An Unnecessarily In-depth Analysis of Disney Live Action Remakes

In an entertainment landscape churning out reboots and sequels left and right, one needs to look no further than a Snow White (2023) Reddit thread to see that the Disney live-action remake fatigue is real for many moviegoers. 

In the past decade, the Walt Disney Company has focused more and more of its attention and money on high-budget updates of some of its most classic films, releasing multiple remakes a year at lightning speed. 

While many of these remakes are clear cash grabs with little to offer in terms of expanding or enhancing the original story, the genre isn’t entirely deplorable. Remaking films from fifty-plus years ago can help update the source material for a modern audience so that new generations can experience those stories in a way that aligns with the values of our time, even to the effect that the new versions are in some ways better than the original. However, certain remakes certainly find more success at doing so than others. 

In my Disneyphile opinion, the best remakes are those that don’t try to exactly recreate the original. Instead, they take the story in a new or expanded direction. By improving flaws from the original, there is a reason for the films to exist beyond merely being a nostalgia trip that regurgitates the animated story frame by frame. 

Cinderella excels, in my view, as the crown jewel of live-action remakes because it feels divorceable from its animated counterpart whilst still honoring and retaining its source material’s magic. The bulk of the story is the same, but the costumes and set designs set it apart from its animated forebear. It doesn’t just replicate the original, because it recognizes what many other live actions fail to realize: some things work better in animated mediums and don’t translate well to live action. Therefore, the costumes were adjusted accordingly to have a more realistic but nonetheless fantastical flair (can we get a little commotion for Lady Tremaine’s outfits). Thought and attention were put into these details instead of simply recreating the designs from the animated version. 

This is why I feel that so many people hated Belle’s iconic yellow dress in the live-action of Beauty and the Beast. The people behind the movie were clearly drawing inspiration from the original in terms of both the color and the design. However, because they couldn’t commit to going in a totally new creative direction or exactly replicating the original, the result was rather lackluster. Furthermore, a lot of the dress actually ended up being CGI, affirming the film’s misunderstanding of why animation is a separate medium from live action. Animation can disobey the laws of physics and gravity in the way that the dress looks and appears. Naturally, when one tries to recreate it in real life, it is pretty near impossible to make the same design and have it behave the same way. This is why it is so important for remakers to do what Cinderella did and come up with new designs and costumes.

Most importantly, however, are the changes Cinderella made to the plot, which make the existence of a remake feel justifiable. In Cinderella’s case, this mainly takes shape by having Ella and Kit meet before the ball and giving them more on-screen interaction with one another so that it is more plausible that they fall in love so quickly. I believe the animated film also makes Ella’s character and her journey to standing up against her stepfamily more three-dimensional. It irons away some of the confusing elements of the original by having Ella’s constant kindness— even in the face of the horrible abuse she endures—stem back to her mother telling her to always “have courage and be kind.” Instead of audiences being confused as to why Ella never tries to leave this awful situation, the live action makes it easier to see how that promise she made to her mother keeps Ella believing that there is good in everyone. Ultimately, her character development revolves around realizing that she can be kind without also compromising her self-respect and right to personal happiness, hence why she finally leaves her stepfamily. This also gives more of a sense that Ella saves herself, rather than saved by a marriage offer from the prince. 

The choices to remove the music and the talking animals also help because, once again, the movie adjusted the story for a live-action format by omitting some of the more cartoonish elements, which gives the movie a more even tone. Since Cinderella is such a classic story, the movie almost doesn’t even feel like it is based on the Disney original but is merely another iteration of the Grimm fairytale. Live actions therefore succeed when they can stand on their own in this way, independent from comparisons to the original as simply great films in their own rights. 

For these same reasons, The Little Mermaid is also now one of my favorite live-action remakes. While by no means a perfect film (looking at you “Scuttlebutt” and the exorbitant amount of times Melissa Mccarthy said “daddy”), it once again follows the basic skeleton of the classic story and captures its essence while also making changes to enhance certain plot points and characters. The new songs, for example, helped to fill in some of the holes in the original. Eric’s ballad in particular was a fantastic addition, as it helps the relationship between Ariel and Eric feel less one-sided. Many people complain about how, in the original, Ariel is head over heels for this guy she hardly knows. But the remake makes this less problematic by directly showing Eric’s reciprocation of her feelings. If people think it was unrealistic for Ariel to fall so fast, then it is certainly just as unreasonable for Eric to sing an entire power ballad about his infatuation with a girl he only knows from her singing voice. The direct parallel between “Wild Uncharted Waters” and “Part of Your World” makes the strong attraction and reason for the pull between the two seem more clear, as they share the same curiosity and lust for the unknown. It feels more like a meeting of the minds and like there is a shared deep emotional connection. Furthermore, Ariel’s new song “For the First Time” is not only a major bop, but it also helps to establish the fact that Ariel traded her voice to be human, not to get a man. The song emphasizes her wonder and fascination with all things on land, showcasing her true draw to the shore and the core reason she made the deal with Ursula (plus it just gives another reason to showcase Halle Bailey’s show-stopping vocals). 

