The best, worst, and soon-to-be-released live-action Disney films

You likely expected a “Jungle Book” movie on here, but maybe you don’t remember this one. Yes, the first time Disney rebooted one of their animated movies as a live-action film was way back in 1994. What’s distinct about this take on the Rudyard Kipling book is the fact the animals don’t talk, which kind of spoils the whole point of “The Jungle Book.”

The first time Disney found success with a live-action reboot was with the first “101 Dalmatians.” First, they got Jeff Daniels as Roger, a character that is largely a blank in the animated movie. Then, they got Glenn Close to play Cruella de Vil. The eight-time Oscar nominee really chews the scenery as Cruella.

“101 Dalmatians” made $320 million off of a $75 million budget, so naturally they decided to make a sequel. Then again, how exciting is it to add one more dog into the mix when you already have 101? At least Close came back as Cruella. Without her, it simply wouldn’t be worth it. Of course, they didn’t make a third, so clearly they were out of ideas here.

It took a full decade before Disney got back to the live-action adaptation game. They brought out the big guns as well. Tim Burton was brought in to direct the film, with Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter. While a lot of people thought Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland” was all style and no substance, but it made over $1 billion worldwide, so Disney clearly wasn’t going to complain.

Was anybody interested in the life of Maleficent, the villain from “Sleeping Beauty?” Perhaps, because they decided to make it into a movie. Of course, maybe it’s because they got Angelina Jolie to play the baddie who went after Aurora. They tried to give Maleficent some depth and make her a more tragic antihero than pure villain, and for some, it must have worked, though the critical consensus was middling at best.

It feels like this “Cinderella” adaptation has been completely forgotten. It’s one of the most famous fairy tales of all time, though the original version is quite wild compared to the Disney animated movie. They got Kenneth Branagh to direct and the luminous Cate Blanchett to play the Wicked Stepmother, but there has been no staying power to this movie. Perhaps the clock struck midnight on it?

Jon Favreau and Disney have a great relationship. It all started when he directed “Iron Man,” which birthed the MCU. Now, Marvel is owned by Disney, and so is Star Wars, which includes Favreau’s “The Mandalorian.” In the midst of all these blockbusters and important intellectual property, he made a lavish adaptation of “The Jungle Book,” one that feels more like an animated movie than the 1994 version.

Hey, “Alice in Wonderland” made over a billion bucks, so naturally, they made a sequel. Sure, it took six years, and this time Burton wasn’t back on board. That being said, Depp was back as the Mad Hatter, Anne Hathaway returned as the White Queen, and Helena Bonham Carter played the Red Queen. However, this one was way less successful, not even clearing $300 million on a $170-million budget.

This is the one that felt like it really sparked the Disney remake renaissance. Maybe that’s because it came after “The Jungle Book” so it started to feel more like a trend. Perhaps it’s because people care more about “Beauty and the Beast” than “The Jungle Book,” and also it felt more resonant since it was a remake of a movie from the early ‘90s. Or, you know, maybe it’s because it starred Emma Watson and is the 10th highest-grossing movie of all time. You just knew this wouldn’t be the last live-action remake after that.

This one technically counts! It’s about a grown-up Christopher Robin, played by Ewan McGregor. He’s losing his imagination, which means his childhood chums like Winnie-the-Pooh and Eeyore are being lost as well. This one is more a movie made for adults who grew up on Winnie than a remake to try and grab audiences young and old, so it gets points for originality at least.

Tim Burton is back! While he did not return for the “Alice in Wonderland” sequel, he decided to get back in the remake game with “Dumbo,” which takes a 64-minute animated film about an elephant who can fly into a 112-minute epic reuniting Michael Keaton and Danny DeVito. At least those crows weren’t back.

Alright, so when we say “live-action” we have to accept some CGI. You can’t really bring Genie to life without some special effects. Speaking of Genie, “Aladdin” was hard-pressed to try and live up to the iconic vocal performance of Robin Williams. They decided to go and get one of the few movie stars left in Will Smith, which means we did indeed get a rapping genie.

Technically, this is a “photorealistic computer-animated” film for the most part, with some live-action mixed in. However, on an intuitive level, this doesn’t “feel” animated. They wanted it to look as realistic as possible. The animals aren’t cartoonish. “The Lion King” is not supposed to be viewed as an animated movie, so we definitely count it. Jon Favreau returned to direct again because Disney loves him. Oh, and Beyonce lends her voice to it.

Jolie is back as Maleficent in a movie that involves way more lore than anybody who has only seen “Sleeping Beauty” will know. It feels as much indebted to “Game of Thrones” as a fairy tale, only without the gratuitous violence and nudity. It’s a bit of a spoiler, so be forewarned, but it’s pretty weird that in this film Maleficent is the adoptive mother of Aurora. That’s world-building, we guess.

“Lady and the Tramp” kind of got lost in the shuffle. It was the first of these films directly released to Disney+. However, this was still pre-pandemic, so that was the plan. Perhaps the hope was that “Lady and the Tramp” would bring viewers to the burgeoning app. Instead, it was just met with a shrug. We don’t even know anybody who has seen it.

