Become a Ralphthemoviemaker Member! ru-vid.com/show-UCZ04pLI44c0PWRzubEV6ogAjoin Support ralphthemoviemaker on Patreon: www.patreon.com/ralphthemoviemaker
“Just cause the camera’s doing a 360 around the characters and she has tears in her eyes and she’s yelling doesn’t mean it’s dramatic” are the truest words I’ve ever heard
If those r the truest words you've ever heard you live a sad life my friend. I feel bad for you. Reach out if you want to talk. I don't like people living a sad life..
Honestly, the biggest problem I have with this film comes down to how they changed the characters to try and make them more ‘fleshed out’, when it really didn’t fit the plot. Jasmine now wanting to be the Sultan over her original desire to just be free from the restraints of the palace now makes her relationship with Aladdin just an afterthought. In the original, they both talked about how they felt trapped, and the connection they share over their mutuality. It was beautiful, because you saw how being rich didn’t make Jasmine any more happy than Aladdin. There’s no real reason for her and him to fall in love in this movie outside of ‘because that’s what the story is about’. It also takes away from a Whole New World. The whole reason this scene is great is because Aladdin essentially gives Jasmine what she wants. A chance to see the world, and experience what she never could. It’s what made him different than the other suitors, who could only offer her what she already had. Again, this film is more concerned with making Jasmine’s motivations about being sultan, so this scene comes off as utterly pointless. Or, hell, even the scene that led to them meeting in the first place doesn’t work. Jasmine gives a boy an apple from a cart and doesn’t know you have to pay for them. In the original movie, this was understandable since she had never left the castle walls before, so it made sense. Here, you’re telling me she’s snuck out of the palace before, AND claims to know/care about Agrabah’s people than anyone else, yet she doesn’t know basic things about how their system works? How is she qualified to be Sultan, again? Or Jafar. In the original, he was a twisted man that was well-trusted in the palace by everyone. But here, he’s an insecure little bitch that isn’t intimidating in the least. The head of the guard doesn’t trust him, the Sultan barely seems to trust him, and Aladdin as Prince Ali knows Jafar was the one that betrayed him, yet they do nothing and allow him to be in such a high position of leadership in the palace. None of the guards questioned Jafar ordering them to kill Prince Ali, yet they supposedly already know he’s not exactly trustworthy. In the original, them just blindly following his orders made sense. They had no reason to be suspicious of him. It made him so much more mysterious and vicious, whereas now he’s just some insecure guy that no one trusts anyway. It makes everyone in the palace seem stupid. And lastly, Aladdin. The movie spends so much more time trying and failing to flesh out other characters like Jasmine’s handmaiden or the royal guard that they forget to give the protagonist of the film any character. If anything, they instead take away from what they had on him. Him stealing bread in the beginning, for example, was important because he only steals the bare essentials. We see he only does it to survive, which also shows us, based on the guards’ reactions, that the very law that’s supposed to be protecting them is strict and more harmful than helpful. In this film, however, they’re way more justified, since he’s stealing possessions, rather than necessities. So he goes from being a clever and likeable street rat that just wants to survive, to a bland thief that the movie keeps insisting has more to him. They throw the entire point of the movie, that the only differences between Aladdin and Jasmine is essentially just a flawed class system, away for the sake of elements that don’t even end up servicing the movie well. Those are my two cents, at least.
Another issue I have with the way the remake did Jasmine's character is that in the original, she felt lonely and didn't have any human friends (I emphasize the word "human" because the movie even pointed that out very clearly when she was telling her father about never having any friends to talk to or spend time with the exception of Rajah, who's her pet tiger). Therefore, her desire to be outside of the palace felt very genuine and made sense as to why she would want to leave it. Here in the remake, she has her handmaiden that she talks to on a regular basis, so she's not all that lonely and her wanting to leave the palace doesn't feel as natural as it did in the original.
had to pause the video to read this comment because YES! This is what's so frustrating about this movie, beyond everything Ralph says, the actual story is missing. Everything else, from the camera work to the costumes could begrudgingly be forgiven, but they didn't even sit down and make sure the plot still made sense. The characters in this movie can only be understood because of their shadows of their original counterparts. Everything they added to the extending cast was only to appease modern customers in the most hallow of fashions. And like in their live action Beauty and the Beast they did this super frustrating thing trying to, like, fix the criticism given to Disney princesses of being weak and whatever. Instead of heeding to any of that criticism when concerning how they would approach her character, they gave her a flashy song and made her king. (The more correct term for her probably would've Sultana but that's neither here nor there considering the country is made up and just a paper mache of different cultures) Anyway though i appreciated your review, characters motives and choices are the foundation of a story and they just threw them away here because they had the luxury of an audience that already knew the characters, it's disgusting.
