Oof. I re-watched every Disney live-action reboot . . . 

The fact that it has managed to stay fresh on RT ( 66%) for so long is a rare feat considering how a lot of them have been rated rotten. Compare that to The Lion King's 52% or Aladdin's 57%

One of my biggest issues with TLM is that Eric's involvement feels disjointed in the story: making him adopted felt like a weird thing to throw in there, especially for a monarch, and his relationship with his mother felt weak and undermined his maturity in the original film. I would've liked them highlighting the pressures he felt as a young man with no parents and having to oversee a kingdom--something Ariel, as the youngest child, never had to consider. Plus Ursula's death in the remake robbed Eric of his biggest moment. Even Jasmine and Shang went toe-to-toe with the villains for a second in the original films (of course, the remake of Mulan changed a bunch of stuff, sadly). Honestly it makes me wanna read the "Prince of Song and Sea" novel about him that came out last year just to see if that does him justice.

I love the idea of Cruella being born with heterochromic hair, but I agree it doesn't make sense in the real world; I'd have rathered if it was originally red hair and the black and white was a wig. And even though "Maleficent" is a play on "Malevolent," it still sounds like a fairytale-esque name--though I could see the name being based on the other creatures assuming she was evil.

I appreciate AiW was a sequel rather than a direcr remake. You can't sucessfully do that with every film.

I agree that we should have gotten a real remake of Sleeping Beauty, though i must correct you on the leads; the lead characters of the original are actually the three good fairies! Nobody ever talks about this or gets this right, but Flora, Fauna, and Merryweather are actually the main characters of Sleeping Beauty, NOT Aurora or Philip.

That is a thoughtless thing to say. _Ever After_ is *not* an adaptation of the Cinderella fairy tale. It's only *based* on the Cinderella story. It's not a fairy tale movie; it's not whimsical, it's not visually beautiful, and Danielle de Barbarac is one the worst portrayals of the Cinderella character ever. She's Cinderella in name only. Half the movie has nothing to do with the Cinderella story. And the dialogue is really, really stupid to say the least.

​@@0deadx21 I disagree.

@@brandyloutherback9288 There's a difference between a movie that's just based on a fairy tale and a movie that's an actual adaptation of it. _Ever After_ is obviously not the latter, neither is any adaption of _Rodgers & Hammerstein's Cinderella_ or films like _Ella Enchanted_ or the _A Cinderella Story_ franchise. No wonder it's called _Ever After: A Cinderella Story_ They can't just call it _Cinderella_ It's too far removed for that.

Right. I wouldn't even consider 101 dalmatian a remake or reboot, it was something totally different from the original while still staying true to the original. The other live actions were garbage.

They did it you having noticed Disney+ doesn't have a good original movies so these Disney remake's are rushed go straight to the streaming service and the good one's go to theaters

The 2003 Peter Pan was better

The difference is jasmines race is part of her Ariel isn’t and what he means is if they don’t want to offend anyone don’t get a white director get a Chinese one