Les remakes live des films d'animation Disney

À quel endroit ai-je indiqué qu'ils ne peuvent pas faire un remake live d'un film CGI ?

Dans ton organisation on a l’impression que tu les mets à part, c’est pour ca.

Je les mets à part.

En soit, c'est logique de les mettre à part. Je vois mal faire un live-action d'un Disney récent comme Raiponce ou La Reine des Neiges. La première excuse qu'on nous sort quand un remake sort c'est pour "moderniser" l’œuvre original, Raiponce ou les autres films en animation 3D sont toujours dans l'air du temps et n'ont que très peu vieillit (pour le moment, car on sait que la 3D vieillit rapidement)

En revanche, bien que ce soit très peu probable, je verrais bien une version remasterisée de Dinosaure

L'avis de Glen Keane sur les remakes live des films d'animation :


Il est content de voir que la compagnie donne une grande valeur à ces personnages d'animations et leurs impacts, au "trésor qu'ils sont". Et que s'ils continuent d'exploiter cette "poule aux œufs d'or", il faut honorer et les élever ces histoires et non pas simplement les copier.
Il a aimé Le Livre de le Jungle, qui respectait selon lui l'original tout en étant libre de s'amuser et d'aller plus loin. A contrario, La Belle et la Bête était beaucoup plus proche, cependant il y a une scène de la Bête qu'il avait eu du mal à animer à l'époque et dont il a préféré l'interprétation (quand la Bête laisse Belle partir).

Article du New York Times sur Sean Bailey, qui est en charge des Live-actions Disney.
Je trouve la conclusion particulièrement intéressante : "Comment gérez-vous une audience qui change à l'extérieur de votre pays, à l'intérieur de votre pays ? Comment raconter des histoires - des histoires qui comptent pour tout le monde - dans un monde de plus en plus polarisé ?"

nytimes.com a écrit:

The Man Reimagining Disney Classics for Today’s World

Sean Bailey is in charge of live-action remakes of films like “The Little Mermaid.” It’s a job that puts him in the middle of a partisan divide.

For more than a decade, Sean Bailey has run Disney’s animated film “reimagining” factory with quiet efficiency and superhero-sized results. His live-action “Aladdin” collected $1.1 billion at the box office, while a photorealistic “The Lion King” took in $1.7 billion. A live-action “Beauty and the Beast” delivered $1.3 billion.

Disney likes the cash. The company also views Mr. Bailey’s remake operation as crucial to remaining relevant. Disney’s animated classics are treasured by fans, but most showcase ideas from another era, especially when it comes to gender roles: Be pretty, girls, and things might work out.

The reimaginings, as Mr. Bailey refers to his remakes, find ways to make Disney stories less retrograde. His heroines are empowered, and his casting emphasizes diversity. A live-action “Snow White,” set for release next year, stars the Latina actress Rachel Zegler as the princess known as “the fairest of them all.” Yara Shahidi played Tinker Bell in the recent “Peter Pan and Wendy,” making her the first Black woman to portray the character onscreen.

“We want to reflect the world as it exists,” Mr. Bailey said.

But that worldview — and business strategy — has increasingly put Disney and Mr. Bailey, a low-profile and self-effacing executive, in the middle of a very loud, very unpolite cultural fight. For every person who applauds Disney, there seems to be a counterpart who complains about being force-fed “wokeness.”

Many companies are finding themselves in this vise — Target, Anheuser-Busch, Nike — but Disney, which has a powerful impact on children as they are forming life beliefs, has been uniquely challenged. In this hyperpartisan moment, both sides of the political divide have been pounding on Disney to stand with them, with movies that come from Mr. Bailey’s corner of the Magic Kingdom as prime examples.

Consider his remake of “The Little Mermaid,” which arrived in theaters two weeks ago and cost an estimated $375 million to make and market. The new version scuttles problematic lyrics from the 1989 original. (“It’s she who holds her tongue who gets a man.”) In the biggest change, Halle Bailey, who is Black, plays Ariel, the mermaid. Disney has long depicted the character as white, including at its theme parks.

Support for Ms. Bailey, notably from people of color and film critics, has been offset by a torrent of racist commentary on social media and movie fan sites. Others have blasted “The Little Mermaid” for failing to acknowledge the horrors of slavery in the Caribbean. A few L.G.B.T.Q. people have criticized Disney for hiring a straight male makeup artist for the villainous Ursula, whose look in the animated film was inspired by a drag queen.

Disney has long regarded these kinds of social media storms as tempests in teapots: trending today, replaced by a new complaint tomorrow. In 2017, for instance, a theater in Alabama refused to play the live-action “Beauty and the Beast” because it contained a three-second glimpse of two men dancing in each other’s arms. It became a global news story. Ultimately, the fracas seemed to have no impact on ticket sales.

The upshot? Disney hoped “The Little Mermaid” would generate as much as $1 billion worldwide, with the furor evaporating once the film arrived in theaters. Feedback scores from test screenings were strong, as were early reviews. “Alan Menken just told me that he thinks this one is better than the animated film,” Robert A. Iger, Disney’s chief executive, said at the film’s premiere last month, referring to the Oscar-winning composer.

Instead, “The Little Mermaid” will top out closer to $600 million, box office analysts said on Sunday, largely because the film faltered overseas, where it was “review bombed,” with online trolls flooding movie sites with racist one-star reviews. The film has done well in North America, outperforming “Aladdin” and receiving an A grade from ticket buyers in CinemaScore exit polls, although attendance by white moviegoers has been soft in some parts of the United States, according to analysts. Support from Black and Latino audiences have made up the slack.

Mr. Bailey declined to comment on the racist responses to the film. “While the international opening was softer than we would have liked, the film is playing exceptionally well which we believe sets us up for a very long run,” he said on Saturday.

Mr. Bailey, 53, has survived box office shoals that were far worse, including misfires like “The Lone Ranger.” The less said about his live-action “Mulan,” the better. But Disney has always supported him. “I’ve taken some big swings and had some big misses,” Mr. Bailey said. “I’m grateful that the leadership of the company understands that is part of any creative business.”

Mr. Bailey has been president of Walt Disney Studios Motion Picture Production for 13 years — an eternity in Hollywood, where film chiefs are often jettisoned every few years. Over that time, Disney has been roiled by executive firings, multiple restructuring efforts and shifting strategies for film distribution. The steady-handed Mr. Bailey, who is popular with stars and their agents, has helped provide stability.

“He’s a nice, decent, respectful, fair guy who does his job quietly, without fanfare,” said Kevin Huvane, a Creative Artists Agency co-chairman. “But that doesn’t mean that he is passive. Quite the opposite. He gets his hands dirty. If a deal isn’t working, he gets in there and he finds a way to make it happen.”

In 2014, for instance, Mr. Bailey flew to Budapest from Los Angeles at a moment’s notice to have dinner with Angelina Jolie. She had agreed to star in “Maleficent” but seemed to be getting cold feet after reading a revised script. Whatever he told her worked; “Maleficent” and a sequel took in a combined $1.3 billion.

“Sean is what we don’t see often these days, and certainly not in film,” Ms. Jolie said by email. “He’s consistent, stable and decent. When we have challenges, as all films do, he is even and fair. It may not be exciting for a story, but it is what we need more of.”

Disney’s live-action films did not often showcase women before Mr. Bailey arrived, and diversity was almost nonexistent. Mr. Bailey has almost exclusively focused on female-led stories. He has also championed young actresses of color — Storm Reid, Nico Parker, Naomi Scott — and female directors, including Ava DuVernay (“A Wrinkle in Time”), Julia Hart (“Stargirl”) and Mira Nair (“Queen of Katwe”).

“I think what he is doing is vastly important,” said Geena Davis, an actress and gender equity activist. “It’s not just about inspiring little girls. It’s about normalizing for men and boys, making it perfectly normal to see a girl doing interesting and important things and taking up space.”

The next film from Mr. Bailey’s division, “Haunted Mansion,” arrives in theaters on July 28 and stars LaKeith Stanfield (an Oscar nominee for “Judas and the Black Messiah”), Rosario Dawson, Owen Wilson and Tiffany Haddish. “Haunted Mansion” was directed by Justin Simien, the creator of “Dear White People,” and inspired by a Disney theme park ride.

“I felt that we had an opportunity to try and create a really cool, Disney-appropriate PG-13 movie that does have some real scares but also charms and delights,” Mr. Bailey said.

Mr. Bailey, who watched “The Little Mermaid” 18 times as it worked its way through Disney’s pipeline, has more than 50 movies in various stages of development and production, including live-action versions of “Moana,” “Hercules” and “Lilo and Stitch.” Yes, “Hocus Pocus 3” is happening. (His division makes two or three big-budget films annually for release in theaters and three modestly budgeted movies for Disney+.)

“Mufasa: The Lion King,” a photorealistic prequel directed by Barry Jenkins, the Oscar-winning “Moonlight” screenwriter, is scheduled for release in 2024. Mr. Bailey said “The Lion King” could expand into “a big, epic saga” like the “Star Wars” franchise. “There’s a lot of room to run if we can find the stories,” he said.

Restarting the five-film “Pirates of the Caribbean” series is another priority, although nothing official has been announced. “We think we have a really good, exciting story that honors the films that have come before but also has something new to say,” Mr. Bailey said. Will the franchise’s problematic star, Johnny Depp, return as Captain Jack Sparrow? “Noncommittal at this point,” Mr. Bailey said, seemingly inching the door open.

One of the knocks on Mr. Bailey is that he has not created a new franchise; almost none of his bets on original movies have paid off. The sled-dog drama “Togo,” made for Disney+ in 2019, was a critical hit that failed to break out. “Tomorrowland,” an ambitious fantasy from 2015, crashed and burned. At some point, studios cannot endlessly recycle old stuff. A Xerox of a Xerox of a Xerox ends up as a blank page.

“It’s really hard to crack through and get an original, hugely commercial win,” Mr. Bailey said. “We’re going to keep trying.” He pointed to a project based on “The Graveyard Book,” about a boy raised by the supernatural occupants of a cemetery.

Every studio has been struggling to come up with original hits. But the added glare that seems to come with any Disney effort adds a degree of difficulty.

Like Mr. Iger, Mr. Bailey does not hide his political leanings. He is close to Senator Cory Booker, Democrat of New Jersey, a friendship that started in 2000, when Mr. Bailey held a fund-raiser for him in Hollywood. (Mr. Bailey has a lot of famous friends. He goes way back with Ben Affleck, helped Dwayne Johnson start a tequila brand and serves on the board of Robert Redford’s Sundance Institute.)

But Mr. Bailey is in the business of making movies for everyone. That challenge is part of what keeps his job interesting, he said.

“How do you deal with audiences that are changing outside our country, inside our country?” Mr. Bailey said. “How do you tell stories — stories that matter to everyone — in a world that is increasingly polarized?”

Maintenant que La Petite Sirène est sorti, le seul remakes qui m'intéresse parmi les prochains est Hercule. Je me demande quelle piste ils vont suivre, si ce sera plus une copie conforme du DA ou bien une adaptation plus libre.

Le film n'étant pas parmi les plus populaires de Disney, il y a des chances que les réalisateurs prennent des libertés par rapport au DA (ou pas).

Wait and see comme on dit mais je doute fortement qu'un remake pourra arriver à reproduire l'ambiance si particulière du DA

Sean Bailey, président de Walt Disney Studios Motion Picture Production depuis 2010, a quitté Disney le 27 février 2024. Il est remplacé par David Greenbaum, le président de Searchlight Pictures.
Sean Bailey reste producteur de Tron: Ares. Il était arrivé en 2010 en temps en tant que producteur de Tron : L’Héritage.

The Wrap a écrit:

Sean Bailey’s Disney Legacy: Reanimation and Later, Exhaustion


The outgoing head of Walt Disney Studios mined the studio’s past to preserve its future

In October of 2010, at a lavish and intimate New York City press event dubbed the Walt Disney Studios Holiday Showcase, Disney treated studio personnel, press and tastemakers to a screening of new footage, including from “Tron: Legacy.”

Introducing the footage was Sean Bailey, the movie’s charismatic producer who had been appointed president of Walt Disney Studios Motion Picture Production 10 months earlier.

The event — showcasing the long-awaited sequel to a groundbreaking Disney classic made, like the original with cutting-edge technology — was a perfect introduction to Bailey, whose tenure at the company would be defined by mining beloved IP with high-tech upgrades.

He’s now set to exit the Walt Disney Company, bringing an end to a nearly decade and a half tenure that at once reinvigorated and exhausted the studio’s live-action output. He had proved keenly able to accomplish things that eluded previous regimes, plumbing Disney’s past as a way of preserving its future. But in the end, Bailey was a victim of his own oversized success, as the studio’s run of wildly successful live-action remakes started to go bust.

