Disney is a powerhouse of family entertainment. Since the early 1930s, Disney has been churning out some of the most imaginative and emotionally resonant films and cartoons available. Sure, some were hits and others were misses. But on the whole, they’ve come to define our childhoods, and are lauded as classics. And a golden rule among film fans in general is that the classics shouldn’t be touched. If the story was perfectly told, or movie as a whole was okay at best, then it should be left alone.

But Disney has been a bit of a rule-breaker. The studio has a steady track record of revisiting their past properties and bringing them back in some shape or form. In 1996, we got a live-action remake of “101 Dalmations”, and an updated version of “Freaky Friday” was released in 2003. This trend has grown exponentially over the years, with live-action retellings like “Alice in Wonderland,” “Maleficent,” “Cinderella,” “Pete’s Dragon,” and “The Jungle Book,” And just recently, the studio have plans in place to remake certain popular properties, such as “Beauty and the Beast” (scheduled to come out later next year), “The Lion King,” “Dumbo,” “Mulan,” “The Little Mermaid” and “Aladdin.”

Judging by the continuously growing film slate, one can argue that Disney is going for obvious cash-grabs. The movies being remade have already garnered some degree of critical acclaim and financial success, so what's the point? Each of them has made a considerable amount of money upon release, so on a business level, it makes sense to revamp more and more of their own movies. But the question remains- why not put the time and energy into creating new and interesting stories, instead of trying to modernize the old ones?

My answer is that Disney’s jump onto the live-action bandwagon is neither a great or terrible idea. Rather, it depends on the effort involved. It also depends on whether they will bring something new to the table, and how they’ll portray a different way of telling the story. The worst crime would be if they settled with doing shot-by-shot remakes. Now that would be pointless, wouldn’t it?

Imagine seeing the Wildebeest stampede scene in “The Lion King” done in live-action, or the scene in “Beauty and the Beast” when Belle meets the Beast for the first time. Both instances were done powerfully in the originals, but in live-action, there’s potential to explore the darker elements of such scenarios. Being live-action could give those elements much more weight. And think of the visual splendor! The shimmering, colorful aesthetics in the “Cinderella”remake really helped sell the fantasy aspect. The CGI in Jon Favreau’s “The Jungle Book” was so crisp and defined that it made you feel as though you were in that jungle and that the animals were real. Applying that technology to “The Lion King” will make the story feel more real and intense.

Disney jumping on the Hollywood remake bandwagon can also be beneficial in terms of representation. Live-action renditions of “Mulan” and “Aladdin” will be a great opportunity for Asian and Middle Eastern actors and actresses to shine. And the cultures of different kinds of stories, such as the German fairytale “Snow White” and the Greek legend of Hercules, can be brought up in the spotlight as well. So no, I don’t think Disney is being lazy, and neither are they looking for an easy cash-grab. Some remakes work, and some don’t. But as long as they’re made with careful effort, passion, and a touch of that familiar Disney magic, then the least we can do is give them a chance.