DSL's Movie/TV Reviews and Discussion

[Dr. Strangelove]

Well definitely is a thing with the cash-grab Disney remakes. That Mermaid padding really takes the cake though.

Lion King (1994) - 88 min
Lion King (2019) - 118 min

Jungle Book (1967) - 78 min
Jungle Book (2016) - 106 min

Beauty and the Beast (1991) - 84 min
Beauty and the Beast (2017) - 129 min

Aladdin (1992) - 90 min
Aladdin (2019) - 128 min

Mulan (1998) - 87 min
Mulan (2020) - 115 min

[THE_WIZARD_]

Movies of that length are liking reading a Buchanan post with a hangover...

[iam416]

Well definitely is a thing with the cash-grab Disney remakes. That Mermaid padding really takes the cake though.

Lion King (1994) - 88 min
Lion King (2019) - 118 min

Jungle Book (1967) - 78 min
Jungle Book (2016) - 106 min

Beauty and the Beast (1991) - 84 min
Beauty and the Beast (2017) - 129 min

Aladdin (1992) - 90 min
Aladdin (2019) - 128 min

Mulan (1998) - 87 min
Mulan (2020) - 115 min

Yeah, well, Disney is pretty much out of ideas. Or at least ideas that are profitable. They only thing that might make them money right now are live-action remakes. And that golden goose is on life support. It's really astounding the properties they have that they have managed to lose money on. Honestly -- and attributing absolutley no reason to the failure -- just the failures in and of themselves. To that end -- Sound of Freedom -- whatever you think of that -- will pass Indiana Jones in domestic box within the next two weeks. That's an absolute embarassment for Disney.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Well the movie could absolutely suck but somebody at Disney really fucked up releasing Haunted Mansion the week after Barbenheimer and not moving it to Sept. Finishing a distant third to both those movies your opening weekend is embarrassing.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Well it looks like Big Top Pee Wee 2 won't be happening now...

[foxhopper]

Movies of that length are liking reading a Buchanan post with a hangover...

But the movies are more realistic.

[THE_WIZARD_]

poignant point

[Hannibal]

The trend to take longer and longer to tell stories that shouldn't be more than 2 hours is really suckass. I've read that it's pretty good if you understand that historical accuracy isn't it's chief objective -- and, really, when you do a movie on a single person, that person typically becomes the heroes and all those against him become villains when, most often, it's way more complex (as was the case with Oppenheimer).

But, the time is ridiculous. Disney pumping the Little Mermaid to 2:30 was maybe the most obscene time suck of the year, but it's happening with most films and it sucks.

Yes, that trend does suck. And most of the time, that extra run length is totally unnecessary. Especially for action movies where you could save tens of milions in production costs by cutting down the long, drawn out action scenes that get boring quickly. How did this trend even come about? It's not like it's a cost saving measure.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Yeah the length of Oppenheimer may just blow up in their face...

[AlabamAlum]

I really liked Oppenheimer. Thought it was a great film. It was long, but so didn’t mind it. I also liked Mission Impossible a lot.

[Dr. Strangelove]

RIP Mark Margolis

Breaking Bad, Better Call Saul, Scarface, Oz, tons of credits....

[WingsFan]

RIP Definitely one of my favorites

[crashcourse]

some of his best acting he didnt say a word for multiple episodes

[THE_WIZARD_]

Our only hope now is that you don't say a word...

[crashcourse]

I'll just spell it out for you 4 letters any guesses?