Opinion: What films should Disney make?

I’m a huge Disney fan. Above the average, I’d dare to say. From the classic films to the fantastic theme parks, I grew up loving Disney as much as a child can love something. For that reason, it’s particularly disappointing for me to see what Disney is becoming. The House of Mouse has always been a company dedicated to take risks and communicate beautiful, emotional stories with a strong focus on creativity. Today, the picture doesn’t seem as bright. I’ve talked about Disney’s remakes here, but long story short, 21 remakes are on the way, including some non-sense ones like Lilo & Stitch (2002). So, since I’m strongly against the idea of remakes, I thought I could come up with some suggestions.

To start, I’d like to analyze the last Walt Disney Pictures films. As of the writing of this article, Disney’s last 10 released films (with their respective IMDB ratings for context in parenthesis) are:

Dumbo – 2019 (6.7)
Captain Marvel – 2019 (7.2)
Mary Poppins Returns – 2018 (7.0)
Ralph Breaks the Internet – 2018 (7.2)
The Nutcracker and the Four Realms – 2018 (5.5)
Christopher Robin – 2018 (7.3)
Ant Man & The Wasp – 2018 (7.1)
Incredibles 2 – 2018 (7.7 – seriously, that high?)
Solo: A Star Wars Story – 2018 (7.0)
Avengers: Infinity War – 2018 (8.5)

Interesting. From the 10 last Disney films, we have that only one of them, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms, is an “original” story. It comes from another source material but, since it’s a very old story and not Disney property, I’ll call it original. From the remaining nine, only one of them is a remake (Dumbo), 5 of them are sequels (Mary Poppins Returns, Ralph Breaks the Internet, Ant Man & The Wasp, Incredibles 2, Avengers: Infinity War) and 3 of them are ‘original’ films based on a Disney Property (Captain Marvel, Christopher Robin, Solo: A Star Wars Story). Having noted that, let’s do a little exercise. Let’s identify which is the lowest rated Disney film of the last 10. Ready? Alright. It’s The Nutcracker and the Four Realms, the only original film in the list. So, if you’re a Disney executive, and see this, what will you think? You’d probably think exactly what Disney executives are thinking. Why should I risk my ass coming up with an original film when I have hundreds and hundreds of characters and IPs to squeeze into a new film? Now, I saw The Nutcracker. It was bad, flat and boring. But it wasn’t bad, flat and boring because it was original. It was all that because it was poorly written, because the characters weren’t interesting and had no real motivation, because there were long pieces of the film where absolutely nothing interesting happens. Not because it was an original.

I’d like to point out something else from the list. How many of the latest 10 released films by Disney were animation? Only 2. Ralph 2 and The Incredibles 2. Let’s compare this to Disney’s Renaissance Era, between 1989 and 1999, when Disney claimed their throne back as one of the most important movie studios in the world. Let’s take a look at the 11 films released by Walt Disney Studios in that period which, let’s remember, was not only creatively successful for Disney, but commercially as well.

The Little Mermaid – 1989 (7.6)
The Rescuers Down Under – 1990 (6.9)
Beauty and the Beast – 1991 (8.0)
Aladdin – 1992 (8.0)
Lion King – 1994 (8.5)
Pocahontas – 1995 (6.7)
The Hunchback of Notre Dame – 1996 (6.9)
Hercules – 1997 (7.3)
Mulan -1998 (7.6)
Tarzan – 1999 (7.3)
Fantasia 2000 – 1999 (7.2)

Analyzing this list, we can come up with some interesting stuff. There was only one sequel in the eleven films that shape arguably Disney’s most successful age (The Rescuers Down Under). Pretty much all of the films in the list are considered Disney classics. All but one are original movies. No remakes, no spinoffs and just one single sequel. All of them are animated movies. How many of the last ten Disney released films would you say will be looked back on fondly in twenty years? How many of the renaissance era do you still look back fondly today?

Now, I’m not saying Disney shouldn’t produce live-action movies. They’ve made some very good ones, like Enchanted, The Princess Diaries, The Game Plan or The Pacifier (hey, I like that one, don’t judge me), but that clearly shouldn’t be their core. Disney’s identity relies on animation. On endearing characters telling us about their problem-free philosophies, teaching us that we can do whatever we dream if we believe in ourselves or that beauty is on the inside.

If anyone wants to know, here’s a list of the last 10 live-actions films released by Disney, excluding Marvel films. I don’t know about you but, no matter how hard I try, I can’t see any of these becoming a classic film in the future.

Dumbo – 2019 (6.7)
Mary Poppins Returns – 2018 (7)
The Nutcracker and the Four Realms – 2018 (5.5)
Christopher Robin – 2018 (7.3)
A Wrinkle in Time – 2018 (4.2)
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales – 2017 (6.6)
Beauty and the Beast – 2017 (7.2)
Pete’s Dragon – 2016 (6.7)
The BFG – 2016 (6.4)
Alice Through the Looking Glass – 2016 (6.2)

The last list I have for you is about the latest Walt Disney Animated Studios films released. I’m excluding Pixar films because they do understand their core and will never (hopefully) make a live-action film.

Ralph Breaks the Internet – 2018 (7.2)
Moana – 2016 (7.6)
Zootopia – 2016 (8.0)
Big Hero Six – 2014 (7.8)
Frozen – 2013 (7.5)
Wreck-It-Ralph – 2012 (7.7)
Winnie the Pooh – 2011 (7.2)
Tangled – 2010 (7.8)
The Princess and the Frog – 2009 (7.1)
Bolt – 2008 (6.9)

I can see a lot of these films closer to becoming Disney Classics than any of the ones in the live-action list. After this research, it became clearer to me that Disney has to make animated films. Those are the ones that show the best of the studio, those are the ones that become classics. My problem isn’t as much with sequels and exploiting IPs as it is with remakes and flat, boring live-action films, which is Disney’s current trend. So If I could, I’d like to encourage them to work on original animated films, instead of relying exclusively in their preexisting Intelectual Properties.

