In the past decade, Disney’s strategy of producing live-action remakes of its classic animated films has become a central feature of its filmmaking approach.

This trend, visible in high-profile releases such as Cinderella (2015), The Jungle Book (2016), Beauty and the Beast (2017), Dumbo (2019), Aladdin (2019), The Lion King (2019), Mulan (2020), Pinocchio (2022), and The Little Mermaid (2023), is driven by clear business imperatives, the potent influence of nostalgia, and evolving cultural expectations.

The primary motivation behind Disney’s focus on remakes lies in reducing financial risk by leveraging existing intellectual property.

These films draw on established stories and beloved characters, minimizing the uncertainty involved in launching entirely new franchises.

Executives consider these remakes a “safe strategy,” as the original stories have already demonstrated broad appeal and enduring popularity.

The impressive financial returns further validate this approach—The Lion King (2019), for example, grossed nearly $1.6 billion worldwide, highlighting the strong market for such reinterpretations.

Nostalgia occupies a central role in this business model.

Disney’s remakes are designed to appeal to adults who grew up with the originals, drawing on their emotional connections to these classic films.

At the same time, new generations of children are introduced to familiar narratives through contemporary filmmaking techniques, effectively expanding the audience base.

The universal themes—family, friendship, personal growth—embedded in these stories help ensure their continued resonance across age groups.

However, adapting these stories for modern audiences involves substantial creative changes.

Disney has updated both content and characters in response to evolving audience expectations and social norms.

For example, The Little Mermaid (2023) reimagines Ariel as an 18-year-old, rather than the original 16, and incorporates characters and plotlines that emphasize diversity, gender equity, and inclusion.

New roles, like Queen Salina, and songs reflecting mutual growth, not just romantic aspirations, exemplify how Disney aims to align its stories with contemporary values.

These changes have sparked debate over the delicate balance between authenticity and relevance.

Critics argue that in focusing on contemporary issues—sometimes labeled as “political correctness”—Disney risks undermining the storytelling and emotional depth that made the originals iconic.

Some suggest that the remakes occasionally lose some of the charm and character focus of their animated predecessors, challenging the company to retain the essence of the originals while making necessary updates.

Public and critical reactions to these adaptations have been mixed.

While some remakes, like Aladdin and The Lion King, have achieved significant box office success and pleased many fans, others have encountered criticism for lacking creative innovation or altering beloved elements.

Debates frequently arise regarding faithfulness to the animated classics versus the need to reflect current cultural contexts.

Nevertheless, the commercial power of Disney’s brand and the strong pull of nostalgia have ensured stable financial outcomes, even when critical reception has been lukewarm or voices on social media have called for greater originality.

A notable aspect of the remake strategy is the willingness to reinterpret stories with new creative teams, directors, and actors.

This approach not only updates the films technically and culturally but also gives Disney opportunities to respond flexibly to market trends while maintaining the strong foundation of its brand.

Upcoming remakes, such as the new version of Moana, demonstrate this ongoing effort to blend familiar storylines with diverse creative input and evolving production choices.

In summary, Disney’s live-action remakes of classic animated films are the product of deliberate business strategy, the enduring power of nostalgia, and careful adaptation to social change.

These films balance reverence for the originals with responsiveness to contemporary values, sometimes sparking debate but consistently delivering robust financial returns and renewed attention for Disney’s legacy stories.

The ongoing evolution of these remakes will likely continue to shape the company’s cultural and commercial identity well into the future.

In the past decade, Disney’s strategy of producing live-action remakes of its classic animated films has become a central feature of its filmmaking approach.

Title:

Content: It’s possible that being an only child was one reason I was not exposed to the phenomenon of Disney princess worship during my youth. On the other hand, the lack of a coordinated merchandising effort during the 1970s probably had much more to do with the fact that the company’s princess lineup wasn’t yet emerging as a cultural trend.

In that decade, Disney focused most of its marketing on the so-called “Sensational Six” core characters, including Mickey Mouse, Minnie Mouse, Pluto, Goofy, Donald Duck, and Daisy Duck; along with product tie-ins to the 1977’s “The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh.”

Of course, Disney had only made three princess movies up to that time. Those included 1937’s “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs,” 1950’s “Cinderella,” and 1959’s “Sleeping Beauty.” Following the introduction of Aurora in 1959, Disney would make moviegoers wait 30 years for the next princess to arrive in a film that would herald the start of the Disney Renaissance.

And that film was 1989’s “The Little Mermaid.”

Written and directed by John Musker and Ron Clements, the 28th Disney animated feature film was very loosely based on the 1837 Danish fairy tale of the same name by Hans Christian Andersen. It boasted a string of memorable songs that brought imbued the production with Broadway panache. Alan Menken wrote the score, and collaborated with Howard Ashman on the songs. The film scored three Academy Award nominations, winning two for Best Original Score and Best Original Song for “Under the Sea.”

The animated film featured the voices of Jodi Benson, Christopher Daniel Barnes, Pat Carroll, Samuel E. Wright, Jason Marin, Kenneth Mars, and Buddy Hackett.

Buoyed by the success of “The Little Mermaid,” the Disney Renaissance ran from the late 1980s to the late 1990s and unleashed a series of critically and commercially successful animated films. Of the 10 films considered part of this period, five were Disney princess films. By 2000, the list of Disney princess included Snow White, Cinderella, Aurora, Ariel, Belle, Jasmine, Pocahontas, and Mulan. Andy Mooney, a former Nike executive who had been named president of Walt Disney Company's Disney Consumer Products division, saw an opportunity. He pitched the Disney Princess franchise line — and a generation of children became entranced consumers.

More than 20 years have gone by since the end of the Disney Renaissance and the official launch of Disney’s Princess Line. These days, Walt Disney Pictures is focused on making live-action adaptations of its animated films. The latest of these is “The Little Mermaid,” directed by Rob Marshall from a screenplay written by David Magee. The film was released theatrically on May 26.

When evaluating a remake, adaptation, or reinterpretation of a classic film, one must consider not only the quality of the new film, but also how it compares to the original. It’s not enough to ask if the film entertaining and well executed. One must also determine what makes the remake valuable in its own right.

“The Little Mermaid” is set in the 1830s in the Caribbean. Ariel (Halle Bailey), youngest child of King Triton (Javier Bardem), lives in an underwater kingdom. Disney wisely mentions in its synopsis of the film that Ariel is 18 years old — not 16, as she was in the animated version.

