Since 2010, Disney has been rebooting/remaking several of their animated properties as live action films. It all started with Alice in Wonderland. While that version was not related to the 1951 animated classic in any way, shape, or form, the title alone is still very much part of the company's history. Despite receiving mixed reviews from critics and audiences, the 2010 live action film still grossed over $1,000,000,000 at the worldwide box office. Then in 2014 came Maleficent, which was a remake of 1959's Sleeping Beauty told from the titular villain's perspective. While the film itself also received mixed reviews from critics and audiences, it still became a box office hit resulting in a sequel that will be released this fall. In 2015, Disney started doing more straightforward renditions beginning with Cinderella. What that film did differently was that it was more of a hybrid adaptation of the 1950 Disney animated classic and original story. It was mostly accepted by critics and audiences. In 2016, The Jungle Book did something similar by having it be a hybrid adaptation of the original novel by Rudyard Kipling and the 1967 Disney animated classic. The end result was a film that was a huge hit both critically and commercially. In 2017, Beauty & the Beast was given the live action treatment as well. Yet, unlike any of the other live action revamps prior to that, it was a straight up remake of the 1991 Disney animated classic. While Beauty & the Beast did end up grossing over $1,000,000,000 at the worldwide box office, the film itself still had its share of detractors. A lot of people complained that it felt too similar to the original, and the new stuff they tried to do felt forced and unnecessary. That to me makes the idea of remaking Beauty & the Beast even more pointless. Honest Trailers even joked about how creepy the original would be if it were real.
Personally, I’m not really into the idea of Disney revamping any of their beloved animated properties into live action films. Given all the companies that The Mouse House already owns such as Fox, LucasFilm, Marvel, and Pixar, do they really need to make extra money by doing reboots/remakes to stay afloat in the industry? I don’t think so because they should leave all of their animated classics alone. I even saw side-by-side comparisons of some of the designs from the recently released live action/CGI remake of The Lion King to their 2D animated counterparts on Twitter. The designs from the cartoon look like they have so much more emotion put into them while the CG designs all look the same, BLAND. I think if you're going to do a live action retelling of an animated property, what should really be taken into account is if you could picture the story itself in real life. Which has been a problem for several of Disney's outings. In fact, veteran voice actor/comedian Tom Kenny was recently asked in an interview about his thoughts on seeing flat animated films being re-made into live action features. His response was “Just aesthetically, that's a weird thing I don't understand. To me, I'm always going, why do you need to re-make that? I don't need to see a live-action version of "Dumbo" without the mouse in it!”
While Disney has already released three live action remakes/reboots this year with Dumbo, Aladdin, and The Lion King, they have more on the way such as Mulan, The Little Mermaid, and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. I think they should quit while they’re ahead. While audiences may want to see them, do they really NEED to see them? There are differences between needs and wants. The previous live action revamps may have earned Disney over a billion dollars, but I think they should stay more focused on new stories that they haven’t produced yet. Two of my colleagues from Gold Derby, Kevin Jacobsen and Amanda Spears, recently talked about this on a podcast last month. They were both in agreement that Disney needs to start finding new material rather than relying on audiences nostalgia (@39:35).
I know these remakes aren’t meant to replace the old movies, but that still doesn’t mean they feel necessary. However, the worst part of it all is that today’s generation of kids are probably not even going to be brought up more on the originals. If you're going to introduce a new generation to something like The Lion King, why remake it when you could just show them the animated classic? It's not that hard. Though if Disney has to remake/reboot anything, why not the properties that didn’t quite succeed in the first place like The Black Cauldron? That way they can be given a second chance to find success.
If the original source material is a book or a play, people want to see it brought to life faithfully on their screens. Though if it is already a film or a TV show, why do people want to pay money to see the exact same thing over again? The only reason a movie should be remade into another movie is if the creative team genuinely feels they have something to add to the story, something important that would improve it or make for a different viewing experience. If not, then what's the point? Just telling the exact same story on film with updated technology isn't enough to differentiate it from the original. Though if things are changed from the source material that people don't think should have been or think makes it worse, then you have people wondering why someone had to go ruin it in the first place.
In a recent podcast from Next Best Picture, someone made a point about Disney’s live action remakes being comparable to Broadway revivals. He thinks there’s nothing wrong with updating a classic. Though that’s NOT the same thing. A great work can spend decades off the Broadway stage before it returns to dazzle a whole new generation of theatergoers. Conversely, movies live forever on the DVD shelf, or can be instantly accessed through streaming services. There's always a way to see them.
