Will Disney’s live-action remakes ever stop?

I fear for Disney. The recent release of Disney’s latest live-action remake, The Lion King has now marked the ninth animated classic to be remastered with realistic tendencies. From a company that was founded on the very principle of innovation, a company that’s won 84 Academy Awards, including 26 Oscars for Walt Disney himself, the sheer lack of creativity is truly worrying. Disney are veering so far from the path of its original ambition that their future as pioneers of the cinematic landscape is readily fading into dust. And not even pixie-dust at that.

So, why does Disney insist on remaking their classics? It seems like a valid question considering that the critical reception of The Lion King has largely been negative. IndieWire’s David Ehrlich called the updated version a “soulless chimera of a film [that] comes off as little more than a glorified tech demo from a greedy conglomerate.”

From a company that was founded on the very principle of innovation, the sheer lack of creativity is truly worrying

Whilst Cinderella (2015) had enough about it to seem like a new telling, Dumbo (2018) pushed forward the story’s narrative and Aladdin (2019) rightly gave an interesting arc to the underrated Jasmine, The Lion King was, quite literally, a carbon copy of the animated version. These remakes are already faint echoes of their animated predecessors, but if Disney are simply going to re-tell their classic stories word-for-word, it becomes nothing more than a nostalgic trip for a now grown-up audience.

And this strikes at one of the very reasons Disney continues to push these live-action remakes through: they’re nostalgic. Adults, like myself, who grew up on Disney will continue to go and see these remakes because they are a part of our childhood.  Even the immensely generous 4/5 review of The Lion King by The Boar is duped by the effect of Disney nostalgia.

If Disney are simply going to re-tell their classic stories word-for-word, it becomes nothing more than a nostalgic trip for a now grown-up audience

The use of astounding visual effects with the spine of a clearly fantastic technical team makes the recreation of our favourite films something to be commended from a purely nostalgic standpoint. The ability to – almost – bring animation to life shows just how much Disney can pique our curiosity with the same content. But it risks over-taking the limitless boundaries of animation. Why would anyone trade in the energetic charm of the animated classics for staring into the emotionless eyes of a hyper-realistic meerkat and warthog straight out of Planet Earth II?

Disney is cleverly using nostalgia as a commercial tool. They appeal to both the adult and their children. To put it bluntly, these nostalgic movies make money.

While critics often aren’t in favour of the remakes, they were all solid commercial successes. In fact, two of them, Alice In Wonderland (2010) and Beauty and The Beast (2016), grossed over a billion dollars. Jon Favreau’s previous live-action The Jungle Book brought in $966.6 million, and Aladdin has made around $960 million at the time of writing. Even the under-performing Christopher Robin turned in a modest profit, being marketed not as a cookie-cutter adaptation like the others, but something new to the story. With all these nine films together, you’re looking at roughly $5 billion in profit.

The use of astounding visual effects with the spine of a clearly fantastic technical team makes the recreation of our favourite films something to be commended from a purely nostalgic standpoint

Not only do these remakes make a staggering amount of money, but the key factor is that Disney know they will make money. Audiences may say they want something original, but time and time again Disney has put these projects out and they’ve flopped. Notably, John Carter and Tomorrowland were original ideas brought out by Disney that completely failed.

To make something creative is to take a risk. With a wealth of successful classics at their disposal, Disney can simply remake a classic and reap the financial rewards from it. It’s clear that they have realised they can create low-risk, high grossing remakes as opposed to high-risk, new films that may under-perform.

What’s worse is that there is no sign of these remakes stopping. Disney have announced that The Little Mermaid will be remade in the next few years. Mulan (2020) is being remade and won’t feature any of the beloved ‘unrealistic’ characters or songs. Even already existing live-actions films, like Night at the Museum and Home Alone are being rumoured for a remake. That’s not to mention the potential for remakes of remakes in the future. It’s clear that Disney could be going to this fountain long after we’re all dead and gone.

With a wealth of successful classics at their disposal, Disney can simply remake a classic and reap the financial rewards from it

I don’t dislike the live-action remakes. It’s my genuine love for Disney as a company that is the driving motivation for writing this. But it’s the precedent it sets for not just the future of Disney as a company, but the future of Hollywood and film-making that needs to be addressed. When cookie-cutter blockbusters are becoming more and more the norm, it’s difficult to see a once-innovative company follow the same route.

If you look at the Disney company’s broader portfolio, including Pixar, Star Wars, Marvel and Disney Animation Studios, there is still a vast amount of original and creative content that could be produced. But there needs to be a pay-off. As long as Disney continues to push cinematic boundaries with creative, new films then the remakes can be tolerated, even enjoyed.

But what must be clear is that Mickey Mouse is starting to uphold only one end of his bargain. It’s only a matter of time before the CEO remakes himself into a life-like, six-foot anthropomorphic mouse that takes children’s pocket money, instead of bringing that little bit of Disney magic into their childhoods.