There’s a conversation starter that has popped up in a couple of my friend groups that is similar to this, basically “what movies would be improved by all but one actor being replaced by muppets?” My answer has consistently been Face/Off with Nic Cage as the only human actor. I even threw a poster together…
This is incredible
Cage playing Gonzo would be magical
Best. Movie. Ever.
So basically the Muppet Treasure Island and Muppet Christmas Carol treatment for cartoons.
Yes, that would clearly work and Disney is squandering the potential.
You clearly didn’t watch Muppet Haunted Mansion.
I don’t remember hearing about Muppet Haunted Mansion, is it good?
It’s actually very good. I enjoyed it thoroughly
Would one need to have seen the original first?
lol there isn’t an original unless you count the Eddie Murphy version, which is not really connected to the muppet one. Besides both being about the haunted mansion.
It’s not based on the movies, it’s based off the ride itself. You would catch more references having ridden the ride at any of the parks.
imagine the merchandizing potential of a muppet Jedi, and Yoda (the only human) is Danny Devito.
I want to watch Muppet Flubber, where everyone is a muppet except for Flubber. Also, possibly Honey I Shrunk the Muppets with a human Rick Moranis.
They couldn’t do star wars with Yoda being the human. How many Muppet Yoda plushy sales would they be giving up‽
Also why are these recent live action remakes so boring? Even my children couldn’t get past five minutes in any of them.
They try to go as close to the source material (their own version) as possible while following a checklist of fixes. That checklist involves things like CinemaSins-tier critiques of the original, and what corporate execs think as “good representation” (the most corporate-safe way, e.g. gay characters that can be cut out for certain audiences, because you need that money from Saudi, Chinese, Russian, etc. audiences), with the latter being the most blamed for the issues. But the actual greatest issue itself is that they try to redo even the stuff that only works within the realms of animation in live action.
Animation relies on exaggeration, which doesn’t work in real life, thus getting rid of the most fun part of the animation medium, just to win over the “cartoons are for children” crowd. This leads to stuff like The Lion King “live action” remake, with its expressionless realistic animals acting out what cartoon animals did in a previous, animated version of The Lion King. The same is in to different extents and versions in all the other “live action” remakes.
They try to go as close to the source material (their own version)
Except they changed Mulan to appease a Chinese audience. Before release everyone thought the remake would be closer to the original story because of the rumor that the movie targeted the Chinese market. But they turned it into a Marvel movie and made Mulan a superhero resulting in that almost everyone disliked the movie.
Everything about that was puzzling. They changed the story supposedly to be more culturally accurate, but what they came up with wasn’t culturally accurate at all. How did that happen?
Besides, when Chinese people want a culturally accurate Mulan, they watch one of the many Chinese-made adaptions of the story. The animated was appealing because it was a fresh take, a Disney musical that Chinese could relate to. The remake was just a huge miscalculation.
But the animation flopped in China. Mainly because it felt foreign for the Chinese. They even found Mulan’s design too westernized. That’s why Disney thought they had to make a different Mulan story.
I’m surprised to hear that. When I was in China in the early 2010s I saw it played all the time.
My understanding of this phenomenon is there is a committee of “You can’t eat salsa, that’s cultural appropriation” types who have the final edit on them, which is why you get movies like “What if Beauty and the Beast, but more feminist grudge porn, and a 🏳️🌈🏳️🌈🏳️🌈GAY🏳️🌈🏳️🌈🏳️🌈 character!” or “What if Mulan, but it’s about Chinese people so there can’t be anything fun or amusing in it, and…look we’ve got to get rid of this character arc shit. We can’t have this character be intrinsically weak and then learn to use her wits to compensate for it. She’s a girl, she has to be perfect and effortlessly better than the men from the start or we’ll hold our breath. That’s what a Strong Female Character is.”
That’s why they’re not fun. People who are not fun are in charge of making them.
What a garbage answer. You can make fun content and still be inclusive, execs just don’t want to take any risks on new IPs because they can milk old ones. Stop blaming inclusiveness when the real answer is greed.
execs just don’t want to take any risks on new IPs
We get regular new Disney IP, but they all underperform the remake slop.
Inside Out 2 is the second highest grossing animated movie of all time. Yes I know it’s a sequel, but the original IP is less than a decade old and the movie isn’t a remake. Frozen 2 is third and Frozen is fifth.
What about those live-action remakes are “inclusive?”
They cast a black Ariel and portrayed Gaston’s sidekick as gay, in both cases so they could say they did it?
