Can Live-Actions Satisfy Both New And Hardcore Fans?
- Sanya Jan
- 25 minutes ago
- 4 min read
In the film and TV industry, live-action adaptations have become the new craze. Whether it’s a reimagination of a cartoon classic or a book-to-film adaptation, the presence of adaptations in the world of film and TV is becoming increasingly apparent. They cater to the existing fans of a piece of media, while also trying to amass the biggest possible viewership, but can both sets of viewers be successfully satisfied?
Live-actions have always existed, but their popularity has increased in recent years. Some releases which have provoked a lot of discussion include Wuthering Heights (2026), How to Train Your Dragon (2025) and One Piece (2023). Producers seem to be pouring a lot of time, effort and money into live-action adaptations, but why is this? By looking at the production stages of live-actions, they seem to be guaranteed money-makers. In the initial marketing stage alone, hearing that a beloved classic is being recreated appeals to the pre-existing fanbase of the series or film. These rumours then garner significant attention on social media: anticipation about casting, music scores and special effects - there are so many aspects for people to speculate about, which will then lead to people becoming attracted to the original works, and thereby, the adaptation.
On release, whether the interpretation of the original media is good or bad, people will go to see it. If it’s an incredible, five-star rated screening, it will attract fans outside of the original target audience. If it’s utterly unwatchable, people will still watch it, as we are in the prime era of ‘hate-watching’ - watching a notoriously bad film with friends, intending to mock it, which astronomically improves the cinematic experience.
The scope of live-actions is also so wide as producers can adapt many different forms of media. Some of the common choices include: books, such as Harry Potter: The Philosopher’s Stone (2001) and It Ends with Us (2024), video games, which have adaptations such as Sonic the Hedgehog (2020) and Detective Pikachu (2019), and most commonly known, adaptations from original cartoons, including films such as Lilo and Stitch (2025) and The Jungle Book (2016). Producers have a vast range of media to create different interpretations of; the rise in live-action adaptations can be attributed to the amount of media which can be re-interpreted.
Whether a live-action is good or bad, it will have an audience, but what actually makes an adaptation enjoyable? They can be executed brilliantly, and they can be executed in a subpar manner. There are so many different aspects to consider when transforming media into a new form, and one of the aspects which attracts the most attention on social media is casting. The anticipated live-action of Tangled (2010) has led to much speculation about casting, with many voicing their desire for a blonde actress to play Rapunzel. However, older films and books, such as the Disney princess films, may have portrayed heroic or “good” characters and villainous “bad” characters with stereotypes in mind, so casting explicitly by looks creates the danger of reproducing such stereotypes. It also limits creative interpretation of characters, as a producer may have a different vision of the character being portrayed, which might resonate more with a contemporary audience.
Personally, I believe that appearance should have nothing to do with casting, unless it’s particularly important to the original work’s storyline. An actor does not have to resemble the original character exactly to put on an incredible performance. For example, Nico Parker’s performance as Astrid in How to Train Your Dragon (2025) was stellar, capturing the essence of Astrid’s character to perfection, despite not resembling her look in the cartoon version; her performance was the standout in the film. To add to this, Chibuikem Uche’s portrayal of Cooper Clay in the One of Us is Lying (2021) series was one of the live-action series’s few redeeming qualities. Cooper is not written as black in Karen McManus’s original book, but Uche’s portrayal of Cooper was an excellent encapsulation of his character in the novel, which accompanied some minor tweaks to his character arc, which were a great addition, surpassing his original character story in the novel, in my opinion. But compared to Uche’s performance, co-star Marianly Tejada definitely looked the part of Bronywyn Rojas, but Bronywyn’s character felt lost in a subpar portrayal, thereby solidifying my viewpoint that an actor’s talent and ability to perform a role should be prioritised in casting over complete accuracy.
But when all’s said and done, how can these adaptations appeal to a wider audience without losing the unique qualities which hardcore fans know and love? This seems like a balance which filmmakers are still struggling to find in the creation of live-actions. It seems that only adaptations which are loosely based on pre-existing media, such as Detective Pikachu and Barbie (2023), stand a chance of surviving both crowds. This is because they are standalone works which cannot be directly compared to a preceding form, meaning the expectations which exist for other live-action adaptations will be minimised. By providing a more generalised experience for new viewers, directors run the risk of disappointing hardcore fans who will scrutinise every detail of the adaptation. On the other hand, by catering to hardcore fans and their existing knowledge of their media, they serve a smaller audience and may not be able to attract as many new fans.
As it stands, it seems that live-action adaptations are preordained to disappoint one group or another, so here’s to hoping producers can find that balance before tackling any more of our favourite media.
Edited by Lara Walsh, Co-Film & TV Editor
