Movies

How to Train Your Dragon continues a depressing live-action remake trend – and it needs to change

BBG News

You could sum up all the acclaim for Universal’s live-action adaptation of “How to Train Your Dragon” in a succinct statement: “It’s remarkably similar to the original.

Instead of focusing solely on “requels” or “legacy sequels,” which were films featuring supposedly fresh narratives and characters but heavily tied to the past for stability and marketing, Hollywood has now abandoned any attempt at genuine originality altogether.

Once more, we find ourselves in a familiar tale, but this time featuring genuine performers and realistic computer-generated imagery. Officially, we have ventured into unexplored grounds that tap into the emotional reminiscence of viewers.

What to Read Next

It appears that audiences are indeed eager for it, as Disney’s live-action remake of Lilo & Stitch has proven to be a massive box office success, raking in over $600 million. This comes at a time when the studio has faced financial challenges, with its Marvel films and more loose adaptation of Snow White failing to turn a profit.

The movie “How to Train Your Dragon” is expected to mirror the success of “Lilo & Stitch.” Its director, Dean DeBlois, who previously co-directed the 2010 original with Chris Sanders (interestingly, this team also created the animated “Lilo & Stitch”), is now solo directing the remake. In interviews, he has emphasized that some scenes are nearly identical in their shooting.

Could it be that some people might find a reason to prefer this new version over the existing one, which they can always access whenever they wish?

The charm of films lies in their endless potential for revisitation. Time and again, you can return to your favorite ones, immersing yourself in their patterns just as one might sink into a comfortable, warm bath. As you grow older, you may find that revisiting them is like catching up with an old friend, noticing how the significance of their themes evolves over time. Unlike reruns of the same story told in a duller way, films offer an experience that can’t be replicated, with its unique aesthetic, design, and emotional resonance, all contributing to a greater sense of joy.

This live-action remake, remarkably similar yet distinctly fresh, employs a novel approach. There’s nothing quite like it to compare with.

When game developers upgrade an older game with modern graphics, it’s generally considered a re-imagining rather than a completely fresh creation. For instance, Gus Van Sant’s almost scene-by-scene remake of ‘Psycho’ in 1998 was met with widespread criticism as being unnecessary and unproductive for both critics and viewers. On the other hand, when a theater group reprises Macbeth or A Doll’s House by Ibsen, the focus is always on how contemporary interpretations can breathe new life into these classic works.

In a sense similar to how an apprentice under old European painters used to replicate their masters’ works, which weren’t as exceptional due to primarily serving as learning tools.

As a passionate admirer, I seldom come across someone genuinely asserting that the live-action reboot surpasses its original counterpart. And when I encounter individuals who claim the live-action version is superior due to it being “more realistic,” I find myself perplexed. After all, isn’t a movie about blue-furred aliens or dragons an escape from reality, not a reflection of it?

As a gamer, it feels like almost every revamped game, to some extent, relies on the nostalgia factor. Gus Van Sant himself admitted this when discussing his Psycho remake, saying to Entertainment Weekly in 1998 (via Slash Film): “Why do studios ever re-create a movie? Because they have this forgotten gem that they can release again and make some cash.

Initially, there was a certain method behind Disney’s remaking of films like “Cinderella” or “Pete’s Dragon”. The familiar title on the poster attracted people with tight budgets and limited options to go to the cinema, as they sought some assurance in their movie selection. Meanwhile, these remakes offered a chance for talented directors to put their unique spin on classic stories.

As a gamer, I’d say that both the 2015 version of Cinderella and Pete’s Dragon (2016) kept true to their original’s iconic elements – the enchanting blue gown and glass slippers for Cinderella, and the lovable green beast with a distinctive underbite in Pete’s Dragon. However, the former carries Kenneth Branagh’s signature style, filled with rich, romantic nuances reminiscent of literature. On the other hand, Pete’s Dragon (2016) reflects David Lowery’s unique directorial approach, blending grandiose folklore with a heartfelt emotional intimacy.

The first movie offers a fresh perspective on an old fairy tale favorite, whereas the second one is an innovative effort on a less popular (and let’s face it, not especially great) Disney production that combines live-action with traditional animation. These films, regardless of their reception, have at least opened up room for unique ideas.

In contrast to shows like Lilo & Stitch and How to Train Your Dragon, these animated films feature actors reprising their roles. For instance, Sanders continues to voice Stitch, while Gerard Butler remains Stoick the Vast. Instead of interpreting the characters, they stick closely to the original performances, focusing on one-to-one translations of specific shots, sequences, lines of dialogue, and costumes. The makers of How to Train Your Dragon take pride in this consistency, as it is directed by the same person.

The challenge for film studios seems to be that making too many alterations could upset fans who are fond of a certain style or way of character movement. In fact, these recent remakes appear to be incredibly cautious, not aiming to please but merely appease viewers. Any changes made serve only to smooth over potential rough spots rather than offer something fresh and exciting.

In the movie Lilo & Stitch, any negative portrayals of Hawaii’s tourism industry and all instances where aliens are dressed as females were removed. On the other hand, in How to Train Your Dragon, there is an edited scene where the main character Hiccup initially plans to remove Toothless’ heart and present it to his father, but this line was later taken out.

It seems unlikely that any of these studios would create new stories similar to “Cruella” or “Maleficent,” which revolve around familiar villains, in the future. Instead, Disney’s rumored live-action reboots like “Moana,” “Hercules,” and “Bambi” appear to be straightforward adaptations of their animated counterparts.

As an ardent supporter of artistic expression, I can’t help but feel a sense of caution when the entertainment industry seems to teeter on the brink due to AI advancements. It’s hard not to question the motives behind any move that appears to undervalue creativity and imagination – two pillars that have always been the heart of our artistic world.

Really, it’s about time we treat ‘it’s just like the original’ as a criticism again.

Here are the movies “How to Train Your Dragon” and “Lilo & Stitch” currently showing in UK and US cinemas respectively. “How to Train Your Dragon” will be available in US theaters on June 13th.

Read More

2025-06-09 19:19

Previous post Kim Kardashian accidentally reveals something very strange inside her $60M mansion
Next post Luann de Lesseps continues to wear THAT huge sparkly ring as she is seen again with her silver fox beau