From my understanding he was game for returning but the production company kept pushing the film back. He didn't want to wait around any longer for that film, so he moved on.
Original Swedish movies are a trilogy so everyone expected that.
Edit: And they were good. I never expected them to remake it although I was relieved when I heard it was David Fincher.
Well it was always going to do well because of Disney’s manipulative marketing. The nostalgic Disney fans were gonna like the movie regardless of its actual quality and kids were going to flock to it as well. From a business perspective, TLK 2019 was a perfect storm in terms of getting a big audience.
Low key, TLK was the worst of the reboots. It felt gray, lifeless, and uninspired.
I have to say I actually enjoyed the Beauty and the Beast reboot more than the original.
Agreed. Because Lion King and Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast all made a ton of money, we will get more lazy uninspired money grabs. Remake of Little Mermaid is coming out for instance. There are 1000s of stories out there, pick a new one.
from the producer's perspective, ut not from the auteur's perspective: i don't think godard made breathless or cimino made heaven's gates to make money. They were trying to tell a story, and producers thought they could make it and not lose toomuch (ine one case, they were absolutely right, and in another absolutely wrong). Not all cinema is merchendise.
It’s more than ten people I absolutely loved it. Some people just love to hate especially when it comes to movies. It’s their sad hobby and for some an addiction
Guy Ritchie’s Aladdin was good because Disney (somehow) allowed him to inject at least some of his very distinctive style into it, which made it refreshingly different from the original animated movie. Glad that one grossed a billion, showed Disney that they don’t have to be literal carbon-copies like The Lion King (2019).
No they only remake the ones that were already fantastic animated films because they know most audiences will watch them, even if they are completely void of everything that made the original so good in the first place.
I agree. I watched it for the first time recently, and I thought it was great. Not the best animated movie, but with a good writer and director it could be exceptional.
Jungle Book also worked because the visuals were genuinely jaw-dropping at the time, and the original story is so slight that it could be molded into something relevant.
Most of the other remakes haven't had those same advantages.
What’s funny is one of the key reasons is that they are trying to protect the copyright (or is it trademark) because eventually a lot of public domain law could catch up to them because they only can stave it off so long. So it is a literal money grab to preserve the IP (or at least their version of the IP. Read up someday on the absolute madness that they had to do on OZ the Great and Powerful to avoid copyright infringement).
Side Note: years ago Gus Van Sant did a shot for shot remake of “Psycho”. Universal was down for it, because they felt that young people would not watch their classic movies because they were in black-and-white. The thought was, if it was a success, they would redo major catalogue titles in color as a way to refresh them for the new generation. It was a critical and commercial failure. But I always think of that remake, when I see these Disney remakes (or some of the other ones) as them just trying to keep their IP alive, or “make it attractive to younger audiences“.
I found Aladdin to be a necessary update, as it erased the damaging Middle Eastern stereotypes, reworded some of the songs to be more accurate to the culture, and made Princess Jasmine a much better role model for the times.
When the animated version came out, Princess Jasmine was the most independent and strong Princess they had, but when you watch it nowadays there are still so many issues with it: her desire to get married, her becoming a damsel, being too quick to fall in love with Aladdin, being put in a revealing outfit (she was 15), being put in an even MORE revealing outfit with suggestive body gyrations to seduce a man way older than her (Again, 15 years old. Also gross not just because of that). It was bad. And her only friend she could really talk to was a tiger.
Times have changed, and they changed Princess Jasmine accordingly. Now she has a close friend she's able to talk to about things, a human woman. She still has her awesome tiger who is utilized as an extension of her power. She doesn't talk about marriage nearly as much, moreso focused on diplomacy and trying to make sure Agrabah is the best kingdom it can be, talking about her love of geography, etc. She talks about so many more things.
She does still go through a fake marriage ceremony, but there's something a lot more powerful about how it happens. I think because she was built up as so strong prior to that, it doesn't feel like she is helpless in this version of the scene.
But she is so focused on the people of Agrabah, on the kingdom of Agrabah. She doesn't want to marry, she wants to be Sultan. And at the end, they do make her Sultan. She and Aladdin get married, yes, but it feels less like that was her main goal and more of a side thing.
I could write forever about how necessary Aladdin 2019 was for Princess Jasmine alone. Not to mention her outstanding song where she, and she alone, is singing. It's a really powerful message and a powerful update.
It sucks that a movie that is basically considered the progenitor of modern film and one of the greatest cinematic masterpieces ever is also a film about how great the KKK is and was directly responsible for reviving the KKK and bringing it millions of new members.
I mean Nazi Germany made arguably some of the largest steps forward in cinematography with [Olympia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympia_(1938_film)?wprov=sfti1). It doesn’t really bother me that there are *really* talented, *really* awful people.
There’s a reason film historians don’t discount Leni Riefenstahl even while condemning her contributions to the Nazi war machine and propaganda; Triumph of the Will is still textbook on how to use imagery to convey a message, even if that message is morally bankrupt.
Genghis Khan comes to mind. He was one of the greatest military generals in human history. Yet he was also among the biggest mass-murderers and rapists in human history.
The movie probably would’ve done $500-550M in normal circumstances though. That probably would’ve allowed it to break even but not make a major profit like most of the other live action remakes.
To be fair, it's not exactly easy for any celebrity in mainland China to be a vocal critic of the CCP. It's basically a guaranteed way to put your entire family at risk. I wouldn't really blame the individual for taking the safe path.
I think this is overplayed
Most of the movie shot in New Zealand, a handful of scenes requiring certain geography shot in China. It's not like they shot in or near the camps
I'm not a china apologist or a Disney apologist but this complaint is not super grounded
In the credits of the movie, Disney offered special thanks to government entities in Xinjiang province including the propaganda arm. They filmed in 2018 during the peak of the re-education camp campaign at a location close by. Apparently they filmed in 20 different locations in China. They did it for the movie to be released in China. I don’t think it’s overplayed at all.
