Whether you’ve seen the remake of The Lion King or not, you’ve definitely heard about it. Commercials, trailers, reviews, articles, and now — this blog post. Intermingled in the media onslaught is the recurring notion that the film felt flat, unnecessary, and represents nothing more than a money grab for Disney. Some seem indifferent to this notion, others feel offended at the very thought: that a remake of a classic film is somehow an affront to nature.

I guess I don’t understand this. For one thing, it’s just a movie. Disney came up with this idea, thought about it, gave it the green light, produced it, distributed it, and released it to theaters. Disney did not round people up at gunpoint to product it or force audiences to pay $1500 per ticket. We, as consumers, are free to see it or free to pass it by. And again: it’s just a movie. If it’s good, it’s good. If it’s not, then that’s fine too. It happens.

But the main thing that gets me is people calling it a “money grab.” This may come as a shock to some, but Disney is a for-profit, publicly held company. They employ upwards of two hundred thousand people. Millions of others own shares in the company and have a financial stake in their fiscal well-being. Disney is a successful product of a capitalistic society, and I mean that in a good way.

So to that end, every single product they sell is a “money grab”: an attempt to earn more money than it costs to produce. And it should be obvious by now that this isn’t just a Disney phenomenon. Show me the film produced where people said, “Boy, I sure hope this tanks!” I can bet no one ever uttered, “Let’s pour one hundred million dollars into this project and if we’re lucky, no one will come see it. We’ll lose everything!” Nope. Every single major motion picture by every single major production company over the last century has had the goal of making money.

I think the idea of a money grab is only introduced when there’s no redeeming artistic quality to the product. The Godfather turned a profit. Gone with the Wind did as well. I could list The Wizard of Oz, Schindler’s List, Forrest Gump, Star Wars, Titantic, and pretty much all twenty-or-more films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. So why this critical hate directed at The Lion King? Was there inherently no redeeming artistic quality to it? I hardly think so.

As a fun thought experiment: consider if this just-released remake is what they released in 1994. The planet would’ve lost its collective mind at how spectacular it was. And if twenty-five years later they did a “cartoon remake,” we would’ve called that version unnecessary.

But okay. Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that this remake is a soulless, unnecessary money grab. Let’s follow that money, because I feel like there’s a popular perception that one hundred percent of the box office receipts go solely into the CEO’s personal coffers. Why, we can almost picture Robert Iger dressed up like Scrooge McDuck in a room filled four feet deep in cash (complete with a diving board, of course).

Here’s the thing. Every large budget, Hollywood production like this employs upwards of 15,000 people. Some of those people are very young: college students landing their first, career-making internships. Some are production assistants: over-the-moon happy to be fetching bagels for the crew. There are junior artists on their first big production. There are seasoned old-timers for whom this is their swan song. You’ll find human beings working in cinematography, production design, the art department, and sound recording and editing. Visual effects up the wazoo. Technical directors, casting agents, location managers, storyboard artists, musicians, script supervisors, software developers, continuity specialists. I won’t list all fifteen thousand, but for most of these people, I bet this was a dream gig.

And I don’t mind some of my $10 ticket going toward that.

In fact, a lot of that money that Disney so soullessly grabbed from us went to these very people. And each of them got to add The Lion King to their resumes and their demo reels, and this one project will help them continue to do what they do. Sure, Donald Glover got paid more than the bagel assistant, but they were all part of something cool: not just the film, but the making of the film.

Granted, Disney has made more money on this than it cost to produce and market. It’s a hit. But again, it doesn’t go into a pool of cash for the execs to swim in. Every box office smash helps pay for the films that don’t do so well. John Carter, Mars Needs Moms, Home on the Range, Treasure Planet, and many more. We tend to forget that movies that turn tens of millions in profits have to help cover movies that lost tens of millions.

So that’s my take on the money grab. Good job to the fifteen thousand on this monumental production. And best of luck on the next one. Because there will definitely be a next one due to the success of this one.