Aladdin 4K UHD (1992) (The Signature Collection)

[Farerb]

Originally Posted by Hardback247

Not necessarily. If they thought the traditionally animated ones were inferior, then why would they even re-release them as tie-ins to the remakes?

But even what you say here proves it. Why are they "tie-ins" instead of being their own things?
Why are films that gained a lot of recognition back in the day and won a lot of awards, one even made a history of being the first animated film to be nominated for the best picture award, need a remake? No studio would do that to a live action film with the same status? Then why animated films are treated this way?

[Hardback247]

Originally Posted by farerb

But even what you say here proves it. Why are they "tie-ins" instead of being their own things?
Why are films that gained a lot of recognition back in the day and won a lot of awards, one even made a history of being the first animated film to be nominated for the best picture award, need a remake? No studio would do that to a live action film? Then why animated films are treated this way?

You could always, you know, IGNORE the remakes. You don't HAVE to see them. It's really no big deal.

[Farerb]

Originally Posted by Hardback247

You could always, you know, IGNORE the remakes. It's really no big deal.

I can and I am until people start talking about them in the original animated Aladdin thread.

[Hardback247]

Originally Posted by farerb

I can and I am until people start talking about them in the original animated Aladdin thread.

Then let's get back on topic.

[pikachufan1336]

Originally Posted by Nagamura

Yet here we are getting a live action Mulan with no signs of Pocahontas getting one.

That means nothing:
1. There is noting that doesn't get remade these days (case in point: Pete's Dragon)
2. This remake (I imagine) was only greenlit because of it's popularity but even for a non-vault movie the blu ray sales are nothing to write home about.

Originally Posted by Raffy

Not surprising considering the PC age we live in now

Exactly

Originally Posted by romuald121

It's ok, I vote for Pocahontas to be left alone, the original movie was good enough no need to crush every childhood memory created by Di$ney.

Or Watch Princess Mononoke, it's the same movie but 100000000% better

Originally Posted by farerb

Yes, the originals will always be here, but these remakes seem to perpetuate the idea that animation, specifically traditional animation, is an Inferior medium.

Originally Posted by Hardback247

What worries people is that by existing at all, they think the remakes ruin the original movies' integrity.

You guys think that this is the first/last iterations of these stories, even with Disney: they aren't. Even after a billion dollars and a sequel to it's live action remake. Disney's Animated Alice in Wonderland from the 1950s has never gone out of style. Besides, it's not like there aren't other good versions of these fairy tales, some are even better than the Disney versions I grew up with IMO (Jean Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast for example)


Anyway!
Back on Topic.

[Farerb]

Originally Posted by pikachufan1336

You guys think that this is the first/last iterations of these stories, even with Disney: they aren't. Even after a billion dollars and a sequel to it's live action remake. Disney's Animated Alice in Wonderland from the 1950s has never gone out of style. Besides, it's not like there aren't other good versions of these fairy tales, some are even better than the Disney versions I grew up with IMO (Jean Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast for example)

I don't mind other interpretation of those stories being made, I don't even mind Disney doing that. However that's not what they did.

What they did was a shot for shot remake using the same story elements and the same music as the original while changing the characters to the point where they don't make sense in the context anymore (for instance Beast shows Belle the library because he wants to brag about all the books he has read after he insults her taste instead of it being him wanting to do something nice for her, which shows his progress as a character like in the original).

In addition they add a bunch of crap like that stupid book of teleportation that came out of nowhere and was never used or mentioned again.

[movielover1069]

Originally Posted by pikachufan1336

That means nothing:
1. There is noting that doesn't get remade these days (case in point: Pete's Dragon)
2. This remake (I imagine) was only greenlit because of it's popularity but even for a non-vault movie the blu ray sales are nothing to write home about.



Exactly



Or Watch Princess Mononoke, it's the same movie but 100000000% better





You guys think that this is the first/last iterations of these stories, even with Disney: they aren't. Even after a billion dollars and a sequel to it's live action remake. Disney's Animated Alice in Wonderland from the 1950s has never gone out of style. Besides, it's not like there aren't other good versions of these fairy tales, some are even better than the Disney versions I grew up with IMO (Jean Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast for example)


Anyway!
Back on Topic.

Not every movie gets remade. E.T. for example will never get remade.

[movielover1069]

Originally Posted by farerb

I don't mind other interpretation of those stories being made, I don't even mind Disney doing that. However that's not what they did.

What they did was a shot for shot remake using the same story elements and the same music as the original while changing the characters to the point where they don't make sense in the context anymore (for instance Beast shows Belle the library because he wants to brag about all the books he has read after he insults her taste instead of it being him wanting to do something nice for her, which shows his progress as a character like in the original).

In addition they add a bunch of crap like that stupid book of teleportation that came out of nowhere and was never used or mentioned again.

And if they didn't do shot by shot remakes, people would ***** and complain so either way you can't win.

[Farerb]

Originally Posted by movielover1069

Not every movie gets remade. E.T. for example will never get remade.

That's true. Disney are mostly the ones who made this a trend with their films, probably because they have creatively incompetent Bob Iger as CEO. I don't think the remakes will be remembered fondly in the future or even remembered at all just like the DTV sequels ended up being.

[Hardback247]

Originally Posted by farerb

That's true. Disney are mostly the ones who made this a trend with their films, probably because they have creatively incompetent Bob Iger as CEO. I don't think the remakes will be remembered fondly in the future or even remembered at all just like the DTV sequels ended up being.

