After the success of “The Jungle Book,” it’s too much to ask of Disney to not rework all their animated classics into live action. To give credit where credit is due, John Favreau did a great job, and with the voice talent Disney was able to afford, including the likes of Bill Murray, Christopher Walken and Scarlett Johansson, it was — in many ways — too big to fail.

I can’t lie, I’m about to be super anti-Disney about their announcement regarding the Lion King remake, but damn did I love “The Jungle Book” as live action.

We’ve seen Disney shell out spin-offs, TV series and sequels of their early ’90s, renaissance hits, building on the stories of “The Little Mermaid,” “Aladdin,” “Tarzan,” “Toy Story” and “A Bug’s Life,” to name a few. I even enjoyed “The Lion King 2” and “The Lion King 1 ½.” Yes, the one that went straight to DVD.

But a remake? A cover? A live action reboot? Spare me.

In many ways, the early ’90s Disney movies were revolutionary. For the first time, big name movie actors really got involved in animated movies, like Robin Williams as the Genie in “Aladdin,” or Tom Hanks and Tim Allen in “Toy Story.”

“The Lion King” featured the voices of Matthew Broderick and James Earl Jones, with music famously scored by Elton John. At the time, “The Lion King” finished its theatrical run as the second-highest grossing film of all time, and has essentially been cemented as Disney Animation’s crown jewel.

Disney has always had a love for bringing talking animals to the big screen, and the Hamlet-inspired “Lion King” remains perhaps their best adaptation to date. Key point being: this was, and still is, a perfect movie. Everyone loves “The Lion King” as is. The songs are timeless, the story is riveting and the visuals are critically acclaimed.

Beyond recycling material, there are a lot of reasons why I really dislike the idea of a Lion King rework as a live action movie. While “The Jungle Book” explores the wild through the eyes of the young boy Mowgli, “The Lion King” is entirely composed of characters from the animal kingdom. With that being said, I really feel like a live-action remake will feel like an Animal Planet drama.

Think about the “Lion King” you grew up with and the songs dancing animals pulled off: “The Circle of Life,” “I Just Can’t Wait to Be King,” “Hakuna Matata.” While “The Jungle Book” boasts a few jingles, “The Lion King” is dependent upon its musical numbers, which could be a little cheesy coming from live-action animals.

I know computer-generated imagery and computer technology have made the movie-watching experience entirely different, but there’s a time and place for technology. While the computer animation worked well in “The Jungle Book,” I have a hard time believing singing animals will look good on-screen in 2018.

Another cardinal complaint for this moviegoer is the lack of distance from the original piece. I’m perfectly fine with Disney playing with “Snow White,” “Peter Pan” and “Winnie the Pooh” — narratives from the ’40s and ’50s. Even if “The Lion King” borrows from Shakespeare’s 400-year-old tales, the original release of the film will still be much better than the pending remake.

While “The Lion King” is no doubt a “classic,” it’s not old. Imagine if someone tried to remake a movie like “Forrest Gump,” which was also released in 1994. People would have a fit.

I’m having a fit.

Don’t bastardize my childhood, Disney. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Brian Hamlin is a junior communications and rhetorical studies major.  His column appears weekly in Pulp. He can be reached at brhamlin@syr.edu.

Published on October 5, 2016 at 10:49 pm