Disney "Remakes"

[AdamFTF]

Hello one and all, with the announcement of Rose Red the other day and The Jungle Book coming out next month, I thought it would be nice to have a thread that keeps a running list of all the Disney live-action remakes/sequels/sidequels/prequels/companion pieces that are announced, rumored or already made as well as discussion about the whole concept. So, without further ado . . .

Alice in Wonderland
Maleficent
Cinderella
The Jungle Book
Pete's Dragon
Alice Through the Looking-Glass
Beauty and the Beast
Mulan
Winnie the Pooh
The Sword in the Stone
Night on Bald Mountain
Genies
Tink
Pinocchio
Mary Poppins 2
Cruella
Dumbo
Maleficent 2
Rose Red
Peter Pan

On top of this, we can also add some movies that are kind of similar in concept but not straight-up takes on Disney classics like:

Oz the Great and Powerful
The Nutcracker
Prince Charming

Also, Disney recently re-upped their license for The Chronicles of Prydain, so they're going to do something with that.

What do I think of the whole deal? Well, some would argue that it shows a lack of creativity and some ardent Disney fans would claim that they're ruining Disney masterpieces (I wouldn't throw around the word "masterpiece" so easily). As an all-around fairy tale and children's literature geek I think that stories, especially public domain ones, are made to be retold. And I think it's interesting that Disney, who most people treat as the creators of some kind of cultural canon, are the ones essentially saying "These stories can be retold in different ways". Also, while these revisits of famous stories may range from good to mediocre, they still seem to be doing it better than any other studio. I'm not crazy about Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland but I'll still take it over a Pan or Jack the Giant-Slayer if given the choice. The only one I've got really serious reservations on is their sequel to Mary Poppins, because the author of the original books made it clear that she did not like what Disney did with her stories and characters the first time.

What does everybody else think?

[Rogue Star]

I was once annoyed by the trend but then I said "eh". I don't have to see the movies so I save myself the irritation. However, just last night I watched a trailer for the Jungle Book and I thought they looked to be honoring a classic as opposed to trying to cash in on a trend so I'm interested now. I wish they would have used voice actors that can disappear into the roles more. When I hear Kaa speak, all I hear is Scarlett Johansson.

[Kirby101]

I was once annoyed by the trend but then I said "eh". I don't have to see the movies so I save myself the irritation. However, just last night I watched a trailer for the Jungle Book and I thought they looked to be honoring a classic as opposed to trying to cash in on a trend so I'm interested now. I wish they would have used voice actors that can disappear into the roles more. When I hear Kaa speak, all I hear is Scarlett Johansson.

Unless they are having Baloo sing "Bare necessities" i would call this an adaptation Of Kipling instead of a remake of the the cartoon.

[AndrewCrossett]

I don't consider different adaptations of a literary classic to be "remakes" of each other, so I don't mind them doing The Jungle Book, Beauty and the Beast, Pinocchio (although as we've seen, it's very easy to do a terrible live-action version of Pinocchio). I don't like the Tim Burton Alice stuff.

I don't really see where you can go with a Pete's Dragon remake... it was already a live-action movie with a goofy-looking cartoon dragon, which is what it has to be. What are they going to do, upgrade Elliott to a Smaug-like CGI dragon? Or make it "dark and gritty"?

The idea of a live-action Dumbo or Winnie-the-Pooh is just too stupid for words. And... Mary Poppins 2? Seriously? Yeah, I know there were a lot of Mary Poppins books. I also know that P.L. Travers was dead set against Disney ever adapting any more of them... but hey, she's conveniently dead now and so her wishes don't matter. Just ask Charles Schulz. Not even getting into the fact that the skills and sensibilities to make a movie that could hold a candle to the original 1964 film no longer exist in our world.

I actually would like to see a good live-action adaptation of The Sword in the Stone, now that we have the technology to integrate the fantasy elements properly. Same thing with the Chronicles of Prydain. They could easily turn that into a series... like the Chronicles of Narnia, but without all that pesky religious stuff. I just don't want them to hand it over to Burton who's going to turn it into his own tasteless, hyper-commercialized bastardization of the original.

[Phil Clark]

Unless they are having Baloo sing "Bare necessities" i would call this an adaptation Of Kipling instead of a remake of the the cartoon.

If I remember right, he does sing at least a part of it in one of the trailers.

[Donald]

I been under the assumption that many if not all of the live action remakes are to secure the trademarks and copyrights for another 70(?) years.

I haven't seen many of these, but if they follow the cartoon story with cartoon names and likenesses, then they will be protecting their copyrights under a slightly different set of circumstances.

