The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

Walt Disney Studios and the Live Action Remake
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11330		 Page 1 of 4
Author:  Talya [ Tue Mar 31, 2015 7:45 am ]
Post subject:  Walt Disney Studios and the Live Action Remake
I'm not sure what I think of this trend. Somehow I remain skeptical, despite Disney having done a great job so far with this concept.

I was trying to figure out where it started -- there was 1996's live action 101 Dalmations, but it didn't start any kind of trend. No, the recent phenomenon is new, and I think it goes back only eight years, to Amy Adam's generic 2007 princess movie, "Enchanted," which, while not a remake of a specific movie, was basically "What if we took a generic princess fairy tale and brought it into real life?" The movie was decent, a dry run perhaps. But somewhere at Disney it caught on.

2010 gave us Alice in Wonderland, a rather inspired little sequel to the 1951 classic, which put it more in line with Spielberg's non-disney Peter Pan sequel "Hook", perhaps not the true remake as we're starting to see now. Still, they did a pretty good job bringing the absurdity that is Lewis Carroll's Wonderland off the drawing board and onto real film.

A few months later, still in 2010, someone decided that The Sorcerer's Apprentice classic short from 1940's Fantasia deserved a live action tribute, but it wasn't a remake, and Nicholas Cage and Jay Baruchel couldn't help it any.

I will give Oz the Great and Powerful brief mention here - the Sam Raimi movie was charming, but not good, and wasn't remaking or even a sequel of a cartoon, but somehow it seems to fit in this line. While these few movies are not in themselves remakes of cartoons, they somehow seem to pave the way for what is happening now:

Maleficent (2014) - Despite the critics, this was a financially successful little retelling of Sleeping Beauty 'as it really happened, rather than the story you were originally told.'

Cinderella (2015) - A very well done direct remake of the original classic that managed to get the critics onboard, too.

Already in the pipeline: The Jungle Book (2016), Beauty & the Beast (2017), Dumbo (?! - Burton is directing, so maybe the absurdity of the idea can be matched by the absurdity of the director and make something ok), and announced yesterday, Mulan.

If you look into the details of any of these remakes, they're not taking them lightly - these aren't low-cost cash-ins. My gut-check thinks, "The originals were great. They don't need remaking." But so far the remakes don't seem to replace the originals, but rather complement them. They seem to be made for me, as an adult, to get to rewatch a childhood classic in a new light, close enough to the original to bring back all the nostalgia, but remade with just enough added depth to keep my more refined adult tastes interested.

Can they work? I'm sure there will be some flops there, but somehow, I think they just might pull most of them off.

To forestall the inevitable invalid criticism:
- No, nobody's running out of ideas. You see that stated every time someone makes a sequel or remakes a classic. Disney releases far more original properties now than they ever did when Walt was alive. It's not that they have to remake things because they have nothing else to do - they are remaking things in addition to making lots of things that are new.
Author:  FarSky [ Tue Mar 31, 2015 1:54 pm ]
Post subject: 
Can't wait for the live-action Home on the Range.
Author:  Raell [ Wed Apr 01, 2015 12:12 am ]
Post subject: 
Is The Brave Little Toaster a Disney flick?
Author:  Shelgeyr [ Wed Apr 01, 2015 6:37 am ]
Post subject: 
You forgot to mention Snow White and the Huntsman (2012).
Author:  Talya [ Wed Apr 01, 2015 6:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re:
Raell wrote:
Is The Brave Little Toaster a Disney flick?


Yes.

Shelgeyr wrote:
You forgot to mention Snow White and the Huntsman (2012).


No I didn't. That's an unaffiliated Universal Pictures movie that's not connected to the Disney movie, except through the original Brothers Grimm fairy tale.
Author:  Raell [ Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:40 pm ]
Post subject: 
I want to see Ben Affleck play the Toaster!
Author:  Talya [ Tue Apr 07, 2015 8:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
I saw the new Cinderella tonight... it was spectacularly done. Really, it couldn't have been better.
Author:  Serienya [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 3:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
Talya wrote:
I saw the new Cinderella tonight... it was spectacularly done. Really, it couldn't have been better.


My daughter and I enjoyed it.

Edit: I note that the non-Disney movie Ever After is still a guilty pleasure. It wasn't perfect, but I enjoy it every time I see it.
Author:  Lonedar [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 4:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
Talya wrote:
I saw the new Cinderella tonight... it was spectacularly done. Really, it couldn't have been better.


I 100% agree. It was fantastic. Even my "too big and manly for princess movies" boys liked it. Whodah thunk a princess could be the strongest character in the story without giving her a sword or making her a total biyatch? Fleshing out the Prince was also an improvement on the original. Far superior to Alice (unnecessary), Snow White (although I admit I liked it in a way similar to how I like the Hobbit movies...as a non-canonical, loose interpretation) and Malificent (lame attempt to justify evil...wasted potential).
Author:  Talya [ Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
Lonedar wrote:
Talya wrote:
I saw the new Cinderella tonight... it was spectacularly done. Really, it couldn't have been better.


I 100% agree. It was fantastic. Even my "too big and manly for princess movies" boys liked it. Whodah thunk a princess could be the strongest character in the story without giving her a sword or making her a total biyatch? Fleshing out the Prince was also an improvement on the original. Far superior to Alice (unnecessary), Snow White (although I admit I liked it in a way similar to how I like the Hobbit movies...as a non-canonical, loose interpretation) and Malificent (lame attempt to justify evil...wasted potential).

Agreed. (Except - notice it is no longer a "princess movie?" By the time the prince finds Ella, he's king. She becomes his queen when they marry. Semantics, I know, it doesn't actually change the story any.)
Author:  Lonedar [ Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
Talya wrote:
By the time the prince finds Ella, he's king. She becomes his queen when they marry. Semantics, I know, it doesn't actually change the story any.


A winning observation!
Author:  Calador [ Sat Apr 11, 2015 11:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Walt Disney Studios and the Live Action Remake
Once Upon a Time and its success has played a part in the rise of these movies as well, particularly the alternative telling side.

Saw an article a while back that Disney had intentionally intertwined the universes of Frozen, Tangled, and The Little Mermaid through details in the movies. There was also speculation that some other movies might be tied in as well, though the tie ins were less clear.
Author:  FarSky [ Sat Apr 11, 2015 11:14 am ]
Post subject: 
They've also announced live-action remakes of Pinocchio [sigh] and Winnie the Pooh [SIGHING INTENSIFIES].
Author:  Talya [ Mon Apr 13, 2015 11:53 am ]
Post subject: 
They won't all be Cinderella.
Author:  Talya [ Wed Apr 22, 2015 4:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Walt Disney Studios and the Live Action Remake
Wow, what a cast for the live action remake of Beauty & The Beast.

The Beast - Dan Stevens (Downton Abbey)
Belle - Emma Watson (Hermione Granger)
Cogsworth - Sir Ian McKellan (Gandalf, Magneto)
Gaston - Luke Evans (Fast & Furious 6, The Hobbit)
Le Fou - Josh Gad (Frozen's Olaf)
Lumiere - Ewan McGregor (Star Wars, Moulin Rouge, Trainspotting)
Mrs. Potts - Emma Thompson (everything)

Also in the movie: Stanley Tucci (new character "Cadenza" - an enchanted piano), and Kevin Kline (Maurice).
Author:  Müs [ Wed Apr 22, 2015 5:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
The piano was Tim Curry in B&TB 2 DTV.
Author:  Talya [ Tue Sep 15, 2015 2:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Walt Disney Studios and the Live Action Remake
Sssssscarlett'sss never been sssso sssspoooky.
Author:  FarSky [ Tue Sep 15, 2015 2:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
That looks hideous.

I don't mean as a film (I have no feelings about it one way or the other), but the overly-CGIed feel to everything just really rankles.
Author:  Talya [ Tue Sep 15, 2015 3:14 pm ]
Post subject: 
The Jungle Book is probably my favorite classic Disney movie. It's the last one Walt personally worked on, the music and story were great fun.

I was skeptical when I heard they were giving it the "live action" treatment - because, as FarSky just pointed out, only one of its main characters could possibly be live action - the rest must be CGI. I don't find the CGI in that teaser particularly troublesome, though. Also, Kaa's voice has never been ssspookier, and it gives tribute to its musical origins without the music.

That doesn't mean it will be good, but this teaser has at least gotten my approval.
Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Tue Sep 15, 2015 5:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
FarSky wrote:
That looks hideous.

I don't mean as a film (I have no feelings about it one way or the other), but the overly-CGIed feel to everything just really rankles.

Ugh, no kidding.

My reaction was "So, Disney buys Lucasfilms, declares CGI ruins everything and hypes up worshipping at the altar of practical effects... and then releases a film that will be literally 99% CGI as a "live action adaptation" of one of its cartoon classics... ?"

The only way this could have succeeded was if they had gone all documentary footage cherry-picking and masterful animal handling to create a live action version that goes all The Incredible Journey with lions, tigers, bears, and boas on some poor little kid.
Author:  Raell [ Tue Sep 15, 2015 10:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
I am going to be 45 by the time that comes out. Lets face it, Disney isn't making films for me any longer. That is a kids movie, simple.
Author:  Arathain Kelvar [ Wed Sep 16, 2015 6:32 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
Kaffis Mark V wrote:
The only way this could have succeeded was if they had gone all documentary footage cherry-picking and masterful animal handling to create a live action version that goes all The Incredible Journey with lions, tigers, bears, and boas on some poor little kid.


And in this version, Sher Khan gets to eat the boy, because, well, oops.
Author:  Talya [ Wed Sep 16, 2015 7:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re:
Raell wrote:
I am going to be 45 by the time that comes out. Lets face it, Disney isn't making films for me any longer. That is a kids movie, simple.


1. Marvel, Star Wars, the Pirates franchise, etc. etc. etc. Hell, even animated - Big Hero 6? Wreck-it Ralph? Every Pixar movie ever made? They make lots of movies for you.
2. The secret to not getting old is to remain immature. (Says the woman going to Walt Disney World in a few days.)
Author:  Corolinth [ Wed Sep 16, 2015 7:33 am ]
Post subject: 
That's kind of tough when we're all a bunch of old farts ***** about computers and yearning for the bygone days of foam, rubber, and cardboard sets and effects.
Author:  Diamondeye [ Wed Sep 16, 2015 8:30 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Walt Disney Studios and the Live Action Remake
It's not like the original versions are going away or something.
Page 1 of 4 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/