What Live-Action Remakes Could Be
- thepaper6
- Dec 17, 2025
- 7 min read
By Sofia Peña
“Nothing beats the original,” most people can agree with this statement. Regardless of medium, the modified portrayals of classic movies never satisfy our itch in the same way the originals can. In the past decade, live-action remakes have become a popular medium for large companies to produce. Disney has especially focused on this form of storytelling, reproducing classic movies ranging from Lady and the Tramp to The Lion King. There is no surprise that audiences, inside and outside the film industry, have strong opinions about the adaptations of their beloved stories. As I’ve understood it, most hate the idea of being marketed to with “money-grab” films, and rightfully so. Recent live-action remakes have been missing the mark in story-re-telling so clearly that it’s nearly impossible for attentive audiences not to feel scammed. The movie industry has used remakes as a financial crutch instead of a means of expanding projects that could use fresh creative takes.
Of course, it is impossible to ask large companies like Disney to stop producing films for profit. As cynical as it is, large corporations will only continue a project if they know they will reap the materialistic benefits. Box office statistics for the live-action Lilo & Stitch, according to IMDB PLUS, are over $400 million for domestic releases compared to under $200 million for the original animated movie. It should also be noted that the original was released before the influence of streaming platforms on a film’s reception, making the drastic difference in profit all the more surprising. However, box office revenue is not the only way these companies can profit, and they often don’t only rely on the movie doing well. Other sources, like product placement, and merchandising play a big role in the success of a film. Essentially, if any part of it can survive as an entity beyond just the movie, like a chaotic and loveable blue alien, it’s worth producing. As it relates to Lilo & Stitch, The Hollywood Reporter notes that, “Prior to [May 2025], the Lilo & Stitch property had already become one of Disney’s top 10 best-selling franchises ever, bringing in a reported $2.6 billion in merchandise last year.”
Remaking a classic like Lilo & Stitch has a specific added benefit for production companies: Consumers were guaranteed when the original was released. The popularity of such classics make these movie remakes low-risk, high-reward productions. Viewers are often brought in by nostalgia, which companies exploit. What’s more, the lifespan of these movies is extended because of this idea. Audiences that hope to re-live a childhood favorite are likely to share them with younger family members or friends, who may do the same when they become adults. This introduces an entirely new generation of viewers, creating a cycle that grants an indefinite existence to the movie franchise. So, we should expect more live-action remakes because they will produce profit beyond one movie.
What we cannot embrace is the quality of these movies in the last decade that have skewed audiences' opinions on live-action remakes. Remakes have the potential to be a new means of storytelling without compromising the integrity of the original or, simply, a re-telling (that is, adding nothing and simply showing the movie with actors and CGI). An example of the former being the aforementioned Lilo & Stitch. The movie itself was well done; the acting was superb, the casting was excellent, and the playful comedy was untouched. But the common criticism among viewers came down to the drastic change in the ending, where Nani relinquishes custody of Lilo to the State and goes to college in California. This change came as a shock to audiences, because a central theme of the original was the meaning of ohana and the importance of family.
But Nani’s move to San Diego has much larger implications about the U.S. colonialism in Hawaii — a criticism that the original animation did not shy away from. As author Mariah Rigg told the Hollywood Reporter, “Obviously, there is all this discourse on how ‘ohana means family’ is not really represented in that ending, but in an even larger way, it’s harmful on how it contributes to the narrative of displacement of Hawaiians from their ancestral lands.” Essentially, the underlying messages of criticizing the surplus of American tourism and encouraging Hawaiian pride despite colonialism is lost in the live-action remake, in large part because of the ending. As good of a movie as the 2025 Lilo & Stitch was, in the context of the original story, the remake missed the mark entirely.
