As well-planned and nostalgically magical as the Disney live-action remakes are, it can't be denied that they are followed by a rather unsavory reputation. Big budgets, all-star cast, sensational soundtracks, and special effects will only get a film so far, which is a lesson not heeded by many live-action remakes.
Except for a certain few like The Jungle Book and 101 Dalmatians, Disney's attempts at bringing their animated classics to life have been lukewarm at best with very few standouts. The big problem they all have in common? The films could have easily been saved if one or two things were tweaked.
Animals Emoting (Lady and the Tramp)
To be fair, Disney+'s adaptation of Lady and the Tramp isn't the most horrifically errant film on the list, which makes it the most forgivable. Choosing to use real animals instead of CGI ones was a good idea, but only to a certain extent.
At times, the effects look great and there is little need for it. However, there are occasions when a little CGI could have helped the animals emote better instead of looking like normal dogs.
The Side Characters (Maleficent)
Casting Angelina Jolie as Maleficent was one of the smartest moves Disney ever made. In fact, Maleficent has a lot of strong elements going for it. One thing that can't be denied, however, is that its side characters are positively cringe-inducing.
The flower fairies might be funny for a few minutes, but Flora, Fauna, and Merryweather they are not. No wonder Maleficent messed with their heads out of sheer boredom.
The CGI Characters (Christopher Robin)
Christopher Robin wasn't a bad movie by any stretch of the imagination, but one major flaw kept it from being the charming reinvention of a classic character it could have been. It is difficult to overlook the hideous CGI monstrosities that are Winnie the Pooh and company.
Some characters look just fine, but others look like a Jim-Henson-sculpted nightmare. Pooh doesn't even look alive with his blank unblinking stare. At least Jim Cummings is giving the performance of his life in this film.
The Story & the Villain (Mary Poppins Returns)
While the sequel to Walt Disney's magnum opus did have a handful of elements that made it a call back to the classic, Mary Poppins Returns was not the original's equal.
The biggest problem lies within the overall story, including the conflict with the evil banker played by Colin Firth. It's not that it feels like a cash grab or anything, but it does feel like a half-hearted attempt to try and repeat what the original did perfectly the first time.
Jafar (Aladdin)
The biggest problem with the live-action remake of Disney's Aladdin is shockingly not the Robin-Williams-less Genie, but Jafar. Despite Marwan Kenzari's best efforts, this was clearly not the role for him.
Instead of the sinister sorcerer of Agrabah Disney fans know and love, Kenzari's version of the character came off as a conniving weasel more at home in a boring political thriller than a Disney production. There's definitely a problem when a CGI parrot is more intimidating.
The Kids (Dumbo)
Tim Burton was unquestionably the director meant to handle Dumbo. While the majority of the film was a fantastic reimagining of the elephant who can fly, the kid actors were as dull as dishwater.
In the film's defense, the brother and sister duo aren't really in the film that long. Nevertheless, when two of the lead characters lull the audience to sleep every time their emotionless faces appear on the screen, there is something wrong.
The Leads (Beauty and the Beast)
Disney did at least try their best to bring their greatest love story to life. Beauty and the Beast's design was incredible, the songs were in chanting, and the magic was certainly there, outside of the two title roles.
While Dan Stevens was wonderful as the Beast, his performance might have benefitted from the costume using more practical effects and makeup rather than CGI and performance capture. And, is there any need to discuss Emma Watson's beautiful acting but lack of musical training?
The Script (Alice in Wonderland)
A single grain of rice will tip the scale, that was made clear from Mulan. 2010's Alice in Wonderland should have been the perfect Disney live-action remake. It had the right director, the right design, the right tone, and the right score; unfortunately, its script fell short.
If Disney had hired someone to adapt the original work by Lewis Carroll, the end result might have been far better. Unfortunately, it became the stereotypical magically-weird film with Burton's name above it.
The Design & the Musical Numbers (The Lion King)
If there was one live-action remake that ruffled the most feathers, it was Jon Favreau's adaptation of The Lion King. While Favreau did throw in one or two tweaks to make the film noticeably different from its better animated counterpart, it ended up being the exact same film with just CGI reskin.
Not only that, but a certain pair of musical performances also did not do the film any favors. It might have been better just to adapt the Broadway show rather than the animated film.
The Direction & the Dragon (Pete’s Dragon)
To put it bluntly, the live-action remake of Pete's Dragon had absolutely nothing to do with the original musical film from Walt Disney Pictures. Aside from a kid named Pete being friends with a giant CGI eyesore named Elliot, there are no linking features between the films.
Along with the story having no connection to the original, Elliot the Dragon was a moss-green mess that left a lot to be desired in the visual department. Considering the film revolves around the dragon, Elliot needed to be more impressive.