Live Action Disney: The Good the Bad and the Ugly
Live-Action Disney: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Welcome to WatchMojo, and today were covering the good, the bad, and the ugly of Disneys live-action remakes. This three-way duel will have a few spoilers!
Good: Changing & Updating Problematic Storylines
Disney classics can be a mixed bag at times. In short, not every element in a Disney film has aged gracefully. There are racial caricatures, off-color dialogue, dark story beats, strange song lyrics, the works. Then theres Song of the South, which hasnt even been made available by Disney due to the long controversy about its racial stereotypes. Live-action remakes have the benefit of changing and eliminating these problematic elements. Whether they are always for the better is another thing entirely. But overall, most of the controversial scenes from the original films are not present in the live-action remake. Its perhaps for the best.
Good: A New Version for a New Generation
Its sad to say, but things are not always available. While most people who grew up with Disneys original classics would show them to their children, sometimes that isnt feasible. Disney chose a strategy of heavily restricting their films releases, known as the Disney Vault. The company would release one of their films for a limited time and then withdraw them from the market, returning them to the vault, as it were. This is great for Disney, but not so much for families. Making live-action remakes for a new generation raised on CGI animation can serve as an introduction to these classics. Of course, with the advent of Disney+, the issue of accessibility is less so. But its still a consideration.
Good: Actors & Settings Are More Real Than Their Animated Counterparts
Sometimes, there are benefits to realism. There are no limits to animation with plenty of energy and charisma to be found in these original films. There is one thing live-action can arguably do better: Ground the situation and thus elicit more emotions. Actors have the advantage of fleshing out otherwise static, animated characters, personality-wise, with some dramatic choices. Also, having beloved and iconic characters be realized by flesh-and-blood actors is undoubtedly an attraction. Besides, the live-action cinematography and set design can be gorgeous in their own right.
Good: Creative & New Perspectives
Live-action remakes have been criticized for their superfluity, especially since many cleave so close to the source material. However, there are cases of genuinely creative spins. Maleficent, for one, is less of a remake of Sleeping Beauty than a reinterpretation, refashioning the fairy as a misunderstood villain who comes to care for Aurora. Cruella also follows this villain origin story theme, depicting Cruella as a victim of classism and struggling to break into the rapacious world of fashion. Successful or not, these remakes prove that live-action remakes can provide a different spin on an old classic.
Bad: Fewer Original Films
Unfortunately, we live in a world dominated by IP. With all these live-action remakes crowding the market, original films get fewer and fewer every day. All the time and energy Disney is pouring into these expensive films could have gone to new projects or even current ones they have already embarked on. The likes of A Wrinkle in Time and Artemis Fowl were disappointments at best, but that doesnt mean Disney should solely rely on remakes. Not to mention the live-action remakes of Disney classics have, too, been critical disappointments, sometimes severe ones. Why not take more chances on something new?
Bad: Lazy Nostalgia Bait & Cash Grabs
This is perhaps the most common complaint about these live-action remakes. Disney is not remaking their animated classics because they are driven by a new, fresh artistic vision. No, live-action remakes are done to cater to the demographic who grew up on their classic films. Now that the demographic has grown up, Disney opted for a dual audience strategy: Nostalgia bait for the older generation and new introductions for the younger generations. For those already familiar with the classic films, the new remakes often bring nothing new to the table. Moreover, they can be more boring and even inferior compared to the artistry of the original films. Its enough to wonder: Whats the point?
Bad: Some Actors are Not as Fit for Their Characters
With live-action remakes come live-action actors. And lets face it, some of the casting choices Disney made were dubious at best. Emma Watson may have seemed, initially, like a dead ringer for Belle in Beauty and the Beast, having ample experience playing a bookish brunette. But her seemingly autotuned singing, as well as deliberate changes in characterization, had some fans wondering if the casting was ill-suited after all. While Will Smiths Genie had a warm charm, its a very tall order to match the wit and energy of Robin Williams. Then there are the controversial colorblind castings, which have sparked endless discourse online. Overall, its a mixed bag.
