Inexplicable Changes **probable SPOILERS**

[Crash]

Disney movies. They've never had a reputaion for diligently following the source material. Still, some changes make sense. Having one of Cinderella's sisters cut off her toes, for example, doesn't make for a good family movie. However, certain other changes....

I just finished reading 'Tarzan of the Apes' by Edgar Rice Burroughs. Spoilers to follow.

Disney's movie does have some unexpected refferences back to the novel. The noose, for instance. However, their choice of villain is just bizzare. Disney used a man named Clayton as thier villain. The novel contains two men named Clayton, John and William Cecil. Neither bear the slightest resemblence to the Clayton of the movie. Indeed, William Cecil Clayton's (the one who actually met Tarzan) worst sin was loving Jane before Tarzan did, and being willing to believe the worst about Tarzan. But as for doing anything actually villainous....nada.

And, beyond that...John Clayton was Tarzan's father. WilliamClatyon the younger was Tarzan's cousin. Heck, Tarzan himself is a Clayton, whether he realized it or not. So I'd really love to know why Disney thought 'Clayton' was a good name for their made-for-the-movie villain! 'Captain Billings' wouldn't have worked? 'Black Michael' was too obvious? Didn't like Snipes? There were no suitable nature-hating villains in the twenty-some odd sequels Burroughs wrote?

The mind boggles... Feel free to chime in with your own inexplicable changes.

[PowerZord]

I read once that in one version of the cinderella story some birds peck the cinderella sisters eyes out during the wedding. it's a metaphor to represent that they were blinded by their envy

[Silverstar]

I read once that in one version of the cinderella story some birds peck the cinderella sisters eyes out during the wedding. it's a metaphor to represent that they were blinded by their envy

Also, in one version of the original story, the stepsisters cut their feet off in order to get the glass slipper to fit them.

[Wussycat]

101 Dalmations: Several pointless name changes.

The Jungle Book: Kaa was a good guy in the original story.

Winnie the Pooh: They added Gopher and changed Wol's name to Owl.

Pocahontas: In the original story, Pocahontas was a little girl and John Smith was an old man. They were just friends and nothing more.

[DrTooth]

I just finished reading 'Tarzan of the Apes' by Edgar Rice Burroughs. Spoilers to follow.

Disney's movie does have some unexpected refferences back to the novel. The noose, for instance. However, their choice of villain is just bizzare. Disney used a man named Clayton as thier villain. The novel contains two men named Clayton, John and William Cecil. Neither bear the slightest resemblence to the Clayton of the movie. Indeed, William Cecil Clayton's (the one who actually met Tarzan) worst sin was loving Jane before Tarzan did, and being willing to believe the worst about Tarzan. But as for doing anything actually villainous....nada.

And, beyond that...John Clayton was Tarzan's father. WilliamClatyon the younger was Tarzan's cousin. Heck, Tarzan himself is a Clayton, whether he realized it or not. So I'd really love to know why Disney thought 'Clayton' was a good name for their made-for-the-movie villain! 'Captain Billings' wouldn't have worked? 'Black Michael' was too obvious? Didn't like Snipes? There were no suitable nature-hating villains in the twenty-some odd sequels Burroughs wrote?

The mind boggles... Feel free to chime in with your own inexplicable changes.

One of several reasons I did not like that movie.

Let's not forget the multiple changes to hunchback of Notre Dame. Signing Gargoyles are the least of the changes.

[Ed Liu]

However, their choice of villain is just bizzare. Disney used a man named Clayton as thier villain. The novel contains two men named Clayton, John and William Cecil. Neither bear the slightest resemblence to the Clayton of the movie. Indeed, William Cecil Clayton's (the one who actually met Tarzan) worst sin was loving Jane before Tarzan did, and being willing to believe the worst about Tarzan. But as for doing anything actually villainous....nada.

I'm pretty sure that they talk about this on the commentary track on the DVD. I think they said that they created the character for the movie to establish a simpler conflict than the one that the original novel did, and may have named the character as a shout out to people who read the novel. They all did read the novel before making the movie, so the choice of naming the villain Clayton was not an accident. Why they didn't use another ERB villain? Got me there.

The funny thing is that, other than this liberty, I thought Disney's Tarzan animated movie was surprisingly faithful to the original novel, and may be more faithful than any other adaptation before it. The real inexplicable change to me in Disney's Tarzan is Tantor, who was a wild force of nature in the novel, and the one beast who held an uneasy truce with Tarzan because both felt that the other was the one creature of the jungle they couldn't beat (or something like that). The movie turns him into, um, Wayne Knight. I think that Tantor and Terk aren't so bad in and of themselves, but they just don't belong in the same movie that contains those intense sequences with Sabor the leopard and the real heavy-duty emotional stuff that hits when Tarzan realizes who he is. There's plenty of comedy to be mined without silly kiddie characters who provide dubious comic relief.

I also never really warmed to Disney's version of The Jungle Book, mostly because I had grown up with the far more faithful Chuck Jones animated versions of those stories. I didn't get to see the Disney version until around middle school, and was really bewildered and slightly upset at all this crazy stuff that wasn't in the books. I remember Baloo and Bagheera being total badass animals in the book and Jones' adaptation, not the comic goofballs they were in the movie. I'll have to grab the Platinum edition DVD sooner or later just to see if I've developed more appreciation for the movie.

Aladdin shares nearly nothing in common with the original story in The Arabian Nights (the original Aladdin was supposed to be Chinese, for instance), but I love the movie to death anyway.

-- Ed

[Antiyonder]

Winnie the Pooh: They added Gopher

Which is the significance of Gopher's line, "I'm not in the book". Double meaning right there.

