More Live Action Disney remakes

[PridelandsPhantom]

So, I haven't seen the Beauty and the Beast remake, so I'll reserve judgment, however, several new live action remakes are in the works besides the Lion King including Mulan, Dumbo, The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, and a sequel to the original Mary Poppins. To be honest, I feel like Disney is kind of out of steam doing the remakes. I can see Mulan working better than some of the others because it's based on humans, but they'd have to do a really good job on the story. Your thoughts?

[TheLionPrince]

This isn't exactly a new development since Disney have been announcing a live-action (or photorealistic CGI if it's an all-animal film like Lion King) remake of their most popular animated properties one after another since the successful release of Cinderella back in 2015. I've said it before and I'll it say again, overall, it makes Disney look creatively insipid. They have realized there's a market for playing on their audience's nostalgia for their animated classics. Nevertheless, most of these films don't need to be remade since they've become so iconic and popular that there's no need for a remake. Animation is supposed to be a separate medium than live-action that offers more cartoony approach therefore some things in animation don't translate well into live-action (or photorealistic CGI). Yes, some of those films have some flaws in it that can be revised, but for most of the part, the films are fine as they are. It's betraying everything Walt Disney stood for. He advocated "We keep moving forward, opening new doors, and doing new things, because we're curious and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths."

Another thing is that because some elements of the films pre-date second-wave feminism and what we perceive as the conventional norm, we think the film hasn't aged well. For example, in 1950's Cinderella, viewers, for years, thought Cinderella was a weak, passive character and her romance with the Prince lacked development. They improved on that in the remake. Also, the remakes are changing things that didn't need to be changed. In the 2015 remake, the writers gave Lady Tremaine (the wicked stepmother) a more valid motive for her hatred of Cinderella. While this was a nice development to her character, it made her more sympathetic thus taking away what made her character seem so ruthless and cold in the original film. They did something similar in Maleficent (which I view as more of a re-imagining of Sleeping Beauty) by making the title character, who is supposed to be an epitome of all evil, into a sympathetically tragic character.

However, some of the remakes could open for a new re-interpretation. I personally love they are remaking The Black Cauldron and The Sword in the Stone because those films could have been a lot better. I do like the trend of adapting some elements of their original source material. The remake of The Jungle Book did this by retaining the best elements from the 1967 classic as well as adapted elements of the Rudyard Kipling short stories. Also, the filmmakers created a new storyline that was more tighter and coherent because the 1967 film had a loose, episodic narrative structure. With Beauty and the Beast, while they did adapt elements from the original fairy tale, it did not really offer anything entirely new. It followed the original film particularly scene-for-scene with new scenes inserted here and there, but they didn't take the film towards a fresh new direction.

Adding onto that, the Winnie the Pooh remake sounds interesting. Apparently, the remake is about an older Christopher Robin returning to the Hundred Acre Woods. Yes, the premise sounds like Hook with an older Peter Pan reconnecting with Neverland, but it's a new approach to the Winnie-the-Pooh franchise. I wish all the remakes would take an approach like this. Remaking a film isn't particularly bad, but it needs to have a reason for why it exists. It needs to offer a new spin to what we already know, but avoid anything radical like what they did in Maleficent. If the remakes just copy the original film scene-for-scene without capturing the magic and sense of wonder, it feels dull and pointless and makes me more appreciative of the original film.

[SarabiFan95]

Remakes themselves are lazy, but I don't see them hurting in any way. Disney's animated stuff will be handled by different teams than the live action stuff, so it's not like they're a bad thing (though original live action stuff would be nice.)

[zerodix]

I don't see anything wrong with these remakes. I won't watch every one of them, since I prefer the good ol' classic animation style.

[Squeely]

I actually really enjoy some of the remakes. I loved Jungle Book and Beauty and the Beast. I guess it's simply because I'm such a huge fan of the original film and like to see what new elements they added or what they improved upon, or I didn't like the original that much and like to see them fix it up.

Some have been pretty meh or bad, though. The animated Alice in Wonderland will always be leagues above the live action one. I do kinda wish they'd leave the great films alone and just focus on the weak ones (Sword in the Stone and The Black Cauldron easily being two that need improvement), but I'm not gonna lie, I'm gonna see and probably love the TLK and Aladdin remakes too.

[LeonKFox]

The only one of these films so far that has actually been a definite improvement over the original for me and felt worth being remade was The Jungle Book. Expanded lore, more stunning set pieces (an admittedly unfair comparison given the release years of both films) Shere Khan feels noticeably more threatening and imposing throughout and Mowgli seems to have at least a somewhat greater sense of agency. It took a fairly charming albeit not great film (IMO) and made it noticeably better.

Beauty and the Beast had some good ideas. Giving Lefou a more defined arc while simultaneously making him far less annoying was a plus, as was Belle having more defined skills and possible career aspirations outside of her passion for reading as a hobby. Having her bond with the Beast/Prince over their love of literature was a really interesting change as well.

But unlike Jungle Book it very much feels like it's a slave to the 1991 classic. It might have been far more interesting if they'd only kept one or two of the songs and retold the story as a non musical with the people at Disney handling the reigns. But being the success that it was they likely didn't dare change too much.

I fear the same fate befalling the Lion King remake, though it has the same director as the live action Jungle Book which makes me hopeful they'll maybe remedy a few flaws the otherwise fantastic original has, like the lack of properly defined motives for Scar beyond "IwannabeKinglookatme!" (I know there's the Six New Adventures books, but they're debatably non canon and not to mention expensive.

But I digress.

[Squeely]

I'd definitely prefer The Lion King remake do things a lot differently ala Jungle Book. BatB was enjoyable, but the only worthy addition was Nevermore. Jungle Book almost feels like a completely different movie. It's hard to say which direction they'll take, too. BatB felt like they were afraid of deviating because the original is so beloved, but then, TLK is being worked on by the same guy as JB.

[LeonKFox]

I suspect we'll see some of the songs retained (Circle of Life is a no brainer) but if it's handled like Jungle Book the film will otherwise take the world and its characters and put its own spin on them.

This is what I'm really hoping for, at least.