Disney in particular has taken on the role of live action remake giant, taking their well-received originals and promoting nostalgia and familiarity through the means of meaningless remakes with arguably limited substance and originality. This downfall for the magical kingdom initially started with Tim Burton’s remake of Alice in Wonderland (2010)...and then Maleficent (2014), Cinderella (2015), Beauty and the Beast (2017), Dumbo (2019), The Lion King (2019); along with these, Disney is set to release a remake of The Little Mermaid, starring Halle Bailey and Peter Pan & Wendy, starring Jude Law. Many have taken to social media to suggest that the sheer amount of remakes that have appeared over the last decade, have created a lack of global respect for Disney as financial gain is now the clear motivation for these visual escapades. The company has capitalised on collective childhoods and nostalgia, providing a guaranteed audience, and furthermore money.
Although Disney is the main culprit for such things, other companies have attempted to capitalise on the trend of live action remakes including Paramount who recently released Ghost in the Shell (2017), a remake of the 1995 anime classic, starring Scarlett Johansson. Despite Disney’s success, this remake didn’t do particularly well, particularly as it faced whitewashing accusations as white actors were put into a Japanese story and the trailers were strange, foreboding to a complicated plot.
Overall, live action remakes seem to have little to no innovation in the way things are created, providing no redeeming qualities as they take the same old story and make it ‘real’; this just isn’t good enough to elevate the films out of the category of ‘forgettable’. This can be found in the recently released stills of both The Little Mermaid and Peter Pan; whilst the character of Flounder felt nightmare-inducing for many (proving that some things just aren’t meant to be brought to life), recent shots of Peter Pan have had many complaining of the dark colour palettes, making for a dark, realistic look at something that is supposed to be imaginary, colourful and fantastical. By bringing such things into the real world, it almost takes the unrealism of it that makes up the characteristics of such stories.
Animation is essentially disrespected as a result, as it allows us to imagine certain characters as something that they wouldn’t be in real life. For example, Shere Khan, the villain of The Jungle Book (1967), moves in such a way that gives him overexaggerated humanistic features, making his villainous tendencies clear; the live action version of him, loses these qualities, presenting us with a tiger that doesn’t have many physical qualities that provide differing personality traits. As with Beauty and the Beast (2017), the charming household items that brought such fun in 1991, lose their lovability as their realism doesn’t lend them any characteristics that allow for feeling or expression, leaving viewers with an uncanny view of items that arguably felt more realistic in animation.
Animations are animated for a reason, and to make them realistic is to take away the work that animators have put into making such worlds exist, dampening the unique quirks and advantages that come with being able to tell unrealistic stories such as those that are being remade. One of those advantages is the degree of exaggerated expression that is almost entirely unavailable in live-action, where photorealism limits possibilities.
It likely doesn’t really matter if they aren’t great films as most films aren’t, and they don’t necessarily take anything away from the originals as they are still very much available for those who prefer. Despite backlash, it can’t be denied that the genre of live action has been wildly successful for Disney, so I half don’t blame them for doing it consistently, as they are almost certified to do well. Despite all this, the live action movement is flawed at its core.
