In Defense of the Live-Action Remake

In Roger Ebert’s review of Gus Van Sant’s remake of the classic horror film Psycho, he would go on to say, “The movie is an invaluable experiment in the theory of cinema because it demonstrates that a shot-by-shot remake is pointless; genius apparently resides between or beneath the shots or in chemistry that cannot be timed or counted.” A lot of the general movie-going audience would agree with this sentiment—not just with Van Sant’s remake but with Hollywood’s exploitation of reusing older, well-known properties as a whole. Usually viewed as lazy or as a cheap attempt to cash in on a property that is already well known to people and moviegoers, in today’s movie world, it seems like we're hit with a new remake every couple of months. Just the other day, during the trailers for Disney’s remake of Snow White, I was fittingly shown two trailers for other remakes of animated properties that were soon to be released. While this does feel like a trend that started during the 21st century, truth be told, Hollywood has been making remakes since its conception. Going back as far as the early 1920s and '30s, we’ve had multiple Cleopatras, Zorros, Robin Hoods, and Supermans—properties that studios knew at the time would for sure draw a crowd. This meant it was only a matter of time before Disney and other major studios jumped on the trend, remaking films from their classic animated catalog. Of course, this would go on to cause a huge outcry from fans and general audiences alike, mostly sharing the consensus that these movies are unneeded and are clearly a way for big studios to cash in on our collective nostalgia for these older animated films. However, I’m here to say maybe we have overlooked or just been a bit too harsh on the live-action remake.

Live-action remakes, in a weird way, have almost always been a staple of the movies I watched growing up. Scooby-Doo, Ninja Turtles, Ben 10—never did those movies outshine the animated counterparts they originated from but more so coexisted in this world that was already established. I remember loving these movies, thinking of them just as highly as I thought of the animated shows, so I have always been a bit hesitant to roll my eyes over every new live-action remake. These types of movies are largely harmless, giving a new generation an already beloved story while also catering to old fans alike and even sometimes forming a stronger emotional connection that an animated movie simply just can’t achieve… maybe? So with that being said, here is my defense of the live-action remake.

Non-consensual kissing, abusive relationships, and waiting around to be swept off your feet by a prince in shining armor are just a few of the things that have raised concerns when revisiting these almost over-a-century-old movies. It’s no secret that a lot of these older animated properties haven’t aged the best, especially a lot of the older Disney movies. While some may disagree with that idea, I think it’s an uphill battle for those who say themes from these older Disney movies come anywhere close to holding a candle to the messages in their movies today. For example, family orientation, overcoming adversity, love, friendship, choice, and self-discovery—these are the themes that now surround much of the new zeitgeist of kids' media today. This says a lot when you go back to look at the inherently older kids' movies, whose main concepts only boil down to good vs. evil. In Amy M. Davis’s book Good Girls & Wicked Witches, she writes, “Disney films reflected the attitudes of the wider society from which they emerged.” Admittedly, Davis here is fighting against the notion that these older animated princesses were just “passive princesses,” but I feel she raises a point that gives these live-action adaptations a real reason to be here, a reason that goes beyond corporate Hollywood greed, which is: Disney films, and really film as a medium, mirror the prevailing societal attitudes of the time in which they are created. In many ways, Disney can now rewrite history. These remakes aren’t as 1:1 as many claim they are. Now, our leading ladies can be portrayed more as confident, strong, and independent, not needing to feel forced to rely on a male counterpart. This is in no way saying our princesses can’t have the happily ever after, that they can’t get married, or that they don’t need a man’s help at all, but really, more importantly, saying that those ideas don’t have to be the central subject anymore.

But then this begs the question: why remake? Why go back to the well? Why don’t we just go and create new stories with better concepts and themes that better represent where we are today? And the truth is, we already do—in animated form, to be exact. Films like Moana, Raya and the Last Dragon, and Wish are all movies that hit these points that I’ve just listed. And while it doesn’t help my argument that one of the movies I just mentioned is now getting the live-action treatment, remaking the older animated princesses makes some type of sense when you remember that these characters are and always will be staples in Disney’s iconography. Cinderella, Snow White, and Aurora—Belle is the first thing anyone thinks of when you say the word "princess." And that may change with just how popular the likes of Frozen and Moana are, but if Disney’s backlog of princesses that helped shape the company into what it is today doesn’t even culturally align with what they want to be or are currently, then why wouldn’t they want to remake those movies? I’m not here to say that these remakes are the greatest thing ever or that they even visually hold a candle to how beautiful the animated movies of old are, but I find it hard to argue that the heart isn’t somewhat in the right place. If this still, to you, negates the idea of remaking these beloved characters, then we just have to remind ourselves that while many core concepts and music derive from Disney, the characters and stories aren’t even wholly original to begin with and are already based on old folk stories and fairy tales that, reminder, were also adjusted and remade at a later time to fit then-societal cultural norms.

