Disney, Opinions, Studios

So, What About Those Disney Remakes?

Share on Pinterest

alice_cinderella_malificent

Not long ago, Walt Disney Pictures announced the latest addition to its slate of upcoming releases: Jon Favreau’s live-action (or “hyper-real animated”) remake of 1994’s The Lion King. While this news was infuriating to many Disney – and animation – lovers, it was hardly surprising. After all, remakes are Disney’s new favorite thing; The Lion King is only the latest in a long, long line of similar announcements. It seems that Disney is bound and determined to gift each of its animated films with a live-action remake.

Naturally, this course of action has caused large amounts of anguish among animation fans. However, all the hoopla has raised a couple questions in my mind (and, I’m sure, in the minds of others, too). Are these Disney remakes really harmful to Disney Animation and Disney overall? Are they worth all the weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth that they’ve provoked in the animation fandom?

More concisely stated, the real issue behind the Disney remakes is this: Are they really that awful?

In this article, we’ll take a look at Disney’s remake roster from both sides of the argument. It’s my hope that, by looking at all the viewpoints, each of us (including myself) will be a little more resolved in how we feel about Disney’s current state!

So, with no further ado, away we go!

jon-favreau-lion-king

Why the Remakes May Not Be that Bad

In 1977, Paris Review correspondent David Zinsser visited the home of famed crime novelist James M. Cain. In the 1940s, several of Cain’s novels were adapted into films (including The Postman Always Rings TwiceDouble Indemnity, and Mildred Pierce). While interviewing Cain, Zinsser asked what the author thought of the film version of Double Indemnity. While replying, Cain said this:

“People tell me, don’t you care what they’ve done to your book? I tell them, they haven’t done anything to my book. It’s right there on the shelf. They paid me and that’s the end of it.”

Of course, Cain was talking about novels, but the same thing applies to films and their remakes. It doesn’t matter how good or how bad a remake is; it doesn’t affect the quality of the original film at all.

Let’s take the impending Lion King remake as an example. Let’s say that Jon Favreau’s version happens to stink on ice. Does it lessen the quality of James Earl Jones’s portrayal of Mufasa? Does it blunt the emotional impact of Mufasa’s death scene in the 1994 film? Does the remake rob the “Circle of Life” sequence of its power? Does it detract from the animators’ work on the original film? Of course not. Favreau, his cast, and his crew can’t do anything that will lessen the quality of Disney’s 1994 epic.

On top of that, Disney Animation’s original films will always be there, easily accessible and always ready to watch. Disney executives aren’t going to break into our homes, grab our copies of The Lion King off the shelves, and burn them in a bonfire in the middle of town. Those DVDs will remain on our shelves, ready for us to revisit and to introduce to our kids whenever we wish.

In fact, let me make a controversial statement: the remakes may even do a service to the original films!

mv5bmjeymzexmdcznv5bml5banbnxkftztgwmzyzmjczote-_v1_sy1000_cr006741000_al_Before you string me up, let me explain. Let’s say that a bright-eyed six-year-old kid is taken to see the impending remake of Beauty and the Beast. He loves it. On the way home from the theater, the boy’s parents tell him that Disney made another movie about Beauty and the Beast. The boy is still riding high on his love of the remake, so he’s excited to see the 1991 animated film. Soon after, the boy’s parents show him the ’91 film. The boy falls in love with Belle, with the Menken/Ashman music, the emotional conflict… everything. In fact, the boy loves it so much that he seeks out other Disney animated films (and more animated films in general).

Imagine that scenario playing out all over the world. It would make the viewership for these animated masterpieces explode. Tons of people would be newly introduced to these beautiful animated flicks that we already love. That’s definitely a good thing!

It doesn’t matter how good or how bad the Disney live-action remakes turn out to be, because the original animated films will always be there. They’ll always be masterpieces and, because of that, they will ALWAYS have an audience. They aren’t going anywhere!

On the Other Hand…

Give this video a watch, and pay special attention to what’s being said between 0:24 and 0:38. Something was said that irked many an animation lover. Can you tell what it is?

