solely produce films using the software Meander because it’ll keep traditional animation alive and still use computer animation and it would help distinguish them from the Pixar films. In case you don’t know or remember, Meander was the software that essentially put the hand drawn lines onto computer models. It was first used in the 2012 short film that was in front of Wreck-It Ralph. After that, it was used in the shorts Feast (2014) and Far From the Tree (2021). I think everyone, including me, thought that it was the solution and it was the future of 2D animation. While it was said that the 2023 feature Wish used the method, a video essay said that the method was very toned down in the finished film. But perhaps a second try could use it to its fullest potential as a middle ground
Or
2.) Start up a different unit, either where DisneyToon Studios used to operate or the new Vancouver studio, that would produce the 2D films that can be released once in a blue moon, which could be even once a decade as an event. The plan would be a steady production time in which production would not officially start until the story is refined to the point where it’s ready to be produced. An added bonus is to adopt what the SPA Studio did for the 2019 film Klaus to make 2D animation new
Or
3.) Completely ditch full computer animation features and focus solely on traditional animation and leave the computer animation to Pixar. And still adopt the method used in Klaus
Please answer. Which one of the 3 is the best option?
The thing about modern Disney is that its movies' lesson is always the same: self-love.
Glorification of the self. You were always wonderful. You don't need to learn anything other than more self-love. Problems and trials you face are due to unfair treatment from others, whom you must prove wrong. In other words, there is no supporting cast, only foils for which you must demonstrate your worth upon.
Disney fails to realize that humans are flawed and children need lessons to know and recognize. Not hamfisted politics - allegory. The company's creative direction has been taken over by people who I'm convinced must have been the result of some kind of nepotism or meritless system, because the self-love movement is the result of zero personal growth, just constant affirmation.
Probably when Snow White rightfully flops canning the majority of them post Moana, like how ImageMovers had to scrap their future plans(like a Roger Rabbit sequel and a remake to The Beetles’ Yellow Submarine) after Mars Needs Moms flopped spectacularly in 2011
for Disney’s possible return to traditional animated feature films? Even you doubt that traditional animation will ever come back at least at Disney or in the near future, still which one of these 2 ideas you think is the best one,
1.) Solely produce films using the software Meander because it’ll keep traditional animation alive and still use computer animation and it would help distinguish them from the Pixar films. In case you don’t know or remember, Meander was the software that essentially put the hand drawn lines onto computer models. It was first used in the 2012 short film that was in front of Wreck-It Ralph. After that, it was used in the shorts Feast (2014) and Far From the Tree (2021). I think everyone, including me, thought that it was the solution and it was the future of 2D animation. While it was said that the 2023 feature Wish used the method, a video essay said that the method was very toned down in the finished film. But perhaps a second try could use it to its fullest potential as a middle ground
Or
2.) Start up a different unit, either where DisneyToon Studios used to operate or the new Vancouver studio, that would produce the 2D films that can be released once in a blue moon, which could be even once a decade as an event. The plan would be a steady production time in which production would not officially start until the story is refined to the point where it’s ready to be produced. An added bonus is to adopt what the SPA Studio did for the 2019 film Klaus to make 2D animation new
Or
3.) Completely ditch full computer animation features and focus solely on traditional animation and leave the computer animation to Pixar. And still adopt the method used in Klaus
Please answer. Which one of the 3 is the best option?
I'd honestly rather have a Roger Rabbit sequel than the Snow White live action remake come out
@ I second that. Director Robert Zemeckis said that an excellent script was written that jumps into the 1950s.
But, in late 2013, the author of the book Who Framed Roger Rabbit was adapted from said he tried to pitch to Disney an 2D animated remake of the classic live action film The Stooge that starred Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis but this would star Mickey Mouse and Roger Rabbit. A few friends in art expressed doubt that this concept would work but I think it could. And I think it would’ve been a better film to celebrate Disney’s 100th anniversary instead of Wish.
But the current board thinks the Roger Rabbit character is worthless and apparently the executives have issues with the fact that Jessica is a pretty girl.
It's funny that no-one ever talks about the first live action version of a Disney movie. The "101 Dalmatians" live action film, that had Glen Close as Cruella. For me this was and still is a really good live action version of the story. But then it didn't really mess with the story or the character off any of the leads in the story. They're simply telling the same story, slightly updated to a more modern setting.
I don't think anyone counts it because it came out 14 years before all the other rubbish remakes. I enjoyed it myself.
Was just thinking about that movie, if it counts, that is the only live action remake I ever saw, still love that movie (in great part because of Glenn Close/Cruella!)
When businessmen handle creative decisions, it's mostly artless slop
Based on the financial results, it seems that business concerns were far down the list of priorities.
I truly wish that I could step in to lead Disney. While I don’t have “relevant experience”, but I have vision and I would NEVER forget what’s important and I would respect all that Walt Disney stood for. I started working on a project that’s a detailed list of what has to be fixed at Disney in specific areas and general parts
Walt was all about creating magic. His older brother, Roy, was the one that cared about the financial aspects. But he did allow Walt to do what he wished but it had to be within reason financially
There are reasons why you animate something as opposed to doing live action. Magical mystical reasons, the ability to push emotion and action….. look at the live action little mermaid. The iconic scene where Ariel is rushed out of the water and does the hair flip thing nearly broke that actresses neck due to the weight of the wet wig. In animation those physics don’t apply and we get an iconic moment. When Ariel pushes her way to the top of the rock during the Part of your world part 2 after she first sees Eric, you can see her struggling to sing while trying to push herself up
Onto the rock in that iconic animated shot. In college my illustration teacher said “ never go back and rework your old art. Just let it go and move on.” And the thing is that illustration teacher taught many many old Disney animators .
Which one of these is the best idea for Disney’s possible return to traditional animated feature films? Even you doubt that traditional animation will ever come back at least at Disney or in the near future, still which one of these 2 ideas you think is the best one,
1.) Solely produce films using the software Meander because it’ll keep traditional animation alive and still use computer animation and it would help distinguish them from the Pixar films. In case you don’t know or remember, Meander was the software that essentially put the hand drawn lines onto computer models. It was first used in the 2012 short film that was in front of Wreck-It Ralph. After that, it was used in the shorts Feast (2014) and Far From the Tree (2021). I think everyone, including me, thought that it was the solution and it was the future of 2D animation. While it was said that the 2023 feature Wish used the method, a video essay said that the method was very toned down in the finished film. But perhaps a second try could use it to its fullest potential as a middle ground
Or
2.) Start up a different unit, either where DisneyToon Studios used to operate or the new Vancouver studio, that would produce the 2D films that can be released once in a blue moon, which could be even once a decade as an event. The plan would be a steady production time in which production would not officially start until the story is refined to the point where it’s ready to be produced. An added bonus is to adopt what the SPA Studio did for the 2019 film Klaus to make 2D animation new
Or
3.) Completely ditch full computer animation features and focus solely on traditional animation and leave the computer animation to Pixar. And still adopt the method used in Klaus
Please answer. Which one of the 3 is the best option?
They have one thing in common: They all look horrific.
Animation is Disney's thing; CGI clearly is not.
Which one of these is the best idea for Disney’s possible return to traditional animated feature films? Even you doubt that traditional animation will ever come back at least at Disney or in the near future, still which one of these 2 ideas you think is the best one,
1.) Solely produce films using the software Meander because it’ll keep traditional animation alive and still use computer animation and it would help distinguish them from the Pixar films. In case you don’t know or remember, Meander was the software that essentially put the hand drawn lines onto computer models. It was first used in the 2012 short film that was in front of Wreck-It Ralph. After that, it was used in the shorts Feast (2014) and Far From the Tree (2021). I think everyone, including me, thought that it was the solution and it was the future of 2D animation. While it was said that the 2023 feature Wish used the method, a video essay said that the method was very toned down in the finished film. But perhaps a second try could use it to its fullest potential as a middle ground
Or
2.) Start up a different unit, either where DisneyToon Studios used to operate or the new Vancouver studio, that would produce the 2D films that can be released once in a blue moon, which could be even once a decade as an event. The plan would be a steady production time in which production would not officially start until the story is refined to the point where it’s ready to be produced. An added bonus is to adopt what the SPA Studio did for the 2019 film Klaus to make 2D animation new
Or
3.) Completely ditch full computer animation features and focus solely on traditional animation and leave the computer animation to Pixar. And still adopt the method used in Klaus
Please answer. Which one of the 3 is the better option?
