Sadly, this is an evergreen part of the post, though I wish it wasn't The Disney remake. Specifically, Disney has taken an animated movie and decided to remake it in live-action form and whatever 2019 The Lion King was.
I could write about how a remake was bad, like totally bad, but that probably has been done and also be like beating a dead goat. (what?) I'd like this blog to do things that stand out somewhat, just because. This time, I'm making the case for a good Disney remake. Funny enough, it's not a remake of an animated film turned live-action. It's a remake of a live-action/ animation hybrid into live action/animation hybrid. (Though, I'm here for a Disney live-action turned into animation remake)
Pete's Dragon is a 1977 Disney movie that seemed to take a long time for Disney to even think about putting together in concept in the first place. It's not a bad film either, that's also me having a soft spot for 1970's Disney live-action movies in general. (Like Freaky Friday) This film is pretty fun and a charming musical. It also has Helen Reddy so yes, The original movie did make money, but it didn't seem to be big in the Disney canon. It is kind of a surprise they wanted to remake it, but they did.
Pete's Dragon 1977 /Copyright Disney
In 2013, Disney announced they were going remake this movie. There was going to be some differences to the original film. One thing, it wasn't going to be a musical - Disney, minus Disney Channel, wasn't into the whole musical thing, and we really don't get musicals in theatrical movies anymore. (Though, yes, Disney did take High School Musical and put a film version in theaters with the third film) This is kind of a remake in the sense that the title was taken and there's a boy named Pete and there is a dragon, but all the rest was going to different , making a new story. That's interesting.
The movie is written by David Lowery and Toby Halbrooks. Lowery also directed. The duo worked on indie films. Sometimes even together. Funny enough, Lowery had been asked to work on remakes before, but turned them down, but something made him want to jump at the chance. Disney seemed to want make a remake but in mostly name only. The movie changes from it's original, beyond not being a musical, by having the movie not take place pre-depression era or in New England. Instead, it's the Pacific Northwest and maybe the 70's or 80's but leaving space to not feel hooked to a time. There still would be Pete and a dragon (duh). (Source)
To note on that, I'm big remake person, in general. There can be ways or something that can hook me into one, but that's something that has to work for me. The concept of it being something different from the original is something interesting. That also makes it hard because that can also be something that can be a turn off , so even that depends. Though, I do have to note that doesn't take away the original existence - unless they somehow wipe it out. (odd statement)
Pete's Dragon, the remake, came out in 2016. Which is also interesting that's the same year The Jungle Book remake came out. Disney was going for some theme. That one came out first, just like how Jungle Book came out before Pete's Dragon. (Time is a cube) I will not be doing any comparisons to the 1977 film because that'd be unnecessary, but I will remark on surface similarities- like having a boy named Pete. (duh)
The movie starts and you can already tell, something bad is going to happen. It's parents in a station wagon with their young boy, Pete, and yeah oh no no. (Might as well just stick a sign on the screen the yelling THIS IS GOING TO NOT GO WELL, THERE WILL BE DEATH) Pete, who is 5, in this starter is learning to read and is reading a book about a puppy named Elliot. (I'm going to mention that someone on Wikipedia thinks the movie starts in 1977, which would be a good touch and a fun Easter egg) Remember that.
What a wonderful day to be alive, I hope nothing makes us not alive soon/ Copyright Disney
Having writers who worked in indie films before this, can be seen in the core of the film. Actually, if you strip away the Disney logo at the start, it wouldn't feel out of place to think of it not as a Disney film. The movie starts quiet and gentle as it builds up to the bad thing that's going to happen and start the story.
Pete asks his parents what 'adventure' is (alright, there is a part of this movie that's being too on the nose, calm down). Anyway, Bambi gets revenge, a deer runs in front of their station wagon and that apparently causes them to swerve to death. (I'd hope a Live-action Bambi movie, would have Bambi going on a revenge mission and takes out people in their cars) Three things: 1) Cutting to the deer as it seems to be watching in delight of it's murder is something, 2) 70's station wagon crash kills parents, but young boy in only a lap belt, because 1970's car is alive, 3) I'm going to assume Pete knows what death is. Just going to assume that.
