Throughout the last decade, Disney has set a precedent for reboots and live-action remakes, feeding off of nostalgia marketing. But at what cost? Is this stripping from the company’s originality and creativity? Whether you’re a Disney Adult or just a casual consumer, it’s not hard to realize the multi-billion dollar company is undergoing an identity crisis. What started as a bright idea for nostalgia marketing in a changing society has turned into a plummeting scheme, marking an uncertain future for Disney.
Rewind or Reimagine?
The year is 2015. The live-action “Cinderella” remake featuring Lily James is on its way to theatres, and fans of all ages are on their toes waiting for this huge theatrical release. Disney is pouring money into its strategic marketing campaign, working towards a classic and modern blend in its promotion of the film. From glass-slippers at JCPenny to a “Modern Princess Collection” at the Home Shopping Network, they made sure to hit all the marks in driving revenue and public interest.
And it worked: “Cinderella” grossed over $543.5 million in box office revenue, earning high critic ratings and an Oscar nomination. With the film, Disney made it clear that they have a deliberate plan to feed off of Hollywood’s obsession with familiarity and nostalgia. Could this, therefore, mark the film as a turning point in Disney’s shift from prioritizing art to marketing?
Jt Moriarty, a first-year student majoring in data science and AI, shared his thoughts on Disney’s films over the course of the last 10 years.
“As a child, I was fascinated by the idea of classical stories coming to life. But now, anytime I’m at the movies and see a trailer for Disney’s next live-action remake, I cringe,” Moriarty said. “They clearly lost themselves at some point – it’s gotten to be too much.”
Quantity Over Quantity
Disney’s reboot strategy, from a professional and economic standpoint, can be seen as a gold mine. They saw what people wanted and gave it to them, therefore increasing consumer satisfaction and revenue.
Where this all went wrong, however, was when Disney found themselves in a pothole, unable to produce any new stories that have remained notable and been successful. Why bother spending so much time and craft into making new movies, when old franchises are waiting to be restored?
Disney has answered that question for themselves, indicating that they simply do not feel it is worth the creative risk.
Dr. Pete Johnson, a visiting assistant professor in the cinematic arts department, shared his insight on pre-existing intellectual property.
“Remakes and reboots have long been a way to counteract the inherent uncertainty of media production,” said Dr. Johnson. “A pre-existing idea or popular piece of intellectual property will, according to this logic, more likely be a ‘hit.’”
This logic is supported by Disney’s recent lineup of films: “The Jungle Book (2016),” “Beauty and the Beast (2017),” “Aladdin (2019),” “The Lion King (2019),” “Pinocchio (2022)” and now 2025 with “Lilo & Stitch” all popping out one after another. After each film, it becomes more obvious that there is diminished quality and passion in newer films.
“Pinocchio,” re-imagined in 2022, for instance, received a 27% Rotten Tomatoes critic score. This was one of the lowest scoring films in Disney history, also failing to reach commercial success due to its failed model of only streaming on Disney+.
Yusif Mamedov, a first-year student double-majoring in motion pictures and public relations shared his feelings on the film.
“‘Pinocchio’ was the perfect example of Disney trying to pour out new films without any meaning behind them,” said Mamedov. “Coming out of the pandemic, it was a weak attempt to drag out their remake model, and it failed.”
Safe to say, “Pinocchio” was a wooden performance on Disney’s part.
The Price of Nostalgia
Live-action remakes are not all Disney has been guilty of. A plethora of sequels, prequels and spin-offs of franchises — that have already run their course — have been rolled out over the last few years. These often explore secondary characters irrelevant to the main storylines of the original media, or bring in new generations of characters in a related setting.
“High School Musical: The Musical: The Series,” for example, brought a new generation of characters to East High, creating a musical based off of the original film. The quirky, mockumentary-style in which the show is written was aimed to appeal to millennials and older members of Gen Z, who grew up indulging in the “High School Musical” franchise. Although successful, the show dragged on for four seasons, even after losing Olivia Rodrigo.
Vivien Hudec, a first-year student majoring in advertising, said, “I stopped watching after [Olivia Rodrigo] left the cast; it felt like they struggled in continuing the story without [her character].”
Clearly, Disney is milking out every last bit they can from decades-old franchises, and it is not working for them. And yes, “High School Musical” is almost 20 years old. Yes, you are old.
A Glimmer of Originality?
Despite Disney’s self-sabotaging avalanche of spin-offs and live-action mayhem, there are signs of their creative spark being reclaimed. Recent animated films like “Encanto” and “Elemental” have touched audiences in a way only few can. “Encanto” features a vibrant story, drawing attention to Latino culture, bringing diversity and leaving a mark in the box office. Meanwhile, “Elemental” brought out emotional storytelling and creativity throughout Pixar that has not been seen to such an extent in decades.
Disney’s future remains uncertain, but it is still in their hands. Only they can decide whether they want to craft new narratives that audiences have been yearning for, or if they would rather continue recycling nostalgia.
words_joseph sollitto. illustration_sovannreach po. design_bells bosell & charlotte deangelis.
This article was published in Distraction’s Fall 2025 print issue.
Follow our Social Media:
