# Disney Live Action Remakes: A Strategic Analysis

## Executive Summary

Disney's live action remakes of classic animated films represent a calculated business strategy that leverages nostalgia while attempting to modernize content for contemporary audiences.

This report examines the motivations, adaptations, and reception of Disney's recent live action remakes from 2015-2023.

## Strategic Motivations Behind Live Action Remakes

### Financial Considerations
Disney's pivot toward live action remakes stems from a proven financial formula.

These films offer reduced creative risk while capitalizing on established intellectual property with built-in audience recognition.

The strategy provides reliable box office returns and streaming content, as evidenced by "The Little Mermaid" breaking Disney+ streaming records.

### Nostalgia as a Driving Force
Nostalgia plays a central role in Disney's decision-making process.

The company recognizes that audiences have emotional connections to their childhood films, making these properties valuable assets for monetization.

This approach allows

# Disney Live Action Remakes: A Strategic Analysis

## Executive Summary

Disney's live action remakes of classic animated films represent a calculated business strategy that leverages nostalgia while attempting to modernize content for contemporary audiences.

Title:

Content: Robert Zemeckis understands two things about Disney’s Pinocchio. First, he knows the 1940 animated film is ingrained in the entertainment behemoth’s DNA. It’s considered by many to be the best animated film from the studio’s early days. “When You Wish Upon a Star” is now the Walt Disney Pictures fanfare. The song’s promise of wishes fulfilled under starlight is part of Disney’s patented feel-good m.o. Heck, over the years Jiminy Cricket has become the company’s B-tier mascot, right behind Mickey Mouse.

But Zemeckis also knows that the ’40s Pinocchio is weird as hell. The stranger things that punctuate that seminal early Disney effort are hidden in plain sight, though they're often forgotten as people marvel at the film's artistry. Most other filmmakers would’ve bent over backwards to pay homage if given a chance to bring Pinocchio to life in 2022. Zemeckis is not the guy you hire to do that.

His new live-action Pinocchio adaptation gives you what you’d expect, but so, so much more. It’s as if Zemeckis wanted his adaptation to play like if Moulin Rouge-era Baz Luhrmann directed Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. The film is only as reverential as a Zemeckis film can be, which is not very reverential at all.

After Disney's years of uninspired retreads, like 2019’s The Lion King and 2017’s Beauty and the Beast, Pinocchio veers all the way in the other direction. The eye-popping Pleasure Island sequence alone has more personality than most anything Disney has done in this space recently. While the aggressive shift in artistic influence might alienate some Mouse House purists, anyone willing to take a walk on Zemeckis’ wild side might get a kick out of this one.

Take Tom Hanks, for example. As Geppetto, the screen legend channels the same cornball energy that made his portrayal of Col. Tom Parker in Elvis a glorious meme. Even when Hanks is hamming it up, he’s still credible and magnetic (kind of like Zemeckis as a director). Continuing with the irreverence, the film’s portrayal of Pinocchio is like if you made Ralph Wiggum out of wood and gave him Jacob Tremblay’s voice. Zemeckis gets in a few fun jabs at Pinocchio’s blissful ignorance (at times involving fire), which help keep the film from getting too saccharine.

Zemeckis’ Pinocchio doesn’t hew too closely to the preciousness and regality of the animated classic. It's more of a parking-lot carnival ride through an uncompromised vision, and the most enjoyable one of these live-action Disney flicks since 2016’s Pete’s Dragon.

Like what you read?

Click here to make a contribution to the Scene and support local journalism!

Title:

Content: Pinocchio (2022) review: more like Pinocchi-oh no

Pinocchio (2022) fails to live up to its animated predecessor in almost every way. Still at least Luke Evans is having fun, which is something...

Pinocchio (2022), like many of the live-action Disney movies, is a difficult movie to review. You have to balance the nostalgia you feel toward the original animated movie with the understanding that these new films aren’t really made for me. They’re made for a new generation, to get them hooked on Disney movies the same way we were growing up.

Still, I can honestly say that if the House of Mouse is trying to encourage younger people and kids to get into their family movies, they’d be better off showing them the original ’40s Pinocchio because the remake is dreadful, and I don’t use that word lightly. Everything about this film is a downgrade from the original.

The story’s basically the same, a carpenter named Gepetto (Tom Hanks) builds a wooden boy and wishes his marionette son would come to life. The Blue Fairy (Cynthia Erivo) half grants his wish and brings the puppet named Pinocchio (Benjamin Evan Ainsworth) to life but does not make him a “real boy”.

