#Live-Action Remake

[jackiestarsister]

Thoughts while re-watching the live-action "Beauty and the Beast"

I am a huge fan of Beauty and the Beast, from the story by Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve to Jean Cocteau's black-and-white film to Disney's animated movie and stage musical. When Disney's live-action remake came out in 2017, I was delighted by it, and failed to understand why so many people hated it. I've watched it a few times since then, but it has been a while, so I decided to give it a rewatch and take notes.

Be warned: this is pretty long!

My thoughts:

~ I love that the castle in the Disney intro is actually the Beast’s castle. On this watch, I noticed that it is topped with a statue that seems to be St. Michael slaying the devil/a monster, which is so appropriate for this story's symbolism!

~ Interesting that the first object seen is a rose being plucked. I assume that was the Enchantress’ hand? Did she pluck the flower from the prince’s own garden before entering the castle?

~ I love the way the servants are introduced in the prologue! Although they are in shadow, Cogsworth is there with his watch and Lumiere holds up a candelabra!

~ This film really leaned into the ostentation and extravagance of pre-revolution France, and it works so well in the context of this story about true inner beauty versus shallow, superficial appearance.

~ Is that Emma Thompson narrating the prologue? It sounds like her, but her accent is not the same as when she voices Mrs. Potts.

~ The actors must have had an interesting challenge acting out the curse scene, which has no audible dialogue between the Prince and the Enchantress!

~ I like that they added an explanation for why the villagers are unaware of the castle despite the relatively short distance between them.

~ I do not understand why people hate Emma Watson as Belle! She looks just right for the part, and while she is no Broadway-caliber singer, her voice is very pretty and she carries the songs quite well!

~ It almost looks like Belle is deliberately ignoring the people talking about her, marching past them as though trying not to care. But she stops to show kindness to the outcasts and the animals! She even waves to a criminal being escorted to jail!

~ I like that they gave Belle and Maurice one real friend, the local priest. I only wish he was a little more effective in his attempts to help them.

~ The entire sequence of “Belle” is just fantastic! It’s not easy to shoot such a complex scene with so many moving parts.

~ The trio of Gaston fangirls remind me of the silly younger sisters in Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility.

~ Although they made him an artist instead of an inventor, Maurice is still absentminded and a bit obsessive. It is easy to see how Belle would feel lonely despite his loving presence, since he is completely absorbed in his work.

~ Hearing that her mother was “fearless” might have inspired Belle’s own fearlessness later, first to save her father and then to save the Beast.

~ Why is Belle’s reader in English and not French? And why does she have a children’s book with her when she goes to do laundry? Did she hope to find someone to teach? Was she actually studying the English language?

~ Gaston crosses so many lines, literally and figuratively, when entreating Belle. And he does not even help her or defend her against the villagers’ abuse, he just tries to pressure her at a moment when she is upset and vulnerable.

~ It’s interesting that Gaston plays the “I can change” card, and Belle insists that “no one can change that much.” She will be proven wrong, but not by him!

~ The tree being struck by lightning and blocking Maurice’s path really makes his going to the castle seem like a result of magic or divine intervention!

~ Maurice seems remarkably calm throughout the wolf chase and when stumbling upon the castle!

~ The lamps held by sconces shaped like arms are a nice nod to Jean Cocteau’s 1946 film La Belle et La Bête!

~ I’m surprised that Maurice would feel bold enough to take a rose after being so spooked by Chip! It would make more sense if he either saw the animated objects and accepted their extraordinariness, or did not see anyone at all and assumed the inhabitants would remain hidden.

~ Maurice must have been coughing very loudly for Belle to hear him all the way in the foyer!

~ Belle holding the light up to see the Beast gives off Psyche and Cupid/Eros vibes!

~ “Forever can spare a minute” is an interesting choice of words considering the name of the song “How Does a Moment Last Forever.”

~ The Beast is so selfish and had such an unhealthy relationship with his own father that he cannot wrap his mind around Belle sacrificing herself for her father.

~ I like Ewan McGregor in general, but his French accent is ridiculous. I get that it’s in keeping with the original film, where Lumiere was the only character with a French accent, but aside from the English characters Mrs. Potts and Cogsworth, they’re all supposed to be French, so it doesn’t really make sense.

~ I don’t like that Lumiere is the one to give Belle a room, behind the Beast’s back. Giving her a room is supposed to be the Beast’s first gesture of decency and kindness toward Belle.

~ Lumiere is much shrewder and actually comes off smarter than Cogsworth, who is so by-the-book that he reveals the one place Belle ought not to go!

~ Belle’s expression when Madame la Garderobe dresses her up says, “I did not sign up for this!”

~ Belle’s simple beauty and country/provincial style contrasts strongly with her bedroom and the lavish style Madame tries to impose on her. That seems to be a kind of arc over the course of the film, with a sort of meeting in the middle by the end.

~ A big difference between the two films’ versions of “Gaston” is that here, LeFou pays the people in the tavern to play music and sing along, instead of everyone joining in freely! I like that, because it suggests that Gaston may not be as well-liked admired as he thinks.

~ When LeFou sings that he does not know how to spell Gaston’s name, it’s written right on the wall behind him!

~ Chip rolling around on his saucer in excitement reminds me of Aang on his air scooter! (Which is funny because I actually gave Aang the role of Chip in the Avatar/Beauty and the Beast crossover I wrote years before this movie came out.)

~ Why does Belle sit and hug her knees self-pityingly, in between moments when she is busy devising her escape? It’s pretty convenient timing for the Beast to see her that way in the mirror.

