Aladdin Special Look Trailer

[Olinser]

Oooooooooooookay.

So I was pretty skeptical about this movie from the start, given that they had announced Will Smith as the Genie. But I was willing to wait and see, after all I thought Jungle Book was going to be total crap and I ended up liking it (although not as much as the original), and I consider Will Smith to be one of the best actors in Hollywood.

My main concern was that Robin Williams is an incredibly tough act to follow, and that a lot of the stuff that the Genie does in the animation is very cartoonish and pretty impossible to translate to live action without looking ridiculous in CGI.

And now they released the first official look at the Genie.

Spoiler: Trailer

Show

Yeah.

Hard pass.

Who in the **** thought that this was a good idea.

[Legato Endless]

It looks...closer to a sci-fi original movie than a Disney blockbuster. The flat lighting to integrate the CGI isn't doing any favors here either. Also, why is Jaffar's delivery so flat? He's of the classic Disney villians that stepped out of an Opera house. Is Scar gonna be this monotone?

Apparently they feel bullish about this. We're getting Dumbo, Lion King and this all in one year. Dumbo especially is an odd choice near the bottom of the Disney canon in terms of adaptions to push if I were an executive...

[Seppl]

Movie trailers always have worse CGI than the actual movie. The CGI is worked on until the very end when making a movie. What you see here is some very early version, probably rushed for the trailer. Someone decided that it was better for sales to have a trailer looking like this than it was too have a trailer without the genie. Considering all the backlash here and anywhere else, it appears to be a bad decision.

[LaZodiac]

Movie trailers always have worse CGI than the actual movie. The CGI is worked on until the very end when making a movie. What you see here is some very early version, probably rushed for the trailer. Someone decided that it was better for sales to have a trailer looking like this than it was too have a trailer without the genie. Considering all the backlash here and anywhere else, it appears to be a bad decision.

The last time they showed us footage of Will Smith they said it was early, before graphics shots, and that next time would be the finished product.

Sorry to burst your bubble but this is...what it looks like in the final film.

[Wraith]

The last time they showed us footage of Will Smith they said it was early, before graphics shots, and that next time would be the finished product.

Sorry to burst your bubble but this is...what it looks like in the final film.

Didn't they say something similar about Thanos in the Marvel films, before radically altering him for Infinity War? I'm not saying that you're wrong as I have no reason to suspect otherwise, but Disney's definition of "final" has proven slightly fluid in the last few years.

If nothing else, I hope that's the case. I'm not inherently against Blue Will Smith, but at the moment it looks like a guy dipped in body paint and it needs something to make him look a bit more fae and other-worldly before it stops being... well, cringe-worthy, I suppose is the word that springs to mind.

[Silfir]

There's something about the sheer cynicism and creative bankruptcy behind the Disney live action remakes that just makes my skin crawl. You made these gems, pinnacle achievements of 2D feature film animation - but someone figured out that you can just do them again with live actors and CGI and people will watch. They will pay good money for movie tickets to watch an inferior version of a movie they've already seen. I just don't understand it.

I know that big budget 2D animation is dead in the West - but it's like they're dancing on the graves.

Now, Disney isn't going to not do something that's making them money hand over fist. One of these has to bomb for the madness to stop. Might as well be this one.

[Sholos]

Jaffar looks and sounds far too young in the trailer along with missing that over-the-top quality he had in the cartoon that made him particularly sinister. Aladdin looks like they grabbed the nearest 20-something model, threw him in street chic, and called it a day. Looks more like a rich, well-fed, bored troublemaker than a guy just barely surviving. And Genie.... well the less said there the better, probably. Will Smith Voice and Genie just doesn't work in my head and he looks... not great. At least Jasmine looks good.

