If you've been to any movie theater lately, I guarantee you that at least one of the films out are Disney related. Whether it be "Dumbo," "Aladdin," or most recently, "The Lion King," Disney continues to dominate the film industry since its establishment in the 1920s. Disney stories all have some kind of element in them that anyone can relate to. Everything from Disney has evolved- from the animation, to how the characters are portrayed, to the type of stories being told. However, over the past decade, I'm sure I am not the only one to notice this but a lot of Disney's film content looks very familiar Disney seems to be on a mission- to remake almost all of their films from the previous century, and even some from the previous decade. Why? My guess is because they can't come up with anything else at the moment and instead of producing nothing, they decided to rehash old stories for a current generation and for previous generations to look at with wistful nostalgia. As much as I enjoyed some of these remakes, I have to say that I'm kind of getting tired of them and I know Disney has the resources and staff to do better and create the next new classic.
It's not the case with all of its remakes; the live-action of Aladdin did manage to correct many of the questionable things the first film had, for example, the offensive lyrics to the song "Arabian Nights." It also gave Princess Jasmine more autonomy and got rid of that one scene in which she is kidnapped and held hostage by Jafar, in a sexist and exploitative way. I was a huge fan of "Speechless," and Naomi Scott did a fantastic job at portraying her as the bad-ass brown woman that she truly is. I think Disney is going to incorporate a more inclusive way of storytelling in pretty much all of its remakes. But is that all they're going to do? I have the most disappointment when it came to the Lion King remake. Unpopular opinion: It's not that great. The original 1994 version is pretty much the same story, but in my opinion, the 2D animation was more expressive and therefore adds more to the story and characters instead of comparing it to an animal planet documentary. Now don't get me wrong; I too was apart of the vast majority when the cast was announced, I was a part of the hype. But then I thought about it, even watched the opening minutes of the film and I realized that it would be the same thing as watching the original but the animation is "live-action" aka creepy CGI. It's the kind of CGI that looks so real that it's kind of scary and fake. And the problem with a movie like Lion King being live-action is that there aren't any humans to balance out the fake realness of the CGI.
For example, "Aladdin" employed the same animation as Lion King when it came to Aboo, Raja and Iago, Jafar's henchman, however, it was less noticeable of how unsettling it was because of the largely human cast. It reminded us that we are still in the "real world," and not watching a computer-generated, animated film. However, we don't get to have that reminder in the Lion King remake. The ENTIRE cast is creepily computer-animated expressionless talking creatures... I could not watch that for almost 2 hours.
Putting my obvious issues with the animation aside, I still feel like the Lion King remake could've done more to stand out from the original. Of course, nothing could beat the 1994 version, which was a loose retelling of the Shakespearean classic, Hamlet. But many people don't notice this because of how original it was in its portrayal of the story. That's what I wished this remake did. It could be the same story delivered in a twist of some kind or offered from a new perspective. And it's not impossible because Disney is actually doing that already. The 2014 film "Maleficent" was a remake of "Sleeping Beauty," which was arguably one of Disney's blandest stories, but the film had a darker twist by telling it from the main villain's point of view. It made it a whole other movie and even began its own franchise; a sequel is coming out later this year.
Point is, with Maleficent, a classic story wasn't simply retold but it offered a new perspective, thus humanizing an initially static and objectively "bad" character, whose only purpose is to be the antagonist. As one of my favorite Youtuber's suggested, what if the Lion King was told from Nala's perspective? Or even Scar? Sure, the remake is slightly "darker" and more dramatic in its storytelling (could it be because of the graphics? It's hard to make something looking like a documentary NOT super dramatic) but it's still essentially the same. There' many more directions Disney could've gone with this. A backstory for the hyenas? Or how Scar and Mufasa became estranged? We know a little, but not enough.
Going forward, as Disney announces the dates for "Mulan" and begin production for "The Little Mermaid," I hope they do something to make it a little bit different than the originals, so they could stand out and be known for itself, not as just the "live-action version" of an already iconic film. Mulan seems to already be heading in that direction, and I can only wait and hope the live-action remakes to follow hold that much originality as well.
