Live-action Disney Remakes

 I’ve been thinking about Disney’s obsession with remaking all their old classics recently. People have been complaining about how they’re so unnecessary and have no value or merit whatsoever. While I agree with that somewhat in most cases, I do think that there are some redeeming qualities in a few of these movies. 

In my personal opinion, what qualifies a movie for a remake is if it becomes outdated (like the special effects need updating or the writing is somehow offensive or something), but qualities of the story are still redeemable. Or else the story, characters, effects, etc. are fine and it’s a perfectly quality movie, but it somehow slipped under the radar when it was made and/or has been forgotten over time and needs to be brought back into the spotlight.

Therefore, I don’t think a lot of these Disney remakes fall under any of these categories. They’re selecting very famous and well-made movies from their collection only to make a quick buck (or a quick million). Unfortunately, picking an already extremely well-made and well-loved movie to remake comes with severe hardships because there’s not a lot you can do to it to make it better and more loved without either completely ruining it or else just remaking it exactly as it was and therefore making it seem uneccessary.

I’ve created a ranking list of the most well-made and redeemable live-action Disney remakes and you’ll notice that the ones at the top of my list mostly consist of the less beloved classics-- ones that were good, but definitely could use with some modern updates and improvements.

Here we go:

Disqualification:

DUMBO

Only because I haven’t seen it yet. 

I’ve heard mixed reviews. Personally, I was offended by the trailers because the whole point of the original Dumbo was that he was isolated and rejected by everybody because of his big ears. He had no friends and was put on display by the circus as a clown because of how funny he looked. The trailer made it look like a feel-good movie and the circus children were his friends... I was irritated. No! He HAD no friends! Which was why his rise to the top was so satisfying in the end. Pfft! 

Anyways, I haven’t seen it yet to ascertain if my impressions from the trailer were right or wrong yet.

ALICE IN WONDERLAND

I could go on and on about what is wrong with this movie. The plot holes, the stiff acting, the boring plot, the boring characters, the ugly look (when usually I love Tim Burton’s style), the confused message, mixing up the lore of its source material... which, makes it a very bad adaption. I hate it because while the original Alice in Wonderland is all about surreal, dream-like nonsense. This movie turns it into this gritty war movie driven by some ancient prophecy. Why would a world that’s driven by nonsense and madness even have prophecies and political turmoil? Good grief! One last thing that drives me crazy is that the place isn't actually called Wonderland, it’s called “Underland.” Why? -__-

MALEFICENT

People are extremely divided on this one: they either love or hate it. Personally, I hate it. Now, I’m not normally one to turn my nose up at creative fantasy worlds and giving backstories to side characters or villains... if it’s done right. I was actually really excited for this originally because Maleficent is one of my favorite Disney villains. I actually think Angelia Jolie does a great job with the role and she definitely looks the part. Unfortunately, basically everything else is butchered. 

The story falls into practically every single cliche imaginable, it tries to be this big fantasy war epic (like Lord of the Rings or something) but only manages to be generic and boring, most of the acting is stiff, none of the characters have chemistry, and the consequences for everyone’s actions are never that severe (meaning, while they temporarily lose something, it always comes back in the end). This in particular frustrates me because then the stakes aren’t actually that high AND there’s not that much character growth.

I had absolutely no desire to see the sequel after watching this one.

MULAN

The most recent release. I had high hopes for this one knowing how much rode on it (approval from China, Disney’s biggest audience besides the USA, to name one). The trailers looked really good so I was eager to see what they would do with it. I knew it would be different from the original and I knew they were going for a more realistic take on the story. 

Unfortunately, this meant sucking all the fun and soul out of the movie. Literally every single character was serious and somber. I think there was probably two jokes cracked through the entire film (and they weren’t even that funny). This was a major insult as an adaption since the original Mulan is one of the funnier and more light-hearted of the Disney films. It worked especially because you could see the camaraderie of all the soldiers as they trained and worked together. In this film, they were so distant and serious. It was so boring and brought you as a viewer down.

As per usual with recent Disney films, it fell into the trap of making Mulan herself a Mary Sue (which you can read more about HERE). This definitely took away from the film since she didn’t have much character growth or an interesting journey to follow.

I will say though, it’s a little higher on the list because the costumes, the makeup, the sets, the directing, and the action were extremely good. It was, an overall, very well-made, high-budget film just with a sloppy script.