"Yeah I killed them, I'll kill again," /Copyright Disney
This movie was filmed New Zealand, instead of the actual Pacific Northwest, the actor for young Pete was Levi Alexander who is from New Zealand. Being filmed in New Zealand but not in PNW is not a knock against the movie, just found that an interesting tidbit.
Anyway, little Pete is then surrounded by wolves. (Hey Wolves, don't eat the boy, there's a deer I need you to talk too). I would say the wolves seem a little to excited to want to eat a human boy there, like one licked its chops. The cinematography for the movie is good, it's well done. This part is dark, because it's almost night and dark because well there's danger right there as Pete could possibly die. The only thing that might take away from the urgency is that it's called Pete's Dragon and that probably means he's not going to be wolf food at like 4 minutes in. (unless... [don't you start])
It was from that day, Pete swore his revenge on deer / Copyright Disney
In speaking of Pete's Dragon, the dragon shows up and scares off the wolves. (Hey we got Pete and the dragon in under 5 minutes, good work!) I like Pete's question to the dragon, asking it if it was going to eat him, expecting an answer. He didn't ask the wolves that, but I guess they made their intentions clearer.
The original film, the dragon was animated like an animated movie at the time, but put into live action. Since this modern times, we have technology. So yes, computer generated dragon. Which to bring up "The Jungle Book" 2016 that movie also was using computer animals as it was all animated except of Mogwai and you can see Disney is working some tech here, that would probably lead into a 2019 film of some Lion sort thing going on. Also fuzzy dragon. I like the idea of it being fuzzy, it's different, and kind of gives him a more friendly vibe that fits for a movie where the dragon won't be wiping out Seattle. (You can read the reason why he's fuzzy here and that's good reason)
I ate that deer for you, let's be friends/ Copyright Disney
The part where the dragon [I'm holding off on using his name to remark on it later] stretches out it's paw? paw? for Pete to get on in a trust moment was nice too. Let's see we got Pete, and the dragon so roll the title card. (I was wondering what movie this was)
Robert Redford is in this movie he talks about the legend of a dragon and how he saw one to some children. They also have Bryce Dallas Howard, who plays his daughter. The casting in this movie is well done around. Oakes Fegley does a wonderful job as the main character, Pete, he becomes the character after the skip. Oona Laurence also performs her role well and to be the first human child Pete has interacted with in probably 6 years.
"Technology gets better everyday. That's fine. But most of the time all you need is a stick of gum, a pocket knife and a smile" / Copyright Disney
The movie has an aesthetic there's a warm feeling to how it feels and also uses its setting of fake PNW to a good effect. The forest is beautiful. This is not the loud bright colors to bring attention kind of movie, but not dark and cold feeling either. The lightning gives warmth. It's presenting a story to you but not too fast, and giving it an ease to what it wants to present. Though, the transitions between scenes do fell very indie movie where its kind of just guiding you through the story.
What a lovely day in New Orelazeland/ Copyright Disney
We see Pete now, and I will to note that Disney somehow ended up having 3 ferial boys being raised by animals movies in a span of 10 months The Good Dinosaur [a movie I do like] , the 2016 Jungle Book and this. Each of the three movies have a difference to them, and this one doesn't have talking animals not even the dragon. There's real bear (I mean real in the sense it's not a bear that's mystical creature) and real forest, the only strange and oft thing is the dragon. The movie is presenting a realisticness with its fiction.
You're in the wrong movie! Jungle Book is being filmed somewhere else! / Copyright Disney
You do have to accept that a child ended up being raised alright in a forest, with only long hair, some dirt, still having some clothing, and not infected with something as just matter of fact. It's a movie with a dragon. Yes, I'll mention now the dragon is called Elliot. Which was the name in the original movie and the movie hinted at his name since it was the puppy's name in the book.
In the wild one has to assert their dominance ooh bunny/ Copyright Disney
Pete also has his humanity still in him, well portrayed with him still in a 5-year-old mindset at times and with some animalistic tendencies (mostly dragon). Like I said, I love Elliot's design, and the idea to go with a more dog like dragon in how he acts and being fuzzy presents a uniqueness and does a fun job.
