Hey, my Animation Peeps! Been a minute, yeah?
But I had to unpack this with y'all, 'cause I know you can elaborate for me.
WHY do you think studios are remaking classics as live action? What are studios saving by doing live action? What are they missing by NOT doing animation?
Today's article about the voice of the original Ariel from The Little Mermaid (1989) supporting the new Ariel from The Little Mermaid (2023) is more about diversity than it is about art, and yet - does live action lend itself to reaching the intended audience?
I guess the big question that comes up, then is: in what ways is animation NOT universal? #DISCUSS
https://deadline.com/2023/05/jodi-benson-supports-updates-the-little-mer...
1 person likes this
Check the box office returns for all of the Disney live-action reboots, and you will have your answer.
1 person likes this
Hey, Karen "Kay" Ross Built-in audience. Studios have Abba's "Money, Money, Money," on repeat.
1 person likes this
I agree with Bob— They’ll stop making them when audiences stop buying tickets. I suppose if you were to equate it to music, people love to check out cover songs done by new artists. Whether they become new classics remains to be seen.
I'm a little late to this conversation but I agree with all of the above. They already own the IP, they have to do minimal rewrites to the script. It's like they're printing their own money. Now DreamWorks/Universal is also getting into the act with a Live Action How to Train Your Dragon, so....