Discussion in 'Community' started by Darth Xalfrea, Dec 5, 2013.
Maleficent herself isn’t
True, hence my comment about King Stefan (good guys being turned into villains).
Gaston might qualify as "darker than the original" with his early attempt to murder Maurice, and his soldier background (with the strong implication that he's killed unnecessarily before the events of the movie).
Shere Khan & Louie, in The Jungle Book, also seem darker.
Now that just reminds me of how terrifying and hilarious Christopher Walken was in the role of King Louie. I didn't know I needed more of Christopher Walken menacingly serenading Mowgli with I Wanna Be Like You in my life, but I do!
Seem? He's a mafia boss in new version, not the lovable fool seen in the original. How is that not obvious darker?
EDIT: ops, reflex clicked at send instead of moving this to the post above
I hope and wish that Disney re-use the Louie animation in a SW Movie, if just for a background character (maybe as a drinkmixer behind a bar?)
I tend to overuse the "maybe" and "I think" and "seem" in order to avoid doing the reverse - stating things as if they were facts when people might not feel the same way.
Christopher Walken in a SW movie would be a very obvious venture.
They made Louie a different type of primate because the original Louie's species wasn't native to India, and yes, he did give off that mafia/protection vibe.
But a species that had been extinct in India for 100,000+ years.
The Jungle Book (2016) decided to give the character King Louie an Adaptation Species Change from the 1967 original, turning him from an orangutan into a Gigantopithecus (a extinct genus of ape that lived in Southeast Asia during the Pleistocene). According to Word of God, the change was done to correct a bit of Misplaced Wildlife from the original, as orangutans aren't actually native to India. But the movie still features Mowgli—a modern human boy—which means that it takes place at least 100,000 years after Gigantopitheci went extinct. For some reason, the filmmakers thought having an extinct primate in the movie was less inexplicable than having a non-Indian one. Particularly glaring, since they easily could have explained Louie as an escaped captive orangutan brought to India by the English (what with the original book being written just a few decades after the rise of the British Raj).
So anyone looking forward to A Wrinkle in Time? Coming out in a month.
Yeah, they might find that glaring, but talking animals isn't glaring? (directed at the article, not you )
So the tv trope is nitpicking why the species was changed...but it’s fine with humans and animals talking. Okay then.
And no, IATI.
It's the same principle that has Tarzan readers object to a tiger in Africa, but not object to animals talking to Tarzan. When "the exception to reality" is established beforehand - it's acceptable. Creating new exceptions, tending to be frowned on.
Or people have too much time on their hands.
It’s an alternate reality, who is to say that particular species died out?
Edit: imagine the outrage back in 1967. King Louie? He wasn’t in the book! That’s a new exception!
Gaston is definitely toned down and rendered in a more nuanced understanding of human psychology. It made him all the more terrifying in his realism in the second half, but diluted the more memorable numbers in the first half, like Lefou’s “encouragement” in the tavern.
This August is a Christopher Robin movie titled: Christopher Robin, starring Obi-Wan...I mean Ewan McGregor as Christopher Robin. The premise is that he's now an adult and has lost his imagination, so Winnie the Pooh and company have to help him find it again.
Meanwhile, we were supposed to get Goodbye, Christopher Robin (starring General Hux...I mean Bill Weasley...I mean Domhnall Gleeson), but never got it, at least in the theater I work in.
@Bacon164 Interesting you mention the song Gaston: the lyrics he sings about eating four to five dozen eggs a day to help him get large, and maintain his size, yet the opening song of Belle a villager comments how expensive six eggs are. So, he must be pretty wealthy, especially if he was a captain. I would imagine military officers back then came from more well-to-do families.
wasn't that the plot of Hook ?
The monkeys themselves, and their kidnapping of Mowgli were though. Naming the leader of the group isn't all that bothersome. It's like "Lurtz" in Fellowship of the Ring - the name wasn't there, but "naming the leader of the orc party" isn't all that big a change.
Disney sometimes even lampshades it. Gopher in Winnie The Pooh and the Honey Tree, says "I'm not in the book" every time he appears.
Not to mention Disney made Kaa a villain, whereas in the original story he wasn't.
@PCCViking Oh, the unexpected consequences of putting two lines in the mouth of one character.
“I need six eggs.”
(offscreen) “That’s too expensive.”
“I need six eggs. That’s too expensive!”
Gaston seemed well-to-do in the original as well. It seemed as if he owned the tavern at least, and was wealthy enough to commission a portrait. But I think it was only the 2017 version that introduced the military angle.
Yeah, it was the 2017 version that introduced his military background.
But originally, the animated Gaston was going to be a more aristocratic character before turning him into a hunter. They probably kept his implied wealth as part of his background.
The monkeys were, the ape was not. No one cared about the change. But that’s was a much more sensible time for these things.
He was also the hero of the Town, people probably just gave him discount on everything
That's true as well, especially in the 2017 version with his military background. The novelization for that version said that he helped stop an invasion, so I wouldn't be surprised if he did get discounts.