During that part of the video, Bill Condon addressed a question many Disney and animation fans must have been asking themselves: why remake a film that was arguably perfect before? This is how Condon responded:

“The answer is technology has caught up with the ideas that were introduced in that movie.”

So animation wasn’t good enough for Beauty and the Beast? Huh, Mr. Condon? Huh?

As I’ve said, many animation lovers were troubled by this, and I’m one of them. The idea that animation is inherently lesser than live-action film-making is nothing more than a wrong-headed idea that stems from the stigma that animation is only for kids. That’s my mindset, anyway. Since you’re here at the Rotoscopers website, I’m assuming that your attitude is similar.

Unfortunately, most people (in the United States, anyway) assume that animation is a kids-only enterprise. When a Disney-hired director says that animation is an inferior form of film making, that only strengthens that misconception in people’s minds. After all, to many, Disney IS animation. When the big D itself ridicules animated film, it carries a lot of weight.

The live-action remakes don’t just hurt animation. They also do major damage to the rest of Disney’s live-action slate. What do I mean, you ask? Well, sit back, friend, and I’ll tell you.

The BFG

Cast your mind back to this past summer (the summer of 2016, that is). On July 1st, Disney released The BFG. If there was any summer movie with a better pedigree, I can’t remember it. The BFG had a LOT of star power in its corner: Steven Spielberg directing, a script by the writer of E.T. based on a beloved Roald Dahl novel, and a lead performance by an Academy Award-winning actor. All of these elements add up to a film that’s a pretty big deal.

Disney treated The BFG like it was nothing, producing little marketing beyond a few poorly-made trailers and a couple posters. As a result, the film bombed.

Why did The BFG get such shoddy treatment? Because Disney focused on promoting its remakes, especially Pete’s Dragon and Beauty and the Beast. A marketing crew can only do so much and, when Disney is banking so heavily on their remakes, any film outside that circle is going to suffer, even a prestigious project like BFG.

So, now that we’ve looked at both sides of the remake argument, we come to the million-dollar question:

Can Disney Animated Films and Their Remakes Co-exist?

Of course they can! As we’ve discussed, the remakes and their quality don’t effect the original animated films in any way. The originals will always be there, just as great as ever, ready for us to revisit and ready to be introduced to new generations. The quality of the animation will always be beautiful and awe-inspiring, and it will continue to inspire future animators. On top of that, if the remakes are good, they can help people discover the animated originals.

However, if this co-existence is going to happen, Disney needs to play fair. If Bob Iger and the rest of the Disney execs want to re-imagine their animated stable in live-action form, that’s no big deal. However, there’s absolutely NO reason to disparage animation or make animation fans feel stupid while marketing these remakes.

How should we feel about these remakes? For me, the answer is still a definitive ‘I don’t know.’ However, in making this decision, it’s important to look at both sides of the issue. Hopefully, we’ve been able to do that here!

What about you? What do you think of Disney’s live-action remakes?

Edited by: Hannah Wilkes

Share on Pinterest

About AJ Howell

AJ's love of movies began when his mom took him to see The Lion King on a warm California day in 1994. He left the theater with his mind blown and with a strong desire to become a filmmaker. AJ's fascinated with films of all kinds, but animated films have always held a special place in his heart, particularly Disney animation, the work of Chuck Jones, and Bill Melendez and Lee Mendelson's Peanuts specials. His favorite animated films include (but aren't limited to) Frozen, Beauty And The Beast, Surf's Up, The Bugs Bunny/RoadRunner Movie, and Toy Story 3. Along with films, AJ also loves pop and rock music, hiking, the beach, comic books, traveling, writing, acting, and baseball.
  • Fadi Antwan

    The live action remakes are definitely NOT awful, and some of them are pretty good actually! However, they’re not timeless like the animated versions IMO. But overall I don’t mind them. Disney can keep making them, and I’ll keep watching them. Only the news of remaking the Lion King angered me a little, but I’ll watch that too anyway. 😀

    • Manuel Orozco

      I did like Alice in Wonderland and Maleficent myself. They were as good as their animated original counterparts but not totally magical.

