#live action Disney

[dommnics]

Here's a design I did of what Gal Gadot's Evil Queen might look like, to go with my Snow White drawing. I had little to go off, just based on what people described from the D23 footage: dark makeup, dark lips, and a smaller crown, but pretty accurate to her original design. I just had fun with it!

🍎👑

--

Check out more of my work on other platforms!

https://www.instagram.com/dommnics

https://twitter.com/Dommnics

[capturingdisney]

[one-time-i-dreamt]

Cameron Monaghan played a live action Hans from Frozen.

[biromantic-barbie]

I don't know when, I don't know how, but I know something's starting right now. Watch and you'll see, someday I'll be, part of your world.

Commemorating one year since the theatrical release of Disney's The Little Mermaid (live action).

do not repost/remove my username.

[artist-issues]

It isn’t all the filmmaker’s fault that all we’re getting is second-rate remakes and sequels to franchises that should’ve been left alone a long time ago.

We don’t have a clear idea of why we like the things we like. So we don’t clearly communicate why we like the things we like. So it’s no wonder Hollywood keeps getting your favorite movies and their characters wrong. The fans don’t even know why they like what they like.

When Genie is set free in the original Aladdin, that moment was impactful, and you remembered it all through childhood. When Luke tosses the lightsaber away and says “I am a Jedi, like my father before me,” it was impactful, and you remembered it.

But did you stop and analyze why? What made those moments, and those stories, impactful?

Did you say, “Genie wished to be free for the whole movie, and he was always trying to tell Aladdin about how freedom only comes from trusting, and he was learning to trust Al himself, and Aladdin finally DID trust Jasmine to still want him even if he wasn’t rich, so he set Genie free in the most satisfying way!”

Did you say, “Luke spent all previous movies rushing into fights, and trying to control everything to save the ones he loves, but when he finally has his enemy at his mercy and is at the height of his power, he realizes that being a Jedi isn’t rushing and fighting and controlling; it’s having faith in the good and throwing your opportunity for control away.”

Did you think through and appreciate that stuff? The values? The point of the whole story, and how the characters act as pillars holding that point up? The good and the bad things that they embody?

No. Not out loud. Because we don’t think critically anymore. We just go “what’s this? Entertain me. Oooh, I felt something! Good! Next!”

The why behind what you like is the only value in liking anything.

But we don’t look objectively at the “why.” We don’t dwell on the “why.” If we dwell on anything, it’s to superimpose ourselves or whatever we like onto the characters.

You think Barbie was hyping feminism because you like feminism, and because you felt things during Barbie. You write fanfiction about Eddie Munson that has nothing to do with what Eddie Munson actually is as a character—because you like love stories, and you felt some compelling emotions when you saw Eddie Munson onscreen, so you’ve decided that those things should go together. You take something that made you feel emotions while you watched the canon material, then you don’t bother to process those emotions or what made the canon material compelling. You just slap whatever you already think you like onto something that made you feel, whether it had anything to do with what you like or not.

You eat the apple and benefit from it without knowing, at all, what nutrients are inside. Then when someone offers you crap and tells you it’s apple-flavored, you wonder why you’re not feeling the same way afterward.

Then you misdiagnose. You say “no, I don’t wonder why I’m not feeling the same—it’s because the CGI in live-action remakes suck!” Okay, great, so they’ll get better CGI. And it’ll still suck. Because that was never the problem, just like the reasons you liked the movie were never the reasons it actually impacted you in the first place.

Figure out. WHY. You like what you like. Figure out if it’s because the stories said what their creators objectively intended for them to say—or if you like the story in spite of that, not because of that.

Then open your mouth about it. It is worth it.

[sincerethoughtsblog]

Disney adults are a whole different breed because out of nowhere, when did y'all care about snow white. All of sudden, you have fancams and edits of Snow White, your now snow-white activists 🤨. Right.....plus Harrison Ford and robert pattinson actively hate Star Wars and Twilight yet never got bash for it.

[paddysnuffles]

The Little Mermaid 2023 Headcanon

In the new movie, mermaids have all different styles of tails, just like different fish do. In the same movie, Ariel's sisters are all of different races.

What if, rather than some of them being adopted or Triton fathering kids with multiple women, the human appearance of a mermaid just varies like their tails do?

That is, unlike human appearance, which is determined by what your parents and ancestors looked like, mermaid appearance is less set in stone. What a merbaby looks like is entirely arbitrary in comparison to human babies.

Mermaids are magical creatures, after all; it makes sense that their genes wouldn't work the same way as a non-magical creature's would.

[jenniferdarjeeling]

Hear me out:

[lobinilo]

I genuinely - GENUINELY - do not understand people who say their "childhood got ruined" because of a Disney Live Action remake.

Like... the OG movie is still there? Disney didn't erase the animated version and replaced it with the remake. You can choose not to watch the remake if you don't enjoy it. Noone is forcing you to look at it.

And honestly, how thin and weak are your childhood memories if they can be "destroyed" just because... a characters hair is not red enough? *side eye*

[arielbonestrike]

Thinking about Halle's heavenly mermaid voice of dreams...

Part of your World (reprise II) still breaks my tiny heart.

[disneydarlin]

Halloweentown: Dimension —Aesthetic

Halloweenton Dimension

Halloweentown, formerly known as Camelot, is another dimension. Numerous, various humanoid creatures from an alternate timeline reside there. It used to be a small village under a monarchy but eventually became a democracy. The main town is comprised of a town hall building with a surrounding pumpkin patch at the center of which is a large, slightly weathered jack-o'-lantern. Numerous other buildings, market stands, and shops surround the town hall as well. The specific size is unknown, but there seem to be several districts with their own names.

