Live-action remakes of animated movies... is this getting out of hand?

So, it used to be that Disney used to have a near-monopoly on the practice of making live-action remakes of its animated classics.

That's about to change in a big way this summer, when Dreamworks debuts the live-action remake of How to Train a Dragon...



Of course, that will be a few months after Disney releases the live-action remake of its original animated classic, Snow White.



As well as the live-action Lilo & Stitch...



And sometime next year, Disney will also have a live-action Moana.

Is this trend getting out of hand? Or is it something you can just ignore if you're not interested - although the advertising sure is going to make it hard to pretend these movies don't exist...

Most Disney animated to live action are crap.

__________________
Its tougher to be vulnerable than to actually be tough.

Prior to reading this thread, I don't know if it existed in my brain these planned movies existed on the horizon. So... I basically ignore them. I might even go back to a state where I forget these movies' existence in a matter of weeks, days, or maybe even hours.


The brief moments when I hear which animated movies are getting this treatment, I will take a moment to roll my eyes, and then go back to living my life.

Yes

Live-action remakes of animated movies....on par with multi-universes.

Yes, as are remakes in general. Also I won't be watching any of that crap.

__________________

I mean, most everything is shit now, you might as well just get used to it cuz it ain't gonna change it's just gonna get worse.

If you have a long literary memory, you realize that, since there really are only about 10 unique plot lines in the world, it's not a surprise that most movies are remakes of something. Movies are just arriving at the point that books did a century ago. "Remakes" are nothing new; they are inevitable, although you do need to put something new into it. It's live action now, 3D years ago, etc.

Yes. Next question.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

Yeah it's gotten out of hand. It's not surprising though. One company did it successfully, so of course another one will try it, and et cetera. I won't watch any more of them, or rewatch any of the ones we already have. I've grown so tired of them, especially since my ex-wife forced me to watch Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast ad nauseam. I was bored to death.

__________________
I destroyed the dastardly dairy dame! I made mad milk maid mulch!

I hate insomnia. Oh yeah. Last year I had four cases of it, and each time it lasted three months.

I think old and new can co-exist, but most of these remakes have lost their raison d'être: novelty value.
Regardless of how you feel about 101 Dalmatians, The Flintstones or Popeye, at least the idea was interesting.

The modern remakes do indeed look more splashy - but also very sterile compared to the art of animation, and especially what animation is supposed to do: to stimulate the brain into believing that it's all real.
The semi-realness of the computer animated art undermines that process, imo, and I feel sorry for the kids who have to grow up with films like these.
Having said that, I absolutely love the 2016 remake of The Jungle Book, but then again, that's never been one of my favourite Disney classics so perhaps the only way to go was up.

And I'd love to see Tim Burton's version of The Black Cauldron.

What was the "novelty value" when Disney used to reissue all of its animated movies to theaters every 7 years? They kept on doing that right up until 1993...

I fail to see the connection between novelty and theatrical re-releases, but even so I will say that it offers people an experience they may have missed out on.
Edit: even more so when home media isn't an option yet.

The point is that there will always be "novelty value" for anything that the youngest viewers haven't seen before...

I am definitely going to give Altman props for trying to do a live-action cartoon that way, although it didn't yield the best results. And yes, a live-action remake CAN be superior (LOTR anyone?), but the problem is that Disney's worried about the money.

I'll be eagerly awaiting Hercules, and considering that Hunchback didn't meet the same reception as other better versions of the film, there's a chance this one could be better than the animated one.

BUT! I will say this! Cruella was better than 101 Dalmatians. The story was more dense and entertaining, the casting was great, and it valued characterization as much as style. The original was good, but more "cute" than "artistic."

OK, yes, language-technically speaking "novel" means "new".
But I'm sure you'll understand that "novelty" in this context suggests something slightly oddball rather than "just anything new".

Whether or not something fits that criteria is in the eye of the beholder...

They're making these remakes because they can, it's the complete opposite of raison d'être
As I've mentioned in another thread, I'm not a fan of these boo-hoo victimy origin stories for villains.

No, it's not.
Novelties are usually one-offs, just think of novelty songs.
The Disney animated films weren't supposed to be remade, so when that happened it felt fresh and unusual. Not anymore.