Topic: What grinds my gears!

[Blondbraid]

It grinds my gears that Disney is churning out pointless live action remakes of their animated movies. Not only has all their remakes looked ugly, visually cluttered and even terrifying, because cute and pretty things in a simplistic cartoon-style doesn't automatically translate into cute and pretty in live action, but their single reason for existing is because they want to cash in on the nostalgia of people who loved the original movies but are too cowardly to admit that they love cartoons, so they need a suitable live-action substitute instead. It's the ridiculous mindset that live action movies with CGI are inherently more serious and grown up than animated movies on full display, despite all you'd need to see how insane that claim is to compare this movie clip to this clip.

[TheFrighter]

I don't think that Disney-thing is aiming to nostalgic, more to who don't like to watch an 20 years old cartoon. There are people that if a black and white movie runs on tv think it's broken!

_

[Blondbraid]

I don't think that Disney-thing is aiming to nostalgic, more to who don't like to watch an 20 years old cartoon. There are people that if a black and white movie runs on tv think it's broken!

Well, then it's their fault for missing out on some truly great films just because they are in a different format than what they're used to.
But the classic 2D cartoons still looks as beautiful as they were decades ago while 90% of all CGI effects in live action movies look dated five years later.
I get that not all people like animated movies, but can any sane person honestly say that this:

Looks better than this?

All the vibrant colors are drab in the remake and the beast looks like he's right in the uncanny valley,
while the original still looks like a storybook illustration brought to life.

[Mouth for war]

I really miss those good old days when everything was done by hand.

The recent thing that grinded my gears: Starving after being jusy all day. I ordered a pizza abd what do I see when I come home? Everything covered with bad quality ham and they took it out of the oven 5 minutes too early. Even putting it in the oven at home to at least make it look a little better couldn't save that abomination they dare to call pizza. I was so tired and hungry to that point that I was about to throw up and pass out so I had no strength to do anything about it just then. I don't undetstand how a craphole "restaurant" like that can survive. Who in their right mind would consider that edible? WHO i ask you, Who?!?

[Gurok]

If you're lamenting CG, the ballroom sequence of Beauty and the Beast (1991) is a strange choice. The backdrop is pretty famously CG:

https://www.cartoonbrew.com/feature-film/25-years-ago-cg-secrets-ballroom-sequence-beauty-beast-145174.html

[Stupot]

I never cared much for Disney anyway but I agree it's rather pointless to remake all their old back-catalogue in live action. I guess they don't have to pay any writers.

One Disney film I did like was Aladdin. I know they're remaking that, too. I'll definitely be interested to see how they do it but I won't be rushing out to watch it on the first night.

[Blondbraid]

If you're lamenting CG, the ballroom sequence of Beauty and the Beast (1991) is a strange choice. The backdrop is pretty famously CG:

https://www.cartoonbrew.com/feature-film/25-years-ago-cg-secrets-ballroom-sequence-beauty-beast-145174.html

That's true, but the CGI is well integrated with the 2D animation, and more importantly, it's a good example
of different animation techniques combined to create a mood and artistic expression, and it's stylized to look magical
and fit the fairy tale tone, compared to the drab colors and poor design choices in the remake meant to be "realistic".

I never cared much for Disney anyway but I agree it's rather pointless to remake all their old back-catalogue in live action. I guess they don't have to pay any writers.

One Disney film I did like was Aladdin. I know they're remaking that, too. I'll definitely be interested to see how they do it but I won't be rushing out to watch it on the first night.

I really didn't like the teaser I saw for the Aladdin remake, it looked like it had all the same problems as the other remakes. For example, compare this shot in the trailer:

To the corresponding scene in the animated movie:

The cinematography in the above shot is simply terrible, everything is a cluttered mess and all is drenched in the same blue color,
making it hard to tell what is even going on. It honestly took me several seconds just to see where Aladdin's arms were because it was so busy.
Meanwhile, in the animated version, the camera is deliberately angled away from all the treasures in the background when Aladdin picks up the lamp,
because the lamp is the focus of the scene, and likewise, the colors of Aladdin and the lamp is clearly contrasted against the simple blue background.

