8 Differences Between the Animated and Live-Action Dumbo

8 Differences Between the Animated and Live-Action Dumbo

Warning: SPOILERS for the new Dumbo are ahead!

Last weekend, Disney released the latest live-action remake of one of its classic animated films. This time the spotlight shined on Dumbo, who first appeared in 1941. Directed by Tim Burton, the new Dumbo fell short of expectations at the box office and received mixed reviews, so it hasn't caught on fire like many of Disney's other remakes. However, what sets Dumbo apart from those films is that it isn't afraid to deviate from the source material.

Not since Pete's Dragon has there been a Disney remake that changed so much from original movie. You can argue that Dumbo had to make those changes because the cartoon was only about an hour long and some of its elements haven't aged well. Regardless, the remake is really different from the original and most of the changes make it an improvement. Here are eight things that the new Dumbo did differently from its predecessor.

More Emphasis On Human Characters

1941's Dumbo was all about, well, Dumbo. Even though Dumbo never spoke, thanks to the power of animation, audiences were still able to identify with him because of how expressive he was. Plus, he had a small cast of animal characters to speak for him and to keep the plot moving. For his live-action debut, Dumbo is photo-realistic, which means its harder to base an entire movie around just him because he can't be as expressive. So, you need human characters to interpret Dumbo's feelings. Colin Farrell stars as World War I veteran Holt Farrier, who returns home to the circus to raise his two children, who become the caretakers of the newborn Dumbo. The original Dumbo only really had one human character, the ringmaster, who is played here by Danny DeVito.

No More Talking Animals

Seeing as how the remake is a mostly grounded take on Dumbo (excluding the whole flying elephant thing), the film made a decision not to include any talking animals. Dumbo never spoke anyway, but that meant no sassy elephants and no Timothy Mouse, Dumbo's sidekick. The latter is probably the most notable exclusion, but Timothy's role as Dumbo's emotional support is fulfilled by the Farrier children, so there's no real loss from a story perspective. Timothy does still have a cameo as a mouse being trained to perform in the circus. Another benefit of this approach is that the film doesn't have to deal with the talking crows, who in the 1941 version were a racial stereotype of African Americans. (The lead crow was actually named Jim Crow!)

Almost The Entire Plot

1941's Dumbo is barely over an hour long, so a modern day remake would naturally have to reenvision most of the original to fit a two-hour runtime. Additionally, most of the original is just Dumbo going through various shenanigans while trying to reunite with his mother until he learns to fly in the final five minutes(!!!) of the movie. So, a lot of the plot is entirely new to the remake. About the first 30 or so minutes of the movies are the same before the remake deviates from the path. Once Dumbo becomes an overnight sensation, theme park mogul V.A. Vandevere buys Dumbo's circus and brings it to his Dreamland amusement park so that Dumbo can be his star attraction. From there, the film is about Dumbo preparing for his debut while the Farriers hatch an escape plan after learning that Vandevere isn't such a nice guy.

Dumbo Doesn't Get Wasted

Probably the most memorable sequence in 1941's Dumbo is "Pink Elephants on Parade," in which Dumbo and Timothy (accidentally) get drunk and have a trippy hallucination of dancing pink elephants. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but no, a baby elephant doesn't get wasted in this movie. In fact, the remake makes a very quick nod to that when a clown offers to give Dumbo a celebratory drink and DeVito snaps "No champagne near the baby." However, this doesn't mean that the pink elephants don't make an appearance. In the remake, they are massive bubbles that are conjured at Dreamland before Dumbo's big act. They don't play their trumpets like horns, but it's a satisfactory sequence that doesn't leave Dumbo with a hangover.

Dumbo Is Born The Old Fashioned Way

Rather than have Mrs. Jumbo be pregnant and need to explain to kids how babies are born, the original Dumbo had a stork deliver the baby elephant to his mother. It's actually really cute, but the live-action version obviously wasn't going to go that route. Nope, Dumbo is born the old fashioned way. The actual birth isn't shown, but Dumbo shows up about 10 minutes into the movie. The movie does have another nod to the original when the pregnant Jumbo spots a stork right outside her cage the night she gives birth to Dumbo. Dumbo's father is a no-show in both versions.