~ I'm sure it's been pointed out and laughed about before, but I find it quite funny that Emma Watson and Emma Thompson, who played Hermione and Prof. Trelawney in the Harry Potter films and had a whole scene involving tea leaves, got to act together in this film and dealt with teapots and teacups again!

~ Mrs. Potts’ advice about whether to listen to people when they are angry … makes sense when it comes to insults or harshness, but not when it comes to rules and boundaries.

~ Maestro Cadenza is so sassy! “Are there any other tasteless demands you wish to make upon my artistry?” I may need to use that next time I get a negative review for my work!

~ “This is France” followed by the knife falling like a guillotine made me laugh!

~ Lumiere seems clumsier, less confident, and more oblivious in this version of “Be Our Guest.”

~ Poor Belle can’t get a full bite of food while the staff objects are showing off! I choose to believe that after that performance, Mrs. Potts made sure she got to relax and eat a proper, comforting meal.

~ Belle breaking the rule about the West Wing feels more in-character in this version. Here, she is more headstrong, and she intends to break her word and leave. So it’s not just curiosity or fascination with the castle that drives her to investigate. She may be hoping to find out the Beast’s weakness and find a way to escape.

~ Belle is not very sneaky when going to the West Wing; her footsteps are very loud!

~ The Beast ruined the image of himself and his father, but he left his mother’s image intact!

~ If Philippe was still at the castle, how did Maurice get back to the village? Did he walk the whole way? There was no weird palanquin like in the animated movie.

~ The sequence of Belle, the Beast, and the wolves is kind of rushed. Even though it hits the same beats at the original scene, there is not a lot of room for the emotional reversals of the Beast going out to save Belle and her decision to save him in return, even though it costs her the chance of escape.

~ I’m glad that in this version, Maurice opposes Gaston as a suitor for Belle. He knows that the guy is bad news!

~ They gave the line “If you like it so much, then it’s yours,” originally part of the lyrics for “Belle,” to the Beast in the library scene!

~ Belle helps the Beast to see his home and possessions with new eyes, both because she is a newcomer seeing it for the first time, and because she reads with him. I like that a poem (“A Crystal Forest” by William Sharp) helps him look at the castle’s environment in a new way.

~ Belle literally lets sun into the castle when she cleans the windows!

~ The “something there” could have been friendship, but the fact that Mrs. Potts won’t tell Chip what it is makes me think it’s really sexual chemistry/attraction!

~ Has the Beast considered why laughter dies when he enters a room? Did that happen before the curse, or only after he became a beast? Is it because the staff are afraid of his temper, or of his monstrous appearance?

~ The magical book feels like a nod to the magical rooms Belle visits in the original story of “Beauty and the Beast”

~ Personally, I like that this version provides some backstory about Belle and the Beast’s parents. Belle’s journey thus entails not only new relationships but also healing and closure regarding past relationships. Losing their mothers at a young age becomes a point of commonality between Belle and the Beast. Learning of Belle’s mother’s sacrifice, urging Maurice to take their baby away for her safety, may have inspired the Beast’s willingness to let her go later.

~ I know it’s in keeping with the original film, but making Belle’s dress yellow creates a good contrast against the blue and white tones of her usual outfits and the wintry setting of the castle grounds.

~ The Beast’s smile when he sees Belle dressed for their dance is so soft and sweet!

~ The dance sequence is beautiful!!! They don’t look quite as happy and content as they do in the original, but somehow it feels appropriate to where they are at this point in their relationship. The choreography involves trust and teamwork, so it shows how much they have grown from where they began. Belle was not even willing to be in the same room as him, and now she is getting really close and letting him lift and twirl her!

~ I like that the Beast explicitly, if indirectly, broaches the subject of whether Belle could care about him, and that she affirms that she could. It’s more personal than just asking if she is happy there, which is a pretty odd question to ask someone who is technically a prisoner.

~ Unlike in the original, where the Beast is pained and takes a long moment to decide to let Belle go, in this version he says it immediately, almost without thinking.

~ Why doesn’t the coat holder (I think they call him M. Chapeau?) give Belle her cloak, at the very least, as she leaves?

~ “Evermore” is such a beautiful, powerful song! I realized that throughout it, the Beast keeps climbing higher in the castle so he can watch Belle as long as possible. My only criticism of the sequence is that the Beast’s CGI face does not emote very much. Some of the lyrics are pretty angsty, but his expression is almost stoic. Maybe he is supposed to be at peace with losing Belle?

~ How long did everyone stay in the tavern while the asylum carriage was summoned? Why do the villagers have torches at that point? And why do they all follow Gaston’s lead?

~ The magic mirror’s actual glass is quite small and clouded! The images aren’t clear at all.

~ The standoff with Gaston is a bit awkward in its direction, but the actual “Mob Song” sequence is excellent! And this was the first time I wondered: is it meant to be an allusion to the mob mentality of the French Revolution?

~ Cogworth’s “man the barricades” has got to be a Les Misérables reference, and “third-rate musketeers” must be a Three Musketeers reference!

~ Do the household objects sing part of the “Mob Song”? Did they do that in the original movie too?

~ How did Belle carry the magic mirror and her mother’s rose thingy while riding her horse? She doesn’t seem to have any kind of bag on her. Does her ballgown have pockets?

~ Maurice and Belle’s scene in the wagon is so sweet. He seems to be convinced a little too quickly about the Beast becoming kind, but it underscores how much he trusts and supports her.

~ It’s not exactly original, but Belle turning a fashion accessory into a tool is so in-character!

~ LeFou mockingly talking to Chip and Mrs. Potts reminds me of Olaf, another Josh Gad character, pretending to address the rock trolls in Frozen!

~ I swear, Maestro Cadenza’s music as he pins LeFou down sounds like “The Imperial March (Darth Vader’s Theme)”!

