Disney remaking their animated classics in CGI; help stop them before it's too late! (1 Viewer)

[Joe McCabe]

Well said, Galen.

I really wouldn't have a problem with these films being redone, as long as the originals are still available.

Disney is a business first and foremost. They need to make money. It seems that they are constantly held to a standard that a money making business couldn't be held to.
We want them to be pure and free of money grubbing schemes, but that's not in their best interest.

So, if redoing their classic animated films in CGI is the best way that they can grab the younger audiences, while treating them to the Disney stories that we all grew to love over the years, what's the harm??

Do you think back in the old days, someone tried to rally the troops against the converting of radio programs to *gasp* TELEVISION!!!

 

[MatthewA]

Galen, I do not like the patronizing tone of your response. You are missing the point.

The studio is ignoring the CRAFTSMANSHIP of these films, not to mention the simplicity and innocence.

Disney had the best of all worlds—past, present and future—in the late 1980s and early 1990s. But Eisner has made enemies out of half of Hollywood. Don't believe me? Just ask Steven Spielberg, Robin Williams, and the family of Peggy Lee.

In Walt's time they were always looking forward while still showing the past its proper respect. The problem with the post-Walt era (1966-1984) was that The Powers that Were respected the past, which is good, but didn't know how to really go forward. The studio needs a committed visionary, and Eisner just doesn't cut it, honey.

I do not want the studio to stop creating new things; that's the last thing I want. CGI is here to stay, that's not my problem. But how is this any more than just rehashing old ideas?

It just seems to me like they're trying to replace everything of the past with something new-but-not-necessarily-improved.

Disney is a business, yes, but people who are not satisfied with their products will choose to buy something else, and, if they feel like it, register a complaint. Are we not allowed to complain?

This so-called "renaissance" of Disney ended with Frank Wells' death. How I long for another coup to overhaul management.

Disney Magic = Tradition + Innovation

 

[Galen_V]

I am sorry if I seemed patronizing, that was not my intention. And I do see what you are trying to say, and I agree with a good chunk of your points about Eisner. I personally don't believe Eisner had anything to do with the resurgence during the 90's, and he has really missed the boat on a number of things. And I am not doubting that he is a jackass-he did drive out most of the creative talent from the company and really does not have many friends.

Where I differ from you is that when a kid now is given a choice to watch "Toy Story" or "Peter Pan", they will flock to "Toy Story." I personally think that the only way to drive the kids back to "Peter Pan," and get them back to the original Disney roots and films is to make them CGI, which will make the characters "cool" again. Is it a business move? Absolutely, and there is no way to deny it, especially when they are about to lose Pixar (which will only drive them further to remake these movies).

I don't think it is Disney's intention to replace the originals (or pull a Kubrick on them ) , since they do appear to value them greatly (just look at the fantastic DVD releases they have made of these classic films). Honestly, there is nothing I can say to counter your argument about them shortchanging the craftsmanship, the simplicity and the innocence of the films other than by beating around the bush and saying that these straight to video sequels do more damage to the original films by cheapening the characters and the stories. Will a remake reflect the conditions and the creativity in which the original films were made? No way. But I do think they will reflect the time we are in now, and if they suck, I will greatly regret supporting them.

I guess what I am trying to say is that we shouldn't dismiss the movies right off the bat, and should wait and see what the studio actually produces.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

But what about all those countless hours that skilled animators pored away to achieve the animated feats that were Snow White and Peter Pan? By reintroducing them as CG films, you're wiping all of that hard work under the carpet for the lastest flash-in-the-pan technology.

I'm not against CG films, I thought Finding Nemo was wonderfully artistic in it's own way. But I think the past needs to remain the past, and give kids enough credit to present them with both.


Now back to Eisner-hunting.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

Adam, how does a remake wipe away the original? I'd say if anything a remake is an acknowledgement of the quality of the original.

Disney has been able to constiently make money with their animated catalog. Trying to replace them would be incredibly risky and anethema to the way Disney has always operated. I think you're readin too much into this.

 

[Rob Bartlett]

As long as they keep the originals available to the public, I'm fine with whatever they do.

Who's to say they will? Most of their dvds are made built to crap out.

Besides, there is no way this is a smart idea, to do this with anything besides Dumbo or The Jungle Book . For the most part, 3-D humans are ugly . The reason Pixar has been so strong is because they have featred non-human (and for the most part, non-mammals) as the protagonists. We'll have to see how The Incredibles does, but in my person opinion, the direction doesn't seem to be the right one.

