Disney has a huge arsenal of animated movies that have been released over the years and amused fans, both young and old. However, the franchise has found a way to reinvigorate its audience by creating live-action spin-offs of its beloved animated productions. While many Disney animated films performed better than live-action versions, and vice versa, there is no denying that taking such films from the spectrum of 2D animation to that of creating live-action movies (albeit with a lot of animation. 3D CGI) allowed viewers to get a glimpse of some of their favorite Disney characters.
Some of these favorite characters include the wonderful sidekicks. As fans have come to love and associate these cronies with their favorite Disney heroes and villains, and some have even proven themselves better than their heroes, fans have also developed a well-established idea about what they should look like if they are. leads to live action. However, live-action movies beg the character designer to take creative liberties to make the character appear believable and realistic. While some of these freedoms have helped make these beloved Disney cronies look better than their animated counterparts, others have proven less successful.
10 Looks Better: The Mad Hatter (Alice in Wonderland)
The Hatter, more commonly known as The Mad Hatter, from the ingenious creation of Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, has been a part of Disney since the 1951 feature film Alice in Wonderland, as well as the later Mouse House Y Crazy. Known for his hyperactivity, big nose, white braids, and hilarious voice, the character has long been a favorite of Disney loyalists.
When Tim Burton decided to cast Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter for his 2010 live action movie, Few people doubted Depp’s ability to play the character. As Sacha Baron Cohen said, “Only Johnny Depp can play characters like Mad Hatter. “The eccentric stylization of Burton’s production design team, the flamboyance of Depp, coupled with the iconic Hatter’s top hat and a crazy tint to Johnny’s lime green eyes, gives this character a dash of life extra that was missing in the animated series.
9 Looks worse: Diablo / Diaval (Maleficent)
The original Sleeping Beauty showed Maleficent accompanied by her pet, the raven Devil, who helped the Mistress of Evil achieve her devious plans. However, with the live action version of Pernicious, the movie strives to show the character in a better light. Diablo was changed to Diaval as an attempt to make the public empathize with the Queen of the Moors.
Although this change could have helped move the plot forward, changing a character of supposed Spanish origins to that of an Irish Diaval has riled up some fans, raising questions about racial hegemony and the deliberate attempt to cast a white Tritagonist. While Sam Riley shines as Maleficent’s confidante and accomplice, fans missed the purple crow with eyeshadow from the animated series who seemed closer to home, compared to Diaval.
8 Looks better: Abu (Aladdin)
One of the most beloved buddies in Disney animation is the mischievous monkey Abu. While fans have come to adore this character, the live-action version of 2019 Aladdin it also does not fail to impress.
The CGI animated monkey retains the charm and mischief of its animated counterpart, with certain scenes, including the chase through the bazaar or the theft of Jasmine’s necklace, making it more believable. Decked out in the adorable and intricate Arabian-style hat and coat, the live-action film’s CGI Abu conveys all the necessary sentiments seamlessly, making up for a nice transition from 2D animation.
7 Looks Worse: Chip and Mrs. Potts (Beauty and the Beast)
Beauty and the Beast It is a fan favorite movie. So when Disney announced its live-action remake of the classic tale, fans couldn’t be happier. However, some beloved characters, like Chip and Mrs. Potts, sadly suffered a downfall when they were brought to the big screen.
Unlike in animated movies, where Mrs. Potts’s nose served as a fun and funny replacement for her real nose and Chip seemed much more dynamic, the CGI animation in live-action movies seemed strange and lifeless. Rather than giving these characters a touch of reality, it looked like a painful animation performed on exquisite porcelain.
6 Looks Better: Winnie The Pooh and Friends (Christopher Robin)
Despite the poor response from critics, Disney’s Christopher robin is an emotional story involving characters created by AA Milne and immortalized by Disney animated films. As Christopher struggles with adulthood, he finds comfort and a bit of his childhood after reuniting with his friends from The Hundred Acre Woods.
The best thing about this live action movie is that Bring Christopher’s beloved cronies to life, with the perfect amount of dexterity. The character style and CGI animation used to create the worn-out walking and talking stuffed animals is an absolute delight, giving Winnie the Pooh and his friends a well-deserved live-action makeover.
5 Looks worse: Cogsworth (Beauty and the Beast)
An important task for any live-action remake is to instill the same sense of imaginative creativity present in the original animated film while developing a live-action remake of its animated counterparts. Despite being voiced by the iconic Ian McKellen, Cogsworth fails a lot in this department.
Cogsworth’s character design is excessively similar to the original. Freedoms could have been taken to make the character appear more dynamic, but in trying to keep the original design, he ended up looking like an old watch that could talk.
4 Looks better: Lumiere (Beauty and the Beast)
Lumiere, one of Disney animation’s smartest buddies, succeeded in areas where Cogsworth failed. This character of Beauty and the Beast He had the right amounts of realism and creative license exercised in designing his character.
While the animated version was a candlestick with a face, the live-action Lumiere looks like a man-shaped chandelier, using the lit candle as his top hat instead of his face. This nifty change makes him a better animated character when it comes to realistic CGI, making him a companion that definitely looks better than the animated version.
3 Looks worse: Timon and Pumbaa (Lion King)
Timon and Pumbaa have to be one of the most beloved and useful buddies Disney has ever created. The progenitors of “Hakuna Matata,” fans were looking forward to seeing this fun-loving duo of wild boars and meerkats light up the screen in the live-action remake of The Lion King.
Unfortunately, while Seth Rogen and Billy Eichner did their best to make the characters look as hilarious as they were in the animated series, the CGI animation of the 2019 remake turned out to be a clunky one. The CGI was so mediocre in its photorealistic attempt that the The characters seemed completely soulless and lacked the very essence of emotion.. Furthermore, the sight of these extremely realistic animals speaking English seemed to annoy fans rather than fascinate them.
two Best Looks: Bagheera (The Jungle Book)
Despite being directed by the same person and using the same photorealistic CGI techniques, The jungle book succeeds where The Lion King failed. A clear example of this is the character Bagheera, a protective black panther who proves to be Mowgli’s trusted friend and companion.
Voiced by the legendary Ben Kingsley, the use of techniques like The Black Box allowed the animators of The jungle book to better infuse the voice actor’s gestures and infuse the same into the stunningly realistic CGI animated characters. While this technique has also been used in The Lion King, its use found a more refined approach in the live-action remake of Rudyard Kipling’s celebrated tale, making Bagheera seem closer to Bagheera from the animated series.
1 Looks worse: Genie (Alladin)
While this point is quite moot, many fans love Will Smith’s version of the iconic character immortalized by Robin Williams, others argue that CGI animation made the the character looks like “Thumb People” from Spy kids.
While the decision to cast Smith for the role is worthy of applause, due to the high standards of inclusivity Hollywood aims to achieve, the character’s design itself seems odd compared to its animated counterpart and the blue CGI seems more of a monstrosity than magic.
About the Author
Reference-screenrant.com