      • Fadi Antwan

        Yeah that’s true. None of their live action remakes so far have truly wowed and dazzled me. But I have a feeling Beauty and the Beast will be the first to do so.

        • Manuel Orozco

          Cinderella did

    • Dean

      Live action remakes are like candy, it tastes good, but it’s also filled with empty calories, and will make you sick really fast..

  • Rachel Wagner

    Interesting post. I hate Maleficent and Alice in Wonderland with the fire of a thousand suns but Cinderella I loved. Not really looking forward to Beauty and the Beast but it will probably be good. I’m not opposed to remakes but when they lose all the appeal of the original it is irritating. I just dont like badly made remakes

    • Manuel Orozco

      I’m not opposed to all remakes in general either Rachel. Even Cinderella last year was as beautiful as Disney’s 1950 animated general.

      • Rachel Wagner

        I agree although I give the original the edge because of the songs but I loved both

        • Manuel Orozco

          Fair enough

    • racy1285

      Disagree 100% about Maleficent and Alice being badly made. Both films had amazing visuals and great performances from the actors and actresses. The one weakness they had was the story. Both films get an A for effort with a C for the flaws in the story. You make it sound like the filmmakers intentionally were trying to make a bad film. I didnt see that on the screen. People seem to think its easy to make a perfect film these days. If you want to see an intentionally badly made film just watch any of the Disney DTV cheapquels.

      • Rachel Wagner

        Yes they are better made than the cheapqueles but I hold Disney massive blockbusters to a higher standard than that. I didnt love the visuals in Maleficent and I thought the performances outside of Jolie were awful especially Stefan. Alice in Wonderland has a visual style which I dont care for but the story and performances I did not like across the board. Pretty much every decision they made in that movie I thought was wrong and lost all the nonsense of Alice in Wonderland. Johnny Depp, Mia W, Crispin Glover, Anne Hathaway I thought were really bad. But that’s just me. To me I’d say confidently they are bad movies. Glad you enjoyed them though

        • racy1285

          Missed the point. I’m just pointing out the difference between a intentionally bad made film and a film with flaws. Since you did say the films were badly made. Didn’t say anything about holding them to that standard just making an example.

          To each his own on the visuals and the acting on both films.

          • Rachel Wagner

            I guess that is fair. For a feature film I think they are sloppily made.

          • racy1285

            How so? Alice looks in line with Burtons art style. I can easily match it to anyone of his films. Yeah your not a fan of his art style. But that doesnt make it sloppy. Ditto for Maleficent whos visuals I can easily compare to any of the fantasy CG films like Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, etc.

          • Rachel Wagner

            I disagree I thought Maleficent was extremely generic visually and even in 2010 Alice in Wonderland felt like another boring Burton film. Visuals are just one element of a film and I think those films are sloppily made in terms of story, acting, setting, plot holes and more. Glad you enjoyed them. Maleficent was especially weak. Particularly the Frozen ending was so lazy and uninspired

          • racy1285

            As I said before to each his own on the visuals on the films. The story of both films have problems as i mentioned.That elemment did bother me. Mostly i blame the fact that Disney films have resigned to be rated G. This badly effected Maleficent since she needed to die in the film. They tried a feminene slant on the ending and it didnt work cant blame them for trying that though.

          • Rachel Wagner

            I can. They spent 10 years making Sleeping Beauty. Try harder with Maleficent. It felt very board room made movie instead of art. I’ve only ranted about 3 movies on my youtube channel and Maleficent was one. I really hated it

          • racy1285

            Different era and different Medium. Not a fair comparison at all.

            Every big budget film is made with a boardroom. Thats the process when you make a film worth 100 millions of dollars. That doesnt mean its Art.
            If you want films that has no boardroom by all means just watch low budget indie films.

          • Rachel Wagner

            Yeah but it is different when the boardroom makes the decisions and when a boardroom guides the artist and refines the product like they do at Pixar. I think you absolutely can compare. It’s a remake/sequel. Of course yoo are going to compare. This movie was pushed out with whatever buzz words were trendy at the time and not the carefully made film of the past.

          • racy1285

            And how do you know they didnt do that here? From interviews Ive read Linda Woolverton made it quite clear she had full control when it comes to films story.

            Yeah but make a fair comparison. Live action and animation are two different mediums. You can get away with spending 10 years on a animated film not a live action film where you have to worry about Actors, Directors, Writers, Cinematographers, crew etch getting old and being available.

            Welcome to the year 2016. Every film relies on buzz words, social media, trends etc nowadays. You punish this film for it then you punish evey film now.

          • Rachel Wagner

            I disagree. As I said Cinderella, Jungle Book and Pete’s Dragon felt like authentic artistic expressions and much more carefully made. Don’t even get me started on Linda Woolverton…

          • Rachel Wagner

            At best Maleficent is Sleeping Beauty fan fiction not the real story that it claims to be.

          • racy1285

            Lol thats only marketing. None of these stories are real come on now. Well if its made by Disney its not fact fiction. Regardless of what you think of the film. Its their story not yours. They are entitled to do what ever they want.

          • Rachel Wagner

            Of course they are entitled to make junk if they want to make junk. I am also entitled to criticize it. When I say it is fan fiction what I mean is it has the names and supposed world of the original but that’s it. Just the way fan fiction often does. It’s the same way with Harry Potter and the Cursed Child.

            They say in the opening of the film not just in marketing that this is the ‘real story’. That is Disney’s way of puffing up this story over the original classic. Of course a fairytale isn’t real but in the world of the story they are telling you this is the more legitimate version and I thought that was crap. I could go on about each decision they made which they thought would be YA trendy was bad but the thing that annoyed me the most was how they turned the faeries into negligent idiots who allow Aurora to walk off cliff at one point. They actually find the sword of truth and hide Aurora for 16 years in the original. Not idiots. Anyway, to each their own I guess. I thought it was lazy junk. I think there was more effort and creativity put into the TV movie Descendants than Maleficent. I really do.

          • racy1285

            Where did I say you cant criticize it? Are you really going to resort to putting words in my mouth seriously. I said no such thing. Criticize anytime you want. You have the right just like i have the right to disagree and give my counter argument.

            Sorry that wording makes no sense. Fan Fiction is named that way because its done by Fans. Not the actual people who own the film. Thats like me saying the Star Wars prequels are Fan Fiction. Which makes me wrong since George Lucas is the one who created and owned it at the time.

            Whether its in the beginning or the poster. Its still a marketing ploy at the end of the day. Films do these based on true story tag all the time.

            Lol well actually enjoyed that the best. Since i never like the fairies in the original film in the first place. They were annoying, dumb, and really added nothing to the story. Their entire plot in the original film is how their stupidity causes trouble for Aurora and Philip. So im glad that Remake embraced that feeling i had of them. They were not good character at all.

          • Rachel Wagner

            Wow. I didn’t put words in your mouth. I was just pointing out that anyone has the right to do what they want but we also have the right to not like it. I completely disagree on the faeries. Anyway, we see so differently on this topic there can be no purpose in continuing to canvas it. Thanks much

          • Rachel Wagner

            Also Disney hasn’t had a rated G film in some time, so I don’t think the rating really has anything to do with it. Tell a good story with compelling characters and earned emotion like they did with Jungle Book, Cinderella and Pete’s Dragon.

  • Manuel Orozco

    I’m not super excited about this trend myself. However, the only direct remakes I’m interested in are Mulan and Peter Pan. Some character spin offs I’m planning to see too. Plus, I’m not really a big fan of Disney animation past and present. We can all agree the magic that started it all will always be shown on TV and released for home viewing.

    • Fadi Antwan

      What are you a fan of then? I mean, what are your animation interests?

      • Manuel Orozco

        Not important

        • Fadi Antwan

          C’mon, I won’t judge. Sharing is caring. 😉 What are you into? Pixar? Ghibli?

