I’ve never been a big Disney fan but I was curious to see this for the animation. I have to say… the fur and animation on the kitten, the fox and his cat sidekick are absolutely fantastic!
About 11 sec into this you can see the kitten. The movements are incredible. Don’t get me wrong, they have done a great job on all of it but as someone looking to make this quality, the fur was what really caught my eye.
One bad thing about these remakes is that they modernize the conversations to make things more relevant to today’s younger audience. Maybe because I really hate this term that it bothers me so much and some people really put too much weight into what these people have to say… “Influencers”. Did I spell that correctly? Spell check does not check made up words LMAO.
Anyway… again… not really a Disney fan or a fan of this story however this is worth a watch for the animation and character design alone.
I’ve seen it. Pretty bad. Photorealistic animals trying to emote. Doesn’t work. Like the remake of the Lion King. For a Disney production, there’s also some pretty bad comping. And towards the end, some bad continuity with the water. If Disney want to remake things to make them better, they should really focus on making them better!
they will ruin one after another all the 2D masterpieces with this 3D crap.
theres no-one of the original disney team in their studios, now theyre all a bunch of useless 3D people who make these movies, thats why they innovate zero and only carry some “impressive graphics” nobody is ever going to care about the slightest.
I knew that this movie was going to be bad, more or less, much like many other Disney productions these days sadly, and I only watched it because I was persuaded into giving it a chance.
It was indeed bad, in almost every way possible to top that. I’m not gonna mention all bad things, but one of them is the fact that an important message from the original film, which was not to drink alcohol or smoke as a child, had been removed. The beer in the orginal film is now replaced with some bubbly fantasy drink.
Why has it suddenly become so overly sensitive about showing tobacco or alcohol in films for children? What kind of message are they trying to send in this movie now? “Hey kids, remember, don’t drink some made-up fizzy stuff!”. Yeah… that will teach them in real life.
End of my opinion
I will watch the Super Mario Bros. Movie on streaming soon. That, however, I look very much forward to. The 3D graphics / animation looks great too.
Actually, they replaced it with Root Beer, though I can see why you think it’s fantasy given that it doesn’t really feel like what it’s supposed to represent.
It is really just hypocrisy on Hollywood’s part, because we now have actual X-rated content in movies the MPAA now paints as fun for the whole family (read up on ratings creep to discover why this is now the case). Western secular society in general has become a dumpster fire that can no longer define what morals are and why they are needed (as such, I made a promise to myself years ago to never again walk through the doors of a cinema).
2 Likes
Renzatic
(Professor Emeritus Billy H. Wafflesmith XIV Esq.)
8
I’d argue that it’s working in the opposite direction. Think of PG-13 movies in the 80’s. They were pretty much what a hard R movie would be these days.
I don’t really recognize myself in what you describe (but I also don’t watch that much movies, and maybe the problem is more limited to USA). The big moral issue for me is that the film industry is destroying classics by putting their own opinions and visions into film adaptations and remakes.
Make up your own movies, with your own stories, then you can put in whatever you want. That’s fine. But don’t steal and ruin other people’s older work.
Then you probably do not want to see what Disney is doing with Walt’s beloved classic Snow White and the 7 Dwarves (a hint, the changes are so drastic the name itself is not even accurate).
Movies like The Lion King becoming a literal National Geographic nature documentary was only a small taste of what the company wanted to do. The best way to preserve your old Disney memories is to have a physical copy of the older animated movies (while you can still get them of course, Australians for instance will soon be unable to obtain them at all as the company tries to prop up their Disney+ service).
Yes, I know about that. And it actually surprises me.
Personally, I believe in the human soul, our individualism - it is we who define ourselves through our own actions. I am completely uninterested in how a person happens to look or what color they are, it’s the soul that counts.
Disney today, on the other hand… seem to be very keen on making people look a certain way in their films, whether it is true to the source material or not. I find this human-looking obsession from Disney’s part a bit scary and disturbing. But that’s my opinion.
Haha, I actually liked that movie. But I understand exactly what you mean. I think, while the movie was cool on its own, it did not feel like a Disney movie, I see why a lot of true Lion King fans don’t like it.
From what I have seen, any announcement that a classic is going to be ‘modernized’ should be treated as an instant red flag. Hollywood in this day and age is all about activism and the fomenting of a worldwide cultural revolution, whether the movies are actually entertaining is secondary. You can already see this if you were to go to the original versions of the movies on Disney+, there will be a message intended to guilt-trip you into (hopefully) preventing you from enjoying it and backing out in favor of their more ‘correct’ offerings.
