Are the remakes "erasing" the originals?

[Big Disney Fan]

Given the myriad of remakes coming out constantly, does it seem like they are "erasing" the originals? By that, I mean, are we facing a future where when most people think of "Cinderella", "The Jungle Book", "Dumbo", "Beauty and the Beast", "Aladdin", etc. (to say nothing of those remakes of "Peter Pan" and "Lady and the Tramp" on DisneyPlus), they will think of the live-action remakes and NOT the original animated films? And that Disney will focus on the remakes instead of the originals? I sure hope not.

[JeanGreyForever]

I don't think that will ever be the case. The closest I can think of is how the Shanghai Disney park uses the live-action Alice characters for the maze attraction, and occasional video games (Disney Infinity, Disney Universe) that favored the live-action versions over the classic animated characters. But those video games tended to have a dearth of the classic characters anyway as they favored whatever properties were currently being released in theaters at the time, so I wouldn't take too much from that.

It's been two years since BATB, which has been the biggest live-action remake so far, and Disney has barely used the imagery from that film since. The animated film is still the one they use and the same applies to other live-action films prior, such as Maleficent, Cinderella, The Jungle Book, etc. and I'm sure the case will be the same for Dumbo, Aladdin, and The Lion King. Even Mary Poppins Returns, which is technically a sequel and not a remake (but can be considered as such much like the live-action Alice) will probably be forgotten, if it already hasn't, whereas the public will always think of the original first and foremost.

The extent of the remakes' exposure these days seems to be putting the classic animated characters in poses that reflect scenes from the live-action films like this clipart of Belle and the Beast.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7sYlwgXYAActs3.jpg

[Farerb]

No. The originals were timeless and were a cinematic breakthrough in terms of animation and some even storytelling. For instance, the original Beauty and the Beast was the first animated movie to win the Golden Globe for best musical or comedy feature, and the first to be nominated for Best Picture in the Academy Awards (and the only one to do so when there were only five nominees). It also had a great achievement when it was screened at the NYFF and got a standing ovation. The remake achieved non of that, it came and went and people hardly talk about it now. It might have grossed more than a billion, but the original still made more money if you consider adjustments for inflation.

[Big Disney Fan]

I don't think that will ever be the case. The closest I can think of is how the Shanghai Disney park uses the live-action Alice characters for the maze attraction, and occasional video games (Disney Infinity, Disney Universe) that favored the live-action versions over the classic animated characters. But those video games tended to have a dearth of the classic characters anyway as they favored whatever properties were currently being released in theaters at the time, so I wouldn't take too much from that.

It's been two years since BATB, which has been the biggest live-action remake so far, and Disney has barely used the imagery from that film since. The animated film is still the one they use and the same applies to other live-action films prior, such as Maleficent, Cinderella, The Jungle Book, etc. and I'm sure the case will be the same for Dumbo, Aladdin, and The Lion King. Even Mary Poppins Returns, which is technically a sequel and not a remake (but can be considered as such much like the live-action Alice) will probably be forgotten, if it already hasn't, whereas the public will always think of the original first and foremost.

The extent of the remakes' exposure these days seems to be putting the classic animated characters in poses that reflect scenes from the live-action films like this clipart of Belle and the Beast.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7sYlwgXYAActs3.jpg

I'm just fearing that there is a future where the remakes' exposure will make them more well-remembered than the originals. It is for that reason why I never saw, nor do I have any intention of seeing, the remake of "Beauty and the Beast". I am also seriously considering to not see "Aladdin", and I have already made up my mind not to "Lion King". Every time I look at it, it makes me cringe.

Even if we do forget about "Mary Poppins Returns", which is a sequel, but basically seems like a ripoff of the original movie at every turn, that doesn't erase the fact that they did it, any more than it would erase all those sequels, direct-to-video or not. I swear, these remakes are to this period what the direct-to-video (and theatrical) sequels were in the '90s and early 2000s. Sure, we can forget about them (and hopefully, we will), but they still did them, and they will not be completely forgotten.

