Viewing Disney Remakes and Spin Offs as their own thing

All topics relating to Disney-branded content.
Post Reply
DEEcat98
Member
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat May 15, 2021 5:55 pm

Viewing Disney Remakes and Spin Offs as their own thing

Post by DEEcat98 »

Here is one question I have.

If you were to view just about all of the Disney remakes and spin offs that you despise as their own thing without thinking of the originals, would that make you less hate on them and accept them?
User avatar
Farerb
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4664
Joined: Sat May 19, 2018 2:09 pm

Re: Viewing Disney Remakes and Spin Offs as their own thing

Post by Farerb »

No, because they don't really stand on their own.

I can give you an example from Beauty and the Beast - the ones who tell Belle that she's forbidden to go into the West Wing are Lumiere and Cogsworth, and they didn't plan to tell her because it slipped out of Cogsworth's mouth, so the Beast doesn't tell her but then he's still angry with her when she goes to the West Wing. Why? He didn't forbid it, he didn't set up a boundary, so why is he upset? Of course we, the audience, expect it because we saw it in the original, but it doesn't really make sense when you actually think about it.

And there are other things that don't relate to changes or additions like hiring actors who don't have the ability to sing and their acting is not that great.

You can actually see this with their original live action films that aren't based on their animated classics like The Nutcracker or A Wrinkle in Time. They're not good, I believe the reception and success of the remakes would have been the same as those if they weren't remakes.
Patricier21
Special Edition
Posts: 635
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 3:00 pm

Re: Viewing Disney Remakes and Spin Offs as their own thing

Post by Patricier21 »

Farerb wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 12:38 pm No, because they don't really stand on their own.

I can give you an example from Beauty and the Beast - the ones who tell Belle that she's forbidden to go into the West Wing are Lumiere and Cogsworth, and they didn't plan to tell her because it slipped out of Cogsworth's mouth, so the Beast doesn't tell her but then he's still angry with her when she goes to the West Wing. Why? He didn't forbid it, he didn't set up a boundary, so why is he upset? Of course we, the audience, expect it because we saw it in the original, but it doesn't really make sense when you actually think about it.

And there are other things that don't relate to changes or additions like hiring actors who don't have the ability to sing and their acting is not that great.

You can actually see this with their original live action films that aren't based on their animated classics like The Nutcracker or A Wrinkle in Time. They're not good, I believe the reception and success of the remakes would have been the same as those if they weren't remakes.
Technically, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms is a live action remake of that segment from the original Fantasia, which the movie itself quite emphasizes :) and in regards to your comment on the Beast forbidding Belle from going there despite not telling her, Well how was that bad, especially when like you said, Cogsworth accidentally slipped it out? It’s just different, it does not mean that it’s “bad”, Regardless of whether you like better or not
carolinakid
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1819
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 9:58 am
Gender: Male
Location: New Jersey in a RED county!

Re: Viewing Disney Remakes and Spin Offs as their own thing

Post by carolinakid »

No, because as films they still suck on their own.
User avatar
PatchofBlue
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 335
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2023 3:30 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Viewing Disney Remakes and Spin Offs as their own thing

Post by PatchofBlue »

Hard to say since I don't think the films honestly WANT the audience to view them as separate entities. No one would care, for example, that Phillip's kiss doesn't awaken Aurora in Maleficent if they weren't familiar with Sleeping Beauty.

I will say that I think a remake works best when it's not leaning on the animated source material to prop itself up. It needs its own internal cohesion. Character actions and relationships need to make sense without the context of its animated predecessor.
User avatar
Disney Duster
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 13327
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: America

Re: Viewing Disney Remakes and Spin Offs as their own thing

Post by Disney Duster »

I love Cinderella as both a remake and just its own adaptation of the original fairy tale. It works as both.
Patricier21 wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 12:46 pmTechnically, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms is a live action remake of that segment from the original Fantasia, which the movie itself quite emphasizes :) and in regards to your comment on the Beast forbidding Belle from going there despite not telling her, Well how was that bad, especially when like you said, Cogsworth accidentally slipped it out? It’s just different, it does not mean that it’s “bad”, Regardless of whether you like better or not
The Nutcracker and the Four Realms is not a remake of "The Nutcracker Suite" in Fantasia. It is not based on that dancing flora. The reason the Beauty and the Beast (2017) West Wing moment is bad is the Beast gets mad at her when he never told her not to go to the West Wing. It's a way better moment in the original animation when he had forbidden her to go there.
Image
Patricier21
Special Edition
Posts: 635
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 3:00 pm

Re: Viewing Disney Remakes and Spin Offs as their own thing

Post by Patricier21 »

Disney Duster wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 10:45 pm I love Cinderella as both a remake and just its own adaptation of the original fairy tale. It works as both.
Patricier21 wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 12:46 pmTechnically, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms is a live action remake of that segment from the original Fantasia, which the movie itself quite emphasizes :) and in regards to your comment on the Beast forbidding Belle from going there despite not telling her, Well how was that bad, especially when like you said, Cogsworth accidentally slipped it out? It’s just different, it does not mean that it’s “bad”, Regardless of whether you like better or not
The Nutcracker and the Four Realms is not a remake of "The Nutcracker Suite" in Fantasia. It is not based on that dancing flora. The reason the Beauty and the Beast (2017) West Wing moment is bad is the Beast gets mad at her when he never told her not to go to the West Wing. It's a way better moment in the original animation when he had forbidden her to go there.
Just because it’s “better than” doesn’t mean that the other is “bad”; Have you considered everything else I’ve sat there? And I maintain that the Nutcracker and the four realms is indeed a remake of Fantasia because they represent the same idea, and literally pay tribute to it, Like you said much like live action Cinderella being both a remake and its own version of the story, EH? :-)
User avatar
Disney Duster
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 13327
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: America

Re: Viewing Disney Remakes and Spin Offs as their own thing

Post by Disney Duster »

In Beauty and the Beast (2017), the Beast getting so mad at Belle for going to the West Wing when he didn't forbid her doesn't make sense. He's absolutely enraged at her yet he never told her she couldn't be there! That's why it's bad. I understand him being mad she's there just because he didn't like that she was there, but to get that enraged? Doesn't make sense.

As for The Nutcracker and the Four Realms, it does not have the same idea as "The Nutcracker Suite" in Fantasia. The only thing they have in common is they have some of the same music, some dancing, and at least one fairy. The plot of The Nutcracker and the Four Realms is not the same plot as "The Nutcracker Suite" which has no plot.
Image
User avatar
Disney's Divinity
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 15767
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:26 am
Gender: Male

Re: Viewing Disney Remakes and Spin Offs as their own thing

Post by Disney's Divinity »

Patricier21 wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 8:38 am Just because it’s “better than” doesn’t mean that the other is “bad”
I agree. I think it makes sense that a beast would be enraged when you invade their personal chambers. I doubt it was a conscious choice to remove the "It's forbidden" lines, but either way, at least it takes away some of the defense for Beast's behavior there that some might blameshift the Beast's behavior as being Belle's fault for breaking a rule. Rule or no rule, the Beast's behavior is supposed to be unjustifiable there. That and the following scene of Belle refusing to accept she deserved being treated that way are the "wake up" moments for the character.

I don't agree on the other too things. I don't really think of the Nutcracker as being based on the Fantasia segment--maybe in a vague way like The Sorcerer's Apprentice film? IDK. I didn't think Cinderella was a good adaptation of the tale on its own, but it definitely didn't feel like a remake either. If it was actually a remake, it might've been good, since I like the animated film. Same with Alice. Those early films were the "remakes" as we've come to know them in a nascent stage though, before they were a trend; I'm not sure if Disney was outright calling them remakes constantly like they came to do later?

I like Maleficent alright because it marketed itself as a revisionist take like Wicked from the beginning, down to the title not being Sleeping Beauty. Not that it's great or without a lot of flaws though. But I think I still only liked it because Jolie was a perfect cast as Maleficent, so that it was undeniable what character and film was being referenced only to be turned on its head via the story. That's where something like Cruella failed for me; Cruella was very little like Cruella. I guess for some it might've been enough that she had a little red and black/white hair, it's sort of a very watered down version of the character that feeds people what they "think" she is, rather than what she actually is because of Disney's media over the years. The way Cinderella is always thought of as having a blue dress even though she didn't--because Disney marketed her that way. Or how Eeyore is marketed blue even though he's grey in the shorts. People see the characters through a prism sometimes that isn't accurate to the film that's the basis for the movie. How do you even take them as revisionist takes if the character doesn't look like the character they're supposed to be at all? I'd argue even the way Roberts plays Cruella isn't like her. Cruella isn't a cold or stiff character at all although she's eccentric, she's more of a life-of-the-party rich bitch socialite vibe.