~ Great symbolism of books being used as weapons against the literacy-hating townsfolk!

~ If Madame de Garderobe and Maestro Cadenza were able to come out of their respective rooms to participate in the battle, why weren’t they able to see each other sooner?

~ Where did Belle get that jacket? Was it Maurice’s?

~ Although it was shown earlier in the movie, I think the castle crumbling should have been revisited the night of the dance. It seems too random when it happens during the climactic fight.

~ I like that Belle participates in the fight, taking away Gaston’s weapons and trying to protect the Beast.

~ The “death” of all the household items … it’s like the writers asked, “How can we make the Beast’s death even more devastating than it already is?”

~ I like how the rose petals become part of the Beast’s transformation. But the transformation itself seems a bit rushed. In the animated movie and stage musical, it’s a pretty long sequence with a lot of awe and emotion. But I guess there’s only so much you can do with the live-action medium.

~ Mrs. Potts’ first name is Beatrice?!

~ As a human, Chip has a tooth missing, like his chipped rim!

~ It looks like Madame de Garderobe and Maestro Cadenza ditched their wigs and decided to wear their natural hair after the curse broke!

~ I had not realized that Gugu Mbatha-Raw was in this movie until now, after seeing her in Loki!

~ There are many beautiful shots of the sky throughout the film!

~ The score is so beautiful! I love that it weaves in melodies of songs from the original movie, the stage musical, and the new movie.

My conclusion: it’s not perfect, but it is a beautiful movie and a wonderful retelling of a classic story that long predates Disney’s interpretation!

[kylesvariouslistsandstuff]

Much Ado About MOANA

Say it ain't so!

Walt Disney Pictures is working on a live-action "reimagining" of MOANA that will involve Dwayne Johnson himself, who of course voiced Maui in the original animated feature directed by Ron Clements and John Musker for Walt Disney Animation Studios and released in 2016.

As of now, the movie has three forthcoming extensions: This project, a land at Epcot in Walt Disney World, and an animated series being produced at WDAS (namely its recently-opened Vancouver unit) for Disney+.

I used to grouse to the moon and back about how much I detested much of these particular remakes and reimaginings of Disney's animated features and characters. You know, the ones made in the aftermath of Tim Burton's ALICE IN WONDERLAND throughout the 2010s, and even into now. I used to see them as something of a threat to animation's reputation, and they all came at us fast! MALEFICENT in 2014, CINDERELLA in 2015, THE JUNGLE BOOK (a largely CGI movie with one live actor and maybe like, 5 real-life plants) and ALICE THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS in 2016, BEAUTY AND THE BEAST in 2017, and a five-finger-punch of DUMBO, ALADDIN, THE LION KING, a MALEFICENT sequel, and LADY AND THE TRAMP in 2019... And then MULAN in 2020, CRUELLA in 2021, and PINOCCHIO this past year. Mixed in with these movies were a genuine new take on hybrid film PETE'S DRAGON and a legacy sequel to MARY POPPINS, MARY POPPINS RETURNS. Even Burton's ALICE, which got this whole ball rolling, was pretty much its own thing, ditto the 2016 sequel.

On the horizon? PETER PAN & WENDY, THE LITTLE MERMAID, SNOW WHITE, MUFASA: THE LION KING, BAMBI, THE SWORD IN THE STONE, a JUNGLE BOOK sequel, THE ARISTOCATS, ROBIN HOOD, THE CHRONICLES OF PRYDAIN (which the 1985 animated feature THE BLACK CAULDRON was adapted from), THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME, HERCULES, and LILO & STITCH. Now MOANA joins the ranks, the first all-CG animated Disney film to get the "live-action" treatment.

That's a ton of remakes in the span of almost 10 years, if we peg the actual start of this trend with 2014's MALEFICENT.

I think I've only seen... ALICE IN WONDERLAND, and THE JUNGLE BOOK, in full. I refused to watch the others. Back then it was out of protest and me just genuinely not being interested, nowadays? It's just the latter. These things aren't for me, and that's okay I guess. They haven't erased animation, nor did other recent "realistic" takes on animated classics, such as the 2017 GHOST IN THE SHELL movie with Scarlett Johansson. It hit me one day at my cinema job when THE LION KING was released. The Cinemark that I work at used to have a cart for movie merchandise, including things like T-shirts and Funko Pops and such. Most of the merchandise for the remakes that came out that year? Were for the animated originals... (I use the word loosely, but... You know what I mean!) I'd say it was an 85/15 ratio. Some stuff for the new remake, but mostly stuff for the classic animated movies that inspired them... It hit me... These are just over-glorified theatrical re-releases of the animated classics, made to move some merch and stuff at your local Hot Topic. It's kind of a weird transition from the way Disney used to keep their films in the public eye, whether it was a re-release cycle from the 1940s up until the mid-1990s, or their video releases being available for a limited time before being retired to the infamous "Disney Vault" (a ruthless marketing strategy thankfully put to rest with the arrival of Disney+ in 2019).

But in 2017-ish, I remember just being so goddamn grumpy about these things. Made worse by various directors, actors, and producers involved with the remakes making disparaging remarks about the classic movies for being... Well... **Animated**. Imagine that! The director of live-action BEAUTY AND THE BEAST declared that filming that story with real people gave it layers of psychological depth and nuance or some such bullshit. An actor on ALADDIN said almost verbatim the same exact thing. Disney stressed that their LION KING remake wasn't animated, even though the entire thing except a single shot was computer generated and "animated"! Then of course, several folks involved with the remakes making up nonsense about the princesses and heroines in the originals. We're seeing that now, even, with THE LITTLE MERMAID. Though these particular remarks about classic Disney heroines are nothing new, they remain nonetheless a bit irritating and proof that media literacy is lacking in many people. Then again, we do live in a world where people constantly parrot nonsense like "Batman is a rich guy who beats up poor people" and "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer is about being bullied until you're useful to your bullies."

Some people just don't pay attention to what they watch, do they?

But really, the remakes come, make a lot of noise, often times make a crapton of money at the box office... And then they just... Disappear. Like, it was insisted that BEAUTY AND THE BEAST 2017 fixed the plot holes of the 1991 movie and was "darker", more "adult", whatever- Uhhh, I don't really feel its presence anymore, whereas the 1991 animated movie directed by Kirk Wise and Gary Trousdale? Still here, still beloved, still holds up. I guess you could not outmode the dumb ol' kiddie cartoon, now could you? All that "darker" and "more psychology" talk is gimmicks at best, and most folks just kinda watch 'em because they saw the originals... and then that's it. It's a movie, it's a thing, it exists. You got what was on the tin: It's [insert Disney movie here], all over again!

This all being said... Now the CG movies are fair game, and possibly Pixar's some time in the future. It ain't just the 2D movies they're going after anymore. Look at Universal, they're readying a HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON live-action movie for 2025 with Dean DeBlois himself - director of all three of the animated DreamWorks HTTYD movies - at the helm! It's either going to be a straight-up live-action version of the DreamWorks adaptation released back in 2010, or it's going to be a whole new take on Cressida Cowell's book series. I hope it's the latter, honestly, then I might give it my attention.

To this day, many rightfully concerned folks still feel that these live-action/photorealistic remakes insult pure animation. Pure animation as in, animation that KNOWS it's animated. Straight-up cartoon or abstract. That Hollywood sees animated movies as but a "stepping stone" to superior live-action, but really... What I see is this... Money. People love an animated movie or show? Money. How many different coats of paint can we put on the car?

Some are asking... Why not just a MOANA sequel?

The weird thing about that is, Ron Clements and John Musker left Disney Animation. They were last seen developing a METAL MEN movie for Warner Animation Group. Of course, the directors being off on a new adventure doesn't mean anything in capitalism, Disney could plow ahead with a MOANA sequel if they wanted to. But they choose not to at the moment, only this and a D+ series. Kind of keeping in line with a history of not really making sequels in-house, and the days of outsourced direct-to-video fare has been loooooong over. (The remakes are often compared to the DTV sequels of the '90s and '00s, and for good reason. They're little more than brand extensions, and you can ex 'em out of the equation if you so choose to do so. Disney EU or Disney "Elseworlds" if you will...)

But what's actually seemingly upsetting is that... In the past few months, on the year of Disney's 100th anniversary... Most of the movie announcements have been nothing but continuations and brand extensions. They also serve as a nice distraction from needless layoffs, but yes... The big announcements have been things like TOY STORY 5, FROZEN III, ZOOTOPIA 2, Live-Action MOANA, etc. etc.

However, one ought to look closer. In-between all the franchisey stuff and synergetic things, there's still original movies being made... Like, there's not only 20th Century Studios continuing to make new live-action movies that aren't remakes or re-dos or new adaptations of books (y'all seen THE MENU and BARBARIAN last year? Great stuff! Highly recommended.), but you still have Pixar. From March 2020 to March 2022? Four straight original animated movies: ONWARD, SOUL, LUCA, TURNING RED. After spin-off LIGHTYEAR, we're getting ELEMENTAL in two months, ELIO in spring 2024, and presumably many more on the horizon.

Oh, but ELEMENTAL looks "mid", you say? "A parody of Pixar"? Or whatever else is being mindlessly parroted at the moment? Whatever, I don't know what to say to that, but like it or not, a movie like ELEMENTAL is the rare original movie from Disney, a small island in a sea of remakes, Marvel, and Star Wars. Ditto ELIO, and again, whatever is in the works after that that isn't a sequel.

And of course, Walt Disney Animation Studios, who have all but abandoned literary adaptations outside of public domain fairy tales, keeps up with original stuff, too. After releasing no new movies in 2017, two back-to-back sequels from 2018-2019 and taking 2020 off due to COVID-19 complications, they hit us with RAYA AND THE LAST DRAGON, ENCANTO, and STRANGE WORLD. Next up is WISH, also an original story, despite the weird way it was presented and reported on at D23. Whatever releases after that, I do not know, but FROZEN III and ZOOTOPIA 2 aren't the only things in development there. Plus, they have partnered with Nigerian upstart studio Kugali to make an original show for Disney+ called IWAJU.

Much like the reception ELEMENTAL is getting online, a movie that isn't even out yet, a lot of the recent WDAS output and what's next is just being written off... But it's all there, it's original, it's a mere morsel of something coming out of the company that seems to be all about them brands. I'm not blaming audiences specifically for, say, STRANGE WORLD's epic floppage this past holiday season, buuuuut- Those numbers are looked at, and they possibly bring about consequences.

I do get the worries, though. Under former CEO Bob Chapek, we saw Pixar's originals post-ONWARD all go straight to streaming while franchise entry LIGHTYEAR hit the big screen... and lost money. WDAS movies had a hard time, too. RAYA did a day-and-date thing with Disney+ before most of the vaccine rollout, ENCANTO dealt with Delta and Omicron before being a huge hit at home, STRANGE WORLD was straight up left for dead after testing very poorly.