Uh, Someone Dies

Dumbo is about as light of a kid's movie as you can get, though, it can be really sad in places. However, no one ever died in the original, which you can't say about the remake. Early on in the film, there's a mean circus worker who hates Holt because of... reasons, and he especially seems to hate the elephants. With Holt in charge of the elephants, the worker tries to jeopardize him during Dumbo's very first show by agitating Jumbo and setting her loose in the big top. It doesn't help that everyone was making fun of her big-eared baby, but Jumbo inadvertently knocks over one of the supporting columns during her rampage, and it crushes the worker. The movie whizzes by this and no one sheds a tear for the guy, but it's still pretty weird to say that there was death in a Dumbo movie.

Jumbo Is Sold From The Circus

The inciting incident in Dumbo is that his mother is imprisoned after she attacks people for making fun of her son. She's chained up and locked away in her own cage, which happens in both movies. However, the remake goes a step farther and sells Jumbo back to her original owner, truly separating her from Dumbo. Thus, Dumbo tries to become a circus star in the hopes that his act will raise enough money to buy back his mother. Jumbo is later sold to Vandevere and reunites with Dumbo when he arrives in Dreamland, but Vandevere decides to send her away and have her killed so that Dumbo won't have any distractions. In the original, Jumbo stays in elephant jail and is simply let go once Dumbo starts flying.

Dumbo Is Released From Captivity

Perhaps nothing highlights the differences between the two movies and the decades they were created than the ending. At the end of the original film, Dumbo learns to fly and is reunited with his mother, living a life of luxury at the circus as a superstar. The remake goes in the exact opposite direction. The Farrier family and the circus performers decide to help Dumbo and his mother escape Dreamland after learning Vandevere will kill Jumbo. Realizing that Dumbo shouldn't be forced to live a life of captivity performing, the Farrier's get Dumbo and Jumbo on a boat to East Asia, where the two can live in freedom. The film ends with Dumbo soaring above a herd of elephants and the circus flourishing with no animal captivity.

The Dumbo remake made a ton of changes to the original, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. The original is less than perfect, and if Disney was gung-ho about redoing it, then a lot needed to be updated and changed. Again, Dumbo doesn't fly until the last five minutes of the original, which is INSANE. The remake has him airborne relatively fast, which is an example of a change that was for the better. While none of these changes necessarily make Dumbo a better movie, they certainly don't hurt it.

Marvel Comics Won't Kill Off Characters For Shock Value (Anymore), Chief Says

Marvel Comics Won't Kill Off Characters For Shock Value (Anymore), Chief Says

In the Marvel movies, death has not always been permanent. Before he really died in Avengers: Infinity War, Loki had faked his death twice by that point, and now, thanks to time travel shenanigans, he might not even be dead anymore. However, the fickle life and death of superheroes isn't just a movie thing. It originates from the comics, which often kill superheroes for publicity and bring them back down the road. Marvel Comics Editor in Chief C.B. Cebulski hopes to change all of that.

I don't want death to be used to boost sales or to use as a shock value so people go 'Oh my God, Johnny Storm is dead!' or 'Wolverine is dead!' knowing that they're going to be coming back. If we choose to do it now, we're going to add a little more weight and permanence to the situation.

In an appearance at a Swedish conference (via ComicBook), C.B. Cebulski said that Marvel was moving on from the shock value approach to character death. If someone dies in the comics now, it will have more weight and will likely be permanent. Whether this means no more major characters will die is unclear.

Both Marvel and DC are known for killing off major characters, only to resurrect them some time later. It's just the standard of the trade, but it's likely long past the point where it has any real effect on the readers. After all, why get sad Wolverine died when you know he's going to come back in a year or two? Marvel clearly understands this, and is looking to change the trend.

You know, death is a part of comic book universes, particularly a part of the Marvel Universe. Every character has been killed off and come back at some time or the other. We always say there are two characters that will never come back and that's Gwen Stacy and Uncle Ben. We even said back in the day that Bucky would never come back and now we have the Winter Soldier.

However, just because death was less than permanent before doesn't mean that Marvel didn't treat the decision seriously. Cebulski also went into detail on how Marvel comes to the decision to kill a character.

But the process of killing off a character is not an easy one, and a lot of people think death is something that we don't take seriously in the Marvel Universe but it really is. There's a lot of debates that happen because if a writer suggests that we should kill a character, it always has to be story driven first. It can't just be for shock value and normally it's a discussion that we have between first the writer and the editor and then the writer and the editorial team, so the process of killing off a character really is a group decision, and it's made always with the best story in mind.

Comic book characters having been coming back to life ever since the infamous "Death and Return of Superman," so I'm curious why Marvel is only now trying to alter its approach to death. The movies heavily influence the comics, so I wonder if the reaction to the most likely permanent deaths of Iron Man and Black Widow in Avengers: Endgame had any sway in the decision.