The word nostalgia is a term that people sometimes use to explain why a movie isn’t worth someone’s time. “Nostalgia-bait” is also a term I’ve seen thrown around, overall describing the idea that a nostalgic experience at the movies is bad and maybe even emotionally manipulative, or that it’s used merely as a tactic to get more people to the theater. However, just like how remakes have been around for as long as the medium itself, “nostalgia-bait” has too. Whether it’s movies like Star Wars or Indiana Jones, representing a remnant of 50’s genre serials, or directors flirting with ideas already explored by past filmmakers they admire, regurgitated call-back media has existed well before this current film landscape. So if that’s the case, why are we, as a culture, so hell-bent on not embracing the things that once brought us so much joy growing up? Perhaps it’s because Hollywood is now totally reliant on nostalgia, and it seems there is a lack of willingness to create well-thought-out, original ideas and movies. But maybe we all just need a bit of a reality check here. We complain about the dangers of the nostalgic plague in our current cinemas, but ten out of the twenty highest-grossing movies ever made were boosted by their nostalgic qualities. I’m in no way insinuating that good box office numbers equal a great movie, but more just making the point that deep inside us all is a child that is begging to come out and play even if it’s just for a couple of hours. A quote from the adaptationstation.com article A Mild Defense of Disney’s Recent Line of Nostalgia Bait says, “Maybe we should blame audiences for not taking more risks with their entertainment and financially supporting more non-nostalgia bait movies from Disney… but I’m not even going to do that. I’m not convinced mainstream audiences aren’t enjoying the nostalgia-bait movies they’re paying to see, at least not more than the original ones they’re not paying to see. And they have the right to pay to see what appeals to them.” Why wouldn’t we want to relive these moments on the big screen? Ariel propping up on the rock, belting Part of Your World while waves crash behind her, is a must-see, whether it’s animated or live-action. Cinderella’s transformation, Aladdin and Jasmine singing A Whole New World, even seeing the antics that Shaggy and Scooby get into—all of these moments are filled with a large sense of novelty when given the opportunity to relive them, reminding us of a simpler time in our lives. Why can’t we embrace nostalgia? We’ll always have the original; that’s not going anywhere. We should feel allowed to relive the iconic music, moments, and set pieces.

This whole section has largely been reading of monoculture through the lens of a 20-plus-year-old demographic, but it’s also important to recognize that for a lot of younger kids, the live-action versions will more than likely forever be their definitive versions. Their Snow White or Little Mermaid, just like how the live-action Scooby-Doo was, in a way, my definitive Scooby-Doo growing up.

Another additional plus to having a live-action adaptation is that it can create connections almost impossible to convey through the animated format. I don’t believe one format is stronger than the other, but what I am saying is that seeing moments that seem tame in their animated counterparts appear much more intense in live-action. For example, Cinderella being tormented by her stepsisters and stepmother is much more heartbreaking and extreme. Even witnessing Mufasa’s death in The Lion King through the lens of a real-life animal feels severe and almost knocks the wind out of you. Also, recently in Snow White’s nightmare forest scene, before she wakes in the garden, I had to wonder if this kids' movie had turned into an Evil Dead homage. These moments are amplified by the reality of the setting and tug on heartstrings that sometimes animated movies just can’t convey. Mileage may vary on that sentiment, but I thought it was an interesting detail to point out.