Unlike her older sisters, Ariel is defiant and rebellious. She is captivated by a world beyond her reach, defying her father’s orders to study humans and collect their possessions from shipwrecks. She is often joined in this endeavor by her aquatic companions Flounder and Sebastian (voiced by Jacob Tremblay and Daveed Diggs, respectively); as well as by the birdbrained Scuttle (voiced by Awkwafina), a seabird whose understanding of human culture is amusingly erroneous.

When a sailing ship she has been watching is destroyed in a storm, she rescues Prince Eric (Jonah Hauer-King). When Triton learns Ariel interacted with the surface world, he goes on an overprotective father rampage, destroying her collection of bric-a-bracs, baubles, and curios while reiterating his mandate that she should not indulge her inclination to learn, explore, or meet new people. Ironically, Prince Eric’s adoptive mother, Queen Salina (Noma Dumezweni) places similar constraints upon him because she is fearful of the outside world and of losing her son.

Desperate to be reunited with Prince Eric — who she is in love with despite the fact that the two haven’t even actually met at this point — Ariel turns to Triton’s evil sister Ursula (Melissa McCarthy), a scheming sea witch who sees this as an opportunity to oust Triton and take power over all the world’s oceans. Ursula strikes a deal with Ariel, giving her legs in exchange for her voice. There’s a catch: If Ariel fails to receive true love’s kiss from Eric before the end of three days, she will become Ursula’s property. To make sure Ariel fails, Ursula also causes her to forget about needing to score that kiss.

That’s just the setup. If it seems a bit drawn out, imagine how it feels watching it on the screen. With a runtime of 2 hours and 15 minutes — 53 minutes longer than the 1989 animated version — it sometimes feels like we’re treading water. One wonders if, in a post-pandemic world filled with ADHD brains, kids can manage to maintain focus on this narrative that meanders its way from scene to scene without a sense of urgency. Sebastian and Flounder know that there is a looming deadline, but in this version of the story, Ariel has been robbed of that knowledge. In the animated version, she at least had a specific objective. She actively worked toward that goal. In this version, she is a starry-eyed young woman crushing on someone she barely knows, drifting dreamily between infatuation and limerence.

Because it is both a retelling of a classic fairy tale and a redesign of a beloved Disney property, the film suffers from a pronounced scarcity of creativity and originality. There are updates to the story, changes in individual characters, and a few additional songs. Some of these facelifts work, such as the addition of Queen Salina. Some of these addendum fall flat, such as Eric’s song “Wild Uncharted Waters,” written by Lin-Manuel Miranda. Miranda’s song “The Scuttlebutt,” performed by Awkwafina and Diggs, is a more palatable add-on, despite that fact that it is jarringly different tonally from other music in the film.

All the film’s flaws and miscalculations can be forgiven by its most impressive saving grace: Bailey’s performance is as remarkable as it is enchanting. Bailey stands out again and again in the murky, sketchy CGI undersea sequences, glowing with charisma and agency. She brings the magic that is noticeably lacking in elsewhere in the film, balancing the nostalgia of childhood memories with a contemporary attitude. She carries this film on her shoulders, filling it with a sense of wonder and awe that will inspire children to seek out unexplored horizons and work toward achieving their dreams.

Mind you: I’d prefer Ariel did not have to literally transform — for a man — to be deemed successful. This version somewhat mitigates that theme. Personal transformation is fine when prompted by a desire to become a better person, while self-change enacted strictly to please an individual or a group is unwise and unhealthy.

The film also features recurring examples — both subtle and palpable — that show gender equity, diversity, and inclusivity are beneficial to society. These are the very same principled concepts extremist legislators and ultraconservative judicial officials currently vilify as “woke,” as if being socially aware, compassionate, and empathetic has somehow become objectionable. If you ascribe to that mindset, you should probably skip this movie.

The bottom line is “The Little Mermaid” may not be as artistically inspired as the animated version, but a standout performance by Bailey keeps the film afloat. It frequently captures the kinetic energy of a Broadway stage production, delighting audiences both with signature songs and newly added sequences that enhance the story and the characters. It is consistently entertaining, with sporadic moments of dazzling brilliance.

If you don’t trust an old curmudgeon to properly evaluate a Disney Princess film, I’ll share a few points my 16-year-old daughter made.

According to B.C. Zumpe, the film’s CGI could have been better. She particularly enjoyed a scene in which Ariel and Eric are dancing in a village near his castle, while a Caribbean band plays.

“Some people want all the characters to look exactly like the originals,” she said. “It wouldn’t be fair if Disney excluded Halle just because of her skin color. They chose her for her voice and her spirit. Even if you’re only upset because she looks different from the Ariel you grew up with, you can’t expect them to keep everything the way you want it.”

My daughter also felt that Awkwafina did a good job in voicing Scuttle. She appreciated how the film promoted the idea that it is good to interact with other cultures and be open to new ideas.

She’s a good kid.

Photo courtesy of DISNEY

Halle Bailey stars as Ariel and Jonah Hauer-King as Prince Eric in “The Little Mermaid.”

Photo courtesy of DISNEY

Melissa McCarthy stars as Ursula in “The Little Mermaid.”

How has Disney leveraged nostalgia in recent years?

By turning classic animations into live-action films with major stars

This trend, visible in high-profile releases such as Cinderella (2015), The Jungle Book (2016), Beauty and the Beast (2017), Dumbo (2019), Aladdin (2019), The Lion King (2019), Mulan (2020), Pinocchio (2022), and The Little Mermaid (2023), is driven by clear business imperatives, the potent influence of nostalgia, and evolving cultural expectations.

Title:

Content: A new part of The Lion King.
The story of Mufasa as you never knew it.
About five years after the release of The Lion King in 2019, Disney is offering a live-action version of the film, Mufasa: The Lion King, a new story that takes audiences back to the familiar tale of the film, as Simba explores the history of his father, Mufasa, and his father ’ s relationship with his younger brother. Reer Scar.
The film also comes on the 30th anniversary of the original Lion King, released in 1994, as part of Disney ’ s experiments in turning animated films into reality, such as Cinderella, The Mermaid, and Aladdin.
It is a safe strategy to ensure a financially successful product, without risking capital in new experiences that may not generate revenue.
The film is expected to be released on May 5, 2024.
Simba explores the history of Mufasa
The first real-life version of The Lion King in 2019 grossed nearly $1.6 billion worldwide.
The new version of The Lion King is expected to surpass the previous film because it explores an old story never presented before, while retaining all the reasons for the success of the original film, the story of the evil brother "Scar" and his relationship with his brother "Mufasa", a focal point in the main film, and the audience always wondered about the causes of the great evil inherent in the character "Scar".
Disney is looking to make an artistic epic, or a series of films as a result of the film ’ s manifold story, which carries more than one story, especially if its makers can find clues to the stories, because despite the worlds of Disney and its large production of films, it has never produced a major series like Star Wars, for example, and the story of the Lion King can be the beginning of movie series, especially as it moves narrative between the past and present....
Heroes of the New Story
The film was officially announced by Barry Jenkins, and Jeff Nathanson, the screenwriter of The Lion King (2019), completes his role as the writer of the new work "Mufasa".
Genghis said that there are many familiar characters will appear in the next film, and that the version will include new stories about the characters that the audience knew and associated with, and the story will go back in time with the heroes, to know the audience history and how they became what they are in the end, as the film tells how "Mufasa" came out of a modest life to reach the top of power, after he was a young cub roaming alone in life.
The film includes some changes to the voices of the heroes from the previous film, where the voice of young "Mufasa" will be performed by Aaron Pierre, while the voice of Mufasa was provided in the previous film, and in the older film of 1994 James Earl Jones.
Familiar voices that won ’ t change include John Kanye, who will cast Mandrel Reviki, Billy Eichner, who will cast Timon, Seth Rogan, who will cast Pumbaa, Kelvin Harrison, Jr., who will cast Scar, and Beyoncé, who will cast Nala.
Why is Disney bringing back the old stories?
Although audiences on social media complain about reproducing Disney ’ s classics, the box office always favors reproducing the classics, and there are many reasons for audiences to watch animated films in their real-life versions, including the attraction of old fans and the desire of the new generation to explore the modern context of the tale.
From here, such films have a double audience, especially in that story that touches on fatherhood, family, friendship, love and life. Mufasa remains one of the most famous Disney characters, and did not explore his story as befitting his fame and the story of his sad death in the original film, which separated the audiences against their will.
Source: Al Jazeera + Websites

How has Disney leveraged nostalgia in recent years?

By turning classic animations into live-action films with major stars

The primary motivation behind Disney’s focus on remakes lies in reducing financial risk by leveraging existing intellectual property.

Title:

Content: The upcoming live-action remake of Disney’s Moana will have a few new parts, including a director as the film has tapped Thomas Kail — a Tony Award-winning director for his work on Hamilton — to direct the film.

The Hollywood Reporter broke the story that Kail will helm the live-action Moana film. The project was announced earlier this spring and we know that Dwayne Johnson — who voiced Maui in the animated film — will return as the demigod in the film. He will also be producing via Seven Bucks Productions along with Dany Garcia, Hiram Garcia, and Beau Flynn (via Flynn Picture Co.). Jared Bush — the animated film’s screenwriter — wrote the remake’s script with Dana Ledoux Miller.

While Johnson is returning, Kail won’t be the only newcomer. It was also recently announced that Auli’i Cravalho would not be returning as Moana via a post from the actor’s Instagram (though she remains a producer).

Live and breathe sports?

🚨 Get viral graphics, memes, rumors and trending sports news delivered right to your inbox with the Clutch Newsletter.

Thomas Kail is an accomplished theatre director in his own right and should have no issue translating Moana from animated to live-action form. He won a Tony Award for Best Direction of a Musical in 2016 for Hamilton. However, his roots with Lin-Manuel Miranda go back even further, as Kail’s first director credit in theater is for In the Heights. He has also directed Hamilton for its filmed recording for Disney+ and has a couple of feature films in the works including Silver Wings and another Fiddler on the Roof adaptation.

Moana was a huge hit for Disney in 2016. It currently stands as the fourth highest-grossing film from Walt Disney Animation Studios ($248,757,044) and the film grossed a whopping $643,331,111 worldwide during its theatrical run. While the live-action remakes have varied in quality, Disney’s likely just hoping for the financial success that even The Little Mermaid brought.

According to John Musker, why does Disney rely on live-action remakes rather than producing new stories?

As a safer option
As a risk-reduction strategy

Compared to new franchises, what is the risk and return of remakes and sequels?

Lower risk but smaller long-term returns.

How has Disney leveraged nostalgia in recent years?

By turning classic animations into live-action films with major stars

These films draw on established stories and beloved characters, minimizing the uncertainty involved in launching entirely new franchises.

Title:

Content: ×
Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Why Spider-Verse And Mario's Soaring Success Leaves Disney Animation In The Dust

It's a good time to be making movies.

The COVID-19 pandemic brought the film industry to a screeching halt, forcing theatres to shutter their doors as studios shuffled their theatrical slates. With the future of the theatrical model uncertain and studios itching to gain income quickly, potential blockbusters like "Soul" and "The Tomorrow War," which were initially slated for theatrical release, debuted on streaming.

It's now 2023 and the box office is slowly approaching pre-pandemic levels, largely in part due to studios and theatres deciding to work together. However, while films like "Top Gun: Maverick" and "Avatar: The Way of Water" brought audiences back to cinemas, its animated juggernauts like "The Super Mario Bros. Movie" and "Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse" which are compelling audiences to stick with the theatrical experience. The success of "Mario" and "Spider-Verse" can't solely be attributed to the fact they're IP. Both films, alongside their contemporaries, are doing something different.

Since theatres returned to capacity, Disney and its subsidiary Pixar's animated footprint has been microscopic when compared to rival studios, with Illumination and Sony Pictures Animation making strides at the box office and in the culture. The House of Mouse's animation division is going through a crisis. In 2019, Disney boasted 3 billion dollar-grossing animated flicks: "The Lion King," "Frozen II," and "Toy Story 4." Since then, no animated flick from the studio has managed to gross over $250 million, with the company debuting two unprecedented bombs with "Strange World" and "Lightyear."

What happened? While others are innovating, Disney has found itself running in place, failing to adapt on several fronts. Through a series of managerial missteps and uninspired decisions, Disney Animation has quietly handed its throne over to the players who were once playing catch-up.

Super Mario is the simple family-friendly adventure that millions wanted

When it comes to box office supremacy, it's Illumination that's at the top. With its crowd-pleasing stories and eye-popping visuals, the Universal-backed studio has managed to create three inoffensive billion-dollar franchises with "Despicable Me," "Sing," and "The Secret Life of Pets." While critics might label their films as safe, they're known quantities for families and children who want to be whisked away for 100 minutes or less.

With "The Super Mario Bros. Movie," they've delivered their biggest hit to date. Nintendo and its roster of characters have defined the video game medium, with characters like Mario and Luigi holding the same universality worldwide as a bottle of Coca-Cola or McDonald's golden arches. The animated picture, which debuted in early April with little competition at the multiplex, has grossed over $1.3 billion and has racked up nearly $100 million from Premium Video on Demand.

