It’s not quite 10 years old. The animated version (and I hate I now need to qualify that) came out November 23, 2016. Still way too soon for a remake, especially when you don’t even recast the second name on the call sheet.

[–] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

If they had animated on top of Dwayne Johnson's bicep tattoos I might consider watching it.

[–] rainwall@piefed.social 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I think they do animate his tattoos. I partially watched a review and saw them moving around as they talked about how jarring some of the CGI to real life transitions were.

[–] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Oh they did get Johnson? It looks like Moana was the one who stepped away from the role, props to her.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 1 points 3 days ago

Johnson was pushing for the movie to be made.

[–] dfyx@lemmy.helios42.de 15 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Ten years. Still not old enough. To maximize nostalgia, they would have to wait until those who enjoyed the original movie have their own children of the right age, so at least 20-25 years. Which, to nobody's surprise, neatly matches the time span between original and remake for The Lion King (25 years) and The Beauty and the Beast (26 years). For The Little Mermaid, they waited even longer (34 years).

[–] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Alice in Wonderland did 59 years

[–] dfyx@lemmy.helios42.de 10 points 3 days ago

I wouldn't really count that as a remake though, just a new (and very different) movie based on the same source material.

The newer "live action" / CGI remakes on the other hand are overall closer to the animated versions than to their source material with the same original characters, same songs and so on.

[–] GammaGames@beehaw.org 2 points 3 days ago

10 actually!