Off the Rails: Has ‘Thomas & Friends’ reached the end of the line?

Thomas and Friends steams into cinemas later this month with animated special The Great Race (2016). HiT Entertainment has announced that the film will feature an array of multicultural new characters as the engines of the Island of Sodor go global. Indeed, what started in 1984 as a low-key, budget kids’ show about the misadventures of a cheeky little tank engine on the Fat Controller’s railway has evolved into something much bigger. But, with criticisms of a major decline in quality since the show’s heyday, and accusations of their having pandered to political correctness in this latest outing, is it time Thomas reached the end of the line?

Since HiT Entertainment’s acquisition of the programme in 2003, the quality of the show rapidly declined. The first thing I noticed (besides the dumbed-down abbreviation of the show’s title) was a slower pace, and Michael Angelis’ narration went from being exciting and imbued with character to bland, patronising and simplistic. I’ve a sneaky suspicion Angelis was actually instructed to ‘tone it down’ in order to appeal to a specifically younger audience. Compare the episodes of the sixth season (2002) to those of the seventh (2003) and the difference is very noticeable. And the narration isn’t the only noticeable alteration – the writing, too, is lacking. Early seasons of Thomas were derived from The Railway Series books, and so were not so ‘dumbed down’ in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Every now and again, complex terminology was utilised without fear of going over kids’ heads. And it had a significant effect on me, who, by the age of about three or four, had incorporated words such as ‘revolutionary’ and ‘sagacious’ into my otherwise rudimentary vocabulary. There’s no such appeal in later episodes, and the grammar applied is much more basic by comparison.

The Classic Series, 1995

One clear aspect of the original series is a firm focus on societal hierarchy, exemplified by the clever use of language and vocal intonations. The big tender engines regularly taunt and deride the smaller tank engines, and the diesels pose the threat of an impending obsolescence, accurately reflecting not only historical context, but also more general prejudices. Such drive is no longer felt in the new series. The patronisingly labelled ‘Steamies’ and diesels are still occasionally at loggerheads, but are reduced to exchanging petty insults, not to mention the fact that they are now capable of maintaining friendships. And that’s a problem: there’s simply no conflict, and the storylines are therefore less engaging, no matter how old you are. Everything is formally resolved by the episode’s conclusion - everybody makes up and morals are learned, only for them to forget them by the next episode.

HiT Entertainment, 2009

 Earlier episodes were also not quite so formulaic. The narratives were somewhat less conventional, and sometimes incidents occurred with unbalanced consequence. Take the series three episode ‘Percy, James and the Fruitful Day’, based on a pre-existing magazine story: The opening sees James waiting at a junction for Percy to arrive with some trucks. He scolds Percy, complaining that engines should always run to time. Percy dismisses James as bossy. After boasting about his reliability, and denouncing Percy, James’ brakes jam, meaning Percy has to help out. Ordinarily this might serve as a balanced retribution – but the story takes an unexpected twist as Percy winds up having an accident and caked in fruit. The link between the two engine’s stories here is the ambiguity of the word ‘jam’. Rather than resolve conflict within a preachy, moralistic frame, the episode takes a quirky, more realistic approach; accidents happen all the time, no matter what your moral standpoint – an important, original and oft-neglected life lesson. That’s not to say that morals were not integrated into the show, but they were not nearly as blatant and repetitious as in later series, nor were they necessarily integral to the plot.

Britt Allcroft, 1995

So, what changed exactly? The first series (1984) was based entirely on Reverend Awdry’s The Railway Series, while the second (1986) incorporated efforts by his son, Christopher Awdry. Both of these series were infamously narrated by Ringo Starr. The third series (1991-1992) was narrated by Michael Angelis, and for the first time incorporated episodes based on magazine stories and original episodes by the television production crew. Despite complaints by Awdry concerning realism, these episodes, by comparison to today’s fare, are golden, to the point at which the casual viewer would barely be able to distinguish the original stories from the book stories. The fourth and arguably the best series (1994-1995) returned to form with the vast majority of episodes being based on The Railway Series. The fifth series (1998), meanwhile, took an entirely different direction, as for the first time none of the episodes in the series were based on preconceived stories. The episodes were instead conceived and written by David Mitton and Britt Allcroft, in conjunction with a railway consultant, and were, for the most part, based loosely on actual events. This series was focussed on dramatic storylines, rather than on remaining truthful to the original stories, but, despite some melodramatic episodes and ridiculous incidents, series five was nonetheless fairly consistent. By series six (2002), the show now had its own writing staff, making the consistency a little muddled. While there were some decent plots, it was clear the writers knew next to nothing about trains, opting for a more comical approach to life on the rails, as opposed to the realism that had been conveyed previously. In addition, characters such as Percy and especially Edward underwent a complete character alteration. Percy was severely dumbed down, while Edward was no longer the old, wise engine he used to be. By series seven, the show had become watered down and repetitive, and became even worse as HiT Entertainment’s takeover meant a complete overhaul of the show. David Mitton, Britt Allcroft, and the rest of the original crew departed, not to mention the loss of the show’s former composers Mike O’Donnell and Junior Campbell, whose absence has never been redeemed.

