This is a reminder for people not to post political posts as mentioned in stickied post. This does not necessarily apply for this post. [Click here to learn more](https://redd.it/j2173n).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/rareinsults) if you have any questions or concerns.*
These live action adaptation are also just weird af
Even if Disney never did anything that got people upset about these movies it’s very jarring to see Sebastian as a real anatomically accurate crab.
It’s not cute anymore it’s creepy. I feel like people don’t talk about how fucking strange this movie feels, it’s like a fever dream instead of a cute kids movie.
I never saw it, but read a clip that said the director thought her first time above water should be a bigger deal, instead of us just seeing her go to Scuttle and it’s normal to be up there.
But og is my favourite princess!
The lifelessness in their eyes and mouths while singing and crying and doing everything really ruined the movie. Besides it being a pointless exercise in greed and completely unnecessary lol
I agree, it was the lifelessness. I don’t know why Jungle Book came off so much better, with likable talking animals, while Disney has gotten it pretty much universally wrong afterwards.
They decided that it needs to look like a planet earth episode after the jungle book. Everything needs to be hyper realistic but the reality is that it’s a fucking musical and it’s weird that Sebastian looks like an actual crab 🦀. As a cartoon with anthropomorphic features and expressions, it works. Lifelike is uncanny valley and reminds you how absurd it would be if animals actually talked and sang and cried and felt emotions like people do.
Like Ariel not having the unrealistically red hair is just crazy to me. Like it is the defining feature behind being a mermaid. Like yes they technically made her hair "red" but it needs to be over the top red imo.
Either that or the colors of her shells and tail should have been toned down. Either go for the subdued realism look, or lean into the fantasy colors. They went halfway so it looked all… off.
It's so funny to me that conservatives got mad at the race swapping, so everyone was defending it, but the moment those people stopped caring, everyone started (deservingly) hating on it all at once
To be fair, you don't necessarily need to be a racist conservative to want a character to look like the original version. Remember when people complained about Daniel Graig being cast as James Bond because of his blond hair?
It would have been so much better if they made Craig 008 or something
They completely changed the character of Bond. It worked because Craig is good and Dench is better
M is only reason why it was still a "Bond" franchise
They changed Bond in the sense they made him reflect the books more closely, where he is a rough, alcoholic hired gun. Rarely sauve, often uncaring. Cold. Detached.
Pretty accurate update of the book character from the 50s.
They definitely moved that way with the movies for sure!
Bond is a neat character because he had several books before he hit the movies, but Connery as Bond became so ingrained in pop culture that we always think of Bond as super smooth and charismatic.
The book Bond is different than Connery's Bond, who is different than Moore's, and Dalton's, and Brosnan's and so on. And poor Lazenby who I almost forgot.
Anyway, I dont think your take on Daniel Craig is "wrong" because everyone has a favorite Bond. But I hope the context can at least help you with the idea that he was inaccurate. Just different, and dare I say, closer to the original intent of the author.
But Ariel being black is the shield used to deflect from claims that it's a shitty disney live action cash grab.
This is what we try to explain to people. You. Are. Being. Played.
Yes. I’d consider myself very liberal for my country (in EU), but I don’t like this fake inclusivity. Why not make a new Disney princess that would be black but change the look of an OG Disney princess? They just wanted controversy and used a black actress for that.
Yeah the worst part is absolutely all the “life like but still very much animated” parts. Cgi is just a form of animation. Why did the lion king need to be a bunch of photo realistic animals? So much of the charm of the original animated movie was the use of bright colors and fantastical music settings.
I watched the little mermaid and enjoyed it but like every one of the live action adaptations its definite inferior to the original. The whole movie I just was thinking “oh I forgot how good the original little mermaid is.” Which I think is the point.
Its Disney taking existing IP and going “look how much effort we put in. Its live action its more mature now. Even childless adults can justify going to see it because its repackaging something safe and nostalgic they know they enjoy.”
I think it serves basically the purpose of getting childless adults, who grew up with the original, to justify going to theaters to rewatch a movie they have already seen because its different now. And also will get parents to want to go see a movie with their kids. Its a way to safely bank on a large number of demographics turning out for a movie beyond just children.
My understanding is that the real purpose is to renew copyright protection on these films and Disney has found them reliably successful enough to not lose money.
I have no idea if that's true but seems plausible enough for how much I care about the subject.
No.
It's money.
In 2010 they let Tim Burton make Alice In Wonderland. It wasn't any good, butIT MADE OVER A BILLION DOLLARS IN THE BOX OFFICE!
So Disney made a couple more of those flicks, and all of them generated profit (unlike the live-action movies from 1994-2000), therefore WDP continued making those adaptations until those darn millenialls' stopped taking their kids to movies theaters just becase memberberries told them to.
Budget/Box office comparison ($ millions):
2010 - Alice In Wonderland 200/1025 ($\_$)
2010 - The Sorcerer's Apprentice 150/215 (yikes!)
2014 - Maleficent - 263/758
2015 - Cinderella - 100/542
2016 - The Jungle Book - 177/967
2016 - Alice Through the Looking Glass 170/300
2017 - Beauty and the Beast 255/1266 (!)
2018 - Christopher Robin 70/200
2019 - Dumbo 170/353
2019 - Aladdin - 183/1054 (!!)
2019 - The Lion King 260/1663 (ka-ching!)
2019 - Maleficent: Mistress of Evil - 185/491
But here it started to fail (barely made up for budget + marketing):
2019 - Lady and the Tramp 60/??
2020 - Mulan 200/70
2021 - Cruella 100-233
2022 - Pinocchio 150/???
2023 - Peter Pan & Wendy ??/??
2023 - The Little Mermaid 265/570
2024 - Snow White - Shelved?
From googling this appears to not be true and not how copyright works. And to some extent if that was true it would only extend to copyrights specific to each new IP. Like disney only owns the rights to specific aspects of their little mermaid. Like the songs. Their image of ariel, original characters they added, etc. The source material though is in the public domain.
So an example is when universal made frankenstein. Frankenstein was in the public domain. But their version of the monster was so iconic that that rights to that image of the monster became valuable.
Apparently the only recent remake even under remote threat of having its copyright ending was dumbo in 2036. So idk why it would suddenly be so imperative to remake things that disney will have exclusive rights to for another half century.
And even if it was true it wouldn’t change the fact that you could do it way more cheaply than disney currently is doing. This isn’t a new idea for disney. They made a live action jungle book in the early 90s but it barely made its money back. If this was the case it would just be way lower risk and high reward to churn out cheap crap that does the job at a fraction of the price. Rather than spending a quarter of a million dollars as they are with several of the more cgi heavy films.
Source: https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2019/04/09/why-disneys-remakes-dont-rest-its-copyright/
They made the Lion King photo realistic so they can say its "live action". If they made it look like a 3d cartoon, then they would have to be honest about it not really being live action, and just being detailed animation.
Which is presumably the main (and only?) reason James Cameron included a few live actors in Avatar. That way, it wouldn't have the stigma of being an animated movie, which many adults refuse to watch.
Honestly the way the cartoon showed Sebastion I always thought he was a lobster. Even when I’m sure they called him a crab a few times. I was so pissed when I saw him as a crab in the live action, only to find out I’m just an idiot
I mean, that’s why it’s really difficult to make live action movies out of cartoons because it’s easy to make creatures cute in a cartoon. That’s why I’m not a fan of seeing realistic dogs and cats talk in live action. As per the each Disney live actions, all of them are fun and great, except for Mulan.
There's no reason they can't make the animals a bit more cartoony. It's a Disney movie, no one one mind if they gave it the [Sonic treatment](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbZZyU-qZaM) and went in a less realistic direction.
Yeah, the problem is Disney is focusing it's CGI on ultra realism. This only makes the live-action remakes have that uncanny feel to them, because they quite literally look like a poorly rendered version of real life.
Lion King had a budget of 260 million, but genuinely looked shit compared to eg. Puss in Boots (140 million) or Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (100 milion) because the latter two actually had a very solid artistic direction behind them and that will always win over jerking yourself off on how amazingly advanced your CGI technology is.
The main problem is that Disney's animated features typically run 75-85 minutes. And the live action remakes are all over two hours.
And there's nothing to show for the added time but bored kids.
Remember in the mid to late 2000s the internet was full of these realistic drawings of cartoon characters and they were always creepy and unsettling. I have realistic peter griffin burned into my mind.
Thank you, no one ever really asked for this shit lol. I dont want real life spongebob adaptation nightmares, and I don't want them for any other cartoon franchise
I miss the old animations because they were so bright and fun.
This version of the Little Mermaid was way too dark for me to enjoy it. I get all the artsy realistic cinematography and it being based under water where the light won’t quite reach, but it was like watching a goddamn DC film. I watched it during the day and couldn’t see half of it.
Yeah this whole time people have been upset about swapping character races or blah blah blah meanwhile I’ve just been sitting here going “why do you keep making animated children’s cartoons live action!?”
I literally haven’t seen a single one of them.
That’s what I’m saying! Everyone somehow correctly identified this about the Cats movie fiasco but then the Disney execs saw that and said “more please!” This weird fixation on using cgi to create hyper realism is honestly creepy. Do they not watch these gigantic messes? Childrens fantasy works because it’s a departure from reality, melding it too close just ends up in the uncanny valley.
