If the shoe fits, wear it.

I take apart the new Cinderella

on this week's episode of Angry Nerd.

(train whistle blows)

First, your comments.

Rodney Funderburrk writes,

can you make a video about whether

books or movies are better for franchises

like Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and Twilight?

Rodney, books and movies are two totally different mediums,

and each are good in their own ways.

Except for Twilight.

Twilight books and movies are each bad in their own ways.

A live-action version of Disney's Cinderella is coming out,

and it's giving me a powerful sense of deja vu.

I mean, there have been 13 movie adaptations of this story

just since 2000,

including Into the Woods just a couple of months ago.

I don't see what sets this new

Kenneth Branagh adaptation apart,

except more plot machinations with the wick stepmother.

Yawn.

Why is Disney turning yet another

animated classic into live action?

What, it's because Maleficent earned over 750 million?

I just think...

That's the reason?

I figured that was the reason why.

But I guess this new Cinderella

doesn't really have to reinvent the wheel,

because the 400-year-old storyline

is so durable and so universally appealing.

I mean, people just naturally respond

to the downtrodden protagonist

whose special qualities are finally recognized.

I can guarantee you they'll still be staging Cinderella

in outposts on Rigel 7 in the year 2395.

A story with that sort of timeless appeal is potent stuff.

I mean, seriously,

has anybody in our life time

come up with a tale that we can confidently predict

will still be in circulation four centuries from now?

I would say George Lucas.

I mean, the man has a lot to answer for,

but in the pre-Prequel era

he really tapped into something primal.

[Darth Vader] I am your father.

No!

We remember in Reign of Fire

when the adults staged Star Wars for the kids??

I am your father.

(gasps)

That was the best scene in that post-apocalyptic dud.

Who else's work will endure?

Stan Lee, maybe?

Future generations will still wish

that they could be like the wallflower

who gains extraordinary superpowers,

and they'll probably think that 20th century people

were all so gullible and superstitious

that we really believed that radioactive arachnids

would actually have that affect.

I knew that wasn't how science works,

people from the distant future.

Revive my cyro-frozen head,

I will explain our era to you.

Who else stands the test of time?

Walt Disney, yeah.

John Lasseter, it's likely.

Dr. Suess, natch.

Miyamoto, of course!

JK Rowling, no.

They'll find the educational system elitist.

Brutalizing!

Michael Bay, are you kidding?

His stuff seems archaic now.

So, Disney's doing a live-action Cinderella this year,

a live-action Jungle Book and Beauty and the Beast

coming next year.

I mean what's next, a live-action Pirates of the Caribbean?

What?

No, you're mistaken.

See, it's very sophisticated animatronics

just like the ride.

No, no, because I read it in Variety.

They're not real people.

I hate it when you go, Well...

and then you tell me I'm wrong

when I know that I'm right.

They're animatronic robots.

No, no, well, we'll agree to disagree.

(train whistle blows)

Huh, I guess I'm assuming that

the future peoples of the 24th century

won't have super short attention spans.

Maybe their touchstones will be, like,

Charlie bit my finger

or the cat who likes to jump into boxes.

What do you think is the most durable story of our time?

Let me know in the comments,

subscribe to the Wired channel,

and click on my videos over there

with the tiny, animatronic versions of me.

What? No, they're animatronic?

See, look how stiff and jerky their movements are.

What a thing to say to me.

You know, I think you are animatronic.

Yeah, I thought so.

A real human being couldn't be that heartless.