Dark Disney

[Hattish Thing]

I've started watching Disney again, due to spending a lot of time with my girlfriend's sister's daughter. And... Going through and watching these animated movies.... My thoughts kinda went from Bambi's mom's Death, (Uh. That was... Bloody. Why'd the hunter not kill the buck there, but shot the doe? :smallconfused: Hey, no, go back! You can't just go from dead mother to singing flowers!) To the song Hellfire from Hunchback of Notre Dame. (Dafuq. Da serious fuq. What did I just watch?! I... What, in a children's movie?!)

[Avilan the Grey]

I've started watching Disney again, due to spending a lot of time with my girlfriend's sister's daughter. And... Going through and watching these animated movies.... My thoughts kinda went from Bambi's mom's Death, (Uh. That was... Bloody. Why'd the hunter not kill the buck there, but shot the doe? :smallconfused: Hey, no, go back! You can't just go from dead mother to singing flowers!) To the song Hellfire from Hunchback of Notre Dame. (Dafuq. Da serious fuq. What did I just watch?! I... What, in a children's movie?!)

All childrens movies are not suitable for young children.
That said... They are not that dark. Not compared to the stories traditionally told to kids. Like body parts cut off to make your foot fit in a glass shoe, or cooking witches alive, or...

[Ashtagon]

http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Goodnight-Demon-Slayer-lyrics-Voltaire/203E8C9CCD16191248256E480012FE19


I won’t tell you, there’s nothing ‘neath your bed
I won’t sell you, that it’s all in your head
This world of ours is not as it seems
The monsters are real but they're not in your dreams
Learn what you can from the beasts you defeat,
you’ll need it for some of the people you meet

Voltaire captured the spirit and purpose of traditional fairy tales perfectly in these song lyrics. They weren't intended to be sweetness and light; they were scary on purpose, because the world is a scary place, and children needed to learn how to deal with it.

[Hattish Thing]

All childrens movies are not suitable for young children.
That said... They are not that dark. Not compared to the stories traditionally told to kids. Like body parts cut off to make your foot fit in a glass shoe, or cooking witches alive, or...

Well, a sixty year old man lusting over a twenty year old woman is a bit creepy, and then for the guy to sing about it, and see her form dancing in the fireplace? Half-naked? In a Disney film? :smalltongue:

True, no body part severing. Apparently The Princess and the Frog got some negative feedback due partly because the villains song showed voodoo and some "unsafe" images?

[Avilan the Grey]

Well, a sixty year old man lusting over a twenty year old woman is a bit creepy, and then for the guy to sing about it, and see her form dancing in the fireplace? Half-naked? In a Disney film? :smalltongue:

True, no body part severing. Apparently The Princess and the Frog got some negative feedback due partly because the villains song showed voodoo and some "unsafe" images?

Not to be creepy, but i find it very very natural that a heterosexual 60 year old man would lust for Esmeralda. The problem is that he did more than that.

...Anyway, personally I find the whole "complaints!" "Unsafe images!" "Mild curse words!" thing to be taken WAY too far. The best movie companies can do is to ignore such things completely.

[Hattish Thing]

Ah, well... He could have lusted and fantasized over her, and I don't think anyone would mind. But... He, a very religious man in power lusting over a thief and a witch is what was creepy. Then he burnt down most of Paris to kill or have her. He just kinda goes on and on...

I actually like Disney showing more graphic images. Little kids like to be scared just a li'l bit. It was something to do with religion and voodoo not working well, and exposing children to "black magic" scarred them. I think if I was a seven year old and saw that, I'd be ogling all the colors in that song anyway. :smalltongue:

[Traab]

Bambi wasnt bloody, we never even see his mom get shot. It was SCARY, that whole scene was very suspenseful, from the birds, straight to that last gunshot. As for the hunchback, yeah that was one hell of a scene, but disney has always been pretty scary at times. The death of that hunter in the tarzan movie for example. Dude literally hangs himself while trying to cut his way through some vines. Scar gets eaten alive by the hyenas! Ursala gets a frigging BOAT rammed through her torso!

What I like the most about the older disney movies is seeing just how much times have changed. Back when these movies came out, noone even batted an eye about these scenes. Noone objected to their single digit aged children watching and rewatching these films despite having some fairly gruesome deaths, or violent fights.

*EDIT* In fact, watch this film, its the nostalgia critic reviewing ALL the older disney films. Disneycember (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXmak0KXMbU)

[The_Snark]

True, no body part severing. Apparently The Princess and the Frog got some negative feedback due partly because the villains song showed voodoo and some "unsafe" images?

Really? I'd heard it was criticized for presenting voodoo as stereotypically evil, but not that it was 'unsafe'. I can't help but think that anyone who was shocked by those songs would have their mind blown by the Night on Bald Mountain sequence from Fantasia.

[SuperPanda]

I just wanted to say thankyou. Because of this thread I rewatched Hunchback (which I think I'd seen once long ago) and as such found an amazing stealth-pun early in the film.

The horse is named Achilles and is treated like a dog which leads to:

"Achilles, Heel."

:smallbiggrin:

I love little things like that.

[Drakeburn]

Well, I'd probably have to agree about Hunchback (and disagree about Bambi. It was more sad than bloody), but what about the Black Cauldron?

