DVDizzy Forum

Well what I mean is if it were live action how would the actors act underwater? I think it would look kinda dorky if you had all the underwater scenes in CGI and then the on land scenes live-action. Unless they didn't it extremely realistic like.

I'm a fan of the movie H2O: Just Add Water... and they do the underwater stuff pretty realistically there. Of course, they don't talk underwater, but they could do that separately. Kinda like the movies with talking animals.

nomad2010 wrote:Should Disney get five or six big name directors and allow them to take their biggest most memorable animated classics into live action movies? Not for the sake of remaking the classics but giving the stories new life as a reinvisioning?

Yes, if only to show there is more than one way to tell a story. The problem is that too many misinformed/uninformed people consider a Disney version to be the definitive version of a story, without realizing that the beauty of storytelling is that it can yield many variations that are either as good or better than an original.

Throwing my wishlist out there for what I'd like to see...

David Lynch directing Fantasia - 'Nuff said.

Matthew Vaughn directing Cinderella, Peter Pan, and/or The Sword in the Stone - after Stardust, I'd love to see what he'd do to these stories.

Catherine Breillat directing Sleeping Beauty - it'd be interesting to see if she'd tone down the sexual overtones often found in her films for a story like Sleeping Beauty (and it'd be more interesting if she did the complete one, with the ogress mother, the children, and the "prince rapes her in her sleep" variant). If not Breillat, then...

Joe Wright directing Sleeping Beauty - I really enjoyed his version of Pride and Prejudice, and loved Atonement. He got both the director's eye and the ability to really get emotion and depth from his actors, so he could easily give a sleeper like this (no pun intended) more life and story.

Joe Johnston directing Robin Hood and Aladdin - just so we can finally get a Robin Hood movie that will lives up to the Errol Flynn and Richard Todd versions, and so we finally have a good solid live-action version of Aladdin. The fact that he directed The Rocketeer has nothing to do with why I want him to do these movies.

Martin Scorsese directing The Fox and the Hound - He's great at tackling the grittiness and hardships in life, while also blending it with endearing themes of family and loyalty. With a story like The Fox and the Hound, it'd be interesting to see how he'd handle it (especially as it's an animal story).

Richard Linklater directing Beauty and the Beast - this focuses mainly on Linklater's Before Sunrise and Before Sunset, as it comes across as one of the best views of the relationship between two people. But if I couldn't get a Linklater version...

Rob Reiner and/or Nora Ephron directing Beauty and the Beast - this stems mainly from When Harry Met Sally... (which Reiner directed and Ephron co-wrote), as well as Sleepless in Seattle and You've Got Mail (which Ephron directed and wrote). All three films focus on difficult relationships that end up working out in the end (though I'm still not keen on WHMS's ending), which is one of the many themes in Beauty and the Beast. Plus, it'd be great to see either tackle a period piece (Reiner's The Princess Bride excepted). Still, a romcom version of BATB wouldn't fit my most-wishful-thinking idea of a gothic and dramatic version (akin to Cocteau's La Belle et la bête), so I'd also like to see...

Lasse Hallström directing Beauty and the Beast - He's not the best director out there, but I think he'd be a great contender for a gothic version of Beauty and the Beast. Plus, I love What's Eating Gilbert Grape?, The Cider House Rules, Chocolat, and even his glossy and slightly-over-the-top version of Casanova.

Mel Brooks directing The Emperor's New Groove - if it were the 1970s, it'd be a match made in heaven.

Ridley Scott directing Atlantis: The Lost Empire, Treasure Planet, and/or Meet the Robinsons - the first two are his forte (action epics) while the third is just a personal preference to see how he'd handle it.

There's plenty more that I wouldn't mind seeing as well, along with wishful thinking movies that will never happen because the director is deceased (for example: George Stevens directing Pocahontas, or David Lean directing Brother Bear.)