With Bob Iger back in charge, Chapek's strong pivot to streaming is being reversed, as it's being realized that streaming is not the be-all end-all of the movie world. And sharp eyes knew it never would be, either, but you know how things go in capitalism: New thing shows up, abandon everything for the new thing! Disaster! Hey, that's how hand-drawn animated features prematurely got the boot circa 2001. Anyways- Yes, Iger rearranged a lot of things, and now the release strategies and marketing campaigns are back in the hands of the studios and creatives, and I'm pretty sure that there's an effort, a commitment to make ELEMENTAL the first Pixar box office success in four years. That's right, the last Pixar movie to make its money back at the box office was... TOY STORY 4... Back in 2019... And you wonder why a fifth one was greenlit?

I'd imagine Iger saw how Chapek and co mandated Pixar to send TURNING RED straight to streaming, and knew what to do from there. Ditto how, on the WDAS front, STRANGE WORLD was just straight up abandoned. TURNING RED probably would've made ENCANTO or BAD GUYS numbers at best, which wouldn't have been enough for its hefty budget (Pixar needs to stop overspending on these things), but I wonder what's in store for ELEMENTAL. Few animated movies post-2020 have passed the $100m threshold domestically, and I feel that is due to how many trips to the movies families can afford a year. (Say the line, Kyle: In 2014, statistics showed that the average American family goes to the movies four times a y-) It's opening amidst a ton of blockbusters and other animated family movies, including Disney's own LITTLE MERMAID, and the fifth INDIANA JONES movie. Maybe movies should just be more affordable? And theaters, better places to sit down and see a movie? I can see why many just don't go anymore, again, having worked at a theater for 7 1/2 years (and ready to move on to something better).

Or better yet, Pixar and WDAS need not spend more than $150m on the movies that they make. DreamWorks, Illumination, Sony, et al. put out dynamic-looking movies that are rewriting the CG animation book for way less, WDAS and Pixar should probably consider that. Leave the tech-flexing to things like that LION KING remake and prequel, let their animated movies experiment and have fun again. But even movies they don't seem to be flexing tech cost so much. Why, though? I know in California, these things are expensive, but DreamWorks is based out of California, too. I guess that Moonray software they themselves created and other solutions have gotten their movies to cost less than $100m each time out. Well, WDAS opened their Vancouver unit, so maybe they can up them to feature status? Like they did with the defunct Florida unit way back when? Split the effort with Vancouver, lower the cost? I dunno, just spit-balling here.

Basically, I don't want ELEMENTAL and WISH to come up short at the box office. Or any of the original stuff coming out, period. Again, WDAS, Pixar, and 20th Century/Searchlight are like Disney's last outlets for that kind of stuff on the movie end of things. 20th is fine and good, because in small-scale live-action, most of the time the studios know how to be smart with budgets. $150m budgets make the average WDAS and Pixar movie a risk, that they have to get on the stage and essentially perform like a Marvel movie just to break even! That's a lot to ask of an original animated movie! And not even the WDAS name nor the Pixar name can guarantee people will show up, both have had their fair share of flops. And now, judging by how ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA is doing, the Marvel name ain't a guarantee anymore either. Ditto Star Wars, remember how SOLO just sorta existed at the box office and lost a lot of money? TV and elsewhere is a different story, of course, there's plenty of original stuff to choose from there.

MOANA Live-Action is likely being made to fund the fun cool stuff, much in the same way sequels help fund originals. They... Pay the bills, shall we say.

In other words, I'm just indifferent. Whatever. Tell me more about the original stuff coming out, and you'll have my ear.

[megahorous]

We sawr the [live-action] Little Mermaid; that was pretty cool !

There were previews for the Ninja Turtles Movie and the Barbie Movie, and it showed the shot that’s the new meme [where Barbie and Ken get their pictures taken]

[my-brodie999-fan]

Would You Like To See A Live-Action MCU Big Hero 6 Series on Disney Plus One Day? by brodiemarschall

[shadowwingtronix]

Do We NEED A Live-Action Scooby-Doo Series?

BW Media Spotlight asks Do We NEED A Live-Action Scooby-Doo Series? No. No we don't, but we're getting it anyway!

I could easily just say “no”, but it wouldn’t be much of an article if I didn’t explain why. Variety is reporting that a live-action Scooby-Doo streaming series is coming out from every animation fan’s worst nightmare, Netflix. Not surprising that a service that seems to hate animation these days and wants to make every anime and cartoon into a live-action de-make has set their sights on the…

[life-in-toontown]

Me too, man 😞

[rosevelvetcupcake]

I think everyone knows by now that people r really hating on the live action Snow White movie rn becuz of things the actors have said, choices made my Disney, and overall just over politicizing every inch of it.

I honestly don't care about the right-wing controversy of the princess' casting, I'm sure she'll do a great job for her role in the movie, but it's such a shame about the removal of The Seven Dwarves, becuz I know this would've been a big opportunity for actors w/ dwarfism. I sorta have an idea that they prob did it to try to avoid offending anyone, like to avoid making any jokes at the expense of people w/ dwarfism, but instead took away a great opportunity for representation in the film industry yet for dwarves. I don't have dwarfism, but I know that from what I've seen online ppl r really disappointed.

I've also seen people be really disappointed about some controversy regarding some things the actress of Snow White has said about the story & changes that r gonna be made to it, & while I agree that we certainly "aren't in the 40s anymore," I understand a lot of people don't like the idea of such a traditional, tho honestly a little problematic in certain lights, story be modernized.

My solution:

Maleficent (2014) & Cruella (2022)

While there is an older live-action remake of 101 Dalmatians, there wasn't a live action remake of Sleeping Beauty. Instead, what they did was they basically created a new take on the beloved Disney princess movie on the take of the original antagonist, one of the most iconic Disney characters there ever was.

Maleficent & Cruella weren't just the same exact story in a different pov, these movies were intentionally rewritten almost entirely. The story was practically deconstructed & took details of varying significance & used it to create new movies.