The scene where the horned king was raising an army of the undead freaked out my little sister so much. And ironically, when I explained what necromancy was a couple weeks or a month ago, she said "cool!" :smallsigh:

And as for Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, I think that speaks for itself there.
(especially the moat with the decapitated heads)

[Mx.Silver]

I've never quite understood how exactly the decision to create a Disney version of Hunchback was reached. Because the book is very definitely not for children. This may explain why it's arguably one of the worst adaptations Disney have produced, and given that we're talking about the studio responsible for The Jungle Book and Hercules that's saying something.

In regards to it being a dark film though, I don't think it's that bad. The again I'm from a generation that grew up on The Animals of Farthing Wood and repeat viewings of Watership Down so I suspect there may be some cultural differences on this point. British children's media has traditionally been rather more open about themes like death and downer endings in general than American children's media.

[warty goblin]

Every time this sort of topic comes up, I become further convinced that either an enormous swath of concerned adults remember exactly nothing about being a kid, or else my upbringing was a child's worst nightmare that I happened to enjoy immensely due to inner perversity or just not knowing any better.

When I was a kid, I was one morbid little bastard. I collected skulls of deceased woodland creatures. I remember being particularly excited upon discovering the skull of a housecat of ours that had wandered off and died, since nobody else had a cat skull. Most of the games I played with my friends involved frequent make-believe attempted homicides to all out wars. I learned gross anatomy helping my Dad butcher pigs; these are some of my fondest memories. That, and hunting rats in the crawlspace under our house.

At one point I actually had a dead rat and a string to swing it with.


So I've never gotten the fussing about how 'dark' some Disney movies are. A lot of kids freaking love that stuff.

[Friv]

Really? I'd heard it was criticized for presenting voodoo as stereotypically evil, but not that it was 'unsafe'. I can't help but think that anyone who was shocked by those songs would have their mind blown by the Night on Bald Mountain sequence from Fantasia.

It probably was, but that's more than a little unfair - voodoo in Princess And The Frog is used as being both good and evil. The main villain uses it, but so does the "fairy godmother" stand-in.

[Tengu_temp]

I agree with Warty. Children, especially older children, often like scary or creepy stuff. The worst thing we can do is sanitize and sugar-coat our children's stories, first remove all the death, then the violence, then any bad things happening at all, then even conflict of any kind. All that's left is boring, trite crap no child above the age of 3 would enjoy.

[Traab]

I've never quite understood how exactly the decision to create a Disney version of Hunchback was reached. Because the book is very definitely not for children. This may explain why it's arguably one of the worst adaptations Disney have produced, and given that we're talking about the studio responsible for The Jungle Book and Hercules that's saying something.

In regards to it being a dark film though, I don't think it's that bad. The again I'm from a generation that grew up on The Animals of Farthing Wood and repeat viewings of Watership Down so I suspect there may be some cultural differences on this point. British children's media has traditionally been rather more open about themes like death and downer endings in general than American children's media.

From what I gather, I think they totally screwed up with pocahontas and wanted to do something a bit more different. They wanted to push some envelopes and they did just that. The thing is, yeah, hunchback was a VERY dark story and yes, its themes really werent standard disney fare. However, thats hardly the first dark story they lightened up by a significant amount, (little mermaid) Hell, most of their fairytale sources are darker than most would believe in this day and age. Disney just does a generally decent job of lightening the narrative enough for kids to enjoy it and at times using the basic material to create something new and exciting. It doesnt always work, but its still interesting to see.

[Kitten Champion]

What's creepy is that Claude Frollo has a committed base of fangirls who seem to take him a something of a sex icon.

Yeah, fan fiction is disturbing.

Still, he's a more inspired villain than say, Jafar or Cruella De Ville. Partly because his motives required a certain emotional depth beyond the typical Muhahahers out there who just want power, money, or revenge.

Anyways,

The only Disney movie I wouldn't feel comfortable watching with a little kid is Pocahontas. That's more about disingenuous representations of history than any crossing of some personal censor requirement.

I used to like adult-ish stuff when I was little-me. I'd draw the line at genuine horror movies, but being a bit frightened is fun, and not being condescended to is why I liked a lot of nineties cartoons.

[Mx.Silver]

So I've never gotten the fussing about how 'dark' some Disney movies are. A lot of kids freaking love that stuff.

I suspect it's rather telling that basically all fussing over 'dark' content comes from adults.




The thing is, yeah, hunchback was a VERY dark story and yes, its themes really werent standard disney fare. However, thats hardly the first dark story they lightened up by a significant amount, (little mermaid).
I know that. The problem is that once you bowdlerise Hunchback to the degree they did what you're left with is no longer The Hunchback of Notre Dame. This is before we start considering the nonsensical changes Disney frequently makes, such as changing Frollo to a judge instead of the Arch-Deacon that he actually was in the book.

[Traab]

I suspect it's rather telling that basically all fussing over 'dark' content comes from adults.




I know that. The problem is that once you bowdlerise Hunchback to the degree they did what you're left with is no longer The Hunchback of Notre Dame. This is before we start considering the nonsensical changes Disney frequently makes, such as changing Frollo to a judge instead of the Arch-Deacon that he actually was in the book.

Dude, that was far from nonsensical. Do you really think disney would have been able to avoid the catholic backlash had they shown frollo behaving like he does as a member of the clergy? The picket lines would have been longer than the ticket lines! As for twisting the story, meh, its something they do quite a bit. I had this extra long rant about the hercules movie, where I listed a thousand reasons why I hate it, then realized the first 873 involved the way they utterly gutted the hercules mythology for the film. I mean from start to finish, about the only thing they got right was that hercules was strong. Pretty much everything else was wrong in some way shape or form. I can understand disney not wanting to get into the whole product of extramarital affairs and target of heras rage and hate but holy moley!

