Tag: remakes

Aladdin, the One Live Action Remake I’m Excited For

A few days ago, Disney released the teaser trailer for the live-action remake of 2019’s Aladdin. Although the teaser trailer mostly displayed the grandeur of their CGI backgrounds, it hinted at some of the story with the overlay of a revamped “Friend Like Me”. In all honesty, it made me kind of excited.

I had always liked the original Aladdin. It was kind of like a blend of Vegas meets generic Middle East, but it worked surprisingly well. It was entertaining, aesthetically pleasing, and the songs were very good. Although it did have its flaws, I had to say overall it was an interesting film.

Usually, liking the original animated film in those ways is an automatic recipe for not liking a remake-especially when the Disney live-action remakes tend not to put that much effort into “retelling” the original. They do add some elements, but overall, the films haven’t been all that interesting or creative (especially not Beauty and the Beast, which I analyzed earlier).

But for some reason, I got genuinely excited about the live-action remake. And when I looked into who was the cast and who worked on the music, I got even more excited. I like to imagine that it’s because they are keeping the movie a musical, which means there’s going to be a whole new look to how they portray some of their most happening songs. What makes it even better is that they are still using Alan Menkel, the original composer, for these songs, even using him to compose a new song for Jasmine.

They kept the cast predominantly Middle Eastern, as well. The one fully white character is supposed to be a suitor for Jasmine, and was added to create a new dynamic of nation-politics. But other than that, everyone fits the bill for the location of Agrabba, which is a plus. Other movies have tried casting white actors for Middle Eastern roles, but increasingly they have been unsuccessful as they face public backlash. Disney played smart in casting, this time around.

I really can’t explain fully, however, why I want to see this new remake. I can’t explain why this one sparks my curiosity when none of the others have, and why I’m actually excited to see it. I can’t argue that it’s good old nostalgia, because if that were the case, I would have been excited to see the other remakes. But I wasn’t. Maybe it’s because this is the most fantastical one. There’s so much that happened in the original in terms of design and setup, that perhaps I’m curious about seeing how it can appear in a more solid form. I don’t know.

Beauty and the Beast, and the Case of Disney Getting it all Wrong

I have certainly missed the craze of analysis over the Disney live action films. That all happened after the release of the live action Beauty and the Beast, with some people ranting and raving about how much they loved it, and others harshly criticizing the film for its lack of originality. I am far from the first to talk about this film, and I will not be the last. However, I’ve noticed that most criticisms of the film often ignore certain aspects that I felt were especially irking, and fail to connect what happened in this film to the overall live action trend. So I thought I would put in my own two cents, and see where this takes us.

Now, the whole Disney live action trends started with the success of Maleficent in 2014 and Cinderella in 2015, both of which provide different perspectives of the stories told. Maleficent  provides an alternative look at the tales of the original 1959 classic Sleeping Beauty, although it was a rather half-baked attempt. I thought that Disney might be getting their footing with the release of Cinderella and Jungle Book, which flesh out relationships and motives and situations just a bit more, without only repeating the story.

I was proven greatly wrong, however, with the release of Beauty and the Beast in 2017.

Not only was the film a straight copy-paste of the original story with almost no additions, but the changes they did make just degraded an already good story. This film, like the other three before it, attempted to correct past criticisms of the original work, despite the fact that the film they are trying to correct something that is negligible. Cinderella provided insight on what happened to her father, which the original film failed to do. It explained why Cinderella dealt with the abuse, something the original film didn’t do. This film tries to elaborate on how the magic works in the castle, something that the original film didn’t need to do.

There it is, folks. This film tries to provide logic to a world of magic, something that didn’t really need to be elaborated on. Like the magic dishes, and some other things that move in the house. Not everything that moves needs to have a soul attached to it, which in turn explains the trashed furniture in the West Wing. The Beast didn’t just straight murder his servants. You can assume that a castle would have furniture in it before everyone else got turned into furniture.

Which leads me to my next problem with the film- the fact that the furniture explain the West Wing to Belle completely ruins a major plot point in the film. They not only convince the Beast to give her a better room, rather than let him make the decision for himself, but also give her a tour of the castle, mentioning the West Wing and thereby ruining the impact of Belle actually going to the West Wing. The betrayal aspect of her going to the West Wing despite his wishes is lost.

Which leads me to my next point: they completely wash out the relationship between Belle and the Beast. They ruin the complex relationship between the characters, making Beast an asshole who needs a life coach, and Belle the life coach, rather than having them learn off of each other. Belle was kind and patient, but could also call out the Beast’s bad attitude in the original film. In this one, they just fight, and he never learns to do better. Their relationship becomes basic and Hollywood-style, and the ending doesn’t feel like it was deserved.

Now, in a turn away from the more interaction aspect, I am going to turn more to the other issues I have with the film. This one can be narrowed down into bullet points.

Belle’s voice:

Why, why, why didn’t they just have an actual singer dub Emma Watson’s voice? Hollywood has dubbed hundred’s of actor’s singing before, and the attempt the avoid this in this film ground my ears out. They auto-tuned Emma Watson’s singing to the point where it sounded like a robot made it, heavily contrasting from the fact that literally no one else has a robotic voice. Literally no one else.