 

[Adam_S]

oh, yeah, kids prefer to watch CG films just because they're CG. It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that they have better stories, characters, themes and plots (and usually humor as well). Sure my eight year old sister just about wore out our Shrek tape watching it over and over again, but right now she's doing the same thing with Spirited Away and Spirit Stallion of Cimarron (both of which she's watched again in the last two days), however she can't quite manage to wear out the dvds. She likes a quality story, with good characters and lots of laughs. She NEVER said that she didn't like Lilo and Stitch because it was traditionally animated. That's not something that kids care about. Cynical, embittered, image-conscious/paranoid teenagers and audlts think that a film is lesser because it is hand animated. And she'll also pull out perenial favorites to watch again and again, like little Mermaid, Lady and the Tramp (and their respective sequels, sigh), and yes Pinocchio. And these are what she wants to watch, the good movies, because they're good movies, not because they're CGI.

That's why this is a morally and creatively bankrupt idea, because it misses the whole point and addresses the wrong problem. The executives are trying to turn this into a color v. Black and white, sound v. silence war that has already been lost when it isn't.

Then again, maybe we should dig up Wolfgang Reitherman to ask what he thinks of the new CGI Monstro.

or perhaps we should dig up Milt Kahl to ask about the NEW redesign of Pinocchio.

Maybe we should go ask Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston what THEY think of this, since they're still around to say something, (or perhaps Thomas will prefer the new Jiminy Cricket to his version, HA!).

bah, the very idea of this makes me so furious I can't complain about it any more.

 

[Edwin-S]

That is because most of them are braindead and have no concept about what makes an animated film artistic.

I have read quite a bit of this thread and it is pretty funny. There are people posting here, that go ballistic if a film is modified from its OAR by even a millimeter. However, some money-grubbing POS (Eisner) suggests that bastardized CGI remakes of Disney classics may be in the offing, and it's..."so what"...."they're a business and they're just trying to make some money"....."as long as the original is available, who cares"...etc., etc.

Well if that kind of thinking is acceptable with Disney's classic films, I think it will not be such a bad idea if Warner Bros. ever decides that they want to do an all CGI remake of Citizen Kane. Right on....an all CGI fabrication of Orson Welles.....great idea. I mean, who cares what they want to do, as long as the original is available. Of course, it wouldn't be long before the people defending Disney's right to bastardize classics, would be out in force, howling about Warner Bros. trampling on the cinematic significance of a masterpiece. However, I guess doing CGI remakes of classic animated films is all right in the books of many so-called "film fans" because making animated films isn't real filmmaking....is it? Animated films are just kiddy trash films, so bastardizing them for "a new generation of the braindead" is perfectly acceptable.

To all the studios out there, how about bringing out some remakes of films like:

Gone With The CGI Wind
The CGI Battleship Potemkin
Metropolis: The CGI movie
The CGI Passion of Joan of Arc
War and Peace: CGI style
Lawrence of CGIbia
Doctor ZhivaCGIgo

Come on studios, there would be a real market for these remakes. According to popular opinion, apparently, new generations of filmgoers weaned on CGI would be more attracted to watching all-CGI remakes with lots of "cool" effects. The originals are just "too boring" to watch for the CGI-saturated, flash-cut addicted "new generation".

 

[Joshua_Y]

So, let me just make sure I've got this straight: You want one of us to assassinate Michael Eisner, right?

Just get me a gun or something and I'll do it...

 

[Dan Rudolph]

Edwin, with live movies, a CGI remake would usually be pointless. I'd be interested in Metropolis, though. We've already gotten a half CG remake; they might as well go all the way.

And no oen has explained why Disney would try to abandon their animated classics, which have been the only consistently profitable part of the company. Disney's pattern has been to squeeze as much money out of them as they can, not dump them for something new.

 

[JonZ]

I cant stand this company.With the excpetion of the 2 Toy Storys movies Ive avoided everything theyve done like the plague.

This doesnt suprise me.

 

[Brian Kidd]

I think the argument comes down to a few points. By re-animating these films, the genius that is classic Disney animation will be lost in the name of a quick dollar. Should Disney be allowed to do this? Well, they own the movies and can do anything they like to them. Should they do it? Hell no! I think it's a horrible idea. Another reason why MBA's should have no hand in film production.

 

[Steve Phillips]

Effective immediately, all old movies should be remade shot by shot in color.

Eventually, they can redo all movies shot by shot in holo 3-D vision.