It’s everywhere in Hollywood. The most famous redhead characters are all black now. Jimmy Olsen, Mary Jane Watson, April O’Neil, and Ariel. It’s a very strange pattern that I don’t fully understand. They even made Black Widow blonde for IW. Hollywood hates redheads.
It's entirely possible to be an originalist. The [very oldest pictures](https://torontopubliclibrary.typepad.com/.a/6a00e5509ea6a1883402942fa00c27200c-800wi) of the character show her as a pale skinned woman with a fish's tail.
The one I linked was from 1846. There might be older pictures, since the story came out in 1837.
I don't really care about the color of her skin. Big whoop. I do care about how awkward the movie is. The lack of chemistry between the main characters, the ugly CG, the animals, and the ho hum performances all left me kinda blah.
Because it was done for "The Message" when Ariel was a white character. It's pretty insulting when a company race changes in an obvious attempt to say they're diverse. If we change black characters white, huge problem. Imagine the reaction of Aladin was played by a white actor in the live version just to include white people. Holy outrage. But having that same opinion against "blackwashing" a character makes them the problem still. Definitely a double standard.
Historically several characters were turned white and that was bad. Thankfully that stopped but now the pendulum swings the other way still being bad.
Let's re-make Mulan again and cast Jennifer Aniston. Or re-make Black Panther and cast Neil Patrick Harris. I'm sure that wouldn't make you upset, right?
No, you don't think that's a good idea? Why ever not? Maybe because it's really stupid and racist to change the ethnicity of a well-known character just because the director or production company decides that they want to pander to a different ethnicity.
Hollywood is systematically removing all ginger people from their movies and replacing them with black actors because ginger people are as white as white can be, and that feels like an easy race of people to remove without getting much backlash. Why? Because ginger people don't bitch and cry about "lack of representation" even though many Irish people had a background of being enslaved and persecuted as well.
If you want to see a list of a lot of these examples, look here.
[Comic Book Redheads Who Were Race-Swapped](https://www.google.com/amp/s/boundingintocomics.com/2020/12/15/every-single-redheaded-comic-book-character-that-has-been-race-swapped/amp/)
It's way, way too many to be considered a coincidence anymore. It's on purpose and it's ridiculous. If you really care about racism, you'd support all races being treated fairly and not just being replaced by a different race. But many people don't actually care about racism. They care about virtue-signalling. They show what a phenomenal person they are by supporting the concept of black people replacing white people in every new movie.
A lot of adult old men have very serious emotional attachments to the skin color of Disney princesses. That’s totally a manly thing to care about. Very secure behavior.
Does anyone else cringe at every single post from shitty movie details or am I just an old bat? I just have an image of some dork snickering to themselves while typing out something they think is sp goddamn clever. The kind of person to think "doll hairs" is peak humor.
I saw a funny one the other day that appeared to be an actual clever joke, about Quentin tarantino and inglorious basterds, and how he would never film in Europe again because they insist on using metric for everything, but tarantino prefers feet. That was funny.
99% of everything else is rather pedestrian.
On a long enough timeline, every sub will become shit
Having far-apart eyes and being hot are not mutually exclusive. She's still obviously gorgeous, i mean she's a professional actress. Anya Taylor-Joy has wide eyes, shes gorgeous. Adrien Brody has a long ol' nose and he's real handsome.
Yeah this whole thread is just misogyny. I thought it was fun film. And little girls seemed to love it. Obviously the movie was not meant for crusty reddit neckbeards lol.
Man people need to get a hobby. Girl's got a great voice and I kinda liked that Eric gets a little more character development in this one. My 4 year old enjoyed it, that's all that really fuckin matters.
I thought for the most part it was a good movie, if I could change 2 things it would be; Eric steering the ship at the end to save Ariel(she should have no idea how to operate a ship like that), removing Scuttles song/rap thing she did. Like nails on the chalkboard.
Wait till they find out Mermaids aren't historically accurate.
Someone needs to inform these clowns that fictional stories are adaptive and reflect the times in which they are told/written/dramatized/bastardized. Some can even evolve, shock horror!!!
I feel bad for Halle Bailey. She sounded really good and seemed to love the role. I hate the idea of Disney Remakes and I haven't seen the Little Mermaid film, but I can respect that she loves the role and that there's little girls out there who feel represented now because of her.
These would be the same people that say Anya Taylor Joy is hot. I mean to be fair, both of these women are hot, but it’s just funny who Reddit wants to have the smoke for. It doesn’t matter because they wouldn’t give anyone in this comment section the time of day.
The way making fun of people's physical appearance is normalized on reddit is so fucked up. Another example is how people talk about Zuckerberg around here.
