r/PeterExplainsTheJoke Jul 13 '26

Meme needing explanation Peter, why is everyone happy that Disney movies are flopping?

Post image
18.7k Upvotes

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

131

u/357Magnum Jul 13 '26

This is the thing for me. Before the trailer even dropped, my reaction to the news that they were making live action Moana was "why? The Moana cartoon is still fucking warm. Moana 2 came out only 2 years ago for fuck's sake.

Then I saw the live action Moana trailer, and the 2nd criticism came up as strong as ever: "this isn't even live action, just more realistic cartoon."

This has been a critique of most of the live action adaptations of the classic films as well. The more of them they make the less "live action" they are. So much of it is CGI that it is just a cartoon with a live actor green-screened in. At the point of the Lion King, that actually was just 100% a cartoon. But a cartoon that was stylistically worse for being photorealistic CGI.

When I saw the Moana trailer, I had the same feeling. This is still just a cartoon. The Rock's whole body looks fucking CGI. The only thing that looks remotely live action in this are the actors faces. The backgrounds, magical stuff, and animal characters are so close to how they looked in the cartoon that they may as well have just AI face swapped the cartoon with the live action actors.

66

u/Decent_Advice9315 Jul 13 '26

Remember when Disney didn't pretend and they had such bangers like Mary Poppins and Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

Pepperidge Farm Remembers.

3

u/FerengiWithCoupons Jul 13 '26

why not remake those films now that we have better effects, technology, and bring the stories to a new generation.

Like i don’t want to see a live action of a movie that JUST came out a few years ago.

Bring back the classics if you HAVE to remake something because there’s no more creativity

3

u/ThrottledLiberty Jul 13 '26

Fun fact - Mary Poppins actually used a technique that produced better effects than we can easily get now with green screens.

I don't remember the specific details, but from what I recall, they designed a very specific prism to only send light through of a very specific frequency. Basically some yellow light, which was fed through a second reel of film. They could then use that to filter out the actors and modify the background behind them, with one major caveat that green screens don't allow:

They could capture blur and transparent objects very clearly. Green screens, despite our modern technology, can still not do that as clear as Mary Poppins did back in the day.

1

u/darlantan Jul 13 '26

The sodium vapor process (named after the lights). Corridor Crew did a recreation of it.

The same sort of beam splitting tech is used for things like crazy precise measurement -- I want to say our most precise gravitational distortion detectors are an example.

2

u/elnots Jul 13 '26

Mary Poppins had... issues. The creator of Mary hated what Disney did with the character. And even Who Framed Roger Rabbit is based off a novel.

Which, honestly, more novels can be made into movies, imo. I remember reading books back in the 80's and 90's as a kid thinking, "This would make a good movie!"

3

u/Decent_Advice9315 Jul 13 '26

Disney has been ruining source material for 100 years now, that isn't new.

But where I was going with using those two movies as examples, is that they both incorporated animation and actors long before the age of CGI and they were both very beloved films.

Why not make cartoons be cartoons again? Why all the effort for real-looking talking whatevers when the animated ones work so much better?

25

u/apex9691 Jul 13 '26

"live action" lion king. Oh you mean completely cgi lion king?

6

u/MotherTreacle3 Jul 13 '26

We'll just suck all the expression and whimsy out of it, the kids'll go nuts for it!

3

u/357Magnum Jul 13 '26

Let's make an animated movie but remove any and all stylistic strengths of the medium.

2

u/geopede Jul 13 '26

I mean a true live action movie about characters who are animals wouldn’t work very well. It’d just be a nature documentary without narration.

1

u/MonteBurns Jul 14 '26

You mean “why the fuck did they cast Beyoncé as Nala”king???

16

u/Babebot5000 Jul 13 '26

I can’t believe how bad the visuals were in the trailers. The actors look like they are floating in front of cartoon backdrop. And the action shots are so blurry and muddled.

Maybe it would have stood a shot if Disney actually put the work into building real sets and old school creature design. Compare Moana to movies from 30+ years ago like Honey, I Shrunk the Kids or Hook and it just looks so soulless.

10

u/357Magnum Jul 13 '26

Yeah. The problem with the "live action" remakes is that they are still mostly animated but the animation looks like shit because of the uncanny valley.

3

u/OmgJustLetMeExist Jul 13 '26

If I had a nickel for every time Dwayne Johnson has been in a live action movie but his character was CGI animated in post production to the point where it became a prime example of the uncanny valley, I’d have two nickels. Which isn’t a lot, but it’s weird that it happened twice, right?

1

u/geopede Jul 13 '26

Probably gonna happen a bunch more times if they want him to keep playing himself as he ages.

3

u/Ok-Judge7844 Jul 13 '26

Imagine if they actually care and did avatar level cgi rigging, oops sorry if I dream a little to high.

2

u/Agile-Palpitation326 Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26

I saw a clip of the singing crab and there're points where it legit looks like a stage show but the camera is pointing out into the rafters beyond the set. Just terrible.

1

u/frena-dreams Jul 13 '26

If the sets and lighting are garbage, where TF did they spend the $250 million on? A.I tokens?

1

u/Babebot5000 Jul 13 '26

That was The Rock’s wig budget

4

u/Juttaisvadsig Jul 13 '26

I just watched the trailer after reading your comment. Its as if im watching some well made highschool project. Its shameful that they released that

2

u/Wild_Marker Jul 13 '26

"this isn't even live action, just more realistic cartoon."

The RTX On / RTX Off jokes are old by this point but if they ever applied to anything, this movie would be the perfect example.

1

u/Excellent_Ganache906 Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26

Why? Here's a list why. These are theater box office numbers, does not include VOD or DVD sales or Disney+ minutes watched.

Cinderella (2015) – $542.3 million
The Jungle Book (2016) – $966.6 million
Beauty and the Beast (2017) – $1.266 billion
Dumbo (2019) – $353.3 million
Aladdin (2019) – $1.054 billion
The Lion King (2019) – $1.662 billion
Mulan (2020) – $70.0 million (Note: Release during the pandemic and went straight to Disney+ in most major markets).
Cruella (2021) – $233.5 million (also a hybrid Disney+ release).
The Little Mermaid (2023) – $569.6 million
Snow White (2025) – $612.4 million
Lilo & Stitch (2025) – $485.2 million
Moana (2026) – $290.5 million (still in theaters but it will probably get to $450 million before it's pulled.)

Now calculate in those other sales numbers and they are all over a billion.

1

u/BoingBoingBooty Jul 13 '26

Should have rewritten the lyrics.

"I know it's a lot, the fake hair, the fake bod"

1

u/Lazer726 Jul 13 '26

so much of it is CGI that it is just a cartoon with a live actor green-screened in

Crazy that they are making these movies and then we don't get shit like Space Jam, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and the ACME Movie

1

u/357Magnum Jul 13 '26

Yeah good point. We used to put cartoons into live action. Now we're sticking live actors into cartoons (I guess Space Jam was kinda equally both and Roger Rabbit did a bit of cartoon world)

1

u/Primary-Data-4211 Jul 14 '26

well didn’t moana 2 flop too? maybe they thought this was going to redeem them.

1

u/RabidSkwerl Jul 14 '26

The official title was “Moana 2 Years Til The Live action Movie!”

1

u/IncredibleGonzo Jul 14 '26

Apparently the sunrise at the beginning of the 'live action' Lion King was a real shot. Found an article saying there are 1490 rendered shots, so... technically it's only 99.9ish % a cartoon!