Aladdin live-action teaser trailer

Yeah, the new trailer is a big improvement. See, first impressions are everything. I'm convinced now that the CGI's blue Genie we saw in the teaser was done as an homage and isn't his main form, just like in the animated movie, he had different forms. That said, while I think it might have been done with the best intents, I think at the same time it gave everyone the wrong idea of what he was going to be like. I can see now that it isn't his dominant form. It still doesn't look great, but it is an improvement, and maybe there's hope for it yet.

 

^ Yeah, the CG looks better, but...

Classic Aladdin: When Genie is first freed, he's so relieved to be out of the lamp that he whooshes around exuberantly, engendering audience empathy.

Guy "King Arthur: Legend of the Sword!" Rithchie's Aladdin: When Genie is first freed, he immediately makes a dumb joke for a cheap laugh, at the expense of a key character beat.

Now, maybe the actual movie will fix this. But isn't this sort of dumbing down exactly what sunk the live-action Beauty and the Beast? The movie assumes you already know the classic by heart, so it makes lots of new tweaks and beats. Trouble is, they're just about all for the worse.

 

Sunk the live action Beauty and the Beast? The movie has a 65 on Metacritic, and made over $1.2 billion worldwide. You must have a very different definition of sunk than I do.
As for the new Aladdin trailer, I thought it looked pretty good. The animation for Genie looked better, and most of the humor and stuff worked for me. I though the whole "make me a prince" bit was pretty funny.

 

^ Transformers 4 also made a billion worldwide; also, per the link provided, Lindsey Ellis said the Beast remake was terrible, and, based on her review, I believe her.

 

The thing is, by making live-action versions, they put themselves between a rock and a hard place. Well, their own doing of course. But in making them, they kind of have to add in enough originality to make the live-action versions different enough and worth seeing, but at the same time also straddle that thin line that doesn't stray too far off from what made them classics.

I think their live-action version of The Jungle Book has been their best live-action remake to date.

 

Not an uncommon opinion.

 

One person, even someone you trust, saying they didn't like it, doesn't mean it sunk. A movie that made over a billion dollars, and got an overall positive reaction from the critics, and has four and a half stars from 1,621 reviews on Amazon, can not possibly have "sunk".

 

^ I could agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong, and what good would that do anyone?

Maybe... but maybe that's just the powerful decision makers making changes because they can, and because their egos can't abide the thought of them spending several years on a glorified transcription effort.

It's a bit like singers warbling the hell out of the national anthem at sports games. Are they adding all those notes and vocal flourishes because they genuinely believe they're improving the tune (stolen from an English drinking song), or do they do so because they're having a moment in the spotlight, and to show off?

 

I'm honestly confused here, because by every objective criteria I can come up with it was a success.
What exactly is your definition of sunk here? I'm just trying to understand your position here, because it's obviously very different from mine.

 

^ I'm saying I watched Lindsey Ellis' 36-minute video explaining her opinion that it sucked Beast balls, and I believe her.

 

Oh, OK.

 

The animated movie doesn't really have a third act. Jafar gets the lamp and the movie is over 15 minutes later. They could add to that. I'm interested in seeing it.

I'd rather see The Little Mermaid, it's my favorite of the Disney animated films.

 

Oh, yeah I'm really looking forward to that one too. Aladdin, The Lion King, and The Little Mermaid were pretty much my top three Disney movies as a kid, so I'm really excited for the remakes.

 

Fair point. I still think it's the effect of them trying to figure out how else they can improve a movie/story.

As far as singing the national anthem goes specifically, I think it's a bit of both. There are some that really do a great job and hit it out of the park and at the same time don't need be pat on the back and some who think they did a great job and want to show-off, and then you have the plain terrible ones like Roseanne; plain terrible and a show-off.

Now, speaking of changes, the Dumbo live-action movie is probably the one that they've needed to change the most, and also what I feel is the most unnecessary remake.

 

I once brought a Little Mermaid coloring book to my 3rd grade class. Got the living shit beat out of me for liking girl stuff as a guy. Ever since then it's been weirding me out that guys admit to liking things like Beauty and the Beast and Little Mermaid... like... did you enjoy getting beat up as a kid, or did you just hide it or something?

 

I got similar abuse, it’s really awful that kids do that. Some of it is even encouraged by adults.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm ok with it. Gotta prepare for the cold hard world somehow, can't go prancing around talking about mermaids as a grown man, lol

 

Kids are different. Although that worked for Tom Hanks.

 

Magical ponies are where it’s really at.

 

I don't think I really talked about it.