Talk about perfect timing to prove my point. Scientists usually have to wait and run experiments to gain proof after making a hypothesis, but Disney just handed it to me on a golden platter. Thanks, House of Mouse.
My movie column last week on New Mutants included a couple of paragraphs on my fear that Disney+ would just be a dumping ground for an old Disney money-making strategy called direct-to-DVD. It was a bleak time when Disney had low-tier ideas that weren't nearly good enough for theatrical releases but would still make money.
And just hours after my column went to print (sorry, old newspaper slang), The Hollywood Reporter published a report that Disney was making yet another live-action remake of an animated classic. The victim this time? A fox who robs the rich and gives to the poor. Robin Hood is coming to Disney+. Because we don't have enough film adaptations of this story.
I was looking forward to what Disney had to offer this year. We were finally going to get the only justifiable live-action remake in Mulan. All the other live-action remakes have been disappointing up until now. At best, I watched Aladdin and said, "Well, this isn't the worst thing I've ever seen." At worst, well, you all saw that terrible excuse for a Lion King adaptation. I know you did because the stupid thing made $1.6 billion and only encouraged Disney to keep on this horrible path of remakes.
Now with the pandemic, Mulan has been delayed. And who knows if we'll get Raya and the Last Dragon in November. I've been looking forward to that movie for months. It's the first new original story from Walt Disney Animation Studios since Moana in 2016.
And therein lies my beef with Disney. Here we have this huge powerhouse of an entertainment company worth around $130 billion. This is a company that has the potential to bring in great writers, directors, actors, musicians, and all sorts of creative talent.
Disney could spend its resources telling some truly amazing stories like it has in the past. And yet, all that potential is squandered each and every time the House of Mouse decides to scrape the barrel and remake a classic. And this latest trend of turning animated classics into live-action disasters is a blight on the entertainment world.
Animated movies often work because of the medium they're in. Cartoons can express emotions and thoughts with colors and art in ways that live-action or realistic CGI (computer-generated imagery) often can't. That's what makes it the perfect medium for some stories. It's also why The Lion King (2019) was so terrible. I felt nothing when Mufasa died because realistic lions can't portray the look of horror and sadness Simba had in the original cartoon. That's why it's a cartoon.
And now Robin Hood is the latest target for this mummification.
Released in 1973, Robin Hood is one of the more beloved classic Disney cartoons. And I think most of that stems from the creative use of anthropomorphic animals to tell the well-known tail of a thief who takes from the rich and gives to the poor.
Ask children who grew up with Disney classics like Robin Hood and The Jungle Book what they love most about the movies, and it's the animals. Some might only know the Prince of Thieves as a fox (or maybe even Kevin Costner, God bless 'em). The fact that it's told with animals like foxes, bunnies, bears, and wolves is certainly my favorite aspect of the movie.
Of course, I have to give credit to George Bruns for such a fantastic score. I mean, the music during the castle escape scene at the end? On the edge of my seat every time. I still catch myself singing "Not in Nottingham." And "Love" is a fantastic tune as well.
The movie certainly has a strong legacy. Byron Howard, who co-directed the Academy Award-winning Zootpia (even if that Oscar should have gone to Kubo), cited Robin Hood as an inspiration for his 2016 hit.
The animation, the character designs, they're all unique and iconic. It's not something that needs to be remade. When movie executives greenlight a remake, they have a chance to introduce a story to a new audience, but everyone already knows the tale of Robin Hood. That's why I believe remakes should focus more on giving stories that didn't do well the first time a second chance, to bring them to new audiences.
If Disney is just insistent on breathing new life into old franchises (instead of, I don't know, putting some creative talent and funding toward new franchises), then it needs to pick stories worthy of a second chance.
You know what franchise really deserves a second shot as a live-action remake? Treasure Planet. The 2002 box office bomb was a great movie, stellar visuals that set hand-drawn 2D traditional animation on top of 3D computer animation, and a fresh take on Robert Louis Stevenson's Treasure Island.
Can you imagine seeing pirate ships racing through outer space, one even led by Captain Amelia? And the market for steampunk movies is wide open. Disney could take the retro-futurism idea and run with it! But it won't because that'd be risky and bold.
If the company doesn't want to take a risk on remaking a movie that bombed in theaters (despite doing well with critics and fans), then it could take a shot at a live-action Atlantis: The Lost Empire (2001).
This is another ready-made creative idea that just needs the right funding and director. I would love to see actors playing Milo and Princess Kida. And, of course, Danny DeVito would have to be cast as Mole. The role is automatically his.
But how great would some real Atlantis sets look? Stone fish statues, glowing blue crystals everywhere, the whole kingdom being swallowed by the ocean? The movie would be amazing, and I'd never complain about another Disney live-action remake ever again.
There are just too many superior choices for live-action adaptations if Disney really wants the easy money. Even Hercules would be a better choice.
I'd lay down a new law here and now. If the original movie Disney wants to animate features with predominantly cute animals as the characters (Oliver and Company, Robin Hood, Fox and the Hound, Aristocats), don't remake it in live-action, or at all, really.
Of course, if Disney cared about my opinions, we'd already have a sequel to Zootopia by now, along with at least two new original franchises every year. I don't want any more live-action adaptations of animated hits. But if they have to exist in this world, at least make better choices.
If you don't see my film column next Friday, assume Bob Iger has me locked in a mouse-shaped bunker somewhere in California.
MovieStyle on 04/24/2020