Like many other non-sports fans, I exclusively tune into the Super Bowl for two things: the halftime performance and, of course, the commercials.
This year, I was pleased on both fronts (probably enjoying the halftime show more than the ads — seriously, what was that coffee creamer commercial?). One commercial that stuck out to me wasn’t an ad but a trailer for the new live-action remake of the 2010 animated film How to Train Your Dragon.
Live-action remakes aren’t exactly new, though their surge in recent years makes them feel more novel than they actually are. The trend started in 1994 with Disney’s remake of The Jungle Book, a moderate box office success, followed by the 1996 remake of 101 Dalmatians — a much bigger hit. While these remakes were successful, the live-action craze didn’t truly take off until 2010, with Tim Burton’s adaptation of Alice in Wonderland. The film was a massive success, grossing over $1 billion and winning two Academy Awards.
From there, live-action remakes took off. Maleficent (2014) and Cinderella (2015) were quickly greenlit following the success of Alice in Wonderland. Then came another live-action Jungle Book in 2016, followed by Beauty and the Beast the next year, then The Lion King, Aladdin, and Mulan. Virtually every successful Disney-Pixar film has already been adapted into a live-action format or is currently in development. How to Train Your Dragon marks the first DreamWorks live-action remake, though I’m confident it won’t be the last.
I’m a moderate fan of the original How to Train Your Dragon, so I’m excited about this new take on it. But watching the trailer got me thinking a lot about these live-action remakes, especially when it comes to remaking such a highly fantastical animated film. What’s being gained by turning animated classics into live-action?
There’s an argument to be made that the newest live-action remakes aren’t live-action at all, given how heavily they rely on computer generation. Nowhere is this more apparent than in 2019’s The Lion King remake and its prequel, Mufasa, released at the end of 2024. While the lions look lifelike, they’re just as animated as their 1994 counterparts — only with a different animation style. The difference between 2019’s Simba and the original is that the latter has far more creativity and emotional depth. Take, for instance, the iconic scene where the herd of hyenas attacks Simba and Mufasa. Simba’s emotion is palpable in the original, but in the live-action version, it’s nearly nonexistent.
This thought occurred to me while watching the How to Train Your Dragon trailer. The human characters from the original film are, of course, played by human actors. But Toothless, the dragon, retains the exact same design as the animated movie. It almost looks as though they simply superimposed the animated character into a live-action setting. There’s no added realism or texture to Toothless — so much so that I questioned the remake’s purpose. Why bother making live-action films if their live-action qualities are so overstated?
The simple answer is that these remakes practically print money. Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, and Aladdin all easily crossed the $1 billion mark, while Maleficent, The Little Mermaid, and Mufasa are comfortably above $500 million. Remaking a beloved animated classic attracts families with kids while tapping into the nostalgia of older audiences. These remakes are less risky than original stories since they’re based on films that already succeeded, making them a financial no-brainer.
On a deeper level, the rise of live-action remakes reflects how animation is perceived as an art form. Animated films have long been pigeonholed as children’s entertainment, often dismissed for lacking the artistic merit and emotional complexity of live-action movies. These remakes, in a way, “legitimize” animation by presenting it in a more widely accepted format.
These live-action remakes make clear their aesthetic limitations — they must conform to realism. The Lion King (1994) is bursting with vibrant color, while the 2019 remake uses a duller, grittier palette. In the 1989 The Little Mermaid, the ‘Under the Sea’ sequence features an underwater brass band, but the 2023 remake cuts it entirely for the sake of realism. The Genie in the original Aladdin is magical and fun, while Will Smith’s more human portrayal in the remake feels far less enchanting. The lions in the original The Lion King express a wide range of emotions, but their faces barely change in the remake. Animation allows for creative character designs and visual styles that live-action can’t replicate, and these remakes prove that by stripping them down to dullness.
None of this is to say I don’t enjoy the live-action remakes — I’ve seen most of them in theaters multiple times, contributing to their success. But even though I enjoy them, seeing them continue at the expense of original content is disheartening. I’d love to see Disney and Pixar return to their roots, focusing on original, dynamic animated films rather than prioritizing remakes and sequels. (Or both, as with Moana 2 and the upcoming live-action Moana.) Unfortunately, the How to Train Your Dragon trailer doesn’t seem poised to rise above its live-action predecessors. I’m sure it’ll be a box-office hit, continuing the cycle of remakes. Still, I’m hopeful that our once-great animation studios will shift their focus back to fresh, original stories rather than rehashing the past with less creativity.