Thanks for the article! I would say one Disney live-action remake that is worthwhile is Cinderella; other than that, I have no interest in seeing any of them. Disney remakes (movies, stage shows, shows on ice) are mostly just a way to squeeze as much $$ as possible out of the same idea. Pitiful.
You should know that, unlike the 2016 version, the 1994 Jungle Book has very little in common with the animated film or the books (I haven't read the books but that's what I have heard). The movie's story is basically: what if Mowgli grew up and tried to integrate with British colonialist society?
P.S. I forgot to mention the Pete's Dragon remake, which I have heard is worthwhile and better than the original. I have seen neither.
I second the Jungle Book remake, which got even better reviews than Cinderella (but I also like the latter more). I will also vouch for the 1994 live-action Jungle Book, which I saw in theaters as a kid. Yes, I haven't seen it in a long time and I am remembering it with rose-tinted nostalgia, but I still say it was a good film.
Wait, they might actually do a second Michael Jackson movie? Yikes. This first film is risky enough because of the whole child abuse controversy, but since it only takes place in the 1980s (if I'm not mistaken), they don't have to directly deal with that topic. If they make another, they will have to cover it. Considering that his family members are producing (and starring!), how will this sensitive issue be addressed? (That's a rhetorical question.)
It’s actually why the movies are being made! They had to split the controversial second half off, and it may not even happen. The family okayed the film in the first place though as a way to redeem him in the eyes of the public, and based on people who have read the script it is…going to be tricky
Thanks for the article! I would say one Disney live-action remake that is worthwhile is Cinderella; other than that, I have no interest in seeing any of them. Disney remakes (movies, stage shows, shows on ice) are mostly just a way to squeeze as much $$ as possible out of the same idea. Pitiful.
Agreed! I also have a soft spot for The Jungle Book remake, but absolutely agree Cinderella is the best of the bunch.
With 2 thumbs-up for the live-action Jungle Book, I will have to at least give it a try!
You should know that, unlike the 2016 version, the 1994 Jungle Book has very little in common with the animated film or the books (I haven't read the books but that's what I have heard). The movie's story is basically: what if Mowgli grew up and tried to integrate with British colonialist society?
P.S. I forgot to mention the Pete's Dragon remake, which I have heard is worthwhile and better than the original. I have seen neither.
I second the Jungle Book remake, which got even better reviews than Cinderella (but I also like the latter more). I will also vouch for the 1994 live-action Jungle Book, which I saw in theaters as a kid. Yes, I haven't seen it in a long time and I am remembering it with rose-tinted nostalgia, but I still say it was a good film.
Hollywood just needs to go back to making mid budget films that try to reach as broad an audience as possible. Not every film needs to be a spectacle.
Exactly! Not everything has to be $300M+
Wait, they might actually do a second Michael Jackson movie? Yikes. This first film is risky enough because of the whole child abuse controversy, but since it only takes place in the 1980s (if I'm not mistaken), they don't have to directly deal with that topic. If they make another, they will have to cover it. Considering that his family members are producing (and starring!), how will this sensitive issue be addressed? (That's a rhetorical question.)
It’s actually why the movies are being made! They had to split the controversial second half off, and it may not even happen. The family okayed the film in the first place though as a way to redeem him in the eyes of the public, and based on people who have read the script it is…going to be tricky