Comments for Op-Ed: Sick of Disney’s live-action remakes? Me too

belle 1991 and 2017

Credit: Disney


  1. Dave

    “I personally don’t like something so therefore it should stop immediately!”

    Here’s a thought. Don’t go see it.

    1. LF

      You do know what an “OP-Ed” is, don’t you Dave?

      1. James

        The author doesn’t. This is a listicle, not an editorial. It’s a list of things the author doesn’t like. There’s no substantive explanation as to why the reader should feel the way the author does. No insight; just “ugh I’m so annoyed by this thing WHYYYYYYYYY DOES IT EXIST?!”.

        It’s amateur-hour like-bait for people that already agree with the headline but are too distracted to read it. How did the author come to this opinion? What are the author’s defenses for the most common arguments against their opinion? What are the implications if the situation doesn’t change? Why should we care?

        I’m tired of Disney remakes but the train of thought outlined here has more holes than, well… Disney’s Holes.

  2. I blame Bob Iger’s lack of leadership. He’s not doing a good job overseeing the company and the cleverness that any visionary has. Disney, right now, is creatively bankrupt.

    I will say, though, the best live-action Disney remake to come from the 2010s is Cinderella. Cinderella didn’t try too hard to be different, but also wasn’t a complete remake of the 1950 classic. I was pleasantly surprised at how good that was.

    I was hoping Beauty and the Beast would exceed my expectations and be the best live-action remake of all time. Unfortunately, it wasn’t. Some of the set pieces didn’t have the same magic look that the animated film had. I didn’t want to stay in that castle. Plus, the casting was questionable. Besides Emma Watson as Belle, who thought it was a good idea to have Gandalf voice Cogsworth? Now, I like Ian Mckellen, but he is not the first person that comes to mind when thinking about Cogsworth. And those designs, especially the Beast’s, were almost hideous. This was the type of project where the filmmakers tried too hard to be different, that it could have been better if they cast someone like Emily Blunt to play Belle, made the set pieces look way less bland, and kept the furniture designs simple. They gave us the clunkiest looking Cogsworth, that the original would ask, “How do you even walk?”

    After feeling disappointed, I somehow felt this urge not to care about future live-action remakes. But because of the shockingly positive responses, I am planning to rent Guy Richie’s take on Aladdin. It won’t be superior to the 1992 classic, but it better be good.

    But that live-action Lion King. I mean, come on! It’s a shot-by-shot remake. What was the point? I was mad that this didn’t tank at the box office. All that hard work from the animators all felt like nothing after Disney greenlit this unnecessary borefest.

    Their Little Mermaid remake sounds terrible, by the way, and most of that has to do with some of the casting. Now, if Queen Latifah is Ursula, I may see it. However, if Melissa McCarthy is Ursula, I’m avoiding it. I can’t stand Melissa McCarthy. And if Pete Davidson ends up playing Sebastian, then I hope it flops.

    Even though there were times when Michael Eisner only focused on the money, he still let those animated stories continue via straight-to-video/DVD, regardless of their quality. Bob Iger, however, does not respect animation, especially if it’s hand-drawn. All he cares about is money, and the only way he can make more is by pumping out crappy remakes that do a disservice to their originals.

    Let’s stop this madness and start boycotting these movies. We are not getting anything magical this way. We deserve better.

    1. Cedric

      As a matter of fact, Beauty and the Beast live-action remake exceeded expectations. It was a critical and commercial success, not of a disappointment. Its good, decent and strong rating of 71%, along with a strong audience score of 80% on Rotten Tomatoes, as well a decent score of 65% on Metacritic, proves that.

      None of the casting of the Beauty and the Beast remake were questionable. It’s all perfect casting. Furthermore, the set designs aren’t bland and simple as they’re realistic, enormous, sophisticated and grand.

      As for the role of Belle, Emma Watson is the definite choice for that role. Emily Blunt can’t take the role of Belle as she’s too old for that part and not to mentioned that Emily Blunt already committed herself as Mary Poppins in the sequel, Mary Poppins Returns.

      As for the live-action remakes/adaptations, Cinderella wasn’t the only one that was good. Beauty and the Beast, The Jungle Book, and Christopher Robin also count as the good live-action adaptations as well.

      As for Aladdin, it’s not a good live-action remake for it was a mess.

      1. Well, I don’t hate the live-action Beauty and the Beast. For what it is, it’s pretty well done. I was just disappointed in the final result.
        I would’ve changed a few things to make it better. Even my family agrees.

  3. Marie

    I’m 110% with you on that one, I only watched Beauty and the beast….maybe because of « Hermione ». But the other ones dont interest me. I love the classics, so I’m going to keep on watching the old ones!!!!

  4. Tim

    “classics are not to be remade” when almost all of these Disney classics are just retellings of older stories themselves.

