Just because it's a small world, doesn't mean it has to be a repetitive one.
It seems lately, that it has been fairly popular to beat up
on Disney for their recent trend of remaking the more popular properties of
their animated catalogue into live action feature films and with their recent
moves towards aiming for the apparent dominance of just about every corner of
the entertainment industry, I can’t say that substantial levels of cynicism isn’t
unwarranted or unhealthy towards them as a corporate entity.
It’s probably not coincidence that the only movies they
release that seem to do well are closely tied to their own corporate branding
while the high budget niche projects like “Tommorwland” and “A Wrinkle in Time”
are only ever remembered as high profile financial flops.
What I can say is that such talk should probably be reigned
in before reaching levels of hyperbole.
It may seem odd revisiting so many childhood properties all
at once but let’s not only remember that this is far from abnormal regarding
any sort of fictional property but not even abnormal by Disney standards, who
have whored their properties out in a far worse capacity and still bounced back
to do it again, albeit more successfully.
That last bit further raises the point that while Disney
absolutely should be investing in new potential IP’s, the decision to revisit
some of their old ones isn’t just not an inherently bad idea but could even be
beneficial in some capacity.
So allow me for just a moment to play devil’s advocate and
ramble off a few reasons why remaking certain entries of the Disney Animated
Canon may not be such a bad idea, at least until big business takes it a step
too far (which will be inevitable, I admit).
Classics Will Always Be Classics
It goes without saying that a bad remake rarely detracts
from the status of a truly great original.
In the case of Disney however, you enter a territory where
these stories are so iconic, remakes could practically never dull the shine of
the original’s impact.
In discussing “Aladdin,” how often does the conversation
drift towards the terrible “Return of Jafar,” the mediocre Disney Afternoon
cartoon, or the brief stint in which the late great Robin Williams wasn’t the
voice of Genie?
As rough as actually experiencing the worst attempts to franchise
these movies were, the reality is that the impact that they leave on history
always rises to the surface. Unless the movie is spectacularly bad, it only
really falls to the wayside to be remembered as trivia at best.
All that really withstands the test of time is the good and
if that sounds dangerously close to some sort of historical revisionism, let’s
not forget that the Disney name has basically been made on asserting their
interpretation of fairy tales above all others to the point where I’ve had to disappoint
many a parent and child with fair warning that “Frozen” is almost nothing like the
copy of “The Snow Queen” they’re so eager to seek out at the bookstore in which
I work.
That’s far from a recent phenomenon; from the Renaissance
era’s “Mulan” and “Beauty and the Beast,” all the way back to “Cinderella” and “The
Jungle Book,” all of which have had sequels and spinoffs capitalizing on the
Disney interpretation of preexisting source material, this is far from anything
new nor will it ever stop happening. It does not however have to be all bad, as
some of the better direct to video sequels illustrate, bringing me to my next
point.
New Twists
The current lineup of remakes have had their ups and down
but the one thing they all need to receive credit for (save the beat for beat
remake of “Beauty and the Beast” which I should have been a tad bit harsher
towards) is not being lazy.
“Alice in Wonderland (2010) ” may have been Tim Burton
overly indulging himself and missing the point of the story he was adapting but
at least it was expanding upon the animated namesake it was capitalizing on. “Cinderella”
actually added a little more humanity to Lady Tremaine and personality to the Prince.
While I scoff at the notion of adding shades of grey to the morality of a
character named “Maleficent,” the movie did nevertheless try to open up new
perspectives on the plot of “Sleeping Beauty,” and “Jungle Book” was just all
around great, reinterpreting aspects of the story and characters while showing
off new technology and new possibility in storytelling with that technology.
At the heart of this is “The Lion King (2019),” the only of
these remakes that I actively anticipate because the photorealistic art style
will have to make it a fundamentally different film in terms of approach.
Because of its subject matter however, it is still an
animated movie, making it a new telling and presentation of a beloved story and
stylistically unlike most western CGI animated movies that get released today,
which is pretty cool.
Even the traditional remake route can have its benefits, as
is the case with “Mulan” and “Aladdin,” where Disney seems to be making a
noticeable effort to cast ethnically appropriate actors for the roles in the
stories meant to represent nonwestern cultures. That’s not to say that
questions of appropriation aren’t inevitable but it’s nevertheless providing breakout
career opportunities for minorities that might have otherwise struggled
elsewhere.
Not every concept is particularly ripe for the picking but
these are still new movies that offer new opportunities, bringing me to my
final point.
Rediscovering Hidden Gems
As beloved as the heavy hitters of Disney marketing are, you’d
be hard pressed to find any viewer of their films that doesn’t have one or two
underappreciated favorites that stand out from the hierarchy of acclaimed
films.
I’ve gone on record for saying that “Bambi” is one of my
favorite movies of all time and while I’m not banging down the door for a full
blown theatrical extravaganza, I wouldn’t mind revisiting it in a quaint
moderately budgeted capacity on Disney’s upcoming streaming service where its
charm could remain intact and reach a new generation more familiar with a post
90s era Disney.
In the same vein of keeping the remakes animated, consider
the opportunities for more underrated entries to get a new lease on life; “The
Great Mouse Detective” continuing the adventures of Basil of Baker Street by
making pseudo-adaptations of other Sherlock Holmes stories, or revisiting “Robin
Hood,” which can’t possibly be any worse than what just about every other
studio has done.
This could even be an opportunity to bank on cult status; a
whole generation of children growing up with the underappreciated “Atlantis:
The Lost Empire” and “Treasure Planet” now have kids of their own so maybe it’s
not so crazy to try those again.
While this would admittedly involve Disney ceasing their gun
shy approach towards less established licenses, the fact remains ever present
that with the amount of money these remakes gross despite a noticeable demand
from audiences for original content, repackaging the past for a second attempt
at success may very well be more viable now than ever before and it doesn’t
have to be at studio or audience expense of done properly.
Disney remakes are here to stay whether we want them or not
and while hearing such projects looming over the horizon such as a Cruella De
Vil focused feature do little to insight confidence in this reality, I’m not
willing to write off the very notion of these remakes and the good they can
provide, just because the lazier routes may prevail.
And remember, this is coming from somebody still scarred by recently
sitting through every direct to video sequel to the cannon shilled out by an
increasingly cynical, brand enforcing, bottom line focused corporation.
No comments:
Post a Comment