If Disney really wants to continue making live action revamps of their beloved animated properties, I think they should just do straightforward retellings of the original stories they were based on as opposed to bland retreads of great movies we can already watch at home for free. Though a teaser trailer for the live action Mulan recently dropped, and it (at least) appears to be going in a far more interesting direction. While I'm not really anticipating it by any means, I am curious to see how to response will turn out for the film itself. In any case, that just about does it for my thoughts on Disney's live action revamps. If your thoughts are similar to mine, feel free to sign this petition: www.thepetitionsite.com/198/056/744/stop-disney-from-turning-their-animated-classics-into-live-action-films/
Personally, I’m not really into the idea of Disney revamping any of their beloved animated properties into live action films. Given all the companies that The Mouse House already owns such as Fox, LucasFilm, Marvel, and Pixar, do they really need to make extra money by doing reboots/remakes to stay afloat in the industry? I don’t think so because they should leave all of their animated classics alone. I even saw side-by-side comparisons of some of the designs from the recently released live action/CGI remake of The Lion King to their 2D animated counterparts on Twitter. The designs from the cartoon look like they have so much more emotion put into them while the CG designs all look the same, BLAND. I think if you're going to do a live action retelling of an animated property, what should really be taken into account is if you could picture the story itself in real life. Which has been a problem for several of Disney's outings. In fact, veteran voice actor/comedian Tom Kenny was recently asked in an interview about his thoughts on seeing flat animated films being re-made into live action features. His response was “Just aesthetically, that's a weird thing I don't understand. To me, I'm always going, why do you need to re-make that? I don't need to see a live-action version of "Dumbo" without the mouse in it!”
While Disney has already released three live action remakes/reboots this year with Dumbo, Aladdin, and The Lion King, they have more on the way such as Mulan, The Little Mermaid, and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. I think they should quit while they’re ahead. While audiences may want to see them, do they really NEED to see them? There are differences between needs and wants. The previous live action revamps may have earned Disney over a billion dollars, but I think they should stay more focused on new stories that they haven’t produced yet. Two of my colleagues from Gold Derby, Kevin Jacobsen and Amanda Spears, recently talked about this on a podcast last month. They were both in agreement that Disney needs to start finding new material rather than relying on audiences nostalgia (@39:35).
I know these remakes aren’t meant to replace the old movies, but that still doesn’t mean they feel necessary. However, the worst part of it all is that today’s generation of kids are probably not even going to be brought up more on the originals. If you're going to introduce a new generation to something like The Lion King, why remake it when you could just show them the animated classic? It's not that hard. Though if Disney has to remake/reboot anything, why not the properties that didn’t quite succeed in the first place like The Black Cauldron? That way they can be given a second chance to find success.
If the original source material is a book or a play, people want to see it brought to life faithfully on their screens. Though if it is already a film or a TV show, why do people want to pay money to see the exact same thing over again? The only reason a movie should be remade into another movie is if the creative team genuinely feels they have something to add to the story, something important that would improve it or make for a different viewing experience. If not, then what's the point? Just telling the exact same story on film with updated technology isn't enough to differentiate it from the original. Though if things are changed from the source material that people don't think should have been or think makes it worse, then you have people wondering why someone had to go ruin it in the first place.
In a recent podcast from Next Best Picture, someone made a point about Disney’s live action remakes being comparable to Broadway revivals. He thinks there’s nothing wrong with updating a classic. Though that’s NOT the same thing. A great work can spend decades off the Broadway stage before it returns to dazzle a whole new generation of theatergoers. Conversely, movies live forever on the DVD shelf, or can be instantly accessed through streaming services. There's always a way to see them.
If Disney really wants to continue making live action revamps of their beloved animated properties, I think they should just do straightforward retellings of the original stories they were based on as opposed to bland retreads of great movies we can already watch at home for free. Though a teaser trailer for the live action Mulan recently dropped, and it (at least) appears to be going in a far more interesting direction. While I'm not really anticipating it by any means, I am curious to see how to response will turn out for the film itself. In any case, that just about does it for my thoughts on Disney's live action revamps. If your thoughts are similar to mine, feel free to sign this petition: www.thepetitionsite.com/198/056/744/stop-disney-from-turning-their-animated-classics-into-live-action-films/