DISNEY REMAKES THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE INTERESTING
Well, we
seem to be in the midst of a phenomenon with Disney greenlighting remakes of their
animated classics. And with the success of their recent offerings of The Jungle Book and Beauty and the Beast (along with their upcoming Dumbo, Aladdin, and Lion King remakes),
this fad shows no sign of stopping. Initially, I was actually sort of onboard
with this. I’m generally not too crazy about most of Hollywood’s big-budget
films today being remakes and adaptations of pre-existing material, but I’m
also of the mindset that remakes can potentially be a golden opportunity for
filmmakers to put their own spin on a beloved film. And this sentiment was only
furthered after watching Jon Favreau’s darker, almost Lion King-esque take on The
Jungle Book and David Lowery’s subdued Spielbergian interpretation of the
nonsensical Pete’s Dragon.
But
recently, my enthusiasm for these remakes has slightly decreased because of the
success of the Beauty and the Beast remake.
For a little background, I didn’t hate the movie at all. It was perfectly fine
and I had a lot of fun watching famous celebrated actors interpret scenes that
I have grown up with and memorized. But therein lies my main problem; aside
from a few new songs, some different plot elements, and the development of
LeFou into a more three-dimensional character, the live-action remake was
basically the same film as the 1991 animated feature. However, it made a huge
profit at the box office with a worldwide intake of $1.26 billion in US
dollars; and if history has taught us anything, Hollywood often takes the formula
of big moneymaking films and exploits the heck out of it. So, it may be
possible that the upcoming Disney live-action remakes will just be carbon copy
remakes of their source material with only a few new elements to give the
surface level illusion of doing something different, seeing as applying that
formula to Beauty and the Beast resulted
in huge dividends. And after looking over the upcoming slate of live-action
Disney remakes, this prediction may be correct (the only exceptions I’ve seen to
this rule are the upcoming Christopher
Robin and Dumbo live-action
movies, which seem to be using their source material as a jumping-off point to
tell their own stories).
ATLANTIS: THE
LOST EMPIRE
Sort of
going back to my original statement, this is not an actively terrible movie. It’s
just not a great one. I like what filmmakers Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise were
going for in trying to make an animated action-adventure instead of the usual
musical comedy formula to which most animated Disney movies were adhering at
the time. But the film does end up feeling a little on the short side with a
runtime of 1 hr. 35 mins, so the multiple things it’s trying to accomplish
within its story – i.e. introducing and developing a lineup of interesting
quirky characters, searching for the city of Atlantis, finding Atlantis and
explaining how its culture is fading away, explaining the powers of the
Crystal, and trying to save the city of Atlantis – don’t get the appropriate
level of development and feel exceedingly rushed. However, I feel there are
enough good things in the film that could make for a satisfying live-action
action-adventure, sort of a throwback to the old Indiana Jones movies. All you’d need to do is expand the runtime
and flesh out those ideas and characters a little more. Something else I’d suggest;
try setting the film during the Cold War, because I feel like that would give
the villain a little more motivation. See, in the original animated film,
Rourke only wanted to sell the Crystal because he wanted money. Yeah, never
mind the fact that the discovery of Atlantis alone would net you a pretty sizeable
profit! But if the film were set doing the Cold War, then Rourke could probably
be a paranoid military man thinking that the Crystal could be used as a great
bargaining chip against the Russians. Maybe that sounds a little silly, but to
me, it would seem like a better motivation than just money. But that’s just my
opinion. Bottom line, I think this could be a great live-action adventure. Heck,
maybe even Joss Whedon could direct it, seeing as he wrote the initial script
for the film!
THE HUNCHBACK OF
NOTRE DAME
This is
another film that I don’t think was terrible. Oddly enough, Gary Trousdale and
Kirk Wise also directed it. Hunchback actually
does a lot of things right, in my opinion. Frollo is a Disney villain for the
ages, the production design and layout work are absolutely phenomenal, and the
musical score and songs are probably the best Alan Menken has ever produced.
