Disney Debates: Are adaptations travesties?

[Wonderlicious]

I've come up with a new type of thread which I think could be of worthy inclusion to this forum.

Whilst out cycling today, an idea came to me to start debates concerning Disney. Personally, I think that it's a bit of a silly idea that a heat thread could be started by a discussion of Disney, as opposed to something like religion, as it's not such a touchy topic (unless you view Walt Disney as a God, which I'm affraid to say if you suffer from it, you've gone into a form of mental decline).

I shall call these new Threads: Disney Debates

Okay, I've got a topic to consider. Do you view some of Disney's adaptations of past works as travesties? If so, which ones? I know that a lot of American history buffs were annoyed that Disney's interpretation of the Pocahontas legend was more like an epic and ecological fantasy and that some Carroll buffs were miffed by Disney's Americanization of Alice in Wonderland, so I wondered if any UDers were offended by Disney's adaptations.

Personally, I don't view many suspects in this arguments as guilty. I'm a fan of Carroll's nonsense stories and I was more than happy with Disney's version of the tale. Personally, I think that Disney's rewriting of history in Pocahontas was fairly acceptable; if Disney had taken the original story, then the film wouldn't really be suitable for a family audience.

As a matter of fact, I personally don't want to compare each Disney film with what it is based upon. Firstly, a film should really be appreciated for its own merits as that is what is being reviewed. Also, I find text to screen comparisons to be fairly dizzy, as they can take a factor of entertainment away.

There is one concern that I personally have. This concerns Winnie the Pooh. I love the original shorts from the sixties and seventies, as they have a nice feeling to them that they aren't just cash ins, a problem with some of the Pooh products of today. I don't like how Disney markets Pooh as by Disney instead of by Milne, as it seems cheap and mean. Other Disney films can give acknoledgement to their original creators, so I can't understand why they can't do this with Winnie and chums. Oh well.

[orestes.]

I can't really debate since I pretty much agree with you. I know some people complain they are too Disney-ized but to those people I try and tell them all that you have said and I suggest they look into the real stories themselves... like go to the library, do some research and check them out! They are always too lazy to do so however.

It's like the vampire debates... people complaina bout fictional vampires following the legend and if it strays from legend they complain. Anything new is just another notch in the religion. (sort of straying there... not a good debater)

As for Winnie the Pooh I also have that concern but I find myself enjoying the new Winnie the Pooh adventures Disney puts out. I don't want Mickey to become public domain and screwed around with but for Winnie the Pooh I'm interested in seeing others take it on. (let's hope they only go up and not down in quality) Watching Winnie the Pooh always leaves me happy and I think Disney does a great job even if it has trayed sooo far.

[ichabod]

OK, When I first saw the title for this thread I thought it said " Are adoptions transvestites?"

I don't think that any of disney's adaptations are bad. I agree that Americanisation is a giant pain in the ass, but I think that is always going to be inevitable to some degree.

I feel like some of Disney's adaptations are better than the books they are based on for example I can not stand the book Peter Pan.

Also I watched a documentary about PL Travers and it said that she hated what disney had done to her book, where in my opinion the film is a vast improvement!

[singerguy04]

Movies like Pocahontas shouldn't be taken literally in context of actual events. I think the point of Pocahontas wasn't really to tell the story of her life, but was to use her to tell a story that people can relate to. The situation of being in love with someone and/or something and not being able to be with or do it because you are different is something that everybody can relate to. Disney just used the setting of the real Pocahontas's story to show this. I think it was a genious idea and Pocahontas is still one of my all-time favorite disney films.

Older disney films didn't really follow their original stories either, i don't think any disney film that is based on a book or story actually follows that story perfectly. This is due to one simple fact, Walt Disney wanted to create good wholesome family entertainment and lets face it... if he would've followed the stories perfectly some of his movies would have ended up scary for younger viewers. Disney basically americanized the stories, which is something we all do. We take something we like and imporve it to make it our own, that's all that the disney company has done.

