Moviefan12: Hello & welcome back to A Look at Disney. And well, Disney's trend of live action fairy tale films continues as one of the most iconic Disney characters is getting her own big screen movie. That's right hit has been reported that Tinker Bell will be getting her own movie. Details have been kept quiet on this. The only thing that we know so far is that it'll be done in the vein of the Angelina Jolie led Maleifcent telling us the story that audiences don't know about Tinker Bell and that Reese Witherspoon will be starring as Tink and will also be producing this movie. Now for some more thoughts, I have invited The Second Opinion. Welcome back to A Look at Disney.
The Second Opinion: Thank you, Moviefan! I’m so happy to be back here, and uh, and it’s just a magical… feeling – actually, it feels like going back to my old high school, kinda – and uh… it’s a good feeling. I will always love this blog, and uh… let’s have some more blog!
…
Oh wait, that’s my job.
Okay, so to be honest, I can’t even get that worked up about these Disney live action remakes/knockoffs anymore, which are going to keep coming regardless. It’s just a case of the studio realizing that people want more of the same and impassively providing. Whether they’re remotely good is up to the director and crew they hire.
But the knockoffs of Peter Pan, on the other hand, are making me progressively more worked up. I will always stand by the J.M. Barrie original as a masterpiece of wonder and the dark paradoxes of innocence. And Disney’s first adaptation left out some of the darkness, but it also brought out some of the novel’s best qualities in spades while weaving in what Disney did best. However, the 50 year-belated sequel that attempted to combine Home Alone with a third rate “boys will be boys” movie was just the beginning of Pan’s public image to come. Now we have a male Dora the Explorer taking over for Peter, a “live” attempt to recreate the success of the musical by casting actors who don’t remotely fit (“Well… it’s just a bad musical!” their fans cried.), and a loser father version of Peter who uses Neverland to escape responsibilities, complete with a heroic Captain Hook that my little sister uses as wallpaper on her computer. That last one, I might add, had the writers patting themselves on the back for, loosely quoted, “exploring the dark side” of Peter Pan, even though having him grow up at all kind of undermines the darkness of the story, which you can tell they never read within a sentence of their interviews. In fact, at this rate, few people at all will read it in the near future, because it definitely doesn't offer the Peter Pan they’re familiar with – or Tinker Bell, for that matter.
The Second Opinion: Should I tell him that Hook got pretty bad reviews? …Actually, maybe not, because I kinda like Hook myself. It respectfully left the original story intact, after all, before expanding on it with its own ideas, some of which were pretty good. I can at least be content watching that.
Now Disney, on the other hand, clearly doesn’t have a whole lot of respect, deciding to cash in on Tinkerbell with an origin story, not once but twice, because the first one wasn’t already… actually, to be fair, Tinkerbell’s first origin movie didn’t disrespect its source all that much. (It even remembered that fairies are born from a baby’s first laugh.) It was actually kinda sweet and harmless – and bland, but even so. Plus, there is plenty of room to expand its nonchalant story into something more poignant and more fantastical.
Heck, maybe I’m being too hard on these spinoffs. Yes, most of them are bad, but that doesn’t mean they’re all just hack jobs and cash-ins. A lot of people do seem to like the Once Upon a Time Peter Pan. Even if he’s not Peter Pan. Like, at all. And it’s not like we haven’t also had any faithful adaptations trying to convey the power of the novel recently, like…
Well, that’s a little less sufficient than I was hoping for. I mean, all of two adaptations from 2003 and nothing more recent? Really? I suppose I could count Peter Pan in Scarlet, but even that’s debatable… But to be fair, how many adaptations that just did whatever the heck they wanted with debatable merit at best and none at worst are those two competing with, again?
(That one’s a series.)
You can stop listing them now. Okay, and after all that, we have, not only a “prequel” to look forward to but also a “spinoff” film in addition, channeling the smashing success that was Maleficent, at the height of cash-in Disney remakes.
…
Alright, I’m officially out for blood now. Moviefan, just point me in the right direction – anything you want to talk about target.
