By Monique
We’re about a year away from the first promotional campaigns for Disney’s live action Mulan film. But so far, the chatter surrounding the film (including the chatter I’ve put out on this site) has been tepid, to put it kindly. I guess the most honest way to describe feelings attached to the film’s highly-watched production is that people are concerned, irritated, and in some cases angry about what’s going on with the transition of their beloved animated classic.
I can’t say I blame anyone. Heck, I’m irritated myself. Like so many in my age bracket, I grew up watching Mulan ad nauseum as a kid. A live action Mulan just isn’t the same without Shang, Ling, Chien-Po Yao, and Shan Yu, not to mention Mushu. But instead, we’re getting a Mulan we’re not familiar with. Among the changes: Yoson An will play some guy named Chen Hongui who replaces Shang (even though Hongui seems like he’s going to have the same reckoning with his sexuality that Shang had), Donnie Yen is Mulan’s mentor Commander Tung, and Gong Li as a witch, and the latest addition is Jason Scott Lee as Bori Khan, a warrior who joins with Li’s witch character to avenge his father’s death.
As you can see, these characters replace a lot of well-known fan favorites. A lot of fans have been perplexed as to why Disney is seemingly sabotaging the film before it even gets out the gate.
My theory was that perhaps Disney (and China?) have been trying to rework the film as a way to lose the clear queer angle the original animated film has. Of course, there’s Shang, who loves Mulan in both her male and female guises, but there’s also the fact that the film has queer in-jokes running throughout the film, such as scenes involving humor around gender and sexuality, like when a naked Mulan is trapped in the pond with her equally naked cohorts, when girls giggle at Ping during the “A Girl Worth Fighting For” sequence, and when Mulan dresses Ling, Chien-Po, and Yao in drag to break into the Emperor’s palace. There’s also the fact that Disney cast gay actors, such as B.D. Wong, George Takei and Harvey Fierstein who voice Shang, the First Ancestor and Yao, respectively.
However, Twitter account Nerdy Asians has put out a theory that really rings true the more you read it. Could it be that Disney doesn’t fully own the rights to some elements of Mulan‘s intellectual property?
Nerdy Asians released their theory in a recent Twitter thread:
INVESTIGATION: Is it possible Disney doesn’t fully own the rights to the animated Mulan, including the iconic songs and original characters? We’ve done some digging and discovered that the animated Mulan was the last Disney film to begin production under Jeffrey Katzenberg- (1/4) pic.twitter.com/VB2LHznh0f
— nerdy (@nerdyasians) July 28, 2018
Katzenberg oversaw classics like Beauty & the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King. But Katzenberg was forced to resign from Disney in 1994 that lead to a MAJOR lawsuit in 1997. His most recent films had underperformed for Disney at that point, but Mulan had yet to be released- (2/4) pic.twitter.com/gZctBNH6Ct
— nerdy (@nerdyasians) July 28, 2018
The Katzenberg vs. Disney lawsuit went on for 19 months, during which he was one of the founders of DreamWorks SKG. Katzenberg argued he wasn’t fully paid for the Disney classics he oversaw, and sought 2% of those projects continual earnings (LA Times 1997). (3/4) pic.twitter.com/cgz563aUKj
— nerdy (@nerdyasians) July 29, 2018
The protracted lawsuit hinged on Disney not wanting to give up 2% of Aladdin, Beauty & the Beast + The Lion King. Those films were already classics in 1997 & proved to be profitable on Broadway. Hunchback and Hercules were underperformers and Mulan wasn’t released yet- (3.5/4) pic.twitter.com/8VcyU2SI1Y
— nerdy (@nerdyasians) July 29, 2018
Katzenberg vs. Disney settled in 1997, but the terms of their settlement were confidential. Did Disney end up giving up 2% of Aladdin, Beauty & the Beast + Lion King? Doubtful. Those live-action adaptations are staying faithful to the original animated classics. (3.6/4) pic.twitter.com/tOIpPcQ3K5
— nerdy (@nerdyasians) July 29, 2018
What did Disney give up? If it was a larger percent of Katzenberg’s other films, it explains why they aren’t using any ORIGINAL MATERIAL from Mulan. That cuts deeply into profit. Mulan & the Emperor are free to use bc they’re real ppl. Maybe the live-action isn’t a remake at all. pic.twitter.com/rneA6zJEzA
— nerdy (@nerdyasians) July 29, 2018
Makes sense, doesn’t it? It would explain why Disney can make a mostly-faithful adaptation of Aladdin complete with classic characters like the Genie, Jafar, et al., but flounder with Mulan.
I asked Nerdy Asians via Twitter more about their assertion concerning the legal issues Disney might be facing when it comes to Mulan. The account is run by more than one person, and their response to me was that one of the group’s members realized that some of the live action film’s cherry picking, such as only bringing the Emperor and Mulan to the live action adaptation, must be because these are the only two characters who are essentially public domain by virtue of their historical status.
“[O]ne of us is just really into Mulan and thought that it was odd that the only two characters from the original were legally free for anyone to use because no one owns the rights to Mulan and and The Emperor of China,” the account wrote. “She was certain it was something legal that was stopping Disney from using any of the original characters and started researching.”
“One thing people don’t understand is that we’re not saying Disney can’t use the original Mulan characters as they did in the direct to video sequel,” they wrote. “They just won’t receive as large of a profit. And for smaller ventures that would be fine maybe for them. But for a huge live action film it might not be fine.”
They further explain this in some new tweets:
tldr:
Mulan wasn’t expected to be a hit. Before its release Disney was in a HUGE lawsuit w/ its former Studio Chief who wanted 2% of classics Aladdin + B&tB + Lion King & his other films. They privately settled the lawsuit b4 Mulan’s release, so he might own a large % of Mulan. https://t.co/oDRkg9oIrO
— nerdy (@nerdyasians) August 3, 2018
This doesn’t mean Disney can’t use Mulan characters. They did in the direct-to-video Mulan 2.
It means they profit less.
If they retcon Mulan for the live-action (like they’re doing) they own the new characters like the witch & sister. They get all that new merchandise money.
— nerdy (@nerdyasians) August 3, 2018
They played themselves cuz bully Chen Honghui merch is gonna collect dust while Li Shang, bisexual icon, would’ve flown off the shelves.
They’re hoping the gp won’t notice a difference b/w “Chen” & “Shang” like all Chinese names are interchangeable. Never underestimate icons. pic.twitter.com/rFBWOO4krm
— nerdy (@nerdyasians) August 3, 2018
Last Faux Mulan tweet: the film is currently in production & they never announced who’s playing Mulan’s mom and dad. They only announced she has a sister now. Is it possible her parents are considered original characters, so they aren’t using them either? Mess. pic.twitter.com/NCeYt1jnTx
— nerdy (@nerdyasians) August 3, 2018
What do you think about this theory? Give your opinions below!
Julian 