HiT Entertainment, 2009

My main issue with HiT’s version of Thomas and Friends is that it’s a cheap carbon copy of every other animated kids’ show on television. And, as much as I normally love animation, the animation itself is detrimental to the programme too. Since 2008, animation production by Nitrogen Studios, and then by Arc Productions from 2013 onwards, has replaced the familiar utilisation of model O Gauge trains. It’s not as though the quality of the animation is especially *bad*, but its slickness detracts from the show’s industrial, smog-enveloped setting, which is ironic for a medium usually employed to convey realism. Now, some of you might be thinking “So what? Big deal. It’s a kids’ show”, but a television programme does not need to be demeaning in order to appeal to kids. In fact, the opposite is true. Since Andrew Brenner’s takeover as head writer in 2013, the show has improved somewhat, with the reintroduction of some long-dormant characters, and even some characters previously only seen in Railway Series stories. But the fact remains that the programme pales in comparison to its former glory. The pretentious, moralistic undertones of the programme as it is currently are frankly mind-numbing, and its continual success both confuses and frustrates me. Say what you will about the original Britt Allcroft series (1984-2003) but HiT have drastically altered the show, so much so that it’s barely recognisable. Inarguably, the Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends programme I know and love has disappeared in a cloud of steam.

Disney at its Direst: Top Ten Most Disappointing Disney Films

Walt Disney Animation Studios is considered to be at the very top of the animated feature film ladder. With classics such as Bambi (1942), The Lion King (1994) and Beauty and the Beast (1991), the animated Disney movie has essentially become synonymous with the term ‘animation’ and cartoons generally. But they can’t all be golden. Here’s a list of what I, personally, consider to be the most disappointing features released as part of Disney’s animated feature film canon. This excludes any films produced by DisneyToon Studios, Television Animation, or any other subsidiaries. This list refers solely to theatrical releases under the Walt Disney Animation Studios label. Just as a side note, while some films on this list are almost universally considered to be contenders for the worst ever Disney movies, some are actually still pretty decent, so it’s completely understandable if your opinions don’t sit right with mine. Heck, even I find myself watching these films repeatedly – even the ones I consider the worst aren’t quite as bad as critics and audiences have made them out to be. So, with that in mind, let’s get started!

10. Winnie the Pooh (2011)

Disney, 2011

I must admit, I’m not hugely familiar with A.A. Milne’s ‘Winnie the Pooh’ stories, but judging by this offering, it seems as though the best stories had already been adapted for the original 1977 classic The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh. Of course, that ‘film’ was comprised of pre-existing short films, which probably explains why the 2011 sequel feels somewhat rushed and uninspired. It’s not bad, by any means, but it lacks the wit and charm characteristic of the original 1977 classic.

This film isn’t actually too bad. It’s a decent effort, and it’s a wonderful throwback to the old days of traditional animation. It’s conveyed in the same basic style as the original, and it’s clear that a great deal of effort was invested in its presentation. In fact, it’s rather nice that this, as of yet, marks the end of Disney’s traditionally animated efforts, albeit a rather low-key affair. That said, it nonetheless pales in comparison to the original, and the stories aren’t quite so engaging or memorable. One major issue I have is the humour. At times it’s too acerbic, and out of character; Owl comes across as particularly mean-spirited, and Rabbit isn’t his old sensible self. It feels as though they attempted to integrate snappy, modern humour into an old-fashioned, child-friendly setting, and it simply doesn’t work. Finally, I’ve always felt as though the original movie ended on such a ‘final’ note, that a sequel seemed unnecessary. The original concluded with Christopher Robin’s leaving for school, and so hinted at a progression into maturity that the sequel seems to overlook entirely.

That isn’t to say that this film is bad – it really isn’t. It’s well worth a look and, if one wasn’t so tempted to draw comparisons with the original feature film, I probably wouldn’t be so critical. The voices are mostly very close to the original voice actors, but they are indeed lacking something. Jim Cummings does a brilliant job as both Pooh and Tigger, but the fact is he’s no Sterling Holloway. Younger audiences probably won’t notice a difference though. At a run-time of just about an hour, the film certainly isn’t a snooze-fest, and Tigger does indeed have some bounce left in him.

9. The Sword in the Stone (1963)

Disney, 1963

Based on the novel by T.H. White, Disney’s 18^th animated feature follows ‘Wart’, a young boy destined for great things. On his way to retrieve his brother’s arrow, he stumbles upon Merlin the magician, who informs him that he is to be his tutor. Overall, it’s a decent adaptation, even if it does stray quite severely from the book. It’s enjoyable, funny and charming in its own way. So what’s the problem?

The Sword in the Stone sadly suffers from some very familiar problems of this era, with its overuse of rehashed audio and visuals. Due to some choppy editing, Wart’s voice even breaks and reverts back to boyish repeatedly throughout. Story-wise, too, the film is very episodic. There’s not much of a build to it, and it feels more like a series of events unfolding, which isn’t a bad thing – but for a feature film it can feel a tad underwhelming. Consequently, the film’s ending feels fairly abrupt and unsatisfying.

But it’s certainly not all bad. Merlin and Archimedes provide some very entertaining comedy relief, and Madam Mim is one of the most underrated and funniest Disney villains to ever grace the screen. The wizard’s duel scene is particularly memorable and cleverly conceived, and despite the use of Xerox, the film’s visuals are bright and appealing. In a sense, it’s underrated on the whole, but in another it could also be considered one of Disney’s lesser efforts. It’s not bad, but it’s not one of Disney’s best by any means.

 

8. Robin Hood (1973)

Disney, 1973

Some of my choices are going to be controversial in some way. So let me start by reminding you, this is all down to personal opinion, and I do have my reasons to justify this choice. That said, Robin Hood isn’t *too* bad in my opinion; it’s still very watchable. But it suffers from some major flaws. You all know the story. Robin Hood (a fox, in this case) robs from the rich and gives to the poor, aided by his trusted associate Little John (a bear), avoiding confrontation with the Sheriff of Nottingham (a wolf) and ridding the townsfolk of the overbearing Prince John (a lion).