Having said that, Hunchback is
dramatically uneven as all get-out. It feels like the higher-ups at Disney
weren’t confident that kids could handle something so dramatic and grounded as
compared to their previous animated films, so they needed to add in some comic
relief in order to keep their attention. The result was the gargoyles Victor,
Hugo (get it?), and Laverne…who have gone down in Disney history as some of the
most annoying comic relief characters ever. And…yeah, that’s about right. Now,
don’t get me wrong. I don’t mind comic relief in movies to even out the
tension. But that humor has to fit into the context of the world that has been
established. The Hunchback of Notre Dame establishes
its universe as more realistic and down-to-Earth than the other animated Disney
films. Then all of the sudden, you have these gargoyles coming in and making a
bunch of pop-culture references and modern (at least for the time) jokes that
feel completely at odds with that subdued setting. And yes, you can argue that
these gargoyles are just a figment of Quasimodo’s imagination. Well, if that’s
the case, then why does Esmeralda’s goat Djali see them come to life? So
because of that, I definitely think Hunchback
could use another attempt by Disney. Maybe the live-action film could take
more cues not only from the original Victor Hugo novel and the recent
off-Broadway adaptation, but also the 1923 and 1939 films, as they were also
pretty influential to the Disney film. In terms of casting, I think Jacob
Tremblay could make a great Quasimodo when he reaches his twenties (I was
convinced of this after watching the previews for Wonder) and I think Michael Fassbender could make a great Frollo.
And as for the director, I would nominate Martin Scorsese. I know we like to
associate him with gangster pictures (even though those kinds of films don’t
even make up a majority of his output), but he’s shown that he can handle
religiously themed epics such as The Last
Temptation of Christ and Silence.
And considering that Scorsese is also a film historian, it’s very likely he’s
seen both the 1923 and 1939 films, so he could craft a Hunchback remake with those two adaptations in mind. Plus, being
the directing genius that he is, he could definitely give the size and scope appropriate
for a story like this. This just seems like too good an opportunity for Disney
to pass up. It definitely merits some consideration.
THE ARISTOCATS
Now
unlike the previous two entries, the original Aristocats is a film that I don’t think is particularly good
overall. More than that, I think it’s kind of stupid. To fully explain why, let
me give you a little rundown of the plot synopsis. In 1910 Paris, an up-in-age
retired opera singer decides that she’s going to leave her money to her three
pet cats, and after they all die, her butler Edgar will inherit the fortune.
Edgar overhears this and is devastated because thinks the cats will outlive
him; he actually buys the myth that cats have nine lives…seeing the problem
yet? Anyway, Edgar decides that the best way for him to get the fortune would
be to kidnap the cats and abandon them somewhere, effectively taking them out
of the will and leaving him as the sole beneficiary. So, he does exactly that,
and the cats all try to get home with the help of an alley cat named O’Malley,
and they come across a few colorful characters along the way.
I think I
should clarify my initial statement: the story focusing on the cats and O’Malley
isn’t what ultimately destroys the film. That stuff’s actually pretty OK…but
the inciting incident and setup is where the problems lie. Even setting aside
the insanity of a woman who leaves money to animals and the stupidity of Edgar believing
in the nine-lives myth, why is Edgar going to all this trouble for the fortune?
It’s not like the cats can really do much with the money, so he would still
have some control over what happens to it, even if he’s not the official
beneficiary. Plus there’s also the fact that Edgar is just an incompetent
villain all around, yet the movie expects us to take him seriously.
So, after
stating all of those problems, you’re probably wondering why I even chose this
movie in the first place. Well, I actually think this would be a great setup
for a Coen brothers-style film. Think about it: you have an insane older woman
who actually leaves money to cats, a bumbling myopic idiot who can’t do
anything right, and an idiot plot that has the potential to just spiral out of
control. All you would have to do is jettison O’Malley and the alley cats, the
two geese, and the talking cats, and just focus on the humans. Here’s the
potential setup: Edgar could kidnap the cats and possibly try to take them to
some colorful underground crooks but gets in trouble with them, and just have
things go downhill from there. Meanwhile, the older lady could call the police
and have them help to find her cats. The policemen could be the audience
surrogates, totally shocked and in awe of just what the heck is going on. This
is basically the same setup as Burn After
Reading, and that was amazing! Boy, talk about a remake that has the
potential to do something 100% different from the original and still be a
crowd-pleaser!
