DVDizzy.com

I wouldn't call most of Disney's movies sugary sweet, including Aladdin. I didn't see the King Arthur movie either since it seemed bound to flop but I read that the effects were amazing. I did look up that Ursula character you mentioned and I could only find concept art of her but she looks positively grotesque if this is who you mean.
http://www.arnaudvalette.com/wp-content ... 1.1001.jpg

If Aladdin feels less like a musical, I'd say that's only because Howard Ashman's treatment wasn't used since the original was very musically inclined. One thing I would have liked to have seen here is all the Arabian Nights reprises throughout the film, or at least at the end for the finale.

Clearer version of the logo.


Source: https://www.facebook.com/DisneyAnalysis ... 827045697/

_________________

I like the logo. The swish in the A almost reminds me of a crescent moon as well as a scimitar or dagger.

The creature doesn’t look like that in the movie. But I brought her up because he really leans into this dark dark fairy tale vibe throughout the movie, most of it revolving around that character. It’s very sparse, but I can see how he could do something interesting with Aladdin from those scenes.

As for the sugary sweet, I just mean a few small parts. There’s meant to be sweetness, especially with the genie. I’m sure their relationship will stay in tact, just be a little less over the top because Ritchie never leans into heavily emotional territory.

Did Disney say Ursula was meant to be like Morgan le Fey? I'm curious.

I saw most of Ritchie's Arthur and while watching thought it was either boring or bad.

Disney should hire those that go for emotion...all Disney films aim for emotion...

_________________

Sugary sweet has a negative connotation though and there's nothing in Aladdin that I would say is overly touchy-feely. Aladdin and Genie's friendship is one of the most beloved in the Disney canon so it would be a shame to not underscore that. At the same time, that was in part because of Robin Williams' performance so I wouldn't expect Will Smith to be able to replicate that.


Disney's Divinity thought that nomad2010 was saying that there was a Morgana character in the King Arthur movie who was based off of Ursula.

I agree. I think Kenneth Branagh's Cinderella was a great Disney remake that kept the classic Disney emotions, unlike Bill Condon's BATB which was quite devoid of emotional depth. I'm afraid Aladdin is leaning more towards the latter.

I agree about Cinderella and BatB. Cinderella really brought the emotion between Ella and Kit. I forget if I thought The Jungle Book had much emotion or not. But BatB felt like opulence and musical showmanship over emotion. It was sad when the enchanted objects died, but the emotion should have also, and more importantly, been given to Belle and the Beast!

_________________

I can see this. Ritchie is known to favor the more street level characters, it's probably what attracted him to Aladdin in the first place. My guess is his original cut leaned a lot heavier on Aladdin (not a bad thing) and probably toned down Genie a bit, and now they've just realized they needed a bit more Genie in there.



My dream cast for this film was always the original Broadway cast, they were perfect.

That said, I get why Disney wanted a name for Genie. If they were going to stunt cast any role in the film Genie makes the most sense and Will Smith is arguably the best choice for a "big name" in the role. And if that was the price of getting unknowns in the lead roles and avoid another "Emma Watson can't sing" type scenario, I'm prepared to pay it. But yeah, it should have been James.



This really confuses me as the reports from cinema con earlier this year was that the film is having big song and dance numbers. Most reports called it a big Bollywood influence, personally I think it's more the success of the stage show, but either way there was nothing to suggest they were down playing the musical nature of the film.

From the way Menken says the songs will be taken to a new place, it sounds like there's a clash in how the songs are used to tell the story maybe? Like Ritchie doesn't like the traditional musical way of doing it, so they're using the song but staging/portraying it differently? It's hard to say as Menken's, understandably, being a little vague about the process.

Personally I'm still really excited for the film. But I think it will go one way or the other. It's not going to be a "safe" direct adaptation like Beauty and the Beast. I think it will be either a fantastic new take or completely miss the mark. I can't fully articulate way, but I just don't see a middle ground for it.