Nobody is repainting the Mona Lisa. They are simply painting a new version of the Mona Lisa. The original Mona Lisa is still intact. This is what you people don’t understand.

First off, what you say is not entirely true. Some audiences don’t want to see new material in a remake based on an a film they liked. They want it to feel the same as the original as a matter of fact the main complaint with Disney’s live action films (Pre-Cinderella) is that they didn’t feel anything like the originals. Now, this could have been forgiven if the films were good.

Secondly, so what if they are referencing Bare Nesscities in the film? What is wrong with that? They can have references and songs from the original in this film as long as it fits in the movie and doesn’t seem out of place, there is no law saying they can’t. It would kind of be a dissapointment if they didn’t. That’s one of things the orignal was so well known for, the catchy songs. Plus, they even got Richard Sherman the song writer for the orignal film to write new songs for this one.

Thirdly, this film will have new material. I’ve read multiple articles (I can link you some if you want) about the director, John Favereau, showing some clips at an event for the film while discussing the process of how to make it work and he did say that, unlike the original, this film will have elements and references from the book as well although they are still aiming for the tone of the cartoon. Favereau stated he wants to make a film that can be watched by people who grew up with orignal film like himself and by people who didn’t.

Fourthly and finally, if you want a straight adaption of the book you’re going to have to wait until 2017 because Andy Serkis is making a Jungle Book film that will be more in the tone of the book.

They’re referencing the song ‘Bare Nessceities’ in the film. If that doesn’t remind you of the old one I don’t know what does. Seriously, I wanted them to do a straighter version from the book instead of having to rely on what we’ve already seen. That sentence I just said sounds bad while I’m thinking about it. Seriously, audiences want to see new material even when it’s in a remake, sequel, or adaptation.

Mowgli: I have wolves
Pete: I have a dragon

Can we really call the original Pete’s Dragon a classic? Being an old film from Disney doesn’t automatically make it a classic. I think this was a good idea from Disney, to remake one of their old films that wasn’t very good in the first place.

Completely agree

Ok well maybe some people see it differently

And I can disagree. I’m just saying that just because a film takes place in woody place and has a nature feel doesn’t mean they are ripping off other films. For all we know having the films take place in that type of area is what makes the story for the film work. That’s all.

Yes but this is just my first impression, it’ll probably win me over but for now its just looks like a rip off from those other movies I said before, I have a right to an opinion

You know it’s all about how they do their own take on it that separates it from films like the ones you mentioned and makes it unique right?