Current Events > Fans have ruined Aladdin before it's even been released

(+) Yeah! (+)

I mean i dont even know why studios take the time to make movies anymore. Just make instagrammable 38 second clips and let the audience shit their collective pants over it.
---

> Genie isn't blue
> Jasmine isn't in a bikini
> production values look like a made for TV movie

"Hey guys, wait until you've bought a ticket and sat through two hours of movie before you judge it."

^ You're not funny.
---

Imagine not watching a children's movie because a woman doesn't wear a bikini in it
---

I don't understand why Disney is having this live action conversion Renaissance. We had perfectly viable movies in the 90s. Just fucking re-release those in the theaters and watch everybody shit their pants.
---

Imagine not accepting that the new live action remake is actually for the new generation of kids like you once were (or still are)
---

Alucard188 posted...

I don't understand why Disney is having this live action conversion Renaissance. We had perfectly viable movies in the 90s. Just fucking re-release those in the theaters and watch everybody shit their pants.

I remember they re-released the Lion King in 3D a few years ago.
---

Darmik posted...

Imagine not watching a children's movie because a woman doesn't wear a bikini in it

That wasn't the first complaint.

it looks so lifeless and dull

there is no energy in the Prince Ali rendition they tried. Totally inferior to the original. I'm not even this huge Disney fanboy that'll put up the 90s films on a pedestal - they're just enjoyable family movies, but they were animated for a reason.
---

Skye Reynolds posted...

Genie isn't blue

Uh yeah he is.
---

-doesnt have Robin Williams

SaccharineSmile posted...

Imagine not accepting that the new live action remake is actually for the new generation of kids like you once were (or still are)

At best it's for the parents that grew up on these movies to take their kids to, rather than being specifically for the kids themselves.
---

Darmik posted...

Alucard188 posted...

I don't understand why Disney is having this live action conversion Renaissance. We had perfectly viable movies in the 90s. Just fucking re-release those in the theaters and watch everybody shit their pants.

I remember they re-released the Lion King in 3D a few years ago.

They have a ton of movies they could re-release - both live action and animated. Hunchback of Notre Dame? Beauty and the Beast? Little Mermaid? Who wouldn't want to go see those movies in a theater again?

I went and saw Gremlins this past Christmas, because my local theater was running a $3 holiday showing. I had a blast. It was me, my roommate, and a friend of ours. We had the theater to ourselves. It was like MST3k.
---

SaccharineSmile posted...

Imagine not accepting that the new live action remake is actually for the new generation of kids like you once were (or still are)

what's outdated with the 90s film that necessitates a duller remake that lacks animation, vivid color, and Robin Williams
---

Alucard188 posted...

I don't understand why Disney is having this live action conversion Renaissance. We had perfectly viable movies in the 90s. Just fucking re-release those in the theaters and watch everybody shit their pants.

Terrible idea

The idea of these live action remakes it for the current generation of kids to enjoy like we did back in the day, but more updated and more appealing then some 90s cartoon visuals that is almost 30 years old
---

Duncanwii posted...

Skye Reynolds posted...

Genie isn't blue

Uh yeah he is.

Every image I've seen, including the film's poster, has had a non blue genie.

Skye Reynolds posted...

Darmik posted...

Imagine not watching a children's movie because a woman doesn't wear a bikini in it

That wasn't the first complaint.

Yeah, its only the second most important thing to you.

Also pretty sure Genie is blue in the movie.
---

Alucard188 posted...

I went and saw Gremlins this past Christmas, because my local theater was running a $3 holiday showing. I had a blast. It was me, my roommate, and a friend of ours. We had the theater to ourselves. It was like MST3k.

I think you found the problem with your idea.
---

SaccharineSmile posted...

Alucard188 posted...

I don't understand why Disney is having this live action conversion Renaissance. We had perfectly viable movies in the 90s. Just fucking re-release those in the theaters and watch everybody shit their pants.

Terrible idea

The idea of these live action remakes it for the current generation of kids to enjoy like we did back in the day, but more updated and more appealing then some 90s cartoon visuals that is almost 30 years old

I was about to respond to you, but I see that it was you, so now I'm not going to respond to you.
---

SaccharineSmile posted...

Alucard188 posted...

I don't understand why Disney is having this live action conversion Renaissance. We had perfectly viable movies in the 90s. Just fucking re-release those in the theaters and watch everybody shit their pants.

Terrible idea

The idea of these live action remakes it for the current generation of kids to enjoy like we did back in the day, but more updated and more appealing then some 90s cartoon visuals that is almost 30 years old

If they wouldn't enjoy the original, they won't enjoy the remakes. Re-releases would probably bring in more money for less effort.

After the live-action remakes theyre gonna remake them as animated Pixar movies.

Watch
---

They're not remaking these movies because they're outdated. They're remaking them because they make money and are more popular than any new live action stuff they bring out that isn't Marvel or Star Wars.
---

Zero_Destroyer posted...

SaccharineSmile posted...

Imagine not accepting that the new live action remake is actually for the new generation of kids like you once were (or still are)

what's outdated with the 90s film that necessitates a duller remake that lacks animation, vivid color, and Robin Williams

But why are people so precious about their 90s film?

Why cant the current generation of kids enjoy their 20s film adaption?
---

Skye Reynolds posted...

Duncanwii posted...

Skye Reynolds posted...

Genie isn't blue

Uh yeah he is.

Every image I've seen, including the film's poster, has had a non blue genie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b2L--1UN98" data-time="

Just because you want to hate something, doesnt mean you have to make up reasons why a movie is bad.
---

Skye Reynolds posted...

Re-releases would probably bring in more money for less effort.

Absolutely not.
---

BLAKUboy posted...

Alucard188 posted...

I went and saw Gremlins this past Christmas, because my local theater was running a $3 holiday showing. I had a blast. It was me, my roommate, and a friend of ours. We had the theater to ourselves. It was like MST3k.

I think you found the problem with your idea.

Yes, a movie matinee that's barely marketed, with a relatively niche genre of Interest, is totally on the same scale as Disney re-releasing movies in the theater.
---

SaccharineSmile posted...

Alucard188 posted...

I don't understand why Disney is having this live action conversion Renaissance. We had perfectly viable movies in the 90s. Just fucking re-release those in the theaters and watch everybody shit their pants.

Terrible idea

The idea of these live action remakes it for the current generation of kids to enjoy like we did back in the day, but more updated and more appealing then some 90s cartoon visuals that is almost 30 years old

No, its an amazing idea. Below a certain age kids are going to prefer the animated version, and above that age they arent going to give a shit about Aladdin. Besides,it would motivate the parents to take their kid, so they can see the same movie like they did as a kid. Since its ultimately the parents you need to convince to actually get up and go, well, there you have it.

The movie looks like shit, at least the Lion King has promise I guess smh
---

Well, there we have it. Disney is entitled to your time and money and you're finding petty excuses if you have no interest in this movie.

Alucard188 posted...

SaccharineSmile posted...

Alucard188 posted...

I don't understand why Disney is having this live action conversion Renaissance. We had perfectly viable movies in the 90s. Just fucking re-release those in the theaters and watch everybody shit their pants.

Terrible idea

The idea of these live action remakes it for the current generation of kids to enjoy like we did back in the day, but more updated and more appealing then some 90s cartoon visuals that is almost 30 years old

I was about to respond to you, but I see that it was you, so now I'm not going to respond to you.

Oh boo hoo

Just respond
---

Skye Reynolds posted...

Well, there we have it. Disney is entitled to your time and money and you're finding petty excuses if you have no interest in this movie.

Says the guy who didnt want to watch the movie because JaSmInE iSnT iN a BiKiNi
---

Alucard188 posted...

Yes, a movie matinee that's barely marketed, with a relatively niche genre of Interest, is totally on the same scale as Disney re-releasing movies in the theater

Disney did that already with 3D releases

Lion King made $94 million
Toy Story made $30 million

That was with the 3D gimmick being in full force.

The demand just isn't there. Theaters can do this on their own already. People can watch these movies at home.
---

the animation of the 90s movie is still top notch stuff. there's no reason to call it "outdated".
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Skye Reynolds posted...

Well, there we have it. Disney is entitled to your time and money and you're finding petty excuses if you have no interest in this movie.

Says the guy who didnt want to watch the movie because JaSmInE iSnT iN a BiKiNi

That was one of three comments. It was the middle one. The actress playing Jasmine looks just fine.

Tell me, what would your response have been if I'd said, "Genie isn't blue and this looks like a TV production?"

Skye Reynolds posted...

Well, there we have it. Disney is entitled to your time and money and you're finding petty excuses if you have no interest in this movie.

It's just people acting like children whenever someone attacks Disney, they can do no wrong in some people's eyes. The movie looks terrible that's all there is to it.
---

Darmik posted...

Lion King made $94 million

Not bad considering they didn't have to pay for more than a 3D conversion.

BignutzisBack posted...

Skye Reynolds posted...

Well, there we have it. Disney is entitled to your time and money and you're finding petty excuses if you have no interest in this movie.

It's just people acting like children whenever someone attacks Disney, they can do no wrong in some people's eyes. The movie looks terrible that's all there is to it.

Nope, nope, nope. That guy in the second post mentioned the bikini. That's all this is about. It's the movie of 2019 and anyone who doesn't see it is just frustrated that Jasmine isn't single-handed exercise bait.

Pre-order your ticket now.

BignutzisBack posted...

Skye Reynolds posted...

Well, there we have it. Disney is entitled to your time and money and you're finding petty excuses if you have no interest in this movie.

It's just people acting like children whenever someone attacks Disney, they can do no wrong in some people's eyes. The movie looks terrible that's all there is to it.

He's not really making a good point, though. The genie is blue (maybe not always, sure, but who gives a fuck?) and her not being in a bikini is a really weird criticism. TV production level? idk sure.
---

I thought BATB was pretty good.

Lion King looks decent even though it's not actually live action and I feel like they wont be able to convey emotion as well on realistic animal faces.

