More Updates on the Live-Action Lady and the Tramp

Apparently, there's a lot more news about this live-action Lady and the Tramp than I realized.

Let's break it down:

1. Justin Theroux will be the voice of Tramp.

 TBH, I don't have a lot of thoughts on this casting choice. It seems odd to me, but not an interesting way...more of a "meh-shrug-your-shoulders-and-move-on" kind of way. I don't know if I expected more star power (my husband literally said, "Who?" when I shared this with him) or a more dynamic personality...Meh.

2. Ashley Jensen will be the voice of Jackie:

📷: ComingSoon

To me, this is more interesting news because (1) Jensen is actually Scottish (Bill Thompson who voiced Jock in the original animated film was not), so good move there, Disney; (2) we're gender-flipping the character (Jock was originally male) which...not to say that women can't have male friends, but I always thought it was odd that Lady had no female friends*; and (3) I've been a fan of Ashley Jensen since her Ugly Betty and Extras days, so I approve of this.

3. Kiersey Clemmons will be Darling and Thomas Mann will be Jim Dear.

Okay. I didn't actually know who either of these actors were -- and browsing their IMDB page didn't really help -- but, FWIW, it's interesting to note that Disney will be portraying an interracial relationship (which, unfortunately, is still a big deal for the media giant). That is, of course, if only the animals are CGI.

4. The most interesting bit of news from this People article, though, is how the film will be released: it won't be released in theaters, but rather directly through Disney's unnamed streaming service. (Which is, temporarily at least, known as Disney Play, thanks to an off-hand comment from Iger.) What this means, though, is less clear. Historically, films that weren't released in theaters were straight-to-DVD releases -- see, for instance, Cinderella 2 or any of the multitude of sequels -- and were generally considered inferior (re: not box office successes). A tricky appellation, and something of a misnomer. While, yes, the animation is generally inferior (more time, effort, and skill is placed into the films that can earn the most revenue -- usually: this didn't really work with Pocahontas and The Lion King) the story sometimes isn't. Since these films aren't subject to as much scrutiny -- their intended audience is much smaller -- their stories can be a little more progressive and their characters are little more dynamic. (My favorite example of this is probably the Tinkerbell movies which boast amazing voice actors and Tink is a girl in STEM! She's a "tinker," an engineer.)

But the viewing landscape has changed: this year's Emmy nominations fascinatingly (but not shockingly) favored non-cable networks, with the exception of NBC's This is Us and ABC's Blackish. Companies like Amazon Prime, Netflix, Hulu and HBO are generating outstanding original content, so why shouldn't Disney follow suit? We know their storytelling and movie-making is, arguably, in a class of its own, so their own streaming platform to house that content could be a bold move.

Could be. Will the content suffer? Will people pay to see it -- especially once Disney's catalog is gone from places like Netflix? (I mean, I will, but I'm a weird Disney fanatic.)