Author Topic: Aladdin alive  (Read 4716 times)

St_Eddie

  • *The Patron Saint of Scallywags*
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
Re: Aladdin alive
« Reply #60 on: February 17, 2019, 02:45:52 PM »
Beauty and the Beast was an almost one on one real life remake...

So, pointless then, basically?

Re: Aladdin alive
« Reply #61 on: February 17, 2019, 03:00:46 PM »
No beautiful. I loved it. Magical movie.

Replies From View

  • Rubbing linseed oil into the school cormorant.
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • Gargoyles have milk bags.
Re: Aladdin alive
« Reply #62 on: February 17, 2019, 03:34:33 PM »
Do you think the 1998 Psycho remake is beautiful and magical too?

Re: Aladdin alive
« Reply #63 on: February 17, 2019, 04:24:26 PM »
Havent seen that dont get the comparison.

Its a great way to get younger audiences enchanted with those beautiful stories imo.

I just really enjoyed it.

Mister Six

  • Half-masted, bass-boosted, sling-backed
Re: Aladdin alive
« Reply #64 on: February 17, 2019, 04:45:19 PM »
Glad you enjoyed B&B - I thought the direction was kind of leaden and sapped a lot of the joy and magic out of it, although the cast (Watson and McKellen excepted) were perfect and the script did tie up a lot of the problems of the first one.

One of the remakes that I thought really could have done with a savage rewrite was Cinderella. She's such a shit, passive character, and the message of the story is basically just "tolerate cruelty and bullying and eventually someone will rescue you", which is an atrocious thing to tell young girls (or anyone).

It sounds like they're being a bit bolder with the Mulan film - no songs, different characters - so I'm hopeful there'll be more reason for that to exist. It'd be great if they went and made it a proper wuxia action movie. If they recast Eddie Murphy I'll be gutted though.

Replies From View

  • Rubbing linseed oil into the school cormorant.
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • Gargoyles have milk bags.
Re: Aladdin alive
« Reply #65 on: February 17, 2019, 04:50:43 PM »
One of the remakes that I thought really could have done with a savage rewrite was Cinderella. She's such a shit, passive character, and the message of the story is basically just "tolerate cruelty and bullying and eventually someone will rescue you", which is an atrocious thing to tell you girls (or anyone).

I hope they remake it but keep that moral message.

St_Eddie

  • *The Patron Saint of Scallywags*
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
Re: Aladdin alive
« Reply #66 on: February 17, 2019, 07:24:24 PM »
Havent seen that dont get the comparison.

Van Sant's 1998 version of Psycho was a 1:1 remake of the Hitchcock classic and is widely acknowledged as being one of the most pointless exercises in motion picture history.

Its a great way to get younger audiences enchanted with those beautiful stories imo.

Why can't younger audiences watch the original animated Disney version?  Why should they require a modern remake which barely does anything different and instead basically just regurgitates the exact same story but this time in live action?  Why can't Disney simply give the original animated version a theatrical re-release so that parents can take their kids to watch it?

I was watching the likes of It's a Wonderful Life and Some Like It Hot, or perhaps more aptly; Disney's Bambi and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs when I was a kid.  I didn't turn my nose up at movies which were made before my time and if I had, then quite frankly, I shouldn't have been catered to because I wouldn't have deserved to have my philistinic tendancies indulged.

Replies From View

  • Rubbing linseed oil into the school cormorant.
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • Gargoyles have milk bags.
Re: Aladdin alive
« Reply #67 on: February 17, 2019, 07:34:17 PM »
I quite like the possibility that children these days find 2D cel animation horrific on the eyes.

Kelvin

  • The best bits of a pantomime horse
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • With skin the colour of a freshly peeled apple
Re: Aladdin alive
« Reply #68 on: February 17, 2019, 07:36:01 PM »
Van Sant's 1998 version of Psycho was a 1:1 remake of the Hitchcock classic and is widely acknowledged as being one of the most pointless exercises in motion picture history.

I don't think that's true, at all. It's seen as more of an interesting experiment or demonstration of how simply recreating a film nearly shot for shot doesn't actually capture the same essence of what made it good. Also, that the film techniques used in the original don't all necessarily age well, by modern film making expectations.

In other words, the film isn't good, but it's also definitely not pointless, because intentionally or not, it's actually quite an interesting insight into film-making.

Mister Six

  • Half-masted, bass-boosted, sling-backed
Re: Aladdin alive
« Reply #69 on: February 17, 2019, 08:14:15 PM »
To be fair, it did have a surprise insert of stock footage of a cow while Norman was wanking.

