Disney's Live Action The Little Mermaid

[BlakeW39]

In terms of film, Disney has really always been primarily an animation studio. So no doubt their live action films were never very popular or very well received. But Disney today owns some of the largest film studios in Hollywood. So I think it's a problem when the great majority of their content involves poor quality adaptations of already existing IPs. Now personally, I have more of an issue with the way TWDC treats it parks than I do with how they treat their film studios. I mean they can choose to keep making content that very few people care for, I suppose that's their perogative, I'm kind of done waiting around for them to change things. But how they treat the parks man. That still es me off.

 

[Casper Gutman]

In terms of film, Disney has really always been primarily an animation studio. So no doubt their live action films were never very popular or very well received. But Disney today owns some of the largest film studios in Hollywood. So I think it's a problem when the great majority of their content involves poor quality adaptations of already existing IPs. Now personally, I have more of an issue with the way TWDC treats it parks than I do with how they treat their film studios. I mean they can choose to keep making content that very few people care for, I suppose that's their perogative, I'm kind of done waiting around for them to change things. But how they treat the parks man. That still es me off.

EVERY studio relies on existing IPs. That’s the business in 2023. Which major studio is taking big creative risks and creating new franchises? Paramount (Star Trek, Top Gun, Mission: Impossible)? Universal (Mario, Jurassic Park, Minions, Fast & Furious)? Sony (Ghostbusters, Spider-Man)? WB (DC, Potter, Lord if the Rings)? Amazon (Bond, whatever the algorithm demands)?

Actually, if you’re looking for a film division that regularly produces original, high-quality IPs, Disney animation and Pixar are pretty strong bets. Yes, they’ve had a couple recent duds, but Strange World was a bold gamble on an original idea and recent Disney and Pixar animated films like Encanto, Moana, Turning Red, Luca, and Soul have been real winners.

 

[BlakeW39]

EVERY studio relies on existing IPs. That’s the business in 2023. Which major studio is taking big creative risks and creating new franchises? Paramount (Star Trek, Top Gun, Mission: Impossible)? Universal (Mario, Jurassic Park, Minions, Fast & Furious)? Sony (Ghostbusters, Spider-Man)? WB (DC, Potter, Lord if the Rings)? Amazon (Bond, whatever the algorithm demands)?

Actually, if you’re looking for a film division that regularly produces original, high-quality IPs, Disney animation and Pixar are pretty strong bets. Yes, they’ve had a couple recent duds, but Strange World was a bold gamble on an original idea and recent Disney and Pixar animated films like Encanto, Moana, Turning Red, Luca, and Soul have been real winners.

Oh I know. Which is why I'm sort of ambivalent towards it. I won't give them my money, nor do I have interest in consuming any of that mass produced "content," but to be sure this is a problem with the entertainment industry as a whole, not just with Disney. I didn't want a Mario movie either

 

[LittleBuford]

It's not disingenuous because I never said they weren't making original films. I said "it all boils down to quality content". And it isn't fair to expect fans to just show up to new content just because. They need to earn it with a string of quality films.

You wrote, “Now they just want to repackage their classics for a safe pay check.” That’s the statement I was responding to.

 

[MisterPenguin]

It's not just Disney that does live-action/hybrid versions of animation...

• The Flintstones
• The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle
• Caspar the Friendly Ghost
• Popeye
• Scooby Doo
• Fat Albert
• Josie and the Pussycats
• Archie (Riverdale)
• Mr. Magoo
• The Smurfs
• Tom & Jerry
• Underdog

 

[DKampy]

EVERY studio relies on existing IPs. That’s the business in 2023. Which major studio is taking big creative risks and creating new franchises? Paramount (Star Trek, Top Gun, Mission: Impossible)? Universal (Mario, Jurassic Park, Minions, Fast & Furious)? Sony (Ghostbusters, Spider-Man)? WB (DC, Potter, Lord if the Rings)? Amazon (Bond, whatever the algorithm demands)?

Actually, if you’re looking for a film division that regularly produces original, high-quality IPs, Disney animation and Pixar are pretty strong bets. Yes, they’ve had a couple recent duds, but Strange World was a bold gamble on an original idea and recent Disney and Pixar animated films like Encanto, Moana, Turning Red, Luca, and Soul have been real winners.

This exactly

 

[Jedijax719]

Disney isn't going to be putting out movies to get Best Picture awards. That's not their style. And, speaking of "original content" how many OTHER studios are really putting out original content either? I mean, you have movies like Green Knight, The Woman King, and The Northman, but Disney certainly isn't going that route.

