I wonder if this'll be the last of the "A-list" Disney animated movies to get entirely unnecessary redos? I mean, I'm sure there'll be more, with sequels for Jungle Books and the like, and there's always Bambi and a few others, such as Hercules and Tarzan, they could go with, but it seems to me that this flick could mark the end of a Phase, if you will, of animated-to-filmed remakes...
Redos are more popular nowadays because more shows and entities that did make an impact will be with us always. They have been going on for decades, if not longer. It's both a curse and a blessing, the latter because a remake means the original was genuinely and legitimately strong enough to keep being revived. Not just because, for example, the English language has changed significantly and nobody wants (or is able) to read Shakespeare's originaleth version of "Romeo and Juliet" anymore and who can relate to those clueless beatnik kids anyway?
But I doubt the phase will end. Or it might be adjusted, looking for older shows that may have been onto something but didn't nail it at every turn. 1978's Battlestar Galactica was good but lacked something, in part due to the time in which it was made and they couldn't do as much thanks to censorship. Despite the miniseries that almost clobbered it, the 2004 remake's first two seasons were simply first rate. Even if they tweaked the origin of the Cylons, which wasn't really necessary. Still, ideally this makes the best form of remake - take what was good, have a vision, improve what went wrong. One may not agree with the vision but one can still see a good vision made well versus a lame or superficially hollow copy. (Nor do the writers have it easy, it's a difficult field to be in regardless if they're trying to do something new, innovative, or - most harrowing of all - a remake because of that.)
Or Xena - based loosely on some of Hercules' lore but the writing and actors made it their own and I don't remember them spitting on Hercules to artificially engender ersatz superiority. It's been over a decade, it's worth a rewatch but I don't recall their doing anything to stamp all over their sibling show in a feeble attempt to look better. Like making Wesley Crusher look smarter by scripting all the adults as pure sheepdip, it never works and it's amazing that people still believe the basic "make the hero look good by making everyone else look bad" trope actually works some three plus decades after TNG dropped the ball with it.
But I digress. Makers might screw up royally. Forget BSG, 1983's "V" was a masterpiece that innovated and expanded on tropes, clinching the deal with generally well-timed horror reveals. (Only one hasn't held up but the camera timing is just long enough... ) The 2009 version was a superficial, vapid copy relying on distant memory nostalgia and flashy visuals outdo a taut plot any day of the week. (Flashy visuals help but without a robust plot, forget it. The remake didn't begin to capture the claustrophobia the 1983 original had, nor did it have to sink to sledgehammer politicking and lame namedropping to wedge its way in. 1983 didn't need needle shooting magic spheres, the writers used a bit more tact to sell the premise. Kudos for the remake trying to encompass modern communications technology to eliminate a plot hole but in the process they accidentally made a bigger one, not related to the issue of selling claustrophobic doom...)