So what’s my problem with this film? Well, in my opinion, it lacks originality in some parts. Little John is voiced by Phil Harris, making him painfully similar in appearance and character to Baloo from Jungle Book (1967). Sir Hiss, Prince John’s assistant, also bears some similarity to Kaa the snake. In addition, there are numerous scenes that are evidently recycled from previous features, including Jungle Book, The Aristocats (1971) and even Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937). Reusing old animation was certainly nothing new by this point, but the difference between this feature and any other is that the scenes are jarringly obvious. Prince John, voiced by Peter Ustinov, is also rather tame for a Disney villain, and presents no real threat. Ultimately, this makes the narrative rather bland and uninteresting, which isn’t helped by a rather drab and depressing soundtrack.

Ultimately, this film, for me, is very Disney-by-the-numbers: a classic work of fiction is turned into an animated feature performed by anthropomorphic animals. Such a familiar premise leads to an equally familiar film, with little to no surprises. It’s hardly the worst thing you’ll ever see, but it’s rather average by Disney’s standards.

 

 

7. The Three Caballeros (1944)

Disney, 1944

I’m not sure where to begin with this one. From a technical standpoint, it’s astounding, but as a result it’s one of Disney’s most dated. It succeeds 1942’s Saludos Amigos as a package movie, produced to aid relations with Latin America in the war era. The major difference between the two films is that Saludos Amigos is presented as a travelogue documentary, providing justification for its patchy construct and lack of story. The Three Caballeros, meanwhile, is just as (if not more) meandering, and is completely devoid of story altogether, besides the basic premise that sees Donald Duck’s friends from Latin America presenting him with various gifts, each of which permit him the exploration of a particular region of their homeland.

In context, this film is visually impressive, but otherwise it bears little merit. It has historical value in the sense that it was probably once considered a technical accomplishment, and that it was one of several wartime films that had a particular agenda – in this case to educate and facilitate relations overseas. But the segments presented are not cohesive in the slightest. The viewer is dragged wearily from one manic scene to another, while Donald and his friends lust after beautiful Latino women and numerous narrators tell stories on subjects ranging from flying donkeys to penguins. It’s just insane, and becomes very tiresome after a short while, despite the immense visual creativity.

Disney, 1944

It’s worth seeing in a retrospective sense, and it’s incredibly experimental, but it sometimes borders on unbearable. By the end of the movie, you’ll probably still be seeing kaleidoscopic colours and beautiful Latino women bursting out of flowers long after the movie has concluded. It presents a very idealistic and somewhat surreal (and at times slightly scary) view of Latin America, and casual sexism is rife. It’s not as though no effort was invested in this film. Technically it is a marvel; some might even say it’s ahead of its time in that respect. Otherwise, this is what I imagine hell looks like.

 

 

6. The Black Cauldron (1985)

Disney, 1985

Based on Lloyd Alexander’s The Chronicles of Prydain, Disney’s 25^th animated classic has often been shunned for almost being responsible for the demise of the company. The film, which follows pig-keeper Taran in his quest to find the cauldron before the dreaded Horned King does, was a major box office flop. The question is, is this response justified?

In some ways, yes. The visuals and characterisation appeal to a more mature audience than traditional Disney fare, but its plot is too simplistic to be engaging to the same audience. Ultimately, this leads to a rather bland and forgettable adventure, which is a real shame considering the impressive visuals. Taran and Princess Eilonwy also hint towards some kind of blossoming romance that never comes to fruition. One or two scenes of dialogue don’t actually serve any purpose to the narrative, and the voice acting is a little off. Taran’s voice is excruciatingly dull and devoid of passion, which is a major problem for a film’s protagonist. The Horned King, voiced by John Hurt, is one of the most sinister-looking villains of all time, but he moves around so slowly that, without the overblown intensity of the soundtrack, he poses no real threat at all.

Is it all bad? No. As said before, visuals are fantastic. One thing people always neglect to mention is that this feature was the first to incorporate computer animation – an achievement that is most often erroneously attributed to subsequent feature The Great Mouse Detective (1986). But the characters aren’t as well-developed as in some of Disney’s better releases, and story-wise it comes across as a bit muddled and flat. Another reason for this is a distinct lack of explanation as to the goings-on that the audience is expected to accept at face value. Why, for example, can Hen-wen the pig see the future? Why does the princess have a magic bauble? And why is the Horned King ‘swallowed’ by the cauldron? The film is littered with unanswered questions, and its dark tone will not appeal to everybody. Seriously, however, I would certainly recommend it, if only for a single viewing. It’s an interesting experiment, if a little flawed, and beautiful to look at.

Read my full review of The Black Cauldron here.

 

5. Fun and Fancy Free (1947)

Disney, 1947

Surprisingly, many of the 1940s package films actually hold up despite the threat of age. Films such as Saludos Amigos (1942) and The Three Caballeros (1944) make more sense in context, but the likes of Make Mine Music (1946) and Melody Time (1948) remain decently enjoyable. Fun and Fancy Free, however, is one of my least favourites, mostly because there’s no real logic to its construction. It follows Jiminy Cricket as he presents two stories – one of Bongo the bear and the other of ‘Mickey and the Beanstalk’, dictated by Edgar Bergen and Mortimer Snerd.

This film isn’t really a film. It’s basically comprised of two cartoons, similar to the later release The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr Toad (1949). The difference with this feature, however, is that the stories aren’t really connected in any way, making it feel a lot more laboured. It’s a complete mystery to me, too, as to why they thought Jiminy Cricket to be an appropriate host. I mean, it’s not bad, but it’s quite out of the blue. What dates this film significantly is the live action scenes with Edgar Bergen, which come across as rather irritating as they constantly interrupt what is otherwise a decent outing for Mickey Mouse.

In all, it’s hardly terrible, just plain odd. The two stories, in and of themselves, are perfectly fine. They’re not the greatest stories ever told but they’re decent efforts. Putting them together was a peculiar choice, however, and the film ultimately peters out without making a point or much of an impression.

