Disney is apparently running out of new ideas. But that is not really a bad thing.

With the exception of its Pixar films, Disney’s big-budget films are consistently more and more of remakes of previous classics (a trend not merely perpetrated by Disney).

So far, there has been "Alice in Wonderland," "Maleficent," "Cinderella," "The Jungle Book" and most recently, "Pete’s Dragon." In the works is also a remake of "Beauty and the Beast" starring Emma Watson as Belle.

With the exception of "Pete’s Dragon"—which so far has underperformed—the films have been both cultural and financial successes. They are, after all, based on classic films and therefore have a nostalgia factor for millennials (who did not grow up watching a VHS copy of “The Jungle Book?”).

Disney's newest project is a live action adaption of "The Little Mermaid." Furthermore, Universal Studios is also planning an adaption of the fairy tale with Chloe Grace Mortez in the title role.

Two projects developing at the same time sounds like a bad coincidence: won't the two films be similar?

Actually, both films could give a unique perspective on a timeless story. The Disney film will, no doubt, despite including unique deviations, follow the overall mold of its original film. It will be a live-action realization of the animated story.

The Universal film, however, could instead follow the path of the fairy tale. The actual tale of "The Little Mermaid" differs stridently from Disney's animated feature, especially in its sinister tone.

Disney's project was in the news last weeks for its hiring of "Hamilton" star Lin-Manuel Miranda. Alan Menken, who helped create the iconic music for the original film, is also part of the project. The addition of Miranda indicates that the remake will stay true to its musical roots (Something the “Cinderella” remake did not do).

The obvious downside in translating “The Little Mermaid” into a live action film is its underwater setting.

Underwater scenes are difficult to film, especially those shot in a live underwater environment. Actors must constantly surface for air, making filming tedious.

Also, an appealing visual landscape is also difficult to capture. For example, the second task in “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” was filmed in a tank of water. The scene is visually successful, but also brutally devoid of color. The world Harry descends into is bland with an aurora—other than the mermaids—of natural realism.

Such a bland palette achieved by shooting underwater would condemn any “The Little Mermaid" projects to failure. Much of the animated film’s success comes from the multitudinously vivid and whimsical underwater world. It needs the hyper-saturated color of films like "Alice Through the Looking Glass" to succeed visually.

The filmmakers have a hefty task ahead of them: to create an underwater world that is both otherworldly and realistic. A visual landscape that is too glossy would take away from the live action scheme of the project.

If either of the adaptations succeed in creating a visually underwater paradise and maintain the charm of the original plot, they will succeed. Because audience members are, in many ways, similar to Ariel: they desperately want a glimpse into a world that is not their own.