you're reading...
FILM ANALYSIS, My Takes on... Popular Film & Television Franchises

My Take on Live-Action Reboots of Animated Disney Titles

Live-action reboots of famous animated titles are not a revolutionary idea in the Hollywood studio system, but mainstream audiences have recognized a significant increase in their production, which coincided with the rise of intellectual property (IP) remakes, reboots, and re-adaptations more generally. I have, in essence, given up complaining about Tinsel Town’s lack of artistic originality and insufferable attachment to established franchises, their pandering to recognizable brands; my exasperation with modern audiences’ refusal to explore new artists and major studios’ aversion to taking risks on films of even moderate ($20-50 million) budgets burned out some time ago, so I’ve relegated myself to being thankful for what few original IPs do earn theatrical releases (e.g. Overlord [2018]) and the few remakes/reboots/re-imaginings that do have novel artistic merit.

This realistic, jaded outlook does not extend to my acceptance of the rosy-eyed nostalgia my generational cohorts have for the recent wave of Walt Disney’s live-action or 3-D animated remakes of their famous — some would say, classictraditionally animated titles. Many of these current and future projects are based on titles from the “Disney Renaissance Era,” though some (e.g. Cinderella [1950], The Jungle Book [1967]) are much older. Having grown up with the bulk of the properties now being resold to my grown peers and I, yet hyper aware of the biases that turn audiences for or against films, often sight unseen, I feel I am well qualified to comment on Disney’s animation-remake binge. The phenomenon is notable more for how it continues existing Hollywood trends and reaffirms studio executive mindsets than for how it challenges them. Audiences, for their part, seem uninterested in testing uncharted waters barring an extreme exception once in a while (e.g. Bong Joon-ho’s Parasite [2019], Tim Miller’s Deadpool [2016], weird titles that somehow find life on streaming platforms like Netflix, etc.), so this predictable feedback loop of Hollywood feeding viewers’ what they expect is the most straightforward explanation for Disney’s ongoing “revitalization” of decades’ old cartoons.

As long as producers don’t mess with those catchy songs, most people will go along for the ride even if it costs them $15 per ticket for a movie they’ve already seen. I haven’t watched every single live-action or 3-D animated remake by the Mouse House, but I’ve seen enough to deduce what works and what doesn’t — from a marketing perspective, that is. If it ain’t broke (… i.e. if it makes enough money with minimal to no risk or creative effort), then don’t fix it. This is Hollywood we’re talking about, here, not the fucking Cannes Film Festival!

In any case, here are a few of my thoughts on this most recent “the-more-things-change-the-more-they-stay-the-same” trend by the most “family friendly” of contemporary Hollywood studios:

Table 1: Summary of theatrical live-action or 3-D animated remakes of traditionally (2-D) animated Disney films in the 2010s-2020s

Film Remake Original Animated Film Remake Director Remake Budget Remake Gross
Alice in Wonderland (2010) Alice in Wonderland (1951) Tim Burton $150-200 million $1.025 billion
Maleficent (2014) Sleeping Beauty (1959) Robert Stromberg $180-263 million $758.5 million
Cinderella (2015) Cinderella (1950) Kenneth Branagh $95-100 million $542.4 million
The Jungle Book (2016) The Jungle Book (1967) Jon Favreau $177 million $966.6 million
Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016) Alice in Wonderland (1951) James Bobin $170 million $299.5 million
Beauty & the Beast (2017) Beauty & the Beast (1991) Bill Condon $160-255 million $1.264 billion
Christopher Robin (2018) Winnie the Pooh (1977-2011) Marc Forster $75 million $197.7 million
Dumbo (2019) Dumbo (1941) Tim Burton $170 million $353.3 million
Aladdin (2019) Aladdin (1992) Guy Ritchie $183 million $1.051 billion
The Lion King (2019) The Lion King (1994) Jon Favreau $250-260 million $1.7 billion
Maleficent: Mistress of Evil (2019) Sleeping Beauty (1959) Joachim Ronning $185 million $491.7 million
Mulan (2020) Mulan (1998) Niki Caro $200 million $70 million (also released on Disney+)
Cruella (2021) One Hundred & One Dalmatians (1961) Craig Gillespie $150 million $184 million (also released on Disney+)
The Little Mermaid (TBA) The Little Mermaid (1989) Rob Marshall TBD TBD
Snow White & the Seven Dwarfs (TBA) Snow White & the Seven Dwarfs (1937) Marc Webb TBD TBD
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (TBA) The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) TBA TBD TBD