Bad: More Realism Doesnt Mean Better Art
It should go without saying that realism in media is just as much an artistic choice as fantasy and surrealism. Real life, after all, is not as desaturated as the cinematography of these movies would suggest. Its just a convention, and one that is perhaps misapplied here. Disney films are filled with idealized fantasy, including talking animals and magical creatures. These are not easily realized in a more realistic live-action setting. By far the most egregious example of this is 2019s The Lion King. The intense photorealism does not serve the story at all, with the original animated feature inspiring more depth of emotion. Our take? This is Disney were talking about. Lay off the realism.
Bad: Live-Action Remakes Lose Money
With the many artistic problems and controversies surrounding these projects, its no surprise that Disney has lost significant money with these remakes. While the live-action versions of Beauty and the Beast, Cinderella, Aladdin, and The Lion King were all box office successes, the same cannot be said to be true for other remakes. Mulan grossed $57 million internationally on a budget of $200 million, and Dumbo could not break even either. Some remakes, like Lady and the Tramp, didnt even get a theatrical release. Even if the films start off strong, some have faltered overseas. Thats not to mention the critical and audience responses.
Ugly: Live-Action is Mostly (Bad) CGI Animation
The open secret of these live-action remakes is that they are called so in most cases because they have human leads. Otherwise, its a CGI-fest in almost all respects, requiring extensive voice acting. Even some of the locations are CGI. The most egregious instance is 2019s The Lion King, which had no human actors whatsoever. By all accounts, its another animated film, just CGI instead of hand-drawn. With the prevalence of CGI, what is the point of remaking an animated film? As for the quality of the CGI, it varies greatly, but for the most part, the results have not been great. Fans have complained the films look murkier and blander than their original, colorful counterparts. Its a wash.
Ugly: Live-Action Misses the Point of the Original Films with Bad Changes
The live-action remakes opt for many departures from the original films, some inconsequential and others not so much. But many tend to take umbrage at the fact that these changes miss the point of the original entirely, especially with regards to characterization. Ariel did not need to be the one to defeat Ursula in the remake, since she already saved Eric three times in the original. Animated Jasmine had no problem speaking out, so why is her live-action counterpart singing about how shes speechless? Then, there is the live-action Cinderella, arguably more passive than her animated counterpart, forgiving her stepmother at the end. Its baffling at best and ugly at worst.
Ugly: Too Close to the Original Film
When the remakes are not making strange changes, they are busy dutifully recreating the scenes from their animated original. Sometimes, these animated recreations are literally shot-by-the-shot. That was the controversy 2019s The Lion King generated upon its release. The majority of the dialogue was left largely unchanged, give and take some additions and deletions. Hans Zimmer returned to score the remake, as did James Earl Jones, who reprised his role as Mufasa. Apart from the clear nostalgia bait, it could be that Disney itself realizes there is little wrong with the original films and that they have stood the test of time very well. Hence, the lack of true changes.
Ugly: Controversies Galore
The latest controversies around the new live-action remake of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs are too many to cover here. Before that disastrous press tour, many other Disney live-action remakes generated backlash. The casting of Halle Bailey and Rachel Zegler as Ariel and Snow White, respectively, infuriated both purists and racists alike. Beauty and the Beast opting to make LeFou pine for Gaston brought on accusations of pandering and lack of substantial LGBTQ+ representation. Add in lyric changes, removing all the songs in Mulan, and questionably feminist plot changes, and its a gumbo soup of controversy.
Ugly: The New Generation Would Prefer the Live-Action than the Original
Some Disney classics have aged superbly well and are highly rewatchable today. Others, not so much. Regardless, they are all a part of Disneys history. Its good for kids to be exposed to the different artistic conventions and even ideas of previous eras. With these live-action remakes, the new generation is largely exposed to these new films. Its limiting to a childs education, not the least because these films tend to remove controversial elements of the original films that could serve as teachable moments. The results can be the cinematic equivalent of bland porridge, drained of all life. And our kids, frankly, deserve better.
Do you think there is more good than bad when it comes to Disney live-action remakes? Or is it an ugly trend well be glad to see dead? Let us know in the comments down below!