Albert

If The Little Mermaid, were to be made into a live action musical film. I would prefer Sofia Coppola to direct, I think she would make it very gorgeous, and antique like. If going for someone with musical directing history, I would pick Rob Marshall. And his films are always so stunning, vivid and beautiful. Either of those would be my choice, and have Julie Taymor produce the film, and help a lot with the creative choices.

With all the news of live-action versions of Animated Classics being in development, thought I'd bump up this thread with a few more ideas for certain directors to tackle certain movies:

Ang Lee or Jane Campion directing Cinderella. Both are great with drama and period pieces, and have made great love-story films in the past 5 years (Brokeback Mountain, Bright Star).

Steven Spielberg directing Treasure Planet. It's got daddy issues, high adventure, great opportunities for special effects, and a story worth revisiting.

albert

No,

Heil Donald Duck wrote:No,

My what a compelling argument you make. You seem to have put a great deal of thought into it.


As for the topic at hand, I wouldn't mind seeing Live Action versions if it's done right. Quite like Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book and not so much 101 Dalmatians.

I especially liked the deceptive comma at the end. Was almost expecting more to that two-letter sentence!

Seriously, all stories are fair game. Just because a public audience builds up the idea of "that movie is untouchable!" and can't ever be remade or re-imagined or re-whatever they call it now, doesn't mean it won't ever be.

Besides, even if this thread was intended to be just about live-action versions of Disney animated movies, it doesn't mean I don't want those movies done in a non-Disney way. For example, I would certainly love to see Jane Campion do her own retelling of Cinderella without having to be limited to the Disney characters for her source. And Joe Wright doing his own version of Sleeping Beauty ought to be amazing if any of his past films are any indication.

albert

Albert, it's really unfair if you think the live-action Beauty and the Beast can keep their Disneyed characters (even if you only mean the main, human ones), yet not think the same has to be for the other movies.

Disney Duster wrote:Albert, it's really unfair if you think the live-action Beauty and the Beast can keep their Disneyed characters (even if you only mean the main, human ones), yet not think the same has to be for the other movies.

I never said the other movies could not use Disney characters.

I said that I also wanted to see classic stories - that have been adapted by Disney - also be adapted by other studios, obviously making it non-Disney.

• Besides, even if this thread was intended to be just about live-action versions of Disney animated movies, it doesn't mean I don't want those movies done in a non-Disney way.

Which is my way of saying, "If they (any studio, not necessarily Disney) adapt the stories in live-action, it doesn't have to be the Disney way."

For example, I would certainly love to see Jane Campion do her own retelling of Cinderella without having to be limited to the Disney characters for her source. And Joe Wright doing his own version of Sleeping Beauty ought to be amazing if any of his past films are any indication.

Since Disney is making their own live-action version of Beauty and the Beast, using their 1991 film and 1994-2007 musical as a source, they can use their own characters. But if a non-Disney studio were making an adaptation of a story, that just happened to have also been made by Disney, I wouldn't expect them to use Disney characters. For example, if Jane Campion made her own Cinderella adaptation, I wouldn't expect Jaq and Gus to be in it.

Likewise, if Disney were to do more live-action adaptations of the stories they used for their animated movies, they obviously can use the characters they created, but they shouldn't have to be limited to those characters.

albert

Well, I misunderstood!

I had some other ideas for the enchanted objects...

I thought maybe the human actors would easily turn into larger furniture. For instance, Lumiere be one of those long candle holders that stand on the floor, Cogsworth would be a grandfather type clock, the wardrobe's taken care of, and Mrs. Potts could be the cabinet for tea and pots, and Chip could be the moving tea tray, kind of how he was in the Broadway show. Babette could be a broom or mop. Their are big ottoman/footstools, the dog's size would work. And since the other servants wouldn't be small enough to be plates and utensils, the enchanted large objects could just juggle and do tricks and put on their whole "Be Our Guest" number throwing and maneuvering and building and forming pictures with the plates and dinnerware.

Or...the servants could just shrink down as they near closer to the last petal. It would not look bad at all if they simply put the actors in front of a green screen and shrunk them.

Also, CGI doesn't look that unrealistic when applied to cold, hard objects like it does look obvious and unrealistic on animals and people.