Read my full review of Fun and Fancy Free here.

4. Home on the Range (2004)

Disney, 2004

In 2004, Disney officially ceased production of traditionally animated features… That is until 2009 when they returned to the technique with the vastly underrated The Princess and the Frog (2009). Until then, however, their final entry in their traditionally animated canon was… this. An interesting choice to signify the end of an era, Home on the Range is surprisingly low-key considering its significance. It focuses on three cows’ attempts to thwart a cattle rustler in order to win a reward that will save their ailing farm.

Whoever came up with the genius idea to incarnate Roseanne Barr in the form of a cow deserves some form of recognition for it being one of the crudest, most uninspired concepts Disney have ever presented. In any case, the story is… fine. There’s nothing especially *wrong* with it as such, but it’s very bland and simplistic. The humour, too, is less than inspired, and at times somewhat juvenile. There are still a fair few laughs, but it’s mostly cheap and throwaway. The animation is nothing special either, and the character designs sometimes rather odd (Maggie’s rear end looks as though it could have your eye out).

It’s not wholly unenjoyable. In fact, I actually like to praise the movie when I can in defence of the seemingly relentless hatred the film gets from filmgoers and Disney fans the world over. It’s really not as bad as the above criticisms make it sound, and it does have some redeeming features. One thing worthy of a mention is the soundtrack, which is awesome. The songs are very catchy and memorable – it’s just a shame they’re used in such a distinctly unmemorable film. The voice acting is also commendable. Barr pulls off a decent performance without becoming too irritating, and Cuba Gooding Jr and Judi Dench give life to some otherwise rather flat characters.

Read my full review of Home on the Range here.

 

3. Frozen (2013)

Disney, 2013

Okay, so I’ve been putting this film down for nearly three years now, but I had to mention it sooner or later. I don’t care what anybody else says – this film is a complete shambles. The story, (very) loosely based on Hans Christian Andersen’s The Snow Queen, follows princess sisters Elsa and Anna. After Elsa’s power to randomly conjure ice and snow puts her sister in danger, she is concealed from society, hiding not only her powers but herself. At her coronation, she unwittingly wreaks havoc on the kingdom of Arendelle, and retires to an ice fortress in the mountains. Responsibility turns to Anna to find her and put an end to Elsa’s winter.

Story-wise, Frozen makes no sense. Elsa’s powers are never given any formal explanation, and the resolution is unsettlingly flawed. As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, the twist involving Prince Hans also makes little sense as he reveals himself to be ‘evil’ even after helping our protagonists. Kristoff is given no real backstory, meaning there are many unanswered questions concerning his character. Was he an orphan? Why does he have a reindeer? Why is he even there? On top of all this, there’s a rather irritating and pointless side character in Olaf, and canine-like reindeer Sven is essentially a rehash of Tangled’s (2010) Maximus. In fact, even the faux-modish one-word title seems to be equally as derivative. Without a doubt, the most iconic scene from the movie is the ‘Let It Go’ sequence, which also makes no sense. Elsa sings about letting go of her worries, without caring what others think, about setting herself free. But while she sings this, she practically imprisons herself in an ice fortress, isolating herself from society. It’s simply illogical.

On the plus side, there are plenty of awesome visuals, and the voice acting is fine. But the film itself is terrible, with what is perhaps one of the absolute worst narratives that has ever been told in a Disney movie. The integration of modern colloquial language is also painfully jarring, and the songs, regardless of what many people seem to think, are not all that memorable, and some of them serve little purpose to the narrative. I could go on, but I won’t. Suffice to say, I hate this movie, and the attention it’s garnered.

Read my full analysis of Frozen here.

2. Fantasia 2000 (1999)

Disney, 1999

Fantasia’s millennial reboot incited great expectations. The original 1940 classic is considered by many to constitute not only a Disney masterpiece but one of the greatest filmic pieces of all time, and by the late 1990s animation capabilities had evolved in such a way that allowed for visual improvement. With this in mind, the long-awaited sequel is inarguably a bitter disappointment, and pales miserably in comparison to its predecessor.

So what’s the problem? Well, firstly the sequences are not nearly as high quality, with some bordering on the surreal. Respighi’s Pines of Rome is bizarrely visualised as a family of flying humpback whales. Seriously, what were they on when they conceived this? Throughout, you just get the sense that, conceptually, they struggled, and consequently tried a bit too hard to be original. Another (brief) sequence sees a flock of flamingos come into contact with a yo-yo, accompanied by Saint-Saens’ Carnival of the Animals, which just conveys itself as pointless and juvenile compared to the mastery of the original. Speaking of which, this film cheats by integrating The Sorcerer’s Apprentice from the original 1940 movie, which is inexcusably lazy, no matter how iconic the sequence. Another major issue I have is that the animation seems rather slapdash in comparison to the original. There are scenes that don’t always time well with the classical pieces, with more of a focus on delivering generic story than on impressive visualisation of audio.

Disney, 1999

There are some decent sequences, the best of which is the final one, based on Stravinsky’s Firebird Suite, which follows a narrative of life, death and renewal through the actions of a forest sprite and its interaction with nature. It’s clever and reminiscent of the Renaissance era that preceded this film, although it nonetheless pales in comparison to even the lesser efforts of the original. Needless celebrity cameos, lazy writing and animation sadly punctuate what is a distinctively modern era, and with it the official end of Disney’s 1990s winning streak. A poor effort indeed.

1. Chicken Little (2005)

Disney, 2005

Disney’s foray into the CG animated world was sadly somewhat underwhelming. Based on the popular fable, Chicken Little follows our eponymous protagonist as he is lampooned for believing the sky is falling. Convinced Little was actually hit on the head by an acorn, the townsfolk of Oakey Oaks relentlessly deride him – that is until it turns out he was really onto something, leading to a surreal sci-fi comedy adventure to save the world, along with his misfit friends Abby Mallard, Runt Of The Litter and Fish Out Of Water.