@@thecolourfulpill I second that, the story is not even one of the original stories from 1001 arabian nights. It was added to the colection later by translator Antoine Galland who actualy wrote that it was sett in a city in china, though there is speculation wether or not this was part of the original folk tale.
I don't understand the modern scapegoat of: "its made for kids!" Some of the great kids movies have subtle adult elements to appeal to the FAMILY. Toy Story is a perfect example. My kids enjoy it and so can I. I enjoyd it when I was a kid and my parents did too. It used to be a selling point "great for kids and parents". Now they act like the rules have changed lol
You can find that kind of argument all over the place, in any topic of conversation. There always a line that some idiot says to justify something and avoid criticism of said thing. Just because it's made for kids doesn't mean that it has to be a piece of fucking shit! Just because it's for kids it isn't exempt of criticism! If something is shit, it's gonna be shit no matter the fucking target audience. It's such a non-argument, like the typical "well why don't you do better?" Just because I can't make something it doesn't mean I can't criticize it when it's shit. I hate that, and I'm tired of it
And also, isn't childhood the time where you forge your tastes? How can you enjoy film as an art form if all you saw is schlock like minions and these remakes all of your childhood? Children films should respect children, not pander to them. This argument is so backwards
"it's made for kids" is kind of an insult to kids tbh. Like, just because their brains don't yet have the ability to perform advanced abstract reasoning, they don't deserve good quality? Just because they can't articulate themselves like an adult doesn't mean they are uncritical. Wanna know what happens if you play complex music for your kid from age 0 to age 5? They become a better musician than you. They develop music as part of their native language. Perfect pitch. Like an autistic savant, they can listen to a chord and pick out every single note being played. A musician named Rick Beato actually did this with his son. On the contrary, the more complex a piece of kids' media is, whether it's a toy, music, a movie, etc, the better it actually is for kids. Kids are like sponges that soak up information. So don't saturate them with garbage.
Jafar's actor kind of looks like that quiet office worker who goes on a rampage suddenly after someone got his coffee wrong for the last time. This film is just the aftermath.
@FernAce "Ralph as Zack Snyder..." I'm not sure I remember this. I DO remember that one time Zack Snyder actually came onto the channel, but I'm pretty certain Ralph wouldn't stoop so low as to mock a director by pretending to be him with a cheap filter.
It’s not even for the kids, really. This is just how Disney extends their copyrights, and it’s why they’re remaking even the most obscure movies. They were the ones who pushed to get copyright protections extended as far as they already are, so now by remaking literally everything they’ve ever owned they can keep those characters locked up for another several decades.
It seems that you're correct and despite not knowing everything about copyright laws I can definitely see that some of the remakes were due for their 28 years reconstructive surgeries...
As a person who knows copyright law this is FALSE. When the Alladin animated film goes into public domain this film will have no impact. Though any creative changes the live action made to the orginal animated film will still be under copyright. Its like the Wizard of Oz. The book is in the public domain. However the MGM film is not. So any creative changes the film made to the book i.e. changing the silver slippers to ruby slippers is still copyrightable, but the story and characters (and the silver slippers) in the book are in the public domain.
Need I remind you these movies are based on preexisting stories from the public domain, that they simplified, sanitized, and bastardized to make them kid friendly.
False, almost every classic disney film is based on stories in the public domain. They can be used by anyone. Not just Disney. You just can’t steal the creative liberties taken by Disney where it’s obvious they changed it for their story.
Remember when in the original movie that sleezy merchant who narratetes the story? It has been confirmed that he is the Genie in a human form. It blowed everyones mind, because the hints were suptle but clearly there. How do we remake that scene? Put Will Smith on a boat. What a twist!
I don’t recall if Jafar even says his name. And he barely speaks AT ALL in the film. He basically just runs errands for him and that’s it. What an insult to the hilarity Gilbert Gottfried brought to the role
When live action Simba yelled "Nooo!" when Mufasa was killed, it just looked like a kitten meowing and all I could say was "D'aww!" How am I supposed to take that movie seriously? I don't want to see a nature documentary turned into a musical...unless it's narrated by David Attenborough.
