Within the last ten years, Disney has begun feverishly remaking their classic animated films into live-action versions such as 2016’s “The Jungle Book” and “Pete’s Dragon.” However, some of the selected remakes may not need to be adapted.

Disney’s concept of remaking classic films is a brilliant one; it keeps families of all generations invested in Disney films, and the stories stay alive for years longer. Also, with the recent advancement in animation technology, animators can create more visually stunning masterpieces than past eras allowed, such as “The Jungle Book,” which won an Oscar for its revolutionary visual effects.

Although it’s an ingenious idea, whether or not it should be done to all Disney animated films still remains to be seen.

In 2017, Disney released a live-action remake of “Beauty and the Beast,” which kept close to the original and even remained a musical by using the same songs from the 1991 animated film. The musical aspect was enjoyable and gave the feeling of watching a live Broadway show, but keeping the exact same qualities of the original with no different angle defeats the purpose of creating another adaptation.

However, Disney released “Maleficent” in 2014, where the story follows the villain from the original 1959 film “Sleeping Beauty.” In the former, Maleficent begins as a good-hearted fairy and falls in love with a human, who betrays her to become king. The concept of the film is that it explores another side of the story, insinuating that not all fairy tales told from the hero’s point of view are the correct versions and there are understandable reasons the villains have become who they are.

There are many upcoming Disney remakes that have already been scheduled for release, including Tim Burton’s “Dumbo,” which will enter theaters on Mar. 29 this year, “Aladdin,” expected May 24 of this year and “The Lion King,” releasing on Jul. 19 this year.

The issue with “The Lion King” and “Aladdin” becoming live-action is there’s little room for new concepts to be added, whereas “Dumbo” seems to have had more depth added to the plot. The originals were musicals as well, and Disney doesn’t seem to be following the same formula for each new adaptation, as some remakes are musical and some are not.

The very notion of “The Lion King” as a “live-action” movie has also sparked debate because the entire film is simply a more complicated style of computer animation, similar to the 2016 film “The Jungle Book,” in which all animals involved in the movie were created with CGI.

Although these adaptations will still have massive popularity with the audience, Disney should begin to delve into its more forgotten classics, such as the 2001’s “Atlantis: The Lost Empire,” 2002’s “Treasure Planet,” and the 1996 classic “The Hunchback of Notre Dame.”

All three films have intense, dark scenes that would be portrayed well by real-life actors, and the use of new technology would create stunning visual effects while still remaining mostly live-action.

Although there are many decent live-action remakes of Disney films, the concept of never-before-seen adaptations with new angles should be taking precedence over films that have been remade several times through the decades or made simply as exact replicas.