Live action versions of Disney films

[WarriorDreamer]

If you could pick just one film to be done in live action, with the characters and general story remaining the same and as close to their characters appearance in the animated film which would it be?

For me, it's tough. I would normally lean towards Aladdin because it was always my favourite but I think I'm going towards Hercules. I think there'd be tremendous potential doing the Disney version of that in live action.

[Jackoleen]

Dear Disney Enthusiasts,

XXX!

[estefan]

Not a movie, but I have always felt that a live-action Kim Possible feature could potentially work well with the right casting and proper budget involved. I imagine Jason Reitman would be an appropriate director, too, for some reason.

[DisneyDude2010]

Not a movie, but I have always felt that a live-action Kim Possible feature could potentially work well with the right casting and proper budget involved. I imagine Jason Reitman would be an appropriate director, too, for some reason.

I was actually thinking the same the other day
I would love either live action or a wdas adaptation

[toonaspie]

I know it's not the best film but I've always been curious as to what a live-action version of "Oliver & Company" would be like if the animals didn't talk. I guess it would be pretty much the same I guess but it still would've been interesting.

I'm also curious if the same applied "Brother Bear", "The Lion King", "Lady and the Tramp", "Lilo & Stitch" and "The Fox and the Hound".

[Prince Edward]

Hm... It's really hard to pick one!^^ From Walt's era I would have picked Sleeping Beauty. From the more modern era I would have very much liked to see several films. But I'll pick Aladdin if I would have to pick one;)

Movies I would have liked to see in live action:
From the Walt era: Snow White, Pinocchio, Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, Sleeping Beauty.
From the modern era: The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Pocahontas, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules, Mulan, Tarzan.

[PixarFan2006]

That is a really tough decision.

Remaking any of the DACs from the past 20 years (AKA 1990-2009) would be a little tricky since it would rely on at least some CGI (which people would surely complain about). You would also need to get the right actors for the right roles.

However, if I had to pick one film from this era, it would have to go to Aladdin. I am kind of interested in seeing a darker version of the story (but not directed by Tim Burton). I am not sure who would play Aladdin, Jafar or Jasmine, but for the Genie, they would definitely have to get someone less comical than Robin Williams (as this would be a darker take on the story, after all).

As for the Walt era of Disney Animated Classics (When Walt Disney was still alive), that is also a tough one. Peter Pan has been adapted into movies countless times, and Disney already made a live action version of The Jungle Book in the 1990s. Lady and the Tramp would be a disaster if it were made into a live action film today (unless it went the route of Homeward Bound, where we hear the animals thoughts and they don't talk with CGI).

I guess I would give my vote to Pinocchio. My reason for this is because, like Aladdin, I want to see a darker version of this story (if that's even possible). Also, like Aladdin, I am not sure who I would want for the casting. This is one of those movies that could benefit from a remake (after that train wreck Roberto Benigni version in 2002).

[milojthatch]

Tarzan. Yes, defiantly Tarzan.

[Goliath]

Not one of them. Simply because I don't see the added value in watching the exact same story in another medium. Plus, you can do things in animation that you can't do in live-action. That's why they're animated in the first place. The Disney cartoons either can't be done in live-action, or they would look really awkward. It's funny many name Aladdin. I recall one of the directors saying on the DVD that it would've been impossible to have Genie do what he does in live-action. Also, Glen Keane said one of the benefits of the deep canvas software was that it allowed Tarzan to move in a way that would never be possible in real-life, like his surfing on the trees.

[Dr Frankenollie]

-

[Flower's Friend]

^I agree with Goliath; there's a reason why these films are in animation.

Why can't Disney produce films about new stories, or for that matter, Hollywood as a whole? Why are remakes favoured at all? The only franchises that should be remade and/or rebooted should be long-running franchises that can be both light-hearted and dark and mix various genres (i.e. Batman, Bond, etc.) because the different Batman films for example usually all offer an alternative version of Batman.