Thanks for reading,
The Screenplayer

Writing character: VICE (2018) vs Captain Marvel (2019)

Marvel (2019) / Annapurna Pictures (2018)

I just finished reading VICE’s screenplay. I didn’t have the chance the watch the movie, since it was in theaters for a very short period of time in my country. However, it caught my attention something that was present in VICE and wasn’t in the last film I saw, Captain Marvel. And that is: empathy for the characters.

So, to recap. VICE is the story of Dick Cheney, a manipulative politician, who is, overall, a greedy person that wants power. Captain Marvel is the story of Carol Danvers, a superhero who stops bad people from getting away with their plans. It’s very clear that Carol is the one audiences should empathize more with and would want her to win more, right? Well, not for me.

One of the fundamentals in writing characters of any kind, is to give the audience opportunities to build empathy with him/her. Blake Snyder called it the “Save the Cat” scene. In Eric Edson’s “The Story Solution” and Karl Iglesias’ “Writing for Emotional Impact” , it is not one simple moment or scene, but many different moments in which you show the best of your character to the audience. These empathy-generating techniques go from showing your character risking himself for others, giving them desirable characteristics (power, charisma, leadership, making them the best at what they do), show them acting in nurturing ways, being persistent, regretting their mistakes, having a change of heart or loving other people.

Let’s review what each script tells us about their very opposite characters. In VICE, we know early-on that Dick loves his wife and his children. He starts as a drunken, irresponsible man, but is willing to change his way of living for the woman he loves. (change of heart, loving other people). We’re also shown he accepts his daughter’s sexual preferences, even when he’s been pushing conservative politics (he risks his political career by accepting his daughter’s preferences, he acts in a nurturing way). He’s the best in what he does, which is manipulating people and situations to his favor. He’s got power, charisma and leadership. He’s very intelligent, even if it’s in a perverse way.

Now, let’s see which of these techniques are used for Carol in Captain Marvel. She has mighty powers, granted, but she doesn’t even uses them that much until the third act. One might argue she’s witty with her dialogue, but it comes more as arrogant. She has very minor set-backs, if any, so it’s hard to actually consider her a persistent character. There’s a couple scenes in which I’ll admit she has empathy-building moments: one, when she decides to go back to save Nick Fury, instead of leaving in the Pegasus facilities. However, I don’t feel this moment is given the importance it deserves, and, as a consequence, we don’t feel this is an important moment. Two, the moment where she defeats the Supreme Intelligence at the beginning of Act Three. As I mentioned in my Captain Marvel review, it’s the most powerful scene in the film, precisely because we see her finally fighting against the odds, finally vulnerable, and we’re finally allowed to build some empathy with her. Sadly, it’s too little too late.

Karl Iglesias makes, in page 67 of his book, a very interesting statement: “The second a character shows up on screen, we start building an opinion about that character […] This is why you want empathy as soon as possible.”

If I were to describe each character, I’d say Dick is persistent, very intelligent and powerful. He’s a leader, people follow him everywhere, and he has charisma. He’s perverse and manipulative, but he loves his family to the point where he’s willing to change his entire way of living and risking his very own political career for them. To describe Carol, I’d say she’s very powerful and slightly arrogant. So, it’s not only that we don’t know many good traits about Carol, but that we don’t know much about her character at all. We get to know a character by the decisions he or she makes. Carol makes very few decisions in the script. Dick has plenty of different moments to prove his character by making decisions, whether good or bad.

Character is very important because story is following character. If we don’t care about who the story is about, we simply don’t care about the story. Period.

Thanks for reading,
The Screenplayer.

OPINION: Disney & Remakes

Once upon a time, there was a studio that dared to take risks. A studio that, no matter what budget restrictions were, was able to deliver some great, instant classic films. A studio that focused on creating and developing fresh, new stories and fantastic characters. A studio that wasn’t dependent on stock prices, investors and money, money, money. Because there can’t be art when one does it just for the money.

In my humble, personal opinion, Disney is taking steps in the wrong direction. They’re doing exactly the same other mediocre studios are doing. They’re becoming what they’re not. An average, play-safe studio that won’t take risks. The upcoming years are filled with remake plans for some of Disney’s greatest and most endearing classics. Dumbo, Aladdin, Pinocchio or the Lion King are some examples of the 21 films in the works. And that, for me, is sad. That’s sad because, at best, they’re delivering a predictable film with a story we already know and, at worse, they’re staining the mark these films left in the childhoods of thousands. To the writing of this post, Disney has produced three live action remakes: The Jungle Book, Cinderella and Beauty and the Beast. It’s clear that neither is going to become a classic. In fact, I don’t think people will remember any of those in ten more years. However, they made a ton of money. And that’s all Disney cares about.

I don’t understand why, but people love to go watch these films. And I know I’m not the only one who dislikes the simple idea of hearing the story all over again, but worse. Not as compelling, not as fresh, with characters that could never compete with their original counterparts. For an aspiring screenwriter like me, specially, these news are very preoccupying. Because this means not only Disney isn’t interested in fresh stories, but audiences aren’t either. Audiences want to go watch the old story they already know, and see how they CGIed the characters this time, how costumes turned out, how weird Will Smith looks in blue. As long as audiences are still watching, I don’t see why Disney would even think of changing the strateg, that’s generating them millions of dollars, and only needing to do half the work.

Thanks for reading,
The Screenplayer.