General Movie Discussion

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

In the Jumanji sequel, Jumanji will be a video game instead of a board game.

I remember hearing about that a few months ago, at first I was very annoyed by the changes made (the whole concept of a Jumanji sequel/reboot has never really sat well with me) but in the end it's probably not going to leave a lasting impact. At least they aren't remaking it as in casting The Rock as Alan Parrish, or something like that. The decision to take us into the world of Jumanji does remind me of the Jumanji animated series, and there's a chance the upcoming film could be a fun basic jungle action film. I admit to have a soft spot for those kinds of films.

I'm sure The Rock is sincere in his desire to commemorate Robin Williams and not simply cash in on one of his most famous films, but its fair to say that to most people it just looks like Sony are on a desperate hunt for a franchise. I suppose once we see the trailers, we'll be able to gauge it properly.

Agreed. The Rock is one of the nicest people in Hollywood, so he's not seeing this as a cash cow. Sony is simply because of how desperate they are. Let's face it, this new Spider Man movie is an MCU movie since Marvel/Disney has all the creative control so Sony's a semi-puppet. Other then that, what else do they have? Not much.

MARVEL/Disney does NOT have the creative control over the new Spiderman movie....

Dead2009 wrote:

MARVEL/Disney does NOT have the creative control over the new Spiderman movie....

Yes, they DO have creative control.  Even Tom Rothman himself said that they do and Sony's basically letting them do what they want. Not that they're in any position to challenge them giving Sony's uncertain future and position. Basically, Sony's just a vehicle for Marvel/Disney and nothing else.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm really surprised that The Book of Henry is not being released under the main Universal logo, in additional to Amblin Entertainment, because this poster is practically brimming with that warm nostalgic glow of 80s Amblin movies like Goonies and Back to the Future. I could really see myself owning this and putting it on my wall!

Needless to say, this will be an interesting test of Colin's skills as a director, because a lot of people are not at all on board with him as director of Episode IX. I happen to believe he can pull it off, and that Jurassic World had enough merit to convince Lucasfilm to bring him aboard, but it will be good to see him win more people over on a smaller scale.

Spoiler:

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

Maybe it's just me, but I'm really surprised that The Book of Henry is not being released under the main Universal logo, in additional to Amblin Entertainment, because this poster is practically brimming with that warm nostalgic glow of 80s Amblin movies like Goonies and Back to the Future. I could really see myself owning this and putting it on my wall!

Needless to say, this will be an interesting test of Colin's skills as a director, because a lot of people are not at all on board with him as director of Episode IX. I happen to believe he can pull it off, and that Jurassic World had enough merit to convince Lucasfilm to bring him aboard, but it will be good to see him win more people over on a smaller scale.

Spoiler:

I think that's mainly because they're too focued on JW2/JP5 to focus on reviving their animation branch. That's a shame since Amblin was known for their animation even after Jurassic Park was released. As for Colin, considering how he was coached by Spielberg, I think a lot of people saw him as a semi-puppet via his directing skills. That may not be totally fair, but that's at least partly true. I do hope this new movie succeeds so that he can prove them wrong.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

I think that's mainly because they're too focued on JW2/JP5 to focus on reviving their animation branch. That's a shame since Amblin was known for their animation even after Jurassic Park was released. As for Colin, considering how he was coached by Spielberg, I think a lot of people saw him as a semi-puppet via his directing skills. That may not be totally fair, but that's at least partly true. I do hope this new movie succeeds so that he can prove them wrong.

I didn't actually say anything about Amblin reviving their animation department (Book of Henry is a live action auteur film after all). Unless you're referring to the similarities to the styles of Drew Strewzan and John Alvin, both of whom did provide a lot of beautiful posters for Spielberg and Disney in the 80s and 90s, in which case I can see the connection. When I look at this poster, the films that happen to have posters by Strewzan and Alvin tend to invoke that nostalgic 80s/90s whimsical feel to them.

Having said that, when it comes to Amblin and animation, you have two Don Bluth classics The Land Before Time and An American Tail, a cult classic of sorts with Balto and two mixed bags that tend to be regarded as not very good in Fievel Goes West and We're Back! A Dinosaur's Story. I'd give anything to see 2D animation make a return in some capacity, and it would be delicious irony if that revival happened to come from Universal rather than Disney, and more so if done in spite of the profitable junk food from Illumination and the newly acquired DreamWorks.

