FANDOM


  • Ok as we all know The Walt Disney Company has been making Remakes for all their classics and most of them, if not all of them, seem to be well liked by us Disney fans but here's a quastion I just thought of, which is better the Original or the Remake?

    Which was better: Alice in Wonderland (1951 film) or Alice in Wonderland (2010 film) and Alice Through the Looking Glass?

    Which was better: The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) or Oz the Great and Powerful?

    Which was better: Sleeping Beauty or Maleficent (film) and Maleficent: Mistress of Evil?

    Which was better: Cinderella (1950 film) or Cinderella (2015 film)?

    Which was better: The Jungle Book or The Jungle Book (2016 film)?

    Which was better: Pete's Dragon or Pete's Dragon (2016 film)?

    Which was better: Beauty and the Beast (1991 film) or Beauty and the Beast (2017 film)?

    Which was better: The Winnie the Pooh Movies or Christopher Robin (film)

    Which was better: The Nutcracker and the Mouse King or The Nutcracker and the Four Realms?

    Which was better: Dumbo (1941 film) or Dumbo (2019 film)?

    Which was better: Aladdin (1992 film) or Aladdin (2019 film)?

    Which was better: The Lion King and The Lion King 2: Simba's Pride or The Lion King (2019 film)?

    Which was better: Lady and the Tramp or Lady and the Tramp (2019 film)?

    Which might be better: Mulan and Mulan II or Mulan (2020 film)?

    Which might be better: Robin Hood (film) or Nottingham & Hood?

    Which might be better: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs or Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (live-action film)?

    Which might be better: Disney Fairies Franchise or Tink?

    Which might be better: The Little Mermaid or The Little Mermaid (live-action film)?

    Which might be better: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs or Rose Red (film)?

    Which might be better: The Hunchback of Notre Dame or The Hunchback of Notre Dame (live-action film)?

    Which might be better: Bambi (film) or Bambi (live-action film)

    Which might be better: Hercules (film) or Hercules (live-action film)

    I think it would be fun and maybe interasting to talk about which was better.

      Loading editor
    • Alice in Wonderland (1951) The Wizard of Oz (1939) Sleeping Beauty (1959) Cinderella (1950) The Jungle Book (2016) Pete's Dragon (1977) Beauty and the Beast (1991)

      The Jungle Book remake in 2016 IMO is the only remake that has been better than the original.

        Loading editor
    • I think that the Disney Remakes are better then the originals.

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:
      Ok as we all know The Walt Disney Company has been making Remakes for all their classics and most of them, if not all of them, seem to be well-liked by us Disney fans but here's a question I just thought of, which is better the Original or the Remake?

      Which was better: Alice in Wonderland (1951 film) or Alice in Wonderland (2010 film) and Alice Through the Looking Glass?

      Which was better: The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) or Oz the Great and Powerful?

      Which was better: Sleeping Beauty or Maleficent (film)?

      Which was better: Cinderella (1950 film) or Cinderella (2015 film)?

      Which was better: The Jungle Book or The Jungle Book (2016 film)?

      Which was better: Pete's Dragon or Pete's Dragon (2016 film)?

      Which was better: Beauty and the Beast (1991 film) or Beauty and the Beast (2017 film)?

      Which might be better: The Winnie the Pooh Movies or Christopher Robin (film)

      Which might be better: Dumbo (film) or Dumbo (2019 film)?

      Which might be better: Aladdin (1992 film) or Aladdin (2019 film)?

      Which might be better: The Lion King and The Lion King 2: Simba's Pride or The Lion King (2019 film)?

      I think it would be fun and maybe interesting to talk about which was better.

      well,

      https://www.deviantart.com/emiliokiara/art/The-Lion-King-II-Simba-s-Pride-2024-film-749380688

        Loading editor
    • Tim Burton's Alice wasn't a remake, it was a direct sequel. As for the others, yeah, do you even need to ask? The originals are VASTLY superior, and it's especially pointless to try and compare that mess Maleficent to the movie the titular character originates from.

        Loading editor
    • Its debatable. What I like about remakes is that they do expand on the characters: In the Beauty and the Beast, we got to hear about Belle's mother, Beast's backstory, Mrs.Pott's husband, etc. I enjoy the remake's stpry much better as a result. Song-wise, I think the original did it better, simply because the actors weren't dedicated singers. That doesn't mean I didn't dislike songs, I just like the original a bit better.

        Loading editor
    • The Beast's backstory? You mean the one that was explained to us in the original movie right at the very start?

        Loading editor
    • TheSwedishElf wrote:
      The Beast's backstory? You mean the one that was explained to us in the original movie right at the very start?

      I mean the one about his Mother and Father. 

        Loading editor
    • Usually, I like the remake better, but I'm not a hardcore fan of these particular cartoons. There are a few I haven't seen the remake and a few I haven't seen the original. As for Dumbo, Aladdin, and The Lion King, in which I have seen the originals and hope to see the live action, I don't really know. I haven't done much research beyond the cast. What I can say is that I liked the stage production at Disneyland of Aladdin better than the cartoon.

        Loading editor
    • I'm nt a fan of live action to be honest,if the remakes were animated I would probally say I love both,but no....I have no intrests in the live action remakes at all

        Loading editor
    • but i do

        Loading editor
    • I like the remakes but it bothers me that they always cast British actors and none of these movies are set in Britain. The originals, which had American cast (although they did mock British accents instead of an accent accurate to the country the movie was set in) didn't bother me as much because I knew they probably could do accurate accents if they bothered, but British people can't hide their accents. Other than that, the remakes are fine. But this isn't a remake so I can't say.

        Loading editor
    • Too Many Live Actions. Numerous live actions like this company struggles to think of brand new tales and repeatedly borrows tales from old authors. Some of the live actions don't really respect the original character roles from the books such as poor Tabaqui's original book scenes his roles by disney aren't improved like a few of his cartoon scenes of TV series done by other companies that let him help Mowgli as well, not only the feisty willful tiger. 



      And the Lion King's live action is quite unpredictable.

        Loading editor
    • You mean good guys turn evil, right?

        Loading editor
    • Lion King changes, Hope they didn't make handsome wise Mufasa look rougher in the live action, hope they didn't make Scar fussy enough to look unacceptably violent in his live action scenes, and things like hope they didn't make the hyena act crankier enough to seem like they wish to really chomp up poor young Simba while he's just a cub who was  easy to trick.



      And then changes with Tabaqui is the hyena family can spook me quick with their uneasiness, and also the hyenas and wild canines aren't related hyenas aren't related to the cats either the internet tells people this fact, but most just guess relationship stuff. Tabqui wasn't shown in the first film but he's in the first book not only the second book. And as you said there are scenes where the good or helpful characters look like bad guys Tabaqui mainly alerted the wolves of the tiger's arrival in the first book and in the second he originally has a bird friend but mainly chats while lounging. It's the abbundance fan stuff that put Tabaqui with the tiger, because many don't realize agreeing doesn't always mean someone actually likes you.

        Loading editor
    • Oz the Great and Powerful can't even reach the status of The Wizard of Oz.

        Loading editor
    • All good guys turn evil.

      Sleeping-beauty-disneyscreencaps.com-4502
      Cinderella-disneyscreencaps com-8041
      Jungle-book-disneyscreencaps.com-4362
        Loading editor
    • All evil guys turn good.

      Sleeping-beauty-disneyscreencaps.com-1811
        Loading editor
    • I'd put it in the movies spoiled with Live-action the evil get more scenes and become worse because they show more trickiness, and the characters who are good animated movies look bad but it's mainly the Live-actions of Disney have given them scenes that make the good characters show more of their fear, and with both changes there's more of a fight between the good characters and the originally evil characters. 



      In the animated movies it's clear fiction but in the live-action the two groups face each other evil thinking haha you won't be able to defeat me now and the good characters nervous enough  to think oh what's happening what should I do while lacking confidence or struggling to control their anger against their evil enemies.

        Loading editor
    • Really?

        Loading editor
    • Insecurity is one of the things lots of Disney live-action remakes increased the scenes of, and that's what makes of the good characters look weaker in reaction, as insecurity is one of the things that indeed pleases the movie villains the most. That's why after forming remakes some of the movies seem more like horror movies instead of fantasy. Yes it's the additional actions that make a big difference in how the characters appear, and then the fans who don't like the additon actions sometimes argue with the ones who think the live-action movies were the funnier collection.

        Loading editor
    • MysticCanines'Heroine732 wrote: Insecurity is one of the things lots of Disney live-action remakes increased the scenes of, and that's what makes of the good characters look weaker in reaction, as insecurity is one of the things that indeed pleases the movie villains the most. That's why after forming remakes some of the movies seem more like horror movies instead of fantasy. Yes it's the additional actions that make a big difference in how the characters appear, and then the fans who don't like the additon actions sometimes argue with the ones who think the live-action movies were the funnier collection.

      But I love live action characters with funnier.

        Loading editor
    • Live-action or animated it's those who show real courage or loyalty that I mainly like.

        Loading editor
    • Comparing courage and loyalty my examples would be like



      Pete's Dragon I like the first one better

      Mowgli I like the live-action  movie quotes of him better, but I like the animated King Louie better.

      Maleficent and Cruella De vil I wish these two wicked females didn't earn their live-actions

      Dumbo fine either way but I'm more entertained by his animated movie

      Beauty And The Beast both movies turned out fine. 

      Tarzan I surely like his animated movies a lot more than his different live-action videos, mainly because the animated ones are calmer. 

      The Lion King live-action remake it'll indeed depend on what they changed, I'll like it better for sure if they let the main character act similar to th orignal ones and added more species to the motion picture, but not if the violence was increased. Same thing with Aladdin's live-action I'd rather not have poor homeless Aladdin looking frightened at the beginning. I already feel sorry for the dholes who'll likely be in the live-action sequel of the Jungle Book because it really sounds like lots of the Disney writers won't change their scenes as thoughtfully as Disney changed stories like Pocahontas's real story.



      The princess stories those just depends on which collection you enjoy more they're fine either way, and Disney isn't the only one who has mmade live-actions of the oldest princesses.



      It's the realistic movies like White Fang's sequel and Narnia's movies I can say I like for sure when speaking of Live-action. Speaking of strong courage it's movies like Eragon's live-action I enjoy, and I like movies such as Duma too. So with watching movies as a daily hobby it's sometimes the scenes that I like other times it's the character's qualities. In some live-actions I like both. 

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:
      Ok as we all know The Walt Disney Company has been making Remakes for all their classics and most of them, if not all of them, seem to be well liked by us Disney fans but here's a quastion I just thought of, which is better the Original or the Remake?

      Which was better: Alice in Wonderland (1951 film) or Alice in Wonderland (2010 film) and Alice Through the Looking Glass?

      Which was better: The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) or Oz the Great and Powerful?

      Which was better: Sleeping Beauty or Maleficent (film)?

      Which was better: Cinderella (1950 film) or Cinderella (2015 film)?

      Which was better: The Jungle Book or The Jungle Book (2016 film)?

      Which was better: Pete's Dragon or Pete's Dragon (2016 film)?

      Which was better: Beauty and the Beast (1991 film) or Beauty and the Beast (2017 film)?

      Which was better: The Winnie the Pooh Movies or Christopher Robin (film)

      Which was better: Fantasia or The Nutcracker and the Four Realms?

      Which might be better: Dumbo (film) or Dumbo (2019 film)?

      Which might be better: Aladdin (1992 film) or Aladdin (2019 film)?

      Which might be better: The Lion King and The Lion King 2: Simba's Pride or The Lion King (2019 film)?

      I think it would be fun and maybe interasting to talk about which was better.

