If Disney Princesses are the foundation on which Disney's animation success is built, animals are the pillars further building the empire on which the Marvel and Star Wars roof rests. I think that analogy got away from me, but the point I'm making is that animals are an integral part to Disney's movies and a part of nearly every other successful Disney classic. This is something I've become hypersensitive to as of late because I keep seeing absolutely creepy-as-hell remakes of them in live-action.
It took over 50 years to make it happen, but we've gone from feeding peanut butter to real animals to making them talk, to computer-generated animals that look hyper-realistic and speak. Unfortunately, the latter is extremely terrifying for a number of reasons, and it's time for us to talk about why and consider what the next step is given the number of upcoming live-action Disney remakes.
Real Animals Aren't As Expressive As Animated Ones
Remember in The Lion King when Mufasa died? How could you not if you've seen the movie! I remember back when I was a kid watching the animated version for the first time, I was absolutely stunned. To think that Simba's uncle would kill his own brother? It's absolutely wild to witness when you're five years old.
Let's also not forget the traumatic experience of losing a parent or witnessing their death at a young age. It's such a mix of fear, horror, and sadness that it's hard to even describe that look. And so, let's take a look at Simba's face as he watched his father fall to his death in the animated version:
Now let's take a look at that exact same moment in the "live-action" adaptation of The Lion King. Check out the photo below, or use your Disney+ subscription to watch the remake if you haven't already:
I don't think I need to tell the reader which is better, but it's helpful to see just how bad the CGI version is. Without hearing the voice, you wouldn't know what's going on here. In fact, it looks like he's angrier than he is anything, which is not the vibe when seeing a parent fall to their death. If we're looking just at aesthetics and not the money it made, it's a wonder a Mufasa prequel is being made.
The reality, however, is that this is about as realistic-looking as a fake lion has been depicted in cinema. Real lions don't react the way humans do, and what sadness one might have on their face will never be anything like what is seen in the animated version of The Lion King. It's not that the technology isn't there, but rather that the entire idea just doesn't translate. When animals don't naturally emote with their faces, it's hard to get behind seeing a realistic-looking animal in the same role as a beloved Disney character.
Disney Knew To Change Animals For Animation, Why Not CGI?
What's most baffling to me about this trend that has continued throughout the era of live-action Disney is that it seemed like it was known at one point that making animals realistic was a bad idea. The animated version of The Little Mermaid feels like a great example of this when you think about a character like Sebastian. There was a lot of grumbling when the live-action Sebastian was revealed, and it was because he looked more like a crab than the actual Sebastian!
The animated Sebastian is not actually a real species of crab, to the point that there's actual debate online as to whether he's a lobster or a crab. Sebastian was given an expressive and emotive face because actual crabs don't look nearly as cute; actually, they're kind of scary.
The same is largely true of Flounder because to be brutally honest to the fish community again, they aren't all that appealing when it comes to the face region. With that said, you can search for a picture of a flounder right now, and Disney definitely did what it could to whip up a version that, while not accurate to the species, doesn't look quite as freaky. It's still not the lovable chubby-faced Flounder of the animated movie, however, and that's a shame.
Why Won't Disney Just Recreate The Animated Characters With CGI?
I know the live-action adaptation of Pinocchio was divisive, but one thing you can't knock it for is Pinocchio's design. That Pinocchio is a spot-on representation of the character from the original animation, and I absolutely love it.
As far as why I like it, I think there are multiple factors that go into this. The first is the simple fact that it's familiar. If I'm willing to sign up to watch a live-action remake, it's because I'm a fan of the original movie. I like the way Pinocchio looked in the first movie, so of course I'd like him to look more or less the same when I see him again.
Disney understood this, but apparently there's a disconnect when it comes to the animal sidekicks. Perhaps it's a carryover from a time in which we used actual animals and just did voice work. I can understand if that's the case because I love Homeward Bound and other works that have used that model over the years.
Now that I think about it, this might be the most disturbing thing about the current trend of Disney and CGI animals. There's this insistence on creating creatures that look as lifelike and realistic as actual animals, but then they're doing things that animals don't actually do. It's weird to experience and gives me a vibe that something is off.
Perhaps what's really making this creepy as all hell is that there is an uncanny valley effect happening, in which we, as humans, cannot accept any animal sidekick that looks a little too real if it's doing something unnatural. Just like how it's unsettling to see the CGI humans in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, it might be equally as hard to deal with when they're animals. For that reason, I'm putting it out there that Disney go the Pinocchio route from this point forward and just make the animals less realistic and more cutesy.
The Little Mermaid is currently in theaters, and anyone interested can find many of the other live-action Disney remakes over on Disney+. Here's hoping the future of Disney's remakes takes note of my response to realistic animals and figures out a way to get it right.
