*A:M User* Roger Posted September 3, 2016 *A:M User* Share Posted September 3, 2016 I'm not sure why they remade this, I guess they felt the 1970s version was dated and old enough that they could do a remake. I just went and watched some of the trailers and the dragon looks more like a cross between a dog and a dragon. I don't think I've ever seen a furry dragon before. I can't really tell if they kept any part of the original story, other than the dragon being able to make himself invisible at will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Rodney Posted September 3, 2016 Admin Share Posted September 3, 2016 Disclaimer: Although I was aware of the original Disney movie and characters I didn't see the original 'Pete's Dragon' until I was an adult. As such I don't have any real connection to the original such as fond memories of the viewing experience, etc. I saw the new film and enjoyed it from the perspective of being it's own movie apart from the original and just following the presented story. My takeaway was that it was a family movie of the type we don't see often (almost in the same vein as E.T. and movies of the like back in the day... Disney's trying to tap into that older film magic?). The dog dragon served it's purpose but certainly had none of the charm and humor of the original. They tried and on occasion succeeded in making me care about it's fate. I'd have to watch the original again though to make comparisons. I can fully imagine that young kids will thoroughly enjoy the film and spend countless hours playing with their own imaginary dragon. That's the primary audience of the film. Part of me wishes they had actually tried to remake the original (with settings and such) because I'd be in for a good ol' timey british Disney outing. But this is really a different story from all indications. Now 'Jungle Book'.. I thought they remade in some ways that (surprising to me!) actually improved upon the original. Given that film is such a classic I wasn't expecting that. In my estimation, the new 'Pete's Dragon' is like a made for TV movie compared with the 'Jungle Book' remake. I saw the latter in the theater too and just bought the video so that I can watch it again. I can't really tell if they kept any part of the original story, other than the dragon being able to make himself invisible at will. Without reviewing the original again I'm going to say no, they didn't keep any of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fae_alba Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 I've been getting the impression that Disney, and other studios as well, seem to be running out of ideas, and are remaking movies to fill the "originality void". I'm a huge Disney nut slash fan but I won't be spending money to see the Pete's Dragon or,jungle book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted September 4, 2016 Hash Fellow Share Posted September 4, 2016 I think they've noticed that the new ideas don't sell as well as the reupholstered ones.Cable seems to have taken over the drama niche that movies used to do in the 70s and 80s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*A:M User* Roger Posted September 4, 2016 Author *A:M User* Share Posted September 4, 2016 Regarding Rodney's comments: I don't remember the characters being British but then the last time I saw the movie I was about 8 or 9. I do remember the dragon saving the day by lighting the flame in the lighthouse. That's all I remember from the movie, though. Regarding Rob's comments: I guess when they spend 100 or 200 million to make a movie, they play it safe. I can't help thinking you could make an awful lot of indy films for that kind of money, though. Who'd have thought that the producer of some of the hottest shows on TV would be a basic cable channel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
largento Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 I was a big fan of the original Pete's Dragon, being nine years old when it came out. Elliot was one of the first cartoon characters I taught myself to draw. It was actually set in New England presumably in the late 19th Century. I saw it a couple of times in the theatrical release and had a LP "story" record with an illustrated book that condensed the story. I didn't see it again for over a decade until I saw the VHS and was dumbfound to discover the movie had been changed. Noticeably, the big musical number "Candle in the Water" had been mysteriously excised from the film. I saw the new one with my nephews and thought it was really entertaining. Rather than an update on an animated film, it reminded me more of an update of the old Disney family movies I used to go see in the 70s. All in all, I'm glad to see that it was a re-imagining rather than a remake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted September 4, 2016 Hash Fellow Share Posted September 4, 2016 Speaking of re-makes... the new Ben Hur seems to have crashed very badly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detbear Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 The new "Dragon" in the new Pete's Dragon has the same type look as the "Luck Dragon" in The Neverending Story. In today's movie market, it's all about low risk. They will remake Toy Story and Planes three or more times before they put a gamble on an original product. I guess that gives reason to respect a company like LAIKA.....who is continuing to produce there stop motion flicks that are pretty big risks. I didn't really like Box Trolls, but the amount of artistry and time placed on it was an amazing task. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.