What Are Your Thoughts On Disney Doing Live Action Remakes of Its Animated Films ?

I don't think Disney are trying to set out a proactive message in their films.
If anything I think Disney is desperately trying to second guess the rapidly change tastes and positions of their target audience [10 -25 yo?] and trying to make a product that fits them.
It should be obvious that what Disney is promoting and what the target audience want are two different things. The fact that Disney is tanking financially should make that clear enough. The great majority of viewers don't like race-swapping though they might tolerate it. I've watched plenty of reaction videos to LOTR whose characters are as white as driven snow and none of the reviewers (all of them in their 20s) even notice the absence of brown races. How many black reviewers weep over Sam's heroism? It's good to see. Race doesn't matter.

I'm pretty much convinced that Disney is bending over backwards to cater for a minority that they think represents the majority whereas the majority would in fact be perfectly happy with the classic stories simply redone with the same races and same storylines (and dwarfs for heaven's sake!).
 
Last edited:
I don't think Disney are trying to set out a proactive message in their films.
If anything I think Disney is desperately trying to second guess the rapidly change tastes and positions of their target audience [10 -25 yo?] and trying to make a product that fits them.
Disney can't afford to get "cancelled", and can't reshow much of its old product because the audience's expectations have moved on.
And it isn't making product with a [possible] socio-political message, just for the hell of it.
It's not for the hell of it. It is a specific desire to preach and lecture and profess--even if most people are not inclined to hear it or understand it. But they see the film content as a leaflet. That's why they are so capricious about it.
In the 1990s, Michael Eisner said the goal they had for Disney was to be "entertainer for the globe." That is as lofty an ambition as building a tower to Babel or using feathers to fly to the sun. You cannot please all of the people all of the time. Folly to try. Folly to try.
Completely mad for an artistic work because you can't be all things to all people. Few serious professional artists would even try to do that.
I guarantee you--that families are still watching the 1940s Disney content.
Most people of a particular cultural heritage will not repudiate the past. Outsiders to that culture might.
Walt Disney did stories on Greek mythology and 18th century America--he found the audience.

Is Shakespeare still performed? If so then there is an audience.

The major problem is that they are not trying to make specialized content for specific audiences but capture everyone in the same net. That is not how art works. It is not how entertainment works.
Some unknown singer in Virginia was able to get more enthusiasm than billion dollar media companies because he - as a single artist, was able to convey a personal expression that resonated with people who shared the same aspirations and concerns. That's how art is supposed to work.

Walt Disney understood. Bob Iger does not.


BTW-I am not a big fan of Disney. It's not something I was ever interested in much at all. My favorite Disney work was Night on Bald Mountain from Fantasia and the Legend of Sleepy Hollow. As a kid I hardly saw Disney cartoons. But I know they were popular. That's why they released them to theaters each decade.
 




The son of the original Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs director has blasted Disney's 'pathetic' live-action 'radical' remake of the movie, accusing the company of having no respect for classics.

David Hand, 91, whose father of the same name directed the original 1937 animation, rebuked Walt Disney Studios for pursuing an 'insulting' and 'woke' remake of the movie that sought to 'destroy' its predecessor.

He said the new adaptation would have both his father and Walt Disney himself 'turning in their graves' as he slammed the upcoming movie starring Rachel Zegler as the titular character.

This is just the lasted Disney remake in a long string of live-action 'reimaginings' that has seen 20th century classic animations rewritten for today's audience.

It comes after several videos emerged online of Zegler, 22, trashing the original movie - saying she 'hated' it and thought it was 'extremely dated'.
 
The Sword and the Stone might work as a live action film.
 
A live action remake of The Black Cauldron ? and the possibility of that whole series being brought to the big screen ? Interesting possibility and, it could work. :unsure:
 
And Cinderella ... and I think Maleficent is a retelling of Sleeping Beauty.
I have to say that some of those I see as good try with somewhat good modern updates. Like giving Cinderella actually a personality. No to Sleeping Beauty ... but it is shown from a different perspective, so there is something new about it as well.
Mulan was a story about something different than the animated one. Completely different struggle and no Mushu ...
I am trying to appreciate that they are injecting more active girls and women, but honestly, I am no longer the target audience :D
And I fell for the newly added song in Beauty and the Beast, where he is seeing her leave.
 
A live action remake of The Black Cauldron ? and the possibility of that whole series being brought to the big screen ? Interesting possibility and, it could work. :unsure:
I might enjoy that, if the remake were more faithful to the original work. Not necessarily utterly faithful, since films and books are different art forms, but at least more in line with the source.
 
I might enjoy that, if the remake were more faithful to the original work. Not necessarily utterly faithful, since films and books are different art forms, but at least more in line with the source.

I recently read the whole series , excellent stuff and I agree.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top