When “Mulan” was released in the summer of 1998, it instantly became my favorite Disney movie. In the following months, rarely did any cassette tape other than the film’s soundtrack find its way into my Walkman. In my elementary sch🌸ool talent show that year, I dressed in my mom’s bathrobe and sang and danced to In my church talent show, I sang and danced to Now something of an adult, I have the original 27 x 40 hanging as the centerpiece of my 💧living room. I still want a dragon sidekick, but I’d be willing to settle for a clever cricket.
So on Monday, when was turning the most badass pℱrincess movie of all time into a live-action feature, I should have been elated🅷. Instead, I find myself very, very worried.
Recently, Disney has adopted a strategy of mining its own archives for new material. The current resurgence began﷽ back in 2010, w꧙hen Tim Burton turned Disney’s 1951 classic “Alice in Wonderland” into a vibrant vehicle for Johnny Depp. It was a massive financial success, raking in . The studio took note, and last year followed it up with a reimagined “Sleeping Beauty” — the villain-centric “Maleficent,” which grossed more than .
These creative, alternative takes on the classics were inspiring and seemed to lay the groundw🔯ork foꦫr an exciting era at Disney.
But then “Cinderella” happened. The inoffensive remake of the 1950 animated movie received positive notices overall, but I couldn’t help wonder why it needed to exist. Whereas its predecessors had reinvented their respective wheels, “Cinderella” just sold the same wheel again for $14 at your local AMC. B𝐆ut audiences are flocking to it — in less than three weeks the movie has already made nearly .
All that money means Disney’s going all in.
So far this year three new remakes are reportedly in the works. 📖Aside from “Mulan,” Di🤪sney is working with Burton again for an Emma Watson will lead a version of
They join the previously announced “The Jungle Book” and an “Alice” sequel, “Through the Looking Glass.” 💃A writer has also reportedly been hired to pen a “101 Dalmations” focusing on the villain.
And those are just the ones we know about. Is it only a matter of time until we’re lining up for the live-action version of “The Aristocats”🐭 or, , “Bambi”?
I have no doubt most of these movies will give rise to massive amounts of nostalgia within me. When Belle walks into the ballroom in that yellow gown, a shiver will go up my s🦋pine. When Mowgli dances with monkeys, I will be furious that I wasn’t abandoned at birth in the jun🐲gle.
But just because these films evoke pleasant feelings doesn’t mean they should happen. What’s kept the Disney brand relevant decade after decade is its ability to reinvent. In 1989, we thought princesses were old-fashioned — and then “The Little Mermaid” proved us wrong. Nearly 25 years later, we again thought the princess genre was passé — and then t🐻he “I don’t need a man!”-themed “Frozen” became the highest grossing animated movie of all time.
Disney should now be lookiဣng for the next “Frozen” — not trying to recapture its magic.
All of this calls to mind the last time Disney decided it would be a good idea to revisit the classics in mass quantity. In the mid-’90s, the home entertainment division began releasing direct-♌to-video sequels of Disney’s animated movies — everything from “Lady and the Tramp” to “Br🐭other Bear.” Lacking in quality in just about every area of moviemaking, those sequels are universally maligned by anyone older than the age of 2.
If the studio continues to focus on the past, history may repeat itself — and it’ll take a lot more♚ than true love’s kiss to wake us from our slumber.