A question - and a little fun...

[Rath Darkblade]

A question - and a little fun...

I'm surprised (and a little disappointed) that Disney's remaking so many of their animated films, like Lion King, Little Mermaid, Dumbo and so on. Any idea why this is? I know they've purchased the rights to Star Wars and Monkey Island and so on. So is this just a blatant cash-grab on Disney's part?

On the plus side, it inspired me to write this. Hope you enjoy!

Hollywood Movie Sequels that we don't need to see

14. Indiana Jones VIII: Hi! I'm here selling these fine leather jackets!
13. The Da Vinci Commode
12. King Kong II: When Gorillas Attack
11. Lethal Weapon VI: Mel Gibson Saves the Day. Again
10. Forrest Grump
9. The Sound of Music II: Nuns With Guns!
8. Braveheart II: The Blooper Reel
7. The Truman Show II: Behind the Scenes
6. Nightmare on Elm Street X: Does it Really Need a Subtitle?
5. The X-Files Movie II: The truth isn't out there, but Agent Mulder is
4. Jaws VII: We Jump the Shark!
3. My Fair Lady II: Eliza Doolittle Does Little
2. Casablanca II: Rowdy Rick Returns

And... drumroll...

1. The Lord of the Rings II: Return of the Ring

Feel free to add more!

[Semi-Happy Partygoer]

13. The Da Vinci Commode
10. Forrest Grump
9. The Sound of Music II: Nuns With Guns!
8. Braveheart II: The Blooper Reel
4. Jaws VII: We Jump the Shark!

[Datadog]

To be fair, I would totally watch most of these.

[Rath Darkblade]

Please, please tell me you don't mean that you'll watch "LOTR 2". Frodo spends 6 hours (or 9 hours if we're talking the "Extended Edition") to get rid of the One Ring. And now it comes back?

Um, no thanks. There are plenty of stories to tell within the LOTR universe, and outside it too. We don't need a sequel just for the sake of a sequel.

[Tawmis]

Since the subject says a question, I figured I'd answer it...

I'm surprised (and a little disappointed) that Disney's remaking so many of their animated films, like Lion King, Little Mermaid, Dumbo and so on. Any idea why this is? I know they've purchased the rights to Star Wars and Monkey Island and so on. So is this just a blatant cash-grab on Disney's part?

You have to consider how the environment has changed. Computer animation allows movies to look completely realistic (for the most part).

And in the days of where kids are glued to their iPads, iPhones, Androids, XBOX, Playstations, Switches, and whatever else - all of these things tend to have computer graphics.

As a company, if Disney hopes to lure people (kids, namely) into the movies - old style animation isn't going to cut it anymore, for the most part.

So now, Disney has done what everyone else has done (including George Lucas), and remaking these classic movies that so many children loved a long time ago; and target the next generation of kids, with a form of animation that would likely appeal to them.

I am no Disney, or George Lucas, but it's the very same reason I'd been redoing Neverending Nights. I was proud back in 2004 to 2010, of what I had managed to do. But now that I have a program that allows me to edit 1080p videos, and NWN can do 1080p screen resolution; I've gone back and redone the first 42 episodes (out of 62) so that the format is all consistent (since when we originally started we were using a free Windows Movie Maker; which made it into WMV files which compressed the quality and could only save in 800x600; then eventually to 1024x720...) But now all of it can be "blu-ray" resolution, because it looks crisp and amazing (even though it's still dated graphics).

Just throwing in my 2 cents at your Disney jab.

And now for the fun...

Hollywood Movie Sequels that we don't need to see

12. King Kong II: When Gorillas Attack
11. Lethal Weapon VI: Mel Gibson Saves the Day. Again
6. Nightmare on Elm Street X: Does it Really Need a Subtitle?
5. The X-Files Movie II: The truth isn't out there, but Agent Mulder is
4. Jaws VII: We Jump the Shark!
1. The Lord of the Rings II: Return of the Ring

I'd watch the above. Without a doubt.

