Cruella *SPOILERS*

[Vakanai]

Well, Disney Feature Animation seems to be doing fine as is. The real issue is Walt Disney Studios, which is their legacy live action studio (you know, the live action studio that was born in Disney proper rather than being purchased like Lucasfilm or Marvel Studios. A reminder that Disney isn't just Disney. It's made up of parts and divisions). Or are you suggesting that they should dissolve Walt Disney Studios and dump all of their resources into Disney Feature Animation so that they can make more animated movies. I kind of feel like that might have happened if the reimaginings of the animated stuff didn't do well or the Pirates movies stopped making bank in China. Or they'd have their resources cut and be repurposed as a division just devoted to making Disney+ content.

Honestly, this whole thing gets kind of complicated. Especially when you realize that 90% of Disney's money probably doesn't come from movies or TV. It comes from their hospitality businesses. Essentially, the money is in the parks and the hotels attached to the parks. And the main purpose of the movies is to create new IP they can populate the parks with.

But we've gone a bit off-topic.

All I'm suggesting is I hate the constant Disney remakes and would rather have them do literally anything else other than these constant remakes. Even more animated movies, more Mickey Mouse movies, come up with new ideas, go out of business and die, anything else!

[inisideguy]

I haven’t seen it but Disney pictures (not Marvel or Pixar or Star Wars) has been notoriously horrible at making movies.

With the exception of The Pirates series and their remakes, their movies have been huge failures and just terrible.

I hope Cruella is better.

I mean Disney live action pictures barely come out with movies that are not remakes of a previous property. They have had some failures but not anymore than any other studio thats for sure.

[inisideguy]

All I'm suggesting is I hate the constant Disney remakes and would rather have them do literally anything else other than these constant remakes. Even more animated movies, more Mickey Mouse movies, come up with new ideas, go out of business and die, anything else!

I mean Cruella is based on the character from the animated movie but its not a remake.

[Vakanai]

I mean Cruella is based on the character from the animated movie but its not a remake.

Cruella I'm okay with, it's more original than constant remakes and sequels to those remakes. I'd be fine with more movies like it and Malificent (sp?). But it's rare and few between, mostly remakes.

[Godzilla2099]

The entire movie is Cruella trying to convince you she's some kind of roguish iconoclast hero.

This is why I'm not watching this movie. Even as a small kid I understood this crazy chic wanted to skin puppies and wear them! You can't get more demented than that.

What's with Disney trying to make these villainous ladies some sort of victim or hero? Malificent was stretching it, but Cruella is lower than a Villain. If we're talking twisted, she's on the level of Leatherface (if Leatherface was a woman, Disney would try to victimize this character too)

[AdamFTF]

All I'm suggesting is I hate the constant Disney remakes and would rather have them do literally anything else other than these constant remakes. Even more animated movies, more Mickey Mouse movies, come up with new ideas, go out of business and die, anything else!

I don't mind them. But I'm a storyteller who specializes in old stories (mostly folk tales and legends). And one credo I've stuck with is that old stories should be retold. Not just retold but revamped, reimagined and reinterpreted. It's the only way we end up with the versions of stories we have today. And the fact that Disney who could have just rested on its laurels because it had managed to somehow convince people that their versions were the "canon", is reinterpreting these old stories again is interesting. I understand some of them are too similar to the animated versions for some people, but I like seeing the places where they vary. Where they go back and slip in some little part from the book or fairy tale that wasn't there the first time they made it into a movie (for example, the buffalo stampede, the myth about the elephants creating the jungle and the "Law of the Jungle" weren't in the animated Jungle Book, but they were all in Rudyard Kipling's Jungle Books in different places).

It actually kind of struck me that the makers of these films often don't seem to act like they're remaking a film or adapting a book, but like they're adapting a comic book. They pick and choose different elements from different interpretations that have appeared over the tale's long history. Sometimes even ones from different cultures (Kenneth Branagh's Cinderella drew from both French and German versions of the story).

[green_garnish]

All I'm suggesting is I hate the constant Disney remakes and would rather have them do literally anything else

I haven't seen the movie, but I'm unclear on what this is a remake of. Can you help me out on this one?

[titanfan]

I haven't seen the movie, but I'm unclear on what this is a remake of. Can you help me out on this one?

101 Dalmations Prequel

[green_garnish]

101 Dalmations Prequel

That's not a remake. What's it a remake of?

[AdamFTF]

That's not a remake. What's it a remake of?

It's not a remake. But people tend to use the phrase "live action remake" as a blanket term for Disney's recent revisits to their back catalog.

[green_garnish]

It's not a remake. But people tend to use the phrase "live action remake" as a blanket term for Disney's recent revisits to their back catalog.

So we have a different story set in a consistent reality. Gee, what does that remind me of?

[choptop]

It's not a remake. But people tend to use the phrase "live action remake" as a blanket term for Disney's recent revisits to their back catalog.

I call it a reimagining.

[Vakanai]

I haven't seen the movie, but I'm unclear on what this is a remake of. Can you help me out on this one?

I didn't say this was a remake - in fact I said the opposite, that this was (relatively for them) better because it at least was a new take on one of their IPs.
But you can't say that they haven't been churning out remakes to the animated classics with extremely frequent zeal the past decade.

[Vakanai]

I don't mind them. But I'm a storyteller who specializes in old stories (mostly folk tales and legends). And one credo I've stuck with is that old stories should be retold. Not just retold but revamped, reimagined and reinterpreted. It's the only way we end up with the versions of stories we have today. And the fact that Disney who could have just rested on its laurels because it had managed to somehow convince people that their versions were the "canon", is reinterpreting these old stories again is interesting. I understand some of them are too similar to the animated versions for some people, but I like seeing the places where they vary. Where they go back and slip in some little part from the book or fairy tale that wasn't there the first time they made it into a movie (for example, the buffalo stampede, the myth about the elephants creating the jungle and the "Law of the Jungle" weren't in the animated Jungle Book, but they were all in Rudyard Kipling's Jungle Books in different places).

It actually kind of struck me that the makers of these films often don't seem to act like they're remaking a film or adapting a book, but like they're adapting a comic book. They pick and choose different elements from different interpretations that have appeared over the tale's long history. Sometimes even ones from different cultures (Kenneth Branagh's Cinderella drew from both French and German versions of the story).

Maybe, but it just doesn't peak my interest at all.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

This is why I'm not watching this movie. Even as a small kid I understood this crazy chic wanted to skin puppies and wear them! You can't get more demented than that.

What's with Disney trying to make these villainous ladies some sort of victim or hero? Malificent was stretching it, but Cruella is lower than a Villain. If we're talking twisted, she's on the level of Leatherface (if Leatherface was a woman, Disney would try to victimize this character too)

I have to disagree. Cruella was clearly an unhinged lady. Malificent was an avatar for being evil. There's almost no stretching you can do to make Malificent sympathetic. Cruella at least is pretty much completley unhinged and shows all the traits of the original Cruella and almost gets there but pulls back for this film because she is going up against someone who is basically what she will later become.