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

[StevenK]

The sad thing I find from reading this thread is the general "elitism" displayed. The message I'm reading from some is "If you don't like Snow White and Peter Pan, you're stupid." Guess what? Many people prefer Picasso over Van Gogh. Hell, even more prefer "Dogs Playing Poker" over Monet. Differing opinions and tastes have no relation to one's intelligence. Brings to mind my graduate advisor...has 2 PhD's (in Math from CalTech, and Philosophy from Stanford)...she thinks Citizen Kane is boring (!!!!) and hates B&W "artsy" films in general. Personally, I wouldn't call her "brain-dead". On the other hand, I wouldn't judge somebody's brain activity level based on their love of "Snow White".

 

[MarkHastings]

(Agreeing with StevenK) Isn't it also like music? There are many songs that have been copied by other artists. Look at "Pretty Woman" by Van Halen. Would you consider Van Halen to be a "hack" band because they redid a song?

Or what about bands that redo their OWN songs? There are plenty of older bands that I would LOVE to listen to, but I just can't get past the horrible recordings that were made back then. Revising a piece of work to "todays standards" is done all the time.

I'd rather have a young child watch a 3D "revised" version of a Disney classic rather than not having him watch it at all because it's "boring".

 

[Kevin M]

Yes, but it is at least partially true that younger people aren't dismissing older films because they find them to be of lesser quality or to not be to their taste, quite a majority are dismissing older films simply because they are OLD. It is "uncool" to like the same things that the older generation liked, such as...oh...reading.
This is the way that many younger people have been opinionated for some time , not all young people mind you but many, and the marketing decisions that corporations make aid this "old is bad new is good" mindset that I generally dislike as simply being closed minded.

Let me repeat that not all young people feel this way...just the "cool" ones.

...having said all this I have to say that I am well aware that this is what businesses have to do in order to stay alive in the marketplace. It's the way of the professional world, "Art" has nothing to do with these decisions, money does and that is the way it has been for some time...perhaps always.

 

[Brian Kidd]

I have an idea. Let's rewrite Shakespeare in teenspeak!

"Yo Hamlet! Why you hatin'? Fo' sheezy mah neezy!"

How about repainting the Mona Lisa using computer tools?

Are CGI films art as well? They can be. The Pixar films are evidence of that. However, CGI is a means to an end, not the end unto itself. BARBIE AS RAPUNZEL is CGI.

It's always going to come down to those who see film as art and those who see film as product.

These films ARE art. They shouldn't be touched.

 

[Will_B]

edit edit

 

[Damin J Toell]

I have an idea. Let's rewrite Shakespeare in teenspeak!

Or let's rewrite Shakespeare as a musical set in Manhattan. Or let's rewrite Shakespeare as a samurai tale. Or let's rewrite Shakespeare by keeping the same dialogue but updating the imagery. Or let's rewrite Shakespeare by setting it in a modern-day high school. Or let's rewrite Shakespeare by setting it on another planet.

Your sarcastic suggestion has, in reality, come to pass a thousand times over already. And yet somehow Shakespeare's works survives.

DJ

 

[MarkHastings]

How about repainting the Mona Lisa using computer tools?

That's fine too, as long as the "original" stays in tact.

I'm not one for destroying the old to make way for the new, but making an updated copy is just fine with me.

Hasn't anyone scanned old photographs into their computers????

 

[Edwin-S]

The examples you refer to, are interpretations of Shakespeare's original work. For better or worse they, at least, add something new to the retelling. What would your reaction be if it was suggested to you that Shakespeares prose was "boring" for modern audiences and, therefore, his works would be redone with "all new" prose designed to make his writing "snappier"? I would hope that the suggestion would not be well received. Well, as far as I'm concerned, that is exactly what Eisner is suggesting be done with the older Disney works.

Eisner's suggestion that shot by shot CGI films of classics may be made has nothing to do with adding anything new to the stories. The only reason for suggesting that these abominations be made, is for the myriads of greenbacks that would, supposedly, be made from audiences attracted by the CGI gimmick. The reasoning by some, that it is okay to remake" films such as "BAMBI" because modern children are "bored" with the existing film, is pathetic.

If Disney Corp. wants to go back to the well and remake a movie such as "BAMBI" and use CGI to do it, then rewrite the story entirely and make an all-new interpretation. Taking the old film and re-animating it using CGI is totally f***ing crass and disrespectful of the original artists work.

It doesn't surprise me at all, that Eisner has come up with an idea that amounts to a "raping" of Walt Disney's legacy. The effects of his cancerous administration of Disney Corp. has been evident for a long time now. Plenty of people have long disliked Disney as a company, but since Eisner took over the "dislike" has turned to "rabid" hatred. Threads relating to Disney on this forum are evidence of that.

It blows me away that people, who constantly complain about the lack of OAR and OST mixes on classic films, would be so accommodating of a suit's suggestion to completely remove the original visual elements of a film and replace them with an "updating" of the visual elements. Eisner's suggestion goes far beyond 5.1 remixes; remixes that many people are opposed to. Yet, doing the same thing to the visual elements is perfectly okay. It just boggles the mind.

 

[Brenton]

What I'm wondering is why can't they come up with new stories?

It seems like very single movie coming out these days is either a sequel or a remake. This is obviously an attempt on Disney to make cheap money by starting with an already complete movie and giving it a gimmicky makeover.

Think about how sad it would be if, instead of a new story like Toy Story, Disney had decided that the first ever computer animated feature film would be a shot-by-shot remake of Dumbo. Think about it: we already HAVE Dumbo. Toy Story would have never been made. And if the CG Dumbo had made enough money, odds are, we would have never gotten A Bug's Life, Toy Story 2, Monsters, Inc., or Finding Nemo. Instead, we would have shot-by-shot remakes of movies that we already have!

It's my opinion that there's absolutely no limit to the creative powers of the human mind. What a waste it is to spend all of our time making and re-making movies that already exist and have already been loved to death, when there is an infinite number of new ideas that are just swirling around in oblivion waiting for someone to dream them up.

 

[MarkHastings]

Eisner's suggestion goes far beyond 5.1 remixes; remixes that many people are opposed to.

Everyone who is against a 5.1 remix of an original recording is ONLY upset when the 5.1 mix is the ONLY version available.

If they remixed Citizen Kane into a 5.1 soundtrack, YES, there are plenty of people who would complain, but as long as a mono track is available as well, why the need to complain???? What harm is being done?

You don't have to listen to the 5.1 if you don't want to. Just like these movies...You don't have to watch them, watch the originals and stop feeling threatened.

 

[Edwin-S]

You're right. I don't have to watch them; however, you are wrong about me feeling threatened. I do not feel threatened. What is being threatened is a whole artistic legacy. It is being threatened by an individual who has zero understanding about the historical importance of these films to the Disney culture. Unfortunately, he is also the CEO.

 

[MarkHastings]

It is being threatened by an individual who has zero understanding about the historical importance of these films to the Disney culture.

Again, where does it say the Mr. Eisner is destroying the originals? You say you're not threatened, but you obviously are being quite vocal against this decision. Why so vocal? These movies will probably NEVER compare to the originals. As much as I'd like to see these new versions, I know deep down inside that a 3D version of Mickey Mouse is NO comparison to the original hand painted cell...The only way you would be upset about this is if you feel these movies will "replace" the originals. Just like the new "Psycho" did...Oh wait, it didn't. (see what I mean)

No need to fear the worst when the worst isn't going to happen.




Sorry if you are really worked up about all of this, but as an artist of all forms of media (traditional, computer, and anything I can get my hands on), I welcome any new ways of representing art. And didn't a wise man once say "Copying is the biggest form of flattery".

Enjoying the classics as they exist are a true and wonderful thing, but denying technological advances in the art world is only going to close yourself off from the "whole picture". Have some fun with these movies. I hardly believe that Mr. Eisners 'true' agenda is to disgrace history, he's just trying to put a smile on peoples faces by providing them with a form of entertainment.

These movies are meant to be "Fun" and not some sort of precious element that can destroy the universe if not properly handled.

-Peace

 

[Rob Bartlett]

Mark, it is said imitation flatters the imitated but insults the imitator.

Even if it isn't malciously disrespectful of the originators of this film, one still has to admit it's an ill-conceived idea. There's just no way the proposition works on any level. Not on a single one. CGI animators are the only logical proponents for this idea.

Stick a classic Disney movie in. Then tell me, in light of the music, language, role of women, Eurocentricism and general costume design, you'e going to tell me it's the animation that comes across as dated? That it's method of artisanry that has turned today's children off?