      I think it was only new for that. But, I choose Fantasia. :)

        Loading editor
    • I like these. The only problem is that they only cast British actors... and they are in movies that take place in other European countries like France and Germany! Why not just find a French or German actor who doesn't have a super heavy accent and cast them to make it more accurate? Not that the originals were often that accurate with Americans doing fake British accents instead of even trying the accent of the country their character is from (i.e. Mary Costa doing a fake British accent for Aurora, a French character, Cinderella's voice actor (don't remember her name) doing a British accent for Cinderella, again who's French, Adriana Caselotti (who's like Italian) doing a barely understandable voice for Snow White, who's German, Paige O'Hara not doing a French accent for Belle (who's about the Frenchiest character you can get), or Rapunzel not having a German accent, Anna and Elsa not having Norwegian accents, Ariel not having a Danish accent). I mean come on, Miguel from Coco had a Mexican accent, and while not using an accent for Mulan, I can give her a past because her voice actor was actually Asian and Chinese. I just don't know why it's easy to give a character a Mexican accent, but not give princesses the accents they should have! Also, I don't agree about how they changed Clara's nationality. In the original Nutcracker, she was Russian, now she's a Brit with a German/Jewish last name, Stahlbaum.

        Loading editor
    • The originals win at everything

        Loading editor
    • Other than the inaccurate casting choices that I mentioned, I think the originals are equal. EXCEPT BEAUTY AND THE BEAST REMAKE WHICH WAS BETTER. Also, Nutcracker and the Four Realms wasn't a remake, the nutcracker was just put for like 7 minutes in Fantasia, you can't remake that into a movie and Clara didn't even appear in that. 

        Loading editor
    • The Originals were better than the remakes. Beauty and the Beast was the worst one, a fully unnecessary movie.

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:
      Ok as we all know The Walt Disney Company has been making Remakes for all their classics and most of them, if not all of them, seem to be well liked by us Disney fans but here's a quastion I just thought of, which is better the Original or the Remake?

      Which was better: Alice in Wonderland (1951 film) or Alice in Wonderland (2010 film) and Alice Through the Looking Glass?

      Which was better: The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) or Oz the Great and Powerful?

      Which was better: Sleeping Beauty or Maleficent (film)?

      Which was better: Cinderella (1950 film) or Cinderella (2015 film)?

      Which was better: The Jungle Book or The Jungle Book (2016 film)?

      Which was better: Pete's Dragon or Pete's Dragon (2016 film)?

      Which was better: Beauty and the Beast (1991 film) or Beauty and the Beast (2017 film)?

      Which was better: The Winnie the Pooh Movies or Christopher Robin (film)

      Which was better: The Nutcracker and the Mouse King or The Nutcracker and the Four Realms?

      Which might be better: Dumbo (1941 film) or Dumbo (2019 film)?

      Which might be better: Aladdin (1992 film) or Aladdin (2019 film)?

      Which might be better: The Lion King and The Lion King 2: Simba's Pride or The Lion King (2019 film)?

      Which might be better: Lady and the Tramp or Lady and the Tramp (2019 film)?

      Which might be better: Mulan and Mulan II or Mulan (2020 film)?

      Which might be better: Robin Hood (film) or Nottingham & Hood?

      Which might be better: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs or Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (live-action film)?

      Which might be better: Peter Pan (film) or Tink?

      Which might be better: The Little Mermaid or The Little Mermaid (live-action film)?

      Which might be better: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs or Rose Red (film)?

      Which might be better: The Hunchback of Notre Dame or The Hunchback of Notre Dame (live-action film)?

      I think it would be fun and maybe interasting to talk about which was better.

      Now, of my opinion, while it's true that hanges are made wen adapting a classic, nothing an ever top the originals.

        Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    • What does this have to do with anything?

        Loading editor
    • Wild12002 wrote: What does this have to do with anything?

      Well, like all of the remakes, all good guys turned villains

        Loading editor
    • That doesn't make any sense!

        Loading editor
    • Wild12002 wrote: That doesn't make any sense!

      Okay calm down I get it

        Loading editor
    • I would like to see that with non Disney Villains

        Loading editor
    • Not ONE of the Disney re-makes come close to the beauty and creativity of the originals. Why doesn't Disney take a hint and stop this trend? I'll never watch anything Disney wants to re-hash at us

        Loading editor
    • I agree

        Loading editor
    • maleficent is not a remake. there is a remake of a scene from the cartoon but the rest is Maleficents backstory. Prople need to stop saying thats a remake. One scene does not count

        Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    • I was thinking of The Jungle Book hand-drawing would perfect with Mowgli and Shanti destined for an adventures in the jungle.



      Do you love this one?

      Tumblr inline phhtppl3Lq1ttmj8o 540
        Loading editor
    • the third pic of Mowgli and Shanti. having him on her head while he holds the vase for him

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:
      Ok as we all know The Walt Disney Company has been making Remakes for all their classics and most of them, if not all of them, seem to be well liked by us Disney fans but here's a quastion I just thought of, which is better the Original or the Remake?

      Which was better: Alice in Wonderland (1951 film) or Alice in Wonderland (2010 film) and Alice Through the Looking Glass?

      Which was better: The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) or Oz the Great and Powerful?

      Which was better: Sleeping Beauty or Maleficent (film)?

      Which was better: Cinderella (1950 film) or Cinderella (2015 film)?

      Which was better: The Jungle Book or The Jungle Book (2016 film)?

      Which was better: Pete's Dragon or Pete's Dragon (2016 film)?

      Which was better: Beauty and the Beast (1991 film) or Beauty and the Beast (2017 film)?

      Which was better: The Winnie the Pooh Movies or Christopher Robin (film)

      Which was better: The Nutcracker and the Mouse King or The Nutcracker and the Four Realms?

      Which was be better: Dumbo (1941 film) or Dumbo (2019 film)?

      Which might be better: Aladdin (1992 film) or Aladdin (2019 film)?

      Which might be better: The Lion King and The Lion King 2: Simba's Pride or The Lion King (2019 film)?

      Which might be better: Lady and the Tramp or Lady and the Tramp (2019 film)?

      Which might be better: Mulan and Mulan II or Mulan (2020 film)?

      Which might be better: Robin Hood (film) or Nottingham & Hood?

      Which might be better: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs or Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (live-action film)?

      Which might be better: Peter Pan (film) or Tink?

      Which might be better: The Little Mermaid or The Little Mermaid (live-action film)?

      Which might be better: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs or Rose Red (film)?

      Which might be better: The Hunchback of Notre Dame or The Hunchback of Notre Dame (live-action film)?

      I think it would be fun and maybe interasting to talk about which was better.

      The Original Movies always top the rest

        Loading editor
    • sure thing

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote: Ok as we all know The Walt Disney Company has been making Remakes for all their classics and most of them, if not all of them, seem to be well liked by us Disney fans but here's a quastion I just thought of, which is better the Original or the Remake?

      Which was better: Alice in Wonderland (1951 film) or Alice in Wonderland (2010 film) and Alice Through the Looking Glass?

      Which was better: The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) or Oz the Great and Powerful?

      Which was better: Sleeping Beauty or Maleficent (film)?

      Which was better: Cinderella (1950 film) or Cinderella (2015 film)?

      Which was better: The Jungle Book or The Jungle Book (2016 film)?

      Which was better: Pete's Dragon or Pete's Dragon (2016 film)?

      Which was better: Beauty and the Beast (1991 film) or Beauty and the Beast (2017 film)?

      Which was better: The Winnie the Pooh Movies or Christopher Robin (film)

      Which was better: The Nutcracker and the Mouse King or The Nutcracker and the Four Realms?

      Which was be better: Dumbo (1941 film) or Dumbo (2019 film)?

      Which might be better: Aladdin (1992 film) or Aladdin (2019 film)?

      Which might be better: The Lion King and The Lion King 2: Simba's Pride or The Lion King (2019 film)?

      Which might be better: Lady and the Tramp or Lady and the Tramp (2019 film)?

      Which might be better: Mulan and Mulan II or Mulan (2020 film)?

      Which might be better: Robin Hood (film) or Nottingham & Hood?

      Which might be better: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs or Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (live-action film)?

      Which might be better: Peter Pan (film) or Tink?

      Which might be better: The Little Mermaid or The Little Mermaid (live-action film)?

      Which might be better: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs or Rose Red (film)?

      Which might be better: The Hunchback of Notre Dame or The Hunchback of Notre Dame (live-action film)?

      I think it would be fun and maybe interasting to talk about which was better.

      Maybe I found a wonderful idea is some the theme parks and attractions are about to be put in live-action perfectly amazing!

      What do you think about this one I mentioned? It would be interesting.

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QBz5lVi9mlk

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-bsugfQpWyw

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VAcL2xjmDHE

        Loading editor
    • Which was better: Alice in Wonderland (1951 film) or Alice in Wonderland (2010 film) and Alice Through the Looking Glass?

      The live-action Alice in Wonderland had their moments, took a new twist on the story. I haven't seen the original in years but it probably has some nostalgia. Can't really say.

      Which was better: The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) or Oz the Great and Powerful?

      Technically, Oz: The Great and Powerful is a prequel.

      Which was better: Sleeping Beauty or Maleficent (film)?

      Undecided. Sleeping Beauty wasn't as interesting a lot of the way through, but had an awesome final battle at the end and is the only true death of any incarnation of Maleficent. Maleficent took some interesting new twists by giving her a tragic backstory, reforming her, and making King Stefan the true villain.

      Which was better: The Jungle Book or The Jungle Book (2016 film)?

      I'd say the live-action remake. Though admittedly I haven't seen the original since I was really young, but the live-action one it seemed had more for me, killing off its villains including giving Shere Khan a similar death to Goyle and the Mountain.

      Which was better: Beauty and the Beast (1991 film) or Beauty and the Beast (2017 film)?

      About equal. They were similar, with a few differences, but were overall fun with some catchy songs. Though I like the animated Gaston's "fall to your death" scream better than the live-action Gaston's, which was pretty straightforward.

      Which was better: The Nutcracker and the Mouse King or The Nutcracker and the Four Realms?

      I haven't seen The Nutcracker and the Mouse King but I can't imagine it could be worse than The Nutcracker and the Four Realms.

      Which might be better: Aladdin (1992 film) or Aladdin (2019 film)?

      I haven't seen the new Aladdin, but as it doesn't seem to be continuing into a sequel to kill Jafar and reform Iago, I'd probably lean towards the original Aladdin, though I may watch the live-action one on Shaw on Demand just to be sure.

      Which might be better: The Lion King and The Lion King 2: Simba's Pride or The Lion King (2019 film)?

      Probably the original. The live-action one might have James Earl Jones reprise his role, but not Jeremy Irons, and it doesn't seem Simba shows much emotion when Mufasa dies.

      Which might be better: Mulan and Mulan II or Mulan (2020 film)?

      Not sure. Hopefully Shan Yu gets a pretty awesome death scene to rival that of his animated counterpart, and it has a cool Chinese atmosphere to it.

      Which might be better: Robin Hood (film) or Nottingham & Hood?

      Probably Nottingham & Hood if they do it right. (I know the original was the first furry movie besides anything Micky Mouse, but it seems to forget furries have tails coz they do nothing with them, and not even a villain death to make up for it)

      Which might be better: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs or Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (live-action film)?

      Hard to say. Like Sleeping Beauty the original had its slow moments, maybe the other one will be more exciting, and hopefully the Evil Queen dies a similar way.

      Which might be better: The Little Mermaid or The Little Mermaid (live-action film)?

      Not sure. The remake has potential, I can imagine Ursula gets a similar death to the animated one.