From the WIkipedia article on Mulan (2020 film):
The film received generally positive reviews from Western, non-Asian critics, who praised the action sequences, costumes, and performances, but was criticized for the screenplay and editing. It received unfavorable reviews from fans of the original animated film, Chinese diaspora, and Chinese critics, who criticized the character development, its cultural and historical inaccuracies, and its depiction of Chinese people.
The article goes onto say there was controversy about a lack of east Asians in the production team of the film, as well as the removal of the character Li Shang as a response to the MeToo movement which was then criticized by the LGBTVNX8L community, who saw the character’s romantic relationship with Mulan’s male persona as representation of bisexuality.
Yeah nah this sounds “inclusive” as fuck.
execs just don’t want to take any risks on new IPs because they can milk old ones
To my knowledge none of the “live action remakes” or the animated features they’re based on are original Disney IP; Dumbo was based on a children’s book, The Little Mermaid was a fairy tale, Beauty and the Beast was a French short story and then an old silent film, Aladdin was a middle-eastern folk tale, Mulan is based on a Chinese legend…Disney’s never not been milking old IP. They’ve been doing it consistently since Snow White. Thing is, they used to make it work. Those animated features were huge hits. These live action remakes aren’t.
Stop blaming inclusiveness when the real answer is greed.
Greed has ALWAYS been Disney’s motivation. To quote Disney CEO Michael Eisner:
We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective.
Disney’s greed hasn’t changed since they were a reliable classic factory, only the implementation of that greed has changed.
One way they’ve changed their implementation is to remake things they’ve already done before. The strategy seems to be to target millennials like myself who grew up during the Disney Renaissance and who now have children of their own to take to the theater. “Oh look honey, they’re remaking Aladdin! Let’s take Aiden Brayden and Cayden down to the octoplex to see it!” Honestly I think that part of the strategy is sound. I get why Disney Corporate had these movies made.
I take issue with the idea that these remakes are any more “inclusive” than the originals. Disney isn’t being “inclusive,” they’re pandering to a very particular demographic’s taste for performative virtue signaling and grievance airing. Pissing off the LGBTQ community via censoring a character in anticipation of MeToo feminists is a rather on the nose example of this.
Reminder: We’re talking about fairy tales for children here.
The kind of people who add a scene to Beauty and the Beast where some of the villagers break Belle’s washing machine because “white men be oppressin’, amirite?” aren’t the kind of people capable of making fun movies for children. They’re simply too hateful.
portrayed Gaston’s sidekick as gay
Did you watch the Gaston song?! This is canon!!
Honestly I think that part of the strategy is sound. I get why Disney Corporate had these movies made.
I’m old enough to remember people complaining about the feminism in the original Little Mermaid / Beauty & the Beast. There was even a spat about Aladin being Satanist.
The complaints about these movies are almost as old and hackneyed as the movies themselves.
Surely there’s a difference between an animated movie loosely inspired by a traditional story with original songs, character designs, and dialogue, and remaking that movie beat-for-beat with just a few scenes changed for pandering.
Which does make me wonder why not just re-release the original animated features to theaters. Surely “Returning to theaters this summer: Disney’s Aladdin!” That seems to be the lazier way to make a buck off of old properties, you don’t have to hire a cast and crew, build sets wardrobe and props, etc.
It is my understanding that broadway adaptations of their animated features have been reliable money makers, so were the coke addled executives at Disney thinking “Let’s make Aladdin the movie the broadway show: The Movie! It can’t fail!”
LGBTVNX8L
This is how I know you’re a piece of shit
deleted by creator
Nice opinion, did The Quartering or some other chud came it up for you?
What if Mulan, but it’s about Chinese people
No singing and dancing in what was originally a musical. A very strange directional choice.
Which is what I meant by “there can’t be anything fun or amusing in it.”
People who are not fun are in charge of making them.
Sounds like the best definition of Disney so far.
Please don’t remind current-state Disney of this, unless you want to see yet another beloved franchise destroyed in an inconceivable way.
That seems to be Disney’s only achievable direction right now. Massacring all creativity out of everything they own for sake of…I can’t even tell anymore, but apparently it’s somehow not even money.
We’ll end up with a live action The Muppet Movie remake only starring humans.
That’s so meta I’d actually be interested to see how they pull it off…
Poorly, that’s a given, but beyond that.
cats style CGI fursuits, except now it’s kermit
We would get things like Treasure Island where Tim Curry’s part is played by a single Muppet. So yeah, not great.