Instead, Pinocchio must prove himself worthy of becoming flesh and blood by being good and the fairy tasks Jimminy Cricket (Joseph Gordon Levitt) with serving as Pinocchio’s conscience. If you’re reading this, you know the rest of the story – Pinocchio gets caught up in a big adventure that culminates in him being eaten by a whale.

Right, let’s get to the big reason this film does not work. The VFX are atrocious. We’re talking Ally McBeal Dancing Baby levels of bad at times. While watching the film, I did not believe that Gepetto and Pinocchio were in the same room or touching, which is surprising considering this film was directed by Robert Zemeckis.

Zemeckis was the mastermind behind the comedy movie Who Framed Roger Rabbit, which made me believe Bob Hoskins and a cartoon rabbit were in the same room back in the ’80s. Unfortunately, Pinocchio has a touch of the Polar Express about it, with the characters’ eye lines failing to match up and dead-eyed CGI monsters staring off into space.

I’m sorry to say it as well, but Pinocchio is creepy. He’s a living puppet, essentially a family-friendly Chucky. The original kid’s movie managed to dodge the Uncanny Valley by being animated. Here the sheer unnaturalness of Pinocchio is laid bare by putting him next to live-action actors. Had they made Pinocchio an animatronic, they may have gotten away with it, but the fact he’s a VFX character only heightens his general weirdness.

Still, the cast is pretty stacked, so you’d imagine they’d do a good job, right? Well, they don’t do a bad job, but despite Disney expanding this adaptation, the story’s still pretty threadbare. As such, neither Hanks nor Levitt gets all that much to do, and they fail to leave any real impression. Erivo, however, is probably the worst treated of the main cast, with the Blue Fairy’s role cut down quite a lot leaving her with just one scene in the whole film.

As for the songs? Well, I’m sorry to raise the spectre of the original once again, but they’re not a patch on the ’40s Pinocchio’s tunes. The best Disney song in the film is probably ‘I’ve Got No Strings’, but it’s not even as good as the version Ulton sang in the MCU movie Age of Ultron.

If I had to say anything good about this, I liked Luke Evans as the nefarious Coachman and the Pleasure Island. While they took out the alcohol and smoking (unsurprisingly), the sequence maintains the sinister spirit of the original, and the donkey transformation is no less horrifying than the original.

Were I to be charitable, I might suggest if you’ve never seen the original, you might get something out of Pinocchio (2022), but for me, this is another live-action dud from the House of Mouse.

Pinocchio (2022) review

Pinocchio (2022) fails to live up to its magical predecessor.

2

Title:

Content: The internet went into a tizzy recently with the announcement of Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey, a new horror film that utilized characters ripped straight from the pages of A.A. Milne's original children's books. This movie would see feral humanoid versions of Winnie the Pooh and Piglet going on a rampage after they're neglected by Christopher Robin. Such a project was made possible thanks to the initial iteration of this iconic literature figure going into the public domain in 2022 (Disney still has a trademark on their version of Pooh). Though this may seem like a jarring use of a character made for youngsters, Blood and Honey is following in the long tradition of public domain children's characters getting repurposed for much grislier adult means.

While companies like Disney have a firm grasp, or even a stranglehold, over the general public's default image of characters like Snow White or Cinderella, they don't own these characters in their entirety. Many classic fairy tales that are still passed down to kids were made in an era before copyright law was prominent, which allows anyone to have a go at making, say, a Red Riding Hood movie. This has often meant animation studios creating cartoons meant to mimic your standard Disney title, but it also means that adult-skewing projects have a chance to exist without worrying about getting suffocated by powerful lawyers.

Initially, the concept of public domain characters being used for adult purposes included a heavy focus on reimagining such individuals through a highly sexual lens. Appropriately for the year in which it was released, the 1969 film The New Adventures of Snow White was a sex comedy that reimagined not just the titular princess but also Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty in ribald nudity-heavy scenarios. This fate even befell fairy tales written closer to the modern world, at least compared to the likes of Snow White. Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland was published in 1865, but 111 years later, it would inspire the 1976 erotic comedy Alice in Wonderland. No familiar childhood fables were safe from getting a risqué upgrade for adult audiences.

