Lilo & Stitch live action

[Biomega]

live action doesn't make it new if its the same story beats.

That's entirely contingent on your particular definition of "new". You can absolutely argue that making a live-action version of an animated film is something "new", even if it's the same story scene for scene. That's a different kind of new, and not something brand new, but it's very easy to negotiate the word "new" here nonetheless. You can disagree, of course, and say you don't consider it "new" and that's entirely fine; but many other people will, in much the same way. There isn't some kind of objective measure that can be applied here to decide this definitively.

Consider, for a moment the cause and effect here.... its not that audience doesn't like 2d movies, its that there aren't 2d movies for the audience to like?

You're not totally off-base with this and this problem does have a tendency to crop up in all sorts of ways, but as a very general rule, if they aren't making something then it's probably because there isn't a big enough audience for it (or at least not in that moment). These things shift, of course, as trends ebb and flow, but giant entertainment corporations pay entire floors of people oodles of money to research these things. They by no means always get it right - no one can. But they're at least more informed about it than most people, so even though they can and do easily miss the mark, they're at least among the ones most likely to hit, too.

if you don't market something properly - it probably won't succeed, no matter how good at is, so... are we going to blame the audience for it? Marketing or lack of thereof or better yet shitty badly targeted marketing - can be used as means of sabotage. Why sabotage your own product, you ask? because you no longer wish to produce it and want to move on to easier to make crap.

I'm not sure I understand your logic here.

Companies don't need to justify their financial strategy in some elaborate way that requires them to sabotage their own product. They can just... do something else. They're beholden primarily to their shareholders, and your entire premise is that the alternative makes more money (which is what "easier to make crap" tends to translate into, ultimately). So why would they sabotage themselves? They can just stop doing A and start doing B. Who would be the people going "but wait a minute why are you doing this WHAT ARE YOU HIDING?!" in this scenario, exactly, that would then require this kind of subterfuge? Not the investors - you sit them down and spread your sheet and they see big number go up and nod in agreement. They not only don't need tricking, they'll SUE YOUR ASS TO THE MOON if they ever find out (and you might be criminally liable, too, for misleading investors).

You're constructing this elaborate ruse, but I fail to see any way in which this would ever make sense or be plausible.

what is the point of this movie existing on an artistic, entertainment and narrative merit?

That's a very different question in a very different framework, and the answer very often for the majority of entertainment products is quite simply "there isn't one, this is a commercial product that primarily exists to make money". Which they do. And which is what entertainment companies pumping tens if not hundreds of millions of production and advertisement budgets into such projects care about.

That doesn't invalidate your question, it's merely a different question that doesn't lend itself terribly well to crossing over into other domains. Artistic value and monetary value are two distinct things. They have points of interaction, and they're definitely not interchangeable. But they also don't simply invalidate each other, either. You can't distill them down to some kind of universal "value" that subsumes all aspects. That's mostly just one giant ball of category error.

[Fencers]

live action doesn't make it new if its the same story beats.

It does. That's the whole point.

Consider, for a moment the cause and effect here.... its not that audience doesn't like 2d movies, its that there aren't 2d movies for the audience to like?

There hasn't been a successful tradional animated film in years though. Anyone other than Disney has failed HARD. Even Disney struggled so greatly they stopped bothering for the past 15 years.

War of the Rohirrim was a HUGE flop just recently. That had a lot of marketing behind it as well.

The economics don't support the risk of theatrical 2D animation in the US.

you talk a lot about marketing - which fair, its your area of expertise...

Yes and no. I am a market researcher - its often confused with marketing. But the latter is nothing like the former.

Market research is consumer data, trends, habits, etc.

For example, if I say "most people only care about feature X on a washing machine."

That's almost certainly true. I spent over 4 years polling, product testing, focus grouping, zoom calling, shopalongs, video documenting, transcribing testimony, etc- with consumers about washing machines. No that is not a joke. I really have spent years talking to people about washing machines and collecting the direct consumer data across various markets.

That's market research. When studios, distributors more appropriately, hire a firm such as the one I work for those clients desire data on consumers.

People are not interested in 2D animation to make it worthwhile.

That isn't to say "nobody" is interested or that a film can't breakout and reach a new audience. But the odds are against a studio and they are not rewarded for the flops.

The industry is SUPER risk adverse. It's why there are so many nostalgia plays and sequels to sequels. I've literally worked on like Hotel Transylvania, Spirit Untamed and the Bad Guys.

We ask consumers the kind of animated films they want to see in theaters. 2D animation isn't high their list at all. So to speak.

which should also make you aware just how much of a difference marketing can make.

Disney spent a lot of money marketing their 2D films and so did Universal, WB, and Sony. They all failed.

are we going to blame the audience for it?

this is a strange conclusion. There is no one to blame. Not enough people like traditional animation to go to a theater and pay $60-200 for the privilege.

2D animation does well in other platforms. Theatrical is a huge risk that is unlikely to pay off.

Why sabotage your own product, you ask? because you no longer wish to produce it and want to move on to easier to make crap.

No one does this. It's just some online fantasy because you think such & such is "crap."

It isn't easier to write a film that is CGI than a tradional animated film.

Production costs have risen in talent allocation largely. Animating a film traditionally is largely a matter of time to cost. But almost no production house does entirely cell animation anymore- in fact, I can't think of any left.

edited to add - I really should have framed my original question better - what is the point of this movie existing on an artistic, entertainment and narrative merit?

The artistic merit is totally subjective and to be determined.

As an entertainment product; its intent to be a novel presention of a profitable IP.

As I said above; its live action. Humans beings give in-camera performances on screen, directors make deluberate choices, cinematographers apply a specific and personal look to a live action film, etc.

What is the artistic merit of making a live action film based on a book or play? The performances and production itself, naturally.

it exists to line executive pockets and to show nice graphs to shareholders.

Every mass media product exists for this purpose fundementally.

The original Lilo & Stitch didn't have loftier goals.

Independent cinema exists for purely artistic products. A product made by Disney is unlikely to be made with the same ethos and motivations as Sean Baker's Tangerine or India Donaldson's Good One

It seems somewhat nieve an expectation, frankly. Different products, different business.