So what are the issues with this movie? Well, to begin with, the narrative is a little meandering. It jumps from plot point to plot point very sporadically, conveying the sense that, behind the scenes, the film’s production was a little troubled. On the one hand, we’ve a slightly juvenile college-movie-esque baseball comedy, and on the other we’ve an all-too-serious side-story about parental neglect. Throw in an alien invasion, and the film becomes a bit too muddled to be engaging. And the ending is inarguably the most anticlimactic of any film on this list.

Thankfully, there are some redeeming qualities. Most of the time I prefer contemporary film to shy away from making pop culture references, but in some cases the humour is sharp and on point. The characters are also heavily marketable and quite clever, in the sense that they’re based solely on traditional phrases alluding to social pariahs. Overall, however, the animation is rather average, and there’s not much memorable. Despite its pros, there are probably about as many cons, which just makes it an average experience. This film has garnered a lot of hatred, and it’s understandable considering the standard we’re accustomed to from Disney, but it’s not a complete catastrophe. I mean, you could still do far worse. Of all the films in the canon, however, I have to admit I, too, rate it the lowest. It is, in my opinion, the worst Disney animated feature, but that doesn’t necessarily make it a bad egg.

Disney, 2005

Read my full retrospective of Chicken Little here.

Disney's ‘The Jungle Book’ (2016): A Review

Ah, the remake. I have to admit, I’ve never been a fan myself, mostly because remakes often pale in comparison to their predecessors. Recently, however, Disney’s remakes have fared rather well in terms of garnering positive audience responses. Sure, they’re not for everybody (I, for one, am still rather opposed to remakes on the whole – they simply don’t do a lot for me, personally), but you could do far worse than watching one of Disney’s recent rehashes. The Jungle Book, an adaptation of Rudyard Kipling’s Mowgli stories, is the latest of Disney’s canon to receive the ‘remake treatment’, and it has, as of yet, garnered high praise indeed. But is it as good as the 1967 classic of the same name?

The Jungle Book, Disney, 2016

The plot is obviously a familiar one. It follows Mowgli (Neel Sethi), a ‘man cub’ discovered by Bagheera (Ben Kingsley), a panther, who takes him to be raised by a pack of wolves, led by Akela (Giancarlo Esposito). After Shere Khan (Idris Elba) arrives and threatens to kill the man cub, Mowgli chooses to flee, and Bagheera encourages him to find and reside in the man village. Along the way, Mowgli meets Kaa the snake (Scarlett Johansson), Baloo the bear (Bill Murray) and orangutan King Louie (Christopher Walken), who demands he give him the secret to ‘the red flower’ (fire) –  a nice, if slightly overcooked, recurring motif alluding to the original movie.

Firstly, the visuals are indeed sublime, as can be expected from a live action/CG adaptation. The problem is that there’s no subtlety. From beginning to end, we’re carried from one action scene to another, without good reason. Everything in the original movie maintained symbolic undertones – something this remake manages to almost overlook completely. Even the ending – which originally saw Mowgli take his place in the man village – is completely changed for the remake, which, story-wise, is a major problem. The narrative is supposed to follow Mowgli’s coming of age, his eventual arrival at the man village representing his maturity. The final scene in the remake sees Mowgli contentedly embracing life in the jungle, which misses the point entirely. The film instead just peters out without concluding properly.

The Jungle Book, Disney, 2016

Besides the visuals, the only other positive aspect worthy of a mention is the acting, which is decent. Neel Sethi does a tremendous job in the role of Mowgli, especially considering the fact that the only other cast members are computer generated. The voice acting is also acceptable, however there are some notably obscure casting choices, the strangest perhaps being the film’s antagonist Shere Khan, voiced by Idris Elba, whose refined English accent drains the character of any credible sinisterness. Put simply, he’s just not menacing enough. Compare this with the likes of the original 1967 voice actor George Sanders and there’s just no competition. And Scarlett Johansson as Kaa is pointless. In terms of the narrative, even the character is pointless, as she serves no purpose to the plot whatsoever. Another bizarre addition to the voice cast is Christopher Walken as the surprisingly creepy King Louie, the power-crazy orangutan. I’ve nothing against Walken as an actor, but in this role he’s simply himself incarnated in the body of an orangutan, which was a peculiar decision, especially considering his inevitable rendition of a frankly ill-placed musical number in homage to the 1967 classic. The song falls flat completely and has no place in what is otherwise a serious narrative.

The Jungle Book, Disney, 2016

This brings me on to another major issue I have with the movie – it lacks direction. I’ve no issue with King Louie being represented in a more menacing and villainous fashion than his appearance in the original animated film (he is, after all, an antagonist), but his presentation is hilariously overblown. At one point, he even roars like a lion. And, to reiterate, his rendition of ‘I Wanna Be Like You’, along with Bill Murray’s version of ‘The Bare Necessities’, just doesn’t fit, simply because it’s unclear what the filmmakers were trying to achieve. On the one hand, the remake depicts a far darker, grittier adaptation of Kipling’s Mowgli stories, but on the other it tries to pay homage to the original by integrating musical numbers that just do not sit with the film’s tone. The talking animals, too, range from the frighteningly realistic to cutesy, cuddly and ‘Disney-fied’. The realistic graphics and the voices that accompany them do not always match, and some are downright cringe-worthy. Some might say they’re cute, but the cuddly wolf cubs are frankly vomit-inducing.

