
How ‘Aladdin’ Came to Be - whocansay
https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/how-aladdin-came-to-be-thank-or-blame-an-18th-century-french-scholar/2019/06/11/07ac1b76-8c5c-11e9-8f69-a2795fca3343_story.html
======
resoluteteeth
> But when compared with some of his earlier “core” stories, such as the eerie
> “City of Brass,” the 1712 “Aladdin” comes across as lackluster and
> unexciting. Disney’s two screen versions, the 1992 animated feature and this
> spring’s live-action film, are actually much more satisfying.

It's also worth noting that regardless of the provenance of Galland's Aladdin,
Disney's movie is basically a rip-off of the 1940 film The Thief of Baghdad,
which combined the Thousand and One Nights elements with the plot of the
earlier silent movie it was a remake off.

> Although it was a remake of a 1924 silent film starring Douglas Fairbanks,
> this film has been highly influential on later movies based on The Book of
> One Thousand and One Nights setting. For example, the Disney film Aladdin
> borrows freely from it, particularly the characters of the evil Vizier and
> the Sultan, both drawn with a marked similarity to the characters in The
> Thief of Bagdad. The villian Jafar is named after Jaffar. The thieving
> monkey Abu in the Disney cartoon is based on the boy played by Sabu.[12]

(from wikipedia)

Galland's Aladdin was set in China, so actually the entire middle-eastern
setting comes from The Thief of Baghdad.

~~~
sbuttgereit
This comment is off topic and is not really directed at its parent's author,
per se, though the parent comment inspired the question.

"Disney's movie is basically a rip-off of the..."

This is an interesting statement that not only includes the statement that the
Disney movie is based on earlier works, but also a value judgement at the same
time. At what point do we declare something a "rip-off" vs. an "homage" or
simply be content saying it was "based on" or "inspired by" some earlier,
original work?

Take for example the musical "West Side Story": it was based on "Romeo &
Juliet", but I never hear it said that it ripped off Romeo & Juliet... never
mind that Romeo & Juliet, itself, was based on an earlier story. Looking at
some of the old posters and album covers (etc) for West Side Story, I see it
was "Based on a conception of Jerome Robbins", but there's no mention of
Shakespeare. The link was never disclaimed or represented as being otherwise,
but apparently not really advertised either.

So how does the judgement aspect of this enter? Is it simply a way to
emphasize a viewpoint that's really not so connected to the statement
directly, but perhaps at the parties involved? Is the judgement more about who
acted rather than the act being described itself?

Note that if someone were trying to remake earlier material while disclaiming
that the earlier material existed, then I'd get the "rip-off" statement... but
I don't think Disney tries to claim that kind of credit for many of its films.

I guess I just find it curious that we take such opportunities to inject our
opinions where seemingly a more neutral statement of fact would suffice and be
more informative.

~~~
sschueller
I believe the judgement is against Disney as they are the ones that have
pushed copyright to the extreme it is today yet they are the ones that
profited from copies.

~~~
ionised
This.

Up until recently Disney had very very few, if any, original works, and yet
they are the most extreme in their pursuit of copyright and its enforcement.

------
neonate
[http://archive.is/0TpgL](http://archive.is/0TpgL)

~~~
jiveturkey
link is wrong. corrected: [http://archive.is/XpT7v](http://archive.is/XpT7v)

~~~
nwienert
Funny enough I read the first one without realizing it was wrong and loved it.
Great read.

