Hey Disney!
Now I know it's super convenient for you guys to just
remake films you've already made because all the hard work has basically already been done for you...
by you? But can we pump the brakes a little on these totally inessential remakes of classic movies?
Do we really need a Dumbo remake, an Aladdin remake, and a The Lion King remake all in the same year of 2019?
Oh wait, hang on. I'm just getting some breaking news. It turns out I was wrong
There aren't only three Disney remakes coming out 2019, turns out there are four.
Turns out the Lady and the Tramp is getting a live-action treatment too, apparently.
They're pumping them out so fast, I can't even keep up.
[jazzy intro music]
The chances are you're gonna have some affinity for at least one of the classic 2d animated Disney movies.
For me it's Tarzan, Hercules, The Sword in the Stone, and Treasure Planet.
I'll always have a soft spot for these films, no matter how flawed they might be to watch as an adult
They're so ingrained into my brain that I can remember nearly every scene and line of dialogue all by heart
Hell, the very first film I saw at the cinema was the Little Mermaid when I was a kid
Of course, Disney knows the power they hold over us, and we all know that for Disney...
nostalgia is the teat that keeps on teat-ing.
Infinite teats for the sucking, providing that luscious fatty Mother's Milk of safety, predictability, and comfort
that people are willing to pay for again
and again...
and again.....
If the original ideas well has dried up or gone to shit
They know all they have to do is hold our childhoods to ransom
and cash in on the invaluable brand recognition and goodwill it garners.
I feel that as a business decision for Disney, remaking old classic movies of theirs is actually a pretty good move.
It's far less risky because.. everyone's already familiar with the property
They don't have to sell us on anything.
The story and characters are already laid out for them
And they even built an audience of adults, parents, teenagers, who remember the properties fondly
and there're also children who are ready to experience these stories for the first time
It's been proven that these films are capable of bringing in the big bucks. But at what cost?
The answer is around two hundred million dollars.
I don't think the idea of remaking classic movies is inherently bad necessarily
However, more often than not, you can clearly see how cynical and lifeless the decision making is behind the curtain
It's as clear as a summer's day how much more the scales are in favor of the business over the creative
Without the balance that is required for the art form to have any semblance of integrity.
What I hate most about these remakes is how they seem to completely disregard what is special about the originals.
Much like the fantastical fairy tales stories all of these movies tell,
2d animation has the unique quality of being timeless and beautiful no matter its age.
Whether we're talking about Lilo & Stitch in 2002,
Robin Hood in 1973,
or Bambi in 1942,
(God that movie's old)
because of the everlasting intrinsic artistry of hand-drawn animation
These films will never look bad.
Which is such a rare and valuable aspect of the presentation and no doubt an intentional one
Of course it's a lot more time-consuming and expensive than.. animating Jimmy Neutron in a computer
But the end product more than speaks for itself
This is why it's so frustrating to see Disney,
the same company who allowed these intricate works of art to be their bread and butter for decades and define their identity
Allow for such flat and dull looking movies to be released under their name.
Of course what I'm talking about is how the production value of these
'live-action' remakes are so dull, gloomy, and confused in their art direction
It is hard to figure out what they're even going for
Let's take this trailer for Jon Favreau's The Lion King remake as an example
It's effectively a shot-for-shot remake of the classic scene from the original movie except everything has changed
For the worse. The color palette is less moody and Atmospheric. The short composition is less expressive
It feels completely different
Despite showing us the exact same thing. The devil really is in the details when it comes to animation. Sure
It's impressive to show how photorealistic we can render animals in a computer for the entire appeal of Disney
Animated movies is the character designs. What all of these characters have in common at Glantz
You can tell exactly how they're feeling the entire point of choosing these animals these character designs and these
Stories and scenes is to convey a specific emotion
you can take any frame from the original Lion King and all the
information you need about how the character is feeling and the mood of the scene is
Displayed perfectly because of how expressive the animation and artwork is what is this photorealistic baboon?
Thinking I'm scared of it
Whereas in the original when I see this guy, I want to sit down and eat a banana with him
He looks friendly and inviting. Why would I want to be reminded how frightening and intimidating?
baboons lions and other scary animals are isn't the entire story of The Lion King pretty reliant on us connecting and
Empathizing with the characters. How am I supposed to empathize with a real lion?
The reason animation is so fun. And interesting is because it's able to make us empathize and relate with anything
It's like if they remade wall-e but instead of being an ultra cute Debbie with huge binocular eyes. He looked like this
I don't want to hug this thing. I'm terrified of this. It's not anthropomorphic like all the old movies. It's anthropo-
boring, this is a huge issue for me with the 2017 Beauty and the Beast remake. What the hell are these character designs? You really
think the artists on the original movie intended for this candle to be photorealistic in any way? The reason the original designs work
So well is because they're not realistic but still resemble what they're supposed to and don't get me started on the beast
Oh my god, it's atrocious. What the -- what the hell is that supposed to be? This design is so perfect
Its expressive and adaptable to the story. This one looks like an unused design del Toro scrapped for Pan's Labyrinth. Ugh.
what a creative mess. The greatest irony is these gritty reboots are gonna need to be rebooted
themselves as they're not gonna hold up at all in the future because they're only artistic merit is to show off how
photorealistic they can make their CGI spectacles. Films that tend to lean on nothing but showing off how impressive their
computer graphics are tend to be the ones that age the worst. What does the deal with these movies being referred to as
live-action? it will be like calling Terminator 2 an animated movie because there's one
CG character. The Lion King doesn't even have any human characters in the story.
How is this live-action? take the CG out of something like the 2016 Jungle Book and it looks like this.
So what would I like to see change? Well if they insist on continually making these god-forsaken empty cash grabs
I'd like to see one of two things: either
stop making them which I know won't happen until they stop making money.
Or why not try to be a little more true to the source material? Don't remove the color, life, art
direction, and energy for this dull factory produced synthetic
look. These films are practically entirely animated in a computer anyway
so why not just adapt the 2d movies into 3d ones in a similar style to Tangled,
Frozen, or Moana if you're so desperate and milk recognizable intellectual properties. At least
then there'd be some kind of brand cohesion going on
You'll be way more marketable too - you could sell so many toys. At least that way you'd have the vibrant
exaggerated nature of animated films to work with that are in the same ballpark of presentation.
Hell, this way you may even be able to reuse the classic voice acting so you don't have to worry about shitting all over famous
performances like Robin Williams from Aladdin. Now
I know it's not
technically the same studios that made them but I would pay good money for some of the classic Pixar movies to be
remastered in such a way that would make them timeless. My only issue with classic films like Toy Story or The Incredibles is that nowadays
certain aspects of them are a tad dated simply because of how advanced technology is now.
Can you imagine that instead of Toy Story 4 they just re-released the original Toy Story
that is the exact same film that every shot is just updated to the fidelity of what we're capable of now.
There's every chance it could still ruin the film George Lucas style. But as long as the original versions are still available
what harm could it really do? It would certainly be lucrative and the hard part as I mentioned earlier
is already done. You don't have to implement any level of creativity
at all! The video game industry is making bucket loads of money by
remastering classic games. Some of them even let you toggle between how they used to look as a sign of respect
and appreciation and it gives people the choice. The point is remakes and remasters can be done right. I just think this
"live-action" direction Disney has taken kind of goes against everything their films stood for and they have the money,
talent, and influence available to be doing a much better job.
You can enjoy Seth Rogen and some guy from Bob's Burgers doing a weird imitation of Timon and Pumba
But I won't, because even on paper that sounds like a bad idea.
[not epic sax guy music]