2025, Dean Fleischer Camp (Marcel the Shell with Shoes On) -- download
We, again the Peanut Gallery and me, were devotees of the "new wave" of Disney animation back in the cinema & VHS days. That was back when owning a movie for home viewing depended on finding a copy, usually second hand, from a VHS store. Eventually Disney would re-release them for home purchase, but for a time, when these movies would "go back into the vault", they were worth their weight in gold. I briefly worked for a place that hunted them down and resold them for hundreds of dollars a piece. This made them exclusive, precious, sought after things. It was an industry, but still, we just enjoyed them, songs and all.
And then we grew up (that's highly debatable). And Disney switched, almost exclusively, from traditional to CG animated. Things just feel... different. We stopped dedicating effort to seeing things. These live-action re-imaginings derailed the watching, entirely.
I think this movie's original (from 2002, which is astounding unto itself [it still feels new], and explains no post) was one of the last of the traditionally animated movies, after which 3D CG animation became the norm. So, its not surprising that the merger of live-action and CG animation would follow as a "new thing". Yes, CG is used in probably all movies to some degree, but ... actually, I am not sure what I am trying to get at, but there is a difference in intent between movies that add in CG to enhance the fantastical/challenging-to-shoot (or too lazy to shoot) elements, and movies that come from the approach of cartoons but with real people. If I think about this anymore, I am probably going to end up rabbit-holing into questions of whether Barbie was a live-action cartoon. Better not, not yet.
Some rules, because what are "projects" without rules. I will do them all, so that means two versions of The Jungle Book, even the 1994 one, but I will not be doing live-action spin-off's or sequels of a live-action adaptations. So, no Maleficent or Mufasa watching. Also, I think that I need to write my posts from an original viewing perspective, as opposed to comparisons, though I doubt I will stick much to that. It will be too difficult to not compare, especially when the live-action version is lacking.
And we begin.
On a distant planet, a mad-scientist Dr. Jumba Jookiba (voiced by Zach Galifianakis at this point; Muppets Most Wanted) is being sentenced for his genetic experimentation and creation of Experiment 626 (voiced by Chris Sanders; Lilo & Stitch original), a nigh indestructible little agent of chaos creature. Jookiba will be incarcerated and 626 will be exiled, which strikes me as folly considering the characteristics Jookiba built into it, but this is a family movie so shooting it into the sun is not on the table. Buuuut, 626 doesn't like being "captured" so it steals a police starship (the red one) and escapes. Its ship is tracked to backward planet Earth and Jookiba is tasked capturing, and returning 626, along with assistance from Earth expert, Agent Pleakley (voiced by Billy Magnussen at this point; Velvet Buzzsaw). Again, seems like the opposite of a good idea, but this is a cartoon / family movie.
There is a side note of 626 becoming incredibly dense when submersed in water so it crash landing on an island (Kaua'i) is to everyone's advantage -- it won't be getting off the island anytime soon.
So, yeah crashed into Hawaii, where we are given our main characters: Lilo Pelekai (Maia Kealoha, feature debut) and her older sister Nani (Sydney Agudong, At Her Feet). Lilo is an agent of chaos unto herself, being left alone most of the time as barely out of teen years Nani attempts to work enough jobs to keep them alive. Their parents' death is not explained, but ever present. Also, Nani has to prove to CPS, under the stern but sympathetic eye of social work Mrs Kekoa (Tia Carrere, Wayne's World), that she is a suitable guardian for Lilo, or she will lose her.
Neighbour Tūtū (Amy Hill, Magnum PI), who takes care of Lilo on occasion, thinks getting Lilo a pet is a good idea (its not) and that is how they run into 626, napping in a little cage at a local shelter. 616 realizes quickly that it doesn't look like the other dogs, and sucks in its extra pair of arms and antennae. Still doesn't look like a dog (blue fur for one) but sure, whatever -- adopted ! Not long after, Lilo names it Stitch.
Jookiba and Pleakley show up, armed with a portal gun and their own agendas. Pleakley loves the planet and its people but, the rest of the galaxy doesn't care for us humans -- its only protected as a sanctuary for mosquitos. Umm, thankyou mosquitos? The pair are mismatched, of course, dressed in odd looking human holograms. Their pursuit of Stitch is interrupting the little blue monster's attempting to blend in with the little broken family. He's not pleased.
Eventually Lilo and Stitch's antics get Nani fired from one job after another, and its becoming certain the two sisters will be separated. But Stitch is starting to see beyond the end of his own nose, and even Lilo is starting to see that antics (fun antics, but disastrous) can have consequences. The two are learning from each other.
In the end, once Jookiba's desire to recapture Stitch, not for the safety of the galaxy but for his own further experimentation, reveals that the little blue dog is a sentient alien monster, but one with a really big fondness for a little girl named Lilo, Nani has to fight to save the really heavy when submerged creature, and explain to Grand Councilwoman (who shows up in her space ship; voiced by Hannah Waddingham, Ted Lasso) that Stitch is not a mindless monstrous experiment but a member of their little broken family. She gives in and leaves 626 in exile, on Earth.
And breathe. Impressive sentence, if I do say so...
Its a challenge doing a recap of such a flick because they are all so much about the multitude of moments. Live-action has to be about the performances and pacing, and not just what happens. The two leads of this movie are spectacular. I was able to not be lost comparing casting choices against the images I have in my head (I mean, those images were put there by the original animation) and also not get dragged into the ever present controversy ANY movie is going to get when casting peoples of colour. If I had any gripe, its not re-casting Ving Rhames as Cobra Bubbles (here via Courtney B Vance, Project Power), the man-in-black masquerading as a CPS care worker. I can only assume Rhames was busy doing MI stuff. And I was incredibly surprised how much I loved the silly slapstick performance of Bleakley; only a little of my guffaws were at inappropriate "I needed this stupid shit" levels (its been a challenging last few months) and I was equally not annoyed with the Jookiba man-suit as performed as/by Zach Galifianakis, which was a surprise.
As a beginning to this project, I am not sure I captured what I want to capture. As reboots of their original media, they cannot stand entirely apart. Its not like comparing the two Robocop movies, which are entirely retooled in order to give an updated version. Nor was this movie a scene for scene retelling of the original animation. Was it a success, as a movie, in my mind, apart of comparing to original? Somewhat? Its fine, its a fine fun movie. But I have to claw back my desire to not compare the movies to each other, but I am not sure I can write about the new one without doing so.
The original is a cartoon and therefore can be quite easy to leverage acceptance of silly situations. Unlike a family movie like Paddington where the suspension of disbelief is built into the world making of the movie, this one is supposed to be set in our world, and I had trouble understanding why anyone would take this blue furry definitely-talking creature as a dog. Yes yes, its for kids, but... that's my brain folks. At least the movie's David (Kaipo Dudoit, Magnum PI) says it for me, as he did in the animation, "Did that dog just talk???".
If I can say one final thing, its that I can like cartoon kids. I have trouble endearing myself to real kids. Sure, I liked Kealoha's performance fine enough, but I didn't want to hug & squeeze her like I would the animated Lilo.

I see your dilemma... are you writing a series about approaching these films standing on their own, or are you writing about them as comparison to their originals.
ReplyDeleteThey're both interesting ventures and exciting approaches.
I think you also need a stand-apart title, like "Re:Animated" or "Refried Disney" or "ALARM?" (A Live Action ReMake)
As for "is Barbie a live-action cartoon"?
No, I don't think so. It features a very fake, plastic world but it absolutely needs the real world to ground it. It wouldn't work as a cartoon.
Kung-Fu Hustle is a live-action cartoon. The Flintstones is a live-action cartoon. The Mask is a live-action cartoon. Crimewave is a live-action cartoon. Even Raising Arizona is more live-action cartoon than Barbie. The Matrix trilogy are probably live action Anime (the latest Matrix much less so). I even think a lot of the live-action anime remakes lose a lot of the feel for anime as they try to go Hollywood blockbuster. It's fun to think through though...what is intending to be a live action cartoon, and what is just based off a cartoon?
#snort Refried Disney it is !!
ReplyDeleteAlso because, I realized that at least one of the movies is still a remake but.... not live-action. BUT that realization will be the post itself.
Heh, you're right... the Lion King remake is an animated movie. The Jungle Book is an animated movie with, like, one human character. I wonder if there were any practical sets on that one.
Delete