Why Disney retake their religious cartoons

For half a century, Walt Disney Pictures has created not one which has become a classic cartoon strip. Painting "Beauty and the Beast" at the time even tore ovation at the New York Film Festival and received the "Oscar" as the best film of the year. Not surprisingly, the studio decided to go back to this time-tested subjects and make a copy of them to the feature film format.

The first "live" from Disney remakes

The starting point of the Disney "live" adaptations can be considered the film "The Jungle Book" in 1994, the director staged "The Mummy," Stephen Sommers. However, the scenario is very different from the original animated feature: in this version, the animals do not talk, but the main story was dedicated to the fight against Mowgli for his love. The role of the hero performed darling still very young Lena Headey, who plays Cersei Lannister later in "game of thrones».

Walt Disney Pictures has returned to the perspective direction in two years, creating game remake of the animated film "101 Dalmatians." The plot this time I almost did not become just a little bit modernized: in the original protagonist, Roger was a composer, but here was the developer of computer games.

The success of the film greatly contributed to the strong cast of. On the role of a stylish and insidious Cruella de Vil took the famous comic actress Glenn Close. Improvised villain played at that time still a little-known Hugh Laurie and Mark Williams. The first is now familiar to almost everyone on the TV series "A Bit of Fry and Laurie", "Jeeves and Wooster" and "Dr. House». Williams also later became famous as a singer in the role of Arthur Weasley potteriane.

Later winged luck studio decided to release more and sequel to "102 Dalmatians." However, the latter was controversial. It did not help even the presence in the cast of Gérard Depardieu. After that, Walt Disney Pictures did not do remakes as much as 10 years.

Starting the film adaptation of the endless belt

However, in 2010 the film company decided to experiment and trust of the playing continuation of "Alice in Wonderland" Tim Burton. The director, who works in a bizarre and gloomy style chamber turned surreal tale in combat fantasy of the virgin-warrior. Interestingly, when creating characters Burton significantly reworked existing designs, drawing on the classic illustrations by John Tenniel. Alice played the then little-known Australian actress Mia Wasikowska, but the rest of the cast gathered stars of the first magnitude.

In general faulty adaptation has become one of the most cash movies of all time and he took the "Oscar" for the work of production designer and visual effects. And six years later he came yet another sequel and director - "Alice in Wonderland."

Four years after the first "Alice" appeared on the screen painting "Maleficent." Game remake of "Sleeping Beauty" was conceived as a total rethinking of the classic plot, and attempt to tell a story from a different perspective. Angelina Jolie looked great in the role of Maleficent, but adaptation still had many shortcomings. The biggest problem critics tape called weak script. Nevertheless, the film has collected a large box office: because everyone wanted to find out how well-known beauty-actress played her role perfectly suitable.

From this moment adaptation of conveyor could be considered neglected. theater repertoires steadily replenished verbatim remake of the classic feature films, "Cinderella" (2015), "The Jungle Book" (2016), "Pete and his Dragon" (2016), "Beauty and the Beast" (2017), "Dumbo" (2019), "Aladdin" (2019). The studio also takes gaming and animated films continued: "Alice in Wonderland" (2016), "Christopher Robin" (2018).

Walt Disney Pictures restarted even animation and gaming musical "Mary Poppins": in 2018, viewers saw the sequel to the classic story titled "Mary Poppins returns."

Scene problems remakes: difficult does not mean better

In the remake as such there is nothing wrong. "Scarface," "Ocean's 11", "Some Like It Hot" - all these successful examples, which are appreciated and loved by spectators.

In a sense, the best Disney cartoons - is also a folk classic adaptation. By the way, the original fairy tales sometimes it has been very violent. For example, in versionsCinderella Grimm Cinderella sisters cut off their toes or heel to fit in a shoe. The great merit of Walt Disney that he was able to smooth out the unpleasant moments and to adapt the old fairy tale in the spirit of his time.

Now the studio is doing the same thing, because modern children are unlikely to close the history of the dependent princesses, always waiting for rescue. Therefore, an updated version of Cinderella has become much more active and independent, and Jasmine wants to rule Agraboy. Even neutral Belle added a new inspirational line - from the usual well-read girl heroine become inventor.

Another thing is that all these changes are too superficial to radically change the essence of the work. As a result, game remake turns into a single frame mold of the eponymous cartoon, and in fact does not make it any fresh ideas. Moreover, the studio bosses can not understand one simple thing: to make the movie more difficult does not mean that it will become deeper. Sometimes these changes and make the film at all illogical.

For example, in "Cinderella" in 1949 the main character was a kind gentle recluse. Her naivety and limited understanding of the outside world were a logical justification for the fact that the evil relatives were able to completely suppress her will and take control over the girl.

