Disney Sequels VS LA Remakes

Although I’ve never seen a Disney live-action remake all the way through, I get the appeal and understand why they’re very popular. However, due to just how many are going to be released across the next decade and how few really need to be reimagined (Mulan’s barely older than SpongeBob), I can see why detractors are starting to call them out on being cash grabs or just unnecessary.

No matter how “bad” things get though, I don’t think the problem will get as bad as the direct-to-video sequels of the 1990s and 2000s. Tell me why The Fox and The Hound needed to be a musical, or Beauty and the Beast needed a Christmas special. Sure some of them were fine, but since many of them were released decades (up to 50 years) after their predeccessors, they felt like a quick buck’s worth of brand recognition.

Do you think the live-action remake “problem”’s bad at the moment? Do you think it’s ever going to get too bad?

Of the two, I think the live-action remakes are the lesser of the two evils for sure. Granted, I've only seen Alice in Wonderland, Maleficent, and The Jungle Book of them (with only the last one of those three being good), but while I'm not a fan of them for being lazy, bland, and unoriginal rehashes of the original animated films that feel like they're just made to make money, I can at least say it feels like more effort went into these than the direct to video sequels. Compare the live-action Jungle Book to The Jungle Book 2. While neither of them beat the animated version for me, it's obviously that the live-action remake has a lot more effort put into it than the sequel. I'm not a fan of either, but the direct to video sequels feel more like cash-grabs to me and I think they're worse.

Personally, I think I prefer the live-action remakes because unlike the sequels, there's evidence of an actual budget being used. A sign that actual effort is being put into the movie as they try to make it as memorable an experience for the audience as possible. The animation in the sequels is often cheap and prone to inconsistencies, and some of the stories feel too generic and bland for a company such as Disney that is known to be capable to making actual masterpieces.

I will say, though, that there are sequels/prequels that I actually enjoy watching. First three that come to mind are both Little Mermaid ones (with a preference for Beginning for it has more heart and a more original story compared to TLM2) and Cinderella III (surprise, surprise...). But there are just some really inexcusable ones like the Beauty And The Beast ones and The Return Of Jafar (both examples subjectively chosen). Nonetheless, I would say that while the direct-to-DVD/video movies are lackluster in quality and generally show inferiority compared to the original(s), I find them to still be capable of getting a laugh or two out of me and grasp my attention long enough to sit through it.

But, in a way, when it comes to the live-action remakes, I'd say that I'm rather disappointed in Disney. The Beauty And The Beast remake is basically just the animated classic word for word albeit for a few new songs thrown in here and there, and that makes me wonder why they even bothered bringing such a rehash to the table despite it actually being enjoyable (which, again, could stem from the original being a good movie and this being another version of it...the praise is virtually second-hand).

And I'm kind of mad about the whole Lion King remake idea because it's basically CGI. This is perhaps where I officially draw the line with these remakes. The Jungle Book can get away with being called a live-action film due to actually having a live character acting, whereas the lions in TLK are going to be CGI be placed backgrounds and settings (yes, these could be of real locations, but it's not being shot on scene but rather technologically added in shots).

I'm kind of looking forward to the prospect of a Little Mermaid remake, though (I think there's one being planned by Disney), and I'd be more than open for an Ursula-centric live-action movie should Disney ever look into that idea.

While both are cheap cash grabs, at least some genuine effort is put into the Live Action remakes, making them look as nice as possible. Direct-to-video sequels usually have sub-par animation, with at worst, abysmal writing. The Live Action remakes have source material they can't go too far off from, so the story at the very least will make sense, whereas the direct-to-video sequels butchered the story a good half the time.

Direct to Video sequels are, for the most part, unwatchable for me. Most of the live-action remakes have been okay at best, and actually seem to have some sort of effort put into them, so I'd say LA is a more improved version of the Disney cash grab.

I’m surprised to see a lot of people who are critical of the remakes (and even a few votes for the sequels), considering the critical acclaim they reach. Then again, a well-made movie doesn’t always mean an enjoyable one.

Live action remakes. While all of them are watchable in a way, the part that annoys me is how they just feel more like cash grabs than anything else. The most that I can say about them is that they actually feel rather cinematic and expensive, despite how unoriginal and unnecessary they are. I could tell that a lot of effort goes into these movies, like the LA Jungle Book, Cinderella, and even Beauty and the Beast (even though I wasn't a huge fan of the LA BTTB).

Direct to DVD sequels, on the other hand, aren't terrible, but most of them feel very cheap. For example, a well-known voice actor is replaced by a "carbon copy" voice actor, like what happened with Mushu in Mulan 2. I mean, the voice actor that voiced Mushu in the sequel did an okay job, but he has yet to beat Eddie Murphy. The same goes for animation. Usually, the animation looks very low quality when compared to their theatrical releases. Taking a look at the Aladdin sequels, which were actually decent, and comparing them to the theatrical release is like comparing a cake baked by a little kid and a cake created by a professional baker. It's very obvious.

There's some sequels that do put in the extra effort to be fairly enjoyable, like Cinderella III: A Twist in Time, the Lion King II, and The King of Theives, but there's plenty of these Direct to DVDs that I can't stand, like Belle's Magical World, Mulan 2, and The Hunchback of Notre Dame 2 (who knew that 3 of my favorite Disney movies would have the worst sequels?). Overall, the sequels are basically the original Disney movies, but worse in almost every way.

I actually remember liking The Lion King 1.5 or whatever it was called. It actually had a unique spin and wasn't just a sanitized and terrible version of the original.

The rest of the sequels I've seen are abominations. I haven't seen the live-action remakes because I refuse to financially support them. I mean you know exactly how it's going to go, why support such cynical film-making?

Honest Slug is a Bunny now said:

I haven't seen the live-action remakes because I refuse to financially support them.

Click to expand...

That’s quite a silent protest in an era where grossing $150M is considered worrying, but I get your “don’t like don’t watch” stance.

In other news, DisneyToon’s shutting down, so we’re further from returning to the sequels.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-disneytoon-20180628-story.html

Well, I like at least three Disney Sequels, and I don't like any Disney Remake, so I guess Sequels are kinda better?..
Honestly, both things are terrible cash-grabs and I don't like either of them, so it's like picking lesser evil.

They're both nothing but cash-grabs

However at least the live-action remakes get actual respectable directors & producers involved

Plus they try to stick to the source material

Direct-to-video sequels on the other hand usually throw in new characters and plot that has NOTHING to do with the original