And the
last one is…
THE FOX AND THE
HOUND
I
actually don’t have too much to say about this one in terms of fixing problems
because I think the original film is pretty solid as is. It’s definitely one of
Disney’s more somber pieces and has probably one of the most bittersweet
endings I’ve seen in an animated Disney film. So this is more based around my
personal preferences rather than what I actually think would “fix” the problems
of the original film. With that said, however, I do think that a live-action
remake could be a nice little synthesis of both the original 1981 film and the
original novel by Daniel P. Mannix. So, in order to explain what I’d like to
see in a remake, I’m gonna have to give away some spoilers from the novel and
the 1981 film. So, if you don’t want those, you should stop reading now. OK,
here we go:
In order
to explain my preferences, I must give a quick rundown of the first half of the
Disney film and the last half of the book. Alright, so the premise of the movie
involves an orphaned fox kit named Tod getting adopted by a lady named Widow
Tweed while her neighbor, a hunter named Amos Slade, gets a new puppy named
Copper, much to the chagrin of his older dog, Chief. Tod and Copper eventually
meet up and become fast friends. This friendship is not approved of by their
owners, but Tod and Copper are convinced they’re gonna be friends forever.
However, as they grow up, they realize that this friendship can’t last because
of their predetermined roles in society, with Copper as the hunting dog and Tod
as the prey who’s supposed to be his enemy. This all comes to a head one night
when Tod tries to talk to Copper, but Chief and the hunter spot him and give
chase. Copper lets Tod go, but Chief finds him and chases him onto a railroad
track, where Tod is able to avoid an oncoming train while Chief gets struck by
it.
Now, in
the film, Chief survives with only a broken leg (which never made any sense to
me), but in the book, he is killed. From this point on in the book, the hunter
and Copper continuously pursue Tod, who always manages to outsmart them. Tod is
able to mate with two vixens, but they are both killed by the hunter. The book
then gets into issues of urbanization and how it affects the farmers of the
area and the wildlife. The hunter becomes an alcoholic while continuing to
chase Tod. Eventually, Copper is able to chase Tod to the point where he dies
of exhaustion. At the end of the book, the Hunter checks himself into a nursing
home where no dogs are allowed. He then decides to shoot Copper, crying while
he does so.
OK, so
here’s how I would fashion all of those elements into a remake. First off, I
would cut out the characters of Dinky and Boomer – two comic relief birds that
aren’t necessarily Hunchback
gargoyles-levels of annoying, but still pretty distracting – and keep the
character of Big Mama, an old owl who serves as the voice of reason for Tod.
So, the first half would still retain the elements of Tod and Copper forming a
friendship, everybody disapproving of it, and Todd and Copper growing up. Then
when Chief gets hit by the train, he actually dies like he did in the book (and
apparently like how he was supposed to when the filmmakers were still
developing the film). From that point on, the Hunter and Copper would become
obsessed with getting Tod. He would still relocate to the wild and get a vixen
mate like he did in the film, but when the hunter and Chief find him, the mate
would end up getting killed. Tod would then spend the duration of the film
escaping from Copper and the Hunter, only to eventually decide that he doesn’t
want to run anymore. He and Copper would finally have their final stand-off,
where they brutally face-off against one another. Copper, having been trained
by the Hunter, would easily overpower Tod, and kill him. But in his last
moments, Tod and Copper would exchange a look, wordlessly acknowledging their
sorrow for how this turned out. This would snap Copper out of his rage, making
him realize that he killed his only friend. Copper then realizes that his life
is very hollow and empty now that Tod is gone, sending him into a deep
depression. However, the Hunter, driven mad by his drive to get Tod, has become
an alcoholic. He would eventually be convinced to go to a nursing home where
dogs are not allowed, as new land developers are building homes and the Hunter’s
house is in their way. So, he would decide that he must kill Copper, not knowing
anyone else to care for him. He would take Copper outside with a shotgun in
hand. Copper, fully aware of what’s happening, would not resist, and would
instead obey his master’s order to lie down. The last image would be a happy
dream of him and Tod playing as young ones before the screen goes black and a
shot is heard.
So, is
your childhood ruined yet? Because that was a pretty pitch-black reworking.
Now
granted, these are just things I would preferably like to see in an adaptation.
Structurally and thematically, I don’t know if it would work for both Tod and
Copper to die at the end, other than providing shock value and an assurance to
those who have read the book that this is the more faithful retelling. So,
maybe someone could come along and find a better balance between the two
versions than me. Personally, I would pick David Lowery of Pete’s Dragon. But again, that’s just my opinion.
And those
are all my choices of Disney films that would be great for live-action
remakes. What do you think? Agree? Disagree? Think there are some that I’ve
missed? Let me know in the comments below! And keep an eye out for more material!
.jpg)
Comments
Post a Comment