New as Cinderella, played by Lily James, educated and well-read. She understands how it works, she even has friends. That's fine, but then why such an intelligent and strong woman can not just walk away from the house, where it is treated badly? The script attempts to explain this inconsistency heroine emotional attachment to the place where her parents lived. But in the final nostalgia does not prevent Cinderella still leave the house, only to have the status of a bride of Prince.

The new version of "Beauty and the Beast" characters are characters, too, decided peresochinit. We can not say that it went to the benefit of the film. The original monster at times behaved rudely, but to be seen how much of it remains on the intelligent, emotional and sensitive person. A remake of the hero appears cynical and aggressive, but on its vulnerability and sensitivity no trace. It is unclear why the audience must empathize with all this nasty character.

Visual defects: lackluster direction and the transition from animation to reality

Sometimes meaningless changes made not only in the script. Often suffers even the original design. For example, in the initial stages of "Beauty and the Beast" in 1991 wearing only a blue dress Belle. These animators wanted to emphasize how much the character is different from the villagers, dressed mostly in red, orange and green colors. Remake also I missed this detail of a kind: the director by the desire to improve what is already and so it was fine, Belle ceased to stand out and disappeared into the motley crowd.

The fact that the films lose the originals, blame not only the shortcomings of the writers, but also the shortcomings of direction. This is particularly evident in peresnyatyh musical numbers that have always been an important part of Disney cartoons.

In "Beauty and the Beast" in 1991 animation Gaston manages to do a lot of things while LEF sings a song in his honor: Painting strain muscles, crashed his henchmen to start a fight in the pub and even a talent show juggler. And all this for two and a half minutes.

At the same time in a remake of Gaston, played by Luke Evans, just sits and smiles sometimes guests taverns. And the whole scene looks lifeless and energetic enough.

The fact is that as an artistic means of animation itself is very expressive. Image of movements and emotions in cartoons is very different from real life. And to achieve the same expression in feature films may be only the most gifted directors.

For example, in "greatest showman"Musical numbers riveting the viewer's eye thanks to the talented staging: fast frame rates, expressive acting game, an interesting perspective and skillful installation. And this approach are lacking Disney film adaptation.

In the production of original cartoons into account every detail. But despite the fact that in the remake seems to be the same attention to detail, the output instead of creative rethinking all the same each time it turns expressionless duplicate.

There is another important point. When the animated characters have to adapt to the physiology of the real world, unpredictable results can occur. For example, the classic monster tried to make a realistic - and all its charm disappeared. And the situation only worsened the decision to abandon the director of make-up and resort to CGI-technologies. Realistic Lumiere and Cogsworth also lost the lion's share of charisms, and Mrs. Potts and began to look at all scary.

There are more positive examples of this kind. Plush toys come to life in "Christopher Robin" were not so nice as in the cartoon. On the contrary, they looked dusty, old and timeworn life. But given the overall mood of the picture theatricality, such a change in the appearance of the characters is very appropriate.

Special mention deserve the situation where non-special musical talents of the actors have to rehash the composition of professionals. Suffice it to recall, as in the remake of "Beauty and the Beast" Emma Watson she sang all the vocals. The studio had to process the voice of the girl beyond recognition, because he was far from Paige O'Hara.

And even if the new Casting solutions are successful (for example, the voice of Will Smith really went the charming genie from "Aladdin"), this is still no hint of originality. A specially written for remakes of songs and musical themes often are not as successful and memorable as the original unique.

Why is removed as much game remakes masterpiece cartoon

The company has objective reasons to turn his classic cartoons in the big-budget feature films. After all, Walt Disney Pictures has not thought up fairy stories and characters, and just adapt them to the screen. And many of them are not covered by copyright protection. Therefore, anyone can create their own "The Little Mermaid"Or" Jungle Book. " It is only recently entered the film company Warner Bros., make a copy of the story by Rudyard Kipling in a darker vein.

In recent years, he left the mass of different adaptations of the same "Cinderella": the series "Once Upon a Time" movies "The farther into the forest ..." and "Ever After."

Therefore, viewers need to regularly convince: the best "Cinderella" are made only at the Walt Disney Studios.

Modern versions of classic stories are still in part because more and more difficult to surprise the viewer. Today's children, just seen the cartoon "Spider-Man: Across the Universe"Unlikely to be impressed by classical animation, even a very talented to do.

Despite this, many people are concerned about: When will dry up an endless stream of remakes? It's very simple: they have finished shooting, when the audience no longer walk on them. Only falling charges and serious reputational damage forced the studio to reconsider its policy.