Like Cinderella, The Little Mermaid also creates its own costumes and changes the character designs quite a bit (further proving to me that if people weren’t up in arms about Lady Tremaine being a redhead in the live-action, all the whining about Ariel not looking exactly like her animated counterpart really can’t be due to anything other than racism . . . but that’s another conversation). The film also logically situates the story in Caribbean-esque islands, adding a corresponding Caribbean flair to the music and the costumes.

The Jungle Book is another one of the stronger remakes, again for the ways that it changes and improves the original story. This version actually changes the film’s entire message from one about nature’s order and having to find one’s place within it—ie, Mowgli needing to return to the Man Village. Instead, in the live-action, the film ends with Mowgli staying in the jungle, as the bulk of the film was spent developing ideas about acceptance of those who are different. Despite everyone saying Mowgli doesn’t belong because he doesn’t look or act like the animals, he is still ultimately able to find his place and be accepted as he is. I think this is a much more powerful and meaningful message, as well as more satisfying than having Mowgli leave the characters that the film had spent its entirety developing and making the audience grow an attachment to. This remake is bolstering not just off plot points, but the entire thematic integrity of the original work. 

Alice in Wonderland, for me, also finds success in these ways, as it stands independent from the animated version. Even more so than Cinderella or The Little Mermaid, it doesn’t feel like a remake but simply another adaptation of Carroll’s original tale, deviating so far from the animated film that it almost seems like the two should not or even cannot be compared. The movie understood what many remakes have failed to grasp: a beloved Alice in Wonderland movie already exists, so what else is there to do but go in a totally new direction and create a totally new story? Not only is the aesthetic entirely different thanks to the Tim Burton trademarks of gothic costumes and makeup and grayscale filters, as well as the decision to age Alice up (which adds a more mature, gritty quality to the film), but there are also dramatic changes to the plot. For example, in this iteration, Alice is a “chosen one” figure who has to save Wonderland from the dictatorship of the Queen of Hearts. And, I mean, how cool is that?

Though personally not my favorite movies, I can at least appreciate Cruella and Maleficent for their fresh takes on the source material and the choice to adapt the story from a new perspective. This slant once again gives the film something new to offer beyond just regurgitating the original film, and as such, it can stand independent from the original as its own story. Disney remakes work best when they take the chance of being creative, a risk that unfortunately has become less and less prominent over the years as Disney has grown into more of a corporate machine than an animation studio. Modern audiences have modern demands of the media they consume, and remakes must recognize this to be successful, such as by updating outdated plot lines or rounding out the characters so that they align with our contemporary expectations for cinema. 

In my opinion, remakes like Aladdin, and even Beauty and the Beast, faltered or at least underwhelmed because they did not take enough creative liberties or use the opportunity to really play with any of the themes or plot points. The changes Aladdin did make were rather half-hearted, such as trying to give Jafar more depth and backstory (though this endeavor is hindered by bad dialogue and poor acting). Though it did include some new costumes for Jasmine and a lot of the costumes are much more accurate to the setting and period than they were in the original, Aladdin doesn’t really dare to make many new changes compared with some of the other remakes. Some parts of the film are even shot-for-shot recreations of the original, and a lot of the dialogue is recycled word for word. The final result can’t help but be a pale, lackluster imitation of the original that is simultaneously exactly it, but, due to the lack of animated vibrancy and creativity, a much more lifeless feeling attempt. 

Something like The Lion King or Lady and the Tramp, in my opinion, is fundamentally unadaptable to a live-action format, committing the most egregious offense of disregarding the fact that animation is largely the reason why those films were so great in the first place. The character designs and fundamental core of the story just don’t work the same way in a live-action medium, hence the lifeless-looking National Geographic designs of the lions in The Lion King, as opposed to the color and vivacity of the original character designs that express emotions in the malleable, energetic way that animation, with its believable defiance of reality, permits. 

Although I would love for Disney to return to its roots and focus more on original projects (especially the animated ones), it doesn’t seem like remakes are going anywhere any time soon. With a Snow White remake slated to come out next year (and the uproar certain changes to the plot have already caused), it seems like the remakes are doomed to never fully please anyone. However, I am not opposed to the idea of changing the plots or themes. If I wanted to watch a movie exactly like the original Snow White, I’d just watch the original. In my belief, it’s the job of the live action to do something new. If live-action updates are going to remain a part of the conversation and want to keep audiences invested in their creation, they need to be made both in moderation and with consideration of what a remake can actually do to expand or enhance the source material. 

I think that the direction that live-action remakes need to take right now is to do either what Cinderella and The Little Mermaid did—taking a movie that has things that can be improved upon or developed more—or it should begin reviving lesser-known films like The Black Cauldron, Treasure Planet, or Atlantis, not only to give these underappreciated films their due and introduce them to a new audience but also to simply make them better. It’s the lesser-known films like The Black Cauldron or Atlantis that really deserve the live-action treatment, rather than the more popular ventures that are usually doomed to being unable to live up to the original. While I am not entirely opposed to the idea of a remake, as I believe some have actually understood the assignment, I do believe that, instead of just blindly cashing in on nostalgia in any way it can, Disney should be more cognizant and thoughtful about which films it is remaking and why, because some were clearly not meant for the live-action treatment.