[Mordar]

There's something about the sheer cynicism and creative bankruptcy behind the Disney live action remakes that just makes my skin crawl. You made these gems, pinnacle achievements of 2D feature film animation - but someone figured out that you can just do them again with live actors and CGI and people will watch. They will pay good money for movie tickets to watch an inferior version of a movie they've already seen. I just don't understand it.

I know that big budget 2D animation is dead in the West - but it's like they're dancing on the graves.

Now, Disney isn't going to not do something that's making them money hand over fist. One of these has to bomb for the madness to stop. Might as well be this one.

We really liked Beauty and the Beast, and The Jungle Book was fantastic. I don't know that I'd like *all* of the Disney classics (or new classics) as "live action", but I'm certainly open to it. They are a different movie, a different experience...just like Seven Samurai is different from Magnificent Seven, even if they are the same story done over again.

- M

[Traab]

The thing is, I wonder how much time he will spend as big blue? Im pretty sure smith mentioned from the first cast image where he wasnt blue that this was his "human disguise" So its entirely possible we wont see the big smurf that often. Im not that interested in the remake anyways, so smiths look as the genie doesnt really bother me much. I do my part to fight the remake disease by not paying them money to see it.

[Ramza00]

Didn't they say something similar about Thanos in the Marvel films, before radically altering him for Infinity War? I'm not saying that you're wrong as I have no reason to suspect otherwise, but Disney's definition of "final" has proven slightly fluid in the last few years.

Infinity War Trailer was a lie, they promised me Hulk in the final battle, instead I got Hulk in the Hulkbuster Armor.

[Lord Raziere]

Ok, live action Aladdin? thats a treasured part of my childhood for sure, its THE disney movie for me.

which means I KNOW this is trash without seeing any of the trailer, I will never see this and I don't even feel any rage from me. its too obvious a shot. you'd think I'd be nerdraging but, really, they don't care if I rage at it as long as I see it, so I'm not going to, or really care. best thing to do is find a way to watch animated Aladdin legally online and just that again. its not as if I use dvds anymore. and going out to the theater is too much trouble if it isn't something new or at least a comic book movie thats finally making a superhero story accessible to everyone who doesn't want to wade through tons of comics.

I'm too smart to even feel anything about this.

[Aotrs Commander]

Aladdin was just about the only one of the Disney animated movies I actually sort of liked.

Jaffar looks and sounds far too young in the trailer along with missing that over-the-top quality he had in the cartoon that made him particularly sinister.

Yes. Seriously, what was with that? Where's the menace? (He could be young and menacing, or old and menacing or middle-aged and menacing, but the menacing is sort of important.) And WHERE is the scenery chewing? That is CRITICALLY important!

If that is indicative of the level they had Jafar at, I could do a better Jafar than that.

Hell, if Abanazar in panto counts, I literally have.



(I mean, really, I didn't even have to ACT.)

[Silfir]

We really liked Beauty and the Beast, and The Jungle Book was fantastic. I don't know that I'd like *all* of the Disney classics (or new classics) as "live action", but I'm certainly open to it. They are a different movie, a different experience...just like Seven Samurai is different from Magnificent Seven, even if they are the same story done over again.

- M

All I know about the Beauty and the Beast remake is that I've seen Lindsay Ellis' video on it, and while there was a 0% chance of me seeing it before then, it's now in the negatives, if such a thing is possible. She makes a compelling argument (to say the least) for why it's inferior, not just different. (Not saying I think it's a bad movie - I obviously can't do that, having not seen it. I'm just never going to actually see it, because there are many, many other movies I could be watching instead and have better odds of enjoying them.)

It's not even about quality. I'm sure they're competently done movies. I'm not raging against the practice of remaking in general, either. Obviously there are good reasons to remake something.

The thing about Beauty and the Beast specifically is that it's one of the best 2D-animated movies ever made, and it completely holds up to this day. Unlike something like Magnificent Seven, which doesn't just remake Seven Samurai but transports it into a different setting and introduces it to an entirely different audience that wouldn't have seen Seven Samurai in the first place, and probably wouldn't have understood it if they do. The Office was remade for the US market because US office culture and sense of humor are different from the UK's; that's also a valid reason.

To some extent I can even agree that the Jungle Book, being from 1969, is old enough for a remake. I don't think anybody got particularly angry at the 101 Dalmatians live action remake when that was a thing; that movie was from 1961.

I just don't see how either Beauty and the Beast or Aladdin needed remaking. What I see is CGI and costume work made up to resemble the original animated movies as much as possible, and there's no way that a live action movie that's trying to ape the look of an animated movie is going to look anywhere near as good as the animated movie. I look at CGI Cogsworth or Lumiere and I want to gouge my eyes out. The Beast is even worse. From the sound of it, Will Smith as the genie is getting the same reception.

[Kato]

Okay, I'm going to be the spoilsport about this.

I don't feel like making any judgement call on a movie I've seen 60 seconds off. Does Smith look great? er... no. Do I think he will trump Williams? Unlikely. Do I feel insulted or appaled by it? No. Do I feel like judging Jaffa by a ten second sound sample? Certainly not.

Is this probably meant as a cheap way to cash in on nostalgia? Of course, because the last ten or so years of filmmaking have shown it works. Is it a chance to bring modern kids, who would never watch something old fashioned like 2D animation in contact with a beloved classical story. Does it provide jobs for hundreds of people who work on it and could give some actors a chance to shine (besides Smith)? Why not.
And if it fails... oh well. Who gets hurt by it?

[Ramza00]

So if they are going to remake Hercules as a live-action, can it be a mixture of Thor: Ragnarok and Rocky instead of Superman (1978) and Rocky?

[No brains]

So if they are going to remake Hercules as a live-action, can it be a mixture of Thor: Ragnarok and Rocky instead of Superman (1978) and Rocky?

Will Smith genie isn't perfect, but imagining Danny Devito as a live/CGI satyr is killing me a little inside.

[Mikemical]

There's few things that make me believe in the supernatural, such as curses.

This is one of them, as we can ascertain it is undeniably, unbelievably cursed.

[Berserk Mecha]

I feel like I want to watch the original after seeing that awful trailer. Just to remind myself of what a great film it is. And is it just me, or do Aladdin and Jasmine looks a little too pale for this setting?

[Fyraltari]

And is it just me, or do Aladdin and Jasmine looks a little too pale for this setting?

It is you. Mena Massoud who plays Aladdin has Egyptian parents and Naomi Scott who plays Jasmine has Indian grandparents.

I would also question what exactly your threshold of paleness and darkness are for actors playing characters from a fictionnal arabic land when people from around the Mediterranean are really diverse in skin tones.

Epsecially Jasmine who, as a princess would be expected to have a much lighter skin than most people (what with not working outdoors and all).

[Berserk Mecha]

It is you. Mena Massoud who plays Aladdin has Egyptian parents and Naomi Scott who plays Jasmine has Indian grandparents.

I would also question what exactly your threshold of paleness and darkness are for actors playing characters from a fictionnal arabic land when people from around the Mediterranean are really diverse in skin tones.

Epsecially Jasmine who, as a princess would be expected to have a much lighter skin than most people (what with not working outdoors and all).

I grew up in Dearborn, Michigan, which has the most immigrants from the Middle East out of any city in America. I went to school with a lot of arabian immigrants and people descended from arabian immigrants and on average, they're swarthier than what I saw in that trailer. Note the 'on average' qualifier. Yes, the Mediterranean and Middle East are diverse when it comes to the greater human gene pool, but it still kind of bugs me that the casting director went with a 'not too middle eastern' look for the leads. But, as you suggest, that may just be my sensibilities.

[Mechalich]

I grew up in Dearborn, Michigan, which has the most immigrants from the Middle East out of any city in America. I went to school with a lot of arabian immigrants and people descended from arabian immigrants and on average, they're swarthier than what I saw in that trailer. Note the 'on average' qualifier. Yes, the Mediterranean and Middle East are diverse when it comes to the greater human gene pool, but it still kind of bugs me that the casting director went with a 'not too middle eastern' look for the leads. But, as you suggest, that may just be my sensibilities.

It's also probably makeup and lighting, which has a tendency to make people look slightly paler on film than they are in real life no matter what. When you're talking about minor gradations, that may be all it is.

[Zevox]

*Shrug* Doesn't look any worse than I'd expect an attempt at recreating the animated Genie in a live action film would. And honestly, Will Smith being Genie is about the only thing giving me even the slightest interest in this film - he's someone with enough charisma that I could maybe see him managing to pull the role off, which is more than I'd expect to be able to say for an attempted live-action version of Aladdin.

Still, I've had zero interest in Disney's live-action remakes of their animated films so far, and did not like what I saw of the Jungle Book remake when I did catch parts of that on a vacation a couple years back - though to be fair, I'm not exactly a fan of the original there either. Anyway, without anything else giving me interest in this one, odds are I'll still pass on it.

[Berserk Mecha]

It's also probably makeup and lighting, which has a tendency to make people look slightly paler on film than they are in real life no matter what. When you're talking about minor gradations, that may be all it is.

Good point. The close up of Aladdin in the trailer takes place at night in front of the glowing cave of wonders and under a pale moon, so maybe that's throwing the colors off.

And as for Will Smith as the genie... meh. I don't think it's a bad choice, but so much of the genie's performance in the original was just Robin Williams' improv. If Will Smith tries to channel the original performance it just won't be the same. Better to be his own genie. The CGI still looks bad, though.

[Olinser]

Good point. The close up of Aladdin in the trailer takes place at night in front of the glowing cave of wonders and under a pale moon, so maybe that's throwing the colors off.

And as for Will Smith as the genie... meh. I don't think it's a bad choice, but so much of the genie's performance in the original was just Robin Williams' improv. If Will Smith tries to channel the original performance it just won't be the same. Better to be his own genie. The CGI still looks bad, though.

That's what I've been saying since I heard about it.

I consider Will Smith to be one of the best actors out there right now. He has amazing acting ability.

But he is NOT a comedian. When he was announced I had kind of assumed that meant they were going to go for more of a 'serious' take on the Genie and tone down the comedy, which I was on board with. But that definitely doesn't seem to be the case.

He is not going to be able to deliver a comedic performance anywhere near Robin Williams. He's not going to do a good impression of Robin Williams. Trying to match or impersonate Robin Williams is only going to end in disaster.

[Velaryon]

This trailer has reaffirmed my initial thought that a live-action remake of Disney's Aladdin is not something I need in my life. I'm not angry that they're doing it, I am just not interested.

There's something about the sheer cynicism and creative bankruptcy behind the Disney live action remakes that just makes my skin crawl. You made these gems, pinnacle achievements of 2D feature film animation - but someone figured out that you can just do them again with live actors and CGI and people will watch. They will pay good money for movie tickets to watch an inferior version of a movie they've already seen. I just don't understand it.

I know that big budget 2D animation is dead in the West - but it's like they're dancing on the graves.

Now, Disney isn't going to not do something that's making them money hand over fist. One of these has to bomb for the madness to stop. Might as well be this one.

My point of view is similar to this, but with less strong emotions. I kinda stopped being a huge Disney fan after the age of 10 or so, so I don't have enough emotional attachment to their catalogue to feel that strongly about it. I find these live-action remakes unnecessary and uninteresting, and the blatant lack milking of nostalgia for the original films mildly distasteful, but I will probably forget this is even a thing shortly after hitting the submit button on this post.

