Disney's Live-Action Thread

Becuase the amount of Live Action remake threads are getting cluttery, I made this thread so people could discuss all of them in one neat place. For ease of catching up, I'll post all the Live action Disney movies we have and the movies that will be coming soon.

In Production:

• Beauty and the Beast thread
• Winnie the Pooh thread
• Dumbo thread
• Mulan thread
• Pinocchio thread
• Night on Bald Mountain from "Fantasia"
• Maleficent sequel
• Prince Charming thread
• Aladdin prequel: Genies
• Sword in the Stone thread

Released:

• Maleficent thread
• Cinderella (2015) thread
• The Jungle Book (2016) thread

edited 15th Jul '17 2:12:16 PM by VeryMelon

Wonder if Maleficent should count since it's more of a re-imagining meets Wicked with a heavy dose of Fan Fiction.

Can we have links to films that already have posts so they can discuss about each of the film while this would be in general?

There was also 1994's Jungle Book. Maybe we should just hone in on the more recent ones.

edited 9th Apr '15 12:30:57 PM by TheFarmboy

We should probably add Alice in Wonderland to that list, considering that's what kick-started the live-action reboots. And possibly 101 Dalmatians, although that predates this trend.

I have repeated this over and over and over in other threads...

But there are many, many stories Disney could be adapting into new animated films, or original stories that could be thought up, instead of rehashing their old successes in live-action.

It doesn't mean its a bad thing. There are still things that could be explored if don't right. Such as, if they were to do Ho ND, they could probably explore the darker character aspects a lot more cohesively. Plus, well, you could argue that same thing if another company comes along to adapt Cinderella or Snow White; "Why do that story when Disney did the story perfectly??"

Now, if they're really not adding anything or doing it BADLY (Maleficent, Alice in Wonderland) then it becomes problem.

The large number of these that they've announced has me concerned though. Especially since I thought we were starting to move back to animated films again.

I'm not particularly against other companies doing something Disney's done. It could be really damned good. (I've heard Peter Pan And The Pirates is good, for example.) But when Disney itself does something it's already done I can't help but think: isn't it a little redundant?

It could work, though; their live action take on Pinocchio could take some more material out of Collodi's book. Then again, Roberto Benigni did that, and look what happened.

edited 10th Apr '15 4:03:37 PM by Aldo930

To be fair, Benigni's Pinocchio failed in the US due to the annoying dub. The original Italian makes it much more tolerable (even if it still has some questionable choices in terms of direction and the way Benigni acts at times).

To be fair, when you're making movies for nearly 100 years, its hard not to retread old material with a new lens. Like MGM making an adaptation of Wicked would technically be the same thing.

I suppose I should also mention that Descendants project Disney Channel's got cooking up. You know, the one with the classic villains' teenage siblings? At least the premise sounds original.

That Maleficent looks and sounds like a reject from a school play, though.

This article has an interesting suggestion: that Disney remakes its animated dark horses, not its classics. So trying a more faithful telling of the Chronicles of Prydain with a Black Cauldron remake, or sending Basil of Baker Street on a new adventure.

edited 18th Apr '15 9:40:41 AM by Tuckerscreator

Unfortunately, that would defeat the whole purpose of these remakes. The point is to cash in on a popular work that people are wont to be nostalgic for, thus making a guaranteed profit. You can't do that by remaking something nobody watched.

Remaking the Black Couldron? I could get on board with that, as long as there was a more developed backstory and more coherence in the order/structure of the scenes (as well as refining Princess Eilonwy's role).

Though I don't know if anyone could top John Hurt's voice as the Horned King.

Disney is going for the cash, but, once they get enough cash, they could pick some of their lesser-known stuff and improve on it.

edited 18th Apr '15 6:46:28 AM by Quag15

If they made a new Black Cauldron movie, they should probably try to stick closer to the Prydain books anyway, which might mean Arawn as the main villain instead of the Horned King.

x4 Could you imagine Atlantis or Treasure Planet in live-action?!

Or, Hunchback of Notre Dame that allows it to touch on the darker themes that the animated film kind of tried to pretend weren't there.

Did we watch the same version of Ho ND?

Disney's HoND was rather dark, but not as dark as the book. If you nix the gargoyles....

I guess Into the Woods doesn't count? I guess since it's not really a remake...

edited 18th Apr '15 5:30:17 PM by Pannic

And Phoebus and/or Quasimodo dies...

The best thing about remaking The Black Cauldron is the original has been forgotten so much it's not like it has left a stain on the franchise's public recognition, or what is there of it anyway. As long as you make it a good movie, market it well, and don't bring the original movie up, there shouldn't be any real problems.

It's not like the failed animated adaptations of The Lord of the Rings did hurt Raimi's movies at all, either.

The irony is Phoebus is the only main character who does survive in the book.

edited 18th Apr '15 8:02:19 PM by NapoleonDeCheese

I didn't know Sam Raimi made a Lord of the Rings adaptation.

Don't you know? I mean, given, he did give Frodo a chainsaw arm.

Also, Phoebus in the book is a complete asshole and tool. Or, as far as I remember. Its been awhile.

And, yes, the Disney Animated film was dark but I thought that the musical's attempt was far more consistent and evenly toned as well as it handled the darker themes a lot better. I actually don't even mind the gargoyles in that one where their number of 'A Guy Like You' is significantly more toned down and endearing as it really is Quasi trying to convince himself that Esmerelda could possibly like him.

There is SO much more character development in the musical version and a lot of it is shockingly deep and mature and not often discussed, or I don't think its stuff that's quite as discussed.

FROLLO You don't want to hurt me, Quasimodo!

GARGOYLES (in unison) Yes, you do.

QUASIMODO You are a good teacher, Master Frollo. A very good teacher!

Frollo is thrown off of Notre Dame by Quasimodo himself

GARGOYLES The world is cruel/The world is ugly But there are times/And there are people When the world is not And at its cruelest/It is still the only world we've got

That whole section hit a surprisingly deep note too me and far deeper than anything the movie hit on.

I would miss the "And he shall smite the wicked..." moment, though. It's the best Karmic Death ever.

If you ask me, if you wanted to include the gargoyles in the movie, they should not have appeared again after the "We just thought maybe you were made of something stronger" scene. That's really the most poignant scene they have in the film, and if it was also their exit from the story, it'd take on a deeper meaning — their leaving coinciding with Quasimodo's resolve to rescue Esmeralda would signify that he's completely done locking himself up in his imaginary world, and will prioritise helping his real friends, with his own strength.

Okay, I derped. Sorry. I was writing that way past sleepytime.