St_Eddie

  • *The Patron Saint of Scallywags*
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
Re: Aladdin alive
« Reply #70 on: February 17, 2019, 08:28:27 PM »
In other words, the film isn't good, but it's also definitely not pointless, because intentionally or not, it's actually quite an interesting insight into film-making.

I do actually agree with this, in as much that I that I find it to be an interesting failure, but I also think that those who think that Gus Van Sant's intention was to make a meta point of the futility of making a 1:1 remake, are giving him far too much credit.  Even if that was his intention, then what does that say about these Disney remakes?

Replies From View

  • Rubbing linseed oil into the school cormorant.
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • Gargoyles have milk bags.
Re: Aladdin alive
« Reply #71 on: February 17, 2019, 08:40:32 PM »
To be fair, it did have a surprise insert of stock footage of a cow while Norman was wanking.

What did Van Sant think he was playing at?!


Norm played a pig in Toy Story, not a cow!

Kelvin

  • The best bits of a pantomime horse
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • With skin the colour of a freshly peeled apple
Re: Aladdin alive
« Reply #72 on: February 17, 2019, 08:57:09 PM »
I do actually agree with this, in as much that I that I find it to be an interesting failure, but I also think that those who think that Gus Van Sant's intention was to make a meta point of the futility of making a 1:1 remake, are giving him far too much credit.

I don't know enough about the film to know whether Van Sant actually intended it to be an interesting curiosity. Certainly the studio can't have wanted that.

On the other hand, I can't imagine he would have made a (nearly) shot for shot remake, unless it was out of curiosity for how effective it would be. Presumably he believed it would stand up better than it did, and be a "positive" experiment, proving the quality of the original, rather than highlighting everything he did worse, like the casting.

I have to assume there was a large degree of curiosity involved, though. Doing a shot for shot remake of a beloved classic without bending to modern film-making standards is not something you would do unless you wanted to see how something like that would turn out. Putting aside how he expected it to be received, the fact it was an insight into film-making has to be deliberate, imo. Why else take such a bizarre risk?     

Quote
Even if that was his intention, then what does that say about these Disney remakes?

Besides the obvious thing - they want to tap into nostalgia and make oodles of cash - I think the other big reason they are remaking these films is because classic hand drawn animation is now no longer popular with young audiences brought up on the rapid pacing of TV cartoons and 3D animation. 2D films were constantly losing ground to 3D animations, so much so that they have basically stopped being made. More and more you hear anecdotal stories about kids not even liking hand drawn cartoons.

These live actions films are just an attempt to reach a young and old audience with stories they've already built up a name for. Utterly boring, yes, but, as always with Disney, there's very deliberate business thinking there. It's just keeping these "brands" alive in the public mind. 

Replies From View

  • Rubbing linseed oil into the school cormorant.
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • Gargoyles have milk bags.
Re: Aladdin alive
« Reply #73 on: February 17, 2019, 09:02:11 PM »
More and more you hear anecdotal stories about kids not even liking hand drawn cartoons.

Where and when do you keep hearing these?

Kelvin

  • The best bits of a pantomime horse
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • With skin the colour of a freshly peeled apple
Re: Aladdin alive
« Reply #74 on: February 17, 2019, 09:07:18 PM »
Where and when do you keep hearing these?

Anecdotal, admittedly. I know I've heard it on podcasts, when people talk about films their kids like - often enough that it stuck in my mind.

More importantly, you can just look at the fact 2D animation couldn't compete with 3D animation, and have effectively died out from the mainstream. Clearly the audience wasn't going to see those, or returning for rewatches, as often as they were with 3D animation.

kalowski

  • Sooner or later
Re: Aladdin alive
« Reply #75 on: February 17, 2019, 09:11:50 PM »
It's 2D animation my kids watch on TV: old and new Scooby Doo, classic Tom and Jerry, modern stuff like Teen titans and The Amazing World of Gumball.

Kelvin

  • The best bits of a pantomime horse
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • With skin the colour of a freshly peeled apple
Re: Aladdin alive
« Reply #76 on: February 17, 2019, 09:13:38 PM »
It's 2D animation my kids watch on TV: old and new Scooby Doo, classic Tom and Jerry, modern stuff like Teen titans and The Amazing World of Gumball.

They why didn't you take them to the cinema, you piece of shit father!

Replies From View

  • Rubbing linseed oil into the school cormorant.
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • Gargoyles have milk bags.
Re: Aladdin alive
« Reply #77 on: February 17, 2019, 09:14:43 PM »
Anecdotal, admittedly. I know I've heard it on podcasts, when people talk about films their kids like - often enough that it stuck in my mind.