CGI quite literally is animation.
What you probably meant is "Realism isn't Disney's thing" since these "live action" remakes are technically still animated.
@ That is nicely narrowed down; I'd vote the third option; The 'Klaus' method is fine, 2D cán still evolve. But as you said: leave computer animation to Pixar, we do not need 'more of the same' ALL the time, y'know?
@ No, CGI simply means Computer Generated Imagery. It says nothing about being animated or not.
@@mischavanasperen3063 An excellent point
How to save Disney:
1. Hire classical Animators
2. Train new ones, not from California
3. Find discarded Disney scripts from 1940-1995
4. Change NOTHING in them
5. Start producing them, one per year, hand drawn animation at 30 million each.
6. Rake in
Animators and writers from other countries could bring in so much too.
@@RylanA-fm3njthey did that with Moana 2
"I only hope we never lose sight of one thing, that it was all started by a mouse" -Walt Disney
It's a crying shame this company has become so void of creativity, imagination and immersion. Doing the little things to make a big impact was Walt's focus. Sadly, that is now lost.
And that mouse is now seen as the face of Disney's current greed. It's tragic.😔
@@hikaritakahashi9411lol how u feel about Universal doing the same with their own live action remakes of HTTYD?
Once my sister told me that Disney’s copyrights were coming to an end it became clearer to me. Their adaptations don’t have to be good. They just needed to create something to keep their copyrights going then someday down the road maybe create something good.
That's not how copyright works.
Copyrights are for a specific character style. They will run out regardless on the original cartoon versions
Wow, I literally JUST saw your last video from a random recommendation, and you treat me to this right after? You're so thoughtful!
One issue with these ultra high realistic CGI movies about the visuals is…you can only go so far stylistically. With 2D, you have limitless possibilities how you want to style the backgrounds, characters, effects, everything. But if you choose to go more and more and more realistic to where you can see every hair, there’s nothing left to say other than “it looks so real!” until you plateau (which is what’s happening right now). Styles are all distinct and help the story as much as the writing itself. Mulan is different from Sleeping Beauty, which is different from Aristocats.
Boots To Reboots likes to say “if you’re gonna remake something, make it different”. Disney does that but in the worst possible way
Disney need to make 2D movies again. It doesn't need to be their main goal, but imagine if we get 1 epic old school 2D movie again. They are still in business, it's not too late to trun it around. I absolutely dislike musicals, but man the songs from Disney movies from the 90's and early 2000's stuck in my head for weeks. It's 2025, and I still remember the Tarzan songs and sometimes find myself singing their out of the blue. Come on Disney, get the old movie makers back and restart the golden age again
@@Bean-s7ono it's not clown get out of here. Live action Disney sucks
Yeah, PLEASE!!
Well, from my understanding Wish was originally supposed to be in 2D classically animated. The head of animation (Jennifer Lee) scrapped that after John Lassiter was let go. She made alot of decisions that weakened the story, design and characters. She was more worried about the audience finding Easter eggs than making a memorable movie.
