Live Action Mulan in the Works

D

doctornick

Well-Known Member
I actually concur that a live action Mulan would potentially be a great film, especially if they are more true to the historical legend. In fact, since the animated movie is not exactly one of the most beloved or well known Disney animated films, they probably will have more liberty to have a different plot and mood in the film, which would potentially be to the benefit of the live action film.
 
tcool

tcool

Well-Known Member
Brer Panther said:
What's next? Aladdin?
Click to expand...
Well Disney has done 54 Animated films. Princess and The Frog and Newer are off the table. Alice, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, Pete's Dragon, Jungle Book, Mulan, Dumbo, and Beauty and the Beast are out of the Question. With the possibility of Snow White out too because of recent Snow White Films. The same thing can be said for Hercules and Peter Pan due to recent remakes/prequels/tv. Is Cruella happening? If so 101 Dalmatians won't be next either.

I would expect Tarzan, Little Mermaid, and Aladdin as the next possible candidates. Maybe Lion King seeing as what they are doing with Dumbo.

Based on the fact their remaking Pete's Dragon possibly 20,000 Leagues, Swiss Family Robinson, Mary Poppins, Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Old Yeller, and any other major live action films could be remade.

I wouldn't mind a live action remake of Hunchback of Notre Dame or Treasure Planet either, but one of those two did bad at box office, and there both relatively unknown compared to other works by Disney.
 
OSUgirl77

OSUgirl77

Well-Known Member
Andrew C said:
Not sure what the beef is here. I have not seen the live action Cinderella, but most of the reviews I saw (by critics and on this forum) were positive.
Click to expand...
I finally got to see it last night. I really liked it, and thought it was very well done. I think Beauty and the Beast could be great as well, especially based on the early casting. I'm just concerned that, instead of coming up with new ideas, Disney is just going to keep remaking all of their animated classics as live action because they know they will make money. Some, like Mulan and Beauty and the Beast, at least have the potential to be good. Others, like Dumbo, I'm not so sure about.
 
prberk

prberk

Well-Known Member
Andrew C said:
Not sure what the beef is here. I have not seen the live action Cinderella, but most of the reviews I saw (by critics and on this forum) were positive.
Click to expand...

I think the beef is not that some of the live-action remakes work, but simply that the company that builds its reputation the most of "magic" and "imagination" is relying too much these days on "memory" and "retread."

Think also about the time they spent mining the theme parks for movie plots. Country Bear Jamboree and The Haunted Mansion, for example, were empty attempts at cash-grabs riding on the popularity of a known product. And we all know that the actors thought Pirates of the Caribbean was dreadful and possibly a cereer-crasher before it suddenly exploded at the box office, only to later become an even bigger cash-grab with all the blustered sequels. Even Tomorrowland borrows from the theme park. I consider all of them sequels or remakes, just from theme parks.

So, I think what is happening now is that, just as they did with mining the theme parks for a while, they are on a spate of mining the classic films for cheap ideas, cheap in that they are known commodity that has worked before -- they don't require the risk or innovation or courage that comes from developing a brand new story or film from the ground up.

I think everyone welcomes a good movie, whether it is a re-make or not. But we also want (1) to see some new stories, and (2) any re-makes or sequels to be rare enough that they are actually good and perhaps improve upon the original. (The great Empire Strikes Back vs., say, Parent Trap II, or Toy Story II vs.,say, Airplanes.)

So, some remakes and sequels are good. But we would like the creative people at Walt Disney to be creative from the ground up more often.

Somehow I see this as the same argument that we all make here about the theme park side's lack of "imagination" (and even the ride itself about it) lately. Overall we just want the company that spent 50 years building itself with something new and amazing every few years, to do so again.
 
Andrew C

Andrew C

You know what's funny?
prberk said:
I think the beef is not that some of the live-action remakes work, but simply that the company that builds its reputation the most of "magic" and "imagination" is relying too much these days on "memory" and "retread."

Think also about the time they spent mining the theme parks for movie plots. Country Bear Jamboree and The Haunted Mansion, for example, were empty attempts at cash-grabs riding on the popularity of a known product. And we all know that the actors thought Pirates of the Caribbean was dreadful and possibly a cereer-crasher before it suddenly exploded at the box office, only to later become an even bigger cash-grab with all the blustered sequels. Even Tomorrowland borrows from the theme park. I consider all of them sequels or remakes, just from theme parks.

So, I think what is happening now is that, just as they did with mining the theme parks for a while, they are on a spate of mining the classic films for cheap ideas, cheap in that they are known commodity that has worked before -- they don't require the risk or innovation or courage that comes from developing a brand new story or film from the ground up.

I think everyone welcomes a good movie, whether it is a re-make or not. But we also want (1) to see some new stories, and (2) any re-makes or sequels to be rare enough that they are actually good and perhaps improve upon the original. (The great Empire Strikes Back vs., say, Parent Trap II, or Toy Story II vs.,say, Airplanes.)

So, some remakes and sequels are good. But we would like the creative people at Walt Disney to be creative from the ground up more often.

Somehow I see this as the same argument that we all make here about the theme park side's lack of "imagination" (and even the ride itself about it) lately. Overall we just want the company that spent 50 years building itself with something new and amazing every few years, to do so again.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of what you say. Just a couple things to point out.

  • Disney's films from the beginning were remakes from classic fairy tales. Of course, they made them their own. No dispute there.
  • Disney is not the same film company they were 50 years ago. I just do not see them as creative as they once were. But I am not so sure this is Disney specific.
  • The above is true for most studios in Hollywood as there are a ton that do a good amount of remakes.
  • Except for their animation studio, I do not expect anything different from them than the rest of Hollywood. Is this sad? Maybe. But we can all be honest and say it has been this way for quite some time. Just look at their cheap live actions they produced in the 80s. And a lot of them were just horrible.
  • If a movie is good, would I enjoy it any less simply because it is live action remake of an animated classic? No, why would that hinder my enjoyment? A good movie is a good movie.
  • Bottom line, I think your points are more representative of Hollywood as a whole and not just specific to Disney. Lack of creative new ideas all around. Should I expect more from Disney based on their history and what they represent, however? I do, but only with their animation studio and maybe DisneyNature. I have never seen their live action studio as a cut above the rest (Maybe this was true for the few years when Walt was involved with live action).
 
njDizFan

njDizFan

Well-Known Member
Honestly in my opinion I would have no interest in seeing these live action remakes. Hey they may be done very well with Cinderella as an example (anything that Branagh does I'm sure is quality). But when I go to see a film I want to be taken to a place I have never been. I want storytelling that will transport me and leave me guessing or at least thinking.

Granted, many films are using a plot that is somewhat derivative, but to outright know the entire story before entering the theater kind of takes away from the excitiment for me. I'm sure these films will have several moments where they divert from the orignal arc but you still know where they are going to end up.
 
prberk

prberk

Well-Known Member
Andrew C said:
I agree with most of what you say. Just a couple things to point out.

  • Disney's films from the beginning were remakes from classic fairy tales. Of course, they made them their own. No dispute there.
  • Disney is not the same film company they were 50 years ago. I just do not see them as creative as they once were. But I am not so sure this is Disney specific.
  • The above is true for most studios in Hollywood as there are a ton that do a good amount of remakes.
  • Except for their animation studio, I do not expect anything different from them than the rest of Hollywood. Is this sad? Maybe. But we can all be honest and say it has been this way for quite some time. Just look at their cheap live actions they produced in the 80s. And a lot of them were just horrible.
  • If a movie is good, would I enjoy it any less simply because it is live action remake of an animated classic? No, why would that hinder my enjoyment? A good movie is a good movie.
  • Bottom line, I think your points are more representative of Hollywood as a whole and not just specific to Disney. Lack of creative new ideas all around. Should I expect more from Disney based on their history and what they represent, however? I do, but only with their animation studio and maybe DisneyNature. I have never seen their live action studio as a cut above the rest (Maybe this was true for the few years when Walt was involved with live action).
Click to expand...

I think we agreed already that a good movie is a good movie, sequel or not, remake or not. And I have no problem with good movies that are adaptations of previous source material (fairy tales, novels, or not).

And I also agree that this not just a problem with Disney. The bean-counters who wanted to play it safe and re-make or continue a known story have been driving decisions for years in Hollywood.

But first, that does make the criticism invalid for Disney, just because it fits all other studios. "If your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too?" The topic at hand was Disney doing remakes, so I answered it with respect to Disney.

Second, I do in fact think that Disney should be held to a higher creative standard, mostly because it, unlike the other studios and entertainment companies, trades on creativity and its own history of that, far and away more than any other studio does. It reminds us of it constanntly, from the theme parks to TV. Since they promote their history so much, we can expect them to be aware of it and the expectations of creativity that it inspires.

So, while I understand that "everyone's doing it," I still think it is worthy of criticism, and that Disney especially could be expected to see the value of good new material. And, yes, some of that good material (like Empire Strikes Back and Toy Story II as I previously mentioned) is good and worthy of being produced. I just don't want them to do it the lazy, cheap way, nor rely too much on it, to the detriment of new stories.
 
Last edited:

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom