'The Lion King' is projected to be a roaring success. But are these Disney Remakes ever necessary?

The internet is abuzz with discussion of the newly released The Lion King “live action” remake. Essentially, it is just upgraded animation, with the characters being entirely CGI, but I digress. There has also been a lot of discussion of the casting of Halle Bailey as Ariel in the upcoming Little Mermaid, and of the release of the trailer for the seemingly non-musical remake of Mulan. Love them or loathe them, these Disney remakes aren’t going anyway anytime soon. The Lion King is the third one to be released this year alone, following Tim Burton’s Dumbo in March and Guy Ritchie’s Aladdin in May. The sequel to Maleficent, the live action retelling of Sleeping Beauty, will be released in October and the Lady and the Tramp is coming in November. There are 10 more live-action remakes, sequels and retellings in various stages of development. So I thought now is a good time to talk about whether these remakes are good, necessary or downright lazy filmmaking.

While I vaguely remember 101 Dalmatians being remade into live action form sometime in my early childhood, this wave of live action remakes really began with Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland in 2010. The critical and audience reception was mixed, but it was a huge commercial success, bringing in over $1billion at the box office. However, this was not a remake, but a sequel, and one that was noticeably different in tone from the original animation. 2014’s Maleficent is another film often counted among Disney’s remakes, but it is told from the perspective of the original film’s villain, and ultimately wildly different changes to the narrative are made. Both films feel somewhat like alternate reality versions of their cartoon predecessors.

From Kenneth’s Brannagh’s Cinderella onwards, Disney’s classics given the live action treatment have stayed fairly true to the original narrative. 1950’s Cinderella, while rightfully iconic, was filled with underdeveloped characters and relationships. 2015’s Cinderella gives the story a necessary update. Cinderella’s reasons for staying in an abusive home are developed beyond her merely being ‘weak’; mother urges her on her deathbed to ‘Have courage and be kind’. Cinderella knows that the right thing to do is to oversee the house and land that was once for fathers. However, in trying to do the right thing and be kind, she loses sight of what is best for herself. It is ultimately her kindness that prompts the fairy godmother to deem her worthy of her assistance, but in the end, she finds her courage. Her relationship with Richard Madden’s Prince Charming (called ‘Kit’ in this version) is expanded beyond a one-time meeting. I also appreciated that the ugly stepsisters were not cast to be physically unattractive, and instead it is made clear that what makes them ugly is their spoiled attitude and lack of compassion. Disney has historically endorsed the idea that a hero/heroine’s beauty and villains lack thereof is indicative of how good or bad they are, and I appreciate the attempt to rectify that. 2016’s The Jungle Book was somewhat unnecessary, but changes made to the story and to the characters, combined with the stunning and innovative CGI techniques made it genuinely enjoyable. However, for me, an avid Disney lover, the fatigue began with 2017’s Beauty and the Beast.

Beauty and the Beast can trace its roots at least back to the Ancient Roman tale of Cupid and Psyche (although some have claimed the earliest variants of the story come 2000 years prior to that), and there are countless different versions on film. Disney tried to convince us that this version was worth watching as it was more “feminist”. They even cast outspoken feminist Emma Watson in the lead role to convince us that this was the case, despite the fact it would’ve seemed more fitting to cast a trained musical theatre actress. This version of Belle does invent a washing machine, and she begins to plan an escape which she never attempts to execute. If you see that as more feminist, then fine. Perhaps you saw that split second ‘exclusively gay moment’ as monumental too. But all in all, while the cinematography was undoubtedly stunning, the attempts to add complexity to the characters and depth to their backstories ultimately felt like filler. It seems obvious that remaking a classic that was already near-perfect was just an easy way of making $1.3 billion.

I freely admit that I am not qualified to comment too much on Dumbo and Aladdin since I haven’t seen them. I never liked Dumbo growing up as I found it too upsetting. Given the fact I was a sensitive child that once cried over the death of my sock, I wouldn’t take this alone as a legitimate reason not to see it. However, the lack of word-of-mouth and the mixed-to-negative reviews did not encourage me to spend my money on a cinema trip.

I had more legitimate reasons for not seeing Aladdin. My first issue I considered taking with the film was the fact that the casting directors seemed to treat Middle Eastern and South Asian actors as interchangeable. Given that the story takes place in a fictional country in the Arabian Peninsula, it would make sense that the cast be entirely Middle Eastern. However, Aladdin has always represented a melting pot of cultures. The Book of One Thousand and One Nights (also known as The Arabian Nights) is a collection of Middle Eastern folk tales. However, Aladdin’s Wonderful Lamp actually takes place in China, and was added by Antoine Golland, a Frenchman. It could be argued that the casting was not a huge issue as South Asian and Middle Eastern/West Asian people are both under-represented. That said, the reason it gave me pause was because I have personally witnessed people who are not from either of those places treat them and their people as interchangeable. It was concerning that the creators of the film could possibly have that same ignorance, especially given the director, casting director, writers and producers were all white, with the exception of one East Asian producer. Nobody heavily involved in the film or casting process was from the Middle East, which I think is strange considering the controversy surrounding the original film for “simultaneously glamorizing and barbarizing” it, as one reviewer said.