We'll find out soon enough if Marvel Comics will keep to its word here. In the meantime, keep track of all the big movies coming to theaters with our 2019 movie release guide.

Roman Polanski’s Wife Isn’t Happy About Once Upon A Time In Hollywood

Roman Polanski’s Wife Isn’t Happy About Once Upon A Time In Hollywood

Quentin Tarantino’s upcoming directorial effort Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is his “love letter” to Los Angeles as he plays and tinkers with the city's happenings in 1969, with a focus on the film industry’s state and the infamous Manson Family murders. Roman Polanski is at the center of both these subjects. At the time, the director had just found success with his film Rosemary’s Baby when his pregnant wife Sharon Tate was brutally murdered by Manson’s cult following.

Roman Polanski will be portrayed in the film by Polish actor Rafal Zawierucha alongside Margot Robbie’s Sharon Tate. The couple look to live next to fictional film star Rick Dalton, played by Leonardo DiCaprio. Fact may be being mixed with fiction in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, but Polanski’s wife Emmanuelle Seigner has shown her discomfort with his presence in Tarantino’s flick. Check out her words, translated from French by THR:

I am just saying that it doesn’t bother them [in Hollywood] to make a film about Roman and his tragic story, and make money with it… while at the same time they have made him a pariah. And all without consulting him of course. How can you take advantage of someone's tragic life while trampling on them?

The French actress and model is angered by the inclusion of her husband’s personal life in the highly-anticipated Quentin Tarantino movie which recently premiered at Cannes to high applause.

Emmanuelle Seigner also touches on Hollywood’s making him into a “pariah”, likely a reference to the Academy kicking him out of the Academy last year for his 1977 rape charges. Roman Polanski fled the United States in 1978 after pleading guilty for drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl, and hasn’t since returned to the states.

Seigner added that she is not attacking the film itself, but pointing out the “bothersome” move by Quentin Tarantino not to approach Polanski about his depiction in the film. Tarantino recently commented (prior to her words) that he is a huge fan of the director’s work, particularly Rosemary’s Baby.

Roman Polanski was briefly shown in the latest trailer for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. The movie will also include portrayals of Bruce Lee, Steve McQueen, film producer Marvin Schwartz (played by Al Pacino) and so forth. Margot Robbie’s Sharon Tate looks to be central to the story of the film, making Roman’s portrayal also important to the events Tarantino wanted to explore.

Emmanuelle Seigner’s words do spark a continuous debate between Hollywood and the people they’ve depicted over the years. Should the real figures being used as a source of entertainment be consulted or compensated in order for their appearance on screen to be allowed?

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood comes to theaters on July 26.

New Detective Pikachu Trailer Shows Off Gyarados And Mewtwo

New Detective Pikachu Trailer Shows Off Gyarados And Mewtwo

For the very first live-action Pokémon movie, Detective Pikachu, the obvious choice was made to kick things off with the ultra-cute and ultra-popular Generation I, electric-type Pokémon Pikachu, who is basically the mascot of the franchise. He’s the most recognizable, but far from the only Pokémon out there though, and fortunately for those fans that want to see some badass Pokémon alongside Pikachu, the latest trailer for Detective Pikachu shows off Gyarados and Mewtwo. Take a look:

Wow, how awesome does Gyarados look? The water/flying Pokémon that evolves from the useless Magikarp looks absurdly huge and awesome here. And Mewtwo looks every bit as powerful and enigmatic as he did in 1998’s Pokémon: The First Movie – Mewtwo Strikes Back. In addition to the Pokémon we’ve glimpsed in the previous trailers, I think I also spotted a Pidgeot giving Pikachu a ride.

Pikachu may get top billing, but Detective Pikachu clearly isn’t holding back on giving fans all the coolest Pokémon that they’ve always wanted to see in live action. I imagine spotting all the Pokémon in this movie is going to be quite the task and may be like trying to spot all the pop culture references in Ready Player One. Gotta catch ‘em all! This movie is going to make so much money.

Detective Pikachu is making a brilliant and bold choice to not give in to the temptation to try and make the Pokémon look ultra-realistic. Unlike something like Sonic the Hedgehog, which appears to be (we haven’t seen the final look yet to be fair) attempting a realistic lightning-fast humanoid hedgehog, Detective Pikachu is adapting the Pokémon to the big screen and maintaining the looks fans have grown up with and loved since the mid-'90s.