          • Manuel Orozco

            I’ve seen every Pixar feature I’ve seen a few Ghibli and I’m an on and of fan of Dreamwork’s and Blue Sky

  • Sebastian

    This here is exactly how I feel about a few of (Disney’s Direct To DVD) movies from the 2000s. Like how those movies tried to also work for then the new generation back then. However that cannot be said the same for this new trend. Using the excuse of technology improving of piece of art is a real weak answer.

    One of the main reasons I can’t stand this trend is because of all the un-neccesary controversy which we really need to talk about. You know nitpicking, whiny people that always wants to start something to argument about (yes I’m looking mainly at you Twitter).

    Just look at how ridiculous people have bashed on Disney’s re-imagining of Mulan. Like starting petitions over un-neccesary things like not thinking Disney would cast a chinese actress for Mulan. People always let their ignorance get to them and jumps straightly for the worst when it comes to castings these days.

    The other reason is that once the movie is out people like to compare the new ones over the classics, nitpicking on flaws from the classic and telling fans off for liking the older movies. Just look at the comment section on this Jungle Book clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyG6XRBxnhk&spfreload=10 The first thing people talk about is the difference and how apparently bad it is, which just really is stupid and completely un-neccesary.

    We all know this trend won’t end anytime soon probably not until mid-late 2020s but trust me when I say this. Things will get very difficult for Mouse House and many classics will either be forgotten or made fun of in the very near future. And yes I don’t support this trend anymore cause they actually this time around have shown how un-logical it is to remake a huge movie like The Lion King because of the success of 2016 version of The Jungle Book.

  • Trev

    This is what happens every time.

    1. A remake (or “reimagining”) of a classic is announced. Fans cause an unnecessary fuss.

    2. Remake is released and usually gets a tepid response (with exceptions like Jungle Book or Cinderella)

    3. Remake will either find success or flop, but it doesn’t matter because…

    4. The remake is mostly forgotten after a couple of months and only becomes a footnote for the history of the original classic.

    5. Another remake is announced and fans freak out because they never learn…

    • Marielle

      You say The Jungle Book and Cinderella are the only ones that didn’t get a tepid response, yet the other live-action adaptations of their animated films (101 Dalmatians, Alice in Wonderland and Maleficent) all got a sequel somehow.

      • Trev

        I was not talking about financial reception. I was just referring to critical and audience reception. Sure, 101 Dalmatians, Alice in Wonderland and Maleficent made money and got sequels, but the general consensus of those films were generally lukewarm.

  • Dean

    As long as Disney is remake-happy, give me a remake of the Rescuers.

  • Great article AJ! For me, I find it hard to be entirely open to the idea of the live action remakes. But what I find harder is completely hating them. Sure, it’s fun ridiculing Disney for their strange choices of remakes, but at the end of the day its nothing worth getting angry about. Because like AJ said, it’s not gonna affect the beauty of the originals. Let’s compare this to the DisneyToon sequels. Does it matter if Fox and the Hound 2 was bad? No, no it does not. How about Belle’s magical world? No! It doesn’t matter because these are forgotten and at the end of the day the originals still exist and they’re as awesome as ever. Some of these sequels are actually cherished by the public. Really, there’s not much to get angry about, because like the sequels, they’re not replacing the originals.

  • I don’t particularly hate remakes, I really loved how beautiful Cinderella and Maleficent were, any story issue asides. I’m quite excited for Mulan, and to see how that film will look like in live action, especially we all battles and such. However I’m a bit wary of The Lion King remake…

  • If the story can be retold in a new light to enrich the story I’m fine with that. Alice in Wonderland completely missed the point of what the story was and thought giving it a convoluted plot would make it interesting even though it had enough weirdness in the original story to make it appealing for anyone to watch.

    Pete’s Dragon was fine. It was a lot like how Disney treated the (animated) Jungle Book where the people who worked on it didn’t read the book and take their own spin on it but still keep the heart and message.

