While I appreciate the renewed interest in Disney, I think they should stick to what they do best — animation, and not the CGI kind. The remakes undermine the art of animation by making pale copies of Disney classics. Rather than honoring their legacy, they feel like an attempt to replace the originals.
I love the classic animated films and series, but part of their appeal was that they were animated; animation is more flexible and can do many things that live-action cannot. In traditional animation, animators draw each frame hand by hand, which is then played sequentially to create the illusion of movement. CGI (computer-generated imagery), on the other hand, relies on algorithms to animate digital models, often through keyframe animation or motion capture.
It seems absurd to call a completely CGI film a ‘live-action.” Take 2019’s “The Lion King” and 2024’s “Mufasa: The Lion King” as examples —- they are entirely computer-animated, with not an ounce of actual life in sight. I understand and acknowledge that Disney is not able to use real animals for their movies, as animals cannot talk and using real wild animals would be cruel and unethical. Nevertheless, it seems like false advertising to announce it as a ‘live-action’ remake when that is not the case.
There are certainly other films with CGI characters, but the majority of them are otherwise completely live-action. Arguably the worst offenders are “Dumbo” (2019), “Pinocchio” (2022), “The Little Mermaid” (2023) and the recently-released “Snow White” (2025).
The very concept of a live-action “Dumbo” seems like an oxymoron, and “Pinocchio” was no better. Those films lacked the heart of their predecessors. “The Little Mermaid” was also particularly frustrating — not only because of the bad animation but also because of its unnecessary changes, such as the gender-swapping (and species-swapping) of Scuttle. The poor CGI made the characters appear unsettling and lifeless; they don’t look real enough, which lifts the veil behind the magic of film production.
The 2025 “Snow White” remake, directed by Greta Gerwig, was one of Disney’s most controversial live-actions. While Gal Gadot was an intriguing choice for the Evil Queen, Rachel Zegler’s casting as Snow White sparked significant backlash. Racist commentators believe that she isn’t the right choice to play the princess described as having “skin as white as snow.” Zegler acknowledged the backlash in a Variety interview, saying, “I hope every child knows that they can be a princess no matter what.” She also emphasized that Snow White is a big deal in Spanish-speaking countries and expressed pride at playing a Latina princess.
In addition, the seven dwarves were originally supposed to be played by real actors. However, Peter Dinklage spoke up against this, advising Disney not to play into stereotypes by casting actors with dwarfism. Shortly following his remarks, Disney made a statement to “Good Morning America”: “To avoid reinforcing stereotypes from the original animated film, we are taking a different approach with these seven characters and have been consulting with members of the dwarfism community.” As seen in the official trailer, the seven dwarves have been replaced with CGI.
Another aspect of the new “Snow White” film that is being altered is Snow White as a character. According to Zegler, she is not going to be saved by the prince or be hoping for true love; instead, she is dreaming about being a good leader for her kingdom. Viewed through modern eyes, Prince Charming himself is an excessively weird character who kisses sleeping Snow White — who is 14 in the animated film while the prince is 31; a moment like that is confirmed to not appear in the live-action remake, as the kiss itself was a creative choice by Disney, and not necessarily canonical to the original fairytale.
Whilst not being my favorite Disney princess, “Snow White and the Seven Dwarves” remains my favorite fairy tale, especially the original Grimm Brothers version. The story itself has been adapted to film numerous times over the years (so has “Cinderella”). Among these adaptations, I would argue that the best “Snow White” movie adaptations are “Mirror Mirror” (2012) and “Snow White and the Huntsman” (2012). Unlike Disney’s live-actions, these films took unique creative liberties and added original elements to the story. It is also prevalent that it has sufficiently been brought to the big screen, so Disney shouldn’t feel the need to make another adaptation.
Studios, especially Disney, need to stop making live-action movies seem like some sort of grand reveal when we all already know how the story goes. Watching another lifeless imitation of the studio’s own content is pointless and will inherently not improve the story in any way; it gives the impression that live-action is more mature and valuable, which is not true.
Disney’s earlier live-actions, before they started going completely downhill, were decent — and just decent. Movies like “Cinderella” (2015), “The Jungle Book” (2016), “Beauty and the Beast” (2017) and “Aladdin” (2019) were among these, with “The Jungle Book” offering the most originality. But, others were so uninteresting that I almost forgot they existed: “Pete’s Dragon” (2016), “Christopher Robin” (2018), “Lady and the Tramp” (2019) and “Peter Pan and Wendy” (2023) are among these bland Disney recreations.
Ironically, the best live-actions are the ones with the most original storylines — instead of the ones that reused old content. These films are 2014’s “Maleficent” and 2021’s “Cruella,” both of which give backstories to Disney’s villains. Many also credit “Maleficent” with being the one to allegedly start Disney’s live-action era, even though the initial recreations of “The Jungle Book” (1994) and the “101 Dalmatians” (1996) technically came first.
One live-action that should never have made it to the big screen at all was “Mulan” (2020). While I appreciate its attempt at originality, it somehow managed to stray too far away from what made the animated version magical. Disney removed Mushu the dragon, Li Shang and the classic songs, taking away the heart of the film. I suppose I shouldn’t complain too much, though — a CGI Mushu would probably be nightmare-inducing.
And yet, Disney continues to churn out unnecessary remakes. A “Lilo and Stitch” live-action is on the way, with the trailer releasing on May 23, 2025; many fans are excited for this one despite other disliking CGI Pleakley. A live-action “Moana” has also been confirmed, despite the original movie not being even a decade old; rumors are circulating about a “Tangled” remake as well, which is just another example of Disney milking its own content dry.
Unfortunately, other studios are following suit. The best example of this is DreamWorks Animation, which is once again copying Disney, as it has for decades. Their upcoming live-action “How to Train Your Dragon” film is set to come out in the summer of 2025. Many fans are excited, but others are skeptical since it seems to be a one-for-one duplicate of the original. The majority of the backlash was less about the film’s redundancy and more about the fact that Astrid’s actress is not white. Similarly, another example would be Disney’s book-to-film adaptation of “Percy Jackson and the Olympians,” following the flopped films by 20th Century Studios from 2010 and 2013. What caused an uproar regarding this new series was the fact that Leah Sava Jeffries was cast as Annabeth, as she is Black and the book describes the character as white and blonde. People seemed to be more concerned with a person’s skin color than whether they can do justice to the roles.
When it comes to book-to-film adaptations, it is understandable that not everything can be translated perfectly from page to screen — it is difficult to achieve that same level of ‘magic.’ Even so, there is a difference between adapting a book in a new way and lazily remaking a film that already exists.
Ultimately, multi-million dollar studios like Disney should focus on making original content. Alternatively, if it insists on revisiting past works, why not revamp failed films instead of beloved classics? “The Black Cauldron” (1985) is a key example of an animated movie with great potential that underperformed at the box office. A reimagining of that story would be far more worthwhile than yet another remake of a successful film.
Sooner or later, these remakes need to stop. The purpose of a remake should be to give a fresh, innovative take on the story, not create shallow carbon copies. Live-actions today not only disrespect the art of animation but also diminish the creativity of filmmaking itself. By taking the ‘easy route’ with uninspired retellings, Disney and other studios are proving that they prioritize nostalgia-driven cash grabs over genuine artistic vision.
Abby Dreistadt, Editor in Chief