Why Are Disney Live Action Remakes Even A Thing?

Disney live action remakes are dumb and pointless, and that is a hill I am prepared to die on.

WHO ASKED YOU ANYWAY, HUH?

In the immortal words of one Anton Ego: “The average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so.”

I think that speech is brilliant. Ego is absolutely right. To be creative – to cut to its root;: to create – is a great and wonderful thing. Criticism can stunt and sour the impulse to invent. Every last one of us have the capacity to create, and it is good for our hearts and our minds to exercise that ability. Even if what we make is ultimately not “good,” it is worthwhile because we did it. Case in point: this blog.

That said, criticism does have its own role to play. It is one thing to take five minutes to sketch your dog because you take pleasure in the act of drawing. It is quite another to then charge to look at it. In the former case, the value is in the act. In the latter, the value becomes what the public is willing to pay for it.

As I have said eight billion times now, value is subjective, and is sometimes hard to discern. That is where criticism comes in. Naturally a critic can’t tell you what you like. They can lay out criteria based on experience and describe how an item or event compares historically. It’s not an exact science, of course; contemporaneous critics often differ, and as cultural mores shift, opinions may change with time.

DISNEY IS HIDING BEHIND LIVE ACTION REMAKES

Another way a critic may provide value is by keeping established artists from resting on their laurels, so to speak. My criticism for Disney is as follows: live action remakes are bad-faith cash grabs, playing on nostalgia while delivering worse versions of a movie we’ve already seen because they want our money twice for half the effort.

In the interest of full disclosure, I will tell you up front that I haven’t seen so much as one of Disney’s live action remakes. I disagree with them on principle (make something new already!) and in practice (the best reviews amount to “better than I expected”). I’m sure some of them are enjoyable – I hear good things about Cinderella – but I’m not budging!

BUT WHO IS IT HURTING?

Perhaps you have seen and liked many of Disney’s live action movies, and don’t understand the point of all this negativity. It’s just a movie, after all. Who is it hurting?

Well, when you put it that way – nobody. You kind of have a point. It’s only a movie. People like to go see movies sometimes. It can be just as much about the experience as anything else. Not every film has to be a masterpiece. Sometimes all we ask is 90 minutes’ entertainment.

Fair enough. Yet the movies Disney is reheating and re-serving largely come from either the classic era or the Disney Renaissance, noted periods of time where Disney’s animation studio was releasing hit after hit after hit. They weren’t successes purely based on box office returns; they were certified great films. Beauty & The Beast was nominated for the BEST PICTURE OSCAR. Not best animated film! Best PICTURE.

Disney classics don’t need to be remade. But Disney wants to save on R&D, which means that they’re taking the lazy way out and producing these live action remakes. Unfortunately, they can all be lumped into two equally annoying categories.

LIVE ACTION REMAKES AREN’T ENOUGH LIKE REMAKES…

Longtime readers may recall I have addressed this issue, albeit on a smaller scale, once before. When the live action version of Mulan was in production, leaked details surrounding changes to the plot had everyone in an uproar. One contingent demanded the return of Shang and Mushu and the 1998 story they knew and loved. The other insisted that the details of the original were insensitive to the truth of Chinese culture. Thus the plot and characters necessarily had to change to reclaim authenticity.

I’m going to participate in a bit of irony and quote my original post:

If Disney wants to make a new Mulan that better follows the source material, great! If they’re going to work harder to make sure that they represent Chinese culture with improved accuracy and sensitivity, magnificent! That all sounds very forward-thinking to me!

BUT STOP CALLING IT A REMAKE.

… The absence of songs and characters does not invalidate the new movie’s worth in any way, shape, or form. But it does pull the plot too far removed from the “original” to earn the title “remake.” 

… So why is Disney calling it a remake? Simple: to capitalize on our nostalgia. … The nostalgia is essential for Disney to tap into if they want to continue using these remakes as a license to print money. … They must know they’re starting their story from just this side of square one. But they’re hoping you won’t notice if they don’t change the title.

… OR LIVE ACTION REMAKES ARE TOO FAITHFUL TO THE ORIGINAL

Then the pendulum swings in the other direction, and you encounter the opposite problem: the remake is almost exactly the same, in which case I HAVE ALREADY SEEN THIS MOVIE. The animation was part of the charm.