That Pocahontas remake was pretty cool but the sci-fi element was kind of odd, and making everyone blue was an interesting choice

I'd be totally down for a live action Hunchback of Notre Dame remake since it's my favorite animated movie of all time
---

If people don't want to watch Aladdin that's fine.

But the only live action Disney movie to flop so far is Dumbo. Beauty and the Beast and The Jungle Book were absolutely massive.

Of course there was going to be more.

People go to the cinemas these days to watch stuff they're already familiar with. Stuff that is considered 'safe'.
---

Skye Reynolds posted...

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Skye Reynolds posted...

Well, there we have it. Disney is entitled to your time and money and you're finding petty excuses if you have no interest in this movie.

Says the guy who didnt want to watch the movie because JaSmInE iSnT iN a BiKiNi

That was one of three comments. It was the middle one. The actress playing Jasmine looks just fine.

Tell me, what would your response have been if I'd said, "Genie isn't blue and this looks like a TV production?"

Well youd still be wrong about Genie not being blue.
---

Skye Reynolds posted...

Darmik posted...

Lion King made $94 million

Not bad considering they didn't have to pay for more than a 3D conversion.

Sure and that works once. There's no 3D or anything new they can use to market it now.

Even with that the live action Lion King will probably make more than that in one day.
---

Phantom_Nook posted...

the animation of the 90s movie is still top notch stuff. there's no reason to call it "outdated".

The kids these days would consider it outdated

Which funnily enough this Aladdin remake is aim so these kids

Honestly, I like the original and Im sure interested in seeing this new one, and Ill probably like it

Wish adults like me were more open minded and not so precious about their childhood memories somehow being destroyed

Just let the kids enjoy it, jeez

Same goes to the sonic movie
---

Cornmuffins posted...

He's not really making a good point, though. The genie is blue (maybe not always, sure, but who gives a fuck?) and her not being in a bikini is a really weird criticism. TV production level? idk sure.

Let's have a Batman movie where the Joker randomly isn't pale. Or lets have an Oz movie where the witch is sometimes green and sometimes normal in her complexion. It's no big deal. It doesn't change who the character is or anything.

How does the genie not being blue change him from being a genie? Were you frothing at the mouth when he was a bee in the original?
---

Kids today don't consider the animated movies outdated. They still watch them and love them.

But parents aren't going to pay for several tickets to watch a movie on the big screen they can watch at home.

What they will do is pay a ticket to watch a movie that at worst is going to be a movie they already know and like done in a different way.

Likewise a lot of people complaining about this want to see their favorite comic book, superhero or video game done on the big screen too. So we're all guilty of this shit.
---

Skye Reynolds posted...

Cornmuffins posted...

He's not really making a good point, though. The genie is blue (maybe not always, sure, but who gives a fuck?) and her not being in a bikini is a really weird criticism. TV production level? idk sure.

Let's have a Batman movie where the Joker randomly isn't pale. Or lets have an Oz movie where the witch is sometimes green and sometimes normal in her complexion. It's no big deal. It doesn't change who the character is or anything.

What an odd complaint. He changes to a more human form when he's blending in or trying to be more relatable to Aladdin.

Did it upset you when he used legs in the original movie? Or whenever he changed his form?

Besides he isn't the same character because it isn't Robin Williams.
---

Darmik posted...

What an odd complaint. He changes to a more human form when he's blending in or trying to be more relatable to Aladdin.

Did it upset you when he used legs in the original movie? Or whenever he changed his form?

Besides he isn't the same character because it isn't Robin Williams.

So the Wicked Witch of the West doesn't have to be green if she's not Margaret Hamilton.

Aside from the merchant at the beginning, was there ever a time when Genie truly assumed human form? He did a couple of sight gags like becoming an old man or a humanized self for literally seconds at a time, but there was never a point when he adopted a full on human appearance to blend in with the people around him.

That's an unnecessary addition to the film. It's not like anybody has forgotten what Will Smith looks or sounds like. It's just a pity Disney pays more than Warner Bros. does. I think everyone but you would've rather seen him reprise his role as Deadshot.

Skye Reynolds posted...

Darmik posted...

What an odd complaint. He changes to a more human form when he's blending in or trying to be more relatable to Aladdin.

Did it upset you when he used legs in the original movie? Or whenever he changed his form?

Besides he isn't the same character because it isn't Robin Williams.

So the Wicked Witch of the West doesn't have to be green if she's not Margaret Hamilton.

Aside from the merchant at the beginning, was there ever a time when Genie truly assumed human form? He did a couple of sight gags like becoming an old man or a humanized self for literally seconds at a time, but there was never a point when he adopted a full on human appearance to blend in with the people around him.

That's an unnecessary addition to the film. It's not like anybody has forgotten what Will Smith looks or sounds like. It's just a pity Disney pays more than Warner Bros. does. I think everyone but you would've rather seen him reprise his role as Deadshot.

I watched Aladdin on Broadway so I've already seen an adaptation without a blue Genie.

It really doesn't matter that he's not blue all the time.
---

I watched the Lion King stage show. I guess that'd make it okay if Timon is played by a guy in a Cheese E. Cheese costume.