DVDizzy Forum

Disney Duster wrote:Why on earth would they remake Mary Poppins?!!

It's not really a remake but a sequel. There was a series of Mary Poppins books.

Nala wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:Why on earth would they remake Mary Poppins?!!

It's not really a remake but a sequel. There was a series of Mary Poppins books.

Oh, well that's alright then.

Disney Announces Live Action Remake of “Moana”
http://facts-i-just-made-up.tumblr.com/ ... e-of-moana

(Obviously, it's a joke, but would we be surprised if it were true?!)

I have a feeling live-action Frozen will be around the bend. I'm guessing the only reason they haven't committed to it yet is because they want to do the animated sequels first.

Out of all the live-action remakes Disney is planning over the next few years, the most interesting to me is Mulan.
How so?
Several reasons...

First and foremost, I will always have fond memories of the 1998 animated version, and it remains one of my favorite Disney films growing up.

Second, the film is not that old (relatively speaking, It is not like Jungle Book or Cinderella.) Because of this, Mulan's fan-base has not had decades and decades to mature. This is important because whatever liberties Disney takes with the original story, I feel like there won't be such a strong backlash. Just look at how angry some fans were over the recent Maleficent. Mulan is not a "classic" in my book not because it wasn't good (see above, I think Mulan was the best,) but because it just isn't old enough to be viewed as a classic.

Lastly, due to the fact that Mulan is a relatively recent film, whatever changes regarding filming style will be more in line with how the original 1998 was filmed. For example, if you compare the new Jungle Book with the 60s classic, it shares very little as far as tone, mood, color scheme, camera moves, etc. With Mulan, we have our big-budget action sequences and martial arts moves, which can only be approved upon with today's filming techniques and special effects.

If only they can salvage the songs I will be a happy man. That, and Mushu...

^That depends, tbh. Mulan may not be old but it certainly has an entusiasthic fandom (I think all the 90s movies have the same kind of fandom), whereas any fandom for the old films are just more casual about it ("Yeah, Cinderella's cool" over "The Lion KING IS THE DEEP AND COMPLEX THING EVAH!"), and the fans could be prone to have more issues with their baby being adapted. Might range from serious issues (whitewashing, "americanizing" chinese values (even more than the first film)), to irrelevant ones ("OMG THEY ADDED A NEW CHARACTER! THIS MOVIE IS RUINED!!!!!")

thedisneyspirit wrote:...any fandom for the old films are just more casual about it ("Yeah, Cinderella's cool" over "The Lion KING IS THE DEEP AND COMPLEX THING EVAH!"), and the fans could be prone to have more issues with their baby being adapted.

Any fandom you say? There's no big fans of the old films? You surely must be mistaken...

I posted a new (non-Disney) TLM trailer in the appropriate thread, and I started writing more but didn't want to derail the thread with what I was writing so I didn't post it there.

I feel like I've talked ad nauseum about this topic for years...

I think the new Conglomerate Media and Kingsway Productions TLM movie looks awesome. (Many people in the Deadline.com comment section think it looks cheesy...)

I'm opposed to Disney remaking their animated movies into live-action movies, but, similar to how different Pete's Dragon (2016) is to the 1977 version, where it's the same in title only, I'm not necessarily opposed to using the same basic framework (for lack of a better term at 5:05am!) [like if Disney made The Emperor's New Clothes, or their 2010 Sorcerer's Apprentice. Those use a classic tale (not a Disney version) and uses it in a completely different way, with different characters, than the animated classics (or live-action films).

Both versions of Pete's Dragon have completely different characters (1977's dragon is not the same character as 2016's- their names are even spelled differently). If Disney's upcoming "Snow White and Rose Red" movie doesn't have Grumpy, Doc, Sleepy, Sneezy, Happy, Bashful, and Dopey, but other dwarfs, and it has a Queen who is different, etc., where it's not a remake, then I can be okay with that. I guess it's why I'm not a fan of "Once Upon a Time"-- while I'm always curious to see what the new characters look like/what the new songs sound like, etc., as I am with the live-action remakes, it just makes me wonder- why bother. Like with the B&tB remake...you've literally already made that movie, Disney. While I suppose the live-action remakes are akin to the animated sequels, at least those told new stories. The live-action B&tB, while I haven't seen it (and I haven't seen Cinderella-- I only saw The Jungle Book because we were on a vacation and needed something to do and that was the only movie that I was interested in [although if Zootopia was playing, we could have seen that again, and we saw Deadpool later and I liked that...anyhoo.), in many parts, seems to be a play-by-play of the amazing 1991 original; in many clips I've seen, the dialogue is exactly the same as it was in the 1991 films.

