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 school talent show that year, I dressed in my mom’s bathrobe and sang and danced to “I’ll Make a Man Out of You.” In my church talent show, I sang and danced to “A Girl Worth Fighting For.” Now something of an adult, I have the original 27 x 40 theatrical poster 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 news broke that Disney was turning the most badass princess 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, when 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 more than a billion dollars at the global box office. The studio took note, and last year followed it up with a reimagined “Sleeping Beauty” — the villain-centric “Maleficent,” which grossed more than $750 million worldwide.
These creative, alternative takes on the classics were inspiring and seemed to lay the groundwork for 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. But audiences are flocking to it — in less than three weeks the movie has already made nearly $150 million domestically.
All that money means Disney’s going all in.
So far this year three new remakes are reportedly in the works. Aside from “Mulan,” Disney is working with Burton again for an adaptation of “Dumbo.” Emma Watson will lead a version of “Beauty and the Beast.”
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” adaptation called “Cruella,” 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, as “Saturday Night Live” suggested, “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 spine. When Mowgli dances with monkeys, I will be furious that I wasn’t abandoned at birth in the jungle.
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 the “I don’t need a man!”-themed “Frozen” became the highest grossing animated movie of all time.
Disney should now be looking 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 “Brother 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.