Well, why the hell would I drag my ass to a theater to see a retread of a movie made by the same studio, when the studio already has a bad track record with remakes?
Like maybe beauty and the beast was a solid enough standalone movie to merit a theater trip. Maybe. But even that wasn’t necessary, it was still just a retread made to keep their finger in the pie. It didn’t offer anything more than the original, unless you’re a hard core Watson fan.
The rest? Tepid at best.
Why would anyone think that this movie, with trailers that already show the cgi brings nothing interesting to the table, spend money on it?
I mostly agree though I didn’t really like Beauty and the Beast enough to watch it more than once. I think Cinderella was the better of the live action remakes that they’ve made. I also didn’t see the appeal of the LA Jungle Book.
What if… gasp, what if you’re not the target audience?!
Everyone complaining about the poor quality of Disney’s live action remakes is overlooking the main reason why Disney is making them. They’re profitable.
With the relatively low cost compared to a traditional animated movie, the ability to lean on existing IP’s, and the fact that the main audience (children) don’t typically give a shit about quality, Disney has been raking in the money with these remakes. I don’t believe they’ve had a true “flop” (where they lost money) since they started.
The Disney that made original films and stories is long dead. And why wouldn’t it be? For all the complaints about the lack of originality in Hollywood, when a studio actually risks making one, it tends to be a bust. Going to a theater is an event, and people don’t want to risk their money on an unknown story. Money talks, and unfortunately it says that remakes and bland superhero movies are what the people want.
Well, why the hell would I drag my ass to a theater to see a retread of a movie made by the same studio, when the studio already has a bad track record with remakes?
Like maybe beauty and the beast was a solid enough standalone movie to merit a theater trip. Maybe. But even that wasn’t necessary, it was still just a retread made to keep their finger in the pie. It didn’t offer anything more than the original, unless you’re a hard core Watson fan.
The rest? Tepid at best.
Why would anyone think that this movie, with trailers that already show the cgi brings nothing interesting to the table, spend money on it?
I mostly agree though I didn’t really like Beauty and the Beast enough to watch it more than once. I think Cinderella was the better of the live action remakes that they’ve made. I also didn’t see the appeal of the LA Jungle Book.
What if… gasp, what if you’re not the target audience?!
Everyone complaining about the poor quality of Disney’s live action remakes is overlooking the main reason why Disney is making them. They’re profitable.
With the relatively low cost compared to a traditional animated movie, the ability to lean on existing IP’s, and the fact that the main audience (children) don’t typically give a shit about quality, Disney has been raking in the money with these remakes. I don’t believe they’ve had a true “flop” (where they lost money) since they started.
The Disney that made original films and stories is long dead. And why wouldn’t it be? For all the complaints about the lack of originality in Hollywood, when a studio actually risks making one, it tends to be a bust. Going to a theater is an event, and people don’t want to risk their money on an unknown story. Money talks, and unfortunately it says that remakes and bland superhero movies are what the people want.