April 9, 2025
Written by: Jaylin Emond-Hardin | Entertainment Editor
It seems most of what Disney has been doing these days is releasing live-action remakes, creating a phenomenon where every other film they churn out flops at the box office. So why is the studio so hit-or-miss with these remakes?
Well, for one, these films used to be a novelty. Every so often, Disney would remake one of their classic films, dedicating their time to create a film that honored the original film while also carving its own place in the studio’s catalog. They were never meant to be a one-to-one recreation, but rather an homage to what came before.
Live-action remakes are not a new thing, either. Most people associate the era of these movies with recent times, starting in the 2010s and continuing production today. After all, most adults today grew up with Tim Burton’s 2010 live-action “Alice in Wonderland” remake; however, the first Disney live-action remake was released in 1994, being a live-action remake of “The Jungle Book.” The next two came in 1996 and 2000, in “101 Dalmatians” and “102 Dalmatians.” Most reviews of these three films are split, but most people can point to them being cult classics and staples in their childhood.
Of course, as more of these films are created and they become commonplace, they lose the camp and nostalgia they once had. Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland” — and the box office bomb “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice,” which was based on “Fantasia” — created a domino effect of classic animated films being turned into live-action versions of themselves.
Many of these remakes come from four of Disney’s seven eras of animation: the golden, silver, bronze and renaissance eras. Most of these films adjust their tale for modern audiences, removing racist and sexist subtext that many classic films tend to have, and Disney executives have agreed that some movies simply cannot be adapted due to their nature — “Pocahontas” and “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” are two that have been delayed indefinitely.
But, while writers, directors and producers have the right to make necessary changes, there are some that just don’t land with fans. Enter “Beauty and the Beast,” “Mulan” and “Cruella.”
While their original iterations are still widely popular, “Beauty and the Beast” and “Mulan” seemed to fail among audiences. Their subtle changes and casting choices left fans dissatisfied and upset that more thought from the original films wasn’t put into consideration.
“Cruella” wasn’t welcomed as a film, not because it was a live-action remake, but rather because it was a villain origin story for the villain of “101 Dalmatians.” I mean, the lady wants to make puppies into a fur coat. Why should anyone care about why she’s a villain?
Well, the film had hoped to market off the success of “Maleficent” and “Maleficent: Mistress of Evil,” films that explored Maleficent’s backstory and were remakes of the silver-era movie “Sleeping Beauty.” But where these movies succeeded, “Cruella” failed. To reiterate what I said earlier — she quite literally wants to kill puppies.
Of course, there’s a third reason these live-action remakes often flop: they try to translate talking animals into a film style that only works if executed flawlessly. So far, none of the five recent animal-focused films — “The Jungle Book,” “Dumbo,” “The Lion King,” “Lady and the Tramp” and “Mufasa: The Lion King” — have met this mark, something “Alvin and the Chipmunks” did in 2007, when computer-generated imagery was still developing.
The controversies surrounding the newly released “Snow White” remake have only discouraged fans from enjoying these films.
The first controversy arose when actor Rachel Zegler was cast in the titular role, with many stating that the connection between the character’s name and racial identity was crucial to the film — an attempt to justify racism towards Zegler. It was later explained in the film that Snow White’s name came from surviving a snowstorm, a callback to another iteration of the original tale.
The second controversy arose when Peter Dinklage, a well-known actor with dwarfism, criticized the film and dismissed it as a backward story. In response to this, Disney stated that they would be taking a different approach to the film’s dwarfs, following this criticism and conversations with those part of the dwarfism community. The seven dwarfs in the film were created by CGI, a decision that has further isolated the dwarfism community from the film.
Zegler’s criticism of the original 1937 film pushed away more viewers as well, especially following her statements at the 2022 D23 Expo.
“The original cartoon came out in 1937 and very evidently so. There’s a big focus on her love story with a guy who literally stalks her. Weird. Weird. So we didn’t do that this time. We have a different approach to what I’m sure a lot of people will assume is a love story just because we cast a guy in the movie, Andrew Burnap, great dude,” said Zegler. “But it’s really not about her love story at all, which is really, really wonderful. All of Andrew’s scenes could get cut, who knows? It’s Hollywood, baby.”
The most current controversy to arise from this project comes from the political views of the actors themselves. Zegler is a very vocal supporter of Palestine in the ongoing conflict, frequently using her platform to advocate for Palestinian rights and call attention to humanitarian issues in the region. Her co-star, Gal Gadot, who is Israeli and served in the Israeli Defense Forces, has been extremely open in her support of Israel. Their open stances on opposing views have isolated movie-goers from both political parties, with the actors receiving death threats in August of 2024 ahead of the film’s release.
These controversies have even affected the production of Disney’s next few live-action films. While remakes of “Lilo and Stitch” and “Moana” have been confirmed and have release dates, four others on Disney’s list have been delayed — “Hercules,” “Robin Hood,” “The Aristocats” and “Bambi” — while the live-action remake of “Tangled” has been canceled wholly.
Despite what has been happening with these films, fans actually feel excitement for “Lilo and Stitch,” which is set to release May 23. Reactions to trailers for the film have been positive, with many expressing a refreshed feeling at seeing the live-action depiction of Stitch.
Whether Disney continues to follow this route of adapting beloved classics remains to be seen, but with such negative reviews and fan reactions, one can only hope they will decide to pull the plug.
Contact the author at howlentertainment@wou.edu