      Which might be better: The Hunchback of Notre Dame or The Hunchback of Notre Dame (live-action film)?

      Not sure. It has potential.

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:
      Ok as we all know The Walt Disney Company has been making Remakes for all their classics and most of them, if not all of them, seem to be well liked by us Disney fans but here's a quastion I just thought of, which is better the Original or the Remake?

      Which was better: Alice in Wonderland (1951 film) or Alice in Wonderland (2010 film) and Alice Through the Looking Glass?

      Technically, Tim Burtons movies were sequels. I suppose I prefer 2010 to 51, even though it's more of a guilty pleasure-movie than actual goodness. While I was able to enjoy Looking Glass, the inconsistensies to the other movies ruined the story for me.


      Would it have been so hard to make a Wicked-movie, instead?

      Which was better: Sleeping Beauty or Maleficent (film)?

      Both suck. I don't like the remakes, anyway, but Malificent was a great villain that didn't need redemption. It would have been more interesting to watch them try and make Aurora less of a damsel in distress.

      I find it very hard to actually compare the very old movies to the remakes. Of course, the writing, the graphics and the views on gender roles have improved over 50 years, doesn't mean the movie was a good idea. There are better ways to fix characters than simply trying to do the same thing again and failing. Even if you try to include a twist: It doesn't work. Everyone still remembers the original Malificent, mistress of evil.

      The original, actually. The new one tried too hard to be edgy and cool.

      Both suck.

      They were literally the same movie, only that one had Emma Watson and shamleless queerbaiting, both things I can also get from the Harry Potter-Franchise.

      Nostalgia-Milking: Most definitely works, always, forever.

      The Barbie-Version, probably.

      Which was be better: Dumbo (1941 film) or Dumbo (2019 film)?

      Haven't seen it yet. Is the remake so racist that if white guilt was transferrable into electricity, this movie would end the energy crisis? If not, it's better than the original.

      Which might be better: Aladdin (1992 film) or Aladdin (2019 film)?

      Is there any sentence that should ever be required to go beyond: "What's better, a movie with Robbie Williams, or..."?

      My money is on the original and one of the few well-written Disney-sequels.

      This needed a remake. Definitely. How sure are we that the world didn't actually end in 2012 and we're all in the Bad Place?

      Which might be better: Mulan and Mulan II or Mulan (2020 film)?

      1.Mulan (The One, Original and Only, at least in the timeline I want to live in!) 2. The Remake, probably (Which will try to be more feminist than Mulan and probably fail by drawing attention to gender roles everyone was aware of already, therefore not only undermining the normalisation of strong female characters by presenting them as an exception, but also making the audience feel like they are considered morons...) 3. The sh*theap that was this sequel, which could have been so much better without Mulan in it. Main Character shift to the three soldiers and the princesses they escort, and the movie could have been fun. Mulans inclusion only required for some superficial drama no one wanted.

      Which might be better: Robin Hood (film) or Nottingham & Hood?

      Aren't they going for a new Pirates-like franchise? Might be interesting.

      What, the hero isn't the evil stepmother? Well, I mean, I guess they did that one in Once Upon A Time, already...

      Which might be better: Peter Pan (film) or Tink?

      They shifted the focus to a character even less likeable than Peter? How about we make a Tiger Lily movie with an actual native actress and have her kick Pocahontas out of the official Disney Princess-line up?

      Original, probably. Is Zendaya still going to play Ariel, BTW?

      Rose Red is technically not a character from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, but instead stems from a different, way underrated fairy tale, which means I have some hopes for this one.

      Which might be better: The Hunchback of Notre Dame or The Hunchback of Notre Dame (live-action film)? This will suck. My prediction is: This will suck.

        Loading editor
    • I see no need for them.

        Loading editor
    • me neither

        Loading editor
    • I do and that's were I'll show you what movies will be anyway.

        Loading editor
    • I think for the Aladdin remake among the changes they made from the original film was intended to obviously retcon all of the material from the Aladdin sequels, especially with Disney's record of treating all movie and TV shows follow-ups of their animated movies as non-canon.

        Loading editor
    • I felt something different with The Lion King of new movie is The Lion Guard would be in the following of the sequel of The Lion King 2: Simba's Pride. Take a look at these sketch art designs of our character.

      https://www.deviantart.com/souripl/art/Kion-sketch-460943357

      https://www.deviantart.com/seku/art/Kion-Sketches-553538808

        Loading editor
    • Sequels still took place in the animated film's continuity. If you want them to.

      Of course if they wanted to make Return of Jafar impossible they'd have had Jafar's lamp thrown into a lava pit after he was sucked into it or something, instead of giving him the exact same ending as in the animated Aladdin leaving open chance of his return.

        Loading editor
    • The originals each and every time, the originals are timeless classics that are filled to the brim with life, soul, and beauty while the remakes are hot garbage and just cheap lazy excuses at cash grabs that aren't worth your time or money.

        Loading editor
    • i agree

        Loading editor
    • Just as an FYI, I'm only going by those that have actually been released, so the last three will not be taken into consideration (other than maybe The Lion King, which is mostly because that film is very close to release as it is.

      Quite frankly, the only good I'd give the remake is that it at least adapted Through the Looking Glass. Either way, however, the movies were bad, as Linda Woolverton as usual thought it was her duty to propagandize people into far-left feminism and have them embrace the ideology.

      Never saw the latter since... well, I vowed not to see one of Sam Reimi's movies after he made Drag Me to Hell. Also, I don't recall The Wizard of Oz being made by Disney, so I'm not really sure that really counts as a remake (and besides, wouldn't that be more of a prequel than an actual remake since Dorothy isn't even involved in the movie?).

      Which was better: Sleeping Beauty or Maleficent (film)?

      I really wouldn't consider Maleficent a remake since it's more of an alternate version of Sleeping Beauty than an actual remake, akin to Wicked. That being said, however, I definitely think Sleeping Beauty was superior to Maleficent by any stretch, especially when Linda Woolverton basically turned the movie into feminist agitprop and destroyed a lot of themes from the original. Heck, it even ruined Maleficent herself, who is supposed to be far worse than all the Disney Villains combined.

      Tough to say, because from what I gather, the Cinderella movie was actually pretty good (too bad I can't actually watch it thanks to Disney shooting itself in the foot with a remake later on the list among other things). Ultimately, however, I'd probably say the original, mostly because, while the remake was very good in some respects and also expanded on some elements, the original is timeless.

      Probably the original, considering that the remake, while good enough, unfortunately didn't have Mowgli return to the man pack, requiring a sequel.

      Can't comment, never saw either film (though I will admit, why the heck does Pete have fur?).

      In this particular case, I'll have to say remake, since that actually included some stuff from the original tale that Linda Woolverton neglected. Plus, it's refreshingly traditionally feminine in spite of Emma Watson (Belle came across as a radical feminist in the original, which was something I'm not fond of looking back). Was also fond of how Fifi and Lumiere, or rather, Plumette and Lumiere are an actual married couple in this (wasn't fond of how Lumiere and Fifi were sexually loose in the original movie). Maurice was also given a bit more respect in the remake than in the original, especially when, and not for lack of trying, he wasn't even allowed to save Belle even once in the original, while in the remake, he actually DOES save Belle. Belle's distaste for the village and not moving out is also MUCH better explained overall and even manages to make her a lot more sympathetic since she was mostly putting up with the village for her father's sake. Oh, and The Bimbettes in this movie actually DO have inner ugliness this time around, and they actually DO look like they pale in comparison to Belle regarding outer beauty bare minimum (in the original, I'll be honest, they were WAY too nice and sweet to qualify as effective foils for Belle). Beast and Belle's relationship development in the remake was if you ask me superior to the original (especially when in the original, I'm sorry to say, Belle just acted like a bigger spoiled brat than Beast). I also like the fact that Gaston actually does behave closer to a genuine psychopath in the remake and that her father is wary of him (though that being said, I'm not necessarily fond of how Gaston was a soldier in this for pretty much the same reason I wasn't fond of him being a hunter in the original: In both instances, he became OOC with cowardice despite his profession in both instances requiring nerves of steel). Also promoted Christianity to a certain extent with Pere Robert, which is especially nice considering that, with the possible exception of Mrs. Potts, the only Christians in the movie, the villagers, were demonized, and Belle, the moral paragon of the story, is implied to be an atheist (helps also that Belle is implied to be a Christian there as well, and actually averts the feminist propaganda that women weren't allowed to be literate until they took power in the 1960s, showcasing that Christianity if anything MANDATED for women to be literate.). And let's face it, the original WAS dated due to being extensively written at Jeffrey Katzenberg's behest to propagate 90s feminism, as even Linda Woolverton admitted, not to mention was infamous for having a LOT of plot holes in it, including the backstory regarding Beast's age among other things. And in the remake, I don't even need to worry about Belle becoming a Jacobin since it's made clear that she was a baby at the time the Versaillis Plague occurred, meaning she'd be old or dead by the time the French Revolution is to occur. That's not to say there were crippling flaws with the remake, however: LeFou having his sexuality changed for no real reason [and the director bragging about it a month before release] was definitely a downer (heck, that's pretty much the main reason I'm boycotting Disney right now). I also wasn't fond of how Beast's visage looked a bit too much like Bahomet. Lastly, while I could tolerate it to some extent since it at least gave Belle an actual reason to want to leave the village, I wasn't fond of how they had the villagers trash Belle's washing machine in retribution for teaching a girl to read (of course, even the original used that propaganda as well).

      Does that really count as a remake? I would have said belated sequel. Well, in any case, I'd say both are good on their own terms.

      Like with Oz: The Great and Powerful, I fail to see how that's an actual remake. More like an alternate adaptation. Either way, can't really comment on that bit.

      Which was be better: Dumbo (1941 film) or Dumbo (2019 film)?

      Well, the original did a lot better at the box office than the remake did, that much I can say. And besides, it seems a bit too divorced from the original and too contemporary.

      Which was be better: Aladdin (1992 film) or Aladdin (2019 film)?

      Probably the original, but I have to admit, from what I've heard of the remake, it's a pretty close call, especially when Jafar in the remake actually COULD make for an effective standin for Adolf Hitler right down to backstory, or even Joseph Stalin or Mao Zedong. And Jafar certainly comes across as very similar to a standard radical islam adherer, bare minimum.

      Not entirely sure yet, as the latter film has yet to be released. Although it certainly shows promise, I'd rather wait until it's released before I make any judgment on it. Besides, I actually fear that Linda Woolverton will double down on the radical feminism like she did with Maleficent. Not sure why they had to change the Hyenas' names, though. Overall, however, I'm leaning towards original (not to mention I'm not even sure how a "live action remake" would be possible with The Lion King since virtually all the characters are CGI. Maybe if they did it a'la the Homeward Bound films, I'd be a bit more receptive to it).

      And quite frankly, I'm not really fond of live action remakes unless they are completely necessary such as Beauty and the Beast. Even there, it would have been better to do animation since that's Disney's forte.

        Loading editor
    • i'm pretty sure that the remakes are just cahsgrabs, that have no soul put on their production and all the time change the original elements to fit with modern standards and copy the movies they are based on.

        Loading editor
    • I remember back in 2011, Disney re-released the Lion King to theaters and I was admititly against it but now I'd gladly go back to that. What happened here? If Walt Disney was somehow still alive he would never let Disney get like this.

        Loading editor
    • In the cases of all the Disney movies that got remade, I think the originals were WAY better and didn't need to be remade. The remakes are unnecessary (c'mon Disney, get some new ideas), non-canon and quite a bit darker and edgier than the originals. The live-action remake of Beauty and the Beast, in particular, is soooo overrated. One thing I really don't like about it is that they made Wardrobe's voice even more operatic than the original, and I HATE opera. Plus, the only good things about the Lion King remake are: 1) James Earl Jones is reprising his role as Mufasa and 2) Beyoncé will be voicing Nala. Other than that...meh.

      As for The Wizard of Oz, my parents and sister definitely prefer the original. Can't speak for The Nutcracker, though, but I did enjoy the Mickey and Minnie version from House of Mouse with its gut-busting humor and jazzy arrangements of the Nutcracker Suite. :)

        Loading editor
    • They didn't even bring back Jeremy Irons to re-voice Scar. Why? Don't get me wrong, I like Chiwetel Ejiofor but Jeremy Irons is still alive so he should've been given the role. Did they want an all black cast? No, they got Seth Rogan as Pumbaa. Explain Disney, explain this to me please.

        Loading editor
    • If The Lion King was already released theatres like once again as they say it was Exclusively in IMAX Theatres and Large Format Cinemas on December 25th 2002 and later it returns in Disney Digital 3D, I feel related with my character Simba or Jonathan Taylor Thomas and Matthew Broderick would be interesting while Mark Henn and Ruben A. Aquino can show me on the following of "How to Draw Your Disney Character". But Disney would you give us some pictures of how to make a line by drawing them in through paper please.

        Loading editor
    • I like both (througth i think Jon Favreu's The Jungle Book is cooler)

        Loading editor
    • Buzzfan120 wrote:
      In the cases of all the Disney movies that got remade, I think the originals were WAY better and didn't need to be remade. The remakes are unnecessary (c'mon Disney, get some new ideas), non-canon and quite a bit darker and edgier than the originals. The live-action remake of Beauty and the Beast, in particular, is soooo overrated. One thing I really don't like about it is that they made Wardrobe's voice even more operatic than the original, and I HATE opera. Plus, the only good things about the Lion King remake are: 1) James Earl Jones is reprising his role as Mufasa and 2) Beyoncé will be voicing Nala. Other than that...meh.

      As for The Wizard of Oz, my parents and sister definitely prefer the original. Can't speak for The Nutcracker, though, but I did enjoy the Mickey and Minnie version from House of Mouse with its gut-busting humor and jazzy arrangements of the Nutcracker Suite. :)

      Same here with the Nutcracker

        Loading editor
    • I think that depends on everybody because everybody likes different stuff

        Loading editor
    • It'll be part of the great Circle Of Life?

      TreeOfLifeAtDAK
        Loading editor
    • How did you find the photo Elephant Trunk they're speaking of the Tree Of Life on  Lion Guard Wiki while chatting about Season 3's opening.

        Loading editor
    • I never heard of it so soon since a new page has been update The Lion Guard Wiki cause were about to find out on Season 3 maybe all the way to The Lion King 2: Simba's Pride, and I already recall for a live-action Disney's Animal Kingdom after The Lion King in 1994 or 2019.

        Loading editor
    • squash banana

        Loading editor
    • I love all versions.

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:
      Ok as we all know The Walt Disney Company has been making Remakes for all their classics and most of them, if not all of them, seem to be well liked by us Disney fans but here's a quastion I just thought of, which is better the Original or the Remake?

      Which was better: Alice in Wonderland (1951 film) or Alice in Wonderland (2010 film) and Alice Through the Looking Glass?

      Which was better: The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) or Oz the Great and Powerful?

      Which was better: Sleeping Beauty or Maleficent (film) and Maleficent: Mistress of Evil?

      Which was better: Cinderella (1950 film) or Cinderella (2015 film)?

      Which was better: The Jungle Book or The Jungle Book (2016 film)?

      Which was better: Pete's Dragon or Pete's Dragon (2016 film)?

      Which was better: Beauty and the Beast (1991 film) or Beauty and the Beast (2017 film)?

      Which was better: The Winnie the Pooh Movies or Christopher Robin (film)

      Which was better: The Nutcracker and the Mouse King or The Nutcracker and the Four Realms?

      Which was be better: Dumbo (1941 film) or Dumbo (2019 film)?

      Which was be better: Aladdin (1992 film) or Aladdin (2019 film)?

      Which was be better: The Lion King and The Lion King 2: Simba's Pride or The Lion King (2019 film)?

      Which might be better: Lady and the Tramp or Lady and the Tramp (2019 film)?

      Which might be better: Mulan and Mulan II or Mulan (2020 film)?

      Which might be better: Robin Hood (film) or Nottingham & Hood?

      Which might be better: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs or Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (live-action film)?

      Which might be better: Peter Pan (film) or Tink?

      Which might be better: The Little Mermaid or The Little Mermaid (live-action film)?

      Which might be better: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs or Rose Red (film)?

      Which might be better: The Hunchback of Notre Dame or The Hunchback of Notre Dame (live-action film)?

      I think it would be fun and maybe interasting to talk about which was better.

      Don't forget the the 101 dalmatians moves in; the original and the 1996 remake. Unless you are just refering to the late 2000 moves.

        Loading editor
    • Implord wrote:


      What, the hero isn't the evil stepmother? Well, I mean, I guess they did that one in Once Upon A Time, already...

      Technically the Evil Queen, Regina, from OUAT have never fully changed. According to my research, The deception of the murder of Graham the huntsman is living proof of that. Other Living Proof of that includes her not giving back the hearts of her victoms, and she hardly or never apologized to anyone (escpescially for what she did to Lily by cutting her hand and lying to Maleficent about it). Her story was not finished yet. We ought to know how it would really end.


      Rose Red is technically not a character from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, but instead stems from a different, way underrated fairy tale, which means I have some hopes for this one.

      She is now in the disney version, Cause it was spoiled that she will go on a quest to find a way to save Snow from her sleeping death.

        Loading editor
    • PolancoEmi123 wrote:

      Wild12002 wrote: What does this have to do with anything?

      Well, like all of the remakes, all good guys turned villains

      That's not what it is. Those scenes in that clip do no mean anything. Except for maybe people like Kuzko for his selfishness, insensitivity, and stupidity. The rest were only mistaken and got the wrong idea.

        Loading editor
    • PolancoEmi123 wrote:
      All evil guys turn good.
      Sleeping-beauty-disneyscreencaps.com-1811

      Never happened. Most of the time, a few minions changed and switched sides.

        Loading editor
    • StarWars3456 wrote:
      PolancoEmi123 wrote:
      All evil guys turn good.
      Sleeping-beauty-disneyscreencaps.com-1811
      Never happened. Most of the time, a few minions changed and switched sides.

      really?

        Loading editor
    • PolancoEmi123 wrote:
      StarWars3456 wrote:
      PolancoEmi123 wrote:
      All evil guys turn good.
      Sleeping-beauty-disneyscreencaps.com-1811
      Never happened. Most of the time, a few minions changed and switched sides.
      really?

      LeFou did in the remake. Even in the originals, minions like Iago and Kronk switched sides.

        Loading editor
    • StarWars3456 wrote:

      PolancoEmi123 wrote:
      StarWars3456 wrote:
      PolancoEmi123 wrote:
      All evil guys turn good.
      Sleeping-beauty-disneyscreencaps.com-1811
      Never happened. Most of the time, a few minions changed and switched sides.
      really?

      LeFou did in the remake. Even in the originals, minions like Iago and Kronk switched sides.

      Yep. A lot of villains have changed and redeemed to be friends with the rest of the characters from every Disney version movies.

        Loading editor
    • I haven't seen a lot of the movies listed, so I'll give my two cents on the ones I have seen and leave the rest out.

      1. I actually think Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" was better than the original animated version. I understand that a lot of people didn't like it (though I don't quite understand why); personally, I enjoyed it a lot. I think it captures the wacky, surrealistic tone of the book that the 1951 version just tiptoed around in favor of making the whole thing lighthearted and goofy. It also expanded on the Wonderland universe a bit more and gave some real depth to characters like Alice and the Mad Hatter.

      2. Both Cinderella movies have their charms. The animated version is simple but graceful, with beautiful music and animation; while the live-action version is more complex, it's just as beautiful, with arguably a more impactful message. If you asked me which I think is better, I'd say it's a tie.

      3. I can't say which of the Jungle Book movies was better, because I didn't particularly care for either of them. Don't get me wrong: they were both wonderfully made. It just wasn't a story I was interested in. That being said, I prefer the live-action version to the animated one simply because the CG in the 2010 version was supurb, and I'm a sucker for great animation.

      4. I'm biased with the Beauty and The Beast movies. Obviously I'll pick the animated version! It's my favorite Disney movie to date (the #2 spot is a 35-way tie). That's not to say I hated the live-action movie, because I didn't. I think that the 2017 version is one of the most beautiful films I've ever seen, and I will never hate beauty simply because it is not something else. It tied up loose ends, and it added to the story; however, it also lacked the charm of the 1991 version, and it made a serious mistake in casting Emma Watson (her casting based her potential on how much she looked like Belle, overlooking the fact that her light, airy voice is not at all suited for the deep opera-esque songs that the movie calls for). The original BATB was the best: It was simple, wholesome, and at times, magical. You couldn't remake that with all the style in the world.

      5. Frankly, I didn't like either Aladdin movie, because Aladdin the character is annoying to me. He's sweet and charming, but I just have no patience for college-boy characters, no matter how endearing they may be. However, I will say that I still prefer the 1992 version to the 2019 version, solely for Robin Williams' Genie. Will Smith tried his best, but he just couldn't capture the zest and heart that Rob Williams brought to the table.

      All the rest are just plain speculation. 1) I want to be wrong, but I honestly think that the Lady and the Tramp remake will probably be no better than a classier "Air Buddies". 2) I think the new Mulan remake will be interesting, and while it could obviously go either way, I'm cautiously hoping that it will be on par with the original animated version. 3) The 1973 Robin Hood is one of my favorite Disney movies ever, and it's the only version of the Robin Hood story that I actually like (again, it's one of those things where the story just isn't interesting to me). I really doubt we'll be able to compare the new remake to the animated version, because something tells me that it'll be a totally different kettle of fish. 4) I'm not looking forward to the new "Tink" movie, because Disney has already wrung as much out of the franchise as they can with the Tinkerbell film series. As for the last three, none of them seem very appealing. By then, I think everyone will be sick and tired of Disney's live-action line-up. For an animation company, it's certainly been a while since they released something that's actually animated.

        Loading editor
    • StarWars3456 wrote:
      PolancoEmi123 wrote:
      All evil guys turn good.
      Sleeping-beauty-disneyscreencaps.com-1811
      Never happened. Most of the time, a few minions changed and switched sides.

      All good guys turn evil.

      Sleeping-beauty-disneyscreencaps.com-4502
      ​​​​​​
      Cinderella-disneyscreencaps com-8041
      Jungle-book-disneyscreencaps.com-4362
        Loading editor
    • FozzieMan wrote: I think that depends on everybody because everybody likes different stuff

      I'm sure we could figure it out all hand drawing somehow you never know.

        Loading editor
    • PolancoEmi123 wrote:

      StarWars3456 wrote:
      PolancoEmi123 wrote:
      All evil guys turn good.
      Sleeping-beauty-disneyscreencaps.com-1811
      Never happened. Most of the time, a few minions changed and switched sides.

      All good guys turn evil.