THE LION KING

Of any of the Disney movies that definitely didn’t need a remake, it was this one; probably the most perfect Disney film ever made. Of course though, Disney just HAD to pounce in order to get that $$$. It’s funny to me that it’s called a “live-action” remake because really all it is is just really realistic-looking CGI. 

It is basically just a shot-by-shot remake of the original. There’s a few tweaks here and there, but the story itself is not changed at all. I am curious as to why the backgrounds are so ugly though, Isn’t it supposed to be set in the Savanna? 

So, I couldn’t call it a bad adaption, but it’s just extremely unnecessary. I’d way rather watch the original instead if given the choice. There is great talent in it though (as its main redeeming quality).

BEAUTY AND THE BEAST

When I first saw it, I loved it, but then the longer I went without seeing it and stewing over people’s negative criticisms, I decided I didn’t like it. However, I just watched it again a week or so ago and decided, again, that it is actually quite good. It’s definitely not as good as the original (because that version is one of my favorite Disney movies ever), but I think this is one of the better adaptions. Sure, it’s got its faults as people have pointed out (like the singing, the lack of chemistry, the distracting CGI, Belle’s HORRIBLE ballgown, etc). However, I actually don’t think any of it is THAT bad; noticeable, but not that bad. Actually, my main irritation is one people don’t bring up that often: putting more focus on Belle’s backstory as well as the servants’ emotional turmoil, leaving less time for Belle and the Beast’s growing relationship. 

Oh well. It’s actually a surprisingly enjoyable movie with gorgeous sets and costumes and a stellar cast. 

ALADDIN

I was debating whether I liked this one or Beauty and the Beast better. I actually don’t really know. They could probably swap places in all honesty. I think I just decided to put this one higher up because the two leads had a bit more chemistry and the singing was better. The costumes and sets are on an equal level of beauty with Beauty and the Beast though (just in different ways). 

For all that praise, this movie isn’t without its faults. There’s a lot of awkward moments and random additions. And while it was funny, it was not AS funny and light-hearted as it could have been. A lot of the humor felt forced and stiff. This is unfortunate because the original Aladdin was an all around fun adventure movie. 

Plus, I thought the casting of Jafar was WAY off. While the actor did a pretty good job with the role, I was never fully convinced. Jafar is supposed to be this scheming creeper. Sure, the filmmakers could’ve made his a bit younger than the original if they wanted, but here, they made him way too young and too handsome. It just didn’t work. 

I know there was a lot of apprehension about Will Smith as the Genie, but I thought it worked well. He did a great job of making the role his own without trying to replicate Robin Williams’s performance. Plus, the CGI did not look as bad as everyone thought it would.

THE JUNGLE BOOK

The first recent live-action movie I truly approved of. It put plenty of twists on the original story so that you didn’t know exactly what to expect, but it still remained true to its source material so it was familiar and recognizable. Even though it changed up a lot of things, it still kept the adventure exciting and interesting. A main criticism of one of the changes is that they changed the ending. While this new ending wasn’t exactly bad, it did negate any real character growth. In the original, Mowgli finally decides to leave the jungle, something he’s been afraid of doing the entire time. But in the live-action, he decides to stay; getting what he wanted the whole time, therefore not having to make a tough decision. However, it did still work in this case because they changed up the story a little: in the original, they wanted him to return mainly to be with his own kind, in the new version, they only wanted him to return to escape Sher Kahn. So, after Sher Kahn was killed, there was no immediate danger/reason for him to leave. 

The CGI was good on the animals, the acting was excellent, and even though there were some weird parts, it still held together as a well-made movie.

CINDERELLA

Another one of the earlier ones. While I thought Cinderella herself was made a bit more passive as a character (she doesn’t really fight for what she wants and just kind of smiles her way through life), the overall story was updated for the better. At least they gave her and the prince a little more screen time together and made the prince more than just a plot device. Their love story was a bit more believable than the original which was nice; better than the whole love at first sight. Plus, the two actors actually had chemistry. Cate Blanchett as the evil stepmother was absolutely brilliant. Then, of course, there’s costumes and sets. Don’t even get me started on her ballgown. Easily, the most gorgeous gown I’ve ever seen in my entire life! *O*

As an adaption, I thought it did a decent job of updating the original Disney movie with plenty of changes to the story and adding modern twists while still keeping hints of the original so that it was easily recognizably an adaption from the Disney version and not just a random Cinderella story. 

(Random tidbit, but nothing will ever top Ever After as a Cinderella adaption.)