This essay has largely been about Disney and its remakes, so I just wanted to take a moment to point out some of the memorable live-action adaptations from both my youth and the current day. Briefly mentioned before, the early 2000s Scooby-Doo duology was practically on loop when I was growing up. I remember owning both on disc and practically having the final dance sequence from the sequel engraved in my brain. I also quite fondly remember both live-action Ben-10 movies that premiered on Cartoon Network. I’ll never forget the teaser of Heatblast that was shown, and being so confused as to who or what that was, only to later realize it was from my favorite cartoon at the time. I remember the sweepstakes to Kevin’s green Camaro, calling the number on the TV, and it not going through. Or what about The Fairly Odd Parents, starring an older Timmy Turner played by an already very much-aged Drake Bell? Remember that? Who could forget the train wreck that was Dragon Ball: Evolution—maybe one of the most studio-mandated, westernized slogs anyone has ever made or seen? I remember feeling quite indifferent about the movie at 8 years old—does any kid actually find a movie that bad? I distinctly remember renting this from Netflix’s mail-in DVD service and being shocked to find out that Lord Piccolo was still alive! There was also this awesome live-action YouTube adaptation I remember watching of the fight between Napa and the Z-Fighters. Pretty neat stuff! And of course, The Last Airbender, directed by M. Night Shyamalan. I vividly remember all the promotional material and being stunned by the way Katara said the word, "Avatar", in its opening crawl. When you were 9 like me when that movie came out, did you also totally believe they were going to make a sequel? Back then, you were never really in the know about reception or how audiences feel about movies or media. It blows me away how wired in we are now with financial box office success, Metacritic scores, and Letterboxd curves when back in the day, a movie for me was only judged based on the experience around the movie—the promotional tie-ins, the theater I went to, the candy I got, where I sat. The movie was the nice bow on top of the whole journey that got us there. As far as the Disney live-action versions go, I remember being particularly excited about the Aladdin movie and living close enough to the theater to walk, so I did. I remember in Little Mermaid, during Halle Bailey’s singing, you could hear a pin drop. The atmosphere of the crowd I was with was all locked in; you could feel in the air just how emotionally attached everyone was. Just recently, I watched Disney’s live-action Cinderella and was blown away by how colorful every scene was—practical, real sets, beautiful costumes. The ballroom scene, in particular, made my mouth drop. What’s interesting is that Disney, now having hindsight on its side when remaking these movies, can capitalize on the moments they know are iconic, making for an even grander experience.

So what happens now? Aren’t we soon going to run out of properties to remake? Disney seems to have already answered that question, with plans to remake animated movies from just this current century, not just ones that have been around for decades. Lilo and Stitch is due to release this May, with the live-action Moana set to be released next year, I believe. DreamWorks has also followed this model, remaking their most popular property, How to Train Your Dragon. The turnaround for these types of movies is going to be much quicker, I assume. I am well aware that this essay has been a defense of these movies, but to be quite honest, I do get a sort of funny feeling when the movies being remade are ones that I grew up with—not the ones that have been around before I was born. Lilo and Stitch was kind of a staple in my household—my nostalgia is at stake here! What if they get it wrong? What if Stitch doesn’t look quite right? I’ll just have to remind myself that this is for a new generation, and the kids of today will look at it as their definitive Stitch. One thing I would hope is considered when making future live-action movies is not leaning too far into the photo-realism of it all and instead adding some more color. The Little Mermaid, in particular, feels almost lifeless at points with its muted color scheme. We’re in the ocean! Maybe the most colorful areas in the world. I feel that I’ve seen better oceans in TV tech demos at a Walmart. The Lion King, as well, was called out for this, with its animals having no expressive faces.

Alas, I would like to end on some predictions—some animated features and shows that I totally see getting the live-action treatment soon. With Naruto soon becoming the next anime to be turned into live-action, I believe if successful, Dragon Ball Z will be given another opportunity. Pixar will soon be forced to join, even after denying they want any involvement in turning their features into real life. The one movie I one hundred percent believe will come from this is Brave. Disney, without question, is probably developing that as we speak. While we’re on Pixar, I can also imagine a live-action Ratatouille and WALL-E pretty well in my head. This one’s pretty out there, but walk with me on this: can’t you see an A24 or NEON-produced Satoshi Kon movie? A Perfect Blue or Paprika live-action adaptation? Just a thought. If How to Train Your Dragon makes bank, which I believe it will, what will DreamWorks remake next? Our options would be Madagascar, Kung Fu Panda, or… Shrek.

Whether we like it or not, the live-action model isn’t going anywhere. And while I do believe that there is more than an abundance of valid criticisms about our current movie landscape, I would say this may be the least of our worries. Without these big nostalgia carnival-ride types of movies—“playing the hits”—we wouldn’t be able to have our smaller, lower-budget movies playing in the auditorium next to them. So maybe it’s time to just embrace our inner child and let this next generation have the grace to enjoy the things we all collectively grew up with.