101 (edited by Abbie 2019-07-11 08:33:27)

Re: Thread for being deeply, non-fatalistically worn out about something

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Thread for being deeply, non-fatalistically worn out about something

Thumbs up +2 Thumbs down

Re: Thread for being deeply, non-fatalistically worn out about something

Yes. All the yes.

But.

Remember that kids these days didn't grow up with cartoons, and more likely cartoons will be a niche product. I don't like that fact at all, but it's how it might come to pass. As such, getting some classics like Lion King, Aladdin, Mulan, Beauty and the Beast, will, if not be as great as their cartoon counterparts, at least have a younger audience grow up with great Disney stories, and be just as nostalgic about those in 20 years.
It's not a bad thing, really. It's just that we grew up with what we now call masterpieces, the same way they will grow up with what they might come to call masterpieces in the future.

The problem I have with these remakes is not that they suck. I still haven't watched a single one of them, and I don't think I will, but they're just remakes. Taking the same story, and in some cases, the same voices(I'm looking at you, James Earl Jones), and the same music, and just applying it to a live-action or CG film instead. I'm not opposed to the idea, I just don't understand why it's neccessary to remake a film at all, unless it's something that clearly didn't have the budget to be what it wanted to be 30 years ago, and now is done "correctly". Most of these Disney classics didn't lack the budget per se, but were animated for reasons. Now, they have the budget they "deserved" back in the day, and that leads us to live-action or CG. Which is probably what they would've done 20+ years ago, if the tech was there, and we'd probably love it as much now as we did then if they did.
Toy Story is a great example, because it was what, 3 years after the Lion King, and a CG film. It did amazing back in the day, but we're not remaking it now looking better, because it was CG as good as they could back then, and while the sequels are not needed, they do get more impressive, technically each time.


I don't know. I don't have a problem with remakes, I just tend to not watch them. But I'm happy the next generation will, because they may not watch the older movies simply "because they're old". I'm quoting my 13 year old son here, who was hesitant to watch Back to the Future because it was old(but loved them), and if that's anything to go by, it's nice to know that even though our future generations may not watch what we did, they'll still love the stories they told, through a new media.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

104 (edited by Abbie 2019-07-11 13:45:19)

Re: Thread for being deeply, non-fatalistically worn out about something

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Thread for being deeply, non-fatalistically worn out about something

106 (edited by Abbie 2019-07-12 07:18:49)

Re: Thread for being deeply, non-fatalistically worn out about something

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Thread for being deeply, non-fatalistically worn out about something

108

Re: Thread for being deeply, non-fatalistically worn out about something

Could it be done right somehow?

Thumbs up Thumbs down

109 (edited by Abbie 2019-07-16 12:49:34)

Re: Thread for being deeply, non-fatalistically worn out about something

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Thread for being deeply, non-fatalistically worn out about something

ZangrethorDigital.ca