The Remake.

It’s the year of the remakes, or at least the year when remakes are being announced from all sides.

There is a post on IMDb that tells us all about the announced Disney live action remakes happening in the next period. If your favorite Disney feature is on there – let me know how you feel.
As far as I’m concerned – I am open for it, but it will never be the original.

I grew up watching “The Lion King”, “Aladdin”, “Pocahontas”, “Cinderella”, “The Little Mermaid”, “Beauty and the Beast”, “The Jungle Book”, and pretty much all of the other Disney animated movies. When I was a bit older, “Mulan” came along and shook my world, and then the Pixar era started, too. I got older but I never stopped enjoying animated features. To this day I sit and watch them again as they transport me to a careless time, a time when I had only to worry about being a kid.
My mom was so tired of Cinderella when I was about 4, that she couldn’t be in the same room when she played the cassette for me.
Once, in my high school classroom, when I was talking about “The Lion King” with my friends I actually choked up to the mention of Mufasa’s death scene; my friends were baffled by the waterworks that started without a special reason. I had a reason. You don’t push Mufasa off a cliff and leave little Simba like that. You just don’t.

I would be more than happy if today’s kids could have the same experience. If I were a babysitter, I’d bring the arsenal of Disney and sit through all the animation with the kids, without a thought. I’d probably be more touched than they’d be, and probably more interested, too. But kids nowadays can’t be like we used to be. That’s why they’re here now, and that’s why the world keeps moving and going forward. Nothing can be like it used to.

When I saw the trailer for the live action “The Jungle Book” I was so happy that I cried a bit (I cry a lot, is the point). When I saw the movie, I was biased to the core, I loved it, it was more adult than the cartoon but still very innocent. However, like I mentioned that leaning on the movie to represent the book was wrong, I also believe that leaning on the remake to represent the original is wrong, too. A remake is to the original what the movie is to the book (you get me, right?)

They’re remaking “Blade Runner”, oh no. Actually, now it doesn’t seem like a remake but a sequel that’s also a remake and why do a sequel to something already so perfect? Well, first of all, most people in this world are not cinephiles, nor avid film (history) fans; the ones who couldn’t care less about seeing “Blade Runner” because it’s so old and eighties, will probably go to the movies to see this sequel, or remake or whatever.
Most of the young generations that are soon-to-be bread makers are 1990s kids. I am a 1992 kid and people younger than me, like my brother’s generation of 1996, are just now coming out and doing amazing things for themselves. Before they get some more air time, my generation is currently in the spotlight and it’s the time to be in charge of creating advancement in the world. But everything moves so quickly that “our time” is almost at the point of passing. The younger generations are more tech savvy and they grow up doing things for themselves that we are doing only now. There are exceptions in every generation of course, and kudos to them for looking into the world and understanding that so much has happened before them.

I got way too philosophical there, but I needed you to “catch my drift”. Beloved cartoons, old movies and franchises made our lives better in the past, and I think that filmmakers hope that it can be the same for kids nowadays. “Star Wars” was successfully revived and now, kids simply love all the SW merchandise circling around the globe – that is a good example of a sequel that can kind of qualify as a remake, but it’s actually a revival of an old story that people believed newer generations would love, too.
I can handle all the live action remakes of my favorite Disney films but I will hold the originals in my heart forever; it’s actually interesting to see how people see these movies today and how they wish to make them unique for the current times and audiences.

Once a remake is made, the original will not vanish.
“Ghostbusters” got a ton of hate before it was even released, while the movie is just a solid comedy that we see more and more of nowadays; the difference between the old “Ghostbusters” and the new ones is that the modern times required some sort of female empowerment and incorporation of strong female leads who can carry out a legendary name. They are not trying to be Murray or Aykroyd, they are trying to revive the name of the “Ghostbusters” with a twist.

I am not angry at remakes as much as I am at sequels, but when I say angry, it’s not serious. Sequels can make me crazy because a lot of times, they’re pointless. The popularity of the first movie was so good that you believed that you must make another one – this happened with “Ocean’s”, with “The Hangover” and I don’t know how many more. The creators may just be having a field day when it comes to writing these sequels, but remakes are bolder. Imagine peeking into a well established universe such as Disney and deciding to make a live action “Dumbo”. It’s tricky but it can also turn out really well; the remake is there because boundaries have been moved. And as much as I disagree with a lot of remakes (I seriously would have left “Ben Hur” and “Blade Runner” alone) I can see why they exist and why we sometimes need them.

And I’ll finish this, with a slightly anxious heart at the thought that “Lion King” is gonna be a live action film. The only thing I know about it is that I’m gonna cry too much to it, and I don’t even regret that. Tears are brave, you guys, it means you’re in touch with your emotions. Or that you just love “Lion King” too much and have no fear in admitting it.

‘Til next time

Anja