RELATED: How 'Winnie the Pooh' Provided a Gentle Send-Off to Hand-Drawn Animation at Disney

The popularity of 1970s horror fare like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Halloween took violent and gory horror films from obscure oddities directed by Herschell Gordon Lewis to the mainstream. This meant a whole new avenue opened up for how public domain characters could be reimagined for eye-catching adult-skewing movies. 1984 would somewhat see an early example of this trend with Silent Night, Deadly Night, a slasher film about a man who kills people while dressed as Santa Claus. Though the film didn't involve Kris Kringle chopping off people's heads, it did lean heavily, especially in its marketing, on the iconography of a public domain children's character like Santa being paired up with decidedly non-family-friendly behavior.

The immense controversy surrounding Silent Night, Deadly Night, namely over its advertising emphasizing the idea of a scary version of St. Nick, cut the film's theatrical release short. However, it also showed how much attention one can muster up when you warp people's notions of how a beloved childhood icon should behave. That kind of guaranteed publicity was not going to go unexploited forever. That same year, another violent horror vision of beloved children’s characters emerged from the Neil Jordan feature The Company of Wolves, which was inspired by the story of Little Red Riding Hood. A trend was forming that wouldn’t be stopping anytime soon.

The boom of the direct-to-video horror market in the 1990s only increased the ubiquity of titles looking to deliver freaky visions of familiar relics of your childhood. An established brand name can make a VHS tape more instantly recognizable to potential viewers, and what’s an easier brand name to exploit than one attached to a public domain character? This is where the likes of Pinocchio's Revenge and Snow White: A Tale of Terror (the latter featuring acting heavyweights like Sam Neill and Sigourney Weaver) came in, delivering disturbing interpretations of public domain figures often used to entertain kids. The original Jack Frost from 1997, about a murderer transformed into a killer snowman, could also be said to be part of this trend, given that its title referenced the ubiquitous Winter-themed character of the same name.

The 21st-century did not see a complete end to this trend, with the likes of Gingerdead Man following in the footsteps of earlier entries in this genre. Interestingly, the ubiquity of these kinds of takes on classic fairy tales and mythological characters in the public domain did decrease a bit in prominence. This was because more family-friendly fare was beginning to mimic the incredible success of Shrek by delivering their own skewed visions of Goldilocks, Pinocchio, and other public domain figures. Even Disney got in on the act with Chicken Little and Enchanted. People were still interested in seeing familiar characters getting brought down to Earth, it was just happening in more PG-rated confines.

This trend couldn’t last forever, though, and the revival of more traditional fairy tale fare in 2010 with Disney titles Alice in Wonderland and Tangled ensured that this generation’s response to Silent Night, Deadly Night wouldn’t be far behind. Sometimes, 2010s approaches to darker manifestations of public domain properties emerged as sanitized mainstream entertainment, like Snow White & The Huntsman. Though the color palette had been toned down and nobody was singing songs, The Huntsman was a decidedly PG-13 affair, one missing out on the three B’s (blood, breasts, and bombast) that often defined earlier and grimier takes on these kinds of characters.

These old exploitation films had problems in tackling sexuality and violence, most notably in their nonchalant depiction of sexual assault against women. However, their commitment to extreme nudity and violence did offer something new and cheekily naughty compared to the mainstream fairy tales that inspired them. Snow White & The Huntsman, by contrast, was an example of using a public domain property solely for the brand name rather than as a leaping-off point for exciting transgressive entertainment.

More mischievous and violent visions of public domain characters still flooded store shelves, streamers, and even theaters, the latter being evident in Krampus. This 2015 title from director Michael Dougherty reached into classic German folklore to deliver a horror movie about the mythological figure who was basically evil Santa. It was a title that twisted lots of seemingly happy staples of Christmas into something more twisted and grisly. A few years earlier, Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale emerged from Finland with a story about a feral version of Santa Claus while, back home in America, a unique vision of Hansel & Gretel infused with R-rated action was unleashed in Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters.

The trend of using public domain characters in a manner that would make strict parents clutch their pearls is always evolving. This is partially to keep up with the tastes of moviegoers and also to ensure that this subgenre can always be on the cutting edge of which characters have recently fallen into the public domain. So it is with Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey, which started filming mere months after the Pooh character fell into the public domain. The rarely stagnant nature of this subgenre ensures that every possible familiar character of old children’s entertainment will be exploited as much and quickly as possible.

While it’s easy to see the monetary reasons that would make media companies like seeing public domain characters utilized in this way, what is it about this concept that general audiences find so endearing? Whether it’s pornographic films from the 1960s, slashers from the 1980s, or today’s Asylum horror movies about Cinderella or Snow White, why do people keep watching these films in high enough numbers to ensure their persistent existence?

Part of it comes down to just the inherent amusement in seeing somebody twist around recognizably innocent material into something more warped. Thanks to how family-friendly companies like Disney plaster their characters everywhere, cheerful and cutesy interpretations on Winnie the Pooh and Pinocchio are everywhere. Seeing somebody douse such characters with blood and violent urges can feel like a transgressive thrash against the status quo. Plus, some of these adaptations, particularly several more faithful retellings of Pinocchio, prove appealing in how they get back to the darkness that often defines the original fairy tales these characters originated from. Their modern incarnations may be connected to syrupy cheerfulness, but many public domain characters got their start in stories chock-full of brutality that could only exist in R-rated fare.

Whatever the reason for these properties existing, the enduring presence of twisted adult takes on public domain children’s characters, not to mention all the internet attention thrust upon Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey makes it clear these kinds of projects won’t be going anytime soon. That means moviegoers need to brace themselves for some truly subpar pieces of trash that believe just spouting harsh profanity and displaying nudity is enough to make a movie substantively “adult.” However, the likes of Krampus show that there is some enjoyably naughty fun to be had with reimagining public domain figures more grotesquely. There is potential within these kinds of movies…or at least the potential to be better than something like Snow White & The Huntsman.

Title:

Content: Skip to main content Skip to header navigation

Peter Dinklage Has Every Right to Be Outraged Over the Live-Action Seven Dwarfs Movie Planned by Disney

Disney is finding itself in the hot seat after actor Peter Dinklage called them out for their upcoming live-action remake of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. It seems that the film company was patting themselves on the back for casting Rachel Zegler, who is of Colombian descent, as Snow White while not giving much thought to how the seven dwarfs would be portrayed.

Dinklage started the conversation on Marc Maron’s WTF podcast, sharing his displeasure with how Disney has handled the situation from the get-go. “Literally no offense to anyone,” he said. “But I was a little taken aback when they were very proud to cast a Latina actress as Snow White — but you’re still telling the story of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.” The four-time Emmy winner is right about this because without the seven dwarfs, there is no story. At the same time, the depiction of the characters doesn’t hold up in 2022.

“Take a step back and look at what you’re doing there. It makes no sense to me,” Dinklage explained. “You’re progressive in one way, but then you’re still making that f**king backward story about seven dwarfs living in a cave together? What the f**k are you doing, man? Have I done nothing to advance the cause from my soapbox? I guess I’m not loud enough.” Disney heard him loud and clear, but they were a bit vague in their response to The Game of Thrones actor’s concerns.

“To avoid reinforcing stereotypes from the original animated film, we are taking a different approach with these seven characters and have been consulting with members of the dwarfism community,” the statement to The Hollywood Reporter read, “We look forward to sharing more as the film heads into production after a lengthy development period.” It sounds like they are having to do a hard pivot before they begin filming. Did they really give the dwarfs any thought before Dinklage’s comments were heard on the podcast? It seems like the characters were just an afterthought until Dinklage’s call to action woke Disney up from a deep sleep on their societal contributions as to how the dwarfs are portrayed in the media.

Before you go, click here to see all the nostalgic hits getting movie and TV reboots.

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.

Title:

Content: Disney Confirmed to Lose Rights to Multiple Original Characters Within 5 Years

in Disney, Entertainment

Credit: Disney

Tomorrow, Disney will lose the copyright to the original rendition of Mickey Mouse, as the big-eared icon enters the public domain after 95 years of protection. While many have been focused on Mickey being let go by the magical iron clasp of The Walt Disney Company, the other characters that will join the mouse by the end of the decade have not been discussed nearly enough.

On October 7, 1998 a year and a half after the initial introduction of the Copyright Term Extension Act and following robust advocacy from influential copyright holders such as the Walt Disney Company and Time Warner Inc., Congress successfully passed the bill, thereby extending the duration of copyright protection for creators of original works.

Since 1976, copyrights had been valid for the life of the artist plus 50 years. The newly enacted legislation prolongs copyrights for works generated on or after January 1, 1978, to the life of the author plus 70 years and extends copyrights for works created for hire and owned by corporations to 95 years, up from the existing 75-year term. This meant that Mickey Mouse, who was created in 1928, would have his copyright ownership extended to expire in 2024, as opposed to the original 2004.

