Disney's Live-Action Thread

In the case of Mulan the line is to understand why the original movie was so great, and so far it looks like the people who adapt it now, don't. The thought to have white people in the adaptation shouldn't have even crossed their mind.

A lot of people also feel that way about Mulan because, unlike something like Robin Hood, it was most of the audience's first (possible even only) experience with the story - so that adaptation overshadows any other in their minds, even if it's not actually accurate. Whereas Robin Hood had a multitude of adaptations and was a household name even before Disney put their hands on him.

It's the same reason people will sometimes take what they see in bio-pics as synonymous with reality, especially for lesser known things, and get confused or even disbelieving if and when they find reality didn't line up that way (I remember that was a thing with Mozart, where people have a time convincing others that Salieri wasn't a jackass like he's portrayed in the famous Mozart movie).

Edited by KnownUnknown on Nov 21st 2018 at 3:52:16 AM

With Pocahontas being so negatively received by people today I don't think Disney will ever try to do a live action remake,but it wouldn't surprise me if they'd at least considered it.I mean they do seem be doing live action remakes of all their animated films,the ones that get left alone stand out more.

They could do a live action remake of Pocahontas, but it would be based on her real life instead of the legend. Make it more accurate, and do away with the romance and make it platonic with John Smith.

Yeah... I don't see Disney doing the real story justice, since the real story involved genocide, abduction, rape, and Pocahontas dying in her early 20's. To have Disney attempt a remake of Pocahontas is problematic on principle alone.

A realistic version wouldn't even be platonic, it'd be straight up kidnapping. Disney is not going to adapt that.

x7

Video essays of WHO???

Pocahontas is a story which is inherently problematic. Disney should have never done it in the first place.

@chasemaddigan

The genocide didn't happen during Pocahontas' time, while the abduction did happen. There are some who are disputing that she was raped during her captivity, because it sounds like some details about Pocahontas have also had some hearsay from the Native Americans. I know there were distortions about her story from the English side, but it does seem there is also some questionability as well to the Native side as well. No wonder people say her background is shrouded in so much mystery. However, I do think that you could at least make a PG-13 film that strips away the legend and can tell some ugly truths. Also John Smith was there when Pocahontas was kidnapped into Jamestown. Heck, before she died she even better him again in England and was furious at him for not writing back about being alive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocahontas

Edited by firewriter on Nov 22nd 2018 at 12:09:54 PM

You might be able to argue that the organized genocide started a little bit later, but there is no doubt that the settlers had a negative impact on the population from the get go. Just by bringing in new diseases, whole tribes perished. I also don't see how any marriage happening during a kidnapping could be completely consensual. Also, supposedly the whole story John Smith told was made up in the first place, and that's why Pocahontas didn't think much of him. He basically made himself important on her expense.

Patrick H. Willems is a youtube channel about film critique. He made the exact same line of argument on the same topic three months ago in a video (it's 20 minutes long).

As usually, he is cherrypicking his facts in order to make mostly correct points. For the record: The argument that Batman is constantly in one adaptation or another available while Robin Hood isn't is BS. Just from the 1990s onward there has been:

1. A pretty popular Anime, in which most of the main characters were children.

2. A Hanna Barbera animated series called Young Robin Hood

3. Prince of Thieves which, btw, borrowed heavily from an earlier BBC series, which was pretty influential on Robin Hood lore.

4. A rivalling Robin Hood Movie which was released in the same year (and was therefore overlooked.

5. Men in Tights.

6. Robin Hood, Prince of Sherwood.

7. A made for TV movie in which a modern Robin attends a prep school

8. A Hercules/Xena style Robin Hood series which run for two season.

9. A children' series called "Back to Sherwood" about a teenage descendant travelling back in time.

10. The Princess of Thieves, a Disney produced TV-movies about Robin Hood's daughter

11. A version set in the far future in the year 2051, in which Robin Hood and Little John are delivering pharmacies to the third world.

