DVDizzy Forum

(Considering that Disney has always prided itself in making family films based on children's fairy tales and popular children's stories/legends) which Disney animated films do you find are unusual story ideas for adapting into an animated feature?

I know the first one that comes to mind is Victor Hugo's The Hunchback of Notre Dame

but I would also put on that list...

Pocahontas
Pinocchio
The Emperor's New Groove
Treasure Planet
Bambi (I have the original novel this was based on and it gets more violent beyond the Disney's mother death)
101 Dalmations (unusual because Pongo's mate was actually named Missy in the Dodie Smith novel and Perdita was merely an extra nursing dog)
The Sword in the Stone
Chicken Little

The Little Mermaid. In the original tale, it was accepted for the mermaids to go to the surface to see humans when they became of age, but it was just to see them. None of the "forbidden to go to the surface" stuff. And it was also said mermaids have no soul. And when the sea witch cast the spell on Ariel, not only did she lose her voice, but walking itself was extremely painful. It felt like she was walking on glass, but to the humans, they thought she walked gracefully and daintily. Also in the original tale, after Ariel saves the prince and dives in the water, another woman finds him on the beach and he thinks SHE saved him and they get married. Ariel's sister's find out, see the sea witch, have their heads shaved in return of a dagger that Ariel has to use to kill the prince and his new bride while they sleep, so she can live and become a mermaid again. Instead, she dives into the water, dies, and turns into seafoam. And because of her sacrifice, she gets a soul. It was a tragic story that Disney turned into a calypso fun filled love story.

Off-topic,but relates to Siren's post-Most people knew of The Little Mermaid(the story) before the movie came out. How do you think people reacted when they saw that Disney was making such a despressing film? Do you think they thought it would be tragic?

When I heard of them developing it as a movie, I did wonder how they would make it. Once I saw the first preview, I knew it would have a happy ending. Personally, I like the tragic ending better. The sacrifice she made, and the reward she got for it. It was much more powerful.

None where unusual to me, all of them where great to watch. The only thing I could sat was unusual was Fantasia, except thats not based on a story.

toonaspie wrote:

The Sword in the Stone

How was The Sword In The Stone unusual?

I loved it, it's my favorite Disney movies of all time, with Bedknobs and Broomsticks coming in second.

I love Higitus Figitus

I think toonaspie by saying unsual means unexpectable or something, not the movie with the most alterations or twists of the original story. To me the most unsual concepts for a Disney film are:

1.The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Who'd have thought?
2.Pocahontas (I didn't even know that legend existed before, I didn't know she was a real person and the first time I saw the advertisment I couldn't even pronounce or remember her name. Just like John Smith! )
3.The Sword in the Stone: Yes I know a story about Arthur could be a great Disney film, but I didn't expect the whole film to be about Arthur's "education". Funny but silly. Definately a REAL Arthur film has to be made by Disney.
4.Tarzan. For some reason I always considered Tarzan to be a so-not-Disney character. Disney prooved me wrong.
5.Mulan. A story with a girl who pretends to be a man? I never thought they would have the guts to do something like that.

Ideas for really unexpectable Disney adaptations: Interview with the Vampire, Brokeback Mountain, Requiem for a Dream, American Beauty

I get what your saying, but Disney always makes unusual movies you could say. Talking Animals, Human's Interacting with Animated Creatures you get the idea. Disney has always had a hit it's animated movies, so nothing they have made so far is unusual to me.

Siren wrote:The Little Mermaid. In the original tale, it was accepted for the mermaids to go to the surface to see humans when they became of age, but it was just to see them. None of the "forbidden to go to the surface" stuff. And it was also said mermaids have no soul. And when the sea witch cast the spell on Ariel, not only did she lose her voice, but walking itself was extremely painful. It felt like she was walking on glass, but to the humans, they thought she walked gracefully and daintily. Also in the original tale, after Ariel saves the prince and dives in the water, another woman finds him on the beach and he thinks SHE saved him and they get married. Ariel's sister's find out, see the sea witch, have their heads shaved in return of a dagger that Ariel has to use to kill the prince and his new bride while they sleep, so she can live and become a mermaid again. Instead, she dives into the water, dies, and turns into seafoam. And because of her sacrifice, she gets a soul. It was a tragic story that Disney turned into a calypso fun filled love story.

Wow, that's really interesting. I've actually never read the original story before...

Next time you go to a book store, look for one of the fairytale books that say "original" or "unabridged". Read them. You'll be very surprised. Even other stories like Bambi, Tarzan, Hunchback, and Fox and the Hound. For all the violence and death they showed on the movie, it was a fraction of what was in the book.

Someone at an IMDB-board suggested that it might be a good idea for Disney to make an animated feature about Joan of Arc. Now, that is even a weirder idea than Pocahontas. A religious drama about a woman who has visions from saints and is burned at the stake in the end? Now, that would make for fine family entertainment!
I never thought Tarzan a 'weird' choise for a Disney movie. In fact, I wonder why they didn't think of it earlier. After all, there already was Jungle Book, a story with a similar theme about a human boy growing up in the jungle among animals. And with the 'odd-man out' theme, already seen in movies like Pinocchio and Dumbo I think Tarzan fits the Disney tradition very well, much more so than a few of its predecessors - which I mostly like.