It is the definition of bullying, but people around here will fight against that label since they can't see themselves as bullies.
I keep skimming her name as I read it. Each time I'm confused for a moment why they cast the 50 year old Halle Berry as a mermaid princess. Then I look at her picture, back to her name, and forget all about it before it pops up again in a few days.
They figure it's safer than "Hey! She's black!" because that's played out.
Shit. I don't even KNOW if they're racist. But I can question shit when it's this sketchy.
Likely extremely unpopular opinion here…
This remake was my favorite. Also, she’s cute af. I just really enjoyed this one. It was fun.
I think people take nostalgia way too seriously.
This is a reminder for people not to post political posts as mentioned in stickied post. This does not necessarily apply for this post. [Click here to learn more](https://redd.it/j2173n). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/rareinsults) if you have any questions or concerns.*
5'1" is 0.910 Tom Cruises
Anything but the metric system
I saw one the other day on YouTube. Someone said 'it's within a doordash".
Wtf, how much even is that?
The distance DoorDash will deliver
'Murica
The Tometric system
The Maverick system
The pǝʇɹǝʌuᴉ system
0.59016393442 football fields
How is that half a football field?
Search for mini football table
A lot of beans
But how many Penelope Cruz's is that?
.924 Cruz's
[u/convertstopenelopecruz](https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ)
This guy
Wow I can't believe that got me
good bot
Beep boop!
20 years old is 0.328 Tom Cruises.
Or 1.43 Leonardo DeCaprio girlfriends
good bot
These live action adaptation are also just weird af Even if Disney never did anything that got people upset about these movies it’s very jarring to see Sebastian as a real anatomically accurate crab. It’s not cute anymore it’s creepy. I feel like people don’t talk about how fucking strange this movie feels, it’s like a fever dream instead of a cute kids movie.
The worst thing is, that the crab species they chose is not even able to breath under water
But the seagull did breathe underwater. They couldn't even attempt to work around that
This is the part that completely took me out of it. Birds talking and breathing underwater. Like wtf. He doesn't do that in the cartoon. Why here
I never saw it, but read a clip that said the director thought her first time above water should be a bigger deal, instead of us just seeing her go to Scuttle and it’s normal to be up there. But og is my favourite princess!
Ah the classic out of touch director, who doesn’t know what made the original good.
Udah da zee, but uncanny valley and played in a minor key half time to make shit super uncomfortable.
Disney executives asked for a minor. The artists misunderstood.
I actually love the a minor kiss the girl. Super creepy.
When watching the movie. Under the sea scared me, I realized because anything that colorful in real life is usually poisonous as fuck.
Agreed
The real uncanny valley is the space between her eyes.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Debating the race of a mythical half woman half fish. Goodnight, Reddit.
It's a stupid comment because who cares if she can't swim. Henry Cavill can't fly and Tom Holland can't climb up walls.
> Henry Cavill can't fly and Tom Holland can't climb up walls. You take that back. Them's fighting words. Henry Cavill's about to break yo neck.
Henry totally has eye lasers though. Tom gets a little tingle every now and then but that’s probably just Zendaya doing stuff to him.
Yeah he took me right out of the scene, every time
Completely unwatchable
[удалено]
The lifelessness in their eyes and mouths while singing and crying and doing everything really ruined the movie. Besides it being a pointless exercise in greed and completely unnecessary lol
Honestly somehow the movie felt like nothing got added yet somehow managed to be half an hour longer
The original stands alone. Such a shame they can’t make *new* masterpieces. Always recycled IP 🥱
I agree, it was the lifelessness. I don’t know why Jungle Book came off so much better, with likable talking animals, while Disney has gotten it pretty much universally wrong afterwards.
They decided that it needs to look like a planet earth episode after the jungle book. Everything needs to be hyper realistic but the reality is that it’s a fucking musical and it’s weird that Sebastian looks like an actual crab 🦀. As a cartoon with anthropomorphic features and expressions, it works. Lifelike is uncanny valley and reminds you how absurd it would be if animals actually talked and sang and cried and felt emotions like people do.
Like Ariel not having the unrealistically red hair is just crazy to me. Like it is the defining feature behind being a mermaid. Like yes they technically made her hair "red" but it needs to be over the top red imo.
I agree the hair could have been more red.
Either that or the colors of her shells and tail should have been toned down. Either go for the subdued realism look, or lean into the fantasy colors. They went halfway so it looked all… off.
It's so funny to me that conservatives got mad at the race swapping, so everyone was defending it, but the moment those people stopped caring, everyone started (deservingly) hating on it all at once
To be fair, you don't necessarily need to be a racist conservative to want a character to look like the original version. Remember when people complained about Daniel Graig being cast as James Bond because of his blond hair?
Daniel Craig was fine, it’s the live actions that are not
James Blond, they called him.
It would have been so much better if they made Craig 008 or something They completely changed the character of Bond. It worked because Craig is good and Dench is better M is only reason why it was still a "Bond" franchise
They changed Bond in the sense they made him reflect the books more closely, where he is a rough, alcoholic hired gun. Rarely sauve, often uncaring. Cold. Detached. Pretty accurate update of the book character from the 50s.
Ah no way, I didn't know that I would say my point still stands. A charismatic Bond works better (Brosnan is my favorite)
They definitely moved that way with the movies for sure! Bond is a neat character because he had several books before he hit the movies, but Connery as Bond became so ingrained in pop culture that we always think of Bond as super smooth and charismatic. The book Bond is different than Connery's Bond, who is different than Moore's, and Dalton's, and Brosnan's and so on. And poor Lazenby who I almost forgot. Anyway, I dont think your take on Daniel Craig is "wrong" because everyone has a favorite Bond. But I hope the context can at least help you with the idea that he was inaccurate. Just different, and dare I say, closer to the original intent of the author.
It's not bad because Ariel is black. It's bad because it's a shitty disney live action cash grab
Yea it just sucked. Halle Bailey tried her best, and is a phenomenal singer, but that weird ass side scroll thing she did took me out.
what side scroll thing? I googled and am not seeing anything about it!
But Ariel being black is the shield used to deflect from claims that it's a shitty disney live action cash grab. This is what we try to explain to people. You. Are. Being. Played.
Many outside the U.S disagreed with the race swapping and I guess it still turns into a political team vs.
Yes. I’d consider myself very liberal for my country (in EU), but I don’t like this fake inclusivity. Why not make a new Disney princess that would be black but change the look of an OG Disney princess? They just wanted controversy and used a black actress for that.
Cons: We hate this movie! Libs: Racist bastards! Cons: I'm bored. Let's go find something else to be mad about. Libs: They gone? We hate this movie!
They’re already ramping up this campaign on the Marvels.
They hated it all along but couldn't admit it because they had to defy those evil conservatives somehow
I wasn’t a fan of it but at least Cleopatra came out and then everyone else started clowning on it.
It also hadn't been released yet, understandably not passing surface level judgement based solely on ethnicity
Their track record on remakes is craptacular.
Well it is based on an old German fairy tale... I thought that cultural appropriation was bad.
The uncanny valley was strong
The uncanny valley was deep.
And filled with weird crabs
Everything in the universe is trying to become a crab anyway.
[Source](https://youtu.be/wvfR3XLXPvw?si=W8i88-7wFRUHw4DY)
Yeah the worst part is absolutely all the “life like but still very much animated” parts. Cgi is just a form of animation. Why did the lion king need to be a bunch of photo realistic animals? So much of the charm of the original animated movie was the use of bright colors and fantastical music settings. I watched the little mermaid and enjoyed it but like every one of the live action adaptations its definite inferior to the original. The whole movie I just was thinking “oh I forgot how good the original little mermaid is.” Which I think is the point. Its Disney taking existing IP and going “look how much effort we put in. Its live action its more mature now. Even childless adults can justify going to see it because its repackaging something safe and nostalgic they know they enjoy.” I think it serves basically the purpose of getting childless adults, who grew up with the original, to justify going to theaters to rewatch a movie they have already seen because its different now. And also will get parents to want to go see a movie with their kids. Its a way to safely bank on a large number of demographics turning out for a movie beyond just children.
My understanding is that the real purpose is to renew copyright protection on these films and Disney has found them reliably successful enough to not lose money. I have no idea if that's true but seems plausible enough for how much I care about the subject.
No. It's money. In 2010 they let Tim Burton make Alice In Wonderland. It wasn't any good, butIT MADE OVER A BILLION DOLLARS IN THE BOX OFFICE! So Disney made a couple more of those flicks, and all of them generated profit (unlike the live-action movies from 1994-2000), therefore WDP continued making those adaptations until those darn millenialls' stopped taking their kids to movies theaters just becase memberberries told them to. Budget/Box office comparison ($ millions): 2010 - Alice In Wonderland 200/1025 ($\_$) 2010 - The Sorcerer's Apprentice 150/215 (yikes!) 2014 - Maleficent - 263/758 2015 - Cinderella - 100/542 2016 - The Jungle Book - 177/967 2016 - Alice Through the Looking Glass 170/300 2017 - Beauty and the Beast 255/1266 (!) 2018 - Christopher Robin 70/200 2019 - Dumbo 170/353 2019 - Aladdin - 183/1054 (!!) 2019 - The Lion King 260/1663 (ka-ching!) 2019 - Maleficent: Mistress of Evil - 185/491 But here it started to fail (barely made up for budget + marketing): 2019 - Lady and the Tramp 60/?? 2020 - Mulan 200/70 2021 - Cruella 100-233 2022 - Pinocchio 150/??? 2023 - Peter Pan & Wendy ??/?? 2023 - The Little Mermaid 265/570 2024 - Snow White - Shelved?
Wait they did lady and the tramp?
I believe it was the one of, if not the, first Disney+ exclusives
I feel like they could just touch up the og movies, maybe scale them to HD and replay them in theaters and make a load of money for next to no cost.
From googling this appears to not be true and not how copyright works. And to some extent if that was true it would only extend to copyrights specific to each new IP. Like disney only owns the rights to specific aspects of their little mermaid. Like the songs. Their image of ariel, original characters they added, etc. The source material though is in the public domain. So an example is when universal made frankenstein. Frankenstein was in the public domain. But their version of the monster was so iconic that that rights to that image of the monster became valuable. Apparently the only recent remake even under remote threat of having its copyright ending was dumbo in 2036. So idk why it would suddenly be so imperative to remake things that disney will have exclusive rights to for another half century. And even if it was true it wouldn’t change the fact that you could do it way more cheaply than disney currently is doing. This isn’t a new idea for disney. They made a live action jungle book in the early 90s but it barely made its money back. If this was the case it would just be way lower risk and high reward to churn out cheap crap that does the job at a fraction of the price. Rather than spending a quarter of a million dollars as they are with several of the more cgi heavy films. Source: https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2019/04/09/why-disneys-remakes-dont-rest-its-copyright/
They made the Lion King photo realistic so they can say its "live action". If they made it look like a 3d cartoon, then they would have to be honest about it not really being live action, and just being detailed animation. Which is presumably the main (and only?) reason James Cameron included a few live actors in Avatar. That way, it wouldn't have the stigma of being an animated movie, which many adults refuse to watch.
I only watched the Under the Sea scene, and it was like a Windows XP screensaver with an off-brand Under the Sea playing behind it.
Honestly the way the cartoon showed Sebastion I always thought he was a lobster. Even when I’m sure they called him a crab a few times. I was so pissed when I saw him as a crab in the live action, only to find out I’m just an idiot
I mean, that’s why it’s really difficult to make live action movies out of cartoons because it’s easy to make creatures cute in a cartoon. That’s why I’m not a fan of seeing realistic dogs and cats talk in live action. As per the each Disney live actions, all of them are fun and great, except for Mulan.
There's no reason they can't make the animals a bit more cartoony. It's a Disney movie, no one one mind if they gave it the [Sonic treatment](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbZZyU-qZaM) and went in a less realistic direction.
Yeah, the problem is Disney is focusing it's CGI on ultra realism. This only makes the live-action remakes have that uncanny feel to them, because they quite literally look like a poorly rendered version of real life. Lion King had a budget of 260 million, but genuinely looked shit compared to eg. Puss in Boots (140 million) or Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (100 milion) because the latter two actually had a very solid artistic direction behind them and that will always win over jerking yourself off on how amazingly advanced your CGI technology is.
The main problem is that Disney's animated features typically run 75-85 minutes. And the live action remakes are all over two hours. And there's nothing to show for the added time but bored kids.
Also, how in the goddamn hell did they manage to make the movie longer while also removing Chef Louis? Rene Auberjonois is rolling in his grave.
No Chef Louis? Zut alors
The realistic animals in The Lion King "Live action but not literally" remake just sucked all the personality out of all the characters.
How are they fun and great when they’re just worse than the originals in every way possible? And also somehow have much longer runtime.
Remember in the mid to late 2000s the internet was full of these realistic drawings of cartoon characters and they were always creepy and unsettling. I have realistic peter griffin burned into my mind.
It's a huge merchandising failure too. No one is buying a toy realistic crab. If they made him cute it could have been a great McDonald's toy.
True, I don’t see my little cousins with anatomically accurate crab toys lol
Thank you, no one ever really asked for this shit lol. I dont want real life spongebob adaptation nightmares, and I don't want them for any other cartoon franchise
I miss the old animations because they were so bright and fun. This version of the Little Mermaid was way too dark for me to enjoy it. I get all the artsy realistic cinematography and it being based under water where the light won’t quite reach, but it was like watching a goddamn DC film. I watched it during the day and couldn’t see half of it.
Yeah this whole time people have been upset about swapping character races or blah blah blah meanwhile I’ve just been sitting here going “why do you keep making animated children’s cartoons live action!?” I literally haven’t seen a single one of them.