While stating that Mickey Mouse will no longer be owned by Disney certainly has created a buzz online, there are certain stipulations that help Disney still control the majority of the mouse, for now. The version of Mickey entering the public domain is his first appearance on screen, in Steamboat Willie.

As we know, there have been multiple other iterations of Mickey Mouse over the past 95+ years, with his most recent animation in The Wonderful World of Mickey Mouse, the recently retired Disney+ series, looking entirely different than he was initially depicted by Ub Iwerks and Walt Disney. It appears that Disney has been calculative in their Mickey Mouse interpretations, creating a variety which will not only give them creative control for longer, but will likely cause some creators to slip up, and use the wrong Mickey in their creations, allowing Disney to sue, and have that content removed.

As we saw with Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey, the 2023 horror film, many are looking to turn these beloved and classic characters on their head once they enter the public domain, and Mickey Mouse, one of the world’s most recognizable characters, will certainly be a hot commodity.

The video gaming company Fumi has unveiled a gruesome trailer for an upcoming shoot-’em-up game titled Mouse, scheduled for release in 2025. The game features a slim-limbed rodent bearing a resemblance to the original Mickey Mouse, portrayed as a ruthless gangster. The presentation includes a black-and-white backdrop, period-specific music, and an atmosphere reminiscent of Ub Iwerks’s classic 1928 animation.

You can check out the trailer below.

The game is described as:

Join private detective in MOUSE, a gritty, jazz-fueled shooter. With guns blazing and a retro rubber hose animation style, battle your way through a corrupt city full of crooks and danger. Inspired by classic FPS and noir films, MOUSE is the explosive shooter you’ve been waiting for.

MOUSE boasts a unique visual style inspired by the charm of 1930s rubber hose animation, transporting players to a nostalgic era of early cartoons. Assume the role of a private detective navigating a noir city teeming with gangs, mobs, and characters from the dark side. Unravel a quest for justice in a noir city mired in chaos, corruption, and vibrant energy, utilizing a diverse arsenal of weapons, power-ups, and explosives to thwart the takeover by corrupt politicians. The game’s playful weaponry and distinctive health display, coupled with enemies behaving like cartoon characters, add a lighthearted twist to traditional FPS gameplay.

But, with Mickey’s copyright expiring, comes a few other characters that we know to be as the “Fab 5” that will also enter the public domain by the end of the decade. Next year, Pluto will enter the public domain, followed by Donald Duck and Goofy in 2029, according to Global Toy News. Minnie Mouse will enter the public domain tomorrow, along with her partner Mickey.

These characters will face a similar challenge to those looking to use their likeness as Mickey presents, as it will not be every rendition that we recognize available for use. However, this does signify that the end of an era is certainly upon us.

In the 2030’s multiple Marvel characters will also enter the public domain, including Captain Marvel in 2034, The Flash in 2035, and Captain America in 2036. This will be an interesting shift for Marvel, as other studios will have the chance to use these now-iconic characters, thanks to the MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) in their own stories.

What kind of content do you expect to see now that these characters are entering the public domain?

in Disney, Entertainment

Be the first to comment!

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

How has Disney leveraged nostalgia in recent years?

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

How has Disney leveraged nostalgia in recent years?

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

How has Disney leveraged nostalgia in recent years?

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

How has Disney leveraged nostalgia in recent years?

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

How has Disney leveraged nostalgia in recent years?

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

How has Disney leveraged nostalgia in recent years?

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

This report examines the motivations, adaptations, and reception of Disney's recent live action remakes from 2015-2023.

Title:

Content: “Wokeness” Is Driving Disney Movies Away From Cinemas

in Disney, Movies

Credit: D23

With disastrous performances and early releases on streaming platforms, is it time for Disney to consider withdrawing its movies from cinemas?

Disney has been under fire for allegedly promoting a “woke agenda,” with many, including national media representatives, accusing the company of “pushing woke garbage in our faces.” The Walt Disney Company’s stance in promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion has caused several problems for the company, the most notorious being the legal and political crusade Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is carrying out against the House of Mouse.

But recent results show that Disney is being severely affected by this “woke crusade,” possibly driving the company away from cinemas for good.

Movies and series being released by the studios that belong to The Walt Disney Company, including Pixar, Marvel Studios, Lucasfilm, and Walt Disney Studios, have faced severe backlash for promoting “woke” ideologies by including LGBTQIA+ characters in stories and seeking to provide representation for minorities like the Black and Hispanic communities.

And while most audiences have applauded Disney’s efforts, the company continues to struggle with the box office performance of its most recent releases.

