For many of us, Disney represented everything that was good about the movies when we were children. Glorious technicolor cartoons would be played to no end on our televisions, with ostoppably catchy songs attached to our minds; and Disney knows all this well.
Today, the House of Mouse milkes this sense of nostalgia. These projects are its live-action remakes, which provide a "realistic" touch on the 2D characters we grew up with. There will be five remakes this year – you've probably already seen Aladdin's trailer and heard about the whole backlash against Genie.
And with live-action strips virtually every cartoon classic slats, Disney is clearly proud of this practical new biographical universe that they have inherited. But it's a problem, not just for the fans, but also Disney.
It's a prison
With generations of fans behind Disney's classic, it's a no-brainer for Disney who reproduces as Aladdin would sell tickets. Beauty and the beast and Alice in Wonderland exceeded both billions of dollar markings, with The Jungle Book only being shy of it.
The sight of superstars like Emma Watson or Will Smith who play our beloved characters is just too irresistible to viewers, who will surely fill up the sites. These are low-risk investments that entail a higher risk of guaranteed profit.
Little incentive for original ideas
The question here is self-esteem. While all these movies are decent on their own, just a little work to invent and improve things from the original.
The classics are used as a casting. A template for many iconic scenes, recreated shot-for-shot, with reused color schemes and camera angles recovered. Storylines are so valuable and loved by the audience that they are mostly left untouched.
By taking advantage of our love for nostalgia and throwbacks, filmmakers get some space to get rid of the worn-out path – to renew themselves – and instead be limited to copying old ideas.
If Disney is proud to be an institution with great ideas, the old classics do not live like a crutch to this.
Lack of quality
On a visual level, Disney's live action remake has been something so awesome. Costumes and set designs have been top class. The effects shown in the latest Aladdin trailer look fittingly magical, and the animation in The Jungle Book was all deserving of the best visual effects Oscar won. These films are visual festivities.
Where there is a serious shortage, it is in their performances, especially in their musical numbers, which for many is the heart and soul of the classics.
Emma Watson may be a perfectly skilled actress in her own right, but her vocal abilities could not adhere to Paige O & # 39; Hara, a Broadway veteran expressing Belle in the original animation.
Live action remakes have to worry about putting famous faces on their characters who would attract crowds. Pay: music. They just don't stick to the original and the songs are thus played down in the live action movies and lack this important nostalgia element that we keep so expensive in our hearts.
Music and performances are often what is time-tested – one of them already lacks. But to add to Disney's problems, the obsession with photorealism is also ironically what makes inheritance of their live-action movies at best temporary.
Just like phones and all technology, good CGI does not work well. For a few years, the 3D animation begins to look like. Wreck-It-Ralph today is not too good at her sequel, superior in detail and the mobility of mobility. The incredible visual images of the upcoming Lion King remake can be any hype right now, but for years it will likely be a victim of age when animation technology gets even better.
Funnily, you wouldn't say the style of the classic Disney movies was "dated". It was old technology, but they struggled not only to impress on the technical level. It was art. The iconic mix of digital scanning, ink, color and software would take years to create. It was work that extended the after-production of Mary Poppins Returns after months just to regain the appearance of classic animation. This is art that lasts.
Of course, not all Disney's efforts seem like cynical money. There are deductions that have taken risks, that delivering films is fresh.
Maleficent gave us a whole new spin on the convinced Sleeping Beauty story, with a new perspective and a fantastic central achievement from Angelina Jolie.
The jungle book was not only a great statement for movement capture, but took risks by telling a darker story, more faithfully to the romance's sounding themes.
There is a trend here: these movies take risks. And we want more of it. Because Disney knows too well that their remakes will make them bucks of profit, why shouldn't they take the opportunity to give the audience something really new and refreshing?
Undermining the Originals
If Disney's efforts reveal something, it's so good that the story is timeless. The originals were not only valued because of its music and art – both of which are still remarkably good – but the cordial stories and the related characters.
We have all heard the common excuse for restarting something: updating the classics for a new generation. But without being excessively dramatic, Disney's determination to overlook these classics with a new CGI coat is a cynical message that these ancient gems are not suitable for children today. And we couldn't disagree more.
Throughout these years, the magic of these films has not faded a bit. They are still as enchanting, colorful and moving as ever – And if Disney really believes in it, maybe it's better to leave them alone.