On layoffs, very bad attendance, and Iger's legacy being one of disgrace

UNCgolf

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
doctornick said:
But when films are getting Cinemascores of "A", who is saying they "aren't good enough" or "hurt the brand".

A lot of folks say they think Disney is lazy with the re-makes and then in the next breath are like "OMG! I can't wait to watch live action The Little Mermaid". Movies don't make a billion dollars worldwide when people don't like them.

What hurts Disney is when the put out a stinker like Nutcracker and the Four Realms or Artemis Fowl.

Edit: just to be clear, I'm not saying that I like this strategy but labelling it as a failure seems specious compared to the reception and results of such films.
Click to expand...

I agree that it's hard to call them a failure with how much money they've made.

I think they're creatively bankrupt and ultimately pointless -- they're all apparently worse than the animated films on which they are based (the only one I've seen is Beauty and the Beast, but I have not seen many people claiming Aladdin or the Lion King are better than their animated counterparts), and they are likely to be forgotten eventually in favor of those animated versions -- but they printed money for the company and that's really all they care about.

It's not a long-term strategy, though. This live action remake thing will peter out in the next 4 or 5 years because they will run out of movies. It's incredibly unlikely they'd try to release live action versions of movies like the Aristocats or the Great Mouse Detective.
 
HauntedPirate

HauntedPirate

Park nostalgist
Premium Member
UNCgolf said:
I agree that it's hard to call them a failure with how much money they've made.

I think they're creatively bankrupt and ultimately pointless -- they're all apparently worse than the animated films on which they are based (the only one I've seen is Beauty and the Beast, but I have not seen many people claiming Aladdin or the Lion King are better than their animated counterparts), and they are likely to be forgotten eventually in favor of those animated versions -- but they printed money for the company and that's really all they care about.

It's not a long-term strategy, though. This live action remake thing will peter out in the next 4 or 5 years because they will run out of movies. It's incredibly unlikely they'd try to release live action versions of movies like the Aristocats or the Great Mouse Detective.
Click to expand...

They can always re-make the re-make...(Sadly, I’m not kidding) Disney is a very green company, remember - There’s no limit to the amount of recycling of ideas they’ll do these days. 😉

You’re spot-on: The live action remakes are creatively bankrupt, no matter how much money they bring in at the box office. Quite a damning statement for a company founded on creativity. (Yes, I know Disney has used public domain fairy tales for decades. Absolutely not the point here)
 
UNCgolf

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
HauntedPirate said:
They can always re-make the re-make...(Sadly, I’m not kidding) Disney is a very green company, remember - There’s no limit to the amount of recycling of ideas they’ll do these days. 😉

You’re spot-on: The live action remakes are creatively bankrupt, no matter how much money they bring in at the box office. Quite a damning statement for a company founded on creativity. (Yes, I know Disney has used public domain fairy tales for decades. Absolutely not the point here)
Click to expand...

I could see a re-make of a re-make too, but I think they'd have to give it 10-15 years to ensure anyone would go see it. I think even diehard Disney fans might balk at seeing two live action Beauty and the Beasts within a relatively short time frame. They'd at least need a new generation of kids!
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
UNCgolf said:
I could see a re-make of a re-make too, but I think they'd have to give it 10-15 years to ensure anyone would go see it. I think even diehard Disney fans might balk at seeing two live action Beauty and the Beasts within a relatively short time frame. They'd at least need a new generation of kids!
Click to expand...
The Jungle Book has had three iterations and we’re about to get a third iteration of 101 Dalmatians.
 
UNCgolf

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o said:
The Jungle Book has had three iterations and we’re about to get a third iteration of 101 Dalmatians.
Click to expand...

Yep, and there has been a gap of at least 15 years between each version, as I said.

The Jungle Book is a bit of an outlier though, because all three versions are different. All adaptations of the same Kipling story, but neither of the later versions were really straight re-makes of the original animated film. Not that that means they were necessary or even needed.
 
Brer Oswald

Brer Oswald

Well-Known Member
doctornick said:
It's easy to say, but I don't think the reality bares it out. Critics and snobs can complain about all the live action remakes but the reality is that "ordinary people" - y'know, the people who buy tickets to go see movies - actually eat them up. Even if critical scores are mediocre, they generally have done well on on Cinemascore and RT Audience scores (look at the scores for the live action The Lion King, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, etc). And obviously the box office are largely good.

In fact, the biggest misses from Disney have generally been when they've tried to branch into original (or at least non franchise) live action movies. The very thing that people here often suggest they need to be doing more of. 🤷‍♂️

Disney has basically dominated the box office the past decade and it has done so by giving the audience exactly what it wants. And they are doing it with far fewer releases than other major studios. If someone wants to argue that the Iger lead Disney movie strategy is poor, then basically no studio is doing anything right. The reality is that Disney is consistently putting out films that inspire people to spend time and money to see them (and talk about them, etc.) - it's hard to argue that isn't at least a major goal of filmmaking.
Click to expand...
If I casually mention “modern Disney isn’t good” to a group of ordinary people, without fail, I get “yeah those live action remakes suck”. Occasionally I get “they ruined Star Wars”.

Do these people still pay to see these films? Bizarrely, yes. But I think it’s more out of curiosity than anything. They liked the animated film as a kid, and want a dose of nostalgia. They see the remake. It “sucks” or “isn’t as good as the original”. Rarely do you get “that was great” or “better than the original”. But they still pay to fill those seats.

Here’s the problem. There’s a limited catalogue that they can chose from to remake. So what happens when they run out? These should be used as tools to get the casual market more interested in Disney’s unique products. But if Disney can’t even be trusted to make something great out of what’s familiar, how will they be able to hold the interest of the masses when it’s new content?
 
Basil of Baker Street

Basil of Baker Street

Well-Known Member
UNCgolf said:
I agree that it's hard to call them a failure with how much money they've made.

I think they're creatively bankrupt and ultimately pointless -- they're all apparently worse than the animated films on which they are based (the only one I've seen is Beauty and the Beast, but I have not seen many people claiming Aladdin or the Lion King are better than their animated counterparts), and they are likely to be forgotten eventually in favor of those animated versions -- but they printed money for the company and that's really all they care about.

It's not a long-term strategy, though. This live action remake thing will peter out in the next 4 or 5 years because they will run out of movies. It's incredibly unlikely they'd try to release live action versions of movies like the Aristocats or the Great Mouse Detective.
Click to expand...
Cinderella remake is pretty good. The rest are meh..
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom