In Defense of Live-Action Remakes
For today’s Musings Monday, let’s get controversial.
It seems like every time I see a trailer or a news story or any post on Facebook—one regarding a new live-action remake—there are people compelled to respond negatively. Sometimes angrily, vehemently opposed to the very existence of these movies.
“This is stupid!”
“Give me something new!”
“Why can’t Hollywood be creative!”
“It’s a shameless cash-grab!”
Indeed, many are negative about the very existence of these films, but others like to critique and point out flaws they see in these ones that are already made. Either it’s too similar and doesn’t bring anything new to the story, or the crazy, ridiculous changes ruin the original story.
“These movies are disrespecting the original animated masterpieces and ruining my childhood nostalgia!”
First of all, if your childhood memories are so fragile that a modern movie can ruin it, let’s not blame Disney. You have other things going on in your life.
Psychology aside, I want to take the Devil’s Advocate approach to this topic. From what I’ve seen, it seems to be cool to complain about these remakes, so I’m going to defend them.
In Defense of Live-Action Remakes
It’s time for some rebuttals of some of common the criticisms I alluded to above. As I dive in, keep in mind that this is my very biased opinion. If you disagree with me, be sure to (nicely) tell me why via comments or direct messages on Facebook or Instagram!
Shameless Cash-Grab?
Now, when anything profitable in entertainment is considered to be a shameless cash-grab, it’s easy to agree in that assessment because, obviously, it’s making money.
But reality check: Just because something makes money doesn’t mean it’s automatically bad.
Do you not see the poor logic? “It’s just a shameless cash-grab; nobody actually wants these remakes; Disney’s just trying to make money while being lazy.”
If nobody wants to see these movies, why are they making money? Nobody’s being forced to watch these films. If 2016’s Pete’s Dragon can serve as an example, these aren’t pre-destined to be successful. The audience needs to be willing to pay to see the movie, and they need to enjoy the movie for it to be successful.
Just because it’s popular doesn’t mean it’s bad. It’s like people complaining about pop music. It’s called pop because it’s literally popular music, which means people enjoy it! The pop producers aren’t any less artists than insert-your-favorite-band-here, even if you hate modern pop music. There’s skill and artistry involved, even if you don’t like the result.
And, to answer the question of “Who actually wants these movies?”, the answer is simple: Me! I want these movies. I’ve always wanted to see a live-action Aladdin, and this year, that dream came true. Though I didn’t care as much for the new Jungle Book, I loved the new Beauty and the Beast. And I’m probably going to see The Lion King (yes, I know it’s not technically live-action) and Mulan when they reach theaters.
With no disrespect to animation, I always imagined these adventures happening in real life, with real actors and realistic special effects.
I’ve always wanted to see these stories unfold in a new, life-like way, and I’m glad it’s happening. And considering how much money and hype are generated around them, I suspect I’m not alone.
Disrespectful?
No, these movies are not automatically disrespectful to the source material. Nobody is talking about the 2019 Aladdin replacing the original. None of these remakes are supposed to replace the original. It’s not like Disney’s trying to pull an evil trick, where all of the sudden the animated films are purged from existence and you can only get the remakes.
That dystopia does not exist, and I suspect it never will. After all, Disney is a business, and that would be very bad for business.
These remakes reinterpret and reimagine their source material. It’s the art of homage. It’s the art of seeing the same story through a new lens.
These reinterpretations don’t denigrate the original, but enhance the story experience by creating a form of artistic dialogue. Sometimes, the original needs a new context or a fresh interpretation, not to compromise the original’s merits or themes, but to return it to cultural relevance and create conversation around those themes.
Not Creative?
I’d argue that Hollywood has never been more creative!
First of all, the remakes and reimaginings themselves are creative. Who did Snow White better: Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, Mirror Mirror, or Snow White and the Huntsman? All three of these movies are based on the same story, but they’re three very different takes. And guess what? They’re good in different ways, and audiences enjoy all three for different reasons.
And don’t get me started on Disney-owned ABC’s seven-season series Once Upon a Time. Though not all of its twists ultimately worked well, you can’t really say the fairytale reimaginings of the show weren’t unique or creative.
But beyond the scope of these remakes, unique movies are still being made. If you want to see new, creative, never-been-done-before movies, you buy a ticket, and you need to support it. Put your money where your mouth is!
Nearly every one of Christopher Nolan’s films are groundbreaking and unique. And have you seen A Quiet Place?
Some movies that really deserved recognition actually flopped in box office because they were risks, not-well-marketed, and not attached to a well-known, established, cinematic property.
In Conclusion
No matter what, not everyone is going to like the same movies. It’s okay if you don’t like live-action remakes, just like it’s okay if you don’t like superhero movies, or action thrillers, or romantic comedies.
Let’s stop acting like one particular genre is automatically bad and lazy. Instead, you do you, and support the movies you love.
[Oh, and if you missed it, I wrote a couple posts about the new Aladdin a couple weeks ago. Check them out here and here.]