The main problem with Disney as far as the remakes is that the Disney fandom (like most fandoms) aren't a monolith. There are two different camps complaining from film to film, it isn't the same people complaining about every single film--and they should learn who not to listen to if their primary goal is making easy $$$ with these (which I think it is). By that I mean, while I bitch about things like Cruella, Mulan, TLM, PP&W, etc. changing everything, I liked the more faithful remakes like B&TB, TLK, TJB, and Aladdin just fine (and Maleficent was fine as a revisionist film, not as good as those though). You compare those two lists, which are the more successful group of films? The latter. So what they should take from that is that the other camp of people who bitched because things are "too" faithful or whatever are not the ones to listen to. Success ain't down that road, they're the ones who lead them into the ditch with Mulan and the upcoming TLM and PP&W that all changed everything to the point of being unrecognizable.
Last edited by Disney's Divinity on Thu Mar 30, 2023 11:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Listening to most often lately:
Ariana Grande ~ "we can't be friends (wait for your love)"
Ariana Grande ~ "imperfect for you"
Kacey Musgraves ~ "The Architect"
Patricier21
Special Edition
Posts: 635
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 3:00 pm

Re: Viewing Disney Remakes and Spin Offs as their own thing

Post by Patricier21 »

Disney's Divinity wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 11:00 am
Patricier21 wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 8:38 am Just because it’s “better than” doesn’t mean that the other is “bad”
I agree. I think it makes sense that a beast would be enraged when you invade their personal chambers. I doubt it was a conscious choice to remove the "It's forbidden" lines, but either way, at least it takes away some of the defense for Beast's behavior there that some might blameshift the Beast's behavior as being Belle's fault for breaking a rule. Rule or no rule, the Beast's behavior is supposed to be unjustifiable there. That and the following scene of Belle refusing to accept she deserved being treated that way are the "wake up" moments for the character.

I don't agree on the other too things. I don't really think of the Nutcracker as being based on the Fantasia segment--maybe in a vague way like The Sorcerer's Apprentice film? IDK. I didn't think Cinderella was a good adaptation of the tale on its own, but it definitely didn't feel like a remake either. If it was actually a remake, it might've been good, since I like the animated film. Same with Alice. Those early films were the "remakes" as we've come to know them in a nascent stage though, before they were a trend; I'm not sure if Disney was outright calling them remakes constantly like they came to do later?

I like Maleficent alright because it marketed itself as a revisionist take like Wicked from the beginning, down to the title not being Sleeping Beauty. Not that it's great or without a lot of flaws though. But I think I still only liked it because Jolie was a perfect cast as Maleficent, so that it was undeniable what character and film was being referenced only to be turned on its head via the story. That's where something like Cruella failed for me; Cruella was very little like Cruella. I guess for some it might've been enough that she had a little red and black/white hair, it's sort of a very watered down version of the character that feeds people what they "think" she is, rather than what she actually is because of Disney's media over the years. The way Cinderella is always thought of as having a blue dress even though she didn't--because Disney marketed her that way. Or how Eeyore is marketed blue even though he's grey in the shorts. People see the characters through a prism sometimes that isn't accurate to the film that's the basis for the movie. How do you even take them as revisionist takes if the character doesn't look like the character they're supposed to be at all? I'd argue even the way Roberts plays Cruella isn't like her. Cruella isn't a cold or stiff character at all although she's eccentric, she's more of a life-of-the-party rich bitch socialite vibe.
I would argue that Cruella Is very much like that or rather becoming to be like that in the movie which is the whole point you can definitely see that in the middle and later points of the movie especially when she’s talking to Anita in her office.

I do consider Both the sorcerers apprentice (Regardless of the fact that Wikipedia is also listing it as such) and the nutcracker and the four realms As live action remakes as they do reinterpret and remake the story and elements are made from those segments from the original Fantasia, With nutcracker adding more on from other sources Of the material, like some of the other remakes of done only less obvious and less emphasized. I also consider my favourite Disney animated feature Dinosaur to actually be a live action remake of the dinosaur segment from Fantasia and it’s even more so than Nutcracker and even sorcerers apprentice you have to admit, EH? :-) It’s truly the ultimate Disney movie: an animated feature, a live action remake (they use real life locations after all) and based off of a Disney theme park ride :-) truly everything that Disney is known for all in one, Eh? :-)
User avatar
Disney Duster
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 13327
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: America

Re: Viewing Disney Remakes and Spin Offs as their own thing

Post by Disney Duster »

The Little Mermaid remake is a faithful version of the original.

What's different? The race of some characters? Well so was the race of the book keeper and feather duster in Beauty and the Beast which you said was faithful.

The gender of Scuttle? Kaa's gender was changed in The Jungle Book, which you said was faithful.

Names? My God, they are just Ariel's sisters getting different names! Minor characters!

Super powers? Mowgli and Belle were given new abilities. They were made inventors, and Maurice became an artist.

New characters? There were new animal characters in Jungle Book and Jasmine's handmaiden in Aladdin, which you said was faithful.

Different visuals? All of them have different visuals!

New songs? What like in Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin?

They may change some of the plot, like in the final battle? So did Jungle Book and Aladdin.

They are keeping all of The Little Mermaid,'s original plot, characters, and songs. Tell me what makes it unfaithful that I haven't already explained is actually as faithful as the rest.