And they could even do kind of robot toy enchanted objects that are correct size and Belle and the Beast can hold them and the object's actors just voice over...

I personally wouldn't care to see my favorite films in live-action. Just because live-action films rarely impact me the way animated films do, so it could never compare from the get-go. Besides, the characters would end up being depicted wrong and that would make me angry. (ex: TLM musical; not a film, but very bad)

But I would think if they did adapt the Disney films, most of the animals and sidekicks would be left by the wayside. The only films where I could actually see them not being excised would be B&tB or Hunchback (they could take the gargoyles in a much better, non-comedic direction). I just couldn't imagine these characters working well in live-action, CG or not.

With the success of Burton's Alice though, I can't help but wonder how that kind of style would look with Mermaid. Of course, Burton's kind of hit and miss, and I'd hate to see Ursula as played by Helena Bonham Carter v. Triton as played by Johnny Depp.

As I mentioned earlier an idea to have the humans transform into larger objects so the need of CGI is less needed and things don't look so weird/fake, here's an image the original film considered much like my idea I was talking about, Cogsworth as a clock:



However, I'm starting to think it would honestly be better for the characters to just have costumes much like in the show that make them look like they are becoming objects, but they are shrunk. I mean, shrinking does not look fake like completely CGI objects would be, or like parts of them shrunk would be. Full body shrinking would work.

And I believe an interview for "Tangled" had Menken give yet another confirmation of a live-action Beauty and the Beast, but nothing's official till an announcement from Disney.

Which animated movies that aren't already in production or development would you like to see remade into live-action.

My top choices are:

Pocahontas
The Hunchback of Notre Dame
Hercules
Tarzan
Tangled

Sotiris wrote:Which animated movies that aren't already in production or development would you like to see remade into live-action.

My top choices are:

Pocahontas
The Hunchback of Notre Dame
Hercules
Tarzan
Tangled

I was thinking about starting a post with the same topic!

Those are mine too, though it's unlikely the former would happen, due to their reputation. Tarzan would've been a more likely candidate, because of it's opposite reputation.

Otherwise I wouldn't mind to see a live action version of the Revival hits, but personally I wouldn't mind if The Fox and the Hound was made into live action. Yes, it sounds corny, but since it after all has a couple of human characters, it could perhaps work. Otherwise I think Sleeping Beauty deserved a better live action remake than Malificent, so if The Jungle Book and 101 Dalmatians have gotten several remakes, why not Sleeping Beauty? Though I personally didn't loathe Malificent, I frankly felt it wasn't particularly in tune with it's classic predecessor and frankly had a too skimpy screenplay).

Oh my goodness!!! My post from almost 11 years ago came true!! Wow! All the movies I named became or are becoming live-action Disney movies.

tsom wrote:Oh my goodness!!! My post from almost 11 years ago came true!! Wow! All the movies I named became or are becoming live-action Disney movies.

Tell us what the future holds, oh mighty Oracle!

tsom wrote:Oh my goodness!!! My post from almost 11 years ago came true!! Wow! All the movies I named became or are becoming live-action Disney movies.

Your wish was Disney's command

Sotiris wrote:Tell us what the future holds, oh mighty Oracle!

And please be the Oracle from Aladdin & The King of Thieves ! Sorry, I couldn't resist

All I would really need left is Sleeping Beauty and the Glen Keane version of Rapunzel.

Disney Duster wrote:All I would really need left is Sleeping Beauty and the Glen Keane version of Rapunzel.

Then all the major fairy tales would have Disney live-action films. I'd be quite pleased with that as long as the rest of these films don't turn out like Maleficent. A proper live-action Sleeping Beauty could redeem that but looks like Disney is more interested in making Maleficent sequels.

Sorry for bumping this tread, but I wanted to come up with another suggestion; As corny as this sounds, I would've actually liked to see a live action version of Bambi, due to it being one of my favorites. Yes, of course Bambi is not the most suitable choice, but if The Lion King has been chosen, so could Bambi.