These days, if a studio wants "originality" combined with financial success, it means to either (a) do adaptations of a popular book series or (b) take an already popular IP and expand it with new stories. The former is great IF there is a popular book series (none currently that are truly hot). So most are going with the latter.

I've always said that if Disney REALLY wants original live actions, they should have their animated writers write scripts for live action films. Animation is where they truly shine with originals.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

When exactly was this golden age of Disney LIVE-ACTION film excellence?

If you want an honest answer, probably 1950-1960, when Disney had not settled in to any particular formula and was just making whatever, typically period adventure films and literary adaptations.

During this time Disney produced the likes of Treasure Island, Robin Hood, 20,000 Leagues, Old Yeller, Swiss Family Robinson, Pollyanna, Johnny Tremain, The Great Locomotive Chase, Darby 'O Gill and others. The approach to live action was the same as animation; take well known public domain stories and reinterpret them for a modern family audience with high production values. Many of these films were made in England with frozen funds, or to save money, but they pulled from great talent to produce these titles. It was during this time all the True Life Adventure films were also released, including the unusual "Ture Life Fantasy" of Perri.

The gy Dog put an end to most of this. It was the only Disney movie to turn a profit in 1959 and made huge margins because of its low production costs. It ushered in a wave of middling slapstick comedies that made up the bulk of Disney's output (and profits) for the next decade. Son of Flubber is nothing to write home about, but it probably paid for the Tiki Room. At least some like the first Love Bug and The Parent Trap were good, but it was not a continuous period of excellence in quality. We all probably have sentimental favorites from this time though

The most experimental period of Disney's live-action output was in the early 80s leading up to the creation of Touchstone, where Disney tried to push the kinds of movies it could release under its brand...with very mixed results. It's a fascinating period that deserves more examination beyond TRON, but I wouldn't call it a "golden age".

 

[TalkingHead]

If you want an honest answer, probably 1950-1960, when Disney had not settled in to any particular formula and was just making whatever, typically period adventure films and literary adaptations.

During this time Disney produced the likes of Treasure Island, Robin Hood, 20,000 Leagues, Old Yeller, Swiss Family Robinson, Pollyanna, Johnny Tremain, The Great Locomotive Chase, Darby 'O Gill and others. The approach to live action was the same as animation; take well known public domain stories and reinterpret them for a modern family audience with high production values. Many of these films were made in England with frozen funds, or to save money, but they pulled from great talent to produce these titles. It was during this time all the True Life Adventure films were also released, including the unusual "Ture Life Fantasy" of Perri.

The gy Dog put an end to most of this. It was the only Disney movie to turn a profit in 1959 and made huge margins because of its low production costs. It ushered in a wave of middling slapstick comedies that made up the bulk of Disney's output (and profits) for the next decade. Son of Flubber is nothing to write home about, but it probably paid for the Tiki Room. At least some like the first Love Bug and The Parent Trap were good, but it was not a continuous period of excellence in quality. We all probably have sentimental favorites from this time though

The most experimental period of Disney's live-action output was in the early 80s leading up to the creation of Touchstone, where Disney tried to push the kinds of movies it could release under its brand...with very mixed results. It's a fascinating period that deserves more examination beyond TRON, but I wouldn't call it a "golden age".

Agreed on 50s. The handful of British productions are unlike anything the studio would release in the subsequent decades. The Sword and the Rose, especially. That one doesn’t even seem to be produced with young audiences in mind.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

The Sword and the Rose, especially. That one doesn’t even seem to be produced with young audiences in mind.

The film's director went on record twice saying it was "the Disney film with the least appeal to children."

It was part of the eccentricity of filmmaking when Walt was alive. If he wanted to do it, regardless of commercial appeal, it was done.

 

[Joel]

It's not just Disney that does live-action/hybrid versions of animation...

• The Flintstones
• The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle
• Caspar the Friendly Ghost
• Popeye
• Scooby Doo
• Fat Albert
• Josie and the Pussycats
• Archie (Riverdale)
• Mr. Magoo
• The Smurfs
• Tom & Jerry
• Underdog

Thanks, you've just convinced me that we need the government to step in and put an end to the industry-wide scourge of live action remakes.

 

[BlakeW39]

Thanks, you've just convinced me that we need the government to step in and put an end to the industry-wide scourge of live action remakes.

Actually though... these entertainment companies have been allowed to acquire far too much IP, to the detriment of the consumer... how the ****** do you get a monopoly on ideas in the first place, jesus christ

 

[DCBaker]

Here's a new clip from The Little Mermaid.

 

[BrianLo]

I have no grievance with this film, ideological or otherwise.

My grievance is with the creative output of The Walt Disney Company. I want them to fail spectacularly because I want them to course-correct. I don't particularly care whether the failure comes from Mermaid or Wish or Elemental or Guardians of the Galaxy.