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

Having said that, when it comes to Amblin and animation, you have two Don Bluth classics The Land Before Time and An American Tail, a cult classic of sorts with Balto and two mixed bags that tend to be regarded as not very good in Fievel Goes West and We're Back! A Dinosaur's Story. I'd give anything to see 2D animation make a return in some capacity, and it would be delicious irony if that revival happened to come from Universal rather than Disney, and more so if done in spite of the profitable junk food from Illumination and the newly acquired DreamWorks.

It's funny you mention those movies, because I actually like Fieval Goes West better then the first version and despite all it's flaws, I also love We're Back! A Dinosaur's Story. I compare that movie to the Roger Corman F4 movie. A flawed movie that has a lot of heart to it.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

Having said that, when it comes to Amblin and animation, you have two Don Bluth classics The Land Before Time and An American Tail, a cult classic of sorts with Balto and two mixed bags that tend to be regarded as not very good in Fievel Goes West and We're Back! A Dinosaur's Story. I'd give anything to see 2D animation make a return in some capacity, and it would be delicious irony if that revival happened to come from Universal rather than Disney, and more so if done in spite of the profitable junk food from Illumination and the newly acquired DreamWorks.

It's funny you mention those movies, because I actually like Fieval Goes West better then the first version and despite all it's flaws, I also love We're Back! A Dinosaur's Story. I compare that movie to the Roger Corman F4 movie. A flawed movie that has a lot of heart to it.

That we're back wish radio scene always stuck out to me and stayed with me. Don't remember much about the rest but I definitely remember liking it.

The trailer for The Book of Henry has dropped, and... not to give anything away, but it's definitely worth the watch! Here's hoping Colin's got something unexpected and engaging in store!

Well, that wasn't what I expected, actually. I'm pleasantly surprised by how quick things escalated.

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

The trailer for The Book of Henry has dropped, and... not to give anything away, but it's definitely worth the watch! Here's hoping Colin's got something unexpected and engaging in store!

I didn't expect this trailer to go so dark like that so fast. TBH, given how my father was semi-neglectful and short tempered, not to mention how many d-bag parents don't get punished for ruining their kids. I'm actually hoping that the stepfather gets whacked.

SJW's are attacking Scarlett Johansson, a Hollywood liberal, via whitewashing. What makes this even more ironic is that the people of Japan like her as the choice for the character that she's playing.

I love the irony. Ha ha ha.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

I didn't expect this trailer to go so dark like that so fast. TBH, given how my father was semi-neglectful and short tempered, not to mention how many d-bag parents don't get punished for ruining their kids. I'm actually hoping that the stepfather gets whacked.

After watching the trailer a few more times, I'm starting to wonder just how this film comes together, because you have the lighter Amblin inspired side of it, and the darker, more messed up aspects in the second half. Because the trailer compresses the basic plot of the film into two minutes, it strikes many as severe tonal whiplash, and opinions are naturally split. And as a primer before Star Wars Episode IX, it's failure would naturally cast a pall over mood of the fans.

While looking around online, I found a... Decidedly more pessimistic take on film by Birth.Movies.Death , and both writer and commenters reacted with almost prejudgemental levels of dread and confusion.

One commenter badly describes the plot:

"A grown woman reliant on a preteen boy to do basic life stuff because she's... what bad at maths... and Lacks agency so she gets pulled into this plot by a genius kid son of hers to murder her next door neighbor because he's molesting his step daughter absolutely without question..."

And another writes:

"Trevorrow skeeves me the hell out, honestly. His storytelling instincts are so acutely wrong that it's like watching this weird uncanny valley version of humanity."

Yeah... if this was Roland Emmerich, Michael Bay, Ti West or late 2000s Shyamalan, I'd get it. But speaking as someone who has both good and bad things to say about Colin Trevorrow (admittedly based on one film), this attitude that he's somehow some kind of filmmaking antichrist is asinine and hyperbolic to say the least. The film could be bad and really fail to strike a good balance, don't get me wrong, but I honestly feel like the folks on this site are just writing Trevorrow off out of pettiness.

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

I didn't expect this trailer to go so dark like that so fast. TBH, given how my father was semi-neglectful and short tempered, not to mention how many d-bag parents don't get punished for ruining their kids. I'm actually hoping that the stepfather gets whacked.