Which one of these is the best idea for Disney’s possible return to traditional animated feature films? Even you doubt that traditional animation will ever come back at least at Disney or in the near future, still which one of these 2 ideas you think is the best one,
1.) Solely produce films using the software Meander because it’ll keep traditional animation alive and still use computer animation and it would help distinguish them from the Pixar films. In case you don’t know or remember, Meander was the software that essentially put the hand drawn lines onto computer models. It was first used in the 2012 short film that was in front of Wreck-It Ralph. After that, it was used in the shorts Feast (2014) and Far From the Tree (2021). I think everyone, including me, thought that it was the solution and it was the future of 2D animation. While it was said that the 2023 feature Wish used the method, a video essay said that the method was very toned down in the finished film. But perhaps a second try could use it to its fullest potential and as a middle ground
Or
2.) Start up a different unit, either where DisneyToon Studios used to operate or the new Vancouver studio, that would produce the 2D films that can be released once in a blue moon, which could be even once a decade as an event. The plan would be a steady production time in which production would not officially start until the story is refined to the point where it’s ready to be produced. An added bonus is to adopt what the SPA Studio did for the 2019 film Klaus to make 2D animation new
Or
completely ditch full computer animation features and focus solely on traditional animation and leave the computer animation to Pixar. And still adopt the method used in Klaus
@@greenliongirl07 Which one of these is the best idea for Disney’s possible return to traditional animated feature films? Even you doubt that traditional animation will ever come back at least at Disney or in the near future, still which one of these 2 ideas you think is the best one,
1.) Solely produce films using the software Meander because it’ll keep traditional animation alive and still use computer animation and it would help distinguish them from the Pixar films. In case you don’t know or remember, Meander was the software that essentially put the hand drawn lines onto computer models. It was first used in the 2012 short film that was in front of Wreck-It Ralph. After that, it was used in the shorts Feast (2014) and Far From the Tree (2021). I think everyone, including me, thought that it was the solution and it was the future of 2D animation. While it was said that the 2023 feature Wish used the method, a video essay said that the method was very toned down in the finished film. But perhaps a second try could use it to its fullest potential and as a middle ground
Or
2.) Start up a different unit, either where DisneyToon Studios used to operate or the new Vancouver studio, that would produce the 2D films that can be released once in a blue moon, which could be even once a decade as an event. The plan would be a steady production time in which production would not officially start until the story is refined to the point where it’s ready to be produced. An added bonus is to adopt what the SPA Studio did for the 2019 film Klaus to make 2D animation new
Or
completely ditch full computer animation features and focus solely on traditional animation and leave the computer animation to Pixar. And still adopt the method used in Klaus
Regarding Mufasa, it's funny how in the "live action" Lion King, they deliberately made the animals expressionless because the opposite wouldn't be realistic. But in the prequel that nobody asked for, they went back on that decision.
The Prequel that nobody asked for has made $600 million so far and is currently the #7 highest grossing movie of 2024 and is on track to beat Sonic 3 domestically
@@Bean-s7oNice fake profile bro (made one day ago lol)
A prequel that now get a nomination in a razzie category. Well-deserve it. Because this prequel is awful, and people who stand for it have no clue what damage it made for the characters of Mufasa and Scar.
@@luismedrano6680 And it still looks abominable.
PS3 level graphics.
Sonic doesn't exist and he still looks better than.. are those supposed to be lions?!
No one asked disney to make the 1937 snow white which started this
Maybe because most of the "Good Disney era" employees are gone & been replace with activist pretending to be writers, directors, artist and actors 🤔
@@Bean-s7o 🤣 maybe somewhere part of the" good Disney" like I said & stop shilling so hard and read the comment
@@Bean-s7oMaleficent, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, TLK, TLM and Mufasa say otherwise
@@Bean-s7o" you people are the problem" us people didn't make those movies Disney did... I nailed it a Disney shill 😆
Oh brother …
@@AGZhark what?
Live action are a poison for wonder and imagination. Live action is like saying "animation is a lesser art". Live action is a killer for creativity.
I actually hope disney gets worse so we can start a revolution in entertainment
if the "too big to fail" fails, it means things can start to get better
Makes sense
As the Holy Scriptures said “At times, things have to get worse before it can get better”
The whole point of Disney was the animation. They took classic fables and fairy tales and retold them as an excuse to showcase their visually stunning animation. Without the animation, it's just a B-movie.
Which one of these is the best idea for Disney’s possible return to traditional animated feature films? Even you doubt that traditional animation will ever come back at least at Disney or in the near future, still which one of these 2 ideas you think is the best one,
1.) Solely produce films using the software Meander because it’ll keep traditional animation alive and still use computer animation and it would help distinguish them from the Pixar films. In case you don’t know or remember, Meander was the software that essentially put the hand drawn lines onto computer models. It was first used in the 2012 short film that was in front of Wreck-It Ralph. After that, it was used in the shorts Feast (2014) and Far From the Tree (2021). I think everyone, including me, thought that it was the solution and it was the future of 2D animation. While it was said that the 2023 feature Wish used the method, a video essay said that the method was very toned down in the finished film. But perhaps a second try could use it to its fullest potential as a middle ground
Or
2.) Start up a different unit, either where DisneyToon Studios used to operate or the new Vancouver studio, that would produce the 2D films that can be released once in a blue moon, which could be even once a decade as an event. The plan would be a steady production time in which production would not officially start until the story is refined to the point where it’s ready to be produced. An added bonus is to adopt what the SPA Studio did for the 2019 film Klaus to make 2D animation new
Or
3.) Completely ditch full computer animation features and focus solely on traditional animation and leave the computer animation to Pixar. And still adopt the method used in Klaus
Please answer. Which one of the 3 is the better option?
