Disney's Live Action The Little Mermaid

[GimpYancIent]

Disney's live action movies tend to be fondly remembered by the generations that grew up with them and mostly forgotten by everyone else, because most range from mediocre to bad.

There are probably like 5 good-to-great live action movies per decade (going back to the 50s) and dozens of terrible ones per decade.

I agree with you, but, "fondly remembered" nah, more like just plain remembered that once seen can not be unseen.

 

[Phroobar]

Dunno, I would consider the whole Dexter Riley series classics, the same for Jones movies like the Ugly Dachshund and That Darn Cat.

Don't forget the Herbie movies and the Apple Dumpling Gang movies are classic Disney movies.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Attempting to steer this back, I meant to post the merch days ago. I don’t like the backpack, but I like the sweatshirt, the ears, and the denim jacket.

 

[dreday3]

I won't go see this in theatres, but will happily watch at home.

I honestly can't picture myself not liking it.

So far I've enjoyed the live action Cinderella, Beauty and The Beast, Pinocchio (yes, I said that), Maleficent and Jungle Book. Little Mermaid is my favorite princess story so unless it's some kind of MAJOR screw up I'm sure it will make a great Friday night and bottle of wine movie.

 

[Jedijax719]

There was never any way they were not going to make a live action Little Mermaid. The second they even pondered re-making any of the renaissance films, Little Mermaid was on the board. It was just a matter of getting the tech and visuals.

Now, the other remakes, I guess they are doing them just for fun. Never thought they'd do a Snow White. Movies like Lady and the Tramp are mostly just for families watching D+.

Make live action remakes of the computer-generated films (Moana, Frozen, Tangled) is overkill UNLESS they want to make live-action continued adventures. Moana and Brave seem to be ripe for continued adventures that would make for decent live action franchises.

 

[BuddyThomas]

There was never any way they were not going to make a live action Little Mermaid. The second they even pondered re-making any of the renaissance films, Little Mermaid was on the board. It was just a matter of getting the tech and visuals.

Now, the other remakes, I guess they are doing them just for fun. Never thought they'd do a Snow White. Movies like Lady and the Tramp are mostly just for families watching D+.

Make live action remakes of the computer-generated films (Moana, Frozen, Tangled) is overkill UNLESS they want to make live-action continued adventures. Moana and Brave seem to be ripe for continued adventures that would make for decent live action franchises.

They already announced a Moana live remake.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Things you don’t—and can’t—know, because none of us do or can:

• Whether it’s a good movie
• Whether it’ll do well or not

I have no issue with people criticising Disney’s content. My own reviews of some of their recent output have been none too favourable. But for goodness’ sake, at least wait to see the bloody thing before declaring it a dud.

I wonder what is today’s definition of a dud?

In my opinion, in todays world, the box office alone is no longer a good measure.

From a business standpoint I guess at a minimum to stay in operation, a movie must make more money than it takes takes to create it and market it. Making money means box office and merch and streaming and other long term earnings that you can determine came from a film.

On the other hand, even if a movie loses money, all it means it cost more to create and market than it took in and if there other segments of the business that can make up for the losses, does it matter?

Just like art on the wall, some folks will like it, some folks will hate it. The important thing is it’s an expression of art.

Disney is expressing art in their movies, some will like it, some won’t. I think it’s simple as that. It is not for everybody Disney knows this when they create their art and that’s fine once you realize it.

It’s not about an attempt at mass appeal. It’s about expressing art.

 

[Jedijax719]

They already announced a Moana live remake.

I know. That's why I listed it first lol. It's a dumb idea to do it UNLESS they want to create a series or film franchise from it.

Btw, at the moment, TLM is tracking quite a bit ahead of Aladdin in terms of presales for Thursday previews.

I really do not mean to sound at all racist, but I think in terms of box office, people are underestimating the potential impact of the African-American community and how that could really boost performance like it did for Black Panther.

 

[LittleBuford]

I wonder what is today’s definition of a dud?

In my opinion, in todays world, the box office alone is no longer a good measure.

From a business standpoint I guess at a minimum to stay in operation, a movie must make more money than it takes takes to create it and market it. Making money means box office and merch and streaming and other long term earnings that you can determine came from a film.

On the other hand, even if a movie loses money, all it means it cost more to create and market than it took in and if there other segments of the business that can make up for the losses, does it matter?

Just like art on the wall, some folks will like it, some folks will hate it. The important thing is it’s an expression of art.

Disney is expressing art in their movies, some will like it, some won’t. I think it’s simple as that. It is not for everybody Disney knows this when they create their art and that’s fine once you realize it.

It’s not about an attempt at mass appeal. It’s about creating art.

I agree! Sleeping Beauty, for example, was a box-office disappointment that lost money, despite being an artistic masterpiece.

 

[Phroobar]

I wonder what is today’s definition of a dud?

In my opinion, in todays world, the box office alone is no longer a good measure.

From a business standpoint I guess at a minimum to stay in operation, a movie must make more money than it takes takes to create it and market it. Making money means box office and merch and streaming and other long term earnings that you can determine came from a film.

On the other hand, even if a movie loses money, all it means it cost more to create and market than it took in and if there other segments of the business that can make up for the losses, does it matter?