  • Dante Panora

    I think the best way to look at a remake is by asking someone who’s never seen the original before what they thought of it. Actually, you could just ask young kids what they thought of it.

    This is not technically a remake, but I’ve heard alot of friends and people say that some of their younger siblings and cousins (under 18 or so) did not like Star Wars 7 as much as they did, and I theorize that may be because that movie plays so much into nostalgia for a new hope that it does not have much appeal to young people who have not seen it or the memory of it is very fresh in their heads.

    It would be interesting to ask kids who’ve seen both the original animated films and the live-action ones which one they prefered. If you’d ask me, I’d bet on the animated ones.

  • Callum J

    Disney mostly focused on The BFG’s marketing internationally. In the UK, it was everywhere. They even had BFG models scattered around London. The cinema was sold out when I went.

  • experiment626

    I try to keep an open mind about “Hyper-Real Animation “. ( Gotta love the “spin” Disney put on the name.)
    I loved Alice in Wonderland( Though Through The Looking Glass was so-so.),The Jungle Book, and Maleficent but these weren’t pure remakes of their animated ancestors. Never seen Cinderella so I can’t say how it transferred over.
    The preview for the hyper-animated Beauty and the Beast looks good but this one might be tricky. The original is such a modern classic and more of a musical than the others and hopefully it doesn’t come off as too dark.

  • I actually agree with this so freaking much!! I mean these remakes may say they try to replace or people thinking they’re trying to replace the original’s but I’m just here for the ride and I honestly like seeing an interpretation of a classic. Yeah Maleficent isn’t my favorite and Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland looking back is pretty boring, but it made me only love the originals so much more! I can’t wait for the future remakes for different interpretations and maybe even appreciating the originals a lot more if they bomb.
    Just taking this basically with a pinch of salt (except for James and the Giant Peach, WTF?!?)

  • Harith Sami

    They can’t make the new lion king live-action remake, just a sequel too the original story, we don’t want to see the exact same movie again, its a different case when it comes to the jungle book, because the animated movie was released in the 60s and it felt a little dated, looking at the lion king again and it doesn’t feel that dated, even in the next 4 years or so. What I hate the most about the live-action films is that they repeat the same story-line, so it will be impossible not to compare it to the original.
    .
    WHO WANTS A LIVE-ACTION SEQUEL INSTEAD OF REMAKING THE SAME STORY ?

    • racy1285

      Whats the point of a live action sequel when it has no connection to the original animated film?

      • Harith Sami

        A change in the visual style of the film is not an element that should be explained in the movie, and a live action sequel can maintain all the connection it has with previous film easily (maybe some few changes) + I don’t count the “Disney-Toon straight-to-DVD cash grabs” real sequels, and I don’t think that a full budget film that is made by the original Disney studio will ever result a movie like the cheep straight-to-DVD ones.

        • racy1285

          First off Animation is a Medium not a visual style. Second you do have to explain it if you are trying to connect to the original. You can try and pretend it doesnt matter but the film will be heavily criticized for not explaining it whether you like it or not.

          I remember ” Oz the Great and Powerful” was heavily criticized since that film was trying to be a prequel to the original film. And all the major film critics blasted the story because in the original Oz is suppose to be in Dorothys dream and the prequel also used the dream sequence plot. Problem is “Spoiler Alert” The Wizard never leaves Oz at the end of the thst film. So critics questioned how it could be dream in the first place.

          So no you have to explain why the Medium change especially if your trying to connect it to the original film.

  • Yuri Nekel

    Great article, but I just have got to say something, I just think Bill Condon’s quote has been greatly misenterpreted. You see, there had been interest in a BATB live-action remake since the early 2000’s, so I think what he meant was that the technology finally allows them to recreate the ideas from the animated movie in live-action, not that the animated movie wasn’t valid.

    • racy1285

      Thats how i saw it. People just want to misinterpret what he said into something negative just to find something to be mad about. Typical twitter mentallity these days.

      What happened to Innocent until proven guilty?

