In Defense of the Disney Live-Action Remakes
Hey guys, Chuck here.
Yesterday, I picked up a Blu-ray copy of "The Lion King," and I do mean the remake directed by Jon Favreau. This makes a total of seven of these Disney live-action remakes that I have on Blu-ray: Alice in Wonderland, Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, Christopher Robin, Dumbo, Aladdin, and now The Lion King. However, I've noticed that there is a lot of disdain on the Internet over these remakes, especially the ones that very closely follow the original animated versions. I'm here to speak in defense of these remakes.
First of all, let's take a look at some of the remakes that act as continuations of the original story. In this case, we'll be looking at "Alice in Wonderland" and "Christopher Robin." These two remakes, instead of retelling the story of the original animated films they're based on (Alice in Wonderland and The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh), decide to continue the stories of Alice and Christopher Robin, respectively, as adults re-discovering their long forgotten childhood and becoming better people because of it. These two are among the best received by critics and audiences due to the fact that they pick up on the story of the two lead characters years later. "Christopher Robin" especially is terrific for this, as we see him as a working man with a wife and daughter of his own, and his experience returning to the Hundred Acre Wood, and going across London to find his daughter, Madeline, as well as Pooh, Piglet, Eeyore, and Tigger, ultimately bring him closer to his family, and helps him with his job. "Alice in Wonderland," similarly, has Alice returning to Wonderland, or Underland as it's known in this version, as a 19-year-old young woman, and ultimately becoming stronger and more independent because of it. The film's sequel, "Alice Through the Looking Glass," has Alice going on another journey of self discovery, which ends with her and her mother opening a trading company of their own.
Next up, let's take a look at one of the remakes that take the story from the original animated films and tell them from a different perspective. In this case, we'll be looking at "Dumbo," directed by Tim Burton. This version focuses on Holt Farrier, played by Colin Farrell, who is placed in charge of the Medici Brothers' Circus' new elephant, Mrs. Jumbo, as well as her new baby, who later becomes known as Dumbo. Holt's children, Joe and Milly, actually are the ones that discover that Dumbo can fly. Once word gets out about the flying baby elephant, entrepreneur V. A. Vandevere arrives to have Dumbo, as well as the entire Medici Brothers' Circus troupe, join him at his amusement park in New York. After it is discovered that Vandevere is not such a nice guy, the Medici Brothers' Circus troupe, along with Colette, a French trapeze artist in the employ of Vandevere, work with the Farriers to free Dumbo as well as Mrs. Jumbo, who is revealed to be at the amusement park. While this movie didn't perform very well at the box office, I personally had a good time with it. It showed a different take on an already familiar concept, plus it had great performances by Colin Farrell, Danny DeVito, Eva Green, and Michael Keaton.
Finally, let's discuss some of the remakes that more closely follow the plot of the original animated movies. In this case, we'll be looking at "Cinderella," "Beauty and the Beast," "Aladdin," and "The Lion King." These movies, while having a few changes from the original, moments that weren't included before or were created exclusively for this version, are beat-for-beat, almost identical to the original versions. For example, in the case of "Cinderella," having the Stepmother and Stepsisters ruin the dress that Cinderella was working on, followed by the Fairy Godmother showing up to get Cinderella ready , Cinderella attending the Royal Ball, etc. These moments, while it could be argued were lifted from the original animated film, are essential to the story of Cinderella. Meanwhile, in the case of "Beauty and the Beast," "Aladdin," and "The Lion King," having all of the songs from the original films be re-used for their respective remakes, just with new lyrics to fit with the new telling of the stories. My argument is that because scenes like "Be Our Guest," "Circle of Life," and "Prince Ali" are so iconic because of the original animated films, that to not include them in a re-telling of those films would be both blasphemous and psychotic. These songs and sequences are what made many fans of the original animated films fall in love with them in the first place, and to not include them is a betrayal of those original animated films.
While I've discussed the types of Disney live-action remakes that are out there, I haven't discussed that major argument against them, which is this: are these remakes necessary? And the answer to that is both Yes AND No. No, we don't need to see these stories being retold, even with the new technology. We have the original animated versions, and one could argue that that's all we really need. However, I might make the counter-argument that yes, they are necessary. While some of us grew up with the originals and don't want to see them be misrepresented by a lousy remake, it could also be said that this is a new way of getting the stories out there in a new way. In the past, Disney would re-release these movies, both theatrically and on home video, every ten years or so. Not to mention, during the years when Michael Eisner ran Disney, direct-to-video sequels like "The Return of Jafar," "The Lion King II: Simba's Pride," "Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas," and so forth, were made and released. Not only were these movies terrible, with a few exceptions like the aforementioned "Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas," but they were very cheaply animated. The direct-to-video sequels very nearly tarnished what was already great about the original films. While it could be argued that the live-action remakes are doing the same thing, I feel that they really aren't. If you go to your local Best Buy, Target, Wal-Mart, etc., not only will you see copies of the remakes of films like "Cinderella," "Beauty and the Beast," "Aladdin," and now "The Lion King," but you will see them paired up with the original animated films. So, you have the option of which version you want to see. This isn't like Episodes IV, V, and VI of "Star Wars," where the only versions you can see are the edited versions with all the CGI shots that George Lucas added in back in the 90's, as well as other edits that George made over the years. In the case of choosing between one of the Disney live-action remakes or the original animated versions, you CAN choose between either one. I, myself, enjoy both the original versions of these animated classics and their respective remakes, and I appreciate both for different reasons. The originals are terrific because they were part of my childhood, and the remakes are good because they find new ways of telling these stories for a new generation that didn't grow up with the originals, or for those looking to relive childhood nostalgia with a new take on something familiar. It's okay to enjoy either one, but it's also okay to enjoy both.
