'Enough with the live action remakes.'

When I saw the first look of Lilo & Stitch back in November last year, I had two words: terrifying and unnecessary.

The internet shared my disappointment. Fans criticised the changes to Lilo's character and the design of Stitch himself.

Now, the latest trailer is out. And suddenly everyone is on board.

"This is the first Disney live-action remake I'm actually excited for," wrote one fan in the comments. "Stitch and the other alien characters look great, and it's really nostalgic to see all the scenes recreated."

Watch: Lilo & Stitch official trailer. Post continues after video.

I'll admit, the trailer looks cute. But I won't be fooled, I've been burned before.

Disney's live-action remakes are, by no means, a new thing. The first one, The Jungle Book, was released in 1994. Two years later came 101 Dalmatians (a movie that traumatised me to no end). For one glorious decade, we had a reprieve. No more live-action remakes! I may have only been three years old when the decade began, but I truly took those next 10 years for granted.

Then 2010 hit, and the drought was over. Disney released its live-action Alice in Wonderland. A movie I would come to call: Patient Zero.

Directed by Tim Burton, the film earned more than $1.025 billion worldwide, making it one of the highest-grossing films of all time and the second-highest of 2010.

When network executives witnessed the success of Patient Zero, I just know their eyes lit up with money symbols.

"Fantastic, give me 15 more live-action remakes!!" said Disney CEO Bob Iger, probably. I wasn't in the meeting, so I can't corroborate it. But over the next 15 years, we have witnessed 11 live-action remakes make it to the big screen, so that is proof enough for me.

Terrifying and unnecessary. Image: Disney

The list of live-action remakes includes: Cinderella, The Jungle Book (again), Beauty and the Beast, Dumbo, Aladdin, The Lion King, Lady and the Tramp, Mulan, Pinocchio, Peter Pan & Wendy, and The Little Mermaid.

That doesn't even account for live-action spin-offs, like Cruella, Maleficent and Mufasa.

Two more live-action remakes are also headed for the screen this year — Snow White and, of course, Lilo & Stitch — with Moana slated for next year. Then, there are those without release dates: The Jungle Book 2, Tinker Bell, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and Bambi. That list, no doubt, will grow.

While I figured that audiences, like me, were growing fatigued of live action, the numbers proved me wrong. To an extent.

The Lion King (2019) grossed over $1.6 billion, while Beauty and the Beast (2017) earned over $1.2 billion, both far exceeding the earnings of their animated counterparts. But can we really say the box office success is tied to a desire for live-action remakes? Or is the success down to a desire for Disney content and remakes happen to be the only thing on offer?

I get it, there's the nostalgic element, the brand recognition for Disney, and the merchandising opportunities. In fact, I worked at a cinema when The Lion King came out, and the number of overpriced blankets and plush toys we sold was criminal. Hell, I was even on board with the Disney classics renaissance at the time. I watched Beauty and the Beast with enthusiasm, same with Aladdin.

Until, one day, my youthful optimism shattered. I still remember the conversation that did it.

"Like, with an actual lion?" I asked my sister, who had just delivered the news that Disney was making a live-action Lion King.

"No, you idiot," she replied. "With CGI."

I, being confused and insufferable at the same time, turned to Google for the definition of 'live action'. You know what it said? Action in films involving filming real people or animals, as contrasted with animation or computer-generated effects.

"Contrasted. With. Animation. Or. Computer-Generated. Effects," I said to my sister, who had clocked out of the conversation as soon as I'd mentioned Google.

"This is not a live-action remake," I said. "It's just an animation with more rendering time! A more realistic meerkat!" (My sister had left the room three minutes prior).

But I was adamant. Like Icarus, Disney had flown too close to the live-action sun, gaslighting all of us in the process.

I was officially disenchanted — I was also a hypocrite because I went and saw the Lion King on the big screen (granted, it only cost $2 as a cinema worker).

Let me tell you, that film may be the highest-grossing live-action remake so far, but, for me, it was boring, colourless, and a waste of time and money (yes, even just $2, I would have much preferred a Maccas Frozen Coke).

When I walked out of that cinema, my hate for live action was officially cemented. Every time Disney announced another money grab, I seethed. Give us original ideas! I would inwardly scream. I know you can do it. Look at Frozen! Inside Out! Brilliant! More of that! Less funnelling money into sub-par remakes.

The Lion King left me enraged. Image: Disney.

I get it, nostalgia is a beautiful thing. But our Entertainment Editor Tina Burke put it best when she said: "no matter how good they are, every live-action remake is still just a slightly worse version of a movie you loved as a child".

And, that's just it. No re-make has ever made me feel the same 'rush' as the original. 'But, aren't you a 27-year-old woman and not a child anymore?' you may, fairly, ask. To which I give you the highly-thought-out counterargument of: 'Shush'.

I could watch the original Lion King until the cows, or warthogs, come home, but I have not had a single urge to re-watch any live-action remake, ever. They are like a very average one-night stand that you don't regret, per se, but you're definitely never going to see again. A potentially problematic analogy to make while discussing films for children, but I digress.

I should acknowledge that not everyone shares my cynicism.

Some viewers genuinely appreciate seeing beloved stories re-imagined with modern technology and sensibilities. The remakes occasionally offer more nuanced character development, updated themes that better reflect contemporary values, and in some cases, they've provided opportunities for diverse casting that the originals severely lacked.

And for families with young children, these films also offer a bridge between generations, parents can share their childhood favourites with kids who might be more drawn to the polished aesthetic of current cinema. I get it.

I just wish Disney would take the billions they're pouring into rehashing old content and invest more of it into original storytelling. The studio that gave us gems like Encanto and Soul has proven they can create fresh, emotionally resonant films without leaning on existing IP.

Or if they must revisit their classics, why not create original prequels or sequels that expand the universe rather than simply re-tread familiar ground? Because they will never be on-par with the originals.

Perhaps the most disappointing part isn't that these remakes exist, it's what they represent: a creative powerhouse choosing the safety of nostalgia mining over the risk of innovation.

Disney isn't just remaking films; they're repackaging our childhood memories and selling them back to us at premium prices. And judging by those box office numbers, we're all too willing to buy.

Feature Image: Disney