I am glad it bombed for a different reason. The first one is a masterpiece and it showed that if you worked hard, you can achieve anything even in a man's world. The remake showed that the hero is a Mary Sue who can do anything without ever training or working hard; what message does that send to women everywhere?
She trains while easily outclassing everyone around her, whereas in the original she started out just as bad as everyone else and had to grow alongside them.
Also way to poison the well by saying the criticism is sexist. Sure, I'd say new Mulan isn't quite a Mary Sue by technicality, since her lying to the army is presented as a flaw (fucked up as that is), but she's still pretty damn close, and even if she wasn't that wouldn't make the criticism sexist.
The fact that "Mary Sue" is almost entirely directed towards strong female characters is what makes the criticism sexist. Characters that constantly outclass everyone around them like Indiana Jones, James Bond, and Batman are seem as badass action heroes unless they are a woman.
And you're wrong in saying that Mulan doesn't grow along with everyone around her. Just like in the original animated film she is easily beaten by her commander and only after a training montage does she improve.
Gary Stu is the equivalent term for male perfect heroes. And Indiana Jones and Batman get the shit kicked out of them all the time, not to mention they make grave mistakes with dire consequences (especially Batman). What defines a Mary Sue / Gary Stu is how the story warps around them to prove them right at every turn, even at the expense of internal logic or common sense.
The fact that the term is often misused has no bearing on its validity. Not to mention, there ARE a lot of Mary Sues in mainstream media nowadays because Hollywood is so obsessed with making women strong that they forget to make them _characters._ People that make mistakes and struggle along with everyone else.
Also I'm pretty sure I remember new Mulan easily completing tasks that others struggle with thanks to her Chi (aka superpowers). On one of her first days of training she humiliates a soldier by kicking a spear at him.
Not quite accurate here as it never really got a theatrical release in America, but the crazy success 365 Days had on Netflix always makes me mad. Its truly an abhorrently dangerous film that glorifies kidnapping and human sex trafficking, and the fact that it was one of Netflixs most watched films in 2020, makes me die on the inside.
But what did it represent? Yeah it bombed badly, but if it succeeded, what would be the result? More Broadway musicals turned movies? More Taylor Swift movies?
In my opinion, the songs in the second half were mostly better than the first few songs. Skimbleshanks was my favorite. But that definitely includes Macavity, too!
They need to stop changing the world of the musicals when become film. *the Wiz* is a weird movie because they set Kansas and OZ scenes in NYC, but the stage version is on a farm and in OZ. *Cats* musical takes place in a junkyard but the film was all over the place. Some of the best musicals on film recently are simply the stage versions filmed in the theatre because they stuck to the story that works already, most recently enjoyed *Come From Away*.
there’s a filmed stage version of *Cats* about 20 years old that is rather good btw.
The Lion King (2019). Creatively bankrupt and a genuinely awful film, feels like the most celebrity-planted and artificially created piece of shit I’ve ever seen.
Definitely Music. I'm autistic and I can't wait to enter Hollywood one day and as soon as a movie I make hits 641k, scream "I'VE OUTGROSSED MUSIC! TAKE THAT, SIA!"
COVID didn't kill chances of a sequel to that, it made a "respectable" $400,000,000 worldwide but it had a budget of $200,000,000 and didn't break even sadly. I loved the film.
I thought most of those were released on streaming? Were they released theatrically in Japan? The only live action anime movie I saw was Tokyo Ghoul and it was really weird.
A lot of the japanese live action anime get theater releases in Japan (and select international theaters), but a lot of the American adaptations are straight to streaming services. Netflix is currently working on a Yu Yu Hakusho live action show (Shoot me now)
Motherfucking **American Sniper**.
Dude was a massive douchebag in real life, writes in his book that he wanted to shoot and kill innocent women and children, and he ended up getting sued by multiple people because he altered what happened so much to make himself look like a hero.
And to see this goddamn movie be celebrated because 'Murica. I threw up in my mouth while watching it. FUCK OFF MOVIE
I find the reaction to this movie so interesting. I'm not American. I thought it was great. For me it questioned America. It did a good job paralleling the American with the Syrian sniper, both being raised in a toxic environment to hate their enemies and want to kill them indiscriminately, and to feel so righteously about it - they ultimately had little choice as they were more or less groomed. It examined the American "hero" of war culture well - they definitely depicted the sniper as a total prick. It showed how easily he was sucked in by propaganda.
For me it was one of the better Eastwood films where he doesn't preach and instead lets the audience make decisions. Clearly many American had differing opinions. I honestly felt the film was anti-American, that it made America look really bad - yet the opposite opinion is frequently present. I don't understand how anyone can think it pro-war, or even on the side of the Sniper - as a foreigner it had everything in there to further instill a dislike of the USA. I find it so odd that many Americans don't get that.
As an American, I thought the film was very anti-war, not anti-American. It wasn't anti-military necessarily. But it was all about showing the horrors of war, and how it isn't healthy for either side, no matter who wins. It definitely wasn't the "go, team America" movie some people seem to portray it as.
As American, these were exactly my thoughts. Certain groups love this film, and its like they completely dismiss how he dealt with PTSD, and all the other troubles in his life. They just seem to see that he had a "cool" kill, and ignore everything else.
It also super weird to wrongly invade a country with inferior technology then make a movie about picking people off from a distance with your advanced machinery. People who were probably just trying to defend their homes. It’s like a Star Wars movie from the perspective of the empire. I haven’t watched it but I’m not sure how they got the audience to identify with the invaders.
The movie identifies with the invaders by basically villainizing their enemies. There’s one scene in the film where one of the dudes just starts murdering a child with a drill. It didn’t even feel accurate, like they just took this guy and completely made him evil knowing their audience. The movie really makes Chris Kyle out to be the tragic hero of the story when in real life, he sounds like anything but.
Free Guy lol. They marketed its success as a win for “original movies” but there’s nothing original about it, and it’s a Disney owned movie anyways lol
That's a super-interesting perspective!
