Why have live action movies been taking flak in the past few years? Actors often have a wider range of emotions than animation, and can connect with audiences more easily. However, the wider push to make childhood animated classics into live action movies has met much criticism. Is there value in rehashing beloved classics?
There are three main complaints critics have fronted about live action remakes. These arguments are most commonly: deviating from the source material, the overuse of computer generated animation, and lack of soul or innovation.
The main remade movies facing criticism have been Disney productions. Starting with The Jungle Book, Disney moved through such properties as Alice in Wonderland, Cinderella, Beauty and The Beast, and Aladdin.
The Lion King, released in 2019, received almost half the rating of the original on Rotten Tomatoes, with many critics calling the animation “uncanny valley”. In a review by Brian Eggert from Deep Focus Review, the film was considered bland and unattractive.
“Even though no real animals were used, watching photoreal lions in peril proves much more stressful than watching hand-drawn lions… you’ll spend so much time comparing it to the original to notice what’s happening in the story,” Eggert stated, concluding that, “The remake has no hope of replicating the original’s emotional impact due to its formal conceit.”
Other films in this trend face criticism not due to overreliance on CGI but color blind casting. The movies the Little Mermaid and Snow White both hired people of color in the roles of characters that had been animated as white. Racist pundits portrayed this as a betrayal of the source material. Critics have pointed out the stupidity of this split in movie goers, with Stuart Heritage from The Guardian commenting that “the film won’t be properly evaluated on its merits… until long after its release” and that Snow White “is clearly a film that should rightfully be ignored then forgotten forever.”
Lilo and Stitch (2025) faced mixed reviews, cutting action scenes that were easier to do in 2D due to the constraints of animating in 3D. In addition, some critics felt the movie deviated from the notion of ohana. As Clint Worthington at Mediaversity Reviews said, “the film’s new depiction of foster care in Native contexts has uncomfortable implications. Where the original allows Lilo to stay with Nani and her ʻohana, the remake shows Nani going off to start a career in marine biology, leaving Lilo in the care of other guardians.”
The truth is that cinema is a dying art, and that nostalgia for older movies is what brings audiences back to the theater. Audiences don’t really care if the film is true to the themes of the original or has better animation. Some people just want to watch the same stories over and over again. If you want to watch Moana in 2026, be my guest. You could just stay home and watch the original. But if you want new, innovative stories on the big screen, vote with your dollars.
Article by Emmett Coughlan