|
|
Post by RaceFanX on Oct 3, 2013 16:23:30 GMT -5
101 has always been a more "realistic" Disney film because the setting is "modern day" and the characters have phones, cars, etc. But there's still lots of fantasy elements in it that a remake would likely tone down like the heroic, border-line human-level intellent dogs and the fact law enforcement is worthless in solving the crime. If you take the "Batman Begins" root Pongo and Perdy are going to end up cameos at best.
Besides, they already made a solo Cruella DeVil movie. It was called "The Devil Wears Prada."
|
|
|
|
Post by Belchic on Oct 3, 2013 17:10:28 GMT -5
I deeply apologize to bab, but I don't like the fact that they modernized the live-action 101 Dalmatians. To me, that just takes away a lot of Dodie Smith's original vision. I mean, imagine if other films did that like Harry Potter (which is supposed to be set in the 11th century). I also don't like how the animals don't talk in the live-action film. I know they were intending to make the film more realistic that way, but having the animals talk is one of the things that made the animated film so cute and memorable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bishop on Oct 3, 2013 18:05:40 GMT -5
Modernising isn't always a bad thing. The BBC have done a fantastic job with Sherlock, using a modern London complete with our technological advances while in many respects staying loyal to Doyle's books.
Not making the animals talk was possibly a good thing. It always looks weird when they try to emulate the proper mouth movements onto animals in a live action setting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Belchic on Oct 3, 2013 18:23:48 GMT -5
Not making the animals talk was possibly a good thing. It always looks weird when they try to emulate the proper mouth movements onto animals in a live action setting. Personally, I don't know why so many people are creeped out by that. I personally don't mind it, but I do kind of see your point. You may notice in the Buddies movies, when the camera is on a Buddy when he's talking, he's completely motionless while only the mouth is moving. |
|
|
|
Post by RaceFanX on Oct 3, 2013 21:28:51 GMT -5
The 1996 movie worked great with its modernization (was Roger making games really all that different from music?) and I think Bishop had a good point about CGI mouths looking bad in live action and movie still worked even without the dogs talking (The slapstick and Hugh Laurie stealing every scene probably helped) but I just don't see the point of a Cruella solo movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Two-Tone on Oct 4, 2013 1:46:00 GMT -5
a Cruella movie?? Excuse me??
I think I'd rather have one centered around Lucky and or maybe two-Tone. But Cruella?! *facepaws*
|
|
|
|
Post by babclayman on Oct 4, 2013 6:24:59 GMT -5
Bishop has very good points, If the story is good, you can adapt it in any time period and it would still work.
"101 Dalmatians" is a story that does stand the test of time.
And the mouths can indeed be awkward when it's 'Live Action'. I think that the looks that the Dalmatians give or how they act in the 'Live Action' film was able to show what they were feeling or thinking, really well.
Villain Spin-Off's aren't bad either. I know there are plenty of people who like the Musical; 'Wicked', which is Wizard of Oz told from the perspective of the Witch. Shadow says it's one of his favourite musicals.
On the Disney Ship, they have a show called; 'Villain's Tonight', a show all about Villains! And that's one of the ships most popular shows.
I am sure the Dalmatians will appear in the film too.
Should we judge how this film might do with how 'Malificent' is?
|
|
|
|
Post by Belchic on Oct 4, 2013 9:42:00 GMT -5
There's a Maleficent movie?
|
|
|
|
Post by babclayman on Oct 4, 2013 9:48:33 GMT -5
Yeah, as the link that Trey uploaded said, they’re making a Maleficent film with Angelina Jolie, disney.wikia.com/wiki/Maleficent_(film)That’s why I think they’re making a Cruella Film, as part of a ‘Villains’ Film Series. So, if Maleficent is good, we can assume ‘Cruella’ will be good too. Right? |
|
|
|
Post by Belchic on Oct 4, 2013 10:45:21 GMT -5
Really? Well, in that case, they might as well make one for Ursula, the Queen of Hearts, Jafar, Captain Hook, Hades, and the Queen from Snow White. If they could capitalize Tinker Bell so abusively, they might as well do it with the villains too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Trey_Vore on Oct 4, 2013 13:04:41 GMT -5
Modernization isn't always bad. In Dodie Smith's book it is stated that Roger and Anita were not TV people; they just didn't 'get it'. But seeing how TV is like a part of our everyday lives, more people would probably find it more relatable if Roger had a job that utilizes a TV screen. Just like how if you have a book that gives the readers the idea they shouldn't watch TV. If you adapt that into a movie, you are then watching TV to get a 'don't watch TV' message. Your moral is already broken.