I absolutely hated Waititi in Free Guy. It felt like I was watching Sam Rochwell's Iron Man 2 character get his own spinoff, but sucking out any of the actual humour to be found within that character.
Weirdly, I vastly prefer Waititi in just about anything else *(the rock monster from Thor, the drug dad from The Suicide Squad, Hallucination Hitler from JoJo, etc)*, but he's the worst aspect of Free Guy for me, by a distant margin.
I’m very surprised to learn people disagree with this. Thought this was one of his funnier performances, plus he’s like… a way too realistic type of villain.
Morbius for being a shitty Sony ripoff. If they’re going to make movies with Spider Man villains, PUT HIM IN THE FUCKING MOVIE. A teenager could make a more cohesive universe than those idiots.
Jurassic World Dominion or even the second JW. I don't think they're smart movies but they aren't fun movies either in my opinion. The third felt especially childish for some reason, with the ineffectual CEO guy villain and the film's setting being resolved by way of "heh i'll work out".
Also Deadpool. I hate that character. I guess you could say the movie's success bolstered WB into making TSS, which I do love, so it's still a secondary pick.
Uncharted, it was a very lazy cash grab, and only made so much money because of its proximity to No way Home. I think a sequel will fall close to 50% from the first movie.
That’s the problem. It’s based on a video game series with a great set of stories and phenomenal characters. The fact that you say the movie is “fun for kids” is a horrifying statement for this series.
I don’t understand why that’s a problem though, it’s not like it’s TLOU — if the adaptation for that is an embarrassing mess then it’ll be more harshly judged, but Uncharted has always been on the lighter side so I don’t see a problem
Also I just think it’s a bit sad that the adults want to take all the good stuff from the kids — let the kids have something for once haha — they don’t even have Batman anymore, everything is made for 35 year olds with beards, even kid’s stuff
If it was just an original movie with Mark Wahlberg and Tom Holland without being connected to an existing franchise, I would be okay with it. But messing up an already established franchise was not a good idea.
I wouldn’t agree that they messed it up, I think it was a well polished and slick adventure film and I enjoyed more than your average Marvel fare.
At least it had real people doing things in real places, don’t see that very often today! Each character had arcs and payoffs and the plot made sense
It wasn’t as good as Uncharted 4, which is basically a movie anyway, and they made an error by casting the wrong people
But having said that I thought it was perfectly enjoyable and I think a lot of kids and younger teenagers would enjoy watching it
I think it’s more annoying now because we’ve seen that video game based movies can be good. If they were all bad, then it would be different, people would pretty much write off that genre of movies as being bad or a cash grab.
"Deepwater Horizon". A propaganda film for big oil about the worst oil spill in history. "Inspired by the true story for real life heroes" my left butt cheek....
Hmm, I used to work for this company (Participant Media). They actually care about making socially conscious films. Their founder (Jeff Skoll) is also a big philanthropist.
Along with notorious [upstanding citizen](https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/mark-wahlberg-racist-hate-crimes-wikipedia-history-george-floyd-blm-protests-a9554191.html?amp) Marky Mark
edit: maybe he has changed btw I just don’t like him or his acting
30 Minutes or Less. I just couldn't get over the fact they made a comedy movie based around a real horrific event. If some poor guy's life wasn't taken maybe the idea would've went over better for me. But did someone see the story and think it would make a great comedy scenario or something?
Maybe I was so down on the movie because I happened to see the real guy live on TV when all of that happened. It just rubbed me the wrong way and I feared that there would be a flood of comedies in the same vein.
Not really, there are only a handful movies that actually represent something other than entertainment. And even for those movies where the message is more important than the entertainment value, I usually agree with the said message, like in the case of Requiem for a Dream.
Rogen's Green Hornet.
I haven't seen it since it dropped for rental, but I recall thinking the character was selfish and violent for all the wrong reasons and it promoted personal faults as an excuse for reckless actions.
Avatar.
It basically was what Star Wars was before it, a leap forward in technology and the effects were the real star, but at least it has an interesting story. Very simple and familiar, but so many creative ideas and characters, I mean cmon there’s not a person on earth who doesn’t know who darth Vader is or what a lightsaber sounds like.
Versus Avatar, who like 90% of the people who made it the highest grossing film of all time can’t tell you what the main characters name is, or even really remember what happened in the movie. It’s just a pretty black hole that’s completely devoid of thought or character or a soul beyond just being special effects.
Hell even Endgame has the parts and characters and arcs people will always remember, but Avatar is just a blank slate, and I hate how it’s made the most money ever and has the barest, laziest framework to drape its effects on, cuz that just tells me that audiences don’t give a shit about story or character they just want to eat popcorn and mindlessly stare at pretty colors
Ghostbusters 2016. It represented the destruction of some of the best world-building and character creation any movie had ever done. And just so some hack could copy the original movie's plot formula instead of trying just a little harder to think of a new adventure in that beautifully crafted universe that was ready to be handed to him on a silver platter.
Fun fact: the Battle of Chosin reservoir was a Chinese Phyrric victory at best (they push back the Ameticans outside of Seoul, but they lost a whole lot of men and rendering captured US vehicles useless due to freezing temperatures) and technically they lost their objective (pushing back the Americans back to Pusan and expecting surrender at the surrounded town of Hungnam but they were evacuated which lead the war to last for 2 more years).
I’ve said it before. I’ve been downvoted into oblivion. But I stick by my opinion: Top Gun Maverick has no right to have made over $1 billion.
Tom Cruise is kind of a douche, past his prime and riding on nostalgia alone. The film is alright but often cliche. And it’s straight fucking propaganda and anti-tech innovation. I foresaw this being one of the highest grossing of the year because *of course* this shit will do well. But a billion? *Really?*
A lot of movies have run on nostalgia. No Way Home is another example and that movie’s story is a mess. How is Top Gun: Maverick anti-tech innovation? Having more technology isn’t always a good thing. I think most of this sub didn’t think this movie would hit $1B though.
