A noticeable trend with Disney these past couple of years is them spitting out tons and tons of these live-action remakes of their animated classics. I think the trend started in 2010 with Tim Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland,” but the first that I can remember being a big deal was “Maleficent” back in 2014, which is where I saw the teaser for 2015’s “Cinderella,” then “The Jungle Book” in 2016, and now “Beauty and the Beast” dropping in this next week. (Somewhere “Pete’s Dragon” fits in there too, but honestly, did anybody really see that?) It has been a pretty steady stream of films, and they do not seem to be stopping anytime soon. There are plans for a live-action “Mulan,” “Aladdin,” “Winnie-the-Pooh,” and even “Dumbo,” just to name a few. Basically, any Disney film you can think of, there is probably a remake planned for it.
From a company standpoint, I understand the necessity of these films. Disney bases its entire image off of these classic movies as well as the new ones, and depend on them to keep profits coming in. If their audience loses interest in their old stories, that is a big profit to lose — over seventy years of profit. And as other reboot and remakes of classic franchises have proven, the power of nostalgia is extremely strong and an easy way to bring in money. Just look at the numbers for the Disney remakes so far! “Alice in Wonderland” made over a billion dollars, “The Jungle Book” made over 900 million dollars, and “Maleficent” over 700 million dollars. “Beauty and the Beast,” while not out yet, broke the record for the most-watched trailer by reaching 127.6 million views on YouTube in 24 hours. These movies have had Oscar nominations, and “The Jungle Book” just received an Oscar for Best Visual Effects last month. So these films are doing their job at bringing home the bacon, and once the company finds something that works, they are going to keep milking it until it runs dry.
But from an audience standpoint, are they really necessary? They are all the same stories we have seen before, right? All that is different now is that they have fancy hi-definition CGI and big-name stars.
Except, they really are not. Sure, they have the same titles, same characters, and same basic plot as their animated counterparts (“Maleficent” being the most notable exception here, but that will be discussed later), but these live action remakes bring something new to the table every single time. Since these films have the benefit of being in an age where movies are longer than 90 minutes, they simply have more time to address plot holes and missteps in the original films. For instance, one of the big criticisms of the classic “Cinderella” is that she only danced with the prince once and then declared that they were in love with each other. The audience does not even learn the prince’s name or even his basic personality. The 2015 “Cinderella” fixes that by adding scenes where Cinderella and the prince (or “Kit,” as he’s called in this one — hey, he has a name! That’s already an improvement) actually talk to each other and bond with each other, even before they hook up officially during the ball. Kit has a storyline beyond being a love interest by giving him an in-depth relationship with his father. Even Lady Tremaine, who was just “the evil stepmother” in the original film, has more of an explored backstory in this one. In the 2016 “The Jungle Book,” more information is given about Mowgli’s past, giving him a connection to Shere Khan and more focus is given to the wolf family that took him in. “Beauty and the Beast” also plans on showing more about the Beast’s past beyond the stained glass windows and narration of the original animated film, and a possible character arc for Lefou to make him more than just the villain’s comic sidekick. Even “Maleficent,” while not following the story of the original “Sleeping Beauty,” makes the awaken-by-true-love’s-kiss solution a lot less creepy by… oops, spoilers!
I am not saying that these additions make the remakes better than the original animated films, but they do give them a lot more depth. Whether that is necessary or not is up to the viewer, but I think these remakes at least deserve more credit and less snap judgment of just being carbon copies of the original films. All of them have been amazing so far, and I am very excited to see what the future movies will bring.
Except “Pete’s Dragon.” Again. Did anyone see that? Did anyone want to?
