The Jungle Book (Live-Action)

[blackcauldron85]

Piece of concept art:
http://www.stitchkingdom.com/disney-jon ... art-73699/

[DisneyFan09]

The logo is revealed;
http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/3 ... oncept-art

To voice my opinion; I think "The Jungle Book" has gotten way many live action updates by Disney, but frankly I wasn't that impressed with the 1994 version. Slam me if you will, but I thought it was forgettable and generic. The other ones I haven't seen. If the upcoming version looks appealing, I will give it a chance, but I wouldn't mind if that one was more closer to Kipling's version or enhanced the story.

[blackcauldron85]

It's not much, but a behind the scenes photo:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/69830

[Disneyphile]

Disney legend Richard Sherman writing songs.

http://news.moviefone.com/2014/12/23/ri ... ngle-book/

[disneyprincess11]

Guess after Beauty and the Beast's development, this is going to be a test for musical remakes. Looking forward to Bill Murray's rendition of The Bear Necessities

[Disney Duster]

Kaa shouldn't be a girl if he was originally a guy.

[Victurtle]

Kaa's gender identity never had any bearing on his character. Kaa was a hungry snake who happened to be voiced by a man. Did the original source ever specify Kaa as male?

[Disney Duster]

Yes, Kaa was a male in the original. They should never switch genders in adaptations unless they are straying super far.

[Tristy]

Yes, Kaa was a male in the original. They should never switch genders in adaptations unless they are straying super far.

Didn't seem to be bad when Julie Taymor did it with Rafiki in Lion King. Just saying.

[Disney Duster]

If that's true I think that's bad, too.

[Escapay]

They should never switch genders in adaptations unless they are straying super far.

There have been plenty of adaptations/remakes/etc. which stay close to the vest but changed the gender of a notable character(s):

Twelve Angry Men (1954) - the critically-lauded play has been performed time and again in its traditional all-male cast, but successful variants have also done all-female casts (Twelve Angry Women) and gender-blind casting (Twelve Angry Jurors).

The Female Odd Couple (1985) - Neil Simon took his own, award-winning play, and switched the genders on all the characters, with Felix and Oscar now becoming Florence and Olive.

Ran (1985) - Akira Kurosawa's epic retelling of Shakespeare's King Lear gives the Lear figure three sons rather than three daughters.

James Bond Movies (1995-2012) - the character of M, who had been played by male actors (Bernard Lee and Robert Brown) for the first 16 Bond films (1963-1989) was played by Dame Judi Dench for seven films across seventeen years.

The Jungle Book (1994) - Disney's live-action version made Bagheera a female panther rather than a male one as traditionally depicted.

The Lion King (1997) - the stage musical switches the male Rafiki of the film into a female figure, partly to help create a leading female character in the narrative.

"Battlestar Galactica" (2003-2009) - remake of the classic 1978/9 series, but this time Starbuck & Boomer (Dirk Benedict & Herb Jefferson, Jr., respectively) are played by Katee Sackhoff and Grace Park.

Tarzan (2006) - the stage musical makes sure to establish that Terk is a male, as opposed to the female of the animated film (voiced by Rosie O'Donnell).

The Tempest (2010) - extremely faithful film version of the Shakespeare play with one notable change: Prospero is now Prospera, played by Helen Mirren.

"Skins" (2011) - the (admittedly inferior) US version of the hit British teen series changed the young gay male Maxxie (played by Mitch Hewer in the UK series) into a young lesbian female (now played by Sofia Black D'Elia).

Albert

[DisneyFan09]

The Lion King (1997) - the stage musical switches the male Rafiki of the film into a female figure, partly to help create a leading female character in the narrative.

Whoa whoa whoa, wait wait? Rafiki a female in the stage version?

[Disney Duster]

Some of those are done on purpose for artistic reasons that, as I said before, stray away from the original, like Twelve Angry Men, The Female Odd Couple, and Ran. The others sound like what I would consider wrong to do.

[disneyprincess11]

Whoa whoa whoa, wait wait? Rafiki a female in the stage version?

Yeah, so there could be more female characters in the musical

[Escapay]

Some of those are done on purpose for artistic reasons that, as I said before, stray away from the original, like Twelve Angry Men, The Female Odd Couple, and Ran. The others sound like what I would consider wrong to do.

