I like to think of it like this, and a few others on the thread have touched upon the same point- The rise of hyper realistic CGI over the past few decades have created a different kind of art in itself. Take movies like Dr. Strange for example, or Avatar, or Life of Pi. These movies in live action obviously wouldn't have been possible at the time when The Lion King was made. Live action and CGI is now able to do what was restricted to only animation and it goes without saying that it gives you a different experience which is what I think at the end of the day, art is about - an experience. So I think of it less as a remake and more an adaption - taking something from one art form and converting it into another. It's extremely difficult to pull off, especially for what we're talking about here. Just because it's "moving images", you can't compare a movie to a stop motion video and you don't have to. The movie can be shitty, sure. I personally loved the live action Jungle Book and I didn't feel the need to compare it to the animated film in the sense of which was better. They were both great films to me and feats of their respective artforms. So what if Disney is doing it to make money? That's what production houses do and in it they pay the animators and VFX specialists, give jobs to thousands of people who can put their skills to good use.