Why does Disney do such a poor job adapting books into movies?

[Common Soldier]

I was looking at some movies by Disney of books I read as a kid and the Disney movies were garbage!


I saw the Artemis Fowl movie and it was terrible. You wouldn't know from the movie that it was part of a series of books, thr movie gives you no sense there is more of the story to be told. The main character in the movie was nothing like his character in the book, who would not be caught dead in a pair of jeans.

Disney's adaption of Around the World in 80 Days was even worse. The characters were nothing like the ones in the book, and Disney missed a perfect oportunity in casting a major Indian character (well, half Indian) with an actual Indian actress, instead of casting a white actress. Couldn't stand watching more than 5 minutes of the crap.

Disney's.adaption of the Back Caudron was bad, its adaptation of The Hunchback of Notre Dame was just silly.

At one time Disney seemed to be able do a good job of adapting books to movies, but now all Disney seems to know how to do is make trash. If the movie isn't geared to little girls like Frozen, it will be complete dreck.

[Sar1n]

Disney has adopted a very questionable strategy of cost-effectiveness where, instead of hiring good writers and actually trying to make a good movie, they put together a cheap, crappy movie and rely purely on brand name and usually cheap SJWriters pandering to the vocal minority to make profit.

[athanaric]

Disney has adopted a very questionable strategy of cost-effectiveness where, instead of hiring good writers and actually trying to make a good movie, they put together a cheap, crappy movie and rely purely on brand name and usually cheap SJWriters pandering to the vocal minority to make profit.

Even before Disney started pandering to SJWs, they were terrible at adaptations. Just look at any of the (usually German, BTW) fairy tales they've "adapted" over the decades. The recent pandering only adds an obnoxious layer on top of the cake.

[alhoon]

About Disney and SJWs: Boycott Mulan campaigns are failing. Disney is making money despite the screams of a few thousand progressives. So far, it seems the silent majority doesn't give much of a crap about the opinion of tweeter warriors.

[athanaric]

About Disney and SJWs: Boycott Mulan campaigns are failing. Disney is making money despite the screams of a few thousand progressives. So far, it seems the silent majority doesn't give much of a crap about the opinion of tweeter warriors.

China will grow larger.

[mishkin]

Out of curiosity, someone here does not agree that an attempt should be made to boycott any product from China (a dictatorship), especially when said product comes from (was filmed in) the area where the Uyghurs are retaliated, more so when its protagonist supports the violence of the Hong Kong police? (and there are probably still more problems with this product/film)

[athanaric]

Out of curiosity, someone here does not agree that an attempt should be made to boycott any product from China (a dictatorship), especially when said product comes from (was filmed in) the area where the Uyghurs are retaliated, more so when its protagonist supports the violence of the Hong Kong police? (and there are probably still more problems with this product/film)

If you wanna boycott the film, go right ahead. I'm also doing that by not watching it, and not being subscribed to Disney+. The point being made (at least by me) is that it's hilarious to watch the virtue-signalling idiots infighting, and particularly watching those that clamour about "social justice" in Western democracies, but consider any criticism of China's (literally) fascist and racist dictatorship "racist" and "problematic", trying to come up with rationalizations for their schizoid world view.

[mishkin]

I have never seen that a criticism of the infamies committed by the Chinese state is considered racism by the left/SJWs. Or are you referring to criticism because calling the COVID "Chinese virus" can increase the racism suffered by the Asian population in the Western world? Your message seems a bit confusing to me. Anyway, you agree to boycott (ignore) that movie, right? Why not just say that we (you and SJWs) are in this together?

[Common Soldier]

About Disney and SJWs: Boycott Mulan campaigns are failing. Disney is making money despite the screams of a few thousand progressives. So far, it seems the silent majority doesn't give much of a crap about the opinion of tweeter warriors.

Mulan was not based on a book, but a legend, and like most legends the story of Mulan.has countless variations to it. That is not like adapting a book where you really do have a correct authorized version. When it comes to fairy tales and legends like Mulan, you are free to adapt the story as you see fit.

