In many ways, "The Jungle Book" is Disney’s reward for years' worth of planning. In 2014, the studio began a radical and controversial new project: remaking their classic animated catalogue in massive live action affairs, beginning with the "Sleeping Beauty" revision "Maleficent." Technically, "Alice and Wonderland" started this trend in 2010, but it only became a yearly affair with "Maleficent." "Maleficent" received polarizing reviews, but maybe a surprisingly strong box office. The following year, a traditional retelling of "Cinderella" was brought to live action with much more positive reviews. And this year, the massive CGI 3D world of "The Jungle Book" was released to jaw-dropping success.

With an opening weekend of $103,000,000 and a 90 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, the Disney Live Action Experiment has firmly established itself as a success, while validating Walt Disney Pictures as a equal partner to the Animation Studio, Pixar, Marvel Studio, and Lucas Film. And most importantly for Disney, it means that their current plans will presumably go unperturbed. "Beauty and the Beast" is set for 2017, while there are plans for a Live Action "Mulan," "Pinocchio," "Winnie the Pooh," "Dumbo" and others.

However, "success" in this case is strictly for Disney’s bottom line and status in Hollywood. But there is still a huge, vocal protest from fans, critics, and film enthusiasts. Many see these live action remakes as one of the many symptoms of modern Hollywood’s obsession with remakes, sequel, and reboots. And it is easy to understand many Disney fans' hesitation at the idea of their beloved films being remade. We are less than a decade removed for the plague of straight-to-DVD sequels that tarnished Disney’s reputation for an entire generation. It is perfectly understandable that many are hesitant to see this in anything other than a cynical light. But as a Disney enthusiast, I want to play devil’s advocate, because I see these films as an exciting and potentially rewarding cinematic endeavor.

To start, it’s exciting to be a point technologically where a project like this is even possible. This might just be the giddy tech enthusiast in me, but the fact that we’ve reached a point in the science of film that we can capture the artistry of these hand drawn classics in real life. This is especially true for "Cinderella" and "The Jungle Book;" "Cinderella" frequently felt like the animation had jumped off the page, while it is difficult to overstate how jaw dropping the CGI work in "Jungle Book" is. Walt Disney himself allegedly grew more and more interested in Live Action endeavors as he saw the technology available for telling stories grow exponentially, and I think he would be ecstatic to see that today the classic works his company made can now be recreated through live action.

And the creative teams aren’t the journey men you would expect from studio mandated projects. "Maleficent" was the directorial debut of Robert Stromberg with Angelina Jolie as an executive producer. "Cinderella" had Kenneth Branagh, the Academy Award-nominated director and actor famous for his Shakespeare adaptations. And Jon Favreau, the man how effectively set the tone for the entire Marvel Universe with "Iron Man," found a passion project in recreating "The Jungle Book." Very few things excite me more than seeing creative minds getting to play in existing universes, bringing their own creative flourishes. That is the best reason for remakes.

And most importantly, while many cry creative stagnation at these recreations, I would argue each of them has some kind of creative spark justifying their creation. The best example of this is "Maleficent," where the plot of "Sleeping Beauty" makes up only the second act. The primary plot is actually a shockingly dark revisionism, casting the villain as the victim of what was effectively a fantasy sexual assault. The film went as far as to suggest the traditional animation film was an anti-fairy (i.e. anti-feminist) lie. "The Jungle Book" feels incredibly fresh by returning to the original source material, Kipling’s book. Walt famously told the creators of the animated film to not read the source material, lest they make something too dark. The new film finally addresses that source material, blending the animated classic and the novel to create a big, mythic, world that balances nostalgia with intense adventuring. And "Cinderella’s" commitment to making a traditionalist fairy tale was surprisingly novel in an era where grittiness, revisionism, and an aversion to sincerity have dominated Hollywood.

I understand that many are cynical at a multi-billion dollar company digging through their catalogue to wring out more pennies. And while the financial gains are no doubt a huge motivator for Disney, can’t that be acceptable when we are getting good films out of it? Believe me, I would be right there with the nay-sayers if we were getting vastly inferior products that tarnished the originals, but form where I am standing, they all stand as equals to their animated counter parts, if not a noticeable improvement.

While it’s place in the animated pantheon is unmistakable, "Sleeping Beauty" is not particularly great. "Maleficent" has an edge and fire in it that I think elevates it. And while I think "Cinderella" and "Jungle Book" were already great films, their live action counter parts provide their own positives as well. So at the very least, give these live action films a try. And even if a few don’t turn out as well, it’s hard not to appreciate the rare opportunity we are getting to see two generations of filmmakers bring the same story to life through different mediums.