The Jungle Book, Disney, 2016

As expected, this film is a visual extravaganza, but it otherwise bears little value. The actors do a decent job, and the animation is very impressive. Story-wise, however, the film gets a bit lost in the jungle, so to speak. Consequently the narrative is underwhelming, and ultimately unsatisfying. The fact that this film has audiences in awe is somewhat concerning. Computer animation improves constantly; without a consistent narrative, any appraisal that focuses primarily on a film’s visuals calls its lasting appeal into question. For the time being, however, it’s worth seeing if only for its technical aspects, but a bare necessity, it is not.

 

 

A Disney Decline or Remake Renaissance?: Thoughts on the CG Reboot

It seems as though Disney’s live action remakes are a little hit-and-miss. While the Tim Burton adaptation of Alice in Wonderland (2010) maintained a rather bland and rudimentary narrative, and Cinderella (2015) was hindered by its sluggish pacing, their latest remake The Jungle Book (2016), based upon the 1967 animated feature of the same name, seems to be a success. But with the recent slate of animated movies planned for live action/CG reboots, I’m more than a little concerned about Disney’s direction, although until now it’s been hard to pinpoint precisely why. I mean, the majority of Disney animated movies are themselves derived from works of fiction, implying that these so-called ‘remakes’ aren’t necessarily remakes at all, but alternate adaptations, which isn’t really such a bad thing. However, with the news that The Lion King (1994) is next in line, it’s fast becoming apparent that Disney’s focus is entirely monetary.

The Jungle Book, Disney, 2016

This isn’t at all a criticism of the techniques applied to recreate these movies. I’ll admit that, when it comes to animated films, my preferences have often tended to be, well, conservative, in a sense, and anchored by a strong, somewhat tantalising, yearning for a reprisal of traditional methods. That said, I have since warmed to what I would have previously referred to as ‘the new-fangled’ way, since Disney and indeed many other production companies have, over the last two decades, proven their ability to convey a complex and powerful story through the utilisation of computer imagery. With that in mind, this latest criticism in no way revolves around the means by which story is conveyed, but instead focuses predominantly on story itself. The Jungle Book manages to get away with being another adaptation of the same work of fiction (Rudyard Kipling’s Mowgli stories), even if it does borrow sequences from the 1967 Disney classic. All the same, considering the latter’s continual popularity amongst audiences, many likely see it as a remake – a carbon copy – rather than a reimagining, especially considering the string of Disney animated classics that have also fallen victim to the same process, such as Cinderella (2015), Maleficent (2014) and Alice in Wonderland (2010). And there’s more to come, including a live action version of the ‘Night On Bald Mountain’ sequence from Fantasia (1940).

The Lion King, Disney, 1994

News of a Lion King remake follows the overwhelming success of The Jungle Book, which managed to draw in $103 in box office revenue in its opening weekend. The trouble with a rehash of The Lion King, however, is that it makes Disney’s artifice all the more visible. While previous ‘remakes’ were clearly based on works of fiction, The Lion King falls into the trap of being a blatant recreation of a classic animated film – and an unnecessary one at that. While the film is indeed loosely based on Hamlet, a live-action and/or computer animated rehash highlights Disney’s complete disregard for original story or, at the very least, fresh perspective. The Jungle Book may have been a box office success, and audience reception indicates that it’s indeed a quality adaptation – but the fact remains that it’s devoid of the originality that made Disney a household name. A Lion King remake merely substantiates my fears that very little thought at all is given to the original source material. Why not make another adaptation, based on another, separate work of fiction?

The Jungle Book, Disney, 2016

This is nothing new, of course. As far back as 1996, Disney unveiled a live action 101 Dalmatians, which, while still inspired by the novel by Dodie Smith, is ultimately no more than a remake of the Disney animated classic from 1961. And the remakes don’t seem to be grinding to a halt any time soon. Other films that are reported to be on the way include Pete’s Dragon, Peter Pan and Dumbo. Indeed, it appears we’re in the midst of a ‘remake era’, in which classic Disney movies are being given reboots, whether they’re actually in demand or not. Let’s face it, there are already plenty of Peter Pan adaptations already, and Pete’s Dragon is a strange choice for a reboot. Besides the promise of visual potential, there’s nothing particularly innovative or necessary about these remakes – which isn’t really a problem as such, as long as there remains a firm focus on narrative and character as opposed to technical aspects. Put it this way – the original Cinderella (1950) and Alice in Wonderland (1951) are ironically more three-dimensional than their live action counterparts. In that respect, I for one am not looking forward to a Lion King remake, simply because it’s not necessary, and can only pale in comparison to what is one of the greatest animated movies of all time. I only hope Disney don’t lose sight of what’s truly important. That’s assuming they haven’t already. Even so, it seems as though this may actually be happening, so there’s nothing more I can do than to reserve judgment until the film arrives. Only time will tell if The Lion King, and Disney’s other remakes for that matter, will be a roaring success.

Disney’s ‘Zootopia’ (2016): A Review

It seems as though Disney are most definitely on a winning streak. The last few years have seen the company churn out success after success (we’ll not mention you-know-what), and, judging by critics’ reviews and box office turnout, this latest release is no exception. But, with all the hype, one anticipates disappointment. And with the same teasers and trailers screened over and over ad nauseam, one cannot help but wonder if the scenes shown are the only ones worth showing. So, is Disney’s latest offering as ‘zootopian’ as its title suggests?

