DVDizzy Forum

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/

Eeeeh... is this a delayed April's fool?

Ummmm...please tell me this is an April's Fool joke. They are not THIS desperate for a cash grab.

Oh, god. It's true.

http://variety.com/2015/film/news/winni ... 201464876/

It has a wonderful director attached. I really loved 'Listen Up Phillip'! I'm in.

Hey, remember when they blamed WINNIE THE POOH's failure for 2D animation? Yeah, love to see what happens if this fails

Wow, I thought this was a belated April Fool's as well. No movie is safe after all. 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.

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

I'm getting serious trust issues with Disney right now.....

Sue them Milne family, SUE THEM.

I'm on their side now.

I just hope a live-action The Little Mermaid and/or Ursula happen before this craze is over.

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.

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!

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.

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

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Iu7vySQbgX

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.

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]

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!

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...

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).

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"?

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.