Mulan is not a live action of the animation movie as other other recent Disney films like Aladin was, but a movie based on the same legend from what I see. To me, that different from using a book and then butchering it when you made the movie. Poor Victor Hugo was not alive to protest the mockery they made of his book. That Disney is successful with Mulan is not surprising, since although Mulan is not technically a princess, she is essentially one, and Disney is good at that kind of movie.

[Vladyvid]

Maybe the answer to your question is that its because they are made for children. Do the kids really read those books so they will protest inconsistencies? The partents may notice that, but will the kids? I would argue they are at the end of the day movies for kids, so the standards are lower.

[athanaric]

I have never seen that a criticism of the infamies committed by the Chinese state is considered racism by the left/SJWs. Or are you referring to criticism because calling the COVID "Chinese virus" can increase the racism suffered by the Asian population in the Western world? Your message seems a bit confusing to me.

Both. Covid used to be appropriately known as the "Wuhan Virus", until that was shot down by the Chinese government and other people who decried it as "racist". My point is that most SJWs, Woke Capitalists, and other virtue signallers are just useful idiots for oppressive non-Western regimes, whom they dare not criticize.

Anyway, you agree to boycott (ignore) that movie, right? Why not just say that we (you and SJWs) are in this together?

Yes, at least those progressive that have temporarily rediscovered their spines.

Maybe the answer to your question is that its because they are made for children. Do the kids really read those books so they will protest inconsistencies? The partents may notice that, but will the kids? I would argue they are at the end of the day movies for kids, so the standards are lower.

I would submit that a story for children is only good if well-adjusted, normal grown-ups can read/watch it without experiencing massive cringe. There are some good examples I can think of, but none of them are Disney.

[Knight of Heaven]

Because Disney goal, and studios like them isn't to make a good job at adaptations. Its all about the branding of characters, and franchises. That is what keeps them going, that is what is the safer bet for the risk they take financially. Unfortunately all this process gives us mediocrity, and unfortunately, mediocrity sells.

Scorsese is completely right, and always have been regarding the theme park type of movies.

And because im lazy... Thoughty2 explains it better, and in more depth all of this.

Maybe the answer to your question is that its because they are made for children.

No that doesn't excuse the trivial bad writing. There have been stuff aimed at children, that are exceptional well written.

[pacifism]

I think that Disney adaptations are fundamentally different from their re-adaptations. The adaptations did take a lot of creative license and crafted that image we all have when we think of classic Disney. Sometimes the source material isn't very set in stone, but Disney intentionally pushed a certain angle for their old movies: magic, princesses, happy endings, etc. I will admit they rarely bothered to put much effort in maintaining the authenticity of the original stories. They just made it their own, regardless of respectful they were being. I think that's true of the legends with variations (like Mulan) or a specific book (like The Black Cauldron). You can just argue that the attitude matters less for the former.

Some of their newer adaptations suffer from their company's own history. I'm thinking of works like The Hunchback of Notre-Dame or Pocahontas stuff from the late 90s and early 00s era. Those movies were complicated by Disney's attempts to try something new while maintaining a total aversion to marketing it as being different. They preferred have two movies mushed together with no concern that the tones clash. That's my best explanation for how the gargoyles and "Hellfire" made it into the same film. The gargoyles had to be shoehorned in later on, so they could put it in the commercials, right? Right?

The re-adaptations are a different story. I think that Disney is doing it's best to have broad, almost universal appeal, without upsetting anyone enough that they actually stop watching. But they also need to a reason to justify why they are doing live-action remakes. Apparently, they exist to provide meta-commentary that Disney princesses are still relevant by being feminist characters or something now. To me, it's a little funny to hear complaints about "woke Disney" when actual woke people are more likely to complain about how empty Disney's wokeness really is. They still make some clear social justice blunders. Disney will never go as far as to imply that maybe you shouldn't buy their stuff, or that a company/institution could have problems in its core.

