(09-28-2016, 10:17 AM)retr0pia75 Wrote: Welp, Disney is doing the unthinkable:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vi...ce=twitter

How ? How are they going to do this ?
Get a real lion to act with a warthog and lemur, singing Hakuna-Matata in tune ?

"The new take won’t be live-action per se but will definitely look it." what terribly written article. So it's not live action.

(09-28-2016, 10:17 AM)retr0pia75 Wrote: Welp, Disney is doing the unthinkable:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vi...ce=twitter

I never even liked The Lion King, but this just feels wrong on so many levels. I don't think ANYONE was asking for this. Osmazu Tezuka will be spinning in his grave again for Disney ripping him off again and getting away with it.

(09-28-2016, 01:18 PM)SERIOUSLY THOUGH Wrote:

(09-28-2016, 10:17 AM)retr0pia75 Wrote: Welp, Disney is doing the unthinkable:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vi...ce=twitter

How ? How are they going to do this ?
Get a real lion to act with a warthog and lemur, singing Hakuna-Matata in tune ?

"The new take won’t be live-action per se but will definitely look it." what terribly written article. So it's not live action.

This is beyond stupid. I have an idea! How about you take one of the films that would be beyond amazing as a live action film like Treasure Planet or Atlantis?

Honestly, this is pretty much Disney saying "We're seriously out of ideas so we're throwing new coats of paint over our old stuff."

This is only slightly less pointless than when they were re-releasing their 2D animated films in theaters in 3D but stopped when no one was coming to see them.

I remember Disney had a book called 'The Disney that never was' that shared many concepts for feature films and short films that never got off of the drawing board. Some of the ideas on there(like the animated film about gremlins from Rahl Dahl) would be much better for animated films than remaking an animated film that NOBODY asked for a remake.

(09-28-2016, 03:22 PM)CLXcool Wrote: I remember Disney had a book called 'The Disney that never was' that shared many concepts for feature films and short films that never got off of the drawing board. Some of the ideas on there(like the animated film about gremlins from Rahl Dahl) would be much better for animated films than remaking an animated film that NOBODY asked for a remake.

I'll try and remember to hunt for concept sketches once I'm done with work, but in development before 3D took over was a 2D animated film starring a massive amount of Disney females all together. No idea what the plot was but just the sketches alone of them all interacting together made me wish it would have been made so badly.

I'd just prefer it if Disney knocked it off with the remakes and reboots altogether. Even though I liked The Jungle Book, I felt as if that was the only time they truly got it right. I haven't seen the Cinderella remake, but from what I've heard of it, I'm not very interested in it. But if they really want to do remakes of their animated films THAT badly, I wouldn't really mind all that much if they just focused on their weaker ones like what they did with The Jungle Book.

---

(09-28-2016, 03:25 PM)Hexadecimal Wrote:

(09-28-2016, 03:22 PM)CLXcool Wrote: I remember Disney had a book called 'The Disney that never was' that shared many concepts for feature films and short films that never got off of the drawing board. Some of the ideas on there(like the animated film about gremlins from Rahl Dahl) would be much better for animated films than remaking an animated film that NOBODY asked for a remake.

I'll try and remember to hunt for concept sketches once I'm done with work, but in development before 3D took over was a 2D animated film starring a massive amount of Disney females all together. No idea what the plot was but just the sketches alone of them all interacting together made me wish it would have been made so badly.

That Disney female project that you mentioned was actually meant to be a short film. I do agree with you that it should have been made, though.
http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Princess_Academy

(09-28-2016, 01:18 PM)SERIOUSLY THOUGH Wrote:

(09-28-2016, 10:17 AM)retr0pia75 Wrote: Welp, Disney is doing the unthinkable:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vi...ce=twitter

How ? How are they going to do this ?
Get a real lion to act with a warthog and lemur, singing Hakuna-Matata in tune ?

"The new take won’t be live-action per se but will definitely look it." what terribly written article. So it's not live action.

It'll be live-action in the sense of the Jungle Book remake from this summer. They even got the same Director to oversee this project.

I don't have much love for The Lion King the same way I have love for Dumbo or Bambi, though I can see why people would be pissed. Yet, this "Disney running out of ideas" is very BS. Especially when Wreck-It Ralph, Big Hero Six, Frozen, and the upcoming Moana proves the contrary. It just a Hollywood cliche to have remakes to take advantage of the potentially sweet toy sales.

Even though its called 'Princess Academy' some of the characters that are in the concept art are NOT princesses. Surprisingly enough Jessica Rabbit would've been one of the non princess characters to appear. Her silhouette is shown in this piece.

(09-28-2016, 03:41 PM)CLXcool Wrote: Even though its called 'Princess Academy' some of the characters that are in the concept art are NOT princesses. Surprisingly enough Jessica Rabbit would've been one of the non princess characters to appear. Her silhouette is shown in this piece.

I kind of wonder if they were going to go either full CGI or full 2D or just go a route similar to Gumball and feature both styles, given that Pixar characters were going to be featured as well.

