Girl Who Knows Colour Theory Rambles about Disney Remake Flops

 

Animation within the film industry has evolved tremendously; moving from black and white images, manipulation of animation for propaganda, intricately hand drawn frames, to fluid 2D and eventually 3D. However, what is probably unexpected is how live-action films have crossed into the path of evolution in animation. Utilisation of CGI is different to real life actors, speaking on camera and not a voice over. This intense dissimilarity would inherently put people- namely producers-off- by introducing live action elements into animation, you are abandoning everything that appeals to a child. So why are they being constantly pitched and made?

Firstly, we must explore how live action movies are different to animation:

The form of cameras and CGI will never be able to capture the wander and fun a child likes, doesn't matter how much post-editing a production does. For example, the green in Tarzan (since I've already talked about previously) can never be vivid if it (and it has) been filmed in real jungle, where the greens are not as visceral. If the production crew did increase the saturation in post-production, the film would look absurd and almost comical, thus ruining the movie's themes of loneliness, heartbreak and the intensity of fight scenes. As a result, by entrenching a film geared towards children in the real world, it ruins the fantasy and intricacies that produce awe and captivation. Compare these two frames from a Jungle Book:

Which one looks more appealing? Personally for me, the animation and the use of bright blues, calm greens and the juxtaposing orange are much more attractive than the gross mesh of desaturated greens in the live action. For example, it's impossible to capture a lake being blue in the jungle so the producers resorted to using a natural lake. However, the lake is green because of this and all I can think of is the water being dirty, sickly and contaminated. This is dissimilar to the purity of the blue water (even if it is unrealistic) which makes the light hearted demeanour of the characters more natural (pun intended!).

Similar to this, let's explore animals and anthropomorphic characters in live actions VS animated. It's obvious that traditional animation is much more appropriate for talking-animals, something that Disney is heavily centred on. When something is hand-drawn and finalised by a computer, with exaggerated character designs, witty voices matching the animal, and saturated colours, seeing a talking animal is really not absurd. It isn't creepy or dull. On the other hand, by using intensely realistic CGI, to the point where it might as well be the real animal, seeing talking animals suddenly becomes uncomfortable or boring- what's fun about talking lions if you can't see their expression? It's incredibly alienating, in my opinion. The child-like essence and the fantastical wonder associated with that character is suddenly put in a realistic lens, which opposes the purpose of escapism. If an adult who wants to indulge in nostalgia wanted to watch a real life lion, they would watch a nature documentary. The most prevalent thing is though, by entrenching your film in a realistic lens, rather than explore the wonders of nature or life or the spirit, you're focusing on physics and weight and mass, which is often incorrect. Hypersleep discusses this further in the link below, I recommend watching it. To briefly sum, they analyse how Lion King tries to stick to the rules of physics but also adheres to the essence of the original animation. For example, the animators try to apply Pumba's gruff but happy personality but fail to follow the agenda of physics that they've confined themselves to. From this, the audience are left alienated and conflicted in a way many can't out rightly put a name on because of how subtle it is.

Likewise, as well as superficially, by using live-action/CGI for anthropomorphic animals, it changes the core of the movie as well. For example, take the Lion King. We all know that iconic opening scene where the animal kingdom is celebrating the birth of Simba. However, in the new remake, the director was adamant at changing the composition and thus the essence of the scene because it wasn't realistic enough. Newsflash- it's talking animals, set in the wild, based on Hamlet. There's nothing realistic about it and it doesn't strive to be realistic. If you wanted to make a realistic film, go direct another movie and not a Disney one. For further clarification, see this video below. It's very enlightening!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4Pl-y4-bjA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8c75DNnST4 (go to the problem with Jon section, where the clip discusses the directors agenda and principles)

After exploring how traditional animation and live action/heavy CGI are dissimilar and their effects, one has to ask why Disney keeps pump priming these projects. Apparently a multitude of live action movies are in the works, with films like The Little Mermaid, Robin Hood and Hercules being set to be produced. The most obvious answer as to why these movies are continuously being made is the money- it always comes down to money. The Jungle Book, despite my remarks, achieved 966.6milliom. Even though I heavily criticised the approach to the Lion King remake, it grossed $543.6 million in the United States and Canada, and $1.113 billion in other territories, for a worldwide total of $1.657 billion. Compare these figures to original films, the difference is staggering. For example, Moana, despite its valid success, only achieved 645 million USD and Big Hero 6 recieved 657 million USD. It’s clear that Disney is profiting of nostalgia- that in itself isn’t bad, but when future generations will remember these stories through this recreated lens instead of the original, then this suddenly becomes slightly strange.