Growing up, my family and I would always sit together and watch movies and television shows. My father would make sure my brother and I were exposed to all the classics: “The Lord of the Rings,” “Jaws,” “Silence of the Lambs,” “Lawrence of Arabia,” “Planet of the Apes” and so on. I could go on forever if I wanted. However, we didn’t only watch the adult classics. My brother and I watched classic children’s movies as well, such as “The Lion King,” “How to Train Your Dragon” and pretty much every Disney and Pixar movie in existence.
How could you not love the good old 2D animation? Hours upon hours of work are poured into animating, and it was always something that I found stunning. The sheer dedication to it, painting every scene and drawing every frame, is impressive in every way. When 3D movies came about, I was impressed with those too. The “Shrek” movies live forever in my head rent-free.
Things began to change a little during the 2010s. Disney, the biggest corporate magnate in the film and entertainment industry — and practically the only one — was coming out with new, live action retellings of all its classic stories. The first one I remember seeing was “Maleficent,” with Angelina Jolie as the titular character. My classmates and I watched it in the school auditorium, where we were diving into her backstory that was never very relevant to begin with.
I didn’t really care for the movie. Neither did I care for the live action “Beauty and the Beast,” “Dumbo,” “Mulan” and the dreadful “The Lion King” movie with expressionless animals that look more like they would eat each other than sing and talk.
The older animated movies have heart and soul. Most of the actors and actresses were professional singers as well. This is why Luke Evans’s mediocre performance as Gaston in “The Beauty and the Beast” remake was painful to watch. It could never compare to Richard White’s rich, baritone voice in the animated movie. These new Disney movies are also star studded with big names taking the lead roles, often to the films’ detriment. Like, did we really need Will Smith as the genie for “Aladdin?”
And the thing that I find strange is that it feels like nobody is even asking for these awful live-action remakes. It is a selfish move by Disney to try to make even more money and push things that already exist, since it doesn’t seem that the company has many new ideas. Not only are there so many bad remakes, but Disney is cranking out irrelevant sequels and prequels, such as the “Star Wars” series and “Frozen.” Don’t even get me started on those ones.
The most recent remake that Disney is already in the works with is “How to Train Your Dragon.” When I heard this, I laughed and played it off as a joke. When I realized it wasn’t, I perhaps swore colorfully during my shift at work. We all love the character art and Toothless’ adorable, cat-like face. How could you possibly recreate that in live action?
There is a certain kind of beauty in animated movies that can never be replicated by reality. As soon as you bring art to life, it loses the quality that made it art. No live-action performance can compare to the graphics of “Bambi” and “Lady and the Tramp.” Countless artists and animators poured everything into those movies. Disney even brought in real lion cubs for the animators to use as references for “The Lion King.”
I am saddened by the thought that the new generation will be exposed to the remakes firsthand, probably before they even watch the original versions. I am just glad that I was born at the right time to truly appreciate the beauty of the old classics.