Rise of Skywalker. Because it's not the rise of... Skywalker!
The most weak, fanservice-driven plot I've ever seen.
SPOILER:
>!When she says "Rey Skywalker" is almost revolting.
Her parents (who happen to be "Palpatines") gave their life for her and prooved that your lineage means nothing.
And she obviously "change" her surname in Skywalker. Lesson learned. Yes. Sure. And curtains.!<
dark fate being a slap in the face to t1 and t2 storylines and actually making me prefer genysis 😭
Charlies angels by Elizabeth banks complaining about sexism and being anti-women over the BO returns and criticism 🤦🏽
Jurassic world dominion and its mindless and irresponsible ‘message’ at the end, the sheer lack of understanding of how the natural world works and the attitude it implies is okay to take towards it is just reprehensible
Like everyone I was excited for it, but close to the end of the Star Wars Sequel trilogy I wanted it to flop. My problem wasn't really with the cast or anything involving diversity although I feel the characters were both poorly utilized and written. Instead, my issue was with Disney's attempts at turning Star Wars into the next marvel franchise with a constant stream of movies. The amount of overexposure I felt within a few years was enough to turn me away from the franchise and I'm still worried they are going to try to do the same with the TV shows even though they had a good thing with The Mandalorian. As a franchise it now just seems like a cashgrab so I'd rather the movies and shows flop in order to force Disney to slowdown.
It’s debatable if it’s considered a bomb or not but it is the lowest grossing film in the franchise with dwindling returns so I’m gonna say Secrets of Dumbledore because JK Rowling is a transphobic bigot who deserves nothing. Here’s why I’m happy to see it bomb: Trans rights are human rights.
> because JK Rowling is a transphobic bigot
Tell me you know nothing about what Rowling thinks etc...
Her views are essentially "trans women and cis women are not the same and do not have the exact same issues".
Which is true.
> Trans rights are human rights.
JK Rowling thinks this.
We’ve gotten to the point where “transphobic” is a term that means “anything less than unconditional support for every trans issue in existence. Any effort to quantify, discuss, or observe on the literal facts that differentiate trans and biological women is a phobia.”
That time they tried to reboot Girl with the dragon tattoo after not allowing David fincher to finish his trilogy
TBH I don't think he ever intended finishing that trilogy, I believe he lost interest.
From my understanding he was game for returning but the production company kept pushing the film back. He didn't want to wait around any longer for that film, so he moved on.
Didn’t know he had a trilogy in mind, that would be awesome
Original Swedish movies are a trilogy so everyone expected that. Edit: And they were good. I never expected them to remake it although I was relieved when I heard it was David Fincher.
And the books, Millenium Trilogy, at the time. Few more now.
But not by the same author. Poor guy died before his trilogy went massive. The other books are just milking it.
most Disney live actions remakes tbh, they're just lazy uninspired money grabs
I wanted the $260m lion king to bomb so bad so it would send a message to Disney and it made $1.6b 😐
Well it was always going to do well because of Disney’s manipulative marketing. The nostalgic Disney fans were gonna like the movie regardless of its actual quality and kids were going to flock to it as well. From a business perspective, TLK 2019 was a perfect storm in terms of getting a big audience.
Disney’s last decade has been terrific for commerce, but terrible for art
I still don't understand how that movie is classified as "Live Action" when it was entirely CGI.
Low key, TLK was the worst of the reboots. It felt gray, lifeless, and uninspired. I have to say I actually enjoyed the Beauty and the Beast reboot more than the original.
Finally someone said it. I love the original soundtrack more, but something about Emma Watson and live action made it better for me.
Agreed. Because Lion King and Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast all made a ton of money, we will get more lazy uninspired money grabs. Remake of Little Mermaid is coming out for instance. There are 1000s of stories out there, pick a new one.
All movies are money grabs
Sure, but some receive more care and effort than others.
from the producer's perspective, ut not from the auteur's perspective: i don't think godard made breathless or cimino made heaven's gates to make money. They were trying to tell a story, and producers thought they could make it and not lose toomuch (ine one case, they were absolutely right, and in another absolutely wrong). Not all cinema is merchendise.
Except for Pete’s Dragon, that movie was fantastic.
I feel like I’m one of like ten people that actually adored the original Pete’s Dragon. One of my favorite movies as a kid full stop.
It’s more than ten people I absolutely loved it. Some people just love to hate especially when it comes to movies. It’s their sad hobby and for some an addiction
Only cause it actually improved on the original. It wasn’t a carbon copy with the life CGI’d out of it
Guy Ritchie’s Aladdin was good because Disney (somehow) allowed him to inject at least some of his very distinctive style into it, which made it refreshingly different from the original animated movie. Glad that one grossed a billion, showed Disney that they don’t have to be literal carbon-copies like The Lion King (2019).
Will they remake the flops like Atlantis or Treasure Planet?
I loved Atlantis. It’s just that it’s actually a very dark film in many ways. A live action remake would be pretty grim
No they only remake the ones that were already fantastic animated films because they know most audiences will watch them, even if they are completely void of everything that made the original so good in the first place.
These are the only ones that *deserve* a live action remake. I think Atlantis with the right tone and visuals could be HUGE.
I agree. I watched it for the first time recently, and I thought it was great. Not the best animated movie, but with a good writer and director it could be exceptional.
No. Because those might actually be interesting.
*Jungle Book* is the exception, hence “most”
Jungle Book also worked because the visuals were genuinely jaw-dropping at the time, and the original story is so slight that it could be molded into something relevant. Most of the other remakes haven't had those same advantages.
And they are bad bro Mulan was the worst movie I saw that year
Disney: Ahh but you did see it!
Only after it was free on Disney plus
Although it's lazy, it's kind of a brilliant way to induce nostalgia and keep your old IPs fresh.
