:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(794x179:796x181)/live-action-disney-films-051823-tout-31c6aad014ef474496fd7fb55832280f.jpg&tbnid=QD-QcHIKDhWtUM&vet=1&imgrefurl=https://people.com/movies/all-the-disney-live-action-movies/&docid=2r4galo0DeGsAM&w=1500&h=1000&source=sh/x/im/m5/1)
By Cozette Calderon
Brief Disney History:
Walt Disney, the founder of the Disney organization, was born in 1901. Eventually, he signed a contract with M.J. Wrinkler on October 16, 1923 for the rights to produce a series called Alice Comedies. This “date is used as the start of the Disney company, first known as the Disney Brothers Cartoon Studio ” (D23). Since that start, Disney has become one of the most popular film makers in the world, along with being one of the most influential and beloved companies.
Fast forward to Disney’s theme park opening in 1955, and despite the first day having some major issues, the opening of Disneyland revolutionized the way consumers enjoyed theme parks.
In the following years, competing companies started to rise. Paramount Pictures was created in 1912, and Warner Brother Studios started in 1923. Later, Dreamworks, considered one of Disney’s main competitors, was created in 1994. Still, people gravitated towards Disney because of how the magic-filled company offered an escape from reality. After all, Walt Disney himself believed “Laughter is timeless, imagination has no age, dreams are forever.”
Disney’s success
Disney’s catchphrase is that it is “The Happiest Place on Earth”. Truly, this concept mixed with Disney’s dedication to romantics has been a driving force behind such wide-span popularity. Disney is known to be the giver of magic. In the parks, there’s no outside world. There’s only princesses, princes, and tales where villains always fail. If you take away the magic, you’re left with a park that isn’t Disney. Well, Disney is in crisis because it certainly seems to be losing its magic because the owners and the consumers are bringing worldly issues into a theme park and company that is supposed to be a place apart from reality.
Disney’s downfall: viewings, casting, and lack of creativity
Disney has been involved in controversies before, but it has currently been under fire for live-action remakes that are often different from the original sources. Creating something new is certainly not bad, but when one titles something after a beloved concept or idea, then changes the actual product, it causes customers to feel slightly betrayed.
The very first live-action remake was the Jungle Book in 1994, which was not well received. Then, the new 101 Dalmatians live-action film was released in 1996. This was decently received, but it only earned 5.7 out of 10 stars on IMDB. Still, the film grossed more than its estimated budget in the box office. Starting in 2010, live-action films became the new trend: Alice in Wonderland, Maleficent, and another updated Jungle Book made their way to the big screen. However, true uproar began when the Disney princess movies started to be considered for remakes.
For example, by the time live-action Mulan was said to be in the works, Aladdin, Cinderella, and Beauty and the Beast had all been released. Aladdin did quite well, earning 6.9 out of 10 stars on IMDB. Cinderella is often praised for its beauty and its character growth beyond its original material. Beauty and the Beast earned 7.1 out of 10 stars on IMDB. So why are we discussing the issue with live-action films if the ratings are often decent? Well, if we look beyond the ratings, people still find these films to be lacking, and it’s causing some social media warfare. For example:
Beauty and the Beast: Too much autotune and unnecessary plot additions.
Cinderella: Debates whether Cinderella should have been more spunky of a heroine or if her relying on her kindness as her “superpower” was the better choice for the updated version.
Aladdin: recasting the beloved actor Robin Williams who sadly passed away and a non-arabic actress playing Jasmine.
Well, these issues are not unique to the live action remakes, right? Especially if we’re looking at ethnicity and race, which is an issue that has come up in the past when talking of Disney casting because a lot of colored characters are voiced by white actors or actors who don’t match the race of the character. So, why is this an issue now? Simply, Disney is bringing up a forgiven past. People have recognized Disney’s mistakes, but have forgiven the classics because they are still wonderful stories to enjoy. People have been able to recognize the good and bad, acknowledging both sides of the spectrum and admitting that Disney has made errors but so has everyone else—especially during the time when the films were made because it was a cultural norm. Simply, this explains why people at the time didn’t protest.
