RATING: SYSTEM FAILURE
Okay, okay. So I haven't actually gone and watched this movie. As a matter of fact, you probably couldn't pay me to watch this, even if I was a paid critic. I would've just gone and instead watched--*checks the release schedule*--wait, the only other thing came out last weekend in the U.S. was a horror flick called Luz? Ugh.
But wait. Maybe I actually have seen this movie. Because like the vast majority of people, I have watched the original 1994 cartoon. And I have seen trailers/previews of this new one--where they literally compared the footage of the old and the new. And aside from the fact that isn't a hand-drawn cartoon and used photorealistic computer-animation instead, they looked exactly the same. Oh yeah, and the animals could not emote. So I guess I have watched this movie, in a sense.
I try not to gripe on here too much about what people choose to go and pay money to see. But I am truly baffled--no, flabbergasted--at why there would be so much interest in what is practically a shot-for-shot remake. (I know they said otherwise, but c'mon. They really did re-use a lot of the same shots and the plot appears to be exactly the same.) Heck, I am baffled as to why there would be any interest in Disney remaking all their old classics if the originals are so beloved.
Now this may seem slightly hypocritical, given that just last week, I gave a somewhat positive review of this year's Dumbo remake. But there is a *vast* difference between remaking a movie from 1941 that wasn't even all that great to begin with, and remaking a movie that is only 25 years old *and* universally beloved. There's no purpose to serve here (except making money). There's no need to remake a movie that most people feel is basically perfect.
This is creative bankruptcy at its absolute peak. And to me, it is a truly horrifying prospect for cinema when one of the most anticipated movies of the summer not made by Marvel is a remake of a movie that wasn't that old and more importantly, didn't need fixing.
And though I would like to point the finger at Disney (and still will, to a certain extent) for continuing to spit out lazy remake after lazy remake, it's not 100% their fault. They wouldn't keep making these movies if people didn't keep going to see them. Case in point: the new Lion King movie made $191 million on its opening weekend, the biggest opening in July history.
And I ask: why? Why do people go and pay money to watch such a pointless remake like this? If it's because of nostalgia-related reasons, just go and watch the original that you loved so much again (and save money, especially if you already own it). And don't they realize what's happening and what they're doing? By paying money to see a needless remake like this in the theaters, they're just approving and bankrolling Disney to make more of them. And eventually and inevitably, they will screw up one of them super badly and ruin everyone's childhood. Of course, I guess the new Aladdin was close to that for some with Will Smith's genie. But apparently it didn't matter enough, given that it's close to hitting a billion dollars as of this writing. Maybe next year's Mushu-less Mulan will do that instead? Regardless of when it happens, the people will shake their fists at Disney, failing to realize that they brought this upon themselves.
But also what this does is it gives studios like Disney even less incentive than they already have to do more original things--whether it's making an adaptation out of a book or book series that hasn't been done before, or--perish the thought--making a completely new original idea all on their own. Heaven forbid... apparently. And the idea of *remakes* possibly becoming a regular staple of the summer is... nauseating.
Now to be clear, I'm far less concerned about the overabundance of sequels/franchises than I am about remakes. Because while the former can also easily just be a cash grab, there's more potential to do something good and "original," and to do something well-done--even if you're just using the same characters and universe you used in a previous movie. Cases in point--we've sat through six Mission: Impossible movies, and they're only getting *better.* We've sat through 20 MCU movies, and almost all of them have been great.
Obviously examples like that are typically more the exception. And your mileage may vary. And there really are some movies that just don't need sequels, and some "cinematic universes" that just don't need to be. But there's more potential with sequels/franchises, even if it's limited, than there is with this:
Exec 1: "Hey, let's make the exact same movie we made 25 years ago, only this time we'll make it live-action!"
Exec 2: "You're a *genius!* Ideas like that are how we are going to keep making money."
Later:
1: "Okay, so we're not actually going to make it live-action, we're going to make it photorealistic computer-animation so that it *looks* like live-action, but it actually isn't. Like we did for The Jungle Book."
2: "Even better! You're going places at this company."
Exec 3: "Okay, I have a question. How the heck are we going to make the characters in this movie emote?"
2: "Why does it matter?"
3: "How are we going to make little Simba look sad during the famous 'you've gotta get up!' scene? I mean, we can't do that with a non-cartoon lion.
1: "But it'll look like real lions this time! That's what important here!"
3: "And also... I know this is supposed to be longer than the original, but at its core, is there anything different about this movie from the original?"
2: "Not really, but who cares? The people will line up to see it anyway."
3: "This is starting to sound like a stupid idea."
2: "*You're* stupid. You're fired. Run away and never return."
Bow down to your Disney overlords.
No comments:
Post a Comment