      Sleeping-beauty-disneyscreencaps.com-4502
      ​​​​​​
      Cinderella-disneyscreencaps com-8041
      Jungle-book-disneyscreencaps.com-4362

      Well, technically, King Louie was bad in the original, at most neutral. He was not an actual good guy even in the original film, unlike the Duke or King Stefan, who were good originally.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      PolancoEmi123 wrote:


      StarWars3456 wrote:
      PolancoEmi123 wrote:
      All evil guys turn good.
      Sleeping-beauty-disneyscreencaps.com-1811
      Never happened. Most of the time, a few minions changed and switched sides.
      All good guys turn evil.
      Sleeping-beauty-disneyscreencaps.com-4502
      ​​​​​​
      Cinderella-disneyscreencaps com-8041
      Jungle-book-disneyscreencaps.com-4362
      Well, technically, King Louie was bad in the original, at most neutral. He was not an actual good guy even in the original film, unlike the Duke or King Stefan, who were good originally.

      oh, but what about https://disney.fandom.com/wiki/Maleficent_(film)?  there were two kingdoms that were the worst of neighbors. So vast was the discord between them that it was said only a great hero or a terrible villain might bring them together. In one kingdom lived folk like you and me, with a vain and greedy king to rule over them. They were forever discontent, and envious of the wealth and beauty of their neighbors. For in the other kingdom, the Moors, lived every manner of strange and wonderful creature. And they needed neither king nor queen but trusted in one another.

        Loading editor
    • PolancoEmi123 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      PolancoEmi123 wrote:


      StarWars3456 wrote:
      PolancoEmi123 wrote:
      All evil guys turn good.
      Sleeping-beauty-disneyscreencaps.com-1811
      Never happened. Most of the time, a few minions changed and switched sides.
      All good guys turn evil.
      Sleeping-beauty-disneyscreencaps.com-4502
      ​​​​​​
      Cinderella-disneyscreencaps com-8041
      Jungle-book-disneyscreencaps.com-4362
      Well, technically, King Louie was bad in the original, at most neutral. He was not an actual good guy even in the original film, unlike the Duke or King Stefan, who were good originally.

      oh, but what about https://disney.fandom.com/wiki/Maleficent_(film)?  there were two kingdoms that were the worst of neighbors. So vast was the discord between them that it was said only a great hero or a terrible villain might bring them together. In one kingdom lived folk like you and me, with a vain and greedy king to rule over them. They were forever discontent, and envious of the wealth and beauty of their neighbors. For in the other kingdom, the Moors, lived every manner of strange and wonderful creature. And they needed neither king nor queen but trusted in one another.

      Original, not remake. Though that being said, I'm not sure Maleficent really counts as a true remake.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      PolancoEmi123 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      PolancoEmi123 wrote:


      StarWars3456 wrote:
      PolancoEmi123 wrote:
      All evil guys turn good.
      Sleeping-beauty-disneyscreencaps.com-1811
      Never happened. Most of the time, a few minions changed and switched sides.
      All good guys turn evil.
      Sleeping-beauty-disneyscreencaps.com-4502
      ​​​​​​
      Cinderella-disneyscreencaps com-8041
      Jungle-book-disneyscreencaps.com-4362
      Well, technically, King Louie was bad in the original, at most neutral. He was not an actual good guy even in the original film, unlike the Duke or King Stefan, who were good originally.
      oh, but what about https://disney.fandom.com/wiki/Maleficent_(film)?  there were two kingdoms that were the worst of neighbors. So vast was the discord between them that it was said only a great hero or a terrible villain might bring them together. In one kingdom lived folk like you and me, with a vain and greedy king to rule over them. They were forever discontent, and envious of the wealth and beauty of their neighbors. For in the other kingdom, the Moors, lived every manner of strange and wonderful creature. And they needed neither king nor queen but trusted in one another.
      Original, not remake. Though that being said, I'm not sure Maleficent really counts as a true remake.

      really?

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, it's not. It's more of an AU than a true remake. A real remake is something like, say, Star Fox 64 from Star Fox, or the Eddie Murphy version of Nutty Professor from the Jerry Lewis version.

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote: Ok as we all know The Walt Disney Company has been making Remakes for all their classics and most of them, if not all of them, seem to be well liked by us Disney fans but here's a quastion I just thought of, which is better the Original or the Remake?

      Which was better: Alice in Wonderland (1951 film) or Alice in Wonderland (2010 film) and Alice Through the Looking Glass?

      Which was better: The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) or Oz the Great and Powerful?

      Which was better: Sleeping Beauty or Maleficent (film) and Maleficent: Mistress of Evil?

      Which was better: Cinderella (1950 film) or Cinderella (2015 film)?

      Which was better: The Jungle Book or The Jungle Book (2016 film)?

      Which was better: Pete's Dragon or Pete's Dragon (2016 film)?

      Which was better: Beauty and the Beast (1991 film) or Beauty and the Beast (2017 film)?

      Which was better: The Winnie the Pooh Movies or Christopher Robin (film)

      Which was better: The Nutcracker and the Mouse King or The Nutcracker and the Four Realms?

      Which was be better: Dumbo (1941 film) or Dumbo (2019 film)?

      Which was be better: Aladdin (1992 film) or Aladdin (2019 film)?

      Which was be better: The Lion King and The Lion King 2: Simba's Pride or The Lion King (2019 film)?

      Which might be better: Lady and the Tramp or Lady and the Tramp (2019 film)?

      Which might be better: Mulan and Mulan II or Mulan (2020 film)?

      Which might be better: Robin Hood (film) or Nottingham & Hood?

      Which might be better: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs or Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (live-action film)?

      Which might be better: Peter Pan (film) or Tink?

      Which might be better: The Little Mermaid or The Little Mermaid (live-action film)?

      Which might be better: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs or Rose Red (film)?

      Which might be better: The Hunchback of Notre Dame or The Hunchback of Notre Dame (live-action film)?

      I think it would be fun and maybe interasting to talk about which was better.

      The Jungle Book would like to restart the opening and closing of the book with not live-action just hand drawing animation would be better to see it again.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:
      Yeah, it's not. It's more of an AU than a true remake. A real remake is something like, say, Star Fox 64 from Star Fox, or the Eddie Murphy version of Nutty Professor from the Jerry Lewis version.

      AU?

        Loading editor
    • Alternate Universe.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:
      Alternate Universe.

      oh okay

        Loading editor
    • It all depends if the acting is actually good. But to be honest the lion king is not a live action remake. It’s cgi (computer generated image) meaning it’s still a cartoon.

        Loading editor
    • Ilovethebackyardigans wrote:
      It all depends if the acting is actually good. But to be honest the lion king is not a live action remake. It’s cgi (computer generated image) meaning it’s still a cartoon.

      Does that movie look remotely like A CARTOON TO YOU?!!!!! And technically it is a remake, a shot by shot remake! A REMAKE NEVERTHELESS!!

        Loading editor
    • The new film of the Lion King it's Live Action to older people but young kids couldn't stand how realistic the animals looked while talking that's why some say animated instead.

        Loading editor
    • Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King would like to return in theatres in Disney Digital 3D, it would be even more realistic and quite phenomenal of our year anniversary cartoon and movie might be in CGI or the multiplane camera would work somehow.

        Loading editor
    • Wild12002 wrote:
      Ilovethebackyardigans wrote:
      It all depends if the acting is actually good. But to be honest the lion king is not a live action remake. It’s cgi (computer generated image) meaning it’s still a cartoon.
      Does that movie look remotely like A CARTOON TO YOU?!!!!! And technically it is a remake, a shot by shot remake! A REMAKE NEVERTHELESS!!

      Is a PHOTOREALISITC COMPUTER-ANIMATED remake, so it looks real but was made completly with computer-animation

        Loading editor
    • FozzieMan wrote:
      Wild12002 wrote:
      Ilovethebackyardigans wrote:
      It all depends if the acting is actually good. But to be honest the lion king is not a live action remake. It’s cgi (computer generated image) meaning it’s still a cartoon.
      Does that movie look remotely like A CARTOON TO YOU?!!!!! And technically it is a remake, a shot by shot remake! A REMAKE NEVERTHELESS!!
      Is a PHOTOREALISITC COMPUTER-ANIMATED remake, so it looks real but was made completly with computer-animation

      Okay realism is a plus in this scenario, but...

      A.  Nobody asked for this to be done

      B. The music is either repeated or scaled down( Ahem... Be prepared... cough... cough...)

      C. The emotion is not visible from any of the character's faces, but only in their voices, but even then, you cannot really make out their emotions

      D. The most powerful scenes of the film, too, are either repeated or scaled down( i.e. Mufasa's spirit, you can barely see him)

      E. The storyline is the exact same thing!

      F.You cannot even laugh when you hear anything from the reimagined Timone and Pumbaa, they just don' t sound comedic as they did before

      G. Rafiki doesn't have a strong a role as he did the original

      H. I know most of the new voice actors are trying, so is the returning James Earl Jones, but their effects in emotion or impact just don't hit as hard as the original!

      AND I.This is not a nature documentary, this is The Lion King, one of the highest grossing and critical successes from Walt Disney Animation!!!! YOU HAVE TO KNOW BETTER THAN THAT!!!

        Loading editor
    • Wild12002 wrote:

      FozzieMan wrote:
      Wild12002 wrote:
      Ilovethebackyardigans wrote:
      It all depends if the acting is actually good. But to be honest the lion king is not a live action remake. It’s cgi (computer generated image) meaning it’s still a cartoon.
      Does that movie look remotely like A CARTOON TO YOU?!!!!! And technically it is a remake, a shot by shot remake! A REMAKE NEVERTHELESS!!
      Is a PHOTOREALISITC COMPUTER-ANIMATED remake, so it looks real but was made completly with computer-animation

      Okay realism is a plus in this scenario, but...

      A.  Nobody asked for this to be done

      B. The music is either repeated or scaled down( Ahem... Be prepared... cough... cough...)

      C. The emotion is not visible from any of the character's faces, but only in their voices, but even then, you cannot really make out their emotions

      D. The most powerful scenes of the film, too, are either repeated or scaled down( i.e. Mufasa's spirit, you can barely see him)

      E. The storyline is the exact same thing!

      F.You cannot even laugh when you hear anything from the reimagined Timone and Pumbaa, they just don' t sound comedic as they did before

      G. Rafiki doesn't have a strong a role as he did the original

      H. I know most of the new voice actors are trying, so is the returning James Earl Jones, but their effects in emotion or impact just don't hit as hard as the original!

      AND I.This is not a nature documentary, this is The Lion King, one of the highest grossing and critical successes from Walt Disney Animation!!!! YOU HAVE TO KNOW BETTER THAN THAT!!!

      At least the remake retained several of the morals and themes that made the movie a great one, like all those biblical themes and condemnations of totalitarianism, heck, even expanded on them, even expanded on the nihilism and resulting condemnation of it as well. At least they didn't outright trash the messages or completely desecrate several characters just to promote the original villain as a good guy, unlike with the Maleficent movie (which is technically listed as a remake to Sleeping Beauty, even though I STRONGLY disagree with calling it such.).

      Sure, the Lion King remake is not as good as the original (and I'm pretty annoyed at the slew of live action remakes as it is, especially when its not even allowing Disney to do any animated features at all, even the CGI animated films, let alone traditional animation films), but I've heard of a lot worse remakes, like the Dumbo remake which was just downright nasty and almost an insult to Disney's rendition, and as much as I REALLY hate listing it as such, but Maleficent as well, possibly also the upcoming remake to The Little Mermaid as well.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wild12002 wrote:

      FozzieMan wrote:
      Wild12002 wrote:
      Ilovethebackyardigans wrote:
      It all depends if the acting is actually good. But to be honest the lion king is not a live action remake. It’s cgi (computer generated image) meaning it’s still a cartoon.
      Does that movie look remotely like A CARTOON TO YOU?!!!!! And technically it is a remake, a shot by shot remake! A REMAKE NEVERTHELESS!!
      Is a PHOTOREALISITC COMPUTER-ANIMATED remake, so it looks real but was made completly with computer-animation
      Okay realism is a plus in this scenario, but...

      A.  Nobody asked for this to be done

      B. The music is either repeated or scaled down( Ahem... Be prepared... cough... cough...)

      C. The emotion is not visible from any of the character's faces, but only in their voices, but even then, you cannot really make out their emotions

      D. The most powerful scenes of the film, too, are either repeated or scaled down( i.e. Mufasa's spirit, you can barely see him)

      E. The storyline is the exact same thing!

      F.You cannot even laugh when you hear anything from the reimagined Timone and Pumbaa, they just don' t sound comedic as they did before

      G. Rafiki doesn't have a strong a role as he did the original

      H. I know most of the new voice actors are trying, so is the returning James Earl Jones, but their effects in emotion or impact just don't hit as hard as the original!

      AND I.This is not a nature documentary, this is The Lion King, one of the highest grossing and critical successes from Walt Disney Animation!!!! YOU HAVE TO KNOW BETTER THAN THAT!!!

      At least the remake retained several of the morals and themes that made the movie a great one, like all those biblical themes and condemnations of totalitarianism, heck, even expanded on them, even expanded on the nihilism and resulting condemnation of it as well. At least they didn't outright trash the messages or completely desecrate several characters just to promote the original villain as a good guy, unlike with the Maleficent movie (which is technically listed as a remake to Sleeping Beauty, even though I STRONGLY disagree with calling it such.).

      Sure, the Lion King remake is not as good as the original (and I'm pretty annoyed at the slew of live action remakes as it is, especially when its not even allowing Disney to do any animated features at all, even the CGI animated films, let alone traditional animation films), but I've heard of a lot worse remakes, like the Dumbo remake which was just downright nasty and almost an insult to Disney's rendition, and as much as I REALLY hate listing it as such, but Maleficent as well, possibly also the upcoming remake to The Little Mermaid as well.

      True to state, and not to sound immature, but I still must ask, who in the world asked for this, and why remake something with clearly no fault or flaw involved?!

        Loading editor
    • Wild12002 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wild12002 wrote:

      FozzieMan wrote:
      Wild12002 wrote:
      Ilovethebackyardigans wrote:
      It all depends if the acting is actually good. But to be honest the lion king is not a live action remake. It’s cgi (computer generated image) meaning it’s still a cartoon.
      Does that movie look remotely like A CARTOON TO YOU?!!!!! And technically it is a remake, a shot by shot remake! A REMAKE NEVERTHELESS!!
      Is a PHOTOREALISITC COMPUTER-ANIMATED remake, so it looks real but was made completly with computer-animation
      Okay realism is a plus in this scenario, but...

      A.  Nobody asked for this to be done

      B. The music is either repeated or scaled down( Ahem... Be prepared... cough... cough...)

      C. The emotion is not visible from any of the character's faces, but only in their voices, but even then, you cannot really make out their emotions

      D. The most powerful scenes of the film, too, are either repeated or scaled down( i.e. Mufasa's spirit, you can barely see him)

      E. The storyline is the exact same thing!

      F.You cannot even laugh when you hear anything from the reimagined Timone and Pumbaa, they just don' t sound comedic as they did before

      G. Rafiki doesn't have a strong a role as he did the original

      H. I know most of the new voice actors are trying, so is the returning James Earl Jones, but their effects in emotion or impact just don't hit as hard as the original!

      AND I.This is not a nature documentary, this is The Lion King, one of the highest grossing and critical successes from Walt Disney Animation!!!! YOU HAVE TO KNOW BETTER THAN THAT!!!

      At least the remake retained several of the morals and themes that made the movie a great one, like all those biblical themes and condemnations of totalitarianism, heck, even expanded on them, even expanded on the nihilism and resulting condemnation of it as well. At least they didn't outright trash the messages or completely desecrate several characters just to promote the original villain as a good guy, unlike with the Maleficent movie (which is technically listed as a remake to Sleeping Beauty, even though I STRONGLY disagree with calling it such.).

      Sure, the Lion King remake is not as good as the original (and I'm pretty annoyed at the slew of live action remakes as it is, especially when its not even allowing Disney to do any animated features at all, even the CGI animated films, let alone traditional animation films), but I've heard of a lot worse remakes, like the Dumbo remake which was just downright nasty and almost an insult to Disney's rendition, and as much as I REALLY hate listing it as such, but Maleficent as well, possibly also the upcoming remake to The Little Mermaid as well.

      True to state, and not to sound immature, but I still must ask, who in the world asked for this, and why remake something with clearly no fault or flaw involved?!

      Hey, don't ask me, I personally thought there wasn't any real need for a remake either (people can claim Zazu ought to have known that Scar was at the stampede, but considering that Scar, you know, flung him to a wall during the stampede, one can reasonably assume that Zazu simply had memory loss, and it's not like he can do much in the original film by the time he regained his memory since he, you know, was relegated to a caged jester in Scar's quarters, so it's not like he could say anything to the Lionesses even if he DID remember (the only ones explicitly shown to visit his quarters were the Hyenas, and they already know Scar's role in killing Mufasa). Heck, I agree that the film didn't need a remake. In fact, with the exception of Beauty and the Beast, none of the Disney films actually NEEDED remakes anyways (and I'm singling out BATB as an exception because there were just so many flaws in that movie that a remake was practically inevitable).

        Loading editor
    • Okay, now that you talk of Beauty and the Beast, I have to say, let's just agree to disagree, so this cannot go on any longer( Patience runs deep within me, but, here, not that deep). I still love that timeless animated romantic story.

        Loading editor
    • Wild12002 wrote: Okay, now that you talk of Beauty and the Beast, I have to say, let's just agree to disagree, so this cannot go on any longer( Patience runs deep within me, but, here, not that deep). I still love that timeless animated romantic story.

      Fine, we'll stop. Used to love it myself. Unfortunately... let's just say several elements in my college years really destroyed my love for the film, dealing with a lot of far left professors who pushed radical feminism and all of that (that, and also doing independent research into how intellectuals tended to side with the mobs against Christianity and coming to utterly fear Belle becoming a Jacobin, among other things. Some of Linda Woolverton's recent comments including how she reused the themes from Beauty and the Beast with that awful Maleficent movie certainly didn't help either. If you ask me, Linda Woolverton stating that ruined the original far more than the remake EVER did.).

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wild12002 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wild12002 wrote:

      FozzieMan wrote:
      Wild12002 wrote:
      Ilovethebackyardigans wrote:
      It all depends if the acting is actually good. But to be honest the lion king is not a live action remake. It’s cgi (computer generated image) meaning it’s still a cartoon.
      Does that movie look remotely like A CARTOON TO YOU?!!!!! And technically it is a remake, a shot by shot remake! A REMAKE NEVERTHELESS!!
      Is a PHOTOREALISITC COMPUTER-ANIMATED remake, so it looks real but was made completly with computer-animation
      Okay realism is a plus in this scenario, but...

      A.  Nobody asked for this to be done

      B. The music is either repeated or scaled down( Ahem... Be prepared... cough... cough...)

      C. The emotion is not visible from any of the character's faces, but only in their voices, but even then, you cannot really make out their emotions

      D. The most powerful scenes of the film, too, are either repeated or scaled down( i.e. Mufasa's spirit, you can barely see him)

      E. The storyline is the exact same thing!

      F.You cannot even laugh when you hear anything from the reimagined Timone and Pumbaa, they just don' t sound comedic as they did before

      G. Rafiki doesn't have a strong a role as he did the original

      H. I know most of the new voice actors are trying, so is the returning James Earl Jones, but their effects in emotion or impact just don't hit as hard as the original!

      AND I.This is not a nature documentary, this is The Lion King, one of the highest grossing and critical successes from Walt Disney Animation!!!! YOU HAVE TO KNOW BETTER THAN THAT!!!

      At least the remake retained several of the morals and themes that made the movie a great one, like all those biblical themes and condemnations of totalitarianism, heck, even expanded on them, even expanded on the nihilism and resulting condemnation of it as well. At least they didn't outright trash the messages or completely desecrate several characters just to promote the original villain as a good guy, unlike with the Maleficent movie (which is technically listed as a remake to Sleeping Beauty, even though I STRONGLY disagree with calling it such.).

      Sure, the Lion King remake is not as good as the original (and I'm pretty annoyed at the slew of live action remakes as it is, especially when its not even allowing Disney to do any animated features at all, even the CGI animated films, let alone traditional animation films), but I've heard of a lot worse remakes, like the Dumbo remake which was just downright nasty and almost an insult to Disney's rendition, and as much as I REALLY hate listing it as such, but Maleficent as well, possibly also the upcoming remake to The Little Mermaid as well.

      True to state, and not to sound immature, but I still must ask, who in the world asked for this, and why remake something with clearly no fault or flaw involved?!

      Hey, don't ask me, I personally thought there wasn't any real need for a remake either (people can claim Zazu ought to have known that Scar was at the stampede, but considering that Scar, you know, flung him to a wall during the stampede, one can reasonably assume that Zazu simply had memory loss, and it's not like he can do much in the original film by the time he regained his memory since he, you know, was relegated to a caged jester in Scar's quarters, so it's not like he could say anything to the Lionesses even if he DID remember (the only ones explicitly shown to visit his quarters were the Hyenas, and they already know Scar's role in killing Mufasa). Heck, I agree that the film didn't need a remake. In fact, with the exception of Beauty and the Beast, none of the Disney films actually NEEDED remakes anyways (and I'm singling out BATB as an exception because there were just so many flaws in that movie that a remake was practically inevitable).

      The Lion King and Tarzan would be inspired to one of my best greatest adventures at ANIMAL KINGDOM would a big romantic Tree of Life might have been the best beauty of nature, how about it if they could add the CAST & CREW with all the actors portraying and playing their characters and the voice talents of their animal characters, for what I learn something next of the theme parks of Disney live-action (the rumours are making and opening JUNGLE CRUISE and MAGIC KINGDOM for next year) what do ya say will give it a try with it?

      And maybe it was a very tough question for to ask.

        Loading editor
    • I voted for the original movie and i Don’t like the remakes

        Loading editor
    • I must say, as someone who overall HATES Maleficent 1, and LOVES the original animated Sleeping Beauty, I think this 2nd one is really good!! It is quite well done with a very moving, greatly written script and a surprisingly strong overall morality based on the most common and relatable psychological issues that ALL of us can relate to, besides being very entertaining, emotionally gripping, and just overall fun and insightful to watch!!

      If anyone reading this could also please spread the word about it to as many people as possible, it would also be truly gratefully appreciated ��

        Loading editor
    • I don’t like when they made King Stefan evil

        Loading editor
    • James1961 wrote: I don’t like when they made King Stefan evil

      Me neither. Even if they absolutely had to make such a monster like Maleficent into a good guy (which was never a good idea in the first place), they shouldn't have made Stefan into a villain as a result.

        Loading editor
    • How would you like it if some make any heroes father evil like in Matilda 

        Loading editor
    • James1961 wrote:
      How would you like it if some make any heroes father evil like in Matilda 

      Well technically, Harry Wormwood was not evil. He's just a jerk, stupid most of the time, and he has a speech impediment. Agatha Trunchbull is the one who is evil.

        Loading editor
    • Elephant Trunk wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:


      Wild12002 wrote:


      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wild12002 wrote:


      FozzieMan wrote:
      Wild12002 wrote:
      Ilovethebackyardigans wrote:
      It all depends if the acting is actually good. But to be honest the lion king is not a live action remake. It’s cgi (computer generated image) meaning it’s still a cartoon.
      Does that movie look remotely like A CARTOON TO YOU?!!!!! And technically it is a remake, a shot by shot remake! A REMAKE NEVERTHELESS!!
      Is a PHOTOREALISITC COMPUTER-ANIMATED remake, so it looks real but was made completly with computer-animation
      Okay realism is a plus in this scenario, but...