Without derailing us too much, I’m a bit confused on your positioning here? What is the lesson (from what we know) of Elementals and Wish failing? Don’t ‘we’ want those to succeed and Mermaid to fail?

Elementals is an original looking Pixar inoffensive out of the elements buddy comedy with its usual ‘what if’ conceit.

Wish is an original princess musical with talking animated animals and a clear marketed villain. Shockingly it’s even being marketed as a musical, which they have previously wanted to shirk away from with the likes of Frozen.

What is the actual direction you prefer the company to take? Animated sequels and original live action?

 

[Disney Irish]

Actually though... these entertainment companies have been allowed to acquire far too much IP, to the detriment of the consumer... how the ****** do you get a monopoly on ideas in the first place, jesus christ

Some would say without the acquisition by larger entertainment companies that much of that IP would die, a huge loss to the consumer.

 

[BlakeW39]

Some would say without the acquisition by larger entertainment companies that much of that IP would die, a huge loss to the consumer.

Intellectual properties are concepts, they don't die just because companies aren't actively producing more content with them. All the movies/shows/games/etc. that have been based on that IP in the past will still exist. So the IP would not be dead it just wouldn't be in in current use.

To the contrary, the number of new IPs created and the diversity of entertainment offerings overall will be much lower when all IPs are monopolized by a handful of companies.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Shockingly it’s even being marketed as a musical, which they have previously wanted to shirk away from with the likes of Frozen.

Huh? Where and when was there any sort of sentiment that DAS wants to move away from musicals?

Disney is hyping Frozen, Moana, and Encanto right now.

 

[BrianLo]

Huh? Where and when was there any sort of sentiment that DAS wants to move away from musicals?

Disney is hyping Frozen, Moana, and Encanto right now.

I'm talking about Pre-movie Marketing. Or the marketing department. Not the Studio.

I think I'm dating myself a bit before your time around here so I'm recounting some older conversations and criticisms circa 2012. Frozen was overtly hiding the fact it was a musical in its trailers. Disney at the time hadn't really had a musical hit and were trying to slot themselves into the Pixar/Dreamworks vibes. Disney was kind of caught flat footed when a musical broke out in a very renaissance way.





Moana is weirdly cut like an action move with random trailer music starting it off. I do give a nod to the rapid fire songs by Lin Manuel Miranda card though.



Encanto is a bit better (albeit I am surprised the trailer shows Bruno and he even has lines... spoilers!). Encanto we can at least see some of the musical numbers, versus Elsa single Let it Go stomp is cleverly edited to be a passing power moment as opposed to a musical number.





Now we have Wish. Undercut with the title leads I want song. From the makers of B&TB, Lion King, Moana, Frozen, Cinderella, Encanto. NOT Zootopia. NOT Wreck it Ralph. Marketing is finally proud of their musicals again. As they should be!

 

[Disney Irish]

Intellectual properties are concepts, they don't die just because companies aren't actively producing more content with them. All the movies/shows/games/etc. that have been based on that IP in the past will still exist. So the IP would not be dead it just wouldn't be in in current use.

Not in use by anyone, hence my usage of the word dead. It wasn't to indicate that the whole IP usage from the past just disappears, which I think you know.

To the contrary, the number of new IPs created and the diversity of entertainment offerings overall will be much lower when all IPs are monopolized by a handful of companies.

You do realize that there are more than just a handful of companies that make movies right? There are lots and lots of independent studios that make movies. It just seems like there are only a handful of companies because they are the large distributors that the smaller independent studios use to release their films to more audiences.

So in reality there isn't really a monopoly of IP, it just happens to be that a lot of the IP that you like happens to be owned by the larger studios.

 

[BlakeW39]

Not in use by anyone, hence my usage of the word dead. It wasn't to indicate that the whole IP usage from the past just disappears, which I think you know.

Yeah which means the IP isn't dead. Not every IP needs infinite spin offs and adaptations across every medium of entertainment to be constantly pumped out for the masses.

You do realize that there are more than just a handful of companies that make movies right? There are lots and lots of independent studios that make movies. It just seems like there are only a handful of companies because they are the large distributors that the smaller independent studios use to release their films to more audiences.

So in reality there isn't really a monopoly of IP, it just happens to be that a lot of the IP that you like happens to be owned by the larger studios.

There isn't a categorical monopoly on all IP by a singular corporation, but the majority of popular IPs are now owned by large parent companies... you've acknowledged this your previous post implying this is a "good thing for consumers," so now you're just shifting goal posts. It isn't just the IPs that "I like," lol.