Why Disney Remakes Fail: A Cash Grab or Creative Disaster?

Netizens love to discuss why Disney remakes fail and even make fun of them. The animated classics that we have loved from the bottom of our hearts and like to reminisce them scene-by-scene as they are, probably is what netizens are majorly harsh about. 

Despite the bustling business of Disney live-action remakes, the tradition of protecting the nostalgia in Disney movies seems complicated. Disney studios have made several attempts for that purpose, not only to please the generation who grew up watching Disney classics like Cinderella and The Lion King but also to cater to the new younger generation for them to enjoy with a different zeal. 

The Disney remake criticism is more of a subjective viewpoint since numerous Disney remakes worked superbly well for the audience while the critics had an entirely contrasting opinion. No matter what kind of reception these Disney remakes get, Disney does not stop revisiting the live-action versions of our childhood favorites, leaving us to question whether this is a cash-grab strategy or an actual creative disaster. 

What makes a good Disney remake?

Some of the constant Disney remake failures force us to think about whether the revamps are an aggressive corporate strategy. However, Disney CEO, Bob Iger told The Wrap that the company has compromised quality over quantity. Churning out too many sequels certainly has cost Disney a great deal.

He said, “I think I don’t want to apologize for making sequels. Some of them have done extraordinarily well. And they’ve been good films too. I think there has to be a reason to make it, beyond commerce”. [Source]

Not meaning to digress from the actual discussion but what makes a good Disney remake? Looking back at some of the highest-grossing Disney remakes, such as The Jungle Book (2016) which earned a 94 percent critic score on Rotten Tomatoes and 86 percent on Popcornmeter. 

It managed to keep the nostalgia alive. How? Due to avoidance of shot-to-shot trap; The Lion King (2019) failed miserably at doing so. Making a copy too close to the original without adding depth creates problems for the younger audience, also when the hyperrealistic animals lack emotions. 

Personally, I wouldn’t want the Zulu chant beginning of The Lion King song ‘Circle of Life’ to change that instills a powerful nostalgia when it comes up on the screen with the sunrise and a background “Nants ingonyama bagithi Baba”. Homogeneously, “The Lion Sleeps Tonight” used to be my phone ringtone- a short song that holds a delightful sentimentality.  

Now it might imply that CGI versions are not that successful in The Lion King’s case while The Jungle Book made use of real humans to create a more pragmatic and lifelike feel with an emotional connection via strong performances. 

Also, the best remakes either capitalize on the existing story and introduce something new to the audience or fix the previous flaws. Taking a fresh approach, making it familiar and novel at the same time, is a possible good recipe for a successful Disney remake.

For instance, Alice in Wonderland (2010) won two Oscars out of three nominated categories. It won ‘Best Art Direction’ and ‘Best Costume Design’ while it was nominated for ‘Best Visual Effects’ too. If we look at its Rotten Tomatoes critics and audience scores, it is merely 50 and 55 percent. 

Though the two versions were not exactly the same, it could suggest that the replication is not the solution. The visual effects should not overshadow the storytelling essence which Tim Burton’s version of Alice in Wonderland did follow quite well. He took a darker and more serious approach to the story, bringing his own sauce to the recipe that was originally conceived by Lewis Carol in his classic story of Alice.  

A matter of subjectivity: Critics vs audience ratings on Rotten Tomatoes

The best remakes justify their reason to exist. Cinderella (2015) had a critics score of 84 percent and 78 percent on Popcornmeter but it did not win any Oscar. With high ratings, it managed to stay true to its childhood old-fashioned magic with a strong performance of the stepmother, played by Cate Blanchett, and character depth.

Expanding on the previous conversation of shot-to-shot replicas and bringing more depth to the story or characters, 101 Dalmatians (1996) and Cruella (2021) are archetypal examples of how this works. 101 Dalmatians was considered a “ bland, pointless remake” despite a “neat performance from Glenn Close” on Rotten Tomatoes critics’ consensus, giving it only a score of 39 percent. 

On the other hand, Cruella, one of the characters from the original 101 Dalmatians story was presented with better depth, gaining applause from both the critics and regular audience on Rotten Tomatoes, with 75 percent and a massive 97 percent respectively.

There is another discrepancy in what the critics and audience think. Maleficent (2014) gained a 54 percent rating from critics with a great difference seen regarding the audience ratings, 70 percent. An evident paradox existed in the case of its sequel, Maleficent: Mistress of Evil (2019) which again got a lower rating from critics, only 40 percent while a tremendous response from the general audience with a 95 percent score on Popcornmeter. 

The gap between animated and original is shrinking: Will that work? 

Disney remake controversies continue when the company’s another rising strategy is becoming conspicuous- the gap between the originals and live-action remakes. For example, Moana just released in 2016 and is now expected to come out with its live-action version in 2026. The shrinking gap and faster releases might prove problematic for the timeless masterpieces, though the younger generations who have watched the animated originals have not gone that old as yet.

Rather than catching up with the past century’s originals of 80’s and 90’s and treating them with a live-action development, the redo of the most recent ones would be a question mark for the nostalgic attachment of the kids of today.

Have movies like Frozen got enough time to build a sense of nostalgia for the young kids? A major portion of Generation Z kids has still not been able to visit cinemas as they are too young to buy tickets themselves and experience it on the big screen.

Moreover, direct-to-video follow-ups to the animated originals did the trick. The younger ones were able to retain the magic of those adventures in their life memories, which probably they love reliving with zilch changes ever. 

Why Disney remakes fail but still continue to work

Successful remakes fail because of several factors. Core storytelling, instilling freshness, character depth, emotional connections, and meaningful improvements-  there is no single winning formula. For example, Mulan (2020) was one of the most expensive live adaptations with a budget of $200 million but it unfortunately grossed only $70 million at the box office. 

Disney has to keep its live-action vs animation game balanced since lately, it is inclined more towards making live-action adaptations rather than focusing on the animated originals. 

It seems it is a matter of ‘trial and error’. Disney likes to work on its mistakes and amplify the existing remakes, possibly it senses that there is a loophole left that can do better in its sequels and prequels.

Do you feel the same? Drop a comment below.