BLOGGER'S NOTE: The second half of this post has been outdated by the announcement of a HTTYD 2 remake, but my thoughts on that are more or less the same.
it wouldn't be accurate for me to say that i "hate" live-action adaptations of animated movies - i just don't have any good reason to see them. as someone who values animation as an art form, why would i go out of my way to relive the magic of an animated movie in another medium when i could just...watch the original?
moreover, because so many of these adaptations involve fantasy elements, they're almost always 50% animated by default because of the extensive visual effects, and even then they can't decide on whether the aesthetic should remain close to the animated version or if it should be photorealistic.
a youtuber i watch from time to time named tommy ross raised a good point in how these adaptations work best when they're "companion pieces" to an animated movie, but i'd even go as far as to say that they should only be reserved for movies that warrant a second chance or have the potential for radical reinterpretation.
take 2014's maleficent, the movie responsible for starting this craze. not many people know this, but when sleeping beauty first came out in 1959, it flopped HARD - almost caused disney to go bankrupt, in fact. obviously people have warmed up to it over the years but there are still criticisms to be had. maleficent was the most memorable aspect of the animated movie, so for there to be a retelling of the story from her POV (even if it is just the temu version of wicked) was enough of a draw for audiences - if you don't believe me, go ahead and look at its $700M+ worldwide gross.
then you have adaptations like 2017's beauty and the beast, which is regularly criticized for staying too close to the 1992 film - but realistically speaking, why would disney reinvent that story? beauty and the beast is one of the most acclaimed films they've put out, and as an animated movie set a major precedent by being the first to receive a best picture nomination in an age when that category was strictly limited to five nominees. if it ain't broke, don't fix it!
even with its similarities to the 1992 film, the 2017 adaptation still raked in $1 billion, so now disney's mentality is that any remotely successful animated film across their distinct eras is worthy of the live-action treatment - regardless if they're still fresh in the public's consciousness, if prospective adaptations of tangled, frozen, and princess and the frog are any indication
all of this brings me to discuss the latest movie in this craze, which ironically isn't from disney but the one studio that's been chasing after them their entire existence - its dreamworks, which is releasing a live-action adaptation of 2010's how to train your dragon this june
for context, i've never regularly kept up with the dragons franchise even though it was a huge part of my childhood - i watched the original movie in theaters when it first came out, tuned in for the TV series when it first aired on cartoon network, and even read the first of the books that inspired the movies. me hearing about the live-action movie is what got me to properly revisit the trilogy, and i've grown a whole new appreciation for it for two main reasons:
1) it actually let its characters grow and mature over the course of the films, allowing the storytelling to grow and mature as well
2) despite being fantasy it was still fairly grounded - not just because the dragons were the only fantastical element, but because things didn't immediately get better for the berkians once the war with the dragons ended. there was much work to be done for both parties to co-exist, as well as the fact that berk was just one haven for dragons in a world that still tried to subdue or take advantage of them (this is why i'm not bothered with the hidden world's ending - sure the movie's overall execution/quality was iffy but it was an emotionally charged and powerful choice)
so i'm in a weird state of nostalgia and reluctance when it comes to the live-action movie. on principle alone it has no reason to exist, especially since dreamworks has kept the franchise alive well beyond the animated trilogy with more TV shows and an upcoming theme park at one of the universal resorts (which may be why the live-action exists, to advertise that - even though it's reportedly based on the second and third films)
on the other hand, i'm fairly certain how to train your dragon (for better or worse) will be the ONLY dreamworks film to get this treatment regardless of how successful the live-action ends up being - if dreamworks is going by the same logic as disney, it's far more grounded than any other film they've made and has enough universal goodwill for a live-action adaptation to be even given a chance. i can't imagine them making this to test the waters for a live-action shrek, madagascar, or kung fu panda (because lord knows we need another 2019 lion king situation), nor do i think anyone would agree on such ideas if they got the greenlight
the involvement of talent from the original trilogy like dean deblois, john powell, and stoick's actor gerald butler is somewhat refreshing because of how much i enjoyed their past contributions - but dean has stated before that universal would've moved forward with this project regardless if he didn't step in to make sure they did it right (and, considering how dreamworks wasn't officially attached to the movie until after the first trailer dropped, this was truly an executive decision on universal's end)
some people have suggested they'd be more welcoming to the idea of a live-action how to train your dragon if it more closely resembled the original books. i can't really speak on that considering i read the first one all the way back in middle school, but with how dreamworks' take on cressida cowell's canon has completely overshadowed the source material, that would just lead to a slew of problems. that's not a dig at mrs. cowell or denial that a faithful book-to-film adaptation would work, but it'd be so far divorced than what the masses are familiar with, it might as well be it's own original thing
i don't think i'll end up watching the live-action movie in theaters but it'll definitely be something i keep tabs on as i continue revisiting the animated trilogy. and as i said before, this will hopefully be a one-and-done situation - i am NOT trying to see a live-action shrek on any screen anytime soon