DVDizzy Forum

Marwan Kenzari as Jafar:
http://variety.com/2017/film/news/aladd ... 202516082/

As a Dutchie this is really cool. Though born in Holland, he is of Tunisian descent. Not confirmed yet by Disney.

^ He looks a bit young for the role, but I'm glad they've cast an actor of Arab descent.

By the way, Iranian-American actress Nasim Pedrad has also been cast to play a new character.

Former Saturday Night Live star Nasim Pedrad (The Dictator, New Girl, People of Earth) has also been cast as Mara, the handmaiden and friend to Jasmine, a comedic role specifically written for the new film.

Source: http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/8 ... on-aladdin

I liked her in Scream Queens. Not surprised they're going to add a new female character to the film considering that Jasmine is the only prominent one in the original.

Walt Disney Studios’ President of Production Sean Bailey said that Ritchie’s film will draw influences from far more than just the 1992 animated film. It will also be inspired by cultures from the Middle East, India, and even China, and will also be based in part on the original Arabic tales from “One Thousand and One Nights.”

Source: http://www.thewrap.com/marwan-kenzari-i ... ain-jafar/

Oh, so this will be a mash up of several different cultures then, huh? It will give the naysayers something to whine about, as you thought Disney learned about the backlash of the portrayal of the Arabs in the animated feature
Though the Chinese influence is a different source, at least it makes sense, since the original tale does take place in China after all. But the Indian influence could've be an advantage. Though the 1994 live action version of The Jungle Book tapped into Indian culture, perhaps Aladdin could've done it more? Since Disney has never made an animated feature set in India, after all (though of course won't be an animated feature, but still something that could've been seen as a equal counterpart).

I like that it will reach beyond the animated film. No point in just re-creating what's perfect.

I really don't see the point (other than $$$$) in remaking an animated film into live action. The animation is a big part of what makes the film great and charming. It would be like remaking a horror film without the horror.

Nobody wanted to see a live-action Simpsons or Beavis and Butthead. So why this?

Except animation isn't a genre.

willard didn't say anything about genres? The animation is a defining quality for most animated films, particularly Disney pre-CGI anyway. Aladdin, in particular, is a gorgeous film, so I can understand that perspective even though the LA films don't bother me.

Genre or not, its a style of filmmaking that gives a movie its identity, whether hand-drawn, stop-motion or CGI.

Kyle wrote:Except animation isn't a genre.

Disney's Divinity wrote:willard didn't say anything about genres?

Yea he did.

willard wrote:I really don't see the point (other than $$$$) in remaking an animated film into live action. The animation is a big part of what makes the film great and charming. It would be like remaking a horror film without the horror.

First off, these are not remakes. A remake is when you do it in the same medium. Frankenweenie wasn't a remake. Second, these are just live-action versions of the film. You ask what point there is to making them other than money. Well, why will people pay money to see them? To see their beloved films in live-action. Boom. There's enough reason for why they should be made. We want to see that. And third, no it would not be like remaking a horror film without the horror. Because horror is a genre, not a medium like animation, and Disney is keeping the genres and intangible elements such as horror, romance, action, fantasy, thriller, and drama in these films.

The word 'genre' is nowhere in willard's post. Remarking on the animation being a chief part of the original film--something that cannot be recreated with a live-action film--is not the same thing as calling it a genre. But, yes, I know, Duster, you wouldn't have any opinion at all if I don't post first to give you something to disagree with.

Disney Duster wrote:First off, these are not remakes. A remake is when you do it in the same medium.

Where did you get an idea like that? Of course, they're remakes. The medium doesn't matter. If it's retelling the same story as the original, it's a remake.

Disney Duster wrote:Frankenweenie wasn't a remake.

Yes, it was. And a very faithful one at that.

Well, why will people pay money to see them?

Because they are an existing property. Its the same reason the transformers movies are making money. A Citizen Kane remake would make money, doesn't mean you can't have dignity.

To see their beloved films in live-action.....We wnat to see that

Why? The animation is a major reason why the films are good.

So you think those stories can't work as well if they're not animated? Well, I have bad news for Disney Theatrical, then...

I'm not a huge Broadway person but I would argue that live plays at least provide a different experience since your in the same room with the characters.

Disney's Divinity wrote:The word 'genre' is nowhere in willard's post.

He was talking about horror. Horror is a genre.

Sotiris wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:First off, these are not remakes. A remake is when you do it in the same medium.

Where did you get an idea like that? Of course, they're remakes. The medium doesn't matter. If it's retelling the same story as the original, it's a remake.

You can call them remakes, but I don't consider them that. I consider a remake to do something over again better than the original. These films I see as companion pieces/alternate versions.

willard wrote:

Well, why will people pay money to see them?

Because they are an existing property. Its the same reason the transformers movies are making money. A Citizen Kane remake would make money, doesn't mean you can't have dignity.

I already said another reason is because people want to see their beloved films in live-action.

willard wrote:

To see their beloved films in live-action.....We want to see that

Why? The animation is a major reason why the films are good.

So? The stories and characters aren't good on their own? Blasphemy!

Disney Duster wrote:I consider a remake to do something over again better than the original.

If that's the case, then remakes don't exist! Sorry, Duster, but your personal definition doesn't correspond to the established definition of what a remake is.

So? The stories and characters aren't good on their own? Blasphemy!

The story and characters are fully realized with the animation. Same with all great animated works.

Menken doesn't seem too happy with Guy Ritchie's take on Aladdin.

Alan Menken wrote:As soon as I get home I have to go blasting into the Aladdin movie, which is going to be a whole other thing. I don’t find the writing daunting, I find protecting the legacy to be a little daunting sometimes because new people come in and they want to reinvent it. I don’t mind it being reinvented, but I need to understand where I fit into that and how I can preserve what we’ve done, but also move it forward.

Source: http://aussietheatre.com.au/features/di ... laboration