The originals were timeless and were a cinematic breakthrough in terms of animation and some even storytelling. For instance, the original Beauty and the Beast was the first animated movie to win the Golden Globe for best musical or comedy feature, and the first to be nominated for Best Picture in the Academy Awards (and the only one to do so when there were only five nominees). It also had a great achievement when it was screened at the NYFF and got a standing ovation. The remake achieved non of that, it came and went and people hardly talk about it now.

And yet, they're showing it on TV now.

[JeanGreyForever]

I'm just fearing that there is a future where the remakes' exposure will make them more well-remembered than the originals. It is for that reason why I never saw, nor do I have any intention of seeing, the remake of "Beauty and the Beast". I am also seriously considering to not see "Aladdin", and I have already made up my mind not to "Lion King". Every time I look at it, it makes me cringe.

Even if we do forget about "Mary Poppins Returns", which is a sequel, but basically seems like a ripoff of the original movie at every turn, that doesn't erase the fact that they did it, any more than it would erase all those sequels, direct-to-video or not. I swear, these remakes are to this period what the direct-to-video (and theatrical) sequels were in the '90s and early 2000s. Sure, we can forget about them (and hopefully, we will), but they still did them, and they will not be completely forgotten.

Just in a few years we've seen that the remakes, regardless of how popular they may have been upon release, are not better remembered than the originals. All the BATB merchandise these days is based on the animated film. The same is true for Alice, Jungle Book, etc. After this year is up, I doubt we'll see any merchandise based on the live-action films for Dumbo, Aladdin, Lion King, Maleficent, etc.

You make an apt point that the remakes of today are essentially what the direct-to-video sequels were during the 90s and 2000s. I agree that they won't be completely forgotten, because there are some people who are fans of the sequels, or even if not fans, certainly remember them, but the truth of the matter is that the vast majority of people are not familiar with them, or have no interest in giving them a second glance. The remakes have slightly heightened exposure because of their theatrical releases, but even then, that doesn't necessarily equate to prestige and classic status. See how badly Mary Poppins Returns and Dumbo have "flopped," at least by Disney's standards. The remakes have no presence in merchandise after theatrical releases, nor are they visible in the parks. Go to any Disneyland or Disney World and the characters clearly are based off of the animated versions. Another example to prove this is Glenn Close's 101 Dalmatians which came out in 1996 and is basically just a footnote in Disney history. You won't find anything of it anymore.

And yet, they're showing it on TV now.

They were also showing the animated version just yesterday on TV.

The remake achieved non of that, it came and went and people hardly talk about it now. It might have grossed more than a billion, but the original still made more money if you consider adjustments for inflation.

Not to mention that time seems to have soured people's views towards the BATB remake anyway. Critics talking about Aladdin keep complaining about BATB and most YouTube comments for Aladdin's songs are similarly acerbic remarks about the flaws in BATB.

[skippy]

Great post and agree. The remakes are creatively bankrupt, similar to the direct to video cash ins.

[Big Disney Fan]

Just in a few years we've seen that the remakes, regardless of how popular they may have been upon release, are not better remembered than the originals.

[...]

The remakes have slightly heightened exposure because of their theatrical releases, but even then, that doesn't necessarily equate to prestige and classic status. See how badly Mary Poppins Returns and Dumbo have "flopped," at least by Disney's standards.

If the remakes will be forgotten after a while, why are they doing them? And also, not only do we have a remake of "Aladdin" out now and the "Lion King" remake in the wings, but there is also a remake of "Mulan" coming, too.

[Disney Duster]

People here are going to tell you they are doing the remakes just for cash-ins on nostalgia. That's not always the case. The creators of these films are using some creativity and making some differences. But the big reason these remakes are being made is because people want to see their favorite animated films come to live-action life.

However, these desires to see the films in live-action are fleeting, because the way they have done these remakes, none of them are as good as the originals.

That's why the originals will be remembered far more.

They want to make these remakes good. They just don't know how.

[Farerb]

They do them to make money or at least they hope to. It doesn't seem like the people behind these films have passion to make them.
I don't know how much the DTV are well remembered today. Yes they happened but it seems to me like people don't care about them, except maybe a few who for some reason like crappy animation, crappy music and laziness because I really can't understand how someone can watch hunchback II and say "wow what a great film".

[JeanGreyForever]

If the remakes will be forgotten after a while, why are they doing them? And also, not only do we have a remake of "Aladdin" out now and the "Lion King" remake in the wings, but there is also a remake of "Mulan" coming, too.