What made it worse was the classic reprise of the song “Belle”, where Belle has a powerful soliloquy (done flawlessly by the original voice actor Paige O’Hara). In the live action version, we just get a shotty, robotic voice that just washes out with the music. Every time she opened her mouth the sing, I would be ripped out of the moment.

Belle’s Dress:

I know they tried to do what they did in Cinderella with giving the dress a much needed update, but it really wasn’t necessary. Unlike Cinderella’s kind of odd-looking dress in the original, there was nothing wrong with Belle’s dress. In fact, her’s was a favorite among many, and was a popular costume for young children. The fact that they tried to change it to something as blase as they had in the live action film got some much deserved out-roar. How do you replace such an iconic dress with something that looked like three pieces of yellow tissue paper stuck together? It just doesn’t make any sense.

Gaston:

Why try to make him unlikeable? The whole point of his original character was that he was attractive, popular, and charismatic, and was easily able to influence the ignorant townsmen into joining him for the “final battle” at the castle.

In this case, he’s a character that is considered untrustworthy by the town, leading to Le Fou paying people to sing and up Gaston’s ego. Such a move was totally pointless. You should have just kept him the same. It would have saved a lot of time on the pointlessness of trying to make him a complex character. Focus on fleshing the two main characters out, not the villain, who didn’t need to be fleshed out.

The Plot Overall:

Last but not least, I have a problem with the plot overall. Let’s face it- it’s just a pure retelling of the original story, with some pointless additions slapped on to take up more time. There was nothing of real value added, degrading the plot of the story. What was changed really had no purpose, unlike the films before it (except Maleficent, but that’s for another time). I came into that film expecting something and left it feeling like the original story was just wronged. Which doesn’t make sense, as the live action version and the original were both made by the same company.

But, that’s the problem with the desire to make money and deal with criticism. It just didn’t work here. It turned what was once an Oscar-nominated film into a straight mess. It was just unnecessary.

Remakes and Sequels in Hollywood, and How it’s Not a New Thing

The common phrase that pops up when someone mentions Hollywood nowadays is that Hollywood has run out of ideas. This phrase comes up in particular when constant remakes and sequels comes up, mixed with only a sprinkling of original movies. However, the modern situation isn’t new. In fact, it’s not only been an old tradition in Hollywood, but also Nollywood and Bollywood as well.

Ever wonder about all the sequels to Alien, Godzilla, and other films? Not the modern connections, but the ones that go as far back as the 1950’s? The many romantic comedies that came out during the 1950’s and 1960’s? Remakes and sequels have always been a quintessential part of Hollywood, since it’s inception. The sequels in particular, come when a series is popular- Hollywood is a business, and will run with a popular idea until it dries up. Such a tactic is not modern, nor unique. It has been happening.

Remakes, on the other hand, are usually made when a director decides that there is something to be improved upon in the original film, something that can be different. Of course, this choice is not always for the better, as we’ve seen with the remakes of Clash of the Titans and Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. Usually, though, a director or screenwriter wants to improve on the story, and tries to portray their vision of how the film should be. This has worked, even, with the 2015 release of Mad Max: Fury Road. The films were an original series of films in the 1980’s, revamped in order to try an alternative story route, one that actually worked.

On top of the remakes, Hollywood has had a long history of taking from books and myths, despite the modern criticism that Hollywood only does it to get a guaranteed fan base. Characters such as Dracula and Perseus have found themselves on the big screen on multiple occasions in multiple forms, adapting them and re-adapting them to try and make a take on a story or myth unique. Especially from the 1970’s through the 1990’s with movies such as Psycho, the Shining, and Silence of the Lambs, all of which being smash hits, the tradition of bringing books to the big screen is nothing unheard of. Shakespeare has found his most famous play Romeo and Juliet in multiple movie retellings. Hell, just about all of Disney’s 2D animated films are based around different fairy tales (and even some 3D ones, such as Frozen and Tangled). To say that based off the fact that Hollywood makes films from stories and books is the key to showing that it no longer has originality is a farse.

Now, if you’re keen on the international films industries, you might be saying that they’re much more original. Now that may be true in some cases, you will find the retelling of famous stories and legends in Bollywood, Nollywood, and K-dramas. They do the same thing as Hollywood. Plus, they straight up make remakes of Hollywood films as well. Movies such as Resevoir Dogs, the Godfather, Silence of the Lambs, and When Harry Met Sally all have successful Bollywood remakes, and Nollywood is pushing to have a TV show based around Black Panther. To say that they don’t pull the same tactics as Hollywood would be ignoring a portion of their production system.

This isn’t to say that Hollywood is in the clear, however. Large companies often get trapped in the idea of making remakes or sequels, hoping to gain an automatic audience (increasingly without success). They’re trying to play it safe, but that’s clearly not what the audience wants (i.e: the box-office flops of Solo and the Mummy). People want more unique films to come back into Hollywood, and as usual, Hollywood is going slow in its response. Hopefully, however, it does respond soon.