United News of Bangladesh

Disney’s evolving strategy around live-action remakes has reached an unprecedented height. With upcoming releases riding on high expectations and past disappointments fresh in memory, the stakes have never been higher. The next wave of remakes may not just reflect creative ambition but redefine the future of this billion-dollar trend. Let’s explore how upcoming releases like ‘Moana’ and ‘Lilo & Stitch’ are poised to shape the studio’s future. Disney’s Live-Action Blueprint in 2025 Once a reliable box office formula, the remakes are now treading uncertain ground. Despite recent setbacks, the moviehouse isn’t stepping away just yet. Two major projects, ‘Lilo & Stitch’ (releasing May 23, 2025) and ‘Moana’ (set for July 10, 2026), are already in the pipeline. Each of them carries significant production costs and expectations. These two titles are more than just adaptations; they are litmus tests for the direction Disney might take next. Their performance will likely shape the company’s willingness to continue mining its animated library. However, that doesn’t guarantee results in a marketplace where audience preferences are increasingly unpredictable. Should either film fail to deliver, the studio could be forced to reassess its playbook. While a total departure from live-action remakes may not be immediate, a dramatic slowdown, or even a full creative overhaul, might become inevitable. Read more: A Minecraft Movie Levels Up Theatres with Sing-along Block Party Edition Aftershocks of Snow White: Tangled and Others Left in Limbo The ripple effect from the 2025 film Snow White's underwhelming box office showing has disrupted Disney’s confidence. As one of the studio’s most treasured animated classics, ‘Snow White’ was expected to carry the banner of guaranteed success. Instead, the film’s lacklustre reception has introduced caution into what was once an aggressive remake strategy. In the aftermath, a growing sense of hesitation is becoming apparent. Tangled had already gained early momentum with the 2017 film The Greatest Showman’s Michael Gracey attached as director. But it has now been shelved indefinitely. Casting remained speculative, with stars like Sabrina Carpenter or Florence Pugh rumoured for Rapunzel. However, the project’s sudden freeze speaks volumes about the broader uncertainties at play. Disney seems reluctant to proceed with ambitious remakes until they regain clarity and confidence in the direction of this trend. This isn't just about one film. Projects like ‘Hercules,’ ‘Robin Hood,’ ‘Bambi,’ and ‘The Aristocrats’ are now adrift without firm release dates. Even the planned Prince Charming feature, once attached to big names like Daisy Edgar-Jones and Chris Hemsworth, sits quietly on the shelf. Read more: Weapons’ 2-Hour Footage Ignites Trailer Buzz: USD 38 Million Bet for an Original Horror Pays Off Diminishing Returns and a Shrinking Library While ‘Mufasa: The Lion King’ (2024) delivered a solid performance at the box office, it failed to match the explosive success of its 2019 predecessor. Similarly, ‘The Little Mermaid’ managed to outperform ‘Snow White’ but still fell short of expectations. All credits go to its global revenue, hovering around USD 569 million. These results, though not catastrophic, reflect a downward trend in audience enthusiasm for Disney’s live-action adaptations. This tempered reception is now forcing Disney to rethink its strategy. The golden age of reimagining nostalgic classics appears to be tapering off. With most of its cornerstone animated titles already adapted, Disney has started leaning on newer properties. However, the studio can no longer bank on brand loyalty alone. Future remakes, including potential blockbusters like Frozen, carry higher risks. If viewers continue to respond with indifference, Disney may find itself repairing a strained relationship with its audience. Read more: Meta's Movie Mate to Chat with M3GAN in Theater: Interactive Experience or Distraction

A jury has swiftly and unequivocally dismissed claims that Disney’s Moana was derived from a story about a young surfer in Hawaii. On Monday, a federal jury in Los Angeles deliberated for just two and a half hours before concluding that the creators of Moana had no access to writer and animator Buck Woodall’s outlines and script for Bucky the Surfer Boy. Billboard names Doechii 2025 Woman of the Year With this issue resolved, the jury of six women and two men did not need to examine the similarities between Bucky and Disney’s 2016 animated feature, which follows the journey of a Polynesian princess. Woodall had shared his work with a distant relative who worked for a separate company on the Disney lot. However, during the two-week trial, she testified that she had never shown it to anyone at Disney. “Obviously, we’re disappointed,” Woodall’s attorney, Gustavo Lage, said outside the courtroom. “We’re going to review our options and consider the best way forward.” In closing arguments earlier that day, Woodall’s attorney asserted that an extensive chain of circumstantial evidence linked the two works inseparably. “There was no Moana without Bucky,” Lage argued. Defence lawyer Moez Kaba countered that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that Moana was the original work and the “crowning achievement” of John Musker and Ron Clements, the celebrated writers and directors behind The Little Mermaid (1989), Aladdin (1992), Hercules (1997), and The Princess and the Frog (2009). “They had no idea about Bucky,” Kaba stated in his closing remarks. “They had never seen it, never heard of it.” Moana went on to earn nearly $700 million worldwide. A judge had previously ruled that Woodall’s 2020 lawsuit was filed too late for him to claim any share of the film’s revenue. Additionally, a separate lawsuit he filed earlier this year regarding Moana 2—which grossed over $1 billion—must be addressed separately. Though that case remains active, the jury’s decision does not bode well for its outcome. Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, who is also presiding over the sequel lawsuit, expressed agreement with the jury’s verdict regarding access. “We are incredibly proud of the collective effort that went into making Moana and are pleased that the jury determined it had no connection to the plaintiff’s work,” Disney said in a statement. Musker and Disney’s legal team declined to comment outside the courtroom. The relatively young jury, consisting of six women and two men, watched Moana in its entirety during the trial. They also examined a 2003 story outline for Bucky, along with a 2008 revision and a 2011 script. In later versions of Bucky, the titular character, while vacationing in Hawaii with his parents, befriends a group of Native Hawaiian youths and embarks on a quest involving time travel to ancient islands and interactions with demigods to protect a sacred site from a developer. Around 2004, Woodall had provided his Bucky outline to the stepsister of his brother’s wife, Jenny Marchick, who worked for Mandeville Films. The company had a contract with Disney and was located on the Disney lot. He continued sending her follow-up materials over the years. He testified that upon watching Moana in 2016, he was shocked by the apparent similarities. However, Marchick testified that she never showed Bucky to anyone at Disney. Messages presented by the defence indicated that she eventually stopped responding to Woodall’s inquiries and had informed him that she could not assist him. Disney’s attorney, Kaba, argued that there was no proof that Marchick had ever worked on Moana or received any recognition or compensation related to it. He further pointed out that Marchick, who is now Head of Features Development at DreamWorks Animation, spent much of the relevant period working for Disney’s competitors, including Sony and Fox, undermining the claim that she had helped develop Moana for Disney. Woodall also submitted his script directly to Disney and had a meeting—arranged by Marchick—with an assistant at the Disney Channel regarding potential work as an animator. However, the jury determined that this did not establish a link between Bucky and Moana’s creators, Musker and Clements. In his closing arguments, Woodall’s attorney highlighted some of the alleged similarities between the two works. Both feature teenage protagonists on oceanic quests. Both prominently include Polynesian demigods and shape-shifting characters who transform into various creatures, including insects and sharks. Both depict the main characters interacting with animals serving as spiritual guides. Kaba, however, argued that many of these elements are drawn from Polynesian folklore and universal literary themes, making them ineligible for copyright protection. He pointed out that shape-shifting supernatural characters have appeared in multiple Disney films, including The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, and Hercules, all of which were written and directed by Musker and Clements. These films were instrumental in Disney’s 1990s renaissance and its rise as a global entertainment powerhouse. Animal guides, he added, have been a staple of storytelling since at least 1940’s Pinocchio and feature in all of Musker and Clements’ previous works. Aamir Khan reflects on rejecting iconic roles played by Shah Rukh and Salman Kaba asserted that Moana was developed through Musker and Clements’ established creative process—drawing from their own inspirations, extensive research, and travel experiences. He presented thousands of pages of development documents that detailed the entire creative process behind Moana, revealing that its initial inspiration came from the paintings of Paul Gauguin and the writings of Herman Melville. “You can see every single fingerprint,” Kaba concluded. “You can see the entire genetic makeup of Moana.”