Remakes mean big money. When studios take an existing property and offer a fresh interpretation with modern filmmaking technology and sensibilities, it's all but guaranteed to turn a profit from fans of the original work and new audiences alike. Few companies know that better than Disney, which has applied this technique to several projects from their own history.
RELATED: 5 Disney Movies That Should Get Live-Action Remakes
Some of these remakes add a meaningful spin, allowing them to show the existing tale in a new light. Others, however, simply make people long for the original. These live-action updates don't appear to be slowing down, so it's best to appreciate the good ones.
10 Match: The Jungle Book
No, not Jon Favreau's 2016 flick. The more inspired effort turns out to be an overlooked gem from 1994. Much like Walt Disney did with Rudyard Kipling's book, these filmmakers largely throw out the animated film and fashion their own Jungle Book.
Viewers should let that scare them off, though. For one thing, this flick boasts great production values not seen much anymore. Massive sets, breathtaking locales, and real, well-trained animals create an India of Kipling's dreams. The story is also thematically true to the author's work. The "nature vs. nurture" conflict informs the tale, and the concept of the Jungle Law is key to that. Sure, the movie is more akin to Tarzan at points, but 1994's The Jungle Book is still a solid adventure about identity, belonging, and nature.
9 Doesn't Match: Alice In Wonderland
Ironically, the film that started this modern trend of Disney remakes is among the worst ones. Tim Burton's take on Lewis Carroll's classic is more like Alice in Narnia. For its entire runtime, it sits uncomfortably between the wacky antics of Wonderland and a trite fantasy action flick. The filmmakers seem ashamed to be associated with the property they're adapted. That certainly tracks with the dreary color palette.
RELATED: 10 Games That Take Place In The Victorian Era
It would also explain why Alice comes secondary. Burton and company are more interested in the Mad Hatter, which isn't surprising since he's Johnny Depp doing one of his embarrassing caricatures. He's unbearably annoying, and that extends to the whole movie on those rare occasions it tries to capture the spirit of the source.
8 Match: Cinderella
Here's a novel idea. How about making a Cinderella movie about Cinderella? Rather than devote half the film to talking mice, Kenneth Branagh's remake puts the focus squarely on the pure-hearted heroine and her Prince Charming. Through their more frequent interactions, viewers get to know them both as people. The writers delve into the dreams, struggles, and why they're drawn to each other.
Miraculously, none of it feels forced or dilutes the story. The iconic beats from the tale are treated with reverence using vibrant colors, lavish production values, and operatic direction. It all conveys an earnestness and belief in the fable's purity, both of which are immensely refreshing in this cynical age.
7 Doesn't Match: Dumbo
Considering the financial success of Alice in Wonderland, it made sense from a business perspective to bring Burton back. Sadly, he's learned nothing. If anything, the problems of his earlier effort are amplified. Of course, what can one expect when his screenwriter is Ehren Kruger, the scribe of such classics as the Transformers flicks?
Considering that, everything here makes sense. Like the robots in disguise, Dumbo is barely a presence in his own movie. He makes a bigger impact in the Funko Pop market. Instead, audiences have to watch cookie-cutter circus freaks compete for screen time. The whole scenario feels even more tired given Burton's infatuation with mental patients in makeup. Throw in the same washed-out aesthetic from Alice in Narnia, and the cliché is complete.
6 Match: Maleficent
Suffice it to say, reimagining Sleeping Beauty from the villainess's perspective would yield some significant changes. It's the origin of the horned witch, weaving her story into the familiar fairy tale and leading to several expanded plot threads. Are all the changes warranted or welcome? No.
RELATED: Disney's Villainous Character Tier List
Luckily, those at the center are executed well, namely the surrogate mother-daughter relationship between Maleficent and Aurora. As Angelina Jolie infuses a subtle empathy into the deliciously devious baddie, viewers feel the warmth that develops between the unlikely pair. That's what counts, and that's what audiences will remember.
5 Doesn't Match: Mary Poppins Returns
Though technically a sequel, Mary Poppins Returns is essentially a more expensive version of the first film. It boasts the same plot beats, and the same types of songs unfold at similar points. It only accentuates how this one is lesser in every way.
The money is all there, but not the passion or magic. The songs are forgettable; the plot is uninspired and tonally uneven, and the new characters simply fail to pop. Most importantly, however, Emily Blunt lacks the warmth (and vocal range) of Julie Andrews as the titular heroine. That coldness is sadly emblematic of the whole piece.
4 Match: Pete's Dragon
For those who thought Maleficent shifted things around, just wait. Pete's Dragon changes everything it conceivably can. Although it maintains the general premise, the movie presents an entirely new setup and setting. In addition, it cuts out the songs and several subplots which caused the original film to meander.
The result is a more concise and focused rendition with a Spielbergian sense of wonder. Visual storytelling wonderfully shows Pete's bond with Elliot, and it's hard not to feel a heartwarming bittersweetness as they both reevaluate where they belong. Finding one's family and belief in the extraordinary are powerful themes, laying the foundation for a more modest yet pleasantly surprising remake in Disney's pantheon.
3 Doesn't Match: Mulan
Unlike many modern Disney remakes, Mulan does attempt something different with its story. The problem is that it doesn't work. It turns out the titular heroine isn't special because of her ingenuity, resourcefulness, thoughtfulness, or determination. Instead, she just has a stronger chi than everyone else. Way to reduce Mulan's strength to a power level from Dragon Ball! If only she was this invincible in Kingdom Hearts...
RELATED: Kingdom Hearts 2: All Worlds From The Game, Ranked
Of course, this lets her perform a bunch of wired wushu fights despite the movie claiming to be a more grounded, serious affair. In actuality, the supposedly devastating war is entirely bloodless, hindered by the boring character, clunky battles, bland presentation, and odd magical elements that put even Mushu to shame. This remake wants to have it both ways. The filmmakers bounce between gritty update and family-friendly fable, failing at each as a result.
2 Match: The Parent Trap
Back in the '90s, Disney was content to remake live-action movies, and their own catalog was fertile ground for that. Hence, they updated their 1961 comedy, The Parent Trap, and updating is all the filmmakers do.
True, the remake doesn't take many risks with its narrative. It has virtually the same plot and characters; the setting just goes from the '60s to the '90s (and all the corniness that comes with it). Like the original, however, it benefits from the sheer charm of its screwball story, thanks in no small part to the charisma of its stars. Lindsay Lohan, in particular, makes for an indelible lead, portraying two radically different characters while maintaining the same plucky energy for both. She and the rest of the creative team consistently surprise with their skill at selling this feel-good tale.
1 Doesn't Match: The Lion King
Everything about this abomination is a colossal miscalculation. The Lion King is one of the most emotionally charged stories ever put to screen, so let's retell it beat-for beat with a bunch of ugly, CG animals whose photorealistic faces can't emote. The original's striking colors and sublime presentation created a picturesque, ethereal version of Africa that burst with life in every frame. To recapture that beauty, studio execs hired one of the blandest blockbuster directors working today.
Finally, the first film had a cast of well-established actors, all of whom made the characters their own with unforgettable performances. They're now replaced with topical celebrities who either can't act or choose not to. That hammers home how cynical this is. It's a remake that falls flat in every respect and has no creative reason to exist.