Because they generate a lot of money. Disney's original efforts have all flopped (The Sorcerer's Apprentice, Prince of Persia, John Carter, The Lone Ranger, Tomorrowland, A Wrinkle in Time, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms, etc.) and future films in that vein (Artemis Fowl) seem similarly destined to fail. Disney knows that repackaging their prestige titles in the live-action format is guaranteed far more money than any of the aforementioned attempts thanks to nostalgia. The 90s films in particular come to mind and Disney is definitely trying to cash in on that generation as also evident by their recent Oh My Disney! line which caters specifically for people who grew up in the 90s, to the point that they even re-release old products that people of that generation would have had.

Disney's really not interested in the longevity of these remakes, hence why after they make all the money at the box office, plus merchandise and home video, Disney practically dumps them and returns to their tried and true animated features. Their singular goal is to make more money and there's nothing more to that.

[Farerb]

People here are going to tell you they are doing the remakes just for cash-ins on nostalgia. That's not always the case. The creators of these films are using some creativity and making some differences. But the big reason these remakes are being made is because people want to see their favorite animated films come to live-action life.

However, these desires to see the films in live-action are fleeting, because the way they have done these remakes, none of them are as good as the originals.

That's why the originals will be remembered far more.

They want to make these remakes good. They just don't know how.

If they really cared to make good films they would have broght back the people who made the originals like Trousdale, Wise, Hahn, Woolverton, Musker and Clements as consultants. They didn't because they don't care.

[Farerb]

Also the remakes proud themselves for taking a jab at the originals like telling us what REALLY happened to Belle's mom even though it never had any relevance to the main story. They are so "smart" and "edgy".

[Disney Duster]

These are new movies, giving us some new with some old. So that is, to me, why they didn't think they needed to use the original...I don't know, whole darn team of previous people who worked on the original films to make the new ones. And then, they did use Alan Menken, meaning they did consult some of the old team.

As for taking jabs or being smart or edgy, they may be trying to be smarter, perhaps even edgier, but not taking jabs. They want to improve upon and expand on the originals. Now, a lot of people think they hurt more than improved, but they were trying to improve.

[Farerb]

If they had wanted to do something new, they would have done something new. Not a shot-for-shot remake. If someone who worked on these films thought he could improve Academy Awards winners and nominated films then that someone is a condescending asshole.
Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King are not that old, the people who worked on these films are still alive. I don't know about them, but if someone took a piece of work, of art that I poured my heart and soul into, thinking he could do better than me, without even consulting me. It would make me pissed. It's extremely insulting for all these people.

[Disney's Divinity]

No.

And yet, they're showing it on TV now.

They still regularly show the animated B&tB on television, too.

[Disney Duster]

When I said they were improving the films, I only meant in some areas. No one thinks they can make all these films into way better films. Some films, like Cinderella and The Jungle Book, really could be improved on by focusing more on story, for instance.

[Vlad]

I don't think so. Each remake that has come out so far, has been forgotten. I mean, sure they are hugely popular in theaters and have great sells on home media, but they will never replace the originals. And even if they did, why would that be important? Why does it have to matter what audiences think of these movies? I always thought that if I like a movie, that should be the only important thing. It's just a matter of taste.

[thedisneyspirit]

Don't worry in a few years they'll be as beloved and remembered as the Disney sequels.

[DisneyFan09]

You know what, OP? I've been thinking about the same thing lately and that's one of the issues that I'm bringing up in my blog entry for the film. Yet I think the majority on this board has answered the question: That these remakes are not meant to replace their animated originals, though it would be tempting to think so. Though I know that several people meant that 2016's remake of The Jungle Book was an improvement over it's animated predecessor.

[Big Disney Fan]

My take on this matter is that the remakes will also cheapen the value and quality of the originals.

And now, I just found out that there is going to be a remake of "Snow White" and not the proposed "Rose Red", which at least sounded different.

Don't worry in a few years they'll be as beloved and remembered as the Disney sequels.

As I said before, whether they will be beloved or remembered is beside the point. The point is, they made them, so we're stuck with them, particularly from a historical standpoint.