Aladdin Central Messageboard

[AladdinsGenie]

I'm reading reviews for the movie (I've seen zero positive ones; the only thing critics across the board love is Seth Rogen and Billy Eichner as Pumbaa and Timon) and everyone says "Be Prepared" has been gutted within an inch of its life, both visually and on the track itself.

[Meesh]

Y I K E S
_________________

[Meesh]

There's a scene on YouTube with Timon and Pumbaa, and it is pretty entertaining:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UQV89DQTWo

They're definitely not posting as much as they did for Aladdin, which isn't a great sign:

https://twitter.com/disneylionking

Innocent until proven guilty though!
_________________

[AladdinsGenie]

I think they had to 'sell' Aladdin a lot more than the Lion King, though, cause really Beyonce is going to carry all the marketing they need

It's worth noting that as of typing this, The Lion King has the exact same critic score on Rotten Tomatoes as Aladdin and Aladdin had a higher score after its premiere than the Lion King.

It's gonna make a billion dollars and audiences will love it just like they did Aladdin, though, so do critics even matter at this point?

[arisha]

I saw that "He Lives in You" is listed on the soundtrack ... if they use it the way the musical uses it this movie might make me cry ... ... ... ?!?

[Meesh]

I already teared up just listening to "Circle of Life." That key change at the end gets me EVRY TIM
_________________

[zitagirl]

From what I heard critics' issue is that it's a complete rehash of the 1994 version and while the CGI is impressive, the characters just don't really emote and because of that the story just doesn't seem to have an actual soul. Plus it kinda makes the impression of "what's the point?" if they just copypasted the other version.

I get that nostlagia will make people watch it and probably enjoy it as well (my mother already wants to see it, although even she admits the animation is just superb in the 1994 version) but it definitely feels like there was next to no creativity put into other than the CGI. Gotta give credit to Guy Ritchie with his Aladdin: least he dared to change some stuff up, even with characters. (whether it worked or not is another question).

Sadly no, critics don't matter these days to general audience, AG. They trash them no matter what they say.
_________________
You know your sanity is long gone when your favourites are a boy genius, a wacky genie, a mad man with a box and a deathberry

[Meesh]

[AladdinsGenie]

I'm constantly confused by what critics want from these remakes, though. They don't want a shot by shot remake (BATB, The Lion King), and they don't want a completely different take on the story (Mulan, Cinderella). They claim to want a fresh take on the original with some expanded/new/updated moments (Aladdin, The Jungle Book), but then hate what's expanded/updated/added (Dumbo). They also don't want movies that take place in the same universe as the originals but are from a different point of view or character (Maleficent, Alice in Wonderland, Christopher Robin).

I don't think there's going to be a film they like because they have an issue with every decision made, and some of it's legit but most of it is just nitpicking for the sake of negativity and argument. Like I was reading a review today for TLK and someone hated John Oliver's Zazu because he shouldn't be able to speak Queen's English with the way his mouth is animated/not emoting, like?? He shouldn't be able to speak period, let's start there

[zitagirl]

I think the issues lies more on how these stuff are handled. Just because they use the term "updated" does not mean it's actually good. Same for the changes. Yes, some of these remakes have that changes/updates, but does it mean the movies are already good or even better than the source materials they are based on?

Like let's go with your examples: were they actually good movies? Did the changes/updates really add a lot more to them?

About the complete copypasted ones: It's just lazy and kind of a stealing in my opinion. Keep in mind, the ones who originally wrote these scripts decades ago don't get a dime or even a single credit, despite more than 80-90% of these movies are using said scripts to the point they are almost a shot-by shot remake. It feels morally wrong to me how they take these and act like it's theirs while the actual people who came up with these are left with nothing. Least with movies like Aladdin or Maleficent they dared to change stuff up, they dared to try to make it their own thing and with Christopher Robin they simply just continued the original Disney movies, further progress the world and characters, so least there you could see the actual work.

I do agree there are quite a lot of pointless nitpickings, but valid criticism should still be at least listened. Even great movies can have flaws and issues in them and it's good if they get mentioned so the people who worked on said piece of movie could learn from it.

And yes, most critics may be against these remakes because the ones they remake most of the time did not needed that really. They were already great movies. Why the need to remake them when you have the originals just fine, especially if you will just copy-paste the whole thing? And I say this as in I do believe there are movies that could actually benefit from a well-thought out remake. Black Cauldron anyone? Atlantis? Treasure Planet?

"Well, these movies are for a different generation" since when were these movies generation exclusives? Last time I checked actual great stuff holds up really well, even if some bits of it could be outdated. Heck, one of my all time favourite cartoon is going to be freaking 50 years old soon and if anything it just becomes better and better as I get older and understand the underlying stuff even more despite that I can see some people disliking the main character due to his not so nice opinion on girls (can't blame him though given how his sister and mother are). I find the same case for many of their movies that got this live-action treatment.

If anything, this quote that is used these days just proves to me that they only do these remakes with this generation in mind, so they can sell them better. It's a very strong business stand point that is heavily noticeable on the complete rehashes that lacks any actual artistic motivations (yes I'm aware that movies are mostly made due to business, but artistic motivation should also be there). Just doesn1t feel right to me.

[Meesh]

So has anyone else seen it yet?
_________________