Please answer. Which one of the 3 choices is the best?
The Jungle Book was a clever one. Everything after that was just lazy. The Little Mermaid wasn't as bad as they say, but it would have been cheaper, less controversial, and more profitable to just give the original a second theatrical run.
Cinderella was only a good adaptation because there wasn’t much there to begin with. They had so much more to explore character wise whereas most other remakes are based on stories and characters that are fully developed.
Snow White could’ve been a great contender for a live action, since they were limited at the time (like the prince was supposed to be in the story w lot more but they had trouble animating him) so they had so much more of the story they could’ve explored.
However, they’ve let their political messaging get in the way where feminine traits are weak, and masculine traits are good but only when women have them.
I agree
I agree that Cinderella is the only one they did that was amazing for live action, the rest has so many faults in them that I question why they bother at this point.
Don't forget The Jungle Book ans Maleficent
They prioritized the live-action medium first, and was written as a movie, before being written as a fairy tale. The 3 movies in a roll - _Cinderella, The Jungle Book, and Pete's Dragon_ were very well made. Arguably they're better movies than their counterparts.
@@luismedrano6680 No. The Jungle Book remake was awful.
@@vetarlittorf1807 which one there was 2 of them. 1st one in 94' and 2nd one in 16'
@luismedrano6680 The 94 one isn't a remake. It wasn't even Disney originally.
Fans: no more please!
Disney execs: ok! Here's more!
Fans: no more please!
Disney: why you continue to pay to see them then lol
I hate every live remake, especially Beauty and the beast, the 1991 version is my favourite, but they bastardized it. They made Belle a snob who has a singing voice that sounds like a nail on chalkboard, the beast look like a butt, there's no beauty in that version, just a freaking ugly beast.
I fully agree with your points here. I think Disney hit a new low with the Pinocchio remake just for the poop scene alone without having watched it aside from reviews on RUclips. Also even as someone who loves foxes I think the Honest John remake design is the lowest Disney has ever sunk in terms of CGI just for his eyes looking like they are staring into my soul. Lastly I think Keegan Michael-Key's cringeworthy take on the character represents how Disney views its audience nowadays.
Disney needs to stop making live action remakes and make 2D animation movies again
It’s a combination of a few things. One, that media is so saturated now that it’s hard to get a new idea to shine. It’s easier to promote a new Lion King than an unknown IP because everyone knows and loves The Lion King so to the average filmgoer it’s a safer bet.
Second, they can’t remake an animation because it’s already perfect. What they gonna do? Draw it differently? It has to be live action if they’re going to remake it.
And thirdly, all this comes at peak woke/feminism era which infects everything and turns everything it touches in to garbage. So they can’t tell a love story because strong women don’t need no man. And the woman (girlboss) cannot show any kind of vulnerability because it would make her look weak and the message they’re telling us is that women are strong. And yeah they are, but strength comes from development and overcoming adversity, we need to see this. Film studios are so terrified of showing a woman in a state of helplessness for fear of social media backlash that they avoid it entirely, meaning we never get to see said female character grow and develop. She always starts out already a superhero, which makes her boring to watch. And let her fall in love for gods sake, can we stop pretending that women don’t love romance.
Disney's going to keep making these remakes until no one shows at the theater. Why? MONEY!!!
If we’re lucky, Bob Iger could get forced out and a new CEO stops this like one did to the direct to DVD sequels
dude, Iger was forced back after retirement because of Chapek's reckless spending on disney+ and pushing subscribers' numbers over profitability. Iger saw this and rightly cut spending and push for more theatrical release over streaming
I remember when Iger came back, it was supposed to be temporary until they could get someone else to take over. It's been a few years since they made that statement.
We need to not pay to see these unneeded, anti-2D, "politically correct" remakes. They also don't believe in making animated humans anymore, even CGI-animated humans.
I repeat. Don't pay to see them, no matter how much you want to critique and poke fun of them.