Patricier21, Dinosaur wasn't made by Disney Feature Animation, it was made by The Secret Lab which they bought.
Image
User avatar
Disney's Divinity
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 15767
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:26 am
Gender: Male

Re: Viewing Disney Remakes and Spin Offs as their own thing

Post by Disney's Divinity »

For one, several of those I never said in the first place, they're simply your hyperbole. Like when have I ever complained about new songs? :? :? :? I might've complained about most likely not liking whatever Miranda will likely come up with, that's a different discussion altogether. :lol:

Anyway, Belle knowing something about inventing things because she was at her father's side all her life is not the same as Mulan and Ariel being given Elsa-like superpowers that break their entire plot (Ariel going to Ursula because she has no power; Mulan proving herself on her merits despite being written off for what she was born as). And Jasmine having a handmaiden isn't the same as humans and merfolk being written as some kind of West Side Story-esque "feud" factions that have "beef" with one another and have hated each other for centuries either ( :lol: :lol: ), and you know it.

I had written some other things, but eh, I think it's best to leave it there. :P
Image
Listening to most often lately:
Ariana Grande ~ "we can't be friends (wait for your love)"
Ariana Grande ~ "imperfect for you"
Kacey Musgraves ~ "The Architect"
User avatar
Disney Duster
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 13327
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: America

Re: Viewing Disney Remakes and Spin Offs as their own thing

Post by Disney Duster »

I was listing the songs just in case, lol.

Ariel's super power might just be swimming fast or something. Pinocchio had super-power like legs and you called his remake faithful!

As for the feud between the humans and the merpeople, that was a plot addition, much like the plot addition of the watering hole of peace or whatever in Jungle Book where no animals can harm each other then or the Gaston fake-believing Maurice, or the whole enchanted book that goes to any location in Beauty and the Beast.

The Little Mermaid is going to be a faithful remake like all the rest of the Renaissance. I think you want to call it unfaithful for two reasons: one, it's near and dear to you, which I understand, and two, if it turns out bad you wanna think it's because it's different, not because your beloved brand failed. It's not gonna fail, though. It's going to be one of the biggest moneymakers. You don't need to worry.
Image
User avatar
Disney's Divinity
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 15767
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:26 am
Gender: Male

Re: Viewing Disney Remakes and Spin Offs as their own thing

Post by Disney's Divinity »

Well, Duster, in the words of Aretha Franklin and Whitney Houston: "It isn't, it wasn't, it ain't never gonna be"--a faithful remake. :lol: You can make as many false equivocations and list as much nonsense as you want until you're blue in the face, hun, but you should know by now I won't change my opinion for your sake no matter how rude you choose to be. And that's always been the case. For example, I don't like Cinderella 2015 any more these days despite being antagonized by you for close to a decade on the subject, and this won't be any different.
Image
Listening to most often lately:
Ariana Grande ~ "we can't be friends (wait for your love)"
Ariana Grande ~ "imperfect for you"
Kacey Musgraves ~ "The Architect"
User avatar
Disney Duster
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 13327
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: America

Re: Viewing Disney Remakes and Spin Offs as their own thing

Post by Disney Duster »

I'm sorry you thought I was rude. I thought we could still be friends even arguing over something like this. You kept saying it isn't faithful, I was saying why it is. I didn't think that was rude. But I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. I didn't mean to do that, just argue a point.
Image
User avatar
Vlad
Collector's Edition
Posts: 2235
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 1:58 am

Re: Viewing Disney Remakes and Spin Offs as their own thing

Post by Vlad »

Interesting question. If I see a remake as its own thing, yes, it could be a good movie. For example, Maleficent. When I don't compare it to the original Sleeping Beauty, I really enjoy it. And it's quite easy for me to not associate it with the original, because it's so different. Same with the sequel.

Cinderella is another example. I think it's very different from the animated movie. What I do appreciate about it, is that it has that fairy tale quality to it. And I do love Lily James' portrayal of the character.

Beauty and the Beast is a mix bag for me. I do love Emma Watson and her performance as Belle, and I do think she's a lovely singer, even though she's heavily auto-tuned. Meanwhile, I'm not that crazy about the changes done to the character, like making her the inventor, that was kinda weird. I can't help but compare it to the original, because it's very similar, and it's very hard to see it as its own thing. Divinity, for me, it did make sense that the Beast was upset that Belle wandered in the West Wing. He didn't have to forbid her, it's common sense that you don't wander into other people's rooms. At least, that's how I think.
Image
User avatar
Disney Duster
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 13327
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: America

Re: Viewing Disney Remakes and Spin Offs as their own thing

Post by Disney Duster »

Well that's three for the Beast's anger being the appropriate response, and two for not, lol. I really wish Divinity would respond about forgiving me for hurting his feelings if I did, but I think he's "punishing me" by not, lol.
Image
Post Reply