While in Maleficent, the movie showed her in a more vulnerable light, explaining WHY she cursed Aurora when she was a baby, & expanded the story

At least, I'm assuming, tho I haven't seen the 2019 sequel

Cruella, however, took the iconic, diva character of the 101 Dalmatians villain &, yet again, giving us an in-depth origin story, also rewrote the story in a way that didn't focus on the original story's protagonists.

Honestly, looking back on it, that movie reminds me of the guy who inspired Dracula.

I don't remember all the details, but basically some Count or smth waited until his enemies' eyes were blinded by the rising sun, & bats flew towards the battlegrounds as Drac's army charged in. That's where the "vampires can turn into bats" thing comes from, becuz it looked like the bats turned back into soldiers, but ofc they never changed form into another animal.

That makes me think of how Cruella had the Baroness thinking she killed her dogs, when in reality she just hid them away.

These movies r very different from their original counterparts, but I think that if they went in this direction w/ Snow White, it could have saved this movie.

Nowadays, any & every movie is doomed to be bombarded by controversy, like the casting of Snow White. It's my limited understanding that they're going for a more modern-day theme about women empowerment, & r changing the story a lot to accommodate that.

The difference between what they're doing now & what they WOULD be doing if they went in this direction, a movie focused on the Evil Queen, is that they're still trying to stay w/ some resemblance of the og Snow White & the Seven Dwarves. If they instead went w/ the E.Q. route, flipping the story on its head would be a LOT simpler.

I never really sat down & watched the og, tho I think I have it on an old burned DVD my Aunt made me before I was even born. It's my understanding, however, that E.Q. is Snow's stepmother. I've heard a little about the origins/Brothers' Grimm version of the story, & I think that if they took inspo from the Brothers' Grimm, they could still give a message about uplifting independent women. Like about how E.Q. got w/ Snow's father, their relationship, etc.

Just becuz Snow wouldn't be the main focus, doesn't mean she'd be irrelevant either, like Aurora in Maleficent. She'd still be a main-focus character, but the story wouldn't follow her perspective, especially becuz this would practically be a brand new story. She wouldn't get pushed to the side, but E.Q. would have her iconic feminist moment. Would it possibly end up being smth like how Maleficent saved Aurora in the 2014 movie? Probably, yeah, tho in general the og stories r pretty similar; Princess gets cursed by some woman who no one seems to like, dies/falls into eternal slumber, & some random necrophiliac she met in the woods once as a teen who's prob much older than her comes to her rescue & kisses her awake like a creepo, & then they get married.

Maleficent was an incredible movie & I think saved Sleeping Beauty from it's sus storyline & the trope about how women r damsels in distress & need to be saved by older men, & I think that smth like this could save the 2024 Snow White story too

Ofc, it's far too late in production to turn things around, so if this idea was pitched to producers/writers/directors, it would either flop or the whole movie would be scrapped, rewritten from scratch, & entirely re-recorded, so unfortunately this great little fantasy of mine would never come true, but a girl can Wish Upon a Star

[lesbinewren]

truly do not understand people looking at something with dynamic, colorful, beautifully stylized animation and going “okay that’s cool but what if it just looked like real life instead”

[actual-haise]

[dareduffie]

when will people learn that live-action remakes will never be good as their original animated counterparts because the glory of animation is the colour, movement, and fantasy that's just untranslateable to live-action

[handsomelyerin]

they're so tarzan and jane core

[k8lynjoy]

I'm so tired of people telling those of us who are upset about the LA atla remake that we are "being too dramatic" or are just "finding things to be upset about". We are allowed to be upset that something that we love so dearly has been butchered, AGAIN. If you liked it, then that's your personal opinion, but don't sit here and tell those of us who didn't that we're the problem.

I personally think the CGI, costumes, and sets all look terrible. None of it is immersive. Sure, it LOOKS like atla, but it doesn't FEEL like atla. The heart of the og is gone, and people are allowed to be upset about this. They've altered characters to the point that they aren't the character anymore (looking at you Aang and Katara), which is a huge upset for me personally because Katara is one of my favorite characters ever. So watching her be turned into someone meek and docile is more than a slap to the face. Not to mention them removing her as the narrator as if Bryke themselves didn't state that Katara is the person the story is being told through. And before you start telling me that Aang is the same. No, he isn't. Major parts of his development through season 1 (him coming to terms with the fact that he's the avatar and embracing that role, and him also accepting the fact that he RAN AWAY and how he is never going to do that again, which is also pivotal to his character later on) are completely removed. And don't even get me started on what they did to Kataang. Regardless of whether you ship them or not, those 2 are deeply connected to one another from the start, and their relationship is a big part of the show, so to see that butchered is heartbreaking for me.

This isn't just about them "making some changes" or it not being a 1:1 adaptation. I'm fine with adaptations that aren't 1:1. What I'm upset about is that the changes they are making are VITAL changes to characters and dynamics between characters. They're rushing through the plot and condensing the story (and I will scream if I hear one more person say that it's because they couldn't fit it all in with their runtime. The runtime is an HOUR LONGER than the og, so yes, they did have the time). The changes they are making make it evident that they do not understand the og show, and if you don't feel like that, fine, once again, that's YOUR opinion, just as this is MY opinion. So stop telling us we have no right to be upset and that we just want to hate everything. That's not true. What is true is that we are expressing valid complaints about another bad adaptation of something dear to us.

Edit: If you also come at people who are upset bc they were expecting a faithful adaptation and didn't get it bc "its not supposed to be the cartoon," you're missing the whole point. An adaptation is ADAPTING SOMETHING from one medium to the other, not rewriting it. "Yall expected it to be just like the cartoon." No, I expected a FAITHFUL ADAPTATION and was met with poorly written fanfiction.

