Posted: 7/10/26 at 9:37am
Moana at 36% on Rotten Tomatoes:
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/moana_2026
Posted: 7/10/26 at 9:51am
As someone who personally never has any interest in Disney's live action remakes, I'm of course skipping this one.
Posted: 7/10/26 at 9:56am
I am totally in favor of abortion rights, but if Disney gets involved in abortions, I may have to rethink my stance.
Posted: 7/10/26 at 10:11am
I saw it: cute, but pointless. The chicken was terrifying.
Posted: 7/10/26 at 10:12am
Soulless corporate greed, devoid of purpose or creativity.
Why would LMM want this?
I'll probably still watch. Someday. Not anytime soon though.
Posted: 7/10/26 at 11:07am
I get not being fond of the live action remakes, but there really wasn't a better word you could have used in the title of this thread?
It doesn't even really make sense overall, but also it's kind of weird.
Posted: 7/10/26 at 11:15am
ClumsyDude15 said: "I get not being fond of the live action remakes, but there really wasn't a better word you could have used in the title of this thread?
It doesn't even really make sense overall, but also it's kind of weird."
It's a sensitive issue for sure, but it's not a dirty word. No shame attached, perhaps normalizing its usage is a good thing?
Posted: 7/10/26 at 11:33am
Jay Lerner-Z said: "Soulless corporate greed, devoid of purpose or creativity.
Why would LMM want this?
I'll probably still watch. Someday. Not anytime soon though."
Money, he's got nothing to lose from this. It's not the songs being criticised.
LMM isn't the saint so many seem to make out. Money talks for him as much as any other.
Posted: 7/10/26 at 11:34am
Jay Lerner-Z said: "ClumsyDude15 said: "I get not being fond of the live action remakes, but there really wasn't a better word you could have used in the title of this thread?
It doesn't even really make sense overall, but also it's kind of weird."
It's a sensitive issue for sure, but it's not a dirty word. No shame attached, perhaps normalizing its usage is a good thing?"
Why would you normalize the word in reference to a kid's movie that has nothing to do with abortion?
Posted: 7/10/26 at 11:44am
TotallyEffed said: "Jay Lerner-Z said: "ClumsyDude15 said: "I get not being fond of the live action remakes, but there really wasn't a better word you could have used in the title of this thread?
It doesn't even really make sense overall, but also it's kind of weird."
It's a sensitive issue for sure, but it's not a dirty word. No shame attached, perhaps normalizing its usage is a good thing?"
Why would you normalize the word in reference to a kid'smovie that has nothing to do with abortion?"
Dunno.
Language is funny. Words often lose meaning through usage totally unconnected to original usage.
Posted: 7/10/26 at 11:58am
What I really don't understand about this movie is that all of the non-human characters (including the sidekicks, the giant crab, the coconuts, the gods, etc.) are exact replicas of their animated counterparts. Disney has completely abandoned any notion that these live action remakes are intended to be "reimaged" versions of the originals. At least in Beauty and the Beast, they made an attempt at original designs for the inanimate objects that make sense in the context of the "real world" setting, rather than just creating computer-generated versions of the cartoon characters.
Posted: 7/10/26 at 12:02pm
Jay Lerner-Z said: "Dunno. Language is funny. Words often lose meaning through usage totally unconnected to original usage."
Sure, but in this case - it just doesn't actively fit what the topic at hand is? When words like flop or cash grab or similar words were right there. I fully support using aborition and having it not be a dirty word, but it just doesn't work here - in my opinion.
Posted: 7/10/26 at 12:04pm
I seldom see films in the theatre. But I thought the trailer for this was a bit of "fun". Probably will see it soon.
Posted: 7/10/26 at 12:08pm
Putting Tommy Kail in charge of a 250 million dollar movie was insane.
Posted: 7/10/26 at 12:08pm
Anywho. I have not seen it but the fact that Disney is reheating their own nachos from a film that came out a shade under a decade ago is a huge sign that they have long since lost their creative spark.
Also, why do a live action remake and not a sequel? That doesn’t make any sense to me
Posted: 7/10/26 at 12:10pm
ClumsyDude15 said: "Jay Lerner-Z said: "Dunno.Language is funny. Words often lose meaning through usage totally unconnected to original usage."
Sure, but in this case - it just doesn't actively fit what the topic at hand is? When words like flop or cash grab or similar words were right there. I fully support using aborition and having it not be a dirty word, but it just doesn't work here - in my opinion."
I'd bet most of the people clicking on the thread knew exactly what it was referring to, which suggests some sort of understanding. Perhaps. Something... not good.
Posted: 7/10/26 at 12:16pm
People are always so quick to critcize Disney for focusing on live actions and/or sequels, but then seldom support the original work they do put out. Elio being one of the most recent examples of this.
But then they see the success of the Lilo and Stitch live action and/or Toy Stoy 5 and ultimately they decide to keep going down that route since the originals they do produce don't do well.
Their next major original project is Hexed coming out this fall, so I'll be curious to see if people end up supporting that one or not.
I think Moana will do okay overall - not the big blockbuster that Lilo and Stitch was, but certainly not as bad as Snow White [which I personally liked].
Plus, they're already working on the animated Moana 3.
Posted: 7/10/26 at 12:21pm
Jay Lerner-Z said: "I'd bet most of the people clicking on the thread knew exactly what it was referring to, which suggests some sort of understanding. Perhaps. Something... not good."
I personally had no idea what to expect when I clicked on this thread. With how often bots and weirdly phrased things pop up here - it could have been literally anything. I wager that's a lower number of people than you seem to think. Ultimately, I think it was a weird choice of words for the topic at hand. You clearly think it works and two things can be true.
Posted: 7/10/26 at 12:59pm
quizking101 said: "Also, why do a live action remake and not a sequel? That doesn’t make any sense to me"
They already did a sequel - it came out in 2024 featuring songs by Barlow & Bear of The Unofficial Bridgerton Musical fame.
Posted: 7/10/26 at 1:31pm
ClumsyDude15 said: "People are always so quick to critcize Disney for focusing on live actions and/or sequels, but then seldom support the original work they do put out. Elio being one of the most recent examples of this."
It still suggests a death to creative thinking at Disney. And the fact IP recognition brings in more viewers than new work--espeically if the new work isn't any good--does not mean Disney following that route isn't giving up on their legacy of original, creative work.
On the issue of word usage, I can't imagine anyone looked at the title and didn't know it was meant to convery, even if they didn't know what work was being referenced. Did someone think Disney provided abortion services for someone? It's pretty obvious it meant "this terrible thing Disney did." In fact, the use of the word in this context strikes me as rather common. I've certainly seen it done in other cases. And using the term in the context of a kid's movie is totally fine, this not being a kid's website, and so not likely to intrude something too adult into a child's mind.
Posted: 7/10/26 at 1:39pm
I clicked on this thread thinking Disney's Latest Abortion was a cool, new, edgy off-Broadway play I had somehow missed an announcement for.
Posted: 7/10/26 at 2:09pm
sassylash3s said: "quizking101 said: "Also, why do a live action remake and not a sequel? That doesn’t make any sense to me"
They already did a sequel - it came out in 2024 featuring songs by Barlow & Bear of The Unofficial Bridgerton Musical fame."
And those songs were...awful. So was the movie. But it made a billion dollars, so they're going to keep making this junk.
Posted: 7/10/26 at 4:30pm
Rentaholic2 said: "What I really don't understand about this movie is that all of the non-human characters (including the sidekicks, the giant crab,the coconuts, the gods, etc.) are exact replicas of their animated counterparts. Disney has completely abandoned any notion that these live action remakes are intended to be "reimaged" versions of the originals. At least in Beauty and the Beast, they made an attempt at original designs for the inanimate objects that make sense in the context of the "real world" setting, rather than just creating computer-generated versions of the cartoon characters.
"
i’ll always be sat for the live actions but the creator directions for them are way off. i can appreciate things about beauty and the beast but the production design was not good, and poor casting choice for belle. emma watson looked like herself. didn’t even give her darker hair, plus her gold dress was not good.
Posted: 7/10/26 at 4:39pm
Jeffrey Karasarides said: "As someone who personally never has any interest in Disney's live action remakes, I'm of course skipping this one."
hot take: Cinderella (2015) is the only good Disney live action remake they've released
Posted: 7/10/26 at 6:27pm
No shock. The last two Thomas Kail shows I saw (Sweeney and Anna Christie) had some of the worst direction I've ever seen. Can't imagine he'd be anymore skilled with film.
.jpg?format=auto&width=300)
