The House of Mouse has been remaking their animated classics into live-action films. With recent releases, it’s becoming clear that they were better off as animations.
Disney has released their newest remake, “Mulan,” onto Disney+ for a fee of $30. The reimagining of the 1998 film received mixed reviews. It’s a stunning film to look at, not so much a fun movie to watch. “Mulan” isn’t the first remake to get less than stellar reviews. Last year’s “The Lion King” also received poor reviews from critics, and there’s more. Disney has a problem with their live-action remakes, and we will look at what those problems are.
Some films need a remake, to add a new perspective, to reinvent the story. Other films don’t need a remake because they’re great as they are, “The Lion King (2019)” was one of those films.
The original 1994 film was near perfection, and there was nothing new to do when trying to remake it.
If there is no need to reinvent the story, then it should not be remade.
“The Lion King” suffered because it ended up being a shot for shot remake with no emotion. Turns out photo-realistic animals aren’t that great at conveying feelings.
Lack of emotion is another issue with the live-action remakes.
Remakes require a sense of newness and freshness to justify their existence. Disney makes attempts at this and still fails.
The consequence of changing too much of the story is that the film ends up lacking any of the heart from the predecessor.
“Mulan (2020)” is the newest culprit. Vanity Fair’s review of the film says it turned out to be lifeless, lacking all the awe from the original 1998 film.
They remade the film, but they did not remake what made it good.
In “Mulan”’s case, they removed characters who added to the emotional elements of the story. The axed characters include Li Shang, the Grandmother and Mushu.
They sped through the montage of Mulan going to war. A powerful scene, stripped of all it’s meaning and depth.
“Cinderella (2015)” is a good example of what “Mulan” needed to be. They took away the singing but kept the spirit and charm of the story.
Kudos to Disney for attempting to go in a new direction with the story, but they did not bring honor to this remake.
Half of the time, these remakes are fine, but that’s it. They’re fine. They’re forgettable.
“Beauty and the Beast (2017)” was a pretty and faithful adaptation that served its purpose. Enjoyable for two hours, and then as soon as the credits roll, it’s forgotten. It’s a prettier version of the original.
Disney does not like to go too crazy with things, so audiences end up with a safe, by-the-book adaptation. They satisfy for as long as they need to, and then, they exist.
Rolling Stone’s review of “Dumbo (2019)” said the film is too safe and predictable, resulting in the film never taking off toward its potential.
Disney has a problem with its live-action remakes. Either they do not change enough to make it worthwhile, or they change too much and ruin the story.
“The Jungle Book” (2016) seemed to be Disney’s peak with adaptation having the highest critical score of them all.
It’s a tough task, but ever since “The Jungle Book,” these films are a hit or a miss.
I thought “Alice in Wonderland (2010)” was good, but The New York Times says the grim tone, distracting 3-D and awkward fight scenes made for another miss.
Let’s hope Disney gets it right with “The Little Mermaid” adaptation. They’re making a big change by casting a Black woman, Halle Bailey, to play Ariel. Yes, mermaids can be Black. They are fictional creatures.