Why is "Mario" so successful (particularly when the 2023 film is compared to its divisive 1993 live-action predecessor)? It's simple. In keeping with Illumination's mantra of creating crowd-pleasing films, "Mario Bros." doesn't alienate. It capitalizes on its IP by treating it with reverence and respect. It doesn't go beyond its means and tries its best to create a piece of mass-market cinema that isn't overly complex, which allows it to be easily translated. Nearly 60% of the "Mario" gross is thanks to international markets, where the film was dubbed with local talent to match audience expectations. Unlike Disney's contemporary films, which primarily deal with Western-centric trials and tribulations, the appeal of "Super Mario" was wholly universal — audiences across the globe knew they were getting a simple, family-friendly comedy with the right amount of heart the moment they walked into cinemas.

Spider-Verse, meanwhile, innovates at every turn

If "Mario" is a testament to the power of IP and simplicity, then "Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse" is the opposite, an exposé on how IP can serve as a gateway to expand upon new and bold ideas. In the case of "Spider-Verse," it's the franchise's ability to chart a new path with its inventive animation, bleeding traditional hand-drawn looks with contemporary CG, creating a fluid, immersive visual language. "Into the Spider-Verse," which debuted in 2018, quickly became the blueprint for contemporary animation, with films like the upcoming "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem" taking cues from it. And the film's 2023 sequel has truly penetrated pop culture on another level, with many dubbing it as one of the best animated films of all time.

"Across the Spider-Verse" taps into both superhero and multiverse tropes with grace, capitalizing on audience expectations with its fair share of cameos and easter eggs. But it's the film's visuals that set it apart, proving that audiences are ready to digest animation styles that don't just replicate reality. "Spider-Verse" swings for the fences by playing with a variety of contrasting images and designs to create something that truly has to be witnessed on the biggest screen for possible. As superhero films lose their general hold over audiences, "Spider-Verse" stands out from the crowd because its "it factor" isn't the multiverse, but rather, its liberal use of several different animation techniques.

For Disney, this should be a wake-up call that their animation style is getting stale — audiences are ready for more visual risks.

Disney needs to balance between magic and strategy

The light on Disney's kingdom seems to be dimming, at least on the animation front. Illumination and Sony Pictures Animation –and arguably, DreamWorks Animation — are filling in for the once mighty behemoth, delivering hits that hold actual staying power. What's gone wrong for Disney? It's important to recognize that the slump is because of two things: (1) a lack of innovation and (2) business blunders that have robbed the company of its prestige. After diminishing returns with "Meet the Robinsons" and a failed return to hand-drawn animation with "The Princess and the Frog," Walt Disney Animation Studios found itself in a slump, while sister company Pixar was soaring to new heights. Their luck changed with 2013's billion-dollar grossing "Frozen," a film that playfully toyed with the studio's reputation for creating princess-centric films. With "Frozen," true love wasn't conventional heteronormative love, but the power of sisterhood, a subversion that proved Disney was moving beyond traditional, boxed-in themes, like Pixar.

Since that striking turn a decade ago, WDAS (and Pixar) have found themselves in a corner with one core theme: generational trauma. "Frozen II," "Turning Red," and "Encanto," among others, have focused on the sins of the past manifesting in the present. Repetitive narratives and themes are fine if there is visual diversity, but WDAS has largely followed in the footsteps of Pixar, trying its darndest to create 3D computer-animated films that emphasize realism. If "Spider-Verse" has proven anything, it's that audiences can value adventurous forms of animation that aren't wholly uniform. Pixar and WDAS were once the face of taking risks by focusing on realism, genre-bending narratives, and diverse characters. Today, that isn't enough.

Disney has no one to blame but itself

"Toy Story 4" and "Frozen II" grossed over $1 billion in 2019. If "Toy Story 5" and "Frozen III" were to hit cinemas this calendar year, it's difficult to imagine them grossing over $800 million. IP matters, right? Not when it's diluted. In a bid to boost Disney+'s clout during the COVID-19 pandemic, Disney sent several of Walt Disney Studio Animation Studios and Pixar films to the service, robbing instant classics like "Soul" and "Turning Red" of profitable theatrical runs. Even "Raya and the Last Dragon," a film that should have been widely celebrated for its diverse story and roster of characters, was sent to Disney+'s Premier Access to squeeze up a quick profit. The result? Families across the globe realizing that their $7.99 a month subscription to Disney+ was a far better bet than buying tickets for the company's latest animated effort.

"Lightyear," what should have been a surefire hit, dropped the ball with middling critical reception and a gross of $218 million. The kooky sci-fi epic "Strange World," which boasted out-of-this-world visual aesthetics, couldn't take flight with a $69 million cume — one of the company's biggest financial failures. And "Elemental," the closest thing to a riff on "Inside Out," debuted to shy of $29 million –  just $2 million less than the third-weekend gross of "Spider-Verse."

Disney knows they fumbled the bag by sending their films to Disney+, with Pixar chief Pete Docter telling Variety that the company trained audiences to expect films on the service. It also doesn't help that their films cost way too much. In pursuing realism, Disney's bank accounts are being drained, with "Elemental" and "Lightyear" boasting $200 million price tags. "Spider-Verse" and "Mario," meanwhile? $100 million, shortening the amount of success they truly need.

Disney will persevere

The success of "Super Mario Bros" and "Spider-Verse" should scare Disney. The once-mighty powerhouse needs to figure out a way to bring audiences back to cinemas because, frankly, the Disney magic is dissipating as each day goes by. Luckily, "Mario" and "Spider-Verse" provide the necessary steps for Disney to rebound.

Disney should continue to focus on cost-cutting, bringing down the budgets for its animated flicks. If both "Mario" and "Spider-Verse" can become record-breaking and genre-defining films with small budgets, Disney should be able to do the same. Another way to save money? Actually release films in theatres. Recent flounders like "Lightyear" and "Elemental" should not signal that the theatrical model is dead. Treat Disney+ as the company's archive, not its saving grace. Allow future and recent projects like "Elemental," to premiere on PVOD after their time in the cinema is done. Give it months before sending the film to Disney+, where it can live forever. This is what Disney does with its Marvel films and, most recently, "Avatar: The Way of Water."