CHRISTOPHER ROBIN

There were a lot of clunky, slow parts in this movie, but the heart-warming, nostalgic, sweet parts really outshone those making you forget all about them. They completely captured the essence of Pooh’s character-- a naive and innocent, yet wise and caring friend-- which radiated through the entire film. This is important in any adaption of Winnie the Pooh; getting Pooh down. Watching this film, I was definitely reminded of the original stories my dad read to me as a kid, it was exactly as I pictured. THAT is the sign of a good adaption.

There may have been some problems with the story and people might have been weirded out by the look of some of the characters, but what was most important to me was the tone of the movie. I also thought the main character’s journey was extraordinarily well done. Thus far, most of the characters on this list haven’t had a great arc-- changing for the better through their journey. In this case, Christopher Robin clearly goes through a change and comes out better in the end.

101 DALMATIANS

People often forget this one because it was made back in the 90s before the rush of Disney live-action remakes recently. It could be partially my nostalgia talking, but I actually REALLY like this one. It does an amazing job of updating the story and putting a new spin on things while still holding true to the original plot. I also thought it was very risky and yet smart to not have any of the animals talk. The director did a very good job of conveying the supposed thoughts and emotions of the dogs through camera work. It doesn't seem like they're dogs staring at a person behind a camera. It's like they're actually acting.

Glenn Close does a great job as Cruella deVille. She’s so over-the-top and insane. I love it. Plus, her clothes and makeup are amazing! 

LADY AND THE TRAMP

A lot of people kind of overlook or forget about the original film, but it’s actually quite sweet and fun... which qualifies it for an update. This live-action version does not disappoint. It’s pretty close to the original as far as story goes, but it gives both the leads a little more personality and backstory (excuse me while I go cry about the Tramp’s backstory one more time). It excludes any outdated um... representations. The CGI for the talking animals doesn’t look hokey and the voice work is stellar. And, of course, as always, the sets and costumes are stunning!

My one main criticism would be that some of the human acting is a little stiff or forced. They’re not very convincing in the roles they’re in and definitely not as dog owners/handlers. You just know all the money went into hiring big actors for the voices and into the sets/costumes... the rest went into getting minor actors for the human roles. Ha! Oh well. At least the movie is not really about them.

It is an extremely charming and entertaining movie with great characters, stunning visuals, and cute puppies. (Not to mention that every single dog in this film came from a shelter.)

Strong Female Characters

There’s been a problem writers have had since basically the very beginning: writing a strong female character. For some reason, people really struggle with writing a believable female. No matter what the era has been, no matter what standards are set up for the author, no matter what gender the author is... female characters are hard to write. Perhaps it’s because girls are so much more complex and difficult to capture than males? Maybe because they’re so much more varied? It’s hard to say. Honestly, I think it’s something deeper than any of the reasons I just listed and it’s a real mystery.

Of course, in my opinion, one of the biggest problems is that through the years, the idea of what a woman is and “should be” has changed a lot. Authors have written the “ideal woman” of their time, they’ve written rebellious women, they’ve written “perfect” women, etc. One must take into consideration societal pressures put on the writer. 

I was recently thinking about this after I saw the new live action Mulan. There were several things off about the film, but one thing that really stood out to me was how they portrayed Mulan herself. You could definitely see today’s societal values reflected in how she was written... and it made her extremely uninteresting which in turn ruined the movie. 

The key to a good story is to have a compelling character with real goals and flaws. In general, by the end of the story, they will either overcome their flaws and achieve their goals or they will fail and lose everything because they couldn’t overcome their flaws (obviously there’s other scenarios, but these are the most common: comedy and tragedy, if you will). This applies to either male or female.

Most recently, I’ve seen this formula failing especially with female characters because the writers refuse to give them  any significant if even any flaws. Mulan is an example of this. From the beginning, she just was already a gifted warrior and didn’t really have to work up to anything for the final climax. She wasn’t timid or awkward, she fit in with all the men easily despite never interacting with any before. The movie tried to make this big moment of her being the first one to the top of the mountain (a big training exercise they’d been working on throughout the film). However, it didn’t feel as big as it should have because she didn’t make it through hard work-- trying and failing, then getting better the more she did it-- she just suddenly got there because of her great abilities she was born with. Pfft! 