Moviefan12: As mentioned, Tink's origin has already been told and we've seen her interact with other characters from the Peter Pan lore before the events of the movie in these films. In the first film, Wendy appears as a little girl. And in The Pirate Fairy, Tink and her friends come across not only Crocky, the baby version of Tick Tock Crocodile and not only that, the main villain, James was Captain Hook, pre-hook.
And these films have also expanded in other areas such as giving the fairies, different elements that they are responsible for or that, two fairies that are born from the same laugh are sisters as seen in Secret of The Wings.
Now in the grand scheme of things, it's obvious that the live action film will most likely ignore everything that was presented in the animated movies. And instead, create it's own mythology. Look, I get Tinker Bell is popular but doing a live action movie for her, after there have already been 6 direct-to-video films dedicated to her feels a bit redundant.
The Second Opinion: Welcome to my world. At least it’s only the Tinker Bell movie getting redundant for you.
Granted, I did just go on about why they’d feel the need for this – profitable/easy to get away with – but if you really want to talk about it some more, there’s actually a remarkable irony here. If you think about it, Disney’s always at least had a reputation for not being totally true to the source material. But in this era of them milking their own classic properties for all they’re worth, Tinker Bell, who I should be most concerned about after Peter Pan himself, is the one character I actually could never complain about. Their first adaptation of her is without doubt the definitive Tinker Bell, brought to life exactly as she was in the novel, in a depiction that’s strong and distinct even if you haven’t read it. (Like all the great silent characters, she’s pure personality and not just deliberate, obvious personality traits. She manages to be spritely, petty, vain, passionate, game, sarcastic, needy, and sincere, all in the way she carries herself.) And the Tinker Bell spinoff movies, like I said, may have watered her down – with Mae Whitman essentially playing her as a younger version of Katara – but they didn’t contradict her character, even remembering that her name comes from her profession as a tinkerer. Totally harmless.
But after all that, with a Peter Pan movie already coming out, they still felt the need to take the one character that worked in this sequel/remake/spinoff fever and redo her origin story… with Reese Witherspoon. Granted, Reese Witherspoon is a fine actress, but if you had to guess, what kind of character do you think Disney is hiring her to play? (Fair warning, if I have to watch Tinker Bell do the bend and snap, that’s an automatic deal-breaker.) It’s official: Nothing is sacred in this remake craze.
Moviefan12: Well with Witherspoon, I do have some faith in her as I do think that she could do fine in the role. Your'e Legally Blonde reference actually makes me think that Reese Witherspoon could bring both the right level of feisty-ness and sass to the role. While also at the same time bringing a lot of depth. And also I like your point about Mae Whitman playing a younger version of Katara in the animated movies as that does make me wonder, how they are going to portray Tink in regard to her age and attitude.
The Second Opinion: I’m almost afraid to ask. This kinda reminds of how Angelina Jolie seemed like a great choice to play Maleficent, but even before the movie came out, you just jknew they wanted her to be a so-called “hip” and “trendy” version of the character who didn’t need those lame old “heroes” from the tale cramping her space. I know I should at least make a nod to being fair to this one while it’s still in development, but I wouldn’t even know how. Everything I hear about it just makes me dread it.
But still, I should probably slow down before I tire myself out, along with the audience. Since it sounds like you’re seeing potential in Reese Whitherspoon, why don’t you take the wheel, Moviefan, and tell us what you think it’d take for this to be a good movie?
Moviefan12: The one thing that this movie shouldn't do is what the opening narration of Maleficent did, which was to say the events that unfolded in Sleeping Beauty were a lie. As for what it would take to make a good Tinker Belle movie. I dunno, that's tough to say but even if this is retreading water from the direct-to-video films, I would like to see them incorporate Pixie Hollow into the live action film as there is a well of opportunity in using the fairies' homeland and perhaps have some new fairy characters while mixing familiar faces.
