The Little Mermaid (Live-Action)

[estefan]

On the contrary, I cannot imagine wanting a “remake” of a movie I love being done shot-for-shot. The Lion King remake was so bad because the lack of creativity. All changes, for the better or not, are welcome by me because it means they’re actually doing something new, not just mindlessly regurgitating what they’ve seen before. I think it honors the original more to not just copy it. If anything, the more different a remake is, the less chance there is of it “replacing” the original in the minds of viewers. “Rooting” for a movie to fail because it’s doing something new is…a curious mindset to me.

I have a similar stance on remakes.

One example I often think of is "The Bad News Bears" remake. All they did was take the script for the original and do a few slight tweaks here and there, but Richard Linklater just otherwise made the same movie, except nowhere near as good. It just felt so pointless.

Although I don't think the Disney remakes will ever replace the originals. The "101 Dalmatians" remake was a big hit in 1996 and while it still has its admirers, the animated film remains the more remembered version. And whenever I go on Disney+, I'm far more likely to see the animated classics on the front page than the modern remakes. The Lion King remake made over a billion dollars, but I think the original will be what most viewers revisit in the future, while the remake will be more of a curiosity viewing.

[Farerb]

Rachel Zegler posted this image on Twitter, a fan noticed the connection to the new Princesses art of them hugging:

[Sotiris]

On the contrary, I cannot imagine wanting a “remake” of a movie I love being done shot-for-shot. The Lion King remake was so bad because the lack of creativity. All changes, for the better or not, are welcome by me because it means they’re actually doing something new, not just mindlessly regurgitating what they’ve seen before. I think it honors the original more to not just copy it. If anything, the more different a remake is, the less chance there is of it “replacing” the original in the minds of viewers. “Rooting” for a movie to fail because it’s doing something new is…a curious mindset to me.

Everyone has something different they want out of the Disney remakes. Some want them faithful while others as divergent as possible. There's really no right or wrong attitude towards them. Their very existence is a cynical marketing ploy anyway, so it's not like there was ever a possibility of them being cinematic masterpieces.

I don't think anyone is in favor of shot-for-shot remakes. From my experience, those who prefer them to be faithful want an "expanded" version of the story with changes that make sense and are complementary to the narrative. I think Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin, despite their flaws, did a good job offering that. They respected the source material while putting their own spin on it.

People root for movies to fail all the time. Everyone does it, even if they don't always verbalize it. I bet even you have done it in the past. It's a harmless practice. There's no need to shame people over it or assign a moral value to it.

[Disney's Divinity]

On the contrary, I cannot imagine wanting a “remake” of a movie I love being done shot-for-shot.

And who said that? B&tB and Aladdin were not shot-for-shot. I guess when you can't really make a winning argument about remakes like Mulan, TLM, and Hercules utterly obliterating the plot, characters, and soundtrack of the films they're re-making, you have to resort to out-and-out lies to sound reasonable in defending them. Eat up Disney's slop if you want, I don't have to. I am looking forward to the ones worth seeing though, like the Pinocchio and Hunchback remakes. It's really not hard to re-make a movie, only Disney could manage to get it so wrong.

And, no, the remakes wouldn't replace the originals no matter what they're like.

[lord-of-sith]

I don't really think I'm saying "out-and-out lies" when I say a lot of these remakes are basically shot-for-shot remakes. The Lion King was very notably this. To the point where I could start to say the movie along with the characters on my first viewing. And, sure, there was some added elements to ones like Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin but come on, I think we can acknowledge that for the most part they were very safe re-treads of their source material. I'm not saying I blame Disney for doing this, because clearly a large part of the population wants what they've seen before.

Do I like the songs in the original movies? Of course. But I don't mind them being cut out of an adaptation if it means we're not getting sub-par covers of the songs. I don't really want to see a non-singing actor autotuned to hell covering these great songs (not that I'm speaking of anyone in particular...). Even the good/decent covers feel a little empty. For example, I love Emma Thompson, but it's hard to see her cover of "Beauty and the Beast" as anything but inferior to Angela Lansbury's legendary one-take performance. Especially because she didn't really do anything different with her take on it. And that's the case for a lot of these.

Also it's bizarre to claim I'm "eating up Disney's slop" because I prefer that they make changes or go in new directions. Wouldn't wanting them to regurgitate exactly what they've given us before fit that description better? Again, I totally get that people want to see what's familiar to them, but at least acknowledge why. People lambast the Mulan remake, but at least it seemed like they wrote a script for it. People were insulted that the songs were cut, but I'm so glad we didn't have to hear that cast of non-singers cover those awesome songs. And the creatives think it's better to not include the songs in Hercules, then that's probably a wise decision based on whoever they decide to cast. Considering not one person has even been cast yet, it's wild to claim that it's already a horrible movie and Hunchback is somehow already great just because they may or may not be keeping the songs.