Just like art on the wall, some folks will like it, some folks will hate it. The important thing is it’s an expression of art.

Disney is expressing art in their movies, some will like it, some won’t. I think it’s simple as that. It is not for everybody Disney knows this when they create their art and that’s fine once you realize it.

It’s not about an attempt at mass appeal. It’s about expressing art.

Ahh, no.

Disney is creating a product to be consumed. It is not made to uplift society or for any humanistic expression. It is just a can of beans to be consumed and made money from.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Ahh, no.

Disney is creating a product to be consumed. It is not made to uplift society or for any humanistic expression. It is just a can of beans to be consumed and made money from.

Ahh, no.
It's clear it’s not about an attempt at mass appeal. It’s about expressing art. The product is being consumed, it's just some folks like it and some folks do not.

Is it sustainable from a business standpoint is a different question, but so far, it seems it is for TWDC as they can make money other ways.

 

[LittleBuford]

Ahh, no.

Disney is creating a product to be consumed. It is not made to uplift society or for any humanistic expression. It is just a can of beans to be consumed and made money from.

While it’s obvious that Disney wants its output to be profitable, films like Strange World reveal a willingness to take risks that aren’t necessarily going to pay off. The live-action remakes aren’t good examples of this more daring approach, but I think it’s fair to say that, as a whole, the creators behind Disney’s films aren’t just trying to churn out safe cash cows devoid of artistic merit or social impact.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

the creators behind Disney’s films aren’t just trying to churn out safe cash cows devoid of artistic merit or social impact.

Live-action remakes are the quintessential "safe cash cow devoid of artistic merit or social impact."

 

[LittleBuford]

Live-action remakes are the quintessential "safe cash cow devoid of artistic merit or social impact."

Which is why I wrote:

“The live-action remakes aren’t good examples of this more daring approach, but I think it’s fair to say that, as a whole, the creators behind Disney’s films aren’t just trying to churn out safe cash cows devoid of artistic merit or social impact.”

Why quote me so misleadingly?

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Which is why I wrote:

“The live-action remakes aren’t good examples of this more daring approach, but I think it’s fair to say that, as a whole, the creators behind Disney’s films aren’t just trying to churn out safe cash cows devoid of artistic merit or social impact.”

Why quote me so misleadingly?

Everything modern Disney creates is intended to be a safe cash cow devoid of artistic merit or social impact. Live action remakes, of which the subject of this thread is one, are the worst example.

Making films that vaguely allude to supporting the current social milieu is not risk-taking.

 

[erasure fan1]

Just remember though that Hollywood, including Disney, goes where the money is. So if you want more original content you have to be willing to shell out your dollars when that original content comes out, otherwise you get Fast and Furious 98.

I think it boils down to quality content. It can't just be support whatever mediocre effort they give, just because it's original. They need to get back to quality storytelling first. And they might just need to take a few lumps in box office returns until they prove they can consistently put out quality content. It's not really fair to expect us as fans to blindly support Disney. It's Disneys job to make quality films that people want to see.

 

[Jedijax719]

Why are people so down on studios doing what makes money?

I wonder had COVID not happened, would Disney (and other studios) have taken more risks, but ESPECIALLY Disney due to the $$$$$$$ it made from the 2019 movies. It was around that time that there were rumors of them doing Children of Bone and Blood, Keepers of the Lost Cities, and a live-action African-set movie about a princess with magical powers named Sade. There were also rumors about a Space Mountain movie and a more comprehensive movie, show, or series about 1001 Arabian Nights.
So content ideas were there. But the fear of money loss loomed much larger.

Nothing at all would have prevented them from doing Little Mermaid though. That was already in the works in 2016/2017.

 

[erasure fan1]

Why are people so down on studios doing what makes money?

It has nothing to do with Disney making money. Everyone here wants Disney to prosper and make money. What they don't like, is the absolute lazy, creatively bankrupt way they are going about it. There was a time when Disney was "ok, just take my money!" For probably most people here. That's what people want them to get back to. Do the things that made everyone fall in love with the company in the first place.

 

[DKampy]

I think it boils down to quality content. It can't just be support whatever mediocre effort they give, just because it's original. They need to get back to quality storytelling first. And they might just need to take a few lumps in box office returns until they prove they can consistently put out quality content. It's not really fair to expect us as fans to blindly support Disney. It's Disneys job to make quality films that people want to see.

I am a regular film goer who sees plenty of films every month of every genre from small independent to big blockbusters…There are still plenty of great original content, but people are afraid to take that chance no matter the studio. Except maybe horror, which every once in awhile has an original one will do well… even that has it’s limits(IMO The Menu deserved much more than what it got)it does not even take Disney if one studio start doing well with their originals others would follow looking for original content

 

[Disney Irish]

I think it boils down to quality content. It can't just be support whatever mediocre effort they give, just because it's original. They need to get back to quality storytelling first. And they might just need to take a few lumps in box office returns until they prove they can consistently put out quality content. It's not really fair to expect us as fans to blindly support Disney. It's Disneys job to make quality films that people want to see.

Issue though is that Disney isn't going to take many risks with original content if audiences don't show up. So its a chicken/egg situation, how is Disney going to take risks if when they take risks the audience doesn't show up.