COLUMN: Disney nostalgia is not a business strategy

Disney’s founder, Walt Disney’s motto was “Dream, Believe, Dare, Do” and since his companies birth in 1923 that’s exactly what Disney has been doing. But with remakes and reboots becoming more and more saturated on its platforms, is Disney really keeping the magic alive or just reusing it? 

When I was a kid Disney was one among the list of staple entertainment in my home. Shows like “Liv and Maddie” and movies like “Tangled” were some of my many favorites. Even now, their nostalgia makes them some of my favorite things to watch. Lately though, it seems like Disney has taken their fan’s nostalgia and incorporated it into their business plan.  

The most recent addition to the list of Disney Channel remakes is “Wizards Beyond Waverly Place,” the spinoff to the 2007 show “Wizards of Waverly Place.” The show centers around Justin Russo, played by David Henrie, a main character in the original series, and his family after they take in Billie, a young and powerful wizard who has been foretold to save the world.  

While the new series does have its funny moments, it feels more like a bad copy of the original “Wizard of Waverly Place.” Billie, played by Janice LeAnn Brown, is basically the same person as the original’s main character, Alex Russo. This wouldn’t be a problem if she had any personality traits of her own. But it’s like the writers didn’t know where to go with the character so they just copy and pasted one they already had. 

They also don’t follow much of the plot from the original show. An example of this is when it was revealed Justin had been fired from WizTech, the magical school he was teaching at by the end of the original show, for a vague reason involving unicorns they never fully explain. If you’ve seen “Wizards of Waverly Place,” you know that Justin’s role as a wizard teacher is so important to his character as it’s what he does for a large portion of the show. His job at WizTech is also the main reason he got to keep his magic at the end of the series after losing the competition to become the family wizard. It just seems completely out of character for the famously serious and strait-laced Justin to get fired from a job he loves. 

This show would probably have worked better as its own series, not a spinoff. But there’s more money and a guaranteed fan base in making a spinoff of a beloved childhood show. All they need to do is include a few Gomez cameos, mention Waverly Place a couple of times and now they can introduce more “Wizards of Waverly Place” to both a new and old generation of viewers. 

Disney movies aren’t much better. Live-action remakes of animated movies have become increasingly popular on its streaming platform.  

In some cases, like the 2021 film “Cruella,” the live-action movie can be a great addition to the original series as it adds more plot or dimension to a character from the original film, even if that character is a villain. Remakes like “Beauty and the Beast” or “The Little Mermaid” also work in some respects because, even if they are retelling the original story, they added extra songs and plot points to give more of a story to characters that might not have received it originally. 

Neither of those things work in the case of movies like the 2020 remake “Mulan.” If you’ve seen the 1998 animated film “Mulan,” you’re probably familiar with the tale of Mulan who, fearing for her father’s safety, disguises herself as a man in order to take his place in the war against the Hun army and with the help of her dragon, Mushu, becomes the warrior no one thought she could be. The movie’s catchy songs and comedic moments have made “Mulan” an instant classic in the Disney community. 

The 2020 remake of this film is very different. While it still tells the story of Mulan, not only has it abandoned the music and characters that made it so loved by fans but it’s been criticized as being a  westernized remake of the character and story with disregard to its Asian roots and heritage by Disney’s Chinese audience.  

While the live-action remake of “Mulan” may be one of the more harmful examples of Disney banking on nostalgia to save the day, it still shows that the platform does much better when they produce original content. These remakes don’t even become as popular as the films they are trying to recreate. For example, the 2019 remake of “Aladdin” only received a 57% on Rotten Tomatoes compared to the 95% of the original. Compare that to movies like “Toy Story 4” which also came out in 2019, and received a 97% on Rotten Tomatoes it becomes even more apparent that these remakes don’t perform as well as original content. 

At the end of the day Disney does best when it introduces new stories to its fans who hopefully will grow up one day to look at the Disney shows and movies they watched as kids with the same nostalgia I view my childhood entertainment now.