Encourage modern kids to watch the original films.
4:55 - Yeah... THAT goes back to the Harry Potter movies, at least... when many of Ron's best things/scenes were given to Hermione.
I hope Disney will reopen the 2D animation wing or whatever it was called, at least they made great movies with it.
They have all the money in the world and they are far too short-sighted to acknowledge that people misses it, and at the same time does not mind if it is something new they would either like or dislike, yet accept that as it is.
@@the-point-bearer6689 I guess we need to wait for someone who'll replace Bob Igar and maybe care about it enough to bring it back
@@Bean-s7oThe live-action version of animated shows and movies never looked good, especially movies by Disney, Pixar DreamWorks ,and companies like them.
@@ThePersephoneDiggenDisney scared away or laid off almost every single animator from the 90s Renaissance movies, with the exception of Eric Goldberg.
Yes, they did open a new hand drawn animation school of sorts, but they won't do much besides small time stuff like specials or park rides animations.
@ I wish the animators you talked about opened an animation studio and tried to make similar movies and shows, but I don’t think it’ll ever happen, if it hasn’t happened yet, what the chances it’ll happen in the future?
I'm from Russia, and when we had the Soviet Union, many Western films were difficult to watch. We released a browser with an integrated translator, and it opened up the world of classic Western movies and television series for me. Of course, a lot has been translated by others, but there is still a lot that can be seen in this way. So I noticed that, for some reason, I prefer the old to the new.
The thing is, it’s essentially NOT the same company. All of almost all of the real animators and directors are dead. The company heads are different. It was amazing that the company even survived Walt’s death.
Disney's creativity and credibility is truly dead. Absolutely pathetic.
Superbly said, and dead on the point. I knew Walt in the early years as a teen, and he was a man of vision and heart. Disney-today has killed it all. I will never ever give them dime of my money again.
I truly wish that I could step in to lead Disney. While I don’t have “relevant experience”, but I have vision and I would NEVER forget what’s important and I would respect all that Walt Disney stood for. I started working on a project that’s a detailed list of what has to be fixed at Disney in specific areas and general parts
Please answer
One of the best things about playing Kingdom Hearts was that you could visit these awesome worlds created by old school Disney, I personally would get excited playing in worlds like Agrabah from Aladdin, Wonderland from Alice in Wonderland and Holloween Town from The Nightmare before Christmas just to name a few.
Definitely 100% agree with you all these live action remakes of animated classics need to stop they need to go away because enough is enough
Cinderella is ridiculous when you know what the actual fairy tale is about - not a "simple country girl loving a prince", i.e. hypergamy, but a well-bred girl from a good house being reinstated into her social level because she refused to become untrue to herself no matter the trials of her life.
Those live actions would have been awesome, if they released 1 every few years and they were basically shot for shot remakes.
I agree. I actually think most Disney live action remakes are terrible trash. However, the only few Disney live action I love, like, and enjoy are The Jungle Book (both 1994 and 2016), Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland, Cruella, Cinderella, 101 Dalmatians (1996), Aladdin, and Maleficent. The rest are either terrible and unnecessary. Never again will I ever see any more of these Disney live action remakes in the future.
I agree this has to be removed and focus on their Animated Projects, all these Live Action Movies are doing are killing the Magic
Agreed. I feel like princess diaries was the only live action movie or original movie that was perfect for the time frame it was in. Still classic
I feel so sorry for everyone who worked on Mulan. The potential it had :/
The jungle book wasn't too bad.
When Corporations control movie studios all they care about is COMPLETING whatever the product is, quality and innovation is no longer a factor, all they concentrate on is GETTING PRODUCT OUT FOR CONSUMTION.
We don't talk about the live-action Mulan sheesh
It's funny that you mention that Aladdin and Jasmine's love story was almost non existent in the 2019 version because I actually felt more for Genie and Dalia and was rooting for them more than I was Aladdin and jasmine
Live-action filmmaking has always been treated as the black sheep of the Disney empire. At what point did that become a self-fulfilling prophecy? It didn't have to be that way.
I’m pissed that Eric didn’t get his action hero scene where he pilots a ghost ship straight into Ursula. That made him one of the coolest Disney princes
so fed up with people complaining about the same tired crap, who also end up falling for the same tired crap.
hey everyone here’s a shocking idea, it’s called stop watching their live action junk! don’t even bother giving them money because that would then make you part OF that problem!