Zootopia, Disney, 2016

The film focuses on Judy Hopps (Ginnifer Goodwin), a bunny who yearns to become a police officer. Her parents, though well-meaning, are ultimately discouraging, telling her not to set her goals too high as she is, after all, just a bunny. She relocates to Zootopia, a city populated by all sorts of anthropomorphised animals, and achieves her dream, only to be assigned the task of distributing parking tickets. While on her shift, she meets con artist Nick Wilde (Jason Bateman), a fox, no less. Chief Bogo (Idris Elba), an African buffalo, punishes Judy after she abandons her shift to pursue a criminal, but before he can fire her, Mrs Otterton pleads with the police to locate her missing husband. Judy immediately pipes up and agrees, and eventually identifies Wilde as her lead. What follows is essentially a buddy-cop-comedy adventure – something that Disney have as of yet strayed from presenting in their 50-plus animated movie canon.

Zootopia, Disney, 2016

Before I properly commence this review, I’d like to address something that, to my knowledge, has not yet been addressed. The UK release of this film is inexplicably titled Zootropolis. I’m confused as to why this is, particularly since here in the UK, we don’t actually have metropoliseseses... Moreover, Zootopia works as a title because it’s a clever pun, and emphasises Judy’s initial perception of the city as being a near-perfect centre of equality. Zootropolis just… doesn’t, frankly. I’m not at all certain why they altered it but, hey, let’s not get too bogged down by marketing strategies and talk about the film, which, I must say, is nothing less than fantastic. Honestly, I never give such high praise unless it’s absolutely necessary, and here it most certainly is necessary. It’s bright and colourful; it’s fresh, quick-witted and exhilarating, and the narrative keeps you constantly hooked throughout. I’ll admit some of the trailers were played and replayed so much that it seemed the film was overhyped (that scene with the sloths in the DMV springs to mind) but this film never has a dull moment. It’s consistently funny and engaging throughout, with an added mystery aspect that involves a twist that actually works (yes, Frozen, once again I’m looking at you*). The biggest surprise and appeal for me, however, was that the film’s main focus – its child-friendly menagerie of colourful characters – bears some rather mature and realistic undertones.

Zootopia, Disney, 2016

On the surface it might seem strange that they really emphasise the fact that this is a Disney film all about animals – a world of animals – and that this appears to be the feature’s main unique quality, when by this point Disney are essentially known for little else besides anthropomorphised characters and folk story adaptations. What does make this film unique, however, is that it utilises that set-up to reinforce its story, and in clever ways at that. Animals in this film are used symbolically to delineate a moralistic and at times bitterly truthful tale of societal prejudice. A number of people have already noted the striking, almost feminist, undertones of sexism, particularly with regards to perceptions of women (or bunnies, in this case) in the workplace, and in society in general. But this film intelligently covers all grounds in terms of addressing prejudice, even if these particular prejudices are never mentioned explicitly. Contextually, this film arrived at just the right time, and it handles the sexism issue and gender roles far better than the likes of Frozen (2013)*. For a film about a city of animals, it’s altogether very ‘human’.

So, those are the film’s key positive features in a nutshell. But what’s bad about it? Well, to be honest, not a great deal, fortunately. If I had to nit-pick, I would complain about the Frozen* references dotted throughout the picture. They weren’t overly distracting but they were, well, less than subtle. And I’m not too impressed with Disney’s leaning toward the ‘celebrity voiceover’ route – that, I prefer to see as DreamWorks’ territory; Disney doesn’t need Shakira in a guest role. Otherwise, I have no major complaints at all. Zootopia is a wholly satisfying experience for young and old alike. It tackles some fairly heavy themes with surprising aplomb. Indeed, Disney’s latest offering is more than just a cute fluffy bunny.

*I’m aware I said I wouldn’t mention that film. I make no apologies.

‘Finding Dory’: Will Pixar Sink or Swim?

Finding Dory, Pixar’s long-awaited sequel to fan favourite Finding Nemo (2003), is due for release in June 2016. And people are excited. Very excited. Ellen DeGeneres, who lends her vocals to our forgetful fish friend, has been constantly promoting the film in the media, including premiering clips on her chat show, much to everybody’s enthusiasm. But I have to admit that I have reservations myself. To begin with, even the title alone makes the sequel sound like a cheap, ill-thought-out follow-up. And Pixar’s reputation of late doesn’t exactly keep my hopes afloat.

Now I appreciate that it is unfair to deride and criticise something prior to seeing the finished product, and those of you who’ve read many of my former posts will know I’ve a tendency to voice my scepticism when as little as a teaser trailer has been unveiled. But in this case, my concerns, I think, are justified. I’m not saying Finding Dory will necessarily be a bad movie – it actually looks alright from what has been revealed so far. But my scepticism is grounded in previous experience of movie franchises that took a nosedive into the mediocre, the disappointing, and the downright catastrophic.

Finding Dory, Disney/Pixar, 2016

In their 20-plus years in the animated feature film industry, Pixar have rarely let us down. Even now, in the post-Disney-takeover era, when criticism is rife, they still continue to churn out enjoyable produce, even if many of their latest efforts aren’t quite up to scratch. The trouble is that, for a company as renowned as Pixar, any noticeable decline in quality of their output would inevitably bring their reputation crashing down. The truth is, no company is infallible. Whether their recent lacklustre efforts such as Brave (2012) and The Good Dinosaur (2015) are indicative of a permanent diminishment or a temporary lapse, there’s no denying that they’re currently representing a shadow of their former selves.

The Good Dinosaur, Disney/Pixar, 2015

Furthermore, there’s been far too much focus on second-rate sequels of late. While Toy Story 3 (2010) turned out to be of equally high quality as the previous two movies in the franchise, their subsequent effort Cars 2 (2011) proved to be a major bump in the road, so to speak. Though a moderate box office success, the former king of story-telling had been knocked from his pedestal thanks to a middling, well-worn and frankly bizarre narrative concerning espionage and a shameless attempt to boost merchandising profits by blatantly appealing to an international market. Monsters University (2013), too, while hardly catastrophically ‘bad’, just didn’t resonate with me as much as its original counterpart. Visually, creativity abounds, but story-wise it’s nothing special, and ultimately conveys itself as a rather bland college movie. It’s not awful, but it’s not great either. With a slew of sequels in the pipeline, this doesn’t exactly instil me with confidence.