In the wrong accent and cadence “high ho, Kermit The Frog here”
It’s not just Disney digging the graveyard to sell more rotting remains and wondering why they don’t go for top dollar; it’s the lot of them. FREAKY FRIDAY is coming out again.
What’s next? Non-racist Chitty Chitty bang-bang? Twin child actors again with yet another parent trap?
A24 presents 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕻𝖆𝖗𝖊𝖓𝖙 𝕿𝖗𝖆𝖕
This is basically the same strategy that put Lego back on top. And clearly that’s working brilliantly.
Aside: Lego was staring into void until they changed leadership and pivoted to this “license everything” strategy. Why? The patent on their bricks was about to expire. Rather than run on brand recognition alone, they embraced something else that nobody else could get. Disney should take note here: any other studio could start cranking out irreverent send-ups of classic fairy tales, but they won’t have Muppets.
But aren’t the brick composition and manufacturing process trade secrets?
Sure, but it can’t be that hard to reverse engineee plastic bricks. I mean build a mold to size, try a few plastics, and you’re done
The quality control is also huge. They have competitors with compatible pieces, but Lego’s bricks are just better.
There used to be a Lego plant a couple towns over when I was a kid, employed a lot of people before it closed. It was always funny talking to kids that’s parents worked there because they acted like they were in the CIA. I guess they all had to sign NDAs, so they were extremely tight lipped about their jobs.
Anyway, I am pretty sure Lego is the only company that has actually achieved 6 sigma… probably before it ever even became a thing.
Hugh Jackman as “hideous non-Muppet Beast”, plus he gets to sing and dance. I know he’d jump at the opportunity.
Quick. Call his agent!
They don’t even have to be high budget either I’d watch the lowest budget muppet remake over the highest budget live action remake anyday
They are too chicken shit to put out a new story, 90% of the time anyhow
They want the safe bets.
I don’t get why people love Muppets so much. I pretty much grew up without it, and I think one time my mom let us take a Muppet movie home from the library when I was a kid, and it was… Alright. I guess.
Anyone care to explain what they like about about them?
It’s the craft.
Multiple actors who have played against Sesame Street characters like Elmo have said that they forget there is a human hidden under the puppet - they’re that good.
Hmm… If it weren’t for those sticks controlling their hands, I might have been convinced too lol.
One probably tunes it out after a while. And professional actors are probably much better than average at convincing their brains that a fictional situation is real.
As an adult who grew up on sesame street and the muppets, it’s just the unabashed wholesomeness that I love. They were preaching inclusivity when I was growing up in a time/place that tried to force conformity. They weren’t cool, they were themselves, and that’s never a bad message for kids (or adults).
The newer movie (The Muppets 2011), co-written by Jason Segal, who also grew up with The Muppets, captures that vibe perfectly IMHO.
Jason Segal is awesome
I will look for and watch that movie to see what you’re talking about!
The show is the best of the muppets, not the movies. Some of them are decent, but judging the show by the movies is like trying to understand SNL by watching Blues Brothers and Night at the Roxbury.
I’m sorry but Night at the Roxbury is better than SNL.
Hot take
Mahna Mahna!
Micheal Cane was awesome in the Muppet movie he starred in because he treated his fellow muppets like people.
Tim Curry was awesome in the Muppet movie he starred in because he treated himself like a fellow Muppet.
Said it before I’ll say it again, full original trilogy star wars with Muppets, all human characters are Muppets, all muppet aliens are humans (Jaba, Yoda, etc). It would print money
Have him played by a Hemsworth lol
Or Cavill
I’ve seen articles genuinely arguing that “him being such s gamer and obsessed nerd makes him unattractive”, they hated that he sided with the fans on Witcher.
That has to be either satire or a character assassination on behalf of Netflix. Right? Right?
Sadly…no, it may be true
I can’t say about Europe, but Asia doesn’t have the cultural pull for the muppets. I suspect China’s indifference to the Muppets makes it less lucrative.
They must learn to love them.
i bet China would love a wuxia muppet film
It would be fabulous!
They did own Winnie the Pooh until 2 years ago. What a missed opportunity in China.
except a muppet movie would be effectively free to produce in comparison to the live action movies, the muppets christmas carol had a budget of 12 million dollars, the live action lion king had a budget of 250 million (jesus christ).
So Beast is Grover?
No, Beast is someone like Brad Pitt without hideous make up. Just normal Brad Pitt and then when the curse is broken he turns into Grover.
Brad Pitt is too old now, and not large enough. Henry Cavill.
Alas, Brad is too old (cry for my own younger days).
Nah, gotta be Animal.
Yes