How you feel about this, whether you believe it to be a huge issue or a non-issue, is up to you. The biggest issue for me was the inclusion of the Genie. And no, this is not a simple matter of how the Genie is Robin Williams’s character and nobody could do it better. It is because the promotion of Aladdin prompted a feud between Williams and Disney. This was because Williams agreed to voice the role for only $75,000 out of a desire to be involved in a traditionally animated film that he could share with his children. His only request was that Disney did not make the Genie, a character largely shaped by Williams’s own improvisation, into a cash grab by making him into an excessive number of toys and merchandise and having him be prominent in the marketing campaign. Disney did not honour this wish. The Genie was made into toys that were sold everywhere (including as part of a Burger King deal), printed him on every piece of merchandise possible, and had him take up a large portion of the poster. Upon seeing the posters, Williams complained to the then-Disney CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg, who apologised and removed the posters from the LA Area, deliberately keeping the posters up in all of the other areas that Williams would not be likely to see them. Disney sent Williams a $5 million Picasso original to appease him, but this did not work. While he agreed to work with Disney again for the second sequel Aladdin & The King of Thieves (after Katzenberg’s resignation from the company), he foiled Disney’s attempt to use his voice for a planned animated sequel by having it written in his will that Disney were not to use his name, taped performances or voice recordings for 25 years after his death. Granted, in recasting the Genie, they were not ignoring his wishes. It just seems that the character was one that Williams had bitter memories surrounding and went out of his way to ensure would not be represented again. Will Smith’s version is a different version, and I do not blame him for taking the role. I just think the better option for Disney would be to exclude it all together.

Also, the CGI looked weird.

This, to me, just solidified my opinion on all of these remakes as lazy cash-grabs rather than genuine passion projects, much like the mediocre direct-to-video sequels Disney released throughout the nineties and noughties. Only these have a much bigger budget and many more people willing to spend money on watching them. That said, I would be open to going to see one of these films if I have reason to believe it would be a unique viewing experience. Example: I had no interest in seeing Mulan, which was my favourite Disney film growing up. However, the trailer almost made me emotional. Seeing a strong, powerful, Asian woman on screen, in a movie that seems mindful and respectful of the culture in which it is based, was so inspiring to me. Some have complained about the changes being made, but it seems to me those making the film are inspired by the original legend of Hua Mulan as well as, or perhaps more so than, the 1997 animation. I think that this viewing experience will be different from (and less light-hearted than) the Disney film on which it will be based.

As for the Little Mermaid, I have no interest in seeing that either. Presently. We’ll see when the trailer comes out. It was never my favourite Disney movie and unless it takes on the more existential themes of Andersen’s original fairy tale, I don’t see how it could be made in a way that more appeals to me. And that’s fine, not everything has to appeal to me – some people love the 1989 version, so I suppose they’re excited to see it. Oh, except they’re not. Because… racism. And that’s what it is. If you are upset that a young black woman has been cast as Ariel, you are more prejudiced than you would like to admit. Brown-eyed Brit Lily James was cast as the blue-eyed American Cinderella. Brown-eyed, straight haired Emma Watson was cast as hazel-eyed wavy-haired Belle. There was no backlash in either case, yet suddenly when it’s skin colour being changed instead of eye colour, people spread negativity. Some have even tried to argue that the movie was based on a Danish fairy tale, and the population of Denmark is mostly white, so Ariel should be white. This is such a poorly thought out argument I genuinely feel sympathetic towards whoever thought this was an intelligent input. 1) there are zero references to Danish culture in the original film 2) Ariel is not from Denmark, or any country, she lives in an unnamed ocean and 3) I am quite certain there is at least one black person in the world that is from Denmark. This argument is ineffective on so many levels. It is just odd that I never saw these racist attitudes being applied to the reggae-singing Jamaican crab sidekick. So that’s all I have to say on that.

If you are curious about other films that are to be released, we have the not-yet-titled sequel to The Jungle Book, as well as an origin story of Cruella De Ville, titled Cruella. We will also see the release Lilo and Stitch, Pinocchio, Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, none of which I find the least bit interesting. I am mildly interested in Rose Red, a Snow-White spin-off told from the perspective of Snow White’s sister. While a fairy tale character in literature, I have yet to see Rose Red portrayed on film. It will be hard to tie her in to Disney cannon, but I suspect they will do what they did in Maleficent and abandon cannon completely. If this is the case, I wonder if this will tie into Snow White’s live action remake.

I am also interested in the Sword and the Stone, which is an underrated Disney film with a unique narrative structure that I think will be difficult to adapt for a more adult audience. This gives me hope that Disney may opt too do what they seem to be doing with Mulan and taking inspiration from the original legend. This could give us the King Arthur movie that we really deserve following last year’s underwhelming attempt by Guy Richie and 2010’s decent-but-boring attempt by Ridley Scott. I am also very interested in The Hunchback of Notre Dame, which is my current favourite animated Disney film. However, while the themes in the film were noticeably dark for an animated family film, compared to the Victor Hugo novel that it was based on it is positively saccharine. Given that the original film is so epically scored and beautifully animated, the only way It could be deemed necessary is if it were adapted to be closer to the tone and narrative of the original story. However, it would be very different to do that and still have it be suitable for young children. So, in all honestly, Disney can keep this remake too.