But no managerial switch-ups and financial cutbacks can change audience perception. Audiences want something new. If "Mario" was the power of IP and general breeziness coming to life, then "Spider-Verse" is proof that risks can be taken. Disney, pick your fighter. Instead of regurgitating IP, like with "Lightyear," allow Pixar to bring the world of "Avatar" or "Star Wars" to animation. Or switch up your tried-and-tested 3D animation style for something that pops, forcing audiences to witness the latest visual marvel on the biggest screen possible.

With "Wish," Disney seems to be doing just that, blending 3D animation with watercolors to create a look that no one else is doing. Now, will Disney succeed with this upcoming "risk?" That's up to the audience members.

According to John Musker, why does Disney rely on live-action remakes rather than producing new stories?

As a safer option
As a risk-reduction strategy

Compared to new franchises, what is the risk and return of remakes and sequels?

Lower risk but smaller long-term returns.

How has Disney leveraged nostalgia in recent years?

By turning classic animations into live-action films with major stars

Executives consider these remakes a “safe strategy,” as the original stories have already demonstrated broad appeal and enduring popularity.

Title:

Content: As of late, it seems all Hollywood is really interested in churning out are “remakes.” Who doesn’t love the return of a beloved superhero, a reboot of a classic sitcom or a revival of a decades-long film franchise? From a business standpoint, a surefire market of viewers makes reboots an objectively safe(r) place to pour money into and return “bigger and better,” oftentimes with a greater budget than the original was ever afforded. Yet, with revivals comes a whole slew of expectations from audiences, making any remake of substance a rather tricky artistic endeavor.

Beyond the capitalistic outcome of a project, there’s also the question of a remake’s true merit. To put it bluntly, if we consider a piece of art to be perfect, why bother messing with it? An update for the “times” always seems to be a weak excuse to me because if that work is so inextricable from the time period itself, would a modern-day remake even do it justice? Is what gets lost in the process just superfluous detail, or the heart and soul of the original?

To be fair, I have no concrete answer to any of this. Drawing the line between what distinctively makes one remake objectively good and necessary and another not is like trying to tell which “Full House” scenes included Mary-Kate Olsen and which ones included Ashley Olsen. But these are the questions that drive Olivier Assayas’s (“Personal Shopper”) TV series “Irma Vep,” just as they drove his ’96 cult-classic film of the same name. Fittingly enough, his return to the project mirrors the position of his fictional director in the original, who is similarly attempting to remake a classic film. Could the contextual circumstances be any more meta?

It’s quite easy to get lost in the metaverse of “Irma Vep,” so let me walk you through it.

In 1915 and 1916, Louis Feuillade directed a silent serial film called “Les Vampires” about a criminal gang and their evil muse, Irma Vep. In 1996, Assayas made a film called “Irma Vep” about a fictional director’s attempt to remake “Les Vampires,” with Maggie Cheung (“In the Mood for Love”) starring in the titular role. In the film, amidst the comedic chaos of a collapsing production, Assayas asked the quintessential question: Why remake what has already been done? What (in regards to both the fictitious remake of “Les Vampires” within “Irma Vep” and “Irma Vep” itself) is the film’s greater cinematic purpose? Clearly, Assayas still has some input on the matter, or at the very least, further questions to consider, as he returned to create this latest rendition of “Irma Vep” for the small screen in an eight-episode series with HBO Max.

“Irma Vep” follows Mira (Alicia Vikander, “Tomb Raider”), an actress who comes to France to star in a remake of the French classic film “Les Vampires.” Disillusioned by a recent breakup and a long contractual stint of action movies clouding her career, the line between reality and fantasy begins to blur as Mira immerses herself into the villainess role of Irma Vep.

Rather than start anew, “Irma Vep” leans into the meta, showcasing self-awareness of the layered history embedded in its existence. Although watching without any prior knowledge is certainly feasible, the easter eggs buried beneath the surface truly enrich the viewing experience. For instance, the name “Mira” is an anagram for “Irma,” just as “Irma Vep” is one for “vampire” in “Les Vampires.” These parallels manifest organically, as if each iteration of Irma Vep returns stronger than the last. When Mira tries on the iconic costume for the first time, she is suddenly possessed by an urge to sneak off, Irma Vep-style, gracefully creeping along a staircase in a shot-by-shot parallel to a scene from the ’96 “Irma Vep.” It’s as if Mira’s predecessors, and their respective portrayals, have seeped into the very essence of Vikander’s performance.

Just as Mira toes the line between the reality of her life and the alluring realm of being Irma Vep, the series as a whole sustains a similarly tenuous balance between reality and fiction. The fictitious remake’s financial troubles and sharp commentary on the present state of cinema ground the narrative and stabilize the fantastical nature of Mira’s escapades. The scenic shifts occur suddenly and without warning as Mira jumps from being in modern-day Paris in one instant to gliding through a dreamscape in the next. It deliberately turns the show on its head, allowing the audience to peer within not only Mira’s psyche, but Irma Vep’s as well.

Akin to a ghost story with pieces of the past living on in a new body, each rendition of “Irma Vep” peels back another layer of the character and Feuillade’s original masterpiece. The series expands upon the original’s potential, like a short story transformed into a full-length novel. Well executed and balanced, the show plunges to new depths as it smartly wields the comedic calamity of a film production with the broader questioning of its own purpose and relevance to cinema as a whole.

Daily Arts Writer Serena Irani can be reached at seirani@umich.edu.

According to John Musker, why does Disney rely on live-action remakes rather than producing new stories?

As a safer option
As a risk-reduction strategy

Compared to new franchises, what is the risk and return of remakes and sequels?

Lower risk but smaller long-term returns.

What motivates Disney to keep producing live-action remakes despite mixed reviews?

The impressive financial returns further validate this approach—The Lion King (2019), for example, grossed nearly $1.6 billion worldwide, highlighting the strong market for such reinterpretations.

How has Disney leveraged nostalgia in recent years?

By turning classic animations into live-action films with major stars

How successful was the 2019 live-action version of The Lion King?

Worldwide revenues exceeded one billion dollars

What motivates Disney to keep producing live-action remakes despite mixed reviews?

Nostalgia occupies a central role in this business model.

How has Disney leveraged nostalgia in recent years?

By turning classic animations into live-action films with major stars

Disney’s remakes are designed to appeal to adults who grew up with the originals, drawing on their emotional connections to these classic films.

How has Disney leveraged nostalgia in recent years?

By turning classic animations into live-action films with major stars

At the same time, new generations of children are introduced to familiar narratives through contemporary filmmaking techniques, effectively expanding the audience base.

How has Disney leveraged nostalgia in recent years?

By turning classic animations into live-action films with major stars

The universal themes—family, friendship, personal growth—embedded in these stories help ensure their continued resonance across age groups.