[ShadowFireLance]

Traab is once again, keeping to his signature and yelling what I'm thinking. :smalltongue:


Question for the people here; What is the darkest story/movie you've seen in the vein of Disney or Fairy Tales?

[Mx.Silver]

Dude, that was far from nonsensical. Do you really think disney would have been able to avoid the catholic backlash had they shown frollo behaving like he does as a member of the clergy?
It's nonsensical in that it makes no sense within the actual narrative (it actually now raises the question why Frollo raised Quasimodo in the cathedral, considering that he himself doesn't live or work there). I know why they did it. Similar reason the American version of Cluedo changed 'Reverend Green' to 'Mr. Green'.



As for twisting the story, meh, its something they do quite a bit.
Yes, it is. Disney are not very good at adaptations.
Besides Hercules - which is an essay in and of itself, as you've mentioned - we have The Jungle Book. The first major problem with that is how much they downplay the wolves, but the most annoying change they made was what they did to Kaa which was essentially character assassination.

[Axolotl]

Apart from maybe Hunchback I really can't understand the objections to Disney changing things for their films. They're all based on myths, legends and fairy tales they're meant to be changed and by whoever's telling them. They evolve and adapt with society. I could maybe see the outrage over Hercules if the Greeks had ever made the slightest effort to keep their myths pure and consistent but they didn't they changed, twisted and rewrote anything they wanted to conform to their views. It's like complaining that Thor doesn't conform to medieval Scandinavian myth, of course it doesn't because it's our myth now.

It also annoys me when people claim Disney made the fairy tales lighter, it's not true. All the fairy tales Disney work with have both lighter and darker versions neither one has primacy over the other, Disney are just using he lighter versions they aren't somehow censoring stories that were originally all dark and edgy. Except in the case of Hunchback I guess.

Although I will admit I am disappointed Aladdin wasn't Chinese.

[Reverent-One]

It's nonsensical in that it makes no sense within the actual narrative (it actually now raises the question why Frollo raised Quasimodo in the cathedral, considering that he himself doesn't live or work there).

Not really, as it establishes that right in the opening. Frollo passes Quasimodo off onto the priest so he can be kept in secret in the belltower.

[Anderlith]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BFdUiMsysg

I figure that this is worth the watch.

[Traab]

It's nonsensical in that it makes no sense within the actual narrative (it actually now raises the question why Frollo raised Quasimodo in the cathedral, considering that he himself doesn't live or work there). I know why they did it. Similar reason the American version of Cluedo changed 'Reverend Green' to 'Mr. Green'.


Yes, it is. Disney are not very good at adaptations.
Besides Hercules - which is an essay in and of itself, as you've mentioned - we have The Jungle Book. The first major problem with that is how much they downplay the wolves, but the most annoying change they made was what they did to Kaa which was essentially character assassination.

Its been awhile since I watched the film, but wasnt disneys frollo really religious anyways? It was a nice way to sidestep the priest issue while still including the fact that he tries to justify himself as a good and righteous man, even while he is stealing her dirty laundry to sniff.

[Mordar]

I've never quite understood how exactly the decision to create a Disney version of Hunchback was reached. Because the book is very definitely not for children. This may explain why it's arguably one of the worst adaptations Disney have produced, and given that we're talking about the studio responsible for The Jungle Book and Hercules that's saying something.


Disney are not very good at adaptations.
Besides Hercules - which is an essay in and of itself, as you've mentioned - we have The Jungle Book. The first major problem with that is how much they downplay the wolves, but the most annoying change they made was what they did to Kaa which was essentially character assassination.

Well, I guess you have to consider the purpose of the adaptation, as well as the mission of the company. Disney has made uberbijillions "sanitizing" folk tales and literature (I used quote marks because, as we all know, the animators and storytellers slip in an awful lot of unsanitized material into the films for the adults watching) and creating toys and TV tie-ins. In that regard, I'd say they are exceptionally good at adaptations.

Now, you might argue about the value of the morality play that is the core of virtually every (or maybe every, no virtually about it) Disney film, and in particular the longevity of the particular message, but there are strong messages espoused in each and every one. One could probably argue that the number of viewers who will one day grow up and want to read the original source materials is small as well, but I am confident that it is at least non-zero.

Now, in terms of being true to the source material, Disney is like most every other major venture in that they tend to cleave more than cleave, if you know what I mean. That being said, if anyone expects a faithful reproduction of significant pieces of period literature from a company that it built on creating "the happiest place on earth" and relying on young children to drive patronage, I think that person is doomed to disappointment.

Of course this doesn't mean that Hercules didn't stink, or that Hunchback suffered...

- M

[Thialfi]

Well, a sixty year old man lusting over a twenty year old woman is a bit creepy, and then for the guy to sing about it, and see her form dancing in the fireplace? Half-naked? In a Disney film? :smalltongue:

True, no body part severing. Apparently The Princess and the Frog got some negative feedback due partly because the villains song showed voodoo and some "unsafe" images?

As a 46 year old man, I can tell you that I am every bit as attracted to beautiful 20 year old women as I was when I was 20 years old.

[Deepbluediver]

@The_Mad_Hatter

Do you read cracked.com (http://www.cracked.com/)? They've got more than one article explaining that it you look too closely at disney-films, they start to reveal some unexpectedly dark moments, or that the characters are all suffering from mental disorders.

