Another animated movie turned live-action, but this one actually looks like it could be good.
How To Train Your Dragon: "Live action movie coming June 13th"
- Thread starter Guardian Prime
- Start date
Another animated movie turned live-action, but this one actually looks like it could be good.
all the money spent to 'remake' this ... why not just put the original back out to theaters. I've never understood these "its still animated live action movies"
Definitely a signal of a culture that isn't worrying about money. As far as my memory is concerned, that scene looks rotoscoped.
Oh, Dreamworks is getting in on the Live-Action remake action. Super.
I can't wait until the Live-Action Kung Fu Panda remake, where they make some TERRIBLE choices about how to dress up Jack Black as a Panda. At least they'll be able to save some money by re-using the costumes from Cats.
Okay, seriously, this looks fine. Pretty good, even. It just feels...cynical, to me?
I can't wait until the Live-Action Kung Fu Panda remake, where they make some TERRIBLE choices about how to dress up Jack Black as a Panda. At least they'll be able to save some money by re-using the costumes from Cats.
Okay, seriously, this looks fine. Pretty good, even. It just feels...cynical, to me?
Honestly, I would love to see live action Kung Fu Panda with Jack Black wearing a wish.com panda costume. Only buy one and film the scenes in order so that the costume gets progressively dirtier/more torn up as the film goes on.
Feels kinda soon to me, but that aside... I like this.
I thought they already did this under a different title? "Game of Thrones" I think it was called...I only saw a few scenes,I admit, but I called it "How to Train Your Dragon to Murder Everyone."
Not to derail the thread, and honestly this does look pretty good (what little I've seen), but why is this even needed? The original movie was a good movie, has its quality diminished with time? Is a good movie any less of a good movie if it is animated?
And, maybe I'm being a little picky here, but unless a film uses practical effects, how is a Live Action action film really live if almost all the action scenes are animated with CGI? It just seems either strangely dismissive of the original animation, or overly confident in the power of CGI to make things look "real" when these live-action remakes happen.
And, maybe I'm being a little picky here, but unless a film uses practical effects, how is a Live Action action film really live if almost all the action scenes are animated with CGI? It just seems either strangely dismissive of the original animation, or overly confident in the power of CGI to make things look "real" when these live-action remakes happen.
This is a weird one, because it's so unnecessary even by the standards of these unnecessary live-action-but-really-still-animated remakes... yet this trailer doesn't look bad.
They are all unnecessary by almost any measure, and largely wasteful. Part of the draw for producers, I think, is that THEY didn't get to make it last time.
I don't see the point in this, but it might be neat to watch when it hits streaming.
While I understand the truth of this, I guess I don't really see this attitude in the general public, so it just boggles my mind a bit. Not to mention all the 'regular' actors and actresses who provide voices for animated projects these days, I would think there would be a shift in attitude eventually. But, that's showbusiness, I guess...
Most of the other movies are retellings at least *whether you like the retelling does not matter*, but this one seems to be a shot for shot remake, which... I agree with seems un-nessicary.
Early stuff for Cowboy Bebop emphasized shot for shot stuff, but the show wound up with its own feet. We don't know anything from this.
On some level, I kind of get the desire.
You have to remember, some of this is coming from the actors. Actors want to act. Even if they're playing a character someone else has done before. Even if someone else has done the part better before. Saying that NO ONE should EVER re-do these stories with different actors again is like saying that NO ONE should ever perform Hamlet ever again, just because Kenneth Branagh did the best version ever in 1996. It doesn't really matter to the actors. They want to try to put THEIR spin on these characters. They want to see if they can't top each other, if only for the challenge. It's the same reason people climb mountains, even though someone's already gotten to the peak first.
And on the business side of things, it makes sense too, from both the financiers and the audience.
The people funding these movies get something with a built-in audience, that's almost assured to get a return on their investment. It was popular before, it'll probably be popular now. It's a safe bet, which is always a appealing bet for investors.
On the audience side of things, it's something familiar. You already know you like this thing, but this will still be slightly different. It's something you haven't technically seen, so it will still feel "new" in some ways. It's like $20 a pop to go to the movies nowadays, no one wants to put down that much cash and walk away disappointed. Movies have kind of become too expensive to really take chances on seeing a dud. It's like going to a fast food place. You won't get the best food ever, but you will get something predictable that satisfies you. And sometimes, that's all you want for a fun night out.
It really doesn't appeal to me. But, I can see why it appeals to others. It's the same reasons why the Broadway versions of Disney movies exist. Sometimes, I'll even watch one of these Live Action Remakes in the background when I'm doing something else, just to see what the fuss is about. And they're usually fine. But, they rarely keep my attention on their own. They're just usually not as good as the originals. But, that's not really the point of them. It's just something new...without actually risking money on something actually new.
You have to remember, some of this is coming from the actors. Actors want to act. Even if they're playing a character someone else has done before. Even if someone else has done the part better before. Saying that NO ONE should EVER re-do these stories with different actors again is like saying that NO ONE should ever perform Hamlet ever again, just because Kenneth Branagh did the best version ever in 1996. It doesn't really matter to the actors. They want to try to put THEIR spin on these characters. They want to see if they can't top each other, if only for the challenge. It's the same reason people climb mountains, even though someone's already gotten to the peak first.
And on the business side of things, it makes sense too, from both the financiers and the audience.
The people funding these movies get something with a built-in audience, that's almost assured to get a return on their investment. It was popular before, it'll probably be popular now. It's a safe bet, which is always a appealing bet for investors.
On the audience side of things, it's something familiar. You already know you like this thing, but this will still be slightly different. It's something you haven't technically seen, so it will still feel "new" in some ways. It's like $20 a pop to go to the movies nowadays, no one wants to put down that much cash and walk away disappointed. Movies have kind of become too expensive to really take chances on seeing a dud. It's like going to a fast food place. You won't get the best food ever, but you will get something predictable that satisfies you. And sometimes, that's all you want for a fun night out.
It really doesn't appeal to me. But, I can see why it appeals to others. It's the same reasons why the Broadway versions of Disney movies exist. Sometimes, I'll even watch one of these Live Action Remakes in the background when I'm doing something else, just to see what the fuss is about. And they're usually fine. But, they rarely keep my attention on their own. They're just usually not as good as the originals. But, that's not really the point of them. It's just something new...without actually risking money on something actually new.
Theoretically, the problem with that line of thought though is it is coming from out Generation who already saw the movie.
If it is a retelling *opinions on quality of the retelling DO NOT MATTER* than it's no longer a question of why.
If it's a shot for shot remake, then the question is valid.