How To Train Your Dragon (live-action remake)

speedboatchase

Just… why?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lzoxHSn0C0&ab_channel=UniversalPictures

FortuneChip

Weird, especially with Toothless looking exactly the same.

Lacks the colour of the animation, obviously, and yeah some of the charming visuals are missing.

Bizarre stuff really.

~Rebel~

So totally unnecessary. Like, I can somewhat understand some of the Disney live action remakes of classics that are decades old, as there's at least a reasonable chance they find a new audience - but the How To Train Your Dragon series only finished in 2019… is anyone at all going to see this movie that hasn't already seen this exact story play out beat for beat already quite recently? Doing a live-action follow on movie would've made more sense perhaps…

2smiggy

absolutely loved the original. Like mentioned, it was not made that long ago. Don't see any point to this (other than $$$)

Full_Circle_81

Universal obviously can't ignore the frankly insane amounts of money all the Disney live action remakes are generating and wanted to do the same. In that respect, I can't blame them. But for someone who's a fan of animated movies in general, the whole live action remake scene feels so pointless and soulless.

Electric Nitwit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122860298#Comment_122860298

Exactly. It feels they're saying animation is an inferior art form, which is absolutely isn't

TheIrishGrover

Honestly, I can't see the point. I have no problem with remakes/reimaginings . But they need to bring something NEW.

Admittedly, this teaser is intentionally designed to hark back to key points in the original movie that people know and love so it may diverge but so far this did NOTHING for me. The framing and design looks identical to the original. The briefest sound of the characters even sounded like the originals.

Why? Did we need a "live action" Lion King? No but we got it. Sis we need a "Live action" version of Aladdin? No but we got it.

What's next? A reversal of "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" where the animated characters are "Live action ("ugly Sonic" CGI)" and the human characters are 2D animated?

Having said that, I think Matt Stone and Trey Parker originally wanted to make Armageddon scene-for-scene with puppets before moving to "Team America". THAT I would have loved.

2smiggy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122864827#Comment_122864827

would have loved Armageddon with puppets. Pity they won't ever work with puppets again, think they said it was extremely difficult !!

johnny_ultimate

Other than the obvious financial incentive, the push for "live action" remakes (and interest in them from audiences, despite the deserved critical maulings) implies at some level, whether intentionally or otherwise, that there's something 'inferior' about animation - that putting these stories in the real world somehow improves them or at least makes revisiting them worthwhile. But in most cases the opposite is true - animation allows filmmakers to tell stories with a level of fluency that is simply not possible in live action filmmaking. It allows stylistic flourishes that would otherwise be impossible, more naturalistic fantasy elements, and most importantly visual design that simply cannot be replicated with real actors and settings.

I just simply cannot see the appeal of CG lions walking around a realistic savannah singing 'I Just Can't Wait To Be King' when the animated version turns into a kaleidoscopic, vibrant fantasyscape during the very same sequence.

And it's no different here, despite the involvement of the original co-director Dean DeBlois (Chris Sanders, wisely, made the very solid The Wild Robot instead). Even in having the dragon basically be a carbon copy of the animated version, it's striking how unnatural it looks when put next to a real human actor, as opposed to having a stylised cartoon human. And the copious use of dodgy CGI just shows how much more effective it is when you have the more harmonious visual design allowed for in animation.

SteM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122865662#Comment_122865662

It's not out until June so I'm hoping the dodgy CGI will be cleaned up by then at least. Agree with everything else though.

TheIrishGrover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122865662#Comment_122865662

Indeed. Animation is STILL seen by the vast majority of people as being "for kids" or "Those nerds who like all that Japanese stuff and you know what that's like".

And yet, as a medium, it can punch harder than live action because it can do what it wants and has no INTENTION of being "realistic".

Look at the first few mins of Across The Spider-Verse. COULD you do that with "photorealistic" CGI? Sure. Would it have the same impact (especially at the start. The repeated "He's not the only one")? Not likely.

Look at the "simplistic" nature of Song of The Sea. Again, sure, you could have a young Saoirse Ronan years ago and, oh, I don't know, Chris O'Dowd. (I'm just using names, just as an example). Would it have left a lump in your throat like the film did? Not a chance.

Graveyard of The Fireflies has been done at least once in Live Action…. And STILL, the animation is one of the most heartbreaking and difficult watches.

Don't even think about "Live Actioning" it…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek40XtVsO7g

Glaceon

Hollywood is out of ideas and just remaking stuff to cash in on existing franchises, that's all I can think of.

CastorTroy

Just wait for the Netflix live action version of Klaus.

Was looking to see what other characters looks like and apparently this is Astrid and Snotlout

Brief_Lives

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122867424#Comment_122867424

Here are the voice actors on the left and the live action actors on the right.