In the 1977 holiday season, Walt Disney Productions released the live action/animated musical extravaganza, Pete's Dragon. It was expected to "win back the crowd" by becoming a Mary Poppins-sized blockbuster, but it backfired drastically and it was panned by most critics. 45 years later, many Disney fans have since expressed their disappointment with the movie. After Walt Disney's death in 1966, the studio's popularity was loosing its steam, as the company became creatively stagnant by playing it safe for family audiences. That's why many moviegoers turned to a new generation of filmmakers such as Stanley Kubrick, Robert Altman, Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, George Lucas, and Steven Spielberg. The movie also arrived when the rise of the summer blockbusters was at its peak, starting off with Jaws and Star Wars, and continuing with Close Encounters, Superman, Alien, Indiana Jones, and ET. The big budget blockbusters were in, and Disney was in a slump at the time.
Origins and Development
The movie was based on an unpublished short story written by Seton I. Miller and S. S. Field. Walt Disney optioned the rights in the late 1950's, with the intention of turning it into a two-part episode on the Disneyland TV show. But plans were scrapped, leading the project into development hell. In 1975, producer Jerome Courtland rediscovered the project, hired Malcolm Marmorstein to write the screenplay, and revamped the project into a musical. British filmmaker Don Chaffey (Jason and the Argonauts) was hired to direct the film, mainly because of his past experiences with Disney.
Special Effects
Much like Song of the South, Mary Poppins, and later with Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Pete's Dragon combined live action with animation. The dragon was designed by long time veteran Ken Anderson and animated by Don Bluth and his team (it's one of the last projects Bluth did before he left Disney in 1979). A process similar to today's blue/greenscreen processes were used to help combine the live action and animation. The animation of the dragon and the live action footage were filmed separately, then they use an optical printer to give the audience the illusion that this poor kid really was interacting with that dragon. I'm not a fan of the design of the dragon. He looked a bit too cutesy for me with his green skin, large stomach, and inexplicably pink hair. The live action/animation mix is okay, but it's really nowhere as convincing as it later will be with Who Framed Roger Rabbit 11 years later.
My Thoughts on the 2016 Remake
Before we get to my thoughts on the original film, I think it's best to discuss the remake first, because I actually liked this film better than the original. I watched this film with very low expectations because I don't like Disney live action remakes and I didn't like the original film. So watching this new version is actually a surprise. Watching this film actually reminded me on what Siskel and Ebert used to say about remakes. They often say "don't remake masterpieces, remake flawed films", and I think director David Lowrey succeeded on that level, even though it's not a perfect film. I felt that it was a much more rounded story than the original film and I felt that it has a much more interesting dragon. I'll go into more detail in a stand alone review in the future.
My Honest Thoughts and Conclusion
I think the reason why many people have forgotten about this film 45 years after this film have come out is that it has a very weak story, it barely has memorable songs, and the dragon itself is such a crushing bore. The movie never establishes how Pete discovered the dragon, where the dragon came from, and how they became friends. Instead, it throws you straight into the film with no real build up, as they escape from Pete's abusive adoptive family. When they arrive a small town named Passamaquoddy, the film turns into predictable slapstick territory until Pete finally gets adopted by a woman who lives at the town lighthouse with her father, while two quacks make desperate attempts to kill the dragon to sell their crappy medicine. So far, we have an overstuffed script, with several plot threads just lazily slapped on each other. The film also spares no expense providing cheap slapstick that has been recycled from past Disney comedies.
The film has been discussed a lot by Disney aficionados online, and most expressed their frustrations and disappointment with the movie. But to be honest, there are some things I liked about it. British stage actor Jim Dale and comedian Red Buttons were highlights to me as the quacks. Their two songs when they arrived in town to con potential patients and their desire to kill the dragon for profit were the best songs in the movie in my opinion. And Mickey Rooney, who plays the owner of the town lighthouse, does the best with what he is given. They made the movie more bearable to watch. The location shooting of the lighthouse totally tricked me, because it looked like it was filmed in the East Coast, but it was filmed in California. You got to give them credit for that. The real downside to the visual components, apart from the design of the dragon, is the setting of Passamaquoddy. Given the fact that it was shot in a studio, it really looked like a theme park attraction at the Disney Parks rather than a real town that could exist in the early 20th century.
The whole thing about the dragon speaking gibberish is really flawed from the get go, and it gets irritating for a while. Whoever came up with the idea for the dragon's language needs a good slap in the face. As for the overstuffed climax, director Don Chaffey clearly can't shoot action. When the dragon gets trapped by the town fishermen so the quacks can kill him, everything looks very average and old fashioned. It's very standard stuff. And the movie ends with a sappy and corny conclusion that the dragon has to share his goodbye to Pete, so he can help another kid.
Overall, Pete's Dragon is not a good movie. It came out in a time when the movies were changing (especially with the release of Star Wars and Close Encounters) and Disney was in a slump at the time. So it's a film that nobody wanted to see in the first place, and seemed very much like a quick cash grab to capitalize on any remaining Disney fans. It's a shame that the Disney empire played it safe in the 1970s. The studio made a fatal mistake to keep making the same kinds of movies after Walt's death, which is really silly because Walt loved to innovate and explore new ideas. I understand that they were struggling without him, but there's really no need to keep things the same. There are some enjoyable scenes in the film, but these moments don't come from the dragon. The quacks are far more interesting to watch. What else could I add? Despite the 2016 remake correcting its mistakes, it's a highly forgettable movie that really shouldn't have been made.
No comments:
Post a Comment