[Rath Darkblade]

Er, sorry ... my Disney jab? I'm not attacking Disney per se. I was just confused why Disney is remaking all these movies, instead of making something new. Thanks for explaining!

I suppose, also, that making a new Disney film would mean getting a new story, new images/video footage etc. That's more expensive than remaking an old movie. Right?

[Tawmis]

Er, sorry ... my Disney jab? I'm not attacking Disney per se.

So is this just a blatant cash-grab on Disney's part?
Heh - that doesn't sound like a jab?
Because accusing anyone of a blatant cash grab does sound like a jab to me.
I have no stock or anything in Disney; but phew, does Disney get a lot of hate for "taking over everything."

I was just confused why Disney is remaking all these movies, instead of making something new. Thanks for explaining!

Oh, I am only explaining my take on what Disney's doing. I could be wrong. It could be a blatant cash grab.
But looking at it for what Disney is - a business - if it proves profitable, why not do it, if it's not harming anything?

I think it's because I thrived on Marvel Comics, but the last 20 years have not been for me...
I was collecting titles, just to collect them... and despite my hatred for what Marvel is doing these days (continuity no longer exists, deaths are a joke, etc)...
It's annoys the frack out of me; but it's been very successful for Marvel. So Marvel is doing what makes them money.
They may lose me as a fan as a result (I no longer collect Marvel), but they're picking up so many NEW fans.
And their disregard of continuity means you can pick up a new book and not need 40 years of comic book history knowledge.
So they're doing what works for them, and I realize, despite how painful it is to me, that Marvel is a business and it needs to make money.
Same thing as Disney. Though I am not sure Disney needs to make money, as I am pretty sure they're just spending money just to get rid of it.

[Datadog]

Oh, I am only explaining my take on what Disney's doing. I could be wrong. It could be a blatant cash grab.

Oh, it is 100% a cash grab. These have all been beat-for-beat remakes with a couple new songs and some plot extensions tossed in. They've offered little to no fresh takes on the original stories, and play out more like experiments than anything. But same rule as any franchise: if they can break the box office, they make more, because that's how companies keep the lights on.

Please, please tell me you don't mean that you'll watch "LOTR 2". Frodo spends 6 hours (or 9 hours if we're talking the "Extended Edition") to get rid of the One Ring. And now it comes back?

Right now, my son and I are making our own LOTR campaign with his stuffed toys, and we're calling it "Lord of the Rings 2: Fellowships of the Rings" because it revolves around THREE One Rings coming back and we need three fellowships to destroy them all.

Here's an image of our Council of Elrond, for example.

So yes, if SW fans can flock in droves to watch a sequel remake like "Force Awakens", I can probably psyche myself up for the awfulness of "Return of the Ring".

[Rath Darkblade]

Datadog, I love the new Council of Elrond (with Daddy Pig in attendance, no less).

Sorry if I hit a raw nerve re: the mention of "a blatant cash-grab". *shrug* I've seen it happen with other companies so often, it doesn't shock or surprise me any more - it just makes me sad. But I'm sure Disney execs need to make more money to keep the lights on and pay their employees (and, of course, feather their own nests). Meh. Politicians and big corporations do it all the time, and sometimes get caught with their hands in the till.

Don't believe me? Exhibit A, Halliburton. Exhibit B, the financial crisis of 2007–2008. Exhibit C, Enron. Etc., etc., etc.

I'm not saying that Disney is run by crooks. I just think - for every high-profile scalp like Enron, how much more goes on that we don't know about?

So ... sigh ... if everyone behaves dishonestly in business, why not Disney. Sure. What I might call "a blatant cash-grab", they'd just call "creative accounting". I'm not angry if businesses engage in shady practices; I half-expect them to. What angers me is finding out about it - e.g. when a business is open and brazen about its own dishonesty. "Nyah nyah! We fooled you and there's nothing you can do about it! Phbbttt!" Or when a business is run by crooks who are too incompetent to cover up for themselves, so it all comes out into the papers. Whoops!

Again, I'm talking generally here - not specifically about Disney.