So it's not just that the remakes are creatively bankrupt, but they actively ruin all the great visuals and cinematography of the originals too.

[Mandle]

Interesting example Blondbraid. And just gave me a thought:

Perhaps one extra reason why they show the treasure trove in the background in the live action version is because it's an actual set they spent money on and want to show it off as much as possible to justify that. Whereas in the animated version it would have cost extra money to show it in the scene where it wasn't needed so, wisely, they did not.

[Slasher]

Although CG is a milestone ahead in graphical effects it tends to take away the who beauty of most old films...

Look at Dynomation for instance...

Take the original Sleeping Beauty...nothing can take away the fantastic colours and atmosphere of it all..

Leave well alone I say... It grinds my gears when they ruin such art...

[Blondbraid]

Interesting example Blondbraid. And just gave me a thought:

Perhaps one extra reason why they show the treasure trove in the background in the live action version is because it's an actual set they spent money on and want to show it off as much as possible to justify that. Whereas in the animated version it would have cost extra money to show it in the scene where it wasn't needed so, wisely, they did not.

But the problem is that most the backgrounds in the remake is CGI anyway, so it would still take time and money to animate, and there is no way to justify that terrible blue light that take away all depth and contrast from the image.

As for the original shot, it's still Disney. If they wanted more background detail, they could have afforded it. Making the background empty was a deliberate artistic choice.

[Mandle]

As for the original shot, it's still Disney. If they wanted more background detail, they could have afforded it. Making the background empty was a deliberate artistic choice.

I think you're right in this case. But actually the image of Disney being willing to shell out unlimited funds on every project is not always the case, especially when Aladdin came out.

Aladdin came out at a time when Disney was still struggling back from the verge of bankruptcy. They almost went under due to a lackluster string of films during the 70s and 80s. The Little Mermaid had been their first hit in ages and, while praying that Aladdin was going to continue that trend, they weren't going to risk it all on the project.

Much of the CGI used during the magic carpet escape from the Cave Of Wonders were placeholders (and it shows) but they had already run out of budget and were forced to leave them as is. Luckily the audience of the time was still wowed by CGI in animated films and didn't notice too much how truly shoddy it was.

For the same budget reasons the final scene had to be cut. Remember how the movie starts with the travelling peddler who is our narrator? And he is also voiced by Robin Williams? It always seemed odd to me that the narrator never returns at the film's end to bring us back out of the story.

Well, he was supposed to. And the scene would have revealed him to actually be the Genie who had disguised himself as a human to travel the world after being set free. This is also why the peddler has the now non-magic lamp in his possession.

But all the money was gone so they, sadly, had to cut this scene which I think would have made Aladdin even more of a masterpiece of animation than it already is.

[Stupot]

What Grinds My Gears (GMG) is when people use an expression and then put the acronym of that expression in brackets after it but then never refer to that thing again for the rest of the text.

[Gurok]

What Grinds My Gears (GMG) is when people use an expression and then put the acronym of that expression in brackets after it but then never refer to that thing again for the rest of the text.

I thought that was Gets My Goat!

[Click'd]

Green Man Gaming

[Blondbraid]

It's always bothered me when people overuse acronyms while taking it for granted that everybody knows what they mean.

[Mouth for war]

Ohh it really grinds my gears when people write should of/would of. I may have already vented my frustration about this earlier in the thread but when I read the above posts, it all came back to me. That's how bad it grinds my gears

[Privateer Puddin']

Ohh it really grinds my gears when people write should of/would of. I may have already vented my frustration about this earlier in the thread but when I read the above posts, it all came back to me. That's how bad it grinds my gears

You should of checked back earlier in the thread to see if you already posted about it.

[Mouth for war]

I really should of have done that

[ManicMatt]

They could of done that, have course.

[dactylopus]

It's always bothered me when people overuse acronyms while taking it for granted that everybody knows what they mean.

Oh my goodness, this is the worst!