The nice thing about this latest trailer and what we’ve seen so far is that while seeing all these awesome Pokémon is the selling point, the story and the character interactions also look to be a ton of fun. The interplay between the gung-ho Lucy, played by Kathryn Newton, Justice Smith’s completely out of his element Tim and Ryan Reynolds witty Pikachu is delightful and hilarious.

Poor Tim trying to be smooth and failing spectacularly is great as Ryan Reynold’s Pikachu then rips him for it. Detective Pikachu will get people in the door with the Pokémon, but this relationship is critical to keeping them entertained after that. Thankfully, it appears to be a unique and funny buddy cop dynamic, with Pikachu as a snarky Sherlock Holmes and Tim as an awkward and insecure Watson.

Detective Pikachu opens in theaters on May 10. Check out our 2019 release schedule to see the biggest movies headed your way this year and stay tuned to CinemaBlend for all your movie news.

There's A Fun Avengers: Endgame Cameo No One's Really Talking About

There's A Fun Avengers: Endgame Cameo No One's Really Talking About

Warning: spoilers for Avengers: Endgame are in play. If you’re looking to stay

For all of the special appearances that were had by folks just passing through Avengers: Endgame, there’s one that’s such a deep cut, no one’s really talking about it. That is, unless you’re a fantasy football player, and you happen to be a huge fan of ESPN. In which case, internet expert/sports fiend Matthew Berry’s cameo during the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s latest adventure at the movies.

Matthew Berry’s role as a S.H.I.E.L.D. agent flanking Robert Redford’s Alexander Pierce came about through some interesting circumstances, which he described as follows:

It happened through the grace of Joe Russo. He’s been reading my column for years and he’s a big fantasy football player. And about two years ago he gave me a call and said ‘Hey man, I got a part that I think is perfect for you if you want to be in the movie’. And I was like ‘Yeah of course,’ obviously.

Present during the scene where Avengers: Endgame revisited the Battle of New York, Matthew Berry’s character was seen in the segment of the Time Heist, with Tony Stark witnessing the previously untold story of how Alexander Pierce and his cronies on the STRIKE team tried to recover the Tesseract and Loki’s scepter for their own evil gains. Though, based on the details that Berry gave about his time shooting his cameo, that was something that even he didn’t know at the time.

As he spoke with io9, Matthew Berry gave the details on how even the few pages of the Avengers: Endgame script he was given were very confusing, as this scene was actually shot before Avengers: Infinity War was even released, much less seen by the public. So with a script that includes characters like Alexander Pierce, Captain America, and “Other Tony,” the words being provided were lacking more than a little context. Though, Berry’s lucky he wasn’t given a fake script to protect the secrets in his portion of the film.

Still, acting in a scene with Robert Redford, Chris Evans, and Robert Downey Jr. proved to be a dream for Matthew Berry. Though that dream was more of a nightmare when Berry had to bury the details of his involvement in his mind for two whole years, as he had to wait for Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame to be released before he said anything. And you thought waiting two weeks to share spoilers was hard!

It’s amazing how just as you think you’re getting over the unexpected cameos of a film like Avengers: Endgame, there are even more surprises that are waiting to be discovered. With Matthew Berry’s involvement now known, it’s easy to think about whether or not more figures of note are hidden somewhere in the film’s cast roster.

Just to be sure, we’ll probably head out to see Avengers: Endgame again, as it’s currently in theatrical release. However, if you’re curious as to what else is headed to theaters this weekend, feel free to read through our 2019 release schedule to find your next adventure.

Will Laura Dern Be In Jurassic World 3? 'I Could Never Say No’

Will Laura Dern Be In Jurassic World 3? 'I Could Never Say No’

This year marks the end of an era for a ton of franchises we love -- including Avengers: Endgame and Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, plus Game of Thrones on the television side. As these beloved storylines come to an end in 2019, fans love seeing their conclusions pull out all the stops and bring back some original key characters, such as Lando Calrissian and Palpatine returning for the end of Star Wars. In a couple of years, the Jurassic World trilogy will also come to a close, and we hope it will mean the return of Laura Dern’s iconic 1993 character.

When the actress was recently asked about the chances of her involvement in Jurassic World 3, she cemented her interest, but emphasized uncertainty whether it will actually happen. Here’s what Laura Dern said:

I don't know. I have no idea. I mean, I love Dr. Ellie Sattler, so I could never say no to that on any level. But I really don't know. I don't even know what they're cooking up yet.

Are you listening, Universal? Ellie Sattler is ready to come back and inherit the Earth! Make. It. Happen. After how Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom left us hanging last summer, Chris Pratt’s Owen Grady and Bryce Dallas Howard’s Claire Dearing are going to need all the help they can get. If you remember, dinos are loose everywhere!

