The Overall Disney Thread

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

The Wreck It Ralph sequel will be named 'Ralph Brakes The Internet'.

I'm a little surprised this movie took so long to make considering how well the first movie was received.

I think when it comes to Disney Animated sequels, they tend to be more hesitant when it comes to the ones that are cinematically released. The Rescuers Down Under bombed and 2011's Winnie the Pooh also under-performed (you could say that was a sequel, of sorts, to the original Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh). Plus animated Disney sequels do tend to have a negative stigma thanks to the DTV market.

With that said, I'm sure the Wreck It Ralph sequel will be well done and well received (provided something really wrong hasn't happened behind the scenes), I just have a hunch that they want to put serious enough effort and space it out from the original and not oversaturate the market. Even Toy Story 2 had a sizeable gap of 4 years from the first film.

Personally, I hope that a main character from a video game, or a well known boss from one who, like Ralph, is actually a nice person, winds up helping out Ralph. In any case, I find it remarkable that the first movie is considered the best video game movie to have been made. Hopefully, the can make a movie based on that same style, but with better known characters.

that's too common a fallacy concerning Wreck-It Ralph: it's NOT a video game movie, it's a movie that happens to be set IN a video game. it's more like Tron than, say, the Hitman or Resident Evil movies. tbph, i think that's part of the strength of it: it's not really adapting a video game and treating it as if it were in the real world (again, contrast Super Mario Bros. or Street Fighter, which tried being "real"), it's set IN the video game itself and that lets it get delightfully meta since it still runs on video game physics, which in turn helps its believability (and being animated certainly helps, too)

Beyonce may play Nala in the live action reboot of 'The Lion King'.

I like her work with Destiny's Child as well as the song Single Ladies, but she's not a good fit for Nala. As a supporting character, maybe. But she won't settle for that.

Yeah.... this is very uninspired casting for Nala. I would have simply cast Lupita Nyongo instead! Hers was a perfect mix of youthfulness and strength, and lent itself well to a leader and maternal figure as Raksha the wolf.

The only reason I could see this is because they want to have Nala sing, which includes Can You Feel The Love Tonight. But even then, they've cast someone who's better known as a singer rather than an actress in a crucial role that actually has a lot of emotion and drama invested in her. So yeah, I'm not impressed.

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

CT-1138 wrote:

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.

I am curious as to what parts of the 1991 animated film you found questionable, be it characters or plot lines. I've re-watched and analysed the original over the years and found it to be a better film than many people say it is, and one of those films that needed "fixing" as much as The Lion King or Jurassic Park needed fixing. I'm especially opposed to the Stockholm Syndrome argument. This isn't an attempt to incite an argument, I'm genuinely curious.

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

CT-1138 wrote:

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.

I am curious as to what parts of the 1991 animated film you found questionable, be it characters or plot lines. I've re-watched and analysed the original over the years and found it to be a better film than many people say it is, and one of those films that needed "fixing" as much as The Lion King or Jurassic Park needed fixing. I'm especially opposed to the Stockholm Syndrome argument. This isn't an attempt to incite an argument, I'm genuinely curious.

on the overused Stockholm syndrome argument https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx6GEvhXAGI

the gist of it is that people who say Belle had Stockholm syndrome don't actually know what Stockholm syndrome is--it's up there with "Oh, Calvin has multiple personality syndrome because what normal child with few friends would imagine a whole personality for a stuffed tiger? It's not like this is perfectly normal behavior in young children!" and, on top of that, is about as overused as "Hey everyone, look at me, I'm so witty and original and I'm the first person to ever realize that The Lion King is basically Hamlet with animals!"

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

CT-1138 wrote:

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.

I am curious as to what parts of the 1991 animated film you found questionable, be it characters or plot lines. I've re-watched and analysed the original over the years and found it to be a better film than many people say it is, and one of those films that needed "fixing" as much as The Lion King or Jurassic Park needed fixing. I'm especially opposed to the Stockholm Syndrome argument. This isn't an attempt to incite an argument, I'm genuinely curious.

Well, for example, the questionable age math that goes on. Lumiere says they've been cursed for 10 years, and the prologue says Beast must learn to love by his 21st birthday. So if you do the math, the Beast was only 11 when the hag showed up on the castle's doorstep. And what 11 year old would let some random old lady into their home? This makes the witches' intentions more cruel than disciplinary. In the new movie, they remove mention of this odd math error, and instead imply that the curse has frozen the castle in time. They also remove Chips 10 siblings, which in the animated movie only appear once and then disappear from thought.

Wotso addressed that, too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgMV9FmRy2A

CT-1138 wrote:

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

CT-1138 wrote:

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.

