And they'll probably have Seth Rogan voice the gorilla

You think historical accuracy will matter in a movie with talking animals?

Yeeeeeeah, cuz Disney has always been real big about historical accuracy. /s

I mean it has talking animals.

If they can make a black MERMAID(mythical creature that doesn't exist) I don't see why they can't make a black rich person in the early 1900s

There were a ton of mermaids in the early 1830's. Thank god the Navy took care of that problem in 1946.

Man, I just want to enjoy stories.

I made this rule for my life a couple of years ago.

No sequels, prequels or remakes of any kind. It's been pretty decent so far.

I think remakes from old ass movies are fine live action remakes for animated film is strange and creating a sequel when the original story is over is strange too

with the caveat of sequels being fine for stories that actually do not fit in one movie.

which is less than people generally think, but imagine if the lord of the rings ended in the fellowship of the ring.

But then we wouldn't have Terminator 2 or Aliens (one of my all time favorites).

All quiet on the western front is a remake of a 1930 film, of a book written in the 20s, and it just won 4 oscars.

Remakes preserve a film for coming generations. Or how many great films from the 60s have you watched?

It's Hans Christian Andersen. No matter what the details of the ending, one thing is certain: it will be depressing as hell. Poor guy definitely had issues.

Yup, she just kills herself.

she gets a soul and goes to heaven after/during the seafoam part

Say what one more time!!!

What does Marcellus Wallace look like?

I triple dare you

Dude it blows my mind how they actually have a black princess and she's getting zero shows, sequels, etc. The black girls I grew up with liked that movie; I cant realistically see any of them preferring a tinker bell remake.

Then again, this is clearly not being done for us.

Are we taking about George of the Jungle with Brenden Fraser?

That wasn't Disney it was a Warner Brothers film.

RIP harambe

He was superior to everyone though, even noble Englishmen. In later books it's pretty clear that he's only pretending to be civilized and is pretty much still a wild jungle man that loves eating raw liver and not wearing clothes.

Yeah, it wasn't just racist by today's standards. It was pretty racist back then, too.

Let’s just reboot George of the Jungle. Perfect timing now that Brendan Fraser’s back in the game

Honestly, Disneys Tarzan is EXACTLY how you sanitize a problematic IP. They just took out all the murder/racism and replaced it with Phil Collins. Outstanding move by Disney.

I would watch the shit out of that

I'm fine with him just recapping the whole fcking movie tbh.

Less so cash grab, moreso an excuse to renew its hold on the IP so that it doesn’t enter public domain as freely.

Or rather… specifically, their version of the IP, because you can net Hans Christian Andersen would be turning in his grace from how much The Little Mermaid had changed

I will agree that Disney movies have been horribly lacking as of late

——

Edit: For the many, many, MANY of you spamming me with replies telling me that Disney doesn’t own the original IP, Duh, obviously they do not. Let me clarify, because IP is a somewhat strange concept sometimes

Nobody can copyright anything in public domain. But what they CAN copyright is their specific version of the IP, and the character designs that go along with it.

This explains why Disney’s works are based on an existing work, but had seen many, many divergences from the originals. Those divergences resulted in the creation of something that can be treated as wholly new, and THAT is what Disney can claim copyright on.

Take Hercules for example. Loads of other works still borrow from Greek mythology and use those characters, and Disney doesn’t do anything. What they could own is their versions of said characters. But if you have someone directly try to copy a distinctive design like Hades (full blue, sharp teeth, flaming hair, smarmy sleazy personality, etc), Disney could justifiably claim copyright

Another example would be The Sleeping Beauty. Despite sharing the same title and premise, the resulting movie plot was completely different from the original. The original wicked fairy was merely a footnote, whereas Maleficent was basically an original character that drove the story.

If I were to make a mermaid and retell the story, nobody would bat an eyelid. But the instant I make her a red head and call her “Ariel” (the mermaid was unnamed in Andersen’s original story, had a different personality, and died and turned into Seafoam), Disney’s lawyers would come after my ass. This is because “Ariel” is treated as an independent entity from Andersen’s mermaid

IP laws mean that Disney’s specific variations on the source can’t be touched, even though the source itself is free reign for everyone.

Pertaining to copyrights, there are certain aspects of characters which remain protected even though they exist in public domain. An example of such is the Sherlock Holmes IP. Most of the stories are in public domain, but a small handful still remain protected due to the publishing dates. This creates a situation where others can use Holmes, but cannot reference those specific stories at the same time. Another example is how Mickey Mouse will become public domain soon, but portraying him with gloves and color is still protected by copyright

Because Disney is essentially releasing a “new version” of the original work, many new updates come in which are copyright protected. This means that anyone who wants to use the now public domain IP must be careful not to touch something which is new and still copyright protected. Basically Disney’s solution of “protecting” its IP is to lay a legal minefield around it, and they sue you if you misstep. You certainly CAN do it, but do you really want to risk it?

As a game designer, I’m fully aware of what can and cannot be copied and have been properly educated on this as part of my job. While I’m not a lawyer and do not know the full specifics of copyright, I do at least know enough about HOW to go about copying something without getting my company sued.

So yes, I do indeed know what I am talking about.

What do you mean by running out of?

%80+ of the things that "created" Disney are old folklore stories.

I don't know. Most Disney movies are technically remakes anyway. Most are based on books or legends, and often there were aready Hollywood films in the 1920s-1960s.

more like playing it safe

Nah, Mowgli is already a person of color. Unless he was white before, changing his race or nationality would piss off people. Specifically and most especially the blue bird people.

Tarzan becomes Jane

It’s because “Latino” is already considered gender neutral in the language. Nobody is trying to exclude anyone, it’s just the language doesn’t work with the whole pronoun debate.

You'll also see a lot of dorks squawking the use of the term girls in place of women

It’s not offensive just dumb, with a sprinkle of who the fuck asked you to change our phonetic language to some random shit that looks good to you. You wouldn’t want to look dumb in front of others so just use what the native speakers already use