1.) Remakes of Disney Renaissance Era films from the 1980s-1990s will continue to gross the most money due to the adult nostalgia and young families of newly established Millennial moviegoers: As stated above, many of the hand-drawn films Disney has already reshot or will reshoot in live action or contemporary digital animation were released in the late 1980s-1990s during the period now recognized as the Disney Renaissance. Famous titles of that era, which have been remade in the 2010s or will be remade throughout the 2020s include Aladdin (1992, remade in 2019 by Guy Ritchie), The Lion King (1994, remade in 2019 by Jon Favreau), Mulan (1998, to be released Q1 2020 by Niki Caro), The Little Mermaid (1989, to be released circa 2021), as well as potential sequels to their contemporary remakes.

It’s worth noting that Disney did not launch its current wave of live-action remakes with these Renaissance era films; Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland (2010) is credited with the box office momentum that lead to the studio revisiting its more recent titles, the latter of which are almost certainly more recognizable or beloved by contemporary audiences. 3/4 of the highest grossing Disney animated remakes since then have all been based on Renaissance era films (Table 1), and those three (Beauty & the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King) have all grossed over $1 billion. I expect future remakes of Disney Renaissance movies to dominate box office profits relative to Disney remakes of animated films from other eras, if for no other reason than Millennials (those born from ~1981-1996) who grew up on Renaissance titles are now young adults, many with new children ripe for Disney’s filmmaking library.

2.) Musical numbers, costumes, and characters designed for traditional (2-D) animation do not translate well to live-action or photorealistic 3-D Animation: My “problem” with these films’ success is not so much cynical disinterest in yet more remakes, but my confusion at their clumsy, inexplicable translation of stories, dance-sequences, costumes and overall artistic styles designed for hand-drawn or 2-D animation to live-action or photorealistic computer generated imagery (CGI). Montage sequences and dazzling, surrealist, dare I say psychedelic visuals created for traditional animation do not translate well to live-action, as exemplified by the stilted musical numbers, laughable costumes, and forgettable CGI of Aladdin (2019) and Beauty & the Beast (2017); by the same token, the emotional, dynamic facial expressions of decidedly non-realistic characters from 1994’s Lion King are traded for the blank stares and awkward head tilts of the 2019 film’s Planet Earth (2006)-style documentary visuals. You can’t adapt a story tailored for one specific art style to another without losing something in translation, and therefore arguments that these live-action remakes “lack heart” are not without merit.

3.) Older, more generic properties seem more “adaptable” to contemporary filmmaking trends: In contrast to the financially successful yet emotionally vapid remakes of more recent Disney films, contemporary remakes of older titles like Cinderella (2015) or The Jungle Book (2016) work better as standalone features. The reasons for this are numerous, but the biggest explanation may be that filmmakers are allowed greater freedom to direct true adaptations of these older films, whose fans may be less sensitive to modern re-imaginings or are, you know, dead. Stories like Cinderella (AD 510?) or The Jungle Book (1894) have become so ingrained in popular culture and storytelling methodology that they feel a part of the public domain. 

4.) People gravitate to these live-action reboots for the same reasons certain other remade properties are successful — they market nostalgia well: Note how I didn’t argue these films pay homage to wistful memories of past titles by effective, cinematic means; none of the aforementioned films are exceptional, and most of them are quite bad. Rather, it’s apparent to anyone who tracks box office grosses over time that Disney is, top to bottom, a master at parasitizing itself and marketing that in-house plagiarism to audiences who were raised on properties like Aladdin, The Lion King, Mulan, etc. As Millennial households mature and acquire greater disposable income, including income to spend on young children of their own, Disney appears well situated to take advantage of the entertainment industry’s transition from milking nostalgia for the 1980s to milking nostalgia for the 1990s.