More importantly, you can just look at the fact 2D animation couldn't compete with 3D animation, and have effectively died out from the mainstream. Clearly the audience wasn't going to see those, or returning for rewatches, as often as they were with 3D animation.

I've sometimes wondered if this shift was driven by something other than audience tastes.  For example once animation stopped depending on the process of literally painting cels and was being done completely in computer, it would have felt more arbitrary to imitate painted backgrounds and characters rather than to let computers move towards their own style.

I think it's clear from the brief CGI sections in The Rescuers Down Under, Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin (exploring 3D environments/objects and elaborate camera movements) that there was a particular aesthetic the studios were itching to move towards.

I'm not aware of any children finding 2D animation displeasing to look at.  They may perceive it as coming from a different era, but only when it is (I've shown the Charlie Brown Christmas Special to kids I work with loads of times, for example, and they appreciate that it wasn't made recently, due to qualities not limited to the fact that it is hand drawn).  I think they perceive CGI movies as part of a range of possible styles rather than the successor or replacement for 2D animation.

Kelvin

  • The best bits of a pantomime horse
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • With skin the colour of a freshly peeled apple
Re: Aladdin alive
« Reply #78 on: February 17, 2019, 09:18:53 PM »
Is CGI cheaper? I assume it's more expensive, but I don't know.

Re: Aladdin alive
« Reply #79 on: February 17, 2019, 09:28:01 PM »
I do actually agree with this, in as much that I that I find it to be an interesting failure, but I also think that those who think that Gus Van Sant's intention was to make a meta point of the futility of making a 1:1 remake, are giving him far too much credit.  Even if that was his intention, then what does that say about these Disney remakes?

But it's exactly what he was doing, he described it as an experiment to see if a film could literally be remade frame by frame, just to try something that hadn't really been done before.

http://collider.com/psycho-remake-explained-gus-van-sant/#hitchcock

Van Sant, like Steven Soderburgh, is the kind of director who's gone back and forth between mainstream film fare and smaller arty projects his entire career, so I don't think there's any need to doubt his intentions there.

kalowski

  • Sooner or later
Re: Aladdin alive
« Reply #80 on: February 17, 2019, 10:00:07 PM »
They why didn't you take them to the cinema, you piece of shit father!
I'd have to untie them.

St_Eddie

  • *The Patron Saint of Scallywags*
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
Re: Aladdin alive
« Reply #81 on: February 17, 2019, 10:18:29 PM »
I don't know enough about the film to know whether Van Sant actually intended it to be an interesting curiosity. Certainly the studio can't have wanted that.

On the other hand, I can't imagine he would have made a (nearly) shot for shot remake, unless it was out of curiosity for how effective it would be. Presumably he believed it would stand up better than it did, and be a "positive" experiment, proving the quality of the original, rather than highlighting everything he did worse, like the casting.

I have to assume there was a large degree of curiosity involved, though. Doing a shot for shot remake of a beloved classic without bending to modern film-making standards is not something you would do unless you wanted to see how something like that would turn out. Putting aside how he expected it to be received, the fact it was an insight into film-making has to be deliberate, imo. Why else take such a bizarre risk?     

I largely agree with you but to play Devil's advocate and answer your last question there; a love for Hitchcock's classic, arrogance and hubris is as good of an explanation as any.

Besides the obvious thing - they want to tap into nostalgia and make oodles of cash - I think the other big reason they are remaking these films is because classic hand drawn animation is now no longer popular with young audiences brought up on the rapid pacing of TV cartoons and 3D animation. 2D films were constantly losing ground to 3D animations, so much so that they have basically stopped being made. More and more you hear anecdotal stories about kids not even liking hand drawn cartoons.

These live actions films are just an attempt to reach a young and old audience with stories they've already built up a name for. Utterly boring, yes, but, as always with Disney, there's very deliberate business thinking there. It's just keeping these "brands" alive in the public mind.

Hey, man, I can't fault Disney's money making strategies but I can sure as shit loathe them.

Anecdotal, admittedly. I know I've heard it on podcasts, when people talk about films their kids like - often enough that it stuck in my mind.

More importantly, you can just look at the fact 2D animation couldn't compete with 3D animation, and have effectively died out from the mainstream. Clearly the audience wasn't going to see those, or returning for rewatches, as often as they were with 3D animation.

It's a self-perpetuating myth.  The more people who believe the myth, the more the myth becomes reality.

