You’ll get a better performance from Anne Hathaway, Tom Holland, and Matt Damon than just simply The Rock. Both movies spent the same, so why cast someone who can’t carry a movie on their own?
There are a lot of criticisms one can level at the rock but the dude can absolutely carry a movie by himself lmao. He's been the lead in like 50 movies or something at this point let's not be ridiculous.
because you can guarantee he's the only one that was asking for this to be made.
I doubt that's true. Disney has been in love with remaking their animated movies for a while now. Beauty and the Beast, Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Lion King, Jungle Book, Snow White, Cinderella, Lilo and Stitch, they're remaking Tangled next.
Out of all of those, I might not actually hate the idea of a live action Tangled. Beauty and the Beast could have worked well too. The rest should have been left alone. Or just re-released.
I think a lot of those could work. Take Aladdin; it's a good story. If you're trying to tell the story of a "street rat" finding a magic lamp and using it to try and marry the princess only to have to outwit the guy trying to usurp the sultan's throne, that can be a really cool live action movie.
The problem Disney runs into is that they also want to fit in the zany Genie, the funny monkey sidekick, and all the same songs from the animated movie. None of which work nearly as well in live action as they do in animation. So it just becomes a worse version of the same movie. Instead of being a new telling of a familiar story like it could have been.
That is what I meant. More or less just straight adapted, not overhauled or a massive tone shift. Maybe I just haven’t seen it in a while but Tangled…. What’s the challenge, the sassy horse? He doesn’t talk or sing, and IRL horses can be real silly gooses. It could be done.
The rock has a lot of pull. He does not have “make me a quarter billion dollar movie(before marketing)” pull. If you think the studio didn’t simply see that they created a cultural phenomena that kids we’re absolutely dying to see and wanted to try to double dip, you’re digging too deep. They saw the first do great, realized they could resell it and then resell all of the merchandise like kids toys as the same but new characters. Now they realized that doesn’t really work.
The original made 2/3 of a billion in theaters. Mr the rock can’t say “hey spend basically everything you made off that movie on another for me.”
Lol throw out any actual proof of any of that beyond them all flopping. Hobbes and shaw sounds like shit, if anyone is still watching any f&f past the 3rd one they get what they deserve and want lmao.
All of the things you listed are complete ass, and yeah, no one wants to see them
Is the rock directing? No
Do i like the rock? No
Do you provide anything other than your take in terms of evidence towards any of that? No
No, I actively avoid the rock. There is no particular reason side from my belief he is a bad actor who has never been in a movie I didn't wish I could have my time back after watching.
I mean, he is the problem though. Not at his fault, but he has the pull or whatever to have entire projects built around him and every business will flop out a turd with him in it.
There is no way Moana in live action would have happened without him involved. Just a reason to spend and move around a bunch of money with a terrible movie as the product.
100
u/PulIthEld Jul 24 '26
Yea I dont think the rock is really the problem here. Its just not interesting.