Discuss Disney’s decision to remake several of their classic films into live-action such as Beauty and the Beast, Mulan, Dumbo, Alice Through the Looking Glass, an Aladdin prelude, The Jungle Book, Pinocchio, and Tinker Bell. Why do audiences find live-action version of stories they’ve already been told so appealing? Will the live-action prequels or sequels be considered canon with the animated films? Is this a good strategy to make a lot of money? Maybe touch on the previous live-action retellings such as Maleficent, Cinderella, and Alice in Wonderland and how they led Disney to making so many more.
The only problem with Disney constantly remaking there animated films into live action is that some other films seem a tad unnecessary. On one hand, The Idea of a live action Mulan is very interesting because of how diverse the cast would be with it taking place in China. On the other hand, do we really need a Night on Bald Mountain movie, Because the original version from Fantasia is fine the way it is. Disney should feel obligated to remake there older films only if they feel it needs improvement. – Aaron Hatch7 years ago
Another unfortunate trend with Disney's live-action remakes is how they too often tend to change the story or characters from their animated films. Particularly in the case of Maleficent, the title character was rewritten to be a positive force in Princess Aurora's life even though Aurora was supposed to have been cursed by Maleficent in Sleeping Beauty. As a result, many of Sleeping Beauty's other characters no longer resembled themselves as they once were; King Stefan got made the villain to replace Maleficent, Prince Philip was relegated to a bit part, the three good fairies became incompetent twits, etc. So logically, such changes could lessen the live-action films' claim of being connected to Disney's animated films and cause fans to lose support since fans of the originals would be the most expected draw for an audience to watch any live-action remake. The fans would mistakenly be expecting a straightforward transition from animation to live-action of their favorite Disney film and end up feeling disinclined to see another which might hurt Disney's live-action films' financial success in the long run. – dsoumilas7 years ago
Also discussing the limits live-action would place on a story originally told through the more liberating medium of animation would enrich your analysis. – Luthien7 years ago
On a more positive note these live action remakes are introducing these stories to a newer generation. Younger folks might prefer to watch a newer films rather than the older 2D animated film. – Cagney7 years ago
It would be interesting to review some of these films whteher they are a Disney film or not. Take Beauty and the Beast for example, there was a live action French film La Belle et la Bete made in 1946 with some homosexual themes running through it (the director and actor who played the beast were having an affair at the time); then there was the television series which I believe George R.R. Martin worked on in the 80s before the animated version in 91 and now we have another live action film. This would suggest that these sorts of stories are popular no matter what the time period is and Disney obviously see this and use it to their advantage. – Jamie White7 years ago
Remaking 2D animations into live-action films can be positive for a couple of reasons. One reason could be, the person loves the Disney animation so much that seeing it come to life just makes the story even better. For example, the live-action film "Cinderella." I always imagined how a pumpkin carriage would look like in real life, so watching the movie and seeing the carriage in all its glory was pretty spectacular. Another reason would be feeling like a kid again when you are an adult. For example, if you have children and they want to go see the live-action Disney film; it is great for the parent because they get to re-live their childhood and can see their favourite story again in a new way. Therefore, live-action remakes can be a good idea. – alyssa7177 years ago
The problem with this idea is the answer is clearly yes. If you are asking about the studio, they only care about the money. New ideas, art, creativity, originality are not their concern. It is all about money and these films are making that money feeding on a generation's nostalgia and still being accessible to a younger audience. Then if we broaden the article on whether it is a good idea or not in general, both sides have been exhausted and I feel wouldn't be saying anything necessarily new. – Erin Derwin7 years ago