Did Disney really think I would forget the plot just because real people are playing the characters? If that extra song truly added to the film, why didn’t the director include it the first time? Is there no nuance to telling a story in animated vs. live action form? Are you saying it never mattered in the first place? Does the studio spin a wheel every time to decide?

The most egregious example is arguably The Lion King. I’m sorry, but WTF is live action about that remake? All the animals have been HEAVILY edited by CGI. None of them are “acting.” I genuinely cannot understand the point. (Except that I can; see “capitalizing on nostalgia” in the above section.)

ANIMATORS DESERVE BETTER OPPORTUNITIES

Okay, so we’ve established that in my view, Disney live action remakes are more about making money than making art. But who is making the decisions? Executives, mostly. Higher ups. The people who represent the shareholders and aim to maximize profit above all else. It worked before so it’ll work again! Most animators don’t get a say; they get assigned.

While they are working on these remakes, they are not working on originals. And while animators doubtless find some creative challenge in breathing new life into a character somebody else already shaped and defined, they are robbed of the chance to shape and define their own characters, first. Meanwhile, we, the audience, are robbed of the opportunity to watch original stories and meet new friends because that time and effort was spent elsewhere.

TRY TO APPEAL TO EVERYONE AND YOU APPEAL TO NO ONE

There’s one more element to the live action remake thing that perplexes me, and it hearkens back to the point about Mulan needing to change over shifting cultural viewpoints. Here’s a direct quote from Bob Iger:

Our primary mission needs to be to entertain and then through our entertainment to continue to have a positive impact on the world. And I’m very serious about that. It should not be agenda-driven.

This has led to a lot of bowdlerizing in these remakes, which seems to piss off… everybody? Conservatives think Disney is too “woke” and liberals want Disney to take a stand. The end result, if I recall correctly, is that for a time the dwarfs in the Snow White remake were set to be played by “magical creatures” and ultimately were portrayed by yet more CGI.

As I noted in the Mulan section, I myself am pro-cultural sensitivity. But if an integral part of a film is offensive, wouldn’t the best approach be to just… not make the movie at all?

HEY, WHAT ABOUT ELIO?

Just before I published this post, a new fighter joined the fray: Elio, an original Disney-Pixar movie that is… not doing great. Many are pointing to Elio‘s comparative lack of success as an indicator that Disney is simply giving the public more of what it actually wants with all these live action remakes.

And hey, I can hardly claim to represent everyone in this essay. Maybe the pundits are right. Contrariwise (Alice!), others respond that Elio in fact falls victim to a weak marketing campaign on Disney’s part. I am inclined to agree – until this debate crossed my socials, I had completely forgotten Elio existed. Now that I hear the name again I vaguely recall an announcement or something at one point, but as it currently stands I have yet to come across a single advertisement or trailer via any medium, digital or print.

One might avow this speaks more to the spheres which I move through as a childless millennial than a lack of marketing on Disney’s part. Still, given that I have seen advertisements for all the Disney remakes, I’m not sure that explanation holds water.

ISN’T THIS ALL A BIT OF A TEMPEST IN A MRS. POTTS?

Oh, totally. Disney wouldn’t care what I think even if they knew who I was, which they don’t. Also I know it’s kinda hard to tell from… everything I just wrote, but I’m not mad at you. I can’t stop this Disney remake train; somebody might as well get some enjoyment out of it. Thanks for handling that for me!

Disliking things doesn’t earn me life points, to be redeemed for valuable prizes. I’m only making myself unhappy. And as I have noted before, it is always more fun to like things than not like things. Well, unless you enjoy a good debate. We can’t all be lawyer’s daughters.

Sadly, all these arguments have been rattling around in my head for years now, each subsequent remake adding a new layer of outrage to my purposeless, ineffectual little diatribe. I have found the best way to exorcise these sorts of demons is to write it all down. And so I have. At last I am free.

Anyway, I hear the Lilo & Stitch remake ruins everything. Can’t say I’m surprised.

Don’t forget, you can follow FRoA on Threads @fairestrunofall and on Instagram @fairestrunofall. If you have any questions or thoughts, leave a comment or email fairestrunofall@gmail.com. See ya real soon!