Jim on Film
Page 3 of 3
Remakes
Now that the studio has made the remakes 101 Dalmatians, That Darn Cat,
Flubber, The Parent Trap, and Freaky Friday (not to mention
remakes of other studios’ works, such as Inspector Gadget and Mr.
Magoo), it is still pressing onward toward more attempts at remakes with new
versions of The Love Bug and The Shaggy Dog (both of which, like
The Absent-Minded Professor and Freaky Friday, have already had
television remakes). Like original films, these remakes are truly hit-or-miss.
Freaky Friday was basically an entirely new version of the old story and
to many, an improvement on the original, while That Darn Cat, Mr.
Magoo, and My Favorite Martian were all both embarrassments and box
office misfires. At the same time, the temptation to remake (and rehash) is
understandable, particularly when Flubber and Inspector Gadget are
two of the studio’s worst live-action movies, and yet, both made large amounts
of money.
The problem with constantly remaking their classic films is that instead of creating a new legacy, the studio is merely chasing its tail. Instead of making money from past releases and creating new franchises, the studio is exerting its energy on recreating the past. While this generates an instant flow of money (at times), there will be nothing to build on in the future. In the year 2020, the average shopper will probably buy only one copy of Freaky Friday instead of, say, the original version of the film and whatever could have been released to theatres instead of the remake. On television, instead of having different films they could show on The Disney Channel or to use in syndication (or whatever structure gets created in the future), they will basically have three versions of one film, Freaky Friday, Freaky Friday, or Freaky Friday. This trend is shockingly short-sighted and artistically lazy. While the Freaky Friday remake was hilarious, we will never know what great new Disney film might have been released had it not been re-made, perhaps the next big comedy like the original The Parent Trap or the next exciting adventure like Swiss Family Robinson.
If the studio wanted to exploit its film library to create new films, at least a sequel would be an extension of the original story rather than a replacement. How much more fun would it be if the third remake of The Love Bug was a sequel instead? At least it would be something different (an extension of the legacy rather than a replacement for the legacy) and an attempt at something different.
Television Animation
Since 1999, there has been an increase in the theatrical release of films with
television-quality animation hitting the theatres in the early part of the year.
This has partially been mildly successful because of the severe lack of
competition in that part of the year; however, the presence of these films not
only serve to dilute the work of Walt Disney Feature Animation and cut into
their box office returns and the long-range success of the studio, they are also
cutting into the release schedule, giving the movie-going public mediocrity in
animation instead of superiority in live-action. Because of the costs of
animation and the theory behind these television-quality films (spend less, make
more), there is a smaller chance that something of lasting or real value will be
produced, whereas in live-action, a film made on a $10-$20 million dollar budget
doesn’t have to look or feel cheap and under-developed. The potential for a big
hit is greater with live-action releases as opposed to cheaply produced animated
films.
Big-Budget Misfires
Despite some recent major successes, there have been some misfires that should
have been seen from a million miles away. The bear costumes in The Country
Bears, for example, should not have made Disney fans too embarrassed to even
check it out. Even to fans of Pirates of the Caribbean, the dark nature
of The Haunted Mansion seemed foreboding and un-Disneylike. And
Hidalgo, which was originally intended to be a Disney release until it
earned a PG-13 rating, should have been reigned in tighter from the script
approval stage. Advertising for the film made it look like an ideal Disney film,
but its rating didn’t fit the Disney image. So, not only did it not look
friendly enough for families, but it didn’t look “adult�? enough for teenagers
and adults despite the ratings. It looked like a family movie for the
adult crowd. The content issue should have been resolved far earlier, and the
film has under-performed as a result.
I’m not aware of the inner-workings of the Disney’s Live-Action film division, though interviews with Dick Cook and Nina Jacobson both indicate their important roles in the creation of these great Disney films. As the studio continues to change and evolve, one thing is sure, that if the studio continues to keep in mind the potential and appeal of the Disney name (quality entertainment for the entire family) and can cease eroding that potential and appeal, the future will keep looking bright for Disney Live-Action films.
Discuss It!
Related Links
-- Jim Miles
Jim On Film is published every other Thursday.
The opinions expressed by our guest columnists, and all of our columnists, do not necessarily represent the feelings of LaughingPlace.com or any of its employees or advertisers. All speculation and rumors about the future of Disneyland and the Walt Disney Company are just that - speculation and rumors - and should be treated as such.
-- Posted April 20, 2004