Another Doug said:

---

I haven't seen any of them, but doesn't really matter if they are better. they will keep making them as long as prove to be low risk/medium profit movies.

---

I honestly don't think that they even have to profit from the movie alone.

I think these live action remakes are more about maintaining their copyright on these properties, since the copyright is going to be much more valuable over the long term than one iteration protecting that copyright failing every 20 years or so. And maybe that's why every one I've seen feel a little soulless.

Disney doesn't need to maintain copyrights if they can just keep lobbying congress to change copyright as they need it.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

ea1060 said:

---

Agree with everyone else. Decent movie, not great. Halle Bailey has an awesome voice. She did a good job as Ariel, but something was missing from her performance. The special effects were subpar. Had some funny moments.

---

Thus far, is there a live action remake that you prefer over the original Disney cartoon?

It does feel like all of the ones I've seen so far just lack something the cartoons had. They just don't feel as fun/endearing.

---

I don't think stories created as an animation product will ever translate as well to a live action product if trying to maintain the same basic story. Likewise, if a story/script was prepared to be a live action and released as such, it wouldn't do as well as a animated movie. I can't imagine taking Fast and Furious movie and just doing a lot of shot by shot animated version of it doing as well.

A live action Spiderverse movie doesn't appeal to me. There is a magic in a well made animation movie that live action just doesn't have.

Cinderella was the only one as good. Jungle book might be a second. That's been it IMO

Job314 said:

---

Cinderella was the only one as good. Jungle book might be a second. That's been it IMO

---

yes. BatB was "OK" as a film but lacked all the charm of the animated film and still never needed to be made.

Where have you been?

Ghost of Bisbee said:

---

Where have you been?

---

TX, Virginia, TX, Seattle and shortly Glacier National Park.

C@LAg said:

---

Ghost of Bisbee said:

---

Where have you been?

---

TX, Virginia, TX, Seattle and shortly Glacier National Park.

---

I thought you were at banned camp or something

Love GNP. Kayaking Lake McDonald is amazing. Great trails at Two Medicine.
Going-to-the-sun was closed when I last went though

Also fun fact… one of the Beethoven movies features scenes near the shop/restaurant at Lake McDonald in GNP

Ghost of Bisbee said:

---

Love GNP. Kayaking Lake McDonald is amazing. Great trails at Two Medicine.
Going-to-the-sun was closed when I last went though

---

My first time, looking forward to it.

just waiting on neices/nephew to get out of school for the year (June 16th). and to make it on subject... bringing digital copies of several Disney movies (incl animated TLM) since we are driving there from Seattle.

It's on track to lose Disney about $100 mil. Another avoidable L.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Another Doug said:

---

I haven't seen any of them, but doesn't really matter if they are better. they will keep making them as long as prove to be low risk/medium profit movies.

---

I honestly don't think that they even have to profit from the movie alone.

I think these live action remakes are more about maintaining their copyright on these properties, since the copyright is going to be much more valuable over the long term than one iteration protecting that copyright failing every 20 years or so. And maybe that's why every one I've seen feel a little soulless.

---

I think you may be right. While probably not the #1 reason, it's got to be pretty high up on the "Pro" column.

Heard the new "Under the Sea" version yesterday. Terrible. I couldn't even finish it.

I think that's part of the point and shtick.

Teacher_Ag said:

---

It's on track to lose Disney about $100 mil. Another avoidable L.

---

Looked this up out of curiosity. The movie needs to make $560 million to break even. That seems insanely high to me.

https://www.dexerto.com/tv-movies/the-little-mermaid-box-office-how-much-has-2023-remake-made-2159227/

Carlo4 said:

---

Teacher_Ag said:

---

It's on track to lose Disney about $100 mil. Another avoidable L.

---

Looked this up out of curiosity. The movie needs to make $560 million to break even. That seems insanely high to me.

https://www.dexerto.com/tv-movies/the-little-mermaid-box-office-how-much-has-2023-remake-made-2159227/

---

They might have made more money taking 500,000,000 dollars and live streaming somebody throwing it into a fire for days on end.

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

Teacher_Ag said:

---

It's on track to lose Disney about $100 mil. Another avoidable L.

---

They don't care. It's like a religion now with these woke ass mega-corps. It's seen as a noble and virtuous sacrifice.

---

Out of the loop, what is the woke thingy about this movie?

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Another Doug said:

---

I haven't seen any of them, but doesn't really matter if they are better. they will keep making them as long as prove to be low risk/medium profit movies.

---

I honestly don't think that they even have to profit from the movie alone.

I think these live action remakes are more about maintaining their copyright on these properties, since the copyright is going to be much more valuable over the long term than one iteration protecting that copyright failing every 20 years or so. And maybe that's why every one I've seen feel a little soulless.

---

Does re-releasing in the theaters with some new scene or animation "re-start" the clock on copyrights?

That's a horrible question, but with Star Wars, it seemed like they would periodically release the movie every few years, sometimes with a re-done scene. Is that enough?

OJ99 reviews...The Little Mermaid!! Team Jock went to the movies Saturday evening and saw the new version. TL/DR? Meh, it is fine.

-Halle Bailey was EXCELLENT as Ariel. Great voice, great acting. If you were mad about her casting, eh, that's on you.

-Ryan Gosling Jr (not sure if that's his real name) did good as Eric. I was bored during his new solo song, but he and Ariel had great chemistry.

-Melissa McCarthy was great as Ursula. Dark horse "best supporting actress"? Maybe so.

-Poor Javier Bardem. King Triton was a shadow of his animated self. Which will be a common theme going forward.

-The one "live" animal that was better was Scuttle. They changed the bird to a her, and the voice actress, who is named for a hairspray?, was great. The kids have been singing the new Scuttlebutt song nonstop.

-Poor poor poor Sebastian and Flounder. Daveed Diggs was a good choice for the voice for the crab, but "live" version of both were so flat compared to their 2D originals.

-The UN casting...I just chuckled. I did find it interesting that they were specific enough to state that the black queen-led kingdom was a sugar cane island in the (assumed) 18th Century.... Is Disney about to tackle the highly complicated topic of black-owned slavery? Spoiler: they did not.

-The big-production songs in the animated version, Under the Sea and Kiss the Girl namely, were significantly more tame in the "live". Not nearly as fun.

-The new "Market Frolic" song was fun and colorful...but a direct ripoff of Aladdin.

-Overall, it was pretty, and had some high notes (welcome Ms Bailey), but it just wasn't a "fun" as the first. And expands on the highly problematic "ignore all the wise council to follow your teenaged heart and everything turns out great" theme that was certainly not the case in the H-C Andersen tale.

dreyOO said:

---

G Martin 87 said:

---

Heard the new "Under the Sea" version yesterday. Terrible. I couldn't even finish it.

---

Meanwhile, "Peaches" actually made it to the Billboard 100. My kids are still singing it. LOL

---

Wouldn't it be funny if that ended up being Jack Black's biggest musical hit?