Aladdin live action movie | 24 MAY 2019 | Disney | 7th most profitable movie of 2019. Disney does it again!

[Mulder]

1 minute ago, lorddemaxus said:

So in one day, this thread went from "mega-bomb" to "huge hit" to "might flop".

BOT in a nutshell.

[YM!]

10 minutes ago, I Am said:

early paid reviews were labeled "toxic," "negative" "haters."

Please, no more paid critics conspiracy, as it’s annoying, even as jokes you’d be surprised of the amount of people who buy it.

[OncomingStorm93]

Back up to 60%. Aladdin is officially a critical success again (until it isn't).

[Alli]

Just now, YourMother the Edgelord said:

Please, no more paid critics conspiracy, as it’s annoying, even as jokes you’d be surprised of the amount of people who buy it.

that 4/5 Guardian review seems suspect now

[Tentatek]

The jungle book wasn’t good. It was awful to me.

 

 

Maleficent and the first Alice in Wonderland were good because they weren’t straight remakes. 

 

 

[stealthyfrog]

Aladdin is going to have the fight of its life to stay fresh (ironic considering that it has Will Smith)

[MrGamer]

5 hours ago, TMP said:

Gotta hand it to @Alli, who called this film being good when everyone else was doubting it.

 

5 minutes ago, TMP said:

I take this back.

TMP’s day in a nutshell:

 

[tawasal]

4 minutes ago, Porthos said:

 

 

*wakes up*

*sees current RT score*

*skips the 15 some odd pages he's missed*

 

Fine, fine, Disney Marketing.  You get to continue with your jobs for another film

 

Still should have released the OST a couple of weeks ago and had the World Premiere last week.  That's still pretty inexcusable.

 

(I really don't want to read the last 15 pages of this thread, do I?)

You never want to page catch BOT threads, you should avoid that. 

[filmlover]

lol it's in the red again. BOT right now:

 

[I Am]

Quote

While quality cannot be measured by minutes, the new live-action version of Disney’s “Aladdin” runs 37 minutes longer than the animated 1992 film famous for Robin Williams’ inspired vocal riffs and the song “A Whole New World.”

 

And those 37 additional minutes are not high-quality minutes.

 

Leave the classics alone.

 

Quote

Remaking a still-popular film makes economic sense in Hollywood, but the practice tends to be an artistic dead end. Disney appears committed to its trend of remaking its animated classics in live action, all the way to the bitter end. And why not? Critical and fan drubbings haven’t yet dried up the box office to a point of non-profit, and when they can get Jon Favreau on board (The Jungle Book, The Lion King), they have a shot at pleasing everyone. Alas, it’s Guy Ritchie at the helm of Aladdin, and the results aren’t exactly magical.

 

Peabo Brysan and Angela Lansbury and others likely said as much when "Beauty and the Beast" was re"made" - there's no magic in these movies. While they were certainly excellent classics, were "The Jungle Book" and "Cinderella" as "magical" to children in their respective eras as "Beauty and the Beast," "Aladdin," "The Lion King," "Mulan," etc were to us?

I don't think so - which is why it's easier for the older ones to be improved upon, in comparison to the classics that inspired our childhoods. Taking the "Aladdin" soundtrack (and presumably the movie itself) and turning into "The Greatest Showman" is not magical. I hope this movie bombs, and (I'm so sorry, Jon Favreau) I hope "The Lion King" does too, so Disney reconsiders destroying "Mulan," "The Little Mermaid," and whatever else is in the pipeline.

[cannastop]

2 hours ago, Alli said:

Scott Mendelson has spoken. it's a fresh. 6/10. i'm surprised he's not a Top Critic tho

Why would he be?

[Ithil]

3 minutes ago, OncomingStorm93 said:

Back up to 60%. Aladdin is officially a critical success again (until it isn't).

Starting to imagine the person deciding by the second if it's a flop, a bomb, a surprise hit, a megahit or break even depending on the fluctuating RT like this auctioneer

 

 

[YM!]

Aladdin’s reviews in a nutshell.

 

[filmlover]

Just now, I Am said:

 

Leave the classics alone.

 

 

Peabo Brysan and Angela Lansbury and others likely said as much when "Beauty and the Beast" was re"made" - there's no magic in these movies. While they were certainly excellent classics, were "The Jungle Book" and "Cinderella" as "magical" to children in their respective eras as "Beauty and the Beast," "Aladdin," "The Lion King," "Mulan," etc were to us?

I don't think so - which is why it's easier for the older ones to be improved upon, in comparison to the classics that inspired our childhoods. Taking the "Aladdin" soundtrack (and presumably the movie itself) and turning into "The Greatest Showman" is not magical. I hope this movie bombs, and (I'm so sorry, Jon Favreau) I hope "The Lion King" does too, so Disney reconsiders destroying "Mulan," "The Little Mermaid," and whatever else is in the pipeline.

Mulan is already a made movie and The Little Mermaid is in the early production stages so you might as well show yourself out the door right now.

[Eric Atreides]

TOMATOMETER

 60%

All Critics | Top Critics

 

Average Rating: 6.14/10 
Reviews Count: 67 
Fresh: 40 
Rotten: 27

 

#ItLives

[I Am]

9 minutes ago, YourMother the Edgelord said:

Please, no more paid critics conspiracy, as it’s annoying, even as jokes you’d be surprised of the amount of people who buy it.

I see what you did there.

[Alli]

Just now, CoolEric258 said:

TOMATOMETER

 60%

All Critics | Top Critics

 

Average Rating: 6.14/10 
Reviews Count: 67 
Fresh: 40 
Rotten: 27

 

#ItLives

GIVE IT ALL THE OSCARS

[a2k]

Cinderella, TJB and BATB live-actions were C movies for me. I liked the originals a lot. Aladdin might join the list but don't plan to watch it anytime soon. I hope TLK makes it to a B but am not expecting anything better. Once you snap out of the realism and respect for technology, the movies haven't been engaging.

 

Aladdin, on paper, had it in itself to be the best live-action as it has a lot of richness in the story apart from visuals : charming human romance, epic side-kicks, a completely different world of Arabian nights and magic carpets, a princess tale right at home at Disney. But no, they played it too safe by the looks of it.

[I Am]

8 minutes ago, Tentatek said:

The jungle book wasn’t good. It was awful to me.

 

 

Maleficent and the first Alice in Wonderland were good because they weren’t straight remakes. 

I'm indifferent to the first "Alice in Wonderland" remake (which I guess means I wasn't impressed) but I feel the same way about "Maleficent." I enjoyed it for what it was and more than I thought I would, because it wasn't a poor clone of the original. The next remake I was enthusiastic to see was "Beauty and the Beast," and I went into it pumped and came out unimpressed and upset.

 

"Aladdin" is my favorite, and if the movie is going to be made, the requirement for it is to be perfect, not "good effort, guys" and not, "It's not the same 'Aladdin!'"

[Yandereprime101189]

Never change BOT, you guys are the best