MovieChat Forums > Pete's Dragon (2016) Discussion > Maybe this movies BO and Jungle Books su...

Maybe this movies BO and Jungle Books success will teach Disney a lesson


Stay closer to the classic and don't take such liberties with the material.

reply

I thought this movie was perfect as it is. Who cares about box office.

reply

... and the original was never considered a "classic".

Ric

reply

Do you mean the movie or the book it was based on? Cause this was a lot closer to the book than the '77 movie...

I don't know if you're aware of this but I've already changed things. I killed Ben Linus.
--Sayid

reply

I don't think the short story by Seton I. Miller was ever published! Don't see how you can say it was closer to the book.



Ric

reply

It got good critical ratings and the original cartoon was noting to write home about. Disney problem his year is over saturation. Jungle Book, Alice, Pete's Dragon and BFG. That's just too many of these children fantasy films to be released in less than 6 months. Two of these three Alice/ Pete's Dragon/BFG should have been moved to later in the year or into next year.




You Never Go Full Retard

reply

Jungle Book, Alice, Pete's Dragon
And only Jungle Book took in almost 1 billion.. I wonder why?! Oh yeah, it was the most faithful to it's source, the animated classic.

reply

You've got the empirical evidence to back that up, do you?

reply

Correct at least regarding the use of the original movie's songs (except the jungle girl's, since she has no appearance at the end.)

"And that's SHOWBIZ--kid".-Roxie Hart

PROFILE PICTURE: Courtney Thorne-Smith,1992.

reply

This movie is great. Very touching. It's sad that people opted for Suicide Squad and Sausage Party instead of this.

reply

Truer words were never spoken.

reply

Most parents were not taking their children to see R-rated Sausage Party instead of this.

Please don't call someone a _____tard.

reply

I doubt it as Beauty and the Beast is coming out next. Come on I would hardly call the original film PD a classic. It was minor Disney.


reply

To my thinking it's less "taking liberties" and more "not accurately assessing what made the original a timeless success".

This modern re-make, while a fine polished desert-like modern offering, abandons proven crowd-pleasers like humor, morals, noble purpose and relevant life-lessons that even kids can grasp. The original abounded in lessons like the true nature of love and friendship; commitment to another and defeating despair with hope; finding joy in everyday tasks; tolerance and consideration for others; the difference between loving others and just using them. The villains were first-class too. The Gavin character is more a misguided red-neck than any kind of credible villain. The audience delighted when ol' Doc Terminus got tangled up in his own greed and was fired across town on his own harpoon. And they cheered when the Gogans got their just desert. Whereas one could well imagine Gavin swaying with Elliot in some cosmic kumbaya circle simply because . . . he changed his mind.

The modern re-make is good. It's nice. Good modern entertainment that doesn't leave one a lot of work to do to digest it -- but also that doesn't stick with you for long. The original was a full-course meal. The modern re-make, more a sugary dessert without a lot of life-nutrients or moral fiber. I was so disappointed to see them abandon the "noble purpose" of Elliot presented in the original: of showing up to help kids in trouble, and then flying off to help another when the danger's past. Modern Elliot settles down. Buys a retirement properly. Gets a mortgage. No real purpose. No continuation. End of story.

reply

In all blunt honesty, if you're going to bring an old property back, this is the way to do it. This film didn't try to be a remake, it took the concept of the original and did it's entirely own, unique thing with it. I STILL don't think bringing back SO many original properties has any merit, myself. But I think this was pretty well done.

The Jungle Book, and their other live-action remakes of old Disney cartoon films, however, is utterly pointless. They are doing largely what you say they SHOULD, sticking to the cartoons to a ridiculous degree, and it really doesn't serve them, and there is no point other than to squeeze more money out of people. If you really want to honor the classic, original animated films, RE-release those theatrically. Let new audiences and new generations enjoy and appreciate them. Don't try to replace them with crappy live-action remakes.

reply

The original Pete's Dragon is not considered a classic.

reply

Depends entirely on who you ask. People need to keep in mind that opinions about any subject, regardless of subject matter, is 100% subjective. There is no such thing as "objective opinions". And certainly not when it comes to things like entertainment.

reply

Film historians, who are best qualified to make this sort of judgement, generally agree that the original Pete's Dragon was a middling effort in the Disney canon, with little four-quadrant appeal.

reply

Sorry but Pete's Dragon is a part of the Disney Gold Classic Collection with a Special High Flyers Edition release from Disney and I have also seen "Grand Classic" plastered on the foreign film boxes before as well.

reply

Jus sayin, maybe that's what WhuckFistle is referring to here.

reply

Home on the Range is also considered a "Disney Classic", and no one cares about that movie...

reply

Actually...film historians would not have an objective opinion on a film. That's why they're historians. They preserve the objective facts of film history, and present them to others. There is a difference between actual film historians, and film critics who also pass themselves off as historians, because they happen to have a lot of knowledge.

Regardless, no one ever claimed that the original Pete's Dragon was a dramatic masterpiece. What I SAID was, speaking of Film History, that looking at it from the lens of animation, it was and remains a very historically significant film in the terms of the advancement of film and animation techniques. It was one of the first major films to have mixing animation and live action footage, be the FOREFRONT feature of the work, let alone an entire feature film. It may not seem impressive by today's standards, but for it's time, it was pretty state of the art. It was directly because of a film like Pete's Dragon, that later down the line, and even more technically advanced work like "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" could happen.

So in THAT sense, it is significant, and thus a "classic".



But in all honesty, what do you care if some people consider it a classic, or not? If you don't think it is, that's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. Trying to make an appeal to "a majority of film historians" to validate your own opinion on such a trivial matter, seems rather pointless. Just saying.

reply