After watching the trailer a few more times, I'm starting to wonder just how this film comes together, because you have the lighter Amblin inspired side of it, and the darker, more messed up aspects in the second half. Because the trailer compresses the basic plot of the film into two minutes, it strikes many as severe tonal whiplash, and opinions are naturally split. And as a primer before Star Wars Episode IX, it's failure would naturally cast a pall over mood of the fans.

While looking around online, I found a... Decidedly more pessimistic take on film by Birth.Movies.Death , and both writer and commenters reacted with almost prejudgemental levels of dread and confusion.

One commenter badly describes the plot:

"A grown woman reliant on a preteen boy to do basic life stuff because she's... what bad at maths... and Lacks agency so she gets pulled into this plot by a genius kid son of hers to murder her next door neighbor because he's molesting his step daughter absolutely without question..."

And another writes:

"Trevorrow skeeves me the hell out, honestly. His storytelling instincts are so acutely wrong that it's like watching this weird uncanny valley version of humanity."

Yeah... if this was Roland Emmerich, Michael Bay, Ti West or late 2000s Shyamalan, I'd get it. But speaking as someone who has both good and bad things to say about Colin Trevorrow (admittedly based on one film), this attitude that he's somehow some kind of filmmaking antichrist is asinine and hyperbolic to say the least. The film could be bad and really fail to strike a good balance, don't get me wrong, but I honestly feel like the folks on this site are just writing Trevorrow off out of pettiness.

I think a lot of this is because they're jealous that Jurassic World made so much money. That being said, I get why much of this is being said. Like it or not, JW was the first big movie Trevorrow made, but considering how Spielberg basically semi-coached him, it's easy to ask if how of that was Spielberg. I'm hoping this turns out well.

Sylvester Stallone has left 'The Expendables' franchise.

I thought that this movie series was over not long after the 3rd movie had been released.

The Boss Baby has overtaken the live action remake of Ghost In The Shell and might overtake the B&B live action remake.

*Grumpy sigh*

I find it really sad that the company that gave us 'Prince Of Egypt' is giving us this thrash. I really want the B&B reboot to hold on as the top spot, just to spite this crappy movie.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

The Boss Baby has overtaken the live action remake of Ghost In The Shell and might overtake the B&B live action remake.

*Grumpy sigh*

I find it really sad that the company that gave us 'Prince Of Egypt' is giving us this thrash. I really want the B&B reboot to hold on as the top spot, just to spite this crappy movie.

I'm both concerned and disappointed that Power Rangers and Skull Island didn't somehow pull an upset and overtake both of these entries. Neither of the newcomers had especially high box office openings, so it didn't seem infeasible that audiences might choose a better-received film with good word of mouth. Judging by how critics and audiences are reacting to The Boss Baby and Ghost in the Shell, they will probably struggle to garner much attention in the long run.

It kinda makes me wonder how long DreamWorks can survive as an animation studio if they keep this up. Starting out strong with The Prince of Egypt and deteriorating into junk like Home and The Boss Baby shows that even if Jeffrey Katzenberg produced more animated films in his time than Walt Disney, his track record will be remembered as one of the most disappointing in animation history, and nowhere near Walt's consistent level of quality. A standalone timeless, meaningful and epic like The Prince of Egypt (better still if in 2D animation) that isn't the start to a franchise is something I'd really love to see DreamWorks do again.

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

The Boss Baby has overtaken the live action remake of Ghost In The Shell and might overtake the B&B live action remake.

*Grumpy sigh*

I find it really sad that the company that gave us 'Prince Of Egypt' is giving us this thrash. I really want the B&B reboot to hold on as the top spot, just to spite this crappy movie.

I'm both concerned and disappointed that Power Rangers and Skull Island didn't somehow pull an upset and overtake both of these entries. Neither of the newcomers had especially high box office openings, so it didn't seem infeasible that audiences might choose a better-received film with good word of mouth. Judging by how critics and audiences are reacting to The Boss Baby and Ghost in the Shell, they will probably struggle to garner much attention in the long run.

It kinda makes me wonder how long DreamWorks can survive as an animation studio if they keep this up. Starting out strong with The Prince of Egypt and deteriorating into junk like Home and The Boss Baby shows that even if Jeffrey Katzenberg produced more animated films in his time than Walt Disney, his track record will be remembered as one of the most disappointing in animation history, and nowhere near Walt's consistent level of quality. A standalone timeless, meaningful and epic like The Prince of Egypt (better still if in 2D animation) that isn't the start to a franchise is something I'd really love to see DreamWorks do again.