Now, opinions will still differ about casting roles purely based on race. Some say to cast the exact race of the original character regardless if another actor of a different race is better suited, and others will say go based on who has the most talent or is best fit for the role regardless of cultural or racial makeup. However, the question is given another layer when talking of remaking a film with a character of a specific race. Obviously, Disney has been willing to swing from side to side, casting regardless of race, but has also then matched the original race and ethnicity of the character. Social media has blown up over Disney’s decisions over race while casting. Right-wing, Left-wing, young, old, doesn’t matter: everyone has an opinion when something changes—whether people welcome it or not. So where does this leave Disney’s downfall?
Despite the live action films causing a bit of anger or disappointment, people still seemed to enjoy them to some extent. However, Disney took a major blow with their release of Mulan (2020), losing 141 million dollars with this box office failure. The film was semi-eagerly awaited as fans were excited to see a new take on such an iconic film. Well, that all changed when it was announced all music and some beloved characters were cut from the film to create a “realistic” setting without such frivolous tales of talking dragons and singing out loud to express one’s feelings. No, instead Disney wanted to include a magic sorceress that transforms into a bird for “realism”. They also played homage to famous songs like “Reflection” by having it play in the background every other scene or so without a single lyric being sung until the credits. While the film was greeted with hesitation, it was then welcomed with hate with an average of 2.8 stars. Controversy on the film being directed by a caucasian director when Disney so prominently stated that it wanted to embrace realistic Chinese culture, and there was anger about the “realism” of the movie taking the place of the iconic songs and characters while adding supernatural elements also affected the release of the film. While this isn’t the most recent controversy, it is one to show evidence of change: Disney is bringing the world into their films. What does that mean?
Truly, Disney has become a victim of culture—poisoned by its directors, owners, actors, and viewers. Every casting choice, every costume, and every line has been embedded with perceived connotations of something with a socio-cultural meaning. There always must be a deeper meaning instead of letting the film be just that—a story to watch. By making a live-action film, Disney strips the film of fantasy. Disney, in a sense, forces its audience to see how the fairytales are flawed instead of letting them view them as what fairytales should be—fictional and for enjoyment.
Why has this change been happening? It is a result of lack of creativity, which has played a major factor in Disney becoming commercialized. Instead of creating new stories that offer the same feeling of love and care that previous movies have given, companies reuse old stories but add “spins” or make them updated—all aiming for an easy pay-day. The issue with this is that Disney’s classics are cherished by many. Since Disney has been changing details about such films to try and make them politically correct, to gain publicity, or to make the movie “seem fresh”, they’re breaking down the fourth wall that magic has made. Disney films used to be where the real world issues left as soon as you sat down with your popcorn. Art can make statements about socio-cultural issues, but Disney films often didn’t. Now, viewers and artists have placed such an emphasis on art reflecting the world in every single piece that even if an art piece wasn’t originally trying, it is deemed to have some political issue or meaning.
As viewers, it’s our responsibility to separate right from wrong; dissect reality from fantasy. If we don’t like a film, is it our job to criticize the choices? Are our opinions really that necessary? Disney doesn’t care. As long as we pay the $10.99 monthly fee to watch their films, we are simply their wages. Viewers are partly the reason behind Disney’s downfall. We put our own dislikes with the world into the film, sometimes before we’ve even seen the end product. While one can partly blame Disney for allowing the world to take over the company and decisions, we are partly to be blamed. Both culprits ruin the original qualities of such a romantic company and classic films.
The point of this “Disney downfall” is not to say “don’t add diversity”—of course diversity is important. Not because it has to be added because of laws or appeasement but because diversity is beautiful and real. If Disney really wants to be “realistic,” diversity is everywhere: different thoughts, races, ethnicities, and abilities. But Disney is missing the point of their “realistic” era. You can’t change the past. The characters have been made and are loved. Instead of changing or “updating” characters audiences already know, why not make new characters we can love just as much? Is Disney’s creative team too scared or simply incapable of developing new story lines? Being creative and adding new perspectives and different casting choices doesn’t need to mean “We messed up and we’re so sorry, let us change our past”, but it can mean “Let’s step into a new process where we have our past as a reflection of that era and certain values—some good, some bad—but let’s step into a time where we explore new stories, new characters, and live for the creative process.”
Information, not already linked in the article, thanks to:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/feature/warner-brothers-studio-history-origins-1235366885/
beniciapaw.com 