LETS MAKE A DISNEY MOVIE! (Patreon)

So for my next video I'm planning to basically pitch my idea for a live action movie that's remaking a Disney animated classic. The movie I've chosen is The Rescuers from 1977. It's the first animated Disney movie to ever get a sequel in 1990 but as a franchise it's been dead ever since.

I'm going to share some of my brainstorming here thereby inviting you to give some of your thoughts and ideas too.

First up there's the book series by Margery Sharp.  There were 9 books beginning with The Rescuers. In the book, an organisation of mice dwell within a prison and make prisoner's lives better in small ways (showing affection, being fed breadcrumbs, providing a sense of company to combat the loneliness etc). But word reaches them of an imprisoned Norwegian poet and they decide to change tradition and rescue him. Bernard, a mere resident, is sent to find Miss Bianca, a privileged white mouse and pet of the ambassador who just so happens to be taking a trip to Norway. Bernard has to convince her to join him on the rescue mission and locate a brave Norwegian mouse named Nils. Together they all rescue the prisoner and set him free.

The Rescuers movie is based on the second book of the series. In the film, there's an organisation of mice from around the world called the Rescue Aid Society. There, word reaches them of an orphan girl named Penny held captive but it's unknown where. Miss Bianca volunteers and enlists the janitor, Bernard, to accompany her. Together they investigate clues and eventually locate Penny at Devil's Bayou being forced to locate a diamond for the evil Madame Medusa. She's saved after a daring rescue and she's later adopted.

Then there's the sequel, Rescuers Down Under. A direct sequel that finds Bernard and Miss Bianca sent to Australia to rescue a boy kidnapped by an evil poacher who is trying to hunt and kill a rare eagle that the boy has befriended. They travel across the outback until he's saved once again thanks to a daring rescue.

That's a rough summary of Rescuers so far. Let's remember the main principles from the Live Action Remake video

1) Pick a movie that needs a remake

The Rescuers franchise has been completely dormant since Rescuers Down Under. It was a commercial flop, critically lukewarm and released in cinemas the same weekend as Home Alone so it was pretty doomed. After the sub-par opening weekend, all commercial promotion was pulled leaving it to fail. This is a shame as the original film was seen as one of the best films to be made without Walt Disney and was a box office success despite being initially planned as something of an experiment for the younger animators while the "A" team worked on the bigger scale movies. As a franchise, it has begun to fade from memory. The only thing to spring from it with a bit more longevity was Chip 'N Dale Rescue Rangers, originally planned to be a Rescuers TV show but altered due to the impending movie sequel. It ran from 1989 to 1990 but had a longer life thanks to reruns.

In terms of problematic areas, these films have aged surprisingly well. The Rescue Aid Society includes members of Arabs countries in a non-vilified way. There's other broad Nationality stereotypes but barely anything noteworthy, mainly because none of them have any real speaking roles or do anything other than be part of an audience. There's guns pointed and fired at children and kids carrying knives, plus the original had shots of Penny's torn underwear and shown to be carried upside-down - all elements that could not be included today. To begin with Miss Bianca is often put down for being a woman. When she volunteers for the mission, they insist it's "too dangerous" because of her gender hence why she brings Bernard along. In fairness, the male characters are framed in such a way that while having good intentions are wrong to underestimate her and she remains totally unfazed by such doubts. But there isn't really a comeuppance of sorts or some kind of acknowledgement of being wrong to doubt her. It's just brought up in order to team Bernard up with her and then dropped. The sequel doesn't bring this up at all either, other than the fact that Miss Bianca doesn't really do much at all other than need rescuing herself later.

In fact, one of the big issues with Rescuers Down Under is that the Bernard and Miss Bianca don't do any rescuing until the last act. The film is mostly them travelling there to the point where it feels like their inclusion was merely tacked on in the last minute. Bernard is also continually tested on being more assertive which is resolved when he learns to bully innocent animals which feels wrong. Then there's a group of captured animals, all with personalities and quips but once the boy is taken away after a failed escape, they're totally forgotten about and given no closure.

2) Try something new

For my movie pitch, I want to go back to the original source material. Perhaps we see the birth of the Rescue Aid Society from a small group of mice to a worldwide organisation, all starting with the rescuing of a prisoner. In fact, if we imagine the films as a trilogy (like all franchises seem to aim for), movie 1 could be the birth of the Rescue Aid Society with a scrappy rescue mission, movie 2 could have the Rescue Aid Society now an underground organisation across America with the rescue mission to Devil's Bayou and movie 3 is where it's now a sophisticated international organisation with a rescue mission to Australia, thereby eventually remaking the original movies having re-established the franchise.