I think that the problem that Power Rangers had was the marketing. Once people saw the Zords, many were turned off by the designs. Not only that, but you have a lot of people, even old school fans like myself who thought that the franchise should have ended, or at least undergone a hibernation for some years. As for Skull Island, I think that some of it was due to an unusually competitive March and, let's just admit it, the fact that Godzilla has overtaken Kong in giant monster popularity. That and having no dinosaurs in it was a turnoff.

Funny you mention Katzenberg. I remember reading that he was one of the main founders/financiers of Toy Story/Pixar. One of those anyway. My guess is that he either doesn't care about quality or that he doesn't know what's what really going on. I also remember reading online that ever since the 2000's, Universal never really had a plan for anything. Not unless you count the Dr. Seuss movies, which are cash-in's and other then Horton Hears A Who, are crappy movies. Another is the second Jurassic Park movie trilogy. I still like Jurassic World, but I can't deny that it should have been better.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

I think that the problem that Power Rangers had was the marketing. Once people saw the Zords, many were turned off by the designs. Not only that, but you have a lot of people, even old school fans like myself who thought that the franchise should have ended, or at least undergone a hibernation for some years. As for Skull Island, I think that some of it was due to an unusually competitive March and, let's just admit it, the fact that Godzilla has overtaken Kong in giant monster popularity. That and having no dinosaurs in it was a turnoff.

Funny you mention Katzenberg. I remember reading that he was one of the main founders/financiers of Toy Story/Pixar. One of those anyway. My guess is that he either doesn't care about quality or that he doesn't know what's what really going on. I also remember reading online that ever since the 2000's, Universal never really had a plan for anything. Not unless you count the Dr. Seuss movies, which are cash-in's and other then Horton Hears A Who, are crappy movies. Another is the second Jurassic Park movie trilogy. I still like Jurassic World, but I can't deny that it should have been better.

I guess the aesthetic of Power Rangers was always going to be a turn off for many old school fans, a couple of people I follow on Twitter said they felt worse watching it than after Batman v Superman and Man of Steel. So definitely not all wine and roses for the Lionsgate reboot. Do you definitely think if Kong: Skull Island owned up to the fact that King Kong and dinosaurs go hand in hand, instead of populating it with monsters, it would have had more box office interest? In addition to a proper summer holiday placement?

Interesting that you brought up Universal not having a plan for their franchise films, they had the Bourne and Fast & Furious franchise for much of the 2000s, and now the latter of those is a huge billion dollar hit series akin to Transformers (but better at least). Then they tried to resurrect their Universal Monsters brand with the Brendan Fraser Mummy movies and Van Helsing, then Dracula Untold. We'll see how The Mummy with Tom Cruise fares, but instead of period adventure films with a dash of horror they're just straight action movies in lieu with superheroes. An opportunity wasted.

Speaking of, it could be argued that Universal didn't even know what they had when it came to Jurassic World, to quote Ian Malcolm, until it got more positive reviews than expected, many of which were forgiving of the fact that it did not measure up to the first film, and put them at the top of the box office until the end of the year. Since then, their strategy towards the franchise has been showing signs of improvement, with moving the Jurassic toyline from Hasbro to Mattel, merchandise hinting at a 25th anniversary of the first film, and a tried and tested director and his crew to work on a sequel that looks to be better in every way than JW. It might be too soon to say that they're putting more care and time into it, but there is a clear chance of that.

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

I think that the problem that Power Rangers had was the marketing. Once people saw the Zords, many were turned off by the designs. Not only that, but you have a lot of people, even old school fans like myself who thought that the franchise should have ended, or at least undergone a hibernation for some years. As for Skull Island, I think that some of it was due to an unusually competitive March and, let's just admit it, the fact that Godzilla has overtaken Kong in giant monster popularity. That and having no dinosaurs in it was a turnoff.

Funny you mention Katzenberg. I remember reading that he was one of the main founders/financiers of Toy Story/Pixar. One of those anyway. My guess is that he either doesn't care about quality or that he doesn't know what's what really going on. I also remember reading online that ever since the 2000's, Universal never really had a plan for anything. Not unless you count the Dr. Seuss movies, which are cash-in's and other then Horton Hears A Who, are crappy movies. Another is the second Jurassic Park movie trilogy. I still like Jurassic World, but I can't deny that it should have been better.

