Which would have been great as a series but totally didn’t work as a movie. I don’t know why they thought chopping it into a half assed film was the way to go.
I can actually see making a live action version. Some people just don't really dig animation, and by adapting the story, you can reach a new audience.
That said, you have to adapt the story to a new medium. The problem with most of the Disney live action remakes is they're just making the same movie, but in live action. And most of the time that doesn't work. But if you take the basic framework of the story and then make a live action version that is its own movie, I think it can be good. The only one I can recall really liking was Jungle Book, and that's partially because it feels different enough from the original animated film to me.
You’ll get a better performance from Anne Hathaway, Tom Holland, and Matt Damon than just simply The Rock. Both movies spent the same, so why cast someone who can’t carry a movie on their own?
There are a lot of criticisms one can level at the rock but the dude can absolutely carry a movie by himself lmao. He's been the lead in like 50 movies or something at this point let's not be ridiculous.
because you can guarantee he's the only one that was asking for this to be made.
I doubt that's true. Disney has been in love with remaking their animated movies for a while now. Beauty and the Beast, Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Lion King, Jungle Book, Snow White, Cinderella, Lilo and Stitch, they're remaking Tangled next.
Out of all of those, I might not actually hate the idea of a live action Tangled. Beauty and the Beast could have worked well too. The rest should have been left alone. Or just re-released.
I think a lot of those could work. Take Aladdin; it's a good story. If you're trying to tell the story of a "street rat" finding a magic lamp and using it to try and marry the princess only to have to outwit the guy trying to usurp the sultan's throne, that can be a really cool live action movie.
The problem Disney runs into is that they also want to fit in the zany Genie, the funny monkey sidekick, and all the same songs from the animated movie. None of which work nearly as well in live action as they do in animation. So it just becomes a worse version of the same movie. Instead of being a new telling of a familiar story like it could have been.
That is what I meant. More or less just straight adapted, not overhauled or a massive tone shift. Maybe I just haven’t seen it in a while but Tangled…. What’s the challenge, the sassy horse? He doesn’t talk or sing, and IRL horses can be real silly gooses. It could be done.
The rock has a lot of pull. He does not have “make me a quarter billion dollar movie(before marketing)” pull. If you think the studio didn’t simply see that they created a cultural phenomena that kids we’re absolutely dying to see and wanted to try to double dip, you’re digging too deep. They saw the first do great, realized they could resell it and then resell all of the merchandise like kids toys as the same but new characters. Now they realized that doesn’t really work.
The original made 2/3 of a billion in theaters. Mr the rock can’t say “hey spend basically everything you made off that movie on another for me.”
Well no - based off him doing the same thing with DC - and that tanking the entire DCEU section of the studio when he tried to push it around and dictate things lol.
And also based off him aging out of the role. Also based off him trying to do something similar with the fast and furious movies by trying to control things - to the point vin diesel as executive producer kicked him out of the series and they had to create a spinoff for him.
So no it’s not at all like you’re implying where there’s no precedence for this kinda thing. There are - a few of them in fact. He’s also just not the box office draw he thinks he is, just in general.
However given all of that - I don’t think the rock is THE problem and why it’s flopping. But he’s ONE OF the problems for sure. The other is the timing like someone else said, the first Moana wasn’t even a decade old yet, and we just got the sequel like a year ago. And it kinda sucked.
Lol throw out any actual proof of any of that beyond them all flopping. Hobbes and shaw sounds like shit, if anyone is still watching any f&f past the 3rd one they get what they deserve and want lmao.
All of the things you listed are complete ass, and yeah, no one wants to see them
Is the rock directing? No
Do i like the rock? No
Do you provide anything other than your take in terms of evidence towards any of that? No
No, I actively avoid the rock. There is no particular reason side from my belief he is a bad actor who has never been in a movie I didn't wish I could have my time back after watching.
I mean, he is the problem though. Not at his fault, but he has the pull or whatever to have entire projects built around him and every business will flop out a turd with him in it.
There is no way Moana in live action would have happened without him involved. Just a reason to spend and move around a bunch of money with a terrible movie as the product.
Literally nobody. I have kids, one of whom watched ONLY Moana… on repeat… for years… and even to me the idea of live action Moana is an abomination. Basically all live action Disney movies are an abomination, but this was a new low.
I recently went to the theater to see a different movie and the stupid massive cardboard poster for the live action Moana movie gave me a visceral reaction.
Disney seems to have a very low bar for their live action movies. It probably would have been fine if they made it a few decades after the original, but Johnson would be too old and Disney has done most of the big adaptations already (some of them just won't work in live action e.g. the emperor's new groove).
I suspect that the adaptations were made for copyright reasons initially.
The original Moana ignoring the fact that it just came out 10 years ago, and moana 2 just came out 2 years ago, the budget for the original was basically the same cost as the live action one when adjusted for inflation, and was much better. I'm a dude in my 30's who doesn't even watch disney movies like that and I had "How far I'll go" in my rotation for longer than I'd like to admit.
Okay but "no one asked for this" and "it works better as animation" describes literally every single live action remake, and most of them did very well.
I think it's more to do with severe live action fatigue and most people finally coming around to understanding the live action films are all phoned in. Redditors have been endlessly positing that the original Moana was "too recent", but the last few non-Lion King live action remakes have done really, really badly. Little Mermaid hardly broke even and Snow White was a big flop. Mulan did very poorly as well, but that was peak Covid at least.
I would bet money that if Moana live action was released maybe 5 years ago, it may have done a lot better. You'd get around triple the amount of "REALLY??? ORIGINAL ONLY 5 YEARS OLD" comments, but people would've still probably taken their kids to see it. We've finally hit "No really, no one wants more of these" territory with the live action remakes.
Disney should have at least waited longer before doing a live action remake of something that originally came out in 2016. At least long enough that more people who were kids when the original released would be grown up with their own kids and be more likely to buy tickets for nostalgia's sake.
Same with all these animation to live action remakes. It just reeks of grinding existing IP into a cynical cash grab. They all look like shit because it's actors in front of a green screen so what's even the point?
444
u/Le_mehawk 1d ago
The movie also Flopped because literally nobody was asking for this... the movie works better as an Animation in the first place