  5. Heres my lists of live action Disney movies

    Aaron Seltzer and Jason Friedberg director & producer of Live Action disney Fantasia

    Live action Tarzan casts

    Hulk Hogan as William Cecil Clayton
    Jason Momoa as Tarzan
    Amy Adams as Jane Porter

    Casts for live action The Hunchback of Notre Dame?

    Priyanka Chopra as Esméralda
    Andrew Tierna as Quasimodo

  6. bmr

    It does feel as if the studio has been creatively bankrupted, however, it isn’t as if every other studio in town isn’t doing the same thing. How many times are the Batman films going to be remade. It seemed that Christoper Nolan did the definitive series. How many iterations of Spiderman do there need to be? Or Superman. Notice that these are all “high concept” easily identifiable properties. I try to tell myself that film is becoming like repertory theatre and that each generation wants to see their own version of familiar faces in the leading roles, but that seems too much like a rationalization. It feels as if the decisions are being driven by the marketing department to remake familiar features that will drive sales of consumer products instead of taking the time to come up with fairy tales that Disney hasn’t used yet (“East of the Sun, West of the Moon” anyone? Especially if they went for a 2-D animation style inspired by Kay Neilsen’s 1922 illustrations). I agree that Angelina Jolie is a terrible actress, and Emma Watson as Belle wasn’t much of a singer. You can’t tell me that there weren’t any Broadway or West End actresses who wouldn’t have been right for the role. Where the animated version B&B was paced beautifully and one scene flowed into the next, and all the songs seemed organic to the story and pacing, the live action version just seemed to drag, and too much of it felt as if they were trying to hit particular images, but it felt like an effort that just didn’t live up to the original. And they completely wasted Kevin Klein’s talents – he is a brilliant farceur – one of the funniest men alive, and he was really constrained by the script and direction in this film. Highly disappointing. I actually enjoyed the new Cinderella, but with Kenneth Branagh directing, along with strong leads and no one breaking into song, it was a good effort. I didn’t see Aladdin, because in my heart no one could beat Robin Williams as the Genie (sorry Will), and I have too many fond memories, nor have I seen any of this years live-action remakes. Just not interested. I think that the studio is pretty much resting on their laurels in going for the live-action remakes, and it’s a shame. Walt knew how to tell a story, and cut sequences if they didn’t have an organic purpose that dealt with the narrative and made the story flow or illuminated a character/plot point. When a live action sequence is dragged out only because the technology is available and the 3D animators can do something wild on the screen, it doesn’t necessarily serve the story, and I think that the powers that be have forgotten that if it’s all spectacle, there’s very little heart.

  7. Suzy Ince

    I for one would like to see more original content.
    Also is anyone else having trouble reading these posts through all the pop-up, screen takeover, video sliding along with the article, commercials? Anyone you know we can talk to about taking care of this?

  8. Mickey

    I happen to love the live action remakes. I have seen the two 2019 ones already twice (both movies twice each) in the theatre. Now, the ones staring the villains, I’ll only see once and I won’t buy those ones either. The amount of people who love villains is disturbing, and those that teach their children to love them is too. I have only liked a very few of Pixar’s films. And what this author is forgetting is that other companies have remade movies into live action films as well for example, Dora and the List City of Gold was a love remake starting Dora the Explorer and her cousin Diego. And yes, I saw that one twice again in the theatre. Why single out Disney for it?

    1. Misty

      There are three 2019 remakes; Dumbo, Aladdin, and Lion King.

  9. Laura

    if the live-action remakes are well-done with a pinch of originality, then they can be ok. the live-action 101 Dalmatians in the 90s with Glenn Close was fantastic, and tim burton’s Alice was classic Tim Burton and well-done. and i thought BATB was excellent.

    but it’s the RATE these are being churned out which is off-putting to me. breathe a little in between, do one a year, kind of like the animated classics are done. but one every 3 months like this past year was over the top, and every other week a new rumor of a future title is out there.

  10. Mickey

    If you think about it, the original Aladdin, was about Aladdin and his dream/desire to become a prince. Although Jasmine wanted a different role in her life, the movie focused more on him instead of her. I’m the 2019 remake, Jasmine wants to enact better changes for her country and to become a leader. She is met with resistance from those around her including her father who is the king. This is the ever-classic example of it being a world dominated by men in powerful positions who feel threatened when a woman wants to take charge. Or they think that a woman can’t do a better job then they can. That was the real underlying reason that people as an issue with this remake subconsciously. There are not too many movies where women become leaders and better their lands or universe depending on the movie. Deep down, within themselves, they know this to be true. They might fight the opposite publicly so people don’t think less of them, but truthfully, it is the opposite view of what they say is going on.

  11. Thanks for Sharing Such a beautiful information

Comments are closed.