And I'd be okay with some characters from Peter Pan making an appearance or having the film give a nod to them. But having said that, there is one character that I don't think should be in the film. Peter. I like Peter Pan but if this movie is supposed to focus on Tink before she met Peter, I don't think it would work for him to show up. Perhaps, you could have an after credits scene with Peter Pan but I don't think Peter needs to be in the main story of the film.
The Second Opinion: Yeah, you can probably imagine what my reaction is going to be if it starts by saying that the story of Peter Pan is a lie. But I suppose Pixie Hollow could have some potential, especially if they turned it into a more fantastical, Neverland-esque setting. As for Peter Pan himself, I guess I just sort of assumed that they’d leave him out or at most foreshadow him, because that’s what a lot of these spinoff movies think they’re “supposed” to do with their source’s main character(s).
But now that you bring it up, I guess he would technically have to have been in Neverland longer than Tinker Bell, if they follow the source… okay, that became irrelevant pretty quickly. But assuming he’s a possibility anyway, what kind of story would it even be with him around? I guess they’d have to show us how these two became each other’s closest friends from Tinker Bell’s perspective and the adventure that led to that point. Why is the only fairy who’s close to Peter – simultaneously a freak and wonder in himself – the fiery, common tinkerer, whose insult of choice is “you silly ass?” Why does Peter, who remembers little for very long and grows close to anyone even less often, seem to see her as his closest friend and ally? And why do I suddenly sound interested?
Well, I can at least answer that last one: Because I’m thinking about it from the perspective of what it could be, instead of what it’s probably will be. I know I should at least go through the motions of staying hopeful, but as if the trends surrounding this weren’t bad enough signs, it’s being written by the lady who brought us this: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/new_best_friend/
Heck, maybe I’m being too hard on these spinoffs. Yes, most of them are bad, but that doesn’t mean they’re all just hack jobs and cash-ins. A lot of people do seem to like the Once Upon a Time Peter Pan. Even if he’s not Peter Pan. Like, at all. And it’s not like we haven’t also had any faithful adaptations trying to convey the power of the novel recently, like…
Well, that’s a little less sufficient than I was hoping for. I mean, all of two adaptations from 2003 and nothing more recent? Really? I suppose I could count Peter Pan in Scarlet, but even that’s debatable… But to be fair, how many adaptations that just did whatever the heck they wanted with debatable merit at best and none at worst are those two competing with, again?
(That one’s a series.)
You can stop listing them now. Okay, and after all that, we have, not only a “prequel” to look forward to but also a “spinoff” film in addition, channeling the smashing success that was Maleficent, at the height of cash-in Disney remakes.
…
Alright, I’m officially out for blood now. Moviefan, just point me in the right direction – anything you want to talk about target.
Moviefan12: As mentioned, Tink's origin has already been told and we've seen her interact with other characters from the Peter Pan lore before the events of the movie in these films. In the first film, Wendy appears as a little girl. And in The Pirate Fairy, Tink and her friends come across not only Crocky, the baby version of Tick Tock Crocodile and not only that, the main villain, James was Captain Hook, pre-hook.
And these films have also expanded in other areas such as giving the fairies, different elements that they are responsible for or that, two fairies that are born from the same laugh are sisters as seen in Secret of The Wings.
Now in the grand scheme of things, it's obvious that the live action film will most likely ignore everything that was presented in the animated movies. And instead, create it's own mythology. Look, I get Tinker Bell is popular but doing a live action movie for her, after there have already been 6 direct-to-video films dedicated to her feels a bit redundant.
The Second Opinion: Welcome to my world. At least it’s only the Tinker Bell movie getting redundant for you.
