Some 2-3 years ago, I discussed about how Disney are remaking their own animated movies into live-action productions. As a little update, sometime after writing that journal entry, several new Disney "live-action" remakes will soon be released such as Aladdin, Dumbo and The Lion King. Aladdin already got so much controversies surrounding its alleged "whitewashing" (or "blackwashing", as is the case for Genie) of its characters. And The Lion King got a little ire for being called "live-action", when the entire movie will be 100% CG due to its complete lack of human characters, unlike The Jungle Book in which it's a live-action movie solely because the main human character is largely the only live-action character in a predominantly CG setting.

Well, with more and more movies coming out that were originally animated features, I felt that I should also discuss about these ones, too. A year ago, I watched this movie called Ghost in the Shell. It's... not a good movie. It got mixed reviews, it did very poorly in the box office, and it's embroiled in a "whitewashing" controversy following the decision to cast American Scarlett Johansson as the main character, Major. But I still like it; I still watch it from time to time. It's sort of a guilty pleasure movie for me, and I guess I just like to see Black Widow kicking ass in this movie.

Soon, a movie with a very similar premise, Alita: Battle Angel (or Battle Angel Alita, if you're so otaku and insist on the original Japanese-style naming), will be released as well. My parents saw the trailer in the cinema and already couldn't wait to watch it as well. In this case, I couldn't help but wondering if the line between anime and live-action is starting to blur. I mean, people are already mocking on the fact that the titular character has anime eyes in a live-action movie. Normally, you wouldn't do that: live-action adaptation of anime would have characters whose designs would be plausible if they're live-action characters.

And then, we'll be getting Detective Pikachu. When I heard about the announcement, I was like, "What?" O_o Artists have done "realistic Pokémon" art before, which typically results in the Pokémon being uglier than before, often deliberately and mercilessly so. This movie is different: this is basically Nintendo's own official take on the "realistic Pokémon" style, in which the filmmakers tried to also similarly make the Pokémon look plausibly realistic, while still keeping the Pokémon look as close as possible to their original designs in the games.

With so many more "live-action" remakes in the horizon, and the fact that not even anime are safe from this treatment, I'll have to question if we've gone a little too far with these remakes. There are now vocal pushbacks against this practice, and that you can, in fact, mix live-action with animation, and that the animated characters don't even have to be realistic CG. Two great examples would be the classic Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and Space Jam. In those movies, the "toon" characters remain 2D-animated, but the medium-blending was done so well that the characters don't look out of place from the setting they're in. Similarly, if you insist on CG, there are even CG movies that respect all the quirks of cartoons and 2D animation, such as The Peanuts Movie and Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie.

Personally, these live-action remakes are fine, as long as the filmmakers respect the source material. Though, I also felt that some animations are never meant to be remade into live-action movies. Sometimes, it just didn't work. You'd lose the charm and appeal that only 2D animation could provide. Then again, that's just my opinion. With so much production budget movie studios have, and the fact that most movies these days are marketed solely by the star power alone of the actors and actresses appearing in such movies, it's unlikely that this practice will ever go away.