Jump to content

I Am

Free Account+
  • Content Count

    336
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

221 Likes

About I Am

  • Rank
    Indie Sensation

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hoping the company that owns half the entire film industry now and is on pace to own it all in like ten years does more than shit out low-effort remakes seems like the smart play here.
  2. I don't lean one way or the other yet on whether or not audiences will even notice expression or lack of (but the general audience tends to have bad taste in movies, so maybe I am expecting them to not care) on the "photorealistic" animals, but some folks here are absurdly adamant that expressions shouldn't and don't matter. If that's the case, then Disney could've saved a bajillion bucks and just done this instead.
  3. I thought "Maleficent" was dope. Not the movie itself, it was an average movie, but... the concept. I really liked the idea. Because I enjoyed "Maleficent," I was really excited for "Beauty and the Beast." I know all the words to the original songs. I have the soundtrack, plus other random albums that feature music from it (and many other Disney movies.) Then, I saw it with my aunt and was so put off, I make visibly annoyed face when talking about it. I thought I would be fine with a "live action" version of the original - they're going to bring all that magic back, right? Wrong. I was so wrong. I guess it really doesn't matter when you have a planet full of mindless automatons who are assuredly going to see your subpar, low-effort, non-creative remakes regardless, but this idea that there is nothing Disney can do to satisfy us critical of their current film strategy (under the pretense that if the movies be shot-for-shot remakes we're not satisfied, or if changes are made, we're still not satisfied) is false. A movie about the sorceress who turned Adam into the Beast would have been far more interesting. Give us a story about Princess Jasmine before she meets Aladdin. Or a movie about Jafar and how he came to discover the Cave of Wonders. If this movie were a prequel featuring Mufasa and Scar, there would be much less resistance towards it. Don't shoehorn a drastic change into a beloved underwater princess... why not just give us a new story entirely? The problem is that Disney is monetizing our nostalgia with inferior versions of the originals. "King Kong," for example, gets "remade" to critical acclaim, because the technology of previous days didn't allow the full potential of such a film to be realized until the past decade or so. There is no such room in such case for the Disney Renaissance movies - there isn't anything that can be done to make them on par with or better than the originals, and that's why the few of us who want to hold Disney to a certain standard find the remakes of the classics so atrocious.
  4. TWENTY DOLLARS for a Dolby Cinema ticket to see an off-white version of the original? いいですよ... No bueno... Non merci... No, thank you!
  5. You (Disney) can't sell nostalgia to us and simultaneously claim that we should forget about the original. It doesn't work that way.
  6. Original: "I can seee what's happ'ning.... (WHAT?!) And they don't have CLUE! (WHO!?) They'll fall in love and heereeee's the bottom line... Our trio's down to-two (Oh...)" Remake: "Eyecansee what's happ'ning. (I. Can't. What.) And they. Don't have a clue. (Who's they...) They'll fallinlove. And here's the bottom line. Our trio's down. to. two. (Oh, I get it...)"
  7. Hard to represent through text. They're like... speak-signing, but because they're not singers, it comes off as. if. they. are. singing. with. a. full. stop. at. the. end. of. each. word. kind. of. like. this. would. sound. That Guy Who Thinks He's Aladdin, But Isn't "sang" the same way in the #NotMyAladdin soundtrack. And let's not even get into the awful pitch correction.
  8. That and "He Lives in You" are the only above-average remade songs. "Can You Feel the Love Tonight?" has that weird vocal staccato thing mentioned above through the beginning and end parts, and, while Beyonce and Donald Glover harmonize nicely together, there's no emotion in their rendition.
  9. WHAT IS WITH THE STACCATO VOICE THING IN THESE REMADE DISNEY SONGS?!!?!?!?!?!?!?! Is it the new pop music trend or something? It sounds HORRID.
  10. I haven't read any of the critic reviews, but that consensus regarding Seth and Eichner is interesting, because they are the worst components of the soundtrack. ("Hakuna Matata" is b-a-d and "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" has zero energy.) Any bitching about the Marvel Cinematic Universe should be automatically dismissed, because the past ten years is the first time ever that superhero genre as a shared universe (hell, any genre for that matter) has been able to done as consistently as what Marvel has done. In the '80s, '90s', and '00s you had a few individual gems, but we had never, ever seen the quality of world-building across multiple films that Marvel Studios has been able to achieve. The twenty-two MCU films are fleshed out similarly to and comparable to reading an excellent twenty-two chapter novel. This is another big reason why they've received so much critical and social acclaim. Criticism that doesn't factor this component in is worthless.
  11. It's funny that the same people crying, whining, and moaning about people who have decided to call out the movie for what it is before seeing it... are adamant that it will be the greatest thing since sliced bread... before seeing it. Being concerned about and pointing out remakes of classic, perfect movies that suck out all or most everything that made the originals great is a valid reason to be critical of them. "It's Disney and I'm going to like it no matter what" is foolishness. If you're already starting the measure the quality of a product based on how much money it's slated to make (someone else, not even you)... I have some bad news for you.
  12. I imagine that someone born fifty years ago is waaaaaaaay more interested and has much more experience with musicals considering they grew up with the gods and goddesses of the genre, and so many widely successful movies in the '60s and '70s were Broadway shows that became movies or movies written specifically as musicals. Off the top of my head, I can only think of one original non-animated musical of the past ten years that's popular with kids and that's "The Greatest Showman, and in terms of animated ones, only "Frozen" has a chance of being remembered in another ten years.
  13. Kids these days are more interested in the "bottle cap challenge" or whatever stupid viral mess they're doing now to even care about these remakes a few months after they're out. In twenty years, they'll be "nostaligizing" over when they used to make dumb YouTube videos back in the day, not plugging into the Matrix and to watch "The Lion King" remake or however it'll work in the future.
  14. The movie should absolutely be criticized and lambasted over not having a reason to need to be made. If Disney is going to monetize and sell nostalgia, then, as I said before with "Aladdin," these remade versions must be better than the originals. Otherwise, there is no reason for them to exist. They could always go the "Maleficent" route and do something new with the established properties (like a Mufasa and Scar prequel,) but instead they continue choosing to suck out what made the originals special and timeless and trying to push us into accepting their current lack of creativity. We don't let authors remake their most famous works solely because they've run out of ideas. We don't let musicians sell us the same song after they've lost whatever creativity went into their original music. Why do we make excuses for and accept this from movie studios?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.