[Dr.Pepper]

In 101 Dalmations the third adult dalmation and Cruella's husband and cat are no where to be seen.

[Luna]

You know,come to think of it,despite a love of reading,I've never read most of the source books for the Disney movies.....off the top of my head,I've read....

The Hunchback of Notre Dame (way different,and more tragic than the Disney movie;Claude Frollo is a priest,which makes his lusting after Esmeralda even worse,plus Phoebus doesn't love Esmeralda,even though she loves him)....despite feeling they could've done without the talking/singing gargoyles,I still love the Disney version...

Oliver Twist (believe it or not,it's the basis for Oliver and Co.,though from what I remember, it's mostly character names they used)...

Hercules....In the original myth,he's a demi-god because he's the son of Zeus and Alcmene,and Hera bears a grudge against him....Unlike Disney's version,where he was originally a god (the legitimate son of Zeus and Hera),and had his powers taken away to to a potion Hades made Pain and Panic give him....
and actually, "Hercules" is the character's Roman name,in the Greek version of the myth,he's called "Heracles" (which they made reference to in the TV series),Disney used Hercules because it's the better known name....

[Antiyonder]

Hercules....In the original myth,he's a demi-god because he's the son of Zeus and Alcmene,and Hera bears a grudge against him....Unlike Disney's version,where he was originally a god (the legitimate son of Zeus and Hera),and had his powers taken away to to a potion Hades made Pain and Panic give him....
and actually, "Hercules" is the character's Roman name,in the Greek version of the myth,he's called "Heracles" (which they made reference to in the TV series),Disney used Hercules because it's the better known name....

That and he is more similar to Superboy/Superman. I'm refering of course to the farmer parents who adopt him.

[Luna]

I just remembered another one....

I've also read Hans Christian Andersen's version of The Little Mermaid,which has a bittersweet ending(the mermaid doesn't end up with her prince,but gets an opportunity to earn an immortal soul),as opposed to Disney's "happily ever after"....Interestingly,Disney also made an animated short based on Andersen's The Little Match Girl(it's on The Little Mermaid DVD that came out last year),but kept the tragic ending....

[Crash]

One of several reasons I did not like that movie.

Yeah, I'm finding my opinion of the movie slowly drop since I finished the book. A real shame, too, since its one of the few post-Lion King movies that were actually entertaining.


I'm pretty sure that they talk about this on the commentary track on the DVD. I think they said that they created the character for the movie to establish a simpler conflict than the one that the original novel did, and may have named the character as a shout out to people who read the novel. They all did read the novel before making the movie, so the choice of naming the villain Clayton was not an accident. Why they didn't use another ERB villain? Got me there.

See, hearing that--that they understood the meaning of the name--only makes it more inexplicable. A fundamental change like that doesn't 'shout out' back to the original. It just makes the creator seem like a hack who didn't understand--or care about--the original. Like making a Superman movie featuring a megalomaniacal supervillain named 'James Olsen.'

Pretty much agree with you on the rest, though. Really could have done without the sidekicks and the camp percussion scene. About Tantor in the book, though, he didn't strike me as a force of nature, just an idea that never really went anywhere. After seeing the movie first, and then reading his name, I honestly expected him to be more important than he was...

[bethhigdon]

Ed[/quote]

I also never really warmed to Disney's version of The Jungle Book, mostly because I had grown up with the far more faithful Chuck Jones animated versions of those stories. I didn't get to see the Disney version until around middle school, and was really bewildered and slightly upset at all this crazy stuff that wasn't in the books. I remember Baloo and Bagheera being total badass animals in the book and Jones' adaptation, not the comic goofballs they were in the movie. I'll have to grab the Platinum edition DVD sooner or later just to see if I've developed more appreciation for the movie.



-- Ed[/quote]

Actually, I that's why I like the movie better than book. I missed the lovable characters.

but all in all I try not compare movies to books because it's like comparing water to coke. they're two different mediums that have to be presented two different ways. That's why I love both versions of the Hunchback of Notre Dame. I look at them as two separate different stories that are both wonderful and entertaining.

However I do not like the character changes in the Black Cauldron. It's a good movie and it got me interested in the books, but unlike most Disney films where the characters personality's are just different or they add new characters. the main character's laked personality. only expect ions may be the Horned King (who wasn't a main character in the book) Grugi (stayed the same), and the Creeper (but he wasn't in any of the books I believe).

[Joe]

I strongly feel that the film Treasure Planet failed at the conception level when they decided to make it into an outer space story. The film could have been much more substantial had they stuck with the more traditional pirate setting without making it look gimmicky.

Though normally, I don't care whether or not something is true to the content of the source material, as long as it is handled well.

[Scythemantis]

Kaa as a villain in the Jungle Book REALLY upset me as a kid because I was a huge advocate of unappreciated animals, and still am. Nothing should make snakes more "evil" than big cats and wolves in popular culture. Disney loves its cliche's.


I strongly feel that the film Treasure Planet failed at the conception level when they decided to make it into an outer space story. The film could have been much more substantial had they stuck with the more traditional pirate setting without making it look gimmicky.

But that was the entire point. They didn't just tack on a sci-fi setting to a Treasure Island script... the idea was "sci-fi treasure island" from the beginning. Sure, it's a gimmick, but I've seen Treasure Island in its traditional setting more than enough. I would always rather see myriad alien designs than more early-century pirates.

[tb4000]

To be honest, most of the stories that Disney adapt for animated viewing are extremely morbid and dark. Some of the elements they keep, but a lot of them were somewhat morality tales about people doing things way too far off the mark to get what they want. They have to sprinkle some of that Disney magic on it to make them G rated.