Title:

Content: Walt Disney Animation Head Jennifer Lee On Setting Up The Next Generation Of Artists [Exclusive Interview]

We're technically in the middle of Disney's centennial celebration, but for the iconic animation studio, the party is just getting started. After news came out earlier this month that nearly 30 restored animated shorts from the Walt Disney Animation Studios vault will be released on Disney+, the studio had a triumphant presentation at the Annecy International Animation Film Festival to reminisce on the past while also looking at the future.

First, the studio presented their latest animated short, "Once Upon a Studio," directed by Dan Abraham and Trent Correy, possibly the most magical thing they've done in years and a short that pays homage to the studio's 100-year-old history, the characters, and the animators that made the studio what it is. Then, audiences were treated to about 20 minutes of "Wish," the upcoming Disney animated musical feature which brings back the Disney villain, and does some cool things with its visuals. That film is directed by Chris Buck and Fawn Veerasunthorn (in her feature directorial debut), and written by Allison Moore and Jennifer Lee, the latter of whom also wrote and co-directed "Frozen" and serves as chief creative officer of Walt Disney Animation Studios.

/Film caught up with Lee shortly after the footage presentation of "Wish," where she talked about the future of Walt Disney Animation Studios, bringing back an actual villain for "Wish," and why animation is so special.

Note: This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and brevity.

'Technology and the artistry are merging'

The short film "Once Upon a Studio" includes a lot of different animation styles, while "Wish" looks different than many Disney films. What sort of experimentation is in store for the studio going into its second century?

Well, what I think particularly with the short and "Wish" is, and I think it's happening across animation, we're finally arriving at that place where technology and the artistry are merging in a way that I think is everyone's dream. I think of the incredible production designer, Lisa Keen, and the painting she did for "Frozen," but then they'd be translated into CG and they'd sort of be degrees away. But now, those paintings, that look, can make it onto the screen. And we've all been working on this for a long time. It's mattered. And with us, we were able to build it on a short scale, but to build it for a feature, we started, I think, when we met with the design team, the dream they said would be to be able to honor those watercolors from "Sleeping Beauty." "Sleeping Beauty" was such an inspiration for "Frozen" in terms of framing, but to get to do it, and we said, "Well, it's our hundredth, we have to have that goal, and they've been working on the technology for years."

I was saying just a couple months ago, we bumped into an issue where we didn't have it lined up to do water. So we had to brainstorm and work together and they figured it out because the scene was too important and they wanted to earn it, and there's nothing like a challenge for a technologist. That's what they want. "What's the next challenge?" So now we're hitting this place, we're going, "Okay, the look can go in many directions. That is so exciting," and it's really going to come down to the identity of the artists themselves coming through more. I think that is the best case scenario.

Building foundations

You talked during the studio presentation about the pairing of fresh talent with veterans, and you yourself were mentored by a veteran of the studio. Why is that important not just at an animator level, but on a key role like a director?

Well, I mean, all of these films are hard. Every one of them is hard to make. One of the things that our veteran filmmakers have is, they've been through it. They've been through a lot. They've had to redo things a lot. They felt the pain of failure, they felt the joy of success, and they have the layers of life. The new generation has talent. I mean, more and more talent out there. And they come in, and to go through your first film, I always say it's going to break your heart a little bit, over and over again, because it's not enough to dream. We all have dreams that we think, "Oh, if we could only make that." You look back at Walt and what it took for him to make "Snow White," and how it almost failed and it was a fight for every frame. There's never a shortcut in every movie.

So with our veteran filmmakers — and obviously you have someone like Eric [Goldberg, veteran Disney animator] who is everything, he is the talent and the years and the fight in him, and we've got an apprentice program that we've formed for the new generation of hand-drawn. And he's not just bringing skill this way, he's bringing those layers of life. To me, none of this is for the faint of heart. I think being creative, you are always vulnerable. So what we can do is build a good foundation and it's just important. For me, that's the big focus of where I want to go from here, is getting those voices that I'm finding so fresh and exciting, but how do you help them succeed? Because that takes more than just talent. [laughs] We all know, it's a fight. So I think that's what I'm most excited about.

'We've wanted to really celebrate a delicious villain for a while'

One thing that was really exciting about the footage was the villain. Why was that important to have in the film, and from your perspective, what makes a great Disney villain?

Yeah. We've wanted to really celebrate a delicious villain for a while. And we've had fun really straying where, I think in life, for a period of time we were exploring how the villain is not always so clear. Sometimes it's ourselves or thematic. But that idea of those villains, and the song, and we love that deliciousness of their evil. [laughs] So the daunting task of creating one, I think what really worked for us with this is we listened to our story artists, we listened to our audience, and people are saying, "I want him not just to be arch, though, I want to know" what we didn't always do, which was tell you why or how did they make those choices? You sort of meet them fully formed and they could be wonderful, but what makes Magnifico different? So we said, "Okay, from the first frame of the film, you're going to feel the journey of this person from the relatable part of ourselves." You get to see, as you saw in a scene when the villain and the protagonists are completely aligned and then you see as their philosophies diverge, you get to watch ... because we never want to say, "Anyone like this will make this choice." It's that this man makes this choice, this woman makes that choice, and it's so fun to watch. And Chris Pine was big on that and it's part of why we wanted to work with him. He's so smart, he holds the character accountable. So it was just so fun to build Magnifico with him, because you couldn't just take anything for granted. So for me, what's been great is getting ... you only saw the first couple of scenes, but getting to that place with him that we think is delicious, but watching him get there has been such a thrill ride for us.

'That did a lot for us in terms of trust'

From a production standpoint, we're three years into the pandemic. How has that impacted the way the studio looks at new projects? Has anything changed in your approach to either the stories you want to tell or the animation pipeline?

I think, in a good way, what we learned about ourselves during Covid was, we built "Raya" and "Encanto" completely [separately]. No one was together and the whole productions were done from home. So I felt like we showed that we understood each other enough and we could carry the same vision from multiple homes. And that did a lot for us in terms of trust. So what we have now is this place where, as people are coming back and this collaboration that it's kind of like we've been through a lot together, so there's no formality, and that makes, for me, I think that makes for a much more wonderful creative space. But I think the big thing is, it's not even about Covid, it's about, as I say, that new generation. I'm more aware than ever of their power and what they can do, but I'm also more aware of that responsibility.

So where I look at is what excites people about storytelling evolves and it's hard when you're getting old to look to yourself. I have certain things I can bring, but it's my job to make sure that I'm spotting that talent and giving them that platform and support and then letting them take it. And I think that's how Eric is helping new generations. That's what we've done that keeps us Disney, is continuing to let that new generation help us evolve, but setting them up for success. So I feel like that has less to do with Covid and just more to do with, here we are. I mean, I've been in this role five years. I've been in the studio 12 years. I came in under 40 and now I'm over 50. So it's time. I think of that. And you hear them banging on the door and they challenge the storytelling, and it's great.

'They're artists. They're not Disney artists. They do work for Disney, but they bring their soul and their tastes come with them'

Serving as both a writer and a producer on "Wish," what was the key element that made this right for the hundredth year celebration?

Well, what I love though is we all started talking as a group, all the directors would get together and we'd meet with story artists and just leave it open and talk about all these fantastical fun ideas. But what kept coming back were certain things — yes, the villain, but this idea of the wishing on stars. That little clip we showed [a montage of Disney characters throughout the years looking at the stars], that was put together before we had the film. Someone just put it together who was inspired to say, "This is something that's a part of us." And you felt it come. Then Chris, he didn't set out to direct it originally, but it spoke to him so clearly. And Fawn, she was such a powerhouse right away.

Then what happened with us is as we were developing the character, Star changed quite a bit. Star originally could talk and took different forms, sometimes human form. And it was really saying, "But that's not what Star is. Star is hope, possibility, wonder — those things don't have the power, they have the power to inspire you." And then I started watching panda bears and how ridiculously funny they were and felt that curious innocence and we said, "What if Star is just that?" And then they said, "You can see this. I think you need to write a draft." And luckily Allison Moore was there in the room every day, but I could come in. But it didn't happen where it was no moment of an order. It was more of, as people were drawn to it and they got it, they just formed the team. And I felt very lucky that, when they asked me to write it and I had no time, but how could I not? It was such an honor.

Disney has always been a studio strong in its traditions, and its recognizability. I'm curious, with something like "Wish," where do you look for pushing boundaries while also keeping those traditions?

All our artists are looking all the time. They're artists. They're not Disney artists. They do work for Disney, but they bring their soul and their tastes come with them, and what they see in the world inspires them. That's great about this industry. Every day there's always buzzes of what's going on. But I think if I look at "Tangled" as a good example of understanding the fairytale, our first sort of CG princess and this nod to the past, but this embracing of this technology, which was a little scary, I'm sure. I wasn't there, so I can only guess. But to say, the approach they took, it kind of showed us where we could go and be more playful. If there hadn't been "Tangled," there would not have been "Frozen." So I'm very grateful that we took some bold steps.

'It's the greatest form of flattery, I guess'

There's been a lot of live-action remakes of Disney movies, both classics and newer ones. From an animation standpoint, does that push you to make visuals more distinct or even just "easier" to adapt? Does it at all affect the mentality going into a new project?

No, I mean, very, very politely, we completely build these independently. We don't think ahead of the live-action. We're honored if it happens. It's the greatest form of flattery, I guess. But I do think, one of the things I love — to me, what defines animation is it is truly transportive in a way that it speaks to your imagination, not to your reality. And so I think in terms of, personally, the looks that I'm inspired by, of where I do feel I'm in a believable world and it feels alive, but it is wholly nothing of our world. It's a place that I can truly escape to. I think that means a lot to a lot of us. So to me, the easy part of it is, if the goal is reality, the technology can go that way. But animation is not about that. What I love about animation is, it starts with a dream and everything is built and the more we can be transported to something we've never seen, the more excited I get.

Lastly, when it comes to "Wish" or any future projects as you are working through development, especially just that first brainstorming phase, what is the balance or even just your personal feelings in terms of wanting to look back at the history of Disney versus looking at what is possible now with new technology and new ideas?

Yeah, yeah. For me, there's not an overall philosophy about it. I do think it's director and artist by artist. And so what we'll do on one film, we won't do on another, and we'll try a whole different ... "Zootopia" and "Wreck-It-Ralph" are nothing like "Frozen." And I think that we'll do that for everything where we take it one film at a time. I think what I always have to trust is what inspires those artists. But I do think when we think about the legacy, to me, there are certain things that I think are wholly Disney, which are films that give hope. Films where you can escape, where you feel like you belong, that you feel that it can become yours. And there's always an element, hopefully, of joy. But we're not afraid to go into deep, dark places. All fairytales do.

But I think that's what we do say is a part of who we are. And I think for so many of us there, it's this thing we share, which is for so much of our lives, starting from our first memories to now, Disney was a place for us to go no matter what was happening in the world, and we could feel this escape. And it was an escape that left you feeling things are possible. I do think that's part of who we are, foundationally, that we all think about. How we get there should be very different each time. And obviously the musicals, the musicals, the musicals, because we love them.

"Wish" arrives in theaters on November 22, 2023.

However, adapting these stories for modern audiences involves substantial creative changes.

Disney has updated both content and characters in response to evolving audience expectations and social norms.

Title:

Content: Alert
Operation Blue Bird continues … 30,000 people surround the Legislative Yuan in the evening to protest against the delay of the Beijie Red Line and the Blue Line for 15 minutes.
“If you can ’ t afford it, don ’ t give birth to me ” … A middle school student laments that his parents will not be able to pay their tuition fees after remarriage.
Mobile signal analysis crowd provoking... Wang Yichuan shouted "Christmas City also did" blue committee exposed the New Taipei City government 's statement
Can't you watch it from your own family?
"Little Mermaid" director points to Disney's problems
Disney has been the first brand of American animation, bringing many beautiful memories to children around the world, including the early years of "Snow White", "101 loyal dogs", as well as described as the "Renaissance" period of "Beauty and the Beast", "Aladdin" and so on.
However, the recent Disney animation or live-action film, there is a big problem: each time in the casting and plot direction of the controversy, many people complain that too much "political correctness", or to put some ideas into the story arrangement, character layout and other basic details are put aside, turned into an alternative "educational film".
With such a big change, audiences can ’ t fail to feel that last year ’ s five most expensive movies, Disney Group accounted for four, even celebrating the centenary of their own animation as “Star Wish ”, both at the box office and in word of mouth have lost.
Recently, the director of "Little Mermaid", "Aladdin", "Hercules", "Treasure Island", "Ocean Strange" and other famous Disney animation director John Musk admitted at the seminar on animation and special effects, video games: "I think they should carry out a part of the course correction, put the concept of the secondary, the entertainment of the film, the story and whether the characters attract people should be more important." "
In John Musk ’ s eyes, the traditional Disney classic is not a concept that you want to put in, but rather an audience into the story and the characters and the world in the film, which he believes should still be the core of the current Disney film, “You don ’ t have to completely put aside the idea of putting in, but before that you have to create characters that the audience can empathize with and feel eye-catching. ”
"He said.
John ’ s past Disney animations also included “The Princess and the Frog, ” the first black princess to be the main character. Even so, he said the film was not built to promote an“ awakening culture, ” although he could understand the criticism.
As for the past few years, Disney has become more and more frequent remakes of old animations into live-action versions, he believes that the film companies are always looking at how to reduce the risk, and when they see that the audience likes something, they are thinking, is there a way to change the appearance and sell it to them again, or even do it better than the last time?
Just a few Disney classic animation remakes, audience word-of-mouth or film ratings are not as good as the original animation, based on their own history, John Musk did not take last year caused a lot of controversy of the live-action version of "Little Mermaid" to open: "They do not ink on the story of the father and daughter, that is the core of the whole movie, and that crab, you can see the real animal in the zoo, They all have a much richer expression than the ones in the movies, and so does the Lion King."
Extended reading
Who is the most handsome and beautiful Romeo and Juliet? Leonardo almost matched Natalie
"You made Johnson the Boulder look like Beckham," the wax image, the skin color, the deliberate whitening... he cited the little mermaid infarction controversy.
Rachel Zengler in "Snow White" was accused of not being white enough "Little Mermaid" to support her: the perfect princess
Related News
2 Responses to “Thank You, Brother. ”
A fire broke out in a community building on the 28th floor of Hsinchu City ’ s “Sky Tree ” on the 26th, resulting in the deaths of two firemen, Li Yongzhen and Zhou Lixin. Today (28th) Hsinchu City Fire Department...
Can't you watch it from your own family?
"Little Mermaid" director points to Disney's problems
Disney has been the first brand of American animation, bringing many beautiful memories to children around the world, including the early years of "Snow White", "101 loyal dogs", and what has been described as "the Renaissance".
May Tian Xin said! Donate billions of dollars to Taiwan Kaohsiung, Hualien, Yilan
In May, Ahsin ’ s words, “We Chinese, come to Beijing to eat roast duck, ” set off a rift between netizens on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, and was later poached to donate 9 million yuan (about 40.5 million NT dollars).
Huang Hao Ping shares the first step in fraud prevention
Fraud news layer is endless, accidentally fell into the trap of bad people, "Social Now What" invited artist Huang Hao Ping as a guest host, the first video was invited to the Bureau of Criminal Affairs Prevention Division...
"China has no market" by acid, can not earn RMB Yang Xiuhui counterattack
Recently, many artists have taken the initiative to express their support for mainland reunification of Taiwan, and Yang Xiuhui is shouting "I am Taiwanese", which has won a lot of praise from Taiwanese netizens, but there are also many people who question her in mainland China.
Korea 's first beautiful woman married for 17 years! Certified "love and marriage are not the same"
South Korea 's first beauty Kim Hee-sun' s latest suspense psychological drama "We, Home", partner Bawant film after Lee Hui-ying, about Kim Hee-sun 's famous psychologist "Lu Ying-yuan" is threatened by mysterious people,...
Product recommendation
udn Forum

For example, The Little Mermaid (2023) reimagines Ariel as an 18-year-old, rather than the original 16, and incorporates characters and plotlines that emphasize diversity, gender equity, and inclusion.

New roles, like Queen Salina, and songs reflecting mutual growth, not just romantic aspirations, exemplify how Disney aims to align its stories with contemporary values.

These changes have sparked debate over the delicate balance between authenticity and relevance.

Critics argue that in focusing on contemporary issues—sometimes labeled as “political correctness”—Disney risks undermining the storytelling and emotional depth that made the originals iconic.

According to John Musker, what should Disney prioritize in its remakes?

What approach makes Disney's classics successful according to John Musker?

Immersing audiences in story-driven worlds rather than pushing preconceived ideas.

What controversy arose from Disney's casting and updates in The Adventures of Pinocchio?

Some suggest that the remakes occasionally lose some of the charm and character focus of their animated predecessors, challenging the company to retain the essence of the originals while making necessary updates.

According to John Musker, what should Disney prioritize in its remakes?

Public and critical reactions to these adaptations have been mixed.

How did audiences react to the 2020 Mulan live-action remake?

Some positive reactions praising both changes and additions

While some remakes, like Aladdin and The Lion King, have achieved significant box office success and pleased many fans, others have encountered criticism for lacking creative innovation or altering beloved elements.

How successful was the 2019 live-action version of The Lion King?

Worldwide revenues exceeded one billion dollars

What does Disney's reliance on sequels and spin-offs instead of new IP suggest about its creativity?

A stalling of the company's creative engine.

What motivates Disney to keep producing live-action remakes despite mixed reviews?

Debates frequently arise regarding faithfulness to the animated classics versus the need to reflect current cultural contexts.

What controversy arose from Disney's casting and updates in The Adventures of Pinocchio?

Nevertheless, the commercial power of Disney’s brand and the strong pull of nostalgia have ensured stable financial outcomes, even when critical reception has been lukewarm or voices on social media have called for greater originality.

How successful was the 2019 live-action version of The Lion King?

Worldwide revenues exceeded one billion dollars

What motivates Disney to keep producing live-action remakes despite mixed reviews?

A notable aspect of the remake strategy is the willingness to reinterpret stories with new creative teams, directors, and actors.

How has Disney leveraged nostalgia in recent years?

By turning classic animations into live-action films with major stars

This approach not only updates the films technically and culturally but also gives Disney opportunities to respond flexibly to market trends while maintaining the strong foundation of its brand.

Upcoming remakes, such as the new version of Moana, demonstrate this ongoing effort to blend familiar storylines with diverse creative input and evolving production choices.

In summary, Disney’s live-action remakes of classic animated films are the product of deliberate business strategy, the enduring power of nostalgia, and careful adaptation to social change.

How has Disney leveraged nostalgia in recent years?

By turning classic animations into live-action films with major stars

These films balance reverence for the originals with responsiveness to contemporary values, sometimes sparking debate but consistently delivering robust financial returns and renewed attention for Disney’s legacy stories.

How has Disney leveraged nostalgia in recent years?

By turning classic animations into live-action films with major stars

How successful was the 2019 live-action version of The Lion King?

Worldwide revenues exceeded one billion dollars

What motivates Disney to keep producing live-action remakes despite mixed reviews?

The ongoing evolution of these remakes will likely continue to shape the company’s cultural and commercial identity well into the future.