During Laura Dern’s ET interview (via Yahoo!), she was asked if she had any discussions with Chris Pratt about the upcoming sequel, and she said this:

I met Chris recently at a restaurant, we didn't even know each other. It was really funny. We ran into each other's arms and hugged each other like we were family because we were both in the same movie [franchise] and he just seemed fantastic and is hilarious. But yeah, I don't know any more.

Recently, Laura Dern seems to be reuniting with other actors from the Jurassic Park franchise left and right. She ran into Sam Neill at an HBO event a few months ago and Joseph Mazzello (who played Tim in the 1993 classic) at the Critics’ Choice Awards as well. I think it’s a sign: Laura Dern needs to come back to her rightful place in the franchise.

Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard have both been vocal about their interest in Laura Dern joining them for Jurassic World 3, and Jeff Goldblum (who made a short appearance in Fallen Kingdom) said this last year of his hope for her return:

I don't want to pass on gossip like my character. But it would be good news to me and to everyone, [to] millions and billions of people all over the world... all over the universe and cosmos when Ellie Sattler returns.

Agreed! The badass paleobotanist has been absent from the big screen since she made an appearance in 2001’s Jurassic Park III. Capping off the Jurassic World trilogy with her return when the film hits theaters almost exactly 20 years later on June 11, 2021 would make a lot of fans happy (if done right, of course)! As we wait for more updates, here's what we know so far about Jurassic World 3.

Rupert Wyatt’s Gambit Would Have Been A Mutant Mob Movie

Rupert Wyatt’s Gambit Would Have Been A Mutant Mob Movie

Some superhero films face an unobstructed path on their journey to production, while others face numerous obstacles. Gambit falls into the latter category, as it’s been over four years since the project was officially announced, and it’s still in development hell. Captive State’s Rupert Wyatt was the first director hired to helm Gambit, and his version of the movie would have seen the eponymous protagonist, played by Channing Tatum, in New Orleans and involved with other mutants in a mob environment. As he put it:

What I do know is that Channing Tatum and his producing partner Reid Carolin had an amazing idea of what that movie was going to be, and Josh Zeutemer, the writer, as well. It was terrific, it was a really exciting sort of Godfather with mutants set in the world of New Orleans with different gangs.

Rupert Wyatt added that Gambit would have taken place from the 1970s to the present day and been about “the notion of what it means to belong, tribalism in this bayou-like environment” among these mutant gangs. The X-Men film franchise hasn’t been shy about telling stories set in the past, which began with X-Men Origins: Wolverine and has been a mainstay of the “First Class” era main films. The focus on New Orleans’ criminal underworld would also have been fitting given Gambit’s past as a thief in the comics.

You’ll recall that last fall, X-Men franchise producer Simon Kinberg said that Gambit would be a romantic comedy highlighting the character’s hustling and womanizing ways. That doesn’t sound anything like what Rupert Wyatt had planned, although one would imagine that Remy LeBeau would still have had a love interest. Rupert Wyatt also clarified in his interview with Collider that Channing Tatum “sort of worked on the script” to make it into a romantic comedy, and while Wyatt liked what he read, it was “very different” from what he was involved in.

As for why Rupert Wyatt’s Gambit never moved forward, the director claims it’s because the 2015 Fantastic Four reboot was a critical and commercial bomb. With just 10 weeks before Gambit was supposed to begin filming, 20th Century Fox slashed the budget “quite considerably,” leading to the brakes being pumped. Wyatt departed Gambit in September 2015, just three months after he signed on to direct. In the following years, both Doug Liman and Gore Verbinski were separately hired as Gambit’s replacement directors, but both men ultimately left as well, with Liman withdrawing because he didn’t care for the script and Verbinski exiting due to scheduling conflicts.

With only days remaining until the Disney and Fox merger closes, leading to (among many other things) the X-Men and Fantastic Four properties finally residing at Marvel Studios, it’s unclear if Gambit will ever be made. A Channing Tatum-led Gambit movie, whether it’s a mob movie or a romantic comedy, could still work even if the X-Men franchise was rebooted, but it’s possible Marvel and Disney would prefer putting out a more conventional, ensemble X-Men movie first. In any case, considering that the character’s only theatrical appearance so far has been in the critically-derided X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Rupert Wyatt’s Gambit movie sounds like it would have treated him much better.

Stay tuned to CinemaBlend for any updates concerning Gambit’s future, but for now, look through our 2019 release schedule to learn what movies are opening later this year.