[Tawmis]

Oh, it is 100% a cash grab. These have all been beat-for-beat remakes with a couple new songs and some plot extensions tossed in. They've offered little to no fresh takes on the original stories, and play out more like experiments than anything. But same rule as any franchise: if they can break the box office, they make more, because that's how companies keep the lights on.

Wouldn't that make every Star Trek movie past the first a cash grab? Every Star Wars movie past A New Hope? You might say, "Well Star Wars was planned a trilogy."
So then Phantom Menace was a (cough failure) cash grab, rather than a Star Wars for a new generation, since Return of the Jedi (1983) and Phantom Menace (1999) were so far apart?
The original Lion King came out in 1994 and the remake is 2019. That's a very long time between original and remake.
And unlike George Lucas who "re-released" the original movies back in the theaters (and then on DVD and BluRay) with "touched up scenes" - this is at least a complete remake from cartoon animation to computer animation.
I don't see these as "blatant" cash grabs; I do see these as a business movie to target a new generation, however.

[Rath Darkblade]

Fair enough. It's always difficult to engage younger generations, so good on Disney for at least trying.

Speaking personally, I'd like to see Disney do something new. But that might be because I've seen Disney do lots of things, so I'm harder to impress.

Does that make me a cantankerous old fart? I hope not ...

[Tawmis]

Speaking personally, I'd like to see Disney do something new. But that might be because I've seen Disney do lots of things, so I'm harder to impress.

Isn't FROZEN considered new?
(I've never seen it myself, just know the songs thanks to friends having kids... so I am not sure if it's based on anything else or an original).

[Datadog]

Wouldn't that make every Star Trek movie past the first a cash grab? Every Star Wars movie past A New Hope?

If you define any sequel or guaranteed money-maker as a "cash grab", that's fair. It's always easier to greenlight a movie when it's part of a successful brand. And there's nothing wrong with enjoying cash grabs, especially ones that hit you in all the right feels.

But when I refer to something as a "100% cash grab", I refer to how closely the work in question resembles a "Greatest Hits" album. A "Greatest Hits" album is probably the purest form of a cash grab since it only delivers all your favourite songs without any of the conceptual tracks, and that's where I feel these Disney remakes are heading.

Point in case, I actually do enjoy Jon Favreau's "Jungle Book". It has new characters, new plot threads, and a distinct visual style that sets it apart from the animated feature. It still has a few call-backs, like its songs, but they don't overshadow what's fresh about the rest of the film and I appreciate that.

Moving forward to something like "Beauty and the Beast", however, the call-backs are non-stop. Every other scene, line of dialogue, and even the musical score is lifted out of the animated feature to appeal to a nostalgic crowd. The nostalgia factor easily overshadows the film's original content. So even if they're just trying to re-create animation on a live-action plate as an experiment, I feel it's the type of remake that takes a low-risk approach by mostly playing the "Greatest Hits". That's the style of movie I would personally consider a larger "cash grab" over a typical Hollywood sequel.

Isn't FROZEN considered new?

Tangled, Frozen, Moana, Zootopia, Wreck-it Ralph, and Big Hero 6 are considered new by Disney standards. They did have that good run of originals, but now they're only making sequels to those films, so... I'm not sure what happened there. They were on a roll for a while.

[Tawmis]

Isn't FROZEN considered new?

Tangled, Frozen, Moana, Zootopia, Wreck-it Ralph, and Big Hero 6 are considered new by Disney standards. They did have that good run of originals, but now they're only making sequels to those films, so... I'm not sure what happened there. They were on a roll for a while.

As to what happened...
If you define any sequel or guaranteed money-maker as a "cash grab", that's fair. It's always easier to greenlight a movie when it's part of a successful brand. And there's nothing wrong with enjoying cash grabs, especially ones that hit you in all the right feels. No, seriously, he did!

[Datadog]

As to what happened..

They were actually slated for a series of original releases these last few years, but most got pushed to 2020 and 2021. It might be that the Fox buy-out and the development of Disney+ changed their schedule.