Becuase the amount of Live Action remake threads are getting cluttery, I made this thread so people could discuss all of them in one neat place. For ease of catching up, I'll post all the Live action Disney movies we have and the movies that will be coming soon.
In Production:
- Beauty and the Beast
thread
- Winnie the Pooh thread
- Dumbo thread
- Mulan thread
- Pinocchio thread
- Night on Bald Mountain from "Fantasia"
- Maleficent sequel
- Prince Charming thread
- Aladdin prequel: Genies
- Sword in the Stone thread
Released:
edited 15th Jul '17 2:12:16 PM by VeryMelon
Professional Moldy Fig/Curmudgeon
So, when are we going to get a live action Steamboat Willie? They're doing practically everything else, why not do that?
edited 14th Sep '15 5:45:05 PM by Aldo930
"They say I'm old fashioned, and live in the past, but sometimes I think progress progresses too fast."
As long as they don't try to remake The Three Caballeros...
Cruella Deville Gets Her Own Movie, Written by 50 Shades of Grey Screenwriter
There is no part of that sentence that's is not wrong.
Just so so wrong.
What is even the market for this? What's the point? The lady is a literal puppy killer. You can not make her sympathetic.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
After the Maleficent movie, I think anything's possible.
Like Maleficent, I think the concept has potential as a Villain Protagonist movie about how she came to be or her doing evil stuff outside of the specific plot that we're familiar with from, especially if they base it off of the Glenn Close version.
Also like Maleficent, however, they're probably not going to do that.
Cruella's one of the most entertainingly nasty members of the Disney villains club, so there's that. But that'd be diminished if they make her sympathetic, and Disney's also shown a repeated inability to use her character in any context outside of the original plot in the first place (including/especially in sequels), so that might be a problem.
edited 9th Oct '15 12:43:07 PM by KnownUnknown
"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
We've already got an origin story for Cruella.
It's called The Devil Wears Prada.
Isn't Cruella the villain so nasty that when Twisted gave sympathetic backstories to the Disney villains, Cruella was the only one still just as evil as always?
Really Disney? Really?
Don't Try It
Haha Disney, good one! Wait, it's not April Fool's?
It's Over Anakin, I have the high ground!
Just a thought. With Pan bombing in theaters now, do you think Disney will take notice and scale back all those live-action retellings?
belongs to the hurricane
i'm not sure that it matters that much? maleficent and cinderella both made them money. other companies doing it wrong might just reinforce their desire to do things properly.
Didn't Cruella technically get her own movie? Let's face it the 1996 movie was basically advertised as Cruella De Vil: the movie.
Pan bombed because it's a fucking awful movie regardless of its being a retelling or not.
Anyway, I don't doubt a few of these remakes will fall along the way. Peter's Dragon, The Genie and Cruella De Vile look like they might fall into Limbo before the others.
I updated the front post. I never realized that Pan wasn't there.
edited 16th Oct '15 9:50:59 AM by VeryMelon
2015's Pan is made by Warner, not Disney. So it doesn't actually belong this thread.
@Very Melon: Pan is Warner Bros, not Disney!!!!!!
You know, when I was growing up, I used to think that all Fairytales were Disney. Granted, I now know that this is far from the truth, but as a naive child that didn't know any better, how was I supposed to know otherwise? So it doesn't surprise that when a new adaption of a given fairy tale is released, everyone's going to naturally assume it's Disney. As such, I can understand where Very Melon's coming from here.
Still need to change it though.
edited 16th Oct '15 12:28:13 PM by kkhohoho
Oh, okay sorry guys.
I still feel like even if Pan didn't do that good they think they can do it better. Alice in Wonderland made a billion dollars and they know that. They know they can make it work with the right people.
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
Yeah, that Mulan story looks like they're specifically riffing on the Ghost in the Shell thing, to try and point out how stupid the studio's decision would look if the whitewashing was applied in another context.
You know, even Once Upon a Time, the kings of the sympathetic villain backstory, went "screw it" and turned Cruella into a literal homicidal sociopath.
Between OUAT and Descendants, what's with the insistence to keep Cruella amongst the big name villains? She's a woman who has dogs skinned to make herself a fur coat, why do they keep pushing her in the middle of sorcerers, dark fairies, queens and witches?
edited 18th Oct '15 6:24:52 PM by NapoleonDeCheese
Because she's fun? And at least for Once, they needed a cabal of women villains for an arc and one was already busy schtupping her sister's boyfriend in disguise (long story). Cruella was the first one up after all the other Disney baddies were used or otherwise engaged or developing as characters. I figure it was either Cruella or they'd be stuck with Madame Medusa or Madme Mim, which, considering the current arc, wouldn't be all that much if a stretch, actually XD
Technically it was already live-action, but...