Granted, I did just go on about why they’d feel the need for this – profitable/easy to get away with – but if you really want to talk about it some more, there’s actually a remarkable irony here. If you think about it, Disney’s always at least had a reputation for not being totally true to the source material. But in this era of them milking their own classic properties for all they’re worth, Tinker Bell, who I should be most concerned about after Peter Pan himself, is the one character I actually could never complain about. Their first adaptation of her is without doubt the definitive Tinker Bell, brought to life exactly as she was in the novel, in a depiction that’s strong and distinct even if you haven’t read it. (Like all the great silent characters, she’s pure personality and not just deliberate, obvious personality traits. She manages to be spritely, petty, vain, passionate, game, sarcastic, needy, and sincere, all in the way she carries herself.) And the Tinker Bell spinoff movies, like I said, may have watered her down – with Mae Whitman essentially playing her as a younger version of Katara – but they didn’t contradict her character, even remembering that her name comes from her profession as a tinkerer. Totally harmless.
But after all that, with a Peter Pan movie already coming out, they still felt the need to take the one character that worked in this sequel/remake/spinoff fever and redo her origin story… with Reese Witherspoon. Granted, Reese Witherspoon is a fine actress, but if you had to guess, what kind of character do you think Disney is hiring her to play? (Fair warning, if I have to watch Tinker Bell do the bend and snap, that’s an automatic deal-breaker.) It’s official: Nothing is sacred in this remake craze.
Moviefan12: Well with Witherspoon, I do have some faith in her as I do think that she could do fine in the role. Your'e Legally Blonde reference actually makes me think that Reese Witherspoon could bring both the right level of feisty-ness and sass to the role. While also at the same time bringing a lot of depth. And also I like your point about Mae Whitman playing a younger version of Katara in the animated movies as that does make me wonder, how they are going to portray Tink in regard to her age and attitude.
The Second Opinion: I’m almost afraid to ask. This kinda reminds of how Angelina Jolie seemed like a great choice to play Maleficent, but even before the movie came out, you just jknew they wanted her to be a so-called “hip” and “trendy” version of the character who didn’t need those lame old “heroes” from the tale cramping her space. I know I should at least make a nod to being fair to this one while it’s still in development, but I wouldn’t even know how. Everything I hear about it just makes me dread it.
But still, I should probably slow down before I tire myself out, along with the audience. Since it sounds like you’re seeing potential in Reese Whitherspoon, why don’t you take the wheel, Moviefan, and tell us what you think it’d take for this to be a good movie?
Moviefan12: The one thing that this movie shouldn't do is what the opening narration of Maleficent did, which was to say the events that unfolded in Sleeping Beauty were a lie. As for what it would take to make a good Tinker Belle movie. I dunno, that's tough to say but even if this is retreading water from the direct-to-video films, I would like to see them incorporate Pixie Hollow into the live action film as there is a well of opportunity in using the fairies' homeland and perhaps have some new fairy characters while mixing familiar faces.
And I'd be okay with some characters from Peter Pan making an appearance or having the film give a nod to them. But having said that, there is one character that I don't think should be in the film. Peter. I like Peter Pan but if this movie is supposed to focus on Tink before she met Peter, I don't think it would work for him to show up. Perhaps, you could have an after credits scene with Peter Pan but I don't think Peter needs to be in the main story of the film.
The Second Opinion: Yeah, you can probably imagine what my reaction is going to be if it starts by saying that the story of Peter Pan is a lie. But I suppose Pixie Hollow could have some potential, especially if they turned it into a more fantastical, Neverland-esque setting. As for Peter Pan himself, I guess I just sort of assumed that they’d leave him out or at most foreshadow him, because that’s what a lot of these spinoff movies think they’re “supposed” to do with their source’s main character(s).
But now that you bring it up, I guess he would technically have to have been in Neverland longer than Tinker Bell, if they follow the source… okay, that became irrelevant pretty quickly. But assuming he’s a possibility anyway, what kind of story would it even be with him around? I guess they’d have to show us how these two became each other’s closest friends from Tinker Bell’s perspective and the adventure that led to that point. Why is the only fairy who’s close to Peter – simultaneously a freak and wonder in himself – the fiery, common tinkerer, whose insult of choice is “you silly ass?” Why does Peter, who remembers little for very long and grows close to anyone even less often, seem to see her as his closest friend and ally? And why do I suddenly sound interested?