Finding Dory, Disney/Pixar, 2016

A major issue I have with Finding Dory conceptually is its predominant focus on one of the original movie’s secondary characters. Sure, in Finding Nemo, Dory had a fairly major role, but all the same, she’s best utilised as a form of light relief – a side character. In the original movie, she does indeed share the spotlight with Marlin (Albert Brooks), but the fact that she is now expected to carry the plot of the sequel all by herself does not fill me with hope. Just look at the Cars franchise. Now, I’m aware the first Cars (2006) movie continues to receive a lot of criticism, mostly because of the fact that the characters are cars, and cannot emote in the same anthropomorphic way as toys, bugs or monsters, for example. And I’ll agree that, while the film has heart, it falls flat in its attempts to draw an emotional connection with its audience. Regardless, the story is actually very pleasing; it’s ultimately very enjoyable and, at times, lightly touching. Its sequel, however, turns its focus away from the exploits of racing car Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) and instead lets comic relief Mater (Larry the Cable Guy) take the wheel, with disastrous consequences. The story is a mess, the lead character is annoying as all hell, and it’s littered with gratuitous violence; put simply, it’s completely devoid of the finesse and narrative drive that saved the original movie from being a car crash. Now, Finding Nemo does not suffer from the same problems as Cars, and is conversely regarded as being a Pixar masterpiece. But that’s all the more reason to leave it alone. Supporting cast generally do not carry a narrative well on their own, and that’s what worries me.

As I stated before, these criticisms are merely concerns in anticipation of the movie. I love Finding Nemo – everything about it; the characters, the story, the emotional impact, the humour… But I love it so much that I’m deeply concerned that they’ll continue the undersea saga with a lacklustre follow-up. If Pixar’s recent output is anything to go by, these fears are hardly unfounded. Dory in the role of protagonist might not be a bad thing, but ultimately the movie needs a decent narrative to stay afloat, and a damn good one if it intends to meet the standards of their original effort. Put simply, Dory needs story - something that many Pixar movies have been lacking lately. That’s pretty much all that can be said for now. Until the film’s release, there’s no knowing whether Finding Dory will sink or swim.

Digging for Disney Gems: Audience Reception and the Problem with Plot

Something came to my attention today as I was browsing the Disney Animation Studios filmography. Studying each and every film closely, it became apparent to me that an animated film’s success is no longer dependent on story – that is, if it ever was. There’s no solid way of defining precisely what it is that attracts the attention of critics and cinemagoers over the globe, but it’s become all the more apparent that marketing sways public opinion far more than it ought to. I’m fairly certain that advertising hasn’t always been a crucial factor in determining which films are ‘better’ than the rest, but with recent hits such as Frozen (2013) surpassing the roaring success of The Lion King (1994), I’ve come to the conclusion that something’s amiss here.

The Lion King, Disney, 1994

The problem here, for me, is that there is a distinct lack of focus on quality. The Lion King, for example, is a solid film. It’s a spectacle, an epic of a movie, even if it is, dare I say, a tad overrated. But not only are its visuals ground-breaking, and its characters endearing, and its soundtrack nothing less than glorious; it also happens to maintain an interesting, tense and at times emotional story. And therefore its success is profoundly justified. Frozen, meanwhile, is visually appealing, and a great franchise in terms of hooking the attention of princess-obsessed young girls, but it fumbles majorly in terms of conveying a logical narrative. It simply makes no sense – and yet it’s become their greatest success, not only in recent years, but of all time. You can read more about this in an in-depth analysis here. In light of this, it’s somewhat upsetting that the general public seem to be so easily swayed by marketing ploys. Even the gothic-inspired The Black Cauldron (1985), frequently cited as Disney’s most catastrophic flop, boasts a plot of greater consistency than Frozen.

Frozen, Disney, 2013

Often a film’s disappointing box office returns are understandable. Sleeping Beauty (1959), for example, fails to tie up a few loose ends, and maintains some rather glaring inconsistencies throughout. It’s a real shame, particularly since the film showcases some tremendous detail in the artwork. One might also argue that the film maintains a rather dark and lugubrious tone throughout; one that was perhaps a little unsettling for the average cartoon-viewer of the era. Similar arguments could be raised in support of 1951’s Alice in Wonderland, whose episodic structure and surreal setting perhaps alienated audiences somewhat. These days, however, the focus seems to have shifted entirely from story to visuals and marketability. Frozen might not make any sense, but nobody seems to care. Box office turnouts are one thing, but Frozen’s success has transgressed far beyond that, to the point at which it has become the new face of modern Disney – a fact that is nothing less than a travesty, particularly in light of their former (and subsequent) features, which have, for the most part, maintained something of a high quality.

Sleeping Beauty, Disney, 1959

Evidently, I’m not saying that Disney’s efforts are no longer as impressive as they used to be. In fact, I would proffer that anybody who does argue that is restrained by nostalgic and traditionalist notions of what animation should be and what it should represent. Were we to avoid the temptation to critique Disney’s latest era by comparison with former standout eras, we would see that, with the exception of their greatest financial success, Disney have entered a new ‘Golden Age’, perhaps, one might argue, a Renaissance reprisal. And their success, in most cases, is justified by a good story. For me personally, Frozen represents and will always represent a rather jarring anomaly. The truth is, however, that there are in fact very few Disney animated features that are hugely flawed in terms of narrative. Chances are there are plenty of undiscovered gems that will likely exceed your expectations. But due to some confused and ineffective marketing, these gems require a little more digging to be discovered.