Disney’s latest venture into live-action remakes, “Moana,” has been met with significant criticism, largely for failing to justify its existence and arriving a mere decade after its acclaimed animated predecessor. The new film, starring Dwayne Johnson reprising his role as the demigod Maui and introducing Australian newcomer Catherine Lagaʻaia as Moana, is described as a “painfully slow” rehash that struggles to recapture the magic of the 2016 Oscar-nominated original.
The original “Moana” was celebrated for its vibrant storytelling, featuring the empowered teen wayfinder Moana (voiced by Auliʻi Cravalho) and the charismatic trickster Maui, whose dynamic was considered “electric perfection.” Their journey to deliver the heart of Te Fiti was an “amazing odyssey.” However, critics suggest watching their live-action counterparts run through the same story feels like a “slog,” with the film only truly picking up around the 45-minute mark when Maui performs his signature, partly animated song-and-dance number, “You’re Welcome.” Lin-Manuel Miranda also contributed a new song, “Along the Way,” for the remake.
A key issue highlighted is the timing of the remake. With only 10 years having passed since the first “Moana” was released, the children who grew up with the animated film are now roughly Moana’s age and not yet parents themselves. This timing prevents the generational “passing down” of a pop-culture favorite, unlike remakes such as “Snow White” and “Lilo & Stitch,” which debuted 88 and 23 years, respectively, after their originals. Some critics propose a “statute of limitations,” suggesting a movie should be “drinking age” before being rebooted.
The live-action “Moana” is also criticized for its lack of a “value-added strategy.” Unlike other remakes that have offered a “big stylistic swing” (like Tim Burton’s “Dumbo”), revamped character arcs (such as Prince Eric in “The Little Mermaid” or Jasmine in “Aladdin”), or fleshed out classic tales with “new humanity” (“Mulan,” “Beauty and the Beast”), the new “Moana” reportedly offers little beyond a faithful retelling. Simply casting “The Rock” in a “questionable wig” and adding a new song is deemed insufficient in an era where audiences are increasingly drawn to original movies like “Project Hail Mary” and “Obsession,” and even “babbling Minions” no longer guarantee an easy box office hit.
While Disney’s animated classics becoming live-action films is an undeniable trend, often perceived as a “cash grab,” critics argue that studios should at least strive to avoid appearing as such. A positive example cited is the 2010 animated “How to Train Your Dragon,” which, despite not needing a live-action redo, received one last year that “recaptured the emotional awe and spectacle” of the original and “deepened the young characters’ relationships,” transforming an unnecessary remake into an “essential” one.
The “Hollywood Remake Industrial Complex” shows no signs of slowing, with future live-action versions of “Hercules,” “Tangled,” and “Frozen” anticipated. Critics suggest Disney could instead focus on remaking its less successful animated films, such as “Mars Needs Moms” and “The Black Cauldron.” The studio, built on “imagination and ingenuity,” is urged to prioritize creativity, echoing how Walt Disney and his contemporaries focused on original stories rather than churning out titles like “Snow White and the Eight Dwarves” or “102 Dalmatians” (a live-action sequel). Pixar is highlighted as a contemporary example, balancing sequels like “Toy Story 5” and “Inside Out 2” with “extraordinarily original” films like “Hoppers.”
Concerns also linger that the wrong lessons might be learned from the “Moana” remake, potentially leading to unwelcome projects like a prequel exploring how young Maui first acquired his magical fishhook.
Disney remaking its animated classics as live-action movies has become as much a certainty as death and taxes. It’s a big blue Will Smith genie we just can’t put back in the bottle.
It’s time to resign ourselves to this fact: Hope for the occasional cool origin-story prequel (“Cruella”) or well-done retelling (“Cinderella”), and be OK when it’s something that turns out aggressively fine (“The Little Mermaid”). Just as long as it isn’t completely unnecessary and the new version, fingers crossed, kinda-sorta justifies its existence.