  • Tory

    I’m not entirely against live action Disney re-makes. This gives them a chance to bring something new to the stories as well as gain a new generation of fans. But my only personal gripe is that there is something about them are rather lackluster. And it’s not due to nostalgia. I haven’t seen any of the animated movies in over twenty years so it’s hard for me to really compare either.

    What I am looking forward to though is Mulan. I’m hoping this will at least give more asian actors an opportunity to be casted as leads or even other prominent roles in the future. Not just as a villain, a side character or background character.

  • lillypad2114

    My thoughts on this whole shebang:
    1.I am soooo happy that Dreamworks isn’t catching this bug and feels the need to live-action its properties. I shudder in fear at how horrible a live action/Once upon a time-y HTTYD would be.
    2. Yes they can co exist and some are actually good. I rather enjoyed Maleficent and even Cinderella had a GORGOUS atmosphere even if it made Cindy look all the more passive. There were some positives there.
    3. My only problem is I think they are beginning to rely a little too heavily on these live action remakes (Mulan and BaTB I AM excited for). Its like them relying on Pixar to bring in the Big Bucks. I don’t want to quit getting amazing films like Zootopia due to them putting all their eggs in one basket.
    *To end on a positive note counting down the DAYS til Moana!!

  • Kallinda

    I don’t mind the remakes on films that had room for improvement in the story, but for the animation? What was wrong with Beauty and the Beast? If it’s pretty much the same story, what’s the point in the remake?

  • Rachel Wagner

    I really hate Maleficent and Alice in Wonderland and found them lazy cash grabs but the last 3 I’ve liked quite a bit. I hope the trajectory continues to be positive.

  • Rocky

    I have to admit that I kind of like the live Cinderella, Pete’s Dragon, and The Jungle Book since they stood on their own pretty well. Cinderella is one of the most retold tales ever, Pete’s Dragon was completely different and unique and actually really sweet and endeering, and TJB told the story differently and involved Mowgli’s wolf family.

    The only live action Disney movie I outright hated was Maleficent. It had horrible pacing and literally every character is made incompetent, evil, or boring just to make Maleficent look like the most perfect saintly person who did everyone else’s roles in the story. Flora, Fauna, and Merryweather were the heroines of the real movie, but in Maleficent they were inept dummies and Maleficent only does one evil act and doesn’t even stay bad for any other scene. Might as well call her Saint Niceficent the Mary-Sue Savior of Sleeping Beauty.

    And I could have stomached the terrible writing and characterization (I used to watch OUaT, I sadly have built up an immunity for bad Disney fanfic BS)… until the ending where she’s like, “And that’s the REAL story cause I’m Sleeping Beauty~!” I was absolutely disgusted that the writers thought the Maleficent movie was SO good that it was worth discrediting the original. The original animated classic has stunning animation that still holds up and memorable characters and music…. Niceficent had ugly Avatar-knock-off creatures and the earth revolved around Niceficent and the only memorable track was the (admittedly pretty great cover of Once Upon a Dream by Lana Del Rey). Not to mention it was pretty shameless how the movie was one big Angelina Jolie vanity project (which is why the movie bizarrely ends with a giant movie title then her name as if in congratulation). She was purposely filmed to only alluring and they couldn’t even show her as a dragon because they couldn’t not have her mug on screen for more than a minute. It makes sense seeing as she produced the thing. Bleh, it was gross all around.

  • TripleStrykeLover

    Pretty soon Disney is probably going to reboot every single hand-drawn movie they made. Lol.

  • The Pug Lover

    Look guys, Disney should stop remaking, it’s the art of overdoing, in fact, Dumbo, The Sword in the Stone, Pooh, The Mermaid, Aladdin, and Pocahontas should not get remakes.

    By the way, Wreck-It Ralph 2 is coming next spring, so please, it’s predecessor is awful. In fact, I don’t want any promotions on some websites like Google, or Amazon, or something like that, and Nintendo is SO busy with Universal, so Universal should interfere with and get Oswald back from Disney. So please, write to Disney, and cancel that awful sequel.