I'd still love, love, love to see more live action fairy tales from Disney (a la Enchanted, one of my all-time favorite movies), as long as they aren't true remakes (there are so many stories that Disney could use that they never have used before), or more made on non-Disney properties (a la Return to Oz, one of my other all-time favorites).

I already mentioned Snow White and Rose Red (as long as they use different characters, since Disney already has characters such as Doc, Dopey, etc-- why remake them into someone their not? (I know they're *just characters,* but still.)

I know that Disney made the Gepetto TV movie, and I didn't see that...I don't know how far it strays from the 1940 movie, and in that case, it's not like they were going to rename Gepetto and Pinocchio, etc.... But, like, Disney could make a movie on a similar theme... like a doll coming to life, or something. Kind of like how, if you think about it, Enchanted is a similar fish-out-of-water tale.

The Sorcerer's Apprentice was totally the way Disney should be doing "remakes," in my opinion. No Yensid, no Mickey...it's another sorcerer's apprentice in the world.

From the little we know about Dumbo, it seems like a completely different movie from the 1941 movie...and for name recognizability, I guess they wouldn't have named the title character something else...If that's the only similarity, then it's not as bad as doing a really-for-real remake (a la B&tB-- again, judging it in this way without seeing it [and I have been impressed with Josh Gad and Luke Evans, for example, and I like Emma Watson...I have Disney Vevo open on the computer to take a listen to when I have time...]...it could be a fine movie, but was it necessary? Was it a story begging to be told? Uh, no, because it's been told before. Maybe make a different B&tB story. I've never seen it, but the 1980s B&tB TV show. It had a beauty. It had a beast. But they weren't Belle/Beast/Gaston/LeFou/Maurice/Lumiere/Cogsworth/Mrs. Potts/Chip/etc. Does that make sense?

With a movie like Pocahontas, there is only so much you can do with that-- it'd have to have Pocahontas, and if you're talking about that part of her life (vs. seeing a movie where she grows up), then it's going to have John Smith and possibly John Rolfe in it. Not that I think Disney would touch Pocahontas again due to potential backlash, but I wouldn't 100% think they wouldn't go there... I love that movie so much, so I think it's perfect the way it is (like B&tB...). The things I liked about The Jungle Book (2016) was how Mowgli made inventions, and I liked spending more time with the wolves. But it wasn't necesary to tell the whole story again...

Let's say Disney were to remake Hercules, but make it a non-musical drama. (I just pulled this out of my head- nothing's been announced!) To my way of thinking, why remake Hercules? Why not just make a live-action film about another Greek god/tale? ("Because then, we couldn't use a The Weeknd cover of "Go the Distance" over the credits." Touche, Disney. :/)

Or remaking a movie like Atlantis. Why revisit Atlantis, when there are other forgotten worlds (either currently existing in literature/folklore/history, like the Fountain of Youth ["because of POTC!"], or Easter Island, The Bermuda Triangle, the Pyramids, Stonehenge, etc., or new worlds that could be made up) to be explored in a Disney film.

Kind of like how Tron and Wreck-It Ralph are completely different movies but kind of using a similar theme...I mean, they're so different, but they're about the lives of computer/video game characters.

With Mary Poppins Returns, it's not a remake, so I'm pretty okay with that. I'm actually looking forward to it. There were multiple Mary Poppins books, and it's not a remake, it's an extension, a new chapter, if you will. Unlike a movie like B&tB. If it were a new chapter in the lives of Belle and Beast, etc., then I'd be more okay with it, just not rehashing the same story with a new angle/slant (Mowgli builds stuff! Belle is an inventor! That's still the same exact story with a new thing or 2 thrown in.) I'm just salty on the subject.