(09-28-2016, 03:27 PM)retr0pia75 Wrote: I'd just prefer it if Disney knocked it off with the remakes and reboots altogether. Even though I liked The Jungle Book, I felt as if that was the only time they truly got it right. I haven't seen the Cinderella remake, but from what I've heard of it, I'm not very interested in it. But if they really want to do remakes of their animated films THAT badly, I wouldn't really mind all that much if they just focused on their weaker ones like what they did with The Jungle Book.

---

(09-28-2016, 03:25 PM)Hexadecimal Wrote:

(09-28-2016, 03:22 PM)CLXcool Wrote: I remember Disney had a book called 'The Disney that never was' that shared many concepts for feature films and short films that never got off of the drawing board. Some of the ideas on there(like the animated film about gremlins from Rahl Dahl) would be much better for animated films than remaking an animated film that NOBODY asked for a remake.

I'll try and remember to hunt for concept sketches once I'm done with work, but in development before 3D took over was a 2D animated film starring a massive amount of Disney females all together. No idea what the plot was but just the sketches alone of them all interacting together made me wish it would have been made so badly.

That Disney female project that you mentioned was actually meant to be a short film. I do agree with you that it should have been made, though.
http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Princess_Academy

Cinderella was very, very boring. You don't have to waste your time.

Ah, that was it! Thank you! It's been awhile so I couldn't remember the details of the project.

(09-28-2016, 04:04 PM)retr0pia75 Wrote:

(09-28-2016, 03:41 PM)CLXcool Wrote: Even though its called 'Princess Academy' some of the characters that are in the concept art are NOT princesses. Surprisingly enough Jessica Rabbit would've been one of the non princess characters to appear. Her silhouette is shown in this piece.

I kind of wonder if they were going to go either full CGI or full 2D or just go a route similar to Gumball and feature both styles, given that Pixar characters were going to be featured as well.

My guess is as good as yours. Chances are they would've gone for the Gumball route and work in both styles. According to the Disney wiki, this only got scrapped because Princess and the frog didn't meet Disney's expectations money wise.

So today I watched The Stanford Prison Experiment, which is based on arguably the most controversial psychological experiments ever done (back in 1979, twenty-four male students out of seventy-five were selected to take on randomly assigned roles of prisoners and guards in a mock prison situated in the basement of the Stanford psychology building), which generated a lot of attention in the media in that time. 

The movies goes straight to the point fast. The mental torturing of the prisoners serves a purpose and isn't just for shock value. The film touches upon subjects like morality, motivation, behavior and boundaries. The transition from different perspectives on this experiment is done really well by director Kyle Patrick Alvarez. One particular reason about why the film is hard to watch for many people is because of the solid acting of the whole cast. The young actors portray their characters in such a convincing way, that it feels real.

Overall, I highly recomend this movie. But only to the ones with a strong stomach.

Cabin in the Woods was on TV. I get why it was given 2 stars now.

It's a real bummer because I like the idea behind it a lot; the execution was just not great. I was eager to watch it since I liked Cube Zero so much but this fell flat on the victim side while being fairly entertaining on the observer side. I can't really come up with an example of how the film could have been improved. It's one of those things where you know a film is missing something but can't exactly put your finger on what.

(10-05-2016, 12:10 AM)Hexadecimal Wrote: Cabin in the Woods was on TV. I get why it was given 2 stars now.

It's a real bummer because I like the idea behind it a lot; the execution was just not great. I was eager to watch it since I liked Cube Zero so much but this fell flat on the victim side while being fairly entertaining on the observer side. I can't really come up with an example of how the film could have been improved. It's one of those things where you know a film is missing something but can't exactly put your finger on what.

I thoroughly enjoyed Cabin in the Woods, and although usually I despise this defense with a burning passion, the shitty victim characters were sorta the point, especially when they get into how the observers were screwing with their brain chemistry and hormones the entire time. It's not a perfect movie or anything, the CG especially is god awful in a few places, but it definitely felt like a well crafted love/hate letter to horror films.

(10-05-2016, 09:37 AM)Arjahn Wrote:

(10-05-2016, 12:10 AM)Hexadecimal Wrote: Cabin in the Woods was on TV. I get why it was given 2 stars now.

It's a real bummer because I like the idea behind it a lot; the execution was just not great. I was eager to watch it since I liked Cube Zero so much but this fell flat on the victim side while being fairly entertaining on the observer side. I can't really come up with an example of how the film could have been improved. It's one of those things where you know a film is missing something but can't exactly put your finger on what.

I thoroughly enjoyed Cabin in the Woods, and although usually I despise this defense with a burning passion, the shitty victim characters were sorta the point, especially when they get into how the observers were screwing with their brain chemistry and hormones the entire time. It's not a perfect movie or anything, the CG especially is god awful in a few places, but it definitely felt like a well crafted love/hate letter to horror films.

Oh, I don't disagree with that. I think that what kind of ruined it for me is that the film was so unique in a lot of areas and then when it came to the victims being terrorized/killed I wish it had been a bit more creative instead of the monsters just being bland zombie/hillbillies that used sharp instruments to attack.

Every scene in the lab I enjoyed. I guess with all the monsters at their disposal I didn't expect all the cabin stuff to happen so fast and in such typical ways. 

I hope that makes more sense.