The Nostalgia Trap: Why Disney Swapped Innovation for the Live-Action Remake

Opinion by Jay Cheung (Grade 11)

Over the past decade, Disney has released live-action remake after live-action remake to underwhelming, and sometimes hostile, reception. This is best seen in Mulan, The Little Mermaid, Pinocchio, and Snow White. Even the remakes that performed well at the box office—The Lion King, Aladdin, and Beauty and the Beast—haven’t been without their controversies. All across the internet, fans have been echoing the same sentiment: What exactly is the point of making these redundant remakes?

From an executive standpoint, these types of movies have certain unsavory advantages. First, much like sequels, they come with built-in audiences—fans of the original movies who are likely to watch the remake regardless of its quality. Basically, nostalgia does the marketing before a trailer or any important details are even released. This saves on advertising costs and mitigates risk, as executives know the audience for such a film has already been tried and tested.

The results certainly seem to reinforce this strategy. The Lion King earned $1.6 billion at the box office despite being criticized as emotionally hollow, with animals expressing little to no emotion. Similarly, remakes like Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast each made over $1 billion, a feat many original movies never achieve.

Secondly, though critics have mocked these films for their very existence, they have arguably been more critical of their execution. This is not without good reason, as many remakes try to “update” or modernize the message of the original story—a process which has sparked major controversy.

A recent example is Snow White (2025), which drew backlash after emphasizing that the remake would be “empowering.” With interviews focusing on steering away from romance and redefining Snow White’s goals, fans feared this message would overshadow the original story. Although these controversies cannot fully account for the film’s box-office performance, their influence on how audiences perceived the film prior to its release cannot be denied.

Finally, while there are certainly talented storytellers at Disney with original ideas, these concepts increasingly struggle to find a home in live action and are instead redirected to animation. This is best exemplified by recent original animated movies like Soul, Turning Red, and Elemental. These films feature abstract concepts, metaphorical storytelling, and heightened emotion. These qualities—which defined Disney’s strongest films—often lose their impact when confined to realism. This is why many critics view the live-action remakes as inferior to the originals, lacking that signature “Disney magic.”

This creative divide is exactly why Disney’s live-action studio has become so dependent on remakes. In fact, the studio’s last live-action film that was not based on an existing Disney classic was Haunted Mansion, which was itself based on a theme park attraction. The last truly original live-action Disney film, Tomorrowland, was released nearly a decade ago.

This shift may be due to the fact that there have been numerous box-office flops among Disney's original live-action films: John Carter (one of the biggest flops of all time), The Lone Ranger, and the aforementioned Tomorrowland. While childhood classics like Pirates of the Caribbean, Mary Poppins, and Enchanted also emerged from the studio, there have historically been more flops than hits. Tomorrowland was likely the last straw, leading the studio to equate originality with risk rather than opportunity.

Regardless, current circumstances have led Disney into a rut. It is clear that a change is needed, given the public’s wavering opinion of the brand. However, it is unclear whether Disney will change its ways as long as box-office numbers continue to defy public sentiment. Instead, with the rise of “Disney fatigue” and the increasing popularity of once-niche indie studios like A24, I believe independent studios will eventually rise up to take Disney’s place in cultivating childhood memories. After all, Disney was once defined by innovation and risk-taking; currently, they seem incapable of doing either, leaving that mantle to the indies.