This is Chuck signing off. See you guys next time.
Yesterday, I picked up a Blu-ray copy of "The Lion King," and I do mean the remake directed by Jon Favreau. This makes a total of seven of these Disney live-action remakes that I have on Blu-ray: Alice in Wonderland, Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, Christopher Robin, Dumbo, Aladdin, and now The Lion King. However, I've noticed that there is a lot of disdain on the Internet over these remakes, especially the ones that very closely follow the original animated versions. I'm here to speak in defense of these remakes.
First of all, let's take a look at some of the remakes that act as continuations of the original story. In this case, we'll be looking at "Alice in Wonderland" and "Christopher Robin." These two remakes, instead of retelling the story of the original animated films they're based on (Alice in Wonderland and The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh), decide to continue the stories of Alice and Christopher Robin, respectively, as adults re-discovering their long forgotten childhood and becoming better people because of it. These two are among the best received by critics and audiences due to the fact that they pick up on the story of the two lead characters years later. "Christopher Robin" especially is terrific for this, as we see him as a working man with a wife and daughter of his own, and his experience returning to the Hundred Acre Wood, and going across London to find his daughter, Madeline, as well as Pooh, Piglet, Eeyore, and Tigger, ultimately bring him closer to his family, and helps him with his job. "Alice in Wonderland," similarly, has Alice returning to Wonderland, or Underland as it's known in this version, as a 19-year-old young woman, and ultimately becoming stronger and more independent because of it. The film's sequel, "Alice Through the Looking Glass," has Alice going on another journey of self discovery, which ends with her and her mother opening a trading company of their own.
Next up, let's take a look at one of the remakes that take the story from the original animated films and tell them from a different perspective. In this case, we'll be looking at "Dumbo," directed by Tim Burton. This version focuses on Holt Farrier, played by Colin Farrell, who is placed in charge of the Medici Brothers' Circus' new elephant, Mrs. Jumbo, as well as her new baby, who later becomes known as Dumbo. Holt's children, Joe and Milly, actually are the ones that discover that Dumbo can fly. Once word gets out about the flying baby elephant, entrepreneur V. A. Vandevere arrives to have Dumbo, as well as the entire Medici Brothers' Circus troupe, join him at his amusement park in New York. After it is discovered that Vandevere is not such a nice guy, the Medici Brothers' Circus troupe, along with Colette, a French trapeze artist in the employ of Vandevere, work with the Farriers to free Dumbo as well as Mrs. Jumbo, who is revealed to be at the amusement park. While this movie didn't perform very well at the box office, I personally had a good time with it. It showed a different take on an already familiar concept, plus it had great performances by Colin Farrell, Danny DeVito, Eva Green, and Michael Keaton.
Finally, let's discuss some of the remakes that more closely follow the plot of the original animated movies. In this case, we'll be looking at "Cinderella," "Beauty and the Beast," "Aladdin," and "The Lion King." These movies, while having a few changes from the original, moments that weren't included before or were created exclusively for this version, are beat-for-beat, almost identical to the original versions. For example, in the case of "Cinderella," having the Stepmother and Stepsisters ruin the dress that Cinderella was working on, followed by the Fairy Godmother showing up to get Cinderella ready , Cinderella attending the Royal Ball, etc. These moments, while it could be argued were lifted from the original animated film, are essential to the story of Cinderella. Meanwhile, in the case of "Beauty and the Beast," "Aladdin," and "The Lion King," having all of the songs from the original films be re-used for their respective remakes, just with new lyrics to fit with the new telling of the stories. My argument is that because scenes like "Be Our Guest," "Circle of Life," and "Prince Ali" are so iconic because of the original animated films, that to not include them in a re-telling of those films would be both blasphemous and psychotic. These songs and sequences are what made many fans of the original animated films fall in love with them in the first place, and to not include them is a betrayal of those original animated films.
While I've discussed the types of Disney live-action remakes that are out there, I haven't discussed that major argument against them, which is this: are these remakes necessary? And the answer to that is both Yes AND No. No, we don't need to see these stories being retold, even with the new technology. We have the original animated versions, and one could argue that that's all we really need. However, I might make the counter-argument that yes, they are necessary. While some of us grew up with the originals and don't want to see them be misrepresented by a lousy remake, it could also be said that this is a new way of getting the stories out there in a new way. In the past, Disney would re-release these movies, both theatrically and on home video, every ten years or so. Not to mention, during the years when Michael Eisner ran Disney, direct-to-video sequels like "The Return of Jafar," "The Lion King II: Simba's Pride," "Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas," and so forth, were made and released. Not only were these movies terrible, with a few exceptions like the aforementioned "Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas," but they were very cheaply animated. The direct-to-video sequels very nearly tarnished what was already great about the original films. While it could be argued that the live-action remakes are doing the same thing, I feel that they really aren't. If you go to your local Best Buy, Target, Wal-Mart, etc., not only will you see copies of the remakes of films like "Cinderella," "Beauty and the Beast," "Aladdin," and now "The Lion King," but you will see them paired up with the original animated films. So, you have the option of which version you want to see. This isn't like Episodes IV, V, and VI of "Star Wars," where the only versions you can see are the edited versions with all the CGI shots that George Lucas added in back in the 90's, as well as other edits that George made over the years. In the case of choosing between one of the Disney live-action remakes or the original animated versions, you CAN choose between either one. I, myself, enjoy both the original versions of these animated classics and their respective remakes, and I appreciate both for different reasons. The originals are terrific because they were part of my childhood, and the remakes are good because they find new ways of telling these stories for a new generation that didn't grow up with the originals, or for those looking to relive childhood nostalgia with a new take on something familiar. It's okay to enjoy either one, but it's also okay to enjoy both.
This is Chuck signing off. See you guys next time.
Comments
Post a Comment