As the story goes, when Walt Disney hired the Sherman Brothers to write the songs for "Jungle Book" he asked them if they had read the Kipling original. When they replied they hadn't, he said,"Well, don't!"
This was because he wanted songs that fitted the film as it was developing in storyboard form, and to avoid anything that might pull the film back towards the book instead of supporting the "modern" direction that the film was taking.
But he did not tell storyman Bill Peet to ignore the book and just invent something modern - in fact initially he wanted the film to be as true as possible to Kipling, as much of the criticism of "Sword in the Stone" had centred on its lack of fidelity to H B White. So Peet's initial work on "Jungle Book" was quite dark.
After Walt and Peet fell out, and Peet quit, other storymen worked through the material (and this is the key bit) looking for the Disney Film hiding in the story. I figure a Disney Film is a film for all the family, and one that will play well in the mid-west. After "Sleeping Beauty" the Studio had been pursuing a lighter, more jokey post-modern approach to storytelling, more in keeping with the TV and movies of the late 50s & 60s, so the "Jungle Book" that emerged was light-hearted fun - but it was still clearly derived from the Kipling original. (And also still contained quite a few of Peet's original ideas!)
This is how the Studios had always adapted stories: they looked for the key, most dramatic moments (in terms of comedy, heroics or pathos), and, developing the personalities of the main characters as they went, built these up into entertaining sequences the best way they knew how; and so evolved the Disney version of the plot. It's most telling in what must have been their most daunting adaptation - when they turned the sprawling ramble of semi-repetitious wandering that is Collodi's Pinocchio into a wonderfully compelling movie with great development and a well-rounded story arc.
Of course they used familiar tropes and cliches from the culture that surrounded them - we are talking entertainment here, not high art, and the Disney studio was built on polishing the tricks and traits of familiar stage movie performances, caricatured for fine story-telling effect. But they did it to give their films added audience appeal - they knew the stories they were using were classics, with audience expectation built in, and they were trying to put those stories over using the same techniques that they had developed in their Silly Symphonies. The book was the source - it was just the Disney way of retelling it that moved it away from the original and changed it into a Disney movie.
Of course you have probably guessed what lies at the heart of this rant: "Frozen"! The Hans Christian Anderson "Snow Queen" has 'evolved' from a girl's loyal quest to find her lost playmate and bring him home, to
"When Anna is cursed by her estranged sister, the cold-hearted Snow Queen, Anna’s only hope of reversing the curse is to survive a perilous but thrilling journey across an icy and unforgiving landscape. Joined by a rugged, thrill-seeking outdoorsman, his one-antlered reindeer and a hapless snowman, Anna must race against time, conquer the elements and battle an army of menacing snowmen if she ever hopes to melt her frozen heart."
This is not "the Disney film hiding in the book" - it is a "we need a plot that kids can relate to" (kids who have only ever watched TV cartoon series, that is) executive driven non-creative cobbled-on plot.
I do not believe Walt would have approved.
-------------------------
Back by popular demand - "La-la-La-la.. I can't hear you!"
(This post was edited by peterhale on Nov 30, 2012, 11:25 AM)
Re: "Here's the book... don't read it!"
[In reply to]
Well they've been wrestling with The Snow Queen for what- like 15-20 years now right? I remember mentions of it having developmental issues back in the late 90s, if not earlier. I still doubt it'll even make it to screen in this current incarnation. Besides, regarding your "it is a "we need a plot that kids can relate to" (kids who have only ever watched TV cartoon series, that is) executive driven non-creative cobbled-on plot." objection... since when is that not the case with pretty much every film Disney has done in the last 30 years or so? Maybe you can cite some individual exceptions, but by and large that has been the focus of Disney animation for decades now. Once Walt died and there were no artistic people in charge, just execs, that became the standard. We all know the history with Eisner. Now that Jobs and Roy Disney are dead, they no longer have to worry about toeing the line, so to speak, in regards to the animation department (b/c remember, together Jobs and Roy had just shy of 10% of the company's stock... like 9-point-something I think).
The only saving grace is that the people in charge, Ed Catmull (President of Animation) and Lasseter (Chief Creative Officer of both Feature Animation and Pixar- reports directly to the CEO), have an outstanding record of putting creativity first, over "executive meddling". They should, they've both BEEN the creative people on the other side.
Re: "Here's the book... don't read it!"
[In reply to]
Of course you are absolutely right, Kris - no one can expect films to be developed today in the way they were when a single producer dominated a studio.
And the people who work on the final project will put everything they can into making it as entertaining as possible...
But I think what I have a problem with is the need to take on a source story but then 'develop' it into something so completely reworked that nothing of the heart of the story remains. The result being neither an original story (in the sense of exploring new ground) nor a retelling of the original.
Michael Barrier talks of the 'integrity' of the early Disney features, and how that disappeared. I think it may be because under Walt's lead the focus was on the 'heart' of the original tale, the elements of real human behaviour that made it resonate as a universal myth - the Studio may have simplified that internal thread but it gave the basic motivation for all the action, and ensured a satisfactory shape to the final film.
Nowadays the heart of a story is quickly ditched to be replaced with more conventional, stereotypical characterisations, formulaic rather than discovered from the tale itself. And that way something that made the original of special interest, worthy of adaptation, is lost.
Yes, I know that happened back in the 'golden age' of Hollywood as well - but my argument is: if you use a known story you can rely on the core elements that made that story work (as long as you can find them), but tamper with that core and you are very unlikely to replace it with anything that works as well (holds as true).
-------------------------
Back by popular demand - "La-la-La-la.. I can't hear you!"
(This post was edited by peterhale on Nov 30, 2012, 3:38 PM)
Re: "Here's the book... don't read it!"
[In reply to]
To me, it looks like everything familiar about the original tale--The Snow Queen has been dropped with the exception of the title character, a female heroine, a reindeer character and an icey landscape.
I could be wrong, but I never thought Kay was Gerda's brother. The tale only mentioned that they were playmates--and most likely became lovers at the end.
Sometimes, this manner of straying from the source material works, such as Disney's "Beauty and the Beast" which worked wonderfully despite being completely different from the original fairy tale.
In "Frozen's" case, I will admit that the "new" plot may work in its favor. In the original story, there was very little of the Snow Queen despite her being the title character. It mostly revolved around Gerda's adventures to rescue Kay. There were tons of side characters whose roles varied from being important to just being there. I've never really watched previous animated versions of the tale before--with the exception of Happily Ever After, Fairy Tales for Every Child, but somehow it sounds like a difficult task to make every piece of the plot perfectly fit.
-------------------------
"Homer,we just brought Flanders back from the dead. Did you use the notebook to make a flock of penguins peck him to death?" Marge-"Murder He Wrote"-a Simpsons Comic story.
Re: "Here's the book... don't read it!"
[In reply to]
In Walt's time they would have stuck to the principle characters and the main elements of the plot, but reworked them into a "better" story form (from the Disney point of view) with stronger characters and more fully structured incidents. Hence more "story value" would have been got out of the flimsy sequence of encounters that Gerda has in the book - some would get dropped, others would become more developed. But despite the "Disnification" the connection to the original would have been important - because the reasons for making it into a film were that a) the story had something unique, and b) it was well-known, so an audience would have expectations. "Alice in Wonderland", for example, completely reworks the way the characters act and interact, adds new elements like the talking doorknob, and owes more to the earlier Hollywood versions (in its inclusion of bits from "Through the Looking Glass") than to the original - but it is still clearly based on the book.
But that ceased to be the policy after Walt's death. Although many subsequent features did keep close to the originals, this fidelity came second to the need to maintain the format of a Disney film when the man who had been the decision maker was no longer there. Soon this meant rejecting any plot elements that didn't fit into the pattern of past successes.
Then, as younger creative minds were allowed to contribute, a newer kind of story pattern started to emerge, and original storylines were encouraged. So it comes to follow, and I think it is right, that "Frozen", while having "The Snow Queen" as its starting point, is really going to be an original story, not a reworking of the original.
As I say, this is OK - but the story outline they are currently quoting sounds rather less than "original" - it sounds a little jaded and conventional. As if "Snow White" had been rewritten as "Feisty teenage princess Snow White enlists the aid of 7 comical little men in her quest to overthrow her wicked stepmother and save the kingdom."
Or "When Pinocchio (no wait - let's call him Petey) is turned into a wooden puppet by the evil King of Pleasure Island, he, his Grandfather and a smart-talking cricket named Jiminy set off on a quest to free the Blue Fairy."
Or even "Toy Story" - Toys have a secret life? No way - if toys come alive it has to be magic. Try this - "When the kid next-door finds a book of spells he causes Andy's toy to magically come to life. The other toys laugh at Buzz Lightyear, who believes he's a real spaceman, but he saves the day, the neighbourhood and the entire world when he helps Andy's toys defeat a real alien invasion."
I am probably over-reacting, as usual, but heart of a good movie does not simply lie in epic good-versus-evil plots but in the way we empathise with the central characters. Then the smallest dramas can be epic.
-------------------------
Back by popular demand - "La-la-La-la.. I can't hear you!"
(This post was edited by peterhale on Dec 5, 2012, 11:49 AM)
Re: "Here's the book... don't read it!"
[In reply to]
I guess I'm kinda on the fence about this. I certainly see your point Peter about sticking to the heart of the original story. It's like movies that are based on actual events. I like to see those types of movies to be as accurate as possible, and not over the top. If a writer takes a classic story and make it into a movie, he might as well keep it close to the original story. It doesn't have to be 100% accurate, as long as it keeps the integrity of the story.
However, sometimes veering from the original story can and does work. It was mentioned that Disney's "Beauty and the Beast" differs greatly from the original, and the movie worked well. Wasn't "The Little Mermaid" movie also very different from the original tale? (all I remember is that the ending was changed)
I'm not familiar with "Snow Queen," so I'll have to read it and then see how "Frozen" looks.
Re: "Here's the book... don't read it!"
[In reply to]
Disney's "The Little Mermaid" actually does keep most of the elements from the original story--such as the mermaid falling in love with the prince on board his ship and rescuing him from drowning.
However, the sea witch isn't necessarily wicked--she warns the mermaid that what she's doing is foolish, and adds that having legs will be extremely painful for her. She even warns her of what will happen if the prince falls in love and marries someone else.
Also, it's not her voice that the mermaid gives up--well it is, but she physically must give the sea witch her tongue. The last time I checked--tongues DON'T just grow back if they're hacked off.
As we know, the prince is in love with the girl who saved him--but he never saw the mermaid. He's actually in love with a temple maiden--who found him after the mermaid rescued him. She happens to be the princess he's betrothed to. She's not the sea witch in disguise. The mermaid's sisters give up their hair for advice from the sea witch. If the mermaid kills the prince on his wedding night, she will regain her tail and will not die. She sacrifices herself instead, and joins the spiritual daughters of the air in order to earn a soul.
So aside from a few changes and of course the ending--it is somewhat similar--at least until the mermaid dies. I actually prefer the Disney version--mainly because I grew up on it and it's still one of my favorite movies and because I'm a sucker for happy endings.
I think you can already tell, I'm not too fond of Anderson's fairy tales. Most of them are depressing as hell. (The Red Shoes is probably the worst of them)I do love Thumbelina though.
You can easily find "The Snow Queen" online. It's a rather long tale--but see for yourself how you feel. In my opinion, it's honestly not my favorite--I don't think very much of it.
-------------------------
"Homer,we just brought Flanders back from the dead. Did you use the notebook to make a flock of penguins peck him to death?" Marge-"Murder He Wrote"-a Simpsons Comic story.
(This post was edited by Glowworm on Dec 5, 2012, 9:48 PM)
Re: "Here's the book... don't read it!"
[In reply to]
Many of the Anderson stories and the Grimm tales were meant to be cautionary tales. The original Red Riding Hood, for example, has the closing line: "... and the Wolf ate her all up." Red repeatedly refused to heed the many warnings of forest creatures and neighbors that the Wolf intended to harm her. Thus the moral: when issued a warning, take heed.
One thing about the Disney version of Mermaid is that the sea witch has a motivation for her misdeeds: Ursula is angling to get back into the palace, and back into power. The Anderson sea witch is merely a weird eccentric on the fringes of mermaid society, a shady entrepreneur bartering "the juice" for leonine prices. Readers aren't sure how "lawful" her trade is, but it seems parallel to those who peddle steroids to athletes or answer sheets to college students.
There is an anime version of Anderson's mermaid from 1975; I believe Disney was consciously trying to avoid making a "remake" of this production. Since there is also a Russian version of the Snow Queen, it seems Disney is likewise reworking the story to avoid the stigma of "remake."
Re: "Here's the book... don't read it!"
[In reply to]
In Reply To
Ah, ok. I vaguely remember her tongue being removed, and I knew she died at the end but didn't know the details.
I knew most of the details--but had to look it up to recall a few myself. I haven't read the story in its entirety since I was in fifth grade--when I first read it. I never realized that she gave up her tongue--it was so subtle. I also didn't realize the prince never saw the mermaid rescue him--I thought it was merely mistaken identity--the same with the princess for the temple maiden--I did not realize they were the same person.
-------------------------
"Homer,we just brought Flanders back from the dead. Did you use the notebook to make a flock of penguins peck him to death?" Marge-"Murder He Wrote"-a Simpsons Comic story.