      A.  Nobody asked for this to be done

      B. The music is either repeated or scaled down( Ahem... Be prepared... cough... cough...)

      C. The emotion is not visible from any of the character's faces, but only in their voices, but even then, you cannot really make out their emotions

      D. The most powerful scenes of the film, too, are either repeated or scaled down( i.e. Mufasa's spirit, you can barely see him)

      E. The storyline is the exact same thing!

      F.You cannot even laugh when you hear anything from the reimagined Timone and Pumbaa, they just don' t sound comedic as they did before

      G. Rafiki doesn't have a strong a role as he did the original

      H. I know most of the new voice actors are trying, so is the returning James Earl Jones, but their effects in emotion or impact just don't hit as hard as the original!

      AND I.This is not a nature documentary, this is The Lion King, one of the highest grossing and critical successes from Walt Disney Animation!!!! YOU HAVE TO KNOW BETTER THAN THAT!!!

      At least the remake retained several of the morals and themes that made the movie a great one, like all those biblical themes and condemnations of totalitarianism, heck, even expanded on them, even expanded on the nihilism and resulting condemnation of it as well. At least they didn't outright trash the messages or completely desecrate several characters just to promote the original villain as a good guy, unlike with the Maleficent movie (which is technically listed as a remake to Sleeping Beauty, even though I STRONGLY disagree with calling it such.).

      Sure, the Lion King remake is not as good as the original (and I'm pretty annoyed at the slew of live action remakes as it is, especially when its not even allowing Disney to do any animated features at all, even the CGI animated films, let alone traditional animation films), but I've heard of a lot worse remakes, like the Dumbo remake which was just downright nasty and almost an insult to Disney's rendition, and as much as I REALLY hate listing it as such, but Maleficent as well, possibly also the upcoming remake to The Little Mermaid as well.

      True to state, and not to sound immature, but I still must ask, who in the world asked for this, and why remake something with clearly no fault or flaw involved?!
      Hey, don't ask me, I personally thought there wasn't any real need for a remake either (people can claim Zazu ought to have known that Scar was at the stampede, but considering that Scar, you know, flung him to a wall during the stampede, one can reasonably assume that Zazu simply had memory loss, and it's not like he can do much in the original film by the time he regained his memory since he, you know, was relegated to a caged jester in Scar's quarters, so it's not like he could say anything to the Lionesses even if he DID remember (the only ones explicitly shown to visit his quarters were the Hyenas, and they already know Scar's role in killing Mufasa). Heck, I agree that the film didn't need a remake. In fact, with the exception of Beauty and the Beast, none of the Disney films actually NEEDED remakes anyways (and I'm singling out BATB as an exception because there were just so many flaws in that movie that a remake was practically inevitable).
      The Lion King and Tarzan would be inspired to one of my best greatest adventures at ANIMAL KINGDOM would a big romantic Tree of Life might have been the best beauty of nature, how about it if they could add the CAST & CREW with all the actors portraying and playing their characters and the voice talents of their animal characters, for what I learn something next of the theme parks of Disney live-action (the rumours are making and opening JUNGLE CRUISE and MAGIC KINGDOM for next year) what do ya say will give it a try with it?

      And maybe it was a very tough question for to ask.

      Magic Kingdom for next year?

        Loading editor
    • ShaggyDA56 wrote:

      Elephant Trunk wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:


      Wild12002 wrote:


      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wild12002 wrote:


      FozzieMan wrote:
      Wild12002 wrote:
      Ilovethebackyardigans wrote:
      It all depends if the acting is actually good. But to be honest the lion king is not a live action remake. It’s cgi (computer generated image) meaning it’s still a cartoon.
      Does that movie look remotely like A CARTOON TO YOU?!!!!! And technically it is a remake, a shot by shot remake! A REMAKE NEVERTHELESS!!
      Is a PHOTOREALISITC COMPUTER-ANIMATED remake, so it looks real but was made completly with computer-animation
      Okay realism is a plus in this scenario, but...

      A.  Nobody asked for this to be done

      B. The music is either repeated or scaled down( Ahem... Be prepared... cough... cough...)

      C. The emotion is not visible from any of the character's faces, but only in their voices, but even then, you cannot really make out their emotions

      D. The most powerful scenes of the film, too, are either repeated or scaled down( i.e. Mufasa's spirit, you can barely see him)

      E. The storyline is the exact same thing!

      F.You cannot even laugh when you hear anything from the reimagined Timone and Pumbaa, they just don' t sound comedic as they did before

      G. Rafiki doesn't have a strong a role as he did the original

      H. I know most of the new voice actors are trying, so is the returning James Earl Jones, but their effects in emotion or impact just don't hit as hard as the original!

      AND I.This is not a nature documentary, this is The Lion King, one of the highest grossing and critical successes from Walt Disney Animation!!!! YOU HAVE TO KNOW BETTER THAN THAT!!!

      At least the remake retained several of the morals and themes that made the movie a great one, like all those biblical themes and condemnations of totalitarianism, heck, even expanded on them, even expanded on the nihilism and resulting condemnation of it as well. At least they didn't outright trash the messages or completely desecrate several characters just to promote the original villain as a good guy, unlike with the Maleficent movie (which is technically listed as a remake to Sleeping Beauty, even though I STRONGLY disagree with calling it such.).

      Sure, the Lion King remake is not as good as the original (and I'm pretty annoyed at the slew of live action remakes as it is, especially when its not even allowing Disney to do any animated features at all, even the CGI animated films, let alone traditional animation films), but I've heard of a lot worse remakes, like the Dumbo remake which was just downright nasty and almost an insult to Disney's rendition, and as much as I REALLY hate listing it as such, but Maleficent as well, possibly also the upcoming remake to The Little Mermaid as well.

      True to state, and not to sound immature, but I still must ask, who in the world asked for this, and why remake something with clearly no fault or flaw involved?!
      Hey, don't ask me, I personally thought there wasn't any real need for a remake either (people can claim Zazu ought to have known that Scar was at the stampede, but considering that Scar, you know, flung him to a wall during the stampede, one can reasonably assume that Zazu simply had memory loss, and it's not like he can do much in the original film by the time he regained his memory since he, you know, was relegated to a caged jester in Scar's quarters, so it's not like he could say anything to the Lionesses even if he DID remember (the only ones explicitly shown to visit his quarters were the Hyenas, and they already know Scar's role in killing Mufasa). Heck, I agree that the film didn't need a remake. In fact, with the exception of Beauty and the Beast, none of the Disney films actually NEEDED remakes anyways (and I'm singling out BATB as an exception because there were just so many flaws in that movie that a remake was practically inevitable).
      The Lion King and Tarzan would be inspired to one of my best greatest adventures at ANIMAL KINGDOM would a big romantic Tree of Life might have been the best beauty of nature, how about it if they could add the CAST & CREW with all the actors portraying and playing their characters and the voice talents of their animal characters, for what I learn something next of the theme parks of Disney live-action (the rumours are making and opening JUNGLE CRUISE and MAGIC KINGDOM for next year) what do ya say will give it a try with it?

      And maybe it was a very tough question for to ask.

      Magic Kingdom for next year?

      Sure. 2 years would be better to wait, and I forgot another movie inspirational too Disney's Dinosaur.

        Loading editor
    • Elephant Trunk wrote:

      ShaggyDA56 wrote:

      Elephant Trunk wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:


      Wild12002 wrote:


      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wild12002 wrote:



      FozzieMan wrote:
      Wild12002 wrote:
      Ilovethebackyardigans wrote:
      It all depends if the acting is actually good. But to be honest the lion king is not a live action remake. It’s cgi (computer generated image) meaning it’s still a cartoon.
      Does that movie look remotely like A CARTOON TO YOU?!!!!! And technically it is a remake, a shot by shot remake! A REMAKE NEVERTHELESS!!
      Is a PHOTOREALISITC COMPUTER-ANIMATED remake, so it looks real but was made completly with computer-animation
      Okay realism is a plus in this scenario, but...

      A.  Nobody asked for this to be done

      B. The music is either repeated or scaled down( Ahem... Be prepared... cough... cough...)

      C. The emotion is not visible from any of the character's faces, but only in their voices, but even then, you cannot really make out their emotions

      D. The most powerful scenes of the film, too, are either repeated or scaled down( i.e. Mufasa's spirit, you can barely see him)

      E. The storyline is the exact same thing!

      F.You cannot even laugh when you hear anything from the reimagined Timone and Pumbaa, they just don' t sound comedic as they did before

      G. Rafiki doesn't have a strong a role as he did the original

      H. I know most of the new voice actors are trying, so is the returning James Earl Jones, but their effects in emotion or impact just don't hit as hard as the original!

      AND I.This is not a nature documentary, this is The Lion King, one of the highest grossing and critical successes from Walt Disney Animation!!!! YOU HAVE TO KNOW BETTER THAN THAT!!!

      At least the remake retained several of the morals and themes that made the movie a great one, like all those biblical themes and condemnations of totalitarianism, heck, even expanded on them, even expanded on the nihilism and resulting condemnation of it as well. At least they didn't outright trash the messages or completely desecrate several characters just to promote the original villain as a good guy, unlike with the Maleficent movie (which is technically listed as a remake to Sleeping Beauty, even though I STRONGLY disagree with calling it such.).

      Sure, the Lion King remake is not as good as the original (and I'm pretty annoyed at the slew of live action remakes as it is, especially when its not even allowing Disney to do any animated features at all, even the CGI animated films, let alone traditional animation films), but I've heard of a lot worse remakes, like the Dumbo remake which was just downright nasty and almost an insult to Disney's rendition, and as much as I REALLY hate listing it as such, but Maleficent as well, possibly also the upcoming remake to The Little Mermaid as well.

      True to state, and not to sound immature, but I still must ask, who in the world asked for this, and why remake something with clearly no fault or flaw involved?!
      Hey, don't ask me, I personally thought there wasn't any real need for a remake either (people can claim Zazu ought to have known that Scar was at the stampede, but considering that Scar, you know, flung him to a wall during the stampede, one can reasonably assume that Zazu simply had memory loss, and it's not like he can do much in the original film by the time he regained his memory since he, you know, was relegated to a caged jester in Scar's quarters, so it's not like he could say anything to the Lionesses even if he DID remember (the only ones explicitly shown to visit his quarters were the Hyenas, and they already know Scar's role in killing Mufasa). Heck, I agree that the film didn't need a remake. In fact, with the exception of Beauty and the Beast, none of the Disney films actually NEEDED remakes anyways (and I'm singling out BATB as an exception because there were just so many flaws in that movie that a remake was practically inevitable).
      The Lion King and Tarzan would be inspired to one of my best greatest adventures at ANIMAL KINGDOM would a big romantic Tree of Life might have been the best beauty of nature, how about it if they could add the CAST & CREW with all the actors portraying and playing their characters and the voice talents of their animal characters, for what I learn something next of the theme parks of Disney live-action (the rumours are making and opening JUNGLE CRUISE and MAGIC KINGDOM for next year) what do ya say will give it a try with it?

      And maybe it was a very tough question for to ask.

      Magic Kingdom for next year?
      Sure. 2 years would be better to wait, and I forgot another movie inspirational too Disney's Dinosaur.

      No, I mean what do you mean by Magic Kingdom for Next year? I didn't follow.