At the end of the day, these are pretty much all soulless cash grabs. But they're unavoidable for the time being. So, if we're going to get them, I prefer to see ones where the creatives in charge get to have a little freedom with the property. And I don't mean they get to add a couple extra scenes that are unnecessary to the plot or could easily be cut because they make little difference. I think it's good to challenge your audiences expectations. Does being "different" always equate to being "good"? Obviously not, but I appreciate the effort to do something different in the face of people's expectations to do the same.

This thread is so interesting to me because some people are balking at the idea that this movie could in any way be "faithful" to the original movie because of some (probably very minor) changes they are making. Never mind the fact that it seems they've kept all the original main characters and songs and overall plot structure. But because they may have altered the ending slightly or changed a few aesthetics? Nope! An unfaithful mess!

You clearly prefer the more "faithful" remakes, which is fine, because so many of them are doing what you want! But if you're already sure you're going to hate an adaptation because of changes they are making and nothing will change your view on that, it's probably best to just not engage in discussion about. You'll probably be happier in the long run.

[Disney's Divinity]

The Lion King was very notably this.

Yes, it was, but Aladdin and B&tB were definitely not and I've always wanted the remakes to be like the latter, not the former. That's why it's a lie. You have to go to the extreme "shot for shot" description to hold any water. Although, tbh, I'd say even a largely shot-for-shot film like TLK was better than Mulan, Dumbo, Alice in Wonderland, etc., which were all horrid and audiences agreed from what I remember. I know that's at odds with the shilling on this forum designed to insulate a billion-dollar company's every decision though.

Also it's bizarre to claim I'm "eating up Disney's slop" because I prefer that they make changes or go in new directions. Wouldn't wanting them to regurgitate exactly what they've given us before fit that description better?

Well, considering the only halfway "original" take that was any good at all was The Jungle Book, I'd describe this method as garbage. Maleficent was okay, but there's no illusion to me that that film is subpar. It's just on the upper side of the lower end.

but I'm so glad we didn't have to hear that cast of non-singers cover those awesome songs.

Mulan's actor actually could sing really well. And maybe a better solution would be to hire people who can sing--or, better yet, hire directors who don't hate musicals--if that's the problem rather than cutting the songs....... But, you know, I've never agreed with this forum's assessment of Emma Watson in B&tB anyway. Her autotune was about as good as any other actor getting autotuned sounds--passable. Massoud also had to rely heavily on autotune, but I get how it's not nearly as much fun to tear into a guy as it is to shred a female celebrity online. For me, autotune is expected with live-action musicals.

And the creatives think it's better to not include the songs in Hercules, then that's probably a wise decision based on whoever they decide to cast.

A "wise" decision to choose to re-make a movie and then make a film that is nothing like it at all? Sorry, we have very different descriptions of that word, apparently. It's not like Disney doesn't have five+ other studios they could use to make a version of Mulan or Hercules that are closer to their source material--NOT that the remakes are anyway (the live-action Mulan is probably further off from the source material than the animated film)--or a Marvel-esque superhero Hercules film if they wanted.

Considering not one person has even been cast yet, it's wild to claim that it's already a horrible movie and Hunchback is somehow already great just because they may or may not be keeping the songs.

Yeah, we only have about 10 or 15 remakes to judge these decisions by. It's only a coincidence that 95% of the films that have chosen to be nothing like the originals have turned out unwatchable whereas the ones that mostly treated the source material the way a new version of a Broadway show does the original show were all fine.

Obviously not, but I appreciate the effort to do something different in the face of people's expectations to do the same.

And obviously I do not prefer that, if that wasn't already plain and clear when you responded to me in the first place. But I guess your preference should guide what I should think about Disney's decision-making, right? It doesn't work that way. Also, I'm just going to say outright that the expectation for something "the same" is not misplaced with a *remake*. The entire definition of the word is "the same." If they don't want to make the same, then make a new property. Oh, that's right, it's easier to get cash off people's nostalgia. Well, then they can take the good with the bad--fan expectations and audience anger at being duped into supporting a property that is nothing like the film they expected. Disney isn't excepted from normal expectations just because people here can't stand for the company to be criticized over anything. Well, that's not true (for all of you anyway), I find many of you will criticize them pretty often (like the B&tB thread of ye olden days, the Frozen threads, etc.), you only seem to feel the need to defend the company when certain people are criticizing them more than anything else.

because so many of them are doing what you want!

Well, one, it's clearly not fine otherwise you and several others wouldn't have felt the need to attack over a difference of opinion. Secondly, it doesn't seem like that's what the majority of the films are doing at all. Dumbo, Mulan, TLM, Hercules, Cruella (which is a reimagining and not a remake, so more excusable except for the fact the character doesn't even look like herself), etc. Which is sort of at odds with business sense, considering B&tB, Aladdin, and TLK were the ones that made the big money. The only ones that varied that were as successful as they were were Alice (the sequel promptly fell flat after people had seen the first film was horrid) and TJB. And I wouldn't even say TJB is that big of a deviation really, considering it does feature a few of the songs and only changes the tone for the most part.

it's probably best to just not engage in discussion about. You'll probably be happier in the long run.

Nah. I think this is more about what you want than me. You do have a handy ignore function if you don't like to read disagreement. As I said above, you same people never minded tearing into other movies that I had liked, why in the world do you think I should care about you? If anything, I probably held in many of my unfiltered thoughts for the past year to avoid arguments, but I realized that's sort of a false peace if it means I have to hold in what I'm really thinking and also that most of you aren't really worth that level of consideration anyway.

[lord-of-sith]

*sigh* I don't see this conversation going in a constructive direction.

In terms of my last point, I'm only "tearing into" movies you liked because you have come into this thread with so much anger about this yet-to-be released movie. I didn't go out of my way to bring them up. I used them as a comparison point. I don't go into the threads for those movies to repeatedly tear them down.

And for the record, this movie could turn out to be bad. I'd actually put that possibility under the category of "likely." But if so, it's not going to be because it made changes from the original movie.

And with that, I am done engaging in this endless discourse. See you when the trailer is released!

[Disney's Divinity]

Thank you. No idea why you initiated it in the first place, it's such a been-there-done-that discussion with all the same people. That said, at least you were less hateful than the person on the last page.

[Sotiris]

Although, tbh, I'd say even a largely shot-for-shot film like TLK was better than Mulan, Dumbo, Alice in Wonderland, etc., which were all horrid and audiences agreed from what I remember.

Even though I objected to The Lion King remake on the basis of principle (i.e. making an entirely CG remake of a 2D film), I have to admit I found it more enjoyable than the remakes you mentioned which deviated greatly from the source material.

I know that's at odds with the shilling on this forum designed to insulate a billion-dollar company's every decision though.

This forum isn't a hive mind. People can think for themselves. Some people are more protective of the company while others are more critical of it. It really depends on the individual. The subject at hand plays a crucial role as well. You can support the company in one area and be critical of it in another. It's not always an either/or situation. I found myself on both sides of the fence plenty of times.

Maybe a better solution would be to hire people who can sing--or, better yet, hire directors who don't hate musicals--if that's the problem rather than cutting the songs.

If only....I never understood why Disney has such trouble doing that with remakes of their musicals. It seems like a no-brainer.

Massoud also had to rely heavily on autotune, but I get how it's not nearly as much fun to tear into a guy as it is to shred a female celebrity online.

I'm pretty sure Massoud was also criticized for his subpar vocals. Perhaps not as much as Watson, but that may had to do with Beauty and the Beast coming out first. It was the first remake of a musical, so it's to be expected it will be more heavily criticized than subsequent entries. Another thing that fueled criticism against her was her controversial involvement with the story and the design of the character's signature dress. A lot of people saw that move as being above her pay grade and an example of a celebrity inserting themselves in areas they have no knowledge or skills in. I believe that affected people's good will towards her. I'm not saying that sexism had nothing to do with it, I'm sure it played a part, but blaming everything on it is a tad simplistic.

A "wise" decision to choose to re-make a movie and then make a film that is nothing like it at all? Sorry, we have very different descriptions of that word, apparently. It's not like Disney doesn't have five+ other studios they could use to make a version of Mulan or Hercules that are closer to their source material--NOT that the remakes are anyway (the live-action Mulan is probably further off from the source material than the animated film)--or a Marvel-esque superhero Hercules film if they wanted.

Most of these stories are in the public domain. Anyone can adapt them for the screen, but only Disney can use the elements specific to the Disney movies. What's the point of stripping away the property of what made it unique such as the music or the humor or the characterization and turning it into another generic live-action adaptation that could have been made by any other studio?

But I guess your preference should guide what I should think about Disney's decision-making, right? It doesn't work that way.

We all have a tendency to view our opinions as the "right" ones, I'm guilty of that too sometimes, but we should all make an effort to understand and respect other people's perspectives.