For the sake of argument, I'll concede that cgi is a lateral improvement over cel-animation. While the house is repainted, the foundation, plumbing, and insulation are not touched.

One need not fret over these developments, if merely because the films will not stay in the theaters any longer then the paper cups they order for the concession stands.

 

[Damin J Toell]

What would your reaction be if it was suggested to you that Shakespeares prose was "boring" for modern audiences and, therefore, his works would be redone with "all new" prose designed to make his writing "snappier"?

I've heard that suggestion before (ever speak to anyone who likes Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet, but dislikes seeing a "standard" Shakespeare production? I have). So what? No matter how much I happen to like Shakespeare, it doesn't matter to me if someone finds his work boring. People have different tastes. How does that affect my enjoyment of Shakespeare? Why in the world would I care if someone thought all of his works should be updated? How does someone calling Snow White boring affect you? Are people not allowed to have different tastes? Your enjoyment of the film can't be changed by someone having a different opinion or by a shot-for-shot remake, and the "whole artistic legacy" isn't threatened by either. Shakespeare's "whole artistic legacy" has weathered the remake storm quite well these last few centuries; as history shows, your alarmism is unfounded.

DJ

 

[MarkHastings]

Didn't Disney create "Disneyland"????? What was wrong with Disney World? Why the need to create a copy of the park when the Disney World is a "Classic"?

How does someone calling Snow White boring affect you?

Exactly. The way I see it, some kid might watch the 3D animated version of Snow White and then (years later) may be interested in watching the "original". For if not for this updated version, this person may NEVER see the original.

Isn't that a good enough reason to be ok with these 'updates'? Wouldn't you rather have a whole new generation of kids seeing these classic Disney films as 3D than not having them see them at all?

Example: I had NO intention on seeing "Citizen Kane" what-so-ever, if it weren't for the spoofs they did on the Simpsons, this DVD would NOT be sitting on my shelf right now. I was curious to see what the Simpsons have been making fun of all these years and I watched it. I'm GLAD I did because it was a great movie, but if not for some sort of copying of this movie, I would have NEVER had any urge to see this at all.

Another Example (music related): "Dream On" by Aerosmith is considered a "Classic", yet the only time I EVER hear it is when some 30 or 40 year old is having a keg party (or trying to relive his/her past), when have you really ever heard a teenager listen to stuff like that? Now that Eminem has used it in his new song, many teens are now starting to listen to the classic version of "Dream On" because they were initially introduced to it in a brand new way. Without this new version, these teens probably would have never heard that song.

Is it unfortunate that I had to be introduced to such a classic film (Citizen Kane) by the Simpsons? Probably, but that's life. Nothing is ever 'perfect', but as long as there are reminders out there of 'classic' works, the 'classics' will never die.

Snuff out the copies and say goodbye to the classics because new generations aren't going to be as infatuated in them as you are.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[Eric Howell]

I hear in the new version of Snow White, Greedo shoots first! Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[Kevin M]

I seriously doubt that these will be nearly as "Shot by Shot" as you think, if Disney didn't add some snappy new younger smart ass lingo into these in an attempt to update them & bring in the newer generation I wouldn't see the financial point in remaking them at all. If you want the kid's cash you gotta put some "SNAP" into them!

Hip-pop Bambi? "Yo, you busted a cap in my momma's ass!"

Cinderella meets the prince at a Rave?

Pinocchio takes Viagra?

Peter Pan is played by Robin Williams....oh, wait...

 

[MikeKaz]

I say go for it. Toy Story looks pretty spiffy...


Now, if they even think about touching the Lion King, then Eisner you're a deadman...

 

[Chris Will]

Actually Disneyland was built first and is the "classic." Disney World was the copy. Which one is more popular and generated 3 more parks and more money? That's right, the clone of the original: Disney World. When Disney opened WDW he brought it to a new group of people that never went to Disneyland. They are just trying to bring these classic stories (which most aren't original Disney stories to begin with) to a new generation. A generation that sees them as old cartoons that are not as cool as Jimmy Neutron and Toy Story.

 

[MarkHastings]

(which most aren't original Disney stories to begin with)

Good point as well. According to the Disney Treasures DVD "Walt Disney Studios", most of Walt Disneys stories were copied from ancient stories.