I think the biggest "travesty" would be some of the sequels disney has released for it's original works of art. I think that we can assume that movies like Cinderella II are basically pilots for a disapproved tv series. If this is the case then don't turn these stories into sequels. sell them for what they are. Or my idea has been to make a actual good movie for Cinderella II and then have the extra stories as extra features. Movies like Tarzan & Jane which i hear is another sequel made of tv-like stories at least dont look like sequels. It doesn't have a II or 2 or make any suggestion that it's a sequel other than the fact that it has Tarzan's name in it. I don't really consider it to be a sequel now, it's just pilots for a tv series.

[PrincessJen]

OK, When I first saw the title for this thread I thought it said " Are adoptions transvestites?"

Sadly, that's what i thought it said too...LOL

[BrandonH]

For me, the entire point of doing an adaptation of an existing work is to provide something that the original does not and/or put your own spin on it. It does not matter if something is being adapted from book to movie, movie to book, play to movie, or otherwise, but something has to change in the adaptation process.

For a non-Disney example, consider The Lord of the Rings. Even if length was not a consideration, Peter Jackson's movies would not have worked if they were identical to every word and image of Tolkien's book.

Just as there are good artistic reasons for making changes to Tolkien's work, Disney was perfectly correct in making chnages to Mary Poppins, Pocahontas, Peter Pan, Alice in Wonderland, and all of their other adaptations.

[Owlzindabarn]

I don't think Pocahontas was a travesty. I thought it was highly entertaining and one of those movies I sort of dismissed when it came out; it's now one of my favorites. The only thing I took issue with was in the sequel when Pocahontas gets on that ship back to America. Uh uh. She died in England at about age 20. That's the truth. I know her real life was probably too tragic for a Disney movie but there's no escaping the truth.

As for Peter Pan, I agree with the comment above that the Disney version IS better than the original book, which is a chore to read. It's just not very nice...! Without getting into details, I felt it was really very disturbing and after reading it I came away feeling that Barrie was a very sick man. Never got that impression from the 1953 movie or the Mary Mary versions though, because in both those cases it just seemed like a adventure/romp for kids.

As for Alice, I admire it for the terrific animation and wild imagery, but no, it ain't the book at all! I don't think the book is really that filmmable, though many have tried. I've never seen an entirely successful adaptation of Alice. It probably works best in pantomime or other live performance.

Mary Poppins? The movie is brilliant. The book is brilliant too, but you can't film it literally; it's too episodic.

The Jungle Book? The novel is way too dark and would be difficult to film as a 60s animated feature without turning it into slapstick, which is what they did!

Snow White? Some complain that it is too "dark" and "scary" for kids. Ah, baloney! I loved that flick when I was 6. Yes, I thought it was scary but that's why I LIKED it. Parents groups simply don't get that "scary" can be okay for kids. If kids are screaming while seeing it, they're really screaming with delight. I know there's a few wimpy-butt kids out there who will have nightmares after seeing films like this but those are the kind of high-strung kids with emotional issues, who need to be left at home under any circumstances. As for being a good adaptation, keep in mind that the original story was far darker and much more cruel. Again in this case, Disney's version is an improvement.

In general, Disney's adaptations remained true to the spirit of their inspirations. Combine that with contemporary tastes in story-telling and excellent filmmaking abilities and you have a Disney movie.

[Disneykid]

OK, When I first saw the title for this thread I thought it said " Are adoptions transvestites?"

Sadly, that's what i thought it said too...LOL

Same here...

Personally, I find Disney's adaptations to be very well handled. Despite how much they may change the source material (like Hunchback), they've always remained true to the spirit and message each and every time. In the case of Pocahontas, people need to realize that the film is a) based on the legend of Pocahontas, not the fact; I don't see anyone complaining abut Paul Bunyan despite the fact that he was real, and b) it should be looked at more as an adaptation of Romeo and Juliet than anything else. In many cases, Disney's surpassed the original sources, particularly in the cases of fairy tales which they beefed up considerably, so I don't see what the fuss is about from naysayers.

[Prince Eric]

No, because in my case, I was introduced to the stories through Disney in the first place. However, I could see someone be offended if their favorite fairy tale is misinterpreted. Now that I'm an English major, I feel anxious about reading The Arabian Nights in its entirety, because I know I'm probably going to have some qualms with the Disney version. (I mean, was it so hard for Disney to make Aladdin and Co. Chinese? I mean, the story says that in the first sentence for crying out loud!)