Theoretically, however, I believe that a live-action version of Beauty and the Beast could be done well (but nothing like Beastly of course).

I like the idea of Disney and other studios making more than one version of a book or tale. Like Peter Pan has been made into a film many times. I like both Disney's animated film of Peter Pan and Universal's live action film of Peter Pan. I also like the The Little Mermaid animated film from 1975 and I like The Little Mermaid animated film from 1989. I also would like to see the live-action version of The Little Mermaid that might be coming out. I also would like to see a new live-action version of 'The Wonderful Wizard of Oz'. I also like Mgm's version of 'The Wonderful Wizard of Oz'.

[milojthatch]

Not one of them. Simply because I don't see the added value in watching the exact same story in another medium. Plus, you can do things in animation that you can't do in live-action. That's why they're animated in the first place. The Disney cartoons either can't be done in live-action, or they would look really awkward. It's funny many name Aladdin. I recall one of the directors saying on the DVD that it would've been impossible to have Genie do what he does in live-action. Also, Glen Keane said one of the benefits of the deep canvas software was that it allowed Tarzan to move in a way that would never be possible in real-life, like his surfing on the trees.

Ah, but that is what CGI is for! Can you image how cool a real life Tarzan would look with those moves? I don't expect to ever see it and I love the animated film for what it is, but man, that would look amazing!

[Mmmadelon]

Not one of them. Simply because I don't see the added value in watching the exact same story in another medium. Plus, you can do things in animation that you can't do in live-action. That's why they're animated in the first place. The Disney cartoons either can't be done in live-action, or they would look really awkward. It's funny many name Aladdin. I recall one of the directors saying on the DVD that it would've been impossible to have Genie do what he does in live-action. Also, Glen Keane said one of the benefits of the deep canvas software was that it allowed Tarzan to move in a way that would never be possible in real-life, like his surfing on the trees.

Although I totally agree with you, I do think it's possible nowadays. Just look at the Pirates movies, a lot of the special effects en even of the acting of the actors is done by CGI. They showed it in the bonus features of the At World's End DVD. Some parts of the fight between Jack Sparrow and Davy Jones at the end are entirely CGI.

[Goliath]

Ah, but that is what CGI is for! Can you image how cool a real life Tarzan would look with those moves?

No.

I don't expect to ever see it and I love the animated film for what it is, but man, that would look amazing!

Again: no.

It would look awkward, awful and downright silly. I think.

Although I totally agree with you, I do think it's possible nowadays. Just look at the Pirates movies, a lot of the special effects en even of the acting of the actors is done by CGI. They showed it in the bonus features of the At World's End DVD. Some parts of the fight between Jack Sparrow and Davy Jones at the end are entirely CGI.

You're probably right, but remember how awfully fast these things date. Effects from 10 years ago already look dated. The thing with animation is, that it remains timeless.

[Super Aurora]

I found the live action Jungle Book that was made while back by Disney to be pretty damn cool and slightly better version than the animated one.

[Semaj]

Not one of them. Simply because I don't see the added value in watching the exact same story in another medium. Plus, you can do things in animation that you can't do in live-action. That's why they're animated in the first place.

Too many cartoon purists say the same damn thing, yet they rattle off a laundry list of stuff cartoons can't do, many of which is at Disney's expense. It's hypocritical for many reasons, among them how it defeats their own insistence that animation is a medium instead of a genre.

The Disney cartoons either can't be done in live-action, or they would look really awkward. It's funny many name Aladdin. I recall one of the directors saying on the DVD that it would've been impossible to have Genie do what he does in live-action.

If such an attempt were made nowadays, we'd have an ugly CGI Genie blurting groan-worthy puns and catchphrases against a boring B-star playing Aladdin, which Disney already does regularly with their live-action family films.

Anyways, I'd like to see a remake for The Black Cauldron, animated or live-action (as long as the latter is NOT directed by Tim Burton). Take more advantage of the original saga and enhance it, rather than borrowing tidbits and doing nothing with them at all.