BOARDROOM & BLOCKBUSTERS
The live-action remake referendum
With “Snow White” dancing its way into theaters, it’s time to tackle one of the most widely panned blockbuster subgenres.
This meeting of the National Blockbuster Council is now called to order. The issue on the table: live-action remakes. “Snow White,” arguably the last major animated Disney intellectual property without a remake to its name, is releasing in just two weeks. Setting aside pesky things like “critical reception” or “artistic value,” let us ask: Can we allow these remakes to continue?
Before we decide, we will hear a brief presentation from blockbuster analyst and alarmingly frequent consumer of Trader Joe’s spiced cider, Mr. Sammy Bovitz.
Thank you, Chairman, though I don’t necessarily appreciate the public airing of my ongoing cider problem.
Daily headlines, sent straight to your inbox.
Subscribe to our newsletter to keep up with the latest at and around USC.
Live-action remakes of beloved animated films have existed for decades but became a trend with Kenneth Branagh’s modern interpretation of “Cinderella” (2015). This onslaught of retreads has continued throughout the late 2010s and into the 2020s. By my count, Disney has produced 11 of them since “Cinderella” and that’s without counting prequels like the “Maleficent” series or “Mufasa: The Lion King” (2024).
“Snow White” isn’t even the only live-action remake set for 2025. “Lilo & Stitch” will follow in May, and for the first time, Disney will have a bona fide challenger this summer: A live-action remake of the first “How To Train Your Dragon” film is coming in June from Universal and DreamWorks.
But the well is running dry, as the Chairman acknowledged. A look at the other Disney live-action projects in development is far from inspiring. Disney is filming a “Moana” (2016) remake that will be released just 10 years after the original, and “Tangled” (2010) is somehow due for a similar treatment.
(Shruthi Narayanan / Daily Trojan)
The rest of the slate is just as confusing. An “The Aristocats” (1970) remake with Questlove, of all people, in the director’s chair? As much as I love Questlove and his work with The Roots, I’ll pass. A “Robin Hood” (1973) project that hasn’t seen an update since finding its director in 2020? I can’t wait for that to never be released. The only remake project with legitimate promise is “Hercules” (1997), though its supposed director, Guy Ritchie, seems perpetually busy with other projects.
However, things like oversaturation or questionable creative decisions do not matter to this council — it’s about money and, to a lesser extent, ensuring that old IP continues to flourish long-term.
Let’s consider the most obvious barometer for these films’ success: box-office gross. Starting with “Cinderella,” these live-action remakes are — for the most part — extremely profitable at the box office. Despite reported budgets as high as $260 million, live-action remakes from Disney have netted easy money at the box office. The live-action remakes of “Beauty and the Beast” (1991), “Aladdin” (1992) and “The Lion King” (1994) all grossed over $1 billion at the box office, with “The Jungle Book” (1967) sitting right behind at $966.5 million.
(Shruthi Narayanan / Daily Trojan)
But from a business perspective, not all is sunny for these remakes. Properties like “Dumbo” (2019) and “The Little Mermaid” (2023) did not take off, and while the films both still profited, the margins indicate their budgets could have been better spent on other projects. Then there’s “Mulan” (2020), which had the misfortune of being released during the coronavirus pandemic, and Disney+ exclusive remakes that general audiences may not know exist, such as “Pinocchio” (2022).
It’s clear that remaking properties that have already succeeded at the box office — “The Lion King” chief among them — is how these projects have been able to perform well. Nostalgia could be another, making a “Moana” remake and even “How to Train Your Dragon” far from sure bets.
“Snow White” is possibly the strangest case study yet, released in a lighter March window and attempting to reignite nostalgia for a film from 1937, as opposed to the 1990s-driven nostalgia of previous Disney remake success stories.
It certainly doesn’t help that the press tour has been a disaster. Titular star Rachel Zegler has criticized the original film heavily, calling it “extremely dated” and the prince a “stalker,” angering many fans of the 1937 film. The choice to keep the original’s seven dwarfs has also come under fire from actors with dwarfism like Peter Dinklage. Then there’s Zegler’s conflict with Israeli co-star Gal Gadot, who is playing the Evil Queen in the remake, over differing views on the Israel-Hamas war.
“Snow White” may have endured an unorthodox path to the big screen, but it’s as well-positioned as any remake to dominate the box office. It’s important to note that every single live-action remake from Disney this generation has profited theatrically, with the biggest “bomb” — “Dumbo” — still grossing almost $200 million more than its budget. If “Snow White” marks a new low for Disney, it may be time to reconsider this strategy, but for now, the green light for remakes has no need to turn red.
Thank you for presenting Mr. Bovitz. Unfortunately, we stopped listening sometime after “extremely profitable.” We’ve decided to proceed with the live-action remakes as planned.
I understand, Chairman, and thank you so much for your time.
Sammy Bovitz is a sophomore writing about the business of film. His column, “Boardrooms & Blockbusters,” runs every other Friday. He is also a magazine editor at the Daily Trojan.
