Axing Robin Hood

*Slides the “blogs gone without mentioning Disney” counter to zero*

I have a confession: I don’t care for Robin Hood. Specifically, I don’t care for the 1973 Disney movie, the one where the characters are anthropomorphized animals. I know it has a cult following with furries, and I get it. But for a movie about England’s legendary thief, it’s surprisingly boring and uninspired. It looks cheap, it sounds cheap and it feels hollow. It also falls into the trap many Disney animated movies of the 70s and 80s did, and I remember reading its director, Wolfgang Reitherman, was embarrassed to have his name attached (though I can no longer find the reference for that). I’m sorry if this offends anyone, but take it up with the megalith corporation.

On that note, I’ve never been hot on the live-action Disney remakes. I’ve seen a few, but most have felt like they were cashing in on brand recognition without the quality of the original material. Also, what’s wrong with those originals? Is it that they’re animated? What does Hollywood have against animated movies?

In February, it was announced that Disney’s management was shaking up, as CEO Bob Iger was stepping down (again). Replacing him was Josh D’Amaro, with Dana Walden as CCO. Iger was, in my opinion, divisive creatively, but he was good for Disney financially, so it’ll be interesting seeing what D’Amaro and Walden bring to the table. I don’t know enough about them, but surely they’ll bring some new life, right? I hope so!

Perhaps this new energy will show through Disney’s release schedule, which leads me to Robin Hood. According to insider reports, a live-action remake was slated for production, only to be scrapped alongside Bambi. This is interesting. As much as I don’t like Disney’s remakes, I get Bambi being remade: it’s a well-loved, critically-acclaimed movie about conservationism, which is perfect for modern moviegoers’ sensibilities. But Robin Hood? A movie that was never well-received, and was outdone in lacklustre quality by later adaptations, was getting a remake too?

Far be it for me to judge its fans. Furries are entitled to love movies too, and the Zootopia franchise has shown that Disney can do good by them. I also can’t be too bitter about Disney remaking it. They did justice to Pete’s Dragon, which had little going for it outside some impression animation from Don Bluth. But Robin Hood, a movie where the main character’s a talking fox for…reasons, doesn’t scream A-material to me. At least not as a 1:1 remake.

If we’re going by The Lion King, I don’t think it’s fair calling it “live-action”. Remaking a traditionally-animated movie in photo-realistic CGI isn’t live-action. There are no visible actors on-screen, all the “acting” is done with voice-overs. Unlike The Jungle Book, which had a real kid as Mowgli, all of the actors present used motion capture and were replaced with computers. That’s animation, and I’m tired of pretending it’s not.

Additionally, I’m not sure the premise would work with photo-realism. Say what you will about The Lion King, but the characters weren’t attempting human-like behaviour. Robin Hood, however, has the characters as stand-ins for humans. They wear human clothes, they talk like humans, they even stand upright. Unless Disney wanted a surrealist take ala Cats, I doubt it’d have happened without being creepy and a turn-off.

I don’t get why Disney would even want this. As ambitious failures from the 70s and 80s go, The Black Cauldron is a much better fit for a live-action remake. Not only is it based on a dark fantasy series, but live-action could do wonders should Disney take the Narnia approach. Especially since there’s an audience for that kind of movie. I’m not alone here, either.

By opting for a soulless cash grab, however, Disney would’ve soured people’s attitudes on their remakes even more. And yes, the live-action remakes aren’t supposed to be good. They’re meant to cash-in on cheap nostalgia for jaded adults who want to be 6 years old again. But that doesn’t mean Disney can’t put in effort. Nor does it mean they can’t be strategic about what they remake.

Basically, I’m not upset Walden axed this remake. No one wanted it, and it’d be another attempting at flushing money down the drain. By axing it, Disney now has the freedom to focus on ideas people are interested in. Like Pixar movies, original and sequels alike, as well as animated Disney musicals. That’s more interesting than a 1:1 retelling of a mediocre movie from the 70s.

I’m not an expert in movie-making. It’s possible the remake of Robin Hood would’ve ended up fantastic, I don’t know. I also don’t run Disney, so I have no power over their output. However, I’m glad this remake was scrapped. Especially since, from what I’ve gathered, audiences are becoming sick of Robin Hood movies, going by diminished returns.

I’m slightly more optimistic about Disney’s new leadership now. At least, creatively. It’s possible they’ll disappoint, especially since they have to appease shareholders, but this is a step in the right direction. And who knows? Maybe they’ll drag the studio out of their creative stagnation? Here’s hoping!