It’s extremely unrealistic and uninteresting to make your characters like this because people want to relate to the characters. As much as we don’t like to admit it, everyone fails and everyone has flaws. The key to a strong character isn’t to make them incredibly awesome from the beginning, it’s to give them some sort of a flaw (the bigger/harder, the better) and show them improving and overcoming it. THAT is the meaning
of strength. It’s easy if you’re just born with natural gifts and talents, you can basically just coast through life. However, it’s unrealistic. More likely, you have something wrong and it’s easy to just ignore it or stand still. We might not realize it, but the reason we enjoy famous stories like Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Harry Potter, etc. is because they all follow this formula: creating compelling characters with real flaws and then overcoming them.

So now we come back to my original point: strong female characters. There is a lot of pressure nowadays to create strong female role models. Now especially the movie business is falling into the trap of “Mary Sues”-- which is creating the ideal perfect character with no flaws whatsoever. I already talked about the problem with Mulan. Rey from Star Wars is another one that comes to mind. Just because they have goals or minor, temporary difficulties doesn’t excuse them. 

Of course, I have no influence on these big conglomerate businesses who are forced to listen to the public and make these dumb choices for fear of losing money. 

But, just to wrap up, I wanted to take a look at some strong female characters that came to mind and why...

ELIZABETH BENNET from Pride and Prejudice

I know. Sort of a cliche pick, but it’s true. Elizabeth is such a great character! Despite taking place in the 1800s, people still acted the same as they do now: stuck up, petty, and fake. However, Elizabeth’s time was even more rigid than now with all sorts of societal expectations and norms and Elizabeth is great because while she respects most of the rules of normal society, she questions some of the ridiculous stuff like the division of the rich from the poor, for example. She also doesn’t really care what people think of her and is sort of cheeky about it when stuck up people try to make her feel dumb. 

Her fatal flaw, obviously since it’s in the title, is her prejudice. She overcomes this in the end by realizing she is not as good a judge of character as she originally thought and eventually sees Mr. Darcy in a different light. 

ELLE WOODS from Legally Blonde

I love Elle Woods because she is true to herself through the whole film. She fights everyone’s vision of her-- a dumb blonde bimbo-- and proves she has what it takes to be a great lawyer. However, she still uses what she has to be useful in court (like hair care and fashion); things a typical lawyer wouldn’t focus on. I also like that Elle is written 100% as a girly-girl (even an extreme girly-girl), something that is often frowned upon today. But she is still admired for her fighting spirit and great intelligence. 

Her great flaw is being blinded by her love for her ex-boyfriend, so much so that she follows him to Harvard even though he’s a total a douchebag and obviously will never take her back. In the end, she overcomes this by realizing she can move past him and make something more of her life than just chasing a boy.

HERMINONE GRANGER from the Harry Potter books

I’m talking about the book version and not the movies. Though the movies are fine, they kind of turn her into this amazing goddess who can do no wrong (again, falling into that trap of trying too hard to make this perfect role model). In the books, she’s the most common, nerdy, even irritating girl. She’s one of the most realistic female characters written recently, I think. She’s awesome not because she’s some boss fighter or anything (though she is that), she has her one most standout strength which is being incredibly studious and smart, but then she has other strengths and weaknesses like any other human. 

She has several flaws, but one of her biggest ones is being bossy. Since she’s not the main character, her overcoming this doesn’t have a huge impact on the overall story, but she does learn to relax more the older and more mature she gets.

KATARA from Avatar: the Last Airbender

I’d say Katara is the most boss on this list since she is an actual warrior/fighter. Some of her fights shows that she is quick to think on her feet (in particular, I think of her final battle with Azula. I never would have thought of that). She also taught herself how to waterbend before ever finding a proper master. After learning properly, she reaches master-level bending quickly; the show isn’t exactly clear on how long it was, but we can assume it was only a couple days, probably no longer than a week. Of course, she is much more than her waterbending. She is brave and kind hearted as well as motherly. After her mother died, she basically raised her older brother herself. In today’s world, motherhood is looked on as a weak job for women so it’s nice to see a good character in a position as a mother (even if she isn’t actually a mother). 

Like Hermione, she has several flaws. However, her fatal flaw, I’d say, is letting her emotions cloud her judgement. I think by the end of the show, she has more control over this-- being more level-headed and not getting so upset all the time. However, I wouldn't say she  completely mastered it because she is still very emotional and passionate. Rather, I think she turned this flaw into a strength since it's just part of who she is.

HONORABLE MENTIONS:

PRINCESS LEIA from the Star Wars franchise 

LESLIE KNOPE from Parks and Recreation

TOPH from Avatar: The Last Airbender