DVDizzy Forum

Well, none of the new ones... Alice in Wonderland was Tim Burton at his worst, Maleficent was terribly misguided in its intentions and execution, and Cinderella was saccharine beyond any measure.

The only one I liked was The Sorcerer's Apprentice probably because it was so far removed from its source material and became an entity of its own, and therefore I had nothing to compare it to.

The Jungle Book was alright too as it covered different grounds than the animated classic. 101 Dalmatians's only standout was Glenn Close and the first act; it was Home Alone with animals in all other regards.

So I guess the further it strays from the animated classic, the better the live-action movie.

Although I've been neutral to this announcement, I'm surprised they're making it without Robin Williams, considering that it's hardly been a year since his demise. However, although I never was a crazy Williams fan growing up, he was still influential to the Genie. I wonder if they're depicting him the same way or if they're going to have a new approach to him.

DisneyFan09 wrote:Although I've been neutral to this announcement, I'm surprised they're making it without Robin Williams, considering that it's hardly been a year since his demise. However, although I never was a crazy Williams fan growing up, he was still influential to the Genie. I wonder if they're depicting him the same way or if they're going to have a new approach to him.

Well, what no one is realizing is that this is only in development, which means it could be up to 5 years before this hits theaters if they don't do a rush screenwriting job like certain other films. By then, it won't be a big issue at all.

Fair enough.

Mooky wrote:Not just Maleficent, any of Disney's live-action re-imaginings. Out of 5 or 6 they made already, exactly NONE of them come even close to animated ones, so I don't understand why some people clamor for more.

See, this attitude towards the re-makes/live-action films confuses me.

Yes, they're just cash-ins. Yes, they're completely inferior to the animated films and pretty bad just on their own. ...So? I'd rather see these fairy tale films than The Avengers 16 or see Batman, Superman, and Spiderman get re-booted for the quadrillionth time. They're just movies and they exist apart from the animated films they're borrowing from. There's no need to worry about their existence because they'll always be forgotten in a year's time. They aren't jeopardizing the animated catalog's legacy and Disney wouldn't be making quality entertainment in their place if they didn't exist either. Live-action Disney these days pretty much sucks uniformly, whether it's their original films or their re-makes. I'd rather they make fairytale crap where we might get one good perfomance amid the trainwreck than crap like Tron: Legacy, The Lone Ranger, and John Carter.

Mooky wrote:Cinderella was saccharine beyond any measure.

It was a little too saccharine in some parts. That's it. And certainly not "beyond any measure".

Mooky wrote:So I guess the further it strays from the animated classic, the better the live-action movie.

Not necessarily. In your opinion. For me, the closeness of the live-action Cinderella to the animated one was good for the film.

And if you didn't notice, the films you said were so bad, Alice in Wonderland and Maleficent, strayed heavily from their original films!