There's a forest ranger named Grace (how on the nose, played by Bryce Dallas Howard) who Pete spots in the forest and watches from a distance. He finds her compass and grabs it. (Pete's thievery)
I heard there was a bear, Yogi will be stopped! / Copyright Disney
I have to point out that the plot is a simple one, which simple isn't bad. You can do simple and be bad, you can do simple and be great, this one fall in the great part more than anything else. There's a story of environmentalism in this because the forest is under threat.
Natalie (Oona Laurence) , who happens to be the daughter a lumber mill owner named Jack (Wes Bentley) who is dating Ranger Grace, sees Pete and follows after him, he runs because random girl. The interaction is a human detached from knowing all humans. It's also interesting to note he thought he was five, because time was lost to him. ( I do wonder did anyone wonder if the couple in the car had a kid or?) Grace tries to talk to Pete but he is also a bit nervous to even communicate with her. She also sees her compass on him, He does end up falling.
That's the boy from The Good Dinosaur/ Copyright Disney
The movie has Jack and his brother named Gavin (Karl Urban) who work together. For the environmental message Jack wants his brother to think it out because clearing out a forest might not be good for future business. I do like that subtleness in a way where it's not making someone the big bad evil person to do it. (It's always funny though when a corporation movie makes corporation bad) They both have good reasons in the stance, and Gavin isn't just trying to be an evil forest hater. (that's a thing)
Elliot has powers apparently, where he can be invisible, I think that fits with the idea of seeing, believing, and faith that this movie wants to present. The idea is that Pete will say he has a dragon and others will think it's him being a child and telling fantasy story, or coping thing when they find out more about him. The lumber jacks end up seeing him and caused them to ruin in fear like cowards.
Sorry, no I can't see your contact anywhere/ Copyright Disney
Grace takes him in, she does a good job of trying to understand the boy, give compassion and be a motherly figure. Natalie provides a way to help him get used to being with people or something. This movie does do that thing I sometimes find oft, by having Natalie act a little more a mature and more than 11-years-old, but I guess it's away to contrast with Pete's nativity and lack of not being around anyone for 6 years.
Darn kids and their records, in my day it was wax cylinder or bust/ Copyright Disney
The soundtrack to the movie is interesting. It even used a 60's folk song. They also use "It's a Good Day" because why not?
This movie's tone is melancholy with wonder inserted in. There are moments or joy, but it's not a fully joyful. Pete is not an disturbingly happy child and the situation of being orphaned is treated with weight and with some realism. While there's some funny moments and even funny dragon moments.
Gavin shows up to talk to Jack about well he saw a dragon. Jack doesn't think there's a dragon because dragon. (I would believe him.) I like in that when Elliot]t sees Pete being comfortable with the family, and he doesn't know that Pete has a goal in wanting to find him again, that you can see his expressions in how he feels. In some movies this misunderstanding could be annoying, but here it works because dragon. And that really means that his not being human means he can't really do something human like show up and ask Elliot about what's going on or find out. Also sad dragon moment, thanks a lot movie - for the pain.
He's more sad he can't just enter the house/ Copyright Disney
Redford's character, Conrad, comes back into the plot. Grace wonders how Pete lived in the forest for 6 years without showing any signs of not falling apart. (odd terming) Conrad says he saw a dragon many years ago for real. He says that people didn't believe him, but found the magic of the situation to be special. Again the idea of being open to believing in something and wanting to tell her that he's not going to force it but he wants her to open up to the idea.
Pete leads, Grace, Natalie, and Conrad to show them where he's been living for 6 years and to find to Elliott. They get to meet him. Gavin shows up with others to tranquilize Elliott. This movie, in a sense, doesn't have a villain in the vain of just being evil. Here, the villain is the misunderstanding of humans that Gavin represents. He doesn't even know what he wants to do with it, but he does want to profit from it. Something that was shown with his character with him going too fast and hard on the forest.