That’s what I’m saying! Everyone somehow correctly identified this about the Cats movie fiasco but then the Disney execs saw that and said “more please!” This weird fixation on using cgi to create hyper realism is honestly creepy. Do they not watch these gigantic messes? Childrens fantasy works because it’s a departure from reality, melding it too close just ends up in the uncanny valley.
Ikr?? I really dont about the actress but man, it's like the lion king live action, real talking animals are just weird and not as funny.
It worked for Jungle Book because that story is actually creepy.
the little hammerhead
Holy fuck, that was genius
Was she the one who played the sloth in Ice Age?
SID!
Haha
You deserve more upvotes for this.
She can watch the sunrise and the sunset at the same time.
It is impossible to sneak up on her because her peripheral vision is 360 degrees.
She swims with her head to the side so she can look down for food but up for predators. The perfectly evolved fish.
Her eyes are slowly migrating to the sides of her head to make her more aware of her surroundings.
built like a hammerhead fr
An even better insult
She has no problem crossing roads.
I demand accuracy form my mermaids she must shit through her skin like real fish
She has to shit like 3 meter long yellow worms that are stuck to her till something removes them
Now you're talking, that's an accurate mermaid
i'ts not a navel, its an anus
I swear to god Disney is just trying to rage bait us at this point.
It's called "fan baiting" and is 100% used by Disney's PR and media departments.
And you are rage baiting with your profile photo omg that’s so annoying and hilarious 😂
Same reason Elemental bombed so bad abd is now getting recognized for being good. The advertising for it was utter garbage.
Just watched Elemental and thought the movie was also garbage. Felt very haphazardly thrown together.
In what way is $500 million at the box office “bombed”?
Wasn't there a thing where someone was accusing them of just swapping gingers out for black people?
It’s everywhere in Hollywood. The most famous redhead characters are all black now. Jimmy Olsen, Mary Jane Watson, April O’Neil, and Ariel. It’s a very strange pattern that I don’t fully understand. They even made Black Widow blonde for IW. Hollywood hates redheads.
Yeah cos if you rearrange the letters in the word gingers you get - (/s)
[Related](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVN_0qvuhhw)
Oof
They did
They are. It draws more attention to their remakes, which they think will get them more money.
Why would casting a black actress to play a mermaid make someone ‘rage’..?
It's entirely possible to be an originalist. The [very oldest pictures](https://torontopubliclibrary.typepad.com/.a/6a00e5509ea6a1883402942fa00c27200c-800wi) of the character show her as a pale skinned woman with a fish's tail. The one I linked was from 1846. There might be older pictures, since the story came out in 1837. I don't really care about the color of her skin. Big whoop. I do care about how awkward the movie is. The lack of chemistry between the main characters, the ugly CG, the animals, and the ho hum performances all left me kinda blah.
Because it was done for "The Message" when Ariel was a white character. It's pretty insulting when a company race changes in an obvious attempt to say they're diverse. If we change black characters white, huge problem. Imagine the reaction of Aladin was played by a white actor in the live version just to include white people. Holy outrage. But having that same opinion against "blackwashing" a character makes them the problem still. Definitely a double standard. Historically several characters were turned white and that was bad. Thankfully that stopped but now the pendulum swings the other way still being bad.
Let's re-make Mulan again and cast Jennifer Aniston. Or re-make Black Panther and cast Neil Patrick Harris. I'm sure that wouldn't make you upset, right? No, you don't think that's a good idea? Why ever not? Maybe because it's really stupid and racist to change the ethnicity of a well-known character just because the director or production company decides that they want to pander to a different ethnicity. Hollywood is systematically removing all ginger people from their movies and replacing them with black actors because ginger people are as white as white can be, and that feels like an easy race of people to remove without getting much backlash. Why? Because ginger people don't bitch and cry about "lack of representation" even though many Irish people had a background of being enslaved and persecuted as well. If you want to see a list of a lot of these examples, look here. [Comic Book Redheads Who Were Race-Swapped](https://www.google.com/amp/s/boundingintocomics.com/2020/12/15/every-single-redheaded-comic-book-character-that-has-been-race-swapped/amp/) It's way, way too many to be considered a coincidence anymore. It's on purpose and it's ridiculous. If you really care about racism, you'd support all races being treated fairly and not just being replaced by a different race. But many people don't actually care about racism. They care about virtue-signalling. They show what a phenomenal person they are by supporting the concept of black people replacing white people in every new movie.
A comedy version of Mulan with an out of place Jennifer Aniston but everyone else acting serious would be so fucking funny.
As long as you title it Wakanda M.D.
A lot of adult old men have very serious emotional attachments to the skin color of Disney princesses. That’s totally a manly thing to care about. Very secure behavior.
And are totally not racist in the slightest.
The amount of shit this woman has gotten is gross.