When you try to make a movie for everyone, you end up making a movie for no one. That's the trend in entertainment in the past decade. Funny thing is even in the Disney Renaissance and before, the movies they made were actually for everyone and everyone watched them, but the cultural landscape shifted so much that entertainment companies are trying to appease everybody, but in doing so they hurt the quality of their films and shows.
Currently watching 80s/90s movies/shows 👍👍😎. I am fine if Hollywood goes away for 20 years (especially Lucasfilm) 🙏🙏
I don’t see the problem with live action Disney movies, as long as they’re not CGI remakes. I don’t see the problem with movies like “Old Yeller” or “101 Dalmatians” (1996)…
And instead of listening to their fans' complaints and changing course accordingly, they instead doubled down and used EXTREMELY underhanded tactics to try and undermine any criticism thrown their way.
We LOVE you Nerd-Girl!
It's funny because speechless is the best part of the live-action Aladdin movie
All these remakes are just a symptom of a much larger issue that imagination and originality are things that are disappearing for Disney and Hollywood in general. It's a nonstop stream superhero movies with superficial storylines or remakes of an original classic that destroys the original work. Can't remember the last time an original work with a good storyline was in theaters.
They can make a live action version of Treasure Planet and give it the marketing the first one deserved.
The other thing that annoys me is that they cast famous people to do the voices on the new animated characters, rather than the best voice actors for them.
In all honesty, I don’t think live action needs to die. It just needs to be GOOD. It needs to have its magic, emotion and soul back.
About the dark gloomy CGI locations, yeaaaaah, they do that to save money on creating realistic CGI backgrounds. They did the same to the Percy Jackson show. Barely any of the fights were clearly visible because they were all dark as fudge. The story also sucked compared to the books so I decided not to return for season 2, whether it is happening or not. As a hardcore fan, it was very disappointing.
I wouldn’t mind it if they were any good at making live action versions of their classics. They are not. The people at Disney today ruin everything they touch.
When you write ANY story, it doesn't have to be real. It judt has to be believable. It has to be engaging. It has to be ENJOYABLE. Sadly, Disney has lost all grasp of these concepts.😢
The discussion at Rismey is that they just need to keep pushing it through the next generation and it become the norm.
Why are people just now complaining about this? I've always hated these live action remakes.
If Disney really wants to do a live action movie, Atlantis. It already has a diverse cast, it’s dark in its own right, and it doesn’t focus on just the love story between milo and kida
Disney didn't go down this path suddenly. It has being an ongoing process for several years and back in 2012, when they announced the the Lucas films was now theirs, I got worried for many reasons. Nothing however could have prepared me for Rise of Skywalker. As another youtuber said: "The last Jedi is an insult to Star Wars fans, Rise of Skywalker is an insult to the art of cinema". By the way, You nailed at 06:05! Mulan(2020) is a Chinese Rey, the Force is called Chi, but is the same character.
Bruh, I don't remember Mulan sliding on a vertical wall, 😂 hahaha how could I forget such stupidity
If i were to make a video series of my thoughts on many subjects i could dub your words as they match my thoughts exactly! Good commentary!
Disney live action remakes have proven to be mostly ridiculous boring, and they don't do justice on their animation films. Except Cinderella, on the other hand.
Agreed 👍🏼 Classic Disney films were magical and taught very important lessons. Lessons on learning from others, growing up and not being selfish. This reflects reality far too often we are given an easy choice that seems correct, everything we want but then we hopefully realize it has a catch that will hurt ourselves and others, thus should be avoided.
Thanks for the video
In my opinion, video games offer a much more rich vibrant world than CGI movies can offer.
You earned my subscription with that, "Mulan's Mitochlorians" joke.
Well played!
I really fear the upcoming Moana live action movie!
For what this movie was even planned for?