[I get spoiler-y here, so you can skip a bit to the next bracket if you'd like]
The movie also has car chase, but with trucks too! (also a truck ends up dying, R.I.P Truck) Also literal burning bridges. The climax is a good warp up of character arcs. Elliot takes his anger out (wow 2 trucks die in this movie) and ends up causing Grace and Jack to get stuck on a collapsing bridge, Gavin tries to save his brother- and grace. Pete tells Elliot to stop, he realizes he needs to those two, plus the dragon killing the two characters would not be very fitting. Yes, Elliot saves them. Also, someone saw E.T. Then movie makes me sad. Pete tells Elliot that staying in the forest might not work anymore because everyone knows about Elliot now they'll come to the forest and bother.
Elliot shows he has invisibility powers (Again) and Pete says that he can't do it though, because Pete is not a magic dragon. (That would have been a big twist though) There's a sense these two will have to break up. Pete shows up to Grace and co. showing and yep.
[Out of there now]
In my case, I started here to say that I think this a good movie on it's own and a good remake. This is not a post to say that all the remakes are good or it's good thing or anything of that sort. I think this movie got lost in the shuffle, and maybe it not being over exposed is a good thing.
This is a movie that presents a simple story and does a good job at doing it. It feels sincere and interesting, not just a Disney movie using a name from the past for reasons. It's a warm movie with whimsy, but not forced, not over the top. I also like it follows some elements of the original, like not being set in a current time, but in the past, but still feeling a bit timeless in how it presents itself.
I like how it does use CGI but that's not over used and overly the focus, it blends a CGI dragon for a real forest with real trees, real birds, real sounds, real atmosphere and something functional about that. It's even interesting to notice in the fun facts about the movie that Pete's actor grew his hair out for the movie, that he and Natalie's actor did their own stunts, that the touches of the movie present a realism that work with the mix of magic. It's like it's mimicking its story: a mix of realism and magic.
I loved this movie when it came out and even do so now. It's paints a good story. It's not a paced paced movie, it takes its time where it needs to, but not being to slow where it feels mundane. The gentleness of it and heart make it work, but doesn't fell syrupy and gagging-ly sweet.
To be negative, I do think Gavin's role for the movie was a bit out of tune. He's not crazy villain, but his goals are typical of many antagonists. I don't even mean whole thing, like I can understand his view on why thinks the logging business needs to be quick, and where he has to understand that's not a good thing. The lust for getting Elliot seems random where he has to get him and even states he doesn't even know what his plan here was. The writing does redeem him a bit where he at least cares about his brother.
The movie doesn't do anything like brand new, but it does it's concept well and it's enjoyable.
The casting was well done like there was a magic touch to finding actors. The characterization ,out of Gavin, is well done. Grace plays a great role in being a great motherly figure able to work with Pete and listening to him. While she can be skeptical of the boy essentially saying he was raised by a dragon, she keeps an open mind. They could have easily made her fully closed and unwilling until she had to be proved wrong, but they chose, wisely not to. She's not even Natalie's mother, and wasn't a step mother, though, it really doesn't add to the story, but her and Natalie's bond felt very close and caring, I forgot she wasn't the mother. In fact, Jack, the father, was kind of just there and it would feel more like he was the coming in step father more than anything else.
The movie splits with childhood innocence of Pete, the open to ideas but mature Natalie, the cynical and clinical world of adults like Grace, Jack and Gavin, and the willingness to challenge and believe in something like Conrad. No one ,besides Gavin, felt one note, and even Gavin did have more to him, he was written kind of weird.
I do feel bad that Jack kind of doesn't have much of role, because he had nuggets in the story, like he understood his brother's side and Grace's side on the issue. He mostly fills a role to connect characters to characters.
Elliot, is a character, can't forget him. A dragon that doesn't talk all the emotion in the character is well done. You see how how he's feeling, happy, sad, angry, it's well done. He was a fun character. The CGI is pretty good and the route of having a fuzzy dragons is pretty nice. It's kind of a good way to show a different perception. He's big but friendly and that's not something one would expect, and it's about those misunderstandings that work well. I want to hug him myself. (TFW no fuzzy dragon to hug)
It's also a comfy movie like you are sitting by the fire and being told a story, there's a lot of value to it. It's not perfect, but it's not bad, I think it's really good.
That's it for now, tune in next time when we write about how Live-Action "Cars" where the cars are played by humans was a great artistic art piece done by Disney, even if it's still terrifying.
No comments:
Post a Comment