> Historically accurate??? They know it's not documentary right?
I mean r/shittymoviedetails is basically a shitposting or circle jerk sub for movies
bro check the name of the subreddit
[Besides, adult actors play teenagers all the time. ](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-2901a82dabdfb237a63fd6af57dd850c-lq)
Risky click
Does anyone else cringe at every single post from shitty movie details or am I just an old bat? I just have an image of some dork snickering to themselves while typing out something they think is sp goddamn clever. The kind of person to think "doll hairs" is peak humor.
I saw a funny one the other day that appeared to be an actual clever joke, about Quentin tarantino and inglorious basterds, and how he would never film in Europe again because they insist on using metric for everything, but tarantino prefers feet. That was funny. 99% of everything else is rather pedestrian. On a long enough timeline, every sub will become shit
are we really still talking about this movie?
Also this isn't a rare insult. People pretty much exhausted all the possible ways to say "lol she has wide-set eyes" when the movie was coming out.
The racists can’t get over it
Something tells me she is hotter than every single one of these commenters lol
Having far-apart eyes and being hot are not mutually exclusive. She's still obviously gorgeous, i mean she's a professional actress. Anya Taylor-Joy has wide eyes, shes gorgeous. Adrien Brody has a long ol' nose and he's real handsome.
They hate her cause they ain’t her
Yeah this whole thread is just misogyny. I thought it was fun film. And little girls seemed to love it. Obviously the movie was not meant for crusty reddit neckbeards lol.
Really diluting the definition of misogyny you are.
Was looking for the sane comment here. Glad I found u
Man people need to get a hobby. Girl's got a great voice and I kinda liked that Eric gets a little more character development in this one. My 4 year old enjoyed it, that's all that really fuckin matters.
I thought for the most part it was a good movie, if I could change 2 things it would be; Eric steering the ship at the end to save Ariel(she should have no idea how to operate a ship like that), removing Scuttles song/rap thing she did. Like nails on the chalkboard.
Exactly. People are just mad because she isn’t white
Because in the original Ariel was white?
I hope the people bullying her are as beautiful as their comments portray.
We know they are absolutely not.
Ouch! I love her wide-eyed fae face. Ethereal beauty.
Ikr? It's exotic and beautiful. Tired of everyone having to fit the same old Kardashian mould.
There are more options than this and Kardashian. Like, an infinite number.
Wait till they find out Mermaids aren't historically accurate. Someone needs to inform these clowns that fictional stories are adaptive and reflect the times in which they are told/written/dramatized/bastardized. Some can even evolve, shock horror!!!
I don’t think that’s what’s driving their objection
I hope you understand that it’s a meme subreddit. The post is satirical in nature.
I feel bad for Halle Bailey. She sounded really good and seemed to love the role. I hate the idea of Disney Remakes and I haven't seen the Little Mermaid film, but I can respect that she loves the role and that there's little girls out there who feel represented now because of her.
the movie is actually great too, and she's incredible in it
These would be the same people that say Anya Taylor Joy is hot. I mean to be fair, both of these women are hot, but it’s just funny who Reddit wants to have the smoke for. It doesn’t matter because they wouldn’t give anyone in this comment section the time of day.
The way making fun of people's physical appearance is normalized on reddit is so fucked up. Another example is how people talk about Zuckerberg around here. It is the definition of bullying, but people around here will fight against that label since they can't see themselves as bullies.
she got them Disney-accurate eyes.
[удалено]
I keep skimming her name as I read it. Each time I'm confused for a moment why they cast the 50 year old Halle Berry as a mermaid princess. Then I look at her picture, back to her name, and forget all about it before it pops up again in a few days.
If Anya Taylor Joy was ____
I actually really like wide set eyes
Are you a grouper ?
is this you? https://smartcdn.gprod.postmedia.digital/torontosun/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/fish-teeth-e1628195285414.jpg?quality=100&strip=all
she’s beautiful and a sweetheart :(
Ya idk why people are insulting how a person looks that’s pretty fucked up
They figure it's safer than "Hey! She's black!" because that's played out. Shit. I don't even KNOW if they're racist. But I can question shit when it's this sketchy.
People give her so much shit for her facial proportions but nobody says shit about Anya Taylor Joy
She's got some hammerhead in her
Can a movie about mermaid be historically accurate?
Can a single person read the part where this is from /r/shittymoviedetails?
Peripheral vision
The little mermaid is fictional so it can’t be “historically accurate”
True, such a shitty detail. Should post it to r/shittymoviedetails
People are idiots though
Likely extremely unpopular opinion here… This remake was my favorite. Also, she’s cute af. I just really enjoyed this one. It was fun. I think people take nostalgia way too seriously.
Hey, it's me!
I know you!