They do sanitize things to some extent, if only because a lot of the old fairy-tales are genuine nightmare fuel. Quite a few old stories had an ending somewhere along the lines of "unless you're Jesus reiincarnate you're ****ed" or "the world is terrible and you're ****ed anyhow", or they where just supposed to teach a morality lesson, like "obey you're parents or ogres will eat you". Not really lighthearted entertainment.

In case you're unaware, the original Hunchback of Notre Dame story ends with "and everyone dies, horribly".\
The ending of the story The Little Mermaid was based on is "she dies, and she has no soul".
In most of the greek myths (there are several interpretations) Hercules is driven into a homicidal rage by Hera and kills his wife and kids (don't feel bad though, the live-action TV show skipped that part as well). Even after he becomes great and famous, his new wife thinks he's cheating on her and poisons him, except he's so tough he can't die and is just in terrible agony.
In at least one version of the Rapunzel story, the wicked witch tricks the male hero (does he have a name?) and he ends up getting his eyes gouged out with thorns, then wandering around as a blind beggar for several years.
I'm sure I could go on, if you like.


So as dark some of disney's stuff is, it's not half as dark as their source material. Which leads you to wonder "who thought this would make for good kids entertainment"?
I'm waiting for the disney version of Seven, due out in spring 2015 :P

[Jayngfet]

Apart from maybe Hunchback I really can't understand the objections to Disney changing things for their films. They're all based on myths, legends and fairy tales they're meant to be changed and by whoever's telling them. They evolve and adapt with society. I could maybe see the outrage over Hercules if the Greeks had ever made the slightest effort to keep their myths pure and consistent but they didn't they changed, twisted and rewrote anything they wanted to conform to their views. It's like complaining that Thor doesn't conform to medieval Scandinavian myth, of course it doesn't because it's our myth now.

It also annoys me when people claim Disney made the fairy tales lighter, it's not true. All the fairy tales Disney work with have both lighter and darker versions neither one has primacy over the other, Disney are just using he lighter versions they aren't somehow censoring stories that were originally all dark and edgy. Except in the case of Hunchback I guess.

Although I will admit I am disappointed Aladdin wasn't Chinese.

Because at times, Disney changes thigns so much they lose what was actually good about the original story and don't always replace it with something too great. I mean for an immediate example, Frozen barely resembles the original and it looks awful. Another big example is The Princess and the Frog, which was largely lackluster and forgettable outside of maybe Friends On The Other Side.

As a studio, Disney's main animation branch still has more hits than misses but it seems to me they're missing more and more often lately.

[Hattish Thing]

As a 46 year old man, I can tell you that I am every bit as attracted to beautiful 20 year old women as I was when I was 20 years old.

Good point. Shoulda worded that differently, It's just how creepy Frollo can be...

[Axolotl]

Because at times, Disney changes thigns so much they lose what was actually good about the original story and don't always replace it with something too great. I mean for an immediate example, Frozen barely resembles the original and it looks awful. Another big example is The Princess and the Frog, which was largely lackluster and forgettable outside of maybe Friends On The Other Side.

As a studio, Disney's main animation branch still has more hits than misses but it seems to me they're missing more and more often lately.Then the problem isn't that they changed things it's that the film is bad. Yeah lots of recent Disney films have sucked but not because they changed things from their basis, I'd take another Hercules over another Bolt any time. And Hercules isn't very good but at least it's not boring.

[Mx.Silver]

Not really, as it establishes that right in the opening. Frollo passes Quasimodo off onto the priest so he can be kept in secret in the belltower.
Fair point. Been a while since I've seen it.


Well, I guess you have to consider the purpose of the adaptation, as well as the mission of the company. Disney has made uberbijillions "sanitizing" folk tales and literature (I used quote marks because, as we all know, the animators and storytellers slip in an awful lot of unsanitized material into the films for the adults watching) and creating toys and TV tie-ins. In that regard, I'd say they are exceptionally good at adaptations.
So if where we completely ignore any analysis of the actual merits of the work and focus exclusively on how much money it made, yes I'd agree with you. Of course, under this metric Transformers 2 is clearly an exceptionally good film, since it made lots of money. Similarly, The Black Eyed peas are musical geniuses and E.L. James deserves to be shortlisted for the Nobel Prize for Literature.



Now, you might argue about the value of the morality play that is the core of virtually every (or maybe every, no virtually about it) Disney film, and in particular the longevity of the particular message, but there are strong messages espoused in each and every one.
I've generally seen little in the way of 'strong messages' in Disney beyond the fairly vague 'Be true to heart/believe in love/follow your dreams' stuff. Oh, and also 'don't be evil or you'll suffer a painful death, involving you falling off something'. If I'm missing something, let me know.


That being said, if anyone expects a faithful reproduction of significant pieces of period literature from a company that it built on creating "the happiest place on earth" and relying on young children to drive patronage, I think that person is doomed to disappointment.

I don't know, I'd still personally expect the adaptation of a book about a boy raised by wolves to actually feature said wolves for more than about 30 seconds of screen time. And also, y'know, not turn said boy's wise old ally, Kaa, into a bumbling comic-relief villain. Or decide that the cat in The Hundred and One Dalmations needs to be given a sex-change.

[Mordar]

So if where we completely ignore any analysis of the actual merits of the work and focus exclusively on how much money it made, yes I'd agree with you. Of course, under this metric Transformers 2 is clearly an exceptionally good film, since it made lots of money. Similarly, The Black Eyed peas are musical geniuses and E.L. James deserves to be shortlisted for the Nobel Prize for Literature.

