Snow White is Disney’s latest live-action remake, but why isn’t there that much live-action in it? Some thoughts on that below…
Hollywood and audiences have a love-hate relationship with remakes. There’s always the argument that a remake can’t be better than the original, but there are exceptions to that – John Carpenter’s The Thing being one of the finest examples.
When we talk about live-action Disney remakes, we tend to think of the newer ones, such as Cinderella, The Lion King and Aladdin. It’s not exactly a new trend for the studio though; its first live-action remake was 1994’s The Jungle Book, followed by 101 Dalmatians, which gave us Glenn Close’s deliciously wicked Cruella DeVil.
After 1992’s 102 Dalmatians was largely a disappointment – even that many cute dogs can’t save a film that dull – Disney steered away from remaking its own films. But in 2010, the studio released Tim Burton’s Alice In Wonderland, seemingly renewing interest in these magical live-action adaptations of its own classics (despite mixed reviews, it made over $1bn).
So what separates 101 Dalmatians from The Lion King? Well, one is actual live-action, while the other is pure CGI silliness. The same goes for most of these so-called live-action films; Beauty And The Beast had to rely on CGI to bring a walking, talking candlestick and various pieces of crockery to life, and the less we say about Burton’s Dumbo, the better.
Snow White is the latest of these remakes to hit cinemas. Many (mostly unkind) things had already been said about the film before anyone had actually seen it. Most of those were focused on Rachel Zegler’s casting, but the decision to make the seven dwarves fully CGI gathered a lot of rightful criticism too.
It’s a truly baffling decision, in all honesty. Disney would have been able to cast actors with dwarfism to play the roles, but somehow it was decided that getting one actor with dwarfism and six non-dwarf actors in would avoid the stickier conversations it was desperately trying not to have. It’s morally questionable, but it also simply looks bad.
In fact, there’s very little live-action in the film in general. Zegler is flawless as the titular Disney princess, but her performance is drowned out by everything around her. It’s hard to focus on this new version of Snow White – much more determined, righteous and keen to take control of her own story than her 1937 counterpart – when she’s surrounded by digital sets, CGI animals and the seven dwarfs who broadly look like their animated counterparts rather than anything you’d find in the real world.
So, what’s the point? Disney had already moved on from the classic hand-drawn 2D animation of the 20th century to the 3D animation of the 21st – now it seems to have broadly swapped the latter for photorealistic CGI. I can appreciate it might be difficult to make Mufasa: The Lion King in live-action without a huge insurance bill, but with Snow White, it seemed possible to at least recreate some of the sets in the real world.
The biggest disappointment, though? Snow White truly could have been one of the best Disney remakes in years. Director Marc Webb and writer Erin Cressida Wilson are bold enough to change certain story points to create a more impactful story where Snow White isn’t just waiting for a prince to come and kiss her back to life. It’s a new adaptation, not just a lifeless remake, and it’s something Disney should be encouraged to do more.
But are audiences still enjoying these movies? Mufasa, a prequel to The Lion King, earned far less than its predecessor, which took home over $1bn. Snow White is projected to have a disappointing first weekend in cinemas and The Little Mermaid also failed to bring in the big bucks. Granted, the latter two have garnered their share of racist complaints and controversies over the castings of Zegler and Halle Bailey as Snow White and Ariel, who were previously depicted as white women.
Read more: How Hollywood movie studios abandoned hand drawn animation at speed
Next in line is Lilo And Stitch, also relying heavily on CGI. Again, it would be challenging to get actual aliens to perform in the film – do they qualify for SAG-AFTRA? – but what happened to animatronics and puppets? Hollywood seems too keen on moving on, applying new methods of filmmaking to their movies that we’re rapidly losing the magic of cinema. It’s being buried under unnecessary visual effects.
Cruella, although not directly a remake but rather a villain origin story, and Mulan are the only two exceptions of Disney “live-action” remakes that tried to stay true to the word “live” and “action”. There’s much to criticise about Mulan, but at least it attempted to give us proper action that still felt real and performed by actors and stunt doubles.
Steven Soderbergh, whose new film Black Bag is now in cinemas and well worth your time, once questioned what films get remade and why. He criticised the executives calling the shots in Hollywood and used remakes as an example.
“They get simple things wrong sometimes, like remakes,” the director told The Playlist. “I mean, why are you always remaking the famous movies? Why aren’t you looking back into your catalog and finding some sort of programmer that was made 50 years ago that has a really good idea in it, that if you put some fresh talent on it, it could be really great.”
We’d have to agree.
Disney is planning plenty of more of these remakes, with Moana in production now and Guy Ritchie confirmed to be directing Hercules. Here’s hoping Disney will find the same courage Snow White does and stand up for what’s right: a film billed as live-action needs at least some live-action in it.
Disney’s Snow White is now in cinemas.
—Thank you for visiting! If you’d like to support our attempts to make a non-clickbaity movie website:
Follow Film Stories on Twitter here, and on Facebook here.
Buy our Film Stories and Film Junior print magazines here.
Become a Patron here.
