The Lilo & Stitch Movie Offers One Big Lesson For Disney About Live-Action Remakes

Calling the live-action remakes of Disney's animated classics "live-action" falls under the same discourse umbrella held by James Cameron's "Avatar" films, where the lack of a distinction between live-action, hybrid, and full-on animated cinema makes it difficult for audiences to know just how much CGI to expect. Regarding the remake of "The Lion King" and the movie's prequel, "Mufasa," we're talking about essentially 100%, pure photorealistic CGI animation.

On the flip side, there's something like "Snow White" or "Beauty and the Beast," a movie where human actors interact with other humans as well as CGI characters, not to mention the combination of tangible sets and CGI scenery. The latest title to get the live-action treatment is "Lilo & Stitch," a reimagining of the beloved 2002 animated story of a misunderstood little girl in Hawai'i who befriends a dangerous alien, thinking he's just a very unusual-looking dog.

Stitch is one of Disney's greatest original creations, a character so immediately adored that he's responsible for a merchandising empire. He crosses the threshold into what I like to call "The Walmart Pajamas Zone," aka when a character becomes so instantly recognizable that Walmart will pursue the license for the character to sell themed pajama pants (see also: Cookie Monster, Tweety Bird, and the Bat signal). This is to say, Disney could have turned the new "Lilo & Stitch" into just an hour and a half of the little guy running around on screen in CGI, and people would have still turned out to movie theaters in droves. Fortunately, one of the many things the "Lilo & Stitch" remake gets right is that it finds the perfect balance between CGI animated elements within the live-action world, making it easier to immerse yourself in the story than ever before.

The original "Lilo & Stitch" is one of the best movies set in Hawai'i ever made, utilizing stunning watercolor techniques for the backgrounds of the film. In the live-action reimagining, Disney similarly (and wisely) showcases the Hawaiian setting in all of its glory. After the cold open on a spaceship, both films open underwater as a school of fish swims by, and the way the remake transports viewers through the memorable opening of the animated film, but with real fish and actual people swimming, is pure Disney magic. When Nani (Sydney Elizebeth Agudong), Lilo (Maia Kealoha), and Stitch (Chris Sanders) go out surfing to the tune of "Hawaiian Roller Coaster Ride," it's doubly impressive watching real people shred waves. Even when digital elements are at play (there are aliens and portals for crying out loud), it's easier to suspend disbelief because there's enough tangible, practical reality to ground the story.

Looking at "Lilo & Stitch" purely from a CGI/live-action hybrid perspective, this film finds the sweet spot to justify its existence in the first place. Obviously, Disney can do whatever it want with its IP and will continue to do so regardless of what a writer like me has to say about it, but if it's going to continue making these live-action adaptations (enhanced with CGI animation), stories like "Lilo & Stitch" have proven to be the best routes to take. When the animated film already exists, having something fully CGI like "The Lion King" feels redundant. Likewise, there's something almost uncanny about "Beauty and the Beast" or "Snow White" thanks to the abundance of CGI overwhelming the handful of human elements. Finding the balance is crucial, and it's what unites all of the best of these reimaginings.

The reason that Disney movies are consistently impactful and resonate emotionally with audiences is because they successfully tap into relatable, human experiences. Moviegoers are willing to give themselves over to the story — whether told in live-action or animation — as long as there isn't an interruption in the world-building. For example, it was jarring to switch from the human actors of "Snow White" to the CGI magical human-esque creatures in place of the Seven Dwarfs. It completely broke the immersion and therefore made it very difficult to invest in the story. In a situation like 2015's "Cinderella," the spontaneous additions of magical transformations and characters kept the audience enraptured because it was set against the backdrop of detailed sets, elaborate costumes, and tangible props. There's a lived-in feel and a texture to the surroundings that can't always be replicated by CGI. "Pete's Dragon" is another film that found the perfect balance, with the human expressions and tangible settings helping to trick the audience into perceiving the CGI aspects as the real thing.

Fully CGI characters or environments can sometimes appear flat or noticeably artificial, which creates a barrier between the audience and the story, but that isn't to say there aren't exceptions that prove the rule. "The Jungle Book" is largely considered to be one of the best Disney live-action remakes, even though human actor Neel Sethi portrays Mowgli in a set almost exclusively built out of CGI and opposite CGI animals with celebrity voice casting. And I'd argue in this case, the reason it works is because we're essentially watching an entirely animated film with the addition of one human. We buy into the fully animated world, but aren't distracted by Mowgli's presence because our brain accepts he's the one thing that looks different. It's a lot harder for the brain to determine what is real and what isn't when it's constantly changing.

"Lilo & Stitch" works because audiences know "anything associated with the aliens will look like CGI" and make sense of the pattern. If Disney is going to carry on with on this journey, it needs to continue to respect the balance.

"Lilo & Stitch" is now playing in theaters.