this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2025
67 points (100.0% liked)
movies
3177 readers
113 users here now
Matrix room: https://matrix.to/#/#fediversefilms:matrix.org
Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.
A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome
- Discussion threads to discuss about a specific movie or show
- Weekly threads: what have you been watching lately?
- Trailers
- Posters
- Retrospectives
- Should I watch?
Related communities:
Show communities:
Discussion communities:
RULES
Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.
Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the titleβs subject matter.
Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.
2024 discussion threads
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well, why the hell would I drag my ass to a theater to see a retread of a movie made by the same studio, when the studio already has a bad track record with remakes?
Like maybe beauty and the beast was a solid enough standalone movie to merit a theater trip. Maybe. But even that wasn't necessary, it was still just a retread made to keep their finger in the pie. It didn't offer anything more than the original, unless you're a hard core Watson fan.
The rest? Tepid at best.
Why would anyone think that this movie, with trailers that already show the cgi brings nothing interesting to the table, spend money on it?
I mostly agree though I didn't really like Beauty and the Beast enough to watch it more than once. I think Cinderella was the better of the live action remakes that they've made. I also didn't see the appeal of the LA Jungle Book.
What if.... gasp, what if you're not the target audience?!
Everyone complaining about the poor quality of Disney's live action remakes is overlooking the main reason why Disney is making them. They're profitable.
With the relatively low cost compared to a traditional animated movie, the ability to lean on existing IP's, and the fact that the main audience (children) don't typically give a shit about quality, Disney has been raking in the money with these remakes. I don't believe they've had a true "flop" (where they lost money) since they started.
The Disney that made original films and stories is long dead. And why wouldn't it be? For all the complaints about the lack of originality in Hollywood, when a studio actually risks making one, it tends to be a bust. Going to a theater is an event, and people don't want to risk their money on an unknown story. Money talks, and unfortunately it says that remakes and bland superhero movies are what the people want.
If these types of movies were profitable, there wouldn't be these kind of articles saying oh my god they're losing money
I don't know if that is accurate. "Hollywood" is famous for its accounting games. Many films are unprofitable for the tax breaks. The money is moved around to other entities the company owns.
I know why they do it, that doesn't make their movies suck any less
I'll bite: who is the target audience, then? Cos it seems like they're skipping it for the most part, too.
Children.
Parents with children.
Keep in mind, they don't need to actually like the film, as long as they are paying to see it.
Or, perhaps, it's the scourge of the Disney adult that this is for.
Money is the target audience.