I am curious as to what parts of the 1991 animated film you found questionable, be it characters or plot lines. I've re-watched and analysed the original over the years and found it to be a better film than many people say it is, and one of those films that needed "fixing" as much as The Lion King or Jurassic Park needed fixing. I'm especially opposed to the Stockholm Syndrome argument. This isn't an attempt to incite an argument, I'm genuinely curious.

Well, for example, the questionable age math that goes on. Lumiere says they've been cursed for 10 years, and the prologue says Beast must learn to love by his 21st birthday. So if you do the math, the Beast was only 11 when the hag showed up on the castle's doorstep. And what 11 year old would let some random old lady into their home? This makes the witches' intentions more cruel than disciplinary. In the new movie, they remove mention of this odd math error, and instead imply that the curse has frozen the castle in time. They also remove Chips 10 siblings, which in the animated movie only appear once and then disappear from thought.

All right, here we go:

1) Yes, I actually do believe the curse lasting ten years is not implausible. It wouldn't have cost the Prince anything to admit one wandering vagabond into his castle, and for a test of character it's pretty standard for a fairy tale, especially one with a young protagonist. As a child, he was more liable to make rash decisions because the servants were basically his guardians at that point, who likely did not curb his temper and unkind attitude until it was too late. Plus I kinda like the implication that while the Beast ages, all of his servants remain static including Chip and the other children turned into household objects.

With that said, having the new film state that the castle was frozen in time and the Prince was a young man when he was cursed is an acceptable change. It's not an improvement over the original in my eyes, it's just a differentiation.

2) Maybe it's just me but I never once thought all ten of those tea cups were his brothers and siblings, some of them were and some of them weren't. A castle like that would have had a lot of serving boys and girls, and not necessarily all of them related. And even if that does bother people, it's a minor detail that has no impact on the themes or plot whatsoever. The remake omitting that is a passable change that doesn't particularly bother me.

Disney Channel Orders That’s So Raven Spin-Off, Raven’s Home
Read more at http://www.comingsoon.net/tv/news/834215-disney-channel-orders-thats-so-raven-spin-off-ravens-home#Od5X4tkWOYMWW3Ff.99

Michael Keaton May Play the Villain in Tim Burton’s Dumbo
Read more at http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/834311-michael-keaton-may-play-the-villain-in-tim-burtons-dumbo#vmJ1sYh3d24mkecL.99

Dead2009 wrote:

Michael Keaton May Play the Villain in Tim Burton’s Dumbo
Read more at http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/834311-michael-keaton-may-play-the-villain-in-tim-burtons-dumbo#vmJ1sYh3d24mkecL.99

The more I hear about this, the more convinced I am that this could turn out to be a remake in name only, especially with a lot of these made up roles. We've gotten two rival ringmasters (DeVito and Keaton), a trapeze performer (Green), and Colin Farrell in an unspecified role. We also have black father character (formerly Will Smith) who hasn't been cast yet. Burton will no doubt make it "his own thing", and probably not care at all for following the original very faithfully like Kenneth Branagh and Cinderalla. The challenge of translating such a story that really lent itself perfectly to animation, and will probably look too bizarre in live action, will prove to be a bigger hurdle still.

Not a single word of voice actor casting has been made since the first pieces of casting began. The guys at Collider Movie Talk don't seem to remember that there WERE talking animals in Dumbo; Timothy the mouse, the Crows, the Stork, the other elephants, and Mrs Jumbo has her one line. That might not really matter in the long term, but it bugs me that not one of them has considered taking an hour out of their day to watch the film and refresh their collective memory. Especially considering how vital Timothy, the Stork and the Crows are to the story... the latter of whom I fear will be cut from the film due to the racism claims.

i'd think, if anything, the stork would be omitted since--while he does deliver Dumbo--he's not as important to the core story. i think the crows would probably be left in, just cast/named differently (the most overt thing about them which calls it to mind--which i genuinely believe had no malicious intent behind it--is just that the lead crow is named Jim)

Dwayne Johnson's 'Jungle Cruise' Is a Go at Disney

Between this proposed adaptation of the Disneyland Ride and the upcoming Indiana Jones reboot at Lucasfilm, I wonder if Disney will be able to blance having two jungle adventure franchises under the same roof, with the latter being a much more attractive and more well established franchise.

I enjoy the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, and I like Tomorrowland (while not denying it has its problems), but I've avoided the other theme park ride based movies (like the Eddie Murphy Haunted Mansion movie) on account of their reputation. And I hope this is able to be something different from the Jumanji sequel/reboot/thingy that's coming later this year, but it's timing for a 2018 production start date does indicate that if Jumanji bombs and Dwayne Johnson fatigue kicks in then Disney can easily cancel it.