[dommnics]

Just a little in between work sketch of Rachel Zegler's Snow White. This particular shot from the trailer has been making the rounds online, for the way the styling around Rachel has been disappointing some people. I'm finding I haven't been too fussed about the aesthetic they've been going for, but I can definitely see where improvements could have been made. Overall, I'm liking what I've been seeing, and I'm really interested in how they've interpreted the fairy tale this time around.

But just for fun, had I been the one to approach the way her hair was styled in the movie, I would have been really tempted to lean into a tangled mess of princess hair - curls and braids and laces. When I think "Snow White", Trina Schart Hyman's illustrations aren't far away in my mind and I think that really influences how I see her in my head. But I do feel that the short hair is an absolute staple for the Disney version, and I know they would want to capitalize on that look.

[capturingdisney]

[eternal-goddess-of-war]

Here's a few more Maleficent and Diaval ones.

[princess-ibri]

What do you think of the Maleficent movie?

Ok so, tbh, I don't really like it.

I like Angelina Jolie as Maleficent and I even like the whole reluctantly coming to care for Aurora mother/daughter thing they have and I do quite like the bird man who's name escapes me at the moment

But I really didn't care for the whole "oh we're just gonna flip the good guys and bad guys" angle they went with. I think its a lazy way to tell a villian story if you want the audience to care about the villian.

Really didn't care for the Three Good Fairies slander and further Queen Leah erasure.

If you can't make the audience care about your character before they become the bad guy without defaulting to "oh they're just misunderstood", you're not trying hard enough. It's 100% possible to feel got a character who's actively making trulu despicable choices if you show they're better then that but that they keep choosing to be selfish. I wanted to see a true fall to darkness, not Wicked Lite.

So that's my take. But others are free to disagree!

[artist-issues]

Here’s the thing about Scuttle

I like the newer trailers more because they have more of a spirit of vulnerability and fun, if that makes sense

But you can’t turn Scuttle into a fisher bird that Ariel encounters underwater. That’s the only conceivable reason I can figure out for changing his species; that Female Scuttle will talk to Ariel underwater, not above the surface, because fisher birds can spend more time under water than seagulls.

You can’t turn Scuttle into a fisher bird for precisely that reason. Ariel needs to encounter Scuttle above the surface. Because the idea in the original film, before she sees Eric for the first time, is that she doesn’t have much experience with creatures that live out of the ocean.

She needs Scuttle because otherwise, where did this one mermaid in a sea of mermaids who hate humans get her new-fangled ideas? Where did she come up with the notion that human beings are not barbarians?

She needed to meet a creature that lived out of the water, and could explain things to her, yes. But more importantly: She needed to try going to the surface, and have an experience with a completely non-threatening animal of the air and sky. You don’t get much more non-threatening than Scuttle.

The point of Scuttle, for the story, is more than just “encounter a bird who can explain human stuff.” (If that were all it is, then having a bird talk to her underwater would be fine.)

The point of Scuttle, for the story, is actually “encounter a safe and friendly surface-dweller out of the sea, to prove its not as dangerous as everyone says it is.”

“DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I’M TELLIN YA”

Here’s the reason all of this matters: I have a feeling they’re going to try to make Ariel have her “first moment” out of the sea. Like, in the Live Action, we get to see what it was like when she went for it and stuck her head into the open air for the first time. That’s the only reason I can figure why Scuttle would need to be a fisher bird rather than a seagull.

And that’s dangerous. We don’t need that moment.

Because in the original movie, the idea was that Ariel had already been out of the sea multiple times, much to her father’s frustration. Building up to a scene where Triton loses his composure and destroys Ariel’s collection and pushes her too far is going to be a little harder if you make her stick her head out of the water for the first time in the course of the movie.

There’s less sense of a long-term period of building tension. There’s less understanding of how much Ariel is willing to sacrifice and how far she’s willing to go if she…hasn’t gone that far, yet. Just talks to a little water bird and gets near the surface, but hasn’t gone all the way yet.

That takes something away from Eric, too. Eric and her father’s outburst in the grotto work together as the catalyst for change in Ariel’s life. She’s already been to the surface before, but that doesn’t mean she’s ready to do whatever it takes to live there. She’s even already encountered human stuff and good creatures like Scuttle, and no danger, when she’s gone to the surface; again, that doesn’t mean she’s ready to sacrifice everything to live there. It’s important that we see that.

It’s not until she encounters Eric for the first time that she reaches the next stage of longing, and is ready to leave her family after her father destroys his statue.

Going to the surface and coming back safely wasn’t enough. Going to the surface and meeting a friendly seagull wasn’t enough. Finding human treasures and seeing a human ship wasn’t enough. Getting yelled at by her father wasn’t enough.

Eric was the last straw. Eric, the human who’s free to make his own choice of bride. Eric, the human who prefers exploring to kingly duties. Eric, the human who would sacrifice himself to save a dog in distress instead of being the barbarian Ariel’s always been told about.

Scuttle being a seagull she has to go to the surface to communicate with is an important stepping stone on the way to proving that Eric was the last straw.

Besides, it takes a lot away from Scuttle. Scuttle is a wonderful character because the whole movie is about being understood, and communicating, and Scuttle understands nothing and has a really hard time communicating.

So in conclusion, everything matters, even the seagull, and Live Action Disney is ruining the seagull.