About The Celtic Predator

I love movies, music, video games, and big, scary creatures.


9 thoughts on “My Take on Live-Action Reboots of Animated Disney Titles

  1. That was an interesting article of sorts. I’m getting tired of the rampant remakes that have been going on for years now. I get that it’s a safe bet for the film studios, but I just think of it as lazy and not trying to make any original screenplays.

    Funny you talk about “self-plagiarism” since The Lion King is a work of plagiarism with the 60s anime Kimba the White Lion. Not only that, but they even use a plagiarized song “The Lion Sleeps Tonight” which ripped off South African Solomon Linda’s song “Mbube”. Don’t believe me, then watch the Netflix documentary The Lion’s Share which covers that case. It’s just pure hubris on Disney’s part by remaking that movie.

    Posted by ospreyshire | February 20, 2020, 12:55 pm
    • TLK’s “liberal borrowing” from Kimba and sub-Saharan African mythology is well known and should be considered common knowledge at this point. I wouldn’t even put that in the same level as Sergio Leone’s Fistful of Dollars vs. Kurosawa’s Yojimbo (another big legal fiasco), both of which are considered great films in their own right.

      My larger point with the essay was (1) Disney’s live-action remakes are just a bigger part of Hollywood’s reboot/nostalgia craze, and (2) artistic styles and aesthetics made for one form (e.g. traditional animation) of filmmaking don’t necessarily translate well to other forms (e.g. CGI or live-action).

      Posted by The Celtic Predator | February 20, 2020, 2:45 pm
      • Possibly, but I still encounter people that don’t know about the Kimba/TLK issue or Disney’s cultural appropriation of African nations. I am aware of Fistful of Dollars and Yojimbo since I reviewed the latter on one of my blogs. I’m glad Kurosawa sued Leone. It’s such a double standard because if TLK came out BEFORE Kimba, then everyone would riot. Don’t even get me started with the racist crap or protagonist centered morality of Disney’s movie.

        That’s fine and I certainly see those facets of Hollywood. It’s no wonder why I avoid several mainstream movies in general. I do agree that not all works of animation can work in a CGI or live-action context though.

        Posted by ospreyshire | February 20, 2020, 2:53 pm
      • I don’t know how familiar you are with Red Letter Media, but if not, I think you’d enjoy their running commentary on Disney’s corporate behavior. They’re not the most left-wing or PC of commentators, but they’ve discussed at length the company’s laughable attempts to appear progressive (e.g. The Rise of Skywalker’s background lesbian kiss that was conveniently removed in foreign markets like Singapore and China, etc.). I think Mike Stoklasa called them “passive progressive” given how fraudulent their pandering is.

        They’ve also criticized Disney’s absurd, borderline predatory requirements for theatres showing their films, etc. If Disney writ large irritates you, check out RLM’s work.

        Posted by The Celtic Predator | February 20, 2020, 5:12 pm
      • I have heard of RLM. I saw their famous Star Wars Episode 1 review a long time ago which was longer than the movie itself. Haha! I wasn’t aware they went that deep into calling out Disney. Yeah, they deserve to be clowned for their tokenism when it comes to POC or LGBT characters. I can’t stand it when companies do lip service for these things (especially with nonwhite character portrayals and how selective they can be with positive representation).

        Gotcha. Yeah, I’ve heard stories about that and after they bought Fox, they have even more power in the silver screen.

        Posted by ospreyshire | February 20, 2020, 11:07 pm


  1. Pingback: ‘The Gentlemen’ (2019): The Return of the English Crime Comedy | Express Elevator to Hell - May 27, 2020

  2. Pingback: ‘The Dark Crystal’ (1982, 2019): A Masterwork of Puppetry and Fantasy | Express Elevator to Hell - January 12, 2021

  3. Pingback: The Possible Future(s) of Movie Theatres | Express Elevator to Hell - July 27, 2021

  4. Pingback: ‘Troll’ (2022): All Your Favorite Hollywood Monster-Movie Cliches, but Norwegian | Express Elevator to Hell - December 7, 2022

Am I spot on? Am I full of it? Let me know!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: