Lilo & Stitch, How to Train Your Dragon, Mufasa, etc should not be called “live action” when nearly everything is still animated albeit in a “realistic” way. Even most of the sets are either shot on Disney’s “volume” or rendered in post. Obviously you can’t find a REAL Stitch or make lions reenact Hamlet, but we can stop calling these movies live action. Shout out Homeward Bound while I’m here…
Comments
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
What else would you call them?
Would you also say you can’t have a live action zombie movie as zombies don’t exist?
“Live action lion king”
Movie’s just CGI
I agree. We should simply call them cash grabs.
I mean ET and Chewbacca are 2 examples of unrealistic creatures brought to the screen with practical effects. so yeah I don’t think it’s fair to be like ‘of course stitch is CGI” when there is nothing of course about it to me.
That’s how I feel about all CGI heavy movies. Like when I was a kid I would watch Batman and ninja turtle and x men cartoons. When I realized they were making live action versions I was always so excited to see how they pulled it off while making it look good. Felt like true movie magic. That doesn’t exist anymore. I don’t need to wonder how they’ll make all the avengers look real, because they just do it as a digital cartoon with real faces basically. Much less interesting.
It’s just shorthand for a group of movies.
I don’t see how changing what we call them would effect anything.
And it wasn’t even something disney pushed , the term caught on organically. I think when that happens its best to just go with it.
I watched the docuseries on Disney+ about Industrial Light & Magic. The first season was AMAZING. It was all about the founding of the company, the buccaneer approach to filmmaking they all had, the crazy ideas and frankly insane inventions, like Dykstraflex motion control rigs. I HIGHLY recommend it.
The second season was just fat dudes sitting at computers dragging 3D handles around. Utterly lifeless and boring. Made it through the first episode and gave up.
As boring and cookie cutter as the movies.
Most of the remakes have mostly human actors, but I always got secondhand embarrassment from people mistaking The Lion King for live action. They obviously didn’t train lions to do all that.
Idk how to tell you this but Dragons and whatever kind of alien Stitch is aren’t real. We literally can’t have real ones in the movie and have no choice but to use CGI. The Lion King shouldn’t have been called live action but calling having an issue with CGI being used for Leelo and Stitch and How To Train Your Dragon is just dumb. That’s like saying marvel movies aren’t live action because they use CGI
If the movie features no live actors, such as Lion King or Mufasa, it should be called “photorealistic” at best. “Lilo and Stitch” and “How to Train Your Dragon” feature actual real actors, so can fall under “Live-Action” in my opinion. Roger Rabbit is considered live-action after all.
CGI shitpile doesn’t sound as marketable
The dragons for How to Train Your Dragon are also using physical effects and not just CGI, there were some behind the scenes photos a few months ago.
I think that movies that are mostly people filming on set with a CGI character like Lilo & Stitch are still live action as well.
This isn’t really unpopular so much as it’s factually inaccurate and frankly wrong.
I agree with Lion King–that isn’t live action. It’s CGI. But what else can you call Lilo & Stitch? It’s only Stitch and the aliens that are animated, and they can’t really get a dog and spray paint it blue to be Stitch.
The new Lilo & Stitch and How To Train Your Dragon still have actors and sets, only certain elements will be CG. I agree whole heartedly about new Lion King.
I miss get your point, but at the same time I’m not sure Disney ever actually marketed them like that. I feel like “live action remakes” is a fan term and not what Disney calls them. Like I’m sure they just call the recent Snow White, Snow White 2025.
Ultimately…who gives a shit. It doesn’t game anything by calling them that.
I agree that calling the movie live-action might imply something different, but I have a follow-up question:
I argue that it would be disingenuous to call it animated, but also don’t have another term that easily conveys what the movie is. Could just say “it’s a movie with both animated and live-action characters/sets”, but that’s a whole sentence and not a specific term.
CGI crap is bad enough, but soon we’ll have AI slop movies to bring the bar down even lower.
Most movies these days can’t be called live action either then
I have not seen them, but I have seen the ads.
How to Train Your Dragon even animates humans right?
As long as the majority of characters on screen are actual actors, it counts as live action IMO.
Downvoted for a very rational and popular opinion.
are you saying that greedy producers are trying to fool us???? s
Why not? Lots of shows and or movies have a main character who isn’t real, by your logic something that is 100% cgi with an real person as the main would be live action, when the oppesite wouldn’t?
Tbh live action doesn’t really mean much these days, I would say as long as most of the cast is real people it’s live action.
nah, CGI live action is better. safer for the actors and whatever stunt doubles as well.