Nope, PTSDBatman can be "Repressive overcompensation."
--Patrick
We need reaction for laughing and crying at the same time.
Looks like the Rock isn't available for every movie.My Spy
That's where I am. It looks super interesting, but I don't think it's going to be any fun.That Joker trailer left me feeling gloomy. It looks like it might be hard to watch.
I agree. I am not sure that I want to try to understand the monster or have sympathy for the devil.That's where I am. It looks super interesting, but I don't think it's going to be any fun.
Yeah the facial expressions are the biggest loss for me. There are shots in the trailer that are direct recreations of classic shots from the animated movie, and the lack of facial expressions greatly lessens the impact of those scenes.
Everything I like (music, James Earl Jones) is from the original while Scar's performance is off and the faces are vacant and expressionless.
Yes, but it's live-action computer animation.This is [...] another animated version of the same movie using computer animation.
The first one had computer animation too. In particular the wildebeests stampeding was an early (trying not to be detected I mean) usage of it.THIS IS NOT A LIVE ACTION REMAKE!
This is nothing more than another animated version of the same movie using computer animation.
Absolutely. This trailer's Scar doesn't bring the sarcasm and menace of the original Scar.... but trying to follow Jeremy Irons? Good fucking luck.
I don't think they actually GAF if the movies do well, as long as they just serve to extend copyright on the originals. Because a company that earned 90% of its cash off the back of the public domain absolutely recoils at the idea of anything of theirs ever returning to it.With Dumbo underperforming, my hope is that Aladdin and Lion King 'suffer' the same fate and Disney stops with remaking the animated properties in live action. But then they should have learned this with the lifeless Beauty and the Beast remake prior...
Or rights in general, like the ‘94 Fantastic Four movie.just serve to extend copyright on the originals
That's why Fan4stic exists, too. It was cobbled together just to retain the rights.Or rights in general, like the ‘94 Fantastic Four movie.
—Patrick
Right. That’s why I said “or rights in general” instead of “copyright.”But that's due to the specific contract agreements with marvel, not copyright law.
Not true. Particularly in Dumbos case, the new version of the movie does not extend the Copyright associated with the old movie because the old movie is a fixed creative piece not being modified by the new one. And you can’t copyright the ideas, concepts, or situations attached to it. Having a live action Dumbo only creates a copyright for that film and has no bearing whatsoever on the old.I don't think they actually GAF if the movies do well, as long as they just serve to extend copyright on the originals. Because a company that earned 90% of its cash off the back of the public domain absolutely recoils at the idea of anything of theirs ever returning to it.