Always a fair point, and I should have addressed it. I had thought I mentioned "drew in millions of viewers" before the uberbijillions line, but I clearly did not.

Critical reception is important as well as mass reception, particularly when judged against the field in which the work exists. It is as unfair to judge BEP against Chopin, or James against Melville (or to suggest that a Bay movie ever be considered good) - BEP gained popularity among fans (and other artists) of mostly-radio friendly rap/hh/pop, ergo it is reasonable to assume that there is some merit there, even if I would never want BEP on my iPod.

That being said, I would argue that a purpose of adaptation is to change original material into another form suitable for consumption by a different audience (another purpose being to change original materials into another media for consumption by the exact same audience, but I think this is both less valuable and less feasible). In this regard, I do think you have to consider metrics like popular reception and box office.


I've generally seen little in the way of 'strong messages' in Disney beyond the fairly vague 'Be true to heart/believe in love/follow your dreams' stuff. Oh, and also 'don't be evil or you'll suffer a painful death, involving you falling off something'. If I'm missing something, let me know.

Of course, many of these are typical messages from fairy tales (though I might swap "obey your elders" in place of "don't be evil" in some cases), but as a parent of both a boy and girl have seen plenty of messaging about "girl power" that doesn't rely on skimpy clothes (Mulan), the value of empathy and considering the feelings of others (Brother Bear), loyalty is important and can carry a cost (Bolt), and so on. If we sprinkle in more of the Pixar movies post-2006 acquisition, we get several more variations of the above, plus the "be environmentally conscious" and "share yourself with those that come after you" bits of Wall E and TS3.

Nothing profound, but again...fairy tales, primarily intended for the under-12 set. After a screening of any given movie, I bet a discussion with said target audience would generate those lessons or messages.


I don't know, I'd still personally expect the adaptation of a book about a boy raised by wolves to actually feature said wolves for more than about 30 seconds of screen time. And also, y'know, not turn said boy's wise old ally, Kaa, into a bumbling comic-relief villain. Or decide that the cat in The Hundred and One Dalmations needs to be given a sex-change.

While the Jungle Book cartoon loses the "strength of the pack" lesson, don't many of the other themes remain? The value of work, respecting nature, wisdom of the elders and so forth? Kaa is devalued and replaced with Baghera (as I recall) and Baloo as the intellectual and social guides. I get the feeling that The Jungle Book is pretty important to you, and I can understand that this (in particular) was not an even swap and served to kidify the book more than may have been necessary.

I would have liked Hercules to be more about the trials that made him a character we know ~2k years after his story was told. I would have liked Batman to have not given up fighting crime twice in one movie (since I view his will/dedication as the defining characteristic of the hero) in Dark Knight Rises. I would have liked the Hobbit to be at most two movies, and have the first one be much better than it was (because I feel I think much the same way you do about Jungle Book - it has been changed to be accessible to the masses in ways that I feel may be irredeemable to the story as a whole).

It is disappointing when we as fans don't get what we think the work deserves, but when an adaptation opens up the work to a whole new audience (sometimes decades after the original has come and, mostly, gone) there is at least solace there.

- M

[warty goblin]

I suspect it's rather telling that basically all fussing over 'dark' content comes from adults.


Right. Because either the kids are fine with it and go back to pretending to shoot each other or be dinosaurs or whatever else they're in to these days, or their parents learn not to take them to that sort of movie just yet. And in three hours or so the kid is back to doing whatever it is they do.

[Mx.Silver]

That being said, I would argue that a purpose of adaptation is to change original material into another form suitable for consumption by a different audience
Really? Because I'd say the purpose of an adaptation is to, y'know, convert material from one medium to another and to change things so as to make sure the end product is good (occasionally, better than the original).
If you want to argue that the goal is to 'broaden the audience', then it can just as easily be said that the goal of a work is to appeal to a wide audience (very few authors don't want their books to be sold and read, after all) and suddenly you're back facing the Da Vinci Code problem again. If you're going to say that box office take matters in assessing worth then you have to commit to that.


I think the thing that may be sparking some of this disagreement is that being a bad adaptation is not the same thing as being a bad film. Howl's Moving Castle, for example, is a good film that isn't much of an adaptation.
Having said that, I'd argue that Hercules, The Sword in the Stone and The Jungle aren't particularly good films either (being mediocre, utterly forgettable and fairly dull barring a couple of songs, respectively) but that's another topic.



While the Jungle Book cartoon loses the "strength of the pack" lesson, don't many of the other themes remain? The value of work, respecting nature, wisdom of the elders and so forth? Kaa is devalued and replaced with Baghera (as I recall) and Baloo as the intellectual and social guides. I get the feeling that The Jungle Book is pretty important to you, and I can understand that this (in particular) was not an even swap and served to kidify the book more than may have been necessary.

The reason the wolves are important is that it's because of the wolves, specifially Mowgli's adoptive mother - Raksha - who prevent Shere Khan from just killing Mowgli when he's an infant. The point being that not even a tiger will get between a mother wolf and her young. The main reason Mowgli fights Shere Khan is to defend Akala, the old leader of the wolf-pack, from the tiger. Mowgli's final decision to leave the pack, the only family he's had, and head for the human village is motivated in part by his realisation after this that both he and the pack are safer if they're apart.

In the Disney film, Mowgli's an irresponsible kid who just likes the jungle because it's fun and only agrees to leave for his own safety after he sees a girl he finds attractive. And the thing is, this is already fairly annoying about the film even if you don't know what the original was like.