I'm not aware of any children finding 2D animation displeasing to look at.  They may perceive it as coming from a different era, but only when it is (I've shown the Charlie Brown Christmas Special to kids I work with loads of times, for example, and they appreciate that it wasn't made recently, due to qualities not limited to the fact that it is hand drawn).  I think they perceive CGI movies as part of a range of possible styles rather than the successor or replacement for 2D animation.

The thing is that the lack of 2D animated movies is down to the usual nonsensical studio thinking.  A couple of 2D animated movies fail at the box office, a few CGI animated movies hit it big and all of a sudden, Hollywood decides that no-one likes 2D animation anymore.  It's the same thinking that led to a long period where R rated movies were rarely being made because of a series of R rated movies which bombed but as soon as Deadpool was a box office success, Hollywood now thinks that the rating must have been the reason for that success; hence, a reassurance of R rated movies.

Hollywood is run by a bunch of clueless, second guessing morons.

But it's exactly what he was doing, he described it as an experiment to see if a film could literally be remade frame by frame, just to try something that hadn't really been done before.

http://collider.com/psycho-remake-explained-gus-van-sant/#hitchcock

Van Sant, like Steven Soderburgh, is the kind of director who's gone back and forth between mainstream film fare and smaller arty projects his entire career, so I don't think there's any need to doubt his intentions there.

That's not what I was arguing though.  Of course he had his reasons for doing it but that doesn't mean that he made the film as a knowing and meta commentary on the nature of 1:1 remakes.

Replies From View

  • Rubbing linseed oil into the school cormorant.
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • Gargoyles have milk bags.
Re: Aladdin alive
« Reply #82 on: February 17, 2019, 10:22:51 PM »
I wonder what the most grave remake is.

St_Eddie

  • *The Patron Saint of Scallywags*
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
Re: Aladdin alive
« Reply #83 on: February 17, 2019, 10:23:50 PM »
I wonder what the most grave remake is.

Ghostbusters (2016).

Replies From View

  • Rubbing linseed oil into the school cormorant.
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • Gargoyles have milk bags.
Re: Aladdin alive
« Reply #84 on: February 17, 2019, 10:46:45 PM »

St_Eddie

  • *The Patron Saint of Scallywags*
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
Re: Aladdin alive
« Reply #85 on: February 17, 2019, 11:19:21 PM »

Mister Six

  • Half-masted, bass-boosted, sling-backed
Re: Aladdin alive
« Reply #86 on: February 18, 2019, 01:20:12 AM »
The thing is that the lack of 2D animated movies is down to the usual nonsensical studio thinking.  A couple of 2D animated movies fail at the box office, a few CGI animated movies hit it big and all of a sudden, Hollywood decides that no-one likes 2D animation anymore.  It's the same thinking that led to a long period where R rated movies were rarely being made because of a series of R rated movies which bombed but as soon as Deadpool was a box office success, Hollywood now thinks that the rating must have been the reason for that success; hence, a reassurance of R rated movies.

Hollywood is run by a bunch of clueless, second guessing morons.

Yeah, using the studios' choices as an indicator of what audiences actually want isn't a good idea.

Is CGI cheaper? I assume it's more expensive, but I don't know.

I think it depends on how good you want the 2D or 3D to look. But as I understand it 3D is generally easier all round. It requires less skilled manpower, as stuff like water, hair, light etc are all handled by algorithms; if you don't like a scene you can tweak it however you like and re-render it overnight; you can move around "cameras" etc and generally enjoy complex movement much more easily; once the characters and sets have been built they're fixed so there's no risk of something being off-model; and the characters can be downgraded and turned into toy moulds or TV-friendly simpler models easily.

Obviously Flash-animated TV stuff like Teen Titans Go! is cheaper than CGI, but if you wanted something of cinema quality like, say, Mulan, then 3D might be easier all round (although once you're making something as visually complex as Coco, the costs are likely to go way up).

St_Eddie

  • *The Patron Saint of Scallywags*
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
Re: Aladdin alive
« Reply #87 on: March 12, 2019, 08:22:43 PM »

Still looks bad; the original animated version, just without the charm.  Will Smith's performance is not a worthy replacement for Robin Williams.  Also, what does he say after "just kidding"?  It sounds like "rushes", but I don't know what that could possibly mean.

Also, the official poster...


Ooohhhhh, real original of you, Disney...


kalowski

  • Sooner or later
Re: Aladdin alive
« Reply #88 on: March 12, 2019, 08:29:27 PM »
This shit should be banned.

kalowski

  • Sooner or later
Re: Aladdin alive
« Reply #89 on: March 12, 2019, 08:31:40 PM »
I know that Robin Williams isn't everyone's cup of tea, but the genie is one of his career defining performances. What the hell are they thinking?