Is it just me or is anyone else sick of all these opinion columnists reviewing kids movies. Ultimately that's what all the recent live action Disney movies are, they're for kids. Sure they might...
Is it just me or is anyone else sick of all these opinion columnists reviewing kids movies. Ultimately that's what all the recent live action Disney movies are, they're for kids. Sure they might be playing on the nostalgia factor but that's so that parents would have some motivation to see it with their kids. At the end of the day a 5 year won't care about Robin Williams' original performance they just want to see a fun movie. Some of my favourite memories as a kid was going to the cinema with my parents and I don't even remember which movies I saw I just remember that I had fun going and spending family time.
Come on, this "it's for the kids" defense is not a good one. First of all, kids aren't stupid, they might be easily exited, but I bet if you'll show them both movies they'll think that the...
Come on, this "it's for the kids" defense is not a good one. First of all, kids aren't stupid, they might be easily exited, but I bet if you'll show them both movies they'll think that the animation is better. And it's a good rule to respect your audience and always think of them as intelligent people, and not babies that would be as easily entertained by a stick with googly eyes glued on, that's what separates timeless classics from seasonal flicks. The original Alladin is as good of a movie today as it were yesterday, but not a lot of people remember most of movies that are coming out. IMO kids deserve better entertainment that would help them to grow and have a taste.
I wholeheartedly agree. I find these kinds of arguments to be insulting to children. It's amazing how adults can forget that they used to be children at one time. Honestly, it's even more...
I wholeheartedly agree. I find these kinds of arguments to be insulting to children. It's amazing how adults can forget that they used to be children at one time.
Honestly, it's even more insulting if you are a professional in the film industry. "It's OK that your art is terrible, honey, it's just for kids anyways". It's the complete opposite of constructive criticism. It's like being compared to a water sprinkler or other mundane object that might interest a child.
On the one hand, yes absolutely, seeing someone review this without understanding why it is the way it is, and comparing it to the incomparable is silly. On the other hand, there are a lot of "kid...
On the one hand, yes absolutely, seeing someone review this without understanding why it is the way it is, and comparing it to the incomparable is silly.
On the other hand, there are a lot of "kid movies" that are perfectly enjoyable as an adult and it is worthwhile for me to know what they are.
If you don't like reading criticism about a kid's movie then don't read it. I hate to give such a pithy and dismissve response but what's the alternative? You want people to not engage in...
If you don't like reading criticism about a kid's movie then don't read it.
I hate to give such a pithy and dismissve response but what's the alternative? You want people to not engage in criticism because "it's a kids movie", or because you think this criticism is somehow meant to be for children, even though they don't have the tools to understand any of it?
Criticism isn't something you have to engage with. It's not a necessary part of a film, or even being on the internet, so why does it matter if you and a smattering of people are tired of reading it? There's clearly an audience for this. After all, it's an ancient and constant art form in itself, and there's tons of amazing criticism on children's content out there (e.g. Lindsay Ellis).
If you're just tired of seeing negative criticism about Disney live action movies, then stop reading it. It has a right to exist otherwise.
I agree. I see grown adults reviewing Pixar and Disney movies like they just watched Goodfellas. Kids are the ones who have to enjoy them. If the parents also do, it's a bonus.
I agree. I see grown adults reviewing Pixar and Disney movies like they just watched Goodfellas. Kids are the ones who have to enjoy them. If the parents also do, it's a bonus.
When it comes to their classics it seems like they're very much about just throwing shit to the wall and seeing what sticks. I mean it worked for Beauty and The Beast, right? I'll be honest, I'm...
When it comes to their classics it seems like they're very much about just throwing shit to the wall and seeing what sticks. I mean it worked for Beauty and The Beast, right?
I'll be honest, I'm probably going to go see the Lion King remake because if nothing else, the visuals will be stunning.
I guess while they're at it, I wish that Hunchback of Notre Dame gets a remake because it's my favourite disney classic. It'll never happen tho.
