Support NeoGAF

[Jubenhimer]

There was a period for Disney from the late 90s, all the way up to the end of the 2000s believe it or not, where they would pump out unnecessary and unwatchable Direct-to-Video sequels of their Animated movies. During this time it seemed like EVERY Disney movie in the Animated cannon was getting a DTV sequel/prequel whether it was needed or not. Fortunately, Disney stopped doing that shortly after Iger took over, and focused more on their theatrical animation, which was getting back on track thanks to the leadership of Pixar's John Lassetter.

But while Iger killed DTV sequels, he allowed a trend that's almost as bad. Live-Action remakes of classic Disney movies. It started with 2010's Alice in Wonderland, but in recent year they exploded with Disney releasing 4 Live-Action remakes this year. While you can argue that some of these films are decent, most of the time, they're bland, uninspired, and dark and edgy for the sake of being dark and edgy. One of these films this year, is a sequel, to a remake.... How does that happen? What's worse is that ever since Lassetter was outed due to his scandal, We haven't gotten an original film from Disney Animation Studios since 2016. 2017-2019 has no non-sequel film from them, which just makes Disney look complacent and unoriginal.

That said, which trend do you think is worse? The DTV sequels, or the Live-Action remakes? As much as I don't like the Live-Action remakes, I'd say they're more tolerable than the DTV sequels simply because they're at least the original stories. The DTV sequels often gave films sequels that didn't need sequels, which often boiled down to just retreading the same story as the first.

 

[DKehoe]

I've not seen all of either category but from what I have seen I'd say I prefer the live action remakes.

 

[Pagusas]

At least the live action remakes get a real budget and decent production crew.

The only Dtv Disney movies I remember being any good were the Aladin sequels. And I haven’t watched them as an adult so I have no clue if that’s an accurate statement.

 

[tkscz]

In quality, the live actions remakes, though it's a bit unfair to compare the DtV sequels, with significantly less budget, to multi-hundred million dollar movies. Let me tell you, those DtV features would've been much better with a 100 million dollar budget.

In originality, the DtV sequels win, but not by much. Some are pretty original and take the story in interesting paths like Aladdin Return of Jafar and, strangely enough, Cinderella III. However, most of them go in predictable directions or are just unwatchably awful. The Little Mermaid II was just The Little Mermaid but the story was happening in reverse, plus it had a Timone and Pumba no one asked for. The Lion King II wasn't bad but it was very predictable. Hunchback of notre dame II was just all around bad, I mean, everything about it spat in the face of the first one, including the entire point of the story. Mulan II felt like something they did because they had to do it.

Adversely, the live action remakes tend to just retell the same story but with padding. Look, even though in the original you could easily tell how smart Bell was, we've made her into a genius as she makes a washing machine, uh-oh, the town is bullying her for not staying in the role of a woman, this will definitely play a role in the story and not just be used as padding. Oh look, the fairy god mother is just Cosmo from Fairly Odd Parents. Just like with the DtV sequels, some of them are actually good, like Jungle Book was surprising to say the least, but you still get true stinkers like Maleficent.

If I had to choose which ones I'd sit and watch it would be the DtV sequels. Most are bad, but bad can still be entertaining, I can spend so much time reacting to HBoND 2 and having some enjoyment of that. Most of the live action remakes are either boring or just the same thing as the animated original plus pads.

 

[Red Crayon Aristocrat]

That's a tough choice actually, the DTV sequels were at least easier to ignore.

At least the live action remakes get a real budget and decent production crew.

The only Dtv Disney movies I remember being any good were the Aladin sequels. And I haven’t watched them as an adult so I have no clue if that’s an accurate statement.

The third DTV Aladdin was actually pretty great.

 

[Codes 208]

Straight to dvd. Not even close. It’s incredibly rare for Disney to make a high budget sequel that captures the essence of the OG. Aladdin 3 and Lion King 2 are the only exceptions that come to mind. And these are crowded with the average if not mediocre like Beauty and the Beast: Christmas, Cinderella 2, Mulan II, 101 Dalmatians 2, fox and the hound 2, jungle book 2, Tarzan 2, the list just goes on...

With the live action remakes, I legitimately enjoyed jungle book and am looking forward to Aladdin and Lion King.

Though to give Disney some credit it’s not exclusively an issue on their part, MGM has also tried this strategy and they have plenty of DTV movies I don’t like. Secret of NIMH 2, Land before Time 3 and up, An American Tail 3 and 4

 

[#Phonepunk#]

Live Action Remakes are the modern version of the Direct to Video sequels that clogged up the rental market in the 90s

both are equally bad but i voted the most recent. it has poisoned all films, not just the explicit remakes, paving the way for the epoch of the dreaded "soft reboot". with the Live Action Remake we arrive at a period of exceptional cultural stagnation.

 

[Dthomp]

Live Action Remakes are the modern version of the Direct to Video sequels that clogged up the rental market in the 90s

both are equally bad but i voted the most recent. it has poisoned all films, not just the explicit remakes, paving the way for the epoch of the dreaded "soft reboot". with the Live Action Remake we arrive at a period of exceptional cultural stagnation.

Yup, both were/are bad, but this Live Action crap is beyond cringe for me. For the love of god, how can't Disney just create anything new rather then flat out ruin classics the way they keep doing?

 

[brap]

Live action. They all look like fucking garbage. At least some of the DTV ones I remember enjoying and at least they don't look like shit.

 

[kiiltz]

2D > 3D

 

[tkscz]

Straight to dvd. Not even close. It’s incredibly rare for Disney to make a high budget sequel that captures the essence of the OG. Aladdin 3 and Lion King 2 are the only exceptions that come to mind. And these are crowded with the average if not mediocre like Beauty and the Beast: Christmas, Cinderella 2, Mulan II, 101 Dalmatians 2, fox and the hound 2, jungle book 2, Tarzan 2, the list just goes on...

With the live action remakes, I legitimately enjoyed jungle book and am looking forward to Aladdin and Lion King.

Though to give Disney some credit it’s not exclusively an issue on their part, MGM has also tried this strategy and they have plenty of DTV movies I don’t like. Secret of NIMH 2, Land before Time 3 and up, An American Tail 3 and 4

Hold on now, Tarzan 2 was actually pretty good. The aniamation was fantastic for dtv and it was really heart felt in it's story. The reason Aladdin and the 40 theives was so good was that it was meant to cap off the Aladdin animated series, which itself was one of, if not the best Disney animated series best on one of it's movies.

 

[kunonabi]

Live action remakes for sure. Cinderella is the only good one of the bunch with Dumbo and jungle book right behind.