"Creatively incompetent"? It's not Iger's fault the remakes keep on making lots of money.

[pikachufan1336]

Originally Posted by movielover1069

And if they didn't do shot by shot remakes, people would ***** and complain so either way you can't win.

Even though I hated Alice in Wonderland remakes far over the Beauty and the Beast remake. I would rather watch a different movie than pay to see a movie I could watch at home for free.

[Farerb]

Originally Posted by Hardback247

"Creatively incompetent"? It's not Iger's fault the remakes keep on making lots of money.

Sure they make money, but do they make any cinematic historical achievement? Any recognition beyond? Any notable awards? Iger made Disney a dollar printing machine, which is fine if your only goal is to make money, but to me films are about making art as well. Disney used to balance art and money back in the 90's, but now it's all about the money. They no longer make art or history.

[Hardback247]

Originally Posted by farerb

Sure they make money, but do they make any cinematic historical achievement? Any recognition beyond? Any notable awards? Iger made Disney a dollar printing machine, which is fine if your only goal is to make money, but to me films are about making art as well. Disney used to balance art and money back in the 90's, but now it's all about the money. They no longer make art or history.

What about their animated movies? Do they not count?

[Farerb]

Originally Posted by Hardback247

What about their animated movies? Do they not count?

Which came out three years ago so what is your point?

[Hardback247]

Originally Posted by farerb

Which came out three years ago so what is your point?

All movies are inherently art, no matter what their intention is.

Does the fact that Pixar is coming out with two new original movies next year help in any way?

[romuald121]

Originally Posted by farerb

Yes, the originals will always be here, but these remakes seem to perpetuate the idea that animation, specifically traditional animation, is an Inferior medium.

They are considered inferior indeed; the last hand drawn animated features done by Disney tanked; they decided to switch Frozen from hand drawn animation to CGI because of that, as well, because Disney/Pixar movies were/are more profitable. They re-release the originals hand drawn animation because they know that the animation stood the test of time, the soundtrack for most of the films is iconic, and the nostalgia factor is still present for years to milk and they make sure to re-release them in a 5-7 yr interval to make it seem that they are doing people a favor by passing down the movies from 1 generation to the other.

[Nagamura]

Originally Posted by pikachufan1336

That means nothing:
1. There is noting that doesn't get remade these days (case in point: Pete's Dragon)
2. This remake (I imagine) was only greenlit because of it's popularity but even for a non-vault movie the blu ray sales are nothing to write home about.

Regardless, Disney has been releasing 4K editions alongside their remakes and sequels. So I don't see why Mulan would be any different.

[starkrogersthor91]

Originally Posted by Nagamura

Regardless, Disney has been releasing 4K editions alongside their remakes and sequels. So I don't see why Mulan would be any different.

Because Mulan is traditionally animated. They’ve only released 4Ks of Cg animated films to coincide with sequels. Only exception so far is Aladdin which is getting a 4K alongside the remake because it’s a Signature. I wouldn’t hold your breath on a Mulan 4K

[starkrogersthor91]

Originally Posted by farerb

Sure they make money, but do they make any cinematic historical achievement? Any recognition beyond? Any notable awards? Iger made Disney a dollar printing machine, which is fine if your only goal is to make money, but to me films are about making art as well. Disney used to balance art and money back in the 90's, but now it's all about the money. They no longer make art or history.

Anyone who thinks Walt Disney wasn't out for money is absolutely insane. Walt made Disney a dollar printing machine first, when he opened his theme park. Literally the largest piece of cross-platform promotion and marketing one could ever dream of.

The lead-up to the park’s opening spawned a television series advertising the park's opening for an entire year. At the middle of the park Disney placed the castle from a movie that wasn't even released for another four years. By the time Sleeping Beauty was released it was already iconic and ripe for audiences to go and spend their cold hard $$$.
After the park opened, the television show remained on air for over 40 years and remained a conduit for Walt and those who followed him to spruik the upcoming theatrical releases and latest theme park news — all the while the theme park would continue to add more and more licensing.


If people really want original stuff support them when they are in theatres! it cannot be said enough!!! These remakes bank close to or over $1billion each, while the originals - like Nutcracker, Wrinkle in Time, McFarland USA, Million Dollar Arm, Queen of Katwe, Finest Hours - struggle past $200 million.
It's so easy for everyone to moan about "no originality" but it sure seems damn hard for ya'll to put your money where your mouth is and actually support the original content when it's offered to you.
These movies keep tanking, Disney will make less. The remakes keep succeeding, they'll make more. Business 1-0-1 - supply and demand. Don't fool yourself that movie studios aren't out for anything other than your money.
The filmmakers might be creating art but the studio's #1 priority is to supply you a product that you will PAY for. The real world isn't rainbows and butterflies and pixie dust. Wake up.

[Nagamura]

Originally Posted by davlee1991

Because Mulan is traditionally animated. They’ve only released 4Ks of Cg animated films to coincide with sequels. Only exception so far is Aladdin which is getting a 4K alongside the remake because it’s a Signature. I wouldn’t hold your breath on a Mulan 4K

That's because Aladdin is the first remake to be released since Disney joining 4K. Also, don't say Dumbo because it wouldn't benefit from a 4K release (in my opinion).