Everything the Light Touches is a Remake: Disney Animated Classics Getting Live Action Makeovers

People go to the movies for many reasons: to see a work of cinematic art, to turn their brains off for a couple of hours, or to see things unlike anything they could experience in their everyday lives or unlike anything they have ever witnessed on the silver screen.

But according to some people, the movie industry is in trouble, not only because of controversies surrounding diversity, representation, or other such considerations, but also because of a lack of originality. And when people make the argument that Hollywood is running out of ideas, many direct their attention to the slew of reboots, remakes, and long-delayed sequels as proof. Robo-Cop (2014), Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Terminator Genisys, the upcoming Bladerunner 2049, and the list goes on.

But it’s not just classic live-action properties that are being remade for a new generation: some of the best animated movies of all time, mostly from Walt Disney Studios, are in the process of receiving a modern day facelift. We’ve already seen a good chunk of them, from this year’s successful remake of 1967’s The Jungle Book, to 2014’s Maleficent, the retelling of Sleeping Beauty from the point of view of the main villain, and there are more such remakes on the way from the House of Mouse. And despite a few duds, many of these movies are big financial, and even sometimes critical, successes.

A few questions arise from this trend: what do all of these remakes say about movies today? And what does this trend say about us?

Financially, it makes sense to remake or reboot an old classic. Even if the film ends up getting mixed or negative reviews (i.e. Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland), you have a built-in audience of fans that will go to see it. Going back to Tim Burton’s 2010 adaptation of/sequel to the original 1951 Disney film of the same name, it made over $1 billion worldwide, against a budget of $200 million, despite having a 52 percent “Rotten” rating on Rotten Tomatoes. And this film had three built-in audiences: people who enjoyed Lewis Carroll’s original book, people who watched the 1951 Disney cartoon, and people who like Tim Burton’s style of filmmaking.

Maleficent is another such movie, raking in about $750 million despite a lukewarm critical reception. That’s not to say that these films are always successful; 2016 saw a sequel to 2010’s Alice in Wonderland in the form of Alice Through the Looking Glass. That film made a little under $300 million against its $170 million budget, while having a 29 percent “Rotten” score on Rotten Tomatoes; while still a financial success, it could not live up to the heights of its predecessor, suggesting that people are starting to catch on to the way that Disney is making its movies.

Even when the final products are mediocre cinematic works, we still go to see them, and they still make money.

This might be a lingering business model from the height of direct-to-video Disney sequels; at least, that’s what Ellen Snedeker thinks. Snedeker served as a Disney development executive for 13 years, from 1993 until 2006. One of her jobs was overseeing the department in charge of direct-to-video sequels. “That was a cash cow for the company basically the entire time I was there,” Snedeker said. “Starting with the movie The Return of Jafar [the sequel to 1992’s Aladdin], and continuing up until the Tinker Bell movies. I sort of think that the company is going back into that habit with these remakes.”

From a technological standpoint, some of the movies that have been remade with live action lend themselves to it. The Jungle Book is a good example of this: while the 1967 film is a beloved animated classic with great voice acting and characters, it is limited in its scope and does feel like a product of its time, and not in the best way. The 2016 version, however, delivers on its premise: a young “man-cub” being raised by wild animals. And these wild animals, despite being able to talk and sing, look more realistic than their cartoon counterparts, adding a greater sense of realism.

In addition, you can’t say that going back to a property means that Hollywood is creatively bankrupt. A lot of the classic stories that these films are based on are just that: classics. That means that they can be adapted for each generation, and, in some cases, can be more faithful to the original source material than the animated film that came before it. The recent adaptation of The Jungle Book was not simply a shot-for-shot remake of the 1967 film; it drew influences from that film while also taking cues from Rudyard Kipling’s original works.

“For Beauty and the Beast, I happen to know the writer, and I hope he’s going to dip into the [original book],” Snedeker said, in regards to the upcoming remake of the 1991 classic. “So I’m hoping there’s something a little closer to the original … I’m hoping it’s a little more adult, a little creepier. But also, we have human beings in it. It doesn’t bother me so much to create the clock and candlestick in CGI because I know that there are humans underneath.”

But, again, what does this rise in animated films have to say about us as moviegoers and as a society? Remakes in general are nothing new, but the number of live action remakes of animated films that people grew up with seems to be on the rise. Most of the live action films that I’ve mentioned before are adaptations of films from 30, 40, or even 60 years ago. On the horizon, however, are adaptations of more recent animated films: Beauty and the Beast comes out this coming March, there’s a film focusing on the Genie from Aladdin in the works, and Mulan is also being remade in live action.

While adaptations up to this point have been nostalgic for people who grew up in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, future adaptations take aim at young adults who are in college or who have just graduated from college. In a lot of ways, this is a perfect model for studios: the animated movies we grew up with being portrayed by real people onscreen is a great draw, because we can remember why we loved the originals while also seeing a somewhat different take on the same idea. People nowadays are nostalgic for simpler times, specifically their childhoods, so to remake movies that we watched as children is a great way to fill seats in a movie theater. Many young people, with more student loan debt and with living on their own more expensive than it was in the past, stay with or near their parents. As a result, they may feel a need to make their sense of familiarity complete by watching some of their favorite movies from their youth.

Snedeker doesn’t seem to think so. “It just feels like a gimmick,” she said. “I don’t know if there’s enough of a justification to remake these films. I don’t get why are we making [these movies] other than to empty the pocket books of people who loved the original movies.”

For a moment, however, allow me to be a little less impartial to talk about some recent Disney remake news that hits fairly close to home: The Lion King is getting a CGI remake directed by Jon Favreau, who recently did The Jungle Book. My and Ellen Snedeker’s initial reactions seem to be lined up pretty well: “I died a little inside,” Snedeker said. “I don’t get it; I don’t understand why. Julie Taymor’s [Broadway adaptation of The Lion King]: that was a significant cultural reimagining of the movie. That iteration totally works, and is totally valid. I don’t think Jon Favreau is going to bring anything to The Lion King that is fresh or new. So, I don’t get it.”

I also didn’t get it. In fact, I was a little angry; I felt sick to my stomach that Disney planned on touching the untouchable majesty that is The Lion King, arguably one of the greatest animated movies of all time, and my absolute favorite movie ever made. But I came to the same conclusion that Snedeker came to: “The Lion King is a classic, and nothing is going to top it … If it’s terrible, maybe the studio will rethink things.”

And that is something that I feel needs to be addressed. These adaptations are not erasing the original films from existence; they are simply retelling the same stories in similar and/or slightly different ways. It’s like when Disney declared most of the Star Wars books to be non-canon in preparation for The Force Awakens; those books are still out there for people to read, and there’s nothing to keep people from enjoying them. If the CGI remake of The Lion King ends up being bad, I won’t lose too much sleep over it; I will always have the original to love and appreciate. But on the other hand, I’m still planning on seeing the remake whether it’s bad or not. So whether it’s good or bad, Disney knows that fans like me are good for at least the price of one ticket.

So, why is Disney remaking their animated classics? Whether it’s because of nostalgia or taking a cue from the direct-to-video era of Disney, I feel that many of these remakes are banking on pre-existing properties that people hold near and dear to their hearts, myself included. Even if the CGI remake of The Lion King gets panned or receives lukewarm reviews, I will still see it, because Disney knows how to grab its fans by the heartstrings and never let go. But even when we sit down in the theater to watch a real/CG sunrise as “Circle of Life” heralds the beginning of another remade Disney classic, we have to remember to ask for more creativity from big film studios like Disney, even if that means leaving some animated masterpieces alone.