this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2026
363 points (98.9% liked)
movies
3834 readers
172 users here now
A community about movies and cinema.
Related communities:
- !television@piefed.social
- !homevideo@feddit.uk
- !mediareviews@lemmy.world
- !casualconversation@piefed.social
Rules
- Be civil
- No discrimination or prejudice of any kind
- Do not spam
- Stay on topic
- These rules will evolve as this community grows
No posts or comments will be removed without an explanation from mods.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There is a beautiful version of Moana already. I can't imagine needing to see this. I don't hate these remakes for existing, but I just don't see the point.
No one does... any why should they? The classic disney films are great, they don't need remakes...
I wish someone re-mastered the Donald duck and Goofy driving instructional/documentary videos/movies
Goofy teaching how to play sports was great, too. Basketball game starts, players jump and start slapping one another
Studios don't like risks nowadays. So they'd rather remake successful past movies.
Apparently it's not as risk-free as they thought.
Against the billions they have made churning these out? Yeah, it is.
I mean yes on average but potentially no on the trend. The whole point is to de-risk their bullshit, if they view this as a trend instead of an isolated incident other projects might be more likely to get greenlit instead of recycled stories. Pretty much any soulless cash grab bombing incentivizes making actual art.
If they were looking at things collectively this way, they wouldn't be making so many remakes and would be making more original movies.
This movie is the result of the risk analysis of each project, not the risk over a time period with multiple projects.
Ah yes, losing $100,000,000 seems very low-risk.
If they thought they had a good chance of losing that much money, they wouldn't have made the movie. The news here is more about how their risk calculations were off.
And now they realise it isn't risk free after all.
To them? Yes it is
No, no it's not.
They can absorb the loss, but it's by no means small
Low risk is still risk
The movie's made nearly 100 mill worldwide. With brand new IP there's no guarantee to even get that much. Plus you'd need more marketing, etc.
They lost, but the risk was smaller than it could've been.
Think about two different scenarios:
Brand new IP, movie costs 250 mill to make, it could be the next Avatar and make well over a billion, or it could make 10 mill because nobody cares
Existing IP, almost certainly going to make under a billion, but there's essentially no way it'll make significantly under 100 million against the same budget of 250 mill.
Which one is low risk and which one is high risk?