Originality is Dead

Triple Self-Portrait 
by Norman Rockwell

After months of waiting with bated breath, Disney's live-action Snow White is finally here! And it sucks. In all honesty, I haven't seen the movie, and I don't plan to (except maybe to justify my complaints a little more), but I've been keeping up with its production and controversies and have to say that from what I've seen, it looks really not good. Not only has the film been hit with controversy after controversy (mostly thanks to Rachel Zegler), but those who actually watched it have reported that it's just downright bad quality. The costumes and hair look cheap and unflattering, the set looks cheap, the colors are dull, the CGI is a little frightening, the music has had no compliments, and it is extraordinarily different from the original in every way, form, and fashion. This movie had a $250 million budget, yet it has only made around $170 million in box offices and would need to reach $500 million to be in the financial safety net. At the moment, it has a 1.6/10 on IMDb. For reference, Cats (2019) has a 2.8. 

Snow White isn't the first Disney remake or sequel, and it's not the first mediocre one, either. Before this, there was Lightyear, Mulan, The Lion King, Pinnochio, and Willow, not to mention Paramount's Mean Girls remake or any of the new Star Wars films and spinoffs. In the case of most of these movies, no one asked for a remake. I didn't hear anyone clamoring for a reanimated The Lion King or Pinnochio, both of which have only mediocre ratings on Rotten Tomatoes or IMDb.

The thing is, a lot of Disney's original animated films don't adapt well. They were never meant to. There's a special magic to animation, and it works in such a way that it can capture things that live-action film can't. Animation allows images to be exaggerated, allows facial expressions to defy anatomical reality, creates colors that aren't common in the real world, and suspends reality in such a way that the magical doesn't seem impossible. If you want to tell a story that uses unreal, fantastical elements, why would you pull that story into the constraints of the real world by adapting it into live action? Isn't the fact that toys and animals can talk more believable when those toys and animals aren't designed to look like real ones that can't talk? When you adapt something fantastical from animation to live action, the colors get flatter, the effects get drier, and the facial expressions get subtler (though that might be the fault of Botox). It's why the original The Lion King is filled with vibrant colors and expressive animals, and the CGI remake is bland and blank. 

So, if these movies don't adapt well, no one likes them, and audiences aren't asking for them, why on earth is Disney planning more of them? On their list (allegedly) are films like Lilo and Stitch, Moana, Robin Hood, Tangled, The Aristocats, Bambi, and Hercules. All of these feature either talking animals, aliens, magic, or mythological pantheons. If it's already been made clear that these fantastical elements don't adapt well to realistic animation or live-action, why are we still going?

But it's not even just Disney that's stuck in a deadly cycle. We're seeing the same thing in the book market. Nowadays, the market is oversaturated with books that recycle the same tropes, storylines, cliches, and character arcs. This is particularly true of some of the most popular genres of the moment. Romance shelves are filled with stories about the same brooding, handsome man and petite, bubbly girl. The subgenre of romantasy has the same stories of dragons and fae repackaged and rebranded over and over. Even dystopias seem to have lost the originality that 1984 and Brave New World had and have become nothing but cheap reboots of The Hunger Games. 

It feels impossible nowadays to find new stories with original ideas. We're recycling the same stories over and over, walking in circles, waiting for something new to show up. But when something new finally circles around the conveyor belt, it's terrible. Wish was the most recent new Disney film that wasn't a remake or a sequel (though even that's a stretch since they admitted they were attempting to hearken back to a bunch of previous films). Even when Disney tried to produce an original film, it flopped in the box offices. I'll admit I haven't watched this one either, but reportedly, the animation looked weak, the characters were flat, the plot was boring, and the music was mediocre. It's believed that Disney lost around $131 million on Wish, and I really haven't heard much about the movie since it came out in 2023, making me think most of us have forgotten about it completely. Elemental seemed to perform somewhat better than Wish, despite its failing opening weekend, but that's a Disney Pixar film, so it doesn't fall into quite the same category.

A lot of people are trying to blame the failure of these remakes and sequels on the politics of it. People argue that these movies don't do well because of the race-swapping, LGBTQ+ messaging, and potential communist undertones. This is a valid point. I'm pretty sure political messaging in kids' films probably contributes to their failure, especially when it's almost a sure guarantee you'll lose half of your American audience no matter which way you lean. I do think that Disney's race-swapping of characters in an attempt to earn back certain audience members is cheap and lazy, but I don't think that's the entire reason why remakes and sequels aren't doing well. 

Encanto is the perfect example. I've seen that movie twice, and I still do not think it has a plot. There are a lot of characters, pretty colors, and catchy songs, but when you try to sit down and explain what happens in that movie, the answer, as far as I can tell, is a whole lot of nothing. To my mind, this lack of a definitive story makes it seem like Disney just sat down and thought they could create a vaguely Latino storyline in hopes of getting some political brownie points without taking the time to actually respect and dignify their Latino audiences by granting them a good story and a fleshed-out plot. The Princess and the Frog, in comparison, not only features black characters, but also has strong plot, music, and animation. But even if my thoughts on Encanto are correct and it was a political move, that isn't why I think it's a not great movie. I think it's a not great movie because it lacks necessary elements of story (such as a plot). Objectively, Encanto is not a good story. 

So, if old stories aren't doing well, and new stories aren't doing well, what does that leave us with? It leaves us with the possibility that maybe, just maybe, we've lost our ability to tell stories. It's scary, but it's possible. Disney has a legacy of fantastic storytellers who craft childhood memories. If even they can't create anything new and have resorted to attempting to retell their past stories, isn't that a sign that something isn't right? Isn't that a sign that we've lost some kind of ability that we had before?

We can't change Disney, just like we can't change any other massive corporations. We can boycott a live-action Tangled adaptation and pray they don't do it, but in the end, it's not really up to consumers. So what on earth are we supposed to do? We're supposed to recognize a good story when we see it. We can seek good art and create our own good art. There are fresh films, music, and books out there, though we might have to dig a little for them. But if even Disney can't get it right, it might be time for us to start looking elsewhere for stories worth telling.