If that's how it works.

[Midvillian1322]

Unless they are having Baloo sing "Bare necessities" i would call this an adaptation Of Kipling instead of a remake of the the cartoon.

Baloo whistles it while they are flowing down river. Given Bill Murrays pension for singing im sure he sings it in the movie. Also think favrou said there a couple familar songs in the movie. Im pretty sure king louies song wont be one of them lol

[AndrewCrossett]

The idea of realistic CGI animals singing Sherman Brothers songs seems completely ridiculous to me. But I have to trust that Favreau knows what he's doing.

[AdamFTF]

I don't consider different adaptations of a literary classic to be "remakes" of each other, so I don't mind them doing The Jungle Book, Beauty and the Beast, Pinocchio (although as we've seen, it's very easy to do a terrible live-action version of Pinocchio). I don't like the Tim Burton Alice stuff.

Beauty and the Beast is looking to be more of a remake than anything else. Word is they're making it a musical with songs from both the animated movie and Broadway show. Pinocchio is a difficult story anyway. I love Collodi's original book for the surreal, didactic, satirical, darkly comic oddity that it is. However, that doesn't necessarily add up to box office success. When Disney made the original animated movie, they played up the sentimentality and played down both the surreal qualities and Pinocchio's more negative traits. Almost every adaptation since has done the same thing.

I don't really see where you can go with a Pete's Dragon remake... it was already a live-action movie with a goofy-looking cartoon dragon, which is what it has to be. What are they going to do, upgrade Elliott to a Smaug-like CGI dragon? Or make it "dark and gritty"?

Pete's Dragon is Disney's own story 100% so they can do what they want with it. There's already a trailer out for it and so far it looks like more of a drama about an orphan boy raised by a supposedly imaginary dragon. Make of that what you will.

The idea of a live-action Dumbo or Winnie-the-Pooh is just too stupid for words. And... Mary Poppins 2? Seriously? Yeah, I know there were a lot of Mary Poppins books. I also know that P.L. Travers was dead set against Disney ever adapting any more of them... but hey, she's conveniently dead now and so her wishes don't matter. Just ask Charles Schulz. Not even getting into the fact that the skills and sensibilities to make a movie that could hold a candle to the original 1964 film no longer exist in our world.

There's always the glimmer of hope that they'll do a Mary Poppins that's more akin to what Travers envisioned, but it's always going to be difficult as long as they hire pretty, young singers in the role. The Mary Poppins in the book was a strict, frumpy middle-aged woman with a vain streak. She should be the kind of nanny no child would really want except for the fact that she was kind of reluctantly magical and kept getting drawn into fantastical situations. Julie Andrews tried her damnedest with the role back in the day. She tried to act strict and no-nonsense. She even preened every time she was in front of a mirror or reflective surface. But she was young and pretty and sang sweetly and it was hard to see the strict nanny stuff beyond that. And now they have a chance at a second one and they've hired . . . Emily Blunt. It looks like the same situation all over again.

I actually would like to see a good live-action adaptation of The Sword in the Stone, now that we have the technology to integrate the fantasy elements properly. Same thing with the Chronicles of Prydain. They could easily turn that into a series... like the Chronicles of Narnia, but without all that pesky religious stuff. I just don't want them to hand it over to Burton who's going to turn it into his own tasteless, hyper-commercialized bastardization of the original.

The Chronicles of Prydain is one of the few chances they have to do better the second time, because The Black Cauldron turned out to be kind of a dud back in the '80s.

I been under the assumption that many if not all of the live action remakes are to secure the trademarks and copyrights for another 70(?) years.

I haven't seen many of these, but if they follow the cartoon story with cartoon names and likenesses, then they will be protecting their copyrights under a slightly different set of circumstances.

If that's how it works.

Well, the stories have turned out to be kind of a mish-mash between cartoon stories, literature and original stuff.

I doubt it's a copyright thing because copyright lasts a certain length and then it's done. It might be a trademark thing, because you have to continually defend or use a trademark. Some of this stuff they don't own completely because the original stories are in the public domain. For example, Andy Serkis is directing a completely different Jungle Book movie and Universal is making their own Little Mermaid.

[AndrewCrossett]

Beauty and the Beast is looking to be more of a remake than anything else. Word is they're making it a musical with songs from both the animated movie and Broadway show. Pinocchio is a difficult story anyway. I love Collodi's original book for the surreal, didactic, satirical, darkly comic oddity that it is. However, that doesn't necessarily add up to box office success. When Disney made the original animated movie, they played up the sentimentality and played down both the surreal qualities and Pinocchio's more negative traits. Almost every adaptation since has done the same thing.