[madame-helen]

[snowyfrostshadows]

So.

We went from this for Starclan Cats:

To.

This:

Biggest downgrade of my life.

[artist-issues]

Let’s talk about this Mufasa movie.

No. Let’s not. Let’s just talk about Mufasa. This is going to be long because he’s a really good character and The Lion King is a really good movie.

Mufasa’s whole point, as a character, is to foil Simba. He’ s not just the stereotypical “great dad role model” character, or the “wise mentor who is ripped away” character.

He, as a character, is in the story because he is “Who Simba Really Is.”

Simba is our young protagonist. The whole point of Simba in the story is to start out “not yet grown into who he really is,” so that the story can teach him how to “grow into who he really is.”

So the audience needs to know “who is Simba and who is Simba supposed to be?” right at the beginning. Which is great, because all kids are trying to figure out the same question about themselves. So it’s relatable. But anyway, the storytellers make Mufasa the answer.

On a simple level, you can answer the question, “who is this Simba guy?” right off the bat in the movie with “the son of the King.” There’s the setting. There’s the set-up. There’s the title of the movie. That’s why the very first lion you’re introduced to in the movie is Mufasa, and it’s not a shot of a baby lion cub. It could have been. Lots of movies open with a shot of their main character. Encanto, for one.

Not The Lion King. The Lion King starts with, “you can’t know who Simba is without Mufasa, so Mufasa gets shown first.”

So okay, Mufasa is a King. Good to know. That’s obvious from the big rock he’s standing on and the way all the animals are coming toward him. But from there, they quickly establish a few more things about Mufasa. He smiles at this little bird that bows to him. He hugs the shaman-monkey. He goes from “big solemn lion” to “good and benevolent” immediately.

And then as it goes on, you learn more about Mufasa. He’s not an idiot; he knows Scar is up to no good, and he is very direct about it. He is not a naive dupe, trusting a schemer blindly. It’s more complicated than that. He is a better leader and a better guy than that. Mufasa knows Scar is his brother, and in a snappy little interaction with Zazu, storytellers make it clear that he worries about Scar; he knows he has good reason to worry, but hasn’t decided to give up on his brother.

Additionally, he is merciful to other dark creatures too. He beats the tar out of hyenas but doesn’t kill them. He rescues Zazu from Scar’s mouth. He scolds Simba but he does that, and more, to teach him. So what Mufasa is teaching us, according to what I just showed you the story says, is that A Good King, A Good Man (Lion, whatever) Is:

Authoritative - Makes decrees and makes decisions and yes, tells others what to do. Creates the structure his people live in.

Kind/Humble - Shows the same level of casual friendship to a revered shaman-recluse as he does a little self-important majordomo. (Humble because he’s not afraid to admit when he’s afraid if it’ll help his son.)

Teaches - Takes time out of the day to pass on what he’s learned to someone who is going to take his place—he’s not hoarding his own position or gatekeeping his life-experience-expertise. He’s not finding his identity in how he has this wealth of information that causes people to need him; he gives it away freely, purposefully.

Protects - Is willing to endanger himself and go to the trouble of defending creatures that are weaker than himself.

Shows Mercy - See Scar and the hyenas, who deserve death, but he doesn’t give it to them.

Prioritizes Family - The time he’s taking out of the day is for his son. And he follows up with his recluse of a brother instead of going, “that’s Scar, I know he don’t care about nobody but himself, his loss, not my problem.” And he extends trust to that brother, which is really just an example of gift-giving to a family member who’s done nothing to keep that trust.

Has Faith - Mufasa makes a point of not answering Simba’s question about “Will you always be there for me,” with just himself. He could’ve. Many parents do. Many parents are tempted to, to show their love. “Yes. You’ll always have me. I’ll always be there to answer your questions; I’ll always protect you, I’ll always be what you can count on, you’ll always find a need fulfilled in me.” But Mufasa doesn’t take that bait. He gives Simba an answer that is not “himself-based.” Not selfish. “Look at the stars.” I don’t care what ya’ll say. Mufasa has faith in something outside of himself. He says “and so will I,” but that’s after contextualizing himself within “something bigger than us.” (And oh my gosh, he doesn’t even answer with, “let me give you a lesson you’ll need for your whole life.” He doesn’t even take credit for this faith, for himself. He gives his own father the credit.)

And really, all of those traits can be summarized with the phrase: Lives His Life Sacrificially For Others.

That’s what a leader, a good father, a king, a good man, does. And pay attention: That is what Simba is supposed to be. Simba is supposed to be Mufasa. That’s who Simba really is, that’s where he’s supposed to go. There is a “real you.” But you have to agree with it and accept it, even though your natural bent is to give in to the illusion that you “don’t have to be that, you can choose who you are.”

Yeah, sure, in a sense you can reject Who You Really Are. You can spend your whole life playing pretend, like you’re not That. But you’ll be doing just that: playing pretend. Unfulfilled. Dissatisfied. Running from the misery that is the natural response to your silly game of pretend. Insisting that “there is no misery, this is what I want.”

Okay. Sure it is.

I’ll save Simba for another post.

The point is, Mufasa is a template for who Simba Really Is. Look at those traits. When it’s Simba’s turn to exemplify those traits, does he?

Act I: Is he authoritative? He tells characters what to. And he makes his own decisions—sometimes for good, sometimes bad. For example, he won’t let Zazu deter him from going to the elephant graveyard, so that’s a bad decision, but he does choose to go back and help Nala instead of running to save himself. Authoritative and protective. But it’s all misplaced because he doesn’t “Live His Life Sacrificially For Others.”