I know I'm making a big deal about trying to get my points across on this subject, and it doesn't really matter since they're making them and they're making money with them regardless. But it's a forum, and it's what it's here for, dammit.

Sean Bailey, the president of Motion Picture Production at Walt Disney Studios, said that they won't produce remakes of post-2000 animated films.

As for where the remake trend ends, Bailey indicates there’s an unofficial boundary line at the end of the Disney Renaissance, around the year 2000 or so. “We’re not looking at anything very recent, [anything] that still feels like it’s still the provenance of current Disney animation,” he said.

Source: http://www.vulture.com/2017/03/beauty-a ... chine.html

While a live-action Fantasia would seem daunting, Bailey said no animated property is off the table, if a filmmaker can find a way in. What is off limits for now are the post-2000 CGI 3D product from Pixar and Disney Animation. Said Bailey: “We are focused on classic properties, and the ones from the Disney 2D renaissance.”

Source: http://deadline.com/2017/03/beauty-and- ... 202047710/

Not surprised. It would be too soon. Even though, Atlantis does need a re-boot.

Yeah, yeah, see them turn around to give some half-assed reasoning as to why they're making Frozen and Zootopia as live-action remakes.

It's gonna be funny imagining what other crazy choices they would take for live-action films. Bambi as a live action remake...

thedisneyspirit wrote:It's gonna be funny imagining what other crazy choices they would take for live-action films. Bambi as a live action remake...

It's possible. We have Dumbo...

yeah, once they check off all the more popular films on the list and get to stuff like Oliver & Company(not knocking it, you all know I adore that film) they're gonna start rethinking that stance. Then again I never thought in a million years they'd ever touch Black Caldron again.

^ People (fans) have been saying for years that they want a live action TBC to "do justice" to the books...

blackcauldron85 wrote:^ People (fans) have been saying for years that they want a live action TBC to "do justice" to the books...

Yes, I agree. They’re most likely taking advantage of the books’ name value/critical acclaim and weren’t inspired to make the new film(s) because of the animated film at all. (Not that I hate the animated film, but it’s too forgotten and unsuccessful to have been the reason they chose to greenlight the new film(s).)

Disney’s Live-Action Remakes: A Comprehensive List of the Films in Development
http://www.slashfilm.com/disney-live-action-remakes/

The ones I'm least looking forward to are all the comedic spin-offs like Rose Red, Prince Charming, and Tink. Especially Tink because apparently it'll be a Maleficent revisionist-story. Also not interested in Peter Pan since there already is an amazing non-Disney live-action version and Disney has never been able to do justice to the original source material.

^ Same. All three remind me of The Sorcerer's Apprentice, which was also awful.

Too bad they changed their minds about Bedknobs and Broomsticks. I have never seen Gargoyles but I like the concept.

And what about The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad? The Wind in the Willows have always been popular, but is the world ready for another adaptation? Also, I think Weta in New Zealand planned to do a version some years back. Seems like it is stuck in development hell.

Also, wasn't there some talk about a live action version of The Black Cauldron a while back?

I would have enjoyed seeing Lilo and Stitch as live action, even if there would be some challenges. Stitch is blue and have six legs, even if he can hide a pair. Would humans really believe he was a real dog? And could aliens like Jumba and Pleakley disguise themselves as humans?

I'm one of those who actually enjoyed Treasure Planet, but seeing a remake of it is rather unlikely. The same with Home on the Range, which would have been very interesting to see with actors in flesh and blood.

Both The Rescuers and The Great Mouse Detective has good potential as well. The movies has a great atmosphere that probably could be translated well.

thedisneyspirit wrote:Yeah, yeah, see them turn around to give some half-assed reasoning as to why they're making Frozen and Zootopia as live-action remakes.

Though I guess it would've been quite tempting for them to do so, alongside with Tangled. But at least Disney are drawing a clear line with the remakes by not remaking the ones from the new millenium. It would've be remarkable to see live action remakes of Lilo & Stitch and The Emperor's New Groove . And what about Chicken Little and Wreck-It-Ralph?