Just because something is modern does not mean it is good, in fact I would say that modern arts, culture, and entertainment has actually served as a net negative on society. Sometimes I even wonder if I should be doing art in the first place (because a lot of places relating to these, that includes Blenderartists, would be something I would actually recommend parents block on their child’s computer until they are 18).
I would strongly suggest that parents refrain from allowing their children to read such messages on Disney+ as they could potentially instill misguided beliefs about the importance of physical appearance. Naturally, children do not care or think about skin color. Not until someone like Disney+ teaches them to think along these lines.
As someone confident in my morality and belief in individualism, I do not care how people look or what color their skin is, but rather for me it is important to be true to the source material. I do not care how a character looks, as long as it’s true to the original work.
In my opinion, there should be an age limit to even use the Internet. Historically, there have been measures in place to prevent children from purchasing adult magazines or watching explicit films at cinemas. However, the internet, which can easily provide access to a vast array of brutal and harmful content with just one Google search, is currently available to everyone of all ages, and nobody really seem to care that much. It’s strange.
Interesting how this thread has turned. LOL. Since we are Disney bashing… Beauty and the Beast. Is it me? Am I the only one that thinks this glorifies bestiality? By definition it does: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bestiality
As for their forced diversity, everyone conforms to current social norms. Look at HBO Max, or now just Max… they removed Elmer Fudd’s shotguns and Yosemite Sam’s six shooters (or at least talked about it at one point, I never watched to see. I cannot support that). Because they are the cause of gun violence… not the realistic games that desensitize people from the graphic displays of blood, gore and death.
Quite frankly, society is not responsible for raising your children. You, the parent, are to teach your children what to watch and listen to not the rest of us. Cartoons were originally made for adults… shown before feature pictures in theaters.
At one point humans became too sophisticated for cartoons and it went to kids. And here we are 40 years later and cartoons are becoming the norm. Get a new job, watch cartoons. And today’s cartoons {animation) is mostly garbage. Poorly drawn, stories that are more shock value than story… really sad. Merry Melodies, IMO the best. Topical, funny and well drawn. Sad that many are banned for today’s social acceptance. It’s still art and should not be banned because you do not agree with the message from another era. So sad.
We wimpify cartoons yet we glorify criminals. Humans are great!
Sorry… too much caffeine.
Renzatic
(Professor Emeritus Billy H. Wafflesmith XIV Esq.)
16
The Beast isn’t actually a beast though, and I don’t think he and Beauty actually get their swerve on until after he’s decursed.
If you want to make an animated film but don’t like guns, why on earth would you choose to make an animated film about a character who uses exactly that - guns?! If you don’t like guns, create your own character who doesn’t use guns or use another existing character who doesn’t use guns. Just don’t ruin existing characters!
It’s kind of like… like… I think love and romance are dorky! Yeah! but I still, for some inexplicable reason, intend to make a movie about Romeo and Juliet. So I remove the romance from the film adaptation and instead equip them with cool modern weaponry such as a gun for Romeo and a badass rocket launcher for Juliet, and they will go out together and blow some bad guys up! Which I believe is far more captivating than the original lame romantic narrative.
The fundamental problem is, if I like hardcore action, I should not have picked Romeo and Juliet as a basis in the fist place!
Having seen the cartoons, I honestly feel like the controversy was overblown quite a bit. By the way people were acting when it came out, you’d think they’d just out and out make them not wield weapons of any kind. But you’d be surprised at how violent some of the replacement weapons are even if they aren’t the classic weapons. Also, people seem to forget that Elmer and Sam weren’t limited to just their guns, even if it’s their trademark weapon of choice.
And yes the shotgun is still used, albeit rarely. I don’t remember if Sam still has his guns though, I’d have to rewatch the shorts he appeared in, but I don’t think he was as lucky as Elmer.
I get it… A cursed human turned to beast. Same with the princes and the frog. Need to kiss the frog to break the spell.
My point is, these women are falling in love with these cursed humans in their beast state. And I guess you can say it sends the message, it does not matter who you love or what they look like…
Maybe I tend to see the dark side of things. Even though we never see or hear of them having sex, there is that element of “love” that still leans toward the beastie side.
Oh how this has turned from the original post LMAO
I feel the same way about the “commercially unsuccessful …” attempt to do a Peanuts™ movie. “It’s simply not the same.”
“CG,” if I might say it, "removes the obstacles." You no longer need to have – “ink,” and “paint,” and physical stacks to allow you to do “compositing.” But it turns out that those “obstacles” were essential to the art.
As is always the case. For example, "‘a 3D redering of’ Michelangelo’s David" is: “no big deal.” Without the marble chips and the many hours of polishing.
