Yes.
10 Likes
Perhaps this problem is rooted in copyright.
Everyone can make a Robin Hood film. If someone makes a bad Robin Hood film, another producer (theoretically) can do it justice. If someone makes a horrible Fantastic 4 film, Sony can say-- no, we’re not interested in someone else doing it properly. Piss off.
8 Likes
6 Likes
Fox. Well, Disney, now. /pedant
Again, while that can account for some of it, the fact that Sherlock Holmes is public domain didn’t stop Steven Moffat from being a dick to his fans. But I suppose that you do have a point, in that there are a bunch of other Holmes films/shows out in just the past few years, to suit every taste (Cumberbatch, Miller, Downey, McKellen, Piquer, Syder… *shudder* Ferrell…)
7 Likes
OK, I’m in!
5 Likes
I’m going to go on a bit of a tirade about Disney adaptations of existing musicals, focusing mainly on Into The Woods, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin.
Starting with Into the Woods: I really don’t blame them for wanting to cut a few songs out of the show. It’s a two-and-a-half-hour show (plus intermission), and people aren’t going to want to stay that long in a movie theatre (unless it’s a blockbuster action flick). So, my problem isn’t that they cut songs (as much as I love the “Agony” reprise, it’d be unnecessary even if they hadn’t changed the ending of Rapunzel’s story to the point that the song no longer makes sense), it’s how they did it.
In the stage musical, there is an absolutely heartbreaking song near the end of the show, entitled “No More.” It’s a duet between the Baker and the ghost of his father, where the Baker, having just lost his wife and feeling completely unprepared for raising their infant son, contemplates running away. His father first cryptically points out, and then helps the son figure out, that that’s exactly what he did, and the Baker has never forgiven him for it. The song reconciles the Baker with both his father and his son. It’s a huge thematic moment, and, by far, one of my favorite parts of the show.
I was incredibly disappointed that they cut “No More,” but its absence isn’t what offended me. What smarts, as a fan, is that behind the dialogue for the corresponding moment of doubt in the movie, they play the melody for “No More” in the background. They draw attention to the fact that this beloved song should be playing in this moment, in such a way that only the fans of the original will notice, and that, nope, it’s not happening.
In the cases of Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin, it’s been decades since the original animated films came out, and each of these films has had a huge, successful, adaptation on Broadway. To extend the length and to fill the gaps, they’ve added more songs, like “Proud of Your Boy,” a song originally cut from the animated Aladdin which forms the emotional centerpiece of the Broadway show, and the song “Home” written for the musical of Beauty and the Beast.
And, when the time came for these to be adapted back to the screen, instead of taking these songs that were sitting, waiting to be incorporated back into the new films, they decided they had to go for the “Best Original Song” Oscar, and added new songs in their stead.
Now, don’t get me wrong: some of the new songs are great. “Evermore” is a powerful, moving song (and is perfectly suited to my vocal range). But, again, they’re popping in songs in replacement of songs that don’t need replacing. “Days In the Sun” is an inferior replacement to “Home,” and, by the way, if you are familiar with that song, they’re kind enough to draw attention to what you’re missing by playing the melody as a theme when Belle arrives at the castle.
Which brings me to Aladdin, which, to be fair, I haven’t yet seen. Once again, they have a whole, acclaimed, lovely Broadway score to pick from… and they throw it all of the stuff that wasn’t in the original out and compose some new award-bait songs. And it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if, to add insult to injury, I went in there and heard the music of “Proud of Your Boy” playing to remind me of just what they’ve chosen to omit from their live-action adaptation.
I mean, seriously, Disney. I get that you’re going to omit some beloved songs just out of necessity, but do you have to rub my nose in it?
7 Likes
There used to be the occasional block-buster that was longer than two hours. Does that even happen nowadays? Some of them even had an intermission. “It’s A Mad Mad Mad Mad World” had dialog of police calls during the intermission.
3 Likes
There was talk of an intermission during Endgame, but it never happened.
They could have done one in The Producers (and, in fact, had to cut out a joke in the recap song “Betrayed” because they didn’t).
Who knows: maybe Cameron will do one in one of the fifty-eight Avatar sequels he’s planned.
5 Likes
When the first sequel bombs because nobody remembers or cares about the original film anymore, will Disney hire somebody else to reboot it?
Maybe they should hire somebody else to reboot it NOW, and have both versions in production AT THE SAME TIME 
5 Likes
For extra fun
5 Likes
Seriously, what is the point of making any more Avatar at all?
The whole premise is doing the white savior story without putting actual people of color on the screen.
The CG was sort of impressive for that moment, but the industry has moved on.
If they released the first one now, would it get ripped apart on social media and die a well deserved death? Or is Jim Cameron such a master of figuring out what the early-teen market wants that everybody else’s opinions are irrelevant?
8 Likes
Dances with Smurfs.
8 Likes
Lawrence of Arabia of Pandora?
4 Likes
Avengers Endgame: 3h 1m
Star Wars the Force Awakens: 2h 16m
Star Wars The Last Jedi: 2h 32m
Return of the King: 3h21m
Dark Knight Rises: 2h44m
Titanic 3h14m
Avatar 2h42m
I haven’t seen some of those, but those that I did felt long.
Aviator (not a blockbuster) was 2h 50m and flew by.
Plan Nine from Outer Space was 1h19 and felt like it dragged.
(but, yes, It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad World was 3h 25m, longer than all of them, including RotK.)
7 Likes
3 Likes
If they know anything about brains, then why did they design such an inaccessible migraine-inducing pain-site?
1 Like
Clearly, they’re out to get you. The Nazis are a just a smokescreen to distract the media from their true intentions.
4 Likes
I can’t be the only one to get sick from such a pain-site.
P.S. This studies parallax scrolling, rather than static backgrounds. But poth break scrolling in similar ways.
http://uxpajournal.org/the-effects-of-parallax-scrolling-on-user-experience-in-web-design/
Apparently most people found the pain exciting, while 2 out of 43 got sick. Of course they decide the solution is to exclude people who might get sick from usability testing…
1 Like
Just because you’re anuerotypical, it doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.
Note, in case it’s not obvious, that my tongue is planted firmly in cheek, here. 
5 Likes
Assholes. People have given them the algorithm for years. 5 minutes and then the content is locked.
3 Likes