“Mulan” was supposed to be a big, epic theatrical release. Unfortunately, it got eaten up by the pandemic.  Instead, Disney had to try and salvage it by dropping it on Disney+. We will say that “Mulan” feels more different from its animated predecessor than any of these films that are more straight remakes, which removes the likes of “Maleficent” from that list.

Speaking of “Maleficent,” Cruella de Vil seems primed to get the same antihero makeover with Disney’s return to the big screen. Emma Stone steps into Close’s shoes, shoes presumably made from some sort of animal. We aren’t sure how, or why, they are giving Cruella her own film, but we’re definitely curious, even if that curiosity is a bit morbid.

This is the last film on this list with a locked-in release schedule, though we only have the year and not a specific date. That being said, David Lowery is signed on to direct this film based on “Peter Pan.” Sure, it’s not the first “Peter Pan” live-action film, but it’s the first one Disney is doing, and it will hit Disney+ in 2022.

A lot of pieces are already in place for the live-action “Little Mermaid.” Rob Marshall, who directed “Chicago,” will helm the movie. Lin-Manuel Miranda has written some new songs because of course, he has. Also, Javier Bardem is playing King Triton and Melissa McCarthy is playing Ursula. We’re intrigued, though we’d like to see a trailer before getting to excited.

“Snow White” was the first feature-length animated film made by Walt Disney. Now, over 80 years later, they are going to do a live-action version. It will be interesting to see who gets cast as all the dwarfs, and also if their personalities are as one-dimensional in a modern take on the story. Just how closely do they want to stay to the source material?

There isn’t a director for “Hunchback of Notre Dame” yet, but Josh Gad is one of the producers so we imagine he will have some sort of role. Will he be playing Quasimodo? That seems like the kind of role he would want to take on. It also means we are inherently skeptical, our traditional reaction to anything Gad-related.

Who is Rose Red? Well, you haven’t seen her in a Disney film yet. Rose Red is Snow White’s sister in the Brothers Grimm fairy tale “Snow White and Rose Red.” Now, technically, that Snow White and the Snow White who hung out with the seven dwarfs aren’t the same characters in the Grimm brothers’ stories. Then again, when you name two different characters Snow White they are going to get squeezed into one character over time, and that’s what happened here. As far as Disney is concerned, Rose Red is Snow White’s sister.

How do you make the death of Bambi’s mother sadder? Make her a photorealistic deer, we assume. We expect this film to be quite similar to “The Lion King,” though there are technically human characters in “Bambi.” “Man” is collectively the villain of that film. Not a good look for humans in that one.

There have been so many Hercules movies (and TV shows) over the years, given that he’s a character from Greek myth. That being said, Disney had a distinct take on the demigod in their musical movie. What brawny dude will be playing Herc in this film? He’s a character who has been played by the likes of Dwayne Johnson (and Kevin Sorbo), so he’s got to be buff. Also, he has to be able to sing. Good luck.

Tom Hanks is playing Geppetto. What else do you need to know? Although, we can’t help but feel a little bit of trepidation. “Pinocchio” is being directed by Robert Zemeckis. Bobby Z. and Hanks collaborating on “The Polar Express,” a movie that leaves most who see it with nightmares of those uncanny visages. We really hope this film looks better.

This is one of those remakes that we actually don’t mind. “The Sword in the Stone” is not a Disney classic like, say “Aladdin” or “The Lion King.” There is room for improvement and opportunity for a revamp. Plus, it’s tied into Arthurian legend. This may be the Disney live-action remake we are intrigued by the most.

Another Robin Hood movie? Do we really need to see this story again? We are on the polar opposite end of the remake spectrum from “The Sword and the Stone here.” That’s true even if Robin Hood is going to be a fox again and there will be talking bears and stuff. Let’s let Robin Hood rest for, like, even three years, Hollywood.

Yes, “Lilo & Stitch” is getting a live-action remake. It may seem awfully fast for that, but the film did come out in 2002, which means by the time this movie is ready to be delivered it will be at least two decades since it came out. Yes, we’re all getting older. Anyway, we’re curious how they are going to render Stitch, a little blue alien, for this film.

We are ending this list with three untitled sequels to previously made live-action remakes. First up, naturally, is “The Jungle Book.” It was the first out the gate of these three films, so it is getting a sequel first. Favreau is back, which is going to inspire at least some confidence.

The original animated “Lion King” got some direct-to-video sequels, but none of them really popped. They told their one story (which borrowed heavily from “Hamlet” as is) and that was pretty much that. Can they find more sequel success this time? Maybe they just want to give Beyonce a bigger role? Favreau actually isn’t attached to this one, as instead Barry Jenkins is the attached director.

Then, there’s the next “Aladdin” movie. Like with “The Lion King,” Disney tried to make magic out of “Aladdin” with direct-to-video films. However, “Aladdin” ends with Genie being freed. Can they bring Will Smith back? Does Jafar return? Do they have a story worth telling for this sequel, or are they making it just because the first one was a big hit? That’s the question we ask about so many movies these days.