Okay, why does every movie have to have like 60,000 trailers nowadays?
Okay, why does every movie have to have like 60,000 trailers nowadays?
This looks god-awful. The casting is terrible and judging by the pile of wank that was The Jungle Book remake this will be just as bad.
To give your film the best chance of making a crapload of money probably.Originally Posted by Fynn
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"
But then you go to see the movie and realize you've basically seen 90% of it already!
This is so dumb!
Well they still get the box office money if that happens! Besides, trailers and clips etc aren't compulsory to watch.
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"
But The Jungle Book was fantastic...
I like Kung-Fu.
Don't see the point if seeing this at all, the movie is almost the exact same as the animated classic and Emma can't sing all that well.
I don't know why Disney is doing these live actions remakes, they are not needed, the animated classics are beloved classics for a reason. The only theory I have is that stupid Snow White live action remake craze that happened a few years ago might of made Disney panic that studios would live action the fairy tales Disney is originally known for and their version would be forgotten, so they are live-acting their tales before any other studio does. That, and nostalgia is hot.
Yeah, Maleficent was okay because it was a completely different take. This pretty much looks like a shot for shot remake
....
How many times does it need to be spelt out? You know why they're doing them. Cinderella, Maleficent and The Jungle Book made tons of money. This will make tons of money, it might well be the biggest film of the year bar The Last Jedi. They are doing them because they make money. If you think this film looks terrible, that's a perfectly valid opinion and you can state it no problems, just stop being dense as to why it exists.
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"
Sorry, it's just annoying. I could understand if people just said 'this film looks terrible' etc but it feels like some people don't seem to realise how the film industry works.
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"
I think maybee just feels that, from an artistic standpoint, she can't see the point of this movie. The financial aspect is a given, and she probably knows that. It's just that some people believed Disney simply had more artistic integrity.
And hey, I kinda agree. I get why they'd make it financially, bug even though I really like Emma Watson and Beauty and the Beast is my favorite Disney movie (as if you couldn't tell), I don't really see the point of seeing it since it doesn't feel like it'll add anything OTHER THAN some money for Disney.
That still totally subjective, though
A) Because live-action and animation are two different things. It's like asking why there are Broadway musicals based on these films.
B) None of these films are shot-for-shot remakes, so much as they are re-imaginings. Maleficient told a completely different story from a different perspective. Cinderella expanded on the protagonist's backstory in a way no film has ever done, and certainly way more than the original animated film did. Pete's Dragon was not even the same genre of film, and The Jungle Book too expanded on the protagonist's backstory in a way the animated film didn't (and also gave us a satisfying, non-bummer ending).
C) Nostalgia + Brand Recognition = Printing Money
I don't know how Beauty and the Beast will turn out. If it is a shot-for-shot adaptation (although I don't think so since the trailers have scenes that never happened in the animated movie i.e. the castle full of human subjects) then that is kind of unimaginative, but it still has good reason to exist. There are so many scenes in Disney films that would be absolutely wonderful to see in live-action. I personally can't wait to see what they do with Be Our Guest and Human Again. Although to be fair those will be more cgi than live-action.
I like Kung-Fu.
Woooooooooooooooooow
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
