Remakes, technically defined as a movie based off of a previous production, have been around nearly as long as movies themselves. The first remake ever recorded, “Playing Cards,” was a silent short film barely over a minute long. However, in the last 10-15 years, there has been an exponential increase in remade films, especially those that take an originally animated movie and redo it as a live action.
Disney in particular has become somewhat infamous for this phenomenon. From “The Jungle Book” in 1994 to this past summer’s “Lilo & Stitch,” the massive company has made almost 25 live action remakes in about 30 years.
However, they aren’t the only culprit. Also over the summer, DreamWorks Animation, under Universal Pictures, released “How to Train Your Dragon.” Outside of these more popular films, dozens of other intellectual properties, or IPs, have been utilized in the conversion from animation to live action.
On the surface level, this is no real concern. People love to see their favorite characters and stories on the big screen, in whatever form it may come, especially when they hold nostalgic value.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what companies prey on. A remake doesn’t need to be fresh, original, or particularly well-crafted when its profit is based solely off of a preexisting story that has already made thousands or even millions of dollars.
This is the fundamental flaw with remakes–they don’t exist for the sake of telling their own story. Rather, they’re passionless cash grabs that do little for potential viewers except for emptying their pockets.
On the inside of the issue, whether intentionally or not, live action remakes discredit their animated originals. The implication of the existence of a remake is that the original form of the movie wasn’t good enough in the first place. In the minds of many people, this correlates to the belief that animation is a childish medium that doesn’t garner the same sense of respect as a live action film. In a time when even professionals, like the Academy voters of the Oscars, struggle to acknowledge the time, worth, and craftsmanship put into animation, this is especially concerning.
Animated movies, just like live action ones, take years to craft. Both hand drawn 2D styles and computer assisted 3D styles are an art of their own, taking years worth of work and skill. The idea that they are any less than because they weren’t shot with real life actors on screen is both unfounded and ridiculous.
If all of these issues are put aside, there’s one more that comes to mind when it comes to the live action remakes that have been filling theaters: they’re unattractive.
When it comes to a comparison between an animated and live action version of a movie, take “Lilo and Stitch” as an example. The original is colorful, emotive, and easy to follow. The remake is comparably drab and uninspired.
The CGI often used to make up the characters and motions that effortlessly flow in animation rarely manage to come to par, leaving live action versions to steal away the beauty of thoughtfully created scenes and emotional depth. This is a painful sacrifice to witness. Remaking a movie only to have it result in an output which is worse than the original is simply a slap in the face to the initial creators and those who loved the movie in its first form.
Fundamentally, live action remakes bring no benefits to creators or to those who truly appreciate film as art. All they do is line the pockets of stockholders and business owners. Their continued existence and production are a shame upon the greater scheme of cinema, and avoiding support of them is the best thing anyone can do to support the medium.