Lindsay Ellis does a lot of videos on movies, media, and marketing, particularly Disney. If you can handle watching half an hour of a left-wing perspective that isn't a strawman, you might like her video called "Woke Disney":

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I don't agree with everything she says, but I think her perspective is knowledgeable and refreshing. Alternatively, you can just count how times she sarcastically says the word "girlboss".

To me, that different from using a book and then butchering it when you made the movie. Poor Victor Hugo was not alive to protest the mockery they made of his book.

But he was alive for the opera La Esmeralda, which he wrote the libretto for. It was never completely about the story for him. It was about the crying shame of letting a Parisian landmark deteriorate in a time before historical preservation really existed.

[AqD]

The movie Mulan is completely @#$^^&**%$!##@!!

Fantasy aside, some of basic setup are just ridiculous - For example, emperors didn't consider their realm a kingdom or themselves a king but the ruler of the world, and sending off a dozen of cavalrymen for pursuit is even more laughable - no one with a functioning brain would do that!

Why can't they just do something normal in Asian titles? Like LOTR or even gladiator.

[saxdude]

This thread is really funny.

[Ukiah]

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

The thing is that Disney was never interested in adapting stories without changing everything to fit the roughly 1 hour run time. Literally all their movies are based on some original source material. Even the popular Lion King was originally planned to be an adaptation of Kimba the White Lion/Jungle Emperor Leo. Which speaking of Japanese animation and Disney... Studio Ghibli is like the Japanese Disney. They have adapted some stories as well and are not that interested in being accurate. For example Howl's Moving Castle and Tales of Earthsea were both adapted from Western authors. Although many stories are Hayao Miyazaki's original work as well. Unsurprisingly Disney got the rights to these movies in the 90's and released them with their own English dub, it is actually really close to the Japanese versions. So I guess that is one thing that they did correctly. Why they decided to do frame for frame remakes of classic Disney, and still get it wrong... literally no one has the answer to this.

Yeah the Mulan remake was really bad. Although the original Disney animation was not accurate to the Chinese myth either. They don't really get the Chinese stuff right in any of their adaptations. China is a mythical country like Neverland or Narnia. It doesn't exist.

[conon394]

Scorsese is completely right, and always have been regarding the theme park type of movies.

Well not really he is just a pompous gig. Oh I make art but other stuff is trash. He might want to recall the great Greek tragedians also made satyr plays as part of their competition billing. The audience wanted moving Pathos out of Euripides but it also wanted the equivalent of mindless entertainment for its vote as well and of course stayed for the comedies also... He has to answer for his pathetically pointless remake of Cape Fear.

On Disney.

@Common Soldier

I was looking at some movies by Disney of books I read as a kid and the Disney movies were garbage!

Well first off always going to be a problem for a percentage of any readers of any book. Fundamentally books and movies just different and the way you experience them are as well. Add in the effects of adaption and somebody will always dislike a movies adaption. You might better ask how many people claim to both love a book and a movie adaption.

------------------

Even before Disney started pandering to SJWs, they were terrible at adaptations. Just look at any of the (usually German, BTW) fairy tales they've "adapted" over the decades. The recent pandering only adds an obnoxious layer on top of the cake.

But fairy tales have always been adopted and adapted again and altered. The German version of little red riding hood is very different from the oldest version from southern France/norther Italy. Omitting the cannibalism, overt sexual innuendo (or muting it severely) and injecting a male savior for example.

[alhoon]

Out of curiosity, someone here does not agree that an attempt should be made to boycott any product from China (a dictatorship), especially when said product comes from (was filmed in) the area where the Uyghurs are retaliated, more so when its protagonist supports the violence of the Hong Kong police? (and there are probably still more problems with this product/film)

I don't agree that any attempt should be made to boycott a product from China because it is a dictatorship or because it treats some of its people badly. That would stop movies from most of the world outside the West. I also don't think the protagonist should abide by Western moral values for me to enjoy the movie. A ton of actors are/were buttholes that did way worse things than support a crackdown.

On the contrary, I think we should vote with our money against meh movies that are SJW-castles. You know, like a ton of the recent Disney movies.