Love them, hate them, or just tolerate them for an hour or two, Disney’s live-action remakes are a prominent feature in today’s media. From Cinderella to the most recent adaptation of The Lion King, Disney’s animated classics are getting the live-action treatment left and right. Though it’s hard to say all of them are outright bad, not all of them are created equal.
The same can be said for the newer version of the classic Disney villains. Some do really well, but others need to stay in the sketchbook. So we’re asking which famous Disney villains work well in live-action and which ones work better in the realms of animation.
Maleficent (Animated)
Angelina Jolie’s performance of Disney’s Mistress of All Evil was positively spellbinding, brilliant casting choice on Disney’s part. But we can’t help but notice one big misstep in her interpretation of the character. She wasn’t evil!
Next to Fantasia’s Chernabog, the original Maleficent was villainy made flesh. She even calls on the powers of Hell to defeat Prince Philip. The remake makes her more human and relatable, sure enough. But it just doesn’t do her justice. Compared to her original version, Jolie pales in comparison to arguably Disney’s greatest villain.
Heffalumps (Live-Action)
This one is more of an honorable mention, but we felt like it garnered our attention. Where the Heffalumps and Woozles were an excuse for the Disney animators to get psychedelic, the species presented in Christopher Robin is a much more intimidating breed.
The Heffalumps make an appearance symbolizing his fear of failure when he returns to the Hundred Acre Wood. There’s a lot of creepy atmosphere building them up and shrouding them in mystery before having one try to drown him! True, this is all in a fantasy, but it’s the first time a Pooh movie has ever given us the chills.
Anastasia and Drizella (Animated)
The remake of Disney’s Cinderella, while an adequate adaptation of its source material, totally botched the characters of Cinderella’s ugly stepsisters. The originals were comically ugly and had an exaggerated cartoony quality that was just lost with their remake. Granted, this same effect could be replicated with makeup and comic actors, but Disney went the wrong direction here.
The live-action versions weren’t ugly in the physical sense, but they were painfully dim. Not to say the originals were getting any scholarships, but when they did it, at least it was funny. What we got were essentially a ren fair production of Mean Girls.
Red Queen/Queen of Hearts (Live Action)
The original queen of Wonderland had one setting, loud. The version cooked up by the mad genius that is Tim Burton was just as eccentric, but also a touch more sadistic. When the queen screams off with their heads in the original, it’s merely implied. In the remake, she overlooks decapitated heads floating in a bloody moat!
Talk about getting your head in the game. Helena Bonham Carter really sells it in the live-action remake, taking more inspiration from the book version of the character than Verna Felton’s angry screaming incarnation. Paired with the creative design and wardrobe choice, her portrayal is easily one to remember.
Gaston (Animated)
While it’s true that his live-action counterpart is a little more developed and certainly has more maliciousness in his makeup, the original is just more enjoyable to watch. The animated version goes through more of an arc than the remake does. We don’t expect him to be the villain, we just expect him to be a caricature of masculinity that he is.
Imagine our surprise when we first saw the original Gaston become much more sinister than when the film first started. It was pretty jarring for us ’90s kids. There’s definitely something there that wasn’t there before, and the remake missed the mark.
Iago (Live Action)
Honestly, anytime you go from Gilbert Gottfried to Alan Tudyk is an upgrade. In the recent remake of Aladdin, Iago is taken from sidekick to minion and definitely gets to ruffle some feathers. It’s a refreshing take that we can all get behind, no forced jokes required.
The original Iago was a bumbling sidekick/one-liner-machine, this Iago’s got talons to grab a slice of the action. He plays a much more active role in the film and even gets to transform into a monstrous version with Jafar’s sorcery. We gotta give Disney points for this one, no questions asked.
Scar (Animated)
Scar’s recent live-action incarnation, though skillfully performed, was more than a bit one-dimensional. The original Scar was evil, but he was certainly likable, a factor that the new Scar lacked. Though we liked his design, we found his constantly raging demeanor off-putting and out of character.
What made Scar work was his charm and theatricality as well as his sinister edge. We certainly didn’t see as much enthusiasm in the remake. Both lions were equally evil, but the new one was missing part of the equation. This round definitely goes to the original character.
Cruella De Vil (Live Action)
Glen Close is what every Disney villain retelling should strive to be. Her interpretation of Cruella De Vil was not only outrageously fun but just as unhinged and frightening as the original. She serves as a perfect adaptation from Animated to live-action.
Instead of being a greedy fur collector, Cruella ups her game by becoming an eccentric fashion designer, which gives her a believable role in a modern adaptation. She still has that thirst for fur and doesn’t care how many puppies she has to ax to get her coveted coat. Instead of trying to be better than the original, Close’s Cruella was simply an upgrade.
Jafar (Animated)
Similar to Scar’s live-action treatment, Jafar’s was more evil than he was fun. Yes, the original was obviously the villain from square one, but he was an enjoyable villain too. He was like a slightly looser version of Maleficent. He could be twisted and terrible, but could also be fiendishly funny.
The new Jafar was too straight-laced and cruel, we get that he slit a few throats to get to his position of power, but the remake’s version isn’t nearly as fun. Even when he gets all the phenomenal cosmic powers, there’s very little change in his persona, making him a sore spot in an otherwise great adaptation.
Sher Khan (Live Action)
There was nothing wrong with the original version of the terrible tiger, but that doesn’t mean he couldn’t be improved. George Saunder’s version was calm and coldblooded but had a pleasant demeanor. Idris Elba’s version, on the other hand, was not only wicked but wildly so.
The new Sher Khan, unlike the original, had a deeper character than his animated predecessor. He has a reason for his hatred of man practically burned into his being. He’s vicious and cruel, but at the same time sympathetic. Of all the choices made in the remake, this one was certainly golden.