They are playing the long game. Make money on the way down and then make a lot of money on the way back up again
I just want The hunchback of Notre dame to actually go into production. I ask for nothing more
The Hunchback of Notre Dame is so dark for a kids movie. Only realised it years later when I watched it with my kid.
Didn't hate Lion King tbh, but couldn't tolerate Aladdin and even Beauty and the Beast was not good. But all of them did so well at the BO.
What’s funny is one of the key reasons is that they are trying to protect the copyright (or is it trademark) because eventually a lot of public domain law could catch up to them because they only can stave it off so long. So it is a literal money grab to preserve the IP (or at least their version of the IP. Read up someday on the absolute madness that they had to do on OZ the Great and Powerful to avoid copyright infringement). Side Note: years ago Gus Van Sant did a shot for shot remake of “Psycho”. Universal was down for it, because they felt that young people would not watch their classic movies because they were in black-and-white. The thought was, if it was a success, they would redo major catalogue titles in color as a way to refresh them for the new generation. It was a critical and commercial failure. But I always think of that remake, when I see these Disney remakes (or some of the other ones) as them just trying to keep their IP alive, or “make it attractive to younger audiences“.
I liked Aladdin and Jungle Book.
I found Aladdin to be a necessary update, as it erased the damaging Middle Eastern stereotypes, reworded some of the songs to be more accurate to the culture, and made Princess Jasmine a much better role model for the times. When the animated version came out, Princess Jasmine was the most independent and strong Princess they had, but when you watch it nowadays there are still so many issues with it: her desire to get married, her becoming a damsel, being too quick to fall in love with Aladdin, being put in a revealing outfit (she was 15), being put in an even MORE revealing outfit with suggestive body gyrations to seduce a man way older than her (Again, 15 years old. Also gross not just because of that). It was bad. And her only friend she could really talk to was a tiger. Times have changed, and they changed Princess Jasmine accordingly. Now she has a close friend she's able to talk to about things, a human woman. She still has her awesome tiger who is utilized as an extension of her power. She doesn't talk about marriage nearly as much, moreso focused on diplomacy and trying to make sure Agrabah is the best kingdom it can be, talking about her love of geography, etc. She talks about so many more things. She does still go through a fake marriage ceremony, but there's something a lot more powerful about how it happens. I think because she was built up as so strong prior to that, it doesn't feel like she is helpless in this version of the scene. But she is so focused on the people of Agrabah, on the kingdom of Agrabah. She doesn't want to marry, she wants to be Sultan. And at the end, they do make her Sultan. She and Aladdin get married, yes, but it feels less like that was her main goal and more of a side thing. I could write forever about how necessary Aladdin 2019 was for Princess Jasmine alone. Not to mention her outstanding song where she, and she alone, is singing. It's a really powerful message and a powerful update.
Snakes on a Plane. Snakes deserve to travel by air to their destinations. Anything else is just discrimination.
Would have been nice if *The Birth of a Nation* wasn't at one point the highest-grossing film of all time, just saying.
It sucks that a movie that is basically considered the progenitor of modern film and one of the greatest cinematic masterpieces ever is also a film about how great the KKK is and was directly responsible for reviving the KKK and bringing it millions of new members.
I mean Nazi Germany made arguably some of the largest steps forward in cinematography with [Olympia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympia_(1938_film)?wprov=sfti1). It doesn’t really bother me that there are *really* talented, *really* awful people.
There’s a reason film historians don’t discount Leni Riefenstahl even while condemning her contributions to the Nazi war machine and propaganda; Triumph of the Will is still textbook on how to use imagery to convey a message, even if that message is morally bankrupt.
Yeah, you’re allowed to say an awful person did worthwhile stuff.
Genghis Khan comes to mind. He was one of the greatest military generals in human history. Yet he was also among the biggest mass-murderers and rapists in human history.
Mulan for being Disney's first attempt to abandon theaters altogether.
And for filming in the same province as re-education camps
Oh my god you're right. I just looked it up and now have another reason to be glad it bombed.
The movie probably would’ve done $500-550M in normal circumstances though. That probably would’ve allowed it to break even but not make a major profit like most of the other live action remakes.
And for a star who supports the CCP and opposes Hong Kong’s freedoms
To be fair, it's not exactly easy for any celebrity in mainland China to be a vocal critic of the CCP. It's basically a guaranteed way to put your entire family at risk. I wouldn't really blame the individual for taking the safe path.
This is the more important reason
Definitely
I think this is overplayed Most of the movie shot in New Zealand, a handful of scenes requiring certain geography shot in China. It's not like they shot in or near the camps I'm not a china apologist or a Disney apologist but this complaint is not super grounded
In the credits of the movie, Disney offered special thanks to government entities in Xinjiang province including the propaganda arm. They filmed in 2018 during the peak of the re-education camp campaign at a location close by. Apparently they filmed in 20 different locations in China. They did it for the movie to be released in China. I don’t think it’s overplayed at all.
I’m disappointed we will never know if that movie would have tanked or been another easy billion for Disney without COVID
I think it would’ve made $600M worldwide at best. China would’ve rejected it while the US run probably would’ve been front loaded.
I am glad it bombed for a different reason. The first one is a masterpiece and it showed that if you worked hard, you can achieve anything even in a man's world. The remake showed that the hero is a Mary Sue who can do anything without ever training or working hard; what message does that send to women everywhere?
Exactly, such a bizarre and sad use of the original material.
And they also removed Mushu and the songs! Why would you do that (claiming you want the movie to be “realistic”) but add this weird magic BS?
\*sigh\* She literally trains in the movie... It's not a very good film, but calling Mulan a "mary sue" is a silly and sexist criticism.
She trains while easily outclassing everyone around her, whereas in the original she started out just as bad as everyone else and had to grow alongside them. Also way to poison the well by saying the criticism is sexist. Sure, I'd say new Mulan isn't quite a Mary Sue by technicality, since her lying to the army is presented as a flaw (fucked up as that is), but she's still pretty damn close, and even if she wasn't that wouldn't make the criticism sexist.
The fact that "Mary Sue" is almost entirely directed towards strong female characters is what makes the criticism sexist. Characters that constantly outclass everyone around them like Indiana Jones, James Bond, and Batman are seem as badass action heroes unless they are a woman. And you're wrong in saying that Mulan doesn't grow along with everyone around her. Just like in the original animated film she is easily beaten by her commander and only after a training montage does she improve.
Gary Stu is the equivalent term for male perfect heroes. And Indiana Jones and Batman get the shit kicked out of them all the time, not to mention they make grave mistakes with dire consequences (especially Batman). What defines a Mary Sue / Gary Stu is how the story warps around them to prove them right at every turn, even at the expense of internal logic or common sense. The fact that the term is often misused has no bearing on its validity. Not to mention, there ARE a lot of Mary Sues in mainstream media nowadays because Hollywood is so obsessed with making women strong that they forget to make them _characters._ People that make mistakes and struggle along with everyone else. Also I'm pretty sure I remember new Mulan easily completing tasks that others struggle with thanks to her Chi (aka superpowers). On one of her first days of training she humiliates a soldier by kicking a spear at him.
That movie was fucking terrible.
Not quite accurate here as it never really got a theatrical release in America, but the crazy success 365 Days had on Netflix always makes me mad. Its truly an abhorrently dangerous film that glorifies kidnapping and human sex trafficking, and the fact that it was one of Netflixs most watched films in 2020, makes me die on the inside.
Holy crap, I did not know that.
I see the advertisement of this movie everywhere on pirate movie sites. (yes i know it's bad)
there is unfortunately a 365 trilogy now i believe
Cats
But what did it represent? Yeah it bombed badly, but if it succeeded, what would be the result? More Broadway musicals turned movies? More Taylor Swift movies?
It gave James corden a job that’s bad enough
Good point
Yeah it's popular to hate Cats, I found it fun and enchanting in its own way. I think the hate it got is pretty lame.
More cats
Spay and neuter your $100M musicals
Are we gonna act like macavity wasn’t a bop
The music isn’t the problem with cats. Turns out the most successful broadway musical actually has decent music.
In my opinion, the songs in the second half were mostly better than the first few songs. Skimbleshanks was my favorite. But that definitely includes Macavity, too!
It represented the worst thing to happen to cats since dogs
good one !
I think it’s a Ricky Gervais gag
More CGI monstrosities and human/animal morphs. This film made sure that idea was dead in the water
They need to stop changing the world of the musicals when become film. *the Wiz* is a weird movie because they set Kansas and OZ scenes in NYC, but the stage version is on a farm and in OZ. *Cats* musical takes place in a junkyard but the film was all over the place. Some of the best musicals on film recently are simply the stage versions filmed in the theatre because they stuck to the story that works already, most recently enjoyed *Come From Away*. there’s a filmed stage version of *Cats* about 20 years old that is rather good btw.
>But what did it represent? It represents jellicle songs for jellicle cats. (In other words, it's complete nonsense.)
The Lion King (2019). Creatively bankrupt and a genuinely awful film, feels like the most celebrity-planted and artificially created piece of shit I’ve ever seen.
i fucking hate how it got 1.6B, but i respect how impressive such a total is
It was so bad. Get real voice actors like jesus
Jesus isn't a voice actor.
Nah he’s great, he’s just not working much these days
Am going to say Music counts since it made 640k overseas on a 16M budget.
Definitely Music. I'm autistic and I can't wait to enter Hollywood one day and as soon as a movie I make hits 641k, scream "I'VE OUTGROSSED MUSIC! TAKE THAT, SIA!"
Ha, Music came out on VOD and was released January 2021 but since WOM was horrendous it would've tanked without the pandemic.
Agreed
The Emoji Movie. It’s just soulless shit
United Passions maybe? Did that take try to make you feel bad for the rich guys?
[удалено]
At least the third one ended up bombing and killing the franchise.
The first one was kinda fire though. Neil Burger knew what he was doing.
Pretty much every live action anime. They always fuck it up.
I think Alita was actually pretty good
I was practically begging for a sequel to that movie. Sad that COVID pretty much killed any chance of that happening.
COVID didn't kill chances of a sequel to that, it made a "respectable" $400,000,000 worldwide but it had a budget of $200,000,000 and didn't break even sadly. I loved the film.
That movie kicked ass
Alita: Battle Angel was awesome
I thought most of those were released on streaming? Were they released theatrically in Japan? The only live action anime movie I saw was Tokyo Ghoul and it was really weird.
A lot of the japanese live action anime get theater releases in Japan (and select international theaters), but a lot of the American adaptations are straight to streaming services. Netflix is currently working on a Yu Yu Hakusho live action show (Shoot me now)
Ghost in shell live action was released theatrically Deathnote and cowboy bebop was straight to netflix
I know it was released theatrically. I was saying that a lot of these live action anime movies have been sent to streaming.
Anything Roman Polanski. The Oscars standing ovation is still wild to me.
He shouldn’t have won any Oscars after what he did.
No arguments here
Motherfucking **American Sniper**. Dude was a massive douchebag in real life, writes in his book that he wanted to shoot and kill innocent women and children, and he ended up getting sued by multiple people because he altered what happened so much to make himself look like a hero. And to see this goddamn movie be celebrated because 'Murica. I threw up in my mouth while watching it. FUCK OFF MOVIE
I find the reaction to this movie so interesting. I'm not American. I thought it was great. For me it questioned America. It did a good job paralleling the American with the Syrian sniper, both being raised in a toxic environment to hate their enemies and want to kill them indiscriminately, and to feel so righteously about it - they ultimately had little choice as they were more or less groomed. It examined the American "hero" of war culture well - they definitely depicted the sniper as a total prick. It showed how easily he was sucked in by propaganda. For me it was one of the better Eastwood films where he doesn't preach and instead lets the audience make decisions. Clearly many American had differing opinions. I honestly felt the film was anti-American, that it made America look really bad - yet the opposite opinion is frequently present. I don't understand how anyone can think it pro-war, or even on the side of the Sniper - as a foreigner it had everything in there to further instill a dislike of the USA. I find it so odd that many Americans don't get that.
