by Luiza Irulegui
Growing up in the early 2000s watching animated movies from Pixar, DreamWorks, and Walt Disney Studios, was an entirely different experience from the animations made nowadays.
The new stories created for recent generations do not match the rich and enthralling creativity of the older movies such as Shrek, Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron, Brother Bear, Happy Feet, Lilo and Stitch, and Toy Story.
Very few animations made in the last two decades come close to having the same level of originality or inclusivity that the “original” ones have.
The studios have been so concerned about trying to be inclusive and self-conscious of the “cancel culture” movement that their work comes across as anything but inclusive and fresh.
Instead, to avoid any criticism, their efforts have been put into remaking the classics or readapting them to live motion.
In reality, this comes across as lazy and seems like a cheap excuse to attract revenue from old audiences rather than hiring new creative minds to develop innovative storylines.
After 2010, Disney saw a rise in the production of live-action movies or photorealistic remakes of highly successful animated feature films.
What started with Maleficent (2014), a retelling of the beloved Sleeping Beauty, rapidly became a trend.
According to Pearce (2024), ever since its release, not including the sequels, there have been 12 live actions that Disney remade.
The main issue with these remakes is that no matter how much effort and money Disney puts into them, they won’t be able to replicate the magic present in the originals.
The entertainment business seems to be locked in a rut with its relentless production of reboots, remakes, and sequels without taking chances with new concepts.
Fans who want new stories, like me, are growing increasingly disappointed by the lack of creativity.
According to Chappell-Beattie (2024), Disney, once regarded as the unrivaled powerhouse of cinematic storytelling, is currently facing a challenging period at the box office.
Even though Disney has established its brand with a uniquely strong reputation, in recent years, the
studio has fallen behind its rivals.
With Coco and Moana, they showed that they still had some fresh ideas. But even then, with the unnecessary sequel to Moana now in 2024 and upcoming Coco sequel in 2029, Disney played yet again into the money-grabbing trend.
Remakes are now the standard formula used by film companies to capitalise on existing fan bases and appeal to nostalgia.
That isn’t limited to the animation industry alone, it is no secret that the movie industry has also been suffering to produce entertaining and innovative stories.
According to Muldoon (2012), in 2011 there were 27 movie sequels released which at the time was higher than any previous year’s stats.
In the same study done by Muldoon, she referenced a statistic brought up by Cieply (2011) that argued that in 2011 all top 7 box office films were sequels which had set an unprecedented box office record.
She also confirmed that between 1996 and 2011 there was a drastic decline in Hollywood’s creativity showing that in 1996, 58.45% of films released were original compared to 51.36% in 2011.
One of the factors that Muldoon argues that would explain such a decline in originality is that producers strongly rely on past successful films when financial difficulties arise.
Meaning, that during a recession they might invest in lower-risk material from already previously successful books and movies turning it into a sequel or an adaptation.
Artist Austin Kleon released a book called Steal Like an Artist (2012) where he uses already existent poetry and blackouts words to create his own.
He argues that nothing is ever done without “stealing” from somewhere else – that nothing is truly original but rather inspired by already existing content.
Perhaps Hollywood’s consistent usage of their “movie formula” is now revealing that they are resorting to “stealing” or readapting already overdone source materials instead of attempting to get inspired by them and reimagining them.
Let’s look at La La Land (2017) for example, the reason it was such a success lies in the fact that even though it played into a classic cliche that rom-coms normally have, it didn’t have a happy ending.
Transforming such a common happy trope into a bittersweet one, brought something new to the table making La La Land feel dynamic and more realistic.
Sabit (2022) says that if the only new element in a movie is a different cast then the movie has little to no purpose.
She also mentions the live-action remake of The Lion King which had a 52% score by Rotten Tomatoes due to the lack of depth - its only purpose being to capitalise on nostalgia.
Creating a sense of nostalgia with remakes of successful franchises brings consumers to the cinemas due to the familiarity and fondness they have of those beloved storylines.
While this might seem harmless, it actually stops us seeing new and groundbreaking ideas.
Hollywood is a worldwide reference for the film industry and has seen eras of risk-taking and experimenting periods in cinema.
Therefore the question must be raised, where has all their creativity and edge gone?
According to Bunker (2023), major film studios are not interested in originality because they bring less revenue than franchise ones.
However, if there’s no investment in smaller productions and willingness to take a jump in the dark there will be no new and contemporary cinematic era.
Hollywood needs to invest in giving opportunities to new writers and talent whilst simultaneously opening their doors to foreign influence.
With writers strikes and rising concerns around AI, focusing on the success of small films such as Hundreds of Beavers and Anora.
Edited by Emily Duff