Tonally the original is somber, with quieter reflections and moments where the characters feel genuinely hopeless. Very bleak for the Disney movie. The sequel follows (a bit too late) the trend of Crocodile Dundee inspired Australia action adventures with more slapstick and big characters, but it felt a bit too in-your-face when compared to the more gentle original. I would want to lean on the original tone more, not as dark or bleak and definitely still with comedy beats, but something that feels more comforting than brash.

3) Embrace the medium

The biggest challenge will be the portrayal of the mice. For a live action remake they'll need to look grounded and realistic but still able to emote. I think this is easily possible especially with mice, just look at Stuart Little! I'd love to take them in the approach of using puppets and animatronics as seen in The Witches and I'm sure technology has improved in the 30 years since to do some great stuff, especially when mixed in with real trained mice.

The seagull flights are another iconic moment from the films that would need to be included. I like the sequel's version as it follows the flight as he swoops down and around and evokes feeling like a rollercoaster. I'd like to push this way further. Imagine a real camera swooping around a real city, like on a tightly controlled drone, zooming through open windows, down low onto street level, through monuments and stuff, like Spider-Man swinging through the city but as one long take and not CGI. Except maybe the seagull, unless it can be placed in front of the camera so it's like Bernard and Miss Bianca's POV, kinda like the Naked Gun police light.

The action adventure sequels play best when they are small scale (like a speedboat chase sequence except it's a dragonfly pushing a leaf) which I think allows for more practical effects with multiple resets than bigger blockbusters. The more real it's made, the more pleasurable it'll be to watch.

So that's the brief idea for the approach to this remake. But here's some food for thought-

TALKING ANIMALS: Some animals talk, like mice, cats, seagulls. Some animals can't like crocodiles, insects, bats. What's the internal logic? Only good animals can but evil animals can't? Except the bugs aren't show to be evil and they can't talk, neither can the eagle in the sequel. Plus that removes any chance of say, somebody they trusted betrays them. Maybe it's like domestic animals can talk and wild animals can't, except there's a lot of wild animals in the sequel, like kangaroos and koalas that can talk and Medusa's crocodiles can't despite clearly being their pet. Maybe this doesn't need an internal logic at all? Or should ALL animals talk?

TALK TO HUMANS: Both films seem to follow the rule that only kids can hear the animals speak. There's no scene where the adult can only hear mouse squeaks instead or that the animals just refuse to speak to an adult or what. My feeling is to keep it that kids have an innocence that just opens them up to hearing animals talk.

CLOTHES: The movies dress Bernard and Miss Bianca into clothes that become iconic for that character. But if we're going for realistic, would they wear clothes? Maybe Miss Bianca would being a rich kid's pet and Bernard doesn't (and is dressed by Miss Bianca).

SUPERSTITIOUS: Bernard is shown to count the steps of a ladder and staircase and frets over the 13th step. This has no pay off and is not included in the sequel (which goes for more slapstick comedy so just makes Bernard more clumsy instead). Bernard isn't neurotic but he is overly-cautious, so would he continue to be superstitious? Would it be kept to the number 13 or extended to black cats, broken mirrors and walking under ladders?

VILLAIN: Both films have an unambiguous villain. Irredeemable and without morals. Should this remake take a more modern approach with a sympathetic villain, with a backstory and a motivation or stick to the more black and white good vs evil?

WHO TO RESCUE: In both movies, the characters are rescuing kids. In fact, it's implied it's only kids they step in to rescue. But if this remake is using the imprisoned poet idea from the book (which was aimed more adult than the films) then how does it involve a kid? Is the poet the child's parent? Is the child imprisoned? Like a juvenile delinquent? Or is the child captured and held in a prison cell? That last one is loaded with political overtones that Walt Disney specifically wanted to avoid (hence why the original film eventually went with the second book instead of the first). But he's dead so what does he know!

NILS: He is just not a part of the films but is a major player in the book. Is he needed? Would it be more efficient to have Bernard and Miss Bianca work without him? The films show they act better as a duo so should we keep it that way, or is it more fun to form a mini-team of characters outside of the principle two? Or maybe they locate him but he turns out to be a disappointment? Or even double-cross them? Those latter ones would betray the character from the book and therefore wouldn't be the same character. So if we were to go with that approach, perhaps it should just be an original character with no connection to the book at all (and therefore shouldn't carry the same name).

That's all (and it's a LOT!) for now!