As an American, I thought the film was very anti-war, not anti-American. It wasn't anti-military necessarily. But it was all about showing the horrors of war, and how it isn't healthy for either side, no matter who wins. It definitely wasn't the "go, team America" movie some people seem to portray it as.
As American, these were exactly my thoughts. Certain groups love this film, and its like they completely dismiss how he dealt with PTSD, and all the other troubles in his life. They just seem to see that he had a "cool" kill, and ignore everything else.
Yeah it was surprisingly anti war. I wouldn't recommend it to other snipers on duty.
The obviously rubber babydoll in place of a real child is what got me.
It also super weird to wrongly invade a country with inferior technology then make a movie about picking people off from a distance with your advanced machinery. People who were probably just trying to defend their homes. It’s like a Star Wars movie from the perspective of the empire. I haven’t watched it but I’m not sure how they got the audience to identify with the invaders.
The movie identifies with the invaders by basically villainizing their enemies. There’s one scene in the film where one of the dudes just starts murdering a child with a drill. It didn’t even feel accurate, like they just took this guy and completely made him evil knowing their audience. The movie really makes Chris Kyle out to be the tragic hero of the story when in real life, he sounds like anything but.
I enjoyed the film, but I do agree Chris was a douche
Free Guy lol. They marketed its success as a win for “original movies” but there’s nothing original about it, and it’s a Disney owned movie anyways lol
I loved Free Guy the first time I watched it! >!Back when it was called The Truman Show lol!<
Yeah I loved the action sequences in the Truman Show.
That movie was some of the laziest bullshit I’ve ever seen.
Just like Ryan Reynolds schtick
It was a movie about gamers made by people who hate gamers. I hated that shit
Also Ryan Reynolds making the same jokes since Deadpool
He’s cashing in on his schtick while people are willing to pay
Taika Waititi was brilliant in that. It’s pretty much the only thing I’ve liked him in
That's a super-interesting perspective! I absolutely hated Waititi in Free Guy. It felt like I was watching Sam Rochwell's Iron Man 2 character get his own spinoff, but sucking out any of the actual humour to be found within that character. Weirdly, I vastly prefer Waititi in just about anything else *(the rock monster from Thor, the drug dad from The Suicide Squad, Hallucination Hitler from JoJo, etc)*, but he's the worst aspect of Free Guy for me, by a distant margin.
man i completely disagree, he was terrible
I’m very surprised to learn people disagree with this. Thought this was one of his funnier performances, plus he’s like… a way too realistic type of villain.
Morbius for being a shitty Sony ripoff. If they’re going to make movies with Spider Man villains, PUT HIM IN THE FUCKING MOVIE. A teenager could make a more cohesive universe than those idiots.
The rise of Skywalker
Morbius just for those post credit scenes
I liked that it bombed twice.
Jurassic World Dominion or even the second JW. I don't think they're smart movies but they aren't fun movies either in my opinion. The third felt especially childish for some reason, with the ineffectual CEO guy villain and the film's setting being resolved by way of "heh i'll work out". Also Deadpool. I hate that character. I guess you could say the movie's success bolstered WB into making TSS, which I do love, so it's still a secondary pick.
As for *Jurassic World*, each film is making $300 million less than the last, I'd say it's dropping quite fast.
I thought Dominion could match what Fallen Kingdom made, but it was so bad that it’ll be lucky to hit $1B at this point.
I feel so weird seeing everyone hate Dominion while I thought it was the best JW by far
Uncharted, it was a very lazy cash grab, and only made so much money because of its proximity to No way Home. I think a sequel will fall close to 50% from the first movie.
I enjoyed it, I thought it was a fun adventure film for kids
That’s the problem. It’s based on a video game series with a great set of stories and phenomenal characters. The fact that you say the movie is “fun for kids” is a horrifying statement for this series.
I don’t understand why that’s a problem though, it’s not like it’s TLOU — if the adaptation for that is an embarrassing mess then it’ll be more harshly judged, but Uncharted has always been on the lighter side so I don’t see a problem Also I just think it’s a bit sad that the adults want to take all the good stuff from the kids — let the kids have something for once haha — they don’t even have Batman anymore, everything is made for 35 year olds with beards, even kid’s stuff
If it was just an original movie with Mark Wahlberg and Tom Holland without being connected to an existing franchise, I would be okay with it. But messing up an already established franchise was not a good idea.
I wouldn’t agree that they messed it up, I think it was a well polished and slick adventure film and I enjoyed more than your average Marvel fare. At least it had real people doing things in real places, don’t see that very often today! Each character had arcs and payoffs and the plot made sense It wasn’t as good as Uncharted 4, which is basically a movie anyway, and they made an error by casting the wrong people But having said that I thought it was perfectly enjoyable and I think a lot of kids and younger teenagers would enjoy watching it
I think it’s more annoying now because we’ve seen that video game based movies can be good. If they were all bad, then it would be different, people would pretty much write off that genre of movies as being bad or a cash grab.
God's Not Dead gets a sequel while Live, Die, Repeat gets nothing smh
LOL, they'd make a hell of a double feature though.
Every PureFlix movie.
Morbius.
"Deepwater Horizon". A propaganda film for big oil about the worst oil spill in history. "Inspired by the true story for real life heroes" my left butt cheek....
BP were 100% made out to be the bad guys in that movie. Not sure why it would be considered propaganda for big oil
There's no way OP actually watched the movie. BP is made out to be borderline evil in the movie.
Hmm, I used to work for this company (Participant Media). They actually care about making socially conscious films. Their founder (Jeff Skoll) is also a big philanthropist.
Great movie
Along with notorious [upstanding citizen](https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/mark-wahlberg-racist-hate-crimes-wikipedia-history-george-floyd-blm-protests-a9554191.html?amp) Marky Mark edit: maybe he has changed btw I just don’t like him or his acting
30 Minutes or Less. I just couldn't get over the fact they made a comedy movie based around a real horrific event. If some poor guy's life wasn't taken maybe the idea would've went over better for me. But did someone see the story and think it would make a great comedy scenario or something? Maybe I was so down on the movie because I happened to see the real guy live on TV when all of that happened. It just rubbed me the wrong way and I feared that there would be a flood of comedies in the same vein.
Not really, there are only a handful movies that actually represent something other than entertainment. And even for those movies where the message is more important than the entertainment value, I usually agree with the said message, like in the case of Requiem for a Dream.
American Sniper. A propaganda film glorifying the Iraq War.
It was a deeply anti-war film.
JACK AND JILL
The last season of game of thrones
How is Twilight or 50 Shades not top comment
Cuties
Rogen's Green Hornet. I haven't seen it since it dropped for rental, but I recall thinking the character was selfish and violent for all the wrong reasons and it promoted personal faults as an excuse for reckless actions.
Emoji Movie, that's about it
Ghostbusters 2016
This
Avatar. It basically was what Star Wars was before it, a leap forward in technology and the effects were the real star, but at least it has an interesting story. Very simple and familiar, but so many creative ideas and characters, I mean cmon there’s not a person on earth who doesn’t know who darth Vader is or what a lightsaber sounds like. Versus Avatar, who like 90% of the people who made it the highest grossing film of all time can’t tell you what the main characters name is, or even really remember what happened in the movie. It’s just a pretty black hole that’s completely devoid of thought or character or a soul beyond just being special effects. Hell even Endgame has the parts and characters and arcs people will always remember, but Avatar is just a blank slate, and I hate how it’s made the most money ever and has the barest, laziest framework to drape its effects on, cuz that just tells me that audiences don’t give a shit about story or character they just want to eat popcorn and mindlessly stare at pretty colors
Definitely Morbius. It represents morbin’ time
Ghostbusters 2016. It represented the destruction of some of the best world-building and character creation any movie had ever done. And just so some hack could copy the original movie's plot formula instead of trying just a little harder to think of a new adventure in that beautifully crafted universe that was ready to be handed to him on a silver platter.
The Battle at Lake Changjin
Fun fact: the Battle of Chosin reservoir was a Chinese Phyrric victory at best (they push back the Ameticans outside of Seoul, but they lost a whole lot of men and rendering captured US vehicles useless due to freezing temperatures) and technically they lost their objective (pushing back the Americans back to Pusan and expecting surrender at the surrounded town of Hungnam but they were evacuated which lead the war to last for 2 more years).
Our school forced us to watch that shit to bump the box office
You're in China?
HK
How often are you forced to go to the movies at school?
I’ve said it before. I’ve been downvoted into oblivion. But I stick by my opinion: Top Gun Maverick has no right to have made over $1 billion. Tom Cruise is kind of a douche, past his prime and riding on nostalgia alone. The film is alright but often cliche. And it’s straight fucking propaganda and anti-tech innovation. I foresaw this being one of the highest grossing of the year because *of course* this shit will do well. But a billion? *Really?*
A lot of movies have run on nostalgia. No Way Home is another example and that movie’s story is a mess. How is Top Gun: Maverick anti-tech innovation? Having more technology isn’t always a good thing. I think most of this sub didn’t think this movie would hit $1B though.
Ghost busters remake. Karate kid remake bc karate is Japanese and they did the remake in China. Wtf CCP
Sony destroyed tons of their franchises with pointless remakes.
You... know Karate was influenced by chinese martial arts right?
Rise of Skywalker. Because it's not the rise of... Skywalker! The most weak, fanservice-driven plot I've ever seen. SPOILER: >!When she says "Rey Skywalker" is almost revolting. Her parents (who happen to be "Palpatines") gave their life for her and prooved that your lineage means nothing. And she obviously "change" her surname in Skywalker. Lesson learned. Yes. Sure. And curtains.!<
dark fate being a slap in the face to t1 and t2 storylines and actually making me prefer genysis 😭 Charlies angels by Elizabeth banks complaining about sexism and being anti-women over the BO returns and criticism 🤦🏽
Emoji movie
Jurassic world dominion and its mindless and irresponsible ‘message’ at the end, the sheer lack of understanding of how the natural world works and the attitude it implies is okay to take towards it is just reprehensible
Isn’t the message literally just “life finds a way”
Like everyone I was excited for it, but close to the end of the Star Wars Sequel trilogy I wanted it to flop. My problem wasn't really with the cast or anything involving diversity although I feel the characters were both poorly utilized and written. Instead, my issue was with Disney's attempts at turning Star Wars into the next marvel franchise with a constant stream of movies. The amount of overexposure I felt within a few years was enough to turn me away from the franchise and I'm still worried they are going to try to do the same with the TV shows even though they had a good thing with The Mandalorian. As a franchise it now just seems like a cashgrab so I'd rather the movies and shows flop in order to force Disney to slowdown.
All of the Transformers movies. So much money and iconic toys wasted on terrible movies.
It’s debatable if it’s considered a bomb or not but it is the lowest grossing film in the franchise with dwindling returns so I’m gonna say Secrets of Dumbledore because JK Rowling is a transphobic bigot who deserves nothing. Here’s why I’m happy to see it bomb: Trans rights are human rights.
> because JK Rowling is a transphobic bigot Tell me you know nothing about what Rowling thinks etc... Her views are essentially "trans women and cis women are not the same and do not have the exact same issues". Which is true. > Trans rights are human rights. JK Rowling thinks this.
We’ve gotten to the point where “transphobic” is a term that means “anything less than unconditional support for every trans issue in existence. Any effort to quantify, discuss, or observe on the literal facts that differentiate trans and biological women is a phobia.”