Peter Pan, The Jungle Book, and Alice in Wonderland are all dark because of the audience they were written for. Peter Pan originated as a play, so maybe J.M. Barrie proved to be a weak novelist in his attempt to make his story more accessible. (The guy was a playwright, so give him some slack!) As for Hans Christian Anderson stories, like The Little Mermaid, they too have darker slants. Back in the day, children's literature was full of morals and "Do's and Don't." They were for entertainment, but they also wanted to show kids what would happen if they misbehaved or went against societal convention. I don't think Disney has done a particular bad job in their adaptaions. The weaker films suffer from bad filmmaking and not bad storytelling in my opinion.

[Siren]

I think Disney sugarcoats too much.

A few they stuck with. Like Sleeping Beauty. That was a scary movie.
Hunchback was also well done, it still retained its deepest darkness (murder, child abuse, hate, lust), but it was still okay for the kids and parents to watch together and both enjoy.

Beauty and the Beast was well done. One thing they took out that was big in the many originals (there really is no set B&B story by anyone known) was the nightly at dinner, Beast would ask "Do you love me? Will you marry me?" and Beauty/Belle would always reply no. Also the ring which magically would transport her was gone. But in the end, Disney rewrote that story and I think it was the best B&B story written.

Now with the complaints.
Jungle Book wasn't all that dark. Mowgli parents were killed in the jungles by Shere Khan. Mowgli went to the wolf's den himself and Shere Khan followed him. He demanded the boy, but the mother wolf lashed back. I think the best adaptation was by Chuck Jones with Mowgli's Brothers. That was very well done. Because in Disney, the wolf brothers never turned on him. Bagheera never said he would provide a freshly killed bull to keep Mowgli in the pack. Mowgli never killed Shere Khan and stomped on his hide. Chuck Jones did that one best, IMO.

Little Mermaid. So much was rewritten there. In the original, Ariel and her sisters would have had their grandmother. When each girl turned 15, they were allowed to go to the surface and look around and then go back under. That's when Ariel would have saw Eric. Later with the sea witch, not only did she take her voice, but with every step Ariel took, it would feel like hundreds of pieces of glass were jammed into her skin. In the end, he would marry another woman. To live and get back her tail, her sisters cut off their hair and gave her a knife to kill him with. If she killed him, she could live and be a mermaid again. But she chose not to and jumped into the water. She died and turned into sea-foam. Not the happy ending Disney wanted of course, but I usually prefer the original.

Peter Pan annoyed me with the bomb...Would Captain Hook really have had access to dynamite in Neverland? It just didn't make sense. Walt Disney said himself that the poisoning seemed too dramatic. Like a bomb was better? I think I'd rather the original idea of poisoning. Made more sense anyways.

Bambi retained its realism. Pinocchio was pretty dark too (Stromboli and the boys turning into donkeys were frightening, let alone Monstro).

Pocohontas was a fairytale. Least by Disney standards. John Smith wasn't some sweet looking, sweet talking soilder. He didn;t get shot saving anyone. He got to close to a barrel of black powder during a battle and it blew up. I did like the movie, but it was so far to being based on a true story, Perhaps it was better put, "Based on the names of real people"

[quiden]

Also I watched a documentary about PL Travers and it said that she hated what disney had done to her book, where in my opinion the film is a vast improvement!

I haven't seen this documentary, but I totally agree with you about the movie being an improvement on the book. I recently checked it out from the library and read Mary Poppins to my two daughters. While they enjoyed it, the book really had no plot all the way through. She shows up. They have chapter-long adventures. and then for some reason, she leaves when the wind changes. Not really a whole lot of story arc there. I will add, though, that I thought that the father's story could have been more emphasized about how he comes to realize the importance of recognizing and appreciating his children. It's done in the movie, but not enough, I think.

Pooh

Regarding Winnie the Pooh. I actually don't like the new adaptations so much. The original shorts that were done (and later combined in Many Adventures...) I thought kept closer to the tone of the books than these later ones do. I really wish they would make a pooh movie that is made up of 3 or 4 simple stories that have a common story arch, like those original ones did. It doesn't seem like they do the storybook format at all anymore, and that was one of my favorite parts of it. Turning the pages and all.

[Joshrzmeup]

I think Disney sugarcoats too much.

A few they stuck with. Like Sleeping Beauty. That was a scary movie.
Hunchback was also well done, it still retained its deepest darkness (murder, child abuse, hate, lust), but it was still okay for the kids and parents to watch together and both enjoy.

Beauty and the Beast was well done. One thing they took out that was big in the many originals (there really is no set B&B story by anyone known) was the nightly at dinner, Beast would ask "Do you love me? Will you marry me?" and Beauty/Belle would always reply no. Also the ring which magically would transport her was gone. But in the end, Disney rewrote that story and I think it was the best B&B story written.

(I totally agree with this. I've read some of the other versions, just for fun, and I think this was one of the best. First of all, what kind of name is Beauty? Belle is much better. Second, I like how Disney chose for the Beast not to tell Belle that he loved her, yes, it would have been romantic, but then the story would go a whole different way. That whole "do you love me?" thing every night would have easily gotten very annoying and I don't think it would have done nearly as well as it did if that was included.)

Little Mermaid. So much was rewritten there. In the original, Ariel and her sisters would have had their grandmother. When each girl turned 15, they were allowed to go to the surface and look around and then go back under. That's when Ariel would have saw Eric. Later with the sea witch, not only did she take her voice, but with every step Ariel took, it would feel like hundreds of pieces of glass were jammed into her skin. In the end, he would marry another woman. To live and get back her tail, her sisters cut off their hair and gave her a knife to kill him with. If she killed him, she could live and be a mermaid again. But she chose not to and jumped into the water. She died and turned into sea-foam. Not the happy ending Disney wanted of course, but I usually prefer the original.

(I sooooo never knew that...wow..makes you appriciate how Disney cleans up these stories. You don't want little children to know all that. It could scar them for life.)

Pocohontas was a fairytale. Least by Disney standards. John Smith wasn't some sweet looking, sweet talking soilder. He didn;t get shot saving anyone. He got to close to a barrel of black powder during a battle and it blew up. I did like the movie, but it was so far to being based on a true story, Perhaps it was better put, "Based on the names of real people"

In my Colonial America class that I took last semester, I did a report on Pocahontas and John Smith. Disney made that guy look like a nice guy, someone who cared about the indians. In truth, that was one of the rudest guys ever to attempt to settle in the Virginia Colony. He was a mean sheriff and was eventually thrown out of office.
I guess Disney wants little kids to know that people who look and act different than you are still good people. Plus, she was a 'princess' (well, her father was the chief) so there had to be some sort of love story in the mix as well. Disney does a good job of telling children an almost complete fabrication. It can mislead people.

[Owlzindabarn]

Mrs. Travers didn't hate the final version of Mary Poppins. She did however, have many trepidations during filming. She was an imperious presence on the set, adding her input when and where she saw fit. She seemed omnipresent and overbearing. However, most of her suggestions were politely ignored while Walt paid her probably the most gracious lip service of his career. She knew Mary Poppins, but he knew movies and guess who won out. The current dvd shows footage of Mrs. Travers at the premiere of the film. I think that eventually she came around to the film, as far as it goes, without ever being wholly satisfied with it.

Hooboy...I just would have loved to see Disney try and film Little Mermaid as written. I always thought that was the most depressing story of all time! And anyone remember that puppet movie "The Daydreamer" that has a Little Mermaid segment? It was a hair closer to the original story and is the biggest downer in an otherwise enjoyable film....! In that movie, Ariel asks the Sea Witch to save the boy and if he loves her, the witch says, she will grow legs and be able to join him on the surface. If he doesn't love her, she has to spend all eternity stuck on a rock, unable to return to the sea or go to the surface. Well, he doesn't love her and so she's stuck there on that rock and that's how it ends. In that flick, girl definitely does NOT get boy in that flick!

[Sunset Girl]

I remember that people were freaking out over Disney's adaptation of Hunchback, but hey, if you didn't like the film, at least the original book started moving off the shelves in record numbers. Personally, I loved the film, and it sparked my curiosity for the book that I subsequentially purchased.

[coop52]

The only movie that I've read the book for is Bambi. While it's an excellent movie and one of my favorites, it only is loosely based on the book. In the book, it focuses more on Man as a God-like figure, especially with Faline's brother (forgot his name). Bambi's life in the book was also a lot harder. Yes, his mother still dies, but in the book he gets picked on by the older stags. He spends most of his adulthood alone, since the Great Prince teaches him that the only way to gain wisdom is to be alone. Bambi and Faline do get together, but they don't stay together. I understand why Disney chose not to copy the book exactly; it's far too depressing.

[2099net]

Regarding Winnie the Pooh. I actually don't like the new adaptations so much. The original shorts that were done (and later combined in Many Adventures...) I thought kept closer to the tone of the books than these later ones do. I really wish they would make a pooh movie that is made up of 3 or 4 simple stories that have a common story arch, like those original ones did. It doesn't seem like they do the storybook format at all anymore, and that was one of my favorite parts of it. Turning the pages and all.

But wasn't this what Piglet's Big Movie was (barring the page turning)? All of the segments in the movie were based on original stories by AA Milne.

[Jayden]

Snow White? Some complain that it is too "dark" and "scary" for kids. Ah, baloney! I loved that flick when I was 6. Yes, I thought it was scary but that's why I LIKED it. Parents groups simply don't get that "scary" can be okay for kids. If kids are screaming while seeing it, they're really screaming with delight. I know there's a few wimpy-butt kids out there who will have nightmares after seeing films like this but those are the kind of high-strung kids with emotional issues, who need to be left at home under any circumstances. As for being a good adaptation, keep in mind that the original story was far darker and much more cruel. Again in this case, Disney's version is an improvement.

Snow White scary? These must be some wimpy kids if it's giving them nightmares? I've been watching Snow White since I was 3 and I've not had a single nightmare about it in 19 years. Geez people, lighten up!! (Concerned parents, not UDers, you guys are cool)

Anyways, back to the topic at hand. Disney movies are not meant to be literal translations of the books to screen. Instead, they are meant to tell the basic story to get people interested in the story to research it further on their own. That's always been my view of them. To that end I've taken out The Once and Future King by T.H. White (The Sword in the Stone), Pocahontas: The Woman and the Legend, and Robin Hood (This last one seems to look at the historical aspects of the story, and could it really have happened).

They are meant to stimulate the mind, and get people interested in the subject. In that regards I think they do a wonderful job.

[RJKD23]

Snow White scary? These must be some wimpy kids if it's giving them nightmares? I've been watching Snow White since I was 3 and I've not had a single nightmare about it in 19 years.

well, i found it "scary" sorta!
that witch was freakin ugly!
plus, the apple thing...as a kid! c'mon you do get pretty shifty at a young age when you see an apple!

[Loomis]

OK, When I first saw the title for this thread I thought it said " Are adoptions transvestites?"

I just logged in to post the exact same thought! Ha And it seems I'm not alone. Guess great minds think alike.

As for the debate, while some of this may echo what has already been said, I take this view:

Every adaptation is going to put its own spin on the original text, be it Lord of the Rings (which pissed off some fans, made others moist, but wound up pleasing most or Treasure Planet. Brandon H put it nicely:

For me, the entire point of doing an adaptation of an existing work is to provide something that the original does not and/or put your own spin on it

As has been said here, the tendency is for Disney to sugarcoat, but really - if you have read the original stories, they would really make great kiddie films. Hamlet ends with everyone dying, which would've been a bit of a downer to the 'Circle of Life' argument in The Lion King. The wicked witch in Snow White danced on hot coals (or something) until her feet fell off.

The "Disney version" is merely one in a long line of versions anyway. In the case of the "traditional" stories (Beauty & the Beast; Aladdin etc) the precise origin of the story is difficult to pinpoint. The more recent and easily identifiable ones (Hunchback; Jungle Book; Pooh etc) can be debated, but again - it is a matter of interpretation, which is the point of art.

[thomashton]

TARZAN

No one has mentioned Tarzan. It is my favorite novel of all time and boy did Disney screw with it. However, everyone has since it was first put on film. I do love the Disney Tarzan adaptation, but it is nowhere near as great as the original. I appreciate Disney's the most because they were able to make Tarzan the closest to being what the "real" Tarzan was like and only animation could do that.

On the other hand, the story was all screwed up. I guess they didn't want Tarzan's father killed by a gorilla and then he be raised by gorillas. May confuse younger viewers. Also, I can see how Tarzan killing black bush men may get a few hackles up.