Stop ruining the classics and move forward

[R-Kane65]

Hello fellow fans.

As some of you who are aware, Disney is making live action films out of the original classics. Personally, I believe it spoils the classics and it's the complete opposite of what Walt Disney himself would have wanted, remember his famous quote "Keep moving forward." It seems the company and their share holders are more concerned about money now rather than art. They also seem risk averse with this policy and afraid to try new things. I believe they should move on to new ideas and return to traditional 2D animation, not just on television, but on the big screen. Anyone here hold similar views?

 

[Toolulu22]

It’s funny because I just watched the new versions of Card Sharks and Press your Luck, and thought maybe you were posting about those! I wonder if they are remaking all these game shows because people watch them now in reruns on the GSN and other channels. That’s the only reason I have heard of them.

In a round about way, to answer your question, I don’t think the remakes are necessarily better or worse- they are modern versions. Musicals are popular and so live action is the trend. It reminds me of the really old movies where actors and actresses did it all- including singing and dancing.

I agree that sometimes that Hollywood (or Disney) seems to have run out of ideas. But, that is because they want to stick to the formula that works and leave risk and much innovation to the independents or smaller budget movies. I also believe that no matter what Walt may or may not have wanted, we are past that now. The direction of Disney is towards higher profits- with a marketable idea about One Man’s Dream- but they are first and foremost a multi billion dollar global empire.

 

[Bill007]

I agree to a point. If all they do is remake the movie without adding a new twist or something then there is really no point. The Jungle Book was a fresh take on the animated version and it's the best by far in my opinion but Beauty and the Beast added little new to the story (except maybe making LeFou a gay character with the hots for Gaston). Dumbo added a new dimension to the story and tried but unfortunately wasn't very good (again, in my opinion). And it looks like the Lion King may just be a remake which would be very disappointing. Aladdin seems to fall somewhere in between but still awfully close to the original without a lot new. I wasn't overly impressed with it but still enjoyed it overall. I haven't seen the live action Cinderella. But in general I agree. If all they do is remake the same films just in a different format, what's the point? Time for some original and fresh material as I've said in previous posts. There's a whole new world of material out there. Let's explore it! Disney has always stood for innovation but they're spinning their wheels.
Oh, and Marvel and Star Wars don't count. They're in categories all by themselves without the real Disney feel or magic.

 

[fhtpdw20]

I don't care for it either. I am glad I was in the position to purchase DVDs over the last twenty years so I am not forced to watch what currently passes as entertainment. I don't buy as much Disney anymore because of blu-ray and remakes. The last dvd I got from Disney Movie Club was Mr. Boogedy and Bride of Boogedy.

 

[Bill007]

I'm a member too of the movie club and have been ordering the oldies like The Absent Minded Professor, Son of Flubber, the Herbie series, Toby Tyler and many others. That was when Disney was at it's best

 

[vacationer1954]

I like what they're doing now. Moving forward can take many forms including retelling familiar stories in new ways.

 

[BrianL]

I agree to a point. If all they do is remake the movie without adding a new twist or something then there is really no point. The Jungle Book was a fresh take on the animated version and it's the best by far in my opinion but Beauty and the Beast added little new to the story (except maybe making LeFou a gay character with the hots for Gaston). Dumbo added a new dimension to the story and tried but unfortunately wasn't very good (again, in my opinion). And it looks like the Lion King may just be a remake which would be very disappointing. Aladdin seems to fall somewhere in between but still awfully close to the original without a lot new. I wasn't overly impressed with it but still enjoyed it overall. I haven't seen the live action Cinderella. But in general I agree. If all they do is remake the same films just in a different format, what's the point? Time for some original and fresh material as I've said in previous posts. There's a whole new world of material out there. Let's explore it! Disney has always stood for innovation but they're spinning their wheels.
Oh, and Marvel and Star Wars don't count. They're in categories all by themselves without the real Disney feel or magic.

I agree that I prefer the ones that add a new twist (and I liked Dumbo a lot but I like Tim Burton). The straight remakes are the ones that bother me (and I think LeFou always had the hots for Gaston - they just didn't outright say it). Anyway, while movies like the new Beauty and the Beast were just fine, I don't know why I would ever choose to watch them over the animated originals. But, the live action BATB made over a billion dollars, so I get why Disney is doing it (especially when a lot of the original stuff is flopping). You can't blame them really. It's not like a ton of artistry isn't going into these movies and they do have more original stuff in the pipeline. Sometimes the scheduling jsut makes it look like it's all sequels and remakes. This stuff takes a while.

 

[Micca]

I have almost no interest in the remakes, but I have a rack of about 80-90 discs that cover the classics I'm most interested in.
I'm a shareholder, so as long as Disney's makin' bank I'm happy to ignore the remakes and continue enjoying my home library.

 

[R-Kane65]

I should have been a bit more specific, I am not against remake such as Pete's Dragon, the Jungle Book and Dumbo with new twists, I think they were fantastic. I just am not into remakes with the same twists as the original classics. And I would like to see more traditional animations. And should they work on live-action remakes, then ones like The Black Arrow: A Tale of the Two Roses by Robert Louis Stevenson, which they filmed in 1985, or a remake of the Black Cauldron but more original to the novel saga The Chronicles of Prydain by Louis Alexander, or twist about the villains, like they have done with Maleficent, for example Captain Hook. I am well aware they have done that in the Once Upon A Time series, but I'm certain almost everyone know the original story, which has already been done more than once, and I would be nice to see something new.