12. The BBC one television series which was pretty successful unless they made the mistake of killing off a fan-favourite character in an insulting manner.

13. Splitting the Arrow which I suspect based on the description was a Blair Witch inspired comedy

14. Another animated version

15. Another TV movie

16. The Ridley Scott movie

17. A Veggie Tales version

18. A Tom and Jerry Version

19. A German/American production

20. A Indian French animated series

21. A Philippine primetime series

I think you get my point, despite what the video claims, there are constantly new Robin Hood adaptations, some forgettable, some (like the BBC series and the anime) fairly popular.

He is also kind of correct to make the distinction between "knowing" a character and being a "fan" of a character, but I frankly don't think that the number of comic book fans are enough to make Batman profitable. No matter what name you slap on a property, it can only generate interest, you still have to deliver a good product. And that, I think is the actual issue with Robin Hood and King Arthur adaptations: They tend to miss the point.

With Robin Hood, I get the impression that movie maker think that the hero who tricks the rich is too boring, but that is exactly what people want to see from Robin Hood. And with King Arthur, well, I think here the problem lies a little bit deeper, but I think a good King Arthur adaptation is doable with the right angle (which is to make it about Merlin, or Morgana, or any other Knight not named Lancelot, King Arthur in itself is just a too boring character).

It looks gorgeous, and the CGI is so unbelievably good that you forget it's CGI. Weirdly, though, that's making the remake not work for me. The sheer weirdness or the animal society in The Lion King jumps out at me so much more when the movie looks like it was straight-up filmed in the Serengeti. It's like a zoological Uncanny Valley.

In contrast, no one expects an animated film to be realistic, so if the original movie wants to show a lion monarchy ruling herbivores, I don't think twice about it.

Edited by Galadriel on Nov 22nd 2018 at 6:25:47 AM

I mostly still don't see the point.

I do,the Lion King is already super popular AND live action films usually make more money so its win win for them

Hot take: I wish they changed Rafiki to an olive baboon (because biogeography).

But it ain't Rafiki if he doesn't have a blue mandrill face.

Edited by Shadao on Nov 22nd 2018 at 3:44:48 AM

I will say one thing; infant Simba is every bit as adorable as his animated counterpart.

That being said, I'm a little burnt out on the livemakes, so I can't say that I'm fully enthusiastic about this, but I'll still keep an eye on this one. It still looks amazing in any case.

Edited by kablammin45 on Nov 22nd 2018 at 6:59:39 AM

Yep. I'm sold.

Pink faces are cool too.◊

Besides this & Aladdin, I wouldn’t mind if Disney sent the rest of the livemakes to Disney+.

Me as a kid: But that doesn't make sense - why would those animals be happy about getting a king who wants to eat them?

Me in 2016: Oh

Pocohontas is Jeffery Katzenburg going way too off the rails trying to preserve the success and profit Disney was gathering at that time by taking up a very risky project: an animated musical based on real-life events with less appealing character designs. Figures that once he left Disney, his first film for Dreamworks would be The Prince of Egypt, an animated musical based on THE BIBLE.

Oh at that Lion King trailer: yeah I still don't see the point. It gave me NO surprises!! It so far copies everything from the first film. It even has James Earl Jones, the only cast member returning from the first film, reenacting his same line!

x13

Oh... Well, I don't think I've seen that video essay. I think the points I made came up in some class I was taking a few months ago. I mean, that doesn't mean I HAVEN'T seen the essay or someone else in that discussion did, but I didn't intend to plagerize. And I apologize.

Of note, I believe the original intentions of Pocohontas was that it would "break the glass ceiling of animated movies" and people were throwing themselves off of Lion King's production to work on Pocohontas. They even originally wanted to have her learn english over the course of the movie instead of "listen with your heart".

This point IS taken from a video essay (and my own research) which I will link. Thank you Lindsay Ellis!

Video doesn't want to embed. Oops.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ARX0-AylFI&t=1s

Edited by InkDagger on Nov 22nd 2018 at 7:11:45 AM