        Loading editor
    • ShaggyDA56 wrote:

      Elephant Trunk wrote:

      ShaggyDA56 wrote:

      Elephant Trunk wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:


      Wild12002 wrote:


      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wild12002 wrote:



      FozzieMan wrote:
      Wild12002 wrote:
      Ilovethebackyardigans wrote:
      It all depends if the acting is actually good. But to be honest the lion king is not a live action remake. It’s cgi (computer generated image) meaning it’s still a cartoon.
      Does that movie look remotely like A CARTOON TO YOU?!!!!! And technically it is a remake, a shot by shot remake! A REMAKE NEVERTHELESS!!
      Is a PHOTOREALISITC COMPUTER-ANIMATED remake, so it looks real but was made completly with computer-animation
      Okay realism is a plus in this scenario, but...

      A.  Nobody asked for this to be done

      B. The music is either repeated or scaled down( Ahem... Be prepared... cough... cough...)

      C. The emotion is not visible from any of the character's faces, but only in their voices, but even then, you cannot really make out their emotions

      D. The most powerful scenes of the film, too, are either repeated or scaled down( i.e. Mufasa's spirit, you can barely see him)

      E. The storyline is the exact same thing!

      F.You cannot even laugh when you hear anything from the reimagined Timone and Pumbaa, they just don' t sound comedic as they did before

      G. Rafiki doesn't have a strong a role as he did the original

      H. I know most of the new voice actors are trying, so is the returning James Earl Jones, but their effects in emotion or impact just don't hit as hard as the original!

      AND I.This is not a nature documentary, this is The Lion King, one of the highest grossing and critical successes from Walt Disney Animation!!!! YOU HAVE TO KNOW BETTER THAN THAT!!!

      At least the remake retained several of the morals and themes that made the movie a great one, like all those biblical themes and condemnations of totalitarianism, heck, even expanded on them, even expanded on the nihilism and resulting condemnation of it as well. At least they didn't outright trash the messages or completely desecrate several characters just to promote the original villain as a good guy, unlike with the Maleficent movie (which is technically listed as a remake to Sleeping Beauty, even though I STRONGLY disagree with calling it such.).

      Sure, the Lion King remake is not as good as the original (and I'm pretty annoyed at the slew of live action remakes as it is, especially when its not even allowing Disney to do any animated features at all, even the CGI animated films, let alone traditional animation films), but I've heard of a lot worse remakes, like the Dumbo remake which was just downright nasty and almost an insult to Disney's rendition, and as much as I REALLY hate listing it as such, but Maleficent as well, possibly also the upcoming remake to The Little Mermaid as well.

      True to state, and not to sound immature, but I still must ask, who in the world asked for this, and why remake something with clearly no fault or flaw involved?!
      Hey, don't ask me, I personally thought there wasn't any real need for a remake either (people can claim Zazu ought to have known that Scar was at the stampede, but considering that Scar, you know, flung him to a wall during the stampede, one can reasonably assume that Zazu simply had memory loss, and it's not like he can do much in the original film by the time he regained his memory since he, you know, was relegated to a caged jester in Scar's quarters, so it's not like he could say anything to the Lionesses even if he DID remember (the only ones explicitly shown to visit his quarters were the Hyenas, and they already know Scar's role in killing Mufasa). Heck, I agree that the film didn't need a remake. In fact, with the exception of Beauty and the Beast, none of the Disney films actually NEEDED remakes anyways (and I'm singling out BATB as an exception because there were just so many flaws in that movie that a remake was practically inevitable).
      The Lion King and Tarzan would be inspired to one of my best greatest adventures at ANIMAL KINGDOM would a big romantic Tree of Life might have been the best beauty of nature, how about it if they could add the CAST & CREW with all the actors portraying and playing their characters and the voice talents of their animal characters, for what I learn something next of the theme parks of Disney live-action (the rumours are making and opening JUNGLE CRUISE and MAGIC KINGDOM for next year) what do ya say will give it a try with it?

      And maybe it was a very tough question for to ask.

      Magic Kingdom for next year?
      Sure. 2 years would be better to wait, and I forgot another movie inspirational too Disney's Dinosaur.

      No, I mean what do you mean by Magic Kingdom for Next year? I didn't follow.

      I know that. But I meant about making a next live action film after ^^ Magic Kingdom ^^ <preceded by then followed by> ^^Disney's Animal Kingdom ^^

        Loading editor
    • Friendly reminder to delete any previous comments that don't relate to your current comment. We don't want any unsightly and unnecessary message trains cluttering up the thread.

        Loading editor
    • One of the reasons I like the Remakes is because it give Disney a chance to fix or at least work on the mistakes that they made with the oringinals.

        Loading editor
    • I'm still gonna with the original 

        Loading editor
    • Listverse? Really? Listverse is a macabre site that focuses on stuff like creepy stories, depressing facts, and freaky things about life. They're not a bad site for interesting stories, but they're not the ones you go to when you're looking for examples.

      Also, all the examples are just rehashing old complaints that people have had about Disney movies, and most of them are pretty shallow. Like the issue with all Disney Princesses being uber-thin. I agree that we need more diversity of body shapes in animated films, but the Listverse article grossly exaggerates the issue beyond that. Of course they used Meg as an example―she's from a movie where all the women have wasp-like waists, just like all the guys have huge dorito-shaped bodies, because "Hercules" is a very stylized movie. If you look at all the other Disney princesses, they have pretty average waists for animation (and again, animation as a whole is very stylized, so anyone who assumes that these characters are meant to reflect how real women should look are taking it much too seriously). Also, I think people place way too much weight on the idea that Disney Princesses are role models for young girls. I mean, inspiring anorexia and other eating disorders in girls? That has to be fake. The strongest point in princess obsession in young kids is around 2-5, long before they start thinking about body image. Girls who develop eating disorders are basing their yardsticks on famous actresses and their own friends and family, not on the animated characters they saw when they were children.

      And the whole "ugliness is evil, beauty is good" debate is framed so stupidly here. They used "Beauty and the Beast" as an example, trying to claim that the movie's message is hypocritical because the Beast turns back into a handsome human man again. First of all, this movie isn't about how "looks don't matter," it's about how you shouldn't judge others based solely on looks. Second of all, is the article's writer trying to say that beastility would be better? Or imply that Adam should have been uglier when he's a human? The point doesn't hold up once you consider the other alternatives. And the main picture for #3―the entry on ugly being presented as evil―is the Evil Queen as an old woman. They seem to miss that the Evil Queen only takes on the guise of an ugly old woman so Snow White won't realize it's her. In ordinary form, she looks very striking, and I would argue much more beautiful than Snow White.

      I actually think this article brings up some vaid problems with Disney movies, but it uses bad examples, makes irrational points, and ignores proper context. And while I'm not against the remakes changing the things that are deemed offensive or inappropriate, I'm a little concerned that the remakes are trying too hard to fix the the originals' politically incorrect elements and are missing the entire point of the original story.

        Loading editor
    • It's a free country and I can like the original version that I like 

        Loading editor
    • RandomGirl1995 wrote:
      Listverse? Really? Listverse is a macabre site that focuses on stuff like creepy stories, depressing facts, and freaky things about life. They're not a bad site for interesting stories, but they're not the ones you go to when you're looking for examples.

      Also, all the examples are just rehashing old complaints that people have had about Disney movies, and most of them are pretty shallow. Like the issue with all Disney Princesses being uber-thin. I agree that we need more diversity of body shapes in animated films, but the Listverse article grossly exaggerates the issue beyond that. Of course they used Meg as an example―she's from a movie where all the women have wasp-like waists, just like all the guys have huge dorito-shaped bodies, because "Hercules" is a very stylized movie. If you look at all the other Disney princesses, they have pretty average waists for animation (and again, animation as a whole is very stylized, so anyone who assumes that these characters are meant to reflect how real women should look are taking it much too seriously). Also, I think people place way too much weight on the idea that Disney Princesses are role models for young girls. I mean, inspiring anorexia and other eating disorders in girls? That has to be fake. The strongest point in princess obsession in young kids is around 2-5, long before they start thinking about body image. Girls who develop eating disorders are basing their yardsticks on famous actresses and their own friends and family, not on the animated characters they saw when they were children.

      And the whole "ugliness is evil, beauty is good" debate is framed so stupidly here. They used "Beauty and the Beast" as an example, trying to claim that the movie's message is hypocritical because the Beast turns back into a handsome human man again. First of all, this movie isn't about how "looks don't matter," it's about how you shouldn't judge others based solely on looks. Second of all, is the article's writer trying to say that beastility would be better? Or imply that Adam should have been uglier when he's a human? The point doesn't hold up once you consider the other alternatives. And the main picture for #3―the entry on ugly being presented as evil―is the Evil Queen as an old woman. They seem to miss that the Evil Queen only takes on the guise of an ugly old woman so Snow White won't realize it's her. In ordinary form, she looks very striking, and I would argue much more beautiful than Snow White.

      I actually think this article brings up some vaid problems with Disney movies, but it uses bad examples, makes irrational points, and ignores proper context. And while I'm not against the remakes changing the things that are deemed offensive or inappropriate, I'm a little concerned that the remakes are trying too hard to fix the the originals' politically incorrect elements and are missing the entire point of the original story.

      Just outta curiosity, what vaid problems do you think the artical brings up with the Disney movies. Also what makes you think that the Remakse are trying to hard?

        Loading editor
    • Profile - Jock
      Profile - Jaq and Gus
      Profile - Kaa
      All male guys turn female!
        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:

      Just outta curiosity, what vaid problems do you think the artical brings up with the Disney movies. Also what makes you think that the Remakse are trying to hard?

      1. The point about how Pocahontas was a historically inaccurate movie. The entry made valid critisisms about how the movie changed most of the key details to make it a more Disney-like movie (i.e., making the two MCs love interests and heavily mythologizing the story). True, the original story wasn't very glamorous or kid-friendly, and I definitely don't condone going into detail about the genocide of the Native-Americans in a movie meant for kids, but the movie version also led a lot of people to believe things about Pocahontas's story and about Native-American/European relations that were simply wrong. I also think bringing up the issue of body diversity was a good point, given that almost all of the classic Disney princesses have a very similar body shape; the article just went in the wrong direction by making it seem like it's purposefully enforcing the idea that skinny = pretty rather than just asking for more diversity in body type.

      2. First, I want to mention that I wrote that comment a short while after I was involved in a discussion about a live-action remake of The Princess and the Frog, and there was some debate about how seriously Disney ought to treat the issue of slavery if the movie got a do-over. The discussion made me think about how close Disney ought to get to reality with their period pieces, and at what point "respectful acknowledgements of history" turned into "careful butt-covering to avoid making people angry." The remakes seem to be heading in the latter direction, as filmmakers increasingly try to fix social and political issues that are often criticized about the original movie. A big example is the new Mulan: The film's producers have been very vocal about how they changed several aspects of the movie that were seen as offensive to Chinese audiences (which, fair enough) as well as splitting the love interest in two due to the "unfortunate applications" of the commanding officer being the sexual love interest of the heroine (they even mentioned the #MeToo movement specifically ). Doesn't that sound like they're overthinking things? Trying to fix every unappealing aspect in order to avoid offending anyone? It's always good to be conscious of things that might be hurtful or offensive, but overdo it and you start to put the audience before the story, which is never a good thing.

      Actually, I found an interesting article speaking against the movie's over-cautious agenda; however, I didn't have time to source-check it, so believe what's mentioned at your own risk.

        Loading editor
    • Lets make female characters as male.

        Loading editor
    • since they make originally male characters female

        Loading editor
    • You forgot The Lion King 3: Hakuna Matata!

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+