Act 2: He’s not. Timon and Pumbaa tell him to do something and he goes along with it. Timon and Pumbaa claim an ancient tradition and his father’s lesson is stupid and Simba goes along with that. He’s no longer making decisions of his own accord, for anything but his own comfort.

The idea is, in Act 1, you see Simba has the same traits as Mufasa, budding inside of him. But they’re all misdirected, and they’re all twisted, because they’re missing one key ingredient: he’s supposed to use those traits in the context of “Live His Life Sacrificially For Others.” Simba doesn’t want to do that. Simba wants to do whatever he wants.

Sure, there’s a part of him that combines that motive with “I want to be like my dad.” But that part dies on the vine and turns sour when his father dies saving him.

So then in Act 2, not only is Simba clinging to “I’m going to live life all my way,” but he’s changed what that means by pushing the nugget of “I want to be like my dad/I WANT TO BE WHO I REALLY AM” completely away. Because it’s too hard, and he’s got shame tangled up in it.

And worse—he starts doing basically the opposite of all of Mufasa’s traits, all of the traits that make him Who He Really Is. He’s not prioritizing family—he’s abandoning them. He’s not protecting others—he runs from the idea of going back to help Nala. (tiny glimmer of it still being inside him because he does try to protect Pumbaa from her.) Kind and humble? No. It’s unkind to tell your best friend you won’t help her because you’re afraid. Humble, no, because humility is thinking of yourself less, not thinking less of yourself.

Ask the question. When Simba’s living in the jungle with Timon and Pumbaa, is he exemplifying any of the traits of Who He Really Is? Or is he doing his best to bury that?

But then after Mufasa reminds him of who he Really Is, and Rafiki shows him how to get his past out of the way so he can accept it, Simba goes back. Into Act 3 we go

Now. Does Simba exemplify Mufasa’s traits? Does Simba start becoming Who He Really Is? There’s not a lot of time left in the movie. Look at the traits, see if he does.

Authoritative? Yep, comes up with the plan to break in and get to Scar, doesn’t back down from the confrontation.

Kind and Humble? Yeah, he willingly admits the truth (he thought it was true) that makes him look bad to give his mom closure. He’s kind to Nala and to Timon and Pumbaa, admits his mistakes, when they come to help him. Hugs the old shaman who cracked him in the skull with a stick—just like Mufasa hugged Rafiki to show us kindness and humility at the beginning of the movie.

Teaches? We don’t really see an opportunity for him to do that yet at this point in the story and his life, give me a break.

But protects? You bet. That’s why he’s there for the confrontation in the first place. Shows mercy?

Yep.

Because he’s not like Scar. He knows who he is. THE POINT.

And when he runs in for the big confrontation, he doesn’t immediately leap on Scar and rip him to pieces. Even though the storytellers make sure to show us he clearly wants to.

Instead, he runs up to his mother to see if she’s all right and show her that he is. And again, he tells her the truth because that’s what she needs even if it’s not what she wants, and he’s learned not to run from what he’s “done.” And faith in something bigger than himself?

Yeah. His father’s voice comes through the clouds just before he decides to roar and claim his title. Through the clouds. Because that whole “we’re a part of something bigger, something more important than ourselves,” was always what he was missing. He was just thinking about himself.

And all of this is because Mufasa is the example of Who Simba Really Is: Lives His Life Sacrificially For Others. That’s Mufasa.

That’s Mufasa, in the story of The Lion King. That’s his purpose as a character, that’s who he is.

So now if you make a movie that’s just about him, what you should be doing is showing how he got there. How he accepted who he Really Is instead of choosing who he wants to be, on his own. And you should make his father, and learning humility, an enormous part of that. Because self-sacrifice is such a pillar of his character. It’s the whole thing.

What you should certainly not be doing is telling a story that ends with finding self-worth or a kid who makes a name for himself. I repeat: if the Mufasa live action movie ends with Mufasa doing anything that revolves around self, they got him wrong and they set him up nonsensically for the next movie.

He should have to decide whether or not he wants to believe his own father, because of that one line, “let me tell you something my father told me.” That shows that he accepted his father’s lesson. And what was his father’s lesson about? Faith. In something BIGGER THAN YOURSELF. So then Mufasa grows up to be a character who lives his life sacrificially for others, and you can trace the roots back to that: “I learned a lesson about something bigger than myself from someone who was not myself, and I humbly believed and accepted that lesson.”

I mean jeez, the line is: “LOOK AT THE STARS.” Whenever you feel alone. Whenever you’re wrapped up in who you are and who you’re not and failure and the idea of what you want to be, knock it off. Quit looking at yourself and look at something bigger than you. And then you’ll get “Understanding of Who You Really Are”—no matter what mistakes you’ve made, no matter how you’ve failed, no matter what your circumstances are—thrown in.

…Of course, the Lion King remake ruined him anyway by having the point be “I’m not worthless.” And that was never the point. But whatever. I’m rambling now. You get the idea.

Mufasa is exactly what he needs to be for the original The Lion King. He’s exactly what he needs to be for Simba’s story. Mufasa is awesome.

[shadowwingtronix]

Live-Action Bambi To Save Bambi's Mother

BW Media Spotlight wonders about the loss to the facial tissue industry because Live-Action Bambi To Save Bambi's Mother

It’s like when they took the “Walt” out of “Disney” they took everything he wanted to do and replaced it with corporate nonsense. Ever since Michael Eisner’s direct-to-video sequels that were not good continuations of the original movie, Disney has made bad decisions. And Walt’s name was still on the company at the time. Walt was an animator and despite having released live-action movies without…