I guess the aesthetic of Power Rangers was always going to be a turn off for many old school fans, a couple of people I follow on Twitter said they felt worse watching it than after Batman v Superman and Man of Steel. So definitely not all wine and roses for the Lionsgate reboot. Do you definitely think if Kong: Skull Island owned up to the fact that King Kong and dinosaurs go hand in hand, instead of populating it with monsters, it would have had more box office interest? In addition to a proper summer holiday placement?

Interesting that you brought up Universal not having a plan for their franchise films, they had the Bourne and Fast & Furious franchise for much of the 2000s, and now the latter of those is a huge billion dollar hit series akin to Transformers (but better at least). Then they tried to resurrect their Universal Monsters brand with the Brendan Fraser Mummy movies and Van Helsing, then Dracula Untold. We'll see how The Mummy with Tom Cruise fares, but instead of period adventure films with a dash of horror they're just straight action movies in lieu with superheroes. An opportunity wasted.

Speaking of, it could be argued that Universal didn't even know what they had when it came to Jurassic World, to quote Ian Malcolm, until it got more positive reviews than expected, many of which were forgiving of the fact that it did not measure up to the first film, and put them at the top of the box office until the end of the year. Since then, their strategy towards the franchise has been showing signs of improvement, with moving the Jurassic toyline from Hasbro to Mattel, merchandise hinting at a 25th anniversary of the first film, and a tried and tested director and his crew to work on a sequel that looks to be better in every way than JW. It might be too soon to say that they're putting more care and time into it, but there is a clear chance of that.

When it comes to Kong: Skull Island, yes. The last Kong movies that didn't have dinosaurs were the Dino DeLaurintis movies. I like the 1976 version better then most, but I can't deny that not having dinosaurs hurt the movie. Was it fair for people to think of the DDL Kong movies when people heard that dinosaurs weren't going to be in this new movie? No, but considering how no dinosaurs were a part of the reason why those movies didn't go well, the director should have thought about that to a degree. I'm not against the fact that they put in Skull Crawlers and giant animals in the new Kong movie but without dinosaurs...it was bound to cause some problems.

I never felt that Universal's monsterverse project was ever going work. At least not without some sort of plan. As you said, it would have felt a bit too much like a superhero style movie. The only other conceviable plan was to give them all solomo vies and with the main 'Avengers' type movie being a giant battle royale. Basically, a horror movie version of a 'Last Man Standing Match.' But even then, I don't see that working. With JW, I see both sides. I can see why they had low expectations due to the merry go round of scripts, actors/actresses, directors, writers, producers, etc. That being said, between JP3 being a piece of apathetic crap that was made for the sake of a JP trilogy and nothing else (Unless you count Horner's anti-T. rex agenda) as well as Universal not having a plan, they only thave themselves to blame for not allowing/having JW to be a better movie then it did. Hopefully, JP5/JW2 turns out to be a better movie.

Well, it wouldn't have been too long for Universal to release a new trailer for The Mummy, and while opinions may differ on the necessity and perceived quality of this Universal Monsters reboot, I did like this trailer more than I expected to. It showcased more scenes of horror, gothic city streets at night, flashbacks to Ancient Egypt, and a nice bit of tomb raiding is welcome. Basically, it teased a bit more of what I would want to see in this proposed reboot. But I'm still skeptical of it and am only mildly pleased with it after the disaster that was the first teaser trailer.

The inspiring Jerry Goldsmith/Alan Silvestri music, pulp adventure action, period piece settings, enjoyably dopey humour and charming chemistry between Brendan and Rachel is going to be sorely missed.

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

Well, it wouldn't have been too long for Universal to release a new trailer for The Mummy, and while opinions may differ on the necessity and perceived quality of this Universal Monsters reboot, I did like this trailer more than I expected to. It showcased more scenes of horror, gothic city streets at night, flashbacks to Ancient Egypt, and a nice bit of tomb raiding is welcome. Basically, it teased a bit more of what I would want to see in this proposed reboot. But I'm still skeptical of it and am only mildly pleased with it after the disaster that was the first teaser trailer.

The inspiring Jerry Goldsmith/Alan Silvestri music, pulp adventure action, period piece settings, enjoyably dopey humour and charming chemistry between Brendan and Rachel is going to be sorely missed.