 

[Jason_V]

The same could have been said for the original versions of these stories created by Disney. Snow White, for example, was published in 1812. Any new version after that can be considered a remake. How does that fit into the thesis presented above? The original German version of Snow White is the classic, not the Disney animated version. All Disney did was change the story a bit and remake it.

Same for a vast majority of the animated catalogue. So, I ask, what's the difference? Is it just that you don't want Disney to remake the same stories they've already done? If that's it, I feel like the argument doesn't hold water since the company didn't directly create a majority of these characters.

 

[BrianL]

The same could have been said for the original versions of these stories created by Disney. Snow White, for example, was published in 1812. Any new version after that can be considered a remake. How does that fit into the thesis presented above? The original German version of Snow White is the classic, not the Disney animated version. All Disney did was change the story a bit and remake it.

Same for a vast majority of the animated catalogue. So, I ask, what's the difference? Is it just that you don't want Disney to remake the same stories they've already done? If that's it, I feel like the argument doesn't hold water since the company didn't directly create a majority of these characters.

For me anyway, it's not about them doing stories they have already done, it's about doing them in the exact same way. It's one thing when they change it up (and I mean more than a little), but when the movie is practically a shot-for-shot remake (sometimes of an already perfect movie) that's just boring. I get that they are making a ton of money doing these movies, but they just don't do much for me. The Disney versions of these fairy tales were already pretty heavily altered from the originals, so, like R-Kane65, I like when they do films like Maleficent and Dumbo far more than Cinderella and Beauty and the Beast.

 

[BeyondNeverland]

Honestly , the only Disney movie i would like to see as a live action (only cause I think it's totally doable) is the princess and the frog.

 

[vacationer1954]

For me anyway, it's not about them doing stories they have already done, it's about doing them in the exact same way. It's one thing when they change it up (and I mean more than a little), but when the movie is practically a shot-for-shot remake (sometimes of an already perfect movie) that's just boring.

Switching from animation to live action is "changing it up" as much as anything.

 

[Bill007]

The same could have been said for the original versions of these stories created by Disney. Snow White, for example, was published in 1812. Any new version after that can be considered a remake. How does that fit into the thesis presented above? The original German version of Snow White is the classic, not the Disney animated version. All Disney did was change the story a bit and remake it.

Same for a vast majority of the animated catalogue. So, I ask, what's the difference? Is it just that you don't want Disney to remake the same stories they've already done? If that's it, I feel like the argument doesn't hold water since the company didn't directly create a majority of these characters.

No, but they brought them to the screen in some cases for the first time. There's a big difference between taking a story that has been written and bringing it to life than refilming a new version of something that has already been made into a movie especially by the same company. So when people are frustrated with remakes I don't believe it's necessarily based on literature but previously done versions on film.

 

[Rowlf the Dog]

I agree to a point. If all they do is remake the movie without adding a new twist or something then there is really no point. The Jungle Book was a fresh take on the animated version and it's the best by far in my opinion but Beauty and the Beast added little new to the story (except maybe making LeFou a gay character with the hots for Gaston). Dumbo added a new dimension to the story and tried but unfortunately wasn't very good (again, in my opinion). And it looks like the Lion King may just be a remake which would be very disappointing. Aladdin seems to fall somewhere in between but still awfully close to the original without a lot new. I wasn't overly impressed with it but still enjoyed it overall. I haven't seen the live action Cinderella. But in general I agree. If all they do is remake the same films just in a different format, what's the point? Time for some original and fresh material as I've said in previous posts. There's a whole new world of material out there. Let's explore it! Disney has always stood for innovation but they're spinning their wheels.
Oh, and Marvel and Star Wars don't count. They're in categories all by themselves without the real Disney feel or magic.

I totally agree with Jungle Book, I also have to admit that I prefer the Live Action to the animated version because of the better story line. Another good one in my opinion was Christopher Robin, the story is new and it's like an "adult" sequel to the Winnie Pooh movies.
For the rest: Beauty and the Beast was okay, but the animated is far better; Dumbo and Aladdin I don't like the new ones.
The Lion King doesn't seem to have new story elements, but the pictures in the new trailer are really impressive and perhaps these could compensate for me for the lack of new twists.

 

[old lady]

Absolutely Disney should foocus on making new stuff instead of recycling the old stuff.

 

[R-Kane65]

I agree with old lady and BrianL. As the next films will be Mulan, Nottingham & Hood (Robin Hood), Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Sword in the Stone, Peter Pan, Pinocchio, Night on Bald Mountain, The Little Mermaid, Lilo & Stitch and the Hunchback of Notre Dame will be coming out all live action. But I would rather watch them with different twists, some more to the original fairytales, or with scrapped ideas before the classic animated films came.

 

[Bill007]

I agree with old lady and BrianL. As the next films will be Mulan, Nottingham & Hood (Robin Hood), Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Sword in the Stone, Peter Pan, Pinocchio, Night on Bald Mountain, The Little Mermaid, Lilo & Stitch and the Hunchback of Notre Dame will be coming out all live action. But I would rather watch them with different twists, some more to the original fairytales, or with scrapped ideas before the classic animated films came.

Agree, agree! But I think people are getting tired of Robin Hood with all the failed remakes and re-envisionings of the past years.

 

[R-Kane65]

Yes, that's true. From what is so far said about the film is that it will be a tone similar to the Pirates of the Caribbean series, as the hope is to launch a new adventure franchise that fits the Disney global brand. But if everyone is tired of failed remakes, then they should move on to things that haven't been used for a long time, such as (like I said) the Black Arrow: A Tale of the Two Roses, it has outlaws, dastardly villains, a damsel in distress all set during the Wars of the Roses (like Game of Thrones), or things they haven't used at all.