Actually, an adaptation of the original book might be right in Burton's wheelhouse.

There's always the glimmer of hope that they'll do a Mary Poppins that's more akin to what Travers envisioned, but it's always going to be difficult as long as they hire pretty, young singers in the role. The Mary Poppins in the book was a strict, frumpy middle-aged woman with a vain streak. She should be the kind of nanny no child would really want except for the fact that she was kind of reluctantly magical and kept getting drawn into fantastical situations. Julie Andrews tried her damnedest with the role back in the day. She tried to act strict and no-nonsense. She even preened every time she was in front of a mirror or reflective surface. But she was young and pretty and sang sweetly and it was hard to see the strict nanny stuff beyond that. And now they have a chance at a second one and they've hired . . . Emily Blunt. It looks like the same situation all over again.

What Walt Disney correctly realized... and Travers resented so much... was that the books as written, and the vision Travers had for the movie, would have been a bomb. At the very least the movie would have been quickly forgotten and lumped in with such Disney classics as Son of Flubber and The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes. Picture Julie Andrews replaced by a middle-aged frump and all the songs replaced by the oom-pah band music Travers wanted, and you've got yourself a groundbreaking cure for insomnia.

If they're trying to recapture the magic of the first movie, then... spoiler warning... they ain't gonna do it.

The Chronicles of Prydain is one of the few chances they have to do better the second time, because The Black Cauldron turned out to be kind of a dud back in the '80s.

I remember seeing in the theater when it came out, having read the books. The animation was excellent... I think it was one of the first Disney movies to use computer-assisted animation. But the movie itself was forgettable.

I doubt it's a copyright thing because copyright lasts a certain length and then it's done. It might be a trademark thing, because you have to continually defend or use a trademark. Some of this stuff they don't own completely because the original stories are in the public domain. For example, Andy Serkis is directing a completely different Jungle Book movie and Universal is making their own Little Mermaid.

Disney trademarks their own distinctive versions of the public domain characters. Maybe they're trying to establish trademarks on live action or CGI versions of those characters, in preparation for the era when traditional 2D animation is pretty much a thing of the past.

That still doesn't explain Night on Bald Mountain, though. Do they expect Tchernobog to be a big marketing success? He's gonna be the new Cthulhu!

[AdamFTF]

Actually, an adaptation of the original book might be right in Burton's wheelhouse.

Perhaps it would. I'm afraid that everything would be in black and white stripes and spirals, though.

What Walt Disney correctly realized... and Travers resented so much... was that the books as written, and the vision Travers had for the movie, would have been a bomb. At the very least the movie would have been quickly forgotten and lumped in with such Disney classics as Son of Flubber and The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes. Picture Julie Andrews replaced by a middle-aged frump and all the songs replaced by the oom-pah band music Travers wanted, and you've got yourself a groundbreaking cure for insomnia.

If they're trying to recapture the magic of the first movie, then... spoiler warning... they ain't gonna do it.

Probably true. Movie makers are more aware of how to think visually and what will appeal to the general public in that sense. Maybe Blunt's Mary Poppins will have its own magic.

I remember seeing in the theater when it came out, having read the books. The animation was excellent... I think it was one of the first Disney movies to use computer-assisted animation. But the movie itself was forgettable.

Disney trademarks their own distinctive versions of the public domain characters. Maybe they're trying to establish trademarks on live action or CGI versions of those characters, in preparation for the era when traditional 2D animation is pretty much a thing of the past.

Maybe. IP law can be hard to figure out.

That still doesn't explain Night on Bald Mountain, though. Do they expect Tchernobog to be a big marketing success? He's gonna be the new Cthulhu!

They haven't had the greatest luck with Fantasia-based movies in the past. Remember Nicholas Cage's The Sorcerer's Apprentice?

[Zero Hunter]

The Sword in the Stone is probably the one I would want to see most.

[Rogue Star]

Baloo whistles it while they are flowing down river. Given Bill Murrays pension for singing im sure he sings it in the movie. Also think favrou said there a couple familar songs in the movie. Im pretty sure king louies song wont be one of them lol

I sure hope it's not. I can't stand that song!

[AdamFTF]

I'm surprised that more people don't have opinions regarding that Rose Red thing they just announced. For one thing, it's working off of Disney's first animated film and for another . . . Fables kind of did it first.

[AndrewCrossett]

I'm surprised that more people don't have opinions regarding that Rose Red thing they just announced. For one thing, it's working off of Disney's first animated film and for another . . . Fables kind of did it first.

If that didn't derail Once Upon a Time it probably won't affect this movie either.