DVDizzy Forum

It wouldn't surprise me if it's delayed to 2023, but hopefully they plan to release it by December, maybe around Christmas time.

D82 wrote:And why are they casting again? Are they going to add new characters to the story?

Maybe they're just casting new dancers and extras? It seems unlikely they'll add new characters at such a late stage in the production.

Farerb wrote:It wouldn't surprise me if it's delayed to 2023, but hopefully they plan to release it by December, maybe around Christmas time.

Well, if it's to improve the film, I don't mind if it gets delayed, but I hope it's not. Plus, there's still a lot of time between now and the end of 2022 to finish it. I think it can still be released this year.

Sotiris wrote:Maybe they're just casting new dancers and extras? It seems unlikely they'll add new characters at such a late stage in the production.

It's true; it could be just dancers and extras what they're casting now. I wonder if that means they're adding more musical numbers or a reprise, for example.

EXCLUSIVE: Disney’s ‘Disenchanted’ To Undergo Reshoots Next Month

While reshoots are a relatively normal of the production process, we can also confirm that one of the main reasons the film is gearing up for additional principal photography is because it received mixed reactions from early test screenings.

https://thedisinsider.com/2022/03/21/ex ... ext-month/

Next month? Reshoots have already started. This was posted by the director yesterday.

Reshoots and mixed reactions? I was hoping the film would be really good.

Disney Duster wrote:Reshoots and mixed reactions? I was hoping the film would be really good.

Just because they have them doesn’t mean that the movie won’t in the end turn out to be really good. After all, exact same thing happened to live action Aladdin and they substantially change the movie With Re-shoots, End it turned out to be really good, Just as good or even better than the animated one overall, let alone made over $1 billion EH?

Another insider had this to say about the test screenings.

Big Screen Leaks wrote:Can confirm the film got okay reactions at test screenings. Heard that the villains were just okay and the film needed some work.

Source: https://twitter.com/bigscreenleaks/stat ... 9417313285

Just okay isn't so bad. I thought Susan Sarandon as Narissa in the first one was terrible--easily the worst thing about the film (a shame because Narissa's design was nice, if Star Wars-esque). "Just okay" would be an improvement, if I end up feeling the same way.

Really? I thought Narissa was an awesome and very memorable villain.

Vlad Sicoe wrote:Really? I thought Narissa was an awesome and very memorable villain.

I have a personal disdain to Susan Sarandon and she's kind of ruined the original film to me, I honestly can't bring myself to watch her (and it doesn't usually happen to me with actors).
In addition, when Narissa turns into a dragon, I always found her boss level one liners annoying and ridiculous, she definitely didn't have the same intimidation as Maleficent did.

Vlad Sicoe wrote:Really? I thought Narissa was an awesome and very memorable villain.

Me too.

Farerb wrote:In addition, when Narissa turns into a dragon, I always found her boss level one liners annoying and ridiculous, she definitely didn't have the same intimidation as Maleficent did.

She doesn't need to. Enchanted being a parody makes it a lighter and more comedic film. You can't really compare it to Sleeping Beauty which is a more straightforward and traditional adaptation.

My case is different. While I've cooled on Sarandon as a person a long time ago now, I can still acknowledge she's generally a great actor. Her performance in Enchanted was surprisingly and unexpectedly bad for me. True though, she isn't to blame for the horrible dragon design or the fact that she talks in normal voice while in that form. They could've at least filtered her voice or something.

Actually, the only moment I like of Narissa is when she first comes to the real world and shoots lightning across the street to stop the cars so she can cross.

I had no problems with Narissa aside from her awful designs and terrible CGI transformation.

Patricier21 wrote:Just because they have them doesn’t mean that the movie won’t in the end turn out to be really good. After all, exact same thing happened to live action Aladdin and they substantially change the movie With Re-shoots, End it turned out to be really good, Just as good or even better than the animated one overall, let alone made over $1 billion EH?

In my opinion the live-action Aladdin was just ok, and had a terrible villain. And money is not how I judge how good a film is.

Aladdin was not good, I dunno what some of you guys see in it. Jafar especially was so unconvincing.

That said, I would never blame a movie's issues on reshoots.

Kyle wrote:That said, I would never blame a movie's issues on reshoots.

But I'm not saying the film is bad because of the reshoots, I am trying to say usually a film that is good is good enough early on that it doesn't need reshoots, and that reshoots are a bad sign.

In this day and age, reshoots/additional photography is usually already included in the schedule from the beginning. Marvel is especially known for always doing reshoots and their track record speaks for itself. And on the Lucasfilm side, the "Rogue One" reshoots led to most peoples' favourite parts of the movie.

A lot of directors have said they appreciate the allowing of reshoots, because they might decide to change something during editing that is only possible if they bring the actors back to film a new scene or change an existing one. You sometimes get extra cases like when Joss Whedon replaced Zack Snyder on "Justice League", but Adam Shankman is still the director on this movie, so this doesn't appear to be one of those scenarios.

Regarding test screening reports, "Shazam" director David F. Sandberg made an excellent video about test screenings and why to be cautious when reading about them online. I remember reading that "Deadpool 2" had disastrous test screenings, but then the film was released and it was well received. The filmmakers behind "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" have said that movie had horrendous test screenings.

Kyle wrote:Aladdin was not good, I dunno what some of you guys see in it. Jafar especially was so unconvincing.

I really enjoyed Aladdin, actually. It's either that or TJB that I'd put at the top of the pile as far as remakes go. I thought the weakest part of it was "One Jump Ahead," that whole scene was a mess, but otherwise I enjoyed it the best of all the remakes actually.

I don't like a movie because it's successful either. I like plenty of films that didn't do as well as Disney hoped for, after all (TP&TF, Hercules, etc.). I usually mention money as part of a line of persuasive argument for what Disney should be doing more of, because I know $$$ is all they really care about. The fact that the remakes that hewed closer to the originals both made the most money and had the most positive audience reactions should be a sign of what they should do more of, and that the ones that deviate to the point that calling them a remake is false advertising (as with Mulan 2020) bomb and receive very poor audience reactions are a sign of what they shouldn't be doing. Do you want money and audience satisfaction, Disney, or would you rather chase critics who will hate your movie anyway no matter how much you try to please them?

I do the same thing with WDAS films, to advocate for the things I'd like to see more of (fairy tales adaptations, musicals, the Lopezes, Menken, good leaders like Jennifer Lee over oppressive ones like John Lasseter, etc.). They only care about money and so that's what I make the focus of my argument in an attempt Disney might listen. I believe they have minions that keep an eye on online spaces and what's being said about their content and products...

Disney Duster wrote:But I'm not saying the film is bad because of the reshoots, I am trying to say usually a film that is good is good enough early on that it doesn't need re shoots, and that re shoots are a bad sign.

I knew what you were getting at, I just disagree with it. I don't think reshoots are a red flag in the slightest. There are lots of reasons out of their control (maybe scheduling conflicts, bad weather, injuries, etc) that could lead to re shoots.

Oh, ok. Estefan and Kyle, you convinced me reshoots are not always a bad sign.

Why did they have Whedon replace Snyder anyway, when all I have heard of the Snyder cut is that the Snyder cut is the better one?