But maybe I'm just seeing it that way because I never read the original 'Tarzan' novels.

Cut out huge ramble!

Yeah, Hunchback felt weird to me from the start. With that story, a respected work of adult literature, a happy ending really feels like cheating.

It's a weird balance you have to do. You can make a great film by just basing it loosely on something, but you can't do it all the time, in the same way, with every single story. It works best with the fairy tale and mythology types, as they're subject to variation. Even then, that doesn't always work. There's something about the Disney Hercules movie that makes me squirm, even though there's so much in the movie to love.

I wonder if Disney is able to pull off a dark or depressing animated film. It's not impossible. Other studios do it very well. When Disney's tried, it's failed. I suppose it's just not Disney's thing. I did come across an interesting point in this book about the making of Snow White. There were scary parts in the movie that people thought may be too much for kids, but kids don't mind being scared so long as there's a happy ending.

BelleGirl wrote:Someone at an IMDB-board suggested that it might be a good idea for Disney to make an animated feature about Joan of Arc. Now, that is even a weirder idea than Pocahontas. A religious drama about a woman who has visions from saints and is burned at the stake in the end? Now, that would make for fine family entertainment!

That would be awesome! Unfortuntly, I doubt something epic like that would happen.

BelleGirl wrote:I never thought Tarzan a 'weird' choise for a Disney movie. In fact, I wonder why they didn't think of it earlier.
But maybe I'm just seeing it that way because I never read the original 'Tarzan' novels.

I believe people thought this due to the novels and comics on Tarzan. Tarzan also had sort of male's superhero aspects and something that companies that done superhero animations would do. I dunno.

purin wrote: I wonder if Disney is able to pull off a dark or depressing animated film. It's not impossible. Other studios do it very well. When Disney's tried, it's failed. I suppose it's just not Disney's thing.

I believe it's the Black Cauldron syrdrome, that make Disney not want risk it's ass off and bring it to the dumps like BC did.

The Black Cauldron wasn't depressing, at least in my opinion. It was interesting and unique.

purin wrote:Cut out huge ramble!

Yeah, Hunchback felt weird to me from the start. With that story, a respected work of adult literature, a happy ending really feels like cheating.

'Adult' adaptations of the novel 'cheated' in this way as well.

I did come across an interesting point in this book about the making of Snow White. There were scary parts in the movie that people thought may be too much for kids, but kids don't mind being scared so long as there's a happy ending.

Well, Snow White is a story that is supposed to end happily. Not all Disney movies end in the same happily-ever-after way. But the examples are rare.
I don't know if Disney can pull off a movie where the main protagonist dies tragically in the end ( a la Joan of Arc). Some people cannot even deal with the ending of Pocahontas

For something really different I would recommend an adaptation of a Shakespeare comedy: 'Comedy of errors' or 'Midsummer Night dream'.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame and Chicken Little,i guess.
Siren-Why do you call her Ariel? in the original story her name wasn't Ariel,Ariel is just Disney's version.
I just dosn't understand can't think about something different then Disney,who said her name was Ariel?.

Good point. I haven't seen that many renditions of Hunchback of Notre Dame, but I'll take your word for it.
Black Cauldron wasn't depressing, no. I was sort of lumping qualities together. That was an odd adaptation to do, considering they didn't base it on just one of the books, but instead made the movie taking characters and not necessarily related plot elements from the varying books to make it.

That's right! Tarzan isn't that odd a choice in a way because Tarzan was already in the culture as a comic strip hero with continuing adventures! He had already had other incarnations, so why not a Disney one?

I think the opinions people have (choice of story, disapproving when endings are happy, shocked when endings are bittersweet) also come from the fact that... this is Disney! Disney has all this baggage that it can't get away from. I think that's why some attempts at different films fell on their faces, because they couldn't get away from their Disneyness.

I wonder, if Disney reeeaaally wanted to get into different kinds of animated films, if it would have to form a different studio (Mirimax movies aren't considered "Disney" movies) and release those films separately from its own famous line, just to set them apart.

"Treasure Planet" is unusual and weird because it mixes a classic adventure tale with sceince fiction. For me the mix didn't really work, I don't see how the space setting adds to the classic story. I'd rather have they had made 'Treasure Island' instead.

BelleGirl wrote:

"Treasure Planet" is unusual and weird because it mixes a classic adventure tale with sceince fiction. For me the mix didn't really work, I don't see how the space setting adds to the classic story. I'd rather have they had made 'Treasure Island' instead.

Treasure Island was already made by Disney in 1950. Disney decided to revamp the the story, and I thought it was pretty good too.

About Tarzan-they didn't allready had George of the Jungle or whatever it name was?.

Tarzan and George Of The Jungle are two different movies and chracters. both were good movies, I loved Tarzan's tree skating and George becuase of it was funny to see the cartoon series done live action, like they did with Rocky and Bullwinkle.