News Live-Action Tangled Remake in Development

[BrianLo]

They made the right call in making more merch, sure. And yes, the advertising & marketing of the remake’s release and the merchandise push in general helped further bring awareness of Stitch as a character/brand. But I wish we could see a split data sheet that shows the sales numbers of specific versions of the character/film. I wanna see which one sells more. Don’t care what the results are, I’d accept either result as-is, it’s the reality, I’m just curious to see which one is selling more.

I understand what you are saying, but there isn’t really a major consumer facing difference. And that’s why it was both smart they didn’t go off model and irrelevant to the thing you want to parse.

I mean on one hand you buy a printed T and I guess can tell the inspiration. On the other hand you buy a plushie and no one is thinking to themselves I’m buying the live action stitch plushie.

I don’t even know the difference. It’s just Stitch.

Very different than quite a few other films that went way off model.

https://www.disneystore.eu/characters-and-movies/disney/lilo-and-stitch

 

[FigmentsBrightIdeas]

Admittedly, there is some split merch that looks different based on each version. The shading, fur texture & quality, look of the eyes, some of the shape, etc. But, the curious thing you also notice. Isn’t it funny how the majority of the merch (including new) is Infact based on the original animated film and not the remake. Wonder why that is? And it then begs the question. If they know the remake iterations either won’t sell as much merch or aren’t worth making merch of. Then what is the point, outside of ticket sales off nostalgic name association alone, of continuing to go the route they are in producing “live action” remakes.. hmm

 

[FigmentsBrightIdeas]

Makes me wonder if The Lion King has something more we could go off. Or if they also keep sales numbers under “one and the same brand”… despite technically two different films, interesting…and again, there’s that kicker.. they know the nostalgic merch is the one worth selling and that sells.. yet, they won’t re-release the classics as they were with theatrical exclusive material (whether that be new bloopers, bts content, interviews, new shorts featuring the characters, etc.). Pretty weird if you ask me..

 

[BrianLo]

Makes me wonder if The Lion King has something more we could go off. Or if they also keep sales numbers under “one and the same brand”… despite technically two different films, interesting…

Yes, I think your line of thinking is correct, but Stitch is just not the right example.

The other movies where there is a more clear delineation in merch lines don’t sell as well. But the goal is not usually to make a new IP, it’s to boost the one they already have. So if the “old line” is boosted as well, that’s the same end point.

Which is why I think increasingly they’ve learned the safe bet is: the closer to on-model, the better with the remakes.

 

[FigmentsBrightIdeas]

the goal is not usually to make a new IP, it’s to boost the one they already have. So if the “old line” is boosted as well, that’s the same end point.

Which is why I think increasingly they’ve learned the safe bet is: the closer to on-model, the better with the remakes.

Which again, begs the question. Why then reimagine it, when it’s supposed to be the same IP. And if the closer on-model, the better. Why not just re-release.. the proven successful ‘on-model’ versions, with on-model new theatrical release exclusive bonus material like new shorts, bloopers, behind the scenes material/interviews w crew & cast, etc. , that’d match with the high selling ‘on-model’ merch. I swear..

 

[BrianLo]

Which again, begs the question. Why then reimagine it, when it’s supposed to be the same IP. And if the closer on-model, the better. Why not just re-release.. the proven successful ‘on-model’ versions, with on-model new theatrical release exclusive bonus material like new shorts, bloopers, behind the scenes material/interviews, etc. , that’d match with the high selling ‘on-model’ merch. I swear..

Because we cannot point to any re-release with a clear annual 2.4 Billion dollar swing in theatrical receipts and merchandise, ever.

I don't have the figure for Lion King's merch bump in 2011, but as the second highest re-release of all time, it made 186M in 2011. The 2019 remake made 1.66B.

There's an argument to be made about brand deposits or withdrawals, of course. But when it is a deposit, like it seems to have been for Stitch, it was a big one. The problem is if they actually "understand" what it is they should be chasing or are just being reckless. I'd say it's a bit of both and depends on the production. There's some of these films that have improved their IP and others that have clearly knocked it down a peg.

Though if you are asking if there is no financial incentive to remake films? No, the data does not support that position. Nor would the company be chasing them if they didn't think there was a financial incentive.

 

[FigmentsBrightIdeas]

Because we cannot point to any re-release with a clear annual 2.4 Billion dollar swing in theatrical receipts and merchandise, ever.

I don't have the figure for Lion King's merch bump in 2011, but as the second highest re-release of all time, it made 186M in 2011. The 2019 remake made 1.66B.

There's an argument to be made about brand deposits or withdrawals, of course. But when it is a deposit, like it seems to have been for Stitch, it was a big one. The problem is if they actually "understand" what it is they should be chasing or are just being reckless. I'd say it's a bit of both and depends on the production. There's some of these films that have improved their IP and others that have clearly knocked it down a peg.

Though if you are asking if there is no financial incentive to remake films? No, the data does not support that position. Nor would the company be chasing them if they didn't think there was a financial incentive.

Fair enough, Thanks for the insight/information. I appreciate it.

 

[OzAn]

Admittedly, there is some split merch that looks different based on each version. The shading, fur texture & quality, look of the eyes, some of the shape, etc. But, the curious thing you also notice. Isn’t it funny how the majority of the merch (including new) is Infact based on the original animated film and not the remake. Wonder why that is? And it then begs the question. If they know the remake iterations either won’t sell as much merch or aren’t worth making merch of. Then what is the point, outside of ticket sales off nostalgic name association alone, of continuing to go the route they are in producing “live action” remakes.. hmm

Are you seriously asking the question of what's the point of Disney earning $1B in box office and increase $2B more in merchandise thanks to reginited interest in the Stitch IP from the live action? This $3B cash here is what funds your theme park expansion and Disney's ability to take risks on new Original movies. Do you think cash just grow on tree ? Every original new movie is a financial risk that may not recoup its cost, which also have no direct relationship with how good the movie is. Encanto is considered Disney's latest original IP hit, but even that was a box office flop which only found success on streaming (and COVID wasn't to blame, Spider Man released near same time made $1.9B, reinforcing again that audience will watch known IP but rarely take chances on originals anymore, even if the original IP was actually good). Unfortunately, streaming has completely changed the movie game - people now only go to movies if something goes viral, but no one knows what will go viral. It may take Disney 3-4 original theatrical flops before it finds it next original viral hit. During this time it has to release other movies that are guaranteed financial successes that will cover the interim losses. Without these live action remakes, your originals won't even get green lit.

There is no long term risk to Disney to making these live actions - it drives sales of merchandise and bring 15/20+years old IP back to the forefront of people's attention again. If they like the live action, they will revisit the original, if they didn't like the live action they will revisit the original even more on streaming. Whatever the outcome, it only serves to re-ignite people's interest in the original IP. And no, re-releasing the original movie in theatre will not bring additional box office as people don't like paying for something they have watched before or can watch on streaming.

At the end of the day it's funny to request Disney to stop remakes when the company's whole success was historically built on 'remakes'. Almost all of Disnye' biggest classic IP were remakes of famous fairtales or folklores. Disney only occassionally created an original concept that also happens to be theatrical hits. Pixar was the king of original concepts, and that was why Disney purchased them because they couldn't get audience to watch things like Mars need Mom back then etc.

 

[FigmentsBrightIdeas]

it only serves to re-ignite people's interest in the original IP. And no, re-releasing the original movie in theatre will not bring additional box office as people don't like paying for something they have watched before or can watch on streaming.

Pixar was the king of original concepts, and that was why Disney purchased them because they couldn't get audience to watch things like Mars need Mom back then.

Pay close attention to your Pixar point. Why exactly ‘did’ they buy Pixar? For their ‘needed/trusted creative talent in making originals’ when the company’s own film divisions was lacking. That’s exactly it. They wanted their talent as they were on the level they once were at. They also knew that by utilizing their talent they could revitalize their own animation studios, and wouldn’t you know it, they Infact did. You’re missing the bigger points I just made, very “conveniently” I might add… you know full well that I’m not strictly making the argument for releasing original flicks either, I know full well they need a parachute to fall back on if either a new adaptation or original happens to fail. What do you think Disney did back in the past? I’m also making a point for the classics themselves and reigniting interest in those classics. If the whole point is it needs new theatrical exclusive content to be viable in theaters, you did see the suggestions I made correct? Adding theatrical re-release ‘exclusive’ content that would make it all the more interesting to see in theaters again? Whether that be new shorts or new shorts featuring the characters, blooper reels, new archival or behind the scenes content or interviews, deleted scenes presented with context after the credits or something, etc (Disney ought to try doing an online poll or some surveys and figure out, what it is, that people would love to see most for potential theatrical re-releases of their favorite classics).. It would Infact be cheaper and also not be an ultimate waste of long term investment when it comes to being able to release more merch or do future re-releases when it comes to future investment in said IPs. Since the remakes have hit streaming, have they genuinely gained more viewership or better ratings than their original animated versions? I’m genuinely curious about that. Anyone have hard data on that? The trouble is what I suggested hasn’t even been attempted with a film that they ‘know’ would be a top seller, based on pre-existing merch sales, Disney + viewership, etc. What I just suggested plus a proper merchandising & marketing campaign (very similar to what the remakes are currently getting, oddly enough with ‘classic style’ merch, that I believe the classics in & themselves deserve instead), would absolutely have a much better impact for the company & its legacy (and resources) I believe.

And one last thing.. the analogy you’re making about Disney’s legacy surrounding “mostly being remakes” is disingenuous at best. They were very clearly titled “Walt Disney’s” or “Disney’s” tellings, and most signing over the movie rights to Disney to their works knew full well, he was gonna make his own ‘adaptations’ of the story. Not what’s going on here.. it’s Disney’s literal adaptations, that with these remakes they make arguably questionable & ultimately unnecessary creative & stylization decisions with, call it the same thing & don’t even try to rerelease the classics in theaters with new theatrical exclusive content worth seeing to fall back on for their originals ‘and’ ‘new’ adaptations’ of stories not yet adapted to film in the possibility of them not doing well. Also, the marketing campaigns aren’t nearly as well invested for either originals or any re-releases of the classics since. Again, the trouble is they haven’t even tried what I’ve suggested with the budgets they’re utilizing for these remakes. They’re just doing as many “live action remakes” that they can pass off as the original IP from nostalgia for the legit thing, and conveniently make the only version available to see on the big screen rather than the other or both, that they can, because they can..

And as far as I know (honestly, I could be wrong on this), but aren’t they the ones who pushed this “live action remake trend” themselves? they weren’t following the rest of the market in this trend initially, yeah?

 

[FigmentsBrightIdeas]

Are you seriously asking the question of what's the point of Disney earning $1B in box office and increase $2B more in merchandise thanks to reginited interest in the Stitch IP

And no kidding you want the company to make more money. But the question is whether that money is being invested in properly carrying the company’s longstanding goodwill and legacy for generations going forward or not, by investing in the best quality media, which in turns gives it the biggest return in investment. If it’s not, I’d say it’s a bad investment, period. But that’s just my take on the matter

 

[Disney Irish]

Pay close attention to your Pixar point. Why exactly ‘did’ they buy Pixar? For their ‘needed/trusted creative talent in making originals’ when the company’s own film divisions was lacking. That’s exactly it. They wanted their talent as they were on the level they once were at. They also knew that by utilizing their talent they could revitalize their own animation studios, and wouldn’t you know it, they Infact did. You’re missing the bigger points I just made, very “conveniently” I might add… you know full well that I’m not strictly making the argument for releasing original flicks either, I know full well they need a parachute to fall back on if either a new adaptation or original happens to fail. What do you think Disney did back in the past? I’m also making a point for the classics themselves and reigniting interest in those classics. If the whole point is it needs new theatrical exclusive content to be viable in theaters, you did see the suggestions I made correct? Adding theatrical re-release ‘exclusive’ content that would make it all the more interesting to see in theaters again? Whether that be new shorts or new shorts featuring the characters, blooper reels, new archival or behind the scenes content or interviews, deleted scenes presented with context after the credits or something, etc (Disney ought to try doing an online poll or some surveys and figure out, what it is, that people would love to see in a theatrical re-release).. It would Infact be cheaper and also not be an ultimate waste of long term investment when it comes to being able to release more merch or do future re-releases when it comes to future investment in said IPs. Since the remakes have hit streaming, have they genuinely gained more viewership or better ratings than their original animated versions? I’m genuinely curious about that. Anyone have hard data on that? The trouble is what I suggested hasn’t even been attempted with a film that they ‘know’ would be a top seller, based on pre-existing merch sales, Disney + viewership, etc. What I just suggested plus a proper merchandising & marketing campaign (very similar to what the remakes are currently getting, oddly enough with ‘classic style’ merch, that I believe the classics in & themselves deserve instead), would absolutely have a much better impact for the company & its legacy (and resources) I believe.

And one last thing.. the analogy you’re making about Disney’s legacy surrounding “mostly being remakes” is disingenuous at best. They were very clearly titled “Walt Disney’s” or “Disney’s” tellings, and most signing over the movie rights to Disney to their works knew full well, he was gonna make his own ‘adaptations’ of the story. Not what’s going on here.. it’s Disney’s literal adaptations, that with these remakes they make arguably questionable & ultimately unnecessary creative & stylization decisions with, call the same thing & don’t even try to rerelease the classics in theaters with new theatrical exclusive content worth seeing to fall back on for their originals ‘and’ ‘new’ adaptations’ of stories not yet adapted to film in the possibility of them not doing well. Also, the marketing campaigns aren’t nearly as well invested for either originals or any re-releases of the classics since. Again, the trouble is they haven’t even tried what I’ve suggested with the budgets they’re utilizing for these remakes. They’re just doing as many “live action remakes” that they can pass off as the original IP from nostalgia for the legit thing, and conveniently make the only version available to see on the big screen rather than the other or both, that they can, because they can..

And as far as I know (honestly, I could be wrong on this), but aren’t they the ones who pushed this “live action remake trend” themselves? they weren’t following the rest of the market in this trend initially, yeah?

You're obviously very passionate about this, but it appears you're thinking about this from a place of emotion rather than from a business perspective.

You say they should just rerelease the old classics (albeit with some new theatrical exclusive content) rather than do these live action remakes. Disney has rereleased many of their movies over the years, and in the modern movie going era they don't do very well at the box office. And why, for a couple reasons, 1. modern audiences say why should I spend money to go to the theaters when they can just see that same movie at home (its only passionate fans like you that go, not the wider movie going public and that is not enough to warrant a rerelease other than for an anniversary), 2. they've already seen it, and even if there is some new short or behind the scenes feature about the movie its not enough to get them to plop down $ to again basically watch what they can at home, 3. while classic and beloved they are often seen as outdated by modern standards.

The whole reason why Disney started doing the live action remakes in the first place was to get modern audience reinvested back into Disney classics by telling them a new take on an old familiar classic, ie the same thing Disney has always done in its 100 year history, take something known and put a new spin on it. And while some have fared better than others, overall they have been fairly well received. And because Disney has done so well with it, other studios are following suit and started doing the same.

Basically just look at the box office today, as much as many of you talk about the need for more originals (for which Disney produces many, as previously discussed), what is doing the best with modern audiences, remakes and sequels. In order for any business to survive you have to go where the audience is willing to spend money on. And if by and large that is remakes and sequels, sure sometimes an original breaks through and does well but that isn't the majority, well guess what that is where you invest your money.

Also if you haven't thought Disney has done market research to see what audiences wants, ie "polls and surveys", you haven't been paying attention. Disney is famously well known for their polls and surveys for almost every aspect of their business, from the Parks to Studios. So they do actually do what you suggest, it just may not be in the way you want or for the specific scenario you're looking for, ie the rerelease of classic movies to theaters.

 

[FigmentsBrightIdeas]

if you haven't thought Disney has done market research to see what audiences wants, ie "polls and surveys", you haven't been paying attention. Disney is famously well known for their polls and surveys for almost every aspect of their business, from the Parks to Studios. So they do actually do what you suggest, it just may not be in the way you want or for the specific scenario you're looking for, ie the rerelease of classic movies to theaters.

oh, they are.. but they’re very slick with it atm. Park surveys I’ve heard about have done this many times. As opposed to wanting an answer to what would be considered an un-biased question if asked normally, they’ll ask a biased question or one that doesn’t take facts into consideration, very specifically worded as opposed to one that isn’t/is worded generally, to get a desired result as opposed to just wanting the result in&itself from an un-biased question. Shady as heck, but it’s not new.

A fan website or even a fan themselves, I can see doing that at times, but why what should be an unbiased company be doing that, I have no idea. But it is what it is I suppose, oh well.

 

[FigmentsBrightIdeas]

Jim Hill’s Disney Dish podcast has covered these kind of things before if you ever wanna hear them.. but some of the questions they ask on them. Boy, do they make you raise an eyebrow at times. That’s all I’ll say on that.

