Christopher Robin (Live-Action)

All topics relating to Disney-branded content.
Post Reply
Disneyphile
Special Edition
Posts: 734
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 2:27 am
Location: San Jose CA

Christopher Robin (Live-Action)

Post by Disneyphile »

EXCLUSIVE: Disney has set a live-action feature adaptation of the animated classic Winnie The Pooh. This is the latest example of the studio re-purposing properties it controls, and it’s also the second time they’ve brought in a cutting-edge independent filmmaker to shape the vision. Disney has hired Alex Ross Perry, the writer-director of the Sundance indie Listen Up Philip. The focus will be Christopher Robin as an adult, which brings him back to A.A. Milne’s famous bear and the Hundred Acre Wood.
http://deadline.com/2015/04/winnie-the- ... 201392427/
DisneyFan09
Platinum Edition
Posts: 3708
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 2:28 pm

Re: Disney's live-action Winnie the Pooh

Post by DisneyFan09 »

Eeeeh... is this a delayed April's fool?
User avatar
disneyprincess11
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4363
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:46 am
Location: Maryland, USA

Re: Disney's live-action Winnie the Pooh

Post by disneyprincess11 »

Ummmm...please tell me this is an April's Fool joke. They are not THIS desperate for a cash grab.
User avatar
disneyprincess11
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4363
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:46 am
Location: Maryland, USA

Re: Disney's live-action Winnie the Pooh

Post by disneyprincess11 »

Last edited by disneyprincess11 on Thu Apr 02, 2015 12:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Old Fish Tale
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1797
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 7:19 am
Location: Portugal

Re: Disney's live-action Winnie the Pooh

Post by Old Fish Tale »

It has a wonderful director attached. I really loved 'Listen Up Phillip'! I'm in.
User avatar
disneyprincess11
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4363
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:46 am
Location: Maryland, USA

Re: Disney's live-action Winnie the Pooh

Post by disneyprincess11 »

Hey, remember when they blamed WINNIE THE POOH's failure for 2D animation? Yeah, love to see what happens if this fails
User avatar
Sotiris
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 19912
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:06 am
Gender: Male
Location: Fantasyland

Re: Disney's live-action Winnie the Pooh

Post by Sotiris »

:shock: Wow, I thought this was a belated April Fool's as well. No movie is safe after all. :lol: The Lion King live-action remake can't be far along.

I bet this was brought on by the success of the Paddington movie. Not only was it critically and commercially successful, it became huge in merchandise sales. I'm sure Disney took notice and now wants to boost its own 'bear' franchise which happens to be one of their biggest merchandise properties.
ImageImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
MeerkatKombat
Special Edition
Posts: 672
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:48 pm
Location: UK

Re: Disney's live-action Winnie the Pooh

Post by MeerkatKombat »

I was really expecting and hoping for April's fools.

I'm getting serious trust issues with Disney right now..... :cry:
Settling Soul mates? That is grim. And I've played Monopoly alone.
PatrickvD
Signature Collection
Posts: 5166
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:34 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Disney's live-action Winnie the Pooh

Post by PatrickvD »

Sue them Milne family, SUE THEM.

I'm on their side now.
User avatar
Disney's Divinity
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 15767
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:26 am
Gender: Male

Re: Disney's live-action Winnie the Pooh

Post by Disney's Divinity »

:pooh: I just hope a live-action The Little Mermaid and/or Ursula happen before this craze is over.
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
nomad2010
Special Edition
Posts: 645
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 4:44 pm
Location: dfs
Contact:

Re: Disney's live-action Winnie the Pooh

Post by nomad2010 »

I'm a little surprised that the reaction to this has been so negative. I can absolutely see why they think this is a good idea. We all know the last Pooh movie failed because parents didn't enjoy it and no one wants to spend that much money to see an hour long movie in theaters. Hand drawn animation had nothing to do with it.

I can completely see what they're going for. A movie about an adult, sad with nostalgia, remembering a beautiful childhood and the magical memories and characters that take him back there. Equal parts adult and child. And I think that's the way to get adults interested in a Pooh movie. It makes sense, and I think it's really smart. In fact, I'm kind of surprised it didn't happen much much sooner.
User avatar
Old Fish Tale
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1797
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 7:19 am
Location: Portugal

Re: Disney's live-action Winnie the Pooh

Post by Old Fish Tale »

Sotiris wrote:I bet this was brought on by the success of the Paddington movie. Not only was it critically and commercially successful, it became huge in merchandise sales.
You're absolutely right!
Disney's Divinity wrote:I just hope a live-action The Little Mermaid and/or Ursula happen before this craze is over.
I doubt it. The budget for that film would have to be colossal. And Daniel Radcliffe apparently spent 42 hours to film the underwater scenes in 'Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire'.
nomad2010 wrote:I'm a little surprised that the reaction to this has been so negative. I can absolutely see why they think this is a good idea. We all know the last Pooh movie failed because parents didn't enjoy it and no one wants to spend that much money to see an hour long movie in theaters. Hand drawn animation had nothing to do with it.

I can completely see what they're going for. A movie about an adult, sad with nostalgia, remembering a beautiful childhood and the magical memories and characters that take him back there. Equal parts adult and child. And I think that's the way to get adults interested in a Pooh movie. It makes sense, and I think it's really smart. In fact, I'm kind of surprised it didn't happen much much sooner.
Yes, thank you!
User avatar
Disney's Divinity
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 15767
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:26 am
Gender: Male

Re: Disney's live-action Winnie the Pooh

Post by Disney's Divinity »

Old Fish Tale wrote: I doubt it. The budget for that film would have to be colossal. And Daniel Radcliffe apparently spent 42 hours to film the underwater scenes in 'Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire'.
I wouldn't imagine most of it would be filmed underwater. It would be difficult to watch a film with bubbles all over the place. I'd guess most of it would take advantage of effects and 3D.

Besides, the budgets for these things are colossal anyway.
nomad2010 wrote:I'm a little surprised that the reaction to this has been so negative. I can absolutely see why they think this is a good idea.
Well, I can see why they think most of these re-makes/revisionist films are good ideas--$$$. That doesn't mean everyone has to be excited about them.
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"
Tristy
Special Edition
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 6:18 pm

Re: Disney's live-action Winnie the Pooh

Post by Tristy »

I liked Cinderella, but I have this to say to Disney:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Iu7vySQbgX
User avatar
disneyprincess11
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4363
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:46 am
Location: Maryland, USA

Re: Disney's live-action Winnie the Pooh

Post by disneyprincess11 »

You know: first, I was furious about this remake. How desperate it is, how lazy it is, and how much of a cheap money grabber it is. But, I realized this on the way home after rehearsal for my college's musical.

What else can Disney do for the classics to keep the legacy alive? Yes, there are TV shows like House of Mouse & the 90s shows, but there are so many slots to fill in. Broadway shows? Expensive as heck and limited theaters. Disney Parks? Expensive and a lot of people can’t go. Clothes, books, toys….little kids stuff. What about adults, teenagers? What can parents give to kids for the magic of Disney? How can Disney prevent people from getting bored with the same things and forget about them?

Remakings of the Disney classics to the big screen. If these remakes the only way to keep the magic of Disney alive, so fine! Go for it. Give us the same stuff we love, but put a spin on it. Give something exciting to something that we love! We need to spice things up after a while. We need to remember the nostalgia and the magic that these old Disney movies gave us and are giving us to kids. So, I approve of these remakes if they’re doing them right. Is it stupid? Yes. Is it lazy? Yes. Is it desperate for money? Oh yeah! But, it reminds us of the magic of Disney and if it sucks, we have the originals and we can appreciate them! And this is far better than the cheap-quels. So, bring it on Beauty and the Beast, Jungle Book, Pete’s Dragon, Mulan, and heck-even you, Winnie the Pooh! Yes, you’re too soon, desperate for money, and will look creepy in CGI, but give us something to smile about ‘cause I have a feeling that you’ll make me cry (The plot is good, TBH)! Tim Burton’s Dumbo, Maleficent, and AIW, you suck.
User avatar
disneyboy20022
Signature Collection
Posts: 6867
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:17 pm

Re: Disney's live-action Winnie the Pooh

Post by disneyboy20022 »

nomad2010 wrote:I can absolutely see why they think this is a good idea. We all know the last Pooh movie failed because parents didn't enjoy it and no one wants to spend that much money to see an hour long movie in theaters. Hand drawn animation had nothing to do with it.
Not to mention they put it up against the FINAL FREAKING HARRY POTTER MOVIE!!!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMeTL1seIWo[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6GMxyYdcpU[/youtube]
Want to Hear How I met Roy E. Disney in 2003? Click the link Below

http://fromscreentotheme.com/ThursdayTr ... isney.aspx
User avatar
DisneyChris
Special Edition
Posts: 646
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 11:24 pm
Location: Hong Kong

Re: Disney's live-action Winnie the Pooh

Post by DisneyChris »

disneyprincess11 wrote:You know: first, I was furious about this remake. How desperate it is, how lazy it is, and how much of a cheap money grabber it is. But, I realized this on the way home after rehearsal for my college's musical.

What else can Disney do for the classics to keep the legacy alive? Yes, there are TV shows like House of Mouse & the 90s shows, but there are so many slots to fill in. Broadway shows? Expensive as heck and limited theaters. Disney Parks? Expensive and a lot of people can’t go. Clothes, books, toys….little kids stuff. What about adults, teenagers? What can parents give to kids for the magic of Disney? How can Disney prevent people from getting bored with the same things and forget about them?

Remakings of the Disney classics to the big screen. If these remakes the only way to keep the magic of Disney alive, so fine! Go for it. Give us the same stuff we love, but put a spin on it. Give something exciting to something that we love! We need to spice things up after a while. We need to remember the nostalgia and the magic that these old Disney movies gave us and are giving us to kids. So, I approve of these remakes if they’re doing them right. Is it stupid? Yes. Is it lazy? Yes. Is it desperate for money? Oh yeah! But, it reminds us of the magic of Disney and if it sucks, we have the originals and we can appreciate them! And this is far better than the cheap-quels. So, bring it on Beauty and the Beast, Jungle Book, Pete’s Dragon, Mulan, and heck-even you, Winnie the Pooh! Yes, you’re too soon, desperate for money, and will look creepy in CGI, but give us something to smile about ‘cause I have a feeling that you’ll make me cry (The plot is good, TBH)! Tim Burton’s Dumbo, Maleficent, and AIW, you suck.
Couldn't have said it better myself. The originals will always be there, will always be great and will never be "ruined" as some people keep saying. Tim Burton's 2010 abomination didn't affect my feelings towards the 1951 classic Alice in the slightest. These new films may not all turn out to be good, but they make us feel nostalgic and excited all the same! I'm also a Star Wars fan and I initially thought Episode 7 was a bad idea, but now I can't even express how pumped I am for The Force Awakens and I'm cherishing the original films more than ever!!

Winnie the Pooh (2011) wasn't bad by any means but IMO it was too ordinary and not as charming/touching as Many Adventures, New Adventures, The Search for Christopher Robin or even The Tigger Movie. This new film's idea of an adult Christopher Robin is much more intriguing than any recent Pooh production's and I can't wait to see it on the big screen. :) If a live-action Paddington Bear film could manage to be so good, I don't see why a live-action Pooh can't!
User avatar
unprincess
Collector's Edition
Posts: 2134
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:00 pm

Re: Disney's live-action Winnie the Pooh

Post by unprincess »

not surprised, Disney has been trying to invigorate the Pooh franchise for a while now(the 2d movie didnt work, unfortunatly).
I kinda like the adult Christopher premise...just please keep the sweet tone of the originals, no Paddington Bear/Smurfs crass humor...
DisneyFan09
Platinum Edition
Posts: 3708
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 2:28 pm

Re: Disney's live-action Winnie the Pooh

Post by DisneyFan09 »

Okay, since this is a reality, I guess it's most likely going to be something in the vain as "Alvin and the Chipmunks" or "Yogi Bear" remakes, with CGI characters in live action. Either way, as long as it's good, I wouldn't mind it, but enough is enough, Disney. And frankly, not all of the Pooh features have been good. I love the 1977 version and the series from 1988. I haven't seen the 2011 version of "Winnie the Pooh", but I was unimpressed with the "Pooh"-stuff between the late 90's to mid 2000's ("Tigger the Movie" was awful).
User avatar
Mooky
Platinum Edition
Posts: 3043
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 2:44 pm
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Disney's live-action Winnie the Pooh

Post by Mooky »

disneyprincess11 wrote:You know: first, I was furious about this remake. How desperate it is, how lazy it is, and how much of a cheap money grabber it is. But, I realized this on the way home after rehearsal for my college's musical.

What else can Disney do for the classics to keep the legacy alive? Yes, there are TV shows like House of Mouse & the 90s shows, but there are so many slots to fill in. Broadway shows? Expensive as heck and limited theaters. Disney Parks? Expensive and a lot of people can’t go. Clothes, books, toys….little kids stuff. What about adults, teenagers? What can parents give to kids for the magic of Disney? How can Disney prevent people from getting bored with the same things and forget about them?

Remakings of the Disney classics to the big screen. If these remakes the only way to keep the magic of Disney alive, so fine! Go for it. Give us the same stuff we love, but put a spin on it. Give something exciting to something that we love! We need to spice things up after a while. We need to remember the nostalgia and the magic that these old Disney movies gave us and are giving us to kids. So, I approve of these remakes if they’re doing them right. Is it stupid? Yes. Is it lazy? Yes. Is it desperate for money? Oh yeah! But, it reminds us of the magic of Disney and if it sucks, we have the originals and we can appreciate them! And this is far better than the cheap-quels. So, bring it on Beauty and the Beast, Jungle Book, Pete’s Dragon, Mulan, and heck-even you, Winnie the Pooh! Yes, you’re too soon, desperate for money, and will look creepy in CGI, but give us something to smile about ‘cause I have a feeling that you’ll make me cry (The plot is good, TBH)! Tim Burton’s Dumbo, Maleficent, and AIW, you suck.
So people know it's a stupid, lazy cash-grab and still support it? SMH...

The thing is, Snow White, Pinocchio, Bambi, Alice in Wonderland, etc. managed to stay popular and engrained in public memory without having to be re-imagined for a new generation for a reason. They are competently made, quality films that were sold on their own merits. This new wave of Disney re-imaginings is pretty much the same thing as DTV sequels of the '90s, except where one could choose to ignore DTVs as their availability was limited, these live-action movies are omnipresent.

I really, REALLY dislike this trend. Call me paranoid and old-fashioned, but executives just coming up with these things gives off the feel that they (and fans who go bananas over this) find that there's something wrong with animated versions of these stories and that they need to be shot in live-action to somehow be legitimized. And that fact that they're often altered and twisted to fit the modern perspective just confirms my suspicions. Animation (and hand-drawn animation in particular) is going through rough times as it is and this is the last thing it needs. What happened with original content anyway?

If Disney wants to remind people their "old" films exist and just how special they are, there are ways to do it: from merchandising more than a few films to more than a few target groups over limiting their home video accessibility and making special events of theatrical re-releases to creating commercials, shorts and TV specials featuring animated characters. It works for Toy Story, doesn't it? Or will it be next in line for a live-action "treatment"? :roll:

Given what we've seen so far with these wretched things, I see three ways this new WtP movie can go:
1. Christopher Robin is now a heartless, cynical businessman and needs to be reminded of his childlike innocence and sense of wonder with the help of his friends from the Hundred Acre Wood; also known as Scrooged Poohed...

or

2. Christopher Robin is an overworked spineless pushover who is constantly brought down by his friends/family/colleagues and told that visions of his friends from the Hundred Acre Wood are merely delusions, so at first he tries to fight them but at the end he embraces his inner child, complete with a big speech in the end. His bullies have a change of heart, everyone is happy.

or

3. Christopher Robin, now in his mid-twenties, is having recurring nightmares of a place called the Hundred Acre Wood, filled with strangely familiar monsters. After a freak accident, he finds himself in the land of his nightmares where he encounters his childhood imaginary friends Pooh, Piglet and Tigger too who are now living under a repressed regime of a being known only as the Heff. Reluctantly, Christopher Robin fights the Heff (who turns out to be a manifestation of his middle school tormentor), restores order to the Hundred Acre Wood and goes back to his own world. It is left ambiguous if the events were real or if Christopher Robin was in a coma.

A combo of these three versions is also possible.
Post Reply