And the modernization wasn't out of place; it seemed to fit naturally. It wasn't like the mixed reaction that same year release Space Jam got where the WB can't really use the Looney Tunes in a manner that will please everyone; if you try to make them seem like they moved along with the times (ie. now using things like cell phones, DVDs, video games, etc.) people complain that looks weird and seems like they are desperately trying make an attempt to stay relevant while if you make it seem like they still think it's the 1940s-1950s, people complain that they seem like relics from another age.
Also when the series debuted, some people may not have liked that it was contemporized as it might have risked looking dated (as it seems to be the problem with a lot of 1990s cartoons--we may have thought the 90s were going to be the best decade ever in the sense that we felt the lack of anything resembling a 'dated' quality meant it was timeless, but nowadays a lot of 1990s cartoons just seem like they were only meant to appeal for the time and are best left as fond memories), but that wasn't the case in the new millennium. After all, Playhouse Disney now runs 101 Dalmatians: the Series as it aged just fine. It's not like Quack Pack where I remember reading a review on ultimatedisney.com which was written in 2005 where the critic said it felt like the series is terribly dated and it wasn't even 10 years old yet.
At the same time, it was probably for the best the Dalmatians didn't talk. If the live-action Marmaduke was any indication. The other thing you need to remember there is a reason why you don't see too many families with a Dalmatian as the family pet: Dalmatians have a long history of being bred to be coach dogs. They don't like to sit still and do nothing; they have a lot of energy and want to run. If you are using them in a movie, good luck getting them to stay still long enough to utilize a CGI-mouth that may look badly out of place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Belchic on Oct 4, 2013 14:07:54 GMT -5
Well, I still think it would have made more sense to try to make the live-action film set in the 1950's. After all, the book and animated movie were set in those times. Plus, video games weren't even invented back then.
I don't know too much about the public reaction to the series, but a lot of people have criticized it for feeling totally irrelevant to its predecessors: being too modernized/dated (as Trey said), and being set in the US rather than England.
Also, in case you're not up to the times, Trey, the series was pulled from Disney Jr.'s lineup this past Labor Day weekend.
As for CGI mouths, like I said, I don't mind it, and Marmaduke wasn't that bad of a movie (I admit going to see it theatrically, even though I never read any of the comics). It seems like I'm the only person in the universe who does, while everyone else says it's creepy and is trying to get me to change my opinion so we'll all be equal. Humph, well done, Sister Suffregette.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nemo on Oct 4, 2013 14:41:26 GMT -5
Yeah, as the link that Trey uploaded said, they’re making a Maleficent film with Angelina Jolie, disney.wikia.com/wiki/Maleficent_(film)That’s why I think they’re making a Cruella Film, as part of a ‘Villains’ Film Series. So, if Maleficent is good, we can assume ‘Cruella’ will be good too. Right? Oooo now this is news to me! I think both of them will be very interesting ^^ |
|
|
|
Post by Trey_Vore on Oct 6, 2013 14:05:49 GMT -5
Well, I still think it would have made more sense to try to make the live-action film set in the 1950's. After all, the book and animated movie were set in those times. Plus, video games weren't even invented back then. I don't know too much about the public reaction to the series, but a lot of people have criticized it for feeling totally irrelevant to its predecessors: being too modernized/dated (as Trey said), and being set in the US rather than England. Also, in case you're not up to the times, Trey, the series was pulled from Disney Jr.'s lineup this past Labor Day weekend. As for CGI mouths, like I said, I don't mind it, and Marmaduke wasn't that bad of a movie (I admit going to see it theatrically, even though I never read any of the comics). It seems like I'm the only person in the universe who does, while everyone else says it's creepy and is trying to get me to change my opinion so we'll all be equal. Humph, well done, Sister Suffregette. News to me. I work second shift so I haven't been able to watch it. I see that they also pulled Timon and Pumbaa and Lilo and Stitch: the Series. Anyway, I guess we'll see some more developments as time comes. |
|
|
|
Post by babclayman on Feb 4, 2014 8:58:15 GMT -5
Well, I got some news about the upcoming Cruella film.
Like said, while Glenn Close is the Creative Consultant (Cause, to be honest, she plays Cruella perfectly, so should know how to do it), other news that I got is that it's being scripted by the same screen writer as; 'The Devil Wears Prada'.
Somewhat makes Race's comment on Prada being a Cruella Film amusing in hindsight now.
Although, it is being produced by the one who also produced; Country Bears, Haunted Mansion and Bedtime Stories.
Still, I am hoping it will be good.
Although, I wonder if they'll be doing casting? Even for Extras?
Any idea where Disney hires Extra's, Pups?
|
|