@@QueenOfPessimism I just saw that for the first time here and lost my breath laughing. Jesus, how did they make that scene so tone-deaf compared to the original.
I did a side-by-side of the 3D and 2D scene. Literally the biggest problem is that the animators did not animate emotion. 2D Simba's looking down his nose, his body stiff, jaw hanging; he's *petrified.* 3D Simba's... looking like my antisocial cat when my dog tries to play with her. And I heard the reason that a lot of animators hated this movie because of the reason that there's no emotion. $260 million, you can't make a hyper-realistic 3D model crack a smile? Lord, I hope this remake season is over by the next decade.
The fact that people started disappearing around her made me think she had gained Thanos powers and I started laughing hysterically during what was supposed to be a powerful scene.
I swear if they make a live-action movie about Treasure Planet, then I will be scarred for life and hate Disney with a passion. I will miss what Disney once was, and not where it is going and what it will be.
Yep. She's the lady in the beginning with human-looking-Genie. They had kids. Not that Genie shouldn't have any, but it's a bit much to stuff into what should be Aladdin's story.
The new Terminator gave the T-800, sorry I mean "Carl", a wife and kid, too. I guess studios everywhere decided that non-human supporting characters from their old movies needed to settle down.
I guess they were trying to make the genie's transition to freedom more believable, which is something weird about the original, there's no real indication of how he could be free other than the vague insinuation that the guy who sings Arabian Nights in the beginning might be the free genie. It's not a necessary change or an improvement, but it's a decent way of changing up the story a little. I grant that it is a little weird.
God damn the genuine heartbreak when he said "It's all we DO now. It's...really sad. It's really sad that this is what does well" really fuckin' hit me. I'm with ya Ralph.
If you've ever seen any of his social media posts on Instagram/RU-vid/wherever, they are the most pandering manufactured "hello fellow kids" content I think I've ever seen. They're almost funny for how surreally awkward and out-of-touch they are
@@terriblechristianmovies3814 I had a friend send me something from his Instagram and it was even worse, I really wanted to tell off my friend because just why on Earth would he enjoy this
I don’t think it’s fair to say that all of Disney is like this, there’s definitely segments and studios that still care. Obviously it isn’t the live action division
are you surprised that the multi-billion dollar, multinational media conglomerate founded by a ruthless anti-semitic fascist sympathizer would turn out "soulless"? really? REALLY?
Fun fact: Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland was the movie that started the modern live action remake trend. Coincidentally, the original version was the Disney movie that Walt Disney hated the most, and he considered it his biggest mistake.
That's one of the most baffling parts of the movie. Why would you hire someone who is known for a very specific style of singing, then auto-tune him and tell him to copy Robin Williams! Will Smith will never be a Robin Williams, so he should have been allowed to add his own flair to the character.
But if they auto tune him he doesn't have to try! Genius! Remember Paige O'Hara? She was only in one movie ever and became known for her incredible voice? And then Emma Watson plays her role in the remake and she sounds like fucking Hatsune Miku?
They really should of tried to make a new genie that’s not really like robins Maybe instead of making him goofy and do impressions he is legitimately cool and the kinda guy you could party with and would hook you up with a chick
As Sideways said, the autotune in these remakes' music makes them sound so perfect and clean that it strips away any potential character the actors put in their performance.
How the Disney remakes handle female characters is them basically trying to address every idiotic feminist Buzzfeed article written by people who can't even remember the originals.
What bothers me is it looks like they took out her “I’m quick learner” moment where she jumps over to the other building without Aladdin’s help. I mean that was an actually strong moment for her. That’s when she showed us she wasn’t just a princess she was also smart. Why did they take that away from her? For that crappy song?
@@MamaMOB It's silly. I've heard about how they butchered Cinderella and Belle as well. A "strong" female character doesn't have to be literal, but they throw this modern stuff in to try to appease them.
@@klg9549 Yes, it's stupid, because the original Jasmine was smart (i.e.; faking out Jafar). They could have left her as is, and it would have been great.
@@klg9549 Most feminists really fucking hate what Disney is doing with their female characters now, so blaming them is pointless. They're trying hard to pander to them but they just suck so much at writting or actually changing something meaningful that people are even more pissed about it.