Related: Op-Ed: Disney Needs Johnny Depp to Create Another Hit Franchise

From Pixar’s Lightyear (2022) to Disney’s Strange World (2022), Disney has faced severe backlash and criticism, with audiences promoting boycotts of the company’s latest films, which has inevitably harmed the box office performance of several Disney movies.

And the upcoming premiere of Disney’s live-action adaptation, Snow White, is causing strongly polarized opinions, sparking rumors of the movie’s cancellation.

The latest examples of this have been the live-action adaptation of the beloved Disney movie The Little Mermaid (2023), Pixar’s Elemental (2023), and this year’s Haunted Mansion, inspired by the iconic Disneyland ride.

Related: Disney Star Served $1M Lawsuit Following Box Office Bomb

However, the performance of these films has proven to be wildly different after their premiere on Disney+, Disney’s streaming service, with The Little Mermaid shattering records that had previously changed Disney+.

The recent premiere of Pixar’s Elemental on Disney+ has, once again, proven that Disney movies are having a better performance on the streaming service than in cinemas, as Elemental now holds the title of “most viewed premiere on Disney+ of 2023.

According to Disney, the movie has earned 26.4 million views in its first five days of streaming, becoming the most viewed animated movie premiere since Disney and Pixar’s Turning Red was released in March 2022, as well as the most viewed Disney+ movie premiere of all time in Latin America, ahead of Turning Red.

Related: DeSantis “Woke” Wars Blamed for ‘Elemental’s Box Office Performance

And while it is exciting to hear the news, these results could be driving Disney movies away from cinemas, as the company could analyze new ways to distribute its content, achieving higher revenue.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Disney adopted Disney+ Premier Access, a pay-per-view-type system, to release movies like Mulan (2020), Cruella (2021) starring Emma Stone, Marvel’s Black Widow (2021) with Scarlett Johansson — resulting in a multi-million-dollar lawsuitRaya and the Last Dragon (2021), and Dwayne Johnson’s Jungle Cruise (2021) on Disney+. However, the system was ditched after The Rock’s Jungle Cruise.

Related: Dwayne Johnson Takes Over the Role of ‘Aladdin’s’ Genie

Following rumors of Disney drafting plans to sell parts of the company, it is possible that Disney could analyze new strategies to release upcoming movies or shows directly on its streaming service at an additional charge. However, as of this article’s publishing, this remains purely speculative.

Disney’s summer blockbuster, Haunted Mansion, struggled at the box officepartly due to its proximity to the premiere of the Barbie movie — and is slated to premiere on Disney+ on October 4, 2023. It is yet to be seen if Haunted Mansion will perform better on the streaming platform, further cementing speculation on the company’s need to seek new strategies for its upcoming movies.

Should Disney consider withdrawing its movies from cinemas? How could the company solve its problems in box office performance? Share your thoughts with Inside the Magic in the comments below!

in Disney, Movies

Be the first to comment!

How has Disney leveraged nostalgia in recent years?

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

How has Disney leveraged nostalgia in recent years?

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

How has Disney leveraged nostalgia in recent years?

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

How has Disney leveraged nostalgia in recent years?

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

How has Disney leveraged nostalgia in recent years?

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

How has Disney leveraged nostalgia in recent years?

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

How has Disney leveraged nostalgia in recent years?

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

How has Disney leveraged nostalgia in recent years?

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

## Strategic Motivations Behind Live Action Remakes

### Financial Considerations
Disney's pivot toward live action remakes stems from a proven financial formula.

How has Disney leveraged nostalgia in recent years?

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

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

How has Disney leveraged nostalgia in recent years?

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

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

How has Disney leveraged nostalgia in recent years?

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

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

How has Disney leveraged nostalgia in recent years?

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

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

These films offer reduced creative risk while capitalizing on established intellectual property with built-in audience recognition.

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

As a risk-reduction strategy
As a safer option

How has Disney leveraged nostalgia in recent years?

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

The strategy provides reliable box office returns and streaming content, as evidenced by "The Little Mermaid" breaking Disney+ streaming records.

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

How has Disney leveraged nostalgia in recent years?

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

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

### Nostalgia as a Driving Force
Nostalgia plays a central role in Disney's decision-making process.

How has Disney leveraged nostalgia in recent years?

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

The company recognizes that audiences have emotional connections to their childhood films, making these properties valuable assets for monetization.

How has Disney leveraged nostalgia in recent years?

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

This approach allows