Nothing strays in Twelve Angry Women/Jurors. It's the exact same play, but either with all women or with a mix of men and women. Likewise, The Female Odd Couple keeps the majority of dialogue/issues/narrative the same, only telling them through female characters and situations. And Ran is as close to Shakespeare as one can get, one of the basic differences being that it's set in Japan with three sons. It's akin to the 1999 A Midsummer Night's Dream being set in late-19th century England rather than Ancient Greece (though with no gender switching), or Great Expectations being told in modern day.

I don't understand why you think a work has to "stray" in order to justify changing something from the original. Every work is not going to be a carbon copy of the original regardless, so every work is straying.

It makes no sense to say there's something "wrong" with an adaptation if they decide to change the gender of a character. Wouldn't the more important thing being that the message of the piece is still coming across? Perhaps it may come across better because of the change. Making Starbuck a female character in "Battlestar Galactica" doesn't change the dynamics of the buddy-buddy friendship that the character has with Apollo. They're still friendly characters in spite of the change. Likewise, The Tempest is so stringently faithful to the original text that Prospero's gender switch to Prospera becomes the only thing different, but it does not change the text or story in any way. Besides, why should her gender deny Helen Mirren the chance to play a character she wanted to play? Her talents count for more than her chromosomes, and a fictional character by its very nature can be malleable to what best fits its performer.

Blindly saying "It's wrong, they shouldn't do that" and leaving it at that can be quite dangerous and inhibitive toward creativity. What makes it wrong? Nothing.

Then there's no point to adapting anything at all if it's just more of the same. What's the point of storytelling if one's not allowed to stray?

Imagine, for example, a Cinderella story in which she lives with an oppressive stepfather. Then her liberation from the house and his rule becomes a more powerful, feminist message of independence.

Or, what if Beauty and the Beast featured a young man who grows to love the beastly prince, challenging his own pre-conceived notions about love and realizing that love itself knows no bounds? Wouldn't that strike a chord just as much as the traditional moral of loving someone for who they are inside?

Genders can change. Genders can be daring. It's different in the woods.

Albert

[Disney Duster]

I didn't know A Midsummer Night's Dream was set in ancient Greece.

Anyway, what I mean by straying is like what you're saying about concepts that change what the messages are, like about feminism or love knowing no bounds. Julie Taymor actually said her Tempest had a woman instead of a man because a mother's love and protection against mates for her children is different from a father's. I don't think she should do that because that's changing the meaning of the original (what a father's love and protection is), but if she did an entirely different thing, it would fit more.

I think if you're going for a totally different concept or message, you can stray. But being really faithful except for a wtf gender change like this one is what I consider wrong. Same with changing Jaq to a female mouse in the Disney's live-action Cinderella.

[Escapay]

I don't think she should do that

Fortunately, that decision is not up to you.

because that's changing the meaning of the original (what a father's love and protection is)

And there's nothing wrong with that, especially given that people have garnered multiple messages from the original. There's no singular set-in-stone message that every version must adhere to; every person will respond differently to the same story, so calling any changes "wrong" is missing the point of having adaptations in the first place.

(And I wasn't saying that different concepts change what the messages are; I was pointing out that a different approach to the story can still produce the same message. But even then, people may choose to read it as a different message, which is perfectly all right. Either way, I feel that your whole viewpoint of "changing something from the original is wrong" is wrong.)

But being really faithful except for a wtf gender change like this one is what I consider wrong.

You still haven't explained *why* it's wrong. Just because it's not the original? Seems like a weak and shallow reason.

Albert

[Disney Duster]

Yea because it's straying from the original while the rest doesn't. It makes no sense. Or it just doesn't fit with the rest of the faithful rest of it. That's why.

In regards to the rest of your post, I simply disagree.

[TheSequelOfDisney]

Duster, I think it might interest you to read some of the adaptation theory written by Robert Stam. He discusses the concepts of faithfulness and fidelity (among many other things) in the adaptation process from the written word to film. Changing elements in going to another medium may seem like a personal offense because one is so attached to the original work, but the director of the film is more than likely coming from a different place than any other person, and so his or her changes may make sense to them. A book and a film are two separate entities, and even if the film is based on/an adaptation of/inspired by the book, the film should still be seen as something different and separate from the book. Stam's writing is a bit dense, but he makes good points on how a film doesn't have to be "faithful" to be a good adaptation.

[Disney Duster]

Yes Sequel, what you and Escapay say are good points, they are different things, directors may have reasons, messages can be enhanced or changed by changes.

But for me, I don't think certain changes should happen, depending on certain circumstances. In this case, if this is a faithful adaptation of both the book and Disney animated film, changing Kaa to a girl is a wtf, doesn't fit, and I think it's wrong. That's just what I think.