[Traab]

I think he would do best at playing some sort of suave charming genie type rather than batspit crazy jokester with more references than all of wikipedia. "Naaah, Im just saying that if you want to win the lady, you have to be straight with her, you know? Tell her the truth." Admit it, you can hear his voice with that smile he has saying those lines. There is only one robin williams, trying to copy him will just ensure the movie flops harder than shamu from a skydive attempt.

[Berserk Mecha]

I'd actually argue that Will Smith has good comedic timing, but, yeah, that's not the same as being a comedian. My favorite film of his is still Men in Black and what makes his performance funny in that film is seeing him react to all of the weird **** in that movie. I can't see it working if he is the weird ****.

In other casting news, I was disappointed to hear that Gilbert Gottfried won't be reprising his role as Iago. Might as well just have the parrot be silent, then.

[Zevox]

That's what I've been saying since I heard about it.

I consider Will Smith to be one of the best actors out there right now. He has amazing acting ability.

But he is NOT a comedian. When he was announced I had kind of assumed that meant they were going to go for more of a 'serious' take on the Genie and tone down the comedy, which I was on board with. But that definitely doesn't seem to be the case.

He is not going to be able to deliver a comedic performance anywhere near Robin Williams. He's not going to do a good impression of Robin Williams. Trying to match or impersonate Robin Williams is only going to end in disaster.

Eh, he's not specifically a comedian, but it's not like he's incapable of comedy. I mean, the majority of my exposure to him is from The Fresh Prince of Bel Air, and he was certainly funny in that - granted that was almost thirty years ago now, but still. I agree they shouldn't try to make him emulate or do an impression of Robin Williams, that would be doomed to failure, but I think keeping the Genie's comedic element as a part of the character while having Smith still do his own take on it could work.

Again though, all of that is "could," not "will." Depends on how it's handled. Disaster is certainly a possibility.

[DaOldeWolf]

There's something about the sheer cynicism and creative bankruptcy behind the Disney live action remakes that just makes my skin crawl. You made these gems, pinnacle achievements of 2D feature film animation - but someone figured out that you can just do them again with live actors and CGI and people will watch. They will pay good money for movie tickets to watch an inferior version of a movie they've already seen. I just don't understand it.

I know that big budget 2D animation is dead in the West - but it's like they're dancing on the graves.

Now, Disney isn't going to not do something that's making them money hand over fist. One of these has to bomb for the madness to stop. Might as well be this one.

Agreed. I hope this one bombs though I expect Dumbo to be the one that crashes down, partially because of whom is directing that one.

There is something unsincere with these remakes of classics. The changes to Belle and the Beast dont feel like they make the movie better. Of all the Disney live action remakes, I would only consider Cinderella to be an upgrade and mostly because the original isnt that good of a movie in the first place. I would prefer Disney to keep going with 3D animation than more live action movies. Disney live action movies tend to suck, I am not speaking of remakes here. I am talking in general. Tomorrowland and wrinkle in time being to just two examples in recent memory of how much money they keep wasting on stuff that just isnt charming, timeless or inspiring. I just want them to move away from trying to make live action when its quite obvious that it doesnt work for them. When your best live action work comes from rehashing your old ideas, you arent exactly looking good, you know?

[Kitten Champion]

Eh, you don't need a comedian, you just need a comedic performance. The difference, obviously, being that the comedian devises the material or at least participates in the overall creative process while a comedic actor simply follows the script and direction to fulfill the role. For instance, on 30 Rock, Tina Fey is the comedian who created and wrote for the series as well as giving a comedic performance as its protagonist, whereas Alec Baldwin is just a comedic actor who plays a character on it.

Will Smith's a fine comedic actor, and for the most part a generally good dramatic actor as well. He's just made some rather unfortunate decisions in his filmography, especially for the last decade. Granted, some of that is just his ego, like After Earth, but still.

Not that I really care, I haven't really loved or hated Disney's live action remakes of their successful animated works such that I'm invested in their success. I'm comfortable with watching them when they come up at Netflix or renting them from the library.