I like the trailer and having a female pharaoh is a good idea. The this one actually looks powerful, capable of casting spells and magic of the myths. That being said, I still wonder if this can work given how Universal's last monster reboot, Dracula Untold, failed horribly.

it's my understanding that they're actually dropping Dracula Untold from their horror-reboot cinematic universe because of how badly it did. they'll probably do a full-on remake of the original movie rather than a prequel reimagining later on after Creature from the Black Lagoon comes out, assuming it and The Mummy are successful enough. a bit of a shame, really, since they set up an interesting backdrop for how Dracula Untold properly figures into the larger story--the ancient vampire that Drac got his powers from is actually Caligula and the implication was that he'd be the overarching villain of the franchise, their Thanos

Oshronosaurus wrote:

it's my understanding that they're actually dropping Dracula Untold from their horror-reboot cinematic universe because of how badly it did. they'll probably do a full-on remake of the original movie rather than a prequel reimagining later on after Creature from the Black Lagoon comes out, assuming it and The Mummy are successful enough. a bit of a shame, really, since they set up an interesting backdrop for how Dracula Untold properly figures into the larger story--the ancient vampire that Drac got his powers from is actually Caligula and the implication was that he'd be the overarching villain of the franchise, their Thanos

Yes, that's right. They did drop Dracula Untold. I think part of the reason why it did so badly was because of how people got sick of vampires via the Twilight series. That and having a psychopathic Roman emperor as the main villain would have been a very hard sell.

I have a question for you. Name 5 movies that you are looking forward to seeing in the future that are not any of these

A) Sequel
B) Prequel
C) Remake
D) Reboot
E) Soft reboot
F) Re-imaging
G) Adaptation of video game / TV series / comic book / book / whatever other media
H) Involving pre-existing brand
I) Part of cinematic universe
J) Parody / spoof / homage of another thing

I'll give you seven:

1) Dunkirk (I'm eager to see any upcoming Christopher Nolan film)
2) Book of Henry (somewhat tentatively, I know, but it still counts)
3) Pixar's Coco
4) Free Fire (a 70s-set action thriller from A24)
5) The Greatest Showman (starring Hugh Jackman as P. T. Barnum, a biographical musical drama)

6) Valerian & the City of a Thousand Planets (Luc Besson returning to science fiction, fingers crossed!)
7) The Lost City of Z (based on the book of the same name by David Grann, it looks to be a period drama set in the jungles of the Amazon)

Yes, the last two are book adaptations, but they aren't part of an established franchise with name recognition and resonance in popular culture, that's why I opted for them, because being adaptations of books that are't in the pop culture should not result in their exclusion.

Yeah I was debating whether to include the books in the list because it's bit of a double edged sword, but then I thought if I left it out some people might point it out.

The reason I asked this in the first place was not out of cynicism (although in the world of constant re-re-re it is tiring when everything is dominated by the brand recognition) but because I am genuinely interested in spotting something actually new. And because in my current upcoming-to-see list there are no entirely original films except "The Commuter" which I'm only interested in because it looks like another Liam Neeson action shlock which I enjoy for some reason (Sam Neill and Jonathan Banks are also in it). There are couple of films based on relatively unknown novels that I want to see too, such as He Wanted the Moon, but again I kind of expelled them with my criteria already

Mistral wrote:

I have a question for you. Name 5 movies that you are looking forward to seeing in the future that are not any of these

A) Sequel
B) Prequel
C) Remake
D) Reboot
E) Soft reboot
F) Re-imaging
G) Adaptation of video game / TV series / comic book / book / whatever other media
H) Involving pre-existing brand
I) Part of cinematic universe
J) Parody / spoof / homage of another thing

Would getting a DVD of Kirk Cameron's Saving Christmas count? From what I've seen and heard, it's basically the greatest "It's so bad, it's good" Christmas movie ever made and I want to buy it via Amazon.

Movies I watched recently:

Beauty and the Beast - both the 1991 and 2017 versions. I loved the new live action version, and I think it's actually superior to the animated version. It fleshes out the characters better, and fixes the questionable plot lines created in the 1991 version.

The Little Mermaid - When Disney remakes this one, I REAAALLLY hope they do what Beauty and the Beast did, fixing some of the more questionable parts. Case in point: a grown man falling in love with and then marrying a 16 year old girl in 3 days was just super-ick

where does anything suggest Eric is fully grown?

I think that according to the novelization of the animated film, Eric is only 18 years old. I kinda agree that he looks at least twenty. Though, that's the thing with Disney animation, their princesses and princes look more statuesque and stunning than any teenager today would.