My theatre teacher called this movie "A masterpiece of cinema" and "A revolutionary new step in art" and I dont know if I want that woman to teach me anymore
In all seriousness. Live-action loses so much magic animation achieves, especially when they ALREADY HAVE an animated form of the entity. There seems to be a rising movement of anti-animation people, and I’m unsure why. Animation brings so much more than what real life can bring.
I feel like the biggest problem with the live action remakes, is that one cannot produce the same feelings, emotions, and life in a real, physical setting with CG like you can with 2d animation.
disney wont stop this until the mainstream stops paying, which may actualy just never happen, becuase the mainstreams standards are awful, this really sucks.
real talk a bollywood remake would've been way more fun than this because they love doing crazy bombastic shit in their movies, so it's always entertaining
YellowTwerker Pixar has always been known as a studio that does solely CGI and were the pioneers of that with the first Toy Story, so leave them with CGI. Disney and Dreamworks, on the other hand, should do both 2D and CGI, which I would have preferred rather than ditching 2D all together. I miss 2D so much.
Lauren210 Currently, the only things Disney makes in 2D animation are relegated to their TV series and shorts. Other than that they’ve done next to nothing for the past few years. Shame.
TadpoleGaming If only there were a way to translate human emotions into numbers. Hmm... I guess the mathematical formula for a comedy would be, “Loud+repeated action+random=funny”. “Reference” can also be added for extra funny.
@@PanzerPlant you just reminded me of an idea I had for an AI disguised as a run of the mill first person shooter but slowly devolves into a horror game as the AI learns how to scare you.
Disney movies used to have so much flavor... now they're just rice. That's the best metaphor I can find for it. Sure, you can eat it straight up and it tastes... fine. However, you can also add vegetables, meat, sauce, etc to it and make a pretty nice meal, but that takes time and love, which are two things that Disney no longer feel like investing into things.
I could have gone my whole life without seeing the live action Mufasa death. That was depressing. Not in the sad way the cartoon was. But depressing because I had a good laugh at falling Mufasa
Every time I see that lion king remake clip of simba yelling nooo, I just do loud "meowoooo" makes me laugh at how he just looks like a kitten meowing, unlike I the original where you can see the horror on his face. None of the actors in the new one can act to save their lives. The OG is so wholesome
@Tum Tum what kills me is they wanted a live action lion king. 1. You can watch the broadway musical for that 2. Literally everything about the remake is created on a computer and animated
Justyn Zachariou Im pretty sure she played Megara in Hercules, and rose quartz in Steven universe, and other things. So she’s in some other (subjectively) better stuff
Realistic shots just look desaturated. My guess is they went so far towards realistic they forgot about being visually interesting and aesthetically pleasing.
My mom and 11 yr old bro went to see it and loved it and thought it looked great. I just couldn’t wrap my head around it, it looked like real Africa which looks like dirty brown all over. The Lion King (2019) is one of the few movies that I would describe as “gross” in the same way I would describe a horror film, and isn’t a horror film.
I wish Disney would return to hand-drawn animation. If not for the sake of making the scenes more imaginative and entertaining but for money. You would think it would be cheaper for them to make!
American media really sleeps on Asian actors in general, even middle eastern, south east asians, fucking ghost in the shell, a japanese movie placed in japan, Scarlet johanson played the main character when theres plenty of talented asian actors
@Elisa Castro there are a TON of qualified Asian actors, Hollywood just doesn't care. Why do you think when Black actors win awards it's always either a movie about the history of slavery, segregation, or a white savior complex.
BlazingPhantom28 I agree. I went to the 2011 rerelease of the original Lion King and I had to take that opportunity because I was born 2 years after the movie came out at the time and I wanted my own theater experience of watching my favorite movie, which was amazing. I would totally do this if they continued doing that rather than the remakes.
They did do this a couple years ago, and I remember being pissed off back then because I thought it was a lazy cash grab to just re release a movie and tack on a "3-D!" gimmick to get people to see it. But after seeing this shit, I would give anything for them to go back to doing that instead.
James Quinonez They also did this way back in the day for their classics that came out during the golden age of Hollywood era for movies like Snow White, Pinocchio, Bambi, etc. For example, with Snow White, they re-released the movie around every 7-10 years so it was re-released in 1944, 1952, 1958, 1967, 1975, 1983, 1987, and 1993. Back then, they did this to raise revenue for the studio during the World War 2 period. I’d rather see a re-release of those classics as well than a lazy remake. 😒