 

[FigmentsBrightIdeas]

The funniest one, not a survey, but one Bob Iger brings up in his “Story of a Mouse” documentary. There’s a scene, (I swear, go watch it if you haven’t) I kid you not, where he starts bringing up how one time he decided to ask some folks around him, “How old do you think Mickey is?”. Most basic, run of the mill question you could ask, right?. The most obvious interpretation of being asked that is.. “How old is Mickey Mouse, as in, how long has the character been around”. Reasonably, someone would answer. “Oh, probably 90-100 years old”. And Iger, know what his absolutely wild take on that answer was? Not even kidding, he said something along the lines of, “That said to me that people thought Mickey was too/really old and needed to be revitalized/more hip & modern”. I kid you not, watch that documentary and your jaw will drop. ‘Nobody’ else in their right mind would have that take in their mind after asking that question. But crazy Bob Iger, he sure does. Most revealing statement/take from him you could ever hear. Like, holy moly!

 

[Disney Irish]

oh, they are.. but they’re very slick with it atm. Park surveys I’ve heard about have done this many times. As opposed to wanting an answer to what would be considered an un-biased question if asked normally, they’ll ask a biased question or one that doesn’t take facts into consideration, very specifically worded as opposed to one that isn’t/is worded generally, to get a desired result as opposed to just wanting the result in&itself from an un-biased question. Shady as heck, but it’s not new.

A fan website or even a fan themselves, I can see doing that at times, but why what should be an unbiased company be doing that, I have no idea. But it is what it is I suppose, oh well.

The point is whether you think they are valid in how they are performed or not they are in fact doing "polls and surveys" about their products. Also all one has to do is look at the overall market itself, that is the ultimate survey, as the box office indicates what the consumer wants.

So just because you don't like the answer that they provided doesn't mean that Disney isn't doing market research.

That’s all I’ll say on that.

Clearly not since you've gone on and on about it in 3 separate posts.

 

[FigmentsBrightIdeas]

The point is whether you think they are valid in how they are performed or not they are in fact doing "polls and surveys" about their products. Also all one has to do is look at the overall market itself, that is the ultimate survey, as the box office dictates what the consumer wants.

So just because you don't like the answer that they provided doesn't mean that Disney isn't doing market research.


Clearly not since you've gone on and on about it in 3 separate posts.

they are, and it has nothing to do with wrong answers. Has to do with the actual questions they’re asking and the blatantly twisted interpretation they’re taking of those answers, despite reality proving their takes completely false. PS: only reason I responded to you specifically is because you responded to me. Wanted to clarify/explain my points Fair game that if you respond to me, you can probably expect a response.

 

[Disney Irish]

they are, and it has nothing to do with wrong answers. Has to do with the actual questions they’re asking.

And what questions are they asking for Studios? Do you have any proof that they aren't asking valid questions, or you just making an assumption? You've brought up the Parks surveys, and some vague nothing to do with anything being discussed story about Mickey's age from a documentary. That isn't proof of anything.

PS: only reason I responded to you specifically is because you responded to me. Wanted to clarify/explain Fair game if you respond to me, you can probably expect a response.

Not sure what you're talking about here, I don't have any issue with you responding.

 

[OzAn]

And no kidding you want the company to make more money. But the question is whether that money is being invested in properly carrying the company’s longstanding goodwill and legacy for generations going forward or not, by investing in the best quality media, which in turns gives it the biggest return in investment. If it’s not, I’d say it’s a bad investment, period. But that’s just my take on the matter

The point is that the live actions aren't 'investments', they are cash-printing machine with short turnaround time that generate the cash Disney needs to 'invest' in new originals.

You make it sound like if Disney spend more on originals that will guarantee their success. But as said, the success of an original has no direct correlation of how good a movie necessary is, or even how much it was advertised. The current 2025 domestic domestic box office No. 1 is Minecraft which many consider very poor. Wicked for Good probably went on the biggest marketing blitz this year and the box office is way lower than part 1.

In that case if you are an executive with $200m of funds, would you spend $200m on two original movies with no way of knowing if you can recoup that back on either of those movies, or would you spend $100m on a live action remake + $100m on an original knowing the former is going to earn $500m+ in profits, that can now be spent on making more originals and marketing them? the latter is a no-brainer and what Disney has been doing. it's not like they haven't been producing originals. Just because Encanto was the only recent success doesn't mean they haven't been tyring to figure out what audience like and releasing originals each year since. But no one knows what new concept will stick with audience, or otherwise Sony Animation wouldn't have gifted Kpop Demon hunters to Netflix for only a few million.