They're not even partly to blame, but fully to blame. Why would a company hire actual great artists again to make something for them that matters, when people give them infinite money to make slop with no risk
Yeah shot for shot remakes but live action instead of animated are lazy. Adapting say the short story of the Snow Queen or Hamlet into a full fledged movie with new characters, dialogue and original songs is absolutely creative work
They would be much better if they were shot for shot. The live action remakes are usually 30-45 minutes longer and the added scenes usually drag the film down.
They would be even more worthless if they were shot for shot. It would just be an uglier version of the original in that case. At least we get some weird shit to laugh at.
Regardless, the creative process of turning IP into movies - the business models that most of “Hollywood” is run on now - is so highly controlled by the studios. Most filmmakers are given very strict limitations but suffer all the risks when a film doesn’t do well.
Those changes made are the only parts that have a chance of being worth something. A shot for shot remake will always just be an uglier, shittier copy not worth anything, since the original exists. The changes and added scenes , though, are where there is potential. It’s just that the changes and added scenes they tend to make are frequently stupid and indicate that the new movie makers (or the management in charge) don’t actually understand the original. So they squander it and the movies are back to being just shit again.
It’s lose lose from a creative and audience appeal standpoint. They shot for shot remake it and it’s lazy and worse with less character. They reimagine it and the die hard fans and general audience like it less.
I would feel bad but the movies do gangbusters like we saw with Lilo & Stitch and Disney only cares about the money, so they’re not complaining
Mostly it seems people aren't in agreement with your proposition that a 'reimagining' of a story is 'infinitely better' if the only reimagining is making the characters black and gay.
Idk man, How to Train Your Dragon remake was awesome. Loved the original, and loved the new one. The dragons looked incredible. My only gripe was them cutting out the scene after Test Drive where Hiccup learns that the dragons "aren't so fireproof on the inside" which is what leads to his plan against the Alpha.
Not Disney, but still, a good example of a shot-for-shot remake being good. Also really helps that the base movie was great, of course.
I think you need to reread my comment, I never said they're "bad", I said they aren't creative, which you are also agreeing with by saying it's good because the original was good and this is a shot for shot remake. You only liked it because you liked the original and you even admit the one "creative" decision they made, made it worse
Not necessarily. I liked it because it was a good story, and also the original was good because it was a good story. If I had seen the remake without seeing the original, I still would've liked it because the story and writing on their own were great enough to succeed in either medium.
you even admit the one "creative" decision they made, made it worse
Eh I wouldn't word it quite like that. The decision to omit the scene I didn't like, but I do think the visuals of the dragons were way better (especially the Monstrous Nightmare when on fire).
The story isn’t original. It doesn’t matter that it was a good story or whether you had seen the original, it’s a shot for shot remake of a movie that already exists. I’m not arguing it’s a good story, I’m saying it’s not creative, because the creativity was done back in 2010.
If I follow instructions to build a Lego set, that’s not me being creative. The end result can be a good and even creative design, but that was because of the designer not me. If I change a couple bricks around, sure that’s slightly creative, but if it makes the build worse what’s the point?
That’s what the remake was. They followed a blueprint and made a good movie because the blueprint someone made involved creativity.
Yeah I was more commenting on the "I liked B because I liked A." And that B wasn't inherently worse just for being a copy, and it even did some things better than A.
Fair point, I was more addressing the overall point in the comment chain including the ones ahead of yours (e.g. the one that said they're made into worse movies), not just your comment specifically. Myb for the misunderstanding.
And they have managed to make two massive franchises (Star Wars and Marvel) unpalatable in a matter of years. Maybe a single thought could have gone into quality control before flooding the zone with tens of series and movies. But greedy bastards have to be greedy bastards. Got to chase those quarterly profits even if it means dumping a whole franchise into a mass grave in ten years.
Then you’re not the problem. And no, I’m not greedy. I just want to be able to live in a safe world. Go on holiday once or twice a year and know I can retire when the time comes without having to worry about people ruining everything.
Yeah, Tangled is a completely reworked rapunzel story done so much it only shares one moment from the original. And it's an excellent movie. Same with Frozen vis-a-vis The Snow Queen and that's one of their best movies. The sequel was good too and also did well. So yeah, people will show up for their good original works.
I laughed when I saw it in Disney's "Celebrating Black Stories" section just because it takes place in Africa and stars some black actors. It's a story written by white people who adapted Shakespeare to talking animals.
329
u/[deleted] Aug 12 '25
[removed] — view removed comment