Aladdin (2019) (1 Viewer)

[MatthewA]

It'll make money based on name recognition, but whether people will consider it worth their while is another thing. It's getting harder and harder for families to justify going to the movies on a regular basis with what tickets cost and with the cost of transportation going up (at least in California).

But why does Disney have this pathological need to just re-do its whole past digitally? Even if the films make money and people enjoy watching them, does that suddenly make the originals retroactively worthless? I don't think so. At what point will this well run dry?

I keep forgetting about Dumbo. Personally, I think three "animated to live adaptations" from the same studio's pool of classics in the same year is overkill. They might end up killing their golden goose.

The "renaissance" of the 1990s ended when they tried to maintain the same growth rates and profit margins by cutting corners and increasing output, thus reducing the overall perceived value of the company's output. Unlike the 1970s in which flops were numerous and hits just weren't big enough in number or profitability to counterbalance them, they could not hide behind the recession and the leadership vacuum left behind in the wake of Walt's death and exacerbated by Roy's death as an excuse anymore. The more they rely on rehashing the past, the more it will come back to haunt them in the long-run.

Walt was always scouring the globe for new works to bring to the screen in addition to occasionally redoing his own works (compare the 1931 black and white Ugly Duckling to the 1939 Technicolor version, or the Silly Symphony Noah's Ark to the 1950s stop-motion version) and others' (Swiss Family Robinson had a 1940 RKO film first). But those represented a small minority of their overall output then.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

It'll make money based on name recognition, but whether people will consider it worth their while is another thing. It's getting harder and harder for families to justify going to the movies on a regular basis with what tickets cost and with the cost of transportation going up (at least in California).

I think that's exactly why it will be a success, and the same reason both The Lion King and Aladdin have been successful on Broadway. I live in New York City, which is possibly the most expensive market in the world for movie tickets - an IMAX 3D ticket is $27, premium Dolby Cinema in 2D is about $24, regular RealD 3D is going for about $21, and standard 2D just crossed the threshold into the $17-18 price range depending on theater. Go out to the suburbs where I grew up and it's maybe $5 a ticket cheaper, but that's still outrageous just to where things were five years ago.

With prices like that, people are feeling that they can't afford to take chances on things. I hate feeling like that, but it's a feeling I empathize with, and my own moviegoing and certainly my own Broadway-theatergoing has gotten more restricted in recent years. I just can't afford to spend $150 for a play ticket for something I could totally hate; the downside to "I might not like it" now outweights the upside to "Maybe I'll discover something cool". And I'm a guy that doesn't mind going out solo if my wife or friends aren't interested in seeing something I want to see. But turn that into a family outing - a two parent household with two kids could easily spend $600 for decent (but not excellent) face value tickets to a Broadway show. That's a week's pay or more for some people, that's half the rent or half the mortgage, or the cost of a new smartphone or TV that you'll own for years - it's a lot of money. I can completely understand how, if you're going to spend that kind of money, it can't just be on something you and your family are curious about, it has to be for something you know you'll love, in advance.

And I think the same thing is happening with movies. Disney is having so much success, in my view, because they're presenting a product that audiences know they love in advance. Aladdin will be successful because it's a known quantity. Because it's a remake (and probably a close remake) of an already beloved film, likely to feature the exact same songs in very similar stagings, it's more like a revival of a favorite play than remake. Whether movie prices are holding at $27 for IMAX, or whether they've gone up, or even if the person buying the ticket is in a market where the price is half that, they'll know what they're getting in advance, and that will make it much easier to justify the expense.

I think it's somewhat telling that we live in an era now where studios expect sequels and reboots to outgross the originals. In the old days, when sequels were just thought of as mostly lame cash grabs (with a handful of exceptions), the idea was that it wouldn't make as much as the original, but it could be made cheaper and would be easier to market, so even though there was an expectation that it wouldn't gross as much as the original, it was still a win-win. Now, the first film in a series is almost seen as a trial balloon for a proof of concept, and each sequel is expected to outgross the film that followed before it, as more and more people watch the original at home, cheaply, and discover they like it and that a ticket to the sequel is a "safe" investment.

 

[MatthewA]

They learned it from Pixar* and Toy Story 2 and 3: if you must make a sequel, at least actively try to make it a good one.

*Their next movie is called Coco, like The Golden Girls' gay housekeeper in the pilot, while Frozen had characters named Olaf (as in St. Olaf) and Sven (like Rose's cousin played by the same guy who sold fake cosmetics to Punky Brewster around the same time). Draw your own conclusion.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Coco reminds me more - from the trailer at least - of the Fox-released Book Of Life.

 

[Jake Lipson]

the whole show was nothing more than a showcase for Robin Williams's comedic timing and talent as a voice actor and impersonator.

Respectfully, there is the heart of our disagreement. Robin Williams did a tremendous job with Aladdin, and his Genie is deservedly iconic. However, he is far from the only draw in the film, which is full of fun characters and memorable music even when he's not on screen. All the characters are really well-defined and have engaging, major contributions to the narrative. Not to mention, it's not called "Genie." It's called "Aladdin." And, yes, the Genie gets the most laughs, but it woks because we're invested in Aladdin as our protagonist and want to see him succeed. If we didn't care about Aladdin bettering himself and finding happiness with Jasmine, Robin's antics as the Genie wouldn't add up to much on their own since it's not his story.

Jasmine is a strong, independent woman who holds her own in every scene she's in and isn't afraid to take charge and make sacrifices (like kissing Jafar!), and Jafar is an iconic, creepy villain whose disturbing interest in Jasmine makes him a genuine and unique kind of evil. And Iago is just as funny as the Genie in spots.

If you want prof that people care about Aladdin without the involvement of Robin Williams, just look at the grosses for the Broadway production, which regularly clear $1 million or more per week even in its third year.

The new movie's ultimate leg-out gross will of course have a lot to do with how good it is and whether people like it enough to recommend it and return to it in the theater. But there is no reason to expect that it won't at the very bare minimum open huge. And even if it did bomb, it would take more than one bomb to kill off Disney's remake strategy. Alice 2 was a bomb, and while we aren't going to be seeing an Alice 3 anytime soon, all of these other movies are still very much in the mold of the remake trend that started in earnest with the first Alice.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Not to mention...Will Smith is probably my generation (I'm 34) what Robin Williams was to my parents' generation when the original film came out. I may or may not like the finished film, and Disney may or may not be doing all of this cynically, but I think they're trying to hit all the right notes for both storytelling and pop culture event.

 

[Edwin-S]

Will Smith is the Genie.
A Prince played by a white actor has been added to an Arabic folktale.
A Brit of East Indian descent is playing Jasmine.



I was going to make a joke about the Pink Power Ranger playing Aladdin, but at least that guy is of Middle Eastern descent. One out of four aint bad in a story about Arabic people.

My belief that this film is complete garbage like every other Disney live action remake of their animated films? Confirmed.
Right about now, old Walt must be getting dizzy from spinning in his grave.

 

[TravisR]

Respectfully, there is the heart of our disagreement. Robin Williams did a tremendous job with Aladdin, and his Genie is deservedly iconic. However, he is far from the only draw in the film, which is full of fun characters and memorable music even when he's not on screen.

Yeah, I think Robin Williams/Genie was the biggest thing that kids liked about the movie and the music was the biggest thing that adults like about it. Needless to say, both groups liked both things though.

Not to mention...Will Smith is probably my generation (I'm 34) what Robin Williams was to my parents' generation when the original film came out.

I don't even really like that many of Will Smith's movies but the man is undeniably charismatic and will be a draw for people to see the movie. While I know there will be iconic lines that they have to use again, I hope Smith goes for his own style of humor rather than trying to mimic Robin Williams.

 

[Jake Lipson]

The Broadway version reinterprets the Genie role and no one there is ever asked to mimic Robin Williams. I doubt Smith will do so either. I'm not a huge fan of his either, but he is too smart for that and surely knows the only way to do it well is to do it his own way.

 

[Johnny Angell]

The Broadway version reinterprets the Genie role and no one there is ever asked to mimic Robin Williams. I doubt Smith will do so either. I'm not a huge fan of his either, but he is too smart for that and surely knows the only way to do it well is to do it his own way.

Yes, it would be a huge mistake to try to duplicate Robin Williams. Reminds me of a song, "The Impossible Dream."

 

[Edwin-S]

The worst thing about this film, other than it being made in the first place, is Guy Ritchie deciding that the original story isn't good enough when it comes to Aladdin and Jasmine's relationship, so he is going to inject a lame, cliche love triangle involving a foreign Prince, who just happens to be White, because we all know that White people won't go to a movie unless there are White people in it. I wonder why that strategy didn't work for GiTS?

 

[Jake Lipson]

We don't know what Guy Ritchie is doing with the white prince character. Jasmine had other suitors in the animated film too (Prince Achmed, who we saw insult Aladdin in the street and get his underwear bitten off by Rajah.) It certainly makes sense that we may see other suitors besides Prince Ali/Aladdin, and since she is a rich princess, it also makes sense that people would be coming from foreign lands to court her. So, I haven't got a problem with that, and we don't know that it will really be a "love triangle" just because he is going to be present in the film.

And the Genie doesn't have to be of Middle Eastern descent because he is a cosmic force, he can be anything or anyone.

And as far as Naomi Scott is concerned, she looks the part and is a good actress. I'm not going to get hung up on her specific genetic history. Maybe they just thought she is the most qualified for the role?

Edwin, you seem awfully interested in a film that you also seem predetermined to hate.

 

[Edwin-S]

It doesn't take much imagination to deduct that Ritchie is going to introduce a rival for Jasmine's affections. He isn't casting a white actor so the guy can be a 30 second sight gag like the "suitors" in the original film. He is going to be an integral part of the story as a rival, so that Jasmine can show her "depth of character" by being attracted to a white princeling.

I'm not interested in this version of the film per se. By that, I mean I'm never going to watch this garbage just like I refuse to watch the terrible remakes of B&B, The Jungle Book. I do have an interest in criticizing Disney for diminishing the work of hundreds of animators and other artists by taking their superior work and reworking it into trash like this for a film demographic that doe. sn't see animation as a legitimate film medium. These films are being made for people who refuse to watch animated films, because they see them as "childish", but will turn out in droves to watch this trash, because it now uses real actors.

However, you guys may be right. This may not be a flop. The real flop might actually be the "The Lion King" because it is going to be entirely animated in a photorealistic manner ala "Dinosaurs". Disney is trying to pass it off as "live action", but the truth is that it really is an animated film. I wonder how many "live-action-is-the-only-real-film-medium" types are going to go and see that one. For that matter, why even remake "The Lion King" since a properly hand-animated version already exists? Is it really going to make it better or more appealing to an adult demographic that hates animation if the talking, singing animals look photorealistic?

Edit: Removed Cinderella. I mistakenly thought they had remade that one too.

 

[Johnny Angell]

It doesn't take much imagination to deduct that Ritchie is going to introduce a rival for Jasmine's affections. He isn't casting a white actor so the guy can be a 30 second sight gag like the "suitors" in the original film. He is going to be an integral part of the story as a rival, so that Jasmine can show her "depth of character" by being attracted to a white princeling.

I'm not interested in this version of the film per se. By that, I mean I'm never going to watch this garbage just like I refuse to watch the terrible remakes of B&B, The Jungle Book. I do have an interest in criticizing Disney for diminishing the work of hundreds of animators and other artists by taking their superior work and reworking it into trash like this for a film demographic that doe. sn't see animation as a legitimate film medium. These films are being made for people who refuse to watch animated films, because they see them as "childish", but will turn out in droves to watch this trash, because it now uses real actors.

However, you guys may be right. This may not be a flop. The real flop might actually be the "The Lion King" because it is going to be entirely animated in a photorealistic manner ala "Dinosaurs". Disney is trying to pass it off as "live action", but the truth is that it really is an animated film. I wonder how many "live-action-is-the-only-real-film-medium" types are going to go and see that one. For that matter, why even remake "The Lion King" since a properly hand-animated version already exists? Is it really going to make it better or more appealing to an adult demographic that hates animation if the talking, singing animals look photorealistic? IMHO

Edit: Removed Cinderella. I mistakenly thought they had remade that one too.

I sure it was an oversight so I fixed it for. Your welcome.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Edwin, while I share your opinion that a CGI photorealistic version of The Lion King does not need to be made, I don't understand how you are equating that with it being a bomb. In both cases, the endearing affection that people have for the original film will propel the new one to, at the very minimum, a massive opening weekend box office take, and likely more if the new one is well-liked. Box office domination does not equate with the quality or necessity of any given film.

For example, I thought the trailers for the first Daddy's Home movie looked terrible and I didn't see it, but it still made $150 million in the long shadow of The Force Awakens, and the sequel, which I think looks worse, just opened to $30 million this weekend, so obviously a lot of people are responding to it, and I never expected that they wouldn't. In order to predict box office, sometimes you have to disengage from your personal feelings on a film and look objectively at how other people have responded to it and things like it.

Furthermore, what makes you think that these remakes are attracting people who refuse to watch animated films? My parents don't like animated films generally, they haven't seen any since I grew up, and they won't watch these ones either. I think it is clear that the vast majority of the audience for these films are people who have already seen and liked the original versions. There are, perhaps, some young kids who may be exposed to this version first, but I would like to think that parents who grew up on the original would also show the original on Blu-ray first. (I know I would if I had kids, but I don't.)

I also don't think that this is disrespectful to the original and trying to supplant it; they are simply trying to make more money by tapping into the same source material, but the original film will still be there, and Disney is happy to continue taking our money for it, as well as this new one.

Yes, none of these Disney remakes need to exist. But Disney is doing them, so we can either moan and groan about it, or hope that as long as they are happening, they might turn out to be good. Beauty and the Beast and Jungle Book 2016 were much better than they could have been with lower budgets and less talent involved, but Disney invested time and resources into doing them properly. Whether you think they're good or not, the production values are unquestionably high.

If Disney insists that they must exploit their titles with brand extensions, I much prefer these big-budget, well-crafted remakes, where they are actually making a major investment, than the direct-to-video cheapquels that came before this, which were (usually) not given the budgets or creative freedom needed to make something quality. Disney is clearly investing a lot of time and effort into these remakes, and I think it is equally dismissive to the cast and crew (including the animators who will work on the visual effects) of the new films to pre-judge and damn their work as worthless before we have even seen so much as a trailer for it.

As for the new character, if Jasmine is not interested in the new prince, and only has eyes for Aladdin, then that's not much of a "love triangle," is it? Even if the new character is who the Sultan wants her to marry, the dynamic would not equal love triangle if Jasmine isn't interested in him; it would just be an obstacle for Aladdin and Jasmine to overcome, the same as the law saying she has to marry a prince being in conflict with Aladdin's non-prince status.

If Disney expects us to believe that Billy Magnussen is playing an Arab character, then I will be the first to admit that they whitewashed it, but there is no reason to think that a foreign white guy wouldn't be interested in marrying an attractive, rich princess. So I don't inherently believe that his casting is problematic as long as the character is intended to be white. They may even be using him to make some sort of comment about interracial relationships and cooperation between different cultures. We won't know until we see the film. But as of right now, I'm going to assume that there is a reason this character is white. If Disney weren't concerned about whitewashing, they would have just cast Josh Hutcherson as Aladdin and been done with it, but they went out of their way to cast it correctly even though that meant a longer, more expensive and more difficult casting search.

I would welcome the chance to have this discussion again when the film is released and we have both seen it, but since you have already admitted that you won't see it, that precludes you from having any other opinion than the one you have now, which is informed only by what you think they might do, rather than what they have actually done.

And in case you forgot, they did remake Cinderella. Kenneth Branaugh directed with Lily James in the title role, and the production was as opulent and beautiful as anything he has ever directed.

 

[Edwin-S]

I sure it was an oversight so I fixed it for. Your welcome.

Not quite sure why you felt you needed to do that, since everything posted here is opinion. But....okay.

Furthermore, what makes you think that these remakes are attracting people who refuse to watch animated films?

It is obvious to me that whatever demographic data DIsney has collected is indicating that these films are attracting a large component of adults that would not be caught be caught dead watching an animated film out of fear that society would think they suffer from arrested development. That is why Disney is insisting on calling the upcoming TLK remake "live action" when the film clearly falls into the definition of being animated. They know being "animated" is an automatic kill switch for a large proportion of alleged "adults" when it comes to watching a movie.

As for the new character, if Jasmine is not interested in the new prince, and only has eyes for Aladdin, then that's not much of a "love triangle," is it? Even if the new character is who the Sultan wants her to marry, the dynamic would not equal love triangle if Jasmine isn't interested in him; it would just be an obstacle for Aladdin and Jasmine to overcome, the same as the law saying she has to marry a prince being in conflict with Aladdin's non-prince status.

My real point was that it doesn't need to be in there in the first place. It is being shoehorned in because some suit decided that a movie with only brown people in it might not be attract a large proportion of a White populace. Also, just to address an earlier comment about the Genie being a cosmic being and therefore able to be played with a non-Arabic character. I would say that is true if the Genie in the original film wasn't clearly Arabic looking (which he is) regardless of being coloured blue and highly caricatured. It only goes to show that the people working on the original film were paying attention to detail which this remake isn't.

AFAIAC, no real fan of the art of animation would step inside a theatre or spend one thin dime to watch these things, but that is just me projecting what I would like to see happen.

 

[Jake Lipson]

The Genie was originally conceived by Howard Ashman as a Fatts Waller type. That didn't pan out when Robin Williams did his thing, but the Genie was not conceived to be Arabic necessarily. On Broadway, they have reverted to this original characterization and the role is played by a black actor, usually to great acclaim. James Monroe Iglehart, who originated the role in New York, won a Tony award for his work.

Do you actually believe that someone who has avoided watching Aladdin for 25 years will suddenly go watch the new one because it has some live actors and a whole lot of animated effects? Four of the domestic top ten last year were animated (five if you throw in Jungle Book, which was majority animated), and Moana was just outside the top ten at #11. There are certainly a lot of kids seeing those films, but I think the heights which they have reached prove that there are also a ton of adults who are very interested in this medium. Yeah, there will always be some people who refuse, but not many.

As far as the new character/love triangle/whatever not needing to be in there at all: would you prefer they do a shot-for-shot exact re-filming of the original film? If that were the case, then they would be criticized by lots of people, myself included (and probably by you, too) for not putting anything new in there. I respect them for wanting to do this from a new angle, as long as the original's iconic elements are being included, which was certainly the case with Beauty and the Beast.

Out of curiosity, Edwin, have you never watched a remake of any film? It would seem that your principle of avoiding remakes for devaluing their original counterparts would also apply to live-action remakes of previous live-action properties. I do not mean this as an attack on you, and you are of course welcome to do as you please, but am just curious how far you take this principle.

 

[Edwin-S]

Do you actually believe that someone who has avoided watching Aladdin for 25 years will suddenly go watch the new one because it has some live actors and a whole lot of animated effects?

Well, Disney obviously believes that a previously untapped demographic is going to see these films with their insistence that their upcoming Lion King remake is "live action", not animated, which it clearly isn't: live action that is.

As far as the new character/love triangle/whatever not needing to be in there at all: would you prefer they do a shot-for-shot exact re-filming of the original film?

.

I would have preferred that they not shoot it at all, but it is too late for that.
All I can say is that I won't be helping contribute to Bob Igor's continued mining operation.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Disney is calling the TLK remake live-action because, as you noted, it would raise questions about its validity if they called it animation. However, has anyone in the world who loves movies and has the means to regularly see them not seen The Lion King at this point? I doubt very much that it's about reaching an "untapped market" because The Lion King is already one of the most popular and well-known films (and Broadway shows) of all time.

I agree that they didn't need to make these again at all, but we are past that point. Now, of course I want to see them, because I care about the originals so much and I want to see how they are being treated. I hope they are good and will be delighted if they are.

It is your choice to support the new films, or not, but you seem to be pending an awful lot of time and energy hanging out in a thread for a movie that you hate. You're welcome to do that, too, of course, if you wish, but I personally would rather spend the time on something I enjoy than on something I hate.

 

[Edwin-S]

However, has anyone in the world who loves movies and has the means to regularly see them not seen The Lion King at this point? I doubt very much that it's about reaching an "untapped market" because The Lion King is already one of the most popular and well-known films (and Broadway shows) of all time.

You asked, so........Yes, I do think there is a large audience of adult "movie lovers" who will not go to an animated film without the beard of children. Many adults will only go to see an animated flick because of their children or as a reason to justify going to something that might enjoy, but feel guilty about attending because they think other adults will judge them as childish. A lot of adults, without children, will not attend an animated film on their own; however, a "live action" remake might very well fall right into their wheelhouse, because they can justify it seeing it as more appropriately "adult" because it uses actors and sets and fall within the definition of a standard musical.

I'm a fan of animation and I sometimes feel like I'm going to be judged (rationally or not) for attending an animated film alone. It took me quite a bit to finally think, "fuck it, I don't give a shit what people may or may not think. I'm going to go and see "My Little Pony: The Movie" because I haven't been able to see a "2D" theatrically released animated film in years. I also wanted to see how it would translate from the TV series to a larger screen.

Edit: Actually, that part about not seeing a 2D film in theatres in years isn't quite accurate. I did see "Your Name" earlier in the year. Almost forgot about that. So the second reason is the main reason and the fact that I just got a kick out of watching the series in the first place.