The recent surge in live-action adaptations of classic Disney animated films has led to a series of debates pitting the originals against their live-action counterparts. There are those who feel that nothing can improve on the magic brought by animation, while others are partial to more realistic-looking renderings of classic tales.
Some remakes feel fresh and revitalizing, while others can seem like unnecessary cash grabs. Here are five Disney live-action adaptations that surpass the quality of the original, and five that still can't top the classic animation.
Better: Dumbo (2019)
One thing that consistently works in favor of the animated originals is the talking animals. Tim Burton's 2019 Dumbo forgoes this aspect of the story, instead creating human characters to center the story around.
Despite this change, Dumbo himself is absolutely adorable, as are the two children who accompany him on his journey. Perhaps the greatest strength of the live-action version is the removal of the racist elements of the original.
Worse: Cinderella (2015)
The 2015 live-action Cinderella isn't a bad film by any stretch, it just can't quite compare to the magic Disney was able to capture with the 1950 original.
Despite an excellent cast (with a particularly brilliant casting choice for Lady Tremaine) and gorgeous costumes, the magic of Cinderella remains with the animated mice and charming songs.
Better: Alice In Wonderland (2010)
The 1951 original Alice in Wonderland is full of childish wonder. Tim Burton took this classic story and gave it more of a sequel than a remake with his 2010 version, wherein Alice, now a young woman, returns to Wonderland.
The live-action follow-up has more of a plot, giving Alice a monster to slay in order to find the bravery she needs to face more complicated fears in her real life. The supporting cast is wonderful, and Helena Bonham Carter's Red Queen gets deeper characterization than her cartoon counterpart.
Worse: Lady And The Tramp (2019)
One thing audiences have discovered in the wake of the many, many live-action reboots and sequels Disney has released in the last few years is that animation is often the best medium through which certain stories should be told.
While the 2019 Lady and the Tramp boasts a good cast and tells the same endearing story as the original, the use of real animals actually makes the characters feel less real. Where cartoon animation gives the dogs a full range of expressions in the original, the animation combined with real animals in the newer version comes off as awkward and slightly off-putting.
Better: Maleficent (2014)
The original Sleeping Beauty is a gorgeous classic. It introduces iconic characters, such as Princess Aurora and the seemingly evil witch Maleficent. Maleficent takes this simple story and both complicates and improves it.
Angelina Jolie is perfectly cast as the titular character, who turns out to be a much more complex character than the original film would make it seem. The 2014 prequel also changes the resolution of Aurora's story: although she would later marry Prince Phillip, it's the love she and Maleficent have for each other that breaks the curse.
Worse: 101 Dalmatians (1996)
The animated vs. live-action debate comes down to the animals once again in 101 Dalmatians. Although the human characters in the 1996 version are well cast (especially Glenn Close as Cruella De Vil), the dogs are meant to be the stars of the story.
The 1961 animation allows the dogs to be characters with personalities, rather than adorable props.
Better: The Jungle Book (2016)
In a rare exception, 2016's The Jungle Book remake is an improvement over the original, despite the many animals that make up the main characters. The voice actors are perfect for their roles, the musical numbers from the original are included, and Neel Sethi is excellent as Mowgli.
A notable improvement is the change to the ending. Rather than going to live in the human village, Mowgli stays in the jungle with his family.
Worse: Aladdin (2019)
The greatest strengths of the 2019 remake aren't enough to surpass the nearly perfect 1992 original. Despite stunning dance numbers and an improved ending for Princess Jasmine, most of the remake fails to capture the magic and excitement of the animated version.
Recasting the genie was always going to be a challenge, and it is no fault of Will Smith's that the 2019 version doesn't bring the laughter and joy Robin Williams' iconic performance did.
Better: Beauty And The Beast (2017)
The 1991 Beauty and the Beast is nearly flawless. The 2017 remake took a great story and added a few embellishments that add to the magic of the story.
Emma Watson is a lovely Belle, and there are many recognizable voices coming from the enchanted objects. This is an example of a remake that captures the charm of the original while updating it in ways that modernize it and set it apart.
Worse: The Lion King (2019)
There's no denying that 2019's The Lion King features an incredible cast and stunning technological achievements. This doesn't mean that it's better than the cartoon original.
Gone are the facial expressions of the animals and the vibrant colors, both of which greatly added to the energy of the 1994 version. The animals may look real, but the choice to tell the story in a "live-action" format takes a classic story and removes much of the excitement and charm.