Well, I can at least answer that last one: Because I’m thinking about it from the perspective of what it could be, instead of what it’s probably will be. I know I should at least go through the motions of staying hopeful, but as if the trends surrounding this weren’t bad enough signs, it’s being written by the lady who brought us this: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/new_best_friend/
And the only other writing credits on her resume are a couple episodes in two brief and forgotten TV shows, carried mostly by their actors. In a strange turn, she’s also the writer of next year’s Finding Dory, so I guess our best possible hope is that this is a sign someone, somewhere, somehow discovered her untapped talent in writing family films and just HAD to make her a part of Disney… and it’s not just the umpteenth case of hiring some vaguely qualified writer who’s available, as part of the process of cranking out franchise movies made solely for profit, right when it seemed like Pixar was starting a comeback with Inside Out, leaving her to bring down a hammer of crushing disappointment there in addition to ruining Peter Pan even more. I don’t feel so good…
Moviefan12: I didn't know much about the writer for this film and I do agree that we should remain hopeful but when you mention Finding Dory, I get concerned as that movie has similar issues in my opinion with Pixar making too many sequels and Disney trying too hard to tap into nostalgia with these live action remakes and spin-offs. I don't think there is much more I can add. Second Opinion, what are your final thoughts?
The Second Opinion: I don’t even know. Even looking at the arguements in favor of this just makes me more pessimistic. They’ve gotten it right in the direct to video films? Well, considering they’re opting for of a live-action remake (right around the time to cash in on their own Peter Pan remake), it’s like the success of those was just the go-ahead to throw them out the window, for one of their oh-so trendy revisionist takes. It’s possible I’ll like their changes? I haven’t in any such attempt to date, including Disney’s. This is a fresh production team that should be taken on their own merit? Yeah, well Disney in its pandering, remake-happy craze is still the one placing the order, and all we know about the team, besides Witherspoon, is that New Best Friend lady is the writer.
I’m a believer in giving every film a chance on its own terms. I really am. But if this movie winds up being any good, it’ll be a more unlikely win than Shrek, The Truman Show, and Rocky Balboa combined. And the saddest thing is, I could live with just another lame remake, but the story it’s adapting is the last one that needs this treatment right now. As far as I’m concerned, Barrie’s Peter Pan has not gotten the respect it deserves over the last 10+ years. Its real legacy is just about lost on modern viewers, and now, in a time when they don’t even consider their own classic adaptions sacred, Disney could well be poised to bury it.
Moviefan12: I didn't know much about the writer for this film and I do agree that we should remain hopeful but when you mention Finding Dory, I get concerned as that movie has similar issues in my opinion with Pixar making too many sequels and Disney trying too hard to tap into nostalgia with these live action remakes and spin-offs. I don't think there is much more I can add. Second Opinion, what are your final thoughts?
The Second Opinion: I don’t even know. Even looking at the arguements in favor of this just makes me more pessimistic. They’ve gotten it right in the direct to video films? Well, considering they’re opting for of a live-action remake (right around the time to cash in on their own Peter Pan remake), it’s like the success of those was just the go-ahead to throw them out the window, for one of their oh-so trendy revisionist takes. It’s possible I’ll like their changes? I haven’t in any such attempt to date, including Disney’s. This is a fresh production team that should be taken on their own merit? Yeah, well Disney in its pandering, remake-happy craze is still the one placing the order, and all we know about the team, besides Witherspoon, is that New Best Friend lady is the writer.
I’m a believer in giving every film a chance on its own terms. I really am. But if this movie winds up being any good, it’ll be a more unlikely win than Shrek, The Truman Show, and Rocky Balboa combined. And the saddest thing is, I could live with just another lame remake, but the story it’s adapting is the last one that needs this treatment right now. As far as I’m concerned, Barrie’s Peter Pan has not gotten the respect it deserves over the last 10+ years. Its real legacy is just about lost on modern viewers, and now, in a time when they don’t even consider their own classic adaptions sacred, Disney could well be poised to bury it.
No comments:
Post a Comment