That way new generations who have no absolutely no tolerance for anything that isn't brand spanking new will be able to enjoy them.

After all, why would audiences in 2100 want to watch creaky old fashioned material like THE MATRIX?

 

[Holadem]

I hadn't thougth of it that way. Excellent point. I think I am moving from indifference to being against this.

--
Holadem

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Bad idea IMO. As another said, if these are shot for shot remakes, what's the point? Disney's problem lies with the fact that they're concentrating too much on how those old classics LOOK rather than the emotional depth they contain to any child fortunate enough to watch and love them.

Hand drawn cel animation or CGI, they're merely two artistic mediums created to yield the same goal...to create memorable world's and charactors. To replace one with the other is just wrong IMO. I wouldn't redo Peter Pan with CGI anymore then I would redo Toy Story with hand drawn cel animation.

Joe McCabe,

nice to see a fellow Wilmington Delawarian here! We're so few in the HTF.

 

[Adam_S]

One of Walt Disney's goals was to develop a way of animating that was so good that the audience would sympathize with these non-alive drawings, that they would believe they were emotionally real and connect to them the way they did to live action. Nobody thought this was possible. Around Hollywood, Snow White was referred to as Walt's Folly, the expectation was that it would be a dismal failure that would completely bankrupt and ruin Walt.

However, Walt had a vision, that vision that cartoons could be more than just low-brow gags; that they were more than cheaply produced entertainment for the unwashed masses. The innovations in animation his studio pioneered with some extrodinarily talented artists like Ub Iwerks, Vladimar Tytla, Art Babbit, and Fred Moore created the distinctive disney style of visually rich cartoons with emotive characters. And I'm NOT talking about a sappy maudlin happily ever after disney that is the stereotype. A quick glance at Who Killed Cock Robin, a mid thirties masterwork, shows that these cartoons were anything but the current stereotypes. A comparison of the two Silly Symphonies of The Ugly Duckling from the very early thirties and from 1939 shows just how much advancement was made in that decade.

That's what Micheal Eisner has apparently forgot, Treasure planet was technically excellent, but that was only part of what it was that made Disney so successful. What makes Pixar and dreamworks so successful is that they have mimicked what it was that made the original Disney films so successful, and they've incorporated other successful influences, from Chuck Jones to Miyazaki to Spielberg that has created distinct and beautifully refined storytelling, the medium is practically immaterial. If Micheal Eisner and Disney are so certain that CGI is the reason their traditional efforts are failing, then why is it that the CLAYMATION feature Chicken Run nearly tripled the gross of treasure planet, in America that's an animation style more closely associated with cheap drivel like Gumby than anything else--it's old fashioned just like hand drawn animation but it still succeeded extremely well. The problem is that there is no emotional resonance to the storytelling of recent fare like Atlantis and Treasure Planet. Neither one can begin to match even a (almost overly) obvious manipulative effort like the Hallelujah sequence in Shrek (I love that sequence btw) not to mention the more honestly achieved emotions in something like Monsters Inc, Spirited Away, or Finding Nemo (or even in the Lilo and Stitch family theme).

The point of all this is you can do a shot for shot remake with the same soundtrack, but will the animation be what Walt originally envisioned when he set his first animated features on course--will it connect to the audience on an emotional level, and will they respond to it as they would to live action. Part of that is the story level, (and with shot by shot that can't be screwed up), but a major part of that is the animation as well. In Pinocchio it's the little moments, like Figaro the cat (Eric Larson, I think), or the Laurel and Hardy-esque Fox and cat (courtesy of Ward Kimball) that make the film work so well; and paradoxically those characters are the sorts of things that should pull us out of the film, because they're un realistic slapsticky moments--but that's the magic of good animation, of real artistic genius, that can take this medium beyond what Live action can achieve, instead of merely trying to mimic it.

Adam

 

[MatthewA]

Well said, Adam.

 

[Kevin M]

Who's to say they will? Most of their dvds are made built to crap out.

Huh? I assume you are referring to the new destined to fail as a marketing scheme self-destructing DVD's?
Those do NOT constitute "most" of Disney's DVD's.

If not then what are you talking about?

 

[Will_B]

I hope that Paramount someday does the same thing with the Star Trek Animated Series (save the audio, which is fine, and replace the dated visuals).

 

[Steve Phillips]

Of course, it is also ridiculous for Warner to release that Looney Tunes collection now. All the old cartoons should be redone in CGI, and any non-PC references taken out. New generations should be allowed to see these classics without the annoying old fashioned animation getting in their way.