Leprosy Has Returned: Disney Remakes Are Back!
Recently, the internet has been buzzing about the CGI Stitch that pops onto the screen (sparking debates about whether he's cute or the bastard cousin of the first, ugly CGI Sonic) and the Evil Queen Gal Gadot, who has nothing to envy in terms of beauty compared to Rachel Zegler's Snow White. Cute little topics for memes and discussion.
"Okay, Steemy, why do you say that leprosy has returned?" Because these films are a creative leprosy for Disney and cinema (but mainly for the big mouse company): What purpose does it serve to remake an already good animated movie in live-action (where three-quarters of the live-action will be CGI, making it animation again)?
Obviously, money. Parents will once again take their kids to see the "new children's movie" and shed a tear of nostalgia for their own childhood. Once again, Disney shows us that this is what counts. But in reality, their remakes offer neither originality nor creativity and undermine the value of the original films, which were (and remain, I believe) the true soul of Disney.
Snow White (as the most striking example of the two new movies coming as remakes next year) was in 1937 the ultimate creative achievement of Disney and his artists, proving that animated films could be feature-length and provide an artistic and emotional spectacle, a moving canvas of painting that only animation can offer.
What more can a 2025 remake offer? Undoubtedly, it will be technically a masterpiece of 3D animation and CGI, and we expect a terrible performance from Gadot (ALRIGHT?). But is this what Disney is supposed to do? To rehash and remake films considered classics and marvels of animation, or to offer something new and break new ground?
"Okay, Steemy, what rehash are you talking about? Snow White, Cinderella, The Little Mermaid, and all the great Disney films were already rehash of fairy tales that existed from the Grimms and Andersen!" And you'd be right. From that perspective, Disney remakes aren't just rehashes but rehashes of rehashes (and if you think about it, in the animated versions, the more gore or adult aspects of the fairy tales have already been smoothed out, so an update has already been made, which the current remakes believe they're doing again). However, at this point in time, the old Disney animated films have already been established as autonomous works with their own identity, now standing apart from the original fairy tales they were based on, as different expressions of the myth, while Disney remakes are a direct re-statement of its films (not the fairy tales) that made it world-renowned, keeping the designs, landscapes, and songs identical, making the re-statement a true regurgitation and imitation. And I return to my original question: What is the purpose of something like this, especially when the original film is already perfect in what it does?
And again, the answer is easy and quick money. "It's a company, steemy, they have to make some bucks somehow. Unfortunately, what I see is that in this company, while there is creative talent (evident in the quality of the CGI) and interesting voices, they need to be channeled into something creative and meaningful, in the spirit of such a historic studio. And remakes, which are ultimately too hard to kill, are nothing but an insult to the studio's history and the people who built it with their art.