This is the most common mistake remakes make today, and while it must be avoided, carbon copies of the original are neither wanted or needed. Take DreamWorks’ How to Train Your Dragon — as a long time fan of the franchise, I loved the live-action remake. But, what’s not to love? It was nearly shot-by-shot the same movie as the original. Even the camera movement in the beginning sequence was taken from the animation directly. While the movie is praised for its faithfulness to the original, the notion makes me more cynical towards remakes. A remake that has nothing to add to the original is pointless in the world of filmmaking and emphasizes the greed of large production companies, as the only message the audience receives is, “We need an easy way to take your money.” This is the very idea that audiences against live-action remakes reject, with which I sympathize.
Live-action remakes have gone to both extremes, and neither respect the original or the audience as they should. But that does not mean we should give up on them entirely. Remakes have the potential to be much more than greedy adaptations of our favorite films, and they should become a means of improving more obscure pictures instead. Disney, DreamWorks, and other production companies should be looking for ways to avoid poorly re-done movies and make audiences excited for remakes again. Firstly, it is foolish for production companies to use stories that are revered by audiences, as they are then restricted to what viewers expect to see. The original How To Train Your Dragon, for example, received little criticism. That is not to say it was a perfect piece, but it was well received by audiences and has formed a large fanbase. Now, DreamWorks walks a very thin line between changes that viewers believe should and should not be made in the next two movies of the trilogy. This puts the live-action’s success in jeopardy.
If live-action remakes are to be made, then the best approach is by exciting audiences with re-imaginings of less known stories that have more potential to be improved. This argument is also made in a video uploaded by The Film Theorists, the popular YouTube channel that has explored theories of movies and tv shows for 10 years. In “Film Theory: The REAL Reason There are So Many Live Action Remakes,” they offer examples of films like Atlantis: The Lost Empire, a movie with gross domestic stats at $84 million since its release in 2001. The movie follows Milo, a linguist who adventures to find the lost city of Atlantis and his expedition crew of side characters. Atlantis would work better than most popular remakes currently in development because there is a lot within the story that can still be explored. For example, enriching the backstories of supporting characters and moving away from stereotypes that the original relies on for comedy. The story could still relay the messages the original intended, while providing a refreshing creative take on the film.
The live-action remake of Cinderella, released in 2015, did a spectacular job of respecting the original all the while making it its own. While the fairytale is quite popular, the Disney animated movie's age makes it less known to its target audience; I hadn’t even seen the original when I sat in theaters at 9 years-old and was dazzled by Lily James’ portrayal. The story relays the same messages, even explicitly, as Cinderella carries this motif throughout the movie: “Have courage and be kind.” At the same time, the film fills the gaps the original dismissed as inconsequential. The most important addition being the nature of Cinderella’s relationship to her deceased mother, as it provides an emotional motivator beyond the obligation she feels to her evil stepmother and stepsisters. Another crucial change to the movie was the building of multi-dimensional characters beyond the protagonist. For example, the writers gave depth to Kit’s character—firstly, by giving Prince Charming a name—by demonstrating the conflict with his duty as a future king to marry a princess, which is resolved in a conversation with Kit's father on his death bed. The myriad of additions to the movie improved the original so effectively that domestic lifetime box office stats of the remake are at $201 million. Cinderella proves that particular movie selection for live-action remakes can be as successful as the lazy re-tellings of popular films. Live-action remakes can and should be made with the same storytelling passion as their originals.
Live-action remakes are often met with pessimism because production companies have done little to show audiences that remakes mean more than their monetary benefits. Until this is changed, these remakes will continue to be viewed as “money-grabs,” instead of the storytelling mediums they can become. As remakes continue to be made, filmmaking companies must decide to take risks in their choice of movies and trust their audiences to do the same.
Sofia Victoria Peña is a second-year Psychology major with a minor in English. She is very excited to be joining The Paper as a Writer/Editor for her first semester at CCNY. She hopes to write about many different subjects and bring a new voice to The Paper. She’s thrilled to learn about publishing and the world of journalism while informing her peers at CCNY of topical matters. Some of her other passions include: reading, crocheting, theatre/acting, and animals.