We’ve all watched different shows and movies in various stages of our life. Now, they’re returning, reimagined for a new generation. Whether it’s a live-action remake, a fresh take, or sequel to an iconic story, studios are leaning heavily on nostalgia in order to capture the same audiences once again, falling back onto familiar franchises rather than creating new ones. This shift, particularly prominent at companies like Disney, hasn’t quite achieved the effect they were hoping for.
On paper, this approach is a recipe for success. These franchises come with a proven formula, featuring classic characters and beloved narratives that have long resonated with audiences. By using them as a bridge between generations, they offer a way to introduce timeless tales to younger viewers while allowing older audiences to revisit cherished memories. But can reimagining these classics really capture the magic of the originals, or is it just a nostalgic cash grab? This question seems to be the make-or-break factor for these new adaptations.
Expanding on any particular storyline is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it allows for deeper world-building and gives audiences a chance to see their favorite characters evolve and develop beyond their original narrative. As long as audiences are given new, fresh material, they are often willing—or even eager—to return to familiar worlds.
On the other hand, the more a story is stretched, the greater studios have to face the risk of diminishing its appeal and impact. A clear example of this is the Toy Story franchise. While the original story and its first few sequels were widely praised for its emotional depth and character development, with the news of Toy Story 4 and Toy Story 5, fans are beginning to feel as though these are unnecessary and dilute the conclusion of the film.
Some franchises have managed to pull this off successfully, introducing new characters and compelling plot points that feel natural and consequential rather than forced. However, others struggle to carry the same allure of the original, feeling more like business endeavors than artistic or passionate endeavors. If it is the case that these sequels are solely to benefit the business, companies may have to revisit whether or not they are making strategic plays.
Industries and their consumers maintain an interdependent relationship. The industries profit from the consumers, in turn fulfilling their wants and needs. Thus, the consumer side ultimately determines the outcome of every choice industries make, distinguishing what is successful from what is not. For audiences, the reaction to this new pattern in Hollywood is mixed. Some fans love the idea of returning to older stories, eager to see how they choose to continue the story or the direction it will go. Others, however, feel fatigued by the constant revisiting of old ideas, arguing that studios are prioritizing financial security over creative risks.
Audiences are not as naïve and blindly accepting as studios would like. When a continuation feels hollow—existing simply to keep the brand alive—viewers are quick to notice and criticize. Fans may have already been satisfied with the material provided to them, raising the question of whether these sequels and spin-offs are truly necessary: does every successful film or show need a continuation, or should some stories be left as they are?
There is a fine line studios must navigate between honoring the past and creating something genuinely new. While revisiting past successes may offer a safety net, audiences are now eager for stories that will introduce them to new worlds and characters they can invest in.
This is not to say that established franchises should be abandoned entirely. Rather, it is important that they are approached with care, ensuring that any continuation serves a genuine purpose and contributes meaningfully to the franchise. “I think there has to be a reason to make them, you have to have a good story,” said Bob Iger, CEO of Disney, during the New York Times DealBook summit, “and often the story doesn’t hold up to be as strong as the original story. That can be a problem.” Take Marvel, for instance, with its continuously expanding lineup of shows, sequels, movies, and more. While some of them have managed to strike gold, the sheer amount of content has made it harder for individual stories to stand out, causing many to lose interest.
Cinema is an art form that captures human experiences and emotions meant to resonate deeply in ways that feel authentic. A well-crafted sequel or spin-off can expand a universe in meaningful ways, but forced projects risk undermining the very stories they are attempting to celebrate or revive.
“I just think that right now, given the competition in the overall movie marketplace that actually there’s a lot of value in the sequels,” said Iger in a conversation with a financial analyst, “obviously because they’re known and it takes less in terms of marketing.” From an outside perspective—regardless of whether the media being put out is well-done or not—it seems as though the industry is suffering from a lack of originality, and as a result, forming deep connections with the new material is increasingly difficult without a pre-existing attachment to it. There’s a special essence in childhood that comes with sitting in a dark theater or around the couch with your family, popcorn in hand, watching the screen flicker to life. Core memories were built upon these films, now the question is whether or not they will be reinforced or torn apart.
The imagination and passion behind a story is what makes it noteworthy. In an interview with Times, Pixar’s chief creative officer Pete Docter said, “I like making movies that are original and unique to themselves. To remake it, it’s not very interesting to me personally.” This struggle to maintain memorability is most evident in Disney’s approach to its most iconic legacy: Disney Princess Films. With the rapid evolution of technology and entertainment, will these timeless films still be held in the same regard, or will they fade into the background of history? Will studios allow that to happen, or end up backed in a corner, creating new content to keep relevancy?
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)
As Disney’s very first animated film, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs set the foundation for the entire Disney Princess franchise. Despite its historical significance, Snow White’s story has been handled with surprising inconsistency. It has received multiple reinterpretations over the years—most notably the live-action remake. The announcement of this adaptation was met with widespread backlash. From concerns over significant storyline changes to debates about casting and creative choices, many questioned the purpose and integrity of the movie. Many decisions in the making of the film have sparked backlash, raising concerns about representation and authenticity. This includes the choice to modernize the story by removing its focus on love and the prince, as well as the use of CGI for the dwarves rather than casting actors with dwarfism. The public has widely come to a consensus that the remake is an unnecessary departure from what made it iconic in the first place, resulting in little interest for the movie.
Cinderella (1950)
Cinderella has proven to be the most successful saga of sequels and remakes, receiving several official sequels: Cinderella II: Dreams Come True (2002) and Cinderella III: A Twist in Time (2007). The third iteration is often praised for its more creative and playful take, exploring an alternate timeline where the Evil Stepmother alters Cinderella’s fate. Cinderella’s live-action adaptation (2015), Disney’s first remake of a classic princess movie, was well-received, proving that the unanimated approach can breathe new life into a story. Unlike some remakes that drastically alter the source material, this adaptation remained faithful to the original while enriching the characters and world. It also successfully expanded on Cinderella’s character without erasing the themes of kindness and perseverance, which contributed to its positive reception.
Sleeping Beauty (1959)
While Sleeping Beauty never received a direct animated sequel or live-action, Disney found a unique way to keep Aurora’s world relevant through Maleficent (2014) and its sequel Maleficent: Mistress of Evil (2019). By reimagining the story through the perspective of its antagonist, Disney managed to give the franchise a new dimension and direction. The former film is renowned for adding depth to the story and the villain by framing Maleficent as a misunderstood character rather than purely evil. The 2014 film provided her with a tragic backstory and emphasized the idea of betrayal and loss, while crafting a beautiful arc for Maleficent’s character as she softens and comes to love Aurora as a daughter. Maleficent: Mistress of Evil, however, attempted to expand on this narrative but struggled to leave as strong of an impression, leading to mixed reviews.
The Little Mermaid (1989)
Disney’s Renaissance era all began with The Little Mermaid, continuing the story with The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea (2000). The sequel heavily mirrored the structure of the first film, focusing on Ariel’s daughter, Melody, yearning for the ocean in the same way her mother once longed for land. Return to the Sea is often criticized for being a stark repeat of the first movie, yet in 2023 Disney released a live-action remake. This remake in particular sparked significant controversy. While Halle Bailey is widely praised for her performance as Ariel, the film faced backlash originally for her casting, then later for its CGI visuals and removal of key character dynamics. Fans felt Prince Eric’s stronger role and personality were not present in the remake, and all in all, thought it lacked the vibrancy and humor of the original animated version.
Beauty and the Beast (1991)
The legacy of Beauty and the Beast has been explored through various adaptations of the plot structure and storyline in different films, even by studios other than Disney. The influence of this movie can not be understated, as many failed to reach the heights of the 1991 film, maintaining its position as a nostalgic piece for many. The 2017 live-action remake attempted to deepen the characters’ backstories, but the reactions were mixed—while some appreciated the additional world-building, others felt that it detracted from the original charm. Emma Watson’s portrayal of Belle was both praised and criticized for her independence from the source material. Though Cinderella was fortunate to be the first of its kind, the more of this media that is released, the more critical audiences become of it. Viewers are hard to please, and it is just as hard to match these beloved stories’ original appeal.
The Few Left Untouched
Interestingly, there are not many that Disney has not revisited, namely Pocahontas (1995), The Princess and the Frog (2009), and Brave (2012). For decades, these films have shaped childhoods and formed deep emotional connections with audiences. But as time moves forward, what stories will define the next generation? Will the children in the future still find beauty in these classics, or will studios finally release new tales to take their place? Whether future generations will continue to embrace these characters or demand entirely new ones remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: the legacy of nostalgic films is far from over.
Cinema is an art form that captures human experiences and emotions meant to resonate deeply in ways that feel authentic. A well-crafted sequel or spin-off can expand a universe in meaningful ways, but forced projects risk undermining the very stories they are attempting to celebrate or revive.