Mistral wrote:

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

Mistral wrote:

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

We've lost Mr Potato Head...

Don Rickles, Legendary Insult Comic, Dies at 90

Did he record the dialogue for Toy Story 4 already, or will we get film without him?

Unfortunately, I don't know myself, and there don't appear to be any official film news outlets that support whether he recorded his lines or not. There was something about Tom Hanks doing a bit of voice recording in 2015, but little else since then. I was under the impression that they had the script written and lines recorded in advance, but put it on hold to promote Incredibles 2. For now, we should wait for an official statement from Disney.

Yes probably better to wait than speculate, shouldn't take too long.

It would be amazing if that film could live up to the expectations. Again. They seem to have rare magic touch with that one

Anyway RIP for Don. I see he was in on episode of Addams Family, have to watch that again as I hadn't noticed

Troyal1 wrote:

Wow that's incredibly sad. Obviously I don't know anything, but I doubt they have recorded something. .

Slinky was replaced. But it's always a really sensitive and rough pill to swallow when they do that (for myself anyway).

Anyway I'm glad he lived a long and very eventful life. And he entertained a lot of people. Many don't make it to 90.

We now have our answer.

Don Rickles didn't record anything for Toy Story 4, but the film might use past unused recordings from prior Toy Story movies.

Bleh, the darker side of Disney, I guess. Once you sign the contract, you've sold your soul.

Will Smith in Talks for Genie Role in New Aladdin Movie
Read more at http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/839611-will-smith-in-talks-for-genie-role-in-new-aladdin-movie#CJGvWDqWS7TgX0Mr.99

There's Aladdin remake now?

Oh god this is getting ridiculous. They've totally lost it in the reboot remaking land and forgot all originality. I haven't liked anything they've produced since the mid 90's, with the exception of Gravity Falls (and potentially The Tangled series, which I've yet to check out).

Edit: Okay Toy Story too, although I always associate them with Pixar

Ming-Na Wen, the original voice actress of Mulan, might have a role in the live action remake.

At least they are considering one of the original people for this one.

Err, James Earl Jones is supposedly gonna be in the Lion King remake as well. So Mulan isn't the first to have an animated actor be in the live action one.

What films are they not remaking? Surely that's growing shorter than the other one...

Mistral wrote:

What films are they not remaking? Surely that's growing shorter than the other one...

I believe you might be right about that. Right now the only live action original property in the pipeline for 2018 is A Wrinkle in Time directed by Ava DuVernay, which has a budget of around $100 Million. But still, that's one film, based on a book which not a lot of people may be aware of.

While their animation divisions are balancing original material such as Zootopia, Monana, and Inside Out with sequels to familiar properties like Finding Dory and Wreck-It-Ralph 2, their live action divisions seem fairly entrenched in safe and familiar properties: Marvel's Cinematic Universe, Lucasfilm and Star Wars, live-action Disney film remakes and Pirates of the Caribbean. Easily marketable but little to no risks involved whatsoever.

Here we have the latest release schedule for Walt Disney Studios, including release date info for their animated features, live action movies, Lucasfilm and Marvel studios. A lot of it is unnamed at the moment, but its clear that Disney is planning far ahead.

Spoiler:

So Indy gets delayed to 2020. Ford will be even more of an ancient grandpa on screen then.

But ugh. As expected so many remakes, I bet the untitled disney fairy tale live actions are most gonna be those.

The only one I'm looking forward to is Toy Story 4. Other than that I will see the Mary Poppins sequel / soft reboot / whatever it is (only because Emily Blunt is in it) and the obligatory episodic Star Wars, but I'm really beginning to think I'll skip all the cash crab standalone SW films in between because I simply do not care. Indy 5 probably, again similarly to SW only because it feels like a duty you just have to do? They really, really, really should've left Crusade and Indy riding to the sunset to be the final chapter, ending in high notes.

Ewan McGregor Will Headline Disney’s Christopher Robin Movie
Read more at http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/842055-ewan-mcgregor-christopher-robin-movie#ebSU8dMmkZdRPHAW.99

Maybe its just me, but I had a silly, childish grin on my face when I saw Johnny walk up to the edge of the pier and interacted with the guests. Say what you will about the Pirates movies, but he sure as heck seems to enjoy playing Jack Sparrow, I wouldn't be surprised if he disappears to a private desert island, dress up, and pretend to be Jack marooned with rum for a day or two.

Pirates Of The Caribbean 5 Is Being Held For Ransom By Hackers

Disney now has Guardians Of The Galaxy and Avatar attractions.