“Sean Bailey was a champion who was saddled with the thankless task of supervising the animation remakes that managed to damage the legacy titles and diminish the brand,” a filmmaker who worked with Disney during Bailey’s tenure told TheWrap.

It seemed like a good idea at the time.

Once upon a time…
A few weeks into Bailey’s tenure, the studio released “Alice in Wonderland,” a live-action version of the studio’s 1951 animated classic festooned with elaborate visual effects and released in eye-popping 3D mere months after “Avatar” had become a phenomenon. A homecoming of sorts for director Tim Burton, who had started his career in the studio’s animation department, the movie was a huge hit and made $1 billion worldwide.

Disney had experimented in the 1990s with live-action remakes to their animated titles, most successfully with a John Hughes-penned “101 Dalmatians” starring Glenn Close. But it had been 10 years since the last attempt. The success of “Alice in Wonderland” opened new opportunities, as Bailey turned to the company’s vault for an entirely new cinematic universe. He didn’t greenlight “Alice in Wonderland,” but he turned it into a certifiable formula.

“We thought if Iron Man and Thor and Captain America are Marvel superheroes, then maybe Alice, Cinderella, Mowgli, and Belle are our superheroes, and Cruella and Maleficent are our supervillains,” Bailey told me in 2017 of his approach to the live-action remakes that became a staple of the studio throughout the 2010s. “Maybe if there’s a way to reconnect with that affinity for what those characters mean to people in a way that gets the best talent and uses the best technology, that could become something really exciting. It feels very Disney, playing to the competitive advantages of this label.”

Sean Bailey, Alan Horn and Bob Iger at the premiere of “The Jungle Book” in 2016

After “Alice,” a plan came together — there would be a “Sleeping Beauty” live-action remake told from the point of view of the self-described Mistress of Evil, “Maleficent” (played by Angelina Jolie). Tim Burton was courted to direct; when he turned it down, Disney went for his production designer Robert Stromberg. It was a borderline-disastrous shoot, with an additional director brought in for reshoots and a storyline that so radically changed that journalists who attended a set visit were banned from reporting what they saw. The movie nevertheless made almost $800 million worldwide and inspired a sequel years later.

Bailey was going to follow this “fractured fairy tale” approach — telling a familiar story from a different angle — for a planned version of “Cinderella” where Cinderella was left for dead in a forest, forced to befriend a rogue knight and stop a wedding that was of political importance to the kingdom. But Disney scrapped that after much development and instead opted for a more faithful remake, hiring Kenneth Branagh to give it some weight. It made more than $500 million and proved that a live-action remake of a Disney animated classics wasn’t just a fluke — it was now a franchise.

There were some tenuous moments as Bailey tried to mount this new array of live-action features. Oftentimes, he and his team wouldn’t communicate which animated properties they were planning to adapt, which chafed at the folks at Walt Disney Animation Studios, several Disney insiders told TheWrap. These wounds would heal, with Bailey and his team not only alerting the animation studio but also relying on them heavily, after the animation teams’ feelings were known.

The “Alice in Wonderland” sequel, “Alice: Through the Looking Glass,” shows how closely they had aligned. Not only were filmmakers given access to the vast Disney animation archive but a single merchandise push celebrated both the new movie and the animated classic. Internally, it was known as the “Uber Alice” approach.

Other live-action adaptations followed — Jon Favreau’s technically inventive “The Jungle Book,” another “Alice,” and a nearly shot-for-shot remake of “Beauty and the Beast” that cost a fortune (at the time it was the most expensive musical Hollywood had ever produced, with a $255 million budget) and earned even more ($1.27 billion worldwide).

By 2019, Bailey and his team had released five live-action adaptations of Disney animated classics — two of them made over $1 billion (“Aladdin” and “The Lion King”), one disappointed (Tim Burton’s take on “Dumbo,” significantly rejiggered at the 11th hour and leaving Burton with a bad taste in his mouth) and one debuted alongside the company’s premiere direct-to-consumer streaming platform, Disney+ (“Lady and the Tramp”).

The Resurrectionist
While live-action remakes of animated Disney classics largely defined Bailey’s tenure, he was also able to return to the past for other properties.

In 2004, Disney purchased the rights to the Muppets characters but didn’t exploit them until Bailey arrived. Under Bailey’s leadership, Disney produced two theatrical movies, although neither hit big – 2011’s “The Muppets” (worldwide gross: $165 million) and 2014’s “Muppets Most Wanted,” which cost more than the first film ($50 million vs. $45 million) and made considerably less ($80.4 million).

He also managed to get a sequel to “Mary Poppins” into theaters, something that the company had been attempting, in earnest, since the late 1980s. “Mary Poppins Returns” finally came out in 2018, with Emily Blunt in the lead and Lin-Manuel Miranda in his first major role following his “Hamilton” success. It made almost $350 million worldwide.

Bailey ticked off more boxes from the list of things nobody else had achieved at the Mouse House. He fulfilled Walt Disney’s dream of adapting Frank L. Baum’s “The Wizard of Oz” books with the Sam Raimi-directed “Oz the Great and Powerful” in 2013, although its nearly $500 million gross wasn’t enough to follow through with a planned theme park expansion. He had Steven Spielberg direct a movie for Disney (“The BFG”), made a film that involved Walt Disney himself (“Saving Mr. Banks”) and finally got a starry version of “Into the Woods” to the big screen after more than 15 years of development at various studios.

He elongated the “Pirates of the Caribbean” franchise after the conclusion of the initial trilogy to the tune of another $1 billion (“On Stranger Tides”) and $750 million (“Dead Men Tell No Tales”), respectfully. And he continued to give the go-ahead to so-called “brand deposit” movies — projects that might not make a ton of money but contribute to the value of the company and the Disney name, like the inspiring baseball story “Million Dollar Arm” and the real-life chess underdog film “Queen of Katwe.”

There were bumps along the way for sure, including Gore Verbinski’s costly “The Lone Ranger” (which was given the go-ahead by a previous regime), the live-action debut “John Carter” (ditto) from “Finding Nemo” director Andrew Stanton and Brad Bird’s George Clooney-led “Tomorrowland.” The latter was a high-concept sci-fi adventure that was meant to open up a new universe of interconnected stories and enliven the futuristic section of the Disney parks. “Tomorrowland” grossed $200 million against a budget around $190 million. But it was proof that Bailey wasn’t always interested in the easy lay-up, and supported artists who he believed in on projects that colored outside the lines.

In Burbank, Bailey’s office is lined with framed photographs from the movies he’s produced. He asks the filmmakers to deliver him a single image that speaks to the entire film. Maybe it was from a particularly arduous sequence. Maybe it’s just one that makes them smile. But they all hang, beautifully arranged, in his office. The only person to buck convention was Bird, who instead gave Bailey three images from “Tomorrowland.”

Given that the film underperformed in a pretty big way, it’d be easy to imagine an executive hiding that one in a drawer. But Bailey didn’t retrench. He put them up on the wall, where the framed photos stayed to this day.

Trouble in the Magic Kingdom
2019 was a notable year in Bailey’s tenure not only because Disney was increasing the output of the animation-to-live-action machine but because that was the year that Disney+ went live. Bailey was supervising a suite of new features for the service, most of which have now been removed (things like “Stargirl,” “Timmy Failure: Mistakes Were Made” and “Flora and Ulysses”).

The pandemic further complicated the ramp up, with several live-action Disney titles originally meant for theatrical exhibition (like “The One and Only Ivan” and “Artemis Fowl”) going straight to Disney+. Others, like “Jungle Cruise” (Bailey’s attempt at extending the based-on-a-theme-park ride concept that made “Pirates of the Caribbean” such a sensation) and live-action adaptation “Cruella,” premiered simultaneously in theaters and on Disney+ with a surcharge.

Disney’s live-action “Mulan,” which gained unwanted controversy for the decision to shoot in an area of China known for the persecution of the country’s Uighur minority, was another one of these hybrid releases. It made less than $70 million theatrically on a budget of more than $200 million. While much of “Mulan’s” underperformance can be attributed to outside forces (the controversy, the pandemic), it was also clear that something was amiss. Instead of hewing close to the goofy, charming, semi-musical historical fantasy of the animated feature, this was a straightforward kung fu epic.

Following a pair of direct-to-streaming efforts that barely registered (Robert Zemeckis’ “Pinocchio” and David Lowery’s wonderful “Peter Pan & Wendy”), Disney (and Bailey) thought it had an ace up its sleeve: “The Little Mermaid.” It was an iconic Disney title that helped kick off the animation studio’s creative renaissance. It should’ve been a slam dunk.

At the world premiere in Los Angeles last year, director Rob Marshall said he had been toiling away on the movie for more than five years. They had shot (and re-shot) during the pandemic and were finally here. The movie cost more than $200 million to produce. Internally, Disney thought it could crack $1 billion worldwide. It wound up with $569 million — a far cry from the halcyon days of “Beauty and the Beast” and “The Lion King.”

The ride, it appeared, was over.

Faced with diminishing returns and a Disney vault of IP to mine that was getting emptier, a fresh approach was needed.

What now?
A number of live-action adaptations will still see the light of day. A “Lion King” prequel/sequel called “Mufasa: The Lion King,” directed by Barry Jenkins, is out this Christmas. There’s a new “Snow White” out next spring that enlisted Greta Gerwig to work on the script. And a “Lilo & Stitch” remake from “Marcel the Shell with Shoes On” director Dean Fleischer Camp is currently in production. Plus, there’s the live-action “Moana,” with Dwayne Johnson (Bailey’s partner in Teremana Tequila) reprising his role as Maui, scheduled to shoot later this year.

Beyond that, things get hazier. Bailey had lined up a “Cruella” sequel (with Emma Stone set to return), a live-action “Hercules” from Guy Ritchie, and a version of “The Aristocats” directed by Questlove. Additionally, TheWrap has exclusively learned that Sarah Polley is no longer directing a new version of “Bambi.” It’s unclear if the project will move forward now that Bailey is gone.

Iger said on Tuesday at a Morgan Stanley investor conference that Disney had “killed a few projects already that we just didn’t feel were strong enough.” Could corporate mandates have offed Bambi’s mother this time?

David Greenbaum will replace Bailey under a mandate from Iger to make fewer, better movies. A former co-head of Searchlight Pictures, the indie division of 20th Century, Greenbaum oversaw major awards players like “The Shape of Water,” “12 Years a Slave” and “Slumdog Millionaire.” In his new role, he will be president of Disney live-action and 20th Century Studios.

This year Greenbaum is responsible for “Poor Things,” which racked up 11 Oscar nominations and was widely praised as one of the year’s very best movies. Internally, Disney was wowed by the film – it’s visually dazzling, emotionally resonant and actually says something about the world (through a prism of fantasy and sci-fi).

Before he left, Bailey was planning to do more theme park-based projects. In addition to a “Jungle Cruise” sequel, Bailey was looking to revive the “Pirates of the Caribbean” franchise (“Last of Us” creator Craig Mazin was working on a new take). Over the years, scripts based on the Matterhorn, Space Mountain and Tower of Terror (with Taika Waititi attached as director) had been commissioned, with little movement. Will they finally see the light of day? Or will Greenbaum take things in an entirely different direction?

Bailey was never a contender to take over for Bob Iger, who is still supposedly retiring in 2026. Instead, he had to look after his own Magic Kingdom, full of the flesh-and-blood embodiments of everybody’s favorite princesses. And, somewhat ironically, he will return as a hands-on producer on “Tron: Ares,” the long-awaited third film in the series, currently filming in Vancouver.

Bailey’s impact on the studio — for better and worse — cannot be overstated. He combed through the company’s back catalog and came out with an entirely new type of live-action Disney movie that sustained the company for nearly a decade. Even if the gambit had run its course by the time he stepped down, it still made an impact. Rival studios DreamWorks and Universal, for example, are currently at work on a live-action “How to Train Your Dragon” adaptation.

But hey, every fairy tale has to end at some point, right?

Bob Iger a depuis également annoncé que certains projets en développement avaient été annulés, sans précisions.

Collider a écrit:

“You have to kill things you no longer believe in, and that’s not easy in this business, because either you’ve gotten started, you have some sunk costs, or it’s a relationship with either your employees or with the creative community,” Iger said. “It’s not an easy thing, but you got to make those tough calls. We’ve actually made those tough calls. We’ve not been that public about it, but we’ve killed a few projects already, that we just didn’t feel were strong enough.”