Except for kickstarting Dwayne Johnson‘s decreasing success …
Very sad.
to me the reason why the cinderella live action worked while everything else didn't was because it didn't try to change the story just enhance the original... for example.. one of the flaws for me in the original animated Cinderella was that the relationship with the prince felt forced since they met at the ball and nowhere else... but in the live action remake they had cinderella meet the prince before the ball.. making them establish a relationship before it. that simple change is what made the movie not terrible it didn't try to be like "oh cinderella doesn't try to go to the ball to meet a man it's because she wants to escape her toxic household" cause in the remake even though she doesn't refer to the prince as her love interest, she if I remember correctly says she wants to go to the ball to meet a dear friend... that line alone makes her motives to go to the ball more captivating... it's the fact that many of these live action remakes could have been good if they just enhanced the story of the original instead of changing it. like with Snow White, with the original it is quite creepy that the prince kisses the unconscious Snow White but to me a very simple change that could instantly change how thet scene plays out would be to simply make it so that the prince tries to find any way to wake Snow White wake up not knowing that the kiss would work and then finding out it would work by like maybe finding the book the evil queen used for the poison apple thing... that alone is enhancing the original story while it's changing it a bit in terms of scenes and how things play out it doesn't change the story at all.... just makes it better to me personally.... I mean I would prefer if Disney just stopped doing live action remakes but if they still wanna do those for whatever reason... take the example of the cinderella remake... cause that is a great example of enhancing a story, not changing the story to fit your own agendas.
I couldn't agree more, but the fact of the matter is that all these theatrical releases were able to amass hundreds of millions of dollars at the box office, some of them going as far as surpassing the $1B mark, all of them far more successful than their respective counterparts when it comes to BO numbers (regardless of their production budgets). This type of response from audiences only continues to incentivize Disney to keep their current course of action no matter how much flack they get from analysts and fans of the original animated classics.
I officially despise these live-action remakes more than even the direct to video crap Eisner shat out back in the early 2000s.
Ladies, stop forcing your dates, boyfriends, or spouses to pay for these movies.
And
Parents, stop taking you kids to these movies, take them to watch animation. You think your kid cares what celebrity is gonna feature in the latest live-action remake?
Walt Disney built the company by showing fantastical scenes that were too wondrous to film in live action. These remakes are due to laziness -- technology has improved, so why not? That's as far as their thinking went.
I agree with most things in this video, but there is one thing I do want to assert. Aladdin was far from perfect. It had plot holes, like the fact that Aladdin wasn't supposed to touch anything in the treasure room yet ended up riding the carpet, Jafar's staff had been used for mind control yet he never used it to get what he wanted, and the genie agreed to make Aladdin into a prince, but then called him a fake prince and ditched that storyline. It also romanticized Aladdin, a common thief, as someone worthy of a princess. Not to mention, the way he fell in love with her so quickly was a huge red flag. The movie was good, if you can ignore these massive flaws.. I was disappointed watching it as an adult, but had good memories of it from watching it as a kid.
Disney is like the Ship of Theseus. Just because they're still called Disney it doesn't mean their made of the same people. Most of the classic animated Disney films we remember were made over half a century ago. The people that made those are not the same as the people making the movies of today. Not to disregard the corporate aspect of it but I feel that people shouldn't compare modern Disney to older Disney.
Maleficent was like a cool and interesting concept which I don't think Disney even knew wtf they got themselves into with that one. And should have just stopped there lol.
well we got Maleicient 3 still in the works per Angelina Jolie
a remake of a classic movie or animation should always be true to the original.
never a rewrite of a loved classic to push a social or political agenda, the proof is how poorly these remakes have done in the theaters.
I grew up on classic animation from Disney, herbie the love bug, the black hole, tron, and so much more. I was in my twenties when the 90’s Disney was killing it, then came the mcu. Since endgame Disney offers nothing to me as a consumer
I'm morbidly curious to know the take of anyone that, in their heart of hearts, genuinely thinks any of these remakes were as good or better than the animations.
I'm starting to sense there are two philosophies in the female world. Those who want old Disney, and those who want new Disney. It must be very confusing for Disney. The confusion i share with the video essay is why remake old finished titles into something else? These old works don't need any reinvention, and it's hard to argue they need any animation improvement. Those old titles were just fine.
The only live action version of Peter Pan I accept is the 2003 movie.
I truly wish that I could step in to lead Disney. While I don’t have “relevant experience”, but I have vision and I would NEVER forget what’s important and I would respect all that Walt Disney stood for. I started working on a project that’s a detailed list of what has to be fixed at Disney in specific areas and general parts