Which is sort of at odds with business sense, considering B&tB, Aladdin, and TLK were the ones that made the big money.

I thought that after the whole Mulan debable where test screenings were so bad they tried re-inserting the songs at the last minute and post-release everyone criticized the remake for turning Mulan into a superhero, cutting the songs and eliminating Mushu, Disney would have learned their lesson. I guess not. It's clear that the majority of fans and casual audiences want faithful adaptations of Disney movies. At least when it comes to the '90s ones.

[tsom]

It's going to be a long two years, isn't it?

[Sotiris]

^

[Disney Duster]

Also it's bizarre to claim I'm "eating up Disney's slop" because I prefer that they make changes or go in new directions. Wouldn't wanting them to regurgitate exactly what they've given us before fit that description better?

Well, considering the only halfway "original" take that was any good at all was The Jungle Book, I'd describe this method as garbage. Maleficent was okay, but there's no illusion to me that that film is subpar. It's just on the upper side of the lower end.

And Cinderella, which had good reviews, made a good amount of money, and has lots of fans! Would you have liked the film more if it was more faithful to the original, Divinity?

Although, tbh, I'd say even a largely shot-for-shot film like TLK was better than Mulan, Dumbo, Alice in Wonderland, etc., which were all horrid and audiences agreed from what I remember.

Even though I objected to The Lion King remake on the basis of principle (i.e. making an entirely CG remake of a 2D film), I have to admit I found it more enjoyable than the remakes you mentioned which deviated greatly from the source material.

Would you have wanted The Lion King at all? With real animals? Or puppets? Or people?

Maybe a better solution would be to hire people who can sing--or, better yet, hire directors who don't hate musicals--if that's the problem rather than cutting the songs.

If only....I never understood why Disney has such trouble doing that with remakes of their musicals. It seems like a no-brainer.

I so agree!

It's going to be a long two years, isn't it?

Haha!

[Vlad]

Rachel Zegler posted this image on Twitter, a fan noticed the connection to the new Princesses art of them hugging:

Haha, that is so cool. Me and my sister, when we were kids, we used to picture the two of them as best friends.

[Sotiris]

Would you have wanted The Lion King at all? With real animals? Or puppets? Or people?

It could have been really special if the story was tweaked to work with people and tribes. Also, it would have been great if they took elements from the Broadway musical and made it more mature and grand in scope.

[Disney's Divinity]

Would you have liked the film more if it was more faithful to the original, Divinity?

I've never really thought about it, but I think so. Ella doesn't really feel similar to the animated Cinderella, their characters feel distinctly unlike one another. The character from the animated film feels more real to me, tbh, which is kind of funny. I probably would've enjoyed it more if the music had been incorporated, too. I know that's odd, because I've always said I'm not overly enamored with Cinderella's soundtrack other than Ilene Woods' voice being warm and beautiful, liking only a few of the songs ("Sing, Sweet Nightingale" and then some of the deleted stuff), and several pieces of the score. But the two songs in the live-action film's end credits turned out good enough to be in the film, imo. They could've even given the prince a song (or a duet with Cinderella), since Madden as the prince was the best thing about the movie even as it is. That's probably the reason I never liked the dress, because I consider the animated ballgown to be one of the best. I suppose many feel the same way about Belle's gold dress in the animated film, but I guess I've never been that attached to it other than thinking, yeah, it's pretty. We've had those favorite outfits / dresses threads before, and I've always said I actually prefer Belle's red Enchanted Christmas cover outfit to the gold dress. But Cinderella's dress is sort of the ultimate. I'd probably be as hypercritical about Tiana's bayou wedding dress if there was ever a Disney+ live-action remake of TP&TF.

I always thought Cate Blanchett was a great cast as the Stepmother though, but something about her in the finished product doesn't really feel like the Lady Tremaine of the animated film either. I suppose it's partly because she's younger, and also she's more forthcoming about her real feelings towards Ella, saying cruel things directly to her face in sort of a trashy way. Whereas the Lady Tremaine in the animated film is more sly and composed about getting at Cinderella, playing the illusion that she's fair and letting her feelings sort of slip out from beneath the veneer of dignity. I think it's only when Cinderella knocks on the door as she's about to play the piano and then again when Cinderella drops the platter near the end that Tremaine's unfiltered feelings sort of come out unintentionally. I get why they might've made her younger and more beautiful here--to make her bitterness more palpable, because you could easily see her being capable of remarriage in the live-action version and her having children holds that back from ever being a possibility for her. That, and while the character's wardrobe in the live-action film is gorgeous (particularly the emerald dress she wears on the stairwell as Ella leaves the house with the prince), I do miss the red for the character. Red is my favorite color. But I get why they picked green--green for envy.

[Sotiris]

Q: Will Flotsam and Jetsam appear in The Little Mermaid?

Skyler Shuler: The characters were on early casting grids back in 2018. But things could've easily changed. My guess is they are still in it.

Source: https://i.imgur.com/voYfccl.jpg

[Disney's Divinity]

As ugly, green electric eels rather than moray eels anyway. You know, I can almost understand the temptation to change the characters into electric eels in the musical and now here. Electric eels are more intimidating than moray eels, I guess. Plus, reading about how they're able to use shocks to control the nervous systems of their prey sort of suits their role here in manipulating poor souls. But it's sort of dumb when you think about it longer. The scene where they talk to Ariel, they're rubbing up against her back and so on... Nobody would want something to do with a creature that could sting you like that? Then in the climax, they're destroyed by electricity... And just in terms of design, if they're glowing off and on all the time, it distracts from the fact that their glowing eyes are supposed to be magic, not something merely natural.

[Patricier21]

As ugly, green electric eels rather than moray eels anyway. You know, I can almost understand the temptation to change the characters into electric eels in the musical and now here. Electric eels are more intimidating than moray eels, I guess. Plus, reading about how they're able to use shocks to control the nervous systems of their prey sort of suits their role here in manipulating poor souls. But it's sort of dumb when you think about it longer. The scene where they talk to Ariel, they're rubbing up against her back and so on... Nobody would want something to do with a creature that could sting you like that? Then in the climax, they're destroyed by electricity... And just in terms of design, if they're glowing off and on all the time, it distracts from the fact that their glowing eyes are supposed to be magic, not something merely natural.

Why do you think this/where Did you get this information from?

[Disney Duster]

Would you have wanted The Lion King at all? With real animals? Or puppets? Or people?

It could have been really special if it the story was tweaked to work with people and tribes. Also, it would have been great if they took elements from the Broadway musical and made it more mature and grand in scope.

Hmmm...I wouldn't have liked making the animals human, but I do like the Broadway idea.

Wow Divinity, I agree with so much of your post. Of course for me the best things about the film were numerous, including Cinderella herself, but I won't get into it because it's so numerous. But yeah Ella was not enough like Ilene Woods' Cinderella, though I am ok with that as I like the idea of a different interpretation of the characters. The Prince and Lady Tremaine are great, too, and yes they were quite different as well. I am not big on Cinderella's soundtrack myself, and I wish Alan Menken had written new songs for the film actually. But I am also glad we got a really good straight version of the story. I think I get you on the dresses, and I even like Belle's red and gold Christmas one, too, though I much better love her gold ball gown. The original Lady Tremaine was indeed better though, as was Cinderella herself, along with the whole original film of course. I did love her green dresses though! And yeah, envy is a great idea! Why couldn't she remarry, though? She did it once with Ella's father, didn't she? I also like that she was young and beautiful, too. It made her more realistically have those daughters at that age in those times and it made her not hate Ella because she was prettier than her. I think I agree on how the original Lady Tremaine hid her feelings about Cinderella more.

[Patricier21]

It could have been really special if it the story was tweaked to work with people and tribes. Also, it would have been great if they took elements from the Broadway musical and made it more mature and grand in scope.

Hmmm...I wouldn't have liked making the animals human, but I do like the Broadway idea.

Wow Divinity, I agree with so much of your post. Of course for me the best things about the film were numerous, including Cinderella herself, but I won't get into it because it's so numerous. But yeah Ella was not enough like Ilene Woods' Cinderella, though I am ok with that as I like the idea of a different interpretation of the characters. The Prince and Lady Tremaine are great, too, and yes they were quite different as well. I am not big on Cinderella's soundtrack myself, and I wish Alan Menken had written new songs for the film actually. But I am also glad we got a really good straight version of the story. I think I get you on the dresses, and I even like Belle's red and gold Christmas one, too, though I much better love her gold ball gown. The original Lady Tremaine was indeed better though, as was Cinderella herself, along with the whole original film of course. I did love her green dresses though! And yeah, envy is a great idea! Why couldn't she remarry, though? She did it once with Ella's father, didn't she? I also like that she was young and beautiful, too. It made her more realistically have those daughters at that age in those times and it made her not hate Ella because she was prettier than her. I think I agree on how the original Lady Tremaine hid her feelings about Cinderella more.

The remarry thing can also be said about the original animated movie TOO, let alone all versions of Cinderella for that matter