158
Disney’s ‘Robin Hood’ Live-Action Remake Not Moving Forward, Says Director
(www.hollywoodreporter.com)
They don't want to give anyone ideas. 🤣🤣🤣
this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2026
158 points (99.4% liked)
movies
3232 readers
143 users here now
A community about movies and cinema.
Related communities:
- !television@piefed.social
- !homevideo@feddit.uk
- !mediareviews@lemmy.world
- !casualconversation@piefed.social
Rules
- Be civil
- No discrimination or prejudice of any kind
- Do not spam
- Stay on topic
- These rules will evolve as this community grows
No posts or comments will be removed without an explanation from mods.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
They're devising a new, fascist version of Robin Hood instead.
Stealing from society to give to the criminally insanely wealthy?
Pedophiles In charge
That's always been that way.
Steals from the poor and gives to the rich.
That would be a prequel, Robin Hood was a feudal lord and crusader before he became a folk hero
As one of my favorite animated Disney movies this news makes me extremely happy.
"Fans of Disney‘s 1970s animated feature Robin Hood aren’t likely to be feeling particularly merry after the latest update about a potential live-action remake."
Bull fucking shit we are. Dodged a dumpster fire.
Fortunately I don't have to see said dumpster fire, but I also agree whole-heartedly.
Oh thank god.
There already was one, it was called Robin Hood: Men in Tights
Come on Disney forget the CGI ‘live action’ remakes give me what I need a Muppets remake. Fozzie as Frier Tuck, Rizzo as the Sheriff of Nottingham, Miss Piggy as Maid Marion, and Kermit wearing fox ears as Robin.
They just did a new Muppets something
i'd support a live-action remake if it's with actual real foxes and it's obviously filmed on a set with voices dubbed over and they leave in 10% of the bloopers.
A fan of Milo and Otis, I see
"Hey let's do a live action and CGI version of a beloved 1970s classic." Keep scraping that barrel, Hollywood, you must be close to getting through the bottom so you can start scraping up mud.
Good
In the first advance screening they found a furry cranking their hog, guaranteed.
With ideas for films like this, it's no wonder all the legacy film studios are struggling to fill seats in theaters.
Good. None of the live action remakes have the necessary polish to be worth publishing
Good.
When this obscene trend of CGI remakes caught up to movies originally in CGI - what would they call it? Were we on track for a Polar Express version of Frozen?
Hey Disney, if you want actual on-camera fox people, I can name some websites. They're big fans of this movie.
I have mixed feelings about this.
On one hand a "live action" (ie, CGI) remake of this would be awful.
But on the other hand, it would be millions of dollars worth of fresh new furry bait that I could easily pirate.
Aren't Nick and Judy enough?
What is this "enough" you speak of?
40% of Disney's content
40% of Disney’s content
I feel like this number could be higher. Let's try to get it to at least 60%
“Live action”
Couldn't find a tall enough fox.
Is there a detoxified version of the link?
Anyway, I'm curious if was meant to be a rework of the animated film, or an entirely new premise..?
Remake of the animated one for sure, They've been redoing their animated hits in hopes people watch those instead so they can stop paying the animaters royalties. Cgi animators dont get the same deal the old 2d animators had
Thanks, mate. I haven't really followed them for a long time, altho of course they're everywhere, these days.
Btw, I went in to a major trance-state just now, watching your avatar icon. oO
I'm gonna take a weird angle on this and say nobody should still be paid for this movie, because it belongs in the public domain.
Thirty years. No exceptions.
Thirty years. No exceptions.
Honestly, 10 years is plenty.
And that's coming from a content creator.
I release all my shit MIT-licensed, but I still recognize copyright as a useful incentive, and think thirty years is the sensible limit. I could be talked down to twenty. Ten is so short that capital would happily delay adaptations to avoid paying authors. It's short enough that runaway success demands instant follow-ups toward a concrete ending.
Ten-year copyright would mean Marvel's "phase two" movies competing with off-brand Iron Man sequels... and that's ignoring how the character and all his good stories were public-domain for decades.
Ten-year copyright would mean the last Harry Potter book and half of the movies competing against commercial fanfiction. Just a flood of contradictory cash grabs which admittedly would not fund an obvious bigot.
Ten-year copyright would mean Game Of Thrones didn't owe GRRM anything, if they skipped or delayed season eight, which frankly would have been an improvement. Admittedly it also means there's been five years where anyone could publish their own damn version of The Winds Of Winter, and that might be the only way it ever comes out.
Ten-year copyright would mean Marvel’s “phase two” movies competing with off-brand Iron Man sequels… and that’s ignoring how the character and all his good stories were public-domain for decades.
Ten-year copyright would mean the last Harry Potter book and half of the movies competing against commercial fanfiction. Just a flood of contradictory cash grabs which admittedly would not fund an obvious bigot.
Ten-year copyright would mean Game Of Thrones didn’t owe GRRM anything, if they skipped or delayed season eight, which frankly would have been an improvement. Admittedly it also means there’s been five years where anyone could publish their own damn version of The Winds Of Winter, and that might be the only way it ever comes out.
You say these as if they would be bad things.
In most cases, people will still prefer the 'official' sequels and such from the original creator. Because if you liked the original, then you'll want more from the same creator, and maybe not so much from other, unknown creators.
To take one example, Copious fanfic of the Harry Potter books does exist, and it even existed well before the final books were released, much earlier than 10 years. Some of it was (I assume) actually pretty well-written and creative. And unlike the official books, it was available for free. And yet, readers of the franchise, overwhelmingly, preferred to pay to read the official sequels, rather than read free fanfic of it.
Could this result in slightly less profits for content creators of series works? Sure, maybe. But there's also the chance that these off-brand sequels could be good. Perhaps better than official sequels. Perhaps even better than the original. Having more choices and more options out there can only be good for the consumer. And it might even be good for the content creators as well -- it will motivate them to keep quality high during later parts of the series, since they can't depend on IP protection and being able to ride on the coattails of previous success. Since disappointing sequels are pervasive in our media landscape, perhaps that will be a very good thing indeed.
You're already stumbling into that conclusion with:
would mean Game Of Thrones didn’t owe GRRM anything, if they skipped or delayed season eight, which frankly would have been an improvement. Admittedly it also means there’s been five years where anyone could publish their own damn version of The Winds Of Winter, and that might be the only way it ever comes out.
But the biggest part is just giving consumers more options and more art. Just think of all the great art we might be missing out on, art that would have been made if copyright law didn't prevent it.
It would have been meant to make money and influence consumption.
Would be pretty shocking if otherwise, eh?
It's actually possible to make something without the primary motivation to be profit.
Speaking as an amateur artist, I indeed learned that one long ago. :D