The remake infection shows no sign of letting up as Hollywood gears up to resurrect source material that has been revisited more than an Eagles' greatest hits album. The Call of the Wild comes out today, and I know what you're thinking.
The Call of the Wild? As in ... the Jack London book? Hasn't that already been done a couple times? And you're partially right. This book has been adapted to film more than a couple times. With today's version, The Call of the Wild has been remade five times. And that's not counting the Peanuts and anime versions.
Is Hollywood really so devoid of new material that audiences have to endure the same stories over and over again? If I were a billionaire, I would hire people to just sit in on Hollywood remake/reboot film pitch meetings and say, "Hey, we've already seen this," over and over until the project got scrapped.
Between Disney's constant live-action remakes of classic animated films, and this, I'm about to go crazy. Is animation the last frontier for original movie ideas? Help us, Laika Studios. You're our only hope. By the way, I just checked, and the distributor for this movie is 20th Century Studios, which, of course, is now owned by Disney. So this is technically another Disney remake. Mazel Tov.
And it's not that I hate this story. I just hate seeing it be remade again. We have a silent version from 1923, the 1935 Clark Gable version, the 1972 Charlton Heston version, the 1997 version with Rutger Hauer and today's release with Harrison Ford. Why do we need to see this story rehashed once more?
I love wolves, huskies, really giant fluffy dogs of all kinds, and especially movies about them. When I was growing up, my favorite movie was Far From Home: The Adventures of Yellow Dog. Balto and Air Bud were other favorites. It's hard to make me dislike a movie about dogs (except for you, Alpha and Omega).
If we didn't have two billion other versions of this movie, I'd say Harrison Ford would be a fine choice to play John Thornton. But then for some inexplicable reason, the film executives chose to make Buck entirely CGI. Why in God's name would you not use a real dog for a movie that's primarily about a dog?
MPC Montréal handled the heavy special effects, and this is the same company that worked on films like 1917 and The Jungle Book. So why does Buck look about two steps above Scooby-Doo from the 2002 live-action movie? Was there a shortage of dogs in the world? Of the 900 million on this planet, Hollywood couldn't find one to train for this movie?
And yet, somehow as of Tuesday, this movie has a positive score on Rotten Tomatoes. I don't know where it will sit by tonight, but it started out around 74%.
The next time Hollywood executives decide to dust off this material for a remake (probably sometime around 2027), perhaps they should consider an alternative. And I have just read a book series. It's called Julie of the Wolves, published in 1972 and written by Jean Craighead George. The novel actually won a Newbery Award in 1973.
The story is fantastic. It follows a young Inuit girl named Miyax who runs away from an abusive husband and has to survive on the Arctic tundra with the help of a pack of wolves. She slowly learns how to communicate with the wolves, naming them one by one.
And the way George writes the tale of a desperate Inuit girl who eventually finds balance and joy living among these majestic creatures is so refreshing and candid. She doesn't write down to younger readers. There's a scene where Miyax's abusive spouse sexually assaults her, and the way George handles such a heavy topic with intelligence and care is something else.
If reading about that makes you squeamish, let's not forget just how bloody and brutal The Call of the Wild is. So gently release that right hand and unclutch those pearls.
Julie of the Wolves has a rich setting and deep characters. It's every bit as worthy of being adapted to film as The Call of the Wild. Just try something new, Hollywood. Julie is a strong heroine children could come to look up to if you'd just try bringing her to the big screen.
And here's where I'm going to really tempt the many film executives reading this column. It's one of the most enticing words that can possibly be thrown around in Hollywood ... sequels. George wrote a sequel called Julie in 1994 and another called Julie's Wolf Pack in 1997. Each book is beautifully written and tells the story of a new generation in the wolf pack, led by Amaroq, Kapu and then Sweet Fur Amy.
The stories are just ready and waiting for an adaptation, Hollywood. All I ask if that you honor the character of Miyax by casting an Inuit actress and don't use CGI for the wolves. Use rescued wolf dogs and train them. Actually put some effort into the movie. Maybe even film the thing in Alaska. Filming on location. How crazy would that be?
If film executives aren't willing to give my alternative any real consideration, then perhaps they could just remake another wolf/dog movie. Remake Iron Will. Only this time, maybe leave Kevin Spacey out of it. Disney already has the rights to the movie. Hop on it.
At the very least, maybe try adapting another one of Jack London's works. Like White Fang -- no wait. That's been made into more movies than The Call of the Wild. Maybe The Cruise of the Dazzler? Or A Daughter of the Snows? There are lots to choose from. Have at it. Just let The Call of the Wild rest in peace.
MovieStyle on 02/21/2020