Disney will be releasing the live action of Moana, and if you are wondering why it is needed, you are not alone. We literally got this movie in 2016 and even Moana 2 in 2024.

Some of us were still in secondary school when it first came out. The animation is gorgeous, the story slaps, the soundtrack is still in rotation. So why are we doing this again?

Now, this is not just about Disney milking another franchise for cash (even though that is definitely a part of it). The Moana remake conversation touches on something deeper: why does Hollywood, and specifically Disney, keep acting like animation is just a rough draft for the "real" movie that comes later?

The Pattern Is Getting Embarrassing

Disney has been on this live-action remake wave for a minute now.The Lion King, Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast and a whole long list and it honestly is kind of tiring to see. And look, some of them made ridiculous money at the box office. The Lion King (2019) pulled in over $1.6 billion worldwide, so from a business perspective, Disney's strategy makes sense.

But Moana? This one feels different. The original is barely a decade old. It was made with modern animation technology that still looks incredible today.

It is not like we are updating a 1950s film that could benefit from new technology. Moana is already visually stunning. So what exactly is the live-action version supposed to improve?

What Gets Lost in Translation

Animation can do things live-action literally cannot, and Moana is the perfect example of this. Think about the ocean as a character — the way it plays with Moana, protects her, has a whole personality. Think about Maui's tattoos coming to life and roasting him. Think about Te Kā as this massive, terrifying lava monster, or that gorgeous scene with Moana's ancestors' spirits.

Now imagine all of that in live-action. You know what it is going to be: CGI. Heavy, expensive CGI. So we are going from pure animation to live actors surrounded by animation.

Remember what happened with The Lion King remake? Those hyper-realistic animals couldn't express emotions the way the animated versions could. Scar was not menacing, he was just a regular lion who happened to be a villain. The expressiveness, the exaggeration, the pure emotion that animation allows got sacrificed at the altar of "realism." And for what?

The Representation Question Gets Tricky

Now, before anyone comes for me, I need to acknowledge the one genuinely compelling argument for this remake: representation. A live-action Moana means real Pacific Islander actors in lead roles in a major Disney blockbuster. That visibility matters.

And having Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, who is Samoan, potentially playing Maui in the flesh instead of just voicing him? That is significant.

However, does this mean the animated version wasn't "real" enough? Does it mean that representation only counts when it is live-action? Because that feels like it is reinforcing a really problematic hierarchy where animation is somehow less legitimate, less important, less worthy of being taken seriously.

We shouldn't need a live-action version to validate the cultural significance of the animated Moana. The original already told an authentic story with Pacific Islander consultants, cultural advisors, and voice actors. It already mattered. The live-action remake shouldn't be what makes it "count."

Follow the Money, Lose the Art

Disney knows that millennials who grew up with these films will bring their kids. Gen-Z who loved these movies will show up out of curiosity.

It is low-risk, high-reward. Why gamble on original IP when you can remake something with a built-in audience?

But just imagine what Disney could create with that $150-200 million budget if they invested it in original animated stories. African folklore adaptations, South Asian mythology and indigenous stories from around the world. Instead, we are getting Moana again, but this time with real water.

The opportunity cost of these remakes is creativity itself.

Animation Is Cinema, Actually

These remakes continue to reinforce this subtle but damaging idea that animation is somehow less than live-action. It is "just for kids," not "real cinema."

Even the Oscars separate animated films into their own category, like they are playing a different game entirely.

But filmmakers like Guillermo del Toro, Hayao Miyazaki, and the geniuses behind Spider-Verse have been screaming from the rooftops that animation is an art form, not a stepping stone. It is not a rough draft waiting to be "fixed" with real actors. It is a complete and powerful medium for storytelling.

Guillermo del Toro || Credit: The Hollywood Reporter

Our generation gets this more than any before us. We grew up with Avatar: The Last Airbender, anime, Pixar films that made us cry harder than any live-action drama. We don't see animation as lesser. So why does Disney?

The Verdict

Does animation need live-action validation? Absolutely not. But does Disney's business model depend on us thinking it does? Absolutely yes.

The 2016 Moana is already a masterpiece. It doesn't need a remake to prove its worth, boost its cultural impact, or make it "real." It is already all of those things.

The live-action version might be fine, it might even be good, but it will never be necessary.

What we actually need is for studios to invest that energy and those budgets into new stories. Original animations that take risks, explore different cultures, and push the medium forward. Not recycled nostalgia in a shinier package.

So when Moana 2026 drops on June 10, I will probably watch it. But I won't pretend it is anything more than what it is: Disney cashingout on a movie that the animated original already wrote perfectly the first time.