In regards to Kaa, he's not really replaced as he's not a direct teacher (Baghera and Baloo have that role). His main act in the first jungle book is rescuing Mowgli from the monkeys (although he has a larger role in the second Jungle book). His role in the film is largely cut, which by itself would be understandable if he weren't then re-introduced as the aforementioned bumbling comic relief villain.

So yeah, there wasn't much concern for the book's actual themes. Nor could they be bothered to pronounce Mowgli's name correctly (Kipling was clear that the 'Mow' rhymes with 'Cow'), but that's a minor nitpick.

[Hattish Thing]

I personally hated The Jungle Book...

[The_Snark]

I liked (and still like) the Disney Jungle Book, but only because it featured some entertaining songs and secondary characters. Mowgli himself was pretty annoying, and as an adaptation of Kipling's work it's pretty bad.

[Avilan the Grey]

I read the Jungle Book right after seeing the Jungle Book when I was a kid, (I probably read it a little early, to be fair) but I remember seeing them as distinctly different animals back then (though the first time I read it I WAS surprised Kaa was not a badguy). When I got old through I started enjoying the short stories included in the book better than the main story, especially the discussion piece between the old hungry crocodile and the clever stork, and the other short discussion piece between a war elephant and some other animals in a british soldier camp (I especially remember the stupid oxen, who couldn't understand what blood was and why you should fear the smell of it, which the elephant desperately tried to make them understand).

...Anyway:

Jungle Book is my favorite Disney movie from what I call the "Recycle Animation For Budget Reason" era (that also included Aristocats, The Sword and the Stone, Robin Hood and a few more. Little John is even the exact character model used for Baloo, but with clothes, AFAIR).

I have problems with Hunchback. But none of them are what has been listed above. Mostly, probably, because I never finished the original story; I never liked it enough to read it through. My problems are Esmeralda's stripper tendencies (pole dancing) and the need for the Gargoyles, which I don't feel fit into the story at all. Other than that it's a decent Disney, middle tier quality if you will.

As for sanitizing in general, I have no problem with that either, I can judge an adaption on it's own merits. It really doesn't matter if it is Cleanier And Friendlier or Darker And Edgier, or just Reimagined.

I know Herc was despised in Greece, and I can understand it to a point, but as a Scandinavian I am used to Hollywood (and others) bastardizing our history and mythology about 12 times a year. Again, I see Herc (again as a mid-tier film btw) as a separate animal, not a retelling of the original Greek mythology.

[Ashtagon]

In most of the greek myths (there are several interpretations) Hercules is driven into a homicidal rage by Hera and kills his wife and kids (don't feel bad though, the live-action TV show skipped that part as well). Even after he becomes great and famous, his new wife thinks he's cheating on her and poisons him, except he's so tough he can't die and is just in terrible agony.

Ancient Greek theatrical performances were called tragedies for a reason. That was the preferred genre for them, not "action-hero with a side of romance".

[Avilan the Grey]

Ancient Greek theatrical performances were called tragedies for a reason. That was the preferred genre for them, not "action-hero with a side of romance".

And then one guy in in Ancient Greece invented Comedy, and the world was never the same again.

[Logic]

I think I was 7 or 8 when I first saw Disney's Peter Pan. The scene with Wendy and the very jealous mermaids seemed a little mature for me at the time, but years later, I know that one line had more to do with it than anything else.
"We were only trying to drown her." The way the line is delivered, in such a casual, monotonous, matter-of-fact statement made a serious impact on me.

[Avilan the Grey]

I think I was 7 or 8 when I first saw Disney's Peter Pan. The scene with Wendy and the very jealous mermaids seemed a little mature for me at the time, but years later, I know that one line had more to do with it than anything else.
"We were only trying to drown her." The way the line is delivered, in such a casual, monotonous, matter-of-fact statement made a serious impact on me.

I only hear seagulls nesting...!
(Oops wrong movie :smalltongue:)

[Traab]

Ancient Greek theatrical performances were called tragedies for a reason. That was the preferred genre for them, not "action-hero with a side of romance".

Thats true, and thats a big part of why I didnt like the disney version. It would be as if peter jackson turned the hobbit into a buddy cop romantic comedy. I know there are limits to what disney can include, a serially adulterous zeus, a murderous hera who is taking her vengeance on an innocent child, a crazy rapist hercules, (I think that was at least one version) and all sorts of other random bits and pieces that would be bad for a kids movie, but they could have still at least TRIED to keep the tragedy, even if only to a certain extent. Even if all they did was say, He lived happily ever after, except for these parts of his life, which kind of sucked" it would have been something NEW for disney to try.

Instead of tying up all the problems with a pretty bow and solving them all in 90 minutes, have the ending be not so happy for a change. Its possible to keep the theme even if you change the details. Hell, at the very least, a disney movie ending in tragedy would generate buzz on a level unheard of by people who watched it. All it would require is a different focus. Most disney flicks focus on what happens when you follow the lesson it is teaching you. Instead, show the audience what happens when you DONT learn the lesson it is trying to teach you.

[Brother Oni]

Question for the people here; What is the darkest story/movie you've seen in the vein of Disney or Fairy Tales?

Do you mean inspired by a fairy tale or Disney movie, or actually uses the themes?

If it's the themes, then Jin-roh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jin-Roh) which heavily uses the predecessor tale of the Little Red Riding Hood story, which has the wolf tricking Red into cannibalising her own mother.

[The Succubus]

Reading this thread has stirred up a theory that has been lurking at the back of my mind.

One of the most disturbing scenes I've watched in a Disney film is actually from Dumbo. Dumbo is feeling a little down after visiting his mum and has the hiccups. He then takes a drinking from a pool of water that someone accidently knocked some beer into and promptly gets very drunk.

That's when the freaky stuff starts happening - the pink elephants song. The sequence really scared me as a kid but I wasn't sure why. I re-watched it when I was 16 or 18 and it dawned on me that it's actually a rather cleverly hidden metaphor for Russian Imperialism.

The song goes on about "Pink Elephants on parade, here they come, etc"and you see images of them all marching along together, in way that's not a million miles from the sort of parades that used to be held in the Red Square. The song also places a lot of emphasis on how strange and terrifying they are. Plus the whole Pink - Red thing.

Now Uncle Walt grew up during the 1960s, was fiercely patriotic and I can all to easily see him sneaking in something like this. Think about it - alcohol is not known for its hallucinogenic properties, and the scene could easily have transitioned from Dumbo falling asleep two waking up in the tree. Why have the whole Pink Elephants song at all?

Answers on a postcard please.

[Deepbluediver]

Why have the whole Pink Elephants song at all?

As a kid, I thought it was hilarious. Like ROTFLMAO funny.
And it really made we want to try the bubbly adult-soda my parents where keeping all to themselves. :smalltongue:

[DJ Yung Crunk]

I'm not exactly sure I see what you're seeing, OP. Disney is only as dark as its audience will allow and, let's face it, that's not very dark. 'Hellfire' baffles me, though. Maybe it just seems small potatoes to someone who knows of the source material but I've never seen the 'layers' in that song that everyone else sees. He's pretty forward about everything.

Quoth the robot devil "You can't just have characters announce how they feel"

[dehro]

I've started watching Disney again, due to spending a lot of time with my girlfriend's sister's daughter. And... Going through and watching these animated movies.... My thoughts kinda went from Bambi's mom's Death, (Uh. That was... Bloody. Why'd the hunter not kill the buck there, but shot the doe? :smallconfused: Hey, no, go back! You can't just go from dead mother to singing flowers!) To the song Hellfire from Hunchback of Notre Dame. (Dafuq. Da serious fuq. What did I just watch?! I... What, in a children's movie?!)

yeah..the whole Frollo sniffling and getting high on Esmeralda's scent did make me question whether it really was what they meant for us to see..
also, the symbolism of the rain washing away the nasty skulls and other grime of Scar's time as leader of the lion's pack... all a bit too subtle for your average 5 year old.

[Tiki Snakes]

Now Uncle Walt grew up during the 1960s, was fiercely patriotic and I can all to easily see him sneaking in something like this. Think about it - alcohol is not known for its hallucinogenic properties, and the scene could easily have transitioned from Dumbo falling asleep two waking up in the tree. Why have the whole Pink Elephants song at all?

Answers on a postcard please.

Couldn't possibly comment on most of your post for board rules related reasons. But I once heard an anecdote from an animator, (no idea if it's true), that basically Walt absolutely hated the whole idea of the Pink Elephants sequence but that the animators snook it in whilst he was away for a week or something.

[Mordar]

Really? Because I'd say the purpose of an adaptation is to, y'know, convert material from one medium to another and to change things so as to make sure the end product is good (occasionally, better than the original).
If you want to argue that the goal is to 'broaden the audience', then it can just as easily be said that the goal of a work is to appeal to a wide audience (very few authors don't want their books to be sold and read, after all) and suddenly you're back facing the Da Vinci Code problem again. If you're going to say that box office take matters in assessing worth then you have to commit to that.

I really do think box office and staying power (as they represent the opinion of the masses (or at least we are led to believe that they do, instead of just the power of marketing)) do have to be considered along with the opinions of the learned critic when assessing quality or worth. When one view dominates you end up with slop-as-a-rule, and when the other dominates you end up with inaccessible haute arte as a goal. Somewhere in the middle is where it is best to lie with movies and fiction-as-entertainment, in my opinion.


I think the thing that may be sparking some of this disagreement is that being a bad adaptation is not the same thing as being a bad film. Howl's Moving Castle, for example, is a good film that isn't much of an adaptation.
Having said that, I'd argue that Hercules, The Sword in the Stone and The Jungle aren't particularly good films either (being mediocre, utterly forgettable and fairly dull barring a couple of songs, respectively) but that's another topic.

An excellent point, and on two of the three movies you mention I agree. Despite the absence of a Rikki story (since it didn't really fit in with Mowgli, I understand), I still remember liking Disney's Jungle Book, and the kids seemed to as well.

Now the TV Rikki movie...that was pretty good stuff. I distinctly remember being enraptured by that one and afraid to put my feet down from the bed, not because there might be monsters under it, but because there might be cobras. :smalleek:

- M

[hamishspence]

Think about it - alcohol is not known for its hallucinogenic properties, and the scene could easily have transitioned from Dumbo falling asleep two waking up in the tree. Why have the whole Pink Elephants song at all?

Pink elephants going with alcohol, predates Dumbo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_pink_elephants

and this is most likely where the idea came from.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

I think kids can handle more than we give them credit for. Past generations were raised on such fare as Grimm's Fairy Tales, Watership Down, and all of those really screwed up early cartoons. No one at the time cared. We might shelter our kids a bit too much today.

[ShadowFireLance]

I think kids can handle more than we give them credit for. Past generations were raised on such fare as Grimm's Fairy Tales, Watership Down, and all of those really screwed up early cartoons. No one at the time cared. We might shelter our kids a bit too much today.

This man speaks truth.

I was kinda that kid, I loved the Gore and the generally creepyness, heck, I finally finished reading through the entire creepypasta wiki last night, I still love it!



Do you mean inspired by a fairy tale or Disney movie, or actually uses the themes?

If it's the themes, then Jin-roh which heavily uses the predecessor tale of the Little Red Riding Hood story, which has the wolf tricking Red into cannibalising her own mother.

Both.

Damn, thats...scary.

[Drakeburn]

I think kids can handle more than we give them credit for. Past generations were raised on such fare as Grimm's Fairy Tales, Watership Down, and all of those really screwed up early cartoons. No one at the time cared. We might shelter our kids a bit too much today.

Well, that sort of depends on the kids. Remember, everybody is different.

Although I cannot blame my little sister for being so scared of Grimm (I watch that show with my mother), and the irony of it is, that my little sis says that she likes things that are dark and scary ("but not too scary," she adds).
And I'm so surprised that nobody but me mentioned the Black Cauldron.
While the film was based on the first 2 books of The Chronicles of Prydain, (which was a fantasy series for KIDS), my little sister is terrified of that movie. She wouldn't watch it ever since she last watched it (I cannot remember how long ago that was), and wouldn't let her friends watch it either.
I guess some kids don't like seeing warriors rise from the dead.

But with that we've discussed about in this thread, let me ask you guys this:

How far do you guys think is too far?

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

But with that we've discussed about in this thread, let me ask you guys this:

How far do you guys think is too far?

I don't think too much graphic violence, especially portrayed in a positive light, is a good thing. A rooftop swordfight or a high noon duel is one thing. Glorified gunning down of one's fellow man on a mass scale is another.

I think kids are pretty resiliant, but they do have a limit, and it is out responsibility to make sure they stay within that limit. I probably wouldn't let my kid play Call of Duty or watch Terminator. I would, however, have no problem showing them Watership Down, Willow, or Star Wars.

[dehro]

I still remember my sister crying and screaming the place down when we went to see The Black Cauldron at the movie theatre.. we had to leave.
she musts have been 4, at the time

[Agrippa]

Here's s little story about the making of Disney's Snow White. While Walt Disney omitted the wicked queen's prior attempts on Snow White's life, and the queen eating the boar's heart thinking it was her own step daughter, he tried to add a few new horrific scenes of his own. This includes the huntsman's punishment, in which the queen has him escorted to the torture chamber. He's then strapped into a breaking wheel just before the shot returns to the queen while she's standing at the door, smiling to the sound of his torture. Then the torture chamber's door closes and queen walks toward her private study, to the sound of her once faithful huntsman being tortured to death. Now this goes on for several minutes, and then there's silence. The vile queen reaches her study, end of scene.

Think of this, but indoors.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/CalasChapbook.jpg

Another scene would have featured the queen either dunking the young prince's head in water or strapping him to board for water boarding. Of course this was an attempt to force the young prince into marriage with her. Also, unlike the huntsman's torture/execution, the prince's water boarding scene was going to be animated. Walt's friend's talked him down from both.

[Mewtarthio]

And I'm so surprised that nobody but me mentioned the Black Cauldron.
While the film was based on the first 2 books of The Chronicles of Prydain, (which was a fantasy series for KIDS), my little sister is terrified of that movie. She wouldn't watch it ever since she last watched it (I cannot remember how long ago that was), and wouldn't let her friends watch it either.
I guess some kids don't like seeing warriors rise from the dead.

It's not just that they rise from the dead. It's that they were perfectly healthy a few moments earlier. And when they rise as skeletons, there's this freaky goo coming off them and you just know that their flesh melted and sloughed away leaving that residue and you start to picture what it must be like to be pursued by the tireless and pitiless undead until you're eventually tackled to the ground and stripped clean of all meat so that your bones can be made to fight alongside your killer and--:smalleek:

...Great. I'm not getting any sleep tonight, it seems.

[t209]

How about Beauty and the beast? Other than the twin sisters being turned to stone, the original story is actually softer than the movie (Beast was a gentleman instead of miserable and angry monster, + implication of Stockholm syndrome).

[Brother Oni]

Both.

Damn, thats...scary.

Think of it this way, Little Red Riding Hood is a cautionary tale for children to not speak to strangers. Sugar coating the ending would significantly dilute the message, especially since being murdered quickly is relatively nice on the scale of bad things that can happen to you if you're abducted by strangers.

[Friv]

How about Beauty and the beast? Other than the twin sisters being turned to stone, the original story is actually softer than the movie (Beast was a gentleman instead of miserable and angry monster, + implication of Stockholm syndrome).

To be totally honest, in a lot of ways I find the traditional "he's a gentleman" one worse.

In the Beauty and the Beast Disney movie, in a very real sense, the Beast is a fellow prisoner - a terribly abused man who's suffering from serious trauma, and who lashes out because of that. He's lonely, and frightened, and has spent his entire teenage life as a monster surrounded by servants whose own horrible fate is, in his mind, his fault. His actions in holding Belle as an exchange for her father are much more excusable, because he's clearly not entirely in his right mind. As he recovers, he recognizes that he's done wrong and lets Belle go, and she comes back because she recognizes that he is changed.

In the traditional tale, the Beast tries to seduce a kidnapped woman with wealth and power, and then almost dies of heartbreak when she leaves him alone for a week. In the end, he learns actually nothing.