What? That's not how copyright works, and they don't really need to do either of those things. A bad movie on a classic disney franchise is a net negative for disney.
What? That's not how copyright works, and they don't really need to do either of those things. A bad movie on a classic disney franchise is a net negative for disney.
After Dumbo and now Aladdin my family is starting to believe me when I tell them the “live action” Lion King movie is going to be bad. Even from the current trailer you can see the movie is so...
After Dumbo and now Aladdin my family is starting to believe me when I tell them the “live action” Lion King movie is going to be bad. Even from the current trailer you can see the movie is so lifeless.
I think all these Disney remakes are doomed to fail, and I don't get why people speculated that Will Smith is the reason the film is going to flop. The dude could give an oscar worthy performance...
I think all these Disney remakes are doomed to fail, and I don't get why people speculated that Will Smith is the reason the film is going to flop. The dude could give an oscar worthy performance and it would still fail to mach the animation - because animation is just so much better than live action. It conveys magic and expression with exaggeration that is not possible with human actors, because you'll be hitting uncanny valley in no time. Same goes for the Lion King. I get it, all the CGI looks better than animation on huge IMAX screens, but come on, come up with something original. You are setting up against the competitor that just can't be beat, it's like bringing a spoon to a gunfight.
Hey, I'm not saying they'll be financial flops necessarily, but ultimately the movie is not judged by how much money it makes but how lasting it's cultural impact is. There are more to financial...
Hey, I'm not saying they'll be financial flops necessarily, but ultimately the movie is not judged by how much money it makes but how lasting it's cultural impact is. There are more to financial success than just being a good movie - advertising plays a big role, the nostalgia credits are strong, what else runs at the theaters at the same time is also a big factor. I don't think that Disney, being a huge corporation that built itself on movies neglects the whole picture. Opportunistic nostalgia farming is what a lot of corporations do right now, and I don't blame them for doing so. After all a lot of people are going to enjoy this movie regardless. Still when all dust is settled I don't think this movie is going to be more than a footnote.
Thing is, Disney has a brand, and that brand is very recognizable and has a lot of good will and nostalgia to its name. You see Duck Tales and Princesses everywhere, people are used to them, it's...
Very, very, very few studio's are putting out movies based on their "cultural impact".
Thing is, Disney has a brand, and that brand is very recognizable and has a lot of good will and nostalgia to its name. You see Duck Tales and Princesses everywhere, people are used to them, it's endless merch sales, and no other studio has the same appeal. This is a result of years of work and dedication to the stuff they are putting out. Dishing out these live action films kinda erases that Disney magic and style, living an arguably generic CGI in it's wake, and I don't know if that's a good decision in a long run. Illumination Entertainment makes movies based on the gross alone, and they can start dishing out the same CGI stuff that Disney does, and then suddenly they don't look unique anymore. There is a good reason people look up at the days when Disney used 2D animation in their movies, and when they transitioned to 3D it erased a bit of their identity. Ultimately this has potential to just make Disney "another movie company" in the eyes of people, there is a reason why their kids journals are still featuring characters from their old movies, not new ones.
Lately a lot of corporations had been demolishing their good will and culture in pursuit of more short-term gains, Bethesda being probably the best example. I think it's a part of corporate life-cycle, once the original people with long term plans and vision are either dead or retired, the board of directors is not interested in playing the long game anymore, and instead caches in all that capital before the decline, since they can just move their money to whatever new company that would be the next thing.
I think Zootopia was really good, the city they've built is very well done and detailed, the environments are great, the humor is great, the story is nothing to be ashamed about. That's a...
When is the last time they released a film that could be considered culturally impactful?
I think Zootopia was really good, the city they've built is very well done and detailed, the environments are great, the humor is great, the story is nothing to be ashamed about. That's a frontrunner, and I think that movie would linger for a very long time. Thing is, I fully accept Disney is never shy to cache in on a franchise, their countless sequels is one of the ways they've been milking successful movies, but also a lot of them were direct to VHS/DVD, so they wouldn't damage the brand, but people loving these franchises would have a fix. These days they are doing remakes instead, but now they are not only on the big screen, they are also promoted like there is no tomorrow. IMO the worst thing that might happen to a movie from a recognizable studio is if it hypes itself as a big thing, and flops instead. So something inside the company changed, and now when I think about it talking to you I think it might have to do with how people view cinema these days maybe?
I saw the movie yesterday and thought it was a lot better than expected. Thought Jafar could have been done differently, but I enjoyed Aladdin, The Genie, and Jasmine. Going in with low or no...
I saw the movie yesterday and thought it was a lot better than expected. Thought Jafar could have been done differently, but I enjoyed Aladdin, The Genie, and Jasmine. Going in with low or no expectations is probably best. My lowest expectation was for Will Smith but he really entertained me throughout and I was pleasantly surprised.
Is it just me or is anyone else sick of all these opinion columnists reviewing kids movies. Ultimately that's what all the recent live action Disney movies are, they're for kids. Sure they might be playing on the nostalgia factor but that's so that parents would have some motivation to see it with their kids. At the end of the day a 5 year won't care about Robin Williams' original performance they just want to see a fun movie. Some of my favourite memories as a kid was going to the cinema with my parents and I don't even remember which movies I saw I just remember that I had fun going and spending family time.
Come on, this "it's for the kids" defense is not a good one. First of all, kids aren't stupid, they might be easily exited, but I bet if you'll show them both movies they'll think that the animation is better. And it's a good rule to respect your audience and always think of them as intelligent people, and not babies that would be as easily entertained by a stick with googly eyes glued on, that's what separates timeless classics from seasonal flicks. The original Alladin is as good of a movie today as it were yesterday, but not a lot of people remember most of movies that are coming out. IMO kids deserve better entertainment that would help them to grow and have a taste.
I wholeheartedly agree. I find these kinds of arguments to be insulting to children. It's amazing how adults can forget that they used to be children at one time.
Honestly, it's even more insulting if you are a professional in the film industry. "It's OK that your art is terrible, honey, it's just for kids anyways". It's the complete opposite of constructive criticism. It's like being compared to a water sprinkler or other mundane object that might interest a child.
On the one hand, yes absolutely, seeing someone review this without understanding why it is the way it is, and comparing it to the incomparable is silly.
On the other hand, there are a lot of "kid movies" that are perfectly enjoyable as an adult and it is worthwhile for me to know what they are.
So it's kind of a wash for me.
If you don't like reading criticism about a kid's movie then don't read it.
I hate to give such a pithy and dismissve response but what's the alternative? You want people to not engage in criticism because "it's a kids movie", or because you think this criticism is somehow meant to be for children, even though they don't have the tools to understand any of it?
Criticism isn't something you have to engage with. It's not a necessary part of a film, or even being on the internet, so why does it matter if you and a smattering of people are tired of reading it? There's clearly an audience for this. After all, it's an ancient and constant art form in itself, and there's tons of amazing criticism on children's content out there (e.g. Lindsay Ellis).
If you're just tired of seeing negative criticism about Disney live action movies, then stop reading it. It has a right to exist otherwise.
I agree. I see grown adults reviewing Pixar and Disney movies like they just watched Goodfellas. Kids are the ones who have to enjoy them. If the parents also do, it's a bonus.
I'm not surprised that casting Will Smith as the genie was far from the worst thing they did with this movie. I knew it was going to be crap.
Did you see it? Do you think it's worth watching if I only care about the environment design?
Of course it is. It's meant to preserve Disney's copyright stranglehold and net them some pocket money, which it did.
When it comes to their classics it seems like they're very much about just throwing shit to the wall and seeing what sticks. I mean it worked for Beauty and The Beast, right?
I'll be honest, I'm probably going to go see the Lion King remake because if nothing else, the visuals will be stunning.
I guess while they're at it, I wish that Hunchback of Notre Dame gets a remake because it's my favourite disney classic. It'll never happen tho.
What? That's not how copyright works, and they don't really need to do either of those things. A bad movie on a classic disney franchise is a net negative for disney.
Aladdin will be profitable and to execs/shareholders, that's a win.
After Dumbo and now Aladdin my family is starting to believe me when I tell them the “live action” Lion King movie is going to be bad. Even from the current trailer you can see the movie is so lifeless.
I think all these Disney remakes are doomed to fail, and I don't get why people speculated that Will Smith is the reason the film is going to flop. The dude could give an oscar worthy performance and it would still fail to mach the animation - because animation is just so much better than live action. It conveys magic and expression with exaggeration that is not possible with human actors, because you'll be hitting uncanny valley in no time. Same goes for the Lion King. I get it, all the CGI looks better than animation on huge IMAX screens, but come on, come up with something original. You are setting up against the competitor that just can't be beat, it's like bringing a spoon to a gunfight.
Hey, I'm not saying they'll be financial flops necessarily, but ultimately the movie is not judged by how much money it makes but how lasting it's cultural impact is. There are more to financial success than just being a good movie - advertising plays a big role, the nostalgia credits are strong, what else runs at the theaters at the same time is also a big factor. I don't think that Disney, being a huge corporation that built itself on movies neglects the whole picture. Opportunistic nostalgia farming is what a lot of corporations do right now, and I don't blame them for doing so. After all a lot of people are going to enjoy this movie regardless. Still when all dust is settled I don't think this movie is going to be more than a footnote.
Thing is, Disney has a brand, and that brand is very recognizable and has a lot of good will and nostalgia to its name. You see Duck Tales and Princesses everywhere, people are used to them, it's endless merch sales, and no other studio has the same appeal. This is a result of years of work and dedication to the stuff they are putting out. Dishing out these live action films kinda erases that Disney magic and style, living an arguably generic CGI in it's wake, and I don't know if that's a good decision in a long run. Illumination Entertainment makes movies based on the gross alone, and they can start dishing out the same CGI stuff that Disney does, and then suddenly they don't look unique anymore. There is a good reason people look up at the days when Disney used 2D animation in their movies, and when they transitioned to 3D it erased a bit of their identity. Ultimately this has potential to just make Disney "another movie company" in the eyes of people, there is a reason why their kids journals are still featuring characters from their old movies, not new ones.
Lately a lot of corporations had been demolishing their good will and culture in pursuit of more short-term gains, Bethesda being probably the best example. I think it's a part of corporate life-cycle, once the original people with long term plans and vision are either dead or retired, the board of directors is not interested in playing the long game anymore, and instead caches in all that capital before the decline, since they can just move their money to whatever new company that would be the next thing.
I think Zootopia was really good, the city they've built is very well done and detailed, the environments are great, the humor is great, the story is nothing to be ashamed about. That's a frontrunner, and I think that movie would linger for a very long time. Thing is, I fully accept Disney is never shy to cache in on a franchise, their countless sequels is one of the ways they've been milking successful movies, but also a lot of them were direct to VHS/DVD, so they wouldn't damage the brand, but people loving these franchises would have a fix. These days they are doing remakes instead, but now they are not only on the big screen, they are also promoted like there is no tomorrow. IMO the worst thing that might happen to a movie from a recognizable studio is if it hypes itself as a big thing, and flops instead. So something inside the company changed, and now when I think about it talking to you I think it might have to do with how people view cinema these days maybe?
I saw the movie yesterday and thought it was a lot better than expected. Thought Jafar could have been done differently, but I enjoyed Aladdin, The